A week ago we voted on preferred primary challengers to Barack Obama in 2012 who might also agree to run as the nominee of a new third party in the general election.
There seems general agreement that the overarching goal of this effort is to build a broad, viable third party representing core progressive values, by using the period when Americans – and the media – pay the most attention to politics: The election cycle. An actual victory for the presidency in 2012 is not the focus, but that said, if we campaign as if it were, we greatly increase the likelihood of building a broadly based movement that is welcoming to the full range of those disgusted with the total co-option of our democratic process by profiteers and power seekers.
Our effort is being birthed under a variety of monikers, from “Dump Obama” (jeffroby) to “the movement” (Jim Moss) to Primary Obama/New Progressive Alliance (me), each of which has served its purpose. But, if we are sincere about building a new party, we’re going to need something that neatly describes our initiative – or alliance or movements – for the long term, so it can grow and prosper well beyond 2012.
We also need to build a platform. Jim Moss’s diary here floats some core platform principles, and welshTerrier2 has written that “political equity” – a hallmark of FDR’s ideology and appeal, and an overarching tenet of progressivism even before FDR – is key.
I believe the final platform should include an opening statement that covers our basic principles, followed by the platform itself, of no more than 10 planks. With this thread, I’d like us to “nominate” two different sets of things: Possible names for the movement, and titles for platform planks.
Two suggestions:
1) Remember that party names are often abbreviated into acronyms, so when you have a name you love, you’ll want to google it to check on any additional (and potentially negative) references before nominating it.
2) For platform plank titles, think as broadly as possible: Titles such as “Jobs” or “Defense” or “Environment.” As I’ve noted on other threads, one lesson we can – and I believe must – learn from the Right is the power of simply and forcefully stating where we stand. The best way to start is by keeping the plank title as direct as possible.
As you nominate party names or plank titles, read through others’ lists to avoid duplicates. There is no need to nominate 10 planks if some of those on your list are already posted. Also, when posting your ideas, please denote your lists as “PARTY NAME” or “PLANK.” Don’t worry for now about writing the text of the planks; we’ll tackle that after we’ve settled on titles.
Compared to the candidate selection process, I see this being much quicker; let’s shoot for wrapping it up over the next week.
Thanks as always, all!



96 Comments

PARTY NAME
New Progressive Alliance
PLANKS
Jobs
Commerce
Finance
Environment
Health Care
Retirement
Choice
Taxes
Labor
Defense
A good party name would be The Worker’s party. A couple planks could be jobs, fair trade I intentionally left out the word progressive because that word has been heavily demonized by the right.
Oops, jobs was already nominated
I apologize.
Good one. Maybe “Trade” replaces “Commerce” and the text can address fair international trade along with domestic trade, broadly.
I like workers party but fear some people we’re after may view it as not inclusive of them, teachers and middle management types, for example. Maybe we could capitalize on the pervading notion of $250,000 or less as being beneath the “wealthy” line, and call it “250K and Unders”!! :)
PLANKS
Living Wage
Progressive Taxation
Lower Retirement Age
Triple Payer Healthcare (Medicare for all, or you can buy insurance, or you can pay out of pocket.)
good point I’ve always thought of teaching as working, but I could see how the name Workers party could be misunderstood.
I like the 250K and Under party
And the acronym would be a real eye-catcher:
<$250K
Another plank: transparency
Transparency could include things such as getting money out of politics
I REALLY like the <$250 idea!
Real reform for regular people!
I like it.
I’m inclined to leave the plank titles non-indicative of their contents. So for example yours would be, “Wages” “Taxes” Retirement” “Health Care,” the later three of which were already listed. But I like “Wages,” and think your titles mesh broadly with progressive thought on the specifics for each platform you list.
Agree, though I think it may lend itself better to a principle, as Jim alludes in his diary.
He calls it “Serious reduction of corporate influence…”
Welcome to the $250K party
Real Reform for Real people
Or, “The Real People’s Party”
I think you’re going about this wrong. I think a better model to follow is that of the Tea Parties, who first rallied under a few principles, to which nobody had to pledge allegiance. Only later was something like a “contract from America” put together (which ain’t all that specific, either) I’m not sure how much the “contract from America” was really representative of Tea Partiers as a whole – my impression is that it was semi-contrived, and that it was voted on by many Tea Partiers, but nowhere near most.
The Tea Parties had the help of Fox publicity, and Koch$. Your real problem is not the specific platform. Just the fact that our effort only had 64 voters for the candidate tells you that whatever platform is decided will almost surely not democratically represent what we hope is a real movement, a year from now.
Rather, your real problem is how to grow the movement without a large infusion of some billionaire’s cash, and without any free publicity. How can we have 5 million participants a year from now? Just having 500 participants, a year from now, will probably guarantee that there will be no perceivable benefit, in this election cycle.
When are you planning to address the question of how to grow a Primary Obama movement? Please don’t tell me that it’s not on your todo list, or that you are trusting in the drawing power of the candidate.
You keep putting up these posts telling me what to do, metamars, without (apparently) having read about the various other things being worked on (approaching steering committee members is already under way; and a cyber team is in the works; and we’re hoping for a home base here at FDL as the movement grows, for example). All of which is in addition to your seeming total lack of awareness that I am just one person.
I have noticed, of course, that you have yet to volunteer to help in any way, shape or form.
You’re very good at telling us what the “real problems” are, but, so far as I can see, not much else. And frankly, your reading of the “real problems” is about 180 degrees off. We’re far out in front of this specifically to allow it to build organically. If you think that will happen in 8 or 10 or 12 or 16 weeks, you’re way off. But building it organically is the right way to do it, rather than risk being characterized down the line as the kind of astro-turf movement the Tea Party clearly IS, let alone risk being co-opted by the Democratic party.
This is not about winning in 2012. This about founding a broad lefty movement that brings together all the various ones.
So if you want to help, great. If not, that’s fine too, and if you don’t like the way I’m approaching it, do something on your own, by all means! And maybe we’ll meet further down the road.
How about the Red-Green Party?
The motto would be “With Enough Duct Tape We Can Fix This Fucker”
Name:
New Progressive Alliance.
I feel strongly about this one. It embodies bringing together two key constituencies, progressive Democrats, who have for too long been eaten up by the party machine, and progressive independents (to distinguish from right-wing independents) who have for too long been howling in the wilderness.
I object to having Independent in the name, because it puts too much weight on the alliance, which has to be a meeting of equals. (Despite the fact that I consider myself an independent.) And I object to have the word Workers or Labor in the name. There is all sorts of discussion in Marxist and neo-Marxist circles about that constitutes class, what’s a worker, what about the unemployed and homeless. It also smacks too much of Marxist. (Despite the fact that I consider myself a Marxist, it’s not a fight I choose to provoke at this point.)
In some circles, the very phrase Dump Obama itself is considered inflammatory Bolshevism.
” I intentionally left out the word progressive because that word has been heavily demonized by the right.”
Good grief. So has the word “Worker’s.”
“This is not about winning in 2012. This about founding a broad lefty movement that brings together all the various ones.”
An umbrella organization. Yassssssss . . . . !
Platform:
1. Jobs, created by a WPA-style jobs program to ensure work at a living wage to everyone who wants one.
2. Safety net, no cuts to social security, welfare, increase funding to provide a secure and healthy and dignified life to all who are unable to work, cannot find work, or are dependent on others.
Healthcare. Even Obama agreed in his wild, irresponsible youth that healthcare was a human right.
3. Peace, meaning out of Afghanistan NOW, end the drone attacks everywhere, stop the war-mongering over Iran.
4. Roll back Bush and Obama’s extensions of presidential powers.
I think people should be a little more detailed than proposed in the diary itself. The vagueness leaves too much responsibility in the hands of a few.
Additionally, I think it a mistake that we avoid repetition. If all of us collectively could only come up with 10 points, it might not be an issue. But I suspect that this will not be the case. There is also no mechanism for prioritization. I mean, I feel passionately, vehemently, that jobs should be #1. I feel vehemently, passionately, that safety net is critical. While I could live with being out-voted on priorities, I could not live with having Jobs fall to the middle of the list because of where the letter J falls in the alphabet.
Nowhere have I told you or anybody else what to do. Rather, I have told you and others what I think they should do, and also predicted the consequences of failure to do so. I had tentatively planned to fund an evangelism kit, myself, if I found a reasonably long-term work assignment after my current one ends. Given the nastiness of your post, I will probably rethink that.
Your comment about me thinking organic growth will happen in “8 or 10 or 12 or 16 weeks” is odd, since I specifically mentioned a period of a year.
I’m quite aware about this not being about winning in 2012, having been attacked just recently for making an analogy to draw out specifically this point.
In short, your criticism of me is off-base in more ways than one.
Name: Progressive Patriotic Alliance.
I’m tired of righties acting like they are the only patriots around. Especially when they’re NOT even patriots in my book.
JOBS – through a war for 21st century infrastructure
JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY – for the criminal banksters
END THE WARS NOW- Spend the money HERE
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
I think that platform would attract a lot of fish.
As for what I consider the independent track, I am uncomfortable with the extent that forming a new independent party between now and the 2012 election. There are serious issues here, and they have been discussed mainly in passing, without the intense scrutiny they deserve.
There are at least 4 independent tracks worth consideration.
(1) have our primary candidate ALSO run as an independent.
(2) have another candidate run as an independent individual at the same time as we have our primary run, then, should we not win the primaries, throw our support to that candidate.
(3) form an independent party for the independent run.
(4) seek the nomination and/or support of the Greens.
There are merits to all of the above. There are issues of what our candidate desires, ballot access issues, resources available for campaign and ballot access, how much our campaign will catch on, and the desires of our prospective base of supporters will play out, and the attitude of the Greens to our various options.
People should know by now that I’m not exactly the most conservative guy in town. But I also know that the path to progress is littered with the bleached bones of those who thought the spirit of the people could conquer all.
I don’t want us to lock ourselves in, or divide over long-range tactics, without the greatest serious examination of options.
Sidenote to TheMalcontent: Have you seen the treatment given to Elizabeth Warren over at Huffpo? My God you’d think she was Wonder Woman, dashing around taking charge of things, singlehandedly killing the Banker’s Exoneration Bill, meeting with CEO bigwigs and Congressional luminaries and regulators and performing various feats of populist heroism. It is OBVIOUS that Huffpo is trying to showcase her. Seems that FDL and Primary Obama aren’t the only ones hoping to facilitate the rise of Liz’s stock.
By turning her into a populist heroine it makes it more difficult for O to marginalize her. Interesting strategy.
Don’t re-think it. But recognize that we have an ongoing process, and you’re not very good at relating to that, despite the fact that you have many smart ideas.
Outreach is high on our list, but there are certain things we need to get our own affairs in order before that can really fly.
Then answer me this, metamars – if you don’t mean to insinuate that things are moving too slowly, and if your italicized WHEN is not implying the same… what was the point of your comment? Take your ball and go home if you wish, but in the meantime, don’t insult my intelligence by pretending your post was anything other than the same recurring complaint you’ve been posting on a regular basis.
points taken, but let me add that my plan was to allow anybody who wanted to try to write a plank or two to give it a go, so the “concentrating power” thing doesn’t apply.
Anybody who has ever tried writing by committee knows that it is nearly impossible, so my thinking was to get a few different versions of each and take the best parts.
I’m also strongly in favor of limiting the text of each plank to 20 words, so for example, “Defense” might be:
“Capability to defend our country’s borders from military invasion is paramount. Intervention in foreign conflicts and pre-emptive warmaking is abolished.”
What would be the point of my spending my hard-earned and usually very scarce cash on something that would be rejected, because I am “telling people what to do”? Or because I haven’t grasped that this is “not being about winning in 2012″ (even though I have)?
I disagree. Taking your alternatives one at a time:
1) The history of defeated primary challengers running and getting trounced as independents is legion, and leaves supporters too deflated to form something new.
2) This is far more confusing to the voting public than just trailing behind our candidate and explaining that THEY will be running under our new party’s name and getting ballot access done at the same time, based on our full (and accurate) expectation that they’ll be denied the nomination. Moreover, at the point of losing the primaries (which we WILL do), what “we” who supported the candidate say about supporting someone different won’t matter. What will is who the defeated candidate throws THEIR support to because THEY are the face of the movement at that point. So without a pledge from them to run as a Dem in the primaries and then to run on the new party’s ticket in the general, they WILL throw their support to the Democratic nominee, whether that’s BO or Hillary or somebody else.
3) The Greens and others have done this already and you see where it’s gotten them. Besides, we’re not trying to win. We’re trying to either retake or supplant the Democratic party as it now exists, and to leverage the big media coverage that a challenge to a sitting president will garner to bost our effort at doing so.
4) Why limit ourselves to the Greens when Working Families, Socialists, and others will run their own candidates? This movement should be trying to coalesce all these parties – and independents like you and I, Jeff, who have no party – into A SINGLE org with both the numbers and the broad base to again represent what Democrats used to, 50 years ago.
You say:
“There are issues of what our candidate desires.”
I really don’t give a shit what our candidate wants. I’m more concerned that our candidate give a shit about what WE want. The point here is to tell the candidate what WE desire and if they can’t get behind it, they get passed over. What you describe is what’s wrong with Lefty politics now – cutting deals on our principles. It must stop.
I do indeed think things are moving “too slowly”, from the specific aspect that I have mentioned. In fact, I have written that it is already “late” to have thought about growth. I didn’t mean that it is forever too late, in the sense of finality, but rather growing a serious movement quickly enough to be a factor later on in this election cycle is not something that should have been put off.
What is my “same recurring complaint” that I’ve been “posting on a regular basis?”
Party:
How about the “Most Of Us” Party? It’s very inclusive, as in “Moral Majority”.
Plus when we select our Presidential nominee, Brian Williams will have to say “Most of us voted for Jane Hamsher today to run for the Presidency…”
Party again:
Main Street Party??
The money piece, in particular. Want to raise money? FINE, go raise some money! Knock yourself out. But realistically, forming a steering committee of well-known similarly inclined people will kickstart the effort – and fundraising – a lot more profoundly, money-wise, than a few unknowns approaching potential benefactors.
I also don’t get your “growing a serious movement quickly enough to be a factor later on in this election cycle is not something that should have been put off.” Put off by whom? Since when? What stopped YOU from getting it started?
Just sayin’.
Plank:
Fair Trade
Full Employment
I think that an appropriate one syllable adjective makes the plank more appealing to the public.
Gotta say, I don’t spend a lot of time at HuffPo. All the celebrity shit gets under my skin. I really don’t care what Branjolina are up to!
That said, I personally think Warren will never do it, not as a primary challenger, and certainly not heading up a third-party run. But I HOPE I’m wrong!
this is a reply to themalcontent, which begins “the money piece”.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Apparently you think I have a recurring complaint about raising money??
I have argued, for a long time, that money would not be a big issue if voters were organized into voting blocs. However, I’m pretty sure that I never said anything about raising money wrt your Primary Obama effort. If I did, it was a secondary idea.
I did write, at some length, about an evangelism kit. But that was to get members, including prized evangelist-members. I.e, voters and volunteers. I’ve equated people with political muscle, not cash. (Not that cash isn’t nice to have!) Cash can corrupt, but it can’t vote in primaries…
=============
I also don’t get your “growing a serious movement quickly enough to be a factor later on in this election cycle is not something that should have been put off.” Put off by whom?
==============
Everybody, apparently. Also, I recognize that implementing any plan for growth is a function of # of volunteers, but it doesn’t require volunteers to post suggestions for how to accomplish growth, on a diary.
============
Since when?
============
Since as long as I’ve been reading your Primary Obama diaries.
============
What stopped YOU from getting it started?
============
Working crazy hours, plus having to prepare for my next gig when I’m not. (That’s when I’m being ‘good’. When I’m being not so good, I work on a program which I’m doing as a public service, and which may end up doing much more good, say in the next 4 years, than any Primary Obama movement.)
If I were someone contemplating running, and you said you didn’t give a shit about what I wanted despite the massive commitment that running would entail, I wouldn’t run under your banner.
Maybe I do have you confused with someone else on the money piece, and if so, my apologies. But the thrust of my disagreement with your first comment and I don’t see your “crazy hours” as giving you leave to criticize my efforts, or anyone else’s. I work big hours too; I cover 16 states and western Canada in my job. On top of which I’m deeply involved in local activism.
So again, if you don’t like how this is progressing, volunteer to pitch in and provide some of those volunteer hours you talk about. Or start your own effort to organize the bloc voting you believe in. Or put together your evangelism kit. Whatever you believe in, go after it. That’s all I’m trying to do.
You apparently think I’m being sarcastic – but I’m not – when I encourage you, metamars, to chase your own facet of expanding progressive efectiveness, whatever it may be, and say maybe we’ll meet up further down the road. But I don’t see how throwing stones at this effort achieves anything.
And foithermore, whatever the merits of your points 1-4, are you sure everyone who voted for their candidates shares your opinion? It’s why you didn’t just list your personal top 10 and move on from there. Strategy deserves similar process. Otherwise, you’ll find yourself out on a limb.
The only commitment I’m interested in is their commitment to the broader movement. If they’re self-interested, I’m NOT interested. Chastize that purity if you want, but don’t try to deny that the lack of a similar requirement by rank-and-file Dems of their party’s leaders is how the party got where it is today.
I’m already working on something that I believe would advance community, and indirectly progressivism (at least some aspects of it) when I’m not working my crazy hours. My comments about the “real problem” of Primary Obama was an attempt to get people to focus their attention on the issue.
I could have just waited a month, or two, or three, to see if this was dealt with, at least in the form of soliciting ideas. However, two or three months lost from what I assume is the real, biggest challenge might well be fatal, in this election cycle.
Not just you, but nobody else seems interested in even talking about this, at least not at this time. I take that as a bad sign…
You didn’t answer my question about what you meant about my “recurring complaint”. Did you actually think that I was complaining about raising money??
I’m not naive enough to think that “everyone” shares ANY one opinion.
That said, there does seem to be wide support for leveraging a primary run against Obama into a broadly based third party, the strategy I publicized repeatedly throughout the nomination and voting process. I figure if people don’t like that approach they’ll let me know, and so far, they haven’t.
If you want to put up a “strategy debate” thread, feel free. But I’ve done my best to make it very clear, especially as it was learned that sore loser rules don’t generally apply to presidential elections. So I’m focused now on platform, party name, steering committee recruitment, and recruiting/working with volunteers to set up the various support efforts we’ll need to keep the process moving.
Yipes, never mind about the “money piece”. You already spoke to that.
“Did you actually think that I was complaining about raising money??”
About NOT doing so yet, yes I did. Again, if I’ve confused you with another writer who has been repeatedly pushing the need to start fundraising immediately, my apologies.
“My comments about the “real problem” of Primary Obama was an attempt to get people to focus their attention on the issue.”
The free publicity is being worked on, albeit slowly, in developing a cyber team. I have a volunteer who I think is ready to head that up, and their job will be to spread word of this effort throughout the blogosphere, to publicize the seating of the steering committee as that comes together, etc.
I really would welcome any time you (and others) can give as a volunteer, metamars, even if it’s an hour or two per week it will be of great help.
And regarding this:
“If I were someone contemplating running, and you said you didn’t give a shit about what I wanted despite the massive commitment that running would entail, I wouldn’t run under your banner.”
You conflate my statement into an all-encompassing one when I clearly refer to what they want in terms of platform. In short, if they can’t look at the platform and principles we come up with here and agree to support and stump for and run on them, we SHOULDN’T want them – and I don’t.
I’d like to thank you for showing leadership. There was never anything personal in my criticisms, even if they seemed that way.
My ideas for the evangelism kit were to facilitate face-to-face evangelism. My ability to fund this myself is strictly a function of whether I am quickly re-employed after mid-Dec.
I want an official “Possum Lodge” patch
I think it needs to clearly set us apart from the ‘sweep shit under the rug’ – don’t look backward behavior we are presently seeing in our leadership.
I would like Law and Order, but actually, and in fact fairly, applied to everyone. That would mean an end to the drug war and a prosecution of Wall Street insiders. (Part of my economic recovery plan.)
I feel like I had this whole conversation several years ago, we hit on a killer name for legalizing pot too, the Tea Party.
I think I want to stick with that one. I really like it. I hope you know it is anti-war.
It was when I started talking tax policy that all those disenchanted libertarian dreamers I had been arguing with for years, started picking up signs and going to local meetings. I gave them the sense that they could.
I said we could cut taxes by reducing our war spending but we would have to build a political party first. It made so much sense and I made it sound fun, then it caught on so fast that FOXN was threatened by it and co-opted it.
So even in losing control of the party, I considered it a huge political success. Besides, who is to say I won’t get it back again? They still listen to me and even take my advice sometimes. And why not? I mean well.
Blessed be.
Everything I write is a strategy thread.
Requiring commitment to the broader movement is certainly important. But that may mean different things to different people.
“I figure if people don’t like that approach they’ll let me know, and so far, they haven’t” is a dangerous way to operate. Evidence? How many people during the nominating phase who talked about which candidate could actually win.
I think our platform should be crafted for political impact. Choose issues the other two parties agree on and are wrong. Then our position is an alternative that is not only intelligent but right.
The wars and foreign policy would be number one. It seems off the table now, but that is because the established parties don’t want to talk about their involvement in war crimes and everyone else is fully discouraged. A positive message here would be very uplifting. It has to be carefully crafted though as to not offend security and veterans.
Jobs is next. A WPA program aimed at health and long term food and green energy sustainability. This should be well padded with programs to improve our cities and families. Mass transit, green energy, community colleges all that sort of progressive infrastructure stuff.
Torture. War crimes must be prosecuted. The issue nobody wants to talk about. If this party doesn’t come out strongly against torture, and for the rule of law, applied fairly to everybody, then you can count me out as far as supporting it.
Legalize marijuana. My first amendment religious freedom rights are being violated, I want a party that will defend me. This is also a major issue for health care and can save us a ton of money now being spent on dangerous pharmaceuticals and their side effects.
Schools. School choice should be made by parents and students, not bureaucrats. This is an area that needs serious overhaul. Maybe a lot less federal control. Teaching to the test isn’t good for anybody, in fact it teaches everyone to cheat and be dishonest. I would not be surprised if that was the point.
PARTY NAME
Alliance 420
;->
PLANKS [agreements/modifications/additions]
Jobs
Commerce
Finance
The previous three are linked; “Sustainable Finance” or “Sustainable Jobs and Commerce” would be my preference, but it ain’t gonna’ gain any traction so I’ll, sadly, just agree to “Jobs” [which really just means more profits for corporations] and “Commerce” [which really just means more profits for corporations] and “Finance” [which really just means more profits for corporations]
Environment
Health Care
Retirement
Choice [I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, but … sure]
Taxes [more? less? progressive!!!]
Labor [more? less? self-reliant? see: http://www.banknd.nd.gov/ for self-reliance example...]
Defense [reduction only!!]
My additions:
Peace [Department] (a la’ Kucinich)
Constitutional [sanity] (suggested by Jim, I believe, related to the next two)
[Restoring the] Rule-of-law (accountability/transparency/constitutional rule)
[Human rights/civil] Rights (related to accountability/rule-of-law…)
Constitutional [sanity]
Citizen Empowerment or “Serious reduction of corporate influence” (also suggested by Jim, I believe, and related to the Jobs/Commerce/Finance trifecta I mentioned earlier… but I’m a socialist and believe theBank of ND and a $1.2Billion state surplus is good… but I’m kooky.)
I don’t care what Branjolina are up to either. Sometimes, though it is as useful to WATCH the media as it is to absorb it. And what I am seeing (at least as of 2 days ago) is a blatant campaign by a widely read Internet newspaper to iconicize the person that interested FDL’ers voted as their favorite presidential candidate. At the very least I find that politically interesting.
A lot of wheels turning in the corridors of power nowadays.
Labor Party
planks:
1. Full Employment.
2. Zero Tolerance of intentional unnecessary Greenhouse Gas emissions.
3. Comprehensive Hemp Reform.
4. Energy Farming on every block.
5. Full investigation and prosecution of all (including those in the Bushbama Administrations) involved in War Crimes, War profiteering, utilization of private armies, torture, Human Rights abuses, attacks on the Environment, or Economic Deregulation and Privitization [which crushed our Economy].
6. Full Voting Rights for citizens of Washington, DC, & Puerto Rico, and for all American citizens whose Voting Rights were removed under the New Jim Crow laws.
7. Complete Amnesty and Pardon for drug prisoners and all other political prisoners.
8. No Person Is Illegal. (This is already in the US Constitution Article One, Section 9 [long before the Bill of Rights]: “No Bill of Attainder … shall be passed.”)
9. Sweeping Economic Reform.
10. Decontamination and Restoration of Bee habitat.
I don’t think you can ultimately have too much purity in politics, except perhaps to a small number of core agenda items (like 3 of them). It’s a question of degree. I generally agree with the sentiment about rank-and-file Dems not demanding more from their leaders. However, beyond a certain point, making more demands will both make your coalition smaller, and make it harder for elected Dems to deliver.
Ito Congress, I think that, ultimately, to best deal with the purity issue, voting blocs that put a Congress critter into office will need to be consulted, via an online vote when a bill is pending, as to whether that particular bill has enough going for it satisfy a core demand of the voting bloc, that the Congress critter pledged to as a candidate.
Ito a a Primary Obama effort, even though designed to boost a movement building effort, and not win, I still agree with jeffroby that being too demanding can cost potential candidates, and that the net/net won’t be worth it. It’d be different if there was already a movement extant with 20 million dedicated supporters. But right now there is a very small number of people. The smaller the number, the less the political muscle, and therefore the less that particular bloc of voters can demand.
A modified approach might be as follows: Poll interested candidates for how many of the planks they will support, being warned ahead of time that choosing too few will make them ineligible. The group, armed with that information, can then vote on a cutoff.
I think you’d get further with Elizabeth Warren supporting 9/10 planks, than with Al Franken at 10 planks.
(I also like “The Rent is Too Damn High Party” and the “Make-Work Protectionist Party”
Sustainable Democracy Party
Bottom up democracy
Democratize all institutions
Economic equality
Environmental sustainability
Sociable urban planning
Civil liberties
What I and others describe above is essentially the Green Party. Democrats spent so much time trashing the party and Nader, which they associate with the party, that we’re going through this now even though it’s unnecessary. How are these ideas different/better then The Green Party or Socialist Party?
The only way to differentiate is that the language is carefully chosen to describe the party, the party name, everything. The Green Party language tends to be activist lingo, which may turn off some people, and the Socialist Party, well, they have a name that has been demonized to oblivion in the US.
Not to rain on the parade, but I am fairly confident this will not lead far.
We should be more concerned about organizing at the local level to help people network, make decisions as a group, and work as a unit to change things. Electoral politics in the US is such a massive time and money consumer. If you don’t win, you gain nothing. Putting that time and effort into local organizing has immediate pay offs that can be continuously built upon.
We can do both, but I hardly see such suggestions here. It’s all about electoral politics, primarying Obama or betting everything on a (new) third party.
Themalcontent–I was just wondering where you came up with the name “New Progressive Alliance”. I find it particularly fascinating that you chose that name as I and a couple other firepups were discussing that very same name as a group to primary Obama back in April of this year. It’s totally cool, just totally strange coincidence. We never discussed it on FDL, we opened a group google account and communicated name choices that way. WOW. Were you one of the people in that group? Just wondering.
BTW, My personal suggestion for the name would be something to the effect of The working Families Alliance. Or working families party. I, too, think that the word progressive has been demonized by the MSM. People will say we’re socialists with a liberal agenda, blah blah, blah…I can see Karl Rove annilating us.
Also, I believe that in order to beat Dems/Repugs at their game we need to appeal to the American Peoples’ higher sense of morals and principles. Appeal to the needs of working families. Jobs, fair wages, repealing of Nafta-Or- making it a fairer program for the US to compete in, healthcare, Childcare, Elderly parents, Social Security, middle class issues etc…. Clean water and Air also fall into that category.
Lastly, I just wanted to say, I’m prety darn good at fundraising and I can help. Where do I sign up?
Alliance 420, the Party Alliance. Love it!
“4) Why limit ourselves to the Greens when Working Families, Socialists, and others will run their own candidates? This movement should be trying to coalesce all these parties – and independents like you and I, Jeff, who have no party – into A SINGLE org with both the numbers and the broad base to again represent what Democrats used to, 50 years ago.”
First, the Greens are different because they have more progressive recognition, are somewhat less sectarian, and have ballot access beyond all the others.
Given that even the least of them are vastly larger than we are, this is not going to happen. It’s not like the Grand Alliance hasn’t occurred to anybody. It occurs to EVERYBODY. “If only everyone else would follow US!”
As for “3) The Greens and others have done this already and you see where it’s gotten them,” where do you think it’s going to get us then? By adding the primary track? Won’t transform the situation as much as you might hope.
Bullshit. You added this in a comment about independent alternatives, not about platform.
I deny it. Your understanding of causality is primitive. There are all sorts of things that have resulted in “how the party got where it is today,” and this lack of accountability is a result much more than a cause. It’s not like the Democratic Party started out as a workers party and then got corrupted. The rank-and-file Dems were NEVER in a position to demand this kind of accountability, so pointing to that as a cause says nothing.
i like your spirit ;->
i wanna’ party with you, dude!
Yes. I’ve always liked that name for a party.
I think the Left needs to stop ranting for five minutes (I am farther left than the Left) and have discussions with “Republican Voting” people, I think you’ll find there is not much difference between Democratic, Republican (except far right mental cases) , Libertarian, and Independent voters when it comes to basic needs and preferences. A third party should not carry a naming convention containing words such as labor, democrat, independent, etc.., this would lose neutrality. A name such as “The Concerned Alliance” would make more sense ….
A platform can not be a 50 point wish list with entries such as “we promise to stop torture” or “we are pro-choice.” The new “party” needs to run on 4 or 5 main points which 80% of Americans agree upon. You would have to get a real democrat, perhaps, to run as a member of this new political party, Grayson?. The below points are all things my very Republican friends would like to see come about. Notice they are also very democratic and have universal appeal! The Democratic Party will not allow a primary challenge, you would be naive to think so! This is not, by-the-way, “reaching” across the aisle like Obama likes to do.
An optional, non-profit, Public Option in health care.
An end to fake wars and immediate withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other global sites.
You must be in this country legally (heavy fines to employers of undocumented employees as the suggestion to fix this problem).
Taxpayer money to go to campaign’s for anyone at the Congressional or Executive levels. This money would be the only amount allowed to be used, and all candidates would receive the same amount based proportionately to constituency or geographical area.
Change trade, immigration, and tax policy (which will stop off-shoring of jobs).
Reestablish an industrial/manufacturing base (without this America WILL NOT recover, it’s guaranteed). Wall Street/Financial sector must be made smaller. Finance is a non-productive leach on society.
And I thank you for your critical thinking – and writing. If I overreacted to what felt like criticism of something I’m devoting as much thought and work to as possible, that was not my intention.
Trying to tease out platform from electoral strategy in this case is pointless, Jeff, and you know it, because I’m establishing a link between the two in the strategy itself. So call bullshit it if makes you feel better, but your disagreement is clearly no more limited to strategy or platform or electoral process than was my assessment of your four electoral alternatives, precisely because this is an integrated strategy. One which, again, was laid out quite publicly throughout the nomination and voting process, and has been explained again in detail here.
You can’t simply write off my points about the historically proven adverse effects of each of your four electoral alternatives saying “whatever the merits of your points 1-4…” and pretend those merits don’t matter, specifically BECAUSE we are talking about an integrated strategy. Not just “Dumping Obama,” but (hopefully) using that process to produce allied bloc of Lefties that can survive as an organization to replace the existing co-opted Democratic Party.
Maybe you are feeling as though this initiative has somehow co-opted your hard and sincere work on “Dump Obama” in a way you never intended; perhaps you would have been satisfied just primarying him in hopes of scaring the Democratic Party back to its senses. I don’t know. But your frustration is frankly bewildering, because the strategy I’ve put forth has been there for all to read – and was embraced by many, if not most – as it evolved.
I like it, metamars. Jeff is wrong, the Dems were VERY much like a worker’s party in their heyday (FDR) or there would never have been a New Deal.
“Won’t transform the situation as much as you might hope.”
It’s never been tried, so there’s absolutely no way you can know that.
Absolutely, and that is heartening!
archiebird, I was one of the people in that group!
“Where do I sign up?”
You just did. I’ve noted your interest in helping with fundraising. shoot me an e-mail at admin_at_themalcontent_dot_com so I’ll know how to contact you. Thanks!
I wanted others to take this over from day one. Since I know you’ve read my Dump Obama pieces, “perhaps you would have been satisfied just primarying him in hopes of scaring the Democratic Party back to its senses,” is nonsensical.
My concern is that you will narrow the base of the campaign in advance of having any muscle to bargain with. People have read what you wrote, but it’s not clear that they all agree.
I agree with 90 percent of what you write, azel.
“Jeff is wrong, the Dems were VERY much like a worker’s party in their heyday (FDR) or there would never have been a New Deal.”
This is so flamingly ignorant that I don’t know where to begin. So I won’t.
“My concern is that you will narrow the base of the campaign in advance of having any muscle to bargain with. People have read what you wrote, but it’s not clear that they all agree.”
Terrific, why don’t you take on that aspect of it, to ensure that doesn’t happen? I’m spread so thin already that I’d welcome such help. Just remember, you’re never going to get 100 percent agreement, so if that’s what you’re shooting for, just join the Democratic Party already.
I maintain that it is precisely the efforts that most third-party initiatives make at the outset to please as many as possible, that relegates them to the margins. Between the two majors, there is a big difference between party ideology (platform) and what the parties actually legislate for (fascism), and that is what I want this effort to avoid.
If we’re really seeking the kind of overlap Jim Moss has written about, see azel’s excellent comment below, and my own idea for a party name near the top (<$250k) for ideas on that kind of outreach.
Neither of which changes the fact that we're going to have get candidates to agree (as metamars notes) to the vast majority of what we're trying to achieve upfront, or pass them by. I firmly believe that dedication to whatever platform we write, and a willingness to use the electoral system in unconventional but legal ways, is the only combination by which change might come soon enough to reverse what is now the nosedive to fascism in which we find ourselves.
“Sociable urban planning.”
Spoken like someone who has read “Suburban Nation,” my favorite book on the topic.
I think a strong argument can be made, in fact, that the lion’s share of what plagues this country can be traced to zoning laws which did away with mixed-use development; the interstate highway system; and the lack of mass transit.
Yes there is. Left organizations have a long history of working together badly, and mostly only cooperate when the force of a massive mass movement impels them to. Things are not moving that quickly, and even if they were moving more quickly, their mutual competitiveness would create further factionalism.
“It’s never been tried” is simply not a serious argument.
“‘It’s never been tried’ is simply not a serious argument.”
Really? Then please, enlighten me. Cite ONE EXAMPLE where the defeated primary challenger to a major party’s incumbent president has run on the ticket of a new third party in that same year’s general election.
No problem. You and jeffroby are real gems, because you both have a sense of strategy (that I can appreciate) and step up as leaders. There are many smart people in the blogosphere who may be very good at analysis, but don’t seem to have a clue as to what to do about it. Thankfully, you and jeffroby seem to be exceptions to that rule.
“Terrific, why don’t you take on that aspect of it, to ensure that doesn’t happen? I’m spread so thin already that I’d welcome such help. Just remember, you’re never going to get 100 percent agreement, so if that’s what you’re shooting for, just join the Democratic Party already.”
I am taking that on. That’s why I’m trying to dissuade you from what I believe to be a mistaken direction, trying to lock in the independent track prematurely. There’s this thing called timing.
You’re the one arguing for 100% agreement, and I happen to be a registered Democrat. That’s why I can have standing in the Democratic Party. If you’re moving towards Democrat-baiting, you’re going to have a hell of a time gaining any support on the primary track.
Yeah, really. How about having 100 independents run naked onto the White House lawn? That hasn’t been tried either, and would at least get some media coverage.
Sarcasm is the last refuge of those whose contentions have been disproved.
“I am taking that on.”
And throughout this thread, you are the only one doing so, I’d point out.
“You’re the one arguing for 100% agreement…”
Nonsense. I’m not the one asking if “all” of the participants agree with the strategy, you are. I’ve said repeatedly throughout the process and I’ll say it again, Jeff, where this process wants to go is fine with me.
“…and I happen to be a registered Democrat. That’s why I can have standing in the Democratic Party. If you’re moving towards Democrat-baiting, you’re going to have a hell of a time gaining any support on the primary track.”
Oh puhleeze, Jeff. Is winning this argument important enough to you to accuse me of “Democrat-baiting”? Besides, it was you yourself who said, in a commetn above, “I consider myself an independent.”
So it seems to me you need to decide, Jeff: either you ARE revolting against your party and the broader disenfranchisement of the American voter that it so masterfully helps to perpetuate, or you’re not.
Time to get off the fence, bud.
I like most of that, too, although I’m not sure about the public option thing on healthcare. JUST repealing Obamacare might be a better short-term policy.
On health care long term, we should go for the gold and support these guys:
http://www.pnhp.org/PDF_files/Physicians%20ProposalJAMA.pdf
The public option thing was, IMO, sleezy from the get-go, and in retrospect, even if it had passed, would have been neutered into only serving the corporatist agenda at the expense of the rest of us. JMO.
I like it. Main Street Party supports the populist aspect.
Just moving over to this thread…this “building cutting edge renewable energy industry for jobs program” is about best plan I’ve seen. The solar steam turbine generators and algae biodiesel technologies are mature enough to start today.
Apollo program-like commitment for creation of cutting edge renewable energy technology industry infrastructure in US
$1 Million X-Prizes for best designs of solar steam, algae biodiesel, and wind turbines
Solar-steam generation, algae-based biodiesel production, and wind turbines power generation
Solar steam turbine info
http://www.greeneconomyinitiative.com/news/173/ARTICLE/1378/2009-01-20.html
Algae biodiesel
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/algae-biodiesel.htm
Put 1 million people to work building infrastructure for new renewable energy industry to sell the renewable energy tech to world, as well as learning and working in these new renewable energy industries.
“This is so flamingly ignorant that I don’t know where to begin.”
How about with some facts disproving it, Jeff? Seriously, as the Monty Pythoners put it, argument is not the simple gainsaying of the other person’s POV. So if you’re seriously trying to tell me that FDR’s administration did not represent the zenith of progress toward progressivism’s most basic tenets, and you’re serious about that claim, you need to support it.
Honestly, if your last serveral commetns are any indication, you are clearly interested in derailing the momentum many here feel around the need to not just primary Obama but replace the Democratic Party with one that actually works for the Left. And if you’re going to say I’m wrong about that, too, you’ll again need to show how what you’re doing here, right now, doesn’t prove my point.
The fence is the place to be. To try to pull together the best people on both sides. Being a registered Democrat doesn’t preclude being independent. Thus I’m an independent Democrat. I guess that’s pretty complex.
So you say do something about it. I am. So you say I’m the only one. So fucking what? I’m not asking for any 100%, and that is obvious. I’m asking for more discussion. Bud.
“Dangerous”? Because, let me guess, YOU say so.
I have said repeatedly and continue to say this can go in whateer direction people want it to. But judging by the lack of support you are getting on this thread, Jeff, that tells me people are OK with the process at the moment.
Why don’t you put up a new thread if you want a place to debate strategy, as I’ve suggested?
And I have only encouraged you – this is third time now in this thread alone – to prompt that discussion. Put up a strategy debate thread, already!
Googled N.P.A. – Doesn’t seem to be any big nasties sharing the initials.
I think we should avoid the word progressive – as much as I like it. It will limit our scope. My nomination: American People’s Party
But I’ll support any name with a progressive-sounding platform. We all have to be willing to accept a platform and a name that is not our ideal.
Okay.
“So if you’re seriously trying to tell me that FDR’s administration did not represent the zenith of progress toward progressivism’s most basic tenets, and you’re serious about that claim, you need to support it.”
First, you said the Dems under FDR were a workers party. Now you’re turning it into zenith of progressivism. In terms of that, LBJ took it farther, if you leave aside his murdering million in Southeast Asia.
The workers party of FDR’s heyday was the Communist Party USA. The Democratic Party of that day was the former slaveholders party that shifted its base IN THE NORTH to the urban immigrant millions. It remained a thoroughly bourgeois party.
It is trite but true that Roosevelt’s goal was to save capitalism. In addition to the economic crisis, he was facing enormous pressure from the trade union movement and the CPUSA. He chose the relatively progressive route, rather than fascism, because the US was the economic powerhouse of the world, with England, France and Germany deeply in WWI debt and owing zillions to U.S. banks.
Thus, on the eve of WWII, the U.S. was in a position to grab up the European empires of the day (and post-WWII, did so). This provided the material basis for giving minimal security to the US working class in the form of NLRB, the WPA, social security and unemployment benefits, in exchange for labor peace. As an alternative to trying to crush them and tear the country apart, which would not have maximized profits.
Hell, even then, it doesn’t come anywhere near what the European social democracies offered their workers, and offer them even now.
So no, that the DP of FDR’s day was a workers party is nonsense. And regarding unsupported assertions, you don’t offer much to prove that it was.
I like that, too!
I agree Jim. As you can see in my comment at the top of the thread, I really like New Progressive Alliance. But the more I think about it, it is subject to instant marginalization, the same way “Worker’s Party” is, because it can be easily tied to socialism (gasp!), which has been utterly (and wrongly) conflated with totalitarian communism by those who fear the reasonable controls socialism places on supposedly “revered” elements/mantras of capitalism (“fuck the people, take the profit,” for instance).
“But the more I think about it, it is subject to instant marginalization”
Sorry to speak up, but I am glad to see you write those words.