We did it again.
In 2008, the American electorate bit – hook, line and sinker – on the promises of a charismatic orator who promised us everything and has failed not just to deliver, but even to remember what he promised. (Please, those of you who didn’t bite, save your keystrokes. I’m employing the collective “we,” and recognize that not everyone did.)
There’s no doubt: Our electoral process is perfectly – some would argue purposely – poised to place personality above principles.
This is nothing new, of course. If we valued principles and the ability to lead based upon them, we’d have elected a long line of eminently capable, honest leaders. But any objective review of the last thirty years shows that, with perhaps one exception, it’s been all about personality and promises on the campaign trail and – upon election – to Hell with adherence to universally recognized principles of fair play, let alone concern for the basic welfare of those being governed.
From Reagan to Clinton and Bush2 to Obama, we’ve been bamboozled but good. But it goes beyond that. If democracy is really about what we’ve been told – if it really means choosing leaders who will represent the people based on our expressed desires, in order to help us actualize the nation and world we envision – we’ve been far more than just poorly led.
We’ve been RULED.
Like the despots and their people who we have so regularly starved and killed and refused refuge, we – the increasing numbers of Americans who are downtrodden to an extent heretofore unseen since this country’s organization – are starving and dying and being denied refuge and the basic welfare-providing services which any nation calling itself great should be ashamed NOT to offer.
And why?
Because the ruling class has decided – despite clear evidence from those they rule that it is not of concern to them – that the national debt and budget deficit suddenly MATTER.
Even though these were of no concern to our rulers when they decided to go after one more despot.
Even though these remain of no concern to our rulers when they are drawing up “defense” (read: WEAPONS) budgets.
And even though REAL people in REAL streets in this increasingly UNREAL land are losing opportunities for health, education, and personal welfare – each and every day of the week.
What would happen, I wonder, if we began to do democracy as it was meant to be done? If WE picked the issues – and the STANCES on those issues – that WE care about FIRST – then recruited candidates who must pledge to represent us on those issues?
Without corporate money.
Without concern for party affiliation.
Unless and until we have driven a stake through the heart of the political practices that are killing this country – and Identity Politics is at the top of the list – America will never again be a truly great nation.
An effort has coalesced here at MyFDL over the past three months that aims, first and foremost, to hold candidates accountable to issues and principles. Readers like you have named it the “New Progressive Alliance” and identified five irrefutably progressive policy concerns around which we are building the movement. They’ve also developed a list of 10 prospective candidates to challenge Barack Obama in the 2012 primary and run as true progressives in the general. Beyond the 10 you’ll find at that link, other prospects include Cindy Sheehan, Jan Schakowsky, Joe Stiglitz, Patrick Fitzgerald, and Raul Grijalva.
Volunteers are stepping up, giving whatever time they can to spread the word and organize the effort in their individual states, and I invite you to join us. If you agree Identity Politics is at the root of what ails us, and you are ready to take positive action in waking people up and offering a real alternative, I hope you’ll contact me. Please write Anthony Noel at admin_at_themalcontent_dot_com.
Thanks.



9 Comments

I think one of the most negative effects of identity politics is people turn the politicians they vote for into these saints who can do no wrong and then adapt their beliefs to exactly whatever that elected official believes at any moment. It’s happened with Reagan, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama without question.
Identity politics have to be over. The corporate puppet masters have decided thats thier best way in to a majority.
Most frustrating to me is the blatant shell-gaming of/marketing to the electorate that identity politics represents. “We’ll put this person out front because they do great in focus groups!”
Politic and politicians are just two more products in our capitalism-consumed culture.
It’s just the epitome of manipulation and on a mass scale. It will make you throw up after too long! People shouldn’t be manipulated when making a decision on who to vote to the degree that they are these days.
Just to make a point, GA, indulge me as I pick apart your latest reply for a moment. You wrote:
“People shouldn’t be manipulated when making a decision on who to vote to the degree that they are these days.”
Now, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, good progressive that you are :) and assume that you meant to write “…when making a decision on how to vote to the degree that they are…”
A simple typo, I’m confident. But I’m sure you and everybody else would recognize that it would be just as common – more so, in fact – for any one of us to have written, “…when making a decision on who to vote for, to the degree that they are…”
My point being: Until we consistently stop thinking in terms of WHO we are voting for rather that HOW we are voting, we will perpetuate the suffering now being visited upon us – ALL of us, the vast majority of them included, if they’d only stop and think about it – by the ruling class.
We need to begin looking at candidates as we look at ballot questions, and we must vote them down if they lack a cohesive set of principles, and/or are unwilling to sign a pledge stating their commitment to those principles.
TMC–
Don’t know if you saw Lawrence O’Donnell last night talking with Dennis Kucinich. Dennis looked beaten down, and at one point said words to the effect that “sometimes a candidate’s career can be defined by one vote,” which I took to mean his Health Care Vote. Note that he also voted for the Tax Bill, he said in order to vote for extended Unemployment Benefits for his constituents.
Kucinich also said that he was NOT going to run as a challenger to Obama. I feel that he’s putting his efforts into trying to prop up Obama, since he may feel that he is not be viable in light of his past two runs.
I know a lot of people were disappointed with his HCR vote, but I forgave Kucinich because I do think he is a true Progressive who simply felt he had to support the Party. Now, it appears that he voted as he did on Taxes for essentially the same reasons as Franken. But I’m going to say again that I, for one, forgive Dennis for these votes. He’s in a tough spot, and he seems to be doing the best he can while not selling out the Party he obviously believes in. However, if he ever gets to the point of running Third Party, I think he has a lot of credibility above and beyond these two votes, based on his years of fighting the fight.
“What would happen, I wonder, if we began to do democracy as it was meant to be done? If WE picked the issues – and the STANCES on those issues – that WE care about FIRST – then recruited candidates who must pledge to represent us on those issues? Without corporate money. Without concern for party affiliation.”
My following of the Progressive Alliance concept has been sporadic and superficial at best, so I comment without appropriate knowledge and comprehension. But my mind just can’t get around the above position goals. Tell me/us, please, how you/we could possibly get there. May very well be a terrific vision, but the barriers appear to be insurmountable to me.
But do please keep reframing the dream toward some level of actionable possibilities. I salute all who are seeking alternative realities.
Christmas blessings to all
Did not see O’Donnell, dfhsfc, and I want to agree with you, I really do. As I think you know, I supported Dennis in the 2008 primaries – and long before, in fact.
But in my book, Dennis made a choice. He had the chance to essentially light the fuse on exactly the sort of political revolution he has for so long been saying this country needs, and chose instead to close ranks with a clearly corrupt party. Now, twice.
None of which negates the great work he has done in the past, but it does beg the question I’ve raised before: If “progressives” are only going to walk the walk when they are in the minority (i.e., when they have no chance of winning) and will cave when they hold the majority (i.e., could win) – are they really progressives?
We elect people based on what they say, so again, we’re back to the point of this diary: If our electeds are not willing to be held accountable – by way of a written pledge – to what they profess in order to win our votes, we need to recognize that their speeches are so much hot air.
DK went on Cleveland TV – the DAY BEFORE Obama came to the city and bribed him – and SWORE he WOULD NOT support a bill without a P.O. What could possibly have changed drastically enough in 24 hours that a man who was previously so stalwart in his convictions for so many years, public opinion be damned, that he would make such a decision?
You argue that we should forgive, and I totally see that. When we really, really like a politician, and when that politican has a built a solid reputation for years and years, forgiving him or her a vote or two seems reasonable. But, I would argue, that is EXACTLY the moment we must assert our insistence on their standnig by us, and never let them forget if they fail to do so. Chances like the one we handed Democrats in 2008 are few and far between, and need to be acted upon without hesitation when they occur.
If politicians want to market themselves as products, that’s their choice, but I say turnabout is fair play. As their “customer,” I can take my business away – must, in fact – if others courting my business are to truly understand what it takes to keep me as their patron.
Politicians who are willing to make governance a capitalist venture need to start being careful what they wish for.
marchan1940, I appreciate your admission of superficial knowledge of the effort, and would direct you here and here to see where it now stands and where (we hope) it will go.
But to answer your question broadly, when Margaret Mead famously said “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has,” she wasn’t merely pursuing flowery discourse. We actualize anything in life by DOING it. By believing in the need for it strongly enough that our belief drives us to do it.
We’ve got a small group of people, marchan, but we need more and would welcome any help you can offer.