On the other hand, maybe this is exactly what we need…(Justice Party reboot/open thread)
Last night, considering the Brown victory in Massachusetts, I predicted: “The overwhelming shit train of nonsense that will emerge from this will not be in our favor.” I would love to be proved wrong.
I still maintain that the Democrats will interpret this election as meaning they need to move right. That’s what Democrats do. It’s how they interpret everything. They’re like a mechanical device for fucking up and moving right. Just wind ‘em up and watch ‘em go.
Anyway, what I’m wondering now is if the shock of this thing could actually be great enough to create an opening for a genuinely progressive party. I’m wondering that because even Ezra Klein, professional Democrat apologist, compromiser, and beltway zeitgeist purveyor, is fed up:
The fundamental pact between a political party and its supporters is that the two groups believe the same thing and pledge to work on it together. And the Democratic base feels that it has held to its side of the bargain. It elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. It swallowed tough compromises on the issues it cared about most. It swallowed concessions to politicians it didn’t like and industry groups it loathed. But it persisted. Because these things are important. That’s why those voters believe in them. That’s why they’re Democrats.
But the party looks ready to abandon them because Brown won a special election in Massachusetts — even though Democrats can pass the bill after Brown is seated. What that says is crucial: Whereas the base thought it was making these hard compromises and getting up early to knock on doors because these issues are important, the party thought all that was happening because, well, it’s hard to say. It was electorally convenient? People need something to do? Ted Kennedy wanted it done?
If Democrats let go of health care, there is no doubt that a demoralized Democratic base will stay home in November. And that’s as it should be. If the Democratic Party won’t uphold its end of the bargain, there’s no reason its base should pretend the deal is still on.
I don’t expect Ezra to stick to this tune; I imagine in a few days he’ll be back to his usual Panglossian “the Democratic world is the best of all possible worlds” shtick. But it’s revealing that he’s feeling this way now, and feeling it strongly enough that he’s putting it in print.
And so this seems an opportune moment to re-open discussions about the Justice Party. After a month+ hiatus for the holidays and my horrifying dental emergency, it’s time to regroup. (Possible slogan to distinguish us from the Democrats: Leaders. Not hand puppets. Yes, I’m kidding.)
Mostly, I’d like to start with hearing what people are thinking right now. A lot has happened in the past month or so, and I’m sure people have been hatching ideas.
So: thoughts?
88 Responses to “On the other hand, maybe this is exactly what we need…(Justice Party reboot/open thread)”
-
myiq2xu says:
I’m tired of voting for bad Democrats because they are the lesser of two evils.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:47 pm EST -
Violet Socks says:
Me too.
-
julia says:
I was actually relieved to hear of the victory. One more vote against this awful healthcare mandate.
-
Sandra S. says:
So, did it ever actually get decided- Actual Party versus Voting Bloc versus some combination of the two?
-
Sandra S. says:
Also, I’ve been thinking we should reach out to the Tea Partiers. Not because we want to work with them in any real sense, obviously. But because both our movement and theirs would benefit from certain common goals. Specifically reforms that would make third parties more plausible and that would make the big two more responsive to the voters rather than the lobbyists. And if we pushed for this at the same time that they did, we’d have more momentum. Ideally, I’d like to see the Dems and the Repubs broken into two parties each One for Fiscal liberals, one for Social liberals, one for Fiscal conservatives and one for Social Conservatives.
-
RKMK says:
With Democrats reeling from the Republican victory in the Massachusetts special Senate election, President Obama on Wednesday signaled that he might be willing to set aside his goal of achieving near-universal health coverage for all Americans in favor of a stripped-down measure with bipartisan support.
Which is what he wanted anyway! I’m so glad everyone issued an internet/media fatwa on Martha Coakley to show him a lesson. Take THAT, Obama!
-
RKMK says:
Bah, wrong thread. Whatever. *goes for more wine*
-
jumpjet says:
I think this thread is extremely timely, because my view is that a third party is needed now more than ever.
Ian is predicting disaster for the country barring a very slim chance to avert it. I don’t want to see that reality, I don’t want to be forced to take those odds. I reject his formulation. I’d rather substitute another way, and I think we could build one here.
Brown’s win and the subsequent reactions to it by the Democrats truly mean that the left has abandoned the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party has abandoned the left. Think of it: all those liberals, all that anger and frustration, waiting to be adopted and embraced and channeled.
We should do it. And we should do it soon- to be ready for 2012.
So I’m chomping at the bit to help birth this beautiful new baby. Damn the Democrats, Damn the Republicans, full speed ahead!
-
Adrienne in CA says:
For the record, I’m just as tired of voting against good Democrats to teach bad Democrats a lesson.
(Funny how that calculus, which also furthers the interests of the other side, never gets labeled triangulation.)
Having gotten that off my chest, GO JUSTICE PARTY!
*****A
-
madamab says:
Until we shake up the iron control Obama has over the Democratic Party, there ARE NO GOOD DEMOCRATS in my opinion.
Every single pro-choice Congresswoman has thrown reproductive rights under the bus to support Obama’s Health Whatever bill. Every single-payer advocate has accepted the giveaway to private industry that the Health Whatever bill represents. No one fought for the Public Option Sparkle Pony. The Progressive Caucus was muzzled and the Blue Dog Caucus was empowered. The Catholic bishops and the health insurance lobbyists were allowed to write the bill.
Where were the “good” Democrats then?
This is a good outcome for liberals and lefties. I think we should start calling every liberal Congresscritter there is and telling them, it’s OK to kill the bill and push for single-payer. It’s okay to kill the bill and expand coverage for reproductive rights. If they want to vote against war funding, we have their back. If they want to push for real liberal reforms, we have their back.
That’s the lesson we need the liberals to take away from this. Fuck Obama and fuck the Blue Dogs. They want to go right. But the liberals still have a chance to redeem themselves if they’re not terrified of Obama.
Let’s give them that chance.
-
madamab says:
Oh crap, my comment went into spam. Maybe too much of teh swearage.
-
Aspen says:
wine and swearing have both been mentioned on this thread, and we’re only 10 comments in. this is going to be my kind of thread.
-
Sameol says:
Voting against good Democrats to teach bad Democrats a lesson also seems likely to increase the chances of being put in a lesser of two evils situation next time out, when the next Democrat isn’t so good. Good Democrats being rather scarce on the ground.
-
lambert strether says:
If Coakley had run on Justice Party principles, and against “the mess in Washington,” I think she would have won going away.
Making the election a referendum on a plan that makes failure to buy junk insurance a federal crime probably wasn’t the best idea to begin with (unless losing was the plan). And losing to a Cosmo pin-up boy? That’s not the sign of a vibrant party apparatus.
I wonder if the principles could be made simple enough to turn into a pledge — like the “No Tax” pledge that conservatives have used so successfully. (That would be one way to implement Violet’s inside/outside idea — and since I’m pretty much with madamab at this point — there are no “good Democrats” — I’m suspicious of the inside game. But a pledge would alleviate that.)
-
Carmonn says:
Don’t look now, but the people of Massachusetts are *already* forced to buy junk insurance by the force of law. They’re the one state that might acually have been better off had this thing passed, and the federal law is acually more popular there than nationally. The turnout was fairly large and he won by almost 150,000 votes. I have a hard time thinking 150,000 Coakley voters decided to sit it out over health care when turnout was close to 60%. I’d love to be wrong.
-
Violet Socks says:
Lambert, they could take the pledge of allegiance. Allegiance to the true meaning of “justice for all.”
(Or, they could take the No Hand Puppets pledge. I solemnly swear that I will not be a hand puppet.)
-
cellocat says:
Agreeing with Lambert, if Coakley had run FOR something that aligns with her values, her record, and her stated goals, she would have been much more successful: for women’s rights, for a health care plan that covers damn near everybody, for gay rights, for shovel-ready jobs, etc. She could have promised MA residents that she’d work for them on these liberal issues that are dear to their hearts once she got to DC. She could have referenced her solid record on those issues, and she could have been believed because of her record. Likewise, she could have pointed to the ways in which her opponent’s record showed those issues wouldn’t be important to him, or he’d actively work against them. And she could have run as a feminist and not shied from the term and identity.
And I think this is necessary for the Justice Party development, too: define a set of values, a platform of issues and projects, and stick to it like glue. If one of our issues is choice, then people can either decide a) they agree and they’re joining, b) they disagree but they like 80% of the rest of the platform and they’re joining, c) they disagree and it’s too important an issue to them so they’re not joining, but they’ll work with us on some things, and d) they hate our stance and will work against us. And those are their choices to make, not our job to persuade. We need to state who we are and what we believe, and then not be wishy-washy about it.
Political expediency might have its place in the workings of government, but when we have so-called Democrats compromising the identity of the party, its major platform and values, then political expediency has trumped everything else, and the party is dying.
I also think that before we reach out to anyone else, we need to define the above, and state it loud and clear, repeatedly. The more we put ourselves on the line in that way as we develop a party and start heavy networking and recruitment, the less room there is for confusion when we’re interacting with other local and national players.
We need a slogan that’s as simple and straightforward as “no taxes” or “hope and change” (bleah) or “Learning and Labor” (my old college motto). The Justice Party: “Equal opportunity for all”. or something…
sorry, long post.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
I agree with the point Madamab is making. A fish rots from the head down.
Where are the good Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter)? They’re working behind the scenes to persuade, cajole, plead, and threaten, quietly and within the limits of a system that can swiftly censure, disempower, disgrace, or eject anyone who even appears to be coloring outside the lines, let alone says so on TV. The idea that politicians at the national level are independent agents whose only constraints are their constituents and their own conscience is a myth. The system is set up to minimize the impact of either one.
Unless they’re independently wealthy, candidates already had to sell out to some extent to even be permitted to compete. The barriers to entry run deeper even than money. There are gatekeepers who decide who gets positive press, who gets negative, and who is completely invisable.
What’s the estimate? A newly elected member of Congress has to raise $20K a day, every day just to finance the next election. Consequently, it’s the big donors whose calls get attention. All those progressive outrage calls and e-mails and petitions, and even office visits, most of which never get anywhere near the pol they’re aimed at, have been going on for years and haven’t substantially changed anything. Frankly it just lets off steam that could be put to more strategic use.
I don’t know the answer. Think of Congress as the worst, most cutthroat corporate environment you’ve ever been in, then add lobbyists. How would you change that system from within?
I suggest the further down the chain we start, the better chance for success.
*****A
-
Sandra S. says:
Adrienne,
That’s why I think campaign finance reform is one of the very first steps that has to happen. We need most citizens to be as rabidly behind it as possible, and then we need some courageous (and ideally independently wealthy) congressperson to put the bill out there. Then we need to put the pressure on the reps to vote for it. That’s step one.
-
sister of ye says:
There’s a serious flaw in this “teach them a lesson” analysis. People are still viewing the Democrats as a political party that can be taught a lesson, when in fact we’re dealing with something that is far more akin to an organized crime syndicate.
It’s the counterpart of what happened to the Republican party, finalized under G.W. Bush. People waited in vain for the “sane, moderate” Republicans to oppose the lunacy. A few were occasionally allowed a dissenting statement early in the process for PR value. But by the vote, they damn well had to square with the party line or they’d get a metaphorical horse in their bed.
At the very least, they’d lose the support of the party funding machine. Perhaps they’d see their dirty laundry leaked publicly. When you look at the unsolved crash that killed Paul Wellstone, you have to wonder if the some of the threats weren’t more sinister. Might account for the a lot of the Democratic rollovers for Bush.
I have no doubt this pressure was applied to Coakley. She may have caved for crass gain, just to save her career. Or she may have hoped that, once in office, she could still salvage some good for her constituents. Isn’t that how many of us excused Hillary Clinton for taking a job in the administration of the man who plied such underhanded tactics against her?
Curious how progressives urged people to get behind Kerry in 2004 despite his pro-Iraq vote, but that same vote was a dealer-breaker regarding Clinton. Might be coincidence, but odd that it’s again a woman candidate who pays the price for the line drawn in the sand.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Carmonn, here is exit polling that purports to show that most MA voters who went for Brown or who stayed home were more concerned that HCR wasn’t progressive enough, not that it was too progressive (just as Violet mentioned earlier). They wanted Medicare expanded, not a mandate to buy private coverage.
http://act.boldprogressives.or.....ollresultsOf course, there’s an agenda here as well. Look who came together to form this BoldProgressives.org. Is Dean gearing up for another run?
*****A
-
slythwolf says:
This is my new rule: There is no such thing as the lesser of two evils. If two things are evil, they’re evil, that’s the end of it; maybe they’re evil in a different way, but both are evil, and I ain’t voting for it.
Fuck the Democratic Party. They don’t know how to act right and I’m tired of it. Any member of the Democratic Party who does not feel zie deserves my contempt on that basis is free to jump ship.
Yes, campaign finance reform. Hell yes. But it’s gonna take a long damn time because the corporate sponsors of this nation’s government are not going to stand for it. It’s going to be a slooooooooow process.
And in the meantime, how do we get anything done without the massive amounts of corporate money it takes to get things done in this country? What do we do to get the word out, get people’s attention, tell them what we’re doing and what we’re about and get them on our side, without truckloads of cash?
It has to be grassroots, it has to be a massive upswelling of the American people saying we are not taking this bullshit anymore and you can’t make us, and once you get people listening to you you don’t need money for that but I don’t know how to get there from here.
-
jumpjet says:
Might now be a good time to launch a forum where we can contribute in a more orderly fashion? We can also start to bring in other posters at other blogs and sites. We can get lots of ideas flowing, and we can get a sense of the politics on the ground across the country.
-
Sasha, CA says:
I have a friend in MA (actually a now former friend, as I refuse to remain friends with sexist assholes) who voted for Kerry every time he’s been up for reelection despite frequently being disappointed in the Dems in general and Kerry in particular. And he picks yesterday to send the Dems a message by refusing to vote for Coakley who would’ve been MA’s first ever female US Senator (in addition to being a feminist with a solid record in the areas of civil rights, women’s rights, and gay rights)! I hope he enjoys his new pro-torture senator! One thing I’m quite certain of: whoever they select to run against Brown in two years, it won’t be a woman. In fact, people are already saying we must find a charismatic man to replace Kirsten Gillibrand because she’s likely to lose just like Coakley did. Great job, guys! Oh, and that message you were trying to send, I’ve been hearing all day that Coakley lost because:
1) She was a lousy, entitled (where have we heard that before?), uncharismatic candidate who ran an even worse campaign, and
2) The Dems have moved too far left, losing the support of moderates and Independents. MA sent a clear message that America has had enough of Obama’s radical, far-left agenda!Gee, that wasn’t at all predictable, now was it?
-
ErikZ says:
A quote I like to use is “Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they aren’t afraid of us anymore.”
-
cellocat says:
There are organizations that train women to run for office. That’s one possible place to put $$s. http://www.umsl.edu/~iwpl/ for example.
-
ugsome says:
Sasha, I am also in CA, and just divorced an Obot who is just that sort of post-modern, post-backlash, post-hipster fuckface which you describe. If that’s the 21st century Democratic Party, sign me up for just about anything that acknowledges me as a human being.
-
votermom says:
#5 –Reaching out to Tea Partiers — Yes.
This is a related thought: I’ve been thinking about the flaws of the Dem party, and why the GOP is always more disciplined. The GOP core principles are basically authoritarian, and their structure is likewise authoritarian and paternalistic. The Party bosses decide, the rank & file follow. It fits.
The Dem part is structured in the same authoritarian way, but the values are opposed to it. Liberals value diversity, individuality, the little people, everyone having their own core #1 issue, etc.
So is there a way to make the structure the Justice Party, or the Justice voting bloc, in a way that reflects our values?
I have a vague idea as structuring it as a network, or a coalition? Where directives do not come from a central source, decisions are not made based on who has the most funding …any ideas?
-
monchichipox says:
“The GOP core principles are basically authoritarian, and their structure is likewise authoritarian and paternalistic. The Party bosses decide, the rank & file follow. It fits.”
I am a Republican conservative and can tell you that’s a bunch of garbage. I’m a faithful reader of this blogs and others that don’t always reflect my beliefs. It doesn’t do any good to only read what you agree with. It takes a lot to make me feel insulted and roll my eyes but that one did it.
Anyway that being said, one of the biggest things I’ve learned from reading both grassroots conservative blogs and other publications and liberal grassroots blogs and publications is how much both ends have in common. We seem to want so many of the same goals but differ on how to achieve them. The two evils we speak of, sometimes especially the lesser, seem to not want us to realize that.
-
votermom says:
monchichipox, I apologize for offending you, but that is how it looks to me on the outside re the authoritarian structure & values. The GOP pays a lot of lip service to evangelical values and biblical and even constitutional fundametalism, so that plays into my impression.
Now I admit the “leaders decide & the rank & file follow” I do not have a LOT of evidence for — but it’s what I saw as an outsider during W’s 2 terms.
We seem to want so many of the same goals but differ on how to achieve them. The two evils we speak of, sometimes especially the lesser, seem to not want us to realize that.
That is so very true. We’re basically the same common people underclass and it delights the elites of both sides to have us waging culture wars against each because that gives them cover to do the looting.
-
lambert strether says:
#17 Violet:
As a tactic, the no tax pledge sure worked for conservatives.
-
lambert strether says:
#18 Adrienne in CA: The further down the chain we start, the better chance for success.
#25 votermom: I have a vague idea as structuring it as a network, or a coalition? Where directives do not come from a central source, decisions are not made based on who has the most funding …any ideas?
My metaphor for this type of network is rhizomic growth. And have you ever tried to uproot, say, bindweed from your garden once it’s gotten a foothold?
And the only organization I’ve ever been able to think of that’s like it is AA, with its groups, all local to local. And you’ve got the steps and the principles and the slogans, making the principles Violet talks about important, and the topdown stuff much less important.
I freely admit I’m a writer not an organizer. But it looks to me like the Iron Law of Oligarchy is applying with great force to every other institution we’re looking at.
-
votermom says:
Adrienne & Sasha, agree 100% about campaign finance reform.
(Btw, it sounds like the bleeping Citizens United Not Timid won their SC case. No more limits on how much corporations can spend on political ads. Gah.)Back to the Justice Party — how do we keep it clean and uncorrupted and uncorporatted*? A couple of ideas I haven’t completely thought through:
a) Only take public financing – don’t know if this is even feasible — don’t most 3rd parties not qualify for this
b) Not accept corporate donations — might make the JP dead in the water
c) Have a transparency and auditing process for donations that makes attaching strings & backroom deals very hard to do.*corporatting — when corporations rat-f**k a movement
-
DancingOpossum says:
My feeling about this right now is that it makes more sense to align with an existing, viable third party that already espouses the same values we do. Why start from scratch? I mean, really, I defy any liberal Democrat to look at the Green Party platform and find one single thing that they would object to, or that doesn’t correspond exactly to the Justice Party’s principles (that I’ve read so far).
Why not work with an already-existing, experienced group? This isn’t Europe, where you have proportional representation and the chance that your party’s views–however “marginal” or “fringe”–will actually be given a voice in government. (And yes, prop rep would be a good idea here, too, but that’s a whole ‘nuther discussion–and for the record, one that already-existing third parties of all political stripes are already working on, together.) IOW, why reinvent the wheel?
-
datechguy says:
The idea is to support a party to advance one’s beliefs. a party that does 80-85% is usually worth sticking with.
If the party doesn’t reach that level then I’d go elsewhere unless there is a single issue so vital that it can’t be ignored.
If the only purpose of the party is power for the party then why join?
-
willyjsimmons says:
Do the Greens have ballot access in all 50 states?
They do here in Nebraski (misspelling intentional), I voted for McKinney.
I’m assuming they’re on the ballot in GA. (Bruce Dixon is affiliated with GA Greens).
My gut says: “start fresh, no baggage”.
I can hear the screams of “Naderites!!!” from here.
-
George says:
I’m starting the chaos. We can fight them with constant turnover. Prevent them from doing too much damage. Our slogan? “fuck it up.”
-
George says:
Chaos party, imean
-
bob coley jr says:
Not being a very savvy political observer, I was wondering if a version of the inside/outside way of taking control of the opposition isn’t already being used by the Republicans. I mean, what better way to destroy the Dems than to have a good Republican sympathizer masquerade as a Dem and piss on the base? JUSTICE PARTY NOW!
-
Sasha, CA says:
My gut says: “start fresh, no baggage”.
I agree. I voted for McKinney too, but I had some serious reservations after hearing her mind-boggling allegation that the government executed 5000 prisoners during Katrina. While I agree with 95%+ of the Green Party platform, I believe the Greens have too much baggage. Also, they’ve had only very limited appeal to blue collar Dems who definitely need to play a major part in any left-wing populist uprising.
-
Sasha, CA says:
what better way to destroy the Dems than to have a good Republican sympathizer masquerade as a Dem and piss on the base?
I’ll never forget Obama’s law school buddy saying he was surprised that Obama was running as a Democrat. Nonetheless, people like my former friend in MA voted for him in the general, even after having supported Hillary in the primary, being aware of the misogyny and the caucus fraud, and believing that Obama was a weak and fundamentally dishonest candidate. But hey, the alternative — a McCain/Palin presidency — was so much worse, and so he voted for Obama anyway. Funny how that works: Male candidates are supported no matter how flawed they are (e.g., Obama, Kerry), while a basically good woman candidate who made one mistake is thrown to the wolves. I am so done with all these sexist maggots.
Meanwhile the mindless morons on the right (and now in the MSM as well) are running around shrieking that Obama is a far-left socialist who’s out of touch with mainstream America, when the dude’s basically Bush III. Sometimes I really wonder if there’s any hope for this country.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
[tried to post this yesterday, but it's still in mod, I guess for the link, so posting without it]
Carmonn, here is exit polling that purports to show that most MA voters who went for Brown or who stayed home were more concerned that HCR wasn’t progressive enough, not that it was too progressive (just as Violet mentioned earlier). They wanted Medicare expanded, not a mandate to buy private coverage.
You can find this at boldprogressives.org, click on continue to home page, then on the new poll.
Of course there’s an agenda here as well. Look who came together to form this BoldProgressives.org. Is Dean gearing up for another run?
*****A
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Let’s cut through the hypotheticals. Of course the Conservative Movement, reignited by the Powell Memorandum, strategized within a richly funded network of think tanks, and implemented by supporting and training talented acolytes for seeding in every educational institution, media format, and most notably today, the Supreme Court — of course they have infiltrated the Democratic Party. If you believed you were defending the “survival of what we call the free enterprise system, and all that this means for the strength and prosperity of America and the freedom of our people,” wouldn’t you?
*****A
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Violet, I have two posts in moderation — can you free one or the other of them?
Thanks!
*****A -
lambert strether says:
Since the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people and have free speech, why not turn the Justice Party into a corporation (“everybody has a share”) and run it for President? Ha ha only serious.
-
Violet Socks says:
A few things:
1. Sorry about the comments trapped in the queue! We lost our everything out here — phone, cable, computer. I think our local cable company exploded or something. Anyway, it’s back now. But I’ve been off the grid for hours.
2. Agree on the forum. I can build one next week I think. We need to have a more organized way to communicate.
3. Agree that the Greens have too much baggage.
4. Money: it’s a huge problem. For example, the Tea Party movement looks like a grassroots third-party thingy, and to some extent it is — but it’s also funded by the massively rich conservative nutcase infrastructure.
5. As recent events have shown, none of us have any money.
6. What happened with Jane Hamsher and Grover Norquist getting married? That was during the holidays so I wasn’t paying attention. What has happened with that?
7. I continue to the think that the inside/outside strategy I first proposed is the way to go. We need to create a Justice caucus that everybody can sign on to — even Democrats. That way we won’t just be out there howling in the wilderness while we wait for our third-party to grow.
8. I like the idea of calling us the Pledge Party. The Pledgers. Have I mentioned this before? Taking the pledge: the pledge of allegiance to the people of the United States, to the true meaning of justice for all. Pledge Party is simple and works linguistically, and I like the idea of using extremely familiar terminology and phrases. Everybody knows the pledge of allegiance by heart. Anyway, it’s an idea.
-
ugsome says:
“Pledge Party”? Clean house with the Pledge Party! Dust off the political process! Polish it until you can see yourself again!
OK, sorry, I couldn’t resist…giggle.
-
ugsome says:
The Dean organization used Meetup.com to organize local groups. I thought that was brilliantly simple.
For simple electoral math reasons, I think the caucus route is the way to go.
One question is how do you build a political organization that won’t be co-opted or sold? Once an infrastructure is large enough, it becomes a valuable political commodity. Take a look at MoveOn and DFA/OFA. I did the whole Deanie/DFA thing, organized meetups, worked on the website…only to see it be sold to Obama. I feel like such a tool. I suppose the only real answer is that’s the risk one take in politics.
-
Sasha, CA says:
Violet, this is probably just me being weird, but my first thought when I hear the word “pledge” is of the cleaning product. I still prefer “Justice Party.” Totally agree with you about the money issue, and today’s Supreme Court decision makes the campaign financing situation even worse. Anyone know any wealthy progressives/liberals who may be interested in getting involved with a third party?
-
Violet Socks says:
I’d forgotten about the Pledge product.
-
votermom says:
Speaking of people with no money getting organized, here’s something pretty darn cool:
-
Adrienne in CA says:
@ ugsome
I feel like such a tool.
You and me, babe.
*****A
-
Dongi says:
Hey folks, You are in a war where money is the weapon and you don’t have much money, compared to the opposition anyway. Then, just how do you win? You going to fight guerrilla war and shut the society down? Wait till there are some more additions to the Homeland Security Act, after say another terrorist attack like the shoe bomber or the lap bomber, or, God forbid, the anthrax situation. The corporate state now controls both parties and those who resist will probably end up in some stockade on an abandoned military base somewhere in America. Goodbye USA, you were nice while you lasted.
-
salmonrising says:
1. New Party. Voted McKinney strictly as protest…agree Greens have too much baggage…am officially registered now as “non-affiliated”… belong to the NOTA party…None of the Above
2.Very much agree with exploring linkage with some conservatives…lately there has been a bit of a thaw between moi and some of my rightie friends as I have been so outraged by the O being Hand Maid to the corporations and so are they…I think this is the best issue to form coalition around
3.But no coalition until we get on the same page regarding our own party’s core…only then can we negotiate with others to campaaign for any common issues
4. Mulling other stuff, but this is all I’m firm on
-
lowdowndog says:
A couple of weeks ago Riverdaughter had a brainstorming session around the idea of having a run for the working class on July 4th. There were some terrific ideas in the comments. Basically, we could organize small meet ups and runs in different cities around the country, get visibility in the local news, gather some momentum, then everyone converge on D.C. July 4th. I’d love to see some follow through. Spending some actual physical energy for health and fitness could get us some publicity. Maybe we could hook up with some of the folks who were contestants on “The Biggest Loser” and trade on their 15 minutes of fame.
In the comments I suggested “Run for Jobs and Justice” It could be sponsored by the “Jobs and Justice Party.” I thinks it’s important to tie a new party into the primary concern of the working class…jobs. We’re all working class now, even the tea party crowd.
-
NullityPersonified says:
Thoughts on the negativity of protest votes and the positive aspects of a new party:
The concept of making a “protest vote” is seriously flawed. It is merely justification for expressing one’s feelings about a candidate or a party. Unfortunately, no one other than the individual casting the vote knows what the protest means.
Take the recent Massachusetts Special Election, for example. The number and variety of explanations about why MA voted for Brown is staggering. Most of these “theories” are based on false assumptions about the people of MA and/or personal biases about our government officials and political parties. Since everyone has a different interpretation of the meaning of the vote, what did it accomplish? It won’t stop Obamacare; it will just leave us with fewer options for real health care reform.
MA now has a conservative senator (pretending to be a moderate) who intends to “balance the budget” by cutting services (for the needy). The same approach is now being entertained by the Federal government who has announced a plan to review the “entitlement” programs, Medicare and Social Security, with a view to making cuts (allegedly for deficit reduction). This, too, harms the most vulnerable members of society.
Was the MA “protest vote” a victory? If so, for whom?
The wealthy and upper middle class will benefit by eliminating as much as they can from the health care bill and the “entitlement” programs. Particularly troubling is the growing national trend towards harming the disadvantaged in the name of solving our country’s problems.
I prefer to vote on principle. This entails a careful analysis of the variables and desired outcome. Some people falsely interpret this as a “wasted vote,” and claim that voting to elect a candidate you’re strongly opposed to is better than allowing others to elect one you’re more strongly opposed to (by not voting for the less harmful candidate). In either case, you’re harmed. Degree doesn’t negate the fact that you’ve voted to harm yourself.
The only legitimate protest vote is no vote at all. Then, you’ve relieved yourself of any responsibility for the outcome. But, like all protest votes, it is a negative action, or more accurately, a reaction.
So, rather than making protest votes against two parties who represent corporate interests, we should focus on creating a new party whose purpose it is to allow us to act in positive ways to further our goals.
A few things to consider:
1. This party should be new and independent of any existing party.
2. It should have clearly delineated values and goals.
3. True grassroots efforts should not require huge sums of money to get off the ground.The Internet provides a low-cost channel of communication and allows dissemination of information, across long distances. The idea of starting a forum is a good first step.
In light of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, allowing corporations to buy political candidates, we might consider creating a new approach to political campaigns. Rather than trying to raise more money than the corporations, why not start a system for tracking their contributions and boycotting both the contributing company and any candidate who receives excessive contributions from them? In other words, the more money corporations give to a candidate, the less willing we will be to do business with them or to vote for their chosen candidate. It would be a contest between the moneyed and anti-money groups, with their money against our business and our votes.
In other words, why not outsmart them instead of outspending them? Perhaps that could be a selling point for the new party – and a way to force big money out of politics. These are just some of my initial thoughts, but in any event, I’m in favor of working towards a new and different type of political party.
-
lambert strether says:
Worse: Lemon Pledge.
I’d stick with Justice Party and the Lady Justice iconography.
Miscellaneous:
1. Meetup costs money. I think it would make sense to set up a completely parallel structure. Agreed that the concept is brilliantly simple.
2. Agreed on outsmart vs. outspend (again, using my rhizomic metaphor). We will NEVER have as much money; that’s where the access bloggers went wrong. So we need another approach.
-
monchichipox says:
4. Should not label itself left or right and fight all attempts by others to give it a label.
5. Embrace the word populist. -
Violet Socks says:
I’d stick with Justice Party and the Lady Justice iconography.
I wasn’t suggesting that we drop Lady Justice or the justice platform. I’m just concerned about “Justice Party” as the name.
-
Violet Socks says:
Meetup is not terribly expensive:
-
lambert strether says:
#60 For me, that’s terribly expensive.
-
votermom says:
#58 I agree.
Use the word People, at least. -
willyjsimmons says:
For that kind of money…we could totally host our own servers and monkey up whatever we’d like.
If I weren’t planning on relocating, we’d have FREE hosting. (I run our webservers)
-
Violet Socks says:
Meetup is $12 a month. People, if we can’t raise $12 a month, I think we’re in trouble.
-
lambert strether says:
Well, for those of us who don’t have plastic, $72 for six months isn’t even an option.
In any case, I’d eschew ALL social media on grounds of security.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
I was for bottom up from the start, so totally onboard with developing a compelling set of core principles and implementing locally a la Meetup/AA.
A distributed model avoids the significant barriers to entry ($) of trying to achieve legitimate party designation at a national or even state level. If only some areas of the country can attract sufficient members at first to have an impact, even just in one city or precinct or election, they can get started while others build ranks. Every locality can progress at their own pace, allying or infiltrating as best for that region, with successes and setbacks shared in some secure online space or email tree to inspire/caution others.
Agree that swinging $12 a month for Meetup is a rock bottom requirement (a bargain for the many built in publicity features), with meetings in free public places or members’ homes.
We’d also have to be conscious of each state’s election laws (which will remain in place for small fry, of course — that was probably the strategic intention all along). In CA, for instance, groups that raise $1000 a year to influence statewide elections (either via donations to candidates or independent advocacy) must file with the FPPC, and there’s the corresponding FEC rule for groups that raise or spend $1000 a year on federal elections. Even just registering voters can count as influence under certain circumstances.
Once you file, you’re locked in for indecipherably complex rules and onerous reporting requirements. Many ways to delay triggering the filing requirement, which we’d want to do for as long as possible because besides the hassle, treasurers are individually liable for fines and criminal penalties. In practice, there are certainly clubs who knowingly/unknowingly violate these rules, and the more public and particularly the more successful a group becomes, the more likely some opponent will file a grievance with the appropriate election authority.
The Dean grassroots managed on a combination of ignorance of the law at first, and exempted costs like volunteered labor, home printing of flyers (I just happened to buy that $1100 color laser printer, for instance), potluck food at house parties, everyone on e-mail, and the like. Frugality and creativity are key. (That and generous, idealist members who willingly spent more than they could afford on the hope of changing the world. “Hope” wasn’t a dirty word then.)
When the national organization had paid staff, they started clueing us in to what was/wasn’t legal, distributing more guidelines and support materials, conducting online and local training in campaign skills, which local groups could take advantage of or not. For the record, DFA really was a grassroots, locally controlled effort, just the opposite of OFA.
Violet, if you ever want to hold an in-person planning/feasibility summit, I’m ready to fly to where you are.
*****A
-
lambert strether says:
******A: It almost sounds like it would be simpler to:
1. Found a religion and
2. Set up an alternative currency.
Ha ha only serious.
-
lambert strether says:
I’m also with WillyJ on the server stuff. It would be, if not insane, the worst sort of lack of due diligence, to do all the organizing in clear, which is what using anything corporate, like FaceBook or MeetUp or whatever, would be. Unless there’s a conscious decision to to make that the policy, which is another set of issues entirely.
-
jumpjet says:
If we’re talking about setting up completely alternate routes of access and communication we’re going to need more technical expertise and much more patience than has been mustered thus far.
-
Jeff says:
Founding a new religion is easy.
All you need is a Devil.
-
m Andrea says:
I think from a marketing perspective, “the pledge party” is sheer brilliance. It’s a constant reminder to focus on the principles and — unlike the term “justice” — hasn’t yet been turned into a mere slogan which means nothing. But some of you are scared of being associated with a cleaning product, which cleans house?
In that case, YOU will be scared of anything because “cleaning house” and “polishing the principles for which we pledge” is the whole point.
-
lambert strether says:
#71 m Andrea. Heh. Good point on cleaning house.
What I like about pledges is that they make the organization much more modular and rhizomic (like AA). No national organization with offices on K Street fine-tuning the message for the next mid-terms or whatever. 10 points, good for, say, a decade of work. Sign here. Precision in policy demands empowers the locals, and disempowers the iron law of oligarchy (again like AA).
That said, I still think that “pledge” is wrong for the name of the party. The pledge is a means to an end, not an end. (Exactly as Pledge, the product, is the means toward a clean house (enabling an Infinite Jest allusion, but let’s not go there)).
Similarly, Justice is an end, not a means. And I disagree that justice has been turned into a mere slogan. Indeed, on the earlier thread on this topic, some considered the word too threatening.
-
Sasha, CA says:
I disagree that justice has been “turned into a mere slogan which means nothing.” Maybe when it’s coming from the government (though that would be true for pretty much anything coming from the government, given how corrupt and dishonest our politicians typically are), but not when it’s coming from the people (e.g., as in “no justice, no peace”).
-
madamab says:
I know Coakley is a sore subject, but don’t we have to admit that if she had not reversed herself on Stupak, she’d probably be Senator now? Doesn’t she own that reversal? She refused to stand up for women’s rights after promising she would. I would have stayed home if I were in Mass, myself.
I am all for electing more women, as most people probably know, but I don’t want to put them in the position Coakley was in: being dependent on a Party that is inimical to women’s interests.
Frankly, I do not see any difference between the way the Dems are governing and the way the Repubs govern. Women and LGBT are under the bus, and we’ve still got endless war, torture, and constant transfers of wealth from the working class to the oligarchy/patriarchy. And now, Obama is targeting “entitlement programs” too. We might as well still have Reagan as President. How in the world would electing Coakley have made a difference, since she has already shown she will vote straight party-line despite her political beliefs?
The concept behind my “don’t vote at all” post of a couple of weeks ago was to do what the Conservatives did in 2008: show the Repubs that they can’t win without their base.
We need to keep showing the Dems that they can’t win without their base. That’s the only way we can start holding them accountable.
Meanwhile, we can build the Justice Party movement and start getting some good people running for office, people who are not dependent on the Democrats or Greens (baggage! baggage!) for their funding. It’s a two-pronged attack I’m proposing.
Thought of the day (h/t chatblu from my blog): If it’s true that unions are people now too, perhaps we could get some of our funding from them. Just brainstorming here.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Madamab, I keep hearing that Coakley’s “reversal” was the cause of her defeat. Is there evidence to support that? I’ve read the timelines attempting to demonstrate that once she announced she would vote for HCR, everything changed. But where are the exit polls that support that conclusion? I haven’t seen any.
As far as I’m concerned, without evidence one way or another, the teevee theme that she should have showed up at Fenway Park is no less valid than the reversal hypothesis.
*****A
-
lambert strether says:
#75 Apparently, there were no exit polls, and none were planned because a blowout was expected.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Well, BoldProgressives.org did that one of only people who had voted for Obama.
No exit polls. So everyone can spin the meaning of the results to their heart’s content. How friggen convenient.
*****A
-
Sameol says:
I’ve also heard that Brown won big in conservative areas of the state, whereas in other areas she barely squeaked by. Maybe that indicates that MA is in the midst of a realignment and Democrats there don’t support women candidates. Mass has never had a woman Senator, someone should do an analysis of the last time a woman ran against a man for Senate or Governor and compare the results. I suspect there might be a great similarity, while we’re “30%”ing ourselves to 0%.
-
Tammy says:
29. monchichipox says:
“We seem to want so many of the same goals but differ on how to achieve them. The two evils we speak of, sometimes especially the lesser, seem to not want us to realize that.”
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I am registered as unaffiliated, and vote in every election. I would vote with ANY party that threatened the status quo and wasn’t Dem or Repub. I believe there are a LOT of people who feel the same way I do.
-
Violet Socks says:
Upthread I asked if anybody knew anything about the Jane Hamsher-Grover Norquist Date From Hell — anybody?
As for conservatives, we may have some common cause with third-party sympathizers of any stripe. And there are some workers and populists who could easily be pulled out of the Republican/Tea Party camp; these are the people who are pissed because they know the whole government is a crock of shit. The one thing we must be clear on is that our principles aren’t negotiable. Our principles are the whole point of doing this.
Re Coakley: her reversal (or whatever it was) on HCR seemed to be the thing that lost her support on the blogs, or at least on the blogs I read. But this is just the tiny little blogworld of disaffected progressives; I have no idea how much the HCR flip mattered to Massachusetts voters.
-
lambert strether says:
violet: Some interesting links here.
-
NullityPersonified says:
I know Coakley is a sore subject, but don’t we have to admit that if she had not reversed herself on Stupak, she’d probably be Senator now? Doesn’t she own that reversal? She refused to stand up for women’s rights after promising she would. I would have stayed home if I were in Mass, myself.
No, we don’t have to admit this. I’ve lived in Massachusetts for most of my life. Very few people here mentioned her “reversal on Stupak,” as their reason for not voting for her. You are projecting your own beliefs onto the people of Massachusetts, a place you clearly know little about.
Yesterday, I was speaking to a neighbor about the Special Election. She is a feminist and former Hillary Clinton supporter who works in the admissions department of a MA medical school, where she plays a role in training the next generation of physicians.
During the primary, she refused to vote for Coakley, choosing instead to vote for an alternate candidate (not a front-runnner), whose name I’m sure no one outside of MA would recognize. When I asked her why she didn’t vote for Coakley, she stated the most common reason I’ve heard from MA residents, namely that Coakley “showed poor judgment.” Her example of this poor judgment was the comment Coakley made about not wanting to stand in the cold shaking hands with voters outside of Fenway Park. Local knowledge is required to understand why this bothered people. This particular comment is what a lot of MA voters cite as the reason they chose not to vote for her.
The neighbor in question was going to stay home, until she saw valid evidence that Scott Brown was going to win. Then, she hauled herself to the polls to vote for Coakley, for many of the reasons I’ve already stated on this blog (Brown is a conservative – as evidenced by his voting record – masquerading as an “independent”).
Many people in the Boston area, who would have preferred a Coakley victory, blame her loss on Kevin Conroy. (Have you ever heard of him?) He was Coakley’s campaign manager. And, he ran one of the worst political campaigns ever seen. Martha Coakley is not a politician. She needed a competent campaign manager, and Conroy made many strategic errors. What’s interesting is how his name doesn’t even come up in the national commentary. Apparently, it’s more convenient and acceptable to blame the female candidate for things which were someone else’s job.
Re Coakley: her reversal (or whatever it was) on HCR seemed to be the thing that lost her support on the blogs, or at least on the blogs I read. But this is just the tiny little blogworld of disaffected progressives; I have no idea how much the HCR flip mattered to Massachusetts voters.
I’m glad to see someone point this out. I probably read some of the blogs you frequent and can attest to the fact that the disaffected progressives on those blogs are projecting their beliefs onto the MA voters.
Two things surprise me about this. First, these are the same people who insisted that the MSM was biased in its coverage of the presidential campaign and could not be trusted. Yet, in the case of Coakley, they took everything the MSM said as gospel, even though many MA residents noticed a significant difference between local and national Special Election coverage.
Second, although many of the people on those blogs call themselves “feminists,” some of them made sexist comments about Coakley (due to their dislike of her), while others held her to a ridiculously high standard that they would never have applied to any male candidate.
The one thing we must be clear on is that our principles aren’t negotiable. Our principles are the whole point of doing this.
Unquestionably, on principles there can be no compromise. Trying to accommodate the political views of other groups, in an attempt to be inclusive, or to gain support, will doom us to failure.
-
Tammy says:
80. Violet Socks says:
“…these are the people who are pissed because they know the whole government is a crock of shit. The one thing we must be clear on is that our principles aren’t negotiable. Our principles are the whole point of doing this.”I have great respect your principles and would expect you to stand by them. In fact, if you didn’t stand by your principles, you wouldn’t be any different than the crap we have currently in power. I would much rather associate myself with honorable people whose viewpoint differed somewhat from mine than with deceivers who espouse views similar to mine but who act like selfish pigs.
F.Y.I. I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
-
lambert strether says:
“Fiscal conservatives” should start looking at Modern Monetary Theory (e.g.).
-
teresainpa says:
I am unwilling to waste my time on third party candidates who will never be elected. Look at what a waste all the angst and energy of the Green party has been. They have never even gotten close to the five percent they wanted and they helped throw the country under the bus in 2000 because of a lot of nonsense their members bought in to about Gore.
A voting block could be useful, but to tell you the truth, unless it is a block to elect more women, I think all we get is more male authoritarianism from the far left rather than the far right.
The silliest phrase I read on blogs is “am am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils”.. come on folks, I first heard that in 1980 and what has changed? The only party that ever gained any power was the reform party and they were centrist.
So don’t vote for democrats, or vote for whomever. But don’t think all the energy and drive in the world is going to change the two party system.
Fist you would have to kill all the media. At that point maybe a better democrat would have a chance….but third party candidates are going no where. -
Tammy says:
85. teresainpa says:
“The silliest phrase I read on blogs is “am am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils”.. come on folks, I first heard that in 1980 and what has changed?”
The internet pervades society and allows instantaneous communication through channels other than the MSM. Massachusetts has a Republican senator. People who usually sit on the couch and watch protests on TV (tea partiers) are taking time and money to protest. Lots of things are different.
-
lambert strether says:
#85 Shorter teresainpa: “In 1788…”
-
Adrienne in CA says:
@86, instant and pervasive are good words for the internet. But not different. Every nefarious force that has been at work manipulating public opinion on MSM is exerting that same influence on the internet. Wherever we go, there they will be.
*****A
