Why Democrats Lost for Complete Idiots

Ian, that was short and sweet and to the point. It’s a great summation of what a great many of us have been saying for the better part of two years. Unfortunately, I think we are going to find that there are more than a few among the party elite and among the party apologists on the net who will either not be able to get it or who will refuse to get it. And yes, by definition, they are complete idiots.

In letters in response to Michael Lind’s article on why center left parties are collapsing that was run by Salon today, someone by the moniker of Milton Wiltmellow wrote this:

Tiptoeing down memory lane>

2000 — After losing a partisan Supreme Court decision over a disputed election in a state run by the candidate’s brother, the Democrats said, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”

2001 — After being warned of an impending attack, and having a culprit in custody a month before a terrorist attack on the US, the Republican president called for national unity. The Democrats said, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”

2003 — After selling an aggressive war against a sovereign nation based on clearly fraudulent claims of imminent threat and weapons of mass destruction, the Democrats said, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”

2004 — As revelations of torture, renditions, and black site prisons proliferate, the Democrats, not wanting to appear unpatriotic, said, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”

2005 through 2008 Katrina, US attorney’s firings, defiance of Congressional subpoenas, daily revelations of incompetence and corruption in Iraq, NSA spying etc. “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”

2008 — After a collapse of investment banks and an impending collapse of the entire financial system brought on by lax banking regulations advocated and enforced by Republicans, the Democrats joined hands across the aisle and voted an 800 billion dollar bailout of the banking sector. “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”

2009 — After a strong showing in both congressional and presidential elections, the new Democratic president declared, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”

Now, 2010, people seem perplexed when the Democrats are about to get severely spanked in the midterm elections. No doubt, as they take their beatings, the Democrats will whine, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”

Hah!

You knew the Republicans. You’ve known them for years. They are exactly what you think they are — power hungry amoral corporatists who have sold the country to the highest bidder (courtesy of Citizens United and Wall Street pirates.)

Still you refuse to oppose Republicans honestly, vociferously and with vigor. You want them to look crazy so your deference looks prudent … as if you truly believe we can get along with ferocious Randians, state secessionists, corrupt SC Justices, greedy banking interests, rightwing lunatics, militaristic adventurers and parasitic corporate plutocrats.

You deserve to be thrown out of office.

Too bad it won’t be for the good of the country.

***End***

I can’t argue with that.

Which truly liberal or socialist policy/bill are the dems getting punished for? And please don’t give me the misleading names of the bills as proof of the content of the policies.

Z

Excuse me, “contents of the BILLS” should be the last 4 words in my post above.

Z

Did you read that turd blogger tbogg telling the left to “grow the fuck up”? What a tool.

Ian, it seems to me that the villagers aren’t willing to look at the reality of what it takes to GOTV. You can’t just lash out at your base and call them fucking retards and realistically expect them to be enthusiastic about voting for you. They want us to programmed robots who unconditionally support them, but that is simply not in our genes. Go read what Tbogg just posted and you’ll see why I effing hate the Dems so much.

Good post, all very true, but tomorrow I expect to read how Obama will have to go to the right of Bush to get back to the center.

You want The Mandos Plan?

Contrary to what you seem to think, I’ve given you and others The Plan before, and repeatedly so. The US has a massively hierarchical political system, most elected representatives in it must rise through a political career. As Meg Whitman just proved, not even money will necessarily get you there. If you want politicians who generally represent your interests, or at least make the right noises about doing so, you have to show the wherewithal to sustain political careers over long periods of time. Yes, there is a stick component, but it only works if there is another career politician who better supports your views to replace the discarded one.

The American right has both—the wherewithal to sustain careers for long periods of time (the carrot), and the wherewithal to use the stick. And, for that matter, usually a surprisingly judicious use of the stick—I mean, they know the Republicans are cynical about core issues like abortion.

But at the moment, the American left only potentially has use of the carrot—this very election demonstrates that they lack an effective stick, as did 2000, etc, etc, etc. And this should not be a surprise. I mean, it’s only logical: only when you can sustain career politicians can you actually switch out one for another.

So, yes, it does in fact involve the coherent and consistent support of less than inspiring Democratic candidates to create a breathing space for the left-wing equivalent of Ron Johnson to oust the right-wing equivalent of Russ Feingold. I didn’t make the American political system hierarchical and inflexible, and I didn’t create the distasteful choices for leftists in whose mouths butter won’t melt to choke on.

FWIW, I’m guessing it’s actually much simpler: The voters threw out the incumbents because the incumbents suck. As in 2006, 2008, so in 2010. The Ds tried to make the argument that they suck less than the Rs, or at least that they suck in a different way, and the voters didn’t buy that. And they’re right not to.

Incidentally, supporting Ian’s argument that not only must the left must defeat Obama, they must be SEEN be doing so, here’s an interesting stat:

Mr. Obama won the presidency with 53 percent of the vote. Tonight, just 46 percent of those who voted said they cast a ballot for Mr. Obama in 2008.

The base did not show up at the polls today. And why should they have? Buy some popcorn and watch Obama play the crazies for all their worth over the next two years. He has just cinched his re-election – unless someone enters the race from the Left to spoil things for him.

I’m guessing that in 2012, the voters will throw out the incumbents again.

When Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer win, while Joe Sestak, Grayson, Feingold, and a whole mess of mid-Atlantic Governors lose, then you know the fix is in. The official OFA answer is ‘fuck it’. My next door neighbor Chris Christie just refused a huge, necessary infrastructure upgrade of the NYC-NJ bridge, and my former Dem governor Ed Rendell (on MSNBC election night) blamed environmental regulations and red tape on such things first, rather than Ayn Rand. We are in a woeful state.

As a fine movie put it, let the right one in – Catfood commission + the ‘break the teachers’ Ted Kennedy prefaced legislation that Waiting for Superman was for. As you said Ian, Jerome was right, and the money influencing this stuff is just so astronomical as to break all conditions of common sense.

“every single time a Democratic government comes to power, ends up disappointed that progressive nirvana failed to arrive, and somehow completely forgets what happened every single additional time.”

Every time the Democratic party craps on its base, it loses elections. And has done since Truman. Ignore that, and *you’re* the one living in a fantasyland, Mandos.

It really is that simple…..

…ends up disappointed that progressive nirvana failed to arrive…

I thought that Robert Gibbs owned that straw-man. What next? Did we demand that the Pentagon be shut down? Are we on drugs, too?

The DLC has to admit that it never attempted even to try to put in place any progressive policies or get any left/progressive legislation passed. It didn’t fail to do this. It did not try. It does not believe in them. It considers them to be not Serious proposals by Fucking Retards ™.

The DLC refuses to admit this and instead tries to blame the left/progressives for being unrealistic for not supporting policies that it never wanted in the first place.

Whatever happened to “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”?

it’s a canard, just a carrot they want us to chase

Yeah, that was my point. In early 2009, the lie was “I agree with you, now make me do it.” Then when progressives tried to “make him do it,” they got called Fucking Retards. Now the lie is “you DFHs were crazy idealists” and “thanks to the DFHs and their ‘disappointment’ that they didn’t get ‘nirvanna’, we Serious, Responsible Democrats have lost.” This is convenient for the DLC because it means that they don’t have to accept any blame for their failures.

“Doe-eyed/tongue-tied bitches”?

I mean, it apparently means nothing that what voters are voting for are Republicans who’ve advertised their crazy for all to see.

Actually, it means a lot. As bad as the Republicans are (they have an approval rating around 25%) the public considered them the lesser of two evils.

And voters are certainly not responsible for the outcomes of elections—I mean, all they did was vote in the candidates.

The voters have to live with the consequences of their votes. As far as catering to the Democratic base, there is an old saying:

“You gotta dance with the one that brought you.”

“I’m so sick and tired of liberals accepting this “make us do it nonsense”

Me too. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when FDR said that he was referring to actions that were not broadly popular with the public, yet needed to be done anyway, such as integration. There, it makes sense for a president to say he needs public pressure.

On the other hand, it’s preposterous for a president to say “Make me do it” about something that 70-75% of the country likes, such as a public option, ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or shifting immigration enforcement away from impoverished border-crossers to aliens here on expired visas.

Not to mention the fact, already discussed, that Obama doesn’t want to do things like that anyway, and nothing can make him do them.

Right, indeed, Ian. Exactly three members of the progressive caucus lost (Allan Grayson, Phil Hare, and John Hall). The Blue Dogs lost around nine times that number. Watered down policies and back room deals got voted down. Americans consistently reward definite, clear thought over namby pamby bipartisanship. W won in 2004 because a significant number of voters who disagreed with him found clearly wrong better than waffling but mainly correct.

This could be a chance to clear out the complainers and compromisers and get it right. Unfortunately, it may be the last chance without signifcant damage and I have no confidence in Obama or Harry Reid or Steny Hoyer doing even vaguely the right thing.

As the Obama rescue plan for overbearing and overcharging Big Health Uninsurance Companies was to the final vote in the Senate, two polls were around: One in IA showed that people favored Medicare for All Improved! in the low sixties percentage. Independents were as much in favor of Medicare for All Improved as were self-identified Democrats. Even Republicans, albeit in lower numbers, were in favor of Medicare for All Improved.

A national poll showed the same numbers and relative approval ratings.

But Obama had taken single payer in any form off the table from the git go (probablyduring his courting of big insurers prior to announcing his run for the nomination).

If the legislation had be actual health CARE, and was what the people understood and wanted, we would not have this bloodbath in the election, even if the economy were as bad as it is now.

But, of course, Obama et al could have worked for both real, effective stimulus along with working for real, effective health care legislation. But Obama chose not to do so.

So, voters didn’t get much of anything to help them with their real world, real life problems. Now, some better off people can, hopefully, put their adult children on their own health insurance plans, so they got something tangible.

But the vast majority of Americans? Zero, zilch, nada. Big fat nothing. Oh, almost forgot that great HAMP program to delay and extend their costs and suffering before losing their homes.

That’s not what they, we voted for. Hoped for.
+

I listened to an interview on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show with the woman who defeated John Hall — she sounded like a full fledged Ayn Rand follower. Commenters noted she babbled polispeak talking points in her debate and on this interview (also her earier interview).
But one thing she’s clear about: The rich deserve their bundles of money and should not face higher taxes. Or much taxation at all.

OMG, what a sorry replacement.

“Robert Gibbs’ talking point was offensive and alienating to the base, sure. I mean, that was the point.”

And the result? Yesterday’s bloodbath. Well-played, numb-nuts.

And the result? Yesterday’s bloodbath. Well-played, numb-nuts.

They won’t care about the negative outcomes as much as you do, trust me. The people who control the legislature and all formal power over the apparatus of the state do not really need your support when push comes to shove. They may want it, but for the time being they’re going to be just fine.

I have to agree with the sense of Mandos’ analysis of the U.S. political regime, if not his politics, and his criticism of American leftism, in particular:

“…you have to show the wherewithal to sustain political careers over long periods of time.”.

To be clear, I am a socialist and never support Democrats (and therefore never support the Republican policies institutionalized by the Democrats). Mandos is only correct in stating that left wing challenges to the Democrats “have produced opposite results” on the basis of the truth of the above quote as it negatively applies to American leftists.

Therefore I would alter and amplify this: You must show the wherewithal to stick to a political strategy and organization for the long haul. There must be an end to left wing amateurism.

Strategically, this means recognition of where that long haul inevitably leads to: out of and in permanent opposition to the Democratic Party. NOT a third party pressure strategy, but an organized movement to destroy that party, and with it the Republicans as well, who can’t live without the Democrats.

I don’t really care where it starts, inside or outside the Democrats, so long as it never stops. Once you start, never stop!

Otherwise, like Mandos says, it’ll be Groundhog Day all over again.