Hell No Dems Won’t Vote

Furthermore, only people who threaten to walk, get things. If you will vote Obama/Democrat no matter what, why would they give you anything?

in general, i agree. but we now have a dem party that for the most part would rather lose to a republican than give an inch to their progressive base.

lambert – i don’t think it’s blackmail, i think it’s class interest and at the moment we have no leverage.

example: how hard did the dems fight to win the presidency in 2000? and i don’t mean gore, i mean the entire dem political elite.

(A bit of l’esprit de l’escalier: I am using generic “you”, of course. Neither Ian nor I get an actual say.)

Then, just to make everything absolutely explicit so that there is no misunderstanding, let me attempt to distill your position:

1. We are headed for calamity, no matter what.

2. We need someone to pick up the pieces.

3. The Democratic party is the most likely entity to pick up the pieces.

4. Therefore, the party establishment needs to be educated by casting it down until it adopts Correct Policy.

5. In the meantime, there is no mileage in attempting to prop it up; insofar as the Democratic Party does not conform to Correct Policy, that Republican governments will likely follow Maximally Incorrect Policy is not of discriminative consequence.

Is this fair? How does this differ from a heightening-the-contradictions approach, or does it?

(Aside: there’s a big difference between saying what I think will happen, and what I think people ought to do. Prescriptive vs. descriptive. Huge.)

Well, yes. You condition one on the other.

So, I agree with 2/3rds of what you say, but there’s 1/3rd where I don’t which also happens to be the crux of the matter (this level of agreement seems to be the normal case for you and I 🙂 ). One of those crucial points is this:

The difference is that while I believe they probably won’t do the right things, I believe that the only way they might them do the right things is inflict pain. If I’m wrong, and they will respond to stimulus, maybe they will do the right things if they think they’ll lose elections if they don’t.

Fair enough, but then you say this:

Numbers like 40% catch the eye, and can’t be wished away like losing by a few hundred votes in Florida (though that should have been a wakeup call.)

I would go further and say that the nixing of the Dean campaign and the result in 2004 with Kerry should have been an even bigger wake-up call.

But it appears that at best only partial lessons were learned from either case. (The structure of the Dean campaign, for instance, was arguably borrowed in part by Obama.)

So, the biggest issue is why this is so and why we should expect any other education to succeed? To me the answer to this question is the basis for action in the political sphere in the USA.

I mean, those are just the boring old techniques of social change practiced in little ways by lots of people since people became citizens after they were peasants. For those with little individual power to expect to have a Grand Strategy that matches the kinds of things that the People Who Matter can organize is pretty ahistorical.

I put this in the comments on the other Wake Up/Grow Up post, but I think the problem extends far beyond the presidency or even the Congress. There’s an entire elite power structure that’s corrupt and it’s too strong and well funded to simply go after head on. The only chance we have – and I tend to agree with Ian, we’re most likely headed for collapse first – is local. Local organizing and local elections to chip away at the structure rather than attack it head on. Supporting the structure through money, votes, and time seems to me to be counterproductive because far from changing anything, you’re simply feeding the beast. Plus, if the whole thing does collapse, having local organizations can make a big difference in what comes next.

The boring old tactics which haven’t worked recently…

i’m assuming you are referring to mando’s comment on social change.

well, they may have not worked recently (but then what has?), but they have worked and in my life time they are the only thing i’ve actually seen work. so, unless i’m persuaded there are other options, that’s where i’m at for now. social movement politics.

as for electoral politics, i’m not going to work for the dem party, but neither am i going to work for their defeat.

The opportunity cost of working for the legacy parties is working for known, better individuals at the local level. Or for a New Progressive Party (see here).

Neither the Dems nor the Repubs are going to crash the economy. The economy has a life of its own—IT is the objective reality—and both parties can only respond to it, not control it, try as they may.

The U.S. State (the political apparatus) is restructuring itself to protect capital. Step by step in the service of corporate profits, the political parties are both acting to wipe out all barriers to private property and to create the best possible conditions for capital accumulation. Exampls of recent results of this are:

· Aetna plans to raise its rates in 2010 and, as a result, expects to lose over 600,000 customers…while boosting profits.

· Banks are buying treasures with the bailout money rather than making loans to small business or helping homeowners….while making record profits.

Politics serves the economy, not the other way around. The response of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party or the White House is but the subjective reflection of the objective economic crisis. We must proceed from conceptual knowledge, a grasp of the underlying process, rather than simply the movement. Any criticism of a politician today must proceed from an evaluation of how s/he responds to a crashing economy.

There is also a third grouping which is responding to the economic crisis–the working class. A few examples:

· In late September employees throughout the 220,000-student University of California system staged a one-day strike against the effects of unprecedented budget cuts, including a 33% hike in tuition.

· In the Bay Area recently immigrant workers marched to stop water terminations on tenants in foreclosed properties.

· Twenty thousand movement organizers and activists from diverse organizations across the United States, Canada and the world are expected to converge at the second United States Social Forum (USSF) in Detroit, Michigan in June of next year.

Everyone–Republicans, Democrats, the working class–are responding to the same economic crisis. When we decide whom we support, I guess we have to decide which class’ interests represent the way forward.

Re: New Progressive Party — see here. Something might come of it; it had better.

Ian,

Thanks for the link to one of your prior posts. I had previously read and responded to it; and I re-read it again tonight.

The economic system and the political system that supports it certainly affect each other. That I agree. The real relationship between economics and politics is that the fundamental economic relationship defines a society. The political system arises in order to keep that economic relationship in place. Economic policy under our system must follow the law of maximum profit or that policy will not survive. The subjective economic policy has to correspond to the objective laws of the economic system. Good or bad policy doesn’t either cause or avert economic crisis. Policy, from time to time, can attempt to make the economic relationship more equitable, but these policies are always rejected in times of economic crisis and policies are implemented which enable capitalism to survive, which allow the base (the economic structure) to remain intact. Any policies which do not, in the long run, support the economic base cannot remain in place. Even FDR’s New Deal was a policy attempt to keep the economic base (the capitalist relationships) stable.

The point I have been trying to make is that in our society people do not relate on just any basis. They primarily relate to one another through their mutual relation to property. This in turn defines the society. A state, a legal system, social institutions and ideas arise on this base of economic relations. Then, when fundamental change occurs within the economic base–i.e.introduction of radically new technology, for example–this can change the prior relationships and, in turn, begin the process of destruction and polarization of the society. This economic crisis affects every aspect of society. And at this time of polarization and destruction, yes, a conscious element (a subjective factor) can be a determining factor in the outcome of the relationship.

Simply put, the working class can’t live without jobs, and the ruling class can’t (not “won’t”) give them jobs. At this point it has become a battle for political power.

More history re-writing,

Roosevelt railed against the complacency of US citizens in 1933.

This is because while many of the victims of the Depression directed their anger toward the government or “conditions,” most blamed themselves. This should sound familiar. Also many who kept their jobs, benefited because of a wide scale and deep deflation which inflated their salaries. Just like today, poverty was considered a proof of moral decay and many exploited the impoverished without guilt. Many of those who lost jobs or homes expressed feelings of “guilt and self-recrimination” not anger and revolution. Although the Depression hit the US the hardest, workers reaction were the meekest compared to workers in other nations as citizens sought to gain advantage from the misery of their neighbor.

Ian you have some full-time Orwellian history writers, Google is harder to us than it used to be, so it takes to long to refute them all, but in case this old canard comes up let preempt it.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth

“I said that their actions were prompted and pushed by significant pressure from the population.”

This is true of EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN IN ALL OF TIME…so banal a comment that I would not even notice it. But that is not what you said, this is what you said and it is very different.

“There was near revolution leading up to FDR doing what he did. ”

It was also a complete fabrication which I point out. FDR might have faced a nascent coup, but never a revolution which is why I said:

“Roosevelt railed against the complacency of US citizens in 1933.

This is because while many of the victims of the Depression directed their anger toward the government or “conditions,” most blamed themselves. This should sound familiar. Also many who kept their jobs, benefited because of a wide scale and deep deflation which inflated their salaries. Just like today, poverty was considered a proof of moral decay and many exploited the impoverished without guilt. Many of those who lost jobs or homes expressed feelings of “guilt and self-recrimination” not anger and revolution. Although the Depression hit the US the hardest, workers reaction were the meekest compared to workers in other nations as citizens sought to gain advantage from the misery of their neighbor.”

According to many an Obama revisionist FDR was forced to act by near Revolution, Obama has a totally different situation, because people are not angry and therefore he can not take any action other than uphold the policies of Bush with the tiniest of changes.

I say bullshit, the difference is that FDR rallied the populace to action, whereas Obama at a year in says he’ll “study the problem in a series of seminars”.

Contrast that with; Day One: FDR calls for action….

“…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance….This Nation asks for action, and action now…Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war…

There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it….

We must act and act quickly…in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards AGAINST A RETURN OF THE EVILS OF THE OLD ORDER there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money..There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment…we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective.

[and this is important for the Obama (his hands are tied) crowd]:

“But in the event that the Congress shall fail …I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/

In this speech he calls the people to support him, to stop running away in shame and disgrace, he tells the Republicans left in congress and the Supreme court, work with me or face the US Army, not a revolution, but rather he plans to lead a revolt to “provide for the general welfare”…as is his duty by oath!

[Les/Lex, you’re just repeating talking points you have heard others put out for you to repeat, while I despise your manipulators, I bear you no ill will unless you coconsciously working as a minion.]

We should not allow one our greatest leaders to be compared to the current Bush/Obama administration.

FDR did not fear revolution, he may have feared coup*, but he was undeterred by his fears.

*http://republican.meetup.com/boards/thread/3317707

selise:

and now, after reading some of your comments i’m not even sure we’re talking about the same thing re social movement politics. i’m thinking along the lines of bill moyer’s (not moyers of pbs) book doing democracy (among other things).

I haven’t read Moyer’s book; I was thinking more along the lines of the kinds of things they talk about on Z and places like that.

mandos, thanks for the clarification. i’ve read zmag off and on for a few years and i’ve read michael albert’s book parecon (life after capitalism). from that little bit of knowledge, i’d say that in the venn diagram of activism there is some overlap between albert and moyer. but albert is more about vision and moyer is more about practical and immediate so maybe it would be more accurate for me to say that while there are lots of differences, i don’t think they are contradictory and could be complementary?

just guessing, probably don’t have enough info without having some long conversations. preferably over a beer, coffee or similar.

also, my views are changing rapidly as i read, think and experience more. these are fast moving times.

Mandos: you are the very definition of learned helplessness. Seriously. And I know very well what operant conditioning is. As with all social strategies it isn’t perfect, but it is better than not doing anything, by far. If people can get what they want (election), without you, then they won’t give you anything they didn’t already intend to.

I don’t know how you can call me “the very definition of learned helplessness” when on request, I gave you a political programme. It may be a very mundane and classic programme of activities, but it’s a programme—hardly helplessness.

I don’t eschew electoral politics as such, but I do think that some kinds of electoral politics are either a waste of time and in rare cases, worse than a waste of time. I definitely have opinions on that. One of these is that an operant conditioning approach to partisan politics has not worked and is not likely to work at this point.

(Side note: I could have sworn you said more, but maybe you correctly realized it was a mistake…)

As long as peoples immediate survival needs are not met people will not have the energy or will to fight for anything. I know it may sound quaint but food on the table and a roof over their heads is kinda important to people.

Absolutely, and this is one of the problems I have with (some) environmentalists and other activists, particularly of the celebrity variety. Without social justice you will inevitably see people scrambling to exploit whatever security they can obtain from nature and from the rest of the human world.

I’m sorry, S Brennan, but your Great Man theory of political change is quite a bit off; it is especially belied by your own links. From the GMU link, it gives a historical backgrounder:

Franklin D. Roosevelt had campaigned against Herbert Hoover in the 1932 presidential election by saying as little as possible about what he might do if elected. Through even the closest working relationships, none of the president-elect’s most intimate associates felt they knew him well, with the exception perhaps of his wife, Eleanor. The affable, witty Roosevelt used his great personal charm to keep most people at a distance. In campaign speeches, he favored a buoyant, optimistic, gently paternal tone spiced with humor. But his first inaugural address took on an unusually solemn, religious quality. And for good reason—by 1933 the depression had reached its depth. Roosevelt’s first inaugural address outlined in broad terms how he hoped to govern and reminded Americans that the nation’s “common difficulties” concerned “only material things.”

If this history is at all correct, FDR only took this position after he was elected, and that was well after public anger had reached levels we have not seen in a long time. In fact, he sounds practically Obamarrific. In 1931 there was the Battle of Evarts, a kind of event we have not yet seen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Evarts

I’m afraid, S Brennan, that you are the one engaging in FDR revisionism to prove a point about Obama that does not exist.

There are two main varieties of FDR revisionism. The usual kind is the right-wing one where FDRs policies made things worse, not better. We can hopefully agree that this is hogwash.

There’s another kind that views FDR as something other than a particularly foresighted servant of his class—sometimes accused of being a traitor to his class—but nevertheless, a servant who saved capitalism from an epidemic of strikes and redistributionary acts:

All of these factors–the Lewis-Farrington controversy; the basic radicalism of Macoupin miners as opposed to Lewis, the “man of the twenties”; the worsening conditions of the miners–would have profound effects upon the dramatic episodes which were to occur in 1932. In that year, the four-year contract between District 12 miners and the operators was drawing to an end. By March 31, almost all of the District 12 workers had left the pits due to the failure to bring negotiations to a close. Finally, on July 9, a new contract was announced, and although many miners may have resigned to losing ground in terms of annual income, the extent to which they were expected to give way was shocking. The basic daily wage scale on the previous contract was $6.10; the new contract was to lower this to $5.00. When the contract was submitted to miners for their approval, they angrily turned it down by a majority of more than two to one.
…

The circumstances of what soon came to be known as the “Battle of Mulkeytown” seem clearly to have been a result of collaboration between the sheriff of Franklin county, state police who directed the caravan into an ambush, and militant Lewis followers among the local miners. Hundreds of high school boys, coal miners, and businessmen were deputized by the Franklin county sheriff, as well as two physicians who were told to treat only Franklin county people among the expected casualties.

When the head of the vast cavalcade reached U.S. Highway 51south of DuQuoin, the state police shunted the leading cars eastward on State Highway 14. When the leading cars crossed the Little Muddy River, a short distance from the village of Mulkeytown, the sheriff’s deputies suddenly appeared ahead. Shots were fired, men were beaten, cars were pushed over, and tires were punctured. It was hardly a melee, much less a battle. There was no contest, for only one side was armed. The great caravan turned around, and headed northward. Five of the would-be picketers were casualties; none of the sheriff’s deputies had been wounded.(19)

http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/hicken01.htm

There was a large and militant movement whose momentum began in the 20s and ran all the way well into the 30s. FDR was not a leader in this, he was definitely a follower, and the conditions were considerably more tense than they are now.

The point is that it doesn’t really matter what FDR or LBJ or even Ronnie Raygun or Obama actually may have thought personally. It’s ultimately whether capitalism feels threatened.

Mandos, I don’t have a “great man” theory, but I dither on your pointless conjecture.

Unwittingly, you disprove your entire post with this line:

“There was a large and militant movement whose momentum began in the 20s and ran all the way well into the 30s.”-

If the movement had been around over 15 years [in fact the reform movement had been around since the Depression 1893] and already had one champion whose name was Teddy Roosevelt [who succeeded in reforming the country…sans revolutionary forces]. How was it Hoover [a Milquetoast reformer] was was totally unmoved by this irresistible force?

Hoover was unmoved because it was incredibly weak force and Hoover didn’t put out for reform.

The violent strikes of the twenties, the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson [Democrat] rule, 1919 saw major strikes in meatpacking and steel and large race riots in Chicago and other major cities.

CHANGE?

No, Harding’s victory was the largest popular-vote percentage and offered no reform, just the opposite, he ran against change. Calvin Coolidge offered more of the same.

Mangos, your claim is incredible, maintaining your record, you strike out again on historical knowledge. A batting average of 0.000 is tough thing to maintain as many times as you have batted. I realize the indoctrination in this country is thorough and multi-leveled, but Roosevelt did what few recent presidents do…he followed his Oath of Office. So did Truman by the way, though he was less capable, he never wavered…IKE too, JFK…LBJ, Nixon did not, but he was far more honest than Obama, so he stands head and shoulders above the Bush/Obama administration.

In fact comparing Obama to any president since FDR is hopeless, none but Bush are comparable, perhaps that is why the both govern with exactly the same policies on major issues.

Again, the majority thought the strikers were radicals…and that did not change…until Roosevelt changed the attitude to labor. As I point out in the quotes above in the FDR inauguration speech we see direct action and threats to those that stand in the way. It’s called leadership…Google it.

It’s incredible that I have to argue this alone about FDR, but as I said, the indoctrination in this country is thorough and multi-leveled.

As a side note: I don’t know why S Brennan keeps calling me “Mangos”. It’s too frequent to be accidental typoism.

Mandos,

In your post these are false claims made by you:

“As far as I can tell, you’re claiming that FDR was some kind of special visionary who created himself the conditions for reform, among a people too weak to coerce their leaders on their own.”

If you’d spent the time, I mention his uncle in the same sentence. If you took the time to read my post where I quoted Roosevelt inaugural extensively.

1] He tells ordinary folks to stop blaming themselves. [I also address this in my earlier post…America is comprised in large percentage, by people who have been subjugated and is almost always the case, they have internalized this message of whip, sword & bullet]

2] Let’s the supreme court know that his plan is completely within the bounds of the constitution.

3] Threatens the obstructionist Republicans in congress with the use of the Army.

I carefully went through and gave you examples which didn’t refute, but instead gave this conjecture here:

“I’m sorry, S Brennan, but your Great Man theory of political change is quite a bit off”- Mandos

Now maybe theory of historical forces controlling men is correct:

[“rarely in history does a ruling class move of its own accord to make historical reforms”] – Mansos in regards to weak or fatally flawed men, but in the case of both evil and good men/women it most certainly not.

Germans didn’t get up one morning and decide to murder 12 million in death camps, people opposed this, leftist and communist were the first in the camps. Similarly, their was no outcry to invade Iraq, people had to led with the most contemptuous of lies spew forth 24/7/365 by media outlets and still there was wide spread protest.

You view of history,

[“rarely in history does a ruling class move of its own accord to make historical reforms”] – Mansdos

However derived, is contradicted by a plurality of examples, yes…yes…weak kneed sycophants share your view of their helplessness, but they do so to provide a rationalization for their damnable lives where they assumed power and then do nothing useful with it.

In 2004, Democrats + (Blog-Go-Sphere) put out a message, we are weak, we need more Democrats in congress before we can do anything. Republicans are such bullies.

Chorus: We are driven by the currents of history!

In 2006, Democrats were given a resounding election victory. Again, Democrats + (Blog-Go-Sphere) put out a message, we are weak, we need more Democrats in congress before we can do anything. Republicans are such bullies.

Chorus: We are driven by the currents of history!

In 2008, Democrats were given a resounding election victory. Again, Democrats + (Blog-Go-Sphere) put out a message, we are weak. Republicans are such bullies.

Chorus: We are driven by the currents of history!

In 2009, Obama/Democrats + (Blog-Go-Sphere) are still saying: We are driven by the currents of history

Anybody noticing a pattern?

Don’t accept this (nobody to blame) propaganda, or the message of determinism. JFK diverted the cold war into a space race with just one man’s personal will…not driven by some effing current of history. Sheesh, the pathetic excuses I have to listen to, if I had accepted that in myself, I’d still be living on the streets of Chicago..and FDR would have spent the rest of his effing life in bed from Polio. I didn’t, FDR, didn’t, don’t you.

I can’t vote for a Republican, whether they are overtly so (McCain), or covertly so (Obama). Both of them were way too conservative for me. So I didn’t vote. Had Clinton been the nominee, I would have been happy to show up but the Democratic party had betrayed it’s commitment to counting all the votes – so fuck ’em. When they nominate the candidate who wins the most Democratic votes, whether I supported them or not, I’ll show up again. Until then, my lack of voting is public record. They have to do something to encourage me to show up.

As for Obama, he’s a guy who has never done anything in his life. There’s no getting around it. He has no history as an attorney, as a guest lecturer, or as a state senator of getting things done. Obama doesn’t DO anything. He never has. It was always folly think that he was going to start in his late forties.

People who are moved to make the world a better place for others have a long history of doing so whether they are in office or not. Clinton has been getting things done for underprivileged people since she left college. FDR and Eleanor became a team the day she took him to the slums and began innumerable projects to make life better for the residents. But you cannot point to a single example of Obama, of his volition, identifying a problem, developing a solution and then using his considerable resources to execute the solution. He’s never done it. He’s now the president and he still hasn’t done it. If he was gonna do it, he’d do it by now. give up. He is utterly and completely impotent.

Obviously, all the history i’ve read/learned is completely wrong but…

As Mandos pointed out, there was movement in the Hoover administration. Public works projects were started; union protecting labor laws were passed; and a fair amount more. Hoover may have been an ineffective president, but he became president because he had a pretty good track record in life before that. (Again, all my history is wrong, so take it with a grain of salt) He spent the years during and directly after WWI running massive humanitarian missions to feed millions of people…even Communists!

If one takes the time to look at what Hoover actually did in office, it reads like a fairly progressive agenda. FDR attacked him for being a “tax and spend liberal” for god’s sake. And as even some of FDR’s brain trust noted, pretty much the whole New Deal was taken from programs Hoover started.

Now, none of this takes away from who FDR was and what he did. Without FDR, we probably (only because we can’t say what would have happened in an alternate history) wouldn’t have the social safety net that we have. It also does not mean that Hoover was a great president.

It does mean that drawing conclusions from history is dangerous if you’re working from a shallow vision of that history and ignoring all the bits of it that don’t fit into a preconceived model.

Not sure I follow the thread all that well. Ian says that you shouldn’t reward pols who won’t do what you would like them to do. Mandos says that’s wrong and that we should save ourselves in some amorphously defined manner. The first position seems more clearly stated and intuitively obvious (not to mention less verbose) than the second. I’m also not sure why they’re arguing. Why not punish the pols AND do the massive education effort/movement groundswell that Mandos apparently is aiming at? They don’t seem to be exclusive positions.

I’ve always liked the saying “Pessismism of the intelligence, optimism of the will.” Works for a lot in life, and it’s the very reverse of “learned helplessness.” Especially incredibly prolix learned helplessness.

I guess it all depends on what you’re after. Conservatives from the 50’s onward were for a very long time quite willing to get crushed politically because they believed in certain things and weren’t willing to join the great “vital center” everyone was talking about at the time. They got crushed but they kept agitating their ideas, found some presentable candidates to get them out there, and then had the best of both worlds from a political perspective – power plus real principles they were willing to go down the line for. If we just go down the path of least resistance, accepting anything and everything our “leaders” choose to inflict on us not because it serves us but because it keeps them in power, what good does that do? We’re just telling them they can keep on doing it, and they will. So, education and building a social movement makes sense, but that’s my point – you can do that AND tell the powers that be that they serve you rather than the other way around, and that power without the willingness to do something meaningfully liberal to help people is just empty vanity. I guess ultimately I don’t understand the unwillingness of many liberals to get angry and have “resentment” at how ill-served they’ve been. Anger under these circumstances is quite natural and can convey a constructive point, ie, telling our “leaders” that what they’re doing is moronic and that they need to stop.