As Howard Dean's '04 campaign was the first to demonstrate, the rise of the internet as a fundraising mechanism, going directly to individuals for small-donation support, has started to alter the math (and thus politics) of this equation. But, unfortunately, for most major campaigns large donors are still required, given the humongous cost of running for national office.
The obvious solution, of course, would be government-mandated, public-financed campaigns where the legalized influence-peddling known as campaign contributions would be rendered unimportant. But, in addition to running headlong into the First Amendment by restricting the "private speech" represented by political donations, public financing (surprise!) does not seem to attract a great many elected officials.
Dems and Reps alike benefit from the status quo, both from their incumbency, which attracts large donors, and from their proximity to the powerful forces behind the curtain of electoral politics. (Many of the most popular candidates also obtain a side-benefit: They often rake in more money than they can reasonably spend on their campaigns, which means they now have funds to dole out to their favorite officials and candidates -- in other words, an effective means of building a controllable power-base.)
THE POWER OF A THIN DIME
There's the "long" view, as described above. But most of us live in the here-and-now, where government policies have major repercussions in our lives. Which leads us to the ten-cents thesis.
We've often heard the complaint that "There isn't but a dime's worth of difference" between the two major parties. I don't argue that the complaint is unjustified, but that in the politics of capturing-the-center, and in the real world in which most of us live, a dime can make a mighty big difference.
This "dime's worth of difference" argument achieved much currency during Ralph Nader's Green Party run for the presidency in 2000. One could at least understand the naive rationale behind that argument seven years ago. But, as the CheneyBush Administration has demonstrated, that dime, in the here-and-now, can buy an awful lot of misery and chaos and repression and death.
That "inconsequential" dime meant a war of choice, one based on outright lies and clever deceptions, that has led to the deaths and maimings of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians, with no end in sight, and a war on Iran just around the corner, one most leading Democrats are choosing to ignore. (By the way, Bush has quietly lowered the bar to justify an attack on Iran; the former probable casus belli -- coming close to having a nuclear weapon -- has now been replaced by having "knowledge" of how to build a bomb. Anyone can obtain that "knowledge" on the internet or by reading scientific papers. Short version: the U.S. will attack.)
That "inconsequential" dime meant the shifting of the ideological makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower appelate courts for the next several decades, thanks to Bush's ability to nominate young HardRight jurists (and the Democrats' shameful decision not to go to the mat to defeat those appointments).
That "inconsequential" dime meant the twisting and shredding of the Constitution, thus robbing American citizens of the protection of their liberties as mandated by the Bill of Rights; in so doing, we've come close to unrestricted dictatorial rule in the United States. We no longer even enjoy the protections of the 800-year-old legal tradition of habeas corpus, where a court has to rule whether an arrest is justified. Under Bush, we've crossed the border into an incipient police state.
That "inconsequential" dime meant that reality and science were denigrated in favor of decisions based on religious faith or pure, partisan politics, often a combination of the two. Most obvious consequence of such thinking: We've lost seven years of potential government leadership on the global-warming issue, with devastating consequences. (Most recent demonstration: the Bush Administration censored more than half the testimony to Congress by Dr. Julie Gerberding, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, on the public-health consequences of increased global warming.) ( http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/336683_climatediseaseed.html )
FACED WITH A DECISION IN '08?
Well, I could go on and on listing how a thin dime was too high a price to pay for those interested in good government, rational government, reason-based diplomacy rather than idelogically-based wars of choice, protection of our natural environment, etc. etc. Despite what you might think of them as leaders, it's hard to imagine anyone thinking that our country would be in our current catastrophic mess if Gore or Kerry were President.
As I say, we all may be revisiting the "dime's worth of difference" argument as we approach Election 2008 and have to decide whether there is enough of a difference between the parties to warrant holding one's nose and voting for the "lesser of two evils" yet again, or whether it's time to say "a pox on both your parties" and sit out the election in hope that a newer, better model for leadership will emerge to save our beloved Republic.
And, let's face it: If a viable third-party movement was in the cards for '08, we would have seen at least its outlines by now, and "name" candidates (Gore? Hagel? Hightower?) would be vying to lead it. No, I'm afraid that it's probably too late to create an electable populist movement that might lure disenchanted anti-war liberals, progressives, and angry, centrist Republicans appalled by the ideological hijacking of their party by HardRight elements.
In any case, as history has demonstrated, it's always easier (not easy, but easier) to take over an existing party rather than try to build a new one from the ground up. It may not be too late for disaffected Democrats in the next twelve months to make that kind of concentrated effort within the party, but it's still somewhat late.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
What a waste of time reading this tired, uncreative and wrong-headed thinking by a disillusioned Democrat who, in the end, is nothing more than a supporter of the status quo with delusions about the Democratic Party coming to the rescue. The power elites that (YES) really control BOTH major parties (that have worked hard to make third parties uncompetitive) push whatever politicians have power to extremes to get what they want; they also did it in the Clinton administration and will do it again in a second Clinton administration - if that, God forbid, should happen.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (116 articles, 22 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 469 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 9:56:11 AM
Ye Olde "Take Over the Dem Party from Inside" gambit --
Hirschhorn's characterization of this article is tough, but completely accurate.
The "TOtDPfFI" gambit sounds attractive to naifs who are just becoming aware for the first time that something is seriously rotten in the state of Denmark.
The Dem Party cannot be "taken over from the inside." The people who control the party like it just as it is. They have built nice careers for themselves, and enjoy their perks & power lunches. All of that flows directly from the Party's eternal impotence & fecklessness -- which serve powerful interests. If the Party ever threatened the status quo in any way, those interests would no longer be served. Big donors would yank out their support, & the power lunches would be reduced to peanut butter & jelly sandwiches.
The Dems are very useful to the powers that be, precisely because of their impotence. They are a make-believe "party that cares about the people," that never threatens the status quo, yet encourages the illusion that one fine day, it might. So it's ideal for stringing suckers along -- while the party busies itself collaborating with Wall St, the Pentagon, & Republicans on a daily basis, ensuring that American "democracy" remains the farce that it is.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1101 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 11:07:50 AM
Let's assume the two letter-writers above are correct in stating that the Democratic Party is a lost cause. I'd love to hear how they anticipate setting up a viable third party, one that over time can convince enough citizens to join. And, how long do they envision this might take? And, more importantly, what do they suggest we progressives do in the interim years or decades? Sit on our hands, vote for candidates who can't win -- all of which which would translate into more Bushista victories? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I really would like to know how they envision the positive future, and what we all should do in the meantime.
by
Bernard Weiner (141 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 11:47:18 AM
With all respect, Dr Weiner - Let's first note that today's
mess derives in no small measure to concepts like "lesser evil-ism," "being practical," and insistence that progressives only vote for "candidates who can win." These ideas have held sway -- and look where they've gotten us.
Your questions are good ones, and anyone claiming to offer Quick 'N Easy answers to them would have to be lying or kidding. Facing a black & terrifying crisis is not easy. But that doesn't mean nothing of value can be said about it.
IMHO, it is extremely harmful to continue nurturing illusions in the Democratic Party. One must see it for what it is -- its makeup, its links to lobbies, its role in preserving the status quo, its unblemished & consistent record of collaborating with the rightwing on an agenda of militarism & corporatism. Similarly, one must rid oneself of illusions about the US political system as a whole. It's not a democracy --it's a plutocracy, & there's a formidable array of forces working to ensure that it stays a plutocracy, with wealth & power concentrating rapidly into ever fewer hands, as time goes on.
A social configuration like this cannot be fixed by "working within the system." The system is clever enough, so that if you stay entirely within it, you have no chance to really change it. It's even developed a mechanism to string people along, getting them to believe they can change things by "working within the system" -- but making certain that such efforts never come to fruition. A major part of that mechanism is called "the Democratic Party." It's useful because it pacifies people, offering them a glimmer of distant hope, without providing any chance of delivering on those hopes.
As long as the 2-party system is all we've got, the vise around us is going to tighten. That's its purpose -- it's an instrument of control. (More precisely, it's the instrument used by the most powerful sections of US society to control the rest of the population -- to make sure they're obedient to ruling class dictates; & to cripple their ability to define, assert -- or even to be fully conscious of -- their own interests). The last 40 years show us where we're headed if the 2-party system remains unchallenged.
It's no use pretending that challenging such a central element of the status quo will be easy or painless. And it's not possible to fight the US plutocracy "at the barricades," in the sense of revolutions of the past. // Yet a broad consciousness of deadly-serious resistance must be developed. We are being ruled by forces which are ruthless, immoral, antidemocratic, and profoundly dangerous; we must develop a consciousness of opposition to this. We can't pretend that institutions (like the Dems & the corporate media) which are bulwarks of the Establishment are "our friends."
As many have pointed out, there's an inherent conflict of interests between the financial oligarchy running the country, and the rest of the population. It's no use pretending this is not the case -- after all, the oligarchy is well aware of it; they view the needs & interests of the general population with contempt and hostility. We should return the favor.
Solving our crisis requires a movement, not a "candidate." The movement must be conscious (and proud) of its opposition to the Establishment. It should not pretend to be part of the Establishment, which is, after all, its oppressor and enemy. The main planks of the movement must be antimilitarism, pro-environment, and support for infrastructure & social services. These things conflict with the interests of the capitalist class -- let's not be shy about recognizing that.
One of your questions was about time: "how long do they envision this (ie, organizing a 3rd party) might take?" We all recognize that Bush may attack Iran in a matter of months -- it would be a surprise if his term ended without an attack. If that happens, there may well be a collapse of the world economy, & it's possible that the world will never really recover from what will follow. So it's possible that it's already too late. // On the other hand, if somehow we are lucky enough to escape this fate, we owe it to ourselves to desist once & for all from the illusions that have allowed our rightwing enemies to force things to this sorry point. We must disenthrall ourselves from the wolves-in-sheep's-clothing of the Dem Party, and move to define & assert our own interests.
If this means challenging basic myths about capitalism, so be it. If it means challenging the 2-party system, and exposing the Dems as frauds, so be it. If it means exploding tired old myths about American "democracy", so be it. We're not going to get anywhere by kidding ourselves. // If expanded public consciousness was developed about social classes, their interests, & policy, & the relationships between them, this would provide "more fertile soil" upon which to build the needed new movement. No, it can't happen within the next few months. But if we keep looking for the Dem Party to come save us, it will NEVER happen.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1101 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 1:59:20 PM
Again,lots of commentary about the mess we're in and how we got there, about which let's just stipulate that we agree. But the "movement"-building of which you speak, which many of us have been trying to do for years/decades now, is a long slog, which could take more years and decades. My original question remains: Until we get to that hoped-for state, what should progressives do in the interim? And, even more specifically, what should we do in November 2008 if we're forced to confront the "lesser of two evils" choice, so that we don't let the Neanderthal GOP candidate slide into the White House, which I hope we all agree would compound our already existing catastrophe?
by
Bernard Weiner (141 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 2:15:59 PM
"Movement building" might take years and/or decades, but "revolution" (including the bloodless kind) can come about overnight.
Perhaps a Cheney/Bush/Rethuglican & Democrat-supported invasion of Iran and the aftermath might be the BEST thing that could happen.
We must simply NOT forgive either the Rethuglicans who start it that mess OR the Democrats who allowed it. THIS would be the moment to educate the American People to resist BOTH parties and find an alternative third party choice.
Oh yes, and I acknowledge that millions of Iranians will die and tens of millions of others around the world will suffer, but let's face it, we CAN NOT STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING, so we should be strategizing to maximize the strategic value of this mistake when it happens.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 2:51:53 PM
Focusing on Nov '08 makes "lesser-evilism" once again the
dominant consideration. The concept does not deserve such centrality. It's an invalid & crippling mode of thought. // Nov '08 will feature two horrendous candidates, prob Hillary vs Rudy. We're already down to the proverbial "Hitler vs Mussolini" scenario, the inevitable endpoint of lesser-evilism style thinking.
It would be more productive to engage in regular discussions with one's circle of friends and acquaintances, as to why an election like that is a fraud & an outrage, than to participate in such an "election" one way or the other. Once you get down to Hillary vs Rudy (or any of the other possible combinations), you've already lost.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1101 comments)
on Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 10:20:36 AM
The Professor is correct in that many Americans can't detect a "dime's worth of difference" between the two majority parties, and that inability has led us to the situation we are now in.
The Republican Party wants to get rid of affirmative action. The Democratic Party wants to get rid of the need for affirmative action. That appears as "not a dime's worth of difference" to the undiscerning, but is a huge difference to most progressives.
The Republican Party wants to get rid of all forms of welfare programs. The Democratic Party wants to get ride of the need for welfare programs. A huge difference.
This nation will survive when millions of Americans learn to see the differences.
by
tabonsell (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 250 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 4:31:52 PM
"The Republican Party wants to get rid of all forms of welfare programs. The Democratic Party wants to get rid of the need for welfare programs. A huge difference."
Let's make that:
"The Republican Party wants to get ridof all forms of welfare programs. The Democratic Partywants gullible voters to believeit wants to get rid of the need for welfare programs. A huge difference."
And, needless to say, while the R's proceed to get rid of what remains of welfare, the D's will roll on their backs & let them do it -- after perhaps passing a non-binding resolution complaining about it. A goodly number of D's will in fact vote with the R's -- just enough to guarantee that the measure passes.
PS - They already gutted most of welfare. That was during the Clinton administration. Clinton is still proud of signing the Gingrichite bill that "ended welfare, as we know it."
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1101 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 5:33:55 PM
You said, " The Democratic Party wants gullible voters to believe it wants to get rid of the need for welfare programs. A huge difference."
Your response is so pathetic it should be ignored by any thinking person.
So Social Security, that greatly reduced poverty among the elderly and retired, is a scam to you.
So unemployment insurance, that enables people to keep functioning during brief bouts of joblessness, is a scam.
So workmens' compensation, that allows people to continue eating while temporarily disabled, is a scam.
So Medicare, that helps most retired elderly Americans avoid bankruptcy because of illness, is a scam.
So Medicaid, that does the same for most low-income people, is a scam.
And I suppose that the Democratic Party fighting for seven decades to keep such programs from being gutted by the right is only playing on the fears of gullible voters as is strengthening and adding to the programs.
Get real and if you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion, contribute nothing.
by
tabonsell (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 250 comments)
on Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 3:18:45 PM
The first rule of criticizing someone is understanding what
that person said. You failed to understand what I said.
I did NOT in any way disparage those social programs.
I said, rather, that what the Democratic Party is about, is NOT defending those important programs, but rather making gullible voters believe that the party will fight to defend them.
I offered as an example Bill Clinton's caving in to Newt Gingrich on "welfare reform" in 1996. This apparently went right over your head.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1101 comments)
on Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 6:15:53 PM
How to light the "Bonfire of the Vanities" in the population and ignite their collective righteous anger at their masters? It is a long slog appealing to the intellect of a mass of people who don't "get it". Something has to occur that is water-cooler conversation on a daily basis. It must evoke strong emotions that resolve people to seek accountability all the way up the ladder; using constitutional law. People have to care deeply. Right from wrong must be readily discernable. There needs to be "indignation" ignited and directed at those (and the system they've created) responsible for the present situation. Where's the oxygen going to come from to fan the flames? I fear people are too ignorant and anesthetized.
by
boomerang (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 229 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 5:42:23 PM
I agree very much with your comment about "water cooler
conversation." You wrote, "Something has to occur that is water-cooler conversation on a daily basis..."
That's just another way of saying that the political consciousness of our people has to be raised, in a broad active way, so that it's part of everyone's life. If the whole thing is left to professional politicians, and the average person's participation is limited to watching an occasional TV debate, reading a newspaper, & voting once every few years, the only possible outcome is just where we're heading now -- permanent war, rising inequality, and undiluted state propaganda in the media.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1101 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 6:06:31 PM
The Dem Party will be taking a giant step toward irrelevance if its 'leadership' doesn't wake up and smell the tar & feathers very soon. It has become increasingly obvious over the last three decades that the movers and shakers who run the DNC don't have a clue how to represent The People; instead, they have concentrated their efforts on fundraising (an exercise fraught with danger and requiring ethical 'compromises' that would make Roosevelt Democrats' heads spin).
Those frightened citizens who signal that they will vote for any 'lesser evil' or 'whoever is electable' undermine any effort to change how the Party operates. The geniuses at the DNC think the answer is to pursue the same strategy as the Republicans and feed at the same trough. It has been a while, however, since their "Team" has won at that game.
What progressives ought to be doing is to stop their whining about the direction the Dems are taking their Party, and to start refusing to vote for the candidates fielded by the DNC's increasingly out-of-touch leadership. It's time for progressives to stop threatening not to vote for any more "lesser evils". The Party 'leaders' always call that bluff and watch as, lemming-like, we march to the polls and cast our votes for whatever mediocrity the powers-that-be nominate.
I wish I had a nickel for every 'progressive' who tells me he'd really like to vote for ______ (fill in the blank with the name of any genuine progressive), but thinks he'd be 'wasting' his vote on someone that the media and the DNC professionals have assured us "can't win". Well, anyone who voted for the "lesser evil" in the last election wasted his vote.
If those who slavishly follow the advice of the Dem Party honchos (and their accomplices among the corporate punditocracy) would, instead, vote for an alternative candidate who genuinely represents their values, it would signal the DNC that we are through bluffing even if it means a victory for the "greater evil". The "greater evil" has emerged victorious in the last two elections, anyway. We've still managed to survive long enough to follow the same grim scenario again in 2008 as we await the 'inevitable' anointing of Hillary Clinton.
We'll continue to get stuck with the same old DLC-style nominees for as long as we fall for the "lesser evil" ploy. It's high time we got off this treadmill and started voting our hopes instead of our fears. Meanwhile we should be directing our energies and resources toward REAL Electoral Reforms, like public financing of elections, simpler ballot access laws, open debates, alternative voting mechanisms (IRV, proportional representation, 'fusion' candidacies, etc.).
New rules that hold out the hope of fair elections might even coax non-voters into participating. There would certainly be a wider range of choices than that offered by either or both 'major parties.
'"The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." — Edward Dowling, Editor and Priest, Chicago Daily News, 28jul41
by
Bill Tower (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 32 comments)
on Monday, November 5, 2007 at 5:57:14 PM
