Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
1 comment

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Single Issue Voting: A Thought Experiment on the 2012 Election

By Rob Hager  Posted by George Flower (about the submitter)     Permalink       (Page 6 of 6 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Funny 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H4 4/5/13

opednews.com

The 1912 platform, and those that followed in the 1924 and 1948 Progressive Party campaigns, show that as a political identity the term "Progressive" has more valuable and consistent content over a substantial period of American history than either "Democrat" or "Republican" does. In the New Gilded Age the Progressive program is particularly relevant since it was originally formulated, and achieved significant success, as a response to the same problem of plutocracy presented by the first Gilded Age. See Sam Pizzigati, The Rich Don't Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970 (2012).

Progressive structural reforms helped set the stage for the extended New Deal era. But the term "Progressive Democrat" is an oxymoron. As this article suggests, one may vote for either of the two major parties without losing the identity of being a Progressive voter. But it is impossible to be a partisan Democrat and also to be a Progressive in the sense the term is used here. Historically Progressives put principle above party, and succeeded by doing so. Such Progressive principles included, 1) enhancing the tools for democratic control of government, 2) a preference for enduring structural reform over more easily coopted spending programs such as typified the New Deal, and 3) clearly defined opposition to plutocratic control of government. As T. Roosevelt s aid, "property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth."

This article needs a term to describe voters who would prioritize above party the defense of democracy from overthrow by plutocrats, and would support fundamental structural reform rather than an easily coopted spending program (e.g., FENA). Rather than invent a new term that has not been misappropriated by the Democratic Party, it seems preferable to recover -- if only for purposes of this article -- the most historically accurate term along with the non-partisan meaning it had during most of the late 19th and 20th centuries. 

The term "liberal" remains for describing Democrats who might support some or all progressive programs, but are more partisan than principled in their voting, and resist identifying plutocrats as the opposition. This is the connotation the term acquired during the New Deal, which now informs a kind of progressive epithet as in Chris Hedges' description: "the liberal elite, has always been willing to sacrifice integrity and truth for power." To avoid turning a necessary footnote into a separate article, useful further discussion on the distinction between these two terms can be pursued here, here, here, and here.  

2 The term "neoliberal" may be even more controversial than the term "progressive." Various links where the term is used in this article provide information about the concept. It is used here to mean the reverse of progressive, policies that elevate property, or the market, as the "master of the commonwealth": accordingly  anti-democratic, and pro-plutocrat. After the Great Recession, "progressive" and "neoliberal" define the two opposed sets of options for public policy, one democratic the other plutocratic.

3 If the Electoral College were taken into account to focus SIV   organizing efforts just in battleground states, then the number required to swing the 2012 election would have been considerably lower still. Rather than 2.5 million votes nationwide, switching just 6% of that amount, 150,000 votes in five states, would have swung the election to Romney. Intensive use of Victory Lab techniques would make this targeted strategy even more plausibly within the reach of progressives.

An earlier version of this article was published by Truthout.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Editor

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

12 Essential Elements of Strategy to Get Money Outta Politics (MOP)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

$6 billion was spent this election season not on... by George Flower on Friday, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:55:43 PM