Since I posted my call two days ago for registered Democrats to re-register as independent voters (and to sign this petition which will be sent to Democratic Party leaders when it's big enough to make an impression), I have received some complaints from progressive Democrats that it risks handing the 2008 election to the Republicans.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Democratic leadership strategy of continuing to fund Bush's War in Iraq, and of keeping impeachment "off the table"--that is, of avoiding a frontal challenge to the two key disasters of this administration, the war and the attack on democratic government and the Constitution--is what threatens to hand the White House and maybe even both houses of Congress to Republicans next year.
It is clear that the reason Democrats won control of House and Senate in November 2006 is that they campaigned on a promise to protect civil liberties and to end the war. That promise brought independents in record numbers across to the Democratic side. But Democratic election strategists don't get this. They still harbor the illusion that unaffiliated voters are middle-of-the-road or conservative-leaning people who only care about so-called wedge issues, not the big issues of our day. In fact, my travels across this country have taught me that the unaffiliated voter is usually someone who is cynical about politics, believes that there is little difference between the two parties, and that he or she is being screwed, by corporations, by government, and by his or her own political leaders.
The sad truth is that the current Democratic Party deserves that opinion. They briefly managed to convince these skeptics that they were better than that, but in office, they have reverted to form, and these voters will not be back in '06.
So what we need to do is give the Democratic Party a jolt. We may never convince them that they need to be more aggressive about the big issues if they want to win over the unaffiliated voters, but we can convince them that they can no longer simply count on the support of the progressive wing of the party, which they have taken for granted since the end of the New Deal.
The way to do this, quickly and unambiguously, is for progressives, enmasse, to resign from the party, officially at the voter registrar's office. If Democratic Party officials see a fall off in Democratic registrations, they will be thrown into a panic--especially if those de-registrations are accompanied by comments, as on this petition, explaining their reasons for resigning.
As I explained earlier, a de-registration campaign will also be powerful because the ones who will notice it first will be local Democratic political officials, who usually face very low-turnout elections and count on using Democratic Party registration information for their campaign and get-out-the-vote mailings and door-to-door efforts. If those lists start to shrink they will positively freak out, and when they learn that it is because progressives are angry, they will send the word to their congressional delegations that something has to be done to placate the alienated progressives.
This is the way things ought to operate, but in the top-down Democratic Party of today, the system has broken down. I was recently at a meeting of the Bucks County (PA) Democratic Committee, invited by a member to give a brief talk in support of a resolution calling on Congress to impeach the president. I asked for a show of hands of who in the room supported impeachment, and nearly every hand went up, but at the end of my presentation, when a member proposed such a resolution, the committee chair refused to consider it, using parliamentary rules to block it. He went further to argue against the idea, saying "We don't want to embarrass our Democratic Congressman, Patrick Murphy," who has said he opposes impeachment.
This is, of course, an ass-backwards notion of how democracy should work. It's the grass roots of the party that should be telling members of Congress how to vote, not the grassroots asking their elected representative what it is okay for them to support.
Progressives have talked for decades about "taking over" control of the Democratic Party, but this has never happened. The closest we came was in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but even then it was only a partial success and in the end the leadership sabotaged the party's own presidential candidate, George McGovern, in 1972. Reforming the party, even if it could be done, is a major project that will take years of concerted effort at the grassroots. We don't have time for that now. With the Bush administration hell-bent on war with Iran, and on gutting democracy and trashing the constitution in favor of executive rule, we need something faster.
Nothing would be faster than having hundreds of thousands of progressive Democratic Party members simply quit the party. In doing that, they would not, in many if not most states, forego their ability to vote in primaries. Nor would they be prevented from voting for a suitable Democratic candidate in November 2008. But they would be putting a real fear in the hearts of Democratic leaders and elected officials that they could no longer be counted on to vote Democratic. And that's the fear we have to engender.
It should be clear by now that until Democratic Party leaders really have to contemplate losing the progressive vote, they are going to play to the right, avoid the big issues, and simply ignore progressives, while undermining their favored candidates.
It's time for action. Quit the Party!
___________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative reporter and columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now out in paperback). His work can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net
I'm impressed with Gravel and Kucinich...I think Kucinich needs to take on the top-tiered candidates so much that I am volunteering for his campaign.
But, however, all of Ralph Nader's prophecies and wisdom on the two-party dictatorship are true. And I can't refute the fact that Dennis would be doing better if he didn't have to be referred to as a Democrat (and this note ignores that we have a rigged system).
by
Kevin Gosztola (193 articles, 103 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 776 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 10:03:39 AM
I no longer see either a democratic OR election process, but rather a plutocratic/corporate selection process:
1. the partisan Supreme Court chose the president in 2000. Is that a constitutional provision?
2. electronic voting is proved hackable, never mind the other nefarious activities conducted as in voter purges, etc.
3. candidates are beholden to their corporate sponsors, not the will of the people
4. the media (based upon my viewing of last night's democratic candidate debate) is dictating our opinion of the candidates, in order of time allocation and quality of questioning: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kuchinich, Gravel.
Recognizing that the system is broken is the first step toward fixing it. Our "democracy," clearly, allows for a dictatorship to arise and the will of the people to be ignored, for laws to be broken, but then made retroactively null and void. WE'VE BEEN WATCHING IT HAPPEN FOR SEVEN YEARS, NOW.
Writing to each other does not address how to fix the problem (though it serves to keep us somewhat sane in being among like minds.) We need to meet and figure out what to do. Our democracy is GONE...financial collapse or another 9/11 and you've got a 'national emergency' with martial law, private mercenaries roaming our streets, Halliburton detention centers...due to an inarticulate idiot issuing his own laws per his whacked out whim...and complicity all around him...and in us, if we don't find a way to change the system...Klip, klop, the paddy wagon's here...
Democracy is incompatible with capitalism...The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein, seer of the future, knowing of the past (HIGHLY recommended reading!)
Susan
by
Susan Guest (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 80 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 10:29:57 AM
I agree with your conclusions but not your strategy. The reason that people should resign from the Democratic Party is not to scare elected officials into changing their voting record, but rather to tell it like it is. The Party--both Parties--have undermined democracy by brainwashing their members to think that it is right and proper to abdicate their individual power and consciousness in favor of the party leadership just to win and stay in power. Democracy can't work this way. The people who are now in office have betrayed their oath of office and shouldn't be allowed to keep their seats even if they get scared, change their mind, and decide to vote differently to keep their seats. What we need really are thinking independent citizens who can recognize honor and integrity in others and then actually work to elect such people to office. If we don't really believe in what we are doing, in what we stand for, then we are really fooling ourselves. We must have the courage of our convictions and the will to keep our honor when we practice our politics. Do not adopt a strategy in order to scare other people into doing our bidding. Adopt a strategy that is aligned with and consistent with integrity and honor... and fight to make what we believe in a reality. That means honoring and voting for people who have the character needed to change this ship that's now clearly heading for the rocks. It's going to take courage and heart to regain the basic decency that our national and international policies were meant to express. Vote for people who you really believe in... look for true leadership... stand for something real. Vote for people who will honor your dreams and remind you of them, even if and when we might forget what they are ourselves.
I don't see anything in Dave's strategy that excludes what you are suggesting - supporting and voting for candidates who support our ideals. I also see it, especially coming from commited democratic constituents, as a sort of fair warning: Hey, OUR party has been derailed by your policies (or lack thereof) and we want to see it reshaped in a vigorous way.
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical...It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." Thomas Jefferson
Cheryl
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 323 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 11:15:46 AM
What I object to is the implication that the goal is to teach them a lesson and then it will be time to come back. I'm saying the reason to register independent is because that's where your consciousness is now. You are an independent person who is looking to support independent candidates because the two party system no longer works. Neither party is democratic in their attitude. If they were then national debates would be open to independents and they would press for voting procedures that encourage more ideas and participation. This duopoly is not working.
by
Mark A. Goldman (80 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 242 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 12:28:21 PM
If the result of, say, 500,000 people resigning enmasse from the Democratic Party were to scare the leadership into defunding the war and starting impeachment hearings, I suspect it would also lead to a different result in the presidential primaries. It might also encourage more progressive candidates to run in primaries for House and Senate, and believe me, if we had a Dodd or better yet, a Kucinich, as Democratic standard bearer in '08, I'd vote for them, even if they were Democrats.
We need to build a people's party, but there is this war right now, and the likelihood of a war with Iran, and the possibility of martial law, too, and your third party won't be ready to compete next November, at least not in any significant way.
I think we need to work on two tracks, and a campaign to encourage progressives to quit the Party is a good stepping stone towards a third party, don't you think. If it also forces the Democrats to move significantly to the left, that would not be a bad thing either, would it?
by
Dave Lindorff (319 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 152 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 1:02:44 PM
You make a good point. I only am concerned that the real war we face is the largely unspoken war on our own democracy. If we have to force our representatives to defend us, they are the wrong representatives. We should always be moving towards greater civil rights and greater justice. And while our representatives are working on that, we should be able to go to work and earn a living. Instead we see rights being taken away and the Constitution being shredded. While members of congress are getting paid to ignore threats to our republic most of us are losing ground trying to defend it.
by
Mark A. Goldman (80 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 242 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 2:33:03 PM
The notion that the Dem Party can be "pressured" into
representing the interests of its grassroots voters -- as opposed to serving the interests of its corporate donors -- this idea is sheer fantasy and people should disabuse themselves of it. Progressives should quit the Dem Party because it is subservient to its donors as an institution -- not because they hope to "send a message" to the Party, begging it to change its stripes.
The Dem Party does not serve its corporate backers simply because it's "gotten a bit confused" & needs to be reminded by its voters of whose interests it should really be fighting for. It serves its corporate backers because in the deepest sense, that's its purpose as an institution. If that were not so (ie, if the party was really intended to "fight for the people," and to oppose corporate hegemony over society), it would be illegal.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1120 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 11:31:39 AM
If quitting the party enmasse forces the dems to take some serious stands like blocking the war, or opening impeachment hearings, this would not be a bad thing, would it? And getting people to quit membership in the dems is a great first step towards building a third party, too, right?
by
Dave Lindorff (319 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 152 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 1:04:45 PM
Every time the democratic party calls me for a donation, I tell them the same thing, no more money from me until they do their job and impeach this president. The only problem I see about leaving the party is primary voting. If we leave it to the die hard dems, Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, she may be anyway. But while I still can, I will vote for Dennis Kucinich and hope that even those that think he doesn't have a chance will do the same. Only then will he have a chance...
by
Judy Ramsey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 80 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 11:52:43 AM
First, you may live in a state like California or Virginia, where you don't need to be registered in a Party to vote in a party's primary. Check with your election officials.
Second, you can quit the party, and then, if you really want to vote against Hillary or for Dennis or Mike, find out the last possible day you need to register before the primary, register Democratic then, cast your vote, and then quit again. There is no limit on the number of times you can change your registration.
I remember when Republicans used to switch to Democrats so they could screw up the primaries by voting for the least electable candidate. Play with it.
by
Dave Lindorff (319 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 152 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 1:07:49 PM
While there are Democrats in congress who lack any progressive principles, there are many others who deserve our support. The Democratic Party is not even close to having the repellent core that it had in the 1950's and 1960's before the southern Democrats left for the Republican Party (where they quite reasonably felt more at home). Much of the dissatisfaction with the party stems from the fact that it lacks a uniform voice, but instead includes different factions with different ideas. But is this not a characteristic of any party that stands to win an election?
While mass defections from the party might make some Democratic leaders sweat, it would only serve to remove the progressive voices from the party and make matters worse. I would prefer to see active participation in the primaries by as many people as possible. It would also send a great message if someone like Kucinich or Edwards were to win decisively, despite the media message that these are not viable candidates.
However, if you are determined to leave the Democratic party, I suggest joining the Republican party so that you can vote in the primary for a spoiler candidate like Ron Paul. You don't have to vote for a Republican in the general election just because you are a registered Republican.
by
PrMaine (8 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 283 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 12:05:13 PM
Quitting the party is telling party leaders that they can no longer count on progressive support without earning it.
But if there are candidates in Congress you like--say Kucinich or Waters for example--the fact that you quit the party doesn't preclude you from voting for them. Nor does it prevent them from working to earn your vote. In fact, the very fact that you quit the party will make them work even harder to earn your vote.
It's a win-win proposition.
by
Dave Lindorff (319 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 152 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 1:10:44 PM
I don't know the rules everywhere in the country, but I have lived and voted in eight different states. In only one of those states was it possible to vote in a party primary if one was not a registered member of that party. Even in that one exceptional case it was not technically possible to vote without being a member, but that state allowed changing parties just minutes before voting.
by
PrMaine (8 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 283 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 2:57:02 PM
I liked the idea of disasociating with the Democratic leadership that is soft on immigration, somewhat vocal against the war but not really able to really do anything and big on taking all the Corporate money that they can.
I like Ron Paul and would vote for him in the primary if I was a Republican. I have no idea who i will vote for in the end if it is left up to the Corporate media to pick the darlings.
They are all for sale and I oppose that thought. Some should be Impeached others should be charged with Treason. The Sponsors of our election choose to disregard that thought so their paid servants will continue to do their bidding. "We The People" just can't get no representation.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 272 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 4:42:46 PM
David says, "...the unaffiliated voter is usually someone who is cynical about politics, believes that there is little difference between the two parties, and that he or she is being screwed, by corporations, by government, and by his or her own political leaders." SPOT ON, Dave!
Hillary Clinton exposed herself as the 11th Republican presidential candidate in last nights "debate." Not only did she vote for the Kyl/Lieberman sense of the Senate non-binding resolution that would give Dick Cheney and George Bush free reign to attack Iran, her answer that would keep troops in Iraq through 2013 and indefinately beyond proves she is completely aligned with the Cheney/Bush strategy of eternal war to maintain power. It's time to stop accepting her corporatist, so-called "centrist," DLC, Carville (Maitlan)/Begala/Ickes/Clinton cabal of insurgent neocon strategists, and her nomination by the press and pundits as inevitable. Not one vote has been cast, not one primary held, so nothing is decided until we say so.
I'm as disgusted, disenfranchised, and done with the Democratic Party as is Dave Lindorff with this exception. I will stay in the party through the primaries. I will learn the tools currently being rolled out by the DNC for grassroots organization, activism, and mobilization. Then, if Hillary is the nominee I will help organize the movement to resign en masse from the Democratic Party in favor of becoming forever independent. To be effective this must be done with as much publicity as possible with as many people as possible and as much media coverage as possible. Without that movement quality as part of the mass resignations we will be reduced to disgruntled nutbags!
We now have only four viable Democratic candidates, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson in that order. Gravel is too cranky, crazy, and accepting of irresponsibly abusing his credit cards. Obama has morphed into an "insider" who wants to win more than he wants to speak truth to power and has become just another politician. There is hope for Edwards. But, until he changes his universal healthcare position he proves he is still in the pocket of the corporatists.
There is still utility in working with the Democratic Party. I'm not a "proud" Democrat or loyal to the party. To be loyal to this party would put you in the same category of 'true believer' that is no less dangerous than the neocons of the Republican Party. Still, I'm not ready to throw in the towel, yet. But, it's off my shoulder, in my hand and my arm is cocked.
by
Mike Shelby (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 12:38:40 PM
You may not need to be in the party in your state in order to vote in the primary, so you should check that out before you insist on hanging in there. After the primary is too late. We have a war to stop and impeachment hearings to kick-start.
by
Dave Lindorff (319 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 152 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 1:13:01 PM
What is missing in this conversation is the fact that the political system is broken. How can a person who may encompass everything we want possibly win? We all know it takes money, and a lot of it, in order to campaign. Some are working for Clean Elections, IRV, etc, to even the playing field, but these are all what I call part of the "100 Year Plan." We don't have the time as we are on the brink of WW III, martial law, and the end of our Constitutional freedoms. This isn't "business as usual," folks. If we are still looking for a political solution, we are coming to a dead end. A national General Strike is the only way to put the brakes on the machine as we are about to drop off the precipice.
by
maryrose (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 12:43:01 PM
Your threat gains traction if you are prepared to vote Republican. Your protest vote is then worth two Dem votes because they not only lose your vote, but you negate someone else's.
Of course you have to be pretty upset with the Dems to do something unprincipled like that.
by
cam (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 1:47:45 PM
If this movement does nothing else, it promotes a discussion of what used to be a taboo subject. Defection. Obviously, if enough people mutiny, they can take over the ship, and discussion is the beginning of that. We see this party pandering to the forces of evil--the warmakers, the imprisoners, the grafters--and we're no longer able to tolerate it. It's another slap in the face from a crowd of sanctimonious hacks, and you have to be pretty weak to accept it over and over.
by
Steve Fournier (31 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 41 comments)
on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 2:32:55 PM
