What to do about Obama?

[Uraniun235]

People who would pursue "principles" without regard for the realistic outcomes of their actions are generally called "fanatics". Right here in this thread, we have people saying that they cannot vote for Obama because of their "progressive" principles, yet they know full well that:

1) A Republican victory in the election would be a catastrophe for the country.
2) It's fairy-tale fantasy to believe that a "true progressive" could get nominated and then go on to win the general election, in a country where 45% of the population still thinks evolution is a hoax.

Surely they must either be delusional or they must realize that a failure to support Obama would probably lead to a Republican victory. Therefore, it's time to acknowledge that people who say such things are acting as fanatics.

I don't think a (highly unlikely) string of several Democratic administrations would be likely to do much (if any) better than the present administration; I think the party is too corrupt and beholden to the monied interests I despise in order to effect significant change, as well as being utterly unable to rally and present any greater message than "we're not the Republicans".

Meanwhile, the Republican party has mastered the art of totally blocking anything they don't want to get through Congress, even when they're the minority party in both houses, and of course their publicity machine is supremely adept at shaping the narrative among the public. In other words, the Republicans are likely to ruin the country regardless of who is in the White House. Besides which, I tend to assume that the general direction of this administration is pretty unsustainable as is, so the threat of "the Repubs will ruin the country" doesn't mean much to me when Democratic victory appears likely to be mostly the same thing over a longer period of time.



I've already admitted that my own defection is basically worthless in any larger sense; not only do I live in a state likely to go Democratic with or without me, but my state is not even particularly pivotal in the general election (and next to worthless in the primary). That said, I think people should be fully aware of the actions and policies they are signalling approval for when they vote for Obama next year, and I think they should be aware that they are playing into a Democratic strategy of "we can literally do whatever the fuck we want as long as we're at least one step to the left of the Republicans."

[Justice]

I'm all well and fine with a primary challenger to Obama... but I'm at a loss to think of anyone who would prove to be a better candidate. Is there a Democratic Governor (As anyone in the House or Senate are basically toxic at this point) that is so great that he makes up for losing all the advantages of being an incumbent?

[Elfdart]

People who would pursue "principles" without regard for the realistic outcomes of their actions are generally called "fanatics". Right here in this thread, we have people saying that they cannot vote for Obama because of their "progressive" principles, yet they know full well that:

1) A Republican victory in the election would be a catastrophe for the country.
2) It's fairy-tale fantasy to believe that a "true progressive" could get nominated and then go on to win the general election, in a country where 45% of the population still thinks evolution is a hoax.

Surely they must either be delusional or they must realize that a failure to support Obama would probably lead to a Republican victory. Therefore, it's time to acknowledge that people who say such things are acting as fanatics.

There is a third possibility: If a relative adult in the GOP (Huntsman, Christie, Romney) wins and the Democrats hold the Senate and/or retake the House then letting Obama go down in flames might actually be better than reelecting him. First, in substance there isn't that much difference between them. Second, if a Republican tries to molest Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, Democrats in Congress will oppose it; but when Obama does it, they go along with it. Third (and I admit this is a long shot), maybe the next Democrat who runs for President will think twice before deliberately and repeatedly knifing his own supporters in the back.

[Elfdart]

In other words, Obama is actually overperforming relative to the generic Democrat brand. Dump him, and your chances of winning the election go down.

I don't get why people think that a primary challenge would work. The only times it's ever been tried, it's just handed the election to the other party, and it doesn't really replace the people calling the shots within the party. It basically assumes that the problems originated with Obama, and that they'd go away if Obama did. I guess that people just assume Obama is mind-controlling the whole DNC to comply with his orders or something.

Primarying works as a strategy, not a tactic. A single, one-off primary will likely throw the election. A primary challenge to too-conservative candidates every two years (hah, to-too-two), regardless of the electoral consequences, will pull the entire party to the left. It will also slowly replace the party elite with more liberal people if it continues over decades. That's how the far-right made the political dialogue this conservative in the first place.

That's why the NRA, the Teabaggers, Grover Norquist and other right-wing interests are so successful. They are willing to lose elections here and there if it means making an example of someone who is not on board with their agenda. Compare this with Trumka at the AFL-CIO, who supports Dems unconditionally, no matter how many times they refuse to so much as try to support his agenda.

[MKSheppard]

Didn't the NRA back harry reid anyway in his recent Senate battle over the Republican?

[SirNitram]

They came close to it, but from what I recall, the right-wing echo chamber turned it up to 11 and shrieked until they backed down, not endorsing anyone in the race. Redstate.com was a big part, I think. So glad they hired the creator and chief rabble-rouser on CNN, mm?

[SirNitram]

People who would pursue "principles" without regard for the realistic outcomes of their actions are generally called "fanatics". Right here in this thread, we have people saying that they cannot vote for Obama because of their "progressive" principles, yet they know full well that:

1) A Republican victory in the election would be a catastrophe for the country.
2) It's fairy-tale fantasy to believe that a "true progressive" could get nominated and then go on to win the general election, in a country where 45% of the population still thinks evolution is a hoax.

Surely they must either be delusional or they must realize that a failure to support Obama would probably lead to a Republican victory. Therefore, it's time to acknowledge that people who say such things are acting as fanatics.

There is a third possibility: If a relative adult in the GOP (Huntsman, Christie, Romney) wins and the Democrats hold the Senate and/or retake the House then letting Obama go down in flames might actually be better than reelecting him. First, in substance there isn't that much difference between them. Second, if a Republican tries to molest Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, Democrats in Congress will oppose it; but when Obama does it, they go along with it. Third (and I admit this is a long shot), maybe the next Democrat who runs for President will think twice before deliberately and repeatedly knifing his own supporters in the back.

This requires something that lacks evidence: That Democrats will react to lose by going in any direction but further right. Furthurmore, do you honestly think these relatively low-looney fuckers would not make things worse, just because they aren't as enthusiasticly against women's rights and for the conservative Jesus?

[Lonestar]

Didn't the NRA back harry reid anyway in his recent Senate battle over the Republican?

I remember when the VFW-PAC backed a bunch of Democrats during the 2010 elections(noting correctly that there wasn't a Democrat in Congress that was anti-vet and that an incumbent is always better than a new guy if he meets your requirements), and the wider VFW shrieked and howled about it.

[Surlethe]

Constant primaries only work if you can reasonably enter the elite in the first place. The Republican party shifted rightwards and became more aggressive because of the Reagan revolution and because of Newt Gingrich and his cohorts actively seeking to make it so. They didn't gain power by primary challenges, they got it because they were elected and then seized power within the House, in the process seriously damaging its operations.

No, the Republican party shifted rightwards and became more aggressive because Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. The roots of the Republican resurgence go back to the 1950s, and the first expression was the nomination of Goldwater to run for president. The party has been moving right since the New Deal coalition split, and one tool of that rightward move has been primary elections -- the conservative faithful zealously prosecuting RINOs.

Now model movement to the top of the party as a Darwinian survival process: low-ranking candidates for state and national offices spawn every two years with random beliefs. The ones who survive move to the top. In a climate with thirty or forty years of constant ideological rightward pressure, it's no surprise that Gingrich and his cohort actively moved to the right. There's no reason the opposite couldn't work (in fact, one could argue that the opposite process pulled the country to the left during the progressive era -- think about the pressure presidential candidates felt when Debs ran with the socialist party and gained historic proportions of the vote).

[Surlethe]

Primarying works as a strategy, not a tactic. A single, one-off primary will likely throw the election. A primary challenge to too-conservative candidates every two years (hah, to-too-two), regardless of the electoral consequences, will pull the entire party to the left. It will also slowly replace the party elite with more liberal people if it continues over decades. That's how the far-right made the political dialogue this conservative in the first place.

That's why the NRA, the Teabaggers, Grover Norquist and other right-wing interests are so successful. They are willing to lose elections here and there if it means making an example of someone who is not on board with their agenda. Compare this with Trumka at the AFL-CIO, who supports Dems unconditionally, no matter how many times they refuse to so much as try to support his agenda.

Hell, when they got started the right threw an entire presidential election. There's no way Goldwater could ever have beaten Johnson, even after Johnson signed the CRA, but it sure as hell sent a message to the party elite, especially Nixon, about what the party base wanted. That paid off four years later, too (didn't hurt that Kennedy was assassinated and Humphreys had the personality of a mushroom).

[Bakustra]

This requires something that lacks evidence: That Democrats will react to lose by going in any direction but further right. Furthurmore, do you honestly think these relatively low-looney fuckers would not make things worse, just because they aren't as enthusiasticly against women's rights and for the conservative Jesus?

So your position depends on the Democratic party remaining eternally in power to keep it from sliding any further right, and you ignored what I posted earlier about the question of whether there is any real difference between the two parties in screwing the nation. Yet it is the people who think that the system needs to change who are the impractical dreamers and the irrational fanatics. Madness.

Constant primaries only work if you can reasonably enter the elite in the first place. The Republican party shifted rightwards and became more aggressive because of the Reagan revolution and because of Newt Gingrich and his cohorts actively seeking to make it so. They didn't gain power by primary challenges, they got it because they were elected and then seized power within the House, in the process seriously damaging its operations.

No, the Republican party shifted rightwards and became more aggressive because Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. The roots of the Republican resurgence go back to the 1950s, and the first expression was the nomination of Goldwater to run for president. The party has been moving right since the New Deal coalition split, and one tool of that rightward move has been primary elections -- the conservative faithful zealously prosecuting RINOs.

Now model movement to the top of the party as a Darwinian survival process: low-ranking candidates for state and national offices spawn every two years with random beliefs. The ones who survive move to the top. In a climate with thirty or forty years of constant ideological rightward pressure, it's no surprise that Gingrich and his cohort actively moved to the right. There's no reason the opposite couldn't work (in fact, one could argue that the opposite process pulled the country to the left during the progressive era -- think about the pressure presidential candidates felt when Debs ran with the socialist party and gained historic proportions of the vote).

So what you're saying is that there was no ideological shift post-Watergate, then? Because it seems odd to suggest that Richard Nixon was effectively a conservative president, when he enacted and supported policies significantly to the left of Clinton or Obama, the post-Reagan Democratic presidents. While I agree that the Civil Rights Act was the ultimate trigger, I don't think that its effects on the political process became that severe until after Nixon and Ford.

Also, prosecuting "DINOs" would send centrists over to the Republican side, much as liberal Republicans largely left the party, so I don't think it would be workable. Producing pressure from both sides would probably create a hellish political environment with three parties, each holding roughly about a third of the vote, and no way to form a coalition government that had any authority. I don't think that your method is workable under the current system.

[Darth Wong]

People keep assuming that if we let the Republicans drag the country far to the right, then everyone (the Democrats, the American people) will see how foolish the centrism was, and learn their lesson. The problem is that this has already happened once: from 2000 to 2008, George W. Bush dragged the country far to the right. The Democrats, coming off 8 years of centrist politics under Bill Clinton, did not react by rediscovering their liberal roots; they just tacked farther right to keep up with the rightward slide that we saw throughout the entire culture. The American people did not seem to learn their lesson either; despite the abject failure of George W. Bush's economic policies, most Americans still cling to the philosophical underpinnings of those policies. So why would it work better this time around?

I personally tend to blame the media. The media itself promotes a lot of right-wing ideas, and by that, I'm not just talking about the news media: I'm talking about the entertainment media. It's not as if politicians have dragged the country kicking and screaming to the right: the country was sliding to the right anyway, and politicians rode that wave. Hell, we've seen a dramatic right-ward shift in American culture in just the last decade, before our very eyes. I still remember when Americans would vehemently deny that American soldiers would ever torture anyone. It didn't take long for that debate to shift to "that's not really torture", and then to "torture is perfectly acceptable in the name of national security". And why not? Hollywood has shown heroic cops and soldiers using grossly unconstitutional tactics to Defend Our Way Of Life over and over and over.

[Bakustra]

That is not what I am assuming. Would you mind laying out what you believe my position to be? I don't think we can really communicate effectively if we are shadowboxing, figuratively speaking.

[Simon_Jester]

So what you're saying is that there was no ideological shift post-Watergate, then? Because it seems odd to suggest that Richard Nixon was effectively a conservative president, when he enacted and supported policies significantly to the left of Clinton or Obama, the post-Reagan Democratic presidents. While I agree that the Civil Rights Act was the ultimate trigger, I don't think that its effects on the political process became that severe until after Nixon and Ford.

Just because the shift hadn't become pronounced yet doesn't mean it wasn't there. In Nixon's day, the conservative trend in the Republican Party was still mostly at the level of voter mobilization (Southern Strategy).

It wasn't until the '70s created a perception among conservatives that the nation was faltering economically because of corruption and the Great Society agenda running amok that the slide to the right could really express itself among national electoral results.

The big inflection point there would be Reagan beating Bush Senior in the 1980 primary, I think; Bush Senior was still to a large extent a reflection of the old New England Republican establishment.

Also, prosecuting "DINOs" would send centrists over to the Republican side, much as liberal Republicans largely left the party, so I don't think it would be workable. Producing pressure from both sides would probably create a hellish political environment with three parties, each holding roughly about a third of the vote, and no way to form a coalition government that had any authority. I don't think that your method is workable under the current system.

If it presented a sharp, two-party alternative where you could side with the party of "get people back to work and tax fat cats" or the party of Tea... well, I dunno. Hard to say what would happen, so I'm not going to deny what you say.

[Darth Wong]

That is not what I am assuming. Would you mind laying out what you believe my position to be? I don't think we can really communicate effectively if we are shadowboxing, figuratively speaking.

Why are you assuming that I am speaking of you specifically?

[Coop D'etat]

So what you're saying is that there was no ideological shift post-Watergate, then? Because it seems odd to suggest that Richard Nixon was effectively a conservative president, when he enacted and supported policies significantly to the left of Clinton or Obama, the post-Reagan Democratic presidents. While I agree that the Civil Rights Act was the ultimate trigger, I don't think that its effects on the political process became that severe until after Nixon and Ford.

Also, prosecuting "DINOs" would send centrists over to the Republican side, much as liberal Republicans largely left the party, so I don't think it would be workable. Producing pressure from both sides would probably create a hellish political environment with three parties, each holding roughly about a third of the vote, and no way to form a coalition government that had any authority. I don't think that your method is workable under the current system.

From my read of history, 1964 was the inflection point for leftist politics in the United States with a very strong Democratic coalition that could control all the branches of government and dominant the national discussion which ended up culimating in the civil rights act. From that point the US began swinging rightward, but its a very slow process. Thus in order to get into power Nixon had to be more moderate than Regean who was probably more moderate than Bush despite his post facto
canonization by the far right.

During his time though, Nixon was considered fairly right wing for national politics, certainly more so than Eisenhower was. Its in retrospect that he appears moderate, which is to be expected from the leader of a trend. He's also the godfather of the modern Republican coalition, starting the process of bringing in Southern conservatives and social conservatives to replace the moderate, Rockerfeller types that made the rightward trajectory possible.

[Bakustra]

That is not what I am assuming. Would you mind laying out what you believe my position to be? I don't think we can really communicate effectively if we are shadowboxing, figuratively speaking.

Why are you assuming that I am speaking of you specifically?

Well, I would assume that you would be conversing rather than monologuing, and your earlier post labeled anyone who had decided not to vote for Obama a fanatic, and so I assumed that you were continuing in that vein, which would therefore mean that your post was addressing myself and anyone else arguing against voting for Obama. If that is not the case, then say so, but I am very puzzled either way.

[Surlethe]

No, the Republican party shifted rightwards and became more aggressive because Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. The roots of the Republican resurgence go back to the 1950s, and the first expression was the nomination of Goldwater to run for president. The party has been moving right since the New Deal coalition split, and one tool of that rightward move has been primary elections -- the conservative faithful zealously prosecuting RINOs.

Now model movement to the top of the party as a Darwinian survival process: low-ranking candidates for state and national offices spawn every two years with random beliefs. The ones who survive move to the top. In a climate with thirty or forty years of constant ideological rightward pressure, it's no surprise that Gingrich and his cohort actively moved to the right. There's no reason the opposite couldn't work (in fact, one could argue that the opposite process pulled the country to the left during the progressive era -- think about the pressure presidential candidates felt when Debs ran with the socialist party and gained historic proportions of the vote).

So what you're saying is that there was no ideological shift post-Watergate, then? Because it seems odd to suggest that Richard Nixon was effectively a conservative president, when he enacted and supported policies significantly to the left of Clinton or Obama, the post-Reagan Democratic presidents. While I agree that the Civil Rights Act was the ultimate trigger, I don't think that its effects on the political process became that severe until after Nixon and Ford.

No, I'm not saying there was no ideological shift post-Watergate. I'm saying that the shift rightward began in the '60s and has continued through today. Nixon was conservative in his time; he would be considered a socialist now.

Also, prosecuting "DINOs" would send centrists over to the Republican side, much as liberal Republicans largely left the party, so I don't think it would be workable. Producing pressure from both sides would probably create a hellish political environment with three parties, each holding roughly about a third of the vote, and no way to form a coalition government that had any authority. I don't think that your method is workable under the current system.

Well, either the progressive base prosecutes the DINOs and pulls the party left, or it decides it's okay with no effective national representation outside of a Senator or two from New England and a handful of Representatives from coastal cities. I'm not seeing a useful third alternative.

[Bakustra]

Or they could work towards electoral/governmental reform into a system that doesn't fail to represent large segments of the population no matter what! That would be more workable in the long run than relying on gaining and holding control of the Democratic party to, at best, create a gulf between the two parties to hold all the centrists, or more likely hand off political dominance to the Republicans as they grab up centrist votes.

EDIT: I mean, this would only be workable if you assumed that the people in control of the Republican party were legitimately far enough right to not try to court centrist voters. Which would necessitate more concerted efforts on the left and right to dethrone their parties, and if you can do that, you could probably alter the political system to something that's more representative.

[Surlethe]

Or they could work towards electoral/governmental reform into a system that doesn't fail to represent large segments of the population no matter what! That would be more workable in the long run than relying on gaining and holding control of the Democratic party to, at best, create a gulf between the two parties to hold all the centrists, or more likely hand off political dominance to the Republicans as they grab up centrist votes.

How do you reform the entire system of government in your favor without holding any power?

EDIT: I mean, this would only be workable if you assumed that the people in control of the Republican party were legitimately far enough right to not try to court centrist voters. Which would necessitate more concerted efforts on the left and right to dethrone their parties, and if you can do that, you could probably alter the political system to something that's more representative.

If the Republicans are willing to court centrist voters, then you start dragging the Republican party back toward the center.

[Bakustra]

You need power, obviously, but that power should come from convincing the public that reform is necessary. Asking that the people who benefit from the current system the most simply abandon it is ridiculous. Working within the system does you little good unless you achieve unrealistic levels of control over it.

The Republican and Democratic parties are not currently so different that the Republicans changing up their message to be slightly more welcoming would mean a major shift in the party platforms. I mean, how do you think the Republican party would shift in its positions if it incorporated centrist Democrats into its party? They would probably be less accommodating to the Tea Party, but they're not exactly lining up for Tea Party positions right now.

[SirNitram]

This requires something that lacks evidence: That Democrats will react to lose by going in any direction but further right. Furthurmore, do you honestly think these relatively low-looney fuckers would not make things worse, just because they aren't as enthusiasticly against women's rights and for the conservative Jesus?

So your position depends on the Democratic party remaining eternally in power to keep it from sliding any further right, and you ignored what I posted earlier about the question of whether there is any real difference between the two parties in screwing the nation. Yet it is the people who think that the system needs to change who are the impractical dreamers and the irrational fanatics. Madness.

I suppose if you spin it like that, it would sound crazy. Of course, since reaction to the stick is bad, use the carrot and attempt to reprogram.

As for 'any real difference'. I think the GBL's would disagree, having gotten rights the past three years.

[D.Turtle]

I think that there is a very strong and large disconnect between the political elite in the US and the "people" with regards to things like tax policy, etc. While there has been some movement to the right in those areas in the popular perception, it is by no means as extreme as the movement has been in the political class.

Things like ending the Bush tax cuts, spending priorities, not cutting government spending, government taking a larger role in health care, and so on are all supported by large minorities or majorities in the population. In political circles they are almost unsupported.

Its just that there doesn't seem a way for this "silent majority" to implement their politics.

[Simon_Jester]

One thing to point out is that Obama got elected on the pretense of being a fairly far-left candidate. Granted he did make a pretty serious effort to appear as all things to all people (which, in hindsight, I should have noticed more, and which some people warned the collective 'us' about). But most people who voted for him seem to have been looking for a more drastic change from Bush-era policies than we actually got. And that did give him an advantage over other candidates who were viewed by the base as less progressive- like Clinton.

There's not necessarily much that can be done about that in 2012, but the dynamic is going to play a role in the 2016 and subsequent elections, I think.

[TheHammer]

People keep assuming that if we let the Republicans drag the country far to the right, then everyone (the Democrats, the American people) will see how foolish the centrism was, and learn their lesson. The problem is that this has already happened once: from 2000 to 2008, George W. Bush dragged the country far to the right. The Democrats, coming off 8 years of centrist politics under Bill Clinton, did not react by rediscovering their liberal roots; they just tacked farther right to keep up with the rightward slide that we saw throughout the entire culture. The American people did not seem to learn their lesson either; despite the abject failure of George W. Bush's economic policies, most Americans still cling to the philosophical underpinnings of those policies. So why would it work better this time around?

Its for exactly that reason that I keep trying to dispell the notion of a "protest vote" for a liberal third party candidate being any good whatsoever. All it will do is make the damage done by a Republican that much harder to reverse. The only prudent course of action is to dig in, hold the line, and hope Obama does more with a second term. If he doesn't, then at least you aren't digging yourself out of such a large hole when you put together candidates for the next election.

I personally tend to blame the media. The media itself promotes a lot of right-wing ideas, and by that, I'm not just talking about the news media: I'm talking about the entertainment media. It's not as if politicians have dragged the country kicking and screaming to the right: the country was sliding to the right anyway, and politicians rode that wave. Hell, we've seen a dramatic right-ward shift in American culture in just the last decade, before our very eyes. I still remember when Americans would vehemently deny that American soldiers would ever torture anyone. It didn't take long for that debate to shift to "that's not really torture", and then to "torture is perfectly acceptable in the name of national security". And why not? Hollywood has shown heroic cops and soldiers using grossly unconstitutional tactics to Defend Our Way Of Life over and over and over.

I can agree with that to an extent, but I'd say it was actually 9/11 that was the biggest factor in the shift. It was the feeling that the "American way of life" was under constant threat, and needed to be defended at all costs. The entertainment and news media simply played into that feeling.