What to do about Obama?

[Bakustra]

Bakustra, I saw Dennis Kucinich arguing for a Constitutional amendment mandating campaign finance come from only public sources. (Ironically, that message came to me with a note asking for a donation to his campaign.)

Do you think that would help the problem?

Yes. That would resolve one of the major problems with the system as it currently stands. The other part of it would probably necessitate subsidized public advertising for candidates in some form, but that's something that could be worked out. Now, if only we had two hundred more Kuciniches handy.

Of course, the problem with getting a constitutional amendment through is that it would necessitate a lot of political capital and doom people in marginal areas who supported it unless it got moved through quickly. Which is why I feel that working within the system is largely a nonstarter for reforms on that level, but that's just my personal opinion.

[Lord Zentei]

I'm sorry that I'm not advocating insinuating oneself into the corridors of power and then ruling via bamboozling and misleading the public for as long as you can. After all, that is what the current system effectively is, and what you are suggesting should be done (as opposed to Nitram, who suggests simply voting for Democratic candidates regardless). Or perhaps you will only be satisfied with names, dates, a specific timetable, and a mission statement, in which case I kindly invite you to jump in front of a bus.

No, what I'm asking you to provide is some specific kind of overall strategy, as opposed to vague statements that are basically "create a new grass-roots party", since that doesn't actually say anything and third parties have a pretty dismal performance record.

As far as SirNitram's position is concerned, as far as I can see, it's to point out that Democrats don't necessarily always shift to the right if they lose an election.

In any case, if you can create a grassroots movement to create a new party from scratch, you might also create one to force the Democrats towards your views. At the end of the day, they're politicians, and so depend on votes as much as donations.

Of course, the problem with getting a constitutional amendment through is that it would necessitate a lot of political capital and doom people in marginal areas who supported it unless it got moved through quickly. Which is why I feel that working within the system is largely a nonstarter for reforms on that level, but that's just my personal opinion.

See, the problem is that if you don't work within the system, then how are you going to get reforms such as a constitutional amendment passed? If you are going to rely on third parties to do this, then you can't get this done without reforms succeeding on some level to begin with.

[Bakustra]

I'm sorry that I'm not advocating insinuating oneself into the corridors of power and then ruling via bamboozling and misleading the public for as long as you can. After all, that is what the current system effectively is, and what you are suggesting should be done (as opposed to Nitram, who suggests simply voting for Democratic candidates regardless). Or perhaps you will only be satisfied with names, dates, a specific timetable, and a mission statement, in which case I kindly invite you to jump in front of a bus.

No, what I'm asking you to provide is some specific kind of overall strategy, as opposed to vague statements that are basically "create a new grass-roots party", since that doesn't actually say anything and third parties have a pretty dismal performance record.

As far as SirNitram's position is concerned, as far as I can see, it's to point out that Democrats don't necessarily always shift to the right if they lose an election.

In any case, if you can create a grassroots movement to create a new party from scratch, you might also create one to force the Democrats towards your views. At the end of the day, they're politicians, and so depend on votes as much as donations.

What do you mean by specifics? I'm reminded of a Doonesbury strip about the 1980 John Anderson campaign where they ask for details about his budget plan and he starts rattling off the names of employees who would be fired from defense contractors. But the overall plan would be to create a grassroots movement, like the Prohibition and Civil Rights movements, which operates outside of the current party structure rather than within it, only focused on removing the major sources of corruption in national politics. I'm sorry I can't give you anything more specific than that. My goal partywise is not to get a third party in to win power or win the presidency, which is where such parties traditionally aim, but to get sufficient people into Congress to disrupt it and force it into making changes. That requires much fewer wins than gaining power would, and all you need to really fuck the other parties over is to win a handful or less of Senate or House seats to render no party with a single majority, as long as you can win in swing or both Republican and Democratic states and the election is a close one.

You are pretty blind if you think that "This requires something that lacks evidence: That Democrats will react to lose by going in any direction but further right." means anything other than what it says: that Democrats will shift further right if they lose an election. This was as a counter to the idea of protest votes.

Finally, why do you think that the two are mutually exclusive? The idea is to get things done by threatening the parties into getting them done.

Of course, the problem with getting a constitutional amendment through is that it would necessitate a lot of political capital and doom people in marginal areas who supported it unless it got moved through quickly. Which is why I feel that working within the system is largely a nonstarter for reforms on that level, but that's just my personal opinion.

See, the problem is that if you don't work within the system, then how are you going to get reforms such as a constitutional amendment passed? If you are going to rely on third parties to do this, then you can't get this done without reforms succeeding on some level to begin with.

Prohibition. The temperance movement successfully, without relying on primary challenges or submitting to the DNC/RNC, managed to get an amendment passed over a specific issue that was relatively unpopular. Meanwhile, anti-corruption laws would be far more popular now than banning alcohol was in the 1920s. What they did was put pressure on the system from outside. The Civil Rights movement did the same thing. I'd rather follow the history of Rosa Parks than the fantasy of Jefferson Smith.

[Lord Zentei]

So you're talking about some kind of protest party within Congress? They might well be painted as obstructionists and radicals, providing the existing parties with a bogeyman for the mindless middle.

You are pretty blind if you think that "This requires something that lacks evidence: That Democrats will react to lose by going in any direction but further right." means anything other than what it says: that Democrats will shift further right if they lose an election. This was as a counter to the idea of protest votes.

This has been the trend since Clinton, but that's only recent history, and such conditions are contingent on the general political climate.

Finally, why do you think that the two are mutually exclusive? The idea is to get things done by threatening the parties into getting them done.

Now see: this is the first time you've said something to the effect that reforming the existing parties is desirable and feasible.

[Bakustra]

So you're talking about some kind of protest party within Congress? They might well be painted as obstructionists and radicals, providing the existing parties with a bogeyman for the mindless middle.

Yes, but as a strategy for a grassroots movement, somewhat analogous to sit-ins and other methods of peaceful but annoying protest.

You are pretty blind if you think that "This requires something that lacks evidence: That Democrats will react to lose by going in any direction but further right." means anything other than what it says: that Democrats will shift further right if they lose an election. This was as a counter to the idea of protest votes.

This has been the trend since Clinton, but that's only recent history, and such conditions are contingent on the general political climate.

Well, that's what Nitram said. I don't agree that that's the case either.

Finally, why do you think that the two are mutually exclusive? The idea is to get things done by threatening the parties into getting them done.

Now see: this is the first time you've said something to the effect that reforming the existing parties is desirable and feasible.

Well, my posts in the earlier pages of the thread before this giant argument started focused on the idea of removing the current leadership of the parties from power because they are demonstrably corrupt. However, as I thought about it, I realized that the current system of election is a major obstacle because it is corruption that helps them keep in power and so you might as well go for the long-term solution as for the short.

[Lord Zentei]

Sit-ins and other annoying protests of that sort are not exactly going to do much that the higher-ups care about if you divorce your movement from the major parties. To do that, you need to elect new leaders in the existing power structure. Attempting to create a parallel system which somehow supplants the old isn't that much different from using third party protest votes in practice. Note how the Tea Party managed to shake things up in the GOP by working within it (and Rush Limbaugh smartly urged them not to split the right's voting block). Had they instead moved to act outside the GOP, they would simply have made themselves into another adversary for the GOP political machine, and not into their "conscience" group. Had they instead attempted to work outside the GOP, that might have split the conservative vote enough that the Democrats might at least have suffered fewer losses in 2010. If you want to use grass-roots power to change things, you should instead look at the success of the Tea Party and create a liberal reform analog to them. A Coffee Party, if you will. Or perhaps, to look at the civil rights movement for inspiration - that was a protest model which worked, but they too sought to win over existing political machines rather than dismiss them as lost causes and so supplant them.

[Bakustra]

No they didn't. The civil rights and temperance movements got what they wanted through pressure on the system from the outside. They didn't operate through running in primary elections. The NAACP spent 60 years working within the system and managed, for all that effort, to win Brown v. Board of Education. Then more direct methods, like protests and sit-ins and everything else you categorize as useless, were adopted and within 13 years a string of acts were passed. Lobbying only works if you already have an in to the system, and I doubt that you can really say that the American left does at the moment.

PS: The Tea Party has been largely coopted by Republican leadership and is used largely as a boogeyman to keep Democrats in line. Republicans certainly aren't doing anything to actually balance the budget or do anything else to appease Tea Partiers in meaningful ways. That's the problem with working within the system; you open yourself up to subversion and takeover by the existing leadership.

[Lord Zentei]

No they didn't. The civil rights and temperance movements got what they wanted through pressure on the system from the outside. They didn't operate through running in primary elections. The NAACP spent 60 years working within the system and managed, for all that effort, to win Brown v. Board of Education. Then more direct methods, like protests and sit-ins and everything else you categorize as useless, were adopted and within 13 years a string of acts were passed. Lobbying only works if you already have an in to the system, and I doubt that you can really say that the American left does at the moment.

The protests would have accomplished precious little were it not for the fact that the civil rights movement had already made themselves present within the system, even if they were relatively powerless there. The 13 years you speak of did not take place in a vacuum, they required ample groundwork to achieve their aims. If they had been such outsiders as you suggest, then who would have passed those acts on their behalf? It's a classic example of the "good cop, bad cop" gambit: in order for the bad cop to be effective, you need a good cop for the target to turn to.

PS: The Tea Party has been largely coopted by Republican leadership and is used largely as a boogeyman to keep Democrats in line. Republicans certainly aren't doing anything to actually balance the budget or do anything else to appease Tea Partiers in meaningful ways. That's the problem with working within the system; you open yourself up to subversion and takeover by the existing leadership.

To the extent that they're subverted, their subversion happened pretty early on, while they still were relatively independent. Independence is not a guarantee that there will be no influence, especially with a decentralized grass-roots movement which is trying to work against a political machine with a powerful propaganda apparatus.