A little pragmatism goes a long way!

The Extremist Rantings Of A Mainstream Progressive

Chris,

  Thanks for the post continuing the discussion you started yesterday. I came across your post from yesterday via a link at the dailykos and after reading the comments back and forth from yesterday's post, was baffled by the logic(or lack thereof) of the posters who indicated that they were going to sit out this election in Pennsylvania instead of supporting casey.

  This is my first post at mydd. I feel compelled to enter the fray based on the discussion that occurred yesterday. My first thought when reading the posts of those planning to sit out the november election if their candidate of choice didn't win in the primary was that they are cutting off their collective nose to spite their face.

  I don't exactly agree with all of the positions you listed in your post, but that doesn't mean that I would be opposed to a candidate that is closer to your beliefs than mine. For me, I look at the candidate and party that holds MORE of the positions that I support. Looking for a candidate or party that holds all of my positions on issues is, in my opinion, not possible. Do we always want to strive to get closer to that party that best represents all of our beliefs?? Of course, however taking the all or nothing stance of many posters yesterday is counter productive.

  It's the movement of discourse and issues that is important. Take Casey's position on abortion as an example. He is pro-life. I also happen to be pro-life. Santorum is pro-life. Casey's stance on abortion is important in the little picture of getting elected in Pennsylvania. In the big picture, however, his victory, if supported by enough other victories of Dems. would change the leadership in the senate. Reid, while pro-life, is also a democrat and a politician. I can guarantee you that a senate that has Senator Reid as majority leader and Senator Casey in office will be far less of a threat to a woman's right to choose than the current leadership is. That is simply because a senate under the leadership of Reid will not push these issues as they are pushed under repub. leadership. The focus will move back to issues that we as democrats can pretty much all agree on such as minimum wage, labor rights, fair trade as opposed to what we have now, privacy rights of american citizens, the end of an unjust and failed occupation in Iraq, and on and on. Even though I am pro-life, that choice is ok with me because it gets me closer to a government that represents the majority of my views. That is the goal. We can fight about abortion and other issues all we want with each other ONCE we are back in control. Until then, let's get this country headed back in our direction.  

but why is it progressive to support incumbents who are not doing a thing to help further anything you value? who cave in to whatever the opposition does, even if they speak against it on tv? if officeholders are not acting in any way to stop the damage, let alone proactively fighting for progressive (or even moderate or humane) goals, why support them? Isn't it just telling them that what they're doing is ok, when it's really not? Isn't it enabling them to continue to cave and not truly be the opposition party? What do we get when we return these kinds of people to office again and again? I think the last 6 years of non-action have been very telling--and that's why many of us are considering sitting 06 out. And if we do vote, we won't be contributing. (it would be my first missed vote in 20+ years of wholly Democratic voting, primaries and general elections)

it's funny--bush called the 2004 elections his "accountability moment"

Many of us have learned that the current incumbents are not behaving in any way as if they work for us or are accountable to us--from Iraq to the Patriot Act to the Bankruptcy bill to Roberts and Alito on. We only have our vote to show our pleasure or displeasure nowadays--our voices have been loudly speaking for years, and to no effect. Actually, some people think that the more we speak, the more we're ignored as fringe or seen as troublemakers, causing lawmakers to ignore us even more.

And why do I think that people who are registered in Pennsylvania but who won't vote for Bob Casey in the general election believe these things? Because not voting for the Democratic Senatorial nominee in Pennsylvania is the only way to defeat Rick Santorum with your vote.

I think you meant to remove the bolded word...

You will be amazed at how the issues and the posture of those same politicians would change if control of the House and Senate changed hands. The bankruptcy bill would never have been an issue. It would never have gotten to a vote. We on the center/left seem to underestimate the importance of majority status. Everything changes when you have the leadership. EVERYTHING. As a subtle example, look at how the stance of many republicans has changed over the last few months because they are afraid of the PROSPECT of losing control. I guarantee you would see a different Democratic party if we are able to take back control of congress.

I'm no Casey fan but I'm trying to look on the bright side myself. Yes, he had the way cleared for him. Yes, he seems to have a penchant for Lieberman-like undercutting of other Democrats and yes his ideology is to the right of mine.

But I still believe we need to elect him.

I wrote earlier that I think Democrats who would prefer a more progressive Senator in Pennysylvania need to first concentrate on electing Casey. Afterwards, we should then move on to developing the bench in Pennsylvania so that in 2010 there is a progressive candidate ready who can take Arlen Specter's seat.

With regards to Casey I suggest we view this similar to how the Republicans handled their two Supreme Court vacancies. We are trading Pennsylvania one far-right wingnut Republican for a conservative Democrat. True, Casey is on the right-wing of the Democratic party but he is still well to the left of Santorum. So even with Casey we get a more progressive voice in the United States Senate. Not to mention, there is little that can be done at this point to derail the Casey nomination in favor of someone more progressive.

Just as the Republicans got the bigger wingnut on the Court on their second attempt Democrats need to do the same with the remaining Senate seat in Pennsylvania. We can still put a more liberal leader in the Senate from Pennsylvania but we are going to need to wait awhile. Arlen Specter's seat needs to be taken away by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

When Specter next runs a Casey'ish conservative Democrat just won't do for that seat. We know Specter can be beaten and progessives should be thinking hard on how to put a progressive leader in that seat. There needs to be a grassroots candidate in place with enough strength to fend off primary challenges from the right. The Democratic forces that put Casey in place won't be gone. The only way to get a progressive Senator from Pennsylvania will be to build up an organization that can't be denied when the primary for Specter's seat comes around in 2010. But to do that we can't wait until 2009 to find our candidate or to develop progressive talent in Pennsylvania.

As I've written before, I'm genuinely (ie, not for rhetorical effect) puzzled at the view apparently held by more than one contributor here that conservative-leaning Dems running in conservative-leaning states ought to be boycotted, even at the risk that GOP candidates are elected as a result.

In the modern period, no US party has been able to control Congress without accommodating a substantial range of ideology both within caucuses and between the voters of the various districts and states.

In fact, arguably, today is historically a period of relative ideological coherence in the Congressional Dem parties. It's well within living memory that the Dem Senate party managed to accommodate both Hubert Humphrey and James Eastland in the same caucus.

If it could manage a straddle like that, the Dems hardly have an excuse for balking at Casey and Feingold!

But, in any case, numbers are all: if a party can't get to 218 or 50/51 without a fairly wide ideological spread (and it can't), it can't take control. And it's living in Cloud Cuckoo Land to expect Congressional Dems to behave as if that iron rule did not exist, or voters in the districts and states not to tend to vote their ideology.

Now, ideological purity in a permanent minority may be a principled preference; but it's hardly one that's ever appealed to the boys and girls who've run on a Dem ticket.

The anti-Casey thing just doesn't add up. Neither literally nor metaphorically!

I agree with contributors upthread that some of the crappy votes made by Congressional Dems seem to have rather more do with money-grubbing than ideology (eg, voters in red states were as likely to suffer from effects of the bankruptcy bill or the Medicare bill than their blue state fellow-citizens).

And, in the abstract, members who fail their voters should be subject to the sanction of loss of support. That's what primaries are for, though in many cases they fail to fulfil the function.

But what we're talking about here is Dem supporters in other states opposing the likes of Casey. They can donate to other Dem candidates; but, if Casey wins the primary, what effective can they do? If Casey wins the general, Harry Reid is hardly going to refuse him admission to the Caucus, if, indeed, he has that power under its rules.

Chris is clearly right about an evident disconnect between ideals and practicality in discussions about Casey in some parts of the lefty 'sphere.

Can liberals who loathe the very idea of Casey as a Dem senator explain exactly what they propose to do about balking him, and how that might be effective, and yet not harm the Dems' chances of organizing the Senate in the 110th?

I'm, as always, eager to be educated.

This is straight up awesome.  This is like a political version of the motivational speeches that I listen to before I go race.

Honestly, between Chris, Ray Murphy (my "colleague" at Young Philly Politics), and the DFA-ers like Anne Dicker, et. al., I feel really good about the future of my city and state.

Thanks for this. Few things infuriate me more than people who threaten to refrain from voting as a way of proving a point. How does this make them powerful, exactly?

It's just like Lynn Swann says:

If you don't take part in the process and you don't vote, then I am not willing to listen to your complaints.

Ummm, although now that I think about it, maybe he's not the best example here...

Well said, Chris. We don't always agree about everything, but you're 100% right on this one.

I think you need to focus your definition on what a progressive isn't.

Progs know American foreign policy is immoral.
There really isn't much of a difference between Repubs and Dems.

Can you say yourselves doing both of these things?
"I will not vote for Bob Casey in the general election."
"I WILL vote for Mark Warner if he is the Democratic Nominee for 2008."

If you do, you're likely a hypocrite seeing as how Mark Warner shuns many progressive values. Is Casey pro-corporatist? Hell no. Is Warner? Yup. Does Warner support the horrible free trade agreements? You got it. Universal Health Care? Dubious. Unions? Good question. Timetable for Iraq? Of course not. Criticizing Republicans for Iraq? Nope. Death Penalty? In support of it. And the list goes on.

So how is it that you, calling yourself a progressive, will refuse to support a Democratic man who opposes NAFTA and outsourcing, supports a single-payer system, the minimum wage, and will generally be another Democratic vote in the Senate to block Bush's Agenda? Why would you support a man who doesn't seem to care much about the middle class and all other left-leaning, FDR-esque, democratic principles that we as Democrats hold dear?

A bit of a double standard? I think so.

And this kind of talk reminds me of the voters in Ohio that voted for Bush simply because they didn't like gays, even though they knew it was against their economic interest. Have a lot of us become single-issued voters?

Voting for the lessor of two evils means there is less evil.  

Or the Slogan version...

Reduce Evil, Vote for a Democrat.

With Rick Renzi holding a fundraiser in Phoenix this weekend that will cost $500 a head, and will be attended by Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader John Boehner, it is obvious what we are up against. The Republican party is sending it's heavy hitters to Phoenix in order to raise big money for Renzi. They are worried about his chances in November otherwise they wouldn't bother holding these high profile events. Rick Renzi is good to them, he is a major player in their culture of corruption and they want to keep him in office. We need to make sure that they don't get what they want. We need your help in combating all of the money that Renzi will have in order to run his smear campaign on television, radio and in print. This is how he wins elections and we cannot let it happen again. Your contribution will assist us in fighting fire with fire, it's up to you.

HELP DEFEAT RENZI

We believe that we have kept the promise we made when we said that we would be running an aggressive, no holds barred campaign against Rick Renzi. Unfortunately it looks like Democrats haven't been doing their part for candidates across the state. Republicans are raising money at a breakneck pace because their base understands that they could be in trouble come November. Democrats must now come through if we are to take full advantage of what Republicans have brought upon themselves in Washington. I don't know how to be any more clear about the situation, without your help Republicans will maintain control of Congress by a large margin come November. The time to act in now.

HELP DEFEAT RENZI

I want to thank those of you who have given so generously in the past. The reality of the situation is that we need much more help if we are going to succeed in November. We can't let the Republican money machine win this election for them. Together we can fight Rick Renzi and the many others like him and prove that change is possible. As I have said in the past, if you do your part, I promise that I will continue to do mine.

HELP DEFEAT RENZI



Sincerely,

Mike Caccioppoli

You can also go to  MikeCforCongress to contribute at any time or to learn more about our campaign

I AGREE TOTALLY.

MY BIG FEAR IS THAT PROGRESSIVES HAVE ALREADY FORGOTTEN THE LESSONS OF THE 2000 ELECTION AND PETULANCE WILL ONCE AGAIN TAKE THE PLACE OF COMMON SENSE.

DO WHAT YOU WANT IN THE PRIMARIES, BUT LET'S ALL WORK TOGETHER IN THE GENERAL ELECTIONS TO BEGIN PUTTING BUSH'S NEOCON AGENDA INTO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY WHERE IT BELONGS.

why haven't you answered Bowers' challenge above?  I guess you can't.

Chris

For me at this moment in time, it doesn't matter what you call it.  It's all about getting control of at least one house of Congress, and better this year so the Dems can get subpoena power and investigate the hell out of Bush and the other Republicans until 2008.

Progress implies incrementality - things don't happen instantaneously.  As in, "We are making progress."  Progress toward some goal(s).  Casey is progess.  Perhaps not enough for some, but clearly progress relative to Santorum.

Failure to support Democratic candidates who don't represent progressive values is now the ultimate violation of progressives huh?

This is one of the most contrived pieces of partisan nonsense I've ever read on the front page.

Ziech Hiel! (accompanied by the sound of boot heals clicking together sharply)  

Anyone who doesn't support the Democrat on a final ballot, and thereby supports the Republican, needs to find a new Party.

Practical Politics demands Unity on Election day.
Period.

Anyone advocating anything else can grab their ass with both hands and head for the door.

If our grandfathers and their father had that attitude we wouldn't have Unions, then came later Medicare, The Voting Right Act, The Clear Water Act, EPA and dozens more. And they all came with a cost.

On the same subject, last April in California Wes Clark said that when we heard some Democrat getting a little 'wavy' we ought to tell 'em to
"GET SOME STARCH!"

Damn straight.

Practical Politics demands Unity on Election day.
Period.
Anyone advocating anything else can grab their ass with both hands and head for the door.
If our grandfathers and their father had that attitude we wouldn't have Unions, then came later Medicare, The Voting Right Act, The Clear Water Act, EPA and dozens more. And they all came with a cost.
No. Practical Politics demands that you elect people to do a job, and if they don't do it, you dump them.
Practical Politics means you expect results, and that the people elected will fight for you and all of us, not fight against you.
Practical Politics demands accountability, because those you vote for work for you and me, not for lobbyists or simply to retain their seats.

Every achievement you mention was fought for and won by real fighters and by outsiders, not by incumbents. And they weren't at all Practical Politics as defined by you. If unity on Election Day is all that matters, then nothing matters. What parties and politicians believe about important issues and about this country is irrelevant if unity is all that matters. Rights, ideals, goals--all irrelevant if unity is all that matters. Time and time again we've seen our elected officials cave in and retreat--is it because they're more about unity than rights and the Constitution? why is that? Why should people have faith that things will get done, and bad things stopped, given past performance these past 6 years? Why have any faith in incumbents? Because there's a D after their name? Too many bad, painful things have been allowed to happen these past 6 years to have faith in people who have proved they don't deserve it.

Interesting related thing on Americablog on how Gingrich and his crew took advantage of scandal and teamed up to plot and gain power before any elections--we have no one doing that, and haven't had anyone doing that for the past 6 years.

And look at Hackett not getting support--those who are fighters are being dissuaded from running--horrendous.

And speaking of Unions---they DEMANDED that any and all politicians they supported showed results. They didn't hope, or have faith--they demanded it, and they ensured that politicians worked for the benefits of workers, or they would lose the endorsement, and thus lose the votes of the workers.

Great post.  I couldn't have said it any better.  I think there should be a fair primary and then we should all get behind the winner should it be Bob Casey or anyoner else.  The idea of a Democratic Senate majority and ridding the political world of the ultra-right wing Santorum are enough for me.

Good luck to you, Chris, and all those who are truly liberal.  

Without reference to Bob Casey, I think it is dead wrong to support Democrats who are on the other side.  The remake of the Democratic Party into little more than an adjunct of the Republican Party has been a disaster for liberals.

I argued with a group of women anti-war vets that electing Kerry was precisely the wrong thing if you were against the Iraq War.  The idea is that Bush has much more room for maneuver than Kerry would have had.  And, gosh, Kerry like most Democrats supports the war.

I voted for Kerry simply because he was a fellow Vietnam War veteran getting the usual treatment.  Mattered little to me that he lost.  Kerry is no friend of liberals.

Liberals voting for Republicans Light makes sure there will be little or nothing to distinguish the parties except a bit of rhetoric alongside betrayal.  One would probably do less harm voting for the Republican Heavy.

Very nice post, Chris.

I am delighted that you decided to get involved in the Phila city Democratic party. I'm sure, even though the leadership might disagree some of your
political positions, they are just as thrilled to have someone so obviously dedicated and hardworking
and young, too, on board.

I also hope everyone reads your post on the recall of your ward leader, too. It shows how local politics truly is and how people really come to power. It isn't some great conspiracy, but usually the result of years of hard work, activism, volunteering, etc., in the community where you live.

If you're registered in Pennsylvania and you don't donate half your salary to Bob Casey then you're for everything Santorum stands for?

If you're registered in Pennsylvania and you don't quit your job to work full time as a volunteer for Bob Casey then you support a right wing Catholic theocracy?

And this is true even if you're helping to organize a union at the Wal Mart, do grassroots lobbying to preserve the environment and help deliver groceries to poor people?

By your logic, voting for Bob Casey means you support the continued domination of the Democratic Party by right wing, DINOs.  It means you support outlawing abortion and that you support Alito for Supreme Court.  It means you're actively support limiting electoral choice to that between the faction of the Party of Capital who wants the American People to get fucked but with the benefit of Vaseline (Casey) and the faction of the Party of Capital that wants the American People to get fucked and require them to take it dry (Santorum).

Let's face it, there's lots of progressive things you can do outside of voting for Bob Casey that make you a progressive.  Electoral politics are important, but they're one small part of how we change things in this country.  Nobody is defined solely by how he or she votes.

I think most people here are making some false assumptions and ignoring some important aspects of the issue.

The damage to the progressive movement caused by Leiberman is huge!  The damage to the progressive movement caused by the DLC is huge!  Electing Casey, while giving us another vote, also gives us another Leiberman.  Can you say that Casey over Santorum is definitely better for progressives?  I don't think you can.  At least when Santorum votes the republican agenda, democrats maintain the higher ground of fighting for civil rights and against the corporitization of America.  We lose that higher ground with these conservative democrats and further erode our party ideals.

Which brings me to my main point.  There is no such thing as a conservative democrat.  If you support Alito, then you support corporate interests over civil rights which is anathema to democratic ideals.  If you are against choice, then you support religious mandate over idividual rights which is again anathema to democratic ideals.  If you support preemptive strikes against other countries then you support American imperialism over cooperative deliberation to solve our world issues which is anathema to democratic ideals.  These so-called 'conservative' democrats are independants or liberal republicans and do not belong in a party whose ideals are based on the constitution and the bill of rights.

While it is apparent to everyone that we need a majority to have any teeth, the reaction here is that we need the majority at any cost.  This is a problem for me.  By continually electing these 'conservative democrats' we undermine our goals in exchange for power.  And we all know that power can be taken away at any time.  

I think it is a false assumption that we need a majority in order to have power.  If we had strong leaders who were willing to stand up and be bold, the republicans would not be able to walk all over us.  It is the DLC, the 'conservative democrats' in our party who have undermined our ability to stand up and be strong.  They continually give cover to the whitehouse of bipartisanship and they placate the right wing for votes while ignoring their base.  Why is that?  It is because they are NOT democrats.

Some will consider my ideas naive and idealistic and say 'in the real world' we need to do such and such.  This is nothing but capitulation in my book.  We have the constitution on our side, we have rational thought on our side, and we have passion on our side.  While we may not regain power by voting our conscience, we will retain our core beliefs and thereby our strength to stand up for the rights of the average american citizen.  

All of this also ties in with the attitude that we must vote in primaries for the 'most electable' candidate, again, for the sole purpose of gaining power at the expense of losing our core beliefs.  If the democrats all voted lockstep like the republicans then this would be a good strategy.  We don't.  

Many of us voted for Howard Dean over Kerry because Kerry was too busy trying to placate the right while Dean was busy shouting democratic ideals at the top of his lungs.  For some reason, most democrats are afraid to be democrats.  That is exactly how the republicans want it.  Those of you who complain about the spineless democrats need to look in the mirror because you are the ones voting them into office in your attempt to gain power.  True power comes from standing up for what you believe.

We need a longer term view of democracy. DEMOCRACY IS NOT ABOUT POWER, IT IS ABOUT IDEAS.  THE POWER COMES AFTER THE IDEAS, NOT BEFORE.  When democrats rid their party of the fakes, and begin to embrace the 'liberal' label, then, and only then, will we be returned to power with the support of the American people.  

I think some of these DLC donkeys  need to be reminded of the Nader experience.  For many progressives, throwing away our vote on a "Republicrat" is worse than losing--tell me what a Democratic majority in  Congress gets us?  Conducting hearings and issuing subpoenas is going to gain what?  I'm so impressed with their performance with Alito et al I could just puke.  We need to elect leaders not go-alongs.

In Colorado I took the lesser of two evils option against wingnut Peter Coors with Ken "Nighthorse" Salazar.  Some progressive!  He and the party faithful pulled a Hackett against primary opponent Mike Miles.  While many of the party's blogger apologists (Sirota, Kos, etc.) tell us to hold our nose and vote for any DLC-anointed Democrat as a step forward I prefer to wait for them to offer something for the left beyond a lecture on my civic duty!   These same bloggers couldn't say enough about Hackett before this--now he yesterday's news "Hail Brown!"  This party needs a disciplined corps if it is to succeed against the assholes of evil--donkey see and donkey do got us where we are today.

Brown may be Progressive but he was also late coming to the dance-- he shouldn't have gotten a free ride in the primary by the likes if Reid and Schumer.

great diary on Kos responding to another by a Hill staffer: ... First we begin by addressing the needs of the American people. Then we win elections.  This is a winning strategy. What should be the well articulated agenda of the Democratic Party, is a platform that will cut across party lines.

If we fail to change the status quo, then we will not win elections. ...

When I supported Nader....

The Democratic party had abandoned progressive ideals and had sunk into a morass of ineffective leadership and idea-free governance.

In the last 6 years, has the Dem Party figured out why they didn't get my vote in 2000?  Nope.  Still gutless, still led by people with no ideas and no vision.  Still supporting Clintons (except on the net), etc.  Still don't appear to have learned a thing from 2000, or 2002, or 2004.  Jeffords gave them a real chance to display leadership/repentence/ideas.  They failed.

I see some hope from Reid occasionally.  Then I look at the massively bungled confirmation of Alito and realize that I may be getting swept away by MyDD optimism.

I agree with Chris this far:  If your ideals suggest to you that Casey is too right to support and you do not vote, you are supporting Santorum.  This is stupid and you have NO right to complain later.  Vote your ideal.  Vote Green, vote National Law, whatever. You always have Dave Baker, though it doesn't appear he is putting much into running for Senate, even for a minor party candidate. Some people will tell you this is the same as voting for Santorum.  It is not.  It is voting for the candidate you chose.  Later, when people analyze the election, your vote will be recorded with the more progressive candidate and the Dems, if they EVER figure it out, will be able to note that they can pick up a few % by appealing to the left too.  The Republicans will also realize they won only because of splintered Dem support, not  that that means much.

Chris, I admire your writing and perspectives. But I disagree with you on your implicit definition of "action".

When will Democrats learn? When we stop accepting what they shove down our throats. When we stop giving in, weak as any corporate DLC Democrat, giving in to the popular notion of "electability".

People want leadership. They want honesty, clarity, and a fair shake. They aren't getting that from Casey pre- or post- primary. Stop telling us that those of us who refuse to support one of two evils, lesser or not, are the ones to blame when the other evil wins. Give us something to vote for. Stop giving us something to vote against.

My vote for Pennacchio IS action. If I choose not to vote for Casey because MY VOTE IS MY WORD AND MY ENDORSEMENT OF THE CANDIDATE, HIS ACTIONS, AND HIS STATED INTENTIONS AND BELIEFS, and I WILL NOT GIVE THAT TO THE ADVOCATE OF WAR, THE OPPONENT OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS, THE ADVERSARY of GAY RIGHTS, and THE PROMOTER OF CORPORATE ECONOMICS.

And if you have a problem with that, then I have a problem with you and the rest of the apologists that enable the deepening of the gulf between Democratic candidates and real people.

So do you or anyone else here have a problem with that? Your vote is your word.