blargblog

I think there's been an excess of sacrifice over the last three years at the expense of strategy. Sure, a iron ingot isn't fun to snuggle with, but neither is a handful of last week's rice pudding. There may be well be numbers of Dems like the ones Solomon talks about, but they're not running the place. Those that ARE running it have gone on record as hating Dean's guts, and seem hellbent on convincing us and everyone else that he's a veritable slavering bomb-tosser. Puh-lease.

Dean reminds me of Clinton, and I mean that in a bad way. People can call it "rigidity" on my part or whatever the fuck else they like. I call it a disinclanation to fall for the same old bullshit yet one more time.

Of course, if Solomon, Novselic, and other right-minded Dems can persuade their leaders to stop cutting themselves off at the knees (no more Patriot Act 2, no more Help America Vote shit, etc ad nauseum), behave pro-actively rather than reactively, and (whisper) WAKE UP AND INSPIRE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T FUCKING VOTE, nothing I or any other die-hard Green does need matter to you in the slightest. Dean or whomever can win in a landslide, Greens can get our 5%, and everyone can go away from the polls happy.

But I'm not holding my breath, and you shouldn't either.

Hey, you chimed in while I was writing my update! Yayyyy!

For clarification: I don't think Novaselic is a Democrat, but I have no way of knowing that either. His politics are very, very Green (the IRV and PR promoting). He's chums with Eddie Vedder, who stumped for Nader, so it's possible. But that's just my guess.

And don't worry, I'm not holding my breath. More like a long, low exhalation of resignation. Although I am surprised and impressed by the left-to-liberal array of candidates who have come to the fore in the Democratic party: Moseley-Braun, Sharpton, Kucinich, Dean...maybe Edwards (can't tell; he talks populist, but that may be to overcome his rep as a trial lawyer.) Their very presence and politicking should pull the party leftward enough to unstick it from the DLC mud. One hopes.

What about Dean makes you think of Clinton? My memory of Clinton during the 92 primary was very different. My first reaction to him when I saw him in an interview was, "Who the fuck is this Republican?" He was talking a lot about "free trade" and NAFTA, which made me distrust him immediately. I was a Bob Kerrey man, health care and all that. To this day, Clinton has not disabused me of that initial impression.

I guess with Dean it's the air of "too-good-to-be-true"... a certain slickness to the oratory, an obvious skill at getting the catchphrases in that fire up the traditional base... coupled with a voting record that makes me wonder if everything really adds up. But I'd be happy to be proved wrong, y'know...

I have my doubts that anything legal can be done about the DLC (or McAuliffe), frankly. :( I long to lead a bloodless coup within the party, myself, but I will probably settle for doing some minor IRV campaigning instead. Or offering Medea Benjamin $50 if she'll relent and run for President. Or any office that looks good to her.

If you guys hadn't voted Nader, Sirius Black wouldn't be dead right now. I hope you're goddamned happy.

You're a stitch.

Am I in time to save nine?

Only problem with that old saw about Nader costing Gore the election is that it isn't true. There were lots of other ways Gore "lost" not counting a corrupt USSC. THere were dems who votedrepublican because they didn'y like Gore. THere were other independents that sucked votes away. It is just too easy to lay the blame at Nader's feet. The reality is that a lot of Greens wouldn't have voted at all if the Green Party hadn't run a candidate because they do not see thmselves as being Democrats (and frankly who can blame them).

Pinkham, you're priceless. You made that thread worthwhile.

I have serious doubts about whether you can call Edwards a 'left-to-liberal.' I also have doubts about Dean. What's Dean got (besides that "electibility" jazz) that makes him more attractive than Kucinich & Moseley-Braun?

An anarcho-syndicalist in the Democratic Party, eh? Now I've seen everything.

Is Sirius that annoying Australian comedian that nobody likes ? :p

I despise Bush's Administration and the apparent insanity that has taken over the House Republicans as much as anybody here. But I just don't get as depressed as some of you seem to.

I'm reconciled to the fact that no one sharing my politics will ever be elected President. I will still happily vote for the person who either (a) comes closest to my values, or (b) serves my immediate need. I'm not altogether pleased that this (or any) particular election seems to impose (b) on me, but I'll try to use the Democratic primary to push someone I like forward. And then, in November '04, I'll make another decision.

I have to say that I'm encouraged by the Democratic field. Most of them, excepting Lieberman and Graham, are to the left of Gore - who was to the left of Clinton. That the Democrats are rocking back to port, and that the ultimate candidate is almost certainly going to be farther left than the DLC hopes for, can only be seen as a good thing. And it is probably because of the Green party. Be proud! (but don't nominate McKinney; you'll never a fair hearing ever again)

Hold your nose for Kerry? I admit that he played the war in a fashion that was too clever by far, but he's to the left of Dean on almost everything except civil unions. Mind you, you won't ever learn that in a Presidential election as he'll be running to the center - just like Bush did. If Kerry is elected, the national policy shift will give people whiplash. However, I'm one of those few for whom foreign policy is a major component in my decision about whom to vote for. On that criterion, Kerry is not my choice.

Amy, Amy, Amy. You're falling for a Repub talking point: "good rhetoric = slick and, therefore, not to be trusted". Of course the Rs want you to believe that because every D in the field can mop up GWB on the stump. Don't you slaver with anticipation to see Dean or Edwards (or even Kerry, who people just have to stop underestimating) in a debate with Bush?

An anarcho-syndicalist in the Democratic Party, eh? Now I've seen everything.

My heroes have tended to come from that crowd: Emma Goldman, Joe Hill, Utah Phillips, arguably Woody Guthrie. And I use anarcho-syndicalism loosely, as a theoretical guide towards a "more perfect union." For me the question of systemic exploitation remains a highly problematic factor in our society (and in most societies in history.)

But I recognize that we are not in, as a marxian might say, a "revolutionary moment." Far from it. To borrow Lenin's classic dichotomy, we are not even in a "reformist" moment. More like a "recover sanity" moment.

I have serious doubts about whether you can call Edwards a 'left-to-liberal.'

I was trying to pan out the candidates in their range from left (Moseley-Braun, Sharpton, Kucinich) to liberal (Dean, possibly Kerry and Edwards). As for Edwards specifically, how about "center-Left"? I'm not trying to fix any candidate in a particular spot. More like a predictable range of policy tendencies, the limits of their points of compromise. Edwards and Kerry have deep sympathies with the party's more liberal agenda, but will make more concessions to the center and right to achieve their basic policy objectives and, y'know, remain "politically viable."

Only problem with that old saw about Nader costing Gore the election is that it isn't true.

No argument here. Like I have said earlier in this blog, I treat the Nader-spoiler meme with the same credibility I treat the Yoko-broke-up-the-Beatles meme. In other words, none.

Hold your nose for Kerry?

I actually admire Kerry for many of the progressive policy stands he has made over the years. And he always gets my respect for leading Vietname vets against the war while it still raged. But his vote on the Iraq war resolution pissed me off. Even as he cast his yea, he acknowledged that there were serious problems with the resolution. Either he was duped by the BushAdmin's scare tactics or he was making a political calculation that his yes vote would make him appear Strong on Defense or Tough on Terrorism or whatever. It was not a time for playing political calculations (someone cc. Sen. Clinton and Rep. Gephardt), but a time for a rare (sadly rare) vote of conscience.

What's Dean got (besides that "electibility" jazz) that makes him more attractive than Kucinich & Moseley-Braun?

Well, speaking only of K & M-B, I don't see them gaining any traction with the electorate at all. The general public is too wary of a candidate with a clearly defined socially progressive, liberal agenda. Which I think is unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

So electibility is important enough that I can't discount it this time. In 2000, I knew Nader wasn't going to win and I didn't care, because I believed in his agenda (still do) and had hopes that his candidacy would provide the Greens with the needed momentum and maybe pull the political discourse out of the right wing muck. Up to 9/10/01, that remained a distinct possibility. And, jesus, can you imagine how the Bushies would have faired had the Enron collapse occured without there having been a September 11th?

As for Dean himself, I agree with him on some key issues (opposed war with Iraq, supports gay marriage), and he has a few qualities that we need in a President: executive experience (as governor), intellectual acuity, some ideological flexibility. I am not blind to his faults—he needs to calm down sometimes when he speaks on foreign policy—and I have concerns about his record with Native Americans in Vermont (still looking into it.)

All that said, I have not made up my mind. I just lean by instinct toward Dean. That could change by the time I vote in the Democratic primary.

Oh, and: Thanks for putting my site on your links page, David! I'm glad to help you waste your time. :)

"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
—Bertrand Russell

Martial, I know this will come as a shock, but I didn't need the Reps to introduce me to the discreet charm of skepticism ("If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.") I discovered it on my own quite some time ago. :p At any rate, yeah, here's hoping Dean can mop up Bush in a debate. It really shouldn't be that hard for anyone with an I.Q. in double digits to manage that. Dealing with the Fox Crowd spin-meisters afterwards, however, is a different matter. And, frankly, I don't think it's enough to be thrilled at the prospect that Dean could muster the strength Bush packing. It's critical to reflect on what gut-wrenching deals he's going to have to make to get into pole position, and how they're going to play out once we've "safely" returned the Dems to power. (Groan.)

And, Kevin, not to sound like a broken record, but I'm not a Marxist and I don't believe in "revolutionary moments" as if they were meteorological conditions. If these "moments" are ever going to arrive we have to set the stage for them. So must our leaders, and I don't think the Demo leadership is doing a very good job of it. Even if I generously assume that setting the stage for such a moment is their prime concern and not their own vanity and zeal for personal advancement and self-preservation, reality keeps getting in the way of my belief.

This was passed on to me by a Labor Peace member who hangs out at the World Socialist Web a lot. (Yes, I know, tons of thrice-warmed over Trotskyite rambling, but if you dig around there's stuff worth reading from time to time.)

"...On Thursday, the House of
Representatives—with seven Democrats absent, including presidential candidate Richard
Gephardt—voted 213 to 210 to approve new regulations that would cut off
a universe of Americans—anywhere from 1 million to 8 million—from
guaranteed overtime pay. Under the new rules, backed by the Bush
administration and campaigned for heavily by business lobbyists, those employees
would still have to put in extra hours. They just wouldn't get any extra
pay. Instead, some would qualify for comp time—try paying the rent with
that—and others would simply be reclassified as executives, even if
they wield little managerial authority.

"Where were the Democrats? Nowhere to be found. Gephardt was in Iowa
getting an endorsement from the International Order of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, promising veterans of the picket line they'd be part of
a new American prosperity. Among the leading Democratic contenders,
neither Gephardt nor senators John Edwards, John Kerry, or Joe Lieberman
returned repeated Voice calls for comment. The office of Representative
Dennis Kucinich, a staunch labor supporter who voted against the
measure, at least returned a call, as did former Vermont governor Howard
Dean's office. Dean spokesperson Tricia Enright says of Gephardt's absence,
'It's disgraceful. . . . Don't votes like this keep people off the
picket lines?'

"It's fine for Dean's people to take a shot at Gephardt on this issue,
but the fact of the matter is that none of the presidential candidates
made this into a major national issue. Neither did any of the Democrats
in Congress. Yet all are counting on support from labor, and they're
likely to get it.

"Even more mind-boggling is the reaction from organized labor. Bill
Samuels, the legislative director of the AFL-CIO said he "was disappointed
by the vote in the House." Just disappointed? Is that all? He went on
to say the next step was to try to win a vote in the Senate, a vote that
hasn't yet been scheduled, and about which labor leaders can only hope.
Because if Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, or Bob Graham decide not to be
present, the unions are bound to lose. With such a narrow margin in the
Senate—Republicans hold a one-vote majority—the chances of labor winning
a vote there are viewed as very slim. And with the House vote sealed,
the general consensus is that the new regs are a done deal..."

--Leading Democrats Go AWOL on Overtime Vote
Union of Lost Souls
by Nikos Valance
July 16 - 22, 2003
******************

You know, on good days, I can convince myself that moments like this are mere flukes. That these people really care about me and are just victims of Repub maneuvering. On bad days, I'm convinced they genuinely are hostile to groups like Labor, their one-time bedrock members and would be really, really happy if we'd just keep blindly shovelling them donations and votes and shut up. Republican= Good Cop/Democrat= Bad Cop.

On mediocre days, I'm convinced that they might care a little, but not enough to pull themselves away from the feeding trough/beauty pageant long enough to do what they were elected to. Grrr...

My heroes have tended to come from that crowd: Emma Goldman, Joe Hill, Utah Phillips, arguably Woody Guthrie. And I use anarcho-syndicalism loosely, as a theoretical guide towards a "more perfect union"...

You and me both. It just struck me as interesting, at 4:00*, that we now have card-carrying Democrat anarchists. I'm guessing you signed up in order to vote in the primary - ours is still 'open' in Michigan.

*That's probably the main reason...

As for Dean himself, I agree with him on some key issues (opposed war with Iraq, supports gay marriage)...

You may want to look into that last one, too. A quick search on Dean's website yields the following page with the following quote:

Dean is also against gay marriage. He believes the recognition of marriage is best left to the church.

Of course, I'm not opposed to Dean - he's one of the Democratic candidates I like best. But compared with Kucininch and Moseley-Braun, one of his strongest points is his electibility - or, as you call it, his ability to [gain] any traction with the electorate. Electibility is important, of course, and I don't want to ignore it, but there are other factors.

After all, isn't Lieberman's chief campaign slogan that he is the "only electable candidate?" I view Dean as a relatively attractive compromise between ideals & electibility - especially considering that this is not a particularly 'revolutionary moment'.

I expect you've already seen Bob Harris' page comparing Kucinich & Dean, but I'll link to it anyway, just in case.

Thanks for posting the article. I can't say as I am surprised. Labor gets no respect.

And, Kevin, not to sound like a broken record, but I'm not a Marxist and I don't believe in "revolutionary moments" as if they were meteorological conditions....

Hey, I was just speaking for my own analytical predilections. I use the marxian terminology loosely because I find it useful, but I am not wedded to the ideology itself (and I have no manichean delusions that anything will lead inevitably to anything.) Rather, there are moments in history (note the small "h") when conditions are ripe for real social progress, sometimes for total social overhaul. We are not in one of those moments. Like you suggest, we need to prepare for a more fundamental social transformation, and organizations like the Greens are instrumental in setting the stage—insofar, however, that they have realistic strategies of political participation, such as their remarkable success at entering the ground floor of local politics (legislatures, school boards, etc.) and to continue to do the organizing of alienated elements of the electorate.

Even if I generously assume that setting the stage for such a moment is their prime concern and not their own vanity and zeal for personal advancement and self-preservation, reality keeps getting in the way of my belief.

And neither do I make such a generous assumption for most of the candidates. Kucinich and Moseley-Braun perhaps, which is why I think their candidacy and continued political involvement is important. I make no such assumption for Dean. I find most of his positions agreeable and, unlike Gore and Clinton, he doesn't repulse me; in fact, to raise the bar a bit, I have a lot of respect for him. But I have no illusions that he is not a politician, and I am confident that he will be self-serving just like anyone else in the field (Sharpton, anyone?), and I would never think that he has anything like "revolution" in mind. Yet for all of that, he has attracted liberal interest because he has consistently articulated positions on foreign policy and gay rights that are refreshingly frank, intelligent and compassionate.

Hi, Dave! You posted while I was responding to Amy. So...

I am not surprised I got it wrong on Dean's gay marriage position. But it is not too broad a step to go from civil union to gay marriage, as least so the thinking goes around the office. (I work at a gay paper, which has had an influence on my interest in Dean.) "Leaving it to the church" is a cop out, of course. Like I said, he's still a politician.

Finally catching up on my blog reading, and missed this entry until just now...

I have just sent to the Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division my application to change my party affiliation from "none" to "Democratic Party." (I expect flowers and a ribshack coupon, Steve.)

I send flowers to funerals and weddings... which is this? :-) I don't know ribshack about ribshack, but if it's what it sounds like, this old sprout-eater isn't about to enable your carrion habit. (Said with a grin... I'm a completely non-proselytizing vegetarian, something which I can't say about my Democratic Party membership!) In any case, welcome to the DP; welcome on whatever basis you choose to join.

I am a proponent of IRV and PR. I read Guinier's Tyranny of the Majority and pretty much bought the whole line. Back on the day of W's coronation, a protest was held here, attended by lots of Greens and Dems both; when one Green spoke in favor of IRV, the cheers were unanimous, across party lines. If you can see how we get there from here, by all means let us all know... most Dems I know will walk with you.

Re Nader, Gore, Greens and sElection 2000: practically everyone who commented is in some measure right about this. I may as well add my two bits. Nader is a splendid activist, and a terrible candidate; Nader and the Greens are a match made in hell. If he runs again, he'll fuck up the Greens just as he did in 2000. As committed as I am to the DP... and believe me, a wagonload of progressives, liberals and "anarcho-syndicalist pinko-commies" :-) are still over here in the DP... Greens have a role, whether temporary or permanent remains to be seen, in dragging the nation back from the brink. I, for one, don't want to waste energy fighting Greens, who are my adversaries only in an electoral sense, not in a sociopolitical-philosophical sense, and that only because our voting system is (as you point out) screwed up. I hope Nader doesn't run, because he may elect Bush and because he is not really committed to the goals of the Green Party. I hope lots of Greens run in local races, because the DP needs to have its feet held to the fire about its once-core issues, and the GP can help the process.

Meanwhile, there's this man occupying the White House, and the American electorate didn't put him there. "Only a fool fights in a burning house."

A Green candidacy could quite possibly result in a full-scale Democratic assault. I'm not relishing that, but it behooves those of us with sympathies across those lines to be prepared for a nasty, nasty stretch. (In 1948, Truman torched his left in order to beat Dewey. Worked too.)

Amy: not shocked by your freethinking, no. Indeed, difficult to imagine you as a dupe for anybody. I, as a lover of good rhetoric, sought only to tweak what I saw as a potentially unsceptical dismissal of rhetoric's value.

Ah, Thanks for the clarification, Steve B. and Martial. (You, too, Kevin. Shall I swing by Walgreens on the way home and see if it still stocks those Red Huggies[tm], just in case ? :p)

I've already gone on record several places as preferring someone to run on the Green Ticket for Prez other than Nader. Someone younger, with more committment to the party as something other than a camp space, someone with less name recognition but also less baggage. We'll see what happens, I guess.

And while it's true enough that no one sensible fights in a burning house, there still seems to be an alarming number of Dems in denial of just how big the fire is and their own part in it. Bush by himself could never have gotten to where he is, and he could not have gotten there without the shameful complicity of the Democratic leadership itself. I'd say we're talking a burning forest here, not a burning house. And if whomever emerges the frontrunner thinks he can do without the Left wing's part of the bucket brigade, he's welcome to try, but he might be better served by trying reconciliation between the conservative/moderate/left wings of the party, not expulsion. On the off chance that every last pair of hands is needed to deal with the rest of the fire the day after Innauguration, you know ?

"Someone younger, with more committment to the party as something other than a camp space, someone with less name recognition but also less baggage."

Are you talking about a presidential candidate or a boyfriend candidate? Hee hee.

J.P. is Bridget Jones !!!!!!!!!!

Aaaaahhhhhhhh !!!

(Amy faints.)

And unlike that Zellweger chick, I didn't even have to gain weight to play her, though some back shaving was called for.