Vice President Biden noted yesterday that he hoped that the Tea Party might finally get Democratic and liberal votes out of their “lethargy.” The comment struck a nerve with me since various Democratic leaders have expressed surprise and mild criticism over the lack of enthusiasm by Democratic voters. What is striking is the fact that Biden and others continue to consider their own failure to give voters a reason to become active after years of broken campaign promises and outright betrayals of core values. The best that they can come up with (yet again) is that the other people are worse than we are.
It is unclear why Biden thinks, for example, civil libertarians should be energized after the Obama Administration embraced and expanded Bush-era policies in the war on terror. President Obama has shielded Bush officials from any investigation, let alone prosecution, for torture and has fought to block any cases that would hold companies or agencies responsible for violations of human rights or privacy.
It is unclear why Biden thinks environmentalists should be energized after the Administration opened up pristine areas of the East Coast for oil exploration and, even after the BP disaster, downplayed the spill damage to lift the moratorium.
It is unclear why Biden thinks that peace advocates should be energized after the Administration continued both wars and the gushing of both American blood and treasure.
It is unclear why Biden thinks gay and lesbian activists should be energized after the Obama Administration fought in court to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and then appealed to limit the major victory enjoining DADT.
For over a decade, the Democratic Party has based its demands for political support not on its own performance but on the “lesser of two evils” argument. They simply cannot understand why voters would be less than enthusiastic in fighting for them to retain power. Indeed, from the very start of this Administration, the clear message to liberals has been “you have no where else to go.” What the Administration and congressional democrats did not consider is that liberals, civil libertarians, and environmentalists could decide to simply go no where and stay at home.
Biden was speaking(at a fundraiser in Chevy Chase, Md. when he noted that “[m[aybe the best thing to happen to us lately is the Tea Party wins. Maybe it’ll shake some of our constituency out of their lethargy.” Biden seems to welcome that there is finally a compelling reason for voters to take to the streets: even worse people are running for office.
How about another option? The Democratic leaders could actually fight on principle over things like torture and give voters a positive reason to care about their future. If you want voters to care, you can start by giving them something to care about — other than the job security of Democratic officeholders. If the Obama Administration did not actually jettison these issues for political convenience, it might not have been more popular, but it would have been more respected and it would have garnered far more enthusiasm from Democratic and liberal voters. Instead, the Democratic leadership has repeatedly conveyed that they are concerned only about retaining their offices and power at any cost — hardly a motivating message for votes.
So here is my suggestion for a new campaign motto: “Fighting Lethargy With Leadership.”
Source: The Hill
Blouise,
I don’t think DADT was on my list of “grievances” then because it was some time in the first half of 2009 when I got the call. I guess I still had hopes the administration was working to repeal it.
… and they got no pledge … for the first time in 30 years
Elaine,
They heard that from me as well when they called plus repeal of DADT
Tony C.
I think you’re just as confused about my position.
I wasn’t trying to guarantee anything–just stating my opinion about your proposal. What logic would I provide to prove your method won’t work as expected? You said you can’t guarantee the results yourself.
You decided to extend the discussion about what to do come the November elections to achieve our desired results. You then provided examples of the terrible/deceitful things Democrats have done. I wasn’t arguing that you were wrong about that. I agree. But all those examples you provided don’t prove that your approach to sending the Democrats a message will shift the country to the left. I think you’re mixing apples with oranges. THAT logic escapes me.
You’re also reading more into my words than I ever wrote. I never mentioned anything about donating money. FYI: When the Democratic Committee called me for a donation some time last year–I gave the individvual on the other end of the telephone line an earful. I told that person that the Democratic party wasn’t getting another penny from me until the administration changed its position on torture, brought Bush Administration war criminals to justice–and some other things that I can’t recall at the moment.
@Elaine: Of course I am not the arbiter, I have no power to delete your posts. Why exaggerate? I am an equal participant with the right to criticize, as I see fit, the arguments of others. Just as you do, and just as you have done. I claim no superior position, I claim superior logic that I have backed up.
I believe you are confused by my position; my claim is the ONLY WAY to move the Democrat party to the left is to get rid of the incumbents that refuse to vote for the liberal agenda, out of fear of losing the election. I don’t guarantee that throwing them out will produce a more left party. What I do think is that the empirical evidence of the last 25 years indicates that if we don’t throw them out, the party becomes more and more like the far right with every election.
So no, I cannot guarantee it. Can you guarantee that rewarding them with money and votes for throwing every liberal ideal under the bus will somehow make them suddenly embrace those same ideals? That doesn’t even SOUND plausible.
Blouise,
We’ve been taking on water for a long time. At this point, I’m not sure that anything can right our ship of state. I think we’re all going down with the USS Titanic.
That being said … I am a liberal but I am not madder than hell.
I hoped Obama would be something more than just a pretty face but I knew his record and, quite frankly, would have been surprised if he actually turned out to be a true beauty. He’s about as black as Limbaugh is white … by that I mean he’s nothing more than a malleable mouthpiece and a very good one. That’s why he was chosen over Hillary and Kucinich.
Biden, in my opinion, wasn’t chosen to make Obama more folksy but to cover Obama when he goes off script and says something dumb … Biden trots out with something dumber. The beer fest is the best example of Obama being the real Obama … lot of scrambling to fix that huge faux pas.
Look guys, the Democratic Party is busy trying to woo all the corporations away from the republicans … they talk a liberal game but they actually run the conservatives’ plays. They are after funding and they are going to spend the first four years of Obama’s administration locking down that funding. Corporations aren’t going to back the crazies like Palin and her raging teabaggers. Those people are off the wall and corporations don’t like unpredictable. Enter the Democrats who, unlike the Republicans, know how to keep their crazies in line.
What’s in it for Obama, the malleable mouthpiece? Come on … the guy gets to be President, Hail to the Chief and all that stuff … his wife gets to dress up and fly all over the world vacationing … his kids get top-notch private schools, secret service chauffeurs, and White House rock concerts … hell, he even got a totally unearned and undeserved Noble Peace Prize … what lowly, first term senator would say no to all that?
Do you have a right to be mad? Certainly. Is it going to make any difference? Not really. Liberals aren’t a demographic that counts this time around. I accepted that as I watched him bask in the glory of his nomination night. It was a real show, baby … a totally false feel-good moment.
So, for the time being I stick with the Democrats because at least they pretend to listen and they do more for the poor. Republicans only want me for my gun and hate my liberalism. Without a party I’m out there shaking my fist at the sky … totally impotent.
Make no mistake … I understand fully why you are gone. But I’m a cynic … I’ll stay. I’ll fight from inside … you fight from outside … as long as we keep up the fight, we will win
@Swarthmore: Kucinich caves whenever the party threatens him, including during the Obama administration. Every time. He hasn’t passed any significant bill of his own his entire career. What is the point of re-electing him? Do you like his singing voice when he is at the podium? Of what use is a liberal that threatens a filibuster on the public option then lets his arm be twisted into voting for the damn bill anyway? Kucinich is beholden to the DNC and fears losing his seat if he bucks the party when it really matters. So yes. Throw him out. If his brand of liberalism gets HIM elected, the same brand of liberalism, used by somebody with GUTS, will get them elected.
Kucinich is blocking the seat from somebody that would actually use their Constitutionally granted power to make something happen.
@Swarthmore: Speaking about Boxer more than Brown, I presume that sooner or later people will get tired and frustrated with broken promises that lead directly to their own economic hardship. I hope that happens soon enough to save the country. If not: Well, we get what we vote for, and as long as we keep voting for thieves to rob us blind and line their pockets, I am sure they will be happy to oblige us. Greed knows no bounds.
The other thing I don’t understand about your approach, Tony C. is the blanket approach – the throw them all out good or bad. Your approach would throw Dennis Kucinich out. He is the incumbent democrat.
Tony C.,
I wasn’t aware I had to justify my beliefs to you. Now you are the arbiter on this particular thread of what is an opinion derived from a thoughtful process as opposed to one taken on faith? You are the anointed one who determines those of us who are the “thinkers” and those who are merely “believers?” You, in your infinite wisdom, have determined that I don’t know the derivation of my own opinions.
FYO, I DO read–books, periodicals, newspapers, political blogs–and I DO know how to think. Oh wait…I haven’t provided any proof that I DO know how to think. There I go again! I guess the institution of higher learning that I attended didn’t “train” me how to think.
*****
A number of us commenting on this thread got into a discussion about what to do come November in regard to the elections. I disagreed with your method for “handling” the Democrats in hopes of getting the party to move farther to the left. I doubted your approach would have the effect you expect. I based that opinion on my own common sense. I couldn’t go back in the history books and read about a similar situation. It doesn’t mean that I think Democrats aren’t corrupt or that many can’t be bought. Can you prove–by using logic–that not going to the polls to vote for Democrats in November will definitely cause a shift to the left instead of the right…that things will definitely get better eventually if we all do as you suggest?
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/los-angeles-times-poll-boxer-leads-fiorina-by-8-points.php?ref=fpblg Looks like things are starting to turn for the democrats in California. They woke up to the fact that Fiorini and Whitman were trying to buy the election. Too bad for you Tony C. Barbara Boxer and that old “crook” Jerry Brown might not get punished.
@Swarthmore: Why, exactly, do you believe the Republicans are telling the truth about this, and are not just lying to try and scare you? As they have done? If the Republicans shut down government they will stop the minute their base gets angry about lost benefits, which won’t be long. So I do NOT think my punishment will really be felt by anybody; whatever the Republicans do will be a show for effect only. The poor women and children are MORE harmed by voting in crooks of either party that limit their benefits, deny them healthcare, and agree to tax cuts and military budget increases that ultimately defund the programs intended to HELP the poor women and children.
@Kay: I am not a lawyer and I do not have time to try and interpret that document. In fact I presume it is a fake, I don’t know how to authenticate it, but it looks “fakeable” to me. If it is real, I would suggest you start using an obviously real UN link. And if it is real I assume, like most U.N. papers and positions and resolutions, it has no teeth whatsoever and therefore it makes no difference what it says. So it would be a waste of time to read.
@Blouise: Precisely.
The anger with Obama on the right is business as usual for them … almost “ho-hum” in its predictability … typical feigned self-righteousness.
But the anger on the left is genuine and based on broken promises over issues that liberals hold dear. And the anger is not just with him but also with the Democratic Party. We should not underestimate the depth of that anger nor the numbers involved. Feingold can attest to the reality that many liberals feel Obama and the Democratic Party betrayed them and they are madder than hell!
Tony
What do you think of this?:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html
Tony C Your punishment will be felt by poor women and children who will have their benefits reduced or eliminated when the republicans shut down government as they have promised to do. There is a reason there is a gender gap.
@Elaine: I assume people that cannot seem to logically justify their arguments, and cannot answer criticisms about their arguments, but continue to assert those arguments, are repeating received wisdom on faith. By ‘faith’ I mean they do not actually understand the derivation of those positions, or why they are supposed to be good positions, they just believe the person that gave them this position.
Those people either DO lack the training to think for themselves, or they HAVE been tricked into their political opinions. Or maybe thinking for themselves is just not on calendar today, I don’t know. But if the truth hurts, perhaps the pain will motivate them to change.
In my opinion what you see as denigration is usually just accurate characterization, or deliberate sarcasm intended to force people to think. In my field people disagree with me all the time, I do not think they are stupid because of that. I do not think they are stupid until they disagree with me for no reason, or despite reason, or for ideological or tribalistic reasons. What is stupid is denying reality or refusing to see what is staring one in the face.
Tony C.,
I wrote you: “Telling people that they have been fooled into their beliefs/opnions or implying that they don’t have a brain if they disagree with you is not the best way to win an argument.”
You responded: “Elaine: Yeah, you are right. I apologize. I do believe most people are tricked into voting for the people they vote for; and I won’t lie to win an argument, so if telling the truth is not the best way to win an argument I’d rather lose it.”
I take it you’re telling me that you think I don’t have a brain and that I have been fooled into the opinions I hold.
I was just trying to make a suggestion that you might try another approach. I have found some statements/claims you’ve included in your comments off-putting. It seems you like to denigrate those who disagree with you. You also lecture those of us who hold differing opinions. IMO, that’s not the best way to get people like me to listen to your arguments. For one who claims to be a liberal–you seem pretty judgmental and close-minded.
Regarding “people like me”: I don’t assume that those who disagree with me are lacking in gray matter or have been fooled into their political opinions.
@Kay: For my own definition, liberalism or progressivism starts with a strict separation of church and state when it comes to social policy and religiously motivated policy, and a commitment to racial and gender equality.
Opposition to gays being married or serving in the military are religiously motivated. Opposition to abortion, at least in the first six weeks, is entirely religion based, in my opinion. Opposition to a mosque is based in religious bigotry.
Liberalism rejects separate treatment in the courts of celebrities, politicians, and the rich (which they all get).
Of secondary importance to the fundamental civil rights and equality fundamentals is tax policy. But I do expect liberals to demand a social safety net, and to tax the rich much more heavily than the middle class. I am a member of the group I advocate taxing more heavily, although not in the top brackets of it. Nevertheless, I do not expect to gain any financial benefit from this position. It is what I think is the closest we can get to equal sacrifice and that is what I think is fair, because I do not measure sacrifice in equal dollars or equal percentages.
@Elaine: Yeah, you are right. I apologize. I do believe most people are tricked into voting for the people they vote for; and I won’t lie to win an argument, so if telling the truth is not the best way to win an argument I’d rather lose it.
@Swarthmore: If professing a false liberalism wins elections (as it did for Obama) I think professing a true liberalism would win elections even better.
Russ Feingold professes a false liberalism; when his vote really mattered he surrendered it. So apparently Feingold has won in the past in his purple state using his very liberal arguments, and apparently those that voted for him before have lost enthusiasm because he, and the supposed liberals he parties with, do not do what they promise to do. He has been caught out as a liar making false promises.
So it makes no difference. I want an **authentically** liberal politician just as liberal as can be elected, I want one that votes as they promise to vote, **especially** when their vote really matters. I want one that uses their position and power to actually force substantial outcomes.
If that turns out to be less liberal than Feingold **professes** to be, then the reality of the best approximation of liberalism I can **actually** get will beat the fantasy of how liberal Feingold pretends to be when his votes, speeches, hearings and righteous outrage do not really matter at all to what becomes law.