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’m not arguing that the Democrats aren’t total gutless idiots, just that the Republicans are worse (and not just by a little bit) and the teabaggers are worse still by orders of magnitude. I agree with you that the Democrats don’t have a prayer trying to play the politics of fear better than the Republicans even though the fact is that we have far more to fear from Republican rule than we do from Democratic rule and I have no idea (not really true – see below) why Democrats are afraid to run on their accomplishments and tie the Republicans to their own actions.
As an aside, most of the commentary I’ve seen brushes over the nuance that the Democrats never had progressive majorities = they got their majorities by backing blue-dogs to win purple-red districts. The kind of progressive red meat that, say, makes Anthony Weiner a lock in his very liberal district would almost certainly lead to a double-digit loss for, say, Blanche Lincoln. While I certainly would have preferred her to be more progressive in her politics or to have lost to her (more liberal) primary opponent, I don’t think that anything could have saved that Senate seat for the Democrats.
No one has mentioned the fact that because of the filibuster you need sixty votes in the Senate to pass anything. Even if all the democrats voted for a bill, there are only 59 votes. Mitch McConnell runs a tight ship and if you want him to run the country, stay home or vote republican. If you become unemployed, don’t count on extended benefits of even watered down health care. Huckabee compared pre-existing health conditions to burned down houses. If you don’t want government involvement in providing a safety net and you want the government involved in restricting your personal freedoms, stay home or vote republican.
@Swarthmore: REALLY?
You say, “Punishing is never a good solution.”
Right, that is why we don’t imprison thieves, murderers, or deadbeat dads. Because it doesn’t work, it really just leads to more crime. Right?
Punishment DOES work. I know for a fact that there are people tempted to do things from which they abstain because they are afraid they will get caught and face consequences. Both legal things (like adultery) and illegal things (like embezzlement, or cheating on taxes, or padding an expense account they know is not going to be audited).
The less you punish a crime, the more it occurs. And no, the policies do not move more to the right with every attempt to punish. The problem is that the RIGHT is where the politicians make the most money, because they get their money from corporations and corporations want less regulation and less enforcement of existing regulation. Every time you do NOT punish, everybody takes another step to the right. When you DO punish, the result may be a lost Democrat, but the other Democrats will see they are straying into dangerous territory and take a step back to the left, because another step to the right and they might fall off the cliff and join their former colleague on the sidelines.
Punish the Democrats. Sarah Palin is not “at our door,” she is just on your TV. The last thing she wants to do at this point is give up her ten million a year, and the vast majority of the USA does not think she is qualified or intelligent enough to hold office anyway. Not even the majority of Alaskans think that, and she screwed them by abandoning her office.
If you are truly afraid that a few Tea Partiers are going to somehow twist Obama’s arm away from the veto pen, then you truly think he is an unprincipled, craven weakling. So LET THEM TRY. If he caves to them, we have no hope anyway, he will cave to anybody on anything. So, no difference, and we might as well PUNISH THE DEMOCRATS.
That is my intent. I typically donate about $500 a year to political campaigns. All Democrats. I have voted in every election since I was 18. This year: NOT A PENNY. And no vote for any national office of any kind. I will still vote on local props and officials. Maybe some state people. Not for any Congressmen.
“If you can’t manage that, you really don’t deserve to be a citizen. I personally believe voting should be MANDATORY, with jail time as a penalty for not voting. But apparently that’s just me.”(Tim Whitley)
Thank god …
Slarti,
With facts like those you mention, what in the world are the democrats afraid of? That is why they must stop pushing the fear buttons and talk about the future going for the positives.
This election season presents a golden opportunity. Republicans have lost control of their party and the good ones can’t win a primary. The democrats need to take full advantage of the crazies the republicans have put forward for this kind of situation isn’t going to present itself again. Telling democrats to be afraid never works … pointing out the opportunity that has presented itself will.
Sagacity,
For decades Congress has written “IOUs” to Social Security. The solvency of the program is at their doorstep. Presenting an IOU that one fully intends to never repay is theft. The Baby Boomers are getting set to demand their benefits for which they have been paying all their lives. Congress is desperately trying to avoid accountability. It is going to get very interesting.
Obama….. what can I say I voted for him, I worked for his election, I gave money to help elect him…..I CRIED election night watching him at that park in Chicago..I dont think I was ever so proud of us as a nation….now…everytime I turn on the news, read a paper heck read this blog I can only keep thinking what a mistake I made..
Slartibartfast said it better and said it before me! I started my note, got distracted, went for a walk, and only hit ‘Submit’ after I got back.
When Elaine M. says:
“There is absolutely nothing that could tempt me to vote for ANY Republican this November. I prefer not to have our country go from bad to worse…from the frying pan into the fire. Even though I’m not happy with the Democrats who are a mixed bag of apples and not all that trustworthy–for the most part–I think the Republicans in Congress have become a despicable lot.”
…I agree completely.
Whereas it is not pleasant to consider that you’re simply voting for the lesser of two evils, it is downright stupid to think that NOT voting leads us to a better future. Therefore, one MUST vote to earn the right to even comment on the political process. In addition, one must vote with the intent that one’s vote will make a difference–as if your own vote is the one that will break a hypothetical tie. Otherwise, it really doesn’t count as voting that way. Thus, one must vote for a candidate that actually has a chance to win, and in our present system–love it or hate it–that typically (but not in all cases!) means voting for a candidate from one of the (two) major parties.
I honestly cannot fathom ANY argument from the sophists who say that they will do nothing for the party that has dashed their precious hopes, or that they will even vote AGAINST that party in order to punish ‘them’. This is the height of idiocy! We vote in order to provide FOR OURSELVES, not to deliver messages or punish anyone as a class. As individual voters, once we get into second-order analyses of political motives/actions, we have lost the primary purpose of it.
You vote, and you vote for someone you actually want to win. That’s pretty much it. If you can’t manage that, you really don’t deserve to be a citizen. I personally believe voting should be MANDATORY, with jail time as a penalty for not voting. But apparently that’s just me.
As people here can probably guess, I agree with Mike S. and Swarthmore mom. I’m sorry, but the fact that the Democrats are a bunch of blue dogs and pussies that have allowed good policies to be watered down is beside the point. Progressives (myself included) seem to have thought that their work was done with the 2008 election of President Obama and solid majorities in both houses – that was the beginning of the job, not the end of it. If we truly want to enact progressive policies, we need to elect more progressives and then keep pushing them to the left. If you think that conservative policies will help our country, then stay home or vote Republican – your action will be (in my opinion) tragically wrong, but politically defensible. If, however, you favor progressive policies and do as Tony C suggests and attempt to punish the Democrats for their fecklessness by voting for Republican or TEA party candidates that will be worse in every way to punish the Democrats, then you deserve to pay trillions of dollars for tax cuts for the rich, have social security and medicare privatized (or eliminated altogether), have the modest health insurance reform that was enacted repealed, have the new consumer financial credit agency castrated or eliminated (does anyone think that Elizabeth Warren will favor corporate interests over consumers?), and so on… Keep in mind that one additional thing that the Democrats are completely terrible at is taking credit for the good things they’ve done – but that doesn’t change the fact that taxes are lower under President Obama than they have been under any recent president, that the deficit shrunk this year (even with the stimulus) something that never happened under President Bush – even though he kept his wars off the books (a typical example of the Democrats getting blasted for doing the right thing – President Obama included the cost of the wars in the budget and got trashed for putting forward the honest numbers that the Bush administration was hiding). If you ever want to see things like a balanced budget, a public option (or single payer), an end to the recession, the use of diplomacy over military force, our troops out of Afghanistan or any more progressive policies enacted, then you can get off of your butts and work to preserve Democratic majorities in congress or you can do as Tony C suggested and sit back and watch the far right take control the national discourse and steer the country back into the ditch (or off the cliff).
No one has mentioned the other dreadful action Obama has taken: appointing his “bipartisan” commission to cut Social Security, I mean ” on deficit reduction.” The Congress wouldn’t appoint the commission so Obama did it himself and appointed 14 of the 18 members who oppose raising the income ceiling on Social Security taxes but like raising the age to receive benefits to 70. And SS has nothing to do with the size of the deficit!
The very idea that a Democratic president would put Social Security on the chopping block! Maybe the administration is going to welcome a Republican Congress that will pass the dreadful commission’s recommendations. Of course, Obama will be for sure a one-termer. But maybe that will be okay if he can say he was the one to screw the people on behalf of the have-mores. It’s baffling to me what is going on with the Democrats.
Frank,
Csn’t help myself … I’ve always liked Nader from the day he came out against the Corvair
Nader is on tape saying he was running to give Bush a better chance to win since America would be so disgusted with the results it would turn to him as the savior. Look how well that turned out.
Nader would have gotten no support from either party and the problems caused by the complete paralysis of the Federal machinery would have been awful. As bad as those Boy Blunder and his super friends have left us? I don’t know, better in some ways worse in others I would guess.
Chtulhu 2010 – why vote for a lesser evil?
Former Federal LEO
1, September 24, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Blouise,
Good post @ 1:46.
========================================================
Thank you … how’s the future grandpa doing?
Jericho
1, September 24, 2010 at 1:57 pm
If you’re gonna keep only 2 parties you might as well just split the county threeways and give republicans the middle so we don’t have this pretend battle anymore.
I’m an outsider, what was wrong with Nader?
===========================================================
There was nothing wrong with Nader and a whole lot would’ve been made right …
If the Republicans take the house and the Dems retain the senate,it brings to mind although it envolved football,former coach Jim Mora and he was asked about his former team the Colts making the playoffs.
I would use he angst and relate it to the above scenario.
“GRIDLOCK,GRIDLOCK!!
If you’re gonna keep only 2 parties you might as well just split the county threeways and give republicans the middle so we don’t have this pretend battle anymore.
I’m an outsider, what was wrong with Nader?
Blouise,
Good post @ 1:46.
Anonymously Yours
1, September 24, 2010 at 10:04 am
I am not Repuglickcan, I am an Independent….but as AY goes the nation does not…..
===========================================================
love it, love it, love it
Soft chuckle #2
Thank you
“It is unclear why Biden thinks” …. because he doesn’t think … he’s simply repeating
Democrats lost the high ground and now they are in the same position as the Republicans … the only thing they can preach is fear
It is a sad commentary for in 2008 the path towards change was broad … the opportunities were wide open … the promise was believed. During the 2 years from then to now the path has narrowed, the opportunities shrunk, and the promise goes largely unfulfilled. Thus democrats are left standing next to republicans each pointing the finger at the other and parroting the same phrase … “Be afraid, be afraid of THEM.
When we look at our government over the last ten years we see institutions unable to manage our affairs intelligently. In response to our voiced frustrations they tell us we have unreasonable expectations but is it unreasonable to expect competency? Is it unreasonable to expect that promises will be kept?
Many of us on this blog closely watched every minute of the Senate Impeachment Committee’s hearings. I can state with complete honesty that McCaskill was as bad as any Republican chair I watched during the years they held the majority. She was so bad that her counterpart, Orin Hatch, seemed, by comparison, fair and open minded. Orin Hatch!!??!!
In 2 short years democrats have fallen from change you can believe in to be afraid, be afraid, be afraid …