We previously discussed the disconnect between Democratic leaders and liberal voters in the increasing complaints of leaders like Vice President Biden over Democratic “lethargy.” Democrats in Washington once again seemed shocked that voters are not eager to fight for their retention. Now, Biden has added the helpful advice to Democratic voters to “stop whining” about things that they did not get in Washington and to “buck up.”
The “buck up” comment was meant as an improvement over the “whining” comment. It turned out that “whining” was not greeted by voters as an improvement over “lethargy.”
Here is the latest statement:
“And so those who don’t get — didn’t get everything they wanted, it’s time to just buck up here, understand that we can make things better, continue to move forward and — but not yield the playing field to those folks who are against everything that we stand for in terms of the initiatives we put forward.”
By “everything [we] wanted,” I assume Biden is including the fulfillment of our treaty obligations to investigate and prosecute war crimes such as torture — which the Administration blocked.
I assume it includes removing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which the Administration is trying to preserve by asking a court not to impose a national injunction freezing the policy.
I assume it includes allowing dozens of privacy lawsuits to go forward against companies, which the Administration blocked despite evidence of unlawful surveillance by the Bush Administration.
I assume it includes allowing torture victims to seek review in federal court, which the Administration has successfully blocked.
I assume it includes protecting pristine areas along the East Coast from drilling, which the Administration has fought to open up for development even after the BP accident.
I assume it includes reducing the faith-based programs of the Bush Administration which raised concerns over the separation of church and state, which Obama expanded.
Well, it includes a lot of things that democratic and independent voters wanted. What they got was a Democratic majority saw power as the end to itself rather than the means to fight for principle. For civil libertarians, “those folks who are against everything that we stand” include the Obama Administration which has been a perfect nightmare in the adoption and expansion of Bush policies.
Yet, Biden wants civil libertarians, environmentalists, and liberals to stop whining and buck up. The Administration made a cynical calculation that liberals and civil libertarians and environmentalists have no where to go and that they have to support the Democrats regardless of these obnoxious policies. Now, they are simply shocked that voters are not enthusiastic about their continuing in power.
The Democratic leadership has conveyed that the only principle that they are committed to is their retention of power. All other principles — torture, the environment, privacy, free speech — are immaterial to that one overriding goal. They just do not understand why everyone does not see it that way.
Well, I am one of those whining, lethargic voters and I cannot get myself to buck up to support leaders who turned their back on such core values. Perhaps if enough Democrats are replaced, the party may rediscover the benefit of being principled and standing for something other than their own insular interests. They need to actually represent something other than “we are not as bad as those guys.” The problem for voters is that, by retaining these leaders, we reaffirm that they cynical calculation by the White House was correct. There is no reason why Democrats should fulfill their commitments in these areas if voters do not hold them accountable. I know some on this blog may disagree, but I personally think I will stick with the whining for now.
Source: Real Clear Politics
Of the 6 items listed as “everything we wanted” in Professor Turley’s post, only the environmental concern is likely to penetrate the fugue state affecting the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, homes, cars, and all their insurance and are simply trying to stay alive and sane.
These are the people who will suffer even more if the Republicans achieve their goal of decimating all the welfare programs the Democrats have championed since the LAST great bank failure.
Instead of finance reform, we’ll have welform reform – again – and this time Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be on the menu.
All 6 items are certainly worth whining about, but I don’t have much hope of convincing the average voter, and therefore their representatives, of their magnitude of importance.
If these concerns are not addressed by 2012, there will be time to participate in political armageddon. Certainly none will be addressed if the Republicans gain more seats in congress. This isn’t 1973 and Howard Baker and Lowell Weicker and their ilk are not currently serving in the Senate, more’s the pity.
Beware of any politician when they use the term ‘folks’, a giant lie will be coming up next.
“those folks who are against everything that we stand for”
I think he meant to say “those folks who like everything that we bend for”
Tony C.
“I don’t have to put words in your mouth. Words have meanings and I can infer the obvious.’
You THINK you can infer what I never implied.
“In this case, I was employing a technique called “sarcasm,”
It’s funny that you know how to USE “sarcasm”–but can’t always detect it in comments made by others.
**********
“I am not a Republican. I am an atheist, a liberal, and a person that believes in a wide social safety net. I am for single-payer socialized medicine. I am for hugely progressive taxation of the wealthy. I can logically justify every political position I take, and logically refute every conservative position to boot. I am a professional logician, a research scientist. I don’t know how to make you believe I am sincere, but I am: The corporatist crooks have hijacked Washington and are busily stealing your future and your money, and they must be voted out of office.”
Well, since you’re a “professional logician” and a “research scientist” I guess that must mean you’re smarter than the rest of us. Is that what you’re implying? Or am I making an incorrect inference? Why the need to include that information in a response to someone? It must be wonderful to always be so sure of everything..to know you always have the correct answer.
Am I being sarcastic? I’ll leave that up to you to decide since you’re the one who has been “trained” how to think.
@MetroCowboy: Support primary challengers that don’t sound too crazy or too obviously criminal. Stop supporting them when they screw you. That is about all you can do. Vote against incumbents that are ripping us off.
Even if you vote for an independent or third party, the green party or libertarian that is bound to lose, that can be important in a legal sense, in many states if a candidate does not get 50% of the vote they have to go into a runoff election. A vote for a third party at least counts as part of the vote, and you might be able to unseat an incumbent in a runoff election.
@Elaine: I don’t have to put words in your mouth. Words have meanings and I can infer the obvious. In this case, I was employing a technique called “sarcasm,” in which I point out the obviously overlooked negative consequences of your stated position and pretend this obviously bad think would be a GOOD thing.
I doubt all Democrats are sociopaths, only about 1% of the population is literally sociopathic. But I see very few Democrats willing to buck the party screwing us liberals over, I see a lot of Democrats caving and fake-bucking the party only when their vote will make no difference to the final outcomes.
I am a liberal progressive without a party. The parties are corrupt. It makes little difference if they are 80% corrupt or 99% corrupt, the result is the same, the monied interests win and move the country to the right, because that makes them richer and greed knows no bounds.
The real question is where to go?….Who do you support and vote for?…Im guessing the A#$&)*^s, pardon my language, in the administration are counting on getting votes because next to the crazies that are running they really do seem sorta normal. Its kinda like watching the collapse of the Roman Empire just change the names and dates.
@Swarthmore: Because everybody that disagrees with you must be on the opposite side of you, right?
I don’t think Alan Grayson is a criminal. He did vote for a health care bill full of giveaways to the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies, and he is lying about his opponent being a draft dodger. Must he lie to get elected? Do you forgive lies in a campaign just because everybody does it?
Grayson also has both raised and spent ten times as much as his opponent, and currently has ten times as much on hand, over a million, so he doesn’t need a dime from me.
I am not a Republican. I am an atheist, a liberal, and a person that believes in a wide social safety net. I am for single-payer socialized medicine. I am for hugely progressive taxation of the wealthy. I can logically justify every political position I take, and logically refute every conservative position to boot. I am a professional logician, a research scientist. I don’t know how to make you believe I am sincere, but I am: The corporatist crooks have hijacked Washington and are busily stealing your future and your money, and they must be voted out of office.
Kristin,
“I don’t agree with Republicans, but at least they do usually follow through on the policies they espouse.”
That’s one of the major problems with Republicans–they usually do follow through on the terrible policies that they espouse.
Tony C.,
“Oh, now I see. You’d rather have two sociopathic criminals in office than one.”
Not sure where you got that idea. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Don’t infer from my comment something I didn’t imply.
Question: Are you suggesting that all Democrats are “smart sociopathic criminals?”
I happen to think that a lot of harm can be done in one term in office. Look at the havoc wreaked upon our country during just the first administration of George W. Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvB-mHXcWzg Here is a guy for you Tony C. He is Alan Grayson’s opponent. Is Alan Grayson a criminal? I think some of you guys are republicans who are pretending that you are disillusioned democrats.
I couldn’t agree more! I also have a new policy to add to government procedure: Just as Congressmen can go on the record as “present, not voting” for a bill, citizens should be able to go to the polls and have a “present, not voting” option. That way, maybe voters would be seen as less apathetic, and as more angry. It’s not that we don’t care enough to vote, it’s that we are fed up and unimpressed with our choices. I think many voters – especially liberals, like myself – are fed up with Democratic promises that never seem to get fulfilled. I don’t agree with Republicans, but at least they do usually follow through on the policies they espouse.
@Elaine: Oh, now I see. You’d rather have two sociopathic criminals in office than one. Because that is so much better. Then, instead of just being “under the influence” of a sociopathic criminal, we can have a little cabal going, where these two sociopaths openly collude to help each other trick the public. I guess that is SO much more entertaining.
An unwitting fool with an ideological agenda is better, s/he might be influenced, but then again they will probably only be in office a single term and will never be much more than a single vote. Two cynical criminals working together will do far more damage than one criminal trying to manipulate some kind of rabid one-issue ideologue.
Tony C.
What I fear is electing dumb fools to office who will fall under the control of smart sociopathic criminals–something like we had with the previous administration.
@Swarthmore: Refusing to vote for somebody I think is a criminal does not mean I want some other criminal to win. If I wanted these Jack Bauer idiots to win, I would donate to their campaigns and vote for them when in their constituency. I have done neither thing.
No, I don’t want them in office. But let me point out that everything THEY are proposing is precisely that, a proposal that may or may not ever become law. They are espousing their hypothetical actions were they king of the world. But the crimes (in some cases literally) of the sitting Democrats and Republicans are already committed, to horrible effect.
So which do I choose? Blathering idiots proposing hypothetical laws that even our extremist President would veto, not to mention the Democrats still in office? Or sitting politicians that endorse war crimes, back room deals, bailouts and secret contracts that make their buddies even richer, and special dispensations on the crimes of the rich and their fellow politicians?
If that is the choice in this election, put the naive and ineffective idiot in there. He will not be king and will never get anything even close to his (very unconstitutional) aspirations passed. And there is the advantage that, being an idiot, he is also easy to see through and really only appeals to his fellow idiots.
So I do not want to see him in office, but I’d rather have a dumb fool in office than a smart sociopathic criminal.
Tony C.,
I can agree with you as to the money as I donated only to a local candidate but I don’t view it as punishment. I don’t buy certain products not because I wish to punish the manufacturer but because I believe a different brand gives me more value for my buck.
The democrats are no longer giving me value for my buck so having a finite amount to spend, I choose to spend it elsewhere.
I will always complain … it is a right I choose not to give up. Whether they like it or not, they are my elected representatives and I will burden them monthly with my views and opinions.
And today now Obama is saying the same thing.
What a losing strategy – unless they really do want to lose, which might be exactly what’s going on. Then they can blame all those liberal things they promised to do and won’t get done on the republican majority.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-13/renegade-soldiers-for-congress/ Are you for these two republicans to win,Tony C?
Money translates into votes, ask any candidate, including Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, even those dummies know THAT. So withholding your donations is ALSO a punishment. If you don’t think punishment will work — Well, open your wallets.
Now complaining, that is something they can ignore, they are fully insulated from that “negative.” And they don’t care, as long as you keep opening your wallet and voting for them, why should they?
The only punishment that will work is withholding money AND the vote and making them lose office. If you think that moves them further to the right, then obviously considering the last two years BOTH tactics move them further to the right and the situation is hopeless. If that is the case, save your money, and save your time, there is no point in donating or voting.
You were expecting Joe “The Gaffe Meister” Biden to express words of wisdom and get the Democratic base excited? The only time our VP opens his mouth is to change his feet.
**********
BTW, I don’t think that those of us who believe the suggested tactics for punishing the Democrats and letting Republicans take power once again are advocating that liberals/progressives stay silent. I believe we should continue to speak out, call our Congressmen/women with complaints, refuse to donate money until we see changes.
Speaking for myself, I think the election tactics for “sending a message” to the Democrats might send the message to Democrats and Republicans alike that voters want our country to move further to the right.
**********
This morning Mike Spindell expressed what I and some others on this blog believe about the issue.
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/24/biden-laments-the-lethargy-of-democratic-voters/#comment-162252
Tit for Tat Mr. Vice-President?