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
@Swarthmore:
>> [You are] either a closeted tea party member or very naive.
How many times do I have to say the Tea Party is ridiculous and their candidates borderline criminal opportunists or delusionally stupid? They have about six times the concentration of open racists as the general population.
>> The Koch brothers and Scalia have formed a coalition […] They want to wipe out the democrats in 2010 and get rid of Obama in 2012.
I think the Koch brothers want to enslave the population and operate with complete impunity to the law, and I think they will attempt to buy anybody that helps move them toward that goal, Democrat or Republican, Obama included. By their own description, they are not Republicans but extreme libertarians that believe any government is bad government.
Yes, they and their ilk are the problem, but electing either Democrats or Republicans that help them is not the solution to the problem, and when Democrats and Republicans are lying to you about what they will do and taking disguised and secret campaign contributions and help that originated with the Koch brothers, how does that help solve the Koch brother problem?
@Buddha:
>> Thinking that the unthinkable cannot happen here flies in the face of the examples of history. […]
at this point, an American dictator is almost inevitable […] Obama’s clear willingness to violate due process in as violent a manner possible are indications that is indeed the path we are on.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement, perhaps: I think the unthinkable has ALREADY happened. We have a Democratic President that on civil rights is furher right than any President we have ever had, **including** Bush/Cheney. They never openly advocated assassinating American citizens without due process.
>> I’m not nearly the optimist about human nature as you would seem to be.
I am rather a pessimist about human nature. It seems to me people would rather watch American Idol than attend to their house burning down; as long as they experience little or no personal pain they prefer to ignore politics altogether, right up until they are laid off, or get sick, or it is otherwise too late to do a damn thing about it.
I repeat: The Unthinkable has already happened. So now what? Unlike Hitler, Pol Pot, and others, we have one card left in our hand, the vote. I presume we can still count on politicians to honor a clear loss and step down; nobody has declared martial law quite yet.
It is being claimed that I don’t care about the poor, or reproductive rights, or social security, or the other fallouts of not voting for Democrats. False. I do. I just care about civil liberties and the rule of law and habeas corpus and stopping corporate fraud, senseless war and corruption of government MORE than those things, because I think if we do not prioritize the civil liberties and corruption FIRST, all the rest of those things will be eroded into destruction *anyway*. Protections for the common citizen and worker just get in the way of the corporations and the rich, and pragmatically speaking the laws do not really apply to them.
Tony c Your are either a closeted tea party member or very naive. The Koch brothers and Scalia have formed a coalition and guess what it is about. They want to wipe out the democrats in 2010 and get rid of Obama in 2012. They have the money and the power and with help from people like you they will succeed.
This is where I think you are mistaken in your initial axioms:
“because the wild threats of the GOP are not executable.”
Thinking that the unthinkable cannot happen here flies in the face of the examples of history. Horrible people with horrific agendas they’ve been able to implement are not an uncommon event in human history. Hitler. Pol Pot. Stalin. Mao. Aside from their brutality, they all share the following trait: During their rise to power, a lot of people kept saying “That can’t happen here.” If we aren’t extremely lucky, at this point, an American dictator is almost inevitable as are the abuses that would naturally occur subsequently. Bush’s war crimes and abusive overreaching compounded by Obama’s clear willingness to violate due process in as violent a manner possible are indications that is indeed the path we are on. I’m not nearly the optimist about human nature as you would seem to be. The difference isn’t that neither doesn’t see “the burn” coming, we disagree on the level of heat that will result.
Voting your conscience is one thing. Not countering the vote for the clear opposition another. One may make you feel better about shaving in the morning, but it’s a self-defeating strategy in the terms of long term self-interest. Getting someone to vote contrary to their self-interests is one of the oldest tricks in the propaganda playbook. It’s simply a form of the Jedi Mind Trick: you convince the person that voting against their interests is their idea and for a seemingly rational reason. This is why the cynical math of the DNC is true to a certain degree although their approach is wrong. A strong message to the DNC does need to be sent on behalf of progressives – without question they have failed large and need to be informed, but at the ballot box at this point in time is not a damage minimizing strategy. A damage minimizing strategy that even if I’m wrong about a rising dictatorship would be advisable simply as a matter of prudence if nothing else.
@Swarthmore:
I watched the ad, and it is a lie. Yes, Sharron Angle advocates for those position. But the ad says,
“Sharron Angle would force her to have the baby.”
That is intentionally misleading and in my book a lie. Sharron Angle “would” do that if she had the power, but Sharron Angle would not have that power, no Senator does, and the SEIU *knows* that.
If senators had that power we would be seeing it exercised. Abortion cannot be outlawed without the consent of the Supreme Court.
Not to mention: Her opponent, Reid, is on the record as pro-life and anti-abortion as well.
Student Loans? She won’t have any more power over that than any other senator.
“Jobs” ? I do not know what that is in reference to, but Angle would not have any power over whether women get jobs or not, and the country is never going back to a culture of stay-at-home moms or whatever.
Social Security? Again, not without the help of the Democrats and Obama himself. Angle has no power over that whatsoever.
This is what I am talking about when I say we are being conned. This is a simple frighten-the-Dems ad full of misleading statements about what Sharron Angle “would do” as if they will happen when she is elected, when the fact is she would have no power to do any of it and objectively speaking, the chances against any of it happening are approximately infinite.
I have no doubt the ad is truthful about what Angle would LIKE to do, but claiming it will actually happen is a fear tactic. Imaginary catastrophies are constantly being invented, by both sides, to distract us from the real crimes and corruption that will ruin us.
I think Sharron Angle is a complete moron, a transparent liar, and a corrupt thief. I think Reid is a liar and a corrupt thief, but not a complete moron: If there is any reason to vote for Reid, that is it. Not what Angle fantasizes about doing and the SEIU lies about what she “would” do.
@Buddha: All snarking aside for the moment:
>> What you don’t understand is that you […] end the “pay to play” culture by […] attacking the mechanism that enables them in the first place (campaign finance) […]
I hope that remains in context with my elisions; and yes I do understand that. We are in agreement on that point. In case you missed it, this is one of the reason I was asking about enforceable contracts with candidates; a post you answered. It is one of the few ways I can think of that could get campaign finance under control.
I do not think CFR will do the job. We disagree on treatment, not on the disease.
>> This would assume that anarchy is not your primary goal. If anarchy is your primary goal, then you don’t truly appreciate or understand the nature of anarchy.
Anarchy is not my goal at all, my goal is the rule of law for EVERYBODY, regulated capitalistic competition, and a tax code that supports a robust social safety net. I’m for V.A. hospitals for everybody, government run insurance, much higher taxes on the rich, zero loopholes, and civil liberties. Although I have never used either illegal drugs or prostitutes, I think those should be entirely legal and as safe as reasonably possible.
>> However, advocating voter suppression as a valid tactic will only hasten anarchy by further entrenching the venal theocratic thug core of the GOP.
First, I am not advocating voter suppression; and have said several times I will vote myself. I am advocating voting my conscience.
Second, this “will only hasten anarchy” is an unproven assertion. That is your guess, not mine. That is your opinion. I analyze the facts available to me and come to a different conclusion. A setback is not the same thing as being on the path to anarchy.
>> Wanting change no matter the societal cost and wanting change with as little blood in the streets as possible are two different goals.
Yes they are, but those aren’t the only two choices, are they? By analogy, my only two choices in transportation are not a motorcycle and an armored SUV.
I did not say “no matter the societal cost.” In fact what I said is I thought the societal cost would be minimal, because the wild threats of the GOP are not executable.
To use your metaphor, I did not say there would be as little blood in the streets as possible. I think that path *IS* what leads to anarchy, I think we have been following that path with disastrous results that anger us both.
Again, by analogy: The reason the 9/11 hijackers got zero resistance on three out of their four flights was that passengers and crew were following what they thought was the path of least blood. The fourth plane passengers that resisted did so because of communications that told them that path was not going to work. They died anyway, but probably saved the White House in the process.
On a longer timescale, the same thing was true of the thousands of Jews captured by the Romans and forced to build the Colosseum; by following a path that preserved their lives they ended up in abject slavery, ultimately slaughtered by the thousands to commemorate the opening.
This is how cons work; every choice is engineered by the con artist to make the choice he wants you to make seem like the lesser of two evils, so the mark is always making the decisions that will bankrupt him. I think we are being conned into political bankruptcy.
Maybe you don’t think that, maybe I am too much of an idealist, but I have 20 years experience privy to the deliberations of a dozen ruthless corporations, and I think I see a pattern here. I think we are being conned. What destroys a con is when the mark unexpectedly takes the path of greater resistance, due to moral conviction, guilt, or suspicion of a bad con artist.
I do not advocate “voter suppression,” that is entirely *your* formulation of my strategy of not voting for or supporting liars and corruption. You are entitled to your conclusion, but to be honest you should not claim it is what I advocate when I have specifically rejected it.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/seiu-ad-this-is-what-sharron-angle-will-do-to-women-video.php?ref=fpb SEIU ad showing how the election of Sharon Angle will harm women,Tony. Good post Buddah.
What you don’t understand is that you don’t end the “pay to play” culture by further enabling creators of said inequitable treatment but rather by attacking the mechanism that enables them in the first place (campaign finance) and their past crimes as yet unprosecuted (Cheney’s treasons for example). Much like a fish rots from the head, creating a culture of accountability starts there too. If the head is not accountable, the body soon follows into anarchy. This would assume that anarchy is not your primary goal. If anarchy is your primary goal, then you don’t truly appreciate or understand the nature of anarchy. However, advocating voter suppression as a valid tactic will only hasten anarchy by further entrenching the venal theocratic thug core of the GOP. Wanting change no matter the societal cost and wanting change with as little blood in the streets as possible are two different goals.
@Carlyle: Thanks for the agreement.
>> Perhaps Tony does not understand that in the USA draconian punishment is reserved for the powerless,…
On the contrary, read my post in this very thread here, Oct 13 at 10:34:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/28/biden-tells-democratic-voter-to-stop-whining-and-buck-up/#comment-165674
Where I say: “The rich use drugs and break laws with impunity while the poor are imprisoned. Cocaine possession buys a rich girl a month of community service, and a poor kid gets five years in jail.”
I have written similar things elsewhere. This is due to the corruption of politics by money. The rich can blow $50K on lawyer fees without blinking; a guy with millions in reserve can weather almost any legal storm (and in OJs case, murder). Punitive fines and taxes and bonds should be unconstitutional; they are directly responsible for unequal justice under the law.
The rich regard them as simple fees, a little pay to play, and they just include the fees into their cost of doing business.
For examples, Massey energy never bothered to fix the mines and chose to kill miners instead. BP did an explicit cost-effectiveness analysis of worker safety in the Texas oil explosion and decided against it — They concluded (and the slide calls the workers “little piggies”) it would be cheaper to litigate and settle with the families than to go to the expense of protecting the lives of their workers.
There is a large disparity in law enforcement between the rich and the poor, and it is growing, and it is because the rich can buy their way out of trouble, and are buying off the politicians that then protect them from cops and prosecution.
The reason that some organisms have brains is that evolution has developed brains as universe simulators. The function of the brain is to contain models of the universe as each organism experiences it to help the life form in the battle for survival and reproduction. Humans brains are among the largest, but evolution did not create them so that humans could develop theories of relativity or about strings making up elementary particles, the size is entirely for dealing with the much greater complexity of human social interactions and politics.
Despite the complexity, the human brain still lacks the size to contain anything other than extremely simplified models of how a political system such as that in the US works. When modeling a nonlinear system, any deviation of the model from the reality cause large deviations in the results the model gives from the corresponding reality. Blouise, Elaine M, Mike Spindell, Swathmore Mom and Tony C. and the others disputing on this thread have different models of how the US political system works and therefore not surprisingly come to different conclusions as to the strategies that a voter should follow to improve things. My personal bias is to agree with Tony C, but I have to acknowledge that the errors in everyone’s including Tony’s mental models far exceed in magnitude the difference between the conclusions that Mike S and Tony C for example reach.
The truth is that all the arguments made by the different people make sense to me but if any one of them actually agrees with reality it is probably only by chance and not because that person’s internal brain model of US politics is actually in agreement with reality. The main reason that I favour Tony C’s argument is that it is in agreement with the overwhelming tendency of US citizens to favor punishment as a method of changing reality. Perhaps Tony does not understand that in the USA draconian punishment is reserved for the powerless, for those who have least control over their choices and is forbidden for use against members of the elite such as elected officials.
Another truth is that those debating on this thread are from a small minority of the chattering classes, maybe 5% of the population who at least try to use their brains to make sense of politics but that 95% of voters do not do this much and have been successfully brainwashed into believing false ideologies that lead them to vote against their own interests. This Dissident Voice article puts it much better than I can:-
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/10/americas-false-consciousness/#more-23632
Mike S.
Email notifications of comments on this thread have been coming so thick and fast that I have been putting off reading them for several days. Therefore I only a few minutes ago so saw your post about going into hospital for a heart transplant. So I belatedly wish you good luck with the operation and a speedy recovery to vote for any sane political candidates you can find.
Get back to posting as soon as you can.
Just saw it. What directed me to the corrections page after I posted that I haven’t a clue.
bdaman The professor posted the good news on corrections.
It’s been almost 24 hours since we last heard from Maxene, Mikes wife. Lets pray that no news is good news.
mespo,
Did a gig with the Tabernacle many, many, many years ago. Lovely people, kind and generous, but never-the-less, I was intimidated by their sheer power and discipline. They do tend to bring out the best in a performer. (I was part of a string ensemble)
I want to add my best wishes to Mike Spindell and his family in this time of stress. I have long valued his thoughtful and eloquent postings at our site. He has become a real friend to many of us.
Blouise:
Depending on which lie one subscribes too, ol’ Joe Smith either lost those gold tablets and replaced them with wooden ones or returned them to Moroni. Young lived a better life and founded two universities and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. I do like The Battle Hymn of the Republic version they sing.
That’s a direct quote from wikileaks twitter feed. Sorry.
Pentagon appears to pre-empt alleged WikiLeaks Iraq leak with FOIA release http://bit.ly/d0i5pT
mespo,
Wouldn’t you rather be Joseph Smith and in possession of the book of golden plates?