New Chapter Politics 101

[NJMaverick]

Milt has yet more words of wisdom. I suggest reading the whole thing. However here are some highlights:

Quote:We progressives have been standing on the sidelines while the far right has run the show for about 32 years now, precisely because a significant proportion of “progressives” don’t seem to occupy the real world. If you want to know why the right wing has been able to dismantle most of the meager social justice apparatus that we built up before the Reagan “Revolution,” it’s because they understand that they can only get their way if they keep winning elections. Meanwhie, a too-large contingent of “progressives” seem to think “standing on principle” means sticking to lofty ideals that can't possibly happen in one shot, and abandoning anything that doesn't represent at least 100% of that lofty ideal. It's why it seems as if progressives have run straight off the political cliff. As President Obama has put it many times, these "principled" "progressives" are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

How “principled” can you call yourself, if the end result of your political “strategy” is the elimination of the middle class, income inequality unlike any we've seen in a century, a justice system that is increasingly populated by right wing judges, and the passing of laws that lessen our civil rights? Anyone can talk about principle, but shouldn't actually having principle require some success in accomplishing your goals? I mean, am I a blogger just because I have an account with a blogging site, or do I actually have to write something?

Quote:It is so tiresome to work hard for the progressive cause for as long as I have, and have it repeatedly sabotaged by people who claim the same ideology as me, but who insist on political strategy that puts right wing nutbars in charge of the government for 32 years. These folks don’t even seem to notice that what they’re doing isn’t working, so narcissistic is their political stance.

Yes, I said “narcissistic,” because that’s what it is. Some self-described “progressives” are so enamored with their own ideals, they can’t even entertain another’s ideas. And that’s the problem. If your idea is going to become law/policy, then someone has to be elected with that as a mandate. That takes years of hard work and a lot of salesmanship and education.

Quote:There are some things progressives have to know about politics if we’re to make it out of the political wilderness:
1.The result of a democratic vote will always be somewhere in the center.
2.If you want a progressive government, you need a progressive electorate, which takes time, patience and education.
3.If you want to push the process left of center, you have to participate in the process. Never in human history, or basic logic, has a political body become MORE progressive as progressives left it.
4.If the worst possible people keep winning elections, nothing else you do will matter one little bit.
5.Low turnout elections favor the right wing. Negativity drives down turnout.

There are many more, but these will get you started.

Keep in mind, the people who decide elections are not ideological, and they are influenced by the overall tone of a campaign. They don’t sit and pore over every candidate’s position on every single issue. In fact, in most cases their decision is whether or not to vote. They want to vote FOR something, not just against. That’s why Obama was successful in 2008. He didn’t run as either right or left; he ran as a problem solver. And as president, he has done quite well in that capacity.

The right wing is always negative precisely because it works to their advantage. Negativity drives turnout down, and low turnout is the only way they can win elections. When we’re negative, we actually help them with their number one strategy.

And I’m sorry, but helping the right wing win is why I put “progressive” in quotes when describing a number of you.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main...tions.html

[pappy]

Consider the polling we see year after year on issues rather than parties or candidates. In almost every poll and issue the majority of American's favor the "progressive" positions over the "conservative ones".

Yet in election after election the conservative (even reactionary) candidates get elected often enough that they can pass the conservative agenda or block the agenda from the left. Why?

I think that part of the answer is loyalty of their base. Loyalty often bought with pandering and fear but, if electoral success is the measure, the tactics have been effective. Another part of the answer lies in both camps (left and right) ability to either suppress the turnout on the left or swing the "middle" voters to one side or the other.

I think the original author's five points are spot on. The turn around will be difficult. We on the left must be patient and resolute. When Citizens United is the law of the land and the opposition's base is "educated" through a very narrow and biased media window (Fox News for instance) the going will be tough but not impossible.

Keys to success must be education, participation and a positive vision. Without those three the mad bounce from left to right and back again will continue.

One other key that cannot go unspoken is moderation. The typical "middle" voter is scared off by extreme positions of wither side. Get moderate laws passed that inch us towards the left. Take moderately left positions on social issues. My inching to the left rather than lurching the middle will grow to accept the new paradigm and see the wisdom that is on the left instead of the cartoon version presented by the right.

During the 2008 campaign I told two young men who came to an early organizing meeting that my generation relaxed and went to sleep after we thought we had "won" after Viet Nam and the social progress brought about by the 60's and 70's. We let down our guard and the Republicans kept fighting and organizing and propagandizing. Let's not let them back in the game again. Make the Republicans follow us to a new left America rather than leading us to their "right of center" world.

[jaxx]

I really like the innate common sense that Milt Shook puts into his articles. It's hard to come by with most authors, but he has it down cold. Do the far left really think that a Kucinich would win the White House?

[pappy]

(02-25-2012 12:52 PM)jaxx Wrote:  I really like the innate common sense that Milt Shook puts into his articles. It's hard to come by with most authors, but he has it down cold. Do the far left really think that a Kucinich would win the White House?

In private moments I'm sure Kucinich would admit to being somewhat a vanity candidate. Even he knows he couldn't win but uses the platform to preach his message and increase his own reputation.

[Treestar]

Nobody else is able to so succinctly sum up the PL/frustrati.