Frankly I don't want unity. Unity hasn't worked extraordinarily well for progressive pro-labor

[HereSince1628]

pro-consumer dems in many election cycles.

What "coming around" to support the nominee has delivered in the recent past is the ignominy of also-ran, loser status. Even when sizable fractions of the party base want progressive movement.

No I don't want unity on such terms as have been dealt out by the Neoliberals under their various names. The agreed upon outcome of the primaries is voting for the nominee, but even so I'll work against the pushing of progressives into oblivion in the name unity on terms that don't recognize -significant- proportional interests.

I want a coalition but of competing allies. Yes, dammit, THAT! VAUNTED TEAM OF RIVALS everyone has suggested is SO good for the nation. But not the sort where the rivalry is pretend and every administrator in the executive is in on the scam of placing enemies of the causes of the people in places where they can advocate against federally negotiated drug prices, against public administration of social security, etc.

I want a coalition that recognizes -multiple- interests and multiple centers of power and leadership in the party. I want a coalition where progressives get something in return for their support. Yes, dammit, a quid pro quo for being part of an alliance that can get budgets, legislation and judicial nominees through the legislature

No more feeding junk campaign promissory notes that never get serious consideration.

I want a coalition that represents the very near half of the party electorate that don't want neoliberals and their strong pro-corporate ways with their soft shoeing on desperate social issues.

I want a coalition which generates competing ideas that promote real critical examination from which emerges great proposals for action and which are capable of garnering majority support within an alliance of competing caucuses.

Sure I want the -good- outcomes of unity. But I also want recognition of a large near majority faction within the party.

European parliaments operate on similar models, there's really no reason why an American party has to continue without recognition and acceptance of the influence of it's constituent parts.

[beachbumbob]

1. Really...and disunity wil see repeal of all labor related laws

[TCJ70]

2. Shouldn't we be focusing on what we could gain...

...rather than what we stand to lose? I swear, 9 out of 10 arguments for Hillary are just anti-Trump. Democrats need to give people a reason to vote FOR them, not just against the other guy. Fear is a stupid dismotivator.

[beachbumbob]

4. That's because 99% of sanders people have no idea who sanders is...and

How easy the GOP will destroy him in the eyes of the voters who count....zealots are blind...

[nc4bo]

5. But there must be follow through or all that is for naught.

We hear tons of lip service and it's just that, lips flapping with a few juicy social progress bones tossed in.

They don't want this side NEAR the economics side, no where near their Precious - preferring to cook the economic side low and slow until we all just dried up empty starving shells. Telling us the Republicans would have stomped all over this or that so you best vote for us.

[WhiteTara]

7. Do you belong to a union?

If not, bring it to your workplace and you/we will all have a stronger voice in labor issues.

Do you belong to the county central committee? If not going out and campaign to be a voice in the process.

Do you work on GOTV? If not, pick up some registration forms, carry them with you and register people to vote everywhere you go.

To offer lip service is just that. lips flapping with a few juicy social issues to complain about isn't how how change is made.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. A basic primer of Parliamentary systems and the problem with combining with our system.

Can America Survive Parliamentary Norms in a Presidential System?
I've written before that America is in danger of adopting de facto parliamentary rule, but within a presidential system that never developed the parliamentary norms to make this work. A regular reader emailed this weekend to ask a very basic question: what does this mean? How does a parliamentary system work, anyway?

I'm reluctant to take this on, because there are lots of different kinds of parliamentary systems and lots of subtleties about how they work. Still, at the risk of being inundated with comments about all the stuff I'm leaving out, maybe it's worth providing a really simple primer about this.

Roughly speaking, in a parliamentary system there's only a single house of the legislature. (If there are two, the upper house usually has very limited powers these days.) As a voter, the only thing you do in an election is vote for a member of parliament for your district. Whichever party wins the most seats is the winner of the election.

There's no president in this system.1 The leader of the winning party becomes prime minister and forms a government. Party discipline, in most cases, is absolute. The party leadership submits legislation to implement its campaign platform, and every member of the party is expected to vote for it. Thus, the kind of gridlock we suffer from is very rare: the prime minister and his or her cabinet always have a majority of the votes in parliament, so they can be assured that their platform will be implemented exactly as they want it to be. Only in rare cases will members of the majority party decline to support the leadership on an important vote. When this happens, it's taken as a vote of "no confidence" in the government and a new election is held.

If you don't like Mother Jones as a source, there are good books on the subject.

[qdouble]

6. Making the tent smaller and smaller isn't a good strategy for moving forward in a democracy

but it appears many on the far left don't care about democracy.

[HereSince1628]

8. That doesn't logically follow from what I wrote.

I am not talking about fewer people, I open, and even eager to see more people in the party. Especially PROGRESSIVE people, but that's my preference.

What I am talking about is not being served the ramrod of winner take-all politics. The 'elections have consequences' that likely dissuades people from joining the party...which is likely why the party is falling below 1/3 of American voters.

What I am talking about is how the politically diverse people in the tent are recognized. One would think in a party that promotes democracy that could be proportional to the political beliefs represents. Especially when those beliefs rise to nearly half.

[qdouble]

13. #1) Laws mostly originate from congress, not the president...so regardless of who is the

nominee, the more progressive members of the party can already make their voices heard in the Senate and House. Less people identity along the democratic/republican lines mostly because there is a broad range of beliefs and positions to have. The fact of the matter is, if the far left side of the democratic party doesn't want to hold hands with the centrist wing of the party, all you'd have is a minority that is unable to win the presidency or control congress.

[HereSince1628]

14. Yes, and that's why Sanders supporters talk about a movement

A movement which will work to elect progressive politicians who no one should expect are going to work in lockstep loyalty to neoliberal leadship in Congress.

It's not about unity, it's not about 'taking over the party' it's about building legislative coalitions that have critical influence as progressives offer or withhold support on legislation.

[qdouble]

16. I'm all for progressives pushing their agenda and seeking more influence...

the more progressive votes we have, the less the right can red bait everything. However, what I'm against is the far left making it seem like compromise is a bad word and that anyone who doesn't pass their purity test isn't on their side. Progressive should expect their influence to be proportional to the size of their movement.

[HereSince1628]

17. Compromises in the recent past have really dismissed progressive voters' interests

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Compromises for the party's left from the party's conservative right need to be real compromises that include more for progressives than "screw you and your ponies".

[baldguy]

9. You mean: blaming your freinds & allies for failures caused by Republicans hasen't worked well.

[LWolf]

10. I will not be "unifying" with neoliberals. nt

[book_worm]

11. Who cares? Do what you want.

[woolldog]

12. Sometimes not taking a step backward

is as important as taking a step forward. Progressives will be in an even more difficult position after Paul Ryan and Trump advance their agenda for 4-8 years.

[HereSince1628]

15. That may be a non sequiter, cuz I am not promoting not voting for the nominee

I am for promoting an influential caucus within a coalition. A caucus that will have to work to gain strength by electing progressives in the 2018 midterms and elections across the 20's