Bring On the Rebels

[proud2BlibKansan]

Bring On the Rebels

By William Greider, The Nation. Posted December 27, 2005.

Challenges from within by a few insurgent Democrats may be the only way to save the party from the ineffective big-money beast it's become.

Alex Alper, AlterNet


The political news from Connecticut did not seem earth-shaking on its face, but the New York Times and the Washington Post were both sufficiently alarmed to put the story on page one. Some upstart citizens are talking about challenging their warrior senator, Joe Lieberman, by running an antiwar candidate against him next fall. The Wall Street Journal went ballistic. Its hysterical editorial denounced the "liberal animosity" toward Wall Street's favorite Democrat.

Possibly, this rump-group assault on the established order will come to nothing, just another angry rant from frustrated Democrats. But it could be the start of something big -- a David-and-Goliath challenge that encourages other nascent insurgencies around the country. Rebellion can be fun -- who doesn't enjoy upsetting the mainstream media? -- but in these dispiriting times it is also good for one's mental health. Even better, rebellion could revive the Democratic Party.

Intraparty challenges are one of the most effective ways to get the attention of risk-averse politicians and force them to change their thinking. Even if the targeted politicians are not defeated, they hate intrusions from meddlesome citizens messing with their job-for-life security. And nothing upsets members of Congress like seeing a few of their colleagues abruptly taken down by outsiders with supposedly marginal issues the Washington Club didn't take seriously. Incumbents will do quite a lot to avoid the same fate.

With persistence and strong convictions, insurgents can change a political party. Witness the right's slow-motion crusade to conquer and transform the Republican Party. Thirty years ago right-wing activists regularly mounted hopeless challenges to the GOP establishment -- including Richard Nixon -- and usually lost. They were called "ankle biters" in those days. Today, they are running the party. The right continues to use this tactic to threaten and punish wayward incumbents. The Wall Street-financed Club for Growth ran a right-wing primary opponent against Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania in 2004, and it is doing the same thing to Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island in 2006. New York Times columnist David Brooks astutely observed: "When conservatism was a movement of ideas, it attracted oddballs; now that it's a movement with power, it attracts sleazeballs."

The Democratic Party is never going to change substantively and again become a reform party with a serious agenda until some of its blood is spilled in the same fashion. For years, incumbent Dems have distanced themselves from fundamental convictions, confident the party's "base" wouldn't do anything about it beyond whimpering. Until now, the cynicism was well founded. Galvanized by the war, disgusted with weak-spined party leaders, the rank-and-file may at last be ready to bite back.

more
http://www.alternet.org/story/29953/

[BamaLefty]

1. Rebel Posting Here

Where do I sign?!

[Crazy Dave]

2. You make a great point.

If you know someone is going to vote for your side all the time anyways, why waste any time and money on them. Just keep telling them that they need to keep re-electing you so that you can protect them from those "ewil, wascully, weepublicans". I can point to very poor, high crime, pre-dominantly democratic voting neighborhoods that were same 30 years ago. Nothing ever changes, not even the same tired old promises. If the people who vote democratic start demanding accountability and progress or we start voting 3rd party, that might, maybe, get some attention. Blueblood, silverspoon fed, career politicians.
Purge them all and get some new blood in there. Not the same typical Washington, DC insiders, lets vote in real people like Dean or Edwards who have had real jobs in the last 20 years instead of living off tax payers, bribes, rich wives and trust funds.

[EST]

3. The marginal differences between entrenched democrats

and the fascists is that the policy and political corruption is not quite so wide and deep and some of them can faintly remember that they once may have believed in "by the people and for the people." These are not powerful differences to make support decisions from.If I want fascist leaders I will select them from the republican ranks-they're better at it.
The tragedy of so-called centrist dems is that their echo chamber, like the dooches' campaign speeches, has them believing that they are 'doin' a fine job' and the great unwashed simply has no clue. DLC lives in rubbish world--we do not need that kind of backward sideways leadership.
How the hell else do we convince them to lead where we're all going?
Dump 'em!