Why not win with a Dem in 2004, and THEN go tilting at windmills?

[RandomKoolzip]

This whole "throw the system away cuz they're all corrupt" project that the anti-ABBers are proposing is indeed a noble goal. In fact, it's fucking a great idea. I voted for Nader in 2004, because I too find the idea attractive. HOWEVER:

It's not going to happen in 2004. It's not going to happen in 2008. The system in which we are operating is so firmly entrenched, and works so well for so many, that a third party platform proposing an overhaul is DOOMED to failure. And siphoning off votes from the only party that could possibly stop the NeoCon agenda because of a lefter-than-thou attitude is only going to further said NeoCon plan. WE HAVE TO BE PRAGMATIC THIS YEAR.

I've seen lots of posts tonight boldly proclaiming things like, "I will not fall in line!" and the like. I admire your drive and your righteous anger, and I share it. I've had it with spineless Dems in the House and the Senate who play dead on every bill the right proposes. However, the overhaul that you propose is a long-term agenda, requiring huge amounts of time and effort. Before we take the country back to the left, we have to bring it back to the center again. We have to make the electorate realize that being to the left of Richard Perle is GOOD for them.

I'm prepared to go the distance with a more progressive agenda for the US, but I believe the way too do that is through the kinds of methods the right used to get back in power: low-level mailings, local organizing, meetups, forming independent think tanks, taking control of local radio stations, starting new media companies, etc. just like the Moral Majority did after Nixon's defeat. Voting Green this year will not bring about a change for the better; it will set the entire progressive movement back twenty years and cede what little ground we have left to the the party that now controls all three seats of government. These are not normal circumstances. These are the seeds of a fucking disaster.

Effecting the kind of change necessary to make this country more progressive is going to take the kind of patience that the right had all through the seventies. I'm willing to accept that neither Dean or Kucinich (the ones I really really wanted) are not going to grab the nomination. I'm willing to vote for Kerry, or Edwards, or anyone who is not openly advocating a neo-fascist agenda. I mean, let's face it: the kind of hostility and violence we always suspected underneath the republican facade has really popped out in the Bush years, in a big way. They're getting bolder, guys. If we let them keep the white house, who's to say that they WON'T turn the US into Nazi Germany? I know I'm not the only one who notices that Bush II was a hundred times worse than Reagan, Bush I and Nixon combined. The fascist tendencies we saw under those presidents has been allowed to bloom in the last three years, and IT NEEDS TO BE CUT OFF. Kerry will not push for Bushist policies, nor will Edwards. Sure, they won't turn this country into a utopian paradise, but they will make it much less scarier.

Then, once a Dem has taken office, THEN we can start planning on the major overhaul needed to bring this country back, the anti-corporate, anti-greed message.

It's a cliche, but cliches are cliches because they're true: United we stand, divided we fall. I'm not here to tell you to fuck yourself, or to condemn you, but to seriously think about how your decision will affect future generations and our planet. You are free to vote for whoever you want, but please understand the negative consequences of voting third party.

Thank you.

[kiahzero]

1. No, thank you

I disagree about how far the disease extends, but we agree on the cure - the first step is to get a Democrat in office in 04.

[Quixote1818]

2. Did someone say "tilting at windmills"? Sancho get me my armor!

What ever you say just as long as I can fight some windmills and reach for the impossible dream at some dam point! Good post.

[John_H]

3. 'cause it ain't sufficiently RAD, dude.

[grytpype]

4. Well put.

No matter what your issue is (Greenness, trade, gay marriage, whatever), you're going to do much, much better with Bush out of the WH.

So (1) get Bush out of the WH, then (2) work on your issue.

It's called growing up.

[ochazuke]

5. Yes. Growing up.

There is something extremely childish about the attitude that one won't vote for the nominee unless it's "my guy".

Another allegory: You're in a fox hole, mean ole bush is dropping bombs all around you. Your company commander gets killed. Now, you flop back in the fox hole and refuse to advance because you don't like the guy who took his place. Same damn thing.

[ClintonTyree]

6. As a Dean supporter....................

I'm inclined to agree with you. Our Democratic house needs to be purged of more than few right of center 'Democrats', but the most important mission is to get Dubya the Monkey Boy out of the White House. Four more years of this asshole and there won't be enough of the country left to save. I'll firmly support whichever candidate we run against this monster and urge all Dean, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun, Leiberman, Gephardt supporters to do the same. The enemy within must become secondary to the enemy of all, George Bush.

[eridani]

7. This time we don't go back to sleep if we win

We realize that the fight just begins.

[emulatorloo]

17. Amen to that -- we've got a lot of work to do

and we'll have a better chance of getting it done when GWB has gotten out of the WH.

[Sufi Marmot]

8. Nice post...

It pretty much sums up my feelings. Or to put it another way: Drowning men shouldn't argue about who gets to row back to shore until they're safely back in the life raft...

-SM

[morgan2]

9. so whats going to change in 2008?

is the republican nominee going to be so much better than Bush? Now is when the people are fired up to defeat the republicans, but people are to scared to nominate any candidate that wants change. I think the best way to do this is to pull George Bush. Lie, lie, and lie some more. Act like a moderate, govern like a radical. Sleazy yes, best way to get things done? maybe, maybe not.

[Sean Reynolds]

10. Exactly.

Problem is electing a DLC Democrat to the White House only advances THEIR cause, not ours. Kerry wins the election, it just proves moderate to right-wing Democrats are the best bet. So what happens in 2008? We run Kerry again. And in 2012? We run ANOTHER DLCER, same goes 2016.....etc, etc, etc.

[Sufi Marmot]

11. We are not in a position of strength...

We don't have the House. We don't have the Senate. The Supreme Court could get a lot, LOT worse. If a Democrats is in office, at least we have some influence on him/her and can nudge them leftward. We don't have that influence on Republican office holders. Some versus none. It's that simple. This country is almost evenly split politically, and to convince the majority of people that they are better off under liberal/progressive leadership is going to take a long time - there is so much damage from right-wing propaganda to be undone. The first step is for them to understand how their lives are better under a Democratic (even a moderate Democrat, and I personally think Kerry is more liberal than moderate...) President than under the GOP. Baby steps...


Cordially,
-SM

[eridani]

13. Influencing Republican officeholders

They voted to raise minimum wage in the 90s because their constituents gave them a ration of shit about it. If jobs keep flowing out of the country, similar tactics should work.

[zoeyfong]

12. Cuz, if dems win by moving right, they'll *never* move left.

It's all about winning and losing. No wish-washy, republican butt-kissing dem is going to develop a backbone as long as he keeps winning.

[DeepModem Mom]

14. Thanks, RandomKoolzip --

[JackRiddler]

15. Because this is how the whole thing has been kept in place

There is no one answer and if there was I woouldn't have it. If you are not working with an active grass roots organization around an issue of active political change or education, and if you are not in some way aiming for the lower-energy, sustainable future while you do so, you are doing nothing.

At any rate, an electoral strategy is NEVER going to do it.

This country requires revolutionary change (note: means an entirely new system and way of life, does not mean a violent overthrow which anyway would be self-defeating.) The grassroots have to link up (it began years ago) and not just each tend to their own fields, and prepare for a time when opportunities will open.

I don't waste time arguing with people who are convinced about their course of voting, whether 3rd party or Democratic. I won't say don't vote either, I almost certainly will. Go ahead and vote, and go ahead trying to convince the undecideds to vote. But if voting is all you do, and if you imply voting is THE way things will change for the better, you are both delusive and destructive.

I don't predict that things will get worse and cause a collapse, though this is statistically certain; I do say this system is primed to create constant destruction, including ultimately of itself. May take a long time, but we each see it differently and the signs I read it's going to be sooner rather than later. So you read something else, perhaps.

You think it's illusion, I often think it too: a great awakening of the people, to the reality of corporate oligarchy and that the government is not the country, the people are, and the government has been serving the money and causing the problems it purports to solve.

But it can happen very quickly, and the skeleton key to the door of perception for average Americans is labeled 9/11.

One day, this country may have its Tiananmen Square. And when the time comes to crush the people in the square, you will see an important difference from China. The tanks will not show. The soldiers will not shoot.

What's wrong with dreams?

[HowdyDUit]

16. Once a Dem has taken office, THEN we can start planning

Right. And this Dem will support me in the goal of marrying my same-sex partner too? I hear this crap every four years and every four years it the same old lie. I'll be dead before this erudite mystery Dem finally takes office.

[emulatorloo]

18. A Dem is going to be way more sympathetic to the cause than GWB

A Dem will at least listen to you, GWB never will.

A Dem will at least start w civil unions and equal rights, GWB never will.

[Guava Jelly]

19. Or you can keep republicans in

and have them insert judges that will make sodomy illegal,Take away awomans right to choose while our whitehouse has fun bombing brown skinned people all over the planet.
I also think its BullCrap right now that the democrats dont fight hard enough to give Homosexuals equal rights.What we have here right now are candidates campaigning to polls and numbers not people.
Change dosent happen over night ever unless something terrible happens via 9/11 and those changes are usually never for the good.

Just remember your protest vote that may give Bush four more years Also gives Ashcroft 4 more years.Do you want that nut peeking in your bedroom.

[maxanne]

20. thanks

for the recipe on maintaining the status quo. You don't get it. What you describe is what we do - what we have been doing for 20 years. What a success.

If we keep on doing what we always done, we'll keep on getting what we always get.

[Guava Jelly]

21. Not all change is positive

Do you believe you have a better chance of getting justice from George Bush Or John q Democrat.
Give the dems a chance America is changing more every year Remember Blacks used to be not able to marry whites that has changed.
Now sodomy isnt a high crime.
America will change if we let it.
Keeping bush in office isnt good

[Guaranteed]

22. Riiiight...cuz THIS time it'll be DIFFERENT nt