Why Aren't Progressives As Good At Politics As Conservatives? - DailyKos

[WillyT]

Why aren't progressives as good at politics as conservatives?
by robert cruickshank - DailyKos
SUN MAY 22, 2011 AT 09:25 AM PDT


<snip>

...

A coalition is an essential piece of political organizing. It stems from the basic fact of human life that we are not all the same. We do not have the same political motivations, or care about the same issues with equal weight. Some people are more motivated by social issues, others by economic issues. There is plenty of overlap, thanks to share core values of equality, justice, and empathy. But in a political system such as ours, we can't do everything at once. Priorities have to be picked, and certain issues will come before others.

How that gets handled is essential to an effective political movement. If one part of the coalition gets everything and the other parts get nothing, then the coalition will break down as those who got nothing will get unhappy, restive, and will eventually leave. Good coalitions understand that everyone has to get their issue taken care of, their goals met - in one way or another - for the thing to hold together.

Conservatives understand this implicitly. The Wednesday meeting is essentially a coalition maintenance session, keeping together what could be a fractious and restive movement. Everyone knows they will get their turn. Why would someone who is primarily motivated by a desire to outlaw abortion support an oil company that wants to drill offshore? Because the anti-choicers know that in a few weeks, the rest of the coalition will unite to defund Planned Parenthood. And a few weeks after that, everyone will come together to appease Wall Street and the billionaires by fighting Elizabeth Warren. And then they'll all appease the US Chamber by fighting to break a union.

<And...>

This is where the real contrast with the progressive and Democratic coalitions lies. Within the Democratic Party, for example, members of the coalition are constantly told it would be politically reckless to advance their goals, or that they have to give up ground previously won. The implicit message to that member of the coalition is that they don't matter as much, that their goals or values are less important. That's a recipe for a weak and ineffectual coalition.

There are lots of examples to illustrate the point. If someone is primarily motivated to become politically active because they oppose war, then telling them to support bombing of Libya in order to be part of the coalition is never, ever going to work. If someone was outraged by torture policies under President Bush, you'll never get them to believe that torture is OK when President Obama orders it. If someone is motivated by taking action on climate change, then Democrats should probably pass a climate bill instead of abandoning it and instead promoting coal and oil drilling. If someone supports universal health care and wants insurance companies out of the picture, you need to at least give them something (like a public option) if you're going to otherwise mandate Americans buy private insurance.

The LGBT rights movement offered an excellent example of this. For his first two years in office, not only did President Obama drag his feet on advancing LGBT rights goals, he actively began handing them losses, such as discharging LGBT soldiers under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy or having his Justice Department file briefs in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama argued that he could not advance the policy goals of DADT or DOMA repeal, but even if that were true, he was breaking up his coalition by also handing the LGBT rights movement losses on things like discharges and defending DOMA. It was only when LGBT organizations, activists, and donors threatened to leave the Obama coalition that the White House finally took action to end DADT.

A good coalition recognizes that not everyone is there for the same reason. The "Obama wars" online tend to happen because its participants do not recognize this fact. For a lot of progressives and even a lot of Democrats, re-electing President Obama is not the reason they are in politics. And if Obama has been handing them losses, then appealing to them on the basis of "Obama's doing the best he can" or "the GOP won't let him go further" is an argument that they'll find insulting. This works in reverse. If someone believes that Obama is a good leader, or that even if he isn't perfect he's better than any alternative (especially a Republican alternative) then they won't react well to a criticism of Obama for not attending to this or that progressive policy matter.

...

<snip>

Much More: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/22/978274/-Why-arent-progressives-as-good-at-politics-as-conservatives?via=siderec

:kick:

[DCBob]

1. In our current situation there is a big difference..

The conservatives represent the party out of power. Its easy to be a political "terrorist" as opposed to progressives trying to carefully influence the WH and congress without causing too much damage.

[quaker bill]

2. Here is the problem with this notion

It is painted up that conservatives back each other in victory, and they do. The real difference is that they also tend to back each other better even in defeat. There was a bit of infighting on the right with the passage of HCR and the defeat in 2008, but they more or less pulled it back together in 2010. They did challenge from within to nominate teabaggers, but nobody sat on the couch and very few went third party in 2010. The essential difference is that they generally hang together even in defeat. Progressives often don't, and this article makes the case quite well for this by simply being written.

[BlueCaliDem]

18. +1 I completely agree. eom

[jp11]

32. That is because even in defeat they fight for eachother's agenda, they may lose and

often do but they put up the fight that doesn't happen on the democratic side, we fold/compromise and say it could never have been won and maybe it couldn't but what are you saying to your 'big tent' members when you won't even make an effort to stem the tide of the loss you simply accept it w/o a fight. Republicans will take the hits of a losing battle and that invigorates their members knowing they have people who stand with them even in defeat.

We can argue that fighting a losing fight makes no sense but when the outcome is you turn people off and they stay home/vote 3rd party doesn't that argument get put on it's head? The reaction/answer of then blaming them or saying 'vote with us or the republicans will win' only goes so far when you have things you care about being abandoned from the get go because 'we could never have won'. The message is those things aren't important, we won't fight for them because we can't win but you need to keep siding with us anyway, meaning those people have no voice/power EXCEPT when they sit home or vote 3rd party.

[quaker bill]

46. Not as much different as you think

Small groups of dems propose and lose battles all the time. DK is usually somewhere in that mix. There are RWs in the FL leg that will propose banning and criminalizing all abortions every session. These efforts generally do not get out of committee for either side. RWs see it as hopeful that they were proposed, folks on the left see it as folding when they do not pass.

No one has any voice or power sitting at home or voting third party. Losing candidates never get to make policy and the party that wins without their support has absolute license to ignore them, regardless of which party wins. Parties move to where their reliable votes actually are found. A "party" is best understood as the collection of voters who support it consistently. Conditional support means that the elected officials are very much less likely to take risks on your behalf, not the converse.

[RandySF]

3. Because they are not ashamed to lie.

[treestar]

9. This is true

And they are not embarrassed by anything. They have the gall to be inconsistent, too.

Newtie should be too ashamed to run. And cringe at claiming his philandering was due to his patriotism.

[tblue37]

17. And since the corporate media will not call them on their lies--and WILL

lie about progressives--the RWers always get to bring an RPG to a fistfight.

[nashville_brook]

20. do you think Obama has experienced shame for broken campaign promises?

[Bjorn Against]

4. I would argue progressives are better at politics than right-wingers

Progressives are much better organizers, it is true however that the right-wing dominates the debate. There is a difference between progressives and the Democratic Party however and the reason the Democratic Party sucks so badly at framing their message is that the big money contributors won't tolerate them framing the message as to do so would undermine corporate interests. Republicans always frame things in a way that benefits big corporations and their base cheers it on, but progressives would be justifiably outraged if the Democrats spoke in favor of the agenda of their corporate backers so the party remains silent and undermines their own base. The issue is not that the right-wing is better at organizing the issue is that it is not progressives with the money to make their voices heard, the corporations have bought both parties and the media which is also owned by big corporate interests pretends the sold-out Democratic Party represents the far left of the political spectrum when in fact it would be considered a conservative party just about anywhere else in the world.

[MisterP]

5. plus the very real presence and influence of conservatism and oligarchs in the party and WH

[Zoeisright]

6. Because the conservative assholes own the media.

[treestar]

7. Conservatives want to drag things backwards

That's much easier than pushing things forward.

It takes all of us, not just the President and Congress.

This attitude towards the President is terrible. It's like dealing with an impossible, never satisfied, customer or client. It's debilitating to deal with this attitude in ordinary life. It's like yelling at your doctor that this operation is painful or this cure doesn't work fast enough. Instead of working with his to work your way back to health.

Ask any lawyer who has had an immature and difficult client. They work against their own case and demand the impossible out of the legal system.

And not all LBGT, or others have this attitude. In fact, given the POTUS' approval rating, most are working with him instead of against him.

[TheKentuckian]

11. If my jackass doctor insists on giving me cough drops to treat a heart attack then

I'm seeking other opinions and treatments.

Of course in this situation there are only two doctors, the cough drop hack and I guy that prescribes leeches and lots and lots of salt.

Of course you are going to have dissatisfied customers when you aren't trying to serve them.

[treestar]

12. Maybe all you needed was a cough drop

And weren't having a heart attack.

The patient is not always right. Some people are so controlling that they want to tell doctors or lawyers what to do (I know some of them because I am related to them.).

The client who thinks the judge cares about his or her excuses and problems with complying with the demands of the legal system is more similar. The one who thinks that the judge exists to give them everything they want, until they find out the law doesn't cover every detail of their lives and that the other side gets a hearing and that they need evidence of their assertions. Just like those here who seem to think a President has endless powers that should be used to get them what they want out of an entire society.

[TheKentuckian]

16. Nope, everyone agrees that the heart attack happened, even the leeches and salt charlatan.

There is no cough or sore throat, the cough drop is an ineffective treatment plan. The salt and leeches are worse than a placebo, they will make another heart attack likely. The cough drop does not treat the problem and makes another heart attack. High odds as well but isn't begging for one like eating the salt lick a day while your life blood is drained.

Both doctors are snake oil salesmen that will fully avoid good practices that give the patient a chance for better health. The fact that you like cough drops and couldn't see more aggressive treatment doesn't mean cough drops are a meaningful solutions.

[treestar]

24. You may be one of my relatives

I referenced earlier. Quit lying about what state you live in! ;)

[nashville_brook]

29. a spoonful of condescension helps the medicine go down.

[U4ikLefty]

36. Oh Hell, that was nice!!!

mind if I steal that one?

[nashville_brook]

38. consider it open source snark :)

[nashville_brook]

30. people telling their representatives what to do is actually the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

[izquierdista]

8. Reframing the question

Why are authoritarians so good at organizing?*


*because if you question their authority, they have a one-way ticket to the concentration camp for you.

[Fumesucker]

10. Because a lot of authoritarians really want someone to tell them what to do.

They want to fall in line behind a strong leader that tells them what to think.

There are some on the left like that but the tendency isn't a strong there, at least in the US I think.

During the early and middle Bush years he had unquestioning support from the right, you had to watch what you said as Ari Fleisher let us know.

[coalition_unwilling]

13. Thank you. I was going to say the question should be

"Why are Sociopaths better at politics than Progressives?"

Answer: Sociopathy is as American as cherry pie.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Progressives are much better at understanding that politicians are defenders of the status quo.

And, don't rely politics and politicians to author change. Hence, it is much easier for progressives abandon political (non)solutions and turn to other means.

[eridani]

21. Right. Progressives abandoned electoral politics in the early 70s

And see how well that worked out. :sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Your point being?

Progressives turned out to vote for McGovern and what was the result. The establishment turned on us and gave us Carter. Then we got Clinton(s). Now Obama. In between were Republicans.

[eridani]

25. The result was that conservatives began an intensive effort to find candidates for school boards--

--and city councils, an effort which was NOT matched by progressives. So we gave up on putting people in the pipeline for nationa office, and conservatives didn't.

[saras]

15. Progressives aren't willing to sacrifice the public good for their private ends

Almost by definition.

Conversely, the success of the far right and their corporate sponsors is in direct proportion to their willingness to destroy the commons as part of their battle plan, and of our willingness to allow them to do it.

[nashville_brook]

27. while that is true, the article critiques the inability for Dems to support each other's issues --

and it's a really salient point.

[ErikJ]

19. Concentration of wealth at top =more political power

Not since 1929 has the wealth gap been so big. They want to go back to the Guilded Robber Baron Age of no income tax , cheap labor and no regulations. And they'll stop at nothing to achieve it. Money corrupts.THey have enough money to not only buy the politicians but the media and half the middle class.

[FarLeftFist]

23. Because its easier to scare people with lies and distortions

Than it is with the truth. The truth is bound by truth and facts, lies and distortions are limitless with no end. Thats what conservatives feed their voters: Multi-dimensional FEAR!

[nashville_brook]

28. if that is true (and it is), then there should be a lot more fear about losing Medicare

but, what this article talks about is how Dems don't support each other's issues and are therefor unable to form a meaningful coalition where environmental issues, women's/reproductive rights, LGBT rights, workers rights, middle class tax reform, education, etc etc all get support from a fierce and unwavering legislative body that is in turn enthusiastically supported by voters who see their issues given a fair shake.

[mmonk]

26. Pretty much nails it down.

All that needs to be added is the Democrats split their vote on major issues and compromise on major issues with the Republicans with no reciprocation. Add in the corporate control of the media and you have a political landscape that only heads in one direction or remains status quo but hardly ever to the left in economics, rights, and war .

[jp11]

33. Exactly, article nails it minus those things you mentioned, which also contribute to the rift.

[DirkGently]

31. The full article is very astute.

[ProSense]

34. Don't buy this argument one bit

Conservatives are not good at politics, they're good at threats.

"Good coalitions understand that everyone has to get their issue taken care of, their goals met - in one way or another - for the thing to hold together."

What does a Planned Parenthood supporter (Collins or Snowe) get when Republicans make their platform defunding the organization?

They get teabagger challengers. The OP makes it sound like conservatives are into coalition building and activism.

The reason conservatives appear to be good at politics is because Keith Olbermann is considered too radical for mainstream media and Limbaugh, Hannity, Breitbart, Erickson, and Fox control the GOP mainstream debate.

Newt found that out.

Democrats are left trying to argue against crazy. It's the reason a small group of teabaggers got as much if not more media coverage than the pro-union protest.

The other reason conservatives appear to better at politics is that RW media and CEOs drive their grassroots.

Read the OP article. It's not arguing that there needs to be an independent progressive movement, it's debating how to handle Obama critics and supporters before going on to explain why Obama is bad:

<...>

A good coalition recognizes that not everyone is there for the same reason. The "Obama wars" online tend to happen because its participants do not recognize this fact. For a lot of progressives and even a lot of Democrats, re-electing President Obama is not the reason they are in politics. And if Obama has been handing them losses, then appealing to them on the basis of "Obama's doing the best he can" or "the GOP won't let him go further" is an argument that they'll find insulting. This works in reverse. If someone believes that Obama is a good leader, or that even if he isn't perfect he's better than any alternative (especially a Republican alternative) then they won't react well to a criticism of Obama for not attending to this or that progressive policy matter.

Cornel West has basically argued that he is leaving the Obama coalition because Obama turned his back on West's agenda. That's a legitimate reaction, whether you agree or not with the words West used to describe what happened. Cornel West won't sway someone whose primarily political motivation is to defend Obama if he calls Obama a "black mascot" and an Obama defender won't sway Cornel West if they're telling West that he's wrong to expect Obama to deliver on his agenda.

<...>

Cornel West needlessly personalized things. He would have been on stronger ground had he pointed out, correctly, that Obama has not done a good job of coalition politics. Progressives have not only failed to advance much of their agenda, but are increasingly being told to accept rollbacks, which as we've seen doesn't happen on the other side and is key to holding conservatism together as an effective political force. Obama told unions to accept a tax increase on their health benefits, and promptly lost his filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate in the Massachusetts special election. While Republicans are facing a big political backlash for actually turning on members of their coalition - for the first time in a long time - by proposing to end Medicare, Obama risks alienating more of his coalition by promoting further austerity. Civil libertarians have seen loss after loss under Obama (which explains clearly why Glenn Greenwald does not feel any need to defend Obama). Obama has consistently sided with the banks and has done nothing to help homeowners facing foreclosure. Hardly anybody has been prosecuted for the crimes and fraud at the heart of Wall Street during the 2000s boom.

<...>

After that, comes the absurd contradiction:

One thing is clear: no coalition has ever succeeded with one part telling the other that their values are flawed, that they are wrong to want what they want, that they are wrong to be upset when they don't get something. We are not going to change people's values, and we should not make doing so the price of admission to a coalition. Unless we want to. In which case we have to accept the political consequences. I'd be happy to say we will never, and must never, coalition with neoliberals. But that has political consequences that many other progressives find unacceptable.

[nashville_brook]

39. until The Party understands that conservatives are good at activism, we're doomed.

b/c they're very good at it, which is part of the reason why the media is all in their hands.

[ProSense]

42. Yeah,

they're so good at politics and "activism" they challenged one of the most conservative Senators, Murkowski. She paid them back with a couple of key votes at the end of the last Congress.

Conservatives are bullies backed by other bullies with money.

[nashville_brook]

56. it doesn't matter who backs them -- they excel at coalition-building. period.

otherwise you wouldn't get xtian fundies supporting ultra-pro business agendas. and you wouldn't get chamber of commerce types out there defunding Planned Parenthood.

Try to stay on topic.

[Blue_Tires]

55. Very true -- It's MUCH easier to rally a group of people

using fear, hate and scapegoating some "other" while proposing overly simplistic (but easy to understand and remember) solutions to boogeyman problems...

[Left coast liberal]

35. Because we are too nice. We can't help it.

[nashville_brook]

40. we're not at all nice to our own (broken) coalition.

[HughBeaumont]

37. Having crime bosses, fixers and shit-tons of cash on your side kind of helps in that regard.

Not to mention millions of people who share the same brain.

They're not better at policy, they're better at hypnotism.

[LoZoccolo]

41. Even if that were so, conservatives are willing to accept any progress as progress.

There has not been a ban on abortion, but many steps restricting it. Has the pro-life contingent largely threatened to abandon the Republicans and support a third party, or if they have, have they followed through on it?

[Fumesucker]

44. Do the Republicans bad mouth the right wing activists who are pushing for more insane policy?

Not that I've noticed..

Do the Democrats bad mouth the left wing activists who are pushing for sane policies?

All the damn time, it's a constant refrain from them.

There's your difference between the parties in a nutshell, the Republicans embrace their far right activists and empower them, the Democrats castigate people on "the left" who would have been an Eisenhower Republican in that era.

The Democrats fell all over themselves to condemn Moveon for the Betrayus ad, where is the condemnation by the Republicans of Brietbart's antics?

[JI7]

45. there were republicans who condemned some of the racist attacks on Obama

but you compare republicans on the issue of abortion to some ad and criticism for the ad ?

hahha

[LoZoccolo]

50. They don't need to because they don't constantly threaten to split.

They also, from what I can see, don't spread blatent lies like "the Democrats are the same as the Republicans".

And no, they don't give their far-right activists everything they want (abortion is still legal, so is affirmative action, we still have immigration, Republicans have begun to concede on civil unions), and do try to mitigate their effects (they are trying to push Sarah Palin off to the side, for example).

[Fumesucker]

51. They don't constantly threaten to split because they get catered to..

The Ryan Plan is a prime example, extreme radical right wing boilerplate made into legislation and pushed through the legislature.

They might be trying to push Grifterella out but they aren't bad mouthing her supporters in the process.

Anyone to the left of an Eisenhower Republican is told to shut the fuck up by the Democrats.

[LoZoccolo]

54. They waited over thirty years to get that.

They've been laying the groundwork since the seventies, and have been willing to put in the effort to move everything to the right step-by-step.

[Fumesucker]

58. And yet you did not disagree with my main premise..

The Republicans cater to their extremists while the Democrats castigate anyone that isn't to the right of a Reagan Democrat.

You can't keep calling people names (when you're not totally ignoring them that is) and expect them to be enthusiastic about your organization.

I already mentioned Moveon, how about ACORN, Democrats fell all over themselves again to get rid of a pro Democratic organization (or at least that was their effect if not their mission) due entirely to Republican lies?

How about Shirley Sherrod? Forced by Democrats to pull over on the side of the road and resign by text message by the Democrats, once again thanks to Republican lies.

Time after time the Dems have thrown a constituency under the bus for being too leftist, too radical..

[LoZoccolo]

60. No, not really.

I said that affirmative action, abortion, and immigration were all still around, as well as birth control and lots of things that the extreme wants to get rid of. People mention often that what is considered the dividing line between the parties has moved (you make this argument yourself when you mention Eisenhower Republicans). They have worked to do that, and thus, are not considered as extreme as they once were; they have succeeded in moving the center and have done so through a perserverence unseen on the progressive side. Progressives could do the same thing, but seem to be hung up on catastrophic tactics which haven't produced anything but help for the Republicans (a la Nader 2000).

You can't keep calling people names (when you're not totally ignoring them that is) and expect them to be enthusiastic about your organization.

Like when? Robert Gibbs? Are people equating Bush* and Obama really worth catering to, or can we expect them to put up another ultimatum once we satisfy one? How do you reason with people who show themselves willing to lie? Rahm Emanuel? He called nobody "fucking retared". It was his opinion of a threat people walked up and made to him.

[Festivito]

43. 'cause we're not allowed to say that big money conspires to take more money.

Despite having laws against conspiracy, we're not allowed to think there are any conspiracies.

Trouble is, big-money sticking its money into our politics explains all the problems presented.

[mountainlion55]

47. Can you say DLC

The DLC has perverted the democratic party for many years and successive administrations. They are republican lite and IMO therein lies the problem. The DLC has never met a war it did not like. The DLC never saw a bankster in did not like. The DLC never saw a bad trade deal it did not like. Get my message.:smoke:

[Fumesucker]

48. I believe it's now called The Progressive Policy Institute..

DLC was insufficiently Orwellian..

[athenasatanjesus]

49. Conservative politics are much easier to argue.

They don't have the burden of having to explain the issues comprehensively.

[blindpig]

52. Because they have no bearings.

The conservatives are 100% pro capitalism and ruling class and make very few bones about it. Progressives are confused, to be kind, they don't like how capital acts but think they can somehow tame and control it politically, an absurdity given that the economic is necessarity superior to the political. Progressives don't have the clarity that the conservatives have. And of course they don't have the funding either, which again points out how the economic rules the political.

It's class warfare and progressives treat it like it was a debate, not so the conservatives, they are fighting for the whole ball of wax.

[mmonk]

59. +1

It wasn't always that way. But since the party has given labor the finger as well as the public sector, it has no direction or solid enough of a position to be a strong force in anything. It is essentially worthless as is. It abandoned the coalition that made it the predominate party and influence at one time.

[SoCalDem]

53. Because stamping your foot any saying "NO!" is always easier

and gets more media attention than a reasoned explanation of why the answer is "Yes!".

Dems are FOR things...republicans are always AGAINST things.

We tend to hang back and let them frame the argument for no, and then we must somehow try to defend "yes" in a two-word, 10second soundbyte.

We should have used our power in the 60's, 70's & 80's to secure a media for US...Instead we did nothing as they secured their future by buying up and consolidating media for their propaganda.,.

Propaganda works:(

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[strawberryfield]

61. Cons don't give a shit what others think about them, even other cons

I actually think that the left is vastly better at pure politics and organizing. But cons have one huge advantage. They don't share a collective concern about what is politically correct and socially just. The cons freed of such a global and collective perspective can move considerably faster and with the appearance of much more confidence.

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. Is this a question anymore?

Sounds like many of the posters to this thread have figured it out. Not enough interest for each other's causes. And there really isn't one central mission. The closest you got was Ralph Nadar with his consumer advocacy. If only, if only Nadar had stuck to that instead of trying to dismantle the Democratic party in 2000.

And it isn't likely the progressives are going to pull in more converts. As high brow and intellectual as they may be, they do a lot of talking, but there's not a lot of action. They are either talking over the heads of people they need to connect with, or just posturing.

I suggest you all think about basing yourself in a cause that will win popularity. Make it big, and make it loud.