Musical Chairs in a Two Party System (or why not to vote for the DLC) [View All]

[arendt]

It is well-understood that the winner-take-all rules of American elections enforce a two party system - any dissatisfaction that creates a split-off third party simply dooms the third party, along with the party from which it split. We have all recently experienced such an event: in 1992, Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected. With that background in mind, I want to explore the implications of the American political duopoly in the current election.

Because of Perot, everyone is aware that 3rd parties are dangerous. In politics, though, when something is dangerous, it is perceived not as something to avoid, but as something to use as a weapon. So, both parties are trying to split their opponents. Dems encourage the theocon-neocon split. GOPers encourage the DLC-Progressive split. And, Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel are sitting in the wings watching.

Here is a synopsis of the drug-deal-gone-bad crime scene that passes for party politics today:

1) The GOP was originally hijacked by the neocons, who used the then-clueless theocons to shoulder out the sane (albeit evil) wing of the party. This hijacking was accepted (or misunderstood) by "sane" GOPers in 2000, and again in 2004. But, the neocons have completely discredited themselves via Iraq and the disastrous economy.

2) However, instead of sane GOPers getting their chance, the theocons are now in the process of trying to shake off the neocon manipulators - and (good news for the Dems), the manipulators are fighting back with their trademark viciousness.

3) The Democratic leadership has been hijacked by the anti-progressive DLC; and a lot of the party activists have been fuming over both the spinelessness of the leadership in the face of the GOP and the brutal intra-party tactics of the DLC against progressive causes and candidates.

4) The traditional news media have been completely taken over by corporate conglomerates who support the hijacking minorities in both parties. But, the Internet has turned into an alternative system that is proving robust enough to cancel out the corporate media among the politically literate. (One can only hope that "corporate media whore" becomes the "yellow journalist" of our age.)

My basic question is: where do the sane GOPers go in a duopoly?

A duopoly with four real voting blocks is like a game of musical chairs with four players and two chairs. If Huckabee brings home the nomination for the fundies, perhaps with some help from Ron Paul (Don't laugh. Crazies like each other.), then the sane GOPers are without a chair. But, if the DLC recruits the sane GOPers and manages to hang onto the Dem chair, then the progressives are out of the game; and the DLC+sane GOP alliance of convenience is the sure winner in the GE.

And that is why Hillary and Barack have been playing down those positions of theirs that might be "misunderstood" by GOPers to be "liberal". That is why they have been touting Donnie McClurkin and church visits and prayer. They are betting that the sane GOPers will jump no matter who the GOP nominates.

HRC and BO have decided that all that matters are numbers - GOP voters, Dem voters, they're all just polling numbers to be massaged. The progressives have first hand experience that the Clintons are good at this kind of bait-and-switch. Bill played down his corporate positions to get the liberal vote, then shafted them with NAFTA, GATT, and Telco deregulation. The progressives bought it because they thought they had no place else to go.

-------

Here's the problem with the "triangulate in the sane GOP" strategy of the DLC: Huckabee isn't going to win.

The neocons will shoot a few folks as examples (remember all those politicized AGs still out there?), and get the rest of the party to rally around one of the slavering sellouts (McCain, Romney, or Giuliani) - all of whom are pliant enough for the Bush crowd. (Hell, anyone who doesn't put the whole Cabal in leg irons and send them to the Hague is pliant enough.) From there, its a sequel to 2004.

This time, the GOP nominee has the freedom to distance himself from Bush. He will be a fresh face. (Even McCain can claim he's not a Bush or a Clinton.) He will wave the flag and belt the Bible (with the clear understanding that it is a fraud). The DLC nominee will be son-of-Republican light: no immediate end to the war, no prosecution of Bush crimes, no corporate greed bashing, no position even vaguely progressive because it might upset the mythical "swing voter", in short: no nothing. The Dem activists and base will be dispirited and may well fragment or stay home. The GOP is too disciplined for that.

End result: a GOP president and a DLC Congressional leadership. No redress for the last eight years, and continued warmongering, environmental insanity, and corporate pillage. The blame will be placed on "divided government".

--------

But, if a non-DLCer wins the Dem nomination, then the two chairs would be occupied by: a neocon-butt-kissing, transparently phony, corporate sellout versus an honest, intelligent, progressive Dem. That would give the country an unmistakable choice; and the Dems would sweep big enough to roll back and investigate the last eight years while the wreckage of the GOP scuttled back into their holes.

--------

The music has already started on the second to last round of musical chairs (or Survivor - if you watch that Social Darwinistic crapola). If the corporate media has the slighest excuse, it will declare that the coverage of the Dems will be limited to HRC or BO within microseconds of the end of polling in New Hampshire. The rest of the coverage will shift to cleaning up the mess on the GOP side, and the progressives will be deep-sixed faster and deeper than Howard Dean.

So, for the FSM's sake, whatever you do in NH, don't vote for the DLC. We can't risk this last chance to pry loose the GOP death grip on the steering wheel before they complete their mission to drive the American middle class over a cliff. Vote for someone who isn't comfortable with an endorsement from Rupert Murdoch, someone who isn't buddies with Joe Lieberman, someone with a resume instead of a lot of fuzzy words and a penchant for homophobic preachers.

Ducking and covering.

arendt