Looking At The Fault Lines, Reading The Tremors - Is A SPLIT COMING In The Democratic Party?

[Segami]

~snip~

Gaius Publius has been watching to see if the Neoliberal corporate stranglehold on the party is weakening at all, and just where pushback might be coming from in the near future. Gaius Publius has been on this beat for a while. In setting up his two most recent posts on this, he references an earlier post laying out fault lines to describe what might become an Open Rebellion Caucus.

As DWT [Down With Tyranny] readers know, Steve Israel, the DCCC, and to a lesser extent the DSCC, have been disasters for the Democratic Party, if "success" means "taking or keeping control of Congress" and "disaster" means "failing to try to do that." These Democratic train wrecks have been well document on these pages-- for example, here and here. But click any link tagged "Steve Israel" or "DSCC" to get the gist.

You also know that corporate-aligned Democrats, including most party leaders and many who work with them, are more than eager to excoriate any progressives who dare to consider forcing neoliberal Dems out of office, especially if hurting neoliberals also hurts party chances in elections. Attacking the party from the left and attacking neoliberal rule of the party are cardinal sins, almost hanging offenses. The venom goes very deep.

The magic phrase, the one you hear the most, is "Ralph Nadar!" but excoriation comes in other flavors. Like: "Do you really want Romney to be president?!" Or: "The one thing that would make me vote for Hillary Clinton ... Jeb Bush!" Or these days: "OMG, it will be your fault if we lose the Senate!" Always with the exclamation point. Always with the scorn, the flecks of virtual spittle, the virtual hair on fire.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2014/10/are-democratic-leaders-already-tea.html

Well, after the debacle of the midterms where so many of the neoliberal favorites got trashed at the polls, Gaius Publius identified three groups to watch as the progressives being stifled by the party become increasingly frustrated:

▪ Democratic voters have arguably rejected neoliberal, corporate, billionaire-serving Democrats in 2014. The country is ready for change, and the day Democrats offer one, they'll win elections by the bucketful.

▪ Democratic activists and writers are desperate for something better from their party. Their cris de coeur are private for now, said amongst themselves, and those cries are not cried by all. Nevertheless, a great many progressive voices and hands are done, have had it, with the Mark Warners and Pryors of the world, and very vocally so.

▪ Some Democratic insiders are similarly ready to rebel. There are pockets of donors, strategists and office-holders who "get it" — get that they can't be principled (that word again) and support the Geithners, the Pritzkers, and the Orszags. And if they can't support the Geithners, how can they support a White House that regularly coughs them out for consideration?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/enough-is-enough-open-rebellion-caucus.html

Here's the thing to watch. With Democrats in the minority in the upcoming Senate under Mitch McConnell, there will be opportunities for Democrats to vote against the Republican agenda and stake out progressive positions safe in the knowledge they won't get anywhere. But... a real test will be to see which Democrats take positions in opposition to the President and others in the party whose agenda serves the bipartisan corporatocracy. Gaius Publius has identified one such test: Elizabeth Warren's opposition to the nomination of Antonio Weiss by Obama for a senior post at the Treasury Department. As Warren proclaims in a Huffington Post commentary...

~snip~

Read the whole post by Gaius Publius - it's that important. And then look at the follow-up, where Warren is already being attacked for her opposition to Weiss. Andrew Ross Sorkin at the New York Times has written a piece denouncing Warren for her opposition, with the provocative title Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Misplaced Rage at Obama’s Treasury Nominee. Gaius Publius has some pungent analysis of the Sorkin slam, and makes the following observation:

"....But it's clear the other side is engaged and wants this nomination badly. Perhaps to them it's "symbolic" of something.

Watch this appointment

Again, watch this one. It will tell you a lot about Senate Democrats, the state of my fancifully-named "Open Rebellion" caucus — Will other Senate progressives go along, or toe the neoliberal line? — and perhaps reveal the role of Harry Reid going forward. I'm reading and hearing that all is not glassy-smooth across Senate Democratic waters, at least regarding the Weiss nomination. At The Nation they're calling what Warren is doing an "insurrection" and they say she's not alone in insurrecting.

About time, say I...."

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/just-like-woman-weiss-nomination.html

cont'


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347799/-Looking-at-the-Fault-Lines-Reading-the-Tremors-Is-a-Split-Coming-in-the-Democratic-Party#

[Maedhros]

1. The tactic to prevent a rift in the Party is to tell Progressives and Liberals

"Sit down, shut up and vote the way we tell you to. And if we lose, it's your fault."

[Wellstone ruled]

2. Bring it on.

This nomination if it happens will probably come as a strategy move for the Rethugs. Then let the games begin. Sounding more like 1968 and the Chicago take over of our Party. Is the Democratic Party moving from the Chicago influence to maybe West Coast influence,hopeful maybe,we have to stop supporting the thieves and Shysters.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Republicans should return to their own party. nt

[dflprincess]

13. ^^^this^^^

[Bragi]

4. Split the Dems = Unending GOP governments

How do I know that? I'm Canadian and we have divided center and center-left parties.

The result is that conservatives form governments here with little more than a third of the ballots cast.

That's what will happen if the U.S democratic party splits.

[FiveGoodMen]

8. And the alternative -- the ONLY alternative -- is to let the GOP get everything they want

...but a little more slowly than if no party 'opposed' them.

[DeSwiss]

11. Which only demonstrates the fact.....

...that the whole system is antiquated and untenable for these times.

- That's why it doesn't work anymore......

[center]The obstacle is part of the path
[/center]

[Scuba]

5. But, but, but if our party is divided we'll also split our votes. That would mean ...

... the neo-cons who have infiltrated us will take a few thousand votes with them and the populists will keep the rest, plus inspire millions of those who typically don't bother to vote.

I'll gladly take kicking the right-wingers out of the Democratic Party.

[thelordofhell]

6. No

[AtomicKitten]

7. I suspect if Democrats are able to nominate

.... someone, anyone other than Hillary, we'll see another puma hizzyfit and those people will crawl back under their rocks. I don't think that qualifies as a split in the party.

[customerserviceguy]

9. Nothing will focus the Democratic Party and its base

like seeing exactly who the Rethug nominee will be. If that person were a Jon Huntsman type of politician, I would be wrong, but such an individual has no chance of being nominated by their party.

[KoKo]

10. Thanks for pulling that post together...

Interesting....

It's hard to know if there will be a split....yet. BUT, FGS at some point it would seem ...there would HAVE to BE!

Not yet. If Repugs put out their worst we will put out "The Clintons." We will eventually cave and "go along."

It depends on what "THEY DO" for awhile, imho...(which is just speculation, gut feeling).

We Shall See...

[peacebird]

18. If we put out "The Clintons", then we will lose. HRC has all the right wing war mongering/corporate

love that the Big Dog had, with none of his charm & ability to sell it all folksy.

[DeSwiss]

12. I'd say there's a gaping chasm already showing.

In fact I'd say that until there's a total collapse of the current system, nothing can nor will be fixed. And when we do get the opportunity, we certainly won't rebuild it this way.

This two-party system has been reduced to nothing more than a scam which allows TPTB to play us against each other while they maintain total control. Making all of us democracy-believers easy pickings in this ''pay-to-play'' capitalist government/economy.

There's no such thing as a Capitalist Democracy. Never has been. Never will be. If we keep ignoring this fact then we're doing what Al Einstein referred to as ''insanity.'' Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.

- The fact is, there is always a different result. But only slightly different. And always in ''their'' favor.....

[center][/center]

"Noam Chomsky": Q&A Why you can not have a Capitalist Democracy.

K&R

[Segami]

14. Seems their campaigns have merged by the looks of things...

[DeSwiss]

16. Great quote. It's the same coin though.

- Heads you lose. Tails you lose. The only logical choice is to stop using coins to run our lives.

Duality Creates Conflict

Conflict of any kind -physically, psychologically, intellectually-is a waste of energy. Please, it is extraordinarily difficult to understand and to be free of this because most of us are brought up to struggle, to make effort. When we are at school, that is the first thing that we are taught to make an effort. And that struggle, that effort is carried throughout life, that is, to be good you must struggle, you must fight evil, you must resist, control.

So, educationally, sociologically, religiously, human beings are taught to struggle. You are told that to find God you must work, discipline, do practice, twist and torture your soul, your mind, your body, deny, suppress; that you must not look; that you must fight, fight, fight at that so-called spiritual level which is not the spiritual level at all. Then, socially each one is out for himself, for his family.

So, all around, we are wasting energy. And that waste of energy in essence is conflict: the conflict between "I should" and "I should not," "I must" and "I must not." Once having created duality, conflict is inevitable. So one has to understand this whole process of duality not that there is not man and woman, green and red, light and darkness, tall and short; all those are facts. But in the effort that goes into this division between the fact and the idea, there is the waste of energy.

J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life

[Eleanors38]

23. Sounds like you're ready for the streets.

[mother earth]

21. And what of a 3-party system, which in fact we have, but the third party is always minimized.

What if that no longer were true? I don't know, I think something is better than waiting for complete system failure, but I feel you DeSwiss...

[Eleanors38]

24. Yes, I want a say in the collapse.

[sabrina 1]

15. There IS a HUGE split in the base of the Democratic Party. As for elected officials, not so much

at least among those who are heavily Corporate Funded.

2010 and 2012 demonstrated that actual Democrats will no longer vote for Neoliberal/Third Way imposter, Corporate tools. They HAVE a party.

Ralph Nader was RIGHT, as it turns out. I owe him an apology as a matter of fact. So that tactic isn't working so well anymore.

But back to the present. I saw a report recently about both major Parties losing members.

Only 32% of voters now identify as Dems, down from 44% not so long ago.

Only 29% identify as Repubs, not sure what their numbers were not so long ago.

40% now identify as Independents. That is the largest voting bloc.

Then there are the huge numbers who don't vote at all.

[swilton]

17. But Independents

still end up having to vote for either one of the two big parties. Yes there is some G/P S/P token representation....but the big parties aren't really threatened by low turn-out...

Nor do they seem to be able to read tea-leaves and want to reform. After all, the idea of reform would be logical to those of us who don't run the world and are under the illusion that the big politicians are in their line of work for altruistic reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth....It's a game of power and narcissism and greed....

The politicians are out of step with their constituents and rather than responding to the 2014 debacle with some insightful reforms and 'we hear ye' messages, they will circle the wagons to shield themselves. Yes, Steve Israel is a typical example of this. I don't for one minute think that the so-called elevation of Elizabeth Warren has any meaning...It's more of a move to keep an eye on her and act like they are responding to the massesl

[sabrina 1]

19. Well, that is true, Independents do have to vote for one or the other.

That's registered voters btw. There are also all those who don't bother to vote anymore, many for precisely that reason.

Which is why a candidate like Bernie Sanders, a member of neither party, could attract those registered independents and cross over voters from both parties.

Not to mention all those who have lost faith in the system altogether.

[mother earth]

20. This is the first time I find this group, and I totally agree with what you just said. I think you

have nailed it. I feel that in the midterms there were two clear messages. One & the biggest: voting safeguards involving audits & certifying the machines has been ridiculously ignored, to our folly, OR to the benefit of the both party/corporatists, pretty much making null & void anything that doesn't mean a centrist candidate win. Why are we ignoring exit polls?

Two: ALL the progressive issues & candidates won. There really was no discussion of issues, the GOP really stole/or "won" on we are not Obama, there is a lot of racism/hate, no doubt about it.

We really do need to win back our young voters and everyone who feels it doesn't really matter because the candidates are the same, because they are right. We've learned the hard way this is true. I get it now, don't we all?

We know the lone voices that are about real issues and not just catering to the 1% big donors.

I think finding common ground on progressive issues with independents who really are about the issues & can be won over in this way, like you say, Bernie fills that void. I think we need to risk a party split, because we may gain more than we lose, or we may be surprised completely and gain overwhelming support.

[merrily]

22. I am not sure what it is coming.

When Lincoln ran, Republicans were the more liberal and less racist party. (Maybe not the most liberal of any group, but the more liberal of the two.) That remained so for some time. Over time, that switched. Maybe we will have a realignment of some kind. Maybe Democrats will decide to stop trying to sell us on the notion that going right is necessary for the very survival of the Party (because clearly, it's not working). Maybe the Democratic Party will split in two. Maybe even more voters will vote third party or not at all. I don't know.

As a whole, Americans don't seem to very activist politically and the politicians don't seem to feel much need to be responsive to us--other than maybe scolding us when we don't fawn over everything. So, I think more not voting is a likely thing.

We'll just have to wait and see.