The Democratic Party Dead End and the Resignation of American Progressives

[swilton]

I found this as a good read - hope I don't get eliminated for posting its somewhat 'fringe' remarks and perspectives.

The essence of this article (June 2014 - but certainly relevant in the wake of Clinton's decision to run for the Democratic Party nomination) is a critique of the Michael Kazin article - which was posted in the National Republic as a thread on DU - May 21, 2014.

The argument - don't be fooled by Sanders running against Hillary in a Democratic Party primary. Hillary is ordained to win; Sanders' running within the party is only meant to exploit (and then disappoint) what progressive base the Democratic Party still has. What is needed is a left party coalition that is pro-peace, pro-social justice, and pro-environment. The Democratic Party has not been, is not and never will be that party.

http://www.nationofchange.org/democratic-party-dead-end-and-resignation-american-progressives-1401631714

I think some would challenge the notion 'has not been' that party and that is subject to debate.. On the one hand are the examples of FDR and the New Deal, and JFK....Alternatively, Professor Richard Wolff seems to argue that the Roosevelt reforms were designed to save capitalism - a choice Roosevelt made. He also seems to argue whatever capitalist regulation implemented legislatively is negated by the influence of money in politics....


Here is a link to the Michael Kazin article published in the New Republic......as it was posted on DU last year

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024981374

Perhaps the above will stimulate some discussion.

[Martin Eden]

1. Some key paragraphs in the article:

Hillary Clinton as president of the United States is an idea that all Democrats concerned with democracy should very much oppose. Unfortunately, a recent NYTimes/CBS poll found that over 80 percent of regular Democrats already support Clinton for president in 2016, not to mention the numerous superdelegates cited above. It is not good enough for progressives to simply prefer someone like Sanders but that Clinton is acceptable in the end. No, Clinton should be adamantly opposed, not accommodated.

If Democratic neoliberalism wins, Americans and the world lose. If the GOP wins, Americans and the world lose. Both destroy economies and seek reckless, often illegal military intervention abroad, among other horrors. So it is much wiser, and imperative, to oppose both of these options by running a truly progressive candidate in the 2016 general election, which will help seriously build alternative political parties that can challenge this disastrous political stranglehold in which we find ourselves. True friends of Bernie Sanders would not encourage him into the dead end of the Democratic primary. True friends of Sanders would instead encourage him to realize the vision he has expressed of an American political revolution. It is convenient and naive to think that political revolution will happen over a period of a few months within the Democratic primary by appealing to a tiny sliver of America—that is, to progressive Democrats who participate in the primaries. The reality is much more challenging, but it’s also more exciting.

A majority of Americans want an alternative political party. A majority of Americans consider themselves independent of the Democrat and Republican Parties. A significant percentage of Americans do not vote because they feel they have no reason to vote. If Bernie Sanders joins the Democratic Party in 2016 to run for president, he fails to capitalize on all of these sentiments. A political revolution will not happen in this country unless a massive electorate is presented with the option of electorally challenging the duopoly.

I agree with much of the analysis, but without Ranked Choice Voting a Third Party on the Left would almost certainly siphon off enough votes to guarantee a Republican victory.

[swilton]

2. Thank you for capturing

some of the salient points!

[KoKo]

3. We need a Democratic Primary where other voices can be heard....

If Bernie can run as a Democrat...even if he knows and we know he has slim chance of winning he will give a good voice to those of us who want to reform the Dem Party with a true left wing.

It would set a terrible precedent if Dems don't hold a Primary because Hillary is already chosen. I'd like to see other voices in that Primary...but, Bernie is the one who can really counter DLC/Third Way Policies. I would love to see Elizabeth Warren in a Primary to speak her voice. Bernie and Elizabeth would make a good team in a Primary Debate. Let the American People hear something new and fresh....Populism counter to the failed policies of the past and a fresh vision.

That would be a way to get interest in reform. Neither have to run as Third Party....they just have to get into the Primary.

[Martin Eden]

4. I definitely want to see hillary challeneged in the Democratic primary ...

... and I will be thrilled when a true progressive wins.

The main point I was trying to make is that voting Third Party would likely result in the disaster of a Republican in the White House.

I think third parties would be great for American democracy, but to make that work we need Ranked Chioce (aka Instant Runoff) Voting.

[Eleanors38]

5. I agree with a lot of this. However, though I don't object if it works, a 3rd party strategy seems

unlikely to win against a cold steel effective party (the GOP), and a weak, hollowed out bureaucracy (the Democratic Party). Go after the present Party; I don't think the independents will give a hoot about the name; if they do, change it. Further, a Sanders candidacy within the primaries will not do damage to the goal of overhauling progressive politics or starting a new political movement. If such a movement proves strong, it can take over the Party, or even try the third route.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Thanks. NT

[sabrina 1]

6. The argument that FDR only wanted to 'save Capitalism' has always puzzled me. It generally comes

the supposed Left and is clearly an attempt to smear FDR.

But it also plays into the Far Right notion that Democrats oppose Capitalism.

So why anyone who IS a Democrat want to do that?

Because Democrats, including FDR, do NOT oppose Capitalism.

They support REGULATED Capitalism.

Re the article, I do not agree that Democrats should be driven out of their own party.

I am for losing some of the infiltrators who are dragging it to the Right. And they don't need a Third Party, they have a party already.

I am for fighting to elect good, progressive Candidates.

I am for Bernie becoming a Democrat, if he wants to and running, and if that happens ONLY because powerful people won't let him win anyhow, that is OUR fault.

Buying into 'he can't win' is defeatist and self fulfilling. The ONLY way he can't win is if the people don't vote for him, if they don't ignore the naysayers and go all out to support him.

Anything can happen IF people want it to happen.

[2banon]

11. Hi Sabrina, just a quicky response on one point

I'm not a scholar on the subject. I appreciate being corrected on this matter, but I don't think the argument is that FDR 'only intended to save capitalism' per se, but my take reading what I have on FDR, is that he definitely was a Capitalist and yes, it was imperative in his eyes that the Capitalist System MUST be saved.

Despite the social and work programs he created seeming to be "socialistic" and yes it was, ONE important objective was to revive the capitalist state., that's always been my take.. for what it's worth.

In other words, it's not about "smearing" FDR from left, it's more about looking at it with a much broader scope of complexity. Does that make sense?

[pscot]

7. I'm pretty much resigned to the fact

that the result of the 2016 election will be bad for America and bad for the planet. The power of the Capitalists is too great to allow for any other outcome.

[swilton]

10. I think that that is the argument of the source document

It's (now apparently) not a question of whether Bernie Sanders will run, it's a question of whether or not he will run under the control of the Democratic Party....

Sanders has a bad (from a progressive perspective) record on Israel Palestine.

For give my cynical lens. I am thankful that Sanders is speaking out and raising the discussion about the issues that he is talking about. I question, though, his sincerity and his ability to effect the change that is necessary. The issues that he should raise in a primary will be forgotten after the coronation. During a major campaign the issue goes back to the 'lesser of two evils'.

As this article points out

Let us be realistic: If Bernie Sanders raises issues to Hillary Clinton and the American public for a few months during the Democratic primaries, it will not change the course of the Democratic Party one iota. This is true in the same way that the raising of issues by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean, and Dennis Kucinich (twice) in the Democratic primaries did not change the course of the Democratic Party, nor have these candidates and groups such as Progressive Democrats of America been able to significantly influence President Obama's policies—nor has the Progressive Caucus, for that matter, the largest Democratic caucus on Capitol Hill. And liberal commentators think Sanders will?

Sanders is being used as bait to attract progressives to the Democratic Party nothing more and nothing less.

I value my membership in DU and hope I don't lose it for saying the above.

[pscot]

12. Sanders running as a Democrat would appeal to progressives

but that wouldn't confer progressive credibility on the party. It's hard to imagine Bernie generating the kind of enthusiasm Obama did. Obama was our best shot at transforming the party and the country. He rode a wave into office that could have made him a transformational President. It turned out instead that he was just another avatar of the Pharaoh.

[2banon]

8. Very important for serious discussion and consideration.

thanks for posting.. recommended reading.