Yelling Without Leverage Equals Noise

Posted on 12/26/2009 at 3:43 pm by Bob Cesca

Continuing my train of thought about the progressive mini-civil war and the kill-billers, I have some additional thoughts on this whole conundrum.

While I respect the idea of “getting tough,” I can’t wrap my head around how that will actually move lawmaking leftward in a Congress that’s more or less held hostage by two or three conservadems.

We have to ask ourselves, why are Democrats more willing to cater to moderates? The answer is that moderates exist in mixed, swing districts/states where Democrats only win by narrow margins. So Democrats in those districts have to straddle center-right and center-left in order to be reelected. Political reality.

What does this have to do with progressives? If we want more liberal legislation, maintaining a Democratic majority isn’t the only means. We have to make those swing districts more secure for Democrats. That means serious on-the-ground campaigning all the time — not just during elections. We have to continue to prove to voters why left and center-left policies are better. It worked in 2006 and 2008, and as we make swing regions safer for Democrats, the balance moves leftward.

Ultimately, if there were more securely Democratic districts and states, the White House would’ve been pushing a more robust public option, if not a Medicare buy-in, etc.

Yet for whatever reason, some progressive activists have decided that it’s better to team up with teabaggers and wingnuts, and to yell at even very progressive members like Bernie Sanders.

First, we all know why teabaggers are so incoherent and insane. Because they’re motivated by anger, fear, disappointment and an escaped mental patient named Glenn Beck — not by rationality and logic. This manifests itself in LOUD NOISES, and it’s marginalizing the far-right.

Keeping our heads about us gives us a serious strategic advantage.

Second, by teaming up with these wackaloons, not only are we lending our cred to the ridiculous wingnuts while their insanity rubs off on us and reduces our cred (the president didn’t want to do town halls with McCain due a similar phenomenon), but we’re also doing very little to convince voters that Democratic policies are better than the policies pushed by the teabaggers.

Consequently, those swing districts remain shaky. Moderates get more attention. Progressives lose cred. And legislation reflects this dynamic. But once we secure more swing districts, and once we elect more progressives, we control more votes and, consequently, we get more liberal laws. Without this leverage, we’re only making loud noises.

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • kansasdem

    Bob,Here’s a wtf article:http://www.thekansan.com/news/x1136813559/Recovery-Act-projects-provide-welcome-boostHoly shit! From an area newspaper!Back on topic: the problem is a really, really fucking idiotic electorate! I don’t know if that ignorance is due to laziness, propaganda, or what.I can say that the area cable providers seldom include MSNBC but always include FOX news. I can tell you that throughout the past 40 years I’ve spoken to many really poor people that either feel it’s not worth the effort to vote or they’ll vote based on a single issue like gun rights or abortion.Given that we had a real chance at some kind of meaningful reform! We fell short but not so short as to pitch the whole thing to the curb! Sure, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it is a step in the right direction.Oh, and just say Fuck You to every Republican you meet! They deserve it! Or do one better, fuck them like Carville does Matalin! Then again maybe Matalin fucks Carville!That’s a dilemma I’ll take to my grave!Lance

  • steve

    I’ve always considered myself a liberal. Now I’m starting to wonder after watching the kill-the-billers in action during the last month.It’s patently obvious to me that the votes to pass a public option or Medicare expansion just aren’t there, and the votes to pass single-payer will never be there during my lifetime. So how is just walking away going to help? How just abandoning HCR for another generation going to help? How is staying home in 2010 or voting for Nader in 2012 going to help?I’m starting to think that people like Hamsher (whose face I see whenever I turn on MSNBC) are happiest when the left is out of power.

  • Jim in Michigan

    Steve, I concur on the idea that “the left” is happiest when out of power, except I don’t believe the entire left is, only the loudest, most self important ones. I think a lot of it is a holdover from the nasty campaign that Hillary ran against Obama, I’m personally not so quick to forgive Hillary. Many of her followers behaved much the same way they have during the health care debate, using even the same phrases about Obama…the chosen one, talking about giving good speeches, shoot, just go read a few comments at Huffpost or FDL if you want to see them. These people have planned on sabotaging Obama since the election, they were pretty blatant about it when it was a forgone conclusion that Obama was going to win, they were already setting the stage to take down Obama. There own selfish, petty vendettas have made them see through a lens that colors everything he does as wrong somehow, or not enough, or too late, or caving to pressure…never a bit of credit, just bitching.

  • IntoxiNation

    It’s campaigning by micro management. Actually in Markos’ book Crashing the Gates he talks a lot about this. How powerful organizations will try and defeat candidates that are pretty much progressive/liberal because of a single issue.Honestly (and I get a lot of grief when I mention it) Joe Lieberman is a perfect example of this. Like him or not, Joe was one of the more liberal Senators we had with the exception of a single issue, which also happened to be the biggest at the time – terrorism. The netroots went to fight to get him ousted in 2006 and instead we ended up with a childish Lieberman back in office with a mean vendetta he is carrying. If you take a serious look at Lieberman before 2006 and after and then think about the HCR debate today, chances are if the netroots didn’t go after him so hard in 2006 then he wouldn’t have been an issue today.(The bad part for Lieberman is his childish “hurt child” behavior after that, which could end up costing him in 2012)Here is where Gingrich was brilliant. When he did the “Contract with America” in 1994, he left off one key issue – abortion. At first this really upset a lot of the Christian right, but behind close doors he was selling it by saying “hey this plan is to get moderate and independents on board. If we stock the Congress with Republicans then we can push through the harder core values of the party”.Basing your total support off of one key issue is great if you are a special interest group, but when your goal is to bring in more progressives over all, then it can turn around and really hurt you.Yeah we could get a more liberal candidate to replace Blanche Lincoln in the primary, but most likely that will end up in a Republican winning the general.The really scary part is that after the census next year the south will have more control of the House. Here in Ohio we are slated to lose 2 seats. This is going to be a pretty big game changer for planning progressive victories around the country.

  • http://oneceltsview.blogspot.com/ Wolfe_Tone

    Loudness has long replaced logic in American politics. When couple with the underlying “instant gratification” demanded by our culture, the idiocy practiced today should really come as no surprise.

  • roxsteady

    Yes, I’ve seen those, “too bad Hillary didn’t win” comments from idiots on several sites. Do these people really think she’d have done any better?

  • http://www.osborneink.com Matt Osborne

    roxsteady, Hillary would have done better because…well, they just KNOW she would have. After all, she learned exactly how NOT to do HCR back in 1993.Of course, that’s why Obama did HCR the way HE did…but if only he’d smashed some Senatorial faces in, he would’ve gotten better results somehow. They’re sure of it because smash-mouth tactics always work SO WELL.

  • roxsteady

    You’re right Matt! They know what they’re talking about because, you know, they just, know. And anyone who doesn’t understand that just, doesn’t understand. It’s simple logic by the simple minded.

  • roxsteady

    For me, one of the most blatant displays of ignorance by the teabagers is there battle cry of “Obama ruining this country and destorying America and moving away from the Constitution.” All charges that should have been made against the previous administration. But, suddenly they all woke from an 8 years stupor, just in time to level those charges at the opposition party and it’s new leader. They’re as full of shit as the idiots they continue to elect to lead them. A stupidity match, made in heaven.

  • Mocasdad

    The position taken in the post would have more credibility if polls hadn’t shown, consistently, that large majorities of American people wanted a public option in HCR, an end to the Iraq war in 06 and 08, and so on. In other words, the American people are more liberal than the Democrats who they elect.Which means the Democratic party has been more interested in winning elections than changing policy, or they’d be recruiting more candidates who don’t line up consistently with the republicans.There’s no value in electing a “democrat” who votes republican, other than having control of the two houses. And, when a big chunk of your caucus has no loyalty to the party or its platform, then where’s the value in having that control? Of course, having a senate leader who’s out of step with his party on major issues is another problem, for another discussion.The other undiscussed dynamic in play is tbe recent need for a 60 vote majority. I always found it hilarious, as the Minnesota election drama played out, that some people thought we’d have a bulletproof majority.*I’m not sure what the senate rules are, but I’ve always wondered why Reid doesn’t call the minority’s bluff and demand an actual, honest to god filibuster. Is there something preventing him from doing so?*The senate, IMO, has perhaps one real liberal democrat in Franken, though he hasn’t really had time to develop a track record. I disqualify Boxer since she campaigned for Lieberman (and was so snotty about it). Feingold is all talk and no follow through. Who else is there? I can’t think of anyone who could genuinely be called a liberal. To me, that’s the problem; they’re all corporatists. The only cure is campaign finance reform, and that will never happen, although why I can’t imagine. These people spend so much time fundraising, you’d think they’d want to relieve themselves of that burden.

  • MrBrink

    Teabaggers are ignorant, but ignorance can be cultivated into a breathable liberal worldview.They just need to listen to reason.Ha ha ha! Couldn’t keep it in.When I hear credible liberal spokespeople talking about the simliar interests shared with teabaggers(Thom Hartmann has been doing this a lot),”No More Bailouts!”– That’s as far as it goes. It’s arrogant, or maybe naive, to think that teabaggers can change, if only a liberal movement would show them the way to coherent arguments. Then we could use that power to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to go Back to the Future.It’s not a potential relationship based on a plethora of common goals. And this is the gross miscalcualtion of liberals raising this idea.There is an intrinsic, immovable difference of ideology at play.A liberal says, “I too, do not want banks to be bailed out, brother teabagger”The teabagger says, “yeah!”But when the liberal dares to expound, saying things like, “big banks should be more regulated!” Or, “Education and healthcare should be free!” “Domestic labor, globalization, and unfair trade policies are all detrimental to our economy.” “Domestic spending needs to compensate for indifference.” And, “the environment is being manipulated by the activity of humans.”The teabagger responds with false platitudes like, “Freedom!” or boogymen like, “Mexicans!” and “Socialists!” or just insists that we defer to the Bible for direction and salvation. Not from greed, pollution, or ignorance, but from the agenda of the “liberal left” and all that it entails. Especially the gays, or “homosexuals,” as teabaggers like to say.Throw in the fact that the teabag movement are primarily racist, gun-toting religious fanatics with selective anti-government ideology, it’s not the liberals who will rescue them from their own stubborn ignorance.It’ll be enforcement of laws against inbreeding.

  • Sprocket

    A little harsh, Brink, but you have some merit. I’ve felt this way about Libertarians ever since they became one of the most vocal and illogical voices of the town hall protest movement last summer.They seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that the overall conservative movement is playing them for complete fools. If they think protesting the way they have been is going to help their own agenda in any way, and not simply push the illogical positions of extreme right-wingers that at the very least do not share their socially liberal views, they’re even more foolish than I thought.Except for the jackass Libertarian who brought a loaded gun to Obama’s rally last summer: he’s about as dumb as he seems, I’d say.

  • http://www.osborneink.com Matt Osborne

    Yes, Mocasdad. ALL of them are against you. So are all of US. The ENTIRE WORLD is a GIANT CONSPIRACY against you.Just like one of those rapture movies, only the mark of the beast is an Obama pin.And why?? WHY all this effort??? Because of YOU!Yes, it’s ALL ABOUT YOU

  • http://nanotyrnns.blogspot.com/ Nanotyrannus

    I hear thee. However…I want Nelson gone. I want Landrieu gone. I want Lieberman gone. I at least want Baucus to have to fight like hell for his seat, or worry about whether he’ll get the endorsements necessary to win by a wide margin. I want Lincoln put in a cannon and shot into the sun. I want Stupak to be called out for the fucking douchebag that he is.Why?Because each one of them threatened, publicly, and continue to threaten, publicly, to derail the whole thing if their demands are not met.Why reward them with another “Hey you’re a Democrat and you’ll get our support” pat on the back for their behavior?I know getting rid of them wouldn’t actually be easy, or even wise, but I want them all to suffer some consequence for their assholery. I want them to answer to progressives for their self-indulgent grandstanding. I want them reminded at every opportunity, especially when they inevitably try to claim credit for health care reform, that we have not forgotten that they acted in their own interests instead of the country’s.

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    Mocasdad:>>>>The position taken in the post would have more credibility if polls hadn’t shown, consistently, that large majorities of American people wanted a public option in HCR…A national poll might indicate a lot of things that might be totally unpopular state-by-state — Nebraska or Arkansas or example.

  • MrBrink

    Yeah, Sprocket, you make a good point.The Libertarians have been quietly trying to cultivate their own anti-government political pets with the teabaggers, especially since the Democratic presidential primaries, attempting to supply them with the intellectual firepower needed to be more disciplined in directing their rage against Democratic party policies, and more importantly, some Republicans(fake credibility points)using cynical and manipulative false equivalencies.They were there first. But what the average libertarian won’t tell you is, sure they’ll rage against “both Democrats and Republicans”– when Republicans don’t have absolute power over American policy. I watched several libertarians defend and apologize for the Bush administration’s inarguably immoral and unprecedented policies– foreign and domestic– only to “look alive” and find their uncompromising dissent when Democrats gained some control.Libertarians, and especially “conservatives,” are so full of shit.I was arguing with a libertarian last year about Glenn Beck.He said that Beck’s arguments are sound in motive and spirit, they’re just unpolished. He said It’s up to the Libertarians to polish the “Beck-speak” and use him and his influence like a tool for anti-government/pro-corporate rhetoric.Even some people are beyond help, though, I suppose. Glenn Beck would make the Miracle Worker kick him in the balls and quit. I’ve watched libertarians try and fail to change Glenn Beck with amusement.So, with libertarians and some liberals engaged in an ideolgical trenchfight for the bottom of the political pickel barrel, both vying to ultimately channel the crazed energy of a minority within a political minority, it seems to be, more or less, about whose power of persuasion is stronger in trying to woo the crazy cousin into dancing at the Prom.A challenge!I’d say it’s futile, but I’m a firm advocate of “may the best ideas win” and that takes courage and a willingness to engage and defend better ideas all the time, even to teabaggers and Liberty Tree waterers.Libertarians can be very convincing to the layman, once the layman makes the choice to find an enemy in the American government.

  • idabamaho

    Nelson and Lieberman behaved the way they did not because of their electoral leverage. They did it because they can, they can because Barack Obama agrees with them.The apologists have lost their minds.BTW, if you want to split the party, keep on equating real democrat/progressives to tea baggers.

  • MrBrink

    Is there any real difference between a moderate republican and a conservative democrat?What the fuck?!They’re all tight-assed jerkoffs, aren’t they?I guess the big difference between the two is that conservative democrats seem more willing to fuck their party over.

  • ceu

    They did it because they can, they can because Barack Obama agrees with them.suppose, hypothetically, that Obama didn’t agree with them – what could he have done to change their minds?

  • Mocasdad

    Bob, by your thesis we simply need to make more districts safe for progressives, like we did in 06 and 08. The problem there is, Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy got a lot of democrats elected at the expense of a high percentage being blue dogs. The guy in Alabama who just flipped, Chris Carney in PA who’s being romanced by the GOP are just two shining examples. Stupak, Shuler, Space, Altmire, Murphy…there are many many more.The way to create safe districts is to pass legislation that, while unpopular initially, proves to be actually beneficial. Remember the tea bagger rallying cry, keep your hands off my medicare (which of course, is being cut).What the democrats have done is create something that will be incredibly unpopular because it mandates payment to a corrupt business class, does nothing to contain costs or stop insurers from doing what they’ve always done. It is a bill written by insurers for insurers. Whatever few (and IMO dubiously) beneficial aspects it may have will never overcome all its negatives.I have nothing against Bernie Sanders, and I don’t want him primaried. But what enrages so many true liberals is that there is NEVER anyone who will make a stand for us.Your thesis is that we just need to mount a big ground game, win hearts and minds across the great stretches of this country where stupidity is the highest value, and we’ll end up with – what 65 senate seats? It will never happen. Sixty is about the best we could ever hope for.The thesis of those of us you refer to a kill-billers is, take what the system gives you. Make reconciliation the hammer we use, create a truly beneficial package of legislation, and let the results speak for themselves. If you think that we can somehow achieve this, in the abstract that is a political campaign, in the absense of someone so transcendantly unpopular as W Bush – well, I hope you’re right. But my fear is, we’ll lose so many seats that we’ll never have this opportunity again. And, in fact, we could well lose the majority; but even if we don’t, it could well be repealed with blue dog help and we’ll end up with something much worse than what exists right now, before the supposed HCR takes effect.

  • joshuawelch

    Currently religion acts as a severe impediment to progressivism. If we want to make this country better, we better make it easier/more acceptable to criticize religion. Currently criticism of religion is teated like criticism of race or gender in many cases. When we can discus and debate issues based on evidence we win.

  • Mocasdad

    I’ll admit my last graf in my most recent post was incoherent. Apologies.What I’m saying is, use reconciliation to create a result people will understand as beneficial because of the positive effect it has on their lives. Or, stick with the current bill, lose many many seats, perhaps even the majority, and see the bill repealed because, even if we don’t lose the majority, that will be the de facto reality owing to the blue dogs.

  • Terri

    Bob supports many good “ideas”.In theory only.

  • emsique

    I’ve been really on the fence about this which is a place I rarely find myself. But I think I finally have to agree with Bob. We have been a conservative country for a long time, and it is going to take a long time to get us progressive, if ever. During the Great Depression, people had to get screwed pretty hard before they finally had enough and demanded the kind of reforms needed to bring relief to them.We have been screwed pretty hard by the wealthy in the last 25 years, and maybe we need to get screwed some more before the citizens of this country finally take back their government. It will take a lot of grass roots effort to educate and motivate the populace to get off their ill informed asses and do what it takes to get real progressive representatives in office.In the mean time, this health care measure, though very shitty, is a first step. It is one that has been passed against a solid wall of Republican dickness. Even though I am disappointed in Obama for many reasons, we are slowly shifting away from the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II shit. It may take several terms of progressively more progressive administrations and Congresses to undo all the evil.