Let me put this simply.
If you plan to vote for anyone who has an affiliation with the Republican Party Tuesday in the current climate, you’re a damn fool. Hear me? And if you believe that Democrats are a problem, and you’re “disappointed” in them for not doing more, you’re also a damn fool. Either that, or you’re listening to damn fools. And for you so-called “independents,” get a clue; if you vote for a Republican, then you’re buying into the party line on both sides of the line. Is that what makes you so “independent”? Your gullibility?
I’m going to have more to say about this after the election, but stop listening to “progressives” and “liberals” who call Democrats spineless (or something similar, usually something relatively misogynistic) and ineffective. THEY are not the problem.
As I pointed out earlier on this blog, THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE BILLS have been passed by the Democrats in the House, and those bills sit languishing in the Senate. Now, some “progressives,” will tell you it’s the Democrats’ fault. They blame it on those infamous “Blue Dogs.” I’m sure you’ve heard the complaints about Democratic “spines” in the liberal blogosphere.
But that’s NOT the problem. You heard me – that is NOT THE PROBLEM, and anyone who says it is the problem is phenomenally ignorant. Yeah, I know, a lot of supposedly well-educated libs have touted this line, but the very concept is insane. It’s based on the premise that somehow, Democrats are supposed to go before the press and call Republicans a “bunch of poopy-heads” or something similar, I guess. Or maybe it’s based on the fact that left-wing pundits have the same goddamn problem that right wing pundits have, in that they want solutions to problems to be really complicated, so that they come off looking like geniuses.
Of course, a solution to the problem is simple, folks. Think about it.
THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE BILLS have been PASSED by those “spineless Democrats.” They are being blocked because Senate Rules allow ONE anonymous Republican Senator to put a hold on a bill (a filibuster, if you will), and until 60 Senators vote to end debate. Of course, there are 41 Republican Senators, and for whatever reason, they choose to work against the interests of their constituents, and against the interests of the country. Therefore, it’s not possible to get 60 votes for cloture on these bills.
The solution to the problem? Fewer goddamn Republicans in the Senate.
Even with the “Blue Dogs,” Democratic Senators have enough votes to pass most bills and to appoint most judges and Administration officials. So do NOT blame this on “Blue Dogs.” We need those Blue Dogs, whether you’re smart enough to understand why or not. THEY are not the problem.
If there were 39 Republicans in the Senate, problem solved. Better yet, if there were 33 Republicans, they could change the filibuster rules. THAT is how you solve the problem. You do NOT solve the problem by joining with the right wing and blaming “the Democrats” for the problem. “The Democrats” are the solution, not the problem, and only a stone idiot doesn’t understand that the problem right now is that there are too many ideologically rigid Republicans in office. If we have three more “Blue Dogs” in office, this problem would go away. So why do “progressives” whine so much about “spineless Democrats”?
Do these so-called “progressives” even GET how stupid we can be at times? Harry Reid isn’t a bad Senator, and Russ Feingold sure as shit isn’t a bad one. Hell; if you would bother to look at Blanche Lincoln’s actual goddamn record, you’d find that she’s pretty progressive -- for Arkansas. Why are the righties able to demonize Nancy Pelosi in ads all over the country? It’s because the far right demonizes them, and so-called “progressives” back them up.
And that’s the point. We have lived under neocon domination for 30 goddamn years, and in large part it’s because many on the left have been politically stupid for even longer than that. And to be honest, it’s frustrating as hell to those of us who want to live in a progressive society, and who work our asses off to move the country in that direction, only to be saddled by stick-up-the-ass "progressives” who are not ecstatic because we finally have a foundation for a national health insurance system, and because we finally have long-needed reform in the health insurance industry, but who are petulant because the plan doesn’t include a “public option.” Have you listened to them lately? They can’t understand why we didn’t start with a single payer plan and work toward “just” a public option. I’m sorry, but that demonstrates cluelessness as to how the system works. Ask Dennis Kucinich how far most extremist bills that he proposes actually get in the process. The compromise usually comes BEFORE a bill is proposed. A single-payer proposal would have been dead in the water, and there wouldn't have even been debate about it. And the fact that some "progressives" don't seem to understand that should serve as a clue. Should the "stimulus" bill been larger? Sure it should have -- in Neverland, maybe. But if anyone thinks a bill proposing $2 trillion in spending during a major recession would ever even get to a committee needs to go back to Civics class and learn how the Congress actually works.
It's time a certain segment of the "progressive" movement joined the real world, and stopped working against the very people it claims to want to help. Ask yourself this, geniuses on the left; in 1945 we were developing a progressive society, and Europe was in ruins. Now, Europe is far more progressive than we are, and while we're not in ruins, we're definitely on the downhill slope of the economic Bell Curve. And the problem can be traced to "progressives," NOT the neocons. Check the record if you don't believe me.
Jimmy Carter lost because he lost liberal support. Check the record folks; Reagan was the LEAST popular president elected to that point in history; he only won because the right was able to demonize Carter and the left backed it up, because he wasn’t “pure” enough. They backed Teddy Kennedy in the primaries and when Teddy lost (it is a democratic process, after all), liberals abandoned Carter. Many voted for John Anderson.
Walter Mondale lost in 1984 because the left pretty much said “screw it” and let Reagan walk away with it. The left put all of their energy behind Jesse Jackson in 1988, and when he lost, they abandoned Dukakis because he wasn’t “liberal enough.”
Then, in 1992, Bill Clinton figured out a strategy whereby he could win WITHOUT "progressive" support at all, and did it twice, with an able assist from Ross Perot. It was called the Democratic Leadership Conference, and it was the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party in generations. And it was caused by liberals registering as "independents" and dreaming of "Third Parties" like the Greens. In a winner-take-all democracy.
In 2000, Al Gore lost (yes, let’s stop splitting hairs; if liberals had done the right thing, he should have won by a mile against the Junior Bush) the election because these same so-called “progressives” actually sided with the right in demonizing Gore. Ralph Nader, who is a hell of a great activist but could very well be the stupidest politician in history, could have sided with Gore against Bush, gotten his 5% of the vote and kept Bush out of office. Instead, he helped the right in denigrating Gore, and moderates chose Bush, in part because moderates trusted Nader’s word, even if they had no plans to vote for him.
In 2004, progressives supported Kucinich, who had no chance of winning. Funny thing about candidates who have no chance of winning; they can say anything -- it doesn't matter, because they'll never have to follow through. Yet, progressives developed a collective woody for him, and when the slightly more moderate John Kerry won. these “progressives” again withdrew their actual support. Their entire support consisted of lambasting the Swift Boaters for lying about Kerry’s record. But there was little to no actual support for his candidacy, because he was seen as “not liberal enough.” Here's a clue, "progressives;" "He's not the candidate I would have chose, but he's better than Bush" does not constitute a winning strategy. What's so amazing about 1984 is that "progressives" apparently hadn’t seen his voting record, because John Kerry is one of the most liberal voters in the Senate; up there with Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy.
Finally, in 2008, "progressives" seemed to have turned a corner, and supported a moderate, Barack Obama, for president, and we almost had a landslide on our hands. Now, two years later, we could very well lose the House because “progressives” actually imbued moderate Obama with a whole shitload of “progressive” qualities that he never had. He NEVER promised either a single-payer health insurance plan or a public option when he ran. Yet, listen to the “progressive” blogosphere; you’d swear he broke a promise. He promised to pull out of Iraq, but step up the Afghanistan activity to wipe out al Qaeda during the election, and he’s doing just that. To hear the “progressive” blogosphere tell it, he’s “betrayed his base” by doing just what he promised to do during the election.
Here’s a clue, so-called “progressives.” You are NOT part of the Democratic base, and you haven’t been for 30 years. See your above record for a clue as to why. The Democratic base is made up of hard working people who are just trying to live the American Dream, even if they have to work two and three jobs to get by. They don’t necessarily have college degrees, and they know how hard it is to make ends meet. They are registered Democrats, NOT “independents.” If you are registered "independent," you are by definition NOT part of the Democratic "base."
In fact, for 30 years, know-it-all self-described “progressives” have screwed the Democratic base on a regular basis. They generally have college degrees and access to at least a moderate amount of money. They all LOVE to offer their opinion, and they hold their opinion as inviolable fact. They register as “independent” because they stupidly think their defection will "scare" the Democratic Party to the left. (Seriously, they do.) They think they’re healthier than everyone else because they’re vegetarians or vegans or whatever, and they drive twice as far in their Prius as the average Democrat does in his Corolla because, well, they’re “saving energy.”
But most of all, they are overwhelmingly negative. Global warming is going to kill us all. Abortion laws will lead to millions of women killing themselves with coat hangers. Same-sex couples doing without the formal marriage license for another year or two as the courts certify that denying them marriage rights is unconstitutional, and making same-sex marriage permanent is tantamount to slavery. Not having a “public option” (wanna have some fun? Ask any two of these “progressives” what a “public option” is and watch what happens) means our health care system is still as broken as it was and thousands of people will continue to die. Obama and Bush are the same because Obama didn’t do the opposite of everything Bush did on every single issue. The country is doomed to third world status because Obama hasn’t reversed everything done over the last 30 years during the last two.
Well, I’m sick of this. I’m a progressive. But I am a progressive in a political system that is built on democratic principles. That means two things;
1. Politics is the art of compromise;
2. If you want to move the laws and policies toward social justice, you have to move public opinion in that direction, because you still need backing by 50% + 1 of the population.
If you want a progressive country, you have to convince the majority to adopt progressive values. That is the only way. Yet, a large number of so-called “progressives” seem to have nothing better to do than talk to each other, while denigrating those who don’t think the way they do. Here’s a clue;
- The black single mother who’s working two jobs and trying to keep her kids in a decent neighborhood and a decent day care really doesn’t give a shit that some cracker in Alabama referred to her as a n****r. She wants to know how she can get her kids a decent education so they can live better than she does. If you are a white “progressive,” ask yourself this; what have you done in the last 30 years to make her life better? And if you think you know better than she does what would make her situation better, why are you so stupid?
- The family of four living in an industrial town in Ohio used to have two parents with great jobs in a nice factory. Now they work in a discount store and barely have enough to make the mortgage every month. Why should they give a shit whether a couple of gays are allowed to get married? For that matter, how is being pro-choice going to make life easier for them? And if the climate is going to hell in a handbasket, won’t that at least reduce their heating bills a bit?
- A construction worker used to have a job and now I’m unemployed. You tell me cap & trade is necessary, but will it increase my utility bills? I really can’t afford any more.
Are you getting a clue here? people who watch NASCAR and WWE Wrestling aren’t lesser than you, just different. People who don’t give a shit about whether or not gay people can get married aren’t necessarily lesser than you; they just might be a little more worried about how to pay the rent next month. Those who really don’t care about global warming at the moment may not care about it because their child with asthma needs his medication right now, and their COBRA is about to run out. A couple may not care all that much about abortion rights at the moment, because their their sister has cancer and they’re trying to find treatment.
Are you getting this, folks?
The left sucks when it comes to politics, and I’m getting sick of it. The one thing that separates the left from the right is our hearts. We have them, righties don’t. But we also need to use our brains. We live in a democracy. That means, if we don’t get 50% of the population to support us, we aren’t getting shit done. If you think of yourself as a “progressive,” and have been for 30 years, and you’re not aligned with the mainstream, you’re doing something wrong.
I have been floundering with this blog lately, because I wasn’t sure what I wanted it to be. I don’t want to be part of the “progressive” blogosphere because it is largely unreadable. It consists of a few types of people I tend to not tolerate in real life (and yes, bloggers; blogging is a personal conceit; it is not real life.) There are people who are usually wrong about everything, but say it in a loud voice so that you’re more likely to believe them. There are those who are so enamored of their own opinions that they think of said opinion as fact, and simply can’t understand why everyone doesn’t think the way they do. Then, there are the bloggers who are news junkies, and who seem to have no concept that most people are NOT news junkies, and that’s why they don’t think about things in the same way. And there is one thing they ALL have in common.
The liberal blogosphere is a downer.
Seriously, when I read that shit, I walk away convinced that the country is doomed, and the world is about to end. Hell of a sales job, “progressives.” Yeah, I want to buy a political philosophy from someone who’s convinced that anyone who doesn’t think the way he or she does is doomed.
I was inspired yesterday, by the Rally to Restore Sanity. Not the speakers and the music, although it was good. I was inspired by the crowd. Mostly young people, under 30, who are sick of this ideological wrangling that’s going on among their parents. They got the joke; they got what the rally was about. In that atmosphere, I realized that we have finally moved to a post-ideological era, and it’s about fricking time. I’ll have more on this in the coming weeks, including pictures. But what I saw there was an enthusiasm that transcends polls. There were at least a quarter million people there yesterday, and there was no enthusiasm gap. And they were all progressive in nature, even if their slogans largely said “fuck the status quo.”
We have to get past this election. The solution to the problem is FEWER REPUBLICANS. It’s not “the Democrats.” It’s not the “spineless Democrats,” and it’s not progressives like me “caving in” to anything. If we had 38 Republicans in the Senate instead of 41, we’d have passed at least most of those 375 bills, and we’d be in much better shape.
