When all is said and done, if you want to know why the politics in what should be a liberal country such as the United States has been dominated for 32 years by people who should be relegated to the fringe, if you consider yourself to be on the far left, look in the mirror. If not, look at the far left.
A quick perusal of the leftist “blogosphere” shows people who obsess over everything that happens, as if they’re doing play-by-play for a baseball game. But they seem to neither know nor care about the average person, and they definitely lack understanding of basic politics. It’s amazing how little they know, yet they act like experts, despite the fact that the only people who actually buy their bullshit are like-minded people who are gullible.
Yes, folks; a lot of left wingers, especially those on the "professional left" are JUST LIKE the far right in that way.
Most actual liberals are very cool, and not very dumb, politically speaking. While the liberal side of the aisle encompasses a wide array of different people, with different types of experiences, the denizens of the far left are almost all white, they’re rarely poor and they have college educations. Though they have very little contact with the people they claim to be advocating for, to listen to them, they know more about being poor or being a minority than the poor and minorities do.
One reason the liberal side of the political debate has been sitting on the sidelines for the better part of 40 years is because a small-but-noisy segment of our ideology is ruining it for the rest of us. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m sick of it. It’s time we taught basic politics to the far left.
Consider this Politics 101, lefties.
Lesson #1: We live in a democratic republic. That means those who gets the most votes win and get to make policy.
I know that sounds too basic, but let’s face it; for a bunch of far left political “experts” seem shocked and surprised when assholes get elected and do pretty much what they said they would do. Every segment of government in this country runs by majority rule; he or she who gets the majority of votes makes the rules. If you want the government to do what's necessary to help working people, the poor and downtrodden, you have to see to it that the person elected in each race is one who is the one most oriented to listen to what the people want, and do as much as they can. Of course, there is a second part to that equation:
Lesson #2: To get a progressive government, you need a progressive populace.
Again, this should have been part of fourth grade Civics class. Since majority rules, to get progressive laws passed, you need a progressive majority. To do that requires changing the hearts and minds of the people, not screaming at them and writing them off as “stupid” when they don’t think the way you do. Listen to them, then frame issues in a way that makes them want to be on our side. “Climate change” is an abstract concept to most people, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t like to drive a vehicle that's safe and also gets 200 miles per gallon, or uses no gas at all. Most people would gladly switch their electricity provider to a clean energy company, as long as the cost wouldn't double. If they’re against abortion in principle, most folks aren’t in favor of the government forcing women to stay pregnant against her will.
It’s this simple, folks. If you want the politics in this country to move left, you have to move the electorate left. Which leads us to:
Lesson #3: Until there are 218 or more progressive districts in this country, ousting “Blue Dogs” is not a source of pride; it’s actually dumb.
After more than 30 years of neocon-driven politics, no one should be surprised that a large number of districts lean to the right. Yet, a large number of “progressives” were actually gleeful at what they saw as a “silver lining” in the 2010 election results; that about half of all “Blue Dog” Democrats lost. Yes, that’s right; they were HAPPY. Nancy Pelosi was replaced by an orange Boner, and that all committee chairs all went from being progressive Democrats to being right wing Republicans. We went from having a House of Representatives that passed hundreds of relatively progressive bills to one that has repeatedly tried to kill Medicare and damage Social Security.
And do you know WHY this happened? In part, it’s because several dozen “Blue Dogs,” almost all of whom voted with Democrats at least 80% of the time, were replaced by right wing Republicans and teabaggers.
Does that sound like “progress” to you? Really? If you do, then you must be one of those geniuses who thinks both major parties are the same. And that leads to:
Lesson #4: No matter how many times you tell yourself this, there is NO SIMILARITY between the two political parties at this point in time.
Many on the far left love to quote Harry Truman, who once famously said, “Given a choice between a Democrat who acts like a Republican or a Republican, the people will always choose the Republican."
Gosh, that’s catchy. The problem is, he said it nearly 65 years ago. News flash; the Republican party has changed a lot since then. Back then, a majority within the two parties saw each other as “the loyal opposition.” Nowadays, the current incarnation of the Republican Party sees all Democrats and any reasonable Republican as “the enemy.” They've declared war on the poor, and will do everything they can to help the rich get richer. The current GOP happily puts party politics ahead of country, which is something most Republicans in Truman’s day rarely did.
If you are unable to see a difference between how Republicans and Democrats run things right now, you’re not paying attention. If you can even imagine Democrats proposing gutting Medicare, trying to kill unions, repealing health insurance reform, and cutting programs for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich, then you belong under a doctor’s care. If you can imagine Republicans restoring regulations on Wall Street financial activities, demanding that executives limit their pay as long as they were under obligation to the federal government for bailout money, or even demanding that banks pay back the funds, then have the doctor up your meds.
The two parties couldn’t be more stark in their differences these days, and to characterize them as the same is killing us, politically speaking. Swing voters HATE teabaggers as much as we do. Most people like most social programs, they’d simply like to see more done to combat waste, fraud and abuse. They do care about the environment and ending wars, even if they do so more in the abstract. They’re our natural friends, politically speaking. So, the more the far left screams at the top of their lungs that “both parties are the same,” the more they poison that well, and allow the far right to keep winning elections. Which brings us to:
Lesson #5: Politics is a game of strategy, but some strategies simply don’t work, like “fighting.”
While it’s nice to get all of the right people elected, it’s just as important to get the wrong people out of government. While governing affects the average person’s life in profound ways, politics itself is a game, and requires a very distinct, and very long-term strategy. of course, it also requires the understanding that governing and politics are two separate concepts, which seems difficult for many progressives.
Many left wingers think political strategy is complicated and ielaborate, but it’s not. In fact, if you make it too complicated, it’s destined for failure. Unless you're running a campaign, my advice is to relax. The issues many far lefties consider to be important issues are only a minor consideration to most voters, since many are struggling to get by every day, and don't obsess over the news. They simply want to know the people in charge won’t make things worse, so the number one strategy of any political endeavor begins with the classic “KISS,” or “Keep It Simple Stupid.”
As for their constant desire for a "fight," my advice to most left winger is to stop demanding it, because most politicians understand it's political suicide, at least as many lefties define it. If you believe “fighting for the people” means shouting, grandstanding and making pointed speeches and calling the opposition “poopy-heads,” sit down; it's never foing to happen.
The purpose of election is to pass laws designed to make our lives better. That means writing a bill, then getting a majority to vote for that bill. How many laws do you think would pass if they were running around grandstanding and making the opposition party look bad? There are a number of ways to “fight” in politics, and most Democratic politicians do exactly that on a daily basis, especially President Obama, who is a master at outmaneuvering the opposition.
For example, left wingers scream bloody murder every time Obama reaches out to Republicans, because they're so obsessed with everything he does, they can’t see the result. When he reaches out to the GOP, and they slap his hand, what most voters see is someone who is trying to do the right thing, and an opposition that wants to bite his hand off for doing so. Since most voters HATE infighting, he’s actually courting voters to his side when he does that. Rather than “kowtowing” or “caving,” he’s actually working for the progressive cause.
And can we please get off the whole “bully pulpit” phrase? That phrase was coined by Teddy Roosevelt more than a century ago, and political discourse has changed a lot, to the point that the pulpit is no longer bully. If you want to know why we lost the “public option," for example, here's a piece of reality. Because of the nature of his opposition, Obama actually kept the “public option” alive longer by NOT advocating for it. For Chrissakes, folks; he single-handedly revived health care reform, after even the far left had declared it dead and buried.
Overall, his strategy on health care was just short of perfect, which is why it passed for the first time ever. While the far left was devoted to the notion of a “public option,” if the Republicans had Obama on record as saying “The public option is a must” for a health insurance reform bill in the current climate, they would have gathered the troops and used that to launch a billion-dollar campaign against Obama’s attempt to force “socialized medicine” down our throats. It would have made it even more difficult to pass than it was, and it might have killed any sort of reform for at least another 10-15 years. The "bully pulpit" has become a lightning rod, and anyone with real political savvy understands this.
President Obama realizes that he has to pick and choose his battles, and that HOW he fights the battles matters less than the results of the "fight." He’s getting more done than anyone in the last 40 years or more, and the far left in this country is sitting around with their thumbs up their asses, waiting for someone else to “lead them” to where they need to go. Which is how we get to:
Lesson #6: “We are the ones we have been waiting for” is not just a cute slogan; it’s how the system works, and how we win at politics.
If you’re waiting for a savior to come along and bring the left out of the desert into the political system, then you’re part of the problem.
The fact of the matter is, politicians do not lead us, WE lead THEM. I understand why people on the right don’t get that, because they’re politically brain-dead. But a lot of far lefties seem to miss out on that concept, too.
They’re called “representatives” for a reason. THEY stand in for US, not the other way around. It’s OUR job to tell them what we want and give them the tools to do that. It’s not THEIR job to read our minds. And our number one job is to get a majority of the people behind our efforts; it’s not the politician’s job. Political success involves a couple of steps, and both of them are OUR responsibility as voters. First, we must honor the democratic process and try to make sure the choice of candidate is the one most likely to result in the policies we want. That doesn’t mean we always have a clear progressive choice; in fact, it rarely means that. But there is often one candidate who will absolutely NOT vote for our side EVER, and we absolutely must promote the best candidate to the best of our ability. Then, once the best of the two candidates is elected, we then SUPPORT them. Yes, I said SUPPORT! For some reason, many on left wingers seem to think the constant complaining about politicians constitutes “holding them accountable,” but if you’re on the job and your boss was complaining about every little thing you did, without even evaluating the results, would you dismiss it as your boss “holding you accountable,” or would it just irritate the crap out of you to the point that you'd quit and work somewhere else?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Now you know why politicians don’t take the far left seriously at all. They’re constantly whining, they don’t vote reliably, and their support is based more on what politicians say, and less on what they do. Politicians are looking for support, not a constant shrill whine. Which brings us to:
Lesson #7: The far left’s concept of “principle” is downright bizarre and often detrimental to progressive politics.
It’s really simple; after 32 years, neocons are still in office, and still dismantling the mechanisms we built during the depression and after the war. Despite the fact that we know how to fix the economy (we did it before), the wingnuts are still pushing the same tired crap they’ve been pushing for 40 years. And they get away with it because a large portion of the left side of the political debate likes to SAY they have principle, but they really don’t. The fact of the matter is, supporting someone who says everything you want to hear, when that person has neither the intention nor the ability to actually get into office and do what he or she is saying makes you gullible, not principled.
Let me repeat that; voting for someone you know can't win because he/she says all the right things is NOT "principled." It's the opposite of "principled."
In order to be a principled progressive, you would do anything to move us in the direction of achieving social justice. That doesn’t mean backing Dennis Kucinich, who has less than a snowball’s chance in hell of ever sitting in the Oval Office. It means doing whatever you can to see to it that as many politicians as possible are amenable to working toward making this country better, and then working to make sure they have the support they need to do that. If you have actual principles, stop screaming at the politicians, and start educating (without screaming) their constituents.
If you’re not doing everything you can to make sure progressive policies are in place, you’re not principled. Which brings us to:
Lesson #8: The overall meme of the debate is far more important than playing micro-politics.
Imagine you’re about the leave work, and you’re wondering whether or not you should take your umbrella, so you ask a co-worker if they think it might rain. Which answer are you likely to consider most helpful?
“According to the weather service, it’s not supposed to rain until Friday.”
or
“I don’t know, but I do know the air is dirtier now than it was 20 years ago, the sun is much harsher than it used to be, and the world will probably become uninhabitable in 10 years.”
The first one is how the left SHOULD answer. Unfortunately, the answers to political questions coming from our side usually sound like the second. Many on the far left tend to be news junkies, which is a stupid idea in and of itself. You don’t become smarter by watching nothing but news all of the time. But worse, they seem to think everyone else is, or should be, a news junkie as well. So they neither answer political questions nor give political answers that actually matter to people.
The average voter doesn’t have time to sit and watch news all day, because he or she is working for a living. They don’t sit and watch every single bloody thing the government does, because they trust the government to do what it needs to do. The majority only pays attention to the overall meme in any election. The reason they voted for Barack Obama was because of his positive message and his promise to reverse the incompetence of the Bush years. And they stayed away from the polls in droves in 2010 because the overall message of that election was “Democrats suck.” They don’t vote for the right wing, but when both sides are screaming “Democrats suck!” what message do you imagine these folks take away from the “debate,” such as it is? It didn't matter to them that the "Blue Dogs" you were whining about only constituted about 4-5 votes in the Senate and 30-40 in the House; they voted against ALL Democrats. And gosh, wasn't that a great thing?
The overall meme matters more than anything else, so STOP SCREAMING! When both sides are screaming at each other, voters aren't actually listening. Let the far right scream. They’re incredibly stupid, and they don’t understand how politics works, either. Their side has a simple-minded affinity for red meat over substance; they love the negative. But we're not like them. More importantly, swing voters aren't like them, either. They don't decide who to vote for, so much as they decide whether or not to vote.
How many elections do we have to lose before we get this? The far left was negative about Carter in 1980, and we got Reagan. Ditto Dukakis in 1988, and we got Bush 41. We were a bit more positive about Clinton in 1992 and 1996, he won, although he still never received a majority. The far left bashed Gore mercilessly in 2000 and refused to get behind Kerry in 2004, leaving us with a double dose of the worst president in history. In 2008, the left finally seemed to shed its stupidity and got behind a moderate, and Obama was elected overwhelmingly. Since then, it seems quite clear that many left wingers voted for “the black guy,” and attributed a level of far left politics to President Obama that was never actually apparent during the campaign. Because of these fantasy expectations, they’ve branded him as a “disappointment,” and that played a major part in the depressed turnout that led to a right wing win in 2010. Again.
That leads to:
Lesson #9: The people who are elected will (almost) always represent the political center.
It has always been the case, and it will (almost) always be the case, that the majority of voters anywhere will choose someone they perceive as between the extremes. The only exception to that rule comes when one side of the political spectrum trashes mercilessly the candidate to whom they are ideologically closest, like in 2000 and 2004. (And don't take solace in the "Bush stole the elections" crap; they shouldn’t have been that close in the first place.)
But most of the time, the person elected will represent the political center, especially when it comes to president. FDR didn’t run or govern as a political liberal at all. In fact, with the exception of reforming banking and instituting a few jobs programs, he took a relatively conservative approach to getting out of the Depression. Even he admitted that later, when the massive deficit spending to pay for World War II finally brought us into recovery mode and sent unemployment down below 10% for the first time in more than a dozen years. Lincoln didn’t run for election promising to make the Emancipation Proclamation and amend the Constitution to be anti-slavery. Likewise, Kennedy didn’t run on promising the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts would pass. As is always the case, moderates are forced by circumstances and politics to become progressives.
I would also point out that even the most progressive politicians in our history lack ideological purity. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. FDR refused to even consider civil rights or abolishing Jim Crow, and it took World War II to get him to accept a Keynesian economic model. Even Dennis Kucinich was anti-choice for many years, because of his Catholicism. If not for Ted Kennedy’s ego, we probably would have had the beginnings of universal health care before 1980, instead of 2010, precisely because he killed a universal health care bill in order to try to get a leg up on Carter in the 1980 election.
The main complaint most left wingers have about Democrats has to do with their relative “impurity.” For some reason, they have gotten it into their little brains that all Democrats should represent the progressive side of things, and that any variation whatsoever is unacceptable. That’s a fantasy, folks. No one is always “left” or always “right” on every single issue, unless he or she is incapable of thought. Expecting everyone to adhere to your standard of what a “true progressive” should be is unrealistic and frankly, politically suicidal.
Those are today's lessons. More coming, of course.
