A few posts ago I said I' be blogging my political evolution right here on the WWW. 2 mornings in a row I did. So here is the third post in that trifecta.
My entire theory about the need for a "3rd way" rests on 2 assumptions.
1. The economy is not going to recover in the usual manner.
2. Obama will slip below 50% approval by years end and stay there. He will not get what he wanted* on the big liberal issues and will be seen by more and more of his base as a disappointment. This will devolve into outright anger in many quarters. The natural size of Obama's "base" is about 20-25% of the population. If the economy continues to falter his "base" will shrink to its natural size - then shrink further as the disappointment sinks in.
* This is predicated on believing that Obama ever truly wanted what he sold last year.
If I am wrong in my "guesses" then this post is nullified. Maybe I am. We will all see.
Projecting forward: I believe a viable 3rd option will become more important than ever in the next few years. The economic "recovery", when it comes, will not look like the ones we are accustomed to. We are in for a long haul readjustment of our expectations. Neither party is prepared for this. However, the far right is positioned to take advantage of large scale social displacement. The far left will try - but fail - as their energies have been subsumed by the President's misdirection. Therefore the GOP is likely to present an uncomfortable but viable option in 2010 and 2012. The moderating influences in the GOP are weak and likely to become weaker as Obama weakens. The Glen Beck boys do not ignore blood in the water. Since my theory assumes Obama will, in essence, fail, any alternative voice within the Democratic party will be tainted and - largely - useless.
This leaves one section of one party standing. The reactionary impulses will be vast as people grapple with a changed landscape . Loud portions of the Democratic party will attempt to take the megaphone. But they will have no choice but to defend Obama in the end. When Obama becomes unpopular anyone remotely connected to him will be on the losing end of any argument. BHO's employees are every bit as tainted as W's. Please read the link. Summers is, for lack of more precise words, a panhandling crook.
So where does this leave "democrats in exile"? Here's where now: The Democratic Party or the GOP. 2008 should be the last time this constricted choice is forced on people.
There is another possibility. Obama will fail on such a catastrophic scale that his own party will dismiss him in 2012. A meteor striking the heartland tomorrow has approximately the same probability.
A "third party" does not top my list of things I'd like to see happen. It is my guess - though its not yet a conviction - thateconomic malaise will open the door WIDE for a slew of unsavory characters on the far left and more probably on the far right. Without an alternative to the soon to be tainted Democrats and the Glen Beck conservatives the energies of the population will have to choose between these unfortunate camps.
"Democrats in exile" (I am avoiding the acronym "P.U.M.A.") are a logical base - to start. As for the comments that insist I should get off my ass and start a third party all I can say is Thanks for the compliment. Even in my most grandiose moments this feels like an absurdity.
However, I will evolve some ideas about what a "third way" might look like in the next week or so. And state without equivocation that I will help should the energies of the immediate aftermath of last May's Obama coup be reignited.
The time to start thinking about stopping the coming right wing backlash is NOW.
As I wrote earlier this week 2008 did not change my politics. However, 2009 is pushing me around a bit. I figure the best way to deal with this is to post my evolution/devolution (call it what you will.) and let the internal contradictions play in the sun for a bit and see what happens.
On the basics I remain a liberal. For Single Payer, for choice (though now think Roe v Wade should go.) for equal rights for gay Americans, think Krugman was/is right all along on the economy. For an independent Palestinian state. For most drug legalization.
Further - when all is said and done I am not a true libertarian - However, I do think libertarian blow back against Obama's overreach is healthy. And, frankly, American. My hope is that the coming libertarian movement (and I think one is coming) will not be usurped by the Newt's Conservatives.
On the economy it is time to realize that Krugman is not in charge. What we have is Obama's plans which, given how they will be paid for, should cause suspicion. The combination of pro-finance bailouts with auto sector intrusion (Obama now holds the GM bag.) is a moment to behold. The opposite should be happening under a Democratic administration.
Which brings me to the self proclaimed moderates and has left me wondering if I am one myself. Rail against Obama as I did all year - for all the right reasons in my book- I did hold out hope in January that the stimulus would make sense and help. It did not make sense and I suspect it won't help. The much more Lefty BHO budget blue print was intriguing, baffling and laughable. Mostly because through out February Obama kept repeating with a straight face that he would cut the deficit. Which made his budget bullet points surreal. Uppity's run down on the new Blue Dog caucus in the Senate signals that a real blow back is occurring.
I generally do not like excessively powerful executives and do not trust clamoring for "bipartisanship". When this comes from a unitary executive (And Obama is proving himself to be one. He has not given back much, if any, of the power Bush/Cheney seized. ) calls for bipartisanship mean "Do as I say and put a smile on your face, damn it!" We now know that BHO's version of "bipartisan" is to call out the GOP for questioning him.
The American system is designed to be messy for good reason. On a practical, but not ideological, level I was heartened by the fierce GOP resurrection 2 months ago. And, as I said Monday, if the doomers are correct and the economy is set to crash and burn vocal libertarians are needed to check all but certain impulses toward authoritarian statism. We are not immune.
What we can't tolerate is a President who is unchecked. So a caucus of moderate Democrats vetting the budget is a hopeful sign. Whether I agree with them or not (and I suspect I do more than I know.) is beside the point. I want a health care system that is moving toward single payer. But more than that I want single payer proponents to make the case. I want Cap and Trade vetted for the public. I want Senators demanding to know where the money is coming from for everything. A repeat of the stimulus fiasco in which not one legislator read the bill cannot be tolerated. This, like few other instances of D.C. nonsense, should be taken personally by citizens. It was an insult and a dereliction of duty.
Obama's vision is not mine. Chicago writ large is not the liberalism I signed up for many moons ago. I am deeply suspicious of his every move because he's earned my suspicion. This is not to say I won't find myself in agreement with BHO on some issues as things unfold. But he must be treated - as all Presidents should be - with suspicion.
So three cheers for the Blue Dogs. Question everything.
I can say with ease that I am a PUMA. From what I gleaned from Tamerlane's piece and the conversation that followed last week it seems to me that the thrust of "PUMA thought" fits me quite nicely. Frankly, most everyone seemed within range of being right. We should duke it out over where we are headed. Not so long ago, this kind of fight was a hallmark of the Democratic Party. Will Rogers, one of the true unsung saints of the old Democrats, said it: I am not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat.
Here's the thing: I do not think I was ever not a PUMA. Ever. Before O, these people now calling themselves Pumas were called Democrats. I see nothing in the general parameters of what a PUMA is, expressed here and other places in the aftermath of that post, that contradict the Democratic Party of, say, 2006. We simply did not know of the duplicitous, and often sexist, nature of our leadership then. What broke off from the Democratic Party and became a vocal, albeit smaller, group in 2008 was not some rump faction. The Democratic Party broke away from the Democratic Party. What was left was a thing that looked like the Democratic Party but was, in fact, an evil twin.
The simplest way I can put this is to rely on the one word that expressed what the former Democratic Party always returned to: Fair. Even when it was off base in policy, as it sometimes was, the party's fuel came from a sense of fairness. This goes back to Jackson and even Jefferson. The idea of what is "fair" has changed and in some instances is to us repellent now. Skipping over the Civil War and Reconstruction at my peril (The Democrat's century long moral collapse around slavery and civil rights cannot be excused.) I do think that from Jefferson, and Jackson to FDR, Truman, Kennedy, yes Carter, and Clinton a prime mover in the Democratic party has been a sense of fairness. (I can't deconstruct our entire history here - obviously. Jefferson owned slaves, Jackson murdered Indians, FDR interred Japanese - Americans etc. Fairness was not always fair in practice.)
That said: The old Democrats gave up the ghost last year. This word fair, as we all saw, went to Neverland on May 31.
PUMAs did not change. The Democrats did. The 2 party system being what it is, this new thing - the Obamacratic Party - took the name of the conquered entity and went on to win. Rank and file Democrats for the most part saw the new Obamacrats as the old Democrats, wanted a change, and went along.
On June 3rd, 2008 I made my peace with it and re-registered as a "decline to state." They can have the name. I said at the time I'd left the Democratic Party. That's not really true. The Democratic Party that I thought I was a member of was effectively destroyed on May 31st last year. A generation's long attempt to make the nominating process more fair was heaved into the wind - in the open, for all to see. The heavers smiling and waving as they left the room. Awarding 4 delegates to a man who chose freely to take his name off a state ballot was the absolute last straw for me. This could not be my party. From that moment on it was the Democratic Party in name only.
In reading the Credo over at The Confluence I am struck by the fact that it is a recitation of what were once Democratic Party values. I can quibble here and there. ( I can no longer abide the phrase "social justice". It has been destroyed in my mind by university ninnies and professional resenters. However, her explanation that follows is spot on. I would simply called it "fairness" not "social justice.") I landed consistently on the Left end of the party but was always in the room. Generally speaking that credo could have been written by Harry Truman or Bill and Hillary Clinton. It is an explanation of the Democratic Party that once was.
Before the clip at the bottom I have a few thoughts. If you are not in the mood to read - Please skip the thoughts and view the clip.
A. Pelosi is a disaster as Speaker of the House. I would say she is the Worst Speaker Ever - but I don't know the history of the House well enough.
Suffice it to say:Pelosi sucks.
Remarkably she used her time on the floor BEFORE the vote to hammer at and blame the entire financial mess on Bush and the GOP. I don't care about the content of what she said in this case. I heard it and did not disagree entirely. That's not the point. To throw this verbal bomb BEFORE the vote was:
1. Proof she's a moron. 2. An attempt to make sure the bill failed. 3. Both
Any GOPs that may have been on the fence voted No after her eruption. So much for a new era in politics.
B. The clip below exemplifies my disgust and sadness about the Democrats. From what I can tell so far most of the blame for the Freddie/Fannie debacle belongs to the Dems. They are the "something for nothing" Party now (with the perfect nominee to carry this banner forward.)
C. Since many of the DEMs defending Fannie/Freddie corruption in the clip are Black I expect to called a racist. Whatever. blah blah blah. The word has been rendered meaningless by the Obama campaign. These Reps are idiots. Idiots come in all colors.
D. I resent 700 billion (or whatever it is now) of tax payer money being spent to salvage the damage idiots on all levels did to the system. Saving this monster from eating its own is not worth our money or effort. Let the chips fall. We need to start living within in our means.
I guess you could say that today I am glad Pelosi is so bad at her job.
I am a Republican. I voted for Bush twice, and I know we disagree on many things. However, that is not the purpose of this email. Instead, I wanted to extend the olive branch of sorts.
In 2007, many of us conservatives held an irrational fear of Hillary. From the start, we looked for a face in the crowd of democratic nominees that could potentially knock her out of the race. Following the Iowa primary, we assumed that Obama would be our guy - until we looked into his past. Obama is a Marxist to the core. His strain is of the same diluted, twisted form that permeates our schools and colleges, propagated by people like Bill Ayers - and Obama. Add to that mix his deeply flawed, cowardly character, and general ineptitude and you have an Obama presidency.
That changed everything.
We came to realize, more slowly than I would have liked, that Hillary was not our enemy. No one would ever accuse her of rampant honesty, but she is to her core an American, and her sheer tenacity is admirable. I'm not a huge fan of either John McCain or Hillary, but both look about as messianic as Obama's supporters imagine Obama to be, when compared to him. Obama is every bit the uniter he claims to be - he's uniting the country against him. Indeed, that is why you are receiving this email.
Hillary supporters, Republicans - we may disagree on many things, but we understand what the problems are. We just reach different solutions. And we can have this conversation civilly, without name-calling and insults. That's the difference between genuine patriots (not to mention decent human beings) and Obama supporters. Bill said it best:
The far left has divided us Americans for too long. They have traditionally sent their vitriol in our direction, but now they seek to devour the very party that took them in. The democrat(ic) leadership tolerated them because of their money. And they have simultaneously caused the reactionary right to, well, react. (I'd like to apologize for Ann Coulter.) The end result has been terrible division. It must end.
This country needs both conservatives and liberals today just as it was founded by conservatives and liberals. When one group fails, the whole country suffers. There is great unity in intelligent, mutually respectful disagreement.
I have left my day job to work for 527's. I will be putting ads on television to spread the truth about Obama. You and I have many disagreements but we have found some important common ground, we are both fighting to protect our country from a madman.
The wide assumption in the DNC and Obama cabal of elites and scoundrels is that those of us who refuse to vote for Obama under any circumstances (and we are legion) will come to our senses by November and vote for the chosen one.Since they have no principles beyond money and faddishness they cannot see that our refusal to vote for this woefully unqualified man is fundamentally based in core principles - not anger, disappointment or passing frustration.
The assumption that we will vote for BHO in the end is false and stupid. Here's why: The most consistent Democratic voters in general elections are African Americans and white "arugula" liberals. AA's vote Democratic at a rate over 87% in general elections routinely. A few rich "arugula" or "latte" Democrats bark about Nader or the equivalent every four years - but they invariably wander back to Kerry or Dukakis, etc. The template for disaffected Democrats "always coming back" being put forth by pundits now it based on the history of "latte" Democrats. Not "lunch bucket" Democrats.
This year the disaffected Democrats are lunch bucket dems, not the lattes. Evidence suggests that lunch bucket Dems vote according to a candidate's affinity to their values over all else. The "What's the matter with Kansas?'" meme put forth by the certain elites - including Obama in his famous San Francisco flub - misunderstands something basic: to many of us there are principles more valuable than money. In fact, there is intelligence in understanding that the elected head of government should reflect one's basic values regardless of policy differences. This is not ignorance - it's wisdom.
Obama's 20 year stint in the retrograde church and his encouragement of sexism in his campaign go to core values. It tells us who he is. (Examples: he flipped off a former first lady -there is no denying it, and uses repellent woman hating rap "artists" at his rallies). He has become offensive to 2 large groups of Democrats: blue collar workers and white women. Telling these groups to vote for him merely because he is a registered Democrat and "not McCain" is insulting. I attend a large liberal church. On occasion I disagree with what is said and done there - but overall I am comfortable with it because it reflects my values. A stranger could correctly infer much about my beliefs by viewing sermons I sit through at my church . You can here if you like.
We have every right - in fact every duty - to make judgments about Obama based on where he spent 20 years of his spiritual life. To insist it is all okay because he dumped Wright after a press club rant is to insist that one ignore critical thought. I won't even consider giving Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis a pass until she explains how she changed. Until then it stands as her belief. The onus is on her, not the rest of us. Stop asking us to check our values at the door just so your guy can win. Stop implying we just don't understand Obama when all the evidence suggests we understand him completely. Much more than his myopic fan base.
I will not vote for Obama because he represents values I am fundamentally opposed to: racism, sexism, condesension to the working class, lack of judgement about associates, political expediency, graft, and entitlement. How can I say this? I've examined not what he has said but what he as done, and where he has spent his adult life. I encourage you to do the same.
Besides, as of now there is no compelling economic reason to violate my core principles and vote for BHO. If there was I might look twice. His "Democratic" economic stances are boilerplate and innocuous. Regarding the economy he inspires no faith and doesn't even seem to understand the basics.
Howard Dean and Barack Obama have willfully shrunk the Democratic big tent. The rump party they have created is no longer the party I was once proud to be part of.
BIG P.S.: Before I get comments about Iraq - let me just add - anyone who thinks Obama is going to magically end that war is a fool of the first order. Obama will fund the war if he wins. He'll have to. Delusions to the contrary are just that - delusions. All 3 candidates are stuck with Iraq. All three candidates will have to spend 4 years backing off the Bush mess. But we are staying in Iraq. We can't up and leave. Stop fantasizing about it. Until we end our addiction to oil, indeed, our need for oil, we will have to have bases in countries with it. Every segment of our American lives depends on oil. So please no crap that starts with "but the war!!!". If you want the war to end cut your energy usage 50% RIGHT NOW. If you won't do that and still insist Obama can get us out of Iraq - then you're too far gone to be bothered with. We ain't there to stop the "bad guys" we're there to make sure the Chinese aren't. The Chinese are stuck making deals with Sudan and Venezuela for now. Sadly, everyone on earth seems to know this except the American public.
We have commenters come here and tell us we're not Democrats because we don't support Senator Obama. How bigoted is that? Who are Jim Bob or Norb, et al to decide what a Democrat is or isn't? I thought Liberal meant "in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties or favoring or permitting freedom of action with respect to matters of personal belief or expression." Yet when they come here (and other Clinton friendly blogs) they don't want freedom of action of personal belief. The Obama supporter who made the 1984 ad about Senator Clinton should look in the mirror.
As to our Liberal street cred, perhaps read back to some of our early work when we were delightfully bashing Bush (ah the halcyon days when we were all united) . Or when we had great hopes that a Democratic congress would do something. Nancy Pelosi told us that impeachment was off the table and we began to lose hope. We were promised "change" in 2006 and you can see how well that has gone.
Here's a comment by Jason from a previous post that sums it up:
Where does it say, anywhere, you can't be a true Democrat (or for that matter a Republican, a Libertarian, a Green, or a member of any other party) if you express a desire to vote for someone outside your party. Automatically voting straight party ticket is not the sign of a healthy democracy but more akin to those "free and fair" elections that were occurred in the former Soviet Union and now occur in those Utopian paradises where voters are "gently persuaded" whom to vote for.
A sign of a mature democracy is that you make an informed decision and cast your vote for the person you believe is the most qualified for the position, even if it is a vote against your own party. It is a maturity that allows you to realize your party couldn't find the best there is for the position or even has made a mistake in the choice of its candidate.
Party membership in our society does not mean we have to ascribe 100% to all positions and all of the party. After all, the members of a party have to debate and fight among themselves as to what the party platform will be. We identify with the party that on balance tends to support more of with what we agree than disagree.
This is what I now find lacking in the Democratic Party. The party elites have decided to cram Obama down our throats and tell us their little fringe group is now the whole of the Democratic Party and we are all traitors to the Party if we dare express our opinions to the contrary.
This new vision of the Democratic party is not the party of its former giants, FDR, John and Bobby Kennedy (sorry Ted), who fought for the betterment of American society, but one of powerful elites (that's you Ted, and Pelosi and Reid) who will do anything to perpetuate their grip on power to the expense of the greater good of American society.
The New Democratic party shouldn't even be called Democratic anymore, not with it's calls to stop the electoral process and anoint Obama; calls that started with his first few hundred delegates and "polls" taken by the elites to advance their own end. No, the New Democratic Party is not the party with the ideals of FDR, JFK and Bobby, but of Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov.
The road forward is tough for Clinton. She should win large victories in West Virginia and Kentucky in the next 2 weeks. This probably will not do much to move things in her direction. I believe the only thing that can sink Obama now is a revelation so harmful the S.D.'s go running into the night. Allusions abound about such a bit of info - but I certainly know of nothing. If being employed by a terrorist for 8 years doesn't get coverage by the major media I can't imagine what will. It would have to be a "Spitzeresque" meltdown - to coin a phrase.
We do need to start thinking about the crack up of the Democratic Party and decide if this is a bad thing. I am not sure it is. The exit polls indicate a severe fissure. I admit to having a moment of not caring one wit for the Democratic party tonight. Donna Brazille's behavior on CNN is appalling and Howard Dean is a disaster. Pelosi has accomplished nothing and Harry Reid acts like the mayor of Mayberry - not the majority leader. This is not the party of FDR, Truman and Bill Clinton. If working class whites and rural voters have to walk out - so be it.
BHO will be the nominee of college students, college professors, independents and African Americans, apparently voting for him solely because of his race. Good for them. But this is not the Democratic Party I care to be identified with. I won't vote for BHO in the general. It is a relief to know this. An Obama rout in the general might have a silver lining.
Clinton's speech tonight had an undertone that seems to indicate she knows the mountain just got too high. But I have been wrong more than I have been right this year - I admit to my chagrin - so who knows what the week will bring.
