Arthur Camins reminds us that the best way to reclaim the society we want is to vote for people who care about improving our democracy and the common good.
At present, we are stuck with politicians backed by the NRA, the Koch brothers, and big corporate interests.
The challenge is to vote for the candidate who represents who we want to be, not the candidate with the most money.
The change we want comes down to a single word: VOTE.
Call out what democratic decision-making for the common good looks like: the right to vote; freedom from fear of gun violence; affordable health care; decent food, clothing and shelter, good schools, a decent life in retirement, wages that enable people to pay their bills, a clean safe environment, mediating climate change, fair justice, family planning (include abortion) for EVERYONE.
FOR EVERYONE, no matter what, because that is how we act on our values.
These are uniting issues.
Say it out loud: A Doing good deed for ourselves and others as individuals are not enough.
Say it out loud: We can only achieve what we value for EVERYONE when we restore government an agent of the common good.
We can only achieve what we value for EVERYONE with a united integrated struggle.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I was most appreciative of the Democratic Party during this year’s primary election. They helpfully sent me a list of everyone I should vote against. It was so nice of them to let me know who the big-money Establishment candidates are so I wouldn’t accidentally vote for any of them.
This post really strikes a deep chord within me. It is the fundamental dividing line between conservatism and authentic progressivism. Conservatives ask, as economist Robert Heilbronner posited many years ago, “What has posterity ever done for me?” to justify their obsession with short-term, immediate gratification and their limited vision of order.
Last week I watched Akira Kurosawa’s classic Dersu Uzala and made note of a quote by the narrator as he described Dersu, a nomadic Goldi from the depths of eastern Siberia. I think it fits hand-in-glove with Arthur’s admonition above: “I couldn’t help admiring this Goldi. He had acquired knowledge and wisdom during his long life in the taiga. And he also had a beautiful spirit. He considered the needs of a person he didn’t know and likely would never meet.” To be a committed progressive, one must be aware of those we will likely never meet, today and for future generations. Education is how we get there.
If our nation had publicly-financed campaigns, (FAT CHANCE), the need for politicians to grovel to corporations and wealthy individuals would disappear. Then we would of have political leaders who would truly represent the people. If we had term limits, then politicians would focus on serving the people, instead of just chasing after money for re-elections, so they could get pensions. If we abolished congressional pensions, we would have politicians who would serve for only a short while, and then return to private life.
Then again, if a frog had wings, he would not bump his butt when he hopped.
As long as less than 50% of eligible voters even choose to vote at all, all a politician needs is 25% plus one, to get elected. This is government by minority, and taxation without representation.
“If we had term limits, then politicians would focus on serving the people, instead of just chasing after money for re-elections, so they could get pensions. If we abolished congressional pensions, we would have politicians who would serve for only a short while, and then return to private life.”
I have always thought that term limits lead to powers behind the throne. Some of our most productive civil servants have been long in the tooth while long in the office. Perpetual inexperience in political office is a public danger. It was vast inexperience that helped Europe into World War I. It was inexperience that pushed France into a revolution and civil war.
I have always thought a better solution was good political leadership. It used to be that our leaders could discuss and compromise on their way to policy. Now the right wing wants it all. This will blow up on them.
Very well stated, Roy. “Powers behind the throne”, if they become too powerful, become unaccountable. I would add that term limits has the potential to lead to even more voter apathy and disengagement. If voters are engaged, knowledgeable, and have true civic virtue, then they can use the term limit mechanism they already have at their disposal. It’s called voting. Which brings us back to the relevance of Arthur’s comment.
I certainly agre with your opening thought, Charles. In fact it is my mantra. There are probably several steps which need to be taken to get the money out of politics, but publically-financed election is the first one. That alone would restore so much to the power of the voting public that ot would precipitate many beneficial changes on its own.
I do not find much agreement with my positions here. But even a blind hog can find an acorn occasionally.
I vote in every election. As a life-long Democrat, I have consistently supported Democratic candidates. For too long, I have voted Democrat only because they were the lesser of two evils. I find that Democrats, the supposed candidates of the “common good” are not representing my beliefs. Neo-liberals are part of the reason we are in the fix we are in today. Something must change.
Rephrase that economic description. Corporatist’s is less offensive . There is nothing liberal in the definition of neo-liberalism . It slanders liberalism which is defined by a belief in public goods.
Actually, Joel, the historic role and definition of liberalism is much closer to dpayne34’s than yours. Your definition of liberalism only applies to the New Deal and Great Society eras. They, sadly, appear to be historical outliers, now being rapidly replaced by the neo-liberalism (which is based on neo-classical, laissez faire economics) plaguing us today.
Before that, “liberalism” referred to exactly what it has currently come to mean: the freedom of Capital to have its way, and the commodification/marketization/privatization of every aspect of life.
It’s no accident that in virtually every other country, the “Liberals” are among the right-wing parties. Historically, like today, that’s where they belong.
While it may be confusing, and thus tactically questionable, for some people to use the term “neo-liberalism,” it’s historically accurate.
I call on you MF (just realized this could be misread). “It’s no accident that in virtually every other country, the ‘Liberals’ are among the right-wing parties.”
Assuming you are a teacher as you claim to be, if a student of yours made that statement, what corroborating evidence would you require to make the case?
I would posit that your conclusion are ahistorical and not founded in actual fact. Indeed, if one observed “conservative” politicians in the UK, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, and Denmark, they would all be considered left-of-center when compared to American perceptions.
conclusions are
Unfortunately, we have a 2 party system and both are backed by greedy big business. It will forever be voting for the lesser of 2 evils…. and that just bothers me to the core. I want to vote for a person…not a party or a party affiliation.
There is nothing in our laws that says we are a two-party system. The only reason we are is that people have been trained to think that a vote for a third party is a “throw-away” vote (or, worse, a vote for the opposing candidate). The sooner people wake up and throw off that mindset the sooner we the people will stand a chance. As it is now, neither party has any motivation to serve their voters, only their donors. If we make third parties viable, we can put them in a position where they’ll have to choose between their voters and their donors. If people would wake up, all the money in the world won’t sway elections, so candidates wouldn’t have as much motivation to cater to donors.
But….in a primary election, one can only vote Dem or Rep only (I don’t know if this is nationwide or by state?). It keeps people from voting in the primaries and squeezes out candidates that are actually for the people.
Voting will not work. Maybe on local level, but not on a high level. The system is not designed for bringing in anyone outside of the two parties. Even when a progressive belongs to one of the two parties, he will not have a chance, this can be proved by constant snubbing of progressives from Wallace to Sanders.
You bring up a good point: local elections! I agree that we need to pay more attention to what’s happening locally. Know who is running for city council, for school board, for judges, and other local candidates (much depends on your state and which positions are appointed and which are elected). Frankly, it can be a fair amount of work to find out information on some of the candidates but it’s so important. It’s part of the fundamentals of democracy to know who represents you at the village, town, and county level as well as nationally. That’s where things start–maybe we can have a “trickle up” effect!
Do READ: Healing Our Divided Society: Fifty Years After The Kerner Report.
We need to vote for our communities interest. Many of our politicians are secretly taking money from rich individuals who care nothing about the poor or public policies. I don’t remember ever hearing the union leadership talk about Betsey and how she had destroyed Michigan school system till she was being nominated to the current position she holds. Then every educator was writing pieces about her. A little to late. We can not be responsible to read every newspaper however the teachers union newsletters should of been highlighting her educational issues for decades and others who represent her views. When our own leadership doesn’t inform us we can not fight against these corrupt ed reform organizations. Community involvement, better mobilization for communities, informational teach in for communities. Small town hall meetings with real agenda, discussions, outcomes. Translate that to the bigger pictures and it works. Watch your politicians and when they speak out of both sides of the mouth with no responsible explanation hold them accountable and vote them out. Real life is not a reality TV show and don’t let anyone tell you it is.
Should we get rid of the Democrats? Reinvent them?
Or should we read THIS:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/16/100571/
So much to think about, so little time.
Thanks for the link!
People who vote Trump into office for MAGA will not support a third party. In any case, where are those other parties? I hear about them only on an election day.
NF, not sure if you understand how the American political system works. I know our sneering commentator doesn’t. I’ve written about this before, so won’t get into it too much. We do not have parliamentary system, and when you try to superimpose parliamentary rules on a majority-takes-all system, it doesn’t fit. The action in the American political systems takes place as much within the parties as it does between the parties. That’s why Democrats were reactionaries after the Civil War and why Republicans had a diverse spectrum of opinion in the 1960s, just to take two obvious examples.
Also, you do realize the author the piece you posted is a paid staff member of the Green Party? It is far from objective nor do the arguments persuade.
“We do not have parliamentary system, and when you try to superimpose parliamentary rules on a majority-takes-all system, it doesn’t fit.”
Once upon a time, women voting did not fit your Republic. Nor did blacks voting, being literate, or owning land. They just did NOT fit given the design of the political machinery once upon a time.
Societies evolve, and it’s excruciatingly difficult to do so. I’m not saying you should or should not have third and more parties. I’m saying that there are paths to pursue, and people will decide which ones to use to run the course. With evolving division come new movements that clarify voices that were once not united but are united now because they have lost their labels and differences.
Well that one flew right over your head. Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Those changes happened within the systemic process; the process was slow, but it moved forward. It did not fundamentally change the mechanisms of the process. Your third paragraph seems to agree with what I have been writing. Which brings us back to Arthur’s challenge. We can sit on the sidelines and whine or choose to engage and accept the inevitable frustration that goes with it.
Great post. It’s good to think outside the box. Thanks!
Like it or not, we are stuck with the two party system. So, we need to turn heaven and Earth to force the Democrats to fight for democracy and the common good. They were forced to do so during the Great Depression. That’s why we have Social Security and had strong unions. They were forced to do so in the 1950s and 1960s. That’s why we have Medicare and why civil rights legislation was passed. We can do it again. ORGANIZE!
We’re only stuck with a two party system because people like you believe we are. And so long as people believe that, we can move heaven and earth to our hearts’ content, but we have no leverage to “force the Democrats to fight for democracy and the common good”. The only thing they will respond to is the threat of losing their voters. If we vote for them anyway, they really don’t care if we do it happily or while holding our noses.
Agree with AC. Adding, that one party has gone off the rails and become an extreme radical rightwing/libertarian movement hell bent on lowering taxes on the rich, deregulating everything in sight, banning abortions, eliminating all the social programs, the social safety net, giving the green light to the NRA and stacking the courts with far right wingers. I will certainly support and vote for progressives but if the general election comes down to an R or a D, I will vote for the less damaging person. That’s just me.
AC and Joe are right on the mark. Whining about Democrats and doing nothing to change the party at the grassroots level is little more than a useless temper tantrum. I have chosen to engage with my local representatives and forcefully let them know when and why I disagree as I work to change the party. It’s like navigating a large container ship. You have to plan ahead, be committed and continue to do so when unexpected things happen.
GregB,
Agreed. Anyone expecting to run a third party will have a long, long wait to make a difference. Like it or not, we have a two-party System. The Greens will win some local elections. The Socialists will too. But neither is a national party.
Do you see no hope in running progressive candidates in primaries? That is a threat. .., and hey, we are I think on the same side, so try something a bit more comrade-like than”than people like you,” since you don’t know me. 🙂
What I know about you relative to “people like you” is that in your opening line you gave the standard neoliberal There Is No Alternative line that we are stuck with the two party system. People like you who believe that are destroying any chances of ever changing the system.
I didn’t know that Noam Chomsky (recommended voting for Hillary), Bernie Sanders (supported Hillary after the primary) and Thomas Frank (admitted he voted for Hillary) were neoloiberals?
Dienne77,
Behavior is based on beliefs. When beliefs change, so does behavior. Easier said than done, but not impossible. Look at the history of other countries.
I did not know Chomsky recommended LEV. Indeed, he did. But only in swing states; he also recommended to vote for a third option in Dem states.
Norwegian Filmmaker,
So massive drilling for oil in the Arctic and strict immigration laws — both of which Trump and the right wing Republicans would love — are now “progressive” ideas that the US should adopt by electing people like the ones who run Norway?
Maybe an American “progressive” can run on that. Massive drilling for oil but when we destroy the environment and speed up climate change, you’ll be happy because we are using that money to pay for universal health care. We’re raising minimum wage, but those refugees will have to find someone else to go.
Is that the kind of “history” we should look at? Or maybe Theresa May and Brexit is a better idea. Isn’t the neoconservatism of Tony Blair due entirely to the British parliamentary system? How is that progressive movement doing in England’s parliamentary system?
I just find it interesting that you can entirely accept those moderate to conservative politicians that come out of the parliamentary systems, but somehow can’t accept any “compromises” (except the ones you approve of, of course) from any Democrat and blame it on the two-party system.
Cynthia Nixon is challenging Cuomo for the governorship of NY. As far as I can tell, she’s a good progressive and she supports the actual real public schools to which she sends her child. She could easily afford an elite private school but has chosen a public school for her child. More progressive Democrats are challenging the corporate Democrats in many places in the nation. Zephyr Teachout, who was listed as Nixon’s campaign treasurer, said she will be helping Nixon’s run.
Nothing is more ironic to me than the people who whine that the Democrats aren’t running candidates who are progressive enough because those progressive candidates can’t win the primary. But they are certain that a progressive candidate who voters can’t bother to support or fight for in the primary to defeat a less progressive opponent will win a general election.
How does that work? You can’t even convince enough people to vote for this supposedly popular progressive in the primary but you are certain that the very same voters who couldn’t bother to come out for this progressive candidate in the primary will come out en mass when they run as a 3rd party candidate?
Maybe — just maybe — the reason the progressive candidate didn’t win the democratic primary is because he or she was flawed in different ways.
Case in point — the democratic primary for Governor in Virginia.
The so-called “progressive” candidate was a tool of DFER — he was their school reformer of the month as a Congressman — and he was getting money from people who hated that Virginia was one of the last big states that was not entirely owned and operated by the school privatizers. However, he was good on some other issues.
The so-called “conservative” evil candidate was a strong supporter of public schools. And he was not progressive on other issues.
And the voters in the primary voted for that “evil” conservative candidate who would support public schools instead of the “progressive” one who the billionaire charter supporters endorsed. Not because the Democratic party machine forced them to. Because they wanted a candidate who wouldn’t abandon public schools more than they wanted a candidate who wanted to “reform” them.
I guess there are people here who are angry that the progressive candidate didn’t run as a third party candidate so that the right wing Republican could win. Because when your progressive candidate has ideas that are not popular with the Democratic voters, you need to throw a temper tantrum and try to destroy the Democrats and this country instead of looking to your candidates and figuring out why they lost. And fighting next time for a progressive who might be on the right side of issues that Democratic voters care the MOST about.
Bernie Sanders lost because when it came to VOTERS in the primary, the voters voted on the issue they cared most about. Not because they were “forced” to. That’s what some people above who don’t seem to believe in democracy do not understand. Their primary candidates are not convincing voters in the primary which means they sure aren’t going to convince people in the general. And many primary losers fight again the next time around and win. Because they’ve figured a better message to reach more voters.
Trump won the Republican primary because voters in the primary voted for him. Obama won the Democratic primary because voters in the primary voted for him. The candidates who lose do so because they have fewer votes. That’s it. It isn’t a conspiracy. It is called democracy.