We're complacent

[jpgray]

People on this forum are already weighing whether or not the real enemy to be defeated is a liberal Democratic Senator, or Bush. The abstract of this makes it seem like without removing the "undesirables" from our party, we will never have "change"--therefore folks want their guy, or they will not vote for the nominee.

It is my contention that the greatest threat to this country is Bush, and not any of our candidates. What the long term "changing" strategy of many leftists here doesn't account for is what an Authoritarian regime can do if left in unquestioned power.

Plenty of folks here compare Bush to Hitler. How well do you know that history? The left was fractured then, and among more bitter lines than ours.

The leftist groups of the Reichstag despised the Social-Democrats (two KPD leaders were killed by a SPD defense minister). One of their Moscow-influenced leaders, Ernst Thalmann, wrote in December 1931:

'By raising the specter of Hitler's fascism, Social Democracy is attempting to sidetrack the masses from the vigorous action against the dictatorship of finance capital.... There are some people who fail to see the Social Democratic forest for the National Socialist (Nazi) trees.'

People are making this exact argument here.

Thalmann confused the Social-Democratic reactionary practices with fascism, and did not realize at the time that Hitler would move to crush all independent political movements in Germany once he solidified his power. Indeed he believed the Nazi success in the election of 1930 would be Hitler's "best day", and that he would have "worse days" from that time forward. Sound familiar?

Our candidate will live or die based on party support. Those who would deny our nominee (the field is still wide open) support run the risk of keeping an Authoritarian government in power.

That government has already walked the fascist road of media consolidation, leftist persecution (Green Party leader denied airline flights), and "shadowy outsider" war propaganda (war on terror). The seeds have been sown, and we run a great risk if we don't nip it in the bud. You leave Bush and the Republicans in there too long, you might not have a chance to move the corporate Democratic Party or the public left--the insitutions of the left will be muzzled, sooner or later, under an Authoritarian regime. The Greens are already being persecuted, and soon it will be the Democrats' turn.

With a Democratic administration you can at least disagree with the corporatist policies and be safe in the assumption that a third party challenge will be allowed, if not treated fairly--the same can't be said about a maniacal Authoritarian government. Again, we in the left deny the opposition to Bush our help at the risk of everyone--millions here, and millions abroad.

[iowapeacechief]

1. Thanks for this perspective

Sobering.

[jpgray]

2. But not very interesting, apparently :-) (nt)

[sangh0]

3. I recommend Reich's op-ed in todays NY Times

He talks about Dems who want to beat Bush* and Dems who want a movement. Also, arendt started a thread in DG2004 that is relevant. Look for it. It's interesting

[indigo32]

4. I for one am with you

eom

[Walt Starr]

5. But the electoral history from 1994 until today proves

the leadership of the Democratic Party consitently loses.

Most of us will give the party one last shot, but my suspicion is the party is about to suffer the worst defeat in electoral history.

If I am correct in my prediction, all of this is moot because the party will be dead after that debacle.

[sangh0]

7. Clinton lost in 1996?

Gore lost in 2000?

I'm having an amazing day today. In another thread, I learned that Dean did not lose in Iowa.

[Walt Starr]

9. Clinton won in '96, yes, it's still a losing election run.

But let's look at the electoral history from 1994 on, shall we?

1994 - Democrats lose the House and the Senate
1996 - Democrats retain the presidency, fail to regain House and Senate
1998 - Democrats fail to regain House and Senate
2000 - Democrats fail to retain the presidency (it's a fact, George Bush took office on January 20,2001 regardless of how he got there). Democrats fail to regain House and Senate.*
2002 - Democrats suffer further losses in House and Senate.

This is a history of failure. A single win out of 12 games is a losing season no matter how you want to look at it.


* In May of 2001, The Democrats entered into a tie through the good graces of a Republican who switched to Independent. This was not an electoral gain and the Democrats were shut out in all ties by the vice President's vote. They went on to lose the Senate in 2002.

[bigtree]

11. What I haven't seen Walt

is any indication that an 'outsider' would fare any better in the general elections. I mean what stops a candidate in the primaries?

Lower voter interest in them, that's what. It's hard to argue that a front-runner who gets the majority of Democratic votes in the primary is a poorer match in the general election than a candidate from the 'outside' who hasn't attracted the same amount of Democratic support in those primaries. Didn't everyone have an equal chance to compete? Isn't a majority of support in a primary where record numbers voted an indicator of potential strength of support for the winner in the general? If the primary voters elect an outsider candidate than I would say that is the mood of the voter.

What I'm getting at here Walt is, correct me if I'm wrong, don't the opinions of those who have voted so far count for something? What are we saying about the primary electorate when we assume that they can't ultimately carry their nominee into the White House? When we constantly question their judgement on these candidates?

[sangh0]

12. And what I haen't seen

is Walt's acknowledgement that he was wrong when he said that Dems lose "consistently". The truth is, sometimes they win, and sometimes they lose.

Pretty consistent, huh?

[Walt Starr]

15. Losing eleven out of twelve elections for control of governmental bodies

is a pretty damn consistent record of losing over the past decade!

[sangh0]

17. Not in the real world

In the real US, there is no election for the control of governmental bodies. We have elections for political office, but the governmental bodies are controlled by various checks and balance. I'm sure you heard of those.

[Walt Starr]

16. Okay, outsiders who ran against incumbants over the past 20 years

James Carter - '76
Ronald Reagan - '80
William Clinton - '92

Are you starting to get the picture?

[bigtree]

18. outsiders

by whose standard? Reagan, although he reigned in California, was hardly an outsider. Bill Clinton, head of the governor's association who, as head, engineered the first reform of welfare. Carter benefited from Watergate. Any yellow dog could have beaten Nixon at that point.

What is an outsider? Sen. Edwards was an outsider when he came to the Senate. So was John Kerry. We see these folks as we want to. These outsider/insider labels aren't consistent. They seem to indicate that those who have, for whatever reason, not achieved a major public office are 'outsiders'. Until they achieve that major position, of course. Then, God help them, they are automatically transformed into dreaded 'insiders'. Sigh.

[sangh0]

19. CLinton was a founding member of the DLC

and Walt thinks he was an outsider?

[On the Road]

24. The Three Who Won Were Governors

The three who lost were Senators. Maybe that's a more specific way to frame the question.

Given the history, I'm really surprised that Dean and Graham were the only two governors running. Two out of ten -- go figure. There are a lot of big states with Democratic governors who would have had a shot.

[eileen_d]

14. Stopping at 1994 is not "history"

I sincerely recommend you read "Party of the People" - a history of the Demcratic Party starting with Jefferson. If anything, it will give you some perspective.

[jpgray]

8. Well, you should definitely back who you see as the best nominee

Dean is a fine choice, and I would be able to support him as the nominee just as enthusiastically as I would support Kerry, or Kucinich.

I just want people to remember that though our eventual nominee may be a fairweather friend of the left, we are experiencing a determined, reactionary enemy of the left.

[maddezmom]

6. good points ~bush* needs to go

Wes is my man and I'll support him until he wins or decides it's time to stop the fight. It's too early for people to rally around one candidate. Let the process play out.
I'll vote for the nominee come Nov. ABB all the way to the White House.

[jpgray]

10. Yes, everyone should support their favorite to the end in the primary

And then when the nominee is picked, I hope folks will remember this thread, and what Bush has done and is still capable of.

[mmonk]

13. We're in the primaries, not the general election yet

and also there are other enemies to what some of us believe are the right principles like the PNAC and others. The PNAC has had some influence in both parties. My eyes are wide open.

[TexasSissy]

20. Give it some time, & give supporters time to heal.

I, too, am (was?) an ABD. No way, no how could I ever vote for Dean. I still feel that way, but...I am softening a tad as time goes by. (BTW, I will vote for any of the candidates besides Dean, so it's not "my candidate or I won't vote.")

Come November, most people will nonetheless vote, even if their candidate wasn't the nominee.

[jpgray]

21. Kick, to fight the "I'll punish Dems, but not Bush" argument. (nt)

[californiahippie]

22. I completely agree

Thanks for reminding us. I live in a very liberal area and am very liberal myself. Everyone I know in 2000 was voting for Nadar, saying that "Gore was as bad as Bush" and that they weren't that different. I think it's safe to say they have changed their minds.
If it was Democrats against Green in an election I would probably vote green. I would rather see Kuckinich as President than the others.
But my first concern is getting out Bush for the reasons you stated, and I will stand firmly behind whatever democratic candidate wins the primaries, even if their views conflict with a lot of my pacifist hippy peace lovin principles.
It't time for gently herding the masses to the left.

[jpgray]

23. You speak for me exactly

If it were the other candidates v. Kucinich for the GE, I wouldn't have to think twice. Unfortunately we have Bush. :(

[RichM]

25. It's a provocative historical analogy, but you do Thalmann injustice!

He didn't "confuse" the SPD with fascism. Rather, he understood that the SPD were in effect fascist enablers - which is a bit different. Similarly, today's American Democrats are not fascists. Rather, most of them would more accurately be described as collaborators and enablers.

Democratic Party loyalists make the fundamental conceptual error of believing that the fundamental dichotomy is the nominal one of Republican versus Democrat. But the more meaningful division is between those demanding basic change, and those who are mainly defenders of the status quo. IOW, the Republicans are the overt rapists and looters. Most Democrats, OTOH, comprise a group that in effect facilitates the ambitions of the Republicans. And then there is that pesky little group of seriously progressive Democrats (read Kucinich), and Greens, socialists, & independents, whom we can jointly designate "the left."

What is crucial to appreciate is that MOST Democrats are not part of "the left." They are, in effect, partners of the Republicans, even though they wear a different color jersey. They are a group whose political function is to siphon off dissatisfaction with Republican rapaciousness, & to channel it to areas where it will be rendered (from the Republican viewpoint) harmless & ineffective. Thus, they function as a safety mechanism protecting Republicans. They are guaranteed to be weak-kneed & impotent against Republican offensives -- indeed, their entire political culture and language is permeated with cowardice & supplicating compromise.

Only a few Democrats, like Kucinich, stand for real change. The attitude of the Democratic Party towards such mavericks is to contemptuously ignore & marginalize them. Dean is not really a maverick in terms of his politics, but his unorthodox & somewhat unpredictable style constituted a challenge to the status quo defenders of the Dem Party establishment. Thus, they had to destroy him. Not coincidentally, Kerry's attacks on Dean (cf the Saddam remark) had a distinctly rightwing flavor, sounding just like something Rove himself would have come up with.

Your quote from Thalmann is of great present-day relevance. He was saying that the SPD was trying to gain support by "raising the specter of Hitler's fascism" -- and thereby was diverting attention from the real underlying issue: opposing the dictatorship of finance capital. This is precisely analogous to today's Democrats, who point to Bush's version of fascism, and scream "ABB." This means, "Vote for us -- or else you get Bush!!" This is meant to divert the masses' attention from the real underlying issue -- which one could call "true structural change" (though ultimately, it too is just what Thalmann was calling the "dictatorship of finance capital").

You write "People on this forum are already weighing whether or not the real enemy to be defeated is a liberal Democratic Senator, or Bush....It is my contention that the greatest threat to this country is Bush, and not any of our candidates." This is a false dichotomy. If the Democrats nominate a collaborator (ie, Kerry) who has been relatively silent on most of the Bush outrages, who voted for the IWR and PATRIOT Act out of rank opportunism, was dishonest enough to try to spin it for the next year as "the correct vote," then launched rightwing attacks on Dean for minor departures from Establishment orthodoxy -- it is already a crushing defeat. Even if the collaborator wins, it presents no challenge whatever to the grip of America's ruling elite (which is precisely why the media is so pleased to see Kerry resurgent, and Dean left bleeding by the wayside).

PS - your last para asserts that the Dems would "at least" allow a third party challenge. This is not so. As a recent Nader column on CommonDreams pointed out, the Dems & Repubs kicked the League of Women Voters away from control of Presidential debates almost 20 years ago. Jointly, the two big business parties make certain that they, and they alone, control the entire political process.