Wasted Energy Spent on Third Parties

[MineralMan]

would be better spent taking over the Democratic Party at the local level. Expecting someone else to do it is a waste of bandwidth. If it is to be done, everyone who posts about their dissatisfaction has to start working. Third parties are singularly unsuccessful at anything but the very local level, and not very successful even there.

However, Democratic politics at the local level are set by a very few people. Generally, they are the ones who are willing to take the positions, by default. In small organizations, such as precinct level or even state congressional district levels, so few people show up to make decisions, that a handful of people could easily take control of those organizations.

And it's from those organizations that the more general leadership comes. Of course, all of this depends on how the party is organized in your state. In states with a caucus system, officers at the lowest level end up being whomever volunteers. Volunteer at the local caucus and you're elected. Here in Minnesota, anyone with a voice and the willingness to hold a board position at the state senate district level will be unanimously elected at the state senate level caucus in most districts. All you have to do is show up. At the state level, the leadership is elected at the state convention. If all the state senate districts get taken over by progressives, the state leadership becomes progressive at the next convention.

Trouble is that nobody raises their hand or puts their name in. At our state senate level caucus, not a single person put his or her name up for the board-level positions. Not one. We had trouble even getting enough delegates to the state convention. In 2008, I had a health problem that kept me from going or becoming a board member. That's over. I will put my name forward at the local caucus level, and will doubtless be the chairman after 2010. I will put my name forward for the board of the state senate level and will no doubt be elected, simply by being willing and having a decent public speaking talent. I'll also be a delegate to the state convention. It's going to take some time, but I'm retired.

Third parties aren't going to get it. We need to take over the democratic party, precinct by precinct and district by district. If you're intelligent, can speak in public to any degree beyond quivering in fear, and can articulate your ideas, you're on your way.

So, how many third-party advocates even know what their local Democratic organization is? When do they meet? When are the elections that choose the leadership at that level? If you don't know that, and don't participate in local Democratic Party affairs, why should you even be talking about a third party?

It's easy to say, "Let's you and him fight." It's a lot harder to show up, get into a leadership position and make a difference. But...that's what has to be done. If you are smart enough to post coherently on DU, you're smart enough to become a leader in your local party organization. I guarantee it. Just show up and bring some like-minded people with you. At the local level, if you have a dozen people on your side, you're elected. If you can speak in public and want it, you can be elected at whatever the next level is. At each level, you have more and more influence.

Unless you're planning to do this within the Democratic Party where you are, any calls for a third party ring hollow. Why should anyone believe that you'll do it for a third party?

Sorry, but activism means actively doing something. It takes time and energy, but it's the only way that works. I'm new in Minnesota, so I hadn't been here long enough to understand the system at the last caucus meetings. No more. Now I understand just how to do it. I learned enough to caucus hard for Al Franken, and we won. Go learn your own Democratic Party organization. They're waiting for you so they can retire. Seriously.

[derby378]

1. Somewhat similar thoughts expressed here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7124043

[MineralMan]

2. Thanks. I missed that one.

I'll leave this one up, I think, too, since it deals more with caucus states.

[safeinOhio]

3. If only there were about 18 retired billionaires

that would put their money and energy into a progressive movement to save the world.

[MineralMan]

7. Or 18 million people willing to put in some time for

progressive causes. Billionaires aren't the folks likely to do this, you know?

To start, it just takes one progressive to become the chairperson of the precinct level Democratic organization. Just one. It could be you. It's going to be me in 2010 in my little precinct. Nobody even put their name forward at the 2008 caucus, and I couldn't that year. The old chairperson reluctantly continued and nothing is happening. Next year, it changes.

Don't wait for billionaires. They don't like you.

[safeinOhio]

4. If only there were about 18 retired billionaires

that would put their money and energy into a progressive movement to save the world.

[kestrel91316]

5. I posed for tasteful, artistic B&W nude pics in 1975. I can't have a career

in politics, lol.

[mike_c]

8. I inhale....

Frequently. :smoke:

[MineralMan]

16. You're qualified to chair a precinct level organization, then.

That's pretty much all it takes.

[mike_c]

20. especially in my precinct....

I mean, Humboldt County, CA. Pot is the backbone of our economy here and a major part of our culture.

But when the prohibition laws finally change, we'll be hailed as visionaries rather than reviled as criminals! I might run for Senator just to say "I told you so!" Between tokes. :rofl:

[MineralMan]

25. There ya go! Pass that over here, woudja?

[MineralMan]

11. Really? Don't run for public office, then. Work as a board member or

chairperson for the Democratic Party organization in your area. They don't care if you posed for nude photos, I guarantee.

[KittyWampus]

6. that's all I'm saying.

[leftstreet]

9. It'd be easier to take over the Republican party

It's already dead, kaput. It's looking for a new direction.

The corporatists DLCers are so entrenched in the Dem party, it's becoming the Nouveau Repub party.

[elocs]

13. I wouldn't be dancing on the GOP grave so quickly.

There will be those who have been doing the "Ding, dong the witch is dead" boogaloo that will be in for a rude awakening come 2010 and 2012.

[salguine]

10. The problem with your theory is that it doesn't take into account the

simple fact that all "progressive" or "change-minded" Democrats aren't allowed by the higher-ups to expand beyond the local level. Once they start to move beyond the local level, the DLC and the national party machine cuts them off at the knees and effectively mutes and marginalizes them. Dennis Kucinich is a United States Congressman, and he was barred from taking place in a number of debates where his name was on the goddamn ballot, for chrissake.

[Echo In Light]

12. And look at the strident, comprehensive organization they took against Nader in 04

"The DNC and the other co-defendants all filed briefs with the Superior Court asking that the case be dismissed."

[MineralMan]

15. You have to start at the local level. If nobody does that, it's

going to be the same...again and again. It's so simple.

[MineralMan]

17. Was Nader running as a Democrat? No? Then

he's irrelevant to the Democratic Party. He did, however, manage to trim the margin in Florida far enough that the GOP could cheat their way to the Presidency in 2000. Had, say, 50,000 votes for him gone to Gore, it would have been impossible. And Nader had 90,000 votes in Florida. One state. One failure.

Feh!

[Echo In Light]

21. See, and that's exactly why I don't agree w/ your views...for a host of reasons I won't bother with

Good luck with the same-old, same-old

[MineralMan]

27. Thanks. And good luck with playing Don Quixote, too.

That trick never works...

[Echo In Light]

29. Well, as you say, it's far too important to be taken seriously

[MineralMan]

31. You don't understand that motto...

It's not about letting things slide. It's about being cheerful. I don't see much of that from third-party advocates. Far from it. Taking a cheerful attitude into serious matters often does the trick. That's why I accumulated so many DUZYs here so quickly.

I give you Al Franken.

[MineralMan]

14. You're incorrect about that.

At every level beyond the precinct level, the leadership is chosen by the leadership of the level beneath that one. If a majority of precinct level officers wants, they can elect whomever they wish to the next level. In Minnesota, that's the state senate district level.

The leadership at the state senate level elects the leadership of the state party. Three steps. That's all.

And here's how well that works: I was very vocal at the senate district level, and caucused hard for Al Franken. During a break at the state senate level caucus meeting, I had Chris Coleman, Mayor of Saint Paul, grab me and take me aside. He practically begged for my support. It wasn't a matter of me seeking out someone. He sought me out, and just because I was vocal and articulate.

I couldn't serve as a state convention delegate, due to a minor, but limiting, health issue. It would have been child's play to become a delegate, or to get elected to the state senate level board of directors, something else the health issue prevented.

And all I did was speak up whenever the opportunity arose.

Once progressives gain control of the local organizations, they can control the next level. Once they do that, they can elect the state officials. You don't have to worry about anything else. Candidates will come to you at that point, and even at the second level. They need you to endorse them. They need you to get elected.

It's all very simple, but you must first get into the leadership at the most local level. If you can muster a few friends, or even if you can't, that's easy. You just have to be able to speak a little and have something to say.

It's too easy to say "It's too hard."

As for Kucinich, he couldn't win a single primary. He was a non-starter from the beginning. If, however, progressives had been in charge of local, regional, and state Democratic Politics, that might have been different. Change happens from the local level upwards. Just investigate how your state's Democratic organization works, and you'll see what I mean.

Or, you can just give up and hope someone else does it. It's up to you. Hell, I'm 64 years old. I no longer go to a job, even though I work at home on a part-time basis. I have time. I have energy. I can speak to a crowd. Next year, I'm going to move into leadership positions in the Minnesota Democratic party on the local level. In 2012, I'll be operating at the state level. I'll let you know when it happens.

I've met the people in those positions now. I can beat them.

[bvar22]

50. Thats true.

Want to see a crowd of angry DLCers come to town with their Big Corporate Money?
Run a credible Progressive or a REAL "Grass Roots Liberal" in a local Primary.

I witnessed it in Minnesota.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=160&topic_id=14207

[Prism]

18. Obama used to be one of those local politicians.

I very much liked State Senator Obama. He was progressive, looked out for the people, and was a reliable voice for social justice and equality.

Then came Senator Obama who wasn't quite as good. Now there is President Obama who bears almost no resemblance to State Senator Obama.

National ambition is an almost certain corrupting influence. If a liberal community organizer from a deeply blue area like State Senator Obama can be turned, anyone can.

That's why it's so disheartening. Voting for progressives on a local level doesn't seem to change much of the national structure. So far, we've mostly witnessed the national power structure changing the local politicians once they ascend. One would think a local politician would be loyal to the people who fed his ambition and sent him ever higher.

Yet, as we see in the President, this is not much the case.

[MineralMan]

28. Yes. And if we had more progressives in Congress

He'd be able to get progressive measures through the Congress. Congresscritters are elected locally. Congressional districts are within our grasp.

For Obama, the fact that politics is the art of the possible is a limitation, due to a few idiot Democrats in Congress. Get rid of those and elect a few more progressives and the whole picture changes color.

[Prism]

32. Congress cannot be a scapegoat for the President's failings

What you say of Congress is true as far as it goes, but Congress is not responsible for some of spectacular failures we're seeing in the President's first year. Setting aside the administration's awful approach to LGBT issues - which rests entirely on the President's shoulders - the lack of any leadership whatsoever on Health Care Reform is not due to Congress. The President chose to avoid staking out strong stances. He intentionally abdicated his bully pulpit and position as an equal, influential branch of government and dropped health reform into the middle of a 535-person free-for-all. The result has been the highly predictable watering down of reform thanks to hundreds of politicians thoroughly compromised by powerful interests and their lobbyists.

He chooses to behave this way. He chooses this leaderless approach. What may or may not be achievable in Congress is still an open question when the President actively chooses not to try his very best to lead, pressure, persuade, and cajole. On those things he does exercise this rare characteristic, it's generally on things that are thoroughly unprogressive, like war-funding and the continued erosion of constitutional rights.

We have no idea what this Congress is capable of, because the President has not once attempted to use it to fullest advantage in favor of the liberal ideals he once held before power called to him.

[leftstreet]

37. What's interesting is the amount of political capital he had for influence

In my lifetime no Prez has had as much, domestically and globally.

And he chose not to use it.

:popcorn:

Which leads me to believe the party knows he's going to be a one-termer

[Prism]

44. He had so much political capital right there in the palm of his hand

And I feel like we've watched him throw it away. Not only throw it away, but actively spend it on things that will come back to haunt us for the next decade, if not beyond.

[dysfunctional press]

19. i will NOT reward the current thieves with my vote.

if the primary winners aren't progressives, i won't be casting a vote in the general.

you can't change anything by supporting the status quo simply because it's the 'lesser of two evils'.
bad democrats don't deserve to be rewarded with a vote just because you don't like the repuke. all it does is validate their shitty tenure and keep them entrenched.

[MineralMan]

23. So, work. Don't just whine. Work.

Get involved at the most local level. You'd be amazed at how little organization there is there. If every precinct and next level was taken over by progressives, those current thieves would soon be gone.

I'm not talking about the status quo. I'm talking about a takeover of the party by progressives.

Still, if you won't even bother to vote, I don't suppose you'll bother to work in the party. If that's the case, you're irrelevant as far as the next election is concerned.

[dysfunctional press]

26. i do work. every election in one way or another.

but if the progressive candidates don't make it to the ballot, it makes no sense to vote for a bad incumbent, just because they have a 'd' after their name. that doesn't change anything.
it just validates their tenure.

[MineralMan]

30. And how does the candidate get chosen, eh?

That's what I'm talking about. By election time, it's too damned late. In Minnesota, we proved that by getting Al Franken on the ballot and getting him elected. We almost failed on the second phase, but we put him on the ballot.

I know that to be true, because I was involved in the process. It wasn't all that easy, actually. But, I caucused for him in at the precinct level and at the state senate district level, where we chose Franken supporters to vote for him at the state convention. The same process was used statewide.

So, we had Al Franken to vote for, and we voted for him. We'd have done better if the Franken campaign had embraced the Obama campaign more enthusiastically, but we won, eventually, even so.

Imagine an Al Franken in your state. Imagine an Al Franken in every state.

That's politics, not elections. As you say, your candidate has to make it on the ballot. That's what the Party does, and that starts locally. Don't wait to vote. Put your candidate on the ballot.

[dysfunctional press]

34. i guess i don't get what you're driving at...

i've already started working on the 2010 selection by passing around nominating petitions for my candidate for the primary.
but- if they don't make it to the ballot for the november selection, my work will be done for this campaign cycle.
i will not work for nor vote for a candidate i can't support, just because they happen to have a 'd' after their name. i have much better uses for my time and energy.

[MineralMan]

40. I don't know how it works in IL, but in MN,

the DFL endorsement is what decides who wins. It's that simple. And that is controlled by the party organization through the caucus and convention system. There's a primary, but it's normally just a formality. The DFL endorsed candidate runs in November.

It may work differently in IL. I don't live there.

[dysfunctional press]

42. we don't have a dfl in illinois.

so- if the dfl nominates a shitty candidate- would/will you work or vote to get them elected...?

[MineralMan]

46. No. I'm going to help make sure that doesn't happen.

I give you Al Franken.

[dysfunctional press]

51. that wasn't the question. be brave- provide a real answer.

IF the dfl DOES put a shitty status quo coporate democratic candidate on the ticket- will you support and work and/or vote for that candidate in november?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone,

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[MineralMan]

24. "All Politics Is Local"

"That's a quote often attributed to the late Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill, Jr., former Speaker of the House. But Tip didn't coin the phrase ... it was passed down to him.

Tip revealed the true attribution of the quote In his 1987 autobiography, Man of the House. Tip's father, Thomas O'Neill, Sr, shared this wisdom on the occasion of the only election loss in his son's lifetime--a run for the Cambridge City Council.

"This was the only race I ever lost in my life, but in the process, I learned two extremely valuable lessons. During the campaign, my father had left me to my own devices, but when it was over, he pointed out that I had taken my own neighborhood for granted. He was right: I had received a tremendous vote in the other sections of the city, but I hadn't worked hard enough in my own backyard. 'Let me tell you something I learned years ago,' he said. 'All politics is local.'"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. That's right and Obama is shitting in his own backyard with the escalation.

Nevertheless, I'm with Jefferson and JQA on this. The only way to get the Democrats to move left is to offer or deny them votes. They have, at this time, more incentive to move right to go after the "moderate" votes. Unless they have to pay a price for moving right they will never change.

[MadHound]

33. A few historical facts for you

Taking over the Democratic machinery, unless you do so in one fell swoop, is simply not going to happen. I've seen this tried time and again, and all that happens is the the fixers at the top simply cut off your money, your resources, and you're screwed. An example of this on the national scale was the campaign of McGovern. George really wasn't their pick, he was foisted upon the Democratic establishment by a bunch of party liberals who saw an opening after Muskie dropped out. So even though they couldn't prevent his nomination, they could insure that he would never see the WH. They yanked the rug out from under him and left him to run on his own. We all know what happened.

Secondly, a serious threat from the third party left can, and has, moved the Democratic before. Back in the day FDR was facing a serious third party threat from the Socialist Party, during his first reelection bid. So he goes out, snags a couple of planks from their platform, and makes them his. Good thing too, otherwise we wouldn't have Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.

Frankly, at this point, a massive defection to a third party would certainly move the Democrats in a favorable direction. If not, then they go the way of the Whigs and that third party becomes the second party:shrug:

Better than continuing to bang one's head against the wall, trying that whole "change from within" crap. Been there, done that, still have the scars.

[dysfunctional press]

36. DING DING DING DING!!! most truthful post in the whole thread, including the op.

:woohoo: :thumbsup:

[anonymous171]

38. Don't forget to mention Huey Long! nt

[MineralMan]

41. There will be no "massive defection to a third party."

That trick never works. Real progressives make up a small percentage of the voters. A progressive party will get most of those votes, and that's all. It won't be enough. You mention McGovern. I would have loved to have seen him in the White House. I voted for him. And you're right, the Democratic Party screwed up in a major way with that one.

But, if you think there will be any sort of mass movement to a third party, you're dreaming. This country's electorate doesn't do third parties. Changing that simple fact of life is a pipe dream. You're welcome, of course to vote as you see fit. That's what I do. But if you expect a third party to do the job, you're dreaming.

[dysfunctional press]

43. and we'll have the status quo for a LONG time.

as long as people keep rewarding them with votes in the general elections.

[MineralMan]

47. You're correct. We will have it for a long time.

That's why it's so important to work inside of it. Not doing so is denying the reality.

[dysfunctional press]

52. most of my adult life trying to do that has been for naught- the same corporacrats stay in power.

and after this speech, i'm coming to the realization that i have MUCH better things to do with my ever shorter and therefore more precious, time.
politically, militarily, multinational corporately, this country is a runaway freight train, and i'd rather witness the wreck from the outside perspective.

[MadHound]

48. Oh, once in awhile this country does third parties

Perot is but a minor example.

When enough people get pissed, and then get behind something, it moves mountains. The Populist movement in the late nineteenth, early twentieth century is a good example of this.

There are lots of disaffected, non-voting liberals out there. Give them something inspiration to get behind, and miracles can be worked.

I agree, it rarely happens, but I think that one of those blue moons is coming, and right quick.

[Greyhound]

49. Exactly right. The DNC showed they would rather lose the nation than give up

any of their power. We have the same situation today, any potential candidate that doesn't do as they direct will lose, even if they have to force their own pick into the race and give it to the republiks.

[cali]

39. Pretty much true, but we have a viable third party here in VT

Vermont Progressive Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the Vermont Progressive Party. For other uses, see Progressive Party (United States).
Vermont Progressive Party
Party logo, a moose
Chairperson Martha Abbott
Senate leader Tim Ashe
House leader Sandy Haas
Founded 1999
Headquarters 73 Main Street, Suite 29,
P.O. Box 281
Montpelier, VT 05601
Ideology Progressivism
Social democracy
Liberalism
Political position Fiscal: Center-left
Social: Center-left
International affiliation None
Official colors Red
Website
www.progressiveparty.org
Politics of the United States
Political parties
Elections

The Vermont Progressive Party is an American political party. It was founded in 1999 and is active only in the U.S. state of Vermont. In terms of the dominant two parties in the United States, it enjoys support from "traditional liberal" Democrats and working class Republicans.<1>
Contents


* 1 History
* 2 Platform
* 3 Elected officials
* 4 Sources
* 5 External links

History

The Vermont Progressive Party originated with the independent campaign of Bernie Sanders for mayor of Burlington, Vermont. Sanders, who was later elected to the United States House of Representatives,<1> and subsequently to the United States Senate,<2> never officially associated himself with the Progressive Party, although the Progressives were among his biggest supporters. A group of his supporters organized themselves as the Progressive Coalition to contest further elections.<3>

The Coalition succeeded in electing several members, including Terry Bouricius, to the Vermont General Assembly, and, after establishing a stable political base, formally became the Progressive Party.<4> While the party has traditionally focused on state races, in 2000 it nominated Ralph Nader for president and Winona LaDuke for vice-president.<5> In the 2004 elections the party picked up three new seats; it now has six representatives in the Vermont House of Representatives,<6> making it the only third party in the United States to have more than one state legislature seat, excluding states that allow electoral fusion (primarily New York), a process in which candidates can appear on the ballot as the nominee of more than one party.

In the run up to the Senate election in 2006, there were pressures from numerous Democratic politicians to convince the Progressive Party not to run a candidate for Vermont's sole seat in the House in exchange for Democratic support for Bernie Sanders in the Senate race. The party's chairman, Anthony Pollina, told the press his party was not going to make deals. David Zuckerman, a Progressive Party member of the state House of Representatives and Chair, of the House Agriculture committee, was planning to run for Vermont's House seat. However, in early 2006, Zuckerman canceled his bid for Congress, leaving the race open to Democrat Peter Welch, who won the election.

In the Burlington mayoral election on March 7, 2006, voters chose Progressive Bob Kiss, a three term member of the state House of Representatives, over opponents Hinda Miller (Democrat) and Kevin Curley (Republican). He was reelected to a second term in 2009.
Platform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Progressive_Party

[MineralMan]

45. Vermont is sort of a force of its own, for sure.

I wish I lived there. Minnesota's OK, too, but Vermont is a great state.