The gulf between activism and strategy (or the confusion of the two) is fucking us over

A lot of the arguing here is over two seemingly irreconcilable virtues: purity and pragmatism. There is a vast difference between promoting a stance as an activist and enacting that stance as policy as a politician. Promoting an issue requires zero moral compromises. Activism is free to use blunt, honest language. Strong unconditional viewpoints (purity!) and free hatred for the opposition are available to the activist. This is fine.

When your goal changes from promoting a stance to making it policy, compromises and obstacles come into play. DUers regularly argue the system is a corrupt, glad-handing mess. A graft-glutted web of interdependent ambition, wherein the only viable avenue to success is greed--you never get something for nothing. In a two party system with no clear legislative majority, even the most committed enemies will need one another to some extent to effect policy.

Yet despite those extreme additional obstacles, many on DU seem to expect politicians to behave like activists. Activists such as Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, MoveOn or Ralph Nader are respected by many here far more than Conyers, Leahy, or Feingold. There is frustrated disbelief and hatred when Democrats cave time and again, seem weak, and are unable to take the uncompromising stances that so many activists have no problem espousing.

Well, whether it's causation or correlation, the politicians who are most like activists tend to be the least effective at getting things done in our current system. Kucinich holds stances that are largely popular, yet as a presidential candidate he dies at the ballot box. It's the same story with Ralph Nader. His stances are pure progressivism, yet despite his claims that non-voters and major party voters at large have been waiting for a candidate like him, non-voters extend their credo to him and major party voters mysteriously vote for major party candidates. He also implodes at the polls.

What's the disconnect? Their message is so grand! Their platform is so pure! Their ideas are so uncompromising in their values! All true. And that's great as promotion--as strategy for enacting policy, it's fucking lousy. The problem is, in our system, uncompromising purity is very harshly treated if it does not benefit the system. The easy finger to point is at the GOP, wherein people will rightly argue their vastly unpopular economic policies are adhered to stubbornly and without compromise. The crucial and obvious difference is that those unpopular stances benefit the richest donors and power brokers in the system, and thus they are protected. That people expect the same result for uncompromising stances that are threatening and damaging to this system is confusing to me. Does anyone believe it is simply the fervor the GOP has for these unpopular policies that gets them passed? If so, why do so many progressives that hold to their beliefs with uncompromising fervor get absolutely -nowhere- in our political system? Might the -nature- of the policies and not the ruthless adherence thereto be the major factor in their success?

If you are supporting a stance that is unpopular or damaging to the people who control the media and most of the economic clout in this country, fervor simply isn't enough. Those who claim it would be must pretend that no one has ever come forward with a progressive platform and the strong fervor to back it up. Great individuals like Kucinich prove that wrong instantly. The question never seems to come up as to -why- so many progressive stalwarts such as Gore or Bernie Sanders or John Conyers discuss impeachment in practical terms. People hold up activists who have strong unyielding views on issues like impeachment and claim those in office suffer from the comparison. They do, but isn't it a bit disingenuous to pretend the two have similar obstacles to surmount?

The activist simply needs to state his or her goals and ideals clearly and effectively. At no point does their message need deceptive PR tailoring in order to win votes from the very people who are committed to -destroying- those goals and ideals. But when you're trying to effect policy, that's exactly what you're faced with.

The system is recognized as corrupt, and politicians are recognized as largely ambitious cowards. Yet DUers often seem to believe that holding a position strongly and not compromising will result in legislative and electoral success. What data are we basing this on? Please remember the examples of Kucinich and Nader, and that the GOP's strongly held beliefs are -extremely- beneficial to the system.

It's not a matter of explaining away all equivocation and all compromise from the Democrats. But it should be obvious to everyone here that attempting to pass something as policy and simply arguing its validity are two vastly different things. When you hold a politician to the standard of good, passionate activism, you will be perennially disappointed. Yet no one seems to notice that if you hold most progressive activists today to the standard of the politician, you will be equally disappointed. Have Nader's candidacies moved the country left, for example? Activism is great for promoting policy, but it is often not effective political strategy for -enacting- policy.

I understand that you see it that way, but most of us do not.
It is about democracy/the constitution vs despotism/quasi fascism/absence of the rule of law.

Second of all, Leahy, Feingold, and Conyers are all with us, the progressives, who you call "purists". You picked the wrong Congresspeople to disrespect. We are questioning Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Feinstein, Shumer (at this moment), not because of their pragmatism, but because they are voting against the democratic party, against the constitution, against ending the war, against everything this country stands for, and there is NO NEED FOR THIS. It is not pragmatism. It is not the means to a Democratic end. It is the means to the satisfaction of the neocon rule, the absence of governance over large corporations, and the end of our country as we knew it.

Also, I'm a progressive purist myself.

In order to be discussed.

It struck at the heart of one of my biggest frustrations. How to strive for your ideals while still realistically accomplishing something in the world we DO live in rather then the world we WISH we lived in. How much compromise is too much or to little? Where to find that balance. I realize we live in a world filled with shades of gray and navigating that world can sometimes be a bumpy ride.

The True Believers will never give up their religion.

while it's true the activist can freely kvetch while the strategist must actually try to get something done, it's not a problem confined to opposition parties.

One must manage to get a bit more than half tho votes in order to get into office, and that can be a huge number-- 60-70 million or more for President.

Far too many activists and purists refuse to admit that there are people aout there who just don't agree with them and will never agree with them on many points. They seem to think that there's a great pool of ignorance out there that only has to be introduced to the Great Truth and they will fall into line.

Well, they won't. Some prefer their ignorance, some have equally good arguments for their side, and some just won't change for whatever reasons.

Some activists with causes dear to their hearts believe that there is a great groundswell behind them.

Well, there isn't. No matter how much you believe in your pet cause, if you go to the mext rally or meeting and don't see your neighbors and a line waiting to get in the door, your cause is a loser.

The public rarely trusts activists, and usually prefers those not fuming and snorting to run the affairs of state. Maybe the public is wrong to prefer the devils they know to those they don't, but that's the way they are. How did LaFollette, Bryan, and T. Roosevelt (in his independant run) fair as activists? Three firebrands of what would now be called the left and they failed moiserably to impress the country. Firebrands of the right did about as well. President Goldwater?

So, while the purists hate Hillary for her triangulation and refusal to give a straight answer, she is expertly doing what modern electoral politics demnds-- aiming to piss off fewer people than she impresses.

Like it or not, while Hillary is gaining her ground, Dennis is scaring people.

you stated "Far too many activists and purists refuse to admit that there are people aout there who just don't agree with them and will never agree with them on many points. They seem to think that there's a great pool of ignorance out there that only has to be introduced to the Great Truth and they will fall into line."

i've also noticed that it's a great big country and GREAT TRUTHS can be regional. i live in texas, and our typical "liberal" democrat
is usually more conservative than northeastern republicans. maybe one day activists could get their candidate into a general down here, but in a statewide race they'd get buried. sorry to you activists & purists but thems the facts.

Half the folks on DU are gonna think I wrote it. :evilgrin:

When either of us says we're for Kucinich in the primaries, that's a push at least.

Nowhere in this mental equation:

Activism = Political failure

do I find the history or even example of radical "purist" ideology and campaign strategy as relates to the overall success of the GOP to command this nation politically (for a time, one wretchedly hopes).

Where are examples of radical Family Values politicians who have risen with the support of the Dobsons and the Falwells and the other Koolaid drinkers of the Repuke Faith and Dogma? There is always an ear where there is a voice.

Kucinich, if really covered by the media, would be a popular politician in the same way Ross Perot was popular long, long ago. But we have no free and fair media and that is the problem pure and simple.

So we go about creating a new media, and perhaps stop trying to work within the Old One. Like graduating from horses to cars. Pablum to solid food...or maybe switching from processed Twinkies to organic veggies on our tables ...

There are ways to get the word out without the CM. But only if there are those who have some words worth hearing to begin with.


At any rate, I hope the younger generation has more courage to create new methods of dispensing political information and of creating political process so that all Americans have an equal voice in that process.

The majority of progressive activism doesn't benefit the elite, but the working class. Therefore simply holding up the GOP as a model of activism success doesn't necessarily translate--it's not just the fervor, it's the substance of the stance. Why do you think hardcore conservative activists have such clout in the media while progressive activists are derided and ignored? Do the progressives support their cause with any less fervor?

Activism encourages diverse methods of information dissemination. You are merely saying "be nice and capitulate and all will work out." If lobbyists and no-bid contractors followed your advice, their CEOs wouldn't be raking it in to take to their graves while the majority of us suffer.

But you are only interested in "The System" as a model and a solution and that is your choice. Pardon those who are working for change in novel ways. May their activism - be they politicians or just everyday people - bring the much-needed change this OP appears to suggest is virtually impossible.

Therefore comparing a politician with an activist and complaining of a lack of purity is as nonsensical as complaining that Sheehan hasn't impeached Bush--both have different tools and obstacles available, and I'd like to see at least some more recognition of that here.

But GOP conservative Christian element actually uses a weird Elmer Gantry kind of populism. It turns populism sideways creating establishment rebels. They undersood the ills of America: Failing farms, falling factories, stagnating wages, schools breaking down, and the growing divide between rich and poor.

They turned their anti-populist populsim against the 'liberal elite' and the 'politically correct' and the Grand Gay conspiracy (or whatever). Suckering the working class into believing that economic woes were all the fault of their values and morality.

But I would argue the reason it gets so much play in the media is not necessarily due to its support in the general public, but the fact that the Republicans who support those stances are tied to economic policies that benefit the elite. Plus, those who fall prey to such tactics are a valuable voter base to manipulate and distract into supporting those economic policies.

Of course it is conscious manipulation. A few former republican legislators have quietly acknowledged that if the Democrats could run on issues alone, whithout having to comabt the religious pandering or personality politicsm and that is all the media reported then they would win every election.

The problem is that we play into the republicans plans by failing to run actual progressive populism, instead favoring media and wallstreet friendly 'moderation,' and Republican wet dreams like Nafta.

What I fear some in the Democratic leadership don't see is that the preeminent sell-out position is already taken. Trying to take a halfway approach, paying lip service to social justice and dipping halfway into corporate graft will please no one. Though it appears the GOP has bungled things badly enough that even their economic policies have not secured the financial advantage for next year--after all, for quid pro quo to work in politics, you sort of have to win elections.

No American politician should be above it for any political reasons. Policy differences and compromise are different things. I have no problem with process and compromise as long as they lay within truthful and lawful means.

The Alien & Sedition acts were blatantly unconstitutional. Political compromise even with regard to the Constitution was well in existence even in the founders' time.

...would still be an acceptable political strategy, should such be on the table now?

Since the beginning of this nation, the political AND MORAL (or "activist") differences between the slave-holding states and their sympathizers and the rest of this nation have been the source of far too much of our nation's tragedies.

Historically, anytime the three-fifths mindset has been appeased, it has led to more of the same -- the compromise is always on the part of those who want to right a wrong. The three-fifths mentality is only stopped by war or judicial act, it seems.

They remain incalcitrant (just as we have seen over the last 7 years) while decent politicians try to work within the laws/with compromises that the three-fifths column distains.

Like the person from Texas says... political issues there and in, say, Vermont are not even in the same ideological universe. I'm from the south, too, and I agree with the person from Texas... where I disagree is in the way in which this issue is broached. No compromise with slave holders. No compromise with torturers. No compromise with Bush's trampling of the Constitution. No compromise on FISA. No compromise on extraordinary rendition.

In other words, maybe our views of what comprises democracy are so vastly different they cannot be elided by political maneuvering. Maybe the three-fifths compromise was the original mistake of this nation and upholding the union has not been and is not worth it.

agree we disagree. divide assets. They get Rush Limbaugh. We get Russ Feingold.

Activism turned public opinion against slavery, political wrangling is what abolished it. You see the same pattern over and over--neither activism nor political strategy in isolation can change the nation. Political strategy on its own caters (panders) to votes and money/influence--the money/influence will always be netted by providing benefits to big business, but the votes can change based on public opinion. Without activism, public opinion is far less likely to change.

By the same rationale, activism alone can't change policy. Politicians are necessary to put into law what activists have made popular. And that means Congressional wheeling and dealing from start to finish. I don't see how any major shift in policy has occurred without both of these factors being necessary.

the emancipation proclamation(s) was not achieved via political maneuvers. it was not made by a law of congress. Lincoln, in his office as prez, declared the freedom of the slaves as an act of the prez. even after the civil war some states still held slaves. at that time, the constitution was amended AFTER THE FACT to force compliance.

via wiki
The Proclamation was immediately denounced by Copperhead Democrats who opposed the war and tolerated both secession and slavery. It became a campaign issue in the 1862 elections, in which the Democrats gained 28 seats in the House as well as the governorship of New York. Many War Democrats who had supported Lincoln's goal of saving the Union, balked at supporting emancipation.

Copperheads wanted a political settlement with the south, rather than the abolition of slavery.

so, other than the fiat of the E.P. what else freed the slaves? Sherman's march through the south, burning down all the structures of the elite that functioned via slavery. but if those slaves stayed in the south, within years the conservatives, who went on to call themselves democrats, were murdering people at the polls to elect their racist candidates.

there are some issues that are not decided by political compromise. most of these issues have to do with wresting power from elites when they treat others like subhumans. torture is one of these issues.

And keep in mind the true march forward in law -was- achieved by incremental steps, by compromise, in conjunction with some rabid, amazing activism that galvanized popular support (not to a majority perhaps, but to enough).

so that as Sherman burned his way to the Mississippi, more and more slaves were freed.

and frankly, you can argue that abolition of slavery was, in some ways, a failed political issue. In a decade or so, pols were just ignoring the mess of the south and blacks again reverted to subhuman status until MLK and "Tom Hayden democrats" FORCED Johnson to act. EVEN AFTER BLACKS FOUGHT AGAINST HITLER, when they returned to the south they were treated like second-class citizens.

but by your standard, that's okay because activists and pols bring about... what? how many activists have to be murdered for pols to care? how many prezzes need to be assassinated by right wing nuts, how many civil rights leaders, how many northern college kids, how many innocent canadian family men exchanging planes in JFK airport have to be taken to Syria and tortured, how many woman and children have to be raped (tell the pols to look at those pictures again...) before it becomes obvious that one side of the issue is TOTALLY WRONG and is guilty of crimes against humanity?

you know, in politics as usual, okay. but not when we have torture as a policy enabled by the former AG and a new one that won't denounce it. not when we have a prez who says the constitution is a piece of paper.

These are the times that try men (and women's souls)... you know, that sort of thing.

not everything is equally important. some things are so important it is not possible to compromise. how do you compromise on torture, anyway? okay, you can try to drown them once, but not twice? You can rape them once, but not twice? Tell me how that works out, politically.

edited b/c brackets don't show up.

Do you have a quote? I'm just trying to point out that it isn't an easy process and requires tedious political maneuvering, even with regard to something as monstrous as slavery (as you just pointed out). If your argument is that it would be better if such didn't have to happen, well, isn't that obvious? I'm not supporting or justifying the existence of our corrupt political system, I'm just saying it's a reality and it provides obstacles to even the best-intentioned politicians, such as Gore, Sanders or Conyers.

I'm just countering the argument that you make, which is very true, that in MOST cases progress is made in society by different groups working together.

my issue... the thing that is making me seem to be an "activist" is that I cannot treat Bush et al as politics as usual. It's too bad that Gore tried to deal with the coup of 2000 by political positioning. Instead, oh how I wish, we, the people of this country, would have converged on Florida and demanded a recount of all the votes, military, chad-impaired, etc.

They are not treating their time in office as politics as usual either. That's my argument. There are times in history when the typical gestures no longer work. I think that this is one of those times. I don't want this to be one of those times because, frankly, I'm not one to want to take to the streets. but at this point, I honestly wonder what's left.

my issue is that impeachment isn't about politics. it's about law. it's about learning the lessons from the last twenty years when dems didn't make a "sherman's march" through republican illegal and unconstitutional acts. I suppose you could say that I consider this moment a tipping point for the U.S. and we need our pols to recognize this and respond with something other than politics as usual.

so, in fact, we don't disagree at all in the face of most every incident. right now is different, that's all I'm saying.

Our job -is- to push for what our laws dictate and our country needs. That includes impeaching Bush and Cheney, it includes restoring Habeas Corpus and ending the illegal war. Sadly, some of our delegation has other priorities. Without speculating as to the degree of corruption, there are enough Democrats that will vote against these interests to stymie a lot of the opposition which does exist in Congress, though it is a slight comfort that all of the meaningful Congressional opposition to Bush caucuses Democratic. The leadership has failed, despite their job being a difficult one, in wrangling those skittish corruptible Democrats. What frustrates me is the idea I get from some here that Pelosi could just wave a wand and have the entire party behind her demanding impeachment and accountability. With a majority this fractured and this small, I can't reasonably expect that. However, it is what we need, and what the country needs. We can all agree on that.

Is enacting an law in defiance of the Constitution a high crime or misdemeanor? We would all say yes. So why no consequences for Adams or the Federalists?

Jefferson argued that they violated the tenth amendment (which is also correct) but at that time, the states held more sway than they do now anyway and this was an early challenge in the process. Bottom line, the bush administration is guilty of way more than that anyway. Any democrat that supports them I do not support (my bottom line). If the whole party adopts their practices I will leave it.

the Constitution is not up to you. Or me.

It ends up being at least five judges on th Supreme court, but even they do not make their decions in a vacuum. Even as bad as this court is, it not only isn't the worst we've seen, but their decisions are the result of years of political and legal debate.

And hardly anything, whether the courts are progressive or regressive, is in black and white.

but so is settled law and precedence. So we must continue to fight instead of acquiesce.

not to mention that radical activism such as anti-abortion groups and anti porn groups do not necessarily benefit the System. The System makes lots of $$$$$ off porn yet Family Values candidates somehow win elections.

Think how much money a condom or oral contraceptive maufacturing corporation would rake in if the schools gave out condoms? Yet we have abstinence-only education being funded instead...hmmmmmm....

Neither do tort reform politicians benefit lawyers - potentially good donors to political campaigns. Yet many politicians used tort reform as a platform and won.

Saying all politicians must toe the Corporate line (and forget their Constitution by the way-how convenient) seems fatalistic to me.

But I ask people to realize that trying to get something progressive passed in this system and simply being an activist for it carry different challenges.

Also--think there isn't any money in churches? Think an easily led group of fundies isn't a valuable voting bloc? Do you think lawyers or corporations are more valuable in terms of political capital? Those are important questions, I think. Thanks for the interesting points.

also.....

Simply stated, will I cooperate with, participate in, and thereby perpetuate, a corrupt system?

I have dutifully, (except on a few occasions), held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils and watched the Democratic Party, and the country, drift more and more to the right. The oft stated axiom of "crazy people" doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results comes to mind.

I'm neither an idealist or "purist". But, there are boundaries to my nose holding ability when the politicians, in order to get or retain power, compromise their way across the lines of common human decency. That's when the "not as bad" argument falls on deaf ears.

And by the same rationale, I don't think complaining about activists for not producing noticeable results is very fair either.

I view politics, parties, politicians, as vehicles to further principles. As you pointed out, politicians are forced to compromise in order to get and retain power. And, on occasion, try to forward certain principles. But, that is done only when it seems feasible to their first priority to get and retain power.

All of the Democratic candidates are now, to varying degrees, "against" the war in Iraq. Despite some of them being for the war previously. They have, in effect, moved "left". Why? Cynic that I am, I believe it to be because that's where the votes are. If the war was going well I would bet that their newly found love of peace would be, at best, unspoken. (With the possible exceptions of Kucinich and Gravel). I think it fair to note that the "front runners" are bickering not about ending the war, but how get out of it without appearing to have "lost".

The problem for the activists is to stir up enough shit to shake the politicians into believing that if they don't respond positively, that they can't count on the voters willingness to indulge in nose holding.

It's that I don't want the two to be compared as though they don't have different available tools and obstacles. Activists are -essential- in moving the country left, and I would never argue otherwise. Looking for an activist politician, for the most part, is going to be forever disappointing.

I've reached a point where I see politics as more of an obstacle than a tool.

My "activism" is no longer to change the world but to do my bit to make it a little better. My donations now go to outfits like Medicins sans Frontieres and Kiva. To those that actually do something for real people rather than promoting politicians.

I look at the "campaign chests" of politicians with horror and think how much medicine that would buy, or water, or books, or food.

But, it is fun to watch the antics at campaign time where rich guys try to look like hayseeds and be just a "people" while spending millions promoting themselves.

Oh, and a K&R for a challenging and well thought out post.

political tactics vs. strategy, convincing them to pull the lever for Dems.
I don't think you explained the nexus between the two here, but the disconnect is well described.

In sum activism lacks policymaking power, and politicians who have it are in simplified terms beholden to votes and money/influence. Activism's changing of public opinion affects the votes, which affects the politicians which effect the policy. In effect. :P I don't want to harangue anyone to vote Democratic, but I am committed personally to seeing the GOP lose everywhere it can next year.

one the GOP is responsible for themselves, their platform.
You shouldn't have to harangue too hard, 80% of people I know also want them to lose.
We can end this stupid war.

with an activist base and almost fiery liberal approach... perhaps someone like that can transcend the conceptual divide you seem to be positing, jp.


In any case, excellent and thoughtful analysis, as usual.

that I, at least, think these battles are over different means to very similar ends. Even candidate battles, IMO, are rooted in this divide, and I wish somehow we could respect each other that far -- that we are united in what we fight for. Take the Constitution, for example, referenced in other posts in the thread. I resent anyone accusing me, whatever my choice of candidate or my view of Democratic strategy, of lacking reverence for the Constitution of the United States. Whether my opinion about the best way of attempting to protect it from the Bush regime's onslaught against it is, in your words, pragmatic or activist, or whether it is something else, I am united with others here in my desire to protect it -- and in my grief at what has happened to it in the last few years.

I'm not even always as sure as some here of the best way to proceed in this struggle. Often I think a more pragmatic approach is best for one thing, and a more activist approach is best for something else. In any case, thanks for your post!

As far as impeachment, the activism is great because it ramps up popular support for holding the administration accountable. While instant impeachment is the argument, often activists ask for more than they are likely to get just to push debate in the right direction. On the politician side, this aids them in investigation, which vis-a-vis wiretapping, Plame, DoJ and war intelligence may actually produce impeach-worthy or administration-destroying evidence even in establishment terms. Which would be great.

seeing from that different view.

No one group can get their way; that's how the system is set up. Something has to be compromised on until you can get the whole electorate to agree, and they are not all that progressive right now.

A few skittish Democrats can undermine it even further.

to something, even if it is against the laws of this country, the legislature should not act?

...are annoying and naive. The Constitution only works as the SCOTUS interprets it, so few things are ever black and white. Many parts, such as the Commerce Clause, have been allowed to be stretched again and again to fit with modern realities. If you want to protect the Constitution get a Democrat, any Democrat, even Hillary, in the White House so liberal judges get nominated. THAT is how you protect the Constitution, not supporting some ideological purist candidate like Kucinich that has no change in hell of becoming president.

:popcorn:

It is an activist's job to lobby for their position. Period. It's not our job to let anyone off the hook, to take their constraints into consideration or to make excuses.

That would be like Halliburton or Black Water lobbyists laying back and doing the same -- and we know they don't do that.

It seems to acquiesce to constitutional crimes and excess power. Strange strategy unless the intent is to adopt the other positions.

27 years of the right inexorably taking control of this country by not compromising.

Isn't it more the insane benefits the monied elite stand to gain from their policies? The GOP can -afford- to be intractable because their policies are coveted by the power centers of this country. There's no risk of losing influence when you support giveaways to corporations as your policy--you can be as uncompromising as you like. When progressive politicians have similar fervor, they are ignored, isolated, derided or destroyed by the system.

a student of political history would call it "surrender," "failure" or "collusion."

Collusion of state and corporate power is something that a tiny skittish Democratic majority should be able to easily fight off? According to what standard? Activists are activists, politicians are politicians. Pretending one should conform to the standards of the other is silliness--they have different obstacles and tools to deal with.

is the collusion of fifth-column "democrats" with the oligarchy that rules this country


compromise is necessary in any civil relationship. I do not disparage the idea of, the need for or the potential long-term effectiveness of compromise. There must be a core of principle that cannot be compromised. There must be lines that can not be crossed. The current congressional "democrats" apparently do not draw that line in a way that protects workers, the middle class, the lives of our military, the Constitution, the planet, the health of the populace, the meager wealth accumulated through the labor of common people, the basic civil liberties that have been the foundation of our civilization for over a thousand years, or the security of our nation. That is not "compromise." That is collusion to commit treason. Taken collectively, they appear not to stand for anything at all except for prolonging their own careers.

In conjunction with the GOP that's more than enough in the Senate to block any effort to stymie the war, this administration, etc. Now say you're Speaker/Majority Leader/Whip. These people refuse on no uncertain terms to vote the way you want, due to their own skittishness or corruption. What do you do? You cut them out of the party, you lose majority status and the GOP ends all investigations against the administration, and once again rules the day as far as legislation brought to a vote. You try to find a unified stance that pleases most people, and you piss off your base because it's a weak-willed half-assed attempt at doing what's right, and in the face of such brutal attacks it seems criminal.

I get the frustration there, but how would you fix the problem? With a larger majority, it would be less of a problem. With more effective leadership, it would also be less of a problem. Replacing these folks with a progressive would be great, but splitting the vote such that a Republican gets the seat is worse. Which of these can we accomplish, and how?

I'm not arguing that the Democratic Congress is doing a great job. They're doing a lousy, disappointing job. But I get frustrated that people seem to think it should just be a walk in the park to fix this mess.

I'm disgusted with the "democrats" who have voted in favor of the illegal invasion of Iraq, the continuing illegal occupation of Iraq, the stripping of civil liberties, torture, "free-trade" ripoffs of American workers, pro-corporate fiscal policies, etc.

Not those who voted their consciences and lost--those who actively joined with the repuke-neocon enemies of America.

2006 was a progressive referendum on the economy and on the illegal occupation of Iraq. The "democrats" who went to Washington and those who were already there have acted like that election never took place. We need to elect (good luck on that in this benighted banana republic) representatives and a President with the courage to carry out the wishes of those who elected them instead of acting in their own personal self interest and in the interests of the war-mongering oligarchy.

Assuming just complaining doesn't fix the problem, that is. We all feel like doing that. :D

The media may be corporate, but being corporate it has its weaknesses. We have to learn to take advantage of those weaknesses- like the thirst for the almighty dollar.

Easier said than done, but the strategy is there.

:kick:

...different, more significant obstacles DO exist for dems, obstacles conceived and executed over decades at great expense. This only makes the job of the dem politician tougher, but not impossible. I don't accept the argument that dc dems really want to frame the issue properly but can't because of journalists and reporters and pundits.

...you can't boil the debate down to purity vs pragmatism. At some point you have to introduce the concept of rightness and that should alter how politicians and activists, both, do business. Should. You have to go further and ask why it doesn't. On almost every issue, the left-of-center and the right-of-center do NOT have equally valid positions.

...Kucinich wouldn't be a fringe politician if the other dc dems stood firm on the correct side of all these issues.

....our federal congressmen and congresswomen on both sides of the aisle are amibitous, smart, connected, and resourceful. You don't get to congress if you don't have something going on (generally). I reject arguments that dems are scared, naive, or pliable. People like these know how to get things done...I have to assume that votes, statements, and strategies occur the way they do because there's a reason. Trading votes isn't one of them...if it is, then we've gotten shafted on countless bad deals. Compromise isn't one of them, otherwise we'd see a lot more bipartisan legislation and progress. Keeping powder dry isn't one of them either...too many important opportunities to use the powder have passed. Positioning for the next election isn't it either....the public falls on the progressive side of issues almost across the board and people are more and more dis-satisfied with pugs and their platform... and in any case, passing on principle in order to keep your job is reprehensible.

...keeping your head down should not be a strategy when we are facing the highest number of critically important issues in memory. Less is being done in the face of disaster in every policy area.

What an activist can say fearlessly to promote a stance, a politician may not be able to say if he or she wants to -enact- that stance. This in no way excuses the behavior of our delegation, but I wish people would consider the reasons -why- Congress isn't just impeaching right away, or why the war hasn't been starved of money. "Keeping our powder dry" is a lot of nonsense, as was "impeachment is off the table." There's a definite failure of leadership there, but wouldn't such weak "official" stances be expected from a tiny minority with skittish freshman members? Doesn't excuse it, but it seems people believe Pelosi could just wave a wand and have the whole party behind her for impeachment.

And spend a bit of time engaged in watching these videos, you will find out that
if the corruption here becomes just a bit worse, and the compromising by the Democrats just a bit more brown nosing, then we will be inside of a system that will EVENTUALLY be met by taking to the streets.

In Bolivia, people took to the streets in order to get WATER back.

There are countries south of the border wherein the Executive Branh was replaced three or more times by people out in the streets. And in a time frame of only six weeks.

So yes, we cann all go back to being mindless compromising brain dead zombies, slinging the CENTRIST credo, but in the end it will only mean that we will have to work harder.

But in the meantime, we will have at least gotten Hillary elected.

Our jobs are overseas, our health plans non exsitant, except for those who can still pay through the nose, and then those people are likely to be killed by the lack of any standards at the hospital.
Our money is vaporizing on Wall Street as we type, and the deficit created by the Iraqi war is going to mean a big "No" to many social programs.

But heaven help us. Let's not upset the apple cart!!

Even though the fruit on it has already rolled off into the gutter and been taken away.

It's fixing it in a corrupt, damaged system.

Long one of my favorite posters here. Much insight. You're a blessing on this place, and thanks.

Who'd have thought I'd long for the primary wars of yore? :D

And the people you mentioned do not "discuss impeachment in practical terms." Rather, they dismiss it with false rationalizations. They prattle out euphemisms like "oxygen in the room" and talk of "having the Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other."

Yes activists can often be at odds with "policy makers," but impeachment is not "making policy." In fact, it is not even "legislative." (Why they imagine any policy making or legislating is possible under "Rule By Signing Statement" is another matter.) This is not a case of "agreeing on the goals" but disagreeing of the method to achieve them. The impeachophobes are not simply displaying less "fervor." They are refusing to stand on principles they themselves avow. That is the only standard they are being held to -- the only thing on which they're being judged.

They seem to be trying to create a "compromise position" on torture and other impeachable offenses. But applying "politics" to the situation is itself corrupt.

On the "issue" of impeachment, the only thing the politician is "faced with" is a decision to continue to enable this criminal regime or act to object to it, and try to stop it. That's what the oath of office and our treaty obligations demand.

Failue to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration of the regime.

There really is no fence for an DC Dem official to sit on that doesn't earn them a possible seat in the dock at The Hague.

-------

--to lead with their strongest demands and not START OUT from the weakest acceptable position. If you want $5000 for your used car but would take $3000, you do NOT lead with a $3000 offer--you say "Car for sale; $5000 or best offer." If you want a kitten, ask for a pony.

Constitution first.. If you don't know how to treat it, leave because you are wasting my time.. I will work my damnest to see that you are not re-elected..

Funny thing, I've sent so many cohesive, well-thought e-mail essays to my House Rep, that I am getting phone calls from his office and hes a repug. And I have told him countless times, his job is to represent the constitution and to represent me, and he is doing a poor job. He will not get a by this next time around. Especially being in Florida.. there are lot's of problems to fix.

Maybe at the edges, but it's commonly assumed that only idealism, and not pragmatism, even *has* an edge. Not so.

I have no problem with compromise. I understand the world quite well, thanks. I'm not a big fan of "compromise" in which the home team gives but never takes...but then, that's not compromise. That's cowardice.

Activism is great for promoting policy, but it is often not effective political strategy for -enacting- policy.

Good thing we can always work to elect a Democratic majority in the Congress. They'll enact policy!