Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
That’s a rhetorical question. Very clearly the U.S. electorate has decades of practice in walking, chewing gum, holding its nose and whistling past the graveyard at the same time. No doubt you can add other actions. The point is, we’re quite accomplished at doing this kind of thing, and can always depend on the Duopoly to provide the opportunities to gain yet more experience, every two and especially every four years.
We can say, accurately, that we have some choices about where we walk and which gum we chew and how long we hold our nose and what tune we whistle … but to this point, the only choices that count – according to the rules written and maintained by the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy – are those provided by the same Left / Right Front.
This time around, the Right side of this process is dealing with a candidate who really doesn’t fit the preferences of some further to the Right. The Left side of the process is dealing with an incumbent who really doesn’t fit the preferences of some further to the Left. In both cases, attempts are being made to convince those further to the Right that Romney really is a good Republican and those further to the Left that Obama really is a good Democrat. For both Right and Left, the convincing process includes large doses of how terrible it will be if the other guy wins.
There’s nothing wrong with pointing out our disagreements with, and fears about, what the other guy (and occasional gal) will do in whatever office. In fact, making the distinctions clear is very important. That part of the process the Electorate does quite consistently, if not always accurately (when we’re too dependent on our side’s opposition research). The part that often seems to get lost, though, is listening to what “our” guy / gal is promising, and then if he / she wins, holding him / her accountable. It’s almost like we walk, chew, hold and whistle for a few months every two or four years, but then sort of hibernate until the next election.
Back to the 2012 presidential contest – of course, it will be the usual “swing states” that will largely determine the winner. The walking, chewing, nose holding and whistling process in those states includes the added task of swinging the vote. I find the “swing state” realities of the two party election, and thus governance, system rather bizarre. Actually, I think the whole system is bizarre, and decidedly unresponsive to we the people.
There are those who are working for change, from both within and without the System, on everything from campaign and election reform to “third” parties to focus on specific issues. They don’t get much media, Elected or Electorate attention, which for me, makes their efforts even more admirable, along with essential.
The “your guy is worse than our guy” arguments seem like a very low standard in choosing our Electeds, from president to local school board. And it’s that apparently fatalistic acceptance of “it’s just the way things are” and/or “we have to wait until after this latest ‘most important election in our life’ before we can do anything” argument that’s of primary concern to me.
So, different question: Can the U.S. electorate walk, chew gum, hold its nose, whistle past the graveyard of the Duopoly AND work to change this ridiculous system at the same time? And a follow-up: If we can, will we?
(Obama Campaign Logo via Obama Campaign
Romney Campaign Logo via Romney Campaign)
The right has proved th
ey can organize & challenge their establishment.
As I wrote in January in US News & World Report, progressives have not proved capable of their own “tea party” revolt.
In fact, Democratic partisans are leading the charge FOR the status quo even with Obama’s 4 trillion deficit “grand bargain” already having been offered up.
Not sure what will get progressives off their collective derriere. Oh! A Hillary candidacy in 2016 might!
The unwillingness (with exceptions, of course) of progressives seriously to challenge their Electeds is matched only by the unwillingness (with exceptions) of progressive Electeds seriously to listen to their constituents.
Is one reason the Repub Electeds seem to respond to what Tea Partiers demand because the Tea Partiers are simply saying what the Repub Electeds want to hear?
“Can the U.S. electorate walk, chew gum, hold its nose, whistle past the graveyard of the Duopoly AND work to change this ridiculous system at the same time? And a follow-up: If we can, will we? ”
Yes and working on it.
As for Hillary in 2016? I’d be all for it…but judging from quite a few of the posters here they will have allot of the same complaints with her that they do with Obama.
Sec, I know there are people working on it, and as I always say, that’s both from within and without the System. If enough people with enough energy and sheer, stubborn persistence can make things happen, that will be a very good thing.
I’m having a similar conversation at my place. Is there a path that doesn’t first lead through complete disaster to a possibly better future? The answer I keep coming up with is that I don’t see it happening. Wish I did, but until enough progressives are at least willing to withhold their votes from Democratic candidates who haven’t earned them, nothing will change.
And right now, progressives are the only ones who have reasonable answers to the problems we face. We’ve been trying conservative economics for the past four decades, and they don’t work. We need world-wide cooperation on greenhouse gases and economic issues, something most conservatives have shown no interest in. We need respect for our Constitution and the Bill or Rights, and these days, I’m sorry to say, most conservatives don’t give a crap about those things, either. Until progressives demand that their politicians do this, though, they won’t, because until then the money and the conservatives who serve it will always talk louder than we do.
So, we’ll probably go through some crash of the system, or some chaotic period before something else happens. That something else may or may not be better than what we had before, but I don’t think it will happen before most of the current crop of progressive leaders (both politicians and issue-oriented leaders) are gone.
Maybe it’s just a bad day to ask me for predictions, but that’s how things look right now.
There is a lot of conversation about this, including whether some form of collapse and/or revolution can be avoided. The “crash of the system, or some chaotic period,” as you put it, doesn’t sound at all unreasonable, in terms of expectations.
The last time the Democrats had a Progressive candidate was 1972 when George McGovern lost in a landslide to an eminently beatable Richard Nixon. The Democrats lost the working class blue collar white working class leading to the so-called Reagan Democrats. No Democrat has come close to winning the blue collar white Reagan Democrat demographic since. Obama was correct in saying that these blue collar white working class Reagan Democrats even in bad economic times cling to their religion and guns… they still do.
Obama is now starting to capture a small but signifcant number of white Reagan Democrats in the battleground states. Two recent polls, the Quinnapiac poll and the Wall Street Journal. NBC News poll both released in the last two days show Obama with an expanding lead over Romney in the battleground states. Ohio +6, Pennsylvania +9, Florida + 4. He leads in widening margins in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan,and Wisconsin as well. The battleground states as of today, that have gone from tossup to either leans Obama or strong Obama in all the battleground states. The solid Obama states already has given him a huge electoral college lead over Romney.
The ‘dissapointed’ Progressives have now entered their last stage of grief, ‘Acceptance’ as reported in sevearl articles today.
The only hope left for the anti-Obama Progressive crowd has left is a complete destruction of the economy and repeals of ACA, Social Security and Medicare. If that’s your only option go campaign, donate and work for Romney.;
Eminently beatable, except for the dirty tricks, etc. Oh, and the split of 1968. You might want to read up on that one again. Southerners went with Nixon. It was called the Southern Strategy. We’re still paying the price for that one.
It’s also been a hell of a long time since a real progressive even entered a Democratic Presidential primary and got real support. That’s nothing to do with voter tastes. That has to do with the tastes of major donors and other “major” supporters, the latter of whom go with the conventional wisdom you’re parroting.
What, just today? We reached the “last stage of grief” today? By whose metric, for crying out loud? Talk about meaningless drivel.
That’s coming no matter who wins. It’s just that if Democrats stay in power, you and others like you will rationalize it as “saving” them. No, wait. The insurance mandate of the ACA will stay in place if the Supreme Court doesn’t throw it out. The rest will largely be gone within a decade, if things don’t change course radically.