by Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
Whatever campaign trail stories make headlines this week, it seems one major piece will remain in place: the WH race is close. And as usual, I wonder about how this fits within our electoral politics, our we-don’t-need-more-than-two-parties system. I guess a close race shows that the system is working, as long as “working” means more of the same.
From Real Clear Politics, national polling regarding Obama vs. Romney:
Average, 5/29 – 6/15: Obama – 45.7%; Romney – 44.9%. Spread: Obama +0.8
Rasmussen, 6/13 – 6/15: Obama – 45%; Romney – 47%. Spread: Romney +2
Gallup, 6/9 – 6/15: Obama – 45%; Romney – 46%. Spread: Romney +1
Reuters/Ipsos, 6/7 – 6/11: Obama – 45%; Romney – 44%. Spread: Obama +1
CSM/TIPP, 6/1 – 6/8: Obama – 46%; Romney- 42%. Spread: Obama +4
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun, 6/3 – 6/6: Obama – 46%; Romney – 46%. Spread: +1
FOX News, 6/3 – 6/5: Obama – 43%; Romney – 43%. Tie
CNN/Opinion Research, 5/29 – 5/31: Obama – 49%; Romney – 46% Spread: Obama +3
What kind of argument will the Dem party make if – as certainly seems likely at this point – the presidential race remains close? Surely it can’t be that the Republicans have chosen a strong candidate. They can argue, accurately, that the Repubs in Congress have been obstructionist, and the party in general obviously more interested in making Obama a one termer than the silly needs and concerns of We the Electorate … concerns about things like jobs and houses and health care and fracking and wars and comprehensive immigration policy and the militarization of law enforcement and other peripheral “issues.”
Of course, the Democrats seem most interested in Obama getting a second term, though that does bring us to how a close election can lead to some evolving, dreaming attention to actual issues.
Thus far, the predictable presidential election year Republican shift another step or dozen to the Right helps make Obama look better to his supporters and to some leaning toward him. Of course, Obama (and the Dem party in general) have consistently followed to the Right of center, too, but Obama is on the Left of Romney. That the center itself keeps sliding Right doesn’t prevent the Dems from staying between it and the Repub ever Rightward position. And as I’ve written before Obama is definitely doing his part to push the Repubs further into the radical realm of Rightness, from Gitmo to drones to deep sea drilling to Wall Street coziness – what can Romney do but “prove” he’s the real conservative by moving ever further Rightward?
One thing we can count on is that a WH incumbent running for a second term and a challenger will both make promises that won’t be kept and policy statements that will morph into decisions contrary to the statements. One very big, very obvious difference between the two presidential hopefuls is that the incumbent can use the last several months of the campaign actually doing some of the things he (still the accurate pronoun, unfortunately, related to the WH) promised as a campaigner. There’s nothing like a close election to encourage evolution and dreaming.
At various points in an election, the arguments will be made that some of We the Electorate are being entirely unreasonable, and clearly don’t understand how things work, when making demands of our candidate which are unpopular with other segments of We the Electorate. For example, the pressure on Obama to, as Joe Sudbay put it, “evolve already” regarding marriage equality was consistent, loud and strong, well into 2012. Some argued that it was unfair and unreasonable to keep the pressure on in an election year. Obviously those folks didn’t prevail, and while Obama’s eventual “evolution” was on the personal level, as he carefully included stating his position that the actual decisions regarding marriage equality should be made by states; and while it’s always been highly unlikely that he’d lose votes by, as it turns out, a personal but not policy evolution, the announcement of his personal evolution had the effect the Obama campaign no doubt wanted: lots of praise, and lots of gay money (more about that in an upcoming post).
The argument about when it’s okay to pressure an Elected usually continues throughout her / his time in office. The predictable arguments that it’s too soon in a term, too late in a term, too controversial, too big, too little, etc., are always accompanied by “but hey, re-elect me and then you’ll see some action.” Occasionally, like in times of a close election, “not now, later” issues suddenly and strategically become a priority, and there’s some specific-to-a-segment-of-your-base action. All of this, of course, is bipartisan in nature. Both Left and Right sides of the Duopoly play the game.
If We the Electorate are largely content, or just resigned, to continuing to play by the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy rules, then I hope there will at least be more of the kind of pushing that resulted in some presidential evolving and dreaming. Neither side of the Duopoly is going to push itself. Well, maybe they will … to the Right.
It’s hard to believe that Obama came in with a Dem Congress, but he still chose to compromise with himself.
Today on Andrea Mitchell reports (I watch her foreign policy segments only), an author was on talking about Obama’s foreign policy and the one thing he said that resonates for me beyond foreign policy is that when Obama & his team first came into office they were insecure about the power and support they had behind them. He was talking about foreign policy, but…
Those first 2 years I go back to continually…
Which is one of the reasons I don’t believe he was compromising, along with his history and his brief time in Congress. He did what he wanted, and still is.
Both major candidates are weak and uninspiring. Voters are unsatisfied with Obama, but uncertain that Romney is an attractive alternative. Most people do not like the direction the nation is going in, but they don’t like the direction Romney wants to take it, either.
Formula for a close, low-turnout election which results in no honeymoon period for the victor.
I’m still waiting to see if Rocky Anderson makes it onto the Maryland ballot. If he does, he has my vote. If he doesn’t, I’ll probably skip the Presidential line.
Sweet Jesus, it shouldn’t be so difficult to get on a frickin’ ballot in this country.
AMEN Taylor !! Its sad that in a democracy that people who want to run for third party on a ballot have to jump through hoops to get on a ballot.
OK, here’s the gameplan for you guys……..do not vote for Obama in ’12….stay at home……send his vote tally plummeting from his 2008 tally. Sure, Romney picks up the default win, but all soi disant progressives predict the Republican party will be extinct by virtue of demographics alone by 2016. In the meantime, the DNC gets the message that they need to find McGovern for 2106. The Revolution comes in your lifetime.
Failproof plan.
Another “vote for the lesser of two evils or AMERICA WILL BE DESTROYED AND IT WILL BE ALL YOUR FAULT” post. Thanks, it had been several hours.
If Elizabeth Warren wins this year, she’ll be in exactly the same position re: 2016 as Obama was in 2004 re: 2008.
Unlike Obama, I think Warren’s heart may just be in the right place.
I’ll vote for a Clinton/Warren ticket!
Ironic that I was just pontificating about some of the differences between coalitions of parties and parties that are coalitions. We have the latter here, of course. In some ways, I think that makes change more difficult, since internal coalitions build up loyalty to a party brand.
Anyway, I’m going with the McGovern for 2106 plan. It will take about that long for enough “free market” and “fiscal conservative” ideologues to realize that things aren’t working out like they’d hoped.
Did anyone catch Van Jones speaking at the Progressive forum on elections (in D.C.) on C-SPAN this morning? He addressed many of these issues and I thought he was wonderful.
http://tinyurl.com/825pkg2
Interesting article about Obama’s former Law Professor, Roberto Unger who says:
“Obama must lose the election in order for “the voice of democratic prophecy to speak once again in American life.”"
The professor went on to list his complaints:
“His policy is financial confidence and food stamps.”
“He has spent trillions of dollars to rescue the moneyed interests and left workers and homeowners to their own devices.”
“He has delivered the politics of democracy to the rule of money.”
“He has disguised his surrender with an empty appeal to tax justice.”
“He has reduced justice to charity.”
“He has subordinated the broadening of economic and educational opportunity to the important but secondary issue of access to health care in the mistaken belief that he would be spared a fight.”
“He has evoked a politics of handholding, but no one changes the world without a struggle.”
I’ve given a few bucks to Elizabeth Warren, to my Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand and to Dr Jill Stein who was recently nominated by the Green Party as it’s POTUS candidate. I voted Green in the ’08 General Election and as of this writing, I’m headed in the Green direction once again as they will be on the NY ballot again (they’re now on 22 State Ballots and petitioning 18 more). As for Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party, I’ve not heard a peep from them since he got his Party’s nomination in January. Not surprising that these alternative party choices haven’t gotten much press given how entrenched the media is in maintaining the status quo.
That leaves it to the “Great Liberal Hope” Netroots Nation
to give some press to Stein and Anderson. It doesn’t appear that either Stein or Anderson were invited to their self-aggrandizing conference. Netroots Nation has now become the mouthpiece of the Dem Party aka the Obama re-elect committee and any liberal voices to the contrary advocating not voting Dem or not being an Obama apologist was not welcome as far as I could see. Here’s a report about the closing night speaker as chosen by Netroots Nation. http://tinyurl.com/7agxluq
What needs to happen is that Stein and Anderson need to get on every state ballot and then be part of the POTUS debates. These are first steps that can happen much more easy and quicker than repealing the horrific Citizens United.
We should go back to the League of Women Voters sponsoring the POTUS/VP debates because the Commission on Presidential Debates is a joke and they are headed by former chairs of the Dems and Repugs. They deserve all the criticism heaped upon them especially for requiring all candidates to have a level of national support of at least 15% as measured in polls done by five selected national polling organizations. That percentage is not only arbitrary but much too high. It’s meant to drown out any other voices except for the two-party establishment ones.
All kidding aside, I don’t want people to get the idea that Obama represents liberalism in America. I’ll vote for Andersen, or Stein, or if they’re not available to vote for where I live, I’ll vote Libertarian. At least libertarians believe in respecting citizens’ rights and a government of laws.
I’m not voting for the lesser evil. Heck, I’m not even going to spend time deciding which is the lesser evil. When you vote that way, the one sure thing is that you’ll never get what you want.
“At least libertarians believe in respecting citizens’ rights and a government of laws.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! STOP,STOP, yer KILLIN me here with stuff like that!!!!!!
Then it should be easy to explain why it’s killing you, shouldn’t it? Oh, wait, that would require stringing together two or more thoughts together in some sentences before you insult someone.
Thanks for sharing.
Hey, he didn’t use “Republikant/teabagger” or one of his other three trademarked phrases. I think that’s a sign of progress.
We are in a major need of a multi-party democracy in this country. The two party system is not working. There should be more to choose from besides two partys in a country that has over 300 million people. Great article Joyce Arnold. I think there was a poll out saying the majority is not happy with either candidate. Thats telling.
Everyone who’s bitchin about “The two party system is not working.” needs to get off their lazy asses and get involved in their local politics. If you want better candidates RUN yourself or work for candidates who express the closest to how you think it should be. Does Obama suck? OF COURSE HE DOES…but at THIS point in history the alternative is just to horrible to contemplate. These ass monkies are just ONE FRACKING VOTE AWAY from overturning Roe v Wade. I KNEW women who DIED because legal abortion was unavailable. DEAD women, DEAD Gays, DEAD Blacks mean a hell of allot more to me then ivory tower dwellers whining that OH the President isn’t MY kind of liberal/progressive. STOP WHINING and do something.
Sec, I’ve known the losses, too. Probably like everyone commenting here. There are no easy answers for any of us.
And while I really do appreciate your thoughts and the passion you show, and I certainly want you to continue to share them, related to my posts, I don’t understand why you call what I and others write “whining,” or why you seem to assume we’re not “doing something,” nor how “ivory tower dwellers” enters into this. The experiences, thoughts and analyses which others bring here … those are important, especially given the lethargy that seems so prevalent in so much of our nation.
I don’t know that there will ever be a good time to say “enough” to the Duopoly, not if that means a time when the stakes aren’t high. And they certainly are high now. I do think, though, that continuing to wait to challenge the two party system will very likely mean the challenge never has a chance to be successful.
As I’ve said many times, I think there’s need for work for change both from within and without the two party system, and many ways to do that work. Bringing different experiences and ideas is, I think, not only very helpful, but absolutely necessary.
Bravo, Joyce.
These ass monkies are just ONE FRACKING VOTE AWAY from overturning Roe v Wade.
Oh, sweet Jesus!
Speaker Pelosi opened the door to the war on women to be waged from state to state in a way that has ALREADY OVERTURNED ROE in practical terms.
Don’t you read about the abortion legislation that’s been passed or is in the works in states across the country? Pelosi empowered Rep. Bart Stupak, but also the Catholic bishops by allowing their representatives in the room when ACA was being formulated. THEN TO TOP IT OFF, Pres Obama signed an executive order that wasn’t needed to prove how “reasonable” and accommodating he was, with the whole exercise ending up codifying the Hyde Amendment into law for the first time ever.
When are
liberalsprogressives going to stand up and make the damn fight instead of accepting this bullshit as the best Democrats can offer?Maybe it’s time we re-fought the issue of reproductive freedom and let the next generation of young women come face to face on the importance of reproductive and women’s freedoms. Because whatever the hell has been happening lately is turning the states into fiefdoms where women aren’t allowed the protections we’ve already won through law. Let’s have another battle over it and see what happens when Republicans decide the state or federal government is going to tell women what we can do with our own bodies.
Too many people are afraid of that fight. Too many people are afraid to fight, period.
It’s a dumb argument better left back in the 1980s anyway. If the Republicans had a 9-0 majority on the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade would not be overturned. Because the GOP doesn’t want it overturned- the day it is, their party goes under.
What they want is the issue. Abortion providers are vanishing all over the United States- more than 80% of the nation’s counties don’t have one- without the court touching Roe v. Wade. You see, you still have the legal right to an abortion- now try to find a qualified physician who will give you one. When you can’t, who are you going to blame?
The religious nutbags who bomb clinics and kill, or threaten to kill the doctors/employees who operate them.
EXACTLY Sandmann.
Maybe I should just throw up my hands and adopt the “the worse the better” philosophy that seems to be prevalent here in the Marsh lately. Because the reality is a third party at this point means a repug Presient with an almost completely repug apointed SCOTUS and a repug congress.
I mean what the duce…I’m a white male. I’M never going to need an abortion…I’m not Black…I’m not gay except for that tim…never mind….I can always start spouting wingnut drivel and I’m pretty sure tap into the Koch money pipe line.
secularh — You seem to be under the delusion that a woman in this country is protected by the Supreme Court ruling of Roe. You are wrong.
It’s also one thing to believe what YOU do, but make no effort to understand the people who are just as passionate about not supporting a party that is feckless most of the time and spineless the rest.
Besides, you’re not going to convince anyone by your current methods. Try having a discussion with them instead.
I’ll second what Joyce said, and just add this:
I’ve worked for people, and I’ve worked on my own. I can tell you that there is one very important difference between those two conditions. When you work for someone else, there will quiet likely be a time when they want to do something that you don’t think they should, and all the persuading in the world won’t change that.
OTOH, if you are the person they work for, your opinion usually matters a lot more.
When you work for a campaign, you are working for someone else. The object isn’t to get legislation passed, or executive actions done. It’s to get your guy elected. And in my brief experience with such work, those people are almost inevitably uninterested in what you have to say. I want to be one of the people whose opinions they will listen to. If you can tell me how to do that, great. I’m all ears. If not, well, been there, done that. Done the hell out of it, in fact.
You’re right. It’s hopeless. I’m voting Minnie Mouse!
Because the reality is a third party at this point…
Amazed at how some hypothetical “realities” (like the one I started to quote here) are more “real” to you than the actual reality we face with the two-party system now.