Progressive Plan for the 2012 Election

[Evil_Captor]

In another thread, I suggested that progressive Dems should mount a serious challenge to Obama in the primaries, because the centrists are going to take the progressive vote for granted unless they fear that the progressives will upset their apple cart. Elucidator countered as follows, and instead of responding in that thread, which would have been majorly off topic, I decided to respond here and maybe broaden the scope of my response to a general progressive plan for moving the Dems and hopefully the whole country to the left via the 2012 election.

@elucidator

Don’t challenge Obama, challenge the* menshevik*, Blue Dead Dog, Clintonista “centrist” Congresscritters who have a “D” attached to their names for no good reason. The first and foremost challenge is getting people to the polls. The Pubbies did that rather deftly when they put gay marriage on all the state ballots they could manage, thus ensuring a major turnout amongst the anti-gay crowd. And, of course, as long as they were there taking care of their number one concern, they might as well vote Republican.

If we challenge a Blue Dog, and he wins the primary, but gets the fear of Og put into him, good. If he loses the primary to a more lefty candidate, also good, even better, so long as the candidate is not so radical lefty as to lose in a mixed district. Because if I can’t have a “real” lefty, I still want one with a “D” after his name, seeing as how no “R” candidate is likely to be any more acceptable. Tres duh, mais non?.

Well sir, wouldn’t it be the business of the Dem leadership to set up challenges for the blue dog Dems who’ve been blocking all the OTHER Dems’ legislative initiatives? Every Dem who has been a stumbling block for Reed and Pelosi’s initiatives should be looking at a squeaky-clean more centrist Dem (by this I mean Dem whose views are more central to the Democratic Party) well financed by the Democratic leadership.

As you said, a progressive candidate who wins a primary challenge against a blue dog Dem is not likely to win in the actual election because blue dogs tend to be in mixed districts. It would simply be a waste of energy to do as you suggest.

No, the natural target for progressive Dems is Dems in safe Democratic districts where the progressive can win the actual election if they win the primary. And 2012 will be an EXCELLENT election to target them, as the Republicans are going to be massively saddled with that Social Security vote. So I see a progressive strategy for 2012 to be three pronged:

1. Encourage and assist the centrist Dems in getting rid of the blue Dog dems who have been blocking all Democratic legislation and replacing them with centrist Dems who can win in the actual election.

2. Target a group of centrist Dems for replacement by progressive candidates. Develop and vet a field of progressive candidates to run against them posthaste. Even if the progressives don’t win, a strong challenge from the left should put the fear of Flying Spaghetti Monster in them so they’ll move to the left on their own. And the progressive Dems just might win … even better!

3. Target every Republican House member who voted against Social Security who is not in an absolutely secure district and run centrist Dems against them. They call Social Security “the third rail” well hell, the Repubs touched it, they oughtta die! (Electorally speaking of course.)

Such a plan could get us a strong Dem majority in the House again, what’s more, a strong Dem majority that fears attack from the left as well as the right, hence will not be so inclined to move to the right to win elections. 2012 could be a great year for America and progressives generally.

[elucidator]

Yeah, but the Blue Dead Dogs call themselves “centrist”. So far as they are concerned, programs that I regard as sensible and sane, like single payer health insurance, are radical.

It took pernicious root back when the Dems started courting business contributions, back when the Pubbies were clobbering the left with money raised by the corporate masters. “Business friendly” may be words you will recall with or without revulsion. There is a germ of an idea there, and like most such germs, its infectious. The idea being that being friendly to business, promoting their corporate well-being will provide a larger base of revenue with which to fund social programs. Its a bit like the carrot and the stick, but its two carrots and no stick.

And it worked, sorta kinda. The Clintonista centrist business friendly Dems prospered, and took total control of the central organs of leadership. Not surprising, they had money. What they failed to appreciate is greed. Corporadoes smiled benignly, accepted the benefits of Dem friendliness, and leaned on their new Dem friends for more tax breaks (for “research” and “development”). They took the money, said thank you very much, and kept it.

Needless to say, they were not at all interested in crazy, radical ideas like higher taxes for nanny-state social programs.

But the crucial issue isn’t the Republican Party, it is the Apathy Party. Apathy works for the Forces of Darkness, they can always come up with an issue to fire up their people, so the enthusiasm of a relative minority overwhelms the disinterested middle. That is why they went to such lengths to get gay marriage on every state ballot they could. And that is why Obama was such a phenom. It wasn’t that he persuaded more people to be progressive, he persuaded people who were already somewhat progressive to give a shit.

The young tend to be progressive, but they are also somewhat fickle and easily disappointed, they haven’t the experience of losing again and again but pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and get back at 'em. Kids these days…

I’m starting to preach. If you’re still reading, you’re probably bored. Enough.