What would be a good strategy for American progressives?

[BrainGlutton]

@foolsguinea

Isn’t N. Korea Second World?

Damn near the whole of it now, together with Cuba and Belarus and – do we count Vietnam? (I know we don’t count China.)

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

The last thing, the very last thing any Progressive in America do is link up with the Commies which

1. Has been thoroughly and completely discredited-see USSR, Cambodia, Poland, PRC, North Korea
2. Is the bloodiest ideology in human history-responsible for tens of millions of deaths in every corner of the planet
3. The more “pure” communism you try to get -ie Cambodia the bloodier results you get
4. Is hated and reviled by the vast majority of the American populace

Still and all, maybe this strategy could accomplish something of progressive value.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

If we’re gonna do it that way, let’s start preparing some meme-phrases to push and push until they’re as common currency as “trickle-down” or “carbon footprint”:

Class interest. It sounds much nicer than “class warfare.” Just keep repeating and repeating that, in every context where it can be worked in, just to remind people of (1) the existence of such things as different American social classes with different and sometimes conflicting class interests and (2) the permanent political relevance of same.

Overton window. Fuck Beck, let’s own that phrase. We’re gonna be the ones who push that window our way.

Rose chart. Used to refer (in such a way as to imply that of course the hearer should already know) to Social Stratification in the United States: The American Profile Poster, by Stephen J. Rose. That’s another thing, by the way – we gotta find some way to display blowups of this thing at every rally, and push hard to hang it on the wall of every civics/history/social studies classroom in America.

Got any?

@Evil_Captor

Sounds fair, but of course, attempts to hold the line on abortion and gay marriage will be used by the overclass (great name for the 1%, so close to “evil overlords”) . . .

OK, yes, definitely add:

The American overclass: Over and over and over. But, before we declare anything approaching hostilities, remember, that’s not just the top 1%, it’s at least 5%, maybe 10%, and it is mighty. (And a lot of progressive class-traitors are in it.)

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@BrainGlutton

Still and all, maybe this strategy could accomplish something of progressive value.

Interesting-although to have a real popular front you need to get in the anti-war Libertarians and the anti-free trade paleoconservatives in there too.

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Interesting-although to have a real popular front you need to get in the anti-war Libertarians and the anti-free trade paleoconservatives in there too.

I dunno if a Popular Front can stretch that far . . . I mean, the whole point of it is to fight the corporate power structure and the overclass, and how are the Libertarians gonna get behind that?!

The paleocons might . . . some of them . . . but their fixation on and the content of their immigration policy will always stick in the craw – not only of progressives, but of the American public at large, as pointed out above.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@BrainGlutton

I dunno if a Popular Front can stretch that far . . . I mean, the whole point of it is to fight the corporate power structure and the overclass, and how are the Libertarians gonna get behind that?!

The paleocons might . . . some of them . . . but their fixation on and the content of their immigration policy will always stick in the craw – not only of progressives, but of the American public at large, as pointed out above.

Well I think they can get together at the least on foreign policy and maybe trade.

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Well I think they can get together at the least on foreign policy and maybe trade.

Well, I’ve always said America would be better off with a multiparty system and one feature of it would be that, in a multiparty Congress (or state legislature, whatever), “coalitions” could be issue-specific – i.e., your party and mine will agree to disagree on issue A, but we’ll agree to vote as a solid bloc on issue B. (No need, generally, for any more general coalitions, because we still wouldn’t have a parliamentary system where a majority or plurality is needed to “form a government,” the executive – president or governor – being in the American system separately elected.) But getting there from here is a whole nother problem (one that should be of equal interest to progressives, libertarians, paleocons, socialists, etc., etc.). (Once again, see FairVote.)

Think we could build a Popular Front around just that, to start with?

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Evil_Captor

Well, actually, the Voting Rights Act, a direct product of the Civil Rights movement, was a HUGE benefit to the Democrats, as you can see by the way the Republicans are working so vigorously to dismantle it.

The Voting Rights Act turned the South into a Republican area. For every two blacks who voted for the first time, and who voted Democrat, three white Democrats began voting Republican. During the 1930s the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt were popular among Southern whites. Blacks benefited from New Deal programs, even though few could vote. The Solid South voted solidly for Roosevelt. Now it votes solidly Republican.

The more blacks there are in a state the more likely whites are to vote Republican. Whites only vote Democrat in large numbers in states with low black populations.

[Evil_Captor]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The Voting Rights Act turned the South into a Republican area. For every two blacks who voted for the first time, and who voted Democrat, three white Democrats began voting Republican. During the 1930s the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt were popular among Southern whites. Blacks benefited from New Deal programs, even though few could vote. The Solid South voted solidly for Roosevelt. Now it votes solidly Republican.

The more blacks there are in a state the more likely whites are to vote Republican. Whites only vote Democrat in large numbers in states with low black populations.

Have you taken a hard look at where the demographics are going WRT the number of blacks vs. the number of whites in this country? Why do you think the Republicans are working so hard at rigging elections? Very soon now, they are not going to be able to win a majority in either house of Congress via free and fair elections. Or the Presidency. So, still a net gain for the Dems, despite losing the southern whites who would of course have opposed them on almost every other progressive issue as well. Speaking as a southern white person by birth, the Dems are well rid of the racist trash element of the South, however large it might be.

[BrainGlutton]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The Voting Rights Act turned the South into a Republican area. For every two blacks who voted for the first time, and who voted Democrat, three white Democrats began voting Republican. During the 1930s the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt were popular among Southern whites. Blacks benefited from New Deal programs, even though few could vote. The Solid South voted solidly for Roosevelt. Now it votes solidly Republican.

The more blacks there are in a state the more likely whites are to vote Republican. Whites only vote Democrat in large numbers in states with low black populations.

See post #57. White Southerners in the 1970s changed parties mainly for reasons of racial prejudices – which their children do not share, not to the same extent.

[BrainGlutton]

@Evil_Captor

Have you taken a hard look at where the demographics are going WRT the number of blacks vs. the number of whites in this country?

I don’t believe those relative numbers are changing . . . The “whites will be a minority in America” meme refers mainly to immigration, of persons belonging to the traditional definition of neither race.

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s another one:

Cui Bono: (“KU-i BO-no”) “Who benefits?” or “Whom does this serve?” A much classier classical-language slogan than Molon Labe! Chant it every chance!

[BigT]

@New_Deal_Democrat

PRINCETON, NJ – Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx

As long as the United States remains a center right country there is no point in a third party to the left of the Democrats that competes with the Democrats. Progressives should form a movement to the left of the Democrats that supports the Democrats, while pulling it to the left.

During the 1930s the labor movement did this. During the 1960s the civil rights and anti war movements generated backlashes that benefited the Republicans.

The Wall Street protests may serve a function similar to that of the labor movement during the 1930s, but it is too early to tell.

The majority of people may identify as conservative, but I also remember a study that said that these conservatives often have rather liberal ideas.

I know for sure that I called myself a conservative, and while I was more conservative than I am now, I was rather liberal in my ideas of social justice, equality, and disdain for corporations. I just identified as conservative because that was the Christian thing to do. Plus, I didn’t know anything about the Republican Party’s platform.

Heck, to this day, I’m still registered Republican, as I enjoy being able to appeal to my congresspersons as a member of their party.

[BrainGlutton]

Got another:

Buckley v. Valeo! :mad:

Ya wanna get the money out of politics? Here’s how you do it: Make it illegal to donate money to political campaigns. Any. They won’t need money anyway. Each candidate in an election gets an equal share of free TV air time and that’s all the political advertising there is. It works well enough in France.

Can you think of any other way?

All we need (well, first thing we need) is for the SCOTUS to reverse Buckley v. Valeo. A 1976 decision holding that spending money to influence election campaigns is a protected form of free speech.

So we’d better start thinking about making that a litmus-test issue next time a vacancy opens. And we’d better start shouting "Reverse Buckley v. Valeo!" until Americans forget they ever even heard of Roe v. Wade.

[Oakminster]

@BrainGlutton

Each candidate in an election gets an equal share of free TV air time and that’s all the political advertising there is. It works well enough in France.

:rolleyes:
That’s very generous with other people’s money. The TV stations not only lose the revenue from selling ads to candidates, but also lose money they might have made selling that time to other customers.

[rat_avatar]

@Oakminster

:rolleyes:
That’s very generous with other people’s money. The TV stations not only lose the revenue from selling ads to candidates, but also lose money they might have made selling that time to other customers.

Also the people would eventually get sick of Goodspaceguy and every other “candidate” getting time.

(full disclosure I have voted for Goodspaceguy in the past)

They would then limit the candidates, and as nasty as wealth is in choosing political candidates I fear the government controlling who can run.

[BrainGlutton]

@Oakminster

:rolleyes:
That’s very generous with other people’s money. The TV stations not only lose the revenue from selling ads to candidates, but also lose money they might have made selling that time to other customers.

[shrug] They’ll do it for nothing like they run EBS tests for nothing.

. . . That galls ya too, don’t it?!

[BrainGlutton]

@rat_avatar

Also the people would eventually get sick of Goodspaceguy and every other “candidate” getting time.

(full disclosure I have voted for Goodspaceguy in the past)

They would then limit the candidates, and as nasty as wealth is in choosing political candidates I fear the government controlling who can run.

Write-in candidates get no airtime, and we already have ballot-access requirements – if ya wanna freeze out Goodspaceguy, just double the necessary number of petition signatures or whatever.

[BrainGlutton]

@Oakminster

:rolleyes:
That’s very generous with other people’s money.

Look at the big picture – what I’m trying to do here is be extremely stingy with other peoples’ money. Especially the Koch Brothers’ – No, no, boys, save it for a rainy day; you always blow your allowance on that political stuff. Kids these days . . .

[Oakminster]

@BrainGlutton

[shrug] They’ll do it for nothing like they run EBS tests for nothing.

Emergency Broadcast System testing is one short spot every so often. Has a minimal effect on the stations. Free political spots are very different…there would be more of them, running much more often, and depriving stations of substantial revenue. Horrible idea.