It seems a lot of folks think that change comes only via the Presidency.
And clearly that is not the case.
Since 2006, the Democrats have had the house, and the Senate, so in theory they controlled two out of three branches of government totally. They could have done anything.
They then claimed that they needed the Presidency too for real change, people believed them, and they were given that. Then they set another false goal up–they had to have 60 votes in the Senate, along with all the other branches of government to do any of the things they promise.
Their lies should be apparent to anyone and everyone now–hell they should have been apparent in 2006.
How to infuence them?
The Presidency:
major demonstrations, strikes, marches and the like (see Iran) could actually make slight moves there with the current administration. Maybe. But if people do nothing–as they have done the last 10 years and more–then expect nothing back. Remember as weak as it really was, we only got the New Deal because there was a real Socialist and Unionist movement then–and it scared the hell out of elite.
Overall, we need to reduce the power of the Presidency back to –or preferably far below the original intent; not hope for some ‘white hat’ to save us. There will never be one.
The Senate:
appears almost intransigent.
It’s ALL off the table.
These guys think they’re in for life. Essentially, they’re a waste of skin. Six years is too damn long in the first place, and 12 or 18 years is just outrageous. Need to close the whole place down. Get one guy and let him filibuster everything. Sanders?
(or we could all move to Utah or Alaska)
The Supreme Court:
(which today decided that there is no right to use DNA evidence to prove innocence)
Not going left. Not for decades. In fact with Sotomayer, I expect a slight rightward tilt.
The House:
is a long way from being progressive, but offers more hope than any of the other branches, and is the only branch where third parties could have a major influence. The targeting of Democrats by truly left parties in progressive areas could make major gains here and hurt the Democrats a lot –although Ralph Nader (Mr. ‘I’m running as a Green, but I’m not a green’) and others have set the third party movement back decades with their antics. If we could get some Greens, or better yet Socialists in there–they could force the Democrats left, if they want to keep their leadership positions. It’s a tough thing for third parties–they only get media attention if they go for the Presidency, but they only get a real shot of doing anything worth while if they go for The House in targeted areas instead.
The influence of money:
Anything that can be done to reduce that is imperative.
Unfortunately, in this we are not only fighting the Congress, we are fighting the ‘New Media’ — ie Daily Kos etc. These guys have a vested influence in being able to deliver money and free campaign workers, to the candidate that they wish to play ball with. This is blatant influence peddling, that the ‘old media’ did if they did at all behind closed doors–and in some ways couldn’t begin to do at all. These so called blogs are standing in the way of any kind of reform at all here–and especially against public financing.
Long Term:
The Republicans / Christian Right have been very successful at pushing the meme rightward via the schools (militarization, Christianization, etc) This is a key area that we don’t want to seem to counter, but must.
7 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
that we don’t have that gave them power and influence?
Their own independent grass-roots organizations. The organizations were their own, themselves, independent, not controlled by any party or politician, not preemptively committed to “more and worse hackery of one stripe or another”. So they had actual popular power, the ability to carry out their own social self-defense in both the political and economic spheres. If we want to have that kind of influence, we need to fashion and do the hard work of building updated equivalents. Until we do that, we’ll remain at the mercy of the cynical opportunistic and careerist ambitions of pols, and we see how far that is getting us.
With turnouts that low, assuming an even split between non-independent voters, Republicans could have determined the candidates for both the Republican and Democrat party (I believe that, in most states, they’d have to register with the opposing party if they want to vote in their primary). Likewise, Democrats could have determined the Republican candidates, too.
Or, put it another way – independents (weighing in in the neighborhood of 27%) could have determined either the Democrat or Republican candidates, though not both.
To accomplish this, their biggest hurdle is to show up at the primaries.
The citizens of the US are not really organized to exert their collective will, but it’s not as difficult as you imagine it to be, thanks in large part to the internet. The fact that it hasn’t been done, yet, is a little depressing, but there is too much at stake to either wallow in dejection, or not pounce on the opportunities before us.
If anybody doesn’t see what I see, please explain to me what I’ve got wrong….
Anita Hill had been the first nominee. Never open with your fallback. They’ll skewer her anyway. And it would have been fun to see all the conservatives come out of the woodwork on Hill.