Three Cheers for Democracy

Well said, Kathryn

One thing I've learned from my relatively short time as an activist is the candidates and issues I want to see succeed and implemented most don't do so well the first time.

You're right, it hurts when your candidate or issue that you've invested your emotions into is defeated or sidelined.  But if you want to see better people elected and better policies enacted, you have to dust yourself off and keep fighting.

How we do that is often a subject of vigorous debate.  ;)

---

by: WeatherDem @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 04:02:12 AM UTC

Three Cheers for vigorous debate

Today is a great day for democracy!

---

by: KathrynCWallace @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 04:09:36 AM UTC

Hip hip

hurrah.

---

by: Fong @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 05:15:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for writing this

This year I have been lucky enough to learn that it can take years to pass legislation. So I agree that it hurts when people allow losses to drive them away from the democratic process because because those losses are often a necessary first step toward victory.

---

by: trainstar @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:28:14 AM UTC

It's the Tea Party vs the incumbent

in this race. No matter how much someone is pissed off that it didn't go the way we wanted it to, this is not just one seat that's at stake, it's the potential Republican majority.

---

by: Fong @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 09:04:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well said, plus

it's important for us all to remember that we are not always right. Sometimes, we not only invest our hearts and souls in a particular struggle and lose, but, whether we ever find out or not, whether it is ever something that can be known or not, very often it will have been for the best that we lost.

This is a critical component that seems most often to be missing. If we want to keep doing better as a nation and a state, circling toward the best possible social policies, we need to make sure that we leaven a good dose of humility into the mix. Wisdom always begins with knowing that we don't know.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 13:43:02 PM UTC

Democracy is like pie.

The less you eat, the more there is for the greedy fat cats.

Go on and git ur pie

---

by: Fong @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 15:24:20 PM UTC

I must have missed something.

Who's withdrawing from participation in the democratic process? I haven't heard anyone say anything like that.  

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 16:25:30 PM UTC

If you don't vote for the Democrat, who are you going to vote for?

Or are you going to not vote for anyone?  

---

by: Fong @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 17:14:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bull Moose Party

n/t

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 17:24:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The future belongs to the best organized,

and organization requires some degree of subordination of one's own preferences to the preferences of larger numbers.

Either zero compromise, or unlimited compromise, result in a complete absence of effectiveness.

The Democratic Party is my compromise. Not only that, as Peter well knows, I completely disagree with the insurgency from the left within the party, not only as a matter of organizational dysfunctionalism, but also on the substance of the underlying analyses.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 23:40:57 PM UTC

Steve, if you think it's about "an insurgency from the left,"

you are not working with a functional understanding of the situation.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 23:44:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Within the context of

my perspective and the argument based on it, that's a semantic distinction. What I see (rightly or wrongly) is a faction, perhaps a very large one, perhaps a long-suffering majority, but not the institutional core of the party, that is agitating for an agenda that I consider, along with others who, unlike me, are actually in that institutionnal core of the party, to be counterproductive because it is not grounded enough in the realities of the world we are trying to affect.

Again, I may be wrong. My motto is that it's a complex and subtle world, to which I apply a plethora of formal and informal analytical tools in an effort to get as precise, accurate, and far-ranging a sense of the dynamics of this behemoth as I can. As a result, I know that I don't know the final answers, but I gravitate toward answers that don't reduce the world to something that I don't think it is.

Whether it's an insurgency or not, whether it's from the left or not, doesn't really matter to me. What matters to me is moving in the direction of a more robust, sustainable, and egalitarian social institutional framework, and doing so effectively.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 00:35:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Democratic Party is not

"moving in the direction of a more robust, sustainable, and egalitarian social institutional framework." The party -- and the nation -- are doing just the opposite of that. And it's our responsibility to say "No, stop right there. We want to move in the direction of a more robust, sustainable, and egalitarian social institutional framework."

Steve, you've swallowed the bogus "left-vs.-right" master narrative -- hook line and sinker.  You've embraced the ginned-up Fox-vs.-MSNBC, GOP-vs.-Dem, us-vs.-them polarized tribalism that's tearing the country apart and cementing the grip of corporate plutocracy. That you did it with a heaping side order or five-dollar words is of no consolation.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 01:38:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Far from it.

I've written pretty extensively on what I call "the n-dimensional space of political ideologies." I've long eschewed the broad categories in favor of microdynamical analyses, and acknowledging multiple axes of variation.

But, having spent my life studying everything relating to those underlying dynamics of human social systems, from numerous perspectives, using numerous tools, I've come to the conclusions that I've come to, honestly and dilligently.

You don't agree with it, and you may have a more accurate understanding of the world than I do. But the case isn't made simply by implying that my disagreement with you is evidence of an inferior understanding.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 01:51:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Steve,

This is great:

I've written pretty extensively on what I call "the n-dimensional space of political ideologies." I've long eschewed the broad categories in favor of microdynamical analyses, and acknowledging multiple axes of variation.

But I don't see you applying that thought process to the real-world situation that we face. I think that if you did, you would reject the "insurgency from the left" conclusion/presumption that you presented earlier in this thread.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 02:41:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What do you mean by "appying it"?

If you mean conceptually, that's precisely what I do when I'm writing about it; I write about it in the context of various real world issues, and address those issues through the lens of an analytical framework. If you mean in action, I do that too, by, for instance, a contract I'm working on right now to help provide proactive services to children and families in need, work which does not get lost in ideological debates, but rather tries to figure out how to work within the context of what is to create what can be.

A good example is a comparison of the French and American revolutions. The French Revolution tried to sweep away the ancien regime, and resulted in a long, bloody mess that culminated in the re-establishment of autocracy. It didn't work, because it tried to "wish" history away, and history is remarkably resistent to such wishes. The American Revolution, on the other hand, did not attempt to sweep history away, and even assiduously acknowledged and institutionalized the differential real power among the new states at the time of the establishment of the new union. This created a robust, though imperfect, context within which enduring and continuous, though gradual, change could become an integral aspect of the institutional structure.

I could go on, giving examples from throughout history and around the world, offering analytical arguments about why this is so, not even to prove the correctness of my position, but merely its legitimacy as an analysis which merits consideration. But I'm not going to re-write everything I've ever written on the topic, here and now, to prove a point that requires no proof (that it's a complex and subtle world; that false certainties abound; and that "arguments" of the form "I am right and you are deluded by those who benefit from deluding you" are an ancient and ubiquitous cognitive fortification used to protect dogmatic certainties throughout history and around the world). If you're interested in my analytical approach, visit www.steveharveyforcolorado.edu, and start with "The Politics of Consciousness," which is the first blog entry there.

These are very salient issues: the relevance of current distributions of wealth, power and influence in efforts to move toward altered and more equitable distributions, and the articulation of different levels-of-analysis (such as that between unilateral actions, on the one hand, and institutional changes on the other). There are robust conversations to be had, based on a mutual recognition of the complex and subtle world we are in, the perennial imperfections of our tentative understandings of that world, and the commitment to continued refinement of that understanding.

I'm always ready to have those conversations.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 13:46:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I propose that we

robustly eschew the obfuscatory triangulation stratagems and nefarious deflective machinations of clandestine political operational undertakings designed to serve exclusively the pecuniary interests of the maximal patrician socio-economic stratum.

;-)

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 02:03:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah.

For me, the basic political divide isn't between Democrats and Republicans, or Progressives and Conservatives, but rather between reasonable people of goodwill and blind ideologues launching ordinance from their fortresses of false certainties. The starting point for contributing to robust progress, as far as I'm concerned, is committing ourselves to using our minds and hearts in a humble, cooperative, determined effort to keep discovering and moving in the directions most conducive to human welfare. The zealotry of ideologues is an obstacle standing between them and that starting point.

As long as you're more interested in "smiting your enemies" than arriving at subtler and more productive understandings of the complex and subtle world we are trying to affect, you're in the same category as the Tea Partiers from my point of view, because what defines them isn't the particular content of their false certainty, but rather the commitment to and entrenchment of that false certainty itself.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 14:07:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

30,000 in Atlanta looking for a home - How's democracy working for them?

Great Kathryn!  That is true, but did you see the people trampled and passing out of heat exhaustion yesterday in Atlanta, GA, mostly African American?  All they wanted was an application for public housing.

Did you hear about the hundreds that rallied on Wall Street today, only a fraction of the millions who have lost their UI, like me?  I have friends losing their homes and many others have lost their savings and cannot find a job.  Some of these people still have children at home.  How has democracy worked for them?  They get punished for not "showing" up?  How can they when they can't get enough food, no gas money or bus fare, or have any shelter?  How have those Blue Dog Dems helped them or me or my friends?

I will stay as active as I can for candidates I can believe in and stand up for me and my fellow Americans, not trans-global corporations.  But I cannot in good conscience give to a party that stabs hardworking people in the back, like some of these Blue Dog Dems voting against the public option, etc..

I also think that Romanoff made great strides in his campaign, but he gave up his home for it.  He's not starving, but he's not a millionaire like Bennet.  Bennet received tons of money from special corporations like Wal-Mart, the telecom industry, banking, etc.  Meanwhile they outsource our jobs, break the unions, and steal our money.  Don't you find a bit sick and repulsive?  

All Bennet needs is my vote, just as I had done after Salazar beat Mike Miles in 2004, when I was sad not angry.  All Salazar needed was my vote and now Salazar wants to drill in the Arctic and do more deep sea drilling in the Gulf.

In addition, all Romanoff had was the voice of the people, mainly progressive Dems (By the way, we are NOT PROFESSIONAL PROGRESSIVES.  I get paid nothing for my efforts, just for the hope I can someday find a full time job, get a little savings, and keep our home).  However, the DNC and Democratic leaders sided with the incumbent, Bennet, even provided him endorsements and money.  Basically trampling on the democratic efforts of the citizens, fellow Democratic activists.  

I'll tell you Kathryn I applaud your positive words, but you should hear the voices of the progressives?  They are extremely angry and I am one of them.  

I know change is slow, but until we take money out of politics the only people who will win are the transnational corporations and the top 1% of this country's wealthy.  Meanwhile, the rest of us will suffer and lose more and more.  Have you seen the unemployment numbers and foreclosure rates?

When our basic needs are not met, how on this only one precious Earth, can we be involved in democracy?  Isn't that what the corporations want? We become so weak we can no longer speak.

Also, on a side note, why did Superintendent Bennet invest money in these big banks with tax payer dollars?  Why was that reported after it was too late?  How is that supposed to help our causes?  How is that Democratic?  How is that informing the public for the public good?

I'm in no way voting for Buck, but money will not help the Dems because the Repubs will outspend the Dems 20-1, just check out what our good buddy Karl Rove is up to ($50 million collected and counting).

The voices of the people and activism of hard working Americans is no match for large amounts of money and power.

Voting for someone who can raise money or has money is not good leadership, that's just good corruption.  

---

by: Birdlady43 @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 03:51:28 AM UTC

Now, THAT is a functional understanding of the situation.

God bless you, Birdlady43. You speak power to truth.  

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 04:02:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The goal of taking money out of politics is shared.

It is not the goal that is being debated. It is the means. And it is not enough to be engaged in an emotionally gratifying struggle against corruption; it is more important that we engage in an effective struggle to improve the conditions of our lives.

Throughout history and around the world, people have been attracted to a false dichotomy between "good" and "evil" in various guises; in this case, the bad and corrupt current reality v. the good and true defeat of it.

The real world isn't characterized by any such dichotomy. it is perennially messy, constantly characterized by a dynamic mixture of self-interests, hopes and dreams, ideological passions, and simultanously mutually reinforcing and cross-cutting currents of influence and power. Those are constants, not something that can be defeated or yanked out of reality root and branch.

If our reaction to every incarnation of that reality is uncompromising revulsion, then not only do we do nothing to alter it, but we surrender our ability to alter in the ways that we actually can.

Realism serves idealism. Without, idealism is an empty fantansy. With it, idealism is a guiding star helping us to navigate our course on a vast and frothing sea.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 14:31:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can't figure out

whether I'm reading a paper on Galbraith or Melville.  

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 14:44:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your obnoxious attempt to

nullify a voice that disagrees with you notwithstanding, my point is a simple one:

If you settle for nothing less than an unrealistic purity that has never existed and can never be achieved, you accomplish nothing, and merely create new avenues for the same old structural defects. If you work to improve the world, understanding that you will not be able to cure it of what you perceive to be its fundamental defects, you can accomplish much, and contain those defects within the narrowest possible margins.

I've applied this principle very specifically to this discussion. One candidate's refusal to take PAC money would have only one impact in the general election: It would reduce his or her probability of getting elected. It would not effect current laws and practices regarding campaign finance, nor would it even improve that particular candidate's ability to affect it once elected. In Andrew's case, it was the shrewd act of making a political asset out of a political liability: He couldn't compete with Bennet financially, so he parlayed that reality into a symbolic cause that appealed to many in the party's base. That's no more or less principled than taking PAC money; it's just good political strategy.

When you characterize the world as a fight between good and evil, you accomplish little good, and give new opportunity to "evil" (not really "evil"; just the messy reality we are working with). When you characterize our political struggles as an ongoing effort to do the best we can in a complex and messy world, always striving to cultivate and disseminate the best, subtlest, most sophisticated understanding of the world we are trying to affect, great strides can be made.

That you disagree with this perspective doesn't bother me at all. That could be the basis for a robust and productive conversation. That you try to defeat it with ridicule, and engage it not at all with reason, is of course frustrating. It's exactly like debating a proselytizing religious fanatic (and one who isn't good at not being obnoxious about their proselytizing). And nothing obstructs our ability to progress more ferociously than such dogmatic zealotry.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 15:18:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You've thoroughly mischaractized my position, Steve,

as well as the reality of what happened in the Senate primary.

If you settle for nothing less than an unrealistic purity ...

I haven't. In fact, that is the opposite of what I've said.

When you characterize the world as a fight between good and evil,

I haven't. In fact, that is the opposite of what I've said.

You're the one who is embracing that false dichotomy, Steve. For all your abstract grandiose pontification regarding n-dimensional this and that, you reflexively assume that the backlash against Obama from his erstwhile supporters is occurring along a simplistic one-dimensional left-right axis.  

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 15:46:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay.

This has become a silly semantic game. I am referring to the backlash itself, not its justifications. It really doesn't matter to me how many dimensions your position is defined on, or even if it is wiser and more defensible than it appears to me to be. Even if I were wrong in these perceptions, it would still be, in my opinion, counterproductive to current efforts to move the country in the direction of a more robust, sustainable, just, and egalitarian society, because it undermines the ability of the embattled organization currently best positioned to accomplish that from accomplishing it.

You say that the Democratic Party isn't accomplishing that, that's it's moving in the opposite direction. I don't agree, but, again, it all depends on the standard against which you are measuring things. If you measure the performance and agenda of the Democratic Party against some absolute ideal, it is understandable to conclude that it is horribly inadequate, an utter and indefensible failure that no one should continue to support.

But politics is about choosing between realistically attainable alternatives. There are currently two nationally viable political parties, and one has a platform infinitely preferable to the other's. I will support the better of the available alternatives, not surrender to the less desirable one because I am not happy enough with the more desirable one.

There's nothing "abstract" about the ability of the best organized moblizing the most resources (including numbers of people) to prevail in political struggles. There's nothing "grandiose" about realizing that we live in a messy world in which imperfect compromises must be embraced in order to achieve anything productive. It's just well-reasoned and evidence-based, and committed to accomplishing actual, tangible social systemic progress.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 16:07:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is futile

If you measure the performance and agenda of the Democratic Party against some absolute ideal,

For the last time, Steve, I DON'T do that. I primarily measure the performance and agenda of the Democratic Party against various real-world historical and international benchmarks.

But I know it's hard to vocabulate and listen at the same time.

Can you seriously look at the relevant data from the past 30 years and make the case that the Democratic Party has been moving in a desirable direction?  Driving off a cliff at 50mph is not an acceptable compromise to driving off that same cliff at 100mph. It is not "pragmatic."

Over and out.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 17:06:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You keep insisting

that the absolutist dichotomy I keep discerning in your words is not there, and yet the policies of the Democratic Party are "driving us off a cliff...."

Yes you "do do that". It doesn't matter how much you think your absolute ideal is historically validated; what matters is that unless you are looking at the full complexity of where we are now, who we are, and what options are truly available within that context, you're not looking at anything meaningful to present decision-making. And if you do the former and come to the conclusion that we're better off trying to undermine the imperfect Democratic Party in the very moment when we can actually make a little headway, then I will keep repeating that you are doing more harm than good to the general agenda we both share.

Now, please, tell me again why my writing style proves that you're right and I'm wrong....

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 21:09:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't let go of the rope

I am going to continue to stay out of the specific debate over who the best candidate was.  I am going to take you all back to the year 2000.  People said "there's no difference between the R's and the D's." "Vote for Nader, make a statement." People were angry that Clinton wasn't progressive enough.  They wanted a candidate that was "different".  And we got George Bush.  And all of a sudden, Gore started looking a lot better.

Folks, we are in a tug of war here.  Some of us are tugging to the left, some are tugging to the right.  The truly unaffiliated switch which way they pull from time to time and we move a little this way and a little that way.  In 2000, a bunch of people let go of the rope.  I was not happy with those results.  In 2008, we pulled that rope further than we have in a long time.  And I understand, that wasn't far enough for many, many people.  But if you let go, look at the people who might win.  

Of course Bennet needs your vote.  That's what it's all about.  The rally's and the yard signs and the phone banks and the canvassing, it's all about the votes.  I do not want Buck representing this State.  Don't let go of the rope!  

Today is a great day for democracy!

---

by: KathrynCWallace @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 04:14:19 AM UTC

Absolutely well written piece.

Andrew has provided an awesome example of how we need to unite. He has been absolute class. Andrew on the Ed Show yesterday:

"We need to reform the way we finance campaigns. Our effort contrasted my record with my opponenets. In the end the voters made a choice, that is their right. I am glad we had a contest...I hope Congress will pass the "Fair Elections Now Act." My opponent supports that too. I hope we will join up and take on the Republicans and win this seat and keep it in the Democratic column...We are going to unite and win this seat."

I hope his followers, with time, can follow his lead.

---

by: Timothy Tribbett @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 04:28:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Tug of war" is a one-dimensional metaphor.

It does not provide adequate insight to our multidimensional situation. The conflict along the "left-right" axis is a deceptive veneer that distracts from the fundamental problems and issues that need to be addressed.  The larger and far more important conflict is between the insiders and the outsiders, those who have monopolized political and economic power and those from whom that power has been illicitly taken.


------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 04:31:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So who is your other legitimate option to represent Colorado in the Senate?

---

by: Timothy Tribbett @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 04:34:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't propose one.

But neither did you.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 04:35:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I might not have made it clear enough but I voted for Bennet.

---

by: Timothy Tribbett @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 04:38:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 04:47:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is how they win

Peter and Birdlady:  sometimes I think the real strategy of the "other" side is to breed disgust and apathy.  If you can be convinced not to vote for Bennet, Buck will win. In general, if you can be disillusioned to the point of not voting, the causes that I fear the most, will win.  

None of us are completely immune to the marketing that all that money is buying.  And a lot of that marketing is designed to make you turn away from what is best for you.  Peter, you know this, it's in your signature. Don't you think a lot of people buying ads will be thrilled if you don't vote? If half the strategy is to make people vote for FOR, the  other half is to make people not vote AGAINST.  Seems like Buck already has a leg up here.  Do I need to start posting his views here, just so you will know how truly awful he is?  Please don't make me.


Today is a great day for democracy!

---

by: KathrynCWallace @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 14:02:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Define "them."

Define "us."

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 14:15:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What would happen if we thought of "us" in a broader sense?

What if we thought of the rank-and-file "tea party" people as part of "us"? They are our family, friends and neighbors, after all.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 14:22:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You've missed the point.

Respectfully, Kathryn, the "other" side is not who is breeding disgust and apathy. It's "our" side that is doing it!

When a President that all of us worked hard to elect desides to take sides in primaries, he's essentially saying to the supporters of the side he did not choose "you are not welcome in my party!"

When the national party spends a great deal of money and political capitol to win a primary for one Democrat over another, they are saying to the supporters of the other side "you are not welcome in our party!"

When elections are not about ideas--and the first time Bennet has an actual idea, I'd like to hear about it--but are won by the person with the most money spending more than has ever been spent in a Colorado primary, then many of us wonder "What's the point?"

So let's not point the finger at "the other side" just yet. It's our own side that can't stop punching us in the face!

---

by: BGW1964 @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 01:14:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Organizationally and institutionally,

it is indeed a set of nested "tugs-of-war," with those teams more disabled by internal ones less able to prevail in external ones. This isn't the case because there are only two-dimensions along which political ideology ranges, or two positions in competition, but rather because we have shaken out into a perennial two-party system. Since one of those two-parties will win, and the other lose, our electoral contests are ultimately a tug-of-war between them.

There is a tension among and within individuals who gravitate to one or the other of these two poltical parties (each encompassing a range of diverse groups and ideologies that have a sometimes tenuous coherence), regarding how much to disract that party from its competition with the opposing party by engaging in defining struggles within it, and how much to yield to the compromises arrived at in order to better empower it in the larger bilateral struggle.

There is no one single answer regarding where that balance should lie, or how much to invest in struggling to define your party as opposed to how much to yield to the "party discipline" so crucial to its ability to prevail against the opposing party. But, certainly, a reasonable point of compromise is that, once a primary election has resolved a particular dispute, to acquiesce to that resolution.

Greater factiousness than that is the bane of all organizations and political entities. It was why the United States under The Articles of Confederation wasn't viable, and why the Confederacy that followed it wouldn't have been either, even had it won the civil war. And it is why the current insistence not to embrace party unity in the wake of this primary only serves to yield the nation to the Tea Party-dominated Republican Party, at just the moment when we could effectively prosecute a moderately progressive agenda instead.

It's a case of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory, because it doesn't achieve what those who are driving it wich to achieve. Instead, it yields the field to those even more opposed to what they stand for.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 16:42:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's not forget Lieberman was Gore's Cheney.

And like George the First, I think Gore would have gone above and beyond the call of duty to prove that he isn't a pussy (post-9/11).  

---

by: Fong @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 20:16:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, No Difference but...

1. Destruction of the Clinton-Gore surplus which would have paid for the boomer bulge hitting Social Security and Medicare
   
2. Invading a country which did nothing to ours while not setting a tax to pay for it
   
3. Overseeing the growth and bursting of largest financial bubble in US history
   
4. Elimination of extraction industry oversight at the cost of 15 lives in Texas City, 11 lives on the Deepwater Horizon and about 150 Million Barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico, a leak of 1,000,000 gallons of crude into the Kalamazoo River on the way to Lake Michigan
   
5. Installation of a surveillance society not unlike that of Stalinist Russia
   
6. Initiation of torture of prisoners without providing any strategic information and causing America's once sterling reputation to disintegrate among our allies and neighbors.
   
7. You name your favorite
   

But, then, Bush was such a nice guy to have a beer with, and that awful Al Gore is such a prig!  No difference, indeed!

---

by: saindenver @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 23:37:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We really aren't that Naive

What happened on Tuesday in the U.S. Senate race was not only a contrived devious result that was orchestrated by a party we all bought into but a slap at democracy as we know it. The voters of Colorado were manipulated. If OFA, a branch of the DNC had not participated the out come would have been very very different. I believe we need to energize new voters to participate, but blinding voting for a candidate because "Obama told me to"  is ridiculous.  Some don't believe voters have a brain. They cater to the uninformed. I am sure this has worked for the Republican party for years. Look at Bush. He appealed to people that never voted before. He gave a voice to the uneducated and uninformed. My fear is we are building a party of Democrats with the same mentality. There are thousands of Democrats that have worked hard and participated in the Colorado Democratic party most of their adult lives. They have helped build what we have today. If want to maintain what we have and grow this party we need to stop and review where we are at right now. We need to decide our future. Education is the best tool we have. Supporting Candidates that represent the people not the party. Supporting Candidates that work hard to produce legislation that actually has a proven result of helping Coloradans. It's up to us and if we continue to be steam rolled and blind sided we could loose our grip and our state. Let's build a smarter Democratic Party.  

---

by: NotaRepublican @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 14:32:02 PM UTC

Politics

is the struggle of ideologies and interests through a competition of organization and persuasion. It is a very imperfect system, in many ways. But it is one we can work with and through, and, all things considered, is perhaps the subtlest balance we are currently capable of between the inevitable and perennial influence of raw power, and the inevitably "manipulated" expression of popular will.

You think the manipulation of popular will is something new? You think it is something that can be wisked away? It is one of the great constants of human history, from ancient times through the present, and absolutely every attempt to eliminate it has resulted in a far more eggregious form of it.

Some Democrats blame Obama for not having been more combative with the Republicans, trying harder to shove through a more progressive agenda while we (supposedly) had the political power to do so. And some now (many being the same ones) are horribly offended that he exercised too much political muscle in service to maintaining a Democratic majority with which to use such muscle against the Republicans as he is willing or able to use.

This is a long-term, on-going slog we are in, having to contend with both the factiousness of those who share the desire to progress toward a more robust, sustainable, just, and egalitarian society, and the organized passions of those who fear and opposing doing so.

A more purist Democratic party is not a smarter one; it is merely a less capable one.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 15:31:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clarification:

I switched unannounced from "politics" in the first line, to "our political system" beginning in the second.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 15:44:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your premise is flawed

I don't agree that Obama did anything "in service to maintaining a Democratic majority". Ultimately, by taking sides in various primaries he did untold harm to the goal of maintaining a Democratic majority. There was simply NO upside to the President taking sides in primaries. The only possible outcome is anger, even rage, on the part of those whose candidates he did not annoint.

In the end, the only possible outcome of a President taking sides in primaries is to divide the Democratic Party, which is exactly what happened. It's difficult to imagine that anyone truly thoughtful and intelligent would give, much less heed, the advice to interfere in primaries!

---

by: BGW1964 @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 01:26:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the thing.

Obviously, the strategy that Obama, and others in concert with him, pursued was the one they believed served either their own perceived interests, or their perceptions of interests that they are trying to advance. You and others are quick to announce their folly and your wisdom. I'm convinced of neither.

This amazing hubris, this swelling certainty that dismisses the calculations of others who are clearly not raving idiots, is both ubiquitous and just plain silly.

Is it a given that intelligent people pursuing a particular strategy got it right. Of course not. But I, for one, think that there were many very compelling reasons to endorse Bennet, and that doing so was absolutely the right call. It is not just about "party unity," but also party effectiveness.

You and others disagree. Fine. As I've said often enough, maybe you're right and I'm wrong. Maybe you're right and Obama is wrong. But the degree of certainty you claim is far devoid of the degree of humility that should be tempering it.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 04:06:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tired, and bad editing. Sorry.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 04:15:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some of us aren't at any rate!

Well said, but I would take it one step further and say that voting for a candidate simply because that candidate has a "D" after their name is equally ridiculous. If we ultimately hope to inspire better candidates to run then we will have to stop blindly accepting everyone the Democratic Party thrusts in our face!

There were posts in this thread alluding to the fact that things change slowly and any given election cycle is not the end of the world. Nor is the election of any given Republican, frankly. Ken Buck is abhorrent to me in much of what he believes, but equally abhorrent is the idea that I am simply a dumb sheep who follows blindly along where party "leaders" from Obama on down tell me to go. If Democrats don't stand for anything, and I honestly have to tell you that I don't think Bennet stands for anything, then why should I support them in the name of Party unity or anything else?

I'm not looking for ideological purity but I do require a certain level of quality and integrity, and I do require someone who actually has a clue what it's like for us regular peons out here, and I do require actual ideas and inspiration. When a candidate fails in all categories, I don't feel obligated to vote for him simply because he has a "D" after his name!

---

by: BGW1964 @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 01:22:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very well stated, BGW

I quit the Democratic Party immediately after the illegitimate outcome of the Senate primary was known. But I really wasn't so much quitting the party as acknowledging the party's decision to disenfranchise me.

If a party strives to suppress internal democracy, if our party's representatives in Congress are chosen by the White House chief of staff in backroom "deals" rather than by a fair and honest election by the governed, if the party does not stand firm for any core values, if the party's overriding purpose is to get its candidates elected and re-elected with little regard for what those candidates actually do with that power, then what on Earth is the point of remaining a member of such a party?  

Given the Democratic Party's descent into corruption and incompetence, our best strategy now is to support well-chosen individual candidates and causes, regardless of party affiliation. Giving support for the party at this point is like spoon-feeding a giant tapeworm.  Perhaps the party can be reformed in the future, but right now that no longer seems achievable from within. Remaining in the party conveys tacit approval of what the party has become, and I refuse to do that any longer.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 03:28:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with NotaRepublican on this:

Supporting Candidates that represent the people not the party. Supporting Candidates that work hard to produce legislation that actually has a proven result of helping Coloradans.

However, that's not as easy as it sounds.  Think of the teabaggers who are positive they are "we the people" and anyone who beats their chosen candidate must have cheated because it's not what "we the people" wanted.

---

by: GMFORD @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 16:54:52 PM UTC

Tired, and bad editing. Sorry.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 04:15:15 AM UTC

wrong place!

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 04:16:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Talk about sore losers

I get it. If I disagree with you I'm a sheep. If your guy doesn't win the election, you quit the party.  Wasn't this thread originally about democracy?  Are you saying that this wasn't a democratic election?  Or are you saying you only want democracy if your guy wins?  Seems to me like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.  If you were all so keen on AR, why are you ignoring him now?  He has been clear throughout the election that he wanted everyone to support the outcome.  

As for OFA, I've got news for you, they aren't really a part of the party.  They weren't in 2008, and they aren't now.  But damn if they aren't effective.  Maybe the party could learn a thing or two from OFA.  Yes, yes, I know, the party isn't supposed to take sides. And I think Pat Waak did a pretty good job there.  But OFA never made that pledge.  

If you are going to hand your vote to the Republicans, you are just missing the bigger picture. I'm going to go work hard to make sure a Democrat wins this election. He's going to vote my way most of the time. He's going to support Obama's agenda.  He's going to be pro-choice, pro health care, and pro Colorado.  Plus, he's got the money to stomp Ken Buck (the Republican) in the general.  

If I really thought there was a race where the Republican was better than the Democrat, I'd vote that way.  Hasn't happened yet, and certainly isn't happening this year.  But I'm sick of being insulted for actually understanding how the party system works. Maybe if we weren't so busy scolding each other, we could actually get some good policy in place.

---

by: Bettin' on Bennet @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 06:01:22 AM UTC

"I get it."

No, you don't.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 12:56:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, you do get it.

It's really just that simple.

Was this primary election affected by money and power? Of course. All of our elections are. And we'd all like them to be less so. But that doesn't mean that I am angry that those organized interests I champion (GLBT, labor, education, etc.) raised and spent money in their interests, or that the party I belong to exercised its organizational power.

To whatever extent and in whatever ways it turns out to be possible to refine and improve our system, I am dedicated to continuing to do so, while also continuing to appreciate what we have and operate within and through it. These crowing extremists, drunk on the belief that they are uniquely embued with the revelation that life is unfair, and silly enough to refuse to accept any outcome that is not completely "fair" within whatever parameters they decide to impose, keep signifying the infallability of their conclusions, and the "pathetic, deluded folly" (in the typical ironic inversion of reality) of all who disagree with them.

They are the Tea Partiers of our party, the implaccable ideologues clinging to their arbitrary truths, smuggly certain that the shallow factoids that define them are the immutable truths that should guide us all.

I've seen this same thing in many contexts, and have sometimes been momentarily seduced by it, until the internal anomalies pile up on closer examination, and a shift to a new paradigm ensues.

Rigid certainties are the vehicle of ignorance. Either know that you don't know, and continuously build wisdom on that foundation, or cling to fallacy, and shrivel up within it, attempting to take everyone and everything else down with you.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 14:03:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Up yours, Steve. You're an obnoxious, narcissistic buffoon.

n/t

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 15:31:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I stand with Amazing Candidates

I hear you Peter  but name calling Steve isn't going to help what's happening. I know he is annoying and his own campaign is spinning downward.  Steve does have this eloquent usage of words. But that hasn't written any legislation that has help anyone that I know of  so take him as a fellow blogger with good penmanship.  
The idea is we chose candidates that actually do something to help people. It's not about "we the people" or the messaging you might have heard from any camp. It's about educating people about candidates. People use to run because they were brave and wanted to actually do something that would make a difference.  They didn't run because they liked to see their name on a flier or be the guest speaker at the rotary club.  They actually had a passion for public service. Every once in a while we see those people. Unfortunately we have a current system that likes selecting candidates that follow rather then lead. It seems the Democratic Party is much more interested in who will be a "yes man" to a particular agenda. Now that agenda is pretty complicated but it doesn't necessarily have the best interest of the common person at heart. It caters more to financial profit and loss. Thinking that is what we need.  It's time we thought about profit and loss as, employment and non employment or homes rather then homeless, health care rather then unattainable health care.  I must say Health Care really hasn't changed too much.  All these  problems we have we created by ignoring them. We can't afford to ignore them and we need leaders not "yes" men. We need people who are willing to take a risk and stand up and ask questions. We need leaders willing to disregard their own egos. I don't see that in Mr Bennet. I don't see that in a lot of Candidates running for office or in office. They are few and far apart and it's up to us to find them. We need more leaders, fewer politicians and a lot less bad businessmen.  

---

by: NotaRepublican @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 16:24:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not a Republican or a Democrat

So, you anonymous person, I guess you should be running for office.  You obviously know better than the people who say, win statewide races.  These "yes" men that you are so annoyed with actually got a health care bill passed.  That wouldn't have happened with Buck in the Senate.  It's not the health care bill you wanted, but it's damn sure better than nothing. You can rant from the sidelines all day long, but at least Steve has the courage to stand behind his convictions and run for office.  And you know what?  He's the best person in that race too.  I'll vote for you any day Steve.  And I'll vote for Bennet too.  And it's not just because there's a D next to your name. Although, that would be enough for me.  

Have you all forgotten that we're redistricting this year?  Now there's a load of crap decision the supreme court made years ago.  You can redistrict solely for political purposes.  And you bet it'll happen.  I suppose you want to lose Perlmutter while you're at it.  It's a PARTY game people.  I don't care if you don't like it, that's the game you're playing.  Choose up sides or you're not playing at all.

---

by: Bettin' on Bennet @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 17:15:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bettin' on Stronger Democrats

Sorry Bettin' but I've been a Democrat since '75  so hold up your pants and give yourself a big wedgey . Cause you got that wrong.  You can vote Democrat till you are blue in the face but Steve lives in HD 28 Here's the stats, that's voting at least once in the 06-09 elections you 11,058 Dems, 17, 519 Republicans and 12, 580 Unafils.
So what are the odds?  Yeap I vote Yellow dog but that doesn't mean I am not connected to reality.  So I suggest you put your money where you mouth is and give  Steve enough money to help him with a TV ad and just maybe a miracle  will drop from he sky and a Democrat will get elected. Same with every HD in CD 6. If by some grace of god you think you can get 7 of the 13 HD seats in CD 6 then go for it.  Or even 5.  Let me know how realistic that works out for you.
I'll put my money on Joe Rice keeping his seat. Actually I like Perlmutter and he is going to have a tough battle to keep his seat. But Bettin' you love Bennet so much then work for him. But I will go for my time and money on races I know will win so we keep the seats we need in Colorado to keep a majority for redistricting.   $5.00  says Polis keeps his seat, Perlmutter keeps his and Degette.  Up in the air is Markey, Salazar and we know CD 5 and 6 probably don't have a real good chance since they have never run before and their incumbents have. So what we need are candidates with a proven record and good volunteer base and money.  Then we need good legislation to make campaign finance an even playing field. So get your pants out of the wad they are in and do something constructive LIKE WORK FOR STEVE. WORK HARD and just maybe Democrats will gain a few % to help us out next election cycle with the HD races and SD races. Also about redistricting ask an elected that has been through it before how it works. I think you'll be surprised at the closed door deals and lack of transparency that occurs. It will be a fast learning curve for the uneducated on the process. Let's pray CD 6 is in someones sight. I would love to be CD 7 :-)  

---

by: NotaRepublican @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 01:36:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those 11,058 + 12,580 Votes Can Mean the Difference in the Statewide Races

Even if the house, senate or Congressional District races there are won only a very few times, those 11058 votes, if cast, count toward statewide races and they mean a lot.  And, you are absolutely correct in your assessment about redistricting.  Does anyone recall the Republican attempt to redistrict at a midnight vote with Democratic legislators not informed of it?

---

by: saindenver @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 02:36:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right, but....

We often perceive electoral politics as a win-lose proposition. But it is just the surface of a raging sea, churned by the surging currents beneath, and stirring them in new ways in return. The real political battlefield is the human mind, on which electoral battles play out, creating important positive and negative feedback loops (establishing new status quos that become taken for granted, or creating backlashes to perceived overreaches, respectively). But electoral victories aren't the only ones on that battlefield, and electoral contests aren't relevant only for their outcomes at the polls.

The residents of HD28 vote in larger contests as well, in which it can potentially be decisive to the outcome whether 40% or 30% are trending Democratic. And the minds of the broad middle are always in play, always marginally supple in the hands of a combination of compelling rhetoric, compelling emotional appeals, and compelling logic. An impossible candidacy can move the ideological center of gravity of such a district; it can raise new locuses of thought and organization; it can move the local zeitgeist a few degrees in the direction of reason and goodwill.

My goal has always been to improve the quality of life, where and how and when I can. Everything else intentionally chosen is chosen to serve that goal, always superordinate to the intermediate goals that might contribute to it.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 15:19:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For the record,

though I'm not in a position to write legislation, I am doing work as an independent policy consultant regarding how to get proactive services to children and families in need, and have founded and preside over a community organization whose first major project is getting a robust community volunteer tutoring and mentoring program into Jeffco Schools. I have also in the past couple of years worked at getting mental health screening and referral services into the public schools, have done research to assist in the drafting and passage of legislation, and gave legal rights presentations, in Spanish, to detainees in removal proceedings.

I have taken several unambiguous stands on issues that I believe in, positions that many candidate avoid taking in order to avoid alienating that faction of their own party that doing so would alientate. I very vocally opposed SB191, and gave an in-depth analysis of why I believed it would accomplish the exact opposite of what it is intended to accomplish; and very vocally supported Michael Bennet, who I did and still do consider to be the better of the two candidates who faced each other in the primary process. The fact that some disagree with one or another of the positions that I've taken doesn't mean that I lack the courage of my convictions.

Just today, at the Jefferson County Rodeo and Fair, where I have a booth, I had two conversations in particular in which I knew that the person with whom I was conversing would not like my answers to their questions, and yet I said what I believed rather than what they wanted to hear. In both cases, it led to mutual respect and productive discourse.

Words are a powerful tool, and I make no apologies for wielding that tool to the best of my ability. But the assumption that by doing so I must not be engaging in efforts to implement good policies is like saying that because I'm wearing socks I must not be wearing a shirt.

We're all in this story together; let's write it well.

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 04:38:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Run Steve Run

I wish you all the luck in the world Steve. But I have seen signs at the local   store that say "No Shirt No Shoes No Service"  Words are good if used to help others, so continue the good fight.  

---

by: NotaRepublican @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 13:13:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]