Yes, the two party system dominates our country.

No, there aren't any Dems that I'm aware of that truly represent the left (but I did temporarily register as a Dem in order to vote for Bernie)

Generally, things are broken down as federal, state and local level... so none of the green party members are at the state level. I assumed you were talking about elected Dems.

There is complacency by Dem voters in tolerating the rightward shift in the Democratic party that began with corporatist warmonger Bill Clinton, and has continued ever since... yet Dem voters retain an affinity for diplomacy over war, SS, Medicare, fair wages, progressive social issues, etc.

The Wall Street coddlers throw down a bone here and there in order to placate elected Dems who haven't abandoned all their principles, to retain the votes of good, left leaning Dems and to prevent the rise of a viable third party on the left. Mostly these bones are in the form of legislation on social issues, which doesn't upset the establishment one bit.

Why do I bother?
Because agitation from the left reminds Dem voters that these issues matter.
Because agitation from the left makes those bones they toss come more frequently.
Because agitation from the left forces them to toss bones on economic issues every once in a while that do upset the establishment.
Because agitation from the left prevents the rightward shift from occurring more rapidly.
Because agitation from the left forces Obama and Hillary to pay lip service to economic and foreign policy issues that exposes them as hypocrites when they pursue them.
Because agitation from the left creates space for challengers like Bernie who cause major headaches for the Wall Street coddling corporatists.
Because agitation from the left may make it possible for someone like Bernie to actually succeed, and does help those like Bernie and Warren to win at the state and federal level.
Because fighting for what is right isn't optional for some people.

The "reform from within" wing of the Democratic party you are touting as the better approach serves a valuable purpose, but they are pathetically weak kneed.
Agitation from the left both supports them and makes them appear more moderate.
But as much as they pat themselves on the back, they are failing miserably on economic and foreign policy issues... generally one step forward, two steps back.
That is the harsh reality.

About a week ago, our CW comrade Balthy said (roughly) that tolerating fraud on Wall Street and murder to support US interests was a reality that Dems needed to accept. He later claimed it was hyperbole when I called him out on it, but it's not. It is actually exactly what the establishment wants Dems to accept... and it is exactly what Dems have tolerated from Obama and know they will get from Hillary, and they just bend over and take it.

If ever there was a valid argument against the reform from within approach, that's it.
The membership dues for that club are far too steep.

I don't bother with right wing outlets, because the mainstream outlets feature their swill constantly, and their ideas pollute every comment section on every decent website.

That said, some Repubs and the libertarian wingnuts particularly aren't always wrong when they rail about rule of law and the Constitution... just most of the time.

Their anger about crony capitalism is valid populism.
Their support for reigning in the NSA violations was key to the pathetically minimal restrictions that Congress passed after the Snowden leaks.

But mostly they are catering to regressive Scalia type readings of the Constitution or just seeking political gain via hypocritical selective enforcement of the laws which they allow Repubs to break without any objection.

A

For the record, I am ignorant about the specifics on the vast majority of state politicians, so I can't really answer the question.

E.g., looking at the Green Party's site:

http://www.gp.org/officeholders

the vast majority (64/100) are in California; none in CA hold a rank higher than county supervisor. For the other states, none hold a position higher than Deputy Mayor.

That is not to say that they are not honest, good people seeking to further positive results; but they have a very limited scope of action.

On the other hand, we could look at Democratic Party elected officials; virtually all of whom, despite any good they may have done, have cravenly thrown their lot in with the war criminal and corporate shill Hillary Clinton (to adopt your rhetoric).

The answer depends on who you are asking, and whether you are talking about it being issue specific, political expediency or ideological purity... where not even Bernie qualifies.

Right. I guess my point was: a) I was asking you, not a hypothetical someone; and b) as you note that Sen. Sanders is cravenly supporting the war criminal and corporate shill Hillary Clinton (again to borrow your rhetoric), well... I wonder why you even vote or are involved in the political process at all. There is clearly no hope.

On the other hand, the Lily Ledbetter Act was passed in 2009 through the efforts of war criminal Barack Obama and his war mongering Wall Street-bought cronies - when it would never have even seen the light of day under a President John McCain had he been elected.

So from my point of view, even granting that everyone currently serving in public office is compromised in one way or the other, it still seems quite reasonable to me to not only prefer one 'war monger' over the other; but to actually act in one's favor; even while remaining firmly in opposition to some of their proposals (and this opposition is a valuable service).

Many here consider me hard left, but the Green party or democratic socialism isn't actually anywhere close to as far left as the Socialist party... yes, there is one and they have candidates and everything... and the Communist party still exists too, which is as hard as you can go.

Gasp! Don't tell me there's still a 'Spartacist League' as well? Anarchy in the U.S.? Where's my fainting couch!?

I can't speak for others, but I don't process your approach as 'hard left' on some simple continuum from Left to Right, because I find that sort of linear classification to be a bit out of date, even when it comes to purely macro-economic matters.

Same-sex marriage doesn't automatically fall out from a belief that workers should control the means of production. Trade unions don't ensure an end to white privilege (and may even impede such a resolution). It's complicated!

Mostly, I'm interested in coherent arguments about policies that attempt to address things I think are important in our complicated world; and which acknowledges that every policy has winners and losers.

Some people here think I'm an extreme leftist for wanting adherence to the rule of law and our Constitution... though by definition that's centrist.

If you read 'right-wing' sites like RedState.com (a practice I recommend), they also regularly assert that they are only wanting adherence to the rule of law and our Constitution. So there's a bit more going on here - different people bring a different meaning to those catch phrases; and therein lies the tale. :)

"I am well aware that Obama campaigned for the public option, but again, not every goal is obtainable."

Particularly if you don't try to attain them.

"If the Republicans would have been willing to work with the President, I think our country would be in a far better place than we are economically currently."

Very true, but Obama didn't need to win over the Republicans to pass the public option, he only needed to win over one Republican and one sniveling Lieberman... or two Republicans.

"I find your attitude to be just as obstructionistic as the Republicans, though. "Give in to ALL of my demands!" as your only acceptable plan of action just does not work in the real world."

I think you need a nap.
Criticizing inaction is "obstructionist"?

"All my demands"?
Obama claimed it was his too.
1- the public option
2- ???
Sorry, what other demand was I making... I lost track.

A

That's a nice story you're telling, but legislation did pass Congress that Obama supported (and not just in the first two years when Dems controlled Congress).

I think Obama only used the veto four times, so he officially supported everything else that passed.

Come back to reality... it sucks, but that's life.

A

For the record, I am ignorant about the specifics on the vast majority of state politicians, so I can't really answer the question.

But on the federal level, you are asking a question that few Democrats dare ask... and the answer isn't easy.

The answer depends on who you are asking, and whether you are talking about it being issue specific, political expediency or ideological purity... where not even Bernie qualifies.

Many here consider me hard left, but the Green party or democratic socialism isn't actually anywhere close to as far left as the Socialist party... yes, there is one and they have candidates and everything... and the Communist party still exists too, which is as hard as you can go.
Some people here think I'm an extreme leftist for wanting adherence to the rule of law and our Constitution... though by definition that's centrist.

Bernie did amazingly well despite his shortcomings on certain issues, so the answer also comes down on a spectrum, with most voters on the left not requiring purity.

But, if you look at the Dem party as a whole, the platform says mostly yes, their actions say mostly no.

It's hard to say if the individual Dems who take a stand on issues and policies they know will never pass into law qualify as having a valid claim to representing the left. There's a story going around that politicians lie, and until there is a vote on legislation that can actually pass, doubts will remain.

A

But history was made by the Republicans immediately following Obama's inaugural address when they decided to become the Party of No -- refusing to support any legislation that Obama endorsed that would be considered "good for America" by Americans, regardless of the consequences. They planned on making Obama out to be a liar for claiming he would be known as "the bi-partisan President", and would later brag about how the better a piece of legislation was for the country, the harder they had to fight to block it! This includes the historically unheard of act by some Republicans of voting against legislation that they, themselves, had introduced, but ONLY AFTER Obama signaled he supported it and would sign it into law if it reached his desk. This wasn't a case of Republicans voting against legislation based on philospophical or even political differences of opinion! This was Republicans making the sole determining factor as to how they would vote on legislation being whether or not Obama supported it. There is no way to sway a person's decision on how to vote on a piece of legislation when the content of said legislation plays absolutely NO part in their decision making process.

I am well aware that Obama campaigned for the public option, but again, not every goal is obtainable. If the Republicans would have been willing to work with the President, I think our country would be in a far better place than we are economically currently.
I find your attitude to be just as obstructionistic as the Republicans, though. "Give in to ALL of my demands!" as your only acceptable plan of action just does not work in the real world.

History is replete with US presidents twisting arms and using the bully pulpit to advance their legislative priorities.

Obama not even trying, and then claiming compromise was necessary is a total cop-out that requires considerable self delusion to believe.

And, btw, the public option is a position Obama campaigned on in 2008... so it (supposedly) wasn't just important to me.
The suckers in the Democratic party won't hold her to it, but Hillary recently embraced the public option too.

We will likely never know, but I personally believe and I think there is considerable evidence suggesting that Obama's devotion to bipartisanship despite Republican obstructionism wasn't a naïve flaw, but rather an excuse to dismiss the priorities of the left (who made his victory over Hillary in the primaries possible).
He needed an excuse (that didn't alienate the left) to pursue a neoliberal corporatist agenda exactly like the one the majority of Dem voters rejected by choosing him over Hillary.

The evidence suggests that is who Obama is, and that the positions and policies he campaigned on were simple pandering.

A

Appreciate the compliment!

Russ

Exactly correct. Thank you. Well put.

I find it truly odd that you admit that Obamacare was the Republican approach to health care reform (written by the conservative Heritage Foundation), and yet you absolve Obama from the consequences. Millions of Dems took to the streets to push for the public option, and Obama stabbed them in the back.

So what does the liberal version of the Freedom Caucus call itself? God forbid the Republicans come up with an idea that works as well as RomneyCare did in MA! The ACA was never going to pass with the public option attached; it barely survived without it! Remember, Al Franken was not declared the winner and the Dems did not have the votes needed to force legislation through the Republican blockade until late into the President's first year. Compromise gets things passed! I know that only the things important to you should be allowed to pass, but in the real world it's better if all parties get some of the things they want than for none to get any of the things they want! While I would have preferred the public option being passed as part of the ACA, I know that the millions of people who could not get health insurance prior to it passing are thrilled that Obama chose to compromise!

Well, supposedly there are some Dems at the state and national level who claim to represent the left.

Are there any elected officials, at either the Federal or State level, across the entire US, who have a valid claim to "representing the left", in your opinion?

you'll have to forgive the optimism...

JL

"Here we have altohone expressing the unrepresented (at the state and national level) left wing frustration with the system"

Well, supposedly there are some Dems at the state and national level who claim to represent the left.

The fact that they aren't making these arguments effectively and set them aside for the sitting president and their fellow party members in Congress, and then join in defending the false representation claims by the current candidate is the basis of my frustration, and the reason I left the party.

Rather than trying to convince Dem loyalists to abandon the lesser of two evils mantra, at this point I would hope that those who would like other viable options or those who feel as I do who live in deep red or deep blue states recognize that voting for Jill Stein will not threaten a Trump presidency.

If the Green party can surpass the 5% threshold, they will qualify for federal funding that might allow for a better shot at representation at the state and national level.

Until the money in elections issue is tackled, that achievable goal is a necessary step.

A

You can use a "the buck stops elsewhere" argument if you want, but Obama was the leader of the Democratic party.

I fully agree that Pelosi should have lost her leadership position due to her failures, but that doesn't absolve Obama. Tim Kaine was leading the DNC in 2010, so he deserves a mention as well. The Dems in Congress who distanced themselves from Obama (for the wrong reason) certainly share some blame, though Obama is the one who failed to rally them behind him or effectively counter the Repub hypocrisy. Of course, "I passed the Republican plan" wouldn't have exactly motivated Dem voters.

I find it truly odd that you admit that Obamacare was the Republican approach to health care reform (written by the conservative Heritage Foundation), and yet you absolve Obama from the consequences.
That's a serious disconnect. Millions of Dems took to the streets to push for the public option, and Obama stabbed them in the back.

Nevertheless, in 2008, Obama For America had millions of eager volunteers, and Obama sent them home... the "I'll take it from here" approach which Dems always conveniently forget happened (despite the criticism he received).

We also shouldn't forget that under Obama's leadership, the nominally Democratic Congress also failed to act on increasing the minimum wage, union organizing, environmental regulations and a host of other issues that might have motivated Dem voters for the midterms and countered the discontent about the ACA.

A

To be overly optimistic, I would have to say yes, with the qualifier that it will take an iron will and some major changes to the electoral system, far past just the good ole' gerrymandering and campaign finance changes that are preached with regularity.

I think that for other parties to have a seat at the table we need to get rid of the electoral college and go with OPOV. In my opine it is a relic of a time when information was not so easily available to all and the fact that vote tallies took some time to report. the EC served it's purpose for the time, but it has since passed. Without the EV I am of the opinion that anyone who wants to win votes and govern effectively (or "with a Mandate") would in fact have to campaign across all 50 states and would have to moderate their platforms to attract enough of the independents to achieve a winning majority of the popular vote, unlike now where a majority of the money raised is spent in just 11 or so "battleground" states...Talk about disfranchisement.

The other thing that certainly has to go is big money in campaigns...perhaps it should be limited to you are not allowed to spend more than you will earn in one election cycle. Of course this would have to go hand in hand with a restoration of the "fairness" doctrines and having them apply to the cable news outlets as well...this time around.

Then there is gerrymandering...'Nuff said there...

Perhaps, we also need to change how we are verified to vote and the registration of voters. I myself am a big fan of how some other countries do this by issuing a voter ID card that is nationally recognized as being not just a form of ID to vote, but also as a national form of ID that is universally recognized. This card is issued typically when you are 18 and you are not given the opportunity to opt out of voting or being registered to vote. The real kicker for this concept is that the first card and subsequent renewals are free but if you lose it it costs you ... and since the VID card is universally accepted as ID not many people lose them...these systems are designed to be inclusive and error on the side of inclusiveness vs. the trend in our country of being exclusionary.

We also need to badly update the voting process itself, perhaps by starting out with a national set of guidelines for voting times/dates and ballot layout guidelines for federal offices ( I think the devil will be in the details for local offices and states like CA that have the "proposition" system). Should it not be that no matter where you go in this country the ballot for federal offices and the process to vote be the same? It would certainly go along way towards removing the confusion and uncertainty that we currently have in some places, especially in today's economic system of moving to where the work is vs. staying in one place working for one employer until you retire. I am also a big fan of making absentee voting or vote by mail (ala Oregon) more accessible for all, and for those that insist upon standing in the booth and "pulling the leaver" we should have either a national holiday or election day should be on the weekend (god forbid we give a poor working schlep time off to vote).

I could go on forever over smaller things...But...time in the departure lounge grows short for me...Suffice it to say that unless we embrace and discuss reshaping our current electoral process to enable the populace to determine the direction of the country over the will of two major parties that receive billions to elect someone who will represent their interests that only gets paid millions (POTUS one election cycle) than it is safe to say that there will be no seats available for third parties at the table.

I think that some of the above changes are worthy of discussion if we really want third parties to be viable...

Why are you starting with a straw man argument?
Whatever.
Since you claimed that's what I'm arguing, I will.
On economics, Obama is far from liberal.

Obama's top donors were all Wall Streeters.
He served them well.

Interesting that you called him "America's first black President" (as if that were relevant to this discussion), because his Wall Street friendly policies allowed the criminals who targeted black people in their massive fraud to go unpunished.

College educated blacks and Hispanics lost 70% of their wealth in that fraud... not their income... their wealth. As a percentage of the population, they were disproportionately victimized.

Inequality got worse in every year of Obama's presidency.

Hillary (unconvincingly) distanced herself from Obama's TPP because of opposition from liberals and progressives.

Obamacare was written by the Heritage Foundation... a conservative think tank.

Obama's (abandoned) proposal for corporate tax reform was proudly deemed revenue neutral.
(did you catch Elizabeth Warren railing against this idea yesterday?... that's because tax revenue from corporations used to amount to 30%... now it's only 10%).
Wanna take a guess at who is paying more?

Should I go on Mr. Projection, or are you going to keep attacking me like an ignorant Trumpeteer?

Obama's kowtowing to the corrupt establishment (just like Hillary) suggests he will continue to serve them.
They seem pretty happy with the results from their gerrymandered Congress.
I'm fairly certain they will be just as happy with whatever "results" Obama gets too.

But, hey.
If you want to present evidence that suggests otherwise, I will consider it.

A

Just a reminder that it was the disastrous failures of Obama For America who dropped the ball on rallying the base in 2010 that led to the Dems "getting their clocks cleaned"

By "disastrous failures", you mean the ACA? Obama had pledged to be known as the "bipartisan President" and had bent over backwards in his attempt to work with the Republicans in Congress up to this point; unaware of their pledge to be the "Party of NO" in response. Some version of the ACA, whose framework was the brainchild of Republicans, would have been introduced by the McCain if he'd won the White House, and the GOP's hatred of the ACA stems more from the fact that Obama gets credit for what was supposed to be one of the biggest jewels in the Republican Party's legislative crown than from any issue that they have with the Act itself. Democrats chose to distance themselves from the ACA instead of standing up and defending it, and they lost their re-election bids in 2010. Making Obama take the full responsibility for the 2010 voting results is convenient, but misleading.

In the UK, Scotland basically has its own party now. In Germany the Green Party is a force to be reckoned with, and in France the far right have the FN.

Here we have altohone expressing the unrepresented (at the state and national level) left wing frustration with the system, the Tea Party battling for control against the populism of Trump and the country club/chamber of commerce factions in the Republican Party. Then we also have the attitude that if you vote Green or Libertarian you are throwing your vote away.

Many people I know are Green, but see the Democrats as the only way to get at least some outcomes they want.

I'm no political scientist, but is there any possibility of the system changing to accommodate a wider range of viewpoints and parties?

So you're saying that America's first black President would deliberately sabotage his own initiative because he's not 'actually' liberal enough?

Do you hear yourself? That has the atomic weight of a Trump argument.

I'm optimistic but by no means ready to be glib. It may be less likely than it was two weeks ago but Donald could still conceivably win. That thought should keep ANY democrat sober.

JL

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

With minor tweaks in one direction or another, we've been living under Reaganomics for 40+ years.

Corporatist Dems pretending that their minor tweaks amount to an ideological difference worthy of cheering while they maintain growing inequality is a Big Lie too many have swallowed.

This debate "zinger" that inverts the left/right economic divide for supposed political gain perpetuates the Big Lie, just like the undeserved praise.

Your faith in Obama despite his track record that includes losing Democratic control in Congress is touching... like being touched by Donald Trump touching.

Gerrymandering absolutely needs to be addressed so that a much needed challenge to the corrupt establishment can advance. But the people Dems should put in charge of the effort shouldn't be defenders of the corrupt establishment. There is a real risk the effort will suffer from intentional failure.

More importantly, winning back the statehouses in blue and purple states so that Dems can regain control over the process for 2020 requires running candidates that will energize and mobilize voters.
Milquetoast neoliberal corporatist candidates is not part of a recipe for success.

People are not happy with the status quo.

A

agree with you almost completely about the reagan quip. reagan was a veritable pioneer at screwing over american labor. donald deserves credit for pointing it out then and for refusing to back down from it now, in spite of the political implications stemming from reagan mythos. donald's irreverance for political myths is one of the reasons so many people support him in spite of everything.

CW is correct, however, that hillary was very clever to get donald to commit that particular "washington gaffe" (i.e. accidentally telling the truth) on the final debate stage.

as to obama's goal of taking on gerrymandering, i think you're selling the effort short. gerrymandering, along with campaign finance, is one of the main factors that prevents the voting public from having a real voice in government. i understand and appreciate your skepticism about the president's real commitment to fair districting nationwide, but it's still an incredibly important topic that has not gotten a fraction of the attention it requires. computer modeling of voting districts has made gerrymandering so bad that even if citizens united were overturned tomorrow, the vast majority of incumbent representatives and state legislators would still be practically untouchable.

we can criticize obama all we want for becoming an establishment politician who plays within the unfair system. however, i believe he really does understand what makes the system unfair and has his eyes on a few things that might change that unfairness.

JL

Did you see Game Change?

I think Steve Schmidt deeply regrets his role in that and probably loses a lot of sleep over it, still.

We all make mistakes, you know. Some of us are responsible for bigger messes than others ...

I thought that her Rudy Ghouliani jokes last night were pretty great, but I wish she had told him that he needs to smile a little more. Still, it was some excellent trolling and he'll probably act out as planned.

The guy who brought us Sarah Palin.

"Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week are Scott Foval and Robert Creamer. Nope, we had never heard of them, either."

Creamer has shared the HuffingtonThing's politics page with you forever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/robert-creamer

"President Obama has decided what he's going to focus on after he leaves office, and it's a pretty worthy idea. He and Eric Holder are going to fight gerrymandering."

Obama partnering with his appointed Wall Street/torture coddling collaborator Eric "revolving door" Holder for a post-presidency worthy cause is likewise disheartening.

Just a reminder that it was the disastrous failures of Obama For America who dropped the ball on rallying the base in 2010 that led to the Dems "getting their clocks cleaned"... not just gerrymandering. Actually, dropping the ball is too generous, since Obama worked against the activist base in a manner that depressed turnout.

"Hillary Clinton deserves at least a (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week as well, if the WikiLeaked account of her talking about environmentalists (whom she snarkily told: "Get a life") and Bernie Sanders supporters turns out to be accurate."

Uh, it's not the "Wikileaks account"... they're just the messenger, not the author. Hillary had the chance to dispute the authenticity of the leaks in the debate, and she didn't. So, you questioning the accuracy is very odd.

"We really don't think all the leaks have damaged Clinton with the voters so far"

The leaks may not be harming Hillary with voters, but the activists who were disparaged are none too pleased. One was quoted yesterday saying something like "the emails are nothing more than confirmation of our long-held suspicions (sound familiar?)... Hillary's honeymoon will be short lived, if not non-existent".

A

As someone who disagrees with the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Hillary AKA the neolibcon establishments views on trade, which have decimated good US manufacturing jobs and rewarded those doing it with tax breaks... subsidizing this disastrous policy... I fully support anyone who challenges them on the issue... even if they are hypocritical elitist scum.

In particular, criticizing Reagan is very endearing.
A real Democrat would be praising that criticism and doing so as well.
A Dem supporting pundit commending Hillary for this just exemplifies how far Democrats have strayed from their roots.

Yes.
I understand the supposedly politically clever nature of the attack.
But Obama's praise for Reagan was sickening, and Hillary attacking Trump for criticizing Reagan is sickening too.
He dang well deserves criticism.
It is historical revisionism to pretend otherwise.

If this were happening in another reality, where Democrats were vigorously opposing the job killing, anti-union, offshoring ideology of Republicans, I would think it was clever too.

But they aren't.
They've actively embraced the ideology of Republicans and Wall Street corporatists to the detriment of our country.

Sorry, but you considering this the best moment for Hillary is flat out depressing.

A