BOOK CLUB MARCH: "Crashing the Gate"

“Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics”
by Jerome Armstrong and Markos Zuniga
Nominated by FLDem5

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931498997/ref=pd_kar_gw_1/104-5792740-7358366?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155



NOTE: Amazon just started shipping this book on March 1, so if you don't see much activity early in the month, please check back!
=====

Book Club Guidelines:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x3044


DON'T FORGET TO HELP OUT DU!
Part of your Amazon.com purchase will go to DU if you buy through this link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/home/home.html/104-3444144-6171150

I, for one, am VERY guilty of being an issue person. I have a hard time giving money to general funds, because I don't want it going to campaigns of people I have problems with, Democrat or not.

This chapter explains why I am wrong, and may need to re-think this.

The Colorado example seems like a solid plan.

Should I Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Joe Lieberman? I don't know.
What are your thoughts?

Crashing the Gate breaks down the opposition party into these groups:
The CorporateCons, the Theocons, the Neocons, and the PaleoCons (I love that term).

These are great depictions of the Republican party today - reading these, I mentally put several Republicans I know into the correct category - even certain newspeople. Did anyone else have that kind of fun?

FWIW - DU gets a nod on Page 69!

I think I will put up a sub-thread for each chapter, or division and we can have the discussion of that follow in that sub-thread - is that okay?

Ha, DU gets mentioned. So cool!

I got to thinking which type will most likely cross over and vote Democrat in the next election. I think the Paleocons are the ones that will break first. The small government and budget deficit being the 2 examples of issue that will tick them off. They also have a national figure on TV in Pat Buchanan and there is a book out called Imposter by former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett (who has been on the Daily Show and was on Colbert Report this week).

I think for the Democrats to get rid of Bush it will take the Paleocons to break away and stand up for their beliefs.

Then I got to think what is the difference between the Paleocons and the DLC.

The only way we'll get this cabal out of power is if the Paleocons start speaking out.



:rofl:


Here's my dream ending to this nightmare: The Paleocons come to their senses, bushco is tried & convicted on charges of crimes against humanity. The Paleocons & DLC dems become the new conservative party. Liberals go with the Greens.

Ok, maybe it's not perfect, but I sure as heck would like a party that represents me!

I see Dobbs and Maher, and all others who are too embarassed to say they are Republicans anymore hiding there.

A continuation of the above:

"The Death of Environmentalism"

"The Decline of Labor"

"A Woman's Right to Lose"


Armstrong and Zuniga cover the problems with these issues well.

One issue that hits home with ME personally is this: I give a very small amount of money to many, many causes, I am constantly beset by requests. My favorite causes have to compete with each other for my limited funds. Conservatives, however, "While ours struggle on a daily basis to keep their operations running, the conservatives receive multi-year funding commitments and have enough money to wine and dine politicians at snazzy restaurants. Their groups can focus most of their energy on their issues; our groups spend way too much time fund raising."

Can my favorite three issues come together? What is your opinion? Do you prefer the Colorado Model or the Montana Model?

Could their money be better spent? They have amazing funding... how can they better sell the message that "Green is the new Red, White and Blue"?

they could pay you royalties for that great slogan!! ;)

Just so long as they promise to have it rolling off of every pundit around!

I for one, am very excited that Unions are pumping big money into an "off" election year this time.

The black-eye that Labor has given itself hurts me most of all - My Dad was in unions all his life, and they helped my family immensely.

My cavity-free teeth, constantly re-corrected vision, memories of weekends and vacations with my Dad came courtesy of them. He was a steel worker and a firefighter.

The state of Pennsylvania would not have gone for Gore or Kerry without the help of Unions.

Unions are needed more than ever - how can they turn their image around? As Crashing the Gate points out, "While it might be easy to get caught up in the emergence of the netroots effort, and think the internet holds the answer to everything that ails Democrats, it's currently difficult to reach a large chunk of working-class Americans without labor's help."

I haven't gotten the book yet, so these are just general thoughts on labor in the US.

I think the labor movement was largely responsible for the rise of the middle class. I was raised in a union household, in a union city (NYC), always supported labor and never crossed a picket line, etc, etc.

I did get a different view of the labor movement in the 60s. Two things, labor tended to be very pro-war - NYC construction workers frequently attacked people participating in anti-war protests; and, I tended to move around a lot back then and found one of the major roadblocks to my getting any kind of job was organized labor.

I think by the 60s, organized labor had morphed into a firmly entrenched part of the economy; and worked to protect the financial security of its members to the detriment of any other sector of society, either powerful business interests or unorganized workers. Organized labor was no longer a radical force fightong to help working people; and actually became a force fighting against most workers.

I think we need a powerful organized labor force in this country. But, I also think that force has to be a progressive force fighting for the good of all workers not just a selected part of the work force. It also needs to become organized on a global scale. I think part of the cause of labor losing its power was that so many workers did not feel that they had any stake in the future of organized labor; this divided labor's potential power. If organized labor can unite all workers, they will be a force to be reckoned with.

returning veterans into training by unions for union jobs like carpentry, construction, etc. I see this as a BRILLIANT move that helps returning vets find employment but has the HUGE added benefit of strengthening the unions, too.

Are we (who strongly support choice - I don't know if that is you) willing to compromise?

Are we willing to give small concessions (parental notification, spousal notification) to save choice for woman overall?

Are you?

Is it really just a question of a woman's choice? Or, is it a family choice? During the 2004 election I spoke with a woman who worked as a counselor. Her company did blood tests on fetuses, then counseled families when the blood tests indicated that the fetus would have some form of birth defect. They didn't recommend how the family should resolve the issue, but they told them what the effects of the birth defect would be and let the family decide the best approach.

I realize this situation does not address the entire issue of abortion. But, I think it's an important aspect of it. I believe strongly that situations like this are best decided by a well-informed family; not by government edict. I think the issue can be more politically appealing if it is framed this way.

The issue of abortion is extremely emotional. There is a certain segment of society that will never accept that abortion should be legal. They can mount campaigns with tremendous emotional appeal by labeling abortion as murdering babies. People react viscerally to the words. I think pro-choice people can win this argument, but I think they have to defuse the emotions.

The issue of abortion is also extremely personal. Most Americans will agree to allow families to make these deeply personal decision on their own. But, the public must understand this as a personal issue; not an issue of "murder", or "killing".

In order to defuse the issue, I believe that at least the appearance of a willingness to compromise is necessary. The willingness to sit down and talk with people about the issue, talk and listen calmly to dissenting opinions. I don't know if compromises can actually be reached; but, in an highly emotional atmosphere, compromise can't even be considered. I believe that hurts the cause of choice. When charges of "baby killing" are flying, choice will lose. In a less emotional atmosphere, the differences between a fetus and a baby can be made clear. The difference between abortion and murder can be made clear. The reasons this is a personal decision rather than a government decision can be made clear.

My answer to your question is that people who favor choice must be willing to calmly discuss compromise. If they won't discuss compromise, I believe they are going to lose.

My greatest concerns on this issue are the "life begins at conception" and "abortion kills a baby" arguments.

I don't understand how pro-life groups are going to respond to details when presented with them, after the 'big issue' is won.

If abortion is legally defined as killing, how do we deal with the problem of tubal pregnancies. You must kill one life (the embryo) to save another (the mother). Wouldn't we have to change our entire definition of murder to deal with that? If killing blastocyst is made illegal - how do we then go ahead and do it with the blessing of the state?

Will we force women to die eventually, because of this?

If you give them an inch, they then want the next foot. I believe in compromise, but how do you deal with an enemy who believes in slowly chipping away your foundation beneath you?

Even if you are biggest pro-choice supporter, abortions are terrible situations to be put in. Everyone should be working to limit the number of abortions.

I think the Colorado model offers more opportunity for the party to win. For instance, I haven't donated any money to the Democratic Congressional or Senate campaigns because the last time I asked, they had no position on the Iraq War. I refuse to donate to any candidate who is not committed to pulling the troops out of Iraq. I recognize the problems with this position; but, to me this is a serious moral question. If the party follows the Colorado model, I can donate to an organization that will only donate to Democrats that support my position on the war; the other candidates can make up for this loss through an umbrella organization that donates to candidates according to their needs.

for Democratic candidates.

If someone is from a red area, they need this.

I just finished This Ain’t No Party. This chapter opened my eyes to a cause-first, party-second mentality that, sadly, I admit I suffer from. They gave the example of US Rep, Jim Langevin. The Dems are looking for a candidate to run in the ’06 Senate election against a pro-choice Republican. Langevin voted to restrict abortions, & as a result two of the big choice groups blasted him. Choice has always been a deal breaker issue for me & yet the Langevin example shows how issue based organizations & voters, can harm our overall progressive movement. Yet, honestly, I do not think I could vote for an anti-choice candidate.

I like both the Colorado & Montana examples. They show that when the Dems claim their party, they can be successful. BTW, I got sidetracked during the Colorado-Montana section & had to do some investigation of Brian Schweitzer. I like this guy. He lives in a unique place, took a unique approach & made it work. Interesting too, that he has a Repub Lt. Gov.

And now I’m a few pages into the next chapter, The Gravy Train & I am even more infuriated at the core organizations of the dem party. Holy crap! I always knew it was nothing a but a big ‘ole money fest where it’s who you know, not what you know, but I had no idea the scope of it. Yesterday afternoon I watched The Daily Show clip with Russ Feingold, then last night I read the Feingold example. :) I like this guy, too. We absolutely have to get big money & corporations out of our political system.

I think this chapter is going to be hard reading – as in frequent breaks for blood pressure adjustments. ;)

Under the current system I prefer the Colorado model. That is the only to compete with the big donors and corporate lobbies. If there is campaign finance reform and a clean elections law then I prefer the Montana model because it frees politicians to vote the way their constituance want.

The DSCC and old school politics.

Many good questions here - why are campaign managers with 0-8 records running national campaigns?

What is your opinion of The Beltway Mafia? Do you think this is what happened to Hackett - or was it something different?

What is your personal opinion of Democrat ads? Personally, on the ads, I think they all suck - attack ads or "fuzzy" ads. I barely watch them. They are all the same, old ad. I liked this part of the chapter.

in this chapter. Makes me wonder if the dems know what the definition of insanity is: Doing the same thing over & over & expecting different results. After reading this chapter, I wonder why anyone would run for office, when almost immediately you either must become a stooge for the party or flounder on your own.

The dem ads are weak. I don't know much about media so I don't have any suggestions to make, but the current course is not winning us elections & after this chapter, I wonder how much the dems really want to win. Oh, I'm sure they want to win, however, they do not want to win by rocking the boat & upsetting the current status quo. They are making out like bandits with this revolving door of candidates, PR consultants, media firms, the DSCC where everyone involved is making bucks, while WE THE PEOPLE get fucked. They are playing it safe & we are losing our country because of them.

In one of his campaigns, Brian Schweitzer held up a copy of a check for mega-bucks that his opponent had received from big-pharma & reminded his constituents who his opponent was really beholden to. I honestly believe if we don't reign in the power & influence of the mega-corps very soon, we will be slaves to them & their human facilitators for a long time to come.

it is sad.

But those who have power are often loathe to give it up.

We are going to need a lot more outrage. Are we getting close, ya think?

The corporations are the power elite with the republican party close behind. The dems are somewhere under that, but WE THE PEOPLE? We're at the bottom. Ken Salazar is a bitter disappointment, especially since I gave time, money & put his sign in my yard! If we win Congress in '06 with more Ken Salazar's, I wonder what good that will do. Ok, Alaska will not be drilled (he voted against that), but the Condi's & Gonzalez's will still be confirmed & the banks will get thier nasty little bankruptcy legislation.

It's time for another Boston Tea Party -- I'm being taxed without representation.

I too am guilty of one, maybe two-issue voting. This chapter was a great read if only to learn how that can sometimes be detrimental to the overall progressive cause. The example of Langevin vs Chafee in Rhode Island was eye opening for me. I would not have voted for a pro-choice republican over a no-choice democrat, but would probably have not voted for that office at all or gone 3rd party. IN the future I will do a bit more investigation of the candidate before dismissing him/her out of hand on one issue.

However, you bring up a good point when you question if we should just learn to love the Joe Liebermans of our party. ~gag~

I believe we must recognize the DINOs in our party & yank our support of them. That is the only way we will send the message that you better do more than just give lip service to our progressive values -- you better back them up with your voting record. I am bitterly disappointed in my dino senator, Ken Salazar. It seemed like a victory to gain one more seat in the senate, but his overall voting record is more in line with the republicans than the democrats.

the more I get involved in politics, the more complicated things become.

I just can't give money to Lieberman. But I guess, if a moderate Democrat could unseat Mel Martinez, I guess I need to hold my nose and vote. But no money. Is that a good compromise? I don't know. I might never know.

p. 3 - "If only we could say, "To hell with the Democratic Party!" But part of the present American reality is that we live in a two-party system, and the Democratic Party is our only alternative. It's efficient-and expedient-to reform the existing party of the left, much as the conservative movement took over the Republican Party in the 1970s and converted it into he electoral powerhouse it is today."

p. 10 - "Assassination is not a moral question for such Theocons, but oral sex among consenting adults or the fleeting flash of a singer's breast on TV-now that could lay the nation's soul to waste."

p. 11 - "The party that vowed to get the government off people's backs in the 1970s and 1980s has become the party that vows to get government into the classroom and the bedroom-everywhere but the corporate boardroom."

p. 22 - "And suddenly, a Republican political establishment unconcerned with the hundreds of billions poured into faraway Iraq has become agitated at the thought of spending the tens of billions necessary to rebuild one of America's own cities."

The republicans have not only very successfully demonized the word liberal they have brainwashed the masses to overlook the fact that the current republican party is anything but conservative! They are nothing more than thugs selling off our country in bits & pieces to fatten their wallets.


I also like the LBJ quote where he said as a child he learned that "government isn't an enemy of the people, it is the people."

And it is. It is the glue that holds our communities together. That's why our government was so damned special -- a government of, by & for the people. Who better to determine what is good for our communities than the people who make up those communities?

Of course, it is now so perverted our Founding Fathers would not recognize the democratic republic they fought for & worked hard to define. We now have a government of, by & for the corporations -- those artificial entities who have personhood rights, but operate with a totally different agenda & with preferential status. They, along with our corrupt public officials who are doing their bidding, are killing our democracy, indeed, our very planet, with their greed for profit.

It's time to slay the monster called corporate personhood & put these behemoths in their proper place. We need an opposition party, a party that speaks for WE THE PEOPLE now more than ever!

That is a great quote.

Please let me know.

So, I'm just about ready.

It seems really interesting. However, I can't start it until I finish one of the other books I am currently reading. Hopefully, after this weekend, I will have completed one of the other books and get a chance to start this one.

"The Conservative Message Machine's Money Matrix"
by Rob Stein

Wow. And wow. I will never be able to look at another "Silver Bullet" or Coor's lite again, without feeling anger and nausea.

Mostly because it has hurt America so much - but also because they did it and we didn't.

Because we let our talent wither to seek out volunteer positions themselves or be well-paid elsewhere. How could we, as a Party, have let that happen.

The Leadership Institute scares me. It should scare all good Democrats. Do you think Center for Progressive Leadership can get us on equal footing anytime soon? Lets hope so.

About 10 years ago, Michael Lind wrote a book, Up From Conservatism. In it he described the conservative money machine. A good description is "lockstep." Once they have taken a position on an issue, then everyone must agree with this position. Any disagreement, and you're off the gravy train - no more money - period. This leads to the dissemination of very clear, unanimously supported, effective messages.

But, for all its effectiveness, I think this is a bad model. Ideas that haven't been thoroughly kicked around and discussed tend to be very weak ideas. They don't survive the test of reality. Conservatives successfully sold their message to the public, but, having come to power, their programs have been absolute disasters. The conservatives success has been due to deceit.

I think we need a better model. We need open disagreement and discussion of ideas. And, somehow we have to get people to think about the ideas. We have to get them to accept that there isn't a perfect solution, but only a currently best possible solution. We have to get people to vote for realistic solutions rather than "pie in the sky" nonsense (e.g. Just cut taxes and government revenues will increase).

My thought is that neocons win through deceit. We may be able to build a network that mimics what they do. But, that is a corruption of the democratic process. It's basically assuming that people are too dumb to govern themselves, and to get the public to vote the right way, you need to deceive them. If democracy can actually work, then we need a thinking public. If we can't get that, it doesn't matter whether we win or lose.

we need a coherent message machine, IMHO.

have to work 50 hours a week to put "food on their families." I work part time & have lots more discretionary time than most & even I have a hard time keeping up with what's going on. I can't imagine how ill-informed I would be if I only listened to network or cable news, if I didn't go online & search out non-conventional sources for news. And it's only going to get worse as our middle class is decimated. As more & more people have to work longer & longer hours, it will become increasingly easier for those in power to deceive us. And with the media on their side, some day’s I feel like it’s a losing battle.

Sadly, we select our candidates based on the best sound-bite. It no longer matters if the idea is solid & sound. If you can’t condense it into a catchy sound-bite it won’t fly. By being lazy, complacent & misinformed, WE THE PEOPLE have indeed gotten the government we deserve -- a lazy, complacent, non-caring government.

Until people get actively involved in government again, we will continue down this path. I wish I had an idea or suggestion on how to get through to them, but I don't. I'm afraid there is going to have to be a whole lotta pain before people take action & I hope it won't be too late.

Feingold throws down the reform glove - which changes the party, and in the end, gives the little guy a larger microphone. Interestingly enough, Feingold has recently tossed another gauntlet into the mix recently. Let's hope, whatever happens, the ripples it causes become tsunamis.

This chapter also discusses how Dean leads the charge with his netroots movement. That, together with Feingold's reform allows US, the individual members of the community with only $20 or $25 to give, the power to begin to peck the corporate end of the party to death. Rock on.

Challenge EVERY Republican.

Nuff said.

It is an easy read. It starts a little slow, with some basic stuff, but it gets better and has some great ideas and stuff at the end. I highly recommend it.