Angry conservatives take over the GOP. Angry progressives vote third party or join an advocacy grou

Sometimes local Dem organizations can be difficult and unpleasant, but I've found from personal experience that they really like newbies who pitch in and actually do the work.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Democrats-and-Progressives-by-Don-Smith-101202-740.html

There are some obvious reasons why the Right wins. They generally have more money. They own Fox News and most of AM radio. They're better at marketing. Their party discipline is better. They're brazen. And for Republican party activists it's generally in own their immediate self-interest to support conservative policies.

Here's another, less obvious reason why the Right wins.

Angry conservatives take over the GOP.
Angry progressives vote third party or join an advocacy group.

In the conservative movement, disaffected groups, such as religious conservatives and Tea Partiers, mobilize their anger and take over the GOP (with substantial help from rich benefactors such as the Koch brothers).

On the Left, disaffected progressives often give up on the "hopelessly compromised" Democratic Party and vote for a third-party candidate, such as Nader, or join an advocacy group like MoveOn, Sierra Club, NARAL, PDA, DFA, or hundreds of similar groups.

I have progressive friends further to the left of me who often say things like, "Oh, you can't trust the Democrats. They'll always betray you. They'll use progressive rhetoric to get your votes, but in the end they'll escalate the wars and vote for Wall Street, Big Insurance, and the other corporate interests."

Another, prosaic reason why progressives give up on the Democratic Party is that taking over a party organization is difficult and unpleasant. Blue Doggish Democrats fight back. Party meetings are long and boring. It's so much more fun to start your own party or lead your own advocacy group! But that's not very smart. There are already too many lefty groups.

So, too often progressives flee the Democratic Party, causing it to become more "centrist" and robbing progressives of effective power. Progressives don't seem to appreciate the fact that in our non-parliamentary form of government, third parties have little constructive power. They also don't seem to realize the importance of local Democratic Party organizations.

Partly the fault lies with the Democratic Party, which hasn't defended a populist, progressive agenda and hasn't welcomed progressives into the fold. There is mutual anger and distrust between centrists such as President Obama and progressives, who have been feeling very unloved and unheard. Progressives (e.g., single-payer advocates) have been unwelcome at the table in many Democratic organizations. Obama sometimes seems to go out of his way to alienate progressives, who are nearly in open rebellion.

I see this mutual hostility locally too, in legislative district and county organizations. In party committees, the upstart progressives often leave in exasperation due to the opposition. This harms both them and the Democratic Party. Many progressives attend meetings of advocacy groups but shun the local Democratic Party meetings.

a more free thinking/open minded idea - based approach on the left. Which doesn't do Democrats any good, but does explain things a bit. I just don't see how liberals/progressives/Democrats could ever go to the authoritarian/lockstep model. Not the way they are inherently wired.

of interests -and there's no reason to believe that those different interests will get along particularly well. The other side is made up of a few different interest groups as well- but they are totally united in their desire to see Democrats lose elections. We need to remember that.

and an overarching philosophy makes it much easier
for them to unify and plow forward.

While, the Democratic Activists are a group of
almost single issue interests with no one belief
system or overarching philosophy.

It could be the Republicans spent 40 years in the wilderness
and have not forgotten what that was like. This makes them
more passionate in their beliefs and drives them to stick
together. It is much better to be in charge than in the
wilderness.

It just may be that the Democrats will be put in the wilderness
before they can examine their souls and decide what is worth
fighting for as a group. This will give them time to
develop a philosphy that they are willing to get out and
sell and bring the people along. Democratic Party is best
for the country because 1.------ 2 -------- 3---------.

the same thing as giving up?

It is also an accurate definition of insanity, but that is a different issue.

Continuing to tell "our representatives" that we will elect them even when they go against our values and principles is a more direct surrender action than (temporarily) allowing the pukes back in charge. And make no mistake - the politicians only care about holding on to their power and if you vote for them, they will never move toward the left. Why should they? Only by denying them the office they covet and linking that loss DIRECTLY to their anti-Democratic positions will change be possible. And only with new people in those positions.

I would prefer a liberal, humane government led by a Democratic Party that somehow rediscovers its inner-FDR, but as long as the corporatists are in charge, that ain't gonna happen.

My take is that even if the pukes win, it will not be all that much different from the corporate-right positions much of the Democratic power structure work for. But I firmly believe that the GOPsters will fuck things up so badly that maybe, just maybe, enough people will wake up from their media-induced comas, turn off Dancing with the Stars, look at their hungry and sick children, bury their dead soldiers, watch their futures being shipped overseas and their retirements being sacrificed for the wealthy, and finally say, "Enough."

They say they're voting for Nader (or whoever).
I tell them that's a wasted vote.
They respond that voting for Democrats doesn't work.
I tell them to get involved in their local Democratic Party and take it over from the bottom up.
They respond that that's too hard. There's too much resistance.

Yes it's hard. So is getting anywhere with a third party! Which is easier? Which is more likely to succeed? Taking advantage of existing party infrastructure, or trying to start from scratch and running a bunch of spoilers? But they just can't see that.

Starting your own group or supporting a third party seems to be the path of least resistance for most people, and most people will choose the path of least resistance.

They like getting together with like minded people and venting their anger. What they don't like is getting together with people who are not quite so like minded and going with the flow while pushing against it here and there.

Imagine if a bunch of progressives took over local Democratic committees in blue areas where the Democratic vote is practically a sure thing. Imagine if they started doing this all over the country.

Wasn't this what was decided back in the 90's? A rightward shift to garner campaign contributions from corporate benefactors?