So how screwed are we as progressives?

Before anyone snaps at me for being a Teamster (I know my union's bad history w/ progressive politics), let me say that I am a true progressive far left of my union's often traveled roads. I just wanted to squelch that before it was assumed that I'm a typical Teamster Dem as of course my name admittedly implies.

Here's my assessment: I've talked a lot to rabid right wingers (the proud tea party folks) and rather than seeing that they both overreached and engaged in willful destruction of the good American (credit) name, they're furious that they didn't "get enough." I mean they're literally insane. All of those things we used to hear from the far right, and most of us dismissed as the lunatic desires of folks who thankfully didn't hold much sway over our politics, are now their actual political goals. And worse yet, they've got the power to enact them. Perhaps even more scary, after overreaching and basically forcing through a deal which I'd argue caused widespread (market) panic around the world, they're not nearly satisfied and want to pursue more of that.

While I think that in a better environment they'd be held to account for this disaster come election time, the problem is that the Democratic Party is now (largely) being seen as either unable or unwilling to fight them. Worse, Obama - whether you think he's a wolf in sheep's clothing or just a guy who got bullied - appears anything but a firm voice of reason from the other side. Say what you will (or won't) about him, but he didn't stop their disastrous efforts. That's fairly undeniable. What you attribute that collapse to is relatively unimportant because what's crucial here is that we've got a growing, recalcitrant army of loons who're doing battle with an increasingly pliant opponent. The risk we're running is another abstention election in which conservatives vote but we don't, leaving us with the teabaggers, Republicans, and R-lite guys like Lieberman and the rest. As bad as the Dems might be at fighting the politics of tea, I shudder to imagine the outcome if we left it up to the more "moderate" right elements to battle their own.

Perhaps worst of all, we brought the Democrats into power after the monumental disaster of the Bush admin, and I think not only we as progressives but the large swath of moderates figured "if there's one thing Democrats do best it's managing an economy." I know the teabaggers and even moderate Republicans blocked almost every Democratic piece of legislation, but that sort of fact often sails overhead the barely conscious American electorate as (I fear) they'll suspend critical thought - assuming they have that capacity at all - and just blame the party which had the most control over things when they really got bad (economically). All of that to say that I fear we've just lost the reputation as good economic stewards, one we might not regain for quite some time. I know it's not accurate, but if you look at how well Ronald Reagan still polls in our society, I think we can all agree that logic and critical thinking aren't two skills for which American voters are known.

What do you all think? Is it as bad as I think it is? Or am I worrying too much?

That's the best way to enable the election of Romney.

and electing him again will just make the party more conservative and make it more difficult to change the direction of the party in the future.

Both parties will continue to attack the public sector, wages, and the social safety net. They will continue to keep taxation low and privatization on target citing the debt they create through their policies to orient Americans to accept the dismantling as something that had to be done.

What's the big picture?

It transcends the politics of the moment, which is where most of us who follow politics can't help but focus on. But so much of that is a stacked deck and it's stacked against most of us and what we value and what we need.

The big picture, imo, is the ancient struggle between the interests of the few versus the interests of the many.

Ancient Athens had an ongoing tension between democrats and oligarchs. Rome ousted kings, began a republic, but the struggle between the populares (sort of their version of liberal Democrats) and the optimares (conservative Republicans) finally tore it apart and the rule of emperors and wealthy families dominated.

This ancient struggle is what we have come to see today in terms of the right versus the left. These terms arose sometime after the French Revolution when those who supported aristocratic interests sat on the right side of the Parliament, and those who supported egalitarian progress sat on the left.

After the Industrial Revolution, America had its version of the left (socialists, unionists, anarchists, etc.) and the right (the robber barons, etc.) and the two sides literally fought each other in the ancient battle described above. The much maligned '60s is the last time, imo, that there was a clear upsurge in this battle between the left and right.

Since then, I think we've become bogged down in our modern superficial understanding of these terms and have forgotten their deeper roots. The right today is seen as red state types: Guns, God, Gays, and all that crap. The left is seen as blue state types: what that infamous anti-Dean commercial characterized as a "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show."

These terms reduce the conflict down to lifestyles instead of between democrats (small "d") versus oligarchs; populares versus optimares; leftwing support of expanding wealth and power versus rightwing support of conserving aristocratic wealth and privilege.

On today's right and left, we get caught up in personalities and in scoring points against opponents but, as far as I can tell, most of us are not seeing that this battle that goes back at least to Western Civilization's beginnings is still being waged and that the interests of "our side" (the democrats, the populares, the left...of common working people) are getting trampled in terms of that big picture, no matter how many victories or partial victories we score in the narrow and controlled focus of the politics of the moment.

The right has been very successful in obscuring the big picture ever since Reagan came along and duped a lot of "common" people into cheering on what are traditionally oligarchic/aristocratic interests.

I think until common working people in "red" and "blue" states realize together what's at stake in the big picture, we will continue to be royally screwed.

Thanks.

They have reached a near point of perfection in this practice sadly to say.

s that nationally, our representatives have incrementally transitioned us to a more "red state" economic model embracing the "low wage, low taxes" type- theory which supposedly facilitates business expansion.

The problem, which explains in part why many southern states remain the poorest in the nation, is the model can't sustain itself because the wages remain lower than the national average and cannot adequately fund an education system that's imperative to actually grow. Otherwise you're simply stuck in the economic equivalent of neutral.

Unions, regulation and taxes are not welcome in the South. I'm in no way attempting to denigrate our friends in those particular states---only comparing and contrasting the various models employed to grow, create and maintain jobs.

Oasis

This should be an OP.:hi:

"optimare."

Interesting word. Is it your creation?

Going off to ponder your essay. I found it very powerful. Thanks for it.

as well/ simple and to the point

I do appreciate the feedback. :hi:

Based on their own writings and speeches it is apparently intended to destroy the federal government's capacity to govern.

We have reached the day when the damage they are causing goes from subtle to significant.

The herculean effort to transition our friends away from that type of "theory" (it's not theory in the normal sense--so lets go with "mindset" for now) is that many look at blue states and exclaim "you're broke--why should we take any advice from you?"

Analyzing data over the last 50 years conclusively demonstrates a higher tax but higher wage environment easily outpaces those not linked in to that model. The under-performance of blue states is a very recent phenomenon and is easily explained by one critical event: namely, the housing collapse.

States where appreciation was at its highest also (not coincidentally) suffered the greatest "pain" associated with the meltdown in housing. It acts like dominoes falling where entire industries growth-wise come to an absolute screeching hault--and in many cases severely contract.

If we elect an entirely Republican Congress as well as President in 2012 then I fear the era of blue state economics will be dead entirely--not just on life support as it is currently. Remember, we've discarded proven tools used to fight a global recession, which is mind boggling. Austerity is failing everywhere its being implemented--for good reason-- It doesn't work. But the real absurdity is our lack of economic performance won't be pinned on the Republicans (where it genuinely belongs) but on the President, unless we are able to convincingly make our case to the voters.

If we don't,then as the OP stated,--we are screwed.

That Obama's gonna take ALL of the blame because American voters are - let's face facts - not very thoughtful.

I agree that he deserves some of the blame, but my prediction is that he'll take almost all of it whereas the only portion I'm willing to put on him is that of not fighting harder for a better deal. The Republicans obviously own this, but they also evidently own the media and an arsenal of cash. Before it's all said and done it will "be" Obama's fault in the eyes of many. The dishonest ad writes itself: (scary voice) "President Obama caused our nation's debt to be downgraded, lumped in with nations far inferior to ours" (gotta get a dig in at Europe and add a dash of American "supremacy" there).

When the S&P downgrade broke I told a friend "if the Dems don't get ahead of this thing the Republicans will." Well, now almost all of the stories coming out headline that the S&P wanted austerity whereas their own report speaks very little of that. In other words the Dems are behind again. While DU has bothered to read the S&P's report which blames Republican obstructionism AND debt concerns, the general public has not. And sadly, it's often the most uninformed people who vote.

In my job I wind up talking to all sorts of people, most of whom work long hours and don't have much time to dig through the news. It's basically headlines and maybe the first few paragraphs. These people are already mouthing the conservative meme that we need austerity; we've gotta cut spending. If the Dems don't start fighting back with what the report actually says we'll find ourselves even more screwed than we are now.

Conservatives have obviously taken over the party. The Democratic Party is NOT Conservative. Progressives need to start a new party independent of the DNC and DCCC conservative crowd.. ASAP.

regardless if they are getting what they think they want even Republicans are screwed.
It is our job as progressives to remind everyone what policies caused this.

Even though unions have been decimated in the last 30 years, they are STILL the template for a working class organization. Even if it's not an "official" union, the working class MUST organize on the union model, ESPECIALLY the old school MILITANT union model. That's the one thing that the capitalists fear most, an ORGANIZED working class. And since EVERYTHING that will make significient improvement FOR the working class is illegal or shortly will BE illegal, we can't be worried about laws or arrests or even jail. To REALLY fight back, that will be part of it. That's just reality.

BTW, RE: the Teamsters, even though they've gotten MUCH more conservative as a union through the years, I still remember James Cannon's Teamsters in Minneapolis in the 30s. They won a BIG organizing battle with the bosses and they did it in militant style. The history is there and the control is there for the Teamsters to play a BIG role in fighting back, along with other unions. You guys (and I'm talking about the rank and file, NOT the bosses) really have to show the rest of us the way.

As a union guy, maybe you'll appreciate this article by yours truly on the ILWU struggle in Washington. This is what I'm talking about by showing the rest of us the way:

http://www.workerspower.net/ilwu-battling-back-on-longview-ports

And, by the way, so do Republicans which is why they're trying so hard to crush them.

That's a great assessment of our entire situation, the class war you described in your article. I really have no idea what happened in this country, but it used to be that people would fight back against an oppressor. Hell, they'd at least recognize they were being oppressed. Nowadays they barely seem to notice. It's almost like the lion in the zoo with that glazed-over look in his eye. And to be honest with you it's very depressing to see, especially when you and a few others still have the jungle "eye." Heck, when we try to get our OWN MEMBERS to come to meetings they barely do. Can you imagine trying to set up informational pickets? I can think of about 100 ways unions could legally influence the markets more than they do, but the truth is that the membership barely cares to get involved. And that just doesn't work.

A large part of that is that we've been legally castrated over the past 60 years or so. With Taft-Hartley's ban on sympathy and wildcat strikes - among its other provisions - have been devastating in terms of solidarity. Over the years, as workers began to see themselves as distinct from other bargaining units who found themselves in trouble, they became distinct. It used to be that the chain of labor could be broken across all links, disrupting an entire industry and forcing a resolution. Now about the best we can do is promise not to buy from a struck firm, and depending on the industry it's likely we didn't do that even before the strike.

But thank you for mentioning the OE in your article. As you're probably aware, the Teamsters and OE have been at war for decades. They've raided our work, crossed our lines, and undermined us at the negotiating table for as long as I can remember. I know, we as workers shouldn't fight each other. But in their case we have to, given their hostility to us and their assistance of those we're trying to fight.

I'd love to hear your views on what you think we as the rank-and-file can do. I mean, keep in mind that if we wildcat/sympathy strike we can get our own union's treasury sued beyond bankruptcy, but even that presumes we can draw the rank-and-file out of its cocoon to do something.

No matter what party, they all HATE the left and what it represents.

That is the only hope actually. We need to keep putting the truth out there. Eventually the people will come to see it. It may be too late - literally. But it might not be. That is our and civilizations only hope.

Sorry to be overly dramatic but make no mistake - the situation is dire.

Kick to get it back to the top. K&R