A Progressive’s Complaint
An angry group of oldsters, who were furious about Wall Street and a big government in cahoots with The Street, made themselves known as the Tea Party. Right-wing money came forth, the oldsters accepted it happily, they changed their tune to exclude Wall Street from their anger, and now they pretty much run the Republican Party.
An angry group of young people, who were furious about a big money-weighted marketplace and government, made themselves known as the Occupy Movement. They were too pure to accept left-wing money that wasn’t much offered anyway, and are now fading as a political force, their ideas having failed to reshape the Democratic Party’s agenda.
And then there was that recall business in Wisconsin. Tom Barrett, who was the Democrats’ candidate, could not raise money as early as his opponent because of a quirk in state law. But outside left-wing money could nonetheless have flooded into the state as soon as a recall was announced. It didn’t.
In the sports realm, I am used to backing long-running losers. I was raised in Brooklyn, New York and watched the (then) Brooklyn Dodgers win pennant after pennant, only to lose the World Series to the Yankees. I now live in Philadelphia and have watched the city’s Eagles football team manage year after year not win a Super Bowl.
Personally, I think there’s something rather noble, perhaps even endearing, about being a sports masochist. It shows persistence and dedication. Admirable qualities. Backing a party of political bunglers I find considerable less attractive.
What happened to this party? How much longer can even someone of a proven masochistic bent continue to back these duds? If a party stands for nothing but being less bad than the other party, it stands for nothing.
Share This
You have choices, being originally from NY you can claim the Yankees, Rangers, Knicks and Giants (OK, so NJ, is another borough when it comes to sports teams).
As far as the Tea Party is concerned, there’s dissesion in the ranks. And Freedom Works is still listed as a non-profit. (snicker)
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/freedom-works-pushing-tea-party-groups-endorse-mack
The Occupy movement didn’t want money and didn’t want to be allied with the Democratic party. Part of the impetus for the movement was the failure of Obama and the Democrats to change Wall Street. It’s way too soon to write off OWS. They influenced the political discussion in three months where the anti-Vietnam movement took three years to become effective. From NY Magazine:
“Obama didn’t build a movement, he built an electoral machine,” says Marom. “If he had built a movement, he would not be where he is right now. But the fact that he was elected, that so many people came out in the streets for him, that people cried when he won, was an expression of the fact that they wanted what they thought he was, which is an alternative. He wasn’t it. He can’t deliver it. This political system can’t deliver it. This economy can’t deliver it. But there are millions of people who genuinely want it. That’s amazing and inspiring to people like us, who are just, like, ‘Okay. This is for real.’?”
http://nymag.com/news/politics/occupy-wall-street-2011-12/index7.html
The future of OWS has yet to be determined.
Wisconsin was a failure because they tried to bypass the way our political process works. Over 70% of the voters indicated they didn’t think a recall should be accomplisihed except for illegal conduct. I tend to agree and doubt that money or political persuasion would have done much to change those voters’ minds.
I haven’t watched a sports event in 60 years so can’t comment on that.
When I was young, my father had us boys playing Apba Baseball (a computer-generated card per player system with lists of outcomes based on rolls of dice). I got to play the Brooklyn Dodgers of 1949, 1952 and 1953. They were a lot of fun. My favorite player was Carl Furrillo (their right-fielder). I liked Jackie Robinson and Roy Campanella a lot too (along with Erskine and all the rest, I suppose).
Being raised in Massachusetts, I was a Redsox fan. My Masochism got to end in 2004 (I still have the front-page Boston Globe in a frame).
As for the Democrats, they have proven to be some of the worst politicians one can imagine. They do not toot their own horns. They seem to think that as long as they can get results that the results will speak for themselves. Want to guess how much government spending has gone up during Obama’s time (starting with FY 2010 since the 2009 one was done BEFORE he was president)? about 1.7%. One of the lowest scores since WWII.
How many people really know what is in the ACA? only about 1/4 of the population thinks it should be kept, yet I will bet large sums of money I don’t have that very few people actually know what the bill contains (and that may even include those in congress).
The CBO just released an estimate of how many jobs were likely preserved due to the stimulus bill–over 3 million. How is it that the MSM has allowed the contention of Republicans that no jobs were created (or saved) to become the running belief?
A politician must let his constituents know where and how his policies are functioning. The Democrats have very few good politicians.
Wait a minute, RC. You’re not seriously suggesting that after three-plus years of shrieking that Republicans thwarted a proper-size stimulus, blocked unemployment extensions, torpedoed the President’s jobs bill, etc. that Democrats should now claim credit for holding spending down?
Pivoting one’s marketing based on malleable principles is par for the course in Washington, of course. But your suggestion does sort of illustrate one of the things I see holding the Democrats back: they can’t articulate and hold themselves to any defensible (IMHO) principles. “Fairness” is a great-sounding principle, until you realize that no one agrees what it means so it’s useless for governing.
“Helping the needy” is a very worthy principle, and I support it. But it’s bottomless on its own; it needs a counterweight to make sense. The Democrats seem unable to articulate one.
The Democratic party under the leadership of President Obama has supported LGBT civil rights in a way that is light years different from the Republicans, giving life and liberty to millions like never before. On this basis alone,to say that the current Democratic party under our president is simply “less bad” than the Republicans is not only short-sighted and wrong, it is arrogant rude, patronizing and diminishing to millions of people this president has helped to lead more free, safe, and normal lives. Mr.Silverstein owes these millions of people an apology.
Rcoutme said.”Want to guess how much government spending has gone up during Obama’s time (starting with FY 2010 since the 2009 one was done BEFORE he was president)? about 1.7%. One of the lowest scores since WWII.” as pointed out by Dr J.
Then he said “The CBO just released an estimate of how many jobs were likely preserved due to the stimulus bill–over 3 million.”
On one hand the stimulus should not be counted to show how Obama has controlled spending, but on the other hand count the stimulus and increased spending so Obama can be created for saving or increasing jobs.
This has been stated a number of times over the past few weeks from a couple of sources. can’t name them since I was listening to TV while reading paper and having morning coffee, but this supports what Michael Silverstein has written about. They can’t get their stories right and in plops their foot in mouth when the open it.
Now we need an article from the right pointing out how the conservatives also have messages that chage overnight to fit their “memo” of the day.
Dr. Bob, that’s an awfully kind reading of events. Obama aggressively courted gays when he was campaigning, then defended DOMA and took a slowpoke tack on DADT after elected. Obama was against gay marriage six years ago. Since then the public has accepted it to the point where it’s one of the few issues that doesn’t spark controversy on TMV. So with that and–by the way, the next election is coming up–Obama has now expressed support for it. This is the behavior of a calculating politician, not a civil rights firebrand.
To Dr. J and others:You need to check your facts before you accuse me of being “kind.” President Obama has been a strong advocate for LGBT rights since june of ’09 when he issued an executive order demanding key federal benefits be given to LGBT couple. That was long before any election. The list is extensive from hospital visitation to hate crimes legislation. he defended DOM and waited for DADT for strategic reasons which will and have succeeded. So please stop perpetuating distortions for your own political agenda just to make President Obama look bad. We are all getting tired of seeing lies in comments.
Dr. Bob, I’m citing facts. You’re welcome to dispute them or draw a different conclusion from them. My opinion that Obama’s relationship to gays is political is not unique to me.
And you don’t need to be so venomous. If you’d prefer, I’ll retract any suggestions that you’re kind.
Your points are well taken Michael and they transcend mere partisanship. There are any number of reasons why sane Americans would be advised give no aid nor comfort to the current incarnation of the GOP, which seems to all intents and purposes intent on screwing up the country as much as possible, for no apparent reason beyond the quest for power. Any tuned in and halfway savvy electorate would realize this. Sadly for the USA no such electorate exists here.
Z, so half of the U.S. is comprised of LESS than half-way savvy folks.
Boy, I wish I was in the other group, their feet probably don’t even touch the ground.
Seriously, I think your side is savvy, and so do many of US.
Dd, I just checked to be certain and I can assure you, my feet do touch the ground.
The GOP and its mouthpieces have no qualms whatsoever about distorting facts and purposefully misleading the public. Take your pick on the topic. Now in this I am including obviously FOX News and guys like Limbaugh, whose job it appears to be not to disseminate information, but to cherry pick bits of it, and from that generate a tidal wave of unbelievably bad analysis guided by GOP talking points, and turn this out as “news”.
The GOP is actively trying to resurrect policies that historically have lead to financial woes for this nation, while simultaneously demolish the policies put in place that have lead massive growth in the middle class. To this end they spin stories about how “Unfair” progressive taxation is, how regulations on billion dollar industries are bad, how the wealthiest of the nation need even more help while the median earners in this country that power the economy are getting less and less of the pie every day. As far as I can tell they have just got it wrong on every major issue. The only places they should be attacking the President they can’t because they don’t want to touch financial regulations and oversight, federal authority, the military budget, or taxes either. The GOP will not rest until we have fully returned to the circumstances of the 1920′s era that set up the Great Depression. We are pretty much there already, and still they bleat about how hard the wealthy have it and how the federal govt just can’t do anything right.
Slam, when either the Dems, whose feet don’t touch the ground, and the Reps, whose knuckles do drag along the ground, propose bringing back Glass-Steagall and looking again at Simpson-Bowles, this mouthpiece and other should keep talking.
I think we both know neither side is going to do that. Both sides have been bought off by the banking lobbies for some time now, and I think its going to take another major meltdown, one we can’t stop with a round of stimulus, to bring this country back to its senses.
Slam, your answer may apply to GS, but not to SB.