A long history, traced back to the US Communist Party, socialists organizing collective farms and urban infrastructure, with a strong labor movement, along with the Highlander School worked tirelessly for strong grass roots and well informed local leadership. Dr. King enlarged this tradition to include non-violent resistance, to great moral and political effect.
That led to a golden era of marches; I loved the giant puppets floating above the crowds. Today, that tradition is defunct, despite Bernie's projection of white privilege as populist politics.
Money and media killed it. The March For Our Lives was successful--and costly! Compare it to the Occupy Movement: the difference is in production values, how the message was transmitted, the media buy-in, the merger of grassroots activism with high tech reach. The new model is a response to new conditions, changing issues, and the sensibility and experiences of a new generation.
I fear Michelle's intellectualism and neat essays miss the importance of messy forms. Spilled blood is caught on police cams; vile insults are aimed at student survivors against a backdrop of Trump denying a voluntary liaison as his lawyer paid for silence, as Trump conflated his personal troubles into a national crisis. The message complexity, the sudden shifts, the new devastation needs new forms. They must take into account concrete, real conditions. If not, they are simply nostalgic flights of fancy circling Trump's.
4
Bernie Sanders's economic proposals, if they were enacted, would have disproportionately benefited people of color, women, and ostensibly trans, gays and other minorities, and thereby greatly enhanced "racial and gender equality" by improving economic power and upward mobility.
11
Sad to see the comments here. Seems that polarization is going to be present for some time to come. Progressives (and conservatives, but they don't read the NYTimes) - STOP and think, compromise, recognize that not all 'nice sounding ideas' are fit for policy. Extreme takes on where the country needs to go only further divides the US citizenry. A moderate approach to a problem is most often the best case (unless we're talking negotiating with Hitler over concentration camps). Unintended consequences are the bane to positive change; and those are always the consequence of a far right or far left approach to a problem.
8
You’re still playing dollhouse—with other people’s lives.
Hey Michelle. Have you heard about "Ranked Choice Voting?" If we could get a movement together to push for it in at least some elections, we could begin the break the stranglehold of the two parties. BTW, I'm a big fan. http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits
8
Think Conor Lamb and Doug Jones. Thatz the ticket
3
Sounds like a good place to reside. Beats the Dems.
You again publish bigoted trash against Progressives with:
"But many on the left either disdained electoral politics altogether — preferring demonstrations like Occupy Wall Street that quickly turned into ends in themselves — or gravitated toward nihilistic spoiler campaigns like those of Ralph Nader and Jill Stein."
I have a different view. If the NY Times had published the views of many Progressives rather than many Regressives, the U.S. would not be in the dire position it is in now.
The Times could have regularly carried columns by Nader, but did not do so. Nader's work has saved more American lives than anyone else I have observed over the past 50 years.
See
https://www.legalreader.com/50-years-of-legal-climate-change/
Be better NY Times for better times for all of us.
6
"nihilistic spoiler campaigns like those of Ralph Nader and Jill Stein"? Really? First, Nader and Stein both articulated important and valuable points of view that our corporate two party system has systematically ignored: issues of social and economic justice. Maybe, if those parties had not ignored those points of view, we would not now be saddled with Trump. Second, it's highly debatable whether Nader or Stein "spoiled" the elections they ran in. I suspect Clinton's failure to campaign in the rust belt states that handed the election to Trump, as well as the general contempt she seemed to hold working class people in, had a far stronger impact than the miniscule 1% of votes that went to Stein. And even Al Gore doesn't think Nader cost him the election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqB-E2pBeXM
6
"Democratic anti-Trumpers had better hope they win in 2020, because their attacks have only served to entrench Trumpism on the right." --- and republican anti-trumpers like david brooks needn't similarly hope for a trump loss in 2020?
4
Voting for the candidate I would like to see as President signifies no nihilism on either my or their parts. It is simply my expression of political calculus in our deeply (really) undemocratic electoral system. Voting is simply a symbol used to give the electorate the illusion of agency in an election where the only candidates are two oligarch chosen representatives of the plutocracy.
I'll continue to vote for whom I think should vote for not who you think I should vote for.
7
Good column.
I'm not a huge fan of Michelle Goldberg, I thought her book on the evangelical movement was thin. Here, I think that characterizing the presidential campaign of Ralph Nader in 2000, or of Jill Stein in 2016, as "nihilistic," is going too far. She could have said "hugely counter-productive" instead. I've got friends who voted for Nader in 2000, I don't call them nihilists, or their calculus nihilistic.
Various criticisms (some pertinent, some less so) notwithstanding, it's a good column.
2
I am glad to see that WFP views itself as a way to strengthen and guide the DEMs, rather than acting as a spoiler... Very good strategic thinking.
On the subject of strategy, all involved MUST remember that presidential election strategy must be very different than local races strategy because of the electoral college.
For local races in more liberal districts its great to focus on voter participation from the left.
In less liberal districts the DEMs and WFP must be prepared to accept a more center-left type of candidate.
Finally, presidential elections hinge almost entirely on swing voters in swing states. These voters, are by definition center-left and center-right, nor far left or far right. The states are PA, WV, FL, OH, WI, NC and maybe one or two others I've overlooked. Presidential candidates MUST appeal to these voters.
It doesn't matter how excited the farther Left voters in NY and CA get. It doesn't matter if we get 100% DEM voter turnout in NY and CA. That will have NO impact on the electoral college.
So picking a presidential candidate that galvanizes the LEFT but leaves the swing voters cold is a recipe for defeat.
12
We need something, maybe this will help. Voting for third-party candidates who have little chance of winning only takes votes away from more viable candidates.
But for starters, we need a focus, a strategy, and that wasn't there in the 2016 presidential election. Enthusiasm is good but only carries us so far.
6
Occupant,
3rd party voters have always existed in small numbers.
It is the millions of reg. non-voters that cost elections.
Those and the center-Right Dino's that abandon ship. The flip floppers that are never pointed out and blamed, but always courted instead.
3-1 flippers to 3rd party voters. Who shares more of the blame?!
Earn those votes or lose them. Get out the Votes or lose, period.
By the bye, hasn't it occurred to Dems that THEY are the ones that voted for the wrong candidate? In the primary, one candidate packed stadiums consistently. One had enthusiasm and energy.
Yet once again a Dem. candidate loses and its someone else's fault. Hippy punch, down and left. Never up and right. Nice allies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/obama-trump-voters-dem...?
8
The Working Families Party does not actively recruit or field candidates, outside of a handful of races. They allow the Democratic Party to do the recruiting, and then try to help the candidates that are deemed aligned with their values.
Sorry, but that's a terrible strategic flaw. The moment is here for a new party, but the WFP is a little too timid to fully accept the challenge.
I know it sounds rough, but it's true. The WFP may have developed some political power, but it's a fraction of what it could be.
5
I have favorable impression of the WFP. I'm a long-time Democrat but, when it comes to policy, would probably be more at home in the WFP. The challenge is how include a liberal third party in the mix without splitting the liberal vote and handing elections to the Republicans. Is there a path other than fusion voting? Ranked-choice voting maybe? We don't have either of those in MA. Suppose the WFP set up shop in MA, how would they go about building the party?
4
Why do you need a third party for this? If there is enough support for such a candidate that a third party makes sense, shouldn't there be enough support for that candidate to win a primary election against more a centrist Democrat? If a putative WFP candidate cannot win in the Democratic primary, it's unlikely he or she could command enough votes to win in the general election.
I certainly understand that incumbents have many resources at their disposal that challengers do not, which makes winning primaries difficult. But those incumbents will have the same, or greater, resources available at the general election, too.
Massachusetts makes such primary challenges much easier than other states because we allow independents ("unenrolled" voters) to cast a ballot in either primary. I remained unenrolled so I can vote strategically when needed. I've cast ballots for Republicans like John Anderson and Bill Weld against more conservative opponents in years when the Democratic primary was non-competitive.
11
" “Can we merge these ideals with serious electoral heft?” Mitchell asked. People dreaming of a country that’s egalitarian, cosmopolitan and humane have no choice but to try."
Absolutely it can be done. It won't be easy, but it's what we are working to achieve in my local Democratic Party in very red SC, in a very red county, Horry, where Myrtle Beach is located.
We are blessed with talent from all sides, from retired corporate managers to teachers and others from all walks of life, all colors and religions. We are making it work with mutual respect and effort. We are fielding more candidates at all levels of the ballot, right up to Congressional races throughout the state.
In a way, Mr. Trump did us a huge favor. His outrageous behavior has sent us many disgusted former Republicans and energized our own base.
We have much work to do to succeed, but we're on our way.
14
I love the phrase "nihilistic spoiler campaigns."
12
It is unfortunate that the author ignored the part the Working Families Party has had in electing phony Democrats in New York. A good example is Marisol Alcantara, the state senator from my district, who, immediately upon being elected to office, chose to join a clique of "Democratic" senators who--until this week--caucused with Republicans in Albany, thus stifling the enactment of progressive legislation (a state Dream Act bill, a single-payer healthcare bill, etc.). Alcantara was a labor functionary before being elected in 2016. I have to wonder what other reactionary candidates have run for office--and won--due to Working Families Party support.
10
It's April! The election is in November. Can we maintain focus and stay angry that long or will a firm handshake, a nice smile and empty promises throw us off the scent? Thankfully, I guess, Trump is a daily reminder! VOTE!
5
As Trump and so many others prove, politics is primarily a Great Man field, not a bottom-up enterprise. WFP is great but we'll never be able to reform the Democratic party much with a few local primary victories. Only after Bernie Sanders becomes president will we have the muscle to change the Democratic party from the top down, back into a progressive party that dominates for decades.
7
What Sanders says makes sense. Given that his ideas appeal to so many of us, it shouldn't be hard to come up with someone younger than Trump who agrees with Sanders. Bernie for VP, just to keep her/him honest!
We need to avoid painting ourselves into the GOP's "Only I can fix it" corner.
11
I'd vote for Sanders if he ran,but i'd prefer he throw his support to Warren or Jeff Merkley.
1
Which workers belong in this party? Which families belong in this party? One thing is certain; this party does not want all workers or all families. So how will it decide who is in and who is out?
2
Nice sentiments, but this country tilts to the right politically. It has for at least the past 50 years, with no end of the trend in sight. For even longer, racism, tribalism, ageism, sectionalism and other means of division have undergirded nearly every aspect of American life, including its politics. In this environment, how will a far left, "big tent" agenda help win elections?
3
How in the world did Obama win two elections easily then?
8
I hope Ms. Goldberg is right about the W.F.P.’s potential to forge unity between leftist, centrist, and moderates. That said, it is difficult to see how “Appalachian strikers” will feel at home, much less at ease, in a movement that employs loaded adjectives like “cosmopolitan” (one of Ms. Goldberg’s favorite descriptors) to encapsulate its vision of America.
6
All efforts towards moving this country away from the nightmare of Trump is appreciated however I am wary of third parties. Give them enough money and attention and they forget that they can't win. Bernie Sanders developed a sincere and real messiah complex. He started believing and spreading the same propaganda on Hillary that Trump/Russia were selling. Basically it became about Bernie Sanders and not about the United States and so here we are people. The fact is that citizens of this country need to take a civic lesson and recognize that their vote has consequences. If you as a voter want to vote your heart then get on the local school board and do your damage there. Voting isn't personal. It is a responsibility that needs to be taken seriously. All those folks who hated Trump but refused to vote for Hillary completely abdicated their duties and we are all paying the price.
20
I don’t understand the distain for Sanders. He is honest, consistent, principled, and has the best interests of the people in mind. Yes, he criticized Clinton, but fairly. And he worked hard to Elect her.
16
Plenty of us honor and respect Sanders, but don't want him to be the Democratic Party's standard-bearer in 2020. His ideas need to win. The person who makes them work can be anyone more electable than what we've got now. I wish I were wrong, but I think that person isn't Sanders.
But still not a Democrat and that must irk those who have worked to make the Democratic Party the vehicle for electing progressive Democrats where possible but also trying to maintain a governing left of center majority for the country.
Developing a big, wide tent, encompassing a variety of progressive thoughts, must be amalgamated into action, and certainly aimed towards the voting booth this coming November, and whenever necessary. Mobilizing the troops may be easier nowadays as the digital revolution allows fast, and hopefully accurate, information as to how to proceed. Relevancy is in the details however.
1
To turn revulsion into votes, one would have to persuade people not previously feeling revulsion. As Brooks points out today, preaching to the choir is not doing that.
10
History has shown that unrealistic idealism and utopian dreams ultimately lead to disappointment. Democrats need not only a realistic and cohesive message (good luck), but a charismatic leader that even middle America can embrace. In the current political climate I would fear for the safety of such a candidate, so he or she will need to be exceedingly courageous as well. Viable candidates are out there, one need only go down the list of Democrats targeted by Trump's invective, especially those to whom he has awarded his cute nicknames.
5
Oh boy, am I trying! Working hard on postcards to voters, marching the streets whenever given a chance, and signing up new voters like crazy. It's heady and it's working!
16
"...or gravitated toward nihilistic spoiler campaigns like those of Ralph Nader and Jill Stein."
I agree with this but let's not forget Gary Johnson, whose 3.3% of the 2016 vote was more than the 1.1.% of Jill Stein - and more than the infamous Ralph Nader, who in 2000 received 2.74% of the vote.
Both Gary Johnson/his voters have developed a case of amnesia and have gotten off scot-free of examining their role in 2016. Libertarian Johnson - who received 4,492,919 votes in 2016 - disappeared from media coverage after the night of Nov. 9 - dropping off the face of the post-Trump earth to train for a 2,745 bike ride from Canada to Mexico. (He resurfaced in mid-2017 to write guest editorials for online publications.)
But look at the vote totals; the name Gary Johnson should be remembered as a cautionary warning against 3rd parties splitting the vote every bit as much as the name Ralph Nader.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2016
Michigan (16 electoral votes)
Clinton 2,268,839 47.3%
Trump 2,279,543 47.5%
Johnson 172,136 3.6%
Stein 51, 463 1.1%
Wisconsin (10 electoral votes)
Clinton 1,382,536 46.5%
Trump 1,405,284 47.2%
Johnson 106,674 3.6%
Stein 31, 072 1.0%
Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes)
Clinton 2,926,441 47.5%
Trump 2,970,733 48.2%
Johnson 146,715 2.4%
Stein 49,941 0.8%
Florida (29 electoral votes)
Clinton 4,504,975 47.8%
Trump 4,617,886 49.0%
Johnson 207,043 2.2%
Stein 64,399 0.7%
36
The right wing, exemplified by Johnson, should be encouraged to split their votes to make it more likely for a rational candidate to prevail. Johnson's voters would have voted for the Orange Hairball or stayed home; some of Stein's voters might have supported Hillary, though. There's a reason Putin's stooges boosted Stein and not Johnson.
4
Especially because the "libertarian" party was founded and funded by the Koch Bros. (Take a look at the Cato Institute's credo.)
8
Johnson probably took more votes away from Trump than from Clinton. Most Johnson voters I know (an unrepresentative small sample are ... Conservative Republicans.
3
Re: “fusing Bernie Sanders’s class politics with a focus on racial and gender equality.”
In his stump speech, Bernie Sanders advocates racial and gender equality. He talks about reducing black youth unemployment and the disproportionate arrests of blacks for marijuana possession. He talks about protecting abortion rights and says women should get equal pay.
13
Bernie's failure to win the primary was because he failed to connect with enough black and Latino voters, who tend to be more progressive than the rest of the Democratic base, and also to older women, who felt that their issues were too much of an add-on to be of interest to Sanders. He's trying to remedy his mistakes and learn from them but from what we just witnessed recently from him he still has a ways to go in the learning process.
8
Words of advice to Democrats and the Democratic Party, action not words.
7
Working Families Party sounds like the Maoist Workers and Peasant party..socialism dressed in yet another costume.
4
Only if your perspective is negative towards all things that help actual people. You'd rather give away all your money to the rich and die young through lack of health care than do one thing to help your fellow citizens. Whatever.
11
Instead of needing 'revulsion' to vote, why not vote because it's your duty?
Representative democracies are very messy and very needy forms of government. We have yet to be up to the task. We are too lazy; not work lazy, but politically lazy. We don't make time and energy to actually be good citizens. We don't make voting day a national holiday so everyone can vote easily. We don't see the importance.
No, do not just vote because of negative feelings; that's wrong. We need to vote for a 'more perfect Union', the common good, for a compassionate and civilized society, for human decency, for an end to poverty, for an end to criminal levels of concentrated wealth, property and income (and with that - power).
Vote for good. Vote for it's sanctity. Vote for US.
10
The US is NOT a "two party system". Repeat: The US is NOT a "two party system". Parties are not in the Constitution. Elections have more than two candidates. Of course, the media - of which you are a part - don't want to do their job by informing Americans of these other candidates, unless to disparage them after-the-fact as "nihilistic spoilers".
Every other western-style democracy has more than two parties represented in their national legislature. Some, many more. Japan, Germany, Israel, Britain, France, Italy, you name it.
A healthy multi-party system in the US would blunt the ability of Trump to steamroll the GOP, because Republicans would have to form a coalition with other, less extreme parties in order to govern.
13
Other than the UK, all of those countries have forms of proportional representation which enable parties to gain seats in the legislature from smaller shares of the vote.
Systems using the plurality, or "first-past-the-post," system we inherited from Britain tend toward bipartisan outcomes in the legislature, as Maurice Duverger observed in the 1950s. Voters are discouraged from supporting third parties thinking votes for them will be "wasted" rather than influencing the actual outcome.
So why does the UK still have the Liberals (now the Liberal Democrats), or parties like the Scottish and Welsh nationalists? I wrote a dissertation on this subject back in the 1970s when the Liberals were experiencing one of their periodic revivals. Some of the persistence of Liberal support, like support for the nationalists, came from districts with strong local political and religious traditions. For most voters, though, the Liberals provided a convenient "halfway house" to express discontent with one's usual party. Oftentimes, this resulted in a coalition of disaffected voters from both sides who may not share the same beliefs. In the 1960s, people who supported the Tories but favored joining the Common Market voted Liberal as did Labourites who opposed entry.
British voting results also showed the power of the "wasted-vote" hypothesis. The Liberals did best in seats where one or the other major-party candidate had a large majority, and, of course, they failed to win election.
5
Beautiful. Thanks. Keep writing!
6
I've been registered in the WFP and found it a bit disappointing that they didn't endorse Zephyr Teachout in what turn out to be a surprisingly strong primary against Cuomo in 2014.
And now that Teachout is managing Nixon's primary campaign, something tells me they won't make the same mistake twice.
8
It is organizations like the WFP that will help elect Republicans like Trump to the Governors office in New York.
Just as the lack of support from the Bernie Sanders followers for Hillary Clinton helped elect Trump this will not help Democrats win.
There is a lack of realism in what can be done politically by any elected official that we should be aware of.
13
I'm not certain that is a correct assumption. People on the left are very motivated and disturbed by what they see and hear. What concerns me is this pendulum swing between right and left that we are seeing in this country since the end of Clinton's 2nd term. The swings are wider and more divisive. It appears that what is driving this divisiveness started out as "Shock Radio" and then morphed into Fox News with more hatred spewed to towards the left, hidden nicely behind some real news. Using freedom of the press to sway a large swath of the population politically is shameful. It is a misuse of a constitutional right. The fact that a generation has suckled on this disinformation brings us to an electorate that enables not only a president but other political leaders to do things that are not good for the country as a whole. So, the WFP is a late response to a monster on the right, that has been feeding on hate and refining its strategies for two decades. The feeling of do or die on both sides is palpable.
8
Waking up the Democratic party, acting as their conscience, inspiring collaboration, and helping Democrats to exert the power of the VOTE in 2018 - this is a winning strategy in my opinion. I hear that in the WFP, and I applaud that. Somehow those who did not vote need to motivated to VOTE and see the power of that vote. The short term salvation of the insanity we are now witnessing in our society today is a reset in 2018. It will be a long winter of regret if we do not.
9
If revulsion were enough Hillary would be President instead of Trump. If black (13% of Americans) and Jewish (2% of Americans) votes mattered Hillary would be living in the White House.
Rather than revulsion what is needed is a consistent credible alternative politically positive revolution to win local, state and federal elections.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered in Memphis on the eve of the Poor People's Campaign in Washington, D.C. where he hoped to unite Americans along socioeconomic educational class lines instead of dividing them by color aka race caste differences. The effort failed. And while King's death was a blow there is no reason to believe that the outcome would have been different had he lived. King was very unpopular and the Vietnam War divided the left and the right.
While no one would confuse Maurice Mitchell or Dan Cantor with Dr. King, their methods are made for these times and King's are not.
8
There was plenty of revulsion for Clinton. There was more than enough revulsion to go around for both candidates. Hence you got nose-holding votes, 3rd party votes, and more tails on couches than votes that either candidate got. Other than that, i totally agree with you.
6
A great article. Michelle mentions activists and organizing, but leaves out an important resource. The Midwest Academy run by Heather Booth is doing important training of activists. There is a new documentary called Heather Booth, Changing the World. Activists and organizers need to see it.
4
You forgot to mention Bernie Sanders who promised a Socialist Paradise and succeeded in demonizing Hillary Clinton. Extreme Socialism is Communism, extreme Conservatism is Fascism. When either take power both become Dictatorships and the State becomes the deity. Sanders knew he had no chance except as a spoiler and a dishonest one. His goal was to make sure Clinton did not win, stating that Trump would be so awful(actually is) that in the next election he would be the savior with a clear mandate to impose Socialist rule.The result, the left decided if they could not have his brand of Utopia, they would simply not vote, abandoning the candidate that took their side and who would defend their rights. And once a Fascist is enshrined, he(or she) is very difficult to remove since his word becomes truth, his word becomes law, the rights citizens had are removed by edict and voting becomes irrelevant. With the other branches of government being enablers or effectively neutered, we are dangerously close to that scenario. We don't have time for other movements to take hold, only six months until the next election which will either restore power to the middle and the rule of law or propel us headlong into the abyss of Fascism. Getting out the vote by those who have the most to lose, is priority one. Getting that message out is the most important thing we can do.
17
In no way did Sanders promise a utopian paradise. Rather he wanted to return to the New Deal of FDR or the Great Socity of LBJ or even Ike, with his interstate highway system, when presidents knew that the government could do great things for its people, such as providing social security in one's old age or in Sanders case, universal healthcare.
I am so tired of hearing from Clintonistas such as yourself, who blame her lose on anyone and everyone but the candidate herself. Yesterday it was Comey who was the culprit and today it's Jill Stein, according to Goldberg or Sanders according to you. Perhaps if Clinton hadn't been so full of hubris, she would have realized that she should have spent more time in Michigan and at least stepped foot in Wisconsin, two states that she LOST to Bernie in the primaries. Her lose in the general election was not Comey's fault or Sanders fault or Jill Stein's fault. The lose was because of the candidate herself.
18
When will Hillary Clinton apologists give us a break already? There was always fear that Hillary's candidacy would pale in comparison to Obama's, insofar as she couldn't inspire Democrats to vote. Sadly, this came to fruition. As far as alienating Democrat and Independent voters, I think you don't give Hillary enough credit; after all, it was her, not Bernie Sanders, who secretly told Wall Street how she held private positions in addition to public ones.
Posts such as yours unfortunately reflect how many Democrat voters have learned absolutely nothing from the disaster of 2016. In view of the demographic advantages Democrats held and still hold, Hillary should have easily won, gerrymandering and electoral college aside. if i were Donald Trump, I would view you more as a friend than a enemy.
14
There were many factors responsible for Clinton's loss. Bernie was just one of them. Her poor campaign was another as well as factors I pointed to above. But you forgot to include the fake news from the other side and the role of Russia in rigging the election with the possible and likely connivance with Trump. See there is plenty of blame to spread around. As for Sanders Utopian paradise, you should know by this time a hyperbole when you read one, intended to make a point. The truth however is on my side. Socialism lost a long time ago.
Eternal vigilance is not only the price of liberty, it is also the price of human decency.
9
Nihilistic spoiler campaigns? 3d parties provide people who have no voice someone to speak up for them. If it doesn't help your preferred candidate or party you just have to work harder to prove your message.
7
I just emailed the WFP that they need a chapter in my state and encourage others in states that don’t have a chapter to do the same!
3
"But many on the left either disdained electoral politics altogether — preferring demonstrations like Occupy Wall Street...or gravitated toward nihilistic spoiler campaigns like those of Ralph Nader and Jill Stein."
Elites are basically okay with the way big money has strangled the electoral process and politics generally, so they have no way of understanding the contempt the working class holds for politics in this country.
Medicare for all, a financial transaction tax, increased Social Security benefits, decreased military spending and increased social service spending - all these excellent ideas are supported by significant majorities of the public, but big money politics allows a tiny slice of the population that holds most of the wealth to veto these ideas.
And both parties are complicit in this although, for some reason, liberal elites (and sadly, many working people) still think that the Democratic party continues to honor the New Deal traditions that made the Party - and the country - strong.
There is a small element among the Democratic Party that supports the ideas I listed above, but tellingly, the Democratic Party bosses are doing their best to sabotage this reform movement.
If the party bosses are successful, our presidential choices for the foreseeable future will be the same as what we faced in 2016: a phony Republican populist versus an indifferent elitist.
17
The WFP's strength in New York is amplified by it's ballot line status. In particular, the ability of candidates to run on more than one ballot line. The dual endorsement strategy is limited in a number of other states
8
Trump has his core issues, America First, trade and immigration. What are the core issues of the Democratic Party, besides anti-Trumpism? Not clear at all. I don’t know if economic fairness and anti-Trumpism are enough to win with, but I will say this: If the LBGTQ movement is an important spearhead, the party may fail. I’m not a bigot; just a realist. With half the electorate in a mood to return to the Fifties,
the time is not now for social pioneering. Those on the left of the party who abhor the center can bring it all down.
10
It's pretty straight forward:
better health care
reduce poverty
improve education including trades and high-tech manufacturing
get people educated and working and paying taxes instead of paying for welfare and prison
reduce income inequality
reduce the deficit
Note that deficits went up under Reagan and W Bush and deficits went down under Clinton and Obama.
But those are not a great sound byte like Make America Great Again.
Personally, I prefer MASA - Make America Smart Again.
27
Seriously? The Democratic Party stands for so many issues like women's reproductive rights, LGBT rights, a clean environment with research for renewable energy, equal pay, the ERA, strong gun laws and more.
12
PS - regarding LBGTQ rights, you sound like people did in the 1960's regarding Civil Rights.
"Now is not the time, just be patient."
And actually, the majority of Americans are for equal rights. Just a few people like Mike Pence.
Disclosure, I am not gay nor anybody in my family. As we say here in the South, I don't have a dog in this fight.
8
Amusing that the best example was in an already predominantly democratic state. Won’t make a twig of difference
I very much liked the reference to understanding current reality in the bision model. If forty years working for a top 20 American corporation we found that an inability to fully understand current reality was far more damaging than any lack of vision. In crises visions seldom changed. It was just that the crises make current reality impossible to ignore
Democrats need to get resl about yheir reality. The look like a basket of Unassociated protest movements that alienate the largest voting base. Their policies ignore the question who pays (the rich is no answer to that question) and how would we convince them that it is in their interest to pay more. They continue to support failing policies and failing institutions rather than cleaning house. A bloody futile mess.
Democrats need the economy to fail spectacularly to return to power, or a debilitating scandal. Giod luck with that—I guess
1
Have you taken a look at the special election results over the last year+ in both purple and deep red states?
I'm not sure democrats are the ones who don't understand the current reality.
7
The right has succeeded for decades by keeping poor whites and poor minorities fighting each other, instead of uniting for their common good. If we can change the conversation to fairness and justice, we can take back our government.
12
I foresee a lot of feet being shot off in the next couple of years. The means-ends test is going to get a workout
2
Many of us registered Democrats are no longer "perfectly at home with the Democratic Party." I'm working to defeat establishment leaders, in order to get new blood in our government. No more Hillary and her cronies.
17
So now we have Trump. Republicans are thrilled that Democrats are now fighting with each other. That is how they keep power, by dividing the Democratic Party .
13
There's another thing that Trump's election has taught us: don't believe the polls. And Bush Jr.'s election taught us: don't trust the Supreme Court to fix a stolen election.
We're dealing now with illegally disenfranchised voters, gerrymandered states, and an unknown number of fringe types who dismiss party politics and the MSM for hare-brained conspiracy theories that live forever on the internet. Right or left wing, Rush Limbaugh or the ultra-lefty blogger Caitlyn Johnston, they both preach that "they're all fakes and liars,” and you can’t believe anyone.
Who needs Putin when your own people are so spoiled that they're unraveling the tenuous bonds that presume we're all in this together?
11
In every analysis of the 2000 Florida recount Bush won. Yet you describe this as “stolen” since your candidate lost. So you add to the degradation of Democracy with your false narrative. Go figure.
3
Image result for did gore win florida
2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida. ... The Florida vote was ultimately settled in Bush's favor by a margin of 537 votes when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore, stopped a recount that had been initiated upon a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court.
This is a great strategy for getting Trump re-elected.
Tune in to Fox n Friends this morning to see how Trump will respond to all the messes he is in right now.
4
They have to slow down the crawl so his tweet-typing can keep up.
3
I hope the Working Families Party realizes that the number one goal for ALL liberal-minded anti-authoritarians is for Democrats in the fall of 2018 to take back the House and Senate. With Trump now running berserk through the White House, with neo-fascism now a real possibly, this is not the year to fracture viable Democrats with also viable though not yet proven and unknown liberal or progressive alternatives.
19
Which was the nihilistic (and narcissistic) campaign in 2016: Jill Stein's or Hillary Clinton's?
8
Stein's, by far.
5
I can understand joining a movement to promote policies and values one feels strongly about that are being neglected of not pursued forcefully enough by the dominant parties. However, in when it comes to voting the party that gets hurt by those who chose to vote for the third party is the one closer to their own views and thus such 3rd party is more a destructive than a constructive force.
This is what ails for example progressive parties in other countries, unwilling to join with those who are not so pure and thus losing any influence on how and which policies are implemented by the party in power.
10
Regrettably, Chokwe Lumumba aimed, not aims, to make Jackson, Miss., the most radical city in America. He died in 2014.
That was the father of the current Mayor.
4
No, that was his dad.
This is the one in the article. Same name.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokwe_Antar_Lumumba
4
The inbred poodle, having spent his life on marble and carpeted floors, with his entire lineage raised in high rise city, is no match for the junkyard dogs raised behind walls of ignorance, and told that the city poodle is being fed juicy steaks while they have to make do on previous year's acorns.
Republicans are aces when it comes to nurturing these junkyard dogs with religious dogma, hate-messages, and promises of return to pre-civil rights days. Limbaugh is no poodle, Rachel Maddow is no junkyard dog.
Madam Goldberg understates the problem; the republicans pretty much control everything from down my street to the white house, and will spend $3 trillion in the coming 12 months to ensure this power (out of taxpayers who are predominantly not businesses or business owners).
Republican power comes from hate; democrats power largely comes from class envy. The former is an equal opportunity motivation, the latter is an affliction of only a fraction. Both hold a ridiculous sense of entitlement; only the republicans have the guile to get the spigot toward them with anger, hate, vim and vigor. The democrat asks for pity, compassion; junkyard dogs don't speak that language.
I hope women run for local and every other kind of office. The problem for democrats is to get their constituencies to register and then vote, instead of crying and whining, demonstrating and lighting candles, after they have gloriously lost. Junkyard dogs are plain satisfied by then.
Kalidan
7
Love your ad placement in the midst of Working Families: living the splendor of celebrity.
3
Who in their right mind expects a fair election in 2018 when the election in 2016 was clearly rigged? Liberals need to get real: america is dead.
#calexit
1
There is a truth the Democrats cannot escape: they have not learned, ever, to shut up and unify behind whomever is chosen.
Internecine warfare never stops, is conducted in public, and at the ballot box.
Personally, any Democrat in any office is preferable to any Republican, no matter what their flaws.
The GOP closes ranks and in that way have managed to garner so much power.
Meanwhile, no matter how much I agreed with Bernie Sanders' positions, there was no way in the world America was going to elect a Jew as president. Look at the anti-Semitism exploding everywhere, incidents up 50% in one year according to the ADL. But Bernie wouldn't quit, wouldn't stop, and did enormous damage to Clinton's campaign. And no one dared to talk about the anti-Semitic factor as Bernie rolled along.
WFP, centrist, left, none of it matters in the end if we can't unite behind the chosen candidate, however reluctantly.
I've never forgotten the lesson I learned in 1968, before Ms. Goldberg was born. I supported Bobby; he was murdered; I got Humphrey. A staunch liberal-progressive, trapped into silence about the war because he was LBJ's VP. Dems bled out, still fighting instead of uniting, and Nixon won.
Compromise, Dems, and then work 24/7 to elect whoever the candidate is. She/he will always be preferable to the party of McConnell, Ryan, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, the Mercers and the Kochs.
32
Are we allowed to have ONE issue on which we campaign rather than being Republicans Lite? The great compromiser would prefer to have us abandon all of them in order to "elect whoever the candidate is."
Pragmatism should have limits. No, I don't want McConnell et al.; but it's reasonable to have at least one principle we all agree on, other than being against anything Trump wants, or we risk becoming the new Party of No.
Come to think of it, I could vote for that--who'll sign the pledge?
2
"..there was no way in the world America was going to elect a Jew as president. "
In my state Bernie won every county in the last presidential primary with the exception of one. He lost that one by one vote.
As sensible as your opinion is in totality, your anti-Semitism fears are bogus. And yes, the Republicans hoped he'd win the nomination because they thought Hillary was going to romp. Their opposition was for his politics, not his ethnicity or religion. And that's a feather in their cap devoid of practically any other.
3
Yes, AND, please read David Brooks this morning. Any resistance to Trump must focus on issues not his personality.
4
Challenging Democrats from the left is a strategy that would get a lot of support from the GOP, Putin,and all sorts. I am not engaging in conspiracy theories or attributing bad faith. I am suggesting that purity in the face of threats to the constitution and to our national well being is misguided will make a bad situation worse.
9
Hey maybe somebody can convince some multi-billionaires to fund a new party or to take over the Democratic Party, just like the Tea Party and the GOP. The multi-billionaires would be happy to invest in such an enterprise for the 'good of the country' and to end the Trump chaos which is not good for their businesses. And then pigs will fly.
The Citizens United decision was the proximate enabler of the takeover of the GOP by Trump... SuperPACs that do not have to reveal the source of their money means that voters do not have a way to see how is flooding their TV screens and facebook feeds with "facts" and "opinions" - which may not be truthful and which may reflect the interests of the secret donors. (Of course, that would only apply to a tiny minority of the "educational" efforts of the fine SuperPACS.) AND those undisclosed donors may well be foreign agents. Although foreign agents are well warned that it is illegal for them to contribute financially or otherwise to US elections. There are undoubtedly "big fines' of hundreds or maybe even thousands of dollars to be levied for violating those unenforced laws.
4
" But many on the left either disdained electoral politics altogether — preferring demonstrations like Occupy Wall Street that quickly turned into ends in themselves — or gravitated toward nihilistic spoiler campaigns like those of Ralph Nader and Jill Stein."
Or they go to the courts and urge them to overturn the local laws. I remember years ago, a liberal celebrating when a judge overturned a law about displaying the Ten Commandments. I suspected that the ruling would increase conservative resentment of elites and probably energize them for the next election, and I was right. That's what started the career of Roy Moore, which ended only this year after he was accused of child molestation.
1
So, with benefit of hindsight, was it appropriate to celebrate the Ten Commandments decision? If cons hadn't resented it, presumably we would have been spared Moore's subsequent career, but we might not have heard about the molestation either. Not such an easy call, is it?
As I recall, there was more than one liberal celebrating.
4
If they do become a viable alternative on the left to the Green Party (which has achieved nothing positive) instead of a rubber stamp for the Cuomo types in the Democratic party, they would be more than welcome--especially if they can unite black activists with white radicals.
3
It would be nice if progressives brought some stone-cold realism to the table. This is a dirty knife fight for democracy, and the side of the oligarchs and authoritarians comes to play - it's not some head-nodding, logrolling sharing circle.
5
Yeah. It’s always the fault of progressives who are supposed to sit down and be quiet. Why of course Americans “can’t “ have what citizens of every other first world nation have had for decades! Medicare for all, free college education, modern public transit, family leave.
7
Completely missed my point. It's that you have to fight hard for these things. (Btw, I want all of those things except for "free education." Debt-free education, yes.)
Families, workers, the entire left had a lion in Al Franken; a true champion for the cause of fairness and justice and just plain common sense. Hmm. What ever happened to him?
4
Gillibrand saw him as a threat to her presidential ambitions, and used these unproven allegations to get rid of him. Franken said he was gobsmacked by how quickly his colleagues turned against him, not even allowing him to have an ethics hearing. That whole episode was incredibly stupid and self defeating. Now we no longer have his strong voice in the senate his safe senate seat is no longer a sure thing. Thank you Gillibrand for leading this witch hunt.
11
gillibrand was instrumental but she was enabled by Michelle Goldberg. Check out Goldberg's column, Franken Should Go, Nov 17th.
As all the exit polls demonstrated, Bernie would have easily beaten Trump in the Rust Belt and thus won the election nationally. Despite the absurd, lying smear of Bernie claiming he was somehow less pro-civil rights than Hillary, Bernie would have been the most liberal pro-woman (ever see his wife?), pro-civil rights, AND pro-working-class white president we've ever had. That's the only winning way forward for the Democratic Party. Foreground a class war against Wall St.'s perversion of American capitalism as an assault on workers, and combine that with justice for women and minorities too. Which was exactly what Bernie stood for, despite Hillary's lies against him. It was Hillary who blew it with the workers, who rightly saw her as a tool of Wall St., and therefore we got Trump. If the Dems nominate another tool of Wall St., whether she's black and/or a woman or not, Trump will beat the Dems again. Wise up, Dems, and return to your FDR roots, or else.
12
“Can we merge these ideals with serious electoral heft?” Well, to quote President Barack Obama, yes we can! The new breed of conservative heroes in print and electronic media (they like to refer to themselves as intelligentsia) differentiate between 'the left' and 'liberals'. They may have a point when it comes to the ballot box. We liberals need to understand that realizing 80% of our core values should not be seen as capitulation of our ideals or defeat of the (deferred) 20%! The alternative is 0%; something we are now experiencing. Let's get real!
5
Better argued than historylesson's post, but unsatisfying. The trouble is, unless we stand for them, we have no hope of getting 80% of the things we wish; rather, we'll be lucky to end up with 0% rather than being dragged backwards.
1
Given how far the Democratic Party was led astray to the center-right by the Clintons and Obama, the W.F.P. is sorely needed. I think I'll give them some money!
8
It's the gigantic coalition waiting to happen. Vote!!
5
WFP, Indivisible, the Women's Marches and Resist! are all part of a ground-swell that the moribund, self-serving Democratic "Leaders" like Pelosi, Feinstein, and, to a lesser extent, Schumer are tone-deaf about. They've led us into ongoing, continual minority-party status, "picking and choosing" their battles and conceding state houses and governorships (where congressional and state district lines are drawn) to Republicans all across the nation. They've consistently picked "GOP-Lite" candidates to appeal to the mythical center that lose because disgusted Democrats and Democratic-adjacent voters stay home or vote for the Jill Stein spoilers to "send a message". Well, that message hasn't made it to the leaders until now, and they won't admit it, but they don't like it. Because they are not driving the bus anymore. And that's a good thing. The pic is of Morristown, the center of the NJ 11th, where Rodney Frelinghuysen, facing his first real challenge ever, with an energized grass-roots local Dem party, decided to "retire" rather than fight a real campaign he might well lose, just after attaining his dream job of Chair of Appropriations.
As a man Mr. Cantor's age (62), I'm excited by WFP's strategy and energy. As Dems are saying: Vote your conscience in the Primaries, but vote strategically in the General Election.
5
I realize now that so many of us progressives were just happily asleep during the Obama years...it was such a relief after the Bush presidency in which right- wing nutjobs ran our ideals and our budget into the ditch of war in the Mid-east! And it was so tempting to believe the country was moving forward against institutionalized racism....*sigh*
But as Neil Young says, "Rust never sleeps." "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," is another applicable quote (though I can't remember who from.) Belonging to a grassroots-level party like the WFP could keep it much more real and could keep people involved on a daily level, not the abstract, ideological level that gets a few voters out every four years. As we've learned to our very great sorrow via the election of the least-qualified, craziest, and creepiest President in history, waking up every two to four years is not enough!!!
7
"Building a party that can simultaneously encompass feminist actresses in Manhattan, black liberationists and white Appalachian strikers is no small thing."
They used to be called democrats
15
All politics is local. The right knew that and had the patience to start local and build a formidable voting base with considerable financial support. If progressives care about their communities they have to start at the city or county level and move on up from there. Our aim now should be to take over our state houses.
7
Third-parties only become spoilers for one of two reasons.
1) The more ideologically aligned Party puts up barriers against incorporation into mainstream politics under their banner. Essentially, the independent platform is shut out from the Party platform. These are "spoilers" of the Party's own creation. If you had listened, they wouldn't be running an independent campaign in the general election.
Or 2) The independent candidate is intentionally running a spoiler campaign in the hopes of altering an election outcome in a way that is both ideologically principled but also Party affiliated. They are running as both a disruptive agent and a protest. Witness Evan McMullin. Anti-Trump Republican protests Trump while still handing him three electoral votes.
13
So where do both of Ross Perot's campaigns in the 1990s fit in? Because far and away he was able to garnish way more votes than any other third party candidate in recent memory.
Maybe an early rumbling of populist sentiment, since his campaign seemed to be focused primarily on an anti-NAFTA platform...
2
Thanks, like a lot of the previous comments, I too was not familiar with the Working Families Party. I would label myself as very comfortable within the Democratic Party and I voted for Hillary with enthusiasm (and a little money) both in the 2008 primary and in 2016. I get the progressive voice and that they must be heard and listened to. But I'm most encouraged by the pragmatic approach to November elections that Maurice Mitchell says will be taken. The most immediate and doable approach for the moment is to turn the House blue, and to begin to turn a lot more State governorships and legislatures blue as well. With the census of 2020 looming, taking those downstream positions will be critical, beginning now. And if more progressive elements of my party can get that done, I'm all for it.
17
The GOP has for years fought relentlessly for power at every level of government from the White House down to school boards. They understood long ago how controlling those local, quotidian offices granted them extraordinary power over voting districts, budgets, etc.
Local school boards, for example, can control budgets of tens of millions of dollars or more, and yet sometimes they are elected with a few hundred votes or less.
No office is too small to be contested -- that's the lesson progressives need to understand.
40
Thank you, MG, for casting a light on an important need -- increasing activism at the local level -- and highlighting an organization trying to facilitate that that is not a major political party. (A first for such an establishment publication??) I am unlikely to join the WFP; I frankly doubt that such a relatively small outfit can make much of a dent on its own. But if it and others like it can pressure the Democratic Party to become more active at the local level and to listen to the voices of its ideological roots while smartly working toward what's practical and doable, that will be a major accomplishment.
4
Thank you for a very informative and uplifting column. After reading it, I tried to find what WFP is doing in my local area. Sad to see that Illinois doesn't seem to have anything going on at this time. Not surprising though, the local Democrats have long been more concerned about maintaining their hold on power where they have it, instead of actually helping working families. I would guess local Democrats would do all they could to keep WFP from establishing a foothold.
7
Thank you, Ms. Goldberg. This is a terrific and informative article. I'm embarrassed to say that though I went on the Women's March in DC and the March for Our Lives, though I have given money to Emily's List, the ACLU et al, I have never heard of the Working Families Party. Well, I have now.
7
This is a step in the right direction, but likely insufficient. Historically, the labor unions got out the vote. The unions are now downsized, and the labor vote splintered. We need a "union" that represents the economic interests of families and people working in all kinds of jobs, something like an AARP for working age adults and their children. If even 30% of the population belonged to such a broad based "union", it would be a powerful political force and it could make a big difference in increasing voter turn out. Such an organization would need to be focused on economic issues, education, health care and retirement benefits, and getting out the vote. The AFL-CIO has an organization that tries to organize people along these lines called "Working America", but it does not have the mass membership needed. If the Democratic Party, the unions, and progressive organizations wanted to form a broad-based organization, they could do it. I thought that Obama's organization would do something like this in 2008, but they wasted their chance. The Republican interest groups are well organized and financed (Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, right wing evangelical churches, etc.). With the downsizing of the labor movement, the Democratic Party has become a minority party. We need a broad-based organization with tens of millions of members (like AARP)--the sooner the better.
28
It always starts with all politics are local and voting. In my 13 presidential election cycles, I have seen the same thing over and over. Marches, fervor, voter registration drives and come election time, the same percentages actually vote. I am lucky to have lived the past four decades in two states where voting is taken seriously as a civic duty and typical voter turnout is in the high 60% range and often over 70% for general elections. Even the most recent spring election, our county doubled the turnout of the state at large. Unless and until these movements actually get out the vote, you are not going to effect change.
16
"People, sophisticated people, barely know who their state senator is...A significant portion of nonmilitary spending in America is done at the state and local levels...so it’s not like these are trivial offices. This is where people live.”
So I moved to CT. I am seeking to become politically active here, but am finding too many "old pols" running things at the state and local levels. Apparently, both Rep and Dem parties have been unhinged from budget sanity here, over the years. I am sure that this is true all over the country.
My goal is to find progressives at the state and local levels to support, because they affect the quality of life here right now, as well as the shape of future. Interesting column, Ms. Goldberg and thanks.
National politics are certainly entertaining, but it is time to support any forces that encourage the best people into local politics, grooming them for larger and more powerful roles.
10
The failure to have candidates in all offices on a ballot has resulted in the right wing controlling government. If we haven't learned that we will fail again. It s not enough to campaign against the top of a ticket.
Women are leading us since the Trump disaster and are running in record numbers. Keep it up! Resist!
30
Just as sane Republicans (Jeff Flake or John Kasich for example) are actually very conservative even by historical Republican standards, the "centrist" Democrats being challenged are actually very far on the left.
The Tea Party, Trumpists, and variety of other groups that drove the GOP to its current (temporary?) insanity are all based on anger. So are many groups on the left. And legitimate causes for anger are being amplified on both the left and right by cartoonish views of elites conspiring against common Americans.
Healthy political systems should not ignore anger, but they cease being healthy when anger becomes the major driver of policy.
6
The WFP is a great model for how progressives can work within the Democratic Party. They have long had my vote. I only wish that the leadership of Congressional Democrats would follow Dan Cantor's example and step aside when the time is right. And, now is the time for Nancy Pelosi (age 77), Steny Hoyer (age 77) and James Clybourn (age 78)--the geriatric House leadership (and I say this as a 77-year old progressive)--to retire before the mid-term elections. New progressive voices will brig in new voters. They also need to follow the WFP by having a political agenda on hot button issues like gun control and immigration reform, especially on DACA where the public, particularly young voters, overwhelmingly supports progressive positions.
48
I'm dubious that Occupy and conventional politics have any tendency to be mutually exclusive. I didn't spend any nights in a tent, but I went and held a sign for a bunch of days at the local Occupy. And my state senator wouldn't recognize me in person, but he does get enough emails from me that he probably recognizes my name.
11
If the Trump presidency does not constitute sufficient motivation to unite the varied sectors referenced in the article nothing will ever unify the party.
14
40+% of voters are registered Independent. You can unify your party, but you can't do it with Democrats alone. Your party seems to have a problem with getting out the vote. Does the party even know who its "base" is?
4
This bit about "registered independent" ( or registered Republican or registered Democrat) mystifies me. I registered to vote 45 years ago when I reached 18, and nobody ever asked me what I registered AS. It's nobody's business and it frees me to vote for the better candidate in every election.
You know that it’s a political “party” that should be avoided like the plague when it sports FIVE names. The “Social Democratic Working Families Party” conjures memories of a dreary, gray Soviet Moscow AM with lines at dawn already snaking around corners of people waiting for hours to buy bathroom tissue, bread and vodka – only to be told before Noon that supplies were gone. With most of the line still waiting.
Ashley Bennett’s victory in a local NJ election was national news only because Democrats didn’t have anything MORE significantly productive to their purposes to report. It would be amusing to witness the attempt to make it more than that if the reality weren’t so sad … for Democrats.
Mr. Mitchell is falling into the same self-built-and-triggered trap as that which sunk the Occupy Whatever crowd: seeking to do too much, that opened too many battle fronts without the ability to knit people together with such different priorities and even interests, and thereby failing to focus leverage on any one with sufficient strength to have an impact.
But, hey … have at it. We need a loyal opposition in a basically center-right country, and people should be encouraged to fight for causes in which they believe. Keeps them off the streets.
6
Or ... does it?
2
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no center-right position, or center-left for that matter. The center, by definition, is where exactly half the people fall on the political divide. People who use these terms clearly have some preconceived notion of what the center is because they think of it in static terms. The reality is that the center is always changing, so the more relevant question is which way does it move over the long haul - and that is undeniably always left.
9
Mark:
With civilization, the center almost always moves left continuously if slowly, ponderously -- unless the left pushes this at a pace too rapid to be acceptable to key social players and influencers.
That's precisely what you did for years -- those who sought to transform America rapidly largely destroyed it by exciting tectonic and unmanaged resistance. Those key players and influencers have halted that leftward evolution, and it will be some time before they trust you enough to let you get close again to the levers of social evolution. But until that happens, don't expect a lot of progressive evolution.
You did it to yourselves -- only in part by putting something as basic as healthcare in the hands of someone as lacking in nuance as Nancy Pelosi.
1
If the Working Families Party endorses Governor Cuomo again, they will show that they have no reason to exist. They will discredit themselves politically. Everyone understands that "Andy" epitomizes the pro-corporate, empty suit politicians that have alienated so many workers from the Democratic Party.
Ms. Nixon, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of progressive alternative candidate the WFP exists to endorse.
Here is a rare case where doing the right thing is also the politically necessary and savvy thing to do.
21
Red Allover.
You certainly are.
Cynthia Nixon has no chance of winning the Democratic primary against Cuomo, with or without WFP's endorsement. Instead, they should consider getting on the good side of a serious national player who is going to win re-election handily.
7
Richard, in addition to the ad hominem attack on Red Allover, did you read the article or just skim it? Clearly WFP is working to change the Democratic Party (which you regularly eschew and belittle) from the inside, which means even a losing campaign for Cynthia Nixon, if it generates serious votes, sends a message.
But your "advice" to Democrats is never actually beneficial to Democrats or Democratic Party ideals. I agree that Ms. Nixon's quest is quixotic, but it wouldn't hurt Andy Cuomo to be shaken up a bit and recognize a wider base, especially if he has national inclinations.
And what were the odds of trump winning?
This kind of local level voter participation is exactly what the country needs. For years, local level election turnout has hovered in the mid-twenties percentage rate. Gubernatorial elections are in the forties, and presidential elections rarely crack 60% voter turnout. If every eligible voter who doesn't vote now started turning up at the ballot box on a regular basis, we could have four major political parties, not two.
Our system of government works, but it's not used the way it's designed specifically for the reason I alluded to above: voter apathy. If we want to have better candidates at all levels, voters have to show up at the polls. The Christian Right gets this, and so do the top 1% of earners. The latter has 97% voter turnout, whereas relatively poor people are unlikely to vote at all, giving wealthy people a disproportionate advantage.
Politicians don't just ignore the will of the majority because they've been paid off by special interests. They do so because the special interests bother to vote and most other people don't, and the politicians know that. This tyranny of the minority would end in a heartbeat if the majority exercised its constitutional rights.
46
"If we want to have better candidates at all levels, voters have to show up at the polls. "
Or vice versa. If we have better candidates, voters will show up at the polls. A choice between cancer and polio is what we're usually dealt, courtesy of both stale bought and paid for parties.
And, open primaries would help a lot. It might not get the candidates the party prefers on the November ballot, but it might get them someone from their party.
Best choices, of course, would be more Independent candidates. Who look to serve their constituents instead of their parties.
6
Agreed that everyone who qualifies should be voting. However, we must also be loudly and actively fighting against Republican voting suppression tactics which are in place in many areas.
Closing polling places in largely Democratic or perceived Democratic districts, resulting in long lines.
Limiting and/or eliminating early voting.
Making "accepted" voter ID difficult to get (college photo IDs not acceptable, but a gun permit is??!!).
Unreasonably restricting voter registration efforts (WI no longer permits voter registration in retirement & nursing homes, those elderly & incapacitated citizens MUST now go to an "approved" registration location).
Many other underhanded tricks, all promulgated by Republicans.
15
Trump ran his campaign as an outsider to Washington.
If there is still an audience for non-career politicians, others should throw their hats into the ring.
No one could be less qualified for any office than the man in the White House!
36
Oh I am so in. I love the Working Families Party. I wish the government had to fund these smaller parties so they could grow. I've never heard of the Working Families Party until today, but now I'm really interested.
21
Having the government fund political parties so they can grow is the most insane anti democratic comment I have read in a long time. Simple question. Who in government would make these choices?
3
I'm all for any political movement that can build a progressive consensus rather than sabotaging it, as Jill Stein and Gary Johnson did so effectively in 2016.
Trump is the defining moment for this generation, just as Reagan was for a previous one. Perhaps younger people were not aware of the forces Reagan unleashed in the 1980s, from the attempted destruction of the EPA and Iran Contra to anti-labor and anti-civil rights efforts to massive destruction of public lands under Interior Secretary James Watt to the tripling of the deficit through irresponsible tax cuts and military buildup.
Trump is easily as bad as Reagan, probably worse in many ways. It's sad to imagine that millions actually saw him as their savior.
189
Trump is much worse than Reagan, as horrid as Reagan was, just like Bush II was worse than Reagan and Trump worse than Bush II.
24
Good heavens, he is far far worse than Reagan. And I hated Reagan.
34
Trump is what Reagan could only dream about. The difference between then and now: a liberal Democratic House and Senate.
We use the word left wing populism but government education and healthcare like Denmark and other first world countries just seems like common sense.
273
Canada.
9
It would help if the left quit using extremely wealthy, nearly all white, non-religious, culturally homogeneous, gender role busting, tiny countries with completely different political structures as their go-to examples. Just not relevant to making change in the USA.
- Thanks from an atheist, left-liberal, feminist, ABBA loving, knitting fanatic, Scandinavian descended Seattlite.
9
Anne, it's a matter of priorities not of wealth. Instead of universal health care, child care, education, public transportation etc. we have low taxes on wealthy people and an enormous, bloated military.
9
Trump's gift is that he's made us realize that we must take our right to vote more seriously. I've lost count of the number of people who have said that they either didn't vote, voted third party, or voted for him because they didn't expect him to win. Thankfully the working families party is already in place now that people are ready to be more responsible with their political choices.
We can't afford to splinter right now. All politics are local so a Democrat in New York is going to be very different than a Democrat from the Midwest or the south. This group is smart enough to recognize that purity doesn't win elections and candidates must match their community to be successful.
The DNC could do well to follow the example set by the working families party of the old guard stepping aside so that the younger generation can step up. People are energized but that energy will be lost if there's a sense of being ignored by those who have held power for an extended period. We don't want what the tea party has done to the GOP to happen to the Democratic party. We need less polarization not more.
136
But less polarization also includes not making charges about how the old guard needs to step aside so the younger generation can step up. Pitting progressives of different ages against each other is a sure path to defeat.
36
@AMI: excellent post! You've nailed the key distractors that could do Democrats in: ideological purity tests, infighting, and old vs youth power. the Tea Party offers plenty of evidence of what not to do.
But there is one thing the GOP can offer by way of example: in the end, Republicans always come round to support the party choice come hell or high water--its partially why we got Trump.
Dems should emulate that degree of party loyalty and turnout this fall.
90
As long as the antiquated and benighted electoral college remains in place, it's a waste of time trying to get people to vote. Most know that it won't make one iota of difference.
Here in NY, I know my state will go Democrat. If I were in Dixie, it would go Republican. There it is. Most people don't want to take time off work, or waste time standing in line in some dreary high school cafeteria.
The USA has the lowest voter turnout of any Western democracy for the simple reason that, for most voters in a presidential election, their vote doesn't count.
9
It's easy to be against something when running for politics. You can be against the person/party in power. You can be against the status quo. You can be against tyranny and blah blah blah.
The problem is that the political spectrum has been pulled so far right ( with the help of a national media conglomerate that acts as its blow horn ) that people seem to think that the most common sense ideas are some socialist plot to take over Americans' way of life. ( and in particular their freedom/firearms )
The United States is a decisively progressive and even socialist nation ( even you add up the sum of its parts/polling data on almost any issue ), but you wouldn't know it. ( again due to that megaphone of a media conglomerate )
Any candidate ( whether it be for a lowly school board, right on up to the Presidency ) must always thread the needle of standing up for the progressive values, but not label themselves in the process. ( nor let their right wing opponent label them )
People like good schools, clean air, water and earth and have safe streets. People want the sense of freedom that they are going to be able to choose something ( even if it is diametrically opposed to the above ) , hence they vote for republicans.
They THINK that they will get more freedom or lower taxes and be safer. In reality they pay more for everything. ( especially in the long run )
Liberal or Progressive is not a dirty label. Voting for someone else when you say you are is...
74
Funky, this country is not progressive or socialist as you state. It many seem that way if you live in NYC or some cities in CA (not all thanks to those now opposing sanctuary cities). Trump would never have gotten elected if this country was socialist.
Half of this country is moderate, the remaining half is more conservative than liberal.
3
@Olivia
I would point out that the entire raison d'tere of the United States is/was based on: ''no taxation without fair representation''
Essentially, if you make more money, then you pay more taxes for the common good of the country and all its citizens.
The republican party is diametrically opposed to that principal, which is radical and extreme from what the founding fathers envisioned.
I could enumerate a whole host of other ''progressive'' ideas ( just like Social Security > ''social'' right in the title ), but I suspect it would fall on deaf ears.
At any rate, when progressives finally take over and initiate wildly popular policies, they will not forget you.
That is the whole idea.
I'm glad you characterized my vote for Jill Stein as nihilistic and spoiling. I actually believed in her and was with her, but whatever.
11
Doesn’t matter what you believe. What were the results? We all believe our own stories. What are the effects of our actions on others? That to,me is the measure. You voted for Stein. Good for you. You gave us Trump. Bad for all of us.
16
You could not possibly have believed she could win the presidency so it was exactly that, an opportunity to spoil the chances of the far more progressive candidate that had a chance at winning the presidency from winning and you participated in delivering us into the maw of Trump almost as much as the deplorables just as the fools who voted for Nader delivered us into the maw of Bush II. At least be honest enough to own what you did to our nation.
16
in a "1st to the finish"electionn "game theory' says one of the two biggest will win..every time. if you believe in Jill Stein or some other 3rd party candidate, the time & way to work for them is long before the election & hard enough to made them one of the two majors. if that doesn't quite get there, hold your nose and vote for the least offensive. just like during the wedding mass is not the time teach children majors, elections are not for sending "messages."
14
W.F.P. sounds as if it has a lot to contribute this year and we anti-Trumpers need all the help we can get. Who would ever have thought that a guy who can do only two things, boast and whine, would become president of the US?
But I do have a question. What does "the most radical city on the planet" mean?
11
You can count me as one of the people "dreaming of a country that's egalitarian, cosmopolitan and humane". That would be such a change from what we have now which seems to be just the opposite.
Here's hoping that the Working Families Party grows strong enough to have some political power on its own and within the Democratic Party. We certainly need it.
101
I like the goal of this complement group to Democrats, and the excellent analogy comparing it to the Tea Party.
the last thing we need right now a third party that would splinter the vote. I really wish them luck--they're finally doing what the Koch network has focused on since the 80s, resulting in so much GOP control at the state level.
i
149
Christine You are correct. Dividing the Party is why Democrats lose.
8
as long as the Electoral College delivers the hammer blow to our free elections we cannot have 3 or 4 parties voting unless we switch to popular vote...wake up
Guess the influence of Soros is 'okay?' He is equally destructive, but Dems never seem to see that; his money (from oil overseas) goes to prop up any radical group that is far-left leaning. What we really need is moderation, not the extremes of the right or the left.
Backing Cuomo was hardly the way,
Who let the Senate go astray,
A voice often muted
Liberalism diluted,
And back door deals always in play.
86
Larry, "liberalism diluted." That's a good thing.
1