I have been thinking about the RI GOP situation for a while. I’m one of those people who agree that it would probably be better if the Republicans were a stronger party, that they could actually threaten the Democratic agenda in the state, etc., etc. A problem, I think, is that there are plenty of people who feel this way, but simply would never vote for a Republican. And they’re not wrong to do that (despite what Republicans might say). A great number of Rhode Island voters legitimately dislike Republican policies. Believing in multiparty democracy won’t change that.
Combined with this are perpetual complaints that Rhode Island voters are too unthinkingly partisan, pulling the master lever (metaphorically) the moment they see “Democratic Party”. We also have John Loughlin pointing out that Democrats like Arthur Corvese would be Republicans in any other state; essentially saying they can’t overcome Democratic inertia in the state. Likewise, there are plenty of Democratic voters who point out that Democratic success in RI has led to more than a few Democrats-In-Name-Only. I’m sure the accused Democrats would beg to differ.
Anyhow, if the RI GOP legitimately believes this is the case, I have a proposal for the Republicans: disband and become Democrats.
By adhering to this philosophy of entryism, Republicans would achieve all of their current aims. They would gain more power by being able to ally with conservative Democrats. They would gain the ability to check Democratic policy. They would functionally remove the master lever as a political evil. Essentially, they’d make the Democratic Party a nonpartisan political party. Yes, the primary would become the election, but it pretty much has been anyway, with the battle between the left and right wings of the Democratic Party.
Who knows, they might actually get one of their own made Speaker or Senate President.
Here’s the issue at heart: do Republicans care more about their party or more about their ideals? If they care more about their party, they’ll remain Republicans, essentially declaring tribal identity superior to principles. If they care more about their principles, they’ll do what it takes to win. They’ve tried the separate party thing, and it failed.
Liberals learned the same lesson in 2000. Since that point, liberals and progressives have eschewed third party politics in favor of primary battles for control of the Democratic Party. RI Republicans could use the same tactic.
Another way to look at this is as the “Andrew Jackson” strategy. RI Republicans could be described as ascribing to a “Rhody Reagan” strategy, in which a true conservative arrives to lead them to glory. But a Jackson strategy, forcing a split within the single dominant party based on ideology might be more successful; much as Andrew Jackson did with the Democratic-Republican Party, leading to the formation of the Democratic and Whig Parties.
At the end of the day, it’s about where you’d rather be in the political world: inside the tent pissing out, or outside the tent getting pissed on.
“Liberals learned the same lesson in 2000… They’ve tried the separate party thing, and it failed. Liberals learned the same lesson in 2000.”
Depends on which liberals you’re talking to, Sam. As if a Gore presidency was every liberals dream. I’d vote Nader again given the oppotunity.
Look where voting Democraitc year after year has gotten us. Many of the Obama administration policies (domestic spying, assasinations, drone attacks) are worse than under Bush. What exactly did RI Democrats acheive this year in voting “me too” with the Obama campaign?
Here’s my inverse for you: what did voting for Nader achieve? I’d say the sum of it is this: George W. Bush, arguably the worst presidency in the last quarter-century; six to eight years of a liberal nightmare where multiple wars were started, taxes were cut on the wealthiest, there was a real attempt to privatize social security, and regulations were relaxed to the point where the economy imploded throwing millions of people into poverty. Did voting for Nader alone achieve this? No, but removing Nader from the equation still equals Gore wins Florida. And I would gladly change an unknown Gore presidency for George W. Bush’s.
What did the Naderites achieve beyond the Bush presidency? Surely the Greens profited from the tremendous showing of their strength? No. In 2004, with a Democratic candidate roughly as weak (or weaker) as Gore, the Greens polled about 120k votes, down about 2.7 million. In 2012, they managed only about 465k votes. There are no Green governors, no Green senators, and no Green representatives. In fact, there is not a single elected Green in either national or state government.
In the meantime, Nader held two more vanity campaigns for president, out-polling the Greens each time. Nader was a disaster for the Greens (and arguably, America), but he was a-okay for Ralph Nader’s career.
In contrast voters who supported Barack Obama achieved a healthcare reform while highly imperfect is one that can be expanded upon and improved, similar to New Deal policies from the 1930s (which were likewise initially narrow). I can certainly argue (and have and will) that Obama wasted political capital upon it, that he badly argued for it, and that he has been ineffective. But like it or not, millions of Americans now have health insurance; and installing Mitt Romney would’ve killed those same Americans.
While Obama’s military and foreign policy is abominable (I took great pleasure in his State Dept. spokesperson saying that “we support stability in Egypt” and Al Jazeera’s host going “oh, so democracy isn’t stable?”), there is a counter to it here: his own Pentagon lawyer has stated that when the War on Terror ends, so do the president’s war powers. This creates a perverse incentive for a president to keep the war ongoing, but in this case, one only needs to install a president dedicated to peace and then vastly restrict the presidential war powers during peacetime. But that’s a structural issue and will take quite a lot of organizing.
In Rhode Island specifically, can we take much credit for helping elect the president? No, we achieved 4 votes that seemed destined for Obama. But that is voting. Economists can’t explain why we do it when there’s little benefit to us, and yet we still turn out.
I think this is also getting at another problem: the electoral college system which emphasizes “swing” states at the expense of “solid” states. In that case, I’ll answer your last question with another question: what did Rhode Islanders achieve this year in voting for President? If those voting for Romney got nothing, and those voting for Obama got nothing, then why did we all do it?
“what did voting for Nader achieve?”
Ever wonder why Democrats drift right as the election nears? It’s because they target swing voters. If you always vote Democratic, prepare to be ignored. (It’s the most important election ever! There’s no time for progressive concerns. We have an election to win!)
You seem to be blaming the Greens for not changing the world with one election. Oddly you mention FL as if RI Democrats made that happen. If Gore couldn’t convince more progressives in Florida that their vote mattered. That’s his fault, not Nader’s. fwiw, I voted for McKinney and for Stein since 2000 so Ralph’s ego isn’t my concern.
“In Rhode Island specifically, can we take much credit for helping elect the president? No.”
An yet imagine the headline if a large number of progressives here jumped ship, even just once. It would be the mouse that roared.
If you always vote Democratic, and don’t make any statement to the Democratic candidate about why you’re voting Democratic, prepared to be ignored. Voting is not our sole input into the political system. If I win 300 votes, and I don’t get 300 letters about it, I have very little way to know why those 300 votes came in. I’d certainly assume that those 300 voters approved of and supported my positions. But if I as a candidate have done some diligence in my campaign, identifying my voters, why they support me, what policies they enjoy, I’ll have a far better reason. But that requires voter input. Likewise, direct action and contact from my constituents will also demonstrate to me their concerns.
Democracy isn’t a place where majorities have to advocate for what they want, it’s where dedicated minorities get the attention. Am I arguing that progressives and liberals shouldn’t be vocal about their wants or desires from their candidates? Absolutely not, and I think I have amassed a record that demonstrates that I put that into practice. But I am arguing that handing an election to the worst choice by picking the best losing candidate at the expense of the second best candidate with a good chance of winning is not a way to achieve electoral success, especially in a plurality voting system like the vast majority of America.
I’m not blaming the Greens for not changing the world with one election; I am arguing that the 2000 election was a strategic failure for the Greens. First, it brought in a president who was wholly opposed to their agenda; Al Gore in the meantime has done more to advance the cause of fighting global warming than a great many Greens. So you can see how that didn’t work out. Second, the Green vote imploded following 2000, meaning that they built no success off of the Nader campaign. As I understand it, since Nader was technically independent of the Greens, he basically didn’t help the party build any infrastructure from his campaign. In contrast, Obama for America has become a major field training organization for the Democratic Party, with its alums founding other organizations, and learning and applying new skills to campaigns across the Democratic spectrum. Third, in the wake of the Gore-Nader loss, there has been a narrative, which true or not, is that such candidates sap crucial support from candidates who otherwise would win. Given the choice between doing something productive with my vote (selecting the candidate who will advance most of my policy goals) or to do something damaging with my vote (selecting the candidate who has no realistic chance of success, thereby assisting the candidate who is opposed to my policy goals), I should always go with the former option. Again, this applies only to plurality voting systems; this rationale falls away in majority voting systems.
I’m am not saying nor implying that that RI Dems had anything to do with Florida. I must not have been clear there. I’m also not letting Gore off. He was an uninspiring candidate, but even as uninspiring as he was, it’s highly likely he did win the election (but we’ll never know for certain). That said, Nader is among the reasons Gore lost. Had Nader not been there, actively damaging Gore (as was his intent), Gore would’ve been president.
As for progressives jumping ship, even once, I’ll say this: it would not matter. Not unless they had spent the intervening years organizing, rallying, building infrastructure and alternative institutions and successfully operating government. It would’ve been a useless show; a Henry Wallace-Robert LaFollette-Ross Perot-Ralph Nader type show. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. You could print the headline as big as you want, but it’d still saying “Nothing.” What would matter is if those progressives spent their time bolstering the institutions we already have: OSA and the Progressive Dems to name a couple as general issue progressive organizations. I know I’ve been derelict in this, and I know I could improve.
The basic issue here is that it is highly unlikely a third party can arise in conditions that we’ve set, not until one party mightily missteps or both parties do. The Republicans overthrew the Whigs. No other party has managed to break the Democrat-Republican control of government since. Rhode Island could see a third party, but only because our second party is extraordinarily weak. But it will take massive organizing and work, and if we’re solely talking about elections then we’re focusing our energy in the wrong place.
“Given the choice between doing something productive with my vote…”
What’s strange here is that you seem to be saying 1 extra vote, heck, all of the votes here in RI changed the outcome of the election. Yet you clearly acknowleged above that wasn’t the case. I say a protest vote has more impact than following the herd.
As for Nader costing the election? Doubtful. Take me for example. If Nader hadn’t have run, I’d have simply voted for someone else. You make a big assumption there that folks like me will support a badly flawed candidate if only we are presented with poor enough choices.
btw, as for Gore, he’s been a much better advocate for global warming after he lost than he ever was when he was in office. How about we credit Nader with that, since he’s to blame for everything else!
“The Democrats’ Environmental Record”
It’s an interesting proposal, Sam. I think a number of DINOs did just what you propose. It failed for some of them and succeeded for others. Senate Finance Chairman Dan Daponte knows he could never hold his office if he embraced the party of his actual policies. In all fairness, I think Daponte started out as a Dem and has slid more and more to the right with every election cycle. So he keeps the Democratic label and practices Republican fiscal policy. Best of both worlds. Jon Brien, on the other hand, was exposed for the conservative Republican he is, in spite of his ride on Democratic coat tails. Perhaps the parties themselves have little place for thier respective labels in today’s Rhode Island. Maybe more honest labels would be the “Labor Party” and the “Corporate Party.” In any event, we agree that, for local elections, the primaries are the more important elections.
I think we need to stop looking at Democratic politicians and Democratic supporters in a binary light. I criticized RISC’s Donna Perry for doing this and I’m likewise critical of Democrats who push this same narrative. A perfectly good union candidate can be terrible when it comes to social issues. A gay senator can pass legislation that damns people to poverty.
We also should admit that the Democratic Party is a very old organization. Some of its candidate’s values, which might’ve been seen as liberal in previous eras, are antiquated and outdated. But does that make them less a Democrat? Only if you feel that your values are the true Democratic values.
As an example, take the heavily Catholic makeup of Rhode Island. Those Catholic voters were despised by the early Know-Nothings who helped form the Republican Party. Catholic voters tended to be urban, poor and recent immigrants (Irish, Italians, French-Canadians, Portuguese) who supported Democratic candidates. In contrast, the wealthier Protestant Yankees tended to have abandoned the cities and quickly became Republicans.
Today, we can see this same pattern. Where do we find the most ardent Democrats? In the Catholic urban centers. Where do we find Republicans? In the Protestant countryside. To add to your Corporate-Labor duality, we might add the Catholic Party as a further group that exerts control within the Democrats (I’m sure there are more than a few legislators who could be classified as “Catholic Democrats”).
The other issue here is that we have a party which is a vehicle for power, which tends to attracts individualists. The fragmentary nature of the Democrats means that in the legislature, the party is less a group of factions, and more a group of individuals, with shifting alliances and perceptions. Such a system makes even principled individuals far easier to co-opt with the offer of power. Democrats have to walk that line of taking power to achieve their goals while making compromises with forces that they oppose. How they do that is always the question.
In contrast, Republicans, due to their status as a rump ineffectual party, can always stand on principle. It’s easy to be virtuous when you are never troubled by vice.
To make it a true two party system we need at least one more party. If Democrats, such as Gina Raimondo were honest they would start a third party called the Neo-Liberal party. . . “it’s a Christmas tree . . . that’s on the record . . . ” Seems as though there would be a socially conservative wing as well as a socially liberal wing. I think we need a lot more fragmentation. It would confuse the funders of the so-called “two” parties we have now – anything that keeps their money from going to those who they want to do their dirty work. Didn’t the Soviet Union have a one party system?
Who among the Democrats is standing up to Sodexo? What’s going on at R I PBS? When will Providence sell off the water supply board? What’s going on in Pawtucket as I write? What’s the difference between what Bowles and Simpson have to say and what Lloyd Blankfein has to say? Let them eat wedding cake. Being liberal on social issues won’t cost anyone any money. Access to health care? Sure, as long as the insurance companies aren’t cut out of it and everyone is forced to subsidize them, and social security, that’s a different story, depending on whether you are listening Alan Simpson or Bernie Sanders. Who do the Democrats have more in common with? Be honest.
How much more of a Democrat is Gina Raimondo than Kerry King, Carcieri’s former chief legal counsel? And all those legislators who said they “didn’t know” they belonged to ALEC and didn’t know how ALEC works? If you don’t even know who and what ALEC is how can anyone trust you to draft laws? How could you be considered competent without also being considered a liar? ALEC has been around for a while. Why did we never hear of ALEC until Trayvon Martin was killed?
Are there no poor houses? No, of course there aren’t, they’ve all been turned into prisons here in the ever so blue Ocean State.
One party or two party, it will never be anything but the Corporate Party until someone finds a way to truly take money out of the equation.
I think you pretty much hit it on the head with that one. The big money has to disappear and the candidates need to tell us how they stand on issues. That is they need to tell us before they are elected and start legislating. The folks who are running as Democrats, and are really Republicans (or communists, or socialists, or whatever???) need to go away. I think I just want them to tell me what they believe and how they will vote when they get in office. The only candidate I could actually figure out in this last election was Abel Collins, and he was running for national office. We need people who will do what he did running for both state and national office. Tell us who you are.
The Democrats are a huge party. They include an ideological range from neoliberals to a few socialists. It’s a massive coalition, to be more realistic (we tend to refer to this as the “big tent” here), with semi-organized factions within it. And in politics, coalition-building is a pretty basic skill needed. It takes a lot to pull together disparate factions and get them to work towards something even resembling a common goal.
I’d say Raimondo is a Democrat, and obviously one at that. Despite the bitterness surrounding pensions, her justification for it has often been that we need to fund our other government systems and that the pension changes were necessary to do that. The unions dispute that those changes were necessary, and find the idea of pitting union vs. welfare system to be abhorrent; especially since their members will now be more reliant than ever on that welfare system now that they can’t rely on their pensions to assist them.
But how does that put Raimondo in a different position than any Democrat who voted for the pension changes? How do we square those candidates who would be Republicans on any issue but economics who voted against the changes? I think Ericka is right above in this, it’s hard to pin down what exactly a Democrat will do. And I think that’s a result of their domination.
WPRI’s Ted Nesi apparently compared the RI Democratic Party to the Chinese Communist Party last night at the Athenaeum, and I’ve occasionally used the shorthand of “the Party” to refer to the Dems. It’s both right and wrong to compare them to Communist Party. That Rhode Island is essentially a one-party state is true. But as one party systems go, we have a relatively open one, with a single party that’s highly accommodating to multiple views. It’s both a strength and a weakness.
You my muse.
The cautionary tale is what was done to Ralph Nader’s brand, to use that horrible term.
When Nader was only a consumer advocate, he was the best in the world, by far. He changed Detroit as much as it could be changed in an, “I always win, and you always lose,” environment.
Now, the story of Ralph being tailed and framed by a sort of secret police apparatus involving the government is only interesting to Ralph, and maybe to Mike and Maher. The world has moved on; it would have, anyway.
But Nader also started the best and most effective public interest lobby in Washington and ran it well for years.
We need to be more investigative. (Thanks to the people who do that daily on this blog.)
We need to understand that investigations of our own culture need to be undertaken seriously, and that they should be done more vigorously during relative peace, so that, when civil strife, a massive series of natural disasters, Depression, and war come, we will know quite a bit about the social aspects of their causes and have a head-start on the resolution of problems on the ground in the sovereign U.S.. (Excuse me. Have I said something wrong? Let me repeat that: the sovereign U.S. of A.)
Why has Ralph been so marginalized? How was he made into the child-left-behind? Ditto for so many people like him.
We need to investigate that on our own. We need to remember our conscience.
We are not through with the nation state model as long as the monster of globalization continues to gorge itself on our innards. Look at poor little Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. It’s pretty much a colony, waiting to be sold.
Excuse me, privatized.
Raimondo and Taveras seek to run it in order “to attract business”– to themselves and to their factions, mostly financed from the public treasury. Thirty years of failure have resulted in decay, bringing us to the present quivering mudslide. And no Reagan to pitch morning to us.
And Al Gore would have been in the thick of it, too.
Remember Clinton-Gore, the Unspun, (now available on dvd)?
We need to search within our culture for the seeds of a new ethics and a new morality.
We need more truths to be self-evident. They certainly aren’t right now.
Fight the Culture Wars with gusto.
More than likely, you’re rehearsing.