Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Liberals Need to Avoid Being Their Own Worst Enemy
By: Deborah FosterOct. 28th, 2012more from Deborah Foster
Undecided voters are a frustrating part of the American electorate. They represent only 7-10% of the electorate, yet they have inordinate influence. Polls have shown that the vast majority of the country has had its mind made up for months, and among those people, they’ve firmly stood by their choice. So all of the ads, the debates, the campaigning, and the rest of the circus that is election season is a show for a small number of Americans. Many experts have profiled the undecided voter. Aside from being more likely to be female, unmarried, younger, less educated, and in a lower income job, they have been described as low information voters. Ezra Klein magnanimously steers away from calling them ignorant by explaining that they are simply people generally disinterested in politics. As he says, he can’t tell you much about what is going on in baseball, because he has little interest in it. Likewise, the undecided voter is frequently a person who just doesn’t pay attention to politics until the last minute, because it just isn’t something they care that much about. For those of us who consider political issues to be matters of life and death, it is difficult to understand such nonchalant attitudes. One wonders why they bother to vote at all, throwing their uninformed vote into the mix at the last minute.
However, it turns out that some portion of undecided voters fall into another category, or at least they do according to David Sirota. In this week’s column, “In Defense of the Undecided Voter,” Sirota presents the argument that there are well-informed liberals across the country still undecided about whether to support Obama or vote for a third party candidate, and he even counts himself among them. Sirota lives in the hotly contested swing state of Colorado. Spend any time on the Internet conversing with progressives from across the country, including in swing states, and it won’t take long to realize that he is definitely not alone. There are left wing individuals still contemplating whether to support Obama, many of them already opting to vote third party.
Sirota makes the case for himself and his brethren as follows: “There are far more similarities between the candidates [Romney and Obama] than differences. They both support entitlement cuts, corporate tax cuts, the Drug War, expanded fossil fuel drilling, privatizing education, warrantless surveillance, extra-judicial assassinations, drone warfare, increased military spending and continued foreign interventions.” That is a fairly good summary of the critiques the left wing has of our current president, and they are legitimate issues, issues best addressed after the election has been won by the left wing. What doesn’t make sense is to claim that Romney and Obama are more similar than different. What doesn’t make sense is to cast a protest vote that will never amount to anything, never make an iota of difference, and effectively throw support behind one of the most radically far right tickets we’ve seen offered up by Republicans since Reagan started their rightward trajectory.
A majority of the most recalcitrant ideologues are right wing conservatives. Hopefully, most liberals don’t waste their time on them, effectively cutting off conversations with what can only be described as right wing nut jobs. But what do you do when you find more and more of your time is spent arguing with fellow liberals? What do you do when you have progressives giving you diatribes about how you are a traitor to the cause for supporting Obama? These individuals seem to have no capacity to envision what a Romney administration would look like. Romney’s character alone is so abhorrent, the details should convince any liberal he is worth stopping. There are, in fact, tangible differences between Romney and Obama in their approaches to the social safety net such as privatization for Social Security, vouchers for Medicare, and block grants for Medicaid, and repeal of Obamacare (though it’s not single payer, it is making significant steps forward for health care). With their policies on these four programs alone, Romney/Ryan will coldly lay waste to the lives of millions of people. They have very different plans for the individual tax code and Obama’s corporate tax plan is designed to discourage outsourcing of jobs, whereas Romney’s would simply be increased handouts to corporations.
It isn’t just Romney as commander-in-chief and Ryan by his side, which is enough of a nightmare. Like any other president, he will select a cabinet to run everything from the State Department and the Department of Education to the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department. The Republicans who lose this round of elections will be ready and waiting for their appointments. If we could ever be so lucky as to finally be rid of Michele Bachmann as a Representative, there’s nothing to prevent Romney from posting her as Secretary of Agriculture. Does he have a position in mind for John Sununu? He would be almost certainly nominating Supreme Court justices to an already right wing court. His policies would be implemented for federal workers across the nation. His neoconservative advisors sit ready to bring back not Bush, but more ominously Cheney. No difference between Romney and Obama? Which one is proposing a massive increase in defense spending? The government contracts to far right cronies would be free-flowing again. All of the advances made for gay rights eliminated. Women’s rights decimated. Programs for the poor would be trashed, and not just the ones that everyone thinks about. There are hundreds of lower profile government programs for the poor such as Upward Bound, WIC, and energy assistance that have little political support and which could be cut quickly.
For decades, the many liberals seem to have had the fantasy of an American awakening. They advocate letting the right wing win so that Americans “learn their lesson.” It seems that many liberals believe that if we become right wing enough, the country will suddenly “snap out of it” and swing significantly back away from its ever more conservative path. Instead, Republicans have been able push this rightward shift in the Overton window. Many liberals claim that it is liberals who are responsible for this rightward shift, because they support Democrats who adopt conservative positions, but this is a blatant reversal of cause and effect. Democrats have taken more conservative positions over time, but that’s because they have been forced by political currents to follow the tide. This has occurred primarily because the right wing has been powerfully organized for decades, having built extensive infrastructure, such as a media empire, throughout the country to support their movement.
Left wing extremists who constantly berate liberals they perceive as voting for “the lesser of two evils” will argue the Democratic Party itself isn’t worth investing in. They want to scrap the two-party system while neglecting its constitutional origins and deeply American structure. They advocate third-party solutions that have no chance of ever coming to fruition. Rather than organizing and trying to make reforms to the party that represents the Left, they prefer to start from scratch with an American public that isn’t going to follow them. A ragtag group of left wing activists trying to overthrow the way the American system works is not going to become a viable political movement.
Two of the most progressive activists in the country have weighed in on this debate. Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky have both been vocal in their criticisms of the president from a liberal perspective. However, both of them have suggested that liberals in swing states ought to vote for Obama, but if they live in a state with a more certain outcome, to vote their third party protest vote. These men are wise and, with any luck, well-respected enough in left-wing circles that people will follow their lead. Hopefully, those on the left wing who are still “undecided” will realize that there is a world of difference between Romney and Obama and make the right choice, just as Naderites must now realize there was between Bush and Gore.
A new Suffolk University poll of Democratic voters in the state of Pennsylvania showed Hillary Clinton with ...
A new CBS News national poll released this evening shows the 2008 presidential race unchanged from last mont ...
A new Public Policy Polling survey of undecided voters released today shows that Sarah Palin's "leadersh ...
Is the once bright red state of Georgia trending blue? According to recent polling and voter regis ...
A new Suffolk University poll of Kentucky Democrats reveals that Hillary Clinton holds a 26 point lead over ...
Anne
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 11:19 am
Anyone who doesn’t think there are critical differences between the two parties has either been living under a rock or is immersed in denial and self-deception. At this time, a third party vote by liberals will do nothing except increase Willard Romney’s chances of election. The kind of mindset I see from liberals who want to do this shows that they are just as bad as many conservatives who don’t look at the big picture. If they did, they would realize that we have been saddled with a Congress full of obstructionist Republicans who have been qute willing to throw Americans under the bus because they care much more about their party regaining dominance. Besides, have they been looking at what has happened in states with Republican governors and/or predominately Republican officials at lower levels? I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: Electing a president is only PART of the process.
@politiwars
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 11:25 am
If people are still undecided at this point, they shouldn’t even bother voting. There have never been two more polar opposites for candidates, and the choice should be extremely easy.
Reynardine
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 11:39 am
In 1980, I actually did campaign and vote for John Anderson, on a similar premise. At the time, I thought it was viable, because I did not believe Reagan was a serious candidate and Carter had become a disgusting appeaser of the right wing. We see what happened there. I’ve never done that since. For crap’s sake, don’t make the same mistake.
Reynardine
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 11:46 am
One parting piece of advice, and I will repeat it every day until the election: If you have a camera phone, or a small digital camera, take it into the voting booth and PHOTOGRAPH YOUR BALLOT before you submit it. This goes double if you live in a jurisdiction with no paper trail.
Mary
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
The ignorant fools deserve the 4 years of terror and destruction mitty and the rest of the scum will do to finish off the poor and middle class.
Churchlady
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
I will argue with Sirota about how “well-informed” liberals in doubt of Obama really are. All the hype about “he’s a liar”, “he sold us out on (fill in the blank)” is based on ideological knee jerk rant that, upon close questioning, has absolutely no informed substance.
I have a minor advantage – I read bills and policy analysis for a living. But even as an on-the-street activist I read diversely, sought out people different from me, listened to them (teeth gritted often), and thought about those insights all to TRY to understand diverse points of view and deep substance.
I spent years listening to and working with the Left only to have them prove utterly indifferent to issues around which they are now breast beating. After the collapse of the NE manufacturing base, did they care? No. Outsourcing jobs was of no interest to those for whom blue collar labor was merely “hardhats” to be dismissed. Industries were called “ugly” and their teardown welcomed. Unions were thought beneath the contempt of intellectuals seeking the “working class” solidarity. Can’t be bothered with little things such as retaining jobs for a certain group. Wholesale “revolution” or nothing.
When Clinton caved on NAFTA no one cared because lefties were themselves benefitting from it with cheaper imports of smugly superior Japanese cars etc. When the S&L collapse was followed by deregulation AND the infamous abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act – it was labor not intellectual lefties, not even former SDS people – who sounded the warning, and we could get NO one to join in. Yawn. Now the drumbeat to bring it back is made by people NOT understanding what it did or what changes we have in our current banking system that would make that unhelpful. If you REALLY want change, it’s helpful to know what the HELL you’re demanding.
Liberals can be as stupid as Baggers on substance. Blaming Obama is their way of remaining ignorant. Bah!
Reynardine
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Actually, you are speaking in part about Firebaggers, but the ones who are looking down their long, blue noses at unions and could never be bothered with industry, the ones who just *won’t believe* that this time round the Radical Right could destroy our country for good, the ones who think we will*never have* our Santiago moment…are the pseudo-intellectuals who live in seemingly safe little enclaves in urban environments and think whatever goes on in Ruburbia won’t affect them…the white-wine dribblers who call us alarmists.
Anne
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
The ignorant fools who want to vote for Romney-Ryan actually don’t believe that this team poses a direct threat to freedoms that all of us have taken for granted for decades. That goes for the women who foolishly deny that control over our reproductive rights has been instrumental in increasing our active participation in all areas of society. These two things are inextricably linked. Blacks and Latinos who vote for a party that is actively attempting voter suppression which disproportionately impacts both groups also fall under the category of ignorant fools. So do veterans who vote for folks who willingly send them to wars but then don’t help them when they come back from war and try to gut veterans’ benefits. Both Romney and Ryan have given us enough information to show who they really are, and there is no legitimate excuse to send them to the White House.
luis
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
when the Bush tax custs PLUS ANOTHER 20% continue to add to the debt, when thousands of lives are put into harms way and yet more billions are wasted away on a war on IRAN, when Medicare gets voucherized, Social Security Privatized, Banks get bigger and less regulated, when programs for the poor get cut further, when only the well-to-do can afford a decent education, when 2 more conservative SC justices are added and Roe V Wade gets overturned, I WANT NO LIBERALS WHO SAT THIS ONE OUT COMPLAINING!!!! IT WILL BE THEIR FAULT!
harris stein
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Those who say they are socially liberal but sitting on the fence between voting for President Obama or a third party candidate are living in the same fool’s paradise inhabited by independent and non party voters who will vote for Romney-Ryan.
The fact is that people with a business background make lousy politicians. The reason is they are always looking at the bottom line. In business there is no control over the supply chain. Commodity prices are based on global markets. So to maximize profits, you minimize labor costs. It’s simple. It’s the bottom line. Governments have no bottom line. To keep things running smoothly all the citizens who are able to must be gainfully employed. That’s fact. If the private sector won’t step up then government has to pick up the slack. It worked during the 1930′s and it would have worked today if not for the obstructionists in the republican congressional leadership.
Romney has no plan to create employment for those who want to be gainfully employed. Our national economy is dependent on other nations having growing economies. Taking an axe to government spending is not the way to create employment. Taking an axe to government spending will hurt the economy at the worst time.
Saying that President Obama doesn’t have a plan either and is simply staus quo is ducking the fact that the Democratic Party is committed to slowing environmental degredation and human caused climate change.
Tim From LA
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
I have no problems with lefties criticizing the Obama Administration or the Blue Dogs. I believe it’s a requirement in order to keep our elected officials accountable.
Yet sometimes, our side gets too sidetracked and blindly support anyone with a “D” after their name. That’s not always a smart thing to do. Yet the people who are critical of the president must also share the blame. That blame? Not doing enough to do make changes. For example. NDAA: Indefinite detention.
Back in February 19, 1942, Democratic President signed Executive Order 9066. This put more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps. This executive order stems from P.L. 77-503, which allows the military to create zones anywhere in the U.S. where civilians are prohibited to mingle or face prison. NDAA does the same. Why hasn’t any lefties protest this?
Then there is the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. Again why hasn’t any liberals protest this? I also ask the small-government teabaggers too.
And when Glass Steagall was overturned by Gramm Leach Bliley, and Clinton signed it to law, yet when Obama signed the Affordable Care Act AKA Obama Care to law, where were the lefties protesting the SCOTUS’ threat to overturning the individual mandate? And Finally:
According to the Constitution Article 3 Section 1-3, where does it say that the SCOTUS has the power of judicial review? Marbury vs. Madison? Was that the Constitution Convention that amended the Constitution or was it activist judges wanting more power? We need to be more critical and not fear the SCOTUS. Congress can overthrow the SCOTUS if they wish…according to the Constitution…really!
Johnee
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Even nut job conservatives, like a broken watch, can be right twice a day. There is a loony left, and these protest voters fall into that category; they have no grasp of picking their battles.
These folks give new meaning to the phrase: “Biting your nose off to spite your face”.
clarence swinney
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
CORPOCRACY AMERICA
Ruined our great Savings and Loan Institution
Closed Fairness Doctrine that has Limbaugh types on our public airwaves
Closed Revenue Sharing
Since 1980, initiated our involvement in 10 foreign conflicts
Repealed Glass Steagall—took deposits in over 7000 banks and put 50% in 5 (Too Big To Fail)
and 80% in 10 (Too Big To Fail) Banks.
Modernization of Commodity Markets—from investment to Casino Derivative Of America
2 very dumb invasions of two of most unarmed and destitute nations.
Ruined our International reputation as a Do Good Christian nation to Big Bully Devil
Stood by as freak marketeers ruined our housing industry
Stood by as Casino Derivative Of America ruined the world financial industry
Impeached a great president for petty political gains that created a long term animosity between the parties
Attempted to destroy the safety nets that make a great middle class
Implemented Tax Codes that permitted a redistribution of Wealth to top (10%) who now own (73% )of Net Wealth and (83%) of Financial Wealth and take (50%)of all individual income
They have taken America to a rank of (#2) as Least Taxed in OECD nations; (#2) as least taxed corporations; and sadly to (# 4) on Inequality.
Since 1980, their Spend & Borrow policies, mainly, were responsible for adding 14,000 billion to our 1000B Debt when they started in 1981.
Fought the Great GI Bill.
Fought the WWII Draft
Installed strict laws which have loaded our prisons with non-violent offenders which make us world leader in prison population
CONCLUSION-WANT TO VIEW END OF AN EMPIRE THEN YIELED TOTAL CONTROLOF GOVERNMENT TO REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES AS WAS DONE IN 2001-2002-2003-2004=2005-2006- WHICH WILL BE JUDGED AS, OUTSIDE OF THEIR GREAT DEPRESSION, THE SIX WORST YEARS IN OUR HISTORY
IMAGINE THEM IN CONTROL FOR 12 YEARS????
alex
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
No, a candidate should be worthy of your vote, rather than just being less crap than his opposition. Obama has ratcheted up immoral and inhuman drone strikes against Afghanistan and Pakistan, and for that reason alone all peace loving liberals should say he doesn’t get our vote. Neither Romney nor Obama will ever bring any real change to U.S foreign policy.
hippiesocialworker
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Possibly not. But foreign policy is one half of the equation, and even there Romney is proposing INCREASES in defense spending and the promiscuous use of force to solve any problem that comes along, such as Iran and Syria. At least Obama has demonstrated a capacity for more measured responses, such as, again, with Iran and Syria, as well as in Libya.
The REAL difference of course is in the other half of the equation — economic and social policy — and if you think no substantive difference exists there between the two, you are sadly, pathetically mistaken. Are you planning on retiring? What will you live on? You’re ready to pay dramatically more out of pocket for medical care at that time? What about people who aren’t as fortunate as you presumably are? What are they to do, suck it up? What will poor people do while you’re congratulating yourself on the purity of your vote? Are you really A-OK with what Reagan brought us in 1980 for eight years, and with what the retarded cowboy, W, brought us in 2000 for another eight, while folks like you sniveled amongst yourselves that yours is the principled thing to do (Kennedy or Anderson in ’80, Nader in 2000)? Or are you too young to know what’s heading everyone’s way should Romney, a straight-up sociopath, wins the election?
Janice I Falk
Oct. 29th, 2012 at 7:19 am
Heres just a glimpse of the MUCH Obama has done for foreign policy- he actually KILLED not just OBL but many dangerous Al Qaeda leaders- compared with the irrational act of starting a war with a completely uninvolved country and bringing our country to the brink of complete disaster as a result. Additionally Obama has brought back the respect of the rest of the world (he rates very highly in all countries except Pakistan, Yayayaay!!!), you are just a narcissist who needs to be courted for your vote, and this election has more to do with your personality disorder than this candidate, who is as near perfect as I have found in my lifetime.
David Starkey, Dallas, TX U.S.A.
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
3 words:
DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN
That’s what happened when Dewey people were SO confident in the outcome – THEY STAYED HOME.
A Walkaway
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
I get the “they’re both the same”. Funny, but when I start pointing out all the real and drastic differences between that jackass Romney and President Obama, they usually loose their temper. Turns out they really support Romney and don’t want people to vote for Obama.
Occasionally they’re libertarian, but when I tell them that government is necessary and can be a force for good, they also generally get quite upset. (Funny, but both they and the Republicans think of Government as something to be destroyed or “starved till you can drown it in a bathtub”.)
There IS a big difference between liberal and libertarian.
Deborah Foster
Oct. 28th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Hmm, it has let me like some comments but not others. Just wanted to say I like a lot of your comments everyone.
alex
Oct. 29th, 2012 at 5:44 am
No, I prefer Obama on a personal level to Romney, and I think Obama II would be a better Presidency than Romney. Marginally, at least.
But look at Obama’s Presidency as it actually has played out. A Nobel Peace Prize winner who has a kill list which includes American citizens (but would be no less immoral even if it didn’t) A civil liberties lawyer who signed the NDAA, which is arguably more dangerous than the Patriot Act, into law. A supposed socialist who extended the Bush era tax cuts. A candidate who was meant to bring change to Washington, but under his watch Super PACs have exploded as an unchecked political force.
Put it like this, Obama is basically a conservative from a party which believes in maintenance of the status quo. That is marginally better than Romney, a chameleon from a party of lunatics. But if you wanted to actually vote for a progressive liberal for a change, you’d vote for Jill Stein.
Janice I Falk
Oct. 29th, 2012 at 7:22 am
a vote for Jill Stein cannot be considered a mature thought-it is simply a vote for Romney in swing states, and at this point, we dont even know which states are swing states, could be North Carolina, so at a conscious level, I want you to stand in front of a mirror and say “If I vote for Jill Stein, I am elected Mitt ROmney, and all the Kracken that will release”> (thanks Bill Maher)
A Walkaway
Oct. 29th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Don’t dribble any more white wine.
Seriously, you have got to be touched in the head. Vote for Jill Stein? Vote for someone I’ve never heard of, and who probably has just as crazy ideas as Ron Paul – and could also be a stealthed dominionist?
That’s just asking people to throw away their votes when their very future and lives may be at stake.
Oh, and you’re blaming President Obama for things pushed on him by Republicans (and granted, he does have a little neoliberalism in him). Nobody’s perfect… but Romney is so much worse than President Obama that to even suggest something that could help Romney win puts you beyond the pale.
alex
Oct. 29th, 2012 at 5:49 am
Oh and @ A Walkaway – I strongly believe in government as a force for progress, I just don’t think Obama has really used it to make life better for the poorest Americans. Now, if the President were to actually use the strength of government to start structurally changing the economic nature of such an unequal society, then I would change my view on him.
alex
Oct. 29th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
@Janice – Bullshit. Its a vote against the militaristic policies that both major candidates will follow. To think that the Democrats are entitled to votes simply because they are less bad in some areas is offensive.
Though I don’t live in a swing state, so it is easier to make that call. I can see why Democrats are getting panicky about people voting with their conscience, it means they might lose their monopoly on left leaning voters.
parvenu
Oct. 29th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
I need to introduce these disaffected lefty libs to politics 101. First let me say that I have followed the endless bitch’n of these folks on DKOS and other progressive/Democratic blogs. It was shortly after Obama had settled in the White House that these folks started grumbling about the fact that Obama had (1) Not closed Gitmo, (2) Decided not to start criminal prosecution against George W. Bush and others in his administration in connection with the Iraq war, (3) Failed to reject illegal wire tapping, etc. Many of these folks openly cried in their beers and declared that they would NEVER NEVER vote for Barack Obama again!
Now here is my simple political101 lesson. What remains after a presidental administration has long passed into the history books? The answer – the United States Supreme Court! Whoever is elected in November will likely get to appoint two Supreme Justices during his term as president. Those new appointees are likely to serve on the Court for two decades, imprinting an influence on the direction of the court out to the year 2025. During this period of time just how consequential will be the issue over the closing of Gitmo be heading out to the year 2025?
alex
Oct. 29th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
@ Parvenu – Ah, so thats what its all about then? Democrats needing to protect their power base at all costs? Thats not democracy, thats a duopoly.