Once again the unpopular views of a minority have been imposed on the majority. Others will rant and rave about the Democratic leadership, and in fact that process has already begun. But progressives in this country should be asking themselves a serious question: Why does the Tea Party seem to be so much more effective than the left as a movement?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
When the circular firing-squad is silenced by the necessity of reloading, the question is commonplace. The Tea Party is unpopular (objective fact), the Tea Party's platform is unpopular (also, objective fact), and yet the Tea Party, while controlling only ONE congressional house, has scored more conservative victories in a little under a year than they could have imagined during all 8 years under Bush.
At this point the anger returns, the rifle is aimed, and the flint is sparked. "Go fuck yourselves" abound.
Now this diary shall be short as it is mostly to raise awareness of Eskow's column, but I have some things to add.
If Candidate Obama made one mistake during the 2008 elections, it was forgoing public financing. Sure, McCain would have achieved a financial edge - in theory - but the Republican would have lost what little high ground they still had. Obama was already the People's candidate, public financing would has just made it official.
Instead, Obama became reliant on the same money McCain needed, and began to shed his populist, Democratic image in favor of something more palatable to supposed 'independent' voters.
But that's all ancient history now...
In regards to public financing, Richard and I are in total agreement:
Why did Tea Partiers win such a major victory? Money, for starters. The Tea Party's generously funded by billionaires like the Koch Brothers, and ultra-conservative policies are given "nonpartisan" ideological cover by right-wing billionaire Pete Peterson and his network of allies and paid savants. Corporate campaign financing, now made limitless by the GOP's ideological packing of the Supreme Court, allows the mega-corporations of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to impose policies that crush the middle class and smaller businesses. And decades' worth of funding for ad campaigns and "conservative think tanks" (an oxymoron, perhaps?) continue to lay the groundwork for destructive moves like the one we so last night.
Progressives can't change the money equation without campaign finance reform, so that needs to be a priority.
The fact that this keeps coming up needs to be a wake up call to us, the People. It needs to be the third rail of our Democratic primaries: if you do not accept public financing, you do not accept the base. Think it sounds hard? Being 'hard' hasn't stopped the Tea Party from viciously pursuing its own goals - Richard:
And there's a world of difference between supporting the Democratic Party and supporting incumbents in the Democratic Party. The Tea Party did a very smart thing last year: They kicked out a few independents who didn't support them politically... Tea Partiers instinctively understand that kind of strategy. In exploring the question "Was John Boehner bluffing all along?" Steve Kornacki also illustrates how a movement that places its goals over a political party's success can get results that are disproportionate to the popularity of those goals.
Now if the Tea Party can get congressional results that are disproportionate to its size in our political body, then a unified front by the MAJORITY of Americans can certainly accomplish even more! This means being demanding.
I know I know... demanding is synonymous with 'unreasonable', but let me ask you this: what is more reasonable? Timidly pursuing your goals of better care for our weak and vulnerable, or DEMANDING better care for our weak and vulnerable until you can't breath you're demanding so hard.
Yes, that question is rhetorical.