Elections are the time when the Progressive community pulls together and attempts to-somehow-stave off disaster. The time for dissent is after the election. Tuesday’s results provide ample grounds for dissent. There are several policies of this website that I feel should change going forward.
Events have shown that we will not have more Dems until we have better Dems. Blue dogs possess great skill at getting themselves wiped out election after election. Every election a few lucky Congressmen managed to pick up seats in red districts, and hold them for a term or two. The reelection campaigns of these representatives could be summed up as “I agree with my opponent but. . .” By endorsing their opponent’s viewpoint these representatives encourage voters to go all the way and select the candidate with an (R) after their name. A blue dog is simply keeping a seat warm for a Republican. Worse, that blue dog is likely to interfere with passing a liberal Democratic agenda, showing the party as weak and ineffectual and placing other seats in jeopardy. The price of winning one blue dog seat is losing two others.
Moving forward this site must not simply seek to rally Democrats at election time but to insure the Progressives take control of the internal apparatus of the party. The Tea Party proved successful not simply by providing energy to the Republican Party but by seeking to take over state and local nominating conventions. To survive we must do likewise. The internal infrastructure of the Democratic Party has proven itself unable to win. The pressure to nominate candidates that will please rich donors has superseded selecting candidates that can prevail in a election. Worse, the candidates selected by this system often cause other Democrats to lose. If the Democratic Party establishment is incapable of winning, we must oust it and replace it with one that can win.
Secondly, this site should insist that a strong minimum wage is a requirement, not a talking point. The minimum wage is not part of the political game, it is the whole game. Economics, especially economic history can often be a dense subject. I feel that it has bearing here. During the eighteenth century, Britain adopted the Speenhamland system of poor relief. Under this system, local governments paid a cash subsidy to poor residents. The system failed by allowing employers to pay their laborers less than sustenance wages, with the tax payers making up the difference. The presence of subsidized labor brought down wages across the spectrum. Eventually, downward wage pressure forced the abandonment of the system. This sounds remarkably familiar.
The only real solution to the Speenhamland problem is a strong minimum wage (or, possibly, strong Unions that can bargain up wages). This requires that employers pay, on an hourly basis, a wage adequate to live on. Properly implemented, working forty hours a week at minimum wage should mean that a worker does not need public assistance.
A proper minimum wage is not the only answer to the Speenhamland problem. During the Irish famine the British utilized the other response: withdraw support and hope that the poor will die quickly. When a Republican crowd stands up and applauds the idea of letting those in need of healthcare die, that is the option they are selecting. By refusing to provide adequate healthcare to those receiving government assistance, subsidized laborers, will die. Less subsidized laborers mean rising wages. Our opponents are amoral and bloodthirsty, but they are also driven forward by underlying economic factors. We should acknowledge the economic dimensions of the current political system.
Finally, we should take our opponents seriously. They are now the majority in both houses of Congress. Calling Gohmert the “dumbest congressman in America” only serves to minimize his extreme views. It tells Americans that Republican extremists are a limited few nuts who have no real support or power. As the majority party the Republicans have the responsibility to control their members. If an influential congressional Republican says something, we should take them at their word. If Louie Gohmert introduces a bill to repeal social security – then instead of mocking him we should be opposed to the Gohmert bill, loudly, in public, and with enough vehemence that the mainstream media hears our objections. It should be impossible for Americans not know what they are getting when they elect Republicans.