Democrats and progressives are crying doom over the party's defeat in Massachusetts. The loss, we're told, is a blow to Barack Obama's political agenda, and so it is. They say it's a shame that yet another rightwing zealot who advocates torture is now in the Senate, and so it is. But it is precisely that agenda that led to the loss, and the shame. It is that agenda which has resurrected a rightwing party that was dead in the water, and empowered its most extreme elements.

And what is Barack Obama's agenda? What is his political program? It breaks down into three main elements: unwinnable wars, unconscionable bailouts, and unworkable, unwanted health care "reform" that forces people to further enrich some of the most despised conglomerates in the land. It is, in every way, a recipe for moral, economic and political disaster. It is a gigantic anchor tied around the neck of the Democratic Party, and it will drag the whole lumbering wreck back to the bottom in short order.

It also provides a fertile breeding ground for the willful, belligerent ignorance of the Right to thrive. With such an egregiously stupid and destructive agenda at work in the White House, opponents need only say that they are against it, and they are guaranteed a wide following. Who would not be against unwinnable war, unconscionable bailouts and unworkable boondoggles serving rapacious elites? The actual positions held by these opponents – the actual policies they will pursue once in power – are given little scrutiny in such circumstances. The opponent represents change from a hated status quo – and that's enough. Later, when their odious positions come to light, it is too late.

Where have we seen this dynamic at work before? Oh yes, it was way back in November 2008. Barack Obama represented change from the hated status quo, from the agenda of the ruling Republican party.  And what was that agenda? Why, unwinnable wars, unconscionable bailouts and the assiduous service of rapacious elites. The actual positions held by Obama – the actual policies that he would pursue once in power – were given little scrutiny. Except by a precious few – such as Arthur Silber, who long ago warned that Obama's election would be ruinous for genuine progressive change, that he would merely put a new gloss on the old corruption while disarming dissent from 'progressives,' who would feel bound to support the president against his rightwing enemies – even if it meant "holding their noses" and supporting bad policies like the health care reform bill or the Afghan surge.

Now it is obvious to all that Obama's core agenda is the same as Bush's: maintaining the elitist, militarist, corporatist system in all its essential elements. The "War on Terror" goes on, expanding into new lands. Torture and murder are still countenanced and concealed, in concentration camps and secret sites that are still in operation. All of Bush's most egregious assertions of authoritarian power are embraced and defended in court. Wall Street is rewarded, not regulated for its vast crimes. The legislative architect and champion of one of the most regressive, punitive, draconian acts of class war in our time – the Bankruptcy Bill, that atom bomb dropped on working people, the sick, the old and the young – has been plucked from deserved obscurity and made Vice President of the United States. A grotesquely expensive, unjust and dysfunctional health care system is not only left intact by "reform," it is given millions of new, captive customers, and more public money to guarantee its profits.

Once again, the question arises: Is this a winning agenda?

It is not just Obama's agenda, of course. It is the agenda of the Democratic Party: war, empire, and corporate profit über alles. Is this really worth defending, even with a held nose? Yet progressives and liberals will continue to insist that, bad as it is, we've got to keep supporting the Democratic Party – because there is no alternative, because otherwise, Tea Party torture mavens like Scott Brown or Sarah Palin will get elected.

But as we've already noted above, it is the Democratic agenda itself that is opening the door for extremist opponents, who then exploit the genuine dissatisfaction and genuine suffering caused by that agenda. The fact that these opponents also support the same core agenda means that the nation will keep ping-ponging back and forth, with an electorate hungry for change desperately chasing anyone who promises it – only to rush back in the other direction when the 'change agent' proves to be just another stooge of the status quo.

This destructive, corrosive dynamic – this ever-worsening death spiral – is what progressives are actually supporting and enabling when they "hold their noses" to support Democrats. The Republicans and Democrats are now simply two factions of the same party – the party of war and greed. To support one faction, no matter what, with held noses or open arms, in such a locked system only perpetuates and exacerbates its worst elements.

Oh, but there's no choice, we are told, with earnest handwringing, by our leading progressives. Third parties are not viable in our system, we are informed by our savvy progressive realists; there can be no effective political movement outside the two main parties. Indeed, no less than Digby herself has declared that the only alternative to working with this closed system (which means, in practice, supporting the Democratic Party) is violent revolution: "Pick up your muskets, kids, or STFU."

And so this is what we've come to. This is the "progressive" answer to any genuine, non-violent rejection of the Democratic faction's agenda of war and greed: "Shut the fuck up." My, wouldn't Martin Luther King Jr. be delighted with that? Wouldn't Thomas Jefferson revel in such delicious eloquence, such deep thought?

Look, I know it's not easy. I was born and raised a Yellow Dawg Democrat myself, and remained one for most of my life. I know what it's like to be hardwired for supporting Democrats, come hell or high water, giving them every benefit of the doubt, turning a blind eye here, making a furious rationalization there. These tribal loyalties are very difficult to lay down; it really can feel like turning your back on your family. And of course the belligerent, bellicose, willfully ignorant Republicans are loathsome and dangerous.

But there comes a time when you must face the truth – or be lost to truth forever. There comes a time to recognize that the Democratic Party and Republican Party are part of the same corrupted entity. There comes a time to recognize that the Democratic Party's agenda is not only ruinous in itself, unworthy of the support of anyone who cares about justice, peace, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – it is also empowering those very same loathsome and dangerous Republicans. There comes a time for even the most partisan tribalist (and I have been one) to accept the hard judgment of reality: that the Democratic Party is part of the problem, not the solution.

To say that there is no alternative to supporting this locked-in, closed-off, two-faction system of war and greed is an act of craven surrender to that system. To dismiss all hope for forging genuine alternatives to this system -- whether these be other political parties or more general movements aiming not for political power but for broader changes in social consciousness -- is a counsel of despair. It condemns us, and the world, to yet another generation of violence, chaos and corruption, another long, long journey away from the light. It is, as noted above, a recipe for disaster in every way.

But if you want more Scott Browns in power, then by all means, keep pushing that Democratic agenda. You'll soon have Scott Browns and Sarah Palins running out of your ears.

| More...

Comments (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Sean O'Neil said:

	... Carlos Hathcock would be envious of your aim.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 20, 2010
Votes: +1

Michael B said:

Supporting Democrats is a serious political disorder like alcoholism or returning again & again to an abusive spouse who repeatedly lies to you. It's easy to fall off the wagon, to make excuses & rationalizations for it. Even many whose views are developed enough to recognize such truths as the fundamental rottenness of the 2-party system & the complicity of Democrats in all of the Republicans' major crimes, are still unable to draw the logical consequences of these insights. The central point is this: capitalist society permits the Democrats to be one of the 2 allowed parties for a very definite reason. It's not because the Democrats "serve the people." It's because in a subtle but effective way, they help the capitalists keep the populace under control by providing them with the illusion of possible change. TPTB don't want the people "served." They want them managed, or controlled. It is the job, the central social function of the Democrats to always be dangling before the people's noses vague pseudo-hints of possible change, so as to keep them from bolting from bourgeois politics altogether. It is the Democrats' intention to never deliver meaningful change, but rather to keep dangling hints of it alluringly forever. This produces control -- a populace habituated to remain safely within the lines required by ruling class interests. Maybe the bottom line is whether or not we all seek the same depth of changes in our society. There is no doubt in my mind that whether under the control of Democrats or the Republicans, the number one beneficiary of political decisions, be they foreign policy or domestic, will be large industries/the extremely wealthy - that is, the general protection of the status quo, and the continuation of a capital-before-people mentality, the right of the US to impose its will on sovereign nations for the benefit of its corporations. If people are comfortable with this reality, if a slightly higher minimum wage and a slightly friendlier attitude toward minorities or some minor (and generally unenforced) efforts toward reducing environmental damage, if changes on that level are good enough, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But if people are seeking significant change, if they want to see the current military occupations end, the power of the military-industrial complex diminish or disappear, and the rights of working people protected, health care for everyon or other changes of that magnitude, then an honest analysis of the Dems' desire/ability to make those changes must be undertaken. And by all analyses I don't see these changes coming through them, ever. I wish it was a matter of pressuring them, writing letters, lobbying their offices, supporting certain candidates. But it has been shown time and time again that these measures don't work. And this is the question I still don't seem to have a clear answer for - what evidence is there (in this time of high-paid and high-powered corporate lobbyists, manipulated elections, pro-corporate media, etc) that the citizens of this country have any real influence over the politicians in Washington, or even that elections actually represent the will of the American people? I see some placating legislation here and there but when it comes to the big national issues - war, health care, oil dependency, environment, there is little more than rhetoric and half-measures. It's the whole thing about doing the same things over and over and expecting different results....The main arguments I have seen for continuing to focus on the Dems as a force for real change are based on faith, not fact. As an aside, I have been doing a fair amount of reading about social uprisings, revolts, and revolutions lately. There is one thing I know for sure - people successfully demanding social change is NOT some impossible dream. It has happened throughout history, all over the globe. It is common, it is necessary, and, as far as I am concerned IT IS TIME.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 20, 2010
Votes: +12

seeweed said:

	... As usual you have hit the "bullseye" - as we seem to be descending the stairs to hell at an accelerating rate, Stud Terkel's book "Hope Dies Last - Keeping The Faith In Troubled Times" certainly qualifies for "required reading."
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 20, 2010
Votes: +1

john kelley said:

Face the truth In the course of illegal, genocidal wars, state induced debt peonage, a blatant debasement of many constitutional rights, etc., I have noticed plenty of pro-active organizational efforts and their favorable results on other issues like handgun privileges, marijuana legalization and gay marriage. That there is no real coalescing dissent on the more critical issues I find very telling. Recent polls (Pew) suggest that a majority of Americans support the use of torture and that a majority sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians. ___________________ "The pilgrims increase Boasting they are led by peace They gut huts with gusto Pillage villages with verve War does what she has to People get what they deserve." (Henry Cow)

report abuse vote down vote up

January 20, 2010
Votes: +1

Grandma Jefferson said:

Meanwhile... ...Obama "urged lawmakers not to try to jam a bill through, but scale the proposal down to what he called "those elements of the package that people agree on." "We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people," the president said in an interview with ABC News. "We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up. And we know that small businesses are going to need help." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34953876/ns/politics-health_care_reform/ He wants a "stripped down" version, whatever the hell that means. Stripped of taxes on the wealthy, I suppose. And, Senator Jim Webb (D-Whore) doesn't want a vote until the latest naked slut elected is seated in the Senate. That way, the repthugs can threaten (not actually perform) a filibuster, and everybody can cave. This is a study in deliberate impotence that underscores the truth of Chris' essay here today. We have one party, the Plutocrats, running the nation exclusively for its own interests. The "Great Experiment" in the art of self governance known as Democracy has failed, for years now. It's time for the Liberals, hanging on out of habit to the Democrats, to form a new party. The one called "Democrat" is long dead, and the repthugs are dismembering the corpse, as the Oligarchs successfully pose as "populists", with Tea-bagging idiots flinging them votes. Change you can belive in would be in the founding of a true Liberal party. It won't happen, of course. The Dims will continue to implode, as the 'Thugs surge back to suck up what crumbs are left of the nation. The Liberals will be blamed, and everybody can get back to "American Idol" in peace.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 21, 2010
Votes: +3

Rob Waller said:

Why not... Why not just cancel all elections. It'll be the most honest thing they've done in a long time. This is pure fucking farce as it stands. What's the point in voting anymore? Elect a democrat, and you get a republican in a blue suit... Why don't we all just vote republican and speed the collapse of the whole putrid mess called "democracy". Chris, you absolutely nailed the Kabuki. I salute you.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 21, 2010
Votes: +1

Chris Sinnard said:

	Tribal Hubris... It's the worst. Society killer.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 21, 2010
Votes: -1

Jimmy Montague said:

All this talk about switching parties -- All this talk about switching parties and/or changing voting habits makes me nervous. It gives me to think that most "progressives" will go along with the gag and vote in yet one more election when doing so is an act of purest insanity. I mean I read this site almost every day: I see us here all more or less agreed that democracy in America is dead, that the democratic process is nothing, more or less, than a pornographic farce. And I agree with all of that. Yet here we are condemning those who tire of our whining and admonish us, realistically, to "pick up the muskets or STFU" when, in reality, that's the choice that confronts us. For if, as we all agree, money owns the electoral process, then the process cannot produce anything that money doesn't want. And the category, "Things that Money Does Not Want," most emphatically includes things such as constitutional government, democracy, and socialized medicine (to name but a few of a very great many). I used to champion third-party voting until I met a few of those who are into that. Ralph Nader -- a good man -- stands alone there now, and I believe the Teabag movement has sucked up nearly all the others. I confess I don't know who "Digby" is; he, she, or it not being one of the things I read. So it may be that I'm endorsing Satan. Still, I also confess that I arrived at the same conclusion a long time ago -- probably years before Digby got there. Lately I've been reading Shakespeare. I see that Brutus observed: There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures. I think the tide is not yet at flood, but the flood is coming. We must in the meantime divorce ourselves from the process so we're free to stand, muskets in hand, so we are ready to go when the ship comes in. Don't wear purple, don't drink any kool-aid, and don't watch any stars. When the time arrives you will know it because the world around you will be full of Teabaggers and swinish, moneyed assholes who run in circles, tear their hair, and screech: "The End Has Come!" It will happen. Be ready.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 21, 2010
Votes: +0

Grandma Jefferson said:

Dear Jimmy..... To bring that tide to the flood, I fear the system must immolate itself first. I understand Phylter's point completely, because any hope of the "people" effecting change within the prescribed paths of the System is long, long gone. And as the fully empowered Oligarchy is situated now, no populist rising has even a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, IMHO. I agreed with Chris that a new party is what's needed, but know that isn't going to happen either. The people are too fearful, too indolent, too stupid, too disorganized, and no "leader" is emerging to start that ball rolling. That leaves the "if you can't beat them any other way, join them and help push the fucking juggernaut over the cliff" school of thought, OKA sabotage. And like you, we're waiting for the swinish tea-bagging cretins & their plutocratic overlords to begin that riotous panic of "The End Has Come!!" Then the tide begins to surge....and we'll all be there...;-) And now that the SCOTUS has overturned its own rulings to open the floodgates of bribes to wanna-be Vichy Whores, and incumbant ones as well, "voting" has become officially obsolete. It's been obsolete since the Darth Cheney election theft-coup of 2000, but it's all signed off on now, sine die! Don't look for any "campaign finance reform" from any of the enthusiastic courtesans in Congress, or anywhere else. Quelle Bonanza! Let the good times roll, baby. May as well help them finish it. Because it all must play out to the end. Live long and prosper, dearie!

report abuse vote down vote up

January 21, 2010
Votes: +2

Chris Floyd said:

... I just want to clarify that I wasn't necessarily calling for the creation of a new political party to wade into the system -- something that has in any case just been rendered even more vastly difficult by the Supreme Court's ruling that allows the corporate campaign spigot to be opened even more widely. (Or at least more openly. They've always been able to get their grease where they need to get it.) I was just pointing out that third parties could be (or, given the court ruling, could have BEEN) an alternative to the locked-down Dem-Rep one-party faction, especially for those who have convinced themselves that there is no other option than pining hopelessly for "better" Democrats. Such people have not even TRIED other options, so it seemed fatuous for them to bluster about grabbing muskets (which they aren't going to do) or Shutting TFU. I personally lean more toward the idea about "more general movements aiming not for political power [i.e., for offices, perks, etc.] but for broader changes in social consciousness." Just wanted to clarify that point a bit.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 21, 2010
Votes: +0

Harpfool said:

... I feel there's a naivety in the call for a third party - just cuz someone decides to appeal to the disenfranchised to gain power doesn't make them any different from the established party powergrabbers. Shit, Hitler did that real well. In fact the desire for political power will always ring alarm bells for me, wherever it arises. A third party has been in existence in Canada for years (New Democratic Party - basically middle class socialist) which has absolutely no possibility of ever being elected into power. They have no credibility, and appear opportunistic. I suspect the Liberal Democrats in the UK are in a similar position. I agree with Chris's "more general movements aiming not for political power but for broader changes in social consciousness." Just two examples of success on this type of front: Feminism and Gay Lib. Maybe even the anti-smoking movement.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 22, 2010
Votes: +1

Phylter said:

	The SCOTUS Further to my complaint about sham elections, the SCOTUS has just effectively neutered them with their decision to permit unfettered fiscal access to the whores in Washington DC. The "great experiment" just exploded in the citizens faces.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 22, 2010
Votes: +0