Avoidance is not unity
T.A. Barnhart
Look closely at this picture. What do you see?
A pretty, young blond Anglo woman and a handsome, young brown-haired Anglo man. A lovely, tiny Asian woman and a tall, Asian man. A non-scary African-American man and, peeping out happily from behind, a Latina. A lovely group of lovely people, devoid of any context.
But they have covered most of the bases (perhaps the Latina is half-Native American).
Imagine them for a moment without the flags; what might they be selling? A church? A bank? Your local community college? But they have flags, so, it must be ... the Republicans proving they represent all of us? An early get-out-the-vote campaign? Or maybe: We're all legal aliens!
A picture like this, flags or no, has a simple purpose: to insist that "we" have the right vision for America: We may be diverse, but we sure do get along swell. Oh how lovely to be diverse, patriotic and full of the shiny. Yes, we are America's Big Happy Family.
Yay us.
The image comes from the logo of "Unity08". Founded by former office holders, college students, business people and others, this group is seeking to bring together Americans who want no part of either major party and yet would like to support a candidate for president. Here's what they say about the current process:
Unity08 believes that neither of today's major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.For most of the 20th Century, the contest for the U.S. presidency was waged over those "in the middle." Recent Presidential elections, however, have not been focused on the middle but on the turnout of each party’s special interest groups — with each party’s "base" representing barely ten percent of the American people.
(There is no citation to back up the assertion that the Democratic base is but 10% of the American people. The statement also neglects to note that there are a hell of a lot of "single-issue groups" within the party, and that not one of them is in control. It's also ignorant of who decides any close election in America: independents and undecideds. The votes of the base are a given; keep them happy and go get as many in the middle as you can, and you might win.)
Unity08 has decided that the way to fix what's wrong with the electoral process is to hold an online convention to select its candidates: one Democrat and one Republican. The underlying premise is that unlike whoever represents the Rs and Ds, the "Unity" candidates will focus on what joins Americans, not what divides them. They will select their candidates and run an election without the slightest taint of what they see as they great evil in American politics: partisanship.
I am sick of the "partisanship" meme, especially as used by groups like Unity08. Of all the destructive messages in contemporary politics, the idea that a division in beliefs and goals is bad is, to me, one of the most abhorrent.
And it's stupid.
Sometimes we disagree with one other. At other times, we really disagree with each other: choice, the 2nd Amendment, the war, American Idol. I know that there are certain issues on which I will never compromise: a woman's right to choose, the death penalty (evil), war. It's not merely a matter of Why should I? More essentially, it's How can I? What's the compromise on a woman's right to choose? An abortion lottery?
The parties, which represent both activists and inactive voters, must necessarily contain these divisions. Members of Congress and other elective bodies are required to stand up for the core principles of those they represent. In America, "the represented" means, by and large, those who got their candidate elected. Their choice carried the election day, so their concerns guide, though not exclusively, the work of an elected official. For example, not many fundamentalist Christians vote for Pete DeFazio, so although he tries to be fair to all in his district, he's not going to represent the interests of those seeking school prayer or criminalizing abortion. His constituency — the people who elect him and make up the majority of voters in his district — is liberal and progressive Democrats as well as moderate and liberal independents. This is not winner-take-all politics; it's simply one of the better ways for one person to act on behalf of tens of thousands of fellow citizens. In serving the people under our representative democratic system, division and partisanship are inescapable.
The parties do not exist to eliminate division; politics is not supposed to be free of partisanship, the having of opinions and the taking of sides. That's built into the human psyche, and telling people we can use pretty happy faces to make all the bad things go away is dangerous, false and cowardly. It is the nature of both humans and politics that we will, at times, find it necessary to place our beliefs against those of our fellow citizens about something; there will always be issues and events that truly force concerned citizens to oppose one another.
The fundamental, passionate differences are not a problem. These are vital to the health of a democracy. What matters is how we deal with them, and that's been the problem in the past several decades. Well, actually, politicians in America have been nasty to each other from the beginning; take Jefferson's presidential campaign in 1800:
The Federalists attacked the fifty-seven-year-old Jefferson as a godless Jacobin who would unleash the forces of bloody terror upon the land. With Jefferson as President, so warned one newspaper, "Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes." Others attacked Jefferson's deist beliefs as the views of an infidel who "writes aghast the truths of God's words; who makes not even a profession of Christianity; who is without Sabbaths; without the sanctuary, and without so much as a decent external respect for the faith and worship of Christians." (link)
(And some people think the wingnuts were hard on Clinton.)
The technology of mass media has amplified the power of negativity beyond what even Atwater could have imagined (he had repented of his actions by the time of his death). The "Daisy" ad that destroyed Goldwater was probably the beginning, but the real power of negativity became clear with Lee Atwater and Willie Horton. Since then, the GOP has used any opportunity it could to defame Democrats in the most heinous manner, equating Vietnam War vet, and triple-amputee, Max Cleland, with bin Laden and paying a front group to twist Kerry's honored war service into near-treason.
And then there's the way Gingrich and Delay ran the House of Representatives, abandoning any pretense of being the fair deliberative body the Founders created. The US Senate followed suit when the GOP gained control there. Ironically, Washington became seen as nothing than a cesspool "partisan bickering". Of course, that was the mainstream media combining their conservative (corporate-centric) practices with simplistic (and cheap) cookie-cutter "news" reporting. Unreported in the MSM was how the Republican leadership was using their unfettered power to let the rich foxes into the henhouse, or how they denied the Democrats any part of the governing process — behavior echoed right here in Oregon most recently by Karen Minnis and Wayne Scott (who continues to block legislative process with self-interested political grandstanding).
Are the Democrats pure in this regard? Hardly. In past years, Dem leaders have, of course, used their power to control legislation and funding; LBJ was famous for his iron grip on the Senate. But no Democrat, and no Republican for that matter, ever attempted what Tom Delay did in seeking to make the United States a one-party country. We see in the Democrats' return to power, in both DC and Salem, that there are fundamental differences between the two parties on this.
So much of what gets termed "partisanship" has been the combination of Rovian
attack ads, Luntzian reality-warping, and the abdication of real power by the national Democratic Party. That being said, the real issue is not partisanship at all. Rather, what ails American politics is much more simple, and it lies in something most of us heard from our moms at one time another. Whatever the context — staying out late on a school night or cheating on homework — the cliché went something to the effect of "it doesn't matter what the other kids do; you do what is right." What we need to help us cope with the tremendous issues we face is not unity or an end to partisanship; we just need to learn to be nice to each other.
Really. I'm serious.
Tom Delay was an arrogant s.o.b., and he's going to jail as a result. He's taking a lot of other people down with him, people who chose self-interest over public service. Arrogance and bullying over dialogue and process. He was not a nice man and he did not behave in a manner anyone not taking massive amounts of Oxycontin would call nice. He did not let others speak, he did not share, he did not give a rat's ass for the Constitution. He was anything but nice.
And nice is where we begin to fix our political system. Politeness. Civility. I can deal productively with someone who disagrees adamantly with me as long as we can remain civil and keep talking (and listening). As long as we maintain a dialogue and refuse to let our differences bring the public process to a halt, we will get to some kind of resolution. If nothing else, we'll put the matter to a vote. After all, virtually every decision in America is put to a vote of some kind, so if an issue cannot be resolved via compromise — and how do we compromise the rights of gay and lesbian Oregonians without selling out our principles? — we put it to a vote. And then we live with the result. We obey the laws that result. Yes, we might take up the fight again — Measure 37 — but what we don't do is quit or resort to force. Neither accomplishes anything useful, and neither is the least bit American.
Further, for those with the courage to face challenges to their beliefs and goals — for people not afraid of being wrong or afraid of conflict — partisanship helps create better laws and government. We saw the damage a one-party system did under Delay and Minnis; they ran their Houses free of partisan bickering very nicely. Speaker Jeff merkley, on the other hand, has opened the Oregon House to all kinds of partisanship, Democrats and Republicans alike pushing partisan agendas, attacking one another's premises, pushing the other side to demonstrate the validity of their proposals. And danged if we aren't seeing this Legislature, for the first time in almost two decades, make headway on the crucial issues facing Oregon. Speaker merkley opened the door to partisanship knowing that undertaken in a spirit of respect and common concern for the welfare of Oregon, good results are possible.
Unity08 is for quitters. "Non-partisanship" is another word for avoidance. If people want a third party, fine; that's a whole different story (but take the tragedy of Nader's 2000 campaign to heart and begin by building a local party; look where it got Bernie Sanders). Unity08 is not about a third party; it's about people wishing all the bad things would go away. What candidate can they select who can make Americans agree on abortion? It's a lot of energy being spent to fix the wrong problem with the wrong solution, and it's only going to cause more damage than it could ever hope to fix.
I find it telling that their website speaks in terms of "we" and "us" when it's a mere handful of people — including advisor Mark Cuban — who are speaking. Talk about arrogance. "We the people" is a pretty exclusive group at Unity08.
Democrats, don't get deceived and don't get discouraged. This is still the greatest, most democratic and representative political party the world has known. Yes, we have problems — so let's fix them. Every precinct in this state has openings for community members. Go to a State Central Committee meeting of the DPO and you'll see both that what "ordinary" people can accomplish, and how few of us there who bother to make the attempt. Join your county party — if you're registered "D" you are a member — and get busy right there taking back your country. Stop listening to the lie that we need to make partisanship go away. We don't, and we can't, and we shouldn't. What we need is to become informed, involved and to do so with respect for one another. (Go watch the British Parliament on C-SPAN if you need a lesson, or listen to Sen Robert Byrd).
Unity is a utopia, and we know how well those work. Me, I intend to help kick major amounts of Republican and third-party butt in 2008. I anticipate celebrating many lop-sided, highly partisan victories. But I also hope to do so respectfully, without too much "neener neener" and, after the raucous celebration, turning to my crushed opponents and asking them what they think we need to do next. We may not agree on that, but if we can have the talk, we'll have all the unity we need.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 17, '07
Thank you.
May 17, '07
Well said. Class warfare and partisanship are two things the GOP has mastered in spades and used with great effect, which is why they would prefer that Democrats not touch either one.
Any time someone talks to me about how great it would be if there were no partisanship, I know that I'm listening to a Republican who thinks it self evident that the best candidates are Republicans and thinks it's only this "partisanship" that accounts for any Democratic victories, and who is doing his partisan best to eliminate the opposition.
May 17, '07
Hear, Hear!
10:45 p.m.
May 17, '07
Wow, that was a lot of virtual ink spilled on this topic. Unity08 ain't goin' nowhere. Their idea of an ideal Presidential candidate are: Joe Lieberman, John McCain, and Michael Bloomberg.
No. Seriously.
Chris Bowers has a post about them. He ends by making the folowing observation about their donor list
Nothing more need be said.10:46 p.m.
May 17, '07
Well said.
And for those who are interested, the Democratic Party of Oregon's quarterly meeting is this Saturday in Corvallis: More info here.
We'll have caucus meetings in the morning, committee meetings in the late morning/early afternoon, and then the state central committee will meet after that.
Meetings are open to the public; however, only delegates can vote. Typically the seating in the front is reserved for voting members, alternates behind them, and visitors behind them. Makes it a lot easier to tell who is allowed to vote and who isn't.
I attended a few of these in 2005 and 2006 before becoming an alternate representing Multnomah County.
May 17, '07
Your point that the very idea of Unity08 is flawed is well taken. I might just throw in that their timimg is lousy too. Why would any Democrat even consider Unity08 when we have the most talented (arguable) and diverse (without question) field of candidates in memory?
May 18, '07
"The fundamental, passionate differences are not a problem. These are vital to the health of a democracy."
Cool. Then you should have no problem with the folks who wish to follow a different vision, such as that espoused by Unity08. The more the merrier, no?
No?
"Unity08 is for quitters. "Non-partisanship" is another word for avoidance."
Bullshit. It's for people who think both major parties are focusing on the destruction of the other so intenty that they lose sight of what's good for the nation. The Republicans are against acknowledging climate change as much because it'll let the Democrats score points as for any genuine disagreement over the facts; the Democrats want to get out of Iraq before the start of 2009 as much to prevent any President of theirs that might win from being left holding the bag as from any belief that it's strategically good for the nation's foreign policy goals.
I'm a liberal independent and I have a lot of sympathy for the ideals of the Democrats. I'm a lot more likely to vote for your candidates than the Republican candidtes. But as an independent, it's possible for me to see that both majors act in ways that are destructive to the country and our democracy just to help themselves maintain their power. (Case in point.)
I signed up for Unity08 not because I'm avoiding conflict, but because you poor bastards from the majors have got us independents surrounded. I'm not a quitter - I'm willing to wade in and call both sides on their shit. And to call you on yours, right here on your home turf.
Heck, I don't even expect Unity08 to work, but if it might shake the majors loose from their most radical wings then it's worth a shot. That'd be good for almost everyone, so long as it hits both sides about evenly. Frankly I'm glad to see you worried enough to devote all this ink to the subject, seems like a good sign.
You can keep your jaundiced assessment of Unity08 if you want. No skin off my nose... you might even be right about a lot of it. But if you start calling us nonpartisan voters quitters then you're setting yourself up for a very painful lesson from about 20% of Oregon's registered voters. Insulting people whose support you need to win in statewide general elections is not my idea of a sound strategy.
May 18, '07
Ahhh! Independents! They must be evil, because they haven't dutifully joined the obviously correct party, the Democratic Party! Kill it, kill it!
This rant is a pretty good example of why Unity08 came about.
May 18, '07
Kudos to Mr. Barnhart for telling the truth. The way politics should be - give the electorate clear choices. There can be much debate about the precise content of those choices - there is undoubtedly going to be argument about what constitutes the political choice the Democrats will offer in 2008, and if the choices they offer are too extreme, the Democrats will be rejected, but muddying the waters with centrism doesn't cut it.
In fact, I would argue that the Republicsns failed in 2006 for two reasons. First, most obviously, the full ramification of the platform they offered to Americans became clear, and the voters rejected it. But almost as important, the Republicans muddied their platform by spending money like drunken sailors and recklessly and foolishly going to war in Iraq. They got off message.
May 18, '07
There are a lot of Americans who want to vote for a party that will end our involvement in Iraq, and a party that is not tied to government employee unions, and a party that believes in school choice, and a party that honestly wants to cut federal government spending. What are those people suppose to do? Neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party fit. Yet, this year, major party legislators from both major parties (including saintly Governor Schweitzer of Montana) have made ballot access more difficult for minor parties and independent candidates in Arizona, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota). Democrats don't seem to believe in free elections anymore. Many of them hope to squash all competition so that when the public can't bear Republicans any more, Democrats will win automatically.
May 18, '07
"The way politics should be - give the electorate clear choices."
That's not statesmanship, that's marketing.
Thank you for the wonderful and timely example of the problem I'm talking about.
10:03 a.m.
May 18, '07
I remember back when it was fashionable to say "I'm a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative". A friend of mine pointed out that that's impossible... after all, how can you say that you support strong social programs - and yet support cutting their funding?
Most people who say "social liberal but a fiscal conservative" just meant that they're pro-choice but they don't like taxes. Rudy Giuliani types.
But being socially liberal is more than just being pro-choice. It also means that you support the programs and tax structures that help lift working people up.
May 18, '07
Having applauded the sentiment of the original post above, I also want to agree with the estimable Richard Winger that Democrats (and Republicans, but this is BlueOregon, so the issue here is Democrats) have a terrible habit of supporting, in every possible way, unfair rules that actually gut the sentiment of this post by limiting "clear choices" to just one choice: "Red pill or Blue pill."
Democrats are at least as guilty as the GOP of hamstringing minor parties and happily cooperating in the gerrymandering game that treats the electorate as spoils to be divided up rather than as citizens to be served, including those citizens with views not represented by the major parties.
Barnhart's excellent post calls for everyone to have the courage of their political convictions.
For Democrats and Republicans, actually demonstrating that courage would require that we take our boots off the necks of minor parties and create a level playing field for all, with no statutory electoral rules advantages for anyone.
In short, we need to make the rules of the game such that we would be willing to play the game from any seat around the table, not just from our privileged position.
I strongly believe that this is not only the right thing to do ethically, but also politically---that is, I think a great mass of independent voters would respond extremely favorably to a major party that gets rid of the rules that hobble all alternatives to the two majors.
And I'm not advocating some sort of silly selflessness. I'm advocating that we recognize our long-term interest in maintaining a basis for popular support for the whole idea of democratic elections, which is our political lifeblood.
The crippling diseases we've inflicted on minor parties doesn't just make them ill, it makes our whole politics ill. The bottom line is that the major parties are much more robust and healthy when the minor parties are. It's that simple. We can write the rules to favor ourselves and our GOP nemesis (and boy have we ever) but we can't escape the result: a much weaker polity, one that becomes less stable and less democratic every election cycle.
Just as farms that use an intensive and continuous two-crop rotation soon destroy the health of the soil and come to depend on ever-increasing amounts of chemicals to provide the services that live organic soil once provided for free, our two-party dominance is destroying Americans' desire to engage in politics, which then requires that we pour ever-increasing amounts of money into the system as the chemical fertilizer to make up for the rich organic interest and activity that people used to provide for free.
So yes, let's not be afraid to offer people clear choices (plural) fervently expressed--- and that would include an end to rules that cripple and limit those choices.
May 18, '07
"For Democrats and Republicans, actually demonstrating that courage would require that we take our boots off the necks of minor parties and create a level playing field for all, with no statutory electoral rules advantages for anyone."
Yes, please!
Thank you, JMG. That was very well said and it warms my heart considerably to see that here. I hope folks around blueoregon - and elsewhere - have the courage to listen to you and pursue the course you plot.
May 18, '07
Kari writes:
"But being socially liberal is more than just being pro-choice. It also means that you support the programs and tax structures that help lift working people up."
What do you call someone who is socially liberal, supports the programs and tax structures that help lift working people up, but who is savaged by the AMT while the truly wealthy escape nearly scott free. I can't be a Progressive when then complain that the Bush tax cuts help those who make more than $200,000 per year. This is an outright lie. As a result of the Bush tax cuts, more of my income is exposed to the AMT and I pay significantly more taxes now than I did before the tax cuts. This is the problem with picking a number out of a hat instead of thinking it through. The dems end up alienating people like me because I think I'm unfairly taxed. I don't object to paying taxes, but I want to see the tax system be progressive and fair, something it is NOT right now. I could care less about a tax cut, but I'm not interested in any tax increase that affects anyone making less than about $750,000 per year -- a level of affluence that makes Dems recoil and barely phases the R's. I have never voted R in any national election, but the current crop of Dems (Progressive, Liberal, or whatever) have not given me anything to work hard for, only stuff to work against.
Why isn't it possible to be for ALL working people - everyone whose primary income is from W-2 wages and pension benefits, not investment income?
May 18, '07
Kari writes: I remember back when it was fashionable to say "I'm a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative". A friend of mine pointed out that that's impossible... after all, how can you say that you support strong social programs - and yet support cutting their funding?
This is a narrow view of fiscal conservatism. It doesn't have to mean just cutting funding. . . it can mean ensuring that tax dollars are spent in the most efficient way possible. It can mean exploring non-government solutions before advocating government solutions. It can mean objectively assessing a public program's effectiveness and being willing to move dollars from less to effective to more effective programs. It can mean balancing the budget, either through spending cuts <u>or tax increases.
As a liberal, I would love to see the Democratic party actually show some flashes of fiscal conservatism. And while we're at it, let's not let the wingnuts define the term.
12:15 p.m.
May 18, '07
i'd just like to add that Unity08 does not address the #1 problem in American politics: money. their candidates must raise and spend the same $200 million any candidate will need to raise and spend. it's more than a shame that this is the case, and the reason why we need real electoral reform. we should not waste time & energy (and people's good will) on non-reforms. we need to elect people, from local to state to federal, who will support electoral reform: public financing of all campaigns, same-day registration, paper trails, etc. these steps will open the process to more people of diverse views -- and give them a real chance to win.
1:11 p.m.
May 18, '07
I don't really want to spend much more time with this non-subject, but the responses here from the so-called "Unity" sympathizers show quite clearly why this so-called party won't get anywhere.
Richard Winger is quite clearly a Republican who is frustrated with his own party, and it certainly is true that if you're really a slash-and-burn-the-U.S.-government type, you don't have many places to go. The emerging consensus among Democrats is that we've compromised enough on modeling this nation's social services on the third-world, and of couse, Republicans have now been pretty much revealed as the borrow-and-spend-on-my-corrupt-cronies party. The only thing Mr. Winger agrees with us on is the fundimental waste of trillions of dollars and U.S. lives babysitting the Iraq war.
Alan DeWitt, on the other hand, finds Democrats repulsive because - he claims - we only want to stop the Iraq war now because we don't want to get stuck with it in 2008. We could have no other possible reason for wanting to stop such a otherwise laudable enterprise, saving Iraq from the Iraqis. Or something.
Setting aside my own disagreements with both of these fine gentlemen, can you imagine them together in a party meeting? They may disagree with the Democratic coalition anywhere from 20% to 80%, but they disagree with each other - almost totally!
That's the reason why these third party movements fail, their artfully bland platitudes of "Unity" and "Reform" falling on deaf ears: you can't fight something with nothing. Juvenile rejection doesn't sell. You actually have to stand for something.
May 18, '07
Since this is Blue Oregon, I as well will only point to the Ds-
My observation is that there is the Democratic base, full of ideas and continuously involving themselves in the votes and issues.
Also there is the corporate money cash cow, that hedges it's bets but supplies the money to run these $200 million campaigns.
But, imagine the cost savings to the big money corporate creeps and foreign governments that shell out all of this campaign money if there were only one super party!!
May 18, '07
I loath the mutant beast the GOP has become in recent decades, but there's no way in hell I'd want to be under the same tent as you TA. I consider so-called 'progressives' to be just as big a threat to civil liberties as so-called 'conservatives.' Yet the iron grip the two branches of the Corporate Party have over American politics makes it impossible for the views of millions like me to be truly represented. And I hold the Dems 50% responsible for this. Your contempt for independents and third parties is a clear indication of this. As far as I'm concerned, party loyalty is primarily for people who are incapable of thinking for themselves, or who stand to gain personally from the success of their party.
And what's all this talk about 'choice,' TA? In your last moronic rant you said in no uncertain terms that individual rights were obsolete. Here are your exact words: "We need to move past the rights of the individual....We don't need rights; we need responsibilities." But I guess that only includes rights with which you disagree, huh TA? How typical of the hypocrisy of self-styled 'progressives.'
Mrfearless47 wrote: I have never voted R in any national election, but the current crop of Dems (Progressive, Liberal, or whatever) have not given me anything to work hard for, only stuff to work against.
Ditto. Taxes aren't really a major issue for me since I'm definitely at the low end of the income scale, but I agree that the national Dems are doing nothing to earn our votes. I've never voted R at the local, state, or national level, but I certainly don't see myself ever voting for another D again.
May 18, '07
politics is not supposed to be free of partisanship, the having of opinions and the taking of sides.
I think the problem with your post is that you incorrectly define partisanship as "having opinions" and "taking sides." The American Heritage Dictionary defines a partisan as "A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance."
The problem with American politics IS partisanship -- the fact that many players show a biased, emotional allegiance to whatever side they pick. That partisanship stifles honest, open debate, and most importantly stifles the development of creative compromises that don't give anyone a victory, per se, but move important issues forward. A good example of this was in 1999, when Clinton was in the White House and Republicans controlled Congress. Clinton wanted a Medicare drug benefit, as did Republicans, but neither side would come to the middle. Wyden, however, was working with Republicans to craft a bipartisan plan. He was successful, only to be reprimanded harshly by Daschle when the minority leader found out about it. Wyden's attempt to solve a real problem for seniors at the expense of Democratic party unity cost him a seat on the Senate Finance Committee for four long years. And the partisanship of Democratic leaders gave us the far, far worse GOP drug benefit just a few years later.
"Non-partisanship" is another word for avoidance.
No, non-partisanship is another word for open-minded and liberal.
May 18, '07
"Alan DeWitt, on the other hand, finds Democrats repulsive because - he claims - we only want to stop the Iraq war now because we don't want to get stuck with it in 2008. We could have no other possible reason for wanting to stop such a otherwise laudable enterprise, saving Iraq from the Iraqis. Or something."
Yeah. Way to misread what I wrote. Did you see the word "only" in there anywhere, pal?
Hey, tell ya what. How about you read the rest of my post and respond to that? 'Cuz I'll admit that part was a bit weak; I was mad and it was o-dark-thirty. Mea culpa.
Get this straight, though: I don't find Democrats repulsive. (If you'd read the rest of what I wrote, you'd see I already addressed this.) I like the dem's ideals, and when you guys actually live up to 'em I'm usually quite pleased.
I dunno why you're trying to demonize me rather than actually engage in a conversation here. What you've done is pretty similar to the tactic Bush used with Chirac a few years ago, and after all that worked out so well for everyone. [rolls eyes]
Again, thanks for the fine example of why even Unity08 is preferable to the current state of affairs.
2:23 p.m.
May 18, '07
Can someone answer this question?
If Unity08 is all about declaring the Democrats and Republicans unfit to lead us, why on EARTH would they then select candidates from those two parties? Isn't that kind of like declaring MLB morally bankrupt, and starting a new league by trying to lure Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa?
4:40 p.m.
May 18, '07
That is an extremely narrow view of a social liberal, fiscal conservative.
My husband is one. He's not against social programs. He understands how important they are -- he's seen how it helps people, including our own family when I was laid off in 2003.
He wants to see the money spent responsibly. That when contracts are given out that the money isn't wasted. That you don't fund tax cuts for the rich on cuts to food stamps, health care the elderly and handicapped, student loans, and veterans health care.
In recent years he's been voting Democrat more often than not, because his party no longer acts like fiscal conservatives. At least with the Democrats he has the social liberal part in common.
5:30 p.m.
May 18, '07
hey Orygunner, thanks for showing your class and merit with the name-calling. you save everyone a lot of effort that way. was the part where i talked about respectful dialogue just too moronic for you?
May 18, '07
This sentence: "Your contempt for independents and third parties is a clear indication of this" is not correct. T.A. singled out for praise Independent Bernie Sanders. T.A. was showing contempt for Unity08, a very different beast.
For the record, I support making it easy for third parties to get on the ballot, and disagree with the Dems' lack of support for this in certain states.
T.A.'s complaints are good ones. Another major problem with Unity08 is that it isn't a party. Nobody knows what its platform is. If I was, let's say, a well-informed independent voter trying to choose between the Dems, the Repubs, and Unity08, I can clearly find out what the Dems stand for--they have a platform and many public leaders. Same with the Repubs. Unity08? I have no idea. What is Unity08 going to do about Iraq? What about the national debt? Equal rights for gays and lesbians? I've been to their website on numerous occasions and scoured it. They take very, very few specific stances.
It seems clear to me that they've done this to artificially boost their popularity until they're forced to choose a candidate with specific positions.
May 18, '07
hey Orygunner, thanks for showing your class and merit with the name-calling. you save everyone a lot of effort that way. was the part where i talked about respectful dialogue just too moronic for you? I called your rant moronic. However, if you want to apply that as a personal descriptor, please feel free to do so.
And thanks for dodging the question. Are individual rights obsolete or not? Is it truly time "to move past the rights of the individual"? If so, how do you reconcile this with your above euphemistic references to "choice"?
Your valuation of "community rights" over individual rights is common among self-styled progressives. Is this the progressive agenda? There was very little objection to your previous opinion piece, and what little there was appeared to be primarily by non-liberals like myself.
9:02 p.m.
May 18, '07
Orygunner: Your valuation of "community rights" over individual rights is common among self-styled progressives. Is this the progressive agenda? There was very little objection to your previous opinion piece, and what little there was appeared to be primarily by non-liberals like myself.
Interesting observation considering that just about everyone who commented on that post, including me, disagreed with that aspect of the post.
greg: For the record, I support making it easy for third parties to get on the ballot, and disagree with the Dems' lack of support for this in certain states.
... including, perhaps especially including, Oregon.
The bipartisan hatchet job that the legislature took to undercut the ability of independent candidates to make the ballot in 2005 was shameful. Only slightly less disturbing is that the current legislature has done nothing to correct it.
10:19 p.m.
May 18, '07
Accusing people of being disingenuous and immoral is not a particularly good way of engaging them in a conversation, Mr. DeWitt. Not only am I a Democrat, but I also know Secretary of State Bill Bradbury personally. He's an upstanding man who does not misuse the power of his office, and does his best to uphold the law. If he really was some corrupt party hack who went out of his way to twist the law to unfairly attack Ben Westlund, I doubt that Ben Westlund would have then joined our Party, as he later did.
Still, since you've done a mea-culpa, it seems reasonable to drop this.
Of course, I'm by no means saying that membership in the Democratic party gives people a halo, and they can do no wrong. But there is a culture in the Democratic Party that says that when one of our own screws up, we don't shield them from the legal consequences. The culture of corruption are the other guys.
May 18, '07
Sal is right about independent candidates getting on the ballot. One example stands out. After last year, do Democrats think they can automatically count on the votes of everyone who signed a Westlund petition --or voted in the primary and couldn't sign but could attend a Westlund event?
On the national level, don't fool yourself. All the stuff I have heard about Chuck Hagel having Diebold connections or whatever only appeals to political wonks.
As appealing as the Democratic candidates are this year, Hagel comes across as the voice (much like Sen. Frank Morse in the state senate) of disgruntled former Republicans saying "This guy sounds like the GOP we knew back 30 years ago".
Think back to the positive coverage of Pres. Ford's funeral. That was a time when solutions and civility mattered more than ideology and polarization--and thus there were 2 strongly competing parties, unlike the situation today.
Never forget that some of the people who are now (or have been) active Democrats/ political independents or NAV who are of a certain age might very well have been McCall supporters, voted for G. Ford, campaigned and voted for John B. Anderson for President in 1980.
Even if people like me would disagree with 90% of Hagel's voting record, his candor is refreshing and he can remind people his age who graduated from small town high schools of the sort of person they were friends with 40 years ago.
And I hope that in the interest of winning 2008 elections, people who would never vote for Hagel are careful in their rhetoric.
There is nothing wrong with "He's great on the Iraq War but I disagree with him on everything else". But snide remarks like "How can you support a guy who voted to..." will never win friends and influence people.
Wise people advocate for the candidates of their choice without making snide remarks about the opposition.
(Note to those disappointed by AuCoin not running for US Senate: I supported him from his legislative days through most of 1991. But by 1992 he was proving the truth of what a friend said in 1982 after her candidate won a primary and the guys "going after each other hammer and tongs" came in 2nd and 3rd,
"When they act like that, you know they know they are losing".
Some analysis of 2004 said the same thing about Dean and Gephardt---too eager to defeat the other guy, each turned off voters who decided to support either Kerry or Edwards in the Iowa Caucuses)
May 18, '07
" If he really was some corrupt party hack who went out of his way to twist the law to unfairly attack Ben Westlund, I doubt that Ben Westlund would have then joined our Party, as he later did."
Oh, dear. I'm sorry, I should have been more specific in my complaint. I have nothing but respect for Mr. Bradbury. The article I linked was perhaps not the best choice.
The problem is not the execution of the law by the SoS, it's the law itself. In this case, ORS 254.069, "Participation in more than one nominating process for partisan public office". This was passed by the 2005 legislature in a very bipartsian way.
Ostensibly this law protects minor parties from major party interference, but actually it significantly raises the bar for independent candidates and it also partially disenfranchises major-party voters.
Now, don't go thinking that I'm blaming Democrats for this bad law. That's not quite it. What sticks in my craw is that members of the two major parties essentially colluded to expand their mutual dominance over the nomination process. If two corporations had acted in such a manner to dominate their market, we'd be up in arms calling for unfair business practice or antitrust prosecutions. But if it's major parties that do it, it's all okay because they control the entire process of writing and enforcing laws.
And that ain't right. It certainly doesn't live up to the democratic ideals one would hope the Democratic party would hold.
So Mr. Maurer, next time you see your friend Bill please tell him for me that this is a bad law, and ask him to recommend its repeal. And all you fair-minded Democrats reading, please help make a level electoral playing field part of your platform, even when it's not obviously to your party's advantage. I and other independents really do pay attention to this sort of thing.
May 19, '07
"Another major problem with Unity08 is that it isn't a party. Nobody knows what its platform is."
No one knows what the Democratic Platform for 2008 is yet, either. (Unless it's already been decided in some smoke-filled room, of course. Has it? I didn't get the memo!)
You know, y'all could just join Unity08 and help shape the Unity08 platform without altering or diminishing your support for the Democrats. It shows every indication of being a non-exclusive political association. Why not try to multiply your influence instead of demonizing the new idea?
4:46 p.m.
May 19, '07
Ostensibly this law protects minor parties from major party interference, but actually it significantly raises the bar for independent candidates and it also partially disenfranchises major-party voters.
One point of clarification, Alan, there was never any pretense that the law you are describing was intended to prevent major parties from interfering in the affairs of the minor parties.
The law was written to prevent candidates from running as independents. And you are absolutely correct in your assertion that the law, as it currently stands can potentially disenfranchise tens of thousands of Oregon voters.
This is one of the reasons why Linda Williams and other activists formally created "Independent Party" in Oregon -- to allow candidates who want to run as independents to circumvent the prohibitive requirements that effectively ended Ben Westlund's bid for Governor.
May 20, '07
"This is one of the reasons why Linda Williams and other activists formally created "Independent Party" in Oregon -- to allow candidates who want to run as independents to circumvent the prohibitive requirements that effectively ended Ben Westlund's bid for Governor."
I was unaware of that. Thank you for the information. Seems like cheating, kinda, but I guess one legal hack deserves another. :-/
May 21, '07