I have been following several diaries that basically boil down to supporting or not supporting the Democrats further.
Those who advocate not supporting, (the populists) say the Democrats are betraying their principles and need to be held to account. Those who advocate continued support (the pragmatists) point to the lunatics on the other side and say "what is the alternative?"
I can understand the thinking of both sides and full disclosure, I fall firmly in the pragmatist column, but that isn't to say I can't understand the thinking of the populists.
However, they are wrong.
In politics there is no wrong or right. Politics is the means of achieving a desired society by compelling others to agree with your position.
In other words....
I want a society where everyone has access to free healthcare, free education up to four years of University, regulated and controlled rents and mortgages, strict gun control with bans on all handguns or military style weapons, protected markets that encourage domestic production, banking regulations restricting the fees, interest and charges banks levy as well as strict oversight of banking practices, fairness in broadcasting, truth in advertising, public pensions that provide enough to live at 2 times the poverty level, 90% tax on earnings over $250,000, 100% tax on capital gains over $100,000, a 32 hour work week, and unions for all.
Those are just some of the things I want that would make - for me - a desirable society.
Never. Gonna. Happen.
I can live to be a 1,000 and I will never see a society that has all of the things in it that I want.
It may have some, it may have most, but it will never have all. Sometimes, my society will regress and I will lose some - even many - of the achievements I want and support.
So, what do I do about it?
It is a common response to a something we find objectionable to leave. I don't like a store for some reason, I stop shopping there. I don't like what a CEO says about gays, I boycott his product. I don't like what a radio DJ says, I tell his advertisers I am boycotting them as long as they advertise on his program.
It is a common and very effective tactic. So it is easy to see why if I don't like some of the policies of my political party, I withhold my vote.
The problem is, in elections, that doesn't work.
In elections, votes are currency; if you don't spend it, they might as well not exist.
Politicians and observers do not say "Populists are unhappy and withholding their votes. We need to find a way to bring them back."
What they do say is "young leftists are too cynical and jaded to even bother voting, so they can be ignored." They then start fighting for that mushy-middle voter who can switch between Left and Right between elections.
The fact of the matter is this: change has never been won by withholding power; and in a democracy, power is in the vote. You can spend a billion dollars on an election, but if it doesn't win you votes, you have wasted your money. It is the reason the right has not rested in trying to suppress and deny the right to vote. It is the reason the last thing the 1% want is a quick, easy and honest voting process.
You change policy but marching. Marching stopped a war, voting - or lack thereof - brought Nixon to power. Protests are putting heat under Indiana and making bigots sweat. Staying home brought those bigots to power.
You may not like the message but it is the truth. Revolutions are not won through boycotts.
I have been hearing alot about TPP lately. You know where I first heard about it and the only place I ever hear about it?
Daily Kos.
If TPP is so evil that voting for a political party that had a President who supported it is akin to a neo-liberal betrayal of every progressive value over the past 100 years; why the silence?
Why are there not thousands, or 10's of thousands in the streets protesting this agreement?
I remember when NAFTA was being passed and the opposition that agreement generated. It was one of the reason Ross Perot did as well as he did in 1992.
Today, I hear crickets.
If I can say that I have learned one thing that I know to be true it is this: I support and push and advocate for the person I want to lead my political party. I push hard from the Left to influence my party's platform. But at the end of the day, I support loudly, vigorously and fervently the person my party chooses to lead it - even if in my heart I feel they made a mistake.
Why? Because the party is a vehicle to achieve my desired end. Without the party, I have no way of influencing others and moving them towards the ultimate goal I want to see. It is not about who leads or where they are going right now. It is about stopping those who want goals that are 180 degrees the opposite of mine and encouraging those who want goals that are closest to mine.
If society has been moving steadily away from the direction I want, it is not because I stayed home and boycotted my party.
Now, I have no illusion that this diary is going to be considered anything more than a pie in a pie fight. Many of the objections, points, arguments and debates mirror those I witnessed and participated in back in 2007 and 2008 when Obama was nominated. This debate will continue if Hillary wins the nomination and the election in 2016 and the same things said about Obama will be said about her; just as they were said about her husband, and Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnsen.
But perhaps populists need to ask themselves one simple question: if you've been saying the same things and fighting the same way since the 1960's - that is boycotting elections, etc - how come we have all lost so much ground to the Right over the past 50 years?
One last thought: in 2014 33.9% of Americans voted. Republicans won a landslide victory.