We’re being told that the 2018 midterm elections are important for stopping Trump. But why?
Such an Important Election. But Why?
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
31 Comments. Leave new
Okay, plan B: vote against all incumbents.
I find Danielle Ryan’s recent RT article relevant here. Not even Aristoteles would confuse plutocracy with democracy….
Henri
2018 is the Apollo 10 mission in a way. The Apollo 10 went all the way to the Moon but did not send a lander to the surface. Why? After the Apollo 1 launchpad fire killed three astronauts, NASA went safety crazy. In and of itself, 2018 is meaningless. Its real weight is that if the Dems win big, and with a lot of progressive candidates, the 2020 elections can sweep away a lot of the crud.
We’ve all seen the results of Clintonian democratic policy. And the results of “compassionate” Republicanism flavored heavily by fundamentalist Christianity. We’re in a system where corporations are considered people, a president who went after whistleblowers is idolized, and news reporting has dwindled to irrelevance.
The old system simply isn’t working anymore and the next one won’t be able to come in all at once. The midterms have to simply blow away a while bunch of incumbents in the House. Then, for.2020, a similar event has to happen in the Senate. Then we can get the necessary things to start fixing everything.
> the next one won’t be able to come in all at once.
Heh. Heh-heh. Glad Whimsical isn’t here to hear you say that. =D
Don’t get me wrong, I’m making the same kind of statements; but I think that baby steps in the right direction (‘left’) are better than the incrementalism that preaches we can reach left by incrementally moving right.
> blow away a whole bunch of incumbents in the House
Wouldn’t it be glorious if EVERY incumbent lost? What do you suppose would happen if a bunch of fresh blood started mixing with the remaining incumbents? (who watched what happened two years previously …)
A man can dream.
A popular vote for Democrats will only be seen by Democrats as a vindication of their campaign talking points (which are contrary to their policy positions).
A person, such as I understand you to be, Alex, sees the use of marketing solutions (persuasive sales pitches) as necessary for the persuasion of the (policy) ignorant (negative campaign vulnerable) voting mobs.
From that perspective, I can’t see how the Democratic brand can be rehabilitated while at the same time being re-elected and undergoing a massive policy reorientation.
Campaigns in the USA are nearly entirely negative and devoid of educational value.
Therefore, although I am opposed to negative campaigning, if that is the only effective means of winning elections, then a serious campaign must demonize their opposition.
One can’t teach an old yellow dog Democrat new tricks, so to reach voters who can only be reached by negative campaigns, expecting a successful opposition without demonizing Democrats is a fools errand.
“And no man putteth new wine into old wineskins, else the new wine doth burst the skins, and the wine is spilled and the skins will be marred. But new wine must be put into new wineskins.”— Mark 2:22
My thinking is that the Dems, as they are, are a bunch of Droopy Dogs. They object until shoved, then they back down. The Progressives, however, take a more complete approach of integrating a functional morality into their thinking. Thus, a Progressive CANNOT support anything other than USP healthcare. In part, because it is immoral to let people die because they are poor, in part because the math is inescapable: it’s cheaper with USP. Once those two details are comprehended, there’s no other choice possible rationally.
The Dems will, sadly, never get to that point. But if enough Progressive candidates get in, and employ effective grassroots techniques (the Twitter, talking to each other, etc.) the old school techniques will begin to show their rot. (Like the Gorgon in the old Star Trek episode. “Look at it. See how ugly it really is, and don’t be afraid.”) It’s the overcoming of the inertia. A whole lot of Clintonians will climb on board once the movement takes off. “I was for it too, once I realized it meant my job!”
Give me enough Progressive winners in 2018, and I will give you USP in 2020, a significant jump in minimum wage, and a whole lot fewer companies that are too big to fail.
I’ve got a better idea. Let’s put new wine into old winos. Also old wine. It is said that Jesus turned wine into water …
“It is said that Jesus turned wine into water …
From Latin urināre, present active infinitive of ūrīnō, an ante-Classical form of ūrīnor (“I dive or plunge into water”).
Jesus, like every human, turned his wine into “water”; only Magic Jesus could reverse the process.
And he could fly, too.
New skins; new parties.
Hell, man, I can fly too. It’s the landing safely bit …
« We’re in a system where corporations are considered people, a president who went after whistleblowers is idolized, and news reporting has dwindled to irrelevance.» Indeed, But please, Alex, do explain how a if the Dems win big (in an election said to cost more than 5 thousand million (10⁹) USD, i e, in which corporate contributions have played a major role), the problems you point out above are going to be addressed, much less resolved ?…
Henri
It’s attitudinal. In an episode of All in the Family, the whole plot revolved around the answer to a riddle. “The reason the doctor couldn’t operate on the boy whose father was killed in a car crash was because the doctor was a woman.”
That was a real stumper in the 70s. Not anymore. Attitudes have changed.
Once the people wake up to how badly their friendly neighborhood Clintonians have been doing them, all the money in the world won’t be enough. But we have to have Event One. Something that shows everyone the truth, and, more importantly, draws a line that cannot be crossed.
Notice how angry the Clinton supporters get when you point out the DNC screwed Bernie? They become apoplectic about how Hillary never told them to do that and why do you have women so much?? And those six figure speeches? Just because she took more than you’ll earn in a decade for a formulaic speech doesn’t mean there was anything shady going on. Totally aboveboard.
I almost hope Hillary runs in the primaries so that she can, finally, just once, lose in a fair fight.
No, “important” means the chance to keep the ACA, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and to prevent more tax cuts for the 1%.
Don’t forget that Obama gave 20 trillion dollars to Wall Street which served as a safety net for the financial criminal class.
And Clinton was prevented from pushing cuts to Social Security by his opportune impeachment.
And he bombed Kosovo with depleted uranium.
“After the NATO bombing campaign of 1999, the United States urged allied armies to take special precautions on entering Kosovo because American ammunition littering the landscape contained depleted uranium that posed possible health risks.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/09/world/1999-us-document-warned-of-depleted-uranium-in-kosovo.html
And ended welfare “as we know it” along with passing the job killing NAFTA.
And the ACA was a reworked Romneycare, a Republican profit plan.
Granted, the ACA has a pre-existing condition feature that remains popular, but the ACA (Affordable Care Act) is anything but affordable.
Democrats are big liars just like ReTrumplicans, but Democrats seem able to lie with a style that keeps Yellow Dog Democrats from noticing, just like the Republican voters who think Trump is on their side.
not opportune
but
inopportune
@Glenn – I share your cynicism, your suspicions, and your disappointment. I fully agree that the major parties are corrupt to the core.
But let me ask you this: What’s your counter proposal?
Give up, lie down, and die? I’m not so good at that. I’ll keep fighting until someone makes me lie down and die.
Armed insurrection? That might work, but the righties have the guns, the militias and the itchy trigger fingers. We got Buddhist Monks and tofu-slurping hippies. Oh, I’d fight on the side of goodness, but I’d bet on the side of badness.
I admittedly don’t have a lot of hope for change-from-within, but the alternatives suck Vegemite.
The good news is that we have actually turned things around in the past. We threw out the Robber Barons in the early 20th century. They came back in full force, but we did knock ’em down once; ergo – it is possible to do it again.
“possible” … “Probable” is an entirely different concept.
I’m certainly not going to surrender to the so called “inevitability” of the assholes who strut around like aristocrats among the peasants always getting their way, without my calling attention to it.
The assholes in charge never in US history did any of the things the many found praiseworthy without serious pressure from those who called their shit shit, and then threw their allegiance to parties outside the duopoly.
If the people don’t create a receptive, welcoming environment for other parties to arise among themselves, then none will.
It’s too much to expect a party to have to awaken political discontent among those who have already surrendered to the urge to lie down and die. That is where Americans are right now.
People have to recognize things are not right in order to create a welcoming environment for third parties to grow in.
“Give up, lie down, and die? I’m not so good at that. I’ll keep fighting until someone makes me lie down and die.”
I know what you wrote, but this is how I read it:
“Give up, lie down, and vote for Democrats? I’m not so good at that. I’ll keep fighting until someone makes me lie down and vote for Democrats.”
> this is how I read it:
Got it. That’s your understanding of what I said. You’re evidently against what I said as well as what everyone else has said on this thread.
Now that we’ve got that settled, I’m still curious what it is that you are for. Election Day is starting as we speak …
“Just a year into Obama’s presidency, the White House began to pivot away from fiscal stimulus and toward austerity. The president convened a bipartisan debt reduction commission in February 2010, co-chaired by Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wy.), and charged it with forging a fiscal “grand bargain.” That became the catchphrase of choice on the Bowles-Simpson commission — and in budget talks in subsequent years — for a compromise agreement to reduce the long-term debt, through a combination of Social Security and Medicare cuts historically anathema to Democrats and revenue increases and defense cuts hard for Republicans to swallow.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-grand-bargain-social-security-expansion_us_5751f92de4b0eb20fa0e0142
[moved]
Today I’m going to give a single vote to any non Democrat or Republican candidate for any office, so that the assholes in charge don’t kick me off the list of registered voters.
I’m not going give up, lie down and die just because I live in a country that has a fake democracy that spends billions of dollars on negative ads, but far less money on reliable, secure voting machines to make sure votes count, and billions of dollars to convict minorities of felonies, just to disenfranchise them.
I’m will not participate in a fake election that only allows two flavors of conservative, fascist-leaning, warmongering parties on the ballot.
I’m not going to vote for any party that supports wars of aggression, that doesn’t act as if climate change and nuclear war is a real threat, or parties that moved NATO east in violation of agreements to end the Cold War only to later reawaken a new Cold War.
I can’t stop the herd from running like the proverbial lemmings over a cliff, but I don’t have to run with them (meaning any party of the duopoly).
Non-voters (those who see no reason to vote, and non-duopoly voters) are greater than 40% of the population, and Republicans and Democrats are each less than 30%, so each of these parties are a real minority that I don’t want to be a part of.
So voters for each party of the duopoly consist of true believer fanatics who think they are changing things in a good way when they succumb to the flattery of the assholes in charge, and who are convinced that they are in charge when they really control nothing.
How sad. How deluded.
But how happy they are, like any religious fanatic who believes he has a leg up on everyone else for a place in heaven.
Suckers.
@Glenn – you were kind enough to share your interpretation of my post, so allow me to do you the same favor. This is how I read your post:
“Give Up”
That’s so very kind of you CH.
Most Democrats respond to me as if I were a heretic to their favored god.
:: sigh :: again with the name calling, Glenn? Okay, you’re a Republican, so there. Nyah!
Not all elections are created equal. This one actually does present a chance to move the ball down the field, but you’re going to sit on the bench. That’s doing more to support the Republicans than to discourage the Democrats, ergo: You’re a Republican.
Back to the topic, it doesn’t matter what verbal hoops you try to jump through – you’re still giving up. You’ll just lie there and piss and moan until somebody else comes along and changes things for you.
Weren’t you just castigating someone for not supporting OWS? They made the same arguments as you do above, just strike out ‘election’ and write in OWS.
Funny thing, by refusing to participate you have tacitly agreed to go with whatever anyone else selects. You forfeit the right to complain – not that that will stop you – but you’ll still have a lot less credibility while doing so.
Hey, if you’re not going to use your vote, can I have it?
OTTER: “Bluto’s* right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now, we could fight ’em with conventional weapons. That could take years and cost millions of lives. Oh no. No, in this case, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.”
*Bluto would be future Senator Blutarsky. Hey, we could do worse. (Come to think of it, we already have.)
+ 1
Yeah, this type of cartoon, it’s easy. It’s right. It’s funny. The D’s suck. But it doesn’t move the ball. It’s a net negative statement.
I guess if you start putting solutions in though, it’s not funny. It’s preachy.
Then again, if you had the joke be on the R, rather than the D, it could include solutions and still be funny.
Have the D offer things to the R Redneck, and let him decline:
D: “We’ll give you better wages for shorter hours in safer conditions.”
R: “Fuck that!”
D: “We’ll give you cradle-to-grave healthcare. Whatever you need, it’s covered.”
R: “Commies!”
etc. That’s funny.
+1
This is why I hate Democrats.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign killer) easily wins eighth term in Florida Congressional District.
For those with short memories, the following should kill your buzz if you thought new blood was going to change the party.
PHILADELPHIA —Democrats arrived at their nominating convention on Sunday under a cloud of discord as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, abruptly said she was resigning after a trove of leaked emails showed party officials conspiring to sabotage the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html
Meet the new boss, who is literally the same boss as the old boss.