David Sirota: The Rise of Seinfeld Politics & The End of Principles

Here’s just one more example illustrating why David Sirota’s writing is the most lucid embodiment of what I think of as progressive populist:

Berating the entire concept of ideology has become something of a fad in contemporary Washington, D.C. The David Broders lead us to believe that ideology – defined by the dictionary as “a set of beliefs” – is exactly the same thing as rigid, counterproductive dogma that prevents people from compromising. Of course, the chattering class is perhaps the most rigidly dogmatic demographic in America, loyally clinging to a rather strident elitist ideology on everything from trade, to the war and to democracy itself.

Put another way, “ideology” is berated even as an ideological war is being fought by the beraters. And while the conservative movement actually believes in movement politics and rejects the idiotic attack on the concept of having “a set of beliefs,” many Democratic Party elites buy the whole frame hook, line and sinker – for clearly corrupt reasons.

[...]

We are expected to believe that the American people want candidates who stand for nothing but have good “personalities” – that, say, a gameshow host like Alex Trebek or Bob Barker is the ideal Democratic Party candidates. We are expected to believe that you can “sell leadership” without actually SHOWING any leadership. And perhaps most ridiculously of all, we are expected to believe that the way to “reclaim fleeting authenticity” is to eliminate a coherent belief system – the critical ingredient of authenticity itself.

Go read the rest at the HuffingPost.com, and see why Sirota takes Sen Obama’s campaign manager to task for being guilty of exercising "Seinfeld Politics" — that is, the politics of nothing.

Real Family Values

Americans Support Edwards Choice

Americans by 2 to 1 margin support the decision of John Edwards to stay in the Democratic presidential race even though his wife, Elizabeth, has been diagnosed with a recurrence of breast cancer, according to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll.

Edwards also “got a boost in the horserace of Democratic contenders, chosen as the preference by 14% of the respondents who are Democrats or lean toward the Democratic party. That’s up from 9% in the USA Today poll taken three weeks ago.”

The national poll had Clinton at 35%, with Sen. Barack Obama at 22%, Al Gore at 17% and John Edwards at 14%.

Congress Must Intervene

Via Dailykos.com, this is a great analogy about the Bush administration, and why the Democratic Party led Congress needs to intervene:

Netroots ’06 candidate Gary Trauner (WY-AL) visited D.C. last week, and spoke to the Democratic Caucus on Iraq. He reports back in a diary to us:

I had the opportunity last week to spend some time in DC with the Democratic House Caucus as they debated the Iraq Supplemental bill.  In fact, I was given the opportunity to speak to the Caucus for a few minutes.  Against the advice of several "consultants" who wanted me to just show up, be bland and ask for financial support, I couldn’t let this golden chance slip by without giving them my take on the Iraq situation from a different angle….

I told our Dem Representatives that perhaps we should use the language of the free market so often used by Republicans and their corporate sponsors. The way I see it, Congress is the Board of Directors of the largest, most important enterprise in the history of the world – the United States of America – and the President is the CEO. But he’s a weak CEO surrounded by a bad management team. In these circumstances, there isn’t a company worth it’s salt in America where the Board should not step in to set strategic, and sometimes tactical, parameters. In fact, in these circumstances, any Board has a fiduciary obligation, a responsibility, to its shareholders – in this case, every American citizen – to intervene with purpose, decisiveness and conviction to change the strategic course of the organization. If we’ve learned anything from the recent corporate scandals at Enron, MCI, etc., it should be that while some of the scandals arose from bad people purposefully doing bad things, these corporate frauds were enabled largely because of ineffective Board oversight and unconscionable Board inaction.

In the business world, strong Board action in the face of a ineffective CEO/management team that is pursuing a rigid and ill-planned strategy isn’t micromanaging – its called good governance.  And, in my view, it‘s good politics.

I can tell you that the arguments I heard in the Dem House Caucus were by and large impassioned and heartfelt.  And leadership is working hard to come up with a solution.  But here in the west, after knocking on nearly 20,000 doors across Wyoming last year, I KNOW that people want straight talk and a Representative who will stand up for his/her convictions.

This is Congress’ chance to show the American people that they have the courage to hold others accountable, and that they have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing regardless of political calculation.

That’s an important message for our Blue Dogs to hear. Gary ran in the reddest of the Red States–Wyoming. If the people in Wyoming think it’s time for the President’s hands to be tied on this war, maybe it is.

Oh Man, You Had Me at Hello…

I’ve seen Alec Baldwin appear on Faux News a couple of times, and have liked how he has performed against the belligerent Hannity and bloviating O’Rielly; and now I like what he has written here:

The low point in US politics (and it is the lowest point because of how close we all are to the lessons we should have learned from Vietnam, the first Iraq war, Watergate, etc.) has rendered us incapable of any real effort in the service real change. Americans, if not disgraced by their government, are enervated by it. And they hate it. I have never heard Americans speak so poorly of the institutions of our government as they are now.

Is a one-term Senator from Illinois the answer? Is a woman who is bright and strong-willed, yet in it just as much to rewrite her own epitaph as anything? Is she the answer? Could you ever vote Republican again? You’d have to pry all of their lips off of Bush’s ass before they could answer a debate question or kiss your baby. (Think about where all those Republicans lips have been before you even contemplate handing them that baby.)

There is a candidate out there who IS the answer. The only answer. And, in what I believe is the true American spirit, I would rather die under a government headed by such a man than live under one like we have now.

[...]

Think about it. One man. Smart. Experienced. Brave. Doing it for the RIGHT REASONS!

You want his phone number?

As others have speculated in response to this post by Baldwin, we’ve already got this mystery candidate’s number… DraftGore.com.

Signs of the Democratic Party Aristocrats

Chris Bowers, of MyDD.com, has put together a nice list describing the characteristics of the Democratic Party establishment aristocrats that sold us out to conservative republicans over the past 20+ years. The characteristics of the Democratic Party establishment aristocrats are:

• Views primaries against incumbents as “purges,” especially when they come from the left. All Democratic Party officeholders should receive their party’s nomination by right of possession.
• Thinks the war in Iraq was managed badly, but ultimately wasn’t a bad idea.
• After reading one too many Mark Penn polls, makes up imaginary friends like the Baileys as the gold standard for the average American voter.
• Constantly argues that we should end the circular firing squad and focus our efforts at Republicans, while simultaneously triangulating against left-wing strawmen at the same time.
• Believes in concepts like the “radical middle,” or that American is fundamentally a moderate country, even though most people who consider themselves moderates are actually just low information voters and non-ideological.
• Considers Fox News to be a conservative, but still legitimate, news outlet. Will gladly go on Fox News to reach out to new voters.
• Believes cutting the defense budget is political suicide, and should not even be discussed lest Democrats look weak.
• Finds GLBT issues to unbelievably radioactive, and tries to steer the most cautious course possible in this area.
• In terms of cults of personality, hates Howard Dean and joined the efforts to derail his presidential campaign / try and push him out of the DNC; loves Joe Lieberman and decried the efforts to try and knock him off; is interested in Michael Bloomberg’s potential presidential run and subscribes to his newsletter.
• Thinks that the blogosphere, You Tube, MoveOn and other netroots developments are fundamentally negative for the Democratic Party. Such institutions are filled with a new generation of dirty fucking hippies who will lead the Democratic Party over the cliff of unelectablility due to our ignorance, foul mouths and unwavering adherence to a far-left ideology.
• Thinks that dissenting from the great, all-powerful left makes you a rebellious, cool “outsider.”
• Considers the conservative rise in elected power from 1978-2006 to be a natural result of the country turning to the right and which can be countered by turning to the right ourselves. Does not believe that the massive conservative political machinery constructed over the past few decades played a major role, or that progressive political machinery must be constructed to counter it.
• Thinks that all options must remain on the table against Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons, because threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a relatively powerless country you are not at war with makes you look tough on national security issues rather than absolutely insane.
• Argued for censuring Bill Clinton as a political necessity despite his 60%+ approval rating, and against censuring George Bush, Jr. as a political necessity, despite his 35% approval rating.
• Considers those who oppose completely unregulated trade to simply be rubes, even if they are also part of the “radical middle” that must be courted at all costs.
• Speaking to the Democratic rank and file, rather than to swing voters, is fundamentally a waste of resources.
• Running a fifty state strategy and spending money on field or internet instead of only and ever focusing on TV ads in swing districts is a waste of resources.
• Even though he lost an open seat in an overwhelmingly Democratic year, believes that Harold Ford Jr. is the model for the future of the Democratic Party.
• Won’t read this post, or catch The Simpson’s reference in the Michael Bloomberg joke above.