The Duopoly Protects Its Own
Cindy Sheehan has talked about challenging Diane Feinstein for her Senate seat in the Democratic primary this year. In general, I think any challenge to Feinstein is a good thing, although I don't agree with her strategy of running against her as a Democrat, mainly because I do not believe in supporting the duopoly under any circumstances. But what I think is interesting about this is that Barbara Boxer, California's other Senator--supposedly one of the "Good Democrats" who voted against the war--has urged Cindy not to run against Feinstein in the primary.
The implications of this for party politics within the duopoly--where loyalty to the political machine trumps progressive values--speaks volumes. For Boxer, first and foremost she will support her fellow elected Democrat, a centrist drone who opposes free speech (she has been a supporter of banning flag burning), who voted for the war, and who continues to support funding for the war. Boxer, like other leading elected Democrats, has distanced herself time and time again from Cindy Sheehan's campaign. It is hardly surprising that she would oppose Cindy this time as well.
There is this idea that there are "good Democrats"--progressives within that party who should be supported by the left even as we abhor the centrists and DLC hacks who dominate the party. Yet this supposes that you can separate politicians from their party. A politician who runs as a Democrat is engaged in a symbiotic relationship with that party; he or she uses the party's brand name, its organizational strength, its fundraising, and everything else that the party has to offer, in order to get elected. In turn, that same Democrat is necessarily committed to maintaining his or her loyalty to the organization that it used to get elected. Not to do so would be political suicide for that politician. Party loyalty, and the fundraising apparatus associated with it, are more important than progressive ideology.
This happens at all levels of the party. At the local level, we see this as well. In the 2003 San Francisco mayoral race, there were two candidates in the runoff election--a Democrat, and a Green. The Green candidate, Matt Gonzalez, was the more progressive. The local Democratic Party closed ranks; it outspent Gonzalez 5-1, and enlisted the support of national heavyweights like Bill Clinton to help their candidate squeak by an election victory with 52% of the vote. A few weeks ago, the San Francisco Bay Guardian published a naive editorial in which it pleaded with the local Democratic Party central committee not to expel the Harvey Milk club for having endorsed the occasional Green in the past, including Gonzalez. This editorial envisioned liberals and progressives in the Green and Democratic Parties as all one big happy activist family. This is utter nonsense. Contrary to the Guardian's ridiculous assertion, the Democratic Party is not an "activist group", it is an electoral organization that will use whatever tactics it deems necessary to preserve its electoral privilege. Like Democrats everywhere, these people don't play fair--they play to win. Progressive values have nothing to do with it, and will always lag a distant second place to duopoly power politics.
The San Francisco Chronicle article on Boxer's comments includes a quote from Todd Chretien, who is running a peace campaign as a Green against Feinstein this year:
He is completely correct on this point. Chretien's Green Party campaign, along with the Peace and Freedom Party's candidate (who may be Marsha Feinland, although that depends on the outcome of the June primary election), represent alternative peace candidacies to Feinstein's warmonger policies. The duopoly always protects its own, and there represent two third parties in California that are offering an alternative the morally bankrupt policies of war and imperialism.
The implications of this for party politics within the duopoly--where loyalty to the political machine trumps progressive values--speaks volumes. For Boxer, first and foremost she will support her fellow elected Democrat, a centrist drone who opposes free speech (she has been a supporter of banning flag burning), who voted for the war, and who continues to support funding for the war. Boxer, like other leading elected Democrats, has distanced herself time and time again from Cindy Sheehan's campaign. It is hardly surprising that she would oppose Cindy this time as well.
There is this idea that there are "good Democrats"--progressives within that party who should be supported by the left even as we abhor the centrists and DLC hacks who dominate the party. Yet this supposes that you can separate politicians from their party. A politician who runs as a Democrat is engaged in a symbiotic relationship with that party; he or she uses the party's brand name, its organizational strength, its fundraising, and everything else that the party has to offer, in order to get elected. In turn, that same Democrat is necessarily committed to maintaining his or her loyalty to the organization that it used to get elected. Not to do so would be political suicide for that politician. Party loyalty, and the fundraising apparatus associated with it, are more important than progressive ideology.
This happens at all levels of the party. At the local level, we see this as well. In the 2003 San Francisco mayoral race, there were two candidates in the runoff election--a Democrat, and a Green. The Green candidate, Matt Gonzalez, was the more progressive. The local Democratic Party closed ranks; it outspent Gonzalez 5-1, and enlisted the support of national heavyweights like Bill Clinton to help their candidate squeak by an election victory with 52% of the vote. A few weeks ago, the San Francisco Bay Guardian published a naive editorial in which it pleaded with the local Democratic Party central committee not to expel the Harvey Milk club for having endorsed the occasional Green in the past, including Gonzalez. This editorial envisioned liberals and progressives in the Green and Democratic Parties as all one big happy activist family. This is utter nonsense. Contrary to the Guardian's ridiculous assertion, the Democratic Party is not an "activist group", it is an electoral organization that will use whatever tactics it deems necessary to preserve its electoral privilege. Like Democrats everywhere, these people don't play fair--they play to win. Progressive values have nothing to do with it, and will always lag a distant second place to duopoly power politics.
The San Francisco Chronicle article on Boxer's comments includes a quote from Todd Chretien, who is running a peace campaign as a Green against Feinstein this year:
"How can replacing a senator who voted to send our troops to kill and die in Iraq, Dianne Feinstein, with the country's leading anti-war activist, Cindy Sheehan, 'hurt' Cindy or the anti-war movement?" said Chretien, who co-wrote the successful ballot measure last year that encouraged schools and universities in San Francisco to ban military recruiters from their campuses.
"Sen. Boxer's comments only go to show that the Democratic Party's leadership is more concerned with defending their own than in bringing our troops home from Iraq," he said.
He is completely correct on this point. Chretien's Green Party campaign, along with the Peace and Freedom Party's candidate (who may be Marsha Feinland, although that depends on the outcome of the June primary election), represent alternative peace candidacies to Feinstein's warmonger policies. The duopoly always protects its own, and there represent two third parties in California that are offering an alternative the morally bankrupt policies of war and imperialism.
You are absolutely spot-on with the post.
Let me refer you to this post as a confirmation. Power is consolidating at an alarming rate.
Posted by
total |
9:29 AM
Ddjango, thanks for the reference to that blog. I had not been familiar it. It is an excellent commentary on how low the Democrats have sunk.
Posted by
The Haikuist |
11:31 AM
Post a Comment