(I wish there was a feasible way to elevate a third voice in this nonsensical debate between the Democrats and Republicans. What a crock. – promoted by eli_beckerman)
The shameful debt ceiling flap that has embroiled Washington in recent weeks has left the American people wondering if they can trust any of their current political leaders to do the right thing.
The immediate cause of this manufactured crisis lies with the Republicans holding the American economy hostage to a threatened default if their anti-government demands were not met. President Obama is fully justified in rejecting those proposals which would do enormous harm to essential functions of government.
But President Obama has repeatedly failed to stake out a principled counter position – that would force a truly ” balanced” compromise. Instead he has shown his basic agreement with the key Republican positions from the outset. The heated rhetoric and insults that are flying about in Washington today are merely camouflage for the fact that the two dominant parties are occupying a very narrow part of the political spectrum. The bitter arguments are all about who can best accomplish the common goals of protecting the wealthy and well-connected while scaling back programs that ordinary people depend on.
In 2008, Americans elected Barack Obama in the belief that he would reverse the policies of George W. Bush. But he has betrayed the hopes of constituency after constituency. Now Obama’s “balanced” plan elevates deficit reduction to the highest priority, so important that it justifies massive cuts in badly needed domestic programs. He has falsely declared Social Security and Medicare to be too expensive to maintain and proposed a destructive ‘trimming’ – including cuts of up to 9% in Social Security income and a two-year delay in Medicare coverage. Obama’s plan allows the bloated Pentagon budget to trundle along with only minor cuts achieved through “efficiency.” Despite his attempt to label his plan as “balanced” – Obama cuts $3 for every $1 in proposed revenue enhancement. He’s declared tax increases off the table before 2013, and even then advocates only small steps to correct the worst abuses.
Through all this, the President has skillfully deflected attention from the fact that all $4 trillion targeted for debt reduction could be recouped through long overdue measures to restore fairness to a drastically unfair tax system – namely reining in offshore tax dodging, modestly taxing Wall Street speculation, raising income taxes on households earning over $1 million annually, and progressively taxing estates worth over $5 million.
It’s no accident that in his nationwide speech President Obama cited former President Ronald Reagan in support of his position, and emphasized that the Republicans have nothing to object to in his plan because it is pursuing their longstanding goals. The apparent Democratic strategy is to brag about their opposition to the more extreme proposals of the Republicans. And the Republicans are happy to ask for more than they really think they can get, and watch the Democrats move ever further to the right. Lost in the shuffle are the real concerns of everyday Americans – whose real wages are declining, whose jobs are disappearing, who can’t afford the rising costs of health care and education for their children, who are still losing their homes in record numbers, and who cannot afford lobbyists to plead their case.
The convergence of the two major parties in America has robbed voters of a way to fix a government that is failing them. When you have just two choices on the ballot, neither of which are on your side, your vote loses most of its value. The “hope for change” that drove Obama’s election in 2008 is clearly dead. But the thirst for real change still runs deep in the electorate. This makes us more grateful than ever to be part of an independent third party that consistently stands up for the public interest, and doesn’t need a spin machine to manufacture excuses for selling out. Life becomes much simpler when you just decide to do the right thing.
– – – – –
John Andrews and Jill Stein are co-chairs of the Green-Rainbow Party, the Massachusetts affiliate of the Green Party of the United States.
#
The key line in all this is the editorial comment, which cuts right to the chase, and I think Eli captured the utter futility of this endeavor perfectly: “I wish there was a feasible way to elevate a third voice in this nonsensical debate between the Democrats and Republicans.”
And the key phrase is, “I wish.”
Me too. And I wish for universal peace. And a pony.
But when it comes to third parties, that’s all I keep seeing–wishes. What I’m not seeing: growth, fundraising, or the faintest whiff of success.
I stopped wishing. Turns out there isn’t a santa claus.
NOte to Eli: I’m confused. Are you suggesting that there are only two voices? Because I’m hearing some radically different stuff from across the GOP spectrum, and I’m hearing a hell of a lot of hard charging voices coming from senior progressive Democrats. The voices ARE there. Tune in, and consider lending them your support. (It’s okay to get your hands a little dirty. Really. Virginty’s declasse anyway.)
Getting very bored hearing everyone pretend that “The Democrats” speak with one voice, which is complete horseshit. In fact, if any party could be accused of that–I’d suggest looking in the mirror.
#
Can’t tell you how very much I’d love to agree with everything herein. And in theory, you could not be more right about the real solutions (of course, you left out the billions we’d make from legalizing weed–not to mention that DC would be an ever-so-much more relaxed place). But the timing of your piece is awkward, at best, when it comes to the disjunction between theoria and praxis; between ideals and reality; between getting what you want, and getting what you need. So, a few points from street-level.
1) I’m curious as to how the President is supposed to get a better compromise when he can’t get the one he’s offering!
My newsfeed and the general commentary from mainstream voters I’m hearing generally represents a “plague upon both your houses” mentality, damning intransigence on both the left and the right. LAST thing they–outside of Alternet and Glen Ford and etc.– want right now is either side pushing harder for more. I know, the radical-prog blogs are well-nigh hysterical–but LISTEN to the voters.
I actually agree with your line, “Life becomes much simpler when you just decide to do the right thing.” And it scares the heck out of me, because life is NOT simple, and it’s not black-and-white (especially in a pluralistic democracy). Simplicity is for children. Politics is messy, chaotic, nuanced, compromise-ridden, and, in a pluralistic democracy, the one place you are guaranteed to never get what you want. Or, if you are a truly critical thinker, not a toe-the-line party member or a die-hard ideologue, the place where you can never be wholly sure “you’re right” (folks who feel they scare the beejsus outta me, whether they’re on the far right–or far left). I would argue that for adults, opting to “make life simpler” isn’t a very compelling argument. Total turn-off for me, anyway.
2) More to the point, there’s a straw-man argument in play here, since Obama’s negotiating strategy, which makes up the bulk of your argument, is already ancient history. I find it more than curious (actually, I find it downright disingenuous) that there is NO reference whatsoever to what IS happening–namely, that Harry Reid’s plan–wholly endorsed by the President, btw–involves NO CUTS to Medicare or Social Security (but, uh, does involve defense cuts).
Repeat: no cuts to Medicare or Social Security. You’re throwing out red herrings here–and creating your OWN “climate of fear.”
Can you itemize the specific problems you have with Reid’s plan (and before simply calling for something completely different, keeping in mind that you need to get something through the House)? In fact,let’s get very real. You’re a Green House member. Let’s hear the plan you’re going to submit that’s going to find passage by both Houses. Heck, I’ll even throw in a Green POTUS so you don’t have to worry about a veto. Your serve.
Governing is ever much harder than sniping. It’s actually not very simple at all, is it?
3) If the cosigners of this document–the language suggest it’s a personal editorial, not a Party statement– like the “everyday Americans” you cite have in fact suffered wage decreases, lost their homes, can’t afford healthcare, and can’t educate their children, they have my genuine sympathy. I’d love to to hear THEIR stories—personal narrative goes a long way, ya know. Heres’ your opportunity. Mine?: thanks to Obama’s HCR, my daughter qualifies for a quality healthcare plan she otherwise wouldn’t. And two of my children would NOT be attending the schools they are were it not for the Democrats–no exaggeration. And our family squeaked by in part thanks to unemployment insurance extension (opposed by the GOP). (I can supply written evidence for each of these statements). THESE are the very real, very day-to-day concerns of everyday Americans.
If you are the lower end of the totem, yet can tell me in good faith that your family’s life would NOT be immeasurably harder with Michelle Bachman as President and the GOP in control of both houses; or if you’re at the upper end, and don’t honestly have to fret about daily household finances–then abandoning the Democrats is admittedly your preferred option. But I can speak from experience: there IS a difference, folks, and for those of us at the bottom, it’s very, very real. Those of us at the bottom simply cannot risk losing the aid and safety nets which the Democrats–here in the real world, not in the minds of either Obama or the writers–continue to defend. And no matter how you spin it–and god knows I sure have, over and again in countless ways!–the brutal, damnable fact remains: unless the Greens are running enough, and VIABLE, candidates for national office, failing to support Democrats means risking turning over the reins to those will will gladly and ferociously attack entitlement programs with a gleeful savagery like you haven’t seen. Is that the “politics of fear?” You bet. But me–based on my experience noted above–I don’t have the luxury of voting for utopia any more. I AM afraid. And I truly have to wonder whether the co-signers are truly susceptible to the same risks I am. Sorry, but while you may be able to, you’re asking me to make a gamble I simply can’t afford.
4) Moreover, “Obama” isn’t the issue here, much as you may wish to make him the bogeyman (btw, can you reference that “9 percent” figure? Thanks). The Democratic Party is no more monolithic than are the Greens, and Obama no more represents all of us than, say, Cynthia McKinney does the Greens. If you’ve been reading and watching the news, you’ve probably been seeing a lot of Keith Ellison, repping the progressive caucus, who are championing a “People’s Budget” which seems to reflect Green values. And publicly bashing Obama. Are they winning? No. But there are fine Democrats, folks with solid experience, a progressive track record, and genuine integrity running for both House and Senate in 2012. We can bolster the ranks of progressives by working on their behalf. How does joining the GRP help in any way whatsoever to change the culture of DC?
Because, after all–while it’s easy enough to damn Washington (everyone and their uncle seems to issuing a statement today!), changing Washington requires offering an alternative. I haven’t seen any evidence to date that the GRP is or will be running candidates for the House and Senate. If you are–it’s great that you’ll finally be stepping up to the plate, and if your candidates make the ballot, I’ll be vociferous in insisting that a GRP candidate be invited to all debates–and, I promise, I’ll withdraw my support from any Democratic candidate who doesn’t adhere to the same standard. But if you’re not … well, I’m not sure why you’re issuing proclamations regarding national policy when you don’t offer us an alternative. Somone to vote FOR, ya know? Otherwise, you’re just another crank on FB (like me) grousing.
Buty you’re not. You’re a political party. Got candidates?
Rather than endlessly rehashing the “not a dime’s worth of difference,” argument, which clearly, and with very good reason, isn’t exactly resonating with the electorate, and vesting your identity in a party-label … why not make common cause and start by going after our real enemies? Because the fact is, Greens DEPEND on us Democrats to hold the line (let’s not kid ourselves). Imagine the country without us. Looks a lot like America circa the winter of 1932, doesn’t it?