Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

You can't win if you don't play - [Liberal Rant Alert]
The Oregonian ^ | 12-20-02 | Xander Patterson - Whiner

Posted on 12/21/2002 5:15:53 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer

It's hard for a progressive playing the game of politics these days not to feel like the fix is in.

First, the nominally progressive Democrats lose even when they win. This year, reminiscent of Al Gore in 2000, Oregon House Democratic candidates won more votes statewide than Republicans -- 18,000 more, enough to hold a one-seat majority if every vote counted equally -- and still failed to take control of the chamber by five seats.

Worse, the horse, or rather the donkey, that the two-party system would oblige progressives to bet on don't run. This year, even the pundits noticed that Democrats lack vision, but the truth is they've been running on fumes for more than 20 years.

The Democrats' malaise goes back at least as far as their profound misinterpretation of the Reagan phenomenon. Ronald Reagan was popular not because the country was lurching to the far right, as the Democrats concluded, but because he had a strong, clear, optimistic vision. The strength of those convictions made up for the fact that, as just about every poll of his entire presidency indicated, most Americans didn't share them.

Instead of fighting back with a forceful vision of their own, one that appeals to the majoritarian American belief in progress and fair play, Democrats have steadily wilted to the right and let Republicans define the terms of political debate.

Take Oregon's race for governor. Kevin Mannix did so much better than expected because he ran with energy, conviction and rhetoric that almost sounded like ideas. Kulongoski boldly campaigned as guess-what's-behind-door-number-3. The only thing that saved him was the Democrats' last remaining ace in the hole: Most Oregonians fear the Republican right.

That fear is real. For progressives, there's only one thing more terrifying than having all three branches of the federal government in the hands of land-raping, labor-bashing, Bill of Rights-shredding, warmongering corporate henchmen such as Bush, Lott and Scalia: Democrats have meekly let conservatives drag the political debate so far right that such extremists could consolidate their power even when overwhelming empirical evidence put the lie to their fanatical agenda.

That is why our democracy desperately needs the Green Party.

In Oregon, the Pacific Green Party ran only one candidate this fall, in part from fear of playing the spoiler. It's now clear that the greater danger lies in depriving the electorate of an unapologetically progressive vision. Even the Democrats are likely to benefit from our willingness to make the arguments they now seem institutionally incapable of articulating.

Expect to see a lot more Green in the future because, even when the game is rigged, progressives can't win if we don't play.

---Xander Patterson of Northeast Portland is a Pacific Green Party member. He can be reached at xman@bigzoo.net.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: commiepinko; liberal; progressive; socialist

1 posted on 12/21/2002 5:15:53 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Democrats have steadily wilted to the right and let Republicans define the terms of political debate.

I have vertigo...

2 posted on 12/21/2002 5:20:05 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
That is why our democracy desperately needs the Green Party...It's now clear that the greater danger lies in depriving the electorate of an unapologetically progressive vision. Even the Democrats are likely to benefit from our willingness to make the arguments they now seem institutionally incapable of articulating.

Xander's got the right idea. Donations to one's local Green Party candidate might be money even better spent, from a strategic point of view, than donations to a Republican candidate.

I certainly want to help get that unapologetically progressive vision out there in front of the electorate. LOL

3 posted on 12/21/2002 5:24:03 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
Oh boy! I thought the analysis was stupid, but I liked the conclusion ... more Green Party and more "progressives" voting that way. Yessir, let's divide up and separate the liberal votes from the extreme liberals and socialists. Conservatives will continue to win. Thank goodness Ross Perot and his whatchamacallit party went down in flames.
4 posted on 12/21/2002 5:28:03 AM PST by JohnEBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnEBoy
Oh boy! I thought the analysis was stupid, but I liked the conclusion ... more Green Party and more "progressives" voting that way. Yessir, let's divide up and separate the liberal votes from the extreme liberals and socialists. Conservatives will continue to win. Thank goodness Ross Perot and his whatchamacallit party went down in flames.

I had to snicker in 2000 when the dems were moaning and b*tching about Ralph Nader, they were sooooo mad at him cause they thought he cost them the election. Now they know how we felt about Perot.

5 posted on 12/21/2002 5:45:29 AM PST by gop_gene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
For progressives, there's only one thing more terrifying than having all three branches of the federal government in the hands of land-raping, labor-bashing, Bill of Rights-shredding, warmongering corporate henchmen such as Bush, Lott and Scalia.


Can you say [and spell] tendencious? Yes? Good for you; I knew you could!
6 posted on 12/21/2002 5:47:44 AM PST by drjoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnEBoy
Ross Perot gave us the Clintons. Bastard !
7 posted on 12/21/2002 5:48:21 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Only excuse I can think of for this classic off-the-mark analysis is that Libs get some kind of chip implanted in their brains at birth. . .
8 posted on 12/21/2002 5:49:48 AM PST by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer; hellinahandcart
That is why our democracy desperately needs the Green Party.

Absolutely. OEB, please doen't disparage this fine and idealistic person.

GO RALPH GO!.................;-)

9 posted on 12/21/2002 5:55:56 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dighton
Errrr, don't.
10 posted on 12/21/2002 5:57:34 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
>>For progressives, there's only one thing more terrifying than having all three branches of the federal government in the hands of land-raping, labor-bashing, Bill of Rights-shredding, warmongering corporate henchmen such as Bush, Lott and Scalia<<

Heh, heh, heh

11 posted on 12/21/2002 6:04:06 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Someone call a Waaaambulance.
12 posted on 12/21/2002 6:06:47 AM PST by AF68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Ronald Reagan was popular not because the country was lurching to the far right, as the Democrats concluded, but because he had a strong, clear, optimistic vision.

They chopped off the part that added "And we now know that Reagan was right about almost everything."

13 posted on 12/21/2002 6:16:51 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
They're so cute when they're angry. Stuff like this makes me think we really are winning. This gets my day off to a good start.
14 posted on 12/21/2002 6:30:42 AM PST by speedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: speedy
"Progressive" is the new code word for Marxist.
15 posted on 12/21/2002 6:55:42 AM PST by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gaspar
They use "progressive" because Rush Limbaugh has pretty much single-handedly turned "liberal" into a dirty word.

Tom Delay is always "right-wing extremist Republican" Tom Delay.

Ted Kennedy is "progressive Senator Kennedy" or "Massachusetts Senator Kennedy". Never liberal (and certainly never extremist).
16 posted on 12/21/2002 8:47:55 AM PST by JohnEBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson