By Manila Ryce
Published Tuesday, July 29th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Filed under: Videos: Political, Videos, US Politics

11 Responses to “Why are you a Democrat in 2008?”

1. 

   I wish the DNC would actually allow people to vote on the video they like best. If they did, I bet this would be at the top of the pile. Instead, the DNC is choosing five videos and then letting youtube vote for their favorite among the “approved” options. Reminds me of the bogus CNN-Youtube debate. LAME.

   evmonk
   07/29/08 at 12:43 pm
   
2. 

   @evmonk

   Allowing the people to vote for their favorite video? Yeah, if only the DNC gave a shit about democracy or free speech. You’re talking crazy.

   Manila Ryce
   07/29/08 at 12:57 pm
   
3. 

   Democracy or self-congratulation? Hmm, tough choice.

   Either way, I still hope this video gets popular by itself.

   Bernie
   07/29/08 at 3:09 pm
   

4. it ain’t simple

   Ben Shepherd
   07/30/08 at 2:57 am
   

5. Sarcasm is not the best way to pose an articulate critique today in the year 2008. If you have a real, adult, argument to make please consider a better method to present your proposal to a public that is tired of ridicule and irony as the prevailing modus operandi when being radical or speaking truth to power.

   To ironically purport that the Democratic Party does not present the quick and vocal opposition so many voters in 2006 wanted to the Bush administration’s (yes, criminal) act of war, is not enough. Despite the Congressional Democrats submitting legislation to withdraw from Iraq, the Senate has not had the necessary 60 votes to override the consistent Republican Party stonewalling/nihilism/support of Bush in respect to this particular legislation. What is your proposal beyond ironic parody of individuals who vote(d) as Democrats? If you are so terribly upset (I don’t blame you at all) with the content of the Democratic Party–why not influence and take up the institution as an individual within it, as someone who truly confronts with an opposition, that is, someone who changes power from within, as opposed to believing you are somehow outside of all this mess. If we want to vote and work for real political change, we must also understand that we will have to negotiate and speak with adversaries, people we don’t agree with or even like at all, namely, other americans. Otherwise, we pretend that we are for a party and leader that only has jurisdiction over Portland, Oregon or the neighborhoods we like in LA or Brooklyn (though I suspect there are conflicts and adversarial relationships amongst individuals in these locals as well.)

   erik
   07/30/08 at 1:06 pm
   
6. 

   @erik

   “If you have a real, adult, argument to make please consider a better method to present your proposal to a public that is tired of ridicule and irony…”

   The public is tired of ridicule and irony? Don’t declare yourself spokesperson for America simply because you were personally offended.

   “Despite the Congressional Democrats submitting legislation to withdraw from Iraq, the Senate has not had the necessary 60 votes to override the consistent Republican Party stonewalling/nihilism/support of Bush in respect to this particular legislation.”

   More talking points from Pelosi? I suppose electing a Democratic president will finally allow the Democratic congress to do what they’ve wanted to do all this time? The inconvenient truth is, you don’t need legislation to end the war. You simply stop funding it.

   “If you are so terribly upset with the content of the Democratic Party–why not influence and take up the institution as an individual within it…”

   I could just as easily ask you the same about the Republican Party. Why not change the system by working within the institution that’s been in control these past 8 years rather than fighting against it as a Democrat? Explain to me how fruitless that would be. Then maybe you’ll understand how fruitless it would be for liberals to work for change within the Democratic Party.

   “If we want to vote and work for real political change, we must also understand that we will have to negotiate and speak with adversaries, people we don’t agree with or even like at all”

   I agree, which is why you and other Democrats ought to be fighting the hardest for political adversaries such as the Libertarians, Independents, Greens, and Socialists to be allowed into the debates. Are you?

   Manila Ryce
   07/30/08 at 8:17 pm
   

7. Manila,

   In regards to finding the video problematic, in that it traffics in the troupes of smug irony as a serious method of proposing political critique, I was indeed speaking for myself. I am, and I am also part of the “public” or collective voice–though I did not use the word “America”, I do think I speak for more than just myself when stating that ridicule and irony are rampant modes of political critique in popular culture and yes it is a bit tired/tiring. Irony does not work to foster political confrontation because it is exclusionary, it acts as a wink and a nod to a select cognoscenti (the cognoscenti being often those we agree with), and it too often comes into contradiction with the truth by purporting to act as the very thing it critiques–which is fine for comedy and tragedy effect in theater; but not the best tool to use in making an overtly political proposal. It is not that I find ironic parody something to be, as you say “offended” by in this circumstance, rather, my point is that I think it is not a good way to confront and articulate a political argument to those who we do not agree with, or those who do not use the same signifiers.

   To stop funding the war is not so simple, as you have stated. I believe someone such as yourself who studies politics, particularly the politics of today, would understand that it is not such a simple matter to say it is just a matter of stop funding. An immediate and total departure from Iraq would still cost a great deal of money and take weeks if not months, institutions would need to be handed over and individuals transitioned–which is essentially, the scenario of a timeline to withdraw from Iraq (in the form of legislation proposed by Congress). To stop funding would not allow for these things to be done in a realistic and conscionable manner. The military industrial complex is a nasty machine, but its also constructed, maintained and housed by individuals and those individuals (unfortunately perhaps) must be negotiated with…to say ’simply cut the funding’ does not negotiate with this (horrifically) large contingency of individuals.

   I respect and admire your efforts to build a third party (and fourth, fifth?) in the US. I think it is an oversimplification to say that the Democrat and Republican Parties are one and the same in an oppressive two party system. As both a US and Italian citizen, I have many discussions with my Italian friends on the issues of a multi-party system versus the US two-party system. In Italy, as you know, there exists a Green and Socialist party (et al), and very little gets done on the national level in regards to the platforms; in fact, with these many parties as part of the debate, Italy has elected Silvio Berlusconi now twice…which I must say has been tragic to say the least. The Green and Socialist Parties do wonderful things for localized districts in Italy (why Mr. Nader for instance, does not run for a state, county, or city elected office as opposed to president of the entire US is a question I always have). When you take on an enormous and varied population, you must negotiate, and this is when the two party system, one truly countering the other, provides some reason and understanding. I suspect your argument is with the fact that the Democratic Party has not done a very good job at providing this “truly countering” position–Which again, is why good leftists (especially young leftists) might do better to engage/infiltrate the Democratic Party as a Democrat. I have chosen to enter in the political process as a Democrat because they are the organization that I understand I can better develop and work with/against towards real action, as opposed to the Republican Party which would be far more precarious and manipulative on my part to join as an entry point Party.

   We are in agreement on your last point–I am never against inclusive debate. I do not think it is psychologically possible to foreclose discussion/argument.

   erik
   07/31/08 at 1:58 am
   
8. 

   @erik

   “Irony … acts as a wink and a nod to a select cognoscenti … which is fine for comedy and tragedy effect in theater; but not the best tool to use in making an overtly political proposal.”

   Davis Fleetwood is in fact a theater actor with an interest in politics and was speaking mainly to an audience familiar with his videos. Again, I find irony, parody, satire, and comedy in general to be the best means of making politics palatable to a general audience (see The Onion, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, etc), but to each his own. Your objection came across as offense, but if it truly is just a matter of taste for you then I see no reason in arguing that point further.

   ”An immediate and total departure from Iraq would still cost a great deal of money and take weeks if not months, institutions would need to be handed over and individuals transitioned–which is essentially, the scenario of a timeline to withdraw from Iraq (in the form of legislation proposed by Congress). To stop funding would not allow for these things to be done in a realistic and conscionable manner.”

   Of course it would. Congress holds the power of the purse and cutting funding is the only way wars in recent history have ever come to end. The “timeline” being proposed by Congress to which you’re referring is not about ending the occupation at all. Even Obama, who speaks vaguely about a timeline for withdrawal still plans on keeping an unacceptable number of troops there indefinitely and has no plan to withdraw private military contractors. There is plenty of money in the pipeline right now to bring troops home within 6 months and to arrange an international peace keeping force through the UN. Once funding is cut, Congress can appropriate funds for the non-military functions you’ve mentioned. Yes, cutting war funding to end the war is as simple as I made it sound. Staying in Iraq is what’s complicated.

   “In Italy, as you know, there exists a Green and Socialist party (et al), and very little gets done on the national level in regards to the platforms; in fact, with these many parties as part of the debate, Italy has elected Silvio Berlusconi now twice.”

   There are two reasons behind this. One, money equals power in capitalist societies. Greens and socialists can never compete with corporate parties, regardless of whatever name they go under. Two, fascists always have an advantage in a party system because they move in lock step, whereas liberals think independent of one another. The argument of liberals “splitting the vote” is an argument against democracy. Only in an undemocratic system would choice work against you. Therefore, I ultimately do not believe true liberal principles can be realized until we do away with representative government altogether and enact direct democracy.

   “why Mr. Nader for instance, does not run for a state, county, or city elected office as opposed to president of the entire US is a question I always have.”

   Look at how Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney have been treated by the Democrats and you’ll understand why. Nader is no threat to power in such a subservient position.

   “I suspect your argument is with the fact that the Democratic Party has not done a very good job at providing this ‘truly countering’ position–Which again, is why good leftists (especially young leftists) might do better to engage/infiltrate the Democratic Party as a Democrat.”

   Again, that’s Dennis Kucinich’s goal as well – to sway the Democrats back to the left from within - but instead he is taken for granted and silenced by the corporate majority. If you look at US history, changes to the major parties do not come from within, but from outside. Major parties will only change when they are fearful of losing their constituency. The labor movement, civil rights movement, suffrage movement, farmers’ populist movement, the abolitionist Liberty Party, and even the Green Party have been the only devices able to steer the course of major parties by working outside of them. Just look at the anti-war movement, which was immensely strong until it was absorbed by the Democratic Party. Now it’s dead and Barack Obama, a candidate who’s proposing perpetual war, is considered the “peace candidate”. Entering the Democratic Party does not frighten the corporate Democrats, it gives them exactly what they want - power to continue their right-wing agenda by silencing your agenda. Historically, your strategy to change things simply doesn’t work from within. Sad but true.

   Manila Ryce
   07/31/08 at 4:35 am
   

9. Manila,

   You stated:

   “Davis Fleetwood is in fact a theater actor with an interest in politics and was speaking mainly to an audience familiar with his videos. ”

   This is precisely my point of contention–speaking to a small contingency of individuals who already agree with you and identify with your particular signifiers is not politics. Dennis Kucinich, as a Democrat, is fiercely engaged in politics, in confrontation and negotiation with individuals who are not his familiar, congratulating contingency (as a parallel to Mr. Fleetwood and theater, Kucinich is performing in face of those who have not bought tickets to see him and cheer him on in agreement.) You may say that Kucinich is “taken for granted” and “silenced by the corporate majority” but, in fact, Rep. Kucinich is visible and vocal and calling legislation and hearings for impeachment…yes it is difficult for him but that’s the point when you actually sort with reality/something you disagree with. Why not get behind the truly radical positioning that Kucinich has taken up? If Kucinich (from Ohio) is able to stand as a voice in the Democratic Party, can we not make efforts to elect and run other such Democrats? The reasoning that corporate interests would not allow other candidates, who share Kucinich’s point of view to hold office, is an oversimplification. Money may equal power, as you have stated, yet that is not the entirety of existence and an articulate proposal is not solely about a power grab.

   The Green and Socialist Parties should not be “devices” to sway the national public opinion (and proclaim an independent identity and righteous spirit) during every presidential election. Rather, they should be building a platform and voice by gaining elected offices in local and state places of representation–seriously, campaign and talk to some people in Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska (and NY, CA, and Oregon) and get some articulate thoughtful Green party members to hold office in these districts. There are plenty of Kansans that will have many agreements with the Green Party platform; the question is how and will you negotiate when it comes to the things that won’t be in agreement.

   You’re stating:

   “If you look at US history, changes to the major parties do not come from within, but from outside. Major parties will only change when they are fearful of losing their constituency. The labor movement, civil rights movement, suffrage movement, farmers’ populist movement, the abolitionist Liberty Party, and even the Green Party have been the only devices able to steer the course of major parties by working outside of them.”

   This is another oversimplification. Your right to point to these groups of individuals in history as meaningful and significant in producing change, yet these efforts where not made from the “outside”. We need to stop mythologizing and romanticizing the ‘outside’. Can we have a nostalgia for the past without idealization? Movements are not power grabs and mechanisms, they are individuals, subjects, human beings, and so you do a disservice to us all by dehumanizing the subject as something removed and give too much honor to systems if you constantly perpetuate the ‘outsider’ stereotype, another system–a sytem outside of a system. Cynical individuals rendering systems of power thrive on the ‘outsider’ positioning. Barack Obama is not an outsider (many have made this point for various reasons). Individuals in the media and his campaign managers may perpetuate this myth in the wrong way, as something transcendent. Obama for the past few weeks has shown that a myth is about demonstrating the limitations of this world, the powerful constraints of reality; Obama has worked very hard (for years now) to put himself in the room with difficult and complex adversaries, not in order to say he is an ‘outsider’, but rather to talk and negotiate with power–to engage in politics, confrontational argument. To say that he is “proposing perpetual war” because he has to talk and negotiate with Zionists, Corporate CEOs, or war mongering Senators, is a grand assumption (a bit too cynical for me) and it self deceiving view of politics of the world today.

   erik
   07/31/08 at 12:19 pm
   
10. 

    Erik, for all the patronization you’ve offered towards civil disobedience, the founding of progressive movements, and my analysis of history as being an “oversimplification”, you still fail to offer any historical backing for your own positions other than to aggrandize them as correct while you stack one opinion atop the other. Cite a victory or show historical precedence for the legitimacy of your position as I’ve successfully done with mine, despite your readiness to write factual information like corporate backing and voting records off without providing a serious rebuttal to counter the obvious. When you’re able to enact liberal policies through the Democratic Party, despite the fact that people like you have been touting that tired logic for decades as the party drifts ever-further to the right, I’ll concede that you were correct. Until then, it seems like you’re just trying to sell something you over-talked yourself into.

    Manila Ryce
    07/31/08 at 2:13 pm
    

11. Manila,

    I do not mean to patronize. I have a great deal of respect for what you have clearly articulated and your political conviction. I do not want to win at being “correct” by citing historical precedence…this is not a debate competition but a discussion…my suggestions for a different approach of acting in a radical political manner are opinion, my subjective opinion. Objective historical facts and precedence are subjective opinions that have been constructed, collected, and historicized (for better and for worse) through an ongoing dialogue by individuals.

    I think it is important to discuss what politics might be, in theory and in praxis; not solely what political stance is right or wrong in current and past events. I am not an anti-historicist, I believe we should recognize history, not enough americans do. And yet I also think just because we have access to more information does not necessarily mean we know anymore or are better able to pose a proposal towards the future in face of such access to historical records.

    I would like for individuals such as yourself to consider the psychology of the individual more in regards to politics as opposed to constantly mapping-out the systems that impose and shift power around. The military industrial complex is really terrifying not because its some entrenched multi-trillion dollar machine, rather because it is owned, argued for and operated by human beings like you and I. Solidarity with one’s enemy is the most difficult thing. When we reach that point when we are truly in confrontation with our ‘other’, will we be able to negotiate and be generous? I think Obama has had to work a great deal to even be in that position of true political confrontation, as opposed to again, being involved in a politics as place for like minded people to gather and basically agree with eachother on most every policy issue.

    erik
    07/31/08 at 4:55 pm
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>