[Peace-discuss] Perfidious Democrats (in Illinois, as elsewhere)

Fri Jul 10 11:37:06 EDT 2015

It's true that it becomes easier to stand up for principles that have no hope of succeeding, in a way.  We used to have a state senator in New York who only voted to support workers and the poor when there was either (a) virtually no chance the bill would prevail, or (b) it had virtually no chance of failing.  But Carol's behavior so far seems to be the opposite of that.  And what we see in the voting on the budget in general doesn't fit that pattern.  I have no doubt that this threatening, etc., goes on.  In fact, I know it does in some cases (publicly in the case of Rauner and the Republicans).  But I "hear" a lot of things (sorry, it's an occupational pet peeve): you know, global warming is a conspiracy, people never walked on the moon, Elvis is still alive, you and Carl are FBI plants, I'm on the take, etc.   But we must beware of confirmation bias and guilt by association.  Carol has given us no reason to believe this is true of her.  Threaten her with what?  She won the election without the support of the leadership of the Party, and she has every reason to believe she can do so again.  

The Democratic Party leadership, the DNC, and the like, are unworthy of defense in general.  But when you go to an event like the one Carl and I attended and the only fault you can find is that these two are Democrats, I think that says something.  Not a word of criticism for the Republicans, who are voting as a block and the Governor who is paying their piper?

I think the reality is probably much easier to see than some vast orchestration, which doesn't appear to be in evidence in the pervasive way that would be required to pull off such a sham:  
1. Most people are Democrats, historically.  (Actually, as one of the people I consider a teacher from my early activist years used to say, "Most people are communists, they just don't know it," but that's in another sense).  
2. Also, there is little discipline in running as a Democrat, or Republican, or Green, etc.  Where the Greens have won a spot on the official ballot, like New York, this has become obvious when candidates announce they are running as Greens and you realize you have no control over that, no matter what they espouse.  
3. So people run as Democrats because they want to win, like Bernie Sanders is doing, though he has technically been an "Independent" most of his political career.  (This is not to say that Greens should never run as Greens.  As a matter of fact, though I often argue with him, I supported Carl's campaign - collected signatures, etc - as a Green against Tim Johnson, and under similar circumstances i would do so again.)  
4. What this means is fairly obvious: "nominal Democrats" do not all agree on the whole Party platform, which is usually not bad, by the way, on most points, if you read it -- of course it changes all the time, depending on who wins -- or even major points.  You have Democrats (and Greens) who are anti-abortion, Democrats who are pro-war and who are anti-war, etc., etc., "blase, blase" as SEIU members would say.
I just think it makes more sense to support political officials when they say and do the right thing and focus the criticism on those who are saying and doing the wrong thing (like the Democrats who vote and/or speak against the poor and downtrodden, and, by the way, the Republicans who vote and speak that way), and not try to wriggle out of it by imagining some vast conspiracy.  Even if it were true, it still makes less sense to criticize those who are speaking out and voting  and working hard for something, because they didn't have enough votes, and having nothing to say about those who are speaking and voting and working hard against it, because the issues are what must matter most.
 Ricky Baldwin

"Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn

     On Friday, July 10, 2015 8:48 AM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:

 Ricky, what concerns me is that there is a certain "fixed" odor to so many of these things. For example, with the TPP in Congress, you had just enough votes to allow some to oppose it without affecting the outcome. One sometimes gets the feelings that the fixed outcome is arranged in back rooms in order to mitigate the political damage to those most vulnerable to pressure from their constituents. Whether this is true for the "millionaire's tax" etc. I don't know. I heard that other members of the legislature threatened to refuse to speak to Carol Ammons (or work with her)  if she voted "against" Israel--even though her No vote wouldn't have affected the outcome. I wonder if there are any threats involved with Democrats who oppose an obvious and easy remedy to our state's cooked-up financial crisis. I mean, Madigan has an awful lot of power to punish people. DG 

     On Friday, July 10, 2015 7:22 AM, Ricky Baldwin via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

 I'm afraid that's an oversimplification.  In reality you disagree with the action (or inaction) of certain conservative Democrats, and I agree with that, as do Ammons and Bennett.  But you assign collective blame quite recklessly.  You could have pointed out, as Paul did, that not all Democrats are with us in solving this crisis in a humane, rational way.  But what he, and you, seem to profess not to understand is not hard.  The Governor is one person and therefore responsibile for that one person's actions.  "The Democrats" are many and not all alike, and voters place them in office, not their party (i.e. Madigan) alone.  Carol Ammons herself is an example of someone who was elected with popular voter effort and support, quite against the wishes and designs of the Party machinery, as was publicly obvious at the time.  Or have you forgotten?  
In fact it was some Democrats, not Greens ou say you support, but do not agree with on all points, either), who proposed the millionaires' tax and the financial transactions tax, and some worked hard for these.  The fact that some nominal Democrats ("who have a 'D' by their name, as Bennett said) wouldn't vote for them, or to override the Governor's veto, is the fault of those "blue dog" Democrats, not the entire group.
It appears that you seek to avoid agreeing with any Democrats by treating them as a group, a logical fallacy.  If one member of AWARE says one thing, and another member another, are we trying to "have it both ways"?  If a Green mishandles an election so badly as to throw any hope of winning, are Greens trying to "have it both ways" by criticizing the political system and yet doing nothing to change it? 
Just admit it.  There was nothing objectionable about the event you and I attended last night except that everyone in the state doesn't have a representative and senator like these two.  You should disagree with them on issues where you actually have a disagreement, not these.
Ricky

"Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn

     On Thursday, July 9, 2015 9:30 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

 #yiv7376287284 --.yiv7376287284hmmessage P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv7376287284 body.yiv7376287284hmmessage{font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}#yiv7376287284 A perfect example as to why we need the Green Party.

> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:18:03 -0500
> To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
> CC: sf-core at yahoogroups.com; occupyCU at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Perfidious Democrats (in Illinois, as elsewhere)
> From: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> 
> I've just come from a 'Joint Town Hall' rally with Illinois state senator Scott Bennett & state representative Carol Ammons. They blamed the wretched Governor Rauner for the state's budget impasse. In fact, it's entirely in the Democrats' hands. (Bennett & Ammons are both Democrats.) 
> 
> As Paul Mueth pointed out at the meeting, the Democrats have veto-proof majorities in both houses. They could pass a budget and the taxes - primarily a financial-transactions tax (HB 106) - necessary to fund it. 
> 
> Ammons replied that not all those Democrat votes can be counted on. Thus the Democrats can have it both ways - they can say that they're in favor of the spending and the taxes, but then allow enough no votes so that they won't pass. 
> 
> The same thing happened with Speaker Madigan's 'millionaires' tax.' In both cases the Democrats can tell the public they're interested in solving the problem - and then quietly show their 1% donors that they won't do it.
> 
> —CGE
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20150710/c39baa04/attachment-0001.html>