Once there was a man, and he did things
Here is an example of a point I was trying to make in the "not obliged to vote Democrat" series, which is that the unimportance of voting in midterm elections isn't just a matter of the Paradox of Voting theorem. Plenty of liberal Democrats in America are distraught at the fact that Russ Feingold has lost his seat. I am sure that Feingold was, personally, a decent man. He was against capital punishment and the Iraq War, and the simple fact that so many people I respect were fans of his convinces me that he must have been an all right one.
But seriously, click the link and look at his legislative record. Did you ever see such a list of dull-but-worthy initiatives that didn't go anywhere, minor personal hobbyhorses, and actively counterproductive procedural bullshit? And remember that this man was one of the *best* Democratic senators, if not the best, and the net effect of having had him as the incumbent for seventeen years was heartbreakingly close to zip. He was regarded as "the conscience of the Senate" on civil liberties issues, which is probably and unfortunately true.
Update: I just realised that we also covered this phenomenon in the context of the "McCain Ratio" (the ratio of personal courage to actual achievement), and that Feingold's main claim to fame was the "McCain-Feingold" campaign finance reform (capsule summary: a worthy initiative that didn't go anywhere). And so the circle of cynicism and stasis is complete.
So what's the solution?
ReplyDeleteThat will depend on a whole lot of time- and place-specific factors and I probably don't think it would be a good idea for people to delegate their assessment of those factors to me even if I was prepared to take the job on. But the important thing is that "ALWAYS VOTE DEMOCRAT EVERY SINGLE TIME OR SOMETHING AWFUL WILL HAPPEN" *isn't* the solution, and quite a lot of people seem to think it is.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, I notice that the Californian referendum proposition that was intended to kill their cap'n'trade and energy efficiency legislation was beaten by a thumping margin. So there's a point in your favour.
ReplyDeleteWould you rather have proportional representation or citizen initiated referendums? I'm on record as hating referendums in general, but if you're a believer that electoral politics is basically fucked and it's a better idea to fan out into a thousand single issue campaigns, you'd have to review that.
Also, last night's little hacking project seems to suggest it's surprisingly easy to get ministerial facetime if you're some sort of single issue organisation.
ReplyDeleteI think proportional representation and active pressure groups would be my favourite - in general, California's done really badly out of citizen initiated referenda and they're very vulnerable to astroturf.
ReplyDeleteFair enough.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately this is likely to be my problem in the near future, so I find myself in the uncomfortable position of actually giving a damn.
Are you going to vote yes on AV? I'm going to bash it as hard as possible, as I think it's not worth having and certainly not worth rewarding the Lib Dems for, and I also think that the best way of creating an expectation in the political class that pulling a Clegg will result in career termination is to have the LDs go into the next election under FPTP and get wiped out completely. The chances of winning are pretty good, too.
ReplyDeleteI really, really fucking resented having to make up my mind on AV, having steadfastly refused to develop an opinion about different PR systems in the face of heavy temptation to do so. But a couple of minutes arguing on the Internet sorted it out - AFAICS, the *only* advantage of AV is that it doesn't screw the LibDems as badly as FPTP. Pre "stable and principled", I would have regarded this as maybe a reason to vote for it, but now I find myself regarding the unfairness of the electoral system to Nick Clegg as being more his problem than mine, and I am also tempted to do my best to make it worse.
ReplyDeleteMy suggestions would be:
ReplyDelete1) Organizing from the ground up, focused upon real problems of poor/unemployed/struggling (this is basically the union model updated for the times. First fix the problems, and assume that this will provide the political education you need).
2) Focusing anger on all elites. CEOs, bankers, politicians, TV personalities, journalists. There's already a ground swell there - use it. Make them scared. Make the narrative about how all politicians are bought, venal, scumbags. Because basically they are...
Treat smug liberal commentators as the enemy. Focus more hatred towards them than the right.
3) Focusing on primaries, and trying to put pressure (like the Repubs have done) leftwards.
4) Seriously improve the propoganda. I mean what are the left offering? There needs to be some Shangri-La at the end.
I should obviously not be allowed anywhere near such a program...
Feel the power of negativity!
ReplyDeleteOrganizing from the ground up, focused upon real problems of poor/unemployed/struggling
ReplyDeleteNB that the organisation that did this in the US was ACORN, and the Democrats were perfectly content to join in the process of killing it.
Of course. They're part of the problem. Any organization on the left that doesn't realize this is going to get killed. I should have added. Treat the Democrats as the enemy.
ReplyDeleteAV has the advantage of making 'tactical' voting unnecessary, I think, and so gives a truer idea of 1st preferenences. Clearly as there aren't that many marginals these won't be massively different than what we get under FPTP, but still seems worth having and makes an election less hassle?
ReplyDeleteI genuinely think Clegg wants (and will get) a safe Tory seat and so I don't think it will upset him in the slightest.
AFAICS, the *only* advantage of AV is that it doesn't screw the LibDems as badly as FPTP
ReplyDeleteWellll, it could also benefit the SNP and Plaid, in some seats, for very much the same reason. But the benefit to the Lib Dems is much greater.
Matthew - I may be misreading, but do you genuinely think that Clegg wants to go down in history as the man who finally destroyed the Liberal Party - the man who finished what Lloyd George and John Simon started?
"I may be misreading, but do you genuinely think that Clegg wants to go down in history as the man who finally destroyed the Liberal Party - the man who finished what Lloyd George and John Simon started?"
ReplyDeleteBut why not? It would mean that he went down in history for having something other than just a career.
"t Clegg wants to go down in history as the man who finally destroyed the Liberal Party"
ReplyDeleteI don't think he'll see it like that - he'll say he's 'creating a progressive consensus the like of which those Liberal leaders could have only dreamed' and to provide some cover they'll throw him a scrap like expelling Tebbit.
Well I don't know, no point making unbold predictions. I thought a few weeks back he looked as if he actually believed all that stuff - I think it was when he said that the government's borrowing was like using a credit card.
Feingold was a decisive vote in favor of health reform, among other things.
ReplyDeleteI just can't visualize the alternative to Feingold that's an improvement. If he really is the most decent Senator, then passing along that mantle to someone less decent doesn't seem like a step in the right direction.
Here is an example of a point I was trying to make in the "not obliged to vote Democrat" series, which is that the unimportance of voting in midterm elections isn't just a matter of the Paradox of Voting theorem.
ReplyDeleteAnd, by the way, applying the Paradox of Voting theorem to Feingold, rather than the people who vote for Feingold, does absolutely nothing to get you off the hook for relying primarily on the Paradox of Voting to make your case.