6 users logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

All Generalizations are False

by: deciminyan

Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 11:00:00 AM EDT

The title of this piece is contradictory. After all, it in and of itself, is a generalization.

But I'll still go out on a limb and make a generalization - In any of New Jersey's 40 legislative districts it is better to elect a Democrat than to elect a Republican in the upcoming election.

deciminyan :: All Generalizations are False

Sure, many Democrats have been disappointing. And the Nordubato wing of the Democratic party in New Jersey is the epitome of machine politics over progressive Democratic traditions epitomized by candidates like Marie Corfield and Vin Gopal.

The facts of life are that a Progressive third party, while nice in theory, would never gain traction as a viable alternative to the DINOs, especially in New Jersey. The only way to promote a progressive agenda is to elect Democrats and work to lessen the influence of the machine and move the party back to its roots.

The alternative is terrifying. Imagine an Assembly Budget Committee chaired by Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon, who would give tax breaks to corporations while gutting social programs. Imagine how far a Marriage Equality vote would go in a Senate headed by President Tom Kean, Jr.

A Republican majority in either chamber of the legislature would be a the greatest gift that Chris Christie could receive.

Sitting out the election is not an option. A vote for a third-party candidate or a decision not to vote is no different than a vote for a Republican and an affirmation of Chris Christie's draconian agenda.

In a representative form of government, we elect our legislators based on their philosophy and their neshuma. It is impractical to expect that the people we support vote the way we would 100% of the time. That's why I will proactively support my Democratic Assemblyman, who voted against collective bargaining, while privately letting him know why I think that one vote was harmful and foolish. If he's replaced by a Republican in the upcoming election, that would be a net loss for me, my district, and the people of New Jersey.

So dear Blue Jersey readers, if you disagree with my generalization, I invite you to cite an example where the election of a specific Republican over a Democrat would promote our ideals. And that will prove and disprove my generalization.

Tags: Senate, budget, marriage equality, Democrats, republicans, Chris Christie, Tom Kean Jr, featured, Vin Gopal, Marie Corfield, Declan O'Scanlan, Assembly, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

All Generalizations are False | 11 comments

I don't have much to say (0.00 / 0)

except for Wisconsin, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio and about 10 other states engulfed in a red tide now.

There is no political party to represent me now.

by: HurtPillow @ Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 15:42:51 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Sorry, but ... (0.00 / 0)

This is just pure Democratic apologia. You're basically saying you will always give the Dems your vote no matter what they do, no matter how much they act against your interests, just so long as TEH EVUL RETHUGLICANTS are around to scare you back into the fold.

You want us to imagine how a marriage equality vote would go in a Senate headed by Tom Kean, Jr? We don't have to imagine. Just look at how an actual marriage equality vote went in a Senate headed by a Democrat in 2010.

Are you worried about potential Republican assaults on collective bargaining and public employees? Well shucks! All you have to do is elect a Democrat and odds are he'll either go along with said assault (like Sweeney), or take the lead on such an assault (like NY governor Andrew Cuomo).

And while you're busy worrying about the Republicans gaining power and giving tax breaks to corporations while gutting social programs, the Democrats are way ahead of you, and have been all too eager to give tax breaks to corporations and gut social programs -- as President Hopey Changey has demonstrated in a.) extending the Bush tax cuts, b.) calling for a payroll tax holiday and c.) demanding "adjustments" to Social Security and Medicare.

by: Dennis Hyer @ Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 13:12:29 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

So what is the alternative? n/t (0.00 / 0)

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

by: deciminyan @ Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 15:19:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

If I knew, I'd tell you (0.00 / 0)

But reflexively voting for a shitty candidate just because there's a (D) next to their name isn't going to bring you any closer to progressive governance.

by: Dennis Hyer @ Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 17:31:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's where we disagree (0.00 / 0)

Election of people with (R) next to their name will bring more voter suppression legislation (see: Wisconsin), elimination of state-focused open reporting (see: NJN), and other initiatives that will tend to perpetuate Republican power. It's unfortunate, but a bad Democrat is better than a mediocre Republican. (There I go, generalizing again)

Progressives need to get involved in Democratic politics at the grass roots level, and for the time being hold our collective noses while we vote for the lesser of two evils, and in the long term primary the "bad" Democrats (even in a losing contest, this would move them to the left).

If I had a choice between a legislator who votes my way 60% of the time vs one who votes my way 5% of the time, I would take the former. If I want a legislator who votes my way 100% of the time, I either need to run for office myself (for which I have no desire), or live in Lala land.

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

by: deciminyan @ Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 18:11:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Progressive involvement with the Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)

is an invitation to irrelevance. Especially if those progressives have made it clear that they will automatically vote for any Dem no matter what.

If you told me you were going to vote for me regardless of how often I ignored you, lied to you, and flat out insulted you, why should I care about what you want? For that matter, why should I even listen to you? I could burn down your house and I'd still have your vote locked up.

As long as progressives continue to hitch their wagon unconditionally to the Democratic Party, and make the Democrats' fortunes their own, they will continue to be taken for granted and ignored.

by: Dennis Hyer @ Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 19:26:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The TPM has proven this to be wrong (4.00 / 1)

They have been far more successful in a very short period of time than the Libertarian Party, Right to Life Party, or any other right-leaning 3rd party effort.

Progressives need to start organizing like the TPM and people who are currently involved with left-leaning 3rd party efforts need to stop and unite with progressive Democrats to create a progressive movement within the Democratic Party in the same way that the TPM has organized an ultra-conservative movement within the Republican Party.

There are enough Greens and Socialists and other progressives to impact low-turnout primary elections, but we need to start organizing them and identifying and recruiting credible primary election candidates for them to support.

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 01:18:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Tea Party proves nothing (0.00 / 0)

Other than the fact that Republicans could successfully rebrand themselves after Bush. The Tea Party is nothing more than a safety valve set up and financed by Republican elites for discontented Republican voters who want to play-act as though they were a revolutionary force in politics. They aren't. They're merely an apparatus of the political establishment.

On a somewhat related note, remember the anti-war movement in 2003? It was eventually co-opted and neutered by the Democrats, and by the time a Democrat moved into the White House, the movement was conveniently dead ... despite the fact that we were still in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight. And two and a half years later, under a Democratic president, we're still involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as some lovely new wars in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, and elsewhere. Now explain to me how tying the anti-war movement to the Democratic Party was a smart move.

by: Dennis Hyer @ Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 13:26:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't forget.... (4.00 / 1)

....we have so called Dem's right here in NJ giving tax cuts to corporations along the Hudson river, and shifting the burden to working families.

More of an Old School Lefty if anything......

by: Chubby @ Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 15:32:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Name two... (0.00 / 0)

Name a NJ Democrat and a NJ Republican, with this catch: the Democrat has to be worse for progressive interests than the Republican.

I can't think of two who fit; can you?

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 18:23:02 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.