Unfair, Perhaps, to Ask For a House Strategy

by paradox

Watching the policy positions unfold of the Democratic Party candidates I’m beginning to feel a certain impatience, for although of course I agree with many of them and I'm very glad to see proper liberal issue stances, if the Party doesn’t take the House in 2016 almost all of this is useless blather.

Congratulations on becoming leader of the free world, the clunky American democracy you’ve been shackled with allows you to make Executive and Judicial appointments and little else. The founders gave massive powers to Congress, then they ludicrously split it for that slimy, odious Senate, who then nauseatingly set up super-majority obstruction with the filibuster.

Political happenstance says Democratic Party chances for re-taking the Senate in 2016 are good, though not for the filibuster-proof nirvana of 60 seats.¹ But the House seems permanently lost to the cranky Tea Party, if that remains so for the 2016 term write off any federal progress on anything—no progress on climate change, peace & militarism, inequality, voting rights, racism, infrastructure, just nothing but more Benghazi ranting out of DC.

Please, I can hear the campaign managers earnestly say, it’s an extremely difficult Herculean accomplishment to get elected President in 50 State races, how could we possibly take on 60 more critical House races too? Historically it’s never been done, why do we have to take this on for the 2016 cycle?

[opens hands] All right, perhaps the absolute necessity for your ultimate success is out of your hands, but your candidates have hit the road with bold pronouncements with how they’re going to do this and fix all that, but with everyone knowing all the while the Tea Party will blow everything up and cripple the President the first instant the term starts. Doesn’t exactly seem like far-reaching political vision to me.

Yes, interjecting 60 House strategies in a Presidential campaign is impossible, the task requires the future President to invest in the Party above his or herself instead of using it as an instrument for their personal ends. The President would have to vividly outline simple core principles never wavered from that little people in every district could instantly understand and truly knew tangibly delivered real results for them. For every freaking cycle, if the Party fails for 2016 everyone should know those principles will be heavily fought for again by the President in 2018.

I certainly do not sit here as a cynical bomb-thrower proclaiming any policy attempt will fail, I just realistically see 2016 term possibilities, much good can still be accomplished with the USSC judicial appointment fix.²

That, in fact, is all I see of realistic progress for the 2016 term so far, for in the tiny beginnings of the Democratic campaigns militarism is fully embraced or ignored and climate change is merely acknowledged, there’s never any tangible fix offered for real change for our top 2 problems.

It’s completely unsurprising that no Democratic candidate has yet to call for peace and the vitally necessary 50% cut/switch in Defense spending. We live in a violent, hopelessly paternalistic, militaristic culture at war in many countries possessing a media addicted to warporn, ratings and corporate Republican approval.³

Should the Democratic candidate proclaim peace and cuts in Defense he or she would be savagely attacked as weak, unworthy and irresponsible for American safety. No Democratic candidate will try it in 2016, it’s a dark, painful fact of liberal life like disease and death, you live with it as best you can.

Completely unsurprising, too, that although climate change is boldly proclaimed to in fact exist (baby steps) there’s just nothing precisely stated to start on the first urgent immediate goal: stop burning oil, now, completely.

I was surprised at a very good article by Lisa Bennett at Vox outlining the very difficult human problems in accepting action on climate change, this is all very true, yes, but to me the screamingly obvious issue is the catastrophic loss of wealth for energy companies, they’re never, ever going to accept change if it means all the trillions they hold in reserve become almost worthless.

How are we as a society and culture going to force change against incredibly powerful and wealthy political energy sector forces? I don’t know, but ignoring the issue entirely in the Democratic campaigns isn’t exactly the way to fix it, no.

Extremely unfair, I can hear the voices say, the institutional and cultural forces and hurdles outlined here are absolutely impossible for a Democratic candidate to take on, failure and losing would be the result. For militarism and global warming, perhaps, but a liberal peacenik political junkie can ask for a House 2016 strategy, an attempt isn’t too much to ask, still very early days yet.

[1] Even reaching the holy threshold of 60 votes won’t work, for there will be at least 3 or 4 DINO’s like Dianne Feinstein who will ruthlessly thwart a vote, the real threshold is 65 votes to break a filibuster.

[2] It’s amusing, a huge screaming problem for the United States is its obviously sick and busted Supreme Court—just look at the sickening mess they’re making with health care now—but the Democratic candidate websites never whisper a word about it. As of this moment the USSC fix is the only sure-fire political fix to be offered in the first term.

[3] The burnt orange font of the Great Orange Liberal Satan where this essay is published is military stencil. You’re soaking in it.