The
following resolution was passed unanimously at the September
26, 2011 general membership meeting of the DCC, and will be
forward to the LA County Executive Committee.
This resolution was approved by the Issues Committee on Oct. 8, and will be voted on at the next membership meeting on Nov. 28, 2011.
Money orders only; no checks. Mail to: Occupy Wall Street, 118A Fulton Street #205, New York, NY 10038
The following “press release” was sent to local newspapers and distributed at the DCC booth during Village Venture celebrations.
WHEREAS: The Progressive
Caucus of the California Democratic Party has not suggested
that any Democrat leave the party or vote for a candidate of
some other party or do nothing in support of whoever is the
Democratic Party candidate for the Presidency in 2012;
therefore
BE IT RESOLVED: That the Democratic Club of Claremont strongly urges the Executive Committee of the California Democratic Party to unconditionally re-certify the Progressive Caucus of the Party as soon as possible, certainly no later than the November meeting of the Committee.
BE IT RESOLVED: That the Democratic Club of Claremont strongly urges the Executive Committee of the California Democratic Party to unconditionally re-certify the Progressive Caucus of the Party as soon as possible, certainly no later than the November meeting of the Committee.
Proposed
OWS Resolution
This resolution was approved by the Issues Committee on Oct. 8, and will be voted on at the next membership meeting on Nov. 28, 2011.
WHEREAS Wall Street’s reckless
investments, white collar crimes, and dismal incompetence
brought about the financial crisis of 2008, and
WHEREAS taxpayers patiently paid billions of dollars to clean up Wall Street’s mess, rescuing from self-destruction the very financial institutions that provoked the crisis, and
WHEREAS, after paying themselves vast bonuses with taxpayer funds, Wall Street tycoons impudently resisted government regulation of their industry in the public interest, and
WHEREAS we are sick and tired of financiers who enrich themselves by fraud against the public while mocking justice; therefore
BE IT RESOLVED that the Democratic Club of Claremont applauds and fully shares the righteous indignation of the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters in lower Manhattan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Democratic Club of Claremont approves a donation of twenty-five dollars from the treasury in support of this movement as an expression of our gratitude.
WHEREAS taxpayers patiently paid billions of dollars to clean up Wall Street’s mess, rescuing from self-destruction the very financial institutions that provoked the crisis, and
WHEREAS, after paying themselves vast bonuses with taxpayer funds, Wall Street tycoons impudently resisted government regulation of their industry in the public interest, and
WHEREAS we are sick and tired of financiers who enrich themselves by fraud against the public while mocking justice; therefore
BE IT RESOLVED that the Democratic Club of Claremont applauds and fully shares the righteous indignation of the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters in lower Manhattan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Democratic Club of Claremont approves a donation of twenty-five dollars from the treasury in support of this movement as an expression of our gratitude.
Money orders only; no checks. Mail to: Occupy Wall Street, 118A Fulton Street #205, New York, NY 10038
The following “press release” was sent to local newspapers and distributed at the DCC booth during Village Venture celebrations.
Democrats
Organize Relief Fund for Billionaires
By Ivan Light
All current, past and even prospective members of our Democratic Club of Claremont are invited to our annual holiday party on Sunday, December 4, at the Napier Center, Pilgrim Place. The event will begin at 4:00 PM and end at 6:00 PM. A buffet dinner and beverages will be served.
Not only will our annual party celebrate another great year of activity and honor the many volunteers who worked to make it so, it is being expanded to include fund raising and dues renewal.
Because next year is the first for the new Spring primary structure along with being a presidential election year, we are asking that invitees come to the event prepared to make a donation toward the campaign and temporary headquarters that we will need. Furthermore, because it is the end of the year, we hope you will consider renewing your membership at this event. In other words, please bring your checkbook and give generously.
Our annual holiday party primarily recognizes our member activists. Come join in honoring them! The event also will jump-start us into 2012. We will encounter the new format of electing primary candidates in the Spring and we will need a headquarters for the Fall general election. For all these reasons, we need your involvement: you are needed to participate both in person and financially. Please get started with us on Sunday, December 4.
The Napier Community Center is located in Pilgrim Place, across from the entrance to Decker Hall. The center was formerly the Administration Building before its renovation.
Claremont Oct. 20, 2011 --- The Democratic Club of
Claremont has announced the formation of a trickle-down fund
for qualifying billionaires. The DCC will solicit donations
to this fund from the public, then turn over all the money
collected to the Koch Brothers for immediate distribution
among the nation’s billionaires.
“If billionaires have more money,” said DCC Special Events Chairperson, Carolee Monroe, “then jobs will trickle down. So it makes sense to give our money to them now without waiting for the House of Representatives to do it for us,” she said. “We just want to transfer money to the super rich right now in order to start those jobs trickling down. Why wait?”
As Monroe explained, Claremont Democrats were convinced by recent Republican plans for creating jobs by additionally enriching the very wealthy. So, the Claremont Democrats decided to speed up the trickling down process with voluntary donations obtained from the public. Needing jobs the most, the unemployed are “particularly encouraged” to transfer whatever money they still have to the very wealthy, said Monroe.
Challenged about self-contradiction, Monroe conceded that the billionaire relief plan does depart from traditional Democratic programs for job creation, which have in the past involved putting more money into the hands of consumers rather than those of the very wealthy. It is obvious, however, said Monroe, that, as Rick Perry has proven, “the current recession is caused by lack of income among the very rich, and excessive income among the non-wealthy.” Republicans have been right about that all along, she added, but the way is now open for an exciting realignment in American politics with voluntary contributions to the wealthy supplementing what Congress can do to enrich them further. “That is the American way.”
“If billionaires have more money,” said DCC Special Events Chairperson, Carolee Monroe, “then jobs will trickle down. So it makes sense to give our money to them now without waiting for the House of Representatives to do it for us,” she said. “We just want to transfer money to the super rich right now in order to start those jobs trickling down. Why wait?”
As Monroe explained, Claremont Democrats were convinced by recent Republican plans for creating jobs by additionally enriching the very wealthy. So, the Claremont Democrats decided to speed up the trickling down process with voluntary donations obtained from the public. Needing jobs the most, the unemployed are “particularly encouraged” to transfer whatever money they still have to the very wealthy, said Monroe.
Challenged about self-contradiction, Monroe conceded that the billionaire relief plan does depart from traditional Democratic programs for job creation, which have in the past involved putting more money into the hands of consumers rather than those of the very wealthy. It is obvious, however, said Monroe, that, as Rick Perry has proven, “the current recession is caused by lack of income among the very rich, and excessive income among the non-wealthy.” Republicans have been right about that all along, she added, but the way is now open for an exciting realignment in American politics with voluntary contributions to the wealthy supplementing what Congress can do to enrich them further. “That is the American way.”
Republicans
Can Find No Waste in Military Budget
Chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee, Congressman Buck McKeon (R-CA) asked for
a report on consequences of potential cuts to the defense
budget. McKeon's report “did not once contain the words
"waste," "fraud," "abuse," "overhead" or "officer creep" in
a budget so notorious for same that it has kept itself
exempt from financial audits for decades-and plans to do so
for the foreseeable future.”
Source: Center for Defense Information, www.cdi.org.
Source: Center for Defense Information, www.cdi.org.
Two-Thirds Favor Tax
Increases for Wealthiest
"A New York Times/CBS poll
released [Oct. 25, 2011] found that 65 percent of
Americans say taxes should be increased on households
earning $1 million or more, while 66 percent say money
and wealth in the country should be distributed more
evenly. Another 69 percent say the policies of
Republicans in Congress favor the rich, while 67 percent
say it is a bad idea to lower taxes for large
corporations."
Source: Richard A. Oppel, “Perry plan would grant big tax break to wealthiest.” New York Times, Oct. 25, 2011
Source: Richard A. Oppel, “Perry plan would grant big tax break to wealthiest.” New York Times, Oct. 25, 2011
Your Invitation
to DCC Holiday Party
By Carolee Monroe
By Carolee Monroe
Hey, you! 
Yeah, you!
Yeah, you!All current, past and even prospective members of our Democratic Club of Claremont are invited to our annual holiday party on Sunday, December 4, at the Napier Center, Pilgrim Place. The event will begin at 4:00 PM and end at 6:00 PM. A buffet dinner and beverages will be served.
Not only will our annual party celebrate another great year of activity and honor the many volunteers who worked to make it so, it is being expanded to include fund raising and dues renewal.
Because next year is the first for the new Spring primary structure along with being a presidential election year, we are asking that invitees come to the event prepared to make a donation toward the campaign and temporary headquarters that we will need. Furthermore, because it is the end of the year, we hope you will consider renewing your membership at this event. In other words, please bring your checkbook and give generously.
Our annual holiday party primarily recognizes our member activists. Come join in honoring them! The event also will jump-start us into 2012. We will encounter the new format of electing primary candidates in the Spring and we will need a headquarters for the Fall general election. For all these reasons, we need your involvement: you are needed to participate both in person and financially. Please get started with us on Sunday, December 4.
The Napier Community Center is located in Pilgrim Place, across from the entrance to Decker Hall. The center was formerly the Administration Building before its renovation.
Is There a Class War in the United
States?
By Charles Bayer
By Charles Bayer
Congressional Republican
leaders have recently called the President’s proposal
to control the deficit, partly with tax increases on
the affluent, “class warfare.” But, Republicans
have always been good at the use of language, even
when the words have little to do with reality.
The term “class warfare” dates back to the medieval insistence that the lord of the manor had the sole right to control both the grain supplies and the bread ovens. The peasants revolted and there arose a clash between those two very separate classes. Guess who won?
With the rise of democratic societies, it became clear that no one class had the right to dominate everything, and that some system of equity had to replace feudalism. The Marxists picked up the language and held that any economic system which only benefited the rich at the expense of the working class needed to be challenged. The Republicans, in an attempt to label Obama’s proposal as Marxist, regurgitated the phrase.
Is America currently being seized by Marxist-oriented class warfare? The best evidence would be the rapid flow of goods, money and power down, so that the already powerful and the rich lost massive ground and the poor and middle-class gained it. Society would then find most of the economic power in the hands of the proletariat. But the exact opposite has been taking place. Our current economic and political format guarantees that the already affluent receive the lion’s share of everything, while allowing some of the goodies to “trickle down.” Supply side economics loads money at the top, assuming that the accumulated wealth in the hands of entrepreneurs will generate jobs and therefore some of the overflow would leak on everyone below. Not even Milton Freedman, however, envisaged the day when instead of trickling down, wealth gushed up—and stayed there.
If there is class warfare these days, it is not in the development of an economic system where the power belongs to the workers, the poor and the outsiders, but is deposited almost solely with corporate interests, together with the already rich and the politicians they can buy. If it’s class warfare, guess who is winning? The top 1% of the population earns a staggering 20% of the nation’s net income. In the meantime almost forty-five million Americans live in poverty, one out of five children are in want of the basic resources needed to sustain a decent life, and tens of millions have no health insurance. The President’s proposals at their most extreme wouldn’t make a dent in that mal-distribution.
At the same time there is a concerted effort to shred the safety net woven by FDR and LBJ, even while the nation’s wealth continues to gush up. That’s class warfare! It is a belligerent assault on the poor, the left out, the unemployed, the ill-educated and the nobodies, on behalf of keeping the way clear so that the biggest hogs may stay at the table. The affluent have the political movers almost totally in their camp. Not only Republicans but also a sizeable smattering of Democrats are deep in the pockets of these right-wing power brokers.
No matter what sounds we are now hearing from the likes of the Tea Party, I am convinced that at heart the vast majority of Americans believe that health care for all, the social safety net, decent wages for workers, widespread educational opportunities, good schools and a society that cares about its elderly are all more important than preserving the entirety of the enormous wealth of America’s most affluent. If America is not built on the notion of fairness, what have we to offer the rest of the world? My guess is that sooner or later the American people will wake up and realize just how badly they have been had, and how cheaply they have been bought. What we might hope to achieve is an equitable balance of America’s wealth. That is not the product of class warfare, but of economic and political justice.
The term “class warfare” dates back to the medieval insistence that the lord of the manor had the sole right to control both the grain supplies and the bread ovens. The peasants revolted and there arose a clash between those two very separate classes. Guess who won?
With the rise of democratic societies, it became clear that no one class had the right to dominate everything, and that some system of equity had to replace feudalism. The Marxists picked up the language and held that any economic system which only benefited the rich at the expense of the working class needed to be challenged. The Republicans, in an attempt to label Obama’s proposal as Marxist, regurgitated the phrase.
Is America currently being seized by Marxist-oriented class warfare? The best evidence would be the rapid flow of goods, money and power down, so that the already powerful and the rich lost massive ground and the poor and middle-class gained it. Society would then find most of the economic power in the hands of the proletariat. But the exact opposite has been taking place. Our current economic and political format guarantees that the already affluent receive the lion’s share of everything, while allowing some of the goodies to “trickle down.” Supply side economics loads money at the top, assuming that the accumulated wealth in the hands of entrepreneurs will generate jobs and therefore some of the overflow would leak on everyone below. Not even Milton Freedman, however, envisaged the day when instead of trickling down, wealth gushed up—and stayed there.
If there is class warfare these days, it is not in the development of an economic system where the power belongs to the workers, the poor and the outsiders, but is deposited almost solely with corporate interests, together with the already rich and the politicians they can buy. If it’s class warfare, guess who is winning? The top 1% of the population earns a staggering 20% of the nation’s net income. In the meantime almost forty-five million Americans live in poverty, one out of five children are in want of the basic resources needed to sustain a decent life, and tens of millions have no health insurance. The President’s proposals at their most extreme wouldn’t make a dent in that mal-distribution.
At the same time there is a concerted effort to shred the safety net woven by FDR and LBJ, even while the nation’s wealth continues to gush up. That’s class warfare! It is a belligerent assault on the poor, the left out, the unemployed, the ill-educated and the nobodies, on behalf of keeping the way clear so that the biggest hogs may stay at the table. The affluent have the political movers almost totally in their camp. Not only Republicans but also a sizeable smattering of Democrats are deep in the pockets of these right-wing power brokers.
No matter what sounds we are now hearing from the likes of the Tea Party, I am convinced that at heart the vast majority of Americans believe that health care for all, the social safety net, decent wages for workers, widespread educational opportunities, good schools and a society that cares about its elderly are all more important than preserving the entirety of the enormous wealth of America’s most affluent. If America is not built on the notion of fairness, what have we to offer the rest of the world? My guess is that sooner or later the American people will wake up and realize just how badly they have been had, and how cheaply they have been bought. What we might hope to achieve is an equitable balance of America’s wealth. That is not the product of class warfare, but of economic and political justice.
Rich Getting
Richer?
The Occupy Movement is No Tea Party – Yet
By Bob Gerecke
“WASHINGTON — The top
1 percent of earners more than doubled their share
of the nation’s income over the last three
decades, the Congressional Budget Office said in a
new report likely to figure prominently in the
escalating political fight over how to revive the
economy, create jobs and lower the federal debt.
In addition, the report said, government policy
has become less redistributive since the late
1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of
income. “ Source: Robert Pear,”Top earners
doubled share of nation’s income, study finds.” New York Times
Oct. 25, 2011
Gradgrind
Grinds Again
By Merrill Ring
Former South Carolina
congressman (1993-99, 2005-2011) Bob Inglis breaks
with his fellow hard-core conservatives about
climate change. Climate change is a
fact. That acknowledgment is very
welcome.
Nonetheless, his tools of analysis are dull. Inglis claims that conservatives are the party of fact in contrast to “sentiments,” the standpoint of liberals. His thesis is that on the issue of climate change his fellow conservatives have overwhelmingly gone off the rails, have become adherents of sentiment and so are bedfellows of the liberals. Now it is true that the conservative view of climate change has nothing to support it in the matter of facts, but Inglis is wrong that his fellows are adhering to sentiments (say care and concern): they are plain irrational on the subject.
But let’s think about that contrast between fact and sentiment and Inglis’ allocation of them to the two reigning political ideologies in this country. First, sentiment. Liberals take sentiment into account, in advocating policies that include the effects on (roughly) the feelings of human beings, something Inglis seems to think should not happen. But that there are those effects on people are also facts. So the contrast should be between concern for how policies, etc, affect something more than people’s pocketbooks and concern for how such things affect only one’s pocketbook, which is what Inglis takes to be the province of facts.
The idea that the conservatives rejoice in facts, where facts are understood in the most narrow way was lampooned by Charles Dickens in Hard Times. Thomas Gradgrind, educator, denies young Sissy Jupe a carpet with a pattern of flowers on the grounds that beauty, emotion and imagination are not to be allowed in human life, that ‘Fact, fact, fact’ conceived of as calculation of rational self-interest, is everything. Inglis, and no doubt conservatives normally (other than in matters of climate change), are followers of Gradgrind. One hundred fifty years later, Charles Dickens is still on target. That’s a fact.
Nonetheless, his tools of analysis are dull. Inglis claims that conservatives are the party of fact in contrast to “sentiments,” the standpoint of liberals. His thesis is that on the issue of climate change his fellow conservatives have overwhelmingly gone off the rails, have become adherents of sentiment and so are bedfellows of the liberals. Now it is true that the conservative view of climate change has nothing to support it in the matter of facts, but Inglis is wrong that his fellows are adhering to sentiments (say care and concern): they are plain irrational on the subject.
But let’s think about that contrast between fact and sentiment and Inglis’ allocation of them to the two reigning political ideologies in this country. First, sentiment. Liberals take sentiment into account, in advocating policies that include the effects on (roughly) the feelings of human beings, something Inglis seems to think should not happen. But that there are those effects on people are also facts. So the contrast should be between concern for how policies, etc, affect something more than people’s pocketbooks and concern for how such things affect only one’s pocketbook, which is what Inglis takes to be the province of facts.
The idea that the conservatives rejoice in facts, where facts are understood in the most narrow way was lampooned by Charles Dickens in Hard Times. Thomas Gradgrind, educator, denies young Sissy Jupe a carpet with a pattern of flowers on the grounds that beauty, emotion and imagination are not to be allowed in human life, that ‘Fact, fact, fact’ conceived of as calculation of rational self-interest, is everything. Inglis, and no doubt conservatives normally (other than in matters of climate change), are followers of Gradgrind. One hundred fifty years later, Charles Dickens is still on target. That’s a fact.
Whose Share of
Taxes is Dropping and Whose Increasing?
You Decide
The Occupy Movement is No Tea Party – Yet
By Bob Gerecke
Shortly after the
so-called Tea Party movement appeared, right-wing
financiers hijacked it by funding experienced
Republican operatives to set up websites, email
networks, conferences, etc. They redirected
the movement’s anger - which was originally at the
bailout of the big bad banks - away from the banks
which had caused the Great Recession and toward
government, in alliance with the Republican Party.
The Occupy Wall Street movement will not be so easily fooled. Its participants have correctly identified our economic problem as the concentration of income, wealth and tax breaks in the hands of the wealthiest 1% of individuals and corporations. It has explicitly rejected any attempt by Democrats or anyone else with establishment credentials to co-opt it. It has also resisted making explicit policy demands, which could split its members and invite detailed critiques. These are its strengths.
However, unless it elects allies to public office – as the Tea Party has done -- it will have little effect on public policy. Some Democratic officeholders will honestly and gladly embrace it; some will pretend to do so. Republicans will either smear it or pretend to understand it while miss-stating its significance and its demands. In order to have the kind of power in Congress which Tea Party candidates have, the OWS movement will have to get behind some existing or new candidates whom it can trust to be progressive in action as well as in rhetoric.
If it fails to accomplish that, it will have been a flash in the pan and an opportunity squandered.
It will be tempted to back third-party or independent candidates. This would be a mistake, since they would have little chance of being elected. Its best opportunity lies in using the primary election system to nominate true progressives as the Democratic Party candidates. Time will tell whether it will be shrewd enough to adopt that strategy, but I am not optimistic. I fear that it will split the progressive vote by supporting candidates who run against Democrats in the general election, thus ensuring the victory of conservative Republicans.
Politically aware citizens remember the first national election that they were able to follow as informed Americans. For me, as is probably the case for most Millennials, that election was 2008. I still feel lucky that the first election I was old enough to appreciate was so rich with history, issues, and symbolism —its “unprecedented” nature was probably what inspired so many young voters to turn out that year. 2012 will likely be less magical, so extra effort will be needed to bring young adults to the voting booth. Claremont High School students should be encouraged to go to the Democratic National Convention next year, and their town should take an interest in introducing them to politics in action.
Some numbers: fifty-two percent of young citizens voted in 2008, while only eleven percent voted in 2010. Among the various reasons for this decline, the most important may be the simplest: young people just weren’t enthused about the 2010 midterms. Midterms are less glamorous than presidential elections, and 2010 treated voters to Medicare chatter instead of hope and change. No wonder the youth vote took a pass. They remembered that politics are boring and mean-spirited, and slept in.
Of course, American politics don’t have to be mean-spirited, and they are never boring to those of us with an interest in current events. We who follow politics all fell in wonky love at some point, but among young people at least, the uninitiated still outnumber the informed. Politics just aren’t rousing on the surface, and that’s why so few young Americans are roused to vote every four (let alone two) years.
This year’s DNC website extolls “the thrill, excitement and exhilaration of witnessing our nation’s Democratic leaders share their vision, ideas and passion with fellow Democrats from all over the United States.” The advertising is biased, but there is something to be said for watching a sitting president give what will need to be one of the most astounding speeches of a distinguished oratorical career to tens of thousands of cheering voters. This isn’t a matter of partisanship; I expect the Republican National Convention will be equally exhilarating for conservatives. But the Democratic Party has historically been more appealing to young voters, and so has the better chance of introducing another generation to the joys of civic engagement. Claremont, like the rest of America, has a stake in facilitating that introduction.
Dixie Morrison is a freshman at Pomona College.
The Voorhis Voice is published by the Democratic Club of Claremont, PO Box 1201, Claremont CA 91711. The newsletter’s name commemorates the late Jerry Voorhis, a talented and courageous Congress member from Claremont.
Access our website: http://www.claremontdems.org
Select: Get Involved > Join Us (Complete the form. Then…)
Select: Get Involved > Donate to the Club This will take you to the Act Blue website where you can pay your annual dues online.
P.S. – Part of your dues and contributions may be contributed to Federal and State candidates. Individual contributions will be deposited into the club’s Federal account, subject to the Federal Elections Campaign Act. Non-individual contributions and contributions of individuals who so request will be deposited into the club’s State account. Contributions are limited under State law. No anonymous contributions of more than $50 will be accepted. Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, address, occupation and employer of each individual contributor. Political contributions are not tax-deductible. FPPC #841491. FEC #C00404319
The Occupy Wall Street movement will not be so easily fooled. Its participants have correctly identified our economic problem as the concentration of income, wealth and tax breaks in the hands of the wealthiest 1% of individuals and corporations. It has explicitly rejected any attempt by Democrats or anyone else with establishment credentials to co-opt it. It has also resisted making explicit policy demands, which could split its members and invite detailed critiques. These are its strengths.
However, unless it elects allies to public office – as the Tea Party has done -- it will have little effect on public policy. Some Democratic officeholders will honestly and gladly embrace it; some will pretend to do so. Republicans will either smear it or pretend to understand it while miss-stating its significance and its demands. In order to have the kind of power in Congress which Tea Party candidates have, the OWS movement will have to get behind some existing or new candidates whom it can trust to be progressive in action as well as in rhetoric.
If it fails to accomplish that, it will have been a flash in the pan and an opportunity squandered.
It will be tempted to back third-party or independent candidates. This would be a mistake, since they would have little chance of being elected. Its best opportunity lies in using the primary election system to nominate true progressives as the Democratic Party candidates. Time will tell whether it will be shrewd enough to adopt that strategy, but I am not optimistic. I fear that it will split the progressive vote by supporting candidates who run against Democrats in the general election, thus ensuring the victory of conservative Republicans.
Claremont High School
Students at the DNC
By Dixie Morrison
By Dixie Morrison
Politically aware citizens remember the first national election that they were able to follow as informed Americans. For me, as is probably the case for most Millennials, that election was 2008. I still feel lucky that the first election I was old enough to appreciate was so rich with history, issues, and symbolism —its “unprecedented” nature was probably what inspired so many young voters to turn out that year. 2012 will likely be less magical, so extra effort will be needed to bring young adults to the voting booth. Claremont High School students should be encouraged to go to the Democratic National Convention next year, and their town should take an interest in introducing them to politics in action.
Some numbers: fifty-two percent of young citizens voted in 2008, while only eleven percent voted in 2010. Among the various reasons for this decline, the most important may be the simplest: young people just weren’t enthused about the 2010 midterms. Midterms are less glamorous than presidential elections, and 2010 treated voters to Medicare chatter instead of hope and change. No wonder the youth vote took a pass. They remembered that politics are boring and mean-spirited, and slept in.
Of course, American politics don’t have to be mean-spirited, and they are never boring to those of us with an interest in current events. We who follow politics all fell in wonky love at some point, but among young people at least, the uninitiated still outnumber the informed. Politics just aren’t rousing on the surface, and that’s why so few young Americans are roused to vote every four (let alone two) years.
This year’s DNC website extolls “the thrill, excitement and exhilaration of witnessing our nation’s Democratic leaders share their vision, ideas and passion with fellow Democrats from all over the United States.” The advertising is biased, but there is something to be said for watching a sitting president give what will need to be one of the most astounding speeches of a distinguished oratorical career to tens of thousands of cheering voters. This isn’t a matter of partisanship; I expect the Republican National Convention will be equally exhilarating for conservatives. But the Democratic Party has historically been more appealing to young voters, and so has the better chance of introducing another generation to the joys of civic engagement. Claremont, like the rest of America, has a stake in facilitating that introduction.
Dixie Morrison is a freshman at Pomona College.
What is the TAIPD?
The American
Institute for Progressive Democracy (TAIPD)is a
503C public service, non-profit organization
formed in 2007 by members of the
Democratic Club of Claremont. The TAIPD sponsors
programs such as its recent and successful Forum
on the Citizen’s United decision, and also
publishes liberal/progressive material on its
web site. Most articles are written by
Claremonters; they are very useful to
understanding liberal/progressive ideas.
New material goes up at the end of the
month. The material posed is short,
accessible and sparse enough to permit a reader
quickly to browse the collection. DCC
members should make it a point to check out the
material. Go to www.taipd.org. Contributions to
the TAIPD are tax deductible.
Editorial
By Ivan Light
Watch the money. During 2008 election campaign,
Obama received more Wall Street funding than
McCain. Headlines now say that Obama’s
reelection campaign has received only a tenth of the
financial support from Wall Street that GOP
candidates have received to date from Wall Street,
but he’s received twice as much total funding as
have all the GOP candidates together. Obama’s
abundant funding is coming from small (e.g. less
than $250) contributors. The GOP depends on big Wall
Street donors for cash; but Wall Street is not
giving yet. Two months ago Perry appeared to
be the most likely GOP candidate; now, it’s Romney.
The ultimate GOP candidate is still in doubt.
Although Wall Street has abundant money, Wall Street
has not opened its piggy bank yet, and is presumably
waiting to see who will emerge as the Republican
candidate. In the event that Perry is the
Republican candidate, with his crack-pot
agenda, some Wall Street money will go to Obama, who
will not need his left base for reelection. In that
case, Obama will run to the right of center.
However, in the event that Romney becomes the GOP
candidate, as seems now most likely, Wall Street
will back him over Obama. In that case,
lacking Wall Street largesse, Obama will be forced
to the left where his base of small-gift
contributors are found. He will really need those
small contributors. Possibly this shift is already
at work, and accounts for Obama’s recent opening to
the left. If Obama gets his money from Wall
Street, Obama belongs to Wall Street, but not
otherwise. Best guess now: Wall Street will
buy Romney, not Obama. Does this possibility
offer a feeble ray of hope for progressives?By Ivan Light
The Voorhis Voice is published by the Democratic Club of Claremont, PO Box 1201, Claremont CA 91711. The newsletter’s name commemorates the late Jerry Voorhis, a talented and courageous Congress member from Claremont.
Newsletter Editor
Ivan Light: Email
him at claremontdemocrats@yahoo.com
Any registered
Democrat may join the Democratic Club of
Claremont
on our web site!
on our web site!
Access our website: http://www.claremontdems.org
Select: Get Involved > Join Us (Complete the form. Then…)
Select: Get Involved > Donate to the Club This will take you to the Act Blue website where you can pay your annual dues online.
P.S. – Part of your dues and contributions may be contributed to Federal and State candidates. Individual contributions will be deposited into the club’s Federal account, subject to the Federal Elections Campaign Act. Non-individual contributions and contributions of individuals who so request will be deposited into the club’s State account. Contributions are limited under State law. No anonymous contributions of more than $50 will be accepted. Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, address, occupation and employer of each individual contributor. Political contributions are not tax-deductible. FPPC #841491. FEC #C00404319