The Democratic Party (for progressives only)

[RedJazz]

I'm interested in a serious discussion on what people think about the nature and the future of the Democratic Party from a progressive perspective.

[crawjo]

It's reformable, but the Dems have to be willing to really *lose* some elections. I mean, yeah, they've been losing, but they've been losing in this half-assed mealy-mouthed kind of way that gets them nowhere. It's better to establish your principles and then lose on your principles, and then continue to work with and advance those principles.

If the Dems were to become truly progressive, they would have to do things like:

A.) Back gay marriage

B.) support the legalization of marijuana

C.) speak out forcefully against the death penalty

D.) articulate a foreign policy based on something other than interventionist force, while still actively working for democracy and freedom around the world

If the Democrats started doing those four things, or even two or three of those four things, I'd enthusiastically become a Democrat. IMO, they need to stop worrying about polls and focus groups and not offending people, and go out and really LOSE an election. I mean, get annihilated, but do so while advancing a new and important cause. If you look at the history of progressive reform, you see that these reforms did not start out being popular. They started out being radically unpopular. The Democrats have to be willing to weather that storm if they want to become a Progressive Party.

[Monte Smith]

My concern is that the Democrat party will fall apart and an actual leftist party will rise from its ashes.

[RedJazz]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

My concern is that the Democrat party will fall apart and an actual leftist party will rise from its ashes.

You pose that as though it would be unfortunate, yet you voted that the DP is both in need of reform and reformable. Personally, I don't think it is reformable (it is too committed to corporatism at it's core). Of course, I could be wrong. Ultimately, the only way to prove that the DP is reformable or not is to try. My own feeling is that it already has been tried, thus far without success. Back in the 50s there was a theory called "realignment." I posed the idea that if the Dixiecrats and urban machine politicians were thrown out of the DP it could be transformed into a European style social democratic party.

Well, LBJ and Goldwater accomplished half of that. They managed to push the Dixiecrats out of the DP and into the Republican Party. LBJ also managed to make the old urban machines largely irrelevant by federalizing welfare through the much heralded War on Poverty. Nevertheless, despite that major realignment, the DP remained essentially a corporate sewer. The decline of the labor movement dates not from Regan but from the Carter administration when, despite a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic administration the unions could not get even paltry labor law reform passed.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by RedJazz

You pose that as though it would be unfortunate, yet you voted that the DP is both in need of reform and reformable.

I didn't vote. It's not my party. I can't cry like I would want to.

[Tom Storer]

I'm not sure what you mean by the question, in particular the "reformable" part. Do you mean is the Democratic party likely to become more leftward leaning? I would say, not in the foreseeable future.

To simplify outrageously, a political party can conceive of itself in two ways.

It can either see itself as representing a point of view, a political philosophy, and therefore all those who agree with it, with the goal of fighting for that group's claims and increasing its number through persuasion, hopefully to the point that it wins power.

Alternatively, it can set itself the goal of winning power and then modify, even betray, its original point of view until it corresponds to that of a majority of electors. The line between showing a willingness to react to and reflect your partisans' real concerns, on the one hand, and compromising principles for electoral gain, on the other, is one that is properly hard fought.

In a two-party system, it's difficult for the weaker party not to fall into the trap of simply wanting to gain "market share" and doing whatever that takes. Let's say the Dems shift to the right and gain votes. The Dems on the party's right will therefore say they are better reflecting the will of the people. The Dems on the left have a hard time answering that; if they say "we don't want THOSE people," they look like elitist snobs, or politicians who are "outside the mainstream," which in America is readily interpreted as "extremist kooks" no matter how reasonable and moderate they might actually be.

However, if a party is seen as lacking a simple, strong political viewpoint, it loses credibility. That's where the Dems are now, I believe: they are seen as weak, ineffectual, confused and intellectually bankrupt because they pretend to be champions of the common man and a principled opposition to the Republicans when they are clearly just as thoroughly owned by corporate interests, on the one hand, and on the other so cowed and intimidated by the Republicans that they won't stand up for themselves. The Republicans label them (gasp) liberals, so they act as unlike liberals as they can because they know it's an unpopular label. And yet they're supposed to be liberals. The liberals don't trust them anymore, the leftists hate them as appeasers, the right wingers prefer the real thing, and the centrists blow hot and cold.

In my opinion they should go back to the first alternative, i.e. as Crawjo recommends, forget about winning the damn elections until they have some reason to win them other than putting any old asses in seats in the Congress and White House. They have to be "a choice, not an echo," as Monte regularly reminds us the conservative movement decided to be many years before reaching their current ascendancy.

But I don't think they'll do that until things become truly hopeless for them. They'll have to hit bottom and implode before they'll redefine themselves. But it could well happen in the medium term. Therefore I would say they are reformable, but I wouldn't put any money on it actually happening anytime soon, if at all.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

They have to be "a choice, not an echo," as Monte regularly reminds us the conservative movement decided to be many years before reaching their current ascendancy.

Oh don't thank me, Tom. The credit goes to Mrs. Schlafly:

[Gary Sisco]

"The biggest snore in political history" would have received my vote, but it wasn't an option so I didn't vote.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Oh don't thank me, Tom. The credit goes to Mrs. Schlafly:

I thought that was Barry Goldwater's line.

[Gary Sisco]

I'd not mind having Barry back, even as Pres. At least he'd not be adverse to a cat minding his own affairs in his herb garden.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Root Doctor

I thought that was Barry Goldwater's line.

The pamphlet was written in support of Goldwater's candidacy.

[clinthopson]

The GOP has managed to focus many voters on what I consider bullshit issues:

Gay marriage
Calling a clump of cells a living being
"Democratizing" the world

thereby avoiding examination of the true pressing problems of this country:

Uninsured medical expenses which benefit the insurance and drug companies rather that the patients or caregivers.
An education system that is inferior to almost any first world country
The worst balance of trade in our history
A federal debt that is out of control.

If I were the dems' big kahuna, I would focus the party on health care, health care and health care and the rich getting all the tax breaks.

Them's the hot buttons.

[Coda]

Looks like you have a lot to keep yourself busy. The democrats have Howard Dean helping to focus the party...perhaps he should be your first stop.

[Pete C]

In need of reform, irredeemable, AND we can do better, not BUT.

My old boss, Bill Bradley, made the point a few months back in a NY Times Op-Ed, that it comes down to structure. The Republicans are so much better organized at every level from local to national, and therefore much better on hot-button issues, staying on message, getting out the vote, creating perception, etc etc.

that just is not as 'sexy' as talking about issues and stands, and so the Dems continue to fight over definition and look confused to a lot of moderate voters.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by achilles

My old boss, Bill Bradley,

One of the few politicians I had any respect for, even if he was far from traditional left on a number of issues.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

My concern is that the Democrat party will fall apart and an actual leftist party will rise from its ashes.

The thread title said "for progressives only." You may have decided that meant Teddy Roosevelt Progressives. I don't think so.

PS: Clint has got the right idea, I think. The Republicans are simply incapable of a solution, because a solution involves "socialized medicine" and that has never been and never will be in the Republican playbook, at least not as presently constituted.

In any event, the Dems are up against it, because about one in five Americans has bought into the bullshit issues of abortion, homosexuality, and "freedom." I don't think those folks are ever coming back to the center, because that would mean having to think through an issue.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by RedJazz

you [Monte] voted that the DP is both in need of reform and reformable.

Did Monte vote in this poll? If he did, he has no right.

Originally Posted by Pete C

One of the few politicians I had any respect for, even if he was far from traditional left on a number of issues.

Too thoughtful and too fair-minded to be a leader, which is why he never lived up to the expectations many had for him. he'd never speak out on issues unless he had read everything he could about them. refused the sound-bite mentality, willing to work behind the scenes. a true intellectual and funny as hell in small groups.

[Coda]

Expect to see a Medical reform bill enacted this year....sponsored jointly by Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich. The focus will be on technology and how it could be used to lower healthcare costs. Did you know that mistakes in the operating room lead to over 100,000 unnecessary deaths per year in the US? Add in prescription errors and this number easily doubles.

Bring on more positive changes like this one and the party will have some hope in the future.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by achilles

My old boss, Bill Bradley, made the point a few months back in a NY Times Op-Ed, that it comes down to structure. The Republicans are so much better organized at every level from local to national, and therefore much better on hot-button issues, staying on message, getting out the vote, creating perception, etc etc.

that just is not as 'sexy' as talking about issues and stands, and so the Dems continue to fight over definition and look confused to a lot of moderate voters.

Exactly.

Well stated, Achillies.

The downside is, in order to compete with that, Democrats will have to become a sound byte/single non-issue party like the GOP.


Maybe people just need to wise up a little....life is not as sugar coated and rosey as the republicans pretend it can be when you vote for them. I'm thinking after a few more years of pain and enconomic suffering, the American voter will start to come around.

Still waiting to see all those family values the GOP promised....

[clinthopson]

The Dems best hope may be Elliott Spitzer. He's getting wide (mostly positive) press and he's fighting the bad guys.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Did Monte vote in this poll? If he did, he has no right.

I did not. As an unprogressive, I promise to keep my participation on this thread, should you worthies condescend to allow it, strictly on the snarky comment level. As per usual.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I did not. As an unprogressive, I promise to keep my participation on this thread, should you worthies condescend to allow it, strictly on the snarky comment level. As per usual.

Your ethics are honorable.

[jesus marion joseph]

Novel idea: vote for the candidate you like, regardless of party affiliation. Political parties are no different from any other beaurocracy, IMHO.

[J Lee]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

The Dems best hope may be Elliott Spitzer. He's getting wide (mostly positive) press and he's fighting the bad guys.

Yeah, those insider traders are certainly worth investigating, as opposed to the soccer mom who mows down a law-abiding pedestrian, significant abusers of the generous health care, EIC, food stamps, etc. provided by NYS, and the corrupt, inept bureaucrats working in city halls from Fishkill to Utica, collecting arcane fees and levying fines without rebuttal.

But he's charismatic, and I sort of like him, and he may well become the next governor of NY -- I hope, however, that he and his followers are capable of deciding the difference between genuine thieves, like Rigas pere and his diseased spawn, and other so-called "corporate criminals" who happen to have crossed the irrational, arbitrary lines in the sand drawn by the FTC et al. For most people, including those far from NYS, he'll remain primarily the enforcer of nonce laws (legislated, presumably, at the behest of an enraged people who "had enough" and were tired of the loopholes afforded the baastahds by the fedda gubmint) and an abdicator of the loftiest goals of his current position.

[graypencil]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

The GOP has managed to focus many voters on what I consider bullshit issues:

Gay marriage
Calling a clump of cells a living being
"Democratizing" the world

thereby avoiding examination of the true pressing problems of this country:

Uninsured medical expenses which benefit the insurance and drug companies rather that the patients or caregivers.
An education system that is inferior to almost any first world country
The worst balance of trade in our history
A federal debt that is out of control.

If I were the dems' big kahuna, I would focus the party on health care, health care and health care and the rich getting all the tax breaks.

Them's the hot buttons.

True:

the big problem is for the Democrats is to find an acceptable candidate that will be able to not only attend to the above problems, be able to sell himself to the moderate centrists ..regardless of party.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by graypencil

True:

the big problem is for the Democrats is to find an acceptable candidate that will be able to not only attend to the above problems, be able to sell himself to the moderate centrists ..regardless of party.

True enough.


Problem is the republicans have done a fabulous job of whitewashing the issues to the point of oblivion. Anybody fool enough to actually sound off on any of the above topics is immediately labeled a big scary "liberal."

Hence, any change will have to come from years long suffering by the voters.


People don't want to think anymore...they just want to be lulled into complacency. I mean, all politicians are the same, right? Why bother to actually think? Ergo, the very minute a Democrat has the temerity to actually challenge those cozy little images the republicans have implanted in their minds it is going to be met with anger and suspicion.


Gonna be a great long while before we get rid of the vultures in charge of the GOP.





America hasn't hit rock bottom yet....

Originally Posted by graypencil

True:

the big problem is for the Democrats is to find an acceptable candidate that will be able to not only attend to the above problems, be able to sell himself to the moderate centrists ..regardless of party.

This I disagree with and it's why the Dems are stuck where they are. Everyone is always too focused on the savior candidate. Get the party in order first. Get the structure and organization in shape. Get the outreach working at every level. Get good young people in the party locally. Work on the basic building blocks of message.

After you have that, you'll see that any reasonably acceptable candidate can do well. Clinton has destroyed the party. They'll never be another Clinton, so time to do the less 'sexy' work of rebuilding everything.

The Republicans know this already. And they love that Dems spend all their time obsessed over how Republicans distort issues because it keeps them looking like the doers and the believers in things and the Dems looking like whiners. Think the deals in the Senate have made the Dems look good? Now what exactly did they get accomplished other than stalling nominations that will all now pass....

[clinthopson]

To me, Bill Clinton saved the Democrats (for a time) by moving the party to the center. Unfortunately he and Hill overstepped their boundaries with a far too broad, but IMHO good, health care reform which stepped on a lot of toes of the lobbiers.

Hill is to hated to be a viable candidate.

I can't see Howard Dean being effective in moderating the Dems. But maybe I'm wrong, his tenure as governor seemed to be more moderate than the GOP has pictured him to be.

It's a sad time for this country with extreme partisanship and bought politicians creating what appears to be an unsolvable crisis.