The Sad, Sad State of the Democratic Party...

[melon]

It's no secret that they've been a mess. Minus their eight year fluke with Bill Clinton, the last time this party was largely relevant was during the days of Lyndon Johnson.

As for how to get them back in power, the conventional wisdom has been well-articulated by one of our fellow posters here:

If the Democrats want to be competitive for the White House in 2008, they need Wesley Clark or a southern Governor to run for the Presidency. Running to the left won't help their chances. A southern, christian, somewhat conservative, white, male, with some military or foreign policy credentials, who is a Democrat and would struggle to win his parties nomination would have the best chance against a McCain run in 2008.

However, I also think that Harry Truman's adage holds true here:

“Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time” - Harry S Truman

And, really, it's true, in my opinion (my regards to those who bristle at the sight of those last three words there). It's been noted for a while now that Americans vote less on substance and more on image. There are certain qualities that one expects from a Democrat and certain qualities that one expects from a Republican. I mean, look at all the moderate Republicans who go to bed every night thinking that they belong to the party of fiscal responsibility, despite the fact that the vast majority of our national debt has been amassed through three presidents:

1) Reagan
2) Bush
3) Bush

Likewise, nobody gives a flying fuck as to whether John Kerry prays or goes to church. The kind of people who care about those kind of superficial qualities are going to vote Republican. Period.

(to be continued, because people hate long threads and smaller chunks are easier to digest...)

Melon

 

[U2democrat]

*eagerly anticipates the continuance*

 

[melon]

But now we see the Democratic Party playing another identity game, where they think that if they put in a bunch of military veterans, then they can look patriotic and military-friendly.

Part of the problem is stated here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/stand-up-to-the-beltway-d_b_17295.html

Stand Up to the Beltway Democrats

If you are one of those Democrats like me who is completely fed up with the inside-the-Beltway party hacks who continue to lose elections because they have no spine and no vision, listen closely to a little something you can do this week to rap the knuckles of the Democratic Party machine.

Two years ago, Christine Cegelis took 44 percent from Henry Hyde, the arch conservative congressman and Congressional father of the anti-choice movement, in the suburban Chicago-area 6th District in Illinois. Her race pushed Hyde to announce he would retire. Cegelis, supported by a broad grass-roots network, decided immediately to run for the seat in 2006.

Rather than line up behind a candidate who was poised to capture the district, the Beltway Democrats recruited a primary opponent to take on Cegelis. Why? Because Cegelis is precisely the kind of progressive candidate the Beltway Democrats are afraid of: she is a progressive, anti-war, pro-choice, pro-renewable energy, pro-universal health care and opposes NAFTA-like trade deals. She's called for a quick and safe withdrawal of troops.

The Beltway Democrats tapped Tammy Duckworth, a person who has never lived in the district. Her central asset: she is a member of the Army Reserves who lost both her legs in Iraq. She isn't even running against the war--she is simply a symbol of patriotism. While her personal story is moving, she is also precisely the kind of candidate that the Beltway Democrats love--centrist and pro-business.

Indeed, the Beltway Democrats have pulled out all the stops to raise money for Duckworth: two emails from John Kerry, an e-mail and fundraiser courtesy of Hillary Clinton, an appeal from Nancy Pelosi. And Rahm Emanuel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (and an advocate of so-called "free trade"), has crossed the line, mobilizing the official party machine into the primary fight on behalf of Duckworth.

Duckworth's recruitment is a sign of a party driven by spin, political calculation and fear, not strength or vision. The Beltway Democrats, who relieve themselves in their pants every time Republicans question their patriotism, have decided that a winning political strategy rests on rolling out a large pool of candidates who are military veterans. Veterans or any new face in politics is great--but not if their candidacies are created to prove that Democrats care about the country and its security, even if we have no idea where the candidates stand on other issues or have no connection to the communities they seek to represent.

Arrayed on Cegelis' side are, among others, Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy for America and the machinists union (which represents tens of thousands of United employees who have been screwed by the very pro-business policies promoted by the Beltway Democrats). At a recent rally in the district, 150 activists packed a hall, ready to hit the streets and go door-to-door to talk to voters.

As Molly Ivins writes in the recent issue of The Progressive, "Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don't know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton."

That is precisely what this race is about. With a week left, a little help for Cegelis from every person thirsting for a vibrant party will go a long way to answering the question: will the progressive movement stand up to the Beltway Democrats who will continue to lose elections because they have no vision for our country?

That is, there's a certain contingent within the Democratic Party that has become mighty wealthy and powerful being "Republican lite," and they would rather sink with the ship than change course. As much as the Clintons were an asset to the Democratic Party in the 1990s, they have, more or less, become its greatest liability.

Of course, I'm not about to blame the "Beltway Democrats" for all the problems in the party. And all you have to do is analyze the alternative to see why. The "progressive/liberal" element of the party has become the party of shrill soundbites.

she is a progressive, anti-war, pro-choice, pro-renewable energy, pro-universal health care and opposes NAFTA-like trade deals. She's called for a quick and safe withdrawal of troops.

It sounds like a laundry list of liberal stereotypes, and while I support some of these causes, it's become as trite as ever. What do these terms even mean anymore? And that remains the challenge today.

Whether on purpose or by accident, the GOP kept up with philosophical trends. Post-9/11, we've become a more modernist society. That is, to hell with tradition and past precedent, let's create the futuristic world we've wanted. And while the modernist PNAC thinktank sounds like the recipe for dystopia to anyone left of Joe Lieberman, you have to give them credit for coming up with a blueprint for the future.

What is the Democrats' blueprint for the future? Keeping things the same? Sorry...history is not on their side with that stance. While there are burps on the road to progress, those who insist on things staying the same have lost every time. The challenge is for Democrats to come up with a vision of the future all their own. What is the America we want in the year 2100? Because, as it stands, with rampant urban decay and multinational corporations that are shedding more jobs than they're creating, the present is poised to look as embarrassing as the year 1900 is for us today.

Perhaps that's my gripe with the Democratic Party more than anything. They just don't seem to get it.

Thoughts?

Melon

 

[U2democrat]

What do you know of James Webb who is running for the Demnomination for senate here in VA? He might restore some of your faith in the party. I met him on Saturday, he's got my support and my vote for the primary and he'll get it hopefully on Nov. 7.

 

[melon]

What do you know of James Webb who is running for the Demnomination for senate here in VA? He might restore some of your faith in the party. I met him on Saturday, he's got my support and my vote for the primary and he'll get it hopefully on Nov. 7.

I'll have to research him at some point.

Melon

 

[U2democrat]

Some tidbits:

Opposes war in iraq
Pro gay marriage
Very disillusioned with both Dems and the GOP in Washington (which is why he's running)

Was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, has written several books. He has experience and knows what he's talking about.

Whether or not he has a chance against Allen...not very likely...but he'll put up a good fight.


ETA: http://www.webbforsenate.com/

His site doesn't have too much info on it now but it'll help

 

[BVS]

What Sting says I think is very true. I think deep down Republicans like that they cater to that demographic. I think both sides are living in complete dillusion.

Republicans still think they vote for the party of small government and that they will be able to stop social change.

Social change will never occur under a Republican administration, unless it's backwards.

Democrats need to realize that and that dressing like a Republican will never bring about the change the country needs.

 

[melon]

Hmm...maybe this thread needed more goutrage.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

Hmm...maybe this thread needed more goutrage.

Melon

oh, it's a good thread, i just don't know what to add.

i basically agree with you.

 

[STING2]

But now we see the Democratic Party playing another identity game, where they think that if they put in a bunch of military veterans, then they can look patriotic and military-friendly.

Part of the problem is stated here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/stand-up-to-the-beltway-d_b_17295.html



That is, there's a certain contingent within the Democratic Party that has become mighty wealthy and powerful being "Republican lite," and they would rather sink with the ship than change course. As much as the Clintons were an asset to the Democratic Party in the 1990s, they have, more or less, become its greatest liability.

Of course, I'm not about to blame the "Beltway Democrats" for all the problems in the party. And all you have to do is analyze the alternative to see why. The "progressive/liberal" element of the party has become the party of shrill soundbites.



It sounds like a laundry list of liberal stereotypes, and while I support some of these causes, it's become as trite as ever. What do these terms even mean anymore? And that remains the challenge today.

Whether on purpose or by accident, the GOP kept up with philosophical trends. Post-9/11, we've become a more modernist society. That is, to hell with tradition and past precedent, let's create the futuristic world we've wanted. And while the modernist PNAC thinktank sounds like the recipe for dystopia to anyone left of Joe Lieberman, you have to give them credit for coming up with a blueprint for the future.

What is the Democrats' blueprint for the future? Keeping things the same? Sorry...history is not on their side with that stance. While there are burps on the road to progress, those who insist on things staying the same have lost every time. The challenge is for Democrats to come up with a vision of the future all their own. What is the America we want in the year 2100? Because, as it stands, with rampant urban decay and multinational corporations that are shedding more jobs than they're creating, the present is poised to look as embarrassing as the year 1900 is for us today.

Perhaps that's my gripe with the Democratic Party more than anything. They just don't seem to get it.

Thoughts?

Melon

A couple of questions:

Your looking for someone who is a "Progressive" Democrat to run for president?

But has a "Progressive"(I'm thinking of what would be considered "Progressive" today for a Democrat) Democrat ever won the White House? Can a "Progressive" Democrat actually win the White House?

Victory in any election requires capturing a good deal of the political center of the country. If your to far from the center, winning may be impossible.

 

[verte76]

I agree with you. These are frustrating days to be a liberal.

 

[melon]

A couple of questions:

Your looking for someone who is a "Progressive" Democrat to run for president?

But has a "Progressive"(I'm thinking of what would be considered "Progressive" today for a Democrat) Democrat ever won the White House? Can a "Progressive" Democrat actually win the White House?

Victory in any election requires capturing a good deal of the political center of the country. If your to far from the center, winning may be impossible.

Thanks for your questions.

Frankly, I think the idea of "progressive," "liberal," "centrist," and "conservative" to generally be a bunch of nonsense.

In this sense, I generally define "progressive" with a hypothetically assertive Democrat who has the right ideas coupled with the right charisma. In some ways, you could say it's a 1930s Democrat--assertively liberal, coupled with a defined modernist agenda. Granted, when I say that, I'm not advocating a return to 1930s policies. That would be looking towards the past, not the future; thus contradicting the modernist zeal I'm advocating for the party.

Those who currently use the term, "progressive," in the party I believe to be undeserving of the term. They're merely "liberals" in the conventional sense, and I've seen absolutely nothing in their agenda that's new or particularly noteworthy, sorry to say.

It should be noted, however, that the term, "progressive," is not inherently Democratic. It originated with liberal Republicans of Teddy Roosevelt's era, I believe.

Melon

 

[deep]

The system is broken

Too much weight is given to the South (and low population states) in the Electoral College.


A candidate does not need to play to the center
He must crack the solid South
like Clinton was able to do.

A more progressive / liberal Dem candidate would only lose by a much wider margin.

 

[melon]

A more progressive / liberal Dem candidate would only lose by a much wider margin.

That's only because no president has really addressed the rampant poverty in much of the rural South since the New Deal.

When polled during the 2004 election, over 1/3 of those polled in Tennessee voted for Bush, because they believed he would rollback tax cuts for those who made over $200,000 a year. Of course, Kerry ceded that state to Bush from the beginning, so it really doesn't matter that voters were so ill-informed that they couldn't keep their platforms straight.

It's my view that these regions have been mired in corruption and poverty for so long that they think that no politician is there to help them. As such, they'll default back to voting on morality.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

The system is broken

Too much weight is given to the South (and low population states) in the Electoral College.


A candidate does not need to play to the center
He must crack the solid South
like Clinton was able to do.

A more progressive / liberal Dem candidate would only lose by a much wider margin.

Funny how the democrats thought the system worked fine when the South voted their way by consistently comfortable margins.

I admire Melon's hunger for a proper and winning Democratic platform. Calling for changes to the system (to disenfranchise those Southerners) doesn't meet the challenge.

 

[deep]

Calling for changes to the system (to disenfranchise those Southerners) doesn't meet the challenge.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[melon]

Any other thoughts here? I'd be interested in other dissenting opinions/questions. They'll allow me to reevaluate and potentially tweak my line of thinking on this subject.

Melon

 

[Se7en]

personally, i agree with deep. the whole system is broken. our government and electoral systems maintain a nice hegemony for the status quo and it will stay this way as long as someone is profiting.

 

[catlhere]

I agree basically that today all politics seem to come down to is who can fall under the basic stereotypes of their party the best. I don't agree though that only Republicans vote on superficial things, if that's what you were saying lol. Everyone votes on an image, and on photo-ops etc. Superficial is what America does best

Politics just leave me annoyed. Why am I browsing this forum again?

God bless America and all the parties that want to rule it!

 

[AliEnvy]

Any other thoughts here? I'd be interested in other dissenting opinions/questions. They'll allow me to reevaluate and potentially tweak my line of thinking on this subject.

I don't think the vision and solutions you're looking for are going to come from the current or future crop of politicians, democrats or otherwise without a non-terrorist major catastrophe (natural or otherwise) that will sufficiently jolt people out of complacency.

Katrina was a start, but not quite there yet. Coming from every direction these days are reasons to become an activist on social injustice but something tragic with widespread consequences will have to spark connection to get people roaring on the same page to enact real change.

 

[nbcrusader]

the whole system is broken. our government and electoral systems maintain a nice hegemony for the status quo and it will stay this way as long as someone is profiting.

Is that a problem for Democrats, or is it a problem for the party that is in the minority?

 

[Se7en]

Is that a problem for Democrats, or is it a problem for the party that is in the minority?

it's a problem for the population at large.

 

[nbcrusader]

it's a problem for the population at large.

How do figure that? We've had 200+ years of the same electoral system with no meaningful attempt (or even suggestion) to change.

 

[diamond]

Very few Democrats are real men save a few.
See examples below

thank u
dbs

 

[STING2]

Any other thoughts here? I'd be interested in other dissenting opinions/questions. They'll allow me to reevaluate and potentially tweak my line of thinking on this subject.

Melon

Who among the following potential Democratic candidates do you find to be closest to the policies and philosophy you would like to see the Democratic Party adopt?

Wesley Clark
Hillary Clinton
Joe Lieberman
Dennis Kusinich
John Edwards
John Kerry
Tim Kaine
Mark Warner
Howard Dean
Al Sharpton
Barack Obama

 

[melon]

Very few Democrats are real men save a few.

Please, diamond, save the circus for other threads here. I want this one to remain disciplined.

Melon

 

[melon]

I don't think the vision and solutions you're looking for are going to come from the current or future crop of politicians, democrats or otherwise without a non-terrorist major catastrophe (natural or otherwise) that will sufficiently jolt people out of complacency.

Oh I'm not going to deny this. I didn't write this thread having a particular candidate in mind. I wrote it out of the rather nauseous feeling in my stomach I get every time I think about the 2008 election.

It crosses my mind once in a while to enter politics myself someday. However, I have other goals I want to pursue first, and with my age, time is most certainly on my side here.

Melon

 

[melon]

How do figure that? We've had 200+ years of the same electoral system with no meaningful attempt (or even suggestion) to change.

It has been a major problem through most of our history. The major turning point was in the early 20th century with the Progressive movement, when they consciously made an effort to work for the people rather than business and wealthy interests. As such, we ended up with a myriad of labor laws, income taxes, ethics rules, business regulations, and antitrust legislation meant to level the playing field. "Fordism," the-then revolutionary idea that your labor should be able to afford the products that they're making (a concept that has never made it to Mexico apparently), came out of this era.

However, particularly since the Reagan era, America has been going back to all its old habits. America is no longer about the people. It's about catering to business and wealthy interests, and to hell with everyone else. After all, how many people do we have in this forum who consistently justify and defend expensive concert ticket prices, because "the marketplace demands it"? Frankly, if it's about "social Darwinism," it's not our job to give a flying fuck about the marketplace. It's our job to demand as low of prices as we can get, just as they demand as high of prices as they can get.

Social conditioning is quite interesting.

Melon

 

[diamond]

Please, diamond, save the circus for other threads here. I want this one to remain disciplined.

Melon

 

[melon]

Who among the following potential Democratic candidates do you find to be closest to the policies and philosophy you would like to see the Democratic Party adopt?

Wesley Clark
Hillary Clinton
Joe Lieberman
Dennis Kusinich
John Edwards
John Kerry
Tim Kaine
Mark Warner
Howard Dean
Al Sharpton
Barack Obama

Very good question. Here's my opinion of that list:

Wesley Clark - a tool for the Clintons; he didn't know his platform last time around and it showed. He's kind of the epitome of the Democrats' veteran parade.

Hillary Clinton - she lacks genuineness to me. She really turned me off when she, all of a sudden, started coming out against video games and became in favor of an anti-flag burning amendment. The Democratic Party has enough tools, and she just pisses me off.

Joe Lieberman - too conservative. I might as well vote for John McCain, and the voting public would think the exact same way.

Dennis Kucinich - his allure is too centered on anti-war fervor, and I don't like one-issue, hot button only candidates.

John Edwards - seems like too much of a gimmicky candidate. We're supposed to vote for him, because he's nice and pretty. His platform, however, is almost a mirror image of what you'd expect from a Democratic Party focus group. Well, we've tried that before, and it doesn't work.

John Kerry - if he'd trust his instincts more, he might be a better candidate. However, he doesn't have a great track record on that, and he emerged out of the 2004 election as damaged goods. Compare that to Al Gore who, while still losing, still emerged being rather likeable.

Tim Kaine - not sure, but he's probably better off remaining governor of Virginia right now. He hasn't been in office long enough.

Mark Warner - I'm cautious in my approach to him. I like the fact that he seems to know what he's talking about in interviews. I also like the fact that he likes to avoid the hot-button issues, because it makes him come off as less hysterical. I think he has a good chance of winning, but I do have my concerns that he's more "Republican-lite."

Howard Dean - I've wanted to like him in the past, but he always puts his foot in his mouth in very bad ways. He's best for preaching to the choir, so he's a good DNC chair.

Al Sharpton - he's run so many times that he's not considered a serious candidate.

Barack Obama - good question. I don't know much about him, but he seems to have a mind of his own. Unfortunately, he's going to be a liability considering the bigot vote and he doesn't seem to have enough of an iron fist to convince swing bigots.

I'm leaning myself towards liking Russ Feingold. He's very principled and progressive-friendly, while not being a mindless drone for the Democratic Party. He voted against the Patriot Act, being the only Democrat to have the courage to oppose a poorly written bill and was one of the few Democrats to vote for John Roberts. Now, I'm not saying I like Roberts, but it does show that he is very independently-minded without being Republican-lite and without resorting to shrill hot-button soundbites. That's my kind of candidate.

Melon