Reply #14: Part of the problem is that the Left is full of REAL rugged individualists [View All]

[Lydia Leftcoast]

who don't take kindly to being organized.

The effort to oust George W. Bush was one of the few times that I've seen the left half of the spectrum unified for a common goal. Unfortunately, we didn't get the support we needed from the Democratic establishment in two areas: 1) running an assertive instead of a reactive campaign, and 2) fighting for fair elections.

In addition, the Democrats do not maintain the kind of party discpline that the Republicans do. Look at what happened to Arlen Spector, who is not all that moderate, for being insufficiently zealous about the anti-choice movement. Now look at what happened to Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller for kissing up to the Republicans...uh, nothing.

If I were DNC chair, I would impose some party discipline in the form of stating that certain economic issues were lines in the sand, and that anyone who crossed them would lose party funding for his or her re-election campaign. These issues would include preserving Social Security, labor rights, access to health care, district-to-district equity in public education, food stamps, unemployment benefits, progressive taxation, penalties for overseas outsourcing, and similar issues.

On these, Democrats would be required to maintain a united front, so that ordinary people could see who had their economic interests in mind. Furthermore, anyone who praised George W. Bush in the media would be "fined" by losing a certain percentage of his/her usual funding. The principle would be, "If you can't say something critical, don't say anything at all."

I would not set down such ultimata with respect to personal behavior issues, because I know of at least two fine economic progressives, Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, who keep getting re-elected by matching their constituents' sentiments about gun control and abortion.

Frankly, saying that gun control and abortion are non-negotiable but labor rights and the tax system should be "business friendly" is the yuppie approach to the Democratic party, both screwing the working class of their economic base and offending their gut feelings. My hope (and prediction) is that working class and rural people would not be so hysterical about gun control, abortion, and gay rights if they did not feel that their economic world was falling apart.

I have a lot of working class and low-level white collar relatives (still clinging to the DFL, but just barely), and no matter what the DLC says, they are not the least bit impressed by support for NAFTA or low corporate taxes.

They're neutral on guns (they're city and suburban folks who like to hunt and fish, but their guns come out only during hunting season), very uneasy on abortion but willing to concede that it's going to happen anyway, and still trying to wrap their minds around the fact that gay people aren't some shadowy deviants who creep about in the night. They absolutely hate the current health care non-system, and because of their close ties to the Old Country (a couple of them are married to European immigrants and have visited the in-laws), they wonder why we can't have what they have in Europe.

So my recommendation is to stick together on economic issues, allow a little leeway for individual candidates on social issues while maintaining a progressive stance overall, and penalize the bozos who suck up to the Republicans or act apologetic toward them.