The Democratic Party Dilemma

[kentuck]

The Democratic Party is frozen by their inability to take stands on the important issues of our time. It could be called caution or indecision or just playing it safe. Whatever, they are in a defensive position because of that.

Whether it is the war, taxes, Social Security, the media, or whatever, the Democrats do not take strong positions or positions that are in opposition to those of the present Republicans in power. Outright opposition is preferable to the "fence-sitting" positions now practiced by most elected Democrats.

For example, the Democrats cannot bring themselves to come out against the war in Iraq. Most of them will say, it was wrong to go in but now that we are there, we cannot leave. We have to help them "rebuild" their country. But it was exactly their lack of opposition before the war that put them into their present predicament.

Our Party will forever be weak so long as we are on the defensive and fearful of taking a stand that is in direct opposition to the right-wingers now destroying our country. "But on the other hand", they say, as if studying their navels.

So the dilemma is whether to say you are against the war and take the gamble you will be labeled a peacenik and weak on defense and will lose even more ground to the Republicans. So they trap themselves in indecision. Play it safe. Agree with the Repubs but not too much. Disagree with the Repubs but not too much. Take the middle ground. But never take the position of outright opposing the status quo.

Another example is taxes. The taxcuts for the wealthy have turned into a welfare program for the rich. We are spending about a trillion dollars every two years more than we are taking in. It is a recipe for disaster. Yet, Democrats are frozen in their ability to speak out on the subject for fear of being called a "big-spending liberal". As our country goes down the tubes.

[helderheid]

1. I'm feeling more and more comfortable in Utah

Mayor Rocky Anderson urged everyone to protest against Bush when he visits tomorrow. I personally sent out the Utah Democratic Party weekly newsletter which not only had a quote from a press release from our Party chair about what Republicans are doing to our vets, but also advertised the rally.

Newsletter:

http://www.utdemocrats.org/index.php?action=GetDocumentAction&id=451673


I can't wait for tomorrow!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. Very very very important

that the truth be told about how the GOP "supports the troops". As more and more people understand this, they might start catching on to who really benefits from all of the GOP policies-it sure isn't the average American. Great job! I'll be with you in spirit tomorrow! Post pictures and details of the rally!

[helderheid]

13. Will do and thank you!

[NewJeffCT]

2. we do have people that speak out

They just get trashed by the media when they do - Dick Durbin, for example, said nothing worse than what many Republicans have said while Clinton was president, but then makes a tear filled apology after getting trashed in the media.

If we speak out about taxing the rich, we get trashed for bringing up "class warfare"...

Look what happened to Dean with the Dean scream? I mean, history has now been rewritten to say that he lost because of the scream, but he had already lost the first primary - badly - and probably never could have recovered from it.

However, it is disappointing to here mostly Republicans criticize the Iraq War - Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, Lindsey Graham, etc.

[kentuck]

3. Yes, some do speak out...

But not as a Party and not as a majority. We are not united in our indecision or our opposition.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The Democrats have become the moderate wing of the Republican party.

Under the leadership of the DLC the party has become little more than a "me too" haven for ambitious politicians whose only goal is to achieve and cling to power at any cost.

But, it provides the illusion of democracy in an oligarchy controlled by the capitalists for their own interests.

It is long past time for a progressive party in this country as a counter to one party rule.

[porphyrian]

16. Heh, heh...

I love hearing someone else saying this. Now watch out for the DLC apologists and the anti-divisiveness scolding you're sure to get, if they don't just ignore you.

[TankLV]

23. Boy now you've gone and done it.

The DLC apologists will be on your case now!

I support you.

Glad to see someone else with intelligence.

[La Coliniere]

24. You got that right!

[HereSince1628]

5. Don't judge the entire party by the professional politicians

[kentuck]

8. I'm not writing to be critical but to better understand where we are...

and why we are there. Yes, our entire Party is not "professional politicians". However, they are elected to represent all of us.

[HereSince1628]

10. You raise a very interesting point about elected officials...

Whether the are elected to represent us...which implies that they must reflect the popular opinion of their constituents, or whether they are elected to exercise the wisdom, judgement and values for which voters chose them.

How this argument should be balanced has been a source of argument in republics forever.

[kentuck]

11. Yes, and it is an argument that must be resolved or else...

you will find yourself a footnote in history or extinct. We must adapt.

[HereSince1628]

19. really, I don't think this one can be cleanly resolved.

There are times when populism clearly should hold sway, and on others there is the need for one or a few courageous stalwarts to hold to principle despite the cries of their constituents.

When they say that democracy isn't always pretty, this is one of the things they are talking about.

[kentuck]

20. And there are times when tyrants and dictators take control.....

and silence is not an option.

[HereSince1628]

21. True, but I think you're headed off on a tangent

My original post was the party is bigger than the elected officials who seem to be uncertain about how to act.

Your post raised the excellent and eternal question of what representation means in a republic.

Of course, for representative government to work there must be an opportunity for the represented to address the representatives. I even think there is a small point in the first amendment about that.
And every few years we get to re-elect representatives based on how good a job we think they've done.

Which brings me back to the point of professional politicians. Their highest priority is getting re-elected so they stay in their chosen career path. These folks _Do Not_ necessarily represent the highest ideals or sentiments of the party they claim to represent.

[Cary]

6. We consider issues. We think.

They have their pedestrian ideology to answer answer all of their questions for them, and they offer up slogans.

Just today I had to wade through a diatribe from some rightist about drug company regulations and runaway juries. I asked him to prove that RU486 is 100 times more dangerous than Vioxx. I also asked him to tell me what he knew about jury selection, since he was railing against that process.

The war is slowly uniting us. I don't understand why more of us aren't screaming about the taxes. The right has failed on Social Security, so far. I'm sure they'll try it again though.

The media is just atrocious.

Anyway, keep up the faith kentuck. All politics are local. If you truly want to make a difference, and you live in a red state, do something local.

[mopaul]

9. frozen is a good description

missing, neutered, and impotent are also acceptable.

[agincourt]

12. No party discipline,

Zell Miller can suck W's dick at the repig convention, he should be in cement overshoes, we won't even throw him out. A guy who fights for our cause like Michael Moore get's shit on by our professional politicians. The repig party is run with an iron fist under the boots of Tom Delay, in a clinch our party attacks fellow democrats better than they do conservatives. We're always falling all over ourselves and shitting our pants to apologize for what some Faux news pig caught one of our guys saying or said he said.

[mixedview]

14. we've always lived in a 1 and 1/2 party system

where one party is dominant and the majority for decades, and the other is the imitation.

During the New Deal era (1932-68) the Republicans were the 1/2 party to the dominant and powerful Democrats. The Republicans had to water down their economic message and move to the left on social issues - moderates like Eisenhower and Rockefeller were the only types of Repubs who could win anything.

Only when realignment occured over the civil rights issue were the Republicans able to present "a choice, not an echo" for president in 1964.

Goldwater was a true blue, die hard, old school, libertarian Republican. He believed by taking a hardcore, ideologically pure, uncompromising stance he would hammer the GOP back into a majority party. Instead he was crushed. And even when Reagan's Republican Revolution did occur, it was not exactly what Goldwater had envisioned: social conservatism and religious fundamentalism were against everything he believed in.. against everything the GOP had always stood for. But Reagan took those positions to accomodate conservative Dems who angrily left their party because of social liberalism and a "big gov't" welfare state they viewed to benefit groups they disliked (women, minorities, etc). Reagan promised to destroy big govt, and the economic libertarians and the social conservatives could finally agree on something.

The point is, the old Dem party many die-hard liberals envision will most likely never happen .. they will not regain majority power simply by assuming an "old school" liberal stance.. mainly because that particular brand of liberalism is gone forever just as Goldwater's particular brand of Republicanism is gone forever.. mainly because it will take realigment for power to shift back back to the Dems.. and that coalition and it's issues will probably be very different from FDR's.

Right now, as I see it, the Dems are trapped between an ideological wing (whose views are unpopular with the electorate) and a moderate wing (who is hated by the ideological wing). Only the moderates can win general elections, but the ideologues control the money and the primaries, so the candidates are forced to take mushy, incoherent positions that tend to please neither wing or the electorate... just like the old Republicans when they were the minority party.

ps. I'm an independent.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. Agree, but I quibble with this:

...the Democrats cannot bring themselves to come out against the war in Iraq. Most of them will say, it was wrong to go in but now that we are there, we cannot leave. We have to help them "rebuild" their country. But it was exactly their lack of opposition before the war that put them into their present predicament.

Who's saying it was wrong to go in, aside from the folks who voted against IWR?

[kentuck]

17. I'm not talking about the base voter....

But I would say that is the most likely response heard from an elected Democrat in Congress or Senate when they are asked about the Iraq war today.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

18. I'm saying, about the elected ones, that many if not most are not even

willing to say it was a mistake to go in.

[MissMarple]

22. What is Howard Dean saying about these issues?

And in "Running On Empty" Pete Peterson says about the Republican love affair with tax cuts: " "Republicans chop checks to widows so CEOs can get tax-free golden parachutes" is a claim that, if the Democrats could ever make it stick, would be a free ticket to electoral victory."

One reason this isn't happening is the DLC mentality that has the Dems tied to the hip to corporate money just as are the Republicans. The GOP just does a better job of it.

The Democratic Party has to get back to its roots, the working classes. And that is anyone who depends on their paycheck to pay the bills.