Is the Democratic Party part of the solution, or part of the problem?

[RichM]

Which of the following 2 positions comes closest to describing your current general attitude towards the national-level Democratic Party?

The "Lesser Evil-ers" -- I support Democrats, or at least some Democrats, mainly because I see them as the lesser evil. I don't believe that our society's problems can be solved -- or even clearly grasped -- by most Democrats. In most ways the party is just an instrument of the status quo. They don't usually represent me, & I accept (or at least am receptive to) the view that on balance, they are more part of "the problem" than part of the solution. The main virtue of most Democrats is simply that they're not Republicans.

The "True Believers" -- I support Democrats because I think that on balance they are genuinely a force for positive social change. It's not a matter of being the "lesser evil;" for me, they are out & out "good" -- a generally constructive force, on their own merits. The US has only 2 major parties -- and the Democrats are the one that represents ordinary working people. They are not always perfect, but have earned my trust, and can be relied upon to represent my ideas & values, in the long run.

[RichM]

1. I wish there was a way to add on the question "And BTW - what do you

suppose the results of this poll will be?"

[quaker bill]

2. It is a damn big tent

Some are part of the problem, some part of the solution. Generally things have gotten somewhat to substantially better when democrats run the country.

[Darranar]

3. Hmm...

I think the Democratic Party is a tool for advancing liberal causes. That tool is currently dull; it needs to be re-sharpened. But I don't thin the Democratic Party is part of the rpoblem, rather, the current state of it is.

[RichM]

4. Pretty close so far. I would have guessed that it would turn out to be

something like 40 vs 60% -- ie, modestly more "True Believers."

[Adjoran]

5. I'm a "tweener"

About midway between the two positions.

I have reservations about politicians in general, since power tends to corrupt people as readily as money does. I don't trust blindly.

But I am a Democrat by heritage. My mentors were Democrats, my family was Democratic, I have been a Democratic candidate. The Party is more than just the sum total of the actions of its elected members, or the issues and principles for which it stands.

The Democratic Party dominated American politics for three generations not because we are right on the issues, or because we run saints for office. It dominated because, unlike the repubs, we promoted a sense of community, of shared values and hopes, of mutual respect and encouragement and sympathy.

When our national ticket loses, it is usually because that community isn't functioning properly. Take 2000. Gore and Bradley patched it up just fine. But there was lingering tension between some Clinton people, who were feeling pushed away and disrespected, and some Gore people. Forget Florida - if the Party had been truly united, it never would have come down to recounts.

Nomination fights are just that, and should be, in the best interests of democracy. But let's remember not to burn bridges. Your guy is great, they all are. He or she may trade some tough words with some of the others. Supporters will clash. But when the dust settles and we have a nominee, remember that we win only when we are a whole community again. We need every Democrat and a good number of independents to win. That includes the Lieberman supporters, too. (Both of them! Sorry, couldn't resist).

Sometimes it is hard to swallow wounded pride and forget insults. But we need to keep in mind who the real opponent is, and what it will take to beat him next year.

[Resistance Is Futile]

6. Lesser evil, but getting more of an evil as time goes on

The Democratic party has historically been the lesser of two evils (although) not by much but its deer-in-the-headlights unwillingness to tackle fascist domination has turned the Democratic party much more into a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.

[BurtWorm]

7. Lesser evil

I'm getting sick of all the judges around here, testing how left their brethren and sistren are.

[leftofthedial]

8. both

they are outstanding on some issues and less so on others.

Their core ideals, as articulated by Dennis Kucinich, are the potential solution.

Their enslavement by the money that infests our political system (free speech my ass!) makes them part of the problem.

Get the money out of politics and the GOP will vanish in one 6-year election cycle.

[RichM]

9. As that cute little robot in "Short Circuit" might say -- "more INPUT!"

Vote, vote, vote.

[Armstead]

10. I voted for Lesser Evil but...

I probably fall somewhere between the two choices, because it really a fairly diverse party.

I actually think the current centrist tone and Vichy stance of the Democratic Estalishment is actually more of an evil than the GOP, because they have sapped the energy for real reform for too many years. At least you know what the GOP are, and they fill their role quite well. The Demopublicans, however, have continually let the left half of the nation down.

But it's also the party of Teddy K., Wellstone, Kucinich, (the good) Byrd and (the good) Hollings, Hatkin, Jan Schakowsky, DeFasio, Nadler, etc. etc.

[Resistance Is Futile]

12. Hollings = Evil

Fritz Hollings has been bought and paid for by the RIAA. He has pushed for legislation that is no less evil than Patriot II. Nothing too vile can possibly be said about him.

[RichM]

13. About this "sapping the energy" function --

I really believe this is a very big deal. It's worth at least a whole chapter, not just a phrase.

There is NOTHING more damaging than having what amounts to a safety valve for a bad system. It allows a tremendous amount of hope and energy to be harmlessly channeled off into a direction that offers virtually no prospect of meaningful change. This gives the system enormous stability, & demoralizes those who really care about the quality of society. It's the dirtiest of dirty tricks.

Essentially, the behavior produced works in this sequence: you get a thing like Bush. People begin to notice how he's destroying the whole world. So they say, "We must work to elect a Democrat." This buys the GOP 4 years of docile cooperation from the whole population. You can do a lot of damage in 4 years. 3 1/2 years into it, the Democrats nominate a quasi-Republican general or a corporatist sellout. So that's that! From the POV of the ruling class, what more could you ask for, than a phony reform party and a populace dumb enough to believe in it?

It would be better to have NO direction in which to place hopes than a false & misleading one, because at least then, the anger & pressure would build up, which one day could rise to demand expression.

[IndianaGreen]

11. In the short term, Democrats are the solution

We need to get rid of Bush, and the only way to do it is by electing a Democrat in 2004.

In the long term, Democrats are part of the problem, as the following SEP statement describes:

The political issues in the struggle against war
Statement of the World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board
17 January 2003

The entire Democratic Party is implicated in the domestic and international policies of the American government. It must not be forgotten that Bush’s polices are only a more extreme version of those of the Clinton administration, which, in addition to enforcing a brutal sanctions regime against Iraq, carried out military attacks on Somalia, Yugoslavia and Iraq itself.

It would be impossible for Bush to carry out the war in Afghanistan or the coming war against Iraq without the support he receives from the Democratic Party. The Democrats supplied Bush with the votes he needed to obtain congressional authorization for war against Iraq, and the debacle of the Democrats in the mid-term elections was an expression of its inability to mount any serious opposition to the Bush administration. Al Gore’s decision to withdraw from the 2004 presidential race signifies an even sharper turn to the right, and all of the major Democratic contenders endorse the war and Bush’s oppressive domestic policy.

On all questions essential to the class interests of the American financial oligarchy, the two parties are united. The Democratic Party is and has always been an imperialist party. Its differences with the Bush administration are of a purely tactical and not fundamental nature.

The construction of a successful movement against war requires a break with the Democratic Party and a resolute turn to the working class, the vast majority of the American population. Turning to the working class means linking the struggle against war with a struggle for jobs, social services, health care and education, and for the defense of democratic rights.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/demo-j17.shtml

[RichM]

14. Anyone else want to chime in with their vote?

Very interesting results so far. :-)

[LeahMira]

15. Chime... or warning bell?

Anyone else want to chime in with their vote?

Sure. I voted with the lesser-evil-ers.

http://www.dickshovel.com/rights.html

This statement was written in reference to Indians, but it pretty much summarizes things (as I see it) for everybody that is not WASP-neocon. Both parties are guilty to some greater or lesser extent, IMO.