Idealological Purity vs Winning Back a Majority

[Leilani]

There was a time in Politics, that a wide range of view was tolerated within both parties. The Republicans had their Rockeller Republicans who were fiscal conservatives, but socially liberal. There was a libertarian type wing, represented by Goldwater, who were fiscal & military hawks, & wanted smaller gov't, but felt your private life was your private life.

And within the Democratic Party, there were Scoop Jackson Dems, who were moderates, but national security hawks. The Dixiecrats were pretty conservative all around. There were the Great Society Dems, who were a continuation of FDR's New Deal, but furthered their goals by supporting many gov't programs that attempted to solve the nation's social ills...LBJ & Hubert Humphrey type Dems.

People weren't as concerned with idealogical purity at this time, as they were with an overall outlook on what government should mean. Dems, for the most part looked to Washington & the Federal Gov't to solve problems. Republicans believed that states & local gov't, those closest to the people knew better how to govern. But there was an overiding belief: that the politicians of both parties were working to serve the people.


Because of the diversity of views within both parties, across-aisle coalitions developed, & worked well. For instance: the Civil Rights Legislation. Senator Dirksen & other Republicans joined Democrats to achieve these goals. I recently saw Rep. John Lewis, hero of the Civil Rights Struggle, discuss the co-operation between these groups & he stated bluntly that without Republicans, the bills would not have passed.

Fast forward to today. Republicans after many, many years of minority status, have become the majority. Democrats, splintered into many factions during the late 60's through the 70's, allowed the Republicans to gain power. Today the divisions remain among Dems: DLCers vs Liberals, Greens, Progressives, Moderates, & there is a struggle for the soul of the party.

Republicans have achieved power, through holding together their various warring factions. But with power comes new problems: the ability to govern. There are many unhappy Republicans waiting now for the "big payoff" of being loyal voters. And as we approach 2006 elections, Republicans in Congress will shed their loyalty to the White House, & vote to save their own jobs.

What does this portend for the Democrats?

The government today is no longer working for the American people. Gone are the good old days when parties worked together for the people. The Dems need to appeal to people who feel "the country is going in the wrong direction." The politicians in D.C. of BOTH parties have forgotten who they represent. They are owned lock, stock, & barrel by special interests, usually corporations whose goals clearly collide with what is best for the average American.

The 2004 election was basically a stalemate. Neither side offered anything new; it was same old politics as usual.

John McCain, in 2000 recognized the problem , when he ran against "special interests", pork-barrel spending, & for campaign finance reform, to try & give power back to the people. After his New Hampshire win, he raised a great deal of money on the internet...the first time it had been done. But, the Republican nomination was already a done deal. The special interests had their candidate: GW Bush, with his astounding amount of money had his victory assured. But McCain had struck a nerve: that the government wasn't working for the people anymore. And he reached out to Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, & Vegetarians...all inclusive. It was one big theme....give power back to the people through REFORM.

In 2004 the Howard Dean phenomenon followed much of McCain's path: power to the people. And they took it a step forward: grassroots organizing & fundraising via the internet. He too, was brought down by the firmly entrenched special interests within the Dem party, who wanted things to remain the same...power must stay in the hands of those who were threatened by "we, the people."

I believe the Democrats must give up their idealogical battle, if they want to regain power. What is wrong with including people who are pro-choice & pro-life? When we splinter down into litmus tests, we can't bring enough people together to win an election.

John Kerry ran for President based on a laundry list of policy positions & programs. Each policy or program had it's supporters & opposers. And MOST Americans didn't know what was contained in his proposals anyway, & when he said "I have a plan" it didn't work.

But the Kerry campaign had no "Big Idea" or Theme, except, "I'm not George Bush, & I'll do it better." Where was the Vision?

If we can put together a coalition of people who believe the government is not working for them, we can win again. A Reform Message, that appeals to all those who are feeling afraid, are working 2 jobs to get by, who are 1 illness away from bankruptcy, whose kids are not learning. All these issues can be solved by REFORM.

And finally, we must address foreign policy, & national security. Will Dems please acknowledge that we were attacked on 9/11, the worst attack in our nation's history? And will Dems admit that there is a terrorism threat in the world today? It doesn't mean we need to go to war, & Iraq was surely a mistake. But, as 2004 demonstrated, Dems STILL do not have the confidence of the American people on "who can make them safe." Until we can take back this issue, we will be in the minority. But this issue can also be addressed through a REFORM agenda. The war in Iraq is not working, therefore, we must REFORM our foreign policy.

Therefore, I would call for Dems to get away from ideological purity & back to a theme of REFORM, & making the government again work for the American people.

I'd appreciate any thoughts or suggestions. Thanks.

[sunnystarr]

1. Maybe a "Take back your country" campaign would resonate (nt)

[Leilani]

2. That sounds angry & I don't think people

are angry, as much as scared.

I'd look for something more user friendly.

[Malva Zebrina]

4. well user friendly would mean to a lot people in DC, Republican lite

People ARE angry and rightfully so.

While watching the Conyers panel the other day, I was struck by the passion of the people lined up to ask questions and subsequently being quashed by Conyers and other commentators, when they did NOT simply, like good little third graders, ask questions of the sanctified members of the panel.

It should be obvious to Conyers and others of the party, that people ARE angry, like never before, and although they did not conform to the questions period as expected by the respected members of the belt way, the fact that they chose to stand up and speak according to their agendas in spite of the risk,should resonate with the like of Conyers and even Barney Frank

The people ARE angry, and the people have NO forum,and have had NO forum for the past four years, and see only the same to come in the next four years.

[Leilani]

8. I would argue that SOME people are very angry.

According to recent polls, 90% of people thought the election had gone well.

And reform includes fixing the voting system...no doubt about it.

But just because people here are mad, doesn't mean that everyone is. And that's the whole point of my post...that we have to reach beyond just US, because we don't have a majority.

[Malva Zebrina]

18. well, if 90% of the people thought it went well

we may as well just give up any thoughts of doing anything else but trying to placate those people those 90% thought was a fair , unfraudulent election. Or--

simply refuse to take part in the voting process and survive the best we can by ourself if we are, with our votes, subjected to all those shameful occurences.

and where is this 90% figure coming from? Got a link to that statistic? Just looking for the facts and not challenging.

If it is true--we are in big, very big, trouble in this country. Don't you agree?

Is the answer to try and go further over to their side? How much soul are you willing to prostitute?

and who do we look to in order to extricate ourself from this fascism or is it not necessary due to the fact, as you have presented, that 90
% thought it a just fine and dandy election that George Bush won?

Do we just go on as usual?

[Leilani]

27. CNN used those numbers...& it was discussed here

because DUers were amazed at the statistics.

And if the MSM is not reporting the story, of course people aren't aware. We're news & political junkies...not many people are.

And NO, I'm not saying go to the other side. I'm saying reframe the debate...keep your principles, but reach out to people who are being hurt by the current system.

No, we don't go on as usual. But the Kerry campaign didn;t work. We should have had so many votes we wouldn't need a recount.

We need a cohesive theme, not a laundry list of programs. We need a vision to appeal to people who should be voting Dem.

[XemaSab]

6. Suggestion

Maybe rephrase it as

"I want my country back!"

[Leilani]

3. Kick for my own post!

[Zynx]

5. Indeed. The problem with the Dems is that we don't have an agenda.

Also, the far left agenda that many argue WILL NOT SELL. We need a positive, pragmatic agenda.

[Leilani]

10. We have a whole list of programs

but no big picture

no over riding theme...

[Radical Activist]

7. We already gave up ideological purity years ago and it didn't work

Your subject line sets up a false choice. Conviction wins votes. We can have ideological purity and win.

[Leilani]

9. Everytime you make a line in the sand, you lose people

I'm not saying give up your principles...I'm saying to work towards a broader view, which more people can accept.

[RafterMan]

11. I think both of you are right

Conviction wins out, but not a narrowing conviction.

I think a lot of the people here who preach purity needlessly narrow the scope of their message, and a lot of the people who preach outreach needlessly dilute it.

Many of the traditional Democratic messages poll in the 60+ percent range, but the Dems have a way of casting these issues as if they're appeasing some internal subgroup rather than casting a broad net.

[Leilani]

12. Right, that's what I mean

Our ideas are mainstream,at least our big goals are mainstream, but our message isn't.

[CTLawGuy]

35. so if what you say is true

the best thing to do is get up there and say nothing, and EVERYONE will vote for you...

That does not fly in reality.


If you dont draw any lines in the sand NOBODY wants to vote for you, because they don't know what you're going to do.

Bush draws lines in the sand all the time, on taxes, gay marriage, the war, and yet he still manages to win.

Kerry did not present himself as enough of an alternative to get enough independents to get on his side. He thrived on ABB, but it wasnt enough.

Swing voters are swing voters because they are practical rather than ideological. They vote for the candidate who looks best at the time under the current circumstances. If they hear only one side of an argument, they are more likely to believe that side. You can't be afraid of broadcasting the other side.

[Johnny Noshoes]

13. Not so much purity

but rather that Democrats STAND for something. Take a stand and take the time to explain it. Don't leave it up to MSM and 30 sec sound bites. More of our so called leaders need to get out of DC and state capitals and hold meetings in districts and towns and neighborhoods and LISTEN to people. Listen to real people with real problems and maybe even a few common sense solutions. These leaders need to just shut up sometimes and really just LISTEN. They need to understand that we aren't buying the bull anymore and that this insanity needs to stop. They need to learn to explain things in terms that people understand and stop trying to bullshit us with gov speak.

"You don't go to war with the president you want.
You go to war with the president you have."
-- Randi Rhodes

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely,the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
-- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

[Leilani]

15. Yes, the gov't is not working for the average American

& that's where we can build a majority.

[Radical Activist]

22. well, that's an ideology

[Skidmore]

30. This is exactly the problem. It's not an ideological one.

The problem with the party now is one of credibility and it's leadership does not understand, nor is interested, in the concerns of anyone outside of the beltway. They have forgotten their consistuency.

[clutchcargo]

14. LEILANI--A VOICE OF REASON

IF MORE OF US DEM'S HAD YOUR REASON WE WOULD NOT BE IN THE MINORITY NOW---WE SEEM SOMETIMES TO ACTUALLY HATE ANYONE WHO DOES NOT THINK JUST LIKE WE DO--WE HAVE TO BE BETTER THAN THAT-------CLUTCH CARGO

[Leilani]

16. Wow, thanks Clutch

That's nice!

[Johnny Noshoes]

17. You reason

with those who are reasonable - I believe they are the majority - but you stand an oppose those who for one reason or another will not listen to reason or logic or common sense. Sometimes no matter how hard you try or how reasonable and sensible you are some people will just not be persuaded. They are a lost cause and you win the battles you can win.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely,the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
-- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

[Cronus Protagonist]

19. "Ideological purity" is an insidious piece of RW framing

It's a meme designed to push the Democratic party towards neo-fascism. Democratics are supposed to run away from this straw man into what? The arms of the right wing, of course.

Meanwhile, the Republicans generate, embrace, support, promote "ideological purity" in their own party even as the Democratics are moved to join them into a one-party state. Their purpose for this is to exclude those who don't join their party and to encourage the weak into the strong embrace of the right.

And those of us who don't deal in "purity" of any spot or stripe will, no doubt, be persecuted, harrassed, and ultimately be sent to the camps.

I ain't buying what they're selling; the Nazi meme. If the "ideological purists" were dogs, I'd tell them to "spit that dead rat out of your mouth before you get sick".

Populism and class warfare is the winning meme. It worked against the robber barons of old, and it will work against the neo-robber barons of today. And, in fact, it works for the Republicans today, who have whipped their supporters up into a frenzy against the "liberal elites" and the "rampant homosexuals" by claiming that the government isn't working for them and change is needed; change into a pseudo-theocracy no less.




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[Johnny Noshoes]

21. Populism

can work. You campaign in the "red states" and just flat ask people what have the Republicans REALLY done for you. They've shipped your jobs to China, screwed your state out of funding so that your property taxes have gone up, exploded the debt so that the government borrowing money drives up interest rates and your credit card interest goes up, they scare you with the fake boogie men of gay marriage and an Islamic terrorist under every rock, and the government that THEY now control every branch of does jack squat for you. The Republicans will never really come through for the religious right they just use them to get votes and play them for suckers.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely,the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
-- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

[Cronus Protagonist]

23. I agree - for the people by the people

...once more...

:)

[Leilani]

26. Actually, I changed the title of my thread

it was not getting any responses, & flamebait gets more attention.

When I said "ideological purity", I didn't mean that people should give up their principles...far from it.

But there are many Dems who want to purge people who may differ on some issues.

And some rhetoric sounds angry & revolutionary...I don't think that welcomes people...I think it scares people away.

I was saying, keep your beliefs, but package it in a more inclusive way. I'm not talking about moving right...I'm talking about a theme of REFORM, that will work to give the gov't back to the people.

[janx]

20. But where do you draw the line between what you call

ideological purity and actually standing for something?

For instance, you mention both pro-choice and anti-choice ("pro-life") people comprising in the Democratic party. That's not something many people will be willing to compromise about; to many Americans, regardless of party, the government should not make a decision that should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her god.

I wouldn't mind of some Democrats were pro-life--most pro-lifers *were* Dems, originally anyway. But I don't want government going near things like that. As long as it stays clear of government, I'm fine with it.

Also, I don't understand why you think that Dems don't acknowledge the fact that we were attacked on 9/11 and that there is a terrorist threat, but you may know something that I don't.

Other than these two points, I agree with your post and would hope that the Dem party would be welcoming to all people who have very practical concerns. :hi:

[Leilani]

28. I meant we should stand by our beliefs & principles

but we need a message that is inclusive & welcoming to people wjo should be voting Dem.

I'm talking asbout reframing the debate; many here are mad that Harry Reid is Pro-Life...I'm saying, let him have his beliefs. We don't need to change our beliefs.

And I wish we could change the abortion debate to an issue of privacy..it's a medical situation & should be between a woman & her doctor. Gov't shouldn't be involved.

I think Kerry ran a campaign of policy positions, but there was no big theme or vision. I was talking about using reform as a theme, to make the gov't work for the people, not the powerful.

I do disagree with you, however, on the terrorism, nat'l security issue. Americans need to know that Dems will keep them AS safe as Republicans. And I think too many Dems concentrate on domestic issues, while leaving the FP to Repubs. We can do both, & we have to in order to win a majority.

[BlueInRed]

24. Is ideology the answer -- this is not how Rs started winning

In all this discussion of ideology, right, left, middle, etc, I think it is interesting that few point out that the Rs didn't abandon their ideology to start winning.

What the Rs did do was (1) repackage their EXISTING agenda -- a purely PR exercise, and (2) focus on small groups of people they could get fired up over certain issues -- the flag, guns, gays, abortion, etc.

I am a moderate (I believe in balance), but I don't think we need to shift one iota. We are already in the middle and it's not doing anything to stop the Rs from outselling us. I think Democrats have forgotten how to sell their ideas. It's not the ideas that are the problem; it's the sales pitch and the salesman (or woman).

Look at how the Republicans took a far right agenda and repackaged it to "sound" moderate to those not paying careful attention. Do we really need to change ideology at all or do we just need to learn our to sell our ideas better? I think it's the latter.

ps -- for the record, I don't think the DLC is moderate; I think the DLC is corporate -- just in case anyone should think I'm advocating a DLC agenda, 'cuz I'm definitely not.

[Lexingtonian]

25. That's not the best way of looking at the problem

Your argument here is something of an echo- very complete and comprehensive, in its way- of the general argument going on withing the Party. In fact, the Josh Marshalls and Nick Confessores out there have a point that it's merely a rehashing of the "traditional" argument every time Democrats don't win an election- Should We Stick With Principles vs Be More Centrist/Accommodating/Conservative- and that it's, ultimately, a superficial thing.

First of all, 'we'- the grassroots- are not actually going to decide this one. Every side in the debate is working with halftruths and misinterpretations of what our situation is. It's the wiser and more circumspect people in the upper tiers that will pick out what is to be discarded and what is to be retained or pursued.

I am obviously no subscriber to the centrist McCain populism or the Dean variation on it. It proposes that mismanagement and/or bad economic policy is our greatest problem. It supposes that the 1968ish realignment of the Parties, defined by civil rights (social policy) is not actually real, that it's only a distraction. The Dean/McCain approach is, in very pure form, the realignment-denial "politics as usual" of the 1976-1988. Kerry and Bush engage in the realignment-realistic "politics as usual" of 1992 to the present. Another realism is that today the political power monied organized groups that organize under the mantle of corporations is overt- the theocrats/Christian Right did in McCain, the interests of e.g. the pharmaceutical industry were lined up to kill Dean anyway if he made it to the General.

The Kerry campaign did what it did because that's what the situation demanded. You can blame the country, or you can claim responsibility of the Bush campaign by its engagement in and exploitation of nostalgia appeals, but the 2004 campaign was a rearguing of the past 60-65 years of the country's history. That's where the Republican political capital was that was dug up and used up during this campaign. (Kerry, as I see it, did some excellent work wiping out most of it.) Get this: the swing voters or soft voters on either side didn't care about the plans-for-the-future aspect. Just plain didn't believe there would be a great deal of difference either way. The 'reform Democrat' faction just can't seem to acknowledge this because it contradicts their central dogma of people voting as they do on economic grounds.

Iraq...I think neither side was able to provide a satisfactory analysis of the real problem that it reflects, and that's why neither side had an adequate justification or explanation or detail to its policies about it. It requires a comprehensive argument about the Middle East since 1945 and an assertion of what the American interests and principles stood for are and have to be. Since there is no domestic agreement on what constitutes the direction to take forward inside the U.S., that argument couldn't be made to work. We're stuck with stupid rationalizations on both sides for the time being even if the intellectual argument is quite obvious. (In short: the U.S. is the face of cultural change, representing the Modern Age, in the Middle East and (ideally) represents this consistently and justly and kindly- but anti-Modern governance inside the U.S. and its partners in crime, e.g. Likudnik Israeli governments, sabotages this effort and at times voids the larger conflict of its real substance and ethical justifications.)

So I think this 'reform Democrat'/neoDeanite analysis is wrong and reflects the dogma-driven misanalysis of the American political situation which is characteristic of that movement. But it is right in a narrow way- it can and should disempower the most corrupted portions of the Party, it should be a force for regeneration and retraining of the middle tiers of the Party in the basics of the political game. In pro football terms, it should be the offensive line coach rather than the head coach or offensive coordinator.

I'm not arguing for "ideological purity"- it's not a Party that has ever been that. I just don't see how the historical pattern of the present domestic argument deviates from those before it in which civil rights issues had to be settled before the political "wedging" could end, "wedging" that prevented economic policies from being made to fit the social changes. Right now our domestic argument- the essential split in the country, ranging from permissibility of torture at Guantanamo to voter suppression tactics to gay marriage and abortion and sexual harrassment and flat taxation and Social Security and corporate privilege and Hispanic immigration and what to do with Iraq and how to relate to Modern Europe- is all, finally, centered on and derived from the deliberately inadequate enforcement of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the doctrine of equal protection by the law as applied to groups, by conservative politicians.

We're either a Party that accepts that this is the fight we're in, or we're a Party in denial and unable to govern according to our stated commitment to the Better Future. Purity has nothing to do with it on our side- it is a phenomenon of the other side, and it's a Republican propaganda falsehood that only absolute non-ideology or an equal-but-opposite ideology can defeat their "pure" ideology. Our side only has to continue to understand their ideology for what it is (something I see as a deficiency of the Dean contingent) and remain determined to reject it.

[Leilani]

29. Thank you for your detailed reply.

I understand your rejection of what you term "reform Democrat/neoDeanite," & your reasons for it's rejection.

However, I don't understand what you are advocating FOR.

And I don't see reform in purely an economic light; reform is about returning to a gov't OF the people. We've become onlookers; very few people are making all the decisions for us. And when most people feel the gov't isn't addressing their needs, they become more alienated.

[Guaranteed]

31. Your argument is entirely wrong.

Our ideology is what defines us as a party. To "give it up" and concede to the Republicans, as George Lakoff said, will just tell people that the Republican Party is the place to be.

Instead, let's start making an principled argument that the American people will relate to.

[Leilani]

32. I don't think you read my post

I said we hold on to our beliefs, but we reframe the debate, to make it more welcoming for people who may not agree with us on everything.

The Republicans keep their beliefs, but they attract people who don't agree with them on a lot of things.

[mandyky]

33. What Ideology other than abortion?

I do agree we need to have a better national security plan, but that does not mean we need to be hawks either.

I agree on the reform issue - all this pork barrel spending, and lobbyists being the only people the Congress represents is horrible.

[Padraig18]

34. Excellent post!

Good job!

:thumbsup: