Dems New Direction?
At the Campaign for America's Future conference last week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced that she and other Dem leaders were going to unveil a 'new direction' for the Party. There was nothing in her remarks that was objectionable, at least not to a democratic-left listener like me. But as I read her remarks, I realized that I'd heard them somewhere before, and had a moment of deja vu. This was confirmed when a friend of mine sent me an email reminding me of a conference he and I helped organize in 1986, 20 years ago, called the New Directions conference--headed up by the sorely missed, deceased social democrat Michael Harrington, who died in 1989. There was nothing that we called for in 1986, when we brought 1000 activists together in the Washington, D.C. Convention Center, supported by at least 10 unions, the congressional populist and Black caucuses, the feminist movement and more, that couldn't be included in Pelosi's new call. We had the right program then--we were sure of it; and that program, anchored by raising the minimum wage, a national health care plan, opportunity and equality, may be the right plan now, but why then, are we still fighting the same fights 20 years later? The music is the same but the world has gotten smaller, the economy has shifted and the Dems are trying to figure out how to become a governing party. So, what went wrong these past 20 years?
In thinking about that time 20 years ago, when the unions were much stronger, more flush with money for supporting progressive causes, and the mighty UAW (a union always known for its generous and forward looking support of a broader progressive movement) was well, still mighty, I realize how similar the debate is from them to now. Back then we were fighting Reagan and the Contras; now it's the Iraq War, but it'ss still figuring out how America can maneuver from a position of thoughtful power. And, back then, we were still a litany of causes on the left; we were not a unified force nor did we have a good enough notion of how to build a majoritarian politics.
Mike Tomasky has raised some of these issues in his recent American Prospect piece--how do the Democrats create a governing narrative that makes it appear to be a governing alternative? How do we thread the strands together?
Looking through my files for the program for the 1986 New Directions conference, I came across something else of interest, something else frighteningly relevant, a letter written by a former leader of SDS to Mike Harrington in 1987. This person was respectfully admonishing Michael for agonizing over Michal's own perceived failures as a leader of the left in the 1960s and the ensuing split between the Old Left and the New Left or SDS. And, he was lamenting the current dilemmas of the democratic left in trying to recapture the political foreground.
I haven't been in touch with this letter writer for years and therefore, I won't mention his name--and hope that he doesn't mind my quoting from the letter. So here goes, a little bit of back to the future from 20 years ago--- "The legacy of the abandonment of a majority strategy lives on...The left can not be allowed to define itself simply as feminists, activist Blacks, Gays, the poor and their friends, Hispanics, the Handicapped, Native Americans, radical intellectuals and vegetarians, all united in their love for the environment and their hatred of war. This is a loser. The total is even less than the sum of the parts. Most of the above don't even like each other. In the 60s, objective conditions worked strongly against the implementation of a majority strategy. In the 80s, it is the opposite. The size and diversity of the group for whom the system does not work is constantly expanding. The left needs to locate the many growing edges of that group and organize there. Much of the success of the right is due to their having figured this out already."
Almost as if to answer that letter (although the book was written about a year and a half before), Harrington wrote a book, The New Left. It's still relevant today. In it, he argues that "what is needed in the late twentieth century is not just another program. What is needed is a restatement of the basic moral vision of the Western Left...if the next Left understands itself as a movement of genuine moral vision, then it can begin now, in the midst of a mis-shapen and outrageous "prosperity," to assemble the forces and develop the ideas of a new America in a new world."
It's not about laundry lists; it's about vision.
The left can not be allowed to define itself simply as feminists, activist Blacks, Gays, the poor and their friends, Hispanics, the Handicapped, Native Americans, radical intellectuals and vegetarians, all united in their love for the environment and their hatred of war.
I thought that writer was going somewhere with that, but I'll complete the journey: identity politics, especially identity elite politics, is a loser. First of all it is inauthentic, in that most people put, or naturally would put, much less weight on those identities than on their common identity as just people, or, for politics, on their class position. But more important it is divisive and separatist. It promotes a selfish "I got mine Jack" politics that is not very distinguishable from the elite money politics of the Republicans. It seemingly puts us at the same moral level as the Republicans, which had not been the case prior to the identity politics era. Finally and most important, replacing class with identities made it so much easier to transform the Democratic Party into just another "sell itself to the highest bidder" party, since the elites who control identity interest groups embrace upper-class interests and money politics, and can be bought cheap.
So, sadly, the DLC politics we seem permanently stuck with are just a symptom of the party's sell out, about three decades ago, to identity interest groups and their elites. The only solution is the politically incorrect one of re-centering the Democratic Party around the class interests of US citizens and legal residents.
June 18, 2006 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree on identity politics, but I'm leery of this vision thing. I just, out of curiousity, found Gore's convention acceptance speech. Now, he'd a luxury Kerrey did not have, of being able to address a public not driven by fear or manipulated patriotism to demand a military focus. Still, it looks awfully big picture to me now. It starts with the idea that he and Clinton built a prosperous America, but it can also be a "better and fairer" America, and he concludes after some related proposals (such as universal health care, decent wages, education as a federal priority, and defense of the environment) by placing these in context of "honor" due to ordinary people trying to work for a living.
Moreover, in reading some of the points JM dismisses, to me they suggest a vision: is it really right to talk about proposals about universal health care or fairer wages as micro, in the sense that they benefit "just" Latinos, say? That sounds to me just the wingnut spin that government is just a handout to the undeserving poor. Besides, can anyone, honestly, remember a vision from Bush in 2000, other than a cuddly smirk? Anyone recall what "compassionate conservative" was supposed to be compassionate about?
Chait's article, must be two years old, about the bankruptcy of calling for "new ideas" still seems on target to me. Sure, we can frame issues better so that the wingnut spin doesn't dominate, although only if the public and media listen. And sure we can articulate our key points, be they policy or a frame, more courageously, and do it over and over again. But this vision thing is tiring. If you actually have a vision you're promoting, promote it and persuade us of it. If not, I hear empty talking point.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 18, 2006 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, the totally unremarked aspect of what the American Left is all about is the aspect of it that centers around making the crusade against white racism a central facet of American leftism. Don't we learn anything from the eternal and unwinnable battles between the opposite sides of various similar conflicts like The Irish troubles (catholic v protestants), and the jews vs palestinians.
The war against majoritarian racism is ALWAYS an unwinnable war, and morever only instigates more ill feeling.
The same concept applies to other wedge issues and how they are being politicized by the American Right and PseudoLeft. Quit politicizing religion and gender and race conflicts. These are unwinnable, unproductive, etc.
Stick with economic battles against the overclass. Battles that unite across identity politics divisions.
The battle for universal healthcare paid for by progressive taxation is the battle that can only be fought by a true American Left.
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 18, 2006 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Thank you.
June 18, 2006 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 18, 2006 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
i guess i just don't "get it." why is it that the combination of religious progressives, blacks, latinas, asians, gays, the poor, anti war folks, vegans, and old fashioned noblesse oblige liberals isn't a majority? i mean, who's left? yes, the "i got mine" element to identity politics isn't so cool, and turns off people worried about losing what they have to "undeserving" others. but then again, isn't that what most of us hate about today's bush supporters? that in the end, they are mostly self concerned hypocrites who will happily screw over (fill in group) so they can have more, and then lie about it in terms of their ideological orientation? why are we still trying to please them? has moving further and further to the right over the last 2 decades made the party stronger? hell no.
i totally agree with you: dems need vision. vision is hard, it requires real leadership, and a willingness to stand up and do what's right. when i think of vision and leadership, i think of dean. he may not have run a successful campaign, but he did midwife a movement that's still growing, and making more and more of a difference every day. it was because of his vision, and his willingness to defend "losing" issues like gay rights that so many of us will love him forever. and the reason why we're still working long after his campaign is over, if not directly for him, for the causes he espoused.
frankly, i think the dems have one simple problem: consultants. i don't know who they are listening to or how much they are paying them, but it's clear whatever well dems go to for ideas is dry, dry, dry. you're surprised that the "new politics" today sounds exactly like the old one? well, you shouldn't be. as far as i can tell, the national dem leadership hasn't been paying attention to flyover land majorities for a while. like, 20 years or more. instead, they listen to people who talk about sweater colors and "being more civil."
there is a reason why almost half this nation doesn't bother to vote, and it's not just "apathy." i've worked with enough young people and poor people and brown and black people on voting and economic issues over the years to have heard one message over and over: "why should i vote, it won't change anything in my life." the fact that this opinion is effectively true is the reason why the dems don't enjoy total control of government today.
when the dems start speaking to the actual majority, and not to focus groups and the ever shrinking "moderate middle" they will win. i really don't think that particular "vision" is hard at all.
...and i have to add that things like the end of the fairness doctrine, declining standards in public education, and the global nature of once US-centered megacorporations probably should be part of this discussion.
June 18, 2006 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, what went wrong these past 20 years? Jo-Ann Mort
The Jews from CCNY and Harvard and the old-fashioned WASPs from Yale retired. And Democrats were left with a shell of a government that was unable to competently carry out a new idea even were the Democrats sufficiently imaginative to come up with one.
Until Democrats stand firm against outsourcing the government, no one should believe them when they claim they want to make government work. Until then, it's all a shell game, and the same sleazy, profit-hungering politically connected operatives will be running the government whether Democrats or Republicans are in office.
June 18, 2006 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I propose two slides:
1) three interconnected triangles, liberty equity responsibility
2) same three (reduced scale) on a map of US and interconnected with nations and supra-national bodies (UN, etc) around the world
Abstract, I grant you, but could be a conceptual template on which to hang the myriad issues that impact our world, political, social, financial, environmental...
June 19, 2006 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
This organizer had it right. Lived at the turn of century. Below, are a few quotes
" The Republican and Democratic parties are alike
capitalist parties—differing only in being committed to different sets of capitalist interests—they have the same principles under varying colors, are equally corrupt and are
one in their subservience to capital and their hostility to labor.
The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent
the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.
The Man of Galilee, the Carpenter, the workingman who became the revolutionary agitator of his day soon found himself to be an undesirable citizen in the eyes of the ruling knaves and they had him crucified."
On June 16, 1918 Debs made an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting World War I, and was arrested under the Sedition Act of 1918. He was convicted and sentenced to serve ten years in prison and disenfranchised for life.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
"They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.
And here let me emphasize the fact--and it cannot be repeated too often--that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace. Yours not to reason why; Yours but to do and die. That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening workers of this nation. If war is right let it be declared by the people. You who have your lives to lose, you certainly above all others have the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace....
They are continually talking about your patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches.
These are the gentry who are today wrapped up in the American flag, who shout their claim from the housetops that they are the only patriots, and who have their magnifying glasses in hand, scanning the country for evidence of disloyalty, eager to apply the brand of treason to the men who dare to even whisper their opposition to Junker rule in the United Sates. No wonder Sam Johnson declared that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” He must have had this Wall Street gentry in mind, or at least their prototypes, for in every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people."
What is the Democratic response to this Patriotic BS. Or are they cowards?
June 19, 2006 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats won the last two Presidential elections. Please repeat after me: "The Democrats won the last two Presidential elections." Now, can we please remember that and get busy fixing the problem ?
Why does all the analysis about what the Democrats should do to win fail to mention the rigged elections? The NeoCons can trump everything with rigged electronic voting machines, They have already done it in 2000 and 2004. So let's focus on getting this problem eliminated. Demand paper ballots and hand counting. Then we can go back to discussing programs, platforms, strategies, whatever.
Thank you.
P.S. I bet this was not "called for" in the conference in 1986.
June 19, 2006 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of alienation, only 3% of the electorate turned out for last week's US Senate primary in Virginia. Anyway, the Democratic nominee there, James Webb, is an interesting 'get out of Iraq' & 'misgivings about affirmative action' Democrat. He has some good ideas about the importance of the Scots-Irish ethnicity to future electoral success. See http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005798
June 19, 2006 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eugene Debs, such a beacon of electoral success. A stump speech or more at the right time and I'm sure we would still all be reaping the rewards of his wonderful marxist economic plans. If only he were alive today.
June 19, 2006 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess TPMcafe is to be the site for Dem navel gazing. It joins the New Republic, the Nation and the American Prospect on the print side.
Heck, I've even posted about this topic myself here as my two most recent discussion table diaries show. I guess it is harmless as long as somebody, somwhere, is actually trying to change things.
Big money rules politics and thus the Dems need to suck up to the same interests as the Repubs. Unless and untill there is some sort of movement toward public financing of elections and/or restrictions on how much can be spent this can't change. Notice Josh's stories today about the lobbiests starting to contribute to Dems as a hedge for the next election. Special interests don't care who is in power as long as they play ball.
I'm not sure what killed the last Gilded Age, whether it was public outrage as expressed by the original muckrakers, or the series of depressions starting in the 1870's or just the boldness of Teddy Roosevelt, but whatever it was the conditions are not yet ripe for a repeat of such drastic house cleaning.
Debating party platforms that nobody cares about or notices seems a waste of time when we are in the midst of losing two wars and our civil liberties at home.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
June 19, 2006 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen
I have no idea what your post means. Who is outsourcing government? Bush and the Republicans have privatized a growing list of government services. Are you objecting to using academics to provide governmental ideas?
Are you proposing a Buchanan like populism that seems so popular, despite a leftwing coloratin, at the is site?
Are you just complaining about all the political consultants who I agree should be on the unemployment line.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 19, 2006 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The DLC has elected one president, the only Democrat to win a two term presidency since Roosevelt. They also speak for many of the Democrats in the Senate. The DLC seems to be the most successful wing of the Democratic Party.
What is more problamtic for the Democratic Party is that officeholders believe the that Americans like programs that make their lives better but also want lower taxes and are fundamentally capitalists who belive in American exceptionalism.
Conflicting with this reality are activitists on the left who may or may not be loyal Democrats. They do not like a world in which Wal-Mart is popular, people like their cars and are themselves generally skeptical of capitalism.
Ironically where their is an identity of views is in regard to the world. Most Americans would probably tell the world to go to hell and immigrants to stay out.
The reason why a 1986 conference sounds so much like the Democrats of today is that Democats show no leadership over almost any issue, and they can't figure out how to get out of the box created by the loss of the South and urban ethnic voters on the one hand and intellectuals and lower classes on the other.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 19, 2006 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is Dems do not have their media act together. There is a vision as I can clearly see from reading here and at DailyKos, but it is not promoted day after day by the leadership and other prominent progressives who HAVE the eye and ear of the press.
Contrast that with what you see and hear week after week from the other side. Hell they even stick up for Coulter when she's out trying to sell books.
When John Murtha speaks out - he's out there practically by himself. When he's attacked by the wingnuts, does the Dem party go back on the attack and put down the wingnuts ....NO. He's left out by himself. There are countless other examples from Russ Feingold to Al Gore that I could use.
Until the Dem party and the progressives in this country can get their media act together Karl Rove and his media machine will continue to eat them alive.
June 19, 2006 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good quote.
I may not support his economics, but his politics were right on, if that quote is any indication.
June 19, 2006 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
More "pundit-speak".
"Vision".
A contradiction in terms when speaking of statists.
As demonstrated by the posters whose only concern is how to get elected.
If you want to know how to get elected, read "Main Kampf". Hitler laid it out in complete detail.
Only the Republicans seem to be following Hitler's game plan.
June 19, 2006 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
In order to get your media "act together" you have to get on to TV (and radio) talk shows. Look at the stats compiled by places like FAIR and see the proportion of guest identified as Dems or liberals compared to those identified as Repubs or conservatives.
One of the favorite techniques is to "balance" a conservative pundit with a reporter, thus killing two birds with one stone.
First it implies that reporters are automatically liberal and will give the Dem position (thus reinforcing the "liberal bias" media claim).
Second it allows the conservative free rein since the reporters don't feel they can compromise their objectivity by arguing the other side.
Call your local congressman (assuming he isn't one of the top handful) and ask how many reporters, and TV stations would show up if he held a press conference.
This is another case of blaming the victims, the Dems are playing on an uneven playing field.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
June 19, 2006 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to polls the majority of "red" state Americans are left of center politically, economically and socially. The mystery is why doesn't this register in election results. Is the Republican sale's pitch so persuasive, so able to stimulate the non-thinking side of the brain, that the rational side shuts down completely? Or, is there a major flaw in our electoral system so we end up being represented by individuals the majority of us did not vote for? Poll after poll indicate that possibility in that in everything from protecting the environment to the Iraq war the will of the majority seems to stop at the doors of Congress - forget the administrative branch, it's become an incestual monarchy. The brave DLC point people really need to hire some high-paid bean counters to sort these phenomena out.
June 19, 2006 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of the above.
If you want to know who's running our government -- dedicated public servants or private trough swillers -- and how much of it they're running, check out the chart of house prices in the Washington, D.C. MSA over the past 20 years.
It isn't a matter of the Rand Corp. or some academics getting advisory contracts; it's a matter of government services being provided by non-governmental for-profit businesses who have neither loyalty to the government nor a vision of it as a provider of the common good.
It was not always thus; in your imagination visit Washington, D.C. in the period of 1932-1972 and meet the men and women who practiced government as a calling. Today, soulless bureaucrats contract out the operations of government which are foredoomed to moral and economic failure, and Democrats who promise otherwise are rightly condemned as hypocrites -- and can anticipate a lengthy history of political losses.
June 19, 2006 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am also concerned about the electronic voting machine problem. Mainly because it is hard enough to rally the citizens who vote Democrat. Many really don't care about politics (unlike us goggley eyed political junkies). Perhaps some have become so sick of life under current rule they prefer to ignore it altogether. Without solid leadership and an appealing alternative plan to follow, how many will decide its all a wate of time to vote at all? These are going the people the Democrats really need. If the the Dems come up with a cohesive plan to get attention of the people there may spring hope. Better late than never even though there is a lot of time to make up in the few months up to November.
At this point the only way to fix the election fraud, outsourcing and security problems is for the Democrats to rally so many Dems, Independents and disgruntled Conservatives that any fraud tried during the process would be futile. The same with campaign financing, nothing is going to happen until we get the obstructionists and crooks out first. They know they can get away with anything as long as they make the people think that there is no alternative plan or any dissent can be dismissed with ease. Sometime it causes one to wonder if Rove cooked up this to keep people believing that it'll be a waste of time to go vote. We all know that nothing is too far fetched on the Rovian plane. People must be assured that the Dems would not be complacent and prove that they will change the current status quo. A plan just makes sense to get those people to come to the polls. We have get our country back on the good track but to do so we have to get ahold of those reins. Without solid leadership and a clear road to follow we will be shooting in the dark and lots of voters will still stay home, again.
With nothing inspiring from the Dem, the election fraud, the lies, the corruption, the plundering of the national treasury will be dismissed and used against us, as we know. I still remember the Republican operatives down here in Florida with sore losers signs, threatening and protesting against counting the votes. This even before the votes had time to be disputed or some of the sneaky little game plays had come to light. Yes, Al Gore and the Democrats were stealing the election because they wanted the votes counted .....such outrage.... in Rove World. They were already setting the stage for the greastest coup in history and then SOTUS steps in to declare Bush el Presidente. But it was the Democrats who tried to steal the election!!!!
Could it be was this general crushing of the electorate and the question of whether the elections might still be rigged that kept many Americans who would vote Democrat at home in2002 and again in 2004 even in the face of all the lying and blunders. I do think it would be impossible for the rigging to occur in districts without the corporate owned electronic voting machines in question. They aren't everywhere yet, that gives hope. Those voters who might be concerned enough to not vote because possible fraud should be made aware of alternatives such as, requesting a paper ballot or an absentee ballot. This is how I voted in 2002, 2004 and will again until the electronic fraud problem is resolved. I believe the best way to fight the system for now is to legally go around it whenever possible. It's something each of us can do to thwart the crooks who would destroy the will of the people without sacrifice. To combat this assault on the American people is to have so many voters show up to vote for the cause of freeing themselves from the radical right wing's ball and chain, that Rove's head blow off and all his buddies too. : )
Clearly, to me as a person who cares about and wants again to be proud of being an American, believes that we can be again a beacon of hope and justice for the world, this Administration and it's criminal cronies are the most evil presence on earth in this century. It's "the enemy within" that we were warned about. The enemy we need to defeat and bring to justice. By doing so we show the world that freedom and democracy really can win once we Americans wake up and make it so. All without war, collaterall damage, blood spilled or adding to that monsterous deficit. I am still hopeful that Democrats will be able to send out that wake up call loud and clear.
June 19, 2006 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a closer look at some of what you've written, at least the 'misanthropic about Americans and leftists' stuff:
activitists on the left who may or may not be loyal Democrats
The Democratic Party needs to be loyal to the American people rather than to corporate money. I think you've got things turned around.
They do not like a world in which Wal-Mart is popular
What's to like about any company that pays its workforce very poorly, viciously fights unionization, and whips the world on in the race to the bottom on wages and working conditions?
people like their cars
I bet to a lot of us they are a big old necessary pain in the ass, but some folks do love them, which is neither here nor there. What matters is that global warming is real. So, compromise and support for public transit are a necessity, and I trust in America's good sense on this (but not the mainstream mass media's).
are themselves generally skeptical of capitalism...
Even the Clintonians haven't officially abandoned that skepticism. I hope that's not the next stage of a Democratic Party that we must stay blindly loyal to.
Most Americans would probably tell the world to go to hell and immigrants to stay out.
Americans are generous people, and most wouldn't say either. However, we in the bottom two-thirds know that excessive immigration of low-skill workers hurts the working poor and less skilled members of our working class. And we know those Americans are in very bad shape these days, and desperately _need_ the jobs and decent wages that massive illegal immigration takes away. So, in the hard choice between the needs of our fellow citizens, our 'family' so to speak, and the needs of non-citizens from other countries, almost every American chooses the first group. Only the elites of business (the Republicans) and ethnicity (the Democrats) choose otherwise.
June 19, 2006 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No in order to get your act together you would actually have to have an organization, that would have regular prominent media spokespeople. People who the media could and would call on, people like James Carville. People who are entertaining and can get the point across quickly and who don't mind mixing it up.
Gosh the party might even find an independent polling group to actually debunk the liberal media bias claim, since even the author of the original "study" admits to pulling the wool over everyones eyes, instead of wallowing in self pity.
BTW, since I live in a fairly small community I see all my local congressional representatives in the media. None of them ever seems to have a problem with atracting attention.
June 19, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps someone has already corrected this, but Mike's book wasn't "The New Left" but "The Next Left".
June 19, 2006 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
Identity politics is a loser for the Democrats. But thats all they have working for them. They refuse to confront the GOP on economic issues harming ordinary Americans or stand up for these folks. Ergo they fall back on race and sex based identity politics.
The problem is that the bulk of the Democratic party politicians and grass roots folks seem intent on keeping this toxic strategy/meme going. They do not see a need to reach out to the working and middle-class anymore or talk to them about issues that effect them.
And any talk of realigning the party on economic and class interest of the American people is generally met with howls of outrage and spittle from the monied left and liberal intelligensia. Who want nothing to do with those loathsome proles who work at grocery stores or clean their houses to make a living.
In many respects the Demo cratic party has become what Jo Ann Mort has wrote define(d) itself simply as feminists, activist Blacks, Gays, the poor and their friends, Hispanics, the Handicapped, Native Americans, radical intellectuals and vegetarians... Anyone else need not apply.
June 19, 2006 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
To think that the DLC is actually good at winning elections you have to ignore the record of the party entirely in off-year elections, and ignore the numbers with which Clinton actually won those races. I would say they have been the stewards to the least succesful time in the history of the Democratic party (outside of the Civil War and Reconstruction).
When did the Democratic party lose the intellectuals?
What makes you think any of these things?
June 20, 2006 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lets talk about electoral success. Bush gains White House by rightwing Court. Is that what you mean by electoral success?
Maybe, one should reflect, that the capitalist system failed the American people. It had to use Socialist ideas to get the country, going again when the market crashed and the Great Depression lingered on and on. So as for reaping the rewards,
Socialism bailed out Capitalism.
If Tony Snow wants to draw attention to American resolve over Germany, Lets take up more than the Battle of the Bulge. Lets talk about how a nation of thousands of Germans could lead people to slaughter(Jews) or any other undesirable group, afraid to speak up against the patriotic fervor of Nazism, flag waving PATRIOTISM.
Notice the rhetoric out of Washinton, either your with us or your against us, protect the flag from desecration, Democrats would rather cut and run than be for the freedom loving patriots.
Notice the Democrats, won't address this Jingoism. Cowards.
Soon people will begin to understand, fear of reprisal for speaking up to defend the Constitution against the War machine, then we'll see how civilized Nations turn a blind eye to the victims of Patriotic fervor, so stay the course and reap.
If you read about Debbs, and how and why he was imprisoned and lost his life, you'll understand the threat he posed to capitalism. It appears to me, Capitalism thrives when you have an available slave class, Spilling their blood to protect the interests of Capital.
Is it terrorists were defending against, in Iraq or are we defending the control of oil?
June 20, 2006 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The DLC has elected one president . . . [and] . . . seems to be the most successful wing of the Democratic Party. Daniel A. Greenbaum
Except that for all the DLC's pragmatic middle-of-the-road stance, it hasn't manage to appeal to Ross Perot's supporters who voted for Republicans in 1994 and will vote for McCain in 2008.
When it comes to economic nationalism and muscular patriotism, the DLC is Republican-lite. What was it Truman said? Something about a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican?
See, Stone and Rapoport, Three's a Crowd.
June 20, 2006 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you guys are talking about stuff I posted on my blog. Of course, it is from the perspective of a Southern Conservative. I should have been your primary target growing up, poor, and I mean real poor, at times my family living with my Grandmother, eating beans, fried potatoes and cornbread weeks on end, hiding from bill collectors.
Yet, early in my life I saw the fallacy of big government. It is not the government’s job to provide for me and my family. It is my job as an individual to provide for me and my family. Heck, filed a chapter 13 just last year, we will never get in that situation again. No ones fault but our own and we will pay everyone back.
So please do not post about how I am the "I got mine", well I guess you could say that, I make good money now, computer programmer. Heck, I joined the Army, not because I needed a job, had a good job and they were sad to see me go. I did it to do my part and to get money for college. If I can do it, anyone can do it. And of course half you will write me off as ex-military, that is fine, part of your sides problem really.
Read my blog and rail at me, I do not care.
http://i-am-the-emperor.blogspot.com/
Vonnegut fans will get the meaning of the blog title. Other people will just think I am being a conservative. I have some ideas that could help your party become a valid competitor again so maybe I can get small government republicans elected again. Instead of these liberals we got running the government now.
Remember people, "Nothing in life is free". That especially includes health care.
June 20, 2006 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."
June 20, 2006 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This would seem to be the price of government that in order to regulate as much as it does has to grow increasingly large and is so involved in our economy that it begs those so regulated to figure out ways to control it.
There is always a price to be paid for presumed success.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 20, 2006 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble with that analysis is that even Carter was a conservative. Gore was a DLC member. Those who might be defined as more traditional or non-DLC Democrats have lost virtually every state.
The problem of all Democrats in contrast with both Perot or McCain they seem to involved in identity politics calculated to please a laundry list of would be supporters rather than speak their minds. The Democrats would be better off with candidates comfortable with their own positions and their own skins regardless of their actual positions.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 20, 2006 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel: You've become a nattering nabob of negativism. What happened to turn you into such a defeatist?
June 20, 2006 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poppycock! Identity politics has played no role in the selection of a Democratic presidential candidate since McGovern, if then. And I await your naming the Congressional races Democrats would have won had they forcefully eschewed their values.
The DLC got lucky, once -- a crank with money named Ross Perot put their man in the White House. Don't look for it to happen, again.
June 20, 2006 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that identity politics is a loser for Democrats. I like the John Edwards approach: "two Americas". Naturally, the Republicans will scream "class warfare", so we need to be prepared for that. We need to be able to counter that with our own slogans that reframe "class warfare" into a "corporate welfare" debate.
Democrats need to get out of the defensive crouch position, and literally go on the attack. Attack corporate tax breaks. I mean, really, how patriotic is it for a company to lay off hardworking Americans, outsource their jobs, and then base their headquarters in some Caribbean tax haven? Why don't we talk about corporate patriotism?
The issues are there. The issues are there, and Democrat positions on these issues are favored by most of American voters. The problem for Democrats is that Republicans have framed the argument so that we end up countering, excusing, explaining, etc. We definitely need to go on the offensive.
There's a second reason we need to go on the offensive: how can you have faith that this party is going to fight terrorism effectively if they can't even fight Republicans effectively? We need to redefine ourselves as fighters. Fighting for the middle class. Fighting for a better America. Fighting for a safer America. We just need to be fighting. I don't see the likes of John Kerry, Mark Warner, Hillary Clinton as fighters. They just don't have the fire in them.
June 20, 2006 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Dems are trying to figure out how to become a governing party"
The reality that has been prevasive throughout history is clear, governance without moral clarity will be the end of a people. Principles stand the test of time... not ideals, they come and go -- and tend to err on the side of behavioral convenience. Dems run from moral absolutes like they were the plauge, now this is not to say all democrats accept what seems to be the "evolving" mantra of the new common-sense defunct and morallly challenged platform they now embody.
Now... you have an interesting article here, I'll even take the recent activities of Nancy Pelosi [to whom I despise completely] a bit further. She and a few select rank and file lefty idealogs as having be quoted as making an attempt to garner more of the social conservatives who call themselves Christian or identify themselves as having religious affiliations in some way. They have been making appearances at such venues as Joel Osteen's more liberal congregation at Lakewood Church in Houston, TX of recent.
Now, frankly... I don't know what such appearances are going to foster. They have had all but branded the abortion issue, same-sex marriage, and so-called separation of church/state matters as their patron calling-card and party status quo, the reality is [regardless of how they attempt to spin their base erosion]... not all democrats agree with these identifiers. Howard Dean was on Larry King about a month ago on the same topic, and had boldly mentioned he had this as a point of focus for the party platform, their base is all but eroded in the ranks of the socially conservative voter be they liberal or centrist.
The die has long been cast for the voice of the extreme liberal in the democratic party, they represent less than on half of one percent of the total population; yet have embroiled and embattled the entire party with their behavioral pathology as civil liberty and other grand ideological claims -- I am sorry. Ideals never served as a solid foundation to effectively govern a people... never. Philosophies are not principles and our government is not a lifestyle protection agency -- when they figure this out, they may balance themselves out and at least find a true base, that is to say... may.
Good.. thought provoking article.
-That Darn Republican
June 21, 2006 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink