Blogging The Future
This week at Cafe, we've asked a host of prominent figures-- party leaders, grass roots organizers, movers and shakers and shapers-- to weigh in on their vision of the future of the Democratic party. Want to know Arianna Huffington or Speaker Pelosi's forecast? They'll be trickling in throughout the week. We also want to hear from you, loyal readers. Tell us-- how do you think the landscape of the party should look and change? I'll be looking closely at reader blogs, but feel free to point any excellent ones in my direction.
Advertisement
There's nothing wrong with the makeup of the party. Each cycle it seems to become more inclusive, include more diversity and focus on broader electorate issues. But then the candidates step in and in efforts to get elected, start to bargain away the concerns of the party faithful. Barack is a nice start, but we need to have a lot more diversity and openness at the head of our party. Unfortunately, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were way to agreeable with the Bush administration and allowed unspeakable divergence from the constitution and other laws of the land. Just saying...
August 25, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted/blogged this article from Ben Barnes, former Texas House Speaker, several months ago
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/how-to-make-a-longterm-democra.php
He's talking about the Tx Legislature but I think he makes some good points. Primarily, working for a long-term majority requires not sacrificing for the short-term *just to get a majority*.
August 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, sorry about that. Put the wrong link in (where's that edit function, TPM?)Here 'tis:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/ben-barnes-on-a-long-term-dem.php
August 25, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
We will of course support the Obama-biden ticket with all of our effort. However for progressive democrats we should also acknowledge that if successful it will be even more important for us to remain active in pursuing our goals. There are two reasons.
First, they will need our support to achieve those goals we all agree upon, such as a national health care plan and reform of labor law to help organized labor unionize workers. These will be very bitter battles and they will need every ally to win these struggles. Think back to the 30s, FDR did not alone push through the New Deal, there were continuous battles going on in the streets by workers and their allies.
Second, this administration's natural tendency, I fear, will be to pursue an aggressive and expansionist foreign policy. Those of us who believe challenging Russia in the Ukraine and Georgia is a mistake and who believe the solution to the war in Afghanistan is negotiation, not escalation, will have to stay in the opposition. The only advantage here is that with an Obama-Biden administration we will have someone that will take us seriously and engage in real dialogue.
August 25, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't just simply say "The Democratic Party will either be part of the problem, or part of the solution."
The Democratic Party, like the culturally progressive and other American people the party represents, are capable of great nuance and contradiction: they are fully capable of being at the same time BOTH part of the problem and part of the solution.
I have put this out on another blog to no response, can we please have 20 persons in each of 435 Congressional districts to make it their business to get the following narrative out in the public media, and preferably in a direct question to the D. Congressional candidate in their didstrict: "Will you continue to support the crappy, Blue Dog leadership of Pelosi and Hoyer ?? " Further narrative: We like Pelosi as a person, we'd love to have a BETTER woman speaker. We understand the wisdom of not beginning formal impeachment when the votes are not in prospect, yet impeachment most certainly should have been on the table as a threat, as a possibility and a subject to be investigated, and a subject to be sought FIRST against Gonzalez and Mukasey and Cheney !!
My friend Michael Munk (his name in lower case .com, I believe) has shown, Hoyer, Clyburn, Murtha and other D. House leaders are not just hostage to the Blue Dogs, they actively vote themselves with the administration and the Blue Dogs and actively favor new Blue Dogs for Congressional openings.
We are gonna "burn up" figuratively with empire and debt within the next 10 or 20 years, we are gonna burn up literally with climate change in the next 25 or 40 years. Things are either gonna change significantly, real soon, or we're, quite literally, toast.
There was a guy on Huff Post last few days with an article, a hypothetical futurologist looking back from 2016 and seeing only incremental change by President Obama. That, I maintain, would be a disaster that condemns our children and grandchildren to a hot, early death.
August 26, 2008 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink