There’s a great discussion on Democratic politics and strategy started by Chris Bowers going on over at the Daily Kos. I don’t at all agree with his prescription, and will get a post together on it, but I think he’s asking all the right questions.
There’s a great discussion on Democratic politics and strategy started by Chris Bowers going on over at the Daily Kos. I don’t at all agree with his prescription, and will get a post together on it, but I think he’s asking all the right questions.
AL, where do you stand vis-a-vis the DLC?
praktike –
I’m not a big fan of the DLC; I think the alliance they crafted between the Big Donors and the dependent – unions and welfare recipients that they have crafted has been incredibly destructive.
A.L.
Read the essay. Jesse Jackson Jr. as the VP candidate?
Karl Rove wants to know how much money Terry M. wants to make this happen, and in what accounts, and where.
Dean/Jackson as the ticket for the Democratic party!?!? What the hell is he thinking!? Jesse Junior would kill his chances of election. Not because he is black, but because he is one of the most liberal people in Congress. As for helping in the long run, I think that it could backfire, big time. It would be the perfect excuse for Bush to get Black Republicans out in the fore front, and given that Blacks are more socially conservative than most other groups, I sense back fire. Espcially if Bush could convince Black Churches and black religious leaders to support him. Given Dean’s and Jackson’s social views, that wouldn’t be out of the question. In fact, if you ever wanted to break the back of African-American support for the Democratic party, this is it. A perfect setup, if there ever was one.
Joe –
Hey, I said I disagreed…but at least he’s thinking strategically and asking questions, as opposed to complaining about “The Mighty Wurlitzer”…
A.L.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to solving it, but from the looks of it there are many steps left.
I had some thoughts on the article, which I had missed earlier for some reason.
In essence, I think he’s right to think outside the box. Dean’s success is in part due to his and Trippi’s willingness to lose some control in exchange for grassroots mobilization. I also think that this mobilization has more than a little to do with Dean’s firm anti-Iraq-war stance. I’d also point out that the part of the left that is organized ain’t the fiscal conservatives.
In general, though, I agree that the DLC has done things that have negatively impacted the organizational clout of key Democratic constituencies. I also agree that this has been most negatively felt in down-ballot elections.
However, Bowers forgot about the Dem’s successful (and successfully-copied) 72-hour campaign in 2000, which was certainly a triumph for “materiality.” They also had some success with materiality in the LA Landrieu election.
Bowers also forgot that Gore garnered over 90% of the African-American vote in 2000, and with high turnout at that. (Although some of that turnout was “turned out” at the polls).
Now think about this: Gore garnered only 59% of the labor union vote, while Bush got 36%.
African-Americans represent about 10% of the electorate, but union members represent 26%.
Now, those union numbers could be in unwinnable southern states; you’d have to go state-by-state to see where it really is.
But you see where I’m going here…there’s more wiggle room in the labor vote than in the African-American vote.
Suggesting a guy like Jessie Jackson Jr. for veep is a big slap to the face to people like AL. What Bowers seems to be saying is that with Dean and Jackson’s organizations, they can significantly increase the progressive and African-American turnouts by so much that they don’t need to pay any attention to the swing vote.
And I don’t know whether he hasn’t consider the effects on Congressional races or he actually thinks it’s going to help Democrats. Like I said on my blog, didn’t Mickey Kaus say something about a liberal cocoon?
FH-Jesse Jackson is not a member of Congress.
evariste –
Jr. is…
A.L.
One of the most liberal, at that. IIRC, he even voted against a bill protecting babies who lived through failed abortions. I would have to look that up to be sure, but I think that could really damn him in the eyes of Black religious leaders, who have a lot of power in the African-American community.
D’oh!
That’ll larn me.
Thanks, A.L., and sorry, FH.
>Hey, I said I disagreed…but at least he’s >thinking strategically and asking questions
ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations. . .;)
Jesse Jackson Jr. is a terrible choice for VP, but I agree with praktike that the other parts of the essay had valuable explanations for what has been happening to the Dems down-ballot.
I’ve maintained all along that the Dean phenomenon is not about his views, but about his having found the psychological space of the Democratic base. If Dean gets crushed, he’s McGovern. If he turns out Internet volunteers the way flyers in church parking lots worked in 1980, he’s Reagan.
After reading all of Chris’s posts and the resulting comments, I found the overall impression deeply troubling. Is the American consensus completely dead?
Is the American consensus completely dead?
Pretty much, replaced by a bi-modal distribution.
“A House divided against itself cannot stand.”
OK, the variance in ideological preference measured in instruments like the NES has grown larger? I’m pretty skeptical of that. My take is that the entire electorate has moved toward the “founding” values, and away from “social democracy.” But, if anything, I think the variation in ideological preference has been growing smaller rather than larger. If I can get off my duff I could actually test this theory, of course, but it’s a lot easier just to ask if you have, or know of someone who has.
–Scott
Will some one tell me what a “progressive” is these days?
Is it still short hand for socialism/communism?
You know that shit don’t fly no more. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1988 or so. Eventually people notice. They ask questions. Like why?
Robin hood economics may still be popular among some but robbing from the rich to help the poor is still robbery. Americans these days are looking to rise to higher economic classes. No one who thinks they might be rich one day wants the rich robbed. It goes against the political principle of voting your self interest.
Communism/socialism has proven to be regressive not progressive. Every where it has been tried. The more socialist the economy the slower the growth. Slow growth does not help the poor. It strangles them.
Russia now has a flat tax. The Chinese are promoting stock options. This is a clue.
You guys wonder why the Ds are falling? It is quite plain. What they propose as solutions actually cause more problems. The American people are starting to wise up. Evidently the Democrats will be the last to know.
My May 16 article on the subject made this very point. The Left/Democrats in America are wedded to Robin Hood economics. This ain’t going to fly boys and girls.