Commenter Andy suggests that I pack my bags and head for the door between the Democratic Party and the GOP.
So the only conclusion I think you can come to after this little therapy session is that you should seriously consider a trial separation from the party, or maybe even a divorce.
I’m sure most self-respecting Democrats would agree that it would be in everyone’s best interest.
It’s amusing, because I get parallel pressure from the right…at a dinner with Cobb, after we’d talked politics and I’d laid out my plan to rebuild the Democratic Party, and explained why I thought it needed rebuilding, he laughed and said it’d never happen.
“Switch,” he suggested.
“The last time a large black man suggested that to me,” I replied, “I think he had something completely different in mind.”
Fortunately, Cobb has a sense of humor.
Why not switch? Because the powerful already have plenty of advocates. Because I like clean air and gay marriage. Because I want taxes to be as progressive as is fiscally sound. We need two parties, and the tension that ought to bring. We need a party of business and one of labor; of responsibility and of charity; of growth and of restraint. I like business, responsibility and growth. But my heart is in labor, charity, and restraint.
Right now we have instead is a party of the large corporations, and one of the universities and public-sector labor unions. Mostly we have two cliques of corrupt courtiers, where we ought to have parties, each elbowing hard to get closer to the trough. Jack Abramoff may have been a Republican through and through, but he’s an archetype, not an exception.
Viscerally, I’m a Democrat, albeit an increasingly disenchanted one. Today, as in 2004, I’m a single-issue voter. I’m all about avoiding nuclear war in the Middle East, and as frustrated as I am with the current Administration for their performance on reconstruction, for failing to build the military – we need another 75,000 troops, and for failing to engage the American and world public in support of the war – I look across the aisle and see who, exactly?
The Democrats need to come to terms with some kind of national security policy, and I certainly don’t see it happening in the netroots…take a look at the comment thread on this sensible post by Kevin Drum. And note that LGF has comments that are effectively as looney, so don’t get all full of yourselves.
I see a big part of my role as whacking them with a stick while enough more prominent people work to create policies that make some sense in this arena.
The next biggest part of my role is to try and remind people that being a populist means being for the poor, not for the welfare department employees; for the students, not for the teachers; for the small businessman, not the large corporation.
There are a helluva lot of people who think like I do; we’re the swing vote in many elections. We’re the reason why Perot was a factor, why Ventura was elected, why Schwarzenegger was elected. We haven’t found a home yet, or leaders, but we will.
I’d like that home to be in the Democratic Party. The Democrats better hope it is.
AL — it’s my belief that slowly, the Republican Party is becoming more and more populist, and will if they don’t screw it up marginalize the Democratic Party to the point of the Whigs or Federalists; and then of course promptly split into several factions.
I don’t see the Democratic Party being at all amenable to populism; the very notion is a dirty word in Democratic Politics. Populists to their mind equate with throwing the Nisei into Manzanar, Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” of covert racism (and the unacknowledged legacy of George Wallace in the SchoolHouse Door screaming “segregation now, segregation forever”), the Klan, and bigots bashing gays to death. The ideas and ideals of FDR, Truman, and LBJ are all gone. Hubert Humphrey who said his party was for protecting those in the morning of life, the shadow of life, and the evening of life is derided as a loser.
The inflection point was 1968, at which point the Party belonged in spirit and soul to Eugene McCarthy and his heirs. McCarthy was a personally honorable man but his politics were Progressive and not Populist. ALL of the things you dislike about the Democratic Party likely tie into Progressivism which at it’s heart has a conviction that a highly educated technocratic elite can and should decide the important matters of the day for the hoi polloi. At it’s worst you get the Eugenics Laws (which HITLER copied not the other way around) lobbied for by Margaret Sanger (yes THAT one), Leland Stanford, Hiram Johnson, the chancellors of USC and UCLA, etc. Even worse the implementation of those laws (forced sterilization of Jews, Indians, Latinos, Blacks, and “white trash”).
I believe the fault line of populism is best seen in illegal immigration. I find it telling that politicians like Tancredo are willing to touch it (and are more in tune with their working class and lower middle class constituents) than the Democrats, who have set in their heels on illegal immigration. Most ordinary Americans are sympathetic to Mexicans plight but are bottom line unwilling to sacrifice their wages in a race to the bottom with a flood of illegal labor. The test is if significant amounts of Republican politicians push this as a populist measure and Democrats as usual pander to Progressivism.
National Security is the obvious difference but hardly the only one. Labor policy, hostility to the family, suburbs, car ownership, etc. all stem from the disease of Progressivism.
As a lifelong Democrat however, I understand the issues of sentiment and certain areas (the Environment) where Democratic Progressivism is superior to the Republican alternative. I have not switched parties yet either.
“We need two parties, and the tension that ought to bring.”
What we need (as I will never pass up an opportunity to point out) is a 10 year ban on all political parties, with all party treasuries frozen in escrow. Everyone will be forced to run as an independent and explain themselves in detail, as A.L. is doing here. And voters will actually have to listen to them.
This will create plenty of tension among the professional political operatives, who will have to get real jobs for a while. And it will throw our enemies in the MSM into hopeless confusion from which they may never recover.
I’m a conservative, and oftentimes a Republican, but I agree with much of what you say. The country desperately needs TWO vital parties offering thoughtful, meaningful alternatives. What it has instead is one vacant-eyed and chanting, “we haven’t made mistakes,” and the other spittle-flecked and ranting, “We hate Bush, we hate Bush, we hate Bush.” The Republicans are spending our childrens’ inheritence like drunken sailors — who’d have thought it? — and the Democrats are so jealous of the spenders’ privilege that they’d throw the world to the terrorists if it would sooner return them to power.
Well, you sure missed that one, AL.
First, nitpicking. I wasn’t suggesting you “switch” parties, but rather “divorce” the Democratic one. Your apparent constant irritation with those whom you ostensibly “co-habitate” with (in the political sense), coupled to differences in views that are seemingly becoming irreconcilable, suggested to me the (humerous) analogy of a “divorce”. I thought you would get that and laugh; instead, you cursed me out and responded to a different suggestion (that you switch parties).
Sigh.
At any rate, I don’t really care which “party” you think you belong to. I take your views at face value.
And regarding this, I only have two comments for the moment:
1) You are guilty of what you accuse Atrios et al. of being:
“And let me rent you a clue. Self-righteousness doesn’t win elections. Votes win elections.”
Followed immediately by the self-righteous:
“…You need the middle. That’s me. When the Demcocratic Party can lock me – and the people like me, and there are a lot of us – into its warm embrace, you’ll start winning elections outside of the Bay Area and Manhattan.
Until then you’ll whine about your moral righteousness while the GOP operatives go home and – to quote – f**k the cheerleaders.”
2) “Today, as in 2004, I’m a single-issue voter. I’m all about avoiding nuclear war in the Middle East…”
This does not, contrary to your contention, make you a “middle” “swing voter”, but rather puts you at one extreme for a group of voters who share this single-issue view. And I do not think that a majority of Americans feel this way. You only need look at how influential your ideas are in the blogosphere…how many times your arguments are linked to, how much traffic this site gets compared to Atrios, etc….for evidence of this. While this is a limited sample of voters, it’s the only measure possible; all other beliefs of the righteousness of your ideas are, well, you get the idea.
Another issue here is that even if a single-issue voter like yourself chooses to subjugate all other concerns for National Security at the voting booth, it is NOT self-evident to me that they would choose to vote Republican. In my view, Republicans should be blamed for INFLAMING, rather than diminishing, this threat that you seem to see as the only important issue facing politicians. The only place you can get away with making that tacit assumption is on a site like this where there are many people who are also predisposed to viewing most Democratic positions negatively.
One of the roles of Atrios, kos et al. is to fight against this view that Republicans are better for national security than Democrats. Their function is important because, as I see it, the traditional media outlets side consistently with Republicans on this, and so an alternative information source is needed. Their role is vital, and I would say they can be credited with much success at moving the debate in its proper direction, i.e.,, away from incorrect perceptions.
You, on the other hand, have chosen to occupy yourself with sniping at them in an effort to illustrate why you think they’re approach is wrong and yours right. Here is where you will likely apply some incorrect and misleading comment about “lack of Democratic electoral success outside of San Francisco and Manhattan”….
I could go on further but I don’t really see a point.
Andy writes in #4:
bq. ..instead, you [A.L.] cursed me [Andy] out and responded to a different suggestion (that you switch parties).
Re-reading, I don’t see cursing, but an exploration of ideas. Hard to fault A.L. for what he didn’t do.
IIRC, about 7% of voters were, like me, Democrats who pulled the lever for Bush, as opposed to some neglible number of Republicans who chose Kerry. 7% isn’t a lot, but one can consider it as one of the factors that affected the ’04 election. I then ended my lifetime affiliation, and will stay independent for now. Abramoff is the latest reminder of why some of us held our noses while voting.
I don’t know whether A.L. or Andy is making the better prediction about Democratic prospects in ’06 and beyond. Kos et al. are presumably happy to be rid of the disaffected centrists represented in this comment thread. Given the demographic changes swirling about this country, a power-hungry Republican party, and a media establishment that’s largely sympathetic to Left-Dem received wisdom, who knows. The Kossaks may indeed get to celebrate Victory along with the ideological Purity they seem to crave.
…And, Andy, it’s really nice to read your thoughtful takes on the issues that are batted about on this site.
Nice post AL. I feel the same way. I don’t think there will be a reconcilliation between the FDR/Truman/JFK (or Americans for Democratic Action) wing of the party and the left that now is in control of it. But it is useful to refuse to leave. After all the Henry Wallace pro Soviet Union wing of the party hung on to be reborn as the left that took control of the party in 68. I’m not saying there is a big connection – I don’t know – there may have been or there may have only been an indirect one. Interesting historical question – the point is that the hard left in the Democratic party lost after WW2, then made a comeback in 68. If people with our values just leave then it will be harder to rebuild the party in the future.
As Andy so ably demonstrates, the Republicans are looking for converts while the Democrats are looking for heretics.
AMac, I’m not debating the issue of who is making the better prediction about future Democratic or Republican electoral prospects. Crystal balls are not an analytical tool.
I’m only arguing here that AL should be more tolerant of those who, as I’ve said, ostensibly share his goals but differ on their approach, because self-righteousness is counter-productive to both sides.
If Atrios or Kos or other left bloggers wish to dismiss ALs position (which I do not…yet!) then they too are wrong. I do not think these views are irreconcilable, in the end, but will require a cold, hard look at reality rather than spin before doing so.
Briefly, the issues that fold into this consideration are, at first approximation:
1) Public perception of the positions of each party on the issue of National Security. This is an issue of information dissemination: party propaganda machines, corporate control over media outlets, etc. In addition, the political rhetoric of leaders needs to be measured against their actions, and evidence of improved or worsened world and national stability and safety must be objectively examined.
2) Claims that recent Presidential and National election outcomes accurately reflect the “will of the people” and should be the primary metric by which to judge public opinion (and project future election results). Here, voting “irregularities” in Ohio (2004) and Florida (2000) must be considered, along with a complex set of demographic voting trends that may or may not clearly favor either party. Any conclusions should be proportional to the level of confidence (in a statistical sense) of election results.
3) That “National Security” should be the main voting issue. Should the perceived threat overshadow all other domestic and international concerns for Americans? Here a consideration of how our perception of this threat is shaped (see 1) is warranted. And even if the threat is great, we must consider the questions of whether we do not already possess the capacity to repel it within the structure of our current Democracy, or whether we must change the system, perhaps irreversibly, to address.
I suppose I’d be more likely to view AL’s positions as worthy of further consideration if he were able to demonstrate a better appreciation of the complexity of these issues and more tolerance for differing viewpoints. But so far I’m not convinced.
Sigh. Glen Wishard’s idea is one of those ideas that’s just too beautiful to ever happen in this world… shame.
Andy #9,
IE just ate my response; perhaps that’s a good thing. Short recap: The Left-Dems’ problems on national security aren’t based on information dissemination–it’s now straightforward to track what people say and how they vote. It’s based on their actual ideologies and positions. While the world is a more tragic place than the neocons imagine, its dangers and complexities are quite beyond John Kerry’s ken.
Elections: Republicans and Democrats tend to cheat and game the system in different ways, so each party can arrange standards of conduct in order to be shocked, shocked by the other’s misdeeds. A fair overview of the 2000 election is “here.”:http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/Cols/Q&A.html Democrats had grounds to be upset by Bush’s accession to the Presidency. Republicans would have had stronger grounds, had Gore been installed instead.
That’s how things appear to this ex-Democrat.
Andy,
I don’t know how long you’ve been visiting here, but might I suggest you visit the archives before telling A.L. to be more thoughtful. This post hasn’t appeared out of a vacuum.
P.S, I’m still waiting for your risk analysis and what you consider to be a tolerable rate of 9/11 scale events WRT administration fear mongering.
Andy, you’re misreading me; I’ll take some responsibility because it’s my job to get my point across. I’m a single-issue voter – there are others like me, who share my issue (security), and lots of others who have issues of their own (abortion, gun rights, bad schools) who would otherwise be solid Democratic voters – if you don’t view the core of Democratic policy as being unfettered rights to abortions, bans on guns, and schools that exist for the benefit of their employees.
We’re a cluster of individuals who wouldbe very reachable by a Democratic party that could talk intelligently about values, as opposed to interests (read “this great Kevin Drum post”:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008039.php and weep).
But we’re told instead that the “base” – the Kossacks – represent the “real” beliefs of the voters, but that somehow the evil GOP keeps blocking the message. That’s a delusional position, factually. We’re told – when we disagree with the “base” on war, abortion, guns, or schools – that we’re “traitors” or “tools” or that we’ve been “brainwashed” by Karl Rove. I’ll argue tax policy with most Republicans, and they may think I’m wrong – but they (with very few exceptions) don’t think I’m a traitor, tool, or brainwashed.
So let’s make it clear – I want my Party back. I’m happy to tolerate – and debate with – people who disagree with me on specific issues, as long as we share a larger constellation of values.
How’s that?
A.L.
AL:
As a Southern Democrat of the original type (hail, James Jackson!), I agree with you. We’re closer to the ground that has been the Party’s own for most — and the most successful — of its years.
The Democratic Party is a high and fine name, belonging to a high and fine tradition. It’s a mistake to yield it over to such folks as are now driving it from the uttermost left. It is, frankly, too good for them.
“Viscerally, I’m a Democrat”
No you’re not, you’re a liberal. They are most emphatically not the same thing.
“We need two parties”
Maybe so, maybe no, but there’s no concomitancy between needing two parties and needing one of them to be the Democratic party you describe (which is the only one that exists) — the party of union leaders instead of labor; of teacher’s unions instead of students; of PI attorneys instead of the injured. I could go on and on, but today’s democrats have made it clear that their constituents are professional organizers, not the “little guy”.
You want a strong second party? Start one. Your old one is moribund beyond repair.
A.L.: “We need a party of business and one of labor; of responsibility and of charity; of growth and of restraint. I like business, responsibility and growth. But my heart is in labor, charity, and restraint.”
Unfortunately our political class likes money, and their hearts are in power. All the rest of the stuff is of purely utilitarian interest, like so many plastic sporks at a picnic.
And you Democrats ought to know, my friend, because your party stood by and watched while the far left totally betrayed and abandoned the political cause of Labor (or as the left liked to call them: the Hardhats, Rednecks, and Racists) while you guys called union members ingrates and traitors for voting Republican.
Of course Republicans aren’t going to save the unions, and they’re not that great for business, either. But not enough people want a Working Class Politics that’s yoked shoulder to shoulder with abortion, secularization, and anti-Americanism.
I liked the Kevin Drum Post on values, but I think that its unfortunate that from a lengthy article in the American Prospect he quotes an example of a Democrat using his religion to justify his stance on the death penalty. Not that there’s anything wrong with that position, but I fear that we might be moving towards awkward, forced homilies to God. The AP had a larger canvass than public piety.
It reminds me too much of the staged hunting trips that Chicago politicians take to downstate Illinois each election cycle. I am not sure any votes have been won by exhibiting one’s lack of experience with firearms, but I am sure the “fakeness” of the event has helped persuade some that the Chicagoan can’t be trusted.
Otherwise, I think that AP article deserves a lot of attention in the blogoshpere.
The only way to get the government you want is to shrink it. The more favors to hand out the more hands held out for the favors.
Progressive taxation is the problem, not the solution.
Right now we have two partys. One talks bigger government and delivers when it has the opportunity. The other party talks smaller government and delivers the opposite.
An unfortunate situation.
So given those facts which party’s feet are you going to hold to the fire? The big government party who lives up to its billing or the small government party that has lost its way?
BTW the more progressive the taxation the bigger incentive for the rich to lobby for favors. If every one is paying the same % it is harder to ask for favors.
It is the same old deal. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If you want 75,000 more troops in the field you will need an Army larger by 200,000.
Congress recently authorised an increase of 80,000 in our armed forces.
I have no problem with secularization, or abortion.
It is the anti-Americanism I can’t abide.
Secularization – religion should be none of the government’s business. Such an attitude strengthens religion.
Abortion – I’m against vagina police unless I get to be Chief Inspector.
======================
It used to be the Dems at least stood for the persecuted. So where are they on the persecution of users of Unpatented Drugs? MIA
I note in the above url the corrupt nature of the drug war. It is in part rent seeking by the drug companies. Talk about corruption. The drug war is the biggest on going instance of government corruption going on in America today. You down with that?
I note in that respect that my articles on the nature of addiction are no longer getting featured on WoC. New stuff comes out about once a month reinforcing my contention that drugs do not cause addiction. What does? Genetics combined with trauma.
We are having a war on the traumatized. Dems down with that?
AMac: Thanks for the link, but I’ve seen that analysis before. Have you seen “this compendium of analyses?”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000.
AL: “Andy, you’re misreading me…” Well, apparently that makes two of us.
“But we’re told instead that the “base” – the Kossacks – represent the “real” beliefs of the voters, but that somehow the evil GOP keeps blocking the message.”
Two separate issues here, mixed into one.
1) That “the Kossacks – represent the “real” beliefs of the voters”. Of course, the Kossacks do represent the real belief of some…quite a few, actually…voters. So?
2) “..but that somehow the evil GOP keeps blocking the message. That’s a delusional position, factually.”
As my criticism of your annoyance with Atrios and MMfA trying to point out verifiable, factual errors in MSM news reporting on Abramoff donations illustrated, it is far from delusional to think that there is a bias in the news reported through the major outlets. You may not see this, but to dismiss those that do as “delusional” is precisely the kind of behavior you seem to be driven away from.
For example:
“We’re told – when we disagree with the “base” on war, abortion, guns, or schools – that we’re “traitors” or “tools” or that we’ve been “brainwashed” by Karl Rove. I’ll argue tax policy with most Republicans, and they may think I’m wrong – but they (with very few exceptions) don’t think I’m a traitor, tool, or brainwashed.”
I’m not sure who you are referring to when you say “We” here, but I will say that I share a distaste for hardliners (on either side of the political spectrum) who are intolerant of other views and seek to label opposition thinking in the manner you note.
However, until you can walk a mile in my shoes (having traveled to right wing sites such as Polipundit to attempt rational discourse from a liberal perspective) PLEASE to not pretent that this is a problem with “the left”…far, far from it, my friend.
And I have also come under fire for positions I took on liberal blogs. Getting ganged up on is not a pleasant experience, and it especially hurts when its done by people who you think you are close to…politially, socially, whatever. I will note that I come here because, although it can sometimes teeter a bit too close to a pile-on, usually commenters are civil and respectful, and I much admire that quality in people.
However, these negative experiences have not changed my political views AT ALL….I do not consider them valid (large enough) samples of human behavior or opinions to draw any meaningful conclusions from.
I would caution you against this as well.