Here’s what I said several posts ago:
“I’m not even sure I’ll stay in the Democratic Party. Atrios recently had a good bit about core principles. Add me to the growing number who’ll bolt if the Dems abandon those principles.”
Here’s what a Prominent Local Democrat had to say:
“What we need to understand is that while we may each have ideas we believe in that will not soon become public policy, we can still work together to make sure that our common vision is implemented . . . it is not hard to see that nearly any Democrat is preferable to nearly any Republican for almost any office. Now is not the time to be deluding ourselves with the false promise of another party. Now is the time to be even more unified and disciplined and effective.”
…and…
“[Congressional Democrats] are not agreeing that torture and indefinite detention are OK. They are recognizing the regrettable reality that the Republicans have the votes because they won the election and that if Gonzalez went down, Bush would only replace him with someone even worse. Of course, the Republicans didn't win by much, to be sure, and there are going to be opportunities for the Democrats to stop some of the worst of Bush's agenda, if we stick by them.”
I think that gives you the essence of Prominent Local Democrat’s argument. Here’s the problem:
A recent New York magazine article stated that many top Democratic contributors were threatening to close their pocketbooks if congressional Democrats didn’t show that they “understood what the red states were saying in the election.” In other words, top contributors are threatening to withhold money if office-holders don’t move rightward. Apparently, this is a tactic that has worked before. New York magazine states that these same contributors did the same thing after the 2002 election . . . and congressional Dems did indeed move to the center, until Howard Dean demonstrated that true progressives were another source of money.
ReplyDeleteHere’s my summary of the kos / PLD position (Correct me if I’m wrong): Continue some vague effort “within the party” while loudly declaiming that we’ll never, ever leave.
I’m confused. How will that tactic convince the centrist / Democrat In Name Only / Republican Lites to ever toe our line? WE'RE TELLING THEM THAT THEY HAVE OUR VOTE NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO!
That’s the worst thing we can ever do in a democracy. In a democracy, all we have is the vote. The only way to get what we want is to let the politicians know they have to work for it.
Prominent Local Democrat also throws Howard Dean at us, but I don’t think he quite gets Howard:
“Democrats have the right beliefs to win; we just execute a poor public relations plan. And, despite the enormous improvement in our ground game, the Republicans executed a more effective strategy. Republicans are far more successful because they work in a more unified, disciplined way with local supporters, especially with their base."
Let me highlight the important concepts from my position and Dean’s quote:
- “core principles/if the Dems abandon those principles”
- “have the right beliefs”
- “especially with their base”
Progressives are our base. The Republican strategy that works is to work in a disciplined way with their base. They don’t abandon the base and then demand that the base get in line against some mythical future when they might get some of what they want. If you think it works this way, you need to pay more attention to what happens whenever Bush or any Republican starts making noises about throwing Palestinians a bone. Here’s a hint: the religious right freaks out. And the Republican stops making those noises.
Ken Conner of the Family Research Council said this in May, 2004: “If Republican leaders cannot mount a vigorous defense of marriage, then pro-family voters perhaps should begin to reconsider their loyalty to the party.”
Did that work? Did Republicans start bashing gays 24/7 until November? Did Karl Rove get anti-gay-marriage initiatives placed on ballots in 11 key states? Are these initiatives partially credited with winning the election for Bush?
Mm-hm. So, when PLD and kos and others demand party loyalty, I’ll have to impolitely decline. In all the grand history of the Democratic party, we tried party unity once. That’s enough for me. I’ll enjoy our heated arguments on this point—even more so since I know that it’s the ability to argue, the ability to disagree that makes us all the best of liberals.
SPACEDARK
I haven't been active in party polictics for the same reasons that now tempt you to leave the Dems, but I can understand both sides of the argument. Do we attempt to change the party from within or try to start something new? Moving to another party runs the risk of fracturing the progressive community to the point that we'll never stand up to the CEOs and Flat Earthers on the right. Sticking it out with the Dems means struggling with the powerful forces that are dragging the party to the right. We progressives are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
ReplyDeleteI went to a meeting of the local Green Party a few years ago. It was two other guys and myself and it was the only meeting I attended. For all I know that was the last gathering of the Panhandle Greens. Getting anything more than just a few people together in a 3rd party would be a massive undertaking. That's not to say that it wouldn't be worthwhile. For the sake of argument, let's say we start a brand-new politcal party in the Texas Panhandle. Here in the reddest-of-the-red the Democrats are almost completely marginalized so there would be little to lose at any level. So, who will lead the party? What would our core principles be? How would we make those principles relevant to the people of the Panhandle? How would we increase membership? What would it even be called?
Compare all that to the option of using the existing local Dem infrastructure and starting a sort of Democratic revival using the very same principles we would use in the new party. The same "we've got nothing to lose" mentality applies to this option as well. For me, the first step in forming an answer will be attending the Potter/Randall Democrats meetings and hearing what they have to say.
Blogarillo, you summarize the apparent options clearly. Of course, I'm always resistant to either/or fallacies of the "If you died today would you go to Heaven or Hell" variety. I'm not so much advocating for a third party as I am loudly keeping all my options open. From a practical perspective, reminding politicians that they have to work for our vote seems more effective than informing them that they can count on us no matter what they do. Secondly, I am extremely disturbed by the groupthink going on in Democratic circles. It is a) illiberal b) counterproductive, and c) not much fun.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, it's a very good idea to go to the PRDC. I've been to several meetings, and I can tell you that, at the very least, you will begin to understand in microcosm what we are up against if we choose to attempt to reform the party from inside.