here's a thought re: the Big Tent and Dem unity

[ulysses]

In view of the threads we've had lately on gay marriage, it struck me (not that this is particularly visionary to anyone else) that the problem with maintaining a big tent party is that individual interests are occasionally directly at odds with each other. By way of example, although I have no interest at all in trying to drum those with religious convictions of whatever kind out of the party and in fact consider them integral to it, there are some whose religious beliefs put them at odds with some of the goals I also consider integral to the party.

So we have an issue that, if you'll pardon the reference, calls for the leadership of someone of Solomonic wisdom and courage.

In an oversimplified nutshell, my problem with the DLC is that, far from no longer nurturing that kind of leader, they've abandoned the idea of Big-Tent Compromise wholesale and instead opted for the "third way" and triangulation. In a compromise, no one gets everything but everyone gets something. In a triangulation (CAFE standards, say), two parties (environmentalists and labor) get screwed entirely and the third party (car company execs) get everything.

It's not coincidence that that third party is normally the one with donation-ready cash in large amounts.

(Actually, a lot of this runs counter to the whole Sloth and Indolence thing in that it's waiting for a Great Leader to bridge the gaps in what should be the left coalition, but I've come to the conclusion that most of us aren't prepared yet for the kind of citizenship required to bridge them on our own.)

So, instead of demanding that people put aside their own legitimate desires and needs for the forseeable future, how do we build a genuine coalition on the left - religious and gay, enviro and worker - and how do we raise up the leadership that can sustain it and actually move the country forward instead of forever playing catchup with conservative attacks on its foundations?