Does the Democratic Party need to restructure..?

[dudeness]

In any political democracy incumbency is a huge advantage..the incumbent holds sway with policy and holds the levers of power and influence..how does a potential opposition counter these advantages?
In my humble opinion the present presidential candidancy process undermines the ability of the Democrats to present a coherent , united policy front to the existing status quo..an alternative might be to do away with the process that puts Democratic candidates at loggerheads, in effect negating each other in the public forum..this has lead to conflicting messages reaching potential voters and causing conflict amongst those that support the party..my proposal would be to establish a clear Democratic Party platform involving all members of the party..rank and file and elected representatives..once the parties direction is clearly established , then any potential candidates have a indisputable understanding of the parties political aims and strategies..the parties policies could then be debated and changed through the processes of a national conference (at intervals to be nominated in the party constitution) involving all members of the party..albiet a simplistic proposal..the leadership of the party would in effect be decided by the parliamentary wing of the party (your elected representatives) and the elected leader would therefore present the parties platform to the public as a united front..this would do away with the damaging process of conflicting messages we see at the present time..

[sweetheart]

1. political party governance

I presume the Democratic party is a corporation like Exxon today, isn't it? I really don't know if there is any governance outside of back room money obligations and favours. I like your proposal as it would put a serious assemblage of interests in play. Also the party can be the sum our all of our interests and greater than the individual parts, rather simply a reflection of the personality of the dear leader.

I recommend a policy framework that supports this: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

If that framework involves reworking the constitution so be it... the state simply cannot pull its promises every time an asset stripper goes bad in office.... somehow the full platform needs to make it in to law instead of good intentions.

I'll think about a platform... some more...

How would the whipping process work with candidates that claimed to be dropping the party line for their constitutency's differences?

[dudeness]

2. candidates would have a clear understanding

of the parties policy in relation to all major issues..this is decided by the parties policy direction driven by its membership..candidates would endorse and promote party policy not individual agendas..hope this answers your question..

[jagguy]

3. a nice idea but...

...no two democrats feel the same way about all points nor can you find two republicans that way either.

It is and has always been such that the eventual candidate is the one that finds that his particular combination to be more in tune with the feeling of the party faithful at that point in time.

It is sad that the candidates opt for the banal negative sniping among their own. I suppose that this is a sign of the deteriorating times as much as a sign of the role of BIG BUCKS in these campaigns.

Your model worked very poorly for the USSR and China. Those were somewhat different situations but I don't think that they would fare any better here.

[sweetheart]

5. THAT is good neocon propaganda

whether you believe it or not, the vibe of it is to keep the democrats from having an ideological spine and organizing for a fight.... as surely AWOL's scum party see's this as a war. In a fight, it is necessary to organize around principal or ye get killed.

I think the dems could use a liberty injection. The only way for a party to shift its image in an image battle is through massive participatory political change, and every movement towards that is healthy... so to poo poo it as "satan's work" stinks more of the USSR and China. Party manifesto's are healthy, even if they have to be wooly to keep coalitions.

[sangh0]

9. Why, lookee here!

Yesterday, in a thread about libertarianism, sweetheart criticized me for pointing out how his policies were right-wing and identical to the RNC's.

Today, in another thread, sweetheart does something similar, and then goes even further, saying those who disagree (actually, he says "poo poo" to demonize his opponents as childish) are doing "satan's work" (which makes his intent to "demonize" explicit)

[sweetheart]

13. chuckle chuckle

nudge nudge. You can seek to label me, but i am just a sweetheart to piss you off and be your loyal opposition. I am very clear that by being radical, you can always call my intent in to question, but that is my writers perogative... you get to be the judge.

[sangh0]

14. No comment on your hypocrisy?

I'm not surprised

[dudeness]

6. valid points jagguy..

but i am certainly not advocating a soviet or chinese model..purely and simply i am proposing a party platform driven from the grassroots membership that would encompass all points of view within the democratic movement ..from what i read on a regular basis on this site , the intellectual properties required to propel forward a party that represents the majority of US citizens exists..i find the analogy between rank and file ownership of party policy and the perception that this would lead to a soviet style dictactorship disturbing..what i am proposing is a form of democracy designed to subvert any such system..thanks for your reply..

[jagguy]

10. Isn't the primary process doing exactly what you want ?

The people listen to what the candidates say and express their favor with votes as to who best represents their ideals. The only difference I see is that you would want this platform to be consistant across the land. The problem with that is that the people over here have different ideals than the people over there. Their candidates deserve the opportunity to represent their own people's concerns dont they ? The concerns of city dwellers will never match rural folks. You have to compromise nationally and to some extent state-wide.

I just don't think its reasonable to form one platform for all. It would only serve to alienate everyone.

[sangh0]

11. Yes, it is

This subject is just a distraction, used to disparage the Dems, and to promote right-wing ideas. In this case, the right-wing idea is to form an ideologically cohesive party because our diversity is one of our greatest strengths. Make the party adhere to one set of positions, and you make a king of those who set those policies, kings that can be bribed and controlled.

[dudeness]

15. I believe you may have missed my point..

"The people listen to what the candidates say and express their favor with votes as to who best represents their ideals"..thats fine if you are actually opposing parties within the system...what you have at the moment is candidates from the same side selling different messages ..this must send a clear message that democratics are fragmented and not at all solid or for that matter have a clear policy base..you also state that different candidates represent city dwellers or rural folk..therefore rural folk never actually receive any representation due to population of these areas..i do believe policy can be consistent across the party and across the nation..lets talk big picture stuff..health..education..defence..these are issues any half decent political party has an agenda for and places them at the forefront of the party platform..I want to see policy not personality..

[leftofthedial]

4. one approach would be for someone

I don't know who, maybe a Dean, maybe someone else

to form a liberal-to-center coalition, that includes the DNC, the Greens and Socialists et al, much like the Reagan coalition between social conservatives (Falwell) and the fiscal conservative "country club" republicans covered the center-to-right. This, and the neocon-VRWC disinformation wars, started a momentum in Murkan politics that has been swinging ever rightward ever since.

Such a left-to-center coalition would, I believe, win every national election handily. The Repugs have moved so far to the right that their base is only about 20% - 30% of voters.

Then, within the coalition, the factions can fight over how far left to go on which policies.

Instead, we have center and slightly left-of-center mainstream Democrats alienating the energized liberal base to their left and no one can muster a consistent 40% to beat the Repugs. In my view, the centrist Democrats need to commit to some liberal ideals that are to the left of where they have been voting, and the puritan leftists need to recognize that far left orthodoxy is a sure losing strategy. They need to do this without abandoning the center or the left. That's why I think a coalition of left parites (Greens and Socialists) and centrist parties (the DNC) could possibly seize the big part of the bell curve of American politics.

[Ardee]

7. replace the current leadership

those who lead are held responsible for failures and may claim the successes. Considering that there have been no successes and a bushel basket full of failures it is obvious that the democrats need a change of leadership.

That the democrats were once the party of a broad spectrum of political beliefs, one in which those on the right and those on the left felt at home within is fact. That the party has, after 9/11 especially, become rather cowardly in its silence, has ousted Gore and made leftists feel unwanted, has become a rather restrictive club these days (no liberals need apply) is also rather obvious.

I fully expect the convention to be a model of throwback politics, with backroom deals ,backstabbing and political assassinations being the rule there as the DLC cracks the whip and insists upon its own candidate.

[Yupster]

8. Two concerns

With your suggestion.

1. There is a good reason why each party drafts a platform every four years, and then the platforms are never spoken of again. Neither party wants to speak of them. The problem is that each party is made up of such diverse groupings that publicizing what they stand for would cause fights within the party.

An example for the Republicans would be the publicizing of the complete ban on abortions would alienate the country club Republicans who worry about their poor little Judith and that pig of a boyfriend of hers.

An example for the Democrats would be support for gay marriage, which could alienate Teamsters and hispanic catholics.

Instead of the risk, each side writes their platform, and then hides it under the rug never to be heard from again.

2. The problem with having congressmen decide anything is that congressmen aren't really elected. Districts are so gerrymandered today that of the 200 Democratic congressmen, probably 150 of them are basically un-opposed for reelection, or face token opposition. You want these entrenched politicians making decisions on who will run the party? The only people they pay have to pay attention to is their money men.

My suggestion is the Democrats need a type of Contract With America.

Print up a list of 6 or 8 things that all the groups can agree on and tell America, if you put us in charge, we will try to do these six specific things.

[dudeness]

16. I agree wholeheartedly Yupster

contract with america..its called party policy..its adopted by the party through the democratic processes and is what we stand for..eg..if elected we will introduce universal health care..thats a policy or contract if you will..restructure often involves pain and gerrymandering must be sorted out ..so as people get the best representatives not just party hacks..

[waggawagga]

19. You Got That Right

I think the Democrats have gotten lazy over the past ten years because the system favors gerrymandering. The "money men" aren't the only problem. Democrats have lost some of their ability to sell their ideas (most senators and congressmen don't have to do this to get reelected).

Forget about party platforms, caucuses, and so on. These mean nothing in the modern age. The only way a party can sell a set of political ideas is to win the White House (it's really the president who sets the agenda, perhaps Democrats in Congress should defer more when someone in their party is elected, Clinton didn't have an easy time during his first two years).

In terms of building public support for a set of ideas, though, I think Democrats have to face that they've been totally whipped by the GOP for the past twenty years. People like Limbaugh matter. So do authors like Coulter and Hannity. Democrats can gag but the most influential Republicans today are probably people like Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.

Democrats have to compete in this game. I think they're just starting to figure that out. And it won't be easy because they don't have the money and media corporations behind them.

I'll offer my own thoughts about how Democrats might do this. First, they should derive no comfort from the lukewarm liberal bias which exists in the media (which, I'll suggest, does exist but at this point favors platitudes rather than arguments and keeps the most divisive issues off the table). Don't treat these people as allies.

Second, cultivate the proven talents and the young up and comers who are outside of the permanent political class. If you look at how conservatives created these media personalities they didn't tap politicians--and if they tried this wouldn't have worked.

They steered money and opportunity to people who were already working in the media, often at a low level, but had deep convictions. I don't think there's anything fake, for instance, about Limbaugh. The hidden story of Limbaugh's success was how wealthy conservatives built his name recognition and steered opportunity his way.

And it's only hidden if you don't want to see it. There are so many conservative media personalities who are like this now it's kind of easy to see that they have "farm teams", "trial runs", and massive investment when it looks as though someone might break through (eg. who doubts that there is some wealthy group who is buying a lot of books by these people).

Democrats have to play the same game. Find the people who are not part of the political system who believe in liberal ideas, know how to sell them, and then back them.

The market is there. Michael Moore made a very popular film this year. Joe Conason is my pick for the liberal Limbaugh, meaning the guy who could do the job of being the mad dog Democrat, and with integrity. If Hillary Clinton sold even a fraction of the books being reported (I'm skeptical but even so) that means people will buy better ones. Its amazing what Al Franken has done by himself.

Organize, push these people, and find the next generation who will do a better job. This is where the Democrats are being beaten. This is not a job politicians can do.

Finally, one way to measure how much of an effect this has had. Ask rank and file Democrats why they describe themselves as this. What are their issues?

If their answers are reactive (eg. "I hate George Bush") that signals trouble. A party can't win with a negative philosophy. Or they can win elections but they can't govern well. This is the Democratic deficit. It's not the case that liberals have no ideas but they haven't been selling them, in many cases they're underdeveloped, and Republicans have been capitalizing on this void.

Lastly, anyone who dreams of movement on what I'll call "big ticket" issues (eg. universal health care, gun control, the war) should really care about this. Because even if a sympathetic Democrat is elected president (eg. Dean) the public support for movement on these kinds of issues is not there. It wasn't there during the Clinton administration.

I think a lot of the GOP's success is just a matter of weak ideas winning when they don't have to compete with other ideas (if the Democrats got into this game that could turn it around).

[dudeness]

20. thanks wagga wagga..you an aussie??

you offer some very valid points..definately worthy of further discussion..perhaps I am a political dinosaur..but i still believe in caucus, policy and terms such as accountability..you allude to GOP influence within the media, that will be as you say very difficult to overcome..lastly why would you believe that no public support exists for universal health care and education etc..I would have thought the opposite..

[Atlant]

12. Restructure? Hell, the Democratic Party needs to declare moral bankruptcy!

90% of all the bad stuff that's happened could have been forestalled
had they had the courage of their convictions. Instead, we got decades
of wishy-washy stances from the Democrats, leading directly to today's
sorry state of affairs.

Atlant

[AP]

17. I am baffled by talk like this.

If not for the theft of 2000, Democrats would be riding so high. The worst thing that has happened to Dems was that Al Gore was a terrible campaigner. It was amazing that they were as close to victory as they were. And, my god, look how bad the media is, and the Dems are STILL in contention. Obviously, the Democrats are doing something right, and are very close to winning back the white house.

And all I hear all day from all the candidates except one is some of the most brilliant, insiteful analysis of the current situation in America.

I hardly think you need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. So long as there are two dominant parties, and so long as you need about 50% of the vote to win an election, the Democratic party as it is today is going to be a pretty fair representation of the left side of the political spectrum.

I'm not saying it couldn't be better. But it could be a whole hell of a lot worse.

[dudeness]

18. which one AP?

is not giving continual brilliant , insightful analysis..

[Atlant]

21. The Democrats have not been "riding high" since at least the '80s.

They haven't had a clear message since then.

They haven't really governed since then, even when they held one
part of our government or the other.

Clinton was, arguably, the most liberal Republican president we've
ever had, but he was no Democrat.

And that's why Democrats were completely marginalized in 2002;
the chickens came home to roost in "The Party that No Longer
Stands for Much of Anything".

Atlant