We No Longer Have a "Cause" & It is Why We Continue to Lose

[DemocracyInaction]

In the 60', 70's, etc. the Democrats fought 'causes' and the result was that we ruled the Congress with an iron fist (Republicans need not apply). Things changed.

The Republicans smartened up and not only embraced 'causes' like anti-abortion or anti-gays, they declared the Mother of All Causes----they draped a cross around their neck and declared themselves the Party of Jesus (hard act to follow)! BUT, all during that time, the Democrats became devoid of causes. In fact, so many of our leaders ran from such a concept because they feared it sounded too 'liberal'. And we have paid dearly for it.

If we don't find a 'cause' which we can endlessly bang on for the next four years, we cannot simply show up in an election year and convince the American people "we love ya, baby"....not when the Republicans push their causes 24/7 day after day and year after year.

There are causes to fight. Example (and of priceless value to the Dems): Pound daily on the need for a uniform, Federally funded voting system throughout the nation with vastly increased voting stations AND the state of the art means of recording sound paper trails. There is no reason for only 1% or less of our leaders pushing this issue while the others pretend it doesn't exist. This is only one suggestion of a 'cause'. The Party bigshots need to meet and select something to 'stand for' or, to paraphrase an old adage: "if they don't start standing for something--anything--the people will continue to fall for the Republican highly crafted con job".

[tk2kewl]

1. Other causes that dems cant lose on if they would just stick to their guns

Universal heath care
Environmental protection and alternative energy initiatives

[heretheycome]

4. Now you guys are finally getting it!

There was a post before the holidays that I replied to about putting up a manger on public property. I chose not to fight that fight and advised others to move on. I got hammered and flamed.

Instead of looking like the anti Christ to some, move on take on things that really matter. Universal health care, our environment, creating jobs at home.

[tk2kewl]

9. it is also important to tie these things together

the "can't lose" issues need to be intertwined so that accomplishing one causes the other to inevitably follow.

alternative energy industries = jobs
health care = stronger families
jobs = stronger families
jobs = more revenue for SS

etc

[coloradodem2005]

7. Social Security.

That is another one.

[info being]

13. Then why did DK lose? That was his platform.

[tk2kewl]

17. the party as whole needs to unite around these ideas

and not allow the DLC to torpedo the strategy for some water-downed corporate-friendly version

[info being]

22. So when we understand the reason why they are reluctant to do so...

We understand the root cause of the problem. We should ask ourselves this question with an open mind because we may not like the answers.

[Warpy]

15. You'll have to dump the DLC

who are oversensitive to whinorrhea from the rich and the corporate.

[tk2kewl]

19. agreed... see my post above

[babylonsister]

2. How about the war?

I think much more emphasis should be put on the mess we're in in Iraq and the resulting casualties, American and Iraqi. And let's not forget all the terrorists that are being created due to our instigation/involvement. This is a problem that is not going to go away any time soon, if ever. Will it take us years and 50,000+ body bags before "they" see the light?

[Wapsie B]

3. One thing that kept coming back to me

was listening to people like Randi Rhodes. As articulate as she is when someone asked her why they should vote for Kerry, she went on a rant about how bad chimp was for the country. Even people like her couldn't put out a coherent message as to why people should vote Democratic this time around. They only talked about the evils of repugs.

[gulfcoastliberal]

5. You'd think social security would be such a cause

Sadly, the dems leading voice on the issue suddenly died, so now what? You'd think the party that built SS would embrace the institution as one hell of a cause.

What does the DLC think of ending SS?

[bloom]

6. I would like to see the Dems be the People's party

as opposed to being another Corporate party.

Kucinich was on the right track. He was the only the candidate who really got it. IMO.


That one thing would take care of the Healthcare issue, environmental issues, the military industrial complex issue, the taxation issue, social security (not being privatized), free up money for education (and making it more equally funded)..... also - the "Church" is like another corporation.

Separation of church and state. And separation of corporations and state.

[Skidmore]

8. Me,too. However, the pols prefer to rely upon corporations

and lobbyists for campaign monies. Apparently, they didn't learn a major lesson of the last campaign--that the people can be trusted to financially support those who will fight their fight. Neither party trusts the people now, and I certain don't trust them. They haven't earned it.

[bloom]

16. One thing though

if you think about democrats as a collection of people with organizations in probably every county in the country - (unlike the Green party or any other smaller party) on the county-wide level corporations don't have much effect. In the larger cities they might - but most precinct people are not affected by corporate influence.

That is the essence of the party that needs to be harvested. And which needs to exert more influence on the state and national representatives.

[Just Me]

10. Saving the experiment of democracy is a great cause,...

,...I would think.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[forgethell]

14. The trick is

not just to find a "cause", but to find a cause the people will vote for. "Throw the Bastard Out" is not a cause so he's still in there.

Further, it's not enough for them to say they are for "X" cause. People have to believe it. Changing with every wind that blows in the polls will not convince either they people who agree with the position that your are (currently) taking, or those who disagree.

My own theory is that Democratic leaders do not state their actual positions on the issues because they are afraid that they will not get elected. They may be right. But, frankly, I'd rather see them go down in honest flames than drown in the slime of hypocrisy, and still lose.

[starroute]

18. Democratic causes and Republican causes are not alike

The Democratic decline began in the 1970's, when campaign finance reform started weakening the party system.

The Republicans discovered that there was a lot of mileage in single-issue causes with a high scare factor and pushed those incessantly through direct-mail solicitation. Not only did they scam a lot of little old ladies out of their lunch money, but they also built up followings who were convinced that abortion or gay marriage or gun ownership or whatever was the only issue that mattered and who would vote for or against any candidate on the basis of that issue alone.

The Republicans win a lot of elections today thanks to those single-issue constituencies, but at the cost of any ability on their part to plan for the general welfare or to work with the Democrats in a bipartisan manner to get things done.

Democratic causes -- whether a cleanup of the voting system or even national health care -- just don't work like that. You can't scare little old ladies with them because there's no threat involved. You can't develop fanatical constituencies around them. And (because they're real issues and not fake issues) implementing them would take real thought and planning and bipartisan negotiation, which is in kind of short supply these days.

Another difference is that the most obvious Democratic issues all require spending money -- and since Bush has cleverly managed to both bankrupt the nation and create a limitless supply of enemies, there isn't going to be any available money in the foreseeable future. (By contrast, Republican issues, like banning gay marriage or allowing more pollution, don't come with a visible price tag.)

I agree totally that the Democrats need to stand for something again -- but "causes" in the old 1960's sense aren't going to do it.

Perhaps the most useful tack would be to look to the state rather than the federal level, to see what issues people are most strongly motivated by in local elections, and to gradually extract the common denominator in successful Democratic candidacies.

[tk2kewl]

20. very good point

when i said that dems "must stick to their guns" i think i was kind of thinking what you said much more clearly. our "causes" don't easily lend themselves to the simple good-evil caricatures that the right's causes do.

and the money troubles caused by buschCo are truly troubling.

[info being]

21. Having a cause is great, but...

I'm not sure we could do any better than Dennis Kucinich's platform. The problem is that Dems will never get behind such a bold, ideological platform because they'd be implicating themselves for past policies / votes.

Maybe a way to position it is that, "The Republicans have been wrong on these issues...and so have we. Now is time for transformation."

Without a willingness to adopt an approach as radical as renouncing themselves, they'd be unable to put forth any sort of worthwhile platform...regardless of how many great ideas any of us might have.

In other words, I don't think lack of *ideas* is the problem.

[tk2kewl]

24. the ideas arent lacking. it is the support for ideas that is lacking

[info being]

26. I have an idea that would win over the American people

"Register as a Dem and you could win a new MP3 player or new car."

Another winning approach might be, "Vote for me and I'll guarantee you a spot in heaven."

Anything short of that and your message will fall on deaf ears.

[tk2kewl]

27. sad

i know smart people that believe the right wing crap the hear on the tube and claim they don't have the time to research issues.

BTW...
if i am already registered can i still get the mp3 player?

[Grip]

23. They don't support the "workin' man"

Listen to the Charlie Daniels song "What This World Needs Is A Few More Rednecks"

The Dems no longer represent that guy.

All of the Veterans Progams are Dem programs.

All of the pro-union laws are Dem laws.

What happened to this?

Why is it that Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan share the same view on Tariffs? Doesn't this say something about the state of affairs in the Party?

[txaslftist]

25. Let's think of things we can stand for...

this is a good discussion. The republicans have latched on to several "causes" that appeal to their base. Pro-life...but has a single anti-abortion measure really been effective in the face of Roe v. Wade? Anti-gay...but gays can live together, will property to each other and practice a private homosexual lifestyle with impunity in every state in the union (not counting the military). Lower taxes... but spending has only increased, are the American people so dumb as to believe it will not eventually have to be paid for?

In other words, the Republicans can hitch their rhetorical wagon onto any number of causes they have absolutely no intention of honoring, and this wins them votes.

What do we stand for?
I like to think the dems stand for 'the little guy', the wage earner, the small business owner. I like to think we stand for gay rights, affirmative action, gender equality.

I like to think that we are the party closest to personal freedom, whether its drug legalization, gun ownership, freedom from war, freedom from the tyranny of the state. I am a libertarian-democrat, however, so many may not share this view.

I like to think of my party as the party of fiscal responsibility, opposed to reckless and unfunded spending, opposed to robbing the poor to support the rich, opposed to congressional pork, opposed to a mounting deficit, opposed to reckless tax cuts that do not benefit anyone who is not rich.

I like to think that my party supports science and empiricism over dogma and superstition. That we support the rights of religious minorities like we support all minorities. That we support the public schools as places where a common American identity can be added to supplement each individual student's identity, but not supplant it. That we support public schools as places where academic excellence can be obtained, and where the exceptional should be the norm.

I like to think that Democrats reach out to the disadvantaged and attempt to enable them to climb from poverty...in short we are the party of equal opportunity.

We do not need to heap rewards on the rich and successful; their wealth and success is reward enough. Instead they should assist in the betterment of society because they have achieved greater rewards from that society.

The legitimacy of the election, ie- elimination of fraud, is important. The problem is that if we make this a central issue it just looks like sour grapes because we lost an election. This needs bipartisan support to be effective.

This is the ground upon which we have stood. It is firm and solid ground, earthy democratic ground, and it belongs to our party. We should remember this and make sure that everyone remembers this. We are not Republican-Lites.