Why the Democratic party is divided: from the New Deal to No Deal

[Q]

Some don't want to believe it or think it's unimportant...but the Republican party went through in the 80s and 90s exactly the same thing the Democrats are experiencing right now. We can learn much from the fate of the GOP.

Republican moderates and true conservatives were faced with a takeover of their party by those who didn't just want to lead the party in a new way...but take it in an entirely new direction. It was in the 90s when the once-proud Republican party was finally transformed from a party willing to work with the Democratic party for the good of the nation into a party that believed winning was everything and that their opponents had to be crushed.

The Democratic party is now confronted with the same type of takeover from factions within that don't just want to lead in a new way...but take the party in an entirely new direction. Democrats need to decide if they want to suffer the same fate as the GOP and allow a small coalition of 'new' Democrats to determine the direction of the party.

It seems to me that part of the reason for so much derision between the Moderates and Progressives/Liberals is because the New Democrats haven't been forthright about where they want to take the party. This has caused suspicion, doubt and questioning of motives of the New Democrats.

The Democratic party appears to be divided into two main camps:

- Social DEMOCRATS: Liberals and Progressives representing the ideals of the New Deal social welfare.

- Corporate DEMOCRATS: New Democratic 'moderates' and 'centrists' of the No Deal corporate welfare.

The division of the party centers around which of these two camps will prevail in leading the party. Informed consent and a consensus on the agenda plays a pivotal role.

The New Democrats claim that the sad shape of the party is the result of liberals and progressives taking the party in the wrong direction up to the point where they took control in the 90s.

The Social Democrats claim that the New Democrats have abandoned many traditional Democratic values and principles and have thus alienated the base of the party: The working class. The poor and disenfranchised. Women and Minorities.

The problem is how to avoid the fate of the New Republican party and their no dissent within the ranks, march in lockstep mentality. The GOP fell into ruin when they drove true Conservatives out of their party and allowed far-right factions to take control and 'win by any means necessary'.

And like their counterparts in the New Republican party...the New Democrats don't seem to feel the need to compromise or debate the issues with the Liberals and Progressives they have supplanted. The New Democrats must stop giving only lip service to the concept of a 'big tent' and actually put it into practice. Instead of trying to shove Liberals and Progressives out of the party like the Neocons did to Conservative Republicans...the New Democrats must agree to debate the issues in the public forum and come to a consensus with the Social Democrats before presuming to set the agenda.

Can it be done? Your thoughts?

[brindis_desala]

1. Incorrect analysis

The Democratic party was splintered in the 1970's when the Blue Dogs rebelled against Carter's "soft" approach to the Russians which led to the Scoop Jackson wing and the rise of the neocons. Simultaneously the far right was pouring millions of private dollars into right wing think tanks and organizing the conservative Bible belt Christians disturbed by the civil rights movt and 70's liberalism, but it was Tip O'Neil as House Speaker and the boll weevil Democrats who delivered their own blue collar base to the Republicans and allowed corporate lobbyists to undercut the social responsibilities of government.

[moggie12]

7. hey, I was gonna say something like that

Only you said it better. Can you elaborate on that part about "Tip O'Neill ... and Boll weevil Dems who delivered their own blue collar base to Repubs and allowed corporate lobbyists....." What eactly do you mean? How does Tip figure into it?

[brindis_desala]

10. ironically Tip allowed the lobbyists in

because he wanted to let the "upstart peanut farmer know who ran the show in Washington". Carter, seen as threat to the good old boys having not "risen through the ranks", could not get any legislation through his own Democratic Congress. House Democratic leaders initiated meetings with the chief executives of ten giant American corporations, "deans" of the Business Roundtable composed of the heads of 200 of the largest corporations in America who were against a number of Carter's proposals. Speaker O'Neill and Majority Leader allowed them to kill off any legislation they did not like. Undercutting Carter and betraying the party's ideals in the process. To add salt to the wound when Reagan was "elected" these same turncoats groveled for the "Gipper" rubber-stamping every reactionary proposal he desired and allowing the ascendancy of the modern republican corporatocracy.

[welshTerrier2]

8. why not go back earlier than Carter ??

how about the Gene McCarthy Democrats splitting from the Humphrey wing in 1968 ???

for a great read on the events of 1968, check this out:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1553/c68chron.html

[punpirate]

2. If the issue is a stronger democracy...

... then the social Democrats should be looking carefully at the results of the takeover of the Republican Party by a small, ideologically-driven group. That has demonstrably diminished democratic institutions in this country.

If they allow their party to be captured in the same way, by a group which shares some of the same ideological planks as the neo-conservatives, then, regardless of which party is in power, corporatism (and therefore, soft fascism) has been achieved.

In fact, we are not at a turning point, but rather are at a point of acknowledgement of the obvious--that the Democratic Party has been following closely behind the rightward move of the Republicans for about twenty years. The so-called neo-liberals (a gross misnomer, if there ever was one) now simply want their views legitimized and adopted as policy--an act which is symbolized by the party's choice of chair.

To my mind, such an endorsement signals the end of a government in tension between the rights of common people and the desires of the wealthy implicit in corporatism. The New Deal notions of the country's wealth, in part, belonging in common trust will be history, and the country will come to resemble, in time, a banana republic--overarmed, heavily in debt, fearful of everything, populated by only the rich and the poor, with no middle class, which, as Jefferson said, is the bedrock of democracy.

Cheers.

[qazplm]

3. I think that's a false dichotomy

but then again there have been a lot of those it seems.

some sides make it corporate vs. noncorporate as you have
others make it far left v. centrists
others make it true democrats v. DINO's

but from my point of view, there are several "factions" in the Democratic Party right now and they cut across two spectrums...how to win, and what to believe:

on how to win you have:

1. we need to be more different from the republican dems
2. we need to be more moderate dems
3. we need to move to the right on some issues dems

on the what to believe you have the more traditional breakdown:

a. left
b. center
c. right

Interesting thing is not all of group a is in group 1, or not all of group 2 has group b in it. There is a mixture.


I consider myself a fairly liberal democrat. Not fully to the left but definitely left of center, dont consider myself a centrist. Yet I struggle with whether we should go more to the left and oppose more, or whether we should pick our battles more carefully, or whether we simply ran into a wartime president that was going to be hard to beat in the end no matter what.

[welshTerrier2]

6. excellent ... very similar to the model i defined ...

sorry i didn't see your post before i made mine ... in my post, i referred to the "two planes" which is exactly the model you defined ...

i do make some different interpretations of the model however ... for example, i referenced a statement someone made to me a couple of days ago ... they said "there is no morality in politics" ... their intent was that it is never OK to put beliefs and issues ahead of the importance of winning ... this point of view, which i'm afraid has many followers, is not reflected in your "winning options" ... in fact, the person making the statement also said that by choosing ANY position on issues, we alienate voters ... they said it is not for the Party to take positions on the issues ... "we should be a "big tent"" ...

i also don't fully agree with your theme that there is a "mixture" ... i do think that those in the center are much more supportive of the win at any cost approach ... they seem to feel that those on the left are idealogues who put "their selfish rigid ideology" ahead of the Party's best interests ... what a bunch of nonsense that is ...

anyway, i think the model you've defined is very useful ... we can't only examine differences in the Party along ideological lines ... we also have to look at strategies and tactics ...

[welshTerrier2]

4. ideologies versus tactics

i frequently see allegations made that the social democrats put ideology ahead of winning ... this is intended as a criticism and is a charge usually made by centrists (corporate democrats to use your jargon) ... one person even told me that "politics has nothing to do with morality" ... sorry, i just couldn't get my head around that one ...

so, it seem there is not one but two factors to consider as to how the Party is divided ...

on one plane, we have the traditional left-center divide ... but there's this second plane that seems to divide the Party between those who perceive themselves as pragmatists (the big tenters) and those on the left they label as ideologues ...

of course, when centrists label those on the left as ideologues, the intention is to suggest that putting beliefs ahead of winning is somehow a bad thing ... they often overstate the real positions of those on the left by trying to ascribe to them a rigid inflexibility and an extremism ... these generalizations are rarely supported with the facts ... they are little more that "debate tactics" ...

anyway, there does appear to be a divide between those who want to win regardless of what must be compromised and those who believe it's not worth fighting if we're not fighting for something worthwhile ...

it remains a mystery to me why it is that those in the center also happen to more often adhere to the "stretch the tent too thin win at any cost" philosophy ... nor do i think they have demonstrated that taking strong stands on the issues, or left leaning stands, is not a way to win ... they regularly point out the bad old McGovern days ... but to say that the Party cannot lean left because it fared poorly in the past is not adequate ... many differences exist from the days of McGovern ...

the wishy-washy center has no right to claim they are, or will be, more successful than those on the left ... their track record does damage to that defense ... and this last election was most instructive ... call it the media, call it the right-wing meme, but it was not easy for Democrats to make a strong case on Iraq, terrorism or even tax cuts because the public's perception was that the differences between the two parties was not that significant ...

one last point ... this business of the corporate Democrats trying to "shove Liberals and Progressives out of the party" ... from what i've seen, at least here on DU, this is not at all the case ... i see great disdain shown to progressives who announce they are leaving the Party ... the sad truth is, what the corporatists really want is for the left to be disorganized, powerless, voiceless but to have them remain in the Party and continue to contribute their time and their money ... and therein lies the rub ... it's coming to a head and the risks are very, very high ... ABB held the left this year ... it will not hold in 2008 without major reforms ... a rupture in the thinly stretched tent will do great harm ... of course, sometimes the old structures must be broken down before they can be rebuilt ...

[marcologico]

5. The big division IMO is red-state/blue-state. When Dems lost the South

they lost the WH and it looks like everything else with it. Getting Southern voters back on board is not going to be easy. I think that's why Frost (from TX) might be the way to go for DNC chair.

[dolstein]

9. Wow, you got it COMPLETELY wrong

You conveniently ignore the issues that actually ripped the New Deal coalition apart -- social/cultural issues and military issues (hawks versus doves). If you want to know why the Democratic party has been largely wiped out in the South (outside of urban areas) and the rural West, it sure as hell isn't economic issues.

[Hidden Stillness]

11. A Few Divides

The Democratic Party can be considered divided, a few different ways (among others):

1) The break between the "Greatest Generation" FDR/middle class/pro-America/generally Hawk/"white male labor union hardhat" type, and the group that started to challenge it during the late 1960s-early 1970s, the women/blacks/poor/"hippie Doves"/radicals/dropouts, who considered the first group to be hypocrites. A largely generational conflict. This is basically the same situation we still have, the remnants of it. This was a different era, though. I still remember when (1970s, for example) you called somebody a "liberal" then, and it meant a tepid, "establishment" kind of person who did not want any real, radical change, as opposed to now, under the influence of the hysterically archcon media, which has "liberal" meaning almost "Communist." The "hippies" and etc. eventually led to some really vapid "causes": Legalize Marijuana, stupid shit like that. There was a huge schism, still present, when women first established a presence in the Party--seniority rules, etc. had to be changed, our concerns were added to the official platform for the first time, we were financially supported as candidates etc.

2) The total split between the civil rights progressives, right up the great Lyndon Johnson, and the South/Dixiecrats, who then turned Republican. We still fight this fight as to whether we should not be so progressive, or instead decide if we need the South at all to win. This is the huge realignment, still sorting itself out.

3) The divide between the semi-liberal, middle class Democrats, civic minded, who need help from the government and the Party, and who want an equitable country, and, on the other hand, the corporate, DLC type of the 1990s+, who don't really want to help anybody, but only advance themselves with promotional campaigns.

[Dr Fate]

12. If they would listen to their base instead of running from us...

...then it would not be divided.

The problem is that they care more about "swing voters" and how the media will present them than they care about really doing somthing about Bush.

We would be a strong party if the leaders at the top would fight and give everyone somthing to believe in.