Serious question here folks. I am very confused about something I've

[acmavm]

noticed lately. This is not a flamebait thread, it's a serious attempt to try to understand a trend I've noticed lately and it is this: is the democratic party in such a bad way that we can't agree on anything or is there some sort of dividing line (age, area of the country, other) that causes us to publically eat our own. Even here.

One of the biggest issues I see is the constant criticism of Howard Dean. And the divide is radical and mean and unfortunately public. Like this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1535369

Anyway, can someone explain this to me? Because I can see these differences preventing us from making progress in 2006.

One last question. Does no one understand that for the first time in a long time the American people are giving generously to the party. We aren't having to grovel to or beg big business because the people the make up the Democratic Party are putting the money where the consciences are again. And that I see is thanks to (in a large part) Howard Dean.

Disclaimer: I am a Clark for President type of person.

[SteppingRazor]

1. I don't really see it as a problem

The fact that we don't all march in lockstep is the beautiful thing about the Democratic Party. Unlike the GOP's "big tent" rhetoric, we actually are. The Democratic Party includes so many different viiews, we're bound to hit some disagreement. Certainly, the more moderate and right-leaning Dems are going to have a problem with Dean's words. So are beltway folks, who have known and worked with Republicans all their professional lives.

But in the end, I think this spirit of disagreement, and then building a consensus is what makes the Democrats great.

[acmavm]

3. Okay, I understand about disagreement. That's no big thing. It's the

fact that 'we' (as in Biden, Lieberfuck, Edwards, Pelosi, and now Obama) are publically criticizing the head of the DNC. And this is just what happened during his campaign. And believe me, it didn't work. Dean supporters are still Dean supporters and people like me, who supported another candidate, have come to greatly admire the man for his guts and determination.

The people I've mentioned above have publically done something that I see as being unforgivable and that is to give credibility to the republican line that we are a disorganized party that has no scruples about taking the 'popular' stance, the one that panders to the right, in order not to offend or annoy. That we're republican-lite. And we have no loyalties at all. It's sort of like as if we were a whole party of Zell Millers.

Howard Dean has brought millions back to the political arena. He's energized them, he's made them care about the future again. It can be said that he's given them hope and the courage to fight again. Even John Kerry failed to give that to the party. He rolled over and played dead right after the election. His promise about ensuring that every person's vote would count was just lip service.

[napi21]

2. Well, I don't like it when I see the Bidens, Edwards' & Pelosi's

speak against him on National TV, becaue it is raw meat for the MSM, but I think, here on DU, even though it is a public place, lots of people feel like they're among friends. It's like having a whole lot of friends over to your house to talk, complain & argue but mostly agree.

[BillZBubb]

4. I agree with your concern.

I think there are two schools of thought here and in the party:

The first believes that we have winning political arguments. If we present those arguments in a well framed manner, we will win elections. People making noisy comments not related to key issues just turn off potential voters. With Bush doing so badly, a reasoned resistance to his policies plus an explanation of ours will succeed.


The second believes we have winning political arguments. But, given Republican control of government, voting, and the corporate media our arguments will not be heard, nor our votes counted. We need people making noise to rise above the static of Michael Jackson, the runaway bride, and the missing blond of the month. The Democrats need to re-introduce themselves not just as reasonable, but also as aggressive fighters for what we believe in. That is the path to success.

I believe the first group has been proven wrong time and again. We need to do to the "conservative" brand what they did to "liberal". Until that happens, we lose.

[On the Road]

5. I Don't See the Disagreement as a Problem

I see the need to lash out at other Democrats as a problem.

[mike_c]

6. I've been wrestling all morning with the same question....

I'm going to propose a partial answer that WILL likely inspire some flames, but it's the only one that really makes sense to me. I'd like emphasize first that it likely only explains some of the ire that many in the party leadership are expressing toward Dean-- Plaid Adder has an eloquent explanation for some of the rest that is undoubedly on the Greatest page by now.

I think it's at least partly selfishness. Pure, raw, unadulterated self-serving politics identical to the selfishness that drives much of the republican political machine. I think many democratic leaders understand that they are as beholden to the same corporate interests and political institutions as most republicans, and that makes them react to many political challanges identically-- because they're ultimately seeking to avoid risk and preserve their own personal status quo. They've got a good thing going-- nice office, loyal staff, great pay and benefits, and a place in the limelight-- that they do not want to risk by working for change. Somewhere along the way they began working for themselves-- at the core-- rather than for their constituents' benefits or for the larger society that they represent.

Dean presents them with a challange. He's rocking the boat. Their instinct for self-preservation fears risk above all things.

They will only support Dean when one of two things happens. First, they'll become vocal supporters if he stops rocking the boat. That's the DLC route to party acceptance. They'll support him when he no longer threatens the status quo because to do otherwise is the riskier course then. The other route is through their own self interest-- they'll become reluctant Deaniacs if they perceive him as their most likely avenue to preserving their own personal political plums. They'll link their careers to Dean's if they regard him as most likely to keep their own boats afloat. Unfortunately, at the moment they fear that risk, and the status quo is SO much more inviting, so they are actively undermining his ability to ever be such a route to self preservation.

[acmavm]

7. Okay, I can buy your explanation. In fact, it does make a lot of sense.

But what about people like Obama who in a way 'owes' Howard. He hasn't been in politics for all that long a time. What's with him?

[mike_c]

8. I suspect that he is following his perceived best path...

...to maintaining his present status quo. Getting INTO office involves change and above all, risk, so politicians are much more likely to embrace risky alliences and strategies when they're seeking office. Once in, those strategies no longer serve them because they want to AVOID risk if they are acting selfishly. The overarching goal becomes staying in office. Many probably rationalize this motive as being in the best interests of their constituents-- and sometimes it probably is-- but that doesn't change the essential selfishness that operates at the heart of political leadership.

[acmavm]

10. Ah, there's where my confusion lies. That personal selfishness is just

so repugnant and screams that the guy would sell out ANYONE just to get ahead. In fact, that's what I get out of the remarks of all of those quislings (Biden, Lieberfuck, Pelosi, Edwards, and anyone else that jumps on the bandwagon.)

[mike_c]

13. yep-- call me cynical...

...but I think most of them would sell their aged grandmothers into slavery if that's what it takes to stay in office, and for purely selfish reasons. The irony is that we have created a system that fosters this sort of self serving behavior, and then we look to it for LEADERSHIP-- a concept that involves embracing the risk of evaluating and making choices to obtain the greatest benefit for everyone.

[jmaier]

9. I suspect he is speaking from the heart

One thing consistent in all of Obama's messages is his belief in highlighting Democratic principles and showing how they are shared by people who might vote for the other side -- he peddles a unifying message.

Frankly, a message of our common interests is a good message, framed much more inclusively to reach out to the disaffected who might have voted Republican for the last 20 years on certain social issues than Republicans are mostly rich, white, christian and out of touch with your needs.

Gov Dean does a fine job of firing up the left/progressive and angry base and raising money from that segment. But it is probably only around 25% of the electorate -- where are the rest of the $$$ and the votes going to come from.

It isn't only important to make angry progressives happy with your rhetoric, we need a prescription (and message) to win.

[quisp]

11. you know all the cliches, right?

"I'm not a member of an organized party, I'm a Democrat" Will Rogers

Democrats have circular firing squads.

I went to a hockey game the other night and a Democratic Committee meeting broke out.

Democrats think for themselves and they believe in open, vigorous debate of ideas. The RW and the reactionary media use that against us very effectively.

[Lexingtonian]

12. as I see it

it's the three wings/factions of the Party fighting for domination. Howard Dean's inflammatory statements hit the conservative wing hard and moderate wing somewhat, even though his intended audience was moderate Republicans.

The liberal wing became dominant, but not kick-ass dominant, after Florida 2000 and '9/11' proved the moderates had no viable answers to the problems left. The Presidential primaries were pretty much an internal battlefield between the wings but not the final settlement of the argument.

There was an internal armistice during the general election campaign. (Interestingly, the major reason a lot of swing voters gave for not trusting the Democrats as a party with power was their vicious and irresponsible infighting during 2003 and into the summer of 2004.)

The factions that lost in the primaries have been fighting a third round since- perhaps not even with the serious intent to win, but to be force-fed the reasons their faction wasn't/isn't electable and as a chance to reconsider their stances and convictions and concerns.

Dean is part of an effort within the Party to sideline the conservatives and draw over the (actually more liberal) moderate Republican defectors. Hardline Republicans don't like the latter part, but they do see the opportunity posed to get conservative Democrats to defect their way. So what looks like a melee is actually quite rationale, is a shakeup and new sorting out of centrists.

[Capn Sunshine]

14. We knew this was coming

It's not inability to get along, it's totally based on having their cozy little corporate funded insider power base cut off.

Dean was serious about emphasizing funding by the people, not corporations, and every weasel insider in DC who makes a living suckling at the corporation teat is now working the hell out of their connections to make Howard Dean look bad. They figure, they did it once before when he was a serious threat, it should work again.

If only these worthless slagheaps had been so united aginst Mining interests polluting our water and War profiteering and every other evil result of corporate malfeasnce, we might be somewhere today besides inside a handbasket on the highway to hell.