Some May Not Like It .....But It's A Good Read to Take Heed

[John Barrett]

THE FIGHTING DEMS: THE NEW FACE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Wednesday, March 22, 2006


... I went wandering ... looking for one good man ... a spirit who would not bend or break who would sit at his father’s right hand ...”
Johnny Cash/U2

The Democratic Party was once the party of the real people of this country. The people who grew soybean and cotton, the people who gathered for barbecue at the Legion Hall, who went to church, listened to Johnny Cash, and served without rumination or discussion when they were called to duty.

Here in Boston, New York and New England, Democrats changed our world, turning Irish, Polish, Jewish, German and other immigrants into full-blown Americans, proud, hard-working and unpretentious. They were people like my father who bought the Boston tabloid every evening on the way home from the factory for the single purpose of checking the Treasury balance – not that they were heavily invested in T bills, but because every day each factory worker would bet on the last three numbers in a factory pool. They sent their champion to Washington in 1961. The very last of these public figures from my old neighborhood, Massachusetts representative Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neil and Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Mary McGrory, have slipped into history’s shadow lands.

But they were perhaps the most important generation in American history. A generation of common men and women made up of every strand of mankind from Africa and Ireland and from the Polish ghetto and the Liverpool docks, which brought a level of civilization and economic prosperity to this country that made America a Beacon of Hope to all the world. Almost all in this generation had served in warfare and were bound together by duty. Almost all of them had families and extended families and were bound together by love.

Then something else happened.

snip......

When liberalism went double latte, regular folk left as if in a diaspora. Prior to that one’s political party was like a religion – the Boston Irish were all Catholic and Democrat. Appalachia was all Baptist and Democrat. But Democrats had become effete. “Nattering nabobs of negativism,” said Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, in a famous phrase written by William Safire.

snip.......


http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/27/4230/2006-03-22.asp?nid=4230&wid=27

[NYCGirl]

1. According to DU rules, you can only post 4 paragraphs and a link:

5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.

[John Barrett]

4. Thank You For The Info - eom

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. There are some valid points made here, but

in my mind the weaknesses of the argument are great. For example, the author makes no mention of how the political spectrum has changed over the years. What is considered the "middle" today is very different than what was considered the "middle" even ten years ago. BushCo and the Neocons along with their media accomplices have moved the center significantly.

[BillZBubb]

3. So the "center" is now so far to the right, Greenspan is there????

This article is rubbish. Greenspan is a far right winger. I don't want to be part of a Republican Lite party.

The southern Democrats left the party over RACE. The Democrats knew they would loose them after the civil rights act. The Southerners foolishly allowed themselves to become pawns of the elitist Republican greed machine. They didn't leave because of latte sipping liberals.

The Democratic party can now win them back by ACTUALLY FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRATIC VALUES--LIBERAL VALUES. For over twenty years we have ceded the field to the Repugs by apologizing and temporizing.

[ulysses]

7. thank you.

:thumbsup:

[John Barrett]

9. Maybe But....But Maybe Not

While I can't put it into words as elegantly as the author....the Democratic Party has lost touch with what used to make the Party great and powerful and a truly nationwide entity. Forget liberalism, as that used to go without saying, and without the need to make it major issue and an ideology. It was part of the party but not the most important part.

It used to be the Party had one focused mission....support of the working men and women of America. There were no shades of gray on that issue. It was the party that opposed and balanced corporate interests. Make no mistake there never would have been a NAFTA or CAFTA when the party of old was in power. And there wouldn't have been the wishy washy issue of illegal immigration that screws Americans, and that Hillary seems to go hither and fro on depending on the way the wind blows.

Then something happened to the Party as stated in the article. It became a party of the urban elite and their political issues. Soon rural and working Democrats found there was nothing there for them. Many found they had conflicts with what became Party planks. Soon these states became red and voted GOP even though it was against their economic interests. The Democratic Party has been compromised with corporatism, just not as blatantly so as as the GOP. As the article suggested we will either end up with a new "fighting" Democratic Party or a third Party.

[ulysses]

10. the party didn't support NAFTA/CAFTA because of some

"urban elite", but rather because of the shift in focus under the DLC to the corporate center.

You are correct that we've (stupidly) lost our focus on working folks, but that has nothing to do with "latte liberalism".

[msgadget]

11. I agree with *you* more than the article

except I don't think the Southern Strategy can be ignored, especially since the vilification and exageration of liberalism was/is part of that. Regardless, I agree more than I can express that the Democratic party is barely recognizable as a party that stands for the protection and betterment of the populace.

...It was the party that opposed and balanced corporate interests. Make no mistake there never would have been a NAFTA or CAFTA when the party of old was in power. And there wouldn't have been the wishy washy issue of illegal immigration that screws Americans... :applause:

Welcome to DU, John B. :hi:

[John Barrett]

15. Thanks

Your by-line says an independent thinker. Some party liners on both sides hate that attribute. I respect it and hope I'm considered the same.

The Democratic Party has no clear focus that translates into votes from all those Americans that are becomning economically disenfranchised due to a broad spectrum of failed GOP neo-con policies. Democrats should have won overwhelmingly in 2004 as Bush had already clearly demonstrated his incompetence. Democrats should have won votes from the millions of working Americans in rural and urban America. IMO in 2008 we need a new face like Warner or even Feingold or someone new, but not under any circumstances Hillary Clinton. If she's picked I'll be disappointed because it's just more same ole, same ole, and another consumate politician, but I'll vote for her.

[msgadget]

18. I agree, I agree, I agree

except I think it's more...American policy than a party thing. Consider, a democratic president laid the groundwork for the explosion of 'globalization' that is ruining us. That might be a highly flammable statement but I won't back away from it because 'he had no choice...the dems were the minority...' Sorry, read the DLC site and you'll see, they're big on free trade, global expansion, supporting business, advancing personal responsibility, helping citizens adjust to the resultant uncertainty (as opposed to securing their damned future!). That being said, I don't think our landing would've been as swift or as hard under a democrat but we'd still be at a disadvantage in the long-run.

IMO, moderate, middle and centrist are code words in the same league as 'compassionate conservative'. We do need an ENTIRELY new face on the ballot in '08 - someone outside the beltway, a rebel. I keep hearing about this guy Warner and have to look him up. Can you tell me in a little, please?

[msgadget]

5. Interesting read

but both parties are not at their polar extremes. The republicans certainly have been but the democrats as a whole do not have a unifying ideology. Look around you here at DU, the democratic party is quite diverse still. Besides, what IS moderate anyway?? As I've said before, most voters - given the opportunity to vote for their best interests - are moderates. There are some issues they're conservative about, others they're more liberal about. It's the partisan posturing on the way to getting or keeping a majority that manipulates the masses to weird and extreme behavior.

[ulysses]

6. but what about the walk to school?

The Democratic Party was once the party of the real people of this country. The people who grew soybean and cotton, the people who gathered for barbecue at the Legion Hall, who went to church, listened to Johnny Cash, and served without rumination or discussion when they were called to duty.

He left out the walk to school with no shoes, in the snow, uphill both ways!

[msgadget]

8. LOL! Good catch

and gives more credence to the success of the Southern Strategy than the flight from the latte-liberal excuse.

:thumbsup:

[John Barrett]

12. This is a good statement

From the article:

"In Republican convention last week the Republicans committed themselves to their extreme, the great majority giving support to Bill Frist, the senator from Tennessee. So the middle remains wide open. The Democrats likewise are hell-bent on perdition, pouring untold millions from the rank and file into the coffers of the alienating and entirely unelectable senator from New York. Maybe these two parties are like Ford and General Motors; unable to change, unable to adapt and meet the times and destined to ride into the sun until the tank comes up empty."

[msgadget]

14. It really is excellent.

Except the democratic power brokers are struggling amongst themselves. I don't think they're all bowing at the feet of the Clintons, just most of 'em. The DCCC and the DLC obviously are and they're already going around the DNC to achieve their goals. The DNC, given its druthers, would like an equal say in matters Democratic but aren't likely to get it. It's a bit of a train wreck...

[AX10]

13. The political spectrum has changed so much over the years.

I must take issue with this statement: "and served without rumination or discussion when they were called to duty." Remember Vietman??? That is why the liberals began to call into question when they were asked to serve. That is the old and backward way of thinking that got us into a huge mess. It also got us into another huge mess called Iraq. If something is unjust, one must be willing to stand up and fight for justice.

Also, WTF is with the invocation of Johnny Cash here? Cash was a liberal. He did not support the Vietnam war.

[John Barrett]

16. Agree on the war issue.

I agree that the author oversimplified on the war issue, but it was also a time when the image of the Democratic Party started to change. Maybe he wanted to consider Johnny Cash as country singer that appealed to country folk and didn't consider his politics.

There hasn't been such a thing as a major "righteous war" since WW2. Americans fought in it without question. Can't argue that the wars of Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, and especially the current Iraq War had questionable motivations and morality. There were deceit, deception and agendas.

[AX10]

17. But Democrats must not go back to the time...

when they went off to war without question. That would be a horrible step backwards. The author is implying this.