A party at risk - A country at risk

[welshTerrier2]

Like many DU'ers, there is nothing i would like to see more than a unified, effective Democratic Party committed to making the very real and very significant changes the country so desperately requires. Those who are furious at the party for the last disgrace on the Iraq funding bill are not "party haters". We hate what the Dems did and we hate what they are failing to do.

Unlike many of the blind party loyalists, I do not accept the "we don't have the votes" argument. I totally blame the party for not putting forward a meaningful progressive agenda.

Here's the major point: You need to separate the legislative process from the "platform" process. I'm not naive enough to argue that Congressional Dems could pass meaningful campaign finance reform to take big money out of the electoral process. It's probably not even worth trying to bring such a bill to the floor at this time. It would have zero chance of passing and zero chance of surviving a veto.

HOWEVER, and this is where the party is totally failing us, why isn't this one of the major topics being talked about by every Democrat? Passing legislation doesn't start in the Congress; it starts with the American people. If the Party really wanted to make this critically needed reform, they would be raising the issue every chance they got. They aren't. Have you heard any Democrat, save one or two perhaps, even discussing the issue? I haven't.

The problem with the party is NOT about which bill they pass; it's about the party's message to the American people. You don't need a veto proof majority to put out a message. Do I think the MSM is a problem? Of course it is but Democrats get plenty of news coverage and appear on many of the talk shows. Do you hear them talking about there being too much money in the electoral process? I don't. And the few who do certainly are not elevating it to a top issue.

Consider defense spending. Democrats are terrified about being "McGovernized". God forbid we get painted as being "weak on defense". Spending on wasteful programs while America's infrastructure declines, educational competitiveness declines, health care declines, retirement security declines and on and on, is NOT being "tough on defense." It is supporting CORPORATISM. There's gold in them thar hills and the Democrats are being spoon-fed and coddled by K Street.

Could Democrats pass a bill to cut the military budget a sufficient amount to pay for real health care for every American? Probably not. That's the argument some use as a justification. They just don't have the votes. But it's NOT at all clear they would support any such trade-off. That stinks. What's the point of protecting the country from some mythical invasion force if Americans are dying because they can't afford medical care? Democrats? All I hear is crickets ...

Consider global warming. What are the Democrats offering? If global warming could really threaten all life on the planet or cause the permanent evacuation of major coastal cities or cause severe breaks in the "food chain" or cause all life in the oceans to die, maybe we need more than "incrementalism". It seems to me we have to throw "everything we possibly can" at the problem. Again, what are the Democrats offering? They're calling for very marginal increases in CAFE standards. Well, that's nice. They're calling for very moderate increases in the use of renewable energy sources. That's nice too. What they're not calling for, and it is CRAZY, is real conservation and significant changes in our lifestyles. Could it be that would be politically risky? What if the right thing to do is to call for a 50% reduction in auto use? What if mandatory programs were called for to require employers to reduce "commuting time"? What if we again cut the military budget and transferred some serious money into funding a real mass transit system instead of the current "Lionel" toys we have running (when they run)?

Again, could the Democrats get all this environmental stuff passed right now? Of course not. Should they at least be talking to the American people about it? Your damned straight they should be!! But they're not ...

The party's left wing couldn't be angrier with mainstream Democrats. The choices confronting us right now transcend mundane legislative considerations. Perhaps you don't agree with the severity of the problems the left is citing: 1. global warming could destroy all life on earth in the next few decades and. 2. big money has totally poisoned any semblance of democracy in this country.

The left wants to save the planet and the left wants to restore democracy in this country with a second American revolution (hopefully peaceful) that overthrows the ravages of the corporate state. We want OUR PARTY to lead the way in these efforts. Instead, what we see are compromised candidates and a total failure to put these critical issues at the very top of the party's national agenda. The fact that it may be too "politically controversial" is NOT acceptable; many of us believe we no longer can afford to make that choice. Life itself very likely hangs in the balance.

At some point, if our party keeps saying NO to us, even given the horrors we've seen from republicans, we may see little choice but to refuse to "just go along." I've just about arrived at that point myself. It is NOT the way I want things to be. The Democratic Party needs to engage all of its constituencies in active dialog and negotiations if it hopes to keep the big tent intact. Should the party fail to do so, they do so at their own peril ... and ours ...

[Totally Committed]

1. Awesome post, my friend... I agree 1000%!

Makes me wish I could write like that AND that I had more than 1 rec to give you!

Note to DU: This post belongs on the Front Page

TC

[unkachuck]

28. me too....n/t

[Phredicles]

2. Yes, thank you!

:applause:

(and recommended)

[Warpy]

3. Good post, and what our enervated leadership within

the beltway don't seem to understand is that the only way to GET the votes is to stand up and be enough of an opposition party to EARN them.

The conservative experiment of the last 38 years has reached its end point and it is a dismal failure. The time to act against it is NOW.

If they roll over again in September with all those benchmarks unmet, I guarantee the party can kiss 2008 goodbye.

[pocoloco]

4. At one time I was SO pissed off at the Nader voters.

Now I'm beginning to feel their pain.

[welshTerrier2]

6. fwiw, i did NOT support Nader

my theme in the OP really has nothing to do with third parties. if the Dems nominate someone I cannot support, however, I will definitely NOT be voting for them. I will, of course, continue to support my very progressive Congressman (a democrat). But on the Presidential level, forget it.

I've not really given much consideration to how I would vote. I wouldn't rule out a third party candidate. Maybe a write in? Maybe no presidential vote at all?

More and more, I do believe we would be better off with more parties. The legislation that gets cobbled together under the two party system is so watered down it pleases no one. At least with more parties, others views and voices would have a seat at the table. There's certainly no guarantee the end result would actually be any better but at least we'd be a little closer to being represented.

Some make the argument about all the bad things that will happen if we don't vote for Democrats. I couldn't agree MORE! What they fail to point out, though, is all the bad things that will happen if we can't force the party to address our real national priorities.

[Phredicles]

16. Right, this is why I hate our entrenched two-party system;

it allows the Democrats to keep coming to us and saying, "You HAVE to support our 95% crap platform; if you don't, the other party's 100% crap ticket will win". As as you may have noticed around this board, their acolytes can be extremely snotty about it, too. A parliamentary system wouldn't let them get away with such nonsense.

[cascadiance]

5. There IS a senate public financing bill now...

I don't know if this is just posturing, or if it is a serious effort. I just heard of it discussed on a weekend Air America interview show.

Good on Dick Durbin, Russell Feingold, Barack Obama, and even Arlen Specter for cosponsoring this.

http://www.campaignmoney.org/campaigns/main/fair-elections

I don't know how realistic a chance it has, but if enough people call their senators and DEMAND they support this, who knows?

[welshTerrier2]

8. thanks - the bill sounds pretty lame though

it sounds like it only applies to Senate candidates nad it leaves the choice up to the candidates whether they take money from big corporations or public funds.

it's all "nice" but this bill is pretty lame. the bigger point, again, is that the party itself is NOT aggressively pushing the issue in front of the American people. that's where it all begins ...

in the meantime, our "leading" candidates are sucking up every corporate penny they can lay their hands on ...

[cascadiance]

12. All public campaign financing right now is optional...

... and will likely be until we get some major changes on the supreme court. Even before the newest rethug 5 majority, they've ruled before against the constitutionality of limiting people to only have the public campaign financing option. Something about "free speech rights"... It's that way in Arizona and Maine too now. The important thing is that there IS a choice now, so that those who don't want to use corporate financing don't feel like they HAVE to to be viable. That's a big win as it gives people a choice where in most cases they don't now and it is hard for us to separate those that truly would not want to have the lobbyist games in place and those who thrive on them.

Yes, it's not being pushed and I'm bugged by that too. However, if there's a lot of folks there that REALLY want privately for it to happen but are afraid of their efforts being too visible to corporate donors, but somehow sneak it into being voted on and at least forcing other senators' hands in terms of having to vote on it, a big win will have been won.

I've seriously not expected any significant federal efforts to start happening until 2009, when hopefully a newer congress will be more progressive and we'll have a decent president to boot that won't veto it.

I'm really hoping for Gore to come in close to the deadline and win without spending as much as these others. It will be a case and point why we don't NEED to have an expensive campaign for someone to connect to the people and win an election, and my gut tells me that Gore would be the best person to try and help this get put in place.

[AtomicKitten]

7. no worries -- the "blind party loyalists" will do the the heavy lifting

while you kvetch on DU

[Totally Committed]

13. Can we all just say that we'll all do what we feel is right in our hearts

and leave it at that? :)

TC

[AtomicKitten]

17. if only; that would be lovely

... but others that pepper their condescension with verbiage such as "screeching cheerleaders" and "blind party loyalists" not so much - which doesn't give others with ironically similar or same goals that snugly feeling.

This is the same lame contentious conversation with the same disparaging epithets lobbed every single presidential election as far back as I can remember.

The sticking point is strategy and no one camp reigns supreme with all the answers, and the nastiness spewed - as always - makes it impossible to work together, and that is as pathetic as it is sad.

[Flabbergasted]

23. wrong reply

[AtomicKitten]

27. unless I was

calling out name-calling that is offensive and really unnecessary

which I was

[bvar22]

9. K&R

:patriot:


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[LWolf]

10. This eloquently expresses

the frustration of so many of us; thank you.

I hope that enough of the party will listen, and will *hear.*

[Totally Committed]

11. I have to say, I've all but given up on that possibility, but I'm still hoping.

TC

[Exultant Democracy]

14. I have been saying just this (not as well) for a while, great post!

[Totally Committed]

15. Kick (already recommended!)

:kick:

TC

[Morgana LaFey]

18. the party's message to the American people.

Thank you. I just realized something, and it's all your fault. :evilgrin:

The Party has no message for the American people because by and large they don't give a damn about us. They would much rather do things their way instead of even listening to us, and most preferable of all, they'd rather TELL US how things 'spozed to be. Oh, sure, they want our votes. But after that, well, it's "Who cares what you think?"

If anyone thinks I'm wrong, think about this: they KNOW they were "hired" to end the war. Has that happened? They KNOW they were "hired" to make Bush and his cronies accountable. Has that happened? Have they, in fact, done ANYthing since Jan. 2001 that was what we specifically asked them to do? Did they refuse to confirm Ashcroft? Did they listen to us about the war? Have they listened to us about anything? Are they listening to us about impeachment? They are BLIND AND DEAF to us and our pleadings. They do not care -- or if they do, they care not enough to matter. They care in a nice, polite, isolated, thoroughly detached way.

[Totally Committed]

19. Kick

:kick:

TC

[ulysses]

20. BINGO.

Particularly this:

The Democratic Party needs to engage all of its constituencies in active dialog and negotiations if it hopes to keep the big tent intact. Should the party fail to do so, they do so at their own peril ... and ours ...

I was asked in 2004 why I supported Dean, a centrist. I'm not opposed to the existence of centrists, but I'm partial to centrists who listen to the rest of us, at least on occasion.

[puebloknot]

21. K&R Sadly, and with grave concerns for the country...

...we who embrace true Democratic Party principles may find that we cannot in good conscience continue to sheepishly go along to get along. When we see our whole democratic system being sold down the river, we have to face the fact that drastic change, with no guarantees of a quick fix, is our only choice.

We are facing our own political Rubicon, and I hope that sane voices like those of Kucinich and Gore -- and even Ron Paul, on the limited matter of how America is conducting itself and being seen by the rest of the world -- will be heard by the People!

[Totally Committed]

22. kick

:kick:

TC

[Totally Committed]

24. And, another kick... this is an AWESOME post!

:kick:

TC

[Rydz777]

25. Your first sentence really sums up the dilemma. The country is

on the edge of disaster, and if the Democratic Party can't pull together and get us back on track, we are headed for a crisis.

[Totally Committed]

26. I actually think this whole OP is amazingly right on target.

TC

[ananda]

29. The people have spoken and..

.. are still speaking with their votes, petitions, drives,
demonstrations, etc.

But the legislators simply aren't listening because it's
not the people they're beholden to.. it's fear of the
corporofascist business interests and lobbyists who
have all that money.

Sue

[onenote]

31. you do realize that "the people" don't all speak with one voice

When "the people" elected a Democratic majority of one in the Senate (and only that because Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats) and a Democratic majority in the House with over 30 Blue Dog members, do you really think "the people" spoke with one voice?

Simple slogans are simply that.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. Consider the Republican effort to dismantle social security. They didn't win, yet,

but that didn't stop them from pushing pushing pushing and they are still pushing. That's how things get done.

The Dems as a whole plainly aren't committed to a liberal agenda. They are committed to a conservative agenda that incrementally brings about the Republican agenda. They know that will keep the corporate dollars flowing to their campaign war chests, and that is the bottom line for a lot of the party.

[Sparkly]

32. What would you suggest?

How do you intend to change the party and its politicians in the ways you want?

[welshTerrier2]

33. well, that's the best question in the whole thread.

wish i had a worthy answer for it ...

the easy answers are that we should call, write, stomp our feet and agree on an agenda for the country. many of us are very active in doing what we can. we all could do more. we all should do more.

look at how paralyzed we are even here in our little DU microcosm. is there anyone on DU who is not very deeply concerned about the loss of our democracy and about the corrupting influences of big money and special interests? I think everyone here cares about that. is there anyone here who is skeptical about the possible devastating impact of global warming? maybe one or two but, overall, I think most of us agree.

but look what happens when we try to reach any kind of accord among ourselves. it's a total mess. if someone says that the candidates are not adequately addressing the issue, there's actually not much objection. but if you were to say that Hillary is not addressing the issue adequately, or Obama, or any of the others, screams of protest result. what's the message there? the message is you can do or say whatever you want to but don't criticize my candidate because I am here to defend them against any and all criticisms no matter how legitimate those criticisms might be.

so then, how do we get these "liberals" who are backing candidates to fight for these critical issues? truthfully, i have no idea. i wish i did but i don't.

i think our political system is totally broken. it cannot respond to the national agenda we so badly need. there are numerous reasons for this. the only "risk" candidates are willing to take in delivering bad news is to blame the other party or other candidates for creating the situation in the first place. that's not really addressing the issue at all. is bush responsible for all the ills and evils of campaign corruption or do we need fundamental changes in our laws. candidates are motivated by winning and too often refuse to deal with the reality that some issues are sustaining beyond the transitory evils of their opponents. bush did not create the corporate state that has infested our democracy. republicans didn't create it either. when everything gets reduced to politics, we fail to clearly see the real enemies.

all i know is that we have lost or are rapidly losing the last vestiges of any semblance of democracy. i don't like to see Democrats sucking up to K Street. of course I'm glad they have money to run their campaigns but at what price does that occur? We cannot allow big money to buy their way in. It's interesting to think that many, I believe, would argue that republicans are totally corrupted when they take money from mega-industries and mega-corporations; Democrats, of course, are never influenced by these contributions. I'm a Democrat; I think wearing such rose colored glasses is crap. We need to get those who benefit from government policies out of the contribution (i.e. bribery) business. How can we change a system that elects people who are already tainted by that system? Let me know if you know. I, for one, really have no idea.

And global warming is the other little problem presenting its way-past-due invoice. I got them to bring Gore's movie to our local library's documentary film series. We're showing it next month. I guess I'm helping just a wee little bit by such actions. Clearly, it's not enough. I write my little posts and call my reps. Truthfully, they are NOT representing my views. Kerry just gave a talk on environmental issues. He knows lots of stuff and I agree with almost all he has suggested. But he's never gone anywhere near the question of whether his "programs" are an adequate response given what's at stake.

My uneducated program for global warming, if its imminence and intensity and impact is really as bad as advertised, is that we must do everything we possibly can to address it. No program, or almost no program, can be summarily dismissed. My proposal is that we have to implement severe, mandatory reductions in energy use across the board. Let's start with a 50% reduction in auto use. It's a number I picked out of thin air. CO2 laden thin air. Let's pull tons of dollars out of our military budget to build real mass transit. I worked hard to elect Deval Patrick and Tim Murray in Massachusetts. They campaigned on a big time program to enhance mass transit. We'll see if they really deliver. So far, I haven't seen any changes. Let's cut the defense budget in half to address global warming. Do we see it as at least an equal threat to being invaded by another country where we would actually need the mega-billion dollar weapons systems we keep building? Which risk do you see as greater? So, what do I suggest? I buy those cute little light bulbs and watch Al Gore movies and call my reps. What do you suggest? Frankly, I think my answers stink.

I do know this, though. Time is running out. The crises are very real and their impact will be very severe. Eventually, even our corroded, corrupted, callous political process will be forced to respond. That's about the state of my optimism right now. Things will get so horrible that changes will be forced upon us all. I like some of the stuff PDA has done. If there's any path to changing the political infrastructure in the near-term, they've been at least marginally effective. But, and I speak only for myself here, that does not translate into voting for those who are unresponsive to the issues I see as so critical. Leaving the party? Third party? Not voting at all? It almost doesn't matter to me. I have a very progressive Congressman whom I will support and vote for. He's a Democrat. For president, I most likely won't vote or might vote for a third party candidate. I really have no idea. But, I'm done ... I'm really done. And it's not that there isn't a difference between the parties; that's NOT my pitch at all. It's not that republicans won't do worse things; that's NOT my pitch either.

As you quite properly asked, "how do we get there from here?" We sure don't get there by sending money to those who won't listen or fight for the issues that must be addressed. It seems the only power we ultimately have is withholding our support and our money and our votes. And it's not about "perfection" or being uncompromising or a "lefty extremist". that's all crap. These are very real problems that are not being adequately addressed. I'm not sure how to make that happen. That's my non-answer to your question. Wish I could do better.

[Totally Committed]

35. Okay, but this still doesn't address the fact that I truly believe this Party

doesn't give a rat's arse what we think or want. I have worked as hard as I know how for YEARS and YEARS, only to see it devolve into the mess we have right now. And, why? For what?

I don't think I can work any harder than I do right now, but I would be happy to try if I thought it would make an iota of difference. I just don't think it will.

What do I do with the loss of faith in this Party?

TC

[Totally Committed]

34. Excellent question!

I'll be damned if I can think of a way out of this mess! LOL! :hi:

TC