Remember when it used to be Democrats vs, Republicans, rather than Democrats vs. Democrats?

[Armstead]

I realize there never was a good old days when Democrats all agreed on anything. We used to have our northern liberals vs. the Dixiecrats. And of course there was the chaos at the Chicago Convention.

And during the Bush years, there was Democrats who wanted to oppose the GOP vs. the Democrats who wanted to go along to get along with the Republicans. It was frustrating, but the stakes weren't all that high because the GOP had both hands on the levers of power.

But my God, we WON last year. The shoe should be on the other foot. We should be forging ahead full steam ahead
and basically unified (or as unified as the Cat-Herding Party ever gets) while the GOP argue among themselves whether to compromise or oppose.

But now, our biggest opponent is ourselves. Unlike Bush and the Republicans, who basically wrote their own ticket for eight years, we remain mired in division and the loser mentality. "We can't do this because..."

And the Republicans remain unified. Yes they have their teabagger issues. But on the leadership level, the GOP is unified in their opposition. They're just going to stand there and block anything Obama and the Congressional Democrats try to do. They don't have their defectors. They aren't arguing among themselves how strongly they should oppose the Democrats. It's simple. They oppose.

The GOP doesn't really have to do anything. They can just sit back and happily watch the Democrats start from weak bargaining positions, and battle among ourselves over how much we should give up after already starting from weak positions.

Hesu Christe.

[Jennicut]

1. I remember Dems vs Dems in the early 1990's.

I was young then. I was only 17 in 1993 but distinctly remember Boren, Nunn, Shelby, etc. fighting with Clinton over his stimulus bill and other things. It is deja vu all over again, really.

[MUAD_DIB]

6. I remember. I was 29 then. The Dems can be their own worst enemy

when it comes to being pragmatic and party oriented.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. No.

Not in my lifetime.

[Armstead]

3. Comparatively

[Cleita]

4. I really think the DLCers have divided the party.

They stand for business and corporations and are unapologetic about it. That's what Republicans used to stand for. Democrats always stood for the working class, the underclasses and the poor, but it seems those have defected to the Greens. But now that the Republicans stand for the religious extremists, the white racists and the nut cases, it seems like our tent got too crowded with the Republican Lite crowd and it is very divisive. I would like all parties to stand for what is good for the country. Otherwise we aren't better than a banana republic.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. Twas always so....

...any party large enough to command majorities is too big to hang together.

This country is backwards from Europe. In Europe you fight the election, then form the coalition. Here you form the coalition, then fight the election.

At any given time we have in the US four or five parties, but only two labels, they've got four or five or eight labels, but two, or at most three coalitions. American politics is no different from European politics, all politics is coalition politics. And all coalitions can be split. Any coalition large enough to govern will have at least one fault line along which it will split. The bigger the coalition, the more fault lines.

[Armstead]

8. 'tis so

I sometimes think we need four parties -- a right wing one, a MOR conservative, a MPR liberal and a progressive one.

The two in the middle (Democrat and Repibvlican) would likely be the majority parties, but gthey would need the sipport of one of the other "wing" parties to attain power and get anything done.

[Sinti]

7. Isn't that why most of us are democrats?

Many views actually produce a better overall picture of the terrain, and where we might go from here. If I had to deal with a small minded, my-way-or-the-highway kind of party I think I'd just drop out. I don't like the "we can't do this because" - I prefer to work things out so everyone wins, but lockstep bothers me even more.

I do wonder about those weak bargaining positions, though. Have they read The Art of War? You only pretend to be weak when you are strong.

[Armstead]

9. THat dynamic tug of war you speak of is good but it ought to be bettween .....

the donkey and the elephant.

We are stick with two parties -- one supposed to represent the right side of tghe spectrum and the other the left. I would rather than the party that represents the left be at least as unified as the party of the right....Not necessarily lockstep, but at least all pulling in the same direction.

[Sinti]

10. It used to be, kind of - I'd prefer many parties 5 at least

and all of them viable. This two party system makes it too easy for the multinational monopolies to control the dialog and buy votes.

There are plenty of elected representatives in our party that make me wonder what they are really thinking. In terms of the voters and volunteers, though, I like as much diversity of thought as one can achieve. Competition of ideas is always good, IMO. Really bad ideas tend to stand out when everyone is calming conversing about them. I'd rather find common ground than fight with folk, but at the same time I don't want to miss things I don't see, because my personal perspective is limited by nature.

Plus, the new and weird ideas we're getting (some that really don't comport with what we believe) means we're getting republicans to shift their awareness and contemplate our ideology. It's part of the price of success... you've got to have good ideas when they give up on their bad ones.