The problem with the tensions on DU is because the Democratic Party is NOT a political party...

[Cleobulus]

but rather a coalition of various different groups.

Party discipline is non-existent, even most Democratic politicians only support the parts of the platform when they want to, and you never hear of members being expelled except through the primary process, and that just makes them no longer able to run for the party in that particular race. The Republicans have the same problem, we have two political parties, and they do NOT and cannot represent the various views of approximately 300 million people.

The dichotomy that exists isn't between two extremes, liberals and conservatives. The Democratic Party is no more represents the left than the Republican party represents the right when members of both don't HAVE to be either one. A moderate Democrat may be indistinguishable from a moderate Republican for example, generally their party affiliation is determined by geography rather than politics, whichever party has better odds in a particular district or state they will join.

Oh, the parties do have positions that place the Democrats slightly to the left of the Republicans, however, the political differences between the two only represent a narrow band in policy positions possible. This isn't necessarily by design. To given an example even someone like Dennis Kucinich, considered by many a leftist is just barely center-left, and a rather mild one at that. And he's supposed to represent that "radical left"? I don't think so.

Even the Republican party, with the right wing elected officials, they rarely go so far as to support outright fascism, demolishing of free elections, etc. That would be an actual extreme. Same thing with the Democrats, how many communists are in the Democratic party? None that I know of, the communists don't even participate in electoral politics most of the time in this country.

To give another example, we have the Progressive Democrats representing the "left" within the Democratic party, uhm, where are the Socialist Democrats? Hell, the progressive democrats in the United States are a lot more conservative than even New Labour in the United Kingdom. Politics in the United States are rather skewed to the right, and this is reflected in both parties.

Indeed, this is why I'm infinitely amused by accusations that there is an extreme left in this country. Outside of a few thousand people who still belong to the CPUSA, and you rarely hear of them, the extreme left simply doesn't exist. Even the Green Party is center-left, and barely that as well, its only considered even close to extreme in relation to the Democratic Party, but honestly, that's not exactly saying much when the Democratic party is itself rather conservative.

In addition, because of the way our electoral system is set up, with first past the post districts, state rules that are different 50 times over, and a focus on national and state politics, third parties face a huge uphill battle in electing people on the state or national level.

So people in this country turn to the 2 major parties to find a voice, through the conventions and primaries, if possible, rather than through separate political parties. This leads to a large amount of complaints, because there is a lack of choice involved, and an interesting conundrum. We talk about bi-partisanship a lot, but what about intra-party compromises?

A classic example is the Health Care Reform bill, and the public option. Not one Republican voted for it, the bill was an intra-party compromise, and the public option killed, in stark contrast to this:

Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices
of Affordable Health Insurance Options. Families and
individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide
array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public
plan.

The Bold is mine.

So where did I get this from? The 2008 Democratic Party platform, of course:

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

So what happened? Well, it just shows how divided Democrats can be in even agreeing with something like this. Indeed, it shows how a Coalition operates, not a political party. The Party has a platform, but hell, its only a suggestion, not a requirement. This is in stark contrast with how political parties operate in many other countries, you don't support the party platform, you are kicked out.

I think this is the biggest problem, and also something that's creating tension not only in the Democratic party but the Republican party as well. Its only more obvious right now in the Democratic party because that is the party in power, the Republicans are in opposition right now.

So will this get worse or better? Well honestly I would say it will get worse, for both parties, we may face splits or new coalitions forming, most likely years away. Whether this will be positive or negative, who knows, its a wait and see approach. The only thing I can recommend is that people don't put to much faith in coalitions or parties, think of policy first.

[niyad]

1. I believe it was will rogers who said, "I belong to no organized political party--I'm a democrat."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Which is exactly why I vote issues, not party or politician. K&R

[oneshooter]

3. But there are those on DU who would force all to march all in lock step

with the DNC platform. And any who do not are to be driven from DU and banned for all eternity!:tinfoilhat:

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas