These don't stand for anything

[jpgray]

Not by themselves. Banners are inert, they have no ideals--the ideals they come to represent are determined only by those who wave them. It makes no sense to tie one's loyalty to a symbol, since that symbol can come over time to stand for everything it once opposed. The GOP is a long way from Lincoln, and the Democratic Party is on a trajectory well away from Jefferson and FDR. If we only defend the name and trappings of a party, regardless of who wields them, its ideals will be as vaporous and inconstant as ambitious opportunists see fit to make them; the party will shift under our feet until we find ourselves far from where we thought we'd dug in.

This is why I value criticism and public pressuring, even of Democrats. Ambitious opportunism is a required trait in any political leader. It is our insistence on and support of certain ideals that must provide the best opportunities for ambition. If we don't provide them, they will be sought elsewhere.

If I were looking to defend anything done by Democrats, no matter what the party plans for the next two years, I would simply point to the evils of the opposition and the necessity of keeping them out of office. This sort of tough-talking pragmatism convinces a great many people (it convinces me!). Well, apply it to the politicians. If you want them to stick to a set of ideals, the alternative must seem an evil one to them. If you define yourself as an enthusiastic supporter of the trappings alone, they'll graciously look elsewhere for someone to please.

[jpgray]

1. I stand for self-kicks, apparently

:dunce:

[Greyhound]

2. Ideal? Principles? That's so 20th century, dude. K&R

What do you think of the idea that we saw this swing, not as an endorsement of the Republiks but merely as a protest against the government's failure to do anything like what they were sent there to do, and that we will see another flip in 2012?

[jpgray]

3. I think that argument has a lot to it

Whichever party is in power will lay any frustration with their tenure at the feet of short voter attention span, etc., but there is a long history now of mistrust for both parties by the public. The upheavals seem less and less governed by inspired belief in a party than by fierce disappointment with the other. If you want to throw the bums out, you have to vote for the opposition, which will vary by which bums are in majority.

The GOP holds the Democrats hostage in a way with this--so long as they can successfully water down Democratic legislation and successfully suborn Democrats for their own initiatives, nothing approaching a progressive platform gets to the floor, while some very radical ideas from the GOP are regularly debated and voted on. At the same time that watered-down Democratic legislation is dubbed radical by a press obsessed with calling things evenly to the point of ignoring blatant imbalances. So voter disappointment is really with radical GOP policies and GOP-subverted Democratic policies, and not strictly with both parties.

That said, the blame for the watering down of Democratic policies is not wholly the GOP's. Some Democrats are responsible.

[jpgray]

4. Oh, and any flip would depend on who is successfully blamed or credited on the economy

Or on who has the most devastating scandals. Or on who appears to most typify the Beltway style everyone hates.