I can't tell if it's ideologically inclusive or if those on the left want to see the party - or the President for that matter - more closely mirror their beliefs. If that's the case, then what would happen to moderate and conservative Democrats? Should they become Republicans? Form their own party?
Would that be any more or any less unfair or confusing than expecting those of us "on the left" to consistently, again and again, smother our own beliefs and ideals in favor of what the moderates and conservatives want? Moderate and conservative Dems aren't that ideologically different than neocons, if we're talking pure policy positions. That ideology has had quite a long time to prove itself, and has failed on a globally-destructive scale. Frankly, I think it's time to let the ignored and marginalized wing of the party take a turn at the helm for a while.
Or if liberal Democrats aren't able to affect the direction of the party and the President, will they split off and form their own party? Maybe a populist, liberal version of the Tea Party, but with signs that are spelled correctly and a belief system more seated in material reality?
You used prettier words, but I believe the slur you're subtly dancing around is "leftbaggers"--right? As for a belief system seated in "material reality," I posit that losing our idealistic foundation is exactly what has turned our party from a strong advocate of the working class into a milquetoast hand-wringing group of people who are too frightened of polls to actually get real progress achieved. Here's some material reality for you: right now there are good working people dying for lack of health care. Right now a homeless person is being dumped in an alley by hospital workers who don't want to deal with someone who can't pay. Right now there are mothers who are staring at the ceiling, unable to sleep because it's the 8th of December and their rent is now three days overdue, with no way to pay it. Right now a soldier is being shot at in a war for which we cannot even properly provide a definition of "winning." The moderate and conservative wings of the party are fine with letting all of this suffering continue while we bicker over just how much we can slash a public health care plan without instigating a revolt on the left. I guess my "reality" priorities are different from yours.
When studying parties, people often forget the cross-cutting cleavages of party and ideology. That's why comparing party activities longitudinally, or the ridiculous notion that states can be classified into "blue" and "red" categories, is often problematic. Parties evolve based on historical and social developments.
They also evolve on the basis of greedy manipulation behind the scenes by the wealthy and the powerful. It is precisely that sort of "evolution" that some of us would like to roll back, in the interests of the average people for whom this nation was supposed to have been created. And if we can't completely fix the damage, then we can at least try to neutralize and prevent it from getting any worse--if we only had help and the kind of strong, courageous leadership we so desperately need.
That's why comparing Obama to FDR, JFK, or any previous president is a poorly conceived notion. Obama has his own history, and he sits in the Oval Office in order to face his own reality. It's not the 1930's depression, but it isn't the post-WW2 boom, either. In fact, it's nothing in between. It is, however, the first decade of the 21st Century, a decade bereft with its own brand of national crisis. Yes, Obama will take some cues from past figures, but frankly his decisions are a reflection of OUR era and OUR time.
I agree that our time is different. However, I believe that in many ways, we are actually in far MORE danger now that we have ever been before. We don't need FDR--we need someone even MORE courageous and determined than FDR, because we are fighting the same class war that was fought during his time, except this time the fascist right has usurped religious authority to a dangerous degree, and has the internet and the complacent media to help rally their supporters and make money. Death to liberty is coming to us on a pale horse named Fundamentalism, cloaked in the richest hood that Free Republic can provide. It would be incredibly foolish to dismiss or attempt to minimize the scale of the threat we are all under. Moderate and conservative Democrats are simply not capable of effectively fighting the right-wing ideologues. Too many of them are uncomfortable with conflict, especially when they at least partly agree with some of the positions of the right-wing, which is not surprising considering that what we call "moderate" today would have been considered solidly right-wing just a few short decades ago.
Likewise, the current Democratic Party is a reflection of OUR era and OUR time. It will continue to evolve as our era changes. I believe that this time in our national experience is one during which ideology is less important than solving problems, so that's why Democrats of different ideological veins will sometimes be pleased, and sometimes not be pleased. But what I don't understand is, when a president isn't acting ideologically but pragmatically, why we're insisting that he bend in a particular direction. A staunch ideology is based on a totalistic view of the world, where one set of solutions fits all problems. Quite frankly, Obama isn't wired that way. If he doesn't think the solution fits, he'll use another that he thinks fits better. I don't think he cares, honestly, from what ideological playbook it comes.
Your error here is assuming that you are speaking to cartoon people who all fit your pat little definition of "staunch ideologue." Real people aren't cartoons. We don't have checklists of beliefs that we share like computerized androids. There are left-wing positions that many of us disagree with--some vehemently. Your lecture only works if we're all a bunch of cookie-cutter Leftist revolutionaries, which we are not. However, the one thing that modern American progressives do have in common is a firm belief that we must be TRUE "fierce advocates" of policies that increase overall economic and social egalitarianism, and oppose (and even turn back) the frontal assaults upon liberty and social justice that the right-wing has inflicted upon us in their quest for money and power. The base struggle here is the same one that the whole world has been fighting for a very long time--the wealthy and powerful against everyone else. It's not a conflict that the American left and right have newly discovered--it's an old, old war of which this is just the latest ideological skirmish. I don't think that it's too much to ask of our Hope and Change President to stand with us and fight for the working class and the minorities who've been trampled under the boot of the right-wing for entirely too long. When you centralize the focus of your campaign on Hope and Change, it's natural for people to expect more dramatic results than the familiar old compromises and concessions that keep the wealthy firmly in power and the working people patronized, demonized, and defeated.
So this is what I'm confused about. If Obama chooses an action, and it actually works, then why does it matter what ideological leaning it represents? He's a Democrat, as are we. If you disagree with what he's doing, I have to ask: Is it the party or the ideology that matters more to you? Because Obama honestly couldn't care less. He's simply a Democrat.
If you're taking the position that there are right-wing ideological actions that are as effective at achieving the goals of egalitarianism and empowerment of the working class as the left-wing ideological actions are, then with all due respect, you're full of it. Have you forgotten what right-wing means? What it represents? These are people who WANT the wealthy to rule the nation. They admire Ayn Rand's Objectivist defenses of selfishness and greed as virtues. They consider the poor and the disempowered minorities to be little more than scum, and see no value in any life that cannot wholly care for itself (save for fetuses, of course.) Perhaps the conflict is because the moderate and conservative Democrats simply do not share our goals. They don't really care about poverty relief, equality, social justice, and peace as serious goals; they are far more interested in keeping everything nice and stable, and turning discreetly away from the evidence of the injustices they're perpetuating in the name of selfish comfort and stability. When politicians prefer the comfort and stability of the compromising status quo over the uncomfortable-but-necessary struggle of justice and compassion, then progressives are going to have a really hard time feeling much sympathy for or solidarity with them. Perhaps you feel that these are worthy actions to defend, but I do not. I feel nothing but contempt for those who would stand up for the status quo while real people are needlessly suffering and dying.
You seem to forget that quite a few of us are here because we are more pragmatic leftists than our more-revolutionary brethren. We're not here to support the Democratic party as it is; we're here to change it from within. We're here because we believe that changing the system from within is the most realistic way of accomplishing our ultimate goals, and because (perhaps foolishly) we believed it when we were told that voting for the lesser of two evils was the best idea--for now. However, if those of you who consider yourselves moderate and conservative Democrats would rather that we progressives all go away and vote Green next time, then by all means, say so and be done with it. If not, then you need to realize that you CANNOT continue to expect our support if you are not willing to give equal value and attention to the issues that we care about. Such an expectation would be neither fair nor rooted in the "material reality" you seem so fond of tossing at us when it suits your purposes.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
