View Story | 920 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Dean is the point man... in the war for the soul of the party.
by Flint on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:37:07 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Despite all of the constant praise for our great candidates, I think our internal fight is hardly different from that on the wing-nut side, though not as transparent. I’ll agree that our candidates don’t appear as bat-shit crazy as theirs, but under the surface there is a real ugly fight brewing that could be just as destructive to this party.
Maybe that is the fate of both parties, simply because they have tried to be too inclusive, rather than make a strong and persuasive argument for their core ideals. Since FDR and the rise of the Military Industrial Complex (maybe earlier, but the money element seems to me to be the tipping point), it seems they have made coalitions that work against their core ideals. You really can’t have a party that purports to be for workers rights funded by Corporatists. I don’t think you can have a party that supports peace and justice, and cater to Blue Dogs. The Republican side is now seeing that Dominionist theology and low-tax libertarianism were never a good fit; their shared hate does not include enough common ground.
Perhaps there will be many fractured parties in the future, not unlike what we’ve seen with religions in the past (Protestant denominations as one example.) I think the rate, at which this will happen, will be staggering with the simple speed of internetworking. If the Democratic Party can’t stick too it’s core principles and then effectively convey those to the average American (something we’ve done a poor job of for years) then eventually there will be many "Democratic" factions.
Perhaps entropy applies to politics as well.
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. - Ambrose Bierce
by MalachiConstant on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:32:56 PM PDT
Maybe that is the fate of both parties, simply because they have tried to be too inclusive
That's a bit kinder than I would put it. I think this is the fate of all organizations, because all organizations ultimately exist for the purpose of consolidating power. And we all know what power does.
In the end (and it doesn't even take very long), all organizations become more focused on consolidating power than on achieving whatever purpose they originally organized for. The parties became "inclusive" because they wanted as much power as possible...and the way the get it was to bring as many people as possible into their tent.
Today, the main lament about "catering" to the leftier wing of the Democratic Party is that then you will lose the center, and by catering to the center you will lose the left. I have no doubt both Parties would happily extend their political platforms across the entire political spectrum, if they could figure out a way to do it without losing anybody.
I think this is the reason that no one will touch the definition of "progressive" with a 10-foot pole. All political organizations on the left side of the spectrum, from the DLC to DFA, want be free to call themselves progressive without having to define what it means, because they want to bring in as much support as possible. If they settle on what they mean by "progressive," some folks are going to decide that the definition doesn't fit, and move on.
I have thought about the possibility a disintegration into lots of little parties, as well as the role that the internet could play in this grand drama. However, I think that, as long as people are inclined to party, they will be inclined to party big. My hope is that, ultimately, the internet will form a framework that will undermine that inclination entirely, and we will have no parties at all.
Free at last, free at last...
by Free Spirit on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:05:43 PM PDT
a parliament where we can yell at the president. I'm ready.
We need IRV as well.
Healthcare for ALL! NOW! & OneCare at MySpace
by SarahLee on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:42:56 PM PDT
Which side are you on?
Its the same battle
On Being A John Edwards Democrat
by Redstateresident on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:44:27 PM PDT
Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers
by groggy on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:24:49 PM PDT
Obama will keep Dean on. Has he pledged to do that?
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio
by Boston Boomer on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:57:27 PM PDT
there is no guarantee, but as both were centrally about restoring Democracy, I think Obama will probably beg Howard to stay. With a grassroots organizer as the head of the party though, Dean may feel the party is in good hands and go home. He and his family have sacrificed their private lives for the country for the last 4-5 years. He should be lauded and allowed to exit, or rewarded with an offer of VP, but I don't think that will happen. I can still dream I guess, especially as Howard would make a great heir of the Obama legacy, because he is an amazing administrator. Just the kind of guy you want to really flesh out a vision.
Obama is the Dean campaign part II, with an awakened populas, and a messenger who can move the masses. And he has a way of saying "We need to get those guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks to vote for us" in a way that goes down a lot easier.
by PLS on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:59:01 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 920 comments