A Modest Proposal
Thanks to Kevin and the American Street crew for inviting me in!
While traveling through the United Kingdom a few years ago, I met up with an Oxford undergraduate who, dizzy with his first success as a public speaker, told me all about the Oxford Debating Society. Thinking about this post, I thought I would borrow the format for a serious-as-a-heart-attack discussion:
Proposed: THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NO LONGER SERVES THE INTERESTS OF ITS CONSTITUENCIES AND SHOULD BE DISBANDED.
The recent history of the Democratic party has been one of craven retreat from the principles of protection of individual rights, support for the working classes, assistance to the disadvantaged and afflicted, sound stewardship of the environment, and a strong national defense based on economic cooperation and diplomatic alliances.
–Instead of leadership, we have an aristocracy of bench warmers so interested in retaining their own (shrinking) slice of power that they will compromise on any issue, no matter how critical (yes, Senator Biden, I damn well mean you!);
–Instead of strategists to advance the party’s interests, we have campaign managers who keep rank-and-file opinion at a suitable distance from the aristocrats while building political and strategic structures meant to maintain their own access to power (how many folks do you know who screw up five times and still have jobs?);
–Instead of advocates to present the Democratic case to the public, we have media consultants whose role seems to be to abase themselves to the current talk-show wingnuts (fill your favorite empty-suit name here);
–Instead of principles, we have political calculations based on triangulating the “average American” and spouting back whatever he wants to hear, no matter how noxious or harmful;
–Instead of resistance to this administration, we have collaboration.
For all these reasons it behooves us to consider whether the Democratic party is still a viable vehicle for liberal and progressive ideas, or whether a massive migration to a third party or the creation of another entity would serve our interests best.
Anybody interested in taking the Opposition? One caveat: it cannot begin unfortunately, in America it has always been… As everyone seems pleased to remind us, things have changed. And, besides, revolt movements have a long history of affecting change in the United States. If you don’t believe me, ask Ross Perot.
January 25th, 2005 at 7:25 am
If you don�€™t believe me, ask Ross Perot…
It’s like I’ve been tellin’ ya over and over, but ya haven’t been listenin’. It’s like this…third parties are like that crazy aunt down in the basement. It reminds me of that time Republican’s hatched that plan to disrupt my daughter’s weddin’ and sent commandos onto my property. I had to rush out in my pajamas and loose the dawgs to chase them away. Now if the Democrats had all just voted for me in ‘92, we’d be livin’ in a better world, can’tcha see ? Now all we have left is that giant suckin’ sound. Can you understand what I’m tryin’ to tell ya ?
January 25th, 2005 at 8:55 am
Applause.
January 25th, 2005 at 9:16 am
Both parties are indeed parts of a political system designed from the outset to protect the economic interests of the aristocracy and their minions. At times, we plebes have been able to wrest concessions from these guardians of the powerful, but they are the exception, not the rule.
Since the game is rigged, I’d be reluctant to invest energy in organizing to play by their rules. If you take historical notice, it’s only when the dispossessed become a viable threat to the rulers that any concessions are offered. Taking control over our lives, however, usually entails shedding some of that blue blood, as well as our own.
January 25th, 2005 at 9:34 am
Well said, Emma.
To take the contra position, I respectfully argue that there is no need to disband the Democratic Party. It has effectively already marginalized itself, and the apparent structures that remain are more committed to the admiration of those best able to achieve and manipulate power itself (think Bill and Hillary, and yes, I do mean BOTH of them, especially the latter), then those committed to achieving just and fair ends with the power so obtained.
So, yes, something called “the Democratic Party” will exist onward, but its simply a PR machine for itself– we needn’t worry about it being a source of effective change for justice or fairness.
Further, as correctly noted by Ross, third-parties, at least from scratch, have a “batty-aunt” quality about them that tends to prevent them from catching on. Americans are wedded to the “two party in name” system, even though, these days, we are effectively a one-party state (and certainly, ideologically, the similarities of the “two parties” outweigh the differences).
We have another option. There is a party that was FOUNDED upon principles of social justice. The traditional party of African Americans, and professional people. The party responsibkle for appointing the first woman to the SUpreme Court, the first Black Secretary of State and the first Latino attorney general. A party that TELLS US it is a big tent, and would welcome our views. A party that above all else GETS THINGS DONE.
I am proposing that, in terms of “mass movements”, the smart money is that we can achieve more effective change and social progress through the Republican Party, and working to internally moderate its positions, and reach the EFFECTIVE compromise that our party stakeholders are not reaching, in the interest of getting better parking spaces.
We must set aside our personal disgust at George W. Bush (who is gone in 3 years, 11 months, 26 days, no matter what), and realize that our OWN so-called party is actually much more of the problem than the solution.
The GOP, while we may disagree with its agenda, is effective at getting it done because IT BELIEVES. “Our side’s” political arm believes in nothing except its own self-perpetuation and fundraising. If we can moderate the views of the Big Tent GOP, there is potential for tremendous good. We should step back in awe at Arnold Schwarzenegger. Sure, he has some “illiberal” baggage, such as being wedded to tax cuts for the rich, but on most issues that matter (social issues for sure), he strikes me as somewhere to the left of John Kerry.
The libertarian wing of the GOP can be reanimated, and concern for individual rights can again be respected. A mass migration of progressives into the GOP can more than drown out the racists and religio-fascists who give the GOP its current numbers… possibly making them go somewhere else… like home. The GOP fiscal conservatives can be reanimated, and maybe, just maybe, can drown out the corporatists and whores who dominate the party via the Bush family.
The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect something different. Since LBJ, we have lost 7 out of 10 presidential elections and Congress 6 terms running, and of the three presidentials we won, 1 involved Watergate and 2 involved Ross Perot… Our party ain’t workin’ for us. We can’t seem to beat ‘em. I say we join ‘em, and push ‘em in a humane, decent direction and get things done.
January 25th, 2005 at 10:51 am
Emma’s post was brilliant, and The Talking Dog drops some mad science. Good stuff.
My own strategy for keeping my sanity at the moment is to refuse to give a shit about “the future of the Democratic Party,” until such time as it becomes apparent that the Democratic Party gives a shit about anything other than its own perpetuation. The fact that Harry Reid’s #1 priority for the Democratic Party is “expanding the military” is the cherry on the sundae…
January 25th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
Yo, Dog! - the talking one, that is. Ask the fundies how changing the direction of the GOP works out. They get a lot of lip service from the republicans, but never any of the things they’re holloerin’ for.
January 25th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
third parties are like that crazy aunt down in the basement
Agreed. How about we just shake up the management and put a fighter in charge. Maybe a loud-mouthed Governor from New england or something.
January 25th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Spot on. Bill and Hillary are great at raising money and telling corporations what they want to hear.They both have supported torture and war crimes in Iraq. The Democratic party is dead in the water. Anyone who gives them money or time has only herself to blame. Now, what about the other guys? What about the Jacobins who think that it is their duty to eradicate the teaching of evolution and other subjects from our prublic schools? Our science is in bad shape and Clintonista Larry Summers says that women probably can’t hack it. We need a third party and it will take time to get it going- it must start with state elections, not Presdiential elections.
January 26th, 2005 at 2:29 am
A very nice argument, Emma, in every detail, every point. As for The Talking Dog, he too, raises points well worth considering, though losing Congress 6 times running is only 12 of the 36 years since Johnson. It is not as dire there, yet the Congressional collaborationists remind me of the Vichy French, not the Resistance.
I have wondered, too, if 90% of the adults grew so disaffected that they refused to vote altogether, and a candidate then wins with 6% support vs. 4% for the loser, would the winner still proclaim it as his 60% mandate?
Yes, I believe that’s how they add two and two.
That’s why an organized effort that spent three years making the case that our government and its two parties are no longer representing the bottom 80% of America, could campaign on the strategy of “Don’t vote, because they no longer represent decent hardworking Americans”, then the outcome would have to be measured through our prism.
If we succeeded in dropping the percentage of adults voting to 30%-35%, a record low turnout achieved by an active Anti-Voting campaign, the onus would be on the victors AND losers to regain legitimacy and increase the turnout next time. They’d be forced to collaborate in behalf of us, instead of collaborating to gain some pork for their district or state.
Perhaps a viable third party may yet arise, but considering the history, from Bull Moose, to George Wallace to John Anderson to Ross Perot - measured against, say, the Greens - ideological platforms don’t stand a chance. It takes a populist leader to make a serious dent, with the cult of personality - not formal positions - the real motivator.
Towards that end, there’s clear support for Howard Dean, though I maintain he’d both be an unlikely independent and unlikely to garner more than Perot achieved, if that.
Thus, the question remains “our nation turns its lonely eyes to … WHO?
The lack of a real populist leader willing to stray from a party virtually kills any chance of an alternative to the Dem Party anytime soon.
So I maintain the first step has to be the Don’t Vote’ movement. Delivering that rejection letter to the two major parties would be the provocation needed for a populist independent candidate to arise, with a third party movement in tow.
I’d like to see The Commonsense Party be that future force, though I’ve yet to see the popular populist that can lead it. While waiting for that emergence though, the future of America may well rest on a populist ‘Don’t Vote’ movement.
No-one can play games to keep it off the ballot.
January 26th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Disband the Democratic Party?? No, no, no!!! It keeps the liberals busy (and, sometimes, out of trouble) and provides a place where REAL progressives can keep an eye on ‘em.
January 29th, 2005 at 8:17 am
While I don’t think the party should be disbanded, it certainly needs to be recharged. Instead of trying to ‘fit in’ with the Repubo value system, they should be standing up for real American values - things like civil rights, equality, embracing diversity, and tolerance. We need to attack the Repubo value system for what it is - bigotry. Cloaking our rhetoric in Repubo values will only say to Americans that the Repubos are right.