If it could be done, would the Democrat Party work within an association greater than itself as a supportive an active member? It would require sharing a platform equally with Independent parties and individuals to work together in achieving larger common goals.
Would this be possible or would it require that only the dem party to make all of the rules? An association that focused on issues/policies/people rather than candidates in particular would allow us to work together to address critical issues that we now face. Diversity of specific opinion would be encouraged within the association but some common ground that would benefit everyone would be required.
Is it possible?
Maybe the sad answer is no, it’s not possible.
It was worth a try but maybe it’s time to go back to the land of the uninvolved.
Too many big egos, too much power, too much beholden to the corporations and the current power structure. . .they won’t even listen to their grass roots constituency, they ain’t gonna share power with nobody.
Nope! No one is willing to put their ass on the line after what happenned to Paul Hackett.
My ideas were based on a better system by helping the special interest groups to work together better. After a little more research I’m thinking that’s just not possible. The news this morning is already gearing up for a war against those internet people. Every time a ‘them’ word is used, it doesn’t turn out well. The past week has seen new problems appearing in the blog world with posts disappearing and access being denied.
When I saw you had commented here, I started looking again for those Med links and groups to post for you because it’s these groups I’m thinking would benefit by the connecting network. Well, one thing leads to another when I research and I saw another troubling trend. I noticed some recent cases of the govt charging, prosecuting or harassing people under authority of the Hatch Act which limits or prohibits political activity by govt employees and/or their agents.
My first guess is that the H/A might have been used to push Hackett out of politics but either way, it opens a whole new can of worms for any govt employee involved in politics. This doesn’t apply to just nonconservatives or anti-war/bush/admin, this could be used against a wide variety of govt affiliated people in a wide variety of ways.
In other words, it looks like more control is coming and it could be widespread.
Any good information here on the Hatch Act?
Short answer is yes. Caveats: organization(s) must be able to deliver the votes of their membership; must be willing to work at every level in support of the party; and most importantly deliver donations.
Keeping with our stand-off-and-assist approach, the orgs themselves should agree to a loose affiliation with a larger independent umbrella group, formed for and during a specific election cycle (’06, ’08, etc). In essence only when it is in their best interests.
IMHO there is absolutely no need for a “third party”, so much as that cooperative umbrella group. No labels need apply.
My ideas of an association isn’t campaign driven but could be used as an enhancement as the association gains in popularity. To be realistic, a third party doesn’t have much of a chance of success. Utilizing a competitive-friendly forum to advocate crucial issues, would allow the dem candidates to benefit from better exposure. This could let them strengthen their platforms and campaigns by working on what they will essentially be promising to do anyway. This would be an excellent chance for new candidates to gain legitimacy and the association would provide a visible common ground while still respecting specific differences of opinion.
The visible common ground can provide the ‘what does the democratic party stand for’ problem that the media abuses on a regular basis. The novelty of cooperation would likely draw media attention and new participants.
Just for tossing ideas around here, what would the other participants get in return from the democrat party in exchange for the caveats?
grrrrr
The visible common ground can provide the ‘what does the democratic party stand for’ problem that the media abuses on a regular basis.
roughly translates to
provide the reply to the problem question of ‘what does the democratic party stand for’
but I’m afraid that this is improbable to the point of impossibility.
I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the only way to precipitate a change in the body politic is to accelerate the inescapable pain and sacrifice that’s going to have to happen before the ‘majority’ of the country ‘gets it’. I’ve watched this slow-motion train wreck for years and have zero faith in either party to make any positive changes embracing the core principles that this country was founded on without an overwhelming public display of dissatisfaction.
Borrowing from Arthur Gilroy, the only weapon available to us, however you wish to define ‘us’, is our vote. Whether it’s a NEWS-STRIKE! or an unwillingness to be co-opted and treated as an ATM every 2 years, the ultimate weapon is still the vote.
If your party refuses to give more that lip service to the ideals that are important, the only way to clearly express that is to withhold your support at the ballot box. Some will say that this is an inappropriate strategy, I would posit that it is the only strategy that will have any impact beyond a rhetorical acquiescence from the status quo. Can you say; lip service?…I knew you could.
The pain is coming, why not speed up the process? Hell, 45% to 50% of the eligible voters don’t bother to show up already.
WHAT IF THEY HELD AN ELECTION AND NOBODY CAME?
Pretty much exposes the pretense of Government of, by and for the people…heh. The reason they don’t change is that, at the end of the day, there is no consequence, beyond the disappointment of the electorate, to not doing so. As long as they can count on the base holding their noses and voting for them they will continue to ignore it.
I have not, nor do I now, believe that a third party is the answer. On the other hand, I once believed that change could be accomplished by working within the existing party structure. I no longer believe that to be the case. I still support the ‘idea’ of attempting to do so, especially in the primaries. But, and this is a biggie, if the party chooses to undermine the process, as has happened this cycle with Hackett, and Pennacchio, happened here in CO with Mike Miles v Ken Salazar in 04 (that worked out really well and is again occurring in the Governor’s race), happened with Dean in the last POTUS election, you see where this is going.
WITHHOLD YOUR VOTE…they cannot win without it, let’em lose, get it over with, expose the hypocrisy, spread the pain around, it’s going to happen, it’ll just take longer if you keep enabling it/them. It’s the only thing that will effect change. When enough people absolutely know they’re fucked, then it will change, not before.
A government that is not supported by 60%+ – of the people is not viable.
Peace
You’re probably right on all of that and I agree with most but the most effective withholding would be the money. However, that would be damaging and counterproductive. My theory is not so much working within the dem party so much as forcing change through interaction with it.
Provide money and other support to the candidates that have the values and support the policies you embrace, especially in the primaries. If that choice is abridged by the party leadership, especially if it is done beforehand, money should be withheld.
The only currency that you/I have to interact with, and change the direction of the party, is our vote. Losing and winning is all they understand. Until the liberal/progressive electorate understands this, and strategizes appropriately, no significant changes will be forthcoming. I, personally, will not vote for another vichy Dem. Got one, don’t like him.
Peace
Yeah, I understand that. I have this overpowering sense of urgency that crucial issues need to be addressed right now and later is going to be too late.
Regardless of what I want or think, some probabilities and observations are true. The majority of people have lost faith in both parties. Many of those are willing to vote against their old party out of spite or frustration. There will likely be some serious defections from both parties. Many many people feel completely abandonded and some have turned away from the established parties forever. The dem party needs a new identity that people might turn to because the old one is fatally flawed.
Hell, it took many years of hard work to get to this point. </snark>
My immediate thought on reading your question: “The Democrats in a larger assemblage? Are you confusing this with a parliamentary system?”
I doubt the Democratic party would be willing to be part of a larger progressive assemblage; that’s not what it’s staff are hired to do and not what it’s leaders want. They like the status quo just fine, where they’re the only game in town if you want to vote and not vote Republican.
This gets back again to that same issue from when I changed my nom de blog from “Dem in Knoxville”: Does the party exist to address the issues, or does it see the issues as the fuel for its election train? I believe all the evidence points to the latter, and as long as that’s so those in the party machine “won’t play well with others.”
So the choices fall back to taking over the party, starting a third party and hoping for some faint chance of success someday while suffering through more Republican government, or withdrawing altogether from the fray.
At this point I admit to being stumped on that puzzler; I hang out here hoping the collective discussion will lead me to some “aha!” moment.
I’ve made peace with a decision to withdraw from the fray already so what I’m actually doing here is mental exercise of sorts.
I’m not sure the dem party can recover from the damage it’s done to it’s image. It would be more effective to identify it with a new one of sorts.
I think the party would be more effective to pursue the right policies in a sincere effort and let the candidates form around those policies. It can be done without thoroughly selling out.
I thought the chance of a large, issue based coalition of advocacy groups, with the dem party being one of the members, could give them a chance to identify with voters in a new way.
Can’t see it rumi. Just gut reaction. Can’t see the party power-sharing with anyone.
Yup, I guess not.
You aren’t going to take my word for it are you? God dang it. People are so willing to just abandon everything and play hearts. š
And not euchre, damn it!
I don’t know if it’s possible, but it sounds like a lovely idea.
The corporate tentacles are twined around every level of government. Voting, even if we elect people we like, may not make a difference anymore.
Well, yes, thank you for asking, I AM a little depressed.
Don’t stay down too long. Your voice is needed.
One thing about lovely ideas is that they don’t have to actually work…;)
This all makes great material for protest songs so I have plenty to keep busy. I can disconnect from the political debate and walk away feeling I’ve done all I can. I accept the fact that regardless of how much or how little work I invest, the way the system is, will effect no change. I’ve worked within the system and tried to present ideas for a slightly new way way to approach old problems. The reuslt was the same as if I’d done nothing at all.