E. J. Dionne, writing in the Washington Post via WorkingforChange Friday:
“Democrats, unlike Republicans, have yet to develop a healthy relationship between activists willing to test and expand the conventional limits on political debate and the politicians who have to calculate what works in creating an electoral majority.
For two decades, Republicans have used their idealists, their ideologues and their loudmouths to push the boundaries of discussion to the right. In the best of all worlds, Feingold’s strong stand would redefine what’s “moderate” and make clear that those challenging the legality of the wiretapping are neither extreme nor soft on terror.
That would demand coordination, trust and, yes, calculation involving both the vote-counting politicians and the guardians of principle among the activists. Republicans have mastered this art. Democrats haven’t.
Turning a minority into a majority requires both passion and discipline. Bringing the two together requires effective leadership. Does anybody out there know how to play this game?”
On the same day:
CNN’s Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider awards Senator Feingold the “Political Play of the Week” for his bold introduction of a resolution to censure President Bush. Schneider describes Feingold as “principled” while he suggests that other Democrats might need “Spines. Backbones. They help you stand up for what you believe.”
Schneider says “Acting on principle need not be political suicide.”-with VIDEO, from THE BRAD BLOG.
Are these two dots, just waiting to be connected?
What amazes me is that we can so easily connect the dots and the dems are too busy “running for office” that they cannot see the forrest(we activists, mainstream people) from the trees(corporate campaign monies).
Get with the program Congress!
Boy, do you have that right! Might I suggest, (if they just might be reading any at all here) that they get their heads of out of their tight little a$$ and take a long look at what and who does the voting out here. Unless they do not care, that is.
Ah BrendaS, Thanks. You said that so well for me.
a$$hats are ruining the party.
for the republicans, their grassroots base has largely the same objectives as their corporate funders: roll back every gain of the 60’s and 70’s, fuel racism and xenophobia, and launch a big series of wars (either for corporate profits or to hasten the apocolypse.) And who the hell cares about the victims, because if they would only “accept Jesus Christ at their personal lord and savior”, God would make them white and give them a house in the suburbs.
Progressive activists, on the other hand, have objectives such as ensuring everyone’s rights working towards economic equality, and standing up for the people who are victimized by the government and corporate system. These are hardly causes which any sane corporation would fund.
So the Democratic party is left in the position of trying to seem moderate-to-right, to get corporate funding, while still trying to appeal to its center-left base. It clearly can’t do both.
So the position we find ourselves in is that the corporations are essentially paying the Democratic party NOT to represent us. It doesn’t even MATTER to many of the party insiders whether they can actually win elections; they get paid just as much to lose them. (why else would the DLC and all these never-win-at-anything campaign managers still have jobs?)
The people who told Cindy Sheehan not to challenge Feinstein don’t care about you, and they don’t care about winning. They care about maintaining the status-quo, and their position within in.
Based on your analysis, it seems the best way to align the Dems with the grassroots would be to rely on small donor democrats to fund campaigns, and wean candidates away from what you call “the corporate funders.”
we need to give them an ultimatum: either the Democratic party belongs to the corporations, or it belongs to us. They can have THEIR money, or they can have OUR votes. They CAN NOT have both.
We tried it their way, it got us John Kerry.
Really, it got us bush again.
That’s where we get left in that situation.
We have to end this shit right now.
They won’t stop taking the money unless we make them.
I see it another way–stop giving them any money or votes, as they are too busy trying imitate republicans.
And, I am so sick of that, so, well, I’ve stated my feelings re: third party candidacies enough..
It’s virtually axiomatic in modern political behavior that electoral ambition trumps adherence to principle almost every time. Russ Feingold’s recent behavior is a marked exception to this unfortunate theorem.
If I had the stamina and wherewithal to coordinate a netroots movement seeking to challenge Dems to clearly articulate their positions and define the
philosophical perspectives that guide them, (with the goal of such challenges being to determine who’s worth supporting and who’s not, and to incentivize them to take a firm position on the issues), I would organize such an effort around posing this initial question.
What are the principles and freedoms and beliefs you would stand up for and defend even if standing up for them might reduce your chances for re-election?
Asking this question of each and every politician and candidate relentlessly until they either provide substantive answers or are publicly “written off” as refusing to answer and as such deemed “not reliable or credible”; this I think would cut through 90% of the stupid bullshit we need to contend with now, and might actually motivate some congresscritters to “grow that spine” referred to by Schneider.
If I had the stamina and wherewithal to coordinate a netroots movement
Dang, that sentiment sounds familiar! Here’s what I just posted (but don’t have the stamina or whatever to pursue on my own)
http://howardempowered.blogspot.com/2006/03/time-for-another-spinal-transplant.html
Yes!
My follow up to that original question would be to ask each that they describe the action or votes they have taken that support whatever claims they made as to principle.
And assuming those that answer are not scrupulously accurate in their responses, I’d have a comprehensive data base, (just as you suggest), of statements made and votes cast by them to either confirm or refute their claims and confront thempublicly with theirown hypocrisy when it rears its ugly head.
Even if I had the stamina for this sort of enterprise, I have so little regard for or faith in the machine that is the Democratic Party that I probably wouldn’t be the best person for such a task anyway.
Critiques that the Democratic Party is unable to organize and articulate a unified message don’t address the possible ill effects. The GOP has been much more successful than liberals at solidifying political power. Ask traditional conservatives if they are satisfied with the fruits of their political gain, a large increase in government spending and an unjustified foreign war. Democrats don’t need to unify their message. People need to stop prioritizing party loyalty ahead of loyalty to their country. I jeopardize relationships with Republican friends and coworkers everyday by aggressively advocating that counsel.