Taking "back" the party and America
Reclaiming the values of the Democratic Party. These are tropes I hear continually. We heard them throughout the primary and now with the electoral loss we are hearing them again.
I ask people what this past is they want to return to. Some talk about the values of FDR. Some say they want to go back fifty years. Others don't identify a time. They simply want to "take back" the party. You may think FDR values mean something great, but for some they mean Jim Crow and internment camps, which are also what FDR presided over. Even the New Deal itself was implemented in overtly racist ways.
During the GE we saw critiques of the racist nature of the rhetoric of making America great again, of going backward in time. While the MSM didn't critique that language during the Democratic primaries, a number of DUers of color wrote about how they found that language exclusionary. The Jim Crow past was not so great for them. In fact, for many Americans, the past was a hell of a lot worse.
I'm going to assume that people here making those claims really don't want to restore Jim Crow. I'm assuming that their comments come from an incomplete understanding of history rather than a desire to recreate the past. If that's the case, why not articulate the values you want to see the party represent? Why rely on lazy, ahistorical tropes to convey something you can't bother to articulate? If you can't say what values and policies you want to see, how can you possibly persuade voters of their benefit?
if you're going to make historical comparisons, they should be accurate. You should know, for example, that FDR relied on Wall Street for 25% of his campaign financing, while Wilson and TR got even larger shares from wealthy interests. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/08/why_its_ok_to_accept_wall_street_campaign_cash_129584.html
Clinton was not a departure from the history of the party. Instead, what we have is a public invested in historical mythology. I expect more from Democrats.
I'm the first to say I would like to see public financing of elections. but I don't need to create a mythical past to make that case. Nor should you. If you do, you're relying on appeals to a past that doesn't exist, and your message will be seen as excluding large swaths of the population. If you want to exclude, keep it up. If you want to communicate some core principles, then state them.
