What is the state of the Democratic Party right now?

[welshTerrier2]

this is not a post about polls or really even politics at all ... this post is an effort to analyze what i see as key issues facing the Party ... it's sort a personalized, introspective look at how we relate to our fellow Democrats ...

fwiw, here's my "pulse of the Party" ... i'd really be interested to know how you see things ...

the post, which is long, is divided into three sections:
I. Do Democrats have a process to work for common ground?
II. Does it matter how we, as Democrats, see the world?
III. Where are we now? Are we "winning"?

I. Do Democrats have a process to work for common ground?

We have lots of arguments within our party ... we fight about Iraq ... we fight about how aggressive our leaders are or are not and how they should be ... we fight about winning elections versus ideology ...

some accept the premise that everything can be resolved by holding a primary election ... if my guy wins, we do it my way; if your guy wins, we do it your way ... i no longer accept this ... this winner take all approach to getting my views and values represented is unacceptable ... it's way too black and white ...

here's a hint: i will not support any candidate who does not reasonably represent my views on the issues i value most ... this is not a threat; it's a plea for better communication and better representation ...

The voice of the people, all the people, must be heard by those who aspire to represent us ... if they don't come to our communities, throw them out ... it they don't demonstrate interest in hearing from you, throw them out ... it is beyond outrageous that most elected leaders, moreso in the Senate, rarely hold free, public forums ... this is inexcusable ... it's bad politics and it's bad government ...

Within the party itself, do most Democrats believe the Party hears their message or do most believe decisions are made far, far away by people who are badly out of touch with their concerns? again, it's inexcusable ... we battle between the left and the right; it's nonsense ... it's also nonsense to expect party loyalty ...

From the very top of the party, i had hoped Howard Dean would scream bloody murder ... i had hoped he would do it very, very publically ... get your fat DC asses back to your districts on a regular basis and start talking to the people you represent ... maybe they would fire him ... maybe they would think it inappropriate for the Party Chair to tell Senators how to behave ... tough noogies ... i've been very disappointed in Dean because of this ... the point isn't to "bash" Dean ... is his "50 state" strategy a good thing? perhaps it is ... but his failure to push hard, and publically, for intra-party dialog and better representation is a major flaw ...

Question 1: Has the Democratic Party put the necessary processes into motion to encourage a real dialog in pursuit of intra-party common ground?

II. Does it matter how we, as Democrats, see the world?

Perhaps you see bush as incredibly inept ... you make posts and speak often about what a bungler he's been ... at ever opportunity, you speak of his incompetence ... you point to his failure to bring democracy to the Iraqis or his monumental failure to get the budget deficits under control ...

But sitting under that big old Democratic tent, way down there at the other end of the tent, there are Democrats who see the world very differently ... They don't see bush or those controlling the levers of power as incompetent at all ... In fact, they see this view of him as a very dangerous view ... They see this view as sending a very dangerous message to the American people ... Take Iraq as an example ...

bush and his Big Oil friends have procured for themselves, by some estimates, as much as 85% of Iraq's future oil revenues ... does that sound like incompetence to you?

the problem with making the "incompetence" argument is that it implicitly accepts as legitimate the reason we are in Iraq at this time ... it says "maybe we shouldn't have gone in, but now we have to help achieve stability or bring democracy or whatever objective is cited" ... it suggests that if we had competent leadership, bush's very legitimate objectives in Iraq could then be achieved ...

so, even if we are on the same side in opposing continued occupation of Iraq, we oppose it for different reasons or at least partially different reasons ... does this matter? yes, i'm afraid it matters plenty ...

what the "incompetence" view fails to do is "out the motives" of the evil right-wing cabal ... it makes no effort to properly educate the American people about what is being done by their government ...

In fact, it perpetuates the myth that the US is still "the good guys" ...

What's not clear to me is why the "incompetence" wing of the Party chooses the position they do ... it's certainly possible that they simply disagree with my view of bush's motives ... but i think it contains at least an element of political fear ... it's a risky business criticizing the motives of your own country during a "war" ... the republican spin machine will immediately talk about how those lefty Democrats are anti-American and how they are undermining the noble efforts of our heroic fighting men and women who are putting their lives on the line for freedom and American values ... but spin doesn't tell the truth ...

Until we are able to educate the wrongs being done by the evil, greedy, imperialist, corporate cabal, we will never make real progress in this country ... bush will go down but they will not ... and they will merely work in the shadows through their lobbyists until eventually another right-wing republican, this one with a "competent" track record, returns ...

The problem with "winning elections" instead of "outing the evil" is that nothing is learned by the public ... those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it ... if the lesson we teach is that bush is incompetent, what is the argument for the next election and the next and the next and the one after that???

The way we see the world does matter; it matters very much ... we as a Party need to be a movement fueled by the right understanding of current events ... again, until we find a way to reach a common understanding, our unity will be weak and our long-term outlook weaker ...

III. Where are we now? Are we "winning"?

it's really very hard to say where we are right now ... the devastation the neo-cons have caused will last for a generation or more ...

viewed as a half-empty glass, one could quite realistically see mostly darkness and very little hope ...

and this may well be the correct assessment of our condition ...

but i guess i see myself as something of a "counter-puncher" ... with the right message, i.e. outing the evil they've done, i believe a momentum can be built that will wash them out to sea for generations ... i feel an energy i haven't felt since the mid to late 60's ... not the hot, passionate, in the streets anti-Vietnam protests but the gathering of students, lefties, civil rights warriors, intellectuals, musicians, and now, bloggers, from which the mass movement of the 60's eminated ...

we've been very small ... we've been distracted ... we've been apart from one another ... a writer here ... a professor there ... an occasional documentary now and then ... there was no core; there was no synergy ... it's becoming increasingly clear something has started to gel ... the net is a huge asset ... to plant our seeds, i.e. our vision, we no longer need to achieve the very difficult task of mobilizing hundreds of thousands into the streets on a regular basis ...

our movement can be built one little post at a time ... we are the MSM or soon will be ... and if those on TV or in the press ignore us, they will quickly become irrelevant and they will surely fail commercially ... in the end, they cannot afford to do that ...

there's no denying how much destruction our weakness and the deep slumber of our brothers and sisters have enabled ... the holes have been dug very, very deep ... the evil ones have not been incompetent or unsuccessful; they've been competent, evil and very successful ...

we are all going to suffer from the crimes and the greed of the evil ones; still, while the pain they caused will be great, i'm still optimistic ... i take great comfort in seeing this fledging movement growing everyday ... and i have no doubt, none, that we will crush them into dust and that we will soon be returned to power ...

[Stinky The Clown]

1. Thanks for a thoughtful and thought provoking post

I pretty much share your optimism for the future. Maybe for a different reason, or maybe because I came to my optimism from a different path. Nonetheless, I feel it too, bad days and dark thoughts notwithstanding.

While I'd like to think we can someday get to where you suggest we ought to be - open communication across the board, with communication defined as dialog, not monologues - it seems to me that may be too tall an order for many of us. As you so wisely point out, there are many on our side who simply see things in black and white, your way or my way.

As much as we all see a common threat from the right, so is there fear and mistrust of different views on among factions on our side. There are also many overly hardened positions that simply won't allow for consideration of alternate views.

And that comes down to two things, not mutually exclusive - the pursuit of power and intellectual snobbery. And while these conditions probably exist across the spectrum, I suspect they're more firmly entrenched at the margins. The margins, it seems to me, is where people are more likely to feel greater desperation to be heard or feel greater desperation to hold on to what they probably see as waning power.

I suspect the notion of honest discussion and willingness to find common ground is more evident in the broad middle of the left. This may be because anyone in the broad middle would only have to make a slight move to be more accommodating to someone else. Those at the margins would potentially have to move much farther to accommodate a person at the opposite end of the spectrum.

I also think that people at the margin are more ideological and less willing to compromise than those in the middle, just because of views much more strongly held. IT has little to do with the specifics of any given ideology, and far more to do with being entrenched simply as a way to compensate for lack of power, recognition, or even basic respect.

You spoke in broad terms about our elected officials and our potential future leaders (and presumably even the potential 08 candidates). I know some people will find fault with this, but for me it is at least as much about the person as it is about the person's specific stance on the whole range of issues that are important to us. This should not be taken to imply either a desire for a cult of personality or any lack of interest or concern about specific issues. Rather, it is about ... well .... trust.

I want to be able to trust that a person I might choose to support will listen to many views. I want to be able to trust that, in the gut, a leader would be generally close to me in a big picture sense. I want to be able to trust that, while I may differ with my choice's strategy on this issue or that, his underlying philosophical views are aligned with mine. In short, I want to be comfortable in placing trust and allowing a person - a leader - to do the right thing. That may be a little polyanthony-ish, but so be it. At the end of the day, how much more can any one of us expect? There's not a one of us who will agree completely with any other one of us, let alone with any given leader.

Just using an issue du jour - sexual equality - while I may favor total equality in marriage for gay and straight people (including use of the world 'marriage'), I am okay in trusting that a leader would never throw any group of people under the bus for political expediency. I'd *prefer* a strong pro-gay-marriage stance, but I would be happy to trust that no harm will be done and our larger goal will be advanced rather than allow to lay static or be pushed back. I could make pretty much the same argument with any issue.

Trust. For me, that's what it comes down to.

I trust most of the notable Dems ... to greater or lesser degrees. And there are a few - not many, but a few - who I trust no further than I can throw them.

You and I have had a number of discussions on a number of topics. I know that we don't always agree. But you know what? I *trust* you. That's good enough for me.

[Totally Committed]

2. Well said.

I especially agree with this part:

"I know some people will find fault with this, but for me it is at least as much about the person as it is about the person's specific stance on the whole range of issues that are important to us. This should not be taken to imply either a desire for a cult of personality or any lack of interest or concern about specific issues. Rather, it is about ... well .... trust."

I do think '08 will boil down to "who do you trust?"

TC

[welshTerrier2]

3. yes, it is well said ...

the thing is, though, that for me, that "trust" has NOT been earned by any of the likely '08 types ...

it must be a wonderful thing to be able to have a "hero" ... i define that as someone you believe in sufficiently to "let them drive the bus" ...

for me, that trust has NOT been earned by anyone likely to run ... i've written this many times on DU: "i truly do not know who is, and is not, a member of the imperial class" ... some here say: "you moron, do you really believe <your candidate here> is an imperialist????"

do i believe they are? no ... do i believe that all in power may be???? yes ...

Husb2Sparkly talked about the greatest "entrenchment" being, perhaps for just reasons, at the political extremes ... i'm not sure i accept that ... if we define "entrenchment" by our actions, say my action of refusing to vote for a candidate who doesn't represent my views, i suppose i could agree with the assessment ... but is that a manifestation of being "more entrenched" or more poorly represented ... if the candidate is magnitudes away from my views and values, does my action suggest i am "entrenched"? ... i'm not sure it does ...

rather than view the action of say, voting third party or not voting at all as entrenched, i prefer to assess the issue as to one's willingness to seek common ground and to seek compromise ... do i possess these traits? ... i like to think i do ... frankly, no one in the Democratic Party's establishment has made me an offer ... i see the center as more "entrenched" ... until we on the left either seize more power or leave the party, we are unable to "de-entrench" ... it is they who have power who can share power ...

increasingly, i am concerned that DU as a community cares little for seeking unity ... even here, we are more interested in combat and advocacy than in inclusiveness ... i do not set myself above these shortcomings but i do wonder whether my pursuit of better, i.e. more productive, intra-party communication might find a more productive home ...

[ChiciB1]

5. This Has Been MY Observation For Quite Some Time Now...

What are WE doing to get OUR agenda out there?? What are WE doing to make ourselves heard?

Oh, I forgot, we're blogging. I've done petitions, calling, writing, meetings... even local "small marches (red county here) and yet... THEY are still getting THEIR WAY!

Day by day we have more of OUR rights taken away, day by day we have the likes of Gonzales and Mueller giving us the proverbial finger, and day by day.... we WAIT! We WAIT AND WAIT AND WAIT AND WAIT!

It's all to SAD, but more OUTRAGEOUS that we ALL have to pay for the scoundrels who do nothing for US!

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Two things come up for me in what you said .......

.... one of them is so tangential that I'll say it and then put it aside for another discussion ....... term limits for Congress. I agree with many who say it will stop us from having good fighters of long standing (Ted Kennedy being often cited as an example of this). But perhaps it is time to sacrfice these long term 'fighters' in favor of people who come from the more ordinary strata of society. People like those who frequent DU or a local Democratic club or a local school board. People who think and believe strongly and who genuinely care. You know ..... people like you and me.

The other thing that comes up is your suggesting the entrenchment may well be in 'the middle'. I can accept this, but only to a point. I am speaking here about *people* (i.e.: citizens) in the middle of party, not politicians who are the infamous 'centrists' or those who are in the center of the Democratic mainstream. Let's start with a broad generalization. The middle is the 'average'. As a whole, they hold views that are the average position of the average voter. If you accept this, then the only way to make them change is to change the average view. And mostly, that comes from our leadership. Sad to say, but we political junkies, no matter our stripe, are not average in any way. Some of our views may seem 'average', but that's really just coincidence.

If we want to change the 'average' we need to change our leaders. And that's where the junkies come in. I actually think we can effect change by working for people who want to be elected and who want to effect change.

Let's just consider the Connecticut senatorial primary on the D side as an example. There are some who just plain want Lamont. But i suspect there are m,any, many more who just want Anbody But Lieberman (I have NO deep understanding of CT politics and these statements are no more or less than pure Stinky the Clown surmise). In any case, if we want to rid ourselves of the eladership we see as destructive to true liberal causes, then we need to work toward that. I dare say this would be, right now, damned near impossible to effect for the presidential candidates, but very, very possible for lower offices, up to and including the Senate.

Once new thought is in office, that thought will be discussed and tested more broadly and more seriously.

Oversimplification? Maybe. Doable? I think so.

[welshTerrier2]

13. about this entrenchment business ...

term limits ... yup, let's make that a new thread ... it's a great topic and i think it's grown far more complex than when first introduced ... not sure my views are as clear as they should be ...

on this entrenchment business, i think i see where you're coming from now ... i was, indeed, speaking about those with power being entrenched ... i see, now, you're focusing on voters ... the reason i focus on elected officials or the Party's elite is because they control the power (unless we can capture that power) ... phrased another way, i see them as obstinately clinging to power and being less than gracious in sharing it ...

whether i, as a voter, am entrenched and unyielding becomes almost irrelevant when viewed throught this lens ... i'm entrenched; i'm a "purist"; i'm inflexible ... or, i'm very flexible and open to compromise ... the flexible/inflexible spectrum is somewhat meaningless if i have no power and those with power won't negotiate or compromise with me ... i can stand in their line or not stand in their line but i can't compromise if there's no one offering to share power ... i hope this point is clear ...

within your framework, looking at voter flexibility and the political spectrum, i see no difference ... first, one could write volumes on whether the political spectrum even exists ... i won't go down that path here ... if i were to define the center as "placing primary emphasis on winning elections" and the left as "placing primary emphasis on winning issues", i have no yardstick to measure the intensity of flexibility or inflexibility of either group ... i would certainly not argue that the left is more entrenched using these definitions ...

my view is that, while we will never get everyone on the same page or agreeing on all, or even most of the issues, we do ourselves a huge disservice by not demanding from all involved better, more open, communication ... we as voters need more, and direct, and regular, access to power ... good politics demands it; good government and representation demand it ... the only way to narrow our differences is through communication ... perhaps in regular Town Hall meetings with our elected leaders and party elites, even small concessions from one side or the other can be made to bring us closer together and build better understandings ...

what we're doing now reflects an arrogance of power and a disrespect for democracy ... surely, that's no way to build trust ...

[Stinky The Clown]

14. "i see them as obstinately clinging to power and being less than .......

.... gracious in sharing it ..."

Indeed.

And even the best of them ..... the darling du jour of the left included, are part of that.

Ascribe to them, if you can bear it, some honesty and good intention to the Republican freshman class of 94 when took office. How many of them swore to leave office after a certain number of terms ... generally 2? How many kept their word? I dare say that would have been true were that 94 wave a Democratic wave. Or Green or Libertarian or Socialist.

This, in no small way, causes the very behavior you're wishing to see changed. There is no incentive whatever for any politician to pay attention to the base, let alone the larger brigade of voters, once in office.

I wish there was a way to change that. Under our system today, I see none.

Maybe where this is leading is to that discussion of term limits ........

But then, that's just one part of it, now isn't it?

I also keep coming back to my notion of trust.

[welshTerrier2]

15. darling du jour of the left?

ya know ... they never send me the damned memos ... i think it might be my anti-virus program or something ...

i'm shooting in the dark here but i can only speculate you're talking about Gore ... there's plenty to like about Gore; his deeply disturbing comments about withdrawal from Iraq are not among them ...

he'll need to do much better than he did to earn my trust or my vote ... is that today's "darling?"

as for this:

There is no incentive whatever for any politician to pay attention to the base, let alone the larger brigade of voters, once in office.

I wish there was a way to change that. Under our system today, I see none.

therein lies the rub ... today, i write about and campaign on the theme locally ... i have small successes meeting with local polls, speaking with them at my local Democratic Town Committee and promoting at least a little dialog ... it ain't much ...

someone has a slogan "democracy is not a spectator sport" ... well, that's true ... of course, if the only time you see your rep is on MTP, it's sort of a spectator sport in some sense, isn't it??

btw, thanks for all the input on this thread ... for a while there, it looked like all this effort and thought was heading to the goose egg graveyard ...

it really is too bad so few participate in topics like these ... maybe it's too abstract and vague ... i'm not sure it is though ...

[Stinky The Clown]

16. No, you would be wrong to think that ........

I honestly had no one in mind with that du jour crack. On any given day, there seems to be a new darling ... largely for just doing their job. I guess that's becoming increasingly rare.

Ascribe NOTHING to this list except use as example:

(Okay) Gore for global warming

Feingold for censure

Boxer for the sponsoring the House after the 04 elections

Murtha for his War stance

Conyers for voting issues

Etc., etc., etc.

Good guys all.

Entrenched, all.

**********************

As for participation in discussions ...... I enjoy the exchange of ideas. Its how I learn .... by listening, by throwing things out, by watching them sink or watching them fly.

I'm a lot more visceral than you. You're far more introspective and thoughtful than I. In the end, it makes for a good discussion that's both worthwhile and entertaining.

As to why posts like this tend to die while some of the bombshells I toss get 40 noms is simply beyond me. I wish that we had one of the DU "Big Forums" that went so far as to ban discussion of any topic less than a week old. That would foster some more much needed thought. Let something marinate before its gets discussed. There is surely a place for the "Did you hear what Fuquad just said on MTP?" posts. But this sort of post is at least as important to many of us.

[welshTerrier2]

17. "Big Forums"

i know the admins are, or at least were, pondering various approaches ...

i've had all kinds of ideas about how to do it - frankly, none of them "ready for primetime" ...

one was to set a minimum number of words ... that would screen out threads like:

you have to see this: link
no shit ... that's amazing
thanks ...

or, Kerry will never get my vote because he screwed the pooch after the election ...
you're a moron ...
so are you ...

sheesh ...

but minimum words is absurd ... then i thought that maybe we could have a forum called issues and strategies or something like that ... you couldn't make posts that focused primarily on people or news items (without news analysis) ... the emphasis would have to be on the issue ... so, for example, if Clark gave a speech on the Middle East, you could mention him but the post would have to discuss Middle East policy ... plus, you couldn't just say:

here's Clark's great speech: link ...

the rule would require you to provide substantial discussion if you wanted to post a link to what he said ...

i think i like this latter idea better but i'm not sure it would work ...

and, of course, it's always possible that us blabbermouth analytical types would quickly find ourselves tucked away in a "dead corner" where even the small mop doesn't reach ...

so, back to the drawing board ... and things will get much worse once the primaries roll around again ... good luck with threads like these when that happens ...

and finally, while i appreciate your gracious "You're far more introspective and thoughtful than I.", i just don't see that at all ... i'm an analyst by personality; you're no slouch yourself ...

[Stinky The Clown]

18. Pssst .... didja notice .... ?

Yer on the greatest page! Somebody appreciates this post! :)

[welshTerrier2]

19. don't tell anyone but ...

i learned how to recommend my own posts multiple times ... shhhhhhhh!

[Pithy Cherub]

4. The philosophical issue of whether politics as a whole

are relevant to people defines how parties practice the art and science of politics. The current response by Democrats is based on a point in time response rather than an articulated vision that stands a/the test of time. It is the success measure used that makes having a dialog about politics as a whole more difficult. The focus on abstract ideals, ideas, concepts and constructs is the province of the few rather than the many who participate. Participation for some is a defining singular issue that permeates a point of view and for others the idea of winning transcends the anathema of just a single issue. One will not succeed without the other.

Many democrats will not vote for a Democrat just because there is a D present on the ballot. There would have been no Nixon, Reagan, Dubya, Pataki, Romney, Huckabee, or Schwarzenegger if not for the cross over votes of Democrats. They were largely silent about it as well and the fact that many D's, myself included, will no longer pledge blind allegiance should be a warning signal that the shining beacon of hope is to build around an ideal and values rather than an individual. A candidate is the natural embodiment and outcome of the political process and where many people start to decide to participate. If a candidate is unable to be consistently credible and authentic about their viewpoints, the loyalty ties that bind loosen to such a degree that an inordinate amount of resources are utilized to rally those with common cause rather than building a broader coalition.

The very fact that the current crop of elected Democrats are not running away with positive approval ratings is because base loyalty has suffered erosion that is not being addressed. Those who feel the strongest about issues engage and many others follow to build critical mass. That is also where the Great Hope is with those who feel strongest about a change will endure to make it so.

Excellent post WT2.

[welshTerrier2]

6. you're killing me here ...

great post, PC ... almost too many nooks and crannies to address ...

i have spoken many times to the above posters ... both of them possess remarkable insight (as do you) ... and yet, perhaps as an extension of your point, they are "hybrids" ...

they are not only invested in a candidate, or willing to trust a candidate, but they are both excellent abstract thinkers ... so, it's a dicey business viewing the world of abstract thought versus candidate investment in overly binary, polar terms ... i'm not at all suggesting your post did that ...

most troubling, though, is your last paragraph ... trust me, it keeps me awake at night ... i have written this sentence many times myself: "The very fact that the current crop of elected Democrats are not running away with positive approval ratings is because base loyalty has suffered erosion that is not being addressed."

ultimately, that one sentence is the whole point of my post ... the erosion is real ... i'm afraid, at least for some, it's even by design ... how many posts have you seen recommending dumping the left for the center? they may not be phrased quite that explicitly but that sure sounds like the message to me ... and so, the fight goes on ...

and it goes on with precious little commitment to try to "work things out" ... the process is entirely non-existent ... i think those in power accept a process that "welcomes all to run" and then expects fidelity once the primary results are known ... "who could question that?", they ask ...

but many of us watched in horror as bush's madness was funded over and over and over by our own guys and his motives were never questioned ... will i "forgive" them? sure ... if we can get down to business NOW ... i'm not a "grudge holder" ...

the problem with primaries without dialog is the "all-or-nothing" result ... after a primary, the winner always says "i'm the representative of all Democrats; it's time to work together" ... they say it but they don't do it ... those who supported "the other guy" are not included in the process ... the candidate does not moderate their views ... there is no compromise ... they won; they run; the rest are expected to just get in line ... it's a poor system ...

great post, PC ... thanks ...

[Pithy Cherub]

9. The political system is a spectrum on a high wire act dangling over the

Grand Canyon. People gingerly shift from abstract ideals to candidate support because of the belief that the candidate embodies an ideal and the ideal is (hopefully really & truly) embodied in the candidate. That is why there are so few superstar politicians - they can't be true to their internal values when faced with overwhelming pressure to capitulate to the current prevailing winds/whims. The IWR vote will live in infamy along with all the votes funding it and the lack of voices calling for the ultimate act of accountability - impeachment, as soon as it was apparent that Lies were the filthy lucre that got the aye votes.

Your very accurate intuition senses the winds of change that are happening because of the changes in the power infrastructure. There is no longer any patronage equivalent to the twentieth century political system that rewards or punishes those who are/are not longer loyal to the value system. That has now "trickled down" to the grassroots who no longer feel that anything worse can happen by seeking other political representation. Repairing that chasm will not be for the faint of heart or for those who are paying lip service. In economic terms, the price of getting support went up significantly and the status quo Dems have to decide whether they can still afford to play by the twentieth century rules.

The information and access are no longer guarded by gatekeepers so candidates that reach out and prove that they live their words rather than craft them will be the beneficiaries of political support. It's a new day and now we will see who is using new tools and embracing a philosophy rather than using a pre-fab platform.

My praise of your intellect knows no boundaries!

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Okay ...... here I go again .....

..... this time a little more first person and a little less abstract. (I also need to apologize up front. I am trying to stay engaged in ths thread **and** do some dealine work that I need to get done.)

First, my 'hybridity' ..... I've yet to admit any investiture in a candidate (although I am far from clueless about the 'likelies"). I *do* cop to being a truster. I suspect, however, that my willingness to trust comes from a tendency to broadly (and hopefully deeply) assess the horse I will choose to ride. 'Plays well with others' gets real high marks. So does passion and a willingness to stand up and say clearly what matters to her/him (shim) .... and to defend that position respectfully but unequivocally. And at the same time as defending positions, show a willikngness to not only listen and consider, but to change when new views or facts or theories present.

To be silly about it, Joe Biden and Raplph Nader lose my trust for very different reasons. Biden stands for exactly nothing and overuses "I" where "We" would do even better. I won't even talk about his voting record cuz it just plain doesn't matter to me. Nader, on the other hand, strikes me as completely unable to compromise, stands so hard on his views that he's inflexible. But like Biden, I hear more "I" statements than "We" statements.

Would I consider third party? In the abstract, yes. As a realist, not so much. And neither would I not vote. I am, sadly, adept enough at holding my nose.

One thing about my 'plays well with others' scoring. I want to see an inclusionary candidate. I want one who will work with others in the parfty to accomplish something. I want one who puts cause/issue/national well-being ahead of self. I want to see one who doesn't so much talk to people as listen to people. I *want* to hear "You were right and I was wrong". Such a candidate can be forgiven a lot and can be in a different place from me on this issue or that, but I would *trust* such a candidate.

I bet you would, too. (And no ...... I'm not pushing anyone.)

[derby378]

8. Boy, where to start?

We still need something to replace the "evil" that we are "outing," first of all, and that is sparking a lot of the debates you see in the DU forums today. You have a lot of well-meaning Democrats who want to do everything pretty much the way the Clinton administration did, but they may not be savvy on the changes that have happened to the socio-cultural landscape over the past six years. MoveOn, for example, just released the three planks in its new "positive agenda" campaign, and guess what was number one on the list? Health care. Not that there's anything wrong with revamping health care in America (because we sorely need it), but if a new Democratic administration tries the same "shock therapy" approach to health care reform that Hillary Clinton helped to spearhead, it will galvanize Republicans once again and alienate some conservative and moderate Democrats. I think the health care policies of the last six months can be done away with quickly with little complaint from anyone save those in the corporate sector, but if you really want to implement Clinton-style universal coverage, remember the line from the movie Contact: "Small moves, Ellie - small moves." The way we tried it last time, we were lucky to get HIPAA out of the deal.

As for how we see America in relation to the rest of the world - well, many of us grew up with the disturbingly comfortable worldview of two superpowers pointing nukes at each other, with cheering sections on both sides. When the Cold War ended, Clinton did his best to keep America from lording its status of "the lone surviving superpower" over the rest of the world. Although we were the first to split the atom, put a man on the moon, and develop antibiotics to fight worldwide epidemics, America is still a young, upstart nation with an ever-evolving ethnic makeup. Clinton tried to show due respect to the Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. instead of turning all unilateral on everyone. He believed in the ideals of the UN, and still does as far as I'm aware.

But now, here in the age of George W. "I'm the decider" Bush, our troops invaded Iraq on grounds as shaky as those the Soviet Union stood on when it sent troops into Afghanistan over 25 years ago. The Religious Right is still in ascension, and gearing up for Phase II of its masterplan to covert America into a theocracy. As our level of science research and education falls, so does our stock in the rest of the world. To borrow something else from Carl Sagan, our collective level of scientific illiteracy, a concentrated effort to stifle curiosity in world politics and basic science, and our vast storehouses of technology are slowly blending into a dangerous, bubbling, unstable mixture that will blow up in America's face if we're not careful.

We have to win. But, more importantly, we need to find an antidote to the poison we allowed those who represent us to brew. Because there's enough in that political cauldron to destroy the whole world.

[welshTerrier2]

11. "We have to win."

great post, derby ... you've raised all kinds of issues ...

first, the healthcare thing ... i'm not sure exactly how to say this without sounding totally naive, but i think what jostles me is not so much related to specific policies as much as a more generalized view of the world ... so, if Americans need better healthcare, for example, i'm more moved by someone saying they believe deeply in the social safety net ... i'm more moved by someone setting a somewhat more abstract standard by saying that before we fix the roads or build the new missile system or invade the next BigOilistan, we are going to ensure that every single American has the ability to obtain all necessary medical care ... period ... define the value; define the standard ... the details of implementation are not unimportant; i'll be most content if we can start with a common set of values and objectives ... in a greater abstraction, we, as a party, need to assert that money should not preclude anyone from obtaining fundamental human necessities ... this need not argue for a massive welfare program but neither should it accept the current state of homelessness in our cities nor poverty everywhere across the land ...

your points about science are devastating ... we often hear criticisms of Democrats or the left that we are uncomfortable with religion ... perhaps there's an element of truth there ... but those who exploit religion for political gain deny the truths that science teaches us because its data are reality; not spin ... in response to Gore's film, Exxon is teaching Americans that CO2 is their best friend ... the next thing you know, they'll take a page from Reagan's playbook and start calling it a vegetable ... science need not be the enemy of religion but we must allow it to define our reality ... to quote Colbert "as we all know, reality has a liberal bias" ... it sure does these days ...

but toughest of all, at least for me, is your statement "we have to win" ... well, we sure can't have more of the same; there's no denying that ... we are very clearly in a devastating mess ... even "they who sleep" are awakening to the crisis ... and we, whoever we are, will be given power ...

i work for that; i root for that; and i worry about that as well ...

i worry because of this "we" who will obtain power ... i worry that this "we" does not see the world as i do and worse, maybe is not really an ally at all ...

here are my two conflicting views:
1. the power elite, i.e. the big boys who pull bush's puppet strings, are pure evil ... they act selfishly and they possess tremendous wealth and power ... we must destroy them and return the Democrats, any Democrat, to power ...

view two is much darker and conflicts with view #1 ...

2. the hidden power toys with us and allows us to believe our democracy gives us real choice ... with bush, they pushed their advantage very, very hard ... they grabbed everything, inside the country and out ...

the people don't see them; we see their expendable puppets ... bush, cheney, frist et al ... the puppets get paid very well to take the heat and buffer them from our view ...

when the rough edges show, as they must from all the damage their excesses always cause, we are rewarded with small, token gestures ... we are given "liberal" Democrats ... "hurrah!!", we cry ... let us draw back the curtain and show bush's crimes ... not their crimes; bush's crimes ... we get FISA laws to protect us; we get the Family Leave Act to care for our sick children or elderly parents ...

our anger is assuaged with our illusory progress ... oh, the programs are very real ... but without real power, and in view #2 WE HAVE NONE, the programs are as easily taken away as they are given ... look how easily bush can wage an eternal war; look how he tortures; look how he spies on us; look how we can be locked away with no counsel ... poof !!! again, without real power and representation, all progress is ILLUSORY ... it's illusory not because we don't value it but because we can't ensure its continuity ...

so, you say we have to win ... in 2004, i voted with the party for that very reason ... but view #2 nags at me all the time ... and sometimes i feel my views just will never be aired on the Democrats' channel ... i worry that my support of "winning" is nothing but a gullible vote to "play the pretend-we-have-a-democracy" game ... i worry that i, by my support, become an agent not for the change i seek but rather for the status quo ...

and that is my conundrum ...

[Jackpine Radical]

12. A very interesting and thoughtful piece. Two reactions:

First, I really agree that Bushco is an evil enterprise at its core, not just a bunch of well-meaning bumblers. People who see them as merely incompetent really don't get it, and are at risk of buyng into the next bunch of psychopaths who show promise of "doing it better."

Beyond this, I think we need to lay out some very general principles that unite us on the left, making them as specific as we can without alienating significant portions of our base. Gay rights floats with almost all of us, but there is a significant segment for whom ethical or religious considerations make abortion a hot-button issue. Without digging myself too far into a side-issue hole here, I simply mean to say that we need to have some positive visions to offer. Yes, universal health care. Yes, fiscal responsibility. Yes, environmental values, etc.

Expose the evils of the right, but also hold out a vision of what we as a nation and as a species might become if allowed to flower in love and without fear.

[karmababy]

20. Denial

The democrats seem unable to admit just how sorry the state of the country is.

They want democratic candidates to focus on health care(which is important) and other issues, but they are avoiding talking about the war in Iraq which is why Bush's approval rating is so low. They dems in power have refused to uphold our constitution by letting Bush get away with murder...literally. He has flagrantly broken the law with illegal wiretapping, admitted it on national tv and yet they will not introduce articles of impeachment...or even talk about it.

And they expect the democratic rank and file to follow their 'lead'? They are unable to take a stand and feel they should win by default, but they must stand up for truth and justice, for the ideals of our founders if they are to win. And of course they must wake up to election fraud.

Denial.

[welshTerrier2]

21. nicely said ...

welcome to DU, karmababy!!

most here are deeply concerned by the issues you cited ... the question becomes, how do we effect change?

how can we prop up the Dems we agree with and wake up, or replace, the ones we don't??

even here on DU, there are heated disputes about whether to push for impeachment ... whether that becomes the objective or not, we need to become a more effective political force for change ...

they know we're out here on the net and they know we're increasingly dangerous ... but still, they cling to power and largely ignore us ... they do so at their own peril ... when we sink the first of them, maybe even Lieberman, they will never ignore us again ...