Whither the Democrats?
An old friend of mine and I have been exchanging emails in regards to what the Democratic Party's problems are. He advocates (if I read him correctly) recapturing the hearts and minds of those disaffected "Reagan Democrats" who exist towards the center, in order to win a majority of voters. Another friend of mine asked me what I thought about the advisability of a third party, and I think these two questions are really one: Is the Democratic Party outmoded? Do we need to disestablish one or both of our current parties so as to more accurately reflect the populace? My answer to those questions is--aside from the snarky "Yes, I would love to eliminate the Republican Party!"--"No, but . . ."
I think the Democratic Party has done nothing but move toward the right, ever since Reagan stripped off a chunk of their constituency more than 25 years ago. How much further to the right can it go before losing whatever sense of purpose it has? As I asserted in my previous post, the whole political spectrum has shifted to the right as the Democrats attempt to position themselves in some mystical "center" that doesn't exist while the Republicans simply shore up their rightwing base and get out their votes. We are seeing some politicians switching back from the Republicans (see here), as the absolute nuttiest rightwing programs have begun to be enacted, but I would attribute that more to their realization that the Republican Party has left them, rather than any seduction by the Democrats. Are there more of these moderate Republicans to be grabbed? Sure. But what possible platform could the Democratic Party stand on that would encompass both these old fashioned Republicans and the traditional Democratic base of "The Common Man"?
My impression is that voters are sick to death of Democrats who ignore their pleas for a return to a more leftist stand, as the disastrous campaign of Ralph Nader in 2000 showed. If the Democratic Party moves any further to the right in order to capture some imaginary center (when they are already beyond the true center of the populace), they will permanently lose those of us on the actual left, leaving them lacking a majority yet again. Many progressive posters on Daily Kos (which, by the way, is not a progressive blog, but one dedicated to the survival of the Democratic Party) continually bemoan the lack of true representation in the Democratic Party, swearing that if this politician or that one does this or says that, they will never vote for another Democrat again. These are not radical Lefties either, imho, but formerly mainstream Dems who have been betrayed too many times by party leaders more interested in positioning--"triangulation" is the current derisive term--than standing for something. Most of these commenters are referring to the Dems living on the rightward edge of the Party; clearly any further additions to that side of the Dem equation would drive them away for good.
And this is where the question of a third party comes into play. I can easily envision a Progressive Party inheriting those Democrats left behind rising up to create a new left wing in American politics, since that's pretty much already happening. Staving off this potential defection is the whole point behind the creation of the Daily Kos blog in its effort to refashion the party, reincorporating its own left wing. I can also envision a third party consisting of libertarians fed up with the Republicans who are now swelling the size of the federal government beyond all recognition, including such intrusive actions as domestic spying and the continued "moral" wars on personal liberties.
Libertarians are on odd bunch, who are actually the mirror opposites of the center as it is perceived by the two parties, which is what is confusing the DLC wing of the Democratic Party. Libertarians advocate the elimination of almost every facet of governance as they pertain to individual actions, regardless of traditional "values"--drugs, sex, guns, whatever you can think of, they want the government to simply butt out--but they have no qualms with cutting funding for the military and social programs as well. In other words, they are the ultimate small government voice, verging almost on an anarchist ideology. Socially radically "liberal", but economically radically "conservative", where for most Democrats at least, the center consists of social conservatives and economic liberals. I exaggerate, but not too much, I think.
I don't think these two disaffected groups would work all that well together, although they are both in favor of getting the government out of the home entirely, with the possible progressive exception regarding guns. The libertarian call for the elimination of any restrictions on business and any kind of safety net for the citizenry would not too eventually cause progressives to withdraw in disgust, I would think/hope.
The actual electoral process that we have constructed, though, makes the concept of third parties a virtual non-starter. Our winner-take-all elections, whereby all a person has to do is have one more vote than his/her opponent to gain the seat, leaving the loser and all of his/her constituents pretty much completely powerless, necessitate coalitions and combinations outside of the governing bodies (in order to find the one person who can garner that 50%+1 votes), not in them. A third party of disaffected voters derived from a section of one of the existing parties merely dooms both of those wings to defeat against a united existing foe, given a relatively even distribution of voters.
The Democratic Party is in danger of losing its left wing, and the Republican Party is in danger of losing its libertarian wing. Even Steven, right? Not really, since the left wing of the Democratic Party really consists of what used to be most of the whole Party, whereas the libertarians are just a small faction of ideologues ill suited to supporting a mainstream party anyway. The Democratic Party really needs to move left, both to shore up its own base among the populace, and also to provide those non-voters out there a better picture of what the two parties really stand for, and perhaps entice them back into the voting booths. I think most people don't vote because they don't see the point; both parties claim to speak for "middle America", and the Republicans have successfully tarred the whole process with the brush of scandal--even if their claims of Democratic corruption are bogus. The Democratic Party needs to convince people that the Republicans have lied and cheated their way into power, and are now in the business of destroying the American Dream to enrich the rich. Shouldn't be too hard, seeing as how that's all true, right?
I think the Democratic Party has done nothing but move toward the right, ever since Reagan stripped off a chunk of their constituency more than 25 years ago. How much further to the right can it go before losing whatever sense of purpose it has? As I asserted in my previous post, the whole political spectrum has shifted to the right as the Democrats attempt to position themselves in some mystical "center" that doesn't exist while the Republicans simply shore up their rightwing base and get out their votes. We are seeing some politicians switching back from the Republicans (see here), as the absolute nuttiest rightwing programs have begun to be enacted, but I would attribute that more to their realization that the Republican Party has left them, rather than any seduction by the Democrats. Are there more of these moderate Republicans to be grabbed? Sure. But what possible platform could the Democratic Party stand on that would encompass both these old fashioned Republicans and the traditional Democratic base of "The Common Man"?
My impression is that voters are sick to death of Democrats who ignore their pleas for a return to a more leftist stand, as the disastrous campaign of Ralph Nader in 2000 showed. If the Democratic Party moves any further to the right in order to capture some imaginary center (when they are already beyond the true center of the populace), they will permanently lose those of us on the actual left, leaving them lacking a majority yet again. Many progressive posters on Daily Kos (which, by the way, is not a progressive blog, but one dedicated to the survival of the Democratic Party) continually bemoan the lack of true representation in the Democratic Party, swearing that if this politician or that one does this or says that, they will never vote for another Democrat again. These are not radical Lefties either, imho, but formerly mainstream Dems who have been betrayed too many times by party leaders more interested in positioning--"triangulation" is the current derisive term--than standing for something. Most of these commenters are referring to the Dems living on the rightward edge of the Party; clearly any further additions to that side of the Dem equation would drive them away for good.
And this is where the question of a third party comes into play. I can easily envision a Progressive Party inheriting those Democrats left behind rising up to create a new left wing in American politics, since that's pretty much already happening. Staving off this potential defection is the whole point behind the creation of the Daily Kos blog in its effort to refashion the party, reincorporating its own left wing. I can also envision a third party consisting of libertarians fed up with the Republicans who are now swelling the size of the federal government beyond all recognition, including such intrusive actions as domestic spying and the continued "moral" wars on personal liberties.
Libertarians are on odd bunch, who are actually the mirror opposites of the center as it is perceived by the two parties, which is what is confusing the DLC wing of the Democratic Party. Libertarians advocate the elimination of almost every facet of governance as they pertain to individual actions, regardless of traditional "values"--drugs, sex, guns, whatever you can think of, they want the government to simply butt out--but they have no qualms with cutting funding for the military and social programs as well. In other words, they are the ultimate small government voice, verging almost on an anarchist ideology. Socially radically "liberal", but economically radically "conservative", where for most Democrats at least, the center consists of social conservatives and economic liberals. I exaggerate, but not too much, I think.
I don't think these two disaffected groups would work all that well together, although they are both in favor of getting the government out of the home entirely, with the possible progressive exception regarding guns. The libertarian call for the elimination of any restrictions on business and any kind of safety net for the citizenry would not too eventually cause progressives to withdraw in disgust, I would think/hope.
The actual electoral process that we have constructed, though, makes the concept of third parties a virtual non-starter. Our winner-take-all elections, whereby all a person has to do is have one more vote than his/her opponent to gain the seat, leaving the loser and all of his/her constituents pretty much completely powerless, necessitate coalitions and combinations outside of the governing bodies (in order to find the one person who can garner that 50%+1 votes), not in them. A third party of disaffected voters derived from a section of one of the existing parties merely dooms both of those wings to defeat against a united existing foe, given a relatively even distribution of voters.
The Democratic Party is in danger of losing its left wing, and the Republican Party is in danger of losing its libertarian wing. Even Steven, right? Not really, since the left wing of the Democratic Party really consists of what used to be most of the whole Party, whereas the libertarians are just a small faction of ideologues ill suited to supporting a mainstream party anyway. The Democratic Party really needs to move left, both to shore up its own base among the populace, and also to provide those non-voters out there a better picture of what the two parties really stand for, and perhaps entice them back into the voting booths. I think most people don't vote because they don't see the point; both parties claim to speak for "middle America", and the Republicans have successfully tarred the whole process with the brush of scandal--even if their claims of Democratic corruption are bogus. The Democratic Party needs to convince people that the Republicans have lied and cheated their way into power, and are now in the business of destroying the American Dream to enrich the rich. Shouldn't be too hard, seeing as how that's all true, right?
posted by bryduck at 7:59 AM
5 Comments:
Dear Mr. Surly,
I agree that the Democratic party is losing their lefty liberal folks. The older and crankier I get, the more liberal I get, and I get tired of Dems telling me "Well, I'm central on this and left-central on that, and right-central on that other thing."
No, you're not. You're left, but you want to keep all your friends! I may not agree with everything my friends say, but I respect them more if they just say it!
I have absolutely nothing in common with the Republican party.
I don't own anything. I don't have a traditional family. I am not very religious. And that's just the start...
I will always be a Democrat and I used to be very involved in every election, working on campaigns and such. As a kid, I even watched the conventions for fun!
But now, well, I don't feel very connected. And each year, it just seems to get worse and it's a shame. You know what I mean?
Thank you, The Towel Thrower
I think we may have hit rock bottom already; we could begin to turn things around this year. Take heart, TT! Think of Lamont v. Lieberman, Tester v. Burns, even Casey v. Santorum. None of the former guys are all that progressive, really, but they are all vastly better than their opponents, and they are all polling pretty well. Next time, after they have won and have served, if they still aren't our cup o' tea, we try to convince someone more progressive to run in the primaries against them. Inch by inch, foot by foot, we can drag this party back to the left where it belongs. The main thing for me is that I try to recognize when someone's throwing BS at me--it's usually a Republican-owned media rag, if not an actual Republican jackbooted thug--and find out the truth. And then spread it. I'm connected to this stuff merely as an observer so far, but I feel the oppression just as keenly as if I were someone being slandered/libeled. That keeps me going, and that's enough for me, presently.
Perhaps now is a time for you, though, to pursue some connectedness actively by volunteering for a local Democratic Party organization. Take it over if it's not doing what you want it to do. Tell those in charge what you think. Trust me, there are plenty of passives, or passive-aggressives, out there just waiting to be told what to do! ; )
I think you've analyzed it nicely, surly, and I hope we can slowly nudge things to the left, where the Dems belong. Openly, commitedly, and without apology.
I think you've analyzed it nicely, surly, and I hope we can slowly nudge things to the left, where the Dems belong. Openly, commitedly, and without apology.
Republicans suck, though. Out.
Post a Comment
<< Home