How would you make it fit better with your values, or make it more electable? Are there positions that should be emphasized, deemphasized, changed, or dropped altogether? And how would your changes help the party win?
Just MHO, but here goes.
I see the Democratic Party in a great position of opportunity. People are becoming disenchancted with the Republicans in general and Bush in particular. But they have to be careful. The Dems can’t go off into Bush-bashing land, or they’ll alienate a lot of people. Instead, they should play to their strengths, making minor changes for maximum effect.
Strengths To Keep:
[ul][li] Civil Rights. People really do care about this, but rights issues have suffered in the last decade or so in relation to economic worries.[/li][li] The word “Liberal”. The Pubs have made this a dirty word, but in the right context it can be rehabilitated.[/li][li] Cautious approach to Iraq. The American people don’t really want to be told they were fooled by Bush in order to go to war in Iraq. But at the same time they aren’t happy with the situation. Dems should avoid discussion of the causes of the war, and concentrate on how they’ll get out as soon as possible.[/ul] [/li]
What to Change:
[ul] Grab the mantle of Fiscal Conservatism. Allay people’s economic concerns by vowing to keep spending in check. Dems can really win on this issue, since the Pubs under Bush have been spending like there’s no tomorrow.[/ul]
I want to see it become a party of employee empowerment.
The CEOs have all the friends they can buy in politics.
We need a voice.
I’m a Democrat, and I’d like to see a few things changed.
-
Like the GOP needs to shed the Religious Right, the Democratic Party needs to shed what some folks call the Loony Left. Just like the RR makes the GOP look stupid, so does the LL.
-
Spend more time working on changing the perception that the GOP is the party that owns patriotism and family values; they aren’t. Neither is the Democratic Party, necessarily, so they need to work on that, too.
-
There needs to be some sort of educational outreach to our more rural countrymen. All they seem to hear is bluster about God, The Flag, Guns, Abortion, and Immigration, and this seems to be motivating themes, but I’d bet that a more widespread understanding of our foreign and domestic policies would foster a somewhat wider range of issues going into the decisions at the voting booth.
I think that both parties have factions that are detrimental to their mainstream success, but they can’t afford to lose the votes. What we really have is coalitions that would be separate political parties if we weren’t so mysteriously wedded to the two party boondoggle.
Downplay gun control, a lot. Taking a strong gun control stance can help you in the cities, but it kills you in rural areas, in the south, and in the mountain west, and I think there are a lot of potential Democratic voters who are turned off by what they see as the party’s anti-gun stance.
Redefinition of what the core values of the party are. Of course, they’ve never been that organized. Ask Will Rogers.
A focus on helping the worker as a class rather than the individual, like the Republicans theoretically are focused towards. (This would lead them towards unionization, outsourcing issues)
A focus on domestic issues, including social ones.
I disagree with this last one.
I don’t think Democrats have taken national security seriously since around 1970, both as a topic of study and expertise and as a basis for public policy. Scoop Jackson is dead, Sam Nunn is retired, and these guys have not been replaced at all by other Democrats.
Were they and other Truman Democrats in power, the Democrats would be immune to insinuation that electing them would be detrimental to national security. Without them, that insinuation can easily be made. This costs the party at the ballot box and, I believe, hurts military readiness at times Democrats are in power.
I have many, many disagreements with Democrats, but this is the biggest one.
Echoing Captain Amazing, back off (preferably lose) the gun-control advocacy.
Well, since many of the responders to the companion thread were liberal Democrats, I suppose Republican ideas on revamping the Dems are equally appropriate here.
The downplaying of gun control is a loser issue, I agree. Additionally -
[ul][li]Compromise on abortion. By which I mean stuff like a ban on partial birth abortions, parental notification laws, and so forth. Yes, you will offend the radical feminists. Tough. [/li][li]Get rid of the extremists. I read some stuff about how the religious right has co-opted the Republicans, which is true to some extent. The looney left has at least equally as much influence on the Dems. Dump them. The radical fems aren’t going anywhere else. [/li][li]Fiscal responsiblity. Balance the budget, and not with a lot of rhetoric about soaking the rich. If you want to raise taxes, fine, but the instant you start saying you want to do it because the rich are selfish, you lose credibilty. In my opinion, people are willing to accept tax increases providing there is a limit in sight. Every time I hear the Dems talk about raising taxes, they always link it to balancing the budget and a huge range of open-ended entitlement spending that will consume 110% of any tax increase. [/li]
This should have been a no-brainer for that fool Kerry. It ought to be a no-brainer for the fools in 2006. But any talk about how you will balance the budget without mentioning spending cuts is so much hot air.
[li]Shut the hell up about how we need to get out of Iraq. Every fucking time one of those liberal fat heads flies over middle America spelling out “Surrender Dorothy” in the sky, you lose a thousand votes. []Tell the following to shut their pie holes -[list][] Cindy Sheehy []Murtha []Harry Belafonte []Howard Dean []Nancy Pelosi Ted Kennedy.[/ul][/list][/li]
Like any of this is going to happen. The Dems will pick up a few seats in the House and a couple of governerships, and take it as an endorsement to continue to be the party of “Ideas that Sounded Great Back in the Sixties”.
Regards,
Shodan
out of curiousity, for as far as the deomcrats are considered, what’s left for them? what do you like about them? i get the feeling that it’d be a much shorter list, and, after lurking about here for a while, i’m pretty sure it’ll be a much shorter list.
conversely, what’s so great about the republican party. and, if you want to tackle this too, what would make a good third party?
i’m interested in what you have to say.
Liberal Democrat checking back in:
-
I agree to an extent about gun control - while I might support it, I know it’s a wedge issue, and not worth the capital it takes to sustain. I also know that in rural communities, a firearm is often as essential a tool as a shovel.
-
push for more party leadership from Dem governors. People just don’t take senators seriously as leaders, and by the time they gain national prominence, they also have a long voting record to be beaten with.
-
push a small business friendly agenda to offset big-business opposition
-
actually do some investigating into voting scandals, and then follow through! This is not an issue you can drop the ball on, because if the fix is in, there’s nothing you can change issue-wise that will get us back into power.
-
hiring a marketing firm of some sort. I think that most people support the Dem agenda as a whole, but the party has very few effective messengers.
There isn’t much that I think the Democrats need to change in terms of policy or position on issues. On most issues, the Democrats already represent beliefs that are shared by the majority or plurality of Americans. A majority of Americans support the right to choose to have an abortion, raising the minimum wage, and social security for example. A large majority approve of labor unions. Pluralities see job growth and health care as significant problems and more people think Democrats are better suited to handle these issues.
What the Democratic party needs to change at, and what they are changing at now, albeit too slowly, is that they need to be more forceful advocates for these positions. People will show greater support if they believe that the Democrats are going to stop being mealy mouthed and cowed by the opposition. The Democrats need to do a better job of dismantling the false frames that Republicans have built around issues, some of which have been mentioned already in this thread.
They need to figure out how to demonstrate to all Americans that they in fact are much more supportive of the middle class than Republicans, that they will do much more to improve the common good. The great strength of America is shown in our commonalities and in circumstances when we work together. The Republicans have won by dividing people along lesser issues, even though they end up shafting most of their supporters in favor of the wealthy. The Democrats have to be able to make that clear to all. They won’t do this by supporting things like the bankruptcy bill and they won’t do this by continuing to try to appeal to some middle of the political distribution. Anyone who says that appealing to the middle is a winning strategy for the Democrats is avoiding the fact that that is all they (particularly the DLC) have been doing for 10 years, and it has already proven to be a losing strategy. Conversely, their vigorous defenses of their beliefs over the past year have led to clear successes. Don’t appeal to the middle, appeal to the greater good.
Plainly and simply they need to state that they believe in things that are best for America and then fight very hard for those beliefs.
Shodan, I understand why you say that folks like Sheehan and Kennedy are divisive.
But what on earth is your ax to grind with Jack Murtha? I understand you are suggesting that all Democrats should be pro-Iraq war, or something like it, but are you saying that a plain-spoken 37 year Marine veteran should be told not to speak his mind? Are you suggesting that Jack Murtha turns American voters “off” in the same way that Sheehan does? What evidence do you have of this view?
I’m just mindboggled by that part of your post.
Whom exactly do you mean by “the Loony Left”?
Well, I’ll step in on that one.
I come from Jack Murtha’s part of the country, and until now I had no real beef with the man. However, I do think he is now a very divisive figure, for the reason I stated above. By taking the position he did, he has demonstrated a position on national security that I find foolish.
Had he made those statements in the Truman or JFK era, most Democrats would have given those statements a very wide berth indeed.
I note, too, that Murtha has reaired his position since, most lately in a town meeting with Congressman Jim Moran. Now, Jim Moran isn’t really a mainstream Democrat either, having insinuated in the past that the only reason we were involved in Middle Eastern wars was because of the malign influence of a Jewish cabal.
This pair ought not to be representing the Democrats on national security matters, to say the very least.
My main complaints about the Democrats have to do with the way they operate rather than the specific positions they take. Democrats have much to learn from Republicans in this vein.
Democrats need to engage in a full-time, comprehensive grass-roots campaign, with trained party activists in every county in the country. They must make a point of proclaiming the party’s values and positions, including when there’s no election coming up. Seek out and cultivate good candidates in every single town. The party must ensure that every single race has a Democratic candidate who proudly proclaims the party label. Concede no unopposed elections. Do not allow Republicans any safe areas where their message goes out unanswered.
Leaders of the party must be disciplined. Never criticize a fellow Democrat. On important issues, party leaders must be united behind a single position. When assholes like Zell Miller sabotage their own party, kick them out, hard. When a Democrat gets involved in serious wrongdoing, cut them off and get united behind a primary challenge.
Own your labels. Do not shy away from “Democrat” or “liberal.” Don’t hand the power over defining terms to the Republicans. Don’t accept Republican language on issues, such as “school choice” or “partial birth abortion” or “tort reform” or “individual accounts.” Do not talk to Republicans on their own terms. When Howard Dean gets the Democratic base moving by calling Republicans dirty, and the Republicans squeal, line up next to Dean and say “hell, yeah, you’re dirty!”
Construct an organised, disciplined public relations/thinktank/activist/partisan media network that hounds the mainstream media 24/7 in order to achieve balance.
Do not let Republicans intimidate you into policy positions, especially in national security. If you think the war is wrong, vote against it, idiot. Stand up for your convictions. Display integrity instead of fear.
Never, never, never let yourself be surprised by the dishonesty of Republicans. Play tough. Play to win in the long term. Hit first and hit hard. Do not concede victory. That’s how the Republicans have been playing. Get in the freaking game.
I’ll repeat what I said in the companion thread: I would split the Pubs up into a business-conservative party, a social-religious-conservative party, and a paleoconservative-populist party (i.e., merge that wing with Buchanan’s America First Party). And possibly, on Sam Stone’s suggestion, a libertarian-conservative party. And I would split up the Dems into a neoliberal-free-trade-pro-business party, a labor-based-populist party, and an ideological-leftist-progressive-green party. Then, when you voted by party label, you would know exactly what ideas and policies you were voting for.
Who should? Lieberman? :rolleyes:
This would be a good point, except I really think most Democratic politicians have always been against partial-birth abortion; they just aren’t in favor of bans on partial-birth abortion that don’t take into account situations where the mother’s health/life is at risk.
As it is, the radical feminists are a group the Dems can pretty much use like a two-dollar whore and not suffer any for it. If I was a Democratic policy man, anytime I needed to get an important piece of legislation through, and could do so at the expense of the radical feminists I’d do so immediately because as a group they have little choice and they can’t hurt me at all.
If the radical feminists get pissed at the Dems, they can’t just refuse to vote, or vote for the opposition. Because the opposition favors actively banning abortion, and any non-Democratic vote from a radical fem would just help that goal.
The Republican party is in more of a quandry with the religious right, because in general the religious right just won’t vote at all if they don’t feel someone is there to support their ideas.
Precisely. Although luckily for the Dems the fringe left isn’t a unified body. The fringe right is pretty much synonymous with the Religious Right. There’s also the KKK/White Pride/Militia groups, but a lot of them are actually opposed to the concept of a federal government and don’t vote.
Balancing the budget is a admirable goal, but I’d argue we shouldn’t balance the budget if it will result in the cutting of key programs or the raising of harmful taxes. During some periods of time I think we just need to accept a moderate deficit and deal with it. There’s a difference, however, between a manageable and moderate deficit and an excessive amount of deficit spending; right now we’re excessively operating in the red.
Cutting spending is really a non-starter in politics. It’s easy to cut taxes but it’s very hard to get congressional support to cut programs. Every different type of spending has a lobbying group with congressional support to keep it alive.
Yeah, this is something that gets lost here on the SDMB (which is more a representation of the radical left than anything), but Americans want neither a quagmire or a defeat. Americans don’t like the thought of having to tuck tail and run. The American public wants their soldiers home but not at the cost of it being perceived as an American military defeat.
The Dems would do best to stress that they want a controlled withdrawal that is made in response to an improvement in conditions in Iraq.
Well, on these matters, you don’t have a great deal of credible voices.
That is a very large part of your problem.