# Is the Democratic Party no more than just a collection of special interests? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2007, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919 "2007-04-20T12:09:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/21 "2007-04-20T19:25:42Z")
On other thing. Note this, from my original post (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > You can’t get 10s of millions of people to agree on an overarching political philosophy much less how to translate that philosophy into policy. That’s where the special interest groups (aka, principled policy advocates) really come into play. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/22 "2007-04-20T19:37:00Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] On other thing. Note this, from my original post (emphasis added): That’s where the special interest groups (aka, principled policy advocates) really come into play. [/QUOTE] And emphasis subtracted. Right now, that doesn’t seem to be a big problem. Besides, it doesn’t detract from my position unless and until parochial interests get in the way of agreement on how to transform principle into policy. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/23 "2007-04-20T19:42:50Z")
Well, they are right now, aren’t they? Your party doesn’t have much agreement at all over the war issue solely because of those parochial interests. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/24 "2007-04-20T19:52:20Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] And emphasis subtracted. Right now, that doesn’t seem to be a big problem. Besides, it doesn’t detract from my position unless and until parochial interests get in the way of agreement on how to transform principle into policy. [/QUOTE] So, where’s the bill to start getting us out of Iraq today? According to Reid, we’ve already lost. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/25 "2007-04-20T19:53:00Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [It doesn’t.](http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150) [/QUOTE] Or it does… > [@](#): > > We review the burgeoning literature on the employment effects of minimum wages - in the United States and other countries - that was spurred by the new minimum wage research beginning in the early 1990s. Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few - if any - studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups. > **[Minimum Wages and Employment: A Review of Evidence from the New Minimum Wage...](https://www.nber.org/papers/w12663)** > > Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/26 "2007-04-20T19:54:03Z")
All political parties are collections of special interests, unless the party is simply focused upon one specific issue. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/27 "2007-04-20T19:55:42Z")
Gee, the poor Dems. All they got is terrific candidates, a ton of money, and an opposition widely and enthusiastically despised. Certain doom, fer sure, fer sure. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/28 "2007-04-20T19:58:49Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I think it’s easy to find Democrats who don’t agree with that, or who don’t act is if they do. [/quote] Then find 'em, by all means. Name names. Preferably elected representatives, rather than self-appointed spokesmen, since anyone can get up and say, “I’m a Dem, and I believe the government that governs least governs best, and the best way to deal with countries like Syria and Iran is to drop a few well-placed bombs.” > [@](#): > > Well, of course your “special interest groups” are “principled policy advocates”. 😉 Well, OK, how about this for a working definition: “special” interests are those that put their parochial interests ahead of the well-being of the larger body politic. Lord knows that the Democratic Party used to seem like it was composed of nothing _but_ such people. But it’s hard (for me, anyway) to see much of that anymore. I’m open to being proven wrong, but just saying that such and such a particular group (e.g. labor unions, pro-choicers) is a constituency of the party isn’t enough. No large group is going to be an undifferentiated mass of people with no obvious interests specific to some somewhat organized subgroup. Such subgroups exist within the Democratic party, but there’s an increasingly strong consensus that concerns of individual groups be subordinated to the well-being of the whole. Take, for instance, the Congressional Black Caucus’ two Presidential debates. One of them was going to be televised and moderated by Fox News. I guess it still might, but it’ll be without Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. In effect, the Black Caucus has been told that they’re not going to be allowed to advance their own interests by aiding an enemy of the party and everything it stands for. Everyone’s planning to show up for the other one, that CNN will handle. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/29 "2007-04-20T19:59:28Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Gee, the poor Dems. All they got is terrific candidates, a ton of money, and an opposition widely and enthusiastically despised. Certain doom, fer sure, fer sure. [/QUOTE] If you’d like come in from left field, we’re talking about something completely different in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/30 "2007-04-20T20:00:01Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] So, where’s the bill to start getting us out of Iraq today? According to Reid, we’ve already lost. [/QUOTE] Patience, my son. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/31 "2007-04-20T20:04:45Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] If you’d like come in from left field, we’re talking about something completely different in this thread. [/QUOTE] Seconded. **'luc** , y’know I think highly of you, but **John** is right. That doesn’t have any more bearing on this discussion than what **Mr. Moto** was saying earlier about whether the Dems’ electoral successes would continue or be reversed. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/32 "2007-04-20T20:35:35Z")
**RTF** : You seem to be talking more about individual politicians, but I’m talking about the voters (and donors) they need to tap into for support. Take labor unions, for example. They’re supposed to represent the interest of the workers, and not think too much about what’s best for the country. When was the last time a union leader said: Well, we want higher wages, but that would hurt the economy so we won’t ask for them? If anything, they may actually think that higher wages are always better for the country as a whole, just like many on the other side think lower taxes are always better for the country. But if you want to talk about the nexus of those two entities (supporters and politicians) you need look no further than that pork-riddled appropriations bill. Why do you think it was loaded with everything from subsidies to shrimpers in Louisiana to spinach growers in CA? Two words: Special Interest Groups. OK, that was three words, but you get my point. If the Dems in Congress, and their constituents, were all holding hands singing Kumbayah as they crafted their get-out-of-Iraq strategy, why did they need to come up with a bill so filled with pork it practically squeals all by itself? Standard disclaimer: The other side would have done the same thing had they been in control, so no this is not a slam at the Dems in particular. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/33 "2007-04-20T20:38:06Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Gee, the poor Dems. All they got is terrific candidates, a ton of money, and an opposition widely and enthusiastically despised. Certain doom, fer sure, fer sure. [/QUOTE] Possibly, considering the Pubs have even **more** money and that is not likely to change in our lifetime. Because, apart from anomalies like George Soros, the folks with the most money prefer the Pubs, and that is not likely to change in our lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/34 "2007-04-20T20:39:49Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Your party doesn’t have much agreement at all over the war issue solely because of those parochial interests. [/QUOTE] Such as? (Remember, “ideological camps” != “parochial interests.”) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/35 "2007-04-20T21:04:23Z")
**RTF** : Let me add that I don’t agree with **Mr. Moto** ’s characterization of the Dems as nothing more than a bunch of special interest groups working to oppose Republican initiatives. They are indeed putting forth positive policies, but let’s not pretend they can actually get anything done with appealing to the special interest groups out there. No party could. I guess I was focusing too much on the title, and getting hung up on whether or not the Dems can be characterized as collection of special interest groups. As I said earlier, I think any party can be thusly described. **Mr. Moto** just doesn’t particularly like the special interest groups they are appealing to, preferring to stick with his own SIGs. But I have to say that your statement that triggered Mr. Moto’s response was pretty damn simplistic, too: > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’m willing to believe in intelligent former Republicans. But anyone who’s still a Republican, given the nature of not only this President and Administration, but the GOP component of this Congress (as well as the past few Congresses)… That’s at least as partisan as **Mr. Moto** ’s statement that you quoted in your OP. Surely you can understand that there are Republicans who want to move the party beyond what Bush has turned it into, can’t you, even if many like it just the way it is? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/36 "2007-04-20T21:56:29Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Possibly, considering the Pubs have even **more** money and that is not likely to change in our lifetime. Because, apart from anomalies like George Soros, the folks with the most money prefer the Pubs, and that is not likely to change in our lifetime. [/QUOTE] Cite? Dems have the wealth entertainers, trial lawyers, and union heads. They also have a few Wall Streeters as well. Open Secrets has data from 2002 that shows the Republicans getting more small donations from many donors vs. the Democrats getting a few large ones: > [@](#): > > The study also found that Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle, but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers. [http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/DonorDemographics02.asp](http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/DonorDemographics02.asp) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/37 "2007-04-20T22:11:23Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] That’s at least as partisan as **Mr. Moto** ’s statement that you quoted in your OP. Surely you can understand that there are Republicans who want to move the party beyond what Bush has turned it into, can’t you, even if many like it just the way it is? [/QUOTE] I can understand the _desire_, but it’s kinda like we’d all like to bring peace and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we’d like a pony too. I just question the _realism_ of believing one can turn the GOP back into a party that actually stands for ideals, like limited government and such. (Unless reduced taxes, regardless of spending, is an ideal, rather than a perverse belief that the ponies will never run out.) Neither the wingnuts that provide the largest share of the votes, nor the contributors that provide the largest share of the money, have any interest in those ideals. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/38 "2007-04-20T22:22:03Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] **RTF** : You seem to be talking more about individual politicians, but I’m talking about the voters (and donors) they need to tap into for support. Take labor unions, for example. They’re supposed to represent the interest of the workers, and not think too much about what’s best for the country. When was the last time a union leader said: Well, we want higher wages, but that would hurt the economy so we won’t ask for them? [/quote] If I had $10 for every wage or benefit giveback a union has agreed to since Reagan was elected, my wife and I would be on the next plane to Hawaii. And from there to Australia. > [@](#): > > But if you want to talk about the nexus of those two entities (supporters and politicians) you need look no further than that pork-riddled appropriations bill. Why do you think it was loaded with everything from subsidies to shrimpers in Louisiana to spinach growers in CA? Two words: Special Interest Groups. OK, that was three words, but you get my point. And Katrina reconstruction, and who knows what else. By historical standards, this one wasn’t bad at all. But certain commentators, looking at this bill, acted like they’d never seen an appropriations bill before, and were shocked - shocked! - to find a few extra odds and ends in there. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/39 "2007-04-20T22:25:32Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] I can understand the _desire_, but it’s kinda like we’d all like to bring peace and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we’d like a pony too. I just question the _realism_ of believing one can turn the GOP back into a party that actually stands for ideals, like limited government and such. (Unless reduced taxes, regardless of spending, is an ideal, rather than a perverse belief that the ponies will never run out.) [/QUOTE] And yet you think that happened to the Democrats. A few years of losing elections could easily do that to the Republicans, too. > [@](#): > > Neither the wingnuts that provide the largest share of the votes, nor the contributors that provide the largest share of the money, have any interest in those ideals. It’s easy to stand for limited government when the other party is in power. The hard part is holding onto that belief once you get the power. Just like the Democrats will, almost certainly, fade from their moment of communal goodheartedness once they get the taste themselves-- especially if they win the WH in '08. Democrats and Republicans are both members of the species _H. sapiens_, aka _H. polticanus_ It’s in our very nature to strive for power and to abuse it once we have it. We haven’t entered the Age of Aquarius quite yet, bro. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919/40 "2007-04-20T22:38:12Z")
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat] Most Americans don’t want marriage radically redefined to include same sex couples, but the Dems are obviously pushing for this (and it hurt them badly in the last presidential election). [/quote] Evidence ? The Democrats are hardly all that pro-gay; they’re just less anti-gay than the Republicans. [QUOTE=LonesomePolecat] Most Americans want illegal immigration brought under control, but the Dems are sitting on their hands and doing nothing for both political and ideological reasons. (They hope to build a political power base among the new immigrants, and they have a neurotic obsession with not seeming racist and with bashing whites.) [/quote] And the Republicans don’t want to cut off their corparate patrons’s source of cheap easily abused labor. _Neither_ party has any real desire to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. [QUOTE=LonesomePolecat] Most Americans don’t trust the Dems very much when it comes to fighting terrorism, and with good reason. Dems seem to be more concerned with moral purity than with actually controlling terrorism. [/QUOTE] You mean like Clinton, whose policies caught the WTC bombers ? As opposed to Bush, whose policies have let Osama run free, and benefited the terrorists enormously ? I do recall the CIA regarded Osama as pro-Bush and anti-Democrat, even to the extent of timing his released statements to whip up support for Bush. And why not ? No one has benefitted terrorism and radical Islam more than Bush. [QUOTE=John Mace] How could either of the two big parties be anything **but** a collection of special interest groups? You can’t get 10s of millions of people to agree on an overarching political philosophy much less how to translate that philosophy into policy. Hell, even the Libertarians could be characterized that way, and they’re less than 1/10 the size of the Big Boys. [/QUOTE] Agreed. The difference is that for a long time the Republican leadership has been better at convincing it’s various contradictory components that they will get what they want. And better at party discipline. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-democratic-party-no-more-than-just-a-collection-of-special-interests/400919.md?page=3)