Because it worked so well for Howard Dean?
No we need to stop ragging on Bush 24/7 and get our own agenda going. It has to be more then our current policy which is “the opposite of what Bush said”
Howard Dean never actually faced the voters at the federal level. He was given the thumbs down in the primaries. In other words, the Democratic Party rejected Dean, not the voters. And how well did that work?
If Evil Captor says that the Democrats need a firebrand to win elections, then citing Howard Dean doesn’t disprove squat because Howard Dean never lost a federal election.
Ah yes, the “become Republican light” strategy. Which would do nothing but give the Republican party a gold-plated opportunity to label the Democrats as insincere opportunists, flip-floppers, and moral panderers…all of which would be completely accurate, if the Democrats followed such a strategy. Yeah, that’ll work like a charm.
Better idea: develop a Democratic party platform that flows from the moral values Democrats already hold. Compassion, fairness, justice. Rewarding work (the minimum wage). Respecting the individual (religious freedom, separation of church and state). Punishing malfeasance (stricter corporate oversight). And so on.
The Democratic party already advocates for that stuff. It doesn’t matter, because[sup]1[/sup] we also advocate for a constitutional right to kill babies and we want to ignore the constitutional right to bear arms.
And characterizing the notion of making abortion and gun rights a states-right issue “Republican light” is utter bullshit. There are fundamental differences between the two parties that transcend abortion and gun control; adopting a more neutral stance on those two issues is hardly enough to make the Democrats “Republican light.” How many times did Evil Captor mention abortion and gun rights in his idiotic screed? Zero. In your “list of things the Democratic party platform should be” above, how many times did you mention abortion or gun control? Zero.
If we want to adopt policies that actually have a positive impact on a broad swath of society, like a single-payer health care system, more equitable access to education, a better social safety net for the disabled and elderly, etc., then we’re going to need broad support. And we ain’t gonna get that support unless we cede a bit of ground on some of the sticky social issues. If that means that Alabama outlaws abortion and Georgia starts selling assault rifles in Quiki Marts, then I guess we’re just going to have to accept it, even if it bothers us. You know, that whole “tolerance” thing that we dearly love, so long as we’re not the ones that actually have to put up with anything…
[sup]1[/sup]I don’t personally believe either of these characterizations are fair. But many of the people whom we want to vote with us do…
That’s a wonderfully nuanced and thought-out position which I’m sure will stand up to Republican spin about as well as a snowball stands up to a blowtorch.
What you call “ceding ground on sticky social issues” I call “changing core beliefs to win votes”. And I’m sure there’s room for debate between those two positions, except for the nagging fact that there’s a third name for it: “flip-flopping”. Guess which of the three terms will get more play with the red state voters you’re trying to court?
Running to the center isn’t going to work anymore if the Republicans can paint it as a ploy. “Why should you vote for the Democrat? He just says he wants abortion to be a state issue. We’re the party who’s really sincere about saving those poor innocent babies!”
Every Democratic candidate in the last twelve years has been painted as untrustworthy. “Clinton? Lied under oath! Gore? Said he invented the Internet! Kerry? Said he’s a war hero, but he’s practically Hanoi John! Edwards? He’s a trial lawyer, need I say more?” In this kind of environment, any move that even smacks of insincerity will be pounced on. And in the meantime, Republicans will keep draping themselves and their positions in moral values, as if morality were some kind of typeface.
The only way to combat this continuous, eternal charge of mendacity is with honesty. Total, complete, painful honesty. So, fine. Let’s be sincere about our positions. Let’s say what we believe, not what we think will win votes. And if we believe we’re right, then we should be able to say what we believe in moral terms, because isn’t morality about doing what’s right?
I believe abortion should remain legal. I believe there should be limits to the legal private ownership of firearms. I believe in these things sincerely and I believe these positions are right. Perhaps I can be convinced otherwise, but I will not change my mind just because other people tell me I’m wrong. And I will not tell anyone otherwise just because I think that’s what they want to hear. “I disagree, but am willing to accede to the will of the people”, maybe. But adopt the NRA’s stance on gun control, if I don’t believe in it? Not stand up for the rights of gay and lesbian couples, if I feel that those rights are being trampled? Hell, no!
And if my sincere beliefs do not convince the red-state voters, then that is what I’ll have to accept, even if it bothers me. That whole “tolerance” thing that we dearly love, don’t you know. But “tolerance” doesn’t mean pandering, and it doesn’t mean compromising my values. Honesty is a moral value too.
There’s some wisdom in this. Voters will respect someone who they feel is shooting straight with them even if they disagree. And that’s the first step towards winning back some voters.
Orbifold, right fucking on!
World Eater, you may be pleased to note that some Democrats apparently are doing just that.
I’m not convinced that, over the long term, accusations of “flip-flopping” will matter. I’m not even convinced they mattered one iota in the last election.
Your missing the point. It’s not “running to the center.” Some of the projects I’ve suggested, and some of the ones you’ve sorta mentioned, are far further to the left then anything the democratic party is doing now. Saying “I recognize this is a divisive issue, and I may be wrong about it, so I’ll let the states decide” isn’t the same thing as saying “I’m wrong about this issue.”
Republican candidates (one whose middle initial is “W” come to mind) are also accused of being untrustworthy, and dishonest. They still win. Why? Because honest-to-god issues matter way more then people would like to think.
And here’s where we fundamentally disagree. I too believe that abortion should be legal, and that there should be limits on private ownership of firearms. However, I’m willing to acknowledge that my position may be the wrong one, and that community standards for such things vary greatly across the nation. I don’t think it’s right to impose my moral opinions on such ambiguous issues on others and prevent them from legislating as they see fit.
There’s probably going to be a democratic resurgence, of sorts. But I doubt it’s gonna result in any real change, and I’d be surprised if it happened for any reason other then the Republican party overreaching.
You wanted to talk about morality, so I will attempt to keep the respective political parties out of it. First of all, why not start off with a bit of humility? Instead of focusing on what everyone else is doing that is morally wrong, why don’t you look within first? Examine where your thinking may be flawed. Look at all sides of the equation. Second, what gives you the right to force your morals onto somebody else? I often use the old cliche “Just because you shout the loudest does not mean you are right.” If you are strong in your beliefs, good for you. Be thankful that you have that freedom in this country and enjoy it while it lasts. If you want others to know the truth, if in fact what you believe is the truth, then live that truth yourself. Hopefully, others will learn that truth because you will be a good, positive example of it. Anger, hatred towards others is definitely NOT a positive example.
Thankyouthankyouthankyou.
As an added bonus, polls say most US voters agree with the Democratic party’s positions on the issues.
So who’s the bastard who fucked things up? Let’s pit that guy, no? (I know, I know, I’m so naive…)
Well said.
Okay…
Hmmm… could torturing people be a good thing?
Think think think…
…
…sorry, nope. Can’t say I approve of that shit.
How about starting a war on false pretenses? Oooh, that’s a toughie, thousands of people killed, even more maimed. Could there possibly be a good reason to start a war over lies?
…
Hrm…
…
Uh-uh, sorry, nope. That’s instant negative ten trillion karma points, Go Directly To Hell, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Go To Heaven as far as I’m concerned.
And I can’t begin to imagine what kind of deranged psychopath one has to be to believe these are good things.
But the Democratic party, much like the Republicans, does compromise to a great extent whenever it is not in the position of greater power. If it did not, it would merely break up into several factions of centrists, moderates, liberals, progressives, <insert a few other labels here> and even LaRouchies. By voting Democratic, you ARE demonstrating your willingness to compromise on the issues to get a somewhat tolerable (to you) alternative.
I don’t blame you in the slightest. Maybe I’ll even wind up rethinking my views and voting for the lesser evil instead of a quixotic third-party candidate in four years. But if you feel that honesty supersedes power, please be sufficiently honest with yourself to accept that only very small fragments of the leadership of either major party has shared, currently shares, and will share that view in the future.
<Yoda Voice>
That is why you fail…
</Yoda Voice>
Evidently you haven’t given all of this enough thought, because I can imagine quite clearly what kind of “deranged pyschopath” believes that torture, lies, and killing are good things. Again, look at the equation from all sides.
Oooooo…Yoda…see my previous post. Can I be a Jedi Knight yet? Please…please…I swear I will get that patience thing down. 
Except you’re not just taking about standing aside and letting fair Democracy work. You’re talking about actively changing positions on the issues…throwing Roe vs. Wade to the wolves, and freakin’ adopting the NRA’s stance on gun control. You’re not acceding to the will of the majority, you’re trying to anticipate it.
Or perhaps, outside of blogs like this one, the accusations against Democrats get a lot more play. You are aware of how organized the Republican media machine is compared to that of the Democratic Party, aren’t you?
And of course “honest-to-god issues matter”. But the message matters too, and so does perception of character.
No offense, but are you trying to advocate what you believe to be right, or are you trying to be prom queen? I too am willing to acknowledge that my position may be wrong…as I said, it’s always possible that I can be convinced otherwise, by an argument I had previously considered, or by facts of which I was not previously aware. But I’m not going to change my mind because of a poll.
“Community standards” cannot dictate to me what I believe to be the right course of action. If I am going to be sincere in my own beliefs, then those beliefs have to flow from the principles that I hold dear, not whichever way I think the wind is blowing.
And how the hell is advocating my own beliefs the same as “imposing my moral opinions” and “preventing them from legislating as they see fit”? Last time I checked, my opinions weren’t considered divine fiat. Those who believe differently from me don’t need my help to believe that way, and saying what I believe isn’t preventing other people from voting whatever way they damn well want.
Three responses to this:
(a) That’s the problem, is what I’m saying. I’m saying that if the Democratic party wants to be effective again, they need to find their common voice. They need to figure out what the fuck they believe in and start advocating policy that is informed by what they think is right, not what they think is popular. Maybe then they can be at least an effective opposition party for now, and get their image and their platform out there to hopefully win elections in the future. Or, they can keep restricting themselves to just reacting to whatever the Republicans throw at them and desperately trying to jump ahead of the political wind, and then spend the next couple of elections trying to explain “no, we’re not really whining opportunistic panderers, we just look that way.”
(b) Being a Canadian citizen, I don’t get to vote. I just live here, thanks to the vagaries of the job market in my field. So the sum total of my influence over the government which has the most effect on my life is measured by my ability to convince strangers over the internet. Yay, me. But if I could vote, I would likely vote Democrat, which leads to…
(c)Who the hell is talking about how I should vote? I thought we were talking about what the Democratic party should do to win elections. In other words, I’m talking about what to do from the perspective of someone advocating a particular political position. From the perspective of a voter, it’s a different story: a voter is necessarily forced to compromise due to the limited number of parties on the ticket, and the inability of any party to be all things to all people. If I vote Democratic, I’m holding my nose and choosing the most tolerable (to me) of all the alternatives, because I have no other choice. But if I were to run as a Democrat, then I should not compromise. I should run on what I truly believe, and let voters accept or reject me on that basis.
It IS Republican light. Abortion IS one of the moral positions that the Dems need to play up – the right wants to back pregnant women into a corner and force them to make harder choices than necessary – to me, that’s evil. It’s also a basis of the support Dems have from a HUGE number of women. Backing down on the abortion issue would be a horrible mistake for the Dems.
I don’t believe the same can be said of gun control. I don’t think it’s important to most Dems. I think it IS one issue that can be traded for more votes – precisely because it’s not a moral issue. I think the Dems can stick with pragmatic concerns like keeping guns out of the hands of children, convicted felons and the insane insofar as is possible, and let the gun nuts try to win on THOSE issues, otherwise, they should let the de facto wide-open gun sales culture continue as is.
It won’t do any good to drop the abortion issue to gain X number of former Pubbies if doing so causes us to lose X+Y number of former Dem voters – which is exactly what would happen. The right to choose IS a core Democratic value.
Hint: when you talking to yourself it’s not a dialogue. Just ask your shrink.
How do you do a monologue?