# What's Wrong With the Democratic Party? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2005, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299 "2005-10-01T03:35:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/41 "2005-10-01T19:53:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 What exactly was “extreme” about JFK? He’s saying JFK wasn’t extreme, and thus wouldn’t have a chance of being nominated today. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/42 "2005-10-01T19:59:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Look in the mirror, **furt.** :rolleyes: I think I know quite well where I stand. Most people claim to be fiscally conservative, but as a quasi-libertarian I think I’m probably still well to the right of most of the population on that. On some social issues, I’m conservative, on others quite liberal. I’m in favor of legalizing drugs and open to legalizing prostitution, for example, but I know those are very unpopular. I support gay adoption and, somewhat less enthusiastically, support gay civil unions; those are also slightly to the left of the population. I’m conflicted on the death penalty, abortion, and affirmative action, which makes me pretty centrist on those things. On what basis would you suggest I am unrealistic about where I stand in relation to the American center? > [@](#): > > What exactly is “extremist” about any of those things? Especially as none of them are true. The Democrats have not, actually, embraced the anti-war movement, in the past election or since. Please tell this to the chairman of the DNC. > [@](#): > > And only half the Senate Democrats voted against Roberts. Correct. 50% of them voted against a very well-qualified moderate. When Clinton nominated the (also qualified) former General Counsel of the ACLU, she was approved 97-3. > [@](#): > > And how, exactly, have they “overplayed their hand” WRT Katrina? I think the speed with which some on the left rushed to blame the federal – and only the federal – government ended up looking tawdry. The Pubs did the same, and it came out as a wash. But I think they missed a good opportunity to sit back and let the Pubs get in trouble, jumped on it noisily, and overplayed their hand. YMMV. > [@](#): > > But if these things **were** true, they still would not be extremist. The '60s gave us many examples, within living memory, of what extremist politics **really** look like – and even the Black Panthers, Yippies and Weathermen were moderates compared to their counterparts in other countries. And we see nothing like that in American politics today – certainly not in [Moveon.org](http://Moveon.org). :rolleyes: 😛 :rolleyes: Well “extremist” is a relative term; I agree that nobody like the above groups has any influence on either party now. Perhaps I should have just said the “wing” or “fringe” of the party. > [@](#): > > How exactly is Marxism applicable, or thought to be applicable, to literary studies? And how, for that matter, is “classicism” applicable to literary studies? [Marxist Literary Theory](http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-19,GGLD:en&q=marxist+literary+theory) per se is in somewhat of a decline in the last 5-10 years, but it would still be an essential part of any Lit Theory survey class, and it has a continuing influence on other schools of theory, from Feminism to Cultural Studies to Postmodernism. By “Classicism” I just meant the approaches to literature [first advocated in Greece](http://www.unizar.es/departamentos/filologia_inglesa/garciala/hypercritica/01.Classical/Classical.01.html) and which held sway for many centuri es afterward, but which are seen as naive at best by the bulk of contemporary scholars. > [@](#): > > That might be true in the United States – and practically nowhere else on Earth. Perhaps true, but irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/43 "2005-10-01T20:07:32Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Perhaps true, but irrelevant. Why irrelevant? Is everybody out of step but Sammy? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/44 "2005-10-01T20:29:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why irrelevant? The thread is about US politics. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/45 "2005-10-01T20:37:53Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Correct. 50% of them voted against a very well-qualified moderate. When Clinton nominated the (also qualified) former General Counsel of the ACLU, she was approved 97-3. Oh, I see you are ignorant, furt, let me help you out. The Clinton nominee was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and she was approved by that margin. What you apparently do not know is that Ginsburg was approved so overwhelmingly because Clinton, unlike Bush _vetted his candidates for the Court to the Republican Congressional leadership and got their approval **before** nominating them._ Hence, no nasty surprises for the Pubbies. They were included in the process. This I think you will agree is a very important point which handily accounts for the difference between the vote on Ginsburg and the vote or Roberts. Perhaps Bush should try something like this instead of being such a stupid, arrogant asshole. You may now thank me for lessening the burden of your ignorance. BTW, this is the second time today I’ve had to make this little correction, is it a Talking Point or something? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/46 "2005-10-01T20:39:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why would the Pubs “call us populists”? In what American circles nowadays is “populist” considered a bad word? Quite often it’s used as an insult, and has been since the 1880s, I believe. Usually it’s paired with “demagogue” when used as an insult. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/47 "2005-10-01T20:55:39Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 What exactly was “extreme” about JFK? I’ve often wondered that myself. If it weren’t for the fact that he was a womanizer and that he ran with the Hollywood crowd (albeit a less polarized one than exists today), he would probably qualify as a Republican by today’s standards. Strong, common-sensical, strong work ethic, wanted to make the country and its people better, etc. Can you imagine Carter, Clinton or Gore (not to mention Mondale, Dukakis or Kerry) standing up to the Soviets (or anyone, for that matter) like he did. Kennedy was the only Democrat president of my lifetime that I could not only get behind but support. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/48 "2005-10-01T21:05:18Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Can you imagine Carter, Clinton or Gore (not to mention Mondale, Dukakis or Kerry) standing up to the Soviets (or anyone, for that matter) like he did. I sure can imagine Clinton standing up to the Soviets. He had a great foreign policy. Can you imagine Bush starting the Peace Corps? Bush saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you: ask what you can do for your country”? Negotiating a treaty to end nuclear testing? Hell. Name the last Republican politician to put his political capital behind advocacy of a broad-based non-military public service campaign like the Peace Corps. (Freedom Corps doesn’t count unless you can demonstrate that any political capital was spent on its founding). Name the last Republican politician to negotiate a treaty that cut down on US military posturing, like the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Kennedy would have been eaten alive by today’s Republican party. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/49 "2005-10-01T21:22:28Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The thread is about US politics. So it is, but a facile, sweeping assertion like, “In 2005, Marxism is not “left”; it is batshit kooky nutbar left. Even bringing it up is indicative of an outdated and unrealistic frame of reference,” appears formulated to go way beyond one country’s borders. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/50 "2005-10-01T21:24:25Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Kennedy would have been eaten alive by today’s Republican party. Or vice versa . . . ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/51 "2005-10-01T22:19:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So it is, but a facile, sweeping assertion like, “In 2005, Marxism is not “left”; it is batshit kooky nutbar left. Even bringing it up is indicative of an outdated and unrealistic frame of reference,” appears formulated to go way beyond one country’s borders. Not at all. I don’t know that many out-and-out unreformed Marxists are winning elections in Europe, but certainly you can be called “Red Ken” and still be Mayor of London. Obviously not the case in the so in the US. Of course, the average American cares not one whit where his political ideas stand vis-a-vis “enlightened” Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/52 "2005-10-01T23:54:51Z")
I’d tell them to start focusing on issues that actually affect people instead of just attacking Bush. Things like terrorism, FEMA, our reputation abroad, the economy, etc. FEMA under linton was supposedly alot better than it is under the republican administration, which stereotypically subscribes to the idea that less government is automatically better. Supposedly FEMA wasn’t too good under Reagan either. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/53 "2005-10-02T00:11:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 What exactly was “extreme” about JFK? You miss my point. Maybe it was my sloppy posting. My apologies. What I meant was that JFK’s policies would not be those of the extreme wing. Someone with his policies today would probably win an election in a landslide, yet I don’t think he would get the nomination form the democratic party. ---
**Author:** ![Wolfian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7ea924/32.png) [@Wolfian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolfian)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/54 "2005-10-02T00:29:01Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > I remember the Daily Show showing some coverage of a protest, obstensibly about Iraq, but with so many other signs and the like that it was just a hodgepodge. Stewart’s response was classic, though I can’t remember it exactly. Something like, “Dude, I didn’t skip classes at Oberlin and drive all the way down here for _this_.” ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/55 "2005-10-02T01:24:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But what makes you think the Dems are **not** a party of big money? Like this > [@ITR champion](#): > > … > Certain groups are perceived as key to Democratic Party success: Blacks, Hispanics, feminists, environmentalists and organized labor are the main ones. > … ---
**Author:** ![Cronos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Cronos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cronos1)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/56 "2005-10-02T16:40:49Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Who says they haven’t? What happened to Bush’s social security ideas? I don’t think they’ve made an inch of progress. The budget for 06 is full of funding for everything dear to Republicans. Social Security overhaul is pretty much dead, there’s a reason they call it the third rail of politics. > [@Marley23](#): > > Even if you don’t think, as I do, that Roberts was a really good choice, they did the smart thing. They could not have stopped his approval, only filibustered and hurt themselves in the process. Not sure how someone with such impacable conservative credentials be viewed so favorably by Dems. Did Bush pick good jurist who happened to be a conservative, or did he pick a conservative whom dems would find difficult to attack? I’d bet it was the latter. Do you think that Bush would ever nominate a liberal judge to the Superme Court? He’s attempting to change the make up of the court for about a generation, and all the Dems can come up with is “well, he seems pretty smart?” So for the Dems to go along with a stunch conservative shows how weak they view their position. > [@Marley23](#): > > As **zeeny** and many wise politicos have said, when your opponent is in trouble, do nothing to help him. It’s better to let them struggle. So I’d say they should do the same thing in that regard. This assumes that politics is a zero-sum game; i.e., Republicans’ loss automatically becomes Democrats’ gain. Not so. Dems approval has dropped along side Republicans. Doing nothing now just gives the Republicans a chance to get their act together. ---
**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:** [October 2, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/57 "2005-10-02T17:44:24Z")
> [@Cronos1](#): > > Not sure how someone with such impacable conservative credentials be viewed so favorably by Dems. Did Bush pick good jurist who happened to be a conservative, or did he pick a conservative whom dems would find difficult to attack? I’d bet it was the latter. Do you think that Bush would ever nominate a liberal judge to the Superme Court? He’s attempting to change the make up of the court for about a generation, and all the Dems can come up with is “well, he seems pretty smart?” So for the Dems to go along with a stunch conservative shows how weak they view their position. The Dems were in a tough position on this one. Bush pulled a brillian political move with Roberts. The only real choice the Dems had to oppose him would’ve been a fillibuster, but then even McCain and his gang would’ve have had a hard time \*\*not \*\*voting for the nuclear option. Roberts just can’t be considered “extreme” in any reasonable meaning of that word. So the Dems did the smart thing in a no-win kind of situation: let each Democratic Senator vote as he thought either his conscience or political needs dictated. Of course Bush is trying to change the maek-up of the court. And why shouldn’t he? If Kerry had won, and he was replacing O’Conner and Rehnquist, do you think he would’ve picked two “conservative” justices so as not to change the make-up of the court? He wouldn’t have done it, and no reasonable person would have expected him to. The Dems have to pick their battles, being the opposition w/o simply being obstructionist. I think they’re actually doing OK so far. Don’t fight these no-win battles, and give the Republicans enough rope to hand themselves. The Republicans are pretty much drunk on their own power, and are doing a damn fine job of self-dedstructing anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Cronos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Cronos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cronos1)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/58 "2005-10-02T18:16:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The Dems were in a tough position on this one. Bush pulled a brillian political move with Roberts. The only real choice the Dems had to oppose him would’ve been a fillibuster, but then even McCain and his gang would’ve have had a hard time \*\*not \*\*voting for the nuclear option. Roberts just can’t be considered “extreme” in any reasonable meaning of that word. So the Dems did the smart thing in a no-win kind of situation: let each Democratic Senator vote as he thought either his conscience or political needs dictated. > > Of course Bush is trying to change the maek-up of the court. And why shouldn’t he? If Kerry had won, and he was replacing O’Conner and Rehnquist, do you think he would’ve picked two “conservative” justices so as not to change the make-up of the court? He wouldn’t have done it, and no reasonable person would have expected him to. > > The Dems have to pick their battles, being the opposition w/o simply being obstructionist. I think they’re actually doing OK so far. Don’t fight these no-win battles, and give the Republicans enough rope to hand themselves. The Republicans are pretty much drunk on their own power, and are doing a damn fine job of self-dedstructing anyway. My point isn’t whether Bush should be doing this or that. He’s doing what he thinks needs to get done. I am not arguing the merits of it one way or another, or that the Dems would have picked a “better” candidate for the Supreme Court. My point is why are the dems putting up more of an opposition considering the GOP’s weakened position? And selection of Roberts for chief justice of the Supreme Court, regardless one’s of view of him, isn’t somethig the Dems would have done on their own volition. Do the Republicans have the Dems so boxed-in, with nuclear option and other bugaboos, that all they can do is bend over and take it? Letting the GOP continue to self destruct isn’t a viable strategy. My personal experience in life tells me that hope makes for a poor course of action. And if that is their strategy, then they shouldn’t be too surprised to find themselves in the losing end of most elections. ---
**Author:** ![zeeny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zeeny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zeeny)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/59 "2005-10-02T18:22:37Z")
> [@Cronos1](#): > > This assumes that politics is a zero-sum game; i.e., Republicans’ loss automatically becomes Democrats’ gain. Not so. Dems approval has dropped along side Republicans. Doing nothing now just gives the Republicans a chance to get their act together. But the US political system (two party, winner take all) fosters the zero-sum game assumption, doesn’t it? I don’t like it or agree with it myself, but I can see why the Democrats might operate on that assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299/60 "2005-10-02T18:22:49Z")
According to [This New York Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/politics/02republicans.html?hp&ex=1128312000&en=a5f4570880c10ff2&ei=5094&partner=homepage), > [@](#): > > Even as they point to Republican failings, Democrats are keenly aware that they “have an obligation to say what we would do differently,” as Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, put it. In the coming weeks they plan to push forward with legislation in both the House and the Senate. Democratic strategists say the party is also working toward a unified agenda that it can carry through the 2006 midterms. So it sounds as though at least some Dems agree with me that they need to focus on a specific agenda. Let’s just see if they can sex it up enough to win an election. Cynical? Me? Never. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-party/324299.md?page=4)