Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
The Democratic Party today is in disarray. It was not always thus. Under Roosevelt and Truman it was a unified force to be reckoned with.
The dissolution of the organized Democratic Party began at its very zenith in the 1960’s as the party took on the causes of many special interests as planks in its platform. This diluted its labor oriented “common man” agenda with what were often narrower more elitists causes. It kept a platform of mismatched logs and planks tied together for a couple of decades, but the party became complacent and did not care to notice that the American people were warning that its platform needed maintenance. The bindings were loosening, and the structure became wobbly in the ‘80s and ‘90s. As with any structure, it aged and deteriorated as part of its natural lifecycle. Maintenance was neglected, and the winds of change have blown it over.
One might wonder if the Republican Party is at its zenith now as the NeoCon agenda threatens to splinter it. There are striking similarities in the processes at work on, if not the agendas of, the Democratic Party four decades ago and the Republican Party today. It would not be a surprise if historians looked back decades hence and pronounced the time of the Bush Regime as the high-water mark in this cycle for the Republican Party.
What we see today in the Democratic Party is a pile of lumber, logs and bark from the activist platform of the ‘60s and ‘70s. The party is splintered, with the dried out planks of that platform as its legacy. Those splintering agendas that were the planks in a forgone era need to be either trimmed and re-finished, or discarded. Then the good material that is left must be combined with a new holistic agenda as a strong platform built on a new (and renewed) blueprint derived from America's yearning to rid itself of special interest domination.
To paraphrase a campaign slogan, “It’s the agenda, stupid!” Good structure will build on a coherent agenda that is correct for the times. Structure without a coherent agenda is worthless.
Democrats Lack Coherency, not Structure
|
Posted By: AZ Moderate Posted on: Mar. 22, 2006 at 6:46 PM  6 Comments
|
4.2 / 5
Based on 12 ratings.
|
Comments:
|
Mar. 22, 2006 at 08:25:26 PM
|
|
| In order for the Democratic Party to become strong, they must of course decide on the issues that concern the forgotten and ignored. Coherency is a must in order to survive. The leaders of the party must stand firm on their platform and not waiver. Democrats, Liberals and Progressives know that a restructuring of our government will require a strong leader who ignores the "talking points" of the neo-cons. So many times in the past years we've allowed the right to dictate the agenda. The only respect or comment Bush receives is that he stands firm on his decisions right or wrong. It works for him, as much as he falters the right is there for him. Intellectuals alike must rise and stand together to bring our country back to the pride and honor we once had with not only our own but with the rest of the world. It will take a strong Democrat such as Paul Hackett who is not afraid to speak his mind.
|
||
|
Mar. 23, 2006 at 10:07:31 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Deja vu? I'm glad you put these thoughts into an article, AZ Moderate. It certainly upgrades the neighborhood. I think it was you who observed that a lot of rich material is often buried in the comments and this is one. I don't mean to put Phaedrus on the spot but I think he'd agree with the place of structure in the hierarchy. His point of "Republicans speaking with one voice" is well-taken, though. While the authors he invokes ascribe that to structure, I'd suggest it's easier for the creatively-impaired, visionless Republicans to stay on talking point. Regluing the splinters could start with the wedge issues Bush which has given the Democrats, as Fasteddie suggests. Open the door with warranted criticism then reframe the issue as a platform plank. "Stay the course to beyond 2009" morphs into Murtha's strategy, domestic eavesdropping becomes the sanctity of hearth and home, civil war in Iraq turns into "choose a faction", fiscal irresponsibility transitions into fiscal responsibility with a delineation of how to deal with the future given the massive obligations that government already has, etc, etc. Seems simple enough to turn Bush's shortcomings into positives with common sense and traditional Democratic values. With the gifts Bush and the Neocons keep laying on us, it's a hell of a start - a hand in the Bush is worth two birds! |
||
|
|
Mar. 23, 2006 at 10:44:35 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Oh, forgot that I wanted to respond to Know It All and Milau, too. If we're not part of the solution, we're part of the problem. I fear the supply of political Saviors was exhausted long ago, Know It All, so we'll have to settle for a mere mortal with traditional American values and the rest is up to us! But we do have Bush's performance and programs as a counterpoint. How's that for an initial framework? Milau shows us the way: "Coherency is a must in order to survive. The leaders of the party must stand firm on their platform and not waiver." AZ Moderate's article takes it a couple of steps farther by identifying where we might find the splinters and shards to start nailing onto the issues Bush has given us. And Milau's mention of Paul Hackett sends me into craziness. Paul's fate shows us why we can't follow the tenets of the Republican gamebook. Winning is NOT the only goal. Russ Feingold showed us, as well as the misdirected Democratic leadership, that winning because of what we stand for is the way to a Democratic victory. See Rdrover's article on Feingold and Decisions as well the issues under discussion there - hell, give us your thoughts on the issues and what you think the Dems should stand for! We're the party of ideas! Got any? [link:www.voiceofarizona.com] |
||
|
Mar. 23, 2006 at 11:42:53 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| How about starting with accountability? Senator Feingold on the Daily Show last night: "I was taught that it's the Congress that makes the laws and the president is supposed to sign them and he's supposed to enforce them. He's not just supposed to make them up. And on this illegal wiretapping, he apparently just decided that he didn't like things the way there were, and made up his own law. I don't think we can let him get away with that. So I think it's a pretty mild step to say, by resolution, Mr. President, you did the wrong thing. How about admitting it, and maybe apologizing?" |
||
|
Mar. 23, 2006 at 01:57:50 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Jeano has a good spear fashioned from a solid oak plank: “How about starting with accountability?” The spear, born of a sliver of that plank; is it be too much to ask that the President of “family values” square his law breaking behavior and support for torture with his pious pontifications? Gadzooks, Akman, I think you’re onto something! You have some solid suggestions to flesh out your statement that the Democrats should “Open the door with warranted criticism then reframe the issue as a platform plank.” o "Stay the course to beyond 2009" morphs into Murtha's strategy. o domestic eavesdropping becomes the sanctity of hearth and home, o civil war in Iraq turns into "choose a faction" o fiscal irresponsibility transitions into fiscal responsibility with a delineation of how to deal with the future given the massive obligations that government already has, etc, etc. You should flesh this idea out in a posted article to focus the not inconsequential intellect at this site on the remedy for the loyal opposition’s disarray. Go for it! To paraphrase you, A Bush in hand is the snake’s head in hand. It would be quite moral to turn Karl Rove’s strategy back on the GOP. Sew the wind, Reap the Whirlwind. The NeoCoNazis have sewn a lot of wind (phew!) and its time we cleared the air. And fyi, I hatched this article as I was penning a comment for Rdrover's article on ‘Feingold and Decisions’. I backed off and developed this article, then went back and modified the comment and posted it. I’m sure you will see some similarities between that comment and this article. I sometimes get inspiration from these good articles and the comment dialog that they elicit. Rdrover's article on Feingold and Decisions is a head-and-shoulders example of that for me. What a catalyst! Good reference. Know it All, you’re point is well taken, but the Democrats have to rebuild from the philosophical underpinnings at the grass roots up to leaders at the top who will stand up for principle. The Brass Cahoneys will emerge, and many pair will be owned by the distaff side. The current Milieu must determine the new platform, milau. The legion of disenfranchised Americans, those whose concerns are “… forgotten and ignored”, is the new “labor” common-man constituency. You are right on target. Maybe we can form a braintrust here at Voice of Arizona and forward suggestions to Dean, Feingold and other’s that might listen. Give them some feedback from real America, guidance from the Average American that they might not be cognizant of inside the Beltway. |
||
Report Abuse