What's wrong with the Democratic party

[chumdawg]

I found a Peggy Noonan article from early 2003 that I think brilliantly captures a lot of the things I have long thought about the Dems but have not been able to give such eloquent voice to. It's a long read, but if you have 15 or so minutes to spare, I think you will find it thought-provoking:

Dem Problems

[LRB]

Terrific article with tons of constructive criticism for dems. I wish we could see more of this in politics.

[Epitome22]

Pretty lousy article. Reeks more of why Ms. Noonan should definitely be a republican than anything that should be changed about Democrats. Republican suggestions for Democratic reform are always summarized as "You'd be a lot cooler if you were a little more like us" The best suggestions for reform of the Democratic party, should it ever be needed, would be by Democrats themselves. We can deal without the smug, condescending rhetoric of religious, racially adverse Reaganites. And she accuses Dems of being elitists. Thanks but no thanks.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
Pretty lousy article. Reeks more of why Ms. Noonan should definitely be a republican than anything that should be changed about Democrats. Republican suggestions for Democratic reform are always summarized as "You'd be a lot cooler if you were a little more like us" The best suggestions for reform of the Democratic party, should it ever be needed, would be by Democrats themselves. We can deal without the smug, condescending rhetoric of religious, racially adverse Reaganites. And she accuses Dems of being elitists. Thanks but no thanks.

So do you think that the Democratic party is right where it needs to be? Or is it in need of reform (whether suggested by Ms. Noonan or otherwise)?

[mavsman55]

Unlike our friend Epitome who finds something wrong with being religious, I thought that article was absolute greatness.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
Pretty lousy article. Reeks more of why Ms. Noonan should definitely be a republican than anything that should be changed about Democrats. Republican suggestions for Democratic reform are always summarized as "You'd be a lot cooler if you were a little more like us" The best suggestions for reform of the Democratic party, should it ever be needed, would be by Democrats themselves. We can deal without the smug, condescending rhetoric of religious, racially adverse Reaganites. And she accuses Dems of being elitists. Thanks but no thanks.

Actually in several places I believe that Noonam was suggesting that the Dems not be just like the Republicans, but that they return to previously held Democratic ideas which are different from Republican ones but work better to give the people a more viable alternative and create more and better competition for the Republicans.

If nothing else a DNC with less special interest influence would force the GOP to lessen their special interest influence to compete. Do you really argue with that?

[Epitome22]

[quote]
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Originally posted by: Epitome22


So do you think that the Democratic party is right where it needs to be? Or is it in need of reform (whether suggested by Ms. Noonan or otherwise)?

Things can always be better. And despite the tone of the article, and a good portion of it being about dubious debate issues (Abortion, Clinton) I admit begrudgingly that she does raise some points I agree with (though I disagree with her on the whole). My issues, gripes and wishes for the party in no particular order. Some of these overlap.


Re-energizing the south: I realize that there are alot of Democrats that still hold non-presidential offices in the South but when it comes to Presidential elections you won't see many blue states. Democrats on the coasts can gripe all they want about Southerners unwillingness to vote for non southern democrats but the West Coast hollywood Democrat and the North Eastern blueblood Democrat (sans JFK) just can't be betted on to win the hearts and minds of everyone inbetween. I'm obviously biased but I still associate Democrats with the South and I want to see a return of the old southern yellowdog Democrats. The only type of Democrat middle Amercians might conceivably trust with national defense.

Stop courting the radical vote: Democrats are a respectable mainstream political party. Trying to combat with the Green party for every potential left of center vote is not sound strategy. By competing with more radical progressive parties for the fringe, you alienate a bigger percentage of your base and potentially lose them to the moderate wing of the Republican party.

Moderation is the key: The administrations of Reagan and now Bush are to the right of the Eisenhower or even the Nixon administration which seem more centrist. When the other party moves to the right, the solution isn't to move further to the left. In the end Republicans will still be closer to the majoirity of Americans.

Get a hold of yourself man: I'm allowed to be a angry loon because I'm a private citizen but you hold public office. Democrats had a perfect opportunity to engage and inform americans about some of the dubious aspects of this war (as Lieberman would have) and about domestic issues like the defecit and healthcare. By taking the "Bush is the anti-christ" they alienated Americans and reinforced the Liberal vs. Conservative tribalism that has gripped this country. It may seem justified in retrospect but at the time, Republicans and their "operation roll over Bill Clinton with a tank" mentality and tactics seemed silly to many moderates. The same rule applies here.

Fight back: I know some people seem to think that Democrats are kings of dirty politics but I couldn't agree less. This party is full of men who served honorably and their are so many mouthpieces for the Republican agenda that push the liberal pansy image who never got close to a battlefield and sometimes did everything they could to stay away from one. Liberals are pansies precisely because they don't play the game like Republicans do, they can't play hardball and they let themselves get made to look like pansies. If the contrast of the last two conventions told us anything, it's that if Democrats show up to the fight with knives, Republicans will bring assault weapons.

I could go on forever but there's at least five. That and just an acceptance of the war on terror as an inevitability and refocusing the party platform to tackling much neglected domestic issues, fighting for civil rights, keeping corporations in check and not just being the anti-Bush party.

2008

[kg_veteran]

Excellent post, Epitome.

[LRB]

By taking the "Bush is the anti-christ" they alienated Americans and reinforced the Liberal vs. Conservative tribalism that has gripped this country. It may seem justified in retrospect but at the time, Republicans and their "operation roll over Bill Clinton with a tank" mentality and tactics seemed silly to many moderates. The same rule applies here.

Excellent point. I think the Republicans really hurt themselves with this tactic, and I believe the Dems are hurting themselves today. All in all a really great post Epitome.

[Rhylan]

Agreed. I have often thought we need four parties in this country, so that the bleeding hearts can have their fringe, Pat Robertson can have his fringe, and the two in the middle can each lean one way and compete for the remaining 85% of the electorate over actual matters of policy rather than name-calling and emotion.

It's basically what we have now, only that each party's candidate has to walk this line between "party loyalists" (PC for extremists) and "electability." So that every four years, the other party attempts to unify and deride the opposing candidate for not doing what he said, because he had to talk in circles just to get elected. For every Presidential election that I've closely followed, from '92 onward, the winners have been of the party that was best able to put aside differences for six months and run a campaign. Simple as that.

[Drbio]

Allright....who hacked into epitome's account and posted that? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[sturm und drang]

My belief has always been that if the Dems can't defeat Bush – the weakest incumbent candidate I can remember – then it is time for some serious, serious overhauling.

Then again, I honestly believe this race was over when Kerry pulled ahead for the nomination. I think part of the "Bush as anti-christ" campaigning has been to disguise the weakness of our candidate. Simply put, I think it was borne of necessity – and a misguided attempt to capitalize on the widespread disapproval of Bush.