Is the definition of "Democrat" a malleable thing?

[SujiwanKenobee]

I'm asking a serious question but am having difficulty formulating it.

For one to claim they are a Democrat rather than Republican or Green or *whatever*, are the defining characteristics related to the time and place? Are there core areas that do not change in order to claim one is a Democrat?

I know we like to say it is a big tent. And there are a lot of areas where individual people seem to have set their tabs on different areas of the spectrum for social and political issues--guns, abortion, environment, degree of taxation, etc. But is there a point where the things one supports have gone so far off whatever the archetype of Democrat is, that you can't claim you are one? If you are "all in" on some one issue that the majority of Dems are supporting, but the other areas seem to need an analysis of whether they would be something a Democrat should even be supporting---are you *still* a Democrat? Or is there a point where you really are just a little "d" because your positions are so removed from some archtypal Dem?

Is what it is to be a Democrat determined by the world situation, by the need of humanity in our country, by our ethical views of justice? Is it dependent on time and place or driven by whatever the candidates say they are in a given election cycle?

I sure know I am not, could not be what passes for a Republican. I call myself a Democrat. But, if Hillary is a Democrat, why do I disagree with so many more of her positions than the ones I can find to support? Why does Bernie resonate more strongly in comparison? He sounds a note that feels like what a Dem should be.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Yes.

Sadly, any Republican can simply proclaim themselves a Democrat, slap a (D) after their names, and get elected, all while holding the same positions they did when they still had an (R) after their names. It's a meaningless label nowadays.

[nashville_brook]

2. political wars are fought on the battlefield of language

the Lloyd Blankfeins of the world want to own us, want to own what it means to have a people's party. they've been usurping it since the 90s. well, since the 70s, but it became grossly apparent in the 90s.

so no, there's no hard and fast definition that exists in the ether. we decide what that definition is by putting our bodies and minds in the path of the bullshit.

[djean111]

3. All I know is - if Debbie Wassermann-Schultz is a "Democrat" - I have to question if that word

means anything at all, now.

[VulgarPoet]

4. It's not malleable, per se, but a superficial label..

You can take the label off a chicken salad, and slap it over a jar of chicken shit and try to pass it off as chicken salad. That doesn't make it so.

[raging moderate]

5. Democrats are the sadder but wiser girls at the party.

Last edited Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Back in the beginning, centuries ago, Democrats were allied with the Southern slave holders. The Republican party was the party of liberation, both for slaves and for oppressed factory workers and even for Native Americans. Most Republicans were cautious and many were ambivalent about it, but that was the general drift of things. Lincoln's public position was the preservation of the Union, and he was limited by his poor rural background in a place where almost everyone was white. but many of his off-the-cuff remarks showed sympathy for the downtrodden of all races. I know that is why my great-grandmother was held up to his campaign train as a four-year-old to shake his hand, by her parents who were aware of their own Native American ancestry and firmly opposed to slavery and oppression of Blacks or anyone else. Then, in victory, many Republicans began to gather wealth and power and privilege, and the party gradually changed. Teddy Roosevelt had some progressive ideas. In Illinois, later, Everett Dirksen supported civil rights. Many poor people retained their Republican party membership in family loyalty; the new ideas gradually crept into the Republican literature. Things got worse and worse. Back when I was a girl, I think in the sixties, the Republican leadership got the brilliant idea known as the Southern Strategy. They decided to woo the racist Southern whites and ditch their moderate and liberal wings. At this point, in my view, they became the Republicon party and ceased to be the party of Lincoln.

[islandmkl]

6. it seems that being initially exposed to Democratic Party values AFTER the mid-80s...

results in a fundamental lack of understanding about core Democratic values....sure, someone might 'know' what those values are from merely reading about them...as if they are just past history...but they will not have actually seen those principles driving the leadership of the Party...

the DLC/Third Way agenda has been successful in revising the core of the Party...

you ask 'is it a malleable thing?'...not the core principles....

but I would submit that the 'direction' of the Party is, if not malleable, flexible enough to have permitted the DLC/TW to drive it to the right...past 'center'...in reality, way past center by moving the center to the right...

of course, in modern Democratic Party leadership terms...that is merely 'evolution'....

[raging moderate]

7. Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt changed the Democratic party.

Last edited Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Well, they and a whole bunch of other people with similar ideas, anyway. Gradually, the Democratic party moved in to champion the cause of the starving poor of the country. Yes, some children starved to death here during the Depression. I know my mother and father almost did. There were dreadful events all during that time that would move any heart not made of stone. The farmers of the Midwest found support from the Democratic party in their struggle to be paid adequately for their efforts by the giant corporations who were trying to skim off all the profits in the deals they forced on the poor farmers. The Immigrant population swelled the ranks of Democrats. Gradually, Democrats began to champion the rights of Black and Native American people. Eventually, many progressive people were drawn together from many different races and religions, because the Democratic party became the group where it was all right to suggest new ideas and share sad experiences and ask for help against oppression.

This is a living, breathing party, made up of many different voices, hoping to come up with a consensus of policies that will do something to make the world a better place for everyone.

[LWolf]

8. Of course it is.

"Democrat" with a capital "D" is simply a political organization that is continually evolving.

Keep in mind that the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and of the early free black citizens.

Political parties are, on their face, organizations that are supposed to provide strength in numbers to influence the political direction the country travels.

In reality, they are often, for many, more like sports teams. Teams that demand loyalty. They can trade players, they can change owners, they can change uniforms, they can move to different geographical locations, they can change names; generally, no matter what is going on within the team itself, they keep the profits flowing by connecting to that emotional craving for a "team" to belong to that triggers loyalty no matter what they do.

What is happening in the party right now is a battle for identity: will the neo-liberals who've taken power and moved the party in a different direction remain in power, or will they be deposed and the party set in a different direction?

The answer to that question will decide what the current definition of "Democrat" is, and how many people remain to claim it, or reject that definition and head for other teams.