Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 04:52 AM
Original message |
What does a 'big tent party' really mean? |
|
I've seen the phrase 'big tent' thrown around on DU lately as a rationale for the Democratic party adopting principles and policies that are decidedly undemocratic in nature. We also see the word 'purity' applied to those who object to having their party's ideals compromised and sold to the highest bidder.
Having a 'big tent' party should mean inclusion of anyone that wants to be a DEMOCRAT and believes in Democratic VALUES and PRINCIPLES. It doesn't mean the acceptance of Republican-lite politicians that won't accept the party as it is...but want to change it to appeal to those who don't believe in traditional Democratic values.
I'm not so sure that a 'big tent' ever meant accepting an ideology or philosophy of governing that was contrary to the best interests of the majority of the Democratic electorate. You can bet your bottom dollar that Democrats espousing Democratic ideals wouldn't be welcome in the GOP. Why then should we welcome into the party those who think and act like Republicans?
That's not a big tent...it's a formula for failure.
Those who presume to lead...with their 'era of big government is over, third way' agenda...have abandoned the very people and principles that made our party great and a viable alternative to voting Republican. This leaves millions of Americans without any kind of meaningful representation in DC.
We were the party of labor. Yet the 'new' party leadership has deserted unions, collective bargaining and worker's rights for an agenda that favors 'big business' over the worker...corporate over social welfare.
We were the party of civil rights. Yet our party leadership has all but rejected Affirmative Action and allowed the disenfranchisement of Blacks and other minorities in the last two elections. There have been no serious calls for investigations of the Right's purging of Black voters or to repair the voting system before the 2008 election.
We were the party that believed in the separation of church and state and women's rights. But our leaders are talking about 'compromising' with those who want to replace Constitutional law with Biblical law and place restrictions on the rights of women to decide their own future.
We were the party that believed in using Government to help the 'have-nots'. Yet some in our party leadership are working with those that have proposed legislation and laws that helped the Right weaken and eliminate social programs.
We were the party of Public Education. But now some of our leaders have joined the other side in proposing 'vouchers' and private schools while allowing public schools that serve everyone to wither on the vine.
I believe that changing and watering-down our party's values and principles is directly related to losing the majority status we enjoyed for over forty years. The new leadership...as they move 'our' party ever further to the right...simply expects disenfranchised Democrats to support and vote for them because they have 'no other choice'.
I've seen too many of my Democratic friends run away from these challenges that face our party. Some have joined third parties and others have dropped out and refuse to vote. But I submit that the best way to change our party for the better is to stay and fight. This fight is about speaking out against those who want to weaken our resolve to remain the party of the people and standing up for those without a voice. It's about holding politicians of both parties to their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
I remain a proud, progressive Democrat who believes in the ideal of a 'big tent' party that welcomes anyone that wants to be a DEMOCRAT. I'm not an 'extremist' or of the 'fringe, far left'. But I believe that it is my right and responsibility to question or oppose any politician...Democrat or Republican...that wants to change my party into something that appeals to the right while disenfranchising labor, women, minorities, educators and other loyal Democrats.
|
Cocoa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 06:17 AM
Response to Original message |
1. we are still the party of labor |
|
we are still the party of civil rights.
we are still the party that believes in using government to help have-nots.
We are still the party of public education.
There is room for debate along all of those dimensions, there is no single all-encompassing "correct" answer.
I agree with both Russ Feingold and Barack Obama, who both recently expressed the same idea, that we must seek the best solution to the nation's difficult problems, even if the best solution looks like a "conservative" solution.
|
OzarkDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Which policies were they defending that would hurt average Americans?
|
Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Our party no longer represents labor or civil rights...except in the sense of providing lip service when it's needed at election time.
The 2000 and 2004 purging of mostly Black voters and the leadership ignoring it proves that we're no longer the party of civil rights.
Don't look now...but the New Democratic leadership is proposing vouchers and isn't doing enough to fund public schools.
The 'best solutions' shouldn't allows end up on the side of screwing the 'have-nots'. The question becomes: the best solutions for whom?
|
jonnyblitz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
9. I have yet to see a "conservative" solution that is the best one. nt |
Cocoa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. Obama is asking you to change the way you think |
|
or else he is suggesting that the democratic party appeal more to people willing to change the way they think.
|
Steely_Dan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 08:22 AM
Response to Original message |
3. It Is The Inherent Problem... |
|
...with the Democratic party that they have a big tent. The irony is that the tent should be big...However, without the proper leadership to consolidate an acceptable platform to all within the tent, we always run the risk of having that tent collapse on us, leaving us blind to a viable direction.
Just look at the recent (so-called) "anti-war" protests. There were so many factions that the main message was nearly lost.
-Paige
|
renie408
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 08:32 AM
Response to Original message |
4. "Accept it as it is"...How is it? |
|
I have only been following politics closely for maybe two years now. And only in the past three or four months have I gotten REALLY addicted. I was a Republican when I was a kid, mostly because my parents were and what they said made sense to me until I was about 21-22. Then I was pretty much nothing for about ten years. Busy getting married, having kids, working on the career. I started voting Democratic with Bill Clinton. I have gradually become more liberal since then, but I may not be as wide open liberal as some Dems.
But then again, not all Republicans are fundamentalist evangelical Christians, either.
Do I belong here?
|
applegrove
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 12:32 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Some people are more fiscal conservative (no debt) but still very |
|
liberal in their social policies.
I don't think democracy was ever about a voter getting "exactly what they want" in every elections. You get part of what you need. You compromise with all the other interests in your party.
Right now we need election transparency & campaign finance laws. Who is going to do that? The Repukes? A third party that will never get elected?
How is someone who insists that their party's platform be exactly a match to all one's preferences any different that the repukes who get into power and decide not to pay taxes (not even for a war that benefits them)? Compromise is part of living in a democracy. You should be asked not "what your country can do for you.. but what you can do for your country".
|
Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. A platform should be about the greater... |
|
...or common good. Politicians that push legislation that favors corporations over people are betraying the trust of those who elect them. We're not talking about some sort of liberal ideal...but what is fair and right for the majority.
You make it sound as if we're simply discussing a difference of opinion.
Elected officials are supposed to be public servants and beholden to those who elect them...not those who throw the most money in their campaign chests.
|
dolstein
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-05-05 04:34 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Big Tent = no ideological litmus test |
|
Up until the 1960s, neither of the major political parties was ideologically cohesive. The Democratic Party included both Eleanor Rooselvet and Strom Thurmond. The Republican Party included both Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller. They were both big tent parties.
|
Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. Without SOME kind of litmus test... |
|
...there is no need to even HAVE two parties.
That's why voters identified themselves with certain platforms and ideologies. Republicans are known as the party of 'big business' and until the 'new democrats' took over in the 90s and gave us NAFTA...the Dem party was known as the party of labor.
What we have now is two parties with politicians loyal to no one but themselves and their corporate sponsors. The people are left to beg for crumbs as they watch their national resources divided among the ruling class and their legislative cronies in congress.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 17th 2024, 04:09 PM
Response to Original message |