My rant. Read at your own risk.

[Darkhawk32]

I know what the deep-rooted problem is with the Democratic Party.

Too many God damn causes! Everything from pro-choice groups to environmentalists to animal rights activists, the Dem party's attention is splintered like a grenade was shoved into the mouth of the Democratic Donkey and promptly detonated.

I have news for all of you. All your causes don't mean SHIT if people in power aren't even going to listen to one fucking word you say. It's just as plain and simple as that.

The Democratic Party has ZERO power right now. NONE. All your meetings about the baby seals, abortion rights and Sierra Club folks are wasting your time. Do you actually think that either...

1) Your Republican representative gives two shits about you? They think we're freaks, that we're sub-human and needing to be expulsed from society. Little signs on the street corner and marches don't do squat to change their mind. They laugh at you.

2) Your Democratic represenative has the power to do squat for you? All their fighting means NOTHING. They're pissing in the wind.


There are thousands upon thousands of organizations all focusing on different things. I say, STOP IT!

Focus every bit of your energies... ALL OF YOUR MONEY, ALL OF YOUR TIME and elect some real Democrats to office. Start in your own county and township. That needs to be our focus for many years to come.

Can you imagine the power of the progressive movement if all of its resources is focused on one thing: Electing Progressive Democrats?

The Republicans BANK on the fact that we'll never do this. Part of me says they're right.

Can you imagine the amount of money (or time or other resources) that can be pooled together locally, state-wide and nationally by doing this? The Republicans would be OVERWHELMED!

Please don't get me wrong, I think all of the examples I stated above are very important and I mean no disrespect in any way toward them.

If I offended folks, I'm not sorry, but hope you understand where I'm coming from and respect that.

Thank you for letting me vent.

[SaveElmer]

1. Close...

It's not that there are so many causes...its that there are so many Democrats for whom their cause is the one and only thing they base their vote on.

[Darkhawk32]

2. I agree. And they don't realize that the alternative means having...

zero chance of your issue ever being heard. They need to put aside their own personal causes as well.

[1620rock]

5. Well yes, but...

...these so called causes are what make us progressives. What would you have us do become Repukes Lite? Been there done that, it didn't amount to squat! :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

6. Of course...

But when you let one issue and one issue only determine your vote, this kind of splintering will happen.

[phantom power]

3. But people elect candidates to do particular things.

So, what are those things? Party platforms are still made of individual planks.

[HereSince1628]

4. Underlying most of the causes are unifying principles.

It's not as eclectic as it sometimes seems.

Most of the many causes can be stated as a commitment to extending dignity (freedom, justice, equality) and health (freedom from hunger, access to safe housing and health care, freedom from pollution) to those who currently suffer from a lack of it.

[stellanoir]

7. the deep rooted problem you elucidate

is real but the bigger problems lie with partisan control of voting machinery, the media's bias and blackout on recurrent election fraud.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=479&row=0

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465045790/qid=1121112021/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-9805996-7790424?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

edited to add links

[Demit]

8. How would you be able to identify progressives if there were no progressiv

causes identified? If we focus all our energies to get progressive Democrats elected, what would they be for?

If our only cause is to get party members elected regardless, we'd be just like the Republicans. Only interested in winning elections. Not the WHY. The WHY we want progressive Dems in there.

Despite your backing away from what you said, at the end, despite your half-assed "I mean no disrespect", I find your venting breathtakingly cynical and shortsighted.

"If I offended folks, I'm not sorry"--? And I'm supposed to respect that?

[Darkhawk32]

10. It's not shortshighted, just based on what I've noticed.

Cynical perhaps. Shortsighted? Not at all.

You put forth and focus your causes through candidates.

Winning elections right now should be #1 on our priority list.

Who says we couldn't keep our principles while focusing on electing Progressive Democrats that would be sympathic to your concerns?

If you don't think so, fine. We'll agree to disagree.

[Crowdance]

9. Better plan: We'll let you decide

It's a brilliant plan: It'll be far simpler if we all just hand our autonomy to you. You will decide what a real Democrat is, you'll tell us who to send the checks to, and who to vote for. (I assume these candidates won't care about women's reproductive rights, the environment, or animals. I wonder what they WILL care about? But, really, that's none of my business....)

I suppose your point is that as long as someone belongs to the right club, it doesn't matter what they believe, what they support, or what they create? And, somehow, once we get enough of these righteously clubbed men (I'm just guessing you're going to want them all to be men--so much easier to get them elected)into power, they're going to suddenly start asking us what WE care about. And it'll be like sharing a Coke, with peace and love and harmony, because we're all going to miraculously agree with one another about how things ought to go.

In fact, that would be the same kind of tyrrany we have now, staffed by representatives who don't know what issues matter to us, and absolutely don't care. I have no expectation that such an effort would be good for any of us. So, no thanks. I'll continue to care about reproductive rights, the environment, animal cruelty, American hegemony, GLBT rights, and a bunch of other issues. And I'll look to support and vote for those who do the same.

[Darkhawk32]

12. Obviously you missed the point.

[Demit]

14. Oh, the OP thinks those issues are important, just that we shouldn't ask

Democratic candidates what THEY think about them. That would dilute the process of getting them elected. We should all just work to elect progressive Democrats without knowing what makes them progressive Democrats. Apparently the thought that someone claiming to be a progressive Democrat and not explaining why and how is an ultimate absurdity hasn't crossed the OP's mind. Expecting a candidate to stand for something is divisive, don't you know.

[Darkhawk32]

15. And again... YOU MISSED THE POINT.

Why do we have a hard time finding progressive candidates?

LACK OF RESOURCES!

There may be a candidate that may agree with everything you say, but would never run. Why? Can't run a campaign on dryer lint.

[Crowdance]

25. I guess you missed the point

In a thorough and remarkable fashion. But shouting certainly makes your own statement.

[Darkhawk32]

28. Others seem to have got it.... you must check yourself. n/t

[Demit]

26. I see. Give the candidate money first. Then ask him what he thinks.

Sorry. What I see your point being is: put the cart before the horse. Which is what (almost) all our sappy, presently elected Dem officials are doing already--protecting their jobs and careers, by backing down from what they supposedly believe in. What the hell are they there for? They are supposed to be acting upon upon their principles. To do what Democrats supposedly believe in. I understand horse trading. But it's supposed to be in service to a higher cause. Principles. Not because they're afraid of losing their own livelihoods. Fuck that.

I am not here, as a citizen, to help some people keep their comfortable livelihoods. I vote for them to represent me. Represent me, and the Democratic party, because of what we stand for. Not because they SAY they are Democrats, but because of what they do. If a candidate is running with the expectation that they have a guaranteed income because they "won" like it's some kind of game, then that candidate should be cast off, post haste. Let them make a living the honest way, if they can.

I want to see candidates who believe in things, and I want them to tell me what those things are. Nobody gets my vote by only promising vaguely that they are what they think I want them to be.

[Darkhawk32]

29. They continue getting nothing done. Suit yourself. n/t

[Ilsa]

11. It's not the causes but the message.

Alot of the voters can't see themselves bogged down in a dozen various causes, but less than a handful of big ones. I think that is why some independent voters think "The Dems don't stand for anything." There has to be better communication of those unifying principles and identification with them, such a the right to privacy, taking care of the planet nad environment (versus the seals or whatever particular animal), taking care of the poor (and perhaps reclaiming some Christian principles in the process), defensive war as a last resort, etc.

[Darkhawk32]

13. The Progressive message is dilluted by lack of focus to those causes ...

through an electable candidate.

[McKenzie]

16. Darkhawk32...I nearly posted something similar

This is possibly impertinent for a Brit. However, we have a similar problem of progressives fragmenting over a myriad of issues in this country.

I too feel that the whole Democrat/Progressive movement has become fractionalised by an over concentration on issues that might lead to heated debate but are not central to THE issue which is the general well being of society as a whole. The pro-anti whatever paradigm is one that might be important but spend too much time on it and there are some unfortunate consequences, most of which don't lead to making any headway on the biggest issue of all...how the hell to get rid of administrations that are slowly shutting down our freedoms.

Part of the problem is that those of a Democrat/Progressive bent are caring people and we, therefore, all have our favourite issues. That would be alright if there wasn't something a tad more important to deal with, namely how the hell do we sort this mess out? Spending too much time on issues that might generate heated debate, but aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things, is unlikely to get us very far in that respect. That is one of THE reasons why the r/w succeeds - they know how to pull together and they don't care about the large number of small scale issues we care about so they can safely ignore those issues. Learn from them...they are winning and will keep on doing so until we stop bickering about trivialities.

I should add that certain BIG issues absolutely HAVE to be discussed because they are important for society as a whole. That said, I am in agreement with what you have said...let's jettison all the small issues until we get the big ones sorted out first. Until we do that all we will achieve is a lot of heated debate, some minor victories and no major changes. Maybe it is time to forget some of the pro or anti whatever paradigms, upon which we expend way too much energy, and just accept that people do some things we don't like but which don't damage society as a whole.

[Darkhawk32]

18. OMG! THANK YOU! SOMEONE GETS IT!

:toast: :party: :toast: :bounce: :hug:

[McKenzie]

19. LOL, I'll have a couple of those later tonight! n/t

[Ally McLesbian]

17. Thank you!

The problem is that the Dems not only have to cover for so many different causes, but that those causes are often at odds with each other.

Take the immigrants, for example. The immigrants must share the Democratic tent with unionists and gays, neither of which the immigrants like in particular (just look at all the anti-labor and anti-gay laws their home countries have). In fact, some (Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese) decided that the Republican Party offers more room for them.

I've always believed that we should fight for basic human dignity, not special-interest rights. For example, the fight for gay marriage rights must be expanded into rights for everyone, including solo singles like me. The Republican game plan is to make singlehood a second-class status, and keep gays there forever; I believe that the best answer is not just legalizing gay marriages, but making singlehood much less miserable/expensive from tax and other legal points of view.

So I agree with the basic point. The Democratic platform must be rewritten to push for basic civil rights, not special interest rights. All the special interest rights we want so badly will be included in the basic rights we will pursue. That's the only way to go - otherwise, the Dems will stay splintered, and will be steamrolled over by the terrorists on the other side of the aisle.

[Ioo]

20. I agree, If we all focus on ONE thing, then the other things...

will just happen...

If you gave $5 to "Save the Seals" that money will not do ANYTHING to get someone elected. Not if that $5 were used to get someone elected, then they would REALLY save the seals, because they would be in the position to really save seals...

There is also an issue with the ALL or NOTHING deal, many of you would trash a dem because they do not belive EVERY SINGLE THING that you do (I have done it myself, ei Alito).

STOP GIVING MONEY TO ANY GROUP THAT CAN NOT DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, and give it to the DNC, so we can elect people that will REALLY do...

We need to take back the US now, or this will all be moot, because America will be gone!

[kineneb]

21. simplify and focus message and platform

Democrats-
the party of caring...about people, the environment, the world, (and small business).

vs.
Republicans-
the party of corruption, money and greed ("let them eat cake" party)

For Christians, frame message as the difference between serving God or man. God=the Beatitudes/caring, Man=Mammon/greed/corruption.

[madinmaryland]

22. What message or platform will these "progressive democrats"

run on? Part of the democrats history is the big tent philosophy, which does not always work.

[Roland99]

23. Look at the GOP, how many issues do they press each year? But a few.

National Security
Morality (abortion, same-sex marriage)
Lower taxes (less regulation a la mode)


Another thing that's hurt the Democrats of late is running on anti-Bush or anti-GOP platforms.

NPR played a bit of Clinton's SOTU after all the press was calling for him to resign over Lewinsky but he shucked that all aside and said Hey, we're gonna use this surplus and Save Social Security First and he came out smelling like a rose.


Simple messages about positive solutions and stop worrying about what the GOP will do or say in retort.

[Nickster]

24. Very true. Your argument is much the same as Lakoff's.

He said that we have limited resources that are spread out all over the many causes, because basically we give a damn.

We don't have enough to focus on building infrastructure, think tanks, etc like the GOP has. We are constantly playing defense and using our limited resources to focus on causes which are all important, but in the meantime, the GOP is constantly working on building their infrastructure and further cutting off our funding.

We shouldn't abandon our causes, but we do need to focus on building up our infrastructure and getting our "big brains" on fully funded gigs so they can do nothing but focus on developing policy for our goals.

I'm not sure if you read it or not, but Moral Politics by George Lakoff really does a great job on this question.

[Darkhawk32]

30. Thank you for your well-written post.

I've never read any of Lakoff's book, but I just might have to pick that one up now. I've felt this way for quite a while now. Good to see I'm not alone.

[Nickster]

33. His books were absolutely great at explaining some of these issues.

One thing I'll warn you about, he writes the book like it's a scientific text, so it's not "fun" reading, but if you stick it out I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by it. My suggestion would be to start with this book:

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-1931498717-1

It's a very easy, quick read and is a primer for Moral Politics, although he wrote them in reverse order.

Here's Moral Politics:

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-0226467716-0

By the end of Moral Politics, he actually had me understanding the logic that Republicans use to get to statements like Gingrich made about opening up orphanages and starting to see how their statements are never about the subject actually at hand, but a setup to three or four steps down the path.

[Darkhawk32]

35. Great, I'll try to find them locally if I can. Thanks again. n/t

[applegrove]

27. Dems a big tent. Lots of causes. In democratic movements you

cannot expect to get EVERYTHING YOU WANT. Just the basics of what you need.

[Darkhawk32]

31. Exactly. So focus on getting Progressive Democrats in office and THEN...

you can start getting some of the things you WANT done.

[applegrove]

32. And you need moderate Dems to make up the difference. Cause

Progressives are not half the American population. So you need some people from outside to win. That is the way it has always been.

[Crowdance]

34. And I have a lovely brooch on ebay you should take a look at.

right. That's a commpletely naive position, heedless of human nature or affairs. Cave in FIRST, then try to negotiate back a fragment of what matters. I hope my next contract negotiation involves someone with your perspective.