when Democrats regain power - what then?

[welshTerrier2]

i often see phrases like "we can't change things until we regain power" ... the argument is made to suggest that our entire focus right now should be on politics, not issues ...

when i call for an immediate end to the war in Iraq, i am frequently told that this is the wrong time to push that position and that once we regain power, the party will move to the left ... i am told by some to support the party regardless of the positions it takes ... again, once we regain power, things will be very different ...

well, i certainly want to see Democrats returned to power ... and yes, gaining key Chairmanships for some of our most progressive Democrats would be great ... no problem there ...

but there are nevertheless two major shortcomings in this "just go along" mentality ...

the first is an implicit argument some are making that we should not run on our real platform but rather we should hide our real positions from the voters ... it's not phrased that way, of course, but that's the underlying message ... trick the voters into appearing moderate and then, once we win the election, you "lefties" will see the real Democratic Party ... what kind of crap is that?? don't we want to fight for what the "real Democratic Party" believes NOW? is politics all about deceiving the voters?

one major problem with this whole approach, among others, is that it totally disrespects the electorate ... also, it will not work!! it may not be a good thing but i believe voters often put more weight on how deeply committed you appear than what it is you're committed to ... i think bush was seen as passionate and Kerry was seen as detached ... i believe this factor, more than any other, hurt us in 2004 ... it's not that Kerry WAS less passionate; it's that he was perceived that way ... if the party is choosing its policies based on finger-in-the-wind political calculations (e.g. triangulation) rather than on its deepest convictions, we are going to lose ...

so that's problem one with what i see with the "we have to win before we can do anything" argument ...

the second problem is that, while winning elections is obviously critically important, i believe we still have a major obligation as the out of power party to say what we believe ... the way we win elections is NOT just campaigning for candidates but by waging a long-term campaign of educating the voters about our views on the issues ...

some are so obsessed with the hideous MSM that they overlook the shortcomings of our party ... a corporate media set against progressive values is without a doubt a major handicap we have to overcome ... it goes a long way to explaining why many Americans do not understand what we are trying to accomplish and what our vision is for the country ... no problem at all making that case ...

but that does not mean we are doing the best job we can given the circumstances we face ... i think the party has become way too controlled by political consultants ... i think the party has become out of touch with the broad spectrum of views in the party ... we need to find a better way to communicate with all democrats, independents and third party voters and the tens of millions of Americans who no longer vote at all ...

i've read the DNC's website ... i've seen the "Democratic message" ... if you believe it's a clear message to take to the American people, i guess that's a good thing ... i think it is a very unclear, non-specific message ... saying we're "pro jobs" or "pro security" is like saying "it's nice to be nice to the nice" (a line from MASH) ... yes, i'm pro jobs and pro security ... the problem is that every candidate, red, white or blue says exactly the same thing ... voters are NOT going to respond to promises that lack backbone and specifics ... it's not just that the ideas are vague; it's that absent passion and clarity, it sounds like just more politicking without substance ...

some hear in these criticisms, and i intend them as very strong criticisms, a tone of being anti-Democratic party ... i see these criticisms as tangible, positive suggestions ... i think the party is NOT going to do nearly as well this November as we should be doing ... i think the party leadership is making a major mess of things ... why do i say this? because i think the country is perhaps in its most dangerous, threatened state it's ever been in ... this has totally occurred with republicans totally in control of the government ... the American people are increasingly freaked out by how vulnerable they feel about the loss of jobs and the threat to their future ... in this climate, we should have an overwhelming lock on blowing the right-wing assholes out of Washington for generations to come ...

and that is NOT where we are today ... we MAY win back the House and may gain a couple of seats in the Senate ... the idea of a Democratic landslide this November seems to me to be a far away dream ... it is my view that we should demand change within the party and hold those in control responsible ... we don't need to "throw the bums out"; we need to demand that they do better ...

look at what this article suggests will be the direction of the party if Democrats regain power ... it's hard to accept the idea that the party will "move left" when we regain power ... if the article is right, supporting conservative Democrats is going to get us conservative Democrats ... the battle for the soul of the party and the need to define who we are as a party should take place NOW; NOT after the elections ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0708-28.htm

Many anti-war advocates are hoping that the mid-term U.S. elections in November will push Congress into Democratic hands and thereby increase the chances of ending the war. Don't hold your breath. <skip>

Both these Senate resolutions were non-binding. Even if the stronger Kerry resolution had passed, the Bush administration would have still been allowed to prosecute the war indefinitely. Resolutions like Kerry's and Levin's enable Democratic senators to have it both ways: to go on record opposing the war while continuing to fund it. <skip>

Such strategists believe that Democrats will not likely change their pro-war positions as long as they can assume the support of their anti-war constituents. <skip>

However, apologists for the Democratic Party reply that efforts to defeat pro-war Democrats could result in electing enough Republicans to prevent the Democrats from re-taking the U.S. Senate. However, it should be recalled that the last time the Democrats controlled the Senate (2001-2002), they voted to authorize the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not only might a Democrat-controlled Senate fail to end the war in Iraq, it may well authorize President Bush to launch yet another tragic war. Already, leading Democratic senators and presidential hopefuls like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh have attacked the Bush administration for being too eager to pursue diplomatic means in the Iran crisis. They have been more willing to entertain the exercise of military force to end the current impasse over that country's nuclear program. On other national security issues, these hard-line Democrats have defended the already-existing nuclear weapons arsenals of U.S. allies Pakistan, Israel, and India.

[kentuck]

1. We will have the power and Chairs of all the Committees...

We will decide what laws are brought up for votes. We will have the Speaker of House and the Majority Leader.

[welshTerrier2]

6. the argument is NOT ...

that having power is worse than not having power ... of course we will be much better off winning back at least the House or Senate ... so i agree with your point but that's not the point i was making ...

i think we are failing to educate voters as well as we should be doing ... in fact, all this so called diversity, in my view, has led to massive confusion ...

i also think our current platform is too vague ... who among us can articulate how the Democratic Party will address the budget crisis? rolling back bush's hideous tax cuts will NOT be enough ...

and how are we reaching out to the tens of millions of voters who see politicians as self-serving liars? their main issue, it seems to me, is that they believe the process is corrupt, democracy has been bypassed in favor of wealth and influence, things are getting worse and no one is telling the truth ... i in no way support their rejection of participating in the process; in fact, i think they are dead wrong ...

but there is no excuse for not talking to the legitimate issues they raise about the shortcomings of our democracy ... Democrats seem unwilling to focus on "America's failures" because they are afraid of being labeled anti-America ... in the meantime, this huge non-voting constituency sits on the sidelines ... on that, i think we can do much better ...

[kentuck]

12. WT2, I was being facetious...

I understand where you're coming from and I think we will stay as close to the status quo as is politically possible, including on the war. There won't be any privatization of Social Security. But, I don't anticipate any big rollbacks in the huge taxcuts either...

[welshTerrier2]

19. humblest apologies, my friend ...

i do actually agree that the committee chair positions would be great...

and i certainly agree that there are a huge range of issues where anything but the current neanderthal party will be a huge improvement ...

i'm afraid, though, that the party leadership will not work to fix election fraud, will not work to restore democracy to "we the people", will not rid our foreign policy of corporate abuses or make the changes necessary to give real power back to the people ...

this does not mean Dems aren't much better than the current crowd on a wide array of issues ...

sorry i missed your "facetiousity" ...

[kentuck]

23. But you are correct...

The leadership positions will be almost meaningless if they do not use them to correct the blunders that have been made and to fix the problems of the people. After all, it is we, the people, that they work for...

[Ken Burch]

39. the course of action you prophesy dooms us to another '94-style defeat

nt.

[xchrom]

2. until and unless their is the will power among democratic

politicians to move corporations out of the political/governmental sphere -- not much will change.

which is differnt than whether democrats in this context are better than repukes -- they are -- on some issues.

supply side economics will still be the rule of the day.
corporate cronyism will still exist.
most if not all of the major negative effects of globalism will remain.

but women will be able to get abortions in california and new york --

[benburch]

3. Then we purge ourselves of the DINOs.

And then we destroy the GOP Crime Syndicate with prosecutions, lawsuits and mass confiscations of property, finally banning them like Germany banned the Nazis after WW-II.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

42. ben, please, please , PLEASE don't use the "p" word

Benchley will be back, and no sane person wants THAT.

I want to minimize the influence of the DINO's too, but we need to find another way of talking about it than that.

I'd prefer saying they're welcome to stay, but they need to cooperate with us, and that whatever helps the party get a good legislative program through and look effective will help THEM get reelected.

1994 proved that conservative Democrats don't gain anything politically by blocking Democratic legislation.
If those turkeys had just let the Clinton health plan through, or a good alternative(like single-payer)the Gingrich takeover WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. People don't defeat effective Congressional organizations.

[sam sarrha]

4. investigate, impeach and send the thieves to jail.. regardless of party

[AtomicKitten]

5. I agree that Dems must aggressively pursue immediate withdrawal.

I think the "go along mentality" really has more to do with election strategy than policy, however, but I do very much agree that Dems must aggressively pursue immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The public clearly agrees with withdrawal in varying time tables so this should be a no-brainer.

But I can see the Dems visibly wobbling, paranoid in the face of the GOP Wrecking Machine, and for good reason. Unfortunately that makes them appear anemic, impotent, as if they have no message or convictions.

I ignore the DLC and their message which explains why I seem unmoved by their BS. I think there is a stronger, more succinct message from the left. It is important that that message be fine-tuned. If the message is shrill in the least little bit it will be ridiculed, trivialized, and summarily dismissed by the GOP because that's what they do so effectively.

In a nutshell, Dems need to roll back every piece of legislation and policy that hurts America and Americans. They need to do this not timidly but with conviction, confidently, focusing on doing the right thing rather than hesitantly, mindful of the echo chamber that has always held them back.

Still the Dems can't govern if they don't win, and that underlying truth resonates, at least with me.

[eleny]

7. Try and repeal some of the crap they've passed

Reconstitute FEMA and start exploring a real health plan for all Americans.

[rosesaylavee]

8. WE will not go away once we win

back the congress... we will remain vigilant and see that our constitution is fully reinstated.

The election process, the war(s), the corruption, the impeachment, jobs, foreign affairs will be resolved in time.

There is a struggle right now over whether or not the DEMs as a group should be pro-war or anti-war. Personally, I think the anti-war group is far ahead and most of the country is right there too.

And I am not so sure I would **trust** a political group that spoke the same message and walked in lock step together. One of the reasons I am not republican. I really like the diversity of opinions and the raucous discussions as to "what is the right issue". There is honest dialogue happening on the DEM side of the aisle. Opinions are not formulated in back rooms and then spit out in the MSM for all to memorize... there is no koo-laid to drink together. I like that and I think the country (red and blue) will eventually tire of this incessant drumbeating of terra terra fear fear and will welcome people who expect them to think for themselves.

I think the DEMs are fine and will win in landslides all over the country this fall... that is if the machines don't f*** us up again.

Peace.

[Greyhound]

35. Forget it, they're already conditioning us to accept lowered expectations.

and I've just got to ask you, what makes you think that the Democrats "...will remain vigilant and see that our constitution is fully reinstated"? They haven't shown any inclination whatsoever to do this for over 35 years, and I'm genuinely curious why you think this is going to change. :shrug:

[Totallybushed]

9. I totally agree with you

that the Democrats should stand up for their real positions. Maybe it will get them beat. This time. Maybe not. But the thing is, if you are trying to evade stating your real positions, it becomes obvious after a while. Even to the dimmest voter.

And people do NOT like to think that they are being manipulated. It is a severe form of disrespect.

Long term, the thing that the Democrats MUST do is be forthright in their positions. As I said, it may hurt in the short term. But all the polls show that the American voters agree with US on the issues. So maybe not, either.

In any event, courage is what the Democrats need to show. First, the courage to acknowledge our deepest held beliefs to ourselves, and then to the American public. Second, the courage to have hope for the future; that the American voter will see through the lies and vote the right way. I see so little of that here.

[dmosh42]

10. maybe, if they commit

AS an independent voter who is wanting to get the necessary change, I agree that the Dems have to be more committed on where thet really stand. I know they are mostly for a change in direction on Iraq, but I can only say I agree with John Murtha and Russ Fiengold who have committed to details. The recent illegal immigration showed big time, how the Dems in the senate want another 'amnesty' law(again, along with G. Bush). In the south and west it is a 'big issue' that the Dems have allowed the Repubs to own. They should have been lambasting the administration for not enforcing the laws as the constitution demands. Both parties seem so committed to all their special interests that we people are looking for someone to be on our side!

[newyawker99]

32. Hi dmosh42!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AndyTiedye]

11. The Mighty Slime Machine (MSM) Is The Root Cause of the Problem

Everything a Democrat says will be twisted beyond recognition by the Mighty Slime Machine.
Is it any wonder they don't say much anymore?

[MrBenchley]

14. I expect the "Hate Democrats" crowd will still be churning out

mindless attacks....

[Pithy Cherub]

17. Joe Lieberman is the president of that group!

[MrBenchley]

24. Nope...try the "let's have a purge" crowd

[sandnsea]

22. Maybe, but that is sure when I'll START

Right now the goal is to get Democrats into power. Once we've got it, it's time to get relentless about the massive changes that need to happen in this country and with our relation to others around the globe.

[Ken Burch]

40. When it comes to mindless attacks

MrBenchley is our go-to guys.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. While I agree with you, I think you're asking too for much

I also have a strategy issue with your posit. I actually think the Democratic 'platform' is, if anything, too specific. Now that doesn't say that any given individual candidate should work toward ambiguity. I just don't think having the party be very specific in an off-year election does much for us. It kinda locks in candidates or causes them to be challenged as not being 'in step' with the party. Given that it is an off-year election, I'd rather see the candidates be able to make their own stand on issues.

The one thing you said that *really* seems to matter is passion. Say what you will about James Carville (I know I will! :) ), he was dead on when he said "Stand for ***SOMETHING***." Indeed, the 'standing for' matters more even, that the 'what'. And **that's** where we often fall short. Our side has been way too wishy-washy for way too long, afraid to offend.

[Totallybushed]

18. What do they say?

"The man who won't stand for something will fall for anything". ;-)

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Reread what I said

I am, indeed, saying we need to stand for something. I also say that what any given candidate stands for is less important than just passionately haolding a view and .... well ... standing by it.

[Totallybushed]

26. How did anything I said

disagree with that sentiment?

[Stinky The Clown]

27. Mea culpa

I misunderstood what you wrote and it is I, not you, who should have reread.

Sorry.

[Totallybushed]

31. All is forgiven, my son n/t

[IndianaGreen]

16. They should reverse everything that Bush did

Do a one-eighty across the board.

On top of that, they should allow for the extradition and prosecution of Bush & Co at The Hague for their war crimes.

I fear that what will happen instead is that there will be more emphasis put on moving into larger office space on Capitol Hill than in tending to the mortal wounds that Bush has inflicted on the Republic.

[ulysses]

20. viva la socialisme!

;-)

[sandnsea]

21. THEN we camp on the Mall

Until every single thing that needs to be changed is changed. The War, health care for all, living wage, environment, international engagement, nuclear freeze, honest trade, education, all of it.

We have to get our people in there first.

[snowbear]

28. I don't know about you Terrier.. but we'll be partying like Hell !!

[welshTerrier2]

29. yeah, i'll be partying too ...

but the party will not last long if Democrats vote for war in Iran (see article in OP) ... it will not last for long if corporations continue to rule the roost in Washington ... it will not last for long as globalization continues to erode our jobs ... it will not last long if the risk of calling for major cuts in the defense budget leads to continuing deficits ...

it would give me far more confidence in our Democratic future if Democrats were talking about these things NOW ... if they are, please inform me ...

yes, i'll be partying ... but i'll be keeping a wary eye on the underlying issues ...

[Dinger]

30. For Some Reason, I'm Thinking Benito Mussolini

Can't help it. Remember how he ended up? I'm having some trouble . . . Someone, help me remember.

[Greyhound]

37. Hmmm, yes that does ring a bell...

[Zhade]

33. Why, rainbows and kittens and sunshine, silly!

Because everyone knows it's ONLY the Republicans who fuck over the poor, the middle class, and basically every American by killing things like workers' rights and civil liberties. I mean, only Republican presidents and congresscritters invade nations and prop up corporatism.

Oh, wait. That's not true.

Sigh. I dunno, WT2, I can't really say WHAT will happen. I can almost assuredly say that it will be far less of a sea change than many here hope. Dems didn't go after criminals for Iran-Contra all that hard (witness Kerry's thwarted efforts even by DEMS).

I really don't know who the Dems are loyal to anymore. But it's a good question, my cynicism (realism?) aside.

[Greyhound]

36. Most still believe it is about Repukes and Dems, when the facts

indicate that it is the Ruling Class (disguised as corporations this time) against the rest of us. I don't believe it is an accident that we've devolved to the point that we don't remember what happened just 5 - 10 years ago, let alone have a clue about events from 50 years ago.

[Doctor_J]

34. I'll go sit on my porch and watch the pigs fly over

Or maybe watch the Cubs win the World Series. These people won't be relinquishing power any time soon. When they do it will likely involve bombs falling on US soil.

[Ken Burch]

38. Clearly, if we used majority status for a centrist agenda that was neutral

on the war, we'd be doomed to failure and defeat, because centrist policies don't attract enthusiasm and don't create any noticeable change.

I want a LONG-TERM Democratic Progressive realignment. Centrism and hedging on the war can't get us any long-term gains. History has proven the hard right always beats the bland center.

Remember Germany in 1933 and the U.S. in 1980.

[alvarezadams]

41. Excellent post

I have also said so all along - from the nebulousness of the DNC's platform to the need to have a true opposition party.

We've been letting the GOP/corporate machine frame the arguments for too long. And if we add the DLC into the picture we have basically a one-party system only tinged with minor differences in talkingpoint issues.