"big tent" centrism equals muddled compromise and bad policies

[welshTerrier2]

there are many different constituencies in the Democratic Party. "tough on defense", pro-military spending, peace groups, anti-corporate groups, big labor, libertarians, capitalists, socialists, and many others ... Democrats are a broad spectrum party ... we're a "big tent" party ...

the logic behind such a construction is that the two-party system is a reality and that if we don't hang together we'll hang separately. to make a "big tent" strategy work, all constituencies must "buy in" to the great compromise ... i'll give you a bit of what you want if you'll give me some of my issues ... it's a blending process ... the greatest alienation, and hence political risk, is likely to occur at the margins ...

we've got blue dogs and yellow dogs and smog dogs ... we've got all kinds of dogs barking out all kinds of demands ... well, to this welsh terrier, it seems we are so compromised that we are effecting bad policy and bad politics too ... compromise might be "politically necessary" ... compromise might be our only choice as a "big tent" party ... compromise might be the only way to hold our "coalition" together ... the problem is, compromise is making a mess of our majority status ... it's leading to bad policies that the country just cannot afford ... and it's raising real questions about whether Democrats will remain in the majority ... giving the catastrophe bush and the republicans have created over the last 6+ years, that is unimaginable.

first, and I won't rehash the details here, the Democrats out-bush'd bush on Iraq ... it's a mighty tight squeeze getting to the right of bush on Iraq but the Democrats managed to thread the needle. instead of voting against giving bush a blank check on Iraq, the Democrats not only gave bush more funding but gave him more funding than he asked for ... certain Democrats could just not be made to toe the line ... the bill should never have been brought to the floor for a vote ...

and look at what's happening now on global warming ... this is madness people ... powerful Democrats are putting one industry above the best interests of the American people ... the "big tent" cannot tolerate such obviously bad policy but it is so ineffective that it is forced to acquiesce to bad policy and bad politics ... and again, it looks like the Party may end up promoting a policy that is to the right of bush ... again, it's unimaginable ...

perhaps breaking up the big parties and allowing a multi-party system to come to fruition would yield better policies for the country ... perhaps not ... either way, it's clear the Democrats and their new Congressional majority are having some serious "big tent" problems ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/10/1784/

The Democrats Lag on Warming
When Americans elected a Democratic Congress last November, they were voting to end politics as usual and special interest legislation. On the vital issues of energy independence and global warming they are not only in danger of getting more of the same but also, unless Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders step forward, winding up in worse shape than they were under the Republicans.

Exhibit A is a regressive bill drafted by John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat. For starters, the bill would override the recent Supreme Court decision giving the Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, a decision that even President Bush has reluctantly embraced. It would also effectively block efforts by California and 11 other states to regulate and reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles at a time when the states are far ahead of the federal government in dealing with climate change.

The bill’s fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks are weaker than the president’s proposals and weaker still than standards the National Academy of Sciences says can be met using off-the-shelf technology. And the bill would open the door to a new generation of coal-to-liquid fuel plants favored by the coal lobby that could double the global warming gases of conventional gasoline.

[yurbud]

1. yep--the analogy is judge trying to craft a decision to please both rapist and victim

it will be bland, incoherent, or both.

[Dr.Phool]

2. The entire system has been perverted.

Both sides of the aisle spend all of their time chasing campaign contributions. They don't even bother reading legislation.

Hell, I'll bet even half of them don't know what's in legislation that they "wrote".

[thethinker]

3. You have some valid points

If we could boot the republicans out of our "big tent", I would be happy. Please don't tell me there aren't any because I know better. Anyone to the right of Bush is republican even if they have a D behind their name.

I also think when the tent gets too big, the party ends up representing no one. Compromise will only stretch so far.

[Forkboy]

4. I'm just going to repost something I posted awhile back about this.

The time is ripe for a new approach by the Democrats.

By it's very nature the center consists of people both on the right and the left.What do we give up by appealing to that right part? I remember right after Kerry lost in '04 there were actually a handful of threads here complaining that the reason we lost was because we supported unions and/or gay rights.Wouldn't you think we could gain even more votes by strongly and consistently standing up for these issues instead of appealing to people who only share those beliefs when it's convenient? There would be little threat to bolt the party from the left,and you'd easily gain more than enough votes to tilt that balanced electorate in our favor.

None of the ideals we hold are radical.All us agree on some fundamental beliefs here.Human rights,unions,better education,more support for the middle and lower class,no dumbass wars for oil.But the more we water the message down,the more we go along to get along,the longer it takes to solve these problems.And right now we shouldn't have to.I'm pushing 40 and I've never seen the Republicans this hammered and reviled by nearly all quarters worldwide.If we have to play it safe with a President at 28% approval ratings what does that say about us,our convictions,and our ability to send a strong voice for the right things?

The complaint I've heard the most in my life about Democrats is that they don't stand for anything."The Republicans suck but at least they stand for something". It's obviously not true about them being the same,but it shows how the Right has been able to use simple,strong statements to woo dummies.Why don't we trying using strong statements to woo the smart people instead of their wafflers?

I have two awesome nephews,and they're looking at living in a world that will be radically different from what we entered into,and sadly it isn't in a positive way.We're handing them a pile of shit,to be honest.My opinion is that the status quo simply wont do anymore if they are to live in any kind of relative decency.

I was told in 88 I had to vote against Bush.In 92 it was Poppy again. 96,Dole. 2000,Bush. 2004,Bush. 2008,whatever bozo they nominate.All this time I've been voting how I should and things just keep getting worse,sometimes quickly,sometimes slowly,but always worse.Many of our candidates can stop that downward spiral.A couple will continue it,only at a slower and friendlier pace.

We need to make a choice about what groups of people and what set of ideals we want to be associated with.Regardless of whether the charge of there being no difference between Democrats and Republicans is true or not,the public perception is out there,and we won't convince anyone otherwise the more we flirt with the Right to win.Contrary to what some think,the people aren't sheeple,and I think we should try appealing to people's intelligence instead of dumbing ours down.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Back when we had transparent vote counting, I don't recall we had serious

problems with the "big tent" that FDR put together, except the Vietnam War. And we were stopped by a bullet from solving that one. (1968, RFK assassinated.)

Restore transparent vote counting. That will solve most "big tent" problems. If we had transparent vote counting, the House Democrats would have had about 15 to 20 more seats than they do--most of them antiwar seats--and would have had much more clout in dealing with the Senate (only 1/3 of which was up for reelection in '06, and thus is still full of dinosaurs and Bush "pod people"). We would be well on our way toward impeachment, for one thing--with the 1/3 of the Senate coming up for reelection in '08 in fear and trembling of the voters.

As it is, the Democratic victory in the House was something of an illusion. The main obstacle to stopping the war, and other vital reforms, are the "Blue Dog" Democrats (named after some old southern bigot's hound dog, whose portrait painted him as blue), who support cutting everything in the budget except war spending. Traitor Democrats. Cary Condit was a "Blue Dog" Democrat--darling of the White House, who was one of only 10 Democrats who voted for Bush/Cheney's first tax cut for the rich, in a very close vote. (--a vote that occurred on May 3, 2001, three days after Chandra Levy disappeared. Condit's other claim to fame was his proposal to place the Ten Commandments in all public buildings. That's your "Blue Dog.").

Every one of those "Blue Dog" elections needs to be thoroughly investigated--as to how they got to be the candidate, and how they won.

It's a sad reality, but "TRADE SECRET" PROPRIETARY programming code in all the new, shiny, expensive, insecure and extremely insider hackable electronic voting systems, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations (mostly Diebold and its brethren, ES&S), was approved by the Democratic Party leadership, and still is. Why? Don't they believe in democracy? I guess not. Approved by them, and staunchly defended by them, to the point of silencing and bullying all dissent about it--a sad and mind-boggling reality.

The "big tent" parts of the big tent have much in common. All need a "spread the wealth" philosophy in government--like that initiated by FDR (who had the common sense--and the heart--to realize that, in the wake of the Great Depression, with hard times for ordinary people, you DON'T CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING, you INCREASE it, to stimulate the economy, to get people back on their feet, and to put food on the table and give them hope and a future). All need equal rights. All need a strong educational system. All need pensions, and protection of their pensions. All need labor rights. All need parks and libraries and access to medical care and emergency services--common good projects, shared spaces. All need to feel empowered and part of their government. All need RESPONSIVE government--government that is willing to listen, and that tries to represent everyone. All need to have hope that, if they organize politically, they can get somewhere. Their needs, their wishes will be heard in a democratic system. All need fairness and justice. The poor especially need a fighting chance in our justice. All, without exception, need strong government protection from predatory business practices, monopolies and Robber Barons. And, finally, all need protection from UNJUST WAR, which uses common folk as cannon fodder, and drains our public coffers to pad the pockets of war profiteers and the super-rich.

The need for JUST war and/or a large military budget are debatable--a matter for the people to decide. The need for UNJUST war is not debatable. It is NOT NEEDED. It ALWAYS makes the rich richer. It ALWAYS harms the common people. It is never in their interest. And once ordinary people catch on to the injustice of a war--as they did with Vietnam, as they did with THIS war from the beginning (56% of the American people opposed to it, Feb. '03), and as many more of them have now realized (70+%), the only question is, how will the war profiteers try to thwart the will of the people, and will they succeed?

There is little or no argument about these common goals--social justice, basic fairness and decency, honest, accountable government, and a government that seeks peace not war. They are common shared goals of the vast majority of Americans--workers, small business owners, middle class professionals, the poor, minorities, women, students, common soldiers, et al. What there is no room for, in this Big Tent, is the lords and ladies of the Corporate Class, who have usurped the leadership of our big tent party, and have undermined or destroyed many of the goals of the vast majority by their alliance with big business and with war profiteers. (--"Defense budget" is a lie; it is a WAR budget; "defense" has been usurped and twisted to the purposes of unjust war).

We can do without them. Why don't they go to their true home, the Republican Party?

So, I think your description of the "big tent" is inaccurate. It does not, and should not, include Corporatists and War Profiteers, especially as to controlling our leadership and gaining all power to dictate platforms and determine who gets to run for office. That is the Great Divide--the moneyed class, the corporate class, who have seized power, and who are not beholden to us, due to the influence of money, and secret vote counting--and all the rest of us poor buggers, who have seen our every advance of the last forty-some years peeled back by their corporatized agenda, including the destruction of our voting system with "trade secret" code.

They--many if not most of our leaders--along with both the Bushites and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies--are also good at dividing us, and keeping us disempowered. They loathe the grass roots of the party. I learned this on Nov. 3, 2004, when I began to put together what our own party leaders had done (including the fast-tracking of non-transparent voting machines). That was the first mobilization of a huge grass roots movement since the 1960s. This grass roots movement handed the Democratic Party a huge victory in new voter registration in 2004, beating the Republicans nearly 60/40. (Where did those votes go?) And they wouldn't fight for us, and, in truth, had undermined us from the very beginning. It is my belief that they threw that election, and were more than happy to crush the spirits of all those activists, who then has to wipe themselves off the floor and eventually fight back to the semi-victory of '06 (outvoting the machines in some cases).

We can do without leaders who want rightwing Bushite corporations to "count" all the votes with secret code. Thank you very much. Remove that leadership, and the rest of the "big tent" will get along just fine, and will proceed to reform this country like never before, and create the great democracy that we were meant to be.

[AtomicKitten]

6. big tent = democracy

Your OP is the underpinning of a call for a P-U-R-G-E. May I inquire what part of democracy you don't understand? Who are you to declare who should be included in the party and who not? Are we to just take your moral judgment as gospel and follow what is most certainly an undemocratic approach to politics?

I expect no direct answer from you, WT2, although I am glad to see you back on these boards. You're probably surprised to read that since you have chosen to either ignore me or lob snark bombs at me indirectly. But I'm finding your new approach here at DU this time around actually helps define what I believe.

By all means organize and run challenges in primary races. That is the essence of representative government. But the truism you are turning a blind eye to is that there is strength in numbers particularly in government, and that in the spirit of democracy compromises are met. It's about governing all the people all the time. The expectation that it should go one way is not only undemocratic, it borders on downright selfishness.

Your POV is representive of the so-called anarchist/progressive independent wing of the Democratic Party but, from my experience, that subsect almost always is comprised of squishy Democrats, those that take their ball and go home when compromise steps on their purity.

Your battle here at DU is really with the moderates/centrists, but you don't seem to realize that they constitute a small minority of the political makeup here at DU. It is the progressive Democrats and liberals, a group I proudly have a natural affinity for, that constitute the majority voice here at DU.

The point is your subsect and the moderate/centrist subsect are what is known as the fringes of the party. There will be much protest to that notion no doubt, but here's the litmus test: If a voter is unwilling to accept and support the nominee elected democratically in the primary process, that puts them in the fringes of the party. Most of those that rail against the "evil" and hammered-like- clockwork aspects of the Democratic Party here at DU will, in fact, vote with the party, and it is that that puts them into the majority, the liberal/progressive Democrats, that inhabit these boards.

So, carry on. Just know your insistence on marginalizing the "big tent" notion is the antithesis of democracy.

[thethinker]

7. What?

A political party is not a democracy. It is a political party. The democratic party was intended to be for democrats. That doesn't mean it is for everyone in the country. It is for democrats, like the republican political party is for republicans. Likewise, the Green party is green folks and the libertarian party is for people with that persuasion, etc.

Years ago the delegates showed up at the national convention. No one knew who the nominee would be until after the convention. Delegate votes were traded, negotiated, bargained away until there was a nominee with a majority. Lots of deals were made - not a bad thing. Those must have been exciting days. Now, we are all kind of told who our candidate will be, and the national convention is kinda all for show - which is getting even further away from anything that could be called a democracy.

A political party is run by party rules, not as a democracy. You should get active in your local party and get elected as a delegate if you can. Lots of fun and very interesting.

[AtomicKitten]

8. it is the democratic process

Elections are a democratic process. Choosing a nominee to represent the party is done by a democratic process. And coexisting within parties, hell within the country, is successful because of the very basic tenet of democracy, equal representation of different voices.

I was appalled when John Bolton declared on TDS to Jon Stewart that it was the GOP's responsibility to focus on serving those that voted for them. That's such epic bullshit and not very far from the mindset here albeit on the opposite side of the political spectrum. We are better than that.

If within our own party we seek to silence voices we disagree with, how in the hell can we possibly govern the rest of the country?

FTR I am and have been very active in the Democratic Party for years.

[thethinker]

10. yes

Elections are a democratic process - (when they count the votes right). The way the parties are picking their candidate is not such a democratic process any more. It used to be. I am not familiar with how the republican party picks their candidate, but probably like we pick ours.

In other countries, where they have 10 or 12 small parties with very different view points, and there is a lot of negotiating and compromise to see who rules, probably end up with a government that better represents the public. That is because for any one group to have a majority, they have to accommodate the wishes of the minority view points. For the last 7 years, the republicans who have been in power haven't even accommodated the wishes of the majority of the republicans. And as you know, it has been hell. It will take years to undo the damage.

Our system isn't perfect. Pretending it is does make for improvement.

[AtomicKitten]

12. let me conclude by saying this

That is because for any one group to have a majority, they have to accommodate the wishes of the minority view points.

I disagree. Those in the minority can do a number of things such as fielding candidates representative of their POV and lobbying for support of their pet issues. However, the key to forging a majority is C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E. That's the only way a consensus can be hammered out within the party and within the current two-party system, a less than ideal political landscape to say the least, but it is what it is and what we have to work with.

Regardless, it will take decades to repair the damage inflicted on this country courtesy of this administration, and it is absolutely critical we win in 2008. I care more that a Democrat takes the White House in 2008 and we win a comfortable veto-proof margin in Congress than I do about which particular Democrat gets the nod. I care that a Democrat appoints the next Supreme Court justice.

And, quite frankly, in light of the magnitude of that task, it is incumbent upon us working loosely within the confines of the party to forge a cohesive voting block. That major shift in the status quo takes precedence over the fine-tuning of the party which I agree is sorely needed but is most definitely a smaller piece of the bigger picture.

Peace.

[wyldwolf]

9. Would you like a "march in lockstep progressive" party?

The Democratic party is and has been a centrist party since the 1930s (earlier if you count Woodrow Wilson.)

Believe it or not, someone can agree with liberal on some issues and with conservatives on others. Believe it or not, some people can easily see a nuanced middle ground on various issues that divide the left and right. It isn't an electoral strategy, it's common sense.


It is the purist entities that have always sunk the party. The "progressives." Now, you know this. I've repeated it enough. I've quoted sources and given prime examples of how "progressives" have undermined the Democratic party, or tried to, since FDR's time. Wallace. McGovern. Kennedy in 1980. Nader, just to name a few. You began as patrons of an already established restaurant who grew to believe you could run the eatery better. Eventually, you started calling yourselves the real owners.

DU's very own Magistrate summed it up well:

Another is the perennial brouha here about what constitutes a "real Democrat", most of which is conducted along lines that bear very little relation with the actual states and history of the Democratic Party. The idea that figures like_________ not "real Democrats" is nothing but the punch-line to a very poor joke, although it is certainly true that they embrace many policies and ideas that some of our radicals... detest. But that latter is hardly an indication they were not "real Democrats"; rather, it is an indication that such radicals are somewhat out of step with the Democratic Party as a real institution and political force, as opposed to an ideal item they imagine not only to be fact, but to be wholly agreeable to them... The faction of the Democratic Party that opposed the Cold War had its political trial with the campaign for President of Sec. Wallace in 1948, and failed utterly, gaining the votes of only a handful of people. What is repudiated at the polls by the overwhelming preponderance of Democratic voters cannot be the real face of the Democratic Party. It really is that simple.

[welshTerrier2]

11. lockstep? no, i would like better policy

sorry to see you respond with the "purist" nonsense to the topic i raised. it's not responsive. the issue i raised in my post cited a couple of examples of very bad policy that derived from "the great compromise." Do you want to call criticizing the vote to give bush everything he wanted on Iraq "purist"???? Do you want to call being concerned about global warming and seeing Dingell's auto industry protectionism "purist"????

it is just unbelievable drivel to argue that centrist compromise is by default the best policy. can we afford not to increase CAFE standards? should a handful of Democrats aligning themselves with the f&^king republicans be allowed to hold the rest of the party hostage? and if so, do you want to argue that such political machinations produce good policy?

and why are you bringing up The Magistrate's post at all? Did I say anything whatsoever about anyone being a "real Democrat"? I said no such thing. Did I even say that progressives were better than anyone else in the party or that their ideas were better? Not that I recall. You robotically responded to me with your "stump speech" and your stump speech is non-responsive to what I wrote in my post.

You started with the line that the Democratic Party is a centrist party. Did my post suggest otherwise? My post focused on the issue of being a "big tent" party. My post cited a couple of examples of what I believe is horrible policy. And even if you view my assessment of the policies I cited as totally subjective, consider this. The Dems collapse on Iraq was NOT the bill they initially chose to send bush. It seems more than fair to argue that the second bill was worse.

And on the CAFE issue, how are we supposed to function as an opposition party if, on any given issue, some contingency or other is going to vote with the republicans making a Democratic Party opposition virtually impossible? My post was an exploration of that process. It raised the question, without providing an answer, about whether a multi-party system would be preferable with regard to achieving better policy.

you responded to me in a defensive and biased way. if you like the fact that the Dems caved in and gave bush funding without conditions on Iraq, that's a different matter. if you like Dingell's bill that caters to one constituency while life on the planet may hang in the balance, that too is a different matter. I think both of these policies are potentially catastrophic and I see the non-opposition of the Party being caused by its "big tent" personality. I'm sorry you have thus far chosen not to address that issue.

[wyldwolf]

13. purist policy

Plain and simple. No matter how you dress the post up, the underlying meaning is the same from day to day.