Democrats Must Unite on All Issues - here is why

[rpgamerd00d]

We cannot deny that there are two main modes of thought in America. We can believe that ours is "right" and theirs is "wrong", but in the end the fact remains. Unfortunately, the "other side" is in control of government. While we fight to change that, we need to understand how to operate EFFECTIVELY as a minority.

Democrats need a "party line". They need a "line to tow". They need a position on the issues that they ALL FOLLOW. And I will tell you why this is important, regardless of what state they come from, or what their personal beliefs are, and regardless of what their constituents might demand from them.

Legislation is about compromise. The party that is in power will NOT compromise with the minority if they do not HAVE TO, if they are not FORCED TO. This means that the party in the minority MUST block all legislation that is in opposition to the minorities position, even if THEY PERSONALLY AGREE WITH IT. What this does, is FORCE the majority to propose legislation that concedes some points to the minority. If the majority is ALWAYS BLOCKED by the minority whenever they present legislation that goes against the minority point of view, then the majority MUST CHANGE and compromise on what they present.

This is why we have a problem right now. The Republicans are able to present and PASS PURELY RIGHT-WING LEGISLATION because the Democrats do not oppose it unilaterally. They are NOT BEING FORCED to compromise, SO THEY SIMPLY DONT. Once legislation is BLOCKED by the Democrats, THEN and ONLY THEN can each individual Senator express their own point of view, and represent their OWN constituents, in the negotiations for compromise.

In order for this to be effective, the Democrats MUST HAVE A LEADER THAT DICTATES (that's right, I used the "D" word) THE PARTY LINE. They must be FORCED to OBEY IT. The DNC needs to say "Support the Party Line or we pull all funding and support for you, period. You can run as an indepenent."

THAT is the kind of HARDLINE STANCE we need to take to win America back.

[NYCGirl]

1. That'll bring more people into the party.

:sarcasm:

[rpgamerd00d]

3. I think it really will.

"Here is what we stand for. Support it if you want our cash and support, or run as an independent."

Why is that bad?

[NYCGirl]

7. Because we've always been the "big tent" party. What happens if the

"powers that be" start to stand for something you don't especially like? Leave the party? It may be a good place for one-issue voters and candidates, but it would stink for everyone else.

[rucky]

8. Hows internal dissent been working out for us?

no :sarcasm: needed

[NYCGirl]

11. Internal dissent is not the problem. The lack of good "marketing" of our

ideas is (among other things like a lazy media, etc.).

[AngryAmish]

2. That is why I support Cindy Sheehan

[stray cat]

4. so whose beliefs do we unite around

Is it ok if we choose mine on all issues?

[rpgamerd00d]

6. Its Dean's Job to decide. That is what he is there for.

And he did decide already. He's said what our positions are many, many times.

[NYCGirl]

10. Reid and Pelosi have said many times that "Dean does not make policy." NT

[Selatius]

19. Dean does not set party policy. Reid and Pelosi do that.

Dean is simply in charge of fundraising for the party. He took over the position after McAuliffe stepped down. He is not Senate or House minority leader.

[BootinUp]

I would say it differently...

Democrats must unite around issues they can unite around. The other ones are left for local/ State battles until more national support can be built up by an organized campaign.

[sandnsea]

5. No we don't

We simply need to respect each others views when we speak of the differences. That goes for the DLC towards the left too. When anybody talks of health care reform, we can say there are several choices from single payer to medicare for all to buying into federal insurance plans. We do not have to be lockstep and can use that to show the American people the real reason Republicans can't govern, they refuse to listen to any idea except the idea that no government is the solution.

[William769]

12. I agree 100%!

I would just add That goes for the left towards the DLC too.

[jsamuel]

9. No, we never have, we aren't, and we never will

We are not DITTOHEADS. It is something to be proud of. That is exactly what separates DU from Freeperland.

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. It's "toe" the line, not "tow" - FYI n/t

[rpgamerd00d]

14. Toe? That makes no sense.

[Cronus Protagonist]

17. Chalk a line in the ground and put your toe on it ready to go

It makes perfect sense and it's also correct. "tow" is not correct whether it makes sense to you or not. I have the weight of the dictionary to add to that...

toe the line

1. To adhere to doctrines or rules conscientiously; conform.
2. Sports & Games To touch a mark or line with the toe or hands in readiness for the start of a race or competition.

toe the line

Also, toe the mark. Meet a standard, abide by the rules, as in The new director will make us toe the line, I'm sure, or At daycare Brian has to toe the mark, but at home his mother's quite lenient. This idiom refers to runners in a race placing their toes on the starting line and not moving until the starting signal. Its figurative use dates from the early 1800s.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

[rpgamerd00d]

20. Oh, THAT kind of line. I always thought it meant like, a rope line.

Like, everyone haul on the same "line" to "pull" the agenda along. You know, a physical line.
Chalk line on the ground makes more sense.

[Cronus Protagonist]

22. It's a common mistake :)

:)

[Selatius]

15. Sorry, but I would leave if there is a dictator in this party

The fact that you are out here putting up such a hideous suggestion is indicative of a greater problem than just the Democratic Party: The two-party system.

The two-party system is the greatest flaw in the US Republic as envisioned today. To say that it's working is like saying the design of the Titanic is adequate because there's enough lifeboats for half the passengers. The electoral system we have is absurd.

Electing a president to sit in the White House using an antiquated Electoral College instead of by direct popular vote is absurd.

Using single-member congressional districts to represent people and expecting politicians not to gerrymander for personal gain is absurd.

Having no provisions for run-off elections in case no one gains a clear majority for a seat in the House, Senate, and the White House is absurd.

A modern system built on proportional representation, a taxpayer subsidized election system, and equal air time/radio time for all candidates would better represent the interests of people, and it would allow for more diversity of opinion in this country.

The Democratic Party is not a true party in any sense of the word. Rather, it is a coalition of several proto-parties that would become bona fide political parties if tomorrow meant that we would have proportional representation. If the US existed under proportional representation, you would not have one Democratic Party. You would have Greens, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, various labor parties, and various democratic socialist parties including christian socialist groups.

As it stands, the current system forces all these people to fight each other for one microphone when there are systems that give everybody a microphone. I'm sorry, but I turned libertarian with respect to methodology to achieving one's goals precisely because this is how the Republicans dictate to members of their own party.

[rpgamerd00d]

16. What do we do until then ?

Live in the now, not in the future (or never-to-be).

[Selatius]

18. Rather than use authoritarian tactics, formulate a message

What is needed is a message that everybody understands, not strong-arm quasi-authoritarian tactics and coercion. You want to win? You take a page out of FDR's playbook. You take a page out of Johnson's playbook.

I'm saying you should come out unabashedly for the working man. I'm talking about economic populism. I'm talking about reviving the ideals of the New Deal, of reviving Johnson's "War on Poverty" because I believe this country desperately needs a new course to correct the income/wealth imbalances that have amplified since the days of Reagan.

We support trade policies that promote free-trade and enrich the most powerful corporations that partake in it at the expense of the local hard-working people of this country, and we honestly expect to win by simply paying lip-service to their blood, sweat, and tears? That's an equation for defeat.

[OnRee]

21. Question:

There must be more at stake... What DO our reps/sen. get out of siding with the pubbies-in-power? Surely they wouldn't do it without getting SOMETHING out of it... Well, for them to vote more the way we want them to, we'll have to give them something worth MORE.