When was it decided that "Party Loyalty" was a virtue?

[Exiled in America]

When did it become common thinking that the people should be loyal to a party, even when it changes policies, even when it changes directions, even when it capitulates?

And a more important question for me, since I don't want to see the Democratic Party fail, rather I want to see it restored to the principled party of the past: when did party loyalty mean that we are to become blind apologists for the actions and general atmosphere created by party leadership and Washington democratic beltway insiders?

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people make me feel like somehow they think that I owe democratic politicians my allegiance irregardless of whether or not I like what they do or the direction the party is going. That, instead of believing that they owe me. They work for me, the represent me, they are elected to serve me. Why shouldn't I be angry and intolerant when they steadfastly refuse to represent my interests, ESPECIALLY after promising to do so, and in this case when an overwhelming majority of Americans are in AGREEMENT?

Why shouldn't I be angry, obnoxious, loud, defiant and committed to making the lives of democratic politicians who keep REFUSING to represent me a living fucking hell?

[Maddy McCall]

1. Who exactly told you that you couldn't be...

"obnoxious, loud, defiant, and committed to making the lives of democratic politicians who keep REFUSING to represent {you} a living fucking hell?"

:shrug:

[Exiled in America]

17. That's an important question: the answer is no one, but I have to tell you that I feel---

--like there is an atmosphere among democrats that I know (in my own life, as well as "know" in the sense of discussing things in places like DU or elsewhere) of extreme apologetics and defense for democrats.... for the purpose of this discussion lets just say since the elections.

I'm sitting here, and from my perspective there is very little to be proud of when it comes to the record of the democratic party in congress this year. It doesn't seem to matter to me that it isn't a "veto-proof" majority. There are so many ways that I expected the Democrats to take a tougher stand that were within their power.

They could have refused to send Bush a war spending bill that didn't include the rules they wanted, including timetables for withdraw. They could have refused to work out an agreement with the Bush administration that the Bush administration now praises over the expansion of surveillance. Every time I turn around the democratically controlled congress is capitulating to the administration.

But I'm having a difficult time understanding why there are so many who still staunchly defend every single action that they take? I wish we could have more unity in planning our strategy for FORCING them to do what we the people want them to do. Even if that strategy includes having the balls to vote against them next election cycle.

I would give anything if I could feel there was more unity around a "take back the party" campaign to STOP this kind of capitulation and appeasement at ALL COSTS - even if that cost is losing congress for a cycle while we rebuild the party BACK to one that actually stands on PRINCIPLES and stands with integrity!

But instead it feels like there is a great divide at a time when we should all be unified between people who are mad as hell and ready to fight tooth and nail for change in this party, and those who consistently and continuously defend the status quo.

[ClassWarrior]

29. Then it's your own fears you see reflected back at you.

For YEARS I've been trying to rally folks to a "take back the party" campaign, and I get slammed relentlessly by people who share your views as a "party loyalist" for doing so. Go figure.

:shrug:

If you want to help me infiltrate and put Democratic values back into the Democratic Party, welcome aboard, Brother.

NGU.

[Exiled in America]

33. Share my views??

I think you're talking to the wrong guy.

[BobRossi]

2. I didn't desert the Democrats..

They deserted me. America before party. This country was founded by Americans, not Democrats or Republicans.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. No One Has To Be Loyal To A Party. One Can Choose Republican Or Democrat Whenever They Like.

Since those are the only two parties that matter and of which will be elected, then technically someone is either voting for one or the other. I'm loyal to the Dems cause despite all their shortcomings at times, they're still far better than republicans. But if someone wants to vote for the repub, or vote for the repub via voting for someone other than the dem, then they can. But it's not really so much about loyalty as it is about one choice being better than the other choice. I'm firmly of the belief that the Dems are the better choice. If someone thinks the repubs are the better choice, then they can do what they want, regardless of my thinking them to be a bit misguided. But at the end of the day, if someone thinks that even after all their shortcomings that the Dem is still a better or not as damaging choice than the repub, then they should vote for the Dem. Not out of sworn loyalty, but simply out of easy enough for a 3rd grader to understand common sense.

[Usrename]

15. So there is no point in trying to oppose the Bush agenda.

I guess that's one way to look at it.

Many of us will continue to oppose them with every waking thought.

I guess you're right though, it could be futile.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. You have the right.

Then you have a choice to make. Will you change parties? Or will you side with the liberal side of your party and work from that point so that your party will become the left-wing party of this country, and the right wing side of your party will fall by the wayside and maybe join the GOP? Or will you remove yourself entirely from being involved in anything remotely concerning politics and let the others do the work and the worry?

[Pushed To The Left]

5. That's what primaries are for!

I am a loyal Democrat during general elections for practical reasons: I would rather have a DINO than a right wing Republican, though I would much rather have a progressive Democrat. However, there is nothing wrong with a good primary challenge, as long as they don't rip eachother to the point that they end up helping the Republicans. That's what happened with Angelides and Westly here in California.

[Breeze54]

26. "I would rather have a DINO than a right wing Republican,"

What the hell is the difference? :shrug:

[struggle4progress]

40. This year, the difference is that we have subpoena power

[dkofos]

6. You should. They work for the people (supposedly) not the other way around.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way they still work for WE THE PEOPLE.
If they don't see it that way VOTE THE FUCKERS OUT.

[SoCalDem]

7. When the first caveman grunted to his pal.. "I've got your back. Now, go get that mastodon"

Party loyalty is like tribal loyalty..like-minded people who are willing to overlook faults in their fellow tribemen because they need them.

[Old and In the Way]

8. When the Republic Party decided they could grab permanent power

and use our Treasury as their personal ATM card simply by acting as a monolythic voting block. There is no vote of conscience in the Republican Party. It's whatever the WH tells them. There's only one way to beat them at this game and it's solidarity in an opposition party. If we had a Parliamentary System, we could play coaltion politics, but we don't have the luxury of splintering into a dozen political franchises unless you want to cede control of our government to Republicans forever.

[G_j]

22. if there was a serious "opposition party"

that would make a lot of sense.

[thunder rising]

9. When toe to toe with the jack-boots

Everybody on the opposing side has to be single minded in stopping the advance.

The problem with the FISA and funding votes is that Bush is still showing he can wedge this party apart. And until we stand up to the rePugnants with a single mind we are never going to stop them. Giving AGAG more power was a defeat, a big defeat for the Constitution and America, not just the Democrats. Even the moronic Republicans that think they are "included" in the party will find they don't count either.

[Raine]

10. What is the alternative

to the Democratic party besides the Rethugs if you expect to get anyone elected. This country has a two party system whether we like it or not so it's one or the other. There is no way I can go to the rethug side so that leaves me loyal to the Democratic party.

[Old and In the Way]

32. Seems like a rather obvious observation.

I wonder why this concept is so hard to understand? Of course, I'm sure there are boutique parties that are custom tailored to dovetail with one's particular world-view. Joe Lieberman found a Party that he agrees with 100%. Hell, we could all found our own Parties! We'd all be politically powerless, but at least we'd be intellectually honest with ourselves.

[NotGivingUp]

11. The party loyalty crap is just that...crap. Nothing is going to get fixed in this country

if we don't get rid of the one party (disguised as two) corporatocracy that has a stranglehold on us.

[truedelphi]

23. I'm in your boat - and I like that your statement was so concise

[Madspirit]

12. k&r..n/t

[bigtree]

13. The Democratic party is a coalition of interests - all committed against the opposition party

It is the only collection of those concerns we have managed to elevate to the point where we can begin to challenge Bush and his republicans.

It's obvious that we disagree on tactics and strategies - even varying degrees of commitment on some issues. Those disagreements should not be animated to the point where we disintegrate the only vehicle we have in place to even hope to confront the republicans as they press their ambitions forward in our political system.

The majority of legislators in our party are still committed to reasonable solutions to confronting the abuses and crimes of the administration. The majority of our Democratic legislators are still committed to advancing progressive initiatives and concerns into action. I just can't buy into any argument which advocates or has the intention of weakening or dismantling our political vehicle; especially without offering any other realistic alternative which is in any position to assume the same elevation that we've achieved in the election of our present majority.

Let's not develop an amnesia about what we faced in the minority. Our party is worth defending; even if the best we're able to accomplish is to influence and maintain our own place in the coalition against the republican opposition.

[puebloknot]

14. "...angry, obnoxious, loud, defiant ..." Qualities that stoked the American Revolution.

We've tried being nice, and understanding, and patient. People are dying.

[starroute]

16. I was raised a proud New York City Democrat

And it was gospel among that clan that a good part of the Democratic leadership would sell us out in an heartbeat if we didn't occasionally hit them upside the head with a two-by-four to remind them who was boss. Third parties, the occasional decent Republican, reform Democratic clubs like the one my dad belonged to that fought Tammany Hall -- whatever it took to get their attention and let them know that WE were the soul of the party, not them.

Things aren't like that any more. New York City may always have been a special case, of course, with a secure enough Democratic majority to be able to play games with the details. But I think it's more that everybody is running scared these days. We're all so afraid of the horrors of a Republican majority that we'd rather put up with a bunch of traitors to the people who suck up to the corporations and the lobbyists, just so long as they carry that "D" after their names, then take meaningful action.

But as long as we think that way, we're lost before we start.

Just as "we the people of the United States" *are* the nation -- us and not our self-styled rulers -- so a selected subset of we-the-people *are* the Democratic Party, and in the long run the party apparatus has to answer to us, not us to them.

People like us are the soul of the Democratic Party, because we know where it came from and what it stands for and where it ought to be going. If our party leaders don't remember those things as well as we do, we need to kick them out and get better leaders. And if we don't have the tools available to do that small but necessary job neatly and cleanly, we will have to use whatever tools are legitimately available to us.

It's just that simple.

[Breeze54]

28. Well said and right on!!!

"And it was gospel among that clan that a good part of the Democratic leadership would sell
us out in an heartbeat if we didn't occasionally hit them upside the head with a two-by-four
to remind them who was boss."

"We're all so afraid of the horrors of a Republican majority that we'd rather put up with a bunch
of traitors to the people who suck up to the corporations and the lobbyists, just so long as they
carry that "D" after their names, then take meaningful action.

But as long as we think that way, we're lost before we start."

:woohoo: :woohoo:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[mondo joe]

18. When it was decided that the number of votes count.

You don't have to be a Democrat.

But if you want to have any meaningful representation it's likely going to be in a party - or if you like it better, a coalition of interests.

I'm a Democrat and I support the party because I think it's the best shot to get closest to what I think SHOULD be.

If the party goes in a different direction I may leave it. But for now I'm on board.

[JVS]

19. In Soviet Russia, party is loyal to YOU!!!

[creeksneakers2]

20. There can't be individual choice for some

and group reponsibility for everybody else.

"They owe me." You are only one person. We decide together where the party ought to go. If you want everbody else to back up some of what you want, you have to go along with some of what they want. Its no different than any other group.

Blind apologies are one extreme we should avoid. The other extreme is everybody deciding what they want for themselves, leaving no chance for the group and letting the Republicans win. Some balance is needed.

[Grandrose]

21. Will Rogers said it best....

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."
:D

[TahitiNut]

24. One-way loyalty makes for bad politics and bad marriages.

:shrug:

[orleans]

25. who was the last person in the whig party to jump ship?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)

[cynatnite]

27. I'm a democrat and will stay a democrat until I die...

It's a label I wear proudly even when the party I support is stupid. When they are, I tell them about it. Even at their stupidest moments, I'll still be a democrat.

I prefer being a democrat over a republican and I will always vote for a democrat over a republican. I can yell, cry, throw shit or whatever when my party does stupid shit like this FISA bill.

To me, it's not just about party loyalty. It's a part of who I am and a part of my core beliefs. For me, it's social justice, peace, health care, education and many other things I value.

Be angry, obnoxious, loud and all that. Let them know you're pissed. We all should. But I'm not going to leave the Democratic Party over it.

[flying_monkeys]

31. I agree. They still have my vote

even when they do stupid things, because they are STILL the party that *most* believes in what I ardently believe. They let me down (often) but the other side would let me down daily....


Even at their worst pandering for votes, the party *IS* the party that supports human rights, gay rights, women's rights and racial parity - - and that MATTERS, to me.


I am disappointed in FISA bill - - but I was disappointed after the panicked lockstep 9-11 stuff, too.


Still a Democrat, here...

[Exiled in America]

34. Then you are the problem.

Blind loyalty is not something to be proud of. You just said there were no conditions under which you would not be a democrat. That ought to embarrass you to say, and its a shame that it doesn't.

[cynatnite]

36. How so? n/t

[Solon]

44. That's easy...

You are the ideal Democratic voter, no matter how stupid a Democratic politician is, you will ALWAYS vote for them, hence, you cannot claim any "ideals" that counter that politician, because, regardless of how many letters you write, you will still vote for them in the end. Not to mention that political parties themselves change over time, if you were alive at the beginning of the last century, instead of the beginning of this, one, if you voted Democrat, you voted conservative. They may swing that way again, would you still be loyal then as well?

[cynatnite]

45. Well, I really despise the idea of throwing away my vote...

my principles don't mean shit if I vote for some green party boob who couldn't get 3% even on his or her best day. I prefer to put my vote where it will do the most good and that has a hell of a lot better shot at winning.

This is Democratic Underground where Democrats ARE supported over repukes, green party, independents or whatever minor political party that exists.

I don't see the Democratic Party going anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-social justice or any number of other principles in the near future.

[Solon]

46. You know, that's perhaps the most damning thing to say about any so called "Democracy"...

The fact that there ARE "throw away" votes, and that it was, over time, designed that way, just exposes the fact that the United States isn't a democracy at all, but an oligarchy, where a professional class of politicians, paid for by corporations, rule. We have this pretense of choice, but in reality, we get a few more bones thrown to us from one party rather than the other party.

The fact of the matter is that for most of this country, our "choice" in which party Represents us was taken away, before we were even allowed to vote in many cases. In my case, the district I'm in was drawn up in a deal between Democrats and Republicans to be a "safe" Republican district. Oddly enough, it was JUST getting competitive for the Dems, a Dem actually won office here before the new district was drawn up, and she practically begged the Dems and Repubs to redraw the lines just a little bit to make the district competitive, yet the Dems balked, because two safe Dem districts were already drawn up. The fact that they would have been safe after the line drawing was beside the point, they didn't want to give those voters to a so called "Red" district to help Dems win.

Yet this is something that we are supposed to tolerate in this fucking "Democracy", hell, this happened in the early 1990s, before I could even vote. I don't have a Representative, never have, and I CAN and DO condemn the Democrats and Republicans for it.

[Solon]

50. I guess the truth hurts too much to face, right? n/t

[Celeborn Skywalker]

51. The Democrats weren't the conservatives.

They were more socially conservative than the Repubs at the time, but the core conservative dogma of corporations over people has always belonged to the Republican party.

[Solon]

54. Actually, that's not entirely correct...

One constant we can count on throughout the past 100 years is that both parties were bought and paid for by Corporations. You have to remember, during this time, Progressive Republicans started to gain dominance. However, it would be a misnomer to claim they are the same as Progressives or Liberals of today, there were a host of issues back then that defined left and right that don't today, the Gold standard, etc. The fact is that the Democrats, and Republicans, to a large extent, were both fiscally conservative, at least in modern terms, its just that the Democrats were slightly more conservative than the Republicans of the time, overall.

[Exiled in America]

49. Saying that "at least they're better than the other guys" is like saying:

"at least I got raped by five guys rather than eight guys."

Democrats are better than the other guys. But they are not better enough than the other guys to warrant blind loyalty. It simply isn't good enough. What the democrats have been offering in modern times hasn't been good enough for the country.

The choice between this current democratic party and the republican party is a choice between whether the country wants to walk or run toward the cliff of its own destruction. Either way, with either choice, we're still headed toward collapse.

I don't want a third party. I want ordinary members of the democratic party to STOP FREAKING APOLOGIZING for party failures and start DEMANDING the kind of leadership we deserve from the party. I want party members to find the guts to say, even if it gets rough for a while, and even if in the short term we lose seats, we will no longer stand for a democratic party that doesn't stand for us -- we will not vote for appeasing democrats. We will force the party to rethink the kind of candidates it puts forth and until it does, the party can expect to lose. When it starts to represent the people again, it can expect to win.

There are worse things in life than the democratic party losing elections - such as winning elections by standing for nothing.

[Solon]

30. I'm loyal to my principles, not to a label...

that and a few close friends and family. I definitely do not trust ANY political party, they are self serving, first and foremost, and the Democratic party would sell me out just to ensure they win an election, the same can be said of the Republican Party. They don't deserve loyalty, only a fool would trust either.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. pragmatism in politics is a virtue. you want to tear down the dems and let the repubs win.

then yay for you! i dont.

[Exiled in America]

55. It doesn't matter if repubs. when if dems winning produces little noticible change.

That's the point you totally fail to miss. So let me once again spell it out:

"Pragmatism" does not mean having no principles. Pragmatism does not mean that there are no boundaries or parameters. Pragmatism does not mean your party can adopt any stand at any time on any issue based on whichever way the wind is blowing and you must sit on the sideline and wave the party flag.

This is what no one ever acknowledges when they toss out the word pragmatism.

Pragmatism must be married with PRINCIPLE. If pragmatism is not married to principle then it is simply cowardice.

Some values are not open for negotiation. For example, it is not ok to say, "well rape is wrong, but its going to happen, so we might as well work with people who want to legalize it since we can't stop it." That's not ok.

It is not ok to compromise when it comes to the Constitutional Bill of Rights, or the Sepration of Powers, or of Church and State, or on Due Process. It is not OK to compromise with criminals and ingore and allow their criminal conspiracy to continue unchecked.

That's NOT pragmatism - thats being complicit in crimes against the country and appeasing of a tyrannical cabal.

You can't use that word "pragmatic" to justify every act of cowardice. People who helped the Nazi's used the same logic. "We have to be pragmatic about these things" - as they helped the Nazi's slaughter millions of people.

Real people are dying by the tens of thousands as a direct result of this administrations lies. The conditions for a majority of Americans are worsening and the country is in free-fall out of control debt and headed toward an economic collapse.

Screw anyone who has the audacity to talk about the need for "pragmatism" when it comes to defending the Constitution and Human Rights.

[yurbud]

37. you are mistaking the planted cheerleaders here for the people who genuinely care about issues

to the people in DC, unfortunately, I think this really does boil down to little more than a football game--will the red jerseys or blue take home the trophy?

But in this case, our votes are not the real trophy: it's the corporate board, executive, and lobbyist jobs politicians get after they leave office.

That is why even when they know it will get boos from members of their own party as you heard sprinkled through the Kos convention with Hillary, they will still say what big business wants to hear.

That is why in the face of real arguments and questions here, shills only real card is blind cheerleading and reminding people that the republicans are worse.

[bigtree]

39. I'll tell you what . . .

There are plenty of Democratic legislators who deserve our support. They deserve 'cheerleading' if they are working (like the majority of our Democratic legislators) to advance our principles and values.

[yurbud]

41. yep and when they don't, no one should criticize us for letting them know they've strayed

[bigtree]

47. more power to you

if your aim is true

[yurbud]

48. that's not what my girlfriend says when she goes in my bathroom

[kenny blankenship]

38. Party loyalty would be great-if the Party was loyal to the people who vote for it

and the leadership could get the Rep.s to vote together.
If we had loyalty like that WE COULD ACTUALLY GET STUFF DONE. In fact that's how parties get stuff done everywhere else. We don't have party loyalty, neither from the elected Democrats to the base, nor among elected Democratic officials, and that's a major reason why being a Democrat is so frustrating. Of course, loyalty is still demanded of us, the base, whenever the party disappoints us, which is often.

The Republican Party, say whatever you like about them, they ENACT their agenda when they achieve power. How? Why can they do it and we can't? Because of their greater insistence on party loyalty. Important constituencies within the GOP like the fundamentalist churches make demands, and Bush enacts most of them, even ones that lead to policies highly unpopular with the general public. Democrats would rather piss on the people that voted for them than piss off the people who don't. Where else can they go? appears to be the attitude Democrats have about their liberal base. While for Republicans, Dance with the one that brung ya is rule to follow concerning respect for their voting base, even though their dance partner wants to drag the whole country back to the pre Civil War era, and a majority of this country clearly doesn't want to be dragged back there.

[yurbud]

43. look at the stuff they get done right quick--trade deals, stripping our civil liberties...

most dems answer to big business, give us lip service (barely) and differ from the GOP principally on the window dressing social issues, and environmentalism which big business barely tolerates when they know they can't get a repug in office.

[Exiled in America]

52. simple, straight-forward and 100% accurate analysis.

You sum it all up in a sentence.

[theHandpuppet]

42. Great post. A K&R!

:thumbsup:

Your post exactly sums up my own feelings.

[Skidmore]

53. Since some portion of the Democratic Party joined

*'s neocon cabal because they are nice guys you can have a beer with.

[yurbud]

56. they didn't join for the beer, they joined for the money, corporate jobs, stock tips, etc.

[HardRocker05]

57. blind loyalty has long been considered a virtue by primitive peoples of past and present.

it's classic "us against them" thinking, and it's appealing to a lot of people. it's wrong and counter-productive, of course.