Which makes more sense to you, "Party First" or "Ideology First?"

[Stinky The Clown]

I have not always been a Democrat.

I have always been a liberal.

There was a time when the Democratic Party and I were largely in step. Not so much the leaders of the party as the party's platform planks. They were important to me. As they changed over the years, my own personal bedrock issues pretty much stayed the same. While the Democratic Party misplaced a few of them, they still enjoyed my support. In fact, I joined the Democratic Party as it started its rightward drift. Why? Because the repubicans were a far worse choice.

That made me wonder. Was I better off supporting the party so as to make sure that the alternative was not the beneficiary if I chose not to belong? Was the party more important than my own personal ideology?

That's a valid question. For me, the answer was "yes," the party was more important. But that isn't an eternal absolute. There are limits to that. At what point is the party no longer sufficiently aligned with my personal ideology that it causes me to walk away? Am I better to stay and fight within the party for what matters to me? Or am I better off saying we're too far apart and I just need to go my own way?

The reality is, this isn't a clear, black and white, binary choice. I suspect the line is drawn differently for each of us.

I find that I grow closer to it as the rightward drift of the party continues. I am certainly closer to it now, with Obama as president, than I was when Clinton was president. While I know that's true, I wonder why it is. Clinton and Obama are, in many ways, a lot alike, philosophically. I think it was a combination of very subtle factors that weigh in Clinton's favor. First, the economy was good. That allowed some things to be overlooked. Free trade, and China gaining MFN status, are things I *blame* on Clinton. I blamed him then and I blame him now. He did Reagan's dirty work and now we're paying for that.

Obama, on the other hand, was dealt the shittiest hand ever dealt a president. His hand was arguably worse, when considered in its totality, than either Lincoln's or Roosevelt's. To be clear, both of these men had larger single issues, but neither man had so much crap to deal with starting on the day each was inaugurated. I get that and in many ways, would be willing to overlook some of the (in my personal view) dumber stuff he's done. Where I have my biggest personal problem with Obama is in the social and human issues. I don't feel real empathy from him. I surely see no evidence of it. I am upset, not about what we didn't get, but about what we didn't **TRY** to get. I feel as if he used us to get elected and then went for the other guys when he was faced with hard choices.

Since the president, for all intents and purposes *IS* the party, what we think of him is reflected, more or less, in what we think of the party for which he gets to appoint the leader.

Bring that back full circle. I'm not feeling a lot of warm fuzzies for Democrats lately. I am still very much a liberal. Current use of the word notwithstanding, I also think I am a pragmatist and practical realist. Were I not, for example, I would not have been able to feel good about Clinton. Or Jimmy Carter. Or LBJ. But the Democrats keep moving the line inexorably to the right. Just a little at a time, but always rightward.

At some point, a grumpy old liberal like me is bound to say "fuck it." I'm not there yet, but I can't believe I am alone in feeling closer to it than I've been in a long time.

This isn't easy to say and it isn't fun to feel it. But there it is. Maybe its generational, but I don't think so. Maybe its circumstantial because of the shit storm we're in, but I don't think that's it, either. Maybe its that some of my very dear friends still can't be married even though they have been, in practice, for years, but I don't think that's it, entirely. Maybe its that we squandered the highest plurality of public opinion in our favor in decades.

Mainly, its just that there are now more things about the Democratic Party with which I disagree than not.

The only thing that's the same is that alternative is so fucking horrible.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. The second one, but I think it should be called principles, not ideology

Ideology carries some ugly baggage, connotation-wise.

[ladjf]

18. I would call it "philosophy" = system of values. I affiliate with the

Party that is closest to my philosophical values. nt

[RandomThoughts]

2. I was not always a Democrat, or a liberal.

But that was an education issue, not knowing what different groups were about.

I however have always been the person I am. And from that I try to count on the better concepts of love and kindness with justice and mercy for all.

[Speck Tater]

3. Neither. The good of the planet and it's people first.

That is often compatible with the good of the Democratic party, but not always.

[Bandit]

17. Is that your ideology?

:shrug:

[Posteritatis]

28. Not that I disagree at all, but I'd qualify that as ideology. (nt)

[Speck Tater]

41. Ah. I see. I was thinking of "ideology" as refering specifically to "Democratic ideology",

as in some shared ideology that defines "liberal" or "Democrat".

Interpreting "ideology" more broadly, yes I would call that my ideology. So I will vote for "ideology first".

[Cleita]

4. I've never been party first. Even though I have been

a Democrat all my life, it's always been on the contingency that the party fits more closely to what my idea of being an American first is. I don't think you can be an American first and still be a Republican and now I'm having my doubts about the Democrats. I will always vote for the most liberal candidates and ideas no matter how I register in the future, in which I might end up being an independent. It may be the only way to still be an American first in hoping to uphold the Constitution and other principles this country is supposed to stand for.

[mike_c]

5. ideology, certainly....

Political parties are nothing more than organized containers for ideology, or perhaps it's better to think of them as organizations for the implementation of ideology. I've had somewhat less difficulty breaking with the democratic party than many, I suspect, because my eyes have always been squarely on liberal ideology, and never on the party. I decided back in 2002 that I'd had enough of supporting a party that no longer reflects my ideology. Nowadays, I mostly vote green whenever possible, simply because most green party candidates are much closer to my personal liberal ideology than ANY democratic party candidates. I'm fortunate enough to live somewhere where the green party enjoys considerable local influence. David Cobb, former GPUSA presidential candidate, is a local activist and host a local radio show from time to time. Lots of local elected officials are green.

[TheKentuckian]

6. I have always been a Democrat but it was a match in principles and vision

Not the letter "D" or the donkey. There have been times in history that I'd never be a Democrat but I happened to be born in a favorable epoch.

Party first is the height of absurdity and certainly rudderlessness. When the party no longer represents your values or shares your aspirations for the nation it should and must be opposed.

[somone]

7. Progressive principles

Personalities are ephemeral.
It helps to remember that most politicians, no matter what they profess, are greedy selfish assholes.

[LWolf]

8. Principles first.

But then, I have never, and never will, apologize for being an idealist.

[MuseRider]

30. Hey you!

:hi: Long time no see. I am with you. Have not been a Democrat in a while now. It feels good not to have to square my principles with party politics, especially these days.

Idealists make social change, one small step at a time.

[LWolf]

45. Long time no see is right.

:hi:

Where have you been?

[OHdem10]

9. If we had an ideology , this would not be a question. An ideology

supposes that all members believe and support it.

The Party would support and defend its ideology.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. Ideology for me,

although, of course, I usually vote Democratic because what the party is supposed to stand for most closely lines up with my ideals. However, I will not give money to the DNC, DSCC or DCCC because there are some Democrats I wouldn't support in a million years and I don't want them to get even one cent of my money. So I contribute my time and what cash I can to local Democtats whom I know and believe in. That's it.

I contributed more than I could afford to Scott McAdams' senate campaign and Diane Benson for lt. guv. in 2010. Obama got no money or time from me in 2008, and I won't contribute to his campaign in the future (unless things change radically) because I'm not impressed. I did vote for him, however, because there was no way I was going to vote for Gramps and She Who Shall Not Be Named. I don't really feel like voting for Obama in 2012, but I probably will again because the alternative no doubt will be worse.

Of course, I could be dead by 2012, and then the whole thing will be moot. In some ways that might be preferable.

[JVS]

11. Ideology first. I couldn't give a fuck about the institutional party. Our party's ideology was...

complete shit in the mid 19th century, and I would have aligned with the Republican Party gladly. Only with the Al Smith and FDR do I see any reason to support this party and only insofar as their legacy is continued do I see any reason to continue support for this party.

[Scottybeamer70]

12. I'm with you..........

You are not alone with those feelings...........believe me!

[Lorien]

13. If you choose party over ideology then your treating politics like sports

what is a political party without an ideology? it's a sports team. It's the blue team vs. the reds. Donkey's vs. elephants, rah! Rah! Rah! It means nothing. Politics aren't sports. The outcomes effect lives. As it stands, the democratic party has NO ideology. America has two right wings, one is Coke, the other is Pepsi. If we don't demand real change and end the meaningless cheerleading then we will never have a shot at restoring Democracy to America.

[MrModerate]

14. Thoughtful post, and I feel your pain. However . . .

As a matter of historical interpretation, I can't for a moment compare Obama's cards to Lincoln's. Lincoln faced dissolution of the country and (although no one expected it on Inauguration Day) an unimaginably destructive civil war for which we are in many ways still paying. And whether Lincoln had turned over his cards on the day he took office, they had already been dealt and the shitstorm he inherited makes Obama's look like a day in the park. And Lincoln brought a few turds to the table in his own right.

I'd also tend to think that Roosevelt had the harder road, but that's moot.

On the substance of your post, though, and the question you ask, I think the obvious answer is "both -- and neither." One aligns oneself with a party based on ideology (in its non-pejorative definition) and yet a party is a complex organization with many strivers in it, and it will never meet any one adherent's total needs. I share your feeling (and forgive me if in my restatement I've diverged from your point of view) that Obama has lurched mysteriously to the right. Mysteriously because it has seemed so unnecessary. I am convinced that he's convinced that governing from the left of center will fail, and so he has to carve out what he and his advisers consider the center -- and abandon most policies that might offend the center, with enough sops tossed to his progressive base that they don't revolt.

The problem, of course, is that the "center" of the electorate is occupied by essentially thoughtless sheep who will vote (when they do vote) for whatever stimulates their reptilian brain on election day. There is no center of thoughtful people anymore, because the wingnutariat has killed it while progressives have stood on the sidelines wringing their collective hands.

It's the hardass vs candyass problem writ large. 'Lican pols are meaner than Dem pols and they fight dirty and they put their money where their mouth is, and they don't care what the individual voter thinks as long as their religious enablers whip the flock to the polls and money men continue to get the gold. And they get reelected, of course.

And the question becomes: do we want such hyenas running the country? Any more than they do already?

What any single person can do in a political context is limited by the degree to which that person can motivate or inspire other people. Which is why continued support of the Democratic party seems the only practical way to stave off the dying of the light, even when the party seems to be stumbling, miscalculating, trimming, and making unbalanced compromises. Because the way out of this mess is to grab ahold of the "center" and wrench it leftwards, with the hope that enough of the virulent right wingers might fall off the edge, and so the unthoughtful "independents" have a new starting point for those brief moments when they're actually engaged in political thought.

So hammer Obama and the leadership when they give away the store; continually redefine party ideology by supporting from within those who share your views; and resist the jackals of the right by using the levers that the two-party system affords.

[MrScorpio]

15. I'm pretty much against cutting our own selves down at the knees

And my principles will always favor any kind of advantage of Democrats OVER what ever benefits Republicans.

When we damage ourselves (for whatever excuse), that makes it easier for the fucking GOP to get ahead.

The math is easy for me to understand.

[Laelth]

16. I am a liberal first. If the Republicans suddenly became liberal, I would vote for them. n/t

-Laelth

[Blue_In_AK]

26. Me, too, Laelth.

In fact, I very happily voted for Alaska's Republican Governor Jay Hammond, the "father of the Permanent Fund," back in 1978. That guy was awesome.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/national/03hammond.html

[leeroysphitz]

19. What about personality first?

[Little Star]

20. I am principles first. I use to feel very loyal to my party...........

but my party has changed. I am still a Democrat (as I've always been) but I don't have blind loyalty.

[emilyg]

22. That's how I feel.

[pacalo]

21. Unless there's going to be a presidential candidate who comes forward with all the

most sensible ideas on how to get back our country's moral compass, the only choice we have is Democratic. That's it in a nutshell.

They have nowhere else to go -- spoken by various Democratic pundits on tv after the cat food commission's press conference.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. As you quote: "They have nowhere else to go"

That single fact is what makes me most comfortable with the thought of leaving the party. If that statement is literally true and they act on it, then there's no hope, really.

Obama, in the campaign, said he wanted us to push him for what we wanted. After the campaign, he slammed shut the door to the single payer advocates. After all . . . they have nowhere else to go.

:thumbsup:

[pacalo]

31. What disturbed me as much as that statement itself was that it was spoken in tandem

word for word, on different programs by different people, which suggests that there had been a meeting or a memo had been sent.

No one likes to be taken for granted, especially when they're in a corner, & it's going to stick with me.

[Atticus]

23. Those footsteps you hear are me---walking the same path. As usual,

your post is well-written, intelligent and sensible.

Thank you, sir.

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. Hands down: Ideology. n/t

[eallen]

27. Do liberals believe in ideology?

Seems to me that part of being liberal is recognizing that people define values, that there is inherent conflict in any set of substantive values, that different people of good will also will hold somewhat different sets of values, and that one of the great benefits to a procedural democracy is providing a way to navigate among such conflicts. All of this strikes me as somewhat contrary to the notion of ideology: that there is one "true" set of consistent values, and that the goal of politics is to implement that.

:hippie:

[Stinky The Clown]

29. We all have personal ideologies

As someone pointed out up thread, we may actually be speaking about principles, but you get the idea. We absolutely hold values. What is less true - in some case very much untrue - is that they're constant for all of us.

I used to lean toward acceptance of the death penalty. For years now, I have grown increasingly vehement in my opposition. I don't find that inconsistent. We all evolve.

[eallen]

39. Do you find no tension among your various values? And that evolution of your values....

Do you see yourself as the moral agent who is evolving principles? Or as the devotee trying to "understand" or "discover" outside principles?

It's partly semantics. But to me, "ideology" carries a connotation that denies some aspects of moral reality.

:hippie:

[Foo Fighter]

32. I always prefer to party first and...oh wait...

what was the question again? ;)

[bluestate10]

33. Given the alternative, democratic party first. What other choice is there? nt.

[rucky]

34. Whichever one is least corrupted at the time.

so mostly "ideology first"

[bvar22]

35. THIS is the "Democratic Party" I joined 44 years ago:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

1) The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

2) The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

3) The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

4) The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

5) The right of every family to a decent home;

6) The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

7) The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

8) The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."---FDR

I find these values to be increasingly unwelcome (ridiculed) in today's "New Democrat Party".
I haven't changed.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Stinky The Clown]

37. Virtually every one of those has been compromised and left unachieved.

Shame on us.

[rug]

36. If the strongest argument for a decision is pragmatism, it is inherently suspect.

"They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians. Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my childlike faith in practical politics."
— G.K. Chesterton (Orthodoxy)

[BzaDem]

38. I think if Republicans became a more progressive party than Democrats, most people would have no

problems switching. But that obviously isn't going to happen.

It isn't mindless cheerleading of a name. Most couldn't care less what the party was called. Most people have their ideology, and pick the party that best represents them out of the viable options.

[bemildred]

40. I like "Policy first".

The candidate that agrees with me about policy gets my vote.

[pecwae]

42. Ideology.

My ideology is of a progressive and liberal nature so whatever candidate or party most closely resonates with me will get my vote.

[GeorgeGist]

43. 'Party first' is but one among many ideologies.

Duopoly is only slightly more.

[JamesA1102]

44. Neither.

[dmallind]

46. utility first, and second, and third.....

Maximize benefit or minimize harm at every opportunity. Even more important in universalized settings such as politics. If our choices are limited to 80% positive or 50% positive, not choosing the former causes us to lose the 30% potential benefit - an inexcusable moral choice simply because you wanted an unavailable 100% option. Doesn't matter even if the options are 42% and 40% - if one is better than the other and are the only choices, rational people go for the better choice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. I vote issues. Not party or politician.

“Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)”

Bob Dylan

[Shandris]

48. Ideology...

...as expressed by my series of constantly-challenged, considered and reconsidered positions on the various issues of the day. NOT as any ideology is presented to me.

Belief without challenge is one of the worst things that has happened to this nation. I feel that conservatives suffer from it FAR more often, but it doesn't make us immune.

[TBF]

49. Ideology - parties in this country represent few of the views I hold -

as I'm finding out more and more each day.