Skip to main content

View Diary: Where's Delaware Dem when you need him to defend the Party? (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Me Neither (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If there's already a husk of a withered party ripe for the takeover, why not take IT over rather than starting from scratch?

    I can think of a dozen analogies, but I'll start with yours...take a withered husk of corn and try to breath life into it instead of planting a fresh field?  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

    Take house that is condemned, never met code on its best day, and try to restore it rather than build a nice new one on an open lot?  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense too.

    •  Its a lot easier to fix the old house (0+ / 0-)

      if you are talking metaphorically about the green party, the decision is between the condemned house and a cardboard box in an alley.  

      •  I wasn't talking about any particular party (0+ / 0-)

        If I wanted to take over a party (and god forbid I get anywhere near one ever again), it would be the Libertarians.  

        They are more strongly committed to civil liberties than the Democrats and most of them just want fiscal responsibility, not fiscal insanity, which is why they have been among the first of Bushco's original supporters to turn on them.  In addition, they strongly believe in personal responsibility, which is what democracy is all about.  This tends tends to insulate them from the destructive party loyalty that is so common among followers of the big two.

    •  Sorry - didn't see this till today... (0+ / 0-)

      But did want to respond because I want to clarify why "taking over", "taking back", whatever- the democratic party is easier than building a third party or moving to the Green party...

      The key is all the institutional advantages that come with controlling one of the "big two".  Different states have different ballot requirements... but it would be a heck of a lot easier to get one "our" candidates on the ballot under the democratic banner than field the same candidate under another.

      There's a vast array of attention a "democratic" party candidate will get that a Green party candidate simply cannot.  Are there exceptions?  Sure... but let's be realistic.  It's the difference between 4-5 districts where a Green candidate would have that legitimate base of traditional media legitimacy and attention -- the several HUNDRED (if not all 435) where a democratic candidate can garner that attention.

      Is that unfair?

      Damn right it is.  So is the electoral college.  So are the concepts of party causcuses.  So are a hundred other factors.

      The ideas I care about, I want to see action taken on.  It's a cold hard fact that we have a better chance of seeing that happen through the "right" democrats than we do the "right" third party.

      The "big 2" simply have too tight a grap on the various apparatuses, procedures, etc to make a third party --- at a national level, where is takes dozens of senators and hundreds of reps to write legislation and move it through the process -- anything more than quixotic.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 05:42:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Opinion vs. Fact (0+ / 0-)

        It's a cold hard fact that we have a better chance of seeing that happen through the "right" democrats than we do the "right" third party.

        No, this is not a fact, it is your opinion.  I have noticed that partisans often have difficulty distinguishing between the two.

        It is a fact that George Washington said that political parties are democracy's greatest enemy.  That was his opinion of political parties.  It is my opinion that he was correct. In other words, it is my opinion that his opinion is a fact.  This does not make it a fact and I would never present it as such.

        The ideas I care about, I want to see action taken on.

        Me too.  And what I want is democracy, which is why I will never have anything to do with a political party.  In my opinion, there are no right parties.  Only parties made up of people who think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Who think they know the facts, when they know only their own opinions...which have usually been shaped for them by their party's propaganda.

        What you seem to want is the quickest fix possible so you can win, beat the other guy, and get your way.

        •  I'm not disagreeing in principle (0+ / 0-)

          Right on all the way around...

          All I'm saying is:

          - that it takes several hundred congressmen/women and several dozen senators to pass legislation.

          - that many states have very complex and onerous requirements for getting on a ballot.

          - that the media - stupid as it is - simply gravitates to candidates of the big 2, especially when it comes to senate and congressional candidates.

          None of those are insurmountable obstacles -- but taken together and then multiplied across dozens, if not hundreds of races (each with their own flavors and degrees of the above), and a instigating a legitimate 3rd party agenda is pretty damn daunting... It's more than just an inside straight, it's the equivalent of a whole evening of inside straights.

          I mean - we've had some real progressive and/or "outsider" candidates in given races in the democratic party (Hackett, Ciro, Morrison, Cegelis, Murphy, etc, etc) -- and even with what little institutional support the democratic party has lent, we've come up short.  I'm not being defeatist -- we're getting closer and it's a marathon, not a spring --- but I just don't see how a 3rd party allows us to get any closer than we've gotten.

          I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

          by zonk on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 04:59:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess it depends... (0+ / 0-)

            ...on what you are trying to get closer to.  I'm trying to get closer to democracy, not to electing people.  I see more parties as being tiny step closer to where I want to go, which is why I'm not opposed to them, but don't plan to invest much effort there.  I am more focused on nonpartisanship, because that is exactly where I want to go.

            Agreement in principle means nothing to me.  A principle is an abstract concept inside someone's head.  It doesn't really exist, except to the extent that it is reflected in real-world action.  What you are doing in the real world is presenting an unknowable as a "cold hard" fact. Either you are a party operative who knows exactly what you are doing, or you are confusing what's inside your head with reality.

            In any case, not much point in arguing about it, as winning an argument won't change reality. We will all find out soon enough. A decade or so from now, the Democratic Party will either be a strong and viable bastion of progressive politics, or it will have withered away further still, while the Greens,  Libertarians, and independents will have gained yet more ground.  Or perhaps the tug of war between the progressives and the centrists will have rent it asunder.

            I give the third-party folks credit for having worked the real world, not in principle...toward where they want to go for the past several decades, while most "Proud to be a" Democrats were merely supporting their party in principle.

            Most Kossacks cannot legitimately claim to be taking back their party, because in the past they were never Democrats in anything but periodically for Democratic candidates and carrying a card with a check in a box does not a Democrat make.  In fact, they were until recently among the ranks of those I consider to be the actual DINOs...Democrats In Name Only.  

            What they are aiming to do now is to take the Democratic Party away from the people who have been running it for years and years while they themselves were too busy to be bothered.  And they are doing it because they have decided it will be easier and quicker for them to get their way by taking what someone else has built than it would be to build something themselves.  Not exactly my idear of a noble undertaking.  And, when they heap blame for what the Democratic Party has become in their absence on those who were, at the very least, showing up...rather less than noble, I'd say.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site