It's been a month since the dreaded election, and after glossing over various articles I can see both hope and dismay for the Democratic Party. I see hope in a Dean DNC Chairmanship, where we seriously need someone who has a backbone and a willingness to whip people into shape. But I also see dismay in the near term for the Democratic Party should Dean win the Chairmanship.
As the title says, if Dean, whom I want to win the DNC Chair, assumes leadership of the DNC, I fear the Democratic Party will split in two.
My reasons for stating this is not to bring despair but rather one aspect of this movement that we may not see just yet. The split will stem from those who harbor two particular traits that many feel are what is wrong with the Democratic Party, of which I will list an example of each.
First, in a minor setting, we have supposed rising star Jeanne Granholm, someone that was once touted for Kerry's VP candidate.
Kevin Drum explains the problem (bold mine):
Before the election its supporters assured voters that the amendment was about marriage, not benefits, but now that the results are in they claim that Proposal 2's "similar union" language prevents the state not only from recognizing gay marriage, but from even offering benefits to same-sex partnerships. That kind of bait-and-switch is hardly surprising, but what
is surprising is that despite the fact that the state has
already negotiated a contract to provide same-sex benefits to its 30,000 employees, governor Jennifer Granholm has agreed to suspend them even though no court has yet ruled that this is required.
That's pretty disappointing from a supposed rising star in the Democratic party, especially since the new benefits don't start until next October anyway, making this mostly a symbolic act. It's one thing if you fight it out in court and lose, but you'd think that Granholm could at least fight it out. It's hard to imagine a Republican governor in a similar situation meekly rolling over like that. They usually fight for what they believe in.
Trait number one: refusing to take a stand. Today's Democratic leaders are full of wimpy, bent-over, me-too folks that haven't got the guts to fight for what they believe in, and instead let principle be trumped. Today's Republicans don't bend over for no one, not even their own party. All you had to do is review one major blog over this past month to see how much the Republicans and Radical Right fight for their beliefs and themselves, no matter if laws are broken. They don't care. All they care about is winning, and sadly, that is why they are in control of our lives - Democrats cared too much about "how you play the game" rather than fighting for all your heart for something you want or believe in.
In the movie Dave, when the (duplicate) President answers to his charges of violating election laws (remember when that kind of accountability occurred), he utters one very important paragraph:
I think there are certain things you should expect from your president. I ought to care about you more than about me. I ought to care more about what is right than what is popular. I ought to be willing to give up this whole thing for something I believe in, because if I'm not, if I'm not then maybe I don't belong here in the first place.
How many Democrats in office can clearly come out and truthfully say this without hesitation? Shouldn't we have politicians in office who are willing to give up their office for something they believe in rather than those who sacrifice principles to other people's agendas simply to hold onto office? Howard Dean (more so than Simon Rosenburg) will probably put major heat on those folks that don't stick to their own principles and beliefs in the party, who are willing to sacrifice the greater good for the sake of office.
Another trait is exemplified in one Ed Randell, the Governor of Pennsylvania, as discussed by Ezra Klein of Pandagon from an article in the Washington Post (emphasis mine):
For the millions of people who cannot afford high-speed Internet access, some local officials think they've hit on the answer: Build government-owned networks to provide service at rates below what big telecommunications companies charge.
From San Francisco to St. Cloud, Fla., an estimated 200 communities are toying with community-owned networks, sparking a battle with cable and telephone companies over how public, or private, access to the Internet should be.
The companies are lobbying furiously to block such plans, fearful that their businesses would be hurt. Their efforts most recently paid off Tuesday night in Pennsylvania, where a new law bans local governments from creating their own networks without first giving the primary local phone company the chance to provide service.
Consumer advocates denounce the new Pennsylvania law. They say it amounts to governments now needing a permission slip from entrenched monopolies to put a vital economic and educational tool within everyone's reach.
... Companies such as Verizon Communications Inc., which helped shape the Pennsylvania law, argue that telecommunications firms would have little incentive to build networks if they have to compete with government-subsidized service.
Trait number two: succumbing to special interest and corporate money. Whether or not Ed Randell did so, the governor still signed the bill, and the last paragraph above says it all. Given that, it will be hard to not say that the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania signed legislation influenced by a corporation - who's to say that some campaign contribution money was not privately involved in this? Given that Randell is a potential 2008 candidate, I surely hope that is not the case, but nonetheless, people are very pissed at what Randell is signing.
Democrats today have got to understand that special interests no longer appeal to us the way we have long thought did. Most cater to the Republican masses and their desire to have complete control over what we watch, eat, drink, use, or what have you. They could care less about advancing the good of the country or of the American people, just as long as their wallets are continuously filled. And yet, it seems as if we have too many Democrats that are so entrenched with special interests that they have forgotten the principles and the people they stood for and fought for. Democrats must understand that the wave of the future is not special interests or corporations, but us - the average American people. There is a new grassroots movement, a revolution some would say, that is building in the Democratic Party, and it's too large now for it to simply go away, and if the current leaders of the Democratic Party can't see it, then either they will fall in obscurity, or the party will collapse, or dreadfully both.
And this is where the split comes in. Dean, should he get the DNC Chair, will probably take the bull by the horns, and redirect this party into a manner that will surely peeve a lot of current established Democratic leaders. But all I can say to that is tough titty. We tried it their way for a decade, and not only did we lose the Presidency and more seats in Congress, we lost the very people we have been fighting for. Why? Because, like it or not, Americans want people who stand up for what they believe in and what their principles are, legal or illegal. There is nothing that churns their spirit more than a man or woman that stands tall and says "I don't care if I win or lose - I believe in this or that, that people should have this or that, and I'll fight it until the very end." People see that, incorrectly, in Bush only because we have simultaneously failed in producing someone who can best that trait, while the Republicans are so good at projecting that image to the American people. With Dean, a new crop of Democratic leaders will emerge, people who will fight for what they believe in, who have the will of the people rather than corporate interests behind them, and this is likely going to make a lot of current leaders mad and scared at losing power.
Frankly, I'm usually a cynic when it comes to stuff like this, and I can't help but feel that today's Democratic leadership will resist this movement, threatening the salvation of the Democratic Party. People are sick and tired of losing, and just like sports, when a team stops winning, people stop coming. If the Democratic leaders of today in the Senate, House, and governorships won't have the backbone to stand up to rather than stand behind special interests and fight for what they and their party believe in, then either they and their entourage or the Reform Democrats will likely walk away, splitting the Democratic Party in two.
Such an event will likely ensure Republican domination of government for many more years, and it is my hope that both sides see this as the inevitable outcome of such a split. But when you have two very different groups of folks with one side so passionate about their principles and sick and tired of losing to corrupt, hateful politicians that care only more about a select group of people than America in general, it's hard to not believe that a split may be inevitable should Dean win the Chairmanship. The funny thing is, despite this rant, Dean is the one I want running the DNC more than ever. I'd rather fight for principle and all of America than corporate and special interests and pleasing our "friends" on the other side who are our friends as long as we abide by their wishes. Dean is that man, and if that splits the party, well then bring it on.