OH-Sen: What Is A Party?

I'm sure this diary is just what everyone wants - another diary on the Ohio Senate race.  But hear me out, because this diary is really about something much more.  It is about the nature of the Democratic pary.

Now that another diary has hit the recommended list on the Ohio Senate race, and afer reading the comments it has engendered I believe a discussion about the nature of a political party is warranted.  And, specifically, what the Democratic party is.

I always thought that the reason to have a party was to allow voters to vote for a set of principles that they beleived to be important, even if they were not fully informed about the candidate personally (after all, if all voters knew the candidates perfectly well, there would be no need for parties).  Party designation helps people make assumptions about how their elected representative will vote on particular issues.

On that score, party is, and should be, a proxy for how a politician will vote.  It is a proxy for what that politicians core principles are.

Party is not a personality cult.  It is not, and should not become, an indication that the candidate carrying the designation will shout and yell and "be an outsider"   just for being an outsiders sake.  That's absurd.  I like "outsider" candidates in many ways.  But it is generally because I believe that they are less likely to be intimidated to vote against the core Democratic principles (e.g. with a popular, but wrong President, etc.).

With Sherrod Brown we have someone who has never shown himself to be scared of Bush or afraid to stand up for everything Democrats hold dear. We know he will vote in favor of Democratic principles.  That is by far the most important consideration.  After all, its votes on legislation that ultimately change our country.

For those that can't see the forest through the trees and criticize Brown simply because they love Hackett for "talking tough" and being an "outsider" it is a sad statement on their values.  It says that they value the cult of personality more than they value those Democratic policies than can actually change our country for the better.

How can anyone state that they hope Brown loses to teach him and the Democratic party a lesson?  Is love for Hackett as a person more important than those principles that we as Democrats hold dear?  Sherrod Brown has a remarkable history of standing up for Democratic principles and he deserves not only our generic "support", but the kind of netroots support that we have demonstrated for other candidates who show support for core Democratic principles without compromise.

•  Why I posted this diary

  I posted this as a separate diary, and not a comment, because I think it is important to discuss what we, as a community, consider to be a political party.  Hopefully this won't just turn into another Ohio Senate flame war thread.

  by DemUnity on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:53:54 AM PDT

•  To Me

  It's all about a party that has consistently lost elections since 1994 - 12 long and discouraging years.

  by Dave B on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:56:30 AM PDT

  •  What does that mean

    That isn't a terribly useful comment.  If winning is all that matters you could have switched to becoming a Republican.  Obviously it comes down to principles.  Now, you need to win.

    I'm not arguing that people couldn't have supported Hackett.  I think it can make sense to support someone who doesn't match you on every position if you think they stand for your core principles and can get elected.

    What doesn't make sense is to not vote for or support someone who has proven his principles when there is no other Democratic alternative.  That is a transparent value of personality over principles.

    by DemUnity on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:01:31 PM PDT

  •  Yes, Dems HAVE lost elections

    But does THAT fact mean that they are wrong to support Sherrod Brown over Paul Hackett?

    Does that mean that they have NO skills in election politiking?

    Of course not.

    The fact that a person lies about one thing does not mean that he is a pathological liar.

    The fact that a person splurges at the mall some does not mean that she is incapable of managing her money.

    And the fact that, given ALL the variables that go into election victories, Dems have lost more than they have won on a federal level recently does NOT mean that it was wrong to select Sherrod Brown over Paul Hackett.

    It COULD have been a bad decision. Since we don't have parallel universes, we'll never know if Paul Hackett would have done better against Rep. Mike DeWine.

    But what we DO know was that there was virtually no chance (without a major meltdown on the part of Sherrod Brown) for Paul Hackett to win the primary against Brown, so Hackett was NOT going to get the chance to run against DeWine ANYWAY this November, was he?

    A big reason why Democrats lost elections from 1994 until 2004 was because they were pretty corrupt after 40 years of having a hold of the reins of power in Congress. Another big reason they lost power? A 20 year effort (at that point in time) by the vast right wing conspiracy machine to confuse and mislead voters. Another big reason they lost elections? Karl Rove is good at what he does. Another big reason? 9/11 scared people, and the Bush Administration knew how to keep that fear alive. Another big reason? They knew how to drive their core voters to the polls with issues like gay marriage.

    Do you have ANY proof, any evidence that a reason that they lost elections was because they chose candidates like Sherrod Brown over candidates like Paul Hackett in Ohio?

    And are you aware that as of the elections in 2004, nationwide, there were something like 1763 Republican state legislators and 1762 Democrats? I don't remember the exact numbers - PBS's NOW show was the source, but their site is hard to search sometimes, so I'm not going to look up the exact figures - BUT I am certain that it was that nationwide, there was only 1 more Republican state legislator than Democratic representative.

    The country is split. Things will lean one way or the other, and it does not take a lot to lean the election one way or the other. The fact that Republicans have been able to lean the nationwide elections towards the Republicans does not mean that the Democratic leadership is totally bereft of politiking skills. A

    nd does not mean that they messed up by backing Brown over Hackett, when Hackett was clearly not going to win the primary. YOU think the leadership SHOULD back someone who's going to lose a primary? YOU think the party leadership SHOULD support a primary fight when it's clear who will win? I don't. And neither do they, and you have NO evidence that the overall result of their actions will be bad.

    by slouise217 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:03:55 PM PDT

•  Anyone who hopes that Brown loses...

  should find another board.  It's one thing to be unhappy about the way that Hackett was treated.  It's another thing entirely to hope that DeWine gets 6 more years to advance the Rethug agenda instead of a solid progressive like Brown.  

  I honestly don't understand that viewpoint.

  by RFK Lives on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:05:28 PM PDT

•  Party

  To me a party is a system used to bring like minded people together around a set of principles. I have always believed that the principles of the Democratic Party were best summed up by Franklin Roosevelt when he said:

  "The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple.  They are :
  Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
  Jobs for those who can work.
  Security for those who need it.
  The ending of special privilege for the few
  The preservation of civil liberties for all.
  The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
  These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world."
  

  by John Swords for Congress on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:17:53 PM PDT

•  Cult

  Great diary!   And you're right about the cult aspect.  It's almost scary how a lot of people are head over heels for a guy who's a virtual blank slate merely because he talks "tough."

  by Paleo on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:19:10 PM PDT

  •  Oh, Paleo.

    Always throwing that jab in at Paaul when you can.

    by AnthonySF on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:30:41 PM PDT

•  I'm with you...

  But I also suspect that what makes the "recommended" list is controversy & hype. (sorry)
  I truly, truly hope that the Hackett issue will blow over. The strength of the arguments back and forth make me suspicious that someone wants the battle to continue--and it can't be good for the Democratic party.

  I do not believe the Democrats in Ohio are "perfect". I don't agree with everything they/we do. But I think the worst thing for Ohioans would be a continuation of the republican regime -particularly if Blackwell gets in. He is a real menace (please note what's happening in District 6 - where the Dem Candidate was not allowed to refile candidacy application & came up 4 signatures short.)
  seethis

  The Enquirer's printed edition stated that the decision against Wilson was made by Blackwell. He is a ruthless adversary & we will have to fight like the dickens to win this year.

  by Lynwaz on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:21:53 PM PDT