Skip to main content

Maybe it's just me...

But if the majority defines the whole, then it's those who believe in representative accountability, regulation of big business, aggressive reduction of poverty, universal healthcare, and radical reappropriation of national resources w/r/t combating fundamentalist religiosity (amongst many other issues) who are the Democrats in name only.

Because quite clearly, the Democrats with the actual Name no longer fight for any of these things. If you, on the other hand, do, you're almost certainly in the wrong party, and throwing good money/language after bad.  

Modern, secular, left-leaning, European/Scandinavian-style humanists have very few reasons-- outside of a vulgar survivalist pragmatism--  to vote for the Democratic party. This has been true for quite some time, and every day this past week it's become a little clearer why.

I remember that book, What's The Matter With Kansas?, which, along with Lakoff's thing, was much chittered and sang about. Back in those days the whole Academy was churning, feeling relevant for a change, loaded with new language and feeling like they'd cracked some modern midwest ENIGMA and could adjust their attack accordingly, win one for once in a fight that actually mattered.  

In the thick of it, though, as we sketched and defined the gaps between the actual interests and the actual behaviors of GOP voters, giddy with insight, we failed to turn that same critical eye upon ourselves. We pretended that the Democratic party was still the party of FDR, which it emphatically was not, nor had been for quite some time.  

We lost site of our principles, got conned into serving politicians who stroked our intellects and heaped praises upon our cute (and lucrative) grassroots productions.  

We got fooled, as it were, again. Like any baffled mark, we gloried in the attention of the slick hustler. We wanted to make them happy, because they made us feel cool. Principles became important inasmuch as they functioned to create spooky and ineffable 'frames', 'memes', and 'narratives' that were more conducive to achieving victory...no, not to achieving victory. Rather, to winning and to winning alone.

Well, this is what we get and it's precisely what we deserve. Not so much though for the kids in Iraq.

Democrats, in name, believe in Big Business. All else follows. What do you believe in? Who's been saying it all along?

It's funny how sometimes that answer will surprise you.

Originally posted to overturned turtle on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:15 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It reminds me of a warning I heard (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    overturned turtle

    It's Talmudic in origin, which means it's more or less two thousand years old.

    "Be wary of politicians", it went (more or less), "because they are solicitous when they need your help; but in your hour of need, they will abandon you."

    Just goes to show. People are always the same, no matter where or when they find themselves.

  •  "vulgar survivalist pragmatism" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    overturned turtle

    Best reason in the world to do anything.
    Life is much better when people are happy and doing each other favours, win win means there are no losers, just content people.
    We live on a small ball of rock surrounded by a brutal universe, common sense that its in our interest to improve and make the earth and its ecosystem better and a survivable place, likewise with countries and the economic environment.
    The old cliché saying "reality has a liberal bias" also extends to 'life is better, when all are happy, not just the few'.

  •  Well said, Turtle... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    overturned turtle

    We gained too many cynics today.  Can it be that no matter what we do, no matter how democratic we try to be, we end up with an oligarchy anyway?  

    Frustrating.

    ...don't blame me, I voted for Ned!

    by theark on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:36:48 PM PDT

    •  it is, and i think that we will, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alien Abductee, theark

      but some oligarchies are created more less-equal than others.

      Things are, incontrovertibly, pretty rotten right now. Like a questionable peach, or a game bird hung out for a few days too long, this particular flavor of 2-party/3 branch military-industrial corporo(?)-governmentally-organized oligarchy has peaked, leaving a legacy, like that of all organic things, both beautiful and tragic, inspiring and shameful.

      It's frustrating, but it's natural. But also fundamentally good, because it means that the old options are no longer tenable and it's time for something new. Like New.

      It's no longer a radical position to state that enormous changes must be made to the daily lives of each individual on earth-- and especially to those of the wealthiest-- in order to cope with the economic and environmental realities of the 21st century.

      And these changes will come, to the people, to the government, and otherwise, albeit after much trouble and grief. They will come as though from nowhere, from the bottom-up, as the serious ones always do. Real social change happens when no one in power is able to claim the movement that produces it.  

      One day, far from then, somebody will give these changes a fancy capitalized name, like The Enlightenment, and in retrospect it will all look so obvious and inevitable, how everything had happened, so much so that the people will look back and wonder why we were ever worried at all.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site