In the Past the Democratic Party has done some wonderful things: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act, and many other progressive leaps forward often labeled under the frame, The New Deal. Yet, amid all of these accomplishments we were faced with opposition within our own coalition. Namely the South. However, we stillaccomplished these things.
Recently this blog has become occupied with debates about the values of democratic hopefuls. Specifically, what values must they have in order to be a Democratic candidate. Some say this should not matter, while others say they are DINOs and are unacceptable.
While, I am not convinced the Democrats should open the door to any old candidate, simply because they can win. I would note that we ought to remember that a broad coalition can do more than a narrow ideological group anyday of the week.
For instance, suppose we have a pro-labor democrat, who happens to be against environmental issues, and a Environmental Democrat, who is a free trader. They could still work together on the issues they do agree on. Say women's rights. Since this is an area that affects both of their issues directly. Enviromental dem= overpopulation. Labor dem= increased poverty. However, if we exclude one over the other. Due to ideological issues, forcing weaker candidates into the elections. We end up with two anti-labor, anti-environmental, anti-women's rights Republicans. We can all agree that would be a bad thing.
However, many of the critics of the current open tent movement would point out. "How many DINO's can you have before you might as well have Republicans?" This is a good point. Which goes back to my first point. We have accomplished many great things with a coalition that included conservative Southern Democrats, who were more conservative then people like Casey could ever be. They yet things got done. Whether, it was by compromise with Republicans,(Civil Rights Act) or helping giving the Southerners lucrative government contracts. (TVA, NASA) The point is we could still achieve what we wanted. And let's not forget that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Conversion was possible.
As stated above, the Casey's of our party hardly compare in conservatism with the Southern group. Which makes it difficult for me to see why we could not work with them on furthering our cause. This makes the DINO charge even more troubling to me. Is one issue enough to make you a DINO? Is one issue enough to unmake you a DINO? I don't think a anti-labor, anti-enviromental, anti-civil rights, pro-choice democrat is anyless of a democrat, than a pro-labor, pro-enviromental, pro-civil rights anti-choice democrat. Even thought I would have problems with both.
Further, are these distinctions too dichotomous? is it as simple as anti-choice vs. pro-choice. Perhaps my candidate above is only personally anti-choice and would never try to use the law as an intrument of change. Perhaps they are the very rare truly pro-life person. No wars, no death penalty, universal healthcare, etc.
I am not trying to advocate anything more than this. We are seeing the republican coalition starting to collapse. Part of that comes from its icreasingly unpalatable taste to the many non-rapture right, non-economical libertarian members, who no longer feel the party stand's for them. The Club for Growth, forcing increasingly conservative candidates upon them, is a large cause. We would be foolish to repeat that mistake. I would not like to see a democratic club for growth, that ignores the power of a broad coalition to make far more sweeping progressive changes, than could ever be accomplished by the ideological core. If you have read this far, thank you for your time. I appreciate it and I appreciate your views as well, even if they don't agree with mine.