N.B. Many will wish to simply respond to particular aspects of my argument based on their support for a particular candidate or policy position. There are no value judgements here, please do not impute your own perceptions or connotations to my arguments if you choose to respond.
Seemingly for several months now I have tried to put my finger on what I see as an awkward difference between the various Democratic candidates. Over the weekend I had an epiphany. The Democratic party is two parties.
I have attempted to articulate this theory over the past several months in multiple ways: the Party of Protest v. the Party of Pragmatism, the Party of Merlot v. the Party of Budweiser, the Party of Starbucks v. the Party of Dunkin Donuts. I have found a better distinction than the aformentioned semiological* differences. Far from painting these two "wings" of the Democratic party by their various signs and symbols we are a party of two ideologies and indeed these are based in two distinct political theories and definitions of the term democracy.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's essay "The Origin of Inequality" (rarely given the attention granted to his later work, The Social Contract [ie you should all read it]) represents one faction and the other while the other is more readily defined by J. S. Mill.
Note: In my following analysis I make no value judgement as to which philosophical system is better nor do I argue that every Democrats falls neatly into one group or the other but what I do argue is that in the aggregate there are 2 distinct groups.
The Rousseau types (hereafter the Consensus Party) are often characterized as more socialist (a misnomer). Of the current presidential candidates Al Sharpton, perhaps Carol Mosley Braun, Dennis Kucinich and Dick Gephardt fall into this category. Former presidents in this group include Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Consensus Party types seek to tap into majority opinion and utilize Mass Democracy for their purposes. The General Will is sacrosanct and the wishes of the People as a whole are considered above all. Their governing style while not necessarily short on substance tends to focus on the emotional aspect. These types will generally forego the single-voter issues and articulate a society-wide vision of the country's future. Their supporters, in general, make up the NASCAR/Budweiser vote who generally do not have extensive education
The Mill types (hereafter the Ideals Party) are often characterized as Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, John Kerry and Wesley Clark. While ostensibly ranging the ideological spectrum with Kerry perhaps most Left and Dean/Lieberman most Right these distinctions are irrelevant for this analysis. Former Presidents in this group include Woodrow Wilson, JFK, Nixon, and George H. W. Bush.
Members of the Ideals Party, characterized by their ideas and reverent of individual freedoms place the Rights of Individuals and Ideals above the will of the masses. While they respect the as Mill did the 'marketplace of ideas' they generally believe that they (including their staff and administration) have the best ideas of how change should occur and will seek to define the public will in their policy ideas. Many will characterize this group as elitist but that term does not adequately describe the governing style of these types. For a brief return to semiotics (for purely pedagogical purposes) this is the "Starbuck's vote," in general their supporters are highly educated, well read and very aware and knowledgable about domestic and global affairs. Ideals Party types tend to focus on the rational aspects of government. Additionally, they are more likely to concentrate on single-issue (abortion, affirmative action, environmental, etc.) voting blocks and seek to build coalitions unlike the Consensus Party types who will as I stated before follow the mass will. To provide a recent example these are what Zell Miller refered to as "the groups."
The above arguments are admittedly very simplistic; however, I think the end conclusion is that we are two parties as are the Republicans. The reason that I believe our party breakdown is so different from those of the Europeans is that their parties break down fairly neatly along the lines I mentioned above while ours blend the two. It is therefore far easier for Democrats and Republicans to accuse the other of hypocrisy because our two parties ARE internally hypocritical. I would even venture that a successful Presidential ticket combines the Consensus Party and the Ideals Party as was the case of FDR/Garner, JFK/LBJ, Reagan/Bush, Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney (Gore/Lieberman where both Ideals Party members).
*Semiological or semiotics refers to the study of signs as a indicators of a perceived reality when it actually represents a manufactured reality. For example, as a product of 2 cultures Anglo-American (father) and Mexican (mother) I can more easily see the reality of being a Mexican-American or even a Mexican. Most people look for the "signs" of Mexican-ness to denote the reality of what is "authentically" Mexican. Or to put it another way people commonly determine reality based on the existence of Things (chihauhas, mariachis, margaritas, sombreros, etc.) rather than to look for Mexican Reality. The real Mexico is not sexy, not TV friendly, etc. which is why people look for and consume the commodities of Mexican-ness rather than that which is Mexican.