I know I'm going to take a lot of heat for this, but I believe that this needs to be said.
This diary concerns this FAQ, and this part in particular:
It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable.
I have several problems with this sentiment, and I think its a problem that speaks directly to the failures of the current crop of Democrats.
Let's take this one at a time:
It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.
Winning is great, but it means nothing unless you do something with it.
This FAQ is outdated. It was written in 2004 when the political landscape was far different. Back then just electing Democrats by itself constituted a needed change.
Mission accomplished. Now what?
Considering the failures of the past year, just electing Democrats is a means to an end, not a grand goal in and of itself.
Yes, I know that Obama isn't a "magic Negro" (as described on last night's Daily Show), but at the same time wasn't an easily attainable goal to have closed down Gitmo by now? Wasn't it an easily attainable goal to have denounced and outlawed all forms of torture? Wasn't it an easily attainable goal to have denounced and outlawed domestic spying? Wasn't it an easily attainable goal to at least have a plan for pulling out of Iraq, especially when the Iraqi government has voted to make us leave and the entire base of the Democratic Party wants us out?
This isn't magic we are talking about. This is just politics.
The battle for the party is not an ideological battle.
This is the heart of what is wrong with the Democratic Party, and the failures of the past year.
One definition of ideology is: "a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions."
In other words, its an answer to the question of "Now what?"
Daily Kos represents the base of the Democratic Party. If we don't have an ideology then the Democratic Party won't have one either. Without an ideology what you get is politics for the politicians.
Politics then becomes nothing but a horse race, where you bet on the winners and hope you don't lose. The starting line and finish line is basically the same, day in and day out. It becomes a game for the wealthy and elite. Nothing significantly gets changed.
Oh sure, I know the counter-argument: We are supposed to be a big tent.
Yet the history of DKos says otherwise. Consider the example of Joe Lieberman. It was the netroots that got him kicked out of the Democratic Party.
Therefore there is a limit to how much the people here will tolerate. There is an ideology here. Otherwise you would all be welcoming wing-nuts into the tent. It isn't just a matter of someone having an (R) or a (D) in front of their name.
You actually want results, and not results that look like the policies of George Bush. You don't want torture. You don't want domestic spying. You do want a public option in health care reform. You do want the Big Banks on Wall Street to be regulated and broken up.
These are all results that resemble an ideology. You don't want these results just because the Republicans hate them. You want them because you believe in something, and believing in something is the foundation of an ideology.
This is a good thing. This is nothing to be ashamed of.
What's more, having an ideology is also helpful for getting elected.
An ideology mobilizes the base. An ideology gets results when you do get elected, which further mobilizes the base. It's a self-reinforcing process.
The Democratic Party's glory days, after the New Deal and all the way up to the Great Society, was when it was the most ideological. There is a lesson to be learned from that.
On the other hand, when the Democratic Party turned away from its base in 1993, the Democrats got killed in election after election. It was a very dark time until 2006.
It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable.
I agree with both of these statements. However, it also demonstrates that the narrow goal of electing Democrats is not enough.
Just look at how the present crop of Democrats have rolled over for Wall Street. And why shouldn't they? After all, if politics is nothing but a horse race then pandering to your largest campaign contributors is the smart thing to do.
Real change is not going to come from the top. It almost never does. Change is going to have to come from the bottom. People are going to have to demand it. Just electing someone with a (D) in front of their name is not enough. Just electing someone who mouths the words we want to hear is not enough.
We must have goals. Clearly definable goals. In order to do that we must have a clear ideology.
The diary today by clammyc asks why there is no connection with the voters. It asks why our message gets drowned out so easily by a minority of people. It asks why there was no clear message coming from the Democrats.
I have an answer to those questions: There is no ideology. Without an ideology the message will drift and sound weak. Without an ideology there will be questions of what your party stands for.
To sum it up, here's my proposal: We change the FAQ, the purpose of DKos, to make it clear that this is a progressive blog.
We hold progressive values here.
We believe war is the last resort, not the first.
We are against torture and domestic spying.
We support the interests of the working class over the interests of the wealthy, in the proud tradition of FDR.
We support businesses that make things over businesses that speculate.
We don't just want health insurance reform, we want universal health care regardless of the interests of the insurance industry.
We support rolling back the deregulation of the financial industry.
...well, the details I leave up to this community. I don't care so much what the community agrees to support, as long as it agrees to an ideology.