Skip to main content

I think the reason so many people are frustrated with the Democratic party is two fold. One, we have a party which is a coalition of different groups and secondly the way the party functions tends to ignore this reality. Speaking to both the disatisfied and the powers-that-be within the party, I would suggest that real change should start with the Democratic party itself.

Unlike many countries which have a parliamentary system of government we have a winner take all system that forces the formation of coalitions prier to elections (we've actually formed semi-permanent coalitions). This creates a form of government that looks simpler - you just have the two parties battling it out on the national stage - but is actually more difficult to understand because all the coalition wrangling takes place in a way that makes it very difficult to know who is winning, who is losing and who is on who's side.

For example: if we had a proportional election system  an election out come might look like this:

Progressive party 20%
Democratic party 25%
Blue Dog party 10%
Tea Party 20%
Republicans 20%
Libertarians 5%

You can see how a government might be formed as a coalition of the Progressive, Democratic and Blue Dogs. The man who became president would be a member of the Democratic party, and he might have a Progressive party member as his vice president while appointing cabinet positions etc. to other members of the three parties on a some what proportional basis. Everyone would understand why he is president and why his policies are more in line with the Democratic party then with the progressive party. Progressives would have progressive party members in the leadership who they could and would push for their policies.  Of course the frightening thing that jumps out at you when you look at this example is the power that the Blue Dogs would have (and in fact we have seen this in our own wranglings before the last elections - for us it just isn't as clear who holds what power).

But instead of this system we end up with everything lumped under the Democratic or Republican label (yes, if you dig into each member's caucuses etc. you can identify which sub group they more closely identify with, but your average voter is not going to do this). In our system the power sharing is more difficult to recognize leaving members of each party frustrated. Sometimes this frustration results in members feeling disenfranchised, mounting primary challenges or ,even, third party campaigns.

Another important consequence of our current system is the fact that the leadership within the party does not change smoothly and in a timely manner in response to a change in the membership of the party. Ex: a surge in progressives within the Democratic party is not marked by a equal change in the the number of progressives within the party's power structure - end result: frustration.  The social conservatives saw this reality and in the 1980's and 1990's worked hard to take over the party from the inside (this included fighting and winning many local and state elections) until they could demand that the Republican leadership (by this time many of them their own people that had worked their way up in the party) tow the line on hardcore socially conservative policies.

What can we do? Accepting that we can't change our winner-take-all system, I would advocate for a change in the structure of the Democratic party. Recreate the Democratic party so that it reflects the reality of a coalition party.  The power with in the party could reflect the strengths of the sub-parties as determined by how many state and local elected seats they occupy (Democrats holding office or running for office would be required by the party to identify which sub-party they identified with), how many members of the party (you and I) self identify as members of a sub-party, and by their showing in the last national primaries,

On primary ballots the candidates sub-party membership would be noted. So how well each sub-party candidate did in a primary would help to determine influence that the sub-party had at the state and national party level. Each member of the party - you and I - would have a choice of identifying with one of the sub-parties and this would also go into the calculation of power sharing, finally and most importantly the number of state and local offices held by members of the sub-parties would play a major role in determining who controlled the Democratic party.

By creating sub-parties within the Democratic party we could inspire competition between the sub-parties which would build party membership, loyalty and help us to win local and state seats. And by taking back control of state and local government (this is another area where the social conservatives saw an opportunity to gain an advantage - and have succeeded), we can begin to build a foundation for national change.

I know that it is hard to imagine this type of reform taking place. The people who hold power will always fear change, but I people that we are at a crossroads where we must make some radical improvements to the way we do business or we are looking a very bleak future.  

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

  •  Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)

    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

    by Wisdumb on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:41:39 AM PDT

  •  It could be simpler in concept (1+ / 0-)

    The problem at the root of this is the same problem one has to contemplate in considering such reforms as those above.

    The people who vote within the party have to be convinced.

    If you have gone to any precinct, county or state convention in any state over the years and looked around at who the people are that are there, you realize that the psychological makeup of this segment of the population is remarkably consistent.

    The reason that progressives are frustrated with the mainstream is that there is a lack of clarity about what is going on.

    First of all, progressives are early adopters.  In a technology adoption model, there are the innovators who bring about some sort of change.  Then there are the early adopters who begin to accept and adopt this.  Then there are a few more and a few more.  The graph then looks like a normal curve that has been pushed somewhat to the right of center.

    The largest number of people wait until a significant number of other people have checked something out, the bugs have been worked out and the price has come down.  It is a safer choice then.

    The political system is not friendly to early adopters.  If anything, it is a late adopter system.  Furthermore the anti adopters are very aggressive in pushing back.  

    This is true within the Democratic Party.  

    The solution is to find more ways to reach those who must be persuaded.

    One argument is that we are not in normal times.  Our issues are such that it is beyond the system we have for communicating, and our issues require a serious depth of deliberation that is unprecedented.  This situation has a level of urgency that requires attention and new ways of attending to the intellectual problem of just understanding the basic facts.  

    Our whole, entire political system is not moving fast enough. Its pace is generally still set for twentieth century conditions.

    Republicans have used think tanks for years to press an agenda on whatever venues in society they can use.  But are they really doing intellectual work in understanding the future?  No, not really.  They are crafting arguments for the monied interests that are self serving and anti future.

    Democrats can't compete with oil millionaires investing in self interest promotion.  But Democrats can invest in better thinking about the future that society really needs.  

    That only requires that individuals become more strategic in terms of how to persuade other Democrats.  Less emotional and reactive, more deliberate.  

    This blog has only been in existence for like five minutes, in historical terms.  Its potential is great as people begin to seize on the internet as an urgent resource for better deliberation.  It is in its infancy as a medium, but it has to come up fast.  We all do.  We don't have decades to develop.

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:15:45 AM PDT

    •  Everything you said is correct. (0+ / 0-)

      A sound bite world has come into existence, and I'm not sure that the blogs and other information sources are going to help. People seem to choose a side and then reinforce their opinions with information or disinformation they find on the web or in the media. There seems to be very few people who search for the truth, reality, or the best theory, and who are willing to change their beliefs or behavior based on the answers.

      "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

      by Wisdumb on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:37:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, there is today and then there is the future (0+ / 0-)

        One can begin to work today for the future.

        Blogs have been around for mere nanoseconds in the scheme of things.  

        The problem with new media, centered around the internet is not the technology.

        The problem is our decision making for how to use it.  We learn to speak at an early age and we also learn why we should speak.  Also, we learn to choose not to.  

        So, future generations may be in a better position to use this medium and to be innovative in finding new methods for communicating.  

        But there is not a lot of time.  A sense of urgency should be pressing on us for stepping it up.  We can't really afford the same old "Punch and Judy Show" approach to politics we have been used to for so long.

        hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

        by Stuart Heady on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:43:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site