The Democratic Party is a party with a big umbrella. With exceptions, ethnic groups fill our numbers because they feel more comfortable with us (I am one of them). Marginalized groups that strive to move society a notch higher like gays, environmentalists, and others do not run to the Republican Party for accommodation. They go to the Democratic Party instead because there is the only chance for a reasonable hearing.
The working class and the poor, the teachers and the civil servants, the students and the elderly poor, the freethinker and the progressive Christian they all belong to the Democratic Party. The Democrats, in other words, represent the broadest spectrum of the U.S. society. (Of course, there are these diminutive parties focused on some of these groups' interests. But in a non-parliamentary democracy they count little if they cannot garner more than 20% of the national vote).
No wonder during the Democratic Convention we had so many problems just drafting the simplest of the committee's drafts. We deal with more diversity of thoughts, experiences, cultural baggages and idiosyncrasies than any other party. The Republicans, on the other hand, were able to approve drafts, nominations and constitutions in a zip, giving them enough time to enjoy New York City at the expense of its dwellers.
Keeping a harmonic voice in our party is not only difficult because of our diversity, but because it is in the party's nature to lean toward dissension. It was with FDR dissension against free-fall capitalism that gave the party its new face, steadily jettisoning the old southern and racist baggage. The party's (albeit partial) embrace of the Civil Rights Movement transformed the institution by moving us more toward the dissenting tradition.
This spirit of dissension is visible almost in every aspect of the party. Does the RP has rules for gender balanced leadership? No, but democratic organizations like the DFL does. Why, because it dissents against patriarchalism. Did repug blogs disagree often among each other? No, but you see in Dailykos people dissenting all the time in an effort to stay honest.
The whole history of the U.S. has been built upon dissension; dissension against monarchy, dissension against a government without representation; dissension against coercion. In fact, we are so disagreeable that our declaration of independence was considered a forbidden document in other nations, the same way books by our progressive left are threats to present-day intolerant governments.
So, we are diverse, with a taste for disagreement. Keeping a party like this together is really difficult. Keeping a group of people like this from eating each other is hard work--harder than leading the Republican Party, or any other party for that matter.
I personally love dissension. Some of my fondest memories are not of how obedient I was to institutions. Before I got into the habit of learning about candidates, I used to vote solely based on anti-incumbency. Today, I profoundly dislike people who blindly support the status quo. Dissension keeps us honest, challenge us to improve, and give the dissenter a purpose of living.
That is why I am not completely surprised or upset when I see people here criticizing the same ticket they were supporting a week ago. Dissension even at this level indicates a healthy independent thinking, evidence that we are not fascists, and that we still have the big umbrella.
Yet, I think that too much of a good thing can also be detrimental for us. After the rude awakening to Rove's maneuvering last week some of us have gone into a rampant deriding our leaders that leave lots to be desired. At this point, I think, that sound judgment should rule over the instinct of dissension. Our leaders are losing more than political positions and private life. They are losing our support, and remember that they went on a limb because we asked then to do so.
I wonder if there would be any capable leader that would like to lead a gang like ours if we will just exterminate him/her if there is no clear victory.
Because of our weak condition at the moment we should line up behind our leaders (while still criticizing them) because they are suffering as much as we are--probably more. I am not suggesting blind loyalty, but empathy and an emphasis on shared values we have with them. My wife and I were just crying like babies when learning about Mrs. Edwards' condition, and looking at the sad Kerry pictures in the Time magazine. Are those the faces deserving our derision? I am disappointed that he did not wait until all the votes were counted, as he promised, and I would like to hold him accountable for that. But, that is not enough reason for me to deride him.
It would be much better if we could find a way to criticize and dissent without destroying our own people because in this way we assist our political enemies and break down our own foundations. In some ways the Democratic Party shares the spirit of the French and Haitian Revolutions. These revolutions brought deep and virtuous social changes, but at the same time they develop an inclination for self-destruction and internal violence. I think that we could avoid that by finding the line between valid criticism and personal derision.
Hence, stop deriding our own people. They need us and we need them. Let's hold them accountable in the same way we would like them to hold us responsible for our actions.
