The Dog comes from a sprawling Irish family. One of the most prevalent traits from this family and even the Irish culture is the ability to work up a good solid grudge. There is even a joke; "Do you know what Irish Alzheimer’s is? You forget everything but the grudge." It is one of those it-is-funny-because-it-is-true types of jokes. So take the Dogs word for it that he knows the joys of nursing a complaint to the determent of any goal.
The reason the Dog is talking about this is that there seems to be a lot of issue based grudge nursing against the Democratic Party. This is not to say that there is not valid reason to be upset with the performance of our federal level Dems, there is, but the Dog thinks that there are a couple of factors that we (meaning netroots with particular issues) seem to forget. These factors do not in any way let the Dems off the hook, that is not what this is about at all, but there is some level setting about how things are and what they mean in terms of getting your particular agenda items moved forward.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the Democratic Party is a genuine Big Tent party. We do not enforce ideological discipline (Hell, if the treatment of Sen. Lieberman (Asshole, CT) is any indication, there is no discipline beyond the symbolic), which makes the Party a constant battle for direction. We do not vet you, if you say you are a Dem, hey, you are! To the Dogs mind this is a good thing. Just look at what being hard core about what it means to be a true member of the Party is doing to the Repugs. They are whittling themselves down as the purge and purge and purge those that are felt to be insufficiently Republican and Conservative.
The thing about being a Big Tent Party is that it is always messy. There are competing agendas, but more that that there are competing priorities. The conservative Dems are not going to like the things that the liberal Dems feel are important. What most often gets attention is the things that get consensus agreement. These tend to be the ones in the middle, which do not have even a whiff of controversy and contention. For those that have a burning issue, this is more frustrating than a raspberry seed suck under a tooth.
This can lead to a group, any group that has an agenda item whether it is torture, full civil rights for gay citizens, global warming, restoring the Constitution, or any other that they find paramount to get frustrated with the pace of change with the Party and call for some kind of action to "make them see that they need us more than we need them!!". If you actually have the numbers this tactic makes sense. The problem is that getting any group of Dems together behind on issue is like trying to herd cats, hopped up on crank, through Los Angelis, during an earthquake, in the rain.
If you don’t believe the Dog, read the comments on any liberal blog, any day. On an issue that affects a group (say gay citizens) there is consensus that something should be done, but that is as far as it gets. When it comes down to the details, things fall apart. It also assumes that groups that the Dems have counted on for votes are monolithic. Only 57% of the Latino population is a Dem or leans that way, according the Pew poll. You can find it here. But even all of those voters are not going to be unified in why they vote for Dems or if they do.
There is another problem with thinking that a group leaving the party or holding their support out until they get the issue they want. It assumes that the group is concentrated enough to make a difference. For a Presidential election, it may be the case (though it still is a state by state, not national number) but for Congress it really is not an effective way to look at things. Ask yourself if you would hold back support of a Dem Senator from your state that you feel does a good job, just to push the Party as a whole to move the direction the interest group you belong to wants things to go.
Most of us are not going to do that. Which brings us to the final problem, the Democratic Party is not monolithic in and of itself. We use "Dems" as short hand but there are all kinds of Dems. In the aggregate we can say that Dems tend to be for social programs, tend to be for labor, tend to be more populist that business oriented, but for every one of those generalizations there are specific Dems that break that mold, and it is not always the same Dems.
This is really where valid frustration meets the difficulty of getting a narrow agenda done. The Netroots do not speak in one voice and neither does the Democratic Party. If we do not take that into account it looks like a good idea to punish "them". The problem is that the "them" is an illusion. You can push all you like on a idea, but it does not get anything done because there is nothing to act on. You have to persuade people, people that might not have your urgency on a given issue. To do that you have to be in contact with them, have some common goal that allows you to have some say in how they act.
We have to keep in mind that once a person elected to office, they are supposed to represent us all, not just the point of view of those that voted for them. The Repugs have done that and you can see for yourself how well it worked out. The people we send to Washington are just that, people. It is easy to be overwhelmed by the number of demands that the constituency of their district or State make. They not only have to balance all the needs of their constituents, but they have to make compromises with others that have the same charge. It makes pushing the concerns of even 10% of the voters a kludge at best.
Hopefully this provides a little prospective for those that might be upset enough to propose bolting or withholding support from the party. If you still think that it is best to try to get a group together to leave and show your power, go right ahead. The Dog thinks that you will find that there are less that feel strongly enough about whatever the issue is than you think, but he might be wrong. If you can make enough clearly defined noise, you might get your issue worked on, but most likely you will make yourself and your cause less relevant.
To the Dogs mind the best thing that those who are upset with the way the Party is going can do is get in there, be vocal and insistent that you will not shut up or go away until they do what you want. Knowing and seeing that there is no way to marginalize you and your issue is far more likely to get it pushed up the agenda than is taking your voice and your issue where it is not a problem for those in power.
That is the Dogs point of view, what’s yours? The floor is yours.