With apologies to Mel Brooks (for unauthorized and adulterated use of a line from High Anxiety), this diary looks into some of the troubles of the Democratic Party with a proposed solution.
We have seen a Democrat elected president with a clear mandate to enact a traditionally Democratic agenda, with large Congressional majorities, only to have trouble getting the highest priority legislation enacted.
We see through Daily Kos and other diaries every day that a sizeable faction of Democrats have become disillusioned and disengaged from action. The Organizing for America component of the DNC has struggled both to define its role and to engage the folks who were so involved in the campaign.
We see individual senators able to block legislation (e.g. Lieberman's threatened filibuster on substantative health care reform) and appointments (e.g. Kit Bond's holdup of the appointment of the GSA Director since August).
We see Representatives accepting fundraising and campaigning help from the Administration and then voting against the Administration's positions with impunity (e.g. Scott Murphy, NY-20, who had Obama campaign for him in his election bid and then had Biden do a fundraiser for him on the Monday before the healthcare reform vote, only to vote against the bill!).
How can these things happen, and how can they be fixed?
The main issue here is that there is no requirement from the Democrats for their officeholders to toe the party line in exchange for party support. The DSCC and DCCC are, first and foremost, concerned with electing Democrats, regardless of what 'kind' of Democrat they may be. You can be a former Klan member, oppose abortion rights, take campaign funds from insurance companies, or support unlimited war in Iraq without any impact on the party's support of you.
The solution to these problems is fairly straightforward. The Democratic Party must define itself, and require that officeholders support the Party position on issues in order to receive its support and/or to caucus with the Party.
We can create a straightforward, little-d democratic, method to enable an American version of party discipline. Democratic party members can vote nationally on planks of the party platform which will be defining of what the party stands for. It will then be up to the leadership to determine on an individual vote basis when officeholders are required to vote the party position and when they are free to 'vote their conscience.' This approach, taken in Britain, has the effect of ensuring that a party with a majority in the legislature is able to enact its agenda.
If we were to have this kind of mechanism, we wouldn't have to worry about the Scott Murphys traitoriously abandoning their campaign promises. We wouldn't have to worry about the Liebermans of the world 'double-crossing' the leadership. If they don't do what they're supposed to do, they would lose the party's financial and logistical support in their reelection bids, would be kicked out of the caucus, and would find their primary opponents directly supported by the party. This would serve as a very powerful incentive to do the right thing (in the cases where doing the right thing isn't incentive enough).
Having some semblance of party discipline would create a much stronger 'brand identification' for the Democratic Party. We would find activists fired up again. Organizing for America would be able to directly push for the Democratic agenda, even if it meant opposing the agendas of Blue Dog Democrats. No longer would people say things like, "Oh it doesn't really matter which party is in power, they all really stand for the same things," and electoral participation would likely rise in support of a clear platform backed by legislative action. Those Blue Dogs would either have to toe the line, leave the party, or take their chances running as Democrats with everyone in their districts knowing that they do not support the positions in the party platform.
Once we have a workable mechanism for party discipline, we could work on revising the Senate rules so that actions can't be blocked by individual senators like Kit Bond or Lieberman. Moving the cloture standard to, say, 45 votes would be achievable.
[youtube clip from high anxiety won't embed but quote is at 2:52 mark]