Democrats are salivating at their November election prospects. No—I take that back—they are feverish with glee. Even conservative observers are suggesting that the Democratic Party has a superb shot at corralling the House and, dare we even consider, the Senate. According to a May 8 report in the Washington Post, Democrats need only 15 seats to win back the House.… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (9)Page 1 of 1 pagesIt’s not opportunistic, it’s realizing that winning political office and participating in policy making are structured in this country in a way that makes certain types of behavior manditory. One of the most important is a good amount of pragmatism. Only by being pragmatic can people possessing widely varying views on similar topics, can those possessing completely agendas, but share an set of principals; can interests groups consisting of completely disconnected populations join together in a comprehensive way and acheive as much of all their goals as possible in a reasonable amount of time.
The only caveat is each group has to set some realistic limit to how much they will compromise, and what they specifally expect in return for their “UNcompromising” support of the entire colletive.
Otherwise they end up spending all their time and effort and never making any progress towards their own particular focus.
We are seeing this happening real time in today’s political environment as traditional fiscal conservatives are waking up to the fact that they have compromised so completely all every issue dear to them save for tax cuts for the upper classes, that whatever they achieve in that regard, cannot begin to compensate for what they gave up to get it.
This is not the same thing that happened to Dems. Instead, the disparate elements that made up the Democratic party became so rightous and absolute in regards to each group’s specific agenda that the various groups made no effort to support any issues that were not their own. Gays only pushed their issues, blacks only pushed their issues, progressives pushed only their issues and so on.
This was compounded by the general belief that pragmatism was inherently a betrayal of their ideologically focused principals.
So rather than mend fences and quickly relearn to work together various “Democratic party interest groups” created their own self-focused standards of “truths” Which other Democrats had to adhere to or not get their support.
The most egregeous example of this was the Nader backstabbing betrayl in 2000, followed up by the mindless pursuit of the right to marry by gay rights activists solely to obtain a right that affected ONLY a tiny fraction of gays who have taken advantage of the right to marry, in the places where gay marriage is legal.
If the net result of these victories where they occur is so paltry, a common sense political approach would be re-prioritize the issue to reflect the “net result/gain.”
The biggest mistake Dems. made was to lower the priority on women’s issues. Instead of always being a primary central focus, it treated that issue like just one of many “interest group” issues, and then outsourced the handling of women’s issues to radical feminists. Whose experiences and beliefs were so alien to the typical middle/working and poor woman, they ended up pushing women away from the party. Just when the Dems. needed them the most.
There are a few core issues that should be declared “definitively Democrat” and women’s issues is one, but redefined to reflect middle/working class America, and NOT the extremist views of intellectual feminist radicals. Who mistakenly phrased it as a “battle against the patriarchy” and treated men as enemies to be defeated.
One way to define any issue is the ability of any one in particular to contribute significantly to national victory.
The converse is also true, any issue that is sure to bring national loss should NOT be made a “defining element” of being a Democrat.
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 23, 2006 at 2:06 PM whoa there johnny. I live in Massachusetts and the right for my gay friends to marry is still very important and many people, not just those directly affected, still care very deeply about that right. Moreover, and keeping with your point, they continue to care even after having gained the right.
Why? Because (in the case of gay marriage) it is not a right that is immediately relevent to all gay people, and yet one that many people (and those of us who care about and support them) hope to take advantage of one day. As a straight person I have always had the right to marry, but chose to wait until I was 30 to get it over with. Not every gay couple got married the first week it was legal, but many have since and many more will in the future.
Your larger point, that these ‘paltry’ victories undermine larger politics, is deceptively double-edged. On one hand, the Right has always been better at pushing and manipulating ‘wedge’ issues than the left, and have done a lot of damage by turning elections into single-issue referendums on abortion, gay marriage or immigration. On the other hand, as long as we let the Right choose the ‘wedge’ issues they want to run on, progressives will always be on the defensive, fighting by Karl Rove’s rules (or whomever fills his shoes at the moment). At least by choosing the issues to fight about, the Left can make it’s stand and build it’s base without looking like political weaklings scrambling for cover.
In the end, what it really comes down to when one considers the politics, is that the Right does best when it pushes closed-minded intolerance and a vision that placates people with a narrow view of the world. The Left, or a party that claims to represent the left like the Democrats do, will suffer from trying to represent a group that thinks open-mindedly about a variety of topics, sees things from more than one perspective, and attempts to solve problems from multiple directions rather than with bombs (or walls or God-rhetoric). A coalition is needed, some compromises will be made, but let’s not claim that the important issues should be shunted into mediocrity because it will be easier.
Posted by mn on May 23, 2006 at 2:36 PM Forgive me if my optimism is at low tide presently. The Democrats, known for their almost magical ability to turn opportunity into calamity, have sat with thumbs firmly up their respective asses while the Republicans have given them endless chances to destroy them. When any Democrat has risen to this challenge, his fellows have run away, like the k-niggits in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, after first savaging the Democrat foolish enough to have demanded action, responsibility or the awkward truth.
Now, we have this timid bunch waiting patiently for the promised Republican implosion, while forgetting that with electronic voting, a slim margin is highly fudgeable. Chucky Schumer is a good fundraiser! Well then, our problems are solved! Who needs a plan, backbone, ideas or charisma?
But seriously, I am delighted to know that so many Republicans are in trouble and may lose their seats to Democrats. Maybe even Joe Lieberman.
Posted by opeluboy on May 23, 2006 at 7:38 PM Opeluboy:
There is no double edge. What you assert “as long as we let the right choose the issues.....”
Umm, this issue was chosen by the right as well.
The struggle to get the right of gays to marry was flying UNDER the radar, getting little press. The right to marriage in mass and similar rights under different names in other states did NOT spring full blown. Instead they were often the result of long litigation, which eventually culminated in those rights being recognized.
The right wing recognized that the success of that struggle was a direct result of it happening almost unnoticed. So the FRight Wing decided to focus their Attn. on it, and realize the vast potential the issue had and still has to radicalize sides. An essential element of their “agenda of hate.”
The results of their actions, and strategically idiotic response of gay rights activists proved how right they were in every way.
The best response on the part of the supporters was one that is most likely impossible for any ideologue, just withdraw from the battle for a few months. Suspend all efforts, and make a firm commitment to resume full steam after the 2004 election had occurred.
By lying low, The FRIGHT wing’s dire warnings would have been seen by the vast majority as “crying wolf” about something that was no real danger.
Instead, gay rights activists decided we’re here, we’re queer and we’re not going to take it anymore (as if oppression is something oppressed groups “chose” to endure.)
The idea of a strategic political withdrawal never occurred to anyone.Gay rights activists believed the “righteousness of their cause” would lead them to victory, not any smart strategy or political pragmatism.This battle reminded me of the story of David and Goliath, only this David thought a slingshot compromised his “agenda.” This David, decided winning wasn’t enough. This David decided winning has to be achieved under the most favorable conditions to Goliath.
One of the lessons the biblical David’s victory was important it is to know and understand your and your opponents strengths and weaknesses, and most importantly how to think out of the box, and NEVER let pride prevent clear thought and strategy.
David obviously decided defeating Goliath was far more than the any sense of being “a real man by the standards of the day.” He wasn’t blinded by the righteousness of his cause.
He knew allowing that would mean he’d follow in the footsteps of all the dead soldiers, who tried to defeat this mighty foe fighting him on his terms.
We all know what he did, and how he one. We also know very thoroughly the tremendous cost gay rights has paid for being so blind to the reality, not only gay issues suffered, but we ended up with 4 more years of Bush. The whole nation is suffering.
Gay activists are still blinded by the righteousness of their cause, and have made absolutely NO effort to ensure future, building confrontations occur under more favorable terms.
There are many strategies gay rights proponents could adapt that would dramatically weaken the FRIGHT wing, but most are subtle, and require a persistence to successfully conclude. However, to go on would be to completely digress from the original topic that spawned yours and my post. :-D
I have to say one thing, whatever you do, don’t assume I oppose gay rights. I don’t, I believe fully in them. HOWEVER, believing they are right does not equate with being willing to make fruitless efforts that result in massive defeats over and over again.
Until gay activists recognize what “pragmatism” is, Dems. Progressives, Liberals, moderates are smart to completely avoid the issue, and do exactly what Clinton suggests.
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 24, 2006 at 1:20 PM Opulboy:
In regards to Joe Liberman… you don’t think the Democratic party will be diminished considerably if one of the most loyal, astute, focused Democrat in the senate loses his seat.
. He was the go to guy for all issues where Dems. need a strong voice to help it overcome Republikunt obsticles.
Joe, has NO problem making tough decisions, like deciding to give unequivocal support to invading and occupying Iraq to put an end to Saddam’s $25,000 payments to families of suicide bombers. Just how right he was that would stop if we did, is very clear. When the payments stopped, suicide attacks almost came to a complete halt. :-D
(JUST KIDDING) I hope he loses big time so big that any thought of running as a 3rd party candidate and ensuring the Dem. candidate loses is knocked out of his traitorous head. Its one thing to be “the enemy.” It’s far worse to declare you care and want to help as he does, only to use the trust the Dems. gave them to betray the entire party for causes that often have nothing to with the nation’s best interest.
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 24, 2006 at 1:28 PM johnny,
I think your characterization of Republicans as Republiku**s is uncalled for.
I bet you’re going to deny you meant anything by it.
Jeff
Posted by jeffc on May 25, 2006 at 2:10 PM jeffc,
what characterization?
That’s just my special way of spelling the word. Changing the spelling of the word does not automatically imbue it with any extra meaning, especially when replaces an ending with a “nonsense syllable.”
To my knowledge that syllable on its own has absolutely NO meaning in the English language, slang or otherwise.
There is nothing inherent in the altered spelling that re-characterizes the original word.
It’s just my special, silly way of spelling the word in order to mock it.There is NO motive behind it. In fact I am at a loss as to what you mean.
If you insist there is something “behind” my spelling, look at it another way.It’s kind of like a verbal inkblot test.
Any meaning you “read into it” is entirely dependent on your own way of looking at things.
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 25, 2006 at 3:15 PM Johnny,
As I predicted, you deny you meant anything by it. You’re so predictable.
Let’s see if you’re susceptible to my Jedi mind control: I’m just here to make sure Republicans are respected first and foremost in these discussions. They really appreciate my effort. You think that’s nice.
Jeff.
Posted by jeffc on May 26, 2006 at 12:28 PM Jeffc:
It’s always nice to know that you are here to make sure Republicans are respected first and foremost in our discussions. I’m sure they appreciate it.
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 26, 2006 at 2:47 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Laura S. Washington
- Honest Abe and Honest Obe
- The Whole World Was Watching
40 years ago this week, Chicago police battled protesters at the DNC. Two '60s radicals remember the madness, and look to Denver for change - Gun-toters in La-La Land
- The Great Election Robbery of 2008?
- Obama Not Feelin’ the Love from Smiley
- Who Would Ida B. Wells Vote For?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
