This would be a good development for us, but I'm not sure if it would be good for the Democratic Party.
Here is my heretical thinking: assume, for the moment, that the allegations of voter fraud are false or irrelevant. Why then did Kerry lose the election? There were more voters who held beliefs that coincide with W's position than there were who felt more comfortable with Kerry.
Assume that the youth vote still isn't going to materialize, and so there's no untapped resource of new Democrat voters that can be recruited. I'm really unhappy with how that turned out (I heard 1 out of 10 of 18-20 voters actually did, but I can't find a source), and I don't see what beyond the prospect of an imminent draft could bring them out.
Assume also that the primary goal of the Democratic Party is to get its members elected to office, and that espousing a particular political philosophy is secondary to that. This is the biggest leap you have to take, but it makes sense to me in that Clinton drove his party towards the middle during his term, and nobody seemed too mad about that.
If you're willing to believe that, why would you choose somebody left of Kerry to lead your party?
(granted, I don't completely understand the role of the chairman)
The Democrats have been floundering for 3 years, and have had no leadership or energy to fire them up. That is why Kerry lost, in some ways. IF there is one thing Howard Dean does well, it is fire people up. Plus, he wants to focus on the grassroots, starting with local offices and moving up. That's how you rebuild a party, not by solely focusing on the presidency.
your assessment of political priorities is wrong, klimas. f.d.r., the last century's banner democrat, issued a speech near the end of his first term condemning democrats who acted republican, saying firmly that the party didn't need or want anyone like that. that action catalyzed southern democrats, sending them in droves to the republican party. the democrats have not done well in the south since (save clinton, who i no longer consider to be valuable in any way). the point? principle is worth something. no surprise that the democratic party would lead the civil rights charge, enforcing largely unpopular legislation based on a constitutional principle of equality. additionally, the emphasis of strategy over policy doomed this election from the start. why didn't kerry win? because he was a lousy candidate. from the beginning, the dnc treated this as a referrendum on bush: people would opt away from the president if he was unpopular enough. well, the voting public saw through that. bush ran an organized, opportunistic campaign that gave him the presidency in resounding fashion. i don't give a shit about 'voting irregularities:' no computer flaw is going to make up 3.5 million votes. 3.5 million! bush won the election on bush's terms, and kerry lost the election on bush's terms. thus my support for howard dean in the primaries: better to treat the election as unwinnable and suffer a loss befitting the democratic party's ideals than treat the election as winnable and nominate a middling clintonian who will pander to moderate interests. the suggestion that dean could end up dnc chairman is the first good news i've heard out of the party in, well, 10 years.
well, klimas, in 2000, almost 3 million members of the voting public were disillusioned enough with clinton's drive to the middle to vote nader and hand the election to bush. clinton's moderatism, which clearly no one has the charisma to replicate, fucked the democrats royally.
Interesting points. I agree with you -- it just seems like from what I've read, the Dems are trying to figure out how they can come back from this election, and all the discussion is on how to win the next one. i.e. gamesmanship over idealism.
I think it's a consequence of the two-party system that idealistic parties never make it into office. Almost 3 million votes sounds impressive, but that's only 2.74%. (I'm assuming we're both looking at the same wikipedia entry.) If the Dems are going to ever get more than a heartbreaking, narrow defeat, they're going to have to do better than that.
Argh. I was about to go on a rant about religion overtaking policy in this country, and the breakdown of the electorate, but I really just don't have the energy anymore. Give me a few days.
i read a fascinating defense of the two-party system recently, and i can't remember where. the main thrust was that the existence of two (and only two) parties prevents large-scale political fragmentation while ensuring the political discourse will be limited to only the most important issues. ask anyone what this campaign was about, and they'll say the standard, "terrorism, abortion, gays, economy/health care." the debate is managable and accessible. obviously, the argument is flawed: the debate is managable because it is controlled, and because it is controlled, there is no assurance that the issues are, in fact, the most important. most of the playing field is off-limits because the democrats and republicans agree. every four years, in what can almost be discribed as choreography, the candidates identify what makes them different, and those become 'the most important' isssues of the election. to be perfectly honest, i don't see that much of a difference between a two-party system and a one-party system. they are both effective at limiting expression and preventing comprehensive governmental change. we've had a tremendous continuity of leadership (kennedy and reagan, as chomsky says, are practically the same man) in this country, and with rare exceptions (johnson, carter, bush ii) our leadership hasn't offended members of the opposition party. to wrap it up, every other modernized democracy in the world has provisions for political parties written into their constutions. there are definitions, responsibilities, requirements to receive funding, etc. because we have nothing of the sort, because the parties themselves have written the rules they will play by, third parties will remain (permanantly?) unviable. the constitution needs an amendment defining and standardizing political parties, offering them federal funding if they receive 1% of the vote. additionally (and more radically), it should strip them of the ability to raise and spend their own cash. publically-funded elections, to borrow a naderism. i firmly believe all of this, knowing that if an environment is created in which smaller parties can thrive, the democrats and liberals will fragment far quicker and more completely than the right.
7 comments:
This would be a good development for us, but I'm not sure if it would be good for the Democratic Party.
Here is my heretical thinking: assume, for the moment, that the allegations of voter fraud are false or irrelevant. Why then did Kerry lose the election? There were more voters who held beliefs that coincide with W's position than there were who felt more comfortable with Kerry.
Assume that the youth vote still isn't going to materialize, and so there's no untapped resource of new Democrat voters that can be recruited. I'm really unhappy with how that turned out (I heard 1 out of 10 of 18-20 voters actually did, but I can't find a source), and I don't see what beyond the prospect of an imminent draft could bring them out.
Assume also that the primary goal of the Democratic Party is to get its members elected to office, and that espousing a particular political philosophy is secondary to that. This is the biggest leap you have to take, but it makes sense to me in that Clinton drove his party towards the middle during his term, and nobody seemed too mad about that.
If you're willing to believe that, why would you choose somebody left of Kerry to lead your party?
(granted, I don't completely understand the role of the chairman)
The Democrats have been floundering for 3 years, and have had no leadership or energy to fire them up. That is why Kerry lost, in some ways. IF there is one thing Howard Dean does well, it is fire people up. Plus, he wants to focus on the grassroots, starting with local offices and moving up. That's how you rebuild a party, not by solely focusing on the presidency.
your assessment of political priorities is wrong, klimas. f.d.r., the last century's banner democrat, issued a speech near the end of his first term condemning democrats who acted republican, saying firmly that the party didn't need or want anyone like that. that action catalyzed southern democrats, sending them in droves to the republican party. the democrats have not done well in the south since (save clinton, who i no longer consider to be valuable in any way). the point? principle is worth something. no surprise that the democratic party would lead the civil rights charge, enforcing largely unpopular legislation based on a constitutional principle of equality. additionally, the emphasis of strategy over policy doomed this election from the start. why didn't kerry win? because he was a lousy candidate. from the beginning, the dnc treated this as a referrendum on bush: people would opt away from the president if he was unpopular enough. well, the voting public saw through that. bush ran an organized, opportunistic campaign that gave him the presidency in resounding fashion. i don't give a shit about 'voting irregularities:' no computer flaw is going to make up 3.5 million votes. 3.5 million! bush won the election on bush's terms, and kerry lost the election on bush's terms. thus my support for howard dean in the primaries: better to treat the election as unwinnable and suffer a loss befitting the democratic party's ideals than treat the election as winnable and nominate a middling clintonian who will pander to moderate interests. the suggestion that dean could end up dnc chairman is the first good news i've heard out of the party in, well, 10 years.
well, klimas, in 2000, almost 3 million members of the voting public were disillusioned enough with clinton's drive to the middle to vote nader and hand the election to bush. clinton's moderatism, which clearly no one has the charisma to replicate, fucked the democrats royally.
Interesting points. I agree with you -- it just seems like from what I've read, the Dems are trying to figure out how they can come back from this election, and all the discussion is on how to win the next one. i.e. gamesmanship over idealism.
I think it's a consequence of the two-party system that idealistic parties never make it into office. Almost 3 million votes sounds impressive, but that's only 2.74%. (I'm assuming we're both looking at the same wikipedia entry.) If the Dems are going to ever get more than a heartbreaking, narrow defeat, they're going to have to do better than that.
Argh. I was about to go on a rant about religion overtaking policy in this country, and the breakdown of the electorate, but I really just don't have the energy anymore. Give me a few days.
i read a fascinating defense of the two-party system recently, and i can't remember where. the main thrust was that the existence of two (and only two) parties prevents large-scale political fragmentation while ensuring the political discourse will be limited to only the most important issues. ask anyone what this campaign was about, and they'll say the standard, "terrorism, abortion, gays, economy/health care." the debate is managable and accessible. obviously, the argument is flawed: the debate is managable because it is controlled, and because it is controlled, there is no assurance that the issues are, in fact, the most important. most of the playing field is off-limits because the democrats and republicans agree. every four years, in what can almost be discribed as choreography, the candidates identify what makes them different, and those become 'the most important' isssues of the election. to be perfectly honest, i don't see that much of a difference between a two-party system and a one-party system. they are both effective at limiting expression and preventing comprehensive governmental change. we've had a tremendous continuity of leadership (kennedy and reagan, as chomsky says, are practically the same man) in this country, and with rare exceptions (johnson, carter, bush ii) our leadership hasn't offended members of the opposition party. to wrap it up, every other modernized democracy in the world has provisions for political parties written into their constutions. there are definitions, responsibilities, requirements to receive funding, etc. because we have nothing of the sort, because the parties themselves have written the rules they will play by, third parties will remain (permanantly?) unviable. the constitution needs an amendment defining and standardizing political parties, offering them federal funding if they receive 1% of the vote. additionally (and more radically), it should strip them of the ability to raise and spend their own cash. publically-funded elections, to borrow a naderism. i firmly believe all of this, knowing that if an environment is created in which smaller parties can thrive, the democrats and liberals will fragment far quicker and more completely than the right.
Post a Comment