Whither the Democratic Party?
The Democratic Party just selected Howard Dean to head the Democratic National Committee. In his hands the Democrats are now placing enormous influence and responsibility for getting their party back onto a track (they hope) to better challenge or even supplant the current Republican hold on the Senate, the House of Representatives, State governorships, and the Presidency.
Far be it from me to offer advice to a party that represents positions and philosophies that I frequently disagree with, but it appears to me that they’re heading in exactly the wrong direction. I have mixed feelings about this – on the one hand, if the Democrats continue to self-destruct, it improves the odds that policies that I believe are in the best interest of the nation and its citizens will be continued and/or enacted. On the other hand, I also believe in a strong two-party system in which both parties offer competing sound, thoughtful programs that they sincerely believe are in America’s best interests. A Democratic Party that whines, hates, and obstructs itself into oblivion, while offering short-term satisfaction to conservatives, is not likely to be in the best interests of the nation in the long run.
Unfortunately, the ascent of Howard “I Hate the Republicans and Everything They Stand For” Dean does not auger well, either for the tone of near-term political discourse or the long-term health of the Democratic Party and the two-party system. Faced with a choice between a) rational, thoughtful centrist Democrats in the Truman/JFK mold, like Joe Lieberman, who can and will draw significant support from the election-deciding middle, and b) shrill, negative, defeatist, "can't do", repel-the-center leftists like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy – and Howard Dean – the Democrats appear to be clearly opting for the latter.
Furthermore, while they sharpen their obstructionist talons, the Democratic Party thus far doesn't seem to have put much effort or thought into developing and presenting an attractive set of competing programs or proposals that can serve as a springboard for thoughtful debate and compromise. Democrats have become the reactionary party of rigid, uncompromising defense of the status quo, and little else. Thus they will continue to get the votes of those on the far left that already support them, while taking on a huge risk that they will alienate many more than they attract from the center. Believing they will become more competitive with the Republican Party, they may very well – and unintentionally – find themselves instead becoming more like, and less distinguishable from, the Green Party and other fringe far-left groups.
What kind of a strategy is that?
The Democrats can't hope to gain by just being the party that advocates hatred of Republicans and all they stand for. They've got to give people good, solid, attractive reasons to vote FOR them.
And that doesn't look very promising at this point in time.
Far be it from me to offer advice to a party that represents positions and philosophies that I frequently disagree with, but it appears to me that they’re heading in exactly the wrong direction. I have mixed feelings about this – on the one hand, if the Democrats continue to self-destruct, it improves the odds that policies that I believe are in the best interest of the nation and its citizens will be continued and/or enacted. On the other hand, I also believe in a strong two-party system in which both parties offer competing sound, thoughtful programs that they sincerely believe are in America’s best interests. A Democratic Party that whines, hates, and obstructs itself into oblivion, while offering short-term satisfaction to conservatives, is not likely to be in the best interests of the nation in the long run.
Unfortunately, the ascent of Howard “I Hate the Republicans and Everything They Stand For” Dean does not auger well, either for the tone of near-term political discourse or the long-term health of the Democratic Party and the two-party system. Faced with a choice between a) rational, thoughtful centrist Democrats in the Truman/JFK mold, like Joe Lieberman, who can and will draw significant support from the election-deciding middle, and b) shrill, negative, defeatist, "can't do", repel-the-center leftists like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy – and Howard Dean – the Democrats appear to be clearly opting for the latter.
Furthermore, while they sharpen their obstructionist talons, the Democratic Party thus far doesn't seem to have put much effort or thought into developing and presenting an attractive set of competing programs or proposals that can serve as a springboard for thoughtful debate and compromise. Democrats have become the reactionary party of rigid, uncompromising defense of the status quo, and little else. Thus they will continue to get the votes of those on the far left that already support them, while taking on a huge risk that they will alienate many more than they attract from the center. Believing they will become more competitive with the Republican Party, they may very well – and unintentionally – find themselves instead becoming more like, and less distinguishable from, the Green Party and other fringe far-left groups.
What kind of a strategy is that?
The Democrats can't hope to gain by just being the party that advocates hatred of Republicans and all they stand for. They've got to give people good, solid, attractive reasons to vote FOR them.
And that doesn't look very promising at this point in time.
posted by Wascally Wabbit at 5:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home