|
first, thanks ... that was a thoughtful and excellent response and i intend to give it some serious consideration even after this thread disappears ... the whole point of this thread was to have a civil discussion of a contentious issue ... yours was one of the few posts that respected that purpose ...
second, outside my response to you but as an aside to all the attack the OP jackasses, get a clue ... if you go back for some significant period of time, contrary to the abusive crap i've listened to from a few misguided souls in this thread, i HAVE NOT BEEN AN ATTACKER OF THE DLC ... my position for a very long time now, maybe 6 months, maybe a year, whatever, has been to push for party unity ... go look at the last bunch of months of "we hate the DLC threads" and see if you find welshTerrier2 piling on ... you won't ... i'm not there because i've been pushing for a change in the party's dynamic ... but too many attacking assholes are too stupid and shallow to look before they insult ... well, if this gets deleted for pointing out the truth, i guess that's the way it goes ...
i have written over and over and over again that if we don't find party unity, we are going nowhere ... don't whine about ... don't explain my "hidden agenda" ... go read what the fuck i wrote ... the only thing worse than an asshole is an ignorant asshole ... go get your damned facts straight before you attack people ...
now, as to your post, SaveElmer, again, i thought it was an excellent response ... i have some statements and some questions ... hopefully, the mods will leave this here so you can see my response ...
let me see if i get some of your main points ... let me know if i've misunderstood them ...
right off the bat, i wasn't clear whether you were being serious or sarcastic with your reference to the tri-lateral commission ... do you see the DLC as an infiltrating cabal? we're not talking about your bogeyman point here; we're talking about the primary intent of the DLC leadership ... is that how you see it?
either way, i understand one of your main points to be that regardless of what mission the DLC has, Democrats who disagree with them on policy should deal with that disagreement by organizing and gaining political power by competing in primaries and funding candidates opposed to DLC policies ... is that about right? in other words, one of your objections is merely complaining about the DLC instead of "beating them" ... yes? no?
another key point i understood you to make was that the elected Democrats are independent of the DLC and that it doesn't matter how much money the DLC has or where it gets its money because it's not being channeled to elected Dems ... the conclusion, then, is that disagreement with the DLC is relatively meaningless; our target should be to either influence incumbent Dems or replace them ... the DLC is an irrelevant target ... is that about the message? if not, please clarify ...
and finally, you made a point about members in any organization do not necessarily adhere to all of the organizations goals ... in other words, we shouldn't criticize anyone merely because of their affiliation ... it's their actual, independent record that matters; not their membership?
how's that? mostly about right? not so good where did i get that stuff? yeah, OK, close enough i guess?
OK ... so here are some responses if i've understood your basic points correctly ... just for my own use, i'll list with shortcut names the 3 main points i cited above: 1. organize to gain power, don't complain about the DLC 2. elected Dems are independent - if we disagree, out issue should be with them, not with the DLC 3. membership does not mean support for the DLC's overall agenda.
the first point about organizing was directly responsive to the primary reason i posted this thread ... it seems to me, there are several available strategies for those who hate the DLC agenda ... one option is to fight the DLC or candidates who support a substantial or critical part of their agenda ... i'm calling that the war option ... we battle for control and to the victor go the spoils ... within that option, there are at least two readily visible sub-options ... one is that the battle only occurs up to the primary; in the general, we support the nominee ... the other is that we are fighting for what we believe in and, if not represented in our own party, we vote third party (like post-primary Lieberman supporters for example)...
a second option, the one i was pushing for quite some time now, is that we look for compromise and we try to be more inclusive ... this is, we try to be a real "big tent" ... this view does not demand that everyone automatically supports the party ... we sit down; we debate; we negotiate; we value unity if we can honestly achieve it; we recognize no compromise is perfect; we decide whether we are unified or we are not ... that's the option i've been pushing for ... i've gotten almost no support ... both sides just keep lobbing missiles back and forth ... hence, this thread ... i'm not sure this can even work anymore ... i thought it was the best approach but it just might be totally naive and not viable ... oh well ... it seemed like a good idea at the time ...
and your counsel on this, if i understood you correctly, is that everyone should just fight it out ... don't use the DLC as a bogeyman ... if you want power, compete for it ... sounds like that's more of the fight school than the negotiate school ... is that about right?
OK ... on to the next point: elected Dems are independent and not bought and sold by the DLC ... truthfully, i'm not sure exactly how to respond to this ... here's my best shot ... i see a party, talking about political strategy now and not values, that is stuck on "triangulation" ... maybe you're right and the decision is made by the votes of our independent representatives ... it does seem to me, though, that the party, to take a single issue, has refused to confront the election fraud issue in a meaningful way ... it seems like the decision for that is made at the top ... and perhaps certain strategic decisions should be made from the top ... we can't have everyone running in different directions and try to earn respect as a political party ... and if Democrats constantly contradicted each other, i think we would be ineffective as well ...
so, some of us have the view that certain positions on certain issues are verboten in the Senate ... it is truly odd to see such divergence between some of the very progressive views in the House and such a narrow range of views in the Senate ... none of this is arguing against your point ... perhaps elected Dems are indeed independent ... but, whether it is DLC domination or the mere coincidence of commonly held views, the greater problem seems to be that many feel either not represented or feel that "political consultants" are making mechanical political calculations and that there is a degree of pressure, whether large or small, to align with their counsel ...
and the next point was about membership not indicating absolute agreement with every aspect of the agenda ... well, on the surface, i certainly agree with that statement ... the concern is that it is not clear to me how much support candidates can receive from the various organizations ... i believe you stated that candidates can't receive direct corporate support ... are you making the case that corporate money in Washington doesn't carry a huge amount of influence? or is this what's call "soft money" ... either way, i can't see how your point about money not going to candidates addresses the issue of corporate influence ... you seemed to separate corporate money going to the DLC from the candidates themselves ... i guess the overriding question i have would be: what is the degree of influence corporations have on the political parties and what are the parties doing to free themselves from this bribe money?
it's certainly true that mere membership does not necessarily fairly define even a single member ... but if the overall framework is that everyone needs money and support and certain concessions, on certain issues only, are required to be "a player", then the whole system is tainted and those who promote it are complicit in its sustenance ...
so, that's about all i have for now ... i'm going to be reading Sirota's "Hostile Takeover" to see exactly what allegations he's making against the DLC ... again, i thank you for your post and i'll keep the points you raised in mind as i'm reading ... that's the best offer i can make ...
one last point i wanted to make ... it's not directly in response to anything you wrote ... it's about this business about competing for power and to the victor go the spoils ... this has been the foundation of my push for party unity ... let's assume, whether it's right or wrong, that the DLC view represented the majority of Democrats ... frankly, i don't think it does but that's irrelevant for this discussion ... and let's say that some percentage, say a minority of 25% (it's obviously much larger) believe the war in Iraq is wrong and that we should leave before the end of the year ... what should happen within the party? the end of year supporters should try to elect candidates, during the primaries only, who support their views (it could be on many issues not just this issue)? and let's say that they lose in the primary ... then what? just "go along"?? ... and then try again in two years? and they still lose ... and then what? just "go along"?? and then what and then what and then what?
therein lies the rub ... the real question is what should minority views in the party do? what's the best system for them and for the party overall? if the answer is "try, lose, just go along", that wears pretty thin after a few election cycles ... if the answer is, as i've seen on the DLC's website by the way, "how dare you compete against an incumbent in the primary", that seems contrary to democracy and representation and the position you've advocated ... to me, that's the most heinous position ... at a minimum, everyone should have a shot ... so, again, how should the party address a persistent minority view?
my answer has been, for some time now, that we have to find a path to unity ... my answer has been that it is absurd to expect unrepresented people to "just go along" and that the party has to aggressively find a way to be genuinely inclusive ... and, btw, it's not just the lefty, extremist McGovernite wing of the party that should be a substantial political concern ... there are tens of millions of non-voters, most of them former Democrats, who are so disgusted with the corruption and the self-serving, insulated political class that they just have given up ... i don't condone that; i also don't condone failing to find a way to talk with them and listen to them and really hear them ... it's stupid politics not too ... when any party takes an "i'm in charge here and this is what i'm going to do" rather than a "what can i do to earn your support", they have no long-term prospects ... it's true if groups inside the party are alienated; it's true for the tens of millions of non-voters ... the idea of competing for power within the party seems like a secondary process to trying to find at least a degree of compromise ...
good talking to you ...
|