Three Layers of Change -- A Theory of Dermocratic Discord

[Armstead]

With the current primary, and the backstory, I have a theory of what is really happening right now. I will acknowledge that my perspective is of a current Obama supporter, former Edwards supporter, an "agree with Kucinich Democrat" and someone who believes that the progressive populist/liberal politics of Bernie Sanders and Paul Wellstone is the true key both to Democratic victories and a solution to the nation's real problems.

However, I will try to be as objective as possible in this post.

IMO there are Three Levels of change involved in contemporary Democratic politics. Two of these levels are the backdrop that fans the often heated differences on DU and elsewhere.

1)Change from the GOP. This one is a no brainer. It is the basis of unity. One can assume that Democrats, DUers and and even many moderate independents and Republicans are unified in this. We all look forward to the day when the Bush Presidency is a memory. And we also want to see the backend of all of the GOP cast of characters in the administration, Congress, state and local government and in the punditocracy and think-tank culture.

2)Change in the tone and image of the Democratic Party. This one is more divisive. Perhaps the most visibly divisive. It is the level of personalities and factions and the sales message. However, this level exists within the existing conventional wisdom. This is where the qualities of each candidate is in the forefront. It is also the level that represents the behavior of Congress and also of the other public faces of the Democratic Party. In the current primary contest, Hillary represents the familiar face of the Democratic Party of the last 20 years. Obama represents a change both in the image of Democrats, the message and political strategies. The choice here is between those who believe in Hillary as representing the existing Democratic Party image and message, and those who believe in Obama as a fresh start for the Democrats.

3)Change in the Democratic Conventional Wisdom. This one is the most problematic for all sides. This level believes that the status quo beliefs and assumptions of the current Democratic Establishment are fundamentally wrong and need to be changed in more significant ways. Despite his weaknesses as a presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich was the clearest representative of this movement. This is the branch of the Democratic Party and the general population that believes that it is important to challenge the conventional wisdom, such as the neo-liberal, centrist alliances between the Democratic Party and the solons of Wall St. and Corporate America.


The third level is perhaps the most complex and difficult to deal with. The advocates of more fundamental change are not monolithic. is a spectrum. It includes people who are basically moderate, but still believe we need a fundamental shift and a return to clearly liberal and progressive populist policies, strategy and message. In the current primary, John Edwards was the clearest representative of this Mainstream Liberalism. There are also more ideological people who are further to the "left" on the political spectrum. "Left" is somewhat misleading, because many of these people remain supporters of capitalism, but believe that the nature of modern capitalism has been distorted into monolithic Corporatism that is destroying a more broadly based true free-enterprise economy. There are other elements, such as those who question basics in our foreign policy, social issues and other specifics.

The differences between Level Three and Levels One and Two lead to some fundamental disconnects. It leads to a lack of understanding. It is, for example, the reason some people are puzzled by those who believe that the Clinton 1990's were more of a failure than a success.

To re-emphasize, these three Levels are a spectrum, rather than cut-and-dried categories. But IMO it is one reason there is often a lack of communication and empathy on our side. Again, IMO, the only thing that can heal these rifts is acknowledging them and engaging in actual debate and dialogue about substantial issues.

[Armstead]

1. kick

[Armstead]

2. Another kick

Anyone agree? Or think I'm full of it?

Just trying to inject some substance and perspective here.

[DaLittle Kitty]

8. Another K&R and Edwards WAS... The ELECTABLE LIBERAL AND THE ONLY Candidate Electable of 3... Now

None remaining are electable... Can't wait for the post election/debacle fireworks ... and ELIMINATION OF THE DLC AND RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY... AKA


THROW THE BUMS OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Shrum, From, Ford et al) :)

[arendt]

3. Haven't time to do more than skim this. But, K&R. We need this kind of post. nt

[Armstead]

4. One more try

[arendt]

5. Its that kind of a day. Many people are watching the idiot bowl. n/t

[arendt]

6. No offense meant, but can someone really be at your level 2?

You say about Level 2:

> It is also the level that represents the behavior of Congress and also of the other
> public faces of the Democratic Party. In the current primary contest, Hillary represents
> the familiar face of the Democratic Party of the last 20 years. Obama represents a
> change both in the image of Democrats, the message and political strategies.

I mean, if a Dem is fed up with the spinelessness of the DLC wing of the Democratic Party (as represented by Hillary), why on earth would they think that Obama (Joe Lieberman is my mentor) is the solution to that problem? What is so great about his voting record, his bill introductions, etc, as compared to the DLC?

As for "image", the only difference I can see is that instead of pasty white, phony liberals with corporate umbilicals, you have a multi-racial black, phony liberal with corporate umbilicals. I would appreciate if you could explain to me how his message and strategy are different from the DLC's. Otherwise, I will continue to consider 75% of the Democratic Party to be clueless sheep who couldn't analyze their way out of a paper bag.

I am willing to be educated on this distinction. You are trying to make a case that people who support HRC and BO are genuine (as opposed to delusional or "false consciousness") Democrats who really want the historical support of the Democratic Party for working people to triumph. I just don't see how anyone intelligent can do that. I am absolutely baffled by the Kennedy family endorsements, other than as the surface expression of some deep political catfight.

Sign me confused,

arendt

[Armstead]

7. The social aspects of politics

I don't mean the word social in a trivial way. What I mean is that (IMO of course) the differences that fall short of fundamental underlying economic reform, but which do make a difference on other levels.

I agree with your concerns about Obama. That is the main cause of my unease about him, and the whole tone of the primaries (and the general election) -- especially after Edwards dropped out. Whatever Edwards limitations might have been, he was willing to put a spotlight on the core issue of Corporate Power, the great divide of Wealth and Power and its effects on both the poor and the middle class.

But the difference between Obama and Clinton, IMO, is that Obama at least represents an opportunity to open up the system more. My sense is that he would not spend his time bashing "the left" like the Clinton/DLC has done. Instead I believe he is -- within the confines of the existing system -- more open to actual change for the better, because his experiences are closer to the grass roots.

In other words, I believe an Obama Democratic Party would at least be more engaged and receptive to the liberals and progressives than the Clintons, who are so ensconced in the DLC/Corporate matrix that they have lost sight of where they came from. Obama would not be deliberatly ousting the liberal/progressive base, as the Clintons have done.

In terms of my little analysis, Teddy Kennedy is not the same as Bernie Sanders. I'd say Ted is at 2.5 while Sanders is 3.I love Teddy, and in many ways I identify with him, but he does not really go after the structural problems of the system. His focus is more on specific issues that will improve things within the existing context.

A Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is willing to point out thge fundamental structural problems. He was abouit the only House member willing bawl out Alan Greenspan personally because of the elitist corporate philosophy Greenspan represents.

[arendt]

9. Could you be "reading in". Obama is such a Rorshach blot.

> Obama at least represents an opportunity to open up the system more.
> My sense is that he would not spend his time bashing "the left" like
> the Clinton/DLC has done.

My sense is that Obama would prefer not to bash anyone, but will when he has to. The issue for me is, whom will he throw overboard when the GOP start bashing him as "too liberal". He has already thrown gays, universal health care, and class-warfare advocates overboard. Who goes next?

I have no evidence that he is "more open", only vaguer and subtler in his dismissal of "the left". (Aside: at this point, I have no idea how to refer to the political stance that I have. And, that is the triumph of triangulation and "hope". On another thread, I had to distinguish "liberal" from the David Brooks caricature of BoBos. I certainly must differentiate myself from ANSWER and other archaic, hard-left caricatures. I want to support the issues John Edwards was raising. But, I don't want to be labeled an Edwards-ite. The muddying of political terminology that is at the core of BO's rhetoric is a huge issue to me.)

> I love Teddy, and in many ways I identify with him, but he does not
> really go after the structural problems of the system. His focus is
> more on specific issues that will improve things within the existing context.

> A Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is willing to point out the fundamental
> structural problems.

I completely agree with that. And, it explains Teddy's endorsement of BO. It may even be the reason for the entire Clinton-Kennedy bad blood. Nevertheless, in today's atmosphere of outright Constitutional subversion and organized looting, Kennedy is all tactics and no strategy. I too love Teddy, who has more than redeemed himself and his brothers over the last forty years. The man has been a workhorse and a father to way too many nieces and nephews. Teddy is not a strategist. Who in our party is a strategist for working class issues and against class warfare and Chicago School shock therapy? I don't think BO is.

arendt