How politics work inside a true Big Tent party.

[MadHound]

The fact of the matter is that the Democratic party is a coalition party, a Big Tent party. Though that makes for an uncomfortable relationship at times, when it works, as with the '08 elections, it really works well.

But unlike the 'Pugs, who issue marching orders and know their minions will automatically step into line, a Big Tent party requires careful care and maintenance.

Part of that care and maintenance means that each group that makes up the Big Tent needs to have a bone thrown to it once in awhile. Legislation that is specifically targeted at keeping that group happy and coming back to the voting booth for more. FDR and other great Democrats in the past knew this, and worked the system well.

Yet what we have seen in the past few decades is a Democratic party that increasing seems to want to transform the Big Tent party into a rigid top down party like the 'Pugs, a party where the leadership issues marching order and the rank and file comply, with no kvetching allowed.

Over the past couple of decades groups like the anti-war folks, the liberal base, teachers, the LGBT community and others have felt that not only are they being neglected, but are actually coming under attack by the leaders they worked hard to get elected. For instance, not only has there been no new legislation helping teachers, but now this administration is putting teachers and public education in the crosshairs with Race To The Top. Same with the LGBT community under Clinton, who instead of advancing their civil rights, signed into law the regressive measures of DADT and DOMA, measures that still haven't been fully reversed. Anti-war folks watch more wars erupt and innocents die, unions watch their influence slip, and the left in general gets to listen to an ongoing drumbeat of derision from this administration as it, and the party in general, move ever more to the right.

The weakness of the Big Tent party is that you do have to keep every faction within that tent satisfied, at least a bit, make them feel welcome and feel that their best interests lie with the party. But if groups don't feel that, then the fact of the matter is that they stay home. I can't blame them, and neither should you. Why should you vote for a party, any party, that is not only doesn't seem to give a damn about your concerns, but is, in many cases, actively involved in making your particular situation worse?

That is what we're seeing now, various groups and factions within the Big Tent feeling dissatisfied with their treatment are becoming demanding and even belligerent in the face of what Democrats and this administration are doing. Given the legislation, deals, and actions of both Congress and the Obama administration over the past three years, this was bound to occur. Obama may be the master of the compromise(though frankly I don't see it), but he is certainly a failure so far at leading a Big Tent party. As a president you might get away with the benign neglect of a faction or few within the party, but when you start enacting policies hostile to one or more of those groups, or coming out and berating them, that simply proves that you don't really know how things work.

Now Obama has a year left in which to correct this error, and plenty of ability to do so. He could fire Duncan say, and abandon RTTT. He could truly start ending our military commitments, sooner rather than at vague future dates. He could push to remedy the situation surrounding DOMA, both through the court system and through Congress. He can do all of this, and more, and if he did, he would be a shoe-in for reelection.

Or he can continue to play this game of Grand Compromiser, moving himself, his policies and his party ever more towards the right. He could, as part of one of his deals, slash into Social Security, or Medicare, cut funding for Education, keep the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, etc. etc.

By doing so, he will continue to antagonize various groups in the Big Tent, groups that he needs for reelection. He can gain soul satisfaction by continuing to publicly dress down the left. But if he does, he will not be reelected, because those groups will stay home next year, seeing no need to support him or other Democrats. It could very well turn out to be a Democratic bloodbath.

And if it is, the sole responsibility will lie with Obama, for he will have fatally failed to master the art of being the leader of a Big Tent party using the tactics of Big Tent politics.

It's that simple, and it is Obama's choice. Let's hope he chooses wisely.

[Donnachaidh]

1. kick and Rec! n/t

[Aerows]

2. Wish I could rec this more than once

Some around here wanting all of us to take our marching orders just like Republicans, and Democrats don't work that way.

[MadHound]

4. Nope, they never have worked that way

Presidents such as FDR and Truman understood how to manage the Big Tent party, how it worked, how to keep it working. But such fundamentals seemed to have been abandoned over the past couple of decades.

[ClassWarrior]

3. One clarification. The left will VOTE for Obama, but they won't be enthused like last time around...

...when they took what amounted to unpaid part-time jobs with his campaign, working to get swing voters out to the polls.

And that's why he's in electoral trouble.

NGU.

[MadHound]

5. Some might vote for him,

But I think that there are going to be a lot who simply stay home. They will take a look at the choice of voting for a 'Pug, or voting for 'Pug lite, throw up their hands in despair and stay home.

We've seen this time and again, which is why the largest group of voters in this country are the apathetic voters, whose membership is largely compromised of disillusioned liberals.

[ClassWarrior]

6. The ones who were active last time around will turn out for the Prez this time.

Generally, people don't dedicate a significant portion of their lives to a political campaign one cycle, then go all apathetic the next.

NGU.

[MadHound]

9. History proves you wrong

LBJ, Carter, etc have all fallen victim to the fact that their one time supporters, whom they neglected while in office, fail to show for their reelection bid, or go to work for somebody else, and they are left being a one term wonder.

[ClassWarrior]

10. Prove it.

NGU.

[MadHound]

12. I just did,

Go look at the election campaigns of LBJ and Carter.

[ClassWarrior]

13. You made a claim. Prove it.

Prove that LBJ and Carter lost because "one-time supporters" withheld their votes.

NGU.

[MadHound]

16. Again, I just did,

One has but to look at their lack of reelection support to see that. LBJ dropped out because he saw the writing on the wall. Carter got primaried and then had to contend with "Reagan Democrats".

[ClassWarrior]

17. Show me proof.

It's true that neither had a second term. Beyond that, all I see is allegation.

NGU.

[MadHound]

18. Well, apparently that is all you want to see,

For I gave you proof, and it is out there for you to go research on your own. You're simply being obstinate because you don't want to acknowledge that what I say is true. That's fine, live in your own rose colored world, just don't say you weren't warned. Have a great day:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

31. I want to see links. Data. Proof. You made the allegation. The burden's on you.

NGU.

[MadHound]

34. LBJ dropped out, Carter was primaried, that is the proof

These things happened, they are historical facts. These aren't allegations, they are facts. Deal with it.

[ClassWarrior]

35. I agreed with you. Now prove to me your claims about who did or didn't vote for them.

NGU.

[MadHound]

36. Are you that clueless?

Who primaried Carter? Liberals. Who forced LBJ out of the race? McCarthy, Kennedy and their respective anti-war followers. This is all common knowledge, and if you don't know it, I suggest that you rectify that lack of historical knowledge quickly. I'm not in charge of your education in these matters, and frankly they were covered in high school history. Where were you?

[ClassWarrior]

37. So how is any of that analogous if there's no primary and no resignation?

By the way, why do you feel a need to insult me? I haven't insulted you.

NGU.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. So you are saying they just skip the midterms? Dedicated, but

only every 4 years, to a single person? Other elections do not count, when they are no shows, that does not indicate that they have indeed gone apathetic? Or are they just overbooked on midterm years? Perhaps they do not see the connection between 'supporting the President' and electing Democrats to the Congress? Dedicated, but poorly informed?
If your theory was true, they'd have turned out in 10. They did not.

[ClassWarrior]

15. Again, they turned out to vote. They didn't turn out to turn out swing voters.

NGU.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. Will they?

At this point I think the Democrats are making a HUGE mistake in making that assumption. HUGE.

[ClassWarrior]

8. The mistake they're making is assuming it's about voters and not volunteers.

NGU.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. It's about both and the fact that he'll have

far less for the 2012 election. That's on him. People need to be motivated to vote AND to volunteer and this administration has given too many of us NADA and insulted us in the process WHILE chipping away what's left of the safety net. The assumption that people are going to ignore the assault on the poor and the middle class by this administration and vote Democrat anyway is really, REALLY ignorant.

[UTUSN]

11. K&R #6 with another clarification: There is also need for "through thick and thin" support

I've, not only voted for, but *supported* every Dem of whatever stripe there is, because even a factional leader not of my faction (which is pretty broad) will have the long term influence of appointees and policies that are broadly "Democratic."

"Cafeteria" supporters who pick and choose with their concrete (voting) support and opt out and such, tend to want their number 1 agenda items to go to the front of the line in front of the stalwarts who are always there.

The constituent groups of the coalition each have their separate #1 agenda item identifying their group, but down below the disparate top items there is broad unity and agreement on things like social justice and civil rights.

[jaxx]

20. Is that saying some have become one-issue voters?

That they have abandoned the whole in favor of the slice? Let's hope they choose wisely and remember that their slice isn't going to progress without the whole behind it.

[MadHound]

21. No, that's saying that a broad spectrum of people in the Big Tent feel that they been abandoned

And worse, that they're positions are coming under attack.

[jaxx]

22. And the one-issues were cited.

Remember, the big tent holds all of us. What are the people who feel they have been abandoned doing about their issue? Are they reaching out or are they withdrawing? I think everyone here supports the issues, and gladly helps to promote them in the goal for Democratic success.

[MadHound]

27. You're right, the Big Tent does, at least nominally, hold all of us,

But the reality is that certain groups are being excluded from the benefits of party membership. Their only reason to vote for Democrats is that they are, supposedly, better than the 'Pugs.

First of all, that is not a very good way to build party support. It leads to what we see today, discontent and apathy. Secondly, a lot of people are coming to the conclusion that neither party is serving their needs and thus abstaining from politics altogether. This is a natural reaction when a party fails to recognize and reward all of the people in its Big Tent.

And while all the ordinary people may support all of the issues, the leadership, this administration is openly hostile to a lot of issues, education, teachers, anti-war, marijuana, etc. Then what?

You've got to give people a reason to vote for the party, not simply reiterate reasons to vote against the 'Pugs.

[jaxx]

29. Again I see single issues being used.

I can't change how people think, but there is one huge issue out there that is a reason to vote for the party.....moving forward. Discontent and apathy do nothing for any issue.

[MadHound]

32. So? That's the whole point

You have a lot of people in the Democratic party who care about only certain select issues. They are gathered in this Big Tent, and as part of the bargain for their support, the party promises to throw them a bone once in awhile. But there haven't been bones thrown to a lot of them for a long while.

Why should a teacher care about beating a Republican when public education is being attacked by both parties? Why should an anti-war activist care about beating a Republican when both parties are perpetrating war?

If you're going to run a Big Tent party, you've got to recognize that all factions within the tent have to made to feel as though they are getting some sort of good out of this deal, otherwise a lot of people will leave. Asking them to put party ahead of their principle doesn't work. That's the whole point.

[PVnRT]

24. You're ignoring the point

The point is that these groups know that the Republicans won't progress their "slice," but they also see the Democrats not progressing it either. In fact, they see their slice being eroded by them. Unfortunately, all we seem to get from many supporters of Obama is "well, the other side is worse, so quit your damn whining."

[jaxx]

30. No, I see the point. I just don't see the proposed end meeting the need.

It has nothing to with whining, it has to do with what are they doing for themselves to promote their ideas. What I see is "I give up".

[MadHound]

33. Yeah, you're seeing "I give up", and people are,

After all, why should they continue to work and support a party that has not been working and supporting them for years, decades? As a teacher, what is the point of working and supporting one party when it is just as determined to destroy public education as the other party? As an anti-war activist what is the point in supporting one party when both parties continue to get us into illegal, immoral wars of empire?

Do that for too long, and yes, people are going to give up, seeing no other alternative. That's the point. The Democratic party, and this administration have got to start tending to all factions inside the Big Tent.

[bvar22]

23. The Democratic Party IS a Big Tent,

but there is NO room for those who advance the agenda of The RICH (Corporate Owners),
at the expense of the Working Class & The Poor.

"If they are given a seat at the table,
they will eat all the food."--- John Edwards

There is a damn good reason WHY Management is NOT given a vote at Union meetings!



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.



Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gregorian]

25. I want to add one thing. There is another facet that hasn't been mentioned.

There is one thing that every Democrat does want. It seems to me that we've neglected it, too. And it is a top down message. And that is that we must beat Republicans down. I don't know of a better way to say it. It's at the top of our list of priorities.

Democrats know what they want. We don't need a leader. As a result, we're a herd of cats. All going in our own directions, but with similar goals. We want to build. Build a better world for all.

On the other hand, what we're up against is a party that worships money and greed. And the the bad news is, gravity is in their favor. We're fighting an uphill battle.

And to make things even worse, the system has been modified to the advantage of the Republicans in a way the Founders purposely did not want.


So it begs the question again, what we need to be doing. All of what you said, with the addition of special attention being put on battling the Republican rhetoric.

I swear it's what they're doing in their huge think tanks. And I swear it comes down to bumper sticker mentality. Sound bites. Go ahead and criticize this, but do so at the risk of losing the country.

If you want to know where we're headed, look at England. I hope we can steer this country away from the doldrums.

[MadHound]

26. Except for the question, at what expense?

Do you beat the 'Pugs down by becoming ever more 'Pug-like? Or do you beat them down by retaining people's loyalty and faith in the party, by fulfilling the mission of the Democratic party to be the party of the people.

It seems as though the strategy these days is to become ever more 'Pug-like, as the party swings ever more to the right. The question then is if that is the strategy the party is going to follow, why bother supporting the Democratic party if all it is is 'Pug-lite?

You have to offer a solid reason why the people should vote for the party, not simply saying we need to vote against the 'Pugs.

[Gregorian]

28. Dems just don't get it. There is principals, and then there is the business end.

We bring poetry to a machine gun fight. As long as we do this, we're just going to get gunned down.

This is why I knew we were in for trouble with Obama. Don't get me wrong, he's great. But he lacks FIRE. And we're at war. Literally.

I don't think Dems realize how serious this is. Some do. I see posts here that mention the possibility of losing more Supreme Court seats, if we lose this next one. That translates to death of American citizens. Literally. And even more death overseas from our military machine.

We can retain or principals, and still fight. We're never going to win over teabaggers. Although, Senator Byrd transformed. Others have transformed.

We need to come out with all guns blazing. Or we could nominate Jesus Christ, who had a way with words no other has ever had. Short of someone who is so brilliant they can sway the minds of the most ardent and ignorant, we need to organize our messages. But we never compromise our principals

Why can't Democrats fight?