« Check Out New Defend NM Website | Main | Sound Off: HIP, HIP, HOORAY! »
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Sound Off: "Centrist Democrats"
From Terry Riley:
We just passed some of the most encouraging platform resolutions in our Bernalillo county central commitee as did Santa Fe, Taos, and Los Alamos. I was really feeling good until I read this story from the Washington Times.
The actions of our county and state committees will reach the national party in a couple of months, though I am sure that the word has reached them already. I think that we should work outside the normal channel as well as we are inside the normal channel.
I believe that we should all write e-mails to Dean and to the DNC highlighting our agenda and pointing to the error of the "centrist Democrats."
What do you think?
April 5, 2005 at 09:03 AM in Democratic Party, Sound Off! | Permalink
Comments
I wouldn't worry too much about stories in the Washington Times. It's a notoriously right wing rag owned by a delusional millionaire with a messiah complex. Articles like this are designed to fracture the Democratic Party and spur infighting. The blogosphere must not fall into their trap and start pitting Democrats vs. Democrats. We must concentrate all our firepower on the real threat to this country: the radical right wing.
In the last few years, Republicans have succeeded because they've taken a 'big tent' approach. For example, the Cato Institute may disagree with James Dobson's Focus on the Family on a slew of issues, but, they don't focus on their differences - they focus on their similarities and how they can work together to push a mutually beneficial agenda. Grover Norquist has done a brilliant job organizing this coalition and keeping Republican institutions on message.
The fact of the matter is that DLC Dems and progressive Dems agree far more often than we disagree. And, unfortunately, both sides are guilty of focusing on what divides us and not what unites us.
If we hope to take this country back, we need to enlist the support of every single Democrat - and that includes Joe Lieberman. Look, when liberal Republicans (they call moderate Dems, "conservative Dems" - let's call their mods liberals) like Linc Chafee, John McCain and Chuck Hagel disagree with their party, the conservative institutions don't often openly chastise their moderation and as a result, the media never runs with the 'divided Republican party' story.
Is the DLC wrong for focusing on what divides us and not what unites us? Yes, but, it would be wrong for the progressive community to focus on what divides us too. Two wrongs don't make a right. Let's focus on what unites Democrats: creating jobs, fiscal responsibility, solving the health care crisis and providing a high quality education to every child. And, let's focus the entirety of our firepower on defeating the right wing's radical agenda.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Posted by: anonymous | Apr 5, 2005 10:12:56 AM
I agree with some of what you say but the problem is that the conservative (moderate?) Dems, symbolized by the DLC and its defenders, have dominated the Democratic agenda because they are backed by deep pocket campaign contributors and many earn big bucks as professional "consultants." Think James Carville. Yuck. All he does is bash anything to left of Lieberman and push outdated Clintonian triangulation at a time when most people seem to think Democratic Party positions aren't any different from those of Republicans.
We need to define the core values of the Party and be PROUD and OUTSPOKEN about them. We have to stand for something instead of meekly discussing issues within Republican frames and trying to show people we are Republican-lite.
Having a big tent is one thing. Allowing bought off pro-corporate Dems to dominate a Party when they are out of step with the majority of Dems is suicide in my opinion. We've been following this "centrist" strategy ever since Clinton and what has it gained us? Continuing massive losses in the Congress and two presidential losses.
If you review recent polling, it seems clear that most people no longer have any idea what Dems stand for. I often have trouble with that myself, especially when a Senator like Jeff Bingaman votes for a bankruptcy bill that favors the banks, credit card companies and our wealthiest citizens over common folks, and votes to demolish state level class action suits. Since when do Dems side with the investor class? Since Clinton, that's when. And it's time to take a stand for the working and middle classes and against the deterioration of Democratic principles by DLC Dems on the make for corporate big bucks.
Posted by: barb | Apr 5, 2005 10:33:24 AM
hanging together is important, but it would be It would be helpful to know who the ACTIVE centrist democrats (besides Lieberman) are, and where they stand NOW, vis a vis Dean and the democratic wing of the democratic party. Dean, In comments the other night on C-Span spoke about replacing those who lost the last two elections with new, younger folks. It would be helpful if we knew whether Dean and the DNC is getting DLC support-and what we can do to help.Jeanne
Posted by: Jeanne | Apr 5, 2005 12:57:38 PM
Press reports have little to do with events. Imagine if Tom DeLay and Dick Cheney decided to settle disagreements over Social Security policy in the manner practiced by our founding fathers (think Hamilton and Burr, the duel). There’d be two stories on Fox et al.:
- “Republicans unite behind Bush Social Security Plan after high level meeting”; and
- Bush appoints Cheney to head panel investigating shooting of congressman”
Rush would report rumors that the gun tied to the shooting was owned by Hillary Clinton, and a group calling itself Texans For Truth would somehow tie it to ‘Hanoi Jane’ Fonda.
Platforms and positions don’t matter anyway. Studies show that somewhere around 75% - 90% of voters decide without knowing or caring about positions, or based on mistaken beliefs about positions (I’ve lost the reference). People don’t affiliate with a party based on evidence and logic. That’s why so many people still believe that Saddam had WMDs and was responsible for 9/11.
The splits in the DPNM have nothing to do with positions and platforms. The DPNM didn’t screw up in the presidential election because they (we?) disagreed with Kerry’s platform; they screwed up because they were afraid that by cooperating they might strengthen a party apparatus that was independent of their control.
Cynical? Moi??
Posted by: | Apr 5, 2005 4:12:32 PM
