Good "take" on the U.S. Democratic Party

TomF

I just saw an interesting article in the Weekly Standard on a potential candidate for president from the U.S. Democratic Party. It paints a good picture of what the Democrats have become, and helps correct the left-wing Holy Writ.

Base Anger by Christopher Caldwell
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/937qdcww.asp

<<The Democratic party is a wishbone of proletarian sloganeering and plutocratic direction that, when snapped, always leaves one side disillusioned. Racial and lifestyle minorities provide the electoral ballast for the party, true. But outside of those categories, the Democrats are the party of America's crème de la crème--not just the "cultural elite," as Dan Quayle put it, but the elite, period. Overwhelming evidence for this came in the form of a June study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. It found that Republicans outraise Democrats by 63 percent to 37 percent among penny-ante donors--those who give under $200. The GOP retains that advantage at all levels up to $100,000, although it steadily narrows as the dollar amount rises. Once you hit $100,000, the Democrats really begin to clean up. They hold a fundraising advantage that widens rapidly as the numbers get more stratospheric. In contributions of over $1 million, they outraise Republicans by 92 percent to 8 percent.

[Democrats'] current self-serving self-delusion--one reads it in "Doonesbury" and hears it from ... a variety of marginal commentators and celebrity know-nothings--is that Republicans have succeeded because their message is stupid and simple and dishonest; and Democrats have failed because they're so subtle and principled. Under this logic, Democrats will do best by nominating a malevolent sleazeball and getting him to shout at the top of his lungs. Suffice it to say that this logic is identical to that upon which Republicans built a string of defeats in the Clinton years.

As for the general election, Republicans seem unaware of how riled up Democratic activists remain, even three years after the 2000 elections. A substantial segment of the party's base has been radicalized to the point where it does not recognize the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. This is a very different thing than mere dislike of a president. It means that Democrats are prepared to fight this election as if they were struggling to overthrow a tyrant. One fears that 2004 could wind up--in its rhetoric and its electoral ethics--as the dirtiest general election campaign in living memory. It is not a condemnation of Dean to say that his rise provides another piece of evidence that this fear is well founded.>>

shotamoose

Not that bad an article, at least the excerpt you posted. It doesn't take a genius to see that the Democrats are totally split.

They really need to cop themselves on, IMHO. Bush is pushing through a radical right-wing agenda that is destroying the ability of future governments to govern, and all most Democrats can do is meekly suggest that perhaps the occupation of Iraq isn't going quite to plan, all the while in terror of accusations of lack of patriotism.

They're running scared of Bush, and they're afraid to state the obvious: that Bush is a corrupt thug serving two minority interests - right-wing Christian fundamentalists and the super-rich. Trying to appease either of those sectors will result in the destruction of the Democrats as neither are interested in compromise. Appealing to the millions of people who have lost jobs under Bush, the even greater millions living in entrenched poverty, and the even greater millions lacking adequate health care or a secure retirement, might just be a better tactic.

chill

A bull****, self contradictory article based on a biased and a trashy resource.

Mainstream America has been both democrat and Republican from time to time. The Republican media elite has gained a stranglehold over the country over the last few years because the Democrats could not figure a way of dealing with Clinton's pecadillos and thereby handed the political stage to the right wing.

Like all right wing govs in the US, and because they have become drunk with power after gaining both houses, they have begun to self destruct in their implementation of police-state and fascist-like laws such as the Patriot Act.

The Democrats look like they may at last be waking up and realising that their freedom is going down the swannie unless they have the balls to stop it.

But they find themselves without any substantive leader at a time when Clinton still dwarves every single political figure in the country, but is prevented from standing for election because of an anti democratic and what I believe is a deeply unconstitutional law.

TomF

Here is an interesting opinion piece about the U.S. Democratic Party in danger of being taken-over (again) by the extremists on the left-wing. If this happens, George Bush will be re-elected, which of course is equivalent to "End Times!" ..."Armageddon!"..."The Pubs have no Beer!" for the crazies of the left.

"Are the Democrats about to be taken over by counterculture, neosocialist pacifists? That's the picture painted by Sen. Evan Bayh, who fears the party is "at risk of being taken over by the far left," and Joe Lieberman, who worries about the dominance of an "extremist ideology."

Who's the pied piper of this lefty brigade? Howard Dean, a physician, son of a Wall Street executive, whose chief passion is fiscal moderation; as governor of Vermont, the Washington Post chronicled last weekend, he was "a careful, even cautious steward."

There are several explanations for this conundrum. One is that we're returning to the Vietnam War days when ideology was framed by one's position on the war."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110003864

Lennoxschips

Maybe we should have a whip round for Ralph Nader...

Zombrex

Originally posted by TomF
Here is an interesting opinion piece about the U.S. Democratic Party in danger of being taken-over (again) by the extremists on the left-wing. If this happens, George Bush will be re-elected, which of course is equivalent to "End Times!" ..."Armageddon!"..."The Pubs have no Beer!" for the crazies of the left.

Er ... the article goes on to dismiss the view points quoted in the first paragraph and explains that Dean is actually quite centerist in his policies.

The article explains that the critisim of Dean has little to do with political ideology and a lot to the with the established insider Democrats having a problem with an outsider Democrat going for the presidency.

I have no idea how you took from the article that an extremist neo-socialist is about to take over the Democratic Party.

sovtek

Originally posted by TomF
Here is an interesting opinion piece about the U.S. Democratic Party in danger of being taken-over (again) by the extremists on the left-wing. If this happens, George Bush will be re-elected, which of course is equivalent to "End Times!" ..."Armageddon!"..."The Pubs have no Beer!" for the crazies of the left.

Howard Dean is hardly a left winger. He's already started to move center.
I think it's also a fallacy to think that for a Democrat to be elected that they have to move further right, which the Bush regime has already risen the bar to high for.
Someone who speaks openly against Bush and his policies, not just say they would have done a better job at carrying them out will present stronger opposition to Bush.
I think Nader or Kucinich are the only ones to do that so far.

Xhen

Nader and Kucinich are fringe candidates with no chance of winning a national election and if Nader runs again for the Green party it will damage the Democratic candidate's chances just like it did with Gore in 2000.

Howard Dean may be somewhat centrist but his anti-war stance and Northeastern background (New York and Vermont) will absolutely kill him in the South which leaves him with very little margin for error in swing states which could vote either way. The Democratic Party leadership knows he's unelectable and will do what they can to bring him down. John Kerry is the candidate with probably the most realistic chance unless Joe Biden and Wesley Clark enter the race together. That's a ticket I think could beat Bush. Howard Dean is the flavor of the month.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Xhen
Howard Dean may be somewhat centrist but his anti-war stance and Northeastern background (New York and Vermont) will absolutely kill him in the South which leaves him with very little margin for error in swing states which could vote either way.

Also he is supposed to be not so good underpressure in debates and such. The Republicans are going to kill him live on TV

Shame really that the Democrats can get someone with a decent chance of winning. They are the Fine Gael of America. There is no one coming up who has as much carisma, intelligence and quick mind as Clinton had in his little finger. What ever faults the man had he certainly knew how to win elections. Against the Republican spin machine and in the current climate of "an attack against Bush is an attack against America" attitude I really can't see the Democrats winning the next election.

sovtek

Originally posted by Wicknight
Also he is supposed to be not so good underpressure in debates and such. The Republicans are going to kill him live on TV

As opposed to Bush?!?!
Al Gore actually helped Bush finish his sentences and helped him with terminology during debates in 2000.