I’ve asked this question a couple of times in comments of other diaries… I’ll get an occasional “4”, but no answers. I think people think it’s a rhetorical question, but it’s not. I’d really like to know the answer, and since this seems to be Democratic Party issues day here, I thought I’d go ahead and ask it in a diary.
Follow me over the flip and I’ll explain my reasoning.
I have not been (and am still not, really) all that political traditionally. My interests lie more in the people affected by the political decisions than in the horse races, or nominations and all that. But still… the political is personal, as they say, and the decisions made by the politicians we elect can have very far reaching consequences. Anyway though, this diary is not about that… it’s about the question:
Who is the Democratic Party representing?
When you speak to individuals and listen to their concerns, or read blogs by various authors who have different outlooks on economic, social, environmental and other issues… you sort of get the impression that no one at all feels that the Democratic Party is representing them.
Let’s take just a few:
Ethnic Minorities – while most vote for Democrats to a greater or lesser degree, quite a few people acknowledge that the Democratic party has a tendency to take these votes for granted, and for the most part don’t actually fight for the issues that affect all, but affect many in these groups more.
Labor/Unions – well, beyond the fact that they are just a shadow of their former selves, many still vote for the Democratic party, but they also feel that their concerns have been ignored, with NAFTA, huge CEO salaries and relatively puny worker salaries, Walmart, etc.
Women – it’s acknowledged by many that the Democratic Party is so far the safest vehicle for the protection of reproductive rights – or was, until all the talk of it being a burden and so on. Its’ also mentioned that Democrats have just not gone to the wall on many issues that disproportionately affect women… funded childcare, women’s health care access (and men’s too, of course), educational issues and many other things.
White males – tied in with the unions issue is also the thought that their concerns have been thrown over the side in favor of ethnic minorities, environmentalists and women.
Environmentalists – lots of really terrible legislation has been allowed to pass that give some who previously felt that the Democrats were the champions of environmental rights pause. Also, some feel their issues have been passed over in favor of any of the above groups.
Let’s see… who else? Educators – not nearly enough people (including party leaders) have stood up to the “let’s hate the public schools and the teachers” campaigns conducted not only by the right (but primarily).
So, are they representing Big Business? Well, while most corps give to both parties, they seem to give the majority of their money to the Republicans (except for some few that give most or all to the Democrats, or do a 50/50 thing).
I’m trying to be uncharacteristically concise here so will not list all the various groups and interests in this loose coalition we call Democrats… but the question still remains. And it’s not to further denigrate the Democrats… much… but I think it’s a question we really need to be addressing as, as Janet puts it, WE are the Democratic Party.
Maybe someone can answer it for me…
Which constituency does unequivocally believe that the Democrats are looking out for their interests and representing them?
I’m pretty much a political noobie, but maybe that gives me a less biased perspective. Or maybe it means I have no idea what I’m talking about (more likely).
From every indication I’ve seen, the Democrats are representing the Not-Republicans. They know that they get to have their own half of the big political stage (unlike the Greens, Libertarians, etc), but aren’t quite sure what kind of planks with which to build it. Much internal debate and strife comes with trying to figure out exactly what kinds of things the democrats should stand for in order to win elections. And then there is the accompanying argument of, is it more important to do what will (maybe) work, or to do what is right?
I guess what I’m saying is that I can’t define ‘Democrat’ without using the word ‘Republican’. That isn’t true of the Republican party, and that’s why they’re beating the Dems in elections.
That’s my impression too, actually. So much seems to be about what we are not, as opposed to what we are (on the national stage).
Our party stands for civil rights, social justice, and economic opportunity for all. And those who are most in need of civil rights, social justice, or economic opportunity should count on our party to represent them.
Then I think about a woman in need of an abortion, and our growing tendency to front pro-life candidates.
And I feel my words would ring hollow.
I think about how many democrats voted for the bankruptcy bill.
And I feel my words would ring hollow.
I very much want the democratic party to be exactly what you say. But it isn’t there. Yet.
from the Party that represents the interests of the imperfect. Perfection is something Republicans should aspire to.
It is possible for people committed to civil rights, social justice, and equal economic opportunity to disagree on things like abortion and bankrupcty legislation.
I’m asking for compassion and fairness.
I understand disagreement on these issues is possible, and discussion is in fact necessary to come to reasonable conclusions.
It may be unreasonable to ask for perfection, but I don’t think it so to ask for improvement. That’s alls I’m a’sayin.
I agree. Sometimes it just feels like I’m begging them to throw me a bone. Just anything I can work with or get behind.
I once saw a political cartoon somewhere (I forget) that explained the Democrat platform versus the Republican platform. It ran a little like this:
I’d have laughed if it wasn’t so sadly true. The Democratic Party has no discernable values other than that they are not Republicans, though these days, they are careful to note that they are not Republicans, but not too much.
Republicans have a cause. It may be a composite cause, hacked together from their various constituencies, but everyone knows what it is: the Republicans want to revive the middle ages, only with electricity and SUVs.
What do Democrats want? Who the fuck knows? They really want to be elected, that’s all. And the closer they move to the ever rightward-shifting center, the less they serve even as a “not the middle ages” option for voters.
I think that the answer changes with the particular issue and with the individual politician. Everyone has an agenda, sometimes dictated by personal concerns, sometimes dictated by concerns for benefactors or other interests. At times, some Democrats have taken the side of big business (some Dems voted for the bankruptcy bill). There is not necessarily 100% concensus amongst Democrats just as Repugs occasionally vary from the script. (I had an earlier diary about this via global warming.) In short, there is not an easy answer simply because Democrats vote as they see fit and not in lockstep as the Repugs do much of the time.
I don’t think the Democrats have to be in lockstep all the time (good thing, as that is an impossibility).
I’d like to see a set of core principles adhered to though, although even that may be a pipe dream. I just don’t think various groups should have to worry with each vote if they will be thrown overboard… if the issues of economic and social justice, environmental justice and all that will be stood up for, or if they will be deemed too… whatever, for electoral politics. Or for votes in legislatures, local and national.
It’s my belief that that commitment to core values by Democrats would go a long way towards alleviating some of the worries, and also work to give them more flexibility when needed. As it stands now, it seems to me that no one at all trusts the national Democrats, at least (in general, there are some few specific exceptions) not to give them up when it’s politically, if not morally, sensible to do so.
This is, I think, the casualty of “political pragmatism”. It, as described by Slacker Inc (who should know if anyone does, given his opposition to politician believing in anything), advocates voting only for the candidate that you find to be the most likely to win. Thus, the best way to win is to – surprisingly enough – hold no positions but convince people that you’re likely to win. Holding positions actually becomes a liability when “political pragmatics” are voting, as time spent advocating positions is time spent not convincing them that you’re going to win.
The entire Democratic party has been treating the entire electorate like “political pragmatists” for the past twenty years. Fortunately, it hasn’t worked so hot with them.
Want to know how to win? It’s simple. Have a candidate willing to take a stand on the issues and defend that stand, and explain how their stand is influenced by their core beliefs.
Until the party does this – and, as you say, finds someone it’s representing – it will continue to lose. I fully expect them to throw Hillary on the ticket in 2008, because she polls well, and have her crash and burn worse than Kerry did.
I actually think Hillary has a chance of winning, just because she’s a Clinton. I most likely am wrong, of course, but so many times votes don’t seem to run along a logical pattern. A great many people really, really dislike her, others really really like her, but not all that many are indifferent to her.
I don’t think a Hillary/centrist/DLC win would change much, though, especially if we have a Republican or a centrist/DLC type congress… there would just be more going along to get along. Some would feel vindicated on the ‘win’, others would continue to feel marginalized and not represented, regardless of who wins, because if she (or somoene else in the same vein) is elected, it won’t be due to standing up for core principles or values, it will because of name recognition, or strategizing.
So, we’d not be much further along than before.
is it’s own reward. It will be another two years before you have to choose. By then I suspect a candidate will emerge. Doubtful any of the current crop on the “runway” will make the cut.
they represent themselves … everything else is opportunism.
it wouldn’t be the first and hopefully not the last time.
I see activism in people never before seen. The local Air America affiliate takes calls all the time from people who are protesting for the first time since Vietnam, if ever. I see grass/netroots having influence never before seen (DNC Chair = Dean? Against DLC and all the other insiders?)
I see people like Russert standing up to Mehlman as never before — though I do have a cynical side and would think that some part of that is the MSM grabbing hold of whatever credibility / viewership they have remaining. I see Keith Olbermann leading the MSNBC ratings, not Hardball. I see Rush / O’Reilly / Fox News ratings going down, and Air America and left-leaning blogs going up.
I see record numbers of voters for a shaky candidate running a questionable campaign, against an incumbent war president. I see Barbara Boxer calling for electoral reform — hey, at least it was one Senator this time compared to 2000. Is it enough? Absolutely not! Is it getting better? I like to think so.
But that is not what the diary is about. The question posed was Who is the Democratic Party representing. When John Conyers calls for investigations into Traitorgate, the Democratic Party is representing me. When Barbara Boxer questions Rice she is representing me. When Sheila Jackson Lee, and Louise Slaughter, and Henry Waxman, and Harry Reid and Charles Shumer accomplish some things, given the incredible minority status, they are representing me.
When Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman call out Democrats, in public, when they are ostensibly representing the “Left” on a “fair and balanced” show, they are not representing me.
When the liberal blogosphere, from here to dKos to ePluribus Media to the Huffington Post to MyDD to …. they represent progressive ideas, which are sometimes Democratic ideas, and sometimes not. I do not want to leave the Democratic Party, I want to make the Democratic Party better. I sometimes act independently, such as phone banking for MoveOnPac.org for John Kerry to Colorado last fall. In the November election, John Kerry represented me — although as I said he was less than an ideal candidate who ran a less than ideal campaign. But, the Republican Party doesn’t look to one election cycle, nor have the infighting we suffer from as Democrats. They have been at this a long time, and we have some catching up to do.
I know that for brevity you stuck to broad categories. I’m not sure that broad categories fit anymore. Are the needs of a Service Employees union member the same as a Teacher’s union member the same as a United Auto Worker’s member? Ethnic minorities can’t even be categorized in such broad terms, is a Cuban American looking for representation the same as a Mexican American or a Puerto Rican or someone that is fifth generation, but of Latin descent? What about native Central American descent? What about young vs. old in each of these categories? What about income and economic status — now there probably could be some solid groupings, across color lines and geographic — if the Democratic Party can unify on a message.
Does the Democratic Party have a unified message? I think we didn’t for a long time, but I see progress (pun intended.) At the Democrats.org website, I see 10 items under “agenda”, ranging from “Strength at Home” to “Civil Rights & Justice”. I do not have an elevator speech prepared, but I am hopeful that there is progress.
So, who does the Democratic Party represent? It represents those who believe that we are strongest when we take care of the weakest links in our society. It represents me. It represents most members of my church. It represents most people that I associate with, but not all. That is a broad categorization of people that I wouldn’t even know where to begin to place into the categories at the top of the diary.
The Democratic Party represents those that would replace tax cuts for the rich with programs to help everyone in society have a fair shot to have a decent life. Dividing people into categories is the Republican Way. The Democratic Party is a party of ideas, and we accept and assist everyone who wants to help have those ideas blossom into the great society we once had.
Like Huey Lewis’ song, the party needs to put all these ideas, thoughts, wants, wishes, needs, into a blender, push the button and make a new drink/drug that will top off what the NeoCons have been serving.
But it’s gonna have to be a helluva drink/drug, to beat out Money/Greed ; )
People have lost their souls, there for no compassion/empathy.
I probably do not have a say in all of this. I do want to comment you all on your tenasity for defining what you stand for. I stand by the democratic party not the dlc. I have never liked the dlc….I do respect the democratic party, however. I have worked with democrats to get the job done. It take lots of ppl from all areas of life to get the job done.
I will continue to stand with the democratic party as long as I have the strength to do so. I do not want the dlc to take my work and make it theirs. I do not give them the right to do so. I want to know how I go about telling them this…
I think your party would have more independents working with them if it werent for the dlc. I for one do not like being bullied around and I see the dlc doing this to the dem. party. Not a good thing to have happen.