Imagine we’re in the decade of the 1960s. Imagine that the civil rights movement is heating up. Imagine African Americans agitating for their rights as Americans, demanding equal protection, equal access to the commons, equal rights under the law.
Imagine the heat they direct at the white racist establishment. Imagine the harsh words they have for the Jim Crow enforcers. Imagine white bigots in both parties getting outraged and indignant over these “Negroes with their pet issues.”
Imagine Democrats fighting these developments. Imagine white bigots representing the Democratic Party, taking money from the Democratic Party, speaking for the Democratic Party, saying miscegenation is an abomination, that blacks should know their place, that our American traditions demand this, that our children our being corrupted by these disruptions. Imagine bigotry being framed as “moral values.” Imagine bigotry being accepted as “divergent views.”
Cross-posted on MediaGirl and DailyKos. Read on….
Imagine other Democrats saying that these bigots are wrong. Imagine other Democrats saying that there are higher principles than playing to the establishment.
Imagine the cries of outrage over the infighting. Imagine the claims that the Democrats need a “big tent” to succeed. Imagine the assertions that the bigots belong in the Party, and those who object are hurting the Party.
And imagine the Democratic Party saying, “We don’t want to divide the nation.” Imagine the Democratic Party embracing bigotry and racism in order to chase after the bigotry vote. Imagine the Democratic Party turning its back on racial minorities. Imagine strategists and pundits complaining that civil rights is a losing cause, because “those people” haven’t already won their civil rights — i.e., the civil rights movement up until now has been ineffective, and therefore not worth supporting.
Imagine JFK backing down to state governors. Imagine a 7-year-old girl not being escorted to school by federal troops. Imagine LBJ going along with his good ol’ boy colleagues. Imagine segregation continuing with official sanction today.
Imagine no war on poverty. Imagine no civil rights movement. Imagine all the things that would be, and all the things that would not be, today, had the Democratic Party gone for the “big tent” fantasy and pandered to the establishment in everything, not just the Vietnam War.
Imagine what life would be like today if the Democratic Party did not stand up for what’s right in the 1960s.
Imagine what life will be like tomorrow if the Democratic Party does not stand up for what’s right today.
Imagine.
Exactly right.
Dr. King said it in a way that resonates with me.
“Cowardice asks the question – is it safe?
Expediency asks the question – is it politic?
Vanity asks the question – is it popular?
But conscience asks the question – is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position
that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;
but one must take it because it is right.”
Thanks. Dr. King said it so well.
PS – May you find such eloquence on Street Prophets.
The democratic party has always pandered to the “establishment”, as have the republicans. Radical proposals get watered down as they slowly enter our system of law, and depend on public support to be enacted far more than on altruistic politicians.
There are conscientious republicans as well as democrats, and demagogues on both sides of the aisle. A well-informed, educated electorate is the most powerful tool in our system of government.
Imagine if 85% of the eligible voters went to the polls.
When the Dems did the right thing in 1964 with the Civil Rights act, there was a cost. They lost the South and haven’t found it to this day.
So, in my mind the ultimate dilemma for Democrats, is not to see what the right thing to do is. It is to find a way to do the right thing and remain electable.
The emergency relief response (rather the lack of an effective response) to Katrina has created a situation where doing the right thing may not cost us swing voters. So many Americans have become aware of the woefully inadequate response to those in need on the Gulf coast, that recent polls show an upswing in support for progressive programs. Apparently, even some Republicans feel less secure after watching the New Orleans fiasco unfold on CNN that they support efforts to improve our ability to respond to national crisis situations.
But what about an energy policy that acknowledges the reality of peak oil, and commits the nation to a significant reduction in our use of fossil fuels, as it weans us from the car. We know it is the logical right thing to do, but where is the majority that will support that right thing? It didn’t work in the late 70’s for Jimmy Carter.
There are other equally divisive issues where doing the right thing from the progressive view, may cost us the game. The war in Iraq for example. Cut and run, stay the course, somewhere in between? One could argue that cut and run is the right thing. Can Dems run on that policy and win?
Universal health care for all Americans is another example. I believe most progressives would say this is the way to go. Can they run urging a nationalized health system and win?
Taking back the jobs that have been given away to other countries with NAFTA and now CAFTA so we don’t lose our middle class, and retain the hope that upward mobility is still possible in this country is I think a progressive notion, but will it sell?
Properly funding public education, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, protecting and enhancing minority rights, preserving individual rights to privacy and regaining our good standing in the international community are all issues that progressives feel strongly about. How strongly do our candidates pursue what is right? How pragmatic must they become to be able to win?
I imagine an America that elects candidates who promote policies that place people first. Doing what is right for the American people as a whole should allow us to sustain our culture. People must be convinced to vote for their own self interest. If they do, a majority would vote progressive, or Democratic.
Wasn’t the south referred to as “the black belt” at the time?
If the democratic party were REALLY the self-sacrificing champions of civil rights at the time, as we like to pretend it was, they should have NO PROBLEM carrying this region.
I think that history is more complicated than we seem to remember. Both parties were full of racists at the time, especially southern democrats. The democrats were just the party that caved in first, when faced with overwhelming public pressure. (including from sections of their own rank and file)
from the wikipedia article
Again, if the democratic party really lived up to its promises, rahter than being second-worst on every issue, they could carry this region no problem.
Contrary to your comment, its not the case that doing the right thing is unpopular. Would free health care be unpopular? would good jobs be unpopular? would education be unpopular? would giving people houses be unpopular? would letting EVERYONE vote and get married be upopular? would taxing the rich be unpopular? Would peace be unpopular?
No, what is unpopular is war, poverty, unemployment, lack of civil rights, lack of civil liberties, lack of fair elections, poor education, illnesses that people can’t afford to treat, and a minimum wage that can’t possibly pay the rent.
And what do we have? One party that supports all of these things (second list) and one party that refuses to oppose them.
The democratic party isn’t afraid of losing support from the voting public, the democratic party is afraid of losing the support of THE RICH.
We dont only have a ruling pary, we have a ruling CLASS. And THATS what we need to be fighting.
Because even if the democrats controlled every branch of government, we’d still be ruled by corporations and rich men.
Dear Broken:
I appreciate your response.
Understand what you are saying, especially your last line. The Black Belt may have referred to the south at that time, but I don’t recall the term being used to describe voting patterns. Solid South referred to the southern states being solidly Democratic. (1948 Dixiecrats are an obvious exception).
You are absolutely right that many southern democrats then were racist. LBJ had to brow beat many Dems in congress to get his “great society” passed. I still think the passage of that package of bills had a lot to do with “the south” becoming primarily Republican.
Don’t confuse popularity with what is politically acceptable. All those progressive issues you listed may get lip service approval from some, but in the voting booth, another lever gets pulled.
So let me ask you, if your last line is true (I fear that it is closer to the truth than I would like to allow myself to believe), what is the answer? A third party? Or what??
Although I am very frustrated with the Dems at times, I personally believe they are the only game in town, if we are to improve our society anytime soon.
It’s pretty hard to run a third party. A better approach would be for people to vote for the platform they support, rather than getting involved in complicated political gamesmanship revolving around “electability.” If Democrats had simply voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primary, then the Democratic leadership would see that it’s ok to run on an anti-war, pro-society platform. Which would be a step towards getting a decent Democratic platform in place.
As it is now, though, since the overwhelming majority of us voted for a DLC “centrist” the last time around, the party leadership thinks that they can run another DLC centrist and have a good shot at winning.
Watch what happens over the next year and a half. Everybody is so loudly anti-Hillary around here now, but it is a certainty that when it comes down to it, New York voters will be urged to vote for her by “liberal” leaders as well as DLC leaders–because she’s “electable.” There will be dKos diaries about how we must hold our noses and vote for the centrist candidate because the liberal is an “extremist” or “unrealistic.” The money machine–including the “liberal” blogs–will run full tilt to make sure that she has the bucks to pay for the ads, the makeovers, the hairdo and clothes, the speechwriters, and all the other accoutrements of national politics.
The true liberal in the race, whoever it turns out to be, will be run over by the system. Just watch. And remember this when you’re in the voting booth, holding your nose.
You are illustrating my point exactly. Can Democrats “get away with” saying what they mean, and meaning what they say? (like Kucinich) If you don’t get elected what difference does it make??
Well Kerry didn’t win, either. The difference is that if all you care about is winning, then just make your platform an exact duplicate of the polls.
The leaders of the Democratic party haven’t realized yet that they’re running a minority party. What is needed is a good hard look at what platform features are important for the party. And then a lot of hard work to convince people that you’re on the right track.
That’s what the Republicans did: It took them 40 years to get control of the Congress and the Presidency at the same time. That’s what the British Labour party did: They abandoned Clause IV of their platform–thus moving significantly to the right–after an argument that lasted about 30 years.
As it stands right now, the Democratic party is spending its energy on electoral tactics in the hope that just a slight nudge to the process will take it to victory. That despite Clinton’s inability to get a majority of the popular vote, Gore and Kerry’s inability to beat a really lousy Republican candidate, and the fact that the gigantic GOTV in 2004 efforts only made polling day a nightmare–and made no difference to the outcome.
A complete rethink of the party is needed, from head to toe. That means throwing some interest groups out, and bringing other in. It means disrupting a bunch of established politicians. It’s gonna be painful, and it’s gonna take a long time.
What they want to hear is that if you will only become a devotee of this or that fan of crimes against humanity in Palestine, or Iraq, or New Orleans, if you will only give some money to their favorite millionaire so that he can better serve the corporations that produce the napalm, and the bombs to exterminate undesirables and generate more bomb sales, that little by little, things will get so much better, and maybe by the time your kids are grown up, people will be more enlightened and some families will pay up to $1000 a year less for health insurance, and invading countries will get a good name that makes it sound a lot nicer, and US can buy more gunmen from other countries so it has an international face.
They do not want to hear that some windows have now closed, and their future, and their fate, is now out of their hands, and is now held in the stumps of the maimed, and the grieving orphans of the storm.
THe miserable failures of the Dems in my view actually started in the 80s when they ran in terror from Reagan.
Carter did pass alternative energy plans. Reagan gutted it. Where would we be if Reagan hadn’t done that?
Otherwise, I agree with your prognosis — very difficult at best. But the alternative of not standing for anything, for ditching all the “pet causes” as being too hard for today’s Democrats to do, I think is much much worse. To me, that’s a plan for dismantling the Democratic party. After all, if it doesn’t stand for anything, then why does it exist at all?
Mother Jones, Prodigal Sun
And so true. Here Reagan was supposed to keep us all safe from “the evil empire,” but his gutting of the alternative energy tax credits — yes, Reagan killed tax credits for business!!! — combined with his profligate spending put us to a large extent where we are today: the biggest debtor nation in history.
Is there a Democrat who can step up now? Katrina may have advanced the clock. Usually the presidential hopefuls start sounding off late in the mid-term election season, or after it.
Now (and I really HATE to admit this) Newt Gingrich is the only one sounding presidential. Maybe it’s that he’s getting himself on the right tv appearances.
Who’s the visionary on the Democratic side? Edwards is speaking strongly, but I fear his resume may lack the public service management background needed. Clark is a Kosnik favorite, and I like him, too, but is he the one to paint a vision of the future?
We have all these politicians who champion American business. Who’s going to champion the American people?
Now’s the time to step up, speak up and shape the future. If it’s left to Bush, complemented by criticism of Bush, then I don’t know what these people are getting paid for.
Newt Gingrich is the only one sounding presidential. Maybe it’s that he’s getting himself on the right tv appearances.
He must’ve gotten himself better handlers because it used to be that he was nearly W-esque in his ability to make the most idiotic sentences in any given room while concurrently stumbling over the English language as though it wasn’t his native tongue. Please tell me we’re not gonna have to watch that dumb smug bastard run in ’08.
My point is that after Jimmy Carter got us to “bite the energy bullet” in the late 70’s, he was DEFEATED in 1980. What difference does it make, if you don’t get elected??
Politics is the art of the possible. Civil Rights legislation happened for a lot of reasons, but JFK stepping up was crucial. It wasn’t until the March on Washington that he knew he had political cover to go forward. He KNEW the Democrats were going to pay by losing the white south, so he not only supported voting rights for black Americans, he placed the future of the Democratic party in the success of the Civil Rights movement. That in turn meant that future Democrats had to be responsive to the black community and its leaders.
This is one very large reason why voting rights is an essential issue for Democrats.
On Jimmy Carter: it was truly Carter’s commitment to alt energy, and the way he responded to the oil crisis, usually called the energy crisis, of the late 70s that made progress. (He could have invaded Iraq instead.) For several years afterwards, the U.S. production of greenhouse gases actually declined.
But the combination of inflation and lines at the gas pump scared people into the arms of Reagan’s combination of brutally simplistic foreign adventurism and attractively simplistic economic policies, just as terrorism scared people into the arms of Bush’s ditto.