Matt Stoller says this:
The Democratic Party is becoming an antiwar party that has been pulled out of the bipartisan imperialist consensus.
He then goes on to quote Tom Hayden:
The peace movement has been the key factor in forcing the Democrats to slowly disengage from the two-party coalition that facilitated the 2003 invasion. The pillar of bipartisan support for this war has fallen, and other pillars seem to be going down as well. The troops are stretched thin, the budget squeeze is real, and international support for the “coalition” is heading towards zero. Even the pillar of the Republican Party is shaky, with senators facing re-election in 2008 wondering if Bush has their interests in mind.
There have always been differences between Daily Kos, MyDD, and Booman Tribune, but we have all worked, from the beginning, to enlarge the number of Democrats in Congress. And we all, at least initially, were primarily motivated by our opposition to the decision to invade Iraq.
We got our congressional majorities. But we did not break the ‘two-party coalition’ that supports imperialism so long as it is conducted competently. We have no champion in the presidential race. We have no say in who is being recruited to run for Senate in 2008. If we get organized, we might have some influence on who runs for House seats, but Rahm Emanuel is still operating like a rogue elephant. This has left us open to the criticism that we were naive to think we could effect change within the two-party system, and it has led many to conclude that the only way forward is through third-parties. It’s a valid criticism and understandable under the current frustrating circumstances. But third-parties are not the way for the anti-war movement to go. As Hayden and Stoller note, the anti-war movement has made tremendous strides within the Democratic Party. But we’re not there yet. And we have to recognize what is standing in our way. What is standing in our way is that bi-partisan consensus for imperialism. Those that want to maintain our aggressive basing policies, that want to continue garrisoning the Middle East and Central Asia, those that have signed on for a new Cold War with accompanying military budgets, proxy wars, and blood-curdling talk of annihilation by our enemies, and those that define the rollback of these things as ‘defeat’.
Fighting back against these aggressive impulses requires two major things. First, we must have access to the major media outlets in this country. Blogging against the mainstream media, peeling the Democratic Party away from FOX, and providing our own analysis, is a part of the solution. But progressive Democrats need to appear on Cable and Network News and they need to write columns and editorials in major newspapers. We cannot afford to have our priorities set by David Broder, Nicholas Kristof, and Tom Friedman.
The second thing we need to do is field reform candidates in primaries (if they are unacceptable to Rahm Emanuel). In Philadelphia, we have reform candidates running for city council. For example, you can support Vern Anastasio for the 1st District. Maria Quiñones Sanchez for the 7th District and Irv Ackelsberg for the 8th District. You can read about them here. You can see a spreadsheet of all the candidates for city council (including At-large candidates) here.
These reform candidates are running against the Philadelphia machine. This is the model for the ‘party within a party’ that I have written about. If successful, we will dismantle the Philly machine. The people in power in City Hall will not be beholden to the machine, and will have been elected in opposition to the machine. Well, there is a national machine, too. And it is coming into increasing conflict with the netroots. It’s hard to define what the netroots is, and it is impossible for a small number of bloggers to determine where it will go. It looks like it is getting ready to splinter, as people like Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong have different visions than people like Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller.
I think it comes down to this. There are those that are still committed to the Democratic Party, as a party. And there are those that are committed to the Democratic Party only as a vehicle. It is the only vehicle that has the potential to end this war and therefore an effective anti-war movement must operate within the party. But it can only be effective if it takes control of the party. And we can see our enemies more clearly now. Our enemies are led primarily by the Clinton camp, the DLC, the punditocracy, the mainstream media, and all that makes up the party machine (the DNC excepted). They are formidable opponents.
I firmly believe that we cannot accomplish what needs to be done without using the Philadelphia model on a national scale. Please consider helping our Philly reform candidates. Their success this year will give us momentum and verify the viability of this plan. Election day is May 15th.
Running against the machine. I am glad that you have put up a post nationalizing the Philly city elections.
This election and others like it are critical because they build our crdibility as a progressive movement and the Democratic party. We can show that we can win and push our candidates, preparing them for higher offices. We also show that we are not hypocrits willing to turn our backs on corruption if they are Democrats. It is difficult to run against corruption on a national level when the big cities run by Democrats are seen as corrupt, citizens of those cities are less motivated to come out and vote in national elections and much less likely to volunteer to help what they see as a corrupt machine.
Besides as a movement we are most effective when we can concentrate our national resources and attention on a small number of local races, that means that off year elections are critical for us if we want to establish a record of winning.
We’re not going to move the national party until we get more people in place that share our political philosophies.
There are those that are still committed to the Democratic Party, as a party. And there are those that are committed to the Democratic Party only as a vehicle.
That’s really it in a nutshell. The dKos establishment-wannabe crowd only cares about winning offices. They’re opposed to the Republican Lite strategy only to the extent that it has failed. Their goal is to change the nameplates; whether the policies change is really neither here nor there. If the political landscape were less polarized than it is at present, they would make good moderate-to-liberal Republicans. Unfortunately for both of us, the Republican tent is too small for them and the Whig tent folded a long time ago, so they’re clambering into our tent.
And that is what the DLC and its cohorts actually represent: the renaissance of the Whig party. We may not be able to stop them, but we can sure as hell make sure they form their own party instead of subverting ours.
I think it was “right” to try and change the Democrat Party from within before an all-out assault by progressives to establish a powerful third party. It’s the “bang-for-your-buck” philosophy, and it is correct to change the structure from within.
Being a Green Party member for many years now, I don’t see how an idealist like me who’s just barely keeping a roof over my head could finance a movement to tear down a multi-century political structure. Third- and fourth- party government will come someday, and probably through constitutional reform.
Did you know political parties aren’t even mentioned in our Constitution? Yet, the rules of congressional governance are entirely shaped by party politics? We really have no legitimacy in our Congress for the power of parties, no codification in law, just in “rules”. How strange! Maybe in some future time when the damage to what little is left of American democracy is restored can we begin to address constitutionally, the absurdities and anomalies of our governance and re-form it to a more greed-proof system.
Parties might not be mentioned in the Constitution, but they are unavoidable. They are what connects the central government to the people. The problem with the present Democratic Party is that its connection to us has been lost. E. E. Schattschneider wrote in 1942:
I got this citation from this article: Ruling the Void? The Hollowing of Western Democracy This article argues that what we see in the U.S.—that the two parties are closer to each other than either is to the public—is a general trend among Western democracies.
I think the abandon of the militaristic imperialism by the United States is a key issue not only for us non-americans, but also because it is a major obstacle for the US internal policies.
I was surprised to see so little comments to the diary I made about Tony Smith’s editorial in the Washington Post, which I had noticed thanks to you. It also got very little attention on DailyKos, whereas it stirred an interesting debate on European Tribune, where a number of American posters contributed.
We came to same conclusion: the fight must be fought inside the Democratic Party and it relies upon the promotion of a new non-militaristic narrative in the media, both existing and new ones.
It is the only vehicle that has the potential to end this war and therefore an effective anti-war movement must operate within the party.
Most now recognize the folly that is the Iraq war. That recognition does not necessarily follow along party lines. In an ideal world all Americans against the war would make their opinions known by contact with legislators, attending marches/rallies or other appropriate means. (Of course, such activities during the 1960s had the added motivation of the draft.) But inaction is still largely the order of the day. So in the vacuum left by the inaction of the American public we are left to look to the Democratic party for salvation.
While Democrats are now attempting to to put into place a timeline for withdrawal, they have had since last November to formulate and implement a plan. It seems that despite the war’s role in the outcome of the last election, Democrats still drag their feet. Not to trash the idea of a party within a party, but by the time such a thing has been constructed many more will have died.
It is once again time for Americans to gather in the streets.
Our enemies are led primarily by the Clinton camp, the DLC, the punditocracy, the mainstream media, and all that makes up the party machine
might be better to drop words like enemies, at least when talking about Dems and use opposition.
also, might want to consider some direct action against the war.
might be better to drop words like enemies
That is the dKos mentality. The Clinton camp, the DLC, and the others are our enemies, just as much as the Rethugs are. This is a struggle for the survival of our country as we know it, not a minor inter-party squabble about how to fine-tune some policy. So this kind of language is very appropriate.
I am glad to see progressives use language that indicates they understand the seriousness of the struggle. The right has used this kind of language for a long time, and look how far they have gotten. You can’t avoid this kind of language, if you believe in your cause.
Here in Texas, we need a decent candidate for Senate to oppose the most dislike Senator in the Senate – John Cornyn.
So far I have heard nothing about who might be brought forward. But in 2000 and 2002 the Democratic Party here was dead. Moribund. An ex-party. Gone to that graveyard for deceased political organizations – Hey, I haven’t watch Monty Python in years. Help me here!
In 2004 there were strange stirrings, and the Democrats here actually swept the various offices of Dallas County, including electing a gay Hispanic woman as sheriff. Of course, the two adjoining counties (Tarrant and Denton) that make up the center of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex remain Republican down to dogcatcher.
So how do we find a Democratic savior to put up for Senate? Huh? Because if we can, Cornyn is vulnerable. It’s just that Democrats in Texas have no one holding state-wide office. So we have to go down deeper, and support the candidate better.
Any ideas?
“an effective anti-war movement must operate within the party. But it can only be effective if it takes control of the party. And we can see our enemies more clearly now. Our enemies are led primarily by the Clinton camp, the DLC, the punditocracy, the mainstream media, and all that makes up the party machine (the DNC excepted). They are formidable opponents.”
Totally with you on this, Boo. “We can see our enemies more clearly now” — this is, aside from gaining serious influence in the DNC, and actually winning congressional seats, the most important accomplishment of the Netroots. No one should minimize it. How can you fight something if you don’t even know what it is or how it operates? I’ve been a news junkie for 20 yrs and I didn’t begin to understand how this scam we call American politics-as-usual works until about 2 or 3 years ago. I think the antiwar people still supporting or wishing they could support Hillary STILL don’t get it. The Lieberman thing was classic. They were forced to take off the mask and the sham became crystal clear.
Yeah, the Lieberman thing was classic. I wasn’t really too involved in the Lieberman thing because my instinct isn’t to focus my energies on beating Democrats, no matter how loathsome, when there is Senate majority to worry about. But going after Lieberman worked out brilliantly. It was the best thing we could have done because it put other Dems on notice and it was very educational.
But now that we have majorities, we need to focus on reform. This is especially true because we have no one to root for in the presidential race. Our battle is still to end the war, and that can only be done by slapping the donkey and keeping pressure on vulnerable Republicans.
Lieberman was about reform. The only thing the power brokers understand is power. And taking Lieberman out showed them we had power and were willing to use it. You can talk about municipal elections till the cows come home, but I don’t have the patience or the time for that. I’m not saying it isn’t good or shouldn’t be done. I’m saying, we need more Liebermans to hang from our tent. When we have the power, they will deal. Until then,pfft.
I have always seen the party as a party. I don’t think it should be a vehicle. As you said, we do have enemies within, i.e. the DLC. Just a couple months ago Carville, acting on the Clintons behalf tried to stage a coup of Howard Dean.
Though I enjoy reading mydd I am finding it becoming more and more unrealistic. I attribute this to maybe them having some romantic vision of reviving the late 60s. The idealism of absolutely ideologically pure candidates is one of them. No politician is pure or is going to be the hero on white horse. Politics is a dirty game and you have to deal with many different people with different agendas and, of course, the real world. I don’t read Kos much so I’m not sure of if he is the same. I find you to have more understanding of the reality vs. the fantasy.
I find the wiki on two-party systems very instructive.
careful what you wish for.