Politics The New Democratic Party

If people hardly change there opinion, there would be no point in politics. Everyone's fighting for the floating voters so of course its sensible to move to the centre.

People that are democrats are going to vote democrate even if there is a shift. Floating voters would also and volia a democratic president. It worked for Clinton and Blair. Maybe you should go back to the third way.
 
noggi16 said:
If people hardly change there opinion, there would be no point in politics. Everyone's fighting for the floating voters so of course its sensible to move to the centre.

People that are democrats are going to vote democrate even if there is a shift. Floating voters would also and volia a democratic president. It worked for Clinton and Blair. Maybe you should go back to the third way.
[post="1301613"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


I'm not saying people don't change their opinions...but a staunch Republican isn't going to be a Democrat, and a staunch Democrat isn't going to be a Repulican (in most cases of course). There are plenty of registered Independents out there who need to be swayed one way or the other.

I heard a statistic the other day that 40% of the country is rooted strongly in the Democratic party and 40% is rooted strongly in the Republicah party...there's 20% that we need to focus our attention on.

If there is too much of a shift, people who normally vote Democrat might not. They might vote for an Independent or possibly a Green Party candidate. I know Democrats who voted for Nader (well, more like wrote him in since he wasn't on our ballot) because they didn't like Kerry and thought that he was too wishy washy, and should've been more forceful for the principals of the Democratic party.

I think the main problem people have with the party is this notion of 'flip-flopping' however ridiculous that is. Just like with Kerry and voting for the war at first and then going against it. I personally didn't have a problem with it. He was given untrue information and from that made his decision...later on he realized it was incorrect. People do change their minds, and politicians are no exception.

But, I think a lot of Democrats who were against the war felt that the Democrats in Congress who voted for it, did so because they didn't want to go against the grain...and that ticked a lot of us off. It wouldn't been so much better if they stood up for what they believe in. I think that right there is the key to making a better democratic party...sticking to your guns, no matter how unpopular it may be with the right and standing up for what you believe in.
 
Here's what George Washington had to say about political parties in 1796:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

I have to say that this perfectly describes the problems with the Democrats and the Republicans too for that matter. All they care about it winning and getting as much power/money as possible for their party. They use the issues to try to win votes not to make the country better.

So my advice to the Democrats (and all politicians): Really think about what is best for the people and our country.
 
noggi16 said:
If people hardly change there opinion, there would be no point in politics. Everyone's fighting for the floating voters so of course its sensible to move to the centre.

People that are democrats are going to vote democrate even if there is a shift. Floating voters would also and volia a democratic president. It worked for Clinton and Blair. Maybe you should go back to the third way.
[post="1301613"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
you move farther to the center, and you lose your liberal base, especially the youth. if they lose confidence in the democratic party, they don't see the point in voting, and the democrats will lose votes. the republicans won because the religious right mobilized and got its people out to vote. maybe the democrats should let the country and the youth know that they are a viable alternative to the republicans and energize their core voters. if they move closer to the center, some people, myself included will wonder what the point of voting is.
 
Here's an article I found interesting.


The Future of the Democratic Party
A sharp turn left could do the Democrats good
By Theresa House
Published: Saturday, January 25, 2003


Still reeling from their November debacle, Democrats are understandably concerned about the future of their party--who should lead it, what issues should define it, and even whether it can survive at all. But while recent defeats might make the future seem bleak, Democrats can find inspiration in their now preeminent rival's past: 1964, the birth of the modern conservative era.

After more than three decades of near-total liberal domination in national politics and public opinion, 1960s-era Republicans answered with the unthinkable: they ran a diehard conservative, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, on a national ticket. As expected, Goldwater's campaign ended in colossal defeat, allowing Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society to tear into the White House with an electoral landslide. "The election has finished the Goldwater school of political reaction," concluded The New Yorker. "He has wrecked his party for a long time to come and is not even likely to control the wreckage," weighed in the New York Times. "By every test we have," wrote presidential scholar James MacGregor Burns in his book The Democrats Must Lead, the election sounded the death knell for Goldwater's legacy as well as his career. "This is as surely a liberal epoch as the late 19th century was a conservative one."

Fortunately for Republicans, though, sometimes losers can redeem themselves. Within two years, the GOP mustered enough Congressional muscle to stop Johnson's massive government expansions in their tracks. In the 1966 midterm elections, 10 new Republican governors stormed onto the field, joining only 16 incumbents. One of the newcomers was future president Ronald Reagan.

Flying in the face of everything pundits and historians thought they knew about politics, Goldwater's unapologetic antithesis to the liberal rule of the day conclusively proved Republicans were more than just anti-Democrats, reestablishing the party's role in American politics and inspiring a new generation of leaders who would eventually herald a GOP revolution begun in 1980 and still persisting today, Bill Clinton's two terms notwithstanding. All that the Republicans needed to initiate this rebirth was the courage the run full speed ahead with their ideas.

Fast forward to the present. After a unsurprising failure in the midterm elections, today's Democrats find themselves in roughly the same shoes as their conservative counterparts nearly 40 years before. With no leader to speak of and an opposition president gradually co-opting their most popular issues (education, social security, and campaign finance, to name a few), the Democrats must try their hand at the Goldwater method: strongly articulating what they stand for in American politics, instead of risking that their silence will do it for them.

With Republicans commanding all branches of government, the Democrats have a clear backdrop against which to define themselves. Opportunities for liberal activism abound: 47 million working Americans still fall through the cracks of our patchwork system of health insurance; abortion rights become less secure with every day Justice Stevens ages; and the power of the gun lobby still outmatches common sense.

Speaking recently at the Institute of Politics, legendary Republican strategist Mike Murphy warned that if Democrats succumb to the "true believerism" of their liberal core, "they'll stampede themselves off a cliff--and serve [Republicans] the presidency on a platter." If you believe conventional political wisdom, he's right. Democrats wouldn't win with a strategy that highlights their liberalism--at least not yet. But if Goldwater, and the 40 years of Republican success that followed his campaign, can teach us anything, it's that with time truly liberal Democrats might just come out on top, by proving to themselves and the electorate that they are not just out there to outrun the Republicans in a race to the center, but rather to stand for a vision of America that will live up to the credo that "all men are created equal" and deserve an equal opportunity in life.

Taken from the Harvard Political Review.
 
We need to avoid controversy. If faced with a controversial question we need to provide an extremely eloquent, concise, and clear answer. Democrats DO NOT have the moral advantage at the moment. We have to wait for 10 or 15 years before we will. Once our youth generation comes into power there will be a much stronger liberal mandate. Until then we have to lure more voters by talking about the values and causes we hold dear. We have to talk about gun control, health care, and foreign policy. We have to give the electorate valid alternatives to Republicanism, that's how we'll win. We have to approach the common voter with moderation not radical liberalism.
 
AliasHombre said:
Any farther to the left and you fall fo the cliff of insanity.  You lost becasue you lost the ind. vote.
[post="1301743"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
if the Democrats move further left, they might actually be "liberal". the Republicans only call Democrats liberal cuz they need a scapegoat (aside from the "terrorists"). in reality, Democrats can be much more liberal.
 
xdancer said:
you move farther to the center, and you lose your liberal base, especially the youth.  if they lose confidence in the democratic party, they don't see the point in voting, and the democrats will lose votes.  the republicans won because the religious right mobilized and got its people out to vote.  maybe the democrats should let the country and the youth know that they are a viable alternative to the republicans and energize their core voters.  if they move closer to the center, some people, myself included will wonder what the point of voting is.
[post="1301987"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
You wil never lose the youth vote, becasue you are not the catalyst for their vote. They vote against the Republicans becasue they hate them.
 
Spike said:
We need to avoid controversy. If faced with a controversial question we need to provide an extremely eloquent, concise, and clear answer. Democrats DO NOT have the moral advantage at the moment. We have to wait for 10 or 15 years before we will. Once our youth generation comes into power there will be a much stronger liberal mandate. Until then we have to lure more voters by talking about the values and causes we hold dear. We have to talk about gun control, health care, and foreign policy. We have to give the electorate valid alternatives to Republicanism, that's how we'll win. We have to approach the common voter with moderation not radical liberalism.
[post="1302122"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
you just contradicted yourself there. you can't "give the electorate a valid alternative to Republicanism" and still "avoid controversy." controversy comes with going against the republicans. and social issues used to be issues we held dear.


AliasHombre said:
You wil never lose the youth vote, becasue you are not the catalyst for their vote.  They vote against the Republicans becasue they hate them.
[post="1302229"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
18-24 year olds vote the least of any age group in this country. most of those who do vote, vote democrat, yes, but unless they are inspired and motivated to vote, they won't vote period, for anybody.

and Jamison, I love that article. i completely agree.
 
AliasHombre said:
You wil never lose the youth vote, becasue you are not the catalyst for their vote.  They vote against the Republicans becasue they hate them.
[post="1302229"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


That's not true. I'm a youth and I vote. Do I vote against the Republicans because I hate them? Of course not...I live in North Carolina, practically everyone around me is a Republican...I'm in the vast minority.

I voted Democratically because they share my beliefs. They have the same wants for the country that I want.

Give the youth the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the young "Democrats" you know are just voting for Democrats because they hate Republicans. But it's wrong to categorize all of us in that way.


And xdancer thanks! I thought it was quite good and brought up the point both of us were trying to make. I found another one from Howard Dean as well that's along the same lines.
 
Jamison said:
I live in North Carolina, practically everyone around me is a Republican...I'm in the vast minority.
[post="1302250"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
isn't that the truth? i live in NC as well. I know how you feel.

oh and that reminds me, i live in NC's 5th district, and we had an open congressional seat in the election. Harrel ran as the democrat, and not only was he not liberal, he was downright conservative. he was anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-gun control. the only democratic positions he held were on improving healthcare and retaining social security. He lost to Virginia Foxx by a huge margin. obviously, moving to the center doesn't help.
 
xdancer said:
isn't that the truth?  i live in NC as well.  I know how you feel.

oh and that reminds me, i live in NC's 5th district, and we had an open congressional seat in the election.  Harrel ran as the democrat, and not only was he not liberal, he was downright conservative.  he was anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-gun control.  the only democratic positions he held were on improving healthcare and retaining social security.  He lost to Virginia Foxx by a huge margin.  obviously, moving to the center doesn't help.
[post="1302261"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


I hear ya. And moving to the center won't help at all.

Here's the article from Howard Dean (well, actually it was a speech)...and it's rather long...but oh well.

The Future of the Democratic Party 
by Howard Dean
Remarks made by Governor Howard Dean on the Future of the Democratic Party.
Given at The George Washington University on December 8, 2004

 
Thank you for that introduction. It's a pleasure to be here.

Let me tell you what my plan for this Party is:

We're going to win in Mississippi
...and Alabama
...and Idaho
...and South Carolina.

Four years ago, the President won 49 percent of the vote. The Republican Party treated it like it was a mandate, and we let them get away with it.

Fifty one percent is not a mandate either. And this time we're not going to let them get away with it.

Our challenge today is not to re-hash what has happened, but to look forward, to make the Democratic Party a 50-state party again, and, most importantly, to win.

To win the White House and a majority in Congress, yes. But also to do the real work that will make these victories possible -- to put Democratic ideas and Democratic candidates in every office -- whether it be Secretary of State, supervisor of elections, county commissioner or school board member.

Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.

I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn't beat 'em, join them.

I'm not one for making predictions -- but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being "Republican-lite." We've tried it; it doesn't work.

The question is not whether we move left or right. It's not about our direction. What we need to start focusing on... is the destination.

There are some practical elements to the destination.

The destination of the Democratic Party requires that it be financially viable, able to raise money not only from big donors but small contributors, not only through dinners and telephone solicitations and direct mail, but also through the Internet and person-to-person outreach.

The destination of the Democratic Party means making it a party that can communicate with its supporters and with all Americans. Politics is at its best when we create and inspire a sense of community. The tools that were pioneered in my campaign -- like blogs, and meetups, and streaming video -- are just a start. We must use all of the power and potential of technology as part of an aggressive outreach to meet and include voters, to work with the state parties, and to influence media coverage.

The most practical destination is winning elective office. And we must do that at every level of government. The way we will rebuild the Democratic Party is not from consultants down, but from the ground up.

We have some successes to build on. We raised more money than the RNC, and we did so by attracting thousands of new small donors. This is the first time in my memory that the DNC is not coming out of a national campaign in debt. We trained tens of thousands of new activists. We put together the most sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation our Party has ever had. We registered millions of new voters, including a record number of minority and young voters. And we saw those new voters overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

Now we need to build on our successes while transforming the Democratic Party into a grassroots organization that can win in 50 states.

I have seen all the doomsday predictions that the Democratic Party could shrink to become a regional Party. A Party of the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest.

We cannot be a Party that seeks the presidency by running an 18-state campaign. We cannot be a party that cedes a single state, a single District, a single precinct, nor should we cede a single voter.

As many of the candidates supported by my organization Democracy for America showed -- people in places that we've too long ignored are hungry for an alternative; they're hungry for new ideas and new candidates, and they're willing to elect Democrats.

Since we started Dean for America last March, we raised over $5 million, mostly from small donors. That money was given to 748 candidates in 46 states and at every level of government.

We helped a Democratic governor get elected in Montana and a Democratic mayor get elected in Salt Lake County, Utah.

We helped Lori Saldana in San Diego. Lori, a Latina grassroots environmental organizer was outspent in both the primary and the general, won a seat on the state assembly.

We also helped Anita Kelly become the first African-American woman elected to her circuit court in Montgomery Alabama.

Fifteen of the candidates who we helped win last month never ran for elective office before.

And in Texas, a little known candidate who had been written off completely ran the first competitive race against Tom Delay in over a decade.

There are no red states or blue states, just American states. And if we can compete at all levels and in the most conservative parts of the country, we can win ... at any level and anywhere.

People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas, and Alabama, and Utah if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves, and tell them what we believe.

There is another destination beyond strong finances, outreach, and campaigns.

That destination is a better, stronger, smarter, safer, healthier America.

An America where we don't turn our back on our own people.

That's the America we can only build with conviction.

When some people say we should change direction, in essence they are arguing that our basic or guiding principles can be altered or modified.

They can't.

On issue after issue, we are where the majority of the American people are.

What I want to know is at what point did it become a radical notion to stand up for what we believe?

Over fifty years ago, Harry Truman said, "We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it."

Yet here we are still making the same mistakes.

Let me tell you something: there's only one thing Republican power brokers want more than for us to lurch to the left -- and that's for us to lurch to the right.

What they fear most is that we may really begin fighting for what we believe -- the fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought.

I'll give this to Republicans. They know the America they want. They want a government so small that, in the words of one prominent Republican, it can be drowned in a bathtub.

They want a government that runs big deficits, but is small enough to fit into your bedroom.

They want a government that is of, by, and for their special interest friends.

They want a government that preaches compassion but practices division.

They want wealth rewarded over work.

And they are willing to use any means to get there.

In going from record surpluses to record deficits, the Republican Party has relinquished the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

And now they're talking about borrowing another $2 trillion to take benefits away from our Senior Citizens.

In going from record job creation to record job loss, they have abandoned the mantle of economic responsibility.

In cutting health care, education, and community policing programs... and in failing to invest in America's inner cities, or distressed rural communities... they certainly have no desire to even claim the mantle of social responsibility.

In their refusal to embrace real electoral reform or conduct the business in government in the light of day, they are hardly the model of civic responsibility.

In their willingness to change the rules so that their indicted leaders can stay in power, they have even given up any claim on personal responsibility.

And in starting an international conflict based on misleading information, I believe they have abdicated America's moral responsibility, as well.

There is a Party of fiscal responsibility... economic responsibility.... social responsibility... civic responsibility... personal responsibility... and moral responsibility.

It's the Democratic Party.

We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe.

Because we are what we believe.

And we believe every person in America should have access to affordable health care. It is wrong that we remain the only industrialized nation in the world that does not assure health care for all of its citizens.

We believe the path to a better future goes directly through our public schools. I have nothing against private schools, parochial schools and home schooling. Parents with the means and inclination should choose whatever they believe is best for their children. But those choices must never come at the expense of what has been -- and must always be -- the great equalizer in our society -- public education.

We believe that if you put in a lifetime of work, you have earned a retirement of dignity -- not one that is put at risk by your government or unethical business practices.

The first time our nation balanced its budget, it was Andrew Jackson, father of the Democratic Party, who did it. The last time our nation balanced its budget, it was Bill Clinton who did it. I did it every year as Governor. Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility and we're the only ones who have delivered it.

We believe that every single American has a voice and that it should be heard in the halls of power everyday. And it most certainly must be heard on Election Day. Democracies around the world look to us as a model. How can we be worthy of their aspirations when we have done enough to guarantee accurate elections for our own citizens.

We believe in a strong and secure America... And we believe we will be stronger by having a moral foreign policy.

We need to embrace real political reform -- because only real reform will pry government from the grasp of the special interests who have made a mockery of reform and progress for far too long.

The pundits have said that this election was decided on the issue of moral values. I don't believe that. It is a moral value to provide health care. It is a moral value to educate our young people. The sense of community that comes from full participation in our Democracy is a moral value. Honesty is a moral value.

If this election had been decided on moral values, Democrats would have won.

It is time for the Democratic Party to start framing the debate.

We have to learn to punch our way off the ropes.

We have to set the agenda.

We should not hesitate to call for reform -- reform in elections, reform in health care and education, reforms that promote ethical business practices. And, yes, we need to talk about some internal reform in the Democratic Party as well, and I'll be discussing that more specifically in the days ahead.

Reform is the hallmark of a strong Democratic Party.

Those who stand in the way of reform cannot be the focus of our attention for only four months out of every four years.

Reform is a daily battle.

And we must pursue those reforms with conviction -- every day, at all levels, in 50 states.

A little while back, at a fundraiser, a woman came up to me. She identified herself as an evangelical Christian from Texas. I asked her what you are all wondering -- why was she supporting me. She said there were two reasons. The first was that she had a child who had poly-cystic kidney disease, and what that illness made it impossible for their family to get health care.

The second thing she said was, "The other reason we're with you is because evangelical Christians are people of deep conviction, and you're a person of deep conviction. I may not agree with you on everything, but what we want more than anything else from our government is that when something happens to our family or something happens to our country -- it's that the people in office have deep conviction."

We are what we believe. And the American people know it.

And I believe that over the next two... four... ten years...

Election by election...

State by state...

Precinct by precinct...

Door by door...

Vote by vote...

We're going to lift our Party up...

And we're going to take this country back for the people who built it.
 
Im glad Dean is the new DNC chairman too. Definitely a step in the right direction. However, when i say we need to offer valid alternatives to Republicanism I mean we have to fight for our ideals concerning gun control, health care, stem cell research, and the War in Iraq. We have to come back to fights that haven't been won yet and need to be won by the Democrats. To state our stance on abortion unless provoked is futile and dangerous. The republicans rely on their "moral superiority" in the bible belt, but if we can shed some light on their all too frequent heinous mistakes then we have a chance of making traditional democratic values much more seductive to the electorate.
 
Obama won't be ready to run for a while. I'm really hoping we can win the O8' presidential election and I'm sure Obama won't run then. If we don't win the 08' election I'd like him to run in 2012. He needs time to get himself used to the inner workings of the government and he's got to build up a reputation before we can try to get him to run. Obama simply isn't Robert Kennedy. He doesn't have the name "Kennedy", he has no significant prior political experience, and he doesn't have the political connections to start up a successful campaign. Therefore it isn't feasible for him to run in four years. You need to develop financial as well as political ties to win elections and he needs time to do both. I really do believe he'll be the first black president, but we have to give him time.
 
Back
Top