2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: For 2020, the Democratic Party Should Take Back Its Nomination Methods [View all]HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)Why would you 'doubts'? Do you not believe in the people to rise up and force change? Your reply is rife with 'top down' perspective rather than bottom up
'Not yet'... we hear this over and over, it's lack of political will, very few politicians willing to take a risk
again with the red and blue jersey, two party crap... 'at least a full half of Americans are strongly committed to state identity'
My point is we as a species are moving or have moved beyond this only two sides thinking, beyond red and blue teams
'As for an international identity, that is the greatest political fear', economics refutes your premise... multi national corporations have pushed past this as well as our ability to reach across the globe with internet and media... it's political parties that hold us back, creating false narratives and allowing the MSM to reinforce it...
'Plus, those rights are written into our Constitution, right from the beginning.' I highly doubt the founding fathers meant for the Constitution to be 'static', they understood that humanity evolves and so should the governing document that we as a society built as it's foundation
'it's just a strategy, to be used sometimes and set aside others.' I disagree, again bigger tent, what you propose is, again, only to maintain a two party system 'always free to leave the party or be glad it's working for their interests overall. As always, it's their choice; if enough want a 50-state strategy, the party will have to consider it.' This is why people don't like either party establishment, it's just within this cycle that the threshold to 'protest' was meet on BOTH sides and you are seeing the outcomes.. Choose to continue to ignore it at your own peril
'Open primaries: I've already stated my worries that these could be used to take over parties and effectively disenfranchise their membership' Again, closing the doors to protect establishment is a losing strategy in the long run
'Those who flocked to it and stayed were suckered big time into serving the interests of a few' this is establishment's ruse on both sides, you nailed it
THIS ' Many of our party's strongest progressive liberals are those who have worked for decades to advance progressive goals while "regulars" sat around on their thumbs.' COUPLED WITH THIS 'Those who flocked to it and stayed were suckered big time into serving the interests of a few' is to the 'WHY'... 'regulars' as you call them were suckered into a belief that the establishment was looking out for their best interests whereas the reality was establishment was only looking out for their own interests... lulling the 'regulars' occurred on both sides, within both parties... activism thresholds were finally met this cycle, the 'revolution' if it is to be called such... has begun
I disagree... 'Where we are together is in believing there is plenty of room for improvement.' this is the WHY of my disagreement with you using your point 'Those who flocked to it and stayed were suckered big time into serving the interests of a few', the continued 'Not yet' which culminates to this 'Ultimately, though, I believe your intense focus on the need to reform the Democratic Party and its electoral processes is fundamentally, and profoundly, misdirected.' my 'intense focus', interesting perception, clearly shows where you might be on the 'regulars' and 'establishment' ladder... final nail 'fundamentally, and profoundly, misdirected'.. I'm on the right path, the majority of liberal / progressive thinkers agree with me