Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How Insiders Came to Be Outsiders

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-04 08:54 AM
Original message
How Insiders Came to Be Outsiders

The old insider system is over, and, so too, is the system of television bombardment - one failed to include a large section of America that didn't happen to be born with the right skin colour - and the other made money so overwhelmingly important, that the American people were a mere rubberstamp of which ad campaign they liked better. The new system has changed that - now it must be made into a system which is understandable, and which is open to general participation, rather than merely the participation of those who know it is going on. That is the challenge, not to somehow restore the cigar smoke to the process.

2003 saw us take the first halting steps into a process which is restoring people's ability, not merely to be counted, but to be heard. Heard as individuals, heard in full, and heard in depth and detail. Democracy, it should be underlined, is not about balloting: there are plenty of nations that ballot with clockwork regularity, but in which the people have no voice. The definition of Democracy which America gave to the world comes from the debates over the Bill of Rights in 1789:

"Democracy is where the people are sovereign. The nation is a Democracy."

To be soveriegn means, above all, to be able to change the rules - and in 2003, the American people began to do just that. Voting is at the culmination of the Democratic process. The primary system placed a premium on organizing early, and in the Democratic Party, that often meant building a network of fundraising and connections. But Jimmy Carter wasn't the choice of the insiders, nor was Micheal Dukakis. Clinton was, but he prevailed, to no small extent, because he had found a way to connect with a committed core. The change in 2003 - the new politics itself - was simply that anyone with access to the internet could join a committed core and make a difference. Some candidates got it - some didn't. Some got it, and then forgot it.


http://www.bopnews.com/archives/000122.html#000122
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tedoll78 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-04 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. CALVINBALL!
Okay.. the author scored major points with me for referencing Calvinball! :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC