Is the Democratic Party a Party of Diversity ?

How much diversity are we willing to permit in our Party? Is there a line that is easily crossed and is considered unacceptable by Party faithful? Not just with candidates, but on social issues as well, we seem to be not as accepting of diversity as we profess.

For example, we might be willing to accept two or three candidates as the potential nominee of our Party, but two or three might be totally unacceptable. Is this compatible with the Democratic Party philosophy? Are we willing to accept liberal, moderate, and conservative viewpoints? Viewpoints that are legitimate political veiwpoints and not of the radical, right-wing, so-called conservative bent of the Republican Party?

And issues such as "gay-unions", religious tolerance, gun owners, anti-abortion, and pro-war - is there room in the Democratic Party for these diverse viewpoints - or just some of them?

and we kick anyone out who disagrees.

if there are no differences in their core beliefs? People who feel strongly about the hot button issues you mentioned naturally gravitate toward the party that comes closest to validating their beliefs. Sure, anyone is welcome to vote for the Dem candidate but if their beliefs differ significantly from the Dem base, why would they?

It is kind of like quality circles at corporations - or this message board.

Most people just want to vent, and it helps them to get it out of their system, see someone on the other side of the table nod, thank them, say they'll consider it.

Of course management doesn't really change policy based on what's said in the quality circle, but for the vast majority of the employees, it really helps to feel someone is listening.

Having two branches of the corporate party in the US does the same thing. It gives people an outlet for their energies, and the vast majority feel like they are part of the process.

I suspect that for the candidates, so long as you vote for them, your personal views don't enter into it. That's one of the factors of a representative Republic. We vote for people we hope will do the right thing and then trust them to do what is best (although, of course, there are many things we can and should do to pressure them to do the right thing, like write them or protest or so on and so forth).

If you are arguing that we as voters should have an ideological litmus test--I don't know--I"m of two minds about it. I personally will vote for any candidate who promises to get teh deficit under control and embarks on a less belligerent foriegn policy--but, in truth, that's all of them. I wouldn't vote for a Democrat talking about reducing government oversight or giving huge tax cuts.

But It is reasonable to suggest that if you think an issue is really important--say stricter handgun controls, that you look at what the candidate says about that issue, and decide if you can live with it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

The defense & energy cartelwants its money. They are not going to allow any candidates that give more than mild lip service to policies that could decrease revenues.

when it comes to DU. You have to be an atheist, hate the military, think the U.S. commits war crimes every time it does something abroad, think all corporations are slave masters, and believe every accident (the black out is the most recent example) are caused by government conspiracies. Note: the above is (mostly) satiric in nature.

Granted DU of late has been sort of over the top but school will start in a few days and maybe things will mellow out some. Not all DUers are what you describe.

is this:

In order to have a true democracy, you have to be open to everyone, including those who want to destroy the democracy.

Its something liberals just have to live with.

I'm reminded of what we used to say about our old B-52Ds. They weren't actually airplanes but 50,000 rivets flying in very close formation. The Democratic party is like that. It's 50 million or so individual viewpoints loosley gathered around a symbolic donkey.

It appears that there are certain "articles of faith" among Dems (like the ones you listed)that keep the "formation" together but the more detailed you get about issues, the looser the "formation" becomes.

If the party is ever to become an effective political force, then we have to find ways to keep that formation close and avoid issues that will break it up.

Just my opinion.

And in general I agree with you. Perhaps, though, it is less about avoiding certain volitile issues but convincing libs that inspite of these differences, we need to stay together to get things done - to stay together in close formation regardless of disagreements on tough issues.

You said it better than I.

controversial issue, but must stay together in close formation on major goals such as economic reform and foreign policy.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

?

Dems were discouraged from running because of strategic considerations, not because of any particular love for Davis.

as long as everyone worships centralized power and the wealthy elite who are running things.

The minute someone starts talking about Populism and really means it, that has gone too far. As soon as someone starts questioning "The System" instead of just "The other guys" that has gone too far.

So, I would say the Democratic Party is diverse in some respect, but not in thought.

changes to the system, in constantly called "unelectable" by many DUers.

Just look at all of the intolerance and hate shown towards the black presidential candidates. You can't find a single thread about Sharpton without having to wade hip-deep through the hate.