What splits a party? Lack of power.

I've been ruminating on all these threads about what we should do as a party. The moderates want us to become more moderate. The socialists want us to become full-blown socialists. The peaceniks want us to march 24/7. We don't really seem to have a civil rights contingent here (aside from the gay rights crowd), which is unfortunate, but if we did, they would be demanding that we follow their lead.

It got me thinking that this Party has always had these dispirite groups, and there has always been in-fighting, but boy, nothing exposes fault lines like losing. We've been more or less a minority party since '94. We have not held any branch of the government since '02. And since we don't have the spoils of victory to divide up anymore, everyone is angry and looking to place blame. Two years of this is going to be bad, but the likely 4 bleak years we are facing (since I don't see us getting back the House or Senate in '06) is going to be really rough.

That's why, as far as I am concerned, we gotta get tight and tight and remember just who it is we are opposing.

People gotta wake up.

I can see that happening, but I also think that being the opposition and out of power can also work to get more unity.

Being out of power, it is in some ways easier to ignore disagreements. We pretty much agree with the areas where we strongly oppose Bush. If you and I disagree on what the government should do, we can stick together due to agreeing that a change is desperately needed. (Of course I also see your point that we can also fight about which direction the party needs to move in so that it can win).

On the other hand, having so much power could act to divide the Republicans. Various groups could have stuck together more easily when Clinton was President and Democrats had more power in Congress. Now it is harder for more libertarian Republicans to stick with the social conservatives, and for more isolationists to sitck with the neocons. The social conservatives are now expecting more, after being given credit by many for Bush's win, which could lead to measures which other types of Republicans disagree with.

vision. Sorry, but that is just my worthless two cents worth. We hear talk about policies until our heads are spinning - but where is the fire, the passion, the VISION of what America stands for?

And given the lack of cohesion and leadership, it will continue to flounder....BUT, I might add, that I thought John Kerry would of made an outstanding president. Where he excelled in logical, thoughtful dialogue, he missed out on the passion of WHY he would be a stronger president. Where was his passion in defending his refusal to back the abhorrent Iraq funding with ZERO accountability to precisely where the money was going????

When I think back to the democratic convention, the one speech that had me electrified, hair standing on end, excited and near tears was from Barack Obama. He has PASSION.

Just random thoughts now - even though I said I would just lurk around DU and not post anymore...don't flame me.

Take heart since absolute power corrupts absolutely. The GOPs had become awfully corrrupt and it caught up with them. The Dems have taken back a good portion of Illinois and can't figure out power sharing. In times past when we've had the power we've blown it. I've always felt Tip worked better with Reagan than Carter. I think that's where Tweety acquired his confused state of thinking.

The coalation that held Congress for forty years got fat, lazy, and corrupt. And it seems that the Republicans are trying to reach that stage in ten years. But I think the frustration of being out of power for so long is what is starting to get to people.

The center and right is represented by the DLC. The right are represented by the GOP.

There is not an established party to represent anyone who is just a smidgen to the left of center. But the DLC pretends to represent everyone to the left of the GOP only to get contributions.

The split in the Democratic party is happening because people are waking up to the fact the DLC does not represent anyone but the DLC.

...but can't handle the DLC.

I think a lot of people have some sort of myth that before the DLC existed, the Party was some sort of haven for Left-wingers and are ignoring the fact that people like Lloyd Bentsen once wielded considerable power. To me, the DLC has always been more about cynically crafting an image more than anything else. It's not the Heritage Foundation.

Now it supports corporatists.

Yes the Democratic party was never a "socialist" party, but at least it was somewhere between socialist and corporatist. But now with the DLC at the helm the Democratic party has completely gone corporatist leaving everyone who is not part of the Ownership Society unrepresented.