in search of Democratic Party unity

we see all kinds of arguments about who the best candidate for 2008 will be ... we see a movement to "reframe" how we argue our case ... and we see a neverending battle between the center and the left ... for Democrats to win again, all of these things need to be addressed ...

last year, "the left" came through for Kerry in a big way ... many who had voted Green in 2000 "came home" and many who bitterly opposed Kerry's views (and his votes) on the critical Iraq issue did all they could to help him get elected ... but with the election over and the "war" not, the rift is growing again ...

and it does NOT have to be this way !!

consider the following spectrum of possible interactions between elected Democrats and registered Democrats:

1. elected Democrats vote without really knowing the wishes of registered Democrats and never explain why they voted as they did ...
2. elected Democrats vote without really knowing the wishes of registered Democrats but they provide a thoughtful explanation of why they voted as they did and make it easily available to ALL registered Democrats ...
3. elected Democrats hold regular "town meetings" with their constituents and openly discuss and debate issues that have not yet come up for a vote in the Congress ...
4. elected Democrats poll all their constituents and robotically vote according to the will of the majority ...

feel free to add other options ... i strongly favor option #3 ... this should be what representative democracy is all about ... but that's not the system we currently have ... most votes are cast using either option #1 or option #2 ... too many elected reps are invisible to their constituencies ... in my state, i NEVER see either of my Senators: Kennedy and Kerry ... that is just NOT OK ... it seems like the only time they "come home" is when there's a "billion dollar a plate" fundraiser ... that's just wrong ...

Kerry votes for something i don't like ... TOUGH !!! there's no feedback ... there's no dialog ... there's no compromise ... there's no "there there" ... this leads to anger and frustration and rifts within the Party ... and it's NOT necessary ... it's bad government and it's bad politics ...

greater contact with our elected reps certainly does not guarantee that every voter will be satisfied with every vote the rep casts ... divisions on the issues are very real ... but perhaps more contact would promote better understanding and more tolerance ... we will never achieve party unity, or at least more unity, without regular dialog ... and this process is badly, very badly, in need of reform ...

unity will only be possible when ALL registered Democrats know their voices are being heard and ALL Democrats have regular opportunities to understand why their reps vote as they do ... screaming at those who don't feel represented will accomplish absolutely nothing; improving the process by which Democrats communicate with one another might help heal the rifts ... giving greater voice to the grassroots (i.e. ALL registered Democrats) is the only way to build the unity we seek ...

:argh: :eyes: :puke:

Here's my options...

Start a thread about Dem Unity and don't use it to BASH your elected officials.

Start a thread about Dem Unity and don't use it to bash the 2004 nominee.

Start a thread about Dem Unity and call for everyone to get that their elected officials are humans and have to take into consideration all of their constituents.

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

Plenty of people there see things differently than you do.

I rarely see you post anything here that is not in veiled attack mode including this.

put this in your pipe and smoke it ... and i mean this sincerely no matter what you believe:

i am a member of my town's Democratic committe ... i got elected to the committee to take a more active role in trying to get the Party to get more Democrats, and more non-voters, involved in our democracy ...

do you think the tens of millions of non-voters are making "veiled attacks" also??? do you think it's OK that the Democratic Party can't seem to get these people, a majority of whom were Democrats, to get out and vote? do you think singing the praises of Democrats, or of Senator Kerry specifically, is going to attract these non-voters ...

call it bashing; call it veiled attacks; call it disloyalty; call it anything you damned well want to call it BUT WAKE THE FUCK UP !!!! our democracy is dying ... this is not a good system where elected reps lose touch with their constituents ... and as i've said, it is very, very bad politics and it's killing the Democratic Party ... you want to win??? so do i ... doing more of the same is not the way ...

you said "plenty of people see things differently than i do" ... i couldn't agree more ... but understand that many people believe as i do that their elected reps are out of touch with their constituents ... do you acknowledge this ??

if i don't like Kerry's vote on this issue or that issue, i can choose whether to vote for him or not ... in the end, that choice is always left up to each voter ... the point you're refusing to acknowledge is that when voters don't feel represented, and when voters see their reps voting differently than they would have preferred, problems arise ... you want to squirm and whine and complain and pretend these problems are not very real and aren't hurting the Party? fine ... go bury your head in the sand ...

i'm saying the problems are very real ... i'm saying the "democratic wing of the democratic party" is pissed off ... i'm saying there are tens of millions of Americans who no longer vote at all ... if you agree with this, what is your solution? so far, all i ever see from you is ad hominem attacks and accusations about veiled threats ...

it seems to me that calling for a change in behavior from our elected reps, including Senator Kerry, is a step in the right direction ... far too many people only hear from their Party at election time ... it's a perfect prescription for losing elections ... the time to reach out to voters is NOW ... and yes, that is a criticism of those who do not regularly meet with their constituents ... you call it bashing; i call it a hopeful suggestion to help the Party ...

DiFi and BB never show up in my little corner of CA. I think they should be here more often. Of course CA is much larger than MA but golly, they spend too much time in DC doing Senate business, serving on their various committees, sponsoring legislation, voting for stuff I don't like or voting for stuff I do like, either or.

I think all our elected representatives in DC need to spend more time traveling around their states meeting people. Absolutely. Maybe if they do, we can get those damn Republicans out of DC too and then we can sneak back in a take over DC!

I'd much rather have my Senators traveling around meeting with the democratic wing of the democratic party! YEEAAHHH!

They're not doing their jobs. That's right. Especially Kerry, he's done nothing all year. kennedy too. They are sitting on the butts saying screw you democratic wing of the democratic party. Uh huh, Kerry right now is saying screw those 11 million kids with out healthcare in the U.S. Kennedy does give squat about getting out of Iraq.

Tell the Party to leader to give them hell and demand meetings now!

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

"i NEVER see either of my Senators: Kennedy and Kerry"

That implies that they are not working for you!


Sick and tired of you twisting my words and calling me liar. You've done it before.

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

Not only does Barbara Boxer stand up in D.C., she also shows up in every little corner of California. She's been all over the state.

Perhaps you were kerry-distracted and missed it?

DLC, moderates, etc.

:rofl:

the starter of this thread has often attacked Dem moderates/DLC.

(next time, post something relevant, ok?)

are you suggesting that "I" have made attacks on moderates in the Democratic Party ???

i hold the DLC in the greatest disdain but i'm not sure i've posted attacks on "moderates" ... if you want to document that statement, i'd be happy to discuss the issue further with you ... i just don't recall "attacking" moderates ... but frankly, that's not what this thread is about anyway ...

it's unfortunate that you didn't choose to comment on the idea of increased visibility for elected Democrats in their districts ... seemed like kind of a good idea to me ...

let me ask you this question: let's say, hypothetically of course, that the Party's left-wing felt increasingly alienated by the Party ... and let's go further to say that there really are tens of millions of Americans, most of whom were once Democrats, who NEVER vote anymore ... now this is all hypothetical you understand ... what script would you write to help the Democratic Party?

it seems to me that those who bash those who criticize Democrats have choices to make ... one, they could tell these people to just shut the hell up ... that seems to be about the state of the art on DU ... two, they could acknowledge deep differences exist and try to find ways to build better relationships and bridge the gap ... or three, they could just hope that those who are critical are either insignificant in number (including non-voters?) or that in the end they'll vote for Democrats anyway ... perhaps you see other options ...

what do you suggest is the best approach for the Party to deal with these "criticizers"? i think a good first step is increased visibility and increased dialog ...

There is no "problem" beyond what is normal for any political party.

Since I consider the DLC moderates, and other moderate Dems who are not DLC generally take the same or similar positions on issues, I will continue to say that you, in fact, attack moderate Democrats.

Your hypotheticals are just that - hypothetical. I'm glad I don't have to see a solution to the scenario you gave because the problem doesn't exist.

I don't know how long you've been on DU. That type of thing isn't and has never been an issue to me. However, for too long the ant-moderate/DLC voices on DU went unchecked. Fortunately, starting during the primaries, some people finally started checking the facts and returning with far different results than DU's "left wing" were espousing.

See, the state of DU IS NOT to tell those who criticize Dems to shut up. It never has been. What is the state of DU is to tell those to "Put up or shut up." In other words, you make these charges? Provide sources. You want criticize a Dem for something? Be prepared to show just why the action you criticize is "bad." Screaming DINO, TRAITOR, DLC, blah blah just doesn't cut it.

what do you suggest is the best approach for the Party to deal with these "criticizers"? i think a good first step is increased visibility and increased dialog ...

Since the "criticizers" (those who do it constantly) are such a small faction, I'd rather my party leaders go about the business of their positions and not take time out to address every little fringe group who has ideologically motivated fringe beefs.

i respect you ... i really do ... (until this thread i was not aware others thought you were funny though ... what's up with that ??)

that makes your response all the more baffling ...

correct me if i've misinterpreted your central theme but your belief is there is no problem and the Party need not concern itself with "every little fringe group" ... do i have that about right ??

OK ...

well, let's talk about some of these little fringe groups ... what percentage of registered Democrats think we should withdraw from Iraq in the "near-term" ??? if you have current polls, i'd like to see them ... i saw polls taken last June that said that 42% of the American people wanted near-term withdrawal ... would it be fair to assume that number would be higher among Democrats? wish i had more recent polls; i don't ... what's the point? the point is that whether it's 42% or even more, or even if it's only 10% or 20%, that's a lot of Democrats who don't feel their reps are "representing" their views on this very important issue ... stay with me now ... the point is NOT that their reps should vote the way they want ... the point is that more respect for these reps would be generated among those disappointed with their votes if: 1. those who disagree knew they had been heard on the issue and 2. the reps had come back to their districts to explain how they planned to vote and what their reasoning was ... that doesn't guarantee unity but the current situation guarantees there won't be any ...

and that brings me to the other "fringe" group ... tens of millions of Americans no longer vote ... i've spoken to many of these people ... i ask them how they can expect things to get better if they refuse to participate ... i tell them that surely they can see there is a huge difference between the major parties ... i tell them that the neo-con agenda is threatening the very core of our democracy and that "this year is different" ... the response: politicians are "in it" for themselves ... the only time i hear from them is when they want something ... well, make whatever arguments about this "fringe" group you want to but there sure are a lot of them ... and i do think it stinks they don't participate ... i think they're making a huge mistake ... but that's your answer? to call them a fringe group and move on with more important things? it just doesn't make any sense ... i'm not suggesting that all of this group can be courted ... i'm sure some of these people will not listen to reason ... i'm convinced that many of them would never show up at a public forum held by an elected Democrat ... but i'm not convinced, as you seem to be, that this group should be ignored ... putting it another way, the Democratic Party is out of touch with these voters because the Democratic Party is not "in touch" with these voters ...

i'm also not convinced with your argument that the Party should ignore "fringe" groups ... the group of people i'm suggesting elected Democrats should meet with more often is comprised of ALL of their constituents ... why you would argue that's a "fringe" group is not clear ...

nevertheless, perhaps you and those who see those who criticize the Party as fringe groups have convinced me ... perhaps those of us who are not happy with the direction of the Party have no right to call for unity ... perhaps in our frustration and alienation from our elected leaders we should not ask to meet with them to discuss the issues ... perhaps we should seek all out war against the power establishment in the Party even if it causes the Party to lose ground ... no more calls for unity; no more money; no more campaign work; no more ABB ... it seems like that's what you're arguing for ... i'll give it some thought ...

well, let's talk about some of these little fringe groups ... what percentage of registered Democrats think we should withdraw from Iraq in the "near-term" ??? if you have current polls, i'd like to see them

That isn't a fringe issue in the Dem party. I haven't seen polls on this with registered Dems, but among the public, the last poll I saw on it had a full 55% feel US troops need to stay in Iraq until the country is stabilized. 42% say to bring the troops home. (Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Feb. 16-21, 2005. N=1,502 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.) I would guess that more rank-and-file dems are in the 55% range.

and that brings me to the other "fringe" group ... tens of millions of Americans no longer vote

Actually, more people vote now than ever before.

The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate reported in January that more than 122 million people voted in the November election, a number that translates into the highest turnout -- 60.7 percent -- since 1968.

Turnout was 6.4 percent higher than in 2000, the largest uptick in voter participation since the 1952 election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10492-2005Jan14.html

A record number of people for a nonpresidential election, 128 million, registered to vote in the 2002 congressional elections. Another record number, 89 million, reported they voted in the elections, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. About 123 million people were registered to vote in 1998, the previous all-time high. The previous record turnout was 86 million in 1994. Reported turnout by registered voters was 69 percent in 2002, higher than the 68 percent who cast ballots in 1998.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/002278.html

Curtis Gans, director of the independent Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, estimated Tuesday's turnout at 77 million, more than 39 percent of voting-age citizens.

In the 1998 elections, the figure was 37.6 percent — the lowest midterm turnout since 1942

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/06/politics/main528373.shtml

It is a myth that less people vote now. The evidence shows that voting is trending upward.

i'm also not convinced with your argument that the Party should ignore "fringe" groups

I didn't say that. I said I'd rather my leaders not meet with every little fringe group with ideologically driven fringe beefs. That would take up so much time because there are so many of them.

nevertheless, perhaps you and those who see those who criticize the Party as fringe groups have convinced me ... perhaps those of us who are not happy with the direction of the Party have no right to call for unity

Those who spend the better part of their energy tearing down Dems, calling for purges, suggesting litmus tests, and throwing around labels like "DINO" should certainly ask themselves why they would call for unity and under what circumstances they would accept it.

I might also add that if the further left spent half as much energy raising money and fielding candidates in elections instead of bitching about the Dems that ARE running and winning, you just might get somewhere.

... perhaps in our frustration and alienation from our elected leaders we should not ask to meet with them to discuss the issues

As has already been demonstrated in this thread, our leaders meet with their constituency often.

... perhaps we should seek all out war against the power establishment in the Party even if it causes the Party to lose ground ...

At this point, you don't have the numbers to do that. You succeeded in 2000, but after 8 years of Bush, your numbers are even less.

no more money; no more campaign work; no more ABB ... it seems like that's what you're arguing for ... i'll give it some thought ...

I've argued no such thing. But to paraphrase a Will Pitt article:

the single most unreliable voter group in America. Unless you are simon-pure, you are unworthy of support from that group. As no politician in 21st Century America (with a snowball's chance of winning a national election) is simon-pure, they are not likely to bust their asses to get anti-war left-wing support.

you made a number of points that i think help me make my point rather than yours ... and your excellent documentation that more people are voting now than in earlier years was not exactly responsive to my point either ...

let's accept your speculation that 55% of Democrats believe we need to stay in Iraq ... let's also note that with the Democratic Party taking this position there is no significant representation of opposing views ... put another way, let's say 45% of Democrats do NOT agree with the current policy in spite of the fact that very few member of their own party, and virtually no members of the republican party agree with them ... would it be fair to challenge anyone who would refer to those favoring near-term withdrawal as a "fringe" group? would it be wrong to call them the "anti-war extremist left"? by your own data, you're talking at least 45% of the "rank and file" ... does it benefit the Democratic Party to have 45% of its members see all of their Senators voting a different position than they hold? am i arguing that elected Democrats should reflect the views of this 45%? NO, I AM NOT ... what i am arguing is that many of these Democrats feel very alienated and disconnected from their reps because their reps are not doing an effective job communicating with them ...

secondly, you provide excellent documentation that more people had voted in the last election than in previous elections ... but the point i was making was that Democrats are not reaching the tens of millions of people who no longer vote ... and i can tell you that Party registrations, as a percentage of all voter registrations, has been steadily declining in Massachusetts ... i'm under the impression this has been the case nationally but have no hard data to support that ...

i guess the bottom line for me is that i do not see the problems in the Party, and if you don't think there are very real problems we're not looking at the same "realities", as a disconnect with "fringe" groups ... i have concerns about the Party losing the support of many of its core constituencies ... i'm not talking about trying to attract Marxists to vote for John Kerry ... i'm talking about a massive block of voters who are rightfully growing increasingly intolerant of the occupation of Iraq ... i'm not talking about a radical fringe who wants to attack Washington ... i'm talking about pro-choice woman who are not going to like the Party's strong endorsement for "anti-abortion" candidates like Casey in PA ... i'm not talking about unionists calling for national worker strikes ... i'm talking about big labor watching their jobs exported as part of Clinton's globalization ...

and here's the main point ... when the Party makes its choices, it is never going to satisfy everyone on every issue ... but it is politically foolhardy to not take the time to try to listen to your constituents, explain the "hard to hear" stuff to them, and try to build better ties ... it's that simple ...

you said: As has already been demonstrated in this thread, our leaders meet with their constituency often. ... i was not aware this had been "demonstrated" at all ... i am on a mailing list for very active Democrats in Massachusetts ... i saw one John Kerry event that was a fundraiser (about $250 a plate - i'm not working right now) and another Kerry appearance that i think was a "thank you" Party for those who helped him with his campaign last year ... i'm not aware of other appearances ...

i'll restate the essential theme of my base post and ask you whether you agree or disagree with it: elected Democrats should meet more often with their constituents ... this is good democracy and it's good politics too ... this means not just appearing to give a speech ... it means, in a state like Massachusetts (as an example), that Kerry and Kennedy should make an appearance, say once every three months, in a large auditorium to speak to and listen to their constituents ... this is not saying they should be out ringing doorbells and it is not saying they can take the time to meet with "every little fringe group" ... making points like those just distorts the point of the BP ...

and one last thing ... you said: At this point, you don't have the numbers to do that. You succeeded in 2000, but after 8 years of Bush, your numbers are even less. ... perhaps you could explain how my strong support for Al Gore in 2000 qualifies me as someone who "succeeded in 2000" ... frankly, i didn't feel too successful ...

let's accept your speculation that 55% of Democrats believe we need to stay in Iraq

I've not speculated that. I've PROVEN that, at least in the most recent poll, 55% of AMERICANS believe we should stay in Iraq until the country is stabilized. I speculated that more rank and file Dems are in that group.

This, of course, renders the rest of you "suppositions" in your second paragraph meaningless.

(I might also ask why is it that everytime I get into a discussion like this with an anti-DLCer I have to re-state points over and over because they get "misinterpreted?" Even when I have sources making the point!)

secondly, you provide excellent documentation that more people had voted in the last election than in previous elections

Read it again. I provided documentation showing more people voted in the last three elections and that the trend is going up, not down. I'm quite sure millions of people no longer vote and for a variety of reasons - one of which is probably apathy as demonstrated in recent studies where people stated voting waits and times were inconvenient. But I really don't concern myself with people who have chosen to opt out of the electoral process.

... but the point i was making was that Democrats are not reaching the tens of millions of people who no longer vote ... and i can tell you that Party registrations, as a percentage of all voter registrations, has been steadily declining in Massachusetts ... i'm under the impression this has been the case nationally but have no hard data to support that ...

How about some hard data to support any of that?

i have concerns about the Party losing the support of many of its core constituencies

Who?

African Americans who, on average, don't support gay rights?
Southern conservative dems who, on average, don't support gay rights and are really uneasy about abortion?

To be quite honest, I've not seen in indication that the Dems are losing the support of any of their core constituencies in any significant way.

and here's the main point ... when the Party makes its choices, it is never going to satisfy everyone on every issue ... but it is politically foolhardy to not take the time to try to listen to your constituents, explain the "hard to hear" stuff to them, and try to build better ties ... it's that simple ...

And they do this. But I don't believe you realize the logistics of each Dem leader meeting with every fringe group with a simon-pure beef.

you said: As has already been demonstrated in this thread, our leaders meet with their constituency often. ... i was not aware this had been "demonstrated" at all ... i am on a mailing list for very active Democrats in Massachusetts ... i saw one John Kerry event that was a fundraiser (about $250 a plate - i'm not working right now) and another Kerry appearance that i think was a "thank you" Party for those who helped him with his campaign last year ... i'm not aware of other appearances ...

Which, of course, doesn't mean there haven't been other appearances.

Your post #7 demonstrates it nicely.

Campaigns against the GOP are costly. Fundraising is key...

i'll restate the essential theme of my base post and ask you whether you agree or disagree with it: elected Democrats should meet more often with their constituents

Yes, but they should not (and thank god their not) be at the beck and call of every special interest, fringe group, and single issue voter who's only purpose for such meetings would be to demand an explanation of a single Senate or congressional vote.

and one last thing ... you said: At this point, you don't have the numbers to do that. You succeeded in 2000, but after 8 years of Bush, your numbers are even less. ... perhaps you could explain how my strong support for Al Gore in 2000 qualifies me as someone who "succeeded in 2000" ... frankly, i didn't feel too successful ...

"You" meaning in general - those reading who voted for Nader, and those with a notion to vote third party.

You're the one who suggested it by saying, "... perhaps we should seek all out war against the power establishment in the Party even if it causes the Party to lose ground ..." which is exactly the position of Naderites and other fringe groups who want to "punish" the Dems for not coddling them.

what 'Democrat' and 'Republican' meant. She was in her early twenties. I fear for our country.

Is uncalled for.

You want direct dialogue with your Senators try calling their offices, sending them letters and emails like everyone else does.

They won't hear your requests for townhall meetings if you post them here.

welshterrier was giving their experience with their senators, etc.

I can't even remember the last time my representative (Democratic or otherwise) asked me what I really thought about a specific piece of legislation or an issue. Sure, I get those "newsletters" from my congressman that tell me little or nothing about what I'm interested in. Any surveys included are cleverly crafted to get the answer they'd like to hear and sometimes I can't even see the relevance of the questions to my life or to the legislative agenda. They align with someone's agenda, I'm sure, but I'd really like to know whose.

The rift between elected and registered democrats is the fault of those elected (and in danger of being booted out). They need to step up and make amends IMO.

i've been told Senator Feingold does this and my Congressman, Jim McGovern, holds regular meetings in his district ...

i've attended several of these meeting with Congressman McGovern and at each one was able to give him my thoughts on the key issues, challenge him on his views, and even when i disagreed with him, develop respect for him because he explained his thinking in great detail ...

the goal of these meetings is not to make everyone have the same exact views on the issues; the goal is to ensure that all are being heard and that even where disagreements exist, respect can still be developed ...

If you believe the media there are never here. Even if they are, it is absolutely ignored except in the town newpapers. You cant cover the runaway bride and our elected representatives. There is a choice to make and in Boston at least, the choice has been made.

But, in fact, they come and meet with people. Since the election, Kerry has been in MA very often, as has Kennedy, and they have visited several towns.

This said, one can always do more and I agree with what you are saying. It would be good that our Senators and Representatives are more visible.

there is a small ideologically pure percentage who will never be happy unless Dems follow the road they feel should be traveled.

Someone will always be disappointed.

I shudder to think that the left fringe could gain control of the Democratic party.

Must agree.

:rofl:

between constituents and their elected MIA officials in the Senate. In my state, I have never heard of any town meeting featuring either of my Democratic Senators, though my House Representative has at least one a month, which is great.

Don't let an endless badgering and whining and myopia by Democrats about Democrats and perfectionism of a solopsistic kind be the issue. Tell all these people to go see a bunch of Republicans in action.

No, it doesn't really matter what kind or what the occasion is. Just serious, hour longish, face-to-face partisan exposure to a significant number of dedicated Republicans. A town hall meeting, or church discussion group, or some rally/protest, or a hearing in the state legislature. It does have a marked and quite universal effect of people getting out of their denial and selfimportance, putting all of their gripes and that of their elected officials in context and perspective. It also makes the particular issues less vast.

It has wonderful effect on uninformed and unsure people in understanding the real problem. It's the glaring moral-spiritual deadness or ugliness of Republicans that comes across as so compelling. Not winning on a couple of decisions that are easily reversed becomes far less important than just plain getting these Dead Souls out of power over us. They're the Wrong People. And in some ways they admit to it.

Fighting about purity in opposing Republicanism isn't really worth a great deal of effort in most places- this war has gone on too long for minds to change much on our side, as compromised or idealistic or realistic as they may be. The essential political development presently is Republicanism breaking down, their moderates slowly getting over their mental obstacles one by one and walking away from the intolerable atrocity it all is. We do a lot more for our side by helping that process speed up- by providing factual information and answers to questions- than anything else.

There is one true major disunity among Democrats, which is people who want economic reforms to have an absolute priority and give social reforms lip service at best. They come in a bunch of stripes- Left, Nader, part of the Dean movement, FDR Democrats. The leadership more or less has to subdue or distract them because it's a two (or more) front war rather than single front.

That would indeed be a sovereign remedy for in-fighting. There is a Sufi saying, good from many angles, that is a favorite of mine: "Bless your enemies; they show you your path."

For my part, it seems best to defeat the enemy first, and only then worry about the spoils are to be divied up....

reality that in politics you never get everything you want in candidates or policies, only Democrats offer much of what we want, AND the sure and certain result of disunity is being mowed down some more by the block-voting Repubs.

I read the stuff here by people who are leaving the party over some specific or other, would never vote for candidate X for some reason or other, and I despair. People, we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

for an explanation on votes against the Kennedy and Leahy amendments to the bankruptcy bill and the vote for final passage. I've emailed twice and I've gone personally to the local field office where I even know the staffer. So far I haven't gotten an answer. I can't really imagine what Kennedy and Kerry are for that has you upset, I'd love to have them as my Senators.

it's about process ... i commend you for taking such an active roll in making your opinions known to your reps ... most Democrats, whether it's their own fault or not, have virtually no contact with their reps ...

the point i was trying to raise before all the Party guard dogs began their attack, was that the Party could, and should, do much more to increase the frequency of contact with voters ... there is a huge pool of disaffected non-voters the Party should be reaching out to ... it's unhealthy for a democracy to have so many feel disenfranchised ... and there are many Democrats, and ex-Democrats, who do vote and feel alienated from the current direction of the Party ...

the point of this post was not to have the Party change direction; it was not a complaint about issues; it was to have the Party enter into a dialog, through its elected reps, with all voters ...

not the Senators or Reps.... if even 1/10 of 1% of the people who supposedly care talked to their elected officials they'd have to double their staffs and they'd have to take notice... non-voters are to blame for their own apathy, not the folks who have the guts to run for office as Democrats... I met a young woman in her early twenties yesterday who did not know what the terms 'Democrat' and 'Republican' meant... I fear for our country, and it's not our elected Democrats who have me worried, it's our people.

it's about getting more votes and honoring democracy ...

i have no problem with your blaming those who fail to make an effort to contact their reps ... but the bottom line is that most people do not contact their reps ...

my point in this thread is that the party, and the country, would be far better off if everyone, including the Democratic Party, did all they could to increase communication between the government and its citizens ... just because one group (citizens) fails to do all it can does not mean the other group should ...

But I think it is deeper than that. The US has lost transparency in the governmental operations. Partly this is fault of the citizenry who needing to go about their daily lives lost interest in the process, and partly this is the fault of the representatives who found it easier to go about their business if they could operate in the shadows.

This is not meant to be personal to any particular politico, but Jefferson warned us repeatedly about the dangers of self-government.

Imagine if you will, that the budget and appropriations' process were open and detailed by the so-called news media. Byrd maintains in his book, that it isn't even open to those serving on the appropriations committee. Think about that. Voting to appropriate billions and they don't know exactly where it is going.

If the country had any interest or clue about where the money was going or all the little tucked in wording in the bills would things be different? Maybe not, but the least that can be done is an effort made to make the information more readily available.

So I would propose that while face-to-face meetings would be great, if each of us was better informed and the government was less secretive about its dealings, a consensus could more easily be reached. Currently, it is "hard work" finding out what is really going on unless your interested in a runaway bride. Of course 72% of the people voting for bush thought he was infavor of importing drugs from Canada.

On the Dems? Well, the republicans have mastered the art of base politics; I'm not sure about the Dems in general, but in my part of the world, the answer is "no".

"So I would propose that while face-to-face meetings would be great, if each of us was better informed and the government was less secretive about its dealings, a consensus could more easily be reached."

Your sentence cycles WT2's point, proceeding...

face-to-face meetings....
better informed voters....
government less secretive....
enhanced consensus building....

better informed voters....
government less secretive....
face-to-face meetings....
enhanced consensus building....

government less secretive....
face-to-face meetings....
enhanced consensus building....
better informed voters....

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY! What!? Accountability and availability of elected officials to constituents? Increased voter participation? Improved communication to foster responsive government and improved Party engagement?! Really, WT2. Tsk tsk.

Maybe a Fringe Forum is in order. Don’t dismiss creative energy, Gatekeepers!

“we see all kinds of arguments about who the best candidate for 2008 will be ... we see a movement to "reframe" how we argue our case ... and we see a neverending battle between the center and the left ... for Democrats to win again, all of these things need to be addressed... ... but with the election over and the "war" not, the rift is growing again ...and it does NOT have to be this way !!”

All these things need to be addressed. I might have put “election” in quotation marks also. That’s at the top of the list of things that need to be addressed-- free and fair and verifiable elections, with broad voter turnout. Both of these will ONLY be possible with improved communication between the public and their representatives; between the voters and the political party of choice.

I don’t see that a call to “consider the following spectrum of possible interactions between elected Democrats and registered Democrats,” followed by a request for additional constructive ideas, deserves the snotty derision that was gang-heaped on your thread. To an open mind, the simple suggestion is basic to representative government. Look at how Barrack Obama blew away the Democratic Convention by harkening back to a time when PEOPLE FELT CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER AS A NATION. OH. MY. GOD. Talk about Fringe.

Putting the REPRESENT back in representative democracy would address some recurrent themes on DU (and put the lie to Bush’s phony “town hall” shows):

--Disenfranchised voters (including Dems, Independents, reasonable Republicans, jaded youth, non-voters, etc.) that Democrats NEED, to get out of the hole they’re in

--Populist sentiment that pops up here and there-- a very common sense vibe that appears on DU AND amongst the groups mentioned above: Ripe for the pickin!

--Lack of credibility of public officials who are viewed by voters as being corrupt (corporate-owned) on both sides of the aisle (see above)

--Communication breakdown between the Democratic Party leadership and the grassroots (another taboo subject on DU? why so touchy?)

You pointed out that “greater contact with our elected reps certainly does not guarantee that every voter will be satisfied with every vote the rep casts ... divisions on the issues are very real ... but perhaps more contact would promote better understanding and more tolerance ... “ Greater contact will energize voters and BEGIN TO RESTORE SOME SEMBLANCE OF TRUST IN A CORRUPT SYSTEM.

One of your respondents didn’t acknowledge the problem, which is a problem. Goes back to the “fringe” accusation also. The Democrats ignore the VARIED voices in the party only at their own peril.

Self appointed gatekeepers on DU (on various sanctified subjects) do a disservice to the mission of DU:
by shooting down valuable comments
by having enormous blind spots regarding vulnerabilities of the Democratic Party that these comments point out
by being so pompous and hostile about their pet issue (Party loyalty, “framing,” etc.) that it seems they drank the Kool Aid

By resorting to condescension and insults and refusing to make a convincing case, their point is lost. They build walls and no bridges. Those who worship statistics or live in Lakoff’s Ivory Tower or insist on someone else’s frame of reference being IDENTICAL to their own, will end up in an echo chamber. They inadvertantly come off as GASP! elitists.

“... what i am arguing is that many of these Democrats feel very alienated and disconnected from their reps because their reps are not doing an effective job communicating with them ... Democrats are not reaching the tens of millions of people who no longer vote ...”

The reason your suggestion is so powerful is that it is an antidote to the overmediated reality that the American public is drowning in. Bush would not succeed in real face to face meetings with real groups of real Americans. His presence in the White House is dependent (in more ways than one) on the VALIDATION AND DISCONNECT PROVIDED BY TELEVISED REALITY. Finally, the jaded public would wake up to reality in real time, in a real place. A place we’d like to call “America.”

500! :toast:

...but then I'm from California and I get frequent townhalls from my congressman (George Miller)....and he fully answers my letters and emails as well. Boxer is the best we have in the Senate, but I don't want to see her make a run for the presidency.

You're right of course, voters have a right to be represented by those they elect and to have their concerns addressed. Consituents need to hold them accountable. The average voter doesn't have time to play 'watchdog' however. So it's not realistic to think they will.

But I truly do believe the solution is NOT to elect a Dem congressional. It's difficult for Dems to unify behind a duly-elected senator because the voting records become the point of contention among different factions of the party. Besides, historically it's rare that congressionals ever win the oval office. (Yes, I admit it's ONE small reason I support Wesley Clark. I know if elected it would not be 'business-as-usual' inside the beltway. But primarily I know the number one issue is, has, and will be in '08, Foreign Policy/National Security, there is no one better on that issue, as any Dem who was paying attention fully knows by now.)

But there's also Governor Warner. A Dem southern governor might have a chance. In my opinion DNC should look outside of Congress, it really is good advice.

(I've never missed voting in a presidential election. I've voted in eleven of them. John F. Kennedy was my first national presidential vote. Just to let you know I HAVE watched a few races.)

...but you should know by now that those who have taken control of our party don't believe in 'majority rule'. They work from outside the party and are much more of a 'fringe group' than those they label this way. They are simply projecting when they call the millions of Democrats against their RWing agenda a 'small faction' of the party.

This is how some 'moderates' view the democratic process:

"Since the "criticizers" (those who do it constantly) are such a small faction, I'd rather my party leaders go about the business of their positions and not take time out to address every little fringe group who has ideologically motivated fringe beefs."

Something much more relevant that using unreliable polls about Iraq from an unreliable media is the opinion of Democrats themselves. Over 90 Percent of the 2004 Democratic Delegates were against the way the Iraq war started and our continued occupation there. Could this be considered a fringe group? You would think that the opinion of delegates would matter...but they were ignored by both the platform committee and the nominee. They became nothing more than a 'fringe group' to the Democratic leadership and their DLC advisors. (Bush would call them a 'focus group'.)

This is the crux of the matter with the new Dem leadership. They think that anyone who opposes their agenda is part of a 'fringe group' or the 'liberal elite'. The fact is that they don't believe in majority rule any more than the Neocons. That's the problem with having a 'fringe group' like the DLC trying to steer the agenda from the OUTSIDE of the party. They're not beholden to any voter and have set themselves apart from criticism or responsibility.

"There will never be total Dem unity there is a small ideologically pure percentage who will never be happy unless Dems follow the road they feel should be traveled. Someone will always be disappointed"

The divide in the party has never been about 'purity'. It is and always has been about a well-financed, powerful 'fringe group' that call themselves Democrats trying to steer the party in a certain direction without a mandate of any kind. In fact...the DLC would BE the kind of 'fringe group' they rant against if they didn't have the backing of corporate money and media to spread their divisive message.

What the DLC would call 'fringe groups' and a 'small ideologically pure percentage' of Democrats are actually MILLIONS of people who represent Labor, Choice and Civil Rights. Because NONE of these groups want to follow the DLC's corporate-backed agenda...they're demonized, marginalized and their voices ignored.

"in reference to the GOP, their small percentage has gained control...I shudder to think that the left fringe could gain control of the Democratic party."

Do you even see the irony in this statement? If any group is trying to 'gain control' of the party...it's the DLC. The 'left fringe' you're referring to represent the people's interests...like Labor and Civil Rights. The DLC represents no one but themselves and their corporate benefactors.

:yourock:

Ain't gonna happen.

Some claim expecting accountability is an unreasonable demand for purity, while others refuse to see anything other than purity in their political hero-gods so there is never a reason to hold them accountable.

In the spirit of party unity, I make the following pledge....going forward:

1. I will NOT participate in any more 2008 presidential candidate polls until 2007.

2. I will increase my participatation in legislation discussions.

3. I will help organize at the local and state levels.