How does an avowed non-Democrat (Bernie Sanders) get to speak for the Democratic party without any push-back? His interviews since last night show how he is further positioning an antagonistic non-Democratic party in his own image. At least AOC is a Democrat and DSA has at times disavowed her.
Why doesn’t the Democratic Party vet people and enforce standards? The party is playing an insincere political "game" that they feel they need to engage in, in an attempt to achieve a broad coalition. We are left guessing at what the Party' s really stand for and whether they can enforce it. Some people are becoming discouraged and disillusioned and giving up their party registration.
I think the author's concern is not focused on the real weakness in the Democratic party. Why does the author think it is important that Dems have a certain degree of ideological purity? As far as I can tell, there has never been a time in American politics in which either party has exhibited such a thing. In fact, there is no actual need to worry about uniting the various factions in the Democratic party. Are we to believe that because the left, for instance, is either not in control, or has some of its issues left off the platform they will suddenly start supporting the rebubs? This perceived issue misses the real problem. For example, The reason why Clinton lost was not due to extreme elements in the Democratic party. Rather, it was because a sizeable portion of the public by that time really disliked the Clintons and because the Democratic Party sent her on a coronation tour, rather than hold an actual real primary in which Sanders had a chance. The reason why Ms. Harris lost was also not due to perceived extreme elements of the Democratic party, but rather because of Joe Biden's ego and the failure of the Democratic party to tell Biden that he was too old. Many voters simply resented having Ms. Harris (a highly capable candidate) forced on them. The reason why some voters think the Democratic party is too far to the left on some issues is because it has allowed the rebubs to make hay on wedge issues, such as defund the police, border enforcement, and trans girls in sports; when it should simply disavow such issues. All of these things point to failures in leadership in the Democratic party, not the party's diversity in ideas.
Agree with everything in the article, but what happens next? Are we headed into an era where the Dems are a very heterodox big tent party? But how does that work for presidential elections?
Both D's and R's are losing members. Will the Dems somehow redefine themselves in a way that attracts more people? I don't know. I'm skeptical. In the short term, the unifying factor may be outrage and disillusionment at the President. If both parties go full extremist rogue, it would be nice to see an actual viable third party, but lots of third parties have tried and failed miserably.
I guess I'm wondering if the "party" stops having as much meaning and the "Democrat" is just the more liberal/progressive of the two choices people get on their ballot. Sometimes that will be the Dems of NYC picking people who are pretty DSA, and sometimes that will be people in suburban districts picking establishment neoliberals. Then all those various Democrats will get to Washington, count the votes, and figure out what is possible. Maybe? Too simple?
1 : contrary to or different from an acknowledged standard, a traditional form, or an established religion : unorthodox, unconventional heterodox ideas
2 : holding unorthodox opinions or doctrines
a heterodox religious sect
What is the established doctrine and behavior of the Democratic Party?
And don't forget the financial cost of intra-party warfare! We're about to publish an analysis at Inside Political Money that finds that Democratic primary spending is approaching $1 billion this cycle.
Can a decisive majority agree on basic rights, responsibilities, goals, and values? Do we agree on liberty and justice for all? Probably, but the enforcement doesn't happen. The laws mean nothing unless they can be enforced. An effective accountability system is as important as the rules.
How does an avowed non-Democrat (Bernie Sanders) get to speak for the Democratic party without any push-back? His interviews since last night show how he is further positioning an antagonistic non-Democratic party in his own image. At least AOC is a Democrat and DSA has at times disavowed her.
Why doesn’t the Democratic Party vet people and enforce standards? The party is playing an insincere political "game" that they feel they need to engage in, in an attempt to achieve a broad coalition. We are left guessing at what the Party' s really stand for and whether they can enforce it. Some people are becoming discouraged and disillusioned and giving up their party registration.
I think the author's concern is not focused on the real weakness in the Democratic party. Why does the author think it is important that Dems have a certain degree of ideological purity? As far as I can tell, there has never been a time in American politics in which either party has exhibited such a thing. In fact, there is no actual need to worry about uniting the various factions in the Democratic party. Are we to believe that because the left, for instance, is either not in control, or has some of its issues left off the platform they will suddenly start supporting the rebubs? This perceived issue misses the real problem. For example, The reason why Clinton lost was not due to extreme elements in the Democratic party. Rather, it was because a sizeable portion of the public by that time really disliked the Clintons and because the Democratic Party sent her on a coronation tour, rather than hold an actual real primary in which Sanders had a chance. The reason why Ms. Harris lost was also not due to perceived extreme elements of the Democratic party, but rather because of Joe Biden's ego and the failure of the Democratic party to tell Biden that he was too old. Many voters simply resented having Ms. Harris (a highly capable candidate) forced on them. The reason why some voters think the Democratic party is too far to the left on some issues is because it has allowed the rebubs to make hay on wedge issues, such as defund the police, border enforcement, and trans girls in sports; when it should simply disavow such issues. All of these things point to failures in leadership in the Democratic party, not the party's diversity in ideas.
Are there ever incompatible ideas?
Agree with everything in the article, but what happens next? Are we headed into an era where the Dems are a very heterodox big tent party? But how does that work for presidential elections?
Both D's and R's are losing members. Will the Dems somehow redefine themselves in a way that attracts more people? I don't know. I'm skeptical. In the short term, the unifying factor may be outrage and disillusionment at the President. If both parties go full extremist rogue, it would be nice to see an actual viable third party, but lots of third parties have tried and failed miserably.
I guess I'm wondering if the "party" stops having as much meaning and the "Democrat" is just the more liberal/progressive of the two choices people get on their ballot. Sometimes that will be the Dems of NYC picking people who are pretty DSA, and sometimes that will be people in suburban districts picking establishment neoliberals. Then all those various Democrats will get to Washington, count the votes, and figure out what is possible. Maybe? Too simple?
heterodox
1 : contrary to or different from an acknowledged standard, a traditional form, or an established religion : unorthodox, unconventional heterodox ideas
2 : holding unorthodox opinions or doctrines
a heterodox religious sect
What is the established doctrine and behavior of the Democratic Party?
ok, you win the grammar point! I should have said "heterogenous", right?
Yes, heterogeneous makes sense. Thanks for replying.
And don't forget the financial cost of intra-party warfare! We're about to publish an analysis at Inside Political Money that finds that Democratic primary spending is approaching $1 billion this cycle.
Can a decisive majority agree on basic rights, responsibilities, goals, and values? Do we agree on liberty and justice for all? Probably, but the enforcement doesn't happen. The laws mean nothing unless they can be enforced. An effective accountability system is as important as the rules.
Nuanced and insightful as always, Ben. Great read.