This is just downright depressing
The good news in this widely-linked piece is that a sensible Democrat is finally doing some soul-searching and asking the tough questions: Why do we keep losing elections? And how can we tailor our message for more widespread acceptance? The bad news is the conclusion the author draws -- that Democrats must become the party of economic liberalism and social conservatism.
Christ Almighty, just shoot me now. That's right, just at the point that I'm becoming increasingly disenchanted with the Republicans, please see to it that I have no other viable alternatives. Rest assured that if the DNC were to take this advice, I would officially have nothing, absolutely zero in common with the Democratic Party. The only appeal they have for me now is their (relative) tolerance towards abortion, gay rights and other such issues that are anathema to cultural conservatives.
Want to drive me back into the arms of the GOP? This is exactly the way to do it. And it's not just me, either. There are plenty of socially liberal fiscal conservatives out there, as any avid blog reader knows.
Doesn't it sometimes seem that Democrats have just an uncanny ability to assimilate data, process it, and draw exactly the wrong conclusions? How else to explain the prevailing sentiment among lefty bloggers that the Democrats can only achieve electoral success by purging their ranks of the DLC -- despite the fact that the DLC has provided the party its only successful president of the past half-century?
God, to think of it is to weep.
Comments
I dream of a day when U.S. politics offers a choice between two viable parties- Republican and Libertarian.
Posted by: Paul Moore | August 10, 2005 04:56 AM
If that logic were true, then DLC Democrats would hold a majority of governorships and the DLC Democrats wouldn't have lost the House AND Senate.
The DLC factor in Clinton's victories is HIGHLY overrated. Clinton didn't win because of the DLC, he won because he was Bill Clinton, and arguably the most charismatic politician since JFK.
Why on earth would anyone vote for "Republican Lite" when they can vote for Republicans and get the same thing, and know it's for real?
You really are hilarious. You blast Howard Dean and Paul Hackett -- pro-gun, economic conservative, social liberal Democrats, then say the party should be more like the DLC.
Posted by: Jill | August 10, 2005 11:14 AM
Can you point out a single instance where I've "blasted" Paul Hackett? Or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass again? Nevermind, I know the answer already.
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | August 10, 2005 11:27 AM
Actually, Jill, I DID vote for Clinton in 1992 because I expected that he would follow through swiftly on his own words such as downsizing government, overhauling welfare, and also because he stood up to the great shakedown artist, Jesse Jackson with the 'Sister Souljah moment'.
Alas, his first act, as I remember, was the gays in the military fiasco followed shortly by Hillary's healthcare debacle.
I left the Democrats in 1995 after 28 years because I couldn't relate to the policies or the people anymore.
Posted by: mal | August 10, 2005 11:42 AM
I personally dream of a day when there ARE no political parties. You know, there's a reason the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with political factions, but only now are we seeing how much smarter than all of us they were.
Posted by: That Guy | August 12, 2005 12:58 PM