The Democratic Party and Its Base
-
Bob FertikWant to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
Jane Hamsher nails it in a stern letter to Elizabeth Edwards telling her never to embrace rightwing attacks on the Democratic base:
There are any number of ways you can answer that question well and none of them involve attacking MoveOn. They’re out there on the left so you can look “moderate.” They’re saying what needs to be said, opening the conversation up so John Edwards isn’t considered the left-wing fringe loon that nobody should listen to. Understand that they have contributed a lot to the anti-war movement and that from a practical standpoint, the Edwards campaign needs the solid support of the base to get where he needs to go and everybody’s feeling a bit played this week because nobody other than MoveOn seems to want to take on the carefully orchestrated dog-and-pony show that just bought us a few more Friedman Units of war. And we’re not very happy when the people we defend turn around and start kicking them for it.
We love you. We want to love you.
Knock it off.
Elizabeth Edwards is as close to the Netroots as any mainstream Democrat. So why doesn't she understand the 11th Commandment, as Ronald Reagan famously called it: "thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."
The problem for Democratic leaders is they simply don't understand who their base is. They think their base consists of a broad group of working people and retirees who care about jobs and wages and benefits like health care.
They don't think this working-class base actually thinks, it just kinda eats - like a herd of cows grazing on grass - and doesn't think much beyond its next meal, or maybe the Social Security check that will pay for meals when it gets too old to graze.
They don't think this working-class base really cares about "big" issues like war, justice, Constitutional rights, capitalism, and the future of the planet.
So when they encounter Democrats who do care about these "big" issues, they think we're a bunch of pain-in-the-ass lefty agitators who speak for nobody but ourselves.
Where do they get this idea of their base? In part from campaigning on the streets, where they meet lots and lots of people who are not their base - including non-voters, independents, and Republicans. And in part from going to fundraisers with rich special interests where activists are never seen or heard.
Jane sees a deeper problem - they're afraid of us:
I realize many Democrats are just as frightened of the progressive movement as they are of the Republicans and were probably quite gleeful about getting to take MoveOn down a peg, but this only goes to underscore how woefully out of touch they are with what is going on in this country and how distant the perspective of the voting public is from the wisdom of the beltway brahmins.
Why would they be afraid of us? First, because we make demands on them that conflict with the demands of the special interests they want to extort money from in the form of campaign contributions. Second, because we expect our demands to be met - with action, not talk.
So how do we make our elected Democrats take us seriously?
- Bob Fertik's blog
- |
- Login or register to post comments
- |
-

- |
Top Actions
-
23,210 of 30,000

-
42,758 of 60,000

-
94,685 of 100,000

Comments
Bob, as everyone who
Bob, as everyone who participates regularly on Democrats.com knows, true leadership must come from the bottom up.
Like water and electricity, our elected Democrats will take the path of least resistance in the absence of being coerced into taking a more productive route. Unless we continue "preaching to the choir," and mobilize our base, just as the Reagan/Gingrich neocons have done for the past two decades, that needed bottom-up Democratic leadership will not materialize.
Until a few of the DLC "centrists" have been voted out of office, and those Middle Americans who have abandoned the Democratic Party are convinced that real Democrats are once again worthy of running the country, we will continue to be a Party with too many chiefs, and too few warriors.
I'm all for preaching to the choir
and mobilizing our base from the bottom up - that's what we do here.
But there has to come a point when we join forces with the non-DLC leaders of our party to pass good laws and block bad ones.
Sure we have to battle the DLC forces to do this, but if we never link arms with our allies, we will never join those battles.
I believe it's time to join the battle.
I totally agree Bob, and
I totally agree Bob, and that is why I fully support the DNC, and Dr. Dean's 50-State initiatives. The DLC, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid openly criticize Dr. Dean for being "too radical," while covering their backsides with excuses like the "60 votes" argument. They go out of their way to marginalize the only Democratic organization which represents the grassroots of the Democratic Party through a 50-State elective and caucus process.
I applaud your efforts at reaching out with Democrats.com, and your untiring fight to restore the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. When I hear Third-Party members and Independents calling themselves Progressives, that tells me that they believe there are no real Democrats left to influence the direction of our Party. It also tells me that these "Progressive non-Democrats" have been brow-beaten (by neocon "framing") into believing that being a Liberal Democratic American is somehow less patriotic than being a Conservative Republican American. Using the term "Progressive" as a PC euphemism for "Liberal" only helps to promote the neocon myth.
So, to my way of thinking, working with the DNC to return the Democratic Party to its uniquely American brand of fiscally-responsible, socially-compassionate Progressive Liberalism, would go a long way towards convincing those who have left the Party, to return to the fold.
I call myself a progressive
rather than a liberal because I believe we have to challenge excessive Corporate Power, including the Corporate Media, the Military Industrial Complex, and the Medical/Pharmaceutical Complex.
Self-described "Liberals" generally tend to accept Corporate Power rather than challenge it.
In one debate Senator Hillary Clinton chose progressive
to describe her political positions too.
Choice in the General
Hmmm, why not run Progressive candidates as Independents, so reform-insistent Democrats will have a way to scare the cowardice out of Democratic long-time incumbents?
Sometimes it's worth helping a Republican win than tolerate indefinitely a cowardly Democrat. If it's truly a Democratic House district, you'll win it back two years later with an up-to-date candidate.
That's the Naderite thinking
that helped Bush steal Florida by 537 votes in 2000 and led to the hell we're now in.
Sorry, never again.
Try a call or letter to those "shocked" by "Betrayus"
Dear Senators Biden, Edwards, Kerry:
Did not General Westmoreland endure the experience of MSM
investigation and a trial for, among other things, playing loose with the statistics of the Vietnam war?
So, what in the devil are you trying to do by maligning
us Progressives for initiating a rhyme 'game' with
General Petraeus' surname?
Do you think we are fools? Do you think that we are all Looney Tunes? We are hardly those things.
I am 66 years old, a mother, a grandmother, a Seven
Sisters' graduate, a nursing school graduate, a contributor to charities and candidates, a protester of the war in Vietnam, a protester of the Iraq 'war' before it even began.
The entire Iraq adventure has been a lie-- why would anyone with an intelligent and probing mind think that
Petraeus, Bush's little protege, would deliver anything but
lies? You should know the truth of that!
All that you DLC folk are upset about is that MoveOn
finally and visibly pointed out, where everyone could see, that there is indeed an elephant in the room.
(I thought McCain deserved a special edition of the letter, but he is so far
out in left field that the message would have gone right past him)