Democrats Believe...

Agree (3.00 / 1)

The biggest problem with the Democratic party, here and in Washington, is it's lack of ideological cohesion.  Republicans don't have that problem.  They're able to enunciate a clear message, however wrongheaded it may be.  That also enables them to move the ideological goal posts further and further in their direction.

Of course, the great irony with PATCO was that it was the only union to endorse Reagan.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:41:53 PM UTC

ugh (0.00 / 0)

I had forgotten that fact.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Thu May 12, 2011 at 13:39:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Firstamend07 is one example... (0.00 / 0)

... of a failed Democrat buying into the neo-con, DiNO, Reaganism. Read any of Firstamend07s posts on Sweeneys SB2718 and it isn't anything akin to reading the thoughts of a progressive but more in line with the "Air Traffic Controller firing" Reaganytes of 30 years ago.

The purity of the ideology of supporting the PEOPLE and the values of a fair and equitable society with social justice, protection from profiteering on human misery and corporate greed have been replaced with this embaressing willingness to compromise, not to the middle, but 5 feet over the middle and 2 feet deeper than the "Right" used to push for 30 years ago.

If we don't stand together, we fall alone
That didn't last long.

---

by: Couch Potato Politics @ Fri May 13, 2011 at 19:30:51 PM UTC

In a duopolistic party system... (0.00 / 0)

...perhaps it's too much to expect any party to be cohesive since they aim to divide up the political spectrum between the two. However, the Republicans certainly seem better at staying on message, at least with respect to their ability to stay united in Congress in opposition to legislation even remotely smacking of progress (eg healthcare reform), than the Democrats. I used to think it's because the GOP was just better at the game than the Democrats until I realized that the Democrats really do consist of what, in many other Western democracies, would be at least two parties: a social democratic wing and a more centrist wing. If anything, it's the centrist wing that seems to dominate and will often side with the Republicans. That's why, while I am glad to contribute to true lefty Democratic candidates, I am not a registered Democrat. Too often, on issues that matter to me (war, economic policy, healthcare, taxation) the difference between the national parties is one of degree, with the Democrats too often willing to cede the parameters of the debate to the political right.

---

by: Alex @ Fri May 13, 2011 at 23:12:03 PM UTC

2 Dem Parties (0.00 / 0)

I couldn't agree more.   If  Dems were to split along ideological lines, about 30 - 40 percent of us would join a Progressive Party, an equal-ish amount would join the "third Way" conservative Dems and maybe 20 percent would sit there, dumbfounded.  

---

by: nsodano @ Sun May 15, 2011 at 23:30:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The only good things... (0.00 / 0)

...that might come from the TPM takeover of the Republican Party and the ascendance of the centrist No Labels movement is that it could allow the Democratic Party to return to its progressive roots and attract those who have left over the past few decades for irrelevant left-wing 3rd parties.

But even if that doesn't happen, I have always felt that if Greens, Socialists, and other left-wing groups became Green Democrats and Social Democrats and actively participated in credibly contested primary elections, progressives could reclaim the Democratic Party.

However, this scenario is just as unlikely as far too many of these left-wingers would prefer to be big fish in small ponds and far too many progressive leaders are far too content being small fish in a big pond as long as they can bottom-feed from that pond.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon May 16, 2011 at 03:42:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]