Reply #38: Why bring up a freaky fringe idea like

[omega minimo]

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: