Reply #21: a long and winding road ...

[welshTerrier2]

before i take my best shot at how to have an "intra-party" discussion, i wanted to respond to the two bullet items you listed ...

you stated that a Democratic president in '08 would likely mean no permanent bases in Iraq ...

i wish i had the same confidence in the current crop of candidates ... i don't ...

here's an excerpt of a long interview with Chalmers Johnson ... it's long been standard US policy to build the empire by stationing troops in permanent military bases all over the world ... this has been true in both Democratic and republican administrations ...

My definition of empire is this world of bases that has its foundation in World War II. It was expanded by the Korean War and then into the Persian Gulf after the collapse of the regime of the Shah of Iran in 1979. It was also expanded to places like Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

There are 725 of these bases that the military lists. The actual number is almost surely another 100 or so -- if you include the espionage bases, the British bases, the three secret bases in Israel, and the bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which are not counted. There are also fourteen bases being built in Iraq right now, and a large number of bases in Afghanistan. We’ve got a very considerable empire, one that combines imperialism with militarism.

your second point is that "we aren't the ones setting policy" ... certainly no one can argue with that ... but again, to view the party as powerless because we are out of power would be a huge mistake ... with elections coming up in November and the republicans running scared because of bush's horrible poll numbers, we have plenty of power ...

the party should take bold, firm stands on the major issues and use the upcoming elections for political leverage ... we can force the republicans to either go on the record against us or to make some concessions ... but the party has given this leverage away for free ... instead of putting forward a clear alternate plan, especially for Iraq, and then putting it before the American people, i see nothing but political game playing ... instead of a unified party message to put an absolute end to congressional bribes from lobbyists, i hear almost nothing from Democrats ... there are many other examples ... Democrats can't win on any vote without republican support because we are out of power; with greater political pressure, however, we could be far more effective ...

and secondly, even being out of power, we still need to focus on the foundation of our political support ... what is that foundation? educating the voters on what we believe ... the party's message is an "all the time" job ... do we believe in balanced budgets? what is the party's view on the social safety net? what is the right balance between regulating corporations and allowing business more freedom to operate? what is the role of our military? exact programs and policies are not needed; we need a longer-term campaign to establish the identity of our party ... right now, OUR identity has been defined for us by the republicans ... what is that identity? even getting beyond the labels (e.g. tax and spend), the party is painted as unfriendly to business (hurting jobs), too free with social spending (raising taxes) and weak on defense (anti-military) ... the problem i see is that we've allowed the republicans to paint us so negatively and we have not responded correctly ... the party is more committed to social spending than the republicans are ... to do that, however, and this also addresses the tax issue, we have to propose real, meaningful cuts in other programs ... we are afraid to do that ... THE program that needs the most cutting, besides rolling back bush's tax cuts, is our bloated defense budget ... but Democrats are obsessed with the weak on defense allegations so they won't call for defense cuts ...

and that is a major problem ... we "go along" with Iraq because we have to appear tough ... we go along with massive excesses in the defense budget, especially in hardware programs, because we have to appear tough ... the reality is, and this is the killer point, both Iraq and excessive defense spending WEAKEN the country ... but Democrats won't say that to the American people because we're working on our new macho image ... truly it is crazy ... the result is that we are seen as followers, not leaders, on defense ... the result is that we are seen as social spenders with no plan to balance the budget beyond raising taxes ... this whole foolishness plays right into republican hands ... this is how i've seen the political landscape since 1980 when reagan was elected ... our new image program is killing us ... it's not triangulation; it's madness and it is a big loser ...

oops, looks like i've drifted a few hundred miles off course again ...

here's my "off the top of my head" intra-party dialog program ... it's perhaps a bit simplistic but it's a start ... perhaps we can also discuss the party's, really both parties', absolute failure to capture votes from the tens of millions of Americans who have completely given up on the electoral process ... they shouldn't be ignored either ... it's unhealthy for a functioning democracy and it certainly is a rich source of potential votes if we had the right approach and the right message ...

Building an intra-party dialog:
1. respect - i would like to hear my wing of the party and our views on Iraq talked about regularly by every party spokesman ... no, they don't have to agree but they should acknowledge us instead of pretending we don't exist ... that would help a lot for starters ...
2. invisible Senators - seen yours lately? it's an outrage that most Senators (of either party) are virtually invisible to their constituents ... this is just plain crap ... every state should be divided up into geographical regions and each region should expect at least one visit or more from both of their Senators every year ... the visits should be held on the weekend and should last for several hours or more ... the format should be a free, open to the public forum where Senators can give a speech and then use most of the time taking questions and listening to voters ... right now, the only time most of us can see these guys is at fundraising events ... that's just wrong ...
3. online blogging - Senators should take turns live blogging with the public ... it would be great if every Senator could spend, say one hour a week discussing issues online ... is one hour too much to ask to give voters access to their representatives??
4. party surveys - i received a survey a while back from Hillary ... she wanted to know what i thought on a wide array of issues ... Iraq was not one of the questions she considered "important" ... i would like to see processes developed to poll ALL Democrats on the issues and publish the results ... then, forums could be created to discuss the results ... party officials and elected Democrats could have their own forum where they could comment and react to the poll results ... also, the public could have an area to discuss the issues and raise questions to the party for further discussion ...
5. party platform - i've read the party's agenda on the DNC website ... i think it's awful ... i won't elaborate here ... but i would like to see a process of building the platform that starts by soliciting input from ALL registered Democrats ... and i would like to see the results of that process "negotiated" publically to form the foundation of the platform ...

well, this has gotten way too long but those are the kinds of changes i would like to see ... right now, we have a situation where decisions are being made at the top for solely political purposes ... this is a dangerous situation because it leads to alienation ... whatever the mechanics, the party that prides itself on being a "big tent" is going to suffer if those become just hollow words that are not backed up by more inclusive processes ... we need reforms very badly and i see very little inclination to make them ...