The root of the problem

[ewagner]

I noticed at least one and maybe even two of today's "toons" reflect on Democrats being indecisive, adrift, confused or generally not focused on any plan of action in particular. The over-reaching message is, of course, that the Democratic Party is in disarray. To some extent, it's true.

Just look at where prominent Democrats are coming from...from Hillary to Murtha, Feingold to Biden, Lieberman to god-knows-where. Just take a look, also, at the DU threads on almost any issue. WE'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE TOO!

The root of the problem, in my most humble opinion, is that we lack leadership. We are not in the middle of a Presidential Election Campaign, so we don't have a symbolic head-of-the-party around whom we could rally and we've never actually given the head of the DNC that kind of authority or mantle of leadership before.

Howard Dean did a lot to rally the party faithful last year but his voice has been muted by those Democrats who are vying for the nomination in '08 by trying to steal the spotlight and give the appearance that they are speaking for the "right people" in the party. I'm thinking primarily of Biden who seems to think that he is the one and only repository for wisdom and knowledge within the party...and only those who agree with him are the "right people". However, Lieberman and Hillary are probably thinking the same, exact thing. One characteristic of these voices is that they seem to be speaking to a niche of the Democratic Party and have not or will not try to speak to the party as a whole.

Until a charismatic, articulate leader emerges with a unifying message, our party will continue to appear "adrift" due to the cacophony of competing voices and agenda. The first person to come up with a unifying message wins. Poll after poll shows that the majority of the American people are in step with the Democratic platform more than they are with the Republican platform. If that majority is solidified, we are unstoppable.

thoughts?

[Armstead]

1. Need leadership that is willing to listen and break the mold

Leaders have an importtant role, but we should all be the basis of leadership.

I think the real core of the problem is that leaders are so inbred that they end up annointing each otehr and reinforcing stale "conventional wisdom." Like any form of inbreeding, that leads to a dilution and weakening of political dynamics.

The byword becomes "On no we can't do that. It's too radical" instead of "We can do better."

[Warpy]

2. The problem is the subversion of the traditional message

by the conservatives at the center of party power. They allowed that "Democrats don't stand for anything" meme to take hold. They tried to alter the party into their image, a pro corporate, anti labor, but socially liberal party. That just didn't work in a party with a traditional base made up of labor.

Hell, they even got Gore to drop the universal healthcare plank from the party platform, a move that looks like sheer insanity to those of us who are uninsured, underinsured, or who have to fight with insurance company bean counters every step of the way.

The party needs to do some serious soul searching. Who are we now? Should our economic programs appeal only to yuppies and screw the working class? Should we still be wedded to the dogma of unrestricted trade that has been such a disaster for labor and for the country? Or should the party bosses shake themselves up a bit and start asking the workers out there what would get them up off the couch on election day and to the polls?

Unfortunately, none of the people jockeying for the 08 nomination has addressed any of this stuff. My own feeling is that anyone from within the I495 beltway should be disqualified immediately.

A party that takes its traditional base for granted by not addressing its concerns is going to be doomed to failure, and deservedly so. The GOP speaks to their base on a daily basis. We dislike them and their base, but we should admit they've done a good job of getting them out to vote. It's high time the party conservatives realize that doing the same thing over and over again is losing them more power every year. It's time to try something new. Or old.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I'm wondering if '08 is getting in the way of unity

I think Dean's plan to build up the party in every state from the grassroots up is good. I think any Dem who looks at the polls and realizes that the majority of Americans have questions about Iraq and offers a plan for leaving is trying to lead the party. Our problem is twofold: one, a hostile media that will distort our positions, and two, Democrats who are putting their presidential ambitions ahead of what is good for the party, which I see as short sighted.

[ewagner]

5. The grass roots

campaign structure is a good start but once in place, it has to be empowered. I think if the grass-roots organization defeated an "inside-the-beltway" or MSM favorite, it would emposer the organization and give it some muscle. A leader emerging from there could be very powerful.

You made another good point. " Democrat who are putting their presidential ambitions ahead ow what is good for the party, whic I see as short sighted.

Exactly right!

The problem is that whenever it becomes apparent that a Democrat is promoting him or her self for the nomination, then almost everything they say becomes suspect. Unfortunately, I am even looking more critically at what Feingold says now days because I know he has presidential ambitions and his credibility has suffered for it. I'm getting sooooooooo jaded by these guys.

[patrice]

4. A leader who actually shares power could be very popular.

Most of what leads this party are, at best, passive aggressive, at worst they shove candidates down our throats for reasons that have more to do with our oppressive status quo than they have to do with us.

Ask any "leader" what they do with all of the input they get from sources other than lobbyists, and you'll find that all of those emails and letters and phone-calls get pro-forma responses and then are dumped somewhere and lost as a source of information about constituents. Information that could be used to create inclusive strategic political processes, rooted in the People, rather than Lobbyists.

We are all over the place because Everything that is going on is connected inside OUR lives. Telling us to focus needs to be accompanied by somekind of plan in which the focus moves strategically to cover all of what is happening to us, so everyone knows that their discipline now will pay off later. We need a work ethic that states that others who organize around their own issues and talking-points will help me and my group, because we help them.

And oh yeah, one of the reasons we've been getting our butts kicked this last decade is because Republicans have done the above in their Church Cartels.

[bemildred]

6. It's not going to be easy.

Charismatic, articulate leaders with a unifying message are a threat to the existing political structure, and as such will be resisted tooth and nail. The same applies to grass-roots movements. It's no accident they passed the two-term limit right after FDR. It's no accident we've had one boring drone after another in the White House. It's no accident that 3rd Party runs are always derailed and disemboweled. Do you think it's an accident or luck that we've had the same two parties in power this last 150 years? Can you imagine if Big Dog could have run in perpetuity? What happened to Newt Gingrich's movement? It's no accident that the major parties put up one uninspiring drone after another.

Anyway, that's how it looks to me.

[BeFree]

7. Gol'durnit

Here I thought you were gonna tell the whole truth, at least.

The truth that our party has the ear of the American people. That dems are known as the holders of the American dream (such as it is.) That dems didn't need to follow lockstep some flashy leasder, or talking head, or flag waver: that we members of the party are at the levers of power if we'd only use those levers.

I thought your description of root of the problem would be a sizing up of the corruption of our votes. That the pukes had seized control and that the way outta this mess was to get our vote back under the people's control, away from corporate dominance.

Instead I saw a bunch of navel gazing and another sad attempt to look the other way from the direction that the semi that ran over us is going.

Yes. We won the election. We should be at the levers, and would be if Dems weren't so damned scared of the pukes driving that e-vote semi.

We are toast.

[kentuck]

8. I think there is a lot of merit in what you say....

Where is that leader?

[welshTerrier2]

9. too passive

"Until a charismatic, articulate leader emerges"

i agree that the Party is in bad need of better leadership (i'm not specifically referring to Dean) ... but the leadership we need is NOT someone with "a unifying message" ... the leadership we need is leadership that will call for major reforms in the Party's internal processes ...

focussing on a "guru" with a unifying message that will "save" us is exactly the problem we currently have ... it is focussed on individuals, heros and celebrities ... i don't accept the premise that such a person exists ... we have real and deep divisions on the issues ...

we don't need "a white knight" to come along with all the right answers ... that's a pipedream ... what we do need is to reform our processes ... "little people" are much too far removed from the Party's decision making processes ... and the primaries aren't much help either ... they don't ensure that all views and voices will be represented ...

somehow, we need to value all Democrats more and make sure that our "leaders" remain in regular contact with regular folks ... when was the last time your Senator held a forum for his or her constituents? when was the last time prominent Democrats held an open forum, not a fundraiser, somewhere near you? if we want to find leaders who represent our points of view, we'd better get busy making sure they are hearing our points of view ...

waiting around for a leader with the "unifying answers" is much too passive; what we need to do is demand from the Party that they make our representatives and candidates much more visible and much more available to the public ... without better intra-Party communication, nothing will change ... and i'm afraid very little is being done right now to effect the reforms we need ...

[bemildred]

10. A true point. Grass roots democracy is not about leaders.

On of the things that we Hippies got right back in the old days was "Fuck Leaders".

Leaders are just weaknesses for grass-roots movements, single points of failure, and the stronger the leaders is, the more that is true. Observe that the Iraqi resistance has no leaders and learn that lesson.

With modern communications we have the tools to be self-organizing, and that way lies real political power, if we have the brains and discipline to take it and use it wisely.

[ewagner]

11. Thoughtful reply..thanks

Sort of an aside, but one of my Senators is Russ Feingold so I have had two opportunities in the last year to go to his listening sessions and tell him DIRECTLY what I feel. I guess I'm one of the luckier Democratic Constituents.

The reason I am focused on the "charismatic leader" is because we are, at the grass roots level at least, very fractured and diverse. We actually rallied around Kerry last year. At least I didn't see too many defections to the Greens, and I DAMNED SURE DIDN'T SEE ANY DEFECTIONS TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Kerry wasn't universally liked by us Dems during the primaries but almost all of us swallowed our partisanship and rallied behind him for the sake of the party. That's the kind of focus I'm talking about.

[welshTerrier2]

12. ABB is dead though

it's funny you mention Feingold ... i knew that he was a shining example of a Senator who is very accessible to his constituents ... he's the model for the type of openness i was thinking about ...

as for "we all rallied behind Kerry last year", i think that many of us "on the left" have had enough of that ... no, we're not about to vote for republicans ... but i think that the Party's left is still "personna non grata" and that many who feel as i do will not be voting for non-progressive Democrats ever again ... if the Party continues to ignore one of its largest constituencies, they will not be able to count on ABB support the next time around ...

look at the current crop of names of those who regularly speak on behalf of the Party and those who are potential candidates: Bayh, Biden, Clark, Clinton, Kerry, Warner (others?) ... all of them are pushing a year or more of continued war and occupation in Iraq ... no, i won't be voting for any of them ... there is no magic bullet we're going to find ... if we are going to repair the large tears in the big tent, some negotiation and compromise is going to have to occur ... what's needed is not someone with the perfect set of answers; what's needed is someone who's willing to ensure that the perfect questions are asked and that all Democrats are heard when they respond ... i had hoped Dean, the man with a pro-grassroots reputation, would push for these reforms ... i've been badly disappointed so far ...

[ewagner]

13. I'm not disappointed in Dean

...at least not yet.....

His funding of four (4) full-time DNC organizers in Wisconsin will eventually pay off...these full-time people are focusing activism by keeping us informed on state-wide/national issues via e-mail and functioning much like the DU Activist Forum.

In general, I have a slight disagreement with the grass-roots type of leadership. What eventually happens with that kind of leadership (and, please note that I am talking only from my personal experiences) is that the compromises and negotiations dilute the policy/action/effort and there is nothing more ineffective than government by committee. (Remember the old saw, A camel is really a horse that was designed by a committee. I can't remember who said it but it holds true (again from my experience)that any entity that dilutes leadership will always be safe but it will never be great.

I suspect you will disagree with this and I respect your right to do so.

e

[welshTerrier2]

14. of camels and kings ...

i think there are a couple of points to be made with regard to your camels reference ...

the first, and i know you agree with this from your earlier post, is that calling for reforms that would make prominent Democrats more accessible to regular folks does not necessarily mean that we are calling for plebiscites on each and every policy decision ... the goal is to ensure that ALL Democrats will be heard if they have something they want to say ... the goal is NOT to give them absolute control over policy formulation ... i think we generally agree that Feingold-like open to the public forums are valuable to the democratic process and valuable to the Democratic Party ...

as for "compromises and negotiations" diluting the policy, here it appears that we do disagree ... on one hand, i'm told the Democratic Party is a "big tent"; on the other hand, i'm told compromise dilutes policy ... the two ideas are oppositional at best; exclusive at worst ...

i think the "camel argument" is too broad in a political context ... take the side of those looking for a strong candidate to offer a vision that will not be "diluted" and tempered by selling out to attract a wider audience ... that's how the Democratic Party has been operating for far too long ... a slate of primary candidates is formed each with his or her own "special" constituency ... the one with the broadest appeal ultimately becomes the nominee ... but something like half of Americans don't vote at all anymore ... should we just ignore them? is that the best strategy? is that good for the Party or the country? and what about the "leak" in the big tent to the Green Party? no, it's not a huge percentage yet ... but it is a risk ... in any given election, losing one or two percent to a third party could make the difference between winning and losing ...

so what should we do? should we just throw our candidates out there and not try to reach out to alienated voters? are we a "love it or leave it" party? should we worry about turning our platform into camels if we do reach out to alienated voters to better understand what they think and what's important to them? is their room in our thinking to incorporate some of their ideas or should we rigidly lock down on our nominee's thoughts to avoid turning him or her into a camel?

speaking more generically, the "camels are horses designed by committees" argument is a nice cliche that contains SOME truth; it also contains SOME deception ... one could certainly make a good argument that the most effective products and policies are team efforts ... when we use the word "committee", it is packed with appropriate bias against bureaucratic inefficiencies ... when we talk about effective teamwork, inclusion, and "two heads are better than one", i think we're more closely aligned to the vision of political parties that i believe would be the most effective approach to defining policy and platforms ...

Iraq policy does not have to become a camel to be more inclusive of the Party's left wing ... the primary divide i see, excluding the "we have to win crowd in the DLC", is between the view that withdrawal must be based on the achievement of certain contingencies versus those who just want to get the hell out as quickly as safety allows ... would we end up with a camel policy if we sought compromise? i don't think so at all ...

suppose we were to combine the two policy ideas ... suppose we were to say that withdrawal should be based on the achievement of contingencies but should not exceed some "date certain" under any conditions? perhaps not all would agree with this compromise but i certainly don't think it's a camel by definition ... the justification for this compromise policy would be that bush is being given a fixed budget of time in which to achieve a certain set of benchmarks ... within the allotted timeframe, troops will be phased out as each benchmark is achieved ...

btw, thanks for starting this thread ... it's a topic very worthy of discussion ...

[ewagner]

15. I'm enjoying this discussion

and am happy to discuss it without rancor...this is what makes DU so great!

You raise some interesting points, and I will concede that the "camel analogy" is fraught with problems. I think my view of leadership is most heavily influenced by the studies I did of FDR while I was in college. FDR was one of the first Presidents to use "opinion polls" to gather information, but he used it in ways much different than we use them today. Reportedly (and I freely concede that there might be historical bias contained herein) FDR would look at the polls to see where the American public stood at that particular point and compared or contrasted that position with where he believed the country should be going (e.g. his policies and goals). He then used his "bully pulpit" try to move the polls more toward his direction. Of course, it wasn't so instantaneous back then so it took time and effort to move the opinion polls. (this contrasts of course with the practice of taking a poll and fixing policy around the poll results.) That is one of my favorite leadership models.

Your idea about an Iraq policy is interesting. I posted something right after Murtha's speech that got dropped like a stone but fits (roughly) with what you are saying. Buried in Murtha's statement was a reference that the military portion of the operation was over and the political process was underway. In my mind that's a recipe for a withdrawal of military forces under the theory that the political rebuilding of Iraq cannot take place with "occupation forces" controlling the country. Hence, phased withdrawal based on political benchmarks (real or contrived makes no difference) is the frame in which bringing the troops home should be discussed.

We've got to have someone with a national megaphone who can reframe the question away from Bush's frame of testosterone poisoning and to a question of political process.

Thoughts?

[welshTerrier2]

16. "the military portion of the operation was over"

i was strongly opposed to going into Iraq long before it began ... but once we went in and once Saddam was ousted, it seemed to me that the only effort that would lead to peace would be a political effort ... i must have made 50 DU posts saying that the only thing that made any sense in Iraq was resolving the rift among Kurds, Sunnis and Shia ... all the troops in the world were never going to achieve that ... and, of course, they haven't and never will ...

my deepest belief is that bush did not have any interest in doing that ... instability in Iraq has led to hundreds of billions of dollar in profits for his buddies in the oil industry ... so when politicians like Clark, Kerry and Clinton explain why we need to remain in Iraq for another year or more, i see them doing nothing but enabling bush to continue the instability ...

i'm not clear on your Iraq position ... in one sentence, you seemed to be agreeing with Murtha (as i do) that the political rebuilding of Iraq cannot take place with occupation forces controlling the country ... this would seem to argue that they need to be removed from the country to allow the political process to proceed unimpeded ...

but in the next sentence, you said that you supported phased withdrawal based on the achievement of political benchmarks ... this would seem to argue that you believe political progress must be made before troops can be phased out ...

what i'm not clear about is how you reconcile these two views ... if we can't make political progress with troops in occupation and we can't withdraw them until political progress is made, it would seem we're at an impasse ...

as for bush's frame about testosterone poisoning, i couldn't agree with you more ... i think that's exactly the problem most prominent Democrats have fallen into ... they are so afraid of the "cut and run" label that they've chosen irrational policies that also don't represent the majority of their constituents ... as some have said (e.g. e.j. dionne, nancy pelosi), the House is ahead of the Senate on Iraq and the American people, especially rank and file Democrats, are ahead of the House ... i'm for a strong national defense; what we're doing in Iraq is making the country weaker, not stronger ... Democrats have to stop defining policy out of fear and have to start making better choices that more effectively represent the Party's constituencies ...

finally, there's the issue you raised about FDR using the "bully pulpit" ... when i call for public forums to provide common folks with access to their elected representatives, i do NOT see this as a one way street ... the intent is not just to provide citizens with a chance to tell politicians what they want ... ideally, such Town Hall meetings should be a lively exchange of ideas ... let our elected reps come and speak to us about why they've chosen the policy alternatives they have ... maybe these ideas will enlighten us and we will better understand their reasoning and become more committed to fighting for them ... that's sort of the top down, bully pulpit benefit from such meetings ... and, of course, the public forums should be a two-way street ... they should be about exchanging ideas and debating key points of policy ... the "bully pulpit", politicians speaking to the public and "selling" their ideas is a valuable part of the communication process; it shouldn't, however, be the entire process ...

[ewagner]

17. You're right

It is a contradiction.

I should probably actually re-read my posts before clicking "submit". :rofl:

I think the reason I allowed for such an obvious contradiction is because I see any "threshold" event as little more that a "pretext" for withdrawing the troops. Not, as you might imagine, as a face-saving measure for the Bush* administration, but as some sort of validation of the Democratic Party idea of withdrawing troops. It's subtle, I know but nevertheless important.

As for your last paragraph, I understand what you're saying. In my experience it was always important for me to know the range of opinions and concerns of the public before I went into a give-and-take meeting. Oftentimes, knowing what legitimate concerns the public had about any issues or policies I was proposing would lead me to modify or amend the proposal. The only things I would compromise with were ignorance or evil...and there is some of each of those out there, believe me. It very often felt good to go before a group of citizens and tell them that I was altering my original plans because I wasn't aware of some legit concern or another. That was the best-case scenario that you described and it should be a goal of every elected official to achieve it.

[MissMarple]

18. "Message to Democrats: buck up. Message to Republican ad-makers:"

I'll paraphrase that part for Dionne as "shut up".
ttp://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_3303067

E.J. Dionne has a good article in today's Denver Post. He slams (gently)the Republicans for saying criticism of this war is undermining the war effort since the effort has been so abysmally run by this administration. I agree that criticism of the war is essential in bringing about change since "staying the course" is literally and figuratively killing us. The Democrats in leadership positions need to hone a cohesive message on that point. We must move on from bickering about going to war and start finding ways to get us out. Sad to say we have made quite a mess of things, and the Bushies' dream of a utopian middle east will go up in flames if things continue with these incompetents in charge. That may still happen whatever we do. We, quite probably, are going to be in the middle east, in one capacity or another, for a while. We had better start dealing with it in an intelligent way.

We have to find common ground. There are things that most Democrats and many Republicans agree on. Find them. Articulate them. One thing the DLC has not done is look over their shoulders and discover the fact that they have no followers. The same may soon happen to the Bushies.


"But the Democrats' problem is not just one of political tactics. It's also rooted in a simple reality: Democrats in both houses of Congress have been divided on this war from the very beginning. House Democrats are, on the whole, more dovish than Senate Democrats. And the party's rank and file are, on the whole, more dovish than its congressional wing.
...

And to question this administration's optimistic claims is simply good sense in light of what has happened in Iraq up to now. After all, it's the administration's wildly optimistic assumptions that led us to fight a war with too few troops, too little planning, and Rodney King-like expectations that the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds would all just get along.

In any event, why shouldn't Democrats be divided on the war? So is the rest of the country. And so are Republicans.

What's gone largely unnoticed is that while Democrats show their divisions on the war in Congress, Republicans are more divided at the grass roots.... These are remarkable numbers: 16 percent of Republicans are more hawkish than the president, 41 percent are more dovish. Even in the president's own party, a majority has doubts about our current course.

The real patriots are not those who fall into line behind everything Bush says. They are the Republican and Democratic doubters who have pressured Bush into realizing that he has limited time in Iraq and an imperative to speak more realistically."

Note to DLCers and the elected Democratic leadership: Start working with Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. There are reasons why they have such a devoted following. They speak for us, for the folks who vote.