The Command Post
Iraq
October 25, 2004
News Flash: The Democrats Won

Many, of late, have spoken of the disintegration and desperation of the Democrat party. Democrats such as Zel Miller look and ask, "Where has my party gone?" The party increasingly reveals itself as an embattled coalition of dogmatic single-issue focused groups practicing gender politics, racial politics, sexual-orientation politics and defining themselves along whatever narrow lines allow themselves to claim a sufficient modicum of victim hood to guarantee their bona fides. How has the party of Jackson, FDR and JFK come to this point, where open partnership with the most crass of propagandists and collaboration with avowed enemies of the state are seen as legitimate paths to power? It may, at first blush, sound a paradox, but the Democrats have found themselves at this point by a simple path. They won.

Let's turn the situation around, and posit a typical Republican contemporary of Eisenhower or Roosevelt (the Teddy variety) peering into his crystal ball at 2004. It is they, I believe, who would cry, "Where has my party gone?" After almost a half-century of control, the social conscience and ideals of men such as FDR have become so universally and subconciously accepted by successive generations that these once "Democratic" ideas are now common in both parties. That a Republican majority would not debate how to remove the government dependency created by Medicare but, rather, to only debate how much the benefits will be increased is all that needs be said. Some might attribute this sentiment to crass pandering by politicians to their constituency, but these ideals are honestly deep in the heart and soul of many a Republican. So, Democrats, in the dawn of the 21st century, have a real party, because your victory over the Republicans is confirmed. And, if this were a movie, this would be the triumphant celebration at the end. Little dancing Democrat Ewoks singing their obnoxious little song as the patriarchs of the Democrat Force, Jackson, FDR and JFK, look on approvingly.

The problem, though, is that unlike a film life goes on. And so, unfortunately, do the Democrats, rapidly becoming an anachronism that, having won the major battles and war of ideas now find themselves, instead, more like the apocryphal stranded Imperial Japanese soldier, unaware the War is over, left fighting their own isolated insignificant battles. As evidence, look only to those individual groups mentioned earlier and evaluate the "vitally important" work they are doing today. At the turn of the last century, the NAACP had to do all it could just to guarantee that a man of color could exercise his right to vote without ending up dead the next morning. They fought the scourge of violent racism embodied by the KKK. In the '50s and '60s they marched in the face of dogs, fire hoses and hostile police to say, "I AM A MAN!" Today they trouble themselves about a silly flag and insensitive language. In the 1900s women even trying to vote were harassed, often beaten and jailed. Some died. In WWII women, as a group, began to gain the respect as people that society, as a whole, had long denied them. Today, feminist groups emphasize latent sexism in a patriarchal society and push to change words like "councilman." The Democrats have been too successful for their own good.

The conversion of what are called "neo-cons" is not so much a winning of Democrats by the conservative argument as it is a logical political realignment of Democrats to the "new-Democrat" party. People who used to identify themselves as Democrats but now call themselves Republicans echo the same thought over and over again. "I didn't leave the Party, the Party left me." As I said, life goes on. Since the life of the Democrat Party relies upon fighting the Republicans, as the Republicans move more left so, too, must the Democrats. But, while there are still true believers, more and more rank and file Democrats find themselves looking at the Party's "important" issues and end up just shaking their heads.

I'm not a political scientist, but I'll go out on a limb here and say that this year's election, like the past two in 2000 and 2002, will end up shocking the Democrat Party. They will see a big win for a President they envision as the embodiment of evil itself (at least that brand of evil that doesn't actually jail, kill, torture or otherwise ruin its opponents' lives). They will see a significant minority vote for the Republicans (I'll go on a limb and call it >20% based upon nothing other than anal extraction). They will see Republican gains in both houses of Congress. And they will pull out their hair and rend their clothes and cry to the heavens "why?" never realizing what it really means. Because in the defeat of today's Party, the ghosts of the Democrat Jedi masters of the past will celebrate their victory.

Posted By submandave at October 25, 2004 05:04 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Interesting point of view. Some of what you say is true. Still, so long as their are tens of millions of medially uninsured, so long as women barely cling to the right to a safe, legal abortion, so long as families are earning less for longer hours, so long as food insectors are emascualted and OSHA inspections are as rare as the condor, so long as big business is avoiding its tax burden through tax shelters and K Street lobbyists run the Congress, there is still a need for a resurgent Democratic Party.

Posted by: rdelephant [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 25, 2004 08:32 PM

There is always a need for balance - at the risk of offending all sides, yes there is a need for a CNN as equally as there is for a FOX news network. And with the clear evidence of false reporting by some mainstream media, there is a growing need for blogshpere. Fortunately for the U.S., for the most part, there is debate and power on both sides and that always leads to checks on extremism. If you come from a country like Canada where that balance does not exist and it has slid into a quasi-democracy, you appreciate some of those lost elements of a democratic nation.

The attempt by parties to squelch Stolen Honor is an extreme attack on democracy because it goes against the heart of democracy, which must have a free and open airing of opinions to survive and flourish. Shame on the democrats. Similarily, attempts to squelch Nader are also patently undemocratic because it attempts to give legitimacy to the idea that all political power should reside in the two existing mainstream parties. I know that is the case in practice, but it should not be a necessary condition of a democratic state.

Posted by: Solara [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 25, 2004 09:49 PM

Canada - where has my country gone?

I'm watching the elections for one reason, the "sleeping next to an elephant" effect. If Bush wins, and liberals make good on their promise to move north, Canada's one party Liberal tyranny will be bolstered.

Posted by: Connolly [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 26, 2004 08:05 AM

rdelephant: "there is still a need for a resurgent Democratic Party"

I think Solara has it more correct when he says there is always a need for balance. The more exteme and marginalized the Democrats become I see that balance coming from within the Republican Party. I haven't studied the rise and fall of political parties in the US to see theconditions under which significant changes occur, but it feels, to me, that we may be approaching the point where the Conservative-Libertarian vs. Activist-Socialist polarization shifts to a Conservative-Socialist vs. Activist-Libertarian alignment. The biggest question I haven't been able to answer is how the Activist movement can maintain viability absent sponsorship coerced by the government (i.e. high taxes).

Posted by: submandave [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 26, 2004 09:57 AM

Re: Connolly's post: "If Bush wins, and liberals make good on their promise to move north, Canada’s one party Liberal tyranny will be bolstered."

If Bush wins and anti-Bush liberals move to Canada, it will boost the collective IQ of both countries.

Posted by: grumpy [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 28, 2004 04:08 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?