I myself am socially liberal, sometimes socialist, sometimes frugally fiscally conservative, libertine, libertarian, most definitely green, and all about social justice and diplomacy though with a strong military. How does that fit into any party in our country today? Any party affiliation is a compromise, just as the collection of party ideals is a compromise a well.

The Democratic party includes more and more pro-gun and pro-life candidates, I see no problem with this as being a Republican has become more and more an endorsement of the failed Bush, Incorporated policies. I think we are calling for more than two parties; except that a 3rd party cannot catch on with winner takes all politics and simple one-vote elections. I’d like to see party affiliation removed from the ballots, and for us to rank order our choices, and for more than one candidate from each party be allowed in the general election. That might be fun, and would more honestly reflect the will of the people collectively.

On the topic of the folks at RK — right now I’m mainly glad they’re part of the party because that thread about Kaine maybe endorsing whatshisface is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long, long time. Thanks for pointing that out.

And don’t blame the Republicans for filibustering. The Dems did it when they were the minority. The real problem is that the majority party (either one) has not had the balls to actually make the minority filibuster.

Yeah, the tent can get so big that it collapses on itself, and our party does need to stand for something bigger than who can win an election, but I have to say, I am very glad about this one.

Also, we have some very liberal committee chairs in the house, with a big majority and a Dem president, we could make some real progress.

*I wish I knew how to do the neat quote thingy.

You mean this? Actually, it’s very easy – put [blockquote] (replace the left and right brackets with the less than and greater than symbols) before the text that you want and [/blockquote] (replace the left and right brackets with the less than and greater than symbols) at the end of it.

I hate saying this, but they won more than 50% in 2004 because swing voters picked Bush in enough states to win. From that point onwards they had a series of catastrophies because they adopted Dick Cheney’s approach to American public opinion (“so?”), and things slid downhill from there for the GOP. I know the folks over at Raising Kaine and the Daily Kos want Democrats to turn the Bush-Cheney-Rove approach to government against the administration and ride roughshod over them with a bunch of bills that get ramrodded through Congress, but for my part, I don’t care to live under that sort of government anymore, regardless of who is holding the reigns. Tried it. No thanks. I’m happy if Congress wants to try and build a 55% concensus on pretty much everything from now on, even if it means some things take a little longer.

As for our current legilsative environment, there’s no rule that says that Nancy Pelosi has to get every single Democrat on the same page to before she can bring a bill to the floor. It’s not written anywhere in parliamentary proceedure that Democrats can’t pass a bill unless a conservative Freshman democrat with sixteen minutes of Congressional experience like Childress won’t vote for it. If he thinks voting no on something is going to represent his district the way his constituents want ,then let him. The Republican candidate would have voted no on anything Childress might vote no on (and indeed, on a few things he might still say yes on). We don’t lose anything by having one more right-of-center member in Congress from that particular district. But having him in the caucus means there’s one less seat the NRCC can count on when they try to win back their majority, which means we have at least one more election cycle to try and get more liberal and moderate Dems into the House so we can build concensus on things like healthcare and a timeline for withdrawl in Iraq.

*I wish I knew how to do the neat quote thingy.

If Republicans really want a republic and Democrats really wanted no limits to majority rule, we could try one iway or the other, and abandon bad ideas in favor of others that seem better.

As it stands, until it really hits bottom, and the country either goes Libertarian or Commie in desperation, there is no fine tuning to be done, we just slowly slide toward catastrophe. The most common result of letting things get that bad is fascism.

All we are doing now is playing two teams striving for the highest number of seats in order to get committee spots and pork, by appealing to the lowest common denominator of our fears and prejudices. So what we get is corruption, demagoguery and pandering instead of wisdom and leadership.

Personally I like that both political parties have to try and represent a majority rather than settling for an ideologically pure minority or plurality.

Well, they don’t really have to, though. Certainly the we’ve seen the Republicans achieve great (electoral) success substantively representing a rather small minority, and paying superficial attention to a bare majority (if that). [insert parliamentary system macro, delete for pointlessness]

I think the Dems have the near mirror problem – they’re crippled by fear of displeasing a small (but effective) minority.

Well, the tent can’t be stretched any further than their are poles to prop it up. Let’s say the poles can be personalities or issues.

Still, while tents work well enough in brief showers, or steady drizzles, they don’t hold up too well in storms.

To me the people’s business was better served when coalitions formed over each important issue that reached across the aisle. So, maybe the big tent is a metaphor that can only be stretched but so far.

The strictly party line voting pattern of the last 25 years makes us think there is an on-going need for yet another big tent. Moreover, it has created the poisonously partisan atmosphere that keeps our legislators from getting much done.

Empires are out style. Maybe big tents are, too.

Congress may not be that great at representing the Democratic Party as envisioned by the liberal puritans at Daily Kos, but I think they’re actually doing a reasonable job representing the diverse and at times divergent opinions and ideas that characterize America today. Which isn’t to say that the Democratic Party should feel compelled to try to please all people at all times or that they ought to try and win 100% of all districts, it only means that I’m glad Nancy Pelosi at least has to listen to a few different opinions on any given issue during House caucus sessions before the majority attempts to craft and pass legislation.

but in at least two cases, the successful Democrat is actually more conservative than the average Republican Congressman.

How do you figure that?

Much has been made of the election of three Democrats in special elections to formerly GOP seats in the House of Representatives, but in at least two cases, the successful Democrat is actually more conservative than the average Republican Congressman. The major parties have become more like competing leagues, like the AFL & NFL, than real political parties advancing a coherent political philosophy.

In theory, Republicans should advocate a republic as our form of government, with the government having only those powers specifically granted by the people through ratification of the Constitution.

Democrats should promote the unfettered rule of the majority.

Neither name is really descriptive any more, with Republicans just as ready to ignore the limits of the Constitution today when it interferes with their agenda as the Democrats have been since FDR.

The only parties remaining which have coherent political philosophies to which they consistently adhere are the Communists and the Libertarians.

~

Yes, I think that a party can risk more than it’s worth to get someone elected under its banner, when that person doesn’t share its core values. (I’ll point out that I don’t think fiscal/tax policy is necessarily a core value, unless one adheres to a fiscal/tax policy as a value in itself, superior to all others).

But whether the tent is too big already or not, can we all agree that Lieberman needs to be thrown out the back door?

Also, politicians are an abstraction of their parties. There are always the powers in Washington that intervene to separate politicians from the ideals of their party. When all your new friends are lobbyists, wining and dining you at the Capital Grille, it is easy to forget your ideals, especially when an industry trade group explains what deleterious effects your ideals will have on their fiscal health. But I digress.

Back to your question, sure the tent can be too big. If there are people inside the party that don’t feel on balance that their ideas are getting any play, then that will leave them to look elsewhere. And if their ideas fall under the individualism banner, then they will probably find a home in the Republican Party.

As far as purity, and getting a legislative majority to effect that purity. It depends on what purity is. Republicans are never going to get that for say Ron Paul’s, Jeff Flake’s, or Tom Coburn’s ideal. As Bush and Rove so eloquently demonstrate, there will always be powerful party members on each side that are not interested in ideals, just power. I don’t think Democrats will ever have the votes or the interest to give us a healthcare system like Japan, Taiwan or Germany (all spend less than we do as a percentage of GDP on healthcare and all have universal coverage). In order to achieve the spectacular, you either need a mass movement of the people or you need a crisis.

I recently had a back and forth with MB, in the comments section of one of your other posts, where he took me to task for using the term “liberal card”. I’m certain that the issue you bring up here is the source of where he misunderstood my point. I said liberal, he heard Democrat. What he called a liberal “caricature” was not consistent with his experience with Virginia Democrats. My experience with being ostracized for violating liberal orthodoxy was with Democrats in Massachusetts. Believe me, this is not a difference between a mastiff and a chihuahua. It’s more like the difference between a mastiff and a ferret. Massachusetts Republicans would be very liberal Democrats in Virginia.

How these people fall into political alliances with others of such vastly different ideologies really exposes the bankruptcy of political parties, as far as I’m concerned.

Truly, what was won.

Now Vivian, you were NOT one of those arrogant Dems, seriously. Actually you are one of the (Few) thoughtful ones whom, as I recall, voiced concerns of straying from the ideals in the name of winning. That and this post prove once again that you have this rare liberal skill: Thinking