Back in January, Dannyboy over at Donkey with a Trunk posted about whether liberals in the Democratic Party are accepting of the moderates. Since that time, I’ve started and restarted this post, in an attempt to answer him. Today’s notice that Cindy Sheehan resigned from the peace movement coupled with a series of emails that I have received over the last few days, a conversation I had with a conservative Democrat and a conversation I had with a client this morning prompted me to dust off this post and try to address this.
There are reasons why so many people don’t consider themselves either Republicans or Democrats (see my post on Levelheads here). One that comes to mind is that there are enough things that the parties stand for that they don’t agree with. Still, a significant number of people will hold their noses and identify as either R or D. (I think there is more nose-holding going on that most will admit.) The lack of a viable third party is a problem, one that I really wish would be addressed, so that folks could find a political home that they are comfortable with.
When I look at the Democratic Party platform, I see room for folks with a lot of differences of opinion. But as Democrats, are we a cafeteria-style party, ie, you get to choose which parts of the platform you agree with and ignore the rest, or not?
Many of the candidates we elected last fall would disagree with parts of the platform. Yet they call themselves Democrats and we elected them as such. We had to know that if these folks were true to what they believe, many of us would be, at times, disappointed. (Either that or some of us just weren’t paying attention.) Last week’s vote on Iraq allowed some of that disappointment to bubble to the surface. The cold, hard truth is that we didn’t elect a slew of ultra-lefties; we elected some pretty conservative Ds who took a pragmatic approach to the issue.
But it’s not just Iraq. There are Ds who are strong 2nd Amendment supporters, Ds who are pro-life, Ds who are in favor of the death penalty. Do we kick them out of the party (or not let them in) because of these stances? Or, do we leave the Democratic party because we disagree with them?
I say neither. My client this morning wanted to know if he – raised Democrat, switched to Republican because he’s pro-life, now Independent – can join the Democratic Party. I said hell yes. There is room under the tent for differences of opinion. His voice is just as much needed in the party as those who disagree with him. It’s part of what makes our party vibrant. Nowhere is it written that we all have to agree on everything.
What we do have to do is to try to nudge the party in the direction that we want it to go. In addition to voting, that means identifying, nurturing and supporting candidates with whom we (mostly) agree. (And to try to change the minds of those with whom we don’t agree – right, Phil? 🙂 ) That can’t be accomplished by being outside of the party (I call it standing on the outside throwing rocks).
From where I sit, I see two factions within the party fighting for dominance: those who are intellectual Ds and those who are emotional Ds. The party needs both – heads and hearts – not one or the other.
At the end of the day, I still believe that the Democratic Party is the best choice for America. So let’s try to figure out how we can all work together to accomplish that goal.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
What is the democratic party?
Here is the Republicans for reference
That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice
That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society
That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government
That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing constitutional limitations
That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense
That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is essential to the moral fibre of the Nation
Nice post Vivian….Thank heavens you are one of the Democrats who believes in voicing an opinion to influence the Democratic party and not just taking “orders from the top.” That is what got the Republican party in trouble and I’m hoping the Democratic party will get enough strong vocal guidance from the grassroots that it will counteract the systems built in corruption–the corporate payoffs headed to the democratic party leaders….
Buzz…Buzz…
Novamiddleman–thanks for sharing your definition of the Republican platform, though I think it’s pretty clear that Republicans disagree within their own party on as many things as do the Democrats. On the subject of “Federal Gov’t preserving individual liberty by observing constitutional limitations,” for instance, I think the striking and dramatic testimony we’ve heard recently about the strong disagreement between the White House and the Ashcroft Justice Dept. over the warrantless eavesdropping provides a strong example of Republicans disagreeing with themselves over where to draw the line. I’d make comments about “equal rights, justice, and opportunities” but I think I’m going to wait for Vivian or a Log Cabin Republican to quibble over that one. 😉
Vivian, on the subject of third parties: I find myself caught up several times a month in conversations about whether America needs more political parties like the parliamentary systems of Europe or the Knesset in Israel–usually with the most random people, folks in the supermarket checkout line, and occassionally girls in bar. This might account for why I don’t have better luck with women.
Anyway, here’s what I tell them: no, two parties is perfectly fine. For one thing, the traditional argument for having more parties is that two parties cannot possibly represent the wide and various views within our broad American political spectrum. I would respectfully submit that by the definition of “represent” used by third party advocates, we couldn’t possibly represent the full spectrum of American political thought even if we had fifty parties. We could start a party only of free-economy, fair-trade, pro-gay marriage, pro-2nd amendment, pro-environment anti-tax strong-military anti-Iraq church-and-state separatists who don’t exactly fit in with either Democrats or Republicans and there would STILL be strong disagreements within the party about abortion. Third parties DO sometimes gain traction when both parties are failing to represent a sizeable percentage of people with some singular issues; for instance, we owe the two day weekend and labor advocacy to the rise of the Socialist party in America in the 19th century, but once Democrats and Republicans moved to court voters in that party and addressed some of their issues, the need for a socialst party passed, and this is as it should be.
And in a more general sense, while there may be a wider range of political parties to choose from during European elections, in the day-to-day nuts and bolts legislative process in those nations, there are still only to side: the majority and the opposition. The only difference is that a party which wins a plurality but not an outright majority must form a majority coalition to consolidate parliamentary power, and everyone not in that coalition is left to band together to muck things up for the people in the majority to keep them from doing anything they disagree with and (they hope) giving them enough time to win the hearts and minds of the electorate in the next round of elections so that THEY can work to form a majority coalition.
Things work the exact same way here; the only difference is that while European parliaments bring together legislators of different political stripes to form a working government, the two-party American system brings togethers voters of various political stripes to elect the legislative majority and chief executive. Personally, I think that’s awesome: it means that rather than simply appealing to hyperpartisans and the base, it behooves each party to strike a balance between those more-impassioned partisans and the moderates and non-partisans who help to create a majority. Additionally, it behooves an incumbent legislator to represent ALL of his constituents instead of just his base. Constituent services can be notoriously sucky in some European countries.
The two-party system also ensures that a wide variety of viewpoints is represented within each party, which I feel is an excellent thing. It means that we have a broad range of ideas to draw upon when contemplating legislation. Lock-step partisans may be easier to court in an election and they are certainly easier for a majority leader to control, but I think the Republicans have demonstrated with startling effectiveness over the past several years that a single-mindedness and a lack of fresh ideas in Government can eventually become a Very Bad Thing.
So while some of us here may disagree on certain issues (like that long smoking-ban discussion last month), God bless the Big Tent Mentality and the beliefs we all bring to the table for making this country a better place. Now if only we could get around to helping some of the Republicans realize that since we’re both trying to represent a majority, we’re really not so different and necessarily overlap on many of the beliefs they think are reserved solely for the Republican party (ref: novamiddleman’s list)…
(sorry for the exceptionally long comment, by the way, but this is a topic near and dear to my heart)
I am certainly for a big tent Democratic party. While a third party sounds appealing, that’s because the imagined attributes of a nonexistent party will always sound better than the actual attributes of a real party responsible for governing and resolving differences among its constituents. As this discussion about the war continues, we need to keep in mind that Ralph Nader’s main contribution to politics was to elect George W. Bush. That outcome should have been obvious to anyone paying attention, since Republicans were often the ones collecting signatures for Nader. I do think that the old labels of conservatives vs. liberals do not apply to many current issues, and that the Democratic and Republican parties will need to gain the support of the moderate middle that they have ignored for so long. We need a renewed emphasis on effective, efficient, smart government and the rule of law. The Republicans have once again proven that being anti-government does not put you in the best position to actually run the government once the voters have entrusted you with that responsibility.
Novamiddleman:
There are many praiseworthy ideals you listed as being “Republican”. But actions speak louder than words. Under Republican rule, we have witnessed a growth in government, both in a massive deficit (which replaced the surplus we had) caused in part by irresponsible tax cuts we couldn’t afford, growth in government programs like NCLB and the Medicare Drug Plan (I’m no fan of either), the suspension of habeas corpus, an illegal warrantless wiretapping program that amounted to spying on ALL Americans (so much for individual liberty), and our national security has plummeted due to the botched occupation of Iraq (thereby creating more terrorists exponentially, many of whom are now leaving Iraq now fully trained to wreak havoc on the outside world, maybe even here), while letting the main Al Qaeda rebuild their network in Pakistan and along the Afghan borders. Basically, only your last one about faith in God has been honored, at least in an expedient way to garner votes (See Kuo’s book). Only that last one turns me off (I do not think faith is vital to our democracy, only that our democracy allows people to practice their faith freely). All of the other ideals, I find somewhat attractive. Oh, and I forgot the massive corruption — both sides have problems with this historically, but we are in a classic Republican corruption era.
I realize the topic is the Democratic party, but it is important for me (having grown up in a largely conservative era, starting with the Reagan/Bush years) to firmly reject the Republican party first. Then take a look at the Democratic party, for which I fit in well enough, although I disagree all the time with other members of the party. I do think we will see a rise to a new third party, called the Anti-Republican party, and it will be up to Democrats to reach out and capture those votes, lest those folks stay home.
I don’t think that religious faith is an exclusively Republican, or an exclusively Democratic value. God is not so small as to be limited to a particular group, or to a particular political party, or to a particular country.
A recent study shows that the media misrepresents the spectrum of religious beliefs in this country, overemphasizing the religious right.
http://mediamatters.org/leftbehind/
The conclusion: “Despite the fact most religious Americans are moderate or progressive, in the news media it is overwhelmingly conservative leaders who are presented as the voice of religion.”
That is certainly consistent with my experience: the religious right may be louder, but others are far more numerous, and far more effective.
I like novamiddleman’s summary of what the GOP should be, but there have been several issues on which the current Republican administration has abandoned those ideals. I think the Bush admin’s effort to make the Rs “big tent” has contributed to such programs as the NCLB and the drug plan.
I think that most Americans should be committed to most of novamiddleman’s supposed Republican ideals. I think the summary of my view on govt is that it should be very good at very few things and not get involved in the rest. At the national level, govt should be the experts in national security, diplomacy, interstate and international commerce, and monetary policy. State government should focus on law enforcement, public safety, education, and transportation. These lists are not quite intended to be exhaustive, but there are more things that should not be on either than should be added.
If we could develop more of an American consensus on limitations of government’s scope, the two-party system would certainly better represent most Americans on most political issues. We could then spend more of our own time, effort, and money on all the other issues we care about.
If we ever do develop a significant third party, I expect it will come from the fringes, not the moderates. Some Rs might break off to form a strong Libertarian or Evangelical (by another name, I’m sure) party or hard-left Ds might go Socialist or something like that (Naderist, maybe?). Moderation doesn’t tend to be a strong motivator to forge a new, cohesive group.
Vivian, sorry for going off on this tangent from your original topic, but this seemed relevant to the comment thread. Thanks for contributing to a few of our recent Virginian Federalist discussions.
If you want a consensus on “limitations of government’s scope,” just read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Then read Amendments 9 and 10. It’s all there.
BTW, Vivian, if you want a viable third party, get rid of the winner-take-all elections. If everyone in Virginia had 11 votes for congresscritters, which we could cast any way we wanted — even 11 for the same candidate — then we would have more viable parties.
Just to clarify,
That isn’t novamiddleman’s summary of the Republican Party, it is the Virginia Republican Creed.
Wow. This conversation sure went off track 😦 What’s interesting is that both sides are saying that theirs is a big tent.
I agree wholeheartedly with this.
What’s the old saw, about Republicans keenly representing the interests of 5% of the country, and the Democrats left scrambling trying to represent the other 95%? Big tent, indeed. And that’s one of the things that makes me proud to be a Democrat.
That said, I don’t think that Big Tent necessary means compromising core values. I do think that there’s room for some of the pro-life/anti-choice crowd in the Democratic party, as there are probably a lot of common goals we could achieve together – better access to health care, improved education, etc. But I’m not at all willing to remove a woman’s fundamental right to control her own body from the party platform. I’m willing to share a path for a while – a long while, in fact – but I’m not changing my destination on fundamental issues.
Could somebody point to what the Democratic party is? I assume you guys have a creed also.
Thanks