Red + Blue = Purple
Not a lot of people who know me know this, but I am not registered in any political party these days. In California, when you fill out your voter registration form, you can check off "decline to state" as an option. I left the Democratic Party a while ago. There were a lot of reasons for this, but the overall, overarching reason is that the Democrats aren't the Democrats of old. I'm not sure what they are anymore. Some people call them "Republican Lite." To some degree, a lot of the politicians in this party could be called that, especially the people at the DLC. Many charge the Dems as not possessing a spine, or having any balls. I agree with that a lot of the time too.
I guess most of all, there's just no sense of principles left, and this is true for most politicians of all stripes. Then again, many may argue that most politicians, regardless of party, aren't all that principled. This is also true, but there are some that are true public servants, and have a sense of dedication. This is especially so for politicians of an earlier era, where public service was seen as a duty, sort of noblesse oblige, especially on the part of the upper classes. George H.W. Bush, for all his faults, viewed public service in this way, and his father, Senator Prescott Bush, definitely did. Nowadays it seems most people who enter politics do so for the sole purpose of power, and the money that comes along with wielding such power.
I read voraciously newspapers and internet news and political sites, ranging from decidely leftist sites to occasional forays into right-wing territory, such as Free Republic. Most of all, I seek some middle ground of truth, or what resembles the truth. Often I'll read the comments following articles or opinion pieces. While there are a lot of passionate, thoughtful, intelligent people out there, some of them with some interesting ideas or takes on events, I find most of the feedback to be "preaching to the choir." This is true on both sides of the aisle.
But I just recently read an interesting article, that although aimed at those on the left, it's definitely got some ideas in general that might be good for the country as a whole. What I see as one of the failures of the Democratic Party is the ability to articulate the values and beliefs that I suspect a majority of Americans hold. Essentials such as peace, prosperity, and fair play have not gone out of style; they've just been demonized by a faction of very vocal conservatives and theocrats. A sense of morals is inherent in most people. I believe that regardless of where they stand, most people want the same things: safe neighborhoods, good schools, a clean environment, the ability to make the best of your career and life as you possibly can. It's how to achieve those goals that reveals where people disagree. Yet the Democrats, progressives, and others on the left side of the political continuum either can't agree on a unified message, or they can't articulate what their core beliefs are. If you talked to a person individually, they probably could tell you what they wanted, what they believed in, and how to best achieve it. But when the leaders and politicians of a party can't do that, how can they inspire, educate, and develop the rank and file from which a party moves forward? The author of this article, Christopher Hayes, makes the case for developing a strategy around a potent issue to move the progressive cause forward by focusing on debt. The recent bankruptcy bill is going to radically change the economic structure of this country, and the only real benefit will be to corporations in an industry that made upwards of $30 billion last year. Yet the U.S. Senate permitted the bill to come to the floor, where it passed. It will soon pass in the House of Representatives, and be signed by our "president." Despite the voices of a few Democrats, fourteen voted to allow it to move forward, and the party as a whole made little noise about what is viewed by many Americans across the board as an atrocious bill and bad policy.
The Republican Party is being held hostage by the Religious Right; the Democrats are basically amoebas. While I agree with a good bit of the Green agenda, they're never going to get anywhere as long as we have a two-party system, instead of a more broad system such as many European nations possess, where coalitions can be built and change made by a number of groups. Additionally, they shot themselves in the foot by choosing Ralph Nader as their standard-bearer. None of the other parties appeal to me at all. Ideally I'd like to see a viable, progressive third party come into being, but it isn't going to happen. I'm not sure I could return to the Democrats, but I will continue to evaluate each candidate and issue on its own merits. I don't always vote a straight ticket, and I see a danger in doing so. I'd like to see more people in this country put aside their animosity and rigidity and start to discuss how to extricate ourselves out of some of the messes we're in now: the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan; the impending end of oil and other natural resources; the environmental crisises such as global warming that loom over us; and inevitable limits on economic growth and development, just to name a few. These are topics that should have some bipartisan consensus and have nothing to do with some of the hot-button issues politicians love to discuss and pander on, such as abortion, education, affirmative action, guns, welfare, etc.
In the meantime, as Hayes suggested, it wouldn't be a bad idea for the Dems to look at how the Mormons recruit. One doesn't have to be dogmatic to be persuasive; you just have to have a set of principles and beliefs.
I guess most of all, there's just no sense of principles left, and this is true for most politicians of all stripes. Then again, many may argue that most politicians, regardless of party, aren't all that principled. This is also true, but there are some that are true public servants, and have a sense of dedication. This is especially so for politicians of an earlier era, where public service was seen as a duty, sort of noblesse oblige, especially on the part of the upper classes. George H.W. Bush, for all his faults, viewed public service in this way, and his father, Senator Prescott Bush, definitely did. Nowadays it seems most people who enter politics do so for the sole purpose of power, and the money that comes along with wielding such power.
I read voraciously newspapers and internet news and political sites, ranging from decidely leftist sites to occasional forays into right-wing territory, such as Free Republic. Most of all, I seek some middle ground of truth, or what resembles the truth. Often I'll read the comments following articles or opinion pieces. While there are a lot of passionate, thoughtful, intelligent people out there, some of them with some interesting ideas or takes on events, I find most of the feedback to be "preaching to the choir." This is true on both sides of the aisle.
But I just recently read an interesting article, that although aimed at those on the left, it's definitely got some ideas in general that might be good for the country as a whole. What I see as one of the failures of the Democratic Party is the ability to articulate the values and beliefs that I suspect a majority of Americans hold. Essentials such as peace, prosperity, and fair play have not gone out of style; they've just been demonized by a faction of very vocal conservatives and theocrats. A sense of morals is inherent in most people. I believe that regardless of where they stand, most people want the same things: safe neighborhoods, good schools, a clean environment, the ability to make the best of your career and life as you possibly can. It's how to achieve those goals that reveals where people disagree. Yet the Democrats, progressives, and others on the left side of the political continuum either can't agree on a unified message, or they can't articulate what their core beliefs are. If you talked to a person individually, they probably could tell you what they wanted, what they believed in, and how to best achieve it. But when the leaders and politicians of a party can't do that, how can they inspire, educate, and develop the rank and file from which a party moves forward? The author of this article, Christopher Hayes, makes the case for developing a strategy around a potent issue to move the progressive cause forward by focusing on debt. The recent bankruptcy bill is going to radically change the economic structure of this country, and the only real benefit will be to corporations in an industry that made upwards of $30 billion last year. Yet the U.S. Senate permitted the bill to come to the floor, where it passed. It will soon pass in the House of Representatives, and be signed by our "president." Despite the voices of a few Democrats, fourteen voted to allow it to move forward, and the party as a whole made little noise about what is viewed by many Americans across the board as an atrocious bill and bad policy.
The Republican Party is being held hostage by the Religious Right; the Democrats are basically amoebas. While I agree with a good bit of the Green agenda, they're never going to get anywhere as long as we have a two-party system, instead of a more broad system such as many European nations possess, where coalitions can be built and change made by a number of groups. Additionally, they shot themselves in the foot by choosing Ralph Nader as their standard-bearer. None of the other parties appeal to me at all. Ideally I'd like to see a viable, progressive third party come into being, but it isn't going to happen. I'm not sure I could return to the Democrats, but I will continue to evaluate each candidate and issue on its own merits. I don't always vote a straight ticket, and I see a danger in doing so. I'd like to see more people in this country put aside their animosity and rigidity and start to discuss how to extricate ourselves out of some of the messes we're in now: the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan; the impending end of oil and other natural resources; the environmental crisises such as global warming that loom over us; and inevitable limits on economic growth and development, just to name a few. These are topics that should have some bipartisan consensus and have nothing to do with some of the hot-button issues politicians love to discuss and pander on, such as abortion, education, affirmative action, guns, welfare, etc.
In the meantime, as Hayes suggested, it wouldn't be a bad idea for the Dems to look at how the Mormons recruit. One doesn't have to be dogmatic to be persuasive; you just have to have a set of principles and beliefs.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 9:56 PM
<< Home