In recent weeks, a number of influential bloggers, such as Richard, Shelley, Lauren, and Chris, have expressed frustration with the Democratic Party. Some of them have thought about leaving it in order to join parties that more closely share their progressive ideals. They contend that real change will only come about when the two-party system is shattered, and argue that a vote for a centrist Democratic candidate allows the Democratic Party to take “the democratic wing of the Democratic party” for granted.
It’s up to every American to decide for him or herself where to cast a vote on election day. If only every citizen gave as much thought to their votes and political affiliations as these bloggers have, our nation would be in much better shape than it is.
All of the bloggers named above took care to frame their posts as expressions of their personal convictions. Richard Cranium summed up what we might call “compromise fatigue” with these words:
My own personal conviction is that now is the wrong time to abandon the Democratic Party, that the best way to achieve progressive goals is to unite under the banner that is most likely to lead to victory in 2006 and 2008, despite the faults we find with some of the candidates holding that banner.
Many progressives will argue, in response, that that strategy failed in the 2004 Presidential election: hard-core liberals compromised their ideals in order to support a centrist candidate, and we still lost.
But, as Yoda would say, “there is another.” Another way, that is. And it is suggested by Chris Bowers at MyDD, who proposes that liberals can work to reform the Democratic Party from within:
Chris is planning to try to reform that system. Whether or not such a strategy for change is realistic or achievable remains to be seen. But I think that it is something that we progressives should try before leaving the Democratic Party.
Arguments over whether it is better to work for change from within existing structures of power, or whether real change can only be accomplished from outside of those structures, are not new, of course. I imagine that readers who experienced the political shake-ups of the 1960s and 70s will have much to say about this.
So, allow me to ask: where do you stand on these issues? And where do you draw your own lines? What would (or will) you do with Bob Casey, the pro-life Democrat whom Party leaders have already anointed to face Rick Santorum in the 2006 battle for Pennsylvania’s Senate seat? What kind of compromises are you willing to make in order to win?
5 Comments on "The Life of the Party"
Sandy:
Good questions Matt. Here’s where I draw the line as a woman of childbearing age…Is Bob Casey willing to vote for judges and pass laws that will have the effect of forcing me to bear a child against my will if my birth control fails?
How is he going to vote? It’s a simple question. The problem is, he can’t promise me that he won’t vote for those anti-choice laws. Othewise, what use is he as a “pro-life” candidate?
So I as a Democratic party worker, donor, and sometimes staff person, am supposed to just trust that he’s not really going to vote for forced pregnancy. And the pro-life people are supposed to just trust that he is going to vote to make abortion illegal.
Well, I’m no longer willing to put my time and sweat and money into such a gamble. I’m going to find a party that is willing to see reproductive rights as human rights. The Democratic party seems willing to compromise my human rights to win an election. But if the Dems win with Bob Casey, I lose. I would be a fool to work against my own human rights.
I’m sad to leave, but the Democratic party seems quite willing to push me overboard.
Matt:
I hear you, Sandy, and who could blame you for refusing to cast a vote for someone whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to your own?
I think that the 2006 senate race in PA throws this issue into high relief, partially because of Casey’s profile (someone who the Dem leadership thinks can win [sound familiar?], son of popular former governor, pro-life) and partially because of Santorum’s profile (I don’t need to go into that, do I?).
Like Richard Cranium of All-Spin Zone, I will strongly support the candidacy of Chuck Pennachio in the Democratic primary. Chuck is a true liberal, a very nice guy, and a very smart guy to boot. I highly recommend a visit to his site to check out his platform.
However, I have to say that because of the nature of this race, I will support whichever Democratic candidate emerges from the primary. Beating Santorum is too important to me to do otherwise.
For a different take on the race, read Richard Cranium’s post on All-Spin Zone.
Where do others stand?
Josh:
This is such a difficult issue.
I was raised a life long Democrat, the son of Democratic parents and grandparents (my grandmother was very involved with politics throughout her whole life, calling the night Clinton was elected in ‘92 “the happiest of her life.”) I proudly identify as a Democrat and as a liberal.
Much like Sandy I worry about Casey. I too am scared that failed birth control could leave me in a situation I couldn’t handle without an outlet. It’s my profound wish that I never have to be party to an abortion in my life yet it’s just as important the right exists. Casey is so middle-of-the-road wishy washy on just about every situation that I really don’t know what he’d do.
But then I have to step back for a moment and be a realist. Sadly we live in a country where we have two (realistic) choices each election. I can’t stick my head in the sand and travel the Ralph Nader route. I’ll vote for Casey knowing that he is the lesser of two evils. I would love a party that stood up for all the things I believe in and had a chance of winning. But for now, I can live with a party that at least leans towards my beliefs and still retains some of the trappings of a party that could gain power.
For now…
Alicia:
I lean towards Josh’s point of view. While I would not be happy to have to vote for an anti-choice candidate, the reality is that one more Democrat=one less Republican in Congress. The problem we are having now is the tyranny of the majority, and while the Democrats took a certain amount of advantage when they were in the majority, it was nothing as egregious as what’s happening today. I always vote the straight Democratic ticket for that reason. It may sound bad to say I don’t vote for individuals but I’m afraid it’s the truth.
The Democratic party, by and large, represents what I believe in, and the Republican party represents what I do not believe in - what’s good for business is good for the country, that money ‘trickles down’ from above, that the government helping those who need help means an abdication of personal responsibility. And that’s only what they state, not what they practice. What they have been practicing is so abhorrent to me that I cannot, in good conscience, abandon the Democratic Party in the hopes that something closer to my own personal agenda will come along.
The Tattered Coat » Blog Archive » The Feingold Vote on John Roberts:
[…] And you should also check out Shakespeare’s Sister. The Feingold vote, among other issues, is making her question whether it still makes sense to stick with the Democratic Party — something I’ve touched on before. […]
Comments