The Losing Democratic Mentality
The Democratic Party is involved in what we can safely call an identity crisis. As a blogger, and a reader of as many blogs as possible, it is evident the Democratic blogosphere, as well as the individual Democratic blogger, is conflicted by a strange mixture of party criticism and dangerous, blind party loyalty. A discussion has developed over at the Buckeye State Blog that exemplifies the point:
"Staff" at BSB is a confusing figure. When I first started reading him he was mercilessly criticizing party leadership for supporting Sherrod Brown as opposed to the more colorful Paul Hackett. Here we find him at the throats of mayors who are questioning the out of touch party leadership, the same way he did in his rebellious months, in order to look after the needs of those who put them into office.
What gives?
The beef seems to ultimately come down to a struggle between the interests of the cities versus the interests of the suburbs (where white people hide from minorities).
What is the Democratic Party? Can anyone answer this question any more? Howard Dean himself has struggled through this answer sitting in the hot seat at the Jon Stewart show. It was my understanding that the Democratic Party is the party who looks out for minorities, blue collar workers, labor unions, peace, small businesses, the environment, social justice, and of course, democracy. Though I, as well as anyone who is paying attention, would admit that the party has abandoned these ideas and left fledgling parties and Ralph Nader behind to fight the battle on their own.
Obviously the list above is more likely to coincide with a "big city platform." The city is a hotbed for the groups of people that depend on the representation of Democrats in our broken government. "Staff," who like many Democrats seems more concerned with electability then principle, wants the party to worry less about those who live such lavish lives in the city and instead start looking after the defenseless citizens who reside in the suburbs (I grew up in the suburbs, I know how hard they have it and how much they need the government to save them -- believe me).
What concessions shall the party make? With Strickland you've already given a mandate for the removal of gun control (don't forget he received an A from the NRA), not exactly an urban-friendly move due to the fact that an overwhelming majority of gun deaths happen in the city. Strickland also voted no on raising CAFE standards, a simple measure to improve the environment and air quality. Since the environment is merely a "big government" regulation that puts a heavy strain on the already overwhelmed middle class, there's no need to worry about those ghetto kids choking on their freshly developed asthma.
Aside from Strickland, the party in general has crippled labor, perhaps the most traditionally Democratic voting population, with free-trade agreements and fed into the middle-class hysteria over the "welfare queen" by "reforming" welfare. Any white woman in the suburbs looks towards the black mother who pops out children to increase her welfare checks as the anti-Christ (no matter the fact that that image is a sociological urban legend). No need to go after the welfare kings who get millions in subsidies on the tax payer's tab as long as you can swing a few votes in middle America.
Ted Strickland, the archetype of the Democratic Party's move towards the right, is a lukewarm candidate who wavers back and forth across the center line, whichever way the political winds happen to be blowing that day. At least Republican voters know what they're buying when they cast a vote for J. Kenneth Blackwell: A theocratic crook who denies gays their rights because they live in sin. Ted Strickland on the other hand would respond with something like this: "Gays should be able to get married... I mean have civil unions... I mean, that's okay with you right?"
100 years ago there was hardly such a thing as a "suburb" and this argument wouldn't have existed (perhaps the growing divide between urban and suburban Democrats will insure Republican victories for years to come). As crime, intolerance, and a grab bag of problems continued to grow, white America picked up and abandoned our cities, leaving our urban areas and the problems they helped create behind. Now suburbanites and farmers want to leave those unable, whether by means or by choice, to leave the city behind.... Not just geographically, but politically.
This weak, losing mentality that advocates compromising values to win elections has disconnected the progressive base from the floundering Democratic Party and left our citizens with a strong conservative movement and a watered down group of wanna-be conservatives masquerading as a "third way."
The Mayors of Ohio's cities, of course with the exception of Mr. Go Along to get Along Mark Mallory, are right to try to pull the Democratic Party back to the people it belongs to... Even if those people can't cut fat checks like the "struggling" families of suburban America.
The idiotic mayors need to ask themselves a simple question. When was the last time the big cities delivered a statewide victory for a Democrat in Ohio ? The route to winning statewide in Ohio is no longer through the cities, it's through suburban and rural Ohio. If these mayors think a big tax and spend city platform is going to help deliver suburban and rural Ohio they need more medication.
We aren't going to win general assembly seats in the legislature with a big city platform. We already have those seats. We need policies that work for the rest of Ohioans too. These Mayors are either too blind or too self serving to realize this.
Their threats are empty. Do they honestly think Democrats, black or white are going to cross the isle for someone as radical as Blackwell because Strickland hasn't kissed enough ass ? Not kissing their asses is probably worth more rural and suburban votes than these jokers can deliver in the cities.
If they were genuine they would be working with Strickland constructively instead of running to the papers whining and bitching and issuing veiled threats. Typical loser Democrat mentality.
"Staff" at BSB is a confusing figure. When I first started reading him he was mercilessly criticizing party leadership for supporting Sherrod Brown as opposed to the more colorful Paul Hackett. Here we find him at the throats of mayors who are questioning the out of touch party leadership, the same way he did in his rebellious months, in order to look after the needs of those who put them into office.
What gives?
The beef seems to ultimately come down to a struggle between the interests of the cities versus the interests of the suburbs (where white people hide from minorities).
What is the Democratic Party? Can anyone answer this question any more? Howard Dean himself has struggled through this answer sitting in the hot seat at the Jon Stewart show. It was my understanding that the Democratic Party is the party who looks out for minorities, blue collar workers, labor unions, peace, small businesses, the environment, social justice, and of course, democracy. Though I, as well as anyone who is paying attention, would admit that the party has abandoned these ideas and left fledgling parties and Ralph Nader behind to fight the battle on their own.
Obviously the list above is more likely to coincide with a "big city platform." The city is a hotbed for the groups of people that depend on the representation of Democrats in our broken government. "Staff," who like many Democrats seems more concerned with electability then principle, wants the party to worry less about those who live such lavish lives in the city and instead start looking after the defenseless citizens who reside in the suburbs (I grew up in the suburbs, I know how hard they have it and how much they need the government to save them -- believe me).
What concessions shall the party make? With Strickland you've already given a mandate for the removal of gun control (don't forget he received an A from the NRA), not exactly an urban-friendly move due to the fact that an overwhelming majority of gun deaths happen in the city. Strickland also voted no on raising CAFE standards, a simple measure to improve the environment and air quality. Since the environment is merely a "big government" regulation that puts a heavy strain on the already overwhelmed middle class, there's no need to worry about those ghetto kids choking on their freshly developed asthma.
Aside from Strickland, the party in general has crippled labor, perhaps the most traditionally Democratic voting population, with free-trade agreements and fed into the middle-class hysteria over the "welfare queen" by "reforming" welfare. Any white woman in the suburbs looks towards the black mother who pops out children to increase her welfare checks as the anti-Christ (no matter the fact that that image is a sociological urban legend). No need to go after the welfare kings who get millions in subsidies on the tax payer's tab as long as you can swing a few votes in middle America.
Ted Strickland, the archetype of the Democratic Party's move towards the right, is a lukewarm candidate who wavers back and forth across the center line, whichever way the political winds happen to be blowing that day. At least Republican voters know what they're buying when they cast a vote for J. Kenneth Blackwell: A theocratic crook who denies gays their rights because they live in sin. Ted Strickland on the other hand would respond with something like this: "Gays should be able to get married... I mean have civil unions... I mean, that's okay with you right?"
100 years ago there was hardly such a thing as a "suburb" and this argument wouldn't have existed (perhaps the growing divide between urban and suburban Democrats will insure Republican victories for years to come). As crime, intolerance, and a grab bag of problems continued to grow, white America picked up and abandoned our cities, leaving our urban areas and the problems they helped create behind. Now suburbanites and farmers want to leave those unable, whether by means or by choice, to leave the city behind.... Not just geographically, but politically.
This weak, losing mentality that advocates compromising values to win elections has disconnected the progressive base from the floundering Democratic Party and left our citizens with a strong conservative movement and a watered down group of wanna-be conservatives masquerading as a "third way."
The Mayors of Ohio's cities, of course with the exception of Mr. Go Along to get Along Mark Mallory, are right to try to pull the Democratic Party back to the people it belongs to... Even if those people can't cut fat checks like the "struggling" families of suburban America.





" As a blogger, and a reader of as many blogs as possible"
You really should try reading a newspaper. Or even try leaving UC's campus. Wow. A college student who telling me whats what. Wow. I'd never thought I'd live that long to see that.
Posted by Yossarian | 9:25 AM
Yossarian,
I read, at least in part, most major newspapers (and some minor newspapers) daily. I also read books, perhaps you should try that some time.
Of course, the college student doesn't know anything argument. That's a common and absurdly counter-intuitive criticism. Yes, I am educated (more so every day), and I do have to tell you what's what. Sadly, you, unlike your run of the mill college student, accept the fact that you already have it all figured out and have become incapable of accepting new ideas. You say I need to leave UC's campus, I think you need to come back to campus and maybe learn something new instead of the usual Democratic talking points you are stuck with currently.
I personally think college is an asburd waste of time and money (I can check out books at a library or buy them at a bookstore without professors telling me about them), but the sad reality is that we need this stupid piece of paper to accomplish much of what we want to accomplish in the world.
Posted by Andrew Warner | 9:56 AM
I saw "Good Will Hunting" too and My favorite scene also is the bar scene. How do you like those apples?
Posted by Yossarian | 11:44 AM
So one has to be referring to Good Will Hunting to criticize the world of academia? That's rather restrictive, but I imagine that is as far as you've ever researched the topic so I won't expect anything more.
Great film though.
Posted by Andrew Warner | 12:43 PM
This is the old ageism predjudice coming out again. This time from Yossarian. The idea is that they've lived longer therefore; they inherently know more- which is absolute bullshit.
I'm probably a good ten or fifteen years older than Andrew and I get a lot of things to think about over here at this blog everyday. What a shame, Yossarian, that your own bigotry toward today's youth won't allow you to consider some new thoughts and ideas. But then again, it might partly explain why your party is headed straight for the history books to join the Whigs and Federalists.
Posted by CM Edwards | 12:53 PM
The "welfare queen" as an urban myth. Keep repeating that and maybe somebody will believe you.
As far as the ageism, I agree. Older liberals are just as stupid as younger liberals.
Posted by Roscoe | 1:34 PM
They proved it, man. The Pew Center did a study. My proff told me all about it.
Posted by Andrew's Response | 1:36 PM
Roscoe,
I'm not sure if you want to have an intelligent debate or if your just out and about trolling. But the concepts of liberal and conservative have nothing to do with age discrimination.
Everything our government does is going to have an effect on future generations- don't you think they should have a say in it without having some older person who's probably been completely broken by society telling them shut up because they're "too young" to understand?
Posted by CM Edwards | 2:04 PM
Rolling Stone Magazine Editorial:
A Call for Investigation:
Electronic voting machines pose a grave threat to democracy
For more, see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10463874/editorial_a_call_for_investigation on rollingstone.com.
Posted by Anonymous | 3:26 PM
From Psychobilly Dem by redhorse
http://psychobillydem.blogspot.com/2006/06/odp-party-senator-obama-and-me.html
"Pho (norka pages) believes bloggers need to police themselves better so as, I suspect, not to appear as a shrill group of pajama wearing teens."
http://phosnorkapages.blogspot.com/2006/06/blog-police-they-are-inside-of-my-head.html
"I disagree. I think the cream does rise to the top in the blogosphere. While a newbie might make a splash and gain attention, only continued expression of solid opinion and/or reporting will keep people coming back."
http://www.andrewwarner.org/2006/06/turn-political-chatter-into-political.html
"Fact is, there are many nuts out there that have or could have blogs, and no one would consistently read them b/c they whacked nature would shine through. In effect, we police by clicking through."
http://www.ohioelects.com/?story=dispatch/2006/05/31/20060531-E1-02.html
Many people learned about Andrew Warner this week, but how many of you plan on visiting his site again tomorrow? Next week? You clicked through for the title on Lefty Blogs, read the piece, and won't go back until the next nifty title. That's policing.
http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/node/1420
Just b/c you have a blog doesn't mean you're a powerhouse.
http://modern-esquire.blogspot.com/
http://theohiodemocraticparty.typepad.com/
Posted by Anonymous | 2:52 AM