Are you happy with the state of your party?

[Josh/Devilman88]

yep I am  happy with it

[jokerman]

I am definitly not happy.

[ian]

Absolutely not.  But it is better than 7 months ago, what with the entrance of Harry Reid and Howard Dean into leadership positions.

[John Dibble]

I could be happier, but the LP of Georgia seems to be moving forward a bit, so I'm relatively happy, though I don't hate being elected, lol.

[The Duke]

I am happy because my expectations are realistic.  I accept having NY Times Republicans like Chafee, Collins, and Snowe because I've decided that the price we pay for being the Majority Party is that we have to put up with people who maybe care more than they should what Tom Friedman thinks about them.  The Democrats have purged almost all of their moderates, and they're losing for it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I am happy because my expectations are realistic.  I accept having NY Times Republicans like Chafee, Collins, and Snowe because I've decided that the price we pay for being the Majority Party is that we have to put up with people who maybe care more than they should what Tom Friedman thinks about them.  The Democrats have purged almost all of their moderates, and they're losing for it.

Say what? Ben Nelson is far more moderate than any Republican.

[The Duke]

I am happy because my expectations are realistic.  I accept having NY Times Republicans like Chafee, Collins, and Snowe because I've decided that the price we pay for being the Majority Party is that we have to put up with people who maybe care more than they should what Tom Friedman thinks about them.  The Democrats have purged almost all of their moderates, and they're losing for it.

Say what? Ben Nelson is far more moderate than any Republican.

I said almost all.

[Ebowed]

I find it a bit humorous that all of the Democrats here are united by only one thing: dissatisfaction, whether it be thinking that the party has moved too far to the left, too far to the right, or just hatred of George Bush.  At least we can all agree on something.

[angus]

I'm curious.

I personally am not happy with my party. It is too controlled by people unwilling to compromise, and has become whiny as of late.

On the other hand, if I was a Republican, I'd be disturbed by the lack of fiscal responsibility and religious rightists.

good question.  I voted no, but then I'm not a loyalist.  From about 18 to 30 I was a democrat, and fairly dissatisfied as I grew older, then from about 30 to 36 I was unaffiliated, and dissatisfied at not being able to bitch about the parties with the convictions of a partisan, so a little over a year ago I joined what I considered to be the slightly less offensive of the two (in CA, you actually state, D, R, other, or DTS), but was somewhat dissatisfied.  Nowadays I'm technically an unregistered non-voter, and no idea where I'll vote next or what party (if any) I register with.  But one thing's for sure:  Dissatisfaction is a constant.  I'm either a partisan dissatisfied with the party I support, or a non-partisan dissatisfied voter.  I'd have chosen I don't have a party(yes) if it were an option.  Since the only way to vote Dissatisfied was to pick a party, I chose the one I was last in.  R(yes)

Ford, don't knock the NY Times.  Try reading some of the trash that passes for newsprint around here sometime.  Spend a week with the Village Voice, the NYPress, The NY Herald, etc.  You'll quickly see that the NYTimes readers are the most informed readers in New York.

[Joe Republic]

Why bother being in a party at all if you disagree with each other on so much?

[The Dowager Mod]

I was unhappy enough to leave and join the green party.

[angus]

I was unhappy enough to leave and join the green party.

I tried that for a while too, but they're worse than the Democrats in many ways.  At least they're purists.  Gotta respect that.  Much like the libertarians, but on the opposite end of the spectrum.

"Maybe I'm just like my mother.
 she's never satisfied."
    --Prince, from when the artist was formerly known as Prince

[Democratic Hawk]

John Kerry ran as a populist, and it got him nowhere in rural areas. In fact, it actually hurt him by alienating suburbanites. The best possible Democratic strategy would be to move in a libertarian direction.

Populism implies social conservatism or at least social moderatism-- and Kerry's support of gay civil unions, gun control, and partial birth abortion couldn't have helped in the suburbs.  Kerry ran as a pure liberal, and if the Democrats ever nominate a pure liberal again, their results will get lower and lower.  The liberal had more votes in 2000; in 2004 the result was considerably different.

I agree. If the Democrats select a liberal in 2008 - unless Bush and the GOP mess up big-time - then they're toast and I'll be totally and utterly disillusioned

America, as a whole,  is clearly becoming less liberal. It's time for Democratic moderates to become the standard bearers. I'd like to see see the moderate (and liberal) majority setting the agenda. As I've said before an ideologically polarised election favours the GOP

Moderate Democrats can win and that's what we need to hammer home. I'm proud to support the Democratic Party - but I don't want to see it breaking my heart as it did with Zell Miller by moving permanently out of the mainstream and into the periphery

I can understand why many Democrats, especially red state Democrats, feel frustrated. The Democratic Party should be reaching out to moderate evangelicals not alienating them. The GOP are welcome to the 'Talibangelicals', however

Dave

[angus]

Miller is one scary Democrat, though.  My guess is that "good riddance" is the general feeling there.  Actually, Clinton is fairly centrist, if you define left as 70s democrats and right as Reagan.  I think if they could come up with another clintonesque (centrist hillbilly intellectual) candidate, they could win the swingers.  But, as you said, much of that depends on what the GOP does over the next few years.  Bear in mind that what congress does or doesn't do is often taken out on the presidential contenders.

[Democratic Hawk]

Miller is one scary Democrat, though. 

While he's more conservative than most, if not all, his former Democratic Senate colleagues, he was a pretty good Democratic governor - I even heard Howard Dean say that

I'd have happily voted for him as a Democrat and I still think there is a place for moderare populist conservatives, like Zell, in the Democratic Party. My liberal fellow Democrats might not agree with me on that though

Dave

[TheresNoMoney]

I'd have happily voted for him as a Democrat and I still think there is a place for moderare populist conservatives, like Zell, in the Democratic Party.

Zell is no moderate. He's farther right than the vast majority of Republicans. He's far right, bordering on right-wing extremist.

[angus]

Dave, Scoonie's comments are a bit overkill, but it brings to mind the important phenomenon that, among US voters, "social" issues are very important.  This must be borne in mind when discussing US politics and US politicians.  I tend to forget that too, as these issues don't much affect my vote, but I suspect that scoonie, for example, doesn't forget that.  That said, yes, he's "moderate" by the standards I'd expect you consider, but because of his general weirdness, volatility, and positions on "social" issues, many American voters will consider him a right-wing democrat, less desirable than many republicans.  This is what I meant by "scary"

[TheresNoMoney]

Dave, Scoonie's comments are a bit overkill, but it brings to mind the important phenomenon that, among US voters, "social" issues are very important.

You don't know what I was thinking. I wasn't only thinking about social issues. Zell is far right on all issues. He wants to abolish the IRS and have no federal income tax for instance. This is not the stance of a moderate. 

[Democratic Hawk]

Dave, Scoonie's comments are a bit overkill, but it brings to mind the important phenomenon that, among US voters, "social" issues are very important.  This must be borne in mind when discussing US politics and US politicians.  I tend to forget that too, as these issues don't much affect my vote, but I suspect that scoonie, for example, doesn't forget that.  That said, yes, he's "moderate" by the standards I'd expect you consider, but because of his general weirdness, volatility, and positions on "social" issues, many American voters will consider him a right-wing democrat, less desirable than many republicans.  This is what I meant by "scary"

Thanks, Angus

I was of the opinion that Zell's endorsement of Bush was more a question of defence/national securirty than conservative social issues. I don't doubt he is socially a right wing Democrat. Perhaps, if Zell were a Republican he'd be less conspicuous in the eyes of most Americans - but as a Democrat, he stands out from the most conservatives

On social issues, I'm probably a shade to the right of most Forum Democrats - but my politics are more economically determined

Dave

[angus]

well, that's true that democrats like Miller, Lieberman, even people like Mayor Koch, and others, were increasingly concerned with the lack of security among many in their party, but Miller himself has talked repeatedly of "lack of faith" and his general disdain for social mores in the USA.  I think that, combined with his (and Lieberman's et al) support for vouchers and tax-cuts have earned him the right-wing nut label.  yes, if he were in the GOP he'd be considered more mainstream, but then that's the whole point of parties having "wings" to begin with.  The right wing of the GOP does not necessarily equal, and in fact usually does not equal, the right wing of the Democrat party.  And, for that matter, their left wings are somewhat dissimilar as well.  I do not fit the mold, for example, of a right wing democrat or a left wing democrat, but I do generally stereotypify what "left wing republican" brings to mind.  (e.g., very low on the up/down, or social, issues, and in the middle on the left-right issues.)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Miller is one scary Democrat, though. 

While he's more conservative than most, if not all, his former Democratic Senate colleagues, he was a pretty good Democratic governor - I even heard Howard Dean say that

I'd have happily voted for him as a Democrat and I still think there is a place for moderare populist conservatives, like Zell, in the Democratic Party. My liberal fellow Democrats might not agree with me on that though

Dave

Zell was no moderate. He said the 9/11 commission was only enabling the terrrorists. That indicates a total g wingnut to me. How the f**ck are we supposed to prevent the next 9/11 if we don't look into how this one happened? And why should someone from Georgia tell NY that they don't deserve to know why 9/11 happen when NY subsidizes Georgia?

He had a higher ACU rating last year than Allen and  Frist and the same as Santorum, a 96.

And no this isn't just social issues, Zell Miller sucked ass on economic issues and foreign policy.

[WilliamSeward]

No, it has become too partisan and is not as interested as it should be in reaching out to more people.

[JohnFKennedy]

As a member of the Labour Party I am rather happy .

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What JFK said

[Mort from NewYawk]

If the Democrats select a liberal in 2008 - unless Bush and the GOP mess up big-time - then they're toast and I'll be totally and utterly disillusioned

America, as a whole,  is clearly becoming less liberal. It's time for Democratic moderates to become the standard bearers. I'd like to see see the moderate (and liberal) majority setting the agenda. As I've said before an ideologically polarised election favours the GOP

Moderate Democrats can win and that's what we need to hammer home. I'm proud to support the Democratic Party - but I don't want to see it breaking my heart as it did with Zell Miller by moving permanently out of the mainstream and into the periphery....

Dave, I identify with your politics, but offering Zell Miller as representative of what the Democratic mainstream used to be distracts us from what I see as the thrust of your post, that is, imagining what the ideological center of a newly competitive national Democratic party would look like.

Clearly, you and I believe that becoming more purely “liberal” (as in post-Vietnam “liberal”) will only lead the party down the road to further ideological ossification and electoral disaster. If the leadership stubbornly persists in this direction I would not be surprised if, eventually, the resulting growth of divergence in the Republican Party, and complete loss of power by the Democrats in Washington, led to the breakup of the Republicans along one of their many fissure points, perhaps turning the Democrats into a leftist third party.

Really the only way that the Democrats could represent the views of a majority of Americans would be to continue the moderately conservative trend represented by the campaigns of Gary Hart in the 80’s and Bill Clinton in the 90’s (if even one of these politicians had had the good sense not to give in to their personal hubris and sex addiction, we might see a very different Democratic party now).

This moderately conservative trend emerged at that time because some responsible Democratic politicians rightly owned up to the fiscal and social failures of the Great Society and the “Me” generation.

A newly competitive Democratic Party that I would be proud to support would look something like this:

Domestic Policy

One of the fundamental purposes of government is to promote the public good where the marketplace does not work to that end. Therefore, the government will assist lower and middle-class Americans to achieve basic American goals (like higher education, home ownership, investment and retirement) by providing incentives (not entitlements) to those, who (as Clinton said) “work hard and play by the rules”.
              - in the areas of land use, suburban and rural development, environmental pollution, urban planning, preservation, and housing, and open public spaces: ballot proposals and legislative consensus at the national, regional and local level should have a larger role in determining policy, and financial incentives (rather than regulations) should be primarily used in implementing it.


Foreign Policy

America is still the best example to the world of what a democratic and diverse society looks like in terms of opportunity, tolerance, and basic inalienable rights. Our foreign interest should be to promote world political stability and opportunity for the poor by opposing tyranny and supporting true democratic political movements that support religious and ethnic tolerance and freedom of markets and the press. We should achieve our foreign policy goals through alliance and diplomacy when possible, but should pursue our goals unilaterally and through military strength when necessary.
             - our military must grow, and its members accorded respect in the society at large. It must therefore be invested with the best selection process, training, equipment and discipline.

Really, policies like these are a pre-Vietnam American attitude associated with classic post-industrial liberalism, and articulated by the great 20th century Democratic Presidents: Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy.