Fortunately, I do not have to explain my thinking at length. Charles P. Pierce (Marquette -- '75, I think) has neatly summed up why I don't think that party can get out of its grave. Money quote (one of several):
Right at the moment, the main issues within the Democratic Party seem to be, in no particular order: 1) Kamala Harris: Threat or Menace?; Cory Booker: Sure, Legal Weed But Wall Street?; and, that evergreen squabble, Bernie Or Hillary; Why 2016 Will Never End.If the internal link doesn't work, here it is for pasting: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a56823/democrats-fighting/
Interesting what he wrote about the issue of the DNC sponsoring pro-life candidates ...
ReplyDelete"Realpolitik or no, it is not a smart thing to declare publicly that you're open to pitching the privacy rights of 51 percent of the population—and of what is generally your entire margin of victory around the country—overboard. If an anti-choice Democrat wants to run, you let that candidate stand up and take the heat alone, instead of telegraphing to your most loyal voters that the party establishment is open for business on this issue. Where do they find these guys?"
I agree with him.
Corporate money has even compromised
ReplyDeletenonprofits including environmental groups like the Sierra Club.
http://m.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/how_corporations_have_taken_government_nonprofits_and_regulatory_agencies
It's not just the Democratic Party.
This made sense to me:
ReplyDelete"This also requires that you restock the farm system in the states. There's already more talk about the 2020 presidential campaign than there is concerning the hundreds of state-level races this year and the next. Those races require (marginally) less money and, if you want to birth a generation of non-corporate Democrats, that's the place to start."
Here's a somewhat different take
ReplyDeleteFrom an article by Kristen Day: "...when Democrats or others on the left bash the party for funding Democratic candidates with whom they disagree on abortion, they miss a key point: Democrats who oppose abortion aren’t like Republicans who oppose abortion.
Not only are their priorities different, so are their policies. While Republicans who oppose abortion usually aim simply at banning the practice or making it difficult, Democrats who oppose abortion tend to take a whole-life approach and to focus especially on reducing incentives to have abortions, rather than creating penalties.
Consider Peck’s allegation that by funding candidates who oppose abortion, the Democratic Party is de facto refusing to consider the economic aspects of abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Democrats who oppose abortion are keenly aware of how many abortions are the result of financial stress and economic pressures, and we advocate constantly to reduce those burdens.
Signed into law along with the Affordable Care Act were several legislative proposals crafted by Democrats for Life of America called the Pregnant Women Support Act.
We intended our proposals to reduce abortion by getting rid of many of the forces that push women toward abortion in the first place."
I understand that is true. It won't matter, though, because they still want to take away what is currently a legal right for women. There's no way to get around that fact.
DeleteRoe vs Wade is 40 years old, and as Neal Gorsuch said. is "settled law". Abortion has been made into a proxy war. If people really want to reduce it they will have to work on the root causes, as Kristen Day said. Litmus tests are a loser proposition for the Dems.
DeleteI think many pro-life Democrats favor restriction rather than elimination and criminalization of abortion.
DeleteKathleen Sebelius, who was reviled by pro-life groups and suspect by some pro-choice groups, tried to explain that working to root out causes for abortion struck her as more effective than outright bans: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/03/02/kathleen-sebelius-explains-being-a-pro-choice-pro-lifer
But the Democratic party already advocates this . From the 2016 platform ...
Delete"And we strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child, including by ensuring a safe and healthy pregnancy and childbirth, and by providing services during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including adoption and social support services, as well as protections for women against pregnancy discrimination. We are committed to creating a society where children are safe and can thrive physically, emotionally, educationally, and spiritually. We recognize and support the importance of civil structures that are essential to creating this for every child."
Don't know if my opinion counts, since I'm actually not a Democrat, but a fallen-away, non-practicing, disillusioned Republican. However if the Democrats run somebody credible, I will vote for them in a heartbeat.
ReplyDeleteI'm not as pessimistic about their chances as Mr. Pierce is in the article that Tom links. I don't totally disagree with Pierce's comment, "If an anti-choice Democrat wants to run, you let that candidate stand up and take the heat alone..." However I would leave choice out of it and just say that anyone who runs should stand up and run on their own merits, there shouldn't be any sense of entitlement.
I see your point, but then what's the point of having a party that can assist the nuts and bolts of campaign organizing?
DeleteI sort of like nonpartisan boards like our library board. We all worked form the library without worrying about divisive political labels. (Though we had other, private divisive labels somtimes ...).
Would this work for every office in the land? Interesting idea.
I think that once a party has a platform, that's the official stance of the party and voters rely on that when they vote for candidates supported by the party .... it's a way to be sure the values you have will be shared by a candidate that you might not know much about.
Delete