Change

[bigtree]

5. I'm going to admit to bias toward the Democratic party

. . . and I tend to resist appeals outside of the party by individuals and groups who don't share my belief in the primacy of the party.

I confess confusion over the definition of 'grassroots' some have used when differentiating between support for establishment Democrats and support offered to candidates who identify their politics outside of the Democratic party.

Sen. Bernie Sanders offered a view of his own interpretation of 'grassroots' support that I thought was interesting:

“I think what we need is a new politics -- a different type of politics than Hillary’s," he said. "A politics that is much more grassroots-oriented, much more having to do with strong coalition-building and grassroots activism than I think Hillary has demonstrated over the years, or supported.”

I'm not certain what the difference is in 'grassroots' expressions of support for whatever Sen. Sanders is advocating, and the 'grassroots' support Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton are receiving. Is there a more defining measure of grassroots support than the people willing to come forward and identify with your cause, and ultimately vote for it?

Is there a more measurable degree of support for ANY potential candidate for office than folks organizing in waves even before that candidate has even declared; years before an election?

I don't know why people who have chosen the Democratic party to coalesce with would be viewed as any less connected with the agenda of the pols they support than those who might support an independent candidacy. There wouldn't seem to be any more purity of motivation behind one base of support, than the other. Yet, some still associate 'grassroots' with maverick candidacies or political bids by outsiders.

Did Obama's grassroots cease to be authentic when he achieved office? I remember when his candidacy was seen as insurgent and outside of the party establishment; at least in comparisons made to other more established Democrats.

The reason I think many here gravitate around a board called 'Democratic' Underground in recognition of the kinship that we find with our progressive ideals within the Democratic party. Indeed, a good majority of votes for any progressive outsider will need to draw from the ranks of our Democratic coalition; from the party's 'grassroots'.

I agree that it's a mistake to dismiss the ideals expressed by those who identify their progressive politics outside of the party; outside of this Democratic-oriented forum. That progressive advocacy is essential to the character and direction of our coalition.

I also think, though, it's a mistake (as some do) to characterize support for our Democratic coalition or candidacies as an anathema to change. I see that support as a recognition of the traditional weakness of independent movements in attracting enough of a coalition of voters to win elections.

Outright rejection of a political establishment that is successful in attracting the necessary support to actually advance initiatives and ideals into action or law is self-defeating and isolating.

On the other hand, progressive politics that intends to inform, more than it's obsessed with 'winning' something or the other, can be a vital and essential exercise of the democratic process. Nothing changes in government without pressure, and politics that's always obsessed with what's popular or winning isn't going to project essential values or principles necessary to effect any insistent, progressive change.

I think we need to advantage our politics of every instigation of democracy to succeed. Understanding that need might help bring understanding and celebration of the myriad of motivations folks bring to this board; rather than catering to the derisiveness and suspicion which often threatens to divide us; even on issues which we mostly agree with each other.