"If the repubican party implodes, the Democratic party will split to fill the void"

[Stinky The Clown]

Do you think that's true?

[Lint Head]

1. At least it will be all democratic.

:dem:

[BlooInBloo]

2. We're doomed.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. You really think so?

Wow.


on edit

What was the point of your worthless reply? I threw out a topic for discussion. This is a discussion board.

Or maybe its a place where assholes can let loose a fart?

Jeeezes, give it a fucking rest ..... :eyes:

[Arkana]

33. [/C3PO]

[leftofthedial]

4. I think many, perhaps most, of the "democrats" in DC

ARE repukes, at least if their pro-corporate, anti-worker, pro-authoritarian, anti-civil liberty voting records are any indication.

If there is a void in American politics, it is to the LEFT of elected Democrats.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Well .... yeah ..... that's kinda why I'm thinking a failed rightist party could cause ours to split

Many in our party are closer to the right than the left.

I think what might actually happen is that the split occurs on the left of the party and the party itself openly embraces the right.

[leftofthedial]

20. methinks you may be onto something...

[Stinky The Clown]

27. I dunno which would be worse ...... a left fracture or a right

[leftofthedial]

31. anything that creates a viable party to the left of hard-right-of-center

would be a good thing.

[Taverner]

5. No the GOP will reinvent itself into something different

Most early GOPers were Whigs. The Whigs imploded, and turned into the GOP.

[MADem]

6. I think the GOP will not implode. I think they'll contract and try to get their reputation back.

The GOP used to be the party of the abolitionists. They used to be strong for the rights of the person. I suspect they're going to try to get back that way. I don't know if they'll be able to do it after all they've done in the second half of the twentieth century, but I think that's where they're going. They'll retool.

[Ken Burch]

12. Getting back to being "the party of the abolitionists" would have to mean

that the GOP would have to repent and apologize for the Compromise of 1876, in which they allowed African Americans to be consigned to Jim Crow in exchange for hanging onto power in name in a disputed election.

Yes, I know OUR party was involved in this compromise in name, but we DID essentially repent of it when we passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

[MADem]

40. Naaah. They made up for that by championing black interests against the racists in the South.

Most people recoil in confusion when they learn that MLK was a Republican, but the context tells the tale. The Dixiecrat Dems were pretty hideous. It's astounding when one thinks that Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, and a bunch of those old stalwart GOP racists started out their lives as Dems. Our hands weren't entirely clean, either--we tolerated those old racists for eons, simply to keep the majority on the Hill. We have LBJ to thank for "fixing" us--and he correctly indicated that his civil rights legislation would cost our party for a generation.

It wouldn't surprise me if the GOP goes into the wilderness like we did, and retools and comes back with a new look. I don't think we should ever rest on our laurels, or get pompous, or assume that our position will never change. And most of all, I hope we guard against corruption. We know the old saying about power and corruption--I just hope we don't put up with that shit.

[Ken Burch]

7. Well, splitting is usually our pattern.

And it does make sense. The Blue Dogs and the DLC have always been much more about stopping the progressive majority within the party than they ever were about party loyalty(it was the Blue Dogs who stabbed Bill Clinton in the back on healthcare in '94, and in so doing guaranteed the Newt blowout by making him and the rest of the party look ineffective).

Blue Dogs probably don't actually want the GOP to collapse, because they would have a hard time beating a progressive party in a straight fight. Besides, they see their natural place as a blocking third, a very large tail wagging a very small dog.

[wyldwolf]

22. well..

The Blue Dogs and the DLC have always been much more about stopping the progressive majority within the party

What progressive majority?

it was the Blue Dogs who stabbed Bill Clinton in the back on healthcare in '94

The Blue Dogs didn't exist in '94. But the Clinton health care plan was attacked from the right and the left.

and in so doing guaranteed the Newt blowout by making him and the rest of the party look ineffective

And what is this? Yet another bizarre progressive theory on 1994 that goes way off the mark. Ken, why do you always ignore the reasons political analysts attribute to the '94 loss in favor of unsubstantiated theories

Again - southern gerrymandering in red-trending districts, a large number of democratic retirements, the first national mobilization of the Christian Right, Rubbergate, and Clinton actually trying to appease the progressive wing with three acts that were exploited against him - gun control, health care, and gays in the military.

[Ken Burch]

30. The American people SUPPORTED health care reform

If he hadn't even tried on it...well, what would've been the point of electing him?
After that was lost, the next six years was a dead zone. Nothing happened in the rest of it that Bush or Dole wouldn't have done or at least allowed to be done.

You can't seriously argue that we should've left the healthcare status quo in place?
It's an absurd statement to imply that nobody but "the progressive wing" wanted healthcare reform.

We lost in '94 because healthcare reform failed, not because it was attempted. It wouldn't have been a Democratic administration if the attempt hadn't been made.

(And ok, the Blue Dogs hadn't formed as an organization in '94, but those who were in the group, such as Rep. Cooper, did refuse to back Clinton on healthcare, floating a meaningless "moderate" plan instead that would've done next to nothing. Within a year, those guys had formed the Blue Dogs and then spent most of the Nineties voting for the worst stuff Newt and his successors sent up, like Glass-Steagall repeal, an act I assume even you wouldn't still defend.)

Oh, and 1994 was hardly the FIRST national mobilization of the Christian Right. Try 1980 and every election held in THAT decade. Falwell had actually been active since '78 or so.)

[wyldwolf]

36. and they still do. Unfortunately the left and the right couldn't agree on how to do it..

.. and attacked Clinton for daring to try and give everyone something.

You can't seriously argue that we should've left the healthcare status quo in place?

You can't seriously argue I've made that argument when one only has to look at my post to see I didn't. Stating a fact does not equate to liking that fact.

It's an absurd statement to imply that nobody but "the progressive wing" wanted healthcare reform.

I've implied no such thing. Even the Right had ideas for reform.

We lost in '94 because healthcare reform failed, not because it was attempted. It wouldn't have been a Democratic administration if the attempt hadn't been made.

There is simply no basis of fact for that statement. And I find it odd. How many Democratic administrations have not attempted health care reform? Pretty much all of them.

Oh, and 1994 was hardly the FIRST national mobilization of the Christian Right.

Yes, actually, it was. The Christian Right's role in 1980 was miniscule.

In 1990, Pat Robertson laid out his key organizing principle in his book The Millennium:

"With the apathy that exists today, a well organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree."

Robertson said to the Denver Post in 1992,

"We want...as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians..."

Robertson hired Ralph Reed as the Christian Coalition's political mastermind. To get their candidates elected Reed and Robertson taught them to use stealth: avoid publicity, stay out of debates, and work below the radar screen. Don't call attention to yourself. And then Christian Coalition campaigned on their behalf exclusively in fundamentalist, Pentecostal and Charismatic churches.

While candidates avoided the limelight, Christian Coalition Family Values Voter Guides were distributed to participating churches. Church telephone directories were used for "get-out-the-vote" telephone banks.
1994: A Watershed Year

By election time in 1994 Christian Coalition had distributed 40 million copies of the "Family Values Voter's Guide" in more than 100,000 churches nationwide. 1994 was the year Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. It was also the year that Republicans made a huge gain in State Legislatures.

The purpose of focusing on state legislative races was to enable Republicans to gerrymander Congressional Districts. To be sure, both parties have used the practice of gerrymandering to their advantage, but, in recent years, Republicans have elevated this practice to new heights.

Time Magazine, in May, 1995, called Ralph Reed "The Right Hand of God" and credited the Christian Coalition with giving the Republicans their victories. Out of forty-five new members in the U.S. House of Representatives and nine in the U.S. Senate in 1994, roughly half were Christian Coalition candidates.




http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm#Watershed

.....


Good Book here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Qj6gm1oBmNMC&dq=1994+Christian+right&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=jlAD2FOnXf&sig=qxIyeh-evyRPxFL193gOrFWQgJM&hl=en&ei=KBvxSa-QIKablAekmcDYDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

"God at the Grass Roots: The Christian Right in the 1994 Elections."

--------

[Ken Burch]

39. When you used this phrase:

"Clinton actually trying to appease the progressive wing with three acts that were exploited against him - gun control, health care, and gays in the military"
you did appear to be implying that only progressives(and for some reason you still work under the delusion that the majority of the party is anti-progressive)wanted universal healthcare. In truth, the idea had wide appeal. The legislation was defeated because conservative Dems wouldn't back it(even though it was supported by someone who was one of their own), and the public wanted it. There was also the fatal mistake of HRC's taskforce in refusing to even consider single-payer, an idea that would have been far easier to defend or build support for(Clinton's people didn't even try to build support for their OWN healthcare plan, once again ceding control of the debate to the GOP for no good reason).

As to gays in the military, pushing for that early was Clinton's own idea. At the time, it wasn't even a priority of the LGBT movement itself. Lifting the ban did have(initially)widespread public support. The issue became a defeat for the administration because the administration, having floated the idea, did nothing whatsoever to defend it or mobilize support for it, and because Sam Nunn and the Pentagon saw beating Clinton on the issue as a way to immunize the defense budget from any serious attempt to cut it(after that, none was made, even though we were in the calmest international situation in decades and had no continued need for a Cold War-sized war machine).

If Rep Cooper and friends had backed the Clinton healthcare plan and that plan had passed, Democrats would have won solidly in 1994, with a grateful public rewarding them for making the lives of the American people easier. Instead, Democrats lost because the base had no good reason, after the first two years, to think voting for our party was worth their effort. We lost in '94 on mass abstentions, abstentions provoked by a willful effort to disrespect the base and play only to those who were never GOING to vote Democratic.

[wyldwolf]

41. sorry

So you're conceding the Christian Right point?

for some reason you still work under the delusion that the majority of the party is anti-progressive

Nope, I've never said or implied that. But I've stated time and time again that the majority is NOT "progressive" as the left has come to define the term. In fact, as the party becomes more ethnic with rising numbers of African Americans and Hispanics, it will become even less progressive on most social and cultural issues.

The legislation was defeated because conservative Dems wouldn't back it(even though it was supported by someone who was one of their own), and the public wanted it. There was also the fatal mistake of HRC's taskforce in refusing to even consider single-payer, an idea that would have been far easier to defend or build support for(Clinton's people didn't even try to build support for their OWN healthcare plan, once again ceding control of the debate to the GOP for no good reason).

"Meanwhile, Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own. Some criticized the plan from the left, preferring a Canadian-style single payer system. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillarycare

As to gays in the military, pushing for that early was Clinton's own idea. At the time, it wasn't even a priority of the LGBT movement itself.

In the 1980s, many of the Democratic Party presidential candidates expressed an interest in changing the regulations concerning homosexuality in the armed forces, and, as American social mores changed, public opinion began to express more sympathy with gay people in armed forces, at least to the extent that investigations into a serviceman or -woman's sexual behaviour and/or orientation were seen as a witch-hunt...

... Congressional support for reform was led by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who fought for a compromise, and retired Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued for a complete repeal of the ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

If Rep Cooper and friends had backed the Clinton healthcare plan and that plan had passed, Democrats would have won solidly in 1994

Conjecture

Instead, Democrats lost because the base had no good reason, after the first two years, to think voting for our party was worth their effort. We lost in '94 on mass abstentions, abstentions provoked by a willful effort to disrespect the base and play only to those who were never GOING to vote Democratic.

More conjecture.

[demhistorian]

42. the prevailing impression I'm getting from this discussion is this

One person is providing links to his assertions. The other is not. And try as I might, I can't find anything to substantiate Ken Burch's points.

[wyldwolf]

43. It's the same discussion over and over

I could pull out a million links, reference a million books, and get the testimony of Jesus Christ and FDR's ghost and I'd still have the same discussion with the same small group of DUers next month.

[valerief]

8. I kinda like the name "Democrat Socialist Party," but "Green Socialist Party"

is even better.

:hippie:

[Ken Burch]

37. Well, there's always the name "People's Part y"

Which can accommodate that large group of people that hold basically social democratic views but get paranoid about the "s word".

[DireStrike]

9. Well, leftists have no real power in this country

What would happen is the DLC types would join with the rightists to promote the right-wing economics that they both support.

Right wing stances on social issues would become less viable politically. Economically though, things will stay the same. We will continue to move rightward.

[wyldwolf]

10. no. You'd see the rise of the libertarian party before the Dem party split.

But the GOP isn't going anywhere so it's a moo point. :)

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Moo?

Hahahaha

Cow tipper! :)

[wyldwolf]

23. yes. A moo point. it's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo

[BlooInBloo]

45. "Because who cares what a cow thinks?"

+1 Joey reference.

[eleny]

13. How does a Party dissolve?

Does it happen when they keep losing elections and get down to no members in Congress? Or is there a percentage of members just too low to be effective?

It seems like it would be a natural thing that would occur between losing elections and not being able to get donations until it's completely ineffective. Sort of going *poof*. And then other Parties would begin to emerge with competing ideas.

I guess at our age, it feels so odd that the Party of Ike is dissolving.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Hey eleny

:hug:

Lotsa changes keep us young, kiddo!

[eleny]

24. Well hey, I like the sound of that!

I was just doing some hand wringing over the process of new Parties emerging given the wackos we've got in this country.

But I'm down with keeping young!

[Kansas Wyatt]

14. Maybe that would be a good thing.

Some Democrats could be Republicans, passing themselves off as Democrats. If they switched, then we may have a Democratic Party, rather than a Republican Lite Democratic Party.

Just a thought... After all, it would be nice if this country took a hard left turn to make up for 30 years of pulling to the right.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. I never said it was a bad thing ....... or a good thing, for that matter

[annabanana]

17. You think we might go "corpororate/populist"?

I think either party could fracture that way.

[stillcool]

18. I think the Republicans have to reinvent..

and repackage themselves, but they seem unlikely to do that. Maybe another election cycle. Then I guess it depends on how good of a job they do at selling their new brand whatever that is. I don't see any Democrats jumping ship unless there is something to worth swimming to.

[Laelth]

21. Absolutely. I look forward to it.

I look forward to the day when the DLC is the loyal opposition, and we, on the left, won't have to be the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. We can just be the Democratic Party.

Or the DLC can keep the party name. That matters little to me.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Arctic Dave]

25. I don't think they will implode (unfortunately) but the pendulum will

swing a little more left. The hardcore neocon will become an even more fringe party along the lines of the libertarians. The blue dogs will merge with the remnant of the old repug party and the left will have to join with the other fringe parts of the Democratic Party.

[Xithras]

26. No, there's a danger, but that's not it.

Our system is designed for multiple parties, and the collapse of one would lead to the rise of one or more others.

The danger, in todays media driven, marketing focused world, is that someone starting a new party starts with a blank slate and no reputation. It's possible that some group could build a new "moderates" party to appeal to the more centrist Republicans (demographically the bulk of their party) and Democrats. A new "Blue Collar" party that took a mainstream middle of the road approach has the potential to pick up a large chunk of the Republicans and steal away a big base in our own party.

Nobody can do it now because our system really only supports having two major parties, and both of those slots are filled. A disintegration of the Republican party introduces an opportunity for someone to introduce an entirely new type of party, and not simply a "Republican Replacement" party.

[rug]

28. Yes.

[Ian David]

29. I could live with that. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

32. I;m not so sure ...... imagkine a political landscape with a majority between center right and .....

..... all-but-far-right with liberals a minority on the left once again.

That scenario can only happen if our national demographic is center right.

There is much debate on that point. I'm not sure *where* we really are, but I tend to think center right.

[Ian David]

34. Splitting the Democrats would be between Center right and solidly lefy, IMHO.

To put it in perspective:

Joe LIEberman's voting record as a Democrat is far more Liberal than the most "Liberal" Republicker.

[NNN0LHI]

35. Dems won't ever let the Rethugs completely implode

Or vice versa.

Just the way things work.

If things got real bad for the Republicans the Dems would just have some of the Blue Dog Democrats switch parties to keep the two party system intact.

Don

[Davis_X_Machina]

38. Yes...In Europe, you fight the election...

...then form the coalition. In the US, you form the coalition, then fight the election.

Both parties are already split into four-five pieces. You don't need the other party to implode for pieces to be swapped around. Roosevelt's classic New Deal coalition had white southerners as one of its anchors -- they're in the GOP now. The GOP of the 1940's had goo-goo Northeasterners as one key constituency -- they're in the Democratic party now.

The constituencies are out there -- each generation's Democratic and Republican parties assembles them in new configurations.

[Laelth]

44. Nice description. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth