Posted on 11/06/2004 5:21:42 PM PST by King Prout
I've read the article and pondered it. And I'm going to pull something of a dirty trick here. I'm going to largely sidestep his logic, which is actually pretty good, and question the premise (which I think is largely unstated).
The premise here, as I see it, is that the Democratic party equals neo-liberalism, and will continue to. I don't really agree with that basic premise, so the rest of the article is built on a rhetorical house of cards from my perspective.
The Democratic party does not have a single cohesive philosophy at this point in time. Actually, there are a few opposing philosophies that are warring within the party. None of which have emerged completely triumphant.
Neo-liberalism, that is to say the "new-deal" liberalism that conservatives know and loathe has certainly been dominant in the party, and may well continue to be. But I don't think that philosophy has won any ultimate triumph.
I think that big-C Conservatives, that is to say folks who are attracted to FR or the opinion/journal, make a big mistake when they spend significant time trying to wrap their arms around the underlying philosophy of Democrats. There isn't one right now; you might as well try to hug a cloud.
I do think that a dominant philosophy is going to emerge, and I'm not so sure I'm going to like it. With the selection of Howard Dean to head up the DNC, you can bet that what emerges in the future will be a more populist Democratic party. I happen to like populist. Populist means you listen to what the people say and do their bidding. Populist where I live means pro-gun, and limited government.
But what I don't like is when populism gets married up with radical neo-liberalism or socialism. That might well be coming as well.
I don't think you are mistaken.
the author does seem to believe that the DNC is what it presents itself as being: a uniform bloc
it isn't.
a large part of the DNC is an ad-hoc glom of diverse special interests allied by one common mantra: "gimme entitlements". Allied, but in no way truly united or akin. Indeed, many of these special interests would be, in a state of nature, irreconcilable to each other.
the hard part, for me (and presumably for many other non-dems), is to sift out the noise of the glom and see what remains of the DNC. Who are the "real" Democrats, and for what do they stand?
The answer to this question is vital.
The glom cannot long endure. Nor should it, nor, really, should it have ever been condoned or taken politely.
What, then, does "Democrat" or "Liberal" mean, when shorn of the opportunistic parasites?
To be fair, there is some level of confusion over what "conservative" and "Republican" mean.
For me, it is relatively simple: The Constitution (as written by the Founders) is the Holy Bible of my creed; Restricted government is proper; US sovereignty over US soil is inalienable; Federal Law and the laws within any particular state should be consistent and sensible; Let the people do as they see fit, reaping what they sow; private property rights are sacrosanct, etc... The Republican Party currently best serves my creed.
To me, this is POLITICAL conservatism, though it obviously contains within it SOCIAL libertarianism and PERSONAL liberality.
Many "conservatives" agree with me to some varying degree. Many disagree to some varying degree.
I am sure there is some similar range among the Democrats.
But the question remains: What does it really mean to be a "real" Liberal/Democrat?
I have one significant problem with "populism" - the fact that The Big Lie works.
IFF the government is harshly constrained in its scope of powers, then Populism run-amok can do little harm.
OTOH, when the government has grown adept at usurpations, stealth taxation, and otherwise seeping out past its containment...
Again, the problem with premises. It would appear that you assume it's the ideology that binds the parties together. I disagree.
Real Democrats, by which I assume you mean those who are active in the party for something other than business reasons, are an increasingly rare breed. The real Republican is about as rare.
Politics is a business, and divvying up spoils is why most politicos are there.
Lemme think some more on this one about populism.
oh, I'm sorry - I didn't make it clear that I was contemplating only the lowest echelon of the structure of the Democrat Party - those among the voting public who give their allegiance to the DNC. The "mudsill" if you would.
In that limited scope, the "glom" to which I referred is held together by "gimme entitlements". I'm not sure this can be considered an ideology so much as a pampered and short sighted selfishness, an attitude, a deeply ingrained willingness to surrender their self-control and political power to masters who should be servants, in return for the promise that those masters shall oppress the productive to squeeze out handouts for the idle.
I'm trying to figure out what is left of the mudsill if one removes the glom - who are the normal folk, the ones who do not reflexively hold their hands out in the universal "gimme" salute, who comprise the remainder of the mudsill, and what do they want, why do they ally their interests with those of the DNC?
I agree with your assessment of "politicos" - Most of them are there for personal gain to some extent (the terms are basically wealth, authority, and sex - this has ever been so); Some of them are there SOLELY for such gain; A very few -what used to be called Statesmen- are there to SERVE.
Politicos, or elected representatives if we wish to be polite, are what we could call the TOP echelon. I would hazard to guess that these hold the highest concentration of power per-capita of any of the echelons, but as an echelon they are not really the most powerful.
There are other echelons, and these are the more difficult to define, identify, and bring to heel. There are the various appointees and administrative hirelings (let us call this echelon "the entrenched bureaucracy), there are the power-brokers and lobbyists and PACs (let us call this echelon "the in crowd"), there is of course the media (let us call this echelon "the priesthood"), there are the minions of the National Education Association (I have no polite term with which to label this indoctrination machine), and there are the millions of employees of the various organs of the bloated State Services (let us call this echelon "the cogs").
There is, of course, significant overlap and migration between these echelons.
Curbing them will be a nightmare, if it is possible at all.
by all means :)
Yes, it does look like they are choosing Option number One.
the bastards.
That being true, we should now have ample cases to study and should be able to determine if Liberalism IS a mental disorder or Liberalism IS CAUSED BY a mental disorder.Once that question is answered then perhaps a treatment can be developed.
please refer to #s 41, 42, 44, and 46
I assume you refer to political "liberalism" as opposed to a purely personal liberality.
I don't think that subscription to political liberalism is caused by any specific neurological cellular or chemical malady.
I tend to believe that it might be caused or made more likely by an individual's lack of self-restraint or discipline, a tendency to emote rather than coldly analyse, and a retention of infantile tendencies to desire and defer to/depend on some kind of Parental Figure.
that might be a training-induced neurosis, but falls short of a true pathology or psychosis.
Read tomorrow
Thanks for clarifying that it's the voters that you're looking at; those who identify themselves as Democrats, yet are not really active in party politics or affairs. Kind of difficult to put a handle on, in truth.
I can only report what I observe from GOTV stuff I've been involved in. In my view it's a combination of things. And I'm not so sure that Democratic voters (or Republican voters for that matter) put the kind of intense, analytical microscope that you or I might put on the topic.
People tend to vote and support the same things that their parents and grandparents did. They also tend to vote what they believe their economic interests are. Or how they perceive them. There's also something of a "branding" mentality out there. Some people approach selecting a political party like they would select a brand of toothpaste. Some folks buy Crest and will never change, same for Colgate.
Again, I think you might be trying to put too fine a point on a decision that many people really don't put much thought into in the first place. Because when put to the harsh light of analytical scrutiny, the reason why people voted for X or Y party might not stand up in the face of logic.
For example, you could probably demonstrate that voting for the Democratic party has a detrimental impact on education. Yet Democrats are identified with their support of education. I on the other hand could probably demonstrate that voting for the Republican party has a detrimental impact on our gun rights. Yet Republicans are identified with their support of the Second Amendment.
There's a lot of mythbuilding and mythmaking that goes into politics. Perhaps you should be looking at how political parties/candidates/media create and reinforce myths to get more insight.
some very good points, about which I shall have to think.
thanks.
quick question: is it pointless to try to understand the nature of the grassroots, ie: would it be more likely to be profitable to turn my eye to understanding and altering the other echelons, in the assumption that the brand-name democrat grassroots will follow where those other echelons go, irrespective of direction?
Quick answer: yes it's pointless, and yes you would be better off working the other echelons if your interest is partisan politics.
That said, I think you'd be better off working issues that really excite you. If it's partisan politics, fine and dandy. Join one of the two major parties and get involved in it. Personally, I think the Democrats offer more opportunities for making progress right now. I'm admittedly a contrarian.
If it's taxes that lights your fire, get with Club for Growth. If it's guns, then come work with us at VCDL.
Don't let this go to your head, but you're obviously very bright and talented. With the writing and organizational skills you've exhibited here, I suspect you could be running the show in another forum if you chose to do so.
a Great One has chimed in privately, suggesting that one of the principal reasons the DNC has gone so very far to the left is, and I quote: "That's where the money is (Sores et alia)"
the man has a point.
I thank you for the compliment. I rather suspect the same could be said of you.
*smacking forehead*
SorOs, not "Sores"
though, really, "Sores" is appropriate for that bastard.
"Follow the money" is a well known adage.
Thanks for the compliment as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.