Replies

RKBA Democrat,
I'm taking the liberty of transcribing your response to my little tract here on its stand-alone thread, with my responses to it appended.

Lavrenti,
Ditto

[RKBA Democrat wrote]
Pardon me while I step back into my role as one of the few non-troll Democrats posting on FR.

I really liked your post. You're thinking and I always appreciate that. I think that your plan is generally sound, although I'd suggest we don't have a few years to wait for introspection.

The problem I have is with your premises. I agree with the sentiments presented, but I see two errors in your logic: (1) your logic assumes that there are enough (conservative) adults left in the Democratic party to make the changes that you suggest. (2)You also imply that the Democratic party is truly run by the rank-and-file, that is to say in a "democratic" fashion.

I would suggest that you re-examine your premises in these respects. Understand that you don't yet have the advantage of being an active and partisan Democrat being able to look at what the reality from the inside.

So let's talk about the first error in your logic as I see it. I have to hand it to the GOP, their efforts over time to woo conservatives over to the GOP have been remarkably successful. Too successful, actually, and the buzzards are now coming home to roost. There are very few conservative Democrats left, and they're marginalized within the party hierarchy. Numbers do matter to a certain extent. And while I do believe that 1 conservative versus 3 radical leftists constitutes a fair fight, 1 versus 6 is a losing battle. And that's about where we're at in the Democratic party. The conservatives and the people who are willing to step up to bat are simply too few and too marginalized.

So while we're talking about the Democratic party cleaning it's own house, precisely who is going to do it? The folks over at DU? Nancy Pelosi?

Secondly, I believe that your logic implies that the Democratic party is run as a more or less democratic organization. On one level, it certainly is. That is to say the local party organizations are democratically elected, the leadership at the state level is democratically elected, etc. But on another and more important level, that's not the case. Again, I think you'd have to have an inside view to readily understand what's going on on a couple of different levels.

The cynical version of the golden rule is that "he who has the gold makes the rules." The "gold" (i.e. organization and financing) for the Democratic party is not being provided by the Democratic party rank and file for the most part. It's being provided by organizations such as moveon, the trial lawyers, George Soros, etc. People who have a more economic interest in the outcome. The election of 2004 was run and financed by outside entities. It had to be. The rank and file organization of the Democratic party is in a state of disarray, and I doubt that they could have put together a credible campaign.

Welcome to post campaign finance reform America. The Democratic party still exists, but I wonder if it's future is going to be as more of a ceremonial organization that coronates the candidates that the MSM, Michael Moore, and moveon want to run the country.

Let me finish this too long of a post on an optimistic note. Lest my analysis seem too pessimistic, I should point out that I'm personally very, very optimistic and see great opportunities for the future. With large change comes large opportunity. And we just got a large change last Tuesday.

[RKBA Democrat wrote]
We have no choice but to fight. 40% plus of the population identifies with the opposition as it is currently comprised. Kissing off that large of a portion of the populace is simply not feasible.

In my view, last Tuesday was a victory in the sense of the Battle of the Bulge. An important victory, yes. But not a final one.

Ultimately, I think conservatives have two basic choices; they can work to assist in changing the Democratic party to rework it into a loyal opposition, or they can stand around and congratulate themselves while the Democratic party retools itself into a sort of Fedayeen Michael Moore.

I'm optimistic, and time will tell whether that optimisim is misplaced.

[King Prout wrote]
I saw your reply to the stand-alone thread, and I thank you for it.
On another thread, a FReeper asked "what is it, really, that they are afraid of?"

I replied:

"What are they afraid of?"
Better to ask "Who among them fears what?"
1. The Top: loss of power and personal graft.
2. The Academe: loss of prestige (I should have added "and tenure"), influence, and a steady supply of co-eds to seduce.
3. The "rank-and-file": whatever the Top and Academe tells them to fear.

I'm aware of the top-down "marching-order" and "talking-point" manner of organization among the left. While I did *imply* that the solution depends on a resurgence of individualism overcoming the abhorrent top-directed mob-mentality among the Left, you are absolutely correct in twitting me for not taking that sufficiently to heart when I wrote my little tract.

This requires thought.

Thanks.

[King Prout wrote]
"Ultimately, I think conservatives have two basic choices; they can work to assist in changing the Democratic party to rework it into a loyal opposition, or they can stand around and congratulate themselves while the Democratic party retools itself into a sort of Fedayeen Michael Moore."

B I N G O

That is exactly how I see the situation.

[Lavrenti wrote]
I think the Democrats reached the limits of their turnout. It would be very difficult to match those numbers with the same passion (uh, well, pathological hatred) as before. I think one myth that exploded on Tuesday was the nature of who does not vote in American elections. Rove harped on that 4 million Evangelical number--that number was seriously lowballed.

Also, the increase for Kerry still did not improve his numbers in comparision to Gore in many blue states--particularly in the battlegrounds. Indeed, the only states where his numbers improved were due to the "New Austin" areas of Oregon, the Sea-Tac area and Vermont, which is becoming a New Age enclave. In Nevada and North Carolina GOP numbers dropped, again, because of remarkable turnout from the college-town and union enclaves. Still was not enough.

The upper midwest remained incredibly close. In order for future Democrats to win state-wide elections in those states they may have to maintain the current 2004 model. It is more likely the GOP will continue its model and possibly expand upon it.

I believe the Democrats have lost the economic argument, the only issue with which they can make inroads into these new voters (or emerging constituancies). Only an economic downturn could do it, but campaigning on negatives haven't won elections for Democrats lately, obviously.

So, for the next two years, the Democrats face a choice between reassessment or resistance. The latter route portends disaster. There is no reason to assume Kerry's vaunted 5 million new voters will be around for mid-terms.

There is every reason to believe Bush's 11 million shall be.