Interesting article, I too would rather have the chance of a wiretap when I phone Afghanistan than have and additional 20% of my earnings redistributed by Dems. I know they know better than I do how to spend my wealth, but.....

Doug,
Close to 20% of our earnings are now being redistributed by the Saudis, Iraqis, et al; that's even worse than the Democrats.

It all depends on how tax money is assessed and then used. First, is the system fair to everyone? I think it's patently unfair now. (of all taxes, I despise real estate taxes the most, because, in effect, you can never own your home. The local government can demand you keep on paying THEM for it, year after year, any amount they ask.)

Secondly, what do we get for the money? More national security? Better infrastructure? Affordable health care? Improved education? A better quality of life?

Or, as in the past decade, more waste, greed and graft to special interests by Democrats AND Republicans.

Some Democrats never saw a tax they didn't like; Bush never saw a deficit he couldn't embrace. Both put government's hands deeper into our pockets.

Will Roger said he "wasn't a member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat." It will be interesting to see how well both parties can organize behind their flawed candidates this year.

Obnox, the perplexity you advertise in the title of your article doesn't seem to be really directed at Democrats so much as the nebulous 'Left'.

The Democratic Party is a broad church. Of necessity. In a country the size of a small planet which nonetheless possesses only two political parties with any realistic ability to get members elected to national office, why would you be puzzled that it contains a broad spectrum of often conflicting viewpoints? It would be scarier if all 50 million-odd Dems were expressing the exact same views.

And your closing sentence got me scratching my head. Dissent from party lines isn't allowed if you're a liberal? Wasn't that what your whole article was bemoaning?

Doc,

While it's true that I am talking about the left, and perhaps not specifically registered Democrats, the contradictions that I've listed here are not from disparate groups of democrats.

Almost every issue I've listed here, from increased taxes and protectionism, universal healthcare and social security to diplomacy and national security, are the positions of the two dem frontrunners, and in some cases contrasted with their earlier positions.

I am certainly not taking moderate left ideals and playing them against extreme left positions or anything similar to that. I've been noticing these contradictions for quite a while, and felt it was time to put it down on paper.

I'm not suggesting that the Dems should be in lockstep - no party is (my own views as proof). But is it too much to ask for some level of consistency among the same Democrats?

You only identified two of the many issues you raised - capital gains and NAFTA - with the positions of either of the Democratic frontrunners*. Hence my bafflement.

But basically, all of them are simply positions with which you disagree. They don't make sense to you because they're at odds with your personal political philosophy, not necessarily with received wisdom.

As for the 'divided and bickering' Democratic Party, well, that's just primary politics. There's nothing unusual about it, as I can testify from my recollection of how bizarre the whole primary process used to seem from my vantage point on the other side of the pond. To watch two or more people from the same party, who would in most normal circumstances back each other to the hilt (at least in public), suddenly ripping each other to shreds in a quest for high office, is to outsiders one of the craziest things about a country everyone knows is crazy. (That, and holding elections for jobs like sheriff, judge and school supervisor.)

But I digress. The only reason the Democratic primary seems to be such a cutthroat affair this time around is because of the remarkable rapidity with which John McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination.


_{* I'll let you have universal healthcare as well - even though you didn't mention Obama or Clinton in context - because their positions on this issue are well known.}

Doc,

This article isn't just about this democratic primary race. I can excuse the back and forth (though, not the "bitter" and "typical" comments).

This article touches upon much deeper issues than a mere primary battle, it's about the behavior of the Dems for the past decade or so. Take SS privatization for example. Or the endless chant that we should engage our enemies, and yet the outrage against Bush for attending Olypmic opening ceremonies in Beijing. Wiretapping outrage along side of nanny state legislation.

Democrats (or the left) truly believe that the government is better at making choices than the individual is, but then rail at the supposed encroachments of our "rights" in time of war.

These, and the items mentioned in the article are the types of contradictions that bother me, and I won't be voting Democrat. These contradictions should concern Lefties even more since they've put their own stock and votes behind them.

I didn't address your question about the closing line (thanks for reading that far, I realize it's not a short piece). While Dems might be contradictory in the problems that they see and the solutions they prescribe for said problems, this is fine when a Republican is in office, because nothing he can do can satisfy them. But there is a big difference between claiming to want to help the economy, and promising to increase taxes, two obviously contradictory goals, and actual dissent from party talking points. Being a liberal that supports the war in Iraq, for example, is probably as rare as a log cabin Republicans.

There you go again, Obnox. Increased taxation and economic vigor aren't mutually exclusive. That's just your personal view.

I'll grant you that a lot depends on how you tax, and it's difficult to do so in such a way as not to put a brake on the economy. But increased taxation certainly doesn't have to mean you might as well use the portrait of George in your wallet as a chewing gum wrapper.

I'm actually working on an article which is essentially the answer to the question you pose her.e The tentative title is "There is no Democratic Party".

The prob;em, in a nutshell, is that the Democratic party is an alliance of factions which goes back generations, and whose interests are not only not the same, but are inherently incompatible and increasingly utterly incapable of working together.


Just consider two of the constituent groups. Most of their leaders come from the liberal, intellectual elite. Yet a lot of their grassroots support is from working class unionists. The liberal elite are pro-tax, anti-church, anti-gun and pro-immigration. The working class unionists are anti-tax, pro-church, pro-gun and anti-immigration. They're at opposite positions on virtually every issue. This is the problem which Obama accidentally stumbled on, not considering that the values which he derided as a liberal intellectual were valued by an awful lot of working class democrats.

There are a number of other divisions as well, and none of them get along terribly well either. For example, what common ground do poor urban african americans and socialist 'smart growth' urban land-grabbers have in common? What's the common ground between trial lawyers and proponents of national healthcare? They're inherently incompatible groups.

IMO the party is going to tear itself apart and this election may be when that happens.

And before someone brings it up, the Republicans also have a lot of different groups, but they generally differ on only a couple of issues and outside of that even wealthy businessmen and religious fanatics have a certain amount of common ground.

Dave

"There you go again, Obnox. Increased taxation and economic vigor aren't mutually exclusive. That's just your personal view. "

Lolll, that brought me back :>

Agreed, there are ways to raise taxes in ways that wont hurt the economy. That said, I don't believe for a second that either Democratic candidate will have such a light hand.

Very interesting article, with a lot to digest. I don't understand either, and I'm in a heavily Democratic state (Michigan), lots of union "pride" and too much government. I look at the people around me and think, can you NOT see what I'm seeing? Or maybe they see it but don't understand, or don't care.

As an independent, I'm interested in all sides, front and back. I'm also interested in the future, not in the here-and-now. Foresight is a good thing.

Dave,

I agree, and in your fine article on the GOP enabling the first black president, I opined that African Americans, judging by the values they seem to have (the ones I know at least), should be much more in-line with Republicans than Democrats. So should Jews. I can't explain why blacks, and my fellow Jews tend to gravitate left even though at it's core the Democratic party doesn't (really) support them in return.

I suppose I should come clean here and say that I don't understand the Democrats either. Not for the same reasons you don't, and I don't get the Republicans either. Frankly, I don't think even the Democrats understand the Democrats, considering they're still trying to get used to being (at least in the South) the ideological opposite of the party they were 60 years ago.

Still, if you allow the idea that a healthy democracy needs at least two strong political parties, and the theory that large organizations tend to self-perpetuate even when their original reason for existence no longer applies (cf. The March of Dimes), you can go some way towards understanding Democratic positions. The Republican Party's also done a bit of an about-face (although Dave will probably wander along and explain in great historical depth and with his own unique brand of NalleLogic^TM why it hasn't), and the Democrats are busy re-orienting in response, because, well, someone's got to tell the Republicans that they're talking out of their arses.

I'd hazard a guess that the GOP currently appears more sure of its bad self because it's had more opportunity as the ruling party recently to put its ideas into administrative practice.

As a side note, I've also noticed that Republicans are much more ideology and dogma driven than their more pragmatic counterparts on the other side of the Conservative pond.

[Sigh.] I dunno. Somehow British politics has so much more finesse to it. Perhaps having a third party makes all the difference...

Dr Dreadful, #7... #12:

...Damn, how long was I typing that last comment for?

Dave: IMO the party is going to tear itself apart and this election may be when that happens.

Well, if you're right, things could get really interesting, because I seem to recall you were predicting the same thing about the Republicans a few weeks ago.

I wonder, can Al Gore serve as Vice President under two different Presidents?

He sure can, Jet. There are no term limits for VPs.

How about four parties
The Corporate Democratic Party
the Democratic Party
The Born-again Republican Party
The Republican Party

I still say that this country is in the mess it's in because the only committed and dedicated U.S. voter is a rabid religious-right church-bussed-in one.

I got a post card recently saying my polling place has been changed to a Baptist church just down the street. I had no further questions...

Haven't been around much. Started a new job and still working on my business-es. But wanted to just say this is a good thread.

The Democrats to me seem like a ship lost at sea with the crew fighting among themselves as the sharks wait patiently. Obama claims he's for change - I don't see it. Except for what he represents. But is the "idea" of the man more important than the ideas themselves?

That's the impression I get up here in lonely, barren Canadus.

Jet,

I've thought about this, but came to the conclusion that were we to adopt a more than two party system, you'd end up with a situation where, depending on the number of parties involved, it would take less and less votes to form a majority. In a situation such as what you describe (assuming parties are devided equally, as they are now), it would just take 26% of the votes to elect a president. Scary. I favor keeping the two party system :>.

The Corporate Democratic Party
the Democratic Party
The Born-again Republican Party
The Republican Party

With just a couple of name changes, you have the situation the United States faced in 1860 with four parties contesting the race.

That was right before a war that was to decide the country's fate....

How do you manage to stumble on these things, Jet?

Lucky I guess Ruvy...? Judge Judy's on, I'll check back later.

"I still say that this country is in the mess it's in because the only committed and dedicated U.S. voter is a rabid religious-right church-bussed-in one."

Just because you have a bone to pick with the religious right's condemnation of your lifestyle does not mean the reast of shoudl take you seriously when you make such boneheaded remarks.

Maybe you can explain how high gas prices are the fault of the rligious right....

Maybe you can explain how Pat Robertson is responsible for manufacturing jobs going overseas for the past thirty years or how Jerry falwell is to blame for the threat posed by islamic terroism

it would just take 26% of the votes to elect a president.

having more than 2 parties is not so important in electing the president. The role which it would play in the legislature is what would really make a difference, because it would force a lot more consensus building and promote more ideological diversity.

Dave

"I can't explain why blacks, and my fellow Jews tend to gravitate left..."
- The Obnoxious American

That's easy. Fewer phony hypocrites over here.

REMF, you're a hypocrite on the left.

Jet, you want to see a committed voter base, try crossing the Social Security lobby.

"REMF, you're a hypocrite on the left."

One in a plethora.

Archie-After this long I'm baffled at the fact that anyone takes you seriously any more. To most of us you're just a lovable and silly baffoon in a clown suit, waving your arms and doing anything to get attention.

Aren't you tired of it yet?

Takes me seriously?

You just blamed ALL of America's problems solely on the religious right.

How can anyone take you seriously?

Very paranoid today Archie? I was blaming those who DON'T vote for the sorry state of affairs this country is in because of Bush. And making a true statement that the Religious Right fanatics being bussed in to vote for presidents at Church polling locations.

I'm no Al Gore fan but in the name of honest accuracy he never stated he invented the internet.

Both parties have abandoned their founding principles over the years, especially the last 30 years.

Dem politicians have been suborned by the high-flying lobbyists who finance them and by assuring that those dem politicians are rich, widely sought after by big money guys, and their futures are financially assured (most notably their pensions and healthcare, which are pumped up to unreasonable levels, thus freeing them of the concerns of millions of their constituents) so that they no longer share the daily concerns and goals of the people who elected them. Just look at the Clintons, for example. this insures that the Dem pols can casually throw ordinary citizens to the wolves when that is demanded by the Big Picture notions that they buy from their lobbyists.

The rep politicians start with noble notions about fiscal responsibility, low profile government, and 'consequences', but they quickly succumb to lobbyists who require them to prop up failing businesses, increase taxes and debts to finance big plans like war or a bridge to nowhere, wiretap citizens who might become dangerous, throw people in jail without constitutional protection, etc.

The dems devolve back to Big Government control.

The reps devolve back to Royalism: the King knows best.

The compromise they achieve is corporate statism, the belief that the state IS what it's corporations make it.. Power goes to the powerful. The powerful become more and more powerful with time.

Every twist and turn that an (old fashioned) dem makes to help citizens must go thru corporate hands.

Every twist and turn that an (old fashioned) rep makes to assert Free Markets is confounded by corporate vested interests that will not allow anyone to compete with them in a fair market.

Every principle that either party ever espoused is subverted to serve the interests of the powerful people who are their daily companions and their masters.

Where does it end? Feudalism, or something like it. Where a powerful ruling class, who performs no function other than ruling and exercising power thru armies, dominates a serf class, who has no choice but to work until death to pay tribute to the King.

Then, of course, eventually there is revolution, blood runs in the streets, and a generation or two of rebels tries to found a system that is fair. And immediately their children and grandchildren seek ways around the system to enrich themselves while punishing their moral inferiors.

And so it goes.

So why fight it?

Jet, we're all silly buffoons in clown suits around here.

Bliffle, interesting comments.

I think your chronology is wrong though. Thirty years ago was 1977. The Democratic Party didn't really sell out until the Clinton years. The Republicans stuck to their principles up through the late Clinton years. The real whoring has been going on for only 10-15 years. It feels more like a blip than a trend.

I was blaming those who DON'T vote for the sorry state of affairs this country is in because of Bush. And making a true statement that the Religious Right fanatics being bussed in to vote for presidents at Church polling locations"

You're assuming those who don't vote would vote Democratic? You seem to have a lot animosity torward the religious right and that is completely understandable given the type of fella that you are but let's not forget there are kooks on the left too.

Extremism is, in ALL of it's assorted flavors, not just the type you have a vendetta against, is a threat to common sense and the welfare of the population.

I mark 30 years ago as the time that I first became aware of devolutions in the conservative business atmosphere that were driving them toward corporate socialism:

1-selection of BoD by CEO, ascendancy of CEO power
2-notion of "too big to fail" offered as excuse for rigid business practices
3-convergence of dems and reps toward vesting jobs responsibilities with employers

etc.

"I favor America taking action in Darfur and finishing the job in Iraq."

Woowee, that just screams someone who doesn't know what they are talking about because Americans can't finish the job in Iraq. The Iraqis have to do it.

Bliffle, I didn't follow your comment #36. We were talking about trends in politics, not in corporations. That "etc." on the end really threw me, because I can't see any connection between your points, or how they relate to the original topic.