dagblog - Comments for "Big New Democratic Ideas ... An Open Thread"

Capturing a party and

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:23:05 +0000

Capturing a party and displacing a party are very different. One works from the inside, the other from the outside. The Civil War era was the only episode in American history when a party was successfully displaced--the Whigs by the Republicans--but the conditions were extraordinary, and even then, the Republican Party was essentially an insurgency within the Whig Party.

On rare occasions, third parties have evolved into insurgencies within the major parties. The Free Soilers became Republicans. The Grangers and other populist parties morphed into populist insurgencies within the Democratic and Republican Parties.

The point is that displacing either of the major parties is a pipe dream--possible perhaps, but so absurdly unlikely that it seems a fool's quest. Capturing a major party, on the other hand, is just extremely difficult.

Genghis, weren't some of

Dan Kervick — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:51:15 +0000

In reply to If I might make an

Genghis, weren't some of those insurgencies comprised in part of political parties?

The point of the party wouldn't be to run candidates - not initially at least - but to build a movement with an organizational structure that can mobilize voters, create and communicate an agenda, exert political pressure, and then eventually either capture a party or displace it when it had grown to a certain critical mass.

If I might make an

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:01:00 +0000

In reply to I think we need more

If I might make an unsolicited strategic suggestion: third parties have never been effective in the U.S. political system. That doesn't mean that the next third party won't prove the exception, but after 220 years of third party failures, I wouldn't bank on it.

But that doesn't mean that real change is impossible in the U.S. We have had periods of substantive reform comparable to countries with viable third parties. If you seek revolutionary change, I would recommend paying attention to those eras.

So how does change happen in the U.S.? Intra-party insurgencies. There were successful insurgencies against the Democratic-Republicans in the 1820s, the Whigs in the 1850s, the Democrats in the 1890s, and the Republicans in the 1900s, with smaller insurgencies scattered throughout. The current right-wing slant of the Republican Party is the result of a series of insurgencies from Goldwater to the Tea Parties. Many of these insurgents flirted with third parties, but the successful ones ultimately opted to work within the two-party system.

So I would urge you to try to reestablish a "radical" faction within the Democratic Party, starting with local elections and working your way up. It's slow and laborious but not as slow as building a viable third party, at least if history is any guide.

I think we need more

Dan Kervick — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:10:50 +0000

In reply to Just a few comments on "big

I think we need more revolutionary change. We're headed toward planetary catastrophe and social disintegration under plutocratic rule, and under a bought-and-paid-for government that is no longer willing to enforce the law or act boldly on behalf of the common good.

The Democratic Party has become a conservative party, and seems incapable of generating change of the kind, and at the pace, we need. It is dominated by aging boomers who have no vision beyond hanging onto their existing social insurance programs.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate, since a conservative party is preferable to a reactionary party of sheer lunatics. But following the election, I am going to be reaching out to others to begin a new third party movement.

Nicely put. I suppose, just

MrSmith1 — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:41:08 +0000

In reply to Just a few comments on "big

Nicely put. I suppose, just as there are only 5 basic storylines, and 6 basic jokes, there are no new political ideas, only good or bad variations on old ideas. Perhaps in upcoming discussions, we should replace the term 'new ideas', with 'future needs.'

Just a few comments on "big

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:40:46 +0000

In reply to Big New Democratic Ideas ... An Open Thread

Just a few comments on "big new ideas". Genghis had asked what were the big new ideas coming out of the Democratic convention (the answer, it seems to me, is what he implicitly suggested: none).

Big new ideas are in my experience primarily of interest to people who write about politics, who understandably are on occasion looking for something, well, new and interesting to write about. I am thinking of the George Will thread DDay started in which a couple of folks noted how difficult it must be to come up with something fresh to say 2 or 3 times a week for 40 years. Indeed.

In conversations I have with people day-to-day about politics I have yet to have someone tell me they are looking for big new ideas coming out of either party or presidential candidate.

In 1984, Colorado senator Gary Hart challenged the heavy favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination, Walter Mondale. His campaign theme was about what he saw as a need for "new ideas" in our government and politics. He put a scare into Mondale when he won the New Hampshire and then a few other primaries but his bid fell short. Along the way, in a debate, Mondale delivered the soundbite line of the night when he pointedly asked Hart (paraphrasing): "Whenever I hear you talk about these new ideas, I think of that Wendy's commercial where someone says 'Where's the Beef?'."

What counts as a "new" idea in our politics? Is "new" necessarily "good"? Many members of the public, when they hear that some politician has a new idea, are more likely to respond with concern or even alarm than delight. There is a kind of skepticism which can be sensibly conservative (in the old-fashioned sense of the term that means something closer to skepticism than reaction) in my view so long as it does not lead to close-minded rejection of thought.

In the face of new challenges, new realities, or even seemingly familiar challenges in different times, there is a great need for engagement and good thinking about what might be done (and not done). "New", per se, should not be considered an automatic plus. I enjoy hearing and thinking about and discussing fresh public policy ideas and ways of thinking. But in the end what seems to matter most to the people politics is supposed to serve is not whether an idea is "new" but whether it is "good" and whether it works to deliver results they value.

To people I've known who will sometimes criticize a politician or candidate for not being "radical" enough for their tastes I sometimes respond (where I think the candidate is on the right track) that to my way of thinking the most radical [in the desirable sense of coming closer to the root of a real problem] idea in the world is the idea that works.

It seems to me there are plenty of good and workable progressive policy ideas that are out there (not saying that Obama offered anything specific going forward in his convention speech, new or not--he didn't), ones that if adopted would help move us towards becoming a healthier, better functioning society. The major barriers right now are how to overcome political opposition to the point where they can become adopted.

To the degree that good and workable policy ideas suffer from relative inattention or less enthusiastic support on account of their not counting as, or not being perceived as new, that seems counter-productive to me. Sometimes a tried and true idea turns out to be the one that works best under particular circumstances. If we are open to it.

As a specific example I would note various public infrastructure proposals that would lead to direct job-creation. Our society has done this before. Such measures have contributed much of value enduring to this day as a result of such initiatives undertaken during the Great Depression. These efforts had a significant impact reducing the widespread misery that resulted from mass unemployment.

The employed middle-class people I talk to whose lack of enthusiasm for a 21st century public jobs proposal is evident typically do not offer alternative suggestions--whether new or old, tested or unproven. It might not be a particularly sexy idea, to many. And it isn't new (and if it was, many would then ask why we should think it could work, or even assert in opposition that it's too risky and we shouldn't do it on that account.)

But for the millions of our fellow citizens who are suffering on account of they or a family member having lost their jobs, I somehow doubt that they care about whether a jobs program that offers them a chance at income, work and a renewed sense of dignity is new or not.

Not sure where you live. Are

EmmaZahn — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:54:52 +0000

In reply to City simple, versus country

Not sure where you live. Are you city or country?

Whichever, I have a challenge for you. Volunteer to take a food stamp only debit card recipient grocery shopping or still better offer to shop for them. Take a conservative volunteer along with you. Be sure to buy a nice healthy bottle of table wine. Also, pick up sundries like dish detergent, paper towels and some bath tissue.

Watch what happens when you check out using the food stamp debit card. Any major grocery store's computer will identify which items are eligible and deduct their total from the debit card then it will give you a second total for the remaining items which must be paid for separately.

One of the things I have noticed over the years is that all too often programs intended to help people are designed in such a way as that they make people who need them feel even worse off - poorer, more isolated. It is almost like they are designed more to make helpers feel good.

City simple, versus country

MrSmith1 — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 11:54:40 +0000

In reply to We must have very different

City simple, versus country simple? ;-)

I think I like the meals-on-wheels model better than the debit card. The selling point is that it pre-emptively shoots down the Conservative meme that recipients will just buy beer or cigarettes with the debit card ... of course, I suppose it does open up the possibility of developing a black market which trades meals for cigarettes. LOL

We must have very different

EmmaZahn — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 05:05:07 +0000

In reply to Actually, I wasn't thinking

We must have very different notions of simple.

What could be simpler than people using food stamps to be able to eat out or in, if they prefer, in the same manner as everyone else.

I meant to come back and edit my suggestion to add another alternative because here in Georgia at least food stamps are no longer actual stamps but rather a debit card from JP Morgan/Chase. Its use is however restricted to qualifying items from approved grocery retailers. I do not see why eating establishments, particularly national and regional chains, could not do the same.

My original suggestion could still be used by smaller, more local providers.

Actually, I wasn't thinking

MrSmith1 — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 03:36:56 +0000

In reply to Vouchers? Seriously. Food

Actually, I wasn't thinking of it in terms of vouchers. I was thinking of the idea as the Universal Sustenance Act (USA) and it would provide one meal to everyone, in much the way Meals on Wheels currently works for the elderly. The Big Idea is that if you live within the borders of this country, you have a right not to starve to death for the lack of ability to pay for food. If there is a right to Life, shouldn't there be a right to sustenance in order to sustain life?

People could choose which meal and from a menu of various basic foods. Existing restaurants could be given grants to provide the meals, companies would be created to deliver the meals and people hired as meal deliverers.

As far as keeping it simple, how much simpler could it be than that?