Tuesday, March 02, 2010

The New Democrat, Further Right Than the Old Democrat

If there's one thing that both progressives and far-righties have in common, it's their insistence that America wants exactly what they want, if only they weren't too stupid to realize it.  And they're absolutely convinced that if voters were allowed to have someone like them on the ballot, the person would not only win, but would be able to make all the changes needed to fix this country.

And who's preventing this from happening?  The party establishment, of course.  And we're assured by both sides that their party's establishment cares more about money than about winning, and if only they'd stop forcing mainstream candidates on us, we'd get the candidates everyone really wants.  It's all a big conspiracy of party elders destroying our country for their own personal benefit.

But of course, that's nonsense.  The parties want winners, period.  They want candidates who make their jobs easier, and the whole reason they prefer mainstream candidates is because it's easier to sell a mainstream candidate than one on either extreme.  That's the definition of mainstream.  And while I definitely agree that a safe Democratic seat should go to someone Democrats would really love, Red/Purple state seats should go to someone who can win that seat.  And let's face it, that's what democracy is all about.  We elect people to represent us in Congress; not our political party.

And so we see the progressive nemesis Evan Bayh dropping out, and likely to be replaced with a Democrat who's even more conservative than Bayh.  And of course that's what should happen.  Indiana deserves a Senator who represents Indiana; not one to satisfy progressives elsewhere.  That's how our system should function.  And if anything, the problems we're suffering right now are because Republicans are more willing to serve their party's interests over their constituent's.  And the progressive solution is to damn any conservative Democrat and make things even easier for Republicans.

For as much as progressives insist that our two-party system is a drag, it's obvious that they're the ones who prefer party discipline over anything else.  They're not interested in democracy.  They're just looking for a gang war.  And anyone who gets in the way of that war is more of an enemy than the people they're at war with.


mahakal said...

Democracy isn't static, by contesting in states thought to be conservative, we make them more liberal. By running conservative candidates to win such districts, we reinforce their conservative beliefs and power. Don't do that. Let the Republicans articulate their view, and let the Democratic party not be their clone just to win elections in certain districts or what is the point?

Doctor Biobrain said...

Democracy isn't static, by contesting in states thought to be conservative, we make them more liberal.

If I thought you had the slightest evidence to back that assertion, I'd ask for it. And basically, you're wanting us to lose Democratic seats in order to perform a social experiment to see if maybe we can convince conservatives to stop being so conservative. Seriously, you think Indianans will change their position on abortion if we run a pro-choice candidate? That's not only ridiculous, but insulting. Similarly, Republicans can run all the anti-abortion candidates they want, and I'll never switch sides.

And to suggest that any Democrat in Congress is a Republican clone is absolutely absurd. The most conservative Democrat is perhaps a touch more conservative than the most moderate Republican, but they're all far more liberal than the standard Republican. No one's suggesting running a Republican clone; just a Democrat who's more in line with their constituents. The point is to give conservative states a less radical option than the far-right Republican. Perhaps you want more Senators like Bunning and Shelby in Congress, but I'd prefer people a little less conservative.

In this case, we're giving Indiana the option of having a Senator who will support Obama's agenda, but who still agrees with them on issues like abortion and guns. And their alternative is a wildly different candidate, allowing them to choose a Republican who will oppose Obama. To me, giving them a Democrat they can support makes much more sense than imagining that we can get them to turn pro-choice by running a pro-choice candidate.

mahakal said...

I wouldn't think of supporting the guy in Indiana. Not a chance of it.

Sorry, what you're selling I'm not buying. I don't care if the Republican is marginally worse. I am happy to abstain if given such a choice. Good luck with your strategy.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Good. You're not SUPPOSED to support the guy from Indiana. He's supposed to represent Indiana, not you.

That's why Congressmen are elected in local races and not national races: Because they're supposed to represent THEIR constituents. And the president is a national office, because he represents ALL of us. That's how it's supposed to work and I have no problem with that. I want my Congressmen to represent MY interests and have no problem if Indiana would prefer a slightly more conservative representative.

And for you to suggest that this guy is only marginally better than the Republican is a total joke which you should be ashamed of. The world isn't black and white. You know that, yet you continue to argue as if things are far more simple than you know they are.

mahakal said...

So what do you propose to do about Indiana, if you believe they cannot accept anything but a conservative?

In what way is it beneficial for the Democratic party to stand for nothing?

Doctor Biobrain said...

First off, it's beneficial because of the way Congress is set-up. Having more D's than R's gives us control of committees and Congress as a whole. The impact of one particular congressman is far less significant than the impact his party identity provides. So it'd be better to have Newt Gingrich in Congress as a Democrat than a Republican. That's just how it works.

But secondly, this isn't a binary situation. Even with the abortion issue, there are varying degrees of what they're willing to support. Just because this guy's pro-life doesn't mean he'd be as pro-life as the Republican would be. Moreover, most of what you're using to describe him as "conservative" are actually dead issues that are only of concern because Republicans keep beating them for political purposes.

So yes, this guy is anti-abortion, anti-gay, and pro-gun; but where does he stand on the REAL issues. That's the difference. We've already won the three issues above, but I want to know if this guy's going to impeach Obama or not. If he's not going to impeach Obama, he's better than the Republican. If he's not going to investigate Obama's birth certificate, he's better than the Republican. If he's not going to filibuster a job's bill, he's better than the Republican.

These are the real issues. You need to wake up and realize where things really stand. We're not discussing whether or not we get a guy who agrees with us on policies. We're discussing whether Congress will even be able to function next year. It's barely functional now. We lose Congress and we're looking at a hell that makes last year look like child's play.

Seriously, I could give a rat's ass what he thinks about abortion, as long as he votes with Obama where it counts.

mahakal said...

Throw everyone under the bus as long as it gets you a winning team.

Principles? None whatsoever.

mahakal said...

We should just let the Taliban run Kentucky. Let the women's libbers bitch, who gives a fuck if they hate the burkas?

Doctor Biobrain said...

Hey, who told you about our plan to let the Taliban run Kentucky? Oh, I mean, what plan? Nothing like that was discussed at our latest Obamalove Rally. We're not secret Moslems at all.

But seriously, principles are nothing without pragmatism. I'll take one Obama over a hundred Naders and Kucinichs. Because yes, he really does believe that liberal policies are the way to go, but he's willing to actually make the tough decisions on where to draw the line.

That's where you're wrong about all this. It's EASY to be principled. It's EASY to draw the line in the sand. It's tough to make decisions on how to match our principles to what we need to do to get our agenda passed. That's the hard part. If Nader or Kucinich compromised more, nobody would even care about them. At this point, it's the only thing they've got going for them.

mahakal said...

You are changing the subject, I support Barack Obama. I don't support Brad Ellsworth.