What does being a “Democrat” in 2015 actually mean anyway?
I think the root of my problem with the Democratic Party arises from the fact that “Democrat” mean something to me that it doesn’t mean to mainstream Democrats. In fact it is starting to dawn on me that I may be the one with a faulty, archaic, definition of Democrat.
And so I have to wonder, when John Carney says “I am a Democrat” what is he really saying? What does that word mean to him? If Tom Carper was asked, “What does being a Democrat mean to you?” what would he say? What would he say if injected with sodium pentothal?
What if we asked all the Democrats in the state, voters along with the 200,000 abstainers, what being a Democrat means? Would we get a consensus? Would my definition be closer to the average definition than John Carney’s when under the influence of truth serum?
How would I phrase that question and distribute it for the maximum number of responses?
Dear ___________,
You have chosen “Democrat” as your party affiliation on record with the Department of Elections. Please help with this study by replying to this one question survey.
As concisely as possible, in your own words, please complete the sentence below.
To me, being a Democrat means…
____________________________________________________.Thank you in advance for your help.
Does anyone know where I might get my hands on some sodium pentothal?
For most living Americans, the New Deal and the American Century is as distant and as well understood as the Byzantine Empire. History begins with Ronald Reagan, who saved us from Jimmy Carter. And even that era is receding in memory.
I agree. I’m some kind of walking, talking Miles Monroe.
If you were to answer that survey, you probably would articulate some value statements, like marriage equality, yadda, yadda and so would many other Dems. It would be asking if they believe in feeding the poor and healing the sick, saving the children, apple pie, and motherhood. So I wonder if that’s what you would really want to ask? Theoretically, many/most Democrats have some many shared values and the party most closely reflects those values would be the Democratic Party.
But… Even though the Dems are a big tent and people share those values, I am convinced that many people feel that the party does not act in their interests. For lack of a better categorization, the largely silent, invisible, somewhere in the middle class of people who are not a member of a protected class or minority or special interest group, such as the LBGT community.
And no the GOP doesn’t give a damn either, but they don’t even know how to pay lip service, so that group become Democrats because it’s better than nothing and the party at least makes the appropriate noises that they give a rats ass about them.
So what you have is a disaffected, disillusioned membership, who (in my view) are tired of feeling that it’s never about them. It’s a bell curve with the GOP at one end and the Dems at the other end focused on the margins.
So, I think it would be more informative to ask “Why are you a Democrat?” I would predict that the range of answers will include “I don’t know”; “It’s better than being a Republican”; “Because it doesn’t really make any difference.”
You keep saying there is no difference between the parties. I think you are correct, because neither party cares about the middle class.
And the sad part is that the GOP is so full of baffoons that we have to hold our nose and vote for a Democrat who often votes with the republicans on issues that really hurt average people to serve the 1%.
“I think the root of my problem with the Democratic Party arises from the fact that “Democrat” mean something to me that it doesn’t mean to mainstream Democrats. In fact it is starting to dawn on me that I may be the one with a faulty, archaic, definition of Democrat.”
I think in essence this makes you part of the problem. Holding onto some archaic notion that what the party was/is to you still exists. When it clearly doesn’t. It’s like holding onto a stock that is clearly going to go bankrupt, with the hopes it’ll totally rebound at 2.15. But the country is bankrupting itself while both parties hang on to the folks that still believe that the parties care about their self interest.
Carney is the perfect freaking example. I mean look at the guy what votes has he made that would have benefited the country as a whole and not the interests of a few? When he’s had the chance what’s he done? I think specifically to auditing the Fed Reserve. How can you vote against that?
It’s sickening, and why I remain independent. How the hell can you align yourself with a party at this point.
Oh wait…I know…because you don’t want the other party to win. It’s a horrible strategy. Yet, we cling to it with our cold dead hands
I blame the counter-rational phenomenon known as Reagan Democrats. They have evolved over time but fundamental shift appears to be permanent, as permanent as anything is in politics.
For too long Democrats have made social issues the litmus test of what it means to be a Democrat, all the while Republicans were feasting on the wages and assets of the middle class. But tthe primary Republican litmus tests have always been economic. Of course Republicans are happy now to capitulate on social issues when they don’t don’t cost anything. No Republican has ever tried to shut down the government over gay marriage.
Democrats need to make economic issues their litmus test, but I think now they have too far to travel.
There is actually a solution to this fragmentation. It is called building a positioning used to communicate what you stand for to your loyalists and potential recruits. In a prior life I led a positioning/messaging development project for a Dem. party in a large metro area. After the 2010 mid-term blowout, we undertook a 6 month project to gather the diverse opinions of over a cross section of Democrats reflective of our local demographics, focus grouping over 300 persons. From a total vegetable soup we distilled priorities and values into this statement, adopted by our Exec. Committee of 300 precinct chairs.
The Democrats of Harris County fight to restore the middle class by promoting opportunity for all.
“Our unrelenting passion is for access to education that creates better jobs; fair taxation and living wages that stimulate the local economy; healthcare and environmental protection that foster quality of life; a tough but fair judicial system that creates safety and security and eliminates injustice; and full access to all qualified voters so every voice is equally heard.”
This was distilled also into a “position line” used with party logo and communications and presented to Party groups in person, thru social media and many other forms of communication to begin the process of imbedding the idea, which became pretty well rooted with no media budget or budget to do this this very intense work.
Making Better Lives For All.
Not Just The Privileged Few.
This is not to say this fits the local Dem. Party ethos, but the process is well proven and the DelDems could build solidarity and buy-in using this process.
The grass roots may be populated by Rip Van Winkles like Stan, but as long as the Party leadership doesn’t buy into any of that living wage, economic justice crap – it isn’t going anywhere.
We are part of the fossil record of the once great Democratic Party.
“For too long Democrats have made social issues the litmus test of what it means to be a Democrat”
Nailed it. Still, as I said, I think nearly all of those who identify as Democrats share those values on things like social issues, but with every victory, the next missive is to remind them of not how far, we as a society, have traveled. Rather, how far we have yet to go. Jason thinks he’s an anachronism, but it’s the middle class that feels left behind.
Think about the factory workers (are there any factories left?), whose job could vaporize in an instant. What are they constantly bombarded with? Well their white privilege of course, or their male privilege, or some other privilege. And yet, they don’t feel particularly privileged in places like the Kentucky coal mines. The great egalitarian struggle doesn’t apply to them.
@Dave, great points. My comment below has been superseded.
@Dave, You are right. But no matter how you phrase it, you’d get a different answer from me than you’d get from Carney or the 200,000 abstainers. The most common response would be the pitiful, “…because it’s slightly better than being a Republican” which tells you nothing. The second biggest answer would be the pitiful “…because Democrats appear to be slightly more tolerant of my out-group.”
Whereas, if you asked the same question of Republicans… “Why are you are Republican?” You’d get a large number of people saying the same thing. “Smaller government, Lower Taxes & States Rights.” (All bullshit, but a sell-able marketing tag line.) Then of course, you’d get a long tail of other responses, abortion, gays, etc. But the majority of the answers would make sense to the other members of the party.
Under the influence of truth serum – I don’t think John Carney’s or Pete Schwartzkopf’s responses would make sense to me. There is no marketable tag line that both Carney (under the influence of truth serum) and I would agree to.
Was thinking the same thing puck. Although I support gay rights, making that the front and center issue of the party might not be a good idea
Social issues like Civil Rights?
In Delaware, especially for City of Wilmington residents, the Democratic primaries have been the most important elections in recent memory. As a City resident, I remain a registered Democrat first and foremost because I would lose any effective say in the voting booth otherwise. I suspect this sentiment is pretty common among Delawareans, and self-reinforcing.
Social issues like Civil Rights?
The arc of civil rights bends toward justice, but the arc of economic rights bends toward oligarchy.
and out of curiosity, is puck shakespeare? or like the dude from MTV’s reality show?
I assume the ladder
No. Shakespeare was Bacon but he wasn’t Donne.
“How the hell can you align yourself with a party at this point.”
For primary-voting purposes.
You can be completely disgusted with the Democratic Party and throw your hands up in the air… But when you cast your eye over to the Republican’s leadership waiting in the wings, you have to laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh…
Suddenly why Delaware is predominantly Democratic becomes abundantly clear.
Well…
I really don’t understand why this is an either/or situation. Especially since a lot of economic issues are tied to social issues – equal pay and job discrimination come to mind.
And what I’m seeing is that some white men (#notallwhitemen) don’t like being singled out by their gender and race, but are comfortable in saying that minorities should let go of social issues and focus on the priorities set these white males. It’s not fun being singled out by something out of your control, is it?
No one has to agree with my priorities (of which the economy rates highly), but I’ll point out that I have more than one. I’ll also point out that I don’t need to knock down other people’s priorities to claim mine are the most important. Seriously, we can work on more than one thing at a time.
And rather than point out the LGBT community’s legislative success – and saying it shouldn’t be front and center – we’d be better served by following the path they’ve laid out. They worked hard, and they are succeeding in their issue. Perhaps the truth is… most Dems don’t really consider economic issues a true priority? That would stink, but maybe that’s the truth. And to act as if a social issue’s success/concern is somehow holding everyone back is dishonest.
Pandora, Yes and no. “Perhaps the truth is… most Dems don’t really consider economic issues a true priority?” If they don’t it is because there is no leadership on this issue. Out-group identity politics work to a point for Democrats because there is leadership with in those communities. What I’d like to see is everyone under one banner.
I don’t think “Democratic leadership” wants or needs that because the present system of bringing together ad hoc alliances of vaguely connected out groups works during Presidential years.
From a Salon piece – “It’s always the hippies fault.” http://www.salon.com/2015/02/05/its_always_the_hippies_fault_why_the_left_treats_its_idealists_all_wrong/
This is one major difference between the right and the left in American politics. Both sides have their activists and their idealists who are inevitably going to be difficult to work with. After all, these are people who often work for decades against all odds and outside the mainstream on causes they believe in without much chance of ever seeing them come to fruition. Because of the requirements of that job they are often eccentric and iconoclastic. You can’t do this sort of work if you are a conformist. But they are the ones who lay the groundwork over time to make what was once the unthinkable, thinkable, and are therefore extremely valuable to the system. They are particularly valuable to the left, which requires such work to make progress possible.
On the right, they treat these people as equals and welcome them into the fold. That has its problems but it shows a much more respectful attitude toward the democratic process. On the left they treat their activists like embarrassing relatives they wish they could lock in the attic. And that’s odd considering liberalism’s alleged affinity for the common man. Maybe they could spare just a little of that famous compassion for the hippies who work their hearts out for the cause once in a while. It might even end up getting some results.
Are you saying that people that care about social issues don’t consider economic issues? That they’re one issue voters? That may be true for some, but I don’t think that represents the majority.
Everyone has a deal breaker issue (some have more than one). What’s the difference between cutting social security as an issue to vote on and reproductive rights or gay marriage? All deal with someone’s economy.
As far as there being no Democratic leadership on economic issues… I’d say there sure wasn’t Democratic Leadership on gay marriage/rights. Dems jumped onto that issue after the LGTB grassroots community made it safe for them.
100% agree with you hippie comment, J.
“As far as there being no Democratic leadership on economic issues… I’d say there sure wasn’t Democratic Leadership on gay marriage/rights. Dems jumped onto that issue after the LGTB grassroots community made it safe for them.”
Great point
And maybe it’s just as hard to get D coal miners, middle managers, teachers and retail assistants under the same banner? These middle class groups see themselves as different from each other. Perhaps that’s part of the reason they haven’t joined together?
A large body of research shows almost everyone, every “class” considers themselves Middle Class. Ask very low income people…they say “middle class”. And all, excepting some in the 1 % in the high income groups, they call themselves middle class and have visceral fear of losing their wealth.
Damn long hairs lol
Actually surveys (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/27/despite-recovery-fewer-americans-identify-as-middle-class/) show that about as many Americans identify themselves as lower or lower-middle class (40%) as say they are in the middle class (44%).
Still, I wouldn’t doubt there is a psychological component to how we identify ourselves. There is but an “er” difference between low class and lower class. The word “class” itself has historical distinctions that associated class with both money and breeding. It is in consideration of those negative distinctions that it is even more telling that people would self identify as lower.
The January Pew survey found that the share of Americans who identify with the middle class has never been lower, dropping to 44% in the latest survey from 53% in 2008 during the first months of the Great Recession.
The Dems certainly stand for the 40% and we know the GOP stands for the 16%. Who stands for the 43%? Maybe in your view Jason, the Dems don’t even stand for the 40%. I can’t speak to that.
They don’t. The last Demcorat I ever heard talking about “the little guy” was Matt Denn. When was the last time you heard a Democrat say that the concerns of the American workers were important? Since Clinton, the Democratic Party has internalized the historically Republican view that the concerns of the owners are the important thing when setting policy. Brilliant in terms of electing Bill Clinton, terrible for everyone who does not have a net worth of $3 million or more.
How many times has Jack Markell said that we need to ensure that the wealthy feel comfortable in Delaware? I’ve lost count.
How many times has Markell put a state employee raise in his proposed budget? Zero (please fact check this if I am wrong)
Markell is no democrat. He is a pre-Reagan moderate republican with 21st century sensibilities when it comes to LGBT issues.
This would be a good opportunity for Mitch Crane (or any other county chair) or……John DanieLOL to state plainly what it means to be a D in 2015. Half-assed minimum wage increase and ZERO environmental successes in this state included.
Dave, pews own methodology is to combine upper middle self perceptions with upper and lower middle self perceptions with lower titles. No argument though that middle class perception is sinking with grossly lowering actual incomenet worthwealth.
Dave, pews own methodology is to combine upper middle self perceptions with upper and lower middle self perceptions with lower titles. No argument though that middle class perception is sinking with reality.
Sussex Anon, I can only speak for myself.
I voted for LBJ in 1964, but voted for Dick Gregory on the Peace and Freedom ticket in 1968, after volunteering for Gene McCarthy. I was George McGovern’s Chester County campaign chair in 1972 and supported Morris Udall in then1976 primary and Ted Kennedy in 1980.
I believe the Democratic Party should stand for the proposition that government helps those who need protection and fights for the rights of the minority. That means equal rights, and equal pay, for women; a woman’s right to choose; the right to live as you are without fear of discrimination because of how you look, who you love, or who you choose to worship, or to not worship at all. The Dem Party should stand for the right of workers to unionize and to receive at least a living wage. Health insurance should be available to all. Corporations are not people. Taxes should be raised in good times to advance our society. The better off should pay more.
As much as you could say my party often fails at all of the above, the cynicism that leads some to say the Republicans should take control for a while gives me the shudders. Imagine a Supreme Court with just one more conservative. Think about repeal of the Affordable Care Act, undocumented aliens arrested and deported. Abortion banned. I had that cynicism when I was young and turned against Hubert Humphrey in 1968 to teach the Dems a lesson. We got Richard Nixon. The protest vote for Anderson in 1980 because Jimmy Carter was not a real Democrat brought us Ronald Regan. The people who voted for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000 in protest of the Dem ticket gave us 8 years of George W Bush.
The Democratic Party’s elected officials are mostly to the right of me, but I do not regret a vote for any currently in office when I consider what their opponents would have done.
Mitch had me then lost me. Nader didn’t give us Bush . Gore’s shit ass mincing campaign did.
And that’s the heart of the problem. Dems like Crane are all too eager to blame the powerless for the fuck ups of the powerful.
And what does it say for you, Jason, when I “had you” until you found one thing I wrote that you disagreed with?
The Democratic Party leadership mindset was revealed. It undermines your overall credibility
“….but I do not regret a vote for any currently in office when I consider what their opponents would have done.”
And thus the problem if the “two party” system. Carper, Carney and eventually Coons will be using this concept as “meh, who else are you gonna vote for? I may suck, but the Republican is nuts.”
When was the last time the State Party convened the platform committee? or has that can been kicked down the road in perpetuity?
It is always the peons that didn’t work hard enough, or wen off message, or didn’t bring the requisite passion. Funny that.
As much as you could say my party often fails at all of the above, the cynicism that leads some to say the Republicans should take control for a while gives me the shudders. Imagine a Supreme Court with just one more conservative. Think about repeal of the Affordable Care Act, undocumented aliens arrested and deported.
And those thinking that Republicans should be at the wheel are those who are best capable of and most likely to survive the GOP assault on the Supreme Court, repeal of the ACA, etc. They won’t *like* it much, but they won’t be much harmed by it. The *little people* that are supposed to be the locus of help and attention will be at ground zero for GOP bullshit, though.
I don’t want another conservative on the court but that’s where we are headed when the only message the Democrats can come up with is “the peons aren’t working hard enough”. Or aren’t scared enough of a conservative court.
Jason330’s passion is admirable. His unwillingness/inability to understand Mitch is saddening.
Was browsing and stumbled across this in your files from years ago… Remember it? (11/20/2009).
“Ladies and gentlemen,
You have the advantage of witnessing the final morphing of Charlie Copeland into a Rick Jensen of the blogosphere.
Charlie has taken no verifiable facts, added a dose of false accusations, sprinkled in some blame without regard to any sense of honesty, shaken with a dose of pretend compassion for those who will suffer job losses and “VIOLA:” A political issue born of a nonsensical ignorance of reality, to be applied liberally to the Republican campaign of your choosing.”
The point is that there is a disconnect between what Democrat leadership thinks is important, and what is important to actual voters. Not having a conservative on the court is a perfect example but there are plenty of others. Bi-Partisanship is a big one.
In the end, 200,000 Delaware Dems didn’t hear anything worth voting FOR in the last election. Because who the fuck can tell me what Democratic message Sean Barney was running on?
When I wonder about what John Carney would admit to about being a Democrat under truth serum I’m seriously wondering. I literally have no idea what he would say is an important Democratic issue – the fucking Trans Pacific Partnership? Probably. “Working across the isle to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government.” I would not be AT ALL surprised if that is what being a Democrat means to John Carney.
And so being a Democratic means nothing. I’m not excited to get off the couch to vote for or against that stuff. It’s all shoving money in the direction of the 1%, so what is the point?
…and that’s fine for Carney, Carper and Coons. My abstention, and the abstention of 200,000 Delaware Democrats means nothing to them. They’ll win anyway, so there is no reason for them to bring any clarity to what it means to be a Democrat. Same for Pete Schwartzkopf who goes out of his way to muddy the water about what it means to be a Democrat, going so far as to recruit Republicans to run as Democrats. What do they care? They’ve arrived.
But it does matter to voters. They want something to vote FOR. It matters to down-ticket candidates trying to make a case for why they should be elected. Mitch worked his ass off, I’m sure he would have liked some message support from the people who ultimately run the party.
I think the point is personal to each person. For me, it is simply that the Republicans voted 56 times to repeal ACA. The last time it was solely so that the GOP freshmen could burnish their credentials with the base. That’s what they call governing.
To put Republicans in a position of responsibility for anything is the height of irresponsibility.
That’s fine for brainiacs like you. Dummies like me that want to vote FOR something. It is basic human nature.
In every election there are a few people I want to vote for, and some I want to vote against. I will go the polls on Election Day, but I will just skip the line for Carper, Carney, or Coons. You can do that, you know. There is no requirement that you cast a vote for every office.
I voted for Coons in 2010, because Christine O’Donnell. I wasn’t so much afraid of Christine as of losing control of the Senate. But what the hell did I gain from my vote? Coons spending his days looking to cross the aisle, and the Senate is in Repub hands anyway. So 1n 2014 Coons and Carney got a “no, thanks” from me, and Carper will get the same.
So to be a Democrat, for Puck and others here, means occasionally finding a candidate that you happen to like, but mostly voting to keep even worse candidates out.
Mitch sums it up: “The Democratic Party’s elected officials are mostly to the right of me, but I do not regret a vote for any currently in office when I consider what their opponents would have done.”
If anyone could break it down for me and explain, step by step, how voting like this eventually brings about progressive governance – I’d be your debt.
I think it comes down to this: When you vote “for” something you are voting to “do” something. In other words, forward progress. When you vote “against” something you are voting to “stop” something and not move forward. In other words, you’re simply keeping the status quo and not letting it get worse.
It would be nice to have a mixture of both, but right now I vote against people mainly because… Supreme Court, Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare, Reproductive/Civil Rights, etc. I can’t afford to not vote and allow issues important to me to vanish. There are real consequences to not voting for real people.
And I get that it’s a vicious circle. Voting for certain Ds is rewarding non-D behavior. We need another way because electing Rs and saying, “That’ll show those Ds” has serious consequences for the poor, middle class, elderly, minorities, women, etc.. I can’t go backwards in the hope that, one day in the future, we’ll go forward. I think if we sat out elections to send a message to Ds and the Rs had their way it would take at least 20 years to get back to where we are today. That’s too big of a risk for me.
So much of this comes back to the press. I wish we had one in this country.
“how voting like this eventually brings about progressive governance”
It doesn’t.
Primum non nocere
Or perhaps, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”
Agreed. A press would be nice. And yes, it is going to be tough medicine for everybody (mostly, as you and Cassandra point out the least well off among us) but at this point I’m a political nihilist. This so-called two party shit mess has to be reduced to splinters. Here is my step by step.
1) GOP takes everything. White House, Congress, Courts, State Governments, School boards. With just a couple of Dem show ponies hanging on to keep the hoax of bi-partisanship alive. [Don’t gasp… With Citizens United and the Democratic Party we have now, this is inevitable, so I’m just saying hurry up and get here.]
2) The country wakes up to what a fucking disaster it is in.
3) The pretend Democratic Party we have now is swept away.
4) Something better replaces it.
A political party is about politics – putting things in a platform that looks nice and keeping things out that would create political issues. Parties raise money and allow people to coalesce around some vague political notion and “get votes.”
You all are conflating social and economic philosophies with the mechanisms by which candidates raise money and get elected. In my experience these are two distinct things with much less overlap than you think.
Easiest example to present is the current US president. Barry Obama the man is a lawyer out in the street organizing people. He’s a university professor. He’s a liberal man. Barack Obama the president is a centrist Democrat people have compared to Ronald Reagan.
That’s my major gripe. The Democratic Party, the political party that is my only legit choice totally sucks. And it sucks because that very sucking works for the people running it. I’m sick of being a stooge for people like Carney, Coons, Carper and Schwarzkopf.