Trippi proposes democratic reform for the Democratic Party
In a recent editorial on MSNBC, Joe Trippi calls for a change in the Democratic party to support a Jeffersonian democracy in which the people, not the lobby groups, dictate law. His points are valid but what will make a population feasting on greed want to adopt selfless laws for the better good of all the people in the country? Nothing. It's difficult to argue with people, whose faith relies on the demise of the planet, that they should make the least amount of sacrifices for the social good of the entire population. It's counterintuitive. The other issue is that people are innately bigoted. Given a chance to profit off another population of people they will. This is a cynical point of view but there needs to be some sense of realism when redefining the Democratic Party's platform.
posted by mochi at 8:24 AM
2 Comments:
Somewhat true. There is no doubt it will be difficult but here is why I think it is doable;
1) The religious right is not a majority. Indeed their margin is slim and they are ideologically based, characterizing people as morally wrong if they don’t hold their views. This gives rise to big time wedge issues if you can frame the debate properly and once that's done the religious right will alienate an awful lot of people very quickly with this stand. My prediction is if they do indeed get to dictate policy (on abortion especially) opposition is going to stiffen and other issues will rise and drain their policy influence. But the drain won't be total because they do have something of value to bring to the debate and they should be accorded their fair share.
2) Why make choices for the greater good? Simply because it is American heritage. Every preceeding generation of American's by and large has been called upon to make a sacrifice for the greater good history shows they have done that in spades. It's hard to ignore the standard set by the founding fathers, the pioneers, the civil war generation, industrial revolution, WW-I, WW-II, Vietnam and other sacrifices which entail mostly hard work. What's missing is a goal worthy of demanding those sacrifices and a politician willing to ask for them. To do this a politician must have reason and must be able to get America to aspire to be something more than what we are today. We haven't aspired to anything in many years and I think people know that. It's the number one reason people romance the Lincoln, WW II and Kennedy era's. During those times America was faced with insurmountable difficulties and aspired to be more.
3) Times change. You can really enjoy the party life but noone can party forever. Sooner or later the cycle comes round and something different is valued. I take Paris Hilton's celebrity as an indication that we're about at the bottom of the greed/celebrity is great system of values. As the chain of bad behavior escalates sooner or later people will react and the penduluum will swing hard to the opposite value system.
4) Environmentally, economically, politically the good times will not/cannot last much longer. The challenges from China, India, the European Union, and the Middle East, Iran, North Korea, Social Security, Education, Torte Law, Global Warming, etc... cannot be ignored forever or indeed for much longer. These issues must be addressed or Americans will lose a lot of their influence and lifestyle and they will resist that loss fiercely. Once we're willing to take an honest look at those problems it's pretty clear it's not the Paris Hilton's that are going to get us out of it. It's people of substance.
Right or wrong those are my reasons.
I agree with the anonymous commenter that things do run in cycles, but I also feel it will get worse before it gets better. I also believe that Trippi's plan is workable, although that is admitedly an optimistic appraisal.
The democratic party needs to reform, or else it is probably doomed. It needs to focus on its core values instead of trying to appeal to swing voters by imitating the GOP. More people are attracted to firmly held liberal beliefs than they are to compromise, which is received as wishy-washy; or pandering, which does not go unnoticed (except by the recipients). The dems have been labeled as "flip-floppers" whenever they have tried to act in a bipartisan manner. It's time they reveal the flip-flopper-in-chief and his ilk for what they really are, while offering a sound aternative.
Post a Comment
<< Home