The dilemma of the Democratic Party and the anger of American politics

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

The dilemma of the Democratic Party and the anger of American politics 02.03.04 (8:45 pm)   [edit] With John Edwards winning South Carolina, John Kerry securing victories in at least Missouri and Delaware, it is important to look at the Democratic Party itself and the upcoming election in November. There is no candidate with a clear appeal among the Democrats of the nation. That's not entirely unusual, but it is a problem in regards to the hopes of defeating Bush in November. The longer it takes to decide upon a candidate from the Democratic Party, the longer Bush has to present his message without the interference of an opponent. The more the Democratic candidates continue to debate each other and attack the views of those within the party, the more fodder Bush is given. The longer it takes to determine the candidate, the more money is spent by all the Democrats. All this benefits Bush in a major way. The biggest motivating factor among Democrats, and those voting in the primaries, is a desire to remove Bush from office. The candidates themselves have little support, other than the potential for beating Bush. Issues no longer matter; all that is important to the majority of Democrats is getting rid of the current Administration. I would like little more than seeing Bush removed from office, but this doesn't blind me from the importance of the candidate's views on the issues that are important to me. The Democratic Party's lack of cohesion signifies a greater problem than simply a disillusionment with the direction in which our nation is moving; it points to a national apathy towards politics, and a lack of faith in the party itself. The message is no longer clear, the candidates don't support the party. That being said, there are also problems within the Republican Party, most notably an unfavorable view of the President among many conservatives. The Republican versus Democrat debate has lost its appeal, has lost its effectiveness, and has started to lose the nation. If you've ever so much as glanced at the [url=http://www.rnc.org/]Republican National Committee's[/url] website or the [url=http://www.democrats.org/]Democratic National Committee's[/url], perhaps you noticed what I did- both use anger and hatred of the opposing view to get their message out. Rather than focusing on the actual message of the party, both of the major parties rely on comparison to persuade the voters. Without searching quite a bit, it is rather difficult to read just the views of the party you are interested in reading about. The Democratic Party's site has a link to [url=http://www.democrats.org/issu...]Issues[/url] in which you can select an issue and see how the Democratic view differs from the Republican. Obviously, this is not the best way to present your views, and it is not the best way to understand the two parties, either. The debate between Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, depends on anger to spread any message at all, and to determine what is the best for the nation. Anger has its place in politics, but the focus should not be based on anger. Issues and solutions to political problems should be addressed directly, rather than through criticism of the opposing side. It is more beneficial to explain the views of a party than to simply contrast them to those of the party of opposition. There seem to be a loss of faith in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party taking place in the nation. The problems inherent in national politics have not been successfully resolved by either party. We, as a nation, need to overcome the anger and the disillusionment. New solutions are needed, and now is a time that the views of different parties and political ideologies should be welcome. With that, I urge you to visit the [url=http://www.lp.org/]Libertarian Party's[/url] website.   posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (5:58 pm) I find it ironic that at the time when the culture war is getting as hot as I can remember it, and where bipartisanship is unimaginable, the two major parties are more alike each other than ever before. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (6:04 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 I agree, and not only is it ironic, it's scary. posted by: jimdoney (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (6:17 pm) "The longer it takes to decide upon a candidate from the Democratic Party, the longer Bush has to present his message without the interference of an opponent." I see this a tad different. A. All the dem potential nominees are using every pulpit they have to denounce Bush as the worst thing since the plague. B. Bush cannot begin a campaign against anyone because no one is a candidate yet. The Karl Rove machine will not unfurl until there is a clear and present enemy. As to the anger used in the dissent found on the RNC and DNC websites sadly it is a way of the times. Not many in the populus pays much attention to real "issues" (Whatever that is supposed mean anyway I mean my issues are not nec. yours or vica versa) They resort to the sensationalized soundbite for the most part to gain info about candidates and the easiest way to bring yourself up is to pull the other down and stand on his remains. posted by: jimdoney (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (6:21 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 The long move to left of center combined with the new antebellum towards the right makes for the culture war. That combined with the assaults launched by the left causing class division, race division, sexual orientation division etc... There is hardly a left argument made that does not first subdivide the population into neat little groups much easier to pander to. Sadly the republicans saw that this worked (See the Democratic Control of Congress for decades) and have begun to do it to within the last decade or more. It will get better IMO in coming years with the ousting of the Baby boomer partisanship and the entry of gen x and gen y pragmatism. JMHO, what do I know right? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (6:29 pm) Reply to: jimdoney You're right that without a definite opponent, Bush can't begin his campaign, but only in the sense of the debating rhetoric of politics. Bush can present his agenda all he wants while the Democrats fight it out amongst themselves. But, politics is no longer about presenting views on issues, but about attacking the opposition's views. So this does make it difficult for Bush. He could take advantage of the time he has without an opponent, but likely will not. And yes, of course the Democrats are basing their campaigns in anti-Bush stances, but Bush can separate himself from this while he doesn't have an actual opponent. I think we need to get away from the anger and bring the focus back on what actually matters. The 'real issues' are determined by the public (foreign policy, economics, abortion, gun rights, etc.). posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (6:31 pm) Reply to: jimdoney See, there's the anger- you blame the left for the culture war. ;) posted by: jimdoney (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (6:59 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 *L* No anger, just calling it like I see it. From Kerry saying that Bush is subsidizing the rich while the middle class suffers (When in fact taxes were cut for every tax payer), to Sharpton saying that the rich do not pay their part of fed income tax (They pay over 50% of all taxes collected), and Micheal Moore calls a potential debate between Clark and Bush the debate between the General and the Desserter (A claim which is unfounded and an allegation that carries a penalty of Death) among others showing up day after day from the left of the aisle I see a party trying to divide the country not unite it. The history of the Democratic party doing this is a long one. While they take the moral stance that they must diversify the population the way they undertake it is one of parentalism; that none can get it done without their help (IE They are better and smarter See Elitism) because of those oppressing them are evil and won't change or do the right thing unless they are forced to. EG: The statement by Clark the Osama would have been caught if he were President (If that isnt elitism at its heart I dont know what is) And Kerry saying that terrorism is overexagerated and is a simple criminal problem (Meaning all the extra means that the Bush administration has put in place is wrong because he doesn't understand the real problem, In other words he is more stupid than Kerry and thus has complicated a simple issue that anyone could fix) JMHO, of course. Maybe there is a little anger there come to think about it. Cheers Mate! posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (7:16 pm) Reply to: jimdoney Haha, there's clearly no anger there. ;) I agree that the Democrats and the Left throughout the country are major contributors to the anger in politics. But so are the Republicans. There are just as many personal attacks directed at Democrats coming from the Right (wait, maybe not quite as many right now, seeing as the President is a Republican- if he were a Democrat, there would likely be more criticism from the right). I don't think it's fair to blame either side when both participate in it. As I said, anger has its place in politics- anger motivates people to make a change when one is needed. But unnecessary and misdirected anger is only distracting us from the real problems that need addressing. posted by: magicjoejoe (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (8:14 pm) This is a time when the President is screwing up left and right and opening himself up to fair and deserved calls for removal from office. But the Democrats, once again lack the immorality of the opportunistic Republicans, who have learned to use their violent tendencies over the past couple of decades to create a vast movement to subjugate the real morality of America, which is tolerance and acceptance of the individual, and which if you really know a conservative Republican is everything that they hate (see anti- anything that isn't WASP). Now, I don't believe liberals have the answer either. Creating progam after program to fix things is not the answer now like it was for the Great Depression (although we may have a great Depression again soon- see Bush's budget proposal). The answer needs to be the trimming (read slaughtering) of the federal budget in order to get rid of these deficits (see Reagan and Bush I and II), and to stop the nepotism and obvious bowing of our president to a tiny group of corporations. Why should corporations run America? they aren't citizens. What constitutional rights do they have? Yet no ordinary citizen in America can compete with a single corporation when it comes to our government and particularly our president and vice president. The Democrats could take this opportunity to make leaps forward in policy to make this country better. Instead, they choose to hang on to old school Democrat ideas that are too much like the fat cat over spending Bush that's in office now. What a disappointment. posted by: magicjoejoe (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (8:15 pm) Oh, yeah, I'm not angry, I'm too young too run for president though. posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (9:23 pm) You make excellent points -- most specifically, the anger that is used by both of the parties to, not only cause fear, but hatred. And not only hatred for a political party, but hatred for anyone in the opposing party, or anyone with an opposing view. The most frightening aspect of the entire presidential election cycle this year, is that people are so extreme in their "following" of a party; like following a god or a fascist leader. It's dangerous because no rational thought--never mind thought at all--is being used in the choices available...and the choices are rather dim, at best. With the aspects of fear, anger, and hatred, it is possible that the upcoming election in November may just be descided by pure emotion...and I'm sure that's what both parties are trying to accomplish. Once we follow something or someone, and do so emotionally, i.e., with anger, hatred, fear, or apathy, then it can only lead to electing the wrong person for president, maybe a fascist minded twentieth-century Hitler. And if all they can do is attack Bush, give us unexplained slogans, and not discuss the issues, then what? They tell us what they want to do with our money--well, it's OUR money, and we deserve to keep most of what we make on OUR productivity. Spartacus said the parties are more alike each other than ever before., and it's true. That's frightening also, because it leads me to believe that both parties are in bed, without contrasting opinion, and controlling everything. If that were the case, it would definately be us against them, with a slow death toward a collectivised, altruistic ideology--or what is better known as Communism. It leaves me with a question: Do I decide on the best in a group of fools, or choose no one? Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins