Democratic Revolution?

Written by: Sean Stinnett on Aug 12, 2006 11:59 AM EDT

Linked to groups: DFA Miami Valley

[[ Thought I'd share this with you guys, I write it over at my blog, Unite Progressives: progress4all.blogspot.com/... ]]

Matt Bai of the New York Times has written a piece about Lamont supporters within the Democratic Party which I have found over at the Times' website.¹ In it, he compares the current situation within the Democratic Party, the rejection of triangulation and blind bipartisanship, to "Reagan's Revolution" in 1976, when the right-wing of the Republican Party rose up against the same political strategies which now define the DLC-wing of the Democrats, and therefore dominate our parties politics. This passage in particular caught my eye:

=============================================
There are, in fact, some compelling parallels between this moment in Democratic politics and the one that saw the ideological cleansing of the Republican ranks three decades ago. In ''Reagan's Revolution,'' an inside account of Reagan's failed 1976 campaign, Craig Shirley notes that aides to President Gerald Ford warned that they were ''in real danger of being outorganized by a small number of highly motivated right-wing nuts.'' Those so-called nuts, meanwhile, waged war on the then widely held belief that ''if they were to succeed, Republicans had to be 'pragmatic,' they had to 'broaden the base' and they had to 'compromise.' Otherwise, they would always be in the minority.'' The very same things might be written now, substituting the words ''left'' and ''Democratic'' for ''right'' and ''Republican.'' And like those bygone Republican leaders, establishment Democrats exhibit a surprisingly shallow understanding of the uprising that now threatens to engulf them.
=============================================

While Bai makes some interesting points on the comparisons between the two movements, he also upholds the view that the Democrats, and even more so the liberal "revolutionaries" within the party, don't have a governing agenda, that we're not "for" anything. Yes, while many of us believe that it's easier to formulate a governing strategy after you've won the elections, we are still for things, it's just the media doesn't want to look at it that way. They just like attaching a view to us as revolutionaries without values.

Health care: roughly 16% of Americans are uninsured, more are under-insured. The American health care infrastructure has the highest administrative costs in the industrialized world. We wish to make health care available and affordable to all, by reducing the overall administrative costs of health care, streamlining the system, and providing subsidies and incentives to ensure everyone is insured. A publicly-funded healthcare system would be nice too, but let's not push it yet. In fact, Ned Lamont has stated a pretty solid health care proposal in his bid for the Senate.² It's not as much as some would like, but it's a start.

National security: Democrats support increasing security in our nation's ports and vital infrastructure, and have made proposals aimed at furthering those goals which have been rejected by the Republican-controlled Congress because we can't afford them, because of the deficit. Yet we can afford a repeal of the estate tax, which would cost over $250 billion over ten years in tax revenue on the top 1% of the population.³ The Republican Party's heart just really isn't behind real national security, and the Democrats have advocated actual port security, reducing the causes of extremism by reducing poverty and furthering education worldwide. Our party, especially the liberal wing, has also advocated an end to "Cowboy Diplomacy" which makes us hated worldwide.

The economy: we have proposed removing the disastrous tax cuts for the wealthy, rebuilding the public sector, creating jobs through the reconstruction of our public infrastructure in the wake of several national disasters, including the Blackout of 2003 and Hurricane Katrina. We liberals also support keeping American jobs at home, and American-made products in our stores. International trade is nice, great, awesome; but it shouldn't come at the expense of the middle-class.

Those are just three key issues in which we have advocated. Of course the community have its differences, and everyone has their own ideas and own versions of what to do, but we are united in our desire to see this country done right. We tire of "Cowboy Diplomacy", of the mishandled War on Terror, the floundering economy and the destruction of the middle-class. We also tire of the Culture Wars; the portrayal as the Democratic Party as a party without values, who are against family values. Not only do we have values, but we have great ones: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The protection and survival of the citizens of the United States. The education and well-being of our children and families.

So I say to Matt Bai, before you accuse us of not standing for something, why not try asking one of us what we do stand for. You might just find yourself surprised at what you didn't know already existed.

¹ www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/magaz...
² nedlamont.com/issues/28/health-c...
³ www.cbpp.org/7-28-06tax3.htm... and www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar...

Tags:
Location: yellow springs, OH 45387