I wasn't specifically talking about the Democratic "Party" establishment. I agree that the Party professionals and consultants leave much to be desired. I was thinking more of the electorate in general....the electorate is trending towards progressive issues on health care, environment, gays, global climate change, trade, tax policy, etc. Of the two parties - no matter how imperfect both are - which party at least is somewhat progressive on these issues?
I assumed you were talking about the Democratic Party and my comments were in disagreement with that thought. However, while I agree that the electorate is trending more progressive, I disagree that Americans will continue look to the party that is simply less evil, or more or less progressive. Today the elctorate is increasingly candidate-centered and less focused on political party. Both parties have contributed heavily to that trend.
No argument here. The democratic establishment in Washington is imperfect. Rather than throwing up my hands in despair though, I would like to work to elect more Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxers, and Russ Fiengolds. And you know what? I also find much common ground with the Jim Webbs and the Jon Testers, on the moderate-populist wing of the party. These guys may love their guns and their bibles. But they are spot on with regard to trade, globalization, unions, and economic disparity.
My point exactly.
A left-center coalition is only as strong as its weakest member. Kucinich can't unite the left-center coalition. And let's face it: in our system of government, only coalitions can wield power and enact change. To a large degree, it's irrelevant to haggle about which individual politician is more progressive, and which is not. Individual politicians never single-handedly implement a vision. Vision and change comes from people - the citizenry - demanding change. FDR didn't just wake up one morning, and walked out deciding to change the world. He was forced to implement change, because people demanded it. Ordinary americans demanded it.
I disagree to a point. Americans aren't very good at demanding anything. A vast majority of Americans are against the war but it goes on without much consideration of what Americans want. The dynamics of the situation on the ground play a larger role in pushing politicians a solution. Americans put democrats in office to end the war .. but did they get it? During Vietnam, Americans had to get in the streets before that fiasco ended, 58,000 dead troops later. The same was true of civil rights. Health care has been an issue for at least 15 years and we aren't one step closer to a solution. Changes on the environment have occured from developing evidence, not necessarily because of what Americans demand.
Much of what FDR did was because of who FDR was, which brings me back to the point that Americans are now looking to candidates more than political parties for solutions, Kucinich does not represent the left/center, he represents the left, which is why he has limited appeal.
I also agree that coalitions are important, but coalitions built on issues important to the electorate, not based on political party. The success of Bloomberg in New York was based on that very premise. He crossed party affiliation and built coalitions based on issues. In lesser ways, Guiliani did the same thing. Although I obvioiusly disagree, the noteriety of Ron Paul is build on a candidate-centered electorate. He's supported by people of varying political perspectives. Obama's sudden rise in politics is due in part that people think he can build bridges and form coalitions across party lines.
My point is that although the electorate is moving more progressive, ther is also an understanding that faith in political parties is a trap. Democrats just proved that and their poll numbers are now close to Bush.
Progressive, but candidate-centered seems to be where we're heading and I believe that's a good thing.
