Do the Dems need Evolution or "Creative Destruction"?

[Armstead]

I'm wondering about the Democratic Party. I know, I know. A lot of people are wondering about the Democratic Party.

But with the chance (however slight) that Howard Dean might actually be elected to head the DNC, I wonder if in a larger sense the Democrats need to evolve or experience a round of "creative destruction."

By creative destruction, I mean a rock 'em, sock 'em shakeup to the core. Rouse and piss off the "centrist" Democrat establishment, and provoke the scary specter of old fashioned progressive liberal populism. Although Dean is not a far left radical, the thought of him terrifies many Democrats, and pleases the Republicans. They see him as a sign that the "leftist fringe" is taking over the Democrats.

Barbara Boxer today engaged in some creative destruction. She didn't bother to placate the White House, the so-called "moderates" or the Democrat establishment. She spoke the angry truth, and didn't downplay it or try to sugarcoat it.

By evolution, I mean get someone in there who is not so scary or confrontational as Boxer or Dean. A "fence mender" who will seek to follow all the rules, and show how "in tune with American values" the Democrats are. Like Tim Roemer. Someone who won't rock the boat, and someone who doesn't ask troubling questions.

By the tone of this, you may have guessed that I tend to favor creative destruction. Why? Partially because the Democrats are already experiencing destruction -- but it the slow death of irrelevance. Enough of this kowtowing. Dammit, Democrats ARE in tune with mainstream values. The problem is that the party is singing off-key by trying to be in tune with the REPUBLICAN version of mainstream values.

But, more importantly, I think it would actually be creative rather than destructive. If Democrats really stood up and said "Enough is Enough" about growth of corporate power, the complete folly of going into Iraq in the first place and all the rest, I believe they'd have a large and receptive audience. Perhaps enough to actually start winning, by both reinvigorating its "base" and attracting people who are in the middle, but don't really like what's happening under Bush.


But I'm wondering what others think about that. Any thoughts?

[Lexingtonian]

1. Okay, I'll bite

The game at present is something like this: half or so of this country is on some kind of retro Sixties/Seventies trip. Which is in some ways an improvement over the retro Fifties/Sixties trip that filled the Nineties, worse in others, but still pretty bad overall.

The rest of us, who think the present and future are things to embrace rather than avoid (as they do), are strongly worn by it all. Because this bit didn't begin in, say, 1995- it's been the motif since at least '81, when Reagan's Presidency began a repeat/revision of the Roaring Twenties and FDR's era. We're now revisiting Nixon's second- and partial- term, in quite a few ways.

I'm of the school that Democrats have to straddle this 'cultural' division to some extent, continue some of this vague schizophrenia a bit longer. That means two wings to the Party. The liberal (Blue State) wing is basically just upset at the situation and all the false accusations and the unwillingness of the electorate to see the present for what it is or could be. The centrist (Red State) wing doesn't seem to 'get' the pattern to the retro game they're playing in well enough. And, stuck in the middle and bewildered, is a pile of Democratic political operatives who haven't been all that good at coming up with survival strategies or a success strategy. Not that I blame them all that deeply- the Electorate is some pretty bad stuff to work with in the best of times- but the comprehensive work of becoming a ruling party again needs some fresher people and revised perspective.

I think we've seen all the pre-1980 Old Democrats get wiped out pretty comprehensively- except in the consultant corps, perhaps. That is about all the Creative Destruction that is necessary, except maybe some hints to Republicans-by-selfdiscovery who need to be shown the door.

As for Evolution, I think the element that is needed is intellectual- I'm all for the centrist Democratic wing calling themselves Progressives, which seems fairly appropriate, and as far as I am concerned Dean can be their spokesperson or representative if that's what that wing wants. (It's Dean washing all over the ideological map, which is partially his doing- a certain amount of equivocating- and partly that of others- miscoverage-, that most annoys me about him.) I guess it reflects in some ways the more basic problem, the inability of the Liberal wing so far to come up with the distinguishing principle by which to define its fight in a historical sense, in an American context, in the present. I guess I've already broadcast my opinion on this often enough- Liberals have to decide to own the 14th Amendment, liberalism itself is not enough, and that commitment forces them into a set of fights they are quite ready for and mostly identical to what is already being done.

[Armstead]

2. Interesting analogy about time

In some ways, it is about what point in history people want to go back to.

Partly that's cultural, partly it's a sense of personal nostalgia for simpler times..

But I do think that those embrace conservatism because they pine for the "simpler times" of the 50's and 60's are ripe for the picking by a new form of progressive or liberal politics led by Democrats. They are blaming the wrong culprits for the loss of personal power and social cohesion they ultimately object to and feel threatened by.

I think that's what Dean understands, whatever one thinks of him personally.

At its best, the Democratic Party represents both a "big tent" and a clear set of liberal ideas that challenges the status quo in terms of economic issues and balances personal freedom with a sense of social connection. It's about protecting the interests of the average middle class people (affluent and marginal) and the poor and disadvantaged against powerful vested interests.

Those interests hold true whether people are Evangelical Christians who own guns and listen to country music or inner city residents who listen to rap or latte drinking weenies who listen to Bruce Hornsby or are hell-raising, beer drinking, blue-collar Toby Keith fans.

Those interests are about economic justice, protecting the broadly-based nature of prosperity and also about protecting freedom of individuals in a libertarian sense and the notion of a diverse society and minority rights. That requires challenging the powerful, and ensuring that they do not abuse their position and power.

The social issues that Republicans use to divide us all are basically a distraction from that. Protecting and defending freedom does not mean condoning the specific practices that freedom can lead to. Thus it is consistent to support freedom to bear arms (a conservative issue) and women's reproductive rights (a "liberal one") and be consistent on the core issue that counts. Both are about protecting the rights of indiiduals.

But is requires conservative Democrats to acknowledge and start to do something about the accumulation of wealth and power that has so distorted society and undermined the key principle of economic justice. For example, when "centrist" Democrats go along with the trend to monopoly ownership and concentrations of power, they are betraying what Democrats supposedly stand for.

That is where "creative destruction" is necessary. The real issue is not whether Democrats should be "socially liberal" or not. It's about whether Democrats will stand for the freedom to be socially liberal, conservative or libertarian.

More important, it's not about whether one is a socialist-leaning lefty or a mainstream pro-business moderate. The issue is protecting the broad base of economic activity and competition and choice and diversity against large economic intertests that would seek to smother it.

[bryant69]

3. I'm not sure about the label

But the core concept seems like something that will happen. We need to decide what being a Democrat is all about--and trimming a little might not be the worst idea in the world.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Armstead]

4. It's a deliberatly provoking label

A more subtle way of saying it might be dramatic debate.

[bryant69]

5. What are the benefits of provocation though?

[Armstead]

6. It's the opposite of stagnant cycles

It's becoming a pattern that the Democrats lose big, pretend to do collective soul-searching, and then fall right back into the same old, same old....

Despite the ultimate loss, the Democratic primaries were an example of positive creative destruction. With out all the fuss and feathers, it would have been a buinch of boring old white guys saying the same old things.