"Republicans fear their base, Dems hate their base…" do we see this here?

[nashville_brook]

Interesting bloggy post here from The American Prospect, which has gotten amazingly good lately.

We wonder a lot why "the center" has moved so far to the right, and this might be the reason: Dems tend to shut down their activists (the NSA/Snowden/Greenwald debate is evidence of this) before a left-ward drift is allowed to take hold. As the author here observes, at the local Dem Executive Committee level it's considered naive to bring (some) national politics into focus. There's clear, bright lines of who is "inside" and who is "outside," and never the twain shall meet.

Just wondering if you recognize any of this analysis -- either locally or in national forum environments. Do you think we'd be better off with a stronger "think national vote local" voice in our party?




The Politics of Polarization: Not as Simple as They Seem

http://prospect.org/article/politics-polarization-not-simple-they-seem


(snip)

Political scientist Hans Noel, fresh from a conference on polarization, reports that his colleagues may be paying too much attention to the relationship between voters and legislators, and not enough to activists, since the activists are the ones who exercise real influence over what politicians see, perceive, and understand:

Members of Congress are not polarized because voters are now better sorted. And voters are not polarized simply because legislators now are. The missing piece is ideological activists, who now dominate the political parties. In short, policy demanders. These politically engaged activists are the base that legislators are increasingly playing to, because they are the ones who provide campaign resources and who threaten primary challenges. Their polarization also filters to voters, through elected officials but also through the media and informal networks.

One thing that Noel doesn't mention is that the relationship between politicians and those “policy demanders” is profoundly different for Republicans than it is for Democrats. You may have heard the saying that Republican elected officials fear their base, while Democratic elected officials hate their base. The latter part may be a bit of an exaggeration, but there's a fundamental truth there. The problem left activists have is that they haven't been able to make Democrats fear them—or perhaps it would be more accurate to say they haven't really tried, at least not in the way right activists do.

(snip)


Conservative activists think nationally and act locally...And it's pretty effective—if they can become a giant pain in the House Majority Leader's behind, keeping him always looking over his shoulder to make sure he's not making the activists in his district angry, they will have exercised a substantial amount of leverage for a small group of ordinary citizens.

But when liberal activists act locally, their focus is usually on local things. There are issues they care about in their town or in their state, and they organize around those issues. Maybe it's an environmental effort, or passing a minimum wage increase or marriage equality. What they don't do as much is use their local activism as part of a nationally-focused effort to control the Democratic party's ideological tilt. There are all kinds of progressives doing all kinds of progressive activism in all kinds of places. But if you're the Democratic equivalent of Eric Cantor—let's say Chris Van Hollen, the congressman from liberal Montgomery County, Maryland, who is close to Nancy Pelosi—nobody's showing up at your town meetings to heckle you for not being liberal enough, or pushing out your candidate for the local Democratic committee. You're not feeling that pressure.

For liberals, is that lack of grassroots pressure good or bad? I'm not really sure. But the difference in how the two sides' activists behave is one of the major reasons we have the kind of polarization we do.

[djean111]

1. I have the feeling that liberals and progressives are now just considered an inconvenient part

of the Dem base, useful only for votes, and other than that, sit down and shut up and send money.

[nashville_brook]

2. this polarization within the party seems to be weakening us...

think i'll bring this up at my monthly progressive gathering. might have to print this out to spark discussion.

[RKP5637]

39. That's what I see, and I've also quit sending the money. I'm just fed up with it all. I'll

send some to individual candidates, but I've grown tired of the BS. Also, anytime I get an email about a worthy cause, it's a come on for sending money. Most of my dem email is now auto-routed to delete. I really don't think the dem party represents me. In fact, I'm just fed up with USA, Inc. politics. Yes, I will still vote and all, but IMO the political discourse in the US stinks.

[Demo_Chris]

3. The social con tea party right is effective because they...

A. Vote
B. Demand uncompromising purity

This is also why much of the GOP leadership hates them. The American left might vote, or not, but they have not learned the lesson. If you want representative government you have to insist on it using the only currency available-- your vote.

[nashville_brook]

6. "policy demanders" -- that's what the author calls activists who're really moving legislators

we actually have them in the Dem party, plenty of them. they're working on safe/local issues. they have WAY more power than a voter b/c they visit their lawmakers in delegations that represent whole blocks of voters. they score media. they publish op-eds.

that's a lot more juice than just casting a ballot.

[stevenleser]

75. Depends how you define effective. They prevented the GOP from winning the senate in 2010.

When an entire state gets to see a Tea Party candidate, as in a senate candidate, unless its the reddest of states, they don't like them.
They can do well in house districts where there isn't a lot of focus, but statewide in purple and blue states they have no chance.

Likewise teabag favorites like Cruz and Rand Paul have no chance in a nationwide race.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Kinda simplistic...

my committee has the problem of rarely agreeing on local issues. That's not entirely a bad thing, of course, but it dilutes a lot of our impact and gives us problems coming up with platforms.

The local Republicans pretty much just sign on to whatever they're given by the party leadership. Easy. And even easier because they almost never propose anything new.

Nationally? We have a Congressman, of course, and his district includes the wealthiest and poorest neighborhoods on Long Island. It's also always in play, with millions coming in from Republicans around the country-- the last election was a recount where he won by a handful of votes. So, who influences him? He's a reasonably progressive Democrat, but I get the emails from people who demand his ass over one vote.

The Republicans are held captive by the teabaggers for now, and I suspect most of our leaders, such as they are, look at that and are terrified by a group of leftist radicals taking over. Not that most ideas on the left don't have merit, unlike teabaggery, but a really radical faction running around closing coal mines and Wal-Marts can have consequences worse than the ills they are trying to fix.

[nashville_brook]

5. "leftist radicals," really?

it's interesting that that's what you imagine a robust base would look like. i think the author was looking for something more along the lines of prioritizing voters rather than donors.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Maybe, but...

we have our "robust base" of essentially centrists who do have some economic and critical environmental concerns and we are trying to get a larger voice in a fairly conservative Republican town.

We have that other "robust base" from the radical left which demands a lot but offers no workable solutions.

Whatever, talk is easy. I'm out there looking for, or waiting for, solutions for nitrate pollution in our groundwater leaching into the bay feeding algae blooms killing off other marine life. Solutions that won't cost each homeowner 30 grand. And radicals on either side just muddy the waters.

[nashville_brook]

11. what's the $30K solution -- is this a septic tank issue?

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Yes. Most places around here have old cesspools, but...

even the septic systems need an upgrade. The nitrate containing technology now available is 20-30 grand. Eventually it will go down, the question is when...

And then there's the farms fertilizing...

[nashville_brook]

13. is there any talk of a public sewer system? seems that would make sense.

also seems like the ag business should bear more of the burden proportionate to their contributing to the problem.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. With over 300 square miles and...

a few hamlets strewn about, a sewer system would be tough even if there was a demand for it. It comes up every so often, but, like burying electric lines, a quick look at the costs causes fainting spells. There is a small sewer system in our one town of any size, but it won't be expanded.

The farms and vineyards are doing a fair amount already, but could do more. They're doing OK financially, as far as anyone knows, and may be the most secure economic group out here, but there is a limit to how much to ask of them. They just got hit with the cost of deer fencing since the deer are completely out of hand and the scheduled cull got shortened overall and derailed in some areas, so they're not exactly amenable to being hit with more costs.

Ask too much of a farm and there's a developer salivating around the corner with more cash per acre than the farmer will ever see farming. We've already lost too much farmland simply because the kids don't like the hard work. Make more excuses to get out of the business, why not?

[nashville_brook]

50. thanks for all the info -- we have similar issues with FL springs

super wealthy residents who have leaky septic tanks and ag business that's not been adequately regulated. here, there's no reason not to put in a sewer, and the developers SHOULD have been made to do this when they built all the mcmansions out at the springs in the first place. at this point it's a state issue b/c the aquifer feeds the whole state. so, the springs showing signs of decay are just the tip of the iceberg. estimates are that FL only has 6 years worth of water left. that's a crisis, and it requires proportionate action.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I am amazed when I read this kind of writing

look at that and are terrified by a group of leftist radicals taking over

Yup the party HATES it's base.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Why? Have you met any of our radicals? Do you really...

think the radical wing is the base?

Radicals are very useful for defining the debate and such, but they are radical for a reason and they will inevitably fight for things you find to be anathema as well as for things you agree with. And they will not listen to you.

I suspect (hope?) we have different definitions of "radical".

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Radicals... those radicals are labor

are students, are the part of the party you all approach when you need votes and then promptly ignore...

That history degree allows me to know exactly what is going on. It's happened before. The Democratic party is becoming the party of business. Mind you, it was the party of business in the 1850s, and very pro slavery, and the 1880s. The Republicans will either join the Dems, (as many moderates have) or go away. And a new party will rise. Of course the other choice, and it is starting to happen as well in very local areas, where the Republicans are starting to moderate their views and are starting to sound like Dems sounded even ten years ago. This is a normal process.

This dynamic is not strange. This happens every 75 years or so. And while we are in the midst of it, increasingly there is no difference or light between them. If this process continues as they usually do, I expect you to inherit tea parties, and for Labor and others to vote for Republicans in 30 years or a new party to the left.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. Throughout most of the 20th century it was the party of...

segregation and inner city corruption. Sometimes both. Johnson redefined everything.

But, that's not the point. Maybe someone will bring back the Progressive Party but until such time we're stuck with Democrats, whatever we are now, along with Working Families and a few others.

But back to radicals.

Radicals, as I see a common working definition, are those who have a vision of perfection and will not compromise. Not the sort of people you want in power no matter where they are from.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. I see, ergo the base

thanks

I see this conversation is not going to go anywhere, so good luck with that.

[bvar22]

32. Who are these "Leftist Radicals" of which you speak?

I've been member of the Democratic Party for a long time,
and still believe in the programs of FDR & LBJ.
Lately, I've been called a "Fringe Leftist" on DU.

Are the FDR Democrats who believe in EXPANDING Social Security and the safety net,
and believe that access to Health Care IS a fundamental Human Right
and NOT a "Commodity" to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations...
...are THOSE the Democrats you are labeling "Fringe Leftists"?

....because I really don't know of any Democrats demanding that Private Property be abolished and our workers organized into collectives.

[TreasonousBastard]

37. Who said FDR Democrats are radical? I don't want to...

get into specific programs but to me a radical will not compromise no matter what the consequences. A radical dreams of a perfect world but will insist extreme measures to achieve that dream.

Are you saying only the right has its radical wing? Are you saying that even here, where communists get tombstones, nobody has ever advocated eliminating business for profit?

[bvar22]

42. I asked a specific question.

YOU made the reference to the "Leftist Radicals".

I'll ask again,
Who are these Leftist Radicals in the Democratic Party?
What policies do you consider Radical Leftist issues outside the traditional Platform of the Democratic Party?

[TreasonousBastard]

46. I said I am not going to identify policies...

I am defining "radical" as attitude, not specific policy.

Most of the most radical Democrats have left the party, for one reason or another. Around here they get tombstoned in short order. At any rate, identifying anyone by name just starts more arguments, alerts, or whatever.

As does identifying a policy. But, if you insist, raising the minimum wage is a good thing, but putting Wal-Mart out of business because they are cheap payers is radically silly.

[bvar22]

48. You aren't going to identify "policies"?

LOL.
You are just going to make some undefinable, blanket accusations
because this vague and undefinable THEY (Radical Leftists)(Librals?) are the big problem.


Centrism!!!...because it is so damned EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
or discuss POLICY,
and get to insult those who DO!

[KoKo]

7. I think the article makes a few good points...but is too simplistic given the money

influence in politics which is so overwhelming with Citizens United, Rise of the DC Political Class going through revolving doors from politician (or staffer to politician) to Lobbyist to Wall Street to Think Tank around and around. Democratic Activists who can get money and Influential People in High Places behind them can get legislation passed. Look at the LBGT movement and how far tht has come even against RW Fundamentalist pressure and their own Big Donors. Yet there were enough big backers in Hollywood and Industry who could help apply pressure and had the money to give to supporting lobbying and activism.

Tea Party is mostly funded by Koch Brothers and other Business interests on Wall Street who can apply pressure for legislation and even pay people to participate if they need to for rallies and buses to tour the country stirring things up.

As far as Political Dem Activism..my experience was after the Stolen Election 2000 and Iraq Invasion. There were so many angry folks in my area that we latched onto Howard Dean's Meet Ups and began sharing information and got involved in activist action. We went to our local Town Hall Meetings and asked hard questions of our Dem Reps. They acted like they were glad to see us and have our support. We even found some candidates to run against entrenched politicians locally and managed to hold our "Progressive Democratic Convention" where hundreds showed up and Joe Trippi even came and spoke to us.

Our State Dem Party was completely thrown by all this activity. They didn't seem to know what to do when we had a group who spent time putting all their State Dem Donors and voters on Computer Disks so that the GOTV effort finally had some information to go on. The State Dem Party didn't even have their top consistent voters and donors identified in 2004!

We managed to get the Voting Machines without a verifiable paper trail out of our state (with machines that did) and to get Verified, Countable Paper Ballots in many of the largest counties. We were sailing....and then it all slowly started to disappear. It was if our party abandoned us.
We had Bush's second term and the Housing Bubble..and promises our Dems made to do investigations on Stolen Election, Iraq Invasion and the rest of the Bush/Cheney lies and deceit went nowhere. Even in 2006 when we took back the house and had the Senate...we got little or nothing. That was when the momentum started to fail...until Barack Obama came along. After that it was just focused on Obama...and after his election...the Dem Money and activist enthusiasm dried up. I guess folks thought he'd solve it all and our Democrats would finally support us and listen.

The loss of Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy" which turned into Dem National Party focusing on the Swing States meant the money and momentum left us. And, Obama's great promise of continuing activism was gone when Rahm Emmanuel told us what they really thought of us.

That's my experience in my state which voted for Obama first term and not on Second Term when the RW Republicans took us over. Koch Brothers Money/ALEC and Tea Party. That's what we have. And the First Republican State House and Senate in 200 Years on top of that.

So....I'm thinking things are much more serious than the article touches on. But, thanks for posting it. I hope things are not as bleak in your state. Maybe you could pass on tips if your Progressive Dems have managed to survive and thrive.

[Enrique]

14. unless I misssed it

the article made no reference at all to money in politics. Which you correctly point out is a huge part of the story.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Excitement over Obama was way below...

the first election by the time he ran again. Around here, it seemed like everyone was pretty much tired after Obama won and Pelosi was tossed after the midterms.

FWIW, not only didn't I see the black population in Greenport jumping up and down with glee, I didn't see much of the teabaggers out, either. I remember the first time teabaggers were out in force as pollwatchers but some complained that they were actually supposed to write down the names of voters-- "they didn't tell me we had to work..." The second time none showed up.

A large conservative shift in the country, real or imagined, and just plain exhaustion with politics and real problems not being addressed by anyone gives us what we have now.

[nashville_brook]

53. since it's just a blog post, i bet the author is working on something more longform

i hope so, b/c it's very interesting.

we need another 50-state strategy. we need to create infrastructure in all our states for engagement and mobilization. and that means (putting on those comfortable shoes) and walking the walk. we can't keep "hoping" -- campaign promises that have atrocious follow-through are killing us. and it's just weak and dishonest too.

do we really believe that the middle class deserves better? then, let's see some real action put behind that. the GOP seems to do just fine in the minority -- why can't we? if we can't score every win, so what -- at least fight. that's what been missing since mid-20th century. we don't have pols with a stomach for a fight. they just want to line up like nice little clerks and collect checks, it seems.

[KoKo]

62. This is what bothers me. The GOP Minority seemed to get most of what they wanted

yet when we had a Majority we were told the GOP was blocking us and we expected too much. When we are a Minority we are told the same thing. Yet look how much the Repugs have either rammed through of their own agenda while blocking Democratic appointments. We are told there's nothing Obama could do and yet other Dem Presidents have managed to get most of their appointments through. We are told the rules changed so it made it more difficult for Democrats.

Its always an excuse. That's what's wrong.

[bvar22]

68. George Bush never had 60 votes,

and managed to get near everything he wanted.
I don't even remember Republicans complaining that they didn't have 60 votes.
THAT excuse only appeared when those who got Obama elected started asking him to keep his campaign promises.

[n2doc]

8. The corporate party dislikes both ends of the spectrum

They would rather be left alone to funnel money to their sponsors in peace.

[nashville_brook]

10. indeed. KoKo's post above is a great example of that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Indeed, and I remember those meetups as well

here, they really hate the base, but will go to it when they need votes.

But the base refuses to do much more than meet at home for cookies and coffee. At best, stand on the side of road with signs. Part of it is how entrenched the party poobahs are, but partly they are that entrenched because there is no challenge, NONE, NADA. And partly it is because of what Koko described.

[nashville_brook]

49. part of what she describes is truly terrifying to the party's corporate consultants...

and that's getting the lists of donors and the VAN and getting out there in the field. that builds true power, and as soon as you start doing that you get the consultants either attacking or trying to co-opt you. that's how you know you're winning.

[DirkGently]

27. Yep. *Money* hates liberals & progressives

It's why we see supposed Democrats leaping to attack liberal journalists and complaining about "the institutional left," whereas Republicans don't complain about rightwingers unless they manage to go completely off-planet on some social issue, ala Cliven Bundy.

Otherwise, it's right, right, right. Right toward the money.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. I have been saying that for years

local activists most take over planning boards, school boards and city councils, and if need be cross the local party while they do it.

I will give you two examples without mentioning names.

We have a lot of issues in the back country with industrial wind and solar. To put it bluntly the activist do not want them (they lost the policy war, but that is another story) They are not just at home discussing quietly the issue and making gripes. Perhaps going to the planning board and making a little noise. They took over the planning board. (They all happen to be quite conservative and republican)

The other side.

For the most part, all I hear is gripes. That is all I hear. There are no solutions proposed, and when you ask them, when are you running? The excuses come up. And trust me, in the field I have asked a few of these activist, WHEN are you running for the planning board? They all think it is sufficient to stand on the roadside with signs telling the POTUS just how ugly the XL Pipeline is, but none is willing to actually run for office.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. I have run, and after...

years of being moribund, our local Democrats are putting up full slates for election-- every year we do better.

(But so far we're better at losing than winning.)

[RobertEarl]

17. I've learned

That bending over for the status quo and to the 'leaders', and denying reality is the best way be a part of the established leadership.

Asking questions and demanding progressive solutions just gets people asking you why you hate yourself.

And I have come to believe that at the grassroots level, many moles have become involved just to cause trouble and division.

Looking at the state of the world and the trend of society and capitalism, and how kill the messenger is job #1 for many, one simply has to wonder: What's the use?

[Iggo]

18. Republicans hate their base. Dems take theirs for granted.

[Proud Public Servant]

24. The GOP Establishment hates AND fears their base, whereas

the Democratic Establishment merely hates their base. That's the problem...

[xchrom]

25. du rec.

[Rowdyboy]

26. If you think DU=Democratic party base, then the party considers the base completely irrelevant

Last edited Tue May 13, 2014, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't consider this site in any way representative of the Democratic base. The Democratic base does not hold Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in contempt nor are they huge fans of Edward Snowden and Glen Greenwald. The party base voter is certainly not religious fundamentalists like the tea-partiers but neither is it is anti-religion. There are very few libertarians among the Democratic base and fewer "disrupters". DU is chock full of both.

The base is vast and varied, but includes women, minorities, union members, educators, and in presidential years the young. They range from moderates and centrists to liberals and progressives with a few socialists thrown in to keep things lively.

At my 60th birthday party we had a great group of like minded politically aware people who are all Democrats. Several had heard of DU-not a single one except me had ever registered or posted. To think that we here are representative of anything bigger than ourselves is simply deluded.

[pnwmom]

29. + 1000

[DirkGently]

31. Well, we're closer to "the base" than your birthday party.

Speaking of deluded.

[Rowdyboy]

59. If you think a few thousand assorted internet personas here represents the Democratic party

you're misguided. I didn't say my friends were truly representative-but they have yoted reliably Democratic for years which many here proudly scorn.

Which is more reliably the "base"?

[DirkGently]

61. No, your birthday party is not "more reliably the 'base' "

That's just math. Your friends are not a better representative sample of Democrats than a website with thousands of users.

But that's beside the point.

Point of the OP as I see it is that the Republican party fears CONSERVATIVES. The Democratic Party at times seems to likewise fear conservatives most of all, and despise "liberals" nearly as much as the Republicans do.

And yet, what is the Democratic Partiy's reason to be, if it's not for liberal policies? Anyone looking for conservative policies has the Republicans. The idea some have that the same conservative, money-first policies, just served up with a slightly sweeter smile constitutes a political party is pretty silly.

The problem seems to be the limitless ability of some people to rationalize further and further to the right because that's very convenient for fundraising, and for insiders, fundraising makes the world go 'round.

Also, happy birthday!

[Rowdyboy]

65. It was a great birthday-a bunch of aging hippies and even included one of my professors

from the mid-1970's, the first self-admitted socialist I ever met.

I have no quarrel with your main contention about both parties elite sharing the same conservative, money-first policies. The party that I am loyal to no longer even exists-the party of the 1950's, 60's and 70's. Political leaders were quite different, people of real stature and conviction, people like Frank Church, George McGovern, Birch Bayh and (God forgive him) even Hubert Humphrey, who was wrong in a few cases but right in many, many more. Those guys are long gone-replaced by the Pryors and Nelsons and Warners of the world and we're the poorer for it. The closest we have today is Elizabeth Warren she had to be begged to run even for the senate. Looking at the overall situation she faces, I can't say as I really blame her.

I just don't really see DU as a microcosm of much of anything. A site where a president of our party can be called a "piece of shit used car salesman" by one of its most "respected", longtime members is not indicative of the party base. Nor is one where Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton are vilified-Clinton on a daily basis.

I love DU, have been an active member for almost 12 years, start out every morning here-but I don't think it truly represents the party base until the last few months prior to each national and mid-term election.

[DirkGently]

67. Oh gawd, not the fracking car salesman thing! :)

Aaaaaaghh. Seriously, how long are the Obama partisans going to carry a torch for one obnoxious OP title? Someone called Obama a "used car salesman" and LIVED?

Let. It. Go.



But regardless of whether liberals on DU are too critical, not critical enough, or just the right amount of critical of elected Democratic leaders, we apparently do agree with the OP that liberal / progressive policies have trouble getting traction in the Democratic Party, because conservative positions = $$.

And that this is a problem.

So what are we going to do about THAT?










P.S. Rahm Emmanuel is fn intellectually challenged!

[Rowdyboy]

74. Well, my health really sucks and if I'm lucky I'll be here to vote for whoever we nominate in 2016

Voting, bitching and moaning is about all I'm good for at this point. Here in Mississippi today party structure is virtually non-existent and, over the years (even when Dems were a serious force here) the party hierarchy was not welcoming or encouraging.

I pity my nieces and nephews for the world they will inherit, and I pity them even more if any Republican is elected President in 2016. The only minuscule glimmer of hope I see is that a future, less right-wing supreme court could reverse some of the horrifying decisions of the Roberts court and that hope will vanish in an instant if a Republican wins the presidency.

And, sorry, but I'm afraid people will be citing "piece of shit used car salesman" for a long time here. I didn't post in the thread-I just watched it and the follow-ups unfold like a slow motion train wreck. DU and its various cliques are often entertaining and always turn nasty but this meltdown was epic in proportion.

I have friends who are intellectually challenged who would resent your comparison. Personally Rahm reminds me of the slime trail a slug leaves when oozing across the back porch to try to get to the cats' food bowls-something noxious and nasty that you don't want to touch.

[DirkGently]

88. We can do better. At the very least, the pendulum

seems to be swinging back in our direction. People have had a bellyfull of the increasingly ludicrous rightwing ideas, and their inevitable results. At some point (?) it becomes too difficult to argue that funneling power ever upward works for anyone, much less everyone.

I think we can do more. Better messaging; more participation; building on the small advances made here and there.

And be well, healthwise, please.

[TreasonousBastard]

43. HA! I see the word "base" thrown around a lot, but...

nobody has bothered to define it. Used it as a point of argument, sure, but identify it?

13,000 voters in this township, with maybe 5000 Democrats and I've met a good many of them. Independents and "forced Republicans", too.

That's the "base" around here and most of us want better schools, less theology all around, environmental cleanup, and all the other good stuff us progressives like to talk about.

But, we have to live with each other, so the discussion is often limited, and we work side by side with Republicans at the homeless shelter and don't ask party affiliation when we give money to the animal shelter or to the poor family whose daughter fell in the creek.

Nobody ever mentions any online discussion group, much less DU. We all wish the best for the kidnapped girls, but we heard about them from the Times or NPR, not the Guardian. We know about fundie preachers in politics, but we don't have them here. Republicans around here don't like them much either. They feel the same way about teabaggery.

Want to find out what your "Base" thinks?

ASK THEM!

Carry election petitions, knock on doors and talk to the people who you know are honest-to-gawd registered Democrats and not some bulllshitters on the interwebs.

(Or have a birthday party!)

[nashville_brook]

51. it's quite interesting that you don't mention minority groups, which are "the new majority"

according to most democratic consultants.

[Rowdyboy]

55. Uh, second paragraph..."The base is vast and varied, but includes women, minorities....."

Of course I include minorities-they're the future of the party.

[nashville_brook]

83. my bad -- apologies!

i was too eager to make that exact point. the future of the party is bright b/c there's vast numbers of potential voters in our column. but the challenge is going to be turning emerging voters into super voters.

[Rowdyboy]

87. No apologies necessary. I live in Mississippi-probably 95% of the Democrats I meet are minorities

so I'd be really absent-minded to leave them out! And as to the future, beyond any question the only hope for the party lies in minority hands. It'll be sheer numbers versus unlimited money and eventually its probably going to lead to another revolution, say in 50 years or so.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. Thank You!!!!!

[RKP5637]

30. IMO it's because when it comes to $$$$$ R=D=I. One does not see too many poor people or even

many middle class in the political echelons at the top. Hence, big money is interested in big money and often that does not include the base, at least that's what I see going on. I didn't bother to renew my DNC membership I've had for years, I really don't think the DNC is overly interested in me. I'll donate to some individual candidates. Until the money is out of politics in USA, Inc., it's going to be really F'ed up IMO. And now insanely that corps. are really people, WTF, it's going to be a very very long time. I've not left, I'm just a realist.

[nashville_brook]

52. it's sad b/c this is basically the GOP narrative… govt doesn't/can't work

and our own party is doing nothing to counter this. they think that the "new majority" emerging from hispanic and youth populations will solve this on its own. but, these are constituencies that turnout only when they're passionate about the races. and, the dem party is largely unable deliver on sweeping campaign promises b/c we don't have the majorities to make it happen.

so, we're left with most realists sitting it out. and, i agree that that's more rational than sending money down the DNC pit.

it's something i've struggled with since i was a freshman in college: apathy is the defining characteristic of my generation, and it's not for nothing. there has to more than empty promises.

[RKP5637]

60. Yep, agree, but I will not sit it out. I'm just disappointed, that's really what it's all about.

Also, I won't go down this road, but I expected more after 2008. I think I was hoping for a miracle worker, so that's probably more my problem. Great things have been accomplished, I think I was just expecting too much given the political climate in the US. Anyway, rest assured, I will not be sitting it out. Apathy is a real issue. IMO most of America is apathetic thereby allowing small pockets to seize great power. I just feel hollow, if that makes sense, I think that's the best way to sum it up, I feel this emptiness.

[nashville_brook]

79. my sense is that folks that participate here are all voters

but giving money and time are contingencies that depend on enthusiasm.

the apathy i get on doors canvassing is different. it takes quite a sales job to convince people that midterms are worth voting in. i even created graphics to show how much more your vote counts in off-years. that helps win the conversation. we'll see if people actually vote in november.

[RKP5637]

63. I was just thinking more on this, and what really annoys me is I think the

leadership of the democratic party is missing a huge segment of the American population. To me, they try to often emulate the republicans too much and let them lead the way.

[treestar]

33. Not the base

The base is certainly not the constantly critical. The people who yell loudest about being the base are unsupportive in language and it's hard to believe they are supportive otherwise.

[Aerows]

34. It's pretty easy to navigate

through the why Republicans fear their base and Democrats "hate" theirs.

M-O-N-E-Y.

Democrats somehow have bought into the theory that to be a Democrat you have to be poor, you have to be politically stranded and rise up to make something of yourself, and that ultimately, your goal is to be a wealthy, benevolent Republican.

It's bullshit theory.

We can all rise as a human being and do the right thing without demonizing each other, we can all come together and realize that financial inequality harms ALL of us, and we can be a big tent.

[Bjorn Against]

40. Exactly

The Republican base supports the interests of the wealthy donors, while the Democratic base is more focused on working class issues that the big corporate donors want to run away from. Until we get money out of politics there will be conflict between the Democratic fundraisers and the Democratic base.

[Aerows]

41. I agree

Getting money out of politics is the first step to recovering our well being as a nation.

[DirkGently]

44. That's crazy talk!

But, yeah.

[nashville_brook]

45. well said.

[bvar22]

38. In the Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010,

"The Base" came together and worked to give President Obama exactly what he had asked for.
We were going to replace DINO Blanche Lincoln with an actual Pro-LABOR Democrat who would vote FOR Obama's initiatives.

Guess who blocked us.
It wasn't The Republicans.

The Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Democratic Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln's Senate seat.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass

...and we were WINNING!

Guess what happened.

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Wicked Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda who was actually campaigning at that time as the one who had killed the Public Option!!!

Adding insult to injury, the White House sent Bill Clinton back to Arkansas on a state-wide Campaign/Fund Raising Tour for Blanche,
focusing on the areas with high Black Populations, and bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

For those of us who had worked hard to give President Obama Progressive Democrats who would work with him, it was especially difficult to watch his smiling Oval Office Endorsement for DINO Blanche Lincoln which played 24/7 on Arkansas TV the week before the runoff Primary election.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

After the White House and Party Leadership had spent a truck full of money torpedoing the Primary challenge of a Pro-LABOR Democrat for Lincoln's Senate seat, the Party support for Lincoln evaporated for the General Election, and as EVERYBODY had predicted, Lincoln lost badly giving that Senate seat to a Republican virtually uncontested in the General Election.

Don't you find it "interesting" that the Party Establishment and conservative Power Brokers would spend all that money in a Democratic Primary to make sure that their candidate won, and then leave Their Winner dangling without support in the General Election?

Many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it, and it was difficult to argue with them.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR & The Grass Roots from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they had chosen to throw their full support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the only answer was ridicule and insults.

Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

So what did the White House gain by Beating Down Labor and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary?
We don't know.
The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults.

To date, the White House has refused to answer our questions,
or issue an apology for their taunts and ridicule of Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

[nashville_brook]

47. this, i think, is a good example of a struggle for power

seems as if the funders didn't want a pro-labor lawmaker in this seat. i bet they gained the continued support of bankers and other financial interests who fund campaigns. at some point we're going to have to bring these interests to heel -- it's a power struggle, and someone is going to have to step aside. we've seen what happens when the rank-and-file step aside: we get shellacked. so, it's time the monied interests take a powder.

[DirkGently]

54. Well there's your "fear" right there. Fear of deep pockets.

Republican conservatives for the most part have big money behind them. Progressives do not command enough funding muscle, or at least this is the insider wisdom coming from both parties.

Money doesn't always win elections, though. Public pressure and voting still count. It's not the way national leaders are accustomed to being motivated, but it can work.

[JI7]

66. if you can't get black voters it means you are having trouble with the base

as they make up a large part of the party and even more so in the south. and they certainly are not part of the wealthy classes as they actually have lower levels than others.

so why is clinton popular among african americans ?

[bvar22]

69. Oh YES!... because Blanche Lincoln was so GOOD for the Arkansas Black Community!

LOL.

[JI7]

70. if she has been bad and you still can't get their votes there is a problem

and it means you are not effective with the base .

[bvar22]

72. No.

It means that the base has difficulty overcoming the $MONEY$ and Celebrity Status that can be spent by conservative Party Insiders to protect their little club.

[JI7]

73. if that was the case republicans could easily win there but they are the toughest to win

by republicans

[JI7]

56. the fact is the base loves Obama and the clintons

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. I kinda stopped reading after this....

"Dems tend to shut down their activists (the NSA/Snowden/Greenwald debate is evidence of this)"

If you're referring to Snowie & GG as "Dem activists", no wonder you get "shut down", and I don't think it has anything to do with any "Executive" committee. Since they're Libertarians, your skills of observation may be up for debate, and you may possibly be attending the wrong meetings.

[Cha]

78. Hilariously Delusional.. yeah, Dems expose libertarian ratfuckers. Go Figure.

[nashville_brook]

81. so, you don't think it's worth having privacy, that's fine.

but the rest of us would like our country to respect the 4th Amendment of the Constitution just in case a crazy republican takes over the white house.

'ta.

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. You got that right.

[nashville_brook]

80. yes, well civil liberties are values that many dems are concerned about.

your mileage may vary.

[Tarheel_Dem]

90. Define "many". I'd like to see any current polling that shows this as a priority for Dems. Thanks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. The "Not as bad" argument caters to the center right of the party. And, keeps the left in line.

There are times in politics when you must be on the right side and lose. John Kenneth Galbraith:

[madfloridian]

71. Remember DLC press conference saying Howard Dean would not be president?

DLC press conference 2003

(David Von Drehle, May 15, 2003, Washington Post)

More than 50 centrist Democrats, including Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, met here yesterday to plot strategy for the "New Democrat" movement. To help get the ball rolling they read a memo by Al From and Bruce Reed, the chairman and president of the Democratic Leadership Council. The memo dismissed Dean as an elitist liberal from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the party -- "the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one."

"It is a shame that the DLC is trying to divide the party along these lines," said Dean spokesman Joe Trippi. "Governor Dean's record as a centrist on health care and balancing the budget speaks for itself."

As founder of the DLC, From has been pushing the Democratic Party to the right for nearly 20 years. He was in tall cotton, philosophically speaking, when an early leader of the DLC, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992. As Clinton's domestic policy guru, Reed pushed New Democrat ideas -- such as welfare reform -- that were often unpopular with party liberals.

"We are increasingly confident that President Bush can be beaten next year, but Dean is not the man to do it," Reed and From wrote. "Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else."

[randys1]

76. The American Taliban Organizers, i.e. Koch Bros, are hoping you are all fed up...

it is what they are counting on...

I heard someone say they say a poll that says voter turnout will be real low in November

I cant express on here how insane that makes me...

are you FUCKING kidding me, how is that possible?

is it that the masses dont see or hear what is going on?

[nashville_brook]

77. it's possible b/c our base is largely "emerging voters" rather than established voters

the majorities that we count on to win presidential elections come from youth, minority and especially hispanic voters. these groups are traditionally low-turnout constituencies that come out if there's a candidate they're passionate about.

midterms are "state" races. there's no national profile candidates or campaigns. there's just local city councils, congress members, ballot initiatives and confusing races for judges, soil/water conservation board, school board and other local offices that new voters sometimes don't even know exist.

making things even worse, the party doesn't have the power to deliver on social justice issues that really ignite this base -- immigration reform, workers' rights, and better jobs are all things we haven't been able to deliver on, and can't actually make a convincing argument for being able to until 2020.

[TheKentuckian]

82. Why would a bunch of conflict adverse folks with easily corralled by fear of radicals make any one

even a little tiny bit afraid? What are we going to do to make them tremble? March around with snazzy signs in a free speech zone? Write strongly worded letters? Blog?

We lack the hardness to make the dogs heel, we are terrified to make them accountable and increasingly to even demand anything.

We are unwilling to make consequences so we are wholly dependent on the charity of those we elect and the whims of the wealthy that have no such issue with ramifications.

There is no influence, much less an iota of control without cost for not being influenced.

[Fumesucker]

84. If we make consequences then Republicans win

Or something..

[nashville_brook]

86. :) b/c apparently civil rights are no longer a Democratic value...

or something.

[nashville_brook]

85. spot on -- and the thing is, it's not *that* difficult. lawmakers need political cover...

to do what's right when they have funders breathing down their necks. they track media mentions, including blogs.

you're right, WE are terrified of holding them accountable. part of that is b/c it takes practice to be comfortable with it and there's always going to be the first time where everything feels wrong and awkward.

upthread i've been discussing the process of making emerging voters into super voters. there's a similar process that we have to do to create "policy demanders" out of those folks once they're super voters.