Why do the Democrats not vote "en bloc" more often?

[BelgianMadCow]

Reading DU I came across the thread about Reid joining Feingold in opposing the reauthored Patriot Act.

Isn't Reid the Senate Minority Leader? If that's his position, I expect ALL democratic Senators to follow his lead.

Over here, a party that is part of the opposition will determine it's standpoint on any given issue / piece of legislation and then they will all vote accordingly.
There are few exceptions. Most then have to do with ethical questions, in which the parties often leave the decision to the individual conscience.

I seem to see so little of that in the US. I get a sense that a party is much less united in its views, and that the influence of a party Chairman is relatively small.

Does the Democratic party have an elected leadership for example? Which decides on the course of action on a given issue.

On a side note, the feeling I also get from reading DU as a nitwit on US politics is that the basis of the problem is the fact that it's allowed for lobbying groups / firms to sponsor parties. That leads to putting special interests before the common interest.

This (firm sponsoring) was outlawed over here 15 years ago after a scandal involving the Parti Socialiste influencing the buying of outdated helicopters from a firm that sponsored the PS.

[babylonsister]

1. It makes too much sense?

And politicians are sadly bought and sold by lobbyists. Look at our (lack of a) healthcare system.

[XNASA]

2. That's not what being a Democrat is about....

It's about doing what your constituents want you to do. I know that's oversimplified, but that's the way it is.

Republicans on the other hand are all about voting 'en bloc'. Again oversimplified.....

[kenny blankenship]

3. And so they are ineffective and divided

and so fewer of them are elected to Congress each election cycle.
and so the Republicans get stronger and stronger.
and so we are left to hope the Republicans will simply self-destruct.

Real good strategy. Great in fact, if you like your gratification deferred--indefinitely.

[BrklynLiberal]

19. That would imply that the ends justify the means. So whatever it takes

to get all the Democrats to vote together is acceptable, even if it would result in their becoming like the monolithic, Fascist Republicans? How can one coerce all the Democrats to vote together without getting some of them to sacrifice the responsibilities they have to their constituencies, or to their personal conscience?
These are matters that most of the Republicans who vote en bloc do not have to consider. Their one and only consideration is the corporation who paid for their vote.

[kenny blankenship]

40. You are confused about the meaning of the word Fascism

No, recognizing a need for more effective party discipline does not mean that one believes the ends always justify the means. And, No, it also does not follow that having party discipline equals an ideology of Fascism. In fact to say so shows a pathetic lack of familiarity with the dictionary. And history.

Allow me to clue you in. Fascism, in historical examples and in its impact on partisan politics in legislatures means a completely different world of regimentation than what we are discussing. It means that, first, only an approved list of parties can run for and hold seats in the country's lawmaking assembly, and then maybe a little later no other parties but the One Party may belong to the legislative body. By then of course the existence of this body and the elections held for it has been rendered irrelevant. On the other hand, having a little party discipline that says if you want the support of the Party at election time then you cannot sell out non-negotiable party line positions on for example equal rights or avoiding wars, is not Fascism. It is key to maintaining party identities and that is key to a healthy politics. What we have instead are Democrats selling themselves as individual representatives to the same high bidders that own the Republicans. Party identities are eroded and the people have no advocate and little ideological diversity to choose from.

You trashmouthed the idea of solidarity as monolithic and implicitly Fascist. Here's a history lesson for you. When the SPD voted against Hitler's Enabling Act, defying the go-along-to-get-along Centrists they did so en bloc. As the second largest party in the Bundestag they did it "monolithically", that is all those who weren't already on their way to the concentration camp or dead voted "non" according to the SPD party line; and they acted in this way despite the obvious threat to their lives without help from other parties, and mostly without help from individuals of other parties, to hold the line against Hitler's Fascism. They did this not as an act of Fascism but as humanity's last remaining hope against the triumph of Fascism. If the Zentrum party (Center) had done likewise and managed a defeat of the Enabling Act by voting it down en bloc like the Social Democrats did, Hitler would have been forced to seize dictatorial power by coup d'etat instead of as he did, losing the illusion of consensual, constitutional and legitimate government, and history might have worked out very differently.

By your style of ludicrously hyperbolic argument I could say that you implied that the Democrats are in the shallow grave that they now find themselves because they have followed their consciences there.
That would be an excellent joke.

Thank you. You have brought mirth to an otherwise gray and listless evening.

[BelgianMadCow]

6. I concede that obvious point

that as an elected official you are working FOR your constituents.
And that implies you may have views that differ from other constituencies and their representative.

There are also arguments against voting en bloc, as it could be seen as limiting the freedom of an elected official. We have party line dissenters too, and they are allowed but are few and far between.

But I find it logical that these views only differ on matters where regional factors come into play.

A lot of matters (such as war) transcend the regional differences, and there I do expect unity in direction.

[XNASA]

10. Republicans don't work for their constituents.

People who vote Republican concede that their elected official know better than they do. That's the very core of republicanism.

You're last point is well taken. I wish we could see more of that too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. It's the "big tent" philosophy that says that winning is everything.

Ideals, principles, ethics, honesty are perceived as liabilities. Money and votes are all that count.

[Loonman]

5. That's how the Repubs roll us

Everytime. They got all their blocs lined up and they all vote the same way, everytime.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Because Democrats fight *against* monolithic, fascist ideology?

Do Democratic lawmakers represent their party or their constituents? If their constituents feel differently than the party, how should a lawmaker vote?

[BelgianMadCow]

8. I'm afraid I'm not for fascist monolithic thinking either

A lawmaker should vote his conscience, and ultimately be free from party influence. He owes allegiance to his constituents.

My point was rather( trying not to take offense at your post) that on a lot of issues, constituents all around think and feel the same.

Or do you think the poor, the people without access to opportunities or the elderly without proper healthcare have different opinions on what is good for them across the USA?

*answering my own question, people like the ones I described vote overwhelmingly Socialist or Catholic over here, but in the US it seems a lot of erm.. misguided .. people vote against their own interests*

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. The question you asked was about voting as a block

I understood that to mean, "all Democrats voting as one voice, regardless." That is the question I answered.

[BelgianMadCow]

16. OK no offense taken then

I didn't mean regardless :-)

[Selatius]

24. Replying to your post: The problem is our two-party system

*answering my own question, people like the ones I described vote overwhelmingly Socialist or Catholic over here, but in the US it seems a lot of erm.. misguided .. people vote against their own interests*

People would vote for Democrats, but the Republicans often make it a referendum on moral values. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage are issues Republicans use to peel off votes from Democrats. The implication is that Democrats are naturally more immoral.

Many people would vote for Democrats, but they disagree with more liberal elements in the Democratic Party with respect to these issues, so they vote Republican. I have talked to people who agreed with most of the Democratic Party's platform, but they consistently vote Republican because of something such as gay marriage or abortion.

Our electoral laws are written in such a way that only two parties are really allowed. If we had a system based on proportional representation instituted today, you would see that the voters who are Democrats today would split off and become Greens, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, democratic socialists, and members of labor parties.

Also, our campaign/election system allows special interest money, so naturally those with the most money in this country have a competitive advantage over poor people. The fact that they also have control over the news media gives them that much more leverage in convincing voters to vote in their favor through propaganda. In your country, your people have obviously banned that kind of activity. I wish we had only done the same decades ago.

[Bill McBlueState]

26. dang it, you beat me to it!

(that's what I said in post 25, only you said it faster and more clearly!)

[BelgianMadCow]

28. "One of the broad issues for Democrats is to value diversity,"

"One of the broad issues for Democrats is to value diversity, which means they tend to fragment more easily than Republicans."

You added that valuable insight, I liked your concise post a lot.

[BelgianMadCow]

27. Gay marriage and abortion are allowed here

And the world didn't come to a stop (even when I wanted off).

But I couldn't agree more with your analysis :

1) Two-party system
2) Special interest money
3) Corporate media

While the internets could possibly counter 3), I don't see how Big Money will allow 1 or 2 to fall. To be honest, I often felt as if you all have only a false choice between brand A and brand B coming from the same factory.

But I have to imediately add that numerous examples of Democrats are made of the right material imho.

The "wedge issues" you mention moved me, your fellow countrymen and women are so aspiring to hold the moral higher ground, but the world can only laugh grimly about the fascist road your country has taken at the same time.

The un- or underexposed Republican hypocrisy is really flabbergasting.

[Selatius]

29. It's hard to deal with our system because of it's restrictive nature

People can see the decay in the countryside now. It's becoming visible now to most Americans and is hard to deny or ignore. You can travel across the countryside in the Northeast of this country in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania and see entire communities hollowed out as a result of policies pushed through by corporate elements in government today. The factories are left rusting, and many homes are empty because the corporations moved overseas. As a result, poverty has increased.

They insist free trade is the way to go and will lead to cheap prices for consumers, but most people on the ground see their jobs leaving the country to India and China and other parts of the world because these people who run the corporations find labor there far cheaper, easier to exploit, and easier to control and manipulate, yet the cost of living for average Americans continues to rise despite claims of lower prices. Eventually, the middle class will be crushed if we take current trends to their logical conclusion.

All of you over there in Europe must have seen how hurricane Katrina brought America to her knees and must have been shocked at our government's lack of action to help the poorest when they needed it the most. That should give you a taste of how sick our Republic has grown. It should be taken as a stern warning on what happens when you allow greed to consume your country.

[BelgianMadCow]

32. It's not a rosy picture you paint

and I'm afraid that, as always, what happens in the US is a foreshadowing of what happens here. Not that I think something like your BFEE coup is possible here, but on the ecomomic side, I think western civilisation is past it's peak.

I can tell you that over here, my wife and I have university degrees and well paying jobs, but struglle to some degree even when we decided to buy a house several "classes" below what was expected of us.

Last week, we had a first raise in interest rates. You've had 13 consecutive ones.

The sentiment over here is that families now have to work full time to make a living that is below the standard of our parents, being more educated at the same time.

Our Social Security, pension and health care is deemed to be with the best in the world. But the entire system seems to blow up with the babyboomers about to retire. Now that those pensions are to be paid, tough choices have to be made.

We've had several strikes over this very issue the past couple of months. It seems the famous "Rijnlandmodel" is on the verge of collapse.

I'm sorry to sound so pessimistic, but I had a long discussion with my father about all of this, and in the end he said "Only the ones on top will "survive" when the system collapses. Make sure you are one of them".

[KharmaTrain]

9. Some Democrats Still Think They're The Majority

Democrats have never had the "discipline" Repugnicans have since for so many years they operated with large majorities in the House and there were always the votes there to pass whatever the party leadership wanted. Tip O'Neill was extremely effective in wielding this kind of power and many of his disciples are in the Democratic leadership today. Call it being a benevolent dictator as opposed to DeLay who requires full compliance with tons of strings attached. While O'Neill would accept losing one once in a while to win the big ones he needed, DeLay is win at all costs and the ethics probes prove it.

Without any real legislative power, Democrats now are conflicted with becoming a voting bloc like Repugnicans...which many here on DU would favor. However, this runs smack into those who want people to vote as idealists (preferably on their pet issue) and anyone who doesn't toe that line is a "DINO". For many it's a no-win situation.

Right now, Democrats need to build a party long neglected on the local level...it's trying to play a lot of catch-up with a system that's been well established and oiled for over two decades. The saving grace of the Democratic party is it remains the bastion for alternative thoughts and ideas...it's also it's biggest disadvantage.

Cheers...

[BelgianMadCow]

15. well being a huge dreamer & idealist

I appreciate your thoughtful post.

One could speculate that the truest democracy would be one where a representative does as he pleases and doesn't or even can't belong to a party. The only coalitions would be those brought forth by the issue of the day.
But that goes against the group "nature" of mankind I guess.

The underlying basis for my post was, of course, frustration about there not being a unisono & LOUD signal from the Dems concerning the war. With the level of disinfo the corporate media practices, anything short of such a signal gets lost in the chatter. And doesn't reach the people who need such a signal to wake up.

Now I understand what you say about alternative ideas - and I'm not so sure what "the" plan should be.

But for example, what if ALL Democrats said in ALL media opportunities they get for a week "This president has lied us into war with horrible human and economic consequences. He is still trying to cover up those lies, as he is not forthcoming about who leaked Plame's name when it is clear the top of his administration is involved"

I can dream can't I.

[KharmaTrain]

30. Not A Dream...It's Demanding Accountability

This shouldn't be a Democratic thing...or even an "idealistic" concept, but one that American taxpayers should demand of this regime and ALL the politicians who had any say in voting for and/or supporting this invasion. It's time to stop saying things like "mis-led" or "mis-spoke" and constantly say this regime lies and never back down. Somehow beltway Democrats are so afraid of saying this in fear of being "Roved" by the corporate media and play right into the Rovian playbook of making your opponent look weak as if they say something, they're shouted down (like my Senator Durbin was) or if they mince words, they're "weak"...either way its framed as being unpatriotic. Waivering from one side to the other doesn't help...and playing into the corporate media makes it even tougher.

Look at Governor Dean's remarks the other day about Iraq being unwinnable. That should be a no-brainer for a majority who know how many lies this regime has put out there and its credibility is non-existant. However, as the court stenographers who put their egos and access ahead of their professions, our corporate media likes to find the adversarial view that inflames all sides and draws viewers, ratings and revenues. No sooner did Dr. Dean say his piece (something boooosh said a year ago and was given a pass on) then not only were there right wing spinners with talking points in hand riling up the "base", but selected "Democrats"...named (Liebermann, Harold Ford) who will always refute the national party (and get valuable "tube" time). It's a no-win situation.

The ultimate game has to be to win locally and strongly...this is part of the GOOP game plan that works so well for them. It's how a Jean Schmidt was able to weasel her way into the House and smear a decorated war veteran. Well...we're all frustrated...and so anxious to do something/anything to lash out. I think the game here is to find one key issue, position, stand to take and create a positive campaign around it. Democrats won't become a strong party if it relies on Repugnicans losing rather than Democrats winning.

Cheers...

[BelgianMadCow]

33. Time to speak candidly, and rally behind a positive platform indeed

The example with Dean is a good one. He's DNC Chairman. Some Democrats like Lieberman pretty consistently have dissenting opinions. Overe here, people like that are put outside of the party. It happened recently and there was some debate whether this party was to harsh in enforcing its ways, but it did happen.

What about peace and prosperity for all as the key issue?
Not waging costly unnecessary wars that create terrorists rather than diminish this threat would be a good start. In that sense, I fully agree with your first paragraph: it's time to demand accountability, stand up and be counted, and not back down.

Should this happen, the statements by Democrats may still be spun by the corporate media, but there the local level, as you rightly said, could be the key.

People need to be empowered to speak, and know that they are not alone.

I actually came to DU looking to know I wasn't alone thinking the sElection was the start of fascism and this invasion was a clear violation of international law. But I have found more.

[KharmaTrain]

34. Thank You For Your Perspective

I enjoy discussing these topics with friends from different countries, political systems and cultures since they just can't understand how this country is so screwed up...or that there are some of us with a bit of sanity inside this madhouse.

Unlike a Parlimentary system...which I assume Belgium has...which can call for no-contest votes and oust a leader who is inept, the American system allows for either years of greatness or ineptness that can't be questioned. It creates a "winner take all" mentality that the Repugnicans have taken to new heights. This isn't about democracy or rights or peace and prosperity...it's about winning at all costs and never giving ground.

There's a myopic view of the world in this country that has been built up by our popular culture, nurtured by corporate media and exploited by politicians that defy explaning to a foreign national. In it's best forms it champions self determination and civil rights...at its worst it becomes xenophobic and confrontational. Right now you're seeing it at its worst.

Welcome to DU and thanks for your valuable insight and comments.

Cheers...

[BelgianMadCow]

37. You're most welcome

I enjoy such discussions as well, and I have found some on DU. Through reading here I have gained some insight into how things got to be where they are. My interest for History has picked up a great deal in the process, and DU has wise people and good teachers for those willing to listen.

We have a parliamentary system. It has many disadvantages, amongst others we are slow in the decision making. That is often where the US is strong.
One of the bigger differences is that we have state public television which really is the premier source for news and even for entertainment. Since I have been a CNN watcher (only US channel) I can apreciate the difference between the two.

I may not be able to fully fathom the myopic view, but for example the poor standard in US education is a well-known fact here.

And is that not where it all starts? Bush*'s No Child's Behind Left is not a matter of coincidence.

:toast: to educating ourselves, thanks for the welcome

and off to bed

[leftofthedial]

11. because the corporations that own most of them

and the foreign interests that own many of them

don't want them to

[The Judged]

13. Democratic unity is a political sin, according to Republicans.

When Republicans dress up as Democrats, surf the web, and post to blogs and forums like DU they are quick to point out that Democrats would be resorting to the same unethical standards of the Republicans if they had party discipline and rooted out divisiveness, such as Senator Lieberman's pro-PNAC positions on matters of war and peace.

Also, there is a built in breach of party unity within the Democratic Party, because the DNC leadership allows the following groups to put their own interests above those of the DNC:

-Progressives.
-Democratic Leadership Council.
-Blue Dogs.

So long as the DNC tolerates these other groups to force the party to submit to their minority views*, the Democratic Party will not move forward, despite appearing at times to move forward.

*especially when those views are shown to be pivotal votes that are decisive in Republican legislation and policy decisions advancing to become the law of the land.

[BelgianMadCow]

20. I'm Demopedia-ing DNC DLC and blue dogs

One could have intense debate on an issue, then a party vote and then a uniform direction in a lot of cases.

Coming from such a small country I guess I underestimate the sheer size of US politics. To call your leadership a "convention" says a lot imho...

[The Judged]

35. Al From says:

...

"That's wrong. Republicans may try to impose strict litmus tests, but an inclusive Democratic Party should not," From declared.

...

http://www.forward.com/articles/7027

In other words the DLC doesn't advocate that a unified party discipline is more important than individuality for the Democratic Party.

Does this seem to explain why the DLC candidates win elections but not houses of Congress, opportunities to nominate Supreme Court Justices, and opportunities to control the Executive Branch of the federal government, and the legislative and judicial bodies of the states?

[BelgianMadCow]

38. Which elections do they win then?

Only Senate?

Having just read http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Democratic_Leadership_Council
I think I disagree with From.

[The Judged]

39. List of DLC member Governors, Senators, and Representatives is here:

New Democrat Governors

Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin
Gov. Michael Easley of North Carolina
Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan
Gov. Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware
Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona
Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas
Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa
Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia

Members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington
Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York
Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California
Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusets
Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Democratic_Leaders...

Here is a Wikipedia list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats#Members_of_t...

Members of the House New Democrat Coalition

Rep. Jim Davis of Florida
Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin
Rep. Adam Smith of Washington
Rep. Tom Allen of Maine
Rep. Joe Baca of California
Rep. Brian Baird of Washington
Rep. Melissa Bean of Illinois
Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada
Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas
Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon
Rep. Lois Capps of California
Rep. Dennis Cardoza of California
Rep. Ed Case of Hawaii
Rep. Ben Chandler of Kentucky
Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee
Rep. Bud Cramer of Alabama
Rep. Joseph Crowley of New York
Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama
Rep. Susan Davis of California
Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois
Rep. Anna Eshoo of California
Rep. Bob Etheridge of North Carolina
Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez of Texas
Rep. Jane Harman of California
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa of Texas
Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey
Rep. Mike Honda of California
Rep. Darlene Hooley of Oregon
Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington
Rep. Steve Israel of New York
Rep. Jim Langevin of Rhode Island
Rep. Rick Larsen of Washington
Rep. John Larson of Connecticut
Rep. Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota
Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York
Rep. Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York
Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York
Rep. Mike Michaud of Maine
Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina
Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald of California
Rep. Dennis Moore of Kansas
Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia
Rep. Grace Napolitano of California
Rep. David Price of North Carolina
Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas
Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas
Rep. Steve Rothman of New Jersey
Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California
Rep. Adam Schiff of California
Rep. David Scott of Georgia
Rep. Brad Sherman of California
Rep. Vic Snyder of Arkansas
Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina
Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan
Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee
Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California
Rep. Mike Thompson of California
Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico
Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida
Rep. David Wu of Oregon

Local politics are not exempt from the influence of the DLC either, though I lack the links at this moment to illustrate the #'s.

[Gloria]

14. Yesterday Reid said he "wouldn't presume" to tell Senators how

to vote on the Patriot Act/cloture thing--he said it was "a personal decision"....and I said...WTF???? PERSONAL DECISION??? WHY THE HELL NOT direct the vote???

(It's part of the press thing he had with Levin and Reed on Iraq, during the Q & A. It's up at CSpan.org under "recent videos)

[BrklynLiberal]

17. Because they are not Republicans?

[SoCalDem]

18. Because lots of dems have not figured out yet

that in order to affect policy, you must first WIN the election. Factions can bicker and argue as much as they like AFTERWARDS, but if you lose the elections you have nothing except the arguing..

For decades, dems controlled the house and senate, so they had the luxury of being contentious and rambunctious.

republicans put their shoulders to the grindstone, and with the help of billions on dollars from sleazy rich guys, they managed to get control over almost everything else..It wasn;t long before the got control of the rest of it.Dems got lazy and we are paying for it decades later.

[BelgianMadCow]

22. of course, with the Repuclican party having such a narrow POV

that leaves a lot of POV's to be covered by the Democrats. As another poster said, disagreement is kind of built-in. Maybe in that sense some third or fourth party with appreciable following could strengthen the Democrats.

Your post also made me reflect on the important differences between your and our electoral system. The POTUS and executive branch wield enormous power and the POTUS is directly chosen. We have a prime minister who is only chosen during the formation of the coalition government that most of the times comprises 4 - 6 parties.

We have a lot of compromise :-)

[1 Progressive]

21. Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back

Just when you think the Democrats have grown a spine, they waste no time in disabusing you of the hope.

But as long as we don't quit our fight, in due time, we will be heard:spank:

[BelgianMadCow]

23. Hey! Welcome to DU

There are quite some Democrats with very obvious spine. John Conyers for one.

But I agree with your frustration, a lot of them lose spine easily. When I start to wonder about that, I inevitably come up with big business and party sponsoring.

[Bill McBlueState]

25. This is an effect of the two-party system

In the two-party system, each party is by necessity an amalgamation of interest groups who don't see eye to eye on many issues. With multiple parties, a minority party can rally around an entire platform and always vote en bloc, exerting a significant effect on government.

When there are only two parties, there is much more dissent within a party since there's no realistic place for dissenters to go. So the congressional Dems are consistently fragmented, further reducing their minority status.

There *are* broad issues that unite each party, but they're vague and hard to identify. One of the broad issues for Democrats is to value diversity, which means they tend to fragment more easily than Republicans.

[UTUSN]

31. Because We Find It Sweeter to Skewer One Another Than Our Real Enemies?

That being only a PARTLY flip answer. The WHOLE of this answer is that Dems are composed of multiple groups, each with its personalized #1 agenda item, and the different #1 items might be in conflict with some other #1 items. Unions would be against NAFTA while Hispanics along the border might be FOR it, for example. It's only down the agenda items for the different groups that a consensus increases, on the more generalized topics like social justice (although there ARE groups with social justice as their own #1 item).

Otoh, some, as can be seen in flame wars here, DEMAND obeissance from everybody else regarding their own #1 agenda item, dooming hanging together.

[The Judged]

36. Al From, of the DLC says:

...

"That's wrong. Republicans may try to impose strict litmus tests, but an inclusive Democratic Party should not," From declared.

...

http://www.forward.com/articles/7027

In other words the DLC doesn't advocate that a unified party discipline is more important than individuality for the Democratic Party.

Does this seem to explain why the DLC candidates win elections but not houses of Congress, opportunities to nominate Supreme Court Justices, and opportunities to control the Executive Branch of the federal government, and the legislative and judicial bodies of the states?

[mmonk]

41. Some like

the police state and neocon foreign policy or they vote for it because they think they'll get more votes and money. That leaves democracy to those willing to fight like Feingold with Reid joining also in putting the constitution, Bill of Rights, and the country first.

[Cocoa]

42. they do

especially in the House. They've recently been voting together more than I've ever seen them do in the past.

[davsand]

43. They are Democrats--not members of any ORGANIZED party!

Getting a bunch of Dems to agree on something is about like herding cats--NOT gonna happen.


In part, this is because the Dem party does cover such a wide array of views. As a party we can't agree on some pretty simple issues, so it should be no real shock that our elected Dems don't vote as a block.

Another thing at work here is that the Dem party is not run with the same punitive attitude. People in the Dem party can (and do) break ranks and still maintain a political future. That is NOT the case in the GOP even at local levels.

Frankly, I'm more comfortable with the idea that your values and beliefs (within reason) will be tolerated. Maybe that's just me--I dunno.



Laura

[BelgianMadCow]

44. HappyfridayPatriot Kick!

Roll call on the Patriot Act cloture : only 2 (two) dems to vote yea, and what do we have : a DEM VICTORY!!!
So they can do it.

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Not Voting
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay