Not All Democrats Are Our Fellows

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 16:45

While logically fallacies are still a fresh topic in my mind, allow me to take issue with another one that has always annoyed me. Specifically, I am referring to the idea that Democrats, a partisan organization, are interchangeable with ideologically left-wing organizations:

"The President discussed how the current tone and culture in Washington made it more difficult than it has been in the past to work in a bipartisan fashion. In particular, he singled out Republican Senators who are trying to work in a bipartisan fashion even in the context of a vocal minority in their party who doubt that the President was born in the US. In this context about the less productive tone of the debate in Washington, he said he didn't like to see 'left wing groups attack fellow 'Democrats.'

Since President Obama isn't actually asking any of the left-wing organizations running ads against Democrats on health care to stop doing so, I find this irritating primarily on a logical level rather than on a political one.

First, if President Obama assigns such high value to non-partisanship, why does he wish that left-wing groups would stop attacking "fellow Democrats?" Attacking "fellow Democrats" would be a non-partisan act. As such, one would think that President Obama would praise it, rather than wish it would stop. Make he only values bi-partisanship, rather than non-partisanship.

Second, partisanship is not interchangeable with ideology. Just because a group is left-wing does not make them a Democrat, and just because someone is a Democrat does not make tem left-wing. Many of the Democrats being targeted by left-wing ads would agree. Check out the Blue Dogs explaining the etymology of their name:

The 52 conservative and moderate Democrats in the group hail from every region of the country, although the group acknowledges some southern ancestry which accounts for the group's nickname. Taken from the South's longtime description of a party loyalist as one who would vote for a yellow dog if it were on the ballot as a Democrat, the "Blue Dog" moniker was taken by members of The Coalition because their moderate-to-conservative-views had been "choked blue" by their party in the years leading up to the 1994 election.

It is hypocritical for Democrats who describe themselves as "conservative and moderate" and who attack the Democratic Party for choking them blue to say that they should be exempt from attacks by left-wing groups on the grounds that both they and the left-wing groups are all Democrats. If Democrats want to be exempt from attacks by left-wing groups, then at a minimum those Democrats should at least describe themselves as left-wing. Otherwise, a double-standard in simply being invoked.

Leaving the logical nitpicking aside for a moment, one thing I do like about this story is that President Obama is offering vocal support to a center-right position (getting left-wing groups to stop attacking conservatives and moderates), but then not doing anything to make that center-right position a reality. It is nice to see that he sometimes only offers symbolic support to center-right wing positions, too.

Chris Bowers :: Not All Democrats Are Our Fellows

Tags: ideology, partisanship, Democrats, President Obama, Blue Dogs, progressive movement, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Not All Democrats Are Our Fellows | 6 comments

Have blue dogs (4.00 / 2)

ever shown restraint in attacking progressives Democrats? It's always one way with them.

F..k blue dogs.

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 15:57:50 PM CDT

But they aren't really Democrats .. (0.00 / 0)

First, if President Obama assigns such high value to non-partisanship, why does he wish that left-wing groups would stop attacking "fellow Democrats?"

Blue Dogs/DLC aren't Democrats ... just look at what we learned about Max Baucus last week .. he's only a Democrat because that was the best way to further his political career .. not because he cares what the party stands for

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 16:41:58 PM CDT

Origin of Blue Dogs (0.00 / 0)

This is so full of nonsense even the origin of the term Blue Dog is wrong. The group originally met in several congressional offices including Billy Tauzin's (then a Democrat). Tauzin (and IIRC the other House with hosting duties) had thos pictures of dogs playing cards on the walls of their office. The picture included some blue dogs. It has nothing to do with choking. Hey, those Blue Dogs are choking the whole country. Rotten *@^*@$!*.

The Dogs are not as southern as you think and I really think Obama should have been putting the screws on to get at least 20 of them to disassociate. Let them be New Democrats or something. This group needs to be broken. They are whiney jerks who have money but give it to each other rather than paying some of their dues and are a constant drain as even veteran Dogs take out money. In the 2006 cycle, the Blue Dogs were pretty much a net breakeven. The rest of the caucus supported the campaigns to win back the House and coincidentally elect a lot of these snivelling jerks.

And while we are at it ditch the bi-partisan crap. Yes, it helped pass Civil Rights but that was more than 40 years ago. Very little big gets done in DC except on a partisan basis.

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 17:23:20 PM CDT

He may hate to see it, (4.00 / 2)

but if he doesn't change his tune, he's gonna see a lot more of it. This Pope of Moderation routine is not only tedious, it's enormously destructive to his own natural constituency.

by: William Timberman @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 17:34:35 PM CDT

The meaning of the term "Democrat" is too ambiguous to be useful (4.00 / 1)

The two major political parties, Republican and Democrat, no longer possess comprehensive or coherent principles or policy priorities that differentiate them from each other, or differentiate their elected representatives or electoral candidates from each other.

We are witnessing a disintegration of the political meaningfulness of the two parties. Obama is making things immeasurably worse by opportunistically trying to create a winning electoral base for himself by wooing voters from outside the party, now that the party only contains 33% of registered voters, and the bloc of Independent/unaffiliated voters represents 39% of voters.

The reason he is doing this is that he either lacks a coherent set of principles and policy priorities or is afraid to publicly espouse the one he has. Not only is he failing to lead the country in a direction that champions the general welfare against the ravages of predatory corporate interests, but he is encouraging the predators to do even more harm by his willingness to compromise with them at every turn.

Since he now controls the Democratic party apparatus and is leading it in an even more compromising direction, he is in effect pre-empting any opposition from building up inside the party.

We are in a deplorable mess. At least when George W. Bush was in office, we could take refuge in the hope that the Democratic Party would run a candidate who would offer alternatives. With the Obama administration in the White House and far too many two-faced, influence-peddling Democrats controlling Congress, what we have is a watered-down version of the special-interest dominated Bush administration sitting right in the middle of the Democratic Party.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.

by: Nancy Bordier @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 21:35:59 PM CDT

Moderate Dem favoring good public policies (0.00 / 0)

I am a moderate Dem, somewhat conservative in reaction to left rhetoric, on impulse dislike liberals. I would be a moderately conservative Social Democrat if we had a Social Democratic movement in the US.

I support the following policies, plus others, and do not consider them to be "left." Of course I am in reality a Social Democrat so would not consider these policies "left."

... A public option similar to Medicare for health reform. Would prefer the economies of a single payer system but that's out in our corporate republic.

... Universal child care payments with no fuss and no snooping.

... In addition to Social Security, a deposit of $1000-$5000 at birth to be invested conservatively (at least 50% in US bonds), allowed to be added to each year, with the added amount as a reduction, for tax purposes, to one's income. Payouts to be gin at 60, 62, 65, or 68.

... School vouchers for parents in poor, targeted zip code areas.

... Strong regulation and severe penalties for all financial firms, with the first principle "do not lie to or do harm to your customers." This principle would take precedence over "maximize returns to your investors." Strong tax incentives for mutually held financial corporations rather than publicly traded corporations. imprisonment/return of all past bonuses, with interest, for financial company executives ho are caught violating regulations. Bonuses with 5 and 10 year claw-backs for all trading personnel and executives.

... Simpler tax codes and tax forms.

... Skills training centers for poor neighborhoods, plus free buses from poor neighborhoods to community colleges.

... Strong training and high pay for public facility day care workers. No unionization though.

... Consolidation of school districts, continuing professional education, rewards for collaborative work, and no unionization for teachers. Let them be protected by strong public legislation and bring grievances to elected officials.

...

by: Citizen0 @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 09:34:45 AM CDT