I am not going to go through the various definitions that a description of a better Democrat might entail; I am sure that there are as many variable as there are Democrats, the one thing that I am addressing are voices calling for more Democrats and better Democrats. I want say up front that I think that in order to get a better Democrat, we need better politicians competing with one another. In order to get better politicians, we need better voters, that is, informed voters. Informed on issues and candidates and something that I never hear mentioned; people with first hand experience talking about politicians who are engaged in helping their communities without an eye toward public office. In order to get better voters we need better citizens, meaning those who put people first. That takes the establishment of human rights and social justice, not the establishment as is constituted in politics and business.
?Nor, I am not going to get into a chicken and egg thing about what comes first among these categories; as far as I am concerned, it happens all at once and everywhere, if it is happening at all. Regarding the idea of having more Democrats, get people to vote. Only fifty percent of the population is registered to vote; only a varying percentage of those people actually vote, 60% in a good year. Get young people to vote. Allow people easy access to voting; by mail works great for me. Otherwise, the act of voting in most U.S. elections is a stone-age procedure in a modern mass society. It is gross negligence and the minimum we can expect from a legislator.
We all know that establishments dominate politics and the Democratic Party establishment is not somehow a breed apart or pure in its actions. Oh yes, the political establishment types work and sweat, but for the money to take care of their own business and not the people’s business. They have to work for the electorate, not for bizarre fictional personae that only exist in the virtual political world of brand marketers.
?As fraught with problems as public financing of elections would be, compared to the private sector funneling of money to politicians, it is a choice between your representative listening and responding to you the voter or them, the oligarchy.
In fact, I believe the role of money can be minimized in elections when there is community consensus.
Educational non-profits need more support, more lobbying and more money from the Democratic Party to increase the knowledge base of the electorate. Simply co-opting them to serve as auxiliary cheerleaders for the party is as much a perversion as corporate profiteering. If the electorate is educated and intelligent, they will act in the best interest of society, not of one particular party. This, in turn, would make better candidates from both parties.
The partisan war may seem real with real enemies, that does not mean that it not a phony war that both parties use to recruit time and money from supporters. It bears more resemblance to the cola wars than partisan differences. I think brand marketing is the sole purpose of this war between factions that should compliment each other and be allies even if they disagree. It no longer matters who started this; the DNC has adapted to the strategy of this war too enthusiastically to be credible.
And, get the corporate money out of political campaigns. Just get it out. Politicians become power hungry once in power; money is only political steroids, not an awesome power that confers political immortality on a politician.
Our new Democratic president has chosen his cabinet from an oligarchy, one large enough to accommodate changes of party. This is not the actions of a person who believes that he can achieve anything with his overwhelming popular support or how to build a better Democratic party; only a better Democratic Party business. His actions negatively affect the social ecology, and whether or not a better Democrat can emerge from a good social ecology. ?It is pollution of our society as bad as any pollution of our environment. Money is the fossil fuel of politics.
As an analogy: For those seeking housing in a bucolic country setting without regard to its affect on the environment, they might seek a builder who has developed a tract of homes in the country, each home offering spacious rooms, air conditioning and heating, landscaped properties and sewage, power, water and natural gas infrastructure.
This activity will result in local habitat and wilderness being degraded as we witness a woodcock pecking at the asphalt or chemically poisoned lawns that offer no cover; the same piece of ground that her family has owned for ten thousand years.
Now, because of reckless development, she faces starvation as her range is diminished. ?In spring, the runoff from the rain floods every basement, in all seasons, the wastewater and runoff from the properties and smooth streets pollute streams and lakes. A home will amount to nothing more than an expensive shack in only twenty years because of the shoddy construction and flimsy materials used in order to maximize profits, quickly repay the lenders bankrolling the project and the energy put into immediate marketing impact.
The entire development is not designed to employ energy efficient strategies from architectural landscaping or building practices or green power sources and conservation strategies. Arguably, it is comfortable for the homeowners, profitable for the developer and builder but another net blight on the environment and economy. ?
As political parties mature, they develop themselves in a similar way. They destroy the social ecology with partisan disputes that can disrupt relationships, partisan strategies that are hypocritical with regard to their actions and their stated goals and the constant need to raise money to support a marketing structure that talks but does not deliver to its own community. Your candidate may say, “We are for repealing DADT but we have to wait, we are for the public option but we couldn’t get it.’’ Nice guys can be full of shit also, especially if it is your nice guy. Especially, if you are convinced winning rather than serving is the desired outcome.
The social fabric of a functioning society is disrupted with rhetorical warfare like name calling, hate speech, distortions and ad hominem attacks. ?Yet, a party is part of a whole; it can only develop to serve society by keeping it whole and keeping to its rightful niche and not disrupt the entire society to accommodate its marketing requirements. They, like our Democratic politicians are not serving us.
The political establishment cannot fight with constituents or appear to work against constituents and still win elections as long as the law says that they have to be elected. But, that leaves us with an autocratic party bureaucracy skilled in dissimulating rather than communicating. A one-way articulation of positions is not communicating. Educating voters is not working against citizens unless citizens are taken for dranted.
?Working to lobby for and support 1.5 million nonprofit grassroots organizations can only integrate the class and educational strata of the Democratic Party and spread the word of sincerity by word of mouth advertising. That is supposedly the best advertising. This should be our currency to gain power. Only craven cowardice, incompetence and fear of democracy prevent this. Yes, our side too, whichever side you are on. This is how we should spread democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq also and it is the only legitimate reason to be there.
?I can say that I am for what the Democratic Party says they are for. I will forgo listing those attributes; there is Wikipedia, C-Span, and Google etc. It is easily found and ubiquitous in articulation as is the Republican platform as well as their recent histories. I am a Democrat, I have always been a Democrat, but I am aware of when they, as a party, are doing harm.
Human rights are not mentioned in the Democratic platform. Civil rights for citizens and some economic opportunities for members of American society are listed. There is no mention of an economic Bill of Rights similar to proposals by FDR in 1944 or those mentioned in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 by the UN with the help of us the USA. Human rights day is December 10th and supposedly our country is pledged to uphold these rights. This would be a good day to remind congress that US citizens are human beings. They seem to be living in a virtual world where only corporations are human beings. Where advertising by corporations replaces the national dialog.
Democracy is a human right, the adoption of the Bill of Rights were a good first step in 1791. Conservatives did not want it; the ten amendments to the constitution declared what government could not do. Conservatives have been manipulating the Constitution against the Bill of Rights ever since because that document says what they can do. ?
I am against what Republicans are for. I believe that the extreme conservatives, who seem to be leading the Republicans around by the nose, are, in my opinion, anti democratic, anti-human, destructive and anti-American in their single-minded quest for political dominance.
So destructive that when they have no one to attack or it means attacking people who can hurt them politically, they attack one another. The much over used left/right political formula is made invalid by reactionary conservatism and establishmentarianism.
All they have as an agenda is gaining political power for the sake of holding power. ?My question is; why does the Democratic Party establishment insist on mimicking the strategies employed by the right? Those strategies are; political advertising, political operatives, political strategists, political think tanks, political fundraising and the rhetorical missile exchange. This latter is even more infuriating because conservatives can manufacture their weapons out of thin air. That is a phony war.
The political elite is working hard; being a professional politician is hard work. Helping people outside of the party establishment is hard also but is the required work of The Democratic Party structure. That should be their strategy.
Officeholders do that but only with regard to government. If an officeholder cannot help a constituent with government, that person is given the right contact information but is on his/her own. Republicans have WalMartized all of these listed political strategies that once worked for Democrats, let them have the shlock niche in the marketplace of ideas. Develop new skills.
?Differing strategies start with making better people, then better voters and then better politicians. That would make both parties better and more numerous in numbers. It would arguably, make a better country. That is what I want. I do not want self serving strategists and pundits who want to spread group think and persuade people that winning elections for the sake of winning is worth the money.

libertyvalence

libertyvalence