10 June 2005
What's Dean Doing?
For all his thunder during the last campaign, Dr. Dean seems to have disappeared into the maelstrom that is the leadership counsel of the Democratic Party. It there is to be a chance for the Democrats to win big in 2006 and 2008, party leaders should be visible and listening to their constituencies about what the voters care about. As the Economist commented recently, the same, tired old planks of the Democratic Party of the 20th Century don't work anymore. There's a truism in life: if the way one's been trying to succeed has led to defeat, the answer is not to try harder doing the same, failing strategy. Do it differently!
My view is that the National Democratic Party should define specific sub-parties or caucuses by political affinity. That is, there could be a Conservative Caucus, a Progressive Caucus, a Rainbow Caucus, Black, Latino, Asian and Anglo Caucuses, a Liberal Caucus, etc. The NDP would function as a coalition of the many with greater attention to the issues of the individual caucuses. For a country the size of the US, a two-party electorate is a myth. All Democrats (or Republicans) do not agree on everything their party advocates and the candidates offered to the voters. So why not make the local groups part of one of the caucuses? For instance, conservative Democrats in New Hampshire would join with those in Arkansas and Idaho, thereby having the strength of numbers unlikely at any particular local district. Membership in the governing council of the National Democratic Party would be apportioned by caucus with parity among the members. The larger caucuses would represent more numbers, yet the positions of smaller caucuses could be heard. Ultimately, the party platform should reflect the majority view, i.e., the largest number of Democrats forming coalitions around different positions for the party to take. I think the internal process would become more visible to the public, and that's a good thing.
Post a Comment
My view is that the National Democratic Party should define specific sub-parties or caucuses by political affinity. That is, there could be a Conservative Caucus, a Progressive Caucus, a Rainbow Caucus, Black, Latino, Asian and Anglo Caucuses, a Liberal Caucus, etc. The NDP would function as a coalition of the many with greater attention to the issues of the individual caucuses. For a country the size of the US, a two-party electorate is a myth. All Democrats (or Republicans) do not agree on everything their party advocates and the candidates offered to the voters. So why not make the local groups part of one of the caucuses? For instance, conservative Democrats in New Hampshire would join with those in Arkansas and Idaho, thereby having the strength of numbers unlikely at any particular local district. Membership in the governing council of the National Democratic Party would be apportioned by caucus with parity among the members. The larger caucuses would represent more numbers, yet the positions of smaller caucuses could be heard. Ultimately, the party platform should reflect the majority view, i.e., the largest number of Democrats forming coalitions around different positions for the party to take. I think the internal process would become more visible to the public, and that's a good thing.
<< Home
