Congeries of cross connected concepts
When I read stories about the Democratic Party surrendering to a lame duck President or Senator Clinton hoisting her petards I don’t think “gosh, these people are inept” but “it’s not surprising when blind people walk in to walls”. Most of the people and big chunks of their supporters suffer from severe reality dysfunction as far as I can tell. Interestingly, it’s the fact that it’s not a clean sweep that’s part of their political problem. If the entire party, its leadership and members, were suffering, they could at least achieve enough unity to achieve their destructive ends. But there’s still enough of a connection that the party, en masse, can’t quite bring itself to follow through on these paths to failure. It’s not much, but it’s enough against a party (the GOP) that’s almost as bad.
My second thought is that there’s another aspect. In my view, the Democratic Party is far more principled than the GOP. Those principles have been shown to be unrealistic by history, and require increasing severe delusional states to maintain, but I would say that by and large most of the MAL really think they’re doing good. In fact, that’s likely a key part of their internal theater. The GOP, on the other hand, seems to have a lot more openly cynical people, Senator Stevens being a prime example. The interesting part is that the Democratic Party succeeds electorally to the extent it abandons its principles, while the GOP succeeds when it adheres to its principles. That’s just one more strong indication that despite all of the decline, the American Street still has more clue than our ruling class.
| Tom C.,Stamford,Ct. Friday, 14 December 2007 at 09:16 |  |
Very sensible observations. Calm, cool and collected. We have a structural problem with our federal government and the administrative, bureaucratic regime it oversees. Is it possible that the interests it has developed in it’s self-preservation take precedence over all or almost all other interests? The failure of both parties to affect any real change when in power at any given time as each descends into corruption and self-dealing would seem to indicate that the problem really is structural rather than ideological.
| cjm Friday, 14 December 2007 at 12:51 | |
war is to a society, what a fire is to a forrest — necessary for continued good health.
one of my favorite sayings applies to your take on the democrats (which I agree with):
the strongest lemming, drowns the farthest out
| Annoying Old Guy Friday, 14 December 2007 at 14:30 | |
Tom;
Yes. That’s why a lot of people think democracies are inherently unstable. As the saying goes, “once the people figure out they can vote themselves free lunches, it’s over”. It’s also why one could make a reasonable argument that FDR was the worst President ever, as almost all of this can be traced to him.
In many ways it’s a variant of the tragedy of the commons — once one group gets its largesse from the government, there’s a strong incentive for every other group to start grabbing. The only preventative is to oppose such things across the board, a point that so few pro-government “It’s for the Children™” types can grasp.
| Tom C., Stamford,Ct. Saturday, 15 December 2007 at 14:41 | |
aog- Of course, democracies are unstable. Our central government is simply not constituted as a democracy where the majority has unlimited power for just that reason. The constitution is a republican document. A federal, constitutional republic is not a democracy nor was that the intention. Why we’ve morphed into a quasi ‘democracy’ with a republican charter governed by a central authority of almost unlimited scope and reach is the story as well as a possible systemic defect.
| David Cohen Sunday, 16 December 2007 at 16:16 | |
It’s also true, though, that a period of one party dominance, and the GOP has been dominant for 25 years (meaning that an ambitious young poll with no fixed convictions (Bob Dole, say) chooses that party for career reasons), leaves the out party whittled down to its core and leaves the dominant party with members of convenience.
| Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 16 December 2007 at 17:38 | |
I disagree. I don’t think the GOP has been dominant. Over the last 25 years, Congress control has shifted multiple times, the Presidency has almost alternated, the last couple of Presidential elections have seen razor thin edges of victory, and neither party’s electoral success has provided much momentum going in to the next election. I think an ambitious politician would base his party choice on local conditions, since it doesn’t seem to mean much at the national level.
