Are the Democrats the Party of Nothing?

Question

We've seen this before. In 2002 the Democrats' message was, "Get back at 'em for 2000." In 2004, it was, "Bush sucks. I'm not Bush. Vote for me." Now, it's?"Republicans suck. We're not Republicans. Vote for us." And that, friends, is the extent of it. There's no cohesive message beyond this. Even when speaking about the problems in Iraq-admittedly a troubling endeavor for many people, to say the least-the Democrats really have nothing new to say. In fact, what they do say is so old, it's reminiscent of what they've said in conflicts past-if it gets tough, run away.

In congressional races that are tight, it has-as in most cases-more to do with the character of the contest between two individuals than with any one national policy. This is to say that the local character of the race is what ends up being most important.

Admittedly, the Democrats are poised to pick up enough seats to retake the majority in the House of Representatives and will, in all likelihood, close the gap in the Senate, barring an outright takeover there as well. But is this because their ideas are now, after all this time, just that much more appealing?

Not hardly.

Their ideas didn't resonate all those other times because their ideas aren't popular. They aren't resonating now, either. To the extent that the situation in Iraq has had an effect on this election cycle, it's simply because the situation there looks consistently bad, not because the Democrats' alternative on Iraq has any great appeal. This is because there is no coherent Democrat alternative on Iraq, other than running away, very fast.

Winning enough seats in the house because the current majority has problems is hardly an affirmation that anything liberals stand for is worthwhile, which it's not. They will of course convince themselves this is not true, that they've won the philosophical argument for all time just like they did in 1992? two years before they lost it again. What is missing from this logic is the fact that what Democrats normally campaign on remains essentially unchanged from 1992, and that's the last time it did them any good.

In the final analysis, if the Democrats do take over one or both houses of Congress, it will be in spite of themselves, not because they've won anybody over. That will still give them control of that branch of the government, but when all is said and done, that's a flimsy foundation upon which to rest a so-called revolution.

For Katie: I pay attention very well to what Democrats are saying. Living in the DC area, I get to see the Senate campaigns in Maryland and Virginia. In neither case are the Democrats talking about the issues. Every commercial in the MD race says that Steele is a friend of Bush and will do anything Bush wants. In Virginia...all they are talking about is that Allen is a racists...although Webb's past isn't that great either.

Answer 1

It appears that not only the Democrats are the party of nothing but so are the Republicans. Why is it that someone like Ralph Nader is just labelled as an eccentric when people like him and there are others out there like him in the other parties that no one ever thinks seriously about, are totally ignored as serious candidates because they do not fit the cookie cutter appeal of the Dems or the Repubs? America gets what they ask for, and they have been asking for trouble by electing anyone from these parties, but hey who am I to tell you, you know it all and no one will ever persuade you otherwise. It is Democrat or Republican or Republican or Democrat and look what trouble you are in for the choices that you have allowed to happen. Hey America there is another way to do this, all you have to do is be willing to let the other guys, not all of them, not overnight, but let some of the other guys have a chance.

Answer 2

While you do make some valid points, i find some of your statements to be inaccurate. While the Democrats do seem to have a problem forming a cohesive message as a party, the Democrats that stand to make the biggest changes, and perhaps take the White House have very clear messages as far as what they stand for and what they want to do. The reason the Republicans are in power now, in my opinion is because they are willing to take a highly divisive issue, (abortion, gay marriage, or rather gay anything) and pick a side and tell the other side to jump off a cliff. The result, everyone that agreed with them voted for them. The Democrats tried to meet people half way on such issues and in turn, failed to squarely reach either. I honestly think that government should have less partisan "us vs them" rhetoric, but the Republican voters clearly responded to it.

And as for your critique that the Democrats don't stand for anything worth while, given the state of the government, how its constantly coming up with new reasons to see it at being incompetent and untrustworthy, Democrats standing for change is in itself worthwhile.

Answer 3

No... the democrats I think are just a little bit more concerned with the long term rather than "jumping the gun" and going to war without well laid plans. You would think someone would have anticipated the insurgent reaction in Iraq...Doesn't take a rocket scientist considering the Middle Easts' rocky and sordid past...not to lump middle easterners into a group...believe me, I love putting faith into the individual, but this was a definite possibility that should have been protected against a little better than it has, in my opinion. As for democrats' flimsy campaign stances, I think that it being obvious that you are not a democrat, you probably would not have, in any of the elections, paid very close attention to the issues that democrats campaigned for in any case...If you want to make a substantial argument, you might want to try NOT getting your information frrom biased sources, or using "selective hearing". Sometimes to exert will, you don't need to appear a big, bad, gunslinging republican.

Answer 4

once you're a newborn-kisser, you will lie it particularly is the fact of the problem. the two factors lie, yet my feeling is that republicans lie with absolute impunity and for the purpose of attempting to create worry. Democrats lie, genuinely. it particularly is only my feeling on the area.

Answer 5

geroge w. bush is a dumbass.Dear god I wish 4 anyone else but geroge w. bush aka dumbass. To be president. Let me tell u sumn. George dumbass bush is the WORST president ever seen. Democrats arent bringin old news in. There trying to fix things by bringing up the old news there bringing up new newz as well for every bad decision george bush is making .

Answer 6

Mainly, democrats main argument is "We have to stop behaving in this way, unless we want the world to hate us." I personally am worried about what is going to happen when this economy collapses. I mean, WHO THE HECK IS GOING TO WANT TO TAKE IN AMERICAN REFUGEES? A bunch of whining self-righteous jerks who had it soooo well for so long, but who everyone in the world now hates.
Plan? Remind me again what Bushies plan is? And what WAS his "plan' before this current war? "greeted as liberators" is not a plan.
The claim that they repeat the same thing over and over is cliche. Meaning it is republicans who rely solely on marketing slogans like "cut and run". Hey dude under me, real freaking original dude.
How many of the ordinary citizen is really getting anything off his "tax cuts" I havent seen any change whatsoever in my taxes since he has taken office. The tax cuts are for the rich, not the average citizen of this country.

Answer 7

I agree. What do the democrats stand for as a party anymore? In my opinion, a democrat is just as likely to sell you down the river as a republican. Although, I must say...

Ron Paul is a great Republican!

Sadly, The left/right paradigm is a controlling mechanism to get people squabbling about issues of little or no significance.

I vote what I believe.I vote Libertarian

Answer 8

Well i do agree that Dems have been repeating the same thing over and over. They have no real strategy. Just think if the Dems were figthing the war!! RUN!!!! Anyways the Dems should cal themselves DARP(Duck And Run Party)

Answer 9

Yes, they have no plans and when they do spout off a sembalance of a Plan it is followed with "Bush Sucks"

Answer 10

I don't believe there is a 'true' democratic party anymore. A vast majority of the so-called Democrats are members of the Social-Dem party. They have a Socialist-Ideal of America and that is what they're pushing for. Here is the list:

Congressional Members of the
Progressive Caucus
(sorted by state)

Rep Earl Hilliard (AL-07)
Rep Eni Faleomavaega (AS-AL)
Rep Ed Pastor (AZ-02)
Rep Lynn C Woolsey (CA-06)
Rep George Miller (CA-07)
Rep Nancy Pelosi (CA-08)
Rep Fortney "Pete" Stark (CA-13)
Rep Henry A. Waxman (CA-29)
Rep Xavier Becerra (CA-30)
Rep Julian C. Dixon (CA-32)
Rep Esteban Edward Torres (CA-34)
Rep Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Rep George E. Brown (CA-42)
Rep Bob Filner (CA-50)
Rep Diane DeGette (CO-01)
Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL)
Rep Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Rep Carrie P. Meek (FL-17)
Rep Alcee L. Hastings (FL-23)
Rep Cynthia A. McKinney (GA-04)
Rep John Lewis (GA-05)
Rep Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Rep Patsy Mink (HI-02)
Rep Jesse Jackson (IL-02)
Rep Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Rep Danny Davis (IL-07)
Rep Lane Evans (IL-17)
Rep Julia Carson (IN-10)
Rep John Olver (MA-01)
Rep Jim McGovern (MA-03)
Rep Barney Frank (MA-04)
Rep John Tierney (MA-06)
Rep David Bonior (MI-10)
Rep Lynn N. Rivers (MI-13)
Rep John Conyers (MI-14)
Rep Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02)
Rep Melvin L. Watt (NC-12)
Rep Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Rep Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Rep Major Owens (NY-11)
Rep Nydia M. Velazquez (NY-12)
Rep Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Rep Maurice Hinchey (NY-26)
Rep John LaFalce (NY-29)
Rep Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Rep Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Rep Louis Stokes (OH-11)
Rep Sherrod Brown (OH-13)
Rep Elizabeth Furse (OR-01)
Rep Peter A. DeFazio (OR-04)
Rep Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Rep William Coyne (PA-14)
Rep Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo (PR-AL)
Rep Robert C. Scott (VA-03)
Rep Bernard Sanders (VT-AL)
Rep James A. McDermott (WA-07)

Anyway, they DO have a platform, but if they thought Americans caught on, they'd lose the election. Calling Bush names is their way of distracting the public from their Socialist agenda. Vote Rep, Vote, LIbertarian, Vote Green, Vote Independent--but make sure you DON'T vote for the Socialists (ie-Dems)!