» The Democrats write their own epitaph.

15 January 2006 - 6:04pm

The Democrats write their own epitaph.

Marisacat's picture

Kind of them, at last.

They admit they saw this coming (who did not?), and today not even the most slavish Democratic exhortation site can muster the usual pro-leadership slobber.

The Democratic push began in earnest on the last weekend of April 2001, when 42 of the 50 Democratic senators attended a retreat in Farmington, Pa., to hear from experts and discuss ways they could fight a Bush effort to remake the judiciary.


Emmett Till and his mother,
Mamie Bradley, 1955

[NAACP photo]

But why plan early (they claim they did) when later they willingly state the following:

Democratic aides said there had been even less strategy than usual in trying to coordinate the questioning by the eight Democratic senators. The situation was complicated because senators and staff were out of Washington before the hearing.


Selma to Montgomery march, 1965
[NY World Telegram and Sun collection]

As I read the Nagourney article in the NYT yesterday, the pale walls around me turned to blood, blood red. I was shocked at my anger.


"By Any Means Necessary"
Malcolm X, d. February 21, 1965

All I ask is this: please box the party up, give the carcass a burial. From CNN, Jonathan Turley on Saturday:

NGUYEN: Yes, going through the motions, but what are we truly learning?

Jonathan, let me ask you this very quickly.

Do you think he will be confirmed?

TURLEY: I think he will, and he will owe that to the Democrats. I think they have done a perfectly horrible job in advancing their interests here.

They lacked strategy, direction, discipline. There's little evidence of a Democratic Party.

And I think most of us are very surprised about it. If they can't muster their troops on this one, I don't understand when they could.

NGUYEN: Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, thanks so much for speaking with us this morning.


Edmund Pettus Bridge, Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965

Not much to say.

I, and many others, have spent years railing at the party for lack of strength, lack of cohesion, lack of purpose, lack of real and therefore visible belief in the great civic changes that they had been privileged to assist into being. Yes, those who fought and died needed a political partner, however fractured.


Edmund Pettus bridge March 7 1965
[Estate of Martin Luther King, jr]

Across decades, they have walked away, abandoned, left town, turned away, did not show up. Finally, as a party they just morphed, became the lesser versions of the modern Republicans.

Bush is outcome, but so is Reid.


"ABC News interrupted the network's Sunday night movie, the premiere showing on television of Judgment at Nuremburg (a movie about bringing to justice the Nazis guilty of war crimes in World War II), to show 15 minutes of raw and dramatic footage from the attack on the Edmund Pettus Bridge."
[Isserman and Kazin, America Divided, p. 136]

What the Democrats walked away from (above all else, the list is long) is the vote. People died in this country for the vote, it is the truth... They were imprisoned for the right to organise to register others to vote. Women were beaten and tortured in prison for the vote. Blacks and whites died, side by side, for the right to vote.


Chaney Schwerner Goodman,
Philadelphia MS, August '64

If you abandon the right to vote, you have abandoned the electorate and, further, you have abandoned the citizenry. There is no worse crime committed in office.

The Democrats need to stop talking about Bush... and look to themselves.


Martin Luther King, Jr., speaking in support of striking AFSCME sanitation workers
at Mason Temple, Memphis, April 3, 1968

0

Comments

liza's picture
liza says:

My take on their demise lies on this question :

When it comes to civil rights, what kind of an activist are you?

I have chosen not to answer yet because I have a longer piece on this coming, especially as to how it is reflected on the activist base. I'll start the conversation by saying : those who believe the civil rights and feminist movements were just about social mobility are the ones who got us into this mess in the first place. Why? Because it's the foundation for reactionary politics.

What real progressives are working towards is a transformational politics. It's much larger than elections or nominations. But in this country, as long as the left insists on not addressing class issues, we are going to be fucked.

It's just that simple.

===================================

Culture + Politics + Technology

www.culturekitchen.com

New York grassroots news and activism

www.dailygotham.com

Personal Blog

www.lizasabater.com

Feminist Bloggers Network

www.blogsheroes.com


(16 January 2006 - 2:09pm)
Marisacat's picture
Marisacat says:

once again a pivotal nomination exposes the current state of affairs with the party... it is academic to me, I am not a Democrat anymore. It will take more than "real progressives" to work on the state of the nation... That, to me, was the message out of the DAR Constitution Hall today.

However, the much defended "Gang of 14" is not the way to go...

I found Liberal Oasis useful today, but then I rather like Bill Scher.

And Feinstein’s and Schumer’s pre-hearing threats were exposed as empty.

Granted, failure to articulate principles yesterday doesn’t preclude a party and its grassroots from articulating them today.

It just makes it harder.

You’re starting a game plan from scratch instead of executing a long-term strategy.

You’re making a complicated multi-issue case in a short timeframe, instead of over the course of months and years.

There was enough ammo from the Alito hearings, his writings, and his rulings to start what should have began months ago.

But you had to work for it.

You couldn’t sit back and expect opposition to Alito to magically be stirred. You have to stir it yourself.

Apparently, the current lot of fossilized Dem Senators have forgotten how to do that.

Since another Supreme Court battle is always around the corner, they either need to figure it out, or move aside for some new blood, for us to have any chance of stopping the bleeding that is being inflicted on the Court


(16 January 2006 - 10:29pm)
Rad Geek's picture
Rad Geek says:

"Across decades, they have walked away, abandoned, left town, turned away, did not show up. Finally, as a party they just morphed, became the lesser versions of the modern Republicans."

Not so many decades ago, George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Jim Eastland, Richard Russell, Bull Connor, and nearly all the other deadly enemies of the Freedom Movement in the South were Democrats. Those billy-clubs and mounted cops and attack dogs were ordered by Democrat governors and Democrat commissioners. Many of these folks were the elite of their state parties and power brokers in the highest levels of government and the national party committee. Established "liberal" Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Hubert Humphrey and Jack Kennedy depended on their favor, bent over backwards to please them, and stonewalled or went on the offensive against civil rights activists such as the delegates from the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party who stood up to challenge the stranglehold of militant white supremacy within the Southern state parties.

How could the Democrats walk away from anything when they were never there to begin with?


(18 January 2006 - 2:57am)
Marisacat's picture
Marisacat says:

I am well aware of Dixiecrats and I am well aware of pro-biz, pro- war, anti-woman Democrats in all parts of the country all the way back. If we wish, wtih little trouble we can trace Iraq, the road to Iraq, bck to Scoop Jackson, it is not hard. Or Charlie Wilson, of the Crile book, Charlie Wilson's War

There has always been many parts to the party. I very carefully did not credit the party, I called them a fractured politcal partner. However without political actions made by several presidents, however reluctantly, there would have been little but the struggle and the dying.

It is not like Malcolm got a great reception inside his own race and neither did Martin. Even Martin could not fight publicly for the civil rights that Bayard Rustin needed, gay rights. Bayard would on occasion not be present for marches and meetings in some towns, not safe, not advisible, not wise.

Who sold out Blacks soon, the Democratic city machines. And Reagan was pacified in his befuddlement: ''just call them Mr Mayor''.

That does sum it up.

Sam Ervin sat on the Watergate committee but so did Barbara Jordan.

AFAIAC Sen Shelby could return to the Democrats today, they'd be delighted.


(18 January 2006 - 11:15pm)

store

Not Your Emininent Domain!

Buy stuff here.

» The Democrats write their own epitaph.