|
Volume CXXXII, Number 14 |
 |
On the Democrats
ANDY CASHMAN
CONTRIBUTOR
Since the devastating Democratic defeat in November, many people have been discussing the future of the Democratic Party. Last semester, Todd Buell's column discussed the need for the Democrats to move ideologically right.
Just last week, Patrick Rockefeller wrote that the party's extreme left was hindering its appeal to many Americans. With so much advice from the Republicans, it seems necessary for a Democrat to weigh in on the matter.
The fact is that our party has seen better days. We have lost the political edge in Washington and, as many a political junkie will tell you, with it, the American people. The problem, of course, arises from many factors. Among these are poor party leadership, foggy ideology and policy, lack of party participation and loyalty, and other contributing factors. However, at the heart of each of these issues is a fundamental problem within our party that must be corrected soon if we are to regain political power. That problem is the splintering of the key interest groups within the party.
These groups represent numerous interests ranging from women's rights to affordable health care. It is just this diversity of interests that makes the Democratic Party stronger and a good representation of the wide array of people in our country. The Republicans, no matter what they may say or whom they may quote, only represent the interests of the people in the top five percent of income levels. This point was accentuated last week when we learned that the key feature of Bush's tax plan was the elimination of a tax on dividends.
Clearly, it is far easier to unite the interests of the few groups within the Republican Party than it is to do the same with the more diverse interests of the Democrats. However, without a clear coalition of these groups within the Democratic Party, these groups, and the party itself, will lose any ability to enact change that favors their interests.
Indeed, too many members of the party are focused exclusively on one or two issues embraced by the Democrats. These people vote and volunteer exclusively because of their interest in that particular topic.
As a result, they may not vote for the party, but rather for a candidate, Republican, or even Green, who plays to this interest. But when push comes to shove, these candidates don't follow through with their promises. Did an environmentalist who voted for Nader or Bush improve the quality of our air or water? Certainly not; we're reducing the regulations on power plant emissions. What about the pro-choice women who supported Bush, who, as a compassionate conservative, "wasn't that bad?" Nope, they saw Bush repeal funding early on for family planning abroad, a move that threatened reproductive rights.
These problems could have been avoided had these groups better supported the Democratic Party and elected someone who really would support their interests.
In taking such a myopic approach to politics, these people threaten the success of their own cause while undermining the strength of the Democratic Party. It is only through a combined effort of all these interests that real change may be enacted. Otherwise, each group will become ineffective as they attempt redundant activities, and yield little lobbying power.
In conclusion, what the Democratic Party really needs is cooperation and participation. The interest groups within the party need to sit down together and work out an agreement to work together to better serve their own interests and the good of the whole.
Bowdoin will soon provide a model for this solution, as the social interest groups on campus (including the Evergreens, Democrats, BWA, BGSA, and others) will meet regularly to discuss and coordinate their efforts. May this spirit of cooperation spread throughout our nation and breathe life back into our party.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |