Should Auld Acquaintance Be Forgot

On the eve of a new year with so many behind me now, I can only wonder how many may still be in the wings?

And as I review the year's events--although some may overlap a bit with  the calendar-- in my heart this is the year that my mother died, that the Democrat in the White House provoked prolonged Screaming inside my head, if not on paper, and I gave away my cat.

I also began to seek a new life partnership motivated by a gratitude about being alive that seemed to open doors heretofore invisible.

This is also the year I  began to rethink my membership in the Democratic Party. This was not a deliberate act. It was more a slowly evolving dissatisfaction like a sore that one absent mindedly scratches until you look down and see blood oozing.

Aging is a miraculous part of life's journey! But in the wake of this changing status  I find myself questioning many of my staunchest beliefs. I inheritied the Democratic Party from a Labor Leader Daddy and a working class Mom who never trusted rich people much-- and they were always Republican.

But I supported Hillary Clinton and found out more than I ever wanted to know about the failings of my chosen political party.

And then I saw the financial crises  handled by the Democrat in the White House like a Republican.  Paul Krugman  nailed Obama and his finacial advisors to the wall over and over and over again. All to no avail.  No public outcry reached a scale from which change might have emerged. In his coolness, the man we elected to change Washington elevated the status quo to new heights of impregnability.

Of course we had the silliness of the Republicans to contend with as well, and at times they weren't silly but ugly,  hateful, and antithetical to the country's well being. And so all calls for change from within could go ignored in the face of Republican insanity.

Still, can we blindly support this administration which has so abysmally failed the middle class and "main street?"

Since electing Obama, as never before, it is clear  that we are not the party of working people, that we believe we must rescue the Rich and powerful in every sphere, that we are a party now aligned with corporate interests at all costs: in finance, in health care, on the environment and in climate change.

I think we need to change the party.

How we go about it, is unclear to me. But I think there needs to be a regular column or periodic reporting of how Democrats are going about doing exactly this.

 I think we need to take this on with a seriousness of purpose and intent that will not be denied. Because if we do not, if we are content with having elected a Corporate Overseer and too many Corporate Minions bought and paid for by special interests in both the  the House and Senate, websites like mydd only serve these same interests.

We are about direct democracy here, aren't we?

I hope 2010 is the year we put that to work to rebuild the party in the image of FDR whose policies during the Great Derpession still resonate and provide a platorform on which to build and expand not retract and contract.

Social Security, Medicare and the FDIC were Democratic Party policies.

it is my New Year's wish that 2010 see our backbone resurrected and our strength of purpose undaunted.

Tags: obama, Financial crises, 2010, Republican (all tags)

Comments

15 Comments

join me?
what r your ideas, huh?
by linfar 2009-12-31 06:50PM | 0 recs
Hi linfar
I thought they "banned" you awhile back? Anyway, I have always enjoyed your thoughtful diaries. For me, I will not "blindly" accept a democrat because of his or her name anymore (I did prior to 2008 primary). But I will hold off on my criticism of Obama and the dems until I see what the final HCR bill looks like. If a woman's right to choose is further restricted and was done so by the democratic party in order to get HCR passed, then yes, I am with you. I have spent too many decades fighting for a woman's right to choose and believing that the Democratic party platform fully supported this. If these rights are restricted BY DEMOCRATS then I will leave the party, become an independent and vote for who best represents me from here on out, which, in CA may still be a DEM. Afterall, Francine Busby is better than Brian Bilbray. And, Barbara Boxer is better than Carly Fiorni. But I am open to 3rd parties as never before. The party I would like to start is the WOMAN'S PARTY. It seems to me that the group that consistently gets screwed is women. And it's women that go "blindly" into the abyss in their support of DEM candidates. But, again, I have always had my doubts about Obama - but I will still give him the benefit of these doubts until I see the FINAL FINAL of everything. He inherited the biggest mess ever and while I don't like his wall street before main street politics - I'm not sure there are or were other answers for him at the time of such a mess. I actually support the decision made to increase the troops in Afghanistan as the alternative would be disastrous (in my opinion), I'm pissed he hasn't done more for the Gay community - but he did sign a HR bill - so I will hold off forming another party until I see what the final results are. The one thing I know I don't like or want are more Repuglicants. Moving the country and planet forward into a positive and more proactive stance will never come, imo, from this fear-mongering, hateful group of people.
by nikkid 2010-01-01 12:33PM | 1 recs
RE: Hi linfar
I appreciated your thoughtful and clear commentary. I guess I am going to work to change the Party, not leave it. And if, as you say, a woman's right to choose is further compromised in the health bill--then that is all the more reason to work to change the party. Indpendents bring a lot to bear, but they do not shape platforms and policy, only provide a yeah or nay. I want to shape policy and see the Dem party restored to its roots.
by linfar 2010-01-01 01:27PM | 0 recs
RE: Hi linfar
PUMA Haka FTW:
The party I would like to start is the WOMAN'S PARTY.
Izzat you, J4H?
by TexasDarling 2010-01-01 11:34PM | 0 recs
RE: RE: Hi linfar
yeah, cause those Hillary Pumas are so much worse than the Obama PUMAs are/were.
by TeresaInPa 2010-01-02 11:23AM | 0 recs
Tee, hee...
How many elections have your "18 million strong" managed to lose so far?
by TexasDarling 2010-01-03 03:10AM | 0 recs
RE: Hi linfar
I don't think he inherited the biggest mess ever even though that is what he keeps telling us along with "everything I do is unprecedented and historic". I think Truman inherited a worse mess. How about Lincoln? I can think of several others.... He also has the most favorable odd with the senate and congress being solidly democratic. If he can't get anything done right at this point he just simply can not lead and was not ready for the job. Women get screwed because many have a bad case of being Stockholmed by the democratic party.
by TeresaInPa 2010-01-02 11:22AM | 0 recs
Hey linfar, Happy 2010!
Glad you've found new open doors, sorry you had to deal with loss, glad you've found some value in the process. I hope my own passing will serve as yet one more chance to manipulate my own kids for their own good (every parent's final wish). You know the sorts of answers I'd give to some of your questions, I'll toss out a few of them for the cloud of lurkers. It should come as no surprise that the Democratic Party (or the GOP, for that matter) take a different route than their most adamant supporters would choose for them. Idealism and Pragmatism are an Odd Couple who will never come to complete agreement. While for my part I will always cheerlead for Pragmatism, if everyone else did as well I might be attempted to switch to Idealism - there is a functional need for both. So, leaving you and others to lead the Idealist charge, I'll throw in my stock points in support of Pragmatism: o elected majority parties are much more capable of advancing issues - albeit more slowly than Idealists might prefer - than defeated minority parties. o there is pragmatically very little chance of Idealism on either end of the circular political spectrum becoming common political policy (with the possible caveat of "without bringing with them tremendous problems"). Have a good decade! -chris
by chrisblask 2010-01-01 02:30PM | 1 recs
RE: Hey linfar, Happy 2010!
Hi Chris, Happy new year to you and yours. We have had this discussion before I think? And I can argue both sides. But we are about to have a "new" health care bill that will set us back Animal farm has come to pass and "new speak" reigns so that many things are the oppsoite of what they are labeled. I perceive the health care bill to be a fiasco at this point. And we are in the world of corporate apeasement, which has little to do with the old way of thinking about compromise, idealism and pragmatism. The Dems have given away the store--and getting nothing except a whole bunch more clients for Big Pharma. We have to face the way our candidates are bought and paid for by corporate interests and work to stop it.
by linfar 2010-01-01 06:01PM | 0 recs
Irony all around
I supported Barack Obama and worked for his campaign from the first days of the primary on through the general election victory the night of November 4th, 2008.

It's a common misconception that I must therefore hate or otherwise harbor hard feelings towards the Madame Secretary. This is not the case. I am aware of bitter primary wars being fought over on Daily Kos back then. Interestingly, one task I had after the convention was to bring and comfort Clinton supporters into the Obama campaign. So nothing revolts me more than reliving those wars today.

I do not believe that is what you are doing, though. Not at all. Rather, you are expressing concerns held by Democrats across the primary board.

Ironically, I supported Secretary Clinton's health care mandates, and I still do. As much as Barack Obama scored cheap political points off of the mandates in the primary, watch as his detractors will attempt to score the same cheap points off of him now. All's fair in politics. What is missing so far in the unfinished bill is a cost control option to go with those mandates. But like Paul Krugman, I support passage of the bill and generating political will to improve upon it later.

I have read a lot from the pundits. Remember, we live in a punditocracy, which simply means the Paul Krugman and his Nobel prize can make all the compelling arguments about supporting the health care bill or lambasting Barack Obama's handling of the economy he wants, but that doesn't make him right. Ironically, the more information we have, the harder it is to tell fact from fiction, or just opinion. So keep trusting your heart as you are.

Also, democrats love to view certain aspects of history with rose colored glasses, including and especially the period of FDR.

I think this can be, ironically, as self-destructive as those who viewed Obama as a superman during the election. Fantasy and reality are eventually going to clash -- FDR just has the benefit of history during a far less critical time.

Neither FDR nor Obama had the ability to magically change their world, and in both cases, there were notable gaps between rhetoric and action. Each has a unique set of challenges, and each has (or will have) their setbacks, especially early on. I'm going to copy from Wikipedia here, but in the 1938 election, Democrats lost six Senate seats and 71 House seats. Losses were concentrated among pro-New Deal Democrats. Of course, Roosevelt enjoyed a 67 seat majority and a much more visible national emergency. When Congress reconvened in 1939, Republicans under Senator Robert Taft formed a Conservative coalition with Southern Democrats, virtually ending Roosevelt's ability to get his domestic proposals enacted into law. The minimum wage law of 1938 was the last substantial New Deal reform act passed by Congress. That was, until 1941...

I, too, am disappointed by an apparent lack of anti-corporate rhetoric from the Administration. But I also wonder what solutions are available that are not being pursued. I believe, as Sen. Ron Wyden so often states, social justice is never won in Round 1. Many of the social programs we attribute to FDR were started off piecemeal and later expanded (by LBJ).

So this is no defense of the administration, but rather an appeal for cautious optimism. It took years for unemployment to come down during the Depression, and it double dipped under the Democrats skyrocketing back up in 1938.
by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-01 08:04PM | 1 recs
yick
one task I had after the convention was to bring and comfort Clinton supporters into the Obama campaign. ugh, that is so patronizing. You can't bring people in to the fold after you have stolen their votes and cheated them.
by TeresaInPa 2010-01-02 11:27AM | 0 recs
ps...
i am still a democrat, but I didn't get a fucking pony yet and Obama is turning out to be everything I knew he would be...self aggrandizing with only his legacy as his concern.
by TeresaInPa 2010-01-02 11:29AM | 0 recs
Protip
i am still a democrat, but I didn't get a fucking pony yet
If you want ponies, get f--cked by horses.
by TexasDarling 2010-01-03 03:12AM | 1 recs
Is this a joke?
Did the software upgrade installed on MyDD create some form of time paradox where PUMA comments are now filtering in a year and a half late? 99% of the Hillary Clinton supporters I worked with acknowledged that she lost fair and square, and were happy to be a part of the Democratic party. There is always that 1% of any population, though.
by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-03 01:06PM | 0 recs
Good diary
but the dems have been captured by corporate interests for several decades so you're a bit late to the party.
by JJE 2010-01-03 12:27AM | 2 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads