“Incredibly disrespectful.” That’s how the Con Man describes the conservative’s penchant for mislabeling the Democratic Party. But after learning of the Democrats’ primary electoral process, I’m inclined to agree with the assessment that the Democratic Party is decidedly undemocratic.
How else can you describe the attitude that the good of the party trumps the will of the people? At their convention in Denver this year, the Democrats may ignore the popular vote in favor of selecting the candidate the party leaders believe will be most “electable.” This is possible because of superdelegates, who may nominate a candidate that has not won the most regular delegates, thus subverting the whole notion of representative government.
“Party officials created superdelegates in the early 1980s so situations such as a deadlocked convention could be resolved by party insiders,” said nominations expert Henry Brady of the University of California at Berkeley. “There was a concern that somehow there wasn’t enough adult supervision actually by the rest of the party, and so one way to get more of the party politicos and pros into the process was to create these superdelegates.”
About 15 to 20 percent of the delegates at the Democratic convention are superdelegates, enough to upset the stated preferences of the voters. So regardless of Obama’s delegate lead, Hillary is entitled to stay in the race until the convention, at which time with the help of the superdelegates, she can still get the votes she needs to receive the nomination.
Overturning the will of the people is not only extremely undemocratic, it’s downright autocratic! A party controlled by an elite few who think they know what is best for their constituents is defined as oligarchy not democracy.
So from now on I say; “All hail the Democrat Party!”
G,
No matter what happens in the Democrat[ic] primary, don’t you think this election is a Morton’s fork<–(don't neglect to click on this link, eh?)
Cheers,
Well said Reckless. I agree.
I also think what Bill and Hillary are trying to pull with the delegates from Florida and Michigan is downright sad.
Plus, I’d love to see a woman President, just not Hillary!!!
Mitch,
The answer is yes. Furthermore, this Hobson’s choice makes a Buridan’s ass out of us.
G,
Your posts get all the best traffic…
Cheers,
Sue:
I completely agree with your point.
(And they said it couldn’t happen.)
But I also want to re-iterate my point–that calling the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party” is inherently disrespectul and pejorative. “Democrat Party” shows the power of conservative media bias, because–as I’ve realized on my show–it’s gotten so widespread people (a) don’t even know they’re doing it and (b) don’t even know it’s pejorative.
Nothing shows the power of conservative media bias than its ability to literally change the language.
All best, Michael!
Agreed. However, as I’ve learned through my letter writing, allowing the other side to get to you by responding to the negative comment, only allows them to accomplish their goal of upsetting you.
Also, I don’t see what could be more disrespectful to Democrats than their party’s system of allowing superdelegates to override the public’s preference.
So perhaps pointing out the glaring disrespect of democracy by calling it the Democrat Party will open the way for changing that system. Sometimes criticism is the best motivator for change.
I find Michael’s unwavering defense of the adjective “Democratic” when referring to the party of Carter, Mondale, and McGovern a source of mild amusement. It’s like carrying a torch for kids being called names on the playground. The bigger he makes this molehill, the sillier he seems.
I find Sue’s observation about superdelegates a far more substantive problem. The acceptance of this un-democratic practice by a party that dares to call itself “Democratic” flies in the face of the central premise of Democracy: one man [woman]-one vote. This, from the same party that got their knickers in a twist about the Electoral College after the 2000 presidential election? This is precisely the kind of crap that makes me curse my own party affiliation.
Cheers,
Well said in comment six, Sue. I agree again. — J
You want a piece of me, Itch?
I think the Publican Party deserves all the respect in the world, as does John Cain, their Presidential candidate. I think you are absolutely righ to suggest that language makes no diffidence.
From my perspective: Mission Accomplished!
And: Bring ‘Em On!
Cheers, Michael!
What amuses me most about your comment, Michael, is that when you clicked Submit, you thought you were out-deliverancing James Dickey, and with that reference, I’ll not allude to what your bellyaching sounds like.
BTW–did you hear the cost of filling up that gas tank?
Cheers,
Every time I hear a Republican use the word “Democrat party” my blood begins to boil. It’s meant as an insult. It is a base form of prejudgment, i.e. were the right party and you’re the wrong party. It’s genetic code goes back to Lee Atwater and his Willie Horton assault. It’s shorthand for either you’re with us or you’re an apologist for radical Islam. It’s as much an insult as “tar baby.” It conveys a silent wink to its sympathetic listener. It’s the verbal equivalent of the ubiquitous Republican lapel pin. It symbolizes a lockstep loyalty. It implies an in group and an out group. It’s as vulgar as a clansman with a three fingered belt-loop secret sign. It’s representative of the end of civil discourse. It’s has made politics a vulgar sport.
When George H W Bush gained the White House in ’88, he knew that Atwater/Horton tactics had compromised his vision of fair play, and in a signal to those who could hear, he called for a “kinder gentler” approach to politics and public debate. This was his mea culpa.
Super delegates are turning away from Hillary in bunches. I say she’s earned their defections because she threw her hat in the vulgar ring the day she mocked Senator Obama for his high-minded soaring speeches. Never mind that she could never come close to his eloquence. She branded it as “empty.” Hillary may have had something to offer us 30 years ago, but she has become part of the problem with politics, part of its vulgarization and devolution to secret signs and linguistic code.
Democrats/Liberals spend hours upon hours engaging in verbal gymnastics with the aim of proving that “were the right party and you’re the wrong party.” Take Con Games for instance. In the last year I’d speculate that 2/3rds of the airtime has been spent bashing Republicans/Conservatives. Entire shows, almost entire weeks have been devoted to proving that R/Cs are the bad guys and D/Ls the good guys. Yet, all of the bigotry, prejudice, massively unfair generalizations, misrepresentation and propaganda against the R/Cs can hardly match the insult magnitude of “the Democrat Party.”
I have to admire the economy of the Republicans. With just one little phrase they can convey several paragraphs, nay; several YEARS worth of insults. Now that is power!
The blind certitude of the Republican party has given us the suspension of Habeas Corpus, illegal wiretaps, torture, 4000+ fatalities in Iraq, no bid privatization of the war, $125 p/b oil, unregulated markets leading to unprecedented foreclosure rates, no discernible foreign policy beyond “axis of evil”name calling, obfuscation about 9/11, no environmental policy… It’s endless.
There are honorable Republicans Sue, but this administration has earned and richly deserves the enmity it arouses.
Have a chat with Pat Tillman’s mother. Ask a stop-loss reservist how he or she feels — then put the Con Man’s views inside the 7 years of this administration, and tell me he’s an unreasonable man.
My beef with the Con Man’s position has not been that he is wrong in condemning the policies of the Bush administration, it is that he attributes these policies to Republicans and in particular Conservatives.
Everything that is wrong with the Republican Party today can be traced to the influence of the Religious Right and the Neoconservatives, which is to say; only in the last twenty to thirty years has the train gone off the tracks. And it’s interesting to note that up until recently, the party that most Christians belonged to was the Democrat Party. Beginning in the 70s and 80s, the Religious Right made a concentrated effort to infiltrate and influence the Republican Party. Their success is evident in the misconception by people like Michael Conniff that Republican Party principles and Christian Conservative values are one and the same.
Further complicating the issue is the rise to power of the elite Neocons, whose anti-democratic policies are now associated with the Republican Party. But the Neocons were pulling the strings of the Democrats when Clinton was president too. Truly they have no party affiliation, but will utilize whatever means necessary to influence policy under either party presidency. The Neocons, who have no morality themselves, are supremely adept at manipulating the Religious Right into supporting their candidate.
This brings us to an interesting paradox. The Neocons, having convinced John McCain to co-opt their rigorous anti-Constitutional pro-war agenda, are having a hard time convincing the Religious Right to support McCain because of his pro-choice stance, reluctance to embrace anti-homosexual legislation, and lenient immigration policy. Until the Neocon campaign machine got a hold of him, John McCain exhibited the traits of a true conservative. And the Religious Right HATES that. This is why the Neocons convinced McCain against his better judgment, to seek the support of John Hagee.
Contrary to Michael’s rabid insistence, it is neither the Republican Party nor political conservatives that are to blame for America’s ills. It is the Neocons and their manipulation of Christian Conservatives that has brought us to this lowly place. Many Republicans are angry at the hijacking of their party by these two special interest groups.
Every Republican I know, myself included, ascribes to the true principals of conservatism. Over seventy percent of Americans disapprove of Bush and the Iraq war, and I’m assuming that a portion of that percentage are Republican and consider themselves conservative. This proves that true conservatives are willing to diverge from party allegiance in matters of actual conservative values.
I just wish that Conniff and other self-proclaimed Liberals would put the blame where it should really be; with the Neocons, who have about as much in common with True Conservatives as Hitler had with Gandhi.
…. but Sue, all Neocons are in fact Republicans. Is this an accident? There is no Neocon party.
If your party has been co-opted as you say, it’s evident that it’s principles were de-facto more accommodating to Neocon ideas and hence co-option.
“all Neocons are in fact Republicans. Is this an accident?”
No it isn’t an accident. It was a calculated move to co-opt the Republican Party to their purposes. Why the Republicans instead of the Democrats? As usual, follow the money. There is more money and vastly more power on the Republican side. The Republicans are also better organized and on the whole more cohesive, making it easier to pull together support for Neocon policies under the Republican umbrella. In this regard, your last statement is nearly correct. It wasn’t Republican principles that are more accommodating to Neocon ideas, but the structure of the party.
And as I said, this hasn’t prevented the Neocons from tampering with policy under Democratic leadership. Clinton’s military actions and assault on the poor through Welfare reform were orchestrated by Neocons. The mostly Jewish Neocons are also behind the pressuring of Barack Obama into voicing unconditional support for Israel despite his history of speaking up for the rights of Palestinians.
My point is, while all Neocons may be Republicans, not all Republicans are Neocons, neither are all Republicans Christian Conservatives, and in no way should Republican Party principles be equated with either group.
If as Conniff says; “Words matter,” then that should apply as well to himself and other Liberals when discussing policies that though associated with a supposedly conservative Republican administration are by no means Republican or conservative.
Hugh,
After giving it some thought, I take issue with your statement that all Neocons are Republicans. This is definitely not true, as evidenced by Charles Schumer, Marty Peretz, Joe Lieberman, and Ed Koch among others.
The Neocons arose from Leftist Democrat beginnings and only in the Reagan years, jumped ship to the Republican Party. Some Neocons remain Democrats, and it is a dangerous assumption that electing a Democrat in November will put the Neocon agenda to rest. It won’t.
The fact as you put it, that; “There is no Neocon Party,” is one of the more sinister aspects of neoconservatism because separating the Neocons from their influence on American policy is not as simple as just electing a Democrat.
What is it about torture, illegal wiretaps, war profiteering, fake journalists, the Florida recount, the environment and New Orleans that is Neoconsevative?
Neoconservative power lies solely in the ability to control…everything…everybody. This is why neoconservatism is characterized by both aggressive military interventionism as well as invasive domestic practices. They have a keen interest in knowing who their enemies are both domestic and foreign and what they are saying and doing about their opposition to Neocon policies.
To avoid much of that opposition in the first place, the Neocons have effectively taken control of the mainstream media, where they control the message. The eerily Orwellian term; “Liberal media” is a device invented by the Neocons not so much to convince conservatives that there is an unfair media bias, as to convince liberals they are getting the truth.
Since the goal of Neocons is imperialist global domination, which runs counter to the American ideal of liberty and justice, they endeavor constantly to reframe their movement into one of altruistic fostering of democracy and freedom throughout the world. This is more palatable to the American sensibility. They have also taken on the cloak of Christian Conservatism, in order to give their cause a righteous appeal. This is why so many Republicans and Conservatives have fallen under the spell of neoconservatism. Believing the Neocons are in alignment with their moral and ethical principles, they fiercely support and defend them.
But the truth is that the Neocons have no moral or ethical values. They care only for themselves, their warped sense of power, and most of all; MONEY. They have no concern whatsoever for other people, American or not. This explains their record on Katrina and the environment.
In my book the Neocons join Nazis, Zionists and Fascists as the most self-serving, violent, socially destructive movements in recent memory.
I’m not as adept as Mitch in embedding videos, so here is the link to the Rolling Stones’ “My Sweet Neocon.” This sums it up pretty well:
[Comment edited by Mitch to turn link into video]
How many times do I have to state the catastrophic failures and ineptitude of this Republican administration and its (former) congressional majorities before you’ll take an ounce of responsibility?
Failure to govern well is not Neoconservative. Appointing Brownie to head FEMA is not Neo it’s cronyism. Giving Alberto Gonzales the reigns at “Justice” is simply pathetic not neo.
Anyway Sue, you’re entering some pretty “super secret handshake” territory laying everything off on Neos. It’s a slippery slope.
[ The Republicans are also better organized and on the whole more cohesive making it easier to pull together support for Neocon policies under the Republican Umbrella ]
…and hence the most botched job of governance in the annals of modern American history.
It’s only botched by your standards. For the Neocons it’s been a spectacular success. They have more power and more money now than ever, which is their only goal.
Brownie and Gonzales are just part of the strict system of control that the neocons employ to their advantage. Appointing loyal lackeys to key positions ensures that their policies will be carried out without question.
Conspiratorial? Yes definitely. Conspiracy is the way all totalitarian regimes have operated. That doesn’t make it any less real.
The fact that the Neocons are able to successfully hide within the Republican Party suits their purposes just fine. If the Republicans go down, as they surely will, and the Democrats rise to power, the Neocons will be right there in their midst also. You can bet on it.
And the general public will be none the wiser. See, even you and Conniff think this is a Republican problem that will all go away as soon as we have a Democrat for president. Which is exactly what they want you to believe.
As far as my responsibility goes, I am a Libertarian Conservative which is the polar opposite of a Neocon. I’m a Ron Paul Republican, NOT a George Bush Republican. And I’m a Lincoln Conservative NOT a John Hagee Conservative. So don’t go pointing that finger of blame in my direction.
Just remember, you two, it’s not over until the tin foil hat lady sings:
Cheers,