I don't belong to any organized political party.
I'm a Democrat.

While historically the Democrats go back at least as far as Jefferson (though in name to Jackson in 1828), I don't think the current Democratic Party represents an old tradition at all.

The political thought at the root of the current Democratic Party probably couldn't be traced to the New Deal or even to Kennedy. Even McGovern, a WWII pilot who didn't support abortion on demand, is a little conservative for the current Democratic Party.

While this current Democratic Party contains some members of the great old Democratic Party [a few remaining working class Catholics, plus three ethnic groups--blacks, Hispanics and Jews who think the GOP is racist and anti-Semitic (which it isn't)] -for the most part it is a bunch of Baby Boomers with an excessive sense of entitlement to the public treasury.

I left the Democratic Party in 2000 after nearly 10 years of increasing annoyance with it because I found it assumed many arguable and false premises as "self-evident" and once the elite opinion-makers made a decision, it was intolerant of dissent. To not toe the line on abortion, or military cutbacks, or state-paid daycare, was to be wrong and sexist, racist, and bigoted.

Plus, it seemed to be made up of large sections of people who never earned a non-donated or non-tax dollar in their lives. They consider themselves a priestly caste -- forgetting who supports such a caste and ignoring the spiritual discipline at the heart of a priestly caste.

I still hold that we need a strong Democratic Party. The GOP has managed to turn a surplus into a $500 billion deficit in three years. Apparently, my belief that the GOP would actually control spending was completely erroneous -- with control of all three branches of government (7 of 9 Supreme Court justices, recall), the GOP has proven to spend like a bunch of drunken sailors on their first shore leave in 50 years. I don't like feeling suckered.

It's clear we need a divided government again. In 2004, if the Democrats put up anyone with a record of fiscal responsibility and makes assurances of strong national security (that means continuing the foreign policies of Bush), they'll have a good shot. What theyll do when they win, who knows?

Dean,

You miss what I think is Megans point. Yes, the Democrats have always been a party that unites a bunch of interests. The problem these days is that each interest group is now so self important (my interpretation) and politically correct that they will allow for no compromise. The Democratic party used to BE the party of compromise, but no longer. The outcome of the process that Megan describes is a candidate who is far more marginal than the Democratic candidate would have been 50 years ago.

IB Bill,

>>"The GOP has managed to turn a surplus into a $500 billion deficit in three years. "

There was never a surplus, only a PROJECTED surplus. That "surplus" was based on earnings estimates (and I use that term loosely) that assumed rates of growth we saw before the dotcom bust. The current deficit PROJECTION is based on earnings estimates that assume rates of growth we saw after the dotcom bust. It is no more accurate than the projected surplus was.

Note that I am not saying that there will not be a deficit, there is ALWAYS a deficit. What I am saying is that budget projections from government agencies are no more related to reality than Fantasy Football. (which is to say, just they use it as a takeoff point)

If we see a strong upturn in the economy (and $20/bbl oil will certainly give us that), we will see an upturn in revenues that will go a long way towards offsetting the current spending. (Not all the way, of course.)

>>"It's clear we need a divided government again. "

Not until the Democrats regain thier sanity. The party in power has certain priviledges, unwritten, but time honored. The Dems have just enough power left to block the Republicans in thier exercise of those priviledges, and they are doing so as if they think THEY should be the party in power. This infighting between the two groups has gotten out of hand.

When the Democrats are in power, they rub the Republicans face in it, when the Republicans are in power, the Democrats obstruct them in any way possible, all the while going "Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh".

Look at the situation in Texas, where Democratic legislators have fled the state to prevent voting on a redistricting plan. Now it is true that the Republicans wrote the plan and it maximizes Republican advantage in future elections. But that is the way it has always been done (whether it should be is a seperate arguement), and that is the way the Democrats did it when they were in power just a few years ago. The Democrats gerrymandered the districts, and managed to lose the election anyway. Now the Republicans are trying to do the same thing (in reverse) and the Democrats are acting like they are child molesters.

The Democrats are insane. They need to wake up.

Will Rogers said: I don't belong to any organized political party.
I'm a Democrat.

Five years ago I was saying that about my Republicans.

No particular point, just throwing it out there to give Democrats some false encouragement. (Did I type that last part out loud?)

The Democrats are finished - their litmus tests have made them progressively less acceptable outside of the urban liberal strongholds and this trend will only continue to reinforce itself as they lose more and more power outside the cities.

I give them until about 2006 before they split - with the remainder of the moderate and conservative Democrats moving over to a non-minor party, or forming a new party altogether..this will leave the socialistic left still within the Democratic Party and clearly identified as a socialist party.

With Zogby showing Dean 21 points ahead in New Hampshire, its looking more and more like Dean's the man - and the man who will drive the Democrats off the cliff. We're talking a 50 State sweep for Bush and a score of new GOP House members to go along with a half-dozen new GOP Senators.

I was a litmus test voter. Still am, in fact. But my current litmus test leaves me with a radically different set of potential candidates: Will s/he keep the US committed to rebuilding Iraq?

If any Dem can pass that test I might once again consider voting for one. One thing: any mention of the UN or France is an automatic disqualification.

Actually what is likely to happened is more and more moderates will start to join the Republican Party marginalizing the social conservatives and watering down the libertarian party until you get a fairly large block of Schwarzenegger Republicans. IB Bill is right that there has been a lot of drift in the Democratic Party. But he also forgets that the Republicans had a fairly liberal wing at one time. Nixon's wage and price policies would be seen as far left fringe stuff by todays standards.

What that means is the centrist Democrats will start to swap parties if for no other reasons then it will be impossible to win as a democrats in the fly over states. (it's happening in the south and will continue) and further dilute the strong ideological conservative base of the Republican Party and you will see a more liberal wing immerge like there was in the late 60's and early 70's.

Then there will be another upheaval and conservatives will bolt the Republican party and Head back over to the Democrats in a bout 15 years and then we will be laughing at the good old days when the Democrats were "liberal".

Divided government is best, I typically vote for a gridlock ticket. Both parties are corrupt to the core, to suggest that one or the other is even a tiny bit less corrupt is naive.

Rick,

While there has been a large drift of moderate and conservative Democrats over to the GOP in the past 20 years, I think we've about run that well dry...plus, if all the rest of them come over the GOP would not be able to find them appropriate spots...after all, we've got our own seniorities to worry about and we can't take too many Democrats.

Plus, there is among some moderate and conservative Democrats a visceral desire to not be Republicans...but when Dean finishes driving the Democrats over the cliff next year, then it will come down to the question: do the moderates and conservatives of the Democratic Party have the strength to conduct a purge of the left from the Democratic Party?

Personally, I don't think they do - the left has engineered itself into all of the leading Democratic positions and is firmly ensconced in those extra-party organizations which are the traditional supports of the Democrats.

>> Even McGovern, a WWII pilot who didn't support abortion on demand, is a little conservative for the current Democratic Party.

IB Bill,

I doubt this is so. McGovern still staunchly supports every single socialist idea the Democrat Party ever stood for. What more can anyone expect from a man who supported Henry Wallace’s 1948 Presidential campaign, for which McGovern has never apologized? Remember Henry Wallace ran for President on the Communist Party ticket. FYI, Henry Wallace was Vice President from 1941-1944 under FDR.

I think the reason the "Emerging Democratic Majority" theory hasn't panned out yet (and probably won't) is that 9/11 put the brakes on a trend that had been ongoing for the past 10 years, mainly the drifting of large numbers of secular voters -- who are also upper income suburbanites -- towards the Democratic Party. The entire theory of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" is predicated on the fact that this group (along with minorities) are growing in population while the key component of the Republican coalition is not. However, if Democrats can't figure out a way to get the more liberal/secular suburbanites (like me) back into their camp, their hoped-for majority won't materialize.

Like Owen, I am willing to vote Democrat, but an ability to demonstrate seriousness on national security is essential before I will do so. Unfortunately, that narrows my choices to Joe Lieberman and... did I mention Joe Lieberman? Since he doesn't seem to have much of a chance to win, it looks like I'll be voting for Bush by default.

Does anybody else believe that foreign policy will dominate the 2004 Presidential race? Even if Democrats talk down the economic recovery, will it make any difference? The latest economic figures released two days ago show our economy growing at a 3.1% rate. That is strong economic growth by anybody’s standards. What other issues can the Democrats use?

Every American appears to have a better memory than any Democrat running for President does. The entire Democratic field is already criticizing President Bush on his Iraq policy from initially going to war to having no game plan for managing the peace afterward.

Does any American actually believe that any Democratic Presidential candidate would have done any better than our sitting President? Everybody knows we must win this war on terrorism or no American or visitor is safe. Criticizing is always easier that doing. I am unconvinced that any Democrat could secure our borders any better that President Bush. Have all the special interest groups inside the Democratic Party coalition permanently rendered the Democratic Party merely a domestic party?

Sean,

I never bought that "Emerging Democratic Majority" thing from the get-go; it is, however, typical of the sort of thinking our Democratic friends use...and have used for ages now: "if present trends continue"; this is the thing which impells each and every Democratic prescription, when you get down to it.

Of course, present trends never continue because the events of the world modify the trends continually. Thus the temporary upsurge of young suburbanites voting slightly more Democratic than older suburbanites was bound to change - mostly by means of the young suburbanites becoming older suburbanites and dealing with raising kids and worrying about how to maintain property values. Its no secret that property makes conservatives by the bushell; and more and more people are becoming property owners - there, in the end, is the permanent center/right coalition.

What I've observed over the past ten years is just the continuation of a trend which began in the mid-60's; the progressive alienation of people outside of urban enclaves from the Democratic Party. This is what will kill the Democratic Party - carrying New York City and Los Angeles is great, but its bootless unless you also carry the 'burbs and rural areas.

kevinb,

You've hit upon the central thing of the 2004 election - that the Democrat, to win, will have to present a plan superior to Bush's plan; not only superior, but easily sold as superior. Complaining about Bush will get you shouts of glee from the left, but in the end you have to convince non-leftists that you will do better on the war than Bush...better meaning winning it sooner: better is absolutely not more UN involvement or more kowtowing to foreign pinheads.