My response to the great Digby

She is great too--one of the very best writers on the internet, and always worth reading.  Today, though, she was absolutely burbling over, admittedly, a lot of smart stuff Sen. Obama has done in his campaign.  First, she says:

There's nothing shadowy about this (Obama's voter registration efforts) - it's an extension of what the Obama campaign has been doing since he entered the race. He's building a new Democratic infrastructure, regimenting it under his brand, and enlisting new technologies and more sophisticated voter contacting techniques to turn it from a normal GOTV effort into a lasting movement.

Well, I'm all for new and better things, though I do blanch a bit at "regimenting it under his brand."  What's that supposed to mean?  But, hey, I'm all for new technologies and more "sophisticated voter contacting techniques"--especially if it means that I get fewer phone calls from politicians asking for money.  Then, she says this:

The long-term goal is to subvert the traditional structures of the Democratic Party since the early 1990s, subvert the nascent structures that the progressive movement has been building since the late 1990s, and build a parallel structure, under his brand, that will become the new power center in American politics. This is tremendous news.

To which I replied:

Less enthusiasm, please. I'm a traditional Democrat. There is no such thing as "transformational" leadership in the presidency. It's never happened, and never will.  "Transformational" leadership only comes from outside the system--like the Hebrew prophets, or MLK. The political system is inherently transactional, on the other hand. In a democracy, groups compete and contend. This is not "transcended". It is "transacted."

Plus, I'm not all that crazy about the new guy dissing and blowing up the Democratic Party, supposedly to remake it in his image. Excuse me, the Democratic Party is the oldest, continuously-existing political party in the world today. What's more, we're on the verge of victory--a partisan victory, one that could bring a long-term governing majority--and our presumptive nominee wants to "transcend" our differences. No way. Most Democrats want to engage those differences.

Comments

[Stellaa]

Great reply. I am concerned about this alleged alliance that leaves out large swaths of people. An alliance should add, not extract people.

[Jody]

I take it, then, that you were skeptical of the DLC's agenda in the 1980s and early 1990s as well? They too sought to transform the Democratic Party in a new, [more centrist -- their own word] image in order to build a new coalition in the face of the changes wrought by the Reagan revolution. Did you feel the same way about the Clinton candidacy in 1991 and 1992?

[John Petty]

Stella, the "alliance" appears to leave out considerable swaths of the Democratic Party. I hope that's not the direction this goes. Thanks for the visit.

[John Petty]

Hi Jody,

I'm not a DLC-er, and never was. The DLC, however, saw itself as a "pressure group" within the party that was trying to chart a path in the era of Reagan. Something to keep in mind: The only Democrats to win the presidency in the past 50 years were center-left politicians.

No, what bothers me is the idea that the Democratic Party needs to be blown up and remade. This assumes that it stinks right now, but can be "purer" and "better." That is Bush-level hubris, by the way.

[John Petty]

Mea culpa, by the way. Turns out the post I was responding to was NOT written by Digby, but rather by dday.

[Jody]

I remember Clinton's rhetoric during the 1992 election being far more transformative and generationally-changing than you do. I do not remember him as the leader of a "pressure group" from within, but rather the leader of a group who thought the Democratic party had lost its way and needed to be re-made in a new image in order to regain the dominance it had lost in the 1990s.

I do not believe that the current party should be blown up, or that any part of it should be abandoned now, either. (Although I think "hard-working Americans, white Americans" is a more exclusive and gut-churning and dismaying rhetoric in that vein than anything I've heard from the Obama campaign in a fair while, too.) I'm just surprised that you don't see more of a continuity between the rhetoric of 1992 and the rhetoric of 2008.

[John Petty]

Hillary should have left it at "hard working Americans". The "working class" is white, Latino, and Asian--(black too, but they're locked in to Obama, for obvious reasons).

Yes, I see some similarities between Bill and Obama. The situation is different though. In the 90's, we were trying to hold our own. Now, we have a chance to build a long-term governing majority.

That's why I don't want to "transcend" politics--as if that were even possible. Now is the time to press our advantage--precisely the time to be partisan, in other words.