Democrats? What Does That Word Mean?

Eons ago I took an undergraduate course on parliamentary systems, and as I recall -- and forgive me for any misrepresentations here; it has been a while -- the British system had the niftiest little method of party discipline, which worked something like this:

When legislation was up for a vote the leadership would distribute the bill, which, if not textually underlined by the leadership, meant party members were free to vote however they liked, according to conscience or whim. If the bill was underlined once -- thus -- if meant the leadership took some moderate interest in seeing it either pass or fail, and would appreciate the members' cooperation.

If a bill was underlined twice, however, well, there we enter a spot of serious business: The leadership was saying that it was keenly interested in the legislation -- that is, seeing to either its life or death -- and urged all members to see it their way and vote accordingly.

But finally, if a piece of legislation was underlined three times, it meant you as a party member would bloody well vote the leadership's way or you'd be boiled in oil and your children sold into slavery. A bit of license there, but that was the prevailing upshot.

All of which I always thought, as mentioned, was a rather nifty little method of efficiently defining the concept and execution of "party." It provided members with generous latitude and individual maneuverability, often so necessary to smooth running in their home districts, but also literally drew the line on some issues. In short there were some higher things that a Tory or Labourite or Liberal stood for and would support, otherwise his or her identification with the party and indeed the party itself meant nothing.

The party system also meant that when the electorate pulled the Conservative or Labour or whatever lever, the electorate knew -- with respect to those higher matters of advertised party position -- precisely what it was voting for, and that leadership's party discipline would guarantee its execution. In a word, the system provided for political accountability.

OK, so you know where this is going. Yeah, right, those feckless, unherded, atomistic Congressional Democrats, whose comprehensive position on any given issue is as difficult to discern with precision as it would be to nail down a workable Unified Field Theory before lunch today.

Republicans, as we all know, took the parliamentary concept of party discipline a trifle too earnestly. In the imaginations of their leadership, virtually every bill was underlined thrice, since each piece of legislation was but another ingenious cog in the Grand Celestial Clock of ideological purity. In truest Bushian fashion, one was either with 'em or agin' 'em -- there was never an in-between; individual consciences couldn't and didn't count, since God Himself had already ordained what defined the GOP conscience, so to speak.

But Congressional Democrats? Concept of party? Some semblance of discipline? Pshaw. Every day is Anarchy Day for Democrats, who operate not as some Grand Celestial Clock but as spark-flying metal upon screeching metal.

Months ago I warned of Democratic overreach, once they had tidily wrapped up both legislative chambers as well as the White House. With all that amplified Congressional power, a president to apply a sympathetic stamp, and Republicans in downright laughable disarray, there could be, I cautioned, an ill-advised party inclination to shotgun the electorate with every pellet of old-coalition stuff that had been encased in powerlessness for so long.

What the hell was I smoking? These were Democrats I was talking about -- an alarmingly eclectic assemblage of leftists and rightists and libertarians and pragmatists and Greenbackers and Free Silverites and the occasionally just plain lobotomized.

Hence I give you ... the latest: "Two powerful groups of moderate Democratic lawmakers" -- the New Democrat Coalition and the Blue Dogs -- "have met with their House leaders to warn against pushing health care reform proposals too far to the left." Translation: a humane, universal system, as promised to the electorate in 2008.

If nothing else, you see, we can't afford such extravagant reforms; which is why, of course, these same conscientious objectors just voted in favor of another $96 billion in war funding -- just to see us through Sept. 30, mind you -- as they ratchet up the total war-tab to multiple trillions.

And, over on the Senate side of anarchy, "Democratic leaders [are] warning their supporters that they won’t be able to accomplish everything they set out to do this year."

I'm beginning to align with Republicans on this name-game thing: Why do Democrats call themselves the Democratic Party when the electorate's majority will seems to mean so little, and their leadership seems to care so little?

Think about it: The leaders are out there "warning their supporters" -- not the internal malcontents and troublemakers.



Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......