"There are no sides. There's no Sunnis and Shiites. There's no Democrats and Republicans. There's only HAVES and HAVE-NOTS. "
Posted on 05/25/2012 2:18:11 AM PDT by Kukai
Former Reasoner David Weigel has an interesting article up that seeks to answer why there aren't any Club For Growth/FreedomWorks/Tea Party/Paulista-style primary-election challenges to the worst of the Democratic Party's status quo (like, say, the execrable Dianne Feinstein). This section in particular is unintentionally revealing:
Two months ago, Progressive Insurance founder Peter Lewis left the Democracy Alliance, a lefty donor coalition. Earlier this month, billionaire George Soros made his first 2012 political donations—$1 million each to America Votes and American Bridge 21st Century. That’s $23.5 million less than he gave to liberal groups in 2004. According to David McKay, chairman of the Democracy Alliance and board member of the Priorities USA super PAC, most big liberal money is going toward grassroots organizing. “There’s a bias towards funding infrastructure as it relates to the elections,” he told the New York Times’ Nicholas Confessore.
Why no money to change the Democratic Party itself? The big guys aren’t interested, and don’t think it’s possible. “The reason there's not a Club for Growth-like organization on the left,” says Soros spokesman Michael Vachon, “is that there is a greater diversity of views in the Democratic Party than there is in the Republican Party. There's less of a hierarchically enforced ideological structure."
For the sake of this argument, let's imagine what a "hierarchically enforced ideological structure" might look like. Start with someone high up in the Republican Party'shierarchy; say, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). Mitch McConnell enforces ideology in part the same way all powerful politicians do: by backing particular candidates in primary elections and then throwing the party's machinery behind them. For example, Trey Grayson in the race to be the junior senator in McConnell's home state of Kentucky. The Club for Growth (and the Tea Party, and the Ron Paul movement, and other groups) in this case felt strong enough about their diverse-from-McConnell ideology that they rejected GOP hierarchy and backed outsider Rand Paul instead.
By this method Republicans who truly believe in limited constitutional government, as opposed to merely mouthing vague rhetoric in that direction whenever Democrats hold power, are attempting to change their own party into something more responsive to those beliefs. Such Republicans, it should be stressed, are still a wholly outnumbered group within the party.
I don't know which of the major parties is more ideologically diverse, but it's clear that (with a few exceptions), Democrats have elected to eschew open ideological competition for the soul of the modern party, which may help explain why Democrats in power are able to perpetuate policies that many of their voters strongly dislike: drone warfare, mass deportation, targeting Americans for assassination, maintaining the Guantanamo Bay prison, raiding legal medical marijuana facilities, laughing off pot legalization, starting new and expanding old wars, reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, and so on. If settling for this status quo is a function of diversity, then maybe it's time for a little monomania.
As I wrote about in "What the Left Can Learn From the Tea Party," the aforementioned Soros and Peter Lewis can be seen as poster children for the limits of using major parties to advance your strongly felt beliefs, particularly when you decline to influence primary contests:
Consider that three of the biggest supporters of the Democratic Party since the end of Bush’s first term have been George Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperling—who also happen to be three of the country's most generous supporters of drug policy reform.
Soros in particular is a case study in how giving blanket support to a political party can undermine your favorite causes. According to a 2004 New Yorker article about anti-Bush billionaires by Jane Mayer, Soros' bill of particulars against Obama's predecessor included Bush's attempts to spread democracy at gunpoint, his expansions of presidential power, and his prison camp in Guantanamo Bay. In every one of those areas, as in the drug war, Obama has not been significantly better than Bush.
Here's hoping that the Soros/Lewis retreat from funding Democratic politics as usual so far this year is actually anexpression of their dissatisfaction with the way their pet issues have been treated. Because as we've seen with gay marriage (on both sidesof the aisle) ideological competition among campaign donors can help focus political minds as well.
Great diversity of views ? Ah, yes. You have the Stalinist wing, the Maoist wing, and the Marxist wing (the most Conservative). Any views outside extreme left and ultra-extreme left and you're shut out. No enforced ideological structure ? Look at Joe Lieberman. Wrong on 99% of the issues as an extreme lefty and he was defeated by a Stalinist in the primary because he was considered a crypto-Republican.
“According to David McKay, chairman of the Democracy Alliance and board member of the Priorities USA super PAC, most big liberal money is going toward grassroots organizing. “There’s a bias towards funding infrastructure as it relates to the elections,” he told the New York Times’ Nicholas Confessore.”
They certainly have an interesting idea of what constitutes “grassroots”.
Evidently, they think “grassroots organization” is the establishment of a command structure to direct the peasants at the bottom into doing the bidding of the leftist High Command (i.e. community organizing), as opposed to citizens organizing themselves to force change at the top. (Another leftist corruption of language.)
No wonder they campaigned so militantly against the TEA parties. If individual thought spread to the Democrat party, the whole top-down command structure would collapse and the community organizers might have found themselves tossed out on the street. The scary thing is that it works: leftists are too stupid to spot even the most obvious doublethink, so they obediently fall into line and think and do what their masters tell them to think and do.
Interesting, but in what way is confusing at this point.
John Sperling is founder of Apollo Group, University of Phoenix billionaire, and then memory flashes an article I read in the past that the owners prop up the miserably failing WaPo with profits from their for profit University the name of which escapes me at the moment.
Again we find education entities as source of funding/activism for the destruction of our way of life.
Not surprising really.
The donors don’t want the spotlight on them. I am sure they are still donating or buying people of each party.
Two months ago, Progressive Insurance founder Peter Lewis left the Democracy Alliance, a lefty donor coalition. Earlier this month, billionaire George Soros made his first 2012 political donations -- $1 million each to America Votes and American Bridge 21st Century. That’s $23.5 million less than he gave to liberal groups in 2004. According to David McKay, chairman of the Democracy Alliance and board member of the Priorities USA super PAC, most big liberal money is going toward grassroots [ASTROTURF] organizing. Why no money to change the Democratic Party itself? The big guys aren't interested, and don't think it's possible. "The reason there's not a Club for Growth-like organization on the left," says Soros spokesman Michael Vachon, "is that there is a greater diversity of views in the Democratic Party than there is in the Republican Party. There's less of a hierarchically enforced ideological structure."That's complete BS -- there isn't greater diversity, merely a collection of small, shallow interest groups; joining with the DNC means all the other small, shallow interest groups adopt their agendas, and vice versa -- an enforced idealogical structure. Meme-building/partisan media shill alert.
it's clear that (with a few exceptions), Democrats have elected to eschew open ideological competition for the soul of the modern party, which may help explain why Democrats in power are able to perpetuate policies that many of their voters strongly dislike... If settling for this status quo is a function of diversity, then maybe it's time for a little monomania.
"There are no sides. There's no Sunnis and Shiites. There's no Democrats and Republicans. There's only HAVES and HAVE-NOTS. "
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.