Democrats Stand for Honest Government

And what about the campaign finance reform and democracy bonds program I mention? Seems to me those fit the bill of what you are saying. That is my point. Democrats are heading in the right direction. Notice I give examples of Democrats who are a problem and the fact that Democrats go after corrupt Democrats. That is a HUGE difference between the parties. To lump them together in that Green way is just plain not accurate. I in no way forgave Democrats their corruption. I point out that the levels of corruption are vastly different, that Democrats do actually go after their corrupt members (I am part of such a movement and we have slowly, very slowly, been winning here in Brooklyn), and I point out that Democrats are pushing some ideas that address some of the underlying issues.

And yet the only responses are the same old "a plague on both your houses" responses. I just can't buy THAT. That is essentially the talking point that desperate Republicans have resorted to. I point out the key differences--less corruption, rejecting corrupt members of the party, and working for reform both in terms of legislation and in terms of changes with how the party raises money. That is a far cry from the Republicans who embrace corruption and protect even their most corrupt members. Equating them is inaccurate.

I'd unpack the sins and slogans a little differently is all (I am not R or Green or any other festive party color.)
;-)

Yes, of course, honesty is the right direction, so great for us all, if some Dems are heading that way or at least acknowledging it's the right direction. But it's not just because they ARE Dems though, is it, really? And they aren't all alike, nor are all R pols or us independents.

And are they really the only ones you see moving that way? That's all I'm saying, not throwing out rhetoric, honest! The poll says I'm not alone in seeing dishonesty in too many places and all the wrong faces . . .

I think your case can be made reasonably to the public but ironically, it would have to be a masterpiece of brutal, humble honesty! To work would mean full disclosure, one party owning up to ALL the lies and coverups and dirty tricks from impeachment and investigations to treating sex scandals with young pages, interns and secretaries differently depending on the perp's party registration. Without that everyone seems like whores, and I don't mean seduced women or boys - I mean the powerful politicians who took the oath to represent us faithfully and then screwed us and our children instead.

Speaking only for myself as one disillusioned middle-aged mom who doesn't follow party politics much anymore, on or offline, this really is just my own thinking over time, not any party's rhetoric -- I DO see you as being personally honest and trying to head toward better government through hard truths handled with less self-serving power plays and egomania. Otherwise I wouldn't have been likely to read your thoughts much less bother to comment.

Did you hear cable news the other day, something about the female demographic over decades being geenrally more liberal yet also more thoroughly disgusted with the lying and destruction of hardball party politics? If I'm any example, it's true, believe it!

So I am honestly asking (not to quarrel but because I am interested in how you really see this and in finding solutions that work for us all) why you'd believe that shouting "we're honest!" through a bullhorn out the front window can get Dems where you want them to go with skeptical women voters like me, when there's an unacknowledged cigar burning a hole through some soiled blue dress "lying" in the back seat, its stale rhetorical smoke about private sex-as-power in the highest halls of government stinking to high heaven.

Yes I think to some degree that there is an inherant "better" slant to the Dems. Again, as I made clear above, the Dem party has its problems and I can go into detail the situation with the Brooklyn Dem machine. But...

The Dems are a more diverse party that has traditionally had strong ties to progressives (which was indeed originally Republican but no longer), labor and reformers. They are the ones who tend to be far more populist. By contrast, the Repubs are largely the party of the wealthy and the extremely religious. Dems see the world in shade of grey, the Republicans take on the "I am right by definition" viewpoint of their most fanatically religious members. Dems spend more time monitoring eachother while Republicans are made to toe the line.

So yes I think there is an inherant difference in the parties. And it plays out on this issue. Personally, the best politicians I have ever known--most honest, dedicated and open minded--have almost all bee Democrats with almost no Greens or Repubs really impressing me. Above local judges I have known no Republican politicians of the caliber of the Democratic politicians at their best. At their worst BOTH parties are corrupt. At their best I never see Republican morality rise above rhetoric while I have seen many very dedicated Democrats.

And, again, it plays out. The Republicans do NOT push for campaign finance reform. Dems do. Not all Dems, but it is from the Dems you get the initiative for reform. When a Republican is excessively corrupt, time after time the Republican leadership resorts to lies, cover ups and smear tactics to protect their own no matter the crime. By contrast the strongest voices against corrupt Democrats come from within the Democratic Party. Even MoveOn.org, considered by the Right wing nuts as being the epitome of leftist extremism, advocated censure of Clinton for lying under oath, though they considered the impeachment efforts to be a travisty.

You cite cable news and polls. I understand the perception. It comes from a great deal of media spin as well as dissatisfaction from the Vietnam/Watergate era, which included both LBJ and Nixon. But from Carter on I see a vast difference between the parties. Not absolutes, and I never claimed absolutes. But clear differences. One party is open to expansion of rights, reform and honest government. The other party does everything they can to inhibit rights, block reform and hide corruption. Equating the two parties is meaningless and largely plays into the hands of the one party that likes to suppress voter turnout, particularly among women and minorities: the Republican party.

Absolutely. Has to happen. Yes.

Do I think either party's leaders can make it happen or even really want it? Nope. A big reason why I think we need to break out of the party mindset to make real progress toward our common goals.

We have a one-party system in this country; the sub-sets are divided into either Republican or Democrat. There are certain issues where they vote differently, but go look at the Senate webites which I think may be www.senate.gov to see how your candidates actually vote. Those of you who are hard-line lefties or righties may be surprised, and hopefully forthright enough to admit it.

I've seen where the democrats voted for bills which would outsource jobs and I've seen where the republicans have supported the unions. It never makes senses unless you understand they(R+D) are one party, and work to divide the rest of us - that way, none of us have our "eyes on the ball."

We get 50 choices for Miss America but only 2 for President. One-sided diatribes bashing either party have no credibility, but are proof the plan to divide us is working.

I agree that there are many bugs in the system itself and that there is more than just Republicans imploding. But...and here you bring the discussion beyond ethics in government, but I'm okay with that.

Democrats have actually been sounding alarms of these things and offering solutions for decades. I could even argue that FDR through LBJ was one long recognition of the inequities in our system and a major attempt to implement solutions, both economic and political. Problem was they were doing it at times of war, so the "guns or butter" issue took over. LBJ is vilified (for good reason) for his personality and Vietnam, but he had a real vision for domestic policy that would have gone a long way to alleviating poverty if fully funded and sustained. Republicans derailed this and, since Reagan, have been dismantling what FDR and LBJ set up to improve our economic and political systems.

Carter was sounding the alarm and offering solutions regaring addiction to oil and its connection to fundamentalist Islam in the 1970's. Carter was saying our foreign policy should be based on more humanitarian concerns than raw self-interest. But again the Republicans blocked every move to do so and reversed any progress Carter made as soon as Reagan took office.

Al Gore was sounding the alarm and offering solutions on global warming before it became in vogue.

And I am only skimming the surface of Democratic politicians. I have met dozens of politicians personally. Some are...well...politicians. But many are doing all they can do to fight the good fight and recognize everything you say. All of those politicians are Democrats.

The Republican Party has been an obsticle to reform and improvement of our system since the 1920's. The larger implosion you talk about is pretty much a result of the persistent Republican glorification of the 1920's economic policies (that led to the Great Depression, but they ignore that). They want to turn the clock back to those pre-FDR policies that nearly brought down the American system in the 1930's (FDR held it together) and threatens to bring it down now. Democrats since FDR have, to varying degrees and with varying consensus within the party, sounded alarms and offered solutions.

Nothing major is going to be accomplished within the American political system (barring some Constitutional Amendments) outside of the two party system. Even TR's Progressive reforms had to be carried out through the two party system...and he was the last person to successfully initiate major reforms from outside the two parties. All other major reforms (FDR, LBJ, Carter...) have started from within the 2 party system...and also been defeated in the 2 party system. Demcrats, variably, have fought for those things that I see as improvements. Republicans almost across the board since the 1920's have opposed all those things that I see as needed within our system.

Seeing that I can't help but be extremely pro-Democrat despite the disappointments, the drift to the right, the in fighting. At it's heart the Democratic party really IS the party of reform. It's platform really is at heart progressive. It just gets derailed by opposition, internal dissent and incompetence. The Republican Party has a platform that is, at heart, regressive.

I see two fights and I fight them both. There is the larger fight against the regressive policies of the Republican party that looks to the 1920's as their model for what America should be, and for the progressive policies which, though started by a renegade Republican, were adopted by the Democratic party from the 1930's on. Then there is the internal battle between the Democrats who want to strengthen the progressive and populsit side of the Democratic party and those who see adoption of Republican policies as the way to victory. They don't see it as a hollow victory, but I do.

I fight the second battle each and every primary season and between elections. I fight the first battle in the general elections and it means putting defeat of the MAIN obsticle to change (the Republican Party) ahead of the fight to keep the Democratic Party moderate. The progressives are a minority within a minority. It is hard to do anything in that situation. And our fight gets harder each time a progressive chooses to register independent or green or whatever since then we lose that person in the primaries, which are where the internal struggle occurs. Sometimes a very progressive Democrat, someone with real values and honesty, loses by a few hundred votes in a primary to a less progressive, more compromising Democrat. That is when I dislike the Greens and independents the most: a few hundred of them in a district could have elected the progressive.

THAT is why I frame it within the party. Because I see the fights year after year WITHIN the party, and the defeats are sometimes so close that it really could be changed if some of those Greens and independents got busy WITHIN the party.

Over the last 6 years I think Al Gore and I have both come to a realization: there is, within the Republican party, some really nasty, I'd almost say evil if I believed in evil, people. They torture, lie to get into an invasion, destroy the Constitution, steal elections and basically lie at every opportunity. They are driven by raw greed. They don't even stand for traditional Republican values anymore, which is why they aren't too popular even in Republican districts.

I have accepted that there is no compromise with those people. There is no common ground to compromise on. Israel and Palestine are fighting over land and the right for their two nations to exist. Republicans aren't even fighting for anything so noble. They are fighting for another million dollars in their bank accounts and another year of weilding raw power. They don't even accomplish anything with that power. They let Americans drown in New Orleans while they party it up on vacation. The blatantly profit off the deaths of our soldiers. They accomplish nothing by their own self interest. I cannot compromise with them.

When I meet a Republican with real integrity and ideas (generally these people HATE Bush with a passion that rivals mine) I usually have an excellent conversation with them, finding all sorts of common ground. Similarly, I can have an excellent conversation with my Shi'ite, pro-Palestine friend about Israel because we are after solutions. Bush Republicans don't want solutions because within those solutions are a loss of their power. They depend on fear and instability to keep power. Much like many dictators of the past. Much like al-Qaeda. Desmond Tutu said it when he said that for non-violence to work there has to be a common level of humanity. If one side lacks that most basic level of humanity (we can discuss whether "humanity" is the right word!) then non-violence fails. Even Ghandi said that violent action is better than inaction, though, unlike Tutu, he alway thought non-violence is better.

I don't advocate actual violence, at least not very often. Fighting al-Qaeda I do think military action was and is necessary. But in general I believe non-violence is better. But I still think when one side is so out for raw greed and power and so willing to kill and torture, then it really is a war. I look over history, particularly the history of Jews, and I see how often belief that the other side really can't be THAT bad is wrong and leads to a sin of omission: allowing genocide to occur. King Leopold was able to kill possibly as many as 10 million people in the Congo because no one was willing to belive a "civilized" European would be that brutal. But he was. For years people denied despite mounting evidence what Hitler and Stalin were doing. But they did it.

I don't believe the Republicans are at the level of Stalin or Hitler. But they are on their way to at least being a King Leopold if not actually a Stalin. In all these cases, including Bush and Cheney and their strongest supporters, their own raw greed, for power and/or riches, supercedes all other concerns including the well being and live of millions of people. I do not see that as a force I can find common ground with.

My fights within the Democratic Party are vastly different. I maintain a respect, even sometimes friendship, with those I am opposing. I am working with people who were pissed as hell with me mere months ago because basically we DO have common ground. I am willing to dig in my heels and fight when I think it is important, but I spend at least as much time looking for and working with that common ground. My wife and I often are bridging two factions in a club, usually solidly with one side, but usually with good contact with and mutual respect with the other side. Here I see real fights, but fights among sometimes allies rather than a fundamental fight against someone who may yet point a gun at me simply so they can make a few extra dollars profit.

and I really appreciate you being so focused, thoughtful and honest about it; it's a pleasure to have such a conversation. I feel like I've been needing this but didn't have any place to find it. (So thanks to Liza too!)

Say we stipulate that partisan fighting between countrymen used to be more the "within the club" kind you describe, and now it's become this polarized "no compromise" kind that you describe between warring tribes or factions determined to wipe out your whole way of life (extreme Rs feel that way about Ds too, except with God on their side and like all fundamentalists ready to die for their beliefs - so no compromise possible for THEM, I am certain.)

Also I hear them give the same speech about not equating the parties because THEY are so much more honorable and clean-cut, culture of life, prayer for guidance, resign rather than brazening it out, etc. Rs don't want to be equated with Dems any more than Dems can stand being lumped in with Rs.

So let's just stipulate that. Ds and Rs are not only "different" but as aliens to each other,estranged to the point that they might as well be middle eastern tribes fighting for the same land and neither side will ever compromise or yield or stop fighting.

And so - now what?

The main difference is that there are some extremely loyal and solid Republicans who have grown to hate Bush and see the extreme end of the Repub party to be just as much a danger as the DEms see them. Therein lies the hope: the more reasonable Republicans who believe in TRADITIONAL Republican values (rather than the current what is good for Halliburton is good for the world Republican values). I respect the old Republican values...even sometimes agree with them. And I find they respect me. Hell, I get along with them more than I get along with Greens, sometimes.

And the self-proclaimed morality of the extreme right is very hard to believe when the evidence is quite to the contrary. I outline where I see Dems as being more ethical and where I admit they fail. The far right wing fanatics have the same kind of "morality" as some of the Rennaisance Popes who considered themselves God's word on earth...while having mistresses, poisoning rivals and otherwise showing a marked deviance from traditional values. Republicans see themselves as moral because they SAY they are moral, evidence be damned. My diary is trying to point out that the evidence points the other way.

Beyond that we may be close to agreement. What now? To me it is so much a matter of actual SURVIVAL to defeat the Halliburton Republicans that what happens once we do is somewhat distant from my mind. I feel we are in a version of Nazi Germany before the absolute seizure of power. I think a similar, if less blatantly brutal, seizure of power is in progress here. What now? Stop that seizure of power. That is what is important to me right now.