PANNING, PANDERING, PARTICIPATION, AND THE PARTY , PT.1

(From June 16, 2010)


There's been much back and forth this morning on the speech given by the President last night and it's focus (or lack thereof.)  And more than the legitimate complaints about it, I've notice some very interesting things.

Let me begin by saying that I, like many others, was disappointed in the arguably milquetoast nature of the address, although to be perfectly honest, I have not seen any demonstratively more detailed proposals from anywhere else on the specific issue of stopping the flow of oil.  Instead, I've seen a hail of criticism directed at the President - acceptable criticism that I have believed always comes with the territory of being the President of the United States.

But, the most important thing that I've noticed - and have seen articulated by some bloggers - is the pointed critique of the President from within the ranks of his supporters and whether it ultimately helps or harms the overall causes of the supporters of the Democratic Party.  This is what I would like to explore.

One of Will Rogers' most often mentioned quotes is;

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."

I believe that this is one of the fundamental differences between the parties.  Republicans were loath to express any dissatisfaction at the missteps and disappointments that marked George W. Bush's presidency.  In fact, the worse he erred in handling situations like Katrina, for example, the more they cheered him on.  Very few Republican pundits panned his "Heckuva job, Brownie" comments.  Very few expressed outrage that in the months following Katrina that there were still thousands of homeless living in deplorable conditions and that the fundamental issue of levee safety had not been addressed.

My point isn't to compare or contrast the respective responses of Bush and Obama to disaster it is simply to highlight what I see as a prominent difference in partisan participation on the issues.

Like Rogers said, Democrats tend to be more willing to buck their party than Republicans, and I think that to be an admirable trait, even if that fact is generally lost on middle of the road Americans.

Many commenters on this site have expressed dissatisfactions and frustration with the policies of this administration, and rightly so as some of these policies are in stark contrast to campaign promises.  There are many progressive Democrats who understand the difficulty in balancing idealism and pragmatism while governing and justifiably still feel somewhat disappointed at the same time.

Still, as the inimitable Dick Day has pointed out to the progressives on this site, the alternatives to the Democratic Party are far, far less attractive than the admittedly imperfect situation that we face today.  As he eloquently noted, he's chosen not scream and 'throw his feces' at the President.

Republicans seem to be far more disciplined at controlling their ranks and rallying support for their elected officials, but is that a good thing? Will Rogers also once said;

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

Is dissent from within the ranks always a positive thing? And does it matter that such dissent can become ammunition for the opposition to manipulate public opinion?