NationStates Jolt Archive

The weblog Firedoglake (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/send-in-the-cons/) has an interesting post up about the divisions within the Republican party. The poster posits the following groups inside the Republican coalition: TheoCons, NeoCons, CorporateCons, RichCons, LibertarianCons, PaleoCons and MilitaryCons. He then proceeds to describe, fairly accurately I believe, the makeup of these various groups. But while I found that interesting, I'm more interested in his follow-up question--what are the similar divisions within the Democrats? Some seem obvious--Big Labor, Environmentalists, etc.

But since this is a site with great diversity in political thought, I thought I'd open it up to you all to get your ideas on this. What subgroups make up the Democratic party, and how would you describe them?

The weblog Firedoglake (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/19/send-in-the-cons/) has an interesting post up about the divisions within the Republican party. The poster posits the following groups inside the Republican coalition: TheoCons, NeoCons, CorporateCons, RichCons, LibertarianCons, PaleoCons and MilitaryCons. He then proceeds to describe, fairly accurately I believe, the makeup of these various groups. But while I found that interesting, I'm more interested in his follow-up question--what are the similar divisions within the Democrats? Some seem obvious--Big Labor, Environmentalists, etc.

But since this is a site with great diversity in political thought, I thought I'd open it up to you all to get your ideas on this. What subgroups make up the Democratic party, and how would you describe them?

The primary one I notice is anti-war (vehemently and absolutely) vs. not-so-anti-war. It's a division that the Democrats have had serious trouble with since the riots in 1968.

Hillary, for example, is "anti-war" but not for a timetable to withdraw troops, which puts her in the same boat as Bush. Other Democrats are far more vehement.

There are also the newcomers - the young people who supported Dean and his idealism - but those are not welcome among some of the long established donors and leaders of the Democratic Party.

Every party has its splits and divisions - the question is, is that enough to make them stay home on Election Day (or, perish forbid, vote for the Republicans).

The primary one I notice is anti-war (vehemently and absolutely) vs. not-so-anti-war. It's a division that the Democrats have had serious trouble with since the riots in 1968.

Hillary, for example, is "anti-war" but not for a timetable to withdraw troops, which puts her in the same boat as Bush. Other Democrats are far more vehement.

There are also the newcomers - the young people who supported Dean and his idealism - but those are not welcome among some of the long established donors and leaders of the Democratic Party.

Every party has its splits and divisions - the question is, is that enough to make them stay home on Election Day (or, perish forbid, vote for the Republicans).
Okat, you're talking about 1) the anti-war crowd and 2) the netroots/Kossacks (although demographics show they're not as young as is often assumed). There's also the DLC wing, which tend toward corporatism--often derided by many, myself included, as Republican-lite.

The post I'm piggybacking off of spent a lot of time talking about who delivers votes, who delivers money, who delivers ideology and talking points for the unpleasant parts of the party to hide behind, etc. For instance, the Theocons provide more votes than money, and the powers would rather they stay in the closet the rest of the time. What's the Democratic equivalent of that? Minority voters? Big Labor?

I tend to look at the DLC wing as the equivalent of the Neocons--they act as though they're the intellectual backbone of the party, but they're becoming increasingly persona non grata even among their own.

Okat, you're talking about 1) the anti-war crowd and 2) the netroots/Kossacks (although demographics show they're not as young as is often assumed). There's also the DLC wing, which tend toward corporatism--often derided by many, myself included, as Republican-lite.

The post I'm piggybacking off of spent a lot of time talking about who delivers votes, who delivers money, who delivers ideology and talking points for the unpleasant parts of the party to hide behind, etc. For instance, the Theocons provide more votes than money, and the powers would rather they stay in the closet the rest of the time. What's the Democratic equivalent of that? Minority voters? Big Labor?

I tend to look at the DLC wing as the equivalent of the Neocons--they act as though they're the intellectual backbone of the party, but they're becoming increasingly persona non grata even among their own.

I got the impression during the last Presidential election that Dean was stabbed in the back by the more traditional elements of the Democratic Party, because they thought he was embarassing. I'm not sure what he would have delivered more of (votes, probably), and I think his appointment was due to some saying "we're sorry we screwed you and your fan base over".

I think that in general, Americans are tired of the Democrats trotting out the plight of minorities, and big labor is a combination of "moribund" and "looking like Goodfellas".

Not that the Republicans are the party of new ideas. But I think that the primary failing of the Democrats is to functionally and ideologically (and cleanly) separate themselves from Republicans. They can't agree to do this, so they're screwing themselves. What little they can agree on is so bland and watered-down that no one really takes interest.

If there wasn't a war in Iraq right now, the Democrats would have absolutely nothing to talk about (everyone talks about corruption, and we're tired of that mantra, too). The economy is doing pretty well, and I believe that most Americans vote for their economic situation - they probably don't want to rock the boat.

In the same way that Republicans ridicule people such as gays, the Democrats go out of their way to either pander in a futile way or ridicule rural people and Christians. That's a really stupid policy, and if they want to get on a high horse and lambaste people who ridicule gays, etc., then they should ridicule no one. No one. Point of fact - there are far more rural voters and Christians in rural districts that can generate seats and electoral votes than there are gays who can do the same thing. No sense in pissing off one or the other, but if you're going to piss one off, piss the smaller group off.

If I were to list the factions of the Democratic party, it would look like this (many of them cross barriers, but you get the point):

Envirodems- environmentalists, favor heavy restrictions on business, alternative fuel

Peacedems- very anti-war. Also the driving force behind gun control- very pro-UN.

Labordems- ACLU, unions, fighting the 'man', champions of the working class

Africadems- NAACP, Affirmative Action, etc

Rainbowdems- gay rights, subsidies for artists, taxpayer funded 'culture'

Womyndems- pro-choice, ERA, women in uniform, etc

Hawkdems- pro-Iraq war- known as "conservative democrats", realists, the ex-republicans, etc

Pinkdems- pseudo-socialist. Favor socialized medicine, but settle for more medicaid/care at present; advocates of the welfare state

did I leave any out?

Labordems- ACLU, unions, fighting the 'man', champions of the working class

They've found that although labor leaders "promise" their votes to Democrats, there are splits within this group - up to 80 percent in some districts - on one issue - guns. One of the issues that can make people change parties.

They've found that although labor leaders "promise" their votes to Democrats, there are splits within this group - up to 80 percent in some districts - on one issue - guns. One of the issues that can make people change parties.

It is really frustrating. Each of the parties caters to so many interest groups, it all comes down to whatever issue most affects you at that time. If I could pick half the platform of the Republicans, and half the Democratic platform and jam them together, it might actually make for a good party in my opinion.

And what about the postal worker's unions? The NLCA is the #2 union behind the Teamsters, yet they are government employees, and half are ex-military. A recipe for a Republican vote if I ever saw one.

If I were to list the factions of the Democratic party, it would look like this (many of them cross barriers, but you get the point):

Envirodems- environmentalists, favor heavy restrictions on business, alternative fuel

Peacedems- very anti-war. Also the driving force behind gun control- very pro-UN.

Labordems- ACLU, unions, fighting the 'man', champions of the working class

Africadems- NAACP, Affirmative Action, etc

Rainbowdems- gay rights, subsidies for artists, taxpayer funded 'culture'

Womyndems- pro-choice, ERA, women in uniform, etc

Hawkdems- pro-Iraq war- known as "conservative democrats", realists, the ex-republicans, etc

Pinkdems- pseudo-socialist. Favor socialized medicine, but settle for more medicaid/care at present; advocates of the welfare state

did I leave any out?
Which groups do Bill Clinton, Kerry and other famour Democrats fall into?

did I leave any out?

I think you covered it well.. you might include elderly New-Dealers, who, although dying out rapidly, have an almost hive-mind type allegiance to the DNC. That's an easy one.

Which groups do Bill Clinton, Kerry and other famour Democrats fall into?

Well, as I said, there are many crossovers, and to get that high into the party you would have to ally yourself with several. But my thoughts (I may be wrong of course):

Bill Clinton-...he seems to fit into all of them a bit, but not completely. Probably why he is so popular among democrats- they can all claim him to be part of their faction

Jimmy Carter- peacedem

John Kerry- hawkdem

Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy: pinkdems

Al Gore- envirodem

If I were to list the factions of the Democratic party, it would look like this (many of them cross barriers, but you get the point):

Envirodems- environmentalists, favor heavy restrictions on business, alternative fuel

Peacedems- very anti-war. Also the driving force behind gun control- very pro-UN.

Labordems- ACLU, unions, fighting the 'man', champions of the working class

Africadems- NAACP, Affirmative Action, etc

Rainbowdems- gay rights, subsidies for artists, taxpayer funded 'culture'

Womyndems- pro-choice, ERA, women in uniform, etc

Hawkdems- pro-Iraq war- known as "conservative democrats", realists, the ex-republicans, etc

Pinkdems- pseudo-socialist. Favor socialized medicine, but settle for more medicaid/care at present; advocates of the welfare state

did I leave any out?
This could be fun.
The Welfaredems -- Depend on the government for their subsistence.

The Ghostdems -- Used to vote, but now push up daisys. AKA Machinedems or Dailydems.

My favorite, the McKinneydems -- Vote for Cindy, no matter what stupid stunt she pulls. Also includes the Welfaredems.

This could be fun.
The Welfaredems -- Depend on the government for their subsistence

Welfaredems fall under the pinkdems in my divisions.

It is really frustrating. Each of the parties caters to so many interest groups, it all comes down to whatever issue most affects you at that time. If I could pick half the platform of the Republicans, and half the Democratic platform and jam them together, it might actually make for a good party in my opinion.

And what about the postal worker's unions? The NLCA is the #2 union behind the Teamsters, yet they are government employees, and half are ex-military. A recipe for a Republican vote if I ever saw one.

I wish one of the two parties would be consistent. That's the problem I have.

Both claim to be for individual rights, for instance. But the Democrats (The Nazz's protests notwithstanding) have a long history of trying to take guns away from people, and the Republicans have a long history of trying to stop abortion. A consistent stance on individual rights would support the Second Amendment as an individual right, and support abortion. But we'll never get that with the halfwit arrangement of parties we have now.

I wish one of the two parties would be consistent. That's the problem I have.

Both claim to be for individual rights, for instance. But the Democrats (The Nazz's protests notwithstanding) have a long history of trying to take guns away from people, and the Republicans have a long history of trying to stop abortion. A consistent stance on individual rights would support the Second Amendment as an individual right, and support abortion. But we'll never get that with the halfwit arrangement of parties we have now.Not recently. You guys won that debate. Take it and be happy.

Not recently. You guys won that debate. Take it and be happy.
That doesn't solve the incredible inconsistency that both parties engage in.

That, and half the time, you can't tell the difference between one party and the other, unless they pick a hot button issue that is meaningless, such as "does Bush suck?"

Well, it won't really matter anymore will it? It's not like he's going to be re-elected.

EW! Time for Will Rogers:


I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.

Some other ones:

Congress:
And the thing about my jokes is, they don't hurt anybody. You can
take 'em or leave 'em - you can say they're funny or they're terrible
or they're good, or whatever, but you can just pass 'em by. But with
Congress, every time they make a joke, it's a law! And every time
they make a law, it's a joke!

This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session
as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.

A fool and his money are soon elected.

Democracy:
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the
only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years,
no matter what it does.

Welfaredems fall under the pinkdems in my divisions.
I split out the advocates from the dependants. Comme ci, comme ca

That doesn't solve the incredible inconsistency that both parties engage in.

That, and half the time, you can't tell the difference between one party and the other, unless they pick a hot button issue that is meaningless, such as "does Bush suck?"

Well, it won't really matter anymore will it? It's not like he's going to be re-elected.The inconsistency is a major problem. The election this November will be more of a "we all know by now that Bush sucks--how do we
limit the damage?" And the answer is simple--elect a hostile Congress.

The inconsistency is a major problem. The election this November will be more of a "we all know by now that Bush sucks--how do we
limit the damage?" And the answer is simple--elect a hostile Congress.
Won't happen. Like I've said before, everyone thinks that their own Rep or Senator is the good guy, it's the other ones that cause all the problems. See the McKinneydem.

I split out the advocates from the dependants. Comme ci, comme ca

Commies is so 1950s.

Try socialists.....

This is a hard question. Any answer requires extensive stereotyping, and unfair generalizations.

There is a "progressive activist" crowd, who are considerably to the left of the establishment and generally embrace a wide range of progressive causes. They will go along with candidates like Dean or Kucinich, were mostly somewhat disappointed in Kerry, and, these days, are staunchly committed to "reforming" the Democratic Party and taking it back from the DLC-types. I would put the bloggers into this category.

Then there are the DLC types, the crowd of pro-war, anti-welfare, pro-neoliberal capitalism people, who brought us the wonders of Clinton, NAFTA, welfare reform, and bipartisan aggression against Iraq.

Beyond that, there are the variety of "special interests,"* of which the most prominent are probably organized labor and the African American community, though of late (the past two and a half decades, that is) the general reactionary shift in politics has disempowered both of them.

*Quotes added because I do not wish to imply the typical derogatory connotation of the term; people fighting for decent causes are not evil trolls trying to subvert democracy.

Peacedems- very anti-war. Also the driving force behind gun control- very pro-UN.

Linking gun control to anti-war status is not wise.

Labordems- ACLU, unions, fighting the 'man', champions of the working class

The ACLU supporters and the labor backers are not at all in the same category.

Rainbowdems- gay rights, subsidies for artists, taxpayer funded 'culture'

You just made this one up.

Pinkdems- pseudo-socialist. Favor socialized medicine, but settle for more medicaid/care at present; advocates of the welfare state

There is a "social welfare" focusing crowd, might reasonably be called "pseudo-socialist." They are connected to those you term the "Africadems," because of the obvious linkages between poverty and racism.

But putting Hillary Clinton into this category is nonsense; she belongs to the Spineless Opportunist faction, like most of the people in charge.

If I were to list the factions of the Democratic party, it would look like this (many of them cross barriers, but you get the point):

*snip*
Merge the Labourdems with the Pinkdems, and rename womyndems as femdems or femocrats. Rename Africadems to Afrodems.