I am not going to go through the various definitions that a better Democrat might entail; I am sure that there are as many variable as there are Democrats, the one thing that I am addressing are voices calling for more Democrats and a better Democrat. I want say that I think that in order to get a better Democrat, we need better politicians competing with one another. In order to get better politicians, we need better voters, that is, informed voters. Informed on issues and candidates and something that I never hear mentioned; people with first hand experience of politicians working for something. In order to get better voters we need better citizens, meaning those who put people first. That takes the establishment of human rights and social justice.
Now I am not going to get into a chicken and egg thing about what came first, I am talking about right now in The United States. Regarding the idea of having more Democrats, get people to vote. Only fifty percent of the population is registered to vote, only a varying percentage of those people actually vote, 60% in a good year. Get young people to vote.
If the electorate is educated and intelligent, it should not matter what their party designation is. And, get the money out of political campaigns. Just get it out. Politicians become power hungry once in power; money is only political steroids, not an awesome power. Oh yes, the establishment types work and sweat, but for money and to take care of their own business and not the people’s business. They have to work for people, not for well advertised, and under described issues or for bizarre personae that do not exist.
As fraught with problems as public financing of elections would be, compared to the private sector funneling of money to politicians, it is a choice between your representative listening and responding to you the voter or them, the plutocracy, and subsequent oligarchy. This is not about how to build a better Democratic party. This is about the business of politics and how it affects the social ecology and how a better Democrat can emerge from a good social ecology.
As an analogy; for those seeking housing in a bucolic country setting without regard to its affect on the environment, they might seek a builder who has developed a tract of homes in the country, each home offering spacious rooms, air conditioning and heating, landscaped properties and sewage, power, water and natural gas infrastructure.
Local habitat and wilderness may be disregarded as we witness a woodcock pecking at the asphalt, the same piece of ground that her family has owned for ten thousand years. Now, because of development, she faces starvation as her range is diminished.
In spring, the runoff from the rain floods every basement, in all seasons, the wastewater and runoff from the properties and smooth streets pollutes the streams and lakes. The entire development is not designed to employ energy efficient strategies from architectural landscaping or building practices or green power sources and conservation strategies. Arguably, it is comfortable for the homeowners, profitable for the developer but another net blight on the environment and economy.
As political parties mature, they redevelop in a similar way, destroying the social ecology by partisan disputes that can disrupt relationships or partisan strategies that are hypocritical with regard to their actions and their stated goals. The social fabric of a functioning society is disrupted with rhetorical warfare like name calling, hate speech, distortions and ad hominem attacks.
Yet, a party is part of a whole, it can only develop to serve society by keeping to its rightful niche. They cannot fight with constituents and win elections as long as the law says that they have to be elected, that leaves us with an autocratic bureaucracy.
That would be a reactionary, anti democratic, horrible thing like a person chosen in the Florentine Republic by a signoria to be a dictator. These were supposed to be the first Democracies of the renaissance. Sounds like traditional values to me. Just subtract egalitarianism. Sounds like class warfare to me. Subtract the Bill of Rights and anything goes.
Working to lobby for and support 1.5 million nonprofit grassroots organizations can only solidify the class and educational strata of the Democratic Party and spread the word by word of mouth advertising. That is supposedly the best advertising. This is how we should spread democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. This should be our currency to gain power. Militarism can no longer sustain itself or our foreign policy.
I can say that I am for what Democrats are for. I will forgo listing those attributes; there is Wikipedia, C-Span, and Google etc. It is easily and ubiquitous in articulation as is the Republican platform and their recent history. Beside, you are all Democrats. Right? The better Democrats or even the best Democrats, Right? We just need more of you.
Human rights are not mentioned in the Democratic platform. Civil rights for citizens and some economic opportunities for members of society are listed. There is no mention of an economic Bill of Rights similar to proposals by FDR or those mentioned in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 with the help of us the USA are. Human rights day is December 10th. Democracy is a human right, the adoption of the Bill of Rights were a good first step in 1791. Conservatives did not want it; it declared what government could not do. They have been manipulating the Constitution ever since because that document says what government could do.
I am against what Republicans are for. I believe that the extreme conservatives, who seem to be leading he Republicans around by the nose are, in my opinion, anti democratic, anti-human, destructive and even anti-American in their single minded quest for political dominance. So destructive that when they have no one to attack or it means attacking people who can hurt them politically, they attack one another. I will go one step further, under their influence; the celebrated and much over used right of right left/right political formula is made invalid. But, you all know that also, right? All they have as an agenda is power for the sake of power.
My question is; why does the Democratic Party establishment insist on mimicking the strategies employed by the right? That is; political advertising, political operatives, political strategists, think tanks and fundraising. They are working hard; being a professional politician is hard work. Helping people outside of the system is hard but rewarding work for Democrats. That should be their strategy.
Differing strategies start with making better people,then better voters and then better politicians. That would make both parties better and more numerous in numbers. It would arguably, make a better country. I want that.