Change is why we are here, isn't it? We want to transform the country we find ourselves in now into that "more perfect union" we've always heard about. We march, knock on doors, donate money, sign petitions, and blog endlessly to bring it about. Most of our little meta battles are really about the differences in philosophy we have regarding the mechanics of change. But how well thought out are these philosophies? Do they hold up to scrutiny?
Near as I can see there are three major philosophical strains that dominate this community. Described in very broad terms they are:
Better Dems
This philosophy holds that the gates of the establishment can be crashed if we identify, fund and elect stronger and more committed progressives. Less committed Democrats will be challenged in primaries until it becomes clear that DINO's are not welcome in the party. eventually when a strong enough core of progressives are embedded in congress, the courts and hopefully the White House - the rest of the government will be forced to appease our immovable block of progressives. People who hold this belief system tend to believe that the existence of stronger progressives voices will inspire a majority of voters to support progressive candidates. It is an article of faith that Americans will chose bold progressive leadership most of the time if given that option. Thus, the extent to which voters reject progressive candidates is almost always a function of them not articulating progressive ideals forcefully enough.
or
More Dems
People who hold this belief system tend to think that meaningful political change almost always follows cultural change. They seek to bolster the numbers of elected Democrats - even in areas where they believe only marginal Democrats can be elected. They accept the fact that their political opponents have a vote and thus expect that many steps along the way to change will be riddled with compromise until consensus is strong enough to dictate otherwise. In this philosophy change almost always comes brick by brick. It is an article of faith for people with this belief system that regions that reject liberal candidates do so because they simply are not inhabited by liberal voters. So the challenge here is to build the voting base in these districts as well as building majorities so large that DINO's have less say than in a smaller caucus.
and lastly
The Non-Believers
These folks don't believe change is possible. They view the oligarchy as too powerful and both parties as a slave to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyhow - I am interested in hearing your philosophy. Does it fall into one of the above broad categories, or do you have an entirely different take on the subject. Or perhaps you can help me describe the above philosophies more accurately What I am NOT interested in in this diary is your critique of others you disagree with. Just tell us how change actually happens - and be prepared to answer good faith questions from other members of the community who want to know how it works.
Finally - yes, I understand that it is possible to believe in having both more AND better Dems, but generally the philosophies espoused most often at Dkos emphasize one or the other.