|
|
|
"IDEAS FOR DEMOCRATS, I: THE VISION” Steven Jonas, MD, MPH With
this column I return to the subject of politics and the Democratic Party that I
have addressed in two previous series, the one on the Kerry Campaign in the
summer of 2004, and the one entitled “The Future of the Democratic Party” in
the fall of 2005. As with the classic bridal gown, there will be
something(s) old, something(s) new, something(s) borrowed and something(s) blue,
which is what we all be (actually much worse) should we be unable to derail the
Georgite theocratic fascist juggernaut. The first absolutely essential
step in doing that will be to take over at least one house of Congress this
fall, regardless of what Adam Nagourney had to say in the News of the Week in
Review in The New York Times of May 14, 2006 (“Hey Democrats, Why
Win?” a topic to which I shall return in a future column). In
a front page article in The New York Times on May 9, 2006 (“Optimistic,
Democrats Debate the Party's Vision”) Robin Toner said: “With
Democrats increasingly optimistic about this year's midterm elections and the
landscape for 2008, intellectuals in the center and on the left are debating how
to sharpen the party's identity and present a clear alternative to the
conservatism that has dominated political thought for a generation. . . . . But
some of these analysts argue that the party needs something more than a pastiche
of policy proposals. It needs a broader vision, a narrative, they say, to return
to power and govern effectively.” To which I say, Amen. I
also say that such statements are nothing new. On the Op-Ed page of The
New York Times of November 4, 2004, Andrei Cherny, a former senior staffer
for both Sen. Gore and Sen. Kerry, wrote: “The overarching problem Democrats
have today is the lack of a clear sense of what the party stands for. . . .
Democrats have a collection of policy positions that are sensible and right. . .
. What we don’t have and what we sorely need is . . . a worldview that makes a
thematic argument about where In
The New York Times of May 26, 2003, there was a front-page story by my
high school classmate Adam Clymer about the state of the Democratic Party.
Adam told us that what all of the Democratic Party leaders and outside observers
alike, even the DLC people quoted, agreed upon is that what we need is: a new
"clear identity," the ability "to think strategically"
(Peter Hart), a "better message," to "stand for something"
(Bob Strauss), to be able to "show that we can make progressive government
work" (Will Marshall), "to move away from incremental new reforms to
big and broad issues" (Bill Carrick). But
when I said “nothing new,” I really meant “nothing new.” In a New
York Times article on September 25, 1987, the journalist E.J. Dionne wrote:
“All Democrats have been searching for language to call As
some of you know, in 1992, I published a book entitled The New Americanism:
How the Democratic Party Can Win the Presidency. In the book, I proposed a
“broad, embracing, expansive vision” for the Democratic Party, for its then
present and the nation’s future. I believe that it is still very much
what the doctor ordered for the Democratic Party. In brief, it is a simple
concept with a precise mission: to find the new grand vision for the Democratic
Party, to find the bed-rock foundation upon which both the traditional agenda
and the 21st century agenda of the Democratic Party can be
established, to find the language and the civil weapons that our nation needs if
the determined Georgite assault on, yes, American Constitutional Democracy as we
have known it for 200 years, is to be halted in its tracks. Ever
since the New Deal, the principal political divide between Democrats and
Republicans has been over the role of government in our nation and our national
policy. Republicans want it as small as possible in dealing with the
economy, as big as possible in controlling and restricting personal rights and
liberties. Democrats generally take the opposite view. Previously both
sides have had some shadings on their positions. Georgite Republicanism
has none. Not only have they adopted the Grover Norquist “sink it to the
size of a bathtub and then drown it in the bathtub” program for any positive
functions of government, but they also most obviously want to establish a
government of, by, and for the repression and oppression of any citizens of our
great nation who oppose their social, their economic, or their foreign polices.
I originally envisioned The New Americanism as a sort of elegant marketing
program for the traditional Democratic agenda. Now the struggle is clearly
over whether the The
New Americanism finds the proposed “Vision for the Democrats” in the very
founding documents of our great nation. The New Americanism projects a grand,
integrated, overarching, forward-looking domestic and foreign policy based upon
the principles of, yes, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Together they provide the Statement of Purpose for our nation, the Statement of
Purpose of our National Government, and the Primary Functions of that Government
in achieving in the stated Purpose. Our
National Purpose is made clear by the Declaration: to demonstrate
unequivocally that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and
the pursuit of Happiness . . .” The
primary Purpose of our National Government is also made clear in the
Declaration: “[T]o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
men.” The
Primary functions of our National Government in achieving this purpose
are spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution: “We the people of the United States, in order
to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.” Why
this is enough to make a strict constructionist out of anyone (other than the
Georgites, of course)! And so I present to you, dear reader, my proposal
for, as Andrei Cherny put it, “a [Democratic] worldview that makes a thematic
argument about where ________________ Dr. Steven Jonas is a contributing author for The Political Junkies
(www.thepoliticaljunkies.net).
He is a
Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and
author/co-author of over twenty books. Dr. Jonas is one of He
is also the author of The 15% Solution: A Political History of American
Fascism, 2001-2022. Under the pseudonym "Jonathan
Westminster" this book was originally published in 1996. It was
republished with a New Introduction in 2004. Under Georgite rule, the
“fictional non-fiction” scenario of this work of “future history” is,
most unfortunately, becoming all too real, now almost day-by-day. The 2004 edition is
available at www.barnesandnoble.com
(search with the book title) and www.xlibris.com
(click on “Bookstore,” then “Search” with the title). Both
versions are available at www.amazon.com
(go to "Books;" search with the title). Dr. Jonas is also a Contributing Editor for the Weblog http://planetmove.blogspot.com/,
produced by The Planetary Movement Ltd. UK (http://www.planetarymovement.org/), TPJ's
own Michael Carmichael, President and Chief Executive Officer, a
Contributing Columnist for the Project for the Old American Century, POAC, http://www.oldamericancentury.org/,
on which his TPJ columns appear regularly, and a columnist for the webmagazine
BuzzFlash ((http://www.buzzflash.com/)
on which short(er) Commentaries are published once a week or so.. By invitation, Dr.
J's TPJ columns are also posted periodically on the weblog Thomas Paine's
Corner (http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/).
2006 Jan
26, 2006 "George
Bush And The Doctrine Of Original Intent"
Nov
25, 2005 “The
Future Of The Democratic Party, VII: ‘The Ten Commitments’” Oct
27, 2005 “The
Future of the Democratic Party, IV: Sept
29, 2005 "The
Bush Flood, And The Georgites: New Orleans, III" Aug
25,2005 "Some
Thoughts On The Atomic Bombing Of Japan" July
28, 2005
“Iran
Nukes, Revisited" June
23, 2005 "Why
All Of This Repression Abroad?" May
26, 2005 "Pat
Buchanan's 'What If?'" April
28, 2005 "The
Schiavo Case, IV: The Definitions Of Life And Death" March
31, 2005 “John
Bolton And The Nuclear Option" February
24, 2005 "Going
Nuclear In Iran" Jan
27, 2005
“Comparing
George W. Bush And Adolf Hitler” Dec
30, 2004
“The
‘Unless’ of the ‘Coming Second Civil War’ Series, Part I” Oct
28, 2004
Why
The Patriot Act?” Sept
30, 2004
“Four
800 Lb. Gorillas In The Campaign Room” July
29, 2004
“Some
Thoughts For and About The Kerry Campaign, IV” May
27, 2004
“On
Fascism -- And The Georgites” April
29, 2004
“On
George Bush and Religion, Part 2” March
25, 2004
“Brief
Essays” February
27, 2004 “On
Doctor Dean” |
|
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. © 2002- 2007 OLDAmericanCentury.org and OLDAmericanCentury.com |