How the Democrats Betrayed their Constituency.

Published on March 3, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Disclaimer: While I could easily write a piece on the Republican betrayal of their constituency as well, I have never been an adherent of the GOP platform. Therefore, I don't have firsthand knowledge. So those who will claim this as a partisan attack would do well to keep that in mind.

I was born in 1970, and raised by the liberal of liberals. I have seen and studied much of the 1960's, and what readily comes to mind is the image of young college students campaigning for the Democrats under the belief that the Dems would be supportive of their lifestyle and of the causes they held dear. In fact, to this very day, Democrats are active at hemp festivals and alternative energy fairs. But a close look at the voting record of many Democrats clearly shows that their commitment to the causes they espoused during their campaigns to these groups were left behind upon their entrance to the capital building in DC. Following are examples I can readily cite:

Death Penalty: few senators of either persuasion have worked hard for the elimination of the death penalty. This is especially relevant for the Dems, however, as some of their highest profile supporters include Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, both very outspoken anti-death penalty advocates
Gay Marriage: I cannot even BEGIN to comprehend why gay and lesbian lobbies throw their support consistently behind Dems. The Republicans, to their credit, are at least honest about their intentions to prohibit gay marriage
Legalization of Industrial Hemp: This is separated from the marijuana issue because it is, put simply, a separate issue. The Democratic Party has not made significant strides to legalizing industrial hemp
Legalization/decriminalization of Marijuana and other "soft" drugs: The Dems have gone to great lengths to court groups such as NORML, while a look at their platform, as well as the voting records of their candidates, has shown them to be anything but supportive of this issue
Personal Liberties: The Dems are labelled "liberals" by much of the media, but their stances on individual liberties has shown them to be anything but. They have worked to actively suppress freedom of religion, as well as the right to keep and bear arms, and their platform and many of their leaders (Hillary and Bill as examples) support the "UN Convention on the Rights of the Child", which effectively eliminates parental rights completely. As well, "Goals 2000" (the initial model for national education standards) predated NCLB by many years, and was authored by Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas.
Race reform: Democrats have consistently supported entitlement programs and quota systems that serve not as INCENTIVE, but rather as disincentive, for minority achievement in this country.

I could continue on with many other examples, but the point is clear: The Democrats have repeatedly and consistently betrayed their constituency, and the continued support by "liberals" of this highly hypocritical party is beyond my comprehension

Comments (Page 1)

terpfan1980

on Mar 03, 2005

Summarized very well.

It seems that some voters who would traditionally have gone democrat have noticed much of this though, and they are waking up to these areas.

Some still pinch their nose and swallow when voting for the democrats because they still see them as the better choice versus republicans, but many are finding that the republicans aren't the monsters they were painted to be, and that -- as you point out -- there's not that much difference between the parties.

liberaldoem

on Mar 03, 2005

Gay Marriage: I cannot even BEGIN to comprehend why gay and lesbian lobbies throw their support consistently behind Dems. The Republicans, to their credit, are at least honest about their intentions to prohibit gay marriage

I'm gay so my opinon kind of overules yours. (I don't mean to offend FYI)
Is it better to support people who consider you as a sin or people who at LEAST say they will accept you?
I understand your point all too well but I believe the most obvious choice is liberals.
Gay and lesbian lobbies back liberals because liberal ideals support gay marriage even if the evil blood sucking conservative "liberals" in congress do not.

PS- I'm a liberal (Democrat) because I support liberal (Democratic) values not the wannabee Repbulicans in Congress.

messybuu

on Mar 04, 2005

I'm gay so my opinon kind of overules yours. (I don't mean to offend FYI)
Is it better to support people who consider you as a sin or people who at LEAST say they will accept you?

What's funny is that Democrats won't even accept you anymore than Republicans. If they do, then why is it that in many Democrat states, such as California, legislation to define marriage as between a man and a woman was largely supported? People claim it's the fault of the religious right, but what did they do? Did they use mind control powers to make Democrats support such legislation, or did they KILL Democrats who opposed the proposition and then bring them back to life in time to help Kerry win the state in 2004?

kingbee

on Mar 04, 2005

Death Penalty: few senators of either persuasion have worked hard for the elimination of the death penalty. This is especially relevant for the Dems, however, as some of their highest profile supporters include Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, both very outspoken anti-death penalty advocates

i'm guessing you don't mean at the state level (where death penalty legislation is enacted now) cuz you allude to the senate. if i'm right, you're saying this betrayal results from not initiating and enacting an amendment prohibiting the death penalty? as noxious as i find the death penalty, i dont attribute any special consideration to susan sarandon nor to ron silver for that matter, and fail to see why you'd mention celebrity preference in this discussion in order to establish relevancy. what sarandon, moore, heston, silver or dennis miller think about the issue is only important in that they hold 4 votes between them.

because it's irreversible once implemented, the death penalty shows up with the starkest clarity serious flaws endemic to what could and should be--but falls far short of being--the most equitable justice system in the world.

the only politician of either party willing to admit that and do anything to change it (and while i applaud what he did, it's also true he had nothing to lose at that point) was illinois' last governor ryan.

kingbee

on Mar 04, 2005

using this same argument, you woulda also been mystified why southern black citizens of alabama and georgia--assuming they'd been allowed to vote--couldnt have been counted on to support wallace and maddox. after all, george not only vowed to stand in the doorways of state universities to prevent integration and lester not only promised to hand out axe handles with which customers of his chicken shack restaurant could defend their preference to eat only with other white people, they honestly did what they promised.

george bush honestly stating his intention to support a specious amendment to the constitution is an unquestionable betrayal of conservative principles. his advocacy of the issue before the election absent any expenditure of his presumed political kapital afterwards is a much more egregious and cynical betrayal of a constituency without which he might very likely be outta office now.

kingbee

on Mar 04, 2005

Legalization of Industrial Hemp: This is separated from the marijuana issue because it is, put simply, a separate issue. The Democratic Party has not made significant strides to legalizing industrial hemp

dismantling federal drug laws for any purpose--even one as admirable as the cultivation of hemp or to alleviate the nausea associated with chemotherapy--is damn near impossible without overwhelmingly unanimous support because we're signatories to a number of treaties (thanks to the efforts of moralists who purposely advocated their signing as one more way to make undoing them as difficult a process as possible)

it wasnt just liberals who helped vote in california's medical marijuana initiative (which is being adamantly opposed by the bush administration's justice department) but many more democrats than republicans supported the effort.

kingbee

on Mar 04, 2005

their stances on individual liberties has shown them to be anything but. They have worked to actively suppress freedom of religion

although you may not see a secular government as enhancing freedom of religion, i believe it to be. as far as individual liberties, the democrats who helped pass the patriot act are no worse nor better than the republicans who did so as well (altho i believe more democrats have regretted having done so).

there's no question who revised the bill as originally considered and dropped it on the congress just hours before the vote. it wasnt democrats who tried to make it even more oppressive.

kingbee

on Mar 04, 2005

Race reform: Democrats have consistently supported entitlement programs and quota systems that serve not as INCENTIVE, but rather as disincentive, for minority achievement in this country.

entitlement programs and quota systems are the mechanism by which over 200 years of the ultimate disincentive has finally been overcome to some extent. obviously a great deal of progress has been made over the past 40 years. in the absence of any other reasonable explanation, it seems fairly safe to conclude that while these may not be perfect tools, they worked. is that still true? are they still needed? or are they now working in opposition to their original intent?

your contention they are a disincentive isnt new. the same argument was offered to prevent enacting these laws in the first place. less than five years after there was such a thing as affirmative action--before it could have had or did have any effect on workplace or classroom demographics--claims to the same effect were already cliched.

in fact, non-whites are still underemployed or unemployed at a rate much higher than whites.

there may now be a better way to resolve that but there may also be a better device than a parachute for exiting an airplane in flight. until its been developed, tested and proven, those standing on solid ground can continue to brand parachutes as disincentives to disembarking from a foundering plane.

for those actually on a falling plane, that kinda theoretical rhetoric dont mean shit.

Dr Guy

on Mar 04, 2005

Gay and lesbian lobbies back liberals because liberal ideals support gay marriage even if the evil blood sucking conservative "liberals" in congress do not.

While there are hypocrits on the Democrat side on this issue, just as there are some conservatives that feel you are 'sinning', the truth is that most conservatives dont care one way or the other, and that is why you have Log Cabin Republicans I do acknowledgge and recognize that the party stance echoes that of the 'born again' christians, but that is because the gays and lesbians have given up on the republican party, so the party leaders have nothing to gain by supporting your issues, but they do stand to lose the support of the religious right.

If you (Royal you, not you personally) voted on other issues as well as the gay and lesbian ones, and spread your support between the parties more frequently, I think you could then play off the parties against each other. Hispanics are doing it quite well, but you wil note that Blacks have pretty much been relegated to insignificant. Why? Because they blindly support Democrats. SO the Republicans have nothing to gain, and the democrats have nothing to lose.

Unions are basically in the same boat. Once a constituency has sold its soul to one party, there is no reason for either party to cater to them.

Dr Guy

on Mar 04, 2005

couldnt have been counted on to support wallace and maddox.

Dont Forget Fulbright.

Dr Guy

on Mar 04, 2005

entitlement programs and quota systems are the mechanism by which over 200 years of the ultimate disincentive has finally been overcome to some extent.

Once the sickness is eliminated, it does not make sense to keep pumping the medicine down the patients throat. So in that respect, Gid is very astute and correct. The problems of the 100 years from the civil war to the Mid 20th century (you cant say 200 years because it has not been a problem for 200 years, there was a different problem 150 years ago that the Civil war helped to correct) has been corrected. Now it is time to fix the other problems, and using the same medicine to fix a different problem is not sound judgement.

Entitlement and quotas are no longer a solution, but part of the problem. The problem is inequality of education,not opportunity. And that requires a different elixir to fix. Not the medicine of discrimination that was needed to stop the Jim Crow situation of the early 20th century.

kingbee

on Mar 04, 2005

The problems of the 100 years from the civil war to the Mid 20th century (you cant say 200 years because it has not been a problem for 200 years, there was a different problem 150 years ago that the Civil war helped to correct) has been corrected.

i wasnt referring solely to slavery but the the almost universal public perception that non-whites were inferior to whites and the inquities that flowed from it.

The problem is inequality of education,not opportunity. And that requires a different elixir to fix. Not the medicine of discrimination that was needed to stop the Jim Crow situation of the early 20th century.

jim crow was alive and thriving well into the last third of the 20th century (consider the 'officially' integrated army that went to war in korea). like i said, the same argument was made prior to the enactment of affirmative action and every year thereafter thru the 70s, 80s and 90s. what progress has been made to date has come about as a result of these programs...not in spite of them.

Dr Guy

on Mar 04, 2005

jim crow was alive and thriving well into the last third of the 20th century (consider the 'officially' integrated army that went to war in korea).

That was the first half, not the last 3rd. The Time line I was looking at was Pre and Post Civil rights, which would have been the mid 60s, about 100 years after the Civil war. The initial remedies was correcting 100 years of Discrimination. That being done, now it is time to raise all boats instead of draining the pond.

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 04, 2005

I'm gay so my opinon kind of overules yours. (I don't mean to offend FYI)
Is it better to support people who consider you as a sin or people who at LEAST say they will accept you?

You're right. Because I am straight, I shouldn't help advance gay rights initiatives. I heard you loud and clear on that one. So from now on out, you and your lobby are on your own, k? (please reference my blogs about the left alienating moderate support through this kind of arrogance).

As to the question, I can only answer with a resounding NO. In fact, if anything, the Democrats are being two faced in "accepting" gays while suppressing their civil rights, which DOES make them worse. What I'm advocating, actually, is support for people who DO support you. The Libertarian Party would be one such example.

kingbee

on Mar 04, 2005

That was the first half, not the last 3rd

as recently as the late-70s, i saw--with mine own eyes--housing ads in which the words 'white preferred' appeared in newspapers in the united states.

do i really need to take five minutes to remind you which parts of your city are close to being all white...and why?
how do you explain the fact that in the 13 southern states (11 members of the confederacy plus kentucky and oklahoma) there are 1,340 counties of which 1,154 have more white than non-white voters?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!