I can’t decide whether it was beyond the scope of what Cameron wanted to write or whether he thinks that the discussion and dissent among the Democratic base really are less prevalent among Republicans. Regardless of which of those options is more accurate, as I read his post I was struck with how I see the exact same kinds of dissent among rank-and-file Republicans that he was describing among Democrats. I see it at the local and national levels and I have seen it in various forms for years.
While I don’t think that I could specify the line between healthy debate and destructive agitation I am confident that a lack of debate is anything but healthy in all or nearly all circumstances. I hope that over time the Republican party coalesces around those positions that I think are the most conducive to good government and good society, but I do not hope that the debate should ever die. I think that when people silence their honest differenced of opinion they open the door for destructive dictatorial types to have undue influence within the political process within the party and within the actual government.
Beyond the scope.
Quite frankly, it was a stream of thought post based on what I had read in the New Republic and what I had just then read at Bob’s blog.
In no way do I think Republicans never have dissent within the ranks. Nor do I think dissent is always bad. But I don’t think a post about the Democratic Party necessarily has to have a comparison to the Republican Party. Or vice versa. Actually, I tire of the constant, “well Republicans/Democrats do it too/more/worse” arguments.
The main drive of the post is the New Republic article on congressional Democratic dissent from a Democratic president’s policy wishes dooming the president. All that in the context of the almost manifest destiny-like vibe the Democratic Party seems to have had since November.
Are they doomed to repeat the past, or will pointing out the problems with congressional democrats strengthen the party as a whole?
Which I think segues nicely into the local flare up on Bob’s blog.
There’s certainly nothing wrong with a stream of thought post. In all honesty this was essentially a stream of thought reaction. I’m not sure how much that says about what you wrote compared to what it says about how I think.
I do think that as healthy as internal debate is it is also healthy to look at external events (whether in another party or just generally outside) and consider what they mean for us.
If I were to take a guess about the question of whether the Democrats will repeat the past I would have to say that they will – not necessarily because of any defect within the party, but because I don’t believe that one party can maintain a stable majority over time.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and for responding to mine.
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” –Mark Twain
Jason,
Thanks for sharing your perspective here. I really like what you have to say about internal dissent (such as the fact that “dissent” is not really an accurate word for what you are doing – I think I’ll call it “critique” in the future). I also agree whole-heartedly that this is a Utah challenge. I think that the Utah Republican party is weaker than it could be because the Democratic party is weaker than it should be, and apathy is the cause of the weakness in both parties.
I applaud those who can honestly promote the values of the Democratic party (meaning more than the value of not being the Republican party) and I hope to see a vibrant political culture taking hold in both parties here in the state.
Within the Republican party I hope to see each elected official become the best they can be and also – even if they are the best they can be – I hope that each of our incumbents has to regularly face strong primary challenges. One thing the Utah Republican party would benefit from (any party in my mind) would be a culture where the incumbent represents, but does not control the party.
The comparison between the local debate happening here, and the national debate is the premise that undermines Cameron’s post. Very different factors are at play in both venues, and nationally, it’s really only conservatives who see a relevant level of dissent. Blue Dog influence is on the wane (don’t tell Matheson!) and did you happen to see the budget vote yesterday? Only 20 dissenters. Not a split, or even a noteable number, considering the size of the body. While I completely agree that no party can maintain a stable majority permanently, I think the greater challenge for House/Senate Democrats is the leadership of Pelosi/Reid, and their ability to organize the majority much better than they did 06-08.
Locally, the “dissent” is much more practical, and necessary. It’s also important to remember that this “dissent” consists of two bloggers, Bob and myself. As much as we’d like to tout the influence of bloggers, we are still just two bloggers. The Democratic Party of Utah itself experiences little dissent, and to be honest, that is what I think leads to a bit of stagnation and lack of creativity.
The criticisms Bob and I (apologies to Bob for speaking for him in this instance) offer are directed more at one simple aspect of the party in Utah: online out-reach. And to the credit of party leadership, they listened, and are working with Craig/Jeff/Myself at The SideTrack to organize a team for getting as many of these county conventions online as possible, and develope a goal going forward. They have also been working steadily towards a larger embrace of the online resources overall, I believe in direct response to our criticisms in the past (an assumption, based solely on my first hand experience with leadership in person: they know they have to do it, but they are still not quite sure why and are hesitant about the returns… thus some frustration you see).
If we have learned anything (my turn to make a poor connection between local and national party strategies) from Bush’s Republican Party, it’s that a lack of “dissent” (really a poor choice of words… as it implies a lack of dedication to the party itself, which is the opposite of why I criticize my party) that leads to a lack of responsiveness and necessary change. And yes, it happens in the local GOP as well (super-majorities are always, eventually, the downfall of a party) as the continued and predictable rate of returnig incumbants and inattentive legislating are signs of an apathetic public which further insures a lack of innovation in party direction. The same is happening with local Democrats, for very different reasons.
Thus the criticism that thrust this debate forward in the first place: party leaders in local papers saying to candidates “Democrats dont’ win in Utah, but run anyway.”
It’s a Utah challenge, really, not a party specific challenge. Last year, Ric Cantrell organized one of the most impressive and engaging volunteer efforts around to cover the Utah GOP convention online. But party leaders fought him all the way, and to his credit, they did it anyway. The Democrats didn’t even have their convention online. But when we complained, they called our bluff, got us the video, and helped us promote it once it was online.
Cameron is wrong to conflate the local dissent to a “Oh those silly Democrats” meme by making a national comparison. Lack of populist outreach and grassroots engagement from BOTH parties is not good for Utah. Utah Republican incumbents have become dependent on the apathy for re-election. Demcrats have come to expect the apathy and even accept it.
Both parties are wrong to do so. But the only thing that will ever change it is “dissent.”