What is wrong with Democrats. Why can't they lead?

[Moonbeam]

It seems to me that Democrats are inept, that they lack courage or are profoundly naïve, that they posses a some kind of self paralysis that keeps them from getting anything done. I've seen this described as lacking balls or being hopelessly stupid but I think something deeper may be the actual root, that there is some sort of profound self doubt at work, some sort of inner fear. Anyway, I hold folk like Harry Reed in profound contempt and every time I hate something I know it reminds me somehow of me, of something I hate about myself. Since self analysis isn't such an easy thing, nobody wants to be what they despise, so I thought maybe the opinions of others might shed some light on this. Naturally, I have to prepare myself that I may not want to see the answers.

Does this post reflect how you might expect Harry Reed to put things if he were me?

 

[Vdubchaos]

Cause you know, Republicans do a better job.

NEITHER is worth a shit to be honest.

 

[highland145]

Swap Dems with Repubs and Reid with Boehner and I agree.

 

[ivwshane]

I'll tell you why dems aren't capable of leading, they have been brain washed by the republicans.
For example when dealing with foreign policy compare the record of dems and reps, I'd say the dems have a better history of avoiding conflict and not creating conflict all together but republicans have beat that meme of "dems are poor on foreign policy" for years that democrats believe it. Because they believe it they don't lead with their record they don't speak confidently about foreign policy, they play it say and only criticize.

The same can be said for the financial well being of this country, they have bought into the "dems are big spenders" talking point which makes them tempered when discussing financial policies.

They are like the child who has been beaten and ridiculed their entire life who, now as an adult, has confidence issues.

The good news is that as the republicans become more extreme the dems have started to become less tolerable of their bullshit and are starting to speak out and up.

 

[woolfe9998]

The Democratic party is a much bigger tent party than is the Republican party. It isn't a larger party, just a more diverse one. The Dems need this big tent to get elected. However, the consequence is that they can rarely agree on anything in particular. They couldn't even get a public option into Obamacare with a super-majority because three dem senators wouldn't sign on.

Another problem is the difference between liberals and conservative in their world view. Liberals think you can reason with people and they will do the right thing. They don't understand that conservatives just hate them and want them out of office. They aren't prepared for the demagoguery and obstructionism of the right. They try to replicate it themselves but they aren't as good at it because their hearts aren't in it. In their hearts, they still believe that reason will prevail.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'll tell you why dems aren't capable of leading, they have been brain washed by the republicans.
For example when dealing with foreign policy compare the record of dems and reps, I'd say the dems have a better history of avoiding conflict and not creating conflict all together but republicans have beat that meme of "dems are poor on foreign policy" for years that democrats believe it. Because they believe it they don't lead with their record they don't speak confidently about foreign policy, they play it say and only criticize.

The same can be said for the financial well being of this country, they have bought into the "dems are big spenders" talking point which makes them tempered when discussing financial policies.

They are like the child who has been beaten and ridiculed their entire life who, now as an adult, has confidence issues.

The good news is that as the republicans become more extreme the dems have started to become less tolerable of their bullshit and are starting to speak out and up.

I hear this to mean they can't get elected without fiscal and internationally conservative democrats. All our bases are belong to a spectrum. I have heard this lack of confidence thingi before. The democrats get elected and turn victory into defeat 2 to 4 years later. To me this highlights the absolute necessity to demonstrate that democratic government works which includes advocating left leaning solutions that do work and have worked. It does raise the notion that supports the conclusion, however, that democrats are very stupid.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Democratic party is a much bigger tent party than is the Republican party. It isn't a larger party, just a more diverse one. The Dems need this big tent to get elected. However, the consequence is that they can rarely agree on anything in particular. They couldn't even get a public option into Obamacare with a super-majority because three dem senators wouldn't sign on.

Another problem is the difference between liberals and conservative in their world view. Liberals think you can reason with people and they will do the right thing. They don't understand that conservatives just hate them and want them out of office. They aren't prepared for the demagoguery and obstructionism of the right. They try to replicate it themselves but they aren't as good at it because their hearts aren't in it. In their hearts, they still believe that reason will prevail.

I think this makes sense too, but there has to be some sort of motivation to be such saps. Looks to me like some kind of liberal guilt death wish. It's a terrible thought to begin to think we would be better off with assholes who will govern over inept do nothing saints.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think this makes sense too, but there has to be some sort of motivation to be such saps. Looks to me like some kind of liberal guilt death wish. It's a terrible thought to begin to think we would be better off with assholes who will govern over inept do nothing saints.

I don't know that there's a logical motivation. It's projection. They see in others what they see in themselves, and in this way they misjudge others. People do not necessarily always listen to reason, so dems will often come across as elitist or professorial while their conservative counter-parts are serving up the red meat.

The GOP has always been better with messaging, sloganeering and branding. Those things apparently work. Take the issue of abortion. Today more people identify as "pro-life" than in the past, in spite of the fact that opinions on when abortion should and shouldn't be legal haven't changed much at all. Obviously the "pro-life" brand has become more popular even though opinions on the substance of the issue remain pretty static. Similarly, during the Reagan years, conservatives effectively branded liberals quite negatively, as well as several sub-groups of liberals such as feminists. These negative associations have stuck to some degree.

 

[Kadarin]

Republicans for the most part are in lock-step with each other, even if they're marching off a cliff. This is because Republicans have lost sight of doing what's best for the nation and its people (as opposed to just the very wealthy), in favor of doing what's best for the Republican Party itself. It's become self-serving and not representative of the average American.

That said, it's a damned shame the Democrats are hell-bent on trashing the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Agent11]

They conflate issues and assume moral superiority.

 

[Walter White]

my answer is too easy but your question is biased. Can you name me the best republican leaders and compare them with the best Democratic leaders?

 

[Jaskalas]

They don't have the power to lead? Not sure what you expect them to do without 60+ votes in the Senate.

 

[werepossum]

Democrats can't lead because the American people are generally not in favor of the specific things the Democrats want to do, so leadership has to be done by sleight of hand. We have to pass the bill so that you can see what's in it. Currently the Republicans have an easier time because while the public isn't any more fond of the Republican agenda, the Pubbies don't actually have to push their agenda, merely point out the bad things in the Democrat agenda. It's just easier to point out to disparate groups something each will dislike than to make something on which all those disparate groups will agree.

The other big problem the Dems have is their big tent nature. The GOP is essentially a coalition of groups who like America as it is, and not a lot of leadership is required to not change things. The Dems are essentially a coalition of groups who do not like America as it is. All these groups agree that America needs to be fundamentally changed, but they disagree on the priorities for change. Thus when the Dems are in power they tend to try to run in all directions at once, diffusing their political capital. One group wants to concentrate on seizing and redistributing income or wealth, another wants to focus on new protections for gays, a third wants to pass special protections for women, a fourth wants to make programs that benefit minorities, a fifth wants to empower unions, a sixth group wants to disarm the American public. Each may take the lead at a given time, but every other faction wants its payoff in whatever legislation is crafted. This tends to make Democrat bills very large and full of bad things the Republicans can point out.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Democrats can't lead because the American people are generally not in favor of the specific things the Democrats want to do, so leadership has to be done by sleight of hand.

I don't think that claim is well supported. In fact, I think it's just the opposite.

Most Americans do support a lot of the issues that Democrats want to implement, and since you brought up healthcare, that's on the list. The problem is that the Democrats are utterly inept at messaging and at implementation. And they are too naive.

The other big problem the Dems have is their big tent nature. The GOP is essentially a coalition of groups who like America as it is, and not a lot of leadership is required to not change things. The Dems are essentially a coalition of groups who do not like America as it is. All these groups agree that America needs to be fundamentally changed, but they disagree on the priorities for change.

I'm really surprised that you would write something like this, both because it comes across as the sort of generic, unsupported left-bashing I hear on talk radio, and because it's so easy to find counterexamples. There are lots and lots of conservatives who also "don't like America as it is". There is the same coalition of groups with different goals to "change America", with conservatives who want to:

• Overturn Roe v. Wade.
• Restore "balance" to the mainstream media.
• Get rid of gun control laws.
• Kick out illegal immigrants, build border walls, etc.
• Undo what they see as secularization of America.
• Get rid of as many taxes as possible.
• Pare down the welfare state.
• Gut union rights.
• Repeal gay marriage laws.

That's just what I came up with off the top of my head in under a minute.

 

[ivwshane]

Democrats can't lead because the American people are generally not in favor of the specific things the Democrats want to do, so leadership has to be done by sleight of hand. We have to pass the bill so that you can see what's in it. Currently the Republicans have an easier time because while the public isn't any more fond of the Republican agenda, the Pubbies don't actually have to push their agenda, merely point out the bad things in the Democrat agenda. It's just easier to point out to disparate groups something each will dislike than to make something on which all those disparate groups will agree.

The other big problem the Dems have is their big tent nature. The GOP is essentially a coalition of groups who like America as it is, and not a lot of leadership is required to not change things. The Dems are essentially a coalition of groups who do not like America as it is. All these groups agree that America needs to be fundamentally changed, but they disagree on the priorities for change. Thus when the Dems are in power they tend to try to run in all directions at once, diffusing their political capital. One group wants to concentrate on seizing and redistributing income or wealth, another wants to focus on new protections for gays, a third wants to pass special protections for women, a fourth wants to make programs that benefit minorities, a fifth wants to empower unions, a sixth group wants to disarm the American public. Each may take the lead at a given time, but every other faction wants its payoff in whatever legislation is crafted. This tends to make Democrat bills very large and full of bad things the Republicans can point out.

Wow....

 

[Charles Kozierok]

On the radio this morning I heard a profile on Medgar Evers, who was murdered 50 years ago next week. His story reminded me of all of those conservatives who want to "fundamentally change America" by undoing decades of hard-won civil rights. They are a minority of the US population, but there are still plenty of them out there even today, and nearly all of them are on the right.

 

[Mursilis]

Another problem is the difference between liberals and conservative in their world view. Liberals think you can reason with people and they will do the right thing. They don't understand that conservatives just hate them and want them out of office. They aren't prepared for the demagoguery and obstructionism of the right. They try to replicate it themselves but they aren't as good at it because their hearts aren't in it. In their hearts, they still believe that reason will prevail.

Resorting to simplistic generalizations to bash conservatives is pretty ironic.

 

[Mursilis]

Most Americans do support a lot of the issues that Democrats want to implement, and since you brought up healthcare, that's on the list.

Support? You're probably right. Pay for? Maybe not so much.

 

[fskimospy]

Democrats can't lead because the American people are generally not in favor of the specific things the Democrats want to do, so leadership has to be done by sleight of hand. We have to pass the bill so that you can see what's in it. Currently the Republicans have an easier time because while the public isn't any more fond of the Republican agenda, the Pubbies don't actually have to push their agenda, merely point out the bad things in the Democrat agenda. It's just easier to point out to disparate groups something each will dislike than to make something on which all those disparate groups will agree.

Yeah, that's just factually false, as shown by repeated public polling. Where did you get this idea from?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Democrats can't lead because they are deeply conflicted in their motives. On one hand they are promising social reform, and the other hand is deep in the corporate money pockets. If they break their promises to the American People they won't get elected, if they break their promises to their corporate backers they won't have the money to get reelected.
You simply can't lead when your hand is in someone else's pocket.

 

[Moonbeam]

Democrats can't lead because they are deeply conflicted in their motives. On one hand they are promising social reform, and the other hand is deep in the corporate money pockets. If they break their promises to the American People they won't get elected, if they break their promises to their corporate backers they won't have the money to get reelected.
You simply can't lead when your hand is in someone else's pocket.

Another good point, I think.

 

[sm625]

It is harder to disguise your corporate shilling when you are trying to hide within a democratic sheepskin.

 

[dank69]

In addition to the things already mentioned, a lot of Democrats have the wrong idea of what the role of the Federal Government should be. This leads to highly unpopular boondoggles like the war on guns.

 

[werepossum]

Answers on individual issues below.

I don't think that claim is well supported. In fact, I think it's just the opposite.

Most Americans do support a lot of the issues that Democrats want to implement, and since you brought up healthcare, that's on the list. The problem is that the Democrats are utterly inept at messaging and at implementation. And they are too naive.

I'm really surprised that you would write something like this, both because it comes across as the sort of generic, unsupported left-bashing I hear on talk radio, and because it's so easy to find counterexamples. There are lots and lots of conservatives who also "don't like America as it is". There is the same coalition of groups with different goals to "change America", with conservatives who want to:

• Overturn Roe v. Wade. True.
• Restore "balance" to the mainstream media. False. It's the Dems who are continually trying to eliminate talk radio and Fox News; conservatives are fine with the existing heavily liberal news media basis as long as their voices are not completely forced out.
• Get rid of gun control laws. True with concealed carry laws, but Dems are pushing much more sweeping changes.
• Kick out illegal immigrants, build border walls, etc.True - if you count enforcing existing laws as a fundamental societal change.
• Undo what they see as secularization of America. Partially true, but this is to undo recent societal changes by the Dems.
• Get rid of as many taxes as possible. True.
• Pare down the welfare state.True.
• Gut union rights.True for labor unions on the public dime and for laws empowering unions at the cost of individual liberty.
• Repeal gay marriage laws.True.

That's just what I came up with off the top of my head in under a minute.

You make some good points, but the Republicans have never held a House plus veto-proof Senate majority (or even a majority where only one or two Democrats have to be picked off) to push their agenda, so the Republicans over the last decade have concentrated on holding the line against more sweeping changes while the Democrats have concentrated on implementing their agenda. Before that, when the Pubbies held the House and the White House, they concentrated on pushing forward things that were popular enough that at least a few Democrat Senators HAD to vote for them, to maintain political viability. The Democrats have been generally unable to put forward proposals popular enough that one or two Republican Senators HAVE to vote for them to maintain political viability. Indeed, the Democrats have had difficulty in putting forward proposals popular enough that all Democrat Senators feel safe in voting for them.

"We're utterly inept at messaging and at implementation, and we're too naive" is the equivalent of answering the resume question "What is your greatest weakness?" with "I am too dedicated to my work". Ain't foolin' nobody, no how.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Before that, when the Pubbies held the House and the White House, they concentrated on pushing forward things that were popular enough that at least a few Democrat Senators HAD to vote for them, to maintain political viability. The Democrats have been generally unable to put forward proposals popular enough that one or two Republican Senators HAVE to vote for them to maintain political viability.

We've discussed this issue before, I'm pretty sure. Your assessment assumes equal reasonableness by both parties, and therefore that a lack of participation by one party implies poorer quality policy. It deliberately ignores the possibility of one party simply being more intransigent than the other.

Suppose I suggest that you and I go out to movie X, and you agree even though you don't particularly like movie X. The next week, you suggest that we go out to movie Y, and I refuse because I dislike movie Y. That doesn't automatically imply that movie Y is worse than movie X, because it could just be that you're more willing to go along to get along, whereas I'm a stubborn asshole. And IMO, that's the Democrats and Republicans right now.

"We're utterly inept at messaging and at implementation, and we're too naive" is the equivalent of answering the resume question "What is your greatest weakness?" with "I am too dedicated to my work". Ain't foolin' nobody, no how.

You seem to be implying here both that I'm a Democrat and that I'm being disingenuous in my contempt for the effectiveness of Reid and the senate Democrats. I think my track record shows fairly clearly that neither of those is the case.