I’ve already explained what I think about the Republican Party. Now it’s the Democrats’ turn. Consider this news story from yesterday at ABC 7 Chicago:
CHICAGO (WLS) — The jury in Tim Mapes’ perjury case found the former Michael Madigan confidant guilty on two counts at the Dirksen Federal Building Thursday afternoon.
Mapes was charged with one count of making false declarations before a grand jury and one count of attempted obstruction of justice.
The 68 year old was found guilty on both counts after roughly five hours of deliberating.
Mr. Madigan himself is under indictment on charges of corruption. I don’t know whether he will be convicted or not but at least to me his guilt is pretty obvious. Mike Madigan was chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party most of the last 40 years. That party leaders were blithely unaware of Mr. Madigan’s actions is beyond comprehension.
Many Democrats these days have what I can only describe as an obsession with Donald Trump. He’s all they want to write or talk about. IMO those who voted for him did so in the hope that he would “drain the swamp”. That there is a swamp to drain is obvious to anyone who will allow him- or herself to see it but thinking he could drain it was mistaken. He can only make it swampier.
Simplifying everything I think that we have an anti-government party, the Republicans, who have a severe case of cognitive dissonance and a pro-government party, the Democrats. As I see it the only hope we have is for a decent, honest Democratic Party that is true to the ideals it has claimed for the last 80 years. In my own small way I’m trying to nudge them in that direction. I can’t do that by complaining about Republicans.
Not especially happy with Democrats but it’s the only alternative to Republicans who have gone crazy. I would note the Republicans are just as obsessed, if not more, with Trump. Donated blood this morning. After donating at the cookie table joined 4 other people talking about how sorry they felt for Trump since he was being picked on.
Steve
I continue to be unable to understand supporting Trump. I can barely understand supporting him in the forlorn hope that he would “drain the swamp”. His performance in office should have cast shade on that.
Supporting him as a sympathetic figure is completely beyond my understanding.
“unable to understand supporting Trump”
I’m in agreement, but America starves for leadership and Trump behind a podium connects with the (starving) audience with body language alone.
Problem with Democrats as I see it is that they promote through seniority, familiar to the teamster’s union and defensible in a manufacturing factory setting.
However, the skills required to win a senatorial position are barely transmittable to leadership positions, and as we’ve learned, a law degree plus prosecutorial experience aren’t any better.
Both parties need to actively recruit state Governors if we have any hope of returning to sanity in our political process, encourage them to take courses in public speaking, run criminal background checks, require voluntary financial audits and simply report so if they decline.
Does party leadership even want credible candidates?
Or do they have other motivations, if so, that’s where the housecleaning should begin.
You raise a good point. It’s sometimes helpful to watch these events with the sound off. Occasionally, you’ll learn a lot that way.
IMO, Democrats are more coherent than what passes for the GoP these days, but that’s not saying much. The party has a lot of internal divisions and factions, and there isn’t any overarching thing to get them to cooperate and play nice with each other except opposition to Republicans.
Basically, I think the median partisan is primarily motivated by negative partisanship. I hear many Democrats and Republicans who will voice dissatisfaction with the party when pressed but spend the vast majority of their effort defending their party and attacking the other party. I don’t think there’s an explanation for this other than negative partisanship being the most powerful motivator for strident partisans.
One of those factions, the progressives, presently holds the whip hand in the Democratic Party. That is so obvious it hardly seems deniable to me. The party has become much more autocratic, centralizing power in the leadership, particularly the Speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi was a founding member of the House Progressive Caucus and remained a member until she assumed a leadership role. Hakeem Jeffries was a member in good standing until he assumed a leadership role. Progressives may not get everything they want but they control what comes to the floor and what amendments are proposed.
Dave,
The centralization in the House first occurred under Speaker Ryan. Pelosi used that authority effectively.
But I think that’s a symptom of wider partisan dysfunction.
What about the Hastert rule? That made working across the aisle pretty unimportant and put lots of power into the hands of the Speaker.
Steve