A Yaller Dog Democrat

Perhaps that is a phrase new to your ears/eyes. A Yaller Dog Democrat will
vote for the Democrat even if the party nominates a "Yaller Dog." The phrase
came out of the South in the early 1900's. Despite it's nefarious beginnings, I
embrace it.

It might be possible for the Republicans to nominate a decent, progressive
candidate but that is about as probable as that I might sprout wings and fly. It
may be hypothetically possible, but the probability is so low as to be
meaningless. It certainly hasn't happened in the last 75 years.

Beginning with the 1969 election of Richard Nixon, who attempted to steal the
nation from its people--an action almost accomplished by George W. Bush--every
Republican president has created a greater and greater disaster. Ronald Reagan
began the war against the middle-class, working women and men, families living
by the sweat of their brows. Since then, through Gerald Ford, through two George
Bushes, the Republican party has made life more difficult for average Americans.
They are, of course, in a proud tradition of disastrous presidential
administrations.

We have to go back to Theodore Roosevelt to find a Republican president who left
the nation better off than before. Theodore Roosevelt was too progressive for the Republican party and finally felt he had to organize the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party and run against the Republican, Taft. Since Teddy Roosevelt, Republicans have
brought us economic ruin, war and disasters.

In each case, after a Republican debacle, it required a Democratic president to
bring us back, to end the war, to return economic health. But even two Clinton
terms of office could not completely undo all the damage created by the previous
Republican presidents.

Now to the present. Every Republican candidate currently in the contest has
offered only to continue the disastrous policies of George Bush and Dick Cheney;
Each of them would, in different ways, bring even more damage to the working and
middle class people of the United States. Each would merely extend the class
warfare begun by Ronald Reagan. The only exception is Ron Paul, who would end
the war in Iraq immediately, but whose pseudo-Libertarian policies would leave
the nation weakened and fail to provide adequately for the commons. While he
might end the Iraq fiasco, his plans would destroy schools, social security, and
other parts of the safety net. He would provide fire and police protection for
those who can pay for it, but not for others. He would dismantle regulations
which protect our food, water, medications and safe working environments.

Those are some of the reasons I would not vote for a Republican. But there are
also important reasons from history and present to vote affirmatively for any of
the probable candidates for Democratic nominee:

Historically, one of the best presidents in the history of the nation was
Franklin D. Roosevelt. In addition to bringing the nation out of the depression,
he prosecuted World War II almost to the end--he died before the end, of course,
turning over the rest of the work to Harry S. Truman, no slouch himself.

The next Democratic president followed Dwight Eisenhower. By the end of
Eisenhower's administration, the nation was once again having difficulties.
Fortunately the people next elected an amazing man, John F. Kennedy. Kennedy not
only inspired us, but also led a strong economic growth spurt. He was the right
man to face down Nikita Khrushchev in the Cuba Missle Crisis. His

forward-thinking domestic and external policies promoted the place of the United
States in the world.

He was followed by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson took the vision of Kennedy and
prosecuted the War on Poverty. The War on Poverty reduced the poverty level in
the US from 22.3% to 11.1%. (It has risen somewhat under the prevailing
Republican presidential administrations since then.) Johnson's weakness was in
succumbing to the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident and wasting economic resources
(and lives) in the Vietnam War.

Jimmy Carter was forced to pick up the pieces after the Nixon-Ford fiasco left a
7.5% unemployment rate, a lack of heating fuel in the Northeast, dismal economic
environment, and increasing inflation. While he has come under fire by critics
as an ineffectual president, the reality is quite different. His policies led to
the Salt II treaty, Camp David accords, an accord with China, and a succession
of human rights successes. His domestic policies were, for the most part,
successful. His energy policies would have left the United States better able to
face our present environmental and energy deficits. Unfortunately they were
faced with extreme opposition from a congress bought by the oil and auto
industry. He is not often given the credit but the Iran hostage crisis was

brought to a close as a result of Carter's work. While the timing prevented
Carter from completing the resolution of this crisis, even Reagan has credited
Carter with doing the actual heavy lifting.

I can assume that my readers will remember that Bill Clinton left the nation
with a balanced budget and a surplus, low unemployment, a prospering stock
market, and growing prosperity. If there were unattained goals (Health care, gay
rights, etc.) we were far better off at the end of the Clinton administration
than either at the beginning, or now.

Finally there is another reason for my yaller dog Democrat status. The basic
underlying philosophical bias of the Republican party is that property rights
trump human rights. Individual wealth trumps common wealth, and the prosperity
of the wealthiest is more important than the well-being of the working and
middle-class. This is exactly contrary to the situation with the Democratic
party.

Yes, I do have my preference among the Democratic candidates. Among the top
three leading candidates, I expected to vote for John Edwards who has spent
most of his life working on behalf of working men and women where they are in
conflict with the corporate elites. His support of strong unions and employment
rights continues. However, he has chosen to leave the field in order to best pursue the progressive struggle.


Barak Obama has been inspiring to a whole generation of
young people. He exudes exciting energy and is truly a potential agent for
change. I think he also is a better representative in our relationship with
other nations. It will take years to recover the place of the U.S. in the world
of nations and Obama has the best opportunity than to repair the Bush damage.

Hillary Clinton, to some degree, represents the corporate wing of the Democratic party. It will
require continuous effort to keep her focused on the straight and narrow road. That said
she is still far ahead of any of the Republicans and will make a good effort on
behalf of working America. If she is the nominee, I will be delighted to support her candidacy, will be glad to have her as president and will support her efforts to recover from the disasters of the Republicans.

Yaller-dog Democrat indeed. I will happily vote for whichever of these candidates
emerges to claim the nomination and I will do so proudly, convinced that my vote
serves the best interests of my nation and its people.

---

Finally a word about other left/liberal parties and candidates. This is not a
game. The future of this country depends on defeating the forces of fascism as
represented by Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee. It is arguable that Ralph Nader
was at least partially responsible for the last seven disastrous years. The
weakness of the progressive movement is that we constantly split our power into
factions. Ideological purity trumps pragmatism. But politics is the art of the
possible. In our purity desperate working people lose. Poor people are forced to
subsist without adequate care. Unions lose membership. Our rights are trampled
by a right-wing judiciary.

Any third party can only hope to split the progressive vote and make it harder
or impossible for us to take back America.