> No one would expect a critique of capitalism from them but at least a
> dogfight over *something*. Like Doug said, they walk in the door
> compromising and Repubs don't.
This would be a bit like expecting the understudy to try and take over the role permanently every time the prima donna has a cold. Or asking the liver why it isn't a lung.
The Republicans are the corporate party par excellence; it's their job to fight hard for immiseration, war, and the police state. There's no need for the Democrats to do all that too; that would be duplicative.
The Democrats have a different job: partly it's the understudy role, when the Rs need a little holiday in opposition, or they've gone too far too fast and want somebody else to hold the bag for a while. And partly it's the containment of any elements of the public that aren't wholeheartedly down with the corporate program -- the Ds provide a safe way for these malcontents and party-poopers to let off steam without actually compromising the conduct of business, and they keep the malcontents all caught up in a futile electoral shell game instead of making trouble.
> That wasn't always the case.
When do you think it changed? I'm not disagreeing -- the party system has certainly evolved over time. But I'm curious where you would date the transition to the current prima donna/understudy arrangement.
--
Michael J. Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com