"White Ethnics" Stay in Control of the Democrats

In another thread, a poster suggested there'd be a more racially equal but more sexually conservative US if the "white ethnics" stayed in control of the Democratic Party instead of losing it to the activists.

So how might it happen that they don't lose control?

(I assume "white ethnics" refers to the Irish and the like)
 
Let me guess, the 'white ethnics' were represented by LBJ, Humphrey, Carter and Clinton, while the 'activists' were RFK, Ribicoff, Cuomo, Tsongas?
 
Let me guess, the 'white ethnics' were represented by LBJ, Humphrey, Carter and Clinton, while the 'activists' were RFK, Ribicoff, Cuomo, Tsongas?

I'm not 100% sure. I'm not really up on the Democratic Party's internal politics.

It was Mmmriadas or however you spell it who suggested it.
 
I'm not 100% sure. I'm not really up on the Democratic Party's internal politics.

It was Mmmriadas or however you spell it who suggested it.

The mainstream 'patriotic' Dems (supported by the white ethnics and unions and rural folk) I listed were all WASPS, while the somewhat pro-activist, liberal pols were two Catholics, a Jew and a Greek.

The divide between who was an outsider and who an insider is always difficult to find in political movements. White ethnic versus (presumably middle class) activist is just one faultline in US Democratic politics.
 
I'm not sure, because honestly, he shouldn't be. Tsongas was a neoliberal, just like Bill Clinton, and neither are particularly 'liberal' in any sense of the word.

Perhaps conventional liberal isn't the best way to describe what Tsongas was (hence my qualifier 'somewhat'), but he was certainly connected to Democratic activism. If he hadn't been he would never have done as well as he did in his presidential run, when he wasn't supposed to be a chance as he was too much like Dukakis (Greek, northeastern).

Anyway, you might as well call John Kerry a neoliberal for supporting the same balanced budget ideas as his predecessor in that MA senate seat with support for the Concord Coalition.

Plus:

A Politico report of a DLC study from last year's primary said:
Obama did poorest in the Democratic primaries with white working class voters. Like Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, and Howard Dean, Obama was most popular with what are sometimes referred to as “wine track Democrats,” college educated, while Hillary Clinton eventually coalesced those commonly called “beer track Democrats,” working class.

As far as I can tell Tsongas was an ADA member, but never in the DLC.
 
Last edited:
Well, whatever "white ethnics" means the political needs of those who aren't "white ethnics" are going to be eventually addressed. They'll either bolt the party as white Southerners did in the mid-60 over the civil rights act or they'll from a new party.

Could this be what finally creates a third party in the modern US? Previously, nearly all third parties have always been co-opted or absorbed into one of the two parties. The last third party to actually break in was the Republicans.


Bill
 
Something like this in 2008 I assume

Democratic Party-The Democratic Party is the populist party of the United States dominated by the working class, and Hispanics. It is economically protectionist and is bitterly divided over the illegal immigrant issue. It is very socially conservative (as much as the Republicans are in OTL) and opposed to homosexual marriage and abortion. As a result of the efforts of Democrats and moderate Republicans abortion is illegal in TTL. It dominates the South through the Evengelical and black vote.

Republican Party-The Republican Party is a moderate Libertarian party. It is economically more or less the same as OTL Republicans and socially about where the moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans are in TTL.
 
Top