Do we need a new Democratic Coalition?

Obama via Donna Brazile seeks a new Democratic coalition consisting of African Americans, the young and the creative class, which can be approximated as the educated middle class. The old FDR coalition, labor unions, progressives and ethnic and racial minorities (Hispanics, Asians, Jews and African Americans) is, therefore, deemed inappropriate for the present and future of the party and the country.

Obviously, the new coalition constitutes only a segment of the FDR coalition. In particular, it discards labor unions, Hispanics and at least some progressives. We can ignore the young since this only a temporary stage. Why are these groups thrown overboard? We used to be a large SUV that could take anyone with us anywhere we went; now the SUV was dropped and the Democrats run a Porche.

What is the long term plan Obama pursues for himself and the party that discards a large portion of the party? The whole move doesn’t seem too logical. After all, Obama could have, and to some degree did, gained the support of the labor unions and other blue collar workers. In fact, the needs of blue collar workers can be met by a progressive policy for which Obama could have gotten a mandate. Hispanics are problematic to Obama; they naturally compete with African American for the most influential minority status. A universal health can plan and the support of blue collar workers would have brought all the progressives to his camp easily.

The new coalition has come into being not only by proclamation (Donna Brazile is a awful choice for such an important statement), it is also evident in Obama insulting attitude towards women, blue collar workers and progressives who don’t support him. All in all, it reinforces the notion that Obama indeed is looking for a new way.

Where does the new way lead to? It doesn’t seem that it intends to stay where the party already is. Otherwise, why drop all the apt forces, one of which – Hispanics – is growing fast? It does enlarge the party since it is only a segment of its old self. Assuming that Obama lacks the foresight or is too arrogant to perceive the results of his new coalition doesn’t seem right. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that half a cake is smaller than the whole cake no matter what the metal constraints are.

Another alternative points to Obama forming a 3^rd party, kind of liberal democrats. Such a party fits his platform better; it doesn’t have to deal with the lower middle class and laborers. Yet, after the Obama presidency, such a party will decline in numbers and importance and the new coalition will become just a flash in the pan. This also does fit Obama aspirations or his bombastic behavior.

If half the Republican party joins Obama’s party to rescue itself from the religious right, the neocons and the big mouth radio talkers, then Obama’s party becomes a central player in American politics for years to come, and it also is a real revolution in the political life of the country. This may be Obama’s ultimate plan.

And then it can all be a mindless bewildering plan devised by a bunch of megalomanic fools.