Future of Liberals, Democratic Party

This letter is in response to “Kennedy Urges Democrats to Fight for Party’s Beliefs” (Jan. 12), in which Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) is quoted as stating that the Democratic Party has “failed to demonstrate that its values and beliefs included a commitment to ‘family, community and love of country.’ ”

Kennedy is correct that the Democrats have not focused on this flag-waving propaganda as the Republicans have in the past. The irony is that the Republicans have no business claiming these beliefs either, according to their “contract with America.” What infuriates me is that the Republicans declare their commitment to family, and then resist legislation of a reasonable minimum wage for struggling American families whose current wage barely allows for subsistence. Their commitment to family also includes opposition to programs that provide job training for those heads of households whose welfare benefits they plan to cut. The Republicans claim to love their country but at every chance attempt to “dismantle our environmental laws” by “an avalanche of new rules” that would “(bring) action to protect health and the environment to a halt” (“The Fine Print on the Contract With America,” Commentary, Jan. 12).

On the other hand, the Democratic Party supports welfare benefits for deserving and needy Americans, supports a reasonable minimum wage, supports job training programs, and is the foremost advocate of the tightening of environmental laws. The basic choice is between a party which supports shortsighted quick fixes for the ailments of our society or a party which thinks about the long-term health and welfare of Americans and their environment. It is clear to me which party has the biggest commitment to family, community, and love of country!

DARCY RICHARDES BABBITT

Los Angeles

* Re Richard Goodwin’s commentary, “The Democratic Party, Living 27 Years on Myth, Is Brain-Dead,” Jan. 13:

Liberalism as we knew it may indeed be moribund, but not necessarily its wellspring, the Democratic Party. In helping the children of “have-nots” to become “haves”--and, consequently, Republicans--the party ironically became a casualty of its success: Liberalism did not address the concerns of the new middle class. Moreover, its elixirs for healing the misery of the disenfranchised had lost their potency; its practitioners had become corrupted by power. After more than a half-century, liberalism had few new ideas and was therefore no longer “liberal.”

However, a purge from power should truly be a cathartic process for the Democratic Party, freeing it to look forward--instead of backward--in seeking solutions to stubborn problems. When Will Rogers said “I am not a member of an organized political party, I am a Democrat,” he was alluding to the diversity of opinion and talent that would result in the peaceful Jeffersonian revolution begun in his lifetime. Those same ingredients are present in today’s Democratic Party. When the Republicans ultimately fail for the reasons outlined by Goodwin, a new liberalism, coalescing within the Democratic Party, may very well lead America into its next peaceful Jeffersonian revolution.

NEAL MARKS

Los Angeles

* Since the November elections the media emphasis has focused on the Republican landslide and mandate for change. Yet buried inside the Jan. 12 Times was this item: “Non-voters made up 67% of the voting age population in November, while voting Democrats were 16% and voting Republicans were 17%.” What landslide, what mandate?

JANE WILLITS

Los Angeles

* Susan Estrich writes about the Democrats as “the party of minorities and feminists and liberals, with no room for average Americans” (Opinion, Jan. 15). Defining only white European-American males as average Americans is a way to marginalize and discredit everyone else.

I am a minority (Jewish) feminist liberal. And an average American as well. I am a working middle-class home-owning taxpayer. I, like other average Americans, am indebted to government largess for my lifestyle. I was educated at UCLA (state-supported). I work for a nonprofit organization (indirectly sustained by the tax code and directly by government grants). I drive to work on city-built streets. I buy food and medications that are supposed to be safe due to government scrutiny. I pay with a currency whose value is ensured by you-know-who. At night, I return to my home whose purchase is made possible by all sorts of government regulations, not to mention tax write-offs for mortgage interest.

I would not refuse entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, disability insurance. And as a minority feminist liberal--and average American--I don’t begrudge you yours.

HILMA COHN

North Hollywood

* Conservatives love to accuse liberals of being bleeding hearts. In truth they are both bleeding hearts. The difference is that liberals bleed their own hearts for the sake of the poor and powerless, whereas conservatives bleed the hearts of the poor and powerless for their own gain and the gain of their fat-cat, rich backers.

JAVAD HASHTROUDIAN

Hacienda Heights

* Re “Republican Votes Won’t Be Enough,” editorial, Jan. 4:

This editorial is refreshingly correct. The only thing the media have talked about is the Republican rout in the November election. They seem to have skipped over the fact that the President still has the veto power.

It is thought that the “contract with America” will fly through Congress with no obstacles. You are right in saying that compromise will have to happen.

L. DAWSON HUGHES

Irvine