As a Democratic activist for some 40 years, I am one of a multitude of party members who wonder how much time and money our party is going to waste on getting people elected as "Democrats" when we know full well that once elected to high office these people are going to vote on crucial issues with the Republican Party and against the Democratic Party.

As a wise man observed long ago, "a house divided against itself will not stand" (Luke 11:17).  Until recently, I didn't know what could be done about this problem. But somebody must have hit the power switch, because the light has come on. What the Democratic Party must recognize is that it is unnatural for predominantly Republican areas to be represented by Democrats (and vice versa). Every once in a while, as a result of corruption or lousy conditions which voters blame on the incumbent party, they are persuaded to elect somebody from the opposite party "for a change".

Now, the traditional way the Democratic Party has dealt with this common situation has been to strive to prolong that change indefinitely. It has tried to be "understanding" when these so-called "Democrats" act just like Republicans, in the hope that they will be re-elected by their predominantly Republican constituents. (which isn't likely to happen very often, as they are bound to soon elect a real Republican rather than a wannabe.)  Again and again and again, however, we have learned the hard way the foolishness of this approach. How long are we going to continue to work to elect and re-elect people whom we know will vote with the Republicans on issues that matter most to us? Why do we continue to waste our party's resources to the advantage of our rivals?

Why can't the Democratic Party be realistic about what to expect from "Democrats" sent to Congress by conservative Republican voters? Instead of trying to make this exceptional, unnatural and unsustainable situation last as long as possible, by playing this charade of "make believe I'm a conservative Republican just like you, and keep sending me back to Washington",  why not take advantages of the opportunities that such elections give the party to have congresspersons from such areas who are true Democrats for at least one term (2 or 6 years) - which is better than having a pseudo-Democrat from those areas who votes Republican for two or three terms?  Why not get a promise from such short term Democratic office holders that, in exchange for the party's help in getting elected, they will serve as Democrats. In most instances, it will only be for one term. But if they show their constituents how much better the Democratic way is than the Republican, they may actually persuade many of them to move in our direction, (rather than having our Democratic office holders move in their direction)!

When, in mid 2911, the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party put the country through Hell over increasing the nation's debt limit, it suddenly occurred to me that they were illustrating the wisdom of the point I made above. Because they were not planning on getting elected to a second term, they were able to fight like crazy for what they believed in. Insane as they were, they demonstrated how much can be accomplished when you pursue your dreams wholeheartedly - instead of giving up your dreams in order to keep on doing what you don't believe in for the sole purpose of staying in office.

How can the Democratic leadership expect people like me to support our party as enthusiastically and generously as we would like when we see our efforts and contributions being squandered to elect so-called "blue dog" and "pro-life" Democrats, who use their office to help the Republicans, the fat cat business interests, and/or the conservative Catholic and Protestant clergy to defeat the official agenda of the Democratic Party?