'You don't just get to say that you're progressive': The left moves to defend its brand

[DonViejo]

In advance of 2020, the left wants to make sure candidates aren’t claiming the progressive label without supporting the cause.

By DAVID SIDERS 12/09/2018 06:51 AM EST

MANHATTAN BEACH, Calif. — Progressive Democrats are beginning to confront an unintended consequence of their own success: Dilution of the brand.

So many Democratic presidential prospects are now claiming the progressive mantle in advance of the 2020 primaries that liberal leaders are trying to institute a measure of ideological quality control, designed to ensure the party ends up with a nominee who meets their exacting standards.

Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are discussing policy platforms that could serve as a litmus test for presidential contenders. Progressive donors, meanwhile, are plotting steps — ranging from closer engagement with campaigns to ultimatums tied to fundraising — to ensure that Medicare for All, debt-free college and a non-militaristic foreign policy, among other causes, remain at the center of the upcoming campaign. In an effort to winnow the burgeoning field, progressive advocacy groups are beginning to poll supporters in the hopes of elevating candidates who gain the imprimatur of the left.

“You don’t just get to say that you’re progressive,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told progressive donors at a private conference here this week, a portion of which was opened exclusively to POLITICO.

Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, called the 2020 election a chance to “leverage our power.” But she called it critical “that we have some very clear guidelines about what it means to be progressive.”

more
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/09/progressives-democrats-2020-election-1049959

[KPN]

1. I like it. Clear guidelines are important to avoid

being just another Tea Party, a useful vessel.

[Squinch]

2. Oh, for fuck's sake.

And in that list is nothing that is not supported by the Democratic party at large.

This group that is so invested in not letting people into their clubhouse should be called the Drama wing by the rest of us.

[denverbill]

4. Except incoming Ways and Means Committee chair Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.)

who has called Medicare for All 'unrealistic' and won't allow a vote on it. I'm sure his 20 years of campaign contributions from drdug companies and insurance companies have nothing to do with that.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/06/power-kneecap-bold-demand-incoming-democratic-tax-committee-chair-says-medicare-all

And let's not forget Joe Lieberman who blocked the public option for Obamacare when we had a chance to pass that.

[Squinch]

7. You have two choices: choice 1: You can demand that all Democrats toe the

same line of purity. You do this because you believe there will be a revolution where you get everything you want all at once with everyone singing kumbaya. That results in trump presidencies and republican congresses.

Choice 2: you understand that the Democratic party is committed to universal healthcare and is working toward it. You accept that there will be a few Democrats that do not toe the line on that. You understand that you need those Democrats anyway to hold the committee powers that will get you what you want.

Actually you also have two more choices: you could also choose to understand that what you read in Commondreams is often a load of bullshit in the service of the Drama party.

And I suppose you could also choose to take your ball and go home as a personal statement of snit when things don't go your way, as many in the Drama party didin 2016.

[Squinch]

8. Ps: Joe Lieberman wasn't a Democrat

[Caliman73]

27. Yes he was.

"Joseph Isadore Lieberman is an American politician and attorney who served as a United States Senator from Connecticut from 1989 to 2013. A former member of the Democratic Party, he was the party's nominee for Vice President of the United States in the 2000 election."

He was a Democrat from 1970 when he was elected to the Connecticut Legislature, until his defection in 2008. He was still listed as an "Independent Democrat" and caucused with the Democrats holding committee chairs during the Democratic Senate. He only changed to "Independent" after he left the Senate.

[Squinch]

50. He defected in 2008. He caucused with the Democrats but so does Sanders.

He made up a bullshit new name for himself and defected. So he was not a Democrat.

[whathehell]

31. P. S. Yes he was.

He ran on a presidential ticket with AL Gore in 2000.

[denverbill]

49. Yes he was. He was Gore's running mate.

And he kept running as a Democrat until he was primaried and continued caucasing with the Democrat his whole career. I'm sure Richard Neal will do the same. After all, he's one of those rare Democrats in a big Trump supporting state (Massachusetts) who has to be moderate to win. The people of Massachusetts certainly don't support Medicare for All, if by the people, you mean the insurance companies.

What Harry Truman said in 1952 is still true today:

"The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election.

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."

[Squinch]

51. Caucusing with the Democrats does not make one a Democrat. He defected in 2008.

[denverbill]

52. When did Neal defect?

[Squinch]

54. See post 7.

[denverbill]

59. I kind of ignored post #7.

Anyone who mentions singing kumbaya in the same sentence as revolution doesn't understand one or the other.

And if there are any kumbaya singers in this conversation it's the ones saying "stop being mean to conservative leaning Democrats. Let's just all hold hands and hope for the best and maybe someday, things will miraculously change."

[Squinch]

60. Kay.

[Power 2 the People]

61. +1000

Well said!!

[disillusioned73]

84. He wasn't??

Then how did this happen??

[Squinch]

85. He defected before the Obamacare discussions. He left the party in 2008.

[disillusioned73]

86. In other words...

he never was a Democrat by ideology and principle - got it.. but I am sure some would have argued that he a was a real D before that.. proving the point that wearing the team jersey is irrelevant.. policy matters, votes matter..

[Squinch]

87. What is everyone's issue with this? He wasn't a Democrat

when he did what the poster said he did. Now parse to your hearts content, but I simply stated a true fact.

And if you want to have people take you seriously enough to have a discussion with you, don't try to put words in their mouths.

[R B Garr]

10. These nasty smears about people haven't worked. Maybe people

think Medicare for All is unrealistic because it forces people with good insurance to accept less. There are many ways to get to Universal health care. The Clinton’s worked for this 25 years ago.

[BlueWI]

13. The Democratic Party supports a smaller defense budget?

The last bloated budget proposed by Trump got a lot of Democratic support.

Medicare for all and debt free college? These issues weren't a slam dunk for universal Democratic support in the 2016 primaries or, in the case of Medicare for All, in the actual health care debate of 2009. The college debt reforms are pretty much buried in the platform - name one champion of this idea other than Bernie Sanders.

Progressive policies need committed, prominent support. Nothing wrong with organizing within the party to make sure these policies get discussed and debated.

[R B Garr]

25. Yet Vermont doesn't have any of that.

These empty double standards get really old.

[lapucelle]

58. VT is, however, the home of the $1,500,000,000,000 military boondoggle

known as the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II jet.

I wonder how it wound up in Vermont?

[betsuni]

75. Luckily for the representatives of that state, they're not regularly accused of being beholden

to the military-industrial complex or Big Aerospace or whatever, corrupt because of money in politics. That must be nice.

[R B Garr]

83. Exactly, thanks, lapucelle! Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of

being against the military/industrial complex — until it comes time for benefits for Vermont. The double standards get really old.

[BlueWI]

71. I asked us to name a champion on our side on these issues.

Who is publicly advocating for a peace dividend and to pass practical solutions for college debt?

Obama did pretty well on the debt issue through Pell Grant and loan reform. Sanders was sneered at on this site for suggesting free college. Obama and Clinton both supported tuition-free community college, and the whole discussion sank with not much follow up.

You must be hearing different messages from me, because I don't hear much at all about reducing defense budgets. Do you even support a change in this out of proportion expenditure? Call out Sanders all you want, it won't stop us from writing out a $700 billion dollar taxpayer funded check from this year alone. What a great gift to leave to our children - entrenched graft and unsustainable interest payments.

The lack of outrage is emblematic of how the opposition to this budgeting is just not on par with the size of the problem.

[R B Garr]

82. This is just more excuses for the double standards. Note

how you ignore the military expenditures in Sanders state, but then proceed to shift to the typical anti-Establishment/Democrat in a very generalized way that is typically unrealistic. Has Sanders tried to do away with the military jobs/contracts in his state?? No, doesn’t look like it, so pretending he’s the answer to your concerns is not accurate.

Does Vermont have free education? Doesn’t look like it, so generalized attacks on Democrats make no sense until we see results from Vermont. Your standards are results from Democrats, but not from Sanders. These double standards get old.

[BlueWI]

88. Yawn.

Memo:
There's more to life than Bernie Sanders.

There's more accountability for the bloated military budget than for Bernie Sanders, although he deserves his share of the blame along with many others.

Where does that leave us? Writing a check for $700 billion this year alone. But congrats, you called out Sanders but were silent about the principles involved in perpetuating this outsized budget.

Until further notice, down the rabbit hole of defense procurement the people's money goes. Who's got the political courage to change that? No one you've named.

[R B Garr]

95. Your focus has shifted here. But it's still unrealistic

idealism and other types of blame for something so unrealistic, so your claim about principles isn’t really accurate. Bill Clinton shuttered some military bases as a carryover from the Cold War winding down. He left office with a surplus because of his budgets and taxing the rich. He had a lot of political courage, but alienated many to achieve those goals. Edit: many job losses from the military base scale back, and other Democratic groups from other cuts.

[BlueWI]

97. Bill Clinton definitely deserves credit for these actions.

But in the wake of 9/11 and the inexcusable blunder into the war on Iraq, a lot of political courage melted away.

Sounds like you're more concerned about avoiding blame than solving the problem, which is a bloated budget full of graft. Sure, addressing the problem is unrealistic if no one addresses it, but as you mentioned yourself, the end of the Clinton presidency saw some progress. No real progress since then. All of the Democrats who authorized the rush to war put political expediency over principle. How many dead, how much money wasted behind this decision??

Forget about blame. What about accountability? It's your money too. It's your future too, and your children's future if you have any. I am not personally going to disclaim responsibility and be silent about this issue because that's an excuse for passing the problem on, letting our electeds escape responsibility too.

I honestly don't get the pushback on an issue like this on a Democratic site where everyone claims to be progressive, but suggest a change in the bloated military budget and there's resistance. Think of California in 2018 - look at how many of the safe Republicans who lean towards the defense industry lost their seats. Those are Democratic voters with political courage. What if the whole party puts forward a vision of change on these issues? You never know what can happen.

[R B Garr]

98. Like most of these screeds, they are biased, self-serving and abstract.

It’s a bit laughable to assert that Republicans in California lost their seats because of the bloated defense budget. It’s a very abstract and self-actualizing assertion.

The military isn’t going away, so budget oversight sounds like a good goal, but then you could say the same about any government expenditure, which is a huge Republican talking point. Sometimes you can bend so far around that you meld with the opposition. They are very appreciative of those who blame Democrats for everything.

You shift again, now you’re trying to blame Democrats for the Iraq war, so it’s more you who are into blaming.

[BlueWI]

99. ?

It's possible to see things differently and respectfully, though maybe it's not possible for you to do so.

Charge on.

[R B Garr]

100. Same to you. I was thinking the same about you.

I don’t mind at all being accused of dealing with reality instead of ideations that vary from person to person at any given time.

[JHan]

38. Let's be clear about how this works:

There was a “minibus” appropriations bill for 2019 government funding

There was also a continuing resolution to fund the rest of government to December. The defense budget was raised to $675 billion ( certainly not happy with defense bloating) but this was all part of an appropriations process which happens every year. I would not describe dem "support" as a full hardly endorsement of an increase in defense.

As I said at the time, the priority seems to have been increases to social programs, though I imagine not perfect enough for some. ( just for information sake, There were also people like Rand Paul who wanted to include a rider that would stop funding to Planned Parenthood. )

Notable areas:

EDUCATION, LABOR, HEALTH, AND HUMAN SERVICES

This section of the bill would provide $178 billion in FY2019 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services (HHS), Education, and related agencies — an increase of $1 billion from the prior year. A breakdown of its various provisions can be found below.

DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

This section would provide $90.5 billion in discretionary funding for HHS, an increase of $2.3 billion from the prior year.

National Institutes of Health (NIH): The NIH would receive $39.1 billion, an increase of $2 billion from the prior year. That’d include:

$2.3 billion for Alzheimer’s disease research, up $425 million from the prior year, which would exceed the $2 billion funding goal for the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s disease for the first time.

$550 million to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria, increase of $37 million.

$429.4 million for the BRAIN Initiative to map the human brain, an increase of $29 million.

$140 million for research on the universal flu vaccine, a $40 million increase.

Fighting Opioid Abuse: This section would provide $3.7 billion for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other agencies to fight opioid abuse, an increase of $145 million from the prior year. It’d include:

$1.9 billion for the SAMHSA’s State Opioid Response Grant, which includes a 15 percent set-aside for states with the highest opioid use disorder mortality rate and $50 million set-aside for Indian tribes and tribal organizations.

$500 million for research related to opioid addiction, development of opioid alternatives, pain management, and addiction treatment.

$476 million for CDC opioid overdose prevention and surveillance programs, and a public awareness campaign.

Obamacare: No new funding would be provided for the Affordable Care Act (ACA, commonly known as Obamacare). This section would also include the following oversight provisions:

The risk corridor program, which compensates health insurance plans that lose money, would have to be operated in a budget neutral manner so no appropriations could be used as payments to insurers.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would be required to notify relevant congressional committees two business days before any ACA-related data or grant opportunities are released to the public.

ACA-related spending would have to be classified by category since its inception, and information about employees, contractors, and activities involved in administering Obamacare would have to be published.

Head Start: This section would provide $10.1 billion for Head Start, an increase of $200 million from the prior year. Funding would keep all Head Start programs current, while an additional $35 million would expand the length of Head Start programs’ day and year to increase the duration of services provided.

Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG): This section would provide $5.3 billion, an increase of $50 million from the prior year. The program provides grants to improve the quality of child care programs, increasing provider rates, ensuring safety standards, and expanding access to affordable child care.

Public Health Preparedness and Response:

The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which is responsible for advanced research and development of medical countermeasures for national preparedness efforts, would receive $562 million in funding.

Project BioShield would receive $735 million, up $25 million, which aims to enhance national preparedness by procuring medical countermeasures against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats.

$260 million would be provided to improve the response and enhance the effectiveness of the current pandemic influenza capabilities.

DEPT. OF EDUCATION

This section would provide $71.5 billion in FY2019 discretionary funding for the Dept. of Education, an increase of $581 million above the prior year.

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies: $15.9 billion, an increase of $125 million, would be provided for grants to school districts and schools with a high percentage of low-income students to help all students succeed and meet challenging academic standards.

Title IV Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants: $1.2 billion, an increase of $125 million, would be provided to support activities aimed at giving students a well-rounded education, including STEM education, computer science, and the use of technology to improve instruction. Grants would also go to ensuring safe and supportive learning environments and responding to school violence.

IDEA Grants to States: $12.4 billion, an increase of $87 million, would go to grants for states to support special education services for children with disabilities, including grants for infants and families and children in preschool.

Pell Grants: The maximum Pell grant award would be increased to $6,195 — an increase of $100 — while funding would be provided to support the Year Round Pell.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF): Funding and authorities provided last year would be continued, which modified eligibility criteria for the PSLF. Student borrowers would be eligible for PSLF if they were enrolled in an ineligible repayment plan but otherwise would’ve been eligible for PSLF.

Miscellaneous:

Career & Technical Education State Grants would receive the same funding as the year prior, $1.2 billion.

Grants to states for charter schools, charter management organizations, and other entities for the start-up, replication, and expansion of high-quality charter schools would total $440 million — an increase of $40 million.

Impact Aid would be funded with $1.4 billion, an increase of $32 million, to provide flexible support to local school districts impacted by the presence of federally-owned land and activities, such as military bases.

$65 million in dedicated funding would be provided for evidence-based STEM education programs, including computer science education within the Education Innovation and Research program — an increase of $15 million.

DEPT. OF LABOR

This section of the bill would provide $12.1 billion to the Dept. of Labor, a decrease of $94.3 million from the prior year. (DOL budget represents a decrease from last year but included to show what was funded)

Workforce Training Programs: A total of $2.8 billion would be distributed by formula to states and localities to meet each state’s unique job training and reemployment needs.

Jobs Corps: $1.7 billion would be provided to support Jobs Corps, which is the nation’s largest career technical training and educational program for at-risk youth and has centers in all states, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

Veterans Employment Training (VETS) Programs: VETS programs would receive $300 million in funding, a $5 million increase from the prior year. VETS funding provides for intensive employment services to veterans and eligible spouses, transitioning service members, wounded warriors, and disabled veterans.

Rural Workforce Training Initiative: This section would provide $30 million for the dislocated worker training initiative, which offers reemployment and training assistance to dislocated workers in rural areas that were hardest hit by the recession or are recovering slowly. Funding is targeted to retraining workers in the Appalachian and Delta regions, and $5 million of the total is targeted to workforce training for individuals affected by an opioid use disorder.

https://www.countable.us/bills/hr6157-115

[betsuni]

63. +1

[BlueWI]

70. Show me where there is consistent, public, and determined opposition to increased defense spending

and that's a candidate I will support for president.

[betsuni]

72. One from a state with no connection to the military that brings in jobs and revenue, I guess.

Bernie Sanders supported the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II jet being built in Vermont because the it's an aerospace state. He said, "In the real world, if the plane is built ... and if the choice is if that goes to Vermont ... South Carolina or Florida, what is your choice as a United States Senator?"

The only way to change things is if Democrats have the presidency and large majorities in both Congress and Senate. Change comes with majorities in the legislature, not just with a president.

[BlueWI]

79. You didn't answer my question, which was who is willing to advocate for change?

It doesn't matter how big a majority you have if no one is willing to change from business as usual.

I did bring up Bernie Sanders, but I probably shouldn't have, because it derails discussions, and then we're talking about one individual rather than a gigantic, systematic problem where there is too little will or determination to change in EITHER party. I would modify your statement about where change comes to add in the role of citizens - like the young citizens sitting in at the capitol right now advocating for a Green New Deal because the older generations couldn't be bothered to manage resources responsibly, and their decisions have led to a warming planet and giant defense budgets rife with graft. Now, what I'm hearing from you is we can't change things unless all of the Congress and the presidency changes hands. My question to you is that even if this occurs, does this mean an automatic change toward a post-Cold War budget? If this site is anything characteristic of Democratic discussions, I see very few discussions of defense spending and its outsized cost. I see a lot of resistance even when I bring it up. I see accusations of being a "purist" because of opposing this immoral and unsustainable use of limited financial resources, to the point where crumbling infrastructure and the Green New Deal get lip service and not much more, compared to this gargantuan defense budget, 1.2 TRILLION or more every two years.

As I said in another response, either it's not a priority to cut this budget or the opposition to it is extremely ineffective. 25 years after the Cold War and with no land armies in sight that are the size of the old Soviet army, down the rabbit hole the people's money goes. The least we could all do is speak out against it, rather than excusing it. IMO, there is no excuse.

[betsuni]

80. Democrats had a 60 seat filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate for 72 days the last time

we had a Democratic president and majorities in both Houses. And then Joe Lieberman and a few conservative Senators refused to vote for the ACA with a public option, so they managed to ruin that. It passed Congress.

Republicans are the ones wrecking America. it started with Reagan and now has reached worse case scenario. I saw it with my own eyes. There are many books about this.

If Democrats have the presidency and supermajorities in both Houses for at least four years and behave just like Republicans, then and only then will I be cynical. Until then, nope.

If you are talking about the latest military budget vote, it has been explained. Voting is complicated. Things are included that you want for your constituents, illustrated by the Sanders support for planes even though he is against bloated military spending. Being a politician is not like being an activist because you depend on voters to keep the job.

Who should advocate for change? Activists, people. I'm not big on needing leaders, so I'm not the one to ask. I think politicians are there to do what their constituents want.

[BlueWI]

92. So if activists are the solution

then why do activists get called purists, constantly, by the regular posters on this site? I hope you are are cheering on the younger generation who is out working for changes in our long-standing inaction on claiming a peace dividend, sitting in at the DC capitol, etc. They will suffer the consequences of all our collective policy failures. Will telling them that it's the Republicans' fault make them feel better?

And why are we are we calling out progressive causus leaders as purists?

Republicans have lost all credibility as budget stewards, especially when it comes to defense issues. This should be stated, publicly. What counter strategies do we offer? How prominently are these counter strategies communicated? Not very prominently, IMO. Not by our House rep, who is a kind man and a centrist Democrat, but not a critic particularly of the Cold War sized defense budget.

I don't think it's cynical at all to point to results - $700 billion defense budget, and then ask how we got there, are the leaders we admire most, and ourselves, advocating for major change in this budgeting priority, or not?

[betsuni]

96. LOL

[BlueWI]

69. Not sure if there's a point here.

It's not about being perfect. It's about unambiguous advocacy of a post-war peace dividend to reverse the highly corrupt and bloated military budget, for which hundreds of billions are spent every year. It's immoral and damaging trend. Will it change? As much as the legacy of peace activists like MLK is celebrated here, if he were around today, would we be calling him a purist?

I've been following public politics since the 1970s. Don't need a primer on how federal budgeting works. It's a simple matter of political will and political philosophy. If Democrats are universally against bloated defense budgets, then their opposition is pretty darn ineffective. Have to admit this before it can be changed, and that's why a true progressive caucus is needed.

[JHan]

73. the point is that Democrats cannot set the agenda right now, so through appropriations bills..

get what they can manage to put through. Unless you think that Democrats should have pushed to shut the government down over the defense budget increase despite the increases in programs?

And for all the purity talk, check defense contractors and their sway over local economies. From Arizona to even Vermont.

So if you want less influence from defense contractors - start at the source: what are they doing in swing districts and what power do they have over appropriations committees.

[BlueWI]

78. Democrats can set the legislative agenda - in the House.

It's not about purity - it's about results. We just heard all last week about how GHWB ended the Cold War, 25 years ago. Democrats have had many opportunities since then to set legislative agendas - as the chief executive submitting the budget, as a supermajority, as a holder of one or two houses on the Hill. What have the results been? It's a simple direct question. Is a drawdown of the size of these budgets and greater oversight a priority - or not?

It's certainly possible to think long term about this. There are young people protesting all over the capital because old people have saddled the country with trillions in national debt, a warming planet, crumbling infrastructure, and shrinking social support (by and large), although the ACA is a bit accomplishment. Meanwhile,the military budget dwarfs all other domestic discretionary spending.

The pressure to change needs to come from everyone who wants to see a change - from you, from me, from every Democratic legislator as well as Republicans that are willing to be persuaded, once there is public pressure and determined opposition to these bloated budgets. It isn't easy - it's more expedient sometimes to just vote for the Patriot Acts, the giant new agencies, the weapons systems designed with no enemy in sight.

Does that mean that Democrats should push for a government shutdown over this? Maybe, if it's the right moment, but public support for a change of policy has to be built over time. Meanwhile, defense agency will still keep writing big checks on borrowed money, as we type away on computers. That's the reality. Our district in Wisconsin is definitely a point where pressure can be applied - this is a pretty safe district with a run-of-the-mill moderate Democrat that is certainly no reformer when it comes to the 24/7/365 fleecing of taxpayers through defense contracting.

So it goes. Will it ever change? Who will lead the change?

[JHan]

81. No, politically pushing for a shutdown

Over the omnibus would have been a bad idea. To truly control an agenda senate control is key , ideally a democratic president too.

If u want to apply a pressure point , u look at the influence and the impact on such industries on States . From oil and gas to defense ( especially considering that military defense r&d extends beyond the military sector)

You are right that democrats must continue to articulate a message counter to the republican vision of wealth acquisition by any means necessary but i focus further....What can cut into the hegemony of extraction industries?- more competitive renewable energy options. So i look at how reps vote to keep renewables afloat even if they rep districts where the economy is based on fossil extraction (reality) In States where the defense industry dominate there are jobs covering a wide range of skill sets - from highly specialized (aeronautical) to other skill sets less specialized which absorb labor not easily replaced by the establishment of say some other Industry. Rhetoric is only a part of this equation.

[BlueWI]

94. Makes sense to think about how strategiclly to make a change like this.

I think it is best considered as part of a larger national strategy that builds public support for new energy investment along with changes in other strategic priorities. Resistance from the oil/gas producing states needs to be figured into the equation, so at least there's a conversation. Definitely it makes sense for something like this to be a longer-term rather than a shorter-term strategy. However, if it's going to happen, it has to start somewhere, perhaps with strategic planning and good public communication.

[Blue_true]

55. Bernie is a prominent backer of the F35.

A warplane that can't fly in some types of bad weather. If you want to have a discussion on bloat, let's start there.

BTW, Hillary did have reduction of student debt as a key part of her platform from Day 1. It is easy to talk about debt free anything, much harder to make that even get off the ground. But reducing the amount that students get shouldered with is an obtainable goal.

[SidDithers]

3. Similarly, you don't just get to say that you're a Democrat...nt

Sid

[mcar]

5. +1000!

[LongtimeAZDem]

6. Beat me to it! /nt

[R B Garr]

9. Yeah! Look at the hypocritical double standards at

work again...Get in Line is fine for “them”.

What divisive garbage. You would think they would have learned from their losses so far. So absurd.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Oh Snap!

[betsuni]

17. +1

[nini]

21. Or you better have some legislative victories to back up your big talk

I'm amazed at how many still don't see the Democrats are the ones who actually get stuff done.

[Adrahil]

24. BOOM! HEAD SHOT! NT

[sheshe2]

56. I am calling this as a thread winner! nt

[FakeNoose]

62. We're the good guys - thanks for the reminder

[Trumpocalypse]

91. Unless you actually join the party.

[NastyRiffraff]

101. THANK you, Sid

Someone who says he or she is a Democrat only when it's convenient or wants the party's help/resources is not a Democrat no matter what they (temporarily) call themselves.

[DinahMoeHum]

11. (sigh!) The Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed syndrome

rears its ugly head again.

Fuck their goddamn oh-so-precious purity standards.

[JonLP24]

14. I love Raul Grijalva

And the Progressive caucas. What they no labels want to do is worse. They want their own kind of purity.

[Garrett78]

15. In other words: "You don't just get to lay claim to a term that has no clear definition."

progressivepunch.org says Harris is the most progressive Senator: https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

And some other site will say that someone else is.

Now, there certainly are differences in voting record (based, in part, on where the members of Congress hail from), but any suggestion that a consensus will be reached as to the definition of "progressive" is just plain silly.

[JonLP24]

16. This is a site I use this is just for 2017 though

I would be happy to have Harris. Harris is a progressive.

#47 0.72 Sen. Joe Manchin [D-WV]
#48 0.71 Sen. Joe Donnelly [D-IN]
#49 0.69 Sen. Richard Shelby [R-AL]
#50 0.68 Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]
#51 0.67 Sen. Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
#52 0.67 Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]
#53 0.61 Sen. Robert “Rob” Portman [R-OH]
#54 0.59 Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]
#55 0.58 Sen. Heidi Heitkamp [D-ND]
#56 0.57 Sen. Jon Tester [D-MT]
#57 0.51 Sen. Angus King [I-ME]
#58 0.51 Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
#59 0.50 Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO]
#60 0.47 Sen. Mark Warner [D-VA]
#61 0.44 Sen. Gary Peters [D-MI]
#62 0.42 Sen. Michael Bennet [D-CO]
#63 0.39 Sen. Chris Coons [D-DE]
#64 0.38 Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
#65 0.34 Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
#66 0.34 Sen. Martin Heinrich [D-NM]
#67 0.34 Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D-NH]
#68 0.33 Sen. Robert “Bob” Casey [D-PA]
#69 0.33 Sen. Tom Udall [D-NM]
#70 0.31 Sen. Debbie Stabenow [D-MI]
#71 0.31 Sen. Charles “Chuck” Schumer [D-NY]
#72 0.29 Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
#73 0.29 Sen. Timothy Kaine [D-VA]
#74 0.28 Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
#75 0.28 Sen. Tammy Baldwin [D-WI]
#76 0.28 Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto [D-NV]
#77 0.26 Sen. Robert “Bob” Menéndez [D-NJ]
#78 0.23 Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
#79 0.23 Sen. Brian Schatz [D-HI]
#80 0.23 Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]
#81 0.23 Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
#82 0.21 Sen. Tammy Duckworth [D-IL]
#83 0.21 Sen. Cory Booker [D-NJ]
#84 0.20 Sen. Margaret “Maggie” Hassan [D-NH]
#85 0.19 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]
#86 0.18 Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
#87 0.18 Sen. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
#88 0.17 Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
#89 0.17 Sen. Christopher Murphy [D-CT]
#90 0.17 Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
#91 0.16 Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D-CT]
#92 0.14 Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
#93 0.14 Sen. Kamala Harris [D-CA]
#94 0.11 Sen. John “Jack” Reed [D-RI]
#95 0.10 Sen. Chris Van Hollen [D-MD]
#96 0.08 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
#97 0.08 Sen. Edward “Ed” Markey [D-MA]
#98 0.07 Sen. Jeff Merkley [D-OR]
#99 0.06 Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
#100 0.00 Sen. Alan “Al” Franken [D-MN, 2009-2017]

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2017/senate/ideology

[Garrett78]

18. That's my point.

As I said, another site will say something different.

There is no consensus on the meaning of "progressive," and to suggest otherwise is silly.

[JonLP24]

19. She is in the top 10 that is good enough for me

[Garrett78]

20. You seem to be missing the point, but whatever.

[JonLP24]

22. Well the Progressive Caucas has been around since 1991

I think Bernie Sanders was the first chair so the term progressive isn't new.

I think a progressive would be close to this

The CPC advocates "universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare" (universal healthcare or single-payer healthcare), fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in collective bargaining, the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of same-sex marriage, U.S. participation in international treaties such as the climate change related Kyoto Accords, responsible reductions in profligate military expenditure, strict campaign finance reform laws, a crackdown on corporate welfare and influence, an increase in income tax rates on upper-middle and upper class households, tax cuts for the poor and an increase in welfare spending by the federal government.[10]

[Garrett78]

26. Those positions, for the most part, are supported by most Democrats.

For instance, universal healthcare has been part of our platform for many decades.

The degree to which those positions get supported depends, in large part, on where members of Congress hail from. There's a world of difference between representing a very blue district and representing a purple or red state. And there's some variance in terms of the approach to making those things happen.

It's notable, though, that there's nothing there about systemic racism and sexism. That's what separates the likes of Kamala Harris from the likes of Bernie Sanders or Tim Ryan.

[JonLP24]

29. This isn't the CBC

But DSA

Article II. Purpose
We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/constitution/

I'm sure Maxine Waters and Raul Grijalva who I know well are interested in solving white supremacy and systematic sexism. It is clearly in the DSA platform so that covers Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.

[Garrett78]

33. I refer again to each of the points I made, including the reality of representing...

...a purple district or state vs. representing a very blue district.

Furthermore, even within a caucus there are going to be individuals who disagree. For instance, Maxine Waters would not agree with some of what Sanders has said about Trump supporters and why they support him.

This attempt at establishing a purity test or trying to suggest that there's a consensus as to the definition of "progressive" is beyond silly. It's flat-out stupid.

[JonLP24]

40. It is nothing like this

have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.

Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm

[Garrett78]

45. And I disagree with what Clinton did there. So...

[lapucelle]

65. BS is not affiliated with the DSA.

While Sanders considers himself a democratic socialist, he is not a DSA member, and his views don't fully align with the DSA.

"I think we could do better than Bernie, but I think it was definitely a good start," he said. "There are some policies that I think he's been a little too soft on, a little too Democrat for me."

And likewise, Svart says, the group sees Sanders as an "ally" while also wanting to go further than he does on many areas.

DSA is not aligned with Democratic Party core values or our platform. Let them appropriate some other party's institutional expertise and infrastructure.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/26/630960719/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-democratic-socialists-of-america

[Cha]

43. I'll take Kamala Harris' style of Progressiveness

over BS' & Tim Ryan's every time.

[Cha]

39. Thank You, Garrett.

Personally I stay away from the Holier than thou "progressives" with their "litmus tests".

[Adrahil]

23. Maybe they can establish a purity test, and offer a seal of approval!

Idiots gonna be idiots.

[Cha]

28. Divisive Bullshit.. Dems all over the Country

won in their Districts for their constituents.

Those "progressive" wouldn't even be having this conversation now if it weren't for all stripes of Dems winning.

BS & AOC went to Kansas for one of those "progressives" and he lost. Sharice Davids WON, who is just as Progressive for our country even though some surrogates of Welder's tried to paint her as "corporatist".

Same with Gov elect Gretchen Whitmer and Rep Lacy Clay.

Stupid, meaningless, damn divisive epithets.

[Garrett78]

30. Yeah, see posts #15 and #26.

[samnsara]

32. shes from my state..not my district..and she DOESNT get to tell ME what MY politics are..

...so there ..phhhhttt. I can call myself whatever the hell I want. I DO happen to agree with all her..ideas..?...but I am not going to exclude anyone with a viable alternative.

[Garrett78]

35. Most Democrats agree with her positions. See posts #26 and #33. And this thread:

The divide within our party has been misdiagnosed.

[GulfCoast66]

34. Fortunately a shit ton of Democratic voters reject the title of progressive

Because we know the troublesome history of the movement.

And a shit ton of good Democrats are not in favor of Medicare for all as a road to universal healthcare.

And even more of us are against free college for everyone.

So maybe it is not Democratic leaders you are frustrated with, but lots of Democratic voters

[Garrett78]

42. But universal health care (in some form) and free or at least more affordable higher education...

...are - as well they should be - positions supported by most Democrats. I don't think that's what is at the heart of the divide between some Democrats and others.

I think the bigger divide was revealed in who supported and who opposed the "economic anxiety/white working class" narrative that followed the 2016 election. As opposed to a divide over "far left" vs. centrist. In that sense, the likes of Tim Ryan (who would be labeled a centrist) and the likes of Bernie Sanders (who is labeled as 'far left') are united. Both bash so-called "identity politics" and think Trump supporters are driven by economic anxiety (in spite of what numerous studies have made clear). Sanders (not wanting to get his ass kicked quite so badly among persons of color in 2020 as he did in 2016) has learned to make it known that he realizes Trump is a racist, but he continues to stick his foot in his mouth and stated after the 2016 election that Trump supporters aren't motivated by racism.

Anyway, there's no consensus on the definition of "progressive," so it's silly for someone to suggest their group and only their group can lay claim to the term.

As for the troublesome history of the movement, I wonder if you have in mind "populism." There was a progressive movement in the early 20th century, but I don't think it was particularly troublesome. It was rooted in support for positions that are today considered mainstream Democratic positions.

[GulfCoast66]

47. all democrats I know favor healthcare as a right.

But Medicare for all the the worst way to attempt it because if ignored the majority of Americans who get their healthcare from their employer. And since the ACA their care and cost has been better. They will not vote to give it up. Expand the ACA and have the government pony up for insurance payments for those that can’t afford it. We would need higher upper end tax brackets approaching 70% like we used to have.

And before anything make for profit insurance illegal as it is in most countries.

Free college will help the upper middle class and the rich. Because they test into good school at a higher rate. Make college subsidized based on wealth and income. Like we did till the 70s.

No reason my kids, if I had them should get free education. I can afford it as could my father.

And stop using the word Free. Americans know nothing is free. Someone has to pay. We need to tell them who and how.

[Garrett78]

48. We are, for the most part, in agreement.

And that agreement is more to my point.

I'd agree that nothing is free, including K-12 education. Higher education (including trade schools), like health care coverage, must be made much more affordable and universally accessible. I don't know of any Democrat who disagrees with that general position. Again, that isn't really the source of division within the party.

[GulfCoast66]

64. You last sentence encapsulates the whole enchilada.

At this point policy is not the major point of division in the party.

Although we all know the main ‘point’ of division,
if not our party, at least DU, I will leave it at that.

Same as it ever was.

[whathehell]

77. Can you name a "shit ton"?

Someone up thread claims the "majority of Democrats" already support the positions mentioned.

[betsuni]

36. "Like 'progressive,' 'establishment' is a pretty meaningless term, particularly when lobbed

at one Washington politician by another." Susan Bordo.

[Garrett78]

46. Indeed. But perception and reality are often not in sync.

Sanders has been in Congress for nearly 30 years but somehow he's not "establishment." Go figure.

[ismnotwasm]

37. She's my Rep.

I love what she does with immigrants and immigrant reform. I like her, agree with her on a lot, most things in fact, but it I think I’ll send her a letter asking her if I pass her litmus test, since I do NOT agree with everything. I’ll call myself a fucking progressive if I fucking feel like it.

[Cha]

41. Mahalo, ismnotwasm!

[Garrett78]

44. Even within the progressive caucus, you would find disagreement.

This is all so stupid.

[Squinch]

53. That can't be! That would mean they are not all perfectly pure! Gracious! My world is rocked!

[empedocles]

57. Candidates tend to cater to 'the base' in primary season - that is how we got trump as prez.

[pnwmom]

66. I disagree. Bernie Sanders himself shows that trying to define

the exact meaning of "progressive" isn't fair or productive.

His past positions on gun control have been less progressive than many Democrats.

[lapucelle]

67. The cited article calls Joe Biden a centrist.

Joe Biden is a Hard-Core Liberal.


http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm

[LongtimeAZDem]

68. Good link: this is whats is known as "walking the walk" /nt

[Cha]

74. Yeah, them and their

gaslit labels.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm

Thank You, lapucelle.

[delisen]

76. Pureline Progressives vs progressive politics

At some point there will be a Pureline Progressive Party that is patriarchal, breaks completely from the Democratic Party, draws from both the right and the left-picking up some of the pieces of today's Republicanism.

Staying within the Democratic Party right now is a strategic move for new-party builders.

[ananda]

89. I was never a Reep ..

.. and thus never progressive.

I'm a proud and loud liberal leftie!!!!

[Trumpocalypse]

90. Yes, litmus tests are just what we need.

[pecosbob]

93. My personal checklist for an incumbent candidate...it's short and simple and attaches no labels

Did you vote for Coal? Then go away and leave me alone. Did you vote with Exxon? Then forget you. Did you vote to relax banking regulations? Then f*ck you. See a pattern emerging here? Did you vote money for the wall? Then you're a waste of the calories you consume and the air you breathe.

[delisen]

102. Authoritarian Progressivism. We've seen it before. "You can't, you don't

you're not........"

Best to choose a less common term or hyphenate your brand of progressive than shake your finger in everyone else's face.

I am reminded of Bernie Sanders declaring Planned Parenthood part of the "Establishment."

[Gothmog]

103. I will support Beto no matter what label is attached to him