How to Save the Democratic Party

[xchrom]

http://www.thenation.com/article/171613/how-save-democratic-party



American progressives and principled liberals need to face an essential truth: the Democratic Party, as now constituted, is no longer an agency for realizing their ideals.

Consider the larger implications of the November 6 elections, which took place in economic and social conditions that should have produced landslide victories for even a moderately populist party. In the two most representative elections—the direct popular vote for the presidency and the House of Representatives—the Democratic Party won the former by less than 4 pe

The problem is not President Obama or any other individual leader but the Democratic Party itself. Much of its establishment, from Washington to most of the state capitals, has long since become a party of “bipartisan compromise” with an increasingly right-wing Republicanism, particularly on economic issues with great social consequences—as though America’s true course now lies midway between abolishing the achievements of the New Deal and Great Society and extending them fully in our times. Too many members of the party’s nationwide hierarchy are closer, ideologically and politically, to Wall Street than to Main Street—to the corporate, rich and powerful than to the stricken middle class, the increasingly impoverished working class (and the diminished and embattled unions that protect it), and the unemployed and perpetually poor.

If more proof is needed, the Democratic Party has shown itself to be incapable of providing the moral imperatives, policy ideas, broad popular support or elected officials necessary to lead the nation out of its worst economic and social calamity in eighty years, now in its fifth year of millions of wrecked lives. Indeed, the party’s complicity in the crisis is only somewhat less than that of Republicans unconditionally devoted to only one human right: the unrestrained accumulation of corporate and private wealth.

[djean111]

1. Got to agree with that.

[newfie11]

2. +1

[woo me with science]

3. Yup, yup, yup.

Houston, we have a problem.

[OKNancy]

4. Keith Ellison's response to this editorial:

Keith Ellison

The results of Election 2012 show the power of grassroots organizing and the potential of permanently setting America on a progressive path. This last electoral round revealed support for marriage equality and rejection of the “war on drugs” and voter suppression—not to mention a total dismissal of Mitt Romney’s brand of corporatism. And for all the progressive complaints about Democrats, these results undeniably came through the Democratic Party apparatus and its highly motivated grassroots base.

much more at this link: http://www.thenation.com/article/171611/how-save-democratic-party-replies

[woo me with science]

5. There has never been any doubt about the people's wishes.

The problem is that we keep getting corporate policy *despite* claims that the people will be represented.

[ProSense]

10. "The problem is not President Obama

From the OP:

"The problem is not President Obama or any other individual leader but the Democratic Party itself."

Well, he's no longer the "problem" now that preventing him from being re-elected didn't work, it's time to focus on the Democratic Party.

The fatally compromised Progressive Caucus.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022160908

5 signs 'liberals' in congress are faking it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022271747

What we need is another repeat of 2010, that'll teach them.

[Doctor_J]

16. Your links reinforce the OP

The party has lost its way. the president has decided to turn it into the GOP from 20-25 years ago. He said that's where his heart lies anyway. When that transformation is complete, the real Dem party that represented unions, teachers, working people, and poor people, and passed SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the VRA, ...will cease to exist. And of course those voters who have been abandoned by the "New Dems" will be blamed when they get trounced again.

[ProSense]

17. Actually,

"Your links reinforce the OP"

...the links were examples of bullshit logic.

"When that transformation is complete, the real Dem party that represented unions, teachers, working people, and poor people, and passed SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the VRA, ...will cease to exist. "

This President is responsible for the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929

Robert Reich: The GOP Crackup: How Obama is Unraveling Reagan Republicanism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022264824

[freshwest]

67. If DU is any indication, 2014 will be 2010 on steroids.

[Doctor_J]

12. True, sort of

At some point, if the party and nation are to be saved, we will have to be more than "not as bad". the point of the editorial is that if we elect (D)'s, and those D's enact/continue Keystone XL, destruction of unions & public schools, NDAA, drone warfare, insurance mandates, continued indefinite occupation of the middle east, etc., we're doomed as a party and thus as a nation.

[kitt6]

34. OKNancy

Thank you.

[Jackpine Radical]

54. The answer lies in a synthesis of this piece with Ellison's points.

Ellison is right--the Democratic Party still has a large cadre of grassroots progressives, and they delivered the election for Obama.

Nevertheless, there is a massive split between the "retarded" progressives and the Party apparatchiks. Think Reid, for example. For that matter, in the 2008 campaign, the last 2 standing were Barack and Hillary, the two furthest-right of the field.

This was not an expression of the will of the rank-and-file, who would have preferred a much more liberal candidate, but of the election financiers and their tools, the "Lamestream Media" (OK, Sarah did have one good phrase in her). Obama was the furthest-left candidate that we would be allowed to have. Kucinich was marginalized out of the box, Edwards was an unprincipled Willard-style chameleon of the left (and of course contained the seeds of his own destruction).

There is still a split between the Pros and the activists. The former see the latter as useful idiots, as street-pounders and phone bankers who can be fed with a few table scraps and deceived with high-sounding talk.

Yes, there have been many progressive initiatives in the Obama years. But take note of one thing--Gay rights, reproductive rights, "feminization" of the military, and similar actions do not gore the oxen of Big Business (especially that big Wall Street bull). Even the ACA was carefully crafted with the advice and consent of the Health Insurance/Health Provider cabal so as not to damage anybody's bottom line. Important as these advances are, they come at little or no cost to the .01%'ers.

The bottom line for the political pro's and for the .01%'ers is the same bottom line. The pros can keep the Citizens United money rolling in, and keep open their opportunities for plush lobbying jobs and corporate board seats, as long as they don't do anything foolish to crimp that bottom line.

Ellison is absolutely right that the Democratic Party has a highly functional grassroots structure of talented, educated, idealistic people. If they want to keep that structure, it is time for the Party to start thinking outside the Citizens United box, because as long as politicians remain beholden to the moneyed interests, true economic reform is impossible.

Viewed in this light, not even the current wave of media consolidation is very important. It only determines how many checks the Oligarchs have to write in order to buy the airwaves. Print is already dead as a vehicle of mass messaging, so cross-medium market saturation is not particularly important either. Fewer pople every year are getting their information from the traditional mass media. This has resulted in a sort of "cocooning" in which some percentage are tuned in to Fox/Limbaugh/Liddy/Savage, and others into various other niche sources.

We MUST find a way to "de-cocoon" the information field so as inform and inflame the public. Fortunately, we are seeing the rapid evolution of a new kind of media. Where, in the past, whether it be the newspapers, the WWII-era movie newsreels (anybody else remember them?), a megaphone, or the Boob Toob, the paradigm was always one voice being transmitted to the many recipients of the message. Our new electronic media are blowing that model apart. One-to-many has become many-to-many. In this emerging model lies our ultimate hope for undoing the influence of Citizens United and breaking the Koch habit.

I don't know exactly how to go about doing all this, the new paradigm is not about to leap fully formed from my brow, but when I look to the streets of Cairo, Madison and New York, I see something emerging that will be beyond the control of the Oligarchs, who have always been able to divide and rule in the past. Sure we lost in Wisconsin, at least in the sort run, but the fact that the insurrection happened at all or came as near to success as it did, is a new phenomenon in the world.

It is in this environment that a new wave of true progressivism can at last flourish. The genie is not going back into the bottle.

[rhett o rick]

69. I have participated in the last two presidential elections.

I am a member of the local Democratic Party. But I am not aware of the "Democratic Party apparatus and its highly motivated grassroots base. " I would greatly appreciate it if someone would explain who this base is and if they have signed up members, how many? I was contacted by a number of progressive organizations not affiliated with the Party to help Elizebeth Warren, Alan Grayson, etc. I dont believe I was ever contacted by the Party except to donate to the Party.

I would be curious if anyone knows how much money the Democratic Party donated to candidates compared with outside organizations.

[JoePhilly]

6. Bad Dems, Bad!

The author needs to get busy on the slate of sufficiently liberal candidates for 2014 and 2016, or he'll be singing the same song for the next 6 to 12 years.

[sadbear]

7. Yet batshit crazy Texans continue to elect republicans at almost a 100% clip.

I've lived here all 37 years of my life. Republicans ARE what these people truly want. They don't give a shit about Main St. either, if it means someone else's Main St., too. They are 100% sold on the idea of trickle down and that they just might, some day, be wealthy, too. It's a fucking disease, a disease that more or less hates anyone other than themselves for not being rich and successful.

I don't know if the Democratic Party can ever do anything to appeal to these people. I know that we shouldn't compromise on anything to try to get these votes. It's not the party that's the problem, it's the people. They're sick and the disease will only die when they do.

[Doctor_J]

8. Which is why our party should fight them

instead of co-opting 80% of their agenda and declaring that a win.

[sadbear]

9. I agree.

There is no need to win them over. We should stop trying.

[Nay]

30. Agreed. STOP trying to win over the completely delusional whackjobs who are destroying this

country! Sure, they are Americans (of a sort), but that's all. What they want isn't American, and should be denounced.

[Paladin]

32. Obama Carried Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin.

Sorry to break into your trashing of the entire state, but those are facts: the big urban areas are already going our way, and demographic trends show the entire state moving in a similar fashion. And yes, republican die-off is a significant factor in all this.

There's already an excess of Texas-haters on DU. How about doing something responsible on behalf of your state?

[sadbear]

33. I acknowlege that we'll be blue soon enough.

But it's not because of converted republicans.

[Paladin]

46. Let's Not Lose Any Sleep Over Converting Republicans.

Fortunately, we don't have to.

[Doctor_J]

55. Cruz and Rmoney both got nearly 60%

please balance that with the starry-eyed predictions of "Blue Texas"

[Paladin]

62. I Wouldn't Want To Spoil The Pleasure You Take In Texas-Bashing.

The trends are in place and are well-documented, so you don't have to take my word for what's happening in Texas. Hell, even the national leadership of the Democratic Party finally woke up after all these years and is now looking at Texas as a place with real potential. But again, don't let me interfere with what makes you happy.

[Doctor_J]

66. the fact that Repukes win landslides in TX does not "make me happy"

In fact, I think you have it backward. For reasons that are confusing to me, these slaughters are found "encouraging" to some, such as yourself. I am not "Texas=bashing". I simply pointed out that the state is deep red. Whoever runs for Governor for the Repukes next year will again get more than 55% of the vote, and the (D) will get in the low 40%. This is not bashing. This is a statement of the facts.

[Paladin]

68. No Point In Further Discussions With You. (nt)

[Taverner]

49. Many Texans are still thinking from an antebellum mentality

Belles and Gentlemen, etc.

Yes, I realize not all Texans fit into this category, but enough do so that batshit crazies are elected every fricken time.

[Selatius]

11. If the party went back to the New Deal and pushed economic populism, it may revive itself.

But quite a few politicians make a career out of catering to wealthy donors, and the wealthiest people tend to favor right wing economic policy over something Franklin Roosevelt would advocate. The rich hated Roosevelt for redistributing some of that wealth back to the working class.

I believe election reform would help the Democratic Party move away from Wall Street. As long as private donations are the mainstay of our election system, the rich will continue to have a competitive advantage. I think a push towards full federal funding of federal campaigns for office would level the playing field.

[quinnox]

13. excellent read

A lengthy read, but lots of good ideas. Something has to fundamentally and radically change for sure, and soon, in the philosophy and approach of the Dem party. Unless we just want two flavors of the conservative/right wing politics to choose from, one light and less filling, the other full brewed.

[Demo_Chris]

14. Pass legislation proposed by Republicans five or ten years ago and declare victory!

[ProSense]

15. When did Republicans

"Pass legislation proposed by Republicans five or ten years ago and declare victory!"

...ever propose expanding Medicaid?

The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929

When?

When did they propose Wall Street reform?

[Doctor_J]

18. Insurance mandates (AKA Heritage Care)?

Gitmo? Drone Warfare? Torture? Indefinite undocumented detention? Indefinite war in Afghanistan? SS benefit cuts? Medicare cuts? School "vouchers"?

Wall Street reform

Face it. The president and current "Dems" in Congress are at least as Republican as the Republicans of a generation ago. that's the point of the OP, which you deliberately avoided.

[ProSense]

19. Have you ever heard of

"Insurance mandates (AKA Heritage Care)?"

...Medicaid?

A key element of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the expansion of Medicaid to nearly all individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three in 2012) in 2014. Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups. By 2016, Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), will cover an additional 17 million individuals, mostly low-income adults, leading to a significant reduction in the number of uninsured people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929

"Face it. The president and current 'Dems' in Congress are at least as Republican as the Republicans of a generation ago. that's the point of the OP, which you deliberately avoided."

No, face the fact that your comment is nonsensical in response to my point.

[Doctor_J]

21. You listed 1 Dem initiative that is worthy of the name

I listed 9 republican initiatives being supported by the current DINOS, including the president. The OP is deadly accurate. Are you actually too thick to get this? I expected a little more lucidity from you.

[ProSense]

22. No, you

"Gitmo? Drone Warfare? Torture? Indefinite undocumented detention? Indefinite war in Afghanistan? SS benefit cuts? Medicare cuts? School "vouchers"? "

...posted mostly bullshit.

ENDING TORTURE = Three Torches

• Ordered an end to the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, withdrew
  flawed legal analysis used to justify torture and applied the Army Field Manual on interrogations
  government wide.
  
• Abolished the CIA secret prisons.
  
• Says that “waterboarding is torture” and “contrary to America’s traditions… contrary to our ideals.”
  
• No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under his administration.
  
• Failed to hold those responsible for past torture and other cruelty accountable; has blocked
  alleged victims of torture from having their day in court.

http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf

Closing out President Obama's first term - we've come a long way
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022223211

[Doctor_J]

38. I think it's bad form to link to your own

OLD bullshit post to try to give cred to your NEW bullshit post.

Don't worry. Liberals will show up next fall just like they always to, despite getting no support except during campaign season. I just have to adjust my worldview to "Reganomics is actually good now that it's Obamanomics". That will align me with the "sensible centrists"

[ProSense]

47. Here's

"I think it's bad form to link to your own OLD bullshit post to try to give cred to your NEW bullshit post. "

...another link to "OLD bullshit" that will surely disappoint you.

Health Law Offers Dental Coverage Guarantee For Some Children
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022196776

[Demo_Chris]

44. Medicare part D ring a bell? Now a question for you...

Where is our proposal to...

* End Free Trade and bring our jobs home
* Address wealth and income inequality
* Actually tax the wealthy. ALL the wealthy.
* Address our collapsing infrastructure
* Address the one-in-five kids without FOOD
* Address homelessness
* JOBS
* Tax Wall Street transactions
* Force BP to actually pay for and finish cleaning the Gulf (you know they just wrote off the "fines" right?)
* Fix and expand the now demolished safety net
* Increase social security
* Increase wages
* End the Patriot act and ALL domestic spying
* FIX healthcare costs
* Single payer healthcare
* Ending the drug wars
* Fix education and remove Biblical teaching from curiculum
* Radically cut military spending
* End the wars. END THE MOTHERFUCKING WARS

Dude I could go on all day. Every now and again we get one or two Congressman proposing one of the above, everyone pats them on the back, and that's the end of it. In the meantime they're blathering on about toothless gun control legislation that will do nothing and never pass anyway.

These things aren't "liberal" they are common freaking sense, and the American people want them. They want the damn wars ended, they want our military budget decimated, they want single payer healthcare, they want the Patriot act gone, they want Wall Street taxed and jailed, they want REAL taxes on the wealthy and no, they do not think 399K a year is barely making it.

When was the last time we actually did something for the People? Hell, Bush II gave them a damn stimulus check and we give stimulus checks to corporations and bankers. Our solution to healthcare was to force people to buy it. I mean what the fuck.

[ProSense]

58. WTF is that?

What the hell does a wish list have to do with your point: "Pass legislation proposed by Republicans five or ten years ago and declare victory!"

"* End the wars. END THE MOTHERFUCKING WARS"

Nice touch, are you still hoping for a President Hillary Clinton?

Also, did you know that President Obama ended the Iraq war?

[awoke_in_2003]

20. Maybe the party can start representing

the people again instead of pissing on unions at every opportunity.

[Doctor_J]

35. Unions, teachers, students, poor people, working poor,

civil libertarians (except gunsters - they're well-tended), peaceniks, seniors, etc...

[awoke_in_2003]

36. Yep. nt

[Demo_Chris]

45. Damn straight

[Lesmoderesstupides]

23. The Party has to pick who they represent People or Corporations

It can no longer support both.

I will continue to support people and if the party choose not to, oh well that is their choice and they would choose to lose my vote and support.

[woo me with science]

25. Well, they want the optics of one and the cushy benefits of the other,

but the truth is, and policy shows, that they have already chosen the highest bidder.

Nothing changes until we fix the underlying problem, which is $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Lesmoderesstupides]

28. CU won’t be fixed anything soon but in the mean time we have to elect those who are

committed to a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of CU once and for all, get rid of all the lobbying and soft money and have publically financed elections.

We also need to expose and vote out of office those who take the corporate cash and do their bidding no matter who they are.

[liberal_at_heart]

40. +1

[Puzzledtraveller]

24. It won't change

It is the party for moderates, safely in the middle, very pragmatic.

[cali]

26. depends where you are

the party varies greatly from state to state.

[woo me with science]

29. What we are getting is not even moderate. It is right-wing.

Austerity budgets in an economy that has already impoverished its middle class, criminal bankers going free, growth of the prison industrial complex, drug wars, assaults on Social Security, high stakes testing and corporate education policy, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, selling off the Gulf of Mexico for drilling, free trade agreements on steroids, indefinite detention, "kill lists" and drone wars, pre-emptive war as administration doctrine, spy centers for mining or surveillance of all phone calls and email without a warrant, internet IDs and internet-censoring measures like ACTA, military drones in American skies, coordinated violent crackdowns against peaceful protesters, strip searches for any arrestee, bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks, .....These are not moderate or centrist positions. Not by a long shot.

These are extreme corporatist, neocon, and police state policies, not "centrist" or moderate at all. And they are coming from corporatists in both parties.

Follow the money.

[Puzzledtraveller]

39. You're right, but what does that leave us?

We as democrats keep voting establishment dems in, from the what I've seen on DU Hillary is already the 45th potus.

[Demo_Chris]

51. Hillary has the brass to actually fix this stuff if she wants

And she might. She is already respected, she's already got all the money and power she could want, she might decide that she wants a Legacy like FDR, only greater.

Who knows.

One thing I do know is that the current crop isn't getting it done. It's easy to blame Washongton and big money, but the reality is that even here on DU there are a whole bunch of folks who have theirs and they really like things just the way they are. They want feel good "accomplishments" to feel great about.

They don't want to hear about millions of kids who are living out of their parent's car, they have a nice home. They don't want to hear about tens of millions of kids who go to bed without food, let them eat cake. They don't give a shit about jobs today and they didn't give a shit about them when they supported NAFTA -- it was great for their stocks. They don't care about cuts to social security so long as the cuts only impact their kids. They don't care about healthcare costs, they've got medicare and medicaid and company healthcare from their retirement. They love their wars, now that they aren't being asked to fight. They love their Patriot Act because the world is a really scary place.

They really do think 399K a year isn't all that much money. Why, they are barely getting by on that amount, as quite a few posted here just a couple weeks ago.

There's a whole bunch of Democrats who would be Republican if they GOP would drop the crazy. They've found the next best thing.

[ProSense]

59. LOL! Got my answer.

[sadbear]

27. Remove special interest money from elections and politics.

Done. (And I suspect republicans will continue representing the interests of the wealthy and powerful.)

[PETRUS]

31. Aspects of this sort of intra-party conflict surface on DU every day.

[SHRED]

37. k and r

[L0oniX]

41. Once capitalism becomes corrupt, can it be made un-corrupt?

You can't make greed illegal in a capitalistic country so you can't fix our country. Even if you were the richest person in the world you couldn't undo the control from all the other rich sociopaths as a group. Voting is just another "don't worry be happy" exercise for the ignorant.

[stupidicus]

42. To save the union and the party we need to

start by saving the unions, and restoring their numbers and role as the bulwark between us and the growing fascism/corporatism/plutarchy/oligarchy/etc -- whatever you wanna call it -- rule.

ANd what of the "progeessive" kind was noticably absent from mBHO's inauguration speech?

You guessed it if you said unions. Unions and union rights have taken a back seat to a great many other noble causes, in his speech and actions. He's been as bad on that front (with relative silence) as he has been on climate change to this point.

[kenny blankenship]

43. Save us, Lefties! Please save us from all the MONEY!

The laughter in the White House and Capitol was said to be so loud it caused cracks to appear in underground Metro tunnels and stations within a ring from Dupont Circle to Anacostia. DC traffic is so tied up as a result of the indefinite closure of the Metro system that all business of the federal government will be conducted directly from Wall St. until further notice.

[woo me with science]

48. Huh? "Lefties"?

Not sure what you are trying to say here...

[Doctor_J]

61. "Liberal" is a swear word on DU now, just like on Hate Radio

[patrice]

52. There aren't any "Lefties". That's the problem. Nothing coherent, because what might pass for that

in my region got themselves confused with a bunch of people talking "revolution" and gun-love.

Democratic organizing meeting this last weekend, ALL OF THE SAME OLD MUSHY MIDDLE CRAP, because there is NO LEFT - no coherent national voice from the left, just a bunch of the same old political opportunists trying to build a career.

[kenny blankenship]

60. "I.R.Runner" is writing from the point of view of

"American progressives and principled liberals " and in an appeal to the same, who, he or she believes, need to face squarely the reality that the Democratic Party is " closer, ideologically and politically, to Wall Street than to Main Street—to the corporate, rich and powerful than to the stricken middle class, the increasingly impoverished working class (and the diminished and embattled unions that protect it), and the unemployed and perpetually poor." In short, "Runner" declares the Democrats in "political bankruptcy". They've actually never been further from bankrupt, though, in the usual financial sense of that word.

Runner writes on behalf of and in an appeal to "American progressives and principled liberals " marginalized by the corporate toady elite represented by Barack "Let My Bankster People Go!" Obama and the DLC, and urges these outcasts to return, take back and save their party. Runner calls for a "showdown" if need be to decide the battle for the party's soul - ignoring all the evidence he or she has already amassed which indicates that this showdown has already occurred.

How do these marginalized progressives and liberals imagine they are viewed by the toady elite they would displace? They are not welcomed as equal members of the Democratic family, to put it mildly. They are called "fucking retarded", dirty, pot smoking hippies of the "Professional Left". They are openly mocked by the leading lights of the modern degenerate Democrats. Their priorities are scoffed at (environmental protection, ending the wars abroad, stopping the drug war), swindled away from them by parliamentary kabuki (health care reform, filibuster reform), or just silently scorned (blanket refusal to prosecute the endemic fraud of Wall St., and blanket acceptance for every union crushing, job destroying, wage suppressing trade treaty that global capital can dream up and propose). And sometimes, as with OWS, they are treated to the mailed fist. That is the Democratic Party as it is, not as Runner wishes it would be. Those who wish along with Runner are called Lefties - and that's one of the nicer epithets applied to them by the party they wish to save.

Runner and co. want to save a party that doesn't wish to be saved. Look at your self-described mainstream Democrats and gauge their mood as the country crumbles. They think they've never had it so good. They think things have never been better. They're planning for permanent one party government just like the Republicans were, ca. 2003-2004. And just as it was for the Republicans, these dreams are fueled by corporate cash - as both the means to power AND the end. Given the choice between the MONEY and salvation offered by Runner - well, it's a joke isn't it? "Save us, Runner! Please save us from all the MONEY! You're our only hope."

[patrice]

63. I don't dispute any of that, I know it intimately & first hand. The problem is HOW to develope

our positions without giving toooooooo much purchase to those who can and will take it down from within in the name of other forms of, labels for, oppression (their own careers in many cases, replicating old mistakes accidentally or on purpose) which they either fail or refuse to recognize the very real opportunities that exist for those kinds of double-triple-crosses to happen, because SOME people have more of a buffer of some sort than others do.

Yeah, anarchists probably think that's all hunky-dory, and I can understand (and AGREE with to some extent) their philosophical/IDEOLOGICAL base in thinking that, but where the tire meets that road, that's going to result in at least some UNJUST pain and suffering and killing off a whole lot more than just various kinds of biological life, so perhaps you'll excuse some of us if we don't see a reason to go there . . . yet . . . if ever.

If the future needs to be freed, has a RIGHT to that, so does the present and if that isn't so, then whatever "new" paradigm does develop it will just be built on the same old killing-fields as all that has preceded it. Which stuff probably IS going to happen anyway, but that doesn't make just whatever okay, because the net loss could be insurmountable to the whole thing, including the future, and setting that kind of precedent policy-wise, no matter what label it wears, will be something that comes back and bites the "new" paradigm in its own ass, when the time comes.

What we need is more concrete vision stuff here, at the bottom, hard-nosed real observable concrete differences, so people can SEE their way to make decisions about committing in specified terms, whatever labels they are wearing. I think we are real fucking far from that kind of concrete plans, so perhaps you can understand my skepticism about throwing in with a bunch of what, from my personal experience, is just another batch of careerists, a.k.a. fractured issue(s)-lobbyists, wearing different labels coming at us with a bunch of others (many of them internet critters) wearing masks.

[KG]

53. autoxchromeDURec

[progressoid]

56. I don't think we are the party of bipartisan compromise.

Rather we have become a bipartisan party. There is no need to compromise when we have already embraced failed rw policies.

[ancianita]

57. Anything "fundamentally different" has to be more than incremental. Centrists cannot

-- absolutely cannot -- change the current party from within. The Democratic Party is what it is and the "saving" part has to be those it has abandoned -- its progressive base has to be saved, not the Democratic Party. It is Progressives who historically have helped make important constructive changes in the social compact beyond foot dragging politics from centrists. The centrists are the cover for the political corporatists.

We Progressives need to be saved. Start -- in all 50 states -- the Green Workers Party. The new GREWP platform will do everything that the Democratic Party Platform cowardly withdraws from doing. It will
1) ban money from politics,
2) pass the ERA for women,
3) structure a Green Manhattan Project,
4) restructure America's financial system and trade agreements,
5) streamline all military-industrial complex contracts, restructure the Joint Chiefs, shut down bases in countries richer than ours that should finance their own national security.

I could go on, but the GREWP platform's statement of independence from two-sided corporatist politics could get much Occupy, union, Green Party and immigrant membership in filing for its establishment in all 50 states.

[0rganism]

64. the best way to "save" the Democratic party is to vote in 2014

if the teabaggers get another big year like 2010, our problems will be large and real.

OTOH, if we can totally shut them down, keep control of the senate and prevent further losses in the house and in state legislatures, the Democratic party will have some of the leverage it needs to represent progressive causes going forward.

[rhett o rick]

70. I think the point of the OP is that if Democrats want to win more, they have

to show the public that they are significantly different than the idiot repukes. Sen Reid had an opportunity to reform the filibuster and put the Repukes in their place. But he failed to stand up and show the American people what a hard fighting Democrat looks like. He once again compromised and allowed the Repukes to claim victory.

There is of course is a time to be pragmatic. But pragmatism shouldnt be used as an excuse to capitulate.

[Chathamization]

65. What we need is the slow process

of activists getting involved in their local Democratic party and pushing for progressive leadership. We need to find an groom potential progressive candidates. The party's not going to fix itself, and its not going to be fixed by the third-wayers (well, in a positive way). More progressives need to engage in the struggle for the leadership of the party.

[leftstreet]

72. You mean like Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy?

Hard work! Outstanding! Wildly Successful!



And it did fuck-all

[WillyT]

71. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!