The war on the "far left" is an effort to move the Democratic Party to the right.

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2013, 02:13 AM - Edit history (3)

That should not be a controversial statement. (Aside from "war on" which is a figure of speech at this point to refer to a concerted effort against something but that has no formal definition)

A republican war on the "far right" would surely be an effort to move the Republican Party to the left, wouldn't it?

What I do not get is the objective. What is so god-awful leftist about the current Democratic coalition in aggregate that requires diminishing the left?

What possible use would a Democratic Party be that is moved to the right from where it is today? What is this left-less dream party supposed to look like?

Does the Democratic Party of today even have any leftist positions to jettison?

Is there some notion afoot that we would win more elections without the "far left"? Where? How? Are there leftist Dems out there losing to liberal-Republicans? (An inverse of our centrist-dem victories over tea-party Kamikaze candidates?)

Purging blue-dogs would be Party suicide. It would. The awful-fucking-left casts more Democratic votes than blue-dog types but somehow to win elections they should be shown the door... because they all vote for Nader anyway, y'know.

Which nut left positions forced on Obama by the cancerous Democratic left cost him all those elections? Oh, right... he won, didn't he?

Despite the Green Party getting 10%, 15% in 2008 and 2012... except they didn't. The awful left voted for Obama in droves.

Barrack Obama is the dream-centrist that the third-way delusionistas have been mewling for all these years. They won't admit it because they cannot accept that a third party is not needed, but he is reasonable and moderate and within the system and doggedly pro-capitalist and a fiscal conservative and a pragmatic-hawk and all the shit the mewlers ever demanded.

What position does Obama hold on ANYTHING that needs to be moved to the right? Seriously. What extremist left Obama positions am I missing?

Assuming the answer to that is "none," why does the Party need to move to the right?

[Marr]

1. +1 yes, whether it's done intentionally or not (and I don't think it always is intentional)...

that's the effect.

People who are very loyal to their elected party leaders try to marginalize critics of those leaders, particularly those within their own party. They give cover to those politicians and make it much easier for them to push right-of center policy.

[RC]

2. +10

Good questions. Maybe some of the usual suspects will show up and answer one or more of them.

[HooptieWagon]

3. Who does the Third Way serve?

And I think there lies the answer to who considers the Democratic Left an enemy.

The GOP isn't their enemy...they serve the same masters.

[sabrina 1]

78. Bankers. Wall St Bankers which is why we have seen no prosecutions since the Third Way

infiltrated the Democratic Party. You have to give Wall St Credit. They planned all this very well. After all if only the REpublican party was protecting them, they could be in trouble if the Dem Party had remained a Party of the People. Eg, those bailouts might not have happened without the Third Way taking control.

[HooptieWagon]

80. Wall St, telecoms, extraction Corps, MIC contractors.

Monsanto... you name a large corporation, and chances are they are invested in the Third Way.

As you correctly point out, if corporations control the Third Way, and thus the Democratic Party, then they win every single election no matter which party gets the most votes. The 99% lose every election. And the surveillence and police states are there to protect the 1% in the event the 99% finally figure out what the hell is going on. IOW, World War 2 was just a battle the fascists lost....it appears they have won the war. Can the tide be reversed?

[Bonobo]

4. If winning any given election is the only goal you can see...

It makes perfect sense.

1. Move to the right to occupy center-right ground that was ceded by the Republicans as they moved to the right. Nature abbhors a vacuum.

2. Remind reliable "Democratic" voters that the other side is worse. Combine with rhetoric flourishes that give you some hope to hang your hat on.

-Remember, however Left we may be, there really IS nowhere else to go. So our votes have already been tabulated and recorded. Taken for granted generally.

The above is a WINNING strategy and you do want to win, dontcha?

[Ash_F]

59. Sometimes that works. Not in 2010.

Dems didn't show and lost seats for it. Leadership needs to understand the importance of strong morale. Repeatedly kicking you voters bellow the belt can do that.

The only thing that saved 2012 was Obama seeing that he was in a dangerous position and taking some, by then popular, positions such as gay rights reform. That and Republicans overplayed their right-winged hand that year. Still the pubs failed so hard; we could have done better.

But now the hits just keep coming with the security BS and other rightwing pandering so 2014 isn't looking good. Instead of gains I think we will have losses barring any turn around.

[dawg]

5. The 1% knows it needs a new party.

It broke the one it had, by fostering racism, sexism, homophobia, and religious intolerance. It knows the crazies are on the verge of vesting control away from the "responsible" businessmen who know how things must be run.

So that's where we come in.

Many of the *real* professional Dems have figured out that they can garner almost as much support from big business and Wall Street as the Republicans by supporting progressive social issues but reverting to conservative (they would say "sensible&quot positions on economic matters. They can see the writing on the wall. If they can prove to the 1% that they are more reliable than those crazy teabaggers, then the Democratic Party could be ascendant for the foreseeable future.

Which is a good thing, if all you care about are the social issues.

[HooptieWagon]

81. Most of the social issues are lost under corporate control.

Cuts to Social Security, dismantling of enviromental regs, restricting union activity, dismantling the public education system. Quite frankly, "winning " gay marriage and abortion are hollow victories if we all end up peasants to the 1%.

[dawg]

85. I agree with you, but many here apparently don't see it that way.

They are happy to support the pro-choice, pro-gay-rights conservatives over the religiously insane conservatives of the other party.

Personally, I think we must do better than that.

Although I'm afraid it is too late in the game now to do any good, I'm going to start being much more strategic with my votes - especially in the primaries. No more voting for the "most electable" candidate. No more John Kerry. No more Hillary Clinton. Not unless they come out and earn my vote by running to the left of their opponents.

[HooptieWagon]

89. I agree.

I'm guilty myself of falling into that trap... Voting for an "electable" candidate in the primaries because dammit, the republicans are worse. But as we see, that only leads to increasing RW control of the Dem Party. Fuck that. I now plan to vote my conscience and beliefs. If that means the GOP wins an election or two, so be it. Eventually the voters will catch on to GOP extremism, and will swing left. Can't swing left with a RW Dem Party blocking the way. My vote will be against corporatization and against over-reaching govt surveillence.

[Bluenorthwest]

107. Well HW the movement that is slowly brining actual equality to marriage has been one of the only

organized and well funded segments of the Party which move the Party to the left on a variety of issues. And increasing basic human rights is winning, it is not "winning" when those rights are rights one needs not rights which one takes for granted.

[HooptieWagon]

113. So rather than make the 1% start their own party....

The TW/DLC gave them ours.

[struggle4progress]

6. If you want a viable left in the US, it can't be built by attempting to apply pressure at the top:

it has to be built as a grassroots movement from the bottom, and it has to be a serious long-term effort

[Eleanors38]

84. This is completely true. There's no Momma to cry to when you are not heard.

[mick063]

102. There is another way

Catastrophic failure by those in charge.

I'm not a tiger. I'm a buzzard.

The third way will die soon enough. It is, after all, loony Republican policy.

[struggle4progress]

105. Catastrophic failure of the system is a rightwinger's wet dream: it will have no good effects

[mick063]

111. Catastrophic failure gave us the New Deal

Catastrophic Failure is inevitable.

[leveymg]

110. If you really believed that netroots pressure on the top was useless, you wouldn't be posting here.

The Prez and other party leaders can try to ignore us, but that just creates other, deeper problems. So, they occasionally adjust their way of doing things until we stop howling, which is the best we can hope for in terms of influence, anyway.

The NSA is a good example of a case in which they've started to notice in DC that we aren't very happy, and figured out this isn't going away until they do some things to change policy.

And, the Democratic Party Left will keep doing grassroots mobilization, too - and organizing around this sort of issue is a great way to do it.

[struggle4progress]

118. I consider DU a useful place to share info and perspectives, but not a form of political action

[leveymg]

119. It's a form of organization and forum for ideas on how to do that.

Committee of Correspondence writ large. Or, was that a waste of time in your view, too?

[struggle4progress]

121. The Committees probably engaged in less trawling for reactions than we see here

[AgingAmerican]

7. Creeping fascism

nt

[pnwmom]

8. He's pro marriage equality, pro-choice, and pro-Dream Act.

None of these are centrist positions.

And these days, neither are being pro-Social Security and pro-Medicare and pro-ACA.

[cthulu2016]

11. Don't those all poll well?

I don't know how you would define center, but the three things cited there have at least plurality support.

Basic left things like a $15 minimum wage, single-payer health care system, a mandate that the government achieve full-employment... none of that sort of thing is on the table.

It is always tricky to label things, but a failure to prevent people brought here as children from going to college doesn't seem leftist to me.

And whether Obama is pro-choice is not very germane. Pro-choice is the law of the land and the federal government isn't allowed to fund abortions, so he is not a huge player there.

And though there is some public support for rolling back the abortion maximum time-frame, America is surely not pro-life. There is nowhere near majority support for banning abortion categorically.

[pnwmom]

15. Plurality support isn't enough.

Only 24% of Americans are as liberal as Obama on the issue of abortion.

And gay marriage is still not legal in the majority of states. Only a third of Americans live in states where Obama's position is considered centrist.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57595466/poll-majority-of-americans-support-20-week-abortion-ban/

The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal without restriction during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, but 56 percent of Americans would prefer to impose restrictions after only 20 weeks, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll. Only 27 percent of respondents prefer the current 24-week threshold.

[Bluenorthwest]

108. Obama's position is that marriage equality should be up to the States, so no matter what the

position of a State, Obama supports that position. That's centrism defined. If they hate us, he's with 'em, if they love us, then he does too! So all Americans live in a State where Obama's position is centrist, because he says each State should get to decide our rights. Just not the rights of real actual human Americans.

[RobertEarl]

16. Yes those are centrist positions that used to be full left positions only

Obama is to the right... here's a few pro right positions he holds....

Pro drug war, pro droning, pro bankers walk, pro bush crimes are coddled, pro spying (tho most of the real right is anti-spying, just the asshole right is pro spying), he's is also pro nuclear, pro fossil fuel use and drilling for more oil, and pro insurance company based health care.

He is not a left positioned executive, he's a center right politician, tho.

[pnwmom]

18. Part of the reason more people support gay marriage these days

is because people like Obama and Biden have led the way. There is much more support for gay marriage in the African American community than before, for example, and I think Obama had a lot to do with this.

[RobertEarl]

20. You must have missed this?

So I will repeat it:

Obama is to the right... here's a few pro right positions he holds....

Pro drug war, pro droning, pro bankers walk, pro bush crimes are coddled, pro spying (tho most of the real right is anti-spying, just the asshole right is pro spying), he is also pro nuclear, pro fossil fuel use and drilling for more oil, and pro insurance company based health care.

He is not a left positioned executive, he's a center right politician, tho.

Let me know if you read it again, for the first time, maybe?

[pnwmom]

21. I read it both times. And I disagree that he's on the right.

"Left" and "right" are relative terms, and the world is not the same as it was 30 years ago. For example, supporting health insurance reforms of ANY kind put Obama on the left of the spectrum.

And "most of the real right is anti-spying"??? On what planet are you living?

[RobertEarl]

23. Just cause you say so?

Geez, those positions are fucking RW positions that the RW fights like crazy for. And you just act like the three monkeys, see no, hear no and speak no evil. That's shit's evil. Maybe not to you, but to most of America is sure is, and Obama enforces it day in and day out.

Nixon suggested pretty much what we have from Obamacare. Probably even better than what Obama got 40 years later. This hear no, see no and speak no evil about Obama is not helping people one bit.

[pnwmom]

25. And what happened between Nixon and Obama?

The fall of the Soviet Union and the move toward change in China.

In the tug of war between the communists on the left and the dictators on the right, the largest communist countries gave up. Our whole country got pulled to the right. Communism lost in the court of public opinion and socialism, not communism, is now viewed as the far left.

And yes, left and right are relative terms. Not because I said so. Check your dictionary.

[RobertEarl]

28. Socialism is far left?

You may be on the wrong website?

Socialism is highways. Libraries. Police and fire. Environmental regulations. The Justice system. Government helping people is socialism.

You really don't have a clue do you? You just throw out those terms and expect they have some basis just because you think so.

Many other countries have made great progress in making socialism work for their people. And you think that the US regressing is proper?

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Don't worry, all that stuff (if they can do it)

Will be closed or privatized..imagine the money you can make on private roads...and fire departments...go back to companies...for profit companies, with medallions and shit.

Libraries...proles don't need to read.

I wish I were kidding

[RobertEarl]

42. Over the bodies of a dead left

The left is what made this country great. Always striving for progress and to take care of all the people's needs, the left has had some success. We coulda had more, but too many people harass the left and slow us down.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. There are days I think we really need to fully

repeat history, such as the Great Chicago Fire.

And when it comes to labor, we are going there

[FSogol]

64. You think we need to have another fire that killed hundreds?

[pnwmom]

50. I'm not on the wrong site. I support socialism.

And I recognize that in this country in these days, that now puts me on the far left.

The great pillars of the far left fell when the Soviet Union broke up and China took steps toward capitalism. What's left standing on the left? Socialism.

[noiretextatique]

92. no it does not...it just means a lot of americans

are idiots who get caught of in words and not their actual meanings.

[Enthusiast]

65. He is to the right.

Period

[pnwmom]

66. Dream on. n/t

[GoneFishin]

76. He's is to the right. Having a D after his name doesn't change his positions.

In the real world anyway.

[Maven]

51. That is a fucking joke and an insult

and it makes my blood boil that you can say it with a straight face.

People like Obama haven't led the way on jack shit when it comes to gay rights. Not on thing one. It's taken decades of work by dedicated activists with courage, real courage of the kind a phony centrist influence peddler couldn't even conceive of, it's taken ages of hard work and pressing the issue while the power elite's kiss ass chorus called us disrupters and poutragers and worse.

In the end, he was dragged kicking and screaming, his hand forced by his own Vice President, and that after the poll numbers were comfortably lukewarm. A courageous leader on civil rights he ain't.

Kindly stow those comforting lies back at the BOG, because this gay isn't about to let you rewrite history.

[pnwmom]

52. Can you speak to how much influence Obama's attitudes have had

on the larger African American community? Or are you just assuming his influence has been negligible?

Are you aware that support for marriage equality has been much lower among black Democrats than among whites, and that Obama has helped to change this?

Are you aware that Obama has also been speaking out in Africa on LGBT issues?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-07-19/african-american-gay-marriage-obama/56340990/1

Four years ago, 70% of black Californians said they voted for a state ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage. Today, though there is still resistance nationally, politicians, civil rights leaders and even hip-hop artists are helping the black community evolve on its views about gays.

In a recent Washington Post-ABC survey, black support for gay marriage rose 18 percentage points in one month (to 59%) after President Obama announced in May that gays should be allowed to marry. In the past, black support for gay marriage has lagged behind the national average. Why the shift?

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/obama_african_leaders_clash_on_gay_rights_ap/


THURSDAY, JUN 27, 2013 01:48 PM PDT

U.S. President Barack Obama, standing beside Senegalese counterpart Macky Sall(Credit: AP/Rebecca Blackwell)
DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — Laying bare a clash of cultures, President Barack Obama on Thursday urged African leaders to extend equal rights to gays and lesbians but was bluntly rebuked by Senegal’s president, who said his country “still isn’t ready” to decriminalize homosexuality.

Obama opened his weeklong trip to Africa one day after the U.S. Supreme Court expanded federal benefits for married gay couples. In his first in-person comments on the ruling, Obama said the court’s decision marked a “proud day for America.” He pressed for similar recognition for gays in Africa, wading into a sensitive area in a region where dozens of countries outlaw homosexuality and a few punish violations with death.

“When it comes to how the state treats people, how the law treats people, I believe that everybody has to be treated equally,” Obama said during a news conference with Senegalese President Macky Sall at the grand presidential palace in Dakar.

But Sall gave no ground. Senegal is “very tolerant,” he assured Obama, but is “still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality.” Sall said countries make decisions on complex issues in their own time, noting that Senegal has outlawed capital punishment while other countries have not — a pointed jab at the U.S., where the death penalty is legal in many states.

SNIP

[Maven]

54. Can you? Please provide evidence that Obama's influence has dramatically shifted

AA attitudes about same sex marriage. The more reliable data suggests change is happening gradually as a result of generational shifts.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/african-americans-the-last-democratic-holdouts-on-gay-marriage-20130501

Even if his announcement did have influence after the fact, that does not by any stretch of the imagination amount to "leading the way" by Mr "something sanctified"/"God is in the mix". Taking a position over 50% of the nation agrees with doesn't make you a trailblazer.

BTW I see you edited your post to play up that WaPo/ABC poll. Even they admit the result is unreliable due to the very small sample size. In other words: an outlier. See my link above.

[pnwmom]

55. From the previous post, how do you explain this? Just a random coincidence?

"In a recent Washington Post-ABC survey, black support for gay marriage rose 18 percentage points in one month (to 59%) after President Obama announced in May that gays should be allowed to marry."

Obama took a position that was well ahead of the curve among the African American community. Even today, only a third of Americans live in a state with marriage equality. No Republican would have taken the position Obama did.

[Maven]

56. Again, that poll is unreliable and based on a small sample size

If you actually read the accompanying article, they call the results "tentative" due to the sample size. It proves nothing. Generational shifts are a much more likely explanation for the overall trend in favor of equality. And that progress is the result of a movement, not Obama "leading the way".

Polling on gay marriage among blacks has been mixed. A March 2013 Pew Center study -- which compiled results from four surveys conducted over more than a year -- found 40 percent of African-Americans support gay marriage, with 48 percent opposing. The same study found 49 percent of whites and 61 percent of Democrats support gay marriage.

Other polls, with much smaller sample sizes than the Pew study, actually show a majority of black voters now support gay marriage. A March 2013 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 51 percent of African-American voters now support gay marriage. A May 2012 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 59 percent support gay marriage.

Michael Dimock, the director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, said it’s natural that there’s some statistical “noise” around such polls. But what is clear is that, just as with the general population, support for gay marriage is growing among blacks. Ten years ago, just 27 percent of African-Americans favored gay marriage, according to the Pew study.

“There is still a difference in the balance in opinion between whites and blacks, but the rate of change within those two groups is very similar,” Dimock said.

[pnwmom]

61. This post supports what I'm saying. Black Democrats traditionally have supported

gay marriage in much lower numbers than other Democrats -- 40% among blacks compared to 61% among whites in the March 2013 poll.

But that March poll was conducted BEFORE Obama's speech; the May poll, after Obama's speech, showed support among African Americans at 59%.

Obama’s announcement in support of marriage equality came in the face of heavy opposition from black Christian leaders, who went so far as to threaten not to campaign for him in the 2012 election. Obama’s example has made it easier for the NAACP and other groups to speak out, despite this opposition.

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/11/152520955/obamas-gay-marriage-stance-stirs-black-community

CORNISH: Does President Obama's evolution, as he calls it, change the broader debate among African-Americans about homosexuality and gay rights?

DADE: Well, that's the interesting thing here. President Obama has enormous influence with the African-American community. And this debate goes way beyond gay marriage. It addresses kind of the broader issue of just homosexuality. I came across some interesting research that a professor did at Menlo College. She did a poll of African-Americans in the Chicago area. They were asked to support gay marriage.

And what they found was that the race of the caller actually made it more likely that the respondent would support gay marriage. So their theory is that when an African-American steps out in support of gay marriage and gay rights, it increases the likelihood that African-Americans will follow. So there is a theory out there that Obama could have that effect here.

http://thegrio.com/2013/03/26/how-obama-changed-the-gay-marriage-debate/

But now, as the Supreme Court considers two cases on gay marriage, it’s clear Obama’s words profoundly changed the gay marriage debate. His support for gay marriage immediately shifted opinion in one of the last parts of the Democratic base resistant to gay unions: African-Americans.

While polls differ on the exact level of black support for gay marriage, almost half of African-Americans in Maryland backed a provision allowing gay marriages there last fall, and opposition to gay marriage has dipped below 50 percent among blacks nationally, according to the Pew Research Center. And Obama’s statement made it easier for influential African-American organizations, such as the NAACP, also to voice their support for gay marriage, as well as professional athletes, even if some influential pastors in many black communities still opposed it.

http://kutnews.org/post/polls-show-obamas-support-gay-marriage-influencing-african-americans

Public Policy Polling last week surveyed blacks in North Carolina, where voters approved a same-sex marriage ban the day before Obama's announcement. The poll found that their opposition, though a robust 59 percent, had dropped 11 points since the state ban passed.

On Thursday, NPR's Eyder Peralta reported in the Two-Way blog that a Washington Post/ABC News poll found African-American support for same-sex marriage at 59 percent, compared with 41 percent before Obama's announcement.

Also on Thursday, Public Policy Polling released another poll, of blacks in Maryland, where voters will decide in November whether to uphold a new state law that legalized same-sex marriage. Fifty-five percent of black respondents said they will vote to enact the law. Back in March, PPP found that 56 percent of blacks said they would vote against the measure.

For blacks, Michelson says, Obama has made support for gay marriage "a safer position to vocalize."

[Maven]

74. You're comparing apples and oranges, and you have the dates backwards

The unreliable 59% poll was conducted in May of 2012.

The Pew poll, with a much larger sample size, was completed almost a year later in March of 2013.

So there goes that argument.

Obama’s example has made it easier for the NAACP and other groups to speak out, despite this opposition.

Actually, Julian Bond was a vocal supporter of marriage equality long before Obama's announcement.

Look, I'm not saying Obama's announcement had no positive effect. What I'm saying is he does not get credit for having "led the way" on marriage equality. He began his administration by elevating bigots to positions of prominence while mouthing support for gay rights. It took him four years to get to a place a majority of the country had already gotten to. It doesn't mean his announcement wasn't significant, just that on this issue (as with many others) he has not exactly gone out on a limb as you would make it seem.

[pnwmom]

75. I respect Julian Bond but Obama has had a far greater influence on the opinions of

African Americans. It's silly to claim otherwise.

[liberal_at_heart]

60. there is a world of difference between poll numbers and going out in the streets and experiencing

reality. That is one of Obama's problems. He's lived in the White House too long. He needs to get back out in the community where real people live real lives.

[JoeyT]

69. +1

He "evolved" when it became apparent that it might cost him an election. Not before.

Being forced to change your position because the people that hold it are no longer in the majority and it might cost you to hold it isn't leadership.

[liberal_at_heart]

58. can I have some of what you are smoking?

There are people in the African American community who think they have to show physical strength all the time because to show physical weakness is to be a target. And in order to show strength you have to show dominance over the perceived weak. The perceived weak are the old, young, female, sick, disabled, and gay. And no watching Obama on tv did not change their mind.

[pnwmom]

62. No.

But I'm happy to share what I've been reading.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3495563

[Number23]

120. What the fuck?

[dawg]

17. Those are all things that don't cost the 1% any money.

That's how it works, these days.

[cascadiance]

47. + Infinity...

It is SO typical to for the corporatists to divide and conquer the masses with social issues that they don't give a rat's ass about what happens with them... They just care about taxes on them, their ability to control the government (which is why you will NEVER hear things like public campaign financing and instant runoff voting discussed as issues that they'll claim are "far left" issues).

[Raksha]

122. Exactly. n/t

[Dragonfli]

35. You need to study up on the topic if you wish to discuss centrists issues. Because in fact those are

centrist positions by design and definition.

A quick primer below: (there is much more to know about the 30 year "Reaganization" effort against our party which is responsible for shifted us so far to the right of center regarding all but social issues, but a few key facts should get you started on understanding "Centrists" and how much damage has been done by them).

New Democrats, in the politics of the United States, are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with centrist social/cultural/pluralist positions and neoliberal fiscal values. They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions.

After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner.

The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for neo liberalism and the New Right. In a sense, 80s Moderate Republicans are almost identical to "Third Way" Democrats, one reason I found Obama's statement that he was, policy wise, closest to an 80's Republican refreshingly honest and at the time I gave him kudos for his honesty.

[pa28]

9. Well stated but I'd have to say the party has already moved right.

The war on the "far left" is actually an effort to drag along the broken pieces of labor, trade, environment and human rights Democrats.

If you won't settle for the "lesser of two evils" argument you get the finger. Period.

[Rex]

10. It only works on those that are foaming at the mouth mad.

nt.

[blkmusclmachine]

12. Bi-partisanship/Triangulation = War On Liberal/Progressive Democrats

Third Way/Blue Dogs/"New" Democrats/"Centrists" = Reformed Republicans

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Yes, triangulation

Move as far to the right as possible, staying just a hair's width from Republicans.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Don't you mean, even further to the right?

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. What can one say? Some people fallforanything.

Besides, we all know that it was all Nader's fault!

[hfojvt]

19. Hilary 2016 and 2020

What is the objective of the far-left's attacks on the Democratic Party?

Creating a viable Green Party?

Electing more Republicans in the hopes of a revolution?

[RobertEarl]

22. Attacks?

Gawd, if that is the way you see the left, as attacking the party, then you must agree the party is mainly to the right of center. And that you think making suggestions that Obama and the party divorce themselves from the following right wing positions, is wrong?

Obama is the leader of the Democratic party... here's a few pro right positions he holds....

Pro drug war, pro droning, pro bankers walk, pro bush crimes are coddled, pro spying (tho most of the real right is anti-spying, just the asshole right is pro spying), he's is also pro nuclear, pro fossil fuel use and drilling for more oil, and pro insurance company based health care.

You are not on a RW website, y'know?

[hfojvt]

24. yes, attacks

are you gonna tell me that THIS is not an attack on a Party leader, on the husband of our future Presidential nominee? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3489774

The trouble is that most of the attacks here are not "suggesting that Obama and the party divorce themselves from certain positions"

instead they are attacks on Obama and the party for NOT divorcing themselves from certain positions.

The bigger trouble is that the attackers simply assume that most of the public agrees with their positions. For example "fossil fuel use". I am guessing, based on the number of weapons of mass destruction (I understand that other people call them "cars&quot on the roads every day that the vast, vast majority of Americans are "pro fossil fuel".

I mean, there are a few old hippies like me on bicycles growling at the other drivers, but we are way outnumbered.

Even here, where it may seem like preaching to the choir, I think the far left should do a much better job of "trying to win people to our side" than we do. Instead it always seems like scorched earth, flame on, and death to the heretics.

[RobertEarl]

29. Death to the heretics?

My gawd, you resort to extreme hyperbole to attack the left?

Y'know what? This is still a free country and if someone wants to question dear leaders... get the fuck out of their way. Or you risk being a dictator yourself.

The rest of your drivel isn't even worthy of responding to, except to say that if you really feel the left has not made progress possible, you may be deluded. And are on the wrong website.

[hfojvt]

31. death is a slight exxageration for effect

usually the heretics are just insulted, maybe told to go back to Freeperville.

But that would never happen would it?

[RobertEarl]

32. What's your point?

You detest the left is all I am getting from your words.

[hfojvt]

128. What are words for?

I used to think I was part of the left, and in some places I suppose I still am.

Actually no, what I am doing is observing that "the left" as represented here, is the one that detests everybody who does not agree with them on everything. If you disagree with them, they will not argue respectfully, trying to win you to their side. Instead, they will just attack you, like this

"The rest of your drivel isn't even worthy of responding to, except to say that if you really feel the left has not made progress possible, you may be deluded. And are on the wrong website."

or this

"You're the INTERNET HARD MAN.

Your lack of empathy for innocent people who are killed by American policy is disgusting."


drivel, and deluded, and disgusting (oh my)


The hostility is NOT coming from me in these exchanges.

[cascadiance]

49. And we should just LOVE that he keeps wanting to CUT social security huh?

Just because he's a Democrat? SHEESH! Social Security is not only a program supported by most Democrats, but supported by most AMERICANS who aren't in that corporatist elite that he continues to be trying for some GOD DAMNED REASON trying to satisfy instead of us the "professional" and "far" "left"!!!

[GeorgeGist]

100. I hope I'm dead and gone before another Clinton occupies the White House.

NAFTA, ending Glass-Steagall, DOMA, Workfare, DADT etc.

[Maedhros]

39. The objective?

Not killing thousands of civilians with drone strikes.

Not generating thousands of potential terrorists by dropping bombs on their families.

Not allowing Wall Street criminals to get away with a slap on the wrist.

Not criminalizing adversarial journalism.

Not ceding to the Executive Branch the power to execute U.S. citizens without due process.

Not allowing the NSA and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies to bypass the Constitution.

Not allowing Social Security to be a bargaining chip in negotiations with madmen.

Not holding innocent men in prison.

Not spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on data collection centers for our communications metadata.

Not surrendering our sovereignty to corporations via the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Not alienating ourselves from the international community by flexing our diplomatic muscles and forcing down a Head Of State's plane.

Not operating black sites in Somalia.

I could go on, but this list so far just makes me sick so I''ll stop.

[hfojvt]

53. except for social security and the TPP

most of that list just makes me yawn.

So I am not sure much is being accomplished with these attacks, other than to make a very small part of the public very, very angry. About something every day.

37 people killed in YEMEN in the first two weeks of August. I guess that should somehow be more important to me than the 500 killed in America in the same two weeks. A life in Yemen does not, for me, trump ten lives in America.

Executing US citizens without due process. Again, my only reaction to the death of Al-Alwaki is to celebrate.

We simply do not seem to care about the same things - you and I. I am far more concerned about poverty and inequality in the USA than I am about anything in Yemen or Somalia. If I was gonna make a list of things to be angry at Democrats about, most of those items would not make the top 100.

[Maedhros]

86. Of course it makes you yawn.

You're the INTERNET HARD MAN.

Your lack of empathy for innocent people who are killed by American policy is disgusting.

[hfojvt]

93. that is prett funny, in an ironic sort of way

I have no idea what an internet hardman is

so I googled it, and I find

"An internet hardman is someone who goes online in chat rooms, message boards and the like and insults, belittles and abuses other people. His avatar will probably be some image that gives the impression he's a hardcase, and he'll probably have some tagline like "Shut the fuck up" or "Who you dissin" or "When the master's talking you shut it". But if you were to meet this person face to face you would probably find he is either a skinny or dumpy nerd with thick glasses and his vest tucked into his skidmark-stained y-fronts, has no social life to speak of, has a relationship with a collection of porno mags and has never spoken to a girl."

Even the definition is ironic, as it "insults, belittles, and abuses" skinny, single and lonely people.

What do you find insulting and belittling in what I wrote? Just the fact that I disagree with you?

If anybody is "insulting, abusing, and belittling" isn't it the one who responds to another "you are disgusting".

Also, where is all your empathy for the 500 Americans killed in those two weeks? Why is 37 dead in Yemen a bigger problem to you than 500 dead right here in America?

[Maedhros]

94. To what 500 Americans are you referring?

Were they killed because of Obama Administration policy?

[sabrina 1]

83. The 'far left' as described by the attackers from the Third Way, IS the Democratic Party.

So your comment makes no sense. As a Democrat I attack the Third Way Corporate/MIC policies they are trying to impose on our party. That is NOT attacking the Dem Party it is DEFENDING it from right wing policies which is the goal of the Wall St Third Way element that has successfully, for now, infiltrated the Dem Party. They are a Third Party, that has attached itself to the Dem Party knowing they could not make it on their own with their Corporate and War Agenda and their opposition to Social Programs.

Hillary will never get my support. She voted for Wall St's War in Iraq which demonstrated the worst kind of judgement on an issue that has will have disastrous consequences for decades to come. And she claims she believed there were WMDs there??? If WE knew they were lying anyone in a position to represent us and vote against it, is not someone I would trust with major decisions that face a President every day.

[GeorgeGist]

99. Clinton or else, eh?

[99th_Monkey]

27. I've seen the "Professional Left" slur used on DU

on at least two occasions.

That saying is lifted right out of the Far Right's lexicon.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

30. your strawman would be declaring there's a war on the left by Democrats

[cthulu2016]

36. You might not know what a strawman is.

You are suggesting that I am claiming a fact that is not a fact.

That would be an error, or a lie if an intentional/knowing error, but not a strawman.

As to whether there is "a war on the far-left" we have the "war" part, which is a figure of speech and a subjective determination, so that's hard to pin down.

But surely you have noticed that a lot of folks here (who I assume to be Democrats because they say they are) vomit up endless attacks, smears, rants, lies, accusations and insinuations against the far-left and are overtly obsessed with doing so to the point of mania.

A strawman would be to say that someone's argument was X when X is easy to refute, but is not actually their argument.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

37. no. You seem to think there's an active effort to shut down liberal thought and activities by Dems

and apparently by DU'ers. ALthough I see a lot of disagreement about how to characterize the NSA story or how much blame to assign to Obama or Hillary on any item that is news or how laudable Snowden and Greenwald are, there's not some sort of groundswell of active fighting against liberal tenets within the Democratic Party.

Therefore, your notion about the "war on the far left" and your entire post extending from that is built upon a strawman that you then proceed to dismantle. You are doing a very indirect version of that strawman argument.

[JoeyT]

68. You recced one of the very threads this is about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10023493711&info=1#recs

[Zorra]

70. Nice catch, and great example. OP title: "The Far Left Wins Nothing. Again." nt

[JoeyT]

71. Yep, the transparency in recs

is one of the most awesome things about DU3.

It's also hilarious to compare the people that posted and recced the hell out of threads about how all the grumpy liberal haters were really paid conservative shills to the people screaming like banshees about being accused of being paid shills.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

117. I recommended it because of post content--not it's title

The point I try to make that others also try to make is for all of their "evil" some of the more centrist candidates actually win elections. Yes, you have a few very liberal districts where a very liberal representative can be elected, but in this house race that is not going to be the path to getting to a majority.

[treestar]

116. The war if it exists is by the left against the Democrats

They sneer at the idea of Republicans in power. Oh, because they are no different. Yeah, right.

[TekGryphon]

33. The only assaults I see on the "far left"...

... are those coming from the far left. It's the same thing you see from Fox News, constantly pushing the War on the Right and the War on Christianity.

In my social circles far left progressivism has never been stronger. People who I would normally consider moderates have absolutely no qualms attacking the for-profit prison industrial complex, the deluge of grey money into elections, and the record low effective tax rates that motivate business owners to cut employee wages and compensation.

Is Obama a "far left" candidate? Maybe not by my definition but I NEVER thought I'd see solar energy, gay marriage, immigration reform ,marijuana reform, sentencing reform, and financial regulation advance as far as they have under Obama. I'm happy with him.

Likewise if Hillary wins the next Presidential election I'm under no false illusion that she's "far left" or even "moderately left". She's squarely a moderate and while I'd rather see someone like Elizabeth Warren in office, I'll be happy as clam to have a moderate Hilllary.

[Th1onein]

34. I am far left and proud of it.

And we do have our purpose, whether you agree with everything we stand for, or not. We move the middle farther to the left. Without us, you would be veering into the right more often.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. I still think this is all to drag his poll numbers down with his base.

[Coyotl]

41. Huh?

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. they failed on their "libertarian right" meme - so they have returned to "far left" again

[Beowulf42]

45. Just a thought

Bernie Sanders.

[cascadiance]

46. It should not be a surprise that agents of the Koch Brothers funded DLC are behind this campaign!...

Try to make the whole 99% of the country the "far left" with their control of our government, academic institutions like Florida State and their quest to control the media as well...

[liberal_at_heart]

57. because like it or not both parties belong to the corporations and the corporations don't think the

democratic party is far enough to the right.

[great white snark]

63. Get the f&%k out of the DU bubble once in a while.

It's quite peaceful out there. No war on left and Obama has a high approval from Liberals.

[Scuba]

67. You mean "further right" ...

[Zorra]

72. George Lakoff: "Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster

that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are.' It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right."

The plain and simple truth.

[liberal_at_heart]

97. exactly. Every time the democrats move to the center the republicans move more to the right.

[NCTraveler]

73. The war....

The war on the "Regan Democrats" is an effort to move the party to the left.
The war on "conservatives" is an effort to move the party to the left.


These are things that every part of the political spectrum do. It should be no surprise.

[DonCoquixote]

77. I will go further

The attempt to woo Libertarians is also a war on the left, because when people crown them with laurels, they begin to think "Geee, these guys are effective." Then they will see that the Libertarians are really the same "fiscal conservative, socially liberal" types that founded the third way, and while they claim they will hold the GOP to account as well, they won't; they will just divided the left into another slice for the GOP to eat.

[Myrina]

79. ... because that's where the big money donors want them

... Pretty obvious isn't it? One party is moving right, the other party is so far right it's over the cliff. And all for the benefit of their corporate owners.

[ProSense]

82. Bill Clinton is Babe Ruth. Obama is Ted Williams. Discuss.

"Barrack Obama is the dream-centrist that the third-way delusionistas have been mewling for all these years. They won't admit it because they cannot accept that a third party is not needed, but he is reasonable and moderate and within the system and doggedly pro-capitalist and a fiscal conservative and a pragmatic-hawk and all the shit the mewlers ever demanded. "

Bill Clinton is Babe Ruth. Obama is Ted Williams. Discuss.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021768344

PPP: Hillary would beat Rick Perry today, 50-42... in Texas
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022291160

I know one thing, criticism of Greenwald/Snowden has nothing to do with moving the Democratic Party to the right.

The leak was an attempt to bolster the libertarian brand.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023481343

"Does the Democratic Party of today even have any leftist positions to jettison?"

This is one of those say-anything statements. I mean, do you really believe the Democratic Party rejects all "leftist positions," and there aren't Democrats who embrace such positions?

Obama's second term: A productive six months.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023482199

[ananda]

87. It has been a very successful effort for quite awhile now.

..

[brooklynite]

88. Unrec

First, for suggesting that there is a "war" with the "far left" without offering any actual evidence of a "war" (as opposed to a debate on policies between Party factions with different points of view)

Second, for claiming that this war is "to move the Democratic Party to the right" also without evidence. I might argue that the goal of this debate is to fix the Party's policies where in are today: in the center-left of the political spectrum...where most of the votes are.

[JoePhilly]

90. I'm too busy fighting the War on Christmas.

To get upset about how evil Obama is.

[TBF]

91. What "far left"? In this country?

I can count serious leftists on my 2 hands.

[warrprayer]

95. it is very definitely an intentional technique

hammered out by right wing think tanks.

[geek tragedy]

96. In general, the scorn directed at the 'far/extreme left' is not meant for those

who actually vote Democratic.

Pragmatism and ideology are two separate issues.

[Doctor_J]

125. bullshit. everyone at du votes democratic all the time

yet the bog constantly hurls epithets at those who don't get on board with Obama republican policies.

[geek tragedy]

126. Um, no. There are plenty of people who not only bash Obama and other

Democrats in every post, but disappear during election season when the focus is on beating Republicans.

[SidDithers]

98. The war on Democrats is an effort to get people to not vote for Democrats...nt

Sid

[GeorgeGist]

104. Poorly played ...

George

[treestar]

115. Amen.

Maybe they claim to come from the left, but their intent is to weaken the Democrats.

[KamaAina]

101. If it moves any farther to the right, it'll look like this:

[DJ13]

103. Proud to be rec #50

Thank you!

[fredamae]

106. In my neck o'the woods

Obama won because he isn't Mitt Romney. Re-electing PBO was a "no-brainer" because we had no other viable choice...
It would have been interesting if there had been a viable Dem primary him last election I believe.


Just my simple opinion.

[jazzimov]

109. I think you answered your own question.

What is the objective?

Well, obviously, there is none. Which means there is no "war", except for that waged by the Right that we already know about. and the Right tends to paint anything they don't like as "Far Left".

So, this "War on the Far Left" by those who are already on the Left is just as real as the War on Christmas.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. It's preamble to big time Primary show down. The Centrists think they own it all but they are unable

to win many seats and only able to win the WH by posing as a more liberal figure and that tactic is played. The Third Way and 'Reagan Democrat' types fear the coming leftward shift in the electoral landscape. They don't want primary battles they want Silver Plate nominations and Elections by Fiat so they are whining early and characterizing hard.
The current engagement is for the direction of the Party. If you note on DU there are very few of the centrist types they can't really rec anything up. They make use of extreme rhetoric and absurd, drooling, icon infested personalities to take the stage, to fill up space and look larger than they are, like those frogs who puff up their chins. They say 'Latin America is the cyst on the anus of the far left Paulites' and then lots of emoticons and links to their own posts or the blogs of Bob Cesca, a man they worship as a divinity.
They know they are going to lose so many Primaries to so many better, more democratic Democrats who are not just tweaked down versions of Republicans. This causes them to panic.

[treestar]

114. There is no "war on the far left"

There is an attempt to tell the far left they don't get to dictate policy to the majority of the country. And some suspicion that some of them are so anti-Democratic party that they may actually be members of the "far right."

Mainly the "war" on the far left is to convince them they are not the center of everything and they have to make some attempt to get along with other people, and that everyone who does not agree with them in lockstep is not evil.

[gopiscrap]

123. Yup I agree

[DirkGently]

124. The right's a bit crowded at the moment. Left's wide open.

I think the mindset is still flopping around in the Gingrich era somewhere.

"Let's all get big SUVs and move the party to the right, guys!"

[joshcryer]

127. How does attacking the fringe cause the middle to move?

That's absurd. The attacks on the middle are specifically by the far right who see that they have some commonalities with the far left, and they're attacking the middle because it works. The far left, meanwhile, is ignorant or naive as to what is actually happening and they agree with absurd and insane sentiments that the far rights' views "desperately need to be heard."

As far as GOTV the far left is largely responsible for activism in that vein, they are able to motivate and get the masses to vote. The attacks on the middle, therefore, serve as a demoralizing tactic in which the Democrats are divided and conquered. In the end the Democratic Party is really three parties in one. You have the Progressive Caucus, the New Democrats Coalition, and the Blue Dog Coalition. The Democrats, being more diverse and having to appeal to a more diverse constituency are not as unified as the Republicans. And the Libertarians are trying to use this fact to their advantage.

It won't work because forums aren't where battles are won, that's the streets, and Libertarians as well as some fringe leftists don't actually give two shits about those battles.