No, Liberals Don't Control the Democratic Party

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/no-liberals-dont-control-the-democratic-party/283653/



In a classroom in Harlem, the liberal new mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, appeared with union leaders in support of his plan to raise taxes on incomes higher than $500,000 to fund public pre-kindergarten. "We're asking this of the wealthy," de Blasio said, "because there are too many working parents in this city today" who need help.

At the same time, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was presenting his budget in Albany under a sign that trumpeted: "CUTTING TAXES."

You could hardly get a better illustration of the current tribal divide in the Democratic Party. Call it what you want—liberals versus centrists, populists versus the corporate wing—but these days, there's no doubt there are two different breeds of Democrats, both in elected office and in the activist grassroots. Along with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, de Blasio has been hyped as the avatar of a new, more boldly progressive Democratic Party that discards the timid moderation advocated by the party's old guard in favor of a frank, take-no-prisoners crusade for higher taxes and bigger government.

But do Warren and de Blasio really represent the party's mainstream? The Democrats' liberal faction has been greatly overestimated by pundits who mistake noisiness for clout or assume that the left functions like the right. In fact, liberals hold nowhere near the power in the Democratic Party that conservatives hold in the Republican Party. And while they may well be gaining, they're still far from being in charge.


***progressives aren't in 'charge' of anything because we're too fractured:

we're environmentalists, economic populists, women's rights advocates, etc -- but some how it's become difficult to work as a bloc.

[JoePhilly]

1. Call it pragmatists versus purists.

Its easy to be the latter when you don't have to get anything done.

Which is why being a purist only works until one gets elected.

Unless you ran on doing nothing in the first place. Which is what the Tea Party has done.

[Fumesucker]

3. It's more a matter of social class than anything

Politicians have to promise stuff to JoeSixpack the voter to get elected because there's so many of them but the people they hang with and have to fundraise from are far far above that class. Politicians peers are doing just fine with the status quo and see no reason change things in order to improve the lot of people they consider inferior.

A full wallet often complains more loudly than an empty belly.

I became by marriage a part of a local politically connected family for a while, it really was an eye opening experience.

[JoePhilly]

5. Then why help Joe Sixpack be protected from pre existing conditions?

Why have any safety net?

Why worry about marriage equality at all?

If you are going to get anything done, you will have to work with the other side. Unless (again), your position was to go to Washington to do nothing. Then, you don't have to compromise.

When the GOP controls the government, they pilfer it. When they are not in control, they are happy if it does absolutely nothing. Which means for any Democrat to get anything done, they'll have to make deals that unfortunately includes some poison pill that some on the left will hate.

Its that, or do nothing. Which the GOP would be fine with.

[Fumesucker]

10. I never said anything about Democrats or Republicans

Just relating my own experience as an outsider who got a glimpse of the inside at a quite a low level.

I was just a peripheral part of a family powerful in a single county and the quality and number of "favors" that could be had for the asking was jaw dropping.

[Scuba]

4. Call it People-centric versus corporate-centric.

The "purist" label would apply to those "Democrats" who always act in favor of corporate interests, no?

Then you have the issue of a candidate who runs on a very progressive platform but governs like "moderate Republican" (in his own words). What do you call him? Sellout?

[JoePhilly]

7. The purist label goes to those who will decry compromise at all turns.

The Tea Party gets away with it because they don't want to govern.

Democrats actually want to govern. Which means they'll have to take pragmatic action on a fairly regular basis.

Its either than, or do nothing. Which the GOP would be fine with.

[Scuba]

8. So then Elizabeth Warren and her supporters are NOT purists, as we are willing to compromise.

[JoePhilly]

11. They are not ... but many of their loudest supporters are.

They simply give Warren and Sanders a PASS.

There is another thread today about what might be different if Warren was President instead of Obama.

The answer is "very little". She'd have the same congress to deal with.

And after a few compromises, she'd have been vilified much like Obama has been here on DU.

Its kind of fun to watch the folks who cry about the evil BOG write endless OPs about how Warren or Sanders just saved America after they make some statement from which no actual action took place ... one might throw "pretty speech" in their faces just for grins.

[Scuba]

14. I disagree with the "very little" conclusion. Just in appointing regulators ...

... she would make a huge difference.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. The article mentions "liberals versus centrists, populists versus the corporate wing."

Nowhere in the article does the author use"pragmatists v. purest." The article talks about two prominent factions in the Democratic party. It does not posit that these are the ONLY factions and I think we all know that they aren't. You, on the other hand, chose to change the terminology to reflect your perception of good vs. bad by your "pragmatist (good) vs. "purists" (bad) characterization. The article makes no attempt at assign a value judgment for or against either perspective. They merely compared differences. Your response, and your subsequent word substitution to better fit your own personal agenda, did indeed, assign a value judgment (good v. bad). See the difference?

[JoePhilly]

22. The article says "Call it what you will" ... so I did.

I did not say they were the "only" factions either. That's you projecting.

As for your "good" versus "bad" line of argument ... again that's how the article tries to frame it and that's how those same dimensions get framed on DU all the time.

I'm sure you know that.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. So much is said in choice of terminlogy. n/t

[tkmorris]

16. I don't decry compromise, nor does hardly any other Liberal

I decry the STARTING POINT for negotiation that many "Democrats" take. Take Andrew Cuomo, the example in the OP. Do you think he is compromising with his "Cutting Taxes" plan? Do you believe that he arrives at the centrist (Right junior) positions he espouses reluctantly, with great regret, out of a pragmatic need to negotiate with the opposing party?

[cali]

9. that would be inaccurate. Warren isn't a purist, neither is Sanders or de Blasio

or any other Progressive I can think of in significant political office. Pasting that label on progressives is disingenuous and it's what corporate supporting dems do in an attempt to smear.

Btw, Vermont works pretty well and the legislature is filled with unabashed progressives like this guy:

<snip>

Zuckerman ran for the Vermont House in 1994 while still enrolled in college, losing by 59 votes. He ran again two years later and become the fourth Progressive Party member to serve in the Vermont State House, a seat that he held through 2010.[1]

Prior to serving in the House, he served on the Burlington Electric Commission. While in the House he served for 6 years on the Natural Resources and Energy Committee as well as 6 years on the Agriculture Committee, including 4 as the Chairperson. He finished his time in the House of Representatives by serving on the Ways and Means Committee. In 2005, Zuckerman considered running for the sole Vermont seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2006 U.S. House election, that was being vacated by Independent Rep. (now Senator) Bernie Sanders, eventually deciding not to run in order to continue serving as Agriculture Chair in the Vermont House of Representatives.

Zuckerman ran for Vermont State Senate in 2012 and won as a Progressive/Democrat. [2][3]

In his time in the General Assembly, Sen. Zuckerman has been involved in the passage of Vermont's civil union and marriage equality laws, workers' rights legislation, increasing the minimum wage, sustainable (economic and environmental) agricultural policy, marijuana policy reform, election law reform, many renewable energy initiatives, progressive taxation policy as well as universal healthcare.

In January of 2014, Sen. Zuckerman introduced legislation that would allow for recreational sale and use of marijuana. If passed it would allow for possession up to 2 ounces of cannabis, and the cultivation of up to 3 plants for anyone that is 21 and over. It would also have the penalty for under-aged consumption of marijuana be the same as the current penalty± for under-aged drinking.

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Zuckerman_%28politician%29

He's not an anomaly in the state legislature- not in the Vermont Senate or House.

compromise on some issues doesn't make one a "pragmatist"- it all depends which issues, how often, etc. People like Debbie Stabenow are corporate dog shit who sell out their constituents consistently. That's different from someone like Elizabeth Warren.

[JoePhilly]

12. They are not ... many of their loudest supporters are.

Warren and Sanders are expected to get much done.

I mean, why didn't one of them get that last GOP vote for the UI extension?

As President, they'd have to make deals, and they'd be attacked around here very shortly after.

[cali]

18. Of course they'd have to make deals.

look, President Obama has been quite clear that he's not a liberal and not a progressive. and he's right. he's not. It's not the fact that politicians make deals, it's what deals do they make? How frequently do they make deals that benefit big money and corporations? Who do they make deals with? I expect any politician to do a certain amount of compromising, Obama has done a truckload of it and gained little.

[ProSense]

21. N.Y. Mayor At Closed AIPAC Gala: Part Of My Job Is To Defend Israel

N.Y. Mayor At Closed AIPAC Gala: Part Of My Job Is To Defend Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024389005

You're right, he's not a "purist."

The problem is selectively applying labels to people.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Such a black/white, up/down

binary response. I suppose it makes a very complicated world easy to deal with. You know, don't you, that the Faux news watching teapartiers are the same kind of binary thinkers?

[JoePhilly]

15. I used the same binary structure that the OP refers to from the article ...

Check the OP for this quote ...

Call it what you want—liberals versus centrists, populists versus the corporate wing

They provided binary choices and then said "Call it what you want". They ask for a response "in kind".

So, as requested, I provided a binary structure to match theirs.

Are you saying that the authors of the OP and authors of the Article are shallow thinkers like the Tea Party?

You do know that's not very nice, don't you?

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Meaningless jargon. Folks tossed around 'I'm a pragmatist' to dress up their opposition to equality

for years all we heard was 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, marriage equality is impossible, for at least a generation, no President could support it and be elected again, change is always slow, we have to be realistic and understand that Civil Unions are the best we can get until enough of the older generation dies off.....baby steps, don't be a purist, give up on your rights now'.
Of course they were wrong.
2003 example is as good as a thousand others.
" I see no issue w/ gay marriage, but I'm willing to be pragmatic
Since legalizing gay marriage would only concern civil marriage, I, in principle, am not at all opposed. However, I also think that among the general public there is a major association between the term "marriage" and the sacred religious institution, even when discussing civil marriage.

For that reason, I'm willing to support civil unions intead of gay marriage, at least as an interim solution for the next few decades. Politically, I think what needs to be enacted is the best possible solution that can be passed. Gay marriage cannot -- at least not yet. Civil unions (which is civil marriage under a different name)."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=145943&mesg_id=146400

Civil Unions for the next few decades....to be pragmatic!!!!!!! Hilarious. And yet they continue to use this jargon. Dated, disproven and utterly nonsensical jargon.

[JoePhilly]

37. Ahh ... your preferred stick. Or should I say Schtick.

Being pragmatic doesn't mean giving up. But it does mean knowing what you can actually accomplish in any given time period.

In the case of civil unions here's what happened. Providing that option allowed people who would have NEVER jumped straight to full equality a safe alternative. And once they became comfortable with that, it was much easier to get them to see that the next step was not nearly as scary as they imagined.

The problem is not the end point ... its the path to get there.

And in contentious issues, with a divided government, and a divided populace, the path is rarely a straight line regardless of which issue we decide to discuss.

[jtuck004]

24. I prefer prostitutes vs true believers. It's so much easier to be a pragmatist when your so-called

principles are for sale. I don't mean to denigrate real working prostitutes in the sex trade. I find them much more trustworthy and respectable than politicians and their stooges. So I denote the others as prostitute-pragmatists to avoid confusion.

(That's assuming the prostitute-pragmatist had any principles in the first place, which isn't always a certainty. But that's another discussion.)

One of the things I have noticed about the prostitute-pragmatist is that they seem to become more convinced of the rightness of their behavior after they have been elevated by walking on the backs of those with less. I am guessing this is because then the only other people they see are also people who have profited at the expense of others with less, so they begin to think that everyone that's anyone is like them.

[think]

27. Is this why Americans get war spending & wars while the REST of the industrialized world

gets universal healthcare?.....

[Armstead]

29. Pragmatic means doing what works for your interests. Looks like a big Fail for "centrism"

let's see....People are "purists" because they think some course-corrections are necessary?

How's all that corporate centrist "pragmatism" by the Democratic elites working out?

The larger debate about fiscal policy is all about cutbacks, austerity and all of the things the GOP pushes in order to shrink government to fall down the bathtub drain (as one wingnut put the goal)...And therefore we have no real debate or "compromises" on pulling out the safety net, or job stimulus public works, etc. Just trying to salvage a small slice from the GOP Pillagers.

Big Corporations and Big Finance continue to get bigger and more powerful and more abusive. We don't even talk seriously about restraining the growth of monopolies, trimming back the Too Big to Fail Banking behemoths.

The press and information and education infrastructure has been completely handed over to Big Media Monopolies, thanks to deregulation pushed just as hard by Democrats.

Health insurance is still privatized, and too expensive for many people with no alternatives to many (unless one lowers their income enough to become qualified for scanty subsidies or actually enters poverty).....

ETC.

IMO that doesn't doesn't recommend the approach of the last 30 years as the "pragmatic" answer to anything.

[AgingAmerican]

36. Corporations vs the people

is a more accurate statement.

'Pragmatists' = corporate Dems
'Purists' = we the people

[el_bryanto]

2. We are fractured, and that's a big part of it

But the other issue is that we don't have a figure like the Koch Brothers who fund a very specific vision. Thus most of our candidates are in the thrall of big business; that's where the money to run comes from.

Bryant

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. It's like the plot from Iron Man 3

One group of elitists assuming control over both sides of the same conflict to perpetuate to their own ends.

[Enrique]

19. the most important point is made in Paragraph 16

Many progressives acknowledge that they're not the dominant force in the Democratic Party. But they argue that their influence is increasing. Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party, a New York-based liberal coalition that backed de Blasio and is beginning to expand into other states, told me he sensed "a lot of energy" for the fight against inequality, but admitted the upper hand still belongs to the "dead-centrists." The party's corporate wing retains control because it has the money, he said. "Inside the Democratic Party, we're not quite as powerful as the Tea Party inside the Republican Party, but that's the ambition," Cantor said.

[freebrew]

23. Damn, where does that leave...

those of us in the amateur left?

[Octafish]

25. Money does.

Controls like it works for banksters.



And the politicians who protect them.

[wyldwolf]

26. Good piece but, quite frankly, I'm tired of the argument

I've been involved in so much shit slinging at DU over the very topic but in the end, it's too difficult to carve out electoral wins as it is to worry about this. There's just too many variables to definitively answer whether the party is more liberal or more conservative now or who really runs the show.

[OilemFirchen]

30. In my lifetime (60 or so years)...

liberals have never controlled the Democratic Pray. Liberalism has influenced the party platform, and liberals have been participants in the party, but it's extremely naive to believe that they ever have been influential enough to "control" it.

That's why, as a lifetime Progressive, I've rarely had my dreams shattered by the mechanisms of realpolitik. I don't start with idealized expectations about what a party or individual will do, thus I avoid the disappointment resultant from the crushing blows of reality. Progress is progress, no matter how incremental, and I'm reasonably satisfied with the direction of government throughout the pendulum-swings of electoral politics.

I'm old enough to remember the fine liberal Republicans of my youth, and the heavy weight of the Dixiecrats. I'm also old enough to remember how the movement politics of the sixties ultimately self-destructed, partly because of the ill-conceived notion that governance could be "controlled" from the outside in. It took far too long to come to the realization that one must work within the system to influence it. More's the pity if today's Left chooses to ignore that sage wisdom.

[Egalitarian Thug]

31. August, 1968. That's when the Party leaders made it clear they would rather lose

forever than to share power. And of course even that time was an anomaly in the history of the party. The Democratic Party has been the party of Big Business for longer than the republican party has existed.

[OilemFirchen]

32. To wit...

it took Republican Teddy Roosevelt to bust the monopolies, and even that wasn't accomplished for well over a decade.

[TheMathieu]

33. I'm a huge fan of Warren, de Blasio and Bernie Sanders.

It's the blogger class of liberal Democrats I can't stand.

I don't want a party controlled by unhinged media personalities and we've got our fair share of them.

[xchrom]

34. cuase the 'blogger class' has SO MUCH POWER!11

***i don't even know what or who the 'blogger class' is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men...

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.