Why do Third Wayers hate being called Third Wayers?

[MannyGoldstein]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by William769 (a host of the General Discussion forum).

I keep reading complaints, by people who seem to basically embrace the Third Way's positions, claiming that they've been deeply wounded by being called Third-Wayers.

???

Since I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier; perhaps someone can explain what's up? And if you've been called a Third Wayer and are offended, can you help us to understand why you're upset by it? Or is it that your opinions substantially diverge from theirs?

[hobbit709]

1. Truth hurts.

[sabrina 1]

46. And the truth is that Wall St took over the other party long ago, but they need at least half of the

Democratic party in order to secure their agenda.

And because we, the voters, are smart enough to have noticed their policies being pushed by DEMOCRATS, or at least people who SAY they are Democrats.

For a while it was puzzling, to see Dems vote for things that no Dem would normally vote for. Just enough of them to get the Heritage Foundation/Wall St/MIC agenda passed.

After a while it began to have a pattern. Republican Bill up for a vote, not enough Repubs to get it passed, just enough Dems to help them.

Next Republican bill comes up for a vote, not enough Republicans to pass it. Again, just enough Dems gets it passed. Sometimes a different group of Dems, the others get to vote against it. That kept their Dem 'credits' fairly safe.

It took a while, but voters figured it out and enquiring minds began to wonder 'what is going on', and they found out.

So now the cat is out of the bag, and a few people are very upset about it.

I guess they thought it was clever, to get inside the Dem Party, say you support 'Minority Rights', and that is enough to get you accepted. They THOUGHT.

[Enthusiast]

79. +1

[ChazII]

94. Another +1. n/t

[840high]

103. ...^ that

[Kermitt Gribble]

118. Exactly.

I think this was exposed (for me, anyway) with the majorities won in 2006.

[GoneFishin]

2. Because pointing out that there are more than two camps undermines the lesser-of-two-evils

extortion racket that the two party system relies on to sustain corporate control over our political system.

To convince us all to go-along to get-along we must be persuaded that we are all basically on the same team, despite that fact that corporatists and FDR democrats are not on the same team.

[LWolf]

105. Exactly. nt

[hrmjustin]

3. Well I am in a hypocritical position here so I want to state that upfront.

I did laugh in anothers thread and a few friends reminded me that I was better than that.

As to your question I am a progressive. I support Hillary because I like her and think she would make a great president.

I am not a third wayer nor have I ever been.

[cascadiance]

5. So... Are you saying progressives LIKE H-1B program expansion?

I don't! I've been screwed since as a techie over the last 10-20 years since the program has grown. Once again looking for work again. Hillary Clinton takes stances like that that are NOT progressive in my book (and many others' here!).

[hrmjustin]

7. I don't agree with her on trade.

But I am hoping she goes more left on the issue. It is a hope.

[treestar]

55. She wouldn't like H-1b program because she's conservative

But because she thinks it is good for the overall economy. You don't get to label her conservative because she sees something like that differently that you do. She is going to tend to go on statistics, not on personal experiences that may not reflect things overall. How do you get to label expansion of H-1b as non progressive? Conservatives would not necessarily support it - they'd probably see it as the work of liberals.

[stillwaiting]

60. Expansion of H-1b program is very good for the Wall Street economy (the 1%'er economy).

Profits will boom!

It hurts the Main Street economy as many Americans lose their jobs to lower paid workers from other countries in jobs that used to pay good wages.

This is not an opinion, and it in NO WAY supports progressive values.

If you don't get that, I don't know what to say.

[treestar]

62. Hillary doesn't agree with that stuff

If you don't know what to say other than your conclusion, how do you expect to convince anyone?

The Wall Street economy is the basis of our entire economy. It'd ridiculous to expect people to hear something like that and just go with it. It's not just the one percent, who are not hated on sight for that by the average voter. The guillotines are not coming out and people are not willing to tear down everything for a left wing dictatorship. That's not what an American liberal in this century is, so the people who think that way need to get a grip when they claim to own liberalism. They own communism, maybe. That's not going to happen.

The H-1B workers do not work for less - it's in the law - that part is a lie. Maybe a misunderstanding for some, but they've heard people who are plain out lying and when it's pointed out to them they are wrong, they dig in their heels.

[stillwaiting]

63. I will NEVER waste energy trying to convince you of progressive ideas.

You are prolific around here, and your ideas are firmly entrenched (despite having access to and having read plenty of news, information, and proofs regarding the necessity of supporting progressive legislation).

Not sure why I even responded originally. Please forgive me.

[stillwaiting]

65. This post really is a truckload of vomit. Had to say it. Sorry again. nt

[Enthusiast]

81. A truckload.

[stillwaiting]

87. It makes me so sad how Reaganite, trickle-down, supply-side bullshit is allowed here.

It explains so much though.

I mean no one can actually still believe that trickle-down actually works after the results of the past 30 to 40 years (for anyone other than the top 1%).

So, that leaves one option.

And for that: You gotta use that catapult!

[Enthusiast]

90. They seldom come right out and say they favor supply side but their silence speaks volumes.

They also apologize for the TPP and similar trade deals. They also excuse Chained CPI.

Why don't we hear more Democrats speak out in favor of the USPS? Why don't we hear more Democrats take Bernie Sander's position on Social Security? Where are the "cut the military" advocates?

I am growing sick of the whole thing.

It's almost as if some semi-secret group had infiltrated the Democratic Party and their aim is to undermine support for the party.

[stillwaiting]

93. They've been pretty open about their agenda though. Not so secret that's for sure.

Their openly stated agenda has been to embrace Wall Street and Big Business which, in effect, silences FDR-Dems and anyone who believes in Labor. They are open and blatant about it. They are "New Democrats", and we have to find a way to kick them out by exposing them and garnering enough support to get rid of them.

I have no idea why so many regular voters within the Democratic Party have embraced them though. I guess advertising and image works. And speeches. I can't forget the speeches. And words. Oh, the words.

Nothing will begin to improve economically for most of us until we get a Party that embraces progressive policies and fights for them.

In fact, things will continue to get worse.

I know you know this!!

And the Senate is our biggest obstacle. My God does Wall Street have the Senate wrapped up right now (within the "Democratic" caucus). And, with the 6 year terms Wall Street has focused on the Senate very wisely. It'll take some time to clean up the Senate.

[marym625]

98. so us old time Democrats

Are supposed to give up our values because that's not what a Democrat is in this century? Isn't that an admission of being a third wayer?

I won't give up.

[stillwaiting]

135. Not a chance. Don't give up. I hope my posts didn't imply that!

I think it's clear though that treestar fully embraces the investment bankers strategy that is Third Way since treestar seems to only care about the Wall Street economy (as evidenced in this thread).

That is the mentality that has power within Democratic Leadership, and that is the mentality that infects WAY too many Democratic Senators and some House members. The House has relatively less corruption by Wall Street, but I'm sure they're working to correct that as we speak.

We need people like you to continue to wake people up to what's happened to the Democratic Party, and we can do that by simply using the words that these "New Democrats" have used themselves to explain what they are doing.

I fear that their strategy is to get the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party to split off and form another Party. This will make it so much harder to get truly liberal/progressive legislation passed. Canada got a majority Conservative government with 38% of the vote.

It will be much easier (as extremely hard as it will be) to clean up the Democratic Party from within if we want progressive policies to ever be considered and implemented. Anyone who gets uncomfortable when the realities of this New Democratic Party are pointed out and mentioned is not my political ally.

I will vote Democratic, but I will continue to criticize those I elect WHENEVER it is deserved, and I will speak about the current problems (as I see them) that are within the Democratic Party.

[TBF]

71. ...

[LWolf]

106. Not conservative.

Neo-liberal. She's a clear neo-liberal. And yes, I get to label her a neo-liberal.

[Bonobo]

8. Seems to me that would mean you wouldn't be offended by the term then.

Since that is not you.

[hrmjustin]

9. I do get offended when I get called third wayer.

It is not who I am.

[Bonobo]

11. Did anyone actually call YOU specifically a Third Wayer? nt

[hrmjustin]

12. Personally a few times yes and when they call Hillary supporters third wayers in general.

[Bonobo]

13. Thank you for your reply.

It is clearly means as an insult and I can see why it would bother you.

[hrmjustin]

14. Thank you.

[sabrina 1]

49. It shouldn't be an insult to people who support the policies of the Third Way. They are a Think Tank

whose Board of Directors is made up of Investment Bankers. Their policies are listed on their own website. Hillary IS one of their candidates. That is a fact.

Their goals include privatizing SS, to get into Wars, not for defense purposes, but for the reasons Bush/Cheney got into Iraq. They support, iow, the policies of the PNAC.

Their Educations policies also involve Privatization.

Iow, on most issues, they agree with Republicans.

The ONLY claim they can make to being Dems is they support the rights of Minorities, but also support policies that HURT minorities.

THEY make no secret of their existence. They were originally the DLC. Clinton pushed their policies, on, eg, Deregulation of Wall St. He ended the Glass Steagal Act. AND he pushed their policies on Social Programs with the disastrous 'Welfare Reform'.

So no, it is not an insult, it is a statement of fact.

IF you support their hand picked candidates, then you ARE a Third Way follower,

Two of their Founders recently wrote an Op Ed in the WSJ slamming Elizabeth Warren. Fearful that Dem voters appear to be listening to her and agreeing with her on several policies, they publicly admonished her. Now who are THEY to attack a US Senator? The answer is, they have succeeded in having enormous influence over our Party. And that is why voters are losing faith in the Dem Party.

If I supported Hillary for the WH, I would NOT consider it an insult to be called a Third Wayer. I would embrace it.

But since I do not support Republican Policies, that is not likely to happen.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

80. This, to me, is the most insidious part...

The ONLY claim they can make to being Dems is they support the rights of Minorities, but also support policies that HURT minorities

They get a LOT of minority support based on the fact that they will happily support certain minority rights issues that do not 'pick their pocket'. They'll happily help minorities gain those rights that cost them nothing, as long as it gets them the votes that let them keep minorities impoverished and at the mercy of the 'justice' system. It's a true Devil's bargain, helping with the right hand the same people they hurt with the left.

[Enthusiast]

83. +1 You nailed it.

[msanthrope]

77. Justin.....there's an entire litany of names the President's supporters

are called. Authoritarian. Fascist. Corporatist. Third-wayer.

Heck. ....I think we were called Stasi at one point.

I respond with laughter.....and I think Trumad has realized just how that gets under the skin......

[hrmjustin]

110. At this point I need to just not care if they call me third wayer. i know I have nothing to do with

it.

And I can say to them if she is the nominee and they vote for her are they third way.

After yesterday I learned with the help of a few good posters to pick my battles.

[msanthrope]

134. Laughter...Justin...laughter. Nothing works better. I can't even begin to tell you about the

utter shitstorm my simple "50 Shades" thread caused, both here and on the mods board....

because of simple laughter.

[2banon]

122. One is compelled to conclude you are unaware that your allegiance is with Third Way

any other conclusion might be considered "offensive" or "over the top".

[hrmjustin]

127. And if you vote for Hillary as the nominee are you third way?

[2banon]

130. Are you serious?

She's never ever getting my vote for any position. If she's at the head of the D ticket come 2016 elections I'll be leaving that slot unmarked and vote down ballot. My state will vote for he but my vote won't be included.

[hrmjustin]

131. Oh Puma lives I see.

[JDPriestly]

30. How do you define a progressive?

How do you define a third-wayer?

What specific policy. fund-raising and/or organizational preferences do you associate with each of those terms?

What makes those terms different in your view?

[hrmjustin]

32. I believe in taxing the rich higher amounts to pay for social services.

I do not believe in lowering the corprate tax. I do not believe in TTP.

I believe in universal health care. I believe in expanding civil rights.


You have to ask the third way to define itself.

[rhett o rick]

125. Did you support the war in Iraq? If not, do you forgive those that lied to us? nm

[hrmjustin]

128. I do not support the Iraq war.

I do not forgive Bush.

[Man from Pickens]

4. how do I put this?

You know how on Twitter you get people who follow you hoping you'll follow them back, then if you do they start spamming paid links at you? They get offended when you call them spammers though.

[leftofcool]

6. At my age, I am long past the time I worry about what names people call me

I am a Clinton Supporter. Call me third wayer, Clintonsita, Hillbot etal... I was a high school teacher for 24 years. You can't intimidate me.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

84. No one's actually trying to intimidate you.

We don't want your lunch money.

[Rex]

10. If you are a Center-right winger, own it. If you are a Fringy lefty leftist, own it.

I think what needs to be defined is what is the difference between a Centrist, a Center-right winger and a Third Wayer. One seem to be a former moderate, the second seems to like Reaganomics and the third supports the ideas of a neoliberal think tank.

The question to ask is simple and everyone can either say YES or NO; FREE trade or FAIR trade? Where does one stand? That is the primary indicator.

IMO.

[geek tragedy]

15. Because not everyone who supports President Obama

or who fails to find Hillary Clinton to be the spawn of Satan is ipso facto a "Third Wayer."

In general, someone is a Third Wayer if they identify as such.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Do you basically share the ideals of the Third Way?

Does Hillary Clinton?

[geek tragedy]

17. No I do not, nor have I ever been a member

of the Communist party, Senator.

Your phrasing is a little off. Correct phrasing would be "Do you now or have you ever shared the ideals of the Third Way?"

[MannyGoldstein]

19. May I ask what your disagreements are

with the Third Way?

[geek tragedy]

21. I am a partisan liberal Democrat.

I pay far less attention to the Third Way than you do.

If you want one specific example, I think the government should be borrowing and spending a lot more than it is right now, since we have a wage crisis not a debt crisis.

[1StrongBlackMan]

133. Funny ...

in my travels among Democrats (outside of this "Democratic" message board), I rarely, if ever, have heard that term ... probably, because Democrats are not about dividing Democrats.

[JustAnotherGen]

137. Good point

I think I've only ever read it here. And if you google 'Third Way' - the first page seems to go back to the same group, or a documentary about the Catholic Churh and Homosexuality, and an article in the Boston Globe.

[Thinkingabout]

18. Personally it has to do with the negatively posted by some, Third Way isnt

Any worse than the Socialists in some people's eyes. I happen to like many of the issues of the Third Way. When asking those posting negatively about Third Way I inquire why they dislike Third Way and then I find many do not know what the Third way stands.

[RobertEarl]

20. if you thinkabout it

What is it you like about the Third way?

[Thinkingabout]

57. Issues like minimun wage, wage disparity, education, energy, economy

Healthcare, focusing on health issues such as diabetes in treating and treating early actually saves money, and interest in biofuels.

[JDPriestly]

31. On which issues do you agree with the Third Way?

[Thinkingabout]

58. I have listed several in post #57. They have good ideas on handling health issues.

I have been looking into their web site and many issues in the DNC are addressed.

http://www.thirdway.org/

[Joe Turner]

22. Neo-cons hate being called Neo-cons too

Even though they came up with the term. I think it has to do with once their name gets associated with a lot of unpopular baggage they disassociate themselves from their name. Come to think of it, Third Wayers are very close to the Neo-cons in their ideology. They are separated only by party.

[rpannier]

25. Wish I had seen your post first

I basically posted the same thing after you did

I would include tea baggers.
At first they used it, then tried to distance themselves from the word

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

85. There is a saying out there about groups that change names frequently.

I don't recall the exact phrasing, but basically it says just what you did - that they tend to be doing things that people find unsavory, so they keep having to change to leave that 'baggage' behind.

[Cosmic Kitten]

111. "re-branding"

I believe Hillary's camp has said they
need to "re-brand" to appeal to the
growing Populist trend?

[rpannier]

26. I agree and disagree in part with your use of few

I think the 'few' positions are which few do they take

Military strikes against Iran, more H-1B Visas and more Charter Schools, less regulation of Wall St if they supported those few, they're Third Way, whether they want to be associated with the group or now

Some issues are weighty than others
I loved Lieberman for his positions on the environment. He had a nearly 100% rating from all environmental groups. He was good on issues related to guns.
But, his hawkish military stances and support for H-1B were troubling

[Ed Suspicious]

36. It's used as fact. Shame over their own policies and their own allegiances are what they're hoping

to suppress.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

86. Which is why many of us don't use

'Turd Way', even though we use 'Third Way' for politicians who embrace the think tank's positions, and the voters who vote for those politicians. For us, it's no more 'pejorative' than 'fringe left', "progressives" (in scare quotes), 'independents leaning left' or any of the other way those on the left are labeled. Or 'centrists' or 'corporatists' - they are 'pejorative' only in the sense that they label groups of people with whom we disagree on policy. ANY word we used to refer to such a group would be seen as 'pejorative', because those in that group don't like that we disagree with policies they endorse.

[TheKentuckian]

116. You got Turd Way because of the rebranding dance and the label roulette

DLC, New Democrat Coalition, No Labels, Blue Dogs, Third Way, and it goes on and on ever morphing and branching but ever toward the same ends.

No matter by which name we still get shit on and the policy stinks so I think it was earned by decades of effort and results.

If people were actually concerned about divisiveness then they would have fought back against these splintering bunch of sscammr hellbent on destroying Democrats as the party of the New Deal and assimilating us into Reaganism fucking years ago instead of waiting to whine at the way too long delayed pushback.

[rpannier]

24. same reason neo-cons didn't like being called such by about 2006

When your policies are being discredited and you're being mocked you try and distance yourself

[dissentient]

27. I dunno, I actually looked at that website today. I now know the third way is not a myth, but

a real organization, some duers seem to treat it like it isn't real, a figment of the imagination or something, that is why I looked it up.

My guess is some duers want to say they are progressives, and so they still call themselves that, even if they actually are third-wayers. or centrists, or conservative Democrats.

For example --
"I'm a progressive, damn it!" "I may believe in U.S. military interventions, and several third way political stances, and make fun of the far left, but I still call myself a progressive."

It is Orwellian -- war is peace, freedom is slavery, etc.

[DeSwiss]

28. I think it's the ''3-way'' connotations.

- Remember, deep down under they're really liberal Republicans.

K&R

[Baitball Blogger]

74. +1

This would make so much sense. It all begins to fall in place when you look at it that way,

[Yorktown]

29. Never been called Third Way, but I wouldn't take offense.

But I feel it's a label that defines too narrowly centrists with the positions of the movement which calls itself the Third Way. I suppose centrists come in differents sizes, shapes and stripes.

I suppose most people who are apt to be called Third Way share a rejection of:
• Hard Left (Communism or hard Socialism Chavez-style)
• Hard Right (selfishness and religiosity, Tea Party style)

But I suppose this floating center can encompass a wide range of people with different labels from Social-Democrat to Centre-Right

[stonecutter357]

33. pretending to be morally pure.

Clickbait.

[Ed Suspicious]

34. Back when the third way first reared it's ugly head, they didn't hide from it - it was their brand.

They wore it proudly. Why the change of heart?

[Ken Burch]

38. They know they've lost the argument within the party

and that their only hope for individual political survival lies in looking as if they have repudiated Nineties anti-progressive politics(not ACtuALLY repudiating it, because that would cost them too many big donations and too many chances to move into the corporate world after their political days are done, but appearing to have done so.

[msongs]

35. third way = closet republicans trying to undermine the democrats nt

[Nay]

52. That's how I've always felt about it. If Pubs have been infiltrating school boards, state offices,

etc., for 30 years, why not the Democratic Party? And frankly, Fox News has raised up a bunch of so-called Democrats who have taken a rightward turn just due to the crap spewed into their heads as they grew up.

[RiverLover]

56. +1 /nt

[Enthusiast]

88. +1 You nailed it.

[Ken Burch]

37. The "centrist"(i.e., moderate conservative) theft of the term "Third Way" has bothered me for years.

In the Eighties, I was a member of Democratic Socialists of America-and, at that time, we used the term "Third Way" to describe our goal of establishing well, a democratic form of socialism. It was meant to distinguish our project(at the time)from both the decaying Alcho-Stalinism of the Brezhnev/Andropov/Chernenko era and from Thatcherism-Reaganism, the "ideology" that, tragically ended up prevailing in 1989.

It was NEVER meant to describe the trans-Atlantic idea of a "progressive" politics that agrees with Thatcherism-Reaganism on all but a few trivial side issues...i.e., the policies of Bill Clinton's "Democratic" administration here and Tony Blair's eventually bloodsoaked "New Labour" government in the UK.

And the use of the term still pisses off a lot of "establishment" Dems in this country because, since it holds them accountable for the Democratic defeat in 2000(by demonstrating that it was the obsessively anti-labor and anti-poor people politics of the Clinton-Gore years that caused the growth of the Green Party and led Al Gore to snatch defeat from the mouth of what should have been an easy victory by running a "stay the course-no deviation from the Clinton policies will happen if I'm elected" campaign.

It makes it too hard to demonize people who voted for minor parties in 2000 out of sheer despair of any hope that the Democratic Party would ever break from corporate centrism.

[yurbud]

43. you were the better third.

[Ken Burch]

47. Thanks. n/t.

[Sarcastica]

39. Why are you calling anybody, anything?

Don't we have work to do?

[treestar]

54. +1. They do it to attempt to tell us we aren't liberals

Because we are not as far left as they are.

[dissentient]

59. It is what they call themselves. Check out the link, it's not "calling names"

http://www.thirdway.org/

They are a real organization.

[LWolf]

108. Work

like this:

Support and defend the Democratic Party as the champions of the 99%, which means kicking neo-liberal politicians by whatever name they call themselves to the curb...

[rhett o rick]

119. When we "call" someone a Democrat or Republicon, we are describing them by their beliefs.

The same goes with Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or Atheist. Neocons have specific beliefs that set them apart and we describe them as such. The same applies for progressives and conservatives. The same applies to the DLC/Third Way. The problem comes in when people that support the policies of the Third Way don't want the label. Some ask to be called "progressive" even though they support or at least are ambivalent about our neocon war policies, our supply side economic policies, and our heavy handed Security State.

IMO one isn't progressive if they support or are ambivalent about Wall Street domination of our economy, the Patriot Act, uncontrolled domestic spying, FRACKING, the TPP (and other destructive so-called "trade" agreements), unregulated drone killing, continuous war in the Middle East, etc.

[Fuddnik]

40. The same reason tea-baggers hate being called tea-baggers.

They gave themselves the name, and once everyone caught on to what they really were, the try to hide from it.

As I always say, "A New Democrat is just another name for an old Republican".

[yurbud]

41. because they haven't come up with a new label to escape their record yet?

[yurbud]

42. the have rebranded more often than Blackwater and venereal disease.

[whereisjustice]

44. Why shouldn't they run from 3rd way? Their policies can be blamed for keeping wages supressed, taxes

on corporations low and jobs sent offshore. And they love our authoritarian military/police state.

Why shouldn't they try to hide in the Democratic Party?

3rd way Democrat is an abstract Trojan horse used to give corporations influence over our government.

THe main objective of 3rd way is to siphon wealth and civil protections from the non-rich to the rich.

[Marr]

45. I can hazard a guess, though I am not one myself.

From what I've observed around here, the vast majority of people who are labelled 'Third Wayers' don't actually embrace the Third Way's positions on many issues. They just don't particularly care about those issues. Or at least, they think those issues take a back seat to party loyalty.

I've only seen a very few posters actively defend neoliberal trade policy, for instance. Most of the posters who support center-right candidates seem to just give them a pass on the issue, without really defending things like the TPP.

Personally, I think that acquiescing to Third Way policy is as good as supporting it, but I can understand why they would not.

[Baitball Blogger]

48. Because they left behind such a bloody history that the name has a track record.

It's not a name that is attached to ethical standards.

[anotojefiremnesuka]

50. Conservative and corporate policys regardless of party are BAD for America and the 99%

Expose them ALL regardless of party and watch them all scurry from the spotlight.

If the ones currently in the democratic party don't like it they can always seek solace with their ideological brothers and sisters in the GOP.

[cantbeserious]

51. Third Way - DLC Defenders - Support The 1% - Defend Wall Street - Not Main Street

eom

[Thinkingabout]

61. Does healthcare only support the 1%?

[hobbit709]

69. HealthCARE NO! Health INSURANCE YES!

[Thinkingabout]

70. Are you saying the ACA has only helped the 1%?

[cantbeserious]

73. Insurance Company Profits Directly Benefit The 1%

eom

[Thinkingabout]

75. Insurance companies do profit but many have niw qualified for Medicaid

Than before, bet they are not in the 1%.

[treestar]

53. They are merely pointing that out

The victim claiming is much more a thing of the put upon "progressives" and "true liberals" who feel entitled to dictate to the rest of the party, threaten to leave it because it's too conservative for them while claiming to the "the base." There are countless posts where you get that idea that we are victimizing them by not running the candidates they want without their having to campaign for them or convince a large enough group of voters to make them electable. It's supposed to be handed to them by the party. They aren't part of the party, but above it, expecting it to serve them.

[Bobbie Jo]

64. Here's the thing

I'll be damned if I'm going to be lectured on what it is to be a good Democrat by someone who voted for fucking Reagan.

Your latest GOTCHA effort rings hollow.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. I think you're answering a different OP

Non-sequitur.

[Bobbie Jo]

67. No, I know who and what

I'm addressing here.

[msanthrope]

68. Did you vote for Reagan, or not? nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

89. I know I didn't, and I doubt there are more than a handful of people on here who did.

Out of the thousands of active posters who visit the site (and don't show up as 'Name Removed'.)

Is Manny known to have voted for Reagan?

[msanthrope]

91. It's why I'm asking. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

138. I was vehemenly and actively opposed to Reagan, it's very easy to say that. Reagan was vile.

Reagan’s embrace of apartheid South Africa
Despite a growing international movement to topple apartheid in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan maintained a close alliance with a South African government that was showing no signs of serious reform. And the Reagan administration demonized opponents of apartheid, most notably the African National Congress, as dangerous and pro-communist. Reagan even vetoed a bill to impose sanctions on South Africa, only to be overruled by Congress.

On a trip to the United States after winning the Nobel Prize in 1984, Bishop Desmond Tutu memorably declared that Reagan’s policy was ”immoral, evil and totally un-Christian.” Reagan’s record on South Africa was also marked by at least one embarrassing gaffe, when he told a radio interviewer in 1985: “They have eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country — the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated — that has all been eliminated.” Of course, that was simply not true, and Reagan later walked the statement back.
http://www.salon.com/2011/02/05/ronald_reagan_apartheid_south_africa/

Reagan's AIDSGATE
http://www.actupny.org/reports/reagan.html

[msanthrope]

139. Reagan's utter inhumanity inspired me to become a Democrat.

FYI....I wrote you a public apology a few weeks back. Normally...I would have PMed it, but I figured I deserved the public excoriation for being an asshole. I am sorry. And I deserve what I get.

[betsuni]

92. Your post was alerted on, 2-5 to leave it.

Alerter's comment: "Personal attack. DU deserves much better than this constant snark and character assassination." HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Bobbie Jo]

104. Go figure.

Yet another swing and a miss.

The jury comments were a joy to read.

ETA: that wasn't "snark" btw... I meant what I said just the way I said it.

[betsuni]

109. This was the first time I commented on a jury decision and I was not shy.

[TheKentuckian]

140. Didn't a "good Democrat" rank Reagan in the top 10? Maybe they voted for him a time or two too.

Hell, I wouldn't even rank him as the best Republican President of the 80's.

[JoePhilly]

72. He asked looking down from the pulpit.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. They just don't think that they themselves are Third Way, simply because

they support Third Way politicians for office under the guise of 'pragmatism' or the claim that if they don't support the Third Way candidate, the seat will be won by Republicans, rather than a Democrat who runs to the left of the Third Way candidate.

[msanthrope]

78. Well, when I do my election monitoring, canvassing,

voter registration drives or show up at the precinct meetings, I don't feel myself to be anything but a loyal Democrat.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

82. Congrats.

I'm not much of a public person, but when I forced myself to go door to door for President Obama, I didn't do it for 'Democrats' or even for him. I did it because I believed he would help the entire American people, not just Democrats. It wasn't about 'loyalty', but about helping everyone, whether or not they were Democrats.

[Marr]

114. I agree.

I think that, to most of us here, accepting Third Way politicians in the name of party loyalty is being a Third Wayer. They can say they care about liberal policies, but I'm sorry-- if you give it up before we've even had a primary, you don't care about it.

[MineralMan]

95. How about just stopping calling people things?

That would work. Thanks.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. As a progressive, I don't much care for the application of lables onto others. That's a conservative

trait that I tend to associate with Republicans such as Joe McCarthy or McCarthy's West Coast advance man, Ronald Reagan. I think imposing identities onto others is not really decent behavior, people are capable of self definition and have the right to self definition. Straight conservatives are often into name calling, this is part of the straight and conservative cultures that I reject as a gay progressive.

[HereSince1628]

97. Interesting because historically they named and renamed THEMSELVES

No one authorized the Democratic Leadership Council to CLAIM it was Democratic Leaders. They simply absconded with that title which implies much more than warranted. It was, in common parlance that we would apply to, say, a European history the signaling of emergence of a group of separatist elites within the party.

For their plebian supporters, and magazine subscribers, they created the name New Democrats (as an international movement this was somewhat akin to the creation of New Labour). This is an old trick by laundry detergent mAD men, sans the statement 'improved'.

The rest of the party by default became 'old' non-democratic leaders...a.k.a. Rahms 'fucking retarded'

When the unpopularity of their clique emerged to be a problem, THEY changed their names. THEY choose Third-Way

There -IS- an internet record. This rewriting of history won't last.

If they don't like the name, they can disband the club, or once again give it a new name.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. That has nothing to do with what I said.

I let people self identify. I identify as gay and that's a positive thing, yet it is not proper for me nor anyone to label others as gay and then claim they are ashamed of it. If you say you are gay, I will happily identify you as such. If you say you are straight, it is not my right to insist that you are gay, tell others you are gay, nor to ask you why you are so upset when people acknowledge your being gay

Labeling others in ways in which they do not identify themselves is a conservative habit, one that I as a progressive and member of a minority community strongly reject. Strongly. That sort of thing should remain exclusive to the Republican Party.

[HereSince1628]

102. I think it does. I think, just as you suggest should be the case, they named themselves

[Bluenorthwest]

113. And yet the OP's question is not about what folks call themselves but about things folks are called

by others. I don't label others I let them do that themselves. Name calling is bullying. I don't do it. Those who do are displaying conservative traits in my opinion.

[TheKentuckian]

142. So Pat Robertson can start calling himself pro equality but just continue the hate

and you are going to subscribe to his self identification?

People do lie for nefarious purposes, you know. So it is with the Turd Way.

[TheKentuckian]

141. Humans label, it is hardly a function of ideology. The "No Labels" folks are just another

TeaPubliKlan front group dedicated to dodging their ideology to hornswaggle the naive and the ignorant to supporting the right wing agenda.

[rhett o rick]

99. The problem is that people often don't like being described as what they are. They don't understand

that if someone describes you as short, it's a description. As you can see from the above exchanges, some short people want to be called "tall". They might agree with the Third Way 100%, they still want to be called "progressive".

We need definitions of "Progressive" and "Third Way".

For example, if one supports progressive social issues but also supports neocon war policies, can they be labelled "Progressive". I vote no. If one supported the Iraq War, they are not progressive.

[HereSince1628]

101. There are no true Scotsmen if one position taints all the rest.

With all due respect being against the resolution enabling war in Iraq, is a single issue probably best described as anti-war

I would agree that progressivism is generally focused on domestic issues and isn't consistent with international intervention imposing governance and economic forms on other nations.

But imo we have to understand that views vary, and we have to be careful of the use of one-issue litmus tests. Even while they sometimes are of value, because they are corrosive they must be applied with care.

[rhett o rick]

115. I don't disagree. But we do describe people and the descriptions are loosely given.

All short people aren't the same height. We label people Democrats and Republicons to describe, in general, their political beliefs. The same applies to neocons and The Third Way'ers. These two labels have definitions and are used to describe people that believe in the ideologies as defined. As I see it, the problem comes in when labels are used in a pejorative manner. I personally have been on the short end of short jokes. DU is intended to be a message board for the "politically liberal". Needless to say there are a lot of posters that don't meet the definition of "politically liberal" but don't want to admit it. They bridle at being called conservative or a Third Way'er, even if their beliefs would categorize them as such.

As I see it the DLC/Third Way was created for conservatives to be able to claim to be progressive by supporting social issues. That way they could keep their greedy capitalist and neocon ways. It has been very successful, in part because it's funded by the corporations and the wealthy that care little about social issues anywayz. IMO HRC agrees with the political stands of the Third Way/DLC. If one supports HRC, IMO they support the ideology of the Third Way, hence a Third Way'er. If you are 5'2" you are short. It's a description.

[djean111]

129. THIS - exactly!!!!!!

As I see it the DLC/Third Way was created for conservatives to be able to claim to be progressive by supporting social issues. That way they could keep their greedy capitalist and neocon ways. It has been very successful, in part because it's funded by the corporations and the wealthy that care little about social issues anywayz. IMO HRC agrees with the political stands of the Third Way/DLC. If one supports HRC, IMO they support the ideology of the Third Way, hence a Third Way'er. If you are 5'2" you are short. It's a description.

We are expected to swallow that we can have social issues OR economics issues - not BOTH. Totally heinous Sophie's Choice. Yes, jobs will be siphoned off, safety nets will be slashed, education will be unaffordable - but hey! Gay people can get married now! As if they should not have been able to get married all along. And gay marriage does not cost the 1% anything - but the safety nets and jobs affect their pocketbooks and their sensibilities.

I feel like we are all in a giant lumbering destructive game of Monopoly, and now the 1% are fighting over who gets to be the Guy With All The Money At The End.

[HereSince1628]

143. Yes, I'm saying 'careful', re Third Way/DLC...it emerged from mostly southern conservative

politicians wanting to create a new southern good ol'boy system. One that ostensibly was to replace the club that had nominated NE Liberals (Kennedy and Dukakis), AND one of that gave southern democrats where the economy was improving compared to the increasingly rusting north. Their first really successful move was the creation of the southern Super-Tuesday Primary election.

Being mostly southern conservatives these politicians understood that corporate incentives/welfare had greatly helped move jobs out of 'the old foundry' and into southern states, a process that in the north was called Shipping the Jobs south, and in the south was called southern renaissance and development. Sympathy for tax-breaks and weakness on union/labor rights was what had worked well for southern states in the 15 years prior to the creation of the DLC.

Fund-raising for Clinton was enormously successful (and directed by Rahm Emmanuel) and he won despite cold-shouldering unions.

All things linked to Clintons success came to be "accepted wisdom" more DC Dems climbed on that bandwagon. The cut their solid links to liberal social policies, pursued campaign money from 'non-traditional alternative sources' and used the resulting freedom of political position to move toward positions that won (regardless of party) in the previous election cycle.

This profoundly moved the professional Democrats well to the right of the democratic electorate. It also created the divide that remains between the base ( with respect to labels: the fucking retards) and the knowledgeable professionals (with respect to labels: the turncoat self-invested corporate suck-ups).

[TheKentuckian]

120. It isn't one issue it is a great many while the opposite is way closer to accurate

and many who embrace or at least tolerate the Turd Way it essentially boils down to "I'm not a bigot or a racist therefore I am a progressive".

Okay great, I'm glad you aren't subhuman garbage now let's talk politics and see where you stand and we get Reaganism minus the Moral Majority and the Southern Strategy.

[rhett o rick]

124. Right. A non-racist neocon isn't progressive. nm

[L0oniX]

107. When you hug the oligarchy to win elections their stink rubs off on you.

[rhett o rick]

117. Not if I deny that it does.

[Octafish]

112. Reminds them of things with 3

Like triangles and Triangulation.

The Clinton Audacity

[LanternWaste]

121. When a tactic works, the apparatchik only reluctantly let go of it...

Re-branding of labels has been illustrated to be effective and efficient; e.g., the GOP easily re-branded the word 'liberal', defining it for twenty years much to the delight and advantage of Newt Gingrich.

No doubt, what is old is new again. When a tactic works, the apparatchik only reluctantly let go of it.

[Tom Ripley]

123. I don't know, but it is still better than being called collaborating pieces of shit

[pnwmom]

126. Why ask us? Ask Third Way Manny. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

132. Because it's tossed around as a perjorative ...

for the sole purpose of dividing Democrats (primarily on this Democratic message board ... because in my travels among Democrats, I rarely, if ever, have heard that term ... again, because Democrats are not about dividing Democrats), while claiming the righteous Democratic seat for one's self?

Just a guess, though.

[Rex]

136. Because some are centrist that do not toe the Third Way line.

They agree with some policies (like getting both parties to work together) yet are not libertarians (ie like social security and government services). Seems that is what people are saying to me.

[William769]

144. Locking.

DISRUPTIVE META-DISCUSSION
Positive threads about Democratic Underground or its members are are permitted.

Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978