Democrats Have Moved to the Right, Not the Left

[xchrom]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/democrats-have-moved-right-not-left

This morning I mentioned (and praised) Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann's new book, It's Even Worse Than It Looks, which basically blames Republicans for the collapse of governance over the past couple of decades. The headline on the op-ed version of their book makes the point even more bluntly: "Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem."

But Matt Steinglass catches even Ornstein and Mann not quite having the courage of their convictions. In the op-ed, they use a football metaphor to describe how the two parties have evolved since the end of the Reagan era: "While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post." But that's really not true:
And Matt doesn't even mention education policy, civil liberties, or crime, all areas where Democrats have also moved to the right since the end of the 80s.

So where have Democrats moved to the left? Gay rights is one area, I suppose. Climate change is another: at least Obama tried to pass a cap-and-trade bill. And you could say that compared to the Clinton/Rubin era, Democrats are a bit more willing to regulate the financial sector than they used to be. Beyond that, there are maybe a couple of other arguable cases, but nothing of much significance.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Slashing Social Security is a far, far right value

As is all of the other glorious pea-eating and bandaid-pulling-offing.

[liberalmike27]

9. You've heard of the ratchet theory?

Republicans get in office, and they exert their policies, and use the ratchet to tighten, tighten, tighten the (ideological) bolt. Then when Democrats win, they use the same ratchet on the same setting, and it clicks, clicks, clicks, only the handle moving, the bolt remaining stationary.

A lot of this is happening because the news units of various huge networks were folded into the entertainment divisions. Of course there is no law about lying, as we see with FOX. AND even with no law, they at least had both opinions on BEFORE the fairness directive of the media was repealed. You used to be required to add an hour of Democrat to the news stew, when you already have an hour of republican. Now, not at all, you can eat straight republican in your news stew.

Finally, after all of this, Democrats started taking corporate money to a much larger extent in the 1980s, and correspondingly, they started doing the corporate bidding. We get to the same tragic conclusion, that unless we get enough Democrats in office, stop electing republicans, and hope for a moment of conscience and a couple of replacement SC justices for the radical fascists on the court, we're pretty screwed.

[dpbrown]

25. Like

This about sums it up.

[JoePhilly]

40. Any second ... SLASH!!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Is there something specific that you'd like to point out?

Or will you disappear when things get specific like the last time you made a similar comment, on Monday IIRC.

[JoePhilly]

44. Sure, but it should be obvious.

You keep harping on impending death of Social Security. You've been taking the position that Dems and Obama are going to Slash it for more than a year, probably closer to two years in fact. It appears to be a consistent theme.

You are absolutely free to do that.

And I'm free to point out that this dire impending event, still hasn't happened.

Now, I don't always use that freedom.

But your post being the very first post to jump in to support the argument that the dems have moved way to the right, well, I'm going to avail myself of that freedom.

Hope that helps.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Are you claiming that Obama and other Dems haven't called for Social Security to be slashed?

Or that, because it hasn't happened yet, they're not serious and/or it won't happen in the next few years and/or they haven't actually tried to do it?

Yes, it's a consistent theme. Forcing millions of senior Americans into poverty for no good reason is unambiguously sick.

[JoePhilly]

48. Please post the video of Obama calling for Slashing Social Security. There must be one.

Surely there is a speech in which he has "called for" the "slashing". Surely there is one of some other prominent group of elected Dems "calling for slashing SS". Oh wait, there aren't any.

And I know, I know ... that's your cue to post references to other people saying different things, about things people said behind closed doors. Maybe some of the comments from Bernie Sanders. Maybe this one ...
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12837

Funny thing is, by taking this position, Bernie tells independents that Obama is moderate and willing to "consider" some compromise, AND, he gets repeat Obama's words as a candidate ... AND ... he gets to "hold Obama's feet to the fire". Politically speaking, that's a WIN-WIN-WIN.

Also ... I completely agree that there are a few dems who truly support cutting SS. But the majority of Dems do not. And Obama is NOT calling for such cuts. If he was, you'd be posting an OP daily with the videos of it.

btw ... I saw the interview the OP refers to ... and the statement by the authors about the dems moving to their own 25, and the GOP moving to behind their own goal posts ... it was silly, because the Dems have not moved back to their own 25. Not at all.

The reality is that there is one party (GOP) that has decided if it can't be in control, then they will oppose all government activity. And when they talk about a smaller government, they really mean an inactive government.

Now, the other party (DEM) actually thinks that the government has an important role to play. If they move behind their own goal posts, the GOP gets exactly what it wants. The government does NOTHING and the GOP gets what it wants.

As a result, the Dems, trying to get the government to do something good have to figure out how to get some good things done, while not allowing too many bad things to happen at the same time. That's why the GOP attaches nasty stuff to every bill that's going to pass. If they can't stop the government from doing good things, they will try to damage or limit the government in whatever way they can. Part of the GOP strategy is to make sure that there is something in every bill that passes that will piss off some portion of the left. Need to discourage them, get them to stay home.

So ... you can stick with the over the top hyperbole about Obama's evil intent ... you know ... "Forcing millions of senior Americans into poverty for no good reason is unambiguously sick" ... or you could come up with something more substantive.

Or not. Again, you are free to post pretty much anything you want, whenever you want.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. We can start with the 2011 State of the Union Address

Here's the quote: "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market."

So we need to cut it, but not slash it, for future generations. Obama kept using this cute phraseology after the SOTU, until he got busted by the press:

Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

Then of course, last summer, during the fully-fake "eat your peas" budget crisis, Obama called for cuts in Social Security and other entitlements:

"We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security." - Obama, July 22nd 2011

Offered is bad enough. But demanded? Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

Obama demanded Social Security cuts. That's awful.

And when we take into account the other maneuverings - Obama's Simpson-Bowles commission, repeated untruths about the original purpose of Social Security, bizarre assumption used by Obama's Social Security Trustees that force pessimistic projections, etc... It's bad, bad stuff.

[rhett o rick]

54. Other than that, Manny, you got nothin'.

[MannyGoldstein]

74. You got me.

Yes, it's a stretch, apparently.

[girl gone mad]

71. Weird that people still pretend Obama's not an austerian.

The man was ready to sell his soul to pass a bipartisan budget deal last year. Even Pelosi has now expressed a willingness to cave in to Obama's desires to slash SS.

[dionysus]

77. must be entertaining to live in an alternate reality... where the debbil obama slashes SS...

[MannyGoldstein]

79. Are you claiming that Obama hasn't called for cuts in Social Security benefits?

Or that he's called for them but doesn't actually want them?

Or something else?

[dionysus]

81. not going to play your game, manny, we all know what you're doing here.

keep trying though!

[MannyGoldstein]

82. Good call.

Facts have a certain cold reality to them.

Yecch.

[Ken Burch]

90. Unfortunately, the SoU quote Manny posted proves he's right.

You've got nothing to laugh about.

"Strengthen" is code for cut to nothing...how can you not see that?

The increase in the retirement age to 67 is just the start.

This admin actually uses the phrase "reform" to talk about entitlements...meaning that people in the admin accept the right-wing notion that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are actually forms of corruption...as if it is a crime for the non-wealthy majority not to be cast out to die once we turn 65.

I'm voting for Obama/Biden to stop worse things...but I'm not naive. You shouldn't be, either.

[JoePhilly]

98. I'm going to need to get one of the "Obama is evil" decorder rings.

Hiding in every Obama statement, there is a secret evil message ... but you need the decoder ring to spot it.

[JoePhilly]

97. The quote you posted from the 2011 State of the Union says the exact oppoiste of what you say it

clams.

"To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market."

The word CUT, which you placed in italics does not appear in the quote. The word SLASHING does appear, preceded by the word WITHOUT .... or WITHOUT SLASHING.

Now, before I go on ... you keep claiming Obama intends to SLASH Social Security ... and to prove it, you posted a quote in which he says the exact opposite.

I seem to recall that in the weeks prior to the 2011, you and others were absolutely sure that it would be in that speech that Obama would announce the SLASHING of Social Security ... and as you again demonstrated today, it didn't happen. No such announcement occurred. Not only no SLASHING, but no CUTS either.

Then you go to Christian Science Monitor ... in which you do your best to parse Carney's words. Again, you want to claim the intent is to SLASH ... but that's not there, and Carney, while screwing with the press, never even says CUTS ... but you conclude that this too proves the SLASH PLAN is in effect.

My favorite part of that article is where Carney points out that Slash isn't the Guitarist. The person asking the question is trying to get Carney to paint himself into a trap, and Carney flat out says, I'm not going to debate semantics.

I'm surprised you used the "eat your peas" comment. As anyone who actually watched that speech knows, Obama was speaking to the Congress, telling them that they needed to be willing to come together and make hard decisions "Eat their peas".

You use that quote to mischaracterize what the President said, and you used the exact same framing that Fox News used, bravo!!

Then we move forward to "the offer", or maybe I should call it the "scary" offer. Now, I could do what your doing, play the semantics game ... is an "offer" the same as "calling for"? Is a Slash a Cut? See how that works??

But that's no fun. So let's just discuss the offer. So Obama says to Bohner ... "Ok, let's say I put this on the table. What are you going to give me?" ... and then Bohener says ... "Well, I'll give you this." And Obama looks at Bohner's offer and says "No. Not enough.". And Bohner says "That's all I'm willing to give you." ... Obama: "Ok, no deal."

I hate to break the news to you but exchanges like that happen every day in politics. And I know, this is the point at which you scream that SS can never be on the table.

To which I reply ... then you can't demand that the cap on Social Security be raised. And you can't demand that we lower the retirement age. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that you are unopen to any changes, while also demanding changes. Unless you want to tell me that SS, as it is right now, is the best it could ever be.

And again ... nowhere here do we have Obama "calling for SLASHING" of Social Security ... and that is your primary position.

Last we go to Conyers ... I've seen that quote before. Oddly, I can't find a quote from anyone else to support it. In fact, no matter what combination I search for, I find the one source. That's it. Nothing else. No other member of Congress responds to it. Conyers himself doesn't seem to ever mention it again.

The other funny thing is that while you use the word "Demanded" to describe what Obama said ... Conyers did not use that word. Did you watch the video, or just take the quote from the article? You might want to watch it.

One of the things Conyers says is he was going to mass people in front of the white house. When did he do that? I mean, this was so important ... surely it happened ... right?

Nope ... nothing happened. In reality, most of what Conyers talks about in that clip is about unemployment. And neither he, not anyone else seems to ever mention it again.

However ... Conyers did say this about Obama on Feb 10th of this year ...

"I am extremely humbled by President Obama's endorsement," Conyers said in a statement. "After a campaign focused on economic development and job creation, my first task back in Congress will be to work with the President and other members of Congress to get our economy back on the right track."

You'd think Conyers would have not wanted that endorsement, given how Obama is demanding that we SLASH Social Security and all.

[MannyGoldstein]

105. One step at a time. It seems that

we both agree that President Obama has called for cutting Social Security benefits - the only question is how *much* he wants to cut benefits. Do we agree on that?

Let me know and I'll continue to address your points.

[eridani]

61. So why do Obama and other Dems keep talking about it? n/t

[liberalmike27]

69. It's Like a Perpetual Game of Tennis

And Democrats never get to serve.

Have they suggested lowering the retirement rate to 55% to cut the unemployment rate? Have they suggested at least doing that for people in very hard jobs, that can no longer continue doing them when they get 55 or older. A whole butt-load of people get fired, even in jobs that aren't necessarily hard labor at 50, yet they want to make the age older?

I get that the rhetoric may not be laid out in cutting SS by Democrats, but they clearly aren't resisting well, they don't point out it's been fully funded, that the problem isn't funding, it's the spending of funding on wars, on tax cuts for the rich, amounting to a direct hand off of taxes from that collected from under 106,800 a year, to very rich people?

I just don't hear Obama, and most democrats clearly standing up to the argument. Take the ball, and serve once and a while. We've got the wind at our backs, never will there be a better time to serve. Suggest solutions--cut drug war funding, save tons of bucks, stop private prisons that use our population as chattel for rich, con-servatives and their private prisons, costing us even more money, and real freedom, than government prisons do.

For Christ sakes Democrats, get some passion, start kicking some ass.

[eridani]

72. + 1 million n/t

[myrna minx]

2. It seems that our political spectrum spans from the John Birch Society to the Republican Party

of the 1990's. It's sad, really.

[Fumesucker]

3. To be fair..

Birchers may have hated it but at least they knew Social Security was a federal program..

[myrna minx]

5. Fluorinated water makes that fact escape the 'baggers !11!

[ProSense]

4. This is

And Matt doesn't even mention education policy, civil liberties, or crime, all areas where Democrats have also moved to the right since the end of the 80s.

So where have Democrats moved to the left? Gay rights is one area, I suppose. Climate change is another: at least Obama tried to pass a cap-and-trade bill. And you could say that compared to the Clinton/Rubin era, Democrats are a bit more willing to regulate the financial sector than they used to be. Beyond that, there are maybe a couple of other arguable cases, but nothing of much significance.

...weird. "Crime"?

What exactly are they measuring? Sounds like rewriting history.

Justice Is Served
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served

Criminal Justice Reform 2011 – The Good, the Bad, and the Work Ahead

<..>

• A new report out from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) this month revealed that the number of adults behind bars, on probation, or on parole in the U.S. declined 1.3% in 2010, the second consecutive year of decline since BJS began reporting this data since 1980.
  
  
• The same report revealed that the total U.S. prison population fell to 1.6 million, a decline of 0.6 percent during 2010 – the first decline in the total prison population in nearly four decades.10,881 fewer people were in state prisons in 2010 – the largest yearly decrease since 1977.
  
  
• <...>
  
  
• The United States Sentencing Commission took another step toward creating fairness in federal sentencing by voting to retroactively apply the new Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) guidelines to individuals sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people — 85 percent of whom are African-Americans — will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.

The bad news:

• <...>

- more -

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/criminal-justice-reform-2011-good-bad-and-work-ahead

When you look at the spike in the prison population from 1980 through the Bush years, this is welcomed news. As the ACLU points out, there is much more that can be done.

Civil liberties has been overall impacted by the Bush years, so no argument.

As for Democrats moving left on the rest, which constitutes a huge chunk of social policy, gay rights, environmental policy and regulation, the title of the piece almost becomes silly.

[bullwinkle428]

20. So ProSense, are you saying that you fundamentally disagree with a major point

that Rachel M. has made several times in the last couple of months? That point - because Republicans have moved so ridiculously far to the right, Democrats involuntarily get dragged to the right as well, simply in an effort to "stand their ground".

For example, Rachel has brought the idea of Gov. Bob "Vaginal Probe" McDonnell as a "sacrificial lamb" of sorts, with the GOP overlords knowing full well that his chances for future national office are utterly doomed by his wack-a-doodle proposals, but he's viewed by them as nothing more than a tiny cog in the machine that can easily be replaced by another hydroponic wing-nut that can be plugged-and-chugged when the time arises.

[ProSense]

30. Nope

So ProSense, are you saying that you fundamentally disagree with a major point

that Rachel M. has made several times in the last couple of months? That point - because Republicans have moved so ridiculously far to the right, Democrats involuntarily get dragged to the right as well, simply in an effort to "stand their ground".

...I don't disagree with that. The fact is that it's a function of politics. Everytime the Republicans gain ground (enough to influence), they move further right, and Democrats are put in the position of having to deal. Do you think if Democrats had retained the WH in 2000 the country, our politics would have moved further right?

Look at the policies Obama has managed to reverse from the Clinton years: DADT and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (implemenatation of the Volcker Rule), and working toward repealing DOMA.

There are more Senators supporting marriage equality (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002380566), which is definitely not more conservative than say the 1990s.

More pro labor Senators in contrast to the 1980s.

The Democratic Party isn't more conservative. It's that the Republicans have been testing the electorate with every right wing policy they can advance. Keep electing them, and Democrats will have to continue dealing with them. If Republicans continue to win, public opinion isn't going to translate to policies because Republicans have shown they don't care about public opinion.


"Tough on Crime" No Longer the American Mantra?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002636266

[kenfrequed]

65. Eh...

But in terms of economic policy I just think we are still waaay too far to the right and that progressive solutions rarely see the light of day. When presented with the option in most polls a large number of Americans actually support specific progressive options in terms fo taxation, the environment, healthcare, and education compared to those that support specific conservative options.

I think our president is a bit too concerned with "creating space where solutions can occur" rather than proposing specific solutions. I don't fault him for it entirely, I just think this leadership style combined with the people he had appointed created a situation where progressive reform became improbable.

Suskind's book did a fairly good job of illuminating (rather respectfully) some of the problems that a lot of hard working progressive volunteers perceived in the white house.

[Comrade Grumpy]

32. The Obama administration doesn't deserve credit for declining prison populations.

That is entirely driven by the states, which can't afford their lock 'em up policies anymore.

The federal prison population, which Obama can take credit for, is increasing.

The Obama administration did support reducing the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity and supported making it retroactive, so that's a good thing.

[ProSense]

36. As I pointed

The Obama administration doesn't deserve credit for declining prison populations.

That is entirely driven by the states, which can't afford their lock 'em up policies anymore.

The federal prison population, which Obama can take credit for, is increasing.

The Obama administration did support reducing the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity and supported making it retroactive, so that's a good thing.

...out before the population is growing a slower rate: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002430710



February 2012:

Drug Offenses: 95,528 (48.7 %)

March 2012:

Drug Offenses: 94,899 (48.5 %)

http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#1

Again, that's the the lowest number of drug offenders since 2008.

The percentage is down from about 56.3 percent in 2000, and is at a pre-1990 low.

[HiPointDem]

93. still growing faster than the population is.

[YoungDemCA]

91. Democrats in office have moved right on foreign policy, economics, health care, and energy

I could go on, but those four major areas are enough to conclude that the Democratic Party has gotten much more right-wing in recent years.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Dems have maintained (maybe even advanced) the line

on some social issues, such as gay rights.

On economic issues, they have lurched massively to the right under the prodding of the old DLC, which was mostly intent on beating the Republicans at whoring for corporate PAC money.

[marmar]

7. As Bill Maher said: Democrats have moved to the right, and Republicans have moved to the asylum.

nt

[xchrom]

8. ain't that right? nt

[kenny blankenship]

46. Democrats are taking over the Republican role and donor list

They are now the old Republican Party.

People who rejoice over the Democrats raiding the Republican donor list and having more money to compete in elections are stupid. The traditional and loyal constituencies of the Democrats will have a worse time of it than ever before. Maybe it would be more accurate to say they will continue to have a worse and worse time of it, despite being told "We're winning!"

It used to be just Republicans who were hoodwinked into voting against their own interests.

[TBF]

66. That about sums it up. nt

[radhika]

10. They want to keep the Deep Pockets happy and appreciative

Even if the voters dump them, they'll have nice fat corporate, lobbyist jobs to console them.

I have NO illusions that people or policy matters - just the perks.

[20score]

11. Yep, they have. Only I would say they have moved right on all but social issues.

Anywhere that profit is involved, there has been rightward movement.

Cap-and-trade is a Republican idea which is now supposed to be a leftward shift for the Democrats?

Shows just how far we have moved toward the right.

[whathehell]

99. Correct.....They're for anything that doesn't cost money...Yes, the Dems have moved to the Right

and it sucks.

[kentuck]

12. I do not believe they can continue to move to the right...

and keep their status as a legitimate national Party. Just my opinion, but I think they will have to return to their roots if they want to survive. A lot of people will be looking elsewhere or for a new Party altogether, in my opinion.

[hay rick]

16. Maybe they can get elected but

they won't be able to govern effectively if they push Republican policies.

[rhett o rick]

56. I dont agree. I see the Democratic Party moving right and becoming the Centrist Party

If the progressives dont like it they can start a new party but it wont be big enough to overcome the large Centrist Party and neither will the Wacko Party.

Three party system with one big Centrist Party. We are almost there now.

[kentuck]

68. Would that be good or bad?

In your opinion?

[rhett o rick]

103. IMO it would be bad. It would be essentially a one party system. nm

[whathehell]

100. Agreed...I find the president's silence on labor issues very disturbing.

Up until relatively recently, Labor and Democrats

were natural allies and not that long ago,

a democratic president would have been

in Wisconsin with the protesters.

[Fumesucker]

13. If you look at if from a bourgeois liberal viewpoint it certainly seems that way..

But you have to realize that there are certain conservative viewpoints that today's Democratic party finds more attractive.

[marmar]

14. If you look at it from a populist liberal viewpoint, it definitely IS that way.

Nothing bourgeois about it.

[Fumesucker]

18. Evidently you haven't read this yet..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002635916

[marmar]

21. When I refer to liberal populism, I'm not talking about elected officials.

nt

[JDPriestly]

15. I have one quibble with this OP.

Climate change is not really a left/right issue. It is simply scientific fact. There is nothing to argue about other than how fast it is progressing and what we need to do to deal with its reality.

Climate change is a scientific fact. The Republican denial of climate change is sheer folly -- a self-destructive impulse -- self-annihilation might be more accurate.

Just wanted to set that straight. Otherwise very good.

[gratuitous]

17. Look no further than today's news

All the rah-rah star-spangled cheer about a war crime, and continuing war crimes because they ostensibly make us "safe" (or "safer) while indiscriminately blowing people to Kingdom Come. But because the hand signing legislation into law in the Oval Office belongs to a Democrat instead of a Republican, people who really should know better keep singing the praises of summary executions and push-button murders.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. "Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be

"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.

[TahitiNut]

26. There, in a nutshell, is my rationale for being adamantly independent and anti-partisan.

In effect, I cannot conceive how I can both be a steadfast Liberal and take any other stance. That's because I equate being both rational and moral to being Liberal. As Spock would say, it's logical.

[stupidicus]

22. indeed, that's been obvious for years

and was recently demonstrated http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread

That was the whole point of the creation of the Pee Party imo, to drag the already well off center ideological dividing line farther to the right, and the dems, including BHO, have been unwilling or unable to avoid being dragged along in that direction. One can reasonably argue that this is due to the hostage taking, etc of the party of "NO!" , but I doubt that it can be sustained on the merits. For example, the recent story about Pelosi and SS/Medicare is really old news. http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/10/27/pelosi-signals-her-willingness-to-cut-medicare-and-social-security-benefits/

The simple fact of the matter is, DC is opreated as if the myth of us being center/right nation is the reality, when of course, we aren't. https://www.google.com/search?q=myth+of+center%2Fright&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en

This is precisely what underlies the Occupy/99%er movement. We've had a faux duopoloy in DC for decades now, and as I've argued it for better than a decade now, it's better seen as a good cop/bad cop, janus-like condition in DC, leaving us all with an endless stream of "lesser of two evils" choices with every federal election.

[xchrom]

23. +1

[DeSwiss]

24. K&R n/t

[raouldukelives]

27. I feel like my party keeps trying to appeal to Dennis Miller.

While I want to make it something George Carlin could appreciate.

[Egalitarian Thug]

89. That nails it for me. Thanks! n/t

[cbdo2007]

28. Effective governing always includes compromise....

which is why our greatest Presidents aren't seen as those who ruled rigidly down their party line. The idea isn't to turn the country into your own utopia, it's to create the most good for the most people, even if something is contrary to your ideals. Nobody can be all right all of the time.

[hfojvt]

35. kinda funny

I was looking for a Krugman quote about Daschle and could not find it in my collection of quotes. So I tried google, and what do you suppose google found? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4493995&mesg_id=4498185

The point being that "compromise" only works if both parties are being reasonable. If, for example, Republicans propose something absurd and insane - like eliminating income taxes on dividend income (a Bush proposal in 2003). Then my counter proposal is that we double taxes on dividend income. Thus, we will compromise by doing nothing. To instead compromise by taxing dividends at 50% is a really horrible awful compromise.

Let me try another analogy. Suppose you have your house for sale, a house you bought last week for $99,000 (but you suddenly got promoted and need to move or something). So you put it on the market for $100,000. Now, if somebody comes along and makes an offer of $1, it would be absurd to "compromise" with such a person at $50,000. You only compromise if the other side makes a reasonable offer - has a reasonable proposition.

Myself, I tend to play hardball. If somebody offers, say $70,000 I will just reject it outright. If they come back with an offer of $72,000, my counter offer is gonna be $104,000.

[cbdo2007]

42. Compromise does NOT mean splitting every decision 50/50.

Maybe that's why you aren't understanding the concept here.

[hfojvt]

43. oh, I get that all too well

If somebody offered Obama $1 for a $100,000 house, he would "compromise" by selling it for $5 and then he would declare victory and make a video about how he is always fighting to get the middle class a good price on their houses...http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/138 & http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/165

[cbdo2007]

51. Wow, your knowledge about our President is just as bad as

your knowledge surrounding compromise. Good luck with your irrationalizations!! I was hoping we were going to have an intelligent discussion.

[Marr]

107. That's a cute sentiment, but it doesn't describe reality.

What we've seen is not compromise, but capitulation-- or complicity in pushing unpopular policies.

Here is how "compromise" actually works for us today.

1. Democrats set a goal. Let's say, healthcare reform.

2. Republicans agree not to give an inch.

3. Democrats "compromise" until the policy is slowly morphed in a corporate piece of swill that a few Republicans are willing to support.

4. The Democrats now own a piece of unpopular legislation, and the Republicans get to beat them over the head for instituting one of their own policies.

On the other hand, if the Democrats refused to give ground so easily, and instead sold their ideal to the public-- let's say, Medicare for All-- then the next election cycle would be all about the great thing we *could've had*, if only those obstructionists hadn't ruined it. The obstructionists would pay for it at the polls, and the winner could enact the policy.

You don't have to look far to see who comes out better in reality-- the compromisers, or the people who never, ever stop pushing for one more inch.

[RufusTFirefly]

29. And in other news, water is wet

This is so mind-bogglingly obvious that it barely deserves comment.

[Jamaal510]

31. I respectfully disagree with this theory.

I don't think it's so much that the D's have moved to the right--it's just that today's idea of compromise and moderation between them and the R's is further to the right overall than how it was a few decades ago. The Democratic Party has been left-of-center ever since the Dixiecrat days. And ever since the 80s, the Republican agenda has shifted drastically rightward, while the agenda of the Democrats virtually remained in place.
This is akin to drawing a line on a graph, except extending it rightward. The more the line extends to the right, the more rightward that the center of the line will shift.

[yurbud]

33. cap and trade is not even a progressive solution. it creates a new market scam

so the only solutions we are offered is one that lets Wall Street make a lot of money and possibly do little to nothing to solve the problem, or the GOP solution of cutting out the middle man.

[ProSense]

39. This is the

"cap and trade is not even a progressive solution. it creates a new market scam"

...same nonsense that derailed the climate change bill.

States In Northeast Cap And Trade Program Reduce CO2 20% Faster And Grow GDP At Twice The Rate of Other States
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/20/468659/states-in-northeast-cap-and-trade-program-reduce-co2-faster-grow-gdp-other-states/

It's similar to the effort that worked to combat Acid Rain, which was addressed beginning in the early 1980s.

<...>

DUMANOSKI: He sort of became the point person on acid rain and was the person that was doing all this organizing and collaborating with the other governors and the Eastern Canadian provincial heads of government. And there was actually a treaty that was signed in '83. It was actually the first agreement on acid rain. It really predated the agreements in Europe and this actually later became the blueprint for the provisions in the Clean Air Act that didn't get passed until 1990.

CURWOOD: Dianne Dumanoski credits Kerry with developing a strong grasp of this complex issue, in which pollutants are carried by the wind from the Midwest to the U.S. and Canadian east. Bob Turner also covered the earlier career of John Kerry and is now deputy editorial page editor at the Boston Globe.

http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.html?programID=04-P13-00030

Industry Analysts Who Got Acid Rain Cap & Trade Wrong Now Attacking Obama’s Green Economy Legislation
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2009/05/01/172753/cap-and-trade-works/

[yurbud]

55. the article you linked said there wasn't necessarily a causal link

and I would be curious to see a comparison with states that use the more traditional ''cap and fine'' or ''cap and sue the crap out of violators''

[HiPointDem]

94. +1. just another rentier class "solution". the money men make money, the rest of us pay for it.

[yurbud]

102. some of us will be fortunate enough to live next to those who bought pollution credits

what a joy that will be.

[Octafish]

34. That is the problem.

How can Wall Street sleep at night?

[white_wolf]

49. How does any parasite sleep at night?

[rhett o rick]

53. It's just business, it's not personal. nm

[Marr]

108. On designer sheets. /nt

[MichaelMcGuire]

37. From what I understand the Democratic party are third-way (centrism) party. (nt)

Centrism

[jp11]

38. I don't consider doing what is right moving to the left.

Gay rights are human rights 'moving left' by acknowledging them isn't a move it is just common sense. Perhaps it does count but when I think about moves to one side I imagine it in the republican example as in to the crazy/extreme side. The only 'democratic' crazy/ extreme side I have any concept of is some views on socialism or anarchists which I admit to not knowing all the ins and outs of.

I also hardly consider moves to where the country itself as a majority is already to be a real 'move' because these elected people are supposed to represent us and serve the will of the people as well as our constitution. Nowhere does this seem more evident then with republicans who aren't serving the will of the people but truly are 'crazy' when they will only obey their rich masters and the extreme fringe 'crazies' they still appeal to.

[SpencerShay]

47. Thank You For Your "Concern"

It doesn't help democrats move to the left, when fake progressives don't vote in elections to teach democrats a lesson. The fake progressives thought letting the Tea Party win in 2010, would send a message to democrats to move to the left. But, it didn't. It only sent the wrong message. The democrats thought voters sent them a message to move to the right, and focus on the deficit, and it also made it even harder to get things done. What kind of idiot would think it was possible for the democrats to move to the left, with a congress full tea-baggers? Way to go, fake "progressives!"

The democrats are better than any fake "progressive" Ralph Nader third party you're pushing! If you hate democrats, why are you here? You're trying to get your "democrat hate" on, on a democratic website, so that people will follow you, and join some loser third party.

I hate fake progressives who shit on democrats, and try to get other democrats to vote third party, in order to help republicans win elections, just as much as you hate democrats!

[white_wolf]

50. First of all, the OP didn't push any third party.

Secondly if the Democrats are losing support amongst their base, it is because the Democrats have moved to the right and they have no one to blame, but themselves if they lose elections. I'm sorry if it annoys you when people focus on issues instead of parties, but some of us don't see politics as some sort of game for our team to win. If the Democrats nominated a Blanche Lincoln for President in 2016 would you support her unconditionally?

[MichaelMcGuire]

57. Xchrom does not deserve this personal attack (nt)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

64. + 1

[myrna minx]

59. xchrom doesn't deserve this nasty reply, nor is simply posting this article from Mother Jones

for discussion in any way advocating for a third party. That's quite a bit of bile for one article posted by a respected Duer.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

63. + 1

[demmiblue]

62. What a rude response to a valued member of Democratic Underground.

Everything you wrote was incredibly wrong. You need to do a little fact-checking regarding both xchrom and the reasons why 2010 saw the rise of the Tea Party. Really.

[Better Believe It]

67. This is a discussion board. Please don't engage in personal attacks against DU'ers.

Show a little more respect.

Thanks.

[paulk]

70. "what kind of idiot"

would keep pushing the nonsense that it was "fake progressives" who stayed home in 2010 and caused the loss of the House?

your post is bullshit, just another in the endless attacks on the Democratic left coming from the New Dems (or RWers posing as such).

[markpkessinger]

73. Horribly rude, ucalled for response!

You really owe xchrom, and the other members of DU, apology.

[fascisthunter]

76. thank you for yours

Looks like the OP struck a nerve with you in particular.

[AtomicKitten]

80. I see you've met our welcoming committee here. LOL.

You too, Mr. Shay, are entitled to speak your mind here.

I hope I'm not the first to welcome you to DU.

[Raine]

84. and thank you for YOUR "concern"

[WilliamPitt]

104. A little new to the party to be dropping the 'Concern' brick, aren't we?

[marmar]

106. "and try to get other democrats to vote third party, in order to help republicans win elections"

Paranoid delusions much?

[usrname]

58. Cap-and-trade

is not a liberal idea. It's a right-wing solution (albeit one that makes sense... a broken clock is right twice a day) to a problem that was identified by the left. Had it been left to the right, the problem would never have seen the light of day.

[Romulox]

60. Endless War, War on Drugs, Mandatory for profit insurance, Bankster bailouts...

NOT "leftwing" positions.

[bvar22]

75. Even "Cap & Trade" is an old Republican idea.

President Obama KNOWS this,
and seems proud to be pushing old Republican ideas.
It plays well in the Kubiki Theater of election years,
but after the balloons drop,
America is STUCK with the implementation with Republican Policy.

“Cap-and-trade was originally proposed by conservatives and Republicans as a market-based solution to solving environmental problems,” Obama said during a fiery speech at a luncheon hosted by The Associated Press."

For those here too young to remember,
THIS is what Democrats used to sound like:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens." --- FDR, SOTU, 1944

Please note that FDR listed the above as Basic Human Rights to be protected by our Government of The People,
and NOT Commodities to be sold to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

Not so long ago, when you voted FOR The Democrats,
you voted FOR the above Democratic Party Values.
Sadly, that is no longer true.
I miss THAT Democratic Party.
That is the Party I joined 46 years ago.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Raine]

86. Yes, EXACTLY.. nt

[DaveJ]

78. Metrics and social issues have changed

The issues I'm concerned about are not generally mentioned by those who feel Obama has failed them:

alternative energy
mass transit
science
staying out of wars
education
career opportunity
having a role model as POTUS

These are off the top of my head.

So I'm not sticking to Democrats for no rational reason.

In some areas the conservatives have just plain won, especially with regard to work related issues. We are kept working all the time. No candidate in the U.S. ever runs on a platform to reduce the workweek or retirement age. And people are punished severely for faltering, whether or not it's their fault, in the most inhumane capitalist manner. Obama is weak on these issues; nevertheless, I also know Republicans want to make the world worse.

Sorry I'm late, but I just got off work, and I'm sure most people have moved on from this thread.

[polichick]

83. I agree - they've moved to the right...

Maybe it's clearer to say they've become corporatists - serving the powers-that-be more than the people or the best interests of the country.

[Raine]

85. EXACTLY on point. nt

[a2liberal]

87. K&R (n/t)

[MNBrewer]

88. j'adore xchrom

[PatrynXX]

92. which is why I say Conservatives control congress

have for years. Conservatives control the Senate. In the house you've got crazzies

[madrchsod]

95. in today's world mittens dad would be a moderate democrat

the republicans have moved so far to the right the democrats decided to follow them.

[blkmusclmachine]

96. There's about a 2% diff. btwn (R) and (D) nowadays.

Yay, "bi-partisnaship"!!!

[NNN0LHI]

101. Yeah, over 30 years ago. Independents did the same thing

United States 1980 Presidential Election Results

[Telly Savalas]

109. Since there's a consensus that the Left has been ineffective at influencing the Democratic Party

shouldn't the next logical step be to discuss what strategic changes should be made? Because what's being done now clearly isn't working.