Third Way

[BainsBane]

Third way is a term a lot of people are throwing around without much discernment. Down in an argument and don't have a response, call the person a Third Wayer. Find the evidence they raise inconvenient, call the argument Third Way. Angry that someone else got the last loaf of marble rye at the bakery, they must be a Third Wayer, especially if someone suggests you try the Russian rye instead. That asshole who took your parking spot, Third Wayer. Look how he triangulated to maneuver into the space.

The latest use of this trope I fielded was in calling my candidates, Senator Al Franken and congressman Keith Ellison Third Wayers. Now these comments often, but not always, come from people who live in states and districts that are GOP strongholds, places that populate the ranks of the Tea Party in the House and the Senate. Somehow people who have never elected a Democrat feel entitled to lecture those of us who do elected Democrats that our "Third Way" candidates can't win, despite the fact they already have won and are serving in office.

People seem to think pure thoughts is what defines a leftist Democrat vs. a Third Wayer. It's not. That is determined by who you are able to get elected, and the candidates you support who WIN elections. My "Third Way" candidates rank very highly on the progressive scale for sites that tally such things. Some of us live in states that know how to get progressives elected in congress. The idea that people who have elected few to no Democrats can lecture the rest of us about how we aren't pure enough to suit them, to get Democrats elected, is the height of hubris. It also shows a complete disconnection from reality.

Next time you think about calling someone a Third Wayer, tell us about your Representatives. Do you elect progresses, or do you send Republicans and GOPers to congress, or perhaps even Third Way Democrats? People seem to think what you think defines your "wing" of the party. Thoughts amount to exactly nothing. What matters is what you get done. If you elect Tea Baggers to congress, you don't represent any left wing of the party because you haven't gotten a progressive elected. So maybe you ought to think twice before lecturing people who have?

And yes. I'm sure someone will tell me that's a Third Way argument because it focuses on reality rather than the imaginary world of DU.

[MineralMan]

1. Third Wayer and DLCer are just general insults that

get thrown out there when someone disagrees with someone else. They are used mainly to attack people who look at things from a realistic perspective, rather than an ideological one. Most of the time, the insult is meaningless, like most insults.

Anyone calling Al Franken a Third Wayer is simply tossing out an insult, without thinking about it.

[BainsBane]

2. Yes, it was the down in the argument reflex

completely ridiculous. And it absolutely was in the context of a discussion of reality, which pisses people off.

[MineralMan]

4. A lot of discussions aren't really discussions.

That's sad. Tossing labels around as insults simply means someone doesn't really have a real argument to put forward. We're going to see a lot more of it, since we have a presidential election coming up.

[Iliyah]

42. Still quite don't understand that term

but thanks for clearing some of it up.

[SMC22307]

144. http://thirdway.org/

Read their website and what they stand for. It's not that difficult.

[AZ Progressive]

82. Yes, you mean that big corporations are our lords that take priority over everyone else

Third Way Democrats accept this, whereas real Democrats would fight harder for the people.

[misterhighwasted]

97. Real Dems? HaHaa. Dems are a big group of anyone but Repubs

Hardly a sweet puristic version of extreme exclusivity as some would like the Dem Party to be.
We aren't the party of robotic minds all believing in lockstep like the GOP is required to be.
Embrace the differences that make the Dem Party a very big tent to exist under.
Thanks

[AgingAmerican]

130. Democrats that don't ascribe to Republican economic policies

Would be my guess.

[hrmjustin]

102. Who are and not real dems?

[Agschmid]

195. I got called a third way dem the other day...

Someone didn't like what I was saying... Yet my senator is Warren and I got to vote for her.

You are welcome America.

[Katashi_itto]

146. Maybe I ought to drink more in order to buy that argument. I could stop but.

?w=600&h=472

[DonCoquixote]

178. the problem is

despite the fact that al franken is not a Third wayer, there are those who have defined the Democratic party in a way that rejects traditional principles, such as supprt of unions, public education, and regulation of financial indistries. When Rahm called people "retards" he made it very clear that this was NOT going to be polite, and sadly, when Obama turned on Liza Wareen, he made iut clear he favored hos old friend rahm. I do no want to see the term misused, but I cannot deny that there are people in posotion of power in our party who want us out except for election time, as if we were the sick old unlce that gets locked in the closet except when he has to sign checks.

[treestar]

180. I don't think they reject those principles

There are usually blasted for some particular thing, not doing enough, or claiming to have actually suggested some minor modification that goes against those things. They are for regulating, but may not be able to get all of the desired regulation passed.

The people throwing the term around think there should be no compromise. But there's no way to do that in D.C. You'd sit there with nothing happening and the government shutting down.

Rahm was just frustrated at dealing with all the complaining from people who think that way. Or emote that way, I should say.

[hfojvt]

192. this is a fun thread

a bunch of third wayers congratulating themselves that their critics are without substance.

Uh huh.

Oh, and third wayers are "realistic".

Yup, there's no such thing as the DLC and the Clinton camp never talked about triangulating. There's no such thing as a progressive or a blue dog. It's all just a bunch of juveniles throwing around insults.

No, a third wayer, when it is used properly, defines somebody who is fairly openly a member of the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022085948 as differentiated from a Senator from Minnesota who famously said he was from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. Third wayers are from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and sometimes seem committed to out-Republicing the Republicans.

Myself, I tend to appreciate moderates. Consider three who came in for a little bit of bashing for not being progressive enough. They are all from my home state of South Dakota. Stephanie Herseth made a list once of "Bush dogs" which was one step worse than even Blue Dogs. Daschle and Tim Johnson were often bashed for being spineless or too moderate. I might even agree with many of their critics. But at the same time, it sure would be nice to have them back, or somebody like them instead of who we are saddle with now - Thune, Rounds, and Noem. Truthfully, I was even hoping that Herseth would step up and challenge Thune for the Senate (and then she lost to Noem while Thune ran unpposed (WTF?))

[Agschmid]

193. Yup.

It's getting old.

[99Forever]

3. Yeah, sure.

[BainsBane]

6. Who are you representatives?

Are they to the left of mine?

[MineralMan]

64. A very excellent question to ask.

My House member is Betty McCollum. She's not a publicity hound, but is a very progressive representatives. I know her. We keep electing her because she does an excellent job of representing our liberal DFL district.

[BainsBane]

74. Yep, Betty is a good one

You notice they have now three times refused to answer the question. I think we can safely conclude their reps don't stand up to Betty, Keith, or Al.

[MineralMan]

92. We have Betty, Keith and Al because we worked to elect them.

It's that simple. They represent us because we elected them to do that. You're right. Many of the most vocal DUers won't tell you who their representatives are. Part of that is that they think keeping the area they live a secret somehow protects their anonymity. It doesn't, of course, but that's one reason. The other reason is that some of them live in places that elect the very worst republicans you can find anywhere. They're embarrassed by that. Often, there's not much chance for any Democrat to get elected in their districts, much less a progressive.

Often, since they can't do anything about their representation, they focus on national politics. Sadly, they forget that their own district's voters will vote for a Republican for President, so they're stuck there, too.

Then there are the swing districts, where a Democrat can get elected over a Republican. Sometimes. Not always, as in Betty and Keith's districts. Trouble is that any Democrat who can win in those districts won't be a progressive Democrat. He or she will vote with the Democratic caucus almost all of the time, though, so they're always better than the Republican who would win.

This country is deeply divided. In individual districts and for the presidency, it can be split almost exactly 50:50. That's true in a lot of districts. It's true in enough districts that those districts actually control which party controls Congress. Those districts also often control who is elected as President. Will those districts elect a progressive Democrat? Absolutely not. Will they elect a Democrat at all? Yes, they will. It's better if they do. Not ideal, of course, but better.

We need Democratic control of Congress. I'd far rather some Democrat who is a centrist but who will vote with the Democratic caucus was representing those swing districts. That gets lost in the ideological struggle DU always seems to be fighting. Too bad.

We have a Republican Congress right now. Both houses. We might have a Republican President if we don't take care. All three branches controlled by Republicans means that the ultra conservatives win. Centrist Republicans vote with the Republican caucus. And there's the rub.

[BainsBane]

111. We absolutely work for it

Not just the representatives but issues as well. When all the press about Dayton being a great governor was going around, I pointed out that many of the accomplishments in MN are because we have such a highly engaged population, with the highest voter turn out rate in the country. The focus on top down politics, on key individuals, misses all the grassroots work that is necessary to get reforms enacted.

[bvar22]

170. Don't strain yourself patting yourself on the back.

You have Betty, Keith, and Al because you live in Minneapolis/St Paul.

Come try THAT in Birmingham, Alabama.

[MineralMan]

172. Actually, I live in only one of those cities.

My wife and I chose where we live. We could have lived in many places in the area. Politics is one reason we chose the East Side of St. Paul.

I would never live in Alabama. I haven't been there since 1965. I was there then, though, for a short time, to hear Dr. King speak.

[bvar22]

203. I live in only one of those cities

Then why did you claim Keith?

[MineralMan]

207. I didn't.

I said that Betty McCollum is my rep. Ellison represents Minneapolis. You are confused.

See #64.

[bvar22]

225. Mineral Man, Post #92 this thread

[font size=3]"We have Betty, Keith and Al because we worked to elect them."[/font]--Mineral Man.
Now WHO is confused?

If you are going to claim Keith while patting yourself on the back, you will also have to claim Michele Bachmann.

[MineralMan]

236. We, because BainsBane lives in Ellison's district.

She started the thread. I live in Betty McCollum's district. Together, WE helped both of those and Al Franken get elected.

WE are also the Minnesota DFL party. I'm a precinct chair in the party organization. That's not a big deal, really, but I also participate in the caucus and convention system, which also works to endorse and help candidates.

While most of what I do is in my own district, I also participate in statewide elections, and have supported Keith Ellison, as well. Elections are not just about a single district. You're picking at nits, and I'm quite sure you knew exactly what I meant by WE.

WE are Democrats. We help Democrats get elected.

[treestar]

183. the point was being in Birmingham would be so frustrating

for a progressive they forget about the state and focus on national politics.

Leading them to forget there are Republicans that have to be dealt with.

[bvar22]

204. Do you live in Birmingham?

Then your pronouncements about the Democrats who DO live in Birmingham,
and have "forgotten" about local politics bears no weight at all.

I live in another Red State,
and we haven't forgotten about local politics.

[treestar]

221. If so, it's odd you have so little understanding

of those who are "pragmatic" and "practical."

[bvar22]

226. It is not odd at all that you have so little understanding of National Politics, Party Politics,

....and local Southern Politics.
Not odd at all.

In fact, after reading your posts here, I expect it.

[TheKentuckian]

119. It is a ridiculous question because it neither validates nor invalidates the individuals perspective

Not even a tiny bit.

You don't get bonus points for geographic privileged to lord over anyone. What happens when someone in your own district disagrees with you? Is there an empass or do you have some clever tie breaker that maintains your privileged position of correctness?

[kentuck]

148. :-))__%%

___@@

[99Forever]

218. He tells them to get off his lawn.

And they laugh at him.

[cali]

113. I'm not sure why you think that's so important

but mine are at least as liberal as yours- both of my Senators are more liberal than Franken- who I think is a good guy, and Peter Welsh is not only one of the most liberal members of the House, he's very effective and he's in the leadership. He's a quiet, unassuming person, but he not only is as progressive as any member of Congress, he has terrific abilities when it comes to negotiating the byzantine rules of the House.

So, yeah, for what it's worth: Leahy, Sanders, Welsh.

[BainsBane]

118. Yep, you have declared that before

Are you one that goes around calling people Third Way? I don't recall that, though my memory is not the best. Seems like a lot of those that do don't like to disclose who their reps are.

It's important for a few reasons: 1) It shows a conception of the Democratic party as a theoretical construct rather than in terms of getting candidates elected. 2) I've been told I should be more patient because many here are from red states and come here to vent. Fine, vent, but why are they targeting the people who actually get progressives elected? If the 1 percent or Wall Street is the enemy, why do they spend so much time attacking ordinary voters? They are misdirecting their frustrations in ways that undermine the solidarity necessary to mobilize for change. That, I would submit, is far more divisive than commenting on sexist discourse in a news media.

[cali]

206. No. I don't go around flinging that label.

And I understand that Vermont is not S. Dakota or Oklahoma.

I also think that phrase is misused a lot and open to misinterpretation.

[kentuck]

151. I LIKE SANDERS!

Thirty-five years of trickle-down has got us to this historical point. He is a good person to debate the issues, in my opinion.

[TheKentuckian]

117. Asinine "point" your geography is not transferable to your personal liberal "cred"

My rep is John Yarmuth, he is excellent and I work his campaigns but I don't get personal credit to lord over someone who's rep sucks ass, they are not directly responsible for the voters in their district.

This is an extremely tenuous logic you are trying to weave here, as soon some comes along in your district with a different perspective it is immediately invalidated and certainly if they have even better overall representives Even if you think your group is best there will be folks from other areas that can make a case but it doesn't matter because all you are doing is putting yourself on a pedestal for results you can only take at most an infinitesimal share of.

It is goofy to grant yourself some privileged position because of where you live and a culture that preexists you and has nothing to do with you. If you didn't exist your district would have the same rep so I don't get where you get expertise points at all. If you move do your views become magically less valid or if someone moves from Alabama to your district do their opinions increase in merit?

You are talking in a nonsensical fashion based on self justifying logic.

[kentuck]

152. Well said.

Peace.

[Hekate]

209. My House rep is Lois Capps (D), gods bless her. She is a quiet, absolutely solid Dem...

She has managed to withstand the attacks from the Right for all these years, and it's been nasty. Now she has announced retirement, and her seat is going to be hotly contested on all sides. Fortunately we have some good prospects and a strong Democratic Party outfit. unfortunately, redistricting could hurt us. We'll see.

[LittleBlue]

121. Yep

indeed

[brooklynite]

5. The other point is that the average person who yell's "Third Way" has no idea what they stand for

All they know is what someone else told them it represented. They've never reviewed their policy positions (pro-ACA, pro-Dodd Frank, pro-marriage equality, pro-medical marijuana) and throw out vague tropes like "Republican lite" or "beholden to Wall Street".

[misterhighwasted]

8. I have received pm's from friends here stating they could no longer be DU friends with me,

.because I supported Hillary Clinton & she is Third Way.
Exactly the point made in this thread.

It's like those jumping on the Clinton Cash fiction novel.

A demeaning tool to use without considering the lack of truth behind the label.
OYE.

[BainsBane]

11. Clearly they weren't friends in the first place

not even internet friends.

I myself respect anyone's choice to support Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley, or anyone else running for the Democratic nomination. It's saying they won't vote for the Dem nominee if they don't get their way that I can't respect.

[misterhighwasted]

15. Truth.

[Iliyah]

46. Well said

[Agschmid]

246. This.

[cantbeserious]

202. HRC - Is In Fact - A DLC Third Waver - She Represents Wall Street And The 1% As Well

eom

[misterhighwasted]

213. Gd fkng gd. Re-read the Op. You are the epitome of it's point.

Went right over your head.
Warren is also Third Way by anyone's loose definition anymore.
Bye.

[cantbeserious]

214. Hmmm - Can't Challenge The Facts - So Attack The Poster

eom

[misterhighwasted]

216. What facts? Re-read the OP. Your post is the point of the OP

I dont have to argure any facts with somesone who repeats the same overused mantra. Overused.
You don't want a factual discussion, you want a fight.
Cya..cuz it's starting to stink in here. The PU crowd showed up.
Go bait someone else into your fight.

Guess you missed the point of the OP.
About what can be expected from the PU crowd.
Buh bye..Ignore. And do have a really nice evening.

[TheKentuckian]

239. The OP has no logical point. If someone from their district disagrees with them then what?

If the OP moves to a conservative district to care for their ailing parent does the OP believe that their own opinions become magically less valid?

Why are my opinions more valid now than if I was to move ten miles away and enter a conservative district?

If someone crosses the border from North Dakota to Minnesota do they become instantly more knowledgeable about getting liberals elected?

The OP is a privileged position fallacy, it has no point that makes any measurable sense. It is goofy.

[Marr]

48. It's neat how you read the plebes' minds so easily. /nt

[brooklynite]

50. Feel free to prove me wrong...

...find a post which expresses opposition to a SPECIFIC Third Way Policy.

[Marr]

53. Shall I show you the sky is blue, too?

Your assertion is that there hasn't been a DU post that decried 'Third Way' politics along with neoliberal trade policies? Are you trying to waste my time?

[brooklynite]

79. Perhaps you didn't read the OP...

...there are plenty of people who decry "Third Way" politics. My contention is that they don't know what Third Way's policies are. You, as an example, offer the platitude of "Neoliberal trade policies". What specific trade position that Third Way advocates do you object to?

[Marr]

100. Really...? How about the TPA, TPP...

Hell, let's look at their home page.

Yep, TPP is their big push of the moment, as one would expect. I see they're also very pro NSA domestic spying, and the only problem they see with it is certain PR inconveniences it brings to big business, so naturally they want to fix that...

Huh... what else is on their frigging home page that you could've looked up in twelve seconds... another push for TPP via a Fast Track pitch... and... yes, yet another TPP pitch, this time with an ISDS angle.

The TPP is the definition of neoliberal trade policy, and the Third Way is naturally, going all out in promotion of it.

Should be talk about the sky now?

[treestar]

184. It's never that specific

I don't think the actual third way has been shown to support whatever trade agreement you think is anathema.

[Marr]

187. Really.

http://www.thirdway.org/

Three quarters of the content on their front page is promoting the TPP. Or here, since the content on the main page changes:

http://www.thirdway.org/issue/economy

Promoting the TPP is their big economic cause of the moment.

This is absurd. You might as well be arguing that the Catholic Church doesn't have a position on birth control. Promoting neoliberal trade policy-- both specific legislation and those ideals generally-- is the main reason the Third Way exists.

[octoberlib]

149. Entitlement reform. They to want to privatize SS. Lower taxes on Corporations

and more Republican tripe. The economy section makes me want to gag. http://thirdway.org/issue/economy In fact, Third wayer Delaney has introduced a bill in the House to cut SS.

[treestar]

185. I don't see that on that site

and think it therefore likely you misrepresent Delaney's bill too.

[octoberlib]

194. It's there.

Entitlement Reform

Democrats created the safety net and as such – with a demographic bubble unrivaled by anything in previous eras – one would expect Democrats to be the party that steps up to fix them. Instead, Democrats became deniers. With few exceptions, the party did nothing to either raise concerns or propose plans to fix entitlements.

We sought to change that and provide significant leadership on this defining issue. Our view was that entitlements – as important as they are – must be reined in so we can increase public investments, contain long range deficits, and limit future tax increases on the middle class. With few allies, we began a campaign to make the progressive case to fix entitlements. This was a controversial move within the progressive community, but we have already made enormous progress.

We supported and helped pass into law the Simpson-Bowles commission that came close to securing the bipartisan grand bargain budget agreement for which we fought. We proposed our own Social Security fix plan that combined tax increases on upper income earners with benefit cuts on well-to-do seniors and benefit increases to poor seniors. We first proposed then brought Democrats and Republicans together on a Social Security Commission plan that remains the only bipartisan legislation to fix Social Security. We became the lead center-left organization to promote chain weighted CPI and eventually counted President Obama as one of our supporters.
http://thirdway.org/case-study/entitlement-reform
http://thirdway.org/search?q=entitlement%20reform


Bipartisan House Bill To Create Social Security Reform Commission Coming

Reps. Tom Cole (R-OK) and John Delaney (D-MD) plan to introduce a bill this Congress that would create a Social Security commission to propose changes to the program, Cole's office confirmed to TPM on Monday.

The bill's language and timing has not been finalized, but Cole, a close ally of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Delaney co-sponsored similar legislation last year. The Hill first reported Cole's intention to reintroduce the bill.

The legislation would land after House Republicans signaled that they want to force a debate over Social Security in the next two years by blocking the transfer of tax revenue between the retirement and disability funds unless the program's overall solvency is improved. The disability fund is projected to be unable to pay full benefits starting in late 2016.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-cole-delaney-social-security-commission-bill



ANOTHER goddamned "DEMOCRAT" pushing for unnecessary Soc Security cuts - FASTTRACKING THEM.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026422548


But I sort of pity the Third Way guys. They’ve had a rough few months. Back in December, they were laughed out of the room when Kessler and Jon Cowan, Third Way’s president, argued in the Wall Street Journal that cutting Social Security benefits would prove popular electoral politics.
Not only did mainstream Democrats from all wings of the party immediately reject the premise, but one of the organization’s co-chairs, moderate Rep. Allyson Schwarz, quit Third Way, saying Bennett and Cowan’s op-ed was “outrageous.” It was a stunning rejection by the broader party establishment and proof that the Democrats’ “big tent” was united around the idea of preserving—and even expanding—Social Security.
Third Way’s and its “centrist” allies have spent decades building a Beltway elitist consensus on the need to slash the safety net. It must tear them up seeing all that hard work evaporate over the span of a few years—with their economic ideas now on the party fringe, they have nothing left to do but cry persecution.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/democrats-wall-street-kos-104959_Page2.html#ixzz3aL3WFf00

[AgingAmerican]

96. Sure, cuz you say so

nt

[mcar]

7. Someone called Al Franken and Keith Ellison Third Wayers?

[marym625]

220. That's exactly what I was thinking

WTF? Franken and Ellison? Oy Vey!

[MannyGoldstein]

227. I doubt if that happened

It would be great to see some links.

[sufrommich]

9. It's a pretty common internet trope. It comes from people frustrated

that the majority of the country are more moderate than they are and it's common on both the left and the right.

[Exilednight]

78. The majority of the country is not moderate.

Polls show us that we are more divided than ever.

Now here's the ironic part.

A majority of Americans support gay marriage.

A majority of Americans support a higher minimum wage.

A majority of the country no longer calls itself Christian.

A majority of the country believes that the police is too militarized.

A majority of the country supports higher taxes on the top 1%.

Please tell me again how centrist this country is?

[sufrommich]

81. Most of your points are basic democratic platform stuff,right?

Which would make it a position that most,if not all,democrats agree on,moderates included. I didn't use the word "centrist" at all,nor did I imply that any of those positions are extreme in the least.


* A majority of this country still calls itself christian.

[Exilednight]

88. If they are basic, why so many Democrats try

To avoid these subjects when they come up?

[Jamastiene]

177. Moderates do not support gay rights in any way, shape, or form.

I have seen that both in real life and on DU time and time again.

[treestar]

196. All of that is moderate

Of course the country is centrist. It will always be. It's just where on the scale the center is. Of the people actually in the country and what they think.

The right gets more power too, by the nature of the voting - the Senate give them a greater than proportional power. Some people would rather complain and blame the Democrats that face that.

A majority too, may not be that big. The red voters concentrate in the red states and send Republicans.

The swing voters are the ones needed to win, so claims of the progressives to be essential and the party better do it their way are absurd.

[Exilednight]

200. I'm not here to debate semantics. n/t

Edit for spelling error.

[treestar]

188. +1

I have seen it from right wingers. There are some who actually think Bush was a liberal. It's the same kind of labeling. They think they can alter reality to the way they think it is. Bush is a liberal and Obama is a communist. Makes them feel other than on the fringe.

[Maedhros]

231. Putting corporate profits before people is what people associate with the Third Way.

You call that 'moderate?'

[Orsino]

10. If you're not trying to cut Social Security, privatize education or promote TPP, stop worrying.

You're probably not a Third Wayer.

[BainsBane]

13. I'm not worried

I'm perfectly confident in my views, and I support none of those positions. It's the mindless use of the Third Way insult as a reflex to anything people find inconvenient that I think is ridiculous.

[hrmjustin]

12. The Third Way boogeyman is out there and he turns pure progressive souls into

Democrats in name only.


Beware the Third Way Boogeyman!

[misterhighwasted]

18. Its like an old SyFi movie I watched. Alien blobs attached themselves

Last edited Sat May 16, 2015, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

.to humans heads and the human began thinking like a glob of green goo.
All it took was a minut particle of the alien blob to absorb the entire human's reality.
Like that "Third Way" word, ya know. Same darned thing!

[hrmjustin]

75. .

[misterhighwasted]

91. Hahaa. omg "B E L I E V E" !!

[JoePhilly]

14. DU's high priests of liberalism will not appreciate your candor.

[BainsBane]

36. They never do

[LordGlenconner]

40. One of those high priests is on the thread

Spewing more garbage and...labels at those who disagree with their perspective. I think a nerve has been struck, which is great. It's so precious when defenders of liberal purity get all worked up.

[Exilednight]

201. How does statements like this help debate?

I don't expect you to answer with a serious or thoughtful response, but I may be surprised if you do.

[LordGlenconner]

247. What debate?

There is no debate here, or anywhere else on DU.

It's snark.

It's attacks.

Rinse and repeat.

[NYC_SKP]

16. I've never used it as an insult against a DU member, or against a politician. But there is history.

I don't claim to be an expert but we shouldn't dismiss the fact that there was/is an organized movement called the Third Way.

Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are/were characteristically Third Wayers.

In politics, the Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

I refer to them as centrist sell outs, they talk a good socially liberal talk while selling out to corporations and global trade.

a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.

[woo me with science]

17. Oh, this talking point again: "YOU CALLED ME A DOG!!!!111!11!"

The corporate mouthpieces here are still trying to make "Third Way" into an epithet rather than the useful descriptor of policy positions it actually is. That is what authoritarians do: try to discredit language so as to take away the words we need to describe what is being done to us.

YOU CALLED ME A DOG!!!!111!11
(The attempt to discredit the useful terms: "authoritarian" and "Third Way&quot
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4713041

...Authoritarians and the Third Way don't like being called what they are, and since they can't yet prohibit words and restrict others to an approved Newspeak Dictionary, they settle for flailing at and attempting to discredit the individual words they dislike.

This tactic...is most amusing in one-to-one settings. When someone uses an accurate word to describe what you are doing or advocating, just put the word in quotation marks, add some exclamation points, and try to neutralize it by pretending it's an epithet instead of an accurate descriptor. We have all seen it here 1,000 times. A person's politics are described as Third Way, and he or she rears up in indignation, expressing shock at the "namecalling."

Well, no. "Third Way" means something. It is not an epithet, but rather descriptive shorthand for a clear and specific set of political values and policies. You can see what "Third Way" means by going to the Third Way website, where the goals and policies - liberal on the social issues unimportant to the One Percent but corporate and authoritarian on virtually everything else - are clearly delineated.

Those who embrace and defend Third Way policies don't want to admit it, so they try to make the term an epithet...something to be dismissed as namecalling or even banned by a jury so that it can't be accurately applied to them on the forums. And now we are hearing the same sort of defensive attempts to discredit the word when authoritarianism is called "authoritarianism."

Of course "authoritarian" means something. Brazen defense of a government's spying on its own citizens is indisputably authoritarian.

I always picture an indignant poodle rearing up in outrage and exclaiming, "What?! You called me a DOG?!"

Orwell was right. Defending against authoritarianism *requires* defending language, because authoritarians will try to twist, discredit, or take away the words that are necessary for us to describe what is being done to us.

[font color=red]Reject, do not engage, Third Way talking points. [/font color]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160

Going to threads about important issues like the TPP and the looming renewal of the Patriot Act now, rather than kicking these stale Third Way talking points.

[99Forever]

20. Yup.

Truth hurts. Look at 'em squeal. Turd way, new dems, blue dogs, neoliberals? It's all about WHAT THEY DO, not which stupid new name they hide behind.

[woo me with science]

24. Excellent post you just made. Just look at all those attempts at rebranding.

We all know about the ugly rebranding of the DLC. These manipulators were never a grass roots movement. They have always been a corporate-backed infiltration into the Democratic Party, no matter which name they try to use. Same dirty tricks, same manipulation, same dishonesty, same propaganda machines.

Rebranding is what disreputable corporations do.

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

New Democrats, The DLC and the Third Way
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774832

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

[BainsBane]

29. What does that have to do with insulting ordinary voters?

No one is disputing the Third Way exists. The problem is you don't use it to discuss investment bankers. You use it to insult ordinary Americans here on DU, the working poor, people of color, or people who actually get progressives elected. How is working so hard to divide the party so that it speaks only to the interest of the upper-middle class so much more leftist than what others are doing by getting their ass out, registering voters, and getting people to the polls? How often to you canvass in poor neighborhoods, in Muslim neighborhoods, in African American and Hispanic neighborhoods? Do you insult them as Third Way mouth pieces too?

Tell us about the grass roots movement you are engaged in. What have you accomplished? Who have you gotten elected?

[kentuck]

35. The rooster crowed and the sun came up.

"LOOK WHAT I DID !", he said.

[99Forever]

43. Also worth noting is...

... who has repeatedly gone with completely over-the-top, strawman argumentative, defensive responses.

Quite informative.

Thanks for your input.

[Enthusiast]

103. +1 an entire shit load.

[BainsBane]

26. How is it the truth?

How are Ellison and Franken blue dogs?

What do you DO to get progressives elected? And have you succeeded? Who are your representatives?

[randys1]

28. Where is the popcorn, wanna hear the answer to your question.

ps

Al Franken is not a liberal?

Keith Ellison?


Dear lord will we survive such stupidity

[BainsBane]

31. What do you wanna bet

His reps are Republicans, maybe even Tea baggers?

[randys1]

37. This never occurred to me, I do know we have a lot of loud mouths who do little else

but that is true on both sides.

I also wish we could discuss politics from reality based positions.

There is so much we would change, but reality is we cant do that until we do A B C D and E and then F and then there is G and if you thought F was hard, etc.

It is why my brain practically drops out of my skull when I hear someone say they will support Bernie, who is to the left of the scale on all issues, but wont support (if it comes down to only her left on the ballot) Hillary who is center left but will risk a hard right racist, bigot, environment killing asshole moron prick teaparty to run the country.

They make me angrier than the teapartiers, because I know teaparty people are just dumb and mean and scared, we are supposed to be the fucking grownups

We are supposed to know better.

[BainsBane]

38. A lot of them are from red states

and they come online to vent their frustrations, to create alternate realities, and misdirect their anger.

[Marr]

61. You're telling each other comforting bullshit.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've volunteered for Democratic candidates at the local and occasionally the national level since I was in school. And frankly, the demographic that's always been conspicuously absent from the volunteer pool is the self-described 'centrists' and 'moderates'. It's pretty much nothing but liberals.

So you can imagine how strange it seems to me to so regularly see this same crowd here at DU constantly, and openly opining about how and why liberals don't help out.

[BainsBane]

77. Some of us are leftists

rather than liberals. You continue to use the term liberal as though it means left, when it is fact a center right ideology in any global scale. I am not a liberal because I do not accept the legitimacy of capitalism. If I operate based on ideology alone, I wouldn't have anything to do with the Democratic party. That very involvement requires a compromise on my part, but after the election of 2000 I decided that compromise was essential. The Democratic party is a political organization, not an ideology. I consider its policies better than the alternative but in no way ideal or reflective of my own personal views. They are never going to authorize an agrarian reform, for example, and expropriate Big agra's holdings and parcel it out to community farms. They won't authorize collectivization of manufacturing. I have no illusions about that, so I operate from a pragmatic perspective.

I don't know what you mean about people talking about liberals "not helping out." I likewise see a number of people I would guess are liberals when I caucus. Certainly many come from the affluent areas of town, as I learn in conversation along the way, so that would indicate that they are liberals. They certainly share the belief that Democrats need to get elected and many of the other issues we canvas for. Lately I've seen a number of young men, whom I suspect may be leftists based on the issues they canvass for and conversations I have had with them. They hit up this neighborhood regularly. I recently moved to a much safer, middle-class neighborhood that is clearly on the list for every community fundraising group in town, and I gather than like me many here are a soft touch.

I do know some people in red states seem particularly intent on lecturing those of us who do manage to get progressives elected. Care to share who yours are?

[Marr]

106. God, what a load of bullshit.

Yeah, you're just too left wing.

I notice you never said you volunteer for Democratic candidates at all, though you tried to imply it heavily. Do you? I'm guessing when you 'caucus'... it involves a table at Starbucks?

Also, I live in Los Angeles, so your mind reading abilities need calibration.

[hrmjustin]

134. I don't always mention when i volunteer for my local candidates but I do.

thought your response was over the top.

[Marr]

140. Really? Do you think it's over the top when the other person constantly suggests

people to their left don't help? Is that over top, or is that just peachy?

[hrmjustin]

141. I don't think the op is suggesting the left doesn't help.

[BainsBane]

136. I canvass every election

If you volunteer yourself you should know that term is used to mean going door to door rather than making phone calls, which I hate. Starbucks. I never thought of that. My local Starbucks is a hang out for Somali men, and very noisy. There are late night hours for Ramadan though. Generally the campaigns give you a list and you go door to door. I've done that in two states and the procedure didn't vary. I don't recall ever being given the address of Starbucks. Is that an LA thing?

I've volunteered for particular campaigns: Kerry, Obama, Ellison, and for the DFL, which included canvassing on all the candidates plus marriage equality and rejecting voter ID and avoiding the GOP's efforts to overturn voter registration.

In Florida I volunteered all year long registering voters, many hundreds of them. I also organized GOTV efforts in four precincts. We don't need to register voters in MN because we have same day registration, and thus the highest voter participating rate in the country. I only became a loyal Democrat in 2000, so my history with the party is not long. Before that I vacillated between voting Dem and leftist third parties.

LA. That explains a lot. I have no doubt it's the perfect place for you.

[Marr]

142. Uh-huh.

[BainsBane]

208. It's amazing how you imagine you know more about me and others here

than they do themselves. How about your canvassing? Do you go into East LA or Long Beach and tell those voters are Third Way, too low to merit your approval? Is there anyone who meets your standards for acceptable human beings? Or is it just Democrats you encounter online that you treat so dismissively? And for what sin exactly?


What exactly is so leftist about you? Is there an issue you care about? The only thing I see you post about is how much you dislike Hillary Clinton and, it seems, most Democratic voters. If that is enough to be considered a liberal (your notion of the sum total of the left), that would make the GOP far left. Would leftism entail actually caring about something besides contests among political elites? You've already been clear you see issues of social justice as beneath you, yet I don't recall your saying what it is you actually care about. If we were all acceptable Democrats, what would we be doing, besides trying to make a living and get by, of course. What would we have to do to become acceptable to you?

I remember you were one of the people who invaded my thread on Marxist theory to declare it was some clandestine plot to get Clinton elected, when of course it was nothing of the sort, didn't mention her and wasn't conceived as about her in anyway. It did compare Marist theory to a Tea Bag right-winger some were insisting was leftist. You didn't like that. (Funny when the contempt people have for Democrats doesn't extend to the GOP.) This was many months ago. Not quite sure which of you denounced the Marxists in the OP as centrist, but it was pretty funny. Clearly you're not keen on leftist political theory, so I fail to see how it is that you are so certain you are so much better than everyone else.

[AgingAmerican]

126. Liberalism is the mildest form of leftism

This is high school level political science. Your post is pure nonsense.

[BainsBane]

137. Midlest form of leftism

In a US context, not around the world. Liberal parties are establishment parties. In countries that have multi-party systems many, many parties exist to the left of liberals. The entire political ethos of the US is to the right of much of Europe and Latin America.

The rest of my post is nonsense, because you and Marr know so much more about my life and my community that I do. Truly amazing that you all repeatedly not only deny my right to raise political concerns but now my very ability to account for activities in my area. It must be something else to believe you know more about other people's lives than they do, when you have never even met them. How does one acquire the conviction that others are unfit to even recount their lives and their views?

[AgingAmerican]

138. We live in the US

In the US it is the mildest form of leftism.

[BainsBane]

139. please read my edits

And when I used the word global, it meant outside the US. That's what the word means, throughout the whole world

[AgingAmerican]

155. What I know about your life?

Huh, what? Where the hell did that come from?

[BainsBane]

156. Maybe you should actually read the post you call nonsense

before proclaiming it wrong.

[sufrommich]

52. That's the "burn it down" crew. People who naively believe that

the chaos of enough right wing governance would lead to a leftist revolution as opposed to,you know, 1930's Italy. Their "burn it down" right wing counterparts are sure that enough chaos will lead to an Ayn Rand utopia with elements of christian theocracy thrown in for good measure.

[zappaman]

120. Oh yes.

Plenty of members.
My take is that these are unhappy people who have a mantra of "misery loves company".

[BainsBane]

22. Who are your representatives?

How does electing Ellison and Franken amount to being corporate mouthpieces? Are your representatives pure enough to suit you? Who are they?

You are perhaps the worst offender. You call everyone a Third Wayer and it has nothing to do with ideology. You called a Sanders supporter a Third Wayer because he suggesting following Sanders advice and making the discussion positive. You apparently found it unacceptable than he didn't focus on average American voters as the enemy. If someone is poor and cares more about getting by than TPP, they are a Third Wayer. If someone is concerned about voting rights because they are African American and have faced life-long discrimination and a not too distant history of disenfranchisment, they are a Third Wayer. In short, anyone who doesn't promote the concerns of the bourgeoisie over the working class and the poor are Third Wayers. How is it that the so-called pure Democrats end up resenting the same people the GOP does?


What do you have to show for all your insults? Do you go around canvassing in poor neighborhoods calling those people Third Way like you do on DU? Has that helped you get progressives elected? Or do you too live in an area that sends Republicans to DC?

[TheKentuckian]

127. Ellison would still represent your district if you had never been born so how do you get to lord

having a good rep over anyone's head or take direct and personal credit for the relatively progressive bent of your area.

Are you saying if you moved that your opinions would reduce in worth somehow?

[AgingAmerican]

132. "Who are your representatives"

Is that the best line of attack you can muster?

Seriously lame.

[bvar22]

244. ...from someone who moved to Minneapolis in 2000.

I've lived in Minneapolis. One of the easiest things to do is elect a Democrat in Minneapolis.
Its EASY being Blue in the Twin Cities.... just follow the crowd.

[Marr]

51. +1, yep-- next they'll try to say 'neoliberal' is just a slur.

I've seen the same people who toss around words like 'emoprog', which are simple epithets, scoff at words like 'neoliberal' as being empty slurs.

It's completely absurd.

[zeemike]

98. As Orwell understood, controlling language is controlling thought.

[AgingAmerican]

108. You describe the OP and it's protagonists perfectly

Exactly to a tee. I would describe the OP as Orwellian.

[Maedhros]

232. Got to hand it to you, Woo.

You cut through the bullshit like a lightsaber.

Well done.

[MannyGoldstein]

243. +6.02e23 nt

[stonecutter357]

19. The same ones have a problem with money to.

It seems Rich DUER's are evil

[BainsBane]

25. Here's the irony

some of those people have far more money than the average Americans. In fact a goodly number are in the upper 10 percent. That's why I have often referred to the great and noble fight of the 10 percent vs. the 1 percent.

[kentuck]

21. It doesn't matter if it is Al Franken or Al Capone...

So long as he has a "D" by his name and the Democrats are in the majority. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And if Al Capone wins, we can get on the Internet and brag about how we voted for the "Democrat". There's really no difference. Some people just do not understand the political realities.

A Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat.

[Buzz Clik]

39. -1

[Bobbie Jo]

23. Whenever I see someone

Last edited Sat May 16, 2015, 12:58 PM - Edit history (1)

throw down the "third way!!1" smear, they immediately go into the kook category AFAIC. It makes the rest of what they may have to say suspect, IMO...

That term (even if it really exists) has been rendered meaningless around here because of its overuse and bizarre misapplication.

[R B Garr]

57. Exactly! Same with the word 'oligarchy' which has been so overused

and misapplied it now just refers to a bunch of people who know each other. Throw in a picture of someone with Henry Kissinger, and the responses turn downright bizarre.

[AgingAmerican]

158. Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power is effectively controlled by the weathy

In the case of the US it is a small group of billionaires, like the Koch brothers.

[R B Garr]

168. A dramatic oversimplification. Being photographed with wealthy people

does not by association make you part of an oligarchy, yet that's what's implied here on many occasions. These oversimplifications are a perfect example of what I was talking about. And being a billionaire is far different from making $30M over a recent period of time from your own efforts, if the recent candidates are trotted out as a phony example of oligarchy. We elect our representatives, and that takes money for both parties.

[AgingAmerican]

175. Taking money from them

Being beholden to them. That's what people worry about.

[ismnotwasm]

66. Yup

I tired of the term once it reached hysterical pitch, and I no longer pay attention to those who use it.

[Dragonfli]

27. Many people use the term incorrectly, I prefer to use it the way the self described Third Way

New Democrat Movement uses it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774832

It can be progressive on social issues and often is, but seldom is on money issues. Franken is in no way a Third Way Democrat.

[randys1]

30. New Democrat movement? Hmm, I would say New Democratic Movement.

[Dragonfli]

33. They call themselves that , not me. "New Democrat Coalition" for instance

Every one of their orgs uses Democrat that way, so I simply do not take liberties renaming them against their will.

[BainsBane]

34. I still haven't gotten a response from you

about accusing me of supporting TPP when I specifically said I opposed it.


If people describe themselves as New Democrats or Third way, then the term is appropriate. It is when it is used as an insult when people do not self-describe as such that it is a problem. Here you see people in this thread insisting the "truth hurts." What truth? What evidence do they have to support their view that the ordinary Democrats they have targeted as the enemy are actual Third Wayers or elect Third Way reps? And how does that compare to who they actually get elected?

[Dragonfli]

41. I haven't gotten to reading it yet, if I missed something you wrote, I apoligize

As I recall I was just about to crash last I spoke to you, I will have to go back to it when I get back this afternoon.

I am pleased you realize the TTP and fast track for the next 6 years is a horrible idea.


I agree that Democrats that do not try to synthesize right wing financial and left wing social policies (the heart of the third way philosophy) should not be labeled as such, but many do support such a theory and support Third Way policies, in such cases the label is valid.

[BainsBane]

71. Great. Thanks. nt

[Buzz Clik]

47. Yet another tactic of Gang Hysterical.

I expressed a desire to read the TPP before rejecting it. You can imaging the nature of the howling.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. "I’m a DLC Democrat."

"...I’m a DLC Democrat."

-Al Franken


http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/10/18/al-franken-and-al-shifa/

[Dragonfli]

56. I stand corrected, thank you /nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. In his defense it's just a label and that quote was from a long time ago...

Probably best to judge folks by their actions.


I just posted it for posterity.

[Dragonfli]

63. His actions have never screamed, "DLC' to me, so I was surprised to hear it

Thank you for the clarification, it helps me understand how his actions fail to live up to the DLC brand (a brand I am not fond of).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. The DLC disbanded anyway./NT

[Dragonfli]

70. Yes in 2011 after the Koch money scandal became too difficult to manage I can't say I blame them. nt

[hrmjustin]

32. Looks like you hit a nerve here my friend!

Well done.


Btw the first time I heard of third way was last year.

[NYC_SKP]

54. Respectfully... Why can't we demand both social AND economic justice.

I agree with the OP in the sense that use of the term is a lazy way to make an argument.

But as I mentioned in my reply, the Third Way movement is a fact.

In politics, the Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

My simplified version of it is this: "We'll let you have your gay rights and women's rights and all that but you have to let us have our wealth and our tax cuts and our power".

Seriously, it comes right down to that, it's a grand compromise between social issues and economic fairness and equity.

Even if you disagree with my characterization of Third Way, just try to think about it.

"We'll support your social needs, your rights, but you need to look the other way about Super PACs and shipping jobs overseas"

"And war. War is part of that economic gift to the rich that you have to accept to have your social rights protected."

Why is it that we can't demand both social AND economic justice?

[hrmjustin]

60. You can and you are.

As am I.

[Buzz Clik]

44. Great post. Fanstastic. Sweet as honey. You know how I can tell?

[Marr]

45. Third Wayer generally refers to one who promotes neoliberal economic policy. It has a definition.

It's not a fuzzy, meaningless insult. It means something.

[Hekate]

211. Sadly, the way it gets slung around DU, it has lost all meaning beyond Nya nya nya....

....and stinky booger brain.

Sorry about that, but when someone calls ME a Turd Wayer, they have jumped the shark.

[Cleita]

55. Wow! You just called most DUers, other than yourself, as living in an imaginary world.

I think most of us know what world we are living in. Most of us want to make a better world than the present one, not an imaginary one.

[Thinkingabout]

59. I see it used in times when the argument is not in favor of the accusing poster.

If you do not agree and you give a link, etc which proves your point then you are a third way or DINO. It is a talking point to some, not a valid one but yet a talking point. I would hope those who accuses would research to know what the Third Way stands on the issues, they would be greatly surprised.

[still_one]

62. What some folks fail to realize is that Democrats are made up of a diverse group. Are blue dogs

Last edited Sat May 16, 2015, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

"third wavers"?

Are moderate Democrats "third wavers"

What you point out is the concept of a "pure" thought or "litmus test". that some conceptualize as minimum requirements for a Democrat.

The Democratic party is an inclusive party, the republican party, not so much.

The values of a Democrat in Mississippi are not going to be the same values as a Democrat in California.

That is why Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was so successful, it recognized those differences. That is the greatest strength of the Democratic party, and in my view more representative of the entire United States than the republican party today, who have essentially "kicked" out anyone who didn't adhere. "My way or the highway", is the republican philosophy today. No room for compromise.

[woo me with science]

68. Important: Your post misses the point, which is CORRUPTION of democracy.

This will be my last kick to this Third Way talking point thread, but your post needs to be corrected.

We are not talking about "big tents." We are talking about monied corruption of our democracy.

The Third Way does not represent a different part of America. The Third Way represents Wall Street. That is the problem we face: the corruption of representative government of The People by corporate money flooding Washington. It is corporations buying policy.

The DLC, the Third Way...whatever slimy attempt at rebranding they are using these days....was *never* a grass roots movement. It was a planned and deliberate infiltration of the Democratic Party by Wall Street using corporate money, with the explicit goal of transferring the loyalty of the party from voters to Wall Street donors.

We aren't battling other Americans in a healthy democratic process here. The Third Way (and its propaganda machine) is a symptom of the CORRUPTION of our government....its subversion away from a representative system, representation of the interests of the people....into oligarchy, the PURCHASE of supposedly democratic, representative government by a monied elite.

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

New Democrats, The DLC and the Third Way
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774832

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

[kentuck]

73. None are so blind...

As those that cannot see.

It's not just about labels. It's what they stand for. To pretend otherwise is not productive.

[Dragonfli]

85. What they stand for is the crux of why we decide to support them or not, or should be

I can understand why those that are true believers in neo-liberal trade policies, privatization, trickle down economics, deregulation,and entitlement reform yet are not bigots sexists, or racists would support third way Democrats, what I fail to see is why those that do not support right wing economic goals would be willing to support them.

I am of an older generation and as such I am fond of New deal, great society, and civil rights type policies that have strengthened the people and their financial and social lot in life in concrete ways, and I support current policies that promote similar ideas in both the economic and social realm, so of course I am not supportive of politicians that espouse right wing financial policies, in my mind as in the minds of many of my generation, such politicians are what we used to know as socially liberal Republicans.

When I became a Democrat I chose not to become a Republican, my views have not changed, unfortunately much of the party has changed leaving me with old school Republicans running in my party (under a different registration) and old school Birchers running as Republicans.

I still can and do support the pols that stand for what I do, but I simply can not support what is not Democratic and unfortunately there are a great many new Democrats that stand for things that will harm me and my class.

[Enthusiast]

105. Me too, Dragonfli.

[kentuck]

179. I think a lot of it might be "generational"...

Their cognitive history does not go back beyond Ronald Reagan. And they perhaps believe that the Reagan years were the greatest in our history? How would they know differently? That is what has been pounded into their heads since they were small children or teenagers. Sometimes I think our President may have fallen under the same spell??

[Dragonfli]

198. Unfortunately I have to agree, the younger generation, at least some of them,

appear to really think that neoliberalism and the Chicago school of economics are progressive ideas because the politicians they know of - Bill Clinton, Obama and the like adopt them and speak well of Reagan and of working with republicans to "reform" the financial markets and welfare.

I don't know how many times I have been told by a poster that some right wing policy or other was progressive when in fact it was some boilerplate trickle down thing or some policy created by the COC, Cato, or the Heritage foundation and often they seem quite sincere in such mistaken beliefs.

It is a shame really, not because I am a sore loser and Reagan is winning, but rather because those policies simply do not work, never have and we all continue to suffer under their continued use.

Old Democratic policies on the other hand were quite successful more often than not, we could be growing the middle class right now instead of shrinking it, we could be fighting a war on poverty now instead of a war on the impoverished.

Or maybe I am a sore loser and the working people have never been doing better, the economy is better than ever and other such things I often hear that for some reason I simply can't see because my area and my city are some strange anomaly doing far worse than the rest of the country.

[99th_Monkey]

112. +100,000,000!!!!!!!! nt

[sufrommich]

69. Yep. nt

[Iliyah]

87. The Democratic Party is a "diverse" political party

Democracy is a "diverse" way of a sane process for a group of people and country.

Inasmuch as get soooooooooooo frustrated with some members of the Democratic Party, I still respect them. Its what makes them closer to the idealism of democracy than the "one way" GOP Party.

Agree to disagree with civility. If you must slug it out, so be it. But in the end in my opinion voting is a right, and I'll vote for a Dem (researched) than any GOP at this time.

[still_one]

107. and within the same party, there is always an open communication link to persuade someone to your

point of view

[MannyGoldstein]

67. Third-Wayism is an awful thing

It is fundamentally Neoliberalism, and has caused tremendous havoc.

I do not recall the phrase being being applied on DU in any way other than this, e.g. to mean that someone took a parking spot, or that normally-leftish Democrats are Third Wayers. Some examples to support your claims would be appreciated

[BainsBane]

72. It was a literary device, an illustration of absurdity

You should recognize the approach since you use it often.

Didn't you used to call yourself Third Way Manny?

[MannyGoldstein]

80. When I parrot Third-Way talking points, I do

sign as TWM.

Do you have an example of when I've done this inappropriately?

[MannyGoldstein]

205. I guess you don't. nt

[AZ Progressive]

76. Third Way = Corporatist Democrat, which accepts big corporations as the masters of society

And basically acts like everyone should accept big corporations as such. And not to mention, makes a lot of money out of doing so. They are not for the people, and are not in office to do their job (which would be answering only to their constituents, not donors.)

They pass supposedly Democratic things for the people, but they are very watered down compared to what a pre-70's Democrat would push. It is more like Token Liberalism.

[BainsBane]

86. Is that a common argument on DU?

Or you assume someone takes that position because they disagree on any point? Would you agree, as someone insisted, that Marx is Third Way for his discussion of the nature of capitalism and the capitalist state?

[LWolf]

83. The only people I've heard throw the term "pure" around

are those who are defending support for neo-liberal policy and/or neo-liberals.

[BainsBane]

90. You're free to make your own OP about your distaste for the word pure

Are you going to share who your representatives are?

[LWolf]

101. Points:

1. I didn't express any opinion about the word "pure." YOU said, "People seem to think pure thoughts is what defines a leftist Democrat vs. a Third Wayer." I'm pointing out that the only people I've seen tossing the word "pure" around are those who are attacking leftist Democrats with it; not leftist Democrats themselves.

2. I'm free to make my own OP about a whole host of topics; and sometimes I do. I'm also free to respond to anyone else's OP, including this one. If you only want people who agree with you to respond, you might not want to post your OPs in GD, lol.

3. Since you asked, my Senators are Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden. Merkley cannot in any universe be considered a "Third Wayer;" Wyden is closer to that philosophy than I would like, but I still wouldn't categorize him that way. His recent work for the TPA/TPP is suspect, though. My Rep, Greg Walden, is a Republican, a natural ally for 3rd Way Democrats.

[Warren Stupidity]

210. you don't own the messaging here.

On the other hand, if this shitstorm is not working out quite the way you thought it would, you can always take the cowards way out and lock it up by self deleting. Short of that, you will just have to put up with the rabble discussing your thesis as they see fit.

[Hekate]

212. BB posted the OP, and is as entitled to keep posing questions as anyone else. Meanwhile...

...the discussion seems to be going just fine, and I have not yet seen BB make a nasty reply in this thread. I'm not through reading it, though, so who knows?

You, on the other hand, seem to have had a nerve struck in you somewhere.

[AZ Progressive]

89. Third Way = Believes that big corporations are our Lords and see capitalism as our religion

They "accept" big corporations as our lords and thus all they do is fight for scraps and "please have some compassion" from our Lords, and at best get small wins in terms of regulations. They are a far cry from the early 20th century progressives like Theodore Roosevelt, who aggressively broke up the mega corporations, or the FDR Democrats, which believed in a mixed economy and forced corporations to accept labor unions and regulations and higher taxes.

DLC / Third Wayers pretty much believe this and support this:

[BainsBane]

109. FDR was capitalism's greatest savior

People laud him for what they imagine is his noblesse oblige in creating the New Deal, when in fact he co-opted the efforts of socialists, the Communist Party, poor people's movements, veterans movements, and other widespread social movements that may well have resulted in social revolution if not for FDR's efforts. Stability is key to capitalist profits, and rebellion and revolution hurt the bottom line. Don't mistake FDR for a socialist.

Also remember that as FDR was implementing the New Deal, the Democrats remained the party of Jim Crow, just as it had been the party of slaveholders before that.

Here is my problem with your type of analysis. It imagines there was some ideal past when capital did not reign supreme, when the Democratic party didn't represent moneyed interests. That has never been the case, and it certainly wasn't the case under FDR. For people in this country who grew up poor and/or discriminated against due to race or sexuality, government never represented them. They never experienced a Democratic party that served them over big business. For the white upper-middle and middle-class, they have come to see the influence of capital only recently because they previously benefited from a political system and society build around endemic inequality.

That is not to say the role of capital is just. It is not. Capitalism by its very nature is exploitative and oppressive. What has happened lately is that the veil is lifted so that even the once privileged are starting to see how bad it is, and SCOTUS has played a major role through its recent decisions laying naked the cash nexus between capital and state. The mistake many make is in creating an idyllic version of past that overlooks most people's experiences. This nation was born out of inequality, an inequality that it institutionalized through the Constitution. The US emerged as a capitalist nation and the US Constitution as the quintessential capitalistic document, perhaps capital's greatest success in terms of mythology. As capitalism has evolved, it has become more global and shattered social relations, first between worker and employer and now between citizen and government. The state's relationship to moneyed interests have changed as capitalism has changed. The Founding Fathers established government to serve landed interests, including slavery. At the turn of the twentieth century the state served industrialists, and now it is global finance capital. It is not just or morally acceptable, but nor is it new.

[ismnotwasm]

143. God I love this post

[BainsBane]

145. It's stuff like that

that gets me called a Third Wayer, me and Karl Marx. That's even when directly citing Marx!

Thanks for your support.

[Hekate]

215. You are on a roll. Carry on!

[AgingAmerican]

93. You already know what it means

Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. Socially liberal, fiscally corporate conservative. Essentially 'half-publicans'. They try to pass themselves off as, 'centrist' but I cannot find a single one who will say which Republican beliefs they ascribe to.

It is essentially a Democratic version of Libertarianism.

Most of your rant is a strawman and it has already been beaten to death on DU.

[BainsBane]

115. No, most is in response to specific conversations

Except for the parody about the rye and the parking spot.

I know what Third Way is. I also know how it is used on this site to insult anyone who disagrees in anyway, even when they support the same candidate (like Sanders) but object based on a particular tactic, like making a message positive.

Care to share with us who your representatives are?

[AgingAmerican]

123. Welcome to the internet

Those who agonize over it the most tend to be those who ascribe to it.

Just a casual observation.

I see that you are fishing for ammo to attack with, not biting.

[hifiguy]

94. Third Way = corporatists/economic royalists

who are OK with marriage equality and mushily pro choice.

See how simple that was. They used to be called moderate Republicans. They ARE repukes - the ones who couldn't stomach the religulous insanity any more

[ucrdem]

95. Based on Taibbi my reading of "third way" is that it's bat signal for crypto-libertarian

as in, send my your cranky, your misinformed, your crypto-libertarians yearning to vote for Rand Paul . . .

[Iliyah]

110. LOL

[ucrdem]

189. That's from the Statue of Libertarian

Carved into Mount Rushbo

[Enthusiast]

99. Completely unrecommended.

Just as I would have expected. I can't believe this has any recommendations.

I am happy to see it only has 14 recommendations out of over 1400 views. This tells me most DUers think it stinks.

[JEB]

104. I am in Oregon's 5th Congressional District

and we are stuck with sell out ass-hole Kurt Schrader.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026059189

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1073181

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6065424

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022517062

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1974549

What would you all call him?

[Jackpine Radical]

114. Here's pretty much what I'm referring to when I use the term:

1) Pro-fracking
2) Pro-TPA
3) Supports ISDS
4) Pro lgbt/women/ethnic minorities
5) Advocate "entitlement reform," i.e. reduction of benefits for SS, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, etc.

[stupidicus]

116. odd, I see nothing but the hollow declaration

used to besmirch the likely countless and more numerous than those you referred to that use and define it correctly.

And all this "who you get elected" determines proper usage or the right to use it BS, is about as ________ as it gets.

If you support fascism-lite/corporacracy in whole or significant part on foreign/domestic, or both issues, while claiming demhood, you're more than likely a thirdway dem.

This post shoulda been alerted on, given the obvious implication of all/most of "Those charging others with being thirdwayers are ignorant or dishonest nincompoops!!" -- or a clear departure from reality and civil discourse.

WOW, non-thirdwayers occasionally getting elected means thirdwayers don't exist or that critiques of thirdwayers should end, as well as any and all efforts to identify and remove them, or to chastise their syncophants here? Is that what passes for unassailable logic around here these days?

too funny

[BainsBane]

125. I have no problem with its proper use

Nor did I deny the Third Way exists, so your point is non-responsive. You of course are free to alert for the horror of being exposed to an idea that doesn't conform to orthodoxy.

As for fascism, I suggest you read Mussolini to understand it's actual meaning. The corporate state under fascism was not the capitalist state as we have here in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
It comes from the Latin root meaning body, as the fascists, like Latin American populists, conceived of the state as like the human body, a living organism that should work in harmony rather than conflict. It was indeed an idea of forging a middle way, though that way was between capitalism and communism. It sought to circumvent socialist revolution by co-opting workers, peasants, industrialists, and the military into the formal structures of the state. We in the US have a capitalist state, meaning the state serves capital--money and moneyed interests.

[MannyGoldstein]

128. It is *you* who will not demonstrate where

it's been misusedmisused even once, let alone often.

I don't recall that it has been.

[YoungDemCA]

129. Fascism is a very ugly ideology

The burden of proof is on the person using the epithet.

Of course you wouldn't think it's been misused.

[MannyGoldstein]

131. Is there an organization that named itself The Third Way? nt

[YoungDemCA]

133. There is.

What is your point?

[MannyGoldstein]

135. Is there also a political philosophy commonly known

as Third Way? If yes, does the organization embrace this philosophy?

[stupidicus]

237. of course you do

because almost all people use it properly, and your effort to educate me about fascism is nothing more than a transparent dodge imposed by your inability to provide any of the material alleged. ANd even if you did provide say, some poster or two daring to verbally assault you with an erroneous or fallacious designation of that sort, it still leaves you holding nothing but a dishonest extrapolation you haven't a prayer of supporting. I'm sure there's widespread agreement as to what fascism/corporatocracy is as applied to our government, and no one cares if Mussolini was referring to corps as different entitities of the state's creation, or whether it is improperly defined as our current problem, corps instead dictating to the state via politician ownership. The little guy sees little but the boot or thumb he's under, not who owns it, and could likely care less what/who you call that owner.

It doesn't matter if I assert that thirdwayers are fascist-lite, or oligarchist/plutarchist/part of the "1%" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/the-corporatocracy-is-the_b_1070659.htmletc, because it really doesn't matter much what you call them in this "us v them" war we're embroiled in. Furthermore, there's likely notta single reader here that was CONfused about my meaning or point. "Thirdwayers" simply do not like the negative connotations attached to the label now that the negative results of their dirty work over the last couple of decades (BC whining about too many in prison as a result of his policies, failed welfare reform, Glass-Steegal, etc) is increasingly becoming common knowledge.

In the U.S. corporatocracy, as in most modern tyrannies, there are elections, but the reality is that giant corporations and the wealthy elite rule in a way to satisfy their own self-interest. In elections in a corporatocracy, as is the case in elections in all tyrannies, it's in the interest of the ruling class to maintain the appearance that the people have a say, so more than one candidate is offered up. In the U.S. corporatocracy, it's in the interest of corporations and the wealthy elite that the winning candidate is beholden to them, so they financially support both Democrats and Republicans. It's in the interest of corporations and the wealthy elite that there are only two viable parties--this cuts down on bribery costs. And it's in the interest of these two parties that they are the only parties with a chance of winning. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/the-myth-of-us-democracy-corporatocracy_b_836573.html

All I see here is someone whining about others calling them part of the problem http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obamaheads-like-Extreme-R-by-Patrick-Walker-130504-698.html which may not be that far from the truth, no?


fascism
/ˈfæʃɪzəm/
noun (sometimes capital)
1.
any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2.
any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3.
prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

there's likely a misspelling or grammatical error in there somewhere iffin you wanna focus on the irrelevant again as opposed defending the nonsense about the ignorance poor little you is being victimized by due to definition ignorance on the part of your opposition.

[BainsBane]

238. How interesting you think a capitalist state isn't bad enough

Last edited Sun May 17, 2015, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

that you need to present it as something else.

You've already threatened to alert on me, and now you want links? I gave you one example in the OP. Another when as a Sanders supporter indicated that Sanders advised a positive approach instead of negative. One member who is posting in this thread called that Third Way. I have seen Marx, fucking Karl Marx, referred to as centrist.

You want the US to be fascist, have at it. Evidently you see something admirable in capitalism that a capitalist state, which is what it is, is not enough to express the fact the state represents capital. I don't give a shit what someone on Huffington Post says. No political scientist will describe the US as fascist, and certainly no one educated in Marxist theory, but I have noticed that very few here read Marx or other leftist political theory.

And really, so what if you don't agree with my observations about the use of Third Way? You wan to call Keith Ellison Third Way, Bernie Sanders supporters, or anything else, that's your problem. It doesn't make it true. And really, why get so agitated over something you are certain doesn't occur?

Third Way is a think tank, an organization. It does not apply to African Americans and LBGT concerned more about civil rights, or ordinary Democratic voters trying to make a living. It is a slur that serves to divide the people and as such serves the interests of capital. People who think they are so holier and thou but spend all of their time, rather than mobilizing against the powerful and money interests, Wall Streets or corporations, attack ordinary Americans, often far less financially fortune that themselves do nothing to undermine power. They reinforce it by actively and deliberately undermining solidarity necessary to challenge entrenched financial interests. But then of course there is no desire to undermine financial interests. The only goal is to create an exclusive club of true believers defined not by position on issues or even candidates they support (which is already trivial), but an in-crowd, no different from a junior high school clique. And here I am--the fat girl, the nerd, the uncool kid--pointing out what I see, piercing an unjustified conviction of superiority.

Search Third Way and Turd Way in the search bar. You'll see plenty of examples. The difference is you think insulting ordinary voters is a true and just cause. How else can capital be protected but by dividing the lower classes and denying its power, even its existence, by pretending fascism is the problem. Fascism fell. Capitalism is far stronger, far more predatory and more successful in its cultural hegemony (Gramsci, Google it).

[stupidicus]

248. good grief

the only presentation I've made in short, is that the thirdway label has been associated with less than desirable legislative/policy pursuits (or why it's become a pejorative) that have been undesirable and failures, and alleged that your insistence that those that use the label don't know what it means, or that who they help get elected determines all that, is a load of garbage. SO far, those points remain wholly unaddressed and intact, and were migrating further away from it with a continuing focus (on your part) with tangentially related crap about what is or isn't proper to equate or compare the "thirdway" movement to.

Fascism and capitalism are apples and oranges -- which is which you can designate -- given that capitalism is an econ system and fascism a gov system with capitalism as the favored econ system.

And fascism, perhaps not coincidentally, was also seen as a "third way" by those who brought it into this world.

Gee, what should one do, make like an ostrich and ignore/remain blind to the thridway org and its efforts? WHy not then, the rightwingnuttery they often participate in? That's what it appears some promote http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6690087 and quite stupidly I might add.

[Phlem]

122. OMG.

really, there aren't enough of these for this post.

jeeebus!

[YoungDemCA]

124. It's a generic slur, used by those who think the Democratic Party has been "taken over"

by "Wall Street" or "Corporate America" in recent decades.

Yet, the record shows that the Democratic Party has always had its pro-corporate, pro-free trade, pro-Capital elements. That is nothing new. Consider the following:

“At the center of (the New Deal's basis of support) were not the millions of farmers, blacks, and poor that have preoccupied liberal commentators, nor even the masses of employed or striking workers who pressured the government from below (and later helped implement some of the New Deal’s achievements), but something else—a new power bloc of capital-intensive industries, investment banks and internationally oriented commercial banks.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10248347 (original quote by Thomas Ferguson, in "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Politics."

So the notion that the Democratic Party was ever unequivocally a "Party of the People" flies in the face of the historical record - especially when you consider all of the people who were, until the latter half of the twentieth century, ( within living memory) all but excluded from the Party.

[kentuck]

154. The myth of inclusivity

There is no use to even pretend anymore? The simple idea that people should embrace some sort of imaginary utopia where people believed they had the power to make things better for everyone. Such a shame...

[BainsBane]

157. Thanks for that

and of course true.

[Romulox]

147. It's general shorthand for "corporatist Democrat" and is all too appropriately used. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. Yup, this is following the same script

Silly season...

[mvd]

153. I use it to describe..

Corporate friendly, anti-major Wall Street reform, bend over backwards to be bipartisan Democrats. It's aptly used in those cases. I support the progressives in all cases against them. No, I wouldn't rather have Repukes, but in some cases it's way too close. So people stay home or are uninspired. If you think it is being used unfairly here, you can alert or put the person on ignore. No, it shouldn't be blanket term in an argument. Is Franken Third Way? Probably not - he's maybe a little left of Obama and Hillary but not enough to refrain from being backers of them. Franken certainly isn't my main concern among Democrats, even though he isn't a super progressive.

[BainsBane]

160. Alert? Ignore?

You can't be serious? That would be a huge number of people.

What I don't understand is that if people think Wall Street and corporate power are the problem, why do they spend so much time attacking ordinary voters, often less fortunate that themselves? IF you really want to tackle those interests, it will take solidarity among huge numbers of people. If people go around and insult anyone who they merely suspect may disagree, over for example something as trivial as assessment of a particularly member of the political elite, they make it impossible to build that solidarity. Moreover, they demonstrate they don't want it. Their actions directly contradict their stated views, which is why I wonder if the point is not to change society or government but rather simply to create an in-crowd on DU that they define in opposition to others, Lord of the Flies style. That sure is what it seems like.

[mvd]

162. They are just tools you can use

I can't make it go away. So I suggested to you. Also how do you know they don't try to build solidarity? In many cases, if not all, the terms fit.

[BainsBane]

174. Well, I can tell they aren't interested in building it here

With people who agree with them on 98 percent of issues and may even support the same candidate for the nomination.

Alerts would be useless. I'd be locked out 0-7, without a doubt. I do trash some threads or just plain ignore others, but I can't block out everything. I save ignore for people who engage in personal attacks unrelated to subject matter. I understand people disagree on all kinds of things. That's how it is.

[mvd]

176. Well they do talk about why they support what they do

I don't just see attacks. Unfortunately that 2% contains some pretty major things with some Democrats. As you said though you can't just block out everything. I was just suggesting DU tools to help.

[Romulox]

159. What's really depressing is that the corporate-crats have gotten nearly everything they've asked for

over the past 30 years, and they STILL aren't happy. It's complete capitulation that they require.

[octoberlib]

161. I don't know who called Franken and Ellison third way but

that's patently ridiculous. I'd love to have them in my state.


See, here's the thing about red states ... actually I'll use my state North Carolina as an example even though it's purple. We have 3 lawsuits that have been filed concerning voting rights and disenfranchisement (that I know of, there may be more).

The first one was filed by the Justice Department concerning voting rights

The second one concerns gerrymandering. NC has the most extreme gerrymandering in the US. So extreme that the US Supreme court declared it unconstitutional and told the NC Supreme court to get it fixed. In 2012 Democrats won the popular vote but Republicans retained control of the legislature due to gerrymandering. Democrats in this state did their job to get their candidates elected but to no avail.

Another lawsuit is getting ready to be filed against Gov. Pat McCrory by voting rights groups and the NAACP. Turns out thousands of Democratic voter registrations disappeared from the rolls in 2014 ,most of them minority. So these people were unable to vote. Republican Thom Tillis managed to get elected to the Senate in an extremely close race , even though Hagan was ahead in the polls. We might have had another Democrat in the Senate if the rolls hadn't been purged.

This is what's it's like for Democrats living in a red state or purple state controlled by Republicans. Sometimes it just isn't as simple as working hard to get our candidate elected. We do work hard .We all do.

[BainsBane]

163. I realize that it's hard

I'm not disputing that. I find it ironic, however, when red state folks complain about Third Wayers when all they manage to get elected is Tea Baggers. Surely they understand the electorate and circumstances vary greatly from state to state. I realize that every state isn't MN, and every congressional district isn't like mine. How is that concept lost on some others, particularly those who can't get Dems elected?

For what it's worth, I don't think the poster thought much about who she was referring to. We had a discussion over many posts and I think she just threw out the Third Way candidates comment as defense mechanism, insult, because she was down in an argument: "Your third way candidates can't get elected." Well, they aren't Third Way and they have been elected.

[octoberlib]

169. I see where you're coming from.

[Romulox]

164. Franken has emerged as an ardent defender of NSA spying. I don't get it either. nt

[mvd]

165. Interesting, what does he support exactly?

That would be disappointing for sure.

[Romulox]

166. Use google. I don't have the details at hand. nt

[mvd]

171. I see - in 2013 he definitely defended NSA

In 2014 he changed a bit, saying the spying ability needs to be contained. Haven't seen anything from this year.

[hrmjustin]

167. Looks like elected progressives who support Hillary will get grief for it by some.

[kentuck]

181. I don't think "Hillary progressives" will get grief...

But I do think they will get questioned. Sometimes it may get a little warm in the kitchen but that does not mean they are not welcome. Defend her or not, that is their choice.

I would agree that "grief" might be in the eye of the beholder.

[hrmjustin]

182. Questions are good but grief is what some get.

To be fair i am sure some elected Sanders supporters get grief from the establishment privately.

[kentuck]

190. Of course, some will consider it grief.

I don't think it is necessarily the case. I say, let's have a debate about it.

[hrmjustin]

191. It depends on the poster I guess.

And what exactly is said.

[kentuck]

197. I would expect criticism...

but I would not grieve about it.

[hrmjustin]

199. Criticism that is fair should be taken well.

But criticism that is untrue and unfair must be challenged.

[Hekate]

173. My gratitude, BB. It's gotten to the point that I disregard anything a person says after "Third Way"

I Trash threads with Third Way in the header. It's unbelievably knee-jerk meaningless to use the term as it is being used at DU.

[hrmjustin]

186. I agree. I just assume third way threads are there to bash Hillary and her supporters.

[betsuni]

217. Thank you -- this thread has cleared things up about Third Way

and the people who use it as a go-to insult. Now I know why all the "civil rights vs income equality" discussions as if it's a black-or-white issue. If someone believes most Democrats are Third Way, right-wing in economic policy and left-wing in social policy, they have it in their heads that Democrats CAN'T do both. Those who support Democrats because of civil rights and think incremental change through getting more Democrats into office to pass more progressive laws are too stupid to see the real agenda, the plan to hand over the car keys to the oligarchs.

I get it!

[Maedhros]

233. The problem with the "incremental change to pass more progressive laws" theory is

that it's used to convince us to hold our noses and vote for conservative democrats.

By doing so, we're making the Party more conservative.

A more conservative Party will not enact "more progressive" laws.

[Doctor_J]

219. The dinos invented that term themselves to explain calling themselves democrats while

adopting corporate republican policies. Ift their worshippers take offense at the term, my advice would be to take it up with those who concocted the euphemism for themselves.

[Dont call me Shirley]

222. 3rdWay is To D as TeaParty is to R

[Cha]

224. LOL.. Senator Al Franken and Rep Keith Ellison were called the "Third Way"? No, not even surprised

[MannyGoldstein]

228. I doubt that really happened

Since no links seem to exist to it.

[Scuba]

229. I miss the unrec button.

[MannyGoldstein]

230. I just did a search, and can find no evidence

that Ellison and Franken were called Third Wayers.

Link or slink.

[BainsBane]

241. I describe the exchange in another post in this thread

You can look for it. I'm not linking to anything on your demands. Throw some other witch in the water and watch her sink.

[MannyGoldstein]

242. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Your evidence seems to be sorely lacking.

[JI7]

234. out of touch, internet warriors, not much else

this has been going on for years .

notice the only elections they seem to become aware of are those the national media reports on. so people mostly following msm , the usual pundit crowd and posting about it.

things are happening locally all the time . i'm telling you those who make such dramatic posts and demands are not involved in any of that.

"third way" is the biggest example of this out of touch bs. people in the real world are not using it.

also just look at how areas that are heavily democratic and liberal like san fransisco can be horrible towards the homeless.

i'm in an area that is mostly democratic but that doesn't mean every or even most of them will support every liberal issue i support. why do you think someone like chris christie gets elected in new jersey. and it has nothing to do with some unknown democrats endorsing him. they endorsed him to help themselves because he was popular . but of course too many can't see things in this way.

i think back to that stupid recall election in california which got rid of Davis and gave us Arnold who was a disaster. there were too many democrats who were excited about the terminator being governor of their states. and they would say horrible things about davis who we later saw was right in his calling out the energy companies .

[Samantha]

235. The first time I came across the term "Third Way" was in a bio of Bill Clinton

He and people in his camp were searching for a term to describe his particular brand of Presidential maneuvering/negotiating. Most DU'ers know that he regrettably ended up supporting some of the ideas promoted by Republicans that Democrats unquestionably opposed. And if the particular legislation turned out to be successful, he claimed for full credit! -- totally angering the Republicans. He was not nicknamed "The Natural" for nothing.

With the fall from public grace of the DLC, many in that camp sought a new home and found one with the Third Way crowd.

No matter how one cuts the defining of Third Wayers, it seems to me today the only way to begin to offset people who consider themselves classic Dems, or perhaps Franklin Roosevelt Dems, from the Third Way stench, is to move further left to the Democratic Socialist camp with Bernie Sanders. I believe I am going to saunter right on over for the duration....

Sam

[BainsBane]

240. The country has since moved left

quite recently. You'll remember that Clinton ran at a time when Republicans had held the presidency since 1968 (except for four years under Carter). They had a strangle hold over the executive. While I myself commonly referred to Clinton as the best Republican president we ever had, I think it fair to keep in mind the context he was operating in.

[Hekate]

245. This board does not do context, sadly.

[KamaAina]

249. Both Franken and Ellison are about as far from being Third Wayers

as it is possible to be.