Will Democratic Party be more progressive or more moderate by next election?

[kentuck]

Bernie has already said that the Party cannot do the same old, same old... What did he mean by that?

Bernie still has a large email list and a huge number of supporters. It is my understanding that he has gone back to "Independent" label but is caucusing with the Democrats?

In my opinion, Bernie and his followers have plans of taking over the Democratic Party that we have known since the 1990's? The old DLC will cease to exist if they have their way.

That is their plan to build the Democratic Party from the ground up.

Let me know if there are any problems with this post and I will delete it. I am trying to stay ahead of the curve.

[still_one]

1. The Democratic Party will be both

[DanTex]

2. Hopefully it will be more progressive in progressive states and more moderate in moderate states.

What we need are electoral victories, and the candidates we choose in each state or district should reflect the electorate there.

[Docreed2003]

39. This!

Well said. One size does and will not fit all in every district.

[LonePirate]

3. Either way it will embrace knowledge, science, critical thinking & common sense more than the Repubs

[leftstreet]

4. I don't see how it could get any more 'moderate' n/t

[Kimchijeon]

5. Well if it doesn't get 100% more progressive then RIP

Frankly I would hope that the future would embrace change for the better.
More moderate? Jeez. The only way for survival here is to step it up and try to act like a first world country, and support progressive platforms. If not, good fucking night - we already have a fascist administration so good luck ever getting them out.

For all of our sakes, the Democratic party should be more progressive (if winning any elections are, you know, important)

But will it be? Who knows.

[boston bean]

30. 100% more progressive??

[kentuck]

6. Is the DLC dead?

I never really cared for them. I thought they were bad for our Party from the beginning.

[BainsBane]

7. what did he mean when he said it in the 1960s?

The period he now claims he wants to return the party to? The fact is he has always been critical of the party, even as it was enormously successful electorally.

Progressivism has lost all meaning. We see endless threads with no discussion of issues. We see declarations of the demise of the party because the guy who won the election for DNC brings a background fighting for labor rights and against voter disenfranchisement, but is despised for not backing the right person in the primary.

It's become clear to me that power plays about control over the party have been falsely and cynically cast as about "corporate control" vs. The people. It's time for people to start thinking for themselves, quit relying on slogans and labels and identify what it is they actually care about. If the only goal is advancing one politician's interests or another's, then be honest about it. Don't pretend it's an ideological battle when it is about power plays where opponents are cast as ideological foes--not because of their actual positions but because people have decided to use political patronage* as a proxy for ideology. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/sanders-revolution-resists-dnc-loss-235404 It isn't, and nothing shows that more clearly than what was done to Jaime Harrison (along with the litany of conservative positions, Like pro-life, pro-Assad, and anti-Iran peace deal, pro-gun and anti-immigration reform justified because of those patronage networks). It's also demonstrated by the fact that none of Perez' critics can point to any problems with him other than he was backed by "the establishment" (in actuality, President Obama) rather than Sanders.

I will no longer accept empty labels. It is incumbent on those who claim they want to reform the party to be specific about policies and principles they want to promote. The stakes are to great to fail to do so. Politicians are not ideologies. Using them as proxies for it is a false construct that solves nothing. Rather, it promotes factionalism for its own sake. If people would instead articulate key ideas--policies and reforms--they want to see the party champion, they will likely find a great deal of common ground.

I happen to love Maxine Waters, but I am not going to declare anyone who doesn't share my personal view of her as the "DLC" or a "corporatist" or "establishment." Those who have decided to identify themselves according to a settled primary need to move beyond the assumption that doing so suffices for ideology or principle. It does not.

(*Note that by patronage I'm referring to political networks related to support for a given politician rather than political spoils.)

[delisen]

46. You have a good analysis. It's not democracy if people back a person rather than a set of principles

Many people who are calling themselves progressive don't seem very democratic to me.

[Talk Is Cheap]

8. If Democrats want a democratic majority like we have in California...

...then we need to... Yes, progressives need to take over the party and destroy the old DLC.

The majority of people, all people, want what the progressives are offering. And if you don't like the word progressives, just call it something else. To me, it is just normal people wanting to live a free, healthy, and prosperous life.

[kentuck]

9. Howard Dean was talking something similar on MSNBC...

about how the younger generation is different from the Baby Boomer. They are more inclined to social justice. I tend to agree with Howard.

[Talk Is Cheap]

11. I am a boomer...

..and want more progressiveness in government.

There are so many terms now days, like social justice. Exactly what does 'social justice' mean anyway?

[delisen]

50. Father Coughlin-of early "talk radio" notoriety of had a newspaper called Social Justice.

He had a radio show, railed against the banks, was anti-semitic, and eventually leaned fascist.

From wikipedia: In 1935, Coughlin proclaimed, "I have dedicated my life to fight against the heinous rottenness of modern capitalism because it robs the laborer of this world's goods. But blow for blow I shall strike against Communism, because it robs us of the next world's happiness."[24] He accused Roosevelt of "leaning toward international socialism on the Spanish question". Coughlin's NUSJ gained a strong following among nativists and opponents of the Federal Reserve, especially in the Midwest.

[BainsBane]

14. Social justice has been roundly denounced by some self-proclaimed progressives

We've been told it is "third way." We've been told that racism and sexism are distractions, that what really matters are the wallets of the white male middle class. We are told that Democrats no longer represent the "working class," even as the majority of low and middle-income workers who are not white and male, and overwhelmingly vote Democratic, have been rhetorically defined outside of the working class.

Public servants who fight for voting rights and workers rights are denounced as "corporatists," while protections for the corporate gun lobby are championed as "progressive." We even see so-called progressives insisting women's reproductive rights be abandoned in order to court the more important white Republican male voter. Meanwhile, the fact millions of voters of color were disenfranchised is ignored entirely because they don't vote for the right faction within the party.

I see a hell of a lot of reactionary ideas being passed off in the name of progressivism.

Howard Dean cares about social justice, but then he has been denounced as an "establishment" lackey. If it is true that social justice is on the rise, that doesn't speak well for the efforts of those who seek the sublimation or abandonment of such issues.

[Talk Is Cheap]

23. Name the 'progressives' who have denounced 'social justice'...

It would make no sense for anybody to say racism and sexism are distractions.

I would think that we can do more than one thing at a time...

[BainsBane]

28. You're new here

We have had endless discussions about how "social justice" is easy for centrists and how economic justice is more important. That argument comes from those insist the party isn't "progressive" enough. They also tend to be people who refused to vote for Clinton in the GE and are no longer around. Statements by certain public officials decrying "identity politics" and proclaiming economic matters the "more important issue" have fed into that idea.

[Rex]

37. We can and do.

We have a few binary thinkers, but they are on their way out along with the old guard.

[boston bean]

32. That was Hillary.

And she got 3m more votes. I am really confused as to what people want.

[BainsBane]

16. Shall we all implement three strikes?

Put half the population in prison, link property taxes to outdated values, and defund education so that the rest of the rest of our school systems can drop as sharply in quality as California's?

In my state we actually voted down marriage discrimination rather than voting it into the state constitution. It didn't take a court ruling to force us to respect equal rights.

Seems to me you have some business to tend to at home before you pretend to have all the answers for the rest of the country.

[Talk Is Cheap]

20. I wrote that CA has a Democratic majority...

Progressive, i.e. normal values would be obtainable with a majority in the
House, Senate, and Presidency.

Feel free to remove California from this discussion thread and think nationally.
A majority would allow us to succeed.

[BainsBane]

22. "normal values" doesn't say any more than Progressive

Perhaps even less. What are those values? What policies?

[Talk Is Cheap]

24. Go look at the polls on the policies that most people want...

And no, I am not going to provide a link.

[BlueStateLib]

52. california incarceration rate is 14% lower than national average

693 vs 597 per 100,000
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2016.html

[BainsBane]

56. Only because they've been able to

Dismantle the damage done by the insane three strikes admendment. Their amendments limiting taxation ran up against three strikes and they had to start letting people out of prison. They've done a lot of damage with referendums.

[George II]

58. "The majority of people want what the progressives are offering"? Surely you can direct us....

...to where that came from.

[0rganism]

10. 2018? probably a little more progressive

by 2020, we'll be lucky if it still exists as a party one can legally join

[First Speaker]

12. It should be moderate/liberal on specific policy issues...

...but uncompromisingly militant on basic questions of democracy...ie, Trump himself, his treasonous connections to Putin, and above all, voting rights. When the GOP acts in a democratically illegitimate manner, we should make this clear, and even say that we don't recognize said illegitimacy. Period. Within that context, I'd we willing to listen to sane Republicans--if there are any--about traditional policy matters.

[treestar]

13. Depends on the voters

and how they can be persuaded.

[Cary]

15. Indivisible. Haven't you heard?

Forget Our Revolution. It ain't happening.

[BainsBane]

18. Our Revolution worked on a local state Senate race in MN

I'm not going to discourage any organization that wants to roll their sleeves up and get to work. All hands on deck. If Bernie and Jeff Weaver can get some people to work for Democratic candidates who wouldn't otherwise, more power to them.

[Rex]

17. IMO, the entire country will be more progressive next election.

After the GOP destroys our social safety net.

[uponit7771]

19. +1, unless Benedict Donald comes out for single payer they'll be destroying the safety net

[Rex]

38. Seems he does whatever gets him the most ego strokes. nt

nt

[Wounded Bear]

21. Wrong question...

by 2018, the Democratic Party should be more widespread.

More visible in local and state elections around the country.

Better organized.

More numerous.

Ideological questions just tend to create divisions where they are not needed. I agree that over the past couple of decades, the Party has drifted to far to the right, mostly because of disaffected moderate Repubs who moved away from the extreme RW crap they were doing. Now is not the time for purity tests. Now is the time for organizing.

[Talk Is Cheap]

27. But, our issues need to be spoken loud and clear..

How else can people know what the Dem party is all about.

And Dems need to start having a freaking backbone...

[boston bean]

33. Name specific issues some/you feel are not represented by the dem party.

[Talk Is Cheap]

35. I wrote that the issues need to be spoken loud and clear...

Meaning, first we need to agree of the specifics of our issues, and I will
add, shoot high. Then, as a collective voice, speak loud and clear to people
in every single county in America.

[boston bean]

36. I need to know specifically what people think is wrong or where the party is lacking.

I am pretty satisfied with the platform. Not sure what all the complaints about democrats are. I got hella lot more complaints and differences with Republicans.

[Rex]

42. Sounds like a great idea!

[Wounded Bear]

48. We just ran on a pretty progressive platform...

I don't know how we need a huge debate about that. It's still out there, and spare me the bullshit about it being a "losing" platform.

We didn't lose on the issues in '16.

Besides, individual candidates in local races will have to base their campaign on local issues.

Demanding that local city council candidates adopt our national platform kind of feeds into the whole "Washington is out of touch" line. Who's side did you say you were on?

[Talk Is Cheap]

53. What the heck is the problem here?

Did I ever write about a 'losing' platform? Fuck No.

Did I ever write of "Demanding that local city council candidates adopt our national platform "? Fuck NO.

Then you ask me who's side am I on? Just that the fuck is going on here?

[Wounded Bear]

55. Good question...

you go ahead and waste time on policy issues. I'm more worried about expanding the base and adding more voters in '18.

We don't have a lot of time to waste polishing our platform, it's already there.

This cycle is about quantity for me, not necessarily quality.

Carry on.

[Talk Is Cheap]

57. Wait a minute dude/dudette...

You just wrote a bunch of lying shit about something I did not write.

We do not have to follow your rules on what can or cannot be written here.

How about some civility here.

An apology is in order.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

41. Well said

[NewDealProgressive]

25. I've been saying we need to take over the party from the ground up since Occupy started.

But I was always shouted down by the uber purists who thought getting into the party was dirty and that would should be advocating for truly pie in the sky things like abolishing capitalism and money itself.

If they had listened back then, we'd have President Bernie right now.

Better late than never though. It's important to go full on progressive to fight the full on fascism from the other side.

[surrealAmerican]

26. "What did he mean?"

Do you really need to ask? He meant that if we keep doing the same thing, we can expect the same results. Those results have not been winning elections, not at the federal, state, or local levels. I live in an unusually liberal area, and even I can see that.

[BainsBane]

29. Yet he keeps saying the same thing

for decades now, regardless of the electoral strength of the party when he says it. There is a certain irony in that.

Then there is the fact that "doing the same thing" is involved against anyone but his particular choice for a leadership position. There is no honest assessment in which Perez can be described as "the same thing" as Brazille or DWS.

[crazycatlady]

31. IIRC the 2016 platform is ultra progressive

And correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the party's official platform until the next convention (2020).

As for the Democratic parties of the past. The 1960s were mentioned in this thread--- everyone eligible to vote then is in ther 70s or older. (For that matter, the youngest people eligible to vote for Reagan turned 50 last year). We have not one but two generations of voters who were either young children or the 60s were a part of history books for them. It is time to move on and develop a platform for 2017 and 2018 elections and focus on candidate recruitment.

One of the biggest problems the Democrats had is they left many races (Congressional and below) uncontested. That is like forfeiting a football game before kickoff. If you don't play the game, you're sure to lose.

[Initech]

34. With the rise in hate crimes being committed by Trump fans...

We have to make sure we are not them.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

40. They'll be more progressive than the current clowns who control Congress

That is all that matters. This purity fight helped put them in charge.

[blue neen]

43. More progressive or more moderate?

The important thing is that there are MORE Democrats.

[Wounded Bear]

49. Hear, hear! nt

[Blue_true]

44. More progressive. nt

[delisen]

45. Are you able to define progressive? otherwise I think your question is unanswerable

The best person to answer the question about what Sanders meant by "same old, same old" is Sanders.

[MarvinGardens]

47. Yes (nt)

[joshcryer]

51. We won't have a platform as progressive as the 2016 platform for a long time.

And people will weep when they see the 2020 platform.

[democratisphere]

54. Dems better have a gigantic tent and make room for both.

Divided we fall and fail. Who wants a repeat of this last disastrous election.

[George II]

59. Surprise! The DLC was disbanded more than six years ago!