2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJaneyVee
(19,877 posts)If you think the party is too far right for you why dont you get involved in shifting it left, especially on the local level. Liberals should want to build upon, not keep trying to tear down. Sometimes progress is measured one inch at a time.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Given the entrenched corruption in the Democratic party, you may have more ultimate success in the Green party than the Democratic party. Of course, initially it will be a tough slog (as it was for Bernie in VT initially).
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Green has no seats at the table.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)blm
(112,920 posts)Politics is the art of the possible given the changing goals of many disparate factions. There are no pure alliances on the sides. On ANY side.
I know anti-corporate vegans aligned with NRA and vice-versa.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)When I was younger, I didn't understand having to wait for years and years for my efforts to make things change.
Now I do. This is the way it works. Fight, fight, fight, you'll get there eventually. Instant gratification has no place in politics. That's why the SC is so damned important. Because it took LGBT 40 years to scrape bloody-handed inch by inch to where they are now, and the SC could rip that progress away in a heartbeat.
A lot of Bernie's supporters are young. They want to see change happen now. I get it, I sympathise. But long-term change is the only achievable and sustainable change, in American politics.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Govt works at the speed of incrementalism.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)In one short stretch of history he changed the nature of the country.
So, excuse me if I don't buy into your lame excuses.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)the Great Depression to help his policies along. People knew things had to change, and change fast. They pestered their Reps and senators enough that they went along with FDR's policies.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Reagan , W. , they fucked things up in a hurry.
Edit to add:
We have never really fought back from they way they changed our country, only "incremental" baby steps, mostly limited to social issues.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We're in a mess, and it's the cumulative total of of three decades of acquiescence and the active collaboration of too many in the Democratic Party with the goals of the GOP and the Corporate Wall St. Elites and the CONservative agenda.
We've got to take some major steps to correct that NOW, instead of allowing that reverse incrementalism to continue.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)...trust me, Liberals want to build. But it's going to take a lot of re-build.
Progress inch by inch-- not buying it anymore. More like one step forward and three steps back.
The message "you need to get on board" you outsiders, is over IMO, if Hill is elected. The only way the party could be reunited is if Bernie is elected.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)when the oppression gets to be too much, when the oligarchs at the top lose touch with the people they are SUPPOSED to represent. Some times enough is enough.
And that "building on" hasn't been working. . . the wealth has grown 250% since the 80s but the wages have stayed the same. . . and we have had 16 years of 2 Democratic presidents in the last 24 years and those wages are the same but the Koch Brothers DOUBLED their wealth under this last Democratic president.
Did YOUR wealth double? Mine didn't either. Is that what "building on" means to you? The rich are the ones getting the "building" and we are the ones who it is done "on". Not my idea of progress.
I prefer progress for ALL. And 16 years of Democratic presidents have not made that happen for everyone. The rich are doing GREAT !!!!
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)as evidenced by her shenanigans on Clinton's behalf. Sandwers is big enough to move in spite of Debbie and Rahm and the rest of Third Way, but little guys like us might find that a herculean task.
Nanjeanne
(4,878 posts)In about 6 years he:
Created Great Society Legislation. Civil Rights Act, Voting rights act, appointed Thurgood Marshall to Supreme Court, signed Higher Education Act, started National Endowment for Humanities and National Endowment for the Arts, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Food Stamps, Immigration Act and our first manned flight to the moon.
Of course the Vietnam War overrides much of what we remember but do not say we need to move forward in inches. I won't accept that. Money in politics is why we can't get anything done. And why we need to address that first.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)casperthegm
(643 posts)Maybe we should just make one. How about one where the candidates are not owned by Wall Street? Would that be a good start?
brooklynite
(93,852 posts)They're actually not hard to get; then you can work to change the Party to what you want it to be.
Or, you can complain from behind your keyboard.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--and you want what?
brooklynite
(93,852 posts)...I started out in politics as a Ward Committeeman in Philadelphia. The Ward Committee helps pick the City Committee which helps pick the State Committee which helps pick the DNC.....see how that works? And all along the way they discuss issues and help elect candidates to implement them.
Too often, when someone complains about the Party not representing their interests, it appears that it's someone else's job to provide an alternative, OR that they want to support a single candidate to express all of their concerns. Look at all the posts about how much has been contributed to Bernie Sanders; how much you want to bet has been contributed to House Senate and Governor races, State legislative seats or local councils?
Politics is long, hard and complicated. Get used to it.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I've been in it at local level since the 80's. But I haven't achieved your level of cynicism thankfully.
Yes I know how it "works." Politics in America is long, hard, complicated, and as corrupt as in any low ranking, messed up nation of the world. When you participate in a sick system, it may come back to haunt ya.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...You can have a super-duper big fundraiser, if you have the means, of course, which really is the problem.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Literally.
Literally.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)From my personal observation, it's moving -- not "leaning" -- LEFTWARD.
Gosh. If only there were a Democratic candidate who could capture that large body of voters.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Then it would be republicans (crazy); democrats (new republicans); Democratic Socialist (what used to be Dems).
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)casperthegm
(643 posts)That one made me laugh
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)We never see a candidate from that party. Now I've got to do some homework. The Wiki page looks very interesting. They go into the Soviet Union situation. Of course that wasn't democratic.
I'm not sure the idea of another party is a good one from the standpoint of splitting liberals up, in the face of one republican party. Lots to think about.
Thanks!
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---I'm in
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Svafa
(594 posts)I would love for a Democtratic Socialist party to really be an option.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)The crazy Republicans should unite with the kkk
And the people should form a party that works for the people.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)It's kinda liberating.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)We've got one. It's just been -- temporarily -- hijacked by the 1-percent.
We need all hands to get the Democratic Party back on course and out of the "business" from where the 1-percent like to operate and accumulate.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)...and also elect a candidate who's in bed with the 1%....
Seems a bit contradictory.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I think not. In fact, I pray not.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)1. Elect corporate candidates
2. ?
3. Progressive governance!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)They put up a great fight to the Harlem Globetrotters, but, in the end, they lose. Always--especially in front of a paying audience.
We need to clear the front office of both teams.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The prevailing wisdom is "we need to elect Democrats, even if they are flawed, because the Republicans are so much worse." There is, of course, some truth to that.
The proponents of such a strategy fail to recognize the long-term effects. In practice, this strategy means that the Democratic rank-and-file repeatedly and consistently fails to hold flawed candidates accountable for their flaws. Candidates are like small children - if they can get away with something, they will keep doing it. Further, they will push the envelope to see what else they can get away with. The more we hold our noses and vote for flawed candidates, the more candidates will be flawed. It's easier to be flawed and rake in campaign donations than it is to be principled. Potential candidates see this behavior by the electorate and learn from it. There is no incentive to be a good Democratic candidate, and abundant incentive ($$$) to be a bad one.
Assuming we continue this strategy of electing more and more corporate-friendly candidates, what will the Party look like in 2024? 2028? 2032? Will we have moved toward more effective and progressive government, or will we continue on the same path we've been on since Reagan? We're doing what we criticize Corporate America for doing: focusing on short-term results rather than long-term gain.