Some Early Analytical Food For Thought:

[WillyT]

Forget the Chatter, This is the Democrats' Real Problem
By JOSH MARSHALL - TPM
Published NOVEMBER 10, 2014, 10:05 AM EST

Link: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/forget-the-chatter-this-is-the-democrats-real-problem

Which I found through this...

How to save the Democratic Party: Path to nirvana requires total economic revamp
JIM NEWELL - Salon
THURSDAY, NOV 13, 2014 03:59 AM PST

Link: http://www.salon.com/2014/11/13/how_to_save_the_democratic_party_path_to_nirvana_requires_total_economic_revamp/

[Autumn]

1. Oh hey! New forum

Going to snoop around

[WillyT]

2. Please DU !!!

[Autumn]

3. I will DU just that darlin

I've been curling up by the fire the last few day just reading a book series because it's soooo cold . Looks like I missed a lot.

[Phlem]

4. Great stuff WillyT

thanks for that.

[WillyT]

17. Thanks Phlem !!!

[silverweb]

5. Looks great...

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]But I have to save it for later tonight, after work.

Something to look forward to and, as you say, think about.

[demwing]

6. excellent content

keep it up!

[Phlem]

7. Cooper dubs “neoliberal agitprop”

A fucking men!

[Martin Eden]

8. "Lack of purpose is the Democratic Party’s problem."

The title of my post is a quote from from the Salon article, and here's more:

If the party of working- and middle-class people wants to really be the party of working- and middle-class people, then, it needs to confront the fact that it has no answers for this problem. And part of the reason for that is that it’s spent the last 30 years abetting the neoliberal policies that have made it so. In order to stay “relevant” in the ’80s and ’90s, leading Democrats acceded and thus provided political legitimacy to free trade, financial deregulation, welfare reform and the decimation of organized labor — sugar pills that stimulated economic growth in the short-term, but in the long-term only gutted middle- and working-class economic security. The result is that Democrats and Republicans no longer have credibility among working people. Democrats are the only party that ever had it, though — and when they did, they enjoyed the most enduring political coalition of the 20th century. Do they want it back?

IMO, the purpose of the Democratic Party should be to serve the interests of its constituents -- the working and middle classes of this country (vast majority of Americans) -- not the corporate fat cats who fund their political campaigns.

The key to success for the Democratic Party is to convince voters we have a purpose and it is to build a better future for them and their children. Craft a set of policies to achieve those goals, back it up with actions, and articulate a positive message consistently with confidence and with passion. Fight back against GOP lies and false narratives, but stay on the offensive with a realistic plan for progress.

Do that, and a huge chunk of the 63.4% of voters who stayed away Nov 4 just might go to the polls with a purpose next time.

[WillyT]

10. Could Not Possibly Agree More !!!

[sabrina 1]

21. 'Do they want it back'? The answer to that question depends on why 'they' are. Do the people want

it back, YES.

But after nearly three decades of neoliberal/Third Way policies, Third Way candidates pushed on the people, while the party leadership refuses to back Progressives, they have achieved much of their goals.

So if the question is 'does the Dem Party Leadership want it back', I think the answer is 'absolutely NOT'. They have spent a fortune getting rid of it.

Eg, how many actual Progressive/Liberal Dems are in this President's Cabinet? How many Republicans and/or Corporate CEOS?

And if this is true, and I believe it is, how much power do the people have left in order to be able to fight their own party leadership? Is it even possible?

[Martin Eden]

23. "the most enduring political coalition" is what the "it" referes to

I'm sure the heirarchy of the Democratic Party wants that coalition back insofar as it equates to electoral success, but I tend to agree with you they do NOT want it back if that entails actually representing the interests of the rank and file in that coalition (as opposed to the Big Money interests they have become increasingly subservient to).

The only way to change this is from the bottom up, by putting forward progressive candidates and getting them nominated in Democratic primaries. And the only way that's going to happen is if The People become orders of magnitude more engaged in the process than they are now.

We have the numbers, but not the organization.

[sabrina 1]

25. I think the people demonstrated how engaged they can be in 2008 and how successful

when they are motivated and believe their votes actually mean something. Since then, they have lost that motivation apparently. Because they learned that campaign promises do not translate into fighting to put those promises to work for them. The voters are not stupid, far from it.

I agree with you that the process of rebuilding the party now so that it does represent the people, has to start from the bottom up. That is too bad as it is going to take a long time.

However, the process has begun, as this election demonstrated. People voted for the Ballot Issues and won on progressive issues, not just Dems. But they demonstrated a lack of trust in DC to put those policies in place. I think it is a general consensus now that starting locally is their only choice. And imo, that is a good thing.

[Scuba]

9. Hmmm. Both articles suggest that Democrats don't know how to fix inequality, and worse ....

... it's a losing issue anyway. I disagree on both counts.

Enriching and expanding Social Security, raising the minimum wage and Medicare for All would go a long, long way towards fixing economic inequality. These are highly popular positions and the party's reluctance (refusal?) to adopt them says a lot about who is running the party today.

Thoughts/rebuttals welcomed.

[Phlem]

11. It was a bit confusing for me too but the take away I got from it was

Democrats don't have a long term vision. I would compare to the Republican's long term vision of being "Privatize everything or destroy it!"

What is the Democrat's long term mission/message? And where do we fall on that path? Instead we have more immediate short term goals that benefit the few at the top.

Your Specifics would benefit everyone in the long term in my opinion but some people just want a game plan for how we get there.

I think we just need fresh ideas, Warren has produced some novel ideas, but everyone else seems to cling to the tried and true, which was never an option anyways but money talks.

In the end I just want her to kick ass.

[Scuba]

14. The game plan is to campaign on those very popular issues.

[sabrina 1]

22. I don't agree that the current leadership of the Dem Party do not have a longterm vision. I believe

that vision began close to three decades ago and it was not about the Working Class, it was about Corporate control of the country. And their long term vision has more or less been achieved, but to continue to hole on to what they have achieved, see Clinton's policies eg, Deregulation of Wall St, the Media, Welfare 'reform', NAFTA, they have to continue to BASH THE LEFT and to Marginalize the FDR Dems in the party. They do this by constantly attacking the Left, see even here on DU and other online Dem forums.

So while I agree with what the article says about what the party SHOULD be doing, I don't think the author totally gets it. THEY know that, but that is exactly what they do NOT want to be doing.

We have to look at the reality if we are going to be able to get rid of the Corporate influences who now have so much power in the Dem Party.

Iow, the current Leadership of the Dem Party is far, far from interested in any kind of populist reform. After 30 years of successfully crushing any kind of populism, that is the furthest thing from their minds.

[Phlem]

24. Completely agree.

[yallerdawg]

12. Throw in taxing the crap out of the rich like we used to.

[Scuba]

13. Yeah, we can pay for it by taxing and taxing and taxing them until they're only fabulously wealthy.

[Phlem]

15. See and for me that's getting rid of the 3rd way which

I highly agree we should do. They are just so embedded. It's going to take a while.

[yallerdawg]

16. But you know...

Obama clawed back some of those upper income Bush tax cuts.

And there aren't as many embedded as there used to be.

I believe we'll have some nervous Democrats watching our mood come primary time!

[BrotherIvan]

19. They are the wealthy

They being politicians of both parties. It would seem as if publicly funded elections should be the key. And then, figuring out some way to stop bribery and corruption.

For instance, Dianne Feinstein. Here is a quote from wikipedia, but I would assume the numbers are quite a bit higher

In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator, with an estimated net worth of $26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between $43 million and $99 million.

Now, we know that insider trading for Congresspeople and Senators is legal, but honestly, how did DiFi (and the numbers are her personal, not her husband's, worth) amass that much cash all while supposedly working for the people? McConnell is the same story and there are plenty of others. These people are trading favors and enriching themselves. Of course they won't raise taxes or do anything but make more money for their friends.

Money is the lynch pin I suspect. I know DUer Dustlawyer posts about it quite a bit. But perhaps that is the first effort to make.

[RiverLover]

26. ..."publicly funded elections should be the key"

Publicly funded elections should be the key.

Its the only way to make true change imo. Every GOPr I've ever asked agreed with this. We need a petition to end private financing of election campaigns. But not just any ole petition. I say we start the largest petition EVER and try to get the signature of every voting-age American in every state. The only people that won't sign are the politicians & their benefactors. We don't need 'em for this.

And then after that is taken care of, we can target Lobbyists.

[BrotherIvan]

27. I agree that it is of paramount importance

But I don't think a petition will do it. That still implies they will pass the law/resolution/etc. I'm tired of begging these people to do the right thing. It also bears repeating that McCain was willing to have the campaign be publicly financed because that was one of his pet issues. When Obama backed out, it was the nail in the coffin for politicians to do it of their own volition. There's too much money in it.

So now we have to force them to do it. Some states, cities and counties are putting bills on the ballot (a few have won). Some are asking for a Constitutional Convention which is controversial. I think some are waiting for a new Supreme Court and a kind of reversal on Citizen's United, but now with two decisions in the election finance area, that is unlikely. But something must be done and quite a few realize it is a problem.

We also need to discover for ourselves what we want from our politicians. It's been quite some time since the idea of leaders and how they represent their constituency was defined. We sort of send them to Washington and hope for the best, which more often then not doesn't work (and lo and behold, they keep getting elected). But it needs to be reevaluated. I favor someone like Sanders or Warren because they are very clear and don't seem to be in it for the money, but that is my own bias.

[WillyT]

28. Go Here And Look Around:

Link: http://www.wolf-pac.com/

They already have Vermont and California onboard, and it has passed out of committee in New Jersey!

[RiverLover]

30. Thanks WillyT!~

I guess I just need to back Wolf Pac more! That's awesome.

[Enthusiast]

18. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

Thank you, WillyT.

[WillyT]

29. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

[Eleanors38]

20. Good stuff. Maybe a follow-up would be articles

which purport to be the Way to form a "long game."

[demwing]

31. Kicked & Rec'd /nt