Looks like the Democratic Party is splintering again?

[Selatius]

Democrats Split Again Over Party's Agenda



By Ronald Brownstein Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The truce appears to be expiring among Democrats in Washington.

In the immediate aftermath of Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record)'s loss to President Bush (news - web sites) in November, Democrats notably avoided the postelection squabbling that's consumed the party after almost all recent presidential races — even those it won.

But as the new year begins, a series of high-profile articles in leading liberal journals is suddenly reopening old divisions.

On one front, a liberal operative at a top think tank has accused the Democratic Leadership Council, the principal organization of party centrists, of pushing the party toward a pro-corporate agenda "that sells out America's working class — the demographic that used to be the party's base."

In equally combative terms, a leading young centrist commentator published a manifesto in the New Republic magazine accusing the Democratic left of slighting the struggle against Islamic terrorism and undermining the party's image on security — an argument instantly embraced and promoted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

Full article found here.

It looks like a clash between economic populists and those who are more conservative on social issues and those who are more hawkish on foreign policy.

[metisnation]

1. BS

rovian tactic say it enough and it becomes true. I will never leave this party. Hope a lurker is reading this, my personal lesson on loyalty.


:dem:

[shance]

4. Good point. Rule # 1. Separate and divide.

n/t

[Maat]

2. Well, I'm on the side of the progressives (lib-ur-als as they say

in Tejas)!

As far as I'm concerned ... they can have their wing, and I'll have mine.

Maybe we can work on some things together. Who knows?

But I'm with the 'liberals' (DFA-style)!

Also, me thinks the demise of the Democratic Party is greatly exagerated, to paraphrase.

[Cary]

3. Debate is good

That's one thing that distinguishes us from them.

We all have something to say. That should unite us, not divide us. We need each other and we need our diversity.

Ultimately our way will win out because we are right and they are wrong. Keep that in mind.

[Selatius]

5. Oops, a duplicate

Go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1464051&mesg_id=1464051

[bpilgrim]

6. actually, it looks like the corporate DLC policies are being rejected

bout time, too.

they couldn't come up with 1 policy platform for dems cept to adopt MORE of the neoCONs platform :puke:

and here i though that these new "third-way" dems were supposed to understand dollars and cents...

what that article left out is how hard traditional dems hit back by reminding them that weTHEpeople raised more cash them the reTHUGs this year over $300 million, something the media are loath to bring up for some reason :evilgrin:

they need to be civilized and let another strategy be tried - one thats worked throughout history - POPULISM, hey it works for the free market ;->


peace

[Old and In the Way]

7. I agree....if anything we'll be moving to the left.

Radical reactionary policies tend to do that.....

[Selatius]

8. I wouldn't say we're moving left, just going back to old stumping grounds

The economic issues aren't what divide Dems. What divides Dems is social issues such as gay rights or abortion.

[OrwellwasRight]

9. Not necessarily

The vast majority of Dems (though by no means all) are pro-choice and pro-equal rights for all (including gays). This is because the vast majority of Dems are pro civil rights; and both the right to choose when to reproduce and whom to marry are, at bottom, civil rights (even if both issues are touchy and make some people uncomfortable). And don't forget, the election results notwithstanding, the majority of all Americans (not just Dems) are actually pro-choice.

In my opinion, those few Dems who aren't pro-civil rights tend to downplay those issues (otherwise they wouldn't vote Dem: they would fall for Bush's fundie appeals and vote Repub).

On the other hand, economics do divide us: Are we going to be corporate friendly, relaxing enviro standards, workplace safety inspections, and promoting free, but not fair trade (ala Tony Blair and his new labour-ism)? Or are we going to stand up for the rights of labor unions, make sure that workers can make a living wage and receive healthcare, and stand up to the attempt to privatize any part of Social Security?

Consider this: there is already a Dem co-sponsor to one of the House Republican plans to privatize SS.

We are, sadly, divided by economics, but if can get a good spokesperson who can convince the party leadership that economic populism will work (as Frank implies in Kansas), I think we can fix that divide. I think that the economic divide is more of the DNC/DLC vs. the mass of the party than a split within the mass of the party.

[Selatius]

10. Is this what you're saying?

Assuming your first assumption is right, the majority of Dems are pro-choice and pro-civil rights for all, then what you're saying is that we're being killed over economic centrism and/or corporatism infecting candidates as opposed to being divided over social issues? Is the issue with moderates who are truly moderate on economic issues because of ideological reasons? Or with corporatists who only adopt moderation for financial gain?

[OrwellwasRight]

11. yeah, that's about it.

I am positing that the split on social issues (choice, homosexuality) is primarily (but not exclusively) between parties and not within the Dem party.

I am also positing that within the party we have a large and important split between Clintonites/DLC-types and more old-school liberals (e.g., LBJ, FDR fans) on economic issues.

And, I think that those who have already capitulated (i.e. moved to the right) on economic issues (who now occupy most of the leadership positions in the party) cannot understand their failure to attract voters to the free-trade, pro-corporate Republican-lite platform. Thus, their thinking is that they are already "correct" on economics and that, therefore, our (the party's) problem must be that we are too far left on social issues.

Since they take their centrist economic position to be a priori correct, the are incapable of re-evaluating that position, and they will move us away from standing up for equal rights and LGBTs.

What they will discover, IMO, is that after they act on their conclusion, they will select the anti-choice Roemer (I believe that is the name of the hack Pelosi is backing) as the DNC chair, and they will find themselves without a constituency altogether. The Dems will be nothing but an imitation of the Repubs and the entire grassroots of the party will have disengaged from politics, gone Green, flipped to the Republicans, or whatever.

[mattclearing]

12. Nope.

The only split in this party is between the people that vote for it and the people that run it.

[txaslftist]

13. Well geez...

That's kind of a major split, doncha think?