Just... Wow... 'How the Left Lost Its Heart'

[WillyT]

<snip>

The problem is not that Democrats are monolithically pro-choice or anti-school-prayer; it's that, by dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans, they have left themselves vulnerable to cultural wedge issues like guns and abortion. We are in an environment where Republicans talk constantly about class — in a coded way, to be sure — but where Democrats are afraid to bring it up.

Democratic political strategy simply assumes that people know where their economic interest lies and that they will act on it by instinct. The glaring flaw in this thinking is that people don't spontaneously understand their situation in the great sweep of things. Liberalism isn't a force of karmic nature that pushes back when the corporate world goes too far; it is a man-made contrivance as subject to setbacks and defeats as any other.

Consider our social welfare apparatus, the system of taxes, regulations and social insurance that is under attack these days. Social Security, the Food and Drug Administration and all the rest of it didn't just spring out of the ground fully formed in response to the obvious excesses of a laissez-faire system; they were the result of decades of movement-building, of bloody fights between strikers and state militias, of agitating, educating and thankless organizing.

More than 40 years passed between the first glimmerings of a left-wing reform movement in the 1890s and the actual enactment of its reforms in the 1930s. In the meantime, scores of the most rapacious species of robber baron went to their reward untaxed, unregulated and unquestioned.

<snip>

Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-frank18jul18,1,3451864.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

One of the best pieces I have ever read, and a warning to us all.

We need to elect Kerry\Edwards. We need to get back the congress. And we need to get back to fixin THIS!!!

[Robbien]

1. That is the exact same message Franks wrote about

and it is the message that runs through Moore's film.

We are in a class war but no one talks about it.

[ibegurpard]

17. Right.

He spelled the issue about very effectively. I would recommend to everyone to read the book. His theory is that social conservatives who would likely be willing to tolerate the Democratic Party line on many "social" issues have been abandoned on the economic front and have nothing left to vote for EXCEPT social issues.

[iamtechus]

2. Looks like that came from a book I just read

[WillyT]

3. It Did !!!

Same guy... First I've heard of it. How was the book???

:shrug:

[onecitizen]

5. I cannot wait to read this........

Bill Moyers said it was one of the best ever. If Bill says it, it true.

[Massacure]

4. A class war? So that means that

If the economy is soaring chances are, a the republicans will grab the presidency, but if the economy is in the toilet, the democrats are more likely to win it?

[mhr]

6. Let's Break This Argument Down And Make It Much Simpler

First things first.

Of course it is a class war. How could it be anything other than that. When you have the tax system rigged in favor of the ultra-wealthy what else are you going to call it.

The best reference for the above is David Cay Johnston's book Perfectly Legal. A quick search at Amazon will locate it.

Secondly on logic. Given the premise and evidence above, if billionaires and millionaires have the right to fight for their economic interests then so does everyone else. What the left has done in leaving the debate is given the right an opportunity to define economic interest only in terms of the ultra-wealthy i.e. trickle down and such. By reclaiming the debate we diffuse the right's ownership of this issue and we place the issue in play once again.

Thirdly by observation. If the rich are taxed too much and the poor too little then why has the income gap continued to grow. No reference here but we have read stories reflecting this fact. The corollary to the question is obvious: higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy, lower taxes on the ultra-poor.

I firmly believe that we can argue and win these fights if we are willing to engage and not give an inch on facts or logic.

[dumpster_baby]

7. The Problem is that there IS no Left at the top levels of Democratic party

How can we do these things if there is no Left except at the lower level?

So how do you get from here to there? We had a presidential candidate in Kucinich who is a leftist, but he got nowhere because people did not think he could win. They did not think he could win because so much of America does not like leftism. That is because the Dems abandoned economic leftism in favor of identity politics. Why should the Dems at the top favor economic leftism? They are rich themselves!

[mhr]

11. The Only Answer I Can Offer Is Shamming The Leadership Into Action

eom

[sangh0]

14. Shame the shameless?

I have my doubts that it would work

[Jackpine Radical]

39. It's only class warfare if

the poor fight back.

Otherwise it's class rape.

That's why Newt & Co. got so frothed up about "class warfare." They didn't want us kicking them in the nuts when they were in the middle of screwing us.

[stickdog]

54. Exactly. It's "class warfare" if we object to our reaming.

It's business as usual if we quietly take our medicine while thinking of the greater glory of the rich and famous.

[CWebster]

8. guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks...

want a fair shot at a promising future for their children and affordable medical care too.

What do you think he was talking about?

Those who are exploited with cultural wedge issues vote against their own economic interests when the Democrats stopped carrying the torch for the base to become the corporate yuppie party.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. I've said it before- Economics is THE "values" issue.

And it's something we've done a piss-poor job of articulating, of late.

One notable exception? John Edwards. The next vice president of the United States.

However, I take issue with the idea that Democrats are "vulnerable" on abortion. The majority of Americans are pro-choice. How does that make the pro-choice party "vulnerable"? If anything, we need to stop apologizing for being pro-choice, and point out that the fringe loonies who have taken over the other party are not only against "partial birth abortion", they are against all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, and, they are also point-blank against all forms of birth control, to boot. "Vulnerable" on abortion, my ass. And guns? We've got just as many pro-gun people in the party as we do Teddy Kennedys. Every time we run someone for president, they take pains to say, in slowly, clearly enunciated English, essentially, "I Am not Going To Take Your Penis-- er, Gun.. Away, there, Buford." And what happens? The f*ckin gun yahoos vote for the republican, anyway. Some of these people are never gonna vote for our guy. Articulate to middle america that we, and not the party of the billionaires and the no-bid contracts, are the ones really looking out for them economically.. but don't pander to them on culture war bullshit-- if that kind of crap ever worked, Joe Lieberman would be a top-tier democrat. He's not.

[BurtWorm]

13. I don't see this article saying Democrats are vulnerable on choice.

I see it saying that Dems left themselves vulnerable on class issues because they dropped the language of class, even on such issues as choice and guns.

I remember in the early 1970s, one of the arguments that Dems made in favor of choice--in favor of federally funding abotions, as a matter of fact--was that choice should be every woman's right regardless of class. Somehow the right turned the issue around to drive a wedge between working/middle class people and the poor and liberal bourgeoisie. "Abortion" became a class issue, something only welfare mothers and college educated feminists would do.

I think Democrats stopped appealing to voters across the spectrum on the choice issue because they believed they'd won that war. They stopped being hungry. The same could not be said of the right wing, and somehow they managed to infect people whose economic interests they did not have at heart.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Yeah, it's gotta be one of the greatest PR coups of all time..

A party that embodies total greed and machiavellian power-as-the-end that justifies whatever brutal-ass means you need to get there, has convinced millions of people that it represents "Christian Values", just by waving the occasional bible around.

A party (and a president) that represents the interests of the top tier of the top tier, the billionaire's club, the crony capitalists, has convinced millions of "reg'lar folks" in the heartland, people with beat up pickup trucks making less than 30K a year, that they're lookin out for them.

You gotta hand it to 'em, it's an impressive achievement in making bullshit float.

[NewJeffCT]

10. I've been saying this for a while...

But, the Religious Reich did things the right way in building for the long term. 25-30 years ago, nobodytook them seriously. Nobody. However, they went about their business and started electing people to local school boards & town councils. Sometimes, they were 'stealth' (meaning, they said very little on the issues) candidates that the church was able to elect with good church voter turnout.

From the local boards & councils, they went on the state legislatures over time. Pretty soon, they were electing members to the US Congress and then Senators like Rick Santarium & Sam Brownshirt. Now, the Religious Reich, despite being a minority in their own party, has an effective stranglehold on both their own political party and on the US government.

If Ralph Nader were truly serious about changing the Democratic party, he'd start from the bottom like the Religious Reich.

[dumpster_baby]

12. they actually started at the top with media and message

They started with money from rich people and corporations. They used that to fund think tanks and surveys and to fund talented people to put out the right wing message.

If you want to start moving america to the left you have to get your message out into the public's ear. Talk radio is the best way. The pacifica radio network can be controlled through voting members. Yet they have only a very small amount of talk radio. Start a grassroots movement of pacifica radio members voting to change the board members that determine the programming. Then start putting out the message and speaking to the average suburban white commuter. Change that mind and you capture america....

[BurtWorm]

19. But Frank is saying something else (I think)

and if he's saying what I think he's saying, I agree with him. To whit: the Dems have abandoned their traditional base of working class people to court the more well-heeled and politically powerful corporate class. The Repubs have stepped into the vacuum the Dems left behind, appealing to the working class with emotional social issues like busing, welfare, guns, abortion, etc., painting Dems and liberals as elitists and the natural enemies of working people. The result is that previously solid Democratic areas--the rural South and midwest, the rust belt, Catholic suburbs--have become solidly Republican, even to the point of turning anti-union and pro-"free" market. This means that they are in a habit of sending people to Congress who will not represent their economic interests, but will empower the agribusiness giants who will swallow up their farms, the outsourcers who will kill their jobs, the financial marketeers who will steal their Medicare and Social Security funds--and all because they don't want those damn lllllliberal DEMONcraps telling them "under God" is unconsitutional, or that women have a right to murder their babies, or that they can't hunt with any goddamn weapon they want to hunt with.

[dumpster_baby]

24. You've picked up on only part of Frank's thesis

You wrote:<i>
the Dems have abandoned their traditional base of working class people to court the more well-heeled and politically powerful corporate class.
</i>

Yes

<i>
The Repubs have stepped into the vacuum the Dems left behind, appealing to the working class with emotional social issues like busing, welfare, guns, abortion, etc., painting Dems and liberals as elitists and the natural enemies of working people.
</i>

yes.


<i>
The result is that previously solid Democratic areas--the rural South and midwest, the rust belt, Catholic suburbs--have become solidly Republican, even to the point of turning anti-union and pro-"free" market.

</i>


yes, but it is a TWO-pronged attack: you are forgetting the other part: the Big Money-funded think tanks, media personality grants, and other issue management and development institutions. These entities are really the foundation of the media assault that has been able to find its way into the mind of white middle Americans. Once they had assaulted the American mind for a couple of decades, putting out rightwing economic memes (e.g., govt is against the little people, flat taxation rates are good, less govt is better, tax cuts are good, etc). Also the machine put out class war social memes (e.g., the liberal media, the liberal elite). Unless you sow the ground with these memes for years, you cannot use those memes to win elections.

What nader is trying to do is get a movement started by capturing time in mass media in order to sow left wing economic memes. The Left is now shut out of the mass media. The Dems are not getting out any leftwing economic memes to speak of. Edwards put out some. Zilch from Kerry.

And getting issues out into the mass media is the only way to counteract the Right Wing memes. It really does not matter whether a dem or gop is in the white house if you cannot get out leftwing memes. Clinton is the perfect example. His administration put out zero left wing economic memes. But they put out plenty of leftwing social memes (e.g., identity politics (gay and minority rights and set-asides), gun laws, etc., in short all the things that label the Dems as The Anti-White party in the minds of white America).

[BurtWorm]

28. I see what you're saying, and I agree with your assessment.

I don't know if Nader is the ideal vessel for left economic memes, but the Democratic party (except for Howard Dean and Kucinich) sure hasn't been.

[dumpster_baby]

37. But outside of Michael Moore, Nader is all the Left has right now

Kucinich has already let himself be demonized by showing off his flaky side to the press during the campaign.

As for Dean being a leftist, well, of course he is not and never was, and a post in this thread quotes Dean laughing at the idea of himself as a leftist. The ONLY leftist things Dean has ever said/done in his life was being to speak out against the war, and to allow greater rights for gays in Vermont. As far as I am concerned, economic leftism is where it is at. And Dean has personally rejected economic leftism himself in the past (as many DUers have given links to these quotes here on DU in the past, I will not bother to google them up...).

[Kanary]

42. Actually, I'd like one or two of those "economic leftist" links

since I know, as you say, Dean "personally rejected economic leftism", but of course, can't seem to get that across to Deaniacs.

But, then, I'm not willing to give up on Dennis, so I guess I'm flaky, too........

[stickdog]

56. Yes, Dean is a fiscal moderate. But when the other side's strategy

became to bankrupt Medicare and Social Security, Dean became just what the doctor ordered.

[dumpster_baby]

62. but didn't Dean advocate harsh cuts in SS and Medicare?

You know he did.....

[stickdog]

63. Yes, 9 years ago -- when it looked like there was no way to sustain these

programs otherwise -- Dean was in favor of raising the retirement age and maybe fudging with the COLA.

But we all know that's going to happen soon enough anyway. Plus, Dean disowned that stance and said that Clinton's term proved that we could grow the economy out of this sort of financial bind.

So why the crucifixion over this non-issue? To scare older folks away from Dean and toward the old guard, of course.

[BurtWorm]

75. I agree that Dean is not as left as the media makes him out to be

especially on economic issues. But if all Democrats were Dean Democrats, the party would be further left than it is now. It would be more populist, more democratic, more aggressive about reclaiming the Dems who left during the Reagan years. And that would necessarily drive the party left economically, since the right has a claim on socially "populist" themes. Dean took a left turn after leaving the governership, not just on the war. His campaign was all about empowering and energizing the people.

Nader, on the other hand, seems to me to be continuing the leftist error of intellectualizing (read, marginalizing) the leftist critique. Nader is a niche guy. Dean was looking for a broader appeal.

[stickdog]

55. You mean like

www.democracyforamerica.com ?

[madfloridian]

15. This quote in E. J. Dionne's article today shows this.

SNIP..."Dean is also amused that given his moderate record as a governor, he was somehow seen as a radical. "I've balanced budgets, I've supported the death penalty in some instances, I got an A from the NRA -- and I'm the most left-wing Democrat?" Dean laughs. The labeling, he says, is a mark of how the nation's political discussion has been pulled to the right. "What passes now for 'moderate,"' he says, "used to be called 'conservative."

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. Once again

Dean was absolutely, 100% spot on. He energized Democrats by saying what's needed to be said by our elected officials. The political spectrum center has shifted toward the right and there is no doubt about it.

The other day, a poster on another board made a comment when responding to a question about how extreme he has become with his rhetoric. He said, in effect, that he started doing this intentionally when he realized we are at war...and he wasn't talking about Iraq. He's conservative and sickeningly so. Mild comments and ideas from "the left" are now attacked wholesale with extreme, emotionally charged, partisan talking points.

We need to start fighting back and win this war for the future of our children and our country.

[Kanary]

23. Dean wasn't talking about class issues at all....

Dean had NO positions about poverty issues.

His record as gov showed that.

He talked about corporate interests, but not about poverty.

Nope, Dean is not the knight in shining armor on class issues.

Kanary

[madfloridian]

27. If I posted a link with all his statements and speeches, would you read it

That was a very broad statement, and what you just said is not the reality.

[Kanary]

29. gotta love the dupes...

......

[Kanary]

31. I read his website, read his record as gov, talked with supporters at

a meetup, because I was all set to be a Dean supporter.

When I asked about his stand on poverty issues, was met with derision... "What are you, a one-issue voter?" Well, YEAH..........when my very survival depends on it!

Paint me as stooooopid all you want....... I know what my survival issues are......

I realize it matters not to anyone else in the Party whether I survive or not, but until recently, it mattered to me..

[madfloridian]

40. What in the world did I say to make you so mad?

I just offered to post a link.

[Kanary]

41. I told you.

I was looked down on because I'm a "one-issue voter"......... my very survival is superfluous to the people who represented the Dean campaign in my city.

You wouldn't be pissed?

[madfloridian]

44. I did not do that, though.

If it was a Dean supporter, then they should not have done it. It should not happen on any side. Here the Kerry folks did the same to our whole group, asked us why we still bothered to show up for meetings of the DEC. It just made us more involved.

[Kanary]

46. Yes, now you're facing it from the other side, and it doesn't feel good

And, if you will remember, you and I had some good conversations about health care.

Then, you got on your high horse and sent me a nasty PM because I dared voice the opinion that Dean wasn't speaking to poor folk like me (which is now corroborated by the post below, with someone who said Dean, indeed, isn't economically progressive)

You really let me have it, because I didn't believe the same thing about Dean that you did (and *I'M* the one who is affected by it, not you.....), and now you're facing the same "toe the line" stuff from the Kerry Kamp.

We've all chewed ourselves up into little pieces, and the party is going down the toilet. Oh wellllllll..........

I've dealt with my grief, I know the Party, and DU, isn't ever going to give a rip about me or others like me, and my vision is a lot clearer now. I'm not shocked about Kerry supporters, because I already went through that. It's just a short-sighted way to cut the balls off the party.

Nothing I can do about, and no longer my concern. No, the Dean organizers here "shouldn't have done that"....... do you think for one minnit they'll ever offer an apology? Do you think for one moment they give a rip how much hurt they caused me? Not highly likely, is it? There's so much hubris and lack of compassion in this whole party that it sickens me.

Although, there's still time for you to offer the apology for that PM........

Kanary

[madfloridian]

59. I have one from you thanking me for all my work on the Medicare Bill.

You did not sound angry, and I thought we agreed on that. I do think you have me mixed up with someone else about being ugly to you.

You were quite pleasant to me in that PM, and I thought I was to you. You said you appreciated my work on the bill. If I sent you an ugly PM, I wish you would resend it to me via PM so I can apologize.

[Kanary]

64. Thank you for the offer, and no, I don't have it mixed up.

I remember it because it shocked me.

Sorry, I didn't keep it....... I have made it a habit not to keep the "ugly" ones around, as it's just too hard on me.

And, yes, we had a pleasant exchange (actually, I believe it was a number of times, in different threads).

That's what made it so sad to me.

After that, I kept my distance. I'm dealing with enough in my life, and have to keep things as even as possible.

I truly do not know what it is about DU that people want to go on the attack here, and bring down those they need to be working with. People justify it by saying "The Democratic Party has always been like that", but I don't believe that. I've worked on MANY campaigns, and I've never had people even *begin* to speak to me the way that people do here. I also know many other political activists, and I know that nobody I have worked on campaigns with would tolerate being spoken to in the manner that peole here feel so free to do.

I also know that I haven't had to shout to get heard in campaign work, and also that people actually voice the complimentary things they feel about each other. (It's really interesting...... I've noticed that the posts I make complimenting someone rarely get a reply...... but if I tell someone to knock it off, they can reply forever........how's that for an interesting quirk?)

I strongly suspect that in not too long a time, The Kerry Kamp will be trying to figure out why they aren't getting the level of support they believe they deserve, and will be having to listen to some of the ways they've angered and pushed people away, and it will be their turn to mend some fences. With what we're up against as a nation, none of this is making any kind of sense.

*I'm* not your enemy, and I never was. But I sure wasn't deserving of the angry blast I got.

I guess it all depends how important it becomes to the Deniacs to build a strong progressive movement, whether they want to mend those fences with the Kucitizens to bring together those they didn't seem to think worthy at the time, or whether they decide to forget us, and go it themselves in the true, blue ole' US of A Rugged Individualism style.

:shrug:

Kanary

[Beam Me Up]

65. Kanary, I've read the last series of posts between you and madfloridian

and I just want to say "I hear you."

There are a percentage of Kerry supporters that really get under my skin. They have, at times, been downright uncivil and rather presumptuous.It often seems to me that they are frightened and rageful beneath the surface. It can be very unpleasant.

I don't need this. I really really don't. I've felt alienated by the political structure of this society all of my adult life. I have points of views about things that are quite at odds with what goes on in this society and, all in all, I see that the most important ones to me are seldom if ever fairly represented.

One of my issues has been the "war on drugs." That was THE ORIGINAL BULL SHIT that has 'morphed' into "the war on terrorism." (tm). The thing that drives me nuts is that I'd seen this coming (and by that I mean an event like 9/11--which was that catalyst for this metamorphosis) for YEARS. "Hey, folks, this isn't just about drug addicts, this is about the structures of power in the national security state and how they fund their fascist operations that, ultimately, stand in direct opposition to the ideals of Law, Order and Democracy." HELLO!

Although individual Democrats might be interested in this line of thinking, for the most part the Democratic party wasn't. Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale" BULL SHIT was simply an example of the hypocrisy. I came to the conclusion there was only one reason why one would not speak out loudly against the war on drugs; and that was if, at some level, you yourself had already been compromised by the corruption associated with it. You understand, we're no longer talking about "drugs" so much as MONEY LAUNDERING which is where the big bucks are.

We lost an opportunity to clean house in our society after Nixon's resignation. No one wanted to go there because the house cleaning would had to have involved not only Republicans, but Democrats as well.

Well, look where we are now. Look where 30 years of compromising on important issues has gotten us and the Democratic party. We knew thirty years ago that if we didn't begin building an alternative energy infrastructure in our society we would inevitably run into both ecological and social crises the likes of which humanity has never seen before.

Well, here we are. People have allowed themselves to be lied to over and over again by all those people around them they trusted to help them create a truly better word not only for themselves but for everyone. Little by little we've created a nightmare to which we are now only just beginning to awaken.

Yes, George W. Bush must NOT be allowed to occupy the White House for another 4 years. But this isn't about BUSH; this is about the complex structures of social power that made his pResidency not only possible but inevitable. Until those structures are changed, to a certain extent, it will NOT MATTER who is in the white house. NOT because there are no differences in the integrity, intelligence, and morality of the office holder, but because THEY ARE CONSTRAINED by systems of power that are, currently, beyond the reach of law.

Compromises can no longer save us. In fact they never could, except only to prolong the inevitable. I would like to say it is the end of liberalism. Well, it will be, soon enough. Soon enough, those who place their hope in a corrupted system will be ruined by the reality of the corruption itself. And then what? Will they drink the koolaid--or have they "taken the red pill" and are about to discover just how deep this rabbit hole goes?

[Kanary]

69. Thanks for hearing.... means more than you know

:hi:

This alienation is so toxic! The fact that it's not recognized for what it is leads to a sense of hopelessness, felt by so many of us. I just talked with an elderly neighbor the other day who is a life-long active DEM. She told me she stopped going to district meetings a few years ago, because of just this kind of infighting. Way to go, Dems! Way to ensure the triumph of the evil side!

So many of the points you brought up I have come to recognize, apparently a lot later than you did.

Given that drugs were never attractive to me, I wasn't tuned in to the issues of the drug war, until I listened to what the past Governor of New Mexico had to say about it. He was no liberal, but his arguments made sense to me, and now I see that differently.

I also am tardy in understanding just how important the Nixon "housecleaning", as you put it, was. Of course, I cheered with friends when he left, and wanted to see him get the legal consequences he so richly deserved, but ....... it didn't happen, and I went on. 20/20 hindsight is so clear.......

What we've lost is the AWARENESS of a whole nation....... Look at the difference in the thought patterns of Europeans, and the thought patterns of 'Murkins......... world of difference. We're such an immature and SICK society. *ThAT'S* where the problem is, and I see no hope on the horizon.

But, all that aside, while it illustrates the extent of how one can be so outside the mainstream of this society, my point in this thread was just how we use our frustration with that to attack each other. That's deadly, and I see not much hope of that changing, either.

This whole alienation thing is killing us. And we seem so willing to let it.

Well, ain't that just cheery.....

Kanary

[stickdog]

60. 1) Kucinich made a deal with Edwards for ZERO delegates in order to

help derail Dean.

2) Kucinich supporters like you continue to wail and moan that Dean isn't Kucinich. No, he's not. He's 100 times more pragmatic.

3) Dean and his grassroots www.democracyforamerica.com are trying to build the party from the bottom up with a truly engaged, activist base that isn't afraid of tackling class issues. Why don't you try helping us? If you come to a few meet ups, you'll find that the vast majority of Dean's supporters share your concerns.

4) Yes, Kucinich & Nader have PURER platforms. But given the current climate, wouldn't Dean's platform be a fucking Godsend? Doesn't universal healthcare, a balanced budget and serious corporate, media conglomerate, energy and election reform sound a HELL OF A LOT BETTER than what we're currently staring at?

[BurtWorm]

30. Dean made the point that the Republican party betrayed

the economic interests of the Southerners who've been faithful to them. That's not addressing class issues?

PS: That is exactly the point Frank has been making, no?

[Kanary]

33. Dems betrayed, also, and THAT is the point......

Continually blaming the RW for what the LW is complicit in is NOT SOLVING PROBLEMS.

We have our own logs in the eye..... (ouch......)

[BurtWorm]

34. Of course! But Dean was making an effort to redress the Dems' lacks

of the last 20 years. Which is why the DLC was so up in arms about him.

[Kanary]

35. Could be. Or...... just that his comments about smashing the media corps

put a bug up their shorts.

[stickdog]

58. Yep. That, too. The media is the message is the elite is the problem.

Even moreso than Repuke treachery and Dem complicity.

32. not true

I specifically heard him in person talk about class issues.
No link or anything. I didn't tape it.
But I knew very clearly what he was talking about when I heard it.

& his comment about the Confederate flag was definitely addressing economic class issues, although many did not understand it that way.

[stickdog]

57. He didn't claim to be. He was and is a fiscal moderate and pragmatist.

Which is EXACTLY what we need to clean up after Bush's ridiculous mess.

[The Flaming Red Head]

16. Being nice to the undereducated and underfunded people

would help the Democratic party alot. Not everyone has the advantage of graduate school, or the opportunity, or the time. I get upset with so-called liberals who are very mean to anyone who doesn't have wealthy family connections or prep school/ivy league education.

[tom_paine]

20. Just WHO are you referring to?

Other than the stale Bushevik Talking Point and BIG LIE you are parroting?

The Union Guys who labor with their hands and hearts to police your streets and put out your fires?

The Working Poor who just barely make it by with 2 jobs and no health insurance?

There are assholes in EVERY GROUP, but only the Busheviks have placed Cruel, Lying Assholedom into their Party Platform.

[The Flaming Red Head]

43. Since you're being mean, YOU

I guess I am referring to you.

I worked my ass off all my life and I have been in a union and suffered through a lock out. I also raised a child without any support and am still doing that. I am a nurse and I have no health insurance and I have health problems. Sometimes we get to the end of the month with very little food. I clean houses on the side sometimes to make ends meet and I could never afford health insurance in a million years.

I am referring to the attack dogs that shoot everyone and everything in sight without thinking about who they are talking to.

It would have been nice to make friends with you.

Damn, you are mean. You made me cry, see you in the next life if there is one, jerk.

[kodi]

49. using "democrats" and "so-called liberals" synonymously is pretty bogus

but i would like to find out how you can substantiate your remark of:

"...so-called liberals who are very mean to anyone who doesn't have wealthy family connections or prep school/ivy league education."

as a working class stiff and son of a union organizer who had his head busted more than once for organizing activities, i find that remark without merit. the GOP never did anything for me and my people except make it harder to succeed in life.

you can rant about how the democrats have left the american dream deferred, but that pales in comparision with the GOP who have worked to destroy the american dream itself.

[The Flaming Red Head]

74. you're beating up on a yellow dog dem

I'm getting my feelings hurt, alot.

[RedEarth]

21. I saw Frank on Bill Moyers show a few weeks ago and he discussed his

book "What's the Matter with Kansas". Politics in our country now revolve around the divisive issues of guns, gays and god. The dems lost the south as well as many other voters when the repubs adopted the three "g's" as major issues for their party. Instead of sticking to the traditional dem economic platform, the dems have tried to fight the repubs on social issues and in turn have ended up losing many national and state elections.

[Emillereid]

25. Amen to this! I couldn't agree more.

Perhaps not in this current election, but soon I believe the democratic wing of the democratic party will have to break off and fly solo -- too many people, perhaps even a majority, really have no representation by either party! No matter how professional I become, my feet are still firmly rooted in good old fashioned, working class, 'plebeian' soil. Joe Hill's still my hero.

[Jose Diablo]

73. Yep, here is the real issue

"too many people, perhaps even a majority, really have no representation by either party".

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Talk of class warfare has become, 'unfashionable'. We wouldn't want to upset the base of well healed semi-wealthy in their sitting rooms within the gated communities, now would we?

After all, the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor. It is part of the current christian dogma. The price of sin, is to be poor. The benefit of being 'righteous' is to be wealthy. Here here!!

It is not really a war, unless there is blood. All this talk of 'war' is just so much talk. Not to say, that it will not become a 'real' war. There is bad moon rising to be sure.

Maybe, just maybe, none of the candidates really represents the interests of a majority of Americans. How far from its base has the DNC gone? Does anybody really think that those that are primarily concerned with putting food on their family table, keeping a roof over their heads, keeping shoes on their children's feet are concerned with issues like gay rights, abortion, guns or drugs. Not that these issues are not important to small parts of America, but lets face it, most Americans have more 'pressing' needs, like "little Suzy is sick again, how will we pay the doctors bills?" The RW tells them, we will reduce your taxes, fair enough. The LW says we will have the government provide help, yet then doesn't. The government always seems to help the wealthy, always has, always will. Who really does good for a majority of Americans? Buzz, none of the above.

Who 'sacrifices' in a war? The intellectual left, reactionary right or the 'cannon' fodder trying to feed their families. Do any of the leaders, in either party, give a rats-ass for those that have to fight a war? It doesn't seem so to me. It looks like to me, they are all getting rich. Well, not all maybe. But those that truly do not like this war, well they have no real power.

There is a rift in America, to be sure. And that rift isn't between the left and right. It is and always has been between the haves and the have nots.

When, or if, the democratic party starts to realize where their bread is buttered, then it will start to win elections again.

Then again, who in power wants to really have those smelly poor people in their base?

Let the games begin.

[Emillereid]

76. Have you read the new book

What's the Matter with Kansas? How the Conservatives Won the Heart of America. by Thomas Frank

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. I heard Jim Hightower speak in the Twin Cities last night, and

he said something similar.

He claims that Texas has not really "turned Republican." What has happened is that voter participation has dropped off sharply, and that turnout in the election that made Bushboy governor was only 27%. This means that only 15% of the population of Texas actually voted for the Bushboy.

When someone in the crowd asked how this could be reversed, HIghtower said that the Dems had to give Texans something positive to vote for, something where they could see a positive personal benefit.

[Kanary]

38. I'm glad Hightower is able to say that w/o being tarred and feathered

I said the same thing regarding poor folk, and voting, and got blistered.

It doesn't change the truth....... if Dems want to regain the vote, they have to speak for those who have been disenfranchised.

At the same time, those who have been left out and disenfranchised have to support the causes of each other.

We've allowed OURSELVES to be splintered, and it's showing.

Kanary

[unfrigginreal]

45. "We've allowed OURSELVES to be splintered, and it's showing."

Your slams on Dean in thread make a good case for your point. Dean consistantly addressed class issues throughout his campaign. For those that may not have read it, here's a link to a speech given by the Gov. in South Carolina on Dec. 7th.


Restoring the American Community

And here's a link for some commentary about the speech.

Dean Makes Racial-Political History

Howard Dean has taken history in his hands by hitching his ascendant campaign to a straightforward, anti-corporate message that does not pander to white racism. He presents whites in the South and elsewhere with the only principled choice they should be offered: to vote their interests, or vote for their bosses’ interests (if they are lucky enough to have a job). Although corporate media called Dean’s statement his “southern strategy,” it is in fact the only position that holds out any hope for a national Democratic victory in 2004 – whether enough southern whites emerge from their racist “false consciousness” or not. - The Black Commentator, December 11, 2003

[Kanary]

47. Oh yeah, I'm the one doing the splintering....

Good move.

Same with the poor folk.

Same with the blacks complaining about being left out.

Same with the Indians.

We're all to blame.

I said what was true about Dean, and it was reitterated again further up here.

But, do what the Kerry people are doing, and tell me and the rest of us we're not needed, not wanted, and nothing but a bunch of troublemakers.

MY SURVIVAL is more important than some candidate, and his supporters, who care nothing about it.

Kanary

[unfrigginreal]

48. Of course you're the ONLY one who cares about class issues.

Who the hell are these stubborn Deaniacs that just can't see the great wisdom that you possess. They should cry hosanna's for your attempts at uniting the left.

since I know, as you say, Dean "personally rejected economic leftism", but of course, can't seem to get that across to Deaniacs.

I'm sure that you meant no harm there.

You might want to read the speech that I linked so that you won't continue to make this false statement "He talked about corporate interests, but not about poverty."

[Kanary]

50. Your sarcasm is doing a lot to heal wounds, right?

You and others who talk down to anyone not in your particular candidate camp have done much to splinter and push away other dems. If I was the only one saying that it would be something different, but I've talked to many others who have experienced exactly the same thing.

You're now getting a taste of your own medicine from the Kerry Kamp, and finding it doesn't go down so well.

If you actually want to work with others on a progressive agenda, you have some fences to mend, so maybe you shouldn't continue to destroy 'em.

If all you want to do is work with other Deniacs, then have at it.

Kanary

[unfrigginreal]

51. About as much as yours, right?

Oh yeah, I'm the one doing the splintering....

Good move.

Same with the poor folk.

Same with the blacks complaining about being left out.

Same with the Indians.

We're all to blame.

You come on this thread and make false statements about Gov. Dean and then claim that Dean supporters have fences to mend? Well boo-hoo for you. I could give a shit less about your progressive agenda if it's built on lies.

[Kanary]

52. Your screen name says it all

[unfrigginreal]

53. It sure does.

[Mike Niendorff]

36. Outstanding piece.

From the same piece:

-----

Behold the political alignment that Kansas is pioneering for us all. The state watches impotently as its culture, beamed in from the coasts, becomes coarser and more offensive by the year. Kansas aches for revenge. Kansas gloats when celebrities say stupid things; it cheers when movie stars go to jail. And when two female pop stars exchange a lascivious kiss on national TV, Kansas goes haywire. Kansas screams for the heads of the liberal elite. Kansas runs to the polling place. And Kansas cuts those pop stars' taxes.

As a social system, the backlash works. The two adversaries feed off each other in a kind of inverted symbiosis: One mocks the other, and the other heaps even more power on the mocker. This arrangement should be the envy of every ruling class in the world.

(...)

Why shouldn't our culture just get worse and worse, if making it worse will only cause the people who worsen it to grow wealthier and wealthier?

-----


MDN

[WillyT]

61. I'm So Glad We Can All Come Together In Peace And Unity Here...

Cripes!

So I guess we can start workin on changing the direction of the party just as soon as the blood-feuds are settled, and the bodies are bulldozed?

:wtf:

[Beam Me Up]

66. LOL

I believe the left of the 60s completely underestimated the resistance to meaningful social change. We had no idea how difficult this was going to be. There are people, very powerful people, who simply do not want it and will not allow it. It hardly even matters what their reasons are because it isn't about "reason" at all. Then, too, it is our own weaknesses and habits. A lot of people would probably like things to 'be different' but few are actually willing to change.

[Kanary]

67. You're so right..... I know *I* didn't see it.... too young and idealistic

Just tried to keep up the best I could as I aged....

"The change begins with us"....... is the sticking point.....

And that's the whole point I've been getting at in this thread....

*WE* have to be different in order to have the *country* be different.

Just ousting Bushwa isn't gonna do it....... that would be the easy part

" It isn't about reason"....... you sure got that right.....

Will we ever break through all the crap and start fighting on the same side?

Kanary

[Kanary]

68. Or bury it all with candles, holding hands, and singing Kumbaya

[Disturbed]

70. Pain, anger and frustration.

I feel it and know that many feel it too.

I feel that the Green Party is the best alternative.
Sometimes in my low mood I feel that maybe it would be
better if BushCo does have the chance to destroy Amerika because
maybe the Class War will begin for real. Usually, I don't feel that way and hope that the left can influence Kerry/Edwards enough to make things tolerable.

The view of the Dems in the 1st post is fairly accurate and others have added cogent views.

[WillyT]

77. Gotta Come Up With Another Song, LOL !!!

Peace!

:hi:

[Bread and Circus]

71. Yeah, I agree w/ the article but if you start gettting....

wishy washy on things like (insert pet social wedge issue
here), you get nuked on DU.

Frankly, I think we get so hung up on choice, gay marriage,
guns, and other progressive social issues that we do kind
of neglect fighting the hard fight on economic issues that
affect us all.

At least, that's what I got from the article.

Anyway, I am probably about 10 seconds from being called
a "Freep" so I will shut up now.

[stickdog]

72. I'm a hardcore Marxist on this one issue. The so-called "culture war" is

nothing more than a Repuke trap to keep lower class whites (and especially white males) voting against their own economic interests. Seriously.

Every time we loudly and vocally take up for partial birth abortion or gay marriage or against prayer in school or guns or an anti-flag burning amendment or any other relatively meaningless "wedge" social issue, we play into the hands of the skilled xenophobia manipulators on the far right.

That's not to say that I don't completely agree with the left's stance on these issues or dismiss them as trivial. It's just that the right (and, sadly, many of our Dem "leaders") have seemingly trapped us into a corner where these issues are the ONLY major recognizable differences between the parties.