Does the Democratic Party need to be fundamentally changed?

[UpsideDownFlag]

as in less repuke centrism, more emphasis on universal healthcare- you know, a nice progressive makeover. maybe with more Feingolds and less Daschles?

maybe a few less zell millers, and a few more Wellstones?

[toddzilla]

1. some delusional people here..

the party is a fucking disaster.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. maybe this discussion should be deferred until after the election...

Thank God we have two Democratic senators in a state where AWOL will get over 60% of the vote...

[UpsideDownFlag]

4. this poll was created

b/c someone disagreed with me when i said "i think few people would disagree that part of the larger goal is making the Dems more progressive"

and their response was "do you have a poll"? so here it is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I Think The Dem's Programs Should Be As Liberal As Politically Practical..

nt

[blm]

21. yeah...just like ALL your polls.

No divisiveness meant, no siree.....no focus grouping, uh-uh.

[UpsideDownFlag]

23. i've made something like 30 polls.

they range from "best punk group" to "which word best describe's kerry's debate performance". if you have something to say, either be more explicit or alert on my post.

:nopity:

[sangh0]

24. So far, one third of the respondents disagree

Looks like you were wrong (so far) to say that few would disagree with you.

[UpsideDownFlag]

25. i think 66 percent is a majority. nt

actually, it's much more than that. 6 for not changing it, the rest for changing it to one extent or another.

[sangh0]

26. And I think you just pulled a "Bait and switch"

In an earlier post, you explained why you started this poll:

this poll was created...b/c someone disagreed with me when i said "i think few people would disagree that part of the larger goal is making the Dems more progressive"

First, it was "few people would disagree". Now it's "the majority agrees"

Do you see how you switched your argument? I doubt it was intentional, but it was a switch all the same.

[UpsideDownFlag]

28. i do see...i had considered them the same thing.

most people here support the changing of the leadership and/or tactics of the democratic party, with the end goal being a more progressive entity.

[sangh0]

29. Yes, DU leans pretty far to the left

Far enough that a large portion (ie approx. 2/3) of DUers feel a certain amount of hostility to certain factions within the DNC, particularly the DLC. However, with so many members, with such a diverse range of views, it is probably unwise to describe DUers as united on anything.

The only issue which nearly everyone seems to agree on is that it was wrong to invade Iraq. Other than that, I doubt you'll be able to find any issue where DUers are in such unanimity.

[UpsideDownFlag]

30. alrighty then, i can agree with that.

cheerio.

[UpsideDownFlag]

27. what is this "focus grouping" to which you refer? nt

[Demeter]

3. Even better, it IS Changing!

NOt as fast as we'd like, not as much as we'd like, but the glacier is on the move and melting. It will be exponential, as it picks up momentum, which will happen if the public rewards the changes.

[toddzilla]

7. i think you need to look at some voting records

it's changing alright..

[demnan]

6. The populous as a whole

should start moving toward the center (as opposed to the right) that would help us change the party and be more courageous in our economic reforms.

However, unless the people change, it's a moot point.

[unfrigginreal]

8. Great poll for November 3rd

unless your intention is to start shit. Based on the other poll that you posted yesterday, I've certainly formed an opinion, but not about either poll.

[UpsideDownFlag]

13. this poll was made because

my thoughts on the DLC were called assinine, and in the minority. i think i've proved otherwise. i certainly didn't mean to start shit, and i dont think i did- nine replies, not exactly a flamewar.

[UdoKier]

9. Not so much idologically, but in terms of attitude.

I'm fine with having centrists in the party, but I am nothered by people who are so sold out to corporate interests that they don't even vote like democrats, or people so complacent and comfortable with their cushy positions that they miss votes all the time and happily vote themselves pay raises every time out.

Of course I would prrefer an ideologically more left-wing party, but a lot of the centrist and center-right dems are merely reflecting their constituency. In the case of Daschle, I thinkl we'd be better served by a more obstinate liberal than a compromising centrist, but a lot of people are happy with Daschle.

I also think the party has lost its way in that it has become a party of simply holding the line against GOP destruction of the last tatters of the New Deal and Great Society. We need to go back to being more about achieving progress and making real change. When we do that, we won't be just a party of various divergent constituencies, we'll be able to attact working people back to the party.

But even if we don't do it, we'll be okay. The GOP, in their greed and lust for power always overdo it. They impoverish the millde and working classes too much and they naturally, reflexively return to us.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. NO, I love it that republican hold both houses and the Presidency

and most of the governorships, I think. Here in my state of Pa, they also hold the state house and senate. The only thing we have is a moderate democratic Governor.
Why would the party change when things are so freakin wonderful?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Either change or become even more irrelevant.

The futile hunt for the "middle" by the DLC and their apologists has resulted in losses in 2000 and 2002 that will only continue as the party sheds it's ideals and stands for nothing but being a little bit less republican than the republicans.

The constant grumbling about Nader, the Greens, etc, does nothing but make excuses. The voters on the left are available if they are sought. If not, and the party continues to slide even more to the right and effectively merge with the republicans in ideology, a viable 3rd party of the left will emerge.

[K-W]

15. They shifted to the center because the left stopped winning them elections

The right wing systimatically mocked and marginalized liberal ideas until people just stopped voting for them. The democrats who gave liberal speeches lost primaries and elections to democrats who were more conservative. Thus the party shifted right. The party followed the votes right just like the republican party did. When and if taking strong liberal stances becomes an electorally successful policy again, the party will shift back.

The democratic party is a symptom, not the problem. Parties dont stear the ship in our system, votes do. The right wing figured this out and has learned to use propaganda and financial resources (and less legal means) to influence elections and stear the system.

All we have to do is get people to vote on our issues and the politicians will come.

[madfloridian]

20. No, that is what the DLC wants you to think.

We just essentially let the right take over and then tried to be like them so as not to offend them.

[K-W]

22. No, that is the truth of american electoral politics

And all the conspiricy theories that scapegoat democratic politicians in the world wont change that.

The liberal movement lost momentum like crazy in the 80's. The labor movement, the biggest source of votes for liberal reformers in the democratic party has been severely diminished, it is a shell of what it once was politically. Its numbers are down and its influence over its members are down. Liberal rhetoric about caring for the enviroment/poor/etc has been countered by rhetoric about tree hugging/bleeding heart/tax and spend.

The right wing changed the way a large part of America looks at liberal ideas and ideals. At the same time they united and grew a movement of backlash against liberalism. At the same time, they used negative campaigning to supress liberal voters. At the same time they purged the media of liberal ideas and spread thier ideas so that liberal ideas were no longer in the 'norm' and seemed a little out there, while thier ideas got lots of exposure and seemed less crazy from it.

That combined with corporate money flowing to moderate democrats spelled electoral success for moderate democrats while democrats painted as liberals (under the new right wing definition) lost elections, sometimes high profile elections.

The democratic party became filled with moderate politicians and became convinced that moderation was the best electoral strategy. To them it seemed as though that was what the people wanted. It worked, Clinton ran as a moderate and won.

Now it stopped working in the mid 90's. At that point the right wing had gotten so powerful that it was trying to destroy moderate democrats as well. Through the attacks on Clinton and then in the 2000 election people really started to realize that the right wing was out of control, and thus now the DLC strategy is dying off and being replaced. But for all we know the DLC kept the party alive through the 90's so that it is able to fight today. The marginalized left needs to step in now and become a powerful voting force in some party with something resembling a hope of winning power. Our parties are not ideological, they follow votes. There is no test to be in a party. Anyone can register to vote for a party and anyone can run for office in a party. What matters is who wins the primaries and elections.

[Zhade]

31. "Parties dont stear the ship in our system, votes do."

Actually, corporate interests do, and have for a long time. From reading some of your other posts, I know you know this to be true.

[K-W]

34. No votes do, corporations can influence votes.

and votes steer parties. If corporations could not influence votes they would have no power over political parties. To influence a political party you must control votes.

[Zhade]

37. Candidates have to accept corporate funding for that to work.

They are actively participating in the destruction of the party's principles by accepting money from corporate abusers. They are not guilt-free in this.

EDIT for punctuation.

[Cheswick2.0]

17. nonsense

I may think the party needs to change, however Nader and the Green party can take their share of the responsibility for Bush being President. The problem wth the third party left is that they demand a litmus test and bailout rather than staying and fighting. No viable third party will emerge. The democrats will simply reflect those people who vote for them.

[K-W]

19. It is amazing how so few people realize the simple truth.

"The democrats will simply reflect those people who vote for them."

The right wing won the image battle and turned liberal talking points into punchlines. They lied and lied and lied and convinced people that liberal means frivolous. That if people kept voting for liberals they would end up destroying the government with wasteful programs and high taxes.

Tax and spend liberals, tree-huggers, feminazi's, Political Correctness. The right wing marginalized liberal ideas, and popularized sentiment that we need to be 'conservative' This combined with the gelling of a backlash against liberalism by a bevy of groups from corporations to fundemental christians to gun enthusiasts created a pool of voters who swung the republican party far far right and marginalized liberals in the democratic party.

The party makeup is decided in primaries. Centrists beat leftists in primaries and centrists did better than leftists in elections, so the party moved to the center. Then, liberals started wondering what had happened, and either stopped voting or turned to another party, thus exacerbating the situation for the democratic party, it now had even less votes on the left, pushing it further center. It reached the point where the dems that were being elected were convinced that the left had become obsolete and that conservatism in the face of the new right wing was the future of the party (DLC).

We can prove them wrong simply by showing that liberalism or progressivism can get people elected. If we get the politicians elected, you can bet your ass they will start pandering to us. That is what politicians do. Until we can create a situation where people reflecting our views are capable of winning primaries and elections, it doesnt matter what party we vote for, it will never succeed. And if we do have those votes, we could vote for any party and it would shift to appeal to us.

[Zhade]

32. "Centrists beat leftists in primaries..."

And, as we've discussed before, this was due to major bankrolling by corporate interests.

The DLC essentially sold us out, literally, by being more concerned with corporate cash than workers' rights and a whole slew of traditional Democratic Party principles.

Not arguing with you here, just clarifying.

[K-W]

35. You arent understanding.

Of course corporate money is one reason why they won, I stated that fact myself, but that isnt the DLC people's fault. They are participating in the system. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing, it is the effect of the corporations that is subverting the system.

If you removed the DLC, some other group would just take thier place. If you removed the corporate influence, DLC democrats would never end up in power. Thus it is the corporate influence, not the beliefs of the DLC that are causing the problem in the system.

[Zhade]

36. So they can take dirty money with impunity?

I mean, that's the logical conclusion of your assessment - that they don't have to worry about the abuses of those corporate interests that fund them.

Willingly participating in the corporate destruction of Democratic Party principles isn't something they should fight against?

[tinanator]

12. decorporatize the party and then the government

too much to ask?

[K-W]

16. You need to remove the link between money and votes.

And you will have your solution. Either through campaign finance reform or grassroots movements that counter act the influence of corporate money. As long as money wins elections, politicians will be beholden to money.

[K-W]

14. Fundamentally changed? No. Nothing wrong with the fundementals

of the party. What needs to change is the people. The party follows votes, it got moderate when more moderates were voting, it will get liberal when people are voting on liberal issues. The party is just a reflection of what is happening in primaries and elections.

We need to get our voices back in the political debate and we need to educate people so that they vote in thier best interests. As long as people are misinformed and voting against thier best interests, in both parties, they will get what they vote for.

[TahitiNut]

18. You don't fight slavery ...

... by helping out in the kitchen before having dinner with the owner of the plantation.

[Zhade]

33. Damn, TN, you know how to make a point!

Damn fine post.

[eridani]

38. Remember the polls at the Dem convention?

Mostly against the war, for universal health care, etc. The short version--force the leadership into line with the membership.