The Democratic Underground and the ideology of its members Verson 2.0

[Anarcho-Socialist]

The original poll was quite successful and I received a lot of feedback. The original poll is at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2537977

I only have spaces for 10 choices and I've had to combine choices to fit most of your selections on the poll.

I've often wondered how people on DU describe themselves ideologically, as not all of us (though possibly most of us) are Liberal. Vote away, I'll be interested in the results... and post a message if you can.

I find that we're an interesting coalition, in our desire to defeat Bush and ELECT a real President in John Kerry.

[jadedcherub]

1. Libertarian Socialist?

Like Noam?

.jc.

(not me, mind you. I pushed the liberal button.)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

3. Yes, like Noam Chomsky

:)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

19. Kick!

:kick:

[blackcat77]

2. Progressive Populist

Both elements are necessary.

[Indiana_Dem]

4. I'm a mix but I'd mostly say I fit the Green catagory.

My conservative views include fiscal responsibility, pro-gun.

Liberal views consist of separation of church and state, pro-choice, civil rights, national healthcare, SS program as is and other social programs.

Libertarian traits include powering down, more localized government regarding certain areas.

Anarchist tendencies regarding globalization. I'm anti-big business and pro labor rights.

I'm kind of a pacifist unless we are being attacked.

Environmentally I go towards the greens.

There are so many issues that put me into different categories.

I don't know what I would call myself. I always hate when I'm asked the question as either conservative, moderate, liberal, etc. I just don't have a label I guess.

[Robbie67]

5. kick

[Tight_rope]

6. All of the Above!...

[sweetheart]

7. AND non ideological

I am a pragmatist, and whilst i selected libertarian socialist on
the poll, i write on DU, not out of some philosophy, but out of
what feels right in my heart.

In that sense, i wanted to select non-ideological as well.

[m berst]

8. progressive populist

Populism is needed to pull rural and urban poor both into a progressive movement because of our tradition of independent small farmers. Although farmers are a small pecentage of the population today, the ethic remains. Many of these people are drawn into the Republican party because they see liberals as a privileged suburban elite who are out of touch with their lives.

I was very intrigued when I read this article, as it seems to address so many of the current problems we are having with organizing and getting people involved so well.

POPULISM

Link: http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_070500_populism.htm

<<snip>>

In an effort to restructure American politics, Populists formed the People's party, which was free of corporate influence. The new party polled over a million votes in its initial campaign in 1892, made sizable gains in 1894, and then joined with the free-silver wing of the Democratic party to support William Jennings Bryan's unsuccessful presidential candidacy in 1896. Having lost much of its distinctive identity in the course of its "fusion" with the Democrats, the third party suffered an abrupt decline thereafter.

The parent institution of populism, the National Farmers Alliance and Industrial Union, set up an elaborate lecturing system that turned some forty thousand "suballiances" into a veritable schoolroom of economic and political inquiry. The Populist reforms were not only broadly egalitarian and democratic but workable as well. Instead of appearing as mindless provincials, the reformers were regarded as humanistic advocates who numbered within their ranks prominent reform editors and organizers—Catholic, Jewish, and African-American as well as white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. Historian Walter T. K. Nugent summarized matters in the title of his book: The Tolerant Populists.

The Populist experience shows how easily election campaigns and the legislative process are made vulnerable to powerful economic influences and how these malpractices can be brought into public view through critical appraisals generated by self-organized popular constituencies. There is a third, rather unwanted, discovery—the multiple hazards to popular democracy that persist in highly stratified and socially isolated modern populations. As the Populist experience clarifies the interrelationship of these dynamics, a series of long-standing assumptions about political conduct in the modern state have come under sustained revaluation.

<<snip>>

For generations, many scholars took the sudden appearance of citizen politics in any society as some sort of "spontaneous" happening through which the routine "apathy" of "ordinary people" was somehow temporarily overcome. As the enormous practical difficulties involved in creating organized citizen advocacy have become better understood, it is increasingly apparent that serious political movements are laboriously constructed by human hands and are in no sense "spontaneous." Indeed, the term is used by scholars to describe moments of political organization they have not otherwise researched. As such, the word spontaneous routinely conceals the social relations it purports to describe.

Moreover, given the powerful economic and cultural authority invested in prevailing forms of elite governance, the hesitancy of average citizens to expose themselves to retribution and ridicule by opposing sanctioned authority clearly involves an intelligent (if cautious) response that cannot accurately be described as "apathetic." The process through which social fear is, on occasion, overcome stands as an important and neglected question that bears directly on the long-term durability of democratic substance in any society.

<<snip>>

[geek tragedy]

9. East coast liberal leftist cultural elitist.

Non-ideological, but can resemble a Communist or a conservative Dem, depending on the subject.

[SOL]

26. Examples please

[obiwan]

10. I am a liberal retread...

...over the hill (50), fat, tired, educated, pissed off, and opinionated.

[babylonsister]

18. Bite your tongue!

50 is NOT over the hill!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

11. kick!

:kick:

[greekspeak]

12. Liberal...oh SH*T...got blood on my keyboard again from my

BIG FAT BLEEDING HEART!!! HAHA!

[TahitiNut]

17. That's why I wear it on my sleeve.

:silly:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

13. kick for more votes

:)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

14. and kick!

[donsu]

15. Feminist

always and forever

[American Tragedy]

16. It depends

The problem is how to define these various ideologies. For example, I was under the impression that progressive was virtually synonymous with liberal.



By the way, isn't there ANY way to change usernames, or open another account, or something? I was in a wretched mood when I registered, and I didn't realize that I would be permanently stuck with this name.

I only ask here because I can't seem to post in the Admin board.

[idiosyncratic]

20. I am non-ideological and have always voted as an Independent

however, I want Bush out because of his environmental record in my beloved West.

Of course I hate what he has done Internationally, but his reversal of some of Clinton's environmental protections is maddening.


And his opening up of the delicate environment of the Public Lands,which belong to all of us, to rampant oil and gas exploration is criminal.

[Raiden]

21. Moderately socialist progressive populist n/t

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

22. Moderate, but Left-Leaning.

Moderate to conservative on foreign policy (backing Kerry BTW), liberal on economic policy, and moderate to liberal on social policy.

[belle]

23. Somewhere between "liberal," "progressive," and "social dem" I guess

I'm not entirely sure what the defining breakdowns are in all cases, to be honest...

[donheld]

24. IMHO some of your catagories have only vague definitions

need more information really. These things have kind of been perverted over the years.

[SOL]

25. Socialist/ communist

I know the mere thought of communism sends the shivers down the spines of many, but they are thinking of the evils portrayed by the likes of Stalin. This is not what it was supposed to be all about. Every cause has its bad apples, but can't we all agree that it is in the best interest of society for everyone to be equal, not just before the law, but economically as well? Just think of the misery that would be obliterated and the subsequent lack of crime.

I am not trying to sound like the perverbial Utopian here, I am just stating a fact that many of societies ills could be cured if we just realized that it is better to work for the common good.

I would like to hear others comments on this.