211 posts nibbling at bait. Anyone want to have a real conversation?

[ulysses]

The Green/Dem thing is representative of larger issues that the Democratic Party and the left in general need to address, so it's not going away any time soon. It's pretty evident that two and a half years of the massive disciplinary project have not achieved the goal of bringing disaffected Democrats in line with the party leadership, so does anyone have any other ideas on how to address the center/left split?

[Iverson]

1. You're right, uly.

Two articles, both by Ted Glick, offer some serious commentary along these lines. They are "Two Democratic Parties" and "The Internal Struggle." They are under the heading of U.S. 2004 Elections here:

http://www.zmag.org/znet.htm

[ulysses]

4. excellent

Thanks for the heads up, Iverson. Been too long since I checked out Z. :hi:

[Spentastic]

2. More carrot less stick?

With us or against us seems to have been the cry by just about everyone.

That's not going to work is it?

[ulysses]

14. nope.

Don't expect to hear any less of it any time soon, though.

[Terwilliger]

3. yes...excise the center

bunch of freakin' whiners!

[ulysses]

12. I don't think that's necessary

I really don't. Build a genuine center/left coalition, instead of something based on centrist hegemony, and let the whiners deal with it or take their happy asses elsewhere. :thumbsup:

[Terwilliger]

36. I agree, of course

but if the centrists want me to give them any play...then we start discussing REAL issues, and looking for REAL/PRACTICAL/PRAGMATIC/SOONER-RATHER-THAN-LATER SOULTIONS.

ABB `04: Anything But Bullshit!

OnEdit: "soultions" changed to soluti-... No, I like soultions.

[ulysses]

40. much agreed

Everything I said, of course, is dependent on the construction of that genuine coalition - certainly not a given by any means. :)

I like "soultions" too...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. I think the way to do it

is to use the approach of people taking back America from the corporations. I think that's one reason Dean has picked up some Green votes (I know of at least two in this household). I have voted Green because I saw the Democrats as sucking up to Big Business just like Repukes. Dean is showing that he will again be responsive to the people. Although I hope Dean wins the nomination, I'll vote Democratic anyway to get Bush out. But I hope that whoever gets the nomination will use Dean's approach--I believe it is the way to bring leftist progressives back to the Democrats.

[MMT]

34. Is *any* Democrat really going to stand up to the corpos?

I haven't seen any of them talk about reining in the corporations.

And I thought Dean was one of the guys who actually boasted about his good relationships with corporate bosses.

Has any of the candidates actually *done* anything for us against corpo opposition?

=Meg

[jiacinto]

6. You can't reason with left-wing extremists

And the real term for them is "the regressives". They demand perfection and anything else is unacceptable. I really don't know how to appease "the regressives", for they are unreasonable and more interested in losing than winning.

[Terwilliger]

8. The DLC has lost everything

isn't that a better indictment?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

9. And that is why...

the current center dominated Democratic Party is the majority in the House, Senate and holds the Oval Office, right?

[jiacinto]

10. But see the "regressives" demand 100% perfection

If Candidate X votes their way 80% of the time that's not good enough. When Candidate X votes deviates one bit from their agenda the "regressives" insist on "sending a message" and defeating that person.

[Iverson]

19. Repetition ...

... does not transform a false claim into a true one.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

42. It's the centrists that demand total obedience to the corporate line

If a candidate doesn't follow the corporate party line, and keep down any populist rhetoric, the candidate is attacked by the centrists. If the centrists don't get their way, they VOTE REPUBLICAN, thus blowing any chances of a populist progressive candidate.

I say the centrists have been threatening us too long. I bet a left of center progressive populist platform can win election after election. The real fight is always in the primary - usually by the time a candidate goes through the process, he's so much like the Republican you can hardly tell the difference on many issues.

[OrdinaryTa]

76. Vote NO To Warmongers

When Candidate X votes deviates one bit from their agenda

You are pooh-poohing the vote on the war resolution as though it were a trivial matter. It's not trivial - it defines our values as a people. Kerry and Gephardt and Lieberman should have been more skeptical than they were. Did they really think war was necessary?

Americans have become as aggressive, warmongering, uncaring and bloodthirsty as any other imperial power. I will not vote for a warmonger. These guys had their chance to show some backbone, but they chose not to. They're not eligible for my vote.

[jiacinto]

84. Spoken like a true regressive

You would rather have four more years of Bush than having an "imperfect" Democrat in office. Like the typical regressive you could care less about the other multitude of issues because one vote didn't go your way.

Another regressive in action. DU seems to be filled with them.

[Q]

93. It's 'funny' that mainstream Dems are now called 'extremists' by..

...the likes of 'centrist' Jiacinto. Your views would be considered 'right wing' by almost any Democrat that still believes in representative government and the Bill of Rights.

- It's interesting that the DLC uses the same type of language to smear anyone to the left of Lieberman.

[Spentastic]

11. I know

Perhaps you could patronise them some more. That seems to work. Additionally I find becoming fixated on their nominal leader and blaming them for all bad things in the world also helps. Finally I'd spend loads of time posting flame bait and wondering why I get burned.

[ulysses]

13. thank you for perpetuating the problem.

[Flying_Pig]

15. Sometimes Carlos, it seems you spend more time...

bad-mouthing people on the Left, than on the right. Are you sure you're in the right place here at DU? Though you are a long-time member, I've noticed your bent to slam the Left, and to advocate DLC, if not conservative, positions. I guess that's OK, but it seems you are only marginally a Democrat sometimes... Wouldn't it be better to focus your angst towards the Right, instead of stomping on your supposed brethren?

[jiacinto]

70. Only at DU would I be considered a conservative

And no I am not part of the DLC. The only connection I have to that orgnaization is that I went to high school with Al From's daughter.

I do vent toward the right, but I do think the extremists in our party often play a counterproductive role.

[Iverson]

18. what an intellectually inert claim!

Not only is it demonstrably false, it completely contravenes the spirit of dialogue that ulysses was attempting to foster.

This centrist invocation of spectres and bogeymen is designed to shut down conversation, and as such it (and not lefties) is the extremist and intolerant thing.

[Ardee]

21. more nonsense, really Carlos, grow up!

Sorry that leftists tend to ask you questions that you refuse to answer, Im equally sorry that you seem unwilling or unable to come to grips with the many problems besetting your party, choosing instead to post hyperbole and the same tired nonsense to each and every thread. You remind me of a child, preferring temper tantrum and shouting to reasoned and adult debate.

Because you yourself are unwilling or unable to debate or discuss point by point issues and solutions with leftists, and because these questions challenge you on a basic level, you choose to denigrate all on the left with meaningless catch phrases....well heres one for you, you are a vichy democrat, inadvertently supporting the goals of the Bush administration by your support of Bush-lite (Dean)and you support of a political party that moves further to the right each and every day.

Your (lack of a real) solution to the problems that beset americans and the world will lead inevitably to one of two discussion :

1. why the democrats lost the '04 election so badly
or
2. why a democrat in the WH has not led to any real improvement in the plight of the american worker or the lessening of terrorism around the world.

[jiacinto]

69. I don't denigrate the left

You are being dishonest. I have a problem with those who vote Green, the regressives specifically.

[Iverson]

71. thanks for the pre-bedtime laugh

:7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 :7

[Forkboy]

72. yep..."fringe leftist","Extreme left","far left"

but you dont denigrate the left :eyes:

Someone's being dishonest here Carlos,and it's not who you'd like to think it is.

[ulysses]

78. please. you rarely do anything else

Would you care to answer Tinoire's question concerning the nature of a progressive?

[jiacinto]

83. I think I did in the other thread

Progressives don't help to elect Republicans or send society back. That's what regressives do.

[ulysses]

86. no.

As endlessly clever as calling people "regressives" is, the question asked of you was what a progressive is, not what a progressive is not.

[jiacinto]

87. Okay

The root of the word is progress. To me it means someone advancing society forward, bringing progress. Improving the lives of others, helping the poor, improving education, fighting for civil rights.

Voting Green and electing Republicans makes someone a "regressive", for doing so does not bring progress.

[ulysses]

90. ok, but then

wouldn't it be fair to call the "New Demcratic" plan - coopting Republican ideas, "ending welfare as we know it", and generally maintaining the status quo at best - regressive as well?

[jiacinto]

91. Not necessarily

Why should we give money to people forever if they don't work or improve their own situations? Why is welfare reform such a bad idea if it is implemented properly, which I admit it hasn't been?

Personally I think welfare reform should encourage people to work and to get education, for that is the only way out of poverty. But why is welfare reform so bad if it is done correctly?

Voting Green is more regressive because it elects Republicans, as it arguably did in 2000. And frankly we both can agree that Bush administration has been more "regressive" than any Democrat would ever have been.

[ulysses]

92. **sigh**

Why should we give money to people forever if they don't work or improve their own situations?

Again, Carlos - the Federal Reserve actively works to maintain a 4-5% unemployment rate in the country in order to keep inflation (and wages) down. I have no doubt that there have been those who've gamed the system, but in the interest of going after them, welfare "reform" gutted the safety net in a country where a lot of people will always be out of work. That's simply wrong.

Voting Green is more regressive because it elects Republicans, as it arguably did in 2000. And frankly we both can agree that Bush administration has been more "regressive" than any Democrat would ever have been.

Allow me to reintroduce you to my original point in the thread. Browbeating people hasn't worked. Would you care to offer any new ideas for bridging the gap, or are you content to keep shrieking about "regressives" and "ideological purity"?

[Iverson]

98. It's like reasoning with a teenaged brick.

n/t

[ulysses]

100. LOL

That's not regressive humor, is it Iverson? :D

[jiacinto]

99. I think they are unwilling to compromise

I am not against welfare. But I do think time limits, work, and educational requirements are reasonable expectations of recipients. I admit that "welfare reform" hasn't been implemented properly. That's why we need day care assistance and job training to tranisition people to being employed.

Believe me I support a safety net. But at the same time I don't think the safety net should lead to a lifetime of dependence either.

[ulysses]

101. you think *who* is unwilling to compromise?

And why? Please be specific.

But at the same time I don't think the safety net should lead to a lifetime of dependence either.

So, in the name of that great American self-reliance, you defend the fact (just not the "implementation") of what was nothing more than a political solution to a problem inherent in our very economic system. Great.

[jiacinto]

102. What would you do for welfare

I agree that there were aspects of welfare reform that are clearly bad. But again those who are physically able to work, should work. Why is that so unreasonable? That being said I strongly supporting giving them training, educational assistnace, and child care help to assist with their transition into the work world. The problem with welfare reform as I see it is that there isn't enough money being spent on job training, educational help, and basic life skills. There isn't enough being spent in that regard. And for those who are mentally and physically unable to work or be self-sufficent we should help them.

Most of the Green extremists at DU have said that they will not support any candidate who voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq war. At the outset that excludes

Kerry
Edwards
Lieberman
Graham (While he voted against the war he voted for the Patriot Act).
Gephardt

That leaves

Dean
Kuchinich
Braun
Sharpton

Of those four only Dean is even remotely electable. Sharpton and Braun are both not going to win. Kuchinich, while he has some good ideas, simply is too left to win a general elections.

So basically that leaves Dean in the picture. So it's basically one candidate or nothing. There seems to be no room for compromise with the Green extremists here.

[ulysses]

103. you're not paying attention.

But again those who are physically able to work, should work.

Fine. Where are the jobs?

It may make you feel all tingly and edgy inside to demand that able-bodied people work, but without available jobs (to say nothing of jobs that pay a living wage), it's all empty wankery.

That being said I strongly supporting giving them training, educational assistnace, and child care help to assist with their transition into the work world. The problem with welfare reform as I see it is that there isn't enough money being spent on job training, educational help, and basic life skills. There isn't enough being spent in that regard. And for those who are mentally and physically unable to work or be self-sufficent we should help them.

And absent these thing, tell me again what made the '96 bill so worthwhile...

Most of the Green extremists at DU have said that they will not support any candidate who voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq war.

Again, you're not paying attention. Indiana Green, who has written in the last 24 hours that she will at least consider some who voted for the invasion and who supports Dean 100%, is one example.

and re: Dean - honestly, Carlos, Dean *is* the ideal compromise candidate.

[jiacinto]

105. I do support Dean because he is standing up to Bush

I agree with you about the problem regarding unemployment. If there are no jobs then maybe there should be some extensions or assistance to bide people over.

As for IG I can't read her posts any more. The admins made the both of us put each other on ignore. So I am not allowed to interact with her.

[ulysses]

106. gotcha

Given that you both support the same candidate, maybe admin would reconsider...

[Generic Other]

56. You step left and we step right and we shake hands

and we turn our collective growl on Bush. Even Barney's on our side!

[Paragon]

79. Here's the problem

It's impossible to be pro-gressive and re-gressive at the same time. They're opposites. Seriously, they are - check a dictionary.

A true "regressive" would be, say, Joe Lieberman...or you.

[jiacinto]

88. I don't see people who help elect Republicans at the ballot

box as progressives. They are "regressives".

[Paragon]

94. As always, you proceed from a false assumption

Greens "help elect" Greens by voting for them. Libertarians "help elect" libertarians by voting for them.

You think (using that term loosely) in terms of Democrats and Republicans, in which case - the Supreme Court "helped elect" Bush, Katherine Harris "helped elect" Bush. Millions of registered and non-registered people who didn't vote in 2000 "helped elect" Bush.

You've shown here on DU an amazing capacity for intolerance, Carlos. It'd be nice if you directed it where it belongs -- on the vast number of people who truly "help elect" Republicans, instead of constantly spinning webs of conspiracy and divisiveness inside your own party.

(Allow me to save you the trouble of your usual response: I am "discussing the issues", and disagreeing with your vitriol is not "a personal attack".)

[RC]

7. Consecrate on removing bu$h&co and all influence in this country.

Try bu$h&co and their supporters in Federal court and then turn them over to the World Court for public trial for crimes against humanity.

Anything short of this and even if bu$h loses and is just turned out, they will continue to hound and undermine any administration other than their own. They will be back!

[buddhamama]

16. simplified

respect. you can't begin to have a serious conversation or bridge the divide if we can't at least respect one another.

the other problem is that, the fight has been going on here so long, it has become a fight against DU personalities and not about the issues.

[ulysses]

20. yes

A lot of us have been at this for a long time, haven't we? :)

There are a number of folks at DU with whom I disagree over this whole thing, but who I deeply respect. Problem is that they very rarely, if ever, post on these threads any more.

[buddhamama]

24. it's unfortunate

but understandable why some respected DUers are reluctant to post on this issue--heck, i am too. been at this way too long :hug: (this is my favorite emoticon)

equally unfortunate is the resentment expressed by both sides towards the other. 'their'(DLCers and Greens) existence is real. time to accept that fact and move on to a place of co-existence.

i am here not, planning on going anywhere and more than happy to discuss the issues. but, i won't be told that i am some left-wing extremist who can't be reasoned with and doesn't deserve the same considerations that the DEM party as a whole would give to Independents and Repubs.

[Spentastic]

22. That's a pretty good point actually

There is also a phenomena that could loosely be called "High post inertia". I'd support the removal of post counts every day so that issues / intellect spoke instead of seniority

[Solomon]

17. Yes. I say

let the centrists go over to the republican party if they want to. I can hear the groans as I write this, but I see no value to having a party which is obsessed with capturing republican votes. Appealing to fence sitters flirting with voting republican. It becomes another wing of the same damn party.

Sure, we will lose some people by taking this stance but so what.

I for one will have no problem saying "good bye." "See ya". Now go ahead and groan and flame me.

[ulysses]

23. I don't have a problem

with making common cause, where possible, with moderates. In fact, I think the challenge of creating a working coalition *could* have a rejuvenating effect on American politics as a whole.

That said, the business of trying to court moderate Republicans by dragging the party rightward is pure folly.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. I agree

I think the way to win hearts and minds is to make this campaign a people-powered campaign. I've talked with Republicans and Libertarians who are appalled at what Bush has done. They feel that the country is being taken away from the people and will join in any cause that brings the country back to the people.

[Eloriel]

63. I think so too

In fact, I was wanting to ask Ulysses if he'd checked out the Dean campaign fully. What I'm beginning to understand is that it takes a LEADER to accomplish unifying a group, a central orgainizing principle (and person), so to speak. The more Dean talks, the more non-Dems I see posting on his blog, etc., etc., I just really see a lot of coalescing around this leader, a new sense of American community (which is one of his goals anyway).

The more I hear him say, "I'm tired of Pr___ Bush dividing us by (fill in the blank)," the more unified *I* feel on those subjects. Etc. I don't want to hijack your thread and especially not to campaign, but I just really see it happening. Oh, not on DU, where there are diehard partisans, but I absolutely do see it already happening -- in MY heart and for others -- in the larger scheme of things, which makes me also fully expect that it can only get better from here in the country. I see no one else even trying to do this (well, Kucinich maybe?), and it's soooo needed, so desperately needed.

Again, not trying to hijack your thread. (Sorry if that's what happens.)

Eloriel

[ulysses]

64. sure

I'm supporting Dean. :hi:

[RC]

27. See post #7

bush&co is the party of "You're either with us or against us" The people in power have to be dealt with. Anything short of this is just rearranging the chairs on the deck of Titanic.

[kodi]

26. one must articulate an enemy to unite against

but the greens view much of what the dems preach as anathema akin to what the GOP is doing.

look to what the GOP has done to the federal court system and its political appointments to positions of vast power in the executive branch to find deadly affect against the basic stands of progressives.

look at texas, two of three federal judges there are conservative republicans who will decide what to do about the renegade democratic senators trying to stave off the re-districting.

recall that ken starr was appointed because two of three federal judges in the DC circuit were conservative republicans.. and close friends of jesse helms. if one more democrat had been on that three judge panel, ....well, you know.

it is there, and in each dept under the executive branch where ideological political appointees fight against AIDs funding, clean air and water, employee rights, child and health care.

it is not the enactment of federal laws that count, but under what bureacratic rules they are applied that counts...just like democracy is ruled by who counts the votes.

the president is not hurting us all by himself, and alone he is not destroying that in which progressives believe, but his thousands of political appointments whose decisions penetrate to the most basic levels of the society are the real and direct danger to progressive positions.

this should be a rallying point to greens and democrats alike.

attacking bush alone is a losers game, articulating and attacking what his people have purpetrated might well be the key to the coalesence of the green/dem divide.

anyway, that's what i think.

[Pepperbelly]

28. I think that the very best thing would be to ...

concentrate on those things upon which we agree and allow the rest to be sorted out through internecine primaries.

What can we agree on?

Of course, transitory things like getting rid of Bushco are just that; transitory. While those things might unite for a while, they do nothing to heal the wounds which divide us.

Perhaps we should commit to those overarching things that would unite us. Things like bountiful opportunity to all Americans rather than to just the privileged few; equal rights for all Americans where some are not more equal than others; a strong defense of the nation that does not just feed the gaping, greeedy maw of the military-industrial complex; a strong safety net for those who find themselves in difficulty and a net with no holes rather than huge ones; an education for all of our children that prepares each of them to not only become productive but to become thinking, compassionate citizens; protection of the rights of all of us.

And a concern to lift up those who are poor among us.

I know that sounds like so much crap but each of those things puts us at odds with the other side because although they pay lip service to these things, they lie and what they want is exactly the oppostite of each of those things.

Just my thoughts

[ulysses]

29. while I don't disagree with any of the issues you list, Pepper,

I think that the problems we face are not the kind of things that party primaries will sort out, especially since one of those problems is that the primaries have been structured to ensure the success of conservative southern Dems.

[Pepperbelly]

30. how does the structure ...

favor those candidates?

[ulysses]

31. the Super Tuesday primaries,

being early in the primary season and based largely in southern states, weed the list of available candidates before more liberal-leaning states ever vote.

[Pepperbelly]

32. That just isn't factually accurate.

Only two of those 3/2 states are southern: Georgia and Texas.


http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/dem_sched04.htm

So what else makes your initial criticism of my notion true?

[ulysses]

33. I stand corrected

Quite a few states have moved their primaries forward. My bad.

So what else makes your initial criticism of my notion true?


The continued hostility of the DLC towards the left, for starters.

[Pepperbelly]

35. Come on, now ...

The DLC hostility is pretty much EXACTLY mirrored by the more left wing's hostility to the DLC.

It all comes down to this: the side that wins the most votes gets to call the tune. Should it be that the side that wins fewer votes gets to call the tune?

on edit: I forgot to ask again what STRUCTURE causes a domination by "Southern moderates" in the Democratic party?

[Terwilliger]

37. when did the DLC win?

In 11 years, we've lost Congress and many state legislatures. Outside of Bill, what has the DLC "won" :shrug:

[Pepperbelly]

39. I don't know ...

my point is that whoever gets the most votes calls the tune. Do you have a better idea for how it should be run?

[ulysses]

41. the building of a coalition

is not done by majority fiat. The party centrists need to decide whether or not they want or need the left, and then act accordingly.

[Pepperbelly]

44. I suspect that if the ...

shoe were on the other foot, it might pinch differently. My experience with both camps, left and right in the Democratic Party is that both are equally dictatorial when they have the authority. It seems to me that your biggest complaint is that you want your faction to control even when they do not have the votes to do so.

Please answer this honestly: how much would you be willing to coalition-build if you were ensconced in power?

[ulysses]

47. answers

It seems to me that your biggest complaint is that you want your faction to control even when they do not have the votes to do so.


Not really. At the base of it, I would just like to know if there is a place at the Democratic Party table for progressives any more. If not, no harm, no foul - just please have people stop shrieking if I look for greener (rimshot!) pastures.

Please answer this honestly: how much would you be willing to coalition-build if you were ensconced in power?

If I needed, and was willing to accept, the help of my prospective coalition members? Very. Again, that's for the leadership to decide.

[Terwilliger]

49. Republicans?

other than 2000, they got the most votes...is that what you're saying?

I think the Dems should define themselves. It doesn't have to rigid to be able to believe in a particular set of ideals. The people who vote vote for someone that knows what they want, and stands by it. That's why the right-wingers could take over the Republicans...they could stand up with a few simple ideas and stand by them.

Maybe we could get someone from the other side to do that instead of pandering to whoever wants what. The "big tent" serves too much sometimes.

[ulysses]

38. sure

The DLC hostility is pretty much EXACTLY mirrored by the more left wing's hostility to the DLC.

The difference being that the Progressive Majority (as an example) didn't take over the party and then move it closer to the center.

It all comes down to this: the side that wins the most votes gets to call the tune.

And, in our current system, the side that gets the most votes is the side that gets the most corporate money. If corporate money came with no strings attached, government for the people might still be possible under this system. But it doesn't, and it isn't. The DLC willingness to play along means both that the Democratic leadership is playing by their opponents rules and that neither major party can lay claim to representing the interests of the American people.

[Pepperbelly]

43. you wrote:

"The difference being that the Progressive Majority (as an example) didn't take over the party and then move it closer to the center."

However, if the Progressives had won, would they have moved the party farther to the left? Of course they would. Actually, I do not have a dog in this fight, being neither a member of the DLC nor of the left wing of the party. I am just trying to keep this discussion honest.

Then you wrote:

"And, in our current system, the side that gets the most votes is the side that gets the most corporate money."

I identify that as the keystone of your argument and will therefore deal with this only in your second full paragraph.

The party is replete with candidates who did not accept corporate money for their campaign and in order to demonstrate that the argument is specious, it is necessary only to point to successful candidate who so refrained. Do I need to point out the late Paul Wellstone (God rest his soul) and of course, the esteemed Senator Feingold from Wisconsin (the Ashcraft voting for chump).

In addition, what you describe is not a structure of the Democratic Party so much as a description of the nation's general; style of political campaigning which is another issue altogether. In other words, a "structure" would mean some rule in the party that arbitrarily precludes participation in the primary. Success in the primaries will always be up to the candidates.

Right now, is Dr. Dean a corporate whore? He is certainly being successful by all measures.

So where is the structure?

[ulysses]

45. the exceptions that prove the rule, no?

Remember that this goes back to the DLC, not the party as a whole. Wellstone wasn't, and Feingold isn't, a DLCer. Dean, beyond having fallen from the Grace of From, is basing his entire campaign on the kind of grassroots support that would make corporate donations unnecessary.

In addition, what you describe is not a structure of the Democratic Party so much as a description of the nation's general; style of political campaigning which is another issue altogether.

Actually it's not - see campaign finance reform.

[Pepperbelly]

46. which still ...

does absolutely nothing to do with my original point in the thread.

[ulysses]

48. doesn't it?

Is CFR something a stain that will come out in the primary wash?

[Pepperbelly]

51. i am not enthused with CFR for two reasons ...

1) no matter how well intentioned, it will always be written by those in power who wish to stay in power and will loophole it to buttress their own positions. That is human nature.

2) The law of unintended consequences -- I do not know what the shape of electoral politics would be IF a vigorous CFR were passed (see problem 1 noted above).

I am not against it. I just do not view it as a panacea for what ails the country.

[ulysses]

52. fair enough, but

that leaves us with a demonstrably broken system if one assumes a goal of actual representation. Where do we go from there?

[Pepperbelly]

59. Frustrating, isn't it?

I really don't know how to fix it. If I did, I would shout it loudly.

:shrug:

[ulysses]

65. isn't taking a chance

on CFR, imperfect as any realized incarnation of it would be, better than simply allowing things to remain broken though?

[mike_c]

50. it's also worth noting that in many ways the centrists...

...have the most to lose, because I don't think the Green Party is going to go away unless it is resorbed by the Democratic Party. Failure to do that will lead to increasing loss of the left and permanently splintering the party. Carlos is correct in at least one sense-- this is happening, and will continue to happen, because the present Democratic leadership simply fails the most fundamental litmus tests on issues of importance to progressives and the left. What I suspect Carlos fails to understand is that everyone, progressive democrats included, has a point at which they throw up their hands and say "this just isn't working anymore, so it's time to try something else." This isn't a "desire to lose," it's a desire to be represented in American politics, a desire to have a voice, even a minority one.

For what it's worth, and for those who don't already know this, I have voted solidly Democratic since 1973-- 30 years of party loyalty-- but I voted Green in the 2002 California gubernatorial election and WILL NOT vote for a centrist or rightist democrat in the 2004 presidential election. The Democratic Party, as it's presently manifested in Washington, no longer serves my political interests-- or those of most of it's constituency, IMO-- before those of corporations, big business, and partisan politics.

[Terwilliger]

53. well said

If we say Republicans don't represent us, we should look for someone who does. If Democrats want to serve Republicans, they can't serve Democrats.

[G_j]

54. I suppose there may be a permanent split

people really can't be expected to give up their core beliefs and principals be they centrist or leftist, though a certain amount of comprimise is possible and realistic. At the present time many will comprimise a whole lot more of those core values than they would under normal circumstances to manifest some kind of party 'unity' because Bush is so very dangerous.
But really this does not represent party unity in the long run.

Perhaps there is no other way but to accept that two parties are not enough to represent us all. People can make exceptions in emergency situations but they will still be who they are.

not sure if that offered anything constructive to this or even made sense...just a few thoughts

[jafap]

61. get up, move faster

Was the advice that the new Robin Hood got after Littlejohn knocked him on his butt.

You say you have given up on the Democratic party because:
"The Democratic Party, as it's presently manifested in Washington, no longer serves my political interests-- or those of most of it's constituency, IMO-- before those of corporations, big business, and partisan politics."
Yet you think that electing more Republicans is an answer to this problem? I cannot see voting Green as a winning strategy, as anything more than cutting off your nose to spite your face. Explain to me how there can be a happy ending.
It should be a primary thing. If progressive candidates/issues cannot win the Democratic primaries, then what are they going to do in the big election. A left divided is a left conquered, and even the accursed center is well to the left of Bush/Delay/Dr. Evil.

[mike_c]

62. endless repetition of falsehoods will never make them true....

Yet you think that electing more Republicans is an answer to this problem?

You should read my post again (and #60 below this one). Please tell me where, if anywhere, I said anything about favoring election of repiglicans. Oh, yeah-- "you're either with us, or against us." Democracy, DLC style.

[Iverson]

55. because it deserves it ...

kick

[nwstrn]

57. Any candidate good enough for the Greens?

MikeC--Which Democratic candidate adheres the closest to the ideals of the Green Party? Would you support any of the candidates? If so, why?

[mike_c]

60. actually, it has less to do with the Green Party's ideals...

...than what I perceive as the core values of the Democratic Party (from which the Green Party ideals emerged, in large measure). Of the current crop, I strongly support both Dean and Kucinich, and Dean most of all, despite the fact that he would certainly not make an ideal Green candidate. Remember, I'm a democrat, albeit a disillusioned one. I perceive Dean as socially liberal on most issues, even if he's not nearly as far to the left as I am on many of those issues. In particular, however, I admire his early opposition to the invasion of Iraq at a time when most of the other democratic leadership displayed no spine whatsoever. The same is true of Kucinich, of course. Kucinich is also more progressive than Dean on most issues that matter to me, but while I certainly support his candidacy, I don't think that he'll emerge at the top of the heap after the primaries.

I'd like to say something about Clark in particular, despite his not having actually declared his candidacy. While most of his positions on many issues are more or less acceptable to me, I am VERY uncomfortable with the idea of a general (or recently ex-general) in the White House.

[jiacinto]

85. A no brainer

They will only support the ones who are clearly unelectable.

[Iverson]

97. prophetic

That post was indeed a no-brainer.

[nolabels]

58. Your whole statement sums it for it's self

The first part of the last sentence you state

> It's pretty evident that two and a half years of the massive disciplinary project have not achieved the goal of bringing disaffected Democrats in line with the party leadership

Instead of taking anything that is offered up as something to consider, they want to hand out disciplinary projects. In other words 'we will tell what to do and think, follow along and don't ask no questions'. So what is so different when you compare that with them people with the (R) in front of their name

D.L.C. tastes right and half the calories

[ulysses]

66. one teensy

:kick:

[buddhamama]

67. i'll probably get laughed off the boards for this

but i'm going to say it anyway.

keep it in perspective. the citizens,the issues and ideals, are bigger than politics. we cannot lose sight of this. yes, politics help to dictate the course but, if you look at it only in the light of electoral politics than we all lose.

is it enough to vote DEM feel good about yourself because you're not one of 'them' and leave it at that? nah. and this is where a large part of the split has occured, i think.

[ulysses]

68. I think that's completely true.

As to being laughed off the boards, that would just mean that you're well outside the DLC's politics of meaninglessness framework, which is a good thing. :)

[Forkboy]

73. if you get laughed off the board

I'm coming with you!

[indigo32]

74. Amen

I totally agree.

[John_H]

75. One easy step to a "real conversation"

Step one: Facing Reality.

It's a matter of first-grade math that Dems don't need Greens to win a single election. Greens, however, do need Dems if they expect to enact even a fraction of their agenda. Ready to compromise? I sure am.

[Iverson]

80. interesting point about math

There's more to a real conversation, though, than isolating one historical moment and counting beans then. Most political progress began with minority opinions and grew from there. That too is facing reality.

If you really wish to have a conversation, then implying that your fellow-discussants do not grasp reality is a poor way to engage. If you do not wish to have a real discussion (no need for quotes here), then what is the purpose of denigrating it?

[John_H]

107. I should have been more direct, perhaps.

The Greens have a pretty important decision to make: The can be an enemy, working to defeat dems and thus risk being treated like enemies if the Dems win. Or they can come home and work for their interests from within. I

I don't think their decision matters much to Dems in the long or short run, except that it may be better for the greens to be an opposition party in 04. If the dems win without them, they're toast. Shut out, with nowhere to go.

But for the sake of this discussion: I think a fair compromise, considering the dynamic right now would be for the greens not to run a presidential candidate in return for maybe a couple senior political appointees in the Department of Labor or HHS.

I think that's a little too generous, but hey, I'm a generous guy.

[ulysses]

109. you're focusing too much on the party aspect

At least from where I stand as a Greensymp Dem, the point is not to see Greens appointed to governmental positions in a Democratic administration, no matter how "senior". The point is to see a *genuine* compromise forged between progressives and centrists, one on which we can both campaign and govern effectively.

If the Democratic Party can win without all or part of the progressive vote, let it and let it campaign accordingly.

[ulysses]

81. a question

It's a matter of first-grade math that Dems don't need Greens to win a single election.

Then why go to so much trouble for so long demonizing Nader and trying to beat Nader voters into submission?

[terryg11]

82. are you so sure about that?

since '00, I've seen more people lean towards the greens. It hasn't been a stampede but it is a sign that if some democrat politicians don't start doing something differnt then they could soon be out of a job. Yes, some greens may very well vote dem next year to get Bush out of office but once that happens Ulysses and others here are right, we will be back to fighting over real issues.

I wouldn't be so quick to say the dems don't need the greens just yet

[John_H]

108. Most evidence points the opposite way

Jsut think, if the greens double their numbers (which they won't, they'll be at three percent!!!

[jiacinto]

89. But the Greens aren't

They want everything now. They are extremely unreasonable and will bolt at the first instance things don't go their way.

[buddhamama]

95. extremely unreasonable ?

how would you know, when was the last time you stopped repeating the same tired mantras long enough to listen.

there is nothing i despise more than someone who cannot be honest and hides his dishonesty with constant whining.

you do not care what the issues are of the left,green red or in between. post after post, just more self-absorbed tripe.

[Iverson]

96. by "bolt"

... do you possibly mean running away from questions?

[enki23]

77. sure. lie.

tell the center you're a centrist. tell the fringes you're fringe. after you're elected, do whatever the fuck will get you money for reelection. rinse. repeat.

[ulysses]

104. put another way...

is a new center/left coalition - everyone getting some, everyone giving some - possible? Is it even necessary or desirable?