Biggest mistake the democratic party has made this century

[urbanguerrilla]

nominating Adlai Stevenson twice to go up against Ike. I like the guy, but he contributed to the image of us as elitist egg-heads in ivory towers. Senator Kefauver should have been the nominee both times. He was the Wellstone of his day, but had even more political capital as he won his Senate races in segregationist Tennessee as a known supporter of civil rights. Definitely would have siphoned off enough northern states from Ike.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Running from the term LIBERAL instead of em brassing it

[ooglymoogly]

25. and not challenging tailless voting machines

[Sara Beverley]

43. Biggest mistake not being like the Ukrainians and taking to the streets

and staying there!! We just don't have the courage to sacrifice, stand firm. We are too busy consumming and overindulging in the trivialities of life.

[meegbear]

2. Since Adlai Stevenson is dead

it would be a mistake for the democratic party to run him twice in the 21st century.

[Donkeyboy75]

6. It worked against Ashcroft.

;)

[genieroze]

41. Is that a CONDOM?

LOL

[KG]

3. the DLC.

[Julien Sorel]

4. The biggest mistake was simple:

Johnson micro managing the Vietnam War, then caving in to the anti-war crazies and not running in 1968. It destroyed Democrats' credibility on national defense, and empowered those same anti-war crazies, so they are now permanently associated with the Democratic Party. The country doesn't trust Democrats with their security, and it kills us during presidential elections, which is usually the only time people vote with national security on their minds.

I like Johnson a lot, owe him some of my civil liberties, and admire his vision and courage in being willing to institute landmark change. But he really blew it there.

[wyldwolf]

8. I agree that this was a mistake

Although many hear embrace what your termed "anti-war crazies," the right has exploited that image to our detriment. Despite winning WWII, democrats have been branded weak on national security based on the actions of a relative few on the left.

Now, the correctness of their actions is for another thead.

[noiretextatique]

9. anti-war crazies?

what is crazy about being against the vietnam war...or any war, for that matter?

[KG]

11. there are those that still see that abomination as a noble thing....

:eyes:

hey, karen, how are things in your world?

[noiretextatique]

14. yes...it's sad

the people who are against mass, orgranized killing are considered the crazy ones. :hi: i am doing ok...holiday madness had me a little down, but good friends and good food picked me up. i hope all is well with you and yours :hi:

[Julien Sorel]

16. There's being against a war,

and then there's being against every war. There's dissent, and then there's the Chicago convention of 1968. In one case, you are taking part in the democratic system; in the other, you are marginalizing yourself, and to a lesser extent, everyone who has the misfortune of being associated with you, by alienating the mainstream.

The crazies tore the Democratic party apart in 1968, and what did it get them? Vietnam dragged on for 5 more years. In the end, the only real purpose they served was to enable Richard Nixon.

[noiretextatique]

17. 1968...didn't that police have a little something to do with that?

like they did at kent state? there is no such thing as "the mainstream," and republicans understand that far better than do demcorats. republicans claim they are the mainstream, and that keep democrats on tbe defensive. WE ARE THE MAINSTREAM...until we get that, we will keep trying to attract people who dislike kerry because his wife is french, or because they prefer to have a beer with bush. i don't know about gains, but i do know the greens didn't simply appear out of thin air either. if democrats don't stop enabling bush, i am sure the greens and independents will benefit from that.
btw, i am against all wars. i think humans really need to evolve very quickly from the need to kill each other over land, money, religion, power, ego, etc.

[Julien Sorel]

19. It takes two hands to clap.

There's no mainstream, yet we're the mainstream? I'll leave that one alone, except by asking the rather obvious question, "who is 'we'?"

Humans don't evolve quickly, sorry about that. It's the way nature works. War has been with us since we climbed down from the trees, and it's going to take just a few more years before it's bred out of our system, if it ever is (which I doubt).

[forgethell]

20. Wars should be

resisted, when possible, and if they are unjustified. But mankind will never "evolve" beyond the "need to kill each other over land, money ...". Evolution, as a process implies deadly competition over limited resources. Competition, "survival of the fittest", is not between different species, unless they occupy the same ecological niche. This might happen when non-native species are imported, and the newcomers compete with the native species. Otherwise, competition is between members of the same species. How can an antelope compete with a lion? the competition is between antelope to escape. And for food.

What is needed is not evolution, but the development of institutions to control and minimize conflict. The UN ain't that institution. It has proven itself inept at stopping genocide in Africa, and other conflicts around the world. It can't stop the US. Or any developed world country, and doesn't bother with the others. It seems, also, to be a totally corrupt institution, possibly because while it has not real powers, it also has no real checks & balances.

Not just a governmental institution is needed. Institutions to create wealth are needed, especially in the non-developed world. Wealth creation is NOT a zero-sum gain. Institutions to enable people to learn and create and grow are necessary.

Finally, safety net institutions are needed, so that no one ever goes hungry, but there should be a limit of some kind so that no one can live their life without contributing to society in return. In other words, while no one should go hungry, I don't believe that every one is entitled to an American middle class lifestyle, either.

I don't know what all the details should be. These will probably have to "evolve". Which means that when a program is tried, it should have a specific goal, and a "deadline" to accomplish that goal, or at least show that such significant progress has been made that the deadline should be extended. If it fails to do so, just like organisms in the wild, it should be allowed to die. The resources, people, money, buildings, etc. should be applied to a new program.

Just like breeders of dogs, if the puppies do not have the required characteristics, they are taken out of the gene pool. Of course, with dogs, this includes sterilization and sale as "pet quality" puppies. But limited resources are not wasted on puppies that will show no return. Neither should they be on programs that do not accomplish their goals. The goals should remain the same, but the programs can change, rapidly and decisively.

Sorry, I seem to have gotten somewhat off the subject. Still, if we want to eliminate war, one of the things we have to do is remove the reasons for war. There are other things besides want that may cause war, but no one could deny that that is a major cause. The second thing we need is some organization that can enforce peace on warring parties. the UN has failed the task, and should either be reorganized along more effective lines, or "evolved" into history.

[K-W]

12. Yah, definately crazy to have been against the vietnam war.

What lunatics.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. A little revisionist history? Johnson was a war criminal.

"Johnson micro managing the Vietnam War..."? What does that mean? That the US could have "won"?

"anti-war" crazies? I was one of those crazies. So, we should have been for Johnson and his dirty, murderous war?

He blew it by not getting out of Vietnam when he took office. Instead he manufactured the "Tonkin Gulf" incident and expanded the war which brought death to millions.

Good lord, read some history, instead of spouting revisionist right wing crappola.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

29. When did Johnson "embrace" the anit-war "crazies"?

I though it was a Republican who capitulated to those who saw the VietNam War as a hopeless occupation and finally ended the war.

[Julien Sorel]

31. Where did I say Johnson "embraced" anyone?

(Although I'm told he had a way with his secretaries).

At any rate, what is this bizarre fascination with putting words in peoples' mouths?

[KnowerOfLogic]

32. If we get war either way we vote, what's the big loss? The value

of democratic victories depends on them actually having some worthwhile principles, and being against unjust, unnecessary, unwise wars would certainly be one of them. Btw, a lot of us think the Vietnam war was a collossal blunder and tragedy, that cost millions of lives and tarnished America's reputation such that it has never recovered. OTOH, who here doesn't still think that G. McGovern was a stand-up guy, a good candidate, and RIGHT on Vietnam? If we didn't have so many self-serving, opportunistic dems trying to be chickenhawks, maybe we could develop a consensus among american voters that discretion is indeed the better part of valour.

[Julien Sorel]

35. Who said we get war either way?

You can be strong on defense without going to war at the drop of a hat. The problem is the small but very vocal minority of Democrats, and those who are sort of aligned with Democrats, who are automatically against any war, who loathe the military and are open about it, who are excessively critical of any use of force by the U.S. -- I'm sure you know the type. If you don't, read through this subthread -- it's full of them. Some of them will piously claim to be "pro-troop but anti-war" but people see through that.

Tangent warning: long blah blah blah ahead.

Here's a fun little factoid. Everyone knows that Jimmy Carter was a dovish president, right? Even people on this message board believe it -- I've seen posts on it. Reagan beat Carter in part by portraying him as soft on defense. In reality, Carter boosted military spending quite a bit, was a naval officer and Annapolis graduate, and engaged in several dirty little wars around the world. But when push came to shove, it was easy for Reagan to run to Carter's right on security, because people like Abbie Hoffman and Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda and other assorted butt munchkins were associated in the public's mind with the Democratic Party, and still are.

Now, Democratic nominees have to fight their way through a primary process where activists, who are far more liberal and far more dovish than the average Democrat, let alone the average voter, have an outsized influence. As a result, Democrats are chronically unable to reclaim even the semblance of a hawkish foreign policy profile. Notice the gymnastics Kerry and the other candidates had to go through because the crazies (don't like the word? Tough shit -- that's how the public sees them) had coalesced around Howard Dean, and showered money on him with every fresh fuckup, for the simple reason that he was against the war. Stuff like that kills the party's ability to gain credibility with the public on security issues, and that's exactly why Kerry lost this time.

If Kerry had been president, do you think we would be in Iraq now? And if we were, would it be such a mess? I don't think so. You can be smart and tough, but the public doesn't see the toughness in Democrats.

As a final aside, the current nominating process came into being because of the convention in 1968. It's almost funny when you think about it.

[m berst]

34. odd phrase

"Anti-war crazies" you blame for the problem that the party has winning elections?

The protests against the Viet Nam war were not a handful of "crazies" and the entire anti-war movement should not be characterized by the actions of a few. I don't know that this is what you are doing, and base it on your mention of the demonstrations at the Chicago convention.

What was the damage caused by Johnson's micro-management of the war, what might an alternative have been, and what would have been the result of that alternative?

[fujiyama]

37. I wouldn't blame it

all on the anti war activists.

Johnson was the one that blew it by going INTO Vietnam in the first place. This was a war that became to be known as the "Democrat's War" and "Johnson's War" and it's not that innacurate a label unfortunately. Nixon was able to claim that he would "end the war" and bring the nation "peace with honor". He did eventually end it, after escalating it.

I have a lot of admiration for Johnson's civil right's initiatives. I'm a minority as well and being that I didn't live in a time before segragation was outlawed, I don't know how bad things were personally, and I know I wouldn't want to live in such an environment.

The blame for war in Vietnam does in large part lie with Johnson, even if Nixon was a crook. Democrats didn't really recover for almost a quarter century, until Clinton came along - that too four years after the Cold War was over.

I think we can place more blame with Daly and the thugs in Chicago than we can on the anti war activists (though I think they never quite figured out a way to appeal to the public). We never knew how many minds those tactics turned away. Democrats were associated with lawlessness and chaos.

[Pepperbelly]

5. that was LAST century, not THIS century. nt

[Radio-Active]

24. yes, the biggest mistake this century

was not reforming our elections.

[wyldwolf]

7. Not sending just one Dem Senator sign on with African American House...

..members protesting Bush's "confirmation" in 2000-2001.

Saying "DLC" and "running from the liberal label" and things such as that is really just another volley in the ideological war within the Democractic party (the ideological war, in itself, ranks a close second as biggest mistake.) A major problem we have that the GOP seems to have conquered, is unity of purpose.

[noiretextatique]

10. i agree...it was a big mistake

and a travesty as well. democrats should have made their concerted opposition to bush's coup known, and the CBC tried to give the party the opportunity to express unity of purpose. unfortunately...

[rogerashton]

13. So, what electorate do you think the Dems should represent?

With your program, we liberals stay home, vote Nader, or run our own candidate, the Repubs still dominate the right, and the Democratic Party comes in -- third, as whats-his-name did in 1992 going after that contituency.

The ideological differences in this country are a fact -- and it is a fact that the wars we "anti-war crazies" have opposed were wars that wasted American lives and treasure and made the country weaker. (Every competent authority on military strategy that I have read, and I have read several, regards the Iraq war as a strategic blunder.) Yes, it is difficult to be successful opposing stupid wars, since war fever is a powerful irrational motivation: but if the Democratic Party won't do it, we will have to have a party that does, and the Democratic Party will then go the way of -- oh, yes, Perot.

It is a fact, according to many polls, that the majority in this country support liberal policies on domestic issues -- and declare that they oppose liberals. It is clear from that that we liberals have not gotten our message across. Maybe our mistake has been sticking with the Democratic Party -- ya think?

[wyldwolf]

15. Did you mean to reply to post #4? ... anyway...

It is a fact, according to many polls, that the majority in this country support liberal policies on domestic issues

That is true - and the democratic party come closest to representing those domestic issues in a realistic setting.

But even in further left circles, there is disagreement.

I know a several people way further left than I but are against gun control.

One person I know in a Dem organization I'm a member of is an original 60s Peace/love war protester but is against a woman's right to choose.

No one group will agree 100% on each and every issue.

I think when it comes down to it, when many on the left speak of "liberal issues" or even "liberal domestic issue," they really mean foreign policy.

[charlie]

18. Maybe not the biggest

but not nailing Reagan, Bush, and company on Iran-Contra was a whopper. We should've had the Repubs reeling under the second implosion of an administration by criminal scandal in little over a decade.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Even earlier than that...

enabling Reagan, even though we had majorities in Congress. Not standing up for the unions, not standing up for the farmers, allowing and even supporting the interventions in Central America and the military build-up, enabling the Reaganite tax "reform."

I swear, the only reason that people vote Democratic anymore is that the Republicanites are so much worse.

[blm]

21. Not forcing the FULLEST INVESTIGATION of BCCI. 9-11 would NEVER

have happened. And the Bush family and their cronies would never again be trusted to any governmental office.

[liberalpragmatist]

23. Nobody even remembers Stevenson

Nobody could have beaten Ike who was a national hero. Besides, the Democrats had controlled the presidency for 20 years and the time-for-change movement was WAY overdue.

Stevenson is not the cause of the Democrats' decline. We were still the majority party for years after Stevenson.

If we could point to a mistake, it was Vietnam. It completely ruined the party and made us look like we couldn't be trusted on national security.

In any event, the New Deal coalition would have fallen apart b/c of the support for Civil Rights. But we would have been stronger long-term if we had never gotten into Vietnam.

[Hamlette]

26. the biggest mistake this country made was not electing Stevenson

When you're contemplating the mistakes we made, look at the ones they made. One long list of mistakes much worse than ours (a movie actor? Nixon? W?).

Our country is anti-intellectual. I wonder if it will take buying new technologies from China to wise us up?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Well said and correct.

Under the "move to the middle" DLC/BS our candidates are required to look and act stupid so that they will be "popular" with Joe Sixpack a la Ronald the drooling Reagan and "newkular" Bush.

Quote the bible, wear earth tones, be an alpha-male, attend NASCAR, watch wrasslin', and kill a goose.

Worked well in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

I'm beginning to think that the DLC and their apologists believe in it so much that they've stopped pretending and have really become stupid.

[robbedvoter]

33. Rolling over stolen election after stolen election - the end

[Yupster]

36. The Party's Civil Rights stand

from 1900 to the 1950's was a discrace and will be a permanent stain on the Democratic Party.

Jim Crow Laws, separate but equal were discraceful positions. The KKK was a discrace.

Bull Conner, Lester Maddox, George Wallace should have been booted from the party 50 yeara ago. So should Fritz Hollings and Bobby Byrd.

An absolutely shameful record.

[Raiden]

38. Bobby Byrd may have at one time been a Klan member

but he has since repented. I know that may not make up for it, but he is a great man. That would be like discrediting FDR because of Japanese internment.

For all his faults, Robert Byrd is one of the only Democrats in Congress standing up for us anymore. While I can't forget his past sins, I can say that he is currently one of our greatest leaders in Congress.

[liberalpragmatist]

40. Fritz Hollings has a very strong civil rights record over the last 40 year

He did espouse segregationist views earlier in his career, however. You can't forgive him for that - still, you can move on. Hollings has had a very strong civil rights record over the past 40 years and is pretty liberal for a southern senator.

[xerox]

39. Yep

that is a mistake! You are smart!

[kurtyboy]

42. Not supporting Jimmy Carter at the Congressional level

We had a chance, in the Carter era, of redefining America. The whole nation was still reeling over Nixon & Ford, and all Congress had to do was rally around the President for four years.

But they couldn't even put one month together. Maybe Carter was too prickly himself, and maybe they (the HEAVILY Democratic Congress) had other plans. But no matter how you slice it, they sealed our fate for the future we live today.

Reagan is revered as a great President, and the Bushes have ridden his coattails the entire way to today. ----Tip O'Niell, much of this is your fault, along with all of those Democratic turncoats from the South.

OUr party is reaping what it sowed in the late seventies....