It's time to create a new Democratic Party.

[kentuck]

We will vote for the ones now in office, not out of agreement, but out of necessity. They will be caretakers until we can find replacements or better candidates. Many of the Democrats now in Congress, perhaps the majority, understand the direction we need to go. What is that direction?

First of all, we must be a Party that represents the majority of Americans, the working and middle classes. We must shed those Democrats that are in alliance with the Republicans and in bed with the Big Business and corporations. They do not have the best interests of Americans at heart. They are our opposition - not our friends. They fight the minimum wage. They fight healthcare reform. They fight to ship our jobs overseas. What Democrat can argue in their favor? They worship profits and the bottom line.

What is the advantage of a "new" Democratic Party? First of all, our present Party has allowed itself to become stereotyped as socialist, communist, or worse. We must create a new image of our Party. We are for the majority of Americans. We are the Party of fiscal responsiblity. We are the Party of "good" government - not "big" government. We are the Party of competence and compassion. We do not desert our people in their time of need, whether by natural disaster or by economic conditions.

We believe that our national defense starts at home. We do not believe democracy and freedom can be spread at the end of a gun. We believe that we need to build up our own country - our schools and our infrastructure - before we build it up in other countries. Money alone on weaponry does not make us strong. We must have respect and allies around the world.

We believe that immigrants make our nation strong because we are a nation of immigrants. We need to control our own borders, rather than the borders of Syria. But we control our borders in rational and compassionate way that is beneficial to our nation and to our economy. We do not ignore it or neglect it in hopes it will all go away.

We need a new Democratic Party that America can believe in. We need to shed the old ways and the old ideas. We do not adhere to labels like left or middle or right. We are all Americans and we believe we all have a right to a better life and the pursuit of happiness. We believe religion and state should be separate. It is a dangerous coalition that we must not let happen.

It is time to start a new Democratic Party.

[helderheid]

1. may I suggest...

www.pdamerica.org

[serryjw]

3. I'm with you

I support anyone for 2008 presidency

[MaineDem]

2. Are you active in your state party?

Get your ideas in the Party platform. Most, if not all, state parties are working on the platform right now.

[crispini]

7. I agree.

In fact, many state party platforms already have a LOT of good stuff in them that people are not aware of.

But it's a lot easier to make big vague calls for action on DU (total time: 5 minutes) than it is to work for actual change, i.e. find out how to become a delgate to the state convention, become a delegate, attend the state convention, get on the platform committee, and put your ideas across intelligently to the others and get your ideas adopted. (total time: a lot)

[kentuck]

8. I am familiar with what you suggest...

I ran for Congress against the former Chair of the Ethics Committee from Colorado.

[crispini]

14. Good job.

So do you really think starting a new party would be less work than reforming the old one? because just getting stuff in the platform is hard, seems to me that reinventing the wheel from scratch would be exponentially harder.

[kentuck]

17. We create a Party from the old one...

We should not start from scratch. The rules are set up so as to discourage any effective opposition from any Third Party, unfortunately. The first thing we have to do is to recognize the need to reform our Party. I have been here on DU since early 2001 and there has been a divisive battle between the DLC and the more liberal Democrats since day one. We must resolve that. A new Party would invite all to join a Party that is progressive but also pragmatic and realistic to the needs of our people.

[patrice]

4. These things will require "transparency" in our party.

People will be inspired by your vision of what's next, but most will also rationalize their hold on the party-power apparatus as what is necessary to that vision, i.e. same master, different name. What will be truly transforming is to let the people "in".

[bryant69]

5. I don't know

Would we call it the Democratic Party?

In general I'm not a fan of these split the party schemes, as it seems like it would create two weaker parties.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[kentuck]

12. We stay the Democratic Party but we rebuild it....

to be more reflective of the needs and desires of the people we are supposed to represent.

[bryant69]

39. That I would agree with

But that's not the same thing as splitting the party.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Cocoa]

6. we should start by recognizing that people are already working on this

and by supporting those people, not leaving them hanging.

Imo, a good place to start is by supporting Russ Feingold in 2008. To me, he represents a new kind of dem. His defining characteristic is his independence and freedom from the taint of special interest money.

[kentuck]

9. He's the type of candidate I could support....

But he is lacking in passion. He would need a passionate leader as VP or at the head of the ticket, in my opinion. Passion and the willingness to fight for your beliefs is a necessity.

[Cocoa]

20. not a good response, imo

the criticisms are too reflexively dismissive, too abstract, too subjective too impossible to satisfy.

Feingold is doing concrete things in the real world that are actually affecting real people. That's what we need, not some abstract ideal.

And he does have passion, imo.

[kentuck]

23. You may be right....

I like Feingold. I like his issues and his courage to stand up and vote his conscience. Perhaps I was too cruel in my description about lack of passion. However, I must say that I could support Al Gore or Wes Clark also. But, I beleive our primary goal, being Democrats, should be to win back the House of the people and then win the presidency.

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. No mention of a health service?

Or duly-remunerated employment? Fat chance of anyone stereotyping Democratic governments up to the present as Socialist.

But are you really so spiritless that you fear your government policies resembling those of the Scandinavian countries? The impression from Kerry's landslide win is that your country, far from sharing you misgivings and fears, positively craves a New Deal for America. Justice and dignity for all. Not all on the same salary level, but the poorest families having sufficient to live on, without any members suffering fom malnutrition.

[kentuck]

15. We will be a Party that deals in reality....

and that represents the majority of America, not the 5% that believe we should be like the Scandinavian countries, although I find many of their ideals very good for their people. :)

[Joe Chi Minh]

16. 95% of Americans don't want a health service,

or consider it to be baying at the moon? Pass.

[kentuck]

19. I did mention "healthcare reform".

?? But it doesn't necessariy have to associated with the "socialist" Scandinavian countries. Why would you want to shoot yourself in the foot?

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. As a non sequitur, that question

must rank as the ultimate! The ultimate of all-time. That kind of vapid cliche, serving to imply some mysterious shared and utterly cogent knowledge, is ominously reminiscent of the opposition. People sharing their assets to the extent of creating a one-nation "society", rather than a morass of anomie, division and chaos is not shooting oneself in the foot.

As a matter of fact, I think the Scandinavians would, to say the least, "frown", on your gun laws and the culture of criminality, which has given rise to the world's largest prison population. If anyone is likey to be "shooting themselves in the foot", it is likely to be an advocate of "more of the same" for America, such as you appear to be.

However, my apologies for not spotting your reference to health reform. Though I don't have any idea how far-reaching or otherwise, the reforms you have in mind might be, it could certainly have been a significant oversight. It's just that the general tenour of your post prompts me to fear otherwise.

[kentuck]

30. We go to the polls with the voters we have...

not the ones we wish we had.

[Joe Chi Minh]

35. As jus_the_facts intimated, below, kentuck, "What polls?"

All conjectures and discussions are academic, unless the opposition can be prevented from fixing the elections on a grand scale, with a few key-strokes.

[kentuck]

37. Then how did Kerry win any states at all ?

We need to fix problems with the computer voting system but it has not been installed on a nationwide scale yet, I don't think? But I do think it can be very detrimental to organizing or getting out the vote if we are successful at convincing people that their vote doesn't count, so why vote? I don't think we have thought out the consequences of this grand conspriacy.

[Joe Chi Minh]

41. Just because the neocons lack all sense of proportion

in practical terms, doesn't mean that they wouldn't have tried to create some pretence of plausibility, however risible.

They were like a child who'd surreptitiously eaten a chocolate cake in the larder, and thought to wash his hands of the chocolocate icing, while overlooking the icing and crumbs on his pullover, and wholly ignorant of the icing all round his mouth.

[madfloridian]

11. We are doing that within the DNC right now. Join us.

Unless you just have to have that third party right now.

Change is underway at state level and local level.

[kentuck]

18. Nobody is talking about a "Third Party"...

We are talking about re-building the Democratic Party. But we need to help the DNC and the DFA get their ideas out there in a way that people can accept and support. The way we communicate is important. Words meaning have....

[helderheid]

25. And PDA - I HIGHLY recommend them!!! The progressive caucuses

within each state ARE making an impact!

www.pdamerica.org

[SOS]

13. Your excellent objectives

could be reached quickly through unilateral refusal to accept a penny of corporate or PAC money. Only then can our candidates speak freely and forcefully on the issues you addressed.

[Cocoa]

22. Russ Feingold is your guy

Mr. Clean. :bounce:

[mtnsnake]

21. OK kentuck, but how will the new party approach the dreaded tax issue?

IMO, this is our achcilles heel. Democrats are perceived as taking money from people's pockets and Repukes are perceived as putting money INTO their pockets. You and I know that taxes are a necessary "evil", but how are you going to convince the idiots out there that our tax plan is better for them financially than the other side's plan, which always promises them a sucky little tax break in the Spring.

I agree with your points you made in the OP, but I only think this new party will be successful if it can solve our current tax dilemma and perceptions related to it.

[kentuck]

24. We get back to corporate toadies, don't we?

We believe that we should get what we pay for. Republican taxes are hid. No thinking person would believe there are no taxes on the extra $3 trillion dollars in debt run up by Bush and the Repubs in the last 5 years. There is no free lunch. People know that. And we should not be so greedy and uncaring as to put these taxes on our children. We are calling for fiscal responsibility and better government - not bigger government.

[mtnsnake]

32. "There is no free lunch. People know that"...but do they?

What they SHOULD know is different from what they DO know. I don't think the majoritiy of people who voted for Bush DO know that there's no free lunch, so I'm just looking for suggestions on how we can better EXPLAIN it to them and make it sink in. Simply telling them that we're only raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans just doesn't compete with the tax cuts they think they're getting from crooks like Bush.

In this new party, I hope our candidates can find a better way to compete when it comes to taxes. I'm all for the new party if they can do that.

[kentuck]

33. You are right that we have to explain it better...

We can tell them that we could cut their taxes to zero and still have a strong defense, fight a war, and still provide for all our needs. We'll just put it on the credit card and let our children and our grandchildren pay for it. They would probably understand that? Of course, if our creditors cut off our credit card limit, then we will have to figure out another strategy? Like, we could do away with Social Security, cut Medicare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and big spending in general. They may be driving through mud holes instead of on pavement and your children may not be able to find a school, and we can close down the libraries and the flushing toilets at some of the parks. But your taxes will be zero.

[mtnsnake]

38. Now THAT would hit home a lot more than

we're only going to raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans.

Cheers!

[Cocoa]

26. we can win this issue with credibility

remind people of the dire predictions the GOP made about the "SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION" :scared: that would certainly result from Clinton's 1993 tax increases.

Then remind people of the promises Bush made about the effects of his own tax cuts.

[kentuck]

27. Supply side is a failed economic policy for everyone but...

the wealthiest who get most of the benefits. We always end up with huge deficits and higher interest rates and a sluggish economy when it is tried. It is like Keynesianism gone wild. It is insane. Think of where we were when we started and where we are now. Only a liar would say we are in better shape. Or one of those in the highest tax bracket.

[jus_the_facts]

29. you'll have to start a new and improved VOTING SYSTEM first....

....nothing else matters more at this point in time.

[helderheid]

40. I agree... and I recommend again PDA as they are working on that too

www.pdamerica.org

[Lexingtonian]

31. that used to be and still is called Populism, kentuck

And the problem with it is that it amounts to denial of the centrality of social rights politics to our present situation.

American history is sadly and extremely clear and logical: progress has to won in the social rights at issue before the economic rights linked to them can be secured.

Populism is social conservative and economic moderate/liberal positioning, politically about as safe as you can get when people are not feeling up to a vicious fight yet on the central issues. It's always transient and part of a runup phase in the ~75 year political cycles of the country. The Missouri Compromise and the FDR Compromise are classic examples.

But you knew that. When people feel ready to engage in the full bore fighting, populism proves sadly vulnerable to the social 'wedge issue'. The fighting in bloody seriousness of this cycle has long begun, starting in late Eighties or the early Nineties. You're either too late or too early to be relevant for most of the country, or you're looking for some small population backwater part of the U.S. that is largely rural, mostly people who work the land or in high manual labor or primitive resource-extraction industries, and not Christian Right. Essentially, Montana or Nevada. West Virginia is probably slipping too Christian Right and overly owned/run by the coal industry, Alaska and Wyoming are owned/run by the petroleum industry.

[kentuck]

34. By 2008, I sense some massive changes in our country...

That, out of necessity, may be ready for change.

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. Now, you're talking.