Is it time to formally acknowledge the split in the Democratic Party?

[Mairead]

Presuming all those claiming Democratic affiliation here are being truthful, then it seems to me that there is a huge and rather clear split between 'centrists' and 'leftists'.

[renie408]

1. I have an even better one

Can anybody define the differences between the right wing, the centrists, the left wing, the independents and the Greens?? And if you split into Lefties and Centrists, then aren't those designations going to have shades in them, so that you will end up with left wing centrists or maybe a right leaning leftists?

[sandnsea]

20. And why is everybody for Dean & Clark?

Who are both centrists, while at the same time everybody claims to be a leftist. That's the one that's been baffling to me.

[OHdem10]

23. Confusion in definitions--I think

This is my observstion. The Democratic Party is not just Centists and Leftists. There are three factions in the Democratic Party--we have permitted the Centrists to "blur the inmages" If you take a look at the Centrists themselves especially in the House and Senate. Centrists are Conservative Democcrats. Primarily from the South and those western--red states.

Therefore we have (1)Conservatives(Centists). (2)Moderat0e Democrats who are more to the left than centrists have a bit of pragmatism but will hold out against Radical Repbicansism much more forcefully than Centrists.(3)Liberals--I say this with affection--"true believers"
and the very conscience of the Democratic Party. We need all thre groups but I firmly believe Conservative Democrats are to close
to Republican Philosophy to be able to completely represent our party. The Moderate Democrats and Liberals have been able to slow them down the most this election period. However in the House and Senate these are the memers that helped GWB get his packages through.

No it is not time for a formal split. This is why I have pushed the Clark Candidacy with the idea of putting someone in the White House who will do a good job . While he takes care of all the problems this gives the Democratic Party time to carefully evaluate itself
and restructure into a viable party just as organized as the Republican Party. This idea of our party being in avacuum just because we do not have the WH only further weakens us. No matter who is in charge at the WH and Congress--the Republican Party is up and at 'em 24 hrs a day 7days a week year in and year out.They use their activists in the party. Look at the Religious Right. In other words all aspects and factions of Democratic Party should be brought together for restructuring.

In conclusion we must reconize that a Centrist Democrat is not a Moderate Democrat.

[Nicholas_J]

36. Not baffling

Dean runs rather deceptively, and has taken pride in that fact while he was governor of Vermont. He is a rather sneaky and dishonest politician according to a number of Vermonters who have been quite vocal in stating that Dean will say anything to get elected, and then simply dropping all of the things he said he could do during the campaign and stating that they are FISCALLY irresponsible. My favorite was his criticism of Vermont legislators for trying to keep him from cutting health care benefits in Vermont several times.


He promised to provide Universal Health care in Vermopnt several times during campaigns, but as soon as the campaigns were over, the promises were forgotten, and Dean went back to cutting the budgets for social programs.


There is no evidence anywhere that Dean ever provided any significant increase in the percentage of those without health care, but by using a rather clever coverage shifting scheme, got the rate up bu 8/10th of one percent. For many of the years Dean was governor, that rates of unisured in Vermont were the HIGHEST in Vermonts history.

Deans shifted funding from the disabled and poor adults to cover children. This is the most inexpensive group to cover, and is why Clinton, though he could not get universal health care passed, got large increases to a new program called Kid Care, which is all that Dean used.Clinton got this through because Congress agreed that it would be extrememly cheap to provide childrens coverage.

He shifted Medicaid coverage from adults to children, increased the cost to adults ort in many cases, adults who were qualified a before Dean, lost their coverage.

For half of Deans tenure as governor, the rate of uninsured clibed to rates that were higher than the five years prior to his coming to office.

The Dean spin is the thing. He blow his own trumpet, even though he did not write the music.

HE did not develop the plan that got rid of the state deficit, he did not create ANY of Vermonts health care programs, he cut STATE funding to these progams at the time when the federal government was increasing them, giving the states an opportunity you GREATLY increase the rate of coverage, but Dean used this as an opportunity to cut income taxes in Vermont.

There is very little evidence that Howard Dean the candidate resembles Howard Dean the person.

Many who have dealt with him consider him rather mean spirited and a skinflint, more concerned with petty balancing of budgets than human needs.

[Karmadillo]

41. Yikes! Do you, by chance, have any links supporting the claims

about Dean's history regarding health care? I'm not questioning your truthfulness (honest) and I appreciate the time you took to lay all this out, but these are very serious charges. If true, they need wider circulation before the Party decides who should be the nominee.

If any Dean partisan wants to debunk the claims, I (and others, I'm sure) would appreciate it.

[Cocoa]

2. other

the "left/right" thing is of limited use, more of an intellectual shortcut than anything else.

That's fine, but when talking within the party, talking that way can be divisive, so it does more harm than is worth it to save the work of thinking about things in a more complex way.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. I'm not a leftist or a centrist, I'm a Democrat

[dkf]

3. I think I'm a centrist - fiscal conservative, socially liberal

but I don't like the politics of the special interests.

Would that make me left?

How's about if I'm dissatisfied with the status quo.

[larryepke]

4. No, I'm a Leftist and we...

all should work together to defeat those forces of the Right that are doing such harm to the country and threaten to do so much more. This does not mean any idology "controls" the Democratic Party at the risk of pushing out so many others that our party then is left as a permanent minority. Rather, we cooperate and unify to defeat the common enemy.

[Padraig18]

5. Labels

I think the labels 'leftist' and 'centrist' are really more an exercise in mental masturbation than they are anything else. Most of us are all over the board on different issues, sometimes 'conservative', sometimes 'liberal' and sometimes 'populist'. The bottom line is this--- we are the party who believes in self-governance, freedom and equality. :)

[onehandle]

7. Hear, hear!....

You saved me from having to compose a response.

[renie408]

9. You get a gold star

That's what I think, too.

[Padraig18]

11. Thank you!

And I apologize if i upset you yesterday, dear lady! That wasn't my intention. :)

[Vikingking66]

6. I was willing to live with Clinton

even though it meant accepting some centrist measures that
I wasn't happy with. I could enjoy his more liberal policies
on gun control, social security, and health care as a sop to
my conscience

Shouldn't centristrs reciprocate by lumping the liberal policies
of a more left-wing president while enjoying a balanced budget,
the investment in infrastructure(schools, roads, etc), and a
universal health insurance plan?

[srubick]

8. Unity

There are many sides to all the issues that need open discussion before any progress is made. Currently all sides are shut out of the system. Infact, the system has been stolen and is in need of rescue. We need to stay united against the Bush Cartel so that we may continue this great debate called Democracy.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. (Other)I want the centrist to go back to the republicans

and do to the christian coalition what they are trying to do to the liberals. I think the far right is more dangerous than the moderate lefties that the Corporate Centrists are currently trying to push out of the two party system.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Agreed. The Democratic Party should not become a weak

copy of the Republican Party, distinguishable only by being somewhat more tolerant on social issues.

[PAMod]

12. Party politics is a tenuous arrangement at best

I belong to the Democratic Party because I agree with these three basic tenets of the party

1.) take care of the weak, the strong will take care of themselves
---many issues fall under this one:

* progressive tax policy
* environmental protection
* equal rights/protection
* "safety net"

2.) make policy decisions based on analysis/discussion (open mind) rather than ideology
---this one causes our Party much angst (just read on DU!)

3.) establish and nurture our international alliances

For me, some of the particular issue positions the Democratic Party embraces, strike me as odd, and sometimes inconsistent - but I'm not about to leave the party and I would never think of suggesting that anyone else leave the party.

I think if all of us follow these basic tenets (and I'd say we do, having read so many of the threads posted every day) we all belong together.

One more thing for the dogmatic ideologues in our Party - "perfect" is the enemy of the "good". Let's stay together and get these wingnuts out of Washington, even if it means holding our noses from time to time.

edit - I had said "two" then listed three. heh heh.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. No, I'm a 'leftist' and we should do this:

Make sure the majority of the party is together and united towards a few common goals (from all agendas) that we all feel are important and attainable.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. Sounds like you understand how party politics works

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. Yes, and you may extend that to the real world

of compromise and consensus and constructive endeavor.

[burr]

16. I am a leftist who knows we must do something else...

like CONVERT those lost soles who do not vote, or the unbelievers who call themselves "centrists" but really need our guidance! O8)

[lams712]

17. NO REPUBLICAN-LITES ALLOWED

People who are "moderate" or "centrist" and claim that they are NOT Republican-lite have to explain it to me like I'm three years old because I DO NOT SEE A DIFFERENCE!!! Help me out here moderates.

Also, the Republicans make no bones about the fact that they are right-wing, conservative, etc. They aren't worrying too much about appearing "moderate". Why is it that we waste so much time on such appearances????

There are some who say that we must go after "swing" voters who are usually more conservative in order to win. I believe that we must draw a stark contrast to what the Republicans are doing in order to win. People want REAL choices, not echoes of the same thing. If you make the two major parties so similar that no one can relly tell them apart, then you just invite apathy and less participation in the political process.

None of us should apologize for leaning (by varying degrees) to the "left". If we combined Al Gore's and Ralph Nader's numbers in the last election, one could make the case that a majority of Americans at least lean left, even if only slightly. If we just maintained what we got (and, of course, had a CLEAN election), 2004 can be won, and we wouldn't have to sell our soul to do it.

[burr]

19. swing voters vs undecided voters...

some say this term works for any person who is undecided in the general election, usually suburban voters. For me the term can be applied to any election. For example, I am a undecided primary voter. I am leaning towards Dean, but does this mean I could suddenly swing toward Clark or Kucinich?

To me a swing voter is someone with a particular leaning who might swing toward another candidate pushing the right issues. An undecided voter is someone with no leanings who might vote for any candidate based on hair color, macho style, or even religion. But issues often do not register with most undecided voters...
:spank:

[jeter]

18. This thread is stupid and defeating

Do you want Bush to win again?

[Bucky]

21. This thread is a fair, legit question

No, I don't want Bush to win again. I don't want to suppress an honest inquiry about the Democratic Party culture, either.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Legitimate question maybe, but still self-defeating

[Bucky]

22. I'm an eeeevul "centrist"

....But I don't think we should be "fighting for control" with my more liberal allies against Bush. I just want us to unite and send the Gang of Force packing ASAP. We can hammer out our differences within the party later. Let's save the Republic first.

[JaneQPublic]

24. When has the Democratic Party NOT been "split"?

We are the party of independent thinkers. If you want GroupThink and blind obedience, join the GOPers.

That's why the task of leading Dems is so often compared to trying to herd cats.

That's why Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party -- I'm a Democrat."

[Skinner]

28. This is one of the most divisive threads I've seen on DU

and I've seen many divisive topics here.

Political parties in the United States are, by necessity, COALITIONS of like-minded people who join together for the purposes of winning elections.

Kicking people out, or splitting the party, would be an electoral disaster. If we had a party which was only leftists, we could not possibly win. If we had a party which was only centrists, we could not possibly win.

I can only conclude that winning elections, and exercising actual power, isn't particularly important to some people.

[Mairead]

30. "winning elections, and exercising actual power, isn't important"

That's ...funny?

Have the current crop of Democratic officeholders been 'exercising power'? I haven't seen much sign of it, have you? So why would it be a good idea to keep them around? And if it wouldn't, with whom should we replace them?

Me, I don't think this is 'divisive' at all. Because it doesn't divide, it reflects a division that already exists. An eNORMous division.

I mean, we have Dennis Kucinich, the guy who's trying like hell to reprise The Iconic Democrat, FDR. (You know, FDR, the guy responsible for social security, the forty-hour week, kids not starving in doorways, support for unions, all that stuff?) But do we have all DU united behind him, saying 'Thank God we finally have a good candidate!'. No, we don't. What we have is half the members sneering at him as a fringe leftist who looks funny while they bash one another over whether to support Dr Proud-Not-To-Be-A-Liberal or Gen. Democrat-This-Week-At-Least. Jesus's Teeth! If that isn't a huge divide, what is?

The question is: what to do about it.

[JohnKleeb]

31. I dont wanna split the party in two but I do share this frusration

[Padraig18]

39. Let's face it

In a perfect world, we could afford to be ideological purists, but this isn't a perfect world; hence, inculsion and coalition-building is what we MUST do, if we are ever again to wield power in an effective manner.

The Rethugs learned this back in the late 70's, after Ford was defeated, and allied themselves with the Christian right ( :puke: ), and part of the reason we're IN this mess is because they were successful in forging that alliance.

[Skinner]

32. Of course there is a divide.

The Democratic Party is a *LARGE* group of people, representing a *BROAD SPECTRUM* of opinion.

You should not be surprised or even particularly bothered that DU or the Democratic Party is not unified behind Dennis Kucinich (or any other candidate). We have primary campaigns so that we can fight amongst each other and choose one candidate to represent us all.

[Mairead]

40. "choose one candidate to represent us all"

Ah, well, that's the rub, isn't it. One candidate can only 'represent us all' if some of us (a) accept that we're not in fact being represented or (b) volutarily enter a delusional state ('Mmmm this lemon is so sweet, and the alum makes it even nicer').

It's like saying that Smirk represents us all. Nominally he does. But who believes it's true? Not I! So why should I tell myself that, e.g., Clark represents me? If I want to sell myself out, why not do it wholesale, and save all the money, time, and effort. Just say 'whoever wins is My Choice, My Leader!' Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!

Ein Katastroph, more like.

[Bucky]

33. Let's be inclusive instead

Mairead writes:
Have the current crop of Democratic officeholders been 'exercising power'? I haven't seen much sign of it, have you?

Ted Kennedy. Robert Byrd. Charles Rangell. Jay Rockefeller. Dianne Feinstein. Russ Feingold. Bob Graham. Even those who supported the war have turned on Bush:

"Senator John Kerry lambasted Mr Bush's swaggering approach to the post-war mess, the BBC's Justin Webb reports, while Congressman Dick Gephardt said the president had been a "miserable failure". --BBC News

Is the timing to my liking? No. Is it politically motivated? They're politicians, duh. Is it too late to speak out? Of course not.

Here's another bunch of links when Googling for "Democrats attack":


Mairead writes:
I mean, we have Dennis Kucinich... But do we have all DU united behind him, saying 'Thank God we finally have a good candidate!'. No, we don't.

Alas, in a democracy, we're not all going to think alike. I note the implication that I'm not Democrat enough because I don't support your particular candidate. That seems a bit myopic to me.

Your scorn for the two frontrunners, calling them Dr Proud-Not-To-Be-A-Liberal or Gen. Democrat-This-Week-At-Least, is a good example of what sociologists call "role immursion"--taking the most extreme position of the relevent subgroup and expressing it in aggressive, uncompromising terms. "Authenticity" is earned in such terms by being the most vocal and extreme expounder of the ideas used to identify that social group.

This is where the Joe McCarthys, Ann Coulters, Ken Starrs, and Rush Limbaughs of the world get their power and earn their speaking fees. I'd hate to see that sort of intolerance take root on the progressive side of the country's body politic. If Wes Clark used to be a Pug and now espouses liberal positions, I welcome him. If Dr Dean owns a few guns but still wants to get Uzis off the streets, I'll gladly vote for him. I'd vote for Kucinich, too. Whoever gets the nomination--yes, even Lieberman--she'll get my vote.

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let's not drive off a cliff to avoid a pot hole.

[burr]

34. I don't think that was the purpose...

this was a challenge to the two-party system. A recognition that at some point one party will hold power and one will not. No democratic system that claims to represent the interests of the people can function by excluding nearly half the population from this process.

And yet under a two-party system of government it is considered exceptable for a party which wins the highest level of popular support in a Presidential election, and yet these people are reduced to a minority status in Congress and do not get the President whom they elected.

The two-party system does not work, and it's the quickest pathway to one-party dictatorship IMHO.

[Skinner]

35. All democratic governments have that problem.

Some people get to govern, while others are left out. Even in multiparty parliamentary democracies, only some parties get to join the governing coalition.

In the US we have governing coalitions, too. But we put them together before the election, rather than after the election.

[burr]

37. true...but under that system there are never any lack of choices.

This means if one party becomes corrupted by power, there will always be a viable alternative with an even more idealistic viewpoint.

Secondly..in parliamentary democracies more moderates, liberals, and even conservatives have some input into the final consensus than these elements would over the special interests in our system.

[KoKo]

42. Our party is in trouble because of the War Resolution Vote and Selection!

I didn't ask for this....and none of the others of us who've voted Dem all our lives...but there it is.

We haven't had people address our concerns....we're angry...and we have no outlet for our anger.....and the Mid term elections and the constant ignoring of those of us....who were shocked over Bush getting EVERYTHING he wanted when he came in as an "Unelected President."' We're tired of it....we feel our party doesn't want us...if there is a divide, it's because of this...I want to stay and fight to draw my party back to the party of the "ordinary folks."

If that's considered "Divisive" well....I don't know what to say. :-(

[davidinalameda]

29. there has always been a "split" in the party

big deal

I don't want to belong to some party that is stagnant and without any new ideas and doesn't allow debate

hell, I'd be a Republican if I wanted that

Will Rogers said it best--I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a Democrat

[eileen_d]

38. How about: "No, I'm a Democrat and so are you."

And "P.S. - let's try to focus on our commonalities rather than our differences as Democrats."