Purging is an inherently undemocratic policy

[JohnKleeb]

[JI7]

1. i second that

[JohnKleeb]

2. I got a picture of a guy who purged those who were "disloyal"

Yea, Stalin a great role model for what a party should do to those who don't always agree with us.

[Retired AF Dem]

11. The person I think of

everytime I hear someone say the party should purge people.

[JohnKleeb]

12. Right

I guess people are saying it in hyperbole but damn purge is a strong word, is it not?

[Retired AF Dem]

13. About as strong as you can get

[Guaranteed]

37. Well, he WAS pretty successful.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as killing anyone, but, hey, the guy knew what he wanted.

[JohnKleeb]

39. hah it's not about whether purging works or not

yes, he was sucessful and then the germans invaded his country, and the lack of an adquate military nearly destroyed them.

[Guaranteed]

44. I'm not sure I'm seeing the connection here.

Playing smart politics mean we're going to start killing millions of Jews?

Lots of folks here are making a pretty disastrously mistaken equation between politics and policy.

[JohnKleeb]

48. I didn't say anything about Jews

I just don't think its smart to purge, its an undemocratic concept to me, feel free to agree or disagree.

[Guaranteed]

49. It's ABSOLUTELY democratic.

Majority rules, right?

[JohnKleeb]

52. Ok I understand your point

but how on earth do you plan to defeat these dems in primaries, its hard to do.

[Guaranteed]

55. Not vote for em.

Tell my friends not to.

I know it's hard.

Listen, Kleeb- no one is saying this is going to be easy. But it has be done. Really. For our party AND our country. MORE IMPORTANTLY our country.

[JohnKleeb]

59. Its just I dont know how you guys expect to beat entrenched dems

Remember the party of Roosevelt was a coalition of all sorts of people not just new dealers.

[Guaranteed]

62. They're going to get beat either way.

We're just getting our message together in the meantime, and hopefully- HOPEFULLY- some Dems, in the meantime, will figure out what they're doing wrong and grow a spine.

[JohnKleeb]

63. not exactly

I don't see how a popular but more moderate dem congressman can suddenly get beat just like that. What determines who needs to be purged too. My belief is that if we get rid of people just because we don't like how they vote, we'd be no better than the republicans, thats what they did to Jeffords.

[Guaranteed]

65. Man, we just saw it. Our Senate Minority LEADER got beat.

And this while he was running a campaign on how much he AGREED with Bush.

[JohnKleeb]

70. thats a justification for why we shouldn't have bright red staters

as party leaders.

[fujiyama]

72. Remember though

the GOP ran a campaign in the state on how big of an "obstructionist" Daschle was.

Granted, this was SD, a conservative state that Bush won by over 60%.

[JohnKleeb]

74. right and I think Daschle's problem was the state he was from

made it hard for him to oppose Bush truly and that he had a tough opponent that had nearly won two years earlier.

[fujiyama]

78. Picking the minority leader

from a dark red state was a very bad idea.

I hope Reid turns out to be better.

[Guaranteed]

86. How much Bush won it by isn't a good thing for DLC supporters. nt

[Rhiannon12866]

87. You are right on, John, and an excellent student of history

Josef Stalin was the original purger. We have to decide if we want to follow in his footsteps. BTW, he was not Russian, but Georgian. And the Georgians still love and admire him, to this day, since he managed to kill so many Russians. I've visited Soviet Georgia, and heard this, first hand.:-(

[Guarionex]

3. duh!

DUH!

[JohnKleeb]

5. thats what I say

but its not so obvious to some.

[kentuck]

4. Define "purging"...

If some wish to rid ourselves of the DLC strategy and policies for winning elections, is that purging? Or do we have to insist they completely leave the Party before it fits the definition? Personally, I think they have been a disaster leading this Party. Give me McGovern any day.

[JohnKleeb]

7. No, thats not purging, thats changing the stragety

Purging is saying those who voted on a certain bill should be purged from the party. Of course, do you think I agree with the DLC third way? I think the third way is a crap concept but I also think the all or nothing way I see proposed by some is bs too, you need a way in between those two in my opinion, a way that respects people even if they don't always agree with us, a way that helps all people not some, I want a progressive party too but I don't believe in throwing out those who disagree with us on an issue. Now maybe people are talking in hyperbole but when I hear talks or "purge", I get scared.

[Cheswick2.0]

9. the only purging I hear mentioned around here is by you and your gang

You keep insisting people have called for purges which is not true. I think this thread is flame bait.

[Champ]

14. Not true?

There is this thread for reference, most DUers are against any type of purging of course, but it has been suggested. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1424493

[JohnKleeb]

15. Thanks I should have specified

There's nothing wrong with wanting to change stragety, there is however wrong with purging people from the party. Maybe I overreacted some or maybe people talk in hyperbole a lot but as I said, purge is a strong word to many including myself.

[FightinNewDem]

8. Of course.

yes, we all know what a smashing electoral success that campaign turned out to be.

[JaneQPublic]

6. I agree. Purge the Purgers!!! (nt)

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

10. I could never nail purging down.

Now bingeing...there was something I could damn near perfect.

[Selatius]

16. I think anyone who takes corporate/special interest cash is "undemocratic"

A system built to listen to the people's voice should not have room for the size of somebody's wallet when it comes to setting policy. If we want to "purge" them as in kick them out of the party or break their power until they are truly irrelevant, then I am a firm supporter of this sort of "purging," which is not the same kind as that used by Stalin.

I think anyone who would consistently vote against the interests of the Democratic rank-and-file (or the rest of the people for that matter) when they conflict with the interests of corporations is a damnable sellout corporatist that needs to be removed from the party either by intentionally running fellow Democrats against him or by shining a light on his corrupt practices. If what I am advocating right here makes me just as bad as the likes of Stalin, then sign me up because I'm not going to tolerate that kind of crap anymore.

I suspect "purging" is too strong a word here because Stalin and Hitler gave it historical negative connotations, but at the end of the day, what we need right now is to "clean house." There, does that sound better to you people? There is no getting around the elephant in the room on this issue here, folks. Call it "purging" or call it "cleaning house"; it needs to be done.

[JohnKleeb]

17. a union could be classified as "special interest"

so in your view a dem who accepts money from a labor union should be out of office. Special interests range from labor, environmental groups, seniors advoacy groups, etc. I don't like the idea of taking corporate money either but people have been taking special interest money for a while. There are some politicans out there on both sides of the spectrum who refuse to take PAC money, I know for a fact.

[Selatius]

18. Well, now you're just splitting hairs.

Cash from labor unions are, in my mind, more acceptable, and I'll tell you that I won't be as strong a supporter of pushing them out as I would with corporatists, but at the end of the day, I'd strongly advocate a fully taxpayer subsidized election system as seen in many other industrialized nations. I think the only voice that should count in electing our representatives is a person's right to cast a ballot. I really don't think money should enter into the equation here. You can agree or disagree. That's your choice.

[JohnKleeb]

20. Well they are a special interest group technically

Which is probably why some republicans may support CFR because they know many dems get good money from labor. Money shouldn't be important but it is a key factor, that we can't ignore.

[Selatius]

24. Still, I don't accept the influence of money in a system built for people

In my mind, a democratic system is built to listen to people's voices, not the size of their wallets. Call me a purist or an idealist on this point, but I don't think it'd be a bad idea to aim as high as possible here for those ideals.

[JohnKleeb]

30. no, your point is right

Its just gonna be really hard to get rid of that. I must admit, I am ignorant.

[Guaranteed]

26. But they're a DEMOCRATIC special interest.

:)

[JohnKleeb]

28. right

and they should have the right to donate to us.

[Guaranteed]

32. I mean little "d". nt

[JohnKleeb]

36. ahh

[Selatius]

34. I still disagree

If you ask me, a union's power should come from the ability of its members to vote as a block, not its power to bankroll campaigns. A taxpayer subsidized election system is still preferrable in my mind. If you are going to fight against corporate contributions, they're going to come back at you over labor union contributions as well.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Yet it seems to pretty popular with DUers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1425800

[JohnKleeb]

21. I see that

Miller is such an engima to me honestly, he wasn't an ultra conservative dem governor and as I said he did campaign for Max Cleland in 2002.

[ulysses]

22. the man endorsed Bush.

You wanna cry over Zell? Go ahead.

[JohnKleeb]

25. thats not a good example I agree

but the IWR voters one champ provides above is valid. I don't believe in judging someone by one vote, I believe in using an entire history.

[Guaranteed]

23. What, you can't fire people if you're a Democrat?

These guys aren't doing their jobs- representing us. They're fired.

What is wrong with that?

[JohnKleeb]

27. who is us? they represent all sorts of people

How do you fire them anyhow? Run someone in their primaries against them or what, you can't just fire them just like that.

[Guaranteed]

31. Who do they represent?

Most of the people voting for them want someone that actually represents Democratic values. You know- Democrats?

And if we can't fire people, what's your thread about?

[JohnKleeb]

35. you're telling me, you haven't seen people asking whether we can purge

dems or not for certain reasons. My point is people who vote democratic are a diverse bunch and you can't just do away with someone because you don't like the way they think or vote.

[Guaranteed]

40. Sorry, man, when they're voting with the neocons more than the Democrats,

you can. And there's nothing wrong with it.

No one is immune simply because they have a "D" next to their name. It's naive, and it's detrimental to not only our party, but our country.

[JohnKleeb]

45. Of course its naive

but its not justfied to throw someone out because they're not always voting with us. BTW a lot of the names I see accused of voting more with the republicans aren't, I saw Gephardt get that a lot, and its just not true especially on economic issues.

[ulysses]

29. exactly so.

I can only assume that you're forwarding this message to Al From as well.

[JohnKleeb]

33. what's his email?

The hardcore centrists are just as guilty of this, that I acknowledge damn well. Both sides are guilty of this, I wasnt directing this at any one group really.

[ulysses]

38. perhaps you weren't.

That's certainly been the direction of these idiotic discussions as of late, though, as with the leading question on the IWR vote. It's easy to ask the question and then point in horror when someone agrees.

Anyway, I don't think Mr. From's direct email is listed anywhere - not exactly a man of the people, he. Try this - http://www.ndol.org/cobrand/contact_us.cfm

[JohnKleeb]

42. A lot of people don't like From for trying to do away with progressive

elements, and rightfully so, but then to urge the same thing From wants to do which is to do away with those who don't always march lockstep with you and your beliefs, he's a jerk for doing that but when people urge the same thing done to more moderates, its just as wrong.

[ulysses]

53. as if progressives even could purge moderates anyway.

We are - as we're so regularly reminded - the minority in the party.

Frankly I'm starting to think again about purging myself from the party - which is something I *can* do - so that Mr. From and the party moderates don't have to worry about as many leftists carping from the sidelines and I can put my energies toward some effort that might actually make a difference.

[JohnKleeb]

56. right

Well you know what we could do which I think would be the appropriate thing, build the party, run progressive candidiates, and help build a democratic majority and have more progressives in the party leadership. Pelosi is a start in the house I think for that, she's not perfect i know but she is on many issues better than her predecessor.

[Padraig18]

41. I completely agree, John!

:thumbsup:

[Guaranteed]

47. Man, you guys just gotta be tougher.

We're not going to start winning until we get tough.

Next you'll be saying, "Oh, those poor neocons that we're kicking out of their seats...."

Come on. This is POLITICS. And we're fighting for things that are really important.

Are you gonna tell grandma that she doesn't get the healthcare she needs because you felt uncomfortable with the connotations of "purging?"

[JohnKleeb]

50. heh you expect me to have sympathy for republicans we beat?

I won't.

[Dr Fate]

43. If we dont purge the eunuchs & liars from from our party...

...then b/f too long there will be no democracy.

And by "liars" I mean dems who refuse to simply TELL THE TRUTH about the dishonesty & criminal activity of George Bush. In other words, most of them.

[JohnKleeb]

46. who will replace them?

Really.

[Guaranteed]

51. Either someone on the other side, or someone with the right message

on our side who won't confuse people or deliberately or otherwise humiliate us.

[JohnKleeb]

54. someone on the other side who would be far worse

likely and not vote with us ever.

[Guaranteed]

57. Aside from the "purity" connotations, the party really is better off

that way, though. The sooner we can get rid of the anchors, we'll be floating and on our way again.

[JohnKleeb]

61. I don't see how we'd be better off with fewer people in congress

[Guaranteed]

64. We'll be better off when we have a solid, populist message.

These guys are holding us down. The party's going to have to die a bit before it finds its rebirth.

[JohnKleeb]

68. well you know if the party dies for a while, things will only get worse

in the country.

[Guaranteed]

71. Yeah. But things are getting worse.

In any case, the sooner we get a serious opposition together, the better.

[JohnKleeb]

73. things will get worse if we have less people in congress

That enables them to be able to pass all sorts of stuff.

[Guaranteed]

81. LOL how? nt

[JohnKleeb]

83. Easier to pass things with a big ass conservative majority don't you think

You may not like those moderates who don't vote with us on everything but you really think if the GOP had a super majority in congress, they wouldn't try to do some of the things they've been trying to do ever since their little "revolution" 10 years ago.

[Guaranteed]

84. No, man, you said "easier"...

What's easier than this?

[Dr Fate]

67. No problem-Republicans are replacing them at every election.

So lets get some real DEMS with some GUTS. I'm not asking for "radicals"-just some plain old TRUTH TELLING.

It wont happen over-night- we have to get good, honest progressives in office at the local level, and work our way up. It's what RWingers did w/ much success over 30 years ago. Its time to catch up.

If you think we can win with same old strategy of lying/refusing to the tell the truth about George Bush, then go for it.

I'll be working for organizations like the DFA- who want to replace the leadership with REAL Democrats.

Is there one single prominent Democrat on TV today talking about voting fraud, media bias, war crimes, Bush's lies & criminal activites, the Plame scandal, demanding Rumfelds resignation, etc, etc etc, etc, etc, etc, etc ,etc?? No- you say?

Why the fuck not? WHY are the eunuchs that we expect to lead us refusing to go on TV and speak a few lines of simple truth?

I meet Democrats in the god-damned grocery line and at local meetings who are more intelligent and who have more guts and patriotism than any DEM in Washington.

I'm through making excuses for losers who do not reflect my values. Count me in as being for the purge.

[Zorra]

58. The colonists "purged" this country of the British back in the day.

"Un-democratic" or not, sometimes you need to get rid of the moles and gophers in order to grow the garden.

[JohnKleeb]

60. that was a revolution

and how do you determine what a mole is?

[Guaranteed]

66. LOL well just consider this a revolution, baby.

:)

[JohnKleeb]

69. strangest revolution Ive herad of

[Selatius]

89. Revolutions can be waged with the pen

What revolution I believe people are talking about here is getting the corporatists out of the party, not the real moderates. What we're talking about is speaking truth to power and about standing up for what one believes in, not trying to apologize and "move to the right."

[Walt Starr]

75. Get rid of the King Mole, first!

Al From!

[JohnKleeb]

76. From is a bastard

Thank god he is not a member of congress. He's a jerk IMO and to me his third way is crap.

[ulysses]

97. the third way isn't just From

It's the whole reason behind the DLC's existence in the first place.

[Zorra]

77. Mole:

A human penetration into an intelligence service or other highly sensitive organization. Quite often a mole is a defector who agrees to work in place.
www.themasterofdisguise.com/glossary.html

This guy often votes with republicans or promotes traditional republican policies, and for this reason, many suspect that he is a mole:


"Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are. It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right." George Lakoff

[Kitsune]

79. So is refusing to fight

and allowing a virtual one-party state to be created.


Just sayin'...

[Guaranteed]

80. Bow down.

Thank you, sir.

:yourock:

[JohnKleeb]

82. of course thats just as wrong, you assume because I oppose purging

I support everything the party does.

[Guaranteed]

85. You assume just because I think we should get rid of people

hindering our party that I think we should get rid of anyone who ever votes against us.

Not true. For the most part.

[Crunchy Frog]

88. I agree,

and I hope that the DLC will get that fact into their heads. I'm sick of seeing their attacks on progressives and their attempts to scapegoat Michael Moore for the party's election failure.

[JohnKleeb]

94. right and I think they're just as wrong

Christ, people are saying I am defending the DLC, in fact I am denouncing their tactics as well.

[Rhiannon12866]

90. Better?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php

[quaker bill]

91. Just irritate them enough and they will leave voluntarily.

No purge is ever necessary. Whoever "they" are, and I have seen plenty of definitions.

Of course, making the party smaller but more ideologically "pure" will not solve the problem we are having at the polls. But it will make the meetings more congenial.

[rman]

92. Is the DLC democratically elected?

I don't think so.

To claim leadership of a political party, to claim to represent the interests of people by whome you weren't elected - *that* is anti-democratic.

[JohnKleeb]

93. They're a think tank essentially

I dont agree with their ideas at all, the third way is crap to me but I don't think the DLC is this big powerful organization everyone thinks they are. Neither of our congressional leaders, that is neither Reid nor Pelosi are or have ever been members.
Stop assuming because I oppose purging people, I support the DLC. My point is that purging people because you want an idealogically pure party is wrong. The DLC is just as guilty of it.

[rman]

95. Seems to me, when the DLC speaks the media repeat it.

Some people may disagree with the DLC, but the media doesn't repeat the objections. How often do the big media ask someone like Kucinich for his opinion on the matter?

So what people hear wrt the Dem party's view on policies, stance on issues etc, is shaped significantly by the DLC.

That is a lot of power.

I mean, PNAC to is a think-tank. And look where it got them: the people from PNAC became the government.


re Purging:
I think it isn't to be taken literally. Formally the DLC is a private institution of one kind or another. What would people do to purge it? Force its founders at gunpoint to desolve it? That's not realistic and i don't think anyone really wants to do any such thing.
Something similar with DLC influence in the party. The only legitimate way to get rid of it would be for the people to not vote for anyone who endorces DLC-like (corporatist, anti-worker) policies. You can call that purging, but it would simply be democracy in operation.

How do you think this "purging" would go about in practice - if it would? What is it that would make it undemocratic?

[John_H]

96. not to mention incredibly stupid.

[Blue_Tires]

98. call it what you will

but this election has 'outed' a bunch of people (not to mention longtime posters on this site) who have been actively destroying the party from within and sandbagging us against the GOP...people like Zell or From ARE WORKING FOR THE OTHER SIDE!!! I DON'T CARE WHAT THEIR PARTY MEMBERSHIP CARD SAYS! And if it's an "inherently undemocratic policy" to tell these backstabbers and enablers that have caused us to get raped these last three races to FUCK OFF, then so be it...It's time to send a message and chart a new direction

[DaveinMD]

99. Zell Miller

is the extreme case. He's not representative of most moderates within the party. Losing people like Salazar because they are moderate would be a death knell for the Party.

[JohnKleeb]

102. Thank you, right it would be bad if we lost people like Salazar

Who I know isn't liberal like I am but it's nice to have him rather than a Pete Coors type.

[DaveinMD]

103. thanks John

Good job on this thread.

[JohnKleeb]

104. Thanks, its been rough, I wish this thread were locked honest since I'm

tired of being assumed to be defending the DLC, I condemn their attacks on people like Moore but I also condemn attacks on people simply because they don't vote our way on everything, and I also don't like people acting like the party isn't progressive on any level, its just not true, our second highest dem is a quite progressive man, Dick Durbin and our house leader, Nancy Pelosi is too.
There's a fine difference between someone like Miller and a moderate like Salazar. Miller isn't even a moderate, he's a conservative democrat. For all the blame I hear put on the DLC, I've seen far more conservative votes by members of the Blue Dogs.

[Rhiannon12866]

106. I agree. John brought up an incredibly relevant topic

We need inclusion, and a bringing together, not exclusion. That's the tactic that the Republicans use.:kick:

[eridani]

100. Big difference between 'purging'--

--and simple withdrawal of financial and volunteer support. If Dean is not the new DNC chair, the national party gets zip from me. I'm not going to tell them to get rid of anyone, but I'm not going to support them either. I'll still support my state and local Dem organizations, PDA/DFA and individual candidates outside my state that I particularly like.

[JohnKleeb]

101. Thats not what I am talking about

There are some people who actually would be ok with removing people because they don't like their votes and stances on the issues.

[Rhiannon12866]

107. I support Howard Dean for DNC chair.

I agree with what he says and think he'd be, hands down, the best candidate, plus, he wants the job. I would be incredibly disappointed if they chose a less qualified candidate.

But this is not a perfect world, or electoral process. I voted for John Kerry who was much better qualified for president than George Bush*. I also voted for Al Gore. And, even more upsetting, I am told that my candidates actually won!

My point is that we must learn to accept compromises. You can't abandon your party if Howard Dean doesn't get DNC chair, though I think they'd be insane if they denied it to him, LOL! He'd be perfect!

My candidate was Dennis Kucinich, but I got on board with John Kerry, because I listened to what he had to say and came to believe in his message. We all have to make compromises and choose the best of the options we're presented with. Your party offers better options, with or without Howard Dean, though, as I said, I think he'd be the best DNC chair that I can imagine. But what else are we left with?! Bush* and eternal war? I will choose the Democrats, any day, over the horror story that they're offering us!
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Rhiannon12866]

105. Hold the phone! I agree with John!

Just because we don't agree with every nuance of any candidate or spokesman, is no reason to write him off. That's what the Republicans do, since they see all issues in black or white. We don't, since we have a big tent. I would love to see Howard Dean as DNC chair, since I've listened to the man, and he speaks for me, and he's said he wants the job. But, if he doesn't get it, I'll compromise, since Dennis Kucinich was my candidate, and I've learned to. And I became a believer in John Kerry. But our system let us down. I don't know what to do next, but we need each and every one of us, doing whatever we can, to keep this party in the running, whatever happens. Purging is not the answer. Inclusion is, and that means every single one of us.:kick:

[KSAtheist]

108. Not democratic, but realistic.

Best to amputate the dead limbs now before they become gangrenous. Best to get everyone on the same page.