What exactly is meant by: 'going too far to the left'?

[Q]

I've seen this phrase used repeatedly on DU. But what exactly does it mean?

And if the party has gone 'too far to the right' (as some believe) ...wouldn't going back to the left mean going back to the center?

Could anyone help explain what the fear of 'going too far to the left' is suppose to mean in the context of today's politics?

[brainshrub]

1. Short of advocating a command-economy, banning private ownership or

restricting human-rights; There is no way to be "to far" to the Left.

Great question.

[Q]

3. I wonder if it's...

...a fear of once again standing up for principles that the Right has forced the Left to abandon by using the corporate media as a means to demonize 'liberals'?

That is...Democrats have tried to find the 'middle ground' on nearly every issue in an effort to avoid criticism by the Right.

Democrats who believe in the separation church and state are called 'Godless' by those who would benefit from that wall being torn down. So instead of trying to disprove this smear and defend their principles...Democrats agree or don't actively resist the direct funding of the church with tax dollars through 'faith-based initiatives' sponsored by those who call them Godless.

Do some Democrats 'fear' going too far to the left because they know it would bring the wrath of the well-oiled and funded RWing Smear Machine?

[robcon]

2. Going too far to the left:

Agreeing with Michael Moore's description of the insurgents who are killing Americans and Iraqi civilians as analogous to "Minute Men" from the American Revolution.

[Yuugal]

4. and the difference is?

The minute men fought to rid their country of british imperial control............. and so are the freedom fighters in Iraq. Whining about being killed when you're invading someone else's home is typical neocon bullshit. Iraqis have every right to fight any way they can against this illegal and unjust war.

[robcon]

7. The Minute Men never attacked civilians, even Tories.

The Minute Men campaigned in a guerilla war against the red coats.

I think you are an extremist, if you think the Iraqi insurghents are "Minute Men."

[brainshrub]

11. The Minute Men sure as heck did burn houses.

After they were done fighting the British, those self-same civilians sacked the Tories' homes. They weren't called Minute Men once they were off the battlefield, but it was those same guys who ran the royalists out of town.

They obviously didn't do a good enough job, otherwise there would be no modern-day Republican party.

[sampsonblk]

19. Amen, good analysis

Why don't more people understand that?

[MAlibdem]

49. perhaps...

but what were those minute men fighting for?

not to say they were completely driven by politics, or that their politics were good, but their values seem, to me, to have been much better than iraqi insurgents. maybe.

[eridani]

52. It's not about values--

--it's about whether people from across a big ocean have the right to dominate you or not.

[Q]

12. But why would it mean one is a left wing extremist...

...if they agree with Moore's thoughts on this? Why hang the left wing on the word extremist in this case?

It should go without saying that there are groups killing civilians in Iraq...besides the US...but that doesn't mean there aren't Iraqi civilians trying to defend their families and country against an illegal occupying force.

But you may be taking the 'going too far to the left' phrase out of the context. Isn't it more about the direction of a party as opposed to the comments of a filmmaker?

[Yuugal]

15. I'd rather be an extremist than brainwashed

=======I think you are an extremist, if you think the Iraqi insurghents are "Minute Men."=========

So you are lumping anyone in Iraq who tries to defend their country into the same group? You need to look at the pictures from fallujah again or maybe the torture pics or snuff films from our enlightened troops. The Iraqi people have every right to fight back against the wholesale slaughter of their people, destruction of their infrastructure, and theft of their resources.

Feel free to call me an extremist. Its a small price for me to pay to be on the right side.

[jellybelly]

66. nope

I believe robcon was lumping people who believe the insurgents are "Minute Men" into an extremist camp. We weren't taxing the Iraqis and preventing their rule of law and government. They weren't uprising for democracy and we went in and wiped them out. We went in for oil so the insurgents need a better description.

[Q]

So going too far to the left is agreeing with someone...

...the RWingers and Moderates don't like?

Did you know that Reagan called these same type of ME groups 'freedom fighters'?

Why would it mean 'going too far to the left' by simply agreeing with a statement like Moore's? Does it mean that you associate Moore with the far left and thus anything he says is 'far-left'?

What if America was attacked and occupied? Would that mean that ANYONE who fought the occupiers were 'insurgents'?

Perhaps...more than anything...Moore is trying to say that not everyone fighting the occupiers in Iraq are terrorists or 'insurgents'?

[wyldwolf]

5. huh?

I've seen this phrase used repeatedly on DU. But what exactly does it mean?

huh? Where? The phrase used repeatedly is several variations of "going too far to the right."

Again, it is never defined.

What's more, EVERY TIME you ask an anti-DLC'er to prove an assertion or substantiate a charge, you either get no reply, the subject is diverted, or some really odd answer about "less head" in the Dem party (translation: Let's take on the right's anti-intellectualism so none of our position can be challenged through facts. We don't need no stinkin' facts!)

[ulysses]

6. cool, you're online.

Morning, wyldwolf - wonder if you'd mind giving me your input over here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1437860&mesg_id=1437860

[wyldwolf]

9. ulysses, despite our differences...

... I respect you a great deal. The other anti-DLC'ers on DU are pale imitators.

I'll read your link and comment if necessary.

[Q]

10. I saw this phrase again just this morning on another thread...

...so I thought I would pose the question.

By the way...why don't you address the question? If you have a problem with the question or the thread author...you have the option of not posting.

This isn't a test. There are no correct answers. I'm looking for how others define or perceive this often used phrase.

[wyldwolf]

16. was it used "repeatedly" in that thread?

If you have a problem with the question or the thread author...you have the option of not posting.

I also have a third option, which I took.

But anyway...

Too far to the left would mean different things to different people.

To me, it is complete pacifism (I believe in war, but only as a last resort),

socialist leanings on economic policy (I'm a capitalist. Capitalism was a liberal invention - unregulated capitalism is the
conservative bastardization of it.),

too much reliance on government (I believe in big government. I believe in social programs, but even FDR said, "the federal government must and will quit this business of relief." Kennedy and LBJ believed welfare should be a "hand up not a hand out" and instituted jobs programs to relieve the welfare rolls)

... and further into the trenches (from personal observations):

Unwilling to compromise and intolerant of other viewpoints
(a trait they share with their far-right counterpoints).

Given to conspiracy theories void of supportive evidence

if the party has gone 'too far to the right' (as some believe) ...wouldn't going back to the left mean going back to the center?

Not necessarily. It would depend on how left the person is making the observation.

They may feel the party went to far to the right with Bill Clinton (some people do.) So moving back to the left would move further from the center.

[DireStrike]

63. And every time you ask a DLCer to answer

What is democratic about the DLC? They are nowhere to be found.

I've started 3 or 4 threads asking this and nobody steps up. Everything I can find says they're moderate republicans.

[Cheswick2.0]

8. I don't think there is a clear definition even by the people who use the

phrase. Too far to the left seems to mean anything that would bring the scary media and republican smear machine down on us.

[Q]

13. In other words they're responding to the framing by the RWingers...

...and it's just a kneejerk statement by someone ignorant of US history.

Principles become something else when they're changed to appease the opposition. So it comes down to definitions.

Would it be called going too far to the left to demand that the Dem party uphold certain principles without compromise?

It seems that 'far-left' has become a derogatory term for anyone that wants a return to a grassroots party or disagrees that compromise and appeasement with criminals is the best way to lead an opposition.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Supporting ANY social services, business regulations or religious freedom

We just have to follow Clinton's lead even more, back off on all environmental regulation, abolish social security, drop taxation on non-wage income or inheritance, bind up all gays in gaffers' tape and stack 'em like cordwood in the newly established Fagistan (I suggest somewhere in the upper peninsula), abolish all unions and workplace regulations, scrap the EPA, and kiss Dick Cheney's signet ring while on bended knee.

They'll still beat us at the polls, but they'll at least let us have the leftovers from catering.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Wow- Did Clinton Advocate All That

Liberals like Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, and Alcee Hastings must have been total schmucks for embracing him...

[PurityOfEssence]

21. It was the only game in town

To embrace the best option available doesn't necessarily prove it's the best option possible. Believe me, I'm no perfectionist, but Clinton is operating under a fundamentally flawed concept: if we play nice, they won't hurt us. He's wrong. If we play nice, they'll hurt us even more.

Even as he's offered cover for Junior's decision to invade Iraq, the dogs haven't been recalled. He simply doesn't get it: the right does not believe in coexistence; they believe in dominance and eradication of anything that doesn't toe the line.

The tactical failing of liberalism is the understanding and tolerance of different points of view, and its further impediment is its willingness to look empathetically from the other viewpoints. Fear not, though, because this is a strategic advantage: no group can dominate the other, and the one that is inclusive will win. Clinton, to analyze him here for a moment, needs peoples' approval far too much to be a truly effective leader. He did very well with the economy, and he made some serious social attempts, but he caved in far too much, and he still thinks that his enemies will come around. That's just herculean self-deception; they will continue to hound him well beyond the grave.

The net effect of his presidency is that he played to the middle and helped drag this country to the right. He was mercilessly picked on, but in the end, he gave the right the ammunition to get close enough in '00 to steal it. These things are his fault, and sticking with appeasement is just plain silly; it's like reasoning with a mugger.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. I have to agree, Purity of Essence

I think that for all his gifts, Clinton is very insecure about whether people like him. That's why he was so willing to cave in to the Republicanites and try to placate them by co-opting their issues, and why he was so susceptible to Ms. Lewinski.

[PurityOfEssence]

65. Politics and showbiz share some scary traits

The need to be loved, the need to get away with things, the need to compensate for the seething defeats of youth and the thirst for power all twist and distort the soul.

Such is life, and it's the nature of the beast, but one still needs to try to keep it in perspective.

The wounded often achieve great things, but they often do so at great cost to others and themselves. As we balance out the ledger of Clinton's life, it's definitely a plus to humanity and decency, but the pitfalls are and were many, and they've had far-reaching impact.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. Clinton Has Had Women Trying To Get Into His Pants All His Life

eom

[ElectroPrincess]

75. Correct!

That's exactly right POE. As a Democrat who's spent all my life among right wingers, both family and work environments, they probably hate the DLC *even more* than the so called amorphous liberals they love to verbally trash at every given opportunity.

The biggest mistake Democrats can make now is to "make nice" there by showing the right wingers our soft underbelly. Why? They'll gut us without hesitation.

Why do you think they call them *rabid* right wingers? ;)

[wyldwolf]

26. ridiculous

[zulchzulu]

18. Here are some...

- Making the minimum wage $14.00/hour
- Taking away all handguns from citizens
- Making health care free to everybody immediately
- Getting rid of corporations
- Making eating meat illegal
- Ending "consumerism"
- End prisons
- Decriminalize all drugs
- Eliminate most foreign aid
- Make maximum wage constraints
- Establish a Free Mumia month

[Q]

24. Most of those are RWing positions, exaggerations....

...and propaganda.

RWingers always counter a reasonable argument about a 'living' wage with exaggerations. The min wage is no where NEAR 14 bucks an hour and neither party is proposing such a wage. But the same people who use this argument don't want ANY increases in the min wage.

I believe you'll find that only a minority of 'left wingers' would even bother taking away hand guns. Right now they're more concerned with the complicity between the middle and the right on issues like illegal wars and Patriot acts.

Making healthcare 'free to everybody immediately' is another straw man argument advanced by the centrists and RWingers beholden to the health care 'industry' to distract from any meaningful dialogue or legislation.

No one is suggesting 'getting rid of corporations'. What the 'far left' and other thoughtful Americans want is regulation of corporations and to prevent them from using their power and cash to influence law and legislation.

I can assure you, as a 'far lefty'...that I couldn't care less if you or anyone else 'eats meat'.

What do you mean by 'ending consumerism'? Is this something you just made up?

'End' prisons? How would one accomplish such a thing? What we WOULD like to 'end' is the incarceration of literally hundreds of thousands of Americans for possessing/using drugs. It would make room for violent, repeat offenders.

Ending foreign aid is a RWing position...not that of the left, far or otherwise. The left WOULD like to see foreign aid limited to humanitarian efforts...instead of loaning poor countries millions of dollars to buy weapons instead of feeding their citizens.

Maximum wage constraints are more of an ethical/moral issue. It's capitalism out of control when the top 2 percent owns everything and everyone else has to fight over the crumbs. What would Jesus do?

Your last entry is just silly hyperbole.

[zulchzulu]

33. Explanations about these "positions"

- Making the minimum wage $14.00/hour
I remember some SF supervisor (I used to live in SF) demanding that the minimum wage be $14/hour. He didn't say or appear to understand that what that would do is raise EVERYTHING scalewise to adjust to that wage. I'm FOR increasing the minimum wage, but positions like these only hurt the cause.

- Taking away all handguns from citizens
Again, I have heard that some SF supervisor wanted to demand that ALL handguns should be illegal except for cops. Again, an idea on gun control taken way to the left...

- Making health care free to everybody immediately
Some people are under the delusion that we can have single payer universal healthcare tomorrow if we had the right politician brought into power. Overnight... this is such simplistic analysis of reality. I've talked with a few people very interested in universal healthcare who know their stuff who say that it needs to be incrimentally done with the final outcome many years from now.

- Getting rid of corporations
Again, if you listen to Nader or others that like to use to word "corporate" like it's a vulgarity, you understand that they are full of the usual unrealistic dialogue that pimple-faced teenage political potheads might concoct with their fellow sophists. Yeah, they have their iPods (made by that CORPORATION Apple) and hopefully bought music from artists that get paid by a music CORPORATION. Oh...but corporations are bad...bad...bad...

- Making eating meat illegal
PETAheads and militant vegans that I have met along the way are humorless and angry about other personal issues in their lives and they use this "platform" as a replacement mental punching bag.

- Ending "consumerism"
There are plenty of books, articles, films and radio programs about how bad consumerism is...and these stories are purchased, read or heard on objects that only can have become possessions due to evil consumeristic tendencies.

- End prisons
Why not end the prison industry when you can end prisons too! (insert Dean scream here)

- Decriminalize all drugs
Actually this can be also seen as a libertarian issue, but legalizing shit like crack ain't gonna work...but if you listen to some on radio channels, you hear this crap said...yeah, let's make it an issue to run on for President!

- Eliminate most foreign aid
Usually it's Israeli foreign aid. Or it's some notion that now that we bombed the beJesus out of Iraq over almost 15 years that we should jest leave the place behind and watch a large humanitarian disaster...and I'm assuming...not care.

- Make maximum wage constraints
I've seen this as an issue to have corporate America and elsewhere adhere to. Make it so some people can't make more than X amount a year. I guess capitalism needs this?

- Establish a Free Mumia month
Although I hope Mumia gets out soon, it's always a semi-humorous predictable sideshow to see some dread-locked white trust fund babies waving paint-painted rainbow-colored scrawlish signs, pimping pot brownies and pot-laced veggie burritos to pay for extra crack money at some protests. Some politicians dig it...especially when the supporters are cute blonde 21 year-old gals with '68 VW hippie vans.

[Solon]

34. OK, let me see if I can rectify some of these mispositions...

On the minimum wage increase, and handgun control, first off, I don't really give a shit what some guy in SF says about these, its his position, not mine, and I'm a socialist for crying out loud. For the Min wage thing, I not only support increasing it, but actually making it tied into both cost of living in an area and inflation, as of now, real wages have been decreasing for 30 years because they haven't kept up to inflation, so this would rectify that problem. On Handguns, background checks and regestration to keep criminals from getting them legally is fine by me, I don't care if you have them or not.

On health care, I believe that a single payer system can work in this country, and is needed as soon as possible, but not overnight, more like over a period of 5 years or so, but to at least make it a goal.

As far as getting rid of corporations, no I don't advocate that, not wholesale. What I believe is that corporations have far too much power, and that much is true. I actually believe we need to return to the time when the corporation only existed at the sufferance of the state. States issue the charters, and they have ultimate regulatory power over the corporation. I believe that includes the power to revoke charters, without appeal, by the state, when the corporation is in violation of the law.

The whole eating meat is illegal thing is stupid, and is only held by a few fringe groups that can't even be termed leftists in any way shape or form, even though the media paints them that way. And for the record, just tonight I ate slaughterhouse leftovers aka hotdogs. :)

The whole culture of consumerism is more a cultural issue than a political one, and it can not be termed left or right. Look at all the religious types lambasting over what happened to Christmas thank to commercialism/consumerism. You can't regulate behavior by law in any case, and this is one of them.

End the prison INDUSTRY, not prisons themselves, no one should make a profit over another imprisonment, that is immoral and something that should stay in the public sphere. Look up Wackenhut, or Global, and their private prisons, and you would agree with me. I believe that most non violent drug offenders should be released from prison, they do not belong there at all. Pot should be decriminalized at the very least, those on harder drugs should be put in drug TREATMENT programs, not prisons, which only turn them into hardened criminals. You cannot legislate behavior or habits like this, its stupid, at the very least, try to minimize the impact on society if it causes harm, or make it legal when it doesn't.

The foriegn aid bit sounds more like a conservative position than left position. I think we need to be more discrimatory in our handing out such money. For example, stop supporting dictators with arms and ammunition, give money for FOOD instead of weapons.

I have heard of this argument before, on this board, and it does have merit in certain instances, but the approach is wrong. I say return our tax rates to what they were at about the early to mid '50s (look it up) and this wouldn't be a problem.

Your last one is the most atrocious broad generalization of any political group I have ever seen on this board. You think we all drink lattes and drive Volvos too?

[zulchzulu]

35. Please realize many of these "positions" are meant to be stereotypes

And if I were you, lay off the hot dogs...you....you...socialist flesh eater!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

I thought this thread was going to be "funnier"...

[Solon]

36. Over sensitive I think...

plus sarcasm doesn't translate well on the internet. As far as me being a socialist flesh eater, guilty as charged, though to be honest, I don't really like mystery meat that much. I don't think these hot dogs are agreeing with me tonight, ugh...

[Q]

56. What makes you think this thread was meant to be 'funny'?

Maybe it's that some think they're funny...but they're not?

[welshTerrier2]

38. maximum wage constraints ...

without getting into all the details, i agree with several of the "far left" themes you discussed ... but i don't at all agree with the way you described them ...

but one topic, maximum wage constraints, is worthy of a bit more discussion ... let's start with this premise and see if we can at least start with some agreement: the very wealthy in this country have more access to power than the poor ... if we can't agree on this statement, there's no point in trying to have a serious discussion ...

now, if the wealthy do indeed wield disproportionate power, the next question asked is: is this OK ?? clearly, those on the far left would say "no" ... i have no idea what moderates or those on the right believe on this issue ... i expect right-wing republicans would suggest that "to the victors go the spoils" ... "they earned their money so they have a right to take advantage of it" ... and moderates? you tell me ...

so it seems we have a variety of solutions to this situation, if you agree solutions are needed ... first, we could try to pass all sorts of campaign finance reform laws ... second, we could try to restrict the access of lobbyists to elected officials ... these types of laws make no imposition on the amassing of wealth ... they seek to limit the actions of elected officials ... i am fully supportive of both of these types of laws ... are you ??

but therein lies the rub ... it just does not seem credible to me that we can truly restrict the abuses of democracy that great wealth encourages ... perhaps you see this as anti-capitalistic .. by way of confession, i consider myself a socialist ... but it's important to understand that i would have no objection whatsoever to the accumulation of wealth, if that wealth did not damage our democracy ... it's not wealth that is inherently evil; it's the abuse of power that wealth enables ...

the discussion of "maximum wage constraints" should not be dismissed by labelling its advocates as "too far left" ... if you wish credibility on the issue, it seems important to discuss it with reasoned analysis ... merely labelling the proponents of wage or wealth constraints as "anti-capitalists" is nonsense ... whether they are or are not is really not important ... what is important is to value the voice of each and every citizen in as equal a manner as possible ...

perhaps you see such anti-capitalist themes as "anti-freedom" ... but you should understand that freedom sits at the very core of my calling for such measures ...

[zulchzulu]

41. Yeah...but.....it will.....never....happen

If you think there is even the slightest chance that maximum wage constraints would happen in our lifetime, I can only offer the best of cheer for the holiday.

And pass that joint...
:headbang:

[welshTerrier2]

42. i made no statement about the politics or the practicalities ...

in fact, if, and i say "if", the implication of your "pass that joint" comment is to dismiss theoretical discussions of what strengthens and weakens democracies as "drug induced", i can only suggest that your "headbang" smiley is a self-portrait ...

it's unfortunate that you made no effort whatsoever to discuss the interaction of capitalism and democracy in your response ... that it is a real problem not likely to be solved in our lifetime does not make it unworthy of reflection ... very few of the problems facing our country, or any country for that matter, are likely to be solved during our lifetime ...

[zulchzulu]

46. I don't believe in a "maximum wage constraint"...sorry, my bad...

...plus I'm just not in the mood to discuss it fully right now...I'm going outside!

[welshTerrier2]

47. no problem ...

the issue of what constitutes a democracy and what forces threaten democracy sit at the core of my political beliefs ... just for the record, i abhor these "far left" and "moderate" labels ... i'm confident most would label my ideas very far to the left ...

the truth is, though, that i strongly favor those policies and institutions that put the protection of our democratic freedoms ahead of all other freedoms ... if we cannot compel our government to act in the best interests of all its citizens, we are all at risk ...

i am often saddened by those who condemn my anti-capitalism arguments without addressing the impact capitalism has had on democracy ... again, in a perfect world, why shouldn't each person be able to earn as much wealth as they are able to ?? but there is no denying that wealth has corrupted our democratic institutions ... government policy now caters to those with the resources to gain access ... the idealism embodied in our Constitution has been replaced by corporate greed ... it's not that "corporations are evil"; it's that those corporations that are able to buy our government and choose to do so are evil ...

there is far too much noise on DU between the center and the left ... perhaps in the end, we would draw widely different conclusions on the best course ... but perhaps not ... i'm not sure there is often much dialog of substance; dialog that searches beyond the labels for real meaning on the issues ...

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

68. Good comments

welshTerrier2, I really appreciate your insightful comments. I think you and I mostly agree politically, but I had never really thought about it from this perspective. It is an intriguing, unifying theme. Thanks.

:yourock:

[eridani]

53. "they earned their money so they have a right to take advantage of it"

Well, maybe they earned it, but they damned well don't have the right to do anything they want with it. They can't buy slaves, for instance. If Bill Gates happened to want to build a swimming pool covering three counties just because he could afford to buy all the Cascades snowmelt, he most certainly should not be allowed to do so. And no, they shouldn't have the right to buy our government either.

[clutchcargo]

57. WE TRIED CAMPAIGN REFORM--

and what we got were 527's and we were the biggest abusers of that loop hole by far. I will have to give thought to Wage Constraints----I am not sure I am ready to stifle work and innovation.

[welshTerrier2]

59. that's exactly my point ...

laws designed to restrict abuses of our democratic institutions, for example campaign finance reform and restrictions on lobbyists who essentially should be convicted of trying to bribe public officials, do not work ... McCain-Feingold was a joke ...

it seems to me that when our democracy is threatened and abused, we need to take more extreme measures to remedy the problem ... wealth should not be viewed as an evil but the abuses wealth enabled must be stopped ... there really is not a more critical issue ... we either have a voice in our government or we don't ... all government policy either answers to "everyman" (and woman) or it answers to the wealthy and powerful ...

which do you think our government is doing now ??

smaller government pushed by the right means weaker government ... it used to be that government acted as a "check and balance" against "profits at any cost" businesses ... not anymore ... high paid lobbyists, expensive media campaigns and a total breakdown of campaign finance and equal access election laws have destroyed this system ... and the revolving door between government and big business doesn't help either ... can you say Cheney-Halliburton?

look at all the drugs the FDA allowed to come to market that turned out to be unsafe ... the relationship between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry is much too cozy ... you need to look no further than the hideous Medicare bill that passed last year to understand the depth of the problem ...

and to make matters even worse, now the right is going after the consumers' ability to sue ... Merck knew about the heart attack risks of Vioxx and covered them up ... and the FDA failed the American people who relied on their assurances that this entire class of drugs was safe ... but to protect the pharmaceutical industry, not consumers, the neo-cons want to limit the damages you can recover ... what if you lost a spouse, a parent or a close friend due to these crimes that the FDA endorsed? at every turn, the right-wing republican controlled government is waging war against individual citizens ... and who benefits? big business and their friends in the legislature ...

don't be fooled into thinking that Socialists like me lack a libertarian spirit on issues like maximum wage constraints and severe taxes on estates ... my first instinct is to "live and let live" ... there is nothing wrong with great wealth until it becomes a source of destruction to our democracy ... i urge you, and anyone reading this, to re-examine your views on issues like this ...

i do not seek to "stifle work and innovation" ... but democracy must be protected at all costs ...

[BeFree]

44. Hell yeah, all but the last one

- Making the minimum wage $14.00/hour
- Taking away all handguns from citizens
- Making health care free to everybody immediately
- Getting rid of corporations
- Making eating meat illegal
- Ending "consumerism"
- End prisons
- Decriminalize all drugs
- Eliminate most foreign aid
- Make maximum wage constraints
- Establish a Free Mumia month


Now that would be too far for most folks, you're right. But...

Minimum wage oughtta be twice as much, and one day will be $14.
Handguns.... rifles for everyone, rifles are hard to stick under your shirt. Much safer that way.
Everyone ought to have health care, no questions asked.
Corporations should be removed from being legally equal to people.
Meat: why is it the biggest mammals are not meat eaters?
Consumerism will be the downfall of America.
Wouldn't it be nice if our society was so peaceful prisons were not necessary?
Drugs: Only high priced drugs should be outlawed.
Foreign aid: Can we afford it? Especially if we eliminate taxes?
Wage limits: No one should make more than we pay the POTUS. And he's worth about $14 an hour, eh?

Yep, I'm a lefty, if that's what ya wanna call me. Whatever. At least I know my ideas are advant garde, and if we live that long, they will become law.

[Q]

55. It's interesting that your first two 'far left' listings...

...were developed from what 'you heard' from a SF supervisor. That's not even close to a serious discussion. It's what ONE PERSON might want.

I tried going through the rest of the list...round two of your quest to rationalize...but it's nothing more than bits and pieces of impressions you picked up from various individuals and groups that may or may not be 'going too far to the left'.

You have simply stereotyped the left and then used that stereotype to argue a position that you claim represents a majority of 'liberals'.

[IndianaGreen]

20. When you are already standing to the right of Right Field

moving slightly towards Right Field would be considered to be "going too far to the left" by some of our friends that advocate a Democratic version of Reaganism.

[Radical Activist]

22. It means doing anything corporate America doesn't like

That gets called going too far to the left. The phrase is designed to make sure we don't work against their interests or do anything that might build a strong left wing movement.

[Q]

27. This really is the...

...bottom line...isn't it?

The Bush* Regime has built their power base on doing favors for corporations. Hell...their NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY was created FOR corporations. This is of course is only a guess...since the policy is a State SECRET and we're not allowed to know much about it or who helped WRITE IT. (Beyond leaks in the media.)

Worse...now we have to deal with the Democratic Party Power Brokers wanting to take us in the same direction by adopting some of these same policies. It's trickle-down, supply side economics in a brand new package.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. It means not pandering to the right and the mythical "middle".

It means, also, that I'm switching to the Greens who actually oppose the Republicans.

[genius]

25. Freepers call the center too far to the left.

[genius]

28. DLC (NDOL.org) people would now think Kennedy was way too far to the left

That is why we need to get them out of our party. The declines to states will come back when they are gone and the declines to state dramatically out-number the DLC people. But if we don't get rid of the DLC, millions more will leave the party by the next election.

[Q]

29. It would be very difficult...

...to 'tell the DLC to get out' of our party because they're holding all the cards. All we have is our vote and meager contributions.

So the answer may be: don't vote for DLC-sponsored or vetted candidates and don't contribute to their cause.

[welshTerrier2]

30. calling for peace and criticizing the invasion of Iraq ...

i posted the article below in a thread about the DLC but thought it fits in here as well ...

notice how the author of this article that was posted on the DLC's website suggests that by calling for peace and opposing the invasion of Iraq, the left helps promote the idea that Democrats are weak on defense ... the fact that the invasion of Iraq has failed and that it has seriously weakened the U.S. apparently is not worthy of consideration ... the war is bankrupting us, destroying our alliances and our prestige in the world, killing many U.S. troops and innocent Iraqi citizens, stimulating Al Qaeda recruitment, poisoning Iraq with depleted uranium and threatening global peace ...

but the DLC loves to paint those who oppose the madness as "too far to the left" ... the following article was taken directly from the DLC's website:

source: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251439&kaid=131&subid=192

<skip>

The Kucinich campaign is sort of the Unclaimed Freight Outlet of Democratic politics, retailing every failed or outdated lefty idea with a fierce and touching passion.

But Kucinich also reflects a persistent if small faction in the party that helps reinforce Republican claims that Democrats simply cannot be trusted with military leadership or with vigorous defense of our national interests. These come-home-America liberals are in many respects still fighting against the Vietnam War, and tend to react to any prospective use of military force by hauling out the same old signs and slogans. As a Pew Research Group poll recently showed, they are isolated from the rest of the U.S. electorate in their opposition to the war. If allowed to define the Democratic Party's approach to national security issues, they would undoubtedly drag the party back into the electoral hole it inhabited for much of the post-Vietnam era of the 1970s and 1980s.

Antiwar Democrats are entitled to their opinions. In fact, we share most of their concerns about the Bush Administration diplomacy that has made the drive to disarm Iraq such a lonely endeavor for the United States and the United Kingdom, without letting those concerns obscure the national interest in toppling Saddam. But antiwar Democrats do not have the right to claim, as Dean often does, that opposing the war is a matter of fidelity to Democratic tradition, or that antiwar Democrats represent "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

<skip>

Some aging baby boomers may continue to view every military conflict as a reprise of the big war of their youth, and some politicians may opportunistically offer them a sort of battleground reenactment of the protests they fondly remember. But for the rest of us, the Vietnam War is long over, and it's time to reassert Democratic internationalism for a new era.

[Q]

31. Indeed...the DLC has to literally ignore reality..

...to make those kinds of statements. Iraq is FUBAR...but they can't admit it because it would expose their complicity in promoting an illegal, aggressive war against a country that not only had nothing to do with the 'war on terror'...but didn't have the ability to defend itself.

[welshTerrier2]

32. standing for something

implicit in the DLC argument was the very sad admission that they are focussed so much on "winning" that they end up standing for nothing ...

to be sure, there are political implications to every position ... but to criticize those who opposed the Iraq invasion for furthering the meme that Democrats are weak on defense is nonsense ... is the DLC's "macho mantra" really more important than making the right choices when war hangs in the balance ...

why must they assume that the left would oppose all war no matter what?? i believe many on the left are not pacifists ... i would support a war if this country were confronted with an "imminent threat" ... but to suggest we should not oppose the war in Iraq because we would be seen as "sissies" shows the total moral bankruptcy of the DLC ...

people on the left want to win too but not at the cost of selling out our core understanding of right and wrong ... and now the DLC things we need to focus more on "values"; i'd question whether "winning at any cost" will be a value American voters will respect ...

[nightperson]

37. What a way to drive young people out of the Party! True marketing genius!

"Muscular internationalism, often exercised over the protests of isolationist Republicans."

If you're draft-age and you read this (unsigned!) transmission from the official DLC bot or whatever, what are you gonna think?

Perhaps young people need the reminder: even the freakin' John Birch Society opposed the Vietnam War, while many establishment Dems hemmed, hawed, or hawked (Holbrooke :shrug: ?)

These geniuses are going right to where the action is, to our present and future strength (the youth vote!), and flushing it down the toilet.

I'm a "card-carrying member of the moral minority" ( :eyes: ), I'm tired of having to link to Pat Buchanan on foreign policy!

Just in terms of marketing, think about it: if you're 18 and worried about a draft, Pat Buchanan is your new best friend and the DLC come off as shadier than the trees in Central Park. That's where we're at, right? What kind of übergrandchessmaster strategy is that?

[welshTerrier2]

39. yeah, and old people too ...

übergrandchessmaster strategy

so, i was going to ask you how you made that little symbol over the "u", but then it all came back to me:

if you want to make an umlaut, you have to break a few eggs ...:crazy:

[nightperson]

40. What's weird is

if I look at it in "edit" right now, the umlaut is there, and there's no sign of the ü or whatever I originally typed :tinfoilhat: :shrug: :tinfoilhat: :crazy:

On edit: happened again! I'll leave spaces for anyone interested in what I originally typed ;) :

& u m l

(give or take a u, if it doesn't work :scared: )

[housewolf]

43. "Moving too far to the left" - the political spectrum maps

There is an old political spectrum map that went something like this (2-dimensional, from left to right, based on degree of government - the left being economic collectivism and the right being economic individualism):

anarchy -> socialism -> liberalism -> moderate -> conservatism -> libertarianism -> fascism -> totalitarianism


Recently a new model has come to light (called the "Political Compass") that adds social issues as third dimension. It's horizontal axis runs from left (Communism, Collectivism) to right (Neo-liberalism, Libertarianism). The vertical axis runs from (top) Authoritarianism (Fascism) to (bottom) Anarchism (Libertarian).

This divides the graph into quadrants and you can easily identify where your beliefs fall - Authoritarian Left, Authoritarian Right, Libertarian Left and Libertarian Right. For instance, Stalin is in the upper left, far to the left while Hitler is upper right but close to the center axis. Gandhi, on the other hand, is Libertarian Left.

You can find out more about the Political Compass here, and take a self-test to see where your beliefs fall
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/


Here is a site that explains how Classical Liberalism had evolved into what's known today as "the left." This is very interesting and takes a look at all the various models linked below, I highly recommend taking a look at the site.
Redefining the Political Spectrum - the Rational Spectrum
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

For more political self-tests, go here:
Scroll down to "Political Self-Tests"
http://www.georgehernandez.com/xzMisc/Politics/zLinks.htm


Here is another version compiled from a Libertarian perspective, called the "Nolan Chart." There is a link on the page to "The World's Smallest Political Quiz," a self-test you can take to determine where you fit in their model (The link is about 10% down on the left, below the "Personal Rights" heading.


Here is another one, attempting to correct and further refine the Nolan Chart - the Origen Map
http://www.originmap.org/Chart.html


Here's another one. also from a Libertarian perspective
http://idealog.org/


-----------------------

So, in regards to your question....

Just as there are unpopular extremes on the right, there are unpopular extremes on the left - i.e., socalists, communists, etc. While their ideologies have fallen out of popular favor, they exist out there as "the extreme far left wing." I think that when people talk about "too far to the left," it is these extremes that they worry about - policies of economic collectivism, re-distribution of wealth from the wealth-class down to the under-class, massive government regulation on business, increased welfare and social support to individuals, publicly funded education, public funding of other social services, government ownership of resources, etc.

[BeFree]

45. "Too far?"

First you have to decide where the middle is before you can say where is left and where is right. Imo, the middle is mud. It's sheeple ranch.

Then, you have to figure what is the best direction for the welfare of the sheeple. (Sheeple meaning those who follow, daring not to lead)

Do we go back to the days of slavery and 'Only the toughest survive?'

Or do we surge ahead to a time where all people are equal, and the earth is respected?

We've come so far, and we've come so far only because of 'Lefties' working toward making people equal in the eyes of the law.

What we are talking about is: What will the law be tomorrow? Not what it was, but what will it be. Back to the past, as those on the right desire, or will we move ahead?

Ol' Befree thinks we can hardly be too far 'left'.

[Geek_Girl]

48. Well Said

:)

[m berst]

51. simple

Speak as an advocate for the have-nots of the world in any way, shape, or form, and you are called "too far to the left."

Defend and apologize for the haves and the status quo and you are "not too far to the left" and are seen as a "realist" and a "moderate."

This can be applied to every issue and every supposed political debate that goes on here. The desire of so many in the Democratic party today to keep people in their place is so strong, that even people who object to that are met with attempts to keep them in their place - marginalized over on the supposed "far left."

In every argument that breaks out at DU there is a have side and a have-not side. The debates aren't about ideology. Those with status, privilege, security, and relative wealth - or who think they do or they might someday or who look up to those who do - argue one side, and those who have little or nothing - or who realize that what they have is meaningless or tenuous, or who are aware of and compassionate toward the suffering of others who have little or nothing - argue the other.

A person has to be seriously unconscious of their surroundings to not see the have-nots among us and to not be aware of their predicament. Being not aware of this is the only way that people could fail to recognize that the Democratic party is not speaking for or to these people.

Most Democrats are encountering these people every day and not really seeing them. Most Democrats have a social status that allows them to look down on and ignore the majority of people they encounter. Ask a non-political person what ideas come to mind when you say the word "Democrat" and you will here elitist, arrogant, and out of touch. Some of this is because of the propaganda from the right wing, but a lot of it is because of the way that the average Democrat views the working class and the way they behave toward them every day.

[Q]

54. During the trickle-down 80s we called it the I GOT MINE...

...syndrome. Things must be going okay and the government must being doing their jobs if I GOT MINE. Oh...you need some? GET YOUR OWN!

It seems that if there was one point in recent history that could be identified as the beginning of the end of the Democratic party...it was the Reagan 80s. Reagan showed Democrats that you could screw the people and still have it all. And that's when the media became 'corporate'...bought up by RWing ideologues interested in nothing but the promotion of the corporate party and the vilification of those politicians whose conscience wouldn't let them participate in the looting of America.

And you're right that the Democrat's 'out of touch' image is not all the RWing corporate media's fault. They bring much of it on themselves by being...out of touch...with the majority of Democrats and Americans in general.

Now the two, out of touch, arrogant parties feed off of each other for strength. In the 2004 campaign...Kerry actually admitted that he simply expected the vote of the party base and ignored them as he courted the mythical swing voter. This was a signal to Blacks, workers and the poor that they were now without a party to represent them. Yet they still showed up at the polls in the hope of getting rid of Bush*. Now they have Bush* AND a Democratic party that works with him to take away their rights and future.

[TroglodyteScholar]

58. "Too far to the Left"

...is defined as any political stance that may actually FIX major problems in our broken-ass system.

Don't let that shit fool you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. "too far left" is opposing the DLC(R).

And, their plans to rid the party of liberals/leftists. They've managed to marginalize a lot of us into moving to the Greens.

[mattclearing]

61. It means, "You actually believe in sticking to your position." God forbid.

No.

Think of the Left and Right as polar opposites.

The Right has moved too far to the right, something we can all agree on.

The Left decided to break rightward toward the middle.

The Right didn't follow suit, but stayed right.

Now the debate is between people in the middle, and people on the Right.

You get policies moderated center-right.

In order to have a moderate government, you have to have an opposition that is the equal opposite of its counterpart.

We don't have that right now. We have a rightist government because the Left has very little voice representation in national politics.

[Q]

62. A two-party system of government is useless...

...without both parties actively representing and being a loyal opposition for their base.

Some would say that we can 'bend' our principles a bit in order to get more votes. But a principle becomes something less when you change it. It's no longer a principle...it's political opportunism.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. "Going to far to the left" is whatever Republicans want it to be

and the DLC is likely to parrot Republicanite fears.

A few years ago I saw Molly Ivins being interviewed about a (Sentate? gubernatorial?) race in Texas. The Democratic candidate was a very conservative businessman, and the Republicanites ran ads calling him "too liberal," even though he wasn't by any stretch of the imagination.

[jellybelly]

67. being too far-left

means you believe in abortion, gun restrictions, and gay marriage...according to the repubs if you aren't a God-fearing Christian you are too far-left.

[sonicx]

70. Ah-nold and Rudy are nearly there, then.

[KSAtheist]

69. Socialism and the like..

Complete government control of social services, abolishment of state control of laws and regulations, leniency towards criminals, mass reduction in military force, et. al.

[Q]

72. Why argue stereotypes and straw men?

Complete control of 'social services'? What about using the Government to replace social services with taxpayer funded 'faith-based initiatives'? And what would be the alternative of government not controlling social services? Privatization of social services and no accountability?

Abolishment of state controls of laws and regulations? Isn't this exactly what the Bush* govenment has done with their federal 'initiatives' and executive orders that override state laws?

Leniency towards criminals? Are you talking about a situation where a Republican senator's son is caught with 80 pounds of pot in his car trunk and he doesn't even have to go to court? Or what about Limbaugh's DRUG problems? Seems that this right wing government has treated him with every leniency. The US has the largest prison population in the world...most of them non-violent offenders. Perhaps a little 'leniency' would bring a bit of sanity to this problem?

Mass reduction in military forces? As oppossed to spending more on the military than we need? Americans have seemed to have forgotten that the GAO and others have proven that the Pentagon wastes or 'loses' billions of dollars a year. This money could go to the troops instead of the pockets of defense contractors. And it should go without saying that we wouldn't need a vast military force if the Bush* government didn't start unnecessary wars.

[KSAtheist]

78. I'm not arguing with any of this.

The question was: what is percieved as a move too far left. I gave my opinion over what was perceived.

[TrustingDog]

71. conformity? willing to blend to blandness?

imho, the left should be screamin' meemie left instead of trying to do the 'right' thing.

[LWolf]

73. Anything that is not

to the right of "center," where ever center happens to be sitting at the moment, is "too far to the left."

Public discourse is owned by the right; they've set the terms. They've redefined the vocabulary.

And Democrats have conceded them the field, adopting their new definitions. So, basically, anything that is not part of the right-wing PNAC agenda is too far to the left, even for the Democratic status quo.

Just my little leftist observation.

[bunkerbuster1]

76. Having balls.

[Q]

77. What good is a leadership that can't attract a majority of followers?

The New Democrats are trying to lead the party, but finding that few want to follow. It seems that many 'Old' Democrats don't want to change a party they grew up believing was the 'party of the people'. They and their ancestors fought for principles that benefited all Americans and they're getting a bit nervous that their party by is being taken over by corporate interests that put the people last.

There's something we have to decide as a party right now: Is the Democratic party still the 'party of the people'? Because...if they're not...they have to stop pretending that they are.

One of the biggest mistakes the right wing of the Democratic party: their assumption that any Democrat who doesn't want to compromise on certain basic principles and values makes them part of the 'far left' and thus a 'fringe' element of the party.

But those who believe in basic human/civil/worker's rights and civil liberties aren't the fringe of the party. They are the base and these issues are the reason they became Dems in the first place.