Lefties? Moderates? - not much difference on the ISSUES!!

[welshTerrier2]

I see very few threads on DU, when political spectrum debates are held, where real differences on the ISSUES are enumerated ... 99% of the debate seems to revolve around TACTICS ... for example, moderates support a candidate like Bob Casey (he's anti-choice) because he has a good chance to win ... but Casey supporters on DU are NOT anti-choice ... it's tactics; not issues ... and some on the left will not vote for Democratic war supporters and great flaming arguments ensue ... but virtually every DU'er opposes the war ... again, the argument is about political tactics; NOT issues ...

the only significant "political spectrum" ISSUE I see is the exit strategy from Iraq ... it's caused a deep divide and we, and the Party, have done a very poor job searching for and finding common ground ...

Here's a list of some key issues (in no particular order) and a look at how I see the Party's left and the Party's center viewing these issues:

health care
special interests and lobbying
fair elections
jobs
government corruption
global warming
national energy policy
retirement security
education
Iraq

feel free to add others ...

these are real problems that need real solutions ... the right wing solution is to do nothing for citizens and do everything for commercial interests ...

now does anyone actually want to argue that the "moderate" position on these issues is much different than the "left" position? let's go down the list ...

the "left" is pushing single payer health care ... do moderates oppose single payer? the bottom line is that both center and left refuse to accept the current bullshit and both groups recognize the need to put reasonable health care ahead of corporate profits ...

special interests and lobbying ... the left would likely prefer to ban all paid lobbying ... perhaps moderates would allow more lobbying but both groups clearly want to see the interests of the American people put ahead of a narrow, greedy, corporate segment of the country ...

fair elections? yeah, maybe the left is more convinced than party moderates that the last two elections were stolen ... but both groups insist on ensuring that there is a verifiable audit trail to prove the integrity of the election process ... no real differences here ...

jobs? perhaps moderates are more tolerant of Clinton's NAFTA and WTO initiatives ... but is there anyone who does not have strong concerns about the decline of American labor and the movement to other countries of good American jobs? again, there's a problem here that needs to be solved ... i think both center and left agree on that ...

government corruption? do moderates believe there's a moderate amount of corruption and the left believes there's tons of corruption ... both groups see what's going on with Abramoff, Delay, Frist, Cheney, et al ... there's no difference here ...

global warming? again, this is not, or certainly shouldn't be, a political spectrum issue ... do moderates believe global warming MIGHT become a risk way off in the future but the left believes we've already reached a crisis state? the science dictates the reality; not the political spectrum ... global warming is real and needs to be addressed ASAP ...

national energy strategy? do moderates think we should be able to lower our dependence on foreign oil a moderate amount while the left believes we should eliminate this dependence completely? does the left insist on only using renewable sources while moderates believe it's fine to burn coal, oil or anything else that burns as long as we have a little solar energy or maybe a little research into new technologies? the point is that we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels and the quicker we start making the transition the better ... it's not a political spectrum issue ...

retirement security? do moderates have a different view on protecting pension plans from greedy stockholder abuses that would be any different from the views of those on the left? do we all agree that senior citizens should have decent health care, housing, food and a reasonable lifestyle? again, specific programs might differ but the bottom line is still pretty much the same ...

education? would moderates allow "some" religion the public schools? would they be willing to cut back "just a little" on education funding? would they be willing to teach "ID" in the schools or allow vouchers for private, religious schools? public education means public!! i think that Democratic Party moderates and the Party's left wing both fully support "public" education and firmly believe in the separation between church and state ...

and last but not least, we come to the real make or break issue ... our differences are real although they need not be ... this is a huge problem for the Party and i don't see us moving in the right direction to resolve our differences ... many are feeling pretty good right now because of bush's low poll numbers ... they shouldn't be ... those numbers, when bush manipulates world events for political gain, could change overnight ... Americans were firmly behind bush right after 9/11; who's to say they wouldn't feel the same way if there were another attack??

the Party has not put in place a PROCESS to resolve our differences ... once again, we are a Party of elite individuals each with their own "solution" to Iraq ... diversity is a great starting point ... considering a wide range of alternative approaches is the right way to analyze any problem ... but that analysis should seek common ground once alternatives have been defined ... there is no absolute requirement that we come to a single point of view but it is critical for all to have a genuine voice in the process ... that has not been happening and the Party's left has clearly been alienated by the Party's actions and inactions ... what is needed is dialog and voter involvement ...

the bottom line to moving the Party anywhere is to improve our intra-Party communication ... with the exception of Iraq, i believe the differences between center and left are more in style than in substance ... the difference is, nevertheless, still important ... the left wants to hear elite Democrats talk about the corruption of Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big everything else ... we want to hear real solutions to the corruption that paid lobbying embodies ... it's nothing more than legalized bribery ... we want our representatives to reflect an understanding that there is a war going on between large, corporate stockholders and workers ... on Iraq, common ground would be possible if it were being sought ... the left wants OUT NOW ... the moderates have an array of programs spread over various periods of time with various conditions for withdrawal ... what is needed to effect a compromise is a "not later than" date somewhere between "Now" and "one year" ... give bush a "time budget" and make him live within it!! how we withdraw troops in the interim, either phasing down pro rata each month or phasing down based on achieving certain benchmarks could be a subject for negotiation ...

the Party does not need to "become more progressive"; it needs to agree on the problems that confront the country and propose real solutions to them ... problems that are key concerns of the left are not yet adequately on the Party's radar ... that doesn't mean they don't really exist - they do!! time is really getting short for the kind of process we need to be successful in 2006 ... i'm afraid too many are more confident than circumstances warrant ... the midterms are going to be very closely contested and the Party will need every single vote, every single dollar, and every single campaign worker it can attract to the big tent ... i don't see the necessary communication taking place right now to be as effective as we're going to need to be ... it doesn't have to be this way; if we do nothing but maintain the current state of affairs, we will not do nearly as well as we could do ...

[Warpy]

1. There is a world of difference

Health care: most people on the left recognize that a single payer universal plan is the way to go. Party conservatives want to mandate universal coverage while leaving insurance companies in charge of healthcare.

Special interests and lobbying: both sides want to tighten the rules to reduce the bribery, but party conservatives are still beholden to corporate interests and still reject the hard work of going out to shore up the party base and raise those small contributions it takes to get dirty money out of the process.

Fair elections: party conservatives seem to think that voting machines can be made fair. People on the left relize this probably isn't the case.

Jobs: party conservatives seemingly expect jobs to appear out of nowhere, as they have no plan whatsoever for protecting the little industry left in the US. Lefties recognize the need for targeted, punitive tariffs on companies that outsource the jobs but expect the US to be the primary market for goods and services produced.

Global warming: Party conservatives tend to be procorporate and loath to take the measures that would actually start to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country. The left is less timid, but would probably provoke a revolution if all their ideas were put into practice.

Retirement security: party conservatives have joined the "sky is falling" mentality of the GOP and have not uttered a peep about getting OASDI overpayments OUT of the general fund, which has to be the first step toward ensuring we all get our social security checks when it's time.

Education: party conservatives see education as a panacea for poverty, yet have never come up with no way to fund it beyond grade 12. They also don't seem to have figured out that trade schools are what need to be built, we're churning out enough liberal arts majors to supply middle management demands for the foreseeable future.

In short, party conservatives who mistakenly call themselves moderates are for the status quo whenever possible and lack the vision necessary to pull this country out of the class war doldrums and back into a competititve position in the world.

[Zodiak]

3. There is one more dividing issue:

How strongly we should fight the Republicans. "Moderates" (conservative Democrats) think that our current crop of Dems are just fine and make excuses when these Dems cynically vote against the beliefs of both lefties and true middle of the road Dems. Lefties want to remove Democrats who do not stand up to Republicans because lefties do not feel that we have an opposition party.

THIS is a BIG reason for flame wars on DU.

But I essentially agree....moderate Democrats (true moderates, not conservative Democrats) and lefties have a lot in common. It is the conservative Dems in centrist clothing that are th true ideological oddballs in the party. Too bad half of our representation consists of conservative Democrats.

[welshTerrier2]

10. i've differentiated between "political tactics" and ISSUES

i think there are huge differences between left and center on political tactics ... i agree with your assessment that this is the source of much DU flaming ...

but i wanted to clearly differentiate between issue positions and tactics so that we could more clearly define a common party platform ...

[Zodiak]

13. That's fine...

Sorry...to me the issue of opposition is more than a tactical one, but I can easily see how another would think differently.

It's your thread, and personally, I want this thread to develop and be seen, so please ignore whatever detraction I inadvertently provided.

[welshTerrier2]

14. no problem

tactics are a very real divide in the Party ... they are very much part of the equation ...

but as we all know, flame wars about tactics on DU just go around in circles ...

[leftstreet]

5. I really like your definitions

Interesting to note: I'm surrounded by a sea of Republicans who consider themselves "moderates." Yet your descriptions of (Dem) "party conservatives" on the issues reflect the very beliefs of the Repubs I've described. Interesting.

[welshTerrier2]

9. great response

thanks for taking the time to through the list of issues, Warpy ...

i can neither fully agree or disagree with what you wrote ... let me try to explain my view a little more clearly ...

again, perhaps there are genuine differences on the issues but i think they're muddled by tactics and political pragmatism ... i see the left pushing for what they believe are solutions to the great problems we face ... the left, for example, might call for severe restrictions on auto use to reduce global warming ... or they might call for a banning of burning fossil fuels in not more than ten years ... the Party's moderates might reject those solutions primarily because restricting auto use would be extremely unpopular politically ...

but what if Democrats held a 95% majority in the Congress and controlled the WH? would moderates still advocate the same policies? perhaps they would; perhaps not ... the point i'm trying to make is that global warming will NOT be solved by "moderate" measures ... i see the left as getting to the right solution before they've become politically popular ... i see the center, in many cases, dragging their feet until the public catches up with the "bitter medicine" solutions ... i like to believe, and i really have no idea if it's true, that moderates eventually will find their way to where the left started out ...

look at Iraq as an example ... the left said "NO WAY" to the IWR ... the left said an invasion of Iraq will put the US at much greater risk ... the left said bush could not be trusted with a Congressional authorization ... the left said that bush was hyping the case for war ... the left said bush would exploit Iraqi oil resources for the sole benefit of his corporate Oil Cartel friends ... the left was NOT in the mainstream back in 2002 ... some conservative DU'ers referred to the above views as the "1% lefty fringe" ... but as the left's initial vision has been born out, the center has moved to where the left began ... today, even many republicans oppose the war and believe the whole thing was a huge mistake ...

the bottom line is that it's hard to measure the genuine "moderate" view because it does not exist outside the political arena ... as events migrate towards the left's prognostications, and the very real and critical problems facing the country remain unsolved, i believe the center will be forced to move to the left ... i guess what i'm trying to say is that differences on issues will resolve over time because ultimately the problems have to be addressed with real, not just political, solutions ...

[mzmolly]

2. Excellent post, I'm going to recommend it - however ...

the left wants to hear elite Democrats talk about the corruption of Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big everything else ... we want to hear real solutions to the corruption that paid lobbying embodies ... it's nothing more than legalized bribery ... we want our representatives to reflect an understanding that there is a war going on between large, corporate stockholders and workers ... on Iraq, common ground would be possible if it were being sought ... the left wants OUT NOW ... the moderates have an array of programs spread over various periods of time with various conditions for withdrawal ... what is needed to effect a compromise is a "not later than" date somewhere between "Now" and "one year" ... give bush a "time budget" and make him live within it!! how we withdraw troops in the interim, either phasing down pro rata each month or phasing down based on achieving certain benchmarks could be a subject for negotiation ...

This is a mis characterization of what the "left" wants IMHO. I am a pragmatic/leftist and I feel that some who consider themselves "leftists" particularly independents are all or nothing, black/white thinkers. Who decides which Democrats are "elite" for example? Is there a membership club of which I'm unaware?

The "left" doesn't want so called "elite Democrats" to do X, they want all democrats in unison to do X. They don't want to allow for "differences" within a diverse political party.

[Zodiak]

6. Not ALL Democrats

Just enough of them to win and stop Bush's march to fascism and american peonage. As it stands now, we can't get enough opposition together to even look like an opposition party. Most of Bush's initiatives get bipartisan support from Democrats afraid of being called names.....support that still exists to this day.

A diversity of opinion is fine...voting for Bush's policies for political expediency is not fine.

And my "big tent" doesn't allow for corporate advocates. The other tent (the Republican one with the gilded, gold lamme walls) is for that. I say we open up a bigger tent on the left side rather than the right...too many corporate advocates trickling in. I would rather have vegans, environmentalists, Naderites, Greens, anarchists, and granola-heads than I would corporate advocates. These people (corporate pols) do us no favors, and I resent being told that the left is "intolerant" because we don't want to give corporate advocates the keys to power within our party any more.

As if the party ever gave the "keys" to us lefties in the first place. Calling lefties "intolerant" when we have no power within our party smacks more of blaming the victim.

[mzmolly]

16. The problem is not a lack of opposition, it's a lack of organized

opposition. We as a party have loads of opposition right now, it's just not in-sync. That's always been our downfall, and part of the reason is because we do think independently of one another. But, we are going to have to become an "organized opposition party" if we expect to win, yes.

I am a leftist, but anyone who would vote third party in the last election and expect to have a "voice" can kiss my leftist ass. ;) I was referring to people who refuse to change the party from within - in my post. Again, I'm quite left ideologically speaking so I caution those who feel persecuted by my words.

[AtomicKitten]

19. I think you've hit it precisely. n/t

[mzmolly]

21. Thanks.

:hi:

[Zodiak]

23. If anyone voted third party in the last election

Then they sure were missing the forest for the trees.

But the door should still be open to them. It sure as hell shouldn't be open for more Ben Nelsons. My opinion, of course.

[mzmolly]

31. I welcome them into the party as well.

And, I would like to see less Ben Nelsons myself. :)

[radio4progressives]

7. MzMolly - You make unfair and inaccurate charachterization of the left

I'm a self-identified progressive leftist, something of a socialist libertarian (to be a bit more specific) - but i understand and accept working together where we do agree (as most other progressives do).

The "all things black and white" paradigm is not one brought on by the left, but actually by the Right (in both parties)that was allowed to rise in power and then all the more amplified by the silence and inaction of the fence sitters in the face of massive corruption, extremely destructive policies. Too many profiteers in our own party that are/were in the position to reign in the rapidly and rabidly growing extremism, but did not.

And that's at the heart of the anger of the Left, and constantly mis-construed as 'extremists' or 'black and white' thinking.

[mzmolly]

15. I am also a self identified progressive leftist.

Those who were not ABB in the last election are who I referred to in my post. Is that you? I don't think moderates are black/white thinkers, thus the term "moderate." They are for change, but at a slower pace.

[welshTerrier2]

12. elite Democrats

by elite Democrats, i meant "prominent" Democrats ... no one needs to "decide who gets into the 'club' ... what i meant by the paragraph you highlighted is that many on "the left" wowuld like the problems caused by catering to the "Corporate State" to be raised more aggressively ...

i'm hesitant to get into a discussion of "political tactics" in this thread which i believe is essentially what your post is about ...

let me respond to your statement that the left doesn't "want to allow for "differences" within a diverse political party" ... first, it's the right of any voter to cast their vote based on their own personal values and judgments ... second, it's important to understand that many on "the left" do not see the kind of diversity of views in the Party that you suggest exist ... many see a fairly monolithic party where there views are not represented ...

what i regularly have been trying to highlight is that the frustration you've shown in your post for those on the left is matched with a frustration on the left ... your view is that the left has a right to debate the issues but they shouldn't withhold their support from Democrats ... their view is that Democrats are NOT representing their beliefs ... it seems to me that every Democrat should be fighting to make the big tent more INCLUSIVE ... you don't accomplish this by merely criticism the left for black and white thinking ... you do it by WANTING TO ENCOURAGE all Democrats to find common ground ... criticizing the left and demanding party loyalty is not an effective political strategy ... that's what this thread is really about ... we all need to want to find unity or we will not find it and we all should insist on a better process of communication and more public forums with our party's leaders ... these forums are needed to allow for the exchange of ideas and with the hope of finding as much common ground as we can find ...

it doesn't have to be the way it is right now ...

[mzmolly]

17. I consider, Boxer, Conyers, Kennedy, Dean ect. to be PROMINENT

Democrats.

BTW, Who gets to decide who the "prominent" democrats are?

People keep moving the goal posts. Nader simply said "democrats" when he maligned the party, and when people no longer allowed him and his fellowship to trash the party with blanket statements, it became "prominent/elite democrats." Sorry I say poppy (frikken) cock!

your view is that the left has a right to debate the issues but they shouldn't withhold their support from Democrats ... their view is that Democrats are NOT representing their beliefs ...

Then they should be organizing their own danged opposition party. Anyone who doesn't vote Democrat has a right to compete in the political process, but I don't want to listen to their sh*t on a Democratic discussion board anymore than I want to entertain the musings of Bill O'Reilly.

If you are a Democrat, go ahead and complain - change the party from within like Dean is doing, or move the heck on to a party that has never been in power, and as such you can "feel good about." It's pretty tough to be disillusioned with a party that has never actually participated in our democracy.

Voting third party is kinda like fantasizing about Brad Pitt, it's never going to happen, but the "fantasy" is always perfect. ;) Of course, uhm after a gander at them nudes, I must admit I am a bit disillusioned. :P

[welshTerrier2]

18. i won't pursue this further in this thread

let's get back to discussing the issues raised in the OP ...

[mzmolly]

20. I feel I have addressed an issue that was raised.

But, it's your call.

:hi:

[welshTerrier2]

24. OK

so what are your thoughts on differences and similarities on issues like education, global warming, lobbyists, fair elections, etc?

[mzmolly]

30. I agree with your larger points.

Basically - ideologically mods/leftists within the Democratic Party agree that the areas you note need to be addressed. It's the avenue and the speed that are mainly in question.

:hi:

[politicaholic]

4. A single voice would help, but it's not in dem's nature...

Democrats celebrate differences culturally and idealistically. That's why they seem weak, when in reality it is a great strength. It is checks and balances within its own system that allows for free debate and compromise ultimately resulting in a situation that can benefit americans as a whole.

Your quote from Ted Kennedy in your signature line is right and his wisdom once again shines through.

What I'm saying is that you will never make dems single issue voters or unite them under a single issue. Sorry. The only chance is tactics.

The trick is the media. The republicans have control of the "liberal media" and will convince everyone that they are the underdog until the bitter end. Take back NPR and PBS and allow the corporate media closer access to the dem. party. Shout enough and you will be heard. This is no time for subtlety.

[radio4progressives]

8. Just wanted to say that I appreciate this approach, it's most constructive

effort in guiding the discussion on the specific issues facing the party and the country.

[TheFarseer]

11. I think there is more differences than you think

I'm not a good example of a moderate. I tend to be all over the place on issues as opposed to "moderate" in a broad sense -

There are alot of different opinions on what to do with Iraq, healthcare, education, gay rights and on and on.

I think there is alot of agreement on issues like jobs, energy, corruption and I think we can come to a reasonable consensus on retirement and tax policy. Maybe we should unite around the things we can all agree on. Or maybe I am just bringing my own biases into the conversation and my assessment of what we agree on is way off.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. Senate voting record: 2 Liberals//2 Moderates//2 Republicans

Interest Group ratings of 2 Liberals:Feingold and Kennedy, 2 Moderates: Clinton and Lieberman, 2 Republicans: Allen and McCain.

What we can see is that yes, Feingold and Kennedy have a somewhat more liberal ratings that Clinton and Lieberman. We see some noticeable differences on foreign policy issues. But Feingold, Kennedy, Clinton and Lieberman ALL have FAR more liberal interest group ratings than even a "moderate" Republican like McCain and of course a right wing Republican such as Allen.

For more information on these ratings please go to the link below and click on Interest Groups then you can click on further information about each interest group and their rating methods.

The point I am making is that there is some difference between liberals and moderates in voting records observable by interest group ratings, but not as much as many might expect. But that pales in comparison to the differences between either liberal or moderate Democrats and even a "moderate" much less a conservative Republican

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________


2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 89 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 86 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
____________________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

“Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________


2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Peace Action 38 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the National Education Association 80 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 96 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 60 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 80 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004

____________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.”

[welshTerrier2]

25. i wish you had taken this a step further

it's not clear exactly what position you're taking based on the data you presented ...

looking at "interest group" ratings seems to indicate that there are many similarities between left and center on many of the issues ... one notable exception is the war ...

even where differences exist (based on interest group ratings), it's not clear whether those differences derive from a different vision on the issues and their solutions or whether the differences derive from different "political strategies" ... some might argue that a difference is a difference but i think greater unity can be achieved if we can find common ground on an ultimate solutions to problems facing the country even if we disagree on how to get there ... some unity of thought is better than none ...

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. thanks...I tried to address some of those issues by editing my post

I'm with ya. Thanks for the post

[welshTerrier2]

28. just for the record

i would not see any Democrat in the Senate as "the left" ... i think you've correctly labelled Feingold and Kennedy as "liberals" ...

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. until Bernie is elected...I sincerely don't think there are any

[welshTerrier2]

32. and Bernie ...

is not a Democrat even though he'll likely vote with them on most issues ...

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. that's correct. He is endorsed by the DNC Chair and will caucus

with Democrats (as he has done in the House) and thus contribute to making a majority. But, you are correct he is not a Democrat even if he is backed by most

[Deep13]

26. probably a moderate D

"health care" I liked Bill Clinton's 1993 plan, but at this point I would not object to single-payer system like Canadians have. I just would not want the official system to become a 'welfare' garbage plan for just the poor.

"special interests and lobbying" $ + access = corruption = waste and nothing getting done.

"fair elections" A racial impact on an election is enough for something to be unconstitutional even if rascist intent cannot be proven. The goal of the Civil War Amendments was complete destruction of slavery, not "mostly gone." I don't see why we cannot just draw an X with a pencil instead of all this goofy computer stuff. Diebold needs to provide source codes to boards of election, provide paper trails and divest itself of political entanglements.

"jobs" The economy is bigger than ever. The problem is not production, but distribution. We need fewer people, not more jobs.

"government corruption" I can forgive a crime of passion, but crimes against the public trust must be punished severly. Our system already runs on legalized bribery. For someone actually to be convicted of public corruption, he must have really fucked up. Corrupt politicians should be hanged. Those who obstruct justice to protect them should be drawn and quartered.

"global warming" We are fucked. If the inadequate Kyoto proposals are too much, then we are simply fucked.

"national energy policy" We use a third of the world's energy. The solution to obesity is not more food, but less consumption.

"retirement security" Is there anyone who thinks people should NOT get their pensions or Social Security benefits? Privatization = shooting craps with people's subsistance.

"education" Both sides are wrong. Public education needs to be supported as the solution to our woes, including free public colleges. Teachers should be held to the same standards (including pay) as other licensed professionals. No tenure and no tort immunity. Special Ed. should be a Federal responsibility, not a local one. Education needs to be funded and directed at the state level and not rely on local property taxes.

"Iraq" There is no solution. While I support the you-break-it-you-buy-it concept, the simple fact is we cannot do anything right there since we lost all credibility and moral authority with abu grave. We showed we are as bad as Saddam and now they will never trust us. Those who played into the enemy's hands for financial or political gain are traitors to the United States and criminals against humanity. Murtha has the best plan I have heard, although it would serve us right to be stuck there indefinitely.

[The Magistrate]

34. An Excellent Point, Mr. Terrier

For that matter, even the dispute over Iraq is in part a tactical one, as many who want withdrawl do not view it as a viable political line, at least just now.

But tactical questions must be resolved: no goal can be achieved, no strategy implemented successfully, save that there exists a tactical method suitable to over-come the enemy's opposition in the trenches....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[welshTerrier2]

35. "a tactical method suitable to over-come the enemy's opposition"

while this thread is NOT about tactics, i would nevertheless point out that the "we have to win before we can achieve other goals" has been used by some to support a moderate agenda ...

there is no implicit wisdom in this position ...

the best political strategies derive from the best policy vision and neither center nor left holds exclusive rights to that vision ... my belief, and to some degree the point of this thread, is that the most effective political strategy will include rather than reject negotiations between center and left (especially on the war) ... i see little or no movement on this at this time ...

[The Magistrate]

36. That Is True, Sir

That comment was intended only to point out the importance of tactical questions and the need for their resolution. Certainly a pre-condition for their resolution is recognition by all elements that, as you have pointed out, we have a wide agreement on objectives. Bearing that in mind could lessen the ferocity of the tactical debate.

[welshTerrier2]

37. "lessen the ferocity of the tactical debate"

you've rung the bell !! lessening the ferocity of the tactical debate by highlighting our agreement on objectives on a wide range of issues ...

again, i think the one issue where this will not apply is on an exit strategy from Iraq ... yes, a component of our differences could include tactical considerations ... but we also seem to be mired in genuine policy differences ...

as i'm typing this, i'm watching Congressman Murtha on C-Span2 ... he said in a public forum on Iraq that there are only two real positions: there is "redeployment" and there is "stay the course" ... he said that Democrats, especially those who are 2008 candidates, are "stuck in the middle" ...

the left, as i define it, wants out of Iraq NOW ... and the left, as i define it, finds zero representation from Senate Democrats on Iraq ... zero ... this is not a healthy state of affairs for any party to endure ... and the real problem is that the left has thus far been offered a "take it or leave it" ultimatum ... this isn't necessary and it's bad politics as well ...

my proposal is to give bush a "date certain" by which all troops have to be out of Iraq ... the timeframe is negotiable within reason ... otherwise, on any of the current Senate proposals, contingencies could lead to an open-ended commitment ... using benchmarks as a standard for troop withdrawal could be made more palatable if it were "back ended" with a "not later than" date ... the point is that with a real process for enhanced intra-party communication and negotiation, we could probably reach an acceptable compromise to make the party more representative and more inclusive ... so far, all we have is divisiveness on the issue ... it just isn't necessary ...

[The Magistrate]

38. An Excellent Proposal, Sir

My own inclination is to get out of the place immediately, and on grounds that would likely appeal to centerists and even some rightists: our country is being damaged by occupying Iraq, and the sooner that harm ceases, the better. We are spending, or more precisely, wasting, tremendous amounts of money there, that could be better used in our own country. We are ruining our military forces, not just with casualties and the strain of long service, but by converting the experience of our soldiery from war-fighting to occupation, which is the most ruinous and corrupting duty a military force can be put to, that unsuits it for any other purpose once it has come to define its culture. We have not brought "democracy" to the place, but merely installed a Shia theocracy, and the al Queda types flocking into the place to fight "Crusaders" will be dealt with far more effectively by the Shia, who they kill wholesale, than we could ever do. Clearly, the first rule of holes applies: "When in a hole, stop digging."

[welshTerrier2]

39. your inclination is my inclination

i am fully supportive of an OUT NOW position ... NOW as in immediately ...

frankly, the positions taken by Democrats mentioned as possible '08 candidates seem crazy to me ... i know they talk about helping the Iraqis ... that goal is commendable ... i know they may be considering the potential impact on the '06 elections ... also commendable ... all points should be considered ...

but it's hard to believe that any progress whatsoever is being made in Iraq and it's hard to see how spending another year's worth of lives, money and national prestige on such madness is in the country's or the party's best interest ...

and even still, this member of the "purist" left seeks negotiation and compromise ... thus far, none has been forthcoming ...

i bid you goodnight, good sir ...

[The Magistrate]

40. We Seem To Be Managing Some, Sir

Few in these precincts, anyway, would consider me part of the "purist left"....

[Darranar]

41. You chose center-left issues.

The sort of thing typically discussed in moderate liberal circles.

The split between moderates and leftists becomes clearer when it comes to large-scale reforms of society. Sure, pretty much all of those left of center support minimum wage increases and health care reform, but what about the economic system itself? Leftists tend to identify more with the socialist or at least social democratic critique of American-style capitalism than moderates. Similar differences can be observed on the aspect of US foreign policy. Leftists are more likely to attack it on moral terms, while moderates focus more on the efficacy of the means used. Many moderates will not speak of the US as an imperial power, and tend to regard the use of US power as benevolent, if occasionally mistaken.

Essentially, leftists are more likely to say that the political, social, and economic system currently in place is highly flawed, while moderates are more likely to condemn the more reactionary elements in office for their divergences from that system.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. those of us on the social-democratic left also need to think tactically

I look how the far right working from the aftermath of the Goldwater landslide defeat of 1964 changed the big tent Republicans into a distinctly right wing party; so right wing that poor old Barry wasn't even welcome anymore. But, to do this the right wing did back in general elections candidates and Presidents who were clearly not their ideological soul-mates. Richard Nixon would be a socialist wacko by current Republican Party standards. But, it was the Nixon era that gave real rise to to the longterm agenda of the right-wing.

Since we do not have a system such as exist in much of Europe which is accommodating to third parties and there is realistically no possibility whatsoever that will change anytime prior to the collapse of the current order which I do not anticipate will happen anytime soon--we have no choice in my opinion but to work with what we do have.

Furthermore any survey of actual congressional voting records will demonstrate that with the exception of the likes of Zell Miller almost any Democrat including Lieberman and definitely Clinton are still much more progressive than any "moderate" Republican.

[Darranar]

43. I think focusing on electoral politics

whether it's to "reform the Democratic Party" or to "build a third-party progressive alternative" or anything of the sort is an error in tactics.

The people who make the decisions about national policy are not the voters, unless the population forces a change, and that will come about not through nominating someone like Russ Feingold but rather through active popular resistance to opposed policies. Shove the issue into the mainstream, show that we will not be quiet, and the political leadership will pick it up eventually.

[The Magistrate]

44. As A Point Of Curiousity, My Friend

What is "Shove the issue into the mainstream, show that we will not be quiet, and the political leadership will pick it up eventually" but electoral politics?

[Darranar]

45. I suppose it could be considered that, actually.

Ultimately, electoral means seem to be the best viable means to get the better candidates in office and the better policies in place. Armed revolution has a bad record, not that people like Schroeder and Blair are the best spokesmen for the alternative.

The point I was making was that if those to the left of the Democratic Party's ideology seriously want change, it is a mistake to think that a mere change of figureheads will do it for us. As it is the choices are strictly limited, as are the sincerity of those making the promises. If effective, large-scale reform is desired, keeping political action strictly to voting and political parties will result in failure.

If the American public is truly to the left of the leadership's political center, then we should prove it, and vote for whoever takes up our banner.

[The Magistrate]

46. Mass Action, Sir

Might well be a viable tactic, though of course, the mass would have to actually be there. Demonstrations can be a useful tactic. The problem with many such here is that they are poorly focused, and carried on with theatrics of a sort that encourage people to reject the message of the demonstrators. Serious thought should be given to what forms of activity might actually appeal to the people who must be moved, rather than what pleasews the demonstrators.

[meow2u3]

47. The major differences between center-left, left, and far left

are generally in the the degree and rate of change they want.
The center-left want a gradual change, and some are more moderate to conservative on social issues.
The left want a quicker rate and degree of change. Most are social liberals.
The far left want radical leftward change.

[welshTerrier2]

48. rates of change and ultimate objectives

i agree that a significant source of friction along the political spectrum has to do with the preferred rate of change people are seeking ...

the amount of friction could be lessened if we could start by agreeing on what the ultimate objectives are for any given policy area ...

so, for example, let's say someone on the left wants to see a 100% tax on all income over $1 million ... their primary argument for this policy is that the super-wealthy are able to exert an undemocratic, disproportionate influence on government policy ...

the moderate responds that they oppose this tax because it is draconian ... they prefer to try less invasive policies like campaign finance reform and restrictions on lobbyists ...

at this point, we can either have wars over what the policy should be or we can agree to try the least invasive policies first with an understanding that ultimately the OBJECTIVE, i.e. decreasing the influence of money in the political process, has to be achieved ...

i believe there would be far greater support from the left if the Democratic Party could publish clear statements about their policy OBJECTIVES ... the concerns that exist today on the left are that the Party MAY not be willing to go further to solve the problem should moderate policies not achieve the desired results ... by communicating the ultimate objective more effectively and seeking common ground on OBJECTIVES, i think some of the political spectrum problems we have on many issues (but not all) could be lessened ...