The Progressive DLC?

[Meldread]

I am wondering if anyone here on DU has thought of, or knows of, a progressive version of the DLC? If no progressive version of the DLC exists, then why not? What can we do to create one? What is involved in the process?

There needs to be an organization that is dedicated to moving the party back squarely on the left where it belongs, and is willing to undercut Democrats who don't go along with the "vision".

I really don't buy into this "go long to get along" mentality that certain Progressive PAC's have toward right wing Democrats. Thankfully, MoveOn has just instituted a policy for campaigning against such Democrats, but sadly I don't think they are going to go far enough - such as moving against Hillary or Lieberman. Besides, other than fund raising I don't think MoveOn has been all that effective.

I'd like to see the Democratic Party make a move back toward its liberal roots.

[autorank]

1. "back toward its liberal roots." The people are waiting for us.

They won't wait long either.

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY That should do it.

[dolstein]

4. Liberal meant something different fro 1932-1968

Liberals like FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ could never have passed the litmus tests imposed by the so-called liberals on DU.

[Free the Press]

9. So did Progressive. Today the DLC uses the adjective form of progressive.

Politcally and historically the word progressive has meant more than this:

Main Entry: 1pro·gres·sive
Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression
3 : moving forward or onward : ADVANCING
4 a : increasing in extent or severity <a progressive disease> b : increasing in rate as the base increases <a progressive tax>
5 often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives
6 : of, relating to, or constituting a verb form that expresses action or state in progress at the time of speaking or a time spoken of

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

[Elidor]

10. That's because they're from a vanished time

And god forbid we should still be stuck in the 40's, 50's or 60's.

[autorank]

11. They were all fighters...for the New Deal Programs

And that's liberal enough for me, and I suspect for many here. The New Deal was a comprehensive social policy revolution that continues to benefit Americans today. The leaders, not just Presidents but congressional leaders, fought like hell for these programs and principals. Combine real social justice with sleeves rolled up and ready to rumble politicians and you've got the deal of the century.

The 3rd way and panzy ass approaches like that are real duds with the public, which stays away from the polls in droves. The greatest political move of the 90's was Clinton's budget policy of creating surpluses which would, in turn, allow financing of the baby boom impact on Social Security and Medicare. Simply brilliant. And it worked. Where was the fight to save that. People know when they're being jerked around, which is the simple version of *, and they know when nobody puts up a real fight.

Our party does best with vision, uncompromising in it's consideration of the needs of the people, and leaders who kick ass.

[wyldwolf]

13. they were also communist fighters

And fought the ideas and practices of communism world wide.


In fact, that is why the "progressives" of that day splintered off.

[Solon]

17. So FDR is a communist now?

What type of smear campaign is this?

[wyldwolf]

33. where exactly did you get that from my post?

[Solon]

38. Sorry, I think I misread your post. n/t

[SaveElmer]

27. Mistaken view of FDR and the New Deal...

First, Franklin Roosevelt ran as a balanced budget Democrat, whose campaign positions in 1932 were not remarkably different than Herbert Hoover's.

Roosevelt did not consider himself a progressive. Though he incurred the wrath of his class, the whole point of the New Deal was to save capitalism, which is why he never went further. Progressives called for a fundamental rework of the economic structure which is why they split off. Progressives viewed Social Security as a timid half response to the countries woes. And Roosevelt and the Democratic Party were very anti-communist which further split off progressives. It should tell you something that Henry Wallace became so disillusioned with the Democratic Party that he went from being Roosevelt's vice president, to running against Harry Truman as a third party candidate in 1948

Far from being uncompromising, Roosevelt compromised like crazy to keep the southern racist wing of the Democratic Party off his back...hence his reluctance to go further in terms of civil rights. And of course he acquiesced in the roundup of Japanese Americans into concentration camps.

Roosevelt was a great man, not because he was uncompromising, but because he knew when and under what circumstances compromise would get him most of what he wanted. He is a great man because he was willing to experiment to get the country back on its feet. He did not have a "comprehensive social policy revolution " in mind when implementing the New Deal. He was doing whatever he could to save the country for the resumption of capitalism, even if what he was doing went aginst what he believed.

[Critters2]

34. Henry Wallace is my hero!

A man of conviction, and progressive conviction at that!

[Odin2005]

40. I always find it funny that right-wingers hate FDR.

FDR was capitalism's savior; if The new deal hadn't mitigated the worst of the depression there could of easily been a fascist or communist revolution according to my US history proffessor.

[spitintheocean]

16. the good old days

You mean notions like secret wiretaps , women rights , voters rights , equal rights , wars that kill and maim millions with no oversight ? Jim crow laws , the draft , prescription drug benefits or medicare ,how about equality for handicapped persons , making it illegal to beat your wife , Senators with Klan affilliations that would get them elected ? 10 years for marijauna convictions , when cops could beat you with no repercussions . Oh how we must pine for the good old days when Democrats were not so liberal . Dolstein, what is it that makes you nostalgic for the good old days ?

[autorank]

25. That sucked and wasn't "good" and it got real "old."

We don't throw out the Constitution because the founders couldn't bring them selves to throw off slavery (although their guilt was palpable by their private correspondence).

We don't throw out Social Security and rational regulation plus all the other social programs because we didn't have those benefits we're fighting for now.

I take the post above as an indication that the "cold war" ultimately corrupted the liberal-progressive agenda thus marginalizing progressives who argued against it. I may be wrong on the poster's intent but it is a going point nonetheless (so he should take full credit;)

I'd like to see a full, complete history of the development of the cold war and the perpetuation of it.
Stalin was a tyrant and was untrustworthy. Yet Russia fought Hitler and lost more than 10 million soldiers in that process. The start is understandable. The perpetuation of the Cold War was based on major inflated estimates of the USSR's military strength. This led to the arms boom and that, I believe, is directly responsible, the culture of "perpetual war" which is not conducive to any type of rights.

Whatever...

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

37. What are you some kind of commie?

Do I really need to slap the :sarcasm: thingy on this?

[SaveElmer]

2. So you would propose running...

Say a Ted Kennedy Democrat in Nebraska?

www.pdaamerica.org is what you are looking for, though I doubt even they would advocate the kind of purge you seem to be talking about

[Clark2008]

3. How 'bout a Dem who can win?

Ted and Hillary can't.

Snarky.

[SaveElmer]

5. Huh?

Last time I looked Ted and Hillary were the elected representatives to the United States Senate from their states.

[Clark2008]

22. They could both win in their states, but not nationwide,

was my point.

[SaveElmer]

23. Well ted can't...

Hillary will IMO. But I think the OP was talking about statewide candidates./

[Clark2008]

43. You really think Hil can win the red states?

Really?

Do you live in one of 'em? I do. A near swing state as far as red states go and Hillary's name is synonymous with shit here.

Really?

[SaveElmer]

46. Funny how...

Not matter who you talk to that is opposed to Hillary here, they all say the same thing "Everyone here hates Hillary," veen if they are from New York, yet she still leads in every actual poll of Democratic voters. I guess she is getting her support from Canada or something. Yes, I do think Hillary will win back several red states. I live in red state Virginia which neither she (nor any other Democrat, except perhaps Warner) is going to win anyway. Democratic Party's future success will be in the west not in the south. Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Montana, New Mexico are all ripe for the picking. Democrats are correct on privacy issues which is going to ring large in 2008 in my opinion.

[Critters2]

35. Hillary didnt win from HER state

she moved to a new state to win.

I'm no fan of carpetbagging--tho it helped elect a Dem Senator from Illinois.

[Meldread]

6. Yes, actually I am.

Well, not the actual Ted Kennedy, I am thinking about people more in line with Paul Hackett. However, I do believe that progressive views and beliefs are held by the majority of Americans. I think America is hungry for something different. What about the ever growing (last time I checked it was over 50%) number of registered non-voters who say they don't vote because candidates don't appeal to them? America *WANTS* something different.

I don't, of course, propose an outright purge coming out the gate. That wouldn't be feasible. I am thinking about something more slow and steady. Pick a few key states to setup shop, and dominate there, and then eventually expand doing what is needed to make each state self-sufficient. It would also be a good idea to setup a "Ten Key Values" plan like the Greens have - stating clearly and boldly what the organization wants.

If we're lucky our plans would be successful, and then the party will begin taking on our "values".

Look at Paul Hackett, someone who came very close to winning in an extremely conservative district, and someone who was unabashedly liberal.

After all, it's not like we can leave the Democratic Party and start a third party. So it's only feasible that we become a "party within a party".

[Radical Activist]

28. I'd settle for

putting a stop to Democratic leaders who constantly claim we have to run moderates even in liberal or strongly Democratic districts. I'm tired of it. Moderates have been trying to purge liberals for some time and we should fight back.

[SaveElmer]

30. You mean like they purged liberal Hackett...

For more liberal Brown?

[Radical Activist]

31. More like

the several Congressional districts in Chicago that would probably vote for a socialist Democrat but have moderate Democrats instead. Or those who argued against Barack Obama in the primary for US Senate because he was too liberal.

[Critters2]

36. Or what the DLC and DNC

did to Howard Dean. I still don't know how they live with themselves.

[Clark2008]

44. Oh, get off it.

When are you corporate asses gonna learn that it's NOT about liberal vs. moderate?

For God's sake, it's about PEOPLE!!

Hillary's the annointed one. FUCK! Because she bows to the corporate masters.

If someone DARES to speak a real man's speak, he or she is DRUMMED out of the party because of what? FUNDING?

Oh, for fuck's sake!

Let the fucking people decide, for once in our fucking lives!

[MrBenchley]

45. LOL!

"Let the fucking people decide"
Hackett was 20 points back in the polls. He quit because his campaign was a failure, and lashed out at others for his shortcoming.

"Hillary's the annointed one. FUCK! Because she bows to the corporate masters."
The view must be breathtaking that far from reality....

[SaveElmer]

47. Wow impressive...

So much irrelevence in one post...

You have internalized the standard anti DLC rant very well...must have programmed a speed key, no use typing the same thing in over and over.

[Fridays Child]

7. It seems like that's what Progressive Majority tried to be.

But that group seems to have fallen by the wayside. I never hear anything about them, anymore.

[salin]

15. they are still around

http://www.progressivemajority.org/

[Dr.Phool]

8. There is one. It's called PDA. Progressive Democrats for America

You can find them at www.PDAmerica.org.

www.pdamerica.org

[wyldwolf]

12. absolutely amazing!

Someone on DU always jokes about how "progressives" trash the DLC but don't even know about, or promote, their own organizations.

The OP is quite an example.

[MrBenchley]

19. And then they clog the forum, pissing and moaning

that for some mysterious reason, progressives don't have the clout that the DLC does. (snicker)

[rucky]

21. Maybe with some corporate backing...

we can get organized, too.

[Radical Activist]

26. And there's always something wrong with the orgs we do have

I'm waiting for someone to complain about how PDA needs to be a broader coalition or is too this or too that or some other nitpicking. Only fantasy organizations will ever be good enough because there's always some reason not to join the imperfect groups already here.

[salin]

14. Progressive Majority

http://www.progressivemajority.org/

[MrBenchley]

18. LOL! There IS one already

and hilariously, even the "progressive purists" don't give two shits about it.

[rucky]

20. Camp Wellstone! n/t

[Armstead]

24. Progressive Caucus in Congress....sorta

It's a caucus of progressive house members. Not exactlt the DLC, but anotehr mechanism being used to push progfressive policies in Congress.

[Radical Activist]

29. PDA is the compliment to that.

[NativeTexan]

32. The DLC has NOTHING to do with Cuellar!....

....There is a BIG difference between the DLC and Republicans in Dem clothing, which is what Cuellar is. The original idea behind the DLC was to move the party more centrist. The problem lately isn't centrists in EITHER party. The problem is that the Bush Fascist Party has taken the "conservatives" so far to the RIGHT that anyone that might be a little more conservative than us is considered TOO conservative AND it has pushed MOST Democrats to the far left. The DLC, IMHO is not the enemy, just a different segment of a REAL big tent party.

[Meldread]

41. I disagree, but only in part.

I have nothing against true centrists - balance is a good thing. The problem arises when the Republicans, as you stated, moved further to the right. When they moved the "center" moved with them, and as it is the strategy of the DLC to triangulate by trying to remain in the "center", they were forced to move further to the right as well. I don't think America moved further to the right or left, but rather the political parties themselves changed.

If you want a case in point, compare Goldwater or Nixon to George W. Bush. By today's standards both Goldwater and Nixon were "liberal". If I remember correctly, and I may be wrong, but Hillary Clinton supported Berry Goldwater in his bid for President. (I think she was in college at the time.) Right up until he died Goldwater was AGAINST the Religious Right and more pro-gay than 75% of the Democrats.

[NativeTexan]

48. That is true for sure...

...especially about Goldwater, who always said that, for instance, that being against abortion wasn't a CONSERVATIVE issue. It caused MORE government intrusion, not less.

But you are correct the Republicans moving the center, and most of that has been under THIS administration. But you must know, that wherever the center is, that is where the country at least BELIEVES that IT is. That being said, after Bush, I believe anyone being perceived by the populace as being from the fringes will be hard to get elected nationally. BUT, just as a for instance, Hillary, being the wife of the most astute politician of my lifetime, over half a century now, will talk centrist and move some to the left after being elected. Bush, as a case in point, talked centrist and hired a damned MOVING VAN to take EVERYTHING to the fringes of fascism, and then kept the second election, again close enough to steal, but this time out of FEAR during a war that HE STARTED.

I just fear that if we choose from too far from the left, at least openly, that we are dead in the water before we start. But, having said that, I also believe that we have some EXCELLENT people even from the FAR left. I just have concernes about them changing the minds of the independent moderates who have been brainwashed the last 5 years.

Mostly, though, this is just part opinion, part observation on my part. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

[radio4progressives]

39. Progressives Democrats of American (pda)

get acquainted with it - it's been in existance for over a year now.. ;)

http://www.pdamerica.org/

[RazzleDazzle]

42. Democracy for America (DFA) -- Dean's old campaign outfit

Still working to recruit and elect grassroots Dems. Marvelous organization.

PDA has been recommended a couple of times. I have serious concerns about them based on the behavior of some of the principles that I've seen here at DU.