How the Left Lost America

[wyldwolf]

By RONALD RADOSH, author, among other books, of "Divided They Fell: The Demise of the Democratic Party, 1964-1996," available from the Free Press.

The thrust of Peter Beinart's powerful and well-argued message in "The Good Fight" (HarperCollins, 288 pages, $25.95) is straightforward: The liberal left in America has abandoned its own best heritage for what Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once called "doughface liberalism." These liberals oppose terror and totalitarianism but recoil against taking any necessary steps to defeat it, fearful that their moral purity might be stained in the process.

Mr. Beinart first took up his case in a lengthy article in the New Republic, where he was editor from November 1999 until March 2006. He has now sought to explore how and why a once vital and dynamic American liberalism - devoted to asserting American power on behalf of democracy abroad as well as at home - went soft and, in Mr. Beinart's words,"preferred inaction to the tragic reality that America must shed its moral innocence to act meaningfully in the world." He asks nothing less than that liberals (and Democrats) hark back to the much besmirched Cold War liberalism of President Truman, George Kennan, Hubert Humphrey, and others - and move away from the anti-interventionism of Michael Moore, George McGovern, and Howard Dean. The philosophical hero of "The Good Fight" is Reinhold Niebuhr, a man who gave up on pacifism. Niebuhr posited that Americans have to recognize their own capacity for inflicting evil by building restraints on un mitigated power, but not hesitate to act to prevent greater evils.

The strongest portions of Mr. Beinart's book are his historical accounts of the intra-liberal wars, as the forces of liberal anti-communism joined hands to defeat remnants of the pro-communist wartime Popular Front, symbolized by Henry Wallace's dangerous attempt to attack Truman from the left while accepting overt communist support. Then, Mr. Beinart asserts, Cold War liberals understood that using American power to thwart totalitarianism abroad was the flip side of using the power of government to promote equality of opportunity and a commitment to civil rights for black Americans at home.

The Cold War liberal consensus came crashing to a halt with the onset of the Vietnam War and the cultural wars of the 1960s.The new left saw the old liberals as its principal enemy.The new group coined the phrase "corporate liberalism" to define what it saw as a failed commitment to the imperialist economic and political system. The choice the new left saw was between fascism and revolution, and it argued that those who favored using American power for good were only serving the nascent fascism lying beneath the surface. While the old generation of muscular liberals understood that the fight against Stalinism served as an impetus for domestic reform, for the new left, as Mr. Beinart writes,"it was the fight against American totalitarianism abroad that served as the impetus for revolution at home."

The extremism of the new left did not push America toward further progressive social change, Mr. Beinart argues, but led to the demise of any meaningful movements on the left and to the abandonment of liberalism by many who made the drift into neoconservatism and the shift to President Reagan in the 1980s. The noise made by the new left and its academic supporters led to the abandonment of the Democratic Party by much of its former blue-collar base, which refused to give up the old anticommunist consensus. The new liberals led by Mr. McGovern took over the once majority party. But in the process, Mr. Beinart shows, they lost America.

more..

http://www.nysun.com/article/33568

[jonnyblitz]

1. Ronald Radosh is a right winger who writes for David Horowitz's

frontpagemag.com. why on earth would you post a thread on a book by him?:shrug:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=11

[wyldwolf]

3. for the same reason someone has posted threads by Jacob Heilbrunn

... who Media Matters busted for supporting John Bolton.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2653216&mesg_id=2653216

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2652103

Supporters of President Bush's nomination of Undersecretary of State John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations have echoed the administration's comparison of Bolton to the late former U.N. ambassador and U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. But comparing Bolton to Moynihan ignores fundamental differences in their views of international law and misrepresents Moynihan's position on the U.N.... In a March 9 column in the Los Angeles Times, editorial writer and Hoover Institution media fellow Jacob Heilbrunn asserted that Moynihan "did not just display contempt for the U.N., he flaunted it." But Heilbrunn provided no examples of Moynihan expressing contempt for the U.N. itself.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503150001

[jonnyblitz]

29. well that's not cool either..

The Hoover Institute, where Heilbrunn is a media fellow, is a rightwing think tank if i remember correctly.

[wyldwolf]

30. correct, but it certainly garnered the proverbial hi-fives here...

...on the same subject matter.

[villager]

2. This is a long DLC apologia...

Asking Dems to be "Republican lite," which is precisely why they *do* keep losing -- because they offer no clear-cut alternative, and embrace what pundits mistakenly define as the "center" -- actually the rightwing -- of American politics.

It's stuff and nonsense. The Democractic party does not need to go back to the Cold War of the 1950's -- it needs bold, and I mean bold, new ideas for the 21st century...

[wyldwolf]

5. please be my guest in debunking it point by point

Links and sources, please.

[madfloridian]

7. You are asking us to debunk FrontPage/Horowitz author?

What next?

[wyldwolf]

9. No, I'm asking villager. But if you want to give it a shot, go ahead

[madfloridian]

10. LOL you should not even dignify Frontpage/Horowitz stuff here.

.

[wyldwolf]

we shouldn't dignify Jacob Heilbrunn stuff here, either...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2652103&mesg_id=2652103

But nice way to dodge the question. Not.

[madfloridian]

18. I did not.

But I see the OP also quoted someone else whom I know to be a moderate blogger, maybe more centrist than me. It was a great post by Booman from the Booman Tribune.

[wyldwolf]

21. I didn't say you did.

[villager]

17. I'm not the one posting cold war rhetoric here, you are, therefore

you tell me how the Democrats -- specifically-- have "failed" to keep America strong, while your writer's beloved GOP has not...

[wyldwolf]

22. I'm not the one making a claim. YOU are

[villager]

23. of course you make a claim! You posted it! Can't you defend it?

You're acting just like a Republican now!

(sorry, that may've been flamebait!)

[wyldwolf]

28. no, I posted an article excerpt, with the author's name, for discussion

...I neved claimed anything was true or was not true in it.

YOU, however, made a claim.

[villager]

31. so you don't stand by what you posted, then?

In that case, we're in agreement!

[wyldwolf]

32. that isn't the point.

PROVE that is is "long DLC apologia... Asking Dems to be "Republican lite," which is precisely why they *do* keep losing -- because they offer no clear-cut alternative, and embrace what pundits mistakenly define as the "center" -- actually the rightwing -- of American politics. "

[villager]

34. it's precisely the point -- you can't defend it.

Getting a wee bit defensive?

[wyldwolf]

35. I can defend much in there. However, you can't prove a thing you wrote.

For example, Henry Wallace DID attack Truman from the left. Historical fact.

Americans for Democratic Action urged international economic development combined with military aid to bolster the West against Stalin's growing threat. Historical fact.

Now, you are dodging providing a single shred of proof of YOUR claims.

[villager]

36. sigh. Henry Wallace bad, Scoop Jackson good, etc., etc...

If your imagination is stuck there, Wyldwolf, the Dems will have a much harder time coming up with new ideas for the 21st century than I'd hoped...

[wyldwolf]

37. you're dodging again. Do you deny that those are historical facts?

And do you have any shred of evidence to support your claims? The answer if no. nada. zip.

[villager]

38. no, sir, you are dodging, for your way leads to Vietnam and Iraq.

End of conversation.

[wyldwolf]

39. What am I dodging? You asked a question, I gave an answer, yet..

...you won't do anything but try to change the subject. End of conversation? I doubt it.

[Ken Burch]

185. Well, yes, Wallace did attack Truman from the left

This in and of itself was hardly "dangerous". Indeed, millions of decent progressive Americans saw it as a vital necessity if the heritage of the New Deal was to be saved, rather than abandoned. Truman was moving to the right of FDR in his first two years as president. He was seen as hostile by the labor movement. Unfortunately, a lot of labor voters abstained in 1946 to protest this, and this was the main reason the Republicans were able to retake Congress for the first time in fourteen years.

Wallace's challenge pushed Truman farther left in response. Without it, for example, it is unlikely that a young mayor of Minneapolis named Hubert Humphrey would have been able to get anti-segregation and pro-civil rights language into the 1948 Democratic platform. It was this leftward swing on domestic issues that brought millions of one-time Wallace supporters back into the Democratic column and saved Truman from defeat. Had Truman stayed as conservative as he was in the first two years of his term, he would surely, as I see it, have lost by a wide margin.

And yes, ADA did take the position you mention. But they never took the position that U.S. military interventions into other countries could never be questioned, and they never took the position that the U.S. had to be hostile to any country that had left-wing economic and social policies, even if that country was a democracy. This is why the ADA wa at the forefront of the anti-Vietnam War movement, a movement even you would have to concede was right.

We simply can't go back to "bear any burden, fight any foe". That way lies Ho Chi Minh Trail after Ho Chi Minh Trail after Ho Chi Minh Trail.

[wyldwolf]

191. Truman was attacked from the left based on his foreign policy

[Ken Burch]

236. And his domestic policy. And there was reason to attack him on foreign

policy. Truman had started, as soon as the war ended, on a policy of perpetual confrontation with the Soviet Union.
This policy needlessly drove up the defense budget, and, in all probability, encouraged Stalin to do some of the worst things
of his premiership(the institutionalization of the military occupation of Eastern Europe, for example).

Yes, the US needed to have enough weapons to protect itself against the Soviets, but Truman didn't need to make the arms race
and a massive military establishment a permanent fact of life. With these steps, and with the establishment of the notion that any criticism of foreign policy was treason, Truman essentially doomed us to Vietnam. Some of us don't want to end up in Vietnam after Vietman after Vietnam, which is what a decision by Democrats to recommit ourselves to an endlessly interventionist foreign policy means. Is it wrong to want to learn from our mistakes?

[wyldwolf]

238. Link?

Truman had started, as soon as the war ended, on a policy of perpetual confrontation with the Soviet Union.

Link?

[Douglas Carpenter]

241. there are many scholars who believe that the cold war was quite avoidable

and of course many who do not.

Of course this is not the kind of subject that can be decided intelligently one way or another by reading a few pages on a website.

one very recently released work arguing the thesis that the cold war was unnecessary is James Carroll's -
House of War -- Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618187804/002-1846545-3744063?v=glance&n=283155

Eric Alterman's-When Presidents Lie - raises the question but does not answer since he seems agnostic on whether or the cold war was avoidable
Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670032093/sr=1-1/qid=1150543523/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-1846545-3744063?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

one book (some might say the classic text book on the subject)that looks extensively at the pros and cons of the argument is -The Origins of the Cold War: U.S. Choices after World War II - link:
http://www.choices.edu/curriculum_unit.cfm?id=12

[wyldwolf]

242. in other words, you have no link that specifically states what you claim

there are many scholars who believe that the cold war was quite avoidable and of course many who do not.

That wasn't what we were discussing

Of course this is not the kind of subject that can be decided intelligently one way or another by reading a few pages on a website.

LOL! Well, now that opens new horizons in discussions, doesn't it? If one makes a claim he/she can't support, we'll just fall back on that line!

[Douglas Carpenter]

245. we all can find links that say anything anyone wants - that's not the

point. I'm sure I can find links that say Joe Stalin was a big loving cuddly teddy bear who only wanted peace and kindness. I don't believe it. But I'm sure there are links that say that. Some conclusions require more than "links".

There is no debate across the political spectrum from the extreme right to the Marxist left over whether or not the U.S. at the very end of World War II established a policy of continual confrontation with the Soviet Union. One end called it the policy of containment. The other end called it American imperialism. That's on the level of debating whether or not the cold war every occurred. The question is whether it was necessary or not.

[Douglas Carpenter]

246. one interesting article

Not that it think would or should in and of itself convince anyone:

History of the War Machine:
From NSC 68 to 2005
by Brian Bogart
September 29, 2005

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8842

[wyldwolf]

249. well, find one then that states

Truman began perpetual confrontation with the Soviet Union as soon as the war ended.

[Douglas Carpenter]

252. well, find one that states that he didn't

nobody that I am aware of disputes this. In fact this is the very first time in my entire life I ever heard anyone from any political persuasion dispute this. The dispute is whether it or not it was necessary not whether or not it happened.

[wyldwolf]

253. As always has to be pointed out, the burden of proof is not on me...but..

...it is on the one making the claim.



Meet your first (of many) disputes - from the Truman library:

War's end, 1945:

American policy toward the Soviet Union did not change immediately, but evolved gradually. Clay, operating on the basis of JCS 1067 and the Potsdam agreements, was determined to get along with the Soviets. His reading of these agreements made clear that his principle mission was the unification of Germany and, therefore, harmonious cooperation with the Soviets seemed a given... Historians have argued long about when the "Cold War" between the United States and the Soviet Union began. Some cite.. the decision by the United States to offer "mutual assistance" to Greece and Turkey in 1947 to combat Communist guerrilla forces, while others would state it was the recognition by US policy officials that Communist stated goals had not changed since 1918, only their tactics. Regardless of exactly when the "Cold War" began, in about 1947 the US policy with regards to the Soviet Union changed from cooperation or, at least, attempting to get along with Soviet Communism, to a policy of "containment."

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/BERLIN_A/BOC.HTM

That certainly doesn't sound like an immediate policy or perpetual confrontation after the war's end.

Spin time for you?

[Douglas Carpenter]

262. to quote from Eric Alterman's book, "When Presidents Lie"

page 55-57

"The Soviets initially hewed quite closely to the letter--if not necessarily the spirit--of Yalta. Despite the clear American violations, Stalin kept his own word as it was recored in the agreements he had signed. He also stuck meticulously to the cynical October 1944 deal he had made with Churchill, as the Soviets did not interfere with Churchill's repression of Greek Communist, nor push their military advantage when confronted in Iran.
They stayed out of Finland entirely and even withdrew Bulgarian troops from Thrace and Macedonia, Soviet-sponsored election in Hungary impressed one U.S. reporter as fairer than those in New York City, even though the Communist had performed pitifully. But when the Soviets forced the Romanian government to remake itself and enter into a bilateral trade agreement, the Americans would not abide it. Nor would Truman recognize the Kremlin's provisional government in Bulgaria. Regarding Poland, the Soviets had offered FDR a deal in early April 1945 in which approximately 80 percent of cabinet post of the newly formed Polish government would go to members of the Lublin Committee, with the rest distributed to London Poles; an offer that went beyond what was demanded by terms of the Yalta accord. The United States, meanwhile, backed off from its provisional agreement on German reparation to the USSR. Although he admitted "morally Germany should have to be made to pay"...
The president had therefore refused Soviet request to hold a meeting on the Reparations Committee agreed upon at Yalta, until the united States finally was able tp alter agreements at Potsdam. The Soviets accepted even this. Nonetheless, the Americans were soon violating even the new agreement....
The Soviets never understood why the Americans were so eager to throw away the entire framework of Yalta upon which Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill had worked so laboriously on, all over a disagreement about the fate of Poland. ...Stalin asked Harriman, Doesn't he (President Truman) realize that this is the invasion route which Western Europe always used to invade Russia?....

Privately, U.S. leaders ceased even to pretend to live up to Yalta. When Truman sent Harry Hopkins to Moscow at the end of May 1945 to talk to Stalin, the Soviet leader complained that the u.S. attitude toward the Russians had "perceptibly cooled once it became obvious that Germany was defeated." The American seemed to be behaving as if the Soviets were "no longer needed."

from page 58

"By the summer of 1945, Truman realized that he, too, had been misled about the nature of the deals reached between Stalin and FDR at Yalta.
He chose to downgrade their importance and continue down the same continuous path--declaring the accords reached their to be just an "interim agreement."..

Harry Truman never comprehended the effect of his actions in refusing to abide by FDR's Yalta understanding with the Soviets. He sincerely wanted good relations with Moscow, but only under conditions that the United States was able to achieve at least 85% of "what we wanted in important matters".

from page 59

Harriman visited Stalin in Crimea in October 1945, and came away worried that the Soviet leader had grown "inordinately suspicious of our every move. Indeed as the new year began (Jan 1946) Truman found himself privately threatening war unless the Soviets were made to shape up and accept U.S. demands".

It's quite worthwhile to read the entire chapter regarding FDR and Yalta of this book by Eric Alterman
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0143036041.01._PIsitb-st-arrow,TopLeft,-1,-14_SCTHUMBZZZ_.jpg
When Presidents Lie : A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences (Paperback)
by Eric Alterman
Amazon Link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143036041/sr=1-1/qid=1150672233/ref=sr_1_1/002-1846545-3744063?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

[wyldwolf]

266. so where's the part about perpetual controntation immediately after...

..the war?

[The Magistrate]

261. The Argument It Was Not Necessary, Mr. Carpenter

Is a pretty hard one to sustain.

At bottom, there were two fundamentally hostile systems in place, both well armed and clearly capable of great ruthlessness on the evidence of their past behavior.

Arguments that it was not necessary come to rest on the proposition that President Truman could have trusted Stalin to forego expansionist desires, and for that matter, that Stalin could have trusted President Truman not to interfere in the Soviet sphere. Both seem very dubious propositions.

There is an argument that there was a natural limit to Soviet expansionism; that it was an appetite that could be satisfied. This limit is generally defined as being roughly the belt of small nations in Eastern Europe that were once part of Czarist Russia, or of the "Little Entente" alliance of the inter-war period, conceived as a check on Soviet expansion in an earlier day. There is some sense to this argument, and it has the virtue of matching what actually occured in Europe in the event, but it cannot be said to have been certain and obvious in the years just after the Second World War, and further, there was at that time considerable reason to believe Stalin intended expansion beyond that supposed "natural limit".

Events in Asia, too, played a part in the commencement of the containment policy, thgough they are often mis-interperted. Many in the West saw Stalin as controlling the Chinese Communists, though in fact, their relations were quite hostile, and Mao's victory was not Stalin's. However, Stalin did indeed covet Manchuria and Korea, dominance of which was an old goal of Czaeist policy, maintained throughout the Stalin period.

Similarly, Soviet policy pursued the old Czarist aims in the Near East, aiming at domination of Persia and Turkey, as Russia had done for centuries. In this drive, the Soviets had employed the new tool of anti-colonialist agitation, and the weakened state of England particularly seemed to give this great promise.

[Douglas Carpenter]

263. frankly I don't know if the entirety of the cold war could have been

avoided. In fact Dr. Alterman arrives at the notion that he does not know the answer to that question.

But two things are absolutely clear to me anyway

1. It was not only a matter of Soviet agenda

2. Much of the conflict that got clouded into the cold war had little to do with the Soviet Union. You mention China. Of course one could mention Viet Nam and several other anti-colonial conflicts that got included into the image of fighting the Soviet Union when there is little evidence that the Soviet Union gave anything more than moral support if even that.

Which to me gets back to my concerns about this new "War on Terror". We are already in one major conflict in Iraq which has little to do with fighting terror except to the extent it has been turned into that by the invasion and occupation.

How many more conflicts might the U.S. find itself in under the heading of "fighting terror" against foes who seek no quarrel with the United States?

[The Magistrate]

264. Those Are Sound Points, Sir

[wyldwolf]

267. sound points, yes, but they don't lend validity to the statement that...

...started this subthread: Truman had started, as soon as the war ended, on a policy of perpetual confrontation with the Soviet Union.

[The Magistrate]

270. But Essentially, Sir, President Truman Did That

The debateable points in the matter are really whether the course was necessary and wise, which in my view it certainly was, and further, whether the policy was conducted in the best and most effective manner it could have been, in both the foreign and domestic spheres, and here it is pretty clear there was room for improvement, not only under President Truman, but his successors as well.

A policy of perpetual confrontation with the Soviet Union, after all, had been pretty much the general policy of the Capitalist powers since the Bolshevik Revolution, and a policy of perpetual confrontation with the Capitalist West had been pretty much the general policy of the Communists from the outset. That there were periods when dissembling this hostility, and even co-operation in certain fields, struck leaders in both camps as the best means to press for their side's advantage in this confrontation does not alter the basic hostility at the root of the relationship.

[Ken Burch]

244. It's documented in virtually every history of postwar U.S. politics.

nt.

[wyldwolf]

250. for example?

[ramapo]

27. If only....

you are 100% correct. Bold, dare I say, bravely bold, new ideas are badly needed.

I think the straw that broke the Democrats' back was the intraparty warfare during the 1980 primaries between the Carter and Kennedy factions. Remember, the Dems gave Carter a harder time than did the Republicans.

[bennywhale]

69. The message i get, is the message from the Left throughout

history, which this thread is proving. it is too fractured to become a sustained positive force. Look at the defeat in Spain under Franco. the leftist factions were shooting eahother on the streets of Barcelona whil francos fascists approached.

Extreme i know, but if as much energy was put into positive ideas and actions rather than debilitating arguments and fracturing, the left would be a more powerful force.

[Andromeda]

179. True, unfortunately...

[Capn Sunshine]

96. Remember Howard Dean's words on the subject

I spoke to him on the subject of the DLC, and I think he puts it all into perspective:

Q That’s certainly one of the key things that everyone discusses at the (DFA) meetings. I suppose, one of the other things that always comes up is the DLC. They seem determined to move us even farther to the right. Whether or not you become the chair, do you think that we’ll be able to effectively deflect their approach at this point?

HD: I don’t think the DLC is a serious force of politics outside Washington (DC). I don’t think anybody knows who any of them are, and know that they pay much attention.

Q So you think it’s just us wonky types that are so incensed with their conduct……it seems like, I suppose that it is the “Party People” that are the most affected by the DLC and their statements.

HD: Yeah, I mean I don’t think the average American or the average voter, ( they ) have no idea who the DLC is nor do they care.

Q But it seems that their articulated strategy are the ones that keep cropping up every election cycle, and there’s many that would point to that as being an undue influence on the party.

HD: I think it’s the other way around. I think that what the DLC simply represents is there ARE people in the party who are, who do believe that “republican lite” is the way to go, and I don’t think that is the way to go and I made that very clear.

Q Amen, brother.

------from this interview


Really, folks. The DLC might espouse some right wing things you can't agree with, but they can be useful. They do have the same basic goal, electoral victory for Democrats, but it's the basic approach that we differ on.

I just hope neither side finds they've painted themselves into a corner.
We still have to work together, like it or no.

Right, Wyldwolf?

[wyldwolf]

108. Well, sure

I just hope neither side finds they've painted themselves into a corner.
We still have to work together, like it or no.

Right, Wyldwolf?

Exactly. As long as we can discuss reality and facts and avoid the personal attacks and, god forbid, setting up our own message boards to fear and loathe and attack the DLC and their supporters, no corner will be painted into.

Right, Capn Sunshine?

[Capn Sunshine]

122. If you're referring to the source of the interview, let's face facts

any place that allows left wingers and disaffected Dems to post is going to get a LOT of DLC bashing.

Whether it's mine or Kos, or whomever. But this does not necesarily reflect my personal take on things.

I conceed we need each other, but hope you see the need is a two way street.

Yeah, you're completely wrong about how to win this election, but I've been there. :hi:

[wyldwolf]

128. of course I wan't referring to the source of the interview

But you knew that already.

[madfloridian]

166. And didn't he say they "pontificate in offices"?

Bet that did not go over well at all. That was a great interview.

[liberal N proud]

4. You can't pin the loss of America on the liberals

No WAY!
The liberals are not the ones who stole 3 or more elections. Not the ones who allowed terrorist to attack after being warned.
The liberals did not let the economy fail and millions of good paying jobs leave the country.
It was not the liberals who lied about WMD and other atrocities to start an illegal war against a sovereign nation.


This destruction of America was single handily staged by the RIGHT WING bastards who still have their hands around her throat.

[madfloridian]

6. The Sun and Horowitz and Beinart...

Ok, I'm convinced.

:crazy:

[Copperred]

8. THE DLC is what sunk the ship.

The sooner the DLC is 100% abandoned by all...the sooner the Dems will be on the ascendacy. You cannot beat the right at their own game...u have to play by different rules.

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

DEMAND 100% OPEN AND VERIFIABLE ELECTION SYSTEMS!!! IT IS!!! THE ONLY ISSUE THAT MATTERS IN '06 & '08.

IF VILLAGERS IN INDIA CAN TRUST THE VOTE< YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TOO!!!!

[killerbush]

14. DLC policies of Clinton brought record prosperity to the US

No one can deny that.

[union_maid]

40. For a very little while

And when it was all over - the safety net that Reagan slashed to pieces was no better off for Clinton's presidency.

I'm really for finding common ground, but if we can't admit that things have changed radically from Clinton's time in office, let alone Kennedy's then it's hard to have a conversation. Our economic problems are different now than then.

[Greyhound]

113. Hold on there bucko. I and millions of others can easily deny that.

When you change the way everything is counted and you remove the numbers you don't like from the equation it's easy to set records. Just ask any of the "displaced" industrial workers that never recovered from the raygun years, "what did the Clinton administration do for you?" and they will most likely answer "put me deeper into debt and buried any chance I had to get out".

[wyldwolf]

139. then do it

Show us how everything was counted wrong and the numbers that were removed.

[lastliberalintexas]

221. Actually, it was a combination of left and moderate policies

First and foremost, there were many, many economic problems of the 1990s that were swept under the rug and ignored. There was a fairly large segment of the population that didn't see improved conditions in the 90s, but that is not the point of your post, so I'll leave that for another day.

But what laid the groundwork for the economic boom times that we did have was a combination of liberal and moderate fiscal and monetary policy. We did increase social service and education spending, cut Pentagon spending, and raise taxes on the wealthier among us- all LIBERAL econ policies. We also had the first balanced budget in about 30 years and even began paying down the debt which helped keep interest rates low even with a fast growing economy- the hallmark of what once was considered true conservative to moderate econ policies. Republicans have abandoned those policies since the times of Nixon, and thus I now consider them to be moderate rather than conservative positions.

However, the DLC really had very little to do with that other than arguing for a balanced budget. Instead, the DLC thought that we were still spending too much on social services, advocated/pushed through welfare "reform" with the help of republicans while ignoring the billions going to Corporate America, and opposed (though its members did vote for) the tax increase on the wealthier Americans that helped us finally balance the budget.

I'll give the DLC credit for the party unity it displayed in the early to mid 90s by sticking with the budget issues even though it disagreed with some provisions. I'll give the progressive caucus that same credit, as there were certainly issues for them as well.

But have you seen the economic policies pushed by the DLC LATELY? Since I can't seem to get an answer from anyone else who supposedly supports the DLC, can you explain and defend their economic policies to me? Why would a Dem organization advocate for Chamber of Commerce positions that hurt our working poor and middle class people? Makes no sense to me, and I'd absolutely looooove to get an answer.

[Cascadian]

260. This is true to a point BUT....

let's not forget he was a staunch proponent of globalization which caused hundreds of jobs to be outsourced to places like Mexico. This idea of globalization has benefited nobody but the multinational fatcats. Where's the benefit for the working poor and even the middle class?



John

[Nederland]

74. The DLC

...is many things. The OP is about foreign policy and the new left's stance on military action against dictatorship. My take is that many here who opposed the DLC do so on economic grounds. Primiarily it is the corporatism that the DLC promotes that they hate, not its foreign policy.

[killerbush]

11. wyldwolf, I keep asking this question, and on one answers me

Who was the last true liberal to win the presidency? You have to go all the way back to 1948 and Harry Truman. Ignoring the Republicans, between 1952 to the present, all of the Democrats who won won the office were NOT LIBERAL!!! John Kennedy was a moderate, Johnson was a southern conservative, Carter was basically the same, and Clinton was a moderate. Case closed!!!

[wyldwolf]

13. honestly, I wouldn't put any former president in the "liberal's" camp...

..by DU's definition.

[killerbush]

16. You're right wyldwolf, no president since Truman has been liberal

[wyldwolf]

19. look at post 12. I guess "liberals" have been cheated every election year

[theboss]

51. I don't think Truman was a true "liberal"

FDR is the only President who would really fit the modern definition of "liberalism" at least in terms of economic policy. Race...not so much.

[Zynx]

162. Truman proposed universal healthcare, but never got it through.

Truman had far more liberal proposals than FDR. He just couldn't get some of them through. On racial issues he was leagues better than FDR.

[adwon]

68. Johnson was a conservative?

He and Truman were the most liberal presidents of the 20th century. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Medicare, Head Start, the ratification of the Test Ban Treaty? If you choose to count Vietnam against him, you have to count Korea against Truman, as they were very similar wars. I'm just stumped. The man attempted to complete the New Deal, finish Reconstruction, AND remain committed to containment...how is that remotely conservative?

[Nederland]

73. Thank you

How anyone could label Johnson a conservative is beyond me.

[SaveElmer]

75. I think to be more precise...no one runs as a liberal...

Certainly Truman and Johnson, governed as liberals in many ways....but neither campaigned as one, nor indeed were regarded as liberal in their previous political career.

[Zynx]

163. Read about Truman's 1948 campaign before you say something so

stupid. That was a very liberal campaign. He campaigned on massive government projects and redistributive income taxes. He was also regarded as a powerful supporter of the New Deal while he was a Senator.

[quiller4]

76. Maybe some posters are too young to remember

the battles that Johnson fought to launch the Great Society.

[Hippo_Tron]

153. Truman started the idea that communism was some big monster

Or at least he re-hatched it for the cold war era. Truman, like most of the other people running our government throughout the cold war, didn't understand that ideologies aren't a threat. Plus he was very involved in supporting the creation of Israel. Anybody with half a brain could've seen that, that would lead to some serious problems.

[Zynx]

161. Tell the people of Eastern Europe that Communism under Stalin wasn't

a threat.

[Hippo_Tron]

164. See, here's the thing, Stalin was definately a threat

Stalin was a dictator just as bad as Hitler who was hostile to the United States and had nuclear weapons. The same goes for Stalin's successors, the USSR in general was unquestionably a threat to the United States.

However, North Vietnam taking over South Vietnam has absolutely nothing to do with the USSR or its threat to the United States. The only reason people thought it was a threat was because Truman started the idea that all communism inherently threatens the United States, which is utter bullshit. Our REAL enemy was not "Communism" it was the Soviet Union and its nuclear weapons, plain and simple.

[Zynx]

174. Remember that Truman dealt only with Stalin.

The idea that you can blame Truman for Vietnam is like blaming Washington for the Civil War.

[Hippo_Tron]

175. Truman was responsible for Korea

And the doctrine of "containment" that set us up for Vietnam. But I'll agree that Vietnam was mostly Kennedy, Johnson, and McNamara's fault.

[Zynx]

176. Korea was perfectly acceptable.

Look at North Korea today and tell me with a straight face we made the wrong move.

[Hippo_Tron]

177. Don't disagree, but you said that he was only concerned with Stalin

Which was not the case. Truman intervened in Korea (a conflict that wasn't resolved until Eisenhower did it) as part of the containment doctrine.

BTW, Korea was so successful because we are able to keep the North from invading with a giant field of land-mines. If that worked for every war we got into, interventions would be a lot easier. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

[Zynx]

184. Stalin had a direct hand in the Korean War.

When you look at Truman's interventions whether they were in Italy, Greece, Turkey, or Korea, they all had to do with Stalin's ambitions. If you were alive at the time, you would have wanted Stalin contained too. He was a menace to all of Europe and Asia.

[SaveElmer]

72. Few run as liberals....

But once elected some have acted liberal even against their own predilictions. This is a mark of greatness...Washington, Lincoln, FDR have all displayed it. Johnson as you say was no liberal, but presided over the greatest expansion in social legislation in history (including FDR), and actually achieved solid civil rights legislation.

[Capn Sunshine]

97. The last True liberal to win the presidency was AL GORE

and possibly John Kerry, if RFK Jr. is to be believed.

IOW the last two candidates

case closed.

[KoKo]

123. I'll stick with Gore....and while Kerry is no doubt a "liberal" he

is a "limosene" one. So, I prefer the old Al Gore when he FIRST SPOKE UP in the 80's before he became "Clinton's VP" and had to "toe a line."

So...I agree with you...

[blm]

131. Really? Gore ran as a conservative Dem for prez in 88. Surely you must

have known that. He even backed up Reagan's Contra policies to prove he was a tough Dem.

If you prefer that set of principled policies, you're welcome to them.



The Atlanta Constitution, printed Friday, November 27, 1987

Swing voters likely to go with new voters

By Tom Turnipseed

The Democratic Leadership Council, sometimes called the Democratic Leisure Class or the DLC, has been sending editorial writers of Southern newspapers articles and “swing voter” research based on the views of a narrow sampling of white, middle-class suburbanites in the South who voted for Reagan in 1984.

The DLC contends the Democrats must move to the right to win the Southern suburban vote, the South and the nation in the 1988 presidential elections. The analysis seems plausible until you realize it’s frozen in a political trend time frame of circa 1984.

The DLC is basically a reactive group of Southern conservatives whose answer to the Reagan landslide of 1984 has been to form a well- financed public relations staff to influence the Democrats to – to me – too much of Reagan’s agenda. Conservative Sam Nunn of Georgia was wooed by the DLC to be its 1988 presidential candidate, but the DLC was shunned by Nunn who saw his home state elect its most liberal representative, Wyche Fowler, to the Senate in 1986.

Nunn and a key DLC organizer, Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia, opted out of the presidential race. But the DLC has finally found its man in young Sen. Al Gore, Jr. of Tennessee, whose campaign has been floundering with only two to four percent voter approval in the crucial early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The DLC convinced Gore to regionalize his efforts to Southern states with Super Tuesday primaries by appealing to the 1984 Reaganite “swing voters.” So Gore flip-flopped from his progressive voting record and abruptly adopted some of Reagan’s militaristic views on contra aid, the invasion of Grenada, and the Persian Gulf military build-up.

The media has hyped Gore’s rightward swing aimed at the DLC’s mythical suburban “swing vote” of 1984, but has failed to factor in the drastically diminished state of Reagan’s credibility with voters in 1987-88. Reagan put his credibility on the line in 1986 Senate elections with vigorous personal involvement. His candidates were defeated by a revitalized traditional Democratic base of blue-collar workers, blacks, farmers and small businessmen in every key Southern race.

The 1986 elections preceded more recent Reagan credibility crunches like Iran/Contragate, the stock market crash and Bork-Ginsburg. The electorial advantage of Gore’s switching to Reagan’s positions on contra aid, etc. – minority positions according to polls in the South and everywhere else – is questionable. Republicans are running on Super Tuesday at the same time, in the same states, advocating the same positions. How many pro-contra aid voters will be left for Gore in the Democratic primaries?
>>>>>>>>>

[noonwitch]

12. A temporary setback, due to cheating at the polls

The left rules the culture, for better (PBS) or worse(Eminem). The right lost the war a long time ago, and just haven't realized it yet. You can't take back the kind of social changes that have been made over the past 40 years, no matter how hard they try. Not without brute force, that is.

And don't all defend Em to me-anyone who writes songs about killing his wife in front of his daughter and sodomizing his mother needs no defense. Those two songs are exactly why he is my worst example. I actually like the movie "8 Mile" and the theme song from it.

[wyldwolf]

15. heh!

Right.

[Ken Burch]

237. uh...nobody WAS defending Eminem

As far as the left is concerned, The Real Slim Shady is on his own. And he ain't one of us.

[mike_c]

20. ok, just for the sake of argument...

...even if I accept that a liberal interventionist foreign policy reflecting the legacy of "cold war liberals" is desirable-- and I'm not at all certain that I do-- the central issues remain the same as today: intervention to achieve what end, and by what means? The view of American interests that was served by U.S. foreign policy during most of the last century is inconsistent with a liberal world view, IMO. It is economically unsustainable and exploitative, neo-colonialist, and anti-reform. It is based on corporate greed, and it's only beneficiaries are corporations and their supporting oligarchies, and in the short term at least, American consumers who command access to a HUGELY disproportionate slice of the world's resources at the expense of most of the rest of humanity. Nothing liberal about THAT!

The second question has to do with the means of intervention. Gunboat diplomacy? Covert meddling? Assassination? Invasion and occupation? Undermining reform movements? These have been the tools of U.S. intervention for the last 100 years and more-- Mr. Radosh doesn't suggest any real alternatives.

Finally, conspicuously absent from his list of cold war liberals is the U.S president whose liberal credentials are the most impeccable, IMO, and the one U.S. leader who seriously tried to advance liberal causes peacefully: Jimmy Carter. What's up with that?

[wyldwolf]

26. you believe that of Carter?

[Nederland]

78. What about South Korea?

Isn't that a good example of what US military intervention can accomplish? I'm pretty sure it's indisputable that the people of South Korea are extremely happy the US chose to intervene in their civil war. They can just take a look to the north and see what their fate would have been...

[Hippo_Tron]

154. Fortunately, the North Korean army can be held off by a minefield

This is not the case in most circumstances where the US intervenes. Under most circumstances, the only thing keeping the North Koreans out would've been years if not decades of US occupation and continued fighting and I highly doubt that the South Koreans would've enjoyed that very much.

Personally I think that military intervention is good in some circumstances and perhaps this might have been one. Although I think that Iraq and Vietnam were both bogus wars that served no good yet people who opposed both of them get called isolationists and pacifists. Isn't it possible that some people just thought that those particular wars were a bad idea?

[Minnesota Libra]

24. Yea, like I'd believe anything RONALD RADOSH has to say..............

...here, read up on the boy - he's more conservative than anything.

http://www.google.com/search?q=RONALD+RADOSH&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

[orwell]

25. This screed is...

...so internally self conflicted it is reduced to unreadable bunkum. In essence is says freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and of course war is peace.

I thought those were my lines...

[slor]

33. Thanks for posting n/t

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

48. when you can't speak to the fact, personal attack

[welshTerrier2]

41. yet another divisive thread?

any interest in building some party unity or is your entire reason for being here to place blame ?????

Mr. Beinart wouldn't recognize imperialism if he tripped over it ... he can cram his "anti-interventionism" up his ass and put his book in there too ...

of course, knowing that on Iraq the OP is an anti-interventionist puts a whole new light on things ... many of us on "the left" strongly support humanitarian aid to Iraq ... funny term for that, anti-interventionist ... hard to imagine too many anti-interventionists are opposed to ideas like the Peace Corps or Doctors Without Borders ... and what about all those lefty extremists who want to send aid, maybe even a multi-national military force to Darfur ... funny term for us, anti-interventionists ...

and then, of course, we look back at Iran ... and what do we see there? we see, way back in 1951, a guy named Mossadeq coming to power ... was it a coup? nope ... some type of jihadist assassinations that put him in charge? nope, not that either ... just good old democracy ... and his platform? it was very, very popular with the masses in Iran ... that's what we believe in right? you know, democracy ... Mossadeq ran on a platform of nationalizing BP ... you know, the reallllllly big oil company ... he didn't want foreigners taking Iranian oil ... he was assassinated in 1953 and the US puppet, the tyrannical, genocidal Shah of Iran was "installed" ... we liked him much better ... is this the kind of interventionism YOUR Democrats would have us condone???

ummmmmm, no thanks ... think i'll take a pass on that ...

[union_maid]

42. That was the story of the era

It's hard to look back on our Cold War policies with any nostalgia. We dealt with death squads, helped to install rightwing dictatorships and defeated populist movements in the name of protecting our interests. I believe we have to be engaged, but I really think we have to stop thinking that we should mold the world into an image that is most convenient to us.

We have a lot of work to do right here, too. Work that's been neglected during this whole misadventure.

[wyldwolf]

44. hmmm... difficult to respond to such a post when...

...I haven't seen this call from you for party unity in these threads from recent days:

Two articles about NeoCon movement WITHIN the Democratic Party!
Have Democrats become too center right on economic issues?
I find this cover of Blueprint, the DLC's magazine, rather disturbing.
DLC and Non-DLC. The showdown debate thread. Enough is enough.
LAT op-ed: Neocons in the Democratic Party
Fed up with this....Can`t you just get along with the DLC?....stuff.
The DLC is the Root Of All Evil—It is the Problem Not the Solution
Progressive Hawaii Sen. Akaka is being targeted by the DLC in primary

And does this one sound familiar, posted by YOU?

DLC arrogance - is there no limit???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2637111&mesg_id=2637111

[welshTerrier2]

50. pretty cheap shot ...

need i go into details?

first of all, i did not post on any of the threads you listed (except for the thread i started myself) ... i generally consider them a waste of time and rarely read them let alone comment ...

as for the last thread you listed, it began as follows:

"i rarely post about the DLC ... we end up with threads just filled with namecalling ... the whole issue becomes unproductively divisive and nothing changes ..."

and i stand by what i wrote ... trying to squelch competition in the primaries when there are deep ideological differences is blatantly disrespectful and divisive ... it is indeed the epitome of arrogance ...

i have called for party unity numerous times ... i do it frequently ... do you? should we dig back in the archives to prove our points? i'm game if you are ...

what's your game, dude? do you see party unity as necessary or should i take seriously all your hype about the "lefty extremists" being just an irrelevant 1%? Joe Mentum sure is looking over his shoulder a whole lot if that's all that's a-chasing him ...

[wyldwolf]

55. no it wasn't

You didn't bother to complain about divisive threads before, why now? I, I know. Mine is more pro-DLC, and those were anti-DLC.

[welshTerrier2]

58. you didn't answer my question ...

the answer to your question is that it's occurred to me that every thread you post seems to be divisive ... that's why i commented now ...

been posting about your objection to the war in Iraq? sorry, i must have missed that one even though i know you oppose it ...

demonstrating that "pro interventionist" spirit about Darfur? sorry, i didn't see that one either ...

have you started a few threads on party unity or how to improve intra-party communication? apologies again ... i don't read everything you write ...

maybe even a few proposals on healing the rift in the party ... i post them all the time ... don't remember your response to those ... maybe you started one that i missed?

what's the deal, dude? is party unity all bullshit to you?

btw, don't mistake my call for "real" party unity with a misconception that i will automatically vote a straight Democrat ticket ... i genuinely hope we can find common ground ... saying that, however, does not predict the outcome nor my future party support ...

the reason i don't participate in EITHER pro DLC threads or anti-DLC threads is because i've come to see them as useless ... your posts seem to delight in playing the antagonism flamebait game ... well, as i said, it's divisive ... if that's all you've got to offer, i'll just call it divisive and move on ...

[wyldwolf]

62. obviously, then, you only look for divisive threads

the answer to your question is that it's occurred to me that every thread you post seems to be divisive ... that's why i commented now ...

Pull my last 10... obviously you only look for thread you find divisive.

been posting about your objection to the war in Iraq? sorry, i must have missed that one even though i know you oppose it ...

day after day, post after post. I'll let my vote do my talking.

demonstrating that "pro interventionist" spirit about Darfur? sorry, i didn't see that one either ...


I was one of the first DUers to jump on it (when it wasn't the "in" thing.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2050161

...and several others, including one that only the Magistrate and I conversed in from Spring of 2005.

what's the deal, dude? is party unity all bullshit to you?

I urged part unity during the primaries - back when some were sooo sure Dean would win and they were already planning to kick that vile DLC out.

Oh, look! ANOTHER divisive thread from you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2024694&mesg_id=2024694

ooh... and another:

FUCK the hideous, disrespectful DLC !! please read this ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1477854&mesg_id=1478684

oh, and here (from that "other" board)

I hate the DLC ... here's why ..., beating up on the DLC as best I can ...

http://www.peopleforchange.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19641

I believe that is 4 so far...

[welshTerrier2]

66. i see you're getting a little confused so ...

let's straighten out a couple of things ...

first, you had to go back a ways to find the threads you listed ... i just have to look at this thread or anything else you've posted recently to see where you're coming from ...

secondly, you're playing a cute little game with the threads you've selected ...

let's just take a couple of them ...

one of the ones you just posted included this: "This time, it has "accused war critics of 'anti-American bias'" ... now i've called for party unity (frequently and recently - your own data goes way back to the primaries???!!!) but i will not tolerate being called anti-American ... nor will i tolerate, as noted in a previous post, being discouraged from supporting candidates of my choice during the primaries ... it is these actions of the DLC you profess your love for that are the epitome of "anti-American" ...

so i'll make no apologies for criticizing in the strongest possible terms any group within my party that calls me anti-American or tries to label as "wasteful" candidacies that represent my beliefs better than an incumbent might ...

you see my friend, what you've conflated with your effort at rebuttal is the important point that 1. my criticisms were warranted on the specific issues i raised and 2. i nevertheless have continued to emphasize the importance of working toward party unity ... apparently in your black and white world this dichotomy could never co-exist ...

and i do NOT see calls for unity coming from you at all ... if you called for party unity long ago, great ... what have you done for us lately besides your persistently divisive threads?

and you still have not answered my question ... are you calling for party unity now or not???? if so, how do you propose to achieve it???? is there a reason you won't answer these questions????

[wyldwolf]

67. Now you're introducing time caveats?

first, you had to go back a ways to find the threads you listed ... i just have to look at this thread or anything else you've posted recently to see where you're coming from ...

Really? Give the OP titles to my last 10 threads.

secondly, you're playing a cute little game with the threads you've selected ...

Really? You said, "i generally consider them a waste of time and rarely read them let alone comment ..." but you have commented in them and started them quite a few times. 11 times in one of the listed threads alone.

And, of course, we all have reasons for posting what we do, now don't we?

YOUR criticisms, as you said, are warranted. Mine are just "divisive." :eyes:

So, if you want any ounce of credibility in your pursuit of unity, go into some of the anti-DLC threads and preach the same message.

Do I want party unity? You bet. But I quit letting fabrications about the DLC slide a long time ago.

[Nederland]

77. False Dichotomy

Let me start off by saying yes, the US has done some shitty things in the past in the name of promoting democracy abroad. And yes, much of that promotion of democracy was in fact un-democratic. However, it is a false dichotomy to say that as a result of those past shitty actions the only other choice we have is to eschew military action entirely (unless directly attacked).

This is simply not true. In addition to a long list a very questionable military involvements in the past, the US has seen a number of successes. The democracies of South Korea and Panama owe they're very existence to US military intervention. What the OP is suggesting, I believe, is that it is possible to support a policy of militarily opposing dictatorships without losing the moral high ground. It is difficult, but it can be done.

[welshTerrier2]

80. "the only other choice we have is to eschew military action entirely"

i neither said nor implied, nor do i believe that "the only other choice we have is to eschew military action entirely" ...

military force is sometimes necessary ... it has usually been abused for colonial objectives ...

[Nederland]

83. Fair Enough

Would you say, as John Kerry did, that Iraq was the right thing to do, it was just done poorly--or would you say Iraq was never a good idea regardless of implementation?

[welshTerrier2]

87. Iraq? no way ...

has Kerry acknowledged that his IWR vote was a mistake?

i would not have supported the invasion of Iraq ... the mistake the Democrats, most Democrats, are making about Iraq is the exclusive emphasis on bush's incompetence ... those pulling bush's puppet strings don't see it that way at all ... he's handed them billions with his little war ...
check out this post on the subject: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/45

before we start parading around the world saving everyone, maybe we should just stop propping up dictators and corrupt, tyrannical, genocidal regimes ... that would be a refreshing change ...

[Nederland]

88. Ok

Can you give me an example of a current dictator that you would be willing to take military action against?

[welshTerrier2]

91. can i say bush?

no, i suppose you're looking for someone overseas ...

as a prerequisite to using military force, several conditions would have to be met:
1. the mission could not be a smokescreen for imperialism as it is in Iraq
2. we would need a real plan to better the lives of the people there (i.e win the peace)
3. no commercial venture could directly profit from our actions
4. we could not have an untrustworthy madman as President
5. there must be either a. an imminent threat to US security for independent action OR b. there must be a clear risk of genocide which should require approval (easy to obtain) at the UN and the force should be multi-lateral ...

so, to directly answer your question, there is no place in the world right now where i would support the unilateral use of the US military ... this is because bush is a raging imperialist and his efforts would never be made to benefit anyone beyond his corporate friends ...

having said this, i think we probably have no choice but to push for a multi-lateral use of force, sanctioned by the UN, to go into Sudan ... if we fail to do this, millions are likely to die in Darfur before the end of this year ... this is a human tragedy on an unimaginable scale and we need to do whatever we can to help ...

but, again, rather than focusing on invading countries and toppling tyrants, we should stop selling arms to anyone who can afford them ... it's time we examined our relationship with the Saudi government ... maybe we are held hostage because of our need for oil; it's time we took charge of our futures, developed alternative sources of fuel, and put an end to our hypocritical sponsorship of the corrupt, murderous Saudi government ...

and it's time we developed ties to emerging democracies like the Chavez government in Venezuela ... instead of looking for bad guys to topple, how about recognizing democratically elected leaders like Chavez instead of trying to destroy him?

the point is, that it's OK to use force under carefully defined circumstances ... sometimes it really is necessary ... but this country's use of force has far too often been for illegitimate objectives ... Big Oil has set all time record profits since bush invaded Iraq ... does anyone think that's just a coincidence? it's NOT!

the debate within our party too often degrades into a "you stupid lefty pacifists are killing the party" ... i am not a pacifist ... what's killing the country, not just the Democratic Party, is the refusal by prominent Democrats to question the MOTIVES of our government ... until "our guys" are willing to put a name to what is being done with, and to, our military, nothing will change ... and the name is "imperialism" ...

we used to be the good guys ... everyone liked the American spirit and our deep belief in freedom for all ... does anyone believe the rest of the world still views US actions overseas in a positive light? trust me, they don't ... it shouldn't be this way; we can do better ...

[Nederland]

92. I agree with most of those

except for point #3 and part of part #5. I disagree with #3 because I think commerce should not come into the equation at all. Obviously action should not be taken for purely commercial reasons, but the way you've worded it you would rule out action in any case where there just happened to be a commercial venture that would benefit. Given that commerce thrives under peace, I'd say that would pretty much rule out any action. In other words, if you've got good reason for taking out a dictator, don't let that fact that someone somewhere might make a profit off the change stop you.

I disagree with #5 because I think it rules out actions against dictators that are "merely" oppressing their people. For example, I think the Korean war was a justifiable war, even though there was no imminent threat to US security and no genocide.

[welshTerrier2]

93. "you would rule out action"

no, it would not rule out action ... perhaps i should have provided more details ...

understand that my central premise is that our government has a very long, more than a hundred years, history of rampant imperialism ... so, the starting point is, that for something as serious as waging war, a very healthy dose of skepticism is called for ...

there is always a great danger, as Ike warned us, that our foreign policy, always advertised as noble, will not be so ... we MUST take the profit out of warfare ...

this does NOT mean we should avoid necessary war if their might be incidental profits accruing to some commercial organization ... it means that we should make judicious use of the windfall profits tax ... no one should be allowed to profit from warfare ... i would strip BIG OIL of every penny of profit that could be attributed to the invasion of Iraq and would not have allowed them to enter into the outrageous PSA's that guarantee them as much as 85% of Iraq's future oil production ...

again, profits should not preclude going to war ... we should ensure that no one profits from war ... the two are not the same ...

as for the distinction you've raised between "genocide" and "oppression", i could support this under the most extreme circumstances as long as the other criteria were met ... this would be a judgment call for the UN and would require a real multi-national force ...

although it's been said many times, many ways (to coin a phrase), we cannot unilaterally act as the world's policemen ... and if i were ever to condone such activity, we would have to put our own house in order first ... let's never forget the picture of Little Donnie Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam as bigger and bigger weapons sales were made ... our government has been run by outrageous hypocrites who care little for spreading democracy ... before we go picking more "just" battles, let's make sure we have "just" leaders to wage them ...

[Hippo_Tron]

155. I'll chime in and answer no

I'm like WelshTerrier in that I think that military intervention is necessary sometimes but it was not in Iraq.

I don't feel that any current dictator is enough of a threat to the United States that military action is necessary. But if I did find one that I felt was a genuine threat, I would absolutely take the military action that I felt was necessary. However, I would possibly consider using the military for peacekeeping in Darfur.

What I don't understand is why there is this assumption that either you have to support all wars or you are a pacifist? I just think that Iraq and Vietnam did not merit the use of American military force.

[Hippo_Tron]

156. Dupe n/t

n/t

[snowbear]

43. ********** FLAIMBAIT THREAD **************

You should be ashamed of yourself Wyldwolf!

[wyldwolf]

46. and why weren't THESE threads flamebait?

All from within the last 5 days:

Two articles about NeoCon movement WITHIN the Democratic Party!
Have Democrats become too center right on economic issues?
I find this cover of Blueprint, the DLC's magazine, rather disturbing.
DLC and Non-DLC. The showdown debate thread. Enough is enough.
LAT op-ed: Neocons in the Democratic Party
Fed up with this....Can`t you just get along with the DLC?....stuff.
The DLC is the Root Of All Evil—It is the Problem Not the Solution
Progressive Hawaii Sen. Akaka is being targeted by the DLC in primary
DLC arrogance - is there no limit???


Did you miss them?

[sendero]

45. What a bunch of ..

... fucking baloney. I was here, I remember why liberals lost out. And even talking about it here raises the hackles of many so I won't bother.

Hint: it had damn near nothing to do with foreign policy :)

[killerbush]

49. Great post wyldwolf, as usual

You give liberals something to think about.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vinnie From Indy]

52. LOL!

The author may have spelled the names correctly, but his conclusions are laughable.

He writes,
"The liberal left in America has abandoned its own best heritage for what Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once called "doughface liberalism." These liberals oppose terror and totalitarianism but recoil against taking any necessary steps to defeat it, fearful that their moral purity might be stained in the process"

In addition to painting "liberals" with a brush as big as Texas, the author's conclusion here is nonsense. He is flat out calling liberals cowardly and completely disregarding the fights against totalitarian regimes undertaken by EVERY Democratic President in his time frame.

HE writes,
"He has now sought to explore how and why a once vital and dynamic American liberalism - devoted to asserting American power on behalf of democracy abroad as well as at home - went soft "

The OP was demanding proof from others on this thread and I ask him where is the proof of this idiotic statement? Is there one shred of evidence offered to support this ridiculous claim that American Liberalism has gone soft?

He writes,
"and, in Mr. Beinart's words,"preferred inaction to the tragic reality that America must shed its moral innocence to act meaningfully in the world."

Again where is the proof that American Liberalism preferred inaction? Any reader should have their BS alarms going off at this point. God only knows what Beinart describing when he accuses the Left of being cloaked in a shroud of "moral innocence" because he fails to discuss what that statement means. Does he define "moral innocence" as the refusal of the Left to engage in preemptive war and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands at the behest of powerful business interests and a small cabal of elites? Is that the "moral innocence" the Left has to shed in your opinion Mr. Beinart?

He writes,
"Then, Mr. Beinart asserts, Cold War liberals understood that using American power to thwart totalitarianism abroad was the flip side of using the power of government to promote equality of opportunity and a commitment to civil rights for black Americans at home."

Again, no proof at all that this is what "Cold War" Liberals thought. In essence, the author states that "Cold War" Liberals somehow looked at military engagements and the Cold War as vehicles for civil rights. He doesn't explain how or why they might have felt that way, but there it is. Is he implying that the US war-making machine would have to rely on minorities and the poor to fight the wars and then Liberals would use their sacrifice to agitate for civil rights legislation?

He writes,
"The choice the new left saw was between fascism and revolution, and it argued that those who favored using American power for good were only serving the nascent fascism lying beneath the surface"

Beinart laughably proposes that the "New Left" saw only two paths to take during the Vietnam War. To be sure, there was a SMALL group on the left that might have felt that way just as there was a small group on the right that DID IN FACT want a fascist America. There is no grand revelation in this passage as it has always been this way. That's why they are called "the fringe".

He writes,
"The extremism of the new left did not push America toward further progressive social change, Mr. Beinart argues, but led to the demise of any meaningful movements on the left and to the abandonment of liberalism by many who made the drift into neoconservatism and the shift to President Reagan in the 1980s. The noise made by the new left and its academic supporters led to the abandonment of the Democratic Party by much of its former blue-collar base, which refused to give up the old anticommunist consensus. The new liberals led by Mr. McGovern took over the once majority party. But in the process, Mr. Beinart shows, they lost America."

Firstly, there have been tremendous gains by women and minorities in US society since 1964 and the early seventies. Secondly, the author's assertion that blue collar Dems drifted to the right because they were ardent anticommunists and did not like the "noise" made by academics is complete nonsense. One could easily argue that the Right in America learned from their experiences with Tricky Dick and the end of the Vietnam War that consolidation of the media was the key to seize and hold power in America. The drift he describes of "blue collar" Dems can easily be shown to coincide with the rise of the gargantuan media enterprises and talk radio etc. In short, it wasn't a war of ideology that caused a drift of Democrats to the right during this period, it was the increasingly sophisticated and pervasive propaganda spewed by the Right that got the job done.

In summation, the author is merely engaging in misdirection, generalization and wild speculation.

[welshTerrier2]

57. numerous excellent points - nice post!

one of the points made by Mr. Beinart used the phrase "on behalf of democracy abroad" claiming Liberals shy away from fighting for it ...

but what if "Liberals" believe that democracy, as in Iraq, is nothing but a smokescreen for imperialistic objectives?? what democracy was the US fighting for when it armed Saddam back in the 80's and made brazillions of dollars for the military-industrial complex? is that the democracy "Liberals" refuse to fight for? or was it that we didn't support the coup that toppled the democratically elected Mossadeq in Iran? or are we now shying away from a fight to free the poor Venezuelan people from their democratically elected President? is that the democracy we refuse to fight for?

see, all this "wimpy liberals won't honor democracy" stuff is bullshit ... and we're not fighting against totalitarianism? that's the allegation? who voted for the Patriot Act? who's demanding a more forceful objection to the NSA spying? or didn't the author mean neocon totalitarianism? maybe the left is just fighting the wrong totalitarianists ... maybe that's what all the fuss is about ...

it's amazing to read some of the nonsense that passes for fact ... where's the documentation of US led assassinations? where's the exploitation of global resources? where's the warning about global warming? where's the protest against war profiteering by big oil? what the left supports is a foreign policy built on a combination of the national interest and the international interest ... to say that the left is non-interventionist is absurd ... we insist on being involved globally ... we also insist that our policies should not be driven by narrow corporate interests and greed ... arguing for the second point does NOT preclude the first ...

[Cha]

63. pb will see how

"cowardly" we are when it comes down to it.

They are the chickenshithawks.

[theboss]

53. Regardless of the author, a decent point lies within it

The modern Democratic Party is largely a group of disassociated interests without any real unifying thread. The New Deal coalion of Southern whites and Norhern ethnics had the unifying principal of a societal safety net.

The Republican Party is just now becoming big enough to see some large fault lines, particularly on spending and immigration. But from Nixon until now, it has been unified on anti-Communism, lower taxes, and - generally speaking - social conservative issues.

I don't know what the unifying theme of modern Democrats should be. I think Clinton was onto a few good ideas in showing that a government could actually be efficient, but that may be lost.

I will say that the Democrats who actually win elections these days at the local level are technocrats.

[wyldwolf]

56. good points. Too bad others here can't see it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

59. I agree that Dems were at one time unified

around many social issues of common interest and I believe they are still today. The main difference in our time period is that the Right has much greater control of the platforms needed by Dems to be heard. You are correct also describing the Democrats today as a collection of many different interests, but it has been like that for decades. Alternatively, the GOP can be broken down into three main factions. One faction encompasses the religious extreme and their followers. Another can be seen as a collection of those that respond to the veiled racist, sexist and xenophobic messages of the GOP. The last faction is the uber wealthy elites and global corporate interests. This last group plays the other two as suckers, chumps and fools.

As far as a unifying message for Democrats, I believe that until Americans face up to the fact that their government is owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate America, it will never get better. The DLC'ers are merely the Democrats that see the way the game is played and they are willing to play with the biggest kid on the block in their corner at the expense of the masses. All Americans need desperately to get the river of dirty money flowing from corporations to candidates out of our political system.

[union_maid]

60. How about a social safety net?

It might have been done before, but we really could use one. Not a means-tested, benefits available only when you're already destitute safety net, but one designed to keep people out of poverty and that addresses the newer problems that everyone but the wealty are vulnerable to now?

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. No kidding.

The wimpiness of the movement isn't manifested primarily through our opposition to unwise interventionism, it's also manifest by our wholesale abandonment of the working class.

Every time I hear illegal immigration defended here on the basis that it "only" affects low income workers, I want to scream. I'm becoming equally pissed off at lexus liberals as I am at conservatives. At least the conservatives don't pretend to have higher motivations.

I'm no hawk, but I miss Scoop Jackson.

[ieoeja]

54. On what basis does he call Dean non-interventionist?

And it is the RIGHTWING that claimed to be non-interventionist throughout the 90s when the LEFT finally collapsed. His logic on that issue is clearly ill.

Furthermore, I don't think the LEFT *is* anti-War. I was a proud member of the "war party" back when Republicans called us that, and I haven't seen anything to change my mind since. Republicans are quick to jump into small frays, but they have been just as quick to run away from them. Reagan's record on this topic was abysmal. Poppy Bush did the same.

In fact, Baby Bush is the first Republican since Lincoln to ever jump into anything for the long haul. And look what he does. He attacks the enemy (Saddam) of our enemy (Islamic radicalists). Embracing the lesser evil to combat the greater evil would have meant ARMING Saddam, not taking him out. And, in fact, that is exactly why I and most Democrats I personally know have opposed this stupid fucking war in Iraq.

This author is a fool who can not see past the flaws of Rightwing talking points to get to the truth.

[Cha]

65. Good post..thanks

for some reality with such panache.

[Hippo_Tron]

157. Not even Dennis Kucinich is anti-interventionalist

He even supported the Afghanistan resolution.

[Blue_Tires]

61. the day when i let the NY Sun dictate party direction

is the day that i (fill in the blank)

[IndianaGreen]

64. Beinart: purge from the party the people who got the war in Iraq right

"What Beinart is saying is we need to purge from the party the people who got the war in Iraq right," charged Borosage, of the Campaign for America's Future. "That is not going to happen, but the to make it happen, which the (Democratic Leadership Council) has now embraced, will be a brutal fight."

Published on Sunday, January 2, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times

Democrats Split Again Over Party's Agenda

Liberals and centrists trading magazine salvos reopen disputes on the war and economics. The debate could affect the next presidential race.

by Ronald Brownstein

WASHINGTON — The truce appears to be expiring among Democrats in Washington.

In the immediate aftermath of Sen. John F. Kerry's loss to President Bush in November, Democrats notably avoided the postelection squabbling that's consumed the party after almost all recent presidential races — even those it won.

But as the new year begins, a series of high-profile articles in leading liberal journals is suddenly reopening old divisions.

On one front, a liberal operative at a top think tank has accused the Democratic Leadership Council, the principal organization of party centrists, of pushing the party toward a pro-corporate agenda "that sells out America's working class — the demographic that used to be the party's base."

In equally combative terms, a leading young centrist commentator published a manifesto in the New Republic magazine accusing the Democratic left of slighting the struggle against Islamic terrorism and undermining the party's image on security — an argument instantly embraced and promoted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0102-02.htm

[leesa]

70. "liberal anti-communism"...what the hell is that?

I don't think real liberals were afraid of this kool-aid boogie man...it's just the old terrorist war. "We've always been at war with Eurasia". What a bunch of crap this article is!

[adwon]

81. Real liberals?

A short list of Democrats who took the threat seriously:

John Kennedy
Robert Kennedy
Lyndon Johnson
Dean Acheson
Harry Truman
Sam Rayburn
Paul Douglas
Hubert Humphrey
Arthur Schlesinger ("Communism is a threat to America, not a threat in America.")

This is a very small sample. Were they all deluded?

[SaveElmer]

71. I agree with this...except the inclusion of Howard Dean...

Dean was clearly against the Iraq war, but made it very clear during the campaign he was not opposed to using military force when needed, and stated his support for the actions in Afghanistan, and I believe Kosovo...

Otherwise, pretty spot on!

[SOS]

79. "How the Right Destroyed America"

Idea for article.
Do you think the NY Sun or Frontpage will publish?

[Montauk6]

112. Or, more fittingly, "How the Right Stole America"

[mrgorth]

82. Isn't it at all possible

that there is a middle ground on this? That many of those who are against the Iraq war (and those angry about it and protesting it) were and continue to be for the invasion of Afghanistan? That we could have then had a robust defense against terror without involving ourselves in another Vietnam? That we can be against communism without propping up tyrranical dictators or assasinating populist leaders. Don't you see what we've let them do? By plunging headlong into Iraq it has taken completely moderate viewpoints and made them appear far left. Why are you letting them divide us more?

[Donna Zen]

86. Beinhart was for the war in Iraq...now, not so much

He is therefore unwilling to consider that anyone against the war might have based their judgment of sound reasoning. One of those reasons being that Iraq was not an immanent threat, and that any weapons Saddam had did not pose a threat regionally. We also understood that stirring the ME hornetnest would not address the real problem of terroris. In addition, Beinhart negates the intelligence of those in opposition to Iraq, and using his crystal ball confers a notion that being against this war, is being blind to the 'causes of war. Furthermore, Beinhart lectures us as if we don't understand Cold War policies, and the historic writings/speeches of Marshall and Truman.

To put it simple: Beinhart who was wrong about Iraq concludes that those of us who right about Iraq were wrong. Get it?

I have no difficulty supporting and voting for people who understand the need to provide for the common defense. I do have real problems with posers.

The convenient act of forgetting that Civil Rights legislation also occurred during the years that the Democrats lost their hold on the South, is one memory hole too far. I will not change my stance on Civil Rights, nor will I back away from a woman's right to choose, even if it meant wining an election. At what point does an election become meaningless?

[jonnyblitz]

89. apparently some think we need two RW parties.

[garybeck]

84. this book is based on a fallicy.

the Left did NOT lose america. America was stolen by Diebold, Rove, Florida2000, if it weren't for stolen elections this no one would be writing books about how/why the Left has "lost america".

[wyldwolf]

85. I think you misunderstand

The article is a review of a book called "The Good Fight," in it which details how the left did, indeed, alienate enough voters since the 60s to lose power.

[garybeck]

101. no, I do understand

they did not "alienate enough voters since the 60s to lose power."

if the votes were counted properly, they would be in power.

[wyldwolf]

107. again, you misunderstand

There was no Diebold machines in 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.

The elections that were tampered with kept DLC candidates out of power. Hardly the left by DU's definition.

[Ken Burch]

269. We would have lost just as badly in '72 if we'd run on a "win in Vietnam"

Platform. Old-style cold war liberalism had exhausted itself. 1968 proved that.

[Nederland]

90. Diebold, Rove, Florida2000

...do not explain what happened in 1994. THAT is when the left officially lost America, not 2000.

[Capn Sunshine]

98. I hate to keep bringing this up

but we need to tighten this definition of "the left".
In 1994, the Democratic Party lost the country, but the "left" never really had anything.

Of course, I'm a centrist. I'm progressive, antiwar,anti-poverty, pro constitution and anti-fascist.

And I'm a Democrat.:dem:

[garybeck]

102. too much emphasis on 1994

it was a newt gingrich stunt... "10 promises" that were never kept... it would have been a brief blip on the radar if it weren't for stolen elections. gore would have won and we would probably have a democratic congress too.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

99. when you can't speak to the fact, personal attack!

[mrgorth]

100. KoKo IS speaking about the fact

nothing personal was said.

[wyldwolf]

106. no, it was a personal attack

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

192. ha! I believe you haven't read the DU rules

[iconoclastmadrid]

228. While it seems...

...that you take advantage of them to flame.

[wyldwolf]

268. how so?

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. Peter Beinar Wants a Massive Purge of the Democratic Party

I should mention that the author of the article below is coauthor along with John Judis of The Emerging Democratic Majority. I should mention that both these gentlemen are definitely centrist; not left wing at all.

"Oh, What a Lovely Day for a Purge! by Ruy Teixeira

link:http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000986.php

Peter Beinart, editor of the The New Republic, proposes in their latest magazine that Democrats stop all this unity nonsense and get down to what's really important: purging the party of all those wrong-headed "softs" who don't have the backbone to stand up (really stand up) to the new totalitarian threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Their failure to "report for duty" (Beinart specifically mentions only MoveOn and Michael Moore but I think his criteria for softness would also implicate most of the liberal blogosphere, most Dean campaign activists, a good chunk of the leadership of the 527s and countless others within the party) cost the Democrats the White House in 2004 and will do so forever until Democrats decisively remove them from power and influence in the party. Yes, it's purge time in the glorious spirit of the late '40s actions against Communists and those soft on them within the Democratic party.

Boy, what a great idea: a massive, no-holds-barred faction fight about who's really tough on terrorism. That may make the blood course in Beinart's veins, but I guess I'm not entirely convinced it's necessary.

For one thing, his prescription seems more suited to, say, the Democratic party of the late '40s than it does to the actually-existing Democratic party of 2004. Noam Scheiber, who is actually quite hawkish himself, makes this point in considerable and, in my view, devestating detail in a comment on Beinart's piece on the TNR website.

Also on the TNR website, John Judis takes Beinart to task for a political prescription that won't work and a complete misunderstanding of MoveOn and Democratic-oriented internet activism in general. I couldn't agree more. Here's a couple of key paragraphs from Judis' article but I urge you to read whole piece:

Initiating factional warfare with, or even purging, everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman will not create a viable Democratic Party. Okay, that may be an exaggeration of what Peter prescribes, but there are clear echoes in his essay of Ben Wattenberg's Coalition for a Democratic Majority, which tried to do something similar after the 1972 Democratic defeat by creating a party centered around Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. The voters didn't buy it, and they won't buy Peter's party either.
Peter also misunderstands MoveOn.org and the various other Internet-based groups that have sprung up in the last five years. They are not an old-fashioned militant left but part of a college-educated post-industrial center-left politics that was developing under Bill Clinton in the 1990s. One of their big issues was the deficit, hardly a left-wing concern. They became identified with "the left" because they were early and prescient opponents of the Iraq war--a position that can no longer simply be identified with the left and that is not a reason to criticize them. Sure, they shouldn't have participated in marches with the Workers World Party, but these new movements are organized by people who don't have long political pedigrees. If anything, they are the best hope for a new moral vision that will animate the Democrats."

link:

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000986.php

[wyldwolf]

109. so does KOS

[Douglas Carpenter]

110. when did Kos call for a massive purge of the Democratic Party?

and Kos is moderate liberal/center-left -- hardly "left-wing"

[wyldwolf]

114. as big as the "purge" you credit Beinart for calling

KOS:

Two more weeks, folks, before we take them on, head on.

No calls for a truce will be brooked. The DLC has used those pauses in the past to bide their time between offensives. Appeals to party unity will fall on deaf ears (it's summer of a non-election year, the perfect time to sort out internal disagreements).

We need to make the DLC radioactive. And we will. With everyone's help, we really can. Stay tuned.

But reading the original piece from Beinart, I don't see a call for a purge any more potent than what Kos has done.

oh, and KOS is a leftwing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

136. I don't see supporting a political battle with a group as the equivalent

of a purge. Young Mr. Beinart did after all call for a purge.

I recall an article by Kos in which he lays out his basic political beliefs which include "free trade". Basically his political beliefs would fit into a category of moderately liberal/center-left. I would say one notch to the left of Bill Clinton. I tried to locate the article but unfortunatley...

[wyldwolf]

140. hm

I don't see supporting a political battle with a group as the equivalent of a purge. Young Mr. Beinart did after all call for a purge.

I do. And where did Beinart call for a purge?

I recall an article by Kos in which he lays out his basic political beliefs which include "free trade". Basically his political beliefs would fit into a category of moderately liberal/center-left. I would say one notch to the left of Bill Clinton. I tried to locate the article but unfortunatley...

Gotta link?

[Douglas Carpenter]

141. this is the link to the Beinart article

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20041213&s=beinart121304

I cannot find the link to the Kos article I mentioned -- but also in his latest book, "Crashing the Gate" he makes his political thinking quite clear which is far from leftest and at most moderately liberal.

[wyldwolf]

142. oh, darn.. Subscription only

I do believe I mentioned upstream that I found no mention of "purge" in it.

Perhaps you could cite the passage for me?

[Douglas Carpenter]

144. is their any doubt by what he meant?

[wyldwolf]

146. is there any doubt what KOS meant?

[Douglas Carpenter]

147. Kos was calling for a political fight

If that is all Mr. Beinart had in mind, well he can do that.

[wyldwolf]

148. I see no difference in the two situations

[Douglas Carpenter]

152. regarding Kos's own political beliefs - more or less a "New Democrat"

I tried in vain for about an hour to locate a statement he made some months ago where he kind of laid out his own political beliefs. I'm not posting this to defend Kos (Markos Moulitsas Zuniga). He certainly does not share my personal political convictions. I'm just pointing out that he is not by any means left-wing and is at most only moderately liberal. His complaints with the DLC are strategic and tactical - not ideological. On philosophy he is only one notch to the left of the DLC. You may know that Peter Beinart wrote a glowing review of their book, Crashing The Gate which he highlights at the top of his frontpage:

--an insightful guide to how the Democratic Party can retake power -- Peter Beinart, NY Times

I did however find this article from Washington Monthly:
link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.wallace-wells.html

"Kos Call
For America's number one liberal blogger
politics is like sports: It's all about winning.

By Benjamin Wallace-Wells

snip:"The conventional wisdom is that a Democratic Party in which Moulitsas calls the shots would cater to every whim of its liberal base. But though he can match Michael Moore for shrillness, the most salient thing about Moulitsas's politics is not where he falls on the left-right spectrum (he's actually not very far left). It's his relentless competitiveness, founded not on any particular set of political principles, but on an obsession with tactics —and in particular, with the tactics of a besieged minority, struggling for survival: stand up for your principles, stay united, and never back down from a fight. “They want to make me into the latest Jesse Jackson, but I'm not ideological at all,” Moulitsas told me, “I'm just all about winning.” "

snip"Simon Rosenberg, the president of the centrist New Democratic Network (NDN), says that “frankly I don't think there's anyone who's had the potential to revolutionize the Democratic Party that Markos does.” This great faith has put Moulitsas—an extremely smart, irascible, self-contradictory, often petty, always difficult, non-practicing attorney and web programmer with no real political experience—in the position of trying to understand, on the fly, what real power is and how it might be exercised, thrust him into a flailing, wild-eyed and bold solitary venture, trying to turn a website into a movement."

snip;"He went after the Democratic consultant hierarchy for its refusal to innovate, and the party establishment for providing a “gravy train” for consultants who keep losing races. He attacked NARAL after the abortion rights organization endorsed pro-choice Republican senator Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) over his predicted challenger, a pro-life Democrat. He has also argued, along with others, that to win back red states, Democrats should avoid talking about gun-control—advice the party has largely taken, with some initial success."

snip:"Moulitsas, for his part, had spent the previous few months focused on taking on the liberal interest groups, urging Democrats to run more pro-life candidates, and to contest rural contests with rural values—all long-held tenets of the DLC. So Moulitsas's beef with the group wasn't over ideology, it was, predictably, over tactics" "

[KoKo]

121. Have you read "Crashing the Gates?" If you have you wouldn't say this...

[wyldwolf]

127. I can only quote KOS's own words

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

111. This article is Democratic Party history according to FOX News

Why on earth some Democrats are so willing to embrace right-wing talking points is beyond me.

But now for a little historic reality:

The "McGovernites" lost any dominant status in 1973
when corporate lobbyist Robert Strauss became Chair of the DNC; threw out the McGovern mailing list and purged as many McGovern people as he could and rapidly pushed the Democratic Party toward the right link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050131/borosage

This likely contributed to the nomination of the much more conservative Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980. Undeniable Jimmy Carter was well to the right of George McGovern. The Jimmy Carter of 1980 was well to the right of the Jimmy Carter of 1976.

In 1984 the conservative party establishment succeeded in nominating former Vice President Walter Mondale who in spite of his history as a hawkish Hubert Humphrey liberal actually ran on a platform to increase military spending and keep most of Reagan's tax and budget cuts. The Mondale program of 1984 was to the right of Jimmy Carter of 1980.

In 1988 the party establishment nominated moderately fiscally conservative technocratic pro-big business Gov. Dukakis who ran a platform little different from that of Bill Clinton. Gov. Dukakis was an unabashed "New Democrat" and well to the right of the Mondale 1984 campaign.

The Democratic Party has been moving right-ward; not left-ward for the past 33 years with each election cycle at least a little bit more to the right than the previous election cycle.

[wyldwolf]

115. it is Democratic party history.

As detailed in numorous sources. All wrong and you're right?

Give a point by point refutation with sources.

[Douglas Carpenter]

120. there are volumes upon volumns of work that demonstrate quite the opposite

If you are truly interest, you could do a comparison of Democratic Party platforms between 1972 and 2000. The trend would become quite obvious.

If you're genuinely interested in reading another point of view that might demonstrate just how UN -left wing and UN - liberal the Democratic Party was during this period of time there are dozens of books that can make that case very articulately. I have certainly read the conservative/centrist Democratic point of view. And for about ten years (mostly during the Clinton era) I had even become an apologist for "free trade" and American imperium. I might suggest reading William Greider's, 1993 work - Who Will Tell The People? : The Betrayal Of American Democracy

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671867407/qid=1149294296/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1846545-3744063?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[wyldwolf]

126. go ahead, then

Name them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

135. most people don't try to disprove a thesis for which there is no evidence

I did mention one work above. You might try every now and then try reading some writers outside of your belief system. I suspect just about any writer/scholar of the liberal/left tradition would reject this thesis. I doubt that many political scientist would agree with it unless they hold an ideological need to espouse this doctrinaire line. There might be a number of ideologically guided writers who support this interpretation; but they just don't have any evidence to support it. Any review of candidates and their positions and the support the Reagan and Bush I Administration received from the Democratic majority in Congress would itself discredit this thesis.

Even the work by Ruy Texiara and John Judis does not support this thesis at all. And they are as centrist as they come. In fact they maintain that the McGovern campaign created the foundation of the new emerging Democratic majority.

The facts remain:

1. By your own admission on numerous posts "the left" never more than shared influence in the Democratic Party. I completely agree. I actually agree with you that previous Democratic Presidents were more centrist/conservative than many people here on DU realize. I'm not sure that you realize that every Democratic nominee including Sen.McGovern himself were a bit more conservative than you realize.

2. Even in 1972 the "McGovern left" (to the extent to which such a thing ever existed) only had a light grip on the party structure which pretty much ended on election night.

3. The DNC elected Robert Strauss party chair representing a shift to the right. He then purged as many "McGovernites" as he could and pushed the party rightward. link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050131/borosage

4. Carter and his people solidified "centrist" control over the party starting at the convention of 1976 were they modified the rules and procedures.

5. Carter in 1980 ran a more conservative program in 1980 than he did in 1976 which was already much more conservative than the program of 1972. In 1976 during his debate with Gerald Ford he indicated that he would reduce military spending marginally. In 1980 debating Ronald Reagan he cited his increased military spending.

6. In 1984 the party establishment nominated former Vice President Mondale; a Humphrey type liberal/hawk who supported increasing the military budget 7% beyond Reagan levels and proposed keeping most of Reagan's tax and spending cuts.

7. Michale Dukakis was a fiscal-conservative, pro-business but moderately liberal "New Democrat". I suppose that was the beginning of the "New Democrat" domination of the party.

some important links:

1972 Democratic Party Platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1972

1976 Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1976

1980 Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1980

1984 Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1984

1988 Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1988

[wyldwolf]

138. hm

I read plenty outside my belief system, thank you. Apparently you don't.

5. Carter in 1980 ran a more conservative program in 1980 than he did in 1976 which was already much more conservative than the program of 1972. In 1976 during his debate with Gerald Ford he indicated that he would reduce military spending marginally. In 1980 debating Ronald Reagan he cited his increased military spending.

false. In 1980 Carter agreed to liberalize his agenda under pressure from Kennedy.

6. In 1984 the party establishment nominated former Vice President Mondale; a Humphrey type liberal/hawk who supported increasing the military budget 7% beyond Reagan levels and proposed keeping most of Reagan's tax and spending cuts.

False. Mondale said he would raise taxes and he pandered to every special interest group to get the nomination.

7. Michale Dukakis was a fiscal-conservative, pro-business but moderately liberal "New Democrat". I suppose that was the beginning of the "New Democrat" domination of the party.

False. Dukakis was not a "new Democrat."

[Douglas Carpenter]

143. the point is a steady right of center drift after the 72 election,

except on certain social issues such as abortion or gay right.

The Carter Presidency was already practicing fairly conservative economics during his term. We can look at his shift in tax policy and appointment to Chair of the Fed and he did significantly increase military spending. This is what lead to calls from some liberals for Kennedy to enter the race; a big mistake in my opinion.

Mondale did support a raise in taxes. But he also supported keeping most of Reagan's tax and spending cuts and to increase military spending.

Dukakis would have been very much a fiscal-conservative/socially liberal/ technocrat type polititian. I don't know what would have put him over the line to be called a "New Democrat". Although I am sure if he had won that would have done it.

The Democratic controlled Congress during this period did give President Reagan and President H.W. Bush most of what they wanted.

[wyldwolf]

145. no, the point is having to appeal to every special interests group..

...to get the nod. in 1988, one of the Rev. Jesse Jackson's best known prerorations invoked his grandmother's beautiful quilts as a metaphor for the Democratic Party, and then proceeded through a litany of "the groups" (everyone from small business people and farmers to gays and lesbians), addressing each with the warning: "Your patch is too small."

Every Democrat had to pass muster with these groups to get the nod but, if anything, the party slowly moved back towards the center (not right of center.)

[Douglas Carpenter]

149. I guess you agree that the Party has steadily moved away from the left

for the past 30 years.

The Democratic Party is largely composed of citizens groups. That's a big part of what the Democratic Party is. If one wishes to call "everyone from small business people and farmers to gays and lesbians" special interest; well so be it. At one time northern labor and southern segregationist were the dominant "special interest". But these new "special interest" are a major part of what Mr. Judis and Mr. Texiera describe as the emerging Democratic majority.

But when many of us think of special interest we think of the large moneyed interest that dominate society and the political system. They have K-Street to watch out for them. There needs to be some force to counterbalance that.

[wyldwolf]

150. from '92 on, yes

[Douglas Carpenter]

151. perhaps we have different definitions..but I as I stated earlier

I completely agree with you that at the most liberals have only shared power within the Democratic Party.

I completely agree with you that every Democratic Party President has been much more conservative than many here on DU and many liberal Democrats realize.

I think if one looks beyond imagery and pre-conceived notions every Democratic Party nominee and every Democratic Congress was considerably more conservative than many of both left and right realize.

[The Magistrate]

165. One Small Point, Mr. Wolf

It is never wise to use the language of the enemy in discussing political matters, for the speech employed tends to shape the thought that follows.

"Special interest" has a bad ring to it, always, and deservedly so, for it clearly denotes some small group whose best interest is inimicable to the best interests of the whole. The term came into common political usage to denote small cliques of industrialists and businessmen, whose control of economic life and monopoly profits were indeed of benefit only to themselves, and detrimental to the rest of society: oil company associations, banker's leagues, and the like, were the original objects of the term, and the distaste that naturally flows from its impact on the ear.

How it was changed over the years in the mouths of reactionary defenders of real special interests into a term that could be used to denote literally millions of ordinary citizens, many of them disadvanted under the social and economic structures of the country, and used to define their efforts to gain a fair shake and a square deal for themselves and their families as some selfish and grasping thing that must necessarily harm others if it should succeed, can only be accounted one of the greatest triumphs of the propagandist's sleazy arts. For these people are not a "special interest", they are us, people just like us, and their success does not diminish any of us, but rather aids our own success materially, though it may well harm some of the grasping special interests defended and exalted by reactionaries.

Persons on the left really ought to make a special point of using this term ony in its original and genuine meaning, and to turn back its usage against anyone who employs it to describe the various elements of our Democratic coalition: it is, as a matter of cold fact, the Republican Party which is the creature of special interests, dominated wholly by them in its platforms and policies, and completely in their thrall in its exercise of power.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[wyldwolf]

167. point taken, so...

..what term would you suggest?

The point I am making is that every Democratic presidential candidate since McGovern's time has essentially had to pander to the wants of every group represented in the Party. And I'm not talking about ordinary citizens who happen to be in these groups demographically.

This was no better demonstrated than Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign in which he spurned the advice of strategist to woo back "Reagan Democrats" and instead tried to craft an electoral coalition of various organizations representing a wide array of interests. But unlike the New Deal Coalition, these groups were much more steadfast in their beliefs and dedicated to their causes and were reluctant to concede a principle to ensure victory.

Gary Hart chose instead to concentrate on moderates and swing voters, forcing Mondale to wholly rely on these groups to secure the nomination. By November, he couldn't move to more centrist positions to win crucial independent and moderate voters.

[The Magistrate]

168. Constituents, CItizens, That Sort Of Thing, Sir

Seems best to me.

There are always difficulties with a coallition, and these are greater in a coallition on the left than in one on the right, for the personality types are different: rightists tend to be more authoritarian in outlook, and hence more accepting of discipline, while leftists tend to place a positive value on defying authority, and hence are less tractable to discipline. It is certainly true that this inherent tendency must be overcome if the Party, and the various left and progressive elements that make it up, are to succeed. But no ready recipie can be offered for achieved this, or perhaps more precisely, no set of sure steps to get people to swallow an unpalatable medicine can be provided. It depends, in the final analysis, on the degree to which individuals are willing and able to adopt a broader sense of self interest, and recognize that what benefits the whole will necessarily work to their own benefit if they hang together with their fellows, rather than each concentrating on who has the biggest piece of the pie at the moment.

To some degree, the problem rests as much with the candidates presenting themselves for leadership as it does with the constituents of the Party. A group is the mirror of its leaders, and if these approach it as series of individual fractions to be seperately wooed, then that is what they will find themselves confronting, and in the end being serially dictated to by. It is the leader's job to envision the whole, and project that vision to each individual constituent, so that each comes to identify with it and share in it. The height of the politician's art is to speak to a group as a group in a way that leaves each constituent of it feeling personally and individually addressed. This was, and remains, President Clinton's great gift.

[Ken Burch]

187. what was wrong with validating those groups?

Why shouldn't we be the party that says that everyone is equally American, that all the cultures of America, the peoples of America, are valid and equal and should be included?

What's so terrible about being the party of ALL of America?

Why should Democrats endorse the Republican fiction that uptight, narrow-minded Sixties-hating white suburbanites are more American than everyone else and more important than everyone else(except corporations)? That is what the DLC really calls for when it slams "special interests", after all. It's Nixon/Agnew/Reagan/Buchanan code.

And no, Dukakis didn't lose because he did endorsed the Rainbow. Dukakis was used by the party leadership to STOP the Rainbow.
Dukakis(who wasn't really all that liberal, and you can ask the gay and lesbians who worked in his campaign and were afraid to come out because they were sure he'd have fired them if you don't believe me)lost because HE DIDN'T FIGHT BACK AGAINST SMEARS. The left bears no responsibility for Dukakis' failure.

(BTW, Kerry lost because he ran his fall campaign JUST LIKE DUKAKIS. Once again, no substance, no fire, no fightback. Again, the left was not to blame because we were ignored throughout the campaign.)

Clinton won in '92, not so much because he was conservative(he was to Dukakis' left on gay and lesbian issues, for example)but because he had charisma and because he DID fight back against smears. Clinton would have won on any platform. He never HAD to be rabidly anti-progressive or present himself as a death penalty freak. His capaign didn't need to be a continuous rebuke to the left.
That's why I regard Clinton's story as a tragedy for the party.

[wyldwolf]

193. it's the organizations that represent them. Even KOS is on to their game

[Douglas Carpenter]

198. having just finished their book last night..

they do not object to these organizations. They feel that they need to compromise and work together more.

But their strongest criticism is for the Washington, D.C. consultants who run empty campaigns that lose and keep getting contracts.

[wyldwolf]

200. which is what the DLC has said

[Douglas Carpenter]

207. if the DLC wishes to join other constituent groups like NARAL, the NAACP

or whoever as a constituent group within the Democratic Party, I see no problem with that.

[wyldwolf]

209. no, the DLC wants them to bend on their positions to ensure victory.

They often refuse to concede or compromise.

[Douglas Carpenter]

212. I'm all for compromise. As long as DLC can compromise too

and don't presume that they run the whole thing.
btw: if you havn't read it already....the kos book is really good. You may not agree with every word just as I didn't...but its worthwhile and very lite reading:



amazon like:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931498997/002-1846545-3744063

[wyldwolf]

217. ok

1. The DLC has never presumed that they run the whole thing. They have, however, been the only ones to step up to the plate and offer ideas.

2. I have the book. It's on my summer list.

[The Magistrate]

116. There Are Two Problems With Your Analysis, Mr. Carpenter

The first is that it is the product of a person knowledgeable about political tendencies, and rooted in left perspectives. Unfortunately, these virtues seperate it from the popular perceptions that rule in electoral politics, where most people are not sophisticates and do not root themselves in left perspectives. The faction fights among leftist and liberals, and the vast differences they see among themselves, are wholly un-noticed by the public at large. The difference between "a hawkish Hubert Humphrey liberal" and a "McGovernite", or the shades of difference between President Carter's platforms in '76 and '80, simply does not register. In a campaign against Ronald Reagan, popularly understood as an avatar of conservativism from a decades long career as spokesman for the far right, anything to his left is "liberalism", pure and undiluted, in the popular mind.

The second is that the purge of "McGovernites" from the Party executed by Mr. Strauss did not register at all with the people of the country. In that election of '72, the Party became identified with refusal of military engagement rooted in an "anti-patriotism" displayed in the streets by many "new left" activists. This unfortunately re-inforced a popular perception, this time a fairly accurate one, that the war in Viet Nam was a botched military action carried out by Democratic leadership. These two things taken together have indeed created an enduring identity for the Democratic Party as a creature of the far left in matters of national security that, accordingly, cannot be trusted to handle the necessities of that sphere of government action. It does not matter whether or not this is accurate: it exists, and conditions the political decisions of millions upon millions of voters, and their feelings are not susceptible to being argued away by any amount of fine-grain detail of leftist squabblings.

There are two items available in the present political scene that do offer some way out of this situation, which must be altered if the Party is to resume its former status as the national majority Party. The first is the simple fact of how terribly botched the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been. There is an excellent prospect that this will produce a long-term recoil against the Republicans' stock in trade of superior competence in military matters. Even if the public comes only to view the two parties as equally incompetent, that would be a tremendous gain for us. The second is the fact that the foreign foe most hated by the public, the jihadis who attacked the country five years ago, and who remain in arms against us, are a genuinely and despicably reactionary faction that it is quite consonant with left and progressive values to oppose to the point of violent action. It is therefore possible for the left to range itself alongside the people in assailing this common target, and by doing so go a long way to erasing two popular perceptions we need to dispell, namely that the left will not fight anything foreign, and that the left views the United States as deserving or even causing whatever attacks foreigners make against it and its interests. People view an unwillingness to resort to violence as an indication a person lacks conviction, and so cannot be taken seriously, and people view a person who tells them their country is to blame for the hostility it encounters as telling them that they themselves deserve to be hated and attacked. Neither item is conducive to drawing people into identifying with someone, and since electoral politics is an exercise in building group identities, won by the side that collects the largest group to its standard, so long as these views remain at large in the populace, the left operates under a great handicap.

[Douglas Carpenter]

118. large parts of the public were undoubtedly mislead by a propaganda

campaign that never seems to stop.

still the fact remains that after 72 the so-called "McGovernite left" ceased to dominate the Democratic Party; and only had a very light grip on the party even then. I don't know how one proves an Orwellian figment of someones imagination is not true. It's hard to refute evidence when there is no evidence. It's a bit like proving Atlantis did not exist. (my apologies to any new age friends out there who think Atlantis did exist -- this is just an example)

Nonetheless I take your point that in politics perception is frequently more important than reality.

I completely support attacking Al Queda and would welcome the Democratic Party holding the prevention of terrorism as a very high priority.

I am concerned about language and imagery that quite frankly to me and to many smacks of jingoistic racism and needless saber rattling. This approach might sell at times. But it is in the long run counterproductive both at preventing terrorism and leaving diplomatic options open to those in power. Many a conflict has occurred in history because a state used emotional language to manipulate the public only for the state to find itself trapped into imprudent action.

I am also concerned that that the kind of language being tossed around by some would encourage less scrupulous governments to act with ever greater repression against their minority population hiding under the cloud of "fighting terrorism". Suffice it to say, that has already happened and continues now.

It would seem to me as I read the public with my limited abilities that Americans are getting tired of war. The post 9/11 jingoism is wearing thin. The American public wants peace.

I think a better vision to offer the public is a vision of an America committed to prosperity and justice and home and at peace with the world.

[opihimoimoi]

117. A clever RW attack on the DEM Party.. DON"T BUY INTO THIS CRAP

WE are FINE and we will survive to WIN...

We are learning/adjusting/evolving and we will revail...

We have the Truth and we have the Hearts/Minds to do whats best for America/Planet.

Come, we go drink, plot, think, solve....The Pubs usually stop at the first 2.

[KoKo]

124. Thanks, OPI! another attack from the "Joementum" Crowd.....

who would sell our our Dems to suck up and into the Moneybags the Repugs have gotten all these years.

They are "lining up" at the gate these "New Dems/NeoCon/PNAC'ers to get aboard the Dem Restoration so they can TAKE US OVER just as the Bush Train is leaving the gate on the road to Oblivion.

Thanks for the "Straight Talk!"

[MrBenchley]

125. Excellent post...and right to the point.

[Tom Joad]

129. If we can vote to kick some posts, we should be able to vote to delete

others. This is total crap.

[MrBenchley]

130. Yeah, that sure is "progressive" (snicker)

[wyldwolf]

132. perhaps YOU can give a point by point refutation?

No one else has stepped up to the plate.

[Tom Joad]

133. Not worth my time. I will be satisfied knowing despite over 100 responses,

it has only 4 votes. point made.

[wyldwolf]

137. but stll, no point by point refutation

:)

[iconoclastmadrid]

190. No one else?

"perhaps YOU can give a point by point refutation? No one else has stepped up to the plate."

I've seen at least two - both ignored by you.

[LiberalPartisan]

134. When right wingers condescend to offer advice

You know they're both perplexed and nervous. This coming from people who support the current administration? Oh fascist - heal thyself.

[Hippo_Tron]

158. Howard Dean IS NOT anti-interventionalist

He opposed the Iraq War because it was a dumb idea. Turns out he was right. Has he at any time stated that he is against all American military intervention?

[Hippo_Tron]

159. Dupe n/t

n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

160. LBJ's top Aid : The Democrats lost the South over civil rights

thus ending the New Deal coalition which started to collapse in 1964. President Johnson was warned this would happened. He agreed that it would but knew it was the right thing to do. Nonetheless this brought an end to the old New Deal coalition between northern labor and southern segregationist. This was demonstrated in 1964 with the much of the deep south going Republican for the first time since reconstruction. Then in 1968 it was clear that the South was no longer in Democratic Party hands and the old Democratic Party New Deal coalition was gone.

"Jack Valenti: When Johnson was president for three weeks, in December 1963 ... he said, "Call Dick Russell and see if he'll come to coffee." Richard Russell, the senior senator of Georgia, was the single most influential man in the Senate. He would have been president if he had not also been the leader of the segregationist forces in the Senate. But he was a close friend of Johnson. ... So when Russell arrived ... Johnson put his arm around him and sat him down, and they sat very close to each other, and President Johnson leaned over and he says, "Dick, I love you, and I owe you. I wouldn't be president if it wasn't for you. You made me leader in 1952. I wouldn't have been vice president without you; I wouldn't be president without you. So I owe you so much." And then he said, "Now Dick, I asked you to come here because I want to tell you something. Do not get in my way on this Civil Rights Bill, Dick, because if you do, I'm going to run you down." And I remember Russell, in those rolling accents of his Georgia countryside, said, "Well, Mr. President, you may very well do that, but if you do, you will not only lose the South forever you will lose this election," In all the later years in which I became so intimate with LBJ, never was I prouder of him than that Sunday morning a long, long time ago, for he looked at Dick Russell and he says, "Well, Dick, if that's the price I have got to pay, I will gladly pay it." "

link:

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/13/interviews/valenti/

[Ken Burch]

186. Of course, the Dems could have limited their losses in the South

If they had ever been serious about registering all the available black voters. But no, they wouldn't listen to people like Fannie Lou Hamer, and the Civil Rights cause was basically left to die in Dixie by the national party leadership.

[CTLawGuy]

243. thank goodness

Johnson wasn't DLC.

'LOSE THE SOUTH FOREVER!?!!?!!!!?!!?!!

Screw black people, we gotta WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

:eyes:

[madfloridian]

169. RNC uses Beinart and the DLC to condemn other Democrats...how special.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/13/16489/4501

"This NRSC press release (PDF) is a long screed against MoveOn.org. Typical drivel. But, wait, what's this?"

BUT MOVEON IS OUT OF STEP WITH RANK-AND-FILE DEMOCRATS <...>
DLC CEO Al From: "You've Got To Reject Michael Moore And The MoveOn Crowd." (NBC's "First Read," March 1, 2005) "Rank-And-File Democrats `Are More Like Us Than MoveOn,' Which From Called A Group Of `Elites, People Who Sit In Their Basements All The Time And Play On Their Computers.'" (NBC's "First Read," March 1, 2005)

Peter Beinart, The Editor Of The New Republic, Urged Democrats To Take Back Their Party From "Soft" Antiwar Groups Like MoveOn.Org. "While this argument has been smoldering, Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic, opened another front in the party's ideological conflict. His cover piece in the Dec. 13 issue urged Democrats to strike a much more hawkish stance in the war against terrorism. Most provocatively, Beinart urged Democrats to `take back their movement' from antiwar elements in the party that he called `softs,' a group that included filmmaker Michael Moore and MoveOn.org, the giant online liberal advocacy group that led opposition to the Iraq war." (Ronald Brownstein, "Democrats Split Again Over Party's Agenda," Los Angles Times, January 2, 2005)

The Democratic Leadership Council Applauded Peter Beinart's Call To Take Back The Party. "Beinart's cri de coeur drew applause from the Democratic Leadership Council, which raised similar arguments in the December issue of its Blueprint magazine." (Ronald Brownstein, "Democrats Split Again Over Party's Agenda," Los Angles Times, January 2, 2005)

And Markos adds: "Funny that the NRSC is trying to claim that the New Republic and the DLC (peas from the same pod) somehow represent "rank and file" Democrats, but whatever. Fact is, Lieberman, the DLC, and the so-called-liberal TNR are tools of the GOP. Whether they intended to or not, they are now typecast as the intra-party bomb throwers."

Isn't that special?

Now do a search on Beinart and dlc, or Beinart and liberals. He is the spokes person for the DLC, and he is a huge war hawk.

They got it totally wrong about Dean in the OP as well...he is not opposed to necessary ones...just ones we are lied into.

This is a big pile of BS. Beinart is carrying the water for the DLC, and TNR has become their mouthpiece.

[wyldwolf]

170. madfloridian misrepresents again... how special

Nothing you wrote says or implies any RNC involvement.

[madfloridian]

171. Yes, it does....take a look at the PDF file.

It is the Republican Party, the senate campaign committee...it is on official party stationary. RNC includes that group, just like the DNC and DSCC are part of the party...and the DLC isn't part.

[wyldwolf]

172. oh, I see what you're saying

Sort of like how the RNC has used quotes after the Sunami disaster from DU, KOS, etc., to paint all Democrats as conspiratorial wackos.

Which, of couse, shouldn't impede on anyone's right to say or print anything.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

173. Horseshit.

[unkachuck]

178. Mr. Radosh, you suck....

"He asks nothing less than that liberals (and Democrats) hark back to the much besmirched Cold War liberalism of President Truman, George Kennan, Hubert Humphrey, and others - and move away from the anti-interventionism of Michael Moore, George McGovern, and Howard Dean."

....when has the left ever controlled anything in this country?....'move away from anti-interventionism'?....when have we ever been anti-interventionist?....although, I'd like to give it a try and find out and see what benefits we could glean....

....in my lifetime, the political pendulum seems to have only swung from the far right to the center then back....and what is wrong with being the party that offers the voting public a real choice?....is there some defect in our democracy or in the American people inwhich they can only select between a perpetual war candidate and a perpetual war candidate?....can't a sophisticated left make the argument for peace instead war?....

....I can select between 19 different brands of toasters at Wal-Mart, 37 different kinds of cookies at the grocery store but I can only voted for war corporatist A or war corporatist B sanction by our partys' war corporatist leaders?

....only the greedy corporate right benefits from this perpetual control of choice and limited options, inwhich the so-called intelligentsia of the left, collaborates....before I die, I would actually like to vote FOR somebody....

[eridani]

180. So, WTF do 700 military bases all over the world have to do with defense?

Of us or of anything worth defending. Not suggesting that we should have ignored a large regional empire with nukes--just that we should never have used it as an excuse for our own imperial thuggery.

[eridani]

181. If you agree that Americal liberals have been for imperial thuggery

--just as much as Republicans, then we have had liberal presidents. The last true stance against imperialism was by pre- WW I Democrats.

http://janda.org/politxts/PartyPlatforms/Democratic/dem.900.html


We declare again that all governments instituted among men derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that any government not based upon the consent of the governed is a tyranny, and that to impose upon any people a government of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those of a republic. We hold that the Constitution follows the flag, and denounce the doctrine that an Executive or Congress deriving their existence and their powers from the Constitution can exercise lawful authority beyond it or in violation of it. We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.

<snip>

We are in favor of extending the Republic's influence among the nations, but we believe that that influence should be extended not by force and violence, but through the persuasive power of a high and honorable example.

<snip>

We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and intimidation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm which has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what millions of our citizens have fled from in Europe. It will impose upon our peace loving people a large standing army and unnecessary burden of taxation, and will be a constant menace to their liberties. A small standing army and a well-disciplined state militia are amply sufficient in time of peace. This republic has no place for a vast military establishment, a sure forerunner of compulsory military service and conscription.

[Douglas Carpenter]

182. thank you very much for this bit of history

It's mind boggling that Imperium has come to be embraced like God, baseball and apple pie.

Since I live in the Philippines part of the year I found the section on the Philippines particularly illuminating. Few American realize the almost genocidal war that took place against Philippine Independence. I'm glad to see that the Democratic Party was not on board for that:

"The greedy commercialism which dictated the Philippine policy of the Republican administration attempts to justify it with the plea that it will pay, but even this sordid and unworthy plea fails when brought to the test of facts. The war of "criminal aggression" against the Filipinos,entailing an annual expense of many millions, has already cost more than any possible profit that could accrue from the entire Philippine trade for years to come. Furthermore, when trade is extended at the expense of liberty,the price is always too high."

[eridani]

183. I got some special flag stationery--

--and made up 50 commemorative copies for our state Dem convention this past weekend. All were snapped up and I'm down to the plain laser-printed ones. Please spread it around.

[wyldwolf]

195. you do realize that a Republican was elected in that year

1900. William McKinley - won the largest percentatage of the popular vote since 1872.

[Douglas Carpenter]

197. and you see no moral problem with a war using genocidal tactics?

(Mark Twain's words to describe the subjection of the Philippines)

a war of conquest based totally on lies?

links:

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-208470

http://www.gov.ph/forum/thread.asp?rootID=54133&catID=18&page=5

http://assets.cambridge.org/052182/9585/sample/0521829585ws.pdf

[wyldwolf]

201. Why resort to such a diversionary tactic?

The poster before gave the Democratic Party's 1900 platform as proof their had been "liberal" Democratic presidents, yet the GOP won that year, as they had the term before, and the term after. The platform didn't prove her point.

Now here you come talking about genocide! LOL!

[Douglas Carpenter]

204. opposing brutal unjust wars has history in the Democratic Party

but God forbid that we consider the morality of policies

[wyldwolf]

205. true, but what does that have to do with the point she raised?

Using the 1900 Dem platform to prove their have beem "liberal" presidents? She apparently thought the Dems won in 1900.

[Douglas Carpenter]

210. I'm sure she realized that the Republicans won in 1900

I think the point she raised is that opposing unjust polices even if those unjust polices have fleeting popularity has a tradition within the Democratic Party.

[wyldwolf]

213. apparently not. Why would she have given that platform as proof..

...of a Democratic "liberal" president?

Did you know Teddy Roosevelt like baked apples?

[Douglas Carpenter]

240. oh never mind

[Solon]

216. Why laugh at oppression?

No, seriously, you do know we conquered the Phillipines, brutally and efficiently, using every type of atrocity you can think of to accomplish that goal, and you consider that a laughing matter? WTF is wrong with you? :puke:

[wyldwolf]

220. why divert from the topic?

Why not start a thread on Democratic oppression instead of trying to hijack a conversation. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

Did you know Teddy Roosevelt like baked apples?

[Douglas Carpenter]

234. whether it is Peter Beinart or George W. Bush talking about "spreading

democracy"or President McKinley claiming we were "fighting to save from Spanish tyranny our Filipino brothers for whom Christ also died", the vast majority of the world is not buying it. Many people in the Democratic Party are not buying it. The idea that opposing imperial war is something cooked up by George McGovern and a bunch of hippies back in the 1960's is simply not true. It's been a force in the Democratic Party for a long time.

History is not kind to those who implement such adventurism. Just as the vast majority of the world and much of the Democratic Party then and now are not swallowing these new excuses for domination. And domination is how most of the world sees this talk about "spreading democracy". Because they have seen what materializes--admittedly not all--but most of the time.




"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" ---Mohandas Gandhi

[wyldwolf]

235. Did you know Teddy Roosevelt like baked apples?

[iconoclastmadrid]

188. Wow

A neoconservative article from a SDUSA/Encounter Books hack? Quoting a signer of PNAC documents? Gimme a break.

"why a once vital and dynamic American liberalism - devoted to asserting American power on behalf of democracy abroad as well as at home - went soft and, in Mr. Beinart's words,"preferred inaction to the tragic reality that America must shed its moral innocence to act meaningfully in the world."

Misdirection - if there is any liberal connotation to foreign policy it would be "internationalism". The "author" would confuse dem hawks with liberals.

"He asks nothing less than that liberals (and Democrats) hark back to the much besmirched Cold War liberalism of President Truman, George Kennan, Hubert Humphrey, and others - and move away from the anti-interventionism of Michael Moore, George McGovern, and Howard Dean."

Typical rw spinmachine logical fallacies. Red herrings, straw man, either-or, hasty generalization. This is the stuff of propaganda - and only works when preaching to the choir. Town Hall abounds in this kind of crap.

As for the rest of the pseudo-history, note that internationalism has been a mainstay for libs from Wilson to FDR. The "author" would have us believe that the anti-communist hawks were something more than what they in fact were and appeal to the typical GOP talkingpoint of libs being "soft on defense".

I cannot understand how people can fall for this garbage but obviously some have. Most vote GOP however.

[wyldwolf]

194. wow!

A book written by a Democrat about Democrats being reviewed and disussed.

Neocons! LOL!

[jonnyblitz]

199. who says neocons can only be republicans??

I would think one would only have to share the same views/goals/philosophy and champion all of these to be considered the same as one.

If I were a right winger i would be a Republican and vote for them, especially if I spent a good chunk of my time on political discussion boards trashing liberals/the left.

[wyldwolf]

203. who defines "neocon?"

Apparently the far left - evidenced by a poster claiming every Democrat since Truman has been a neocon. LOTS of credibility there! LOL!

[Solon]

206. Neoconservatives did come from left, I didn't know you didn't...

Know that. Though technically we should separate past interventionists policies with modern neoconservativism, but if you want a more comprehensive explaination, here's the Wiki entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

[wyldwolf]

208. I didn't ask where they came from, did I?

[Solon]

215. Snarky much?

No wonder no one can have a decent conversation with you, I swear its like talking to a wall. OK, the political UNDERPINNINGS for neoconservative thought, in foriegn policy, manifested itself in both the FDR and Truman administrations. This isn't to say both were neocons, they weren't, not in the modern use of the word, they believed in intervention to help DEFEND democracies and freedom abroad. Hence why FDR wanted a war with Hitler, it was the isolationists in Congress that hampered him. Same for Truman and the Korean War. However, this isn't to say they intervened for their own reasons, Truman, the man who authorized the creation of the CIA also immediately defied it when he denied their request on Britian's behalf to intervene in Iran to overthrow Mossedegh. It wasn't until Ike came it that he was overthrown.

Now, the thing about modern neoconservatism is this, this political philosophy for intervening for democracy and freedom mutated into a foriegn policy, for the sole purpose of containing communism. This is different than fighting for democracy, simply because they pretty much redefined communism to pretty much include any political philosophy that questioned the excesses of capitalism in any form. This lead to the United States taking the lead in suppressing Social Democrats in 3rd world countries, etc.

[wyldwolf]

219. its difficult not to be when people keep trying to change the focus

It's people like you who can't have an on-topic conversation.

[Solon]

222. First, I was responding to and answering a question YOU asked...

Also, the premise in the OP was about the left losing votes because of lack of conviction in being intereventionists against communists abroad. I view this as flawed, for various reasons, not least of which is our simple incompetence in actually interevening sucessfully, which led to people being dissatisfied with war, not to mention that it was based on a false premise, the "domino effect".

[wyldwolf]

223. We're in a sub-discussion started in post #188

[Solon]

224. So? You have yet to respond to my post number 196, so what's the point?

Really, at least I critisized the OP within the context of it. Its oversimplification of the "Left" of the 1960s-70s is frankly insulting. Rightly critisizing BAD foriegn policy is neither radical nor strictly liberal or left either. Cross-sections of society participated, and yes, many WERE radicals, leftist, whatever, but others were like John Kerry, another "dough faced liberal" of that time.

[wyldwolf]

225. So? If I had a dime for every post of mine that went unresponded to...

[iconoclastmadrid]

229. So? If I had a dime for every post of mine that went unresponded to...

You'd be 10 cents poorer

[wyldwolf]

233. well, that made a lot of sense!

:rofl:

[Douglas Carpenter]

218. it is interesting that the neocons and some of the militaristic influences

in the Democratic Party both find a fair amount of their roots in the Scoop Jackson tradition and some neocons like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz began their careers with the late Sen. Henry Jackson. Much of that click were influenced by Max Schactman a former trotskyest who later joined the American Socialist Party and tried to take the SP away from their anti-interventionist tradition and into a rabid form of cold warrior thinking. If I remember correctly Max Schactman later went on to form SDUSA (Social Democrats USA) - a group of ultra-cold warriors/ultra-Zionist who still in theory only espouse a form of democratic socialism.

I'm certainly not suggesting a conspiracy - but as traditions go they do have common ancestry and common inspiration it seems.

[ShortnFiery]

211. This "FAR Left" screed is getting real old ...

When we had a surplus, the LIBERALS were the "evil ones." However, now that the American People are waking up to the TRUE EVIL that is "The Military Industrial Complex" terminology has changed to make the so called FAR LEFT as the political evildoers.

Bullshit! In the 1970s, what you refer to as the "FAR Left" would be people like John Kerry. He was right then, and he is right NOW!

We didn't pull out of Vietnam because "The Democratic Party" pushed the issue FIRST. No, it took us KOOKY "far left" to realize that 58,000 dead soldiers along with 2 Million Vietnamese was enough bloodshed for one war.

When you INVADE any Sovereign Nation, their Nationalistic Spirit kicks in and they will fight you to the LAST MAN. The British learned that lesson about Iraq in 1920, WE (the USA) hopefully will follow suit within the near future.

[Douglas Carpenter]

214. as someone else said a few weeks ago ..if the range of discussion

keeps moving as far to the right over the next 30 years as it has over the past 30 years -- Barry Goldwater will come to known as the father of modern liberalism.

[Name removed]

226. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

227. when you can't speak to the fact, personal attack

Sad, really.

[iconoclastmadrid]

230. Then stop doing it

[wyldwolf]

232. show me where I have?

[Solon]

196. The basic premise of the article is flawed...

The United States during the Cold War did NOT have a foriegn policy of fostering or supporting democratic governments over totalitarianism. We had a policy of "containing" communism, nothing more, nothing less. There is a MAJOR difference between the two, that I will illustrate. First, think of the governments that we DID prop up to contain communism, from the "Rule of the Generals" in Greece, to the Shah of Iran, to the Diem government of South Vietnam, which wasn't democratic by any means, hell, even South Korea wasn't a bastion for democracy either. Not to mention the interventions, too numerous to mention, of Central and South America. Even Saddam Hussein himself, and the Baath party, are an example of this. The left in this country isn't shy to talk about intervening when atrocities are committed or democratic movements are crushed in other nations, we are the first to complain when nothing is done. The problem isn't that the US doesn't interevene, its that it DOES, and they help FOSTER conditions for dictatorships and the like to florish.

Is the author of this article seriously saying that the left is totally non-interventionist? That's a ridiculous notion, we aren't, never were really, the problem is that things like the Iraq war of today, or the Vietnam war of the past, were NOT about some ideals about freedom or democracy, but about the almighty dollar, nothing more or less.

[Ken Burch]

247. More to the point, our policy was effectively to oppose ANY social

movements anywhere in the world. It was a Kennedy State Department employee in South Africa, for example, who disgraced this country by telling the South African secret police where they could find Nelson Mandela in 1962. It was the Johnson White House who destabilized the democratic progressive government in the Dominican Republic and who organized the brutal and completely unjustified military coup in Greece. Why? because they had decided that "fighting communism" meant fighting any progressive party anywhere in the world(they'd have overthrown the Scandinavian social democracies if they could have gotten away with it IMHO)and who always sided with the rich and the military against the poor in any incidents of civil strife in the Third World.

Wyldwolf is wrong. Progressives DO know what the Democratic foreign policy heritage was. We know it was an evil and undemocratic heritage and we are struggling to get the party to abandon that heritage and choose an honorable and progressive course for the first time in its history.

The Democrats, globally, should take the side of poor people and unions in future talks on globalization. The next Democratic president should use our influence at the World Bank to get it to abandon forever its brutal insistence on "structural adjustment" programs that impose austerity on developing countries, since it has been proven that structural adjustment does not benefit anyone but the tiny wealthy technocratic elite in those countries.

A Democratic president, in short, should fight for the interests of the Global Majority, not the corporate minority. In doing so, we will create a stable world in which this country's true interests, peace and economic stability, are best served.

[treestar]

202. Exaggerated titles turn me off

For crimeny's sake, the Dem party has not suffered any "demise."

Wishful thinking on some right wingers part. I remember how they danced with glee during the Gulf War, saying that the Dems wouldn't even dare run a candidate for President in 1992.

It's their dream to be in total control without opposition. This is America. It won't come true for them.

Doesn't matter how many times they repeat it. Free speech is too ingrained in this country. Even 911 didn't allow them to stop it.

These control freaks need to see a shrink rather than writing their stupid books.

[Jim__]

231. Pure nonsense.

Whether or not Beinhart has apowerful and well-argued message, I can't say (although I doubt very much that he does). But, there is nothing in this article either to identify who, exactly, we are talking about, or to back the assertion: These liberals oppose terror and totalitarianism but recoil against taking any necessary steps to defeat it, fearful that their moral purity might be stained in the process.

It is not worth discussing such tripe.

[Douglas Carpenter]

239. Zbigniew Brzezinski calls War on Terror narrow and extremist demagogy

The ultimate cold warrior himself, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor under President Carter takes a contrary view regarding the war on terror and has no truck with those calling for a new war against Islamist fundamentalism.

link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html

snip: "This phrase in a way is part of what might be considered to be the central defining focus that our policy-makers embrace in determining the American position in the world and is summed up by the words "war on terrorism." War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.

snip:" That failure was contributed to and was compensated for by extremist demagogy which emphasizes the worst case scenarios which stimulates fear, which induces a very simple dichotomic view of world reality. "

snip:" what is the definition of success? More killing, more repression, more effective counter-insurgency, the introduction of newer devices of technological type to crush the resistance or whatever one wishes to call it -- the terrorism?"

snip:"And if we take preemptory action we will reinforce the worst tendencies in the theocratic fundamentalist regime, not to speak about the widening of the zone of conflict in the Middle East."

snip:" Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall. Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering. "

read full speech - link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html

______________

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

[rman]

248. How the Right won America

Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
By Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

<snip>

...they've put billions of dollars into it. Over the last 30 years their think tanks have made a heavy investment in ideas and in language. In 1970, Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. (There are many others, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at Stanford, which date from the 1940s.)

And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.

<more>

[Enthusiast]

251. How the Right won America

1500 conservative radio hosts? That says it all right there.
Their numbers are growing daily, too. Rush Limbaugh and his
ilk have defined "Liberal" for much of the nation.
Blue collar construction workers listen to Rush and ditto to
his nonsense. He reinforces their suspicions. War and guns =
good. Welfare = lazy and bad. Wealth = virtue. Poverty is the
result of "poor life decisions".  

How many times have you heard ",The Democrats have no
plan." I'm starting to believe myself.

Hey, it's fascism and we are living it. 

[rman]

254. Welcome to DU, Enthusiast!

[Enthusiast]

257. Rman

Thanks, Rman.

[wyldwolf]

256. the Democrats have plans, just some democrats see no need for them

[Ken Burch]

265. And the DLC's response to this is to say

That we should give up our principles, abandon our souls and our humanity and settle for being the moderate wing of Christian Imperialism.

Which is great if you liked Germany in the 1930's, because, while the DLC themselves may not be fascist, their approach inexorably leads to it.

Some of us, however, would still rather die on our feet than live on our knees.

[salin]

255. indeed, reviews from the conserv. NYSUN are where I turn book reviews.

not. Nor do I turn to the similarly rightwing Washington Times or to any Fauxnews citation.

But that's just me.

[ariellyn]

258. Hmmm. Posted and responded to by author consistently over

more than a 24-hour period. I guess you have to stay awake all night and day to blow on the flames here and there or they'll burn out. Heroic vigilance if I've ever seen it. But for what? Why are you so adamant about pushing a point that the Democratic party is dead?

[Cascadian]

259. In other words....

What is the point of having a two-party system let alone a multiparty system when both parties can be either right-wing or far-right wing. The hell with those who have a progressive agenda, right?

If people within the Democratic Party continue to have this outlook then we are definately lost.


John