The REAL stakes.

[alvarezadams]

It seems that for many people the political battle is between the GOP and the DNC. More "R's" is bad, more "D's" is good.

Under normal circumstances they'd have a point. Under normal circumstances a democracy has a party in power and an opposition of one or more parties. Under normal circumstances there's a palpable difference between the party in power and the opposition.

Increasingly, however, this isn't so. We are NOT under normal circumstances - not by a long shot.

I'm a veteran of the public boards where one runs up against a plethora of POV's ranging from outright Maoists to gun-totting NRA monothematic idiots, passing through adminfellators and "vote the shirt" partisans. I've seen it all, have seen everything from cognitive dissonance to insanity. I would have thought that this would have prepared me well for the relatively "mild" and "unipolar world" of DU.

I was wrong.

Here on DU we find a microcosm of what is going on in the "real world". We have progressive idealists, we have "vote the shirt" partisans, we have the deep- and shallow-minded, the more and the less-aware. And it seems that within our limited "political" spectrum we are every bit as divided (because of divergent world views) as the most wide-open public boards.... despite moderators and arguably pro-Democratic rules of engagement.

To whit -- we have the Lieberman threads, the pro- and anti-DLC threads, and now comments on the DLC's recent publication of what passes as a "platform". And this is the crux: the anti-DLC crowd mirror the "lib" crowd on the public boards and the pro-DLC crowd mirror the adminfellators on the public boards. Our particular chip of amber is a faithful reflection of the more pluralistic outside world... and there's a reason for it (IMHPOV) that has a lot to do with the liberal vs progressive mentality (see Jost www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf).

The reaction to the DLC's "platform" is the key. For those of us who are socioeconomically aware and politically divergent from the narrow American political spectrum, the DLC's "platform" is as clear as the Colorado spring water that makes Coors. Stripped of its rhetoric it is virtually identical to an AEI-produced platform for the most zealous GOP rw extremist, only made palatable through rhetorical and even sophistical framing, designed as if by Leo Strauss to make black look white.

The DLC's platform proposes a number of quasi-progressive platitudes couched in liberal terms... but when given more than a cursory perusal it is clear that these progressive objectives are to be reached by the most neoliberal means. In other words to attain "general health care coverage" the DLC would resort to privatization. Their "reform of subsidies" means "more 'efficiency' through consolidation of subsidies for big business". No matter how hard they try they merely put a sugar-coating on trickle-down while completely ignoring the issue of foreign policy... knowing that they cannot even TRY to paint their neocon agenda in an attractive light for even the most moderate "progressives".

Without the least shadow of a doubt, the DLC is indeed GOP-light... and it is only "light" in the sense that it panders to progressive values as it drives stringently extremist conservative agendas. It is no wonder that the Bradleys, Olins and Murdochs support these people - the DLC represent the opportunity to maintain the disasterous conservative policies of the Dubya misadministration, albeit with a different veneer.

What is REALLY at stake in the current body politic is a question of ideology. We have options: we can accept the GOP's neoliberal/neoconservative worldview, we can accept the DLC's different interpretation of the same thing, or we can reject neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Clearly the first two options, supported by the same corrupt gang and propunding the same objectives even if they choose to frame them in different terms, are absolutely identical at the core.

We MUST reject the neoliberal/neoconservative madness - even if it means rejecting "winning Dem politicians". We MUST reject the extreme even if it is couched as moderate - or the center of gravity of the pendulum will continue to move to the right. If this means short-term defeat, isn't this preferable to long-term and absolute defeat?

I'd rather lose a few battles than to lose the war.

[Totally Committed]

1. Two major points of agreement here:

The reaction to the DLC's "platform" is the key. For those of us who are socioeconomically aware and politically divergent from the narrow American political spectrum, the DLC's "platform" is as clear as the Colorado spring water that makes Coors. Stripped of its rhetoric it is virtually identical to an AEI-produced platform for the most zealous GOP rw extremist, only made palatable through rhetorical and even sophistical framing, designed as if by Leo Strauss to make black look white.

The DLC's platform proposes a number of quasi-progressive platitudes couched in liberal terms... but when given more than a cursory perusal it is clear that these progressive objectives are to be reached by the most neoliberal means. In other words to attain "general health care coverage" the DLC would resort to privatization. Their "reform of subsidies" means "more 'efficiency' through consolidation of subsidies for big business". No matter how hard they try they merely put a sugar-coating on trickle-down while completely ignoring the issue of foreign policy... knowing that they cannot even TRY to paint their neocon agenda in an attractive light for even the most moderate "progressives".

and....

Without the least shadow of a doubt, the DLC is indeed GOP-light... and it is only "light" in the sense that it panders to progressive values as it drives stringently extremist conservative agendas. It is no wonder that the Bradleys, Olins and Murdochs support these people - the DLC represent the opportunity to maintain the disasterous conservative policies of the Dubya misadministration, albeit with a different veneer.

What is REALLY at stake in the current body politic is a question of ideology. We have options: we can accept the GOP's neoliberal/neoconservative worldview, we can accept the DLC's different interpretation of the same thing, or we can reject neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Clearly the first two options, supported by the same corrupt gang and propunding the same objectives even if they choose to frame them in different terms, are absolutely identical at the core.

As one of the most Anti-DLC DU-ers, I sincerely believe both of those passages could not be more right-on.

TC

[alvarezadams]

2. What I don't understand

is the pro-Lieberman, pro-DLC crowd. No matter how many times they are questioned on policy (as opposed to rhetoric), they either ignore the question and point at the "D" or stand by (without,seemingly, understanding) the rhetoric.

I swear to gawd - they are just like the adminfellator/GOP fanatics from the public boards. At best they point to some partisan group's appraisal of voting records as if they were somehow indicative of anything. Spain had a run of 20-odd non-defeated games before the last two international cups, yet never passed the 1/8 finals. The same concept applies.

I do not see how a "progressive" party can have a "conservative" wing and still be an opposition to a lock-step conservative party. Can someone explain this to me?

[Totally Committed]

3. "I do not see how a 'progressive' party...

can have a "conservative" wing and still be an opposition to a lock-step conservative party."

And, therein, lies the HUGE conundrum threatening to kill this Party even as I write this. We truly are not a genuine "opposition" Party as long as we have the DLC as a part of it. They don't "oppose" the RNC POV.... as a matter of fact, they aid, abet, and echo it, couched, as you have said, in pseudo "progressive language". It is a cynical and depraved practice, and I feel most of our elected Democrats, whether members of the DLC or not have had their integrity co-opted by the need for re-election against them.

What is needed is for the Electoral College to be killed completely, so that the truly Liberal wing of the Democrats can break away from this DLC/DINO wing and be real Democrats again -- who elect real Democrats to represent their socially responsible left-of-center POV. This would also allow the Religious Right to break away from the RNC and split their vote down the center or worse. It would be good all around.

As it stands now, no real opposition is expressed on a consistent basis. We are a Party of diluted, weak-ass wusses. Time to get up off our knees and die on our feet, or conquer by just standing up for ourselves again!

TC

[alvarezadams]

4. Kick

Not that any DLC or Lieberman supporters would ever get into anything other than talkingpoint platform policies...

;-)

[alvarezadams]

6. Crickets, eh?

The DLCers just can't go beyond the shirt.

[bvar22]

8. And THAT makes the DLC more dangerous....

...and more of a threat than the GOP.

[MrBenchley]

18. So when are you "progressive purists" kicking out John Murtha?

After all, he's for school prayer, opposed to reproductive choice, sponsored an anti-flag burning amendment (with than Duke Cunningham to boot)....

"We are a Party of diluted, weak-ass wusses."
Don't let the door hit you in the ass, then.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[ChipsAhoy]

7. Greatest Page vote!

I can't tell you how much I appreciate well thought out posts like this.

I salute you!

[LincolnMcGrath]

9. Bravo! There is nothing “CENTER” about the dlcentrist-zellocrats!

[SaveElmer]

10. I think the example of American History argues against what you advocate..

Under normal circumstances they'd have a point. Under normal circumstances a democracy has a party in power and an opposition of one or more parties. Under normal circumstances there's a palpable difference between the party in power and the opposition.

When in American history has this been true? In fact, in the darkest and most fragile of times, Americans have consistently rejected radical political or economic solutions to crisis....

In the early Republic, when political tensions in many ways were higher than they are today, when our institutions were new, and change could have come easier, radical reorientation was rejected, and an economy and tradition based largely on the English model was adopted. Hamilton and Jefferson were mortal enemies, their contest centered on the type of country we would become - one based on manufacture and market forces, or one, more romantic, based on the virtous agrarian. Hamilton won that contest and is largely responsible for the American nature of our economic structure. Even Jefferson, as early as his Presidential years had largely made peace with the new structure.

In the 1830's when the power relationship between branches of the governemnt were still being defined, Andrew Jackson, clinging to the Jeffersonian notion of an economy based on the yeoman farmer, and through unprecedented use of the veto power, killed the Second Bank of the U.S. on constitutional grounds, and on the grounds that the institution represented a dangerous conglomeration of economic power in the hands of elite easterners, echoing many of the same criticisms we hear today about runaway corporate power. The resulting restriction in credit, threw the country into a serious depression. Jackson won the fight, and killed the bank. It had the lasting affect of increasing executive power, but it did not reorient the basic nature of our economy or our political system. The Federal reserve system was eventually formed, and it hardened the nature of the two party system.

The Civil War might not only have ripped apart our country, but its basic political and economic institutions; it did not. In the subsequent economic turmoil, with the South transformed into a third world economy, juxtaposed against an increasingly prosperous north, populist movements gained some traction, but fizzled out, the American people again rejecting radical political or economic change.

The era of the robber barons who took that prosperity to excess, killing workers rights and starkly increasing the distance between rich and poor, followed up by the severe depression starting in 1893 might also have induced movement toward this type of change, but it did not.

And of course the Great Depression, when corporations ran amuck, and rampant, unchecked speculation threw this country into its largest crisis ever...if there was a time when a fundamental reorienting of our economic and political structure might have taken place, that was it. And indeed the Communist Party and other populist and socialist organizations made local inroads. Huey Long and Father Coughlin gained national followings. But yet again, rather than move us toward a more radical solution, the American people, in their most desperate hour since the founding of the republic, put their trust in existing structures to solve these problems, and Franklin Roosevelt solved them.

The idealogical differences in parties has always been very narrow in the United States, and given numerous opportunities to change that, the American people have rejected a movement to radical solutions to serious problems.

There is no evidence, none, that things have changed. A radical reorienting of the political structure on the order of what you appear to be advocating is not going to happen. Change toward a more accountable government through political reform and a re-balance of power between the citizenry and corporate America is not going to happen by advocating radical, short term change. That course of action will be rejected by the American people as it always has been. It will happen in very small and incremental steps.

In my view, voting for the Democratic candidate moves us in the right direction, no matter how small the step...and that is why I care whether there is a D after the name of the candidate I vote for.

[alvarezadams]

11. Response

"When in American history has this been true? In fact, in the darkest and most fragile of times, Americans have consistently rejected radical political or economic solutions to crisis...."

The founding of the Republican party and radical republicanism... and the New Deal prove you wrong.

"Hamilton and Jefferson were mortal enemies, their contest centered on the type of country we would become - one based on manufacture and market forces, or one, more romantic, based on the virtous agrarian. "

More because Hamilton believed in a more autocratic government (indeed, he wanted an American aristocracy).

As for the Civil War not ripping apart social and economic structures, this is plainly ridiculous. Without considering the demise of the South's entire socioeconomic structure, the creation of the national debt, greenbacks and the like revolutionized the North's way of life. As for politics, Recontruction wasn't exactly a bland little happenstance, while the trade union movement in the post-Civil War period was revolutionary to say the least.

It seems that you are arguing something that had little to do with my post. You seem to be arguing that the US is not prone to revolutions - I argued that we normally have a party in power and an opposition, with a palpable difference between them. This difference need not be "revolutionary", although on occassion it virtually was (remember the Bull Moose/mugwumpers and why they came about?).

"The idealogical differences in parties has always been very narrow in the United States, and given numerous opportunities to change that, the American people have rejected a movement to radical solutions to serious problems."

New Deal vs. classical Republicanism? Or how about the current situation where our entire economic system has been changed by a virtual "palace revolution" - out with Keynes and in with Von Misses. Teddy's Trust Busting... If you have a point it is that the electorate rarely understands what is at stake and is presented with a fait accompli when the diverse radical changes have taken place.

"There is no evidence, none, that things have changed. A radical reorienting of the political structure on the order of what you appear to be advocating is not going to happen."

There is plenty of evidence. The neoliberal economic policies are a radical shift from the previous decades'. The neoconservative foreign policy has made us an aggressor nation, abandoning the internatinalism that marked our foreign policy for half a century. We have an unprecedented corruption of the system in the form of billions spent on indoctrinating the electorate.

As for a radical reorienting of the political structure, what do you mean? Can you be more specific?

"Change toward a more accountable government through political reform and a re-balance of power between the citizenry and corporate America is not going to happen by advocating radical, short term change."

You figure it will happen by itself? I'm not asking for anything more than what has happened in the past (Teddy Roosevelt).

"That course of action will be rejected by the American people as it always has been. It will happen in very small and incremental steps."

Again, you seem to view our history with blinders.

"In my view, voting for the Democratic candidate moves us in the right direction, no matter how small the step...and that is why I care whether there is a D after the name of the candidate I vote for."

Well, vote for a DLC candidate and you'll see how we'll move even further to the right.

[SaveElmer]

12. Re-response...

"The founding of the Republican party and radical republicanism... and the New Deal prove you wrong."

These were not radical changes...the founding of the Republican Party was a reorienting of existing party structures in response to the stridency of the South and the issue of moving slavery west. It consisted primarily of old-line WHigs, and northern Democrats, with a smattering of know-nothings and other fringe groups. It's platform in 1860 was profoundly conservative in nature.

Radical Republicanism largely failed in its goals during reconstruction, and was gone by the election of Rutherford B Hayes. It's most significant achievments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were neutered by Congress and the courts for 90 years.

Contrary to your statement, the New Deal was a conservative alternative to more radical change, and an effort by Roosevelt to preserve the existing economic system through reform. In the context of the existing party structure and traditional American politics the changes were significant, but not particularly sweeping. Roosevelt's main accomplishment was instilling confidence in people that the governemnt was at least doing something. Social Security was highly criticized by progressive and radical groups at the time as a timid reaction to the crisis. All of his solutions to economic problems were geared to jump starting existing processes, and did not introduce radical new ones. His most significant contribution was an acceptance of greater regulation of the economy, a necessary goal, but hardly radical, and only possible because of the severity of the crisis. And it certainly did not provide a long term change in the poltical structure, or in any huge difference in the political parties. It did induce a political realignment, which has happened many time in history. But really just replaced one dominant party with another. The two party system was not altered, and the pattern of political discourse was not radically altered.

"More because Hamilton believed in a more autocratic government (indeed, he wanted an American aristocracy)."

This is incorrect as well. Hamilton's primary goal was to make sure the credit of the United States was recognized as worthy by Europe. As weak and fragile as the economy was, it would have been foolhardy to do otherwise. Hamilton was not an autocrat or monarchist by any means, and was a committed republican. These are political charges thrown at him by Jeffersonians that do not hold water under scrutiny.

"As for the Civil War not ripping apart social and economic structures, this is plainly ridiculous. Without considering the demise of the South's entire socioeconomic structure, the creation of the national debt, greenbacks and the like revolutionized the North's way of life. As for politics, Recontruction wasn't exactly a bland little happenstance, while the trade union movement in the post-Civil War period was revolutionary to say the least."

Yes the South's economic structure, based on slavery was ripped apart, in the one spectacular instance in American history when we failed to compromise. And what economic and political structure did they eventually adopt? Free labor economies as had been prominent in the north since the War of 1812. And the structure in place today.

The trade movement was killed for a generation at the hands of the robber barons, and the creation of debt, and instiution of greenbacks were not radical, and did not involve a fundamental shift in the political structure..significant yes...radical no. And given that it took a Civil War to introduce these with the speed they were, it is probably not something we want to replicate.

"New Deal vs. classical Republicanism? Or how about the current situation where our entire economic system has been changed by a virtual "palace revolution" - out with Keynes and in with Von Misses. Teddy's Trust Busting... If you have a point it is that the electorate rarely understands what is at stake and is presented with a fait accompli when the diverse radical changes have taken place."

New Dealers did not advocate doing away with existing econmic structures, or even radically reorienting the system...it had to do with closer government scrutiny of existing structures. And the Depression certainly did not reorient the political system in any meaningful way. Nor did Teddy Roosevelt's Trust busting...

I don't argue there haven't been significant changes, just that the differences between the parties has never been wide, and that short of a deep crisis, significant change has never come about without a significant prep work, and without one party having enough power in Congress to get done what they needed to. And that even in deep crisis radical change has never been the path taken. The road to that power is measured in small steps, not radical leaps


Reconstruction, though noble in intent, was largely a failure. By the 1890's blacks in the south were back to nearly a condition of involuntary servitude, caught in an agricultural system which kept them perpetually in debt, unable to free themselves from obligations to their landlords, and shorn of virtually all political rights. Yet blacks did not agitate for radical solutions, they agitated for equality. And it took another 85 years before they even began to approach it. Some say the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's was a radical step, yet it took millions of small steps by millions of people to get us there.


"You figure it will happen by itself? I'm not asking for anything more than what has happened in the past (Teddy Roosevelt)."

As I said...the Democratic Party contains more members who are open to making needed changes to our political system than the Republican Party...so while there are certainly Democrats I consider too Conservative, with a Democratic Party in charge, change is far more likely. And contrary to your assertion, we are not in a crisis anywhere close to those which have occurred in the past. The American people are nowhere close to feeling as though significant political change is now necessary. I agree change is necessary, but within the existing political reality, it needs to be achieved through the accumulation of power by those most likely to do something about it...in my view the Democratic Party.

You seem to be saying it is not worth voting for a Democrat unless they advocate the type of significant political change you are advocating. I am saying that is a platform for long-term electoral failure.

And I reject the notion that were the Democrats in charge things would be no different, which is what you imply...Had Al Gore been in the White House, we would not have been at war in Iraq. Had Al Gore been in the White House, women would not be on the verge of losing their reproductive rights. Had Al Gore been in office, gays would not be under attack from the government that is supposed to protect their rights. Had Al Gore been in office, the wealthy would not be getting increased tax breaks. Had Al Gore been in office, the United States would have ratified the Kyoto Accords, and if not would be doing everything in their power to comply with its provisions. I could go on...



I do not vote for DLC candidates, I vote for Democratic candidates..DLC or not. That is progress.

On edit: I know you are overseas, so if you respond to this and I don't re-respond again right away it is because it is way past my bedtime.

And hey I know we disagree, but I have enjoyed this particular discussion very much!

[Greyhound]

13. Is your argument is that because each time The People have stood

up for themselves they have been beaten back down, so we should give up and accept the lighter yolk?

[Totally Committed]

15. Excellent point, and right on-target!

Thank you for an elegant, 1-sentence summary of what would have taken me at least a half-dozen paragraphs to say.

TC

[SaveElmer]

21. Unfortunately that is wrong...

Even when presented the opportunity to do so during the Great Depression, the American People have rejected radical change...

Americans are by temperement and by history averse to that type of change in a short period of time.

[Greyhound]

32. No, it is not. In every instance that you name The People voted for

change (I'll leave the radical behind as I'm sure you will argue that it wasn't radical enough to meet you variable definition), the real powers in this country have manipulated, beaten, threatened, and stolen their choices away from them, usually by the same methods we see them employing today.

Control the media - Buy the papers and hire the reporters to write what they are told to write.

Ruin the economy - To bring chaos and uncertainty, for then more people are willing to uncritically listen to the propaganda they generate in step 1, and begin to react to the environment beyond their control instead of acting to take that control.

Use the now damaged/weak economy to impose a more harsh working environment on them and pit worker against worker, thus diverting their attention away from the base cause of their troubles. Later in history they then use the "tough economic times" to justify dismantling any social reform that was made while The People briefly reclaimed their power. (does "welfare reform" ring any bells?)

Use the power and influence to physically terrorize the population as a lesson to any others that might be thinking "beyond their place". Sometimes the force is private, but more often political influence is exercised to use the official powers of the police force or the national guard to kill and intimidate them.

This is the same strategy that has been used each and every time, to great effect.

It is still wrong and antithetical to the ideal of The United States of America.

[SaveElmer]

19. Not at all...

The United States is by temperament and by history conservative (small c), meaning they have historically rejected radical change...even when conditions may have been ripe for it. The preferance is to work within existing political and economic structures to provide solutions for crisis.

[Greyhound]

33. The saying does not make it so.

[alvarezadams]

14. Continuing

""The founding of the Republican party and radical republicanism... and the New Deal prove you wrong."

These were not radical changes..."

That's a matter of interpretation, isn't it? The former was enough to take us to Civil War while the latter was certainly a revolutionary change from laissez faire to government intervention.

It seems that most of the discussion is one of interpretation. On one side you interpret past events as not being radical while you interpret my POV as such. I think that my POV is no more nor less radical than previous changes, and in fact counter a change that took place with nary a political debate... the adoption of neolib economics.

"You seem to be saying it is not worth voting for a Democrat unless they advocate the type of significant political change you are advocating. I am saying that is a platform for long-term electoral failure. "

Then you misunderstand me. I'm saying that it is not worth voting for a Democrat unless he is not part of the VCC that has taken over the GOP and shifted the pendulum far to the right.

[SaveElmer]

20. Well you are right about one thing...

All of these issues are a matter of interpretation...otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions...it would be cut and dried, and everyone would agree...

I have to say I still disagree on the founding of the Republican Party. The Party was actually formed in 1856, and ran a Presidential candidate that year, John C. Fremont. The forming of the party was made to propund more moderate positions on slavery than many radical Whigs wanted to take. Read the earlier statements of prominent Whigs like William Seward before the forming of the party, and they can rightly be taken as nearly abolitionist in nature...and then read his statements after the forming of the party where he offers compromise to the south, including support for a constitutional amendment insuring slavery's existence where is was already established, in exchange for restricting its spread west.

As to your last point even if I concede your point about certain Democrats, I still think this is not the path to follow, because even by voting for such people, you are putting others with a more sympathetic view into leadership positions...and that too is progress

[MrBenchley]

17. Well said....

I sure as shit don't see how rejecting winning Democratic politicans in favor of extremist nobodies is expected to do anything but cement the Republican hold on power.

[SaveElmer]

22. Well unless I am mistaken what Alvarez is saying...

Is that certain Democrats, particularly those in the DLC are no better in philosophy than conservative Republicans, in that they are as beholden to the corporate interest as these Republicans, and just as committed to maintaining their influence in government and policy.

In fact Alvarez views these Democrats as worse than Republicans in that that present their proposals, and hide their true views with a veneer of progressivism. A prime example he says is the recent policy position paper of the DLC.

In his view, in order to acheive the relatively radical change he advocates...and it is radical in American terms, including eliminating corporate influence on lawmakers and significant reform of the political system, it is counter productive to vote for these Democrats, because it perpetuates the system. And losing any number of elections is an acceptable price to pay, because in the end, whether it is a conservative DLC Democrat or a conservative Republican it makes little difference on the body politic who is elected now as those candidates will have been elected on terms that preclude them from making significant change.

I disagree with this position. I don't agree with his point on the conservatism of DLC members, but even if I did, I would not agree. Even Alvarez is not arguing that all Democrats in Congress are unworthy of support. In my view it is better to vote for all Democrats no matter the idealogy, because in power, these Democrats that he does not view as unworthy will be in a better position to work for the kind of change Alvarez is seeking. I also believe that to get this kind of change, by waiting for a fairly radical reworking of the Party is not possible, and that advocacy of this kind of change over a short period of time will not be accepted by the American people.

Not only would a fundamental mindset change have to happen throughout the party, but a mindset in the country would have to occur as well. There is no way the Republcians Party would ever advocate this type of reform, and we would have to convince over the Republican Noise machine that this change was needed...I don't see it happening all at once, or even over a relatively short period of years. It is gonna take 20 years or more. And the best way to do it is to accumulate the power we need in Congress to make these changes inch by inch.

[alvarezadams]

24. Not exactly

What I am saying is:

1. Since the end of WWII the corporate monster has been battling against anything that whiffs of liberal - trying to tear down the New Deal and even its moral fundaments.

2. In the late 1960's the GOP took a major turn to the right under the aegis of Goldwater.

3. Since the late 1970's and early 1980's, the volume and tone of the corporate-funded right wing mushroomed. From a few million per year including campaign financing to over $1 billion per year EXCLUDING campaign financing. And from a relatively sane and moderate dissent from the prevailing Keynesian economics and socialdemocratic policies to an all-out campaign to impose Hayek/Von Mises and a return to the days of Harding with respect to regulation, etc.

THIS was the extremely radical revolution - pushing the once moderate and broad-spectrumed GOP into an extreme not far removed from fascism. Hell - even Goldwater (once touted as a conservative extremist) and Dole ended up occupying the extreme LEFT side of the GOP.

This wasn't done by "choice". It wasn't the result of rational decisions by voters. It was done through manipulation, indoctrination, astroturfing, spin and billions. And the "four horsemen of the apocalypse" were the Scaifes, Bradleys, Olins and the Smith-Richardsons... that make the John Birch Society seem like socialists, who USE corporations just as they USE the GOP and now the DLC.

If you think that the changes I would have are radical, consider them as counterrevolutionary - a PARTIAL return to the status quo ante Reagan. And it is certainly not a hard sell - the failures of neolib economics are seen quite clearly, just as the damage caused by NAFTA, outsourcing and the like. The failures of neocon foreign policy are there to see, everywhere from Afgahnistan to Iraq to Lebanon to Venezuela to Bolivia to the UN and to the world's perception of what America now represents.

Make no mistake about it. Peruse the PPI web under economics and see how neolib economics and globalization are defended with the same type of logical fallacies and arguments as one finds in Town Hall. Peruse the PPI web under foreign policy and cut through the rhetoric (remembering how Will Marshall has signed PNAC manifestos) and you'll see neocon in great big bloody letters. Finally look at who funds the DLC and PPI and note well that besides the big corps du jour you'll find the Bradleys and Olins.

This is NOT moderate. This is NOT centrist. This is NO middle ground between Dem libs and GOP cons - it is out-and-out radical extremist rightwing --- with a shallow veneer of progressive rhetoric thrown in to make it palatable to those who reject the GOP's rhetoric.

You have said that you disagree with the conservatism of the DLC. I'm sure, from prior posts of yours, that this is based on the "voting records" of DLC members. But note that the average is not pondered - no matter the stakes involved in any given vote it has the same value in calculating the position of the candidate. Where DLC members differ from the moiety of the DNC is key - and it invariably lies within the areas of "interest" of the Scaifes, Olins, Bradleys, AEI, Heritage, etc.

I will NOT vote for a DLC candidate under ANY circumstance. The success of a DLC candidate gives the DLC even greater authority within the DNC, making any meaningful reform impossible and perpetuating the right-wing swing of the pendulum.

You think that change is difficult. I don't see why - despite billions invested every year the GOP's advantage is minimal. And only now is the failure of conservative policies becoming clear - which means that the time is right to begin to point out these failures ad nauseum.

At the same time the American electorate has been clamouring for reform for years. The McCain/Feingold reform was driven by popular will and politicos know that embracing reform is a political landmine.

What is abundantly clear is that if change isn't achieved soon it will never happen.

[SaveElmer]

25. May I ask..

Did you vote for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry?

[alvarezadams]

26. I voted for all three

But I learned my lesson. I will no longer vote the shirt - I will vote my conscious.

And I will do my best to support DNC candidates that represent my ideals - and to open the eyes of the electorate to the manipulation they are being subjected to.

[SaveElmer]

28. So you will not vote...

For any of the following for President under any circumstance:

John Kerry
John Edwards
Hillary Clinton
Evan Bayh
Eliot Spitzer
Al Gore
Tom Vilsack
Kathleen Sibelius
Janet Napolitano
Bill Richardson

[alvarezadams]

29. Unless they disavow the DLC

no.

I see no need to pander to the right by voting for their 5th columnists within the DNC.

[SaveElmer]

27. You acknowledge there are Democratic Libs in Congress...

Yet would deny them leadership positions based upon your pledge to not vote for DLC members because it would enhance the power of the DLC...which you vastly overestimate. If I grant your entire argument, which I emphatically don't, but which is irrelevent now, your strategy is still flawed because it does not allow those liberal elements to gain any power. In my view you will be voting to maintain the current system with a strategy like that

[alvarezadams]

30. I vastly overestimate?

The last potus candidates have all been DLC. They garner more funding (outside the grass roots), they are pandered to by the media.

They have far more power than their numbers deserve.

As for liberals gaining power:

"There are 22 standing committees in the House and 16 in the Senate, as well as several "Select" and "Special" committees. Membership is determined at the beginning of a two-year Congressional cycle. The member representing the majority party and having the most years as a member (seniority) is usually designated "chairperson." The most senior member of the minority party is usually designated "ranking minority member" Members are assigned to committees by caucus of their political party and these assignments are confirmed by a floor vote."

Give the DLC more influence in assigning committe members and our goose is cooked.

"In my view you will be voting to maintain the current system with a strategy like that"

No, the electorate is showing clear signs of being sick to death of the conservative madness.

[SaveElmer]

34. Absolutely you do...

You have not demonstrated cause an effect, you have drawn a chain of connection between the nefarious right wing financiers, to the DLC, to members of congress...with no demonstration that these members are working for these interests. Though you say you will not longer vote the shirt, I respectfully submit you have replaced that with just voting against the shirt. Do you believe Eliot Spitzer to be a tool of these corporate overlords?

As for the committee chairmanships...lets take a look at them...

In a Democratic Congress:

In the Senate:

Agriculture would move from the odious Saxby Chambliss to Tom Harkin (Not DLC)
Appropriations would move from Thad Cochrane to Robert Byrd (Not DLC)
Armed Services would move from John Warner to Carl Levin (Not DLC)
Banking would move from Richard Shelby to Chris Dodd (Not DLC)
Commerce would move from the Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens to Dan Inouye (Not DLC)
Energy from Pete "Drill everywhere" Domenici to Jeff Bingaman (Not DLC)
Finance would move from Charles Grassley to Max Baucus (DLC)
Foreign Relations would move from RIchard Lugar to Joe Biden (Not DLC)
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Mike Enzi to Ted Kennedy (Not DLC)
Homeland Security and Government Affairs Susan Collins to TBD (Would be Lieberman but he is gonna lose)
Indian Affairs would move from John McCain to Byron Dorgan (DLC)
Judiciary would move from the despicable Orin Hatch to Pat Leahy (Not DLC)
Veteran Affairs would move from Larry Craig to Daniel Akaka (Not DLC)

Lets also take a look at some of the more important House Committees

Financial Sevices would move to Barney Frank (Not DLC)
Government Affairs would move to Henry Waxman, scourge of big tobacco (Not DLC)
Judiciary would move to John Conyers (Not DLC)
Ways and Means - the most powerful committee, would move to Charles Rangel (Not DLC)

So yes, in my view this line up is significant progress!!!

[alvarezadams]

31. BTW, SaveElmer

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your contribution and your measured tone. Given the passions that the subject raises we are more prone to run into ad hominems.

Thanx.

[alvarezadams]

23. BETTER said

"I sure as shit don't see how rejecting winning Democratic politicans in favor of extremist nobodies is expected to do anything but cement the Republican hold on power."

I sure as shit don't see how rejecting genuine Democratic politicans in favor of extremist GOP-imitating "winners" is expected to do anything but cement the RW's hold on power.

[MrBenchley]

16. And peel away all the posturing and what we get

is yet another "Let's purge the party" pile of far left blah....

"Under normal circumstances there's a palpable difference between the party in power and the opposition."
But when you're way out there on that far left firnge....EVERYBODY is to the right. And the fault is with EVERYBODY, not you...if only the others could see how noble and good and kind you are as you howl for blood and wave your fist.

"even if it means rejecting "winning Dem politicians"."
Yeah,, you wouldn't want Democrats on a Democratic message board to support winning Democratic politicans. That would be awful (snicker).

[The Magistrate]

35. Locking

Advocating for the defeat of Democratic Party candidates in a general election is a violation of the Forum rules.