What's in a name?

[Joe Fields]

It's interesting to me how, over the years, sometimes the meaning of a name can change 180 degrees. For example, the word "awful" used to mean majestic, spectacular. The word "bad" used to have a negative context, but to most of today's young Americans bad means good. "Fingered" used to mean that someone was accused as being guilty of misconduct. Need I say what it means now?

In Bushworld, "freedom" means oppression. "waterboarding" is nothing more than slightly aggressive questioning, and the phrase "national security" means "no way in hell are we going to give you any information about the complete corruptness of our administration." A final example of Bushworldspeak would be falling out of your chair funny, if it weren't for the cruel consequences brought by the actions of the man that uses this term, and that is "compassionate conservative." I have yet to run across such an animal.

Unfortunately, the democrats are not immune. Two words, IMO, whose meanings should NEVER change are "democrat" and "progressive." Yet the meanings, the very connotation of these two words have changed, and certainly not for the better.

I had always been raised to believe that being a democrat meant being for the people. It meant insuring that the weakest links in our society were given an opportunity to strengthen their place. It meant that the poor would have shelter and food, even healthcare. It meant that college could be available to young academics, whose families were not fortunate enough to pay for advanced education. It meant retirees would not become destitute and thrown out into the streets, because they had no savings or pension. It meant that equal rights would be guaranteed for ALL individuals, regardless of race or creed. It meant that industry would be regulated, to insure the safety of workers and environment. It meant that there would be a guarantee of a living wage. In short, it meant playing fair. This was how I was raised. This is what I was taught to believe in, and I have worn it like a badge of honor for most of my life. I've followed politics and world events since John Kennedy campaigned for president. I was even lucky enough to be brought by my folks to a Kennedy campaign event in the summer of 1960. It is my staunch opinion that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, two Kennedy Brothers, Paul Wellstone and a host of other old school democrats would be apoplectic, if they could see what it means to be a democratic politician these days, for ultimately, like it or not, it is the leadership that defines the party. Virtually every tenet that is the bedrock of my belief system, which I shared with my party has become obliterated by the compliance, cunning and corruption of our top democratic leadership. Those historic figures of the past literally would not recognize our party, and would have a hard time distinguishing it from the opposition, which really isn't opposition these days, but more like a bullying big brother. It's downright shameful, and I AM ashamed, not for what my party is supposed to stand for, but for the dishonor my party leaders foster by their actions in Washington, D.C..Actions should ALWAYS speak louder than words.

Which brings me to my next word, which is "progressive." As one who was there, I can tell you that the word meant much more in the '60's than it does today. I hear that word thrown around with reckless abandon here on the message boards. Almost everyone here at DU describes themselves as a "progressive." But I really have to wonder what it means to many of you. Maybe I'm the one who is wrong, but I don't believe a true progressive would support a candidate that would turn their back on the constitution. Would a progressive back a candidate that wouldn't, at the very least fight to restore the balance of power and try to insure that there was government accountability? Would a true progressive support a candidate who publicly declares that they don't believe a president, one who clearly has committed numerous impeachable offenses, has committed anything that rises to the level of impeachment? Well folks, we have two candidates who feel that way. And finally, would a true progressive support a candidate who has stated that they will support a nebulous and dangerous domestic terrorism bill- a bill which would create a department within DHS to spy even further on Americans, even causing Americans to turn and spy against each other? I think we all know the answer to these questions. The sad fact is that there has been a distinct shift to the right of center by the "so-called" liberal democrats in D.C. What we here at DU call "mainstream democrat" is what the rest of the country calls liberal, which leaves us even further out in the cold with no protection.

Do I have an agenda here? Yes. I want my party and my country back, and I sure as hell don't see how that is going to happen by backing either of the two corporate bred horses we have on the democratic side of this race. We give the powers that be exactly what they want, when we suck up all the bullshit they feed us to get to back the candidates they want us to back. Keep in mind that we had at least two real progressive candidates, who were unmercifully kicked to the curb by the media AND progressive democratic voters. It seems we don't even like our own kind. Too short? Too fat? Smokes cigars? Not electable? Looks like an elf? I've heard all of those excuses right here at DU, preceded by the phrase, "I'd vote for (Kucinich, or Dodd, or Richardson)but.... We, of all Americans should be resistant to who the media chooses for us to vote for, but so many "progressives" have swallowed the hook, and it's too late to spit it out now.

I love my country passionately, but I despise what my government and corporate America have done to it, and I despise both political parties. Being swerved by my own party is infinitely worse than being bludgeoned by the republicans. We know what the republicans will do to us. But the betrayal of us by democratic leadership in this most critical of times is worthy of a real revolution.

Most all of us have suffered in many ways, due to this administration, and to an extent from the Clinton administration. I know that my family has suffered to a great degree. Maybe it will take more suffering under one more republican president for us to finally have had the bellyfull it will take to make the kind of truly progressive changes this whole country needs.

[neutron]

1. I thought this was going to be yet another "Hussein" Thread

[Joe Fields]

2. No, but I appreciate that at least you responded.

[Annces]

3. I think another republican president would not help anything

Many more people would become homeless or die without health care. And more wars would be started. The progressives need to build a better coalition. No one is stopping them from organizing. I think Edwards or Kucinich could have done better if they were a different type of personality. Clinton is doing well, even though she does not have the charisma, but she does have the political shrewdness.

[Joe Fields]

6. since we are democrats, we don't have muchsay in repub politics,

but as dems, we should be, IMO, ashamed of ourselves for allowing our party to abandon us, yet expect us to blindly go along. We have grumbled a bit, but still go blithely along. I believe the only way we can make the established party leaders sit up and take notice is to quit feeding them money and just shun them. Let them know that retribution will come, and swiftly.

[H2O Man]

4. Interesting OP.

I think that there are four general types of democrats here at DU: progressives; liberals; moderates; and conservative democrats. I think that the largest group is probably the second one, the liberals.

In my opinion, progressives believe what Martin expressed in his "A Time to Break Silence" speech, that the system itself has to have a major overhaul, so that human beings are valued over profits and property; liberals want to make some significant changes in the system; moderates want to fine-tune it; and conservatives want to profit from the system as it is.

At this point in the primary season, I do not think that progressives have an option that really represents progressive values in the race. So progressives must evaluate which of the two democrats is the better choice, or consider another option.

As someone who identifies himself as being in the progressive wing of the democratic party, I cannot consider an option other than one of the two democratic candidates. The reasons why include the fact that the next president will make decisions regarding federal court appointments. I trust that either Obama or Clinton will make moderate appointments to the courts, rather than the radical appointments that the republicans make. The democratic appointments can help to at very least keep the door open for progressive change; the republicans would slam that door.

[Joe Fields]

5. I always appreciate you take on issues.

Yet, this is one issue I cannot reconcile. This country, our party have lost our way. I addressed a few points in my message, but the main point that I made was that the schematics, the blueprint for our party has changed, and, instead of the electorate correcting the course, we have, much like sheep, just gone along. The agenda of the party leadership has changed the meaning of our party, yet we still identify with it, thus allowing the leadership's new meaning to fit us.

As for the breakdown of how we label ourselves here, I cannot know exactly how every DUer views themself, whether it be as a progressive, liberal, etc..., but I only see the word "progressive" being used. I hear that word used a lot when describing our two candidates, and I just shake my head in wonder.