Walking in our fellow leftists shoes

[DonCoquixote]

This was originally a reply to this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8672422

But since the author liked my response, I will post it here. It is about the fact that we cannot do any good making this a more caring nation until we actually show some empathy for out fellow leftists, or in other words, walk in their shoes.
Yes, our Republican enemies have one advantage, since they are a lot more alike then we are, they have the ability to wear a regulation combat boot, train while wearing these boots, and fight in them.

Now, let me say this once, twice ad infinitum. NO I DO NOT WANT TO BECOME MORE LIKE THEM! I like the fact that we disagree and have have DISCUSSIONS about what we want and how to get it. Of course, here lies the problem, we are so hateful of the idea of discussions that we will flat out refuse to put on any shoe, much less a boot! It's not that we wear sandals to the fight, it's that we spend so much time arguing about what to wear and throwing shoes at each other (in the Iraqi reporter sense) that the GOP knows they have the fight half won by the time they get there!

Now, all sides of the Democrats are responsible.

1)We have the "Blue Dogs/DLC" here dislike the left as much as the right, namely because while they do not think the Right wing is smart enough to hurt them (itself a dangerous flaw exploited many times), they do think the far left is. Sadly, they do tend to have many of the same fears as their GOP friends do. They get scared of all those immigrants, they think Israel gets a bum rap, etc. If you point out that they are acting like the GOP, they say "but I am NOT a bigot!: and also that they can somehow control the damage and harness the energy. Theses folks want to wear penny loafers, or whatever goes with a pantsuit.

2)We have the farther left, aka the "Dean/Kucinich in 2012!" crowd. They are the soul of the party, to be sure, but, they have one weakness. Many times, they get arrogant, and when asked how they actually plan to get things DONE, they hurl insults, and accuse you of being a sellout/scumbag. They get angry when you tell them that they have to actually sell ideas to John and Jane Q Public, and that no, these ideas are not so "Obvious" that they still need to explain them. Single Payer is an example, because when the Blue Dog say something like "well, even Germany and France are not single payer!" out comes the rotten tomatoes. They want to wear Sneakers no matter what or where!

3)We have the far left, aka "Nader 2012!" These folks in some ways are noble, because unlike everyone else, they are honest about being leftist. They just think a stronger does is needed. However, to an even worse degree than group 2, they have NO concerns about practical concerns, and indeed are enamored of many ideas of Marxism. These folks will tell you that Stalin and Mao were never real Marxists, but in the same breath scream "property is theft" and wonder why middle class people who have already had much taken from them get scared. These folks want to wear sandals because they anticipate the end of modern civilization, and want to be prepared for the golden age where everybody is back living off organic farming, despite the fact that many would starve if that was tried.

Now, ALL of these factions have some good points, and all of them have some bad ones. NONE of these camps have so many right answers that they can cop the self-righteous attitude they all do. We do not want them all agreeing, because each has a PART of the solution. The GOP only has to destroy, indeed, at this stage, that is ALL it can do, so they can cajole everyone into lacing boots.

What we need is to realize that as much as we disagree with our fellow leftists, even our worst enemies among them have more in common with us than any GOP "friend." It is not a mater of adopting a single shoe to wear, it is a matter of making sure we stop stepping on each other's feet. Some people will need to wear bad ass doc martens, for some good old fashioned street fights (cue Rolling Stone's "Street Fighting Man, or the RATM update). Some people, will need subtle, ninja shoes, to sneak into places that would not normally let a leftist near them. Some do need sneakers, for all the walking, some need loafers, to look sharp when the occasion needs suits. The point is, we need to STOP throwing shoes at each other, walk TOGETHER, and yes, realize that the other fellow does have a point.

an example: The DLC person may says "We are not ready for single payer!" The Dean crowd says "If we do not get at least a serious public option, we are screwed!" and finally the Nader type says "I can help you get a strong public option, but we need to keep single payer alive, especially since one the idiot masses try socialism, they will like it!"

In contrast, we have the DLC putting on Ninja shoes to sneak away from the Public Option, we have the Dean/Kucinich crowd ducking the shoes thrown at them by both left and right, and last, we have the Naderites willing to kick and stomp anything that is not all of what they want, exactly how they want.

[Lilith Velkor]

1. This is an interesting post

I notice that in your examples, both group 3 and group 1 are stereotypes of wealthy people, where group 2 is a stereotype of the middle class. No poor folks in sight, and who can blame them? It's taken for granted around here that if you didn't go to college, you must be a Republican.

I guess my view is somewhere between the Nader and the Kucinich camps: push for single payer as hard as possible, so that a strong public option is seen as the compromise position. This is where the leaders of the party have fucked up. (Or not, if you subscribe to the theory that an insurance industry bailout was the intention all along.)

[DonCoquixote]

3. Not quite

Many of the people in group one are actually the poorer types, the lower middle class, "Archie Bunker/Bubba" types that liked FDR (in hindsight) but who get freaked out by what they see as too much change. The wealthy pretend to be conservative, but they can be quite radical when it suits them, as the sale of this country to the Chinese has shown. The poorer classes tend to be conservative, but that includes many democrats, which is where I think Obama gets scapegoated a lot. People say "if he wanted to, he could have done this this and that in the first six months, totally forgetting the fact that the archie bunker/bubbas would have howled even louder than they have now, which makes the Blue Dogs howl in tune with them.

While there are poor activists in group 3, I hate to say it, but that far left is truly difficult unless you have money. Now I know there will be molotovs thrown at me, but honestly, it's not the working single parents who can afford a Hybrid, or to buy organic food.

[Lilith Velkor]

4. Not all of group 3 lives in the suburbs

You try that sneering-down-your-nose-at-everyone-who-doesn't-drive-a-Prius shit with the DC Statehood Greens, you'll just get called a boojee motherfucker who needs to take your white ass back to Takoma Park. (The European-American folks in that party all ride bicycles, btw. Except for the police informant - he skates, literally as well as figuratively. )

Anyway, I think there is merit to the assertion that Obama could have done just about whatever he wanted in the first six months or so. For one thing, the President still has all the Unitary Executive powers Bush had, he's just choosing not to use them.

For another, I seem to recall a lot of whooping and hollering last year about "bunkers n' bubbas" having no more power in the Democratic party, because Barack won the primary. What happened with that?

[DonCoquixote]

17. Sneering?

MY point was to show that not everyone in group one consisted of "stereotypes of rich people" to use your words. Indeed, most of them are the working poor, but ones who have been fed a lot of conservative dogma from church and school.

I never said that group three all lived in the suburbs, though to be honest, many of them do. Also, riding bikes as nice in areas designed for it, but many of the people in various parts have no choice but a car if they want to do so much as shop for groceries, much less get to work.

As far as Obama doing whatever he wanted in the first six months, but frankly, a president is only as good as the congress they work with. Bush got a lot done because frankly, the congress were complicit with him, and yes, that includes most of the Blue Dogs. If Obama had chosen to use the Bush powers, he would have been called every name in the book, as is, most of the left (with good reason) wants to see the executive powers clipped, as the executive office has been getting powers the constituion never meant for them to have, period.

As far as Bunker's and Bubbas losing power, that myth has gone. Indeed, they are stronger than ever, and whoever gets the presidency after Obama will be hailed as some great return of the white race to their natural order of things.

[billh58]

2. With all

due respect, I maintain that the labels of "Left," and "Far-Left," play into the hands of the neoconservatives who continue to frame all "Liberals" as un-American, Socialist, weak-on-everything, and a danger to the American way of life. Republicans are proud of their "Conservative" label -- why are we Liberals not proud of our label?

In-fighting among Democrats has been a mainstay of our Party since its inception, and was summed up beautifully by Will Rogers: "I don't belong to any organized political Party -- I'm a Democrat." The very nature of our Liberalism weakens most attempts to unify American Liberalism into a focused and coordinated movement. Our perceived "big tent" is perhaps too big to be effective. Republicans don't have that problem.

We use the terms "right-wingnuts," "religious-right," and "neoconservative," when attempting to describe the failings of the opposition, but they proudly wear those labels while refraining from using those names among themselves. Republicans ARE the "socially conservative, religious, and frugal" Americans in their own eyes, and have absolutely no problem being portrayed as such, but they do NOT run around calling themselves "Right," and "Far-Right" -- they are Conservatives.

The reverse side of the coin, however, is that we Liberals are constantly on the defense, and for the most part, apparently ashamed of our Liberal natures, since Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, and Ronald Raygun spent billions of neoconservative advertising dollars to demonize and frame the "L-word." We run from the "Liberal" label and separate ourselves into varying degrees of "Leftness." We use euphemisms for Liberalism such as "Progressives," "Naderites," and Deaniacs," and tend to align ourselves with people rather than solid Liberal ideals. This factionlism has left the door wide open for organizations like the New Democrats of the DLC to infltrate the Democratic Party, and attempt to legitimize Third Way, centrist, "neoliberalism."

Until we can return to the proud and open recognition that we are American Liberals, that this nation was founded on Liberal principles, and that we ARE the voice of moderation, we will continue to self-destruct. Until we can return the Democratic Party and American Liberalism to their former place of deserved respect in the eyes of the American People, we will continue to be the cause of our own internal decay.

I am a proud Liberal Democrat who believes that the Constitution of the United States of America is a living, breathing, document which was written by the most Liberal and visionary of the Founders of this country. I believe that the promise of this great country is to Liberally provide the opportunity for equality to all of its people, in all matters. We, as a country, have progressed greatly in a short 233 years, but we American Liberals have much more to contribute to that progress.

[anonymous171]

5. Too bad for you. We need to become more like the GOP, or else we will lose.

They win because they have a unified message, purpose, and ideology (for the most part.)

[MidwestRick]

6. I thought

our party had a big tent?

[wyldwolf]

7. Agree with some, disagree with some

We have the "Blue Dogs/DLC" here dislike the left as much as the right,

First, there is a difference in New Democrats (DLC) and Blue Dogs philosophically if not always in practice. President Obama is a classic example of a New Democrat like Bill Clinton and Al Gore and has little or no resemblance to Blue Dogs.

Blue Dogs are Democrats out of tradition. They perhaps came from conservative Democratic families from generations past and live in conservative areas that used to vote Democrat.

while they do not think the Right wing is smart enough to hurt them

A ludicrous charge. In fact, it's always the more left ranks of the party who often act smug and believe themselves smarter than everyone else.

Sadly, they do tend to have many of the same fears as their GOP friends do. They get scared of all those immigrants,

You're kidding, right? Can you cite some examples? The DLC's website gives a very passionate plan for immigration reform. It speaks about immigration making our country economically strong, fair paths to legal citizenship, and visa-reform efforts that include a temporary-worker program that protects immigrants.

they think Israel gets a bum rap, etc.

It's been the policy of the Democratic party since Truman to be allied with Israel. :eyes: I understand the left doesn't like it and I even understand why, but to imply being a staunch ally of Israel is not a Democratic ideal is naive. You may think it shouldn't be. And you may be right. But it doesn't change the fact it has been Democratic policy two generations before the DLC was born.

Regarding point #2, I see differences - big differences - between Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. Dean is more moderate and pragmatic than Kucinich and, often, the Dean people are considerably more left than Howard Dean himself. Dean is a former DLC member and the only major policy disagreement he's had with them (at least publicly) was the Iraq war. Sure, he had a difference of opinion with Rahm Emanuel (and Barack Obama and David Axelrod) over how the mid-terms in 2006 should have been run, but that wasn't a DLC vs. progressive conflict - it was a new vs. old one. The battleground state strategy has been employed for at least a century in national elections.

As for being the "soul" of the party, that label is a self-affixed one.

But overall, you're on to something. The New Democrat philosophy is based on finding the middle ground in the spirit of progress. Unfortunately, that middle ground is not always the best ground. Sometimes, though, it's enough. But in the case of health care, the middle ground simply isn't good enough.

SOME of the Dean/Kucinich people,as you implied, often guilty of not knowing how the system actually works. Those who fall into that group, based on my observation, don't understand the President can't wave his hand and make everything the way they want it. Sometimes they fail to see how a candidate like Kucinich couldn't win in a red district - believing there is a secret majority of progressives in any given area just waiting for the right candidate.

But you know what? These same arguments have gone on on the left for decades. Nothing new here. To quote a line from Battlestar Galactica, "All this has happened before and will happen again."

[billh58]

8. To the best

of my memory, and knowledge (based on research), I don't believe that Dr. Dean ever subscribed to the Third Way, New Democrat, "centrism" of Will Marshall, Al From, or their self-proclaimed "center-right" DLC. The DLC (including Hillary, Rahm, and Joe LIEberman) have publicly criticized Dr. Dean as being a "radical left-wing Liberal" on many occasions, and have actively campaigned against him. The DLC was vehemently against Dr. Dean's candidacy for the Chairmanship of the DNC.

On the other hand, Dr. Dean has repeatedly criticized Al From's DLC, and distanced himself from them on many occasions by repeating Paul Wellstone's quote, and stating the he represents "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-27.htm

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

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

http://www.wellstone.org/about-us/wellstone-legacy/speeches/united-auto-workers-speech-august-1998

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Marshall_Will

[wyldwolf]

9. I'm fairly certain

Your knowledge of Howard Dean only goes back to his days as a Presidential candidate - not as a governor.

But if you would like to take up GOVERNOR Howard Dean (and sometimes even Presidential candidate Howard Dean) on an issue by issue comparison with the New Democratic philosophy, I'd be happy to participate.

[billh58]

10. None of his

various bios mention any association with the DLC when Dr. Dean was Governor of Vermont. If you could show me a link to the contrary, I would gladly concede to being misinformed. It is apparent, however, that Dr. Dean has NOT been associated with the DLC since his run for the presidency, and has absolutely no use for them, or their "center-right" philosophy.

As for debating "New Democratic philosophy," there would be no point. If you are a center-right New Democrat, then nothing I, Dr. Dean, or any number of facts, could present would dissuade you from supporting them.

More than anything, however, the sources of DLC funding speak volumes about who their right-wing sponsors are:

The DLC and its close associate, the PPI, receive grants from many Fortune 500 companies and various right-wing foundations such as the Bradley Foundation. According to the a 2002 study by the Capital Research Center, corporate contributors to the PPI have included the AT&T Foundation, Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust, Prudential Foundation, Georgia-Pacific Foundation, Chevron, and Amoco Foundation. The Third Way Foundation, an umbrella group of the New Democrats in the DLC, receives funding from the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, Howard Gilman Foundation, Ameritech Foundation, and General Mills Foundation. According to John Nichols in the Progressive, the DLC has had funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, and Raytheon (Progressive, October 2000).

{Snip}

(Perhaps the DLC's political thrust is more precisely defined by a list of prominent Democrats who have not lent their names to the DLC, including such figures as Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.)

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Please read the rest of this article for a few more facts about the differences between Liberal Democrats, and New Democrats -- especially the neoconservative-leaning Will Marshall.

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Marshall_Will

And, here is a current DU thread that you may want to get involved in:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6669840

[wyldwolf]

11. you have to go way back...

... mid to late 90s...

State election results provide additional evidence of Democratic resurgence under New Democrat leadership. Centrist Governors Howard Dean of Vermont, Tom Carper of Delaware, Jim Hunt of North Carolina, and Mel Carnahan of Missouri all won re-election comfortably. Of the new Governors, Jeanne Shaheen is on the board of directors of the New Hampshire DLC, Frank O'Bannon of Indiana was Evan Bayh's loyal Lieutenant Governor, and Gary Locke of Washington ran a textbook New Democratic campaign. --- Election '96 -- A Call for a Third Way[br />
In fact, the DLC's website contains upwards to 80 positive pieces with Howard Dean when he lead the Democratic Governor's Association, leading up to around the time of the Iraq War.

And check this http://www.newdem.org/annualmeeting/">link of an annual meeting of the New Democrat Network with DLCers Mary Landrieu, Bill Richardson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Jane Harmon, pollster Mark Penn, and Governor Howard Dean (among others.)

As for debating "New Democratic philosophy," there would be no point. If you are a center-right New Democrat, then nothing I, Dr. Dean, or any number of facts, could present would dissuade you from supporting them.

I made no mention of debating New Democratic philosophy. I offered to compare, issue by issue, Dean's positions with those of the New Democratic movement. This would have zero to do with yours or my thoughts on the policies.

More than anything, however, the sources of DLC funding speak volumes about who their right-wing sponsors are

Many of these contributed to the Democratic Business Council, too. Established in the early 80s, the DBA sought to compete with the GOP for corporate dollars and it flourished during Dean's tenure as DNC chair. Members include Arco Oil, Chevron, General Dynamics, Boeing and United Technology for $15,000 a year.

Dean took contributions from Time Warner, Microsoft Corp, IBM Corp, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs, and Viacom Inc. Three times in 2003, one Robert Crandall of Dallas, TX, contributed $2000. to the Dean campaign. Robert Crandall who, since the 1980 election cycle, has made political contributions as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of American Airlines and the Chairman Emeritus of AMR Corporation. The same Dallas-based Robert Crandall who serves on the Halliburton Board of Directors.

Dean amassed over $110,000 in donations in the first four months of his campaign from people with ties to the Fund for a Healthy America, a Vermont utility group.

Dean's organization, DFA, took contributions from Fisher Scientific. :shrug:

Fact is, if Sainthood is measured by corporate money - or lack of it - Dean is riding shotgun with the DLC (and DNC)

I've been on DU for 8 years. I've seen your recycled links over and over.

[billh58]

12. I stand corrected

on Dr. Dean's past links to the DLC and NDN, and although I did a search, I honestly couldn't find any references. Thanks for setting me straight.

You may have been on DU forever, but I have not posted here until very recently, so you haven't seen my "recycled links over and over," but I am no stranger to the DLC debate. You may have seen me on Democrats.com over the past several years where the DLC was a major target of we Liberal Democrats. Recently the site was dominated by a few "Progressive," bloggers (two, to be exact) and it slowly withered away to insignificance as most of the "regulars" dropped out, and hardly anyone posts there anymore. I decided to give DU a try, and am still feeling my way around this very diverse community.

I believe that Dr. Dean's "DLC positions" must have changed over the years, as the DLC most certainly attempted to demonize him as a "leftist Liberal," beginning with his run for the presidency, and again with his candidacy for the chairmanship of the DNC. Currently, Dr. Dean appears to have absolutely no use for Al From, Will Marshall, and the rest of the DLC "leadership," or it's "centrist" Third Way policies. Neither do I, along with many millions of Liberal Democrats who are grateful to Dr. Dean for his efforts while chairing the DNC.

Peace, and the very best in your future endeavors...

P.S. Any thoughts on a web site that promotes the Democratic Party and its Liberal roots and ideals? I'm still looking...;-)

[Cha]

13. Aloha, bill..

Dr, Gov, Chairman, Dr Dean has evolved. That's one of the many things I liked about him as my choice for 2004 Presidential candidate.

He's always learning the best way to do things..never stuck in rut, not our Dean!

[billh58]

14. Thanks Cha,

I needed that!...;-)

[Cha]

15. Those were fierce primary battles

in 2004..but, we survived and were so thrilled when Dean was made Chairman and he was the best.

Even though Dean isn't in the admin now I knew he would land on his feet and be good for us no matter where he was hanging his jacket.

[wyldwolf]

16. Well, welcome to DU, Bill!

My thoughts are that many former official members of the DLC disassociated with the organization based on the leadership of Al From, not the New Dem philosophy. The DLC branded Dean as such because of politics, knowing it not to be true, the same reason Dean called both Wes Clark and John Kerry a Republican in 2004.

The thing is - we really have no idea what Dean's policy positions are in 2009 because he hasn't served in a capacity to influence and legislate for years. From 2001, and leading into his presidential campaign, Dean was for bankruptcy reform, supports the death penalty, believes in Wilsonian Liberal Internationalism (what the DLC calls Progressive Internationalism - nation building.) Supports NAFTA and WTO, endorsed by the NRA and didn't want any new federal gun laws, no single payer health care because it won't pass congress (2003), etc.