hypothesis: Clinton and the DLC neutered the Democratic Party

[leftofthedial]

for at least a generation.

Their support of "free trade" and other corporate initiatives have made it impossible for the Democratic Party to believably champion the American worker, which is now the only populist agenda that could possibly counter the repuke ownership of the fringe social conservative constituencies.

Most people will continue to not vote because sadly, neither party can make a convincing case to represent the interests of most Americans.

[Toucano]

1. Right! Bring back Mondale and Dukakis!

And maybe Tip O'Neill and John Rostenkowski, too.

Those were the days!

[Gman]

2. Yeah! That's the ticket!

[LincolnMcGrath]

4. Dukakis balanced the budget in a horrible decade.

And losing an election to a member of the Bush Crime Family does not make MD, AG, or JK a bad person.

[Toucano]

8. Who said anyone was a bad person?

It's becoming a real problem here. I seriously think it comes from too much media exposure..."news" shows where the game is to put words in people's mouths in that he said/she said fashion.

Step away from the remote! :)

[LincolnMcGrath]

13. Don't watch much TV myself.

" Right! Bring back Mondale and Dukakis!"
" And maybe Tip O'Neill and John Rostenkowski, too."
" Those were the days!"

Forgive my confusion. :)

[leftofthedial]

7. false choice logical error

do you have a comment on the actual thread topic?

is there any way the Democrats could recapture and reenergize American workers? Is there some other issue the Democrats can rally Americans around?

Being anti-repuke and anti-bush isn't working. Polls show that Americans do not perceive the Democrats as representing any particular principle or issue.

[Toucano]

17. Not applicable.

You offered another blame Clinton hypothesis. It's ridiculous. Let's blame the one man who gave us any voice at all in the last 25 years.

Clinton inspired people. He is enormously popular still. Always will be.

You had 12 YEARS out of power because Democrats in congress were running the country into the ground (Tip O'Neill and Rostenkowski) and even created obstacles for their own president (Carter). They fought reform that would have improved the economy and balanced the budget.

Once Reagan (viewed by people as a dynamic person) got in, the conservative movement gained enormous traction.

We gave them Mondale. Great man, of course, but not exactly a movie star. B movie or otherwise.

Then we offered up someone even more energetic and inspirational, Michael Dukakis. Great guy, sorry candidate.

Finally, Clinton and the "DLC" came along and actually WIN. People were inspired. That Maya Angelou poem at the inauguration actually sold COPIES in BOOKSTORES! A new generation had hope.

But the conservative bulldogs never rested until lies, innuendo, and his own mistakes destroyed his legacy.

Gore of 2000 was not especially warm or likable. He never tried to distinguish himself from W. Review the debates if you don't remember. "I agree with the governor."

We keep thinking it's about issues to rally around. It isn't. Won't be ever again.

It's now about "Star Power". Who do you want to have a beer with. Who looks better. Who's going to make me feel safe. Those working people who say "The democrats gave us NAFTA", if they vote, vote for the hype not the substance.

People of the United States don't want a choice. They have a choice and they always choose the same. They want the closest thing to the middle, which is why all the candidates run there.

[leftofthedial]

19. Who is our "star" then?

What Democrat will all the homeless, jobless, health-care-less, savings-less Americans want to have a beer with?

Bah! Clinton (slightly right of center) is the only choice anywhere close to the middle the American people have made since 1980.

I became a grudging Clinton fan. Personally, I think he was the greatest president since Eisenhower. However, I think his close identification with NAFTA cost the Democratic Party an ally they can't replace. It was a Foustian bargain and the corporations won.

If you think workers are now irrelevant, fine. I don't. Even with actual unemployment now near 15%, most people here still work, and all but the top few percent are seeing the quality of their lives in precipitous decline.

Political campaigns are all about marketing now, but people do still vote their pocketbooks too. Things in this country are bad enough, or nearly so, that misery will certainly trump any marketing even the repukes can muster.

IMHO working people who say Democrats gave us NAFTA have a clearer grasp of recent history than you apparently have.

[PBass]

23. I don't think we want a star... we want an UNDENIABLE PLATFORM

We want a whole slew of candidates who are speaking aggressively on the issues that we all care about.

Democrats can't focus only on making quixotic runs at leadership every 4 years, with one "special" candidate. We need an army of candidates (local, regional and national) to be busy winning the November 2006 elections NOW, because of the things they are saying and doing TODAY.

I believe what we need is a return to populism in the "packaging", along with tough and PROGRESSIVE party planks.

[leftofthedial]

24. what progressive planks do we have that the DLC would support?

And that they haven't been actively fighting against for the past 15 years?

I say they've alienated labor and allowed the repukes to eliminate labor as a constituency. what other constituency is there? What progressive agenda does any available constituency support? Who are the Dems who can champion that agenda believably?

[Toucano]

25. No one gives a flyin fuck about the platform.

Even the delegates in the convention don't give a shit!

Ideas are nothing without the vessel.

I don't like it, I wish it were untrue, but that's how it is.

[leftofthedial]

27. who is our star then?

[Toucano]

28. If I knew that, would I be talking to you?

Honestly, I have no idea. But he or she is out there and we must find him or her.

You have the working people all wrong.

Look at the economy of Ohio in 2004. In the toilet! The poorest counties, with 18% unemployment, no more food stamps, steel mills gone, one fucking sheriff deputy for an entire county, 800,000 kids kicked off medicaid statewide...they all went overwhelmingly for Bush. Look at the counties along the Ohio river, not the urban counties.

Look at West Virginia. Kerry campaign pulled out in early October because they couldn't make headway in a place FILLED with working people. No picture of him in a hunting jacket was going to change their minds.

Those people won't vote their pocketbook. They would sooner vote to hold someone else down than to lift themselves up. If they vote at all. Kerry promised them a higher minimum wage didn't he? They sure went after that carrot!

You think Bush's supporters are all driving Lexus cars and eating at the country club? But working people won't vote for a better Democratic candidate because Clinton "gave us" NAFTA? Your grasp of the present seems more limited than your opinion of my grasp of recent history.

If your hypothesis were correct, Clinton alienated the working voters by signing NAFTA, it would follow that workers have found a new ally in the GOP. Yes, the GOP has done SO MUCH for workers and farmers! It would mean the enemy of my enemy is...fucking me over twice as hard.

[leftofthedial]

32. Ohio...

was "lost" at least in large part because no Dem candidate ran on the abused worker's behalf. As clearly awful as the plight of Ohio workers is, the Dems still can't muster a convincing pro-worker position.

Workers don't trust current same-old Dems. That's the point. I say it's because they were burned by "NAFTA" (actually Dems selling out to corporations on a number of issues).

Kerry did not run as a champion-of-the-workers populist. The best he could do was offer a higher minimum wage (a wage which puts its earner below the poverty line). That was a bone to the poor, not the worker. (Although they are getting harder to tell apart.)

Not to mention that apparently king george actually lost the vote in Ohio.

Your last paragraph is not logical. The workers, once solidly in the Democratic camp, now have been alienated by both parties. That's why they either don't vote, vote on a single social issue, vote for the louder jingoistic flag waver, or vote for the better imaginary beer-drinking buddy.

You say they vote for the "star." I say it's because there is a dearth of any compelling pro-worker message from either party.

[LincolnMcGrath]

3. NAFTA is a tough issue.

I hear it daily. And I have worked my tongue to the bone (that sounded kinda odd, lol) trying to re frame that issue. Its tough. I've never had a non-union job, and it really sucks to hear "Dems boned us on NAFTA" all the time. I usually explain the roll call votes and that fact that BC 'kinda' had his hands tied with the GOP takeover in 94. And, for the record, it is mandatory that you try (with ease) to prove that * is 1000% worse for the working man.

[Toucano]

5. Clinton supported NAFTA prior to election.

Perot opposed it.

It was the reason Papa said Bill would turn the White House into the Waffle House because Clinton changed his position on it during the campaign.

NAFTA wasn't all bad. The US Tax code worsened it's impact on the American worker and that was Gingrich's "Contract with America" that started all that.

[LincolnMcGrath]

10. I campaigned for a NOT THIS NAFTA proposal.

Fair trade is a different animal.

But the NAFTA that Clinton signed was a piece of garbage.

It's sad how many RWers do not realize how many pounds of paper Newts tax polices added to the tax code, and how FEW of them benefit the average joe.

[leftofthedial]

12. fair trade could work, depending on how it is defined

"free trade" is a euphemism for laissez faire, unregulated international capitalism, which is a disaster for the planet and for nearly every person on the planet.

[LincolnMcGrath]

14. I agree

[leftofthedial]

11. NAFTA wasn't all bad?

except for America, Mexico and Canada, everyone made out really well!

It was designed to externalize corporate costs by moving jobs to lower wage areas, move pollution to areas with no regulation and weaken labor. Period. The corporations profit at the expense of the signatory governments (that is, taxpayers).

[Toucano]

18. Oh, yeah.

I remember that from the campaign. That was Clinton's slogan wasn't it? externalize corporate costs VOTE CLINTON!

The TAX CODE changes provided the incentive to US corporations that wasn't there when NAFTA was negotiated, passed and signed.

[leftofthedial]

21. no one here, least of all me, claimed that Clinton ran on NAFTA

you sound like a RW talk show host. Do you know what "externalizing costs" means, or do you just like to denigrate the use of multisyllabic words.

NAFTA is a disaster, tax code changes or no. It, on its own, gave corporations incentive to export jobs to low wage Mexico (externalizing labor costs, because now American workers require unemployment, welfare and/or retraining). It also allowed them to externalize costs by moving manufacturing to locations (Mexico again) with lax environmental laws.

Then, with ZERO influence of any tax code, it gave them leverage to lower wages and benefits in America, pressure for weakening enforcement of environmental regulations--all in the name of competition (with their own maquiladoras now located in Mexico). This is what NAFTA was designed to do and it worked. And it was championed by the DLC, including Clinton.

Is Clinton the only bad guy, or even the main bad guy. No. Besides, which, it's irrelevant. The question is what to do now.

You apparently think we should chase the repuke agenda ever further to the right (the right is the new center) as they veer into overt fascism.

[leftofthedial]

9. I think NAFTA (and a host of other less identifiable issues)

broke the Democratic bond with labor. The Reagan coalition had already weakened that bond by siphoning off voters who had strong connection (usually religious) with some particular issue (abortion, homosexual rights, etc.) and single-issue gun rights voters.

Voting for Democrats now is at best a lesser of evils (and just barely lesser) choice for those AMerican workers who are not still committed single-issue repuke supporters.

How can the Democratic Party restore the trust that has been lost?

I'd say it can't be done by the current national leadership.

[LincolnMcGrath]

15. How can the Democratic Party restore the trust that has been lost?

If I knew that I would run against Chucky Grassley. lol

[leesa]

6. Yes they did. They made the meme GOP = DNC. They made your vote not

matter because your vote only meant the corporation won. They have destroyed American democracy. I still have a glimmer of hope for the DNC in the form of Dean and Palosi, Boxer, Feingold and others. The DLC is a tragedy and a tool of the GOP.

[leftofthedial]

16. I think you are right when you say the corporations win no matter what

The DLC is a tool of the corporations. The repukes ARE the corporations.

The problem still remains. We are stuck with the two-party system. Short of a successful violent revolution, no third party will materialize, much less win power. Given the two parties, only the Democrats seem possible to redeem. To overthrow the repukes in time to save what little is left of the country, we need a massive popular movement. How can the Democrats rally a popular constituency that will render Diebold impossible?

I think the only answer is the American worker, who has been brutalized by repuke policies.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[leftofthedial]

22. either comment on how the Dems can regain the trust of most Americans

or STFU

[leftofthedial]

26. peace and the antiwar movement might be a populist agenda

[Toucano]

29. Oh, yes. VOTE FOR THE PUSSIES!

Americans, who have swallowed all the atrocities of this war and appear to be begging for another one will really go after the soft and tender candidates.

With pitchforks!

I see no evidence that the American people are demanding peace, though they may have regrets about Iraq.

That's why the Democrats are knocking each other over to find candidates with military service records like Hackett.

[LSdemocrat]

30. No, the Republican Noise Machine and the corporate media neutered Dems

Both work to ensure that Dems would not get a fair shot for the past 20+ years. It took Clinton's abilities as a speaker to temporarily overcome that.

[Toucano]

31. Thank you.

I'm glad someone is willing to blame the GOP!

[leftofthedial]

33. three different logical fallacies in one thread

is enough.

Adios.