A question for the self-proclaimed leftists here.

[No.23]

I just finished reading another recent thread here, where there was considerable back and forth discussion on whether the term progressive is more closely aligned with the centrists or the leftists. Not surprisingly, there was more disagreement than agreement on just what the term means.

I'd like to pose a more germane question, however, to the posters who call themselves leftists and call DU their virtual home too.

Let's first agree that there are at least two species of leftists to begin with: leftists who are principally active outside the Democratic Party (i.e. Greens, Naderites, etc,) and leftists who are active within the Democratic Party.

So here's my question, to anyone who is proud of being called a leftist:

do you believe that the Democratic Party is reformable?

I ask this because I'm surmising that some leftists probably feel that it is, since they are active within the Democratic Party.

But if you are a leftist, I'd like to know.... as I'm sure some others would too... if you feel that the Democratic Party is indeed reformable.

This, I believe, is a much more germane question than... whether someone is more progressive than someone else.

TIA

[annabanana]

1. delete

[niceypoo]

2. I am me

If you feel you have to put an 'ist' or an 'ism' on the end of it, so be it.

Try flaming liberal.

[No.23]

4. That's why I directed my question to the self-proclaimed leftists here.

Many have done just that.

If you haven't, then it doesn't pertain to you.

Later.

[Fovea]

3. If the Democratic party is not reformable

then there is little hope that another party can take its place and represent the left.

The whole system needs radical reform.

Public funded elections.
Clear mandatory trip wires that instigate impeachment proceedings for all federal officers.
Repeal of corporate citizenship and money==speech with amendments.

Return to the fairness doctrine.

[No.23]

5. So I'll take that to mean...

that you believe that it is reformable, then.

Yes?

[Fovea]

46. Yes, but a lot of painful shit is going to come down first.

I am sorry to say.

[EFerrari]

6. There is another choice which you have (maybe?) overlooked

and that's the people for whom being on the left is about issues more than it is about party. I'm a registered Democrat but my first response to things is not through the lens of party at all, for example.

ETA: Oops. As to your question, anything is possible. :P

[No.23]

8. There isn't a buffet of options, I'm afraid, when it comes to the simple question that I posed.

If you call yourself a leftist, do you believe that the Democratic Party is reformable or not?

This really isn't a multiple choice kind of question.

[EFerrari]

9. That's right. But I was pointing out that your premise about all lefties

being Democrats or associated with other movements is a little narrow and doesn't really encompass the range of positions that lefties occupy. There are some that don't belong to political parties at all.

[No.23]

11. That's why I said "at least" two kinds.

Please check my OP to confirm that.

[EFerrari]

16. Yes, you did. So your focus is on lefties who are or are somewhat party oriented.

I'm not trying to pick a fight but rather, to make sure I understand what you mean.

[No.23]

25. I am trying to understand...

why some leftists believe that the Democratic Party is reformable.

I thought that it was a simple question at the outset.

It still feels like a simple one to me now.

[EFerrari]

34. Then truthfully, I don't see the problem being with the party at all.

It's in the way elections are funded, period. Do we even know what this party would be without the burden of constant fund raising and bean counting? I don't think we do.

[No.23]

45. It IS the problem.

Leftists are too willing to be told what they want to hear during the primaries, only to have the Party veer towards the right during the general election.

And if the Party wins, they'll keep a centrist course until the next national election.

When they will just repeat the cycle of jerking off the leftists during the primaries, and resuming a centrist course thereafter.

Can anyone tell me why leftists are so willing to be used by the Party in that kind of circle jerk?

[Dr.Phool]

66. EFerrari is mostly right.

As long as money is the issue, the issues and ideas take a back seat to fundraising.

It's damn near impossible to "primary" an incumbent. He's got access to lobbyists, and DCCC funding, up the wazoo. A candidate will spend almost 8 hours a day, making calls and begging for money. The incumbent, or party choice has a decided advantage.

[Dr.Phool]

61. I used to think so. I don't anymore.

And I was a in the trenches Democrat for years. DEC member, Democratic congressional candidate, activist, campaign consultant, and more. I've seen too much shit, up front and personal, that goes on behind the scenes.

The party didn't represent my interests any more. I don't think they represent anybody's interests, other than their own, anymore.

When we worked our asses off to get a Dem majority in 2006, to stop the war, we heard a bunch of bullshit about why they couldn't stop it. I resigned my DEC position in protest.

When they passed the FISA bill, I changed my party registration to "No Party Affiliation".

I think we've got to start over again from scratch.

That's just my opinion. Based on experience. But, I could be full of shit.

[LooseWilly]

103. reformable as in becoming something that isn't reflective of politics today...

No.. if that's your question then no is your answer

[Laelth]

7. You ask a good question.

I don't know whether the Democratic Party is reformable or not. It has been a terrible disappointment to those of us on the left since about 1965. However, it's what we have, and voting for a third party between 1965 and 2008 only helped to elect Republicans, so those of us who are ultimately pragmatic voted for Democrats.

But it looks to me like the Republican Party is nearly done on the national level, and we're in for a period of one-party rule. Historically when this happens in the United States, the party splits. I look forward to migrating with the party on the left. Which half of the party gets to keep the name "Democratic Party" means little to me, but you can already see the fractures (DLC, Blue Dogs, "New Democrats"). If the Republican Party kills itself (as it seems intent on doing), the Democratic Party will have to split.

Description of the likely demise of the Republican Party here: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/24

:dem:

-Laelth

[No.23]

10. Good for some, but an evasive one for some others.

I've met basically two kinds of leftists, as my OP stated.

Those who are politically active outside the Dem Party, and those who work within it.

I'd really like to know of here are any leftists who really feel that the Dem Party is reformable.

I, personally, do not.

Which is why I'm anxious and willing to hear an opposing perspective.

[Laelth]

18. I was not intentionally evasive. A more thorough response is below.

I believe that what happens to the Republican Party is key to answering your question.

:dem:

-Laelth

[No.23]

21. Am I hearing you say...

that the ability of the Democratic Party to be of the people and for the people... is contingent on the status of the Repub Party?

[Laelth]

48. In part, yes.

So long as the Republican Party survives, and so long as there is no major, long-standing global depression, I do not believe the Democratic Party can be made into a party of the people. On the other hand, with either an economic collapse or the death of the Republican Party, I think that either the Democratic Party, or the more liberal party that splits off from it, can become the political party that those of us on the left are looking for.

:dem:

-Laelth

[No.23]

51. Interesting perpective you have there.

So your hope for the people does not lie in the strength of the DP to be strong and rise to a higher challenge.

It lies in the weakness of the RP to die and disappear.

Interesting perspective indeed.

[Laelth]

55. Sadly, yes.

That doesn't speak well for the party, perhaps. It's a very flexible machine, and it's a very big tent, but it has also been disappointing to lefties like me for a long time.

:dem:

-Laelth

[No.23]

57. So are you simply waiting for the RP to die and disappear?

Obvious question, I'm sure that you will agree.

Given what you said beforehand.

[Laelth]

59. Yes. As a pragmatist, I must keep voting for Democrats so long as the R's are fighting.

Voting for third parties is he surest way to elect a Republican.

:dem:

-Laelth

[No.23]

63. With a sentiment like that one, the DP has no incentive to change.

As long as you are willing to vote DP... for the principle purpose of keeping the Repubs out of office... the DP has no reason to represent your interests.

It can always count on your vote and support, because you'll vote for them just to keep the Repubs out of office.

They will never have the incentive to change, as long as you are willing to support them because they're not the Repubs.

[Laelth]

65. Yup. It's been that way for many years.

That's why I hope for the death of the R party, so that the D party can safely split.

:dem:

-Laelth

[imdjh]

29. I still don't know what your question means

If you're asking if the Democratic Party can rise above human nature and competing interests, and go from a collection of congruent and incongruent ideas to a doctrinal straight line, then the answer is no.

There are at least a dozen major issues on which Democrats are not in universal agreement. But what sets us apart, or what I would like to think sets us apart, from the Republicans is that Republicans would rather have a decision, a doctrine, than to move forward in disagreement or discussion.

[Laelth]

14. And let me add ...

I guess that means my answer is YES, we can reform the Democratic Party, but only if (1) the Republican Party dies and (2) we kick all the Eisenhower Republicans in the party out (including DLCers, Blue Dogs, centrists, corporatists, and/or whatever these capitalist-loving "moderates" want to call themselves).

On the other hand, my answer is NO, the Democratic Party will not be reformed if (1) the Republican Party dies and (2) the Eisenhower Republicans in the party kick us liberals out. But, in this case, the new party that we form will be pretty stellar.

Of course, all bets are off if the Republicans survive. In that case, those of us on the left will have to continue to support the Democratic Party unless the Republicans go back to their roots and become the more liberal American party as they were in the mid-nineteenth century.

:dem:

-Laelth

[No.23]

17. LOL. Boy, that's a lot of iffy scenrios there.

can we stay with things as they are, for the time being?

Is the Dem Party reformable now?

From a leftist perspective, that is.

[Laelth]

23. I have to give you more "iffy" responses.

If we have a massive, global depression, the whole country will move to the left, and it will do so quickly. If that happens, even presuming the Republican Party survives, the Democratic Party has the ability to enact significant liberal legislation that will suit me just fine. FDR managed it as a Democrat, and I have every reason to believe that Obama can do the same.

Of course, I'd rather not have to endure massive human misery just to get some sensible reforms, but it might require that.

:dem:

-Laelth

[imdjh]

35. Didn't you just kick out half or more of the Democratic Party?

"in the party out (including DLCers, Blue Dogs, centrists, corporatists, and/or whatever these capitalist-loving "moderates" want to call themselves).
"

Seriously, by the generous definitions and accusation levels using these terms in internetworld, I think you just threw the Democratic Party out of itself. How do you imagine that the minority defines the party?

[Laelth]

42. Or they kicked me out, one of the two.

But the answer to your question is yes.

As to how the minority defines the party, I am not sure which group is the minority as you use the term here, but I'll be happy to respond if you can clarify that for me.

:dem:

-Laelth

[imdjh]

49. In terms that are perhaps too simple

I'd say that the Amendment 2 vote in Florida and the Prop 8 vote in California broke it out pretty cleanly. The majority of the Democratic Party, to the tune of about 54% or 60% is not nearly as liberal as we would like to think. So I'd say that the extra-liberal Democrat is in the minority. Especially if he isn't really a Democrat and he just registered as one for this election.

[Laelth]

58. Oh, I agree entirely. If so, I am the minority, and what you see above is how I describe the party.

The Democratic Party contains lots of people that do not agree on a number of important issues. As I said in response to the OP, absent a global economic meltdown that pushes all Americans way to the left, the only way to "reform" the party (and make it a party that actually represents me) will be to split it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Jackpine Radical]

31. That David Green Common Dreams piece was magnificent.

However, if--as he argues very forcefully--the Republicans are a dead issue, then the Dems will split into two parties. One will occupy the part of the political spectrum once held by the Eisenhower & Rockefeller Republicans (now held by the Blue Dogs), while the other will be a little leftward on social issues. Neither will be able to get very far from the corporate purse strings. The corporations don't care about the labels of the people they buy, as long as they stay bought.

[Laelth]

40. Obama gives me hope that the purse strings can be cut.

He was able to bypass corporate America and appeal directly to the people for campaign cash. He doesn't need them any more. If his model holds and spreads, one party can be owned by the corporations while the other will actually be free to advance the interests of the people.

Or so I hope.

:dem:

-Laelth

[No.23]

47. I think that you will benefit from a quick visit to...

opensecrets.org and see how much $$$ President Obama received from the major corporations, in comparison to the other candidates.

His hand was only buttered by the little people.

[Laelth]

54. You might also benefit from that trip.

Indeed Obama did take cash from big corps., especially in the beginning when his online campaign wasn't generating the big bucks, but by September of last year he was pulling in a ridiculous and unprecedented $140 million/month, and most of it was coming from small, individual donors.

If nothing else, Obama proved that a politician can win the race for President without relying on big donors. In retrospect, we may one day discover that Obama (following Howard Dean's model) forever broke the corporate choke-hold over American politics in the 2008 campaign.

Or so I hope ...

:dem:

-Laelth

[No.23]

60. Let's be a little more accurate, for accuracy's sake,.

He received the most corporate contributions.

From virtually every industry that opensecrets.org keeps tracks of.

I'm not worried about the money that he received from the little people, though.

They can be taken for granted.

I'm more worried about the money that he received from The Big Boys.

Some of whom are receiving it back in the form of a bailout.

[Laelth]

69. Admitted.

As far as I know, Obama did get a lot of corporate money, and it may have been more than any other politician collected in the last election cycle. If it weren't for the fact that he got more money from the little people than he did from the corps., I'd assume he was completely bought.

And he may be. Time will tell. I suspect, however, that Obama's heart is in the right place, and he knows he doesn't need those big donors to run for President in 2012. As such, he is no longer beholden to them, and he can do what he feels is best.

:dem:

-Laelth

[sandnsea]

12. I think there's a classsic "leftist" too

A Che type leftist who might be described as a radical socialist. There are probably a few here, but that's not usually what I mean when I refer to America's left. I think the left needs to organize a POSITIVE party and stop just ripping everything to shreds.

[No.23]

13. Then you taking about a leftist who works outside the Dem Party.

Probably because he or she doesn't think that the Dem Party is reformable.

I can understand that. I'm of the same mind.

But I'd like to hear from those leftists who think that it is.

[sandnsea]

26. I don't think Greens are "leftists"

in the classic radical sense. I know plenty of Greens and others who are left of the Dem Party, but they most certainly are not "leftists".

[No.23]

43. But they are far more left than the DP is.

And why I wonder why leftists are in the DP in the first place.

[Laelth]

28. You make a good point.

But cut us a little slack. We have not had any real legislative power since the 1960's ... seriously. It's possible that we have forgotten how to be a positive party. We have been fighting Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and occasionally, with good reason, Clinton for the last 28 years. I agree with you, though, that we need to re-learn how to be positive.

:dem:

-Laelth

[sandnsea]

79. I'm talking about the left, not Democrats

They weren't going to support about half of what any Dem President did. I don't know why they can't figure out that they've got to rally people to their cause and that attacking Democrats only alienates people who might join on various issues. I went to a single payer meeting the other night and they just had to toss in the gratuitous Obama bashing.

[Laelth]

83. I hear you, and I would be uncomfortable around the Obama bashing.

But the comments I made apply to the left as well as to the Democratic Party as a whole. The left has been alienated and marginalized for so long, perhaps all we know how to do now is fight, oppose, and attack. It has been a long time since the left has been charged with actually advancing liberal legislation.

I still agree with your basic premise. We need to re-learn how to do it. On the other hand, Obama may show us the way. The stimulus bill was the most liberal piece of legislation passed by Congress since the 1960s, and Obama got that done very quickly.

:dem:

-Laelth

[sandnsea]

87. Ah, well, I see that point

Yes, that would be true that the left is even more marginalized than Dems have been. It would certainly be frustrating to be continuously right and consistently ignored. They are probably closer to right on single payer, even thought I think it might need a few tweaks, than the centrists are on subsidized health insurance.

[BeFree]

15. Of course it's reformable

But it will take another generation or two to become vastly different. Or, Obama does it in eight... it could happen. Big things happen in big ways and Obama, he be big.

Even Bush helped to reform the party a bit. He unified it. He was the "unifier" remember?

Basically as the old fogies fade away - and short of an Obama miracle - the party will reform around the back-to-basics idea of working for the people, especially since most all our racists have gotten over the fact Dems delivered civil rights for blacks. Come to think of it, CR was a reforming action.

[No.23]

19. Thanks for your candid response.

Maybe it will make others feel more comfortable to reveal the same position.

[BeFree]

33. Removed joke in head on edit

Really, the progressive vs leftist split is an enema. No, make that enigma.
But enema works, too.

I don't have a clue, except that some lefties (me too sometimes) get caught up in the "my way or the highway" routine, whilst progressives are a bit (a lot?) more laid back. Like me, sometimes. We face the fact that the river flow is mightier than the single pisser.

Progressives, imo, are more of a go along to get along bunch. Leftists have a problem with that, gawd bless 'em.

[No.23]

44. Here. Here's a 10 spot.

Keep 5 for yourself, and give the other 5 to someone who needs it.

Just pass it forward. K?

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. So we start with the assumption that the Democratic Party NEEDS reforming?

[No.23]

24. That assumption is only credible...

if it's premised on another assumption, however.

The assumption that significant socio-economic change can only come through one of the two parties.

[patrice]

22. Only if enough people want it to change, so yes it could be reformable, but since it is the People

who must create party reform and the People are motivated by Issues, Issues should take precedence over Party. Only when enough people see a way possible to do something about an Issue that affects them, will there be enough People involved to reform the party that will serve the Issue. Until then, the party will continue to be the social club that it is for those who orbit policy makers who support acceptable issues only. So, the status-quo Democratic Party is not reformable, largely because not enough people are involved and people aren't involved because they don't see the party serving their issues.

[LuvNewcastle]

27. What do you mean by reform?

Will the Dems ever enforce an orthodoxy that everyone must agree to? I would have to answer no to that. The only way the party will change significantly is if one of its branches breaks away.

[No.23]

36. I agree with you when you say...

"The only way the party will change significantly is if one of its branches breaks away."

Which is why I also believe that leftists are pissing in the wind by trying to reform the DP to become more left-leaning.

But I'm always curious about what motivates certain folks' actions.

And in this particular case, leftists in the DP.

[roody]

30. I am registered Green but not active in any party.

I am active on issues. I agree that anything is possible, and I expect a major change in human consciousness (it is happening as we read and write) to take us all by surprise.

[No.23]

39. I'm glad that you identified yourself as a Green.

It's very pertinent to this discussion.

My idea of a leftist platform is the Green Platform:

http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/

I wonder if the leftists in the DP would agree.

And, if they do, do they believe that the DP can, one day, have the same platform that the Greens do?

That's a really far stretch of hope and change, you know.

A really far stretch.

[imdjh]

68. You can count me out.

I just read part of the Green Party Platform you linked to, and in those few paragraphs I got the sense that it's not something a person would expect to see come about, or that could come aout under the US Constitution.

I don't mean to be insulting, it's just as I see it unworkable. I also couldn't support it even if a magic snap of the fingers would make it constitutional. Some of it is racist and paternal.

If you want to take a national park and open it up to communal and collective nonownership to anyone who wants to go live there and be a nomad or a hunter gather or subsitance farmer, that's one thing. It's almost like collective homesteading without designation plots and this country has a history of communal experiments. But when you start defining who can live there by race, then you get into a big old mess.

Some of the demands are exceedingly broad and would put a real dent in science, especially archaeology. We've already had a bad apple out of that barrel. When politics trumps scientific investigation, we'll cease to be the advanced society we might aspire to be.

I'm actually surprised at that platform. I wouldn't describe what I saw as liberal.

[corruptmewithpower]

32. It depends on what you mean by leftist.

If it's those aligned with the mass murderers like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Guevara . . . I do not wish to be associated with them.

If you are referring to people who have a social conscience and wish to use democracy in the excercise there of, count me in.

[No.23]

41. OK, I'll be happy to be a little more tangible here.

Would you consider this to be a leftist platform?

http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/

Amd, if you do, do you also think that the day can come when the DP will have a similar platform?

[corruptmewithpower]

50. I see it as a reasonable platform.

And if I were republican, I would be crazy enough to see the Libertarians as reasonable.

Both of these fringe opposites have appeal vs. the big corrupt machines.

Yes we do need reform.

[scarletwoman]

52. It's a nice platform, but they'll never be in a position to enact it.

And the reason they'll never be in a position to enact it is the same reason the Democratic party won't enact those things. Until the demand comes from the people, from the bottom up, the political system can ignore all those things.

That's why activists need to work outside of party politics to organize the people and build up pressure from the population at large that FORCES the politicians to move left.

The Green party is putting the cart before the horse, concentrating on the supply side instead of the demand side. If they want to be a viable party, they've got to organize and build up demand for their platform, not just pop out candidates here and there.

sw

[scarletwoman]

37. I don't necessarily believe that the Democratic party is reformable, but in the realm of electoral

politics, they're the only vehicle currently available for bringing up quasi-liberal issues in our government. Unless this country either adopts runoff voting or a parliamentary system of government, we are stuck with a two-party system.

It's possible for a party to die altogether -- that's happened in the past -- and a new party rise up to replace it. Or for a strong third party to merge with a weakened mainstream party, as happened with the Minnesota Farmer-Labor party and the Minnesota Democratic party.

Since the Democratic party is the closest I can come to at least some of my political priorities, I've voted strictly Democrat all my life. But I mostly vote for Democrats to stave off the much more horrible Republicans.

The only "reform" that would really count would be the reform of the entire campaign financing system. "Our" politicians are owned and controlled by big money and big money's agendas. So their utility for enacting progressive programs is extremely limited.

As a leftist, I am always urging people to look beyond electoral politics. Working within the system isn't really all that useful. If the system is to change, the pressure for that change has to come from outside it. The Civil Rights movement didn't start with politicians, only when after it grew into a mass SOCIAL movement did the politicians have to finally accomodate it.

We need to worry a lot less about party politics and elections, and put our energy into building a movement on the ground outside of electoral politics. As Frederick Douglass pointed out, power yields nothing without a struggle.

sw

[Laelth]

64. Very interesting, and it rings true. Thanks. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[scarletwoman]

70. Thank YOU! I appreciate that you took the time to read it. I've been reading your own posts above,

in your back and forth with the OP. I hadn't thought about the possibility of the total demise of the Republican party, but that definitely would be a blessing. Absent that lovely event, we ARE kind of stuck in a holding action, just to keep them at bay.

I've been so disgusted with the Dems for so long that election after election I go through a battle with myself about whether to even vote at all. You know, what good does it do to elect Dems when they don't work for our interests anyway? But I always end up voting, because even relatively useless placeholders are still better than the out and out fascists and theocrats.

I also have come to see it as a sort of "render unto Ceasar" thing. As long as you're clear that the realm of electoral politics isn't going to get you to leftist heaven, you can look at voting as strictly a mitigating activity without feeling too frustrated.

sw

[Laelth]

71. My pleasure, and I admire your strategy for dealing with the frustration.

The Democratic Party has been and remains disappointing.

Though I'd like to take credit, the theory on the death of the Republican Party is from an essay by David Michael Green. If you haven't read it, I'd recommend doing so, here: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/24

:toast:

-Laelth

[scarletwoman]

72. Thanks for the link. I'll definitely read it -- for now I have to get to bed.

Gotta get up early to do my part as a wage slave, you see. :P

:toast: back atcha

sw

[No.23]

73. I have to admit, I am a little surprised.

I never knew that there were leftists in the DP who were waiting for the RP to die to see any hope for change.

And that many of them were supporting Democrats for the purpose of mitigating their frustration.

Some frustration is acceptable, but too much is not.

So you accept a certain level of frustration by voting Dem, so as not to be too frustrated with a Repub in office.

I didn't know that such sentiments existed in DP leftists.

Thanks for revealing that to me.

I wonder if the DP knows about some of their supporters' willingness to be reasonably frustrated wit them too.

And I wonder if they're more than wiling to give them reason to be reasonably frustrated.

Who is empowering whom here?

[Laelth]

74. I'm a little surprised that you're surprised.

Voting for a third party candidate is the surest way to elect a Republican. Most people who vote for Democrats, I think, do so to keep Republicans out of office. For all I know, people who vote for Republicans do so to keep Democrats out of office.

:dem:

-Laelth

[No.23]

75. In his pithy comment of yours, you have managed to reveal:

a) your Party's favorite electoral meme; and,

b) your admission of the chief reason why some people vote for their Party.

It's not because of their Party's principles.

It's to keep the other Party out.

What a sad state of affairs this seems to be to me.

What a sad state of affairs indeed.

[Laelth]

80. LOL.

Principles are at the core of my voting behavior. I loathe the Republican Party's principles (further enrich the rich at the expense of the poor, destroy the environment, squash organized labor, etc.) so much that I am willing to vote for Democrats to keep those Republicans out of office. There's nothing unprincipled about that.

It may be a sad state of affairs, but it is what it is. I prefer to be pragmatic and realistic about it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[primavera]

113. That's why I wish we had a true multi-party system

It seems like voter identification with their parties is always going to be marginal when voters can only choose between two parties, neither of which do they care for very much. And how could it be otherwise? The "big tent" of the Dems has to encompass the social democratic contingent as well as the labor contingent as well as the green contingent as well as the libertarian contingent and so on and so on. That's gotta be one bloody huge tent to enclose such diverse groups. Consequently, the definition of a "Democrat" gets watered down to the point of being meaningless; little more than a less conservative alternative to the Republicans.

Admittedly, in a multiparty system, parties would be smaller and would have to form coalitions in order to get anything accomplished, so there would still be compromises in Congress, but at least voters could know that hey had voted for candidate X because they supported such and such, and they could at least expect candidate X to do his/her best to further that cause. As it stands now, what has a Dem voted for when they cast their ballot for a Dem candidate?

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Sure.

At some point (unless we go totally fascist), We The People will wake up and realize we're being sodomized economically. At that point, folks we start voting Left. Either the Dems will start leaning to the left - or folks will vote for another party, one that is not right wing.

[backscatter712]

53. If the Democratic Party wasn't reformable, I wouldn't be a Democrat.

I explicitly joined to push it towards more reform, and because I felt I would have more success working from the inside than joining the Greens and screaming from outside the gates.

Of course, nobody said reform would be easy, even from the inside...

[blonndee]

56. good answer. n/t

[PassingFair]

62. I would never call my self a leftist.

I identify as a Progressive.

From my POV, working from INSIDE
the party, to disgorge any representatives
who are not working in the best interests
of the people of the United States collectively,
is the only feasible way to get results.

If Obama proves to be a one-term president
because he was unable to bring about the
"change" promised in his campaign, then perhaps
the time would come to form a third party.

Right now, it would only cause Republicons
to be able to drive down the middle.

[Oregone]

67. No

[HughMoran]

76. Why post on a Democratic site if the Party is not reformable?

I'm puzzled by your response.

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. It's a democratic site, not a Democratic site

as far as I'm concerned.

[HughMoran]

81. Not exactly

I'm not going to split hairs with you on this, but it is a Democratic site.

[alcibiades_mystery]

82. Nope

[HughMoran]

85. Well, I will split hairs then...

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

[alcibiades_mystery]

86. And?

"Democrats and other progressives..."

Believe me, most small d democrats understand that at this particular juncture, under this particular set of conditions, supporting Democratic candidates is the only real option. If, however, conditions change, I'll be the first to walk away from that. :-) And the party apparatchiks will be the enemy, as always. By the way, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Democratic Party. And never will be.

:hi:

[HughMoran]

88. Well, bully for you?

I really don't care how cool and independent you are - I'm not registered as a Democrat either, though I haven't voted for anything but Democrats since I mistakenly voted for that fucking ass fuck cock sucking moron Regone in 1980. :shrug:

:hi:

[LWolf]

111. I'll split some more:

The site is definitely partisan, when it comes to elections. Otherwise:

"Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole."

[scarletwoman]

84. Maybe you should visit the FAQ page.

About Democratic Underground, LLC

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

(bolding & underlining added by me)

[JackRiddler]

92. It is not a Democratic site. It is a site for Democrats and other progressives.

Exactly as you quote.

[Oregone]

89. What is puzzling about "No"?

They are the best and only viable alternative that this type of political system allows. If the political system was altered, you would see a flood of people abandon an unredeemable party. I support progressive ideas, as well as many candidates from the party of the Lesser of Two Evils (hence, I fit the basic criteria of posters here).

[HughMoran]

90. If...

I've fought the past 25 years since Regone was re-elected to get Dems back in power. I'm not ready to jump ship 70 days after finally accomplishing that goal, though I'd be happy if there was a real left movement in this country. At this point the Dems barely treading water IMO and I'm not sure how all the anger at the Dems, thus allowing an opening for the Republicans helps. Now, show me a better alternative than the Democratic party for a progressive who would actually prefer a socialist system and I'll jump all over it like nobody's business.

[Oregone]

91. Well, thats just the thing...there is no alternative right now

The system doesn't allow it (its first past the post, with no hint of proportional representation). And while I understand that you are strong in your continued support, due to the desparate nature of the last few decades, that doesn't mean there is no room for dissent. Ask yourself, without dissent, do you honestly believe the New Deal would of ever came to fruition? Do you believe it was FDRs brainchild alone?

If anything, now, today, is the time that real progressives need to stand up and dissent, to influence the Democratic party to move back to the left. If they remain silent now, then the Democratic Party will remain the party of the DLC, and continue their rightward drift as soon as they become again the opposition party.

There are no alternative parties now, but there are alternative policies and ideas we can recommend. For example, a quick alternative to the Geithner plan that is more progressive is the Bush/Paulson plan. Yes, it still sucks, but not as bad. :) But there are better plans than the two, alone. We cannot let this policy go unquestioned simply because it is coming from a Democratic administration. Read and evaluate it at face value, forgetting firstly who came up with the plan to eliminate bias.

[No.23]

93. The funny thing about this notion of a viable/electable alternative is...

while we wait for others to board that ship so that it can look viable/electable to us...

others are waiting for us to board it first, so that it can look viable/electable to them.

Alternatives doe not appear viable/electable... because too many people are waiting for too many other people to board the ship first before they do.

To anyone who says that they don't see a viable/electable alternative and would like to see one, I ask... "so what are you doing to create one?"

[Oregone]

94. No no, thats not right. They just aren't viable do to our government system

Of course no one is going to jump on board of another party, because being just a few % behind will enable their direct opposition to gain power. Yes, 95% of Democrats can join the Green Party, but in doing so, it would ensure Republicans would win. Its just the nature of this system than only two parties can survive (first past the post).

People respond accordingly to these conditions, because, well, they aren't stupid. By boarding another ship first, theirs and their friend's will go down.

[No.23]

95. If we keep basing our decisions on short term consequences, we will never be able to...

make those decisions that are longer term driven.

It's a major difference between the western mind and the eastern one.

The western mind looks to shorter term gains ahead of longer term ones (and our childrens' future pays a heavy price for it).

Whereas the eastern one takes steps that brings the pathwalker closer and closer to a long term goal.

If you will always be judging your political choices by who will win the next election, you will forever be satisfying your immediate needs at the price of your longer term ones.

To build a viable alternative, therefore, requires starting construction of that ship now.

Not when there's no longer a Republican Party, for instance, as some folks here have admitted that they're waiting for.

[Oregone]

96. But what you miss is...

There will never be a viable alternative, nor will there never be an end to the Republican party. Its not in the cards. You can construct all you want, but its not going to happen. I say either accept that and influence the party you hate the least, or just get out of the game completely (and maybe work for real local change or organizations you believe in). Personally, I don't think the political landscape is changing any time soon.

[No.23]

98. And I say that you don't see a viable alternative because...

you're not doing anything to create one.

Differing points of view generally issue from different viewing points, I try to remind myself.

Perhaps our different viewing points are contributing to our differing points of view.

[Oregone]

101. It can't be created

Unless you think we should rework our constitution anytime soon, or unless you advocate a complete revolution.

[No.23]

102. I'm advocating, first and foremost, that the electoral process be...

significantly rehabed through significant electoral process reform.

More viable alternatives = more voices.

And more voices = more choices.

Which, BTW, was also a key component of Ralph's and Matt's platform.

[No.23]

97. And actually, I think that you mean our electoral process, not our government system.

It's our electoral process that takes away a level playing field for nonduopoly candidates. And most of those processes/procedures have been enacted into law by legislative action.

You will never get either party to voluntarily enact significant electoral reform too. It will spell the beginning of the end of their two-party rule.

No, they have to be forced or compelled to do that, if we are to see major electoral reform in our lifetime.

The question is, how do you accomplish that?

I have an idea. But I'd like to hear yours, if you have one, first.

[Oregone]

99. I mean both

The US is not parliamentary (where small parties can make a large difference in terms of forming government). A lone wolf in the Congress will be eaten by the sheep, or hung out to dry (they essentially have to integrate and are only powerful if the power of balance is about equal and they can get leverage over who they caucus with). They also have a president, which makes the system pretty much binary, as no vote is allowed to be "wasted" regarding such a high office. Because of those, no amount of electoral reform will change the basic make up. And also since I think the two party system is a source for many of the faults in the US, it basically makes me withhold hope that the US will significantly improve its policies without extraordinary circumstances.

[No.23]

100. The two-party system CAN be compelled to change the electoral lay of the land.

They certainly won't do it of their own accord.

But there is a way to make them initiate legislative action that levels the electoral playing field for third party and independent candidates.

But it will take a form of action that many Democratic supporters are unaccustomed to.

And that's the challenge.

[voc]

106. Proud to be on the Left

Short Answer, No.

Given that this country has gone right of center for so long, we have become more conservatve.

Also, it is increasingly clear that the Democratic Party of old as well as the Republican Party have morphed
into the neocons and neo libs, neither of which share the agenda of the true left.
What use to pass as two parties is in effect one party .

[Djinn]

110. 70 days after finally achieving that goal

So Clinton was a great big 'economic rationalist' corporate whore or you just forgot about his 8 years?

Know which way I lean but it doesn't seem to be your take.

[HughMoran]

117. Bill Clinton was somewhat of an anomaly

He was a southern boy who appealed to many of the center-leaning Republicans and he "split the difference" more than he would have had to if the Dems had clear majorities in the House and Senate - which he lost badly after just 2 years. Since many like to call Clinton "the best Republican President we ever had" (which I don't agree with), one could argue that it was not a time of real strength for the Democratic Party. I don't like to use the terms you used to describe Clinton and will not discuss this with you further if you insist on using harsh characterizations (as Krugman and many on DU insist on doing) to rip those whom you disagree with now or then.

[Djinn]

119. I don't disagree with Clinton "now and then"

more like 95% of the time, as to whether you want to discuss anything with me - can't say I care, I'm just time wasting through the sleeplessness.

If you really find "corporate whore" to be beyond the pale I suggest never leaving the US - the union movement here would break your delicate sensibilities in a heart beat. Even when I worked for a "professional white collar" union that would have been considered at worst a mild insult :eyes:

[HughMoran]

121. Hey, be oblivious to others feelings, I really don't care

If you're so insensitive to the feelings of others who happen to support Dems on a Dem site, then I stand by my previous statement.

I'm not that sensitive myself, but I see no reason to have discussions with ass holes who could care less about the Democratic Party.

[alcibiades_mystery]

77. I'm a leftist, and no

it's not reformable.

It is, however, the better of two possibilities for the moment.

:-)

The poster above is correct: the problem is PARTY as such.

[LooseWilly]

104. Your terms are offensive, but I'm not surprised..

As a "leftist"... I guess, for a short period here, my opinion is being catalogued, on the off chance that it may be of use.

Firstly... Fuck you. Fuck You All.

Secondly...we don't believe in McCarthyism... so when you post links of people to hate... we tend to like them... just FYI.

Ohh yeah, and did I mention Fuck You?

And is the Democratic Party Reformable?... Gore's wife killed liberal punk rock band's in the name of soccer moms or some shit...not fucking likely

[imdjh]

108. "killed" is such a strong word, "hastened the inevitable and merciful demise of" is better n/t

[Pastiche423]

105. As a liberal leftist who left the Democratic Party in 2004

the only way I could see them reform, is for them to kick out the DLC and Blue Dogs. When I joined the Democratic Party 1972, it trumpeted farmers, laborers, labor unions (Look for the Union label), and minorities. It has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes.

That fit my ideologies.

Sadly today, the majority of Dems, especially the DLCers, are corporatists, hawks and anti-union. They vote in Congress for what they want, not what their constituents want.

That does not fit my ideologies.

Since Obama has appointed DLCers to the most important positions, my answer is - NO.

[liberalsince1968]

107. Exactly. As long as there's a "Moderate Dems Working Group" to make it easier for the REPUGS to get

their way, there is no Dem party anymore.

I don't consider myself a Democrat anymore. Just a liberal.

[Djinn]

109. No I don't

at least not without a massive reformation of the entire electoral system - that much money is always gonna have a corrupting influence, but then I've never claimed to be that fond of the Democratic Party. It's OK though (to those lining me up for a concerted tombstone campaign) I'm not an American.

Then again I'm not sure I'd call myself a leftist if I were - given that "centre" in the US is what most outside of it would call solidly right wing I'm sure I'd be viewed as certifiably insane on an American political scale.

After reading some of the responses here (and WOOHOO finally a thread that seems to mostly avoid the yay obama/boo obama dullsville) I thought I'd just mention that it's gonna take more than campaign finance reform or proportional/preferential voting (can never remember which one of those Americans call run off but no matter)

In Australia we have public funding - anyone that gets a certain % of the vote (single figures) gets reimbursed for costs, meaning smaller parties can build up quite considerably over a couple of elections cycles. Unfortunately there's no limit to spending - meaning the major parties can still massively outspend the minors.

You need a maximum cap on election spending - how on EARTH can HUNDREDS of millions of dollars possibly justified simply in order to inform.

You also need a federal, independent body to oversee elections, I was floored when, a long time ago in a more innocent time, I found out that you didn't.

Preferential (and compulsory) voting means that at the very least you don't get anyone elected by 30% of the electorate (yay Reagan - the great uniter???)

However DESPITE all this Australia (and the UK where I also have citizenship) still has essentially two almost identical parties who are in thrall to the very richest of society.

I'm not sure that if the ALP and UK Labor have been so thoroughly hijacked that there's any hope for America's system...but you're a creative people, I fervently hope (despite my no gods no masters personal preference) you prove me wrong.

[No.23]

115. But at least electoral reform will bring more diverse voices...

to the attention of the American public.

Or, as Ralph often said, more voices = more choices.

Currently, the only voices that the American electorate is permitted to hear are those of the two parties.

At the very least, electoral reform will bring more audible and diverse voices to the electoral table.

P.S. Re. "WOOHOO finally a thread that seems to mostly avoid the yay obama/boo obama dullsville", that was my intent.

P.P.S. I love Australia. 'Cause you're much nearer to New Zealand then the States are. :)

[Djinn]

120. agree

certainly couldn't make things worse.

Preferential voting will (hopefully) pull our crappy corporatist "Labor" party back towards the left, if they keep hemorrhaging votes to the Greens they'll have to either come back to labor values or go the whole hog and merge with the Coalition and leave the Greens as the progressive party.

As a membership officer it's amazing to talk to newbies and find out why they joined the Greens, I live in the strongest ALP seat in the country and it's a born union kind of place, probably 3 quarters of new members here aren't really Greens, they've just given up on the hope that ALP will EVER remember what the L stands for.

I sometimes think we should run a smart arsed campaign to force them to change their name, under the Trades Practices Act for false advertising!

[LWolf]

112. I call my self a leftist

because I feel that the terms "liberal" and "progressive" are subjective and open to manipulation.

The U.S. propaganda machine describes anyone to the left of fascism as "liberal." That covers a damned lot of ground. The DLC's think tank is the "Progressive Policy Institute," and the term "progressive" can mean "less politically loaded term for liberal," or "dlc corporatist."

So, for the sake of clarity, I call myself a "leftist." And, indeed, I'm quite a bit further to the left than the mainstream Democratic Party.

As I believe I pointed out in that other discussion.

Your question: "Is the Democratic Party reformable?"

Of course. Everything evolves, including political parties. Political parties reform themselves in the perpetual battle for power. The Democratic Party has been in the process of reform during my lifetime, reshaping itself as centrist/corporatist.

That's not the kind of reform you are asking about, though. Can the Democratic Party reform itself to realign with the nation's left?

Not as long as corporatism is at the head of the two major parties.

Cut off that head, and both parties will reform themselves.

So my answer is yes, it's possible, but not probable.

[No.23]

114. Nicely and succinctly put.

"That's not the kind of reform you are asking about, though. Can the Democratic Party reform itself to realign with the nation's left?"

Exactly. Which is why I made sure that I directed my question to "self-described leftists"


"Not as long as corporatism is at the head of the two major parties.'

Spot on. Again.


"Cut off that head, and both parties will reform themselves."

I can see your point here. I've long suspected that the two parties will be forced to drastically change themselves, once you have publicly financed national elections. The umbilical cord to corporate campaign funding needs to be cut, to see if that will be the case.


"So my answer is yes, it's possible, but not probable.'

Under the conditions that you describe, I can see your point. So why aren't there more people pushing for publicly financed electoral reform then? Particularly those folks who are interested in reforming the DP.

[LWolf]

118. I can't speak for anyone else,

but my observations seem to point to at least a couple of things:

1. Media-addicted people buy the propaganda put out by their own side, while rejecting that from the other side.

2. Fear. Fear that anything that fundamentally shakes up and changes the entrenched, corrupt system will cause them to "lose," as if staying stuck isn't a bigger loss.

There ARE Democrats who actually support publicly funded elections; at least there is one that I know of for sure, lol.

People like Kucinich offer some hope and keep some of us willing to work within the party for change.

[No.23]

122. I'm glad that you said what you said about Dennis.

He is one of a few Democrats (and I can count 'em all on one hand) that I have some respect for.

He's a lot more radical than his followers know him to be, though. His favorable comments about Ron Paul during the primaries, for instance, blew some of his supporters' minds.

I like Dennis for what he is. Not what some of his supporters need him to be.

Regrettably, he may be a Superman underneath a Clark Kent attire. An attire that he dons because of his Democratic Party affiliation.

[LWolf]

124. I've often wondered,

and debated with others, whether that affiliation is helpful or harmful, in the long run.

I can argue both sides of that one, and have. There aren't any easy answers.

I might be able to use more than one hand, but they won't take up two, and none of them are in, or well-connected to, the current administration.

[blindpig]

116. What is 'Left"?

Left is opposition to capitalism. Left is communists, socialists, anarchists. Left is not 'Naderites, Green Party or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has no intention of ending Capitalism, it is useless and obstructive from a 'left' pov. I do not believe it to be reformable. I think that pretty much true for your 'democratic socialist' too, reformism and gradualism are capitulation.

[Juche]

123. Yes. Political parties change all the time

The GOP was once the party of standing up for minorities, and look at them now. The democratic party was once home to the KKK, now they associated with the extremes of the republican party.

The movement conservative republicans took decades to get into power, but they got there and replaced the libertarian republicans.

It is possible to get progressive politicians, but I think one of the big ways to do that is public financing of elections, getting younger politicians and a strong union movement. If you get public financing, then corporations lose their power to buy/sell politicians.

I think older politicians (50+) are still living in the past and terrified of Ronald Reagan and the 1994 republicans. They don't realize that now that the public has seen the level of damage the republicans are willing to do to america, they probably aren't voting them back in anytime soon.

A good union movement will support and fund progressive agendas.

So yeah, its reformable but it'll take a couple of decades.