Has the Democratic Party been co-opted?

[dgibby]

We have, over the years, watched the Republican Party self-destruct from within as a result of being infiltrated by a determined, covert group of far right wing fundies. Is the same thing happening to the Democrats?

The DLC, DINO'S, and Blue Dogs seem to be moving the party more and more to the right. I, for one, can no longer distinguish these groups from Republicans. They vote the same, take funding from the same groups,some of them even belong to the same covert religious cult (The Family).

If the Dems are being co-opted (as I believe),and these groups are successful, then what is our alternative as progressives? Do we stay in the party and fight, do we move to a third party, or do we start a new party?

[Nederland]

1. Really

They vote the same?

Do you think that they will vote the same on say, the upcoming health care legislation? How about the Sotomayor confirmation? Do you have some examples of recent (significant) legislation where they voted the same? I'm curious...

[blindpig]

3. No, just coming out of the closet.

Apparently they feel that they cannot or do not need to keep up the pretense of being 'the people's party'. It's all the Money Party now.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. Just the fact that any upcoming health legislation will be less than a Single Payer system

with a supposed solid Democratic majority in both houses, is proof enough of fake "Democrats" who vote with Repukes.

[dgibby]

9. Yes.

If health care is the biggest drain on the economy, and if the economy is circling the drain, then single payer is a no brainer.

[Nederland]

65. Don't avoid the question

In your OP you claimed that Republicans and Democrats vote the same. If this is true, can I expect to see all the Republicans in the House and Senate vote for the Obama plan?

[dgibby]

6. Well, according to Congress members, both in the House and Senate,

the Blue Dogs are the reason health care reform is deadlocked, so yes, I think they will vote with the republicans unless the Dem leadership can bring them around.

[natrat]

23. yea dude everything is perfect and the dems stand for the people, i could provide an example of this

lmao

[maryf]

33. the upcoming health care legislation?

both parties may well vote for the same interests, insurance company profits, just how they vote will be the difference...unless we get single payer, the result will be the same...same with the military, the majority of both parties continually vote to fund hugely...

[Orsino]

71. They agree to similar framing so they can appear to vote differently.

Both parties agree that Big Insurance must be propped up, and that few, if any, of us should get single-payer.

[ananda]

2. It's so sad.

Corporations and lobbyists have taken over.

We are essentially a one party system.

The solution: people strike till it hurts
and force a change in campaign funding laws
and the outlawing of lobbying.

[dgibby]

12. I still think the only way to get "real" health care reform

is for health care professionals to go on strike, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

[clear eye]

43. How about all of us going on strike?

Even a 30% successful general strike would shake things up much more than any large march. They also can't turn nasty "crowd control" weapons on you that way. Why this old European tactic is not being examined by the advocate orgs. just boggles me.

[dgibby]

46. Bingo!

Of course, that won't work for me since I'm retired.:evilgrin:

[sarcasmo]

74. Bingo, the Lobbyist for the Corporation who controls your politician decides which way he/she votes

[ejpoeta]

5. sorry to say, but it seems the republicans and the dems aren't much different.

they both will vote for whatever their sponsors, the monied interests, tell them to so that they can get re-elected. that's all that matters... not what they supposedly believe, not what's good for the country... only what will get them re-elected. and then after they are done with congress, they can go work for the monied interests on top of it all. there may be a few good ones out there, but there aren't enough to do any good, it seems.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. Yes.

[FarCenter]

8. I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

Quote from Will Rogers.

[tblue37]

10. For the most part, yes. nt

[justiceischeap]

11. (fun) Tinfoil hat time

Let's suppose this for a moment. Let's say there was a republican underground movement in the 80s that weeded out more moderate republicans and suggest they sign-up as members of the Democratic party. Then as they go along, they (the pukes) can pull from this pool of covert repukes and get votes when needed.

It's not a far-fetched idea and would be a great underhanded strategy.

[jannyk]

15. I've been thinking the same thoughts for a few weeks now...

why are these people 'Democrats'? What is it about the Democratic platform and policies they believe in? They are anti-social spending, anti-taxes, anti corporate curtailment, anti-choice and usually pro-military/defense. Moderate my arse, they're anything but moderate.

Shit, I've just described a Republican - so why do they claim to be Democrats? And if they are the new face of the party - I'm out of there!

[dgibby]

21. I think they ARE republicans.

That's what I'm talking about when I say I think the party has been co-opted.

[dgibby]

28. I don't think it's far-fetched at all.

I just think it's the fundies as opposed to real republicans that are doing it, you know, the "Family" and other zealots who want to establish a Theocracy.

[omega minimo]

13. Our alternative was to vote for Barack Obama, knowing he was largely status quo with potential

to meet his rhetoric.

Some here have advocated giving him more time -- when he puts the scoundrels responsible for the fiscal meltdown in charge of what they ruined, how much more time is there?

That said, now would be the time to try to organize some pressure and support those in Congress who actually care about The People's business.

Henry Waxman is standing up to Blue Dogs and Repugs trying to drown health care in committee. Please find the threads in GD and GD: P and vote them up.

They were coopted before the election, have been for some time. Now let's see what we can do with this young administration.

[jannyk]

16. Yes, we knew he was 'status quo' but millions bought the platform of 'Change'

and expected to get it.

[omega minimo]

17. and now we gotta be the change

:thumbsup:

[dgibby]

19. I've already read and recommend those threads.

In fact, that's part of the reason I posted this. There's a certain element in the Dem party that has no difficulty funding wars, but they balk when it comes to health care and social programs. I smell a rat!

[omega minimo]

20. There's an update in GD: P. They're back at work in the committee after a blowout.

[marybourg]

14. We do what progressives have always done:

we form a circle and start firing.

[dgibby]

18. That wouldn't be so bad if we were facing outward.

Unfortunately, we seem to be directionally challenged!

[dgibby]

22. Thanks for all your replies.

I'm trying to respond to your posts, but am having problems either with DU or my computer, so please don't think I'm ignoring you. I'm really interested in what everyone thinks about this subject.

[Juche]

24. No, I don't think it has

The blue dogs only make up about 52 members of the house, but the progressive caucus has about 80 members. The progressive, black, hispanic & asian caucus all called for a public option, so that is over 100 democratic members alone. There are far more dems unwilling to vote for a bill w/o a public option than blue dogs unwilling to vote for a bill with one.

I would say Obama is somewhat progressive. I think most of the holdup is in the senate more than anything.

Anyway, the dems have only controlled the congress and executive for 6 months and they have already called for trillions in tax hikes on the wealthy and on corporations (eliminating tax deductions, reversing Bush's tax cuts, paying for healthcare with a progressive 5% tax, etc) as well as ending subsidies to them (agricultural, health insurance). I don't have an exact quote onhand, but in between ending the Bush tax cuts, changing tax deductions for the wealthy, a 5% tax on the rich for healthcare, ending subsidies that are wasteful that go to powerful companies, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama and the dems are calling for 3.5+ trillion in tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy over the next decade. Fine by me. Either way, the GOP would call for 3 trillion in tax cuts for them.

They are also pushing (not hard enough IMO) for energy independence and health reform. So the trillions in progressive tax changes and universal healthcare show to me they haven't been totally coopeted. They have been somewhat coopted though.

There is a difference betwee blue dog and the republicans they replaced though. If someone like Kucinich is a 95% progressive, a blue dog might be 55%, but the republican they replace would probably be 10% progressive. Its still a step up, and I think even with the smaller majority and all the blue dogs in the caucus, the 110th congress which only had about 236 dem members still got EFCA passed in the house.

It does suck that almost everyone who isn't a fanatic, plutocrat or ignoramus has joined the democratic party in some ways, because now there is a diversity of opinion that makes it hard to get things done.

[dgibby]

26. Good points.

Maybe a better question would be "Is it being co-opted"?

The disaster that is the Republican party today didn't happen overnight. It took years for the fundies to inflitrate and control the repubs, but they did it. Why wouldn't they do the same with the Dems?

If their goal is to replace a democracy with a theocracy, then it would make sense that they would have to control both parties, wouldn't it?

:shrug:

[Juche]

31. I don't think that is feasable

The country is too diverse to put up with a popularly elected theocracy, especially considering that we become more and more secular with each passing year.

However politicians and the media are to the right of the public if you look at polling data. So there is an attempt to coopt things.

[bvar22]

29. "Calling For" and actually "Doing" are two very different things.

Just saying.

[dgibby]

32. Bingo! n/t

[Flaneur]

25. Only since about 1968.

[Enrique]

27. no, I think it's moving to the left

The DLC was very big under Clinton, everyone used to proudly declare themselves "New Dems". Now they don't talk so loud, they don't seem so proud.

[dgibby]

30. I sure do hope you're right.

NOthing would make me happier, but I have my doubts. Guess I'm just too cynical in my old age.

[Lorien]

37. Curious. How old are you?

[dgibby]

47. 63

I was a newborn when Truman was trying to get health care reform. Yikes!

[Odin2005]

34. No, the Naderite wing has just always had an inflated sense of their own power.

And look back to a supposed past golden age that never existed.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Actually I look back to 64-68..

When we had the last series of effective progressive reform legislation passed, the tail end of the New Deal, LBJ's Great Society. Of course we also had LBJ's escalation of the Viet Nam War, so it is a complicated picture, but there it is, the end of the last great progressive era in this country.

Always good to hear from the republican wing of DU. Do keep in touch.

[Odin2005]

39. Vietnam was exactly the kind of point I was making.

The people like LBJ and Humphrey that were pushing the progressive legislation were getting called fascist pigs.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. No you were pretending that there was no progressive era.

When the picture is really much more complicated than either your strawman posturing of 'naderites' or your retrenched argument re vietnam. We really did have a New Deal. We really did have a long era of liberal/progressive reform that started with FDR and ended with LBJ. That era also included WWII Korea Viet Nam, the internment of Japanese Americans, the Blacklist etc. so certainly it was not, as per your strawman, some pure age, but then again your argument is made up, as are your 'naderite' opponents here.

So how do we get back to a condition where we can pass good progressive legislation, even if we are also fighting stupid wars? We've got the stupid wars part, we just seem to be missing out on the progressive legislation.

[clear eye]

44. Interesting that the time to which you refer coincides w/ the Fairness Doctrine

for the media. Maybe that's what it would take to get enough support for progressives to allow them to function--a seat at the MSM table.

[dgibby]

49. Well, to start with,

we need serious campaign reform. No more govt brought and paid for by corporations.

We need to clean up the MSM, there are only about 4 or 5 major media entities. We need diversity.

If we're going to keep funding wars ad infinitum, then we need to attach our progressive agenda items to the war funding. It's a win/win. It's the only way to get Blue Dogs and other republicans to vote for anything progressive. If they refuse to vote for war funding, then I guess we'll just have to call it a day and bring our troops back home. Either way, we win.

Then we need to break up these "too big to fail" institutions. If they're too big to fail, they're too big.

I'm sure glad Obama approved stem cell research. Maybe we can grow some spines for some of our congresscritters. That would certainly help our progressive agenda.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. We can't...

The New Deal Coalition doesn't exist anymore because enough white people decided to vote Republican based on social issues. So long as they keep deciding that, the Democrats will look for middle-upper class suburban voters rather than engaging in the far more daunting task of trying to convince a bunch of religious fundies that even though we're baby killers and homo lovers, you should be voting for us because it's in your own economic interests to do so.

When the majority of Americans unite to vote in favor of their own economic interests, you will see politicians responding. As long as a good number of them choose to vote blatantly against their own economic interests then you will not see either party trying to pass policies comparable to the New Deal or Great Society.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. We cannot get that coalition back

however, we don't really need it. It had major issues with racism anyway. The demographics are in favor of the development of a new progressive coalition. The white male suburban voter's clout has been diminishing for almost as long as Nixon started pulling them away in '68. Non-white voters are becoming the dominant voting block.

But demographics aside, the core problem, in my opinion, is the near total abject corruption of congress. I believe that the Democratic Party will start piling on victory after victory, the Republican Party ebbing to the Party of Disgruntled White Men, or more precisely, the Neo-Confederacy Party, a regional shadow of the Reagan years of rightwing triumph, the inevitable end game of the strategy of division and intolerance they set out on 40 years ago. What we saw in the late stages of last years presidential campaign, the hate filled overt bigotry of the Palinites, the southern suburbanites all riled up over one Hate Radio driven fake issue after another, that is the future of the GOP.

But we will continue to be hamstrung by the corruption. The misery we are experiencing with health care reform will continue to be the pattern. The kleptocracy is not overly concerned about party labels.

[dgibby]

55. That was an interesting time, wasn't it?

I was a senior in high school when JFK was assassinated, in nursing school 'til 68, joined the Navy in '69. What's that Chinese curse? May you live in interesting times? That was definitely it.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Does the pope shit in the woods?

[dgibby]

52. Not sure, since I'm not the religious type!

:evilgrin: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ChiciB1]

38. If You're Talking To Me... I Just Don't Have A Real Answer! One Thing I Will

say is this... RW, Fundies or whatever fringe group you talk about, THEY get their message out and somehow, someway they get their agenda passed or adopted most of the time! Think Palin and all the coverage she STILL gets even when it's said that MOST of her own party don't want or agree with her!! It's just crazy!

From where I sit, I'm at the point where I'm beginning to believe that nothing short of a REVOLUTION will get the attention of ANYONE in power these days! It truly disturbs me to no end when I see and FEEL with almost absolute certainty that my voice is not even being heard. It's almost as if my mouth has been gagged and taped over with duct tape! That's how useless I'm feeling these days!

People tell me all the time... THERE WILL NEVER BE A THIRD PARTY, then they say REVOLT doesn't work and only makes those revolting look like "anarchists" or worse! Even here at DU, sometimes saying ANYTHING that you don't agree with that Obama does, you get flamed and called a "liberal whiner!"

I'm sick to death at what I see going on in D.C. and with all those connected who contribute or have something to gain by greasing palms of those who will do their bidding!

I live in a county here in Florida, that once was No.1 in income per capita, but now may be 2nd or third, and STILL I see foreclosures and people suffering!!! Who cares anymore?? I've fought the good fight over the years, even in this very RED county and I must say they've worn me down. And dare I say that the Democrats we worked hard to elect are at the top of my list! At least I KNOW what Repukes do, but the Democratic Party is beginning to look like they read from the same hymn book!

It' such a disappointment to me. I have thought more times than I can count that I will become an Independent, but will it get me anywhere? Will anything get me anywhere?

So, I have no answers, but I do wish we could rise up and start a NEW party JUST BECAUSE!! I miss RFK, and Paul Wellstone just to name two, but my liberal leanings are with Sanders, Kucinich and Feingold how are still alive. There aren't many I think I trust anymore. I'm sure the number of liberals is higher, I'm just generalizing with the names.

I just don't know, but I KNOW I'm not at all comfortable or happy with the Democratic Party I see these days! Give them EVERY branch of government and they keep fracturing to cover their asses to get elected. Why elect them just because they have a "D" behind their name??

I've gone on much too long! Sorry...

[dgibby]

48. I hear you.

I live in SC, and I don't have any representation, either locally, at the state level, or in Congress. It's definitely frustrating.

[mkultra]

40. recent research shows the opposite

That more Americans now favor traditionally liberal ideals than ever before.
This means the center has moved left. The party in power always has to deal with its book ends.

[dgibby]

60. Most Americans favor universal health care, too,

but is anyone in Congress listening? That's what worries me. They aren't responsive to us, just whoever's throwing money at them.

[mkultra]

64. if by universal you mean single payer, than you are wrong

a majority of Americans favor SP over the current system but and overwhelming majority favor a public option of both of these. These data have already made it around DU a month ago.

[Karmadillo]

41. It would be interesting to see how a party based on the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

would do against the Oligarchy's two parties and their enabling corporate media.

[dgibby]

56. Well, I definitely think we'd do as well, if not better.

We certainly couldn't do any worse. It's not possible.

[chaska]

45. These people aren't Dems, they're properly called liberal Republicans.

[dgibby]

50. True.

Not too sure about the liberal part, though. They call themselves conservatives. That's what I mean when I say the party's being co-opted.

[conscious evolution]

51. Yes

[dgibby]

53. It would certainly appear so, at least to me. n/t

[conscious evolution]

58. Its what they do

Coopting religion,media and other institutions that control how people think and act is a time honored tradition that has happened uncountable times in the course of history.

[dgibby]

61. Sad, isn't it?

Scary, too, if you watch what's happened to the republican party. My dad was an Eisenhower Republican. I think he'd be rolling over in his grave if he saw the party today.

[kentuck]

54. There are a lot of good people left in the Party...

But the politics in Washington can corrupt the best of them, in my opinion. We cannot or should not try to start over. We should work with the Party that we have. The times require that we have Democrats with conviction and morals. They must support the people over the corporations or they are not Democrats. It doesn't matter how big the tent is. What is necessary will not be done so long as we have some in the Party that are willing to sacrifice the common good of the people for money and corporate interests. There comes a time when you have to poop or get off the pot.

[dgibby]

57. That's why we need campaign finance reform.

Right now, both parties are owned and operated by Wall Street and K Street (and now it looks like C Street is a major player, too).:scared: :grr:

[kentuck]

59. That would be an excellent start.

They are bought and paid for, it is obvious.

[galileoreloaded]

66. 1999 called and it wants its post back. Repeal of

Glass/Steagall was the pin out of the grenade. Once they figured out that there was REAL money to be made, not just free planes, hookers and blow, it was all over but the crying. They had great teachers, and later colleagues, Republicans.

The ultimate in arbitrage and counterparty risk.

[Cal33]

67. Maybe the Dems. should begin expelling all the DLCs, DINOs

and Blue Dogs, either now, or wait until Nov. 2012, when
there will hopefully be more real Democrats in Congress.

[anonymous171]

68. Yes. The rich libs (more commonly referred to as the "limousine liberals") ruined everything after

they joined up in the 60s.

[Kid Dynamite]

69. Are you sure its only the Dems

and not electoral politics that has been "co-opted"?

It seems everyone wants to say something drastic, wants to say that things are beyond the pale, but they are not willing to entertain the implications of saying such a thing. That is doubly so, because if what you (and many others) are writing is true, then the very act of writing it at DU in the form you have written it, is pointless.

If the last 40 years of liberalism are revealed to be entirely the story of LACK of progress and indeed great losses for workers and the middle class, what then? If conservativism and liberalism now appear to be two sides of the same rotten plank..what is the alternative?

Indeed part of the mantra of political liberalism is "There is no alternative". How else could anyone argue for "solutions" that are known in advance to solve nothing; how else could anyone argue for "making things better" in a way that is clearly going to make things worse?

What political "base" is going to suport the above, when it repeatedly shows itself to be bankrupt on every level (from morally, intellectually, *ahem* fiscually, substantively)

Perhaps the Democratic Party is not dying because of treachery from within but from the treachery it has wreaked without.

[datasuspect]

70. there's (for all practical purposes) only one party in this country

the corporate party.

it has a lunatic rw fringe and a moderate rw center.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

72. Repubs being pulled right by extremists, Dems being pulled right by Repub defectors

Everyone else (the majority) moving left with no one to represent them.

[bobbolink]

73. Remember the DLC?? The answer is a big YES.

And it happened many years ago.

While we were sleeping.