THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH about moderate Democrats

[NJmaverick]

There is a certain emotional pleasure that comes with bashing moderate (and even some right leaning) Democrats. Party purity (maybe an ideological purity test?) sure sounds sweet.

Sadly though one has to appreciate how Congress works. The liberals Democrats now have power. It's a power that comes with setting the agenda, deciding what bills to work on, what amendments are allowed to be considered, being a committee chairs and so on. That power comes because the Dems used the big tent principle to capture the majority. You want to see what happens when a party tosses out all their moderates? You only need to look at the current GOP. Sure the right wingers can look to their party and smile that almost all of them share the vast majority of their views. To what end though? The GOP has been reduced to the party of NO, because they are utterly powerless as a weak minority. The Congressional power that comes with the majority can not be understated. Sure the moderates may make things more difficult and their positions may elicit anger at times, but the FACT of the matter is there would be no legislation to even work on if it weren't for those same moderates giving the Dems the majority. So please think about that next time you decide you will never vote for a Democrat who is too moderate or not liberal enough.

The big tent may not appeal to idealists, but it sure the hell works to achieve to achieve the desired ends (even if it slower than most would like). In the end isn't it results that matter?

[niceypoo]

1. Purity sure did wonders for Germany in the 1920s - 1940s

Purity = ideology = stupid

:)

[tjwash]

49. LOL...first post hits Godwins Law

:rofl:

[WhollyHeretic]

93. Horrendous analogy = Godwin's Law = idiocy

[niceypoo]

100. If you found that horrendous...

...try this dumbed down version instead.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/24/some-conservatives-push-a-purity-test-for-gop-candidates/">GOP Purity Test

Purity = ideology = stupid

:)

[Vincardog]

2. Party does not trump POLICY. Asking that elected Democrats support the Democratic party platform is

not the same as the radical Reich insisting on RAYGUN purity tests RAYGUN could not pass.
The OP is an example of the black/white thinking that the right wing nuts embrace.

[NJmaverick]

7. You misunderstand. Party is the MEANS to the end

with out means to achieve an end, you have nothing.

[brooklynite]

3. Sensible thinking like this will never catch on...

[NJmaverick]

12. Well I did ask for reason to trump emotion. That's a tall order for some

[Fumesucker]

4. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step..

If you start off in completely the wrong direction though you have a great deal further to go to reach your destination.

What direction you move in is actually more important than the speed.

I think we are by and large moving in the wrong direction.

[NJmaverick]

5. The first step was to stimulate a horrible economy

The second step is to reform the health care system. The third step will be to reduce green house gas emissions and achieve energy independence. If this is the wrong direction, what is the right direction?

[Fumesucker]

15. Escalation in Vietnamistan is the right direction?

Giving literally trillions to the banksters who then still don't make loans to the little guys is the right direction?

Yet another "free trade" pact is the right direction?

Protecting those who committed and excused torture is the right direction?

Protecting those who illegally spied on Americans is the right direction?

[NJmaverick]

21. As a matter of FACT, there is no "Vietnamistan"

nor are there "banksters"

as for the protection, sometimes upholding the law sucks. There are times the law works in the guilty's favor. Doesn't mean that anyone who took an oath to uphold the constitution can simply ignore it for expediency's sake

[Fumesucker]

24. And there's no escalation either?

No money went to the banksters, eh?

Are you familiar with the concept of the Overton Window?

Well, it's been pushed so far to the right in the last thirty years that Tricky Dicky Nixon would be a flaming liberal today.

What does that make today's "moderates", eh?

[Fumesucker]

16. Dupe, self delete..

[laughingliberal]

6. +1 nt

[NJmaverick]

9. -1? Not sure how one can debate that point

:shrug:

[Bjorn Against]

27. I suggest you take a look at rule #2

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

[NJmaverick]

29. OK, +1 has many fine attibutes, with out it you couldn't count to 10

[LooseWilly]

96. Now refer to your "rule 8": "When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it."

"... A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form."

Obviously, your treatment of the "+1" in this posting was a misrepresentation... and as such, you are displaying your intellectual dishonesty.

[NJmaverick]

98. OK,- The idea of +1 is a terrible one

it adds NOTHING to a debate or discussion. It merely suggests the idea that popularity=correctness. That is an idea that is not grounded in good logic.


How's that? Better?

[laughingliberal]

71. +1 is a shorthand method of agreeing with a poster's point especially when I believe the point was

made well and stands well on its own without my expanding on it. And I do fully agree that the journey of 1000 miles starts with one step but it's best if that step is made in the direction of your intended destination.

[NJmaverick]

76. so +1 is a way of not adding anything to the debate/discussion other than the idea

that popularity=right. OK, got it.

[LooseWilly]

95. "popularity=right" ... isn't that the whole point of your OP.

Be nice to the moderates, because it's their "+1"s that will make the D party "more popular", and thus "=right"??

[NJmaverick]

97. No, it's not

[laughingliberal]

99. A little show of support for a poster I thought made a very cogent remark

I suppose I could have typed "agree 100%" or "that's a great way of explaining it."

[JHB]

8. Nope, you don't get away with that: Define your terms.

What's a "purist"? and why? What's "moderate" and why?

Decades of Conservative spin have warped political terminology beyond all recognition (much less sense).

If you want to scold you can't just use a word and have it mean "...ah, all those people in that direction who disagree with me on this".

[Bluebear]

10. For that matter, what is "inconvient"?

[NJmaverick]

13. Well if typos is all you can find wrong, I will take that as an agreement

:hi:

[Bluebear]

101. :)

:hi:

[NJmaverick]

11. "all those people in that direction who disagree.." now that isn't very intellectually honest

is it?

The terms

a purist- One that rigidedly adheres to generally accepted liberal principles

moderate- One that has less extreme view points or doesn't adhere to almost all the liberal principles


OK there are your definitions, what's your point?

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. "Moderates" aren't the problem. Corporatists are.

Of course the corporatists can't claim to be Liberals, because it would be too easy to see through that. So they call themselves "moderates' or the entirely false construct of "centrists" to excuse their corporate fellation.

There is nothing "moderate" about the likes of Baucus, Nelson, Landrieu, Lieberdouche, etc.

I don't give a fuck if every one who calls himself or herself a "Democrat" agrees with me 100% of the time. But I DO care if they put corporate interests above the American people. And then try to paint that as "moderation".

[NJmaverick]

17. "Corporatists" never seen a Dem run on that platform or position

who decides which Dems are "Corporatists"? you?

[Fumesucker]

20. They decide themselves..

When they act to protect and serve corporations rather than real Americans..

[NJmaverick]

23. You didn't answer the question. It's pretty important to answer this question

who decides which Dems get this label?

[Fumesucker]

26. You'rre pretty free with the "labels" yourself..

"Purists", "moderates"..

Who decides who gets those labels, eh?

[NJmaverick]

31. I will allow people to decide those labels themselves, although I have offered up definitions

at someone's request, just look else where on the thread.

So please answer my question now, I have answered yours.

[Fumesucker]

35. I said pretty much the same thing..

People define themselves as "corporatists" when they defend and serve corporations rather than the average American.

A corporation is a legal fiction, not a living breathing human being, human beings can be citizens, corporations cannot and should not.

[NJmaverick]

38. Well since I have yet to see a Democrat define themselves as a "corporatists" who are you talking

about?

[Fumesucker]

52. Those who defend and serve corporations over the interests of real people..

I thought I made that clear enough for the average person to understand.

In the same week, if not day, I've been accused here on DU of both being a "purist" and "spouting right wing talking points".

I'm not sure what I am any more.

[YOY]

n/t

Dupe 1

[YOY]

18. "The liberals Democrats now have power."

Not by any rational Political Compass...unless a small handful of senators and congressmen/women consist of an actual power base.

Sorry. I just flat out disagree with that statement. It assumes that a whole mess of people who are not liberal in the least are liberals because they are not Republicans.

[NJmaverick]

22. How much power did they have in 2004 and is it greater or less than now?

[YOY]

25. About the same give a few.

A small group of non-corporate Democrats.

That's the left.

Love or hate Gore Vidal on many things but he was right about having two right-wing parties. One's just more right than the other.

Love or hate Bill Maher on many things but he was right when he ripped on the baggers by saying of President Obama: "Socialist? He's not even a liberal!"

Really, some of the left-wing policies that have been pushed by progressive politicians in the states and shot down as "crazy left" by other so-called Moderates that seem to pass for liberal in this country are standard fare elsewhere in the world. Such items as "single payer medical care" and taxing the wealthiest of a country a significantly greater share are hardly Maoist...

[NJmaverick]

28. So you admit they have more power now

that's pretty important, don't you think?

[YOY]

40. No. It doesn't do jack. A small handfull where a majority needs to be.

When pulling for Obama last year I asked some old HS chums...all Union who they were going to vote for.

A common thread was "giving the Democrats one last chance." They remeber the legends that came before and were not hoping for Clinton part II.

The Democratic party has it's base. Many don't vote or don't care to vote anymore as they do not get representation. The "both parties are the same" mentality rules. I'm not talking DU...I'm talking the real world. People to the actual center and center of left (and they don't even realize they are) don't vote because they see no difference to them.

Basically put...quit trying to do the other guys' job. We have a way...and it works. It never stopped working. Just because Reagan slid his party to the right doesn't mean we had to slide too...we are destroying our base.

He will be a one termer if this persists. That's an observation...not a threat. He will not get re-elected unless the Republicans really put up a horrorshow of a candidate...and I think they just may.

[NJmaverick]

43. How was that last Supreme Court Nominee compared to the last 2?

[YOY]

50. Small consolation towards actual change and more like defense from further regression.

Great...we have a pro-choice on Roe vs Wade judge. It was neccesary. That's what were supposed to do.

[NJmaverick]

53. If you think that the Supreme Court is "small consolation" you need to brush up on your history

the courts have been a major source for progressive achievement and protection of minority rights.

[YOY]

56. Well then...let's just see what 'progressive achievement' comes of them in the recent.

Because I don't expect too much from them with their current composition.
Not to mention that if Obama cannot hold on to the presidency...thing may go from mediocre to worse there.

[NJmaverick]

60. Thanks to the two bush appointments the court isn't going to help much

but consider that against a court that would have replaced one of its few liberal judges with a McCain appointed hater of civil liberties and rights.

Your second comment only supports my main assertion. We MUST support the Dems for the good of our nation.

[YOY]

69. Oh "we" can...but try and get those jaded union boys to care anymore.

Roe v Wade isn't on their concerns...NAFTA is.

[YOY]

19. n/t

Dupe 2

[Truth2Tell]

30. the Progressive coalition

with the corporate right-wing (I assume that's who you mean when you use the horribly inaccurate word "moderate") - in other words the coalition that presently comprises the Democratic Party - only makes sense if it "achieves the desired ends," as you say. Trouble is, I don't see any desired ends being achieved. At least nothing substantial that I desire. And I strongly suspect that the achievement of no desired ends is precisely the outcome the corporate right-wing, or so-called "moderate" wing, of our coalition desires. Form a coalition with people who don't share your values and you won't achieve shit. We've proved it.

[NJmaverick]

33. "don't see any desired ends being achieved." "any"? There have been achievements

so how can you say that?

[Truth2Tell]

44. I used the word substantial.

Of course I like many of the changes Obama has made. But I think none of them matter much as long as we are still on a downward spiral of war and debt. In my mind, the control of our economy by Wall Street criminals and the control of our foreign policy by militarists and imperialists means that whatever good Obama is able to achieve on other fronts is essentially just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. That's why I said what I said.

[NJmaverick]

51. You can't claim nothing was achieved, then admit things were achived but then discount them

on account of a "downward spiral of war and debt". Hell even Krugman will happily point out there are times that debt is needed.

[Truth2Tell]

103. Please don't misrepresent what I said.

Do you think people can't read? :shrug:

[anonymous171]

32. "The liberals Democrats now have power."

:wtf:

[NJmaverick]

34. Compared to say 2004? How much power did they have then?

what could be done when liberty hating right wing judges were appointed?

[Raineyb]

36. What big tent. YOUR "tent" doesn't include progressives.

Your purist pot is black Mr. Kettle.

[NJmaverick]

42. What an oddly outlandish and false thing to say? I certainly are more than happy with all the

progressive DEMOCRATS. Not happy with so called progressive that don't support the Democrats though. Although I suspect I am wasting mine time, as facts are apparently meaningless to you.

[Raineyb]

89. There's not a bloody thing false about it. You are entitled to your own opinion

but certainly not to your own fact and the fact is that you don't think that progressives who consider policy more important than party to be worth listening to. Your "tent" only includes people who will do anything so long as it benefits the party and your disdain for progressives who don't share your view is obvious. You are a purist it's just that you consider party loyalty regardless of situation as the test for purity in your view.

In other words, you engage in the very same behavior that you accuse progressive "purists" of engaging in and your hypocrisy would be laughable if it weren't so bloody toxic.

I would suggest you look in the bloody mirror when you start accusing people of being purists, you'll find the biggest most noxious of them right in front of you.

[NJmaverick]

92. I guess the inclusion of the term "bloody" adds just the right amount of self rightous anger

so I guess your strawman claims must be true. Only one small problem. You can't point to a single quote of mine where I say there is no room in the tent for progressives.

damn those pesky facts! always getting in the way of a good rant!

[Name removed]

94. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raineyb]

112. Pointing out your OBVIOUS hypocrisy is not a straw man

As per usual, you mistake your dogma for fact then attempt to brow beat anyone who dare point out that you might not be right. It's typical bully tactics and doesn't give your rather tiresome, unthinking tirade any merit.

Your inability or refusal to even attempt to understand what the word "accountability" means doesn't change any of that.

[dusmcj]

37. on average their positions are based on more intellect and less emotion than 'progressives' ? /nt

[AllentownJake]

39. Congress is bought and paid for

It's kabuki theater. There are probably about 50 people in both parties who took their oath of office seriously. The quicker you realize that, the better off you will be.

[NJmaverick]

46. It's a flawed system, but working through it is the only choice

as long as getting elected costs big $$$$$$, money will always equate to power. That isn't the topic at hand though.

[AllentownJake]

70. Support Campaign Finance reform

and things will get better.

[NJmaverick]

77. Agreed, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

[AllentownJake]

82. The moderates are corporate whores nt

[NJmaverick]

84. That is a rather broad brush you are painting with

do you have some compelling evidence to support that claim?

[AllentownJake]

85. Pick a moderate, pick a position, and I'll link it to a donation(s)

unless you are talking about a "social" issue and than I'll link it to whatever church/denomination(s) holds the most sway in said region.

[NJmaverick]

88. Wow, now that brush was suddenly cut in half

a position not made clear in your original statement.

Edit= Missed the last line in the first reading of your post.

[AllentownJake]

91. If you are talking about Abortion

PA will elect a pro-life democrat, based on the strong Catholic influence in the state. If you are talking about the Employee Free Choice Act, no one can be elected statewide in either party that does not support labor at some level due to Pittsburgh, Allentown, and Philadelphia.

In Arkansas, you have a strong Evangelical base, you also have Wal-Mart who seems to vet all candidates for state-wide office or federal office coming from there. Therefore, you will not get pro-labor candidates out of Arkansas.

[cliffordu]

41. And the unrec mob completes it's full frontal masturbatory frenzy.....

K&R.

[NJmaverick]

55. Yes they are, but since this was an inconvenient truth, it was expected.

[AllentownJake]

45. I only regret I have one unrec for this logic and for people who support it, for my country nt.

[NJmaverick]

47. unrec for logic, would make a nice signature line for you

[AllentownJake]

68. I don't know

I nicely proved to you the other day that the TARP repayments weren't great news, using the administrations own standards.

[NJmaverick]

78. Yes you did, and you will notice I was intellectually honest enough to admit you had made a good

point.

[inna]

48. ditto

[NJmaverick]

54. now there is a real shocker

:eyes:

[inna]

57. .

:hi:

[NJmaverick]

58. I will give you credit, that's a much better response than the dishonest flame attack

you launched on the other thread.:thumbsup:

[inna]

63. Complete and utter projection on your part.

Anyway, I'm not going to engage with you in any way any more, it's not worth my time. Have a good day. :hi:

[NJmaverick]

64. Thank you, I always appreciate not being flamed (especially when the attacks lack merit)

[ElboRuum]

59. Congress that is difficult is Congress that works. It is so by design.

People forget that inertia and lethargy are built into the system to prevent sweeping abrupt change, not to encourage it. It has yet to be seen that such abrupt change can be beneficial to a society, although, Shrub's Presidency certainly showed it to have the capacity for much harm.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. The Party isn't "tossing out the moderates". The party is pandering to the moderates.

It's scorning the left in favor of the moderates out of political expediency and claiming to be "not as bad".

The votes of the left are available to the Democrats..but they're going to have to earn them.

[NJmaverick]

62. So far the party hasn't tossed out the moderates. If many on DU have their way

it soon will be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Hopefully, the voters will toss out the moderates.

The Party isn't about to toss out anybody. But, if they continue putting into effect policies that the left finds unsupportable they will lose the left.

The candidates have to persuade people to vote for them. If they fail to do so, they don't get the votes. That's reality.

[NJmaverick]

67. Do you think it's realistic to think the party can toss out moderates and replace them with liberals

? You need to remember the voters in the areas served by those Dems. In many of them a liberal wouldn't stand a snow ball's chance.

[anonymous171]

72. That's not what they said though. It's not about the party.

Voters will vote out politicians who do not represent their interests. Moderates usually fail to represent their constituencies (because that would be divisive!)and so will be discarded. The party has nothing to do with it.

[NJmaverick]

75. Most Americans consider themselves moderates

so how can you say that moderate politicians don't represent their constituencies?

[anonymous171]

79. Yet most Americans support a public option

Something that has been characterized as "far left" by those moderates. Just because they call themselves moderate does not mean that they actually are. Most Americans believe that their political beliefs are just common sense and therefore "moderate." It has nothing to do with your dogmatic sense of political moderation.

[NJmaverick]

81. A bit off topic, but I have addressed those polls

here is the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7202744#7202763

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. As I said, the "party" isn't tossing anyone out. The voters do that.

If the moderates pander to the right to get votes they may well lose the voters on the left. That's the "inconvenient truth" about politics.

I consider my vote valuable. If a politician wants he/she is going to have to earn it. If said politician panders to the right to get "moderate" votes he/she can kiss my vote goodbye.

[NJmaverick]

83. The right and the left are minority positions

neither has enough votes to control anything. The parties appreciate that and are in a never ending battle for the vast middle ground.


You want more liberal positions start winning over the hearts and minds of the moderate votes, not cut off you nose to spite your face (by helping the GOP by not voting for Dems who are not liberal enough).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Been there, done that. And, the party has moved right.

Obviously, the tactic of working within the party to move it left has failed.

[mmonk]

65. Believe me I get no joy from it. Just the opposite.

I wish they were for the people instead of corporate rule and for the Constitution instead of political convenience.

[swilton]

74. But not all of the Democrats who are in power are

liberals

[NJmaverick]

80. and?

:shrug:

[varelse]

87. It is indeed the results that matter

Unfortunately, the results so far have only been great if you're a billionaire. The middle class and poor aren't doing so well right now, and there's not much happening with our Democratic majority that promises to change that trend.

[NJmaverick]

90. It took 8 years to drive the nation into the ground

do you think it could be turned around in less than a year?

[varelse]

106. I don't think it is being turned around in the direction WE need it to go

Wall Street seems happy, sure, but how does that help us?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

102. Here's one of my beefs with the so=called moderates

From 2006 on, there were points where they could have blocked Bush/Cheney initiatives, even if they couldn't pass their own alternatives, and yet they didn't.

They cravenly voted FOR these Republican initiatives, and the excuse offered by the DLC apologists at the time was, "It was going to pass anyway."

No it wasn't. Not unless the "moderates" (= people who would have been Republicans in the past) voted for it. And even if passage was inevitable, the "moderates" didn't even have the guts to make a statement.

You know, even if the Supremes vote 5 to 4 about something or other, the minority always writes a dissenting opinion. They make a statement. They consider it worthwhile to do so.

Judging by their behavior, some of these "moderates" are stealth Republicans.

There's nothing "moderate" about screwing over the people.

[NJmaverick]

104. Which measures are you talking about?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. What measures?

Just offhand, the bankruptcy bill and the IWR.

[NJmaverick]

108. Which dems voted for these bills?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. What am I, Google?

Look up your own damn figures.

[NJmaverick]

110. Are you telling me you made some very strong statements with out any facts to back them up?

I'm sorry but that isn't a particular good way to operate in my opinion. I feel strongly that opinions or positions should be backed up by either facts or reasoning, which ever is most appropriate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

111. If you don't remember that a lot of Dems voted for the IWR or the bankruptcy

bill, that's not my problem. But both votes were major subjects of discussion on DU, so I suggest that you search the DU archives for the relevant periods.

[Raineyb]

113. I would call that type of selective memory willful stupidity

I guess those who would edit their memories in such a manner expect the rest of us to do so.

[boston bean]

107. The problem is the Democratic Party has become the party of YES to Republican ideology! nt

[FreeJoe]

114. I not only agree...

...I think that our leaders would serve us better if they tried a more gradual approach to reform. Don't keep failing at trying to completely overhaul our health system, start it moving in the right direction with something that will pass. Don't keep failing at trying to pass an enormously convoluted cap-and-trade system. Pass something that establishes a low carbon tax to get things started.

If we govern successfully as a large coalition, we can slowly and steadily accomplish great things. If we keeping trying to move faster than the voters are ready to move, we'll get nothing but fights and failed legislation.

[walldude]

115. "In the end isn't it results that matter?"

It sure is. Too bad "moderates" seem to be happy with the results. "Is that deep enough" " "Oh no sir, please stick it in further". :eyes: