PROGRESSIVE DEMS: PURGE (the DLC/Blue Dogs) or SURGE (out the door into a PROGRESSIVE PARTY)

[yurbud]

Progressives in the Democratic Party are faced with a serious dilemma. While it is clear that at least the majority of elected Democrats in Congress are progressives, the Blue Dog/DLC wing is more than willing to sabotage any progressive change by siding with the Republicans on all issues that have to do with money: health care insurance reform, war, the nature of any economic stimulus, Wall Street bailouts, trade, privatizing government functions to reward cronies, and after giving away the store to corporate America, claiming that spending on education, health care, social security and the like are breaking our budget (not the corporate welfare of defense spending and now direct cash surrenders to Wall Street).

Compounding this problem is that though progressives seem to be a majority of Democrats, the leadership of the Senate is not, and the leadership of the House, while nominally progressive, seems to follow their lead in many priorities.

The fact that corporate owned politicians are the functional majority even while the Democratic Party (which we wrongly assume means progressive) is the majority on paper partly explains some of the worst and otherwise inexplicable actions of the Democrats like compromising more than half way on any legislation BEFORE THEY EVEN INTRODUCE IT, which inevitably leads to negotiating a halfway okay policy down to nothing. For example, the public option was a compromise to begin with. If Congress was really interested in providing the most cost effective option, they would have started with single payer and negotiated down to a public OPTION.

They must do this because though progressives are the majority of Democrats, the DLC/Blue Dogs do not care about the success of progressive goals or even the Democratic Party--they care about who's writing the checks, now as donations and later as their employers.

In the 90s, the Republicans purged their ranks of those who wouldn't reliably vote for certain core principles. While that led to horrible policy when they were in power, if someone voted for them, they could at least know that certain things were going to happen: taxes for the rich and corporations would be lowered, businesses would be deregulated, wars would be started.

What does anyone expect when the Democrats win? That essentially the same foreign and economic policies will be pursued with a friendlier face, and maybe some modest social programs will be implemented to salve the pain of deindustrialization and outsourcing our jobs, and the maimed veterans of the corporate wars will actually get the care and benefits they were promised?

So one temptation is to try the purge, take over the party structure, favor more progressive candidates in primaries, etc. There are a couple of problems with this: the corporate candidates will always have the money and friendlier media coverage. Another is that the purge in the GOP was from less reliably corporate to MORE reliably corporate, so the money and power was on the side of the purge. That all of the replacements parrot a religious right line as well is simply a matter of sticking to a marketing strategy that worked for a couple of decades (they are probably frantically pitching new images to focus groups, like their Ayn Rand, selfish superman one). Our purge would not be guaranteed success.

A surge out the door of the party to form a new party, possibly combining with some of the smaller progressive parties of the left like the Greens, would have it's own set of problems. One is that some progressives would stay in the Democratic Pary out of inertia. Another is where the corporatist Democrats would go--to the GOP. They would not tolerate being in a powerless micro-minority party. That is not what they are paid to do. Even if a similar schism occurred in the GOP, with the teabagger know-nothings leaving the corporatists, creating a three or even four party system, the gullibility of the teabaggers shows that they will be swayed into alliances with the corporatists most of the time if a policy can be sold with fear, racism, get-rich-quick, anti-intellectual, or violent themes. And of course the corporate Dems, whether in a rump Democratic Party or as Republicans would vote with them as well, leaving us about where we are now.

I think I laid out the negatives of both options, and would definitely like to hear the problems with that analysis (apart from the DLCers calling me names and throwing out glib one liners).

[eleny]

1. Purge

[WeDidIt]

2. PURGE OR SURGE!!!

That's the Teabagger strategy for the GOP.

[Cant trust em]

3. Would you rather have a centrist dem, or a full blown republican in a red state?

That is the subtext of this entire question.

[cliffordu]

31. Yep, it is.

[laughingliberal]

40. The further we move to the right in the Democratic party the less that question has any impact

There may, at the moment, be a nickle's worth of difference but we're steadily moving to the place where there will not be, anymore. We are already to the right of where Republicans were in the 80's.

[readmoreoften]

46. You hit the nail on the head. When we move right, the Republicans get to move right.

Tell me what's the difference between a Republican in 1979 and a Democrat in 2009? The Democrat is further to the right.

[Cant trust em]

54. I think that it should be judged on the individual district.

Would a progressive win in a rural Nebraska district, or Alabama, or Utah?

[TheBigotBasher]

51. A Republican.

The major reason health care reform is unpopular now, is because with 6 0seats the Democratic Party should have passed it alreasy.

No-one cares about the lack of Demicratic discipline. No one. It is not an advantage.

If you promise something - deliver it.

Imagine what the Rethugs would have done with 60 votes, the US would be fighting France by now.

[LastNaturalist]

4. Get rid of moderates and never win another national election.

Keep moderates (religious Hispanics and socially conservative African Americans, for example) and keep winning for the next 40 years. I hate talk of purging. We're the Big Tent Party, not the Asshole Purist Party.

[Kahuna]

7. They don't want to win. Purity is all that matters. nt

[bongobobtherealone]

8. I saw

that happen in my district. Wayne Gilchrest was one of the very few Reps I ever had respect for. He wasn't conservative enough so the rethugs ran a dyed in the wool con against him who won the nom but lost the election.

That said, I think some of the "Moderate Dems" are MINO and some of them need to go~

[mod mom]

10. I believe the idea to to get rid of the bought out corporates that time & time again sell

out the base. They're not moderates!

[LastNaturalist]

16. Your avatar would have fallen into your purge category one decade ago.

[mod mom]

50. Gore saw the light during his 2000 campaign and has worked to correct his wrongs:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner

A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

[polichick]

11. What's the point of having two corporate parties?? nt

[coti]

15. You know, if I'm not mistaken- Obama ran to the LEFT of where he is now.

So, to put it frankly- what the FUCK are you talking about?

[LastNaturalist]

19. You know, if we purged the far left to win the center-right block,

that would be much more constructive. I don't want to purge anyone. But if we have to, goodbye Pundit Deaniac Worshippers!

[LoZoccolo]

22. And if we appeased the left on this or that...

...there's no telling what they'd bolt about 30 days later. They're too expensive; we can't afford them.

[coti]

23. First off, Dean isn't a far leftist.

Secondly, it's the DLC corporatist clowns that have been losing elections for us for a good 16 years now. We win when we've used Dean's populist positions and messages. Obama practically copied Dean's 2004 campaign word-for-word (would you call that "far left"?) and won handily.

So, Obama used a moderate liberal, populist message to win the election, ala Howard Dean, then, behind closed doors, moved hard right and became a corporatist. How is that constructive? How do these facts support anything you're saying, at all?

[LoZoccolo]

25. If what you say was true, you wouldn't be complaining.

Progressives would have won primaries and general elections.

[PassingFair]

27. We DO win general elections...

when and IF we make it through the Machiavellian tactics of the DLC
and it's DSCC and DCCC arms.

[coti]

28. That's what Obama ran as. That's the whole point.

He ran as a moderate liberal- not a "far leftist." That's why he won.

There are three groups within the Democratic Party- the DLC clowns (you), the moderate liberals (Dean, Clark, others), and the far-leftists (Kucinich, McKinney, etc.)

When the DLC is in charge of the message, we sell out and lose because there's no good reason to vote for us over the Republicans. When the far left is in charge, we start looking irrational and radical and lose.

But when we take a moderated liberal position (which incorporates a good portion of "progressive" positions)- the type of positions Dean takes...... We. Win. Elections.

[PassingFair]

44. Clinton was the OBVIOUS DLC candidate.

Grassroot Democrats picked Obama because he
spoke out against the IWR and he was NOT
OBVIOUSLY the DLC candidate.

He was the stealth DLC candidate, but we
really didn't have much of a choice.

Between the obvious and the very likely.

[readmoreoften]

47. Great. Don't complain that you've lost our vote. And don't complain when we go 3rd party.

You alienated us. If you don't need us, STFU when you lose without us.

[LWolf]

36. Moderates aren't the problem.

Corporatists and theocrats are.

[yurbud]

41. you are intentionally confusing the socially conservative voters with the corrupt pols

The DLC and Blue Dogs are not ''moderate'' on any principled basis but to collect corporate money, first as donations, and later as paychecks.

You can have someone who is an economic populist but pro-life.

We should not have room for someone who votes for trade policies that de-industrialize America or continues to give the power of life and death to private for profit corporations.

[TheBigotBasher]

53. The DLC types are not moderates.

They are acting as a Party within a Party, dictating their own agenda at the expense of the agenda the Party got elected on. As a result they lose the Democratic Party support.

The Democratic Party has leadership elections, when they win them they should expect loyalty, until then they should be loyal. That is not a purity test it is a unity test.

[wndycty]

5. The problem with a purge. . .

. . .is I fear whatever litmus test is employed would result in a number of good progressives being purged.

[yurbud]

42. that's why I focused on the problems with both options.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Let the DLC'ers take the Repuke party back from the teabaggers

We can't even think about third parties when we don't even really have TWO. Get rid of false Democrats in the primary, Repukes in November.

The real problems in the political process need to be eliminated first anyway....

1) Corporate financing of elections

2) Media consolidation

3) Electro fraud machines

[LoZoccolo]

9. Gee, how about get off your idle ass and do your job as a citizen...

...which is the highest office in a democracy, and actually go and make other voters agree with you, so that if you ran progressives they would actually win, instead of inflicting Republicans on them in an attempt to punish them for what you fail to make them understand, or push the party further to the center to make up for your surge so you can fail some more.

[treestar]

55. True enough

For all the complaining done on the board, the voters aren't being persuaded to the left at all. And that would take a lot of work, since the M$M works daily to get the voter to the right.

[LoZoccolo]

12. And haven't you people tried to purge for years? How is that working out?

Oh, and that surge of 2000, how'd that work out?

[Bluenorthwest]

21. "You people"

Yeah, the right wing has been trying to purge the GLBT people and others from the Party very actively for several years now. What you see now is 'how that worked out'. They like to say 'those people' and 'that community' and such, because they can not use the words they use when they are behind closed doors.

[LoZoccolo]

24. Like who? n/t

[mmonk]

13. Those in power want us out.

We are referred to as the "left" in dismissive terms.

[Ildem09]

14. electorally speaking

it is nigh impossible for a third party to effect change of any level in our current plurality system if we hand ordinal balloting aka rank choice voting like they do in Minneapolis across the nation I would suggest becoming a third party but alas we have to work within the confines of our electoral system

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Vote issues rather than party or politician. Make them come to you.

If they want to sell their candidacies to the right, fine.

If they want the votes of the left, they'll have to come to us and convince us that they deserve our votes.

[Richardo]

18. These are the same two choices we cheer the teabaggers for bringing to the GOP

...and why is it that we never see these ideological purification posts from red state DUers? Could it be because we know we're lucky to have ANYONE courageous enough to put a 'D' after their name elected to ANY office? That if we're counting seats to control a legislative body it's better to have the bluest dog Dem than the most moderate Republican?

Is that a recipe for liberal progressive policy making? No. But if it's ideological purity you're after, look into joining a church, not a political party.

[Unvanguard]

20. Neither. The fact is, we are better off with the conservative Democrats than with Republicans.

(With some exceptions, e.g. Bart Stupak and perhaps Joe Lieberman.)

We need to stop comparing them in our minds with real progressives, because we couldn't get 60 Senate seats with real progressives. They are the less bad option.

[PassingFair]

26. Purge

Once voters can reliably vote for a Democratic Party that serves
the interests of the working people of this country, with an eye
to providing safety nets for people with disabilities and in times
of economic need, most "independents" will FLOCK to our party.

I am personally very tired of being an apologist for a little (d)
democratic party that reliably serves the interests of corporations,
while pretending to represent working people.

They will support "reform" as long as the cost for it comes
from the pockets of taxpayers and corporate profits are
untouched.

We have some serious house cleaning to do if we are
going to build on the foundation of the success we have
attained with the 50-State strategy.

[defendandprotect]

29. Voting for the "lesser of evils" has gotten us all the way to corporatism/fascism . ..

I don't see there's any more room for that --

in particularly that it looks like Obama/Dems will bully this crap health care deform

into passing.

After that, folks, goodbye Medicare and Social Security --


I've often kidded here that the liberals/progressives should incorporate -- hire

Erin Brockovich, hire lobbyists and sue the government to get corporate money out of the

system.


We need some fresh ideas -- we need a Plan B --

but most of all we should stop doing what we've been doing for 40 years and voting for

the "lesser of evils" . . . !!!

[defendandprotect]

30. Of course, the DLC and Blue Dogs should also be targeted . ..

but we should understand that this is an overwhelmingly liberal nation --

The most important thing is for liberals/progressives to come together and discuss

a Plan B --

[andym]

32. The basic problem is the population of the USA

Since 1992, about 40% consider themselves conservative and only 20% liberal
That means it's very difficult to get real progressive policies made into law.
That is what really needs changing.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conservatives-maintain-edge-top-ideological-group.aspx



Even worse, if you ask how many describe themselves as very liberal or progressive, the number drops to single digits
5-6% in this 2006 poll for example:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/25771/many-americans-use-multiple-labels-describe-their-ideology.aspx

[Greyhound]

34. The problem is the labels.

Polled on issues with no reference to political spectrum, the American People are far more "liberal" than either party.

I have a study somewhere (I'll try to dig it up) that looks at this issue and the results are really surprising (at least they were to me).

[mnhtnbb]

35. Precisely why I voted for a nap. It's going to take a long time to overcome

the attitudes that translate into someone like Sarah Palin being able to
promote a ghost written book into phenomenal sales.

[yurbud]

38. however if you asked them about progressive policy positions without the label, they

overwhelmingly support the key economic and foreign policy ones.

[Greyhound]

33. As you can see from the replies, your surge is the only viable alternative.

The brains have been washed, pressed, and folded neatly into a drawer. Remaining in the Democratic Party only serves to maintain the illusion of choice and as long as that illusion persists, we will continue this circus, for circus it is. Entertaining, distracting, but of no significance in the end.

Another party promoting education and radical change to the existing systems while committed to keeping government hands off of individuals, will attract the growing numbers of people that feel disenfranchised. This is the only hope for change I see, aside from open revolt which will likely yield worse results.

[apocalypsehow]

48. It would only "attract" the same kind of characters from the Left that the Constitution Party

attracted from the Right: a tiny coterie of cranks & ax-grinders, with a sprinkling of sane persons leavened in.

Go back and read the history of the Henry Wallace and the quixotic campaign he waged for President under the "Progressive" party banner in 1948: that ticket garnered about 3%, IIRC, of the national vote.

Any such "surge" out the door of the Democratic party of today for similar reason would, I wager, garner about the same level of electoral success as Wallace did in '48.













(Wait for it...wait for it...."that election was stolen plus despite how they actually vote in actual elections the American people are really all far, far, far Left liberals I don't care what their votes say deep down I know they're all really liberals this is different Wallace I thought he was the Alabama governor why are you talking about a racist oh he wasn't but another one I don't care your facts make mad so I'm just gonna ignore them and accuse you of being all sorts of things blah blah blah blah blah BLECCH!!!11")

[Greyhound]

57. Well at least you're entertaining.

:rofl:
:eyes:

[begin_within]

37. Democratic party is too tied to corporate donations, so

just purging the DLC/Blue Dogs would only be a band-aid. The real cure is either genuine campaign finance reform, or the formation of a significant third party on the left.

[HuckleB]

39. Either of your options is the same as giving up.

I am a firm in harm reduction, when it comes to drug abuse. It doesn't make sense to become a full-on prohibitionist, when it comes to politics. I'll continue to work hard to move things toward single-payer, and toward more peaceful ends. However, I will also continue to vote for the best candidate who can win, and who do at least the least harm to the environment, to the people and to others. To me, to fail to do that, is to simply fall in line with the worst of our politicians. Ivory towers are comfortable, but they're not the real world, and third-parties in our current system aren't much different than ivory towers. Politics is ugly and messy, and if you can't live with the mess, you're going to do more harm than good.

[yurbud]

43. are openly corrupt politicians useful to have in any party? I have more respect for Ron Paul

than any corporate Dem because even though I disagree with many of his positions, at least you know what he believes and will vote for, and he will question the powerful when it needs to be done like he did before the Iraq War.

[HuckleB]

45. You might want to look into Ron Paul a little more before you make such a claim.

And respect doesn't necessarily mean ethical, progressive change of any kind.

[WeDidIt]

49. This is the same philosophy espoused by the teabaggers

only form the left and WRT the Democratic PArty.

[girl gone mad]

56. It shouldn't be a surprise.

Teabaggers poll better than Republicans. 41% of people now say that neither the Republican nor the Democratic party represents the interests of the citizens.

The merger between the major parties and corporations isn't going over very well. Those on the right know something has gone terribly wrong, but they're too brainwashed by the Limbaughs and Becks to understand it and assign proper blame.

http://airamerica.com/politics/12-07-2009/gop-trails-poll-teabaggers/?p=all

[LastNaturalist]

52. Can we purge the purge-proponents?

[Jim Lane]

58. Qualifying my vote

I voted "Purge" but that was mainly a vote against the sheer lunacy of the third-party approach.

I'm really supporting "Attempted purge in appropriate circumstances". Take Ben Nelson (please). A purge strategy can't center on a primary challenge to Nelson by someone who's as far left as most DUers (including myself). Such a candidate would have no hope of winning the primary, and would, if (by some miracle) the nominee, get clobbered in the general election.

In other cases, however, primaries are the way to go. Lieberman is the obvious example. That one would've worked if the Republicans had been running a better candidate who could draw off more than 10% of the votes.

A primary against the likes of Nelson is fine, as long as you recognize that its purpose is to articulate issues and try to move him a bit to the left, not to elect a Senator who'll be another Feingold or Kucinich.