On the Democratic Party's "moderates" and "pragmatists"

[Ardent15]

I have talked to so many people-countless people-who are Democratic or former Democratic voters, and they are very angry with the Democratic Party. Many of them are here on DU. They feel that the party has abandoned them, the liberals and progressives and the left in general, in favor of "moderates" and "pragmatists" who are attracted to the Democratic Party because the party is increasingly friendly to Wall Street, or to their personal bigotry on social issues, or to anything else that we used to associate with the Republican Party.

Why are so many "moderates" and "pragmatists" attracted to the Democrats? Simple: because the Dems are acting like traditional Republicans. These people, these moderates and pragmatists, only care about themselves. They do not really believe in the bullshit that they spew, about "reforming" education, or health care, or "social justice", or protecting the rights of workers, etc.

It is because of the "moderates" and "pragmatists" that the Democratic Party has lost the left. You see, people don't like it when you abandon them and then PRETEND to represent them. It's insulting, condescending, hypocritical, and just asshole-ish in general.

So, the Democratic Party has only itself to blame when they get voted out of office. But don't worry, moderates and pragmatists, another corporate right-wing party-the traditional one-is willing to take your place.

[Starry Messenger]

1. k & r

:thumbsup:

[leftstreet]

2. K&R

[LoZoccolo]

3. What evidence is there that the Democrats have lost the left? n/t

[Scurrilous]

4. Countless people say so.

Countless!

[William Z. Foster]

5. can't have it both ways

You can't say "get lost" and then claim no one will leave.

[LoZoccolo]

47. Have they? n/t

[Ardent15]

9. you haven't been paying attention

Almost every decision President Obama has made, from the TARP bailouts to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan to his education policies, have alienated the left.

[LoZoccolo]

46. How did you find this out? n/t

[girl gone mad]

48. Open your eyes. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

167. I figured that I'd get non-answers. n/t

[Tailormyst]

86. You should be rejoicing since you clearly despise the left.

[dmallind]

49. ...which explains why his approval is higher among liberal Dems than moderates how? NT

[Donnachaidh]

57. yeah, polls can and have been pushed.

PR wizards at work.

:shrug:

[dmallind]

60. So DU subjective angst is more meaningful than data? NT

[William Z. Foster]

109. yes

Of course. That is always true in politics. Politics is about ideas, and is driven by small factions, often by "nobodies." The rulers want you to think otherwise. The pundits and pollsters and consultants all work for the rulers.

[joeybee12]

55. I'm Exhibit #1...n/t

[NJmaverick]

82. I am exhibit #1 and I cancel out your exhibit

[William Z. Foster]

110. meaningless

The issue is this - are more people likely to eventually follow your views, or the views of the dissenters you constantly attack? I am betting that you will lose. Even if you win, you lose, because if you succeed in remaking the Democratic party as the main conservative party, that will leave a vacuum and a new left wing party will emerge, and also the current policies of the Democratic party leadership will not solve the desperate problems faced by the working people. Ergo, they will ultimately fail.

I think that the conservatives in the party sense that what I am saying is true, and that is why there is such a frantic and heavy-handed effort going on to suppress dissent.

[spoony]

163. Keen insight

I'm very much enjoying your posts!

[uponit7771]

74. My dog told me dammit!!!!!

[Tailormyst]

84. You should open your eyes and look around

There is plenty of evidence. Go out there and look.

[laughingliberal]

6. When the Reagan Democrats came home, they brought Reagan with them.

And now we get lectures about 'free markets,'supply side crap economics, welfare queens, and and anti-union screeds here on a Democratic website. Nauseating.

And I suspect many are too young to realize it wasn't always this way.

[robinblue]

40. true.

[AllentownJake]

7. .

:thumbsup:

[NanceGreggs]

8. And we all know ...

... who the "moderates" and "pragmatists" are - they're anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with your views, or pass your real Democrat purity test.

And BTW, has anyone ever told you that labeling people who don't agree with you as somehow being less of a Democrat than you perceive yourself to be as "insulting, condescending, hypocritical, and just asshole-ish in general."

As for the party having "lost the left", I'm assuming that if you had any facts to back up that assertion, you would have included them in your OP.

You didn't.

[tmyers09]

10. Supporting Unions, Public Education, Social Programs, and Anti-War...

Are all pillars of the Democratic Party. Anybody willing to undermine these, are NOT Democrats, plain and simple.

[NanceGreggs]

13. And the final arbiter ...

... of whether such things are being undermined is - no, wait for it, you?


:rofl:

[Ardent15]

16. Have you even been paying attention to Obama and the Congress's policies?

Or do you just resort to snarky attacks on people you don't like?

[NanceGreggs]

19. Never said I didn't like you ...

... just don't like your self-constructed definition of who is a real Democrat, and who isn't - based solely on your own criteria.

[tmyers09]

21. Own criteria = 40 years of history and the party's very own platform.

Great to know!

[William Z. Foster]

23. huh?

What does that even mean? Whichever faction wins the battle for the pretty will get to define what a "real Democrat is."

You certainly have your "self-constructed definition of who is a real Democrat, and who isn't - based solely on your own criteria." Only you get to have one? That suggests that it is you doing purity tests, it is you trying to enforce your ideas as to what a Democrat is. That suggests that it is you who are trying to drive people away who don't agree with you.

When you say you don't "like" his "self-constructed definition," do you mean you disagree with it? Then state your case and defend it, if you can. If you disagree with his "self-constructed definition of who is a real Democrat, and who isn't" then that must mean that you are in fact one of the Democrats he is talking about. That proves that there are two factions that are diametrically opposed, as he said, and that you are on the other side, as he said.

So, defend your position instead of playing games. I don't think you can. The current political situation and loyalty to the faction is power - and more importantly agreement with the faction currently in power, forces you to pose as being on the left while promoting and defending the right. That is so we don't leave and can still be used until the Republicans are a little weaker. For now you have to be both on the right and on the left. You attack all leftists thought, but refuse to defend or even acknowledge your own conservative views. You hide behind a big squishy vague definition of "liberal." You are saying, in essence, "who's to say who a Democrat is, or what their views might be? They could be almost anything." That is cover for the right wing of the party, not the left.

[Donnachaidh]

61. BRAVO! +100000 n/t

[QC]

42. The latter.

Or, perhaps I should say, the latter.

[Greyhound]

174. Delusions of adequacy and celebrity fantasies.

Another of the "I've got mine, fuck everybody else" 'democrats'.

[tmyers09]

18. Evidence galore of this occuring in the daily working of Congress,

as well as in posts around here. I don't need to be an arbiter, it is in broad daylight.

And the one person in this thread who denounces it, is wait for it...you! No surprises there!

[tkmorris]

36. Ultimately, isn't it?

Just who do you outsource your judgments to? Who decides for you whether a politician is acting in your best interests, or the best interests of the nation?

When you observe anyone in politics, do you you tune in to Glenn Beck to see what he thinks before you form an opinion? Chris Matthews? Rachel Maddow? No, I don't think you do. I daresay you have the unmitigated gall to form an opinion yourself, without the benefit of some talking head, or your neighbors, input. Would you have it otherwise for the rest of us?

[LWolf]

44. Education is being systematically "undermined."

That's a mild term for it, anyway. I prefer "destroyed."

Having spent the last 27 years in public education, I think I can speak with some assurance.

[spoony]

162. Italics. Check. Ellipses. Check. Dismissive superiority complex. Check.

It's a Nance all right!

[William Z. Foster]

14. unless...

If the conservatives win, then they will be able to define what a Democrat is, and they may well win.

There is an effort going on, a strong effort, to transform the Democratic party and replace the Republican party as the main conservative party. Until the Republicans are a little weaker, those driving the party to the right need to keep fooling all of us for a little longer to keep us in the fold.

[AllentownJake]

24. They already did it

However, the leader of the party still uses all the language and props of the left to espouse right wing ideology.

[tonysam]

153. +1,000

Those are pretty bedrock stances.

[William Z. Foster]

11. you just proved his point

Couldn't have done a better job had you tried.

[laughingliberal]

20. +1 nt

[Individualist]

102. +1

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[AllentownJake]

22. Absolute Bullshit

Let me see, Bill Clinton's pragmatism in the late 1990s on derivatives and banking gave us the repeal of Glass Steagall and an unregulated casino. Did shrub come in and make things worse by ignoring the few regulations Bill left standing, sure but the entire banking deregulation explosion, under his watch, with his Treasury Secretary leading the charge like Teddy Roosevelt on San Juan hill.

What happened with Health Care Reform. Was it the progressive wing of the party that fucked things up? Nope it was the moderate pragmatic wing that did things like throw immigrants and women under the bus. They weren't negotiating with Republicans for votes, they were negotiating with them fucking selves. Oh and look, the other side sensing weakness has ramped up their attacks on immigrants and women. I'm not going to feign surprise on that one, it was rather predictable.

Spare us a lecture on what a "democrat" is. I could honestly give a fuck about the party. It is a tool to an end, it isn't the end. It no longer looks like a tool, discard it like bad rubbish.

How about that adventure in Afghanistan. That is rocking and rolling! Here is the deal any sane person will tell you. YOU DON'T HAVE A PRAGMATIC or MODERATE POSITION ON WAR. War is hell and an all-in proposition. 30,000 more troops. HA. Get in or get out, and quit fucking about. Seeing kids come home in boxes and their children buried pains me because they are dying for absolutely nothing. Does it pain you?

As far as losing the left goes, there was an energy in this country for change, that is gone. Yeah we might vote for the lesser of two evils, but maybe you should come down from the north for a visit and do a few canvassing shifts in a competitive state so you can see what the hell is going on and talk to people. Stop telling us what is going on in our party from Canada.

[NJmaverick]

83. Well if you disagree, than Nance must have gotten it right

it's simple common sense

[AllentownJake]

122. Nance and I actually respect each other

In a grudging fashion.

Not so much with you, and before it got deleted, the two of us actually enjoyed our sparring match at 4am.

[William Z. Foster]

25. why did you post on this thread?

Why post here if not to defend the moderates and pragmatists? Then you say you aren't one. If you said otherwise, you would have to defend your position rather than just snipe at others. And you want us to believe that you are the aggrieved party!

You can always post a long vacuous piece about "what being a liberal means to me" which mostly consists of not liking Palin and about being a general all around superior sort of person above the fray looking down on all of your inferiors.

[AllentownJake]

26. Teabaggers

Don't forget the unwashed masses of the conservative movement that have no political power other than badly spelled signs. You know people economically that should be on our side, but won't be because certain people in our group look down on them from not watching enough Sex in the City.

She loves arguing rhetorically about those people.

[Scurrilous]

30. Unwashed masses?

:rofl:

New York Times/CBS News Poll:

"Tea party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public.."

http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters

[AllentownJake]

31. The pictures from their rallies

say something entirely different.

If they are better educated and wealthier, they got ripped off.

I'm sure the leaders drive BMWs. A majority of them, from personal experience meeting a few are working class angry people.

[dmallind]

51. You can judge wealth and education from photos? How?

I mean I'm quite well off, and certainly have a couple of degrees and all that; yet I am a beer-gutted tattooed weightlifter type who is hardly perfectly coiffed and attired, and often assumed to be a low level blue collar prole. On the other hand many people I know who ARE poor and poorly educated take great pains to dress well and perfect their grooming so as to appear successful. I am not so insecure. It's possible neither are the people in those photos.

Of course it's possible they ARE poor and ill-educated too. The point is who can tell?

[Donnachaidh]

64. and you actually think the MEDIA can be trusted to report accurately about the teabaggers?

Especially when you review the history of how the LEFT has been mis-represented by the same media?

:wow: I guess because the Dems are in office now the media is going to *behave* right? Right? :sarcasm:

Hey, I've got this bridge you'd be interested in.

:eyes:

[fascisthunter]

138. well-edumacated

[dionysus]

63. you sure do love your teabagging buddies jake.

[Donnachaidh]

67. and now posters are put down because they seek COMMUNICATION with other groups?

How puke-like a response is THAT?

So he should *only* hang with *his kind* and not seek some sort of middle ground with his neighbors?

It's amazing how blinkered some in this party have become. Learned more than a few lessons from the pukes, huh?

[dionysus]

73. ROFL. complaining how bad the dems are because they're not liberal enough, while simultaneously

complaining how these "not liberal enough" look down on the teabaggers because they're apparently, "too liberal"... do you guys even know what you're sasying any more? or do the neverending tantrums just blur together in one bitter pile of goo?

dems that supposedly aren't as liberal as you, who dare like the administration : bad
racist teabaggers who hate anything that isn't far right wing : good

alrighty then.

jesus christ, you and the teabaggers deserve one another.

:rofl:

[William Z. Foster]

118. misrepresentation

You assume that people are arguing about who gets to own the word "liberal." But they are not. we are not arguing about which political positions get to have the label, we are arguing about those actual political positions.

Now, here is the interesting question. Why would people want to shift the discussion always to be about words, about definitions of words, about who gets to use which word as a label for themselves, and away from the very serious issues that actually define the growing split in the party?

By the way, your use of the phrases "do you guys even know what you're saying any more" and "neverending tantrums" and "bitter pile of goo" and "racist teabaggers" are a pretty strong indication that your argument is extremely weak.

[AllentownJake]

124. I generally don't worry about people with no political power nt.

[AllentownJake]

123. By buddies

You mean a few people I bowl with on Sundays. I confess, I bowl with a Teabagger, we kid each other and get along fine.

Maybe Barack can do a Red/Blue state speech on my Sunday bowling.

Hey I worked a poll this morning for Arlen Specter :-)

[NanceGreggs]

33. I posted not to defend ...

... those being called moderates and pragmatists, but to point out that the OP is not the presiding judge over who is, and who isn't, one or the other.

And BTW, I never posted a piece on What Being a Liberal Means to Me, or anything close to it.

As for being a "superior sort of person above the fray looking down on all of your inferiors," that seems to describe someone who appoints themselves as the judge of who is, and who isn't, a moderate or pragmatist.

Rather a circular argument, as you can (I hope) plainly see.

[AllentownJake]

34. You really have nothing useful to say here

I'm still waiting for your reply on my list of pragmatic policy victories :sarcasm:

Of course talking about the shady spot I sometimes call home is much easier. I can play rough in the sand box just as easily as you can but we could discuss, and might learn something.

[William Z. Foster]

35. ROFL!

You are so lost in the woods. The OP did not claim to be "the presiding judge over who is, and who isn't, one or the other." Is that really why you posted? The OP said he strongly disagrees with one faction in the party, and makes a damned good case for that. That isn't "judging" who gets what brand name stamped on their little forehead, or who gets a gold star for being a "good" Democrat.

Every piece you ever wrote read like "what being a liberal means to me - personally" to me. Maybe I missed the real message. You have a lot of company on that - liberalism as a personal belief system and as personal choices. I have no problem with that. It is when you go after others unfairly and without provocation - and you often do, although in a covert little snarky way rather than upfront, honestly and out in the open - that I am objecting.

[QC]

43. [phone]

[Starry Messenger]

50. +100,000

[NJmaverick]

78. Could be she didn't want people to artificially inflate the importance of their own personal opinion

by falsely claiming to speak for all liberal. nope, couldn't possibly be for that reason

[William Z. Foster]

112. could be

Could be that she wants people to believe that is what she is doing, yes.

But since no one was claiming to speak for all liberals, that would clearly be false, wouldn't it?

Do you really think anyone here is trying to speak for you?

Why do you feel the need to feel proprietary about certain words, such as "liberal?" What is that about? "No, dammit, I am a liberal and I support all of the conservative positions. Therefore, liberalism is those conservative ideas! Therefore critics of those conservative ideas should be ignored!"

Right.

So just who would it be that is attempting to speak for all liberals? Certainly not the OP. I would say it is you who are doing that.

[Donnachaidh]

59. funny how it's only the purists who use the *purity test* meme in arguments

why is that? Perhaps because they favor the use of that puke-like device?

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

77. You nailed it Nance!

:patriot:

[SidDithers]

91. +1...nt

Sid

[bridgit]

94. Agreed ~

:kick:

[cliffordu]

15. ibtl

:popcorn:

[SpartanDem]

27. According to who?

Yglesias highlights an interesting poll result from a recent WashPost survey. People were asked whether Obama is too liberal, too conservative or about right.

To start with, 55% said about right. Then 40% said too liberal. Leaving 5% who said too conservative.

I find it worth noting because some days, reading the liberal blogosphere - actually most days - you'd think there's a vast and feral army out there utterly appalled by Obama's sellout-itry. But it's really not true. Matt writes

:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/apr/29/obama-administration-us-politics-too-conservative

[William Z. Foster]

32. irrelevant

Politics is always driven by several small factions competing for the public's attention.

No doubt much of the public thinks that Obama is to the left. That is the problem. That is a function of two other small factions, yours and the right wingers, pounding that idea into people's minds. You are saying "this is as far left as anyone should ever consider. This is as good as it gets, as it ever could get. So shut up." The right wingers are saying "he is a socialist!!" Of course the public thinks he is to the left. But that is meaningless. He is NOT to the left, and not being to the left means that left wing programs are not happening - in the real world, in objective reality - and that means that people are going to continue to suffer.

We are not on the left because we "believe" in some "ideology," we are on the left because we know that is what works to help the most number of people.

Convincing the people that the Democrats are on the left does not bring back jobs, does not increase wages, does not end imperialistic wars, does not save the environment, does not protect women's rights, does not provide housing, does not promote GLBTQ equality.

BEING on the left is what will bring back jobs, increase wages, end imperialistic wars, save the environment, protect women's rights, provide housing, and promote GLBTQ equality.

You can't fake it for long, and I believe Democrats are faking it right now to keep the left in line while they move the party to the right to replace the Republicans as the main conservative party in the country.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. No, that's very relevant

The same poll has:

908a. Would you say your views on most political matters are liberal, moderate, or conservative?
                                                     Don't think in      No
            Liberal    Moderate    Conservative    those terms (vol.)    op.
4/25/10        22         40            35                  1             2

and the Obama question:
13. Do you think Obama's views on most issues are too (liberal) for you, too (conservative) for you, or just about right?
                Too         Too        About     No
              liberal   conservative   right   opinion
4/25/10         39            5         53        3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_042810.html?sid=ST2010042800009

So we see that most self-identified liberals think that Obama's views are about right (I'll assume none of them fall into 'too liberal'), and less than a quarter of liberals think Obama is too conservative. This is very relevant when then OP's claim is that the Democrats will lose elections because they've gone too far to the right and will lose too many voters. It shows that the leader of the party has positions that attract both most liberals and most moderates. Now, it's possible that individual Democratic representatives may be going too far right to win re-election, but the most visible person in party is not losing significant support on the left, and that shows that the OP is, on the face of it, incorrect.

[CTLawGuy]

39. exactly

and that squares with the last DKos poll showing that only 6% of Democrats disapprove of the president while 91% approve.

[dionysus]

65. that means 91% of dems are fakes! DLC stooges!11!11 corporate whores!11!1

:sarcasm:

[William Z. Foster]

126. yes

Perhaps as high as 90% of the relatively small handful of people who are controlling the party and the political discussion are very conservative and are driving the party to the right, and are entirely sympathetic with and supportive of corporate interests and the corporate agenda.

Yes.

[dionysus]

131. so, in poll after poll where obama has the support of 90% of self identified democrats,

they're all in on it huh? 90% of the party are DINOs, DLCers, corporatists?

you guys are always good for a good belly laugh.

:rofl:

[William Z. Foster]

142. what are you talking about?

Of course 90% of self-described Dems support a Democratic candidate over a Republican candidate. Were you expecting some other result?

Have you not yourself harped on the "you only have two choices" mantra more than a few times?

I don't get what you think you are saying here. It seems to defeat your argument and support the OP as far as I can see.

[dionysus]

144. obama's 90% approval rating among democrats... proves your assertion of a fractured dem base....

hooooooooookay.

[William Z. Foster]

146. Democratic voters

Democratic voters, when given a choice between a Dem and a Republican.

That is not the same as either the small faction you represent, nor the small faaction the OP represents.

If there were a left wing Democratic in power 90% of Dem voters would choose the Dem over a Republican. So what? that tells us nothing.

[dionysus]

62. they can't, or refuse to comprehend that they're a tiny little group, soiling themselves in outrage,

pretending that they are some kind of majority.

[Usrename]

71. If you think that is an insult then you're wrong.

The Sons of Liberty were a tiny minority.

[dionysus]

81. ROFL, yes, serial malcontents on a message board are JUST LIKE the sons of Liberty.

:spray:

[William Z. Foster]

120. yes, of course

Why mock that? Yes, "nobodies" gathering and conferring is exactly how social change movements start. Yes, mass social movements always start with a handful of people expressing ideas with little support in the beginning. Would you claim it is the "winners" - the successful and well-off people, and their supporters and defenders - who will be leading the charge to social and political change? Really?

[William Z. Foster]

147. weak defense there

Politics, all politics, is always driven by small faction trying to get the attention of the general public.

No one is "pretending that they are some kind of majority" - except you and your allies.

How can people like the OP be BOTH a small inconsequential minority of no interest, and yet of such intense interest to you and so dangerous? Which is it?

[Usrename]

70. That's sort of a screwed up question.

I think Obama seems to have the right "views" on a lot of issues, or at least he claims to have.

The problem seems to be, for instance closing Gitmo or ending DADT, where his liberal views don't always coincide all that well with his fascist policies.

My guess would be that not more than 10% of the people polled are even aware of this discrepancy. I think most people listen to what he says and they see him say all the right stuff, so they trust his policies will be in line with what he says. Only that isn't the case at all.

[cliffordu]

28. I'm sorry you are so weak to have to blame the pragmatists and

moderates for failing to gain what you want.

[AllentownJake]

29. I blame them for doing the opposite

actually fucking things up.

How is the pragmatic approach to war going for us?

I mean, killing people in another country thousands of miles away with our youth is always a pragmatic affair.

Oh and it appears we are laying off teachers this year. Well as long as the youth can read the instructions on the munitions package we will be OK.

[conscious evolution]

38. The destruction of education has brought about

large numbers of people who do not know what liberalism actually is.
The concentration of the msm ownership by the riechwingers and their constant demonization of liberals has created large numbers of people who are afraid of either admitting to being liberal or actually considering espousing liberal policys.
I will give Nance credit for one thing-Her slamming of teabaggers has helped drive normal pukes to the dem party.These new dems.in turn, have nearly succeeded into turning the dem party into puke party v.2

[ozone_man]

53. We're just seeing deeper, pragmatic, chess moves

After all, maybe these are just wars on terror, not to gain control of foreign oil and natural gas. Bailing out Wall Street on the backs of the middle class, and ending the ban on off-shore drilling are in our best interests, not corporate welfare.

In all fairness to Obama, he said that he was no liberal when running in 2008, and he has been right about that.

The danger I saw to a pragmatic Democratic winning was that rather than deal with the problems at hand left by Bush (Iraq/Afghanistan) and Clinton (repealing Glass_Steagall and NAFTA), was that they would try to patch up a failed banking system and out of control military industrial complex. So now we are going to see a much harder fall when this unsustainable bubble finally pops, after running trillion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future.

[NJmaverick]

79. I'm sorry that people like that make such a weak case, they need to falsely claim

to speak for all liberals

[cliffordu]

95. YES!! Thank you.

[Scuba]

41. If they would admit it, the center is far left of where the MSM and...

...crooked congresspersons say it is.

[Dr Morbius]

45. The grand tradition of the Democratic circular firing squad continues! (nt)

[redqueen]

68. Yep.

[NJmaverick]

80. That assumes the attackers are Dems, rather than from another political party

[Dr Morbius]

108. A fair point. (nt)

[William Z. Foster]

151. hint, hint, wink, wink

Right, sure.

Republicans are pretending to be leftists and fooling us, so they can take down the Democratic party.

Sure, that is it.

[William Z. Foster]

129. circular firing squad

There could not any circular firing squad unless there were some people standing on the opposite side on all of the issues.

The left wingers are firing in the same direction they have been all along. If they are now hitting some Democrats, what does that tell us?

Vigorous debate is not a "firing squad." Calling it one encourages suppression of dissent and discourages free and open discussion.

[yowzayowzayowza]

52. Equine Feces.

Those that are lost on the left frequently seem to fail to comprehend our current political reality: we do not have the type of control that FDR & LBJ had in the Senate. Period. Pretending we do is jus plain silly.

And for the record: there ain't an "insulting, condescending, hypocritical, and just asshole-ish in general" syllable in that fact.

[NJmaverick]

85. Very true most of us on the left have a far better understanding of political reality

and are very happy with the improvements that have been made

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Nothing is more condescending that claiming that

the person you address does not comprehend reality.

[yowzayowzayowza]

105. Unless they actually don't. n/t

[William Z. Foster]

130. not so

What is missing today is the thing that drove the New Deal - a powerful and militant left in the form of organizations outside of the party bringing relentless pressure on the politicians. That vital and essential ingredient in the political process is the very thing the partisan loyalists are frantically trying to prevent and squelch.

This excuse of not having enough seats is simply false. The Republicans rammed through their entire agenda with less power than the Democrats have today.

[yowzayowzayowza]

139. Really?

>The Republicans rammed through their entire agenda with less power than the Democrats have today.

Like restricting abortion, killing cabinet level departments, privatizing SS, .... Fact is their lack of control limited their progress.

>What is missing today is the thing that drove the New Deal - a powerful and militant left...

Yea, one that turned out and elected a large controlling block of Democratic US Senators, unlike we have now.

[William Z. Foster]

150. yes

They have no interest in restricting abortion - that issue works too well for them.

They also have no interest in killing cabinet level departments. They simply plant corporate operatives to run the departments. Very effective for them. They can rant and rail against government and fool the public, while they use the government to advance the corporate agenda. Haven't you watched how the Republicans operate?

You are taking their rhetoric too seriously.

Now as to SS - that is too popular for a Republican president to eliminate. A Democratic administration, however...

OK, you win. The Republicans did not have massive success in getting their agenda accomplished. What were we all so worried about then?

So much for "the Republicans made a big mess of things and it will take the new administration some time to turn the ship around."

[yowzayowzayowza]

152. ...as if ruining the economy taint a big mess. n/t

[William Z. Foster]

159. what a cruel joke

If Bush and company "ruined the economy," one would reasonably expect a 180 degree turn around in direction - no one is looking for instant results - from the Democrats, wouldn't we?

[yowzayowzayowza]

161. New direction, yes; but not necessarily "a 180 degree turn around," no. n/t

[William Z. Foster]

164. why not?

Why not? That was sure as in the hell what people were demanding, and what was promised.

[yowzayowzayowza]

165. "Change" is not necessarily "a 180 degree turn around." n/t

[William Z. Foster]

168. direction

No one is impatient about arriving, we are talking about the direction the ship is pointed.

So you say we should not head 180 degrees in a new direction from the previous regime on these policies -

- Torture

- Illegal war

- Rendition

- The Bill of Rights and habeas corpus

- Environmental protection

- GLBTQ equality

- Organized Labor

- Privatization

- Regressive taxes

- Public education

- Domination by Wall Street and the banking industry

- The health care insurance industry

- Domination by corporate agri-business and the pharmaceutical industry

- The Patriot Act

- The War on Drugs

- Homeland Security

- Immigrant rights

...and so forth.

You find some "moderate" middle ground or room for compromise on those issues? You see no need to head in the opposite direction now?

Millions voted for Obama expecting - whether they were right or wrong - that we would be going in the opposite direction. Maybe not quickly, no, but at least heading in the opposite direction. We are not now headed in the opposite direction. None of the party leaders talk like they want to or have any nt4kltion of heading in the opposite direction.

Given all of that, and when compared to previous administrations in history, the reaction to and the criticism of the current leadership has been extremely restrained and mild.

[yowzayowzayowza]

170. No, I do not think we need to be so reactive to the failures...

of the * admin as to require always "heading in the opposite direction." Tiz a silly dichotomy.

[William Z. Foster]

171. not following

I don't think the administration is failing, I think they want to move to the right.

Heading in the opposite direction is not an unrealistic expectation. That is, after all, what people voted for - in massive numbers - that is what they were promised.

Now that the contrast between what people expected and what is happening is a "silly dichotomy?"

[yowzayowzayowza]

173. "*" is Bush:

Guess yer not a Doonesbury fan.

[William Z. Foster]

175. that much I understood

Otherwise I would have asked what the asterisk meant.

[yowzayowzayowza]

176. M'kay. n/t

[Romulox]

54. The modern Democratic Party would feel just like home to George H.W. Bush, circa 1988. nt

[Donnachaidh]

56. so they are the "F*ck you, I've got Mine" wing of the Democratic Party?

:rofl:

That definition works for me -- explains a LOT.

[MidwestRick]

58. So much for...

...the "big" tent.

-MR

[tammywammy]

66. So it's not a "big tent"?

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

87. There is a small group of liberals that are trying to declare themselves the "true liberals"

anyone that doesn't agree 100% with their personal views are no longer allowed to call themselves liberals anymore.

[tammywammy]

90. Oh yes I know

I'll even admit, I'm a horrible moderate. But damn, I always vote democratic, does this part of the party NOT want me to vote for them? Do they not understand there are a LOT of people like me (including the vast majority of my friends) that consider themselves moderate, yet always vote democratic?

At the end of the day, I really don't care about so-called "purity" tests that a fraction of DU seems to enjoy pushing. They can to Cheney themselves. :)

[freddie mertz]

127. Still smarting from that one, eh?

No one in their right mind would ever call you a liberal.

One reason is that you have posted how much you don't like liberals more than once..I saw it in the other thread.

[William Z. Foster]

135. no there aren't

That is simply false, no matter how many times it gets repeated. The repetition of talking points again and again that have been thoroughly refuted and that are indefensible - what is with that? Hoping it will stick if you repeat it often enough? Hoping to work people to death having to run around refuting it dozens and dozens of times? Hoping some will read it and believe it if you can get it in the discussion enough times so that it cannot always be refuted?

No one is trying to declare themselves the true liberals - other than perhaps you.

No one is demanding that all agree with them 100%, other than perhaps you.

No one is telling you what you can and cannot call yourself. Why would that be an issue for you? Why not just give your opinions on the issue? Why do you need the cover of a label - shouldn't your super liberal ideas stand on their own? Why do you feel threatened about this?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. "...but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine K&R

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine

[socialist_n_TN]

72. This is kind of funny to me because

I've always considered myself a leftist AND a pragmatist. Ideologically I'm VERY left, even a small "s" socialist, but in real politics I'm pretty pragmatic.

Pragmatically, the last 30 to 40 years politically have been a HARD right turn in this country and really all over the world. During periods like this ALL you can do is make incremental changes leftward and sometimes the absolute BEST you can do is hold it where it's at and keep it from going even MORE rightward. That's pragmatic. That's was also where the DLC had some use.

However, we're actually on the cusp of a time when we can yank the country leftward, but it's just that, on the cusp. Even if we we're able to do it, it going to take YEARS to change the Senate and it's the Senate that is the current problem as far as passing REAL legislative changes toward a more perfect People's Republic of the United States.

We're only four years into this "cusp" period. I think that, even if everything worked out PERFECTLY we're talking about a 15 or 20 year process to change the country to where "liberal" isn't a dirty word with the majority. The majority might hold progressive IDEAS, but they STILL don't think of it as liberal or leftist. THAT'S what we've got to change, the perception. And that's where the DLCer and the more RW of the Democratic Party have begun to outlive their usefulness as a player. They're NOT going to turn their backs on the policies that worked during the middle of the Great Reagan Reaction BECAUSE FOR THEM THOSE POLICIES ARE STILL NECESSARY. They're fighting the LAST political war, not the one we should be in now.

As to this kind of infighting among the progressive set, get used to it. The Left in all times and in all places, when it comes into some political power, ALWAYS splinters into sects. Bolsheviks, Menshiviks, Socialists, socialists, Social Democrats, Anarchists, etc. EVERYBODY is more ideologically pure than everybody else. I don't know if that will EVER change.

[ProSense]

75. Ridiculous

Why are so many "moderates" and "pragmatists" attracted to the Democrats? Simple: because the Dems are acting like traditional Republicans. These people, these moderates and pragmatists, only care about themselves. They do not really believe in the bullshit that they spew, about "reforming" education, or health care, or "social justice", or protecting the rights of workers, etc.

Some people really need to stay away from amateur psychoanalysis.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. Why the personal snark?

Why not explain specifically why you do not agree?

[ProSense]

93. Why the inability to comprehend criticism? Here:

It is because of the "moderates" and "pragmatists" that the Democratic Party has lost the left. You see, people don't like it when you abandon them and then PRETEND to represent them. It's insulting, condescending, hypocritical, and just asshole-ish in general.

More nonsense. The party has always had moderates. In fact, moderates didn't stop the party from moving left, attracting more populists and progressives. Also, the lame attempts to redefine the word "pragmatist" is simply self-righteous feel good nonsense from the my-way-or-the-highway crowd. It's all or nothing, no compromise and kill the bill. It's unrealistic garbage.

[bridgit]

101. The OP is a form *of* personal attack. And that charge has been made a couple...

times up & down. But if people think that any reply to the OP is a "personal snark" then it may be best to refer to the OP itself as genus i.e. "It is because of the "moderates" and "pragmatists" that the Democratic Party has lost the left" Oh really? I say the so-called left, the wannabe hippy dippy left lost themselves in the spittle of the too oft times porous incongruity of their histrionic, romanticized notions of Lenin, Trotsky, Castro & Chavez. And they are prepared to blame, once again, everyone but themselves for that fact as they bounce off each other like red rubber balls praising only themselves

[William Z. Foster]

134. no it isn't

There is no personal attack.

Interesting, though to see people who are assuming that it is directed at them. Where would they get that idea?

"...their histrionic, romanticized notions of Lenin, Trotsky, Castro & Chavez?" Where did that come from? Is this the House Un-American Activities Committee reincarnated?

You deny that the some self-described moderates and pragmatists within the party have been trying to drive the left and left wing ideas from the party? Really?

This is an odd thing. You call for ignoring and marginalizing the ideas expressed in the OP because you say that the OP is wrong when he says that there is an effort to ignore and marginalize the left. That proves rather than refutes the point.

[bridgit]

166. Of course it is, don't be silly

[NJmaverick]

76. As a liberal I couldn't disagree stronger with the claims being made in this post

it's beyond nonsensical. Polls show liberals overwhelmingly SUPPORT the President and the party. Only the fringe is claiming they have been left behind.

[William Z. Foster]

119. you just supported the OP

If you are going to claim the label liberal for yourself, AND disagree with the OP, then that supports the OP's point - quite strongly so.

Of course polls show that those who call themselves liberal support a Democratic party administration,. Doh. What does that have to do with the price of beans? You are dishonestly using that to promote a certain message - that people support the conservative faction in the party, and that the conservative faction within the party is not really conservative. Your polling example does not support either of those contentions. Even were those were true, why would someone be promoting them obliquely and deceptively?

[AllentownJake]

125. I know you have this crazy idea

that saying you are something will make it true. It doesn't work.

You can't reclaim something that you never had to begin with.

[TheKentuckian]

92. The "pragmatists" are no such animal. It is a lie of conflation in an effort to

confuse political cowardice and complicity with power brokers with actually doing what it is necessary to accomplish for the health and prosperity of the society as a whole.

The whole little meme is a lie and the lie is being exposed so now they have started another re-brand to declare everyone left of St Ray Gun as a liberal and anyone that works first for corporate power as somehow pragmatic.

What a bunch of lying liars that lie.

[NJmaverick]

96. Pragmatists are the people that get things done and put the progress in progressive

while those attacking pragmatists are as useful to our nation as a bicycle is helpful to a fish.

[TheKentuckian]

100. Yep, its true 'pragmatists' get stuff done and big insurance, big carbon, the banks,

and the pharmaceutical industry deeply appreciate all their efforts.

Heckuva job Brownies!!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

117. What the self-styled pragmatists "get done" is mostly either not worth doing

(renewing the Patriot Act) or half-assed and wrong-headed (HCR).

[William Z. Foster]

133. just like the Abolitionists, for example

Word for word, every charge you are making against critics was made against the Abolitionists. They should work within the Whig party, the pragmatic people were actually getting things done, the Abolitionists were a fringe bunch of radicals, they were unrealistic, they were "hurting the cause," they were "helping the opposition party, there were not enough Whig held seats in Congress to do anything about slavery, and on and on.

You are making the same argument that every group has made in opposition to social and political change, yet who did not want to admit that they were doing that. "We've got it handled! We are the anti-slavery party! You have two and only two choices! You are a small fringe! The public is conservative on this, so what can we do? We are a lot better than the pro-slavery party! These things take time! We need to be practical and realistic! It can't happen overnight, you are being impatient!"

That thinking, that sort of distorted and misguided partisan loyalty destroyed Daniel Webster's legacy and reputation. It also killed the Whig party.

[amborin]

107. +1000

[bridgit]

97. Hahahahaha, so that makes you what? Carl, our best presentation guy?

http://www.youtube.com/user/fedex?v=QVruqFDmbyU&feature=pyv&ad=4596753631&kw=presentation :spray:

[TwilightGardener]

98. That commercial is AWESOME!

:rofl:

[MilesColtrane]

99. "These people"

You know...the people who support "that one".

:eyes:

[William Z. Foster]

143. that is a stretch

Pretty ugly and malicious post there.

[MilesColtrane]

169. I'm not the one calling fellow Democrats condescending, hypocritical assholes.

[William Z. Foster]

172. nor did the OP

The OP said "when you abandon them and then PRETEND to represent them. It's insulting, condescending, hypocritical, and just asshole-ish in general."

Behavior is being described there.

Why do so many people assume that the OP was talking about them? I didn't.

[gulliver]

103. The ones on the left who can be so easily lost...

...are probably better done without. The reasonable folks on the left are a lock for the Dems. It's just beyond dispute that the Dems are head and shoulders better than the Republicans. Folks who don't consider that beyond dispute are probably beyond help.

[William Z. Foster]

158. easily lost?

You have got to be kidding. Torture, war, detentions, rendition, Wall Street bailouts, foot-dragging on GLBTQ equality, a joke of a "health care" bill, broken promises to immigrants and to Labor, corporations with access to the White House holding secret meetings, foot-dragging on the oil catastrophe in the Gulf... this is "easily lost???"

You are saying "good riddance" though, if I am understanding you. That supports what the OP is saying.

[newtothegame]

104. The left lost on the issues because the left didnt VOTE the issues in 2008.

And neither did the rest our party. We voted to make "history" with our vote, and that's what we got. It made a lot of neat headlines and will be a cool section in our kid's history textbooks, but that's about it. We didn't care that candidate Obama didn't really have any foreign relations experience, or healthcare expertise, or that there was no real evidence he could or would follow through on much of what he was saying, because darn it, he looked SO COOL IN SUNGLASSES.

[TheKentuckian]

106. None of that mattered much the only options permitted were Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, and

Romney. I don't think anyone off the approved list would have done anything very different. A little window dressing but essentially the same power friendly folks.

Experience isn't the problem, it is being complicit with and/or punked by big money.

[Lorien]

115. Do you really think that We the People choose our candidates?

Come on.

[TwilightGardener]

116. Saying this over and over for the almost two years you've been on DU

does not make it any closer to being true. Maybe YOU voted for Obama because you wanted to "make history", but YOU doesn't make a WE.

[WeDidIt]

111. IBTL

[DevonRex]

113. Well, aren't you just special? Have you drawn up a list of DUers

who have destroyed the left wing of the party? :rofl:

[dionysus]

121. snap to rahmette! we've got us some CRUISE MISSLE!!1!-in to do!

i'll pick us up some lattes in my limo, then we can get down to brass tacks tackling those leftists!
:rofl:

:hi:

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[Lorien]

114. There are Selfservatives on the Right and in the "center" (old right) now

and the Left, which represents the interests of the people, not the powerful-has no representation at all. The effects are obvious; continued unethical banking practices which is destroying our economy, an oil gusher which won't end until a large corporation finds a highly "profitable" way of stopping it, toxic food, air and water from the profit machines, no movement forward in replacing dirty fossil fuels with renewable alternatives, unending destruction of the natural world that sustains us, the privatization of once public education-and damn near everything else. Lack of privacy, lack of health care, lack of humanity...all in the pursuit of more profit and more power for that wealthiest 0.5%. Until Selfservatives on both sides WAKE UP and see that THEY are not the ones being served-that they are the servants-nothing will change. The push will be ever Rightward.

[BzaDem]

128. Except that the Democratic party has not lost the left at all. Some people here have an inflated

sense the importance of their views. People on DU represent a TINY portion of the Democratic party. "Liberal Democrats" have an approval rating of Obama that ranges within a few points of 90% for the past year.

[dionysus]

132. so to these guys, they're probably all DINOs. by the time they're done excluding everyone

who isn't their definition of "liberal", we'd have less people than the teabaggers do.

[William Z. Foster]

160. it has nothing to do with any "definition"

People are obsessed with this business of word definitions. I think that is to distract us from the points of substance being made.

Do you really expect people to believe that the OP is saying "I get to call myself a liberal and you don't?" That is more like what you are often saying.

[William Z. Foster]

141. always true

Politics is always driven by several small factions competing for the attention of the general public.

Obviously, what you say is not true. Were it, there would not be such a ferocious response to the OP.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[William Z. Foster]

155. it is?

"Politics is always driven by small factions competing for the attention of the public."

Ergo, the oft-repeated charge that those who disagree with you should be dismissed because they are a small faction is not a very powerful argument.

Where is the flawed logic there?

Why the insult about inhaling paint thinner?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

137. To suggest that being a liberal is non-pragmatic is itself offensive. n/t

[Arkana]

140. Congratulations, you just threw FDR, Kennedy, and Johnson under the bus.

They were all pragmatists.

[William Z. Foster]

148. quite to the contrary

Their success was the result of intense outside pressure from powerful and militant left wing groups - yet you would use those examples to say that people should not bring any such pressure? That is self-contradictory.

[Arkana]

149. That isn't what I said at all.

My point is that the OP is slandering all pragmatic Democrats--and three of our most famous and successful 20th century Presidents happen to fit that category.

Christ, you folks are all the goddamn same. "THIS PERSON DOES NOT CONFORM 100% TO MY RIGID DEMOCRATIC IDEALS! THEY MUST BE PURGED BY FIRE!"

[William Z. Foster]

154. the OP is not doing that at all

First of all, the rank and file voters and the leaders are two different things. You betray your identification with the rulers rather than with your working class compatriots with this post.

What we advocate and what rulers do are two different things. We should be advocating strongly for the working people. The rulers will then no doubt "be pragmatic" and compromise with the desires of the wealthy few and we will to that extent lose.

Secondly, the OP was not talking about all pragmatic people nor all pragmatism, but rather specifically about people driving the party to the right and calling that "pragmatic."

FDR could not have would not have pushed for progressive legislation were it no for outside pressure from powerful left wing groups. Do you deny that? It makes absolutely no sense today to say that because "FDR was a pragmatist" therefore we should not pressure the leaders or be critical. Had people followed your advice back then there would have been no New Deal. FDR, by the way, saw this the way I do. "If you want me to do something, force me too." Good politicians know they can do nothing if they are not pressured to do them.

So FDR, JFK, and LBJ were not the sort of Democrats who told us to be pragmatic, who told us not to pressure them to do things, not to form powerful organizations outside of the partisan process - yet you are telling us that. You are more out of sync with them than anyone else here, in other words.

No one was "slandered." If you are not a person wanting to move the party to the right under the guise of "pragmatism" then it doesn't apply to you. If you are, it is not slander - it is an accurate statement.

Now, this -

"Christ, you folks are all the goddamn same. 'THIS PERSON DOES NOT CONFORM 100% TO MY RIGID DEMOCRATIC IDEALS! THEY MUST BE PURGED BY FIRE!'"

Whoa. No one has said anything even remotely like that. Are you hearing that inside your head or something? "You folks are all the same?" Seriously? Very strange comment. I assume you are angry from the caps and the strong language. What are you so angry about?

[Arkana]

156. That's absolutely what the OP is doing.

It's designating anyone who doesn't conform to their preset model of "Generic Democrat" as an "other" or an "outsider".

And FDR in particular was a huge pragmatist when it came to getting done what he wanted to get done--he cut deals, things he wanted in bills were often scrapped so he could get enough votes, etc. You seem to be under the impression that I think outside influence from grassroots groups on politicians is a bad thing. I never said that, not once.

Also, news flash--we're not advocating driving the party to the right and you're being disingenuous in claiming that we are.

[William Z. Foster]

157. let's look and see

I have talked to so many people-countless people-who are Democratic or former Democratic voters, and they are very angry with the Democratic Party. Many of them are here on DU. They feel that the party has abandoned them, the liberals and progressives and the left in general, in favor of "moderates" and "pragmatists" who are attracted to the Democratic Party because the party is increasingly friendly to Wall Street, or to their personal bigotry on social issues, or to anything else that we used to associate with the Republican Party.

Complaining about the party moving to the right there.

Why are so many "moderates" and "pragmatists" attracted to the Democrats? Simple: because the Dems are acting like traditional Republicans. These people, these moderates and pragmatists, only care about themselves. They do not really believe in the bullshit that they spew, about "reforming" education, or health care, or "social justice", or protecting the rights of workers, etc.

Questioning whether some of the the self-proclaimed moderates are really moderates or if that is cover for something else, and then pointing out that many here are in fact promoting right wing ideas.

It is because of the "moderates" and "pragmatists" that the Democratic Party has lost the left. You see, people don't like it when you abandon them and then PRETEND to represent them. It's insulting, condescending, hypocritical, and just asshole-ish in general.

Pointing out why many on the left are becoming alienated.

So, the Democratic Party has only itself to blame when they get voted out of office. But don't worry, moderates and pragmatists, another corporate right-wing party-the traditional one-is willing to take your place.

Pointing out that this move to the right strategy may backfire.

There is nothing there that can even remotely be characterized as "designating anyone who doesn't conform to their preset model of 'Generic Democrat' as an 'other' or an outsider.'"

I don't know of you are trying to drive the party to the right or not, It is moving to the right, and you are arguing with people who object to that.

I didn't say that you "think outside influence from grassroots groups on politicians is a bad thing." I said that you think criticism and dissent is a bad thing, if anything. You are objecting to someone saying that we need stronger criticism of the administration and that there is resistance to that. One would assume that this reflects your views, but I don't know. Mostly I was pointing out that opinions similar to the OP are how we got the New Deal and that moving to the right, compromising and advocating pragmatism would have never gotten us there.