The Civil War Brewing Among Democrats

[earth mom]

The Civil War Brewing Among Democrats
by John Avlon

Republicans aren’t the only ones tearing their contemporaries apart. As liberal activists slam President Obama and Nancy Pelosi for being too centrist—and moderate Democrats struggle in polls—a movement is under way to expose and dethrone “Democrats in Name Only.”

“I'm going to start provocatively ... I'm disgusted with this president,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero at the America's Future Now! conference of liberal activists in Washington, D.C. this week.

MoveOn.org’s campaign director, Ilyse Hogue, joined the pile-on at the same conference, saying: “No longer can they count on us for a solid Democratic vote. We are getting more sophisticated to understand that not all Democrats are created equal.”

The divisions in the Democratic Party are deepening, less than two years after its galvanizing 2008 victory that left liberals crowing about the prospect of a 40-year majority.

More:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-11/democrat-civil-war-the-fight-within-the-party/?cid=bs:archive18

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[TheKentuckian]

23. There is no such thing, not in any measurable amount.

The day of the hard left in America has long past. The "extreme" left is now what might be loosely called social Democrats, civil libertarians, and environmentalists.

Hell, some on what you are calling extreme may have been liberal to moderate Republicans forty years ago.

I might fit into your "extreme left" and I'm a Zionist that makes Charlton Heston look like a gun grabber.

Get some perspective, a real moderate looks nothing like Anthony Kennedy, Max Baucus, Olympia Snowe, or whoever people are trying to play off as left of Nixon much less in "the middle".

[rurallib]

74. that would be me. moderate to left in late 60s - early 70s

I clearly fall into the wild eyed, loony left. Yet my views have changed little.
America has been pulled so far to the right that Nixon would be a democrat today.
What gets me is that if you criticize Obama it is almost fighting words.

[dflprincess]

135. I'm not so sure America has pulled to the right as much as it's the

two major political parties tell us it has. I think the majority of Americans are more progressive than the coporate sell outs who "represent" us.

[pattmarty]

144. Disagree. Just look at "news" from the past 40 yrs. RW propaganda..........

..............and our piss poor education system has had the effect of "dumbing down" or pushing views of working class Americans further rightward. The Republicans have been brilliant (and have a shitload of money) at their propaganda attack over the last 40 yrs. I have the same political views I had when I was 18 (in 1968) that I have today. Most of my kids (5 of my own and 2 "steps") have views to the right of me. A lot of that was my fault as I was of the belief that you don't smother your kids with your views, and let them arrive at their own views (bad mistake on my part). If you look at all other "industrialized" nations (Asian or European) it is OBVIOUS that we are the most right leaning by far.

[defendandprotect]

174. Actually, America is a liberal nation ... which Chomsky tells us all the time ...

based on polls that elites run to let them know where they are --

Think about it, if this was a right wing nation, why would the right wing have

needed 50 years of overt political violence to rise?

Why would the right wing need to knock over "The Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine"?

Why would they need to have a corporate monopoly of the press?

Why would the right wing need to BUY our government? Pre-bribe and pre-own candidates?

Why would the right wing need to steal elections with computer voting?

Why would they have had to bring in the Supreme Court in 2000?

Why a fascist GOP-sponsored rally to stop the vote counting in 2000?

Why the outright stealing of votes in Ohio in 2004?

And many say that 2008 was a much bigger landslide for Dems -- would have had possibly

24 more Dem Reps!


The only way the right wing rises is thru violence and deception --

that's why ExxonMobil has spent tens of billions on misinformation and disinformation re

Global Warming over the past 50 years!!

On and on --

Meanwhile, Americans well understand the underlying violence of this government and how we

got this land --

They understand the Mexicans actually occupied much of it --

[Enthusiast]

86. Thank you.

I am also a gun toting liberal that would be characterized as an extreme leftist. But it isn't true. I'm like you, a social Democrat, a civil libertarian, supporter of labor issues and environmentalist.

[JHB]

221. In terms of today's political language...

...we were practically a communist country for most of the Cold War. About 3 decades.

Who knew?

[WeDidIt]

2. Oh, and IBTL n/t

[Xipe Totec]

4. I hope not

It's a good point, and the peril of the big tent philosophy.

I'm not against that, I just realize that, sooner or later, a party that is too big will cleave.

[Smashcut]

66. Says the guy who praises the far right for their ability to "compromise" unlike the "radical left"

:eyes:

[WeDidIt]

71. Says the guy on the left unwilling to compromise.

:eyes:

[Kalyke]

75. How does one compromise on abortion rights?

Either you're for them or you're not. You either believe a woman should have the right to choose or you believe life begins at conception and any fetal matter is a potential human, so an abortion is, effectively, murder.

You can't "King Solomon" out of that one.

[WeDidIt]

78. There's a bullshit stance if I ever saw one.

Even Roe Vs. Wade grants that viability gives the government a compelling interest, and thus limitations on third trimester abortions are warranted.

Trying to "black and white" everything is the hallmark of radical intransigence. Life is more complicated than you would allow.

[liberation]

81. Ironically, your answer is a classic BS red herring talking point from the right on abortion rights

Thus sort of proving the previous poster's point.

Carry on...

[Kalyke]

120. I wasn't speaking of third-term abortions.

I was speaking SPECIFICALLY to the fact that you cannot compromise on abortion rights.

You either ban them all because you believe killing fetal cells is murder or you implicitly say that a woman's health care is none of your business and support choice.

There's really no middle ground.

Sure, you can be against abortion and support choose - but you've still opted to support choice.

[Kalyke]

121. dupe

[defendandprotect]

170. You require approval for third trimester abortions ....

because they are dangerous for the pregnant female --

which makes the rw notion that anyone seeks a late term abortion for convenience

insane.

There has been too much compromise on every issue --

From the Founders and our schizophrenic Constitution --

which set us up for elitism/male superiority and warring on minorities --

and for the Civil War over slavery --

We compromised with Segregation for 100 more years --

And we're still compromised on women's equality --

How much more compromise on DADT and gay marriage -- ?

We've just finished what wasn't even a compromise, but a complete sell out of even

a public option when we should have been moving to single payer -- !


On and on -- compromising on labor issues -- the highest unionization we ever had

in America was 39% and with right wing attacks, including organized crime being used,

we're down to 7% -- !

Nothing is "black and white" -- but neither is compromise necessarily a good thing.

[greiner3]

84. You create a society;

That does not need abortions. Or at least need very few, a lot less than the numbers performed today.

[Kalyke]

123. Well, I agree with that, but the methods regarding how to

achieve that can't be compromised, either.

I'm sure most of us here believe education regarding birth control, steady employment, access to higher education and health care would all reduce the need for abortions; however, the more rightish of our kin would disagree.

They believe in total abstinence and that you get what you can pay for - if you lose your job, it's your fault. If you don't get rich, then God hasn't blessed you and so on. They absolutely don't want sex education taught and they don't think that corporations should pay more in taxes to provide citizens with the right to go to college for free (or nearly free when one considers their own taxes) or access to a single-payer health care insurance system.

Again... where's the compromise?

[defendandprotect]

173. How about totally free vasectomies . . . ???

[JHB]

223. An additional point is that the anti-reproductive rights side has repeatedly shown...

...that they have no interest in finding a compromise.

[Greyhound]

152. Once again maintaining their near perfect record of being wrong. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. It's long overdue. The fruits of triangulation and appeasement of the right are rotten. K&R

[Raine]

68. Totally agree nt

[burnsei sensei]

100. But that triangulation

is what Third Way ideology is about.
It is about compromise--
it has no integrity because it is too desperate for results.
Third Way ideology enrages conservatives because it co-opts their solutions in the process of compromise.
In other words, Bill Clinton gets the credit for "ending welfare as we know it."
But who really wanted to end welfare?
Why, the Republicans did, of course. It was their idea, never that of the Democrats.
Did your neck freeze at the back when Clinton made that speech? I know mine did. Because instead of confronting the injustice of this right wing idea, he decided to implement it as Democratic, left-leaning policy.
Did poverty go away? No.
Did welfare go away? Yes.
Are your wages worth more now than then? No.
So who was Bill Clinton working for? Whose interests was he really protecting?
Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Elena Kagan?
All from the same group. They will make the pro-corporate compromise and make sure to co-opt every conservative solution they can find.
That is why both the true left and true right are disgusted with this president.
That is why Al Gore makes their heads explode.

[Scruffy1]

190. Well said

It never ceases to amaze me that the subset of the population that doesn't identify itself with either party is automatically classified as the center. While it may be true that the lunatic right is Republican to the core, it's not true of the left. A large percentage of these "undecideds" are far more progressive than the Democratic Party. What may never change is that the Souths coalition has been able to put a stranglehold on the US for most of our history.

[cui bono]

200. +1

[Dinger]

5. Wish Things Were Better

but they aren't.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. It's an old cliche, but no less the truth..... "An eagle cannot fly with two right wings"

We have one right wing party. We don't need two. This country would be much better served if the DLC'ers and Blue Balled Cowards went back to their own party, and took it back from the likes of BecKKK, Bachmann, and Palin.

Let's marginalize the teabaggers. Not the Liberals and the Working Class.

[Laelth]

29. Hear, hear!

I called for a "moderate" invasion of the Republican Party several years ago, here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/4

Perhaps the time is right for that now.

:dem:

-Laelth

[zipplewrath]

85. Exactly

The further right the GOP goes, the more room there is for democrats to move to the right. Better that they actually moved over to the GOP, and established a new "center" much further to the left.

[theFrankFactor]

126. Well Said! I Welcome a Split on Principals Within This Sham of a Party.

Blue Dogs? My ass!

[ProSense]

7. "Republicans aren’t the only ones tearing their contemporaries apart."

Yeah, this is the same phenomenon. Look at all the radical Democrats winning elections. Sestak is going to shake the roots of the Democratic Party much in the same way the teabaggers are going to rip apart the GOP.

In the past, the conservative Club for Growth had the market cornered on primary challenges to same-party centrists in swing districts. Last year, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee began playing the same game, raising money to run ads against centrist Blue Dog Democrats in their own districts. “Blue Dog Democrats are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America,” said co-founder Adam Green in a press release. “And they will pay a political price back home for putting their corporate contributors ahead of their constituents who want reform.”

While the PCCC was emerging as a power player in Democratic politics, the centrist Democratic Leadership Council—which provided the policy underpinnings of Bill Clinton’s presidency—has been left a hollow shell of its former formidable self.

<...>

And while the ideological purges in the Democratic Party are still in amateur hour compared to the GOP, the impulse is similar, and it is growing. The practical need to win elections outside big cities might halt its spread, but that’s far from a safe bet as the midterms approach. The only cold comfort that might be found, at this particular moment, comes in the form of an old quote from a long-gone Main Street liberal era: “I am not a member of any organized political party,” famously proclaimed Will Rogers. “I am a Democrat.”

Author: John Avlon's new book, Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America, is available now by Beast Books both on the Web and in paperback. He is also the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics. Previously, he served as chief speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun.

Book cover

The author thinks the left is the "lunatic fringe."

[earth mom]

12. Based on the Amazon reviews of his book, it sounds like the author is more of centrist.

And I agree with Stinky who posted upthread that the so called "radical left" was actually considered a centrist viewpoint 30 years ago.

So what does that make todays centrists and DLCers?

Regardless, there is a storm brewing in the dem party.

You can see it here on DU every day.

[ProSense]

14. Giuliani is a centrist? n/t

[earth mom]

17. What in the hell are you talking about?

Why don't you discuss what the article was actually about instead of stirring up shit?

[ProSense]

31. The guy was Giuliani's speech writer, that's what I'm talking about.

If you want to cheer this on fine, but do not pretend that this isn't GOP drivel.

[cui bono]

201. nm

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Laelth]

30. The author is a third-way apologist. You nailed it.

This essay is an attack on liberal Democrats. That is its primary purpose. There's no "news" in it. It's a STFU argument.

:dem:

-Laelth

[ProSense]

32. "This essay is an attack on liberal Democrats. "

Yup, by a Republican.

[socialist_n_TN]

38. Everybody's trying to take on the "centrist" mantle

ESPECIALLY the far right. I've seen it coming in political discussions for several years now. The most radical right wingers have been calling themselves "moderates", because it plays better with the average, non political citizen than "Right wing, John Bircher nutjob" which is what they are.

Screw 'em. I don't care WHAT somebody calls me, if we get justice for the working class.

[Dr.Phool]

73. I noticed that trend when Reagan started appointing his cabinet.

The media kept referring to them as "conservatives". They branded themselves as "conservatives". I took a look, and said these people are reactionaries, not conservatives.

I still holds true today. Extremely conservative Dems are branded as moderates.

[theFrankFactor]

127. When Obama Appointed His Cabinet I Knew We Were in Trouble...

[defendandprotect]

176. Agree -- and I see no signs that he's firing Rahm . . . !!

[burnsei sensei]

102. Not a wise idea.

I want "centrist" to become political poison.

[socialist_n_TN]

109. I want the POLITICS of centrism to become

political poison, but I want socialist policies (MINIMALLY democratic socialist policies)to be CONSIDERED "centrist".

As I said in my original post and also down thread, it's about marketing your political philosophy to the large group of citizens who are basically NON political. That's the only place that being considered a centrist would be good.

If democratic socialism was considered centrist, then we would probably get democratic socialist policies.

[pattmarty]

148. What you want is FDR type of policies. His policies didn't steal..............

.............from the rich to feed the poor, they taxed the richer at slightly higher levels than the less fortunate to pay for what a lot call (not just that shithead Tom Brokaw) America's greatest generation. And, those same policies were just fine for Dems and Republicans up until Nixon.

[William Z. Foster]

197. not so

Militant left wing groups, powerful and well-organized and militant, pressuring and threatening the politicians is why the New Deal happened. That has been the case in every great movement for social justice.

FDR's "policies" were the result of a struggle, not some grand political plan or philosophy. That is always true in politics. Elections and policies tell us where we have been, not where we are going. Elections are an effect of social and political carnage, they are not a cause of political and social change.

FDR was a "centrist" - all politicians are. Militant left wing groups moved the entire spectrum to the left, and hence the center was also to the left. The New Deal was halfway between the left and the right at the time. Today the center is way to the right because rather than advocating left wing politics, many here start out by advocating centrism and compromise. Each time they do that, the political center moves to the right, and they move to the right along with that, and then a new center is established even farther to the right.

If social justice could be measured on a scale of 1-10, and you would settle for "5" (the ruling class is always offering "0") then you had better be advocating for "10." The problem here is that people are promoting "5" and attacking anyone who advocates "10." That means we wind up with "2.5" in this round, and then the same centrists will be promoting "2.5" in the next round and we will wind up with "1.25." This has been happening for decades now, and is how the Democratic party and the political landscape has been relentlessly shifted to the right.

[socialist_n_TN]

206. Actually what I WANT is the Socialist Republic

of the United States of America with a government that is FULLY on the side of the workers of this country. Included in this would be support, financially and legally, for worker ownership of the means of production. Capital would be LIMITED to smaller enterprises for products that wouldn't affect the general welfare of the people. No multinational corporations and LIMITED and CONTROLLED interstate corporations. I WANT paid lobbying to be outlawed. I WANT public financing of elections. This is just a partial list, there's a LOT more that I WANT.

What I'd settle for is European style social democracy. At least for a time. The FDR style reforms should be a given.

[burnsei sensei]

150. In the context of the world,

Democratic Socialism is indeed centrist.
In the context of the irrational United States public, it is a hair from chaos.

[socialist_n_TN]

208. Yep. And I'm the guy who makes the social dems

look centrist. :) And DAMN proud of it.

[Arkana]

137. Avlon also thinks Olbermann is a "wingnut".

[Scurrilous]

8. So says Rudy 911's speechwriter.

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

9. 40 year majority? It doesn't look like Democrats even have a 1 year liberal majority

[LWolf]

45. I don't know why "liberals" would have been celebrating, anyway.

The party did not elect a liberal to the white house, and the Democratic majority in Congress is certainly not liberal.

[sabrina 1]

49. They didn't elect Republican lite either.

These arguments over 'left' 'right' etc. are worthless. The argument is over 'right and wrong'. War for profit is wrong. Offshore drilling is wrong. Bailing out failed Wall St. Banks is wrong. A National Health Care system is right. Taking care of THIS country's needs is right. Spending money on Alternative Energy Sources is right. Spending money on Education is right. Social Security is right. Sending money to foreign nations to help them buy more weapons is wrong. Nuclear weapons are wrong.

Providing safety nets for American citizens is right. Ending homelessness is right. The obscene Pentagon Budget is wrong. And not holding war criminals accountable is wrong. Torture is wrong.

When Americans decide that they are being manipulated to fight each other while they are being robbed blind of everything that matters, we will get a government that represents the people. Right now we have a government, both parties, that represent Corporations. That is wrong.

[Raksha]

63. And everybody knows it--all of those rights and wrongs you listed.

So what are we going to do about it?

[sabrina 1]

67. I don't know, maybe stop being distracted

by cartoon figures like Palin, Limbaugh et al would be a start. Our media is filled with vacuous nonsense. To get anywhere we need a media that delivers news but as long as people keep supporting 'entertainment news' that's what we'll get.

Without information, with a media that is designed to divide the American people, we can't begin to bring people together on issues that matter to everyone.

[Enthusiast]

92. +1000!

Right and wrong, what a concept!

I'll only add one, an obvious one. The SCOTUS decision on Citizens United is WRONG!

[sabrina 1]

110. I forgot about that one.

And lobbying should be abolished :-)

[LWolf]

114. I agree with your definition of right and wrong. nt

[ProudDad]

143. Nope, they "elected" non-bush

The Dems voted for whatever Dem was available...

A lot of new voters were fooled by smoking the hopium into voting for the "black guy" who said he'd "change things"...

A lot of the right-wing stayed home since they hated McCain the DINO...

And everyone else (except the pragmatic rich who always vote repub) voted against bush in their own way...

And everyone, as usual, voted their emotions...emotions manipulated by the corporate owned media...for the survival and enhancement of the Corporate State.

[theFrankFactor]

128. We Defer to the Right Because That's What The Congressional Dems Are Paid to Do.

We cleared a path for Bush and Cheney who, as we should have done, used their capital to promote their agenda. We are a scam at the top. The DLC is playing with us. The only real winners and those represented are CORPORATIONS. It's so obvious you have to be delusional not to see it at this point.

[pattmarty]

149. The last "liberal" majority was under LBJ.

[WCGreen]

10. This is happening all the time...

Every ten years or so there is a fight for the "soul" of the party...

People have such short memories.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[DCBob]

13. It worse among the Republicans..

much worse.

[applegrove]

53. Yup. At least for now. If the GOP moneymen get wind of this they may start

funding the left to make it happen.

[Enthusiast]

93. I'm not so sure.

Most of them seem to be embracing what now passes for the smaller GOP 'big tent'. Look at McCain for example. He talks like a complete Sarah Palin nut case.

[DCBob]

162. Which will not help him in Nov...

and illustrates perfectly how f'ked up the GOP is.

[Enthusiast]

94. I'm not so sure.

Most of them seem to be embracing what now passes for the smaller GOP 'big tent'. Look at McCain for example. He talks like a complete Sarah Palin nut case.

[Enthusiast]

95. I'm not so sure.

Most of them seem to be embracing what now passes for the smaller GOP 'big tent'. Look at McCain for example. He talks like a complete Sarah Palin nut case.

[Odin2005]

15. A poster on another board has posted about the rise of anti-establishment politics on both sides.

He calls our side's equivalent of the Teabaggers "the Liberal Insurgency" and says it has been slow to come out because it has been bamboozled by Obama, until now.

[flyarm]

16. oh ok..but i was still posting and hadn't seen it removed!!

[earth mom]

19. Totally agree. There is a movement to shut up the left. Except we won't shut up!

:evilgrin:

p.s. I have to run some errands right now, so let me know if anything interesting happens to this thread while I'm gone. I'm sure some will try to lock it.

[theFrankFactor]

129. +1

[Individualist]

202. +1000

[Odin2005]

24. Ack, I mean a whole different message board I post at, not DU.

It was at this Current Events and History board I frequent:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/index.php

[Crystal Clarity]

39. Ha! I've seen you there and

wondered if *that poster* might possibly be the DU Odin... not sure why but specifically remember that thought crossing my mind on a couple occasions. Small world. :hi:

-BTW I'm just a lurker there but have been visiting the site off and on since 9/11. Some very interesting reads among the posters, but I never felt the desire to jump into the fray.

[Odin2005]

44. Cool!

:D

[madrchsod]

25. gee ..i hope we are a bit more intelligent the the tea party folks

i`m pretty sure most of us would check the spelling on our signs....

[tomp]

54. the left has historically put millions in the street to oppose govt actions/policies.

the teabaggers get a few hundred maybe. there is no comparison.

what the left needs is bold leadership. period.

[tomp]

55. the left has historically put millions in the street to oppose govt actions/policies.

the teabaggers get a few hundred maybe. there is no comparison.

what the left needs is bold leadership. period.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. People, if you want this post to stand, don't engage the people with whom you disagree

There have already been pulled subthreads. The tactic is obvious. Incite and get the thread locked.

[earth mom]

22. Thank you for posting that.

I won't be around this afternoon to see what happens to this thread. Hope it is still here when I get back! :hide:

[Individualist]

166. Hear, hear!

The tactic is obvious and has been used numerous times to get threads locked.

[madrchsod]

21. oh well, his opinion is just one drop in a sea of of opinions

[varelse]

26. This is interesting, and needs to be discussed.

thank you for sharing it here.

[Laelth]

27. Nonsense. This is a hit piece on liberal Democrats.

"Elections are won by the party that connects with moderates and the middle class," says this third-way apologist.

I say, "No. They're not. Elections are won by the politician or Party that best energizes its base."

I have written about this before. See here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/41

:dem:

-Laelth

[whatchamacallit]

28. Testing 1, 2, 3

Am I still here?

[bvar22]

33. I will simply continue to fight for the things I have always fought for:

I absolutely OPPOSE:
*Increasing the Power and Wealth of For Profit Corporations.

*Increasing Military Spending (Decrease by 50% immediately)

*Continuing the phony WAR in the Middle East (Out Now)

*A Free Pass for War Criminals and Torturers


I absolutely SUPPORT:
*Medicare for anyone who wants it

*The immediate break-up (Trust Busting) of everything "Too Big to Fail".

*Fair Competition Legislation that lets Mom&Pop (small locally owned businesses and farms) compete with Big Box and Factory Farms on a level playing field.

*An end to "Free Trade" (Race to the Bottom)

*Organized LABOR and local co-ops.

*An end to the two-tiered Judicial System

*Prosecution of rich American War Criminals and War Profiteers. (Oh yes they did!)

*An END to "Corporate Personhood"

*Strictly Enforced Publicly Financed Elections (severe penalties for criminals)

*Transparent and Verifiable elections (Why isn't this a front burner issue with the Democratic Party?)

*Re-Regulation with strict oversight of Banking/Investment, Transportation, Communications, Trade, Energy, Utilities, Insurance.

*NO Public Money for private Prisons, armed Private Police, armed Defense Contractors, private intelligence agencies. Or For Profit Health Insurance Corporations.

*Immediate Civil Rights and Equal Protection for ALL. (No Exceptions)

*Free Quality Universal Education to everyone who wants it.

*Strong Social Safety Net and Consumer Protections.

*An end to The Patriot Act and a return to The Constitution.(especially Habeas and privacy protections)

*A refutation of the "Unitary Executive", and legislation to ensure it NEVER happens again.

*An END to Republican/Corporate influence INSIDE The Democratic Party !
(NO! They DON"T deserve a seat at the table!)

These are values I strongly believe in. I have fought for these values long before I ever heard the name "Obama", "triangulation", or "Centrist" Democrats. I will keep fighting for these values no matter who is in the White House.

It is an "Issues" thing, not a matter of Political Personalities.
When politicians move toward the above, I will support them.
When they move away, I will oppose them.
I don't expect to get everything, but I DO expect some respect for these values, and a voice in the Party that is asking for my money and support.
If a Political Party does not at least acknowledge these values and give them a seat at the table, I will find another Party that will.

I have been deeply disappointed over the last year as the White House made concession after concession to Republicans, but when the Progressive Democrats held out for the Public Option or opposed increased WAR funding, Obama sent the Winged Monkeys after them....Chicago Style.

I find that my FDR/LBJ values are increasingly unwelcome in the Democratic Party.
FDR Democrats have been branded "Fucking Retards" by the White House, and the Progressive Caucus has been effectively neutered by the "Centrist" Obama Administration in pursuit of Republican/Corporate/ Policy.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Stinky The Clown]

36. bvar .... we are "point by point kindred souls"

:hi:

[flyarm]

40. I could not say it better , thank you! I have not changed..nor have my values or principles! eom

[WillyT]

42. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said...

:kick:

K & R !!!

[earth mom]

59. Excellent post-totally agree! And Never Give Up!

:thumbsup:

[Enthusiast]

97. Oh baby! I'm with you, bvar22!

And many of the positions you list should be considered centrist positions.

[theFrankFactor]

130. Beautiful! This is a keeper man! I'm Right Beside You!

We just might make Liberals and Progressives out of Democrats yet!

[Lorien]

159. Add to that "strong support for environmental protections and regulations

and a reduction of greenhouse gases." for some reason the environment is usually left off most Dem lists these days. No other issue matters if the planet can't support life.

[uponit7771]

163. I've talked to Tea Baggers and GOPrs and they would support 2/3rds of your list. I don't know why...

...the DNC doesn't just do the common sense thing.

[Jennicut]

34. Well yeah, we either break into 4 groups or keep the 2 party system.

Coalitions bring headaches and corruption and all that good stuff too. Face it, no party will ever be pure. I learned that a long time ago.

[flyarm]

41. No one asks for pure..we just ask for our principles and values not be slapped in the face.over and

over again...and to be told those values and principles we have worked hard for and cherished now no longer matter!
There are some things very worth standing up for and fighting for!

[Jennicut]

43. I am realistic, too realistic for some I guess.

I have been researching countries with coalition type govt. because that is what you would need. A smaller progressive party would need to join with another to get power. Liberal Dems in England had some good ideas but their base is smaller, they needed to join with Labor or Tories. It does not cure all the problems with a huge tent party. I really think we may be on that path, how long will just two parties last? It has been a really long time. Of course, all govt. representation is different then parliamentary countries. It would be interesting but nothing will be perfect.

[flyarm]

46. That is nothing but nonsense..but keep believng that..I have lived too long to believe BS eom

[Jennicut]

48. What is BS? When the bigger tents break apart there are smaller parties.

What is BS about that? The Dem party won't be smaller if we cut liberals, moderates and blue dogs apart? Same with Repubs who stupidly want just ultra conservatives. A party doesn't usually survive like that. And Dems won't survive without liberals either. A big tent is like a collection of different coalitions or groups. That is BS?

[flyarm]

51. hey , I fully understand there will always be people willing to sell their integrity and values

very cheaply and then frame it underwords like purity or any word du jour....I am just not one of them.

My values and principles will never be for sale or given up as cheaply as others are so willing to do.

I have lived too long and seen others around life do that to only regret their choices and live lonely!

Enjoy your words du jour..they do not effect me..I hope you can say the same as you enter your older years.

[flyarm]

52. I fully understand there will always be people willing to sell their integrity and values

and principles ( if they ever had them) very cheaply and then frame it with words like purity or any word du jour.....I am just not one of them...it's bullshit and it always will be. Words may change but manipulations and intimidations and propaganda stay the same...irregardless of the words used.

My values and principles will never be for sale or given up as cheaply as others are so willing to do.

I have lived long enough and seen others around life do that, to only regret their choices and live lonely and unhappy!

Enjoy your words du jour..they do not effect me..I hope you can say the same, as you enter your older years.

[William Z. Foster]

58. reactive versus proactive

Looking at the existing political landscape, and them assuming that this is "practical reality" and advocating that we adjust the party to that reality is reactive rather than proactive - like driving a car while looking in the rear view mirror. This is exactly what the centrist Dem leadership has been doing, and there is no greater proponent of that approach over the years than Rahm Emmanuel.

We can't know what the political landscape would look like were there anyone out there presenting a strong uncompromising left wing point of view. It is certain that the general public would move far to the left under those circumstances. We can know what the political landscape would look when the right wingers are presenting a strong right wing point of view that is not being countered - that is the conditions we now have.

The paradox is this: people are saying that we should not be presenting a strong left wing narrative, because the conditions do not exist that would support that. But the only way that the conditions could ever exist that would support that would be if there were a strong left wing narrative being presented to the public.

Looking in the rear view mirror - "the country is conservative so we have better not offend them if we want their votes" - always caused the car to veer to the right. It also leads to unpleasant surprises.

[socialist_n_TN]

90. Yep. Actually I think that the country HAS moved

leftward over the last 5 years or so, but nobody in the L$M will acknowledge it. The DLC types know it, but won't admit it because it might interfere with their sucking up to the corporate capitalists. That's why I'm in favor of dedemonizing (is that a word? It is now I guess) the word "socialist". Anti capitalist would also work and might even be better in today's political climate.

BTW, William I know that labels don't really mean anything looked at holistically in the class war, BUT this war will also be fought on the public relations front so it IS important. "Us against them" might be the reality, but some people NEED labels to know which side they actually are on. I've been in marketing a LONG time, and branding IS important when you're selling something whether it's a widget or a political philosophy. I want my leftist political philosophy to have the best chance to win the hearts and minds of the people. That's going to take some labels, IMO.

[theFrankFactor]

131. I Don't Believe Obama & Dems Were Elected to Suck Ass Like This. I Just Don't.

[William Z. Foster]

194. there was some...

ahem...deception involved.

[William Z. Foster]

193. would you consider this?

I worked in marketing for years, as well. I wonder if you would consider a different point of view about this?

The tools of marketing are not neutral, and they are not very effective.

Selling a political philosophy will not work, for a number of reasons. First, politics is not driven by belief systems or philosophies. If it were, we would already have a left wing government. 40 years of this marketing approach has succeeded as well as it possibly and ever will. It is bringing the opposite results from those intended. Secondly, things are only sold and marketed because they are of no real value to people - hence the need for a sell job, and for clever marketing. People will be suspicious, rightfully so, of anything that needs to be sold and marketed. Thirdly, selling and marketing are top-down and centralized and that precludes the sort of participation and de-centralized initiative that is needed. We can't know what label, what slogan, will work. Let it evolve. Let is happen on its own.

The left has the truth, and the left has what working class people need. That is what the left is - the truth and solidarity with the working class people. Selling and marketing that weakens it, it does not strengthen it. When you are telling the truth and are committed to getting what people need to them, there is no need for sales and marketing.

This is why the left has failed. Around 1970 the form of activism shifted away from community organizing, social criticism, participatory democracy over to self-expression - "being the change you want to see" and "speaking truth to power" - and that led to all of the organizations copying corporate models for operating. Sales, marketing, advertising, promotion are the tools - selling people on beliefs - and top-down hierarchy and centralized control over the message and the tactics and strategy - are the corporate model for organizations.

These tools - borrowed from the corporate commercial world as liberalism became more gentrified and under the control of a very narrow, specialized and privileged demographic - are not politically neutral. They form the social arrangements and conventions that are themselves the problem, and corporatism is but one expression of these social arrangements and conventions, and liberal activism has now become yet another expression of these social arrangements and conventions.

That means that they are really not tools for disseminating the message, they are themselves the message, and the message is thoroughly and powerfully in full support of the existing conditions and power arrangements, all of the "dog-eat-dog" social conventions, the individualism, the "free market" and "marketplace of ideas" myths, the lies about "meritocracy," and American exceptionalism.

Changing the lyrics - "I am a Socialist" - when the music and the dance steps remain the same, changes nothing.

[socialist_n_TN]

207. Okay. I'll agree that the left has the truth

My ability in marketing involves taking the truth and presenting it in the best way possible. If somebody doesn't need my product, I've always been the FIRST one to say so. The truth is ALSO a part of marketing. But you can't deny that the people who market the capitalist lie HAVE demonized the best ways to fight this lie.

I don't know if you'd really call it marketing or not, but I want the BEST ideas to be considered EVEN IF THEY COME FROM AN AVOWED SOCIALIST. Or for that matter a Communist. And because of this demonization of words (and political systems)by the capitalists, some good ideas for getting us out of this mess will be overlooked and actively opposed JUST BECAUSE OF WHO PROPOSED THE IDEA. Because the demonization. This is why I want these words to get some POSITIVE marketing. Because they offer solutions that help most of the people.

BTW, you and I agree on a LOT of things and your posts are ALWAYS read and considered, at least by me.

[William Z. Foster]

215. thanks, good post

In order to sell and market, we must first know the product and take a stab at what will be the best way to move it. That means that sales and marketing have to be organized from the top-down and the effort must be centralized.

But in politics, we cannot know in advance what slogan will work, what "product," what tactics, what strategy. To succeed it needs to be de-centralized and come from the bottom up. As political leaders in that model, we serve the people, we are merely the first to get clubbed, we don't dictate, we get out of the way and let the people move and let the movement grow. We provide sparks, we pay the price, we make the sacrifices. We have questions, not solutions. That was true in the Civil Rights movement, but changed dramatically around 1970 and the activist groups are now run as though they were corporations. In the corporate model, we lead the people from on high and think in terms of sales and marketing. In that model, we think we have the answers and merely need to sell them to the unwashed masses - convert them to be loyal to a new brand, our brand that we invented and control. The two approaches are 180 degrees apart.

Commercialism and corporate models for organization have now so permeated every aspect of our culture and our lives and our minds that we can no longer even imagine any alternative. That approach is inherently aristocratic, and always supports the ruling class. It is the tools of the ruling class, and the tools are not only not neutral, they are not really tools. The method of the upper class is the message of the upper class and is the agenda of the upper class, since politics is about social organization and sales and marketing and promotion and centralized top-down hierarchies are the upper class method for organizing society.

You cannot change the way society is organized - and nothing less than that will affect any change - if you use the same methods of organization that the ruling class uses. It is the methods that need to change, not the "goals" or "beliefs." The overwhelming majority of people already have the needed beliefs and goals. It is the methods of social organization, the conventions and arrangements that are killing us. Even Republicans say that they share the "beliefs" of fairness and justice and the "goals" of a healthy sustainable planet and prosperous society.

[socialist_n_TN]

219. I agree that this will have to be a bottom up change

and bottom up involves a LOT of people for it to be successful. And THAT means that it's going to be messy and take strange turns. That's why I want the words that are now and have been demonized for the past 80 years to be looked at in a more realistic manner BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN. And if that means taking advantage of a public made susceptible by the methods of capitalist marketing propaganda to DEpropagandize (another made up word :) ) the people who have the best ideas, then that's what I want to do. You know, being in marketing, that it's MUCH easier to sell stuff if the stuff you're selling is a GOOD, reasonably priced product. But it's going to be hard to sell even a great sandwich, if it's called a "Shit Sandwich". It's the same, IMO, with the political truth.

If the shit hits the fan and I'm trying to organize a "payment strike" against the bankers as part of the general struggle, I'd rather not have somebody taking that idea and saying "We can't do that! That guy's a socialist!" and have the IDEA rejected because of what I believe rather than whether the idea ITSELF is good or not. I'd rather have them say, "Well he might be a socialist, but that's a damn good idea." (if it IS a good idea) And the only way we can reach that point IMO, is to make socialist LESS of a negative buzz word.

I'm just afraid, with the way the country is now, that any sort of messy, bottom up change will take a turn toward fascism rather than what's actually going to work, i.e., some sort of, more or less, "socialist" system.

We've GOT to dedemonize the WORDS, so ALL ideas can be considered. Otherwise, we wind up with a Hitler or Stalin rather than a Trotsky or even an FDR.

BTW, it's been great talking to you about this stuff. It's not something that I can do very often in my daily life and, quite frankly, the more bold that the capitalists get with their takeover, the more important this kind of talk becomes.

[William Z. Foster]

220. the words don't matter

You are still talking about words as though they were brand names.

Social justice is not, and never can be a product - "a GOOD, reasonably priced product." It is a struggle, a process. Thinking that the words are important, and that a sales and marketing campaign is needed, is another way of saying that we are not engaged in the struggle and is a way to ignore the struggle and to prevent people from engaging in it.

No matter what word you use, the reactionaries will try to demonize it. So what? We don't need to engage in dueling marketing slogans, we don't need to polish up the image of a brand name, and doing so sets us back it doesn't move us forward.

Politics is not about "beliefs" which is what "ideas" in the sales and marketing world are about. The only reason to "have a good idea" and then protect and promote it is to get people to believe in it. That is using the tools of the oppressors - actually those tools ARE the oppression.

Sales and promotion and marketing and advertising and brand names are not means to an end, socially and politically they are the end, they are the way that society is organized and that will always inevitably lead to injustice and inequality.

Defenders of slavery did a thorough job of demonizing the word "Abolitionist." So what? Did that call for a marketing campaign? No, it called for educating people about slavery, not selling them on the word "Abolitionist" nor did it call for making the word Abolition into a good brand name. Why go on the defensive from the start?

[socialist_n_TN]

224. This might be one of those "agree to disagree" moments

:) Words are ALWAYS important. Ideas are MORE important, but words make the ideas come home to people. And defining words as what they are, not what the capitalists SAY they are, is to me a PART of educating people.

Maybe it's NOT really marketing that I'm talking about. Maybe it's education. But education for me IS marketing. It's telling people about a product in an honest and positive way. That's the way I can somewhat survive in our present capitalist system. So call it education about the REAL meaning of words that have been demonized. I still believe that this education should happen BEFORE things get so bad the drama is played out in the streets.

And yes, "socialist" is a nebulous term. Especially the way I use it without even a capital "s". But that's the point. If a "socialist" or a "Socialist" has an idea, I want to hear it to see if I agree with the idea or not. What's more I want as many people listening to it as possible WITHOUT PRECONCEPTIONS based on what the idea giver is called.

[William Z. Foster]

226. THE words

The words you are worried about don't matter. Words matter, sure, very much so. The message matters.

Education is not marketing.

Justice and equality are not products, they are not analogous to products. No one needs to be sold on them. They are not something to "choose" of a shelf, nor that one can merely buy and then have. Justice and equality are what we are concerned with, not selling some -ism or the other.

We are not here to debate the "real meaning" of words. It is the conditions, the objective reality that matters. That is what politics is concerned with, not the meanings of words, not beliefs that people have been sold on, not philosophies and labels.

I can successfully argue for Socialism and against Capitalism without ever using those two words, and without doing any sales and marketing. I can show someone how to cut firewood and stay warm in the winter without ever selling them on what the true meaning of the word "tree" is. If they have been that the false belief that trees do not contain wood, they can be disabused of that false belief without arguing about the meaning of the word "tree." However, trying to replace the false belief with another belief will have limited effe3ctiveness. On some level people know that if you have the real thing, it would not depend on belief. Hence, sales and marketing are completely inappropriate.

No matter what an organization or political movement is called, or what supposed "philosophy" or set of "beliefs" it supposedly represents according to educated and gentrified people, if it is fighting for working class people, well, then, it will be fighting for working class people, and that fight will speak for itself. No "belief system" needed. The entire mental framework of selling, marketing, promotion and conversion to new belief systems is itself from the attitudes and point of view of the upper class, it is itself the very oppression we are fighting against. It is the way in which our minds have been colonized.

[William Z. Foster]

222. here is an example

Here is brand Socialism being given a pleasant and acceptable image so that it can be sold to people and they can be converted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8563594

[socialist_n_TN]

225. Well, as I said, socialism is a nebulous term.

:) But I can read his IDEA without being put off by his label. Not necessarily agree with it, but read it.

I personally think that the centrists should STFU and stop trying to stifle the left. You and I DO agree that the left IS what has pushed ANY progressive changes in the world in all of history.

[William Z. Foster]

227. so forget the term

Analyze and talk about the conditions and what caused them. That is what we should be talking about, anyway.

You say that you "can read his IDEA without being put off by his label." Right. So the label doesn't matter. Someone could label themselves a Republican, and right the exact same thing. You see that, yes? The message there is what is important. It is the same message if it were labeled Republican. I actually do hear that same anti-left screed from many Republicans. There was a time when you would never hear those sorts of attacks on the left from any except those on the extreme right wing, let alone from someone calling themselves a Socialist.

[Enthusiast]

104. You make some very interesting points here.

The electorate never hears a strong left position. For example, when it came to the health care reform debate single payer was off the table. They didn't even want the people to hear about it. This was clear from the start. And right wing rhetoric dominated the discussion. It appears to be this way on every issue. It's as if it is written in stone that left wing positions will not be heard.

Dang, I'd like to frame your post.

[William Z. Foster]

195. it never loses

The left wing point of view never loses - it cannot lose, by definition. The only way to combat it is to confuse people, scare the crap out them, or make sure they never hear it.

We see this play out here every day.

Confusion - "It would do no good for Obama to get angry." No one was saying that it would.

Scare people - "If we tackled the oil corporations millions would starve!!!"

Making sure people don't hear it - this takes many forms. Killing the messenger, thorough insinuations and personal attacks; creating such an uproar that the thread gets locked and the discussion ends; spamming the board with talking points or trivial topics, so left wing messages get buried.

[hay rick]

96. Two party system stopped working.

Our choice would seem to be trying to reform the lesser-of-two-corporate parties or starting a new party in the void "on the left." The media now dutifully describes as moderates people who would have been identified as conservative Republicans 30 years ago.

The Democratic Party, under current leadership, is virtually useless.

[John Q. Citizen]

107. I never heard the theory that "coalitions bring headaches and corruption." Do you have any data

to support that hypothesis?


The two party US federal system led to the civil war.

When the Philippians decided to model their system on ours, it led to 101 armed militias fighting each other.


Kurt Vonnegut wrote a great essay on the fact that people are not just red or blue.


Our winner take all style of governance means that about half the population is always without any representation.



We use coalitions. They are electoral coalitions. But we don't have governing coalitions.

We are just as corrupt and have at least as many headaches as countries that apportion governance based on electoral success.

[ihavenobias]

35. BS

Everything in moderation, including moderation. He's making a living on false equivalencies and pseudo-centrist BS. He has the idea that if you simply split the difference between two sides you'll always finish with the right solution.

When 'the left' refers to "corporate sellouts" it's not an ideological argument. It's a fact based argument shown clearly by numbers provided by the likes of http://www.opensecrets.org/|OpenSecrets.org>, not to mention the number of registered lobbyists, the revolving door and the list goes on and on (and on).

If anything the corrupting influence of money in politics should be a true centrist, non-partisan issue. The fact that it's being dismissed in this piece as a radical left idea is laughable, counterproductive and anything but moderate.

[Enthusiast]

113. Yes, the corrupting

influence of money should not be labeled a left wing issue.

But we remember how the 'right' squealed over the weak McCain-Feingold attempt to rein in some of the abuse. America's right has become the defender of the bought and paid for politician. They also support the SCOTUS Citizens United decision. Seems like we ought to be able to exploit this, if our side didn't behave in the same fashion, that is.

[theFrankFactor]

132. +1

[WillyT]

37. Will We Be Able To Observe, Participate, And Comment, Here At DU ???

:hide::evilgrin::hide:

:shrug:

[theFrankFactor]

133. Be Careful, I Haven't Figured Out What That "Underground" Bit Means.

Strong dissension will be BURIED underground?

[USArmyParatrooper]

47. Yep, I've seen this for some time

At least, such a civil war exists on the internet where extreme views fester in all directions. Conventional wisdom says the country is just right of center, but I tend to believe the country is just left of center. Either way, the country is somewhere toward the middle.

I see a lot of far left Liberals biting their nose to spite their face. Until there is a major shift in the ideology of the American public, we will never have a far left candidate like Dennis Kucinich win the Presidency, or even have real sway in Congress. Slashing and burning Democratic politicians because they're not far enough left isn't going to accomplish anything good.

But admittedly there are certain Democrats that even piss off a centrist like me. Bart Stupak comes to mind.

[TheKentuckian]

64. What policies that Kucinich promotes would you describe as far left?

I don't think I understand the frame of reference that makes him really fringy, not overall.

[USArmyParatrooper]

111. I didn't mean to imply Kucinich is fringy

Though it may have sounded like that. I don't think any of the candidates in the Democratic primaries were had extreme or fingy ideology. But I do think Kucinich is a bit further left than the country would ever elect (at this point).

[theFrankFactor]

134. What Positions?

[ProudDad]

145. "Conventional wisdom"

is neither...

It's the impression that you are given by the media you read and hear and see...

The majority of the actual human people of this country are pretty much socially "liberal" and poor...

That's why you won't hear the left-liberal or left radical message as part of the public discourse that is mistaken for "conventional wisdom"...

Why don't you read the brilliant upthread post that very succinctly presents the "far left" position and tell us what parts you don't agree with in your center-world?

on edit; the link in case you missed it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8550720#8551376

[William Z. Foster]

216. the center is a myth

Workers want to be paid for the value of the things they produce, just as they would if there were no boss, owners don't want to pay them. The "center" is whatever is negotiated between the two, not some mythical place where people "stand" or that they "believe" in.

All politics are like that.

[William Z. Foster]

50. there is, yes

Funny how those on one side of this battle will deny that there is a war, and then fire off yet another salvo. They must fight the war against the left, and at the same time deny that there is a war and deny they are opposed to the left. That is because we are in a transition period. The Democratic party is moving to the right, but has to disguise that during this interim period so as to keep the left on board until the transition is complete. So we are getting this weird mix of contradictory messages from the "centrists" or whatever you want to call them.

[earth mom]

60. That must be what is happening. Look at this thread. Some think the article in the OP is a hit

piece on the left by the right and maybe it is.

But what about how we so called "far lefties" have to listen to Rahm Emanuel call us foul names while he and the rest of the Obama administration kiss up to corporate america?! :grr:

Anyone who's hung around DU for any length of time can see the divide right here on DU!

[sui generis]

77. oh yeah, know it for damn certain

Obama is a bit a of a school marmish moderator, not a brilliant party leader nor a brilliant president.

The fact is the GOP never compromises or concedes, yet fully expects democrats to compromise on everything. We on the other hand tend to think of ourselves as a wonderful lush garden welcoming all . . . even the weeds.

[lib2DaBone]

56. Have you heard Ilyse Hogue speak on C-Span?

She is EXCELLENT! Short.. to the point..clear...concise. I like her a lot.

I would like to see Hogue and Alan Grayson take on Michele Bachman and Sean Hannity.. in an over-the-top, Death-to-the-finish Cage Match.


Watch the fur fly... happy happy joy joy... Watch Hannity pick his teeth out of his slanted cave man head....



:woohoo:

[Recursion]

57. Who are these "moderates"?

When will we get over the long-exploded narrative that there is a bell curve from "right" to "left"? There's not a single axis of American political thought, and the skews we do have are not tail-light.

[Abq_Sarah]

61. The push for refom

Must come from the voters, not the elected officials.

[pundaint]

62. It's not really a Civil War, it's more an awakening. Many of see nothing to chose between the Right

and the far Right. Neither side values nor serves the People.

[old mark]

106. I see a lot to choose , I just demand better choices. We have serious problems

in our country that will not be solved by self satisfied do-nothing idiots on the right nor by more of the same Democrats on the lesser right. We have NO left in elected politics in America, and we are hurting because of it.
Obama was the best choice we had to make and he leaves very much to be desired.


If nothing else, Obama and his administration have really pissed off the left, and I am HOPING we actually do something constructive with that anger, not just write posts online about it...


mark

[pundaint]

122. Some of us have been demanding better choices for 30 years. What's next after

unanswered demands? Or were you just looking for a few crumbs from your own damn table? Don't you get it? This is Our Country. It's about fucking time We took control of it away from the Two Parties, who think it is their country.

I'm going to do something about it. I'm going to work for the best opponent each of my incumbents has. When the primary got around to me in '08, I had a Corporate Clinton, or a promise of Change I Could Believe In, as choices. In short I had a corporatist, or a lying corporatist to choose from. I picked Change, and I have every right to be pissed about the lies.

If thirty years of doing the same thing and getting the increasingly unacceptable results hasn't earned me the duty to do something else, which by DLC choice, wont be involving the Democratic Party, then I would be an idiot.

Your learning curve may vary.

[scarletwoman]

165. Electoral politics is NEVER going to get us anywhere. Unless we start focusing our energies

on building working class solidarity on the ground we are just going to keep spinning in place.

The Ruling Class in DC is NOT on our side, it makes no difference whether they have a "D" or an "R" after their names. They are the enemy.

Stop organizing for elections and start organizing for rejecting the entire corrupt system. Refuse to cooperate, refuse to accept that there is no alternative to playing along with a sham "democracy" controlled solely by the wealthy elites for their benefit.

sw

[pundaint]

175. You are right, of course, and a general strike would go a long way to changing the tone

of public discourse. The People need to build their civic action muscles up a bit first.

[scarletwoman]

178. "The People need to build their civic action muscles up a bit first." Totally agree & the FIRST step

is to decolonize their minds from thinking only in terms of electoral politics.

Being a fervent partisan is nothing more than identifying with the Ruling Class at the expense of your own class.

sw

[pundaint]

196. OK that's two of us

[scarletwoman]

198. Oh, there's a few more of us around here.

We're quietly working to get minds decolonized from the false narratives of partisan electoral politics.

:hi:

[apocalypsehow]

65. Bull. This country is further to the Left than it has ever been - and continues to ratchet that way.

Since 1688, the whole of Western Civilization has trended Left. We live in times where the goalposts are so far to the Left by even the standards of forty years ago: 1970 "liberals" were further to the "Right" then than most "conservatives" of 2010 are at this very minute.

Get real. We've won those battles.

[liberation]

82. Are you serious?

Under almost any metric, most of Clinton's policies were to the right of Nixon's. And Clinton was supposed to be somewhat of a "liberal," thus exposing how much to the right the political spectrum's center of reference has moved in this country.

Unless you are claiming there is a huge disconnect between the political representation in DC and the political leanings of common Americans, your post is very very wrong. Or you just simply have no clue as to what liberal/leftist policies and political platforms truly are.

[Fire1]

115. BINGO!! We have a winner!!! n/t

[harmonicon]

88. do you get your information by waving divining rods over books and articles?

You actually have to read them to get the information conveyed in the words; or are the only books you read written by Ann Coulter?

[Fire1]

116. LOL!! Now THAT'S funny!! LOL!!! n/t

[pundaint]

124. Not. Those who would like further elaboration, may open their eyes now.

[h9socialist]

142. Kindly elaborate!!!!

I want to make sure what country we're discussing here.

[kenfrequed]

155. By what standard or measurement?

I really don't know what the heck you are talking about.

[apocalypsehow]

209. I'm not going to answer my other repliers because they're the type that think insults in lieu of

presenting actual facts is the way to "debate."

But I will answer you, because you were semi-polite:

Pick an issue, any issue other than gun politics, and tell me with a straight face that the entire country is not further too the Left on that issue from what it was in even 1970, usually by quite a bit.

Environmental issues? Only a tiny coterie of fanatics hold out that the environment is not an important subject of governmental regulation. Not true in 1970.

Abortion? Not even legal in most states in 1970, with large majorities supporting the "pro-life" (I use quotation marks deliberately) view; today, not only is abortion legal, a large majority of Americans believe it should remain so.

Gay rights? Several states have outright codified marriage equality into law, and dozens more have some kind of civil union statues. And what's more, most Americans support that position. Are you going to tell me that that position is not further to the Left than what we had in this country just ten years ago, let alone forty? It is to laugh.

Those are just three hot-button issues off the top of my head that proves precisely what I stated above: this country is much more liberal than it was in 1970, and it continues to move that way across the board. Have fun with your own issues: pick one, any one but gun politics, and post it here. I'll guarantee you whatever the "liberal" position was in 1970 would be seen as the "moderate" or "conservative" one today. Try it. You might like it. :thumbsup:

[kenfrequed]

210. how about a couple

Trade? Nafta kicks labor and the environment in the teeth. Supporting it or failing to fix it is hardly the halmark of an old school liberal democrat.

Taxation? Ever since Reagan Democrats have been less and less populist and less economically progressive when it comes to fixingthe

Labor protection? As Labor unions are being crushed, the democrats have listened less to them and backed away from promises more than ever before.

The general thinking towards solutions has also moved to the right. Instead of Republicans complaining about entitlement programs we now have supposed Democrats doing so and blocking the 'big government solution' that most of us know is already far more successful and viable.

Treatment of corporations and banks- arguably there have always been corruptable Democrats that would jump in with the republicans and the wealthy rather easily, they have never been so in control of the party as now.

[scarletwoman]

212. All your examples are of the GOVERNMENT moving right, not the citizens.

Do you honestly think that the workers who have seen their jobs disappear overseas want NAFTA?

Taxes -- who set out to make taxation less progressive? Certainly not the citizens. It was the government, bought off by the wealthy elites who changed tax policies to favor the people at the top at the expense of the people at the bottom.

Labor -- yes, the dog-eat-dog economic system promulgated by Right Wing ideology in control of our government has successfully created division and alienation within the working class by pushing the narrative of scarcity and fear.

But it was not the citizenry that asked for a weakening of organized labor, it was imposed on them from the top. If the EFCA weren't being blocked by the corporate-controlled politicians, you would see a resurgence of Unions. Witness the incredible growth of the SEIU over the past several years -- people DO want an opportunity to unionize.

Your last two points are so self-obviously a matter of POLITICIANS moving to the right, and NOTHING to do with what the PEOPLE want, that they completely refute your argument with no help needed from me.

sw

[kenfrequed]

217. Err..

I'm sorry I think you missed my point.

The person I was responding to stating that everything is further to the left than it was in the seventies. I was arguing against it and pointing out how the Democratic party had moved significantly to the right.

A move I could not disagree more with by the way as it takes away everything populist about the democratic party.

[scarletwoman]

218. Thanks, I believe I interpreted the post to which you had replied differently than you.

When the poster referred to "the country" as being more left, I took it to mean the people as a whole, not the government.

There is no question that our government has trended right, however, I think it is also true that our society has become more liberal in significant ways. In his opening post making this argument, he referred to "Western Civilization" as whole as becoming more liberalized as time has gone on. I believe that is an accurate assessment in the general sense.

While the right wing cultivates and amplifies the regressive mentalities amongs us, there is still a far more widespread momentum toward greater tolerance and progressive thinking on many issues such as gay rights, environmental protection, rethinking marijuana laws, racial and gender equality, and other issues.

The regressive factions in our society and our government wouldn't be so hell-bent on fearmongering and reactionary politics if they weren't themselves so fearful of finding themselves overwhelmed by the ongoing progressive evolution of the collective culture.

It's not a simple linear progression, of course. But we now have as our elected president a man who openly admitted to having used illegal drugs in his youth. That would have never been remotely possible 20 years ago.

I know you and I are on the same side.

sw

[apocalypsehow]

228. You summarized and clarified what I was getting at much better than I did myself - thank you.

You are exactly right - what you said in this reply is what I was trying to get across in my original post. :thumbsup: :toast:

[scarletwoman]

229. Well, I'm glad I got it right.

Thank you for letting me know. :)

sw

[readmoreoften]

69. A "d" after a name means nothing to me anymore. From 1989-2008 I was a Democratic Party voter.

Hereafter, I will be an old-time union "who's side are you on?" voter. No more cowards. No more fancy brands. You take on the corporations and you take on the Religious Right even if you go down in flames.

No Bipartisanship.
No Concessions.

If not? No vote.

[FailureToCommunicate]

83. Refuse to vote? Yeah, that will show 'em...

I hope when that Tuesday comes you'll reconsider. Lots of Mass voters slept in that day and we ended up with Scot Brown by a slim margin. Now all those voters who found Martha Coakley "too boring" have lots of extra stuff to complain about on their favorite blogs...

[hay rick]

99. Minimum standards.

A vote for the lesser evil is a vote for evil. Corporate funding of primary candidates and of the media makes the preponderance of such choices a foregone conclusion. Accepting the media-vetted least-bad option keeps us headed in the direction we've been going lately.

Abandoning "moderates" and allowing some wingnuts to replace them might be a real wakeup call. I am more afraid of what is happening in America right now than I am of the marginal increase in havoc that a few more whack jobs might inflict on our society.

[pundaint]

125. Yes, that is the only way - if we keep voting for what we don't want, we'll keep getting what we

don't want.

[mitchtv]

180. You and me both

I have no qualms about writing in , if i'm not happy. Pro marriage equality, or you don't get my vote, same with card check.

[scarletwoman]

188. "I have no qualms about writing in..." This is an EXTREMELY important point!

Don't stay home and not vote, go to the polls and vote for your choice of a write-in candidate.

This is important, because we WANT to be counted as voters -- voters who are actively rejecting the narrow choices being forced on us.

Not voting at all just gets us dismissed as politically apathetic. For those of us who are very much politically engaged but disgusted with our (lack of) choices, showing up and voting for a write-in makes our numbers known.

sw

[Hubert Flottz]

70. Too many Zellouts...

We voted for change and all we got was one sided "Bipartisanship"

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[h9socialist]

79. This is getting us no where.

The truth is that Barack Obama has accomplished a great deal for the progressive left. It just hasn't been as "progressive" as hoped for by most of us. But I wish some of the brilliant tacticians here would tell me just how they'd propose to get "single payer" health care out of this Congress. The Constitution and especially the rules of the U.S. Senate are meant to make it very hard for a simple majority to operate. We tend to put our leaders up to a very high standard, then write rules to make change a gruesome task just to win a modicum of. It seems to me that President Obama has done a fairly good job of clearing the hurdles. The struggle for a benevolent, democratic society is a long grinding effort, and battles are fought over inches rather than miles. The more constructive discussion needs to be over how to keep peoples "eyes on the prize."

[zipplewrath]

87. Moving goal posts

The single payer crowd was locked out of the room, literally and figuratively. That's hardly "accomplishing" a great deal for progressives. Furthermore, when they were locking the door, they were pointing towards the public option as the "alternative". Many of us bought that as the "compromise". Get a public option in place and it will become the defacto single payer over time as the insurance companies are unable to compete. Obama gave that away around July. Obama did. This was well before the senate took a vote and he gave it away. We heard all manner of explanations from "just to get it out of committee" to "we'll fix it in congference". But he never tried again, and in fact discouraged attempts to add it back in.

He never called Lieberman. He never campaigned for it in democratic states whose senators were blocking it. He objected to attempts by progressive organizations to attempt to do so. He bragged to Fox News that he "rejected progressive ideas". He did fly to Kucinich's district to campaign for what got passed.

And he is continuing to wage war in Afghanistan.
And he still wants more drilling in the Gulf, and else where.
And he isn't going to close Gitmo, just change its address and make it permanent.
And the torture photos are now classified by the Sec Def.

How any of that is "doing a great deal for progressives" is beyond me.

[Enthusiast]

117. +1 nt

[theFrankFactor]

136. +1 Kick it!

[treestar]

101. [phone]

the all or nothing idea is not practical with the U.S. constitutional system.

[Enthusiast]

118. See post 112 for my sentiments

on your post.

[suffragette]

119. Well, it's hard to get something voted on if it's locked out

from the start.

You write "tell me just how they'd propose to get "single payer" health care out of this Congress."

That's the final step.

The start would have been to have it on the table and the voices representing that view at the table.

And, yes, from there it might have been compromised away. That would have left the public option in a stronger position in bargaining terms, though.

But that was not allowed.

And the public missed out on what, at the very least, would have been a compelling political discussion/debate of how single payer would work as a system here.

And the public option became the 1st bargaining chip to be dealt away.

[h9socialist]

139. I understand your frustration . . .

I was a single payer activist in the 1990s. I well remember "The Russo Bill" and the "McDermott Bill" and later the "Conyers Bill." Personally, I don't think "single payer" is adequate. I support the idea of a true National Health Service" such as in Great Britain. The truth is, however, that in order to get to single-payer of a NHS there's going to have to be a major realignment of American politics. Such a realignment, if discussed truthfuly, would socialism. As a socialist, I'm all for that! But it's very problematic to imagine that US political thinking has come that far yet. You also have to remember that the Democrat majority in the Senate was weighed down by the likes of Joe Lieberman, Blance Lincoln, Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh.

The reason people such as Jim Clyburn and Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders and John Lewis and John Conyers voted for the bill that finally passed was the it did establish a principal in American Law: that everyone has a right to healthcare. It was better to have won the small victory than come up empty-handed again. That's what put Bill Clinton in the dog house in 1994.

President Obama understood the old saying, "Politics is the art of the possible." I happen to think Obama is a good guy and would've pushed harder if the "public option" could have made it. If not for the Senate's filibuster rules it would have made it. But 40 Republicans in lockstep with Mitch McConnell along with Lieberman, Lincoln and Nelson, was a problem. End the filibuster??? Yes, by all means! But don't get too down on Obama for playing toward the possible.

[ProudDad]

147. I blame Obama for starting at the right-of-center compromise position

That's not the right way to negotiate, Barry.

You start with EVERYTHING that you want and then give up unessential pieces of it until you reach a "compromise"...

But I guess Obama lied back when he said he believed that single-payer would be the right solution. Or he got ambitious and didn't want to piss off his corporate capitalist masters, hmmm?

[kenfrequed]

211. yes

Basically you actually have to put what you want on the table. I had argued that point again and again and again last spring and summer. Ask for at the very least what you want, if not more and compromise for what you require.

I was told I was an idiot or that this was an elaborate chess game and that the public option would somehow get added. I was either counseled by liars or fools on this, I did not believe them and I was right not to believe them.

[suffragette]

160. "Politics is the art of the possible."

Interesting that you would use that quote to justify compromising before even starting negotiations.

Rahm is very much a proponent of that view:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/health/policy/10cost.html?_r=3&hp

“Let’s be honest,” Rahm Emanuel said in a recent interview. “The goal isn’t to see whether I can pass this through the executive board of the Brookings Institution. I’m passing it through the United States Congress with people who represent constituents.”

He went on: “I’m sure there are a lot of people sitting in the shade at the Aspen Institute — my brother being one of them — who will tell you what the ideal plan is. Great, fascinating. You have the art of the possible measured against the ideal.”

I agree more with the view of that quote and approach in an OP-Ed by Mike Marqusee. Very challenging to pick only 4 paragraphs out of this exceptional refutation of that approach, but I'll try.

You can read it at http://socialistworker.org/2010/02/10/the-art-of-the-possible or http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/08/utopianism-practical-politics-just-society

Whenever a commentator declares that "politics is the art of the possible", I'm on my guard. I suspect that I'll soon be told to accept apparent present conditions as immutable facts of life, and to trim my goals accordingly. I'll be told to let injustices stand.

~~~

What's usually meant when politics is pronounced "the art of the possible" is that politics is a calculation of the probable: an exercise in the pragmatic, the expedient or the opportune. The adage implies forcefully that minimal improvements or lesser evils are the only realistic aim – and any demand for more is self-indulgence. It's an injunction not only to compromise, but to get your compromise in first, to placate hostile forces in advance, as Obama tried to do (unsuccessfully) with healthcare reform.

~~~

This is very much the vice of the centre-left. The right are bolder, more confident, more reckless and strongly driven by their own utopian visions (which would be dystopias for the rest of us). In contrast, liberals advise each other to trim their ambitions, to sacrifice their goals in order to remain "politically viable".

Of course, if your politics is about personal aggrandisement, then it will be "the art of the possible" in the narrowest sense. But for those who seek in politics a means of changing society for the better, it must be the art of redefining the possible. The art-science-craft of coaxing from the present, with its complex mix of possibilities and limitations, a just and sustainable human future.

And that really brings us back to the OP.

This isn't just about HCR, though HCR is a good example of taking that approach.
It's about the direction to take, the decision at the onset to go in the direction desired, to start of the process from a principled rather than overly compromised position. Compromises can, and likely will, occur from there. But without beginning from there, whatever results is compromised from the start.

[GinaMaria]

177. I am sick to death of that line

Can you imagine using that in your own life?

School is the art of the possible! So, Mom and Dad, C's were possible so I took them instead of going for A's that way I had plenty of time to hang out with my friends!

Sorry boss but, Work is the art of the possible, so I did the bare minimum to complete assignments and when lay-offs occur I shouldn't be surprised if you let me go.

Seriously, this kind of excuse isn't tolerated from children and it's not tolerated from employees. These people are our employees. It's time to lay off those who are skating by and keep the high performers.

Can you imagine any other group trying to get away with this kind of BS?

[suffragette]

183. Yes. Even more apt might be "Mom and Dad,

C's were possible so instead of going for A's I tried for C's, but I somehow wound up with D's. I can't help it. My teachers are mean and don't like me."

Tired of the drumbeat insisting we have to engage in policies and process from a stance of reduced expectations and premature surrender.

[chill_wind]

181. Excellent post and points.

:thumbsup:

[suffragette]

186. Thanks chill

If you haven't yet, do take a moment to read Marqusee's Op-Ed.
Really lays it out well.

[scarletwoman]

185. How about, "Politics is the art of keeping your powder dry." Seems more apt.

Should be the Dem party motto.

[ProudDad]

146. I'm still waiting for my "Good Deal"...

<crickets>

[Greyhound]

154. Right, just like that New Deal that took 17 years to pass.

:eyes:

[mitchtv]

182. wait'll they have a nuclear accident

we'll be sorry then.( and we'll still have no renewable energy)

[Skidmore]

89. Ah, I can't wait for the Romney-Palin Frankenstein administration

to arrive. Some times teh stupid is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

[hay rick]

108. Boob and the boob job.

Whether a third party, or a well-organized opposition to Obama within the Democratic Party, could hurt The Democratic Party in elections is not the only important consideration. Of equal or greater concern is whether the Democratic Party is able to govern effectively when it's in power. Looking at Afghanistan, health care, and jobs- I'd have to say the answer is currently no. We need drastic change and it's likely to be painful.

[Enthusiast]

91. Opposition to the public option

is a 'centrist sin' when 70% of the public support it? See, this is where misinformation comes into play. Blanche was not centrist when she was against the Public Option. That is only what 'they' want you to believe.

[SILVER__FOX52]

98. Obama is a politician,

not a progressive. Holding the office is the end, in itself. Helping progressive causes is not on his agenda.

[lonestarnot]

103. Throw out the imposters.

[rasputin1952]

105. This is what forces other than D's individually want...

we are being manipulated by several forces in the media to acquiesce to the GOP. I'm not buying it!

Sure, we have problems, but the GOP is a complete disaster, and who, in God's name, wants them back in power...:wtf:

There are several things going on here, and the administration has a seriously overflowing plate, but if anyone notices, those incumbents that are running again are being placed back by their constituents in amazing numbers...with D totals far above R totals in the primary voting. How many can recall in some instances, for a Primary, where 500,000+ voters showed up?

Are there things that need to be fixed...you bet! But handing anything over the GOP is complete insanity. They are on a mission to drive this nation into hell, and only a fool would trust them with anything that even remotely gives them power. Which bring me to D's in congress that allow the R's to block anything, or "demand" changes. The GOP routinely locked out D's when they had power, and we should be shoving them aside when we have power. The jello-spined congresscritters should be reviled for bending to the some perceived power the GOP thinks it has...we should be steamrolling them down and burying their "ideology" in a thimble.

And the single issue voters here should understand that priorities change, what may be important to me, may not be important to you, and only by using our collective will and power to make things happen, can we get things done. We need to be calling/writing our congresscritters, not listening to polls and pundits. Posting on a message board relieves, or breeds tension...but I can guarantee, those who work for us do not come here and see what we're griping about.

When you call your congresscritter, just don't squawk, have a realistic answer to the problem...you'd be surprised how responsive they can be. I call my R Representative, and he doesn't know if I'm a D, an R or an I...all he knows is that I am calling to express an opinion and have an answer to a question or problem. Make these people work for us, that's what they are there for, and contacting them, really does work. You may not get a prompt answer or some things may not go the way you want, (happens to me too), but I know I've made them think instead of just go into defense mode and they then they do nothing but plead for understanding.

My fellow DU'ers...this is crap from a media that wants to see a bloodbath, and they don't care who wins. The object is to create a "Death Match" so they can sell their advertising...don't fall for this! We have the GOP on the ropes, they are about to die off as a party, we can finish the job and whatever comes up from the ashes has to be better than neo-con tripe.

Get out and vote, get out and take others to vote, get people that need absentee ballots in the direction of getting them. Do things that will crush the GOP once and for all. We've never been so close as to tearing the disease of neo-conservatism out by it's roots...don't' fail on this one.

OK, rant off...Thanks for reading this...:hi:

[90-percent]

112. Centrist

Obama is too Centrist?

He is not merely GWB Lite, he can be a full blown cheap GWB knock off in the areas of war and police statism!

I thought I was electing a liberal constitutional scholar, and I ended up with a rabid corporatist! The last thing this country or the world needs right now is even more corporate control of our government!

-90% Jimmy

[theFrankFactor]

138. +1

[autorank]

140. k*r Time for an enhanced FDR faction to take back the party f n/t

[Cowpunk]

141. Listen this centrist claptrap from the OP's link.

"There seems to be an impulse in the far left that is anti-authoritarian to such an extent that they’re uncomfortable with the nonideological responsibilities of actual governance."

Let me rephrase: There seems to be an impulse in "serious centrist" circles that is authoritarian to such an extreme that they are uncomfortable with the rule of law and the basic rights of human beings enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

[Jester Messiah]

151. Well that's just great.

I guess we saw the idiots on the right tearing themselves to shreds and thought "Wow, we gotta get in on that!" Because that's a far better use of our time than concentrating on what we have in common and working for the greatest common good.

:banghead:

[creeksneakers2]

153. traitors

[Lorien]

158. That's what every DINO is. nt

[freddie mertz]

156. Hopefully, we can pull back from the brink in this forum.

Peaceful coexistence, folks?

[Lorien]

157. An old truth: "Given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like one

the people will vote for the Republican every time." Piss on your base= losing your base. The people WILL get pissed when they've invested a lot in something that turns out to be the opposite of what was advertised.

[robinlynne]

161. damn right.

[Mojeoux]

164. Yeah, I'm pissed at Obama.

So What?
My anger is about him not being left enough!

There is no way I will let the RW co-opt MY LW anger.

They WANT him to fail for their own sick agenda, and trying to just hand over to the POTUS this disaster in the GOM is total bullshit.

[Individualist]

167. K&R

[defendandprotect]

168. TARGETING is what we need to do -- and to organize ...

get the DLC-corporate wing out of the Democratic Party --

and if Obama doesn't want to dis-joing from his union with Rahm

then let's look for a new Democratic president in 2012 --


Any number of names available --

If you're humane, you're in, IMO!!

[johan helge]

169. These people make the Repubs smile

The Repubs love liberals that don't vote Democratic, for two reasons:

- It makes it easier for the Repubs to win (Florida 2000 ...).

- The more the Repubs win, the more conservative both parties will be (because the losses make the Dems go rightwards to win, and the Repubs go rightwards because they think they can do so without losing elections) (history confirms this).

[grahamhgreen]

171. There is a huge difference between the far left and the far right. FAR LEFT POLICIES WORK!

Whereas, FAR RIGHT POLICIES FAIL.

Unless you want want to live in extreme poverty like Somalia, the libertarian policies espoused by the far right have been proven to be failures.


Whereas the policies European social democracies are proven successes and sport the highest quality of life in the world.

BECAUSE FAR LEFT POLICIES WORK!


Our party desperately needs to incorporate our ideas into action.

[GinaMaria]

172. It's been brewing for longer than 2 years.

but the divisions are deepening and have deepened over the last 10 or so years from my experience on the interwebs.

This isn't a surprise to anyone here. Look at the division on DU. This division was always apparent from day 1 here but it's become particularly polarized more recently. Even before the 2008 election it was obvious.

We have a choice. We either figure out how we stay together or we part. Change doesn't mean something bad. Many here dislike the two party system. This may be the start of a multi party system. I embrace more choice as it could lead to broader discussions, a wider range of solutions and a shift toward more democracy.

When progressives share a party with self described 'pragmatists' who give nothing in return for progressive votes but insults, a parting of the ways seems more likely than unifying as one party. Time will tell.

[Individualist]

203. Exactly

The rift between progressives and DLC has become a huge chasm. DLC has ruined the party.

[AtomicKitten]

179. This is nothing new. In fact, it's a re-hash of Nader vs. Gore. nt

[the sad red earth]

184. A Reminder

And don't forget what we got as a consequence of Nader vs. Gore. For those who need a reminder of what we lived with for eight years, and how different it was from the past year and a half, check out the conservative ShrinkWrapped, and his commenters debating with me at the sad red earth http://sadredearth.com/the-open-mind-vii-the-one-and-the-many/.

[AtomicKitten]

187. Point well taken and I agree.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[hay rick]

199. And every war is Viet Nam revisited.

Nonsense. Nader vs. Gore featured Nader pretending that Gore was indistinguishable from Bush (Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum) when Gore was closer to Nader on more issues than he was to Bush. As a progressive, I had no trouble rejecting Nader on purely pragmatic grounds.

Fast forward to 2010 and Barack Obama is as close to GWB as he is to Gore. The fact that the Republican Party has continued its rightward drift is complemented by the fact that the Democratic Party has also lurched to the right and the space previously occupied by Nader/Gore is effectively vacant in the presidential sweepstakes.

Nader's Tweedle Dee claim was self-serving ego fodder at the time, but now it's starting to look like prophecy.
The majority of progressives dismissed Nader as a spoiler in 2000. Those same people, if they have maintained their progressive values, will see a whole lot of truth in the Tweedle Dee claim in 2012.

[AtomicKitten]

205. Gore at the time (2000) was to the right of Obama.

And still Nader's admonition that both parties are the same didn't and doesn't hold water. The Democratic Party is still struggling to find its identify with the Clinton/DLC Democrats on the right and Kucinich Democrats on the left.

I'm more concerned about some the Senate Democrats (Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Landrieu, etc.) who have managed to prevent progressive legislation from moving forward. I see them as more responsible (and to blame) for shaping legislation than any WH influence.

[quaker bill]

189. Some would like to think so

but it is the same 5 percent or so that it has been for the last thirty years. They just have the internet and are more visible now.

[anthroguy101]

191. The problem with Democrats is that we are not a united party

The Republicans are united in their opposition to the Democrats and their hatred for all things liberal, and yet they claim they are the ones that need a "purity test."

The Democrats have been moving to the right with this whole Blue Dog/DLC business. We are open to everyone, as we should be, but two right-wing parties in the US is very bad news for the working and middle classes. We have one in our district by the name of Dahlkemper, and sadly she has had no credible competition. Liberals need to energize our party, raise awareness, and get rid of all these fakes.

[William Z. Foster]

204. the difference

The Republicans represent and ruthlessly advance the interests and desires of the wealthy and powerful few. They say whatever they need to say to get elected.

Were the Democrats to represent and fight for the interests and desperate needs of the many with even half as much focus and determination as the Republicans have, they would never lose another election.

You say "we are open to everyone, as we should be." I disagree. The Republicans will tolerate no one speaking for them who is not advancing the interests and desires of the wealthy and powerful few. (They are more than happy to have working class people vote for them, of course.)

The reason why we are not united is because a small but dominant minority within the party is not fighting for the working class, but for the wealthy and powerful. Those who do try to speak for the working class people are tormented, marginalized and driven out. (Those conservatives within the party are more than happy to have us vote for their "moderate" candidates, of course.)

[sendero]

192. This guy is an idiot..

.. he actually believes in centrism, or more correctly that selling out to corporations and the military IS centrism. Screw him.

[dorkulon]

213. 2 parties really aren't enough.

I'd prefer a coalition-based gov't. 5 parties at least.

[scarletwoman]

214. Yes, definitely agree. What we have now leaves huge swaths of the electorate unrepresented.

Increasingly more of the electorate, as both parties continue to skew further and further right.

I'd like to be able to vote for something besides the "lesser evil" election after election. I'd like to be able to vote FOR a party instead of just AGAINST the other party.

sw