Why I believe in the stated principles of the Democratic Party -- But am so perennially pissed off

[Armstead]

(*This is a reply I wrote in another thread. I think it sums up my perspective, and decided to make it an OP. Feel free to fire away, but please do with an actual rebuttal.)

We can blame people like the Koch Brothers and their GOP henchmen all we want. But they are only half the problem.

WE gave them that much money and power, and WE allowed them to hijack the economy and democracy.

For years (decades) as Huge Corporations either merged or bought up their competition, I and many others thought and said: "Hold it! It isn't right to allow a handful of corporations to take over the entire economy and eliminate competition! We need to enforce anti-trust and anti-monopoly policies to prevent anyone from getting too big and wealthy and powerful."

And we kept hoping and prodding for the Democrats (and honest conservatives who actually believe in free enterprise rather than Corporate Monopoly Fascism) to put the brakes on this -- AND publicly challenge the lies that were being perpetuated by the GOP and Corporate Fast Talkers and Oligarchs. ("Massive layoffs and foreign outsourcing will preserve jobs." "Mergers protect competition.")

But noooooooo...Most Democratic politicians and strategists either ignored it, or actually bought into and promoted these CONservative lies and identified more with the Oligarchs than the common people.

And thus, True Competition and Free Enterprise was dismantled pierce by piece. In its place we saw the emergence of the Corporate State.

As a result, even DISCUSSING traditional mnainstream liberal and progressive populist concepts is considered too radical too left wing, too socialistic...And the real tragedy is that Monopolistic Corporate Capitalism is now the defacto position of many Democrats -- including President Obama, despite his fine words.

And this shit continues to go unchallenged on all levels. Remember Comcast anyone?

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not referring to all Democrats and Democratic politicians. There are many great ones in Congress and elsewhere who do "get it" and do stand up for principled liberalism and progressive populism. But the problem is that their message and efforts are overwhelmed by the power of the Corporate Democrats.

[vi5]

1. Agree 100%

People don't want to hear it, but the Democratic party is just as much to blame for what's happened to this country as the R's are. For their complicity in a lot of the corporate shell games and the rules/laws (or lack thereof) that allowed them to happen at worst, and at the very least for their utter weakness and refusal to really stand and fight and play the games that needed to be played instead of just cowering in a corner until the bad men go away which has been their MO for far too many fights.

Yes, there are some decent ones in Congress, but very few. Very, VERY few.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. I think Lincoln should not have fired his losing Generals

After all, it was the Confederacy who was attacking, they were at fault, not his Generals.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. totally, dude.

[Armstead]

4. Huh? Your metaphor eludes me

[vi5]

8. I'm not sure if I get it either, but....

What I think was meant was that it was a dig at the people who say "We have to keep voting for and electing these horrible, do nothing, pathetic dems even though they keep losing (not elections but the battles we elect them to fight) and whose main excuse is that the other side is worse/at fault/to blame.

Maybe that's not what this person is getting at, but that's what I took away from it. And I agree with how pathetic that sentiment and attitude is.

[Armstead]

10. Here's a similar metaphor I had in another thread

We are unable to make more change in large part because we give up the battle before the troops are even assembled.

It is as if the General (Obama) and his officers (Democratic politicians and strategists) looks over the hill and sees the opposing forces assembling and say "Gosh they are so powerful. We can't even think of fighting. The best we can do is figure out how to make our retreat as painless as possible."

Meanwhile, they don't look behind them and realize that they actually have just as many -- if not more -- potential soldiers available to them. That mass includes people who are ready to fight and others who could be persuaded, if they were only given some inspiration and a reason to join up.

And so, the more we rationalize inaction the more lopsided the actual battle does become.

[vi5]

11. That's giving them too much credit...

..and lending creedence to one of the worst cop out excuses on here.

That just implies that Obama and the Dems really do want to fight the enemy and are really motivated and have a desire to defeat them, but goshdarnit their army of soldiers (ie. us) won't make themselves known or seen.

That's BS. I maybe used to give the benefit of the doubt but now I'm more convinced then ever that Obama definitely, but especially a good majority of Dems want in on the money action that the Republicans have been getting for so long and no longer even want to defeat them, but instead team up with them.

Cynical, yes. But that's where I'm at right now.

[Armstead]

12. No I'm not blaming the troops

I think that the problem is just the oppoosite -- that that the Dem politicians and strategists aren't looking for them.

As for your second point -- about whether Democrats actually want to fight or just want to get in on the money -- well, I'd prefer to believe you are wrong, but I realize you may be correct....I think, as in all things, it often gets down to individuals. I think different individuals have differing motives -- and I also think that individual individuals often have divided motives within themselves.

But I will say that -- except for the top echelons -- any ordinary Democrat who thinks that by playing along with the agendas of the Big Corp Oligarchs they will be personally rewarded is as dumb as your average teabagger.

[vi5]

13. Exactly. They're not looking for them....

..because they don't actually want to fight. All they actually want is to maintain their cushy jobs. So they need the riff raff of the democratic base and have to figure out ways to pay lip service to what the base wants. But they go out of their way to thread the needle and do as little as possible, and just under enough so as not to completely piss off corporate donors.

[Armstead]

15. You might be correct but I hope not

[msongs]

5. according to Dem party leadership we need more corporate wall streeters in top government jobs nt

[Armstead]

6. That is certainly part of the curent problem

The same people who caused the crisis were called back in to solve it.

Common sense would seem to indicate that you don't keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

[Armstead]

7. I see the Unrecommend Squad is out -- How about saying why?

[polichick]

9. My thread too - I guess DU is A-okay with the Third Way.

[Fuddnik]

14. The new brand name is "No Labels".

[cottonseed]

17. Unrecommend - General Discussion: Armstead (doesn't exist)

besides, who needs to hear why another old man is pissed off at something

[Armstead]

18. I'm not an old man yet -- Just a middle aged old fart

[Avant Guardian]

26. So you are OK with a corporate Democratic party?

Or you didn't read beyond the caption?

[Armstead]

28. Probably both

[cottonseed]

30. Did you read why I unrec'd it? Or just parroting your hbgary talking points?

[Armstead]

32. Whether i am a cranky old man, in your opinion, is not a reason

and what the hell is hbgary?

[AtomicKitten]

16. Cool story, bro.

[Armstead]

19. To the Unrecommenders -- Tell me where I'm wrong on this

Do you think it's a good thing that almost every sector of the economy is dominated by a handful of immense monopolistic corporations?

Do you believe that the Democratic Party has been fighting against this raw accumulation of wealth and power for three decades?

Do you think the current administration is really trying to stop it today?

I wanna know where you think this is so incorrect that it deserves to be unrecommended.

[Avant Guardian]

27. *Crickets*

[Armstead]

29. Of course -- Easier to press a button than to actually come up with a counterpoint

[Avant Guardian]

31. IF you have a counterpoint

[old mark]

20. K&R-I believe in the principles of the Democratic Part, too, but I am not sure

the Democratic Party still believes in them.
The Democrats were the worker's party, the party of the middle class and the progressive elements in American society.
They seem to be very uncomfortable in that role now, and I am wishing more Democratic Politicians would re-visit their party's roots.

mark

[polichick]

21. True - more and more, I think it's not just about Dems with no backbones...

...but infiltration - party leaders who never were Dems.

[Armstead]

23. "uncomfortable" is a great wayt to describe some of it

President Obama and many (NOT all) national Democratic politicians seem very "uncomfortable" to identify themselves with the labor mnovement in Wisconsin and elsewhere, as the GOP guts workers position consistently.

When they do address it, it is usually buried as an aside, or couched in very vague terms.

[polichick]

24. And they seem far too "comfortable" with the corporate status quo.

[Armstead]

25. Very true

[MissDeeds]

22. K&R