Is age a factor in the current discord on DU? ...a theory.

[Flubadubya]

I'm just curious if age has anything to do with the widely varying perceptions on DU of what it means to be a Democrat.

I am 62 years old and my formative views of what being "a good Democrat" meant were instilled in me by my father. He was raised by dirt poor farmers in Arkansas and was a young boy during the depression. He worked as a young man in the FDR-created CCC camps just before being shipped off to WWII for 3 years. When he returned he was able to start his middle class venture in America with all the advantages of a union trade (pipe fitter) and the GI bill.

This man knew well his roots and to whom he owed his "good fortune" as a successful middle class American and he knew it was not big corporations or banksters. To him Wall Street was just a den of thieves and he knew well that the Republicans would suck the life out of you. No, he had seen for himself the real value of a government of the people, by the people and, most importantly, FOR the people.

I grew up during the Kennedy and Johnson years and watched first hand the full blown strife which birthed the Civil Rights movement. I saw how the War on Poverty yielded Medicare and other socially responsible legislation. I knew this was government at its best and simply "the way things should be". It appeared for all the world to me that everything was evolving as it should... leading this country in more and more progressive ways. Nonetheless, as DU'er "roxiejules" pointed out, even when the President was a Democrat, we spoke out loudly and vehemently in protest if we believed what he was doing was wrong, e.g. President Johnson's Vietnam war. Every generation, it seems, has its demons. However, even the Nixon years didn't seem too much of a setback to the progressive course of our culture, and, certainly, Carter seemed to hold even greater promise; but alas the right wing was well under way on it's destructive path.

Yes, and then it happened... everything changed at an alarming rate when progressivism took a 180 degree turn into "regressivism" within the short course of 8 years when Ronald Reagan ruled. I just had a gut feeling then that America no longer held the promise that it once did and likely never would again. Where once there was a sense of commonality and a collective interest in the welfare and wellbeing of people in this country, suddenly there was only the keenest awareness of an all-pervasive selfishness and self-interest that had supplanted what was once good in this nation.

It seems to me that people who are say 20 years or so my junior perhaps never really got the nurturing that I did in the sense and spirit of what it means to be a real and good and true Democrat. The tone and timbre of the country had already changed so dramatically by the time they were in their formative years, I can't help but think that they were critically deprived of the opportunity to learn the fundamentals of what it means (or at least used to mean) to be "a Democrat". Sure, the "Democratic ideology" still existed, but consider how it was changed by the grosser influences of "the ME generation", and this only seems to be getting worse. I'm afraid much of this "it's all about me" nonsense informs many of leaders' choices today; and yes, even some of the Democratic ones.

The point of all this is that I can't help but wonder how many of those who criticize the President, his administration, and the so-called "Democratic" legislators of today may be comparing this with their perception of the "Democratic ideology" that existed in the past and at least through the 70s. If there is any basis to this hypothesis, then it is no wonder there is perhaps a real "generation gap" between today's Democrats and those of my era. Thus, the blatant rancor and infighting going on between "Democrats on DU" doesn't seem so surprising, I suppose, and there may actually be some sort of age/generational factor underlying it to some extent.

Please, before responding, consider that I do not believe myself, or those of my generation, to be somehow "specially privileged" to know what a "real Democrat" is to the exclusion of those who came later. Ultimately, I don't believe it is so much that the age or generation we are cast into dictates our beliefs and feelings, but, rather, it is always what is most basic to the natural sense of our place or being in a society, how we interact with others, and what is innately within our hearts that informs our behaviors. Nonetheless, it seems at least plausible that the differences in the cultural and societal norms between generations can to some degree influence our views about politics and about life in general. I believe it's called evolution.



***NOTE: I posted this on another thread (now with some slight modification) but decided I would like to start a thread on the subject and hopefully get some more perspective and ideas from the community.***

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[scarletwoman]

4. Which ones? It's possible I might agree with your premise, yet very much disagree as to who

I would be inclined to refer to as a "so-called democrat".

sw

[Fire1]

6. Call outs are against the rules but my comrads and I know. n/t

[FreakinDJ]

20. Been passing around "Ignore List"

which is what evolved when Rush LimpDick followers came over to DU for "Operation Kaos"

[scarletwoman]

37. Oh, don't be so coy, comrad(sic). I'm sure you can give a general description of the *type*

of poster you consider a "so-called democrat" and possible troll.

After all, you and your comrads(sic) must have some specific criteria in mind by which you "know".

sw

[Flubadubya]

11. I agree completely...

In fact, I just earlier responded to a poster who avowed that the "Lefties" on DU were just trolls and disruptors who wanted to "shit on the real Democrats". When I confronted him with the complaint that this was a broad and unfair generality, he insisted he didn't mean all of "the Lefties", but from his initial post it was not clear that he did not mean all of them.

Thanks for noting this and clarifying it also.

[Marr]

32. There was a whole thread devoted to that claim on... Saturday, I believe?

Ah-- here it is, in case you need a good laugh:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1494524&mesg_id=1504707

[Ikonoklast]

127. That was me, and you mis-characterized what I posted.

Read again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1510270

Post #75.

I was fairly clear as to who I was talking about in my post, I am sorry you failed to comprehend what I wrote.

There are many self-styled 'Leftists' here that NEVER bash Republicans, it is all negative, anti-Democratic posts every time.

Seems they cannot ever post one positive thing about a Democrat, but for some strange reason, especially when directly asked about Republicans, change the subject, or respond with a question not even relevant to the discussion, in order to derail the topic at hand.

Or they just resort to attacking the asker.

Those are tactics taught to right-wing disruptors that troll political forums.

And it's really nothing new.

[trud]

135. equal opportunity bashing

I rarely bash Republicans because that's carrying water to the well. Does anyone in DU need it pointed out that Palin is a moron, or almost all Repigs nowadays are scum?

However, we elected Obama as a Democratic President, and he promptly broke promises left and right and now appears to be aiming to start dismantling the New Deal. He's supposed to be on our side, for crying out loud. Of course, I'm going to complain.

And yes, I'm of the same vintage as the OP, so I bashed Johnson as well.

[Enthusiast]

146. Me too. nt

[RedCloud]

151. His point should be better taken I feel...

We should maybe have a forum, look at what the whackos are up to now so we can take their "talking points of shit" and bash their heads in with them.

I, for one, spend most of my posts elsewhere, but I am happy to say I use some of what I find in here to bash them but good.

So I think we need an ammo forum or a feuling center where we can get the goods and go elsewhere to help our cause.

[polmaven]

162. And you apparently

do not even consider that accusing the president of "aiming to start dismantling the New Deal" is the least bit of an exaggeration?

Since it is, in reality, an ENORMOUS exaggeration, is exactly why there are some who feel that that type of accusation may be a deliberate scare tactic.

Personally, I do not think that. I think you are sincere, but, perhaps, prone to overstatement.

[trud]

200. exaggeration?

Really? Chopping away at Social Security? I'll tell you how that looks to someone on it, terrifying. And putting Medicare on the chopping block is even more terrifying, although I realize that is post-New Deal.

Plus, we know this is just the beginning. I have NO confidence that Obama won't give away the store, based on his past actions. Infinite money for war, including one he started, but social programs are on the chopping block.

[polmaven]

205. yes...exaggeration!

There is absolutely nothing to show the president is "chopping away" at Social Security, nor that Medicare is "on the chopping block" and particularly not even a single change to some who is on it NOW! The only place that is anywhere NEAR the truth is in your very vivid imagination.

[JDPriestly]

217. Yes, Obama has said that he is cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits.

I will work for other Democrats, but not for him.

Social Security is sacred because it saves people's lives.

Same for Medicare.

Killing Grandma sounds wonderfully rational when you are sitting in Congress or the White House talking with number crunchers.

But the reality is pretty ugly. And it will come back to haunt anyone who agrees or supports cuts in those programs.

[polmaven]

222. Well, you have your opinion

of what the presidednt has said, and I have mine. They may diagree, but not to the point of the president intending to dismantle SS and/or Medicare. I'm sure you don't believe it goes that far.

[JDPriestly]

233. He is talking about means-testing.

We already have a limited amount of that with Medicare.

For me, means-testing dismantles the spirit and purpose of the programs. They are for everyone.

They are already means-tested through taxes. More means-testing would destroy the programs.

[trud]

245. "deep cuts in Medicare"

"deep cuts in Medicare"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/politics/20fiscal.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

Go ahead, play that in a positive way.

[JDPriestly]

246. Yes, I do think Obama is part of a group of people who want

to dismantle the public sector in general and Social Security and the public schools in particular.

Obama appointed Geithner as Sec. of Treasury. In turn Geithner was appointed to the NY Fed by a committee headed by Pete Peterson.

Thom Hartmann has stated that Geithner was a Republican before he was an Independent.

Geithner is not the only quite conservative appointment that Obama has made.

And Bernanke is just another one.

Obama is a conservative wolf who put on a sheepskin when he debated during the Democratic primaries.

That is why I would like to see a challenge form the progressive wing of the Democratic Party against Obama in 2012.

He needs to know that progressives are not a bunch of wimps, that we are numerous and that our ideas are more popular than his.

He is a nice person with a wonderful family, but his political ideas are far, far, too far to the right to be good for our nation.

[A Simple Game]

170. Well said and I am a 60 year old liberal.

Why does anyone think we would waste our time bashing people we all agree are not worth our time? We don't want to fix the Republicans, we have given up hope for them.

We want to fix the Democrats and Democratic Party. I especially want to advance the Liberal agenda.

I am not a Democrat, never have been. I am a liberal from the same era as you and the OP.

My concern is with politicians that know what needs to be done and will make the world a better place, but refuse to even work toward those ends, not even slightly. I am as critical of Obama as anyone here, and I feel he deserves it. Why, well because I believe he is a smart person, but he seems increasingly to be a lazy person and to have no ideals he is unwilling to compromise away.

Now my time in this world is drawing short, and my ideals for this world are far from being in place. I do think my patience is shorter with Obama than it has been with any other President, including the last one from which I had no expectations of advancing my ideals.

Obama was not my first choice in 2008, he was not even my second. I wanted Gore to run again, he is not as liberal as I would hope for, but he was by far the smartest person in the field. He, other than Dennis Kucinich, was the only one with enough integrity to try wholeheartedly for what he knew was right. I liked Kucinich but knew he was unelectable. Very few third party candidates are electable either, hence the reason I am stuck voting for Democrats most of the time. I do remember a time when there were Democrats worthy of my vote, I can even remember when a Republican was worthy of my vote, that's how old I am.

[trud]

201. A Simple Game

My principles have not changed. I've been a Democrat all my life. But somehow the party has moved to the right and now I seem to have been labeled a Liberal or a leftwinger. I think it's no accident that Hillary, formerly a Republican, is now a "Democrat."

[A Simple Game]

206. And 30 or 40 years ago Obama would not have been a Democrat.

Also many of the Republican members of Congress would have been labeled reactionaries.

Change is not always to be hoped for.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

189. +++1

That's exactly why I bash Obama and not Republicans on this website. Bush was the worst President in American history and the sky is blue today. Hey, here's a bonus: cats chase mice; Mel Gibson has a problem with alcohol and Jews.

Offshore drilling is when I turned on Obama. Keeping Bush's tax cuts when he could have let them expire and then his wheeling and dealing with the New Deal as a bargaining chip in this latest "crisis" was the last straw.

I was born in 1960 but you don't have to have lived through the depression to know that this country is being dismantled and parted out.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

191. You want a conspiracy?

I think Democratic operatives post to this site and accuse anyone who criticizes Obama of being a Republican posing as a leftist.

[theFrankFactor]

223. Republicans won't change because you "bash" them. It's OUR responsibility to respond...

politically in an effective and powerful way among ourselves! WE are not going to change Republicans but if some of us are willing to learn we might be able to change ourselves as Democrats for the better.

You can criticize the other team for winning when you lose but that's a sure fire waste of time when you meet the next challenge.

[yurbud]

8. the only question is whether they are paid by the GOP or the corporate owned Dems

their talking points have scarcely changed since the Bush years though.

[Fire1]

10. Exactly. n/t

[FredStembottom]

69. Yes. The rigid talking points and the leisure to pound them 24/7.

Those are the aspects that make me so suspicious.

I have considered what the OP suggests myself, many times. But the list of regulars that can appear day and night on thread after thread pounding the daylights out of DU folks who are merely disappointed that their desperate needs are never addressed by the Dems they helped elect, those aspects of the "in-fighting" suggest something else. Add to this all the reports of paid social network trolls of all kinds now having become a reality... a job... a profession... well, that's an explanation that fits the particulars.

However, I'll never know for sure and neither will most of us. So let me suggest a solution I will now use: if a poster appears multiple times on a thread(s) to harangue a Democrat for wanting Democrats to be Democrats, (S)he is no Democrat - and should be treated to the Ignore button.

I salute the OP for reminding me that, never before was it considered bad/naughty/evil to demand of our Democrats that they behave like Democrats. It was routine!

[StarsInHerHair]

80. thanks, I got into it with some1 exactly as you described-no empathy &

extremely dismissive


uses *yawn* before spewing contempt are a few more traits

[FredStembottom]

84. Hang in there.

Let's Ignore our way around these posters.... whatever they ultimately are.

[StarsInHerHair]

91. yep I officially announced it on the thread where 1 was, Im like Santa-for the naughty

[sabrina 1]

102. 'No empathy'. Yes, not something you associate with someone

who is a Democrat. I know what you mean, and I noticed that also :-)

[bvar22]

155. Me too,

and it is sickening.

[JDPriestly]

235. I saw that. You handled it well, I thought.

[Odin2005]

88. I agree. IMO DLC is awash with paid DLC shills.

[TBF]

118. And then there are the unpaid campaign members who do it for free -

I am on quite a few distlists from my time campaigning for Obama, and at one point I received an email offering "talking points" to go over with friends and neighbors. I declined to sign up for that, but I probably should have because I bet it tracks many of the memes we see here. No doubt the other side does it as well - no question in my mind about that.

That is another age difference - today's 20-somethings have grown up with the constant buzz/advertisements, it may be easier for them to filter out things they don't want to hear.

[Enthusiast]

147. Me too.......nt

[yurbud]

92. Whenever you despair about DU, google this thread to see who we really are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5567638">What kind of Democrat are you?

[MissDeeds]

226. I've noticed the same thing

I noticed one poster over the weekend that had more than fifteen posts in a single thread. He (or she) came to the thread after it had been up for a few hours, but went up and down the thread arguing with anyone who did not fully support the president or criticized his positions. It was amazing.

Do they really think they are fooling anyone by their antics or that they have any credibility?

[Mimosa]

241. ^ ITA, Fred. I remember what DU was like in 2003 through 2005 ^

There are quite a few regulars on this board whose perspective seems very 'corporate,' even conservative. I believe a bunch of Repubs were put off by the antics of the religious right which began taking over the Republican Party during the 1990s. Secular conservatives have no home in today's republic party so they 'joined' the democrats and have been attempting to drag us right through their 'Third Way' garbage. There are definitely a few paid message shapers here. They repeat the same things over and over like a telephone 'hold' loop. *LOL*

Edited for typo.

[Dept of Beer]

31. Define "so-called Democrat = troll" if you are able.

[Flubadubya]

41. I believe most of them end up defining themselves...

and ultimately wind up going the way of the dinosaurs around here.

[Dept of Beer]

51. That's a non-answer.

Are you able to define their actions?

For example there are trolls who throw their poop and run headlong into a tombstone. Poof.

Then there are trolls who play the concern button.

Then there are some trolls who continue to exist indefinitely to drop their poop and exit, through some phenomenon yet unexplained, only to reappear later on to do it all over again.


I'm sure that you have some specific types of troll in mind so what is your opinion on the subject?

[Flubadubya]

54. Oh, I don't think it's a "non-answer" so much as an exhortation...

to those who feel they are "bedeviled by trolls" to do something positive... e.g. alert on spurious posts, use the ignore function, or just be patient and let them play out. Whether you use the ignore feature of the forum or not, it's always strictly up to you how you react to perceived affronts by "trolls". You can always take it or leave it. You don't need an "ignore button" to simply disengage from them. Your choice... always.

[Dept of Beer]

56. I asked your to define them, but you declined to.

Why?


Care to PM me off reservation?

[Flubadubya]

58. I try not to engage in fruitless discussions...

and I can't see where this one is going to be very useful.

PM you? Perhaps, but I am going to have to go to bed at this point. I'm old, you know, and yes, I'm still employed and have to get up early for work. Maybe later.

Thanks for your interest, sincerely.

[Dept of Beer]

65. Apparently I have engaged in just that.

If I were you I would refrain from posting accusations if you are not able to back them up with evidence.

Thank you, and goodnight.

[sabrina 1]

105. I think most people understood and didn't need a detailed

description. Maybe because you're new it's more difficult for you?

[Dept of Beer]

203. That's BS.

Deleted message's post was trolling, and the wink-wink "we know who is a troll is but you don't" BS is just that.

The poster won't even give a description of what s/he thinks is a troll.

[yellerpup]

152. They define themselves, as you say, by their own

words. I had a long talk with a newspaper publisher in NH last week and he told me how the Tea Party has an organized push to get t-baggers to move there, disrupt the status quo, and take over all the elected political jobs. It is no secret that the same sort of disruption has been going on here. Some disruptors are slicker than others, but as you say, the truth will out and they will eventually become extinct. (or we will)

[ClassWarrior]

82. The ones who play Dems against Dems - from ALL angles.

There are trolls who pretend to be unquestioning Obama boosters, there are trolls who pretend to be militant lefties, there are trolls who do whatever it takes to sow discord among us. Why? What kind did you have in mind?

NGU.

[patrice]

239. That's exactly what's going on & a hallmark of their work is MIS-CHARACTERIZATION and

poor logic, which also just happen to be the traits of newbies and other who are perhaps unfamiliar with the practices of effective rhetoric.

So, even if you're not really all that interested in trolls, but you are instead trying to evaluate a point of view and credit it to the extent you can do so, but what you're reading uses mis-characterization, over generalization, faulty assumptions, even prejudice about things we don't even know yet . . . well it just causes problems between persons who would otherwise probably agree at least to some extent.

Throw in the trolls that you describe, various Stephen Colbert wannabes, and people who really just don't give a shit, plus some who seem to enjoy ridicule and it's a wonder we get along as well as we do.

[Andy823]

42. Yes I would agree

The "trolls" are pretty obvious, but there is also a group of posters who's candidate lost in 2008 who still have not forgiven president Obama for "winning" the primary. Now I will admit that he was not my first choice, but I voted for him and I am glad I did. He may not have "fixed" everything in his 3 years in office, but he did accomplish a hell of a lot, and I am believe he will accomplish even more in his next term!

The right is not happy with the "clowns" they have running for the republican nomination this year, and so they are doing the best the can at trying to divide the left and get people to not vote, or vote for some write in! It's their only hope of winning next year and they are going full bore at using this "Limbaugh" tactic to disrupt and troll for anyone they can hook with their right wing BS!

[eridani]

93. I never expected Obama to fix everything--just to be unequivocally on the side--

--of us little people.

[rhett o rick]

176. I think you are demonstrating what I think is part of the problem.

You seem to give the hapless right credit for dividing the Democratic Party. You are way off. We would unite against them as we did against Bush/Cheney. However, when Pres Obama became inaugurated, he started immediately distancing himself from the progressives in the party. His Bush appointees, DLC appointees, and wall street/corp CEO appointees, didnt set well with the progressives. It appears to me to be a strategic move to gain votes from the middle right. And it will probably be effective in getting him reelected. Although it wasnt the best for the country. Alan Simpson? Come on. I assume you dont need a complete listing.

[defendandprotect]

210. +1 ---

[Scuba]

2. We're looking at a whole generation that has never heard any message except...

..."Social Security is going broke". Why would they think differently?


You're definately on to something. Saving for thoughtful contemplation and futher response.

[FreakinDJ]

23. DING DING DING - We have a Winner Folks

Propaganda Works

[DeschutesRiver]

34. +1. nt

[Enthusiast]

150. Another one.

"Unions have outlived their usefulness."

Just look how wonderful the nation is now that we have lost all that union representation. Why it's a fucking paradise, just Like Ronnie said it would be.

[Mojorabbit]

76. I also think it is a cultural thing

I came up in the 60's also and the the theme was service to one's fellow man and to society. Remember Kennedy's Ask not what.....?
Then in the 80's it shifted to more of an I thing. I have been thinking about this and trying to pinpoint just when it happened.

Instead of people doing the Peace Corp and training for social service type careers it changed to MBA's and go for the throat business. I know I am generalizing but there really was a shift in cultural mores or cultural identity if you will. I am not explaining this well...too much vino. :)

[tsuki]

108. Son belongs to a generation that has never heard anything but

the government is evil.

[jtown1123]

123. The Social Security messaging is true. But we still support the programs (those of us who haven't

bought the lies). Even though my generation is discouraged "it won't be there for me" the majority wants these programs to stick around. Not be dismantled.

[Scuba]

126. What SS messaging is true? SS is NOT going broke.

[Enthusiast]

149. Yup.

"It won't be there for me when I retire."

[no limit]

158. To be fair there are many young people that don't buy in to these lies

I'm 25, I'm probably more critical of this president and today's Democrats than many people here.

[Drale]

167. I could not disagree with you more

My generation is far more socially liberal then any other generation beside the people in the 60's but they all turned into grumpy old men and women because of Reagen. The problem is getting my generation out to vote, I think we saw what happens when they do vote in 08, overwhelmingly voting democrat. I'm 23 and in my life time we've had 3 of the worst Republican presidents in the history of the US and 2 only ok Democratic presidents, we know what the Repukes can do and want to do. I think the big problem is the older generation, how many just blindly go to the polls and vote republican because that is what they always have done, and how many, like the tea baggers, will do what ever the TV tells them to do? I have predicted in the past and continue to stand by this, that as the baby boomer's start to die out, including some of our more hated elected officials, things will only get better, including Gay Marriage for the entire country, socialized medicine and so on and so on.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. I am not that far from you in age, but I get very frustrated when Dems don't fight back

Doesn't it upset you?

[Flubadubya]

5. You bet it does...

Remember the real and genuine "civil disobedience" that went on the the 60s? When people were frustrated they took it to the streets in demonstration and, if you also recall, the most successful ones were the stubborn and peristent ones, but that were nonviolent. MLK and Ghandi come to mind. These guys changed their societies for the better by speaking up and acting out. We could certainly use some of that behavior today.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. We sure could. nt

[KurtNYC]

113. They don't put it on TV when it happens

500,000 marched against the Iraq war and it was only on CSPAN3. They don't show or talk about any of the wars on TV. Afghanistan has gone on longer than Vietnam now, OBL is dead and there is little discussion of why we are still there.

The Right was badly beaten. Nixon destroyed the GOP brand and they changed tactics to divide and conquer. Taking over the media was part of their plan and they did it. Like it or not TV is the scoreboard and they own it and use it well. Reagan struck down the Fairness Doctrine, Murdoch launched Fox News and what did we do besides complain and wish?

The Left has not completely come to grips with the changes. Many ask daily "when will the media do it's job?" but reality is the days of a relatively balanced MSM are long gone. Media is key but only part of the changed landscape. Electronic voting, voter purges, election hacking, phone hacking, legal wire tapping, sock puppets, hate radio, union busting, language shaping, issue framing, the war on culture, the war on education, the war on drugs, on and on. Owning media was key to sliding this transition through.

[Enthusiast]

153. Excellent post award alert!

Kurt, that is one hell of a post. I appreciate the shit out of it.

"Many ask daily "when will the media do it's job?""

Yeah, it's the wrong question. It's too late for that question after NPR has become a conduit for right wing propaganda. Don't even bother to ask that question. Think up a more relevant question.

One hell of a post!

[LiberalLovinLug]

186. I second that recomendation

"when will the media do it's job?"

They ARE doing their job.
Its just that their job is not what it was a few decades ago. Instead it is to steer the public away from social liberation type stories or faux-pas by the Right and concentrate on FEAR of the deficit, of socialism, of Muslims, of the truth.

[Angry Dragon]

9. 'I believe it's called evolution.'

What we have seen over many years is de-evolution.

Believing in equal rights for all is not something that can go backwards.
If it does then principals now mean nothing.

[Flubadubya]

15. I can't really argue with that...

In fact, it seems to me that the really big swing toward "de-evolution" began in the 80s with the Reagan fiasco.

Nonetheless, I still want believe there are greater forces at work and that despite periods of regression, the human species is overall evolving. I may not see it come to fruition in my lifetime, but still believe it is happening.

[SalviaBlue]

29. We used to hear about equal rights on the tv.

Now you hear the corp opinion of equal rights and every other subject. Young people listening casually would never know what liberals believe only what corp media wants you to believe they believe.

[Angry Dragon]

40. +1000

[StarsInHerHair]

83. no they go to the Daily Show & Colbert, online, ondemand, on tv, etc

[KurtNYC]

115. TDS and Colbert pacify the left

They make everything a joke -- righteous anger becomes a good laugh and nothing more. The interviews in the last half of TDS are very RW and corporate. Stephen Colbert hosted the Press Club dinner with Bush. Jon Stewart attracts a left leaning audience and then puts RW guests in front of them, like these:

John McCain (13 times !)
Tony Blair
Lynne Cheney
John Ashcroft
Don Rumsfeld
Henry Kissinger
Colin Powell
Christie Todd Whitman
Tom Ridge
Trent Lott
Evan Bayh
Newt Gingrinch
Ron Paul
Jon Bolton
Ari Fleischer
Tony Snow
Karen Hughes
Tim Pawlenty
Rick Perry
Rudy Giuliani
Pat Buchanan
Fred Barnes
Bill Gates
Bill O'Reilly

[maddiemom]

193. stewart/colbert/right wingers

What are you saying? Stewart and Colbert do have a lot of right wing guests, but interview them seriously and are more liable to put them on the spot than the "serious" news shows. Have you been paying attention? Are you trying to say these hosts are right wingers in disguise or what? You lost me here. Colbert's appearance in front of Bush at the WH Correspondent" dinner is a classic, especially since the right wingers completely misread him when booking him. Right Wing hosts such as Bill O do have on left wingers sometimes, but tend to shut off their microphones.

[StarsInHerHair]

208. WOW YOU MUST HAVE MISSED WHEN COLBERT TOLD W DIRECTLY WHAT AN IDIOT

HE WAS, YOU MAY WANT TO DOWNLOAD COLBRET'S BRUTAL "ROAST" OF W. so far off-base you're out of the park

[defendandprotect]

213. Agree with that --

it was the best thing Colbert ever did --

I don't get the current show -- think both TDS and Colbert were better off

together!!



PS -- However, note the comments above re Colbert at Press Club dinner --

For some who don't really know what he said -- the fact that everyone kept

smiling and the news came and went quickly -- they may think he was there

to celebrate Bush! It was, of course, just the opposite!

[KurtNYC]

244. my point is that the PTB are fine with Colbert and TDS

I like both shows and just run them off when they interview John McCain and the like.

They are comedy shows who openly declare their bias and that is very different from claiming to be a fair and balanced news show. One is designed to laugh at the mess we're in, while the other is designed to shape opinion and move policy.

I love Colbert at that press dinner. Not sure how he puts his pants on with balls that big but still, I think it shows that what we consider the Left in media is co-opted and limited by their corporate bosses.

[StarsInHerHair]

247. blame the millionaire Left for not bothering to care enough to create a

network for true honest news

[defendandprotect]

212. Agree with most of what you're saying, especially re TDS ... which had a turning point ...

I've never gotten the Colbert show -- just doesn't work for me!

[StarsInHerHair]

248. so did you hear about his Super-pac? I'm curious what he's going to do with it

[defendandprotect]

250. Did hear about it -- but wasn't that interested in details -- and presumed ...

that somewhere along the way someone here would explain it -- !!

:evilgrin:


:hi:

[defendandprotect]

211. +1 ---

and if you've been watching TV seems clear that one of the main things the

rw is teaching is violence --

Imagine it is very difficult for very young people to see anything from the TV

but a very violent American society --

They began that theme with the Drug War -- until the young could only believe

that they can't trust anyone.

Yet there are many who still seem to sit in front of their TV's quite sure that

if there were anything truly wrong in America, the host would let them know!!



RW propaganda still works -- and our Goebbels' style corporate press is still dishing it out!!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Flubadubya]

19. Thanks for the admonition...

:) I suspect I'm not too terribly fooled and am aware that the place is crawling with trolls, and my "age hypothesis" may be just a minor factor here on DU, but I think it may have some merit even so.

Thanks again. :hi:

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[July16th-20th]

13. GET OFF MY LAWN!

Just kidding. Recommended. ;-)

[Flubadubya]

61. Thanks...

;) back at ya!

[July16th-20th]

90. Let's teach these kids a thing or two!

I had to shovel 46 feet of snow just to get out of the house so I could go to school which was outdoors because the county couldn't afford walls or roofing and then I'd go home and chop wood for 8 hours until Dad made me drink whiskey till I threw up and Mom just stood there and laughed while making me dance to avoid her shotgun blasts and then the two of them would re-pile the 46 feet of snow just to make me shovel it again and that's the way it was and we LIKED it!

[Piasladic]

215. thanks - nt

[AverageJoe90]

253. LMAO........

That was priceless. xD

[texshelters]

14. There's much more than age going on here

for example, regional, geographic, education, union/non-union, other factors make a big difference as to whether one is willing to put up with a cowardly Democratic Party or a fighting Democratic Party.

Too many people accept too little. My dad was staunch labor Dem, but he had no qualms complaining about LBJ and the Vietnam war and other Democratic missteps.

To call those that disagree with Obama "trolls" is to buy into the Republican stance of "take it or leave it". I expect better of Democrats than name-calling. Sorry that some don't understand we are in this together, even if we disagree.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Flubadubya]

25. Excellent points... thanks for your perspective.

Oh, and the ease with which all the name calling (including "trolls") is bantered about is truly a sad statement about today's society in general, and the way people treat each other on this forum in particular. It's quite sad to see.

Peace to you too!
Flub

[roxiejules]

71. Good point - LBJ was a Dem

but we still protested....

[Flubadubya]

110. Hi roxiejules and thanks for bringing your neat picture to this thread...

Your point is so cogent and so important that I actually used your comments from the other thread and referenced you directly by name in my "updated" post here... hope you don't mind, but you helped me make the point that it wasn't all "sweetness and light" back then and that I probably ought to bring that into the discussion. As I said, every generation has their demons, but yet still have both the right and the need to speak truth to the powers that be. I think we could use a whole lot more of that today. It was just wonderful to see the reactions in Wisconsin to the heavy handed bullying by their leaders, and especially to that fool they call "governor". Although I believe the media did not emphasize the real significance of the demonstrations (and the media is a whole 'nother matter for discussion), it still had an impact that was good. Just look at the recall elections. Nonetheless I think there should be much more of that kind of activity toward this despicable rush to the right.

Again, thanks so much for your input on this... you've contributed a great deal. I appreciate you! :hi: :hug:

[roxiejules]

202. Thank you Flubadubya

Happy to know I helped - your OP was excellent! I've begun telling my young grandchildren about the struggles of life past and they are fascinated. We need to keep the memories alive so those who come after us will remember, too.



:hi:

[RegieRocker]

165. You're headed in the right direction, much more to discover.

[ellenfl]

16. i'm 61. i understand your point. i also believe that our

'generation' may have had different educational input, not to mention different media input. i really do believe that we are being dumbed down, whether by happenstance or design, and that people HAVE become low information voters. just look at how younger women have mostly dropped the women's movement, perhaps thinking that all the work was done by prior generations. complacency is letting the corporatists and repubs win . . . and greed replaced our idealism a long time ago.

ellen fl

[FreakinDJ]

26. The "Greed id Good" message of the 80s

still permeates Corp media's message to our youth today.

They never heard "Ask not what your country can do for you" nor understood the meaning of sacrifice up until this Great Recession hit

[StarsInHerHair]

86. media buyout helped deform the culture-but dont forget them IMPACT of

classic films on TCM AMC Netflix..........just saw Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-EVERY MOMENT IS RELEVENT TODAY. Look around, there's alot of Rockabillys around who know what's happening, look at the various UNCUT movements online, on Twitter. The messages of FDR DEMS is strong & clear. Remember how they organized in WI: online via laptops, phones, etc.

[Lorien]

133. Oh, many young people believe that giving one's life for one's Country (or

corporate profits) is a noble thing to do, but sacrificing a dime of one's tax dollar to HELP a starving or homeless American? Never! They've accepted the notion that their lives are worth far less than their income and that their "Country" is something other than their fellow citizens.

[Enthusiast]

154. Excellent point! nt

[Flubadubya]

27. Complacency...

I think you just nailed a big one! It's very much the difference in the level of activism seen in the past vs. the apparent nonchalance of today's generation. What's it going to take to wake them up?

...not to mention the greed. Boy, is that one a rotter!

Thanks for your input... I appreciate it and have learned more. :)

[eleny]

17. I'm 64 and was brought up in a working class union family

And I'm angry as heck when I see the programs we fought for are being eroded - even handed up on a platter as sacrificial lambs to corporate greed. In fact, it sickens me when I hear a whisper of such happening at the hand of Democrats in office.

[Flubadubya]

28. And there's nothing wrong with voicing that dissatisfaction in our leaders...

They seem to have a tin ear but maybe we're just not shouting loudly enough. :shrug:

[roxiejules]

81. You said it!

We're going through a coup d'etat in slow motion and turning into a Corporate state.






Chris Hedges: Corporatist America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI9VzSJjXfg

[ThomWV]

114. +1

[BeFree]

18. Oh, i don't know

Maybe it is just wisdom that comes with age?

Too, democrats are not great followers, like the republicans are.
So some disagreements on course and actions are bound to arise.

As for me, I welcome the disagreements as long as the spirit is sound.

[Flubadubya]

36. Disagreements are to be expected...

disembowelments... not so much. I would certainly welcome a modicum of civility in the discourse here myself.

Thanks for your input!

[sabrina 1]

21. I don't think so, I think it is the New Democrats, many of them

are not so young either, who have infitrated the Democratic Party and are atttempting to swing it to the right.

Corporate America learned that to get what they want they need to own both parties.

It's instructive to look at those who push the party to the right, Blue Dogs eg, and from whom they get their funding.

Most of the young people I know are not part of the 'New Democrats' and do not agree with their policies, many now very disappointed in this administration for whom they worked very hard and were so enthusiastic about.

Young people are as capable of caring about the elderly, the poor, the weakest citizens as are their parents and grandparents, and in fact most of those I know LEARNED that compassion from their parents and grandparents, as I did.

[Flubadubya]

39. I'm so glad to hear this sabrina...

I am not that much involved in the lives of younger people, though I am aware of some who are truly dedicated to caring for others. I am glad to hear that your experiences show you that there are still plenty of good ones out there. As I said in my OP, I don't think my generation really has any great advantage, but it does seem we got a different "education" than the generation following us. Nonetheless, I still believe that evolution goes in cycles and that we are due for an upswing one day, hopefully sooner than later.

Thanks again for the wonderful examples you have given here. It heartens me much! :) :hi:

[libmom74]

173. I agree. I am a younger (late thirties) liberal.

I consider myself an FDR democrat. I was raised by my grandparents who grew up during the Great Depression and were strong union supporters and FDR Democrats.

[truedelphi]

207. I am glad to meet you

In this topic and have you make me realize that there are some people your age who understand about the FDR priniciples.

[SaveAmerica]

185. I see conservative Dems locally and nationally at work to keep progressives from gaining strength

I think the tide that turned in '08 shook Republicans and Conservative Dems with it's power. That's why I get so angry when I think of helping progressive Dems get into office and they turn around and become something unrecognizable from the candidates they portrayed when they came to our meetings and showed up at their rallies. These guys did not help us at all and I get frustrated to think of the good that could have come from our office winners if they'd kept their promises and remained true to their candidate selves.

I'm in my early 40's.

[NorthCarolina]

220. That say's it all right there. n/t

[Marr]

22. Well, I'm 38 if that helps.

I think I'd be lumped in with the... what was the most recent one? Oh yes-- "Irrational screamers". That was the phrase, I believe.

On the other hand, I think my upbringing was a little closer to your own than to that of most people my age. I started life in a house with a dirt floor, and around the age of ten, dad got a union job and we stopped shopping at the Goodwill.

[Flubadubya]

44. Wow Marr, thanks for the input...

I guess I haven't heard the term "irrational screamers" but I can certainly believe the meme is out there. :(

As I said, it's not so much the age you are cast up in, but what is in your own nature and makeup. Do you consider it a privilege (or perhaps advantage) to have had the upbringing and learning opportunities that you did? I'm certainly glad things changed for you though.

Thanks again for the narrative! :hi:

[Marr]

59. Oh, I don't know.

Maybe. It's hard to say. I mean, I learned to darn so I could repair my own clothing, and I learned to take care of chickens in a semi-urban environment, and about a billion ways to prepare eggs and potatoes... but I'm not sure that's such valuable knowledge. I do think the experience of poverty will make a person more sympathetic, and I probably needed that to avoid becoming a complete prick, so yeah-- it was probably all for the best. lol

[Flubadubya]

68. Makes me think of what an uncle said...

This was my father's brother who grew up as a dirt farmer. He remarked one day about the Arkansas motto at the time (as seen on license plates, etc.) It was "Arkansas, The Land of Opportunity". His comment was that if you ever get the opportunity to get out, don't come back. Well, he did leave, but ultimately came back to Arkansas and made a very decent living for himself and his family. He was pretty smart though and got a good education.

I dunno, what you said there made me think of this.

Oh, and I'm glad to hear you didn't become a complete prick, hee-hee!

Thanks!

[Marr]

103. lol!

:)

[scarletwoman]

24. I'll be 62 in November. I've long been acutely aware of how different my political & social points

of reference are to those 20, 30, 40 years younger than I.

I'm part of a generation of PTSD survivors - the JFK, MLK, and RFK assassinations, among the many other consulsive events of our youth. Furthermore, I'm part of the subset of old hippies, surviving lefties, counter-culturalists who left behind blind faith in our political system long ago.

At the same time, I've never forgotten what my blue-collar, union man, child of the Depression instilled in me about Democrats: "Republicans are the party of the rich, Democrats are the party of the working man."

I make no apology for continuing to hold Democrats to that standard, and for rebuking them when they fail to uphold it themselves.

sw

[Flubadubya]

35. My sentiments to a tee...

and an old "lefty, erstwhile hippie" myself. Boy, I tell you, I really didn't realize what my raising had actually wrought until I left home, saw a bit of the world, and came to dearly love and appreciate my Democratic roots. I also feel we should hold "our guys" to the standard of justice and equality that the Democratic brand really stands for. I'm just glad there are still others around that feel this way.

Thanks scarletwoman for your input. I have always admired you from your posts. :) :hi:

[Desertrose]

106. Ditto here, sw.

I hit 62 this spring.....like you I'm also a part of a generation who still remembers well the JFK, MLK, and RFK assassinations, the Viet Nam war, as well as the other convulsive events of our youth. Furthermore, I'm part of the subset of old hippies, surviving lefties, counter-culturalists who left behind blind faith in our political system loooong ago.



:hi::hug:

[myrna minx]

119. I'm 20 years your junior, but I wholeheartedly agree with you.

:hi: friend.

[mike_c]

137. that describes me as well....

Yup. What she said.

[WinkyDink]

228. I'll be 62 in November, also!

11/05, to be precise!

[Octafish]

33. Raised on Reagan...

...is how I describe the cretinous ghouls who came of age, politically, in those three terribler terms under Pruneface and the Wimp, and believe the trickle-down nonsense. America has never been the same, unfortunately.

Thank you for an outstanding post, Flubadubya. Spot-on analysis. People who don't know better think that was the way it's always been.

[Flubadubya]

45. Thanks for the encouragement Octafish...

I think you're absolutely right about the horror of the Reagan years. I became so disillusioned then, and I'm not sure I really ever recovered.

Yes, thank goodness we have had the opportunity to see how it has been, and I think it just piques our appetites to have a taste of the "good life" again.

[AndyTiedye]

50. Raised on All Republicans All the Time. Many Have Never Seen or Heard a Liberal Viewpoint

Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, and the Tee Vee has been all Republicans all the time ever since.
Many who grew up since the 80s have never seen or heard a liberal viewpoint in the media in their entire lives.

They control ALL the Tee Vee stations. They control 99% of the radio stations and newspapers.

[KurtNYC]

117. The NBC show "Nightline" was created to help destroy Carter

They had a counter on screen that showed how many days the hostages had been held. And they just banged away on Carter night after night. You're correct. what we have now is a liberal-free media.

[Art_from_Ark]

229. Actually, Nightline was ABC

But you are right that in its infancy, the show, hosted by Ted Koppel seemed to go out of its way to make Carter look bad. That was one reason why I quit watching it. Koppel himself was/is quite a conservative, and was/is very close to Henry Kissinger, once commenting that "Henry Kissinger is, plain and simply, the best secretary of state we have had in 20, maybe 30 years – certainly one of the two or three great secretaries of state of our century." :puke:

[pscot]

79. Our President came of age politically under Reagan

and has professed admiration for at least some of Reagan's qualities. That scared me at the time, and I've not forgotten it.

[Jack Sprat]

89. That may explain some things

and even fortify the case this post has made.

[eridani]

95. In the 80s there were young people working against apartheid and

--doing Central America support work. Also anti-draft. They didn't get as much press because the media caught on to their "mistakes" in the 60s.

[DonCoquixote]

107. some of us who were in that era

Happen to have grown up leftist because we did NOT want to grow up like the Reaganites.

Do you lump in all of Gen X, that actually widens the divide and makes things worse.

[Octafish]

120. That's why I wrote: ''and believe the trickle-down nonsense' in my post...'

It helps set apart the good from the bad.

[OhioBlue]

38. I'm sure that it is a contributing factor

but one of many in each of our individual life experiences.

I'm 39 - the first President I remember is Carter. I didn't have a high opinion of him only b/c my dad said he was a joke and talked about him as if he was dumb. I remember the hostage crisis and my dad blaming Carter. Those are just fleeting memories of a young child... I can't analyze or know why my dad didn't like him - tho my best guess would be gas prices/rationing and the hostage crisis.

Even as a kid tho, I identified myself more with dems/liberals but I didn't dislike Conservatives or Repubilcans. I grew up in a rural area and politics wasn't discussed much. I liked Reagan and Bush II until Desert Storm. I was in College the year that started and at first was glued to the TV... remembering all the War movies of the past... thinking it was my generations responsibility... I didn't understand. I heard the protestors on campus calling at a war over oil. I didn't believe them at first and didn't think the leaders of our Country would fight a war over oil.

It was preached to me over and over by people as a young adult - "you have to put yourself first, because nobody else will". I never liked that saying.

I always liked the mystique of Kennedy... I liked the way he talked. When I watched debates, I always liked the Dem and what they had to say better... but never disliked the other side.

I was glad Clinton won, it was the first time I voted. I thought he was a dumbass and a little creepy over the Monica thing - I still wasn't paying much attention to policy (was glad that he balanced the budget). I thought the Congress members were bigger dumbasses for trying to impeach him. Voted for Gore - thought Bush II was an idiot.. but once he won, he was the Pres.. so be it. Thought the tax check was a bribe and liked him less. I thought he should continue with Clinton's balanced budget.

I started really paying attention after 9-11 - I didn't like the way the Bush admin was talking. I knew Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda. Even tho I didn't pay much attention to politics - I loved history, history channel, PBS, documentaries, etc. I knew they were trying to pull one over. Started reading more, and was drawn more into the Democratic Party. Iraq War was the switch for me. I donated to and campaigned a little for Kerry & registered voters. I volunteered a bunch for Dems in '06 in Ohio and even more in '08. I only campaigned a little in '10 - but regret it and wish I and others would have done more.

I support the President. I think I'm an idealist, but also a realist. I get what people say about his messaging.. but I also know that the Pres campaigned as a consensus builder. He is human and I believe he has a strategic plan. I might not always agree with him, but I think there is a strategy to what he does. (tho of course he could work on framing the message at times) I would love it if this Country could do another 180 like with Reagan - but IMHO - the right is too ridged, too organized, too embedded. If we can get 8 years of an Obama presidency, and give him a better Congress for the second term, I think we can see more change added to what has been accomplished. We need to strengthen the grassroots and we need leaders to change the narrative. If we can then get another Dem elected in 2016 I think we have a much better shot at changing the national psyche.

[Flubadubya]

47. I'm glad you've been politically aware most of your life...

and I'm glad you're still thinking for yourself. There is certainly nothing wrong with "putting yourself first" when it comes from a move to strengthen your own character and abilitites. The fact that you remain compassionate and care about others matters greatly, and the fact that you are looking for our leaders to endorse your idealism... while remaining practical, of course.

I dearly hope and wish that Obama is really working in our best interest. So many things cause doubt right now, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt also. Many things he has done I thought should be done differently, but then, I am not the Prez. I will withhold judgment until a later date when we see how things work out.

Thanks for being a loyal Dem and looking out for others! :)

[starroute]

43. I've long believed that the formative political age is 19

I'm 64 -- and the people of about my age were shaped by the events of c. 1965-69. That is on some level what we take as the norm. We expect our government to maintain the conditions for a good middle class life while looking out for the poorest among us. And though we're fairly cynical about the imperialistic tendencies in US foreign policy, we accept that as something that it's our job to push back against.

My parents, in turn, were mainly shaped by the Depression -- and so were the parents of many early boomers, because the war had made them put off starting families. So we absorbed those attitudes at second hand.

But something changed even with the second wave of Boomers who were born in the middle and late 50s. They grew up with the cynicism of the Watergate era. They had no faith in the ability of government to do good. And they tended to be self-centered rather than idealistic -- it was this wave, not ours, that gave rise to the quintessential Yuppies.

And then you get up to the people born in the 60s, whose attitudes were formed by the Reagan years. Some of them bit on the Reagan message, but even those who didn't seem to believe most Americans did -- which I think is one reason Obama and his advisers are so timid about asserting faith in New Deal programs.

[Flubadubya]

52. Very good points and I agree with what you say...

I think our attitudes are often vastly different than those of the "newer generations", but I still have hope that somehow the Dems will emerge with a new appreciation for the standards of old and the value of the New Deal programs and how they can still make a better life for all of us if they would but stand up for such principles. We're just going to have to hope for the best, it seems.

Thanks for your perspective. It's reassuring. :)

[MrMickeysMom]

46. I think it is, and this is an interesting thing to bring up...

... as I've had the same opinion when having worked closely within a group (I was the one 15 years to 20 years their senior, and I'm 57 now).

I believe everyone comes from a formative frame of reference and is shaped a great deal by it. Because I'm a boomer with older boomer siblings, and remember sharing much with my mother who grew up during the depression, I've broadened my perspective. The people I worked with were well educated, seemed to follow somewhat the same headlines I did each day, but had a totally different frame.

It was and still is frustrating to discuss events with that generation divide because it's such a damned big one.

Good observation and worthy of more discussion...

[Flubadubya]

57. Thanks for your impressions...

yes, I think our upbringing certainly has significant consequences to our behaviors and is worthy of consideration and discussion.

Thanks again for your observations. :)

[Lint Head]

48. 1949 was a good year. Me too.

:toast: :hi:

[Flubadubya]

62. Back at ya!

:bounce: :hi:

[snooper2]

130. 1949 was a good year, if you were the right sex and color

[tabbycat31]

49. the generation behind you has been screwed 7 ways to Sunday

I am 31. I am of the first generation that is not better off than their parents. My parents are of the school where if you have a degree you can magically get a good job right after college, etc and that people with degrees do not do "low level" work (retail, food service, etc). They also have very little respect for blue collar types, especially my mom.


I don't post as much here as I used to because I can't attack another Democrat. I'd rather see our collective efforts on attacking Republicans.

[Flubadubya]

64. I can't deny your assertions there...

It has really become a shitty environment for anyone trying to start out in life as you are. I just "thought" it was rough in my college years. I was damned lucky... tuition at U.T. Austin was a pittance. Prospects were a lot better then... also attitudes.

I agree, I don't want to attack another Democrat either, but I feel I must have a critical voice if they are not holding to Democratic ideals. It's not out of disrespect or hatred that I speak up, but usually anger and disappointment that our leaders are sometimes "not getting it".

Thanks for sharing your story... I appreciate it and I dearly hope that things turn around for the middle class and poor in this country.

[tabbycat31]

169. I have an alternative reason for not wanting to attack another Democrat

I am a Democratic strategist and I work on Democratic campaigns. I don't have a choice in who I work for and have to be prepared to work for anyone with a D next to their name. And I'd rather have a Blue Dog who votes with the party 85% of the time than a Republican who votes with us 0% of the time.

Your generation was able to study what they love in college and told that it was not useless. My cousin, who will be a senior in HS next year, wants to major in history. Everyone is telling her what a useless degree that will be and to go into health care instead. (I personally have no desire to go into the health care field as I'm squeamish and was horrible at science in school).

THe economic problem we are facing right now is structural not cyclical. For the non college educated (and even for those who went to college) there are few jobs out there that pay a living wage. I look at my parents at my age and they had a house, two cars, etc. I drive a 12 year old car and will probably rent for the rest of my life. Yes we have more technology than they did, but it has replaced other technology that the older generations had. For example I know a lot of the older generation likes to complain that we have cell phones. What they do not realize is that many of us do not have landlines and that a cell phone has replaced a landline. Computers are necessary in this day and age if you are looking for employment (try sending out a resume without an email on it).

[eridani]

96. Why else do you think us oldsters are so pissed off about cutting the Social Security--

--and Medicare that YOU are going to need even more than we do? Remember, the current crop of politicians is trying to reassure us that they'll leave us alone and only go after younger people.

[Enthusiast]

159. +1!

[senseandsensibility]

53. I do feel that the generation that came of age in the forties

knowing the Great Depression, and what life is like without a safety net is endangered. That's what TPTB are counting on. The younger people don't have direct knowledge of what life was like before Social Security, etc. I don't either, but I have listened to my grandparents and read a lot of history. The Dems should be trying to educate and remind people what life was like before FDR.

[Flubadubya]

66. Thanks for your input...

The Dems should definitely be leading by example. Whether anyone can significantly impact anyone's impressions about how life used to be is, I think, somewhat questionable. Also, I'm not so sure how many of our Dem leaders today even share that sensibility about our "collective conscience" to the new generation. I do wonder sometimes if they actually have that in them. I do hope so, but if they do I certainly expect to see them acting on these.

Thanks again senseandsensibility. :hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Yes. I'm 49, here's how I see my peers and younger.

"I bought a house in a good neighborhood because property values are going up. It's a good investment. With my 401k, I've invested in tech stocks and energy companies, but with my mortgage, car and education loans, making ends meet is hard. But I have to max out my 401k because with no pension and we all know that social security won't be there, I'm on my own.
At work, I work hard to compete with the other workers. I work 65 hours a week in my mid-management job, for a 40 hour salary."

1) My parents work was in exchange for an hourly wage that financed their life. Today, work=life, of which you invest what you can to maybe finance a life someday.
2) My parents had some sense of solidarity with the other workers. Today, workers express affinity for the owners and compete with their co workers for the owners favor.
3) My parents wages were the economic focus. Today, workers know that their salary isn't much, but they'll get rich by investing in the company's stock.
4) In 1983, we agreed to raise our SS taxes so that we wouldn't be a burden on our kids. We did our part, and are now being betrayed by apathy and a naive belief that wall street will provide. I see Obama's success in the same way and for the same reasons that Starbucks and Apple do. The creation of a commercial following is a new development and Obama capitalized on that preprogramming.

[Flubadubya]

67. Well, you certainly have an interesting perspective on how things are today...

and I expect you're probably spot on with your analysis. I simply have not been involved in the type of work/life you describe here. Thus, I can't say much about it except that I hope it works out for the people who depend on this type situation. I just hope it doesn't all come crashing down around everyone's ears in the long run. I hope people will wake up to the shortcomings of our system and start making strides in rectifying these before it's too late.

Thanks for your observations... this is very interesting.

[TBF]

60. Definitely -

I am middle aged, but had the benefit of working class parents who belonged to unions. It's been 30 years since Carter was president, and he was the last liberal (people older than me know I'm correct on this). Today's 20-somethings have grown up in a very conservative environment and we are seeing that reflected in their views.

[Flubadubya]

70. Yes indeed...

and thanks for sharing your perspective. I do fear that the "conservative environment" with their awful memes and talking points are having a degenerative effect on the general population, especially younger and more vulnerable "future voters". Let's hope this turns around for the better.

Thanks again. :)

[whathehell]

111. Same here...n/t

[trackfan]

63. Looking back, you're right about the change taking place under Reagan.

Since then, the right has so successfully pushed wedge cultural issues to the forefront that, truth be told, poor people, who should - regardless of stance on these cultural issues - be standing firm to the left on economic issues, are, completely, and conveniently, for the elite moneyed powers that currently hold most of the power, divided.

http://martinigod.com/blog.htm

[Flubadubya]

72. Unfortunately, I see what you see...

It's sad times with perverted politics abounding. I hope it changes for the better, but it's going to be a difficult struggle I fear.

Thanks for responding... :hi:

[alarimer]

73. No, it's because our leaders are corporatists.

THEY are the ones betraying us. Including Obama who is by no means a progressive. It is a fact that the Democratic party is now in thrall to the corporations. It is corporate money in politics that has ruined everything.

[Flubadubya]

77. Can't disagree about the corporatists...

I just hope President Obama has an epiphany somewhere along the line (a St. Paul conversion moment, perhaps?) and gets with the progressive movement. We can always hope.

Thanks.

[Hawkowl]

97. It may be our ONLY hope

At least for the short and medium term. I'm 45 but have a very long memory. My first political memory was first graders chanting "Nixon, Nixon, he's our man, throw McGovern in the garbage can!" :) I remember family members infuriated with the pardon of Nixon and watching the 1976 conventions in their entirety.

That being said I have been a hard core Democrat all my life with the refrain in the family that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats for the little guy. I figured out pretty quick that free lunches, food banks, Goodwill shopping and a free ride at college due to government scholarships meant I was a "little guy".

I'd have to agree with an above post though of 49 years old, that the majority of people my age trust in their 401k and stock. options, and home equity. I believe that to be a fools game and when it blows up there WILL be a realignment of government and a return to FDR type values. I also believe that we are right on the precipice of this happening--5 years at the latest. It is going to be hellishly turbulent.

[Flubadubya]

74. Thanks to all for your thoughtul and enightening responses...

Even though 62, I am still an "unretired senior" who must make his way to bed in order to be to work on time in the morning.

Again, thanks for all the excellent views and shared perspectives.

Good night for now. :hi:

[TheKentuckian]

75. Age is a factor, I think. Not a deciding one but noteworthy.

I'm blessed/cursed with a bit of a precocious political memory. My mother was a bit on the activist side when I was growing up and I always found politics interesting so I starting becoming aware and formulating a worldview probably about the same time as many 8-12 years older, figuring the average person probably doesn't start following issues until say 16-22.

So, I'm a pre-Reagan thinker and was able to see through the old fucker at 8. My heart has never been broken like when Carter was giving that concession speech except maybe Harvey Slone giving his in a loss to McTurtle, loved me some Harvey.

Anyway, many have literally know nothing else but Reaganisim and the Turd Way and batshit crazy and have been feed a fuckload of propaganda and have had little or no Civics to generate the curiosity to read and debate.
I also fear these age groups mostly cannot wrap their heads around things being different or of hoping for reaching for the stars or that anyone with less than seven heads would call themselves something other than a "fiscal conservative" because a "fiscal liberal" could only believe in spending like a drunken sailor on nothing.

I dunno, some akin to not being allowed to have big, over-arching dreams as a people and mostly visceral stuff as individuals, almost like the sky has closed and the stars blotted out or something. Great kids and smart but cynical yet with high levels of deference to authority.

I think the schools are jacked and they had too much early structure with the "play dates", no trick or treating, and all of the nannyisim.

[yurbud]

78. I'm younger than New Dealers and Boomers, and at least as progressive as any of them

I honestly think there are very, very few corporate Democratic voters, and very few (but very large) corporate Democratic donors, and those people waste some of their money pay per post PR shills.

[Odin2005]

85. I'm 25 and as progressive as they come. I don't think age has anything to do with it.

Now, what I do have skepticism towards is government being a big nanny, which, unfortunately gets me accused of being a RWer by more authoritarian lefties who equate social justice with government economic control rather than grass-roots social transformation. In my 25 years my experience tells me that a lot of regulation is made to help the corporations that own our government protect themselves from competition.

IMO those DUers that attack us Progressives are naive fools that think the idiots in Washington really care what we think. They have an authoritarian mindset that Obama is "their leader" and anyone who criticizes "their leader" is evil and bad.

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. I think the OP is postulating that we have generational differences on the def. of "progressive".

This is what I see in young progressives.

http://www.george-orwell.org/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/10.html

Question a person of this type, and you will often get the semi-
frivolous answer: 'I don't object to Socialism, but I do object to
Socialists.' Logically it is a poor argument, but it carries weight with
many people. As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for
Socialism is its adherents.

The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that
Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the
middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies
imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous
voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will
quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman
Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-
collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian
leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with
a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type
is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps
been taken over en bloc from. the old Liberal Party. In addition to this
there is the horrible--the really disquieting--prevalence of cranks
wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the
impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards
them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer,
sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.
One day this summer I was riding through Letchworth when the bus stopped
and two dreadful-looking old men got on to it. They were both about sixty,
both very short, pink, and chubby, and both hatless. One of them was
obscenely bald, the other had long grey hair bobbed in the Lloyd George
style. They were dressed in pistachio-coloured shirts and khaki shorts into
which their huge bottoms were crammed so tightly that you could study every
dimple. Their appearance created a mild stir of horror on top of the bus.
The man next to me, a commercial traveller I should say, glanced at me, at
them, and back again at me, and murmured 'Socialists', as who should say,
'Red Indians'. He was probably right--the I.L.P. were holding their
summer school at Letchworth. But the point is that to him, as an ordinary
man, a crank meant a Socialist and a Socialist meant a crank. Any
Socialist, he probably felt, could be counted on to have something
eccentric about him. And some such notion seems to exist even among
Socialists themselves. For instance, I have here a prospectus from another
summer school which states its terms per week and then asks me to say
'whether my diet is ordinary or vegetarian'. They take it for granted, you
see, that it is necessary to ask this question. This kind of thing is by
itself sufficient to alienate plenty of decent people. And their instinct
is perfectly sound, for the food-crank is by definition a person willing to
cut himself off from human society in hopes of adding five years on to the
life of his carcase; that is, a person but of touch with common humanity.

To this you have got to add the ugly fact that most middle-class
Socialists, while theoretically pining for a class-less society, cling like
glue to their miserable fragments of social prestige. I remember my
sensations of horror on first attending an I.L.P. branch meeting in London.
(It might have been rather different in the North, where the bourgeoisie
are less thickly scattered.) Are these mingy little beasts, I thought, the
champions of the working class? For every person there, male and female,
bore the worst stigmata of sniffish middle-class superiority. If a real
working man, a miner dirty from the pit, for instance, had suddenly walked
into their midst, they would have been embarrassed, angry, and disgusted;
some, I should think, would have fled holding their noses. You can see the
same tendency in Socialist literature, which, even when it is not openly
written de haut en bos, is always completely removed from the working class
in idiom and manner of thought. The Coles, Webbs, Stracheys, etc., are not
exactly proletarian writers. It is doubtful whether anything describable as
proletarian literature now exists--even the Daily Worker is written in
standard South English--but a good music-hall comedian comes nearer to
producing it than any Socialist writer I can think of. As for the technical
jargon of the Communists, it is as far removed from the common speech as
the language of a mathematical textbook. I remember hearing a professional
Communist speaker address a working-class audience. His speech was the
usual bookish stuff, full of long sentences and parentheses and
'Notwithstanding' and 'Be that as it may', besides the usual jargon of
'ideology' and 'class-consciousness' and 'proletarian solidarity' and all
the rest of it. After him a Lancashire working man got up and spoke to the
crowd in their own broad lingo. There was not much doubt which of the two
was nearer to his audience, but I do not suppose for a moment that the
Lancashire working man was an orthodox Communist.

[Odin2005]

100. I actually agree with that excrept.

I am probably the only working class person that calls himself a socialist I personally know of.

[Major Hogwash]

87. We have to educate the young'uns who post here, Flubadubya.

Some of them don't seem to remember Reagan, or Nixon, and don't even mention Eisenhower because that really throws them into the wayback machine.

Reading about history is different than living it.
No doubt about it.

[Vattel]

94. I doubt age has much to do with it.

There are plenty of young people around who have good values and critical minds. The center of the fighting on DU is not really over values or political positions. The reality seems to be that there are a lot of posters who are fiercely loyal to Obama and a lot of posters who are bitterly disappointed by him. Put those two groups together and you get fights.

[pecwae]

112. You've hit on the crux

of the problem. The OP is interesting and making for great and civil discussion, but I think you've boiled it down succinctly.

[AndyTiedye]

172. I Think There is Broad Agreement in What We Want

We differ in our assessment of what is possible.

[starroute]

99. Things are changing again now, though

The Great Recession has led to a revival of political radicalism, and a lot of the "Millennials" (boy, do I hate that term!) are very different from the Gen X-ers.

This is why I've been following the statements from Anonymous over the last couple of months. They're often juvenile, sometimes obscene, but at best they express a larger point of view than you're likely to find in most public discourse. For example, here's a message to NATO from last month:

http://circleof13.blogspot.com/2011/06/anonymous-message-to-nato.html

Anonymous and WikiLeaks are distinct entities. The actions of Anonymous were not aided or even requested by WikiLeaks. However, Anonymous and WikiLeaks do share one common attribute: They are no threat to any organization - unless that organization is doing something wrong and attempting to get away with it.

We do not wish to threaten anybody’s way of life. We do not wish to dictate anything to anybody. We do not wish to terrorize any nation.

We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the people - who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the first place. . . .

You know you do not fear us because we are a threat to society. You fear us because we are a threat to the established hierarchy. Anonymous has proven over the last several years that a hierarchy is not necessary in order to achieve great progress - perhaps what you truly fear in us, is the realization of your own irrelevance in an age which has outgrown its reliance on you. Your true terror is not in a collective of activists, but in the fact that you and everything you stand for have, by the changing tides and the advancement of technology, are now surplus to requirements.

[Odin2005]

101. This Millennial likes this post!

We do not fear TPTB, we will crush them. Resistance is futile. :)

[uponit7771]

142. I totally agree, Neice is going into college with the full knowlede the UE rate is going to stay hig

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Yes... and the values were different too

[Journeyman]

109. Bookmarked for reflective reading later. . .

An interesting opinion, Flubadubya. I look forward to thoughtfully reading this in the next day or so.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

116. Good theory.

[Recursion]

121. Parties always change when generations do

People my age (born on the bicentennial) grew up seeing statist solutions everywhere collapsing from their own weight, from the USSR to Cabrini Green. The War on Poverty just didn't work, and we grew up with the fallout from it -- I don't think it's surprising that we're more skeptical of the concept of "public welfare" than the generation for which it worked is, and I think it's hiding your head in the sand if you convince yourself that the entire cause of that is right-wing messaging.

Meanwhile, when we started out trying to make it on our own, unions too often were a hindrance to getting hired rather than a help ("nice work if you can get it", etc.) Because we came of age in a time with fewer jobs to begin with, there was a lot more resentment of the (almost all older) people who had them, all the more so when two-tier contracts started to appear ("sorry, kid" -- but it was better than nothing).

I just had a gut feeling then that America no longer held the promise that it once did and likely never would again.

Both the right and the left of your generation are firmly convinced of that, and fortunately I think a lot of us younger folks simply don't buy it.

[jtown1123]

122. Not so sure. I am 24 and highly critical of our President. Look at MoveOn and PCCC

they are mainly young'uns and very defensive of New Deal Programs, taking care of poor, etc.

[EFerrari]

124. MoveOn was started by two middle aged people.

They appealed to youth but it's not clear that they are mainly youth.

[mistertrickster]

125. I think you're on to something here. Years ago, the strongest argument one could make was

that a program or policy would be a "common good."

Now it seems that unless it directly benefits the individual hearer, it is discounted.

[snot]

128. I think this is worth exploring with a well-designed poll or polls.

Probably break it into 2 OP's with polls, to be posted in rapid succession: one for DU'er's at or under a certain age stated in the OP title, and the other for DU'er's above that age. Ask all the same questions in both polls.

Some of the questions I'd be interested in might include:

whether the person would vote for a more progressive candidate alternative to Obama, even at the risk of making a Republican's election more likely;

whether the person thinks we need a Constitutional amendment to assure equal rights for women;

whether the person thinks we'd be better off if our system became more socialist in certain areas, e.g., healthcare;

whether the person thinks Social Security should not be touched, other than perhaps for adding a CPI adjustment to the ceiling on wages subject to the SS tax;

whether the person believes electronic voting/tabulation is a problem;

whether the person considers the issue of gay marriage urgent;

whether they belong to a union or would join one if the opportunity arose;

whether the person believes Glass-Steagall should be re-instated (at least, if it were established world-wide) (and if they don't know what Glass-Steagall is, I'd suggest they should answer, "no");

whether the person believes the government should protect individuals' privacy rights online;

whether the person has participated in a physical demonstration within the last 12 months;

whether they think government should provide support for charter schools;

etc.

[Tatiana]

129. I think a good part is age and another part is simply the "ME, ME, ME" mentality.

I'm in my thirties, so I would probably be grouped in the generation of those not knowing the sacrifices and generosity towards each other that were part of the 50s and 60s. I grew up under Reagan, and I suspect many of those who support and advocate/excuse Obama's policies of extended war, cuts to social safety net programs, economic trickle-down mythology, and the general "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality grew up in a culture of either "Reagan Democrats" or Republicans. I can't think of any other reason why we have so many self-identifying Democrats espousing Republican principles.

Make no mistake, these trial balloons are testing the public's appetite for more Republican policies: cutting the deficit on the backs of Seniors and the working class while the corporate raiders and hedge fund managers and bankers get off nearly scott-free. I have no problem with making government more efficient. But the conversations we seem to have of late all seem to add up to Norquistian "drowing the baby in the bath water."

I don't support Republican ideals and I never will -- whether they are espoused by a self-identified Democrat or not. My values we taught to me by a union and farming family which benefitted greatly from New Deal and Great Society programs.

It is a shame we seem to be accepting Republican philosophy simply because it is espoused by an admirer of Ronald Reagan.

Our President is not weak, he is not clueless, he is not powerless. He's smart enough to know the people he seeks to work across the aisle with are "hostage takers." So the only thing I have left to believe is that he's really not all that averse to implementing Republican policies such as privitization of public education via charters and vouchers.

The rest of us better wake up and realize that the corporate masters are lulling us into complacency by pushing their policies through a politician with a "D" at the end of his name.

[Lorien]

131. To be fair; anyone born after 1980 has ONLY ever heard RW talking points in

the MSM since Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine with the intent of feeding young minds nothing other than the Reagan Doctrine. Those who were fortunate enough to grow up in liberal communities or with liberal parents were exposed to another point of view. But think about it; many people here now seem to think that Reagan's positions were "moderate" or even "centrist" and are therefore reasonable. Reagan's ideas were considered pretty far to the Right back in the 1980s, and many of us fought against them. Those same ideas have now resurfaced as part of the Democratic platform, but many of us are not willing to take ten steps to the Right to embrace them. We haven't changed; the party and the "center" has.

[AverageJoe90]

252. So true.

Let's hope we can reverse the trend, though.

[a2liberal]

132. Maybe a factor, but I don't think it's just that

I'm in my mid 20s and I am a big FDR fan and of the sort of left-wing school that would probably get me banned here if I started posting everything I felt about how things are going (but I try to be careful).

[mmonk]

134. Yes. Some people who have not lived a reality will relegate it

to an opinion if they have not lived it.

[thereismore]

136. A hypothesis, not a theory. nt

[Flubadubya]

157. Ah, thank you for that...

I knew I was going to get something wrong regarding language usage, grammar, or syntax, lol! Actually, I very much appreciate your pointing that out as so many are too "timid" or too "kind" to do it. I often find myself wanting to "inform" someone of a gross misuse of the English language but I'm usually too concerned about how my input will be interpreted.

I was actually once aware of the difference between theory and hypothesis and struggled a bit in my mind as to which to use in this case. This time my "senior moment" won out, lol! I know I could have looked it up with a minimum of "research effort" but I was too revved up for just getting it all down and posted... and was also just too damned lazy. Nonetheless, it was very kind of you to point this out and I will try to encode that for future reference.

Say, where were you during the first hour of my post? Now it's too late to edit, hah! Oh well, thanks for the great proofreading just the same. :) :hi:

[thereismore]

178. It's just one of my pet peeves. I appreciate your kind reception. nt

[grahamhgreen]

138. Maybe. But a quick listen to "Rage Against the Machine" or Pink's "Dear Mr President" will

Show you there is a very strOng strain of old Dem still alive and kicking!

Not to mention Cenk! TYT baby!!!

[Mimosa]

139. Very possibly you could be right, Flubadubya

I was thinking the same thing a couple of weeks ago.

[FreeBillClinton]

140. You older folks left us a shell of a party.

What the hell are we supposed to do with this mess?

The constant compromising over the last 30 years is what has led us to this. Maybe younger voters are less apt to unquestioningly support democrats, but there's damn good reason for that.

[Flubadubya]

171. Whether you support the party or not is not really that important...

but please be sure and rely on your own better instincts when it comes not only to politics but also to life in general. I think the younger generation has some awesome responsibilities to shoulder and it's going to take some sincere and dedicated effort on your part to make positive progress toward restoring "the better nature" this country and its government.

Now, if you honestly believe that we "older folks left you a shell of a party" then I apologize personally if there is any truth to that. I greatly lament and regret the loss of enthusiasm for adherence to genuine Democratic principles and the apparent cowardice of the current Dem leadership to push for expansion of progressive ideals, but I believe the causes for this are multifactorial and have not strictly been caused by one group of people or another. Certainly, the Democratic party has changed immensely in the last 30 years as you say, but I think that change has taken place mainly because of the "dumbing down" of the populace by an ever expandng right wing media putsch and the increasing complacency of the electorate as a whole. There has been quite a successful "catapulting of the propaganda" (thanks Mr. Bush) by the right wing media. It frustrates the hell out me that I can't even go to any restaurant or doctor's office in this small town I live in without encountering Fox news blaring on the only television in the room.

I am just suggesting that you look a little more carefully at what is really going on with politics in general and with the Democratic party in particular. I don't blame you one bit for referring to it has a hell of a "mess".

You are for sure right about there being a good reason that younger voters do not "unquestioningly support democrats" but believe me, it's not just younger voters who do this. I think anyone with sensibilities about what is fair and just in our society and with the role of government in our lives must not overlook the powerful forces that have come into play in the last 30 years or so that are genuinely "antidemocratic". Whether overtly stated or not, a goal of the GOP and the right wing in this coutry is to stifle, smother, and ultimately destroy democracy. I see it in every action, every behavior, and every law they have sought to push (and often successfully, unfortunately).

So, just take stock of what is going on around you and take up the torch that has been passed your way, no matter how dimly it flickers. It's really up to you and yours now to enjoin the struggle, no matter how desparate it may seem, to literally save democracy for yourselves and the generations to come. I would imagine that in 20 to 30 more years or so, you would find it quite disconcerting to hear the 20- to 30-year-olds raling about how you are to blame for their plight. So, like it or not, you are the ones who are going to have to salvage progressive principles and re-invigorate the Democratic party (or start your own if necessary), but never lose sight of what your forebears have positively done and the struggles they have had to deal with to keep the hope alive of egalitarianism and real democracy in this country. It's your fight now and I can't help but agree with you that it truly is a mess and is going to take a lot of effort to sort out. Getting that goal accomplished, however, is going to take a lot more than just castigating your predecessors... it's going to take a real and positve fight for your values and principles.

Feel up to this? I hope so and only wish you success.

[Roy Rolling]

141. Yes and no

Yes---of course younger people think differently than older people. They have been conditioned by different things in different ways. But age is not why there is "discord"---in a free and progressive society there will always be a free exchange of ideas, much more so in progressive circles than conservative circles. And, by default, since the Democratic party has a more liberal bias, then progressives will lean toward the Democratic party. But if the Democratic party abandons the ideals and principles that define a progressive society, then progressives will not support the Democratic Party.

We are not loyal to the Democratic Political Party, we are loyal to the underlying principles of progressivism.

[swilton]

143. Your theory speaks vollumes

about the social-cultural dynamics ongoing since Regan - hippies were discredited and blamed for the loss of the Vietnam War among other things - and the cultural revolutions of the 60s from feminism to Native Americanism were rolled back by the ilk of Lynn Cheney who got to work on the educational system and how history-political science was taught.

Do not forget to add to the above the Powell Doctrine that (see Henry Giroux, The Powell Memo and the Teaching Machines of Right-Wing Extremists on Truthout - October 1, 2009) established funding for right wing think tanks that support political ideologies of politicians as well as source funding for academic research. Coincidentally, emerging with the bi-products of the Powell Memo was the behavioral movement in the social sciences that neutralized the ethical questions that were being raised a la Vietnam War and other anti-colonial wars of the 1960s as well as introduced neo-liberal economic theory.

I do find a great generation gap within academia; however at political protests I see numerous inter-generational representation.

[Enthusiast]

144. What you say has merit.

BUT.

When the Administration moves to the right of center, which they have clearly done, it is no longer a matter of generational perception.

Where are the American people on the wars? On social security and medicare? On taxing corporations and the wealthy? Where they are is the center. The center is now like a bright beacon of light -there is no mistaking it.

Continue the wars and you are not centrist. Dismantle social security and medicare, you are not centrist. Sign a bill that extends the Bush tax cuts and you are no longer centrist. This is clear. By a huge margin the American people are with me on these issues THEY consider important. On this there is no generational barrier.

I have a piece of advice for President Obama. If you are going to govern to THE RIGHT of most Americans do not expect me, an actual lifelong Democrat, to vote for you. In fact I will campaign against Obama because he is to the right of center on all the big issues.

[methodman]

145. Age

As a middle-aged person America , has problem with discourse because many people flat out refuse to practice developing enough imagination by reading. Democrats appreciate Diversity. We celebrate differences, conversations about degrees, chapter differences. Republicans are the Stump Party. They care more about the stump than the living tree. They recite the same tired worn out non-literate repetitions. So It is clear they can't and refuse to learn. So it demands we behave rude. Democrats pride themselves by sharing with more individuality while republicans are primarily stomping stumps trying to stamp their unreasoning and un factual illiterate slogan based conversation. Its like the replacement language kicked across as a Bible translation. People don't understand the Bible after decades of study because the translators blatantly used replacement language not object to object or conception or processing. It has to be translated into living categories to experience. The pastors refuse outright to deal with it. That is why it has to die. So a more living connection to Life becomes interesting based on delineations of different degrees.

[Zorra]

148. Agreed, and it is a shining testament to the intelligence, perceptiveness,

and heart of the younger people that have seen right through the giant dungpile of slimy fascist bullshit that was dumped on them.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

[davidwparker]

156. No. It's still the FDR Dems versus the Third Way/DLC'ers.

I have no idea how old you are or anybody else here.

[bvar22]

160. You would have to be over 50....

..to have experienced a Traditional Progressive Democratic Administration.
LBJ's was the last.

For those under 50,
THIS is what it looks like:

“As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world”
---FDR, 1944

I am 62, and too young to have experienced the above 1st Hand,
but lived it through my parents who taught me (drilled into me) that THIS is the reason to Vote For The Democrats.

That doesn't seem to apply anymore.
I fear the Democratic Party is depending on unearned Brand Loyalty that won't stay around much longer if they continue lurching to The RIGHT.
I know MY lifelong Party Loyalty is fading,
and hearing that Social Security/Medicare have become Bargaining Chips only makes it worse.

---bvar22
a Mainstream FDR/LBJ Democrat
now labeled a Fringe Lefty.

[Flubadubya]

175. Fellow fringe lefty...

I salute you!

Your contribution to the discourse regarding adherence to true Democratic principles as we learned them growing up is admirable, as well as your refusal to accept the obvious "lurching to the right" by the Democratic Party of today. There is indeed a right wing "core group" or "junta", if you will, threatening Democracy in this country as we have always known it and it must be stopped at all costs. I just admonished a younger "voter" in a previous post above that it was going to take a monumental struggle to set things right now and that it is up to him and his contemporaries to take up the mantle of justice and equality in order to save our precious but ultimately tenuous and fragile Democracy.

I sincerely hope that one day real Democracy will be restored in this country and that we can shed the onerous appellation of "Fringe Lefty" and once again be part of the mainstream.

Again, thanks for your excellent input. I love the quotes from FDR... I also admire the social changes LBJ inspired and helped to bring about. This man knew when he pushed for the Civil Rights laws that it was going to disenfranchise his base in the South and that the bigoted cowards in the Democratic party would likely go running headlong into the arms of the GOP (which is exactly what they did), yet he had the strength and courage to do what was right at the time anyway. Despite what anyone thinks about the man's obvious poor judgment when it came to the Vietnam war, his brave stand for the Civil Rights movement in this country has not been anywhere closely emulated since with regard to the progressive movement. In this regard LBJ towered above the rest in the Democratic party.

Your insights are greatly appreciated bvar22... thanks! :hi:

[ismnotwasm]

161. I don't think so

What I think is the disaffection falls into more than one category;, those who are resoundingly Democrats, regardless of age, who simply don't like the direction President Obama has taken. (These posters have a tendency to to embrace the 'single issue', but not exclusively) There are those who aren't really Democrats, but more often like Socialists who don't quite understand that realistically, what is needed is a total government overhaul (revolution) to get certain changes done. There are ones who fall into a broader category of 'progressive' who stick to there ideological guns and and do not see anything healthy about what we're calling compromise these days. There are those who are truly ignorant about how our political system actually works. There are a few conspiracy theory types. And yes, there probably are the chronic disrupter's who may be 'operatives' of some sort on left wing sites.

Then again, the Reagen years were my political introduction in a way, and has affected how I think politically to this day, so I take your point. I voted Socialist until that asshole George W. Bush. came along. I could not believe he made to the primary. I switched to Democrat right then and there.


I like Obama. I'm voting for him again. I don't like the way certain things are going, I like how other things are and I also don't see another candidate that interests me.

What I find interesting, is President Obama is so often hated by the the far left, part of the left, and all of the right. (The right is all 'far' to me at this point in time)

[tblue]

163. If you grew up during the age of Clinton/Monica and then 9/11

I think it would certainly give you a different perspective on politics and the constraints that bedevil the Democratic party. What is so astounding to me is the lack of imagination on the part of party leaders, and the default position in accepting it without question or demand. The is a tried and true case for populism and bold reforms, but for some reason we can't go there. We can't even talk about it.

[msider]

164. I'm 30

and I have mixed feelings about this post. I feel that older Dems have a loyalty to their party that they put over their loyalty to their values. Support for Obama, Clinton and the other "Third Way" type democrats illustrate this phenomenon. Both Presidents might have improved conditions in our country in the short term, but their allegiance to the corporations and the power elite is disgusting to younger Democrats like me who see our government as a tool of oppression. I've noticed that older Democrats tend to accept short term benefits as "change" whereas younger Democrats want a more radical split from our past practices.

Us younger Democrats realize that George Bush's Presidency was a disaster because The corporate State has been solidified,the war machine unleashed, our personal privacy eliminated, and our system of checks and balances has been replaced by a unitary executive. And for whatever good he has done, President Obama hasn't even spoke out against these changes. In fact his presidency has continued to expand on all of these unsettling developments.

So why do we speak out against Democrats? Because we realize that our political process is not about Republican vs. Democrat anymore, it is about the Elites vs. the people. And as long as the "rational, logical, self identified progressives" continue to support our Corporate State and its actions, we will have no check on the true "bad guys."

[tblue]

166. Wow, I think it's just the opposite.

Some folks are old enough to remember what it was like before the New Deal. Some remember when the media, the courts, and the rest of the gov't actually worked for the people, and they want that again. Some others who never lived a day during that era are enamored with the youth and vigor of an telegenic speechmaker and project their ideals on him. This is a gross generalization, admittedly. You either remember when potholes would be filled or you don't.

[alfredo]

168. Those young whipper snappers just don't understand

what it was like having to walk ten miles barefoot, in the snow, up hill all the way to school, only to find it is Saturday, and then coming home seeing that because you went to school, the cows exploded because they weren't milked. Who's going to clean up this mess?

Now that the silliness is out of the way:

Nothing beats experience. There is no way the younger generation can know what it was like before the civil rights act, the clean air act, women's liberation. All they are seeing is the reaction to those advances. There is no way for my generation to understand the fear and pain of the great depression. All we saw was the reaction.

One thing I know for sure, the amount and sophistication of propaganda being forced down their throats makes the next generation's job much more difficult than ours. I'll take walking ten miles barefoot in the snow over what they are facing.

The party will reflect the shared experience of its members.

[Flubadubya]

177. Amen alfredo...

but you sure paint a rather grim picture of "the good old days", lol.

But yes, nothing beats experience and it is just about next to impossible to convey the real essence and importance of all those progressive laws that were once nailed down tightly and were respected and honored by most. Now, however, all of that is in jeopardy and is likely to be lost unless our youger generation decides to fight like hell to protect these things that were certainly precious to us at the time of their inception.

The propaganda that's being "catapulted" certainly is a threat to all progressive inclinations and sensibilities. Is the new generation ready to take up the fight and set things right? I sure hope so and realize that if they do they could well wish that all they had to do was walk 10 miles barefoot in the now, as you say. I wish them all the luck and success they can accomplish.

Power to the people... once again!

Thanks alfredo.

[alfredo]

198. We have to sell the concept of the class war being waged against us.

Once we get their attention we can go into detail. But now we have to wake up the sleeping giant. Scott Walker and like minded governors have he led our cause. It is up to us to speak of the implications of their acts.

I can live with the old cloth coat Republicans. I don't think the upcoming generation has any idea what the GOP was like before the Reagan years. All they know is the hardline party the GOP has become.


I have been selling that is not so much left or right, it is class divisions that have become destructive.w

[Blasphemer]

174. I think that may be one of several factors

I grew up in the 80s and by the time I was 9, I realized that all the rah-rah-Reagan stuff was a bunch of baloney. I never have, and never will, understand the "Reagan Democrats". Of course, I was also raised in New York City and I am a person of color. I know that at least some of the difference in perspective is due to regional differences - i.e, if a specific course of action is politically impossible in your neck of the woods, it is easier to accept that it is not possible nationally. You only need look to the mission statement of this web site to see a fundamental flaw that cannot be easily rectified. On the one hand, we are to support Democratic principles but on the other hand, we are expected to support Democrats running for office. So what happens if those Democrats don't support Democratic principles? Do you support the principle or the personality. I believe in the former but many seem to believe in the latter.

[madrchsod]

179. i`m 64 and agree...

adjusted for inflation my kids are making a lot less than i did in the 70`s.

i was a union forge shop heater trimmer averaging 11 an hour, paid medical benefits, and a pension. by 1981 10 of the 13 hammers were silent.

i look at wisconsin and other "movements" across the country with some degree of hope that people of all ages will wake the hell up and demand real change.

i have a grand daughter and a great grand daughter on the way....i`m going to be gone soon and i`m going to do what i can to make sure they have a world that`s fit to live in......

[JoePhilly]

180. Wouldn't this mean that younger folks on DU didn't learn much from their

elders? Or maybe they did.

Think about it.

Those older Dems, the ones who went through the earlier fires. It sounds like you grew up when other Dems were doing important things, and winning politically to do it. You "grew up" watching these things happen.

I was born in 1964, so I don't have much of a memory for Kennedy or Johnson.

Nixon is the first President I really remember. Then Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2.

That's 28 years of GOP Presidents, 12 years of Democratic Presidents. Why didn't the Dems who "came up" through the fire, CONTINUE to win?

Perhaps, many of us who grew up AFTER Kennedy was killed, look at what the Dems have done since, or more directly, what they did not do. Why are there no really bold Democratic successes since the 60s? Carter didn't have any. Neither did Clinton.

And currently, 2.5 years in to a first term, Obama is attacked because he isn't FDR.

During the same years that the Democrats have no major accomplishments, the GOP has been very slowly "chipping away".

And while they do, parts of the left disparage smaller successes by Obama because they aren't what FDR did (even though he didn't really do it all at once either).

Maybe the younger Dems have evolved. And they've concluded that small progress is better than none at all.

[SaveAmerica]

181. I'm in my early 40's & agree about what it means to be a Democrat and to have those Dem values

I'm a progressive Dem who feels she doesn't have a voice even if the candidates she worked so hard for talked the Progressive Talk but aren't walking the walk.

I think that basically you and I feel the same about what it means to be a Dem, I just wanted to let you know that someone in her 40's 'gets it'.

[BigDemVoter]

182. Thank you for your post.

I'll be interested to see the responses to this post. I've found that I'm well to the LEFT of most people on DU. I currently live in San Francisco which we all know is a bastion of liberalism, but I was a big liberal BEFORE moving here.

I've been particularly surprised by the pro-gun Dems on this website. Please know that I'm not flaming anybody; I've just been surprised and curious as to where most people stand IN GENERAL.

I'm way to the left of Obama and haven't been happy with him but will enthusiastically support him in 2012, as there is NOT a viable alternative, and we cannot have a Repig in office. . .

[Cleita]

183. I'm nine years older than you and pretty much had

a similar experience as yours in those years. Thom Hartmann had an interesting point in his show this morning that after Eisenhower, none of our Republican Presidents have been elected without cheating on the election process one way or the other. It makes me wonder, considering the right leanings of our present President, if he wasn't allowed to win this election because the Republicans (big corporations actually) felt he would do little to undo the damages to our nation started under Reagan and brought to a head under GWB until they could shoe horn another one of their puppets in place in 2012. I believe they allowed McCain to lose because he brought Sarah Palin into the equation and they discovered she couldn't be handled or made to behave so they cut their losses but plotted to bring down Obama for the next election cycle.

[Romulox]

184. So...it's YOUNG people who have been selling out for 30 years?

Bizarre thesis! :hi:

[maddiemom]

187. Views of the Democratic Party

Flubadubya: I'm a few ears older than you (first of the baby boomers). I look back on growing up in the fifties and sixties in exactly the same way. You make very valid points and there may well be a "generation gap." I've shown my daughter (now in her thirties) and various students over the years, films of speeches by MLK, the Kennedys, and others of this era. The reaction of more recent generations is nearly always the same. They usually watch and listen with respect (even the class clowns), and follow up discussion indicates amazement that public figures today do not speak this way or openly stand up for important issues. I'm highly disappointed with Obama and the Democratic party these days ( with the obvious exceptions). I guess your point is explaining the DU disagreement on Obama and the Democrats, but surely you're not condoning what the modern day Democrats have become.

[totodeinhere]

188. Actually a Democrat is anyone who registers as a Democrat. There is no requirement

that only liberals or progressives are allowed to register as Democrats. The Democratic Party is a political party, not an ideology. Remember that in the era you are talking about there were bona fide Democrats who supported Jim Crow and segregation. And there were Democrats in Congress who supported Jim Crow. Yet they were Democrats.

I am a registered Democrat, but I prefer to call myself a "progressive" because I have more loyalty to progressive ideals than to the party.

[gunnergoz]

190. It's an interesting discussion

I'm fairly new here, mostly have been lurking for several years (true!) and finally motivated to say something. At 63 I've seen most of the traumatic events mentioned here. So I feel somehow compelled to review what were the highlights of my formative years:
- Civil Rights movement. I vividly remember my olive-skinned Italian mother being subjected to discrimination by people in various states who mistook her for Latino, Indian and Black or a mix of races.
- Political assassinations: (JFK, RFK, MLK etc) and with them experienced a deep sense of betrayal by my own people...admittedly just a fringe, but still they managed to kill the men that were at the core of my young political beliefs.
- Viet Nam: With the Viet Nam War came all the subsequent disillusionment as we found out the whole thing had been set up based upon silly Cold War premises, ignorance and distorted perspectives.
- That war touched my family - my Dad was an Army sergeant who came back from it with PTSD though we did not know it then. He died years later of Agent Orange induced cancer.
- Kent State student killings by the National Guard; American young people being shot in public by their own armed forces. Not a pretty sight.
- Next, Nixon & Watergate destroyed my confidence in the GOP's credibility as the opposing party to the Democratic one.
- Carter fumbled in Iran with the embassy hostages and the debacle at Desert 1, with the bodies of charred American airmen left abandoned in the Iranian desert, gave the GOP a real strong argument that Democratic presidents were ineffective and weak.
- Reagan and his pro-corporate, pro-wealth stance came on the presidential scene fresh from vandalizing California and revitalizing the California GOP (I credit the passing of Proposition 13 with the beginning of the decline of the "Golden State" where I have lived since 1970)
- Reagan adds injury to insult by repealing the Fairness Doctrine, which I have since decided was the downfall of American media journalism. (If you can't counter the other side's propaganda right after people are subjected to it, they tend to believe the propaganda.)
- The media increasingly becomes polarized and talk stations on radio disseminate more and more BS (government is bad, greed is good, social security is doomed, socialism is rampant, etc). Paves the way for the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
- GOP over the next 20 years then manages to infuse fear into the population, turning them against regulation of financial institutions. Tax breaks for the wealthiest, housing bubbles, heady profits made by a few at the expense of millions. Energy giants rape California of who knows how many $$ in the utility manipulations.
- Gulf War One. Daddy Bush protects his oil buddies in the Middle East, gives his son Dubya big ideas.
- Clinton years. Prosperity but a sense that the man was not entirely what he seemed to be. Lies about Monica...who cares? But he managed to get the GOP stirred up enough to swear that no Democratic president coming after him succeeds at anything.
- Media increasingly undependable as sources of unbiased news. Rise of news nazis like Murdoch and Ailes destroy what is left of professional journalism in pursuit of the holy $ profit.
- Skillful GOP manipulation leads us to the point where we cannot trust elections to be fair (Bush/Gore) or trust the courts (Citizens United) since they have been infiltrated by politicized judges.
- Years of deregulation have left the elections funding process open to exploitation by deep-pocket special interests. No elected official is immune to being swayed by them, GOP or Democratic.
- 9/11 hits us like a ton of bricks, thanks to Dubya's incompetence and indifference. It serves him as a handy excuse to start not one, but two wars which begin with almost no thought to their outcome and no real analysis of the situation on the ground in those countries affected.
- The Right's Fear Machine goes into overdrive after 9/11, leading us to the marvels of the Patriot Act (who named that one?) and the tender mercies of the TSA. In so doing they deliver victory to the terrorists, who after all were just trying to get us to alter our life styles.
- Financial greed run amok leads deregulated financial and housing sectors to implode. Derivatives, bad loans, housing sold like candy over the counter - all serve to enrich a few at the cost of the rest of us. (Oddly enough, the whole thing was predicted to me by a Russian banker several years before it happened. I met him during a visit to Ukraine to see my wife's family. I scoffed at the time but now I know how prescient he was.)
- Elected officials are impotent or castrated by their ties to lobbies to the point that we cannot effectively punish those responsible for the financial meltdown. Result: "Too Big to Fail" and massive bailouts with no accounting for the taxpayer $$ billions we just forked over to the banks.
- President Obama takes office, giving old Dems like me hope. Turns out he's just as hamstrung as the other pols by ties to financial institutions and lobbies.
- Tea Party, that corporate offspring of the right's agitprop experts, takes off and lets fearful white folk tear into their elected officials. GOP is terrorized by the Frankenstein of its own making. The party is pushed even farther to the right, if such a thing is possible.
- Years of manipulation of tax laws, markets and elections result in the wealth of America being diverted from the Middle Class to the wealthiest 2% of the country, who now own more than the rest of us combined.

I could go on and on but I'll spare you. This is simply one perspective. My take on things is that, with the media now discredited and up for sale, elected officials of both parties being sold out to the highest bidder, the courts infiltrated and corrupted - well, "Here's another fine mess you've gotten me into" (with apologies to Oliver & Hardy).

How do we get out of it and take back our country? Not by arguing with each other, that's for sure. The only solution I see is to instate massive campaign funding reform that leads to a different way to fund elections...to a point where funds are pooled anonymously and shared equally by candidates. Only then will elected officials be freed from the need to go on bended knees for money and then be beholden to the deep pockets that make their election to office, possible.

Next, we need to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine in media. Give both sides the chance to present their arguments.

Finally, we need to stop shouting at each other and listening to the crazies who want us to "reload" and go after each other with guns. We need to accept that the national demographics are changing, that America is an evolving process and that our immigrant neighbors are just as important to the nation as are those families descended from the founding fathers...or from the original occupants of the land, the Native Americans.

Thank you and I'll turn over the soap box now to the next poster.

[democrank]

192. As far as I`m concerned, age is a definite factor.

I`m nearing 70 and the Democrats I see today are NOTHING like the Democrats I marched with during the Civil Rights Movement, the Women`s Movement and the protests against the Vietnam War.

Many of today`s Democrats choose personality over principle and party image consultants over moral leadership. If they even bother to match up promises with actions, they`re ready in a nanosecond with a list of rapid-fire excuses as to why our "leaders" are doing the right thing....even if it`s the opposite of what they said they would do. Standing for something means nothing, "winning" means everything. It`s a lot like the new hockey games where parents are brawling in the stands, rules are broken on the ice, and someone is getting choked to death in the parking lot....but all eyes are glued to the scoreboard.

And you`re right about President Johnson.Speaking out against the Vietnam War and those suffering in it and because of it was much more important than genuflecting before the president and his policies we disagreed with.

Your message carries a lot of truth. Just ask almost any old Democrat.

[maddiemom]

199. Old Dems

Wonderful post, Democrank. I'm just a few years younger and shared some of your experiences, although fairly local. I was a liberal product of liberal parents(though outwardly only my mom; my dad was liberal and registered Republican because he felt he had to for job reasons). I grew up in a hardcore Republican town. The Democrats among us were not pariahs, just misinformed and accepted with humor for being misguided. There wasn't the rancor there is today. When JFK came to town, on his exhaustive campaign, my mom, being one of the few active local Democrats, got to meet him and sit up on the platform with him. There was no shortage of teenage girls happy to be "Kennedy Girls" with the hat and sash and campaign literature to pass out. Most of the parents would really be voting for Nixon. Because the local Republican Nixon supporters swarmed all over him and used her for entry, my mom was really ticked. Down on the street, Teddy was hanging out in the crowd, and I did get to meet him. Even longer story short, several years later I worked a couple of summers at a summer camp outside the genuine Woodstock, and learned some really "radical" lessons, with some brakes in place. The good old days for sure.

[Capitalocracy]

194. I'm 28 years old and I'll tolerate no cutting of the safety net.

I don't think you have to be old to understand how our economic system works. But I'm sure there are a lot of young people who haven't figured it out, and since education sucks, there might be an age factor and I might be an outlier. Perhaps a poll?

[scribble]

195. Hold on ...

If you are looking for happy-happy threads; you are being foolish. DU is not a quilting bee.


There always has been discord on DU and there always will be. Discord is a measure of success.

DU is very successful.


sc

[McCamy Taylor]

196. Divide and conquer is the GOP's game. Divisions along age lines are just more of the same.

[DireStrike]

197. Critic in my mid-20s here

I think you're complaining about the generation between us, maybe.

Though in my experience they're all critical as well.

[Blue_In_AK]

204. I don't know if age is a factor in the discord,

but I am of your generation (a couple years older), and I agree that Democrats today are nothing like Democrats of tha past. For that matter, the republicans of today are nothing like their predecessors either. There used to be such a thing as a "moderate" Republican, even a "liberal" Republican, someone with whom you might disagree somewhat but someone you could still respect. What's happened since Reagan is that the entire political landscape has shifted far to the right so that a markedly centrist or even somewhat to the right Democrat like Obama can be labeled a socialist by those even further out on the fringe.

Maybe for a while after the McCarthy witch hunts and whatnot in the '50s, Republicans dialed back their inner Nazi for a few years and became somewhat reasonable. With the success of Ronald Reagan, they felt free to tap into that fringiness again, and now they've taken it to ungodly extremes.

I'm really worried about this country. We have a long way to go to get back to the middle.

[Major Hogwash]

209. Yet, you have to admit that people that defend Reagan's economic policies are full of shit.

Some of the members here aren't even old enough to have worked at a job under Raygun.
Some of them weren't even born yet.
Others weren't out of their short shorts.

So, when people start saying that Raygun was "all this", or he was "all that", he wasn't.
He was a fucking piece of shit, and that's all there is to it.

Bush was a fucking piece of shit, too.
Bush sucked on donkey dicks while starting 2 fucking wars!!!

[Blue_In_AK]

218. You'll get no argument from me there.

I lived in California when Raygun was governor (remember "if you've seen one redwood you've seen them all" or "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement," re Berkeley protests after the invasion of Cambodia?). I knew he would be a disaster as president -- but he was way worse than I ever even guessed he would be on the economic front, especially, and the conservative revolution that he advanced is finally going to bring this country down, in my opinion.

[JDPriestly]

214. All true, but in the end, the question is, what works best for society?

In what kind of society do we want to raise our children and grandchildren?

How do we want to live together?

Do we want to share good fortune with each other?

Or do we want a world in which taking as much as you possibly can for yourself and leaving nothing or very little for others is the rule?

It may be that the generations are divided as described in the OP.

Nevertheless, we have to choose our values.

The influence of the excessively selfish, Ayn Rand, libertarian tainted ideas of the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats will not work for our society.

Eventually, we will all fail if we go their route.

That is why even though the OP describes why a generational rift exists, it does not excuse those of us who grew up understanding the values -- Democratic, humanistic, realistic -- of the Democratic Party of our youth if we succumb to the temptation of "being nice" to those who teach or put into practice ideas that will tear our country apart, weaken it and destroy it.

United we stand. Divided we fall. True today as it always does.

Republican ideas just divide -- by race, by gender, by education, by wealth, whatever. We have to find the right balance between sharing and individualism. And the current Democratic Party is not prioritizing the task of finding that balance as it should.

[The Big Vetolski]

216. K & R, for a very thoughtful AND civil post. I think you have a valid

point. I just turned 53, and the first President I could vote for was Jimmy Carter. In my house, if Jesus sat on the right hand of God, then FDR sat on the left, and Harry Truman was an archangel. This is because my parents grew up in the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, and came of age during World War II.

One of my mom's New Deal memories was the Department of Agriculture coming out and digging a well so that her farming family could get enough water to save their crops and prevent the land from blowing away--at no cost to the broke family. It worked, too. That farm is still in my family. My dad only went to college and got a medical degree because of Harry Truman and the GI Bill. He knew LBJ personally, and was incredibly torn between his support for the man who crushed the KKK, who brought electricity and indoor plumbing to millions of Americans who hadn't had it, and whose idol was FDR, and the same man who escalated the Vietnam War.

To be fair to younger folks, all they have known is Reaganomics and trickledown, DLC Republican Lite vs what is now mainstream Republican Heavy Fascism. They haven't known the social democracy which once was the mainstream Democratic Party, and when such things as social democracy or socialism are mentioned, or when capitalism itself is excoriated, maybe some of them quite understandably recoil from the unknown. When their hero Barack Obama is called a traitor to Democratic Party principles, and a liar, they get defensive.

Or perhaps they are so jaded because all of the politicians they have known have flagrantly lied to get elected and then went back on their word, so they accept that as normal behavior and ridicule those of us who remember that that was not always the case.

Still, I've got news for those of you, regardless of age, who think that politicians lying their way into office is acceptable: it's not and should never be acceptable. And if you do accept it, you might as well convince yourselves that slavery is an acceptable lifestyle, for that is what these corporatist bastards really want. They CAN be stopped, but only when the American people stop supporting them, no matter how reluctantly, and stand up and fight them.

We've done it before, you know.

[Blecht]

219. I think you need to learn what a theory is

What you have is maybe a hypothesis if you can come up with some way to test it.

[Flubadubya]

236. Hi and thanks...

Hopefully I have. You're not the first to catch this little discrepancy... please see posts #136 and #157.

As I said, I knew I should have looked that up, but was just too lazy. I just wish someone had caught it before my "hour to edit" was up, lol!

Again, thanks for the catch!

[tinkerbell41]

221. 44

Although the things that come out of my Father's mouth make me wonder.... I was raised in a Democratic family. ALL Union including myself. Considering I was born right on that edge and too young to be aware of what was going on I have benefitted greatly. I consider myself a Progressive a (retard) lefty if you will. That being said, I have 2 younger siblings 5 yrs between each of us, and they seem to embrace a more conservative democratic viewpoint.

[peacetalksforall]

224. I am older than you so I relate to what you say, but I tend to think slightly differently.

I think there are many youth who sense, feel, know decency, fairness, and what the country was supposed to be about and I think they have been catching on to the divide in country which is not vertical with Dems on one side and Repubs on another - I believe they are able to see it better as a horizontal divide with the rulers on the top and the ones intended for rules and ruling on the bottom. I find this easier to accept. Everyone below the line in in the same situation, but some see that the line was rotated on us and they the younger might be better as 'sensing, feeling, knowing it.

If we can ever reach out to a teabagger or they to us, it will because we will be recognized as equal and below the line that someone else has imposed on us, i.e., the arrogant and brute force rulers.

I trust Democrats, the people - I don't trust (so-called) Democrats, the leaders. My distrust of leaders continually escalates. It seems we, on this Forum at this point in time, are arguing in a way that is all jumbled up. We make a statement and immediately have to qualify it. DEFENDING these leaders is where the contention and pressure is.

It seems that it shouldn't be necessary that we should struggle to believe in something about them.

All things in our future that will hang us up in courts, jails, and restrictive and demeaning lives involve laws that they have signed and approved and gone along with.

We always talk about Republicans wanting to go backwards. There is no difference between D's and R's on the leadership level of most of them for going backward. Patriot Act, not caring that our votes were stolen. Spying, immunity. Habeas Corpus - and the possible sale of national treasures to private buyers - especially parks, coastlines, mountains and all the resources that go with it, plus favorite institutions.

Most of our leaders are good for some social issues - hate crimes, same sex marriage and they don't go around huffing and puffing about the war on drugs while they take plenty from pharma lobbyists.

The only way I can forgive them is to think ruling elite and that the ruling elite only allows those who will follow them and are great pretenders. They either knowingly or unknowingly enter the race with this known, accepted and agreed to. Or they learn the hard way.

The only way we can win is learning - example, learning about all the elite entities that build their power. Example - learning that every Sec of State for decades is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. CFR is about one to two levels down frim the peak of the pyramid. These are the people that they dance and tap for, not us. For us, they bring out the smoke and mirrors and 'spoken' words.

Love thy D and R fellow and gal neighbors. We have to get started before we are thrown into it.

[tavalon]

225. I've heard that people morph into less liberal people as they age

I'm 47 and have gotten more liberal with age.

[Flubadubya]

237. Hey, so have I...

if that is even possible, lol! I was pretty liberal as a youngster too, though. :hi:

[tavalon]

243. I was actually more black and white thinking in my youth

But, yeah, I was still darn liberal. Nowadays, few are as left leaning as I am.

[WinkyDink]

227. "It seems to me that people who are say 20 years or so my junior....

.... perhaps never really got the...sense and spirit of what it means to be a real and good and true Democrat."

Obama. Not yet 50.

[Overseas]

230. Yes. In part because we remember when mass media was not conglomerated

into conservative hands. We remember when dissent, and unfiltered war footage was part of the evening news. And then some powerful people vowed never to let that happen again.

Here's a chart of the conglomeration of 80 media companies, down to the big ten, and then some:
http://www.corporations.org/media/

Eric Alterman's book, "What Liberal Media?" details how our media landscape has been deliberately changed over the past couple of decades.

http://www.ericalterman.com/_b__i_what_liberal_media___the_truth_about_bias_and_the_news__i___b___2003__br__36625.htm

We knew our country when more impetus toward positive change was in the air. While willing to confront long term resource limitations and take on more laborious recycling, we could also work on sustainable design. But some right wing PR mole got us to talk about our malaise instead of our joy at working together toward long term sustainability. The RW PR pros got us talking honestly about the challenges of accepting our limits, while they sold their Golden Boy Ronald Reagan as bringing us Morning in America! People could wake up and shake off those dreary Democrats. We were Americans who didn't need those odious limitations. Survival of the Richest took over again. Gradually intensifying to the fever pitch it is at today.

Relentless propaganda that Tax Cuts Create Jobs and Free Trade is better than Fair Trade and Privatization is Best and so much more. Day after day.
Dogma on so many so called news channels. Instead of a careful examination of the results of these experiments. We do not look at, or acknowledge, the actual results, as they pertain to the long-term health of our country. Let's look at the data and decide together.

But we're anti-science these days. That has gradually built up. Can't have citizens all educated about chemistry with so much swilling about around them. Other countries have chosen differently, and wanted free great education so their people would be ready to roll with the punches of the 21st Century.

Anyway, the media environment has definitely changed over the past 20 years.

[boppers]

231. Culture and Society has changed a great deal.

Not only is there a difference in what leadership and party people grew up with, but society itself has changed radically... in communications, in culture, in art, in interaction.

"I can't help but wonder how many of those who criticize the President, his administration, and the so-called "Democratic" legislators of today may be comparing this with their perception of the "Democratic ideology" that existed in the past and at least through the 70s."

I like that you used the word "perception". That speaks volumes.

The *perception* of the Radio generations, and TV generations, was shaped by what they heard on the radio, and what they saw on television. (I'm skipping over the newspaper generation, since we're talking about the 62 and younger set). People actually believed that what they heard, and what they saw, reflected reality. If they saw a president talking about all Americans being equal, they could ignore the racism inherent in the president's policies. If they saw claims about democrats supporting women's rights, they could ignore the almost complete lack of legislation to that end. If they saw claims about democrats being anti-war, they could ignore the constant attempts by democratic presidents to try and start wars and overthrow other governments. If they saw claims about democrats being pro-working-man, they could ignore that most of the presidents were filthy rich, privileged, elites, who would turn around and throw labor away after they got their votes.

Why could people believe such things? Because they were told it was true.... by the radio and television.

I'm 39, and as I came of voting age, we weren't limited to 3 TV channels, and maybe 20 radio channels. We have grown up with hundreds of TV channels, and billions upon billions of internet channels. Our perceptions (if I may be so bold as to speak for my generation) aren't based on some "truth" handed down by the media, they are based on what channels we take time to absorb.... and this, too, has caused some fracturing. People who only expose themselves to a few channels, who find "truth" in those channels (like those who came before them), are likely to have a very different worldview than people who read/watch many sources of media.

To point out the differences in thinking, consider folks who wish Obama would use "the Bully Pulpit", or give "fireside chats". These are perspectives shaped by a belief that Obama should use the TV, and Radio, of a prior generation. Obama *does* do constant updates, and speeches, but if people aren't seeing them on *their* media, folks are convinced that Obama isn't doing it. Since Obama can't take control of all 300+ TV stations, millions of radio channels, and billions of websites, such a wish cannot be fulfilled.

Even the folks who do expose themselves to a broad variety of media can fall into this trap, if their variety is limited to specific forums and perspectives. Take, for example, the "9-11 truthers". Sure, there are hundreds of sources and channels of information, but if they limit their thinking to specific avenues of thinking, their understanding of "truth" is highly limited.

Ultimately, we're back to perception. The perception of "what the Democratic party is all about" has changed, because there are so many more ways to perceive it now. People who choose certain channels have wound up with very different thoughts than people who choose other channels. We no longer have a few channels feeding us our perceptions.

[roberto IS beto]

232. except for some unncessary personal attacks

I haven't noticed that much discord. Certainly under Reagan or Bush the Elder, or Clinton, or Bush the Lesser, or any other Republican, we were more united in our dislike, but times change. Little Jackie Paper couldn't stay with Puff the Magic Dragon. Sixty years ago most Democrats were racist and loved fried chicken. Republicans were fiscal conservatives. The name of a political party is unimportant.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

251. What does that mean? Sixty years ago most Democrats were racist and loved fried chicken

?

[whathappened]

234. the old ways

were far better then what were heading into , it won't much matter in the future which party we belong to , the masters have taken over , they have sold our country for the all mighty dollar , i to grew up in your era , and it was a proud time of life to live in for me , what we have for a gov. now is a joke at best , we are heading down the crapper , we as americans will look like stangers when our underground goverment get thru with us , my 2 cents

[dogmoma56]

238. and the illegal predatory imperialist wars reached into peoples homes and snatched their children..

for cannon fodder

not so distant as the needless perpetual wars of today.

[patrice]

240. If each of us, including myself, would apply to ourselves the standards that we expect of others,

apply the same principles to our own efforts, honestly, use the Golden Rule, and ask that of others, things would improve here at the DU.

[TatonkaJames]

242. Your answer is in your posting

"I don't believe it is so much that the age or generation we are cast into dictates our beliefs and feelings, but, rather, it is always what is most basic to the natural sense of our place or being in a society, how we interact with others, and what is innately within our hearts that informs our behaviors."

Throughout history it's come down between good and evil, simple as that. Leaders were never satisfied with what they had. Men made money in arms over a thousand years ago in war after war, Imperial Rome, similar to many nations then and today.
There are those if us who understand the heights we can achieve through peaceful means, except in times of blatant genocide, in equality for all, not like our founding fathers who didn't understand the meaning of the word "We," otherwise there would be no slave trade and women would have been included in politics with them. I call it The Star Trek Desire. remember the episode when some guy from the past asked how people buy things if there's no money and Kirk says they all work for the common good for all.

So the battle between good and evil continues. The older folks like you and me are surviving because we had to get up to change the channel on our TV sets. The "ME" generation ? If the day comes when our electrical grid is hacked and they have no access to a phone, computer, car, etc, they would most likely wind up a Republican and join the bands of looters who roam the neighborhoods stealing from everyone who made fire, hunted food, collected water. Much easier to steal it.

[upi402]

249. old school real dems vs propagandized corporate dems

yup
shit happened, no surprise, not an accident. we're divided and it's all over.

Democrats of the 70's are raging socialists today. Blame the media.

[AverageJoe90]

254. 20 going on 21 soon.........

And I can't STAND the thought of any vital programs being slashed. How about we end the occupation of Iraq & Afghanistan first, and start taxing the ultra-wealthy more again?