"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

Easy choice for me.

Don

that's you, me and the three others in this country.

We have to get the word out,,and not the highfalutin 'isms' words. It must be said with words wrestling fans can understand. And only one point at a time, repeated so often that it becomes unpatriotic to talk against the point.

what's first?

Trying to discuss politics with a Reaganite, which I have tried doing, is like talking to a brick wall. Even the ones who have themselves been screwed over by Reagan's policies are never going to change.

I've concluded we are going to have to wait for them to die off.

Don

The progressive congressional caucus is the largest, about twice as big as the new dem caucus. But it takes big dollars to run a successful presidential campaign. Corporations have it, we dont. Unless reforms are made in the way campaigns are financed, successful candidates will continue to be corporatists.

you win it by framing your argument better than every body else.

you appeal to the voter personally -- what THEY would get out of public education, what THEY would get out of increased government spending, on roads and properly maintaining them, what THEY would get from medicare for all, etc.

the party simply never fields a candidate who is charismatic and can frame an argument for good damn governance.

The people who voted for Reagan and Bush 1 have been programed to believe that government is bad. It is very similar to people who belong to a religious cult. Very similar to brainwashed Hare Krishna you see dancing around at the airport.

To get them to believe otherwise would require having them deprogrammed like some family's do with with the children that the Hare Krishna have brainwashed.

See what we are up against here?

Don

i think you believe in magic, frankly.

it isn't hoo-doo.

a candidate with charisma, and the ability to frame.

republicans pay no attention to moderation -- they plow ahead with muscle and vigor.

it isn't brain washing -- they're better at framing their arguments than dems.


loose that fuckin mill stone -- and win.

Yes it is, delivered by the Tee Vee. THEY control the Tee Vee.

It is not that our arguments are not well-framed, they are not even heard.

They have never really been down with destroying ecosystems that have existed from the dawn of man just to fund a retirement or provide short lived jobs. They cant see the neatness of extinguishing human lives for a paycheck and a medal.
Preferring instead to focus on issues that could affect the lives & health of children and animals now and in the future. Making the well being of the earths oceans and forests a higher priority than Wall St returns. Making the saving of a life more honorable than the taking of one.
These are all values that will not stand in the face of our modern political/corporate/media system. One cannot be a viable candidate if one doesn't bow before the masters of the universe and the war pigs. It just isn't allowed.

Why are we on the left so marginalized?

Right versus Left, iow. Since 1796 (the French Revolution) which, btw, was inspired by American Revolution (1776) the fascasti have 'used' a fatal flaw in human nature to get and maintain hold on electoral power- a democracy is perfect for the knuckledraggers thanks to idiocy of too many workingclass/poor voters! Read 'Up From Conservativism' by Michael Lind, a regan speechwriter who wised up during clinton era. The fascasti know that electorate is divided into thirds. 33% vote fascist REGARDLESS OF HOW NASTY the nazis are; 33% vote leftwing REGARDLESS of how loony the socialists are, so that leave 33%, and the fascasti only need a majority of that (ie 17 %!)...thus, regan, hitler, bush, harper, and so on aim vast sums of $$$$ at a fairly small slice of total electorate, and they WIN EASILY! That's why 'tee party' types and liberal left types feel so left outta process- THEY just DON"T COUNT!
Only the old reactionary racists down the street who waves flag and boldly says 'mr hitler is a law and order man, so he got my vote; damn them socialists 'weimar' republicans and their tree hugging! (hitler won 1932 election promising to punish the lefty 'stab us in the back' crowd who cost Germany WW1!)
Actually, Aristoltle, the 'founder' of western civilization (with Plato) said democracy couldn't work, as rabble rousers would rouse us and, since the poor vastly outnumbered fatcats, the government always be leftwing, and thus tyrany rules! But Aristoltle never realized 1/3 of voters are STUPID!
Really fricking stupid! Ergo geebush and john macain (versus rightwingers like o'bama and kerry)
The bastards win by default!

Last edited Sat Jun 16, 2012, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)

and the Democratic party has moved so far to the left. But what they've been pushing for is nothing compared to what I would've wanted as president. I would've came out in favor of making it illegal for news stations to lie like how Canada did (*cough* Fox News *cough*), I would've favored single-payer health care, marijuana legalization, getting rid of the filibuster, and I would've had it to where the rich pay a higher percentage in taxes than everyone else like other industrialized nations are doing.

Unfortunately, I'm not anywhere near old enough to run for office, and even if I were I'm probably too far away from "the center" to win the GE. Plus, I think it's a scary job being president because you constantly get death threats (Obama already has more than any other president BTW), you have the opposing party smearing you, you have to be great at thinking on your feet (esp. during debates and interviews), and be knowledgeable about foreign policy.

-Jamaal

What a sad moment.

hahaha. the fact is, the nazipoohs win by fraud. it's all about numbers! Even a mcgovern, silly as he was depicted by pro war media , easily trumped trikky......the pigmedia owners (1 %)spend BILLIONS$$$$ your money telling you/us otherwise.
fact- the entire human race has been HAD. Jesus died trying to warn mankind we are, by nature, doomed to self destruct (because we lie, and like liars etc, and aid abet the destroyerss of the future)

Then compromise my principles.

Because money and power tell them what to think.

Until we sever the connection between money and power, things will not improve, and that is going to require that we, the people, take action, because the politicians, unlike the voters, DO look out for their own best interests, and that can be summarized by one phrase: status quo.

Five years from now will be the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. A good date for which to make a plan.

They vote for the kind of world they want to live in--and that includes us.

That's what Democracy and the vote are all about.

But now it's the 1% who are winning.

Obama is one such leader, IMO. But Gore, Kucinich, Dukakis -as much sense as their policies made, they lacked the charisma needed to overcome the demographics you point out.

I only hope Obama is not the exception for the future.

I can never, ever get a so-called "centrist" to tell me how they differ from a liberal. Do they support the Patriot Act, domestic spying, indefinite detention, tax cuts for the rich, a half-assed health care system?? I dont get it.

Centrists are conservatives. The definition of a conservative is they dont want things to change. They support the status quo. That's defines centrists. Do they support the Patriot Act. Probably not but it hasnt effected them personally so why rock the boat.

We are dealing with GOP extremists. GOP extremists who do want change. This kind of change:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ryan-introduces-gop-budget-plan-slashing-social-programs-and-tax-rates/2012/03/20/gIQASVkSQS_story.html

Ryan introduces GOP budget plan, slashing social programs and tax rates

By Lori Montgomery and Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: March 20

The Washington Post House Republicans renewed their commitment Tuesday to the politically risky strategy of targeting Medicare and other popular social programs to tame the national debt, unveiling a $3.5 trillion spending plan that would also slash the top tax rate paid by corporations and the wealthy.

The GOP blueprint, authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), is designed to draw a sharp contrast with President Obama heading into the November election in the ideological battle over taxes and spending. But the plan also renews a narrower fight over agency budgets that has tied the Capitol in knots since Republicans took control of the House last year. snip

The blueprint largely reprises the spending plan Ryan unveiled one year ago, with a few new details penciled in. The plan would put the nation on course to balance the budget by 2040 and shrink the national debt to historic norms as a percentage of the economy. But because Ryan rejects higher taxes, that path would require significant reductions in a host of popular programs.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/romney-endorses-ryan-budget-118079.html

Romney endorses Ryan budget

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 3/20/12 5:00 PM EDT

At a campaign event in Chicago, he gives a big thumbs-up to Paul Ryan's budget plan:

I'm very supportive of the Ryan budget plan. It's a bold and exciting effort on his part and on the part of the Republicans and it's very much consistent with what I put out earlier. I think it's amazing that we have a president who three and a half years in still hasn't put a proposal out that deals with entitlements. This president's dealing with entitlement reform -- excuse me -- this budget deals with entitlement reform, tax policy, which as you know is very similar to the one that I put out and efforts to reign in excessive spending. I applaud it. It's an excellent piece of work and very much needed.

But the real problem is the centrist Dems and GOP wont challenge them. They dont want to make waves re. status quo so it keeps sliding to the right.

The damn centrist try to deny that the status quo is moving right. "Go ahead and invade Iran, just dont take Miami CSI off the air".

What does that tell you?

That since at every turn when we have implemented some portion of RW policy thing have gotten consistently worse in both small and very dramatic ways, at some point people would lose faith in it. But they haven't.

The fascinating thing about RW economics is that it presupposes rational people. But if people were actually rational they would have dumped this entire idea at least a decade ago. Some people apparently have an irrational faith in their own rationality.

They actually think of the 1% as benevolent types who will "create Jobs" because they have a load of spare cash and nothing more amusing to do with their time. They do this while watching the same folks burn the money on private jets and car elevators.

electing any more than a small handful of progressive congressional members and legislators and a few municipal office holders is the best that can even be hoped for. Electing a progressive President is or course out of the question - obviously. The vain left-wing dream that economic collapse will produce a progressive uprising is extremely naive. Given how much reactionary thinking has been embedded into the American psyche - it is now far, far more likely that an economic collapse will lead to a frighteningly right-wing and authoritarian order.

The Citizens United decision has of course destroyed any hope of removing big money from the political process. Let's face it there is not a snowballs chance in hell that a constitutional amendment is going to pass that can overturn citizens united much less remove big money from politics. The increasingly reactionary tendency of the American media will marginalize progressive views even more than they have in the past. The last holdout of liberal thinking - academia - is being so increasingly controlled by money interest and reactionary thinking even that tradition of the free thinking intellectual community will soon be lost. Unions, well what we say? I'm afraid an ever increasingly competitive job market and the undoing of the New Deal will remove what little remains of that force as an institution for progressive change.

We are now beyond the level of liberal versus conservative. We can only hope to elect sane versus insane. But even then, what we will see since the entire range of discussion is now being defined by the insane - is a steady and relentless deterioration in participatory democracy that actually has any meaning as our world becomes increasingly authoritarian and wealth and privileged are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and common human decency becomes a memory of the distant past- this as we all quietly walk into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister and more protracted by the lights of perverted science.

"The vain left-wing dream that economic collapse will produce a progressive uprising is extremely naive. Given how much reactionary thinking has been embedded into the American psyche - it is now far, far more likely that an economic collapse will lead to a frighteningly right-wing and authoritarian order."

But I don't agree.

I believe you are already experiencing "...a frighteningly right-wing and authoritarian order." This is what will surely lead to an 'economic collapse.'

Economic policy will become so pathologically anti-human, that the masses will lose faith in the system and devolve to inter-personal relationships. The blind faith we have been conditioned to put into INSTITUTIONS is the only thing they need to survive.

Without our 'blind faith' they will cease to exist. So it is up to those of us who have "lost our faith", to enlighten the blind.....

It shouldn't be that difficult. Most modern "institutions" are rarely coming even close, to fulfilling the most basic of their public mandates. In a massive cultural awakening, more and more people are experiencing a loss of faith in their institutional lives.

I wouldn't mind an event that would remind individuals, on a massive scale, the true power of 'Inter-Personal Relationships'. It may be a "...vain left wing dream...", but I really doubt that institutions would quickly re-form.


.

... and I, for one, am convinced that "liberal" policies could attract a substantial number of these potential voters.

And it isn't just captured by corporate money at the top of the ticket, either, but most of the way down. Any charismatic liberal Presidential candidate who somehow won the primaries, and went on to win in the general, would have to deal with a party as hostile to liberal principles and to traditional Democratic constituencies as the Republicans - his own.

They don't frame their arguments any better than we do. Gore, won the 00 election, Bush being selected in 00 has nothing to do with the GOP framing an argument, but everything to do with stealing the election. I don't consider myself a liberal, I'm more of a conservative democrat, so I don't have a horse in this race. But I would suggest that liberals research and analyze why they aren't moving forward, why even the youth doesn't consider themselves liberals.

because America is a profoundly right-wing country in many ways, and there's enough opposition to anything that seems "socialist" as "un-American" that changing that with significant left-wing policies probably won't happen anytime soon.

Also...define "left" vs "right", are we talking about economics? Are we talking about universal healthcare, a strong social safety net, and so on? Because this comes to another part of America's basic problem. Not only is the US very right wing, it's very racist. A lot of (mostly Southern and entirely white) people are going to vote against anything that means increasing welfare benefits, or that provides taxpayer-funded universal healthcare, because they don't want blacks or Latinos god forbid "illegals" to benefit from it in any way. Successful exploitation of racism is partly responsible for the GOP's electoral successes since Nixon's "Southern Strategy". And exploitation of other cultural issues that aren't actually about the best way to govern are responsible for a lot of the rest, see: abortion, gun control, and for the crowning heights of voter stupidity Sonny Perdue getting elected governor of Georgia because Roy Barnes changed the state flag to remove the Confederate emblem.

Things are changing, somewhat, as the US population grows increasingly more urban, more educated, and less white, but a real shift in the electorate is a generation off, at least.

Last edited Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

(And no need to specify "ultra-liberal" Democrat, btw. A traditional, "preserve the safety nets/living wage/civil liberties, eschew the drone wars/police state/austerity-for-the-masses" Democrat would do...)

A huge part of the reason ratings for Washington are in the toilet is that people are sick and tired of being utterly ignored and force-fed policies that are exactly the opposite of what we keep telling them, clearly, that we want:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=812835

You don't vote for what is not offered to you, and the corporate oligarchy has been very carefully putting into place a system to shut out, marginalize, or smear candidates who threaten to offer or legitimize choices they don't want voters to have:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=809566




Thanks to bvar for excellent posts on this subject.

Ask a person if they support raising taxes on the rich to pay for deficit reduction, or to keep SS solvent, or any other supposedly 'liberal' position, and you get a majority. Then these same people go vote for the R because that nice person on TV/radio told them to do so.

Unless/until people understand that everything they see/hear from the media is a form of manipulation, things aren't going to get better

Let's take a look at a bit of voter statistics from CA regarding Latino voters. Latino Democrats outnumber Latino Republicans 4 to one or so. In 1990, they comprised 10% of the electorate. In 2000 that figure was 16%. That's about one million votes, mostly for Democrats.
Lots of information at the link. And this is just one tiny bit of information, there are many more that point out the fact that the electorate is changing in many ways that do not require mere attrition, and to claim the electorate is the same one that existed 30 years ago is simply not correct.
https://docs.google.com/a/dslextreme.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:MRvzDHplEt0J:field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/COI-00-May-Latinos.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgo9xm5VWTm88P5t8Ho-UCESE0gOPIjwX44gCn4wz_sbOTNeMgQaXuhLyElaKabvT0tEE2y0j_P2Naz_gCnfq8O2QJRV4jJm3B4Lrkxe2d-50FIvE5ozf27qvldVtak8vvzafN-&sig=AHIEtbSaXsipi17RMTA2SdkfyNqV-gz4Qg&pli=1