happen.

LBJ promoted his Great Society program, which was not very socialist. It's classic liberalism. Anyway, it's a good point that the Sanders platform is not really very radical. We have shifted so far to the right that programs like Social Security and the Peace Corps would not even pass Congress today.

public works for the overall good of society.

A public highway built with taxpayer funds is socialism; a tollway constructed by a private venture and run for profit is not.

A public school system to provide free education is socialism; for-profit learning institutions are not.

A publicly-funded fire department that puts out everyone's home fires is socialism; a subscription-based fire department is not.

What a great post!

And that's by Democrats. If FDR or LBJ (without Vietnam) or TR were around today, they'd be considered part of the "fringe left." Even Ike would be suspect.

system funded with a 91% marginal tax rate on the country's most wealthy, or Teddy Roosevelt's expansion of the government for the purposes of regulating industry and for preserving our public lands, you can only reach one conclusion:

Sanders' platform falls well within the great American mainstream.

1.LBJ
2.FDR
3.Obama
4.Truman
5.JFK
6. Carter


For all his faults LBJ was passionate about helping the poor and his record proves it--with landmark legislation from Civil Rights, Education, The War on Poverty and Medicare, just to name a few.

Truman is higher up not because of what got passed but for what he proposed--he called for National Health Insurance as early as 1948 and a far-reaching Civil Rights Bill. He also continued the New Deal policies of FDR.

JFK was more interested in foreign policy than domestic and his record shows it. He dragged his feet for over two years on Civil Rights until Birmingham. He passed the same type of tax cuts that Reagan eventually did lowering tax rates on the wealthy. He proposed Medicare, but didn't really push it--many of his domestic programs he watered down so as not to displease the Southern Democrats who held sway over committees.

Carter, who I think was a better president than given credit for, was not a liberal, however, in most of his economic policies. He did advocate and signed a substantial hike in the minimum wage, signed a watered down Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, and created the Department of Education. However, on energy policy he was ahead of his time and was effective in passing a comphrensive Energy Program that Reagan ultimately dismantled.

because Truman tried to pass single-payer?

Sorry, I work with people getting them enrolled and I see that it works for most and how grateful they are to have it. It also might eventually pave the way for Single Payer one day.

No reason to be rude and say I'm ranking Obama ahead "because Truman tried to pass single payer."

As for "one of the most progressive bills ever passed", I have a very hard time believing "you have to pay the private health insurance industry" is a progressive position.

The ACA's far better than the status quo, but that's more of a measure of how bad the status quo was.

care.

I think the argument could be made that Sanders' platform is more progressive in terms of changing the status quo than JFK's New Frontier and also argued Obama ranks close to JFK in terms of changing the status quo.

I think Obama will never be in the same league with FDR, LBJ, TR or even Ike, but he is certainly in the top ten in terms of most progressive presidents since the turn of the past century although he might not qualify for the top 5. Obama governed well to the left of Bill Clinton and he has accomplished more progressive legislative goals than Carter.

*Manufactures NOTHING

*Provides no useful service

*Keeps NO inventory

....is NOT what I call "Progressive".
It is a straight REPUBLICAN (conservative business friendly) plan.

Now, if the ACA had included a national Public Option,
owned by The People and available to everyone,
then it might qualify.

If you remember during the 2008 debates, Obama insisted that any plan must include a Public Option,
because THAT will keep the Insurance Industry accountable.
He publicly ridiculed Hillary's plan for Mandates.

The new regs are applaudable...IF they are enforced.
As far as I know, no Watch Dog Agency with teeth has been created to enforce these regulations. There is also no national complaint agency to monitor the quality of the services. The consumer is STILL on his own to file a lawsuit and take the Insurance Monster to State Court, which can last YEARS and cost the consumer much money trying to fight these vultures.


The Public Option must be a National program, because no state has a risk pool great enough to spread the risk and make it competitive with the For Profits.
Any individual state that tries to compete with the Major For Profits will never be able to cover their relatively few customers at a competitive price. However, a National Public Option would have enough weight to make some demands in pricing, and actually save the consumer money.
The ACA stipulates that the individual state run Public Option MUST make a profit from year 1.


I wonder if Hillary has realized that Obama passed HER (and Romney's, and the Heritage Foundation) Health Care program after ridiculing her for her proposal during the debates.

In order to make the ACA "progressive", the National Public Option is a necessity.
Without it, it is just another business friendly plan to transfer wealth to the Corporate owners & investors.

It seems to me that all the people mentioned have, in greater or smaller measure, arrived at practical solutions to real problems, workable answers for real needs, and they are therefore pragmatists.
Why do people flee screaming from the word "Socialist", anyway?
Socialism is a perfectly respectable and effective solution to many of our problems.
Sigh.

Any Dem who uses the "socialist" meme about Sanders in any way, shape or form should be ashamed of themselves. Bernie fights for what the greatest Dems of history fought for and got done. Bernie is NOT the fringe candidate.

They really are interdependent.
I don't believe that FDR would have gotten very far without Teddy's Trust Busting.

Two portraits were hanging in the home I grew up in the 50s...
a painting of Jesus hanging next to FDR's official portrait.
This was later joined by JFK's official portrait.

I hated LBJ with a Purple Passion, and marched in the streets chanting,"Hey, Hey, LBJ!
How many kids did you kill today?"

It was only in later years, and gut wrenching contrast with the Party Leadership of today that I realized what a great LIBERAL Democrat he was.
AFAIC, he was the last "Democratic" President.
It is not the same today.


DURec for a well prepared, thought provoking post.

What disheartens me the most is that if you look at the post-LBJ presidents and rank their domestic policy accomplishments from a progressive perspective, you have to give serious consideration to

* the creation of Occupational Safety and Health Administration
* the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency
* the significantly enhanced standards under the Clean Air Act amended in 1970

But not sure about the rankings of the others. Truman probably beats some of them.

Deal Democrats (including FDR's son) tried to swing the nomination to Ike (who had no formal political party affiliation at that time) because they saw Ike as more inclined to preserve and extend the New Deal than Truman.

But got overridden there.

I bet Clinton or Obama would have signed that.

Truman DID desegregate the military.
That was a huge step, and Truman caught a lot of flack. The military is monolithic, and VERY conservative....but flack didn't seem to bother Truman. He just flew right through it.

[font size=3]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]



FDR approved the creation of an all black fighter squadron (Tuskegee Airmen).
For the first time in American History, black pilots attended Officers Candidate schools, and held officer's ranks. Military protocol dictated that they be called "Sir" and saluted in public.

That was also a huge step, and allowed Truman to later completely desegregate the military.

This movement was later followed by LBJs Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I see all 3 stages as an unbroken, interdependent progression.



Equal Opportunity, Equal Protection, Equal access for everyone---NO exceptions.!!!!
FDR said much the same thing in his SOTU of 1944.

did not accomplish much (as compared to FDR before him or Ike/JFK/LBJ after him) in terms of promoting a pro-Socialist program. That is, he made relatively small strides in the goals of (1) advancing the ways in which the government regulates the marketplace for the betterment of society and (2) calling upon the public's resources to create public works for the benefit of society in general (such as FDR's WPA or Ike's interstate highway system or JFK's space program or LBJ's PBS).

In fairness to Truman, he DID propose and fought for domestic programs that built upon FDR's New Deal.
Truman's domestic programs were called "The Fair Deal".

Thank you, Attorney in Texas! Very well done.

Last edited Fri Oct 23, 2015, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

I loved all the environmental stuff that both Roosevelts accomplished.

any dramatic change in policy, Obama has bogged down in treaties and paperwork.

He was also bogged down in protecting the Wall Street Banks and the Oil Corporations,
not to mention gathering new unbelievable, permanent powers for the Unitary Executive and expanding The Empire.

Obama has approves selling Oil Leases off the East Coast in environmentally sensitive areas, and in the Arctic.
He also protected BP in their crime in the Gulf of Mexico.

We got the "Drill, Baby, DRILL! President anyway.
We were given no choice.

1.

there it is.

LBJ left office.

the party hostage.

Bill Clinton ran the presidency well to the right of Nixon, while Sanders offers a platform somewhere left of Nixon but to the right of FDR and LBJ.

So whose values are traditional Democratic Party values?

You have a skewed view of history if you honestly believe that.

That is not the same thing as a "Socialist".

Of course, you have already been told this many times,
but insist on using your faulty reference, while KNOWING that it is a distortion.
You do yourself no favors. Each time you do that, you "credibility" (if you have any) suffers.

Do you know the difference between a "Democratic Socialist", a "Socialist", and a "National Socialist"?
It doesn't appear that you do, or you wouldn't use these terms interchangeably.

Willfully distorting information on this discussion board is not OK.
This is dishonest,
and reprehensible.

Control of the means of production by the government. That is the ultimate goal of ALL forms of socialism regardless of which version a socialist falls into after the multiple schisms within the movement.

Please point out where Bernie Sanders has promoted anything close to
"Control of the means of production by the government."

It is painfully clear that you need to :

1) Check Bernie's proposals for ANYTHING that references taking control over private industry, or NationalizingANY American business.
Please post links to any references you can find.


You are extremely deluded (or well programmed) if you believe that
"Control of the means of production by the government. That is the ultimate goal of ALL forms of socialism." Actually, you are confusing Socialism with Communism...a common mistake among conservatives and shallow thinkers.


Have you ever been to Europe,
especially the Scandinavian countries?

I suggest a Summer tour for you in these countries to further your "education".

HE did so without the "Democratic" qualifier for most of his career.

The foundational basis of all socialist philosophy is government control of the means of production.

I need look at nothing more about the guy. I will never vote for him under any circumstances.

That is shallow, and not very smart.
You should dig a little deeper,
or not....if you are happy not knowing, and voting on hunches or a distorted reality.
That is how the Democratic Party became Republican Lite instead of "DEMOCRATS".



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

Good for you to admit which side you are on.
That takes some bravery on a Liberal Democratic Board.

Can I make these assumptions that follow directly from your posts:

*Corporation can do whatever they want without regard to Human Rights, Worker Rights, and Environmental Rights. They answer to nobody except their share holders.

*Free Trade is GOOD because that lets Corporations outrun Human Rights, Labor Rights and Environmental Protections in order to maximize quarterly profits .
(Capital will ALWAYS be able to outrun The People.)

*Once a corporation corners the market, they are free to charge what ever they want for necessities.

*Corporations are totally within their rights to pay workers the smallest wage possible without benefits or job security. (SEE: WalMart)

You really need to go study up on "Socialism", "Democratic Socialism", "National Socialism", and "Communism".
Clearly, you conflate these very different economic systems as all the same.
You could NOT be further from the truth.

Take a few weeks or months (or years), and study up on these very diverse systems.
That will save you future embarrassment posting at DU.


I don't want to live in your world.

Go ask the Republicans if FDR was a "Socialist".
You are trying to do the same thing to Bernie that the Republicans tried so hard to do to FDR.

BTW: Do you have any interest in policy at all?
You seem to be built out of Buzz Words.

Your lack of knowledge about political history is telling. The Socialists opposed FDR more than the Republicans.

No matter how much you wish to aler history, you cannot.

FDR was NOT a Democratic Socialist.

What made FDR a "Socialist" and not a Democratic Socialist?

....and have you bothered to research the difference yet,
or still just sticking with the shallow Buzz Words & Labels?

Have you ever considered discussing "policy" instead of low grade Name Calling?