Democratic Primaries
Related: About this forumPerhaps for some, only "Our Revolution" Democrats are actually Democrats.
It's not so. The Democratic Party welcomes a broad range of Democrats to be members of the party. In fact, it has such a broad definition of what a Democrat is that it even welcomes presidential candidates who have harshly criticized the party in the past. As long as they are willing to pledge support for the Democratic Party, they are welcome.
The Democratic Party welcomes voters who vote for Democrats for public office. It even welcomes true "centrists," who are on the edge between being Democrats or Republicans to vote for Democratic candidates. We are a welcoming political party, which hopes to educate people and help them understand the party's principles, as laid out in the Democratic Party Platform.
As a political party, it doesn't have labels for people. If you vote for Democratic candidates on a regular basis, you are a Democrat. If you are a candidate and wish to run as a Democrat, you'll be expected to pledge your support for other Democrats who are running.
The Democratic Party is open and welcoming. It is not restrictive and closed-minded. That is our strength. That is how we win elections. We recognize that different regions and places have different points of view, as well, and understand that Democrats in those places might have to take different positions on some issues. They are still Democrats, though, as long as they support the party platform and work with other Democrats toward progressive goals.
Rather than divide ourselves up into fragmented sub-parties, we are a unified party. We recognize that it is the overall goal of the party to move forward in progressive ways over time. We are not a revolutionary party. We are a party that shares broad viewpoints and goals that are reflected in the party platform.
Everyone who shares those goals is welcome to be a Democrat.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
hedda_foil
(16,371 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Personally, I don't, as long as they are able to be supportive of Democrats in the general election. I have to say, though, that anyone who voted for Jill Stein or supported her in 2016 are not actually Democrats at all, in my opinion. I just can't go that far, I'm afraid.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
msongs
(67,365 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Those who cannot support our candidates and nominees should not call themselves Democrats. Period. For example, anyone who voted for Jill Stein in 2016 for President should not be allowed to be a member of the Democratic Party for quite a long time and not until they disavow that voting decision.
During primary elections, anyone can run for a Democratic office. Party members will decide who becomes the official candidate in the general election. Actual Democrats vote for that official candidate. Those who do not should be suspected of not actually being Democrats, in my opinion.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
OneMoreCupOfCoffee
(314 posts)and the Democratic Party.
Those who do otherwise are not.
Pretty simple really.
Vote Blue!
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)The time for selecting candidates for general election is during the primaries. In the general election, Democrats vote for Democrats. Those who do not are not Democrats, by my definition.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
ritapria
(1,812 posts)There is always a struggle for power amongst the various factions to s determine which faction will control the Party .The Southern segregationists fought the Progressive wing of the Party for generations on end .. Today , the presently dominant Neoliberal faction ,who seek incremental change, are fighting the Progressives- who want the Party to return to it's FDR/New Deal Roots ...I don't want to be misunderstood .I am not likening the the Neolibs with Southern Segregationists .They ae infinitely better than those guys ... I am simply pointing out that interparty factionalism is the norm , not the exception ..Of course , the same has been true for the Republicans as well .
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
OneMoreCupOfCoffee
(314 posts)Didn't you not get the "memo?" LOL.
FDR was nothing (at all) like today's populist-socialist left.
He was pro-capitalist, pro-trade, anti-populist, anti-socialist, and an internationalist-interventionist who battled with the isolationist America First left/right coalition who kept us out of the fight against fascism until Pearl Harbor.
Do people still study (recent) history? I think they should.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Teddy Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan on that side, the Populist Party and its ilk never really got that far.
Leftists at the time did quite a few decent things, largely since most of those things were no-brainers, but they were never able to get into power.
Even during the ages of the Robber Barons, Depression, drought and other crises, we have never let the left gain power.
Why would we let an avowed socialist, even one with the "democratic" modifier, into the Presidency now?
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
squirecam
(2,706 posts)Imprisoned American citizens due to their race, and didnt integrate the military.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
OneMoreCupOfCoffee
(314 posts)That was start of a long overdue process to advance civil right in this country. We still have progress to make on these fronts. For sure. Many aspects of New Deal America gave minorities--and especially African Americans--the shaft. That is undeniably true.
The Japanese internment was complex. Racism was certainly a factor. Another factor was that many Japanese were perceived to worship the Emperor of Japan as a demi-god, which increased the fears of sabotage in a way that was different that with German and Italian immigrants.
It is easier to see the shamefulness of the internment with the advantages of hindsight.
In my youth I had a girlfriend who was of Japanese ancestry. I got to know her parents--who were both interred at Manzanar--pretty well.
As with many Japanese-Americans, they were very reluctant to speak of these times. Only after I knew them for quite sometime did they open up about their experiences. They were very fine people and loyal Americans.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
tirebiter
(2,533 posts)The Unacknowledged Lesson: Earl Warren and the Japanese Relocation Controversy By G. Edward White
Y'all remember Earl Warren, no relation to Elizabeth but a champion of civil rights and the Chief Justice who gave us Roe v Wade, He supported internment 100%.
Between February and August 1942, about 112,000 Japanese-Americans were transported from their homes along the Pacific Coast in California, Oregon, and Washington to relocation centers in California, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arkansas. The Japanese, about two-thirds of whom had been born in America, were housed in these centers until January 1945, when they were officially released. The relocation centers resembled concentration camps: they were enclosed with barbed wire and patrolled by armed guards, privacy and independent family life for the incarcerated Japanese were almost nonexistent, and the daily lives of the Japanese were controlled by their supervisors. The relocation centers were not, however, instruments of genocide or barbarism or even brutality; in this sense the term concentration camp incorrectly describes them. The centers did represent, though, the first and only episode in American history in which the United States government forcibly interned American citizens on the basis of their racial and ethnic affiliation.
President Franklin Roosevelt signed the executive order creating the relocation centers, but the principal architects of the relocation program were John J. McCloy, assistant secretary of war, and three U. S. Army officers, Major General Alien W. Gullion, Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, and Colonel Karl R. Bendesten. In developing the relocation policy these men had the full cooperation and support of Earl Warren, who held the positions of attorney general and governor of California during the Second World War.
In 1971 Earl Warren, having retired as chief justice of the Supreme Court two years earlier, began writing his memoirs. I was a law clerk to Warren at the time, and he asked for my reactions to drafts of the memoirs as they were prepared. Warrens memoirs, anonymously edited, eventually were published in 1977, three years after his death. For the most part, they were the conventional reminiscences of a public figure. Warren revealed almost no information that was not already available, and in some instances, such as his account of the Courts decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the famous 1954 case invalidating racial segregation in the public schools, he gave a less than full description of events.
The memoirs also painted less than flattering portraits of some of Warrens political acquaintances, including Dwight Eisenhower, who, while president, was quoted as saying to Warren that he would solve the Communist problem by kill[ing] the S. O. B.s. They ignored some controversial moments in Warrens career, such as his opposition during the height of the Cold War to the nomination of Berkeley law professor Max Radin, a distinguished scholar but a supposed leftist, to the California Supreme Court. On the whole, the memoirs were a bland, unrevealing, and selective account of Warrens life. Warrens pet burro, his friend and constant companion during Warrens youth in Bakersfield, California, received more attention than any single justice of the Supreme Court.
One episode of Warrens career, however, received significant, although sparse, attention in his memoirsthe Japanese relocation decision. Warren said that he had since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens. He then articulated his guilt feelings in terms that, for a father of six and a devoted family man, were vividly personal: Whenever I thought of the innocent little children who were torn from home, school friends, and congenial surroundings, I was consciencestricken. On reflection, Warren believed that t was wrong to react so impulsively, without positive evidence of disloyalty. .?.?.
Warrens confession of error in the Japanese relocation controversy raises several questions. How did Earl Warren, one of the most vigorous advocates of civil liberties in the history of the Supreme Court, come to advocate and defend a policy that constituted a wholesale deprivation of the civil rights of Japanese-Americans? How could Warren, a principal force behind the Courts unanimous attack on racism in Brown v. Board of Education and its progeny, have ignored the racist character of the relocation, which was imposed only against Japanese nationals and aliens, leaving unaffected people of Italian or German origin? How did Warren, a champion of equality and fairness under the law as chief justice, justify the patently inequitable nature of a relocation process reserved only for Japanese? And why did Warren, whose strength of convictions was well-known to his acquaintances, who almost never admitted that he had been wrong on an issue, and who rarely changed his mind once he had formed an opinion, decide to recant on the Japanese relocation issue? An examination of these questions takes one inside the mind of one of Americas least penetrable public figures...
No influential segment of California political life was sympathetic to the Japanese. The Oriental Exclusion League, formed in 1919, included among its members representatives of the California Federation of Labor, the State Grange, and the American Legion. Hiram Johnson, Californias Progressive governor and senator, whom Warren greatly admired, was openly antagonistic to the Japanese; so were author Jack London, a Socialist, and conservative newspaperman William Randolph Hearst. The Los Angeles Times, in 1920, stated that assimilation of the two races is unthinkable. It is morally indefensible and biologically impossible. An American who would not die fighting rather than yield to this infamy does not deserve the name. Warren had not had extensive contact with Japanese, although he had been a devotee of authors, such as London, Rudyard Kipling, and Frank Norris, who perpetuated racial stereotypes...
By 1938, when he ran for Attorney General, Warren was an accomplished politician, with a relatively wide base of support and a consistently good record of performance as district attorney. On the stump he continued to stress the virtues of common honesty and efficient government, and he also indulged in some standard anti-New Deal rhetoric, calling Roosevelts Hundred Days legislation the first major effort to change by stealth .?.?.the greatest free government of all time into a totalitarian state. Despite this partisanship, Warren had not failed to notice that Californias registered Democrats had grown to outnumber registered Republicans by 1934. He was also well aware of the distinctive cross-filing system of California primaries, instituted by Progressives in the early 20th century as a device to avoid special interest control over primary nominations. In the 1938 election for attorney general, Warren entered not only the Republican primary, but the Democratic and Progressive primaries as well. He won the nominations of all three parties...
...As the prospect of war in Europe increased, he organized law enforcement agencies in a program of civil defense. In this last effort he revealed himself as an advocate of preparedness who was extremely sensitive to the possibility of wartime sabotage.Do not be deceived, he said in the spring of 1941, that [the totalitarian powers] are not attempting to exercise fifth column activities .?.?.in this country. They would like nothing better than to create the same situation here that they developed in France, Denmark and Holland.
Added to Warrens stereotyped views about Orientals, then, was his strong concern for civil defense, which he regarded as an integral function of the attorney generals office. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec.7, 1941 only reinforced Warrens suspicions about the Japanese in California. In 1942 he called the presence of the Japanese in California the Achilles heel of the entire civilian defense effort. He also argued that because no fifth-column activities and no sabotage had been reported a studied effort at sabotage was taking place. Warren felt that when we are dealing with the Caucasian race we have methods that will test [their] loyalty, but when we deal with the Japanese we are in an entirely different field because of their method of living.
Warren was an initial proponent of the Japanese relocation policy and a defender of that policy once it had been implemented. In 1943, when the Allied forces had begun to neutralize Japanese supremacy in the Pacific, fears of an invasion of the West Coast subsided, and pressures to release interned Japanese began to surface. In a conference of state governors that June, Warren vigorously opposed releasing any Japanese. If the Japs are released, he said, no one will be able to tell a saboteur from any other Jap. .?.?. We dont want to have a second Pearl Harbor in California. We dont propose to have the Japs back in California during this war if there is any lawful means of preventing it...
...The detained Japanese were eventually released from the relocation centers in January 1945, despite considerable protest by various California newspapers and organizations. Warren, then beginning his second four-year term as governor, privately expressed concern for the action, but publicly asked Calif ornians to join in protecting the constitutional rights of the individuals involved and to maintain an attitude that will discourage friction and prevent civil disorder. In a conference with law enforcement officials at the time of the release of the Japanese, Warren refused to adopt a resolution condemning the incarceration policy.[A]t the time of their exclusion, he reportedly said, not one of us raised a voice against it. We cant condemn it now...
...Warren was not alone in his reluctance to confess error for the Japanese internment policy. Of the prominent persons whose participation in the internment controversy might have been regarded as inconsistent with their subsequent reputation as civil libertarians, few had repudiated their earlier stance. Justice Hugo Black, for example, who had written one of the Supreme Court opinions in the 1940s sustaining the constitutionality of the relocation policy, said in 1967 that I would do precisely the same thing today. Likewise Justice William Douglas, another civil libertarian who supported relocation, has never publicly changed his mind.
Me: I haven't read as good an essay on FDR. What I of know is Dan Inouye joined the 442nd and became a powerful Democrat.
https://www.vqronline.org/essay/unacknowledged-lesson-earl-warren-and-japanese-relocation-controversy
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Gothmog
(144,939 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden