President Clinton warns of growing polarization

Source: Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Former President Bill Clinton warned Saturday that the country is becoming increasingly polarized despite the historic nature of the Democratic primary.

Speaking at the National Governors Association's semiannual meeting, Clinton noted that on the one hand, following the early stages of the Democratic primary, "the surviving candidates were an African-American man and a woman."

... But this achievement was overshadowed by a growing distance between Americans, said Clinton.

"Underneath this apparent accommodation to our diversity, we are in fact hunkering down in communities of like-mindedness, and it affects our ability to manage difference," Clinton said.

... Clinton concluded his speech by reminding governors, who are marking the association's centennial, that the issues they face today are similar to problems President Teddy Roosevelt grappled with a century ago.

... "If we don't, in the words of President Roosevelt, dark will be the future," he said. "I'm betting on light — I hope you are too."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/12/national/a142456D95.DTL

...in the Democratic party, between Progressives and the neocon faction of the Democratic party.

Whenever Progressives start winning, the DLC wing of the party positions dissent as "polarizing" and "divisive."

I'm sad to see typical-Republican marketeering being doled out by Democrats.

I wonder when exactly Bill Clinton sold his soul. I always assumed that he entered the White House as a true
liberal, but folded after taking office. Who knows.

I know that we need to keep fighting for a Progressive government--battling both the neocons on the Republican
side and those also on the Dem side.

Roosevelt the Republican and not FDR the Democrat. While we could use Teddy's big stick I always wonder what he is doing in my parties speeches.

He split with the Republicans in 1912 and ran on his Bull Moose party coming in second to fellow progressive Woodrow Wilson.

Teddy Roosevelt and the 1912 election was the shift event that turned the Republican Party of Lincoln into the conservative party and the progressive move to the Democrats.

T. Roosevelt was the first President to call for Universal Health Care.

They're as different as night and day.

The Filipinos, Cubans, and others know the true Teddy Roosevelt.

above any single issue, Americans respect leaders with strong convictions. Consensus building means making the Republicans see the wisdom in solidarity and having the strength to get them to vote along with us. It does NOT mean selling out to the right.

People should be talking to the Republicans, not us. And the first step in convincing them to let go of the core principles that gave us George Bush and his failed policies, is to reveal to them his dirty little secrets, so they can begin to understand by how much they were misled.

We get the same set of facts, we'll have a better chance of reaching the same conclusions. Wha-La, Consensus.

the far left dems to the left side. That isn't going to happen. The Independent voters are the ones we have to get and I don't believe we CAN win by running a largely liberal platform. We need to woo them but I think Obama has been VERY smart is showing that he can have centrist ideas and might be open to others.

Second, let's not confuse Centrist moves with outright right-wing giveaways. Then we'll be alright.

Hillary saw it too, but could not do anything about it. They know this country well. Betrayal by several close and prominent "friends" is what caused the balance of Dem baking to shift to Obama...to what will become a detriment to all. Had he waited until 2012 he would have had it all without the divisiveness that is flooding us. Like it or not, that is the way things are. I will support him and vote for him in November but this is the sad truth of the matter.

I see too many in the party who wave the flag of being social liberals while they embrace Republican social engineering programs - privatization, school vouchers - things that keep wealth concentrated in the hands of the approved elite while draining the public coffers.

If that's what progressives are, fuck 'em! I'm a Liberal.

They just ignore us. They only notice it when they're on the wrong side of the chasm.

He likely was liberal only in the 1970s - he supported legally aiding the Contras throughout the late 1970s and 1980s. He made sure everyone knew he was against the death penalty. He actually was worse on the environment than GHWB who gets some credit on the Clean Air act - Clinton's record was an issue in the primary. These three issues were why he was one of my least favorites in 1992 - but, without Carville to use the terminology in a general election - it never occurred to me to say I was really ABB.

An old joke about the south defined a "Southern Liberal" as a person who believed Blacks has rights, and every white man should own four, but Blacks had rights. In the South anyone who wanted to get elected had to adopt what people in the rest of the COuntry would call "Conservative" agenda. For example the first person to run AGAINST the Klan in Alabama was George Wallace in the late 1950s, he lost the election do to his anti-klan position. He subsequently won when he decided NOT to be "out-segregated again". Once Elected he is noted in in the rest of hi country for blocking blacks from entering the University of Alabama, but in Alabama he is noted for improving funding for public schools, as those schools were being abandoned by whites for private Schools (i.e. most of the additional funding went to improve education for blacks and poor whites who could NOT afford to go to the Segregated private Schools that started to appear as desegregation became the norm.

Clinton and Carter followed the same route as Wallace (Through both entered politics AFTER segregation was ended and did NOT have to address that problem). This meant a what we in the rest of the Country would call a conservative face. Low taxation was a motto all three had to embrace to even think about being elected.

As to those true liberals in the South (There are some) none ever hope to get elected so none of them had to make the compromises needed to get elected. Clinton had to Compromise, like both Carter and Wallace did. That did not make Clinton less of a Liberal, but it did make him more electable and you can NOT change the Government if you are NOT elected. Such compromises are made by ANYONE who wants to be elected, look at Bush's catering to the Religious Right, he gives them what they want to hear, but rarely gives them anything of substance.

An example of such "compromise" is how the Abortion law has changed under Bush, it has barely budged,it is for all practical purposes the same as it was under Clinton Bush Sr, and Reagan. Bush Compromise in rhetoric, but refused to implement any real changes for his economic conservative supported opposed those changes. Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court, while technically anti-abortion, are way more pro-business and anti-regulation of business then any or them are pro-abortion.

Lyndon Johnston's War in Vietnam was similar, Johnston wanted his great Society program passed, he knew he could NOT get it passed if he looked weak on Communism, thus he supported the War in Vietnam till the American People turned against it (that was 1968, when he not Nixon started to pull troops out and turn the war over to the South Vietnamese). Vietnam was one of the prices he had to pay to get his great Society Program passed (The Moon race was the other). Johnston had to compromise to get wanted he wanted, the Great Society Program, for like, Wallace, Clinton and Carter he was from the South and knew he could NOT run as a Liberal, unless he adopted some "Conservative" programs.

Clinton followed the steps of Johnston and Wallace, compromising when he had to when the Majority was against him, but pushing for liberal causes when he could. Thus he was a liberal, in that he wanted to reform his state and the Country.

I have relatives who lived in Arkansas during his stint as governor, one of whom was in the state government and worked with Clinton personally ona variety of projects. Judging by their accounts, he's always been was ready to sell his grandmother to the Arabs in order to make a deal; he's never been one to stand on principle about anything.

...just a few days ago.

one of the callers said that she thinks a civil war is coming. What with the "representatives" in DC refusing even our most basic requests, and a tiny minority getting their way, and the purveyors of lies and hate ruling the dialog, she's probably on the money. I hope I am around for it.

in the nicest possible way.

Yugoslav-style.

Cascadia needs to ditch the Federal system in order to have a truly liberal nation on this continent. The PNW has more in common with Vancouver than Miami. The rest of the country can fuck off and do what they want. Let the Cascadians follow their own destiny.
Hail Cascadia!

From the Beginning, it was us against them. We train our soldiers to demonize the enemy. Bill Clinton calls anyone who believes that there is a conspiracy by some of the rich to cause Hyperinflation, kill off 2/3 of the population or more, and create a global, corporate, one world government, nutjobs. He is polarizing. Bill Clinton helped cause polarization by allowing the continued mergers of corporations, creating less jobs, less competition, lower quality, and lower concern for one another. He voted for Nafta. He voted for China as most favored nation. And, he continued to not regulate corporations. Now we have an Oligopoly that runs our nation. We have Hyperinflation. And, the American People are poorer than ever. Bill Clinton helped to destroy America. Polarization. He is on the side of the Rich People. I hate his smarmy kindness He is on the side of the Republicans. He sold us to China, and Mexico, and the Big Corporations. He helped to create this polarization.

If you're ever in a library or book store, you owe it to yourself to read chapter 10 of Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men." It's titled "Democrats DOA" & it is the best assessment of our current democratic party I've read.

:hi:

OK if you don't have time... everybody is busy and stressed these days.

I've got two movies to review and a summer fun party for radio people to go to in the next few days.

I would like to read the chapter, but just can't.

Cordially,

Radio Lady in Oregon

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

:hi:

Federalists and Republicans were beating the shit out of each other in the streets of Philadelphia as far back as our early post-Revolutionary Way days over this issue.

Nothing's changed over time. The only reason it seems worse is the increased size of the population and the speed at which the media now delivers information.

the more I learn about my own party the more I want to change it.

centrist, with the lefties and righties pulling the center but the center always wins.

Though you'll never hear that in the corporate media.

See, e.g. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of Americans are liberal. How long will it take politicians and the media to get that?

Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007

Synopsis: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein

Full report: http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=20896

See also: It's Time to Recognize America's Huge Progressive Majority

The facts simply don't support the oft-repeated mantra that we are a "conservative" nation

http://www.alternet.org/story/54409/

liberal. Not even close. I wish.

to the left or right. But to say the majority of the public subscribes to the most purist views of one party or the other is likely incorrect.

He wasn't concerned with it during the primaries. He and Hillary both caused quite a bit of the polarization. And still are according to some. There is a move by quite a few to put her name in nomination at the convention and have a floor vote. You figure it out.

I really have to wonder wtf is wrong with people. HRC withdrew herself from the race and endorsed Obama to unite the party, but some of her supporters want to split the party to support HRC. It's like we have a frickin' third party faction in our own party, but rather than going more left as with Nader, its going more right with the corporate branch--under the flag of "feminism." Christ, if you're going to raise money for Hillary, pay off her fucking debt and get on the same realty-based boat she's riding on now.

And of course I asked to be removed from that nutcase's email list.

he's talking about the country.

The clintons have caused more division in the party than any other members that I can recall. It began with his personal problems while in the WH and it hasn't stopped, the primaries just rekindled it.

For folks big on healing they sure do a hell of a lot of cutting.

it is called capitulation. The divide between left and right is what Republicans want. We are fools if we do not recognize this and act accordingly.

The stealthy 'New Democrat' shift to the right has been exposed. Hillary was called out on it and lost.

Carping about 'his' loss in the primary is being divisive.

have polarized DUers.

One example is the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense that SCOTUS ruled is protected by the Second Amendment, see D.C. v. Heller.

The Heller decision confirmed the Democratic Party's position "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, . . ."

Notwithstanding the Heller decision or Democratic Party support, the anti-gun clique has re-focused their attention on ways to infringe upon that right. They often reply upon talking-points from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence headed by republican Sarah Brady.

In addition, the anti-gun types use propaganda from the Violence Policy Center to argue for banning handguns.

You can argue about whether it means individual right or not, but nowhere does it take about self defense.

as PA (1776) and VT (1777).

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
QUOTE
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
UNQUOTE

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it specify self defense. Period. Like I said, you can argue whether 2nd Amendment refers to individual rights or the militia, but it doesn't discuss individual self defense. If anything the argument would be for the necessity of individuals owning firearms to be able to form the militias, but not self defense. The court was projecting their own ideas and context into the writings explicit in the amendment. And using some declaration from the State of Pennsylvania to support your position on the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant since we're talking about the US Constitution.

polarizing issues, the right to keep and bear arms.

Other examples of polarizing issues are abortion, GLBT rights, evolution versus creationism.

Don't you get the irony?

by using RKBA and as I expected, posts to this branch of the thread proved my point.

I guess it's irony if DUers cannot reach a compromise on divisive, polarizing issues.

IMO, in the midst of such internal discord, it will be difficult to find compromise positions on those same issues outside the Democratic Party.

All you had to do was state that there were polarizing issues, like abortion, FISA, the 2nd Amendment, but then you went further and took a position on the 2nd Amendment, thereby creating divisiveness in your post. That was the point from my perspective.

The Federal system is rotten to the core and it is well past time that the states drop it and form their own regional entities based on common interests. The South, New England, The Great Lakes region, Texas, Califorina, and Cascadia can all form viable nations based upon common values and interests.
It is time the the USA went the way of the Soviet Union and just simply dissolve.

And all for the wrong reasons. Take a look at this coming storm: If people feel polarized it's because the leadership of this country have continually ignored them so now the people are beginning to feel like they are not being properly represented. If there is alienation going on, it's a failure of leadership, not a failure of the people. Whether we have Democratic or Republican presidents, it appears that all they want to do is manage us without getting us involved in the process. We're a nuisance to them.

If they respected us as individuals, instead of some mob, they would give us all the facts so that no one would be able to spin their own version of the truth. When ALL of the American people are viewing the same set of facts, people will begin to reach the same conclusions. That is how you break polarization.

So, the coming storm is this, beware the day progressives stop fighting the Second Amendment, which is what they will do once you take away from them, every other inalienable right.

say "progressives stop fighting the Second Amendment".

Your post confirms my statement that "one need look no further than here on DU where some divisive issues have polarized DUers."

Who are the people who are opposed to the 2nd Amendment? If not progressives, then who? And as far as opposition is concerned, they are not opposed to citizens bearing arms, they are opposed to them bearing arms unconditionally. They just want the sale of arms regulated.

and I are poles apart on that issue.

That proves my assertion in #18, "I agree with Bill Clinton and one need look no further than here on DU where some divisive issues have polarized DUers."

Please visit DU's inappropriately named Guns forum and participate in spirited discussions of the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms as PA (1776) and VT (1777) stated unambiguously in their constitutions.

SCOTUS confirmed the Second Amendment protected that right in its D.C. v. Heller decision.

On the other, you could un-polarize the difference between you and I if you would accept my belief in all inalienable rights declared by PA, VT, and 42 other states in their constitutions.

In one post you're saying there is polarity. in the next you're claiming, "We disagree, it is we progressives who support the Second Amendment along with all rights," which suggests, there is no polarity. Now you're back to saying there is polarity?

Which is it?

Finally, I think we can agree that no one takes the Supreme Court's decision as a final word, anymore. Just change the executive branch or Congressional demographics and everything can be overturned.

Democracy is messy. The best way you can convince people to your point of view is by using facts. And finally, everything is getting regulated, not deregulated. It's because in a country of 300 million people, it's obvious that there are those who will get too greedy and eventually infringe on the life, liberty and happiness of everyone around them.

Bill Clinton and one need look no further than here on DU where some divisive issues have polarized DUers."

I then used the example of RKBA to show how an issue has polarized DUers.

The posts on the #18 branch prove my point.

If you wish to debate or argue the right to keep and bear arms, please visit DU's Guns forum.

Have a good day, :hi:

What really confuses me about your understanding, is that I was trying to tell you that the polarization, in reference to gun control, is softening. As people begin to see all the other inalienable rights taken from them, the resistance against regulating gun control will decrease.

Authoritarians on the left and the right who do not trust the average person to own guns. That's who. And don't hand me that crap about Gun Control advocates aren't looking to "take away your guns".

Let's just look at handguns, which is what Heller was about.

A ban, nationwide on all handguns. Advocates of Gun Control (like Pete Shields) wanted that (and some still do). That didn't work, so it became;
A ban on "cheap, easily concealed handguns", aka "Saturday Night Special", which is a racist term in nature. That didn't work, so, then it became;
A ban, or severe restriction on possession on handguns in some cities. NYC, Chicago, DC, Morton Grove, Il.
Then the anti-handgun hysteria struck again when Glock invented the "polymer" aka (partially) "plastic" handgun."
The lie told there was that "terrorists would use them to get through metal detectors, since they couldn't be detected, and hijack airliners."
Schumer, Metzenbaum, Kennedy (all Democrats, BTW) and others made statements to that effect. A hijacking of that type never happened.
Then the next tactic was to introduce legislation that banned any handgun that could not be made "safe" for any one other than the owner. That hasn't worked, so the next tactic became
Lawsuits attempting to sue gun manufacturers out of business.
If you can't buy something because the manufacturer has been forced out of business, then it's a de facto ban.
Congress put a stop to that. So the next tactic became "assault weapons", and that is a whole 'nother topic.

If only the wealthy, or powerful or politically connected (that means buying influence with elected officials with campaign donations) can get a handgun then it's a de facto ban.

As the facts above show, whether through outright de jure, or stealth de facto tactics, Gun Control advocates HAVE been looking to "take away our handguns" for the last 40 years. In fact if they had their way they woulds "regulate" them right out of existence.

I'm in favor of a waiting period to give law enforcement a chance to confirm someone's record. I don't agree with a ban.

Aside from that, I use to support full registration of weapons, which includes keeping gov. records on purchases, but now I understand why people don't trust government to hold onto those records for long.

The NICS (National Instant Check System) works if the information is there. The flaw is the states not inputting their data into the system, and THAT fall on Congress for creating another unfunded mandate.

And don't blame a just newly established Democratic congress for what a Republican congress did.

and could serve to unite us all. Bur discussions about this collide with so many interpretations of this beautiful document, and with people who do not believe it is an issue at all right now.

I maintain this alone is our core issue and the key to it is to break through to as many people as possible, Republicans included, to see how we all are being affected.

There is a concerted effort by media to divide us and distract us so they can change the very structure of our government, this I am 100% sure of.

He just wants to sedate us so we can become the kind of spineless Democrats that allowed idiot right-wing Republicans to take over. Is anyone giving these speeches to the right-wingers? No. They're the aggressors, and yet Clinton is asking for us to help them maintain the status quo.

It almost feels like Ralph Reed trying to manage the Christian Right after what he's already done to them. Why doesn't Bill Clinton get it?

We're not all just supposed to be a bunch of sheep out here, are we?

The incredibly vicious depths that modern politics has sunk to can be laid, almost entirely, at the feet of Republicans.

There are movements that are working hard to rip the democrats apart.

since the 80's? I'll give you a hint-it isn't us.

Along side it was an article on McCain's town hall meetings. One of his questioners asked him about going after the Democratic ""socialists" and 'marxists". Now, it seems to me I'm going to be "polarized" just a bit by constantly being attacked by the right based on dehumanizing and derogatory labeling. Go figure!

Hypocrisy is the Clintons' middle name.

recently?

Listening to you warn about growing polarization is like listening to Bush warn of decreasingly effective government. By the way, your wife lost - so why not let Obama run with the spotlight for a while? I realize you're physically addicted to it, but a lot of us are a bit tired of you right now.

I appreciate the eight years, but stuff a sock in it. BTW, your wife might have become the nominee without you fucking up things on the campaign trail.

Don Rumsfeld and I are never going to be buddies.

Kind of like the break up between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.


Hail Cascadia!
Formerly known as Washington and Oregon.

The great divide began with right wing talk radio and has increased over the years. Do you think Rush Limbaugh will risk his millions of dollars a year to make nice with the other side? He doesn't care if anything gets done in this country, he's set for life. The same goes for Bill-o, Coulter and the rest of them. It's the hate gravy train.

Hail Cascadia! Break the shackles of Federal Tyranny!