What are the core values that we Democrats all share?

Sometimes here on DU, it seems like we spend a disproportionate time talking about our differences rather than the things we have in common. I think that's to be expected. But I also think it is useful for us to remind ourselves that we are all on the same side, and that we share many of the same core values.

Since the election, the DU Admins have been focusing on what we can do to improve DU, to make our community more effective, more relevant, and more welcoming. We have recently unveiled a number of software improvements to the site, and we are hoping to unveil a lot more improvements before the new year. But we also want to see if there is anything we can do to direct the energy and the mood of the community as a whole, to make this a more positive and welcoming place. With this in mind, we are eventually going to ask you to help us write a mission statement for this community, to give us all a clearer sense of purpose. But before we do that, we need to figure out what we have in common. What core values do we all share?

My impression is that we have vastly differing opinions about policies and means-to-ends. But we consider ourselves Democrats because we share some broad values.

For example, we probably do not all support the idea of single-payer government-run health care. But I suspect that the vast majority of DU members -- and Democrats generally -- share the belief that all Americans should have access to quality health care, regardless of ability to pay. We have differing views on standardized testing, school vouchers, and No Child Left Behind, but we probably all share the belief that education is key to expanding opportunity for all Americans, and government has a obligation to provide a quality education to all Americans. We may not agree on what happened in Ohio and Florida during the 2004 election, but we agree that law-abiding American citizens have the right to vote and the right to have their vote accurately counted.

What are your thoughts? What core values do we all share?

Feel free to approach this like an open brainstorming exercise. Your ideas do not have to be fully formed to be posted here. And if you disagree with what someone suggests, please explain why and make an effort to find the common ground.

that every human has certain rights regardless of race, gender, religion, economic status, sexual preference, physical or mental ability. And that the government should enact protections for those rights and for the betterment of the people.

because we took care of that in 1781 with the Constitution. The rights you are discussing are the privacy rights rising out of the amendments to the US Constitution. They apply to the federal government directly, and to the states through operation of the 14th amendment.

Otherwise I think you are right on the money. I think almost all DUers will agree with your post.

During the Industrial revolution, businesses and corporations thought workers were more or less chattel. Children worked 10-14 hours a day. Men and women too sometimes, and their pay was so sparse they often still didn't have enough to eat.

The businesses and corporations did not govern themselves and so government had to step in.

I agree with you except that I would change certain rights to EQUAL RIGHTS.

this government owes every American equal rights regardless of income level, age, race, gender, disability, religion, and sexual orientation.

I broadly interpret the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to that core belief.
For example: In my pursuit of happiness, I wish to finish college. The government doesn't owe me a free college education. But, I should get an opportunity to attend college equal to that of a person with the means to pay for tuition; which means the government must provide ways for me to pay for tuition (with loans, grants, workstudy, Americorp, etc).

This is the basis of my liberal ideals.

I believe in the right to pursue our happiness. It constitutes one of the inalienable rights we all enjoy under our government. I do not believe it is the role of the government to guarantee that we catch what we pursue. Perhaps to help remove the obstacles along the way, but the moment the government steps in to interfere in the process, it is almost certain that while one party may experience more happiness as a result there will likely be ten more who will be offended, thus unhappy.

I believe in equal rights AND equal responsibility. In effect, we all have a responsibility to our fellow man not to stomp all over him as we exercise our rights. To do so is selfish and inconsiderate and unworthy of the freedoms we have here in America.

I believe the government is the best safeguard of our rights, but we are the best safeguard of our liberties, if that makes sense.

or should i say, DU's admins?

could they be articulated?

do you support the 'third-way' or the traditional VALUES of dems?

tia

For All regardless of who they are, where they are from, what they believe, how they look or who they love.
Everything else is details to achieve that goal.

We want justice, truth, and peace for all, but it isn't always simple wishing that gets us there.

I think this divided the party in this election, because more than a few Democrats voted for Bush.

I think it is a fair question to ask how we can liberate oppressed people peacefully, when the oppressor isn't willing to go peacefully. How can this be achieved when the options are whittled down to nill? Aren't we, as a party, willing to fight for what we believe in, for human rights, and equality for all? How come when that fight involves the U.S. military taking action we seem, as a group, to instead fight the military?

I really hope this first post of mine doesn't get deleted, because I am asking these questions sincerely. I hope this tent is big enough. I think the future of the Democratic party depends on us facing this issue. If we don't, or pretend it doesn't exist, I fear the road ahead election-wise will be even more bleak.

None of us like the idea of North Korea and Iran dangling nuclear threats, but what should we do if they refuse to disarm? What is the solution if all diplomacy fails? This is real, and it is scary. Do we do nothing and cross our fingers?

As a member of the military who served in Iraq, I can say that Democrats/Liberals do not attack the military, rather they attack the military policies made by civilians who have never seen combat. That is something entirely different than attacking the military itself. However, to understand the difference it requires some critical thought, that repukes seem to avoid, therefore we get branded as being anti-military. We support the people serving on the ground, while repukes support the latest wonder-weapons (which always cost more and are usually less effective).

As far as liberating oppressed people -- the bottom line is that the people have to really want it. Freedom has to be earned for it to be appreciated. It did not take military action for communism to fail in Europe, it took the will of the people. A nuclear superpower fell because the people were no longer willing to support the state -- and it happened without the US having to fire a shot.

We will not hesitate to use force when necessary, but we will make sure there is no other feasible option before doing so.

points, only better :)

our current style of "liberation without lubrication", as one of my friends put it, simply doesn't work. If we leave alone ofr a moment any considerations of whether we have the right to impose our system of government on other nations, this approach quite simply doesn't work (at least, our strategy is not nearly sophisticated enough to make it work). Instead, I believe that we can attempt to persuade nations of the benefits of this form of government, and, if they express the desire to throw off the yoke of oppression, we should help them in every way to achieve this.

Of course, it goes without saying that we have to be even-handed AND lead by example, which would be nigh unattainable for any administration, R or D (and indeed, I don't think anyone since Kennedy has even attempted this).

the idea that labor should be able to collectively bargain with management in some form. In other words, management has all the chips, labor needs to be organized in order to compel management to play fair.

I would like to believe that even if one is personally against abortion, that they believe no one has the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy through birth.

I would LIKE to believe that we agree that ALL people are created equal and that therefore, one's sexual preference should NOT be cause for lesser rights in the eyes of the law.

I would like to believe that even if one is personally against abortion, that they believe no one has the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy through birth.

To those who believe that abortion after the early weeks is murder to some degree, it is not solely a matter of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy through birth, but also one of protection of human life.
There are many Dems who are against abortion, but compromise their beliefs of where life begins (and its willful ending) by accepting the removal of a clump of cells. When the fetus is formed, many then have deep reservations.

So, abortion at any stage is not something I, along with many Dems, believe in and support.

DemEx

government should make that decision for you. The right of choice is a constitutional right. To quote Kerry "The choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor"

support any type of "murder", if abortion is believed by some to be just that...

And it becomes even stickier when social health care pays for it.

Society and individuals should do all that they can to make abortion accessible, safe, and very rare, as Clinton has stated, and I support.
That should be the focus, not purely the rights of women to choose issue imo.

DemEx

reprehensible.

Administration of the death penalty, the torture at Abu Ghraib, war itself. Corporate greed, etc...

taxpayers' monies....
But I agree, not everything a government does will be supported by all citizens.


DemEx

AGGRESSION.

DemEx

I don't think that the Democratic Party will agree to be all conscientious objectors. Many Democrats believe in the right and necessity of the United States to defend itself against attacks.

I would like to believe that all Democrats think that preemptive war is wrong, yet so many Democrats in Congress voted to allow chimp the flexibility to attack Iraq as he saw fit.

I'm not sure of the right way to phrase this. I need to think about it some more.

I think a Dem core value should be the belief that life begins at birth, not conception (like Kerry unsuccessfully tried to pass off). If this can be agreed on then the abortion rights people can square up with the “all people are equal” people without anyone being hypocritical. A woman’s reproductive health position should not be considered “killing a baby” if no baby was ever born. Why Kerry straddled the fence on this on I’ll never know.

Let me preface by saying that, being a guy, I don't expect to have the last word on this.

Having said that, the basis for our abortion laws is English Common Law. Aborting a pregnancy was legal under Common Law if it occurred prior to quickening, which meant before there was movement inside the womb. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Aborting a viable fetus as a form of birth control - as they do in China - strikes me as barbaric unless the life and health of the mother are at stake.

Very well said, I think the late Carl Sagan had a similar take on “life”. If it can be taken from the host (mother) and live normally, it is a “potential” life and should be afforded human rights. If it’s just a lump of cells, let the woman decide, but I think this should be a core value.

They have belived for millenias that the human being is without a soul when born, and that the soul evolves during life. Therefore old people are deeply respected, while small babies are thrown in the river.
You can call that worldview barbaric.
That term originates from people looking in bewilderment at other cultures.

control is the totally unsustainable overpopulation of mother earth,as well as the wholesale degradation of the planet through, war, polution exploitation and runaway greed. I believe that DUers value life on the planet as a whole, and are able to make the tough moral choices as to how to get to a sustainable human co-existance with other life on the planet. DUers are able to see the forest for the trees, and though there is a diversity of opinion,we want a peaceful, just planet for all, not a brutal empire where only the unborn and the filthy rich have rights.

that my belief has to be her belief as well. And I don't want the government doing it either. When it comes to abortion, it has to be left up to the individual person as to what is right for them. Period.

But we’re talking about core values, something you absolutely believe without wavering. We both agree that we’re pro-life when it comes to you and me. You find it very easy to "tell any woman that your belief has to be her belief as well" when it comes to her actions that affect your life. “That woman over there shouldn’t be allowed to choose if I continue to exist.” We’re human and have rights to “life”, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and we all agree to that.

The only way you can honestly say she has a right to “choose” is if the fetus is not human. That puts it in more of a context of “she can have a face lift, or an abortion, or any other elective surgery that doesn’t hurt other people.

But you can’t really say “it has to be left up to the individual person as to what is right for them. Period”, cause Scott Peterson is an individual person who choose what was right for him, and I think we all agree that ain’t right.

Again, if we agree to a core value that people are people when they’re “born”, that eliminates the problem posed by right-to-lifers.

You wrote: You find it very easy to "tell any woman that your belief has to be her belief as well" when it comes to her actions that affect your life.

Now please go back and read my post. Thanks.

and made more out of it than you intended.

Ok, you said you’re pro-life. BUT, at the same time, you could never tell any woman that your belief has to be her belief as well. (Meaning you wouldn’t try to force someone else into being pro-life if they weren’t.) Ok, gotcha.

And you don't want the government doing it either. When it comes to abortion, it has to be left up to the individual person as to what is right for them. Period.

You’re just saying if they want to think a different way than you, so be it. I agree, but I still contend that the only way to accept a person’s right to “choose” is if the fetus is not human. We don’t allow people to “choose” to kill other people.

Here is the text of a LTTE that I wrote in response to an Op-Ed by William Safire during the campaign when he questioned Kerry's position on this.

This is the link to the original piece
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/28/opinion/28safi.html?ei=5090&en=0fa86e8223a98e2e&ex=1248753600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=>

I bristle at the “logic” William Safire presents in "The Great Straddler"

He is talking about (and misstating) John Kerry's positions, but could easily be referring to me. I believe my government should never willingly take a human life. However, I understand the necessity, for example, in the case of a war to defend our nation. Death, after all, is death. Is this "untenable”?

I am resolutely pro-choice. Not because I know when life begins, rather, as a Catholic I believe that it is not my right to judge the decisions of another, especially a women who by God’s law must assume responsibility for that life. Is that “contradictory”?

Could it be more contradictory to be steadfastly for the killing of living (possibly innocent) people via execution and pre-emptive war while at the same time insistent that every unborn fetus must live regardless of the well being of the mother?

In retrospect I am not sure I like that God's law line.

Like most issues abortion, I beleive, has been taken over by both extremes. I don't think Democrats (or anyone) should be for abortions. This isn't China where they actually have a policy that tries to encourage abortions for population control. Are there truly Democrats out there who when faced with a pregnancy first think, thank goodness it can be aborted, or actively practice unsafe sex because they are secure in the knowledge that if they get pregnant they can get an abortion? If there are I think we as Democrats should focus energy finding ways to help them (i.e. through counseling, thru assistence programs, thru education).

It would be my hope that having an abortion would always be the last choice for people not the first. None the less, I beleive the choice should be available.

I’m not surprised that you were bristling at the “logic” William Safire presents in "The Great Straddler". I hadn’t seen that before, but his complaint about the abortion issue makes some sense to me. Let me explain…

Your first paragraph about your “belief that government should never willingly take a human life. However, you understand the necessity, for example, in the case of a war to defend our nation. Death, after all, is death. Is this "untenable”?”

You make a good point on the life vs. death issue – pro-life conservatives shouldn’t preach on the sanctity of life, then righteously claim to be pro-war and pro-capital punishment.

But the next point (in my opinion) is still a legitimate flaw in your reasoning. You’re pro-choice, not because you know when life begins. But then you state that “it is not my right to judge the decisions of another…” I cut off the rest because it twists the issue around the issue of a woman and her choice but what is stated here is what is wrong. It is your right to judge the decisions of another – or more specifically societies right to judge the decisions of it’s citizens.

It is societies right to judge Scott Petersons decision to kill his wife – and judge him harshly I hope. When I read your link to William Safire’s article he acknowledged that if you think life begins at birth, there is nothing particularly wrong about abortion rights. But if you believe life begins at conception, abortion really is killing a life, and that’s why I advocate life begins at birth. It disarms those that claim abortion ends a life.

I appreciate all the rest of your comments and I agree that no one should be “pro-abortion”, yuck. But you stated you were a Catholic and I sense you’re having trouble giving up the life begins at conception doctrine.

http://www.democratsforlife.org

A friend put it better:

We are not a one issue party. Our concerns are health care, social security, the disabled, war, poverty, the environment, etc. We have sold the world for the promise of magic beans with no bean stalk in sight! We have betrayed all these issues for the sake of one. The irony of this, for those who are pro-choice, is our party's unyielding, "in your face" approach has also jeopardized the pro-choice issue, if Bush actually intends to get Roe v Wade overturned. According to a Zobgy Poll, 43 % of Democrats believe that "abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter". We are not the pro-choice party...we are the big tent party. We encourage the sharing of differing opinions, at least until recent years. In previous elections, the platform acknowledged that there are differing opinions within the party on abortion, but this election's platform had no such acknowledgment, instead stating,
"Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right."

"Proudly"? What is there to be proud of in reference to ending a life? Personally, I am dismayed that some women feel they have no other "choice", but abortion. Stating something like, "We proudly acknowledge and respect the views of both the pro-choice and pro-life communities." could have avoided a lot of damage and alienation, and we might now be planning Kerry's inauguration. This year the DNC refused to include a link from it's web site to the site for Democrats for Life http://www.democratsforlife.org/ as it had with 200 other groups. Eventually, the DNC took of all 200 links as a form of compromise, but it is a sad statement that they were so opposed to including a simple link. God forbid that they should offend one of their major benefactors; NARAL {National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League}.

There are many Pro-Life Democrats who believe that the "choice" is made by both the man and the woman at the same time about whether they risk being a parent.

Unfortunately being forced to wear a label pigeon holes you into litmus test extremes by both sides.

Some Pro-Life Dems want to eliminate Lieberman because he's not Pro-Life enough - who thought Dems could argue from the right of Lieberman?

I do not believe in the laisser faire "choice" in order to "fix" a mistake that could derail a planned career or that this sbuject should be treated as laissez-faire. (50 points for someone who reads this post and catches the distinction of the two French terms)

I do believe that abortion is sometimes absolutely necessary, sometimes a horrifying position to be put into (such as with multiples) and that you shouldn't force someone who was unwilling to have a child, be they a minor (statutory), a victim or some other circumstance where the patient and the doctor agree is medically necessary.

I DO believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare, because President Clinton's strategies were proven by statistics in falling abortion rates compared to Bush I, and again by rising rates since Bush II.

However, because of my strong distrust in legislating beauracracy over someone's matters, I would greatly hesitate to go beyond what Pennsylvania has on the books:

"In 1994, after years of court battles, Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act was put into effect, requiring physicians to tell women considering abortion the risks of abortion and of carrying pregnancy to term and the probable developmental stage of the woman's fetus. Women must wait 24 hours after the informational session to have an abortion.

The act also makes it necessary for girls under the age of 18 to receive parental consent or to get permission from a judge in the case of rape, incest or the possibility of abuse. In addition, the names of doctors who performed abortions must be made available to the state and filed for public information"

To me, abortion is like a loaded gun. You don't let it lying around.

In PA you have to pass a hunter safety course before getting a hunting license.

There's a 24 hour wait on a handgun.

I'm not for overturning Roe vs. Wade, nor do I think it will be. I just think it shouldn't be over-the-counter like Excedrin.

I've never commented before on the subject because I have many ardent Pro-Choice friends not only on DU but locally as well.

My favorite Democrat in the world is Pro-Choice, Al Gore. You have to get down in my top ten until you find a Pro-Lifer, Bob Casey.

But I've cast my lot. I may lose some friends. At least this isn't my thread.

50 points for someone who reads this post and catches the distinction of the two French terms. I want the points, and if availabe, bonus points for the catching the other French derived words:


Democrat, Middle French democratie
1 a : an adherent of democracy b : one who practices social equality
2 capitalized : a member of the Democratic party of the U.S.


French laissez faire, imperative of laisser faire to let (people) do (as they choose)
1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
2 : a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action


Career, Middle French carrière, from Old Provençal carriera street, from Medieval Latin carraria road for vehicles, from Latin carrus car
1 a : speed in a course <ran at full career> b : COURSE, PASSAGE
2 : ENCOUNTER, CHARGE
3 : a field for or pursuit of consecutive progressive achievement especially in public, professional, or business life <Washington's career as a soldier>
4 : a profession for which one trains and which is undertaken as a permanent calling <a career diplomat>


Bureaucracy, French bureaucratie, from bureau + -cratie -cracy
1 a : a body of nonelective government officials b : an administrative policy-making group
2 : government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
3 : a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation

What about men and women who take every precaution not to become parents, and the condom breaks?

What then?

Having protected sex is like playing Russian Roulette while wearing a steel helmet. It's safer, and the helmet might protect you. If it fails, you're still dead, and it's your own damn fault. You made the choice to pull the trigger.

Having sex is no less of a choice than drinking and driving, or any other number of dangerous activities. Although they aren't all illegal, they do have consequences. Therefore, your hypothetical proposition has an obvious answer.

I don't know how to elaborate

Self over community. I don't want to sublimate my self-fulfillment to anyone else's idea of community. If that is your thing that is cool, but don't stop me from doing mine.

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

Most Democrats believe we can make our country better and peoples lives better when we work together, rather than individually? Do you disagree with that?

We have seen in practice that an organized government takes on a life of its own apart from the citizens who create it. Working together is great, government is a necessary evil.

I think we understand the necessity.

Maybe its libertarian. I have seen too much government trying to "make" people happy. Isn't that the rational behind the repressive war on drugs? I can handle my own happiness, and failing that I can handle my own unhappiness. All I ask is a level playing field and a government that is fair and available to address grievances. If you think I don't deplore a system that enables the rich to have better access your way off.
Why is activist government liberal and vice versa?

Community and government are not the same. I think our current situation exemplifies that.

--Peter

Ideally government should be community. Maybe being a Democrat is striving to make it that way.

By 'community' I don't mean socialist. It can also mean upholding the rights of each individual within the community. But 'community over self' implies that when your rights conflict with what's best for society, society wins.

the whole phrase "what is best for society." What is best for society is frequently bad for the individual. We need a government that minimizes the negative impact of society on the individual. Those individuals who seek to "advance society" must do so without trampling individual freedom.

we're starting to muck about in semantics (myself included) but it's clear that there will always be a delicate balance between our need to work together and our rights as individuals.

How we define that balance is very personal. What must be maintained, above all else, is our right be heard and for our votes to count.

is very often extremely bad for the community.

What is most important?

That is, I understand now. A society that always trumps the individual smacks of fascism, no? Wasn't national socialism founded on that sort of principle?

It depends on where you are in the society when the change begins.

You may benefit greatly, but there is no great way for one to benefit without another to be affected negatively.

We must stand for society and community, collective bargaining and labor.

The Elements of Populism, Socialism, Communism and Labor have been severely deteriorated over the last 25 years.

The Republicans want to take things back to the good old days, well so should we - to strong labor, high upper class taxes and strong social programs.

I see it as a necessary good...

the sacrifices millions of others have made toward the community that enables your 'self-fulfillment', but nevermind.

What has one to do with the other?

Who decides whose sacrifice is more important? How many are not remembered because the official record has no place for them? I speek for them, the many who have been steemrolled by "progress." It is anything but. Cultures have been destroyed because a zealous government wanted to spread american ideals. There is nothing positive about a sacrifice made in conquest.

They need a small business loan or a road paved to their factory or the water line laid by the city, etc. We are all dependent on government to some degree, usually more than we care to admit. However, I agree witht the premise that government can step over bounds and try to govern certain individuals, ie, the drug war, seat belts, no smoking regs, etc...

But basically, few get the "self-fulfillment" they talk about without the help of the "community", especially if it is economically related. And it is usually those that benefit most from the community 'investment' (taxes) that complain the most.

But I am fiercly individual and I don't want anyone not a government or a party telling me what I should think.
We are all interdependent, but that doesn't mean the government should be in the loan business. That is way too conservative for me.

You think the infrastructure your self-fulfillment relies upon just sprang into existence? There's your loan. You don't pay it back, it falls apart. Your kids and my kids have to pay your share.

Yes and liberals are about change. Shouldn't we agree that these things are crap and should be changed? Or are you in favor of the status quo and thus a gasp conservative?

what I hear you implying is that if we were all left to our own devices that most social problems would fix themselves.

Am I way off?

I believe that most social problems are really a result of injustice or misallocation of resources. I believe government has a role in ammending these situations, but I am suspicious of government by nature. I would do what the conservatives have done: take over the courts. Justice should be dispensed from the learned, but the justice system in this country has become politicized. I don't think you can legislate your way out of problems. We have to free the courts.

Excuse me for being way confused on that one...

Justice should always be dispensed from the 'learned', and ideally is not politicized, but how do we get there? Aren't the courts just there to interpret legislation we've created to solve problems?

I don't think your discussion is way off-topic, and it's not really doing much to help with the purpose of this thread. You are welcome to continue this by private message if you like, but it doesn't really need to continue here.

He started it! :D

:cry:

By the way, thanks for the forum!

:pals:

"Community over self" is the premise that Communism operates under, with a healthy dose of corruption and waste thrown in. If you want "community over self", sell all of your worldly posessions, live in a gutter, and give all of your earnings to the community.

to the nation that allows them to operate in a relatively unresticted manner.

only to the insiders who make money off of lying about the corporation's balance sheets.

From the speech given by FDR on the eve of World War II:

"In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.

"The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants --everywhere in the world.

"The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world. That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called "new order" of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

"To that new order we oppose the greater conception--the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear. Since the beginning of our American history we have been engaged in change, in a perpetual, peaceful revolution, a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

"This nation has placed its destiny in the hands, heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women, and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

"To that high concept there can be no end save victory."


...and that's what Democrats are all about, Charlie Brown.

"to worship God in his own way-or not"

never ceases to amaze me with his forsighted and generous vision!

I can see why this fellow was elected four times!

--Peter

best articulated by a guy who's been dead for sixty years?

And Barack Obama had a pretty good speech a few months ago as I recall. FDR has some competition. :-)

Peter

And you're right on both counts. Either one is a worthy oratorical successor.

I would add to those freedoms truth and transparency in government. An end to the corporate and lobbyist stranglehold that is not in our best interests. A respect for all life living on this planet, human and animal as well as for the planet itself. Give us clean air and water. Follow Teddy Roosevelt's example and protect public lands from being used for the benefit of the few.

I also believe in the type of compassion that would see that all people are fed and decently housed and have access to medical care.

An end to pork barreling and election stealing.

The acquisition of common sense as a beginning to a arriving at a "more perfect union".

He is the founder of the modern Democratic party. Republicans have tried so hard to break up the New Deal coalition. It's a shame so many Democrats forget the ideals that made that coalition work.

respect for individuality, tolerance of those whose ways of thinking are divergent (unless those ways of thinking are intolerant...hehe), a belief in a responsible and responsibly pro-active government which is committed to the welfare of its citizens...thise are just a few I can think of that are probably broadly applicable.

Individuality and tolerance of differences are so key to a healthy society. There is no way a democracy can survive when people are defined as 'welfare mooches', 'illegals' or 'sexual deviants'.....and the terms of a debate are defined down to 'activist judges', 'America haters', 'with us or against us' or 'good vs evil.'

When no discussion is possible....authoritarian regimes flourish.

Justice,...which is accomplished through the consistent enforcement of fair laws.

Opportunity,...which requires an acknowledgement of the inequities in life and the will to take actions levelling the field.

Building a solid national foundation,...via fair taxation, sensible priorities on spending, and protection of the weak against predatory practices by the strong.

Compassion,...valuing the life of every human being.

Those are just a few I think are important.

From that, much good will flow. Much good indeed.

"When every body does better, everybody does better"- Jim Hightower's Daddy.

that children should have proper clothing and food, and that elderly people should have enough heat to stay warm. A society that takes care of those two ends takes care of things in the middle; a society that ignores the well-being of its young and old sows the seeds of its own decay.

The addition of the word "respect" makes it a clearer message. Thank you.

I am not disagreeing with the two ends, but you cannot expect the middle to take care of itself and everyone else if we do not have decent jobs.
As a person who had no kids and whose retired dad still makes more money than I do I think the middle needs to be taken care of, as I see politicians of both parties eager to serve the two ends.
My income and two kids - EIC of $2,359
twice my income and two kids - $45 in income taxes
My income and no kids - $1,954 in income taxes, $600 in property taxes, $3500 in FICA taxes.

I think people making the same income should pay closer to the same amount of taxes. I think it is backwards that my FICA taxes are taxable income and other people's FICA checks are not.

You would also pay the property taxes. The only thing that would change would be the amount of income tax. In fact, Social Security income IS taxable if the recipient has a certain amount of other income. The logic behind them not paying income tax on all of it is that they paid income tax on it when they put IN to FICA in the first place.

The "disproportionate" taxes you pay are an investment in fabric of America. Families have more expenses than single people. A single person only has themselves to feed, clothe, and shelter. Families have multiple expenses and children cannot bring income into a household to offset the costs.

By investing in American families, you are investing in children growing up in more stable households, under better medical conditions, with better nutrition. All of these lead to children maturing to become more productive members of society.

(Of course this is not what happens 100% of the time, but then, what involving humans has 100% guaranteed results? Nothing.)

:toast:

We believe in a Government "of by and for THE PEOPLE" NOT, Of by and for the corporations.

A Government should serve it's people.

If you don't have the money to buy power, then you get no where with republicans. There is an innate fear of becoming a "have not" in the republican mind. Rendering them selfish and hateful. I think it all boils down to this fear with those folks. They'll walk over anyone to keep what they have and get more. People are what is important to democrats. It seems we have an innate compassion which overrides the fears we may have over having less or not enough. THAT is where we start. THEN, our decisions (about policy, etc) seem to arise from this compassion and the lack of fear one must have to begin to think logically and soundly.
The fear clouds their minds. Real moral values go out the window. That is why they seem so crazy to us. That is why they appear hypocritical. Their actions arise out of a scared place...not a thoughtful place.
I think a core value of Dem's is that we DO think and that is because we can! We seem to possess a different sort of "nature" from the republicans.
I'd like to know what others think about this.

a number of people I know who have been democrats all of their adult lives voted for Bush. It wasn't because they have think he's a great leader, or that they felt Kerry was not a better leader for the war in Iraq.

It was because of the size of the tax cut they get from this administration. And by putting the digits in their bank account into a different order, Bush has allowed them to experience a false sense of power.

:hi:

Perhaps there is a more elegant way to phrase it, but I think we all believe in the principle that our government should be open in its deliberations, legislation, and policy-making procedures and that members of that government need to be accountable for their actions.

--Peter

Open & accountable government. It might be nice also if they tried to represent us, instead of their money interests, corporations, lobbiests, etc.

--we have a responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves
--elections should be conducted with ways to check and double check votes: all votes made should be counted fairly
--All citizens should be allowed to vote without interference of any kind.
--Corporations do not have more rights than workers
--Government operations and decisions should be open to the public, above board and legal.
--No one should be compelled to sacrifice privacy or rights to achieve security
--All actions of the military should be held to the highest standard: torture and abuse have no place and are not tolerated.
--War is the option of absolute last resort
--the environment should be protected over corporations' interests
--no one religion should be favored, and no religion or lack thereof should be discouraged
--Church and state should be cleanly separate
--Every citizen should have access to quality education
--Every citizen should have access to health care
--Laws as written and penalties as meted should be proportional, rational, and enforced equally regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The modern Democratic Party emerged as a response to the concentration of vast wealth in the hands of an industrial and corporate oligarchy in the late 1800s to early 1900s. The 19th century concern about protecting individuals from tyranically majorities was reversed. Today, the use of government, steered by majorities persecuting individualists is hardly as much of a danger as government controlled by a tiny oligarchy of arms merchants, petro barons, media conglomerates and their lobbyists trampling on the global environment, security from war, economic well-being and personal liberty of the vast majority.

The new world oligarchic order renders "quaint" your worries about democratic majorities taking back the government.

But then I'm a social democrat at heart.

:)

Especially since I think most Democrats, including myself, don't agree with them. Much less radically, I think most, perhaps all, of us agree with the spirit of progressive taxes.

--Peter

Just labeling it as Marxist and then dismissing it is never very convincing to me.

What is the incentive for those with the alleged "ability" to perform to that ability? Humans are selfish creatures, by instinct, all of us. (Some more than others, of course.) We want to get something for our labors.

Anyway, I think that experiment has been performed and found wanting. We need slogans for the 21st Century, not the 19th.

--Peter

Because the progressive tax system is perfectly in tune with the sentiment I expressed above. By your rationale, we should eliminate the progressive tax so that those with ability can perform to their ability. And you think that sounds like a Democratic ideal? Sounds to me like it would come from a different party than the one I belong to.

:)

Also, that you think the experiment has been performed and was found wanting makes me think you either do not understand Marxism, do not understand historical or contemporary social democratic societies, or are simply ignorant of both.

:hi:

edit: Sorry for the snarky tone in this, but it really is annoying to me that these ideals, which I believe are the core of the Democratic Party's economic policy, get crapped on so often here.

While you may be a believer in Marxism or consider it to be misunderstood, I think you would agree that belief in Marxism is not a value that is common to all Democrats.

FDR's New Deal had this principle firmly in mind, and I'm sorry that it no longer is palatable to the leadership of this party.

... is that we seek to even identify the values that all people have in common as a Rosetta Stone for politics and governance.

So, Catch-22, Skinner ... in a sense, you answer your own question.


Advocates of the privilege of ownership only serve the interests of the already-privileged. That's NOT a value held in common by all.

A couple posts back. Progressive taxes don't require extreme wealth redistribution, as the slogan implies.

This is supposed to be a unifying thread, so we should leave the rest of this debate for another thread.

--Peter

But used as a guide, you can create a very effective social democracy. For example, Norway has been ranked for the fourth year in a row as the country with the highest standard of living. These policies can be very effective, we just need to remove this virulent negative reaction some feel toward anything even remotely associated with socialism.

want more.

humans also naturally tend to help others.
there's both good and evil in people.
humans are both individuals and social animals.

humans can be seduced to follow the path of selfishness.

we don't need any slogans, we need principals.

The only way you could call that 'extreme' is if you interpret it as an upper limitation rather than a lowest standard of justice.

Let's put it this way: Sum(ability) >>> Sum(need) (I regard this as a maxim.)

We live in an abundant Universe and are blessed with enormous creative ability.
"According to" is NOT the same as "equal to."
There is nothing in that "Marxist" (Christian, actually) slogan that implies upper limitations.

Even socialism doesn't work quite that way.

I do agree that calling it "Marxist" is way oversimplifying it. My own political philosophy is a mixture of socialism and capitalism--as long as you are a good citizen, and everyone is clothed, fed, and given adequate aid when they are ill, make as much damn money as you want--oops; one more thing to that: AS LONG AS IT'S DONE LEGALLY AND FAIRLY.

The goal of government is to provide for the needs of its citizens when they are unable to do so--clothing, feeding and providing shelter for the poor should be a number one priority, and each citizen should contribute to that priority according to his or her ability. That's it.

of it's citizens. Not work for the benefit of parasite companies.

dupe

The goal of government is to provide for the needs of its citizens when they are unable to do so--clothing, feeding and providing shelter for the poor should be a number one priority, and each citizen should contribute to that priority according to his or her ability. That's it.

... then Madison had a slightly different view:

From Federalist Paper 45 (James Madison)

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order,improvement, and prosperity of the State."


Clearly, Madison thought that the several states should be responsible for the general welfare of the citizens within their respective jurisdictions, and that the federal government should concentrate on war, peace and foreign commerce. This is not to say that the Democratic party should not try to persuade the federal government to do more to provide for the welfare of the citizens of this country; but a much better way (and one that Madison envisioned) was for each state to take care of their own citizens. Provide for the common good within their own borders, and to provide funds (through taxation) to the federal government only for use in war and commerce. I think we have really strayed from that ideal over the last 250 years. The federal government has clearly shown us that they (as a political entity) cannot handle the responsibility very well. Maybe it's time for the several states to take more responsibility for the general welfare of their citizens, and not depend on everything to be done at the federal level.

I think all Democrats believe that each citizen should be adequately clothed, fed, and housed - and that opportunities for education and health care should be applied equally to all. But I sometimes wonder at what expense; because I believe that it can be done at the state level in a much more efficient and equitable manner.

Government and Citizen doesn't even have to mean US Government and Citizen.

I think you read words into their post.

Government and Citizen doesn't even have to mean US Government and Citizen. I think you read words into their post.

When referencing the government as an entity that provides benefits, it us usually understood that they would be referring to the federal government. Nothing in the post would lead me to believe otherwise. Of course you are right though; they could be referring to a lower level that does not involve the the Constitution or its concepts.

"And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

I am *not* advocating communism, but any time the wingnuts throw out the commie charge, it might be useful to point out that if the apostles were communists, surely that should be good enought for America.

That drives Fundies batty.

There's nothing wrong with giving back to a community, but there's no logic in a gov't mandate for all of us to do so. Giving, or not giving, to the community should be an individual choice. Jesus didn't start his own gov't body, intent on forcing the rich to give to the poor, downtrodden, and/or lazy. He simply persuaded INDIVIDUALS to do so.

You aren't going after "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; you want "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and a safety net". Freedom to make our own decisions is also the freedom to fail and suffer the consequences.

I would be especially leery of claims by people asserting they know what "most Democrats" believe or don't believe.

Adress the idea contained in the slogan on its merits, if you please.

gimme.

Seriously, marxist thought does *not* fly with me.

Whatever our beliefs are we have the right to them and we will never force our beliefs on others.

Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

Never say never. Some beliefs have to be "forced"; otherwise it's just a free-for-all and we might as well be libertarians.

:-)

Peter

The difference between democrats and libertarians. Democrats might be labeled, 'pragmatic libertarians'.

If we have thought police then you are right however even if your thinking is wrong you have that right --- Now if you act on a false belief it is the obligation of government to provide social order shold it be counter to society's laws --however you may believe what you wish.

Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

I love you guys!

of which there may be yet more than a few in the Democratic party, we commonly believe:

1) The nation is an imperfect social system...it needs to be improved. Unfortunately that means advocating change which is a strong antagonizer of one of conservatives' core beliefs...system stability, which is why progressive ideology usually gets thrown out of speeches a couple of months before election day.

2) Progress in society may measured as increases (seen as improvement) in society particularly with respect to the intersecting domains of Liberty, Justice, and Equality.

As a dyed in the wool progressive I absolutely believe the nation was founded by progressives, and therefore that anyone who "gets" the American experience would with little hesitation accept the concepts of Liberty, Justice and Equality for All.

These core beliefs of progressives can be used to consider implications of legislation and regulation and thereby guide both public and personal decision making.

These core progressive beliefs will likely be strongly linked to personal traits like openness to change, willingness to consider idealism alongside practicality, dislike/distrust of formal hierarchical social systems (capitalist elites/landed gentry, concepts of innate superiority embodied in peerage/monarchy as well as the theocratic hierarchies/degrees of preisthood, etc present in some religions)...

Progressive beliefs will also be found correlated to the promotion of education as well as fair labor/trade laws, choice, inclusiveness etc. many of which will show up in this thread as shared values of Democrats.

the part that you think the country was founded by progressives. Thats a handy myth. The country was founded by conservatives who wanted to take over the affairs of the country from England. These conservatives were largely successful in duping the populace into believing the "progressive" hype of the time, but in reality the locals were trading one overlord for another (as usual)
I think the marxist in me just came out...

the founding of the US.

The colonial roots go back into the first quarter of the 1600's.
My American roots begin in 1628, with a yeoman (a man who paid his own passage) and went on to be part of the founding of Suffolk Long Island...but only after they tried to aquat on land of the Dutch Colony.

The founding of the nation was 150 years later. And the founders really were something entirely different if in part benefactors of the puritan colonization effort.

I think that the vast majority of democrats probably beleive in democracy. If not, we at least beleive that the wealthy company owner is no better and doesn't nessarily need to recieve better treatment then the blind beggar. That's prose though, so don't nitpick it anyone I strongly dislike arguing with my fellow dems/progressives. We can all agree that everyone here is very intelligent.
HereSince1628 makes a good point in separating the colonial founding from the american founding of the nation. As far as I know, one side of my family came from Newfoundland and Mark Twain's (Samuel Clemmin's) ancestors and the other side came from Harriet Beecher Stowe's ancestors.

I'm being a little toungue in cheek here, but for lawyers, this little footnote -- the most famous footnote in American legal history -- is kind of a litmus test between republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and a pithy summary of how we differ on economic policy and the enforcement of constitutional rights.

Before Carolene Products, the Supreme Court had been using the constitution to protect corporations from regulation by state legislatures and Congress, while not protecting racial minorities from discrimination. This footnote changed everything and set the Court on the course of liberal constitutionalism that persisted in the Court until the late 1960s.

Basically it says that in interpreting the constitution, the courts should no longer protect corporations from routine economic regulation by the democratically elected Congress and state legislatures.

Instead the courts should use the constitution to protect three kinds of rights from overreaching by legislatures -- (1) legislation that burdens the political process by restricting voting and participation, (2) legislation that burdens fundamental civil liberties such as free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to practice religion and (3) legislation that discriminates against discrete racial and religious minorities.

That strange, oblique little footnote led to respectively, (1) the voting rights cases that reformed state legislatures, made them more representative and stripped away laws that tried especially in the south to keep African Americans from voting; (2) the civil liberties cases that struck down laws that prevented people from speaking freely or associating politically even with fringe parties, like the communist party; and (3) the civil rights cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia and other cases that struck down all vestiges of slavery and discrimination against other minorities, such as Jews, Hispanics, Asians and (majorities like) women.

Given the recent elections, in which voting rights were surpressed along racially discriminatory lines and given the so called patriot act which seeks to restrict civil liberties, a FN 4 revival is well overdue. Some elaboration of its underlying philosophy can help us in opposing right wing nominees to the Supreme Court and federal courts.

The reason this footnote is so powerful is that it really sketches two radically different versions of what the constitution is for, and still accurately describes the differences between the republicans, who seem to think the constitution only protects wealth, property and corporations, and the Democrats who see the constitution as primarily protecting people and their rights.

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. <274 U.S. 200, 208>"

I think many liberals would agree with Mr. Justice Holmes nowadays, and doesn't that in many respects cancel out US v. Carolene Products? Note that defendant's rights as spelled out in the Bill of Rights are not something of concern here - at all. We have abandoned them in favor of Victim's Rights and fell right into the Conservative's hands. Nothing has so sounded the death knell of liberalism as this while at the same time handing over power to the bad guys.

I tend to look at this as the Mission Statement. They are very lofty goals that I hope are the core values of Democrats. Drum roll please:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I know the people who wrote this were flawed much like all of us, but it is catchy. Would hope others would feel the same way.

thinking served as the cornerstone of the founding.

Consequently it is much less of a stretch to say that the United States was founded as a Progressive nation, than it is to say it was founded as a christian nation.

Thanks, lately it is easy to forget we were founded as a progressive Nation.

:bounce:

,...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,...

Fabulous mission statement!!!!

Republicans believe in free enterprise and individuals to the extreme. I believe many Democrats believe in the government to the extreme. The problem I have with the government doing more is one word "Promote" not "Provide" the general welfare.

When it can be done, I believe in Government and free enterprise working together. The government creates the infrastructure and rules and then free enterprise competes. We do this currently in food growing & quality, clothing, shelter, roads, etc.

Most DUers probably disagree with this but I prefer free enterprise to run things with the government acting as the rule maker and referee.

However, can't the 'General Welfare' also refer to taking care of the mentally handicapped? So should this be 'promoted' or 'provided' by the government?

The word "promote" is key. The government's job isn't to be everyone's daddy. All it will do is cause dependence on the government, which is in essence just another form of servitude.

The government's job is to provide the "fertile soil" of a stable society that will allow us all to benefit - if it's our will to do so. However, promoting the general welfare can also be taken to mean that government ought to promote economic vitality.

A strong middle class, as has been proven throughout history, makes societies more flexible, dynamic, and strong. In times of grave crisis, it may even require government intervention to alleviate poverty and suffering, such as during the Great Depression. I would argue that the government's role in eliminating poverty and want is not only a worthy ideal, it is important for the general welfare of the country.

the preamble to the Constitution was written on a wall and Reagan was crossing out the "promote the General Welfare" part.

our opponents.

At least the ones I have talked to recently. Hope it is not too late.

All they have to do is look at what an unfettered neocon government has wrought in only one term. And now that they have chosen to give the idiot-bastard's son the keys to the house for four more years, they should all kick each other squarely in the jimmies for being so incredibly short-sighted.

Government, or should I say OUR government is kowtowing to the parasitically Corporate interest at the expense of our interests.

,...about "PROMOTING GENERAL WELFARE",...

,...would be,...moot,...or, at worse,...an expression of compassion.

Think about it,...broadly.

Just,...think about it.

BTW: I do believe that our "government" is suppose to serve as both the servant and protector of our people. Your premises are quite basic and consistent with some of my perspectives,...I hope.

If it's all about you,...then,...you get whatcha' give,...until you die. I make you one promise, you are worthless if you live for just you,...that is a promise.

This should be written into DU's Mission Statement!

:kick:

DemEx

I think that qualifies into core values.

Shows how at one time the rich ruling elite in this country promoted a cause greater than themselves. It is hard to see the stars when you are wallowing in a mud pit.

,...yes,...that does RING!!!

as I paraphrase, "that all people are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines. That in order to secure those rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Of course, I would like to add the French "fraternity" if it is not too sexist (is there a non-sexual term for it?)

Also I would add that it is "the consent of the governed", not the consent of 51% of the governed, or even 73% of the governed. We need to bring back a little bit of compromise or give and take. Our congressional Democrats need to stand up for us and say "we're not gonna take it, anymore". We have had four years of mostly "worthless and weak" and it has not been electorally successful.

Those are the first three core values that come to my mind as something I think we share around here.

the countries I admire, the Scandinavians etc. the ones that take care of it's citizenry. Necessities must be provided and accessible. Such as single-payer government-run health care, would make it easier for people to move about, change jobs, prevent hardships, prevent constriction where you are forced to stay with a job because of the insurance. People should not be starving, or choosing between heat and food and medicine. I know it is idealistic - but other countries are doing it, and we are supposed to be civilized and THE BEST COUNTRY ON EARTH? I've always felt insurances are a form of extortion, pay us and we'll make you safe - Ha...I want the games between parties to stop and have real work for the common good. I want to live in a world that is clean and efficient, not wasteful. We've known for over 30 years there would be a time when we would need cleaner, renewable energy sources-why the foot dragging? Money cannot be the determining factor, common good has to be. I want Man to stop trashing our earth in the so-called name of Progress. I want a safe world for my daughter when I am gone. And on and on...I believe many of the non-voters would have come out and voted if there was a promise of real change, more to the left, since there already was a candidate to the right and they didn't get motivated to vote. Look how fast Liberman was defeated, and he is definately right of center. The Democrats have to represent the Left, as the left, not the middle.

This has been on my mind very much, we need to stop reacting to the other side and formulate a solid identity of our own.

We are Democrats, we have many different beliefs and value systems, but, we do have them.
I believe that at the very least our core values could and should be identified and trumpeted to the masses, we've been pigeon holed as atheistic baby killing homo loving taxers, and we all know that's not what we're about.
I believe in education, and freedom from want, and fear. I believe in letting a person live their own life as they see fit, and not judging anyone because of their race, religion, sexual preference, or their sex.
I believe that the playing field should be level, and that ceos shouldn't make more than ten times what a worker does.
I believe that everyone should be free to make as much money as they can, but, they should give back willingly for the good of their fellow man.
I believe that off shore bank accounts and corporate headquarters should be illegal.
I believe people have a right to needed health care, and shouldn't have to live in fear of getting sick and losing everything.
I believe in building a better stronger America, and that the blood and treasure we've laid out to fight an illegal war should have been spent here, rebuilding infrastructure, schools, roads, bridges, homes so that people don't have to sleep in the streets and alleys.

I believe it's way past time to identify who we are, and what we are, too many people stay home and don't vote at all, we need to get to these people, the hell with the twenty percent that love this fraudulent chimpanzee.

This is a little of what I want to say. Rick Ramsay wrote and believes every word of this.

in treating all people in a fair and just way regardless of differences such as race, economic status, gender. Additionally, democrats believe in social justice and having a government that also believes in assisting the downtrodden.

I think we all believe in the General Welfare of the
American Citizens like the U.S. Constitution dictates.

I believe we as Democrats Also Believe that our country
can always aspire to learn and be better .

Clean Air and Water benefits all of us .

We Democrats think in "us" terms unlike the
republicans thinking in "me" terms

as summarized in the Bill of Rights. I've heard it said that the right-wing would never pass the Bill of Rights if voted on today.

I'll take the liberty of interpreting that as "we liberals" or "we progressives."

The conservatives, particularly the neoconservatives, place property 'rights' above human rights and accord privileges to those who own property beyond that enjoyed by all people. I'll only offer one example at this point ...

The (neo)conservative right rejects the notion that there exists a "privacy right" among the non-enumerated rights that warrants a limitation of government power over a woman's reproductive freedoms and the 'ownership' of her own body. At the same time, they perceive a privilege of 'ownership' in real and tangible property affords the owner with privacy rights - privacy rights that permit the pillage of the land and the use of that property in ways that damage the planet and its inhabitants. A homeless person, in their view, does not have the security and privacy enjoyed by "a man in his castle." They do not comprehend the illegitimacy of attaching a human right to something that can be bought.

In each of the examples you cited, it seems that (neo)conservatives view those areas (education, health care, etc.) as areas in which those with property have greater privilege. It's as though they seek to enumerate the (what we'd call) injustices of privilege and entrench them by government fiat to motivate people to expend their efforts in becoming wealthy. (It's a kind of social Darwinism.)


Perhaps it all boils down to one difference in perception. Liberals believe people are inherently 'good' and will work and cooperate with one another out of a sense of self-actualization, ethics, morality, and mutual respect. Conservatives believe people are inherently evil and flawed, and must be coerced to behave in a manner that does no harm to others. They seem to be about carrots and stick - even though many proclaim a 'Christian' faith that (in my opinion) abhors such a view twords one's fellow human being.

I had a poli. sci. professor that would have disagreed with you wholeheartedly on your last point. He was a very active Democrat, by the way. He taught that the belief of the liberal was that people were inherently evil, and would not take care of their fellow man. Therefore, gov't must step in and provide for the underpriviledged, by taking from those of wealth.

Conservatives believe that man is good, by nature, and that the community will take care of it's poor, provided that it has enough resources to do so.

Through a government of the people, by the people
FOR the people- not the CorpoRATS.
Which basically means we are going to have
to clean the houses of legislation since the majority
of the people in those seats are OWNED by the
multi-nationals who clearly could care a less about the people.
bhn

equal-rights for ALL
unions
health-care
social-security
environment
no-nukes
cut-defense spending
science and research
exploration
peaceful foreign policy
raise minimum wage
gun control
evolution
birth controll
history
choice
gays
seperation of church-N-state
the geneva convention
un
law
war crimes should be prosecuted

just a few... though they all clash with the 'third-way' :shrug:

capital who make money off of other people's cheap labor and debt servitude.

always was and always should be.

need something more catchy than your geeky one, but i hear ya ;->

Small businesses provide most of the jobs in this country. Most of these small businesses were created so that the owner could make a profit. If these owners are not allowed to make a profit, would they ever start the business in the first place?

Excuse me? You don't believe that a worker deserves to be compensated for the full value of their labor?

You bring up the canard about a "small business" and proceed to describe it as solely profit-driven. I disagree. An owner-operated business can compensate all the workers, including the owner, for the full value of their labor.

Once upon a time, when all the "means of production" were owned by a feudal aristocracy, "common" people argued that they should be permitted (by law) to own the means of production in order to be the sole beneficiaries of their own labor employing those means. It's the difference between a sharecropper and a farmer, where the sharecropper pays the landlord anywhere from 10-50% of the results of the sharecropper's labor for the 'privilege' of laboring on the landlord's land. (Please note that such lands have no intrinsic productive value without that labor - labor which, in fact, not only produces wealth but creates value.)

The ethical and moral argument centers on what's just. What is a 'just' profit? Laissez-faire (i.e. might makes right) economists rely on a thin notion of some law of the jungle where whatever profit the owner can get is 'fair.' Well, that takes us back to the evils of a feudal aristocracy ... because that's how mankind got there in the first place!!!

"Marxism" isn't about recognizing the problem. The problem exists. "Marxism" is about one choice of solution. If you don't like that 'solution' then propose another. The fact of the matter is that the problem exists and is getting bigger!!!

Aren't most people employed by small businesses?

Why should a worker get paid equally to the owner when the worker is not risking any money if the small business fails?

people who work for a living (including small business owners) should get paid a fair percentage of the wealth they create.

Big businesses have seen their profits increase dramatically over the last ten years. Meanwhile, the wages of their employees are stagnating.

Clearly, the people who work for them aren't getting a fair percentage of the wealth they're creating. That's wrong.

Obviously, the people who invest in the machines should get a FAIR retrurn for that investment, but so should the laborers who invest their labor.

I see that you put the word FAIR in all caps. How would you define fair?

playing field -- ie, what's left over.

And I don't think we have a level playing field when Republicans are intentionally destroying the economy and getting people hooked on unsupportable debt and shipping jobs overseas through stupid tax laws and doing everything they can to destroy unions.

If I were to invest my savings by starting a small business, how much would be a fair return on that investment?

... you're entitled to your savings in return. In economic terms, that'd mean the real value of your savings, i.e. adjusted for inflation.


If you buy farmland and, by your own labor, produce and sell crops, you get 100% of the (market) value of those crops. When you're done with the farmland, you sell it for its market value, i.e. in effect, the same price you paid for it adusted for inflation. Why should you get any more?

If you buy farmland and, using the labor of others, produce and sell crops, then just how much of the value of the labor of someone else should you receive? Your farmland is still worth the same. Why should you get any more?

Profit isn't a "moral good" -- it's what we call a "necessary evil." So, the question becomes: "How evil shall we become?"

{{If you buy farmland and, using the labor of others, produce and sell crops, then just how much of the value of the labor of someone else should you receive? Your farmland is still worth the same. Why should you get any more?}}



You are conveniently ignoring risk. What happens if a tree falls downs, breaking the fence, which allows a cow to get onto a road. A car could then hit the cow. The landowner/farmer is responsible and could lose the land to reimburse the injured party. You may laugh, but cows getting through fences due to floods or downed trees happens occasionally.

Also think about how the majority of small business restaraunts go bankrupt within a few years of starting up. What does an employee lose when happens? What does the owner lose when that happens?

... and then immediately use it as a claim that labor and labor alone should bear the continuing burden of the owner's risk ... as well as the burden of worker's risk. Labor risks include sickness, injury, and the whims of an employer.

Again, I posed parallel examples: one where it was an owner-operator and one where the owner hired someone to do his work. If you want to deal with 'risk' then deal with it in both examples and then tell me why the idle operator has some moral or 'just' claim to 10-50% of the products of someone else's labor.


Factoid: Labor receives only about 40% of the value of their labor, on average, in the S&P500. The rest goes to owners.

business based on how much he thinks he can rip off certain parties.

If you're business plan requires making profit off a ripping off your suppliers, customers and/or employees, then maybe you shouldn't be going into business.

I presume that in your cattle business you assume that your buyers are negotiating with you on a level playing field, and when you buy your feed and fences, you're negotiating with them on a level playing field, and if any of you try to rip off the other parties, then you'll be seeing each other in court of law, or will get screwed some other way by the other parties. You just don't sit there and take it up the ass, do you?

So why do Republicans think that the employees are the one party to this set of transactions which should take it up the ass and shut up?

parties.

When my family negotiated with suppliers of products or suppliers of labor, fairness was always paramount.


I have no idea what or why Republicans think as they do.

And who are you going to sell your meat to if there aren't a lot of people who work for a living (and a lot of small business people) fairly rewarded for what they do? And they can only do that if we get rid of these crazy Republicans who exist to tilt the playing field in favor of super big businesses which want guaranteed profit without working to earn them.

This is the lesson that FDR taught us, but which Republicans have spent 60 years trying to undo.

Making capital increadibly fluid, but not allowing labor markets the same fluidity.

If labor can't cross borders freely to chase the best jobs and escape the worst, then capital shouldn't be able to cross borders to take advantage of the cheapest job markets and escape the most competitive and fair.

If we can ship our factories to Haiti with impunity, Haitians should be able to cross those same borders to escape the hell those factories create, and to, perhaps, get jobs working for the CEOs of those companies that are shipping profits back from Haiti.

Get it?

It's quite simple, really.

Share that idea with your friends.

"An owner-operated business can compensate all the workers, including the owner, for the full value of their labor."

... didn't you understand? :eyes:


Try reading the post to which you've replied and please don't insult me with another "Why did you stop beating your wife?" straw man.


canard
n : a deliberately misleading fabrication

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=canard

What misleading fabrication did I post?

I have responded to a post that says labor should be rewarded more than capital. I disagree with that. I then brought up small businesses as they create most of the jobs in the US. Where is the misleading fabrication in that?

Small businessmen are trying make money from an investment that is mostly labor rather than reinvestment of capital or from financial "magic."

And most small business people make money by selling things to a wealthy middle class which has made money from selling its labor for a fair price.

It takes captial, even if it is leveraged capital to start most small businesses. It takes millions of dollars to start a small farm from scratch.

But even beyond this point, such language is divisive if even we in the DU can not agree on it.

and financial tricks.

And a small businessman needs to have labor rewarded at high rates to pay back the loan, whereas Enron et al just need to mislead the capital markets to rip of 401k's...

And this language isn't divisive. It's the truth of what is happening in America.

pay their taxes, practice fair competition, often give back to the community.

I make a clear distinction between small businesses and the corporate money changers.

badly as people who work for a living.

Republicans actually don't like the competition they create for large businesses.

One of the very first things Bush did was dramatically slash funding for SBA loans. You know why?

Well, Apple Computer, which forced IBM to do more R&D and to compete, got financing from the SBA.

The evil capitalist rhetoric throws the baby out with the bath water. To me the word capitalist includes both good and bad, just as the word labor does. Yet many of the posts here seem to delineate capitalists as bad and laborers as good.

than anyone.

Have you seen Bush's new tax plan? They want to eliminate the health insurance deduction. What will happen? Small businesses won't be able to compete for labor. Everyone will only want to work for a big business.

Republicans live to increase the profits of big, monopoly business. They screw the consumer, labor, and small businessmen equally.

health insurance for their employees if it's not tax deductable. I think that topic was brought up as a bargaining chip anyway. There is no way that would pass in Congress and there is no way that the health insurance companies would stay silent on the topic because they certainly don't want to lose business.

first.

Far more so than the greedheads in the multinationals.

Stop trying to stir me into a flame war; I'm squarely on the side of small business.

a family who owns a small business. We started it to have security. (our state is losing jobs like crazy) Many people who are disabled or have children that are disabled start small businesses because they can't get companies to hire them or make reasonable accomodations for them. Not everyone is out to make a bunch of money. :)

...you're denying them a low-paid, debt-addled, desperate employee they can rip off in order to pad their profit margins which they're never going to pass on in the form of higher salaries, but will pass out to investors in dividendes taxed at 15%.

Please keep the red-baiting to GOP quarters. Thanks.

Bully for them.

...business.

...the feds, bigger businesses, giant businesses, stupid consumers, bad employees, etfreakin'cetera.

Always a justification for lower wages, fewer people with healthpolicies, and few to no pensions.

Granted if we had National Healthcare, Living Wage Rules, and preserved State Pensions, then perhaps I wouldn't be so negative. But who votes for Bush and the Repukes en masse?

You betcha, small business"men".

One of the things I do is evaluate suppliers for my company. I just got back from a trip to audit a small business that supplies parts for us. They're located pretty much in the middle of nowhere. They believe that to have a successful business, they have to have successful personnel. They pay enough that their staff can afford to buy a home in the area. They pay for their insurance. They have a profit sharing plan. They have less than 30 employees.

They don't have to do this. As I said, they're in the middle of nowhere, where else are their employees going to work? This company isn't that unusual for small businesses. I've worked for bad companies and I know they're out there, but they aren't all that's out there, and I don't even think they're the norm.

Man, what happened to the good corporate citizen?

I know: 15% tax rates on dividends and capital gains and business plans that have more to do with stealing middle class wealth on the equities market than they have to do with selling their products to a wealthy middle class.

The latter is the everyday practice of contemporary capitalism; it has no concept of "enough".

The problem with it is that there is a finite amount of wealth.

In trying to obtain ever more wealth you inevitably come to a point where you can't make more profit still without it having a negative consequences for the (global and/or local) community. The community consists mostly of laborers, the same laboreres that through their labor create that wealth in the first place.
Then the only way to make still more profit is to avoid accountabilty for the damage you do to third parties (where you and the corporation you do business with are first and second parties respectively). Taking responsibility for such consequences would mean paying reparations, which would reduce profit.

Fact is that one can very well make a profit without putting money before people.
It's just that you wouldn't be able to get filthy rich.

Then still, "small business" is hardly the problem, since it is "big business" that does by far most of the hoarding of wealth.

i'll vote for that :hi:

despite how unpopular defending those rights has - or may - become.

What are yours?

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1119-22.htm

Snip

We came together because of our moral values: care and responsibility, fairness and equality, freedom and courage, fulfillment in life, opportunity and community, cooperation and trust, honesty and openness. We united behind political principles: equality, equity (if you work for a living, you should earn a living) and government for the people--all the people.

These are traditional American values and principles, what we are proudest of in this country. The Democrats' failure was a failure to put forth our moral vision, celebrate our values and principles, and shout them out loud.

Snip

THAT is what pisses me off about the new or 'third-way' dems because they dismiss these as old fashioned socialist/marxist ideas that wont work today :argh:

folks who run and represent those core values will win big... once we get an auditable election process, D'oh!

vision and hold the line against the Bush agenda, because it is immoral! That is the most important thing that we all agree upon.

"We all agree that we need to go forward not backward, defending the greatest of American ideals and moral principles, working against a radical right agenda that would lead our country to disaster and speaking for more than 55 million highly moral, patriotic Americans."

But I believe the main difference is that Democrats don't believe that the Government should legislate morality.

Who describes our moral values and their basis in a nurturing moral philosophy.

Before finding this website, here are some of the things I assumed:

1. I assumed all Dems were pro-choice.
2. I assumed all Dems were pro-gay marriage.
3. I assumed all Dems were anti-discrimination.
4. I assumed all Dems were pro-smart gun legislation.
5. I assumed all Dems were in support of AA and the ERA.

Etc, etc, etc. None of these is true.

that the neo-liberal establishment are crafting as we speak... hope is on the way!

kerry 08 :bounce:

6. I assumed all Dems were pro-environmental protection
7. I assumed all Dems were anti-war.
8. I assumed all Dems believed that at least some non-human animals deserved "rights" (as in the right to exist, at the very least).
9. I assumed all Dems weren't like knee-jerk republicans and possessed compassion for their fellow man (I was surprised when one here suggested that I deserved property loss and even death due to this summer's hurricanes because I live in a "red state"-that sort of hatred isn't only on FR, sadly enough).
10. I assumed that most Dems weren't sexist or racist.
11. I assumed all Dems were pro-union.

I've found that no matter what your values or beliefs are, there will always be a Dem who disagrees with you. That we aren't lock step soldiers for our party-but free thinkers instead-is both our greatest strength and our most costly weakness.

and toleration of individual differences in belief.

down and out to the people rather than to the top of a very tall, steep-sided pyramid to a few people who are fabulously wealthy.

That America shoud reward hard work with wealth, and not wealth with more wealth, even though they aren't doing any work to get it.