Are you an ideological outsider to the Democratic party?

I think that i am. I remember when "we" last had the white house, and i was clearly in opposition, though i support liberalism, i don't support the drugs war or illegal attacks on other nations. That made me "not" a democrat while they were in power, and now, for a while, i enjoy the illusion of being among you as one of you... and yet i am a kucinich... an ideological view that is perceived as "so" not mainstream, that it is not given credence by enough broadcasters.

In a world of coalitions, i'd vote green, 'cuz i honestly believe the democratic party is not listening, even today, and has failed to grasp the meaning of that word "democracy"... and somehow it is supposed to equate to "contriubute 50$ to our campaign" plutocracy, and i disagree. Methinks even macain and i share something in common in this regard. (understanding its platform for campaign finance reform, yet not for proportional representation or ending gerrymandering.) Plutocrats are not democrats.

I genuinely believe that the political fringe i inhabit will be completely ignored in the coming election, and that my vote is percieved as going to the lesser-of-2-evils candidate... and not nader... I refuse to live my entire life as a liberal american and be permanently criminalized for smoking cannabis. I refuse to be a voiceless outcaste in the political process. I am deeply concerned that the centre thinks it can bully thre fringe for a much-wanted win, without concession.

I agree with you that the Drug War, in many ways, is the great ignored problem by those who tout themselves as progressive.

They have been bullying the fringe for a long time now.

They just have to hope that it is after 2004, because without us, whoever they nominate will get their ass handed to them.

I've got to say, I'm getting tired of the "lesser of the evils", "boogey-man on the other side" crap and would like to, at least once in my life, be able to vote for a Democrat I actually believe wants to make the country better instead of easier to rape. Granted, at least Clinton gave us a reach-around but that doesn't make me feel any better about helping elect him (which made me need to rush home & take a long, long shower).

It's sad to think that I'm an outsider, a "fringe" element of the party when so many seem to agree and support Kucinich (at least in spirit). If this is how we all feel, why are we so afraid of facing the one place where GW is the weakest, in the disgust that we all have of the selling of our futures to stock his friends' offshore accounts. Nobody else is taking this on like Kucinich, which is part of why the media is sh*t scared of him. Why else? Could it be because he is the one candidate who could call GW to the carpet about privatization, war-profiteering & the rest of his greed-head resume and sweep in millions of disenfranchised voters beyond the traditional Dem vote?

Just a thought anyway...

"Nobody else is taking this on like Kucinich, which is part of why the media is sh*t scared of him. Why else? Could it be because he is the one candidate who could call GW to the carpet about privatization, war-profiteering & the rest of his greed-head resume and sweep in millions of disenfranchised voters beyond the traditional Dem vote?"

I like Dennis...he is feisty! I would rather have someone with guts like him, than any of the others..I plan on going to the caucus and voting...

I am a firm believer in the notion that, in order to take a principled stand (something rather rare in politics), one must have the solutions and record to back it up. While some may have some good 'talking points' and others may have a great record of standing up against the tide of corporate ownership of America (and the poverty, corruption and abuses thaht come with it), none can compete head to head with Dennis Kucinich.

This is something that seems to escape too many Democrats who think that it is better to play both sides in an effort to be "safe", which will not play in this general election. There is too much disgust at the compromises that have been made and will be made under most of the candidates. If Democrats across the country voted their conscience, this would be a no-brainer. Millions of people around the country (left & right) are sick & tired of the 'highest bidder' way our country is run. They are tired of the Wal-Mart-ization of America.

We are not really outsiders, just a large chunk of voters who know what time it is, despite efforts to force us to close our eyes (or hold our noses). The revolution is here but is not being televised, just ask Dennis Kucinich!

Because they are ideological outsiders too - they don't give a damn about which tax breaks for corporations will make the CEO play nice and not fire people too quickly. They want high wages and a better living standard. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really offer that 50% much.

..the other 50% want to see Dennis Kucinich vs. Alan Keyes;

Pure principal

n/t

Such an abused term...

But anyway, yes, the 'fringe' is ignored, and abused, and taken for granted.

And it will continue this way as long as the 'fringe' continues to play along. (IMO the 'fringe' isn't really fringe at all, but far more mainstream - e.g. the majority supports single payer system. Oh, how tragically effective the propoganda machine is.)

i vote dem -- and do things in the real world to move everything left.
my most immediate concern is the aggressive nature of corporatism moving in the world.

You know, tell them what they want to hear to get them in that booth.

I really am going to need some evidence before I believe that the party has an ideology.

edit: punctuation

"Us too, just not as much."

(free trade, healthcare, etc.)

We'll see how that works out in the General Election.

To worry about. Often politicians have to completely give in to the opposition because it's an extremely popular position.

majority of the people on DU represent the party. I have been astounded at how DUers have gravitated toward fiscal centrist candidates. A bit of trendy social liberalism isn't supposed to be all there is to the Democratic Party. I am very disappointed, looking into what else is out there (Greens, Socialists, etc.)

I used to have a sig line that said "Democrat right down to my marrow" but the party keeps moving right and I can't follow much longer.

The "You're not a real liberal!" argument.

The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right over the last dozen years that it's hardly recognizable anymore. The party used to not be afraid of corporate power and supporting unions and working people-- now, the so-called "frontrunners"'s economic and social policies are indistinguishable from those of the moderate Republicans of the 1970s and 1980s.

It's funny, because the so-called "moderates" we're trying to attract to our right are actually the same people who headed the post-WWII pre-Reagan Republican party! The old "center" is actually the center-left wing of the Democratic party, and the old Democratic party "liberals" are now seen as "radical" by these same Democrats, even though we still espouse the traditional values this party has stood for since the days of FDR and the New Deal.

Nader was not completely right when he said there was no difference between the parties, but on several VERY important issues, he was. The so-called "war on drugs", the "war on crime", the death penalty, "welfare reform", campaign finance reform, just to name a few, where many of "our" candidates aren't that different from the Repubs.

The further crawl toward the right by the Democratic party will only be its undoing. We'll get less votes, less voter turnout as more old-style "centrists" see no difference between the Dems and Repubs, and will become increasingly irrelevant in future elections-- and possibly replaced by a true "liberal" third party.

I would like to see the Democratic party come back to its roots and its core supporters, but even I'm getting cynical. I sure would hate for it to become any more like the Rockefeller/Eisenhower wing of the Republican party.

Clearly the Democratic Party represents a political continuum. This range is not static, and defining the permissible range of the party is an ongoing process.

What do you say are the left and right limits that permit inclusion in the party ideology? Once we all know what the shape is, we can say whether or not we are coloring outside the lines.

The war on drugs is a war on me, and i'm supposed to support a government that "in my interests?" takes taxes and used them to invade my privacy, interrogate my freedom of religion, threaten my right to property and so many other human rights that are systematically violated by the war on drugs.

The democratic party has waged a war on my own human rights, and i'm not going in to my grave as a criminal for smoking pot.... dammit. I want what i call "an occult understanding"... where i will indeed vote for the lesser of 2 evils party to overthrow the 10timesmore evil BFEE... and i want the war on me ended... I think that is a fair deal between me, the cannabis voter, and a gang of people who are supporting a grossly perverted policy that is destroying inner cities, filling prisons and doing nothing for drugs addiction.

To make it a campaign issue is too risky, so am here striking a deal.... i hate most democratic policies and don't agree at all except with kucinich's justice... real justice. I can live with all the others and not be a pain in the ass... i want ONE concession... a total end to prohibition and an end to criminalizing people for drugs.

I think its a fair deal, and if they don't, then "we" are indeed a very very thin illusion, and i amd really the opposition, and have never been a democrat, even though i'm registered as one and will vote as one... my libertarian blood is flowing hot.

Is it too much to ask, legallize cannabis, and stand down in the drugs war per this very very very intelligent recommendation: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-17.pdf

I'll bet you that if the dems made a back room agreement to reverse NIXON's evil DEA, they'd suddenly be suprised at 30 million extra votes.

The truth is the fringe i'm referring to is more likely to be socially disenfranchised and have less material security. Those people without homes, with illnesses, AIDs, drugs addiction problems, or violence, the poor who don't vote. They are the ones the new democratic party walks on by ignoring the damage of the war on drugs on an generation. It has never worked, how can a government claim to be sane yet pursue policies that don't work?

My post did not raise any of the issue that your response addresses. All I'm trying to do is to answer your original question. I repeat: what are the boundaries? Once you tell me what you have in mind, I (and others) should be able to give you some kind of considered answer.

voted against Decriminalization of Marijuana, even for medical purposes. He may have paid lip service to the idea of decriminaliztion, but you need to look into his voting record. it's scary. This is what has made me realize that Kucinich is not all that immune to the temptation of politics, like he makes himself out to be.

great thread!
Yeah, I am so far outside mainstream political ideology.....

That is what it will take. Nothing less. America is worse than anyone could possibly imagine. They have the people cheering their own demise. :shrug: There has been a mental destabilization over the last two decades and it won't get fixed by an election with electronic voting machines.

Let me restate: the Democratic Party has never been progressive *on purpose*.

In almost every other industrialized democracy, there developed labor and/or social-democratic parties that represented the mass of working people.

There has never been such a party in the U.S. The two-party system has historically represented Northern wealth vs. Southern wealth. Today, that's not really the case -- instead, both parties are sucking some serious corporate teet.

The "progressive" period of the Democratic Party lasted less than 30 years. This period didn't exist because the party was actually controlled by progressives, but because it was controlled by factions of the upper class that found it advantageous to ally themselves with progressives.

I agree, but I think we can build a progressive faction in the Democratic party that can both 1) give the Democratic party a majority, and 2) push the party in a progressive direction.

The Democratic primary is where the action is, for the most part. Who knows? Things could change significantly (again) and the GOP could become the best party to work inside. I doubt that would happen in my lifetime, though.

By which I mean "yes." I vote Dem nationally because the people the right puts up HORRIFY me, but so do the Dems I'm voting for.

God dammit, I would love to vote for someone who represents me just once, but I don't think any politician in this country has that kind of cojones anymore. I mean, I was driving home from classes today and I heard a story on NPR about British Columbia ferry workers striking. The BC Labor Minister basically said "Here's an 80 day cooling off period. You're not allowed to strike because of minimum capacity laws." The Union leaders seems ok with this from what I heard, but the rank-and-file said "Fuck you, we're striking." Nobody in America does that sort of thing anymore, and we're worse off for it.

I got dis-invited to all the swanky Democratic cocktail parties after I embraced the concept of armed self defense, acknowledged the ultimate demise of capitalism as we know it, and ate steak.

The fringes aren't so bad a place to be. It's a great view, and you can watch the idiots eat each other up. Better than a movie.

I'm a libertarian... of course anyone who understands arms and their lethal capabilities is even MORE respectful of the right to life and responsibility with weapons. I have growed up with guns, and i knows they're not a danger of themselves.

Before you hate me for being libertarian, I'm also a socialist believing in universal healthcare, education and a 21st century social contract. (not you, bununky ;-) ) rather the collective you... and have a lotta things in common with REAL stable sane return to real democracy and healthy government... kucinich is the only man who is presenting this sanity, as without the drugs war ended, the candidates are REALLY disengenuous on urban regeneration, poverty and organized crime and people negotiating contracts without the rule of law (guns gangs and retaliations)... all due to the foul drugs war, and its putrid legacy.

Guns are a symptom, not the cause. The prohibition is the cause... I realize that a candidate intent on re-engineering or ending (de-budgeting) the DEA and the drugs war, could never say so in an open primary except in the most oblique language due to popular psychosis. Still, without a hint of that changing, i find a candidate disengenuous, another bullshitter who'll leave a clinton stain on the rug in a sad subversion of democratic values... all the while, i'm the chump who "voted" for an asshole who points a gun at my face and threatens to take away my civil rights.

I'm for a president who has the balls to return the nation to real democracy through intensive deNazification and with the peace dividend end the worlds drugs war, disarm the planet and lead the world in to a peaceful renissance of symbiotic SUSTAINABLE economies. Such vision is not beyond some of the candidates, but when they are percieved as FRINGE? It serious makes me question whether any of the media public are even remotely sane.

lately that puts me to the left of the Democrats and I used to consider myself fairly moderate. I see the next few election cycles as a chance to take things back, that is if the "voting" machines allow it. I have always felt a Parliamentary government would be quite a bit more representative of the People. Allowing several parties into government could only be an improvement over what we have now.

As an anarcho-socialist, I have become quite aware for some time that my views are not entirely welcome in the Democratic Party. I support socialism not in the sense that I believe that an economy should be centrally controlled, but in the sense that it should be regulated so that it works for social needs first and foremost.

The Democratic Party is just another party that champions the divine right of capital. Social concerns are not a top priority to them -- they are an afterthought (compared with the Republicans, where they are not given ANY thought).

I'm also an ardent environmentalist -- much more given to a spiritual/religious basis for my environmentalism, as in that we are all part of the earth upon which we depend for life itself. Despite its rhetoric, the Democratic Party has failed miserably on this front. Of course, only when contrasted with the pure "rape and pillage" attitude that the Republicans have toward the environment, do they look good.

I'm an outsider, and I know it. My only hope is to try and work to pull the system a little more to the left. But it's not looking too promising right now.

...the "ideological outsider" thread, COUNT ME IN!

There is this mythology that Democrats are "progressive". Well, maybe some progressive's vote Democratic as they feel they have no choice, but that doesn't make Democrats progressive.

I''ve pretty much come to the conclusion that our electoral system is NOTHING BUT A FARCE. Democrats, Republicans, most all of them are snakes. "Liberal" bastards that pretend to have a conscience when what they actually are are lap dogs to the elite. Create social services that do not address the actual causes of social distress. As the old saying goes, "If voting made any REAL difference, it would be made illegal."

I support Kucinich. I support him because he speaks truth to power. The consequence for him is that, consequently, he doesn't get heard--he doesn't get broadcast. Assassination by media inattention. For him, personally, it is probably just as well because if he COULD make a difference, 'they', the REAL powers that be, would have to take him out some other way.

What a travesty of lies this nation has become. People, we get the government we diserve.

BMU

"social services that do not address the actual causes of social distress"

Treat the symptom, but don't cure the disease, in other words. IMO that's what any Dem who agrees with Kucinich but supports someone else is doing.

I would probably be voting for a non-dogmatic left party--to the left of the Democrats. But that isn't the reality nor will it be, and so I am a Democrat. Parties in this country are diverse coalitions. It really is a duopoly. Money has a controlling influence on things as they stand. The way to change that is not necessarily to break the duopoly, but to seize at least one of the parties for the people, through the action of the people.