Oh sure, just keep moving to the Center -- my counterpoint

Everyone with Centrist views assumes that there is some zero-point on a static line - some allegedly agreed-upon, permanent "middle" ideology, that is grounded and moderate in nature. I disagree. Here is an illustration of what I think happens every time the Dems move toward the illusionary "Center":

1. If the Dems keep moving to the Center, then we have participated in an open agreement with the Right's set of values, positions, arguments and ideology or a least an agreement with most of it.

2. That will prompt the Repubs to have more confidence in their agenda and to begin to push the more controversial and hardline right-wing positions even harder -- with the result being that they move even farther to the Right.

3. That means that there is a now a new Center (because the Left moved over to the "old center" and the Right moved farther Right)

4. Repeat steps 1-3 (like a bunch of cowards after every election) until the "Left" (wink, wink) has become bunch of Fascists in their ideology, and the Right is...well, I can't even imagine what's worse and more right-wing than Fascism.

So, just because there is a certain set of right-wing positions in 2004 -- doesn't mean that there aren't going to be new agendas and more extreme sets of values to "embrace" in 2008, or 2024, until the end of time.

Once the political landscape is set for oppression, censorship, wealth-mongering, war-mongering, hyper-nationalism, etc., etc. - there will be NO MODERATION, due to the very nature of those evils.

This illustration is obviously too simplistic, especially for you guru's out there who really understand government theory and political science - but I was trying to make a point.

I welcome counter-arguments and discourse (hopefully no flames.)

Thanks Turn CO Blue

You know 'Tell it to the hand'. WE need to set our agenda and stick to it. What we stand for starts with and comes from US. I believe we either get the vote transparent and clear or we have to go commando.
VIVA

Look what happened after Clinton's centrist positions.... further movement to the right.

I think we need to STAND for something different...otherwise, we're just repub lite. Yuch!

were declared 'FAR LEFT LIBERALISM' and used as the new baseline. There are people who think BUSH is a MODERATE, and use Clinton's positions as far out leftism...

I found the picture online. It's a cool picture, though.

...It drives me crazy when anyone, but especially a so-called Dem, talks about "moving to the center"....My immediate reply is.."but we're already there"!..and try to talk about how perceptions have shifted to the Right...I remember reading an article in the Voice shortly after the 1994 elections when some wit asked "What happened last night?...I woke up this morning and Bob Dole was a Liberal!"

this stolen election has made me more left than ever. Why the hell do we need to move to the center. We all see the problems in this country and the policies that have created them. I can also see that there are many solutions, call them "Left" if you want, but to me they are just smart. I want massive spending to go towards energy independence, better public transportation, and a better and accessible healthcare system for all,just for starters, NOT to this damn idiotic, and illegal war in Iraq. And judging by the size of the shitstorm brewing up for our country, the rethuglicans are going to be scrambling to break with the chimpchump.

If we make ourselves pure left, we will lose. Accent the liberal positions that are popular and make our main issues ones that can sell. In order to move the country towards the left, we must first gain office so we can prove our agenda works.

just picked up a couple of seats in the state legislature - in rural districts.

It's not left - right. It's vote fraud, and cuddling up with corporations to the exclusion of the interests of ordinary people.

Exactly where have we won anything by embracing your tactic?

NOTHING! That's what we have won!

So, if we have won NOTHING, what have we got to lose by sticking to our "pure" principles and not compromising the truth?

WE HAVE NOTHING MORE TO LOSE IF WE NOW ALL VOTE OUR CONSCIENCE!

I, for one, am done compromising my vote!

and it's a clear illustration of why the DLC has got to GO. Becoming more and more a pallid imitation of the GOP just turns off the base. Failing to give people an alternative to the GOP just discourages them from ever trusting the party again. The DLC theory that moving right will somehow persuade those religious nutbars, greedy yuppies, bigots, and tax whiners to suddenly switch parties is ludicrous and has lost us too many elections.

Of course, as the GOP radicalizes more and more, the less chance they have of surviving long term. The problem there is that they will hurt all of us in the process of purging themselves into nothingness.

Kerry was one of the more "liberal" members of the senate, and he's pretty far to the right, IMO.

According to politicalcompass.org, he's well to the right of center.

I nearly said Right On! That expression doesn't work anymore.

We need to say LEFT ON!

The swallower-followers will not become educated if we're a wee little like them and more so every day.

This country needs to get educated about the left. They know very little history. They believe the lies. They need to have a wake up call about how extreme they've become. Hardly anyone is going to accept perpetual war, imposed religion, bank breaking deficits, and growing bigotry of foreigners once they start to wake up.

Education is the key - not a shuffle to the right. Never, never more.

By corageous liberal Democrats like Paul Simon and Dick Durbin that represented rural downstate Illinois and held their ground. Their work over years moved Illinois to the left. Conviction politics works and it pays off over time.

Illinois isn't "solid blue." Chicago just outvotes the rest of the state.

That's why the Democrats elected to major statewide offices are the ones who pay attention to Downstate, where the swing voters are. People like Paul Simon, Dick Durbin, Obama and Blagojevich. Durbin and Simon helped move the Republican swing voters in downstate to the Democratic side.

Ralph Hall kept moving to the center, he moved so far right that switching parties was the only option. Billy Tauzin understood the importance of compassionate oil profits, isn't compassion more important than those weirdo tree-screwing, monkey loving environmentalist?

Compromise is also necessary on the draft, without compromise how can we support Iraq or Afghanistan?

At least I think so. I have been told I am way out on the left. When I came to this board, I was an old grouch moderate. I have not changed a bit.


:toast:

I'm moderate on a handful of issues...

THAT is not my problem w/ DEMS- my problem is that they cant call it like they see it, keep a straight message- OR fight like hell.

GOD I would love to see a freaking punch to the throat for once- I dont care if a moderate or a liberal does it.

One recent example of where they could have been more vocal was with regard to changing the rules for the possibly-soon-indicted Tom Delay. Who is screaming "hypocrisy" at the top of their lungs? Just the blogosphere as far as I can tell.

Not to mention other more important issues that are worthy of a dramatic stand (like conservation, reproductive rights and the occupation of Iraq). I am not even sure why it would take courage to speak out about some of these issues.

It is painfully, horribly obvious that much of the Dem leadership is just playing it safe; they don't want to rock the boat.

I think that I used to be a moderate (a little bit left of center, but in the general range), but the Right moved so far over that I am now perceived as radical Left.

I am determined to hold on to my core principles!

Like you, I long for some strong charismatic voices to rise up! I want the DNC, the DLC, the DCCC, hell I don't care who -- to get it together!

That said, I do think the base has to take some of the blame too -- how did we allow these old cowardly dinosaurs to have control over the party and the message? The value of DU and DailyKos, etc. is that the party leadership will no longer be able to ignore the demands of the base. It is high time for the Democrats to be clear and strong.

I agree w/ everything you said.

DEMS should refuse to even recognize DeLay until this investigation pans out.

Actual DEM leaders, not pundits, should be making a huge stink about it in Congress and on all the cable news shows.

Again, I dont mind good moderate DEMS, so long as they can speak up, stand up & fight.

"I think that I used to be a moderate (a little bit left of center, but in the general range), but the Right moved so far over that I am now perceived as radical Left."

Those of us who have been active in the party for 30 years or so are all in this boat. We haven't changed, yet while we were once seen as moderates, the same positions and the same stands are now rejected as being "too radical" or "too far to the left."

I can't understand why so many Democrats want to do the Republicans' work for them - discrediting, marginalizing, and silencing traditional liberalism. Yet should we question the continual drift to the right, we are accused of disloyalty and of hurting the cause and interfering with the chances for the party to win elections in some way.

Great work Turn CO Blue, thanks.

I agree. The center has moved so far right that it looks like the radical right of the late 70's.

in Colorado, "Turn CO Blue"?

We ran centrist candidates - the Salazar brothers.

won for a number of factors, but mostly due to the "likeability - trustworthiness" factor. They grew up poor, and their family has been potato farmers forever story appealed to Coloradoans on many levels.

At the end of the day, Ken Salazar was infinitely more likeable and trust-worthy than Pete Coors.

Candidates people can trust or relate to can espouse liberal positions and win. I don't think 'appealing to southern Bush voters' and 'moving right in platform' are necessarily the same thing.

There are some Bush voters who'll never vote Democratic no matter what; but there's a number, I believe, who'd vote for a candidate that inspires them, 'hears' them, and appeals to them.

the center of the MSM offices, or the center of the secret govt, wherever that is these days.

Scary how we have now lived under an outwardly Fascist regime since 9/11, and a good number -though not a majority- seem quite happy with that.

And it will get worse, whatever we do...

Sorry, don't see it.

By and large, liberals were not for the Iraq War, NAFTA, or No Child Left Behind.

Kerry had already turned centrist years before being nominated.

AFTER the Selection -- that we lost because we need to have the red state voters identify with us, that that we need to move farther Center or Right. There are those who say that we need to call for the Democratic party to reverse its position on gay rights, the environment and abortion, blah blah -- in order to appeal to the voters.

If you read through some threads, you'll find people who are calling for some or all of these and other platform reversals.

I was not speaking to John Kerry's perceived place on the political line. Some think he is too radical left for their taste, and some think he is too Centrist.

Certainly we ran the perfect caricature of a left wing liberal, when seen through the eyes of the right wing propagandists. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we could have come up with a more perfect foil for them - professorial, patrician, from New England.

However, Kerry does not become a left wing liberal because the right wingers say that he is. I am holding him to the same standards I held candidates to 30 years ago, and by those standards he is much too far to the right for me. My standards didn't change, and my standards were not seen as extreme left wing 30 years ago.

That chasing the centre ground is like chasing a rainbow.

-

Yes, the center keep moving. It is not static.

but I don't buy that you can blame the Democrats for that. Maybe it's just that the country is moving to the right. Maybe it's being pushed there by the media - whatever the reason -

The job of a political party is to get candidates elected. If that means running liberals (like Diana DeGette, for instance) in liberal areas (Denver), then that's what they'll do. If it means running a centrist moderate like Ken Salazar in a statewide race - that's what will happen. It's why many people who may have agreed more with Mike Miles, (myself, for instance), didn't support him in the primary - because we needed a more centrist candidate to win a statewide race.

If you continually run candidates who are out of step with the times (and the times seem to be swinging to the right), you will end up with no political power at all, and in a position to affect nothing. The pendulum will swing back eventually - it may have already started here in Colorado, what with the Democratic successes this election cycle.

but if my candidate is "out of step with the times" because he/she won't vote to oppose abortion or vote to oppose gay-rights - then so be it. I would just view that as being out of step with the goose-steppers.

Do you mean you want to be more Centrist on economic issues or on socials issues? How would you choose? Both of them?

I for one am not willing to give in anther inch on the social issues or separation of church and state -- not just to appease some misguided people who are clearly "cherry-picking" hateful verses out of the Bible.

If this continued movement toward the Center (or toward the right) forces me to attach to the Greens or other Progressive party, then so be it -- but civil liberties and personal freedoms are non-negotiables in my opinion, and are without a doubt in jeopardy. There is no more room for compromise on these issues. We are against the wall already.

If you mean you want candidates who are tougher on crime, moderate on gun-control, for stronger Homeland security, for reigning in government spending, staying within the Budget -- then I can back you.

is that the "center" in Denver, Colorado is different than the "center" in Grand Junction, Colorado. And that the Democratic party can't run a candidate who could win in Denver and expect him/her to win in Grand Junction.

If the Democrats can get an anti-abortion/anti gay rights candidate elected in, say, rural Alabama, I guess I can live with that - because the overall picture includes the (D) next to the name, and if that anti-abortion/anti gay candidate gives the Democrats control of the House or Senate, that gives my liberal candidate in Colorado a lot better chance of getting a liberal agenda at least heard, which isn't even happening now, what with the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress.

The same concept covers attaching yourself to a third party - which has no chance of getting anyone into office, therefore has no chance of getting it's agenda enacted.

The same goes for a national election - I would fight, in the primaries, a candidate who wanted to outlaw abortion or restrict gay rights - but if that's who we nominated I would support him/her in the general election. For the same reasons I put up with Bill Clinton's more conservative moves for eight years - because it was still better than what we have now.

I really don't see the Democrats nominating for president an anti-abortionist. It just isn't going to happen. The national party is freaked out right now by the eleven anti-gay marriage state initiatives that passed - so you may see some movement toward the center there - but, remember - public opinion is always changing, and it's moving in a more liberal direction, if only because an older, more conservative generation is dying off.

It may take awhile - but it will happen.

getting any candidate with a D voted in, is almost always better than any R candidate.

But I wonder how we could generate more excitement among our own base and the apathetic, non-voters? I would like to think that a pure message would do it - not relying upon stealing away Republicans for a version of Republican-light.

Good things for our party to ponder. Regardless, a good lesson to learn from the last two elections, is to still recognize the diversity of positions on the issues within the Democratic party -- but to operate as one.

I definitely agree with you that we have to switch our focus to the local elections and that what works in one district won't work in another. And so far as education boards - we need representation on them all. Very cliche, but those kids are the future of the party -- and the whole country.

I used to be a "centrist" but that was back in the day ....... I was actually a Republican (too many years ago to count). My views have mostly stayed what they were, but many have moderated even more (i.e. moved left) as I grew older. I long, long ago left the Republican party ideologically. I long ago left the Republican party formally, and for many years now have been a practicing, active Democrat.

But by today's standards, I am a wildly left of center whacko.

But I am not. I am who I always have been. The spectrum moved while I didn't.

So today, in 2004, post stolen election, I am among the group who feels it is just plain WRONG to move the party "to the center". What is, in my view, correct is to **appeal** to the "center" but not in any way to alienate those who are left of center.

How do we appeal to the center? That's the harder part. I see it as a matter of emphasis and - yes - marketing. No fundamental change in policy or position is needed. Just emphasize what we stand for.

Also, we need to find a candidate for every office who has this sort of appeal. The ideal candidate is one who is left of center but appears not to come from the mold into which the opposition has cast us.

We're not weak on security. We're not anti-business. We're not anti-god. But we're seen as being such. Change that perception and all else will follow.

As my avatar shows, I am a supporter of Wes Clark and strongly so. But this post is not about that at all, so please don't allow it to color your opinion of what I am saying. Surely there are many, many, many in our party who are excellent ideological matches to our basic stands who can appeal to those who are at today's "center".

Take your recipe's points 1, 2, and 3 and reverse it. Win the middle and get them on our side. Then start moving to the right - not in ideology, but in vote gathering. Simply put, we need to find a way to move the "center" back to the left.

(This issue is far more complicated than this, but I hope I've presented its essence reasonably well. You may also wish to visit DU's "Frame The Debate" group for more on some strategies to make our positions appear again to appeal to the center and beyond.)

Hello Democrats? Anybody home? Newsflash! We live in a TV world. What about appeal, charisma and strong leadership? How did Bush get rated higher in polls as a "strong leader"? We need to know the answer to that question. I don't want to knock Kerry. Instead I knock his staff around him, for not getting him the kind of airtime and ads that would show off his APPEAL. People respond to enthusiasm. What made the Deaniacs into such maniacs for Dean? We need to know the answer to that question, too.

We can win the middle with enthusiasm, more airtime and much better Marketing. I have said this repeatedly, we need a top-tier New York ad agency -- not just for image, but because ad agencies understand demographics and what MOTIVATES people better than anyone else. I'm not saying to throw out the issues, instead I'm saying to give the messge WINGS!

And yes, we've all heard this repeatedly: we let the Bush administration pick the issues and frame the debate. Politics and a national campaign is grown-up business. Block, parry AND thrust. We seemed to do a lot of ducking and hurling of insults this year, in hindsight.

center bad!

that I needed to be sure to encourage the radicals who support my position. He said that without the radicals, my view will seem extreme, with the radicals, I'm seen as more centrist.

To illustrate his point, he spoke about the ASPCA. At one point the ASPCA was seen as extremely radical and outrageous. Then along came PETA and suddenly the ASPCA was "normal" and "good".

We don't need to change, and we shouldn't change. We need to embrace our radicals (short of encouraging violence of any sort) and offer the more "normal" side to "counteract" them.

wouldn't it? If we were to engage in a Liberal Perestroika - create our own "extremist" opposition on the Left, so that every candidate we put up as a Democrat would appear quite appealing and balanced.

But you're dead on when it comes to perspective.

In my life before marriage, I imagine I had about the same housekeeping abilities and techniques from dorm room to apartment - but whether I was labeled a "clean freak" or a "slob" depended on who was my roommate at the time.