What does it mean to people here to "go left" in concrete terms?

The republicans like to portray liberals as weak on defense and practicing appeasement at any price. They claim liberals drive up deficits with irresponsible spending and they attack all mainstream religions.

What is our message when we say go left?

"Weak on defense."

Despite waging and winning WWII, getting us ass-deep in Viet Nam, not losing a single life in a brilliant Kosovo campaign, and waging a very successful anti-terrorism program in the 90s, many people still associated the Democratic party with the anti-war movement of the 60s.

We must associate ourselves with fighting Just wars, remind them that the GOP fucked up Viet Nam (wish the party could sweep that one under the rug.)

But as for the rest?

Let's just remind them that we eliminated deficits in the 90s, and are staunch defenders of the 1st Amendment - specifically the establishment clause.

Remind them that if Congress established a state religion, there is no guaranteeing it would be THEIR religion.

We as a party tend to believe that few wars are justified, and that when they are they should be carried out with minimum loss of life on both sides. We should quit emphasizing whether a war or invasion was successful and begin emphasizing whether it was right, or whether it upheld or undermined our values.

To me, the biggest problem in America now is that we don't worry about our values anymore, we only worry about or national interests. We have become a nation concerned only with how rich we are, how safe we are, how pretty we are, and how much we can boast about our flag. We have no emphasis on the ideals this nation once supported-- the human rights of all individuals, to sum it up.

War violates a person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We should be more aggressive in condemning them, less wiggly about how we much we should support them to look good. I don't care who started what war and whether we won or lost. I only care about whether the war should have been started. I haven't seen one since the Civil War that should have been (We didn't start the WWs), and I have a lot of questions about that one, even.

..the poster asked how to rid the party of the perception that we were weak on national defense.

There is a big difference.

War is a bad national defence policy. Pretending it's a good idea is what gets us into wars. We need to hammer home to the voters that all of the wars we are currently fighting and contemplating were caused by the misguided war-like policies of the previous Republican administrations who thought war was a good idea.

War is a bad national defence policy.

By attempting to convince people of that, you'll solidify the "weak on defense" label.

We need to hammer home to the voters that all of the wars we are currently fighting and contemplating were caused by the misguided war-like policies of the previous Republican administrations who thought war was a good idea.

You're concentrating specifically on wars currently being fought. While the war in Iraq is losing popularity, the Afghanistan invasion remains popular.

National defense goes WAY beyond that.

We must convince voters we're willing to wage war IF we want to shake the "weak on defense" label.

We must convince voters we're willing to wage war IF we want to shake the "weak on defense" label.

If this is the reality, then I must say that I've lost hope for the United States avoiding a rapid decline in status among the community of nations. If the only foreign policy that is acceptable to the voting public is a militaristic one (and that's what, at essence, a policy that promotes the willingness to wage war is), then we're all pretty much screwed.

Sadly, I really can't find much to disagree with here. Although I, personally, am going to continue to speak out with my opposition to war and militarism -- the vast majority of the American public seems to fetishize about war for one reason or another. Well, I guess all we can do is await the eventual fate of all other attempts at empire through the past 500 years....

... which wasn't the morality of war, or whether it is ever justified, but how to lose the "weak on defense" label.

You and I agree on the tragedy of war, but we (as a party) have been preaching the evil of war for years now and look where it has us.

To prevail on the issue (and all indications are that we have to), we must demonstrate that when circumstances call for it, we'll do it.

Rather, I was just expanding the discussion slightly.

However, I would disagree that we as a "party" have been preaching the evils of war for some time now. Maybe certain segments of the rank-and-file have, but the upper eschelons of the Democratic Party (you know, the people who are "heard" nationally) really haven't been.

But I will say this -- if the party leaders decide that they need to take the direction of people like Peter Beinart WRT foreign policy, or to drift in that direction, I will not come along for the ride.

Having been in the military myself, and having seen the way that war affects those subjected to it, this is a non-negotiable point for me. I'm not saying I'd leave the party, but I wouldn't exactly enthusiastically support it with either time or money.

argue what I believe, I guess.

The original post said nothing about trying to convince people we were strong on defense, it asked what left meant to us. To me, it means convincing people that we shouldn't wage needless wars. This "we sort of support the war but not really" dance doesn't work politically, either. We would not lose any worse by arguing our convictions. We can do that without arguing against the mainstream by emphasizing what our views have in common with the mainstream, and with out national ideals-- support for life, support for peace, support for freedom and democracy, etc.

And Afghanistan isn't going well, either. Letting people know that might help prove that wars aren't good foreign policy. Wars don't change anything except the names of the leaders.

If you're going to go for the "just wars" angle, you're simply going to play into RW strategy -- because they will try and portray EVERY war as being a "just war". Just look at the way they've shamelessly tried to compare the current warmongering with the US effort during WWII -- what I would characterize as the only "just war" we've fought in the past century.

War devastates those who are subjected to its horrors. As a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, I have gotten to know numerous people who fought in the initial invasion of Iraq and the occupation since. Each and every one of them that was in combat will tell you that they are psychologically scarred from their experiences. They will tell you that there are times that they just break down out of nowhere. They will tell you that they dive to the ground every time they hear a car backfire or a firecracker go off on July 4. Many veterans of other wars will tell you the same.

What is the moral in all of this? Soldiers are not toys -- they are people. And those people suffer terrible injuries during war -- even if they appear to be unscarred on the outside. Therefore, they should only be committed to war if there is absolutely NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE, and if people in high places abuse them, they should be either forced to go and fight on the front lines themselves, or thrown into prison for the rest of their natural lives to waste away in a 4'x6' cell.

As for the GOP fucking up Vietnam, I would suggest you read Daniel Ellsberg's Secrets. It tells a very different story of a wholly bipartisan fuckup in Vietnam.

Taxes is a key one. When republicans talk about tax cuts, ask why low taxes on the rich are a higher priority than good public schools and access to higher education.

If we want to spread democracy, we have to stop taking our marching orders from corporations, and withdraw our love and support from dictators.

Their profligate spending argument just doesn't hold up in light of the Clinton years, or even comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan.

The harder part will be going after the war idea. Democrats are more pacificistic. We only want to fight when we are really threatened, not when we just want to help an oil company or sweatshop steal some shit.

and therefore deserve to not be bombed because they are easy targets, that all deserve the same rights as those that Republicans approve of, that all deserve an equal education, an equal economic playing field that is not slanted towards the wealthy by obscene tax cuts which remove the burden of societal investment from the wealthy who benefit from it most, that all have the inalienable rights that the select few want to keep for themselves. That no individual or corporation can take away my right to eat healthy food, to breathe healthy tobacco-and-polution-free air, that my children deserve a nation in as good a shape as the one my parents gave me, even if it means I have to sacrifice as much as my parents did to give it them. That the Earth belongs to anyone, so anyone who damages it damages my property and should be held accountable.

That no person or government has the power to kill for any reasons other than immediate self defense, that no government or person has the power to tell me what to do with my body in any way, as long as what I do doesn't harm others (smoking in public, drunk driving, etc.). That consenting adults can do as they wish. That no government can tell me what I can read, watch, eat, drink, smoke, chew, or spit out as long as I'm not violating someone else's right by doing so.

That's the gist of it.

As for the specific comments you bring up: A strong military with no diplomatic effort IS weak on defense, a respect for the rights of non-Americans is not appeasement, Republicans have less right to complain about the deficits than Geraldo has to complain about the lack of chastity in this nation, and mainstream and offbeat religions by law should have equal status in the eyes of our government--meaning none.

and start defining ourselves instead of allowing the rightwingnuts define us?

That's probably too hard, though.

make it clear what we stand for and stop letting them say what we stand for. Their strong points are mere perceptions of good marketing and not fact. They are obviously not good on defense or we wouldn't be here. They are obviously not good on any fiscal matters.

I hear go left and go center and that only feeds into preconceived notions. I'm new to the party (still listed as an independent.) as the current republicans are too militant for me and too busy stepping on the little guy. What do the labels really mean to people at DU? Do they have any concrete meaning at all?

> The republicans like to portray liberals as weak on defense

It's the Republicans who are managing to lose a war against an
"enemy" that had already been de-fanged by the UN.

> and practicing appeasement at any price.

The Republicans are masters of appeasment. They appease the Saudis
even as they fund terrorists, and they appease Musharraf even as Osama
remains safe within his borders.

> They claim liberals drive up deficits with irresponsible spending

None of them ever dreamed of deficits the likes of Booosh**'s $half-TRILLION!

Clinton ran a $quarter-TRILLION SURPLUS!

> and they attack all mainstream religions.

We don't attack any religions. I wish the reverse were true.

but here are a just a few thoughts:

*Regarding defence the key is to push the point that the nature of threats to our security have dramatically changed in the last 20 years. There are essentially no nation-states that pose any threat to us, rather it is organizations such as Al Qaeda that we need to worry about. Thus pumping millions of dollars into things like missile defence is a waste of money. We're much more vulnerable to attack from a Ryder truck than a missile.

Furthermore George Walker Bush's cowboy posturing may make for good photo ops, but is indicative of an overly simplistic vision of what we need to do to defend our nation. The world is a complicated place, so we need smart solutions. More James Bond, less John Wayne.

*As far as the defecit/econ issue goes, Bush is pretty much ceding the issue to us with his inept handling of the budget and other economic issues. To look at the big picture though, the last time a Republican president signed a balanced budget was in 1957. The reason Ike was able to do this wasn't just because of austerity in spending, but also because the tax rates then were socialist by today's standards. To turn left means to implement a more progressive tax system. If somebody like Hannity accuses us of being commies, then we can point out that our tax plan places less of a burden on Americans than that of Eisenhower, and then leave the conservative to explain how the greatest Republican president of the 20th century was a member of the Loony Left.

Since the left recognizes the need to raise the upper tax brackets in order to maintain the solvency of government, the ball is in the right's court. If they are going to claim that our taxes are too high, it is up to them to specify which programs we need to slash in order to pay for tax cuts. So far the GOP has shown its political cowardice by being unwilling to answer this question. It's the job of our pundits to hold them accountable.

*With regard to religion, liberals are aware that there are more religions in the United States than fundamentalist Christianity, and our founding fathers wrote the first amendment with this in mind. The point is to respect all religions by not using government as a vehicle to promote a specific sect. This isn't a very radical notion. Like most liberal ideas, it's good old fashioned common sense.

The DLC and I think most "centrist" democrats are also in favor of progressive taxes and reduced deficits. I don't think the party needs to move left on these points as they are already there. However, it needs to be sold more front and center.