Why there will never be a Liberal / Progressive President

Many on the Left wonder why Liberals and Progressives have a difficult time getting leadership roles in the party or anywhere near the presidency. It's not because the people don't like their message, policies or agenda...it's because the Reagan Demiocrats, New Democrats, Neoconservatives and their 'religious' Right allies have for decades worked in concert to keep them from power.

They fear a Progressive Populist agenda for a very good reason: it would change the face of American politics and expose the real anti-worker agenda of politicians that prefer a corporate/state over democracy. It would destroy everything the Right and the RWing of the Democratic party has worked towards since the Vietnam era.

They worked together to character assassinate Clinton until he joined with them and later Al Gore when he turned his 2000 campaign around with a populist message. They did the same to McGovern, Jesse Jackson, Dukakis, MLKjr and the many other Progressives that got in the way of their grand scheme to transform America into a pro-corporation, one-party state.

The New Democrats and their RWing allies were very successful at keeping Progressive politicians from gaining any power in the 90s. They touted Clinton's 'third way' as the answer to winning elections...but at the cost of getting rid of a good portion of the liberal/progressive base that would object to a party beholden to special interests other than the people. But with literally millions of dollars donated by corporations for just this purpose...most rank and file Democrats were convinced to vote against their own interests.

Unions and Worker's Rights were the first to be sacrificed on the alter of the corporate state. Corporate lobbyists were instructed to invade DC and buy off as many politicians as they could. In exchange for campaign cash and favorable coverage from their corporate media...Republicans and Democrats alike made bargains to destroy collective bargaining, cut wages and water-down benefits. (The real reason for no national health care.)

After the Labor Movement was put to sleep...the NeoDems and NeoCons were able to move on to other cultural issues (like religion, abortion, guns) that would divide the people into factions and keep them from becoming an effective force against government and corporate corruption. The People became mere cheerleaders for the two parties that had encouraged them to not get involved in politics beyond voting on election day. The American people became literally like sheep...expected to always vote the party line and for anyone their party nominated. The goal was now winning at all costs...not choosing the candidate that best represented their parties and the American people.

But the corporate lobbyists knew that an opposing force still existed in American politics. There was a danger that a Liberal or Progressive candidate might accidentally be elected to high office despite all their efforts to label them as 'unelectable'. So with the help of Republicans and silence from Democrats...corporations used their media to character assassinate politicians on the left and began 'fixing' voting machines to ensure that the candidate that won was always friendly to their interests.

Just what are these corporate interests? The 'war on terrorism' is being fought for the corporate state, not the American people. The People are simply cannon fodder for corporate war profiteers that use their media monopoly to stir feelings of patriotism and nationalism to keep the ranks full of eager soldiers willing to die to 'protect' their country. Liberals and Progressives understand that both Republicans and Democrats have been lying to the American people about the need to attack countries that had nothing to do with 9-11 and without providing clear evidence of a threat. They understand that aggressive, unprovoked war is a crime and that it's morally wrong to indiscriminately kill thousands of innocent civilians and willfully destroy the infrastructure of their countries. This is yet one more reason why 'anti-war' Progressives are now seen as the enemy of the corporate state and can't be allowed to get anywhere near the White House.

This is why the Neocons and Neodems made sure that populist politicians like Dean and Kucinich never made it through the primaries. They were ridiculed and belittled for their anti-war positions by both sides and called 'unelectable', un-American and a threat to the 'security' of the nation. Republicans and Democrats alike couldn't afford to have popular politicians with widespread grassroots support mucking up their plans for perpetual war and a blank check from the national treasury.

If you've ever wondered why the Left never gets the keys to the oval office...it's because corporations now own and control a majority of politicians in both parties. They will NEVER allow an anti-war, pro-labor, pro-national health care Liberal or Progressive to become president. The Corporate State uses the Church, Media and Military as instruments of power and they'll use any means necessary to keep the left and their 'party of the people' from attaining any kind of influence within the government.

Welcome to the Corporate States of America. Have a great Sunday morning.

Because no one will ever meet the lofty standards of some on the left.

And I've asked this a million times of you, Q --- why do you rearrange and recycle the same talking points weekly?

I know there are some here who love your constant reinforcement of their ideology (and yes, I know I could ignore you and your posts), but it does get a little old.

Write some poetry.

(instead of the wordy, lengthy cut-and-paste "DLC is evil" reply I will no doubt get.

...that a New Democrat is the first to respond to this post.

And I've asked YOU a 'million times'...why would it be any of YOUR business what I post? I'm not sure I need to ask anymore. Why would a New Democrat want to break with tradition? Why would they want the people to know the truth?

But isn't it getting a bit difficult to convince people that what they're seeing with their own eyes isn't true?

How about breaking tradition for once and present an opposing view instead of doing what the RWing of the Dem party does best: character assassination and changing the subject?

Why don't you tell us why the New Democrats have become corporate apologists and have joined with the Right to destroy Labor and divide America into cheerleading factions?

Comeon...I know you can do it. Put a little effort into it beyond the NeoDem rhetoric of 'purity' and 'lofty standards'. Certainly you're aware that these are the 'standards' of a caring, civil society?

You must be aware that both the New Democrats and Neoconservatives lie to Americans on a daily basis about the reason for endless wars and robbing the treasury for the benefactors? Let a little reality slip into your monologue.

How about breaking tradition for once and present an opposing view instead of doing what the RWing of the Dem party does best: character assassination and changing the subject?

Early on, Q, I would present opposing viewpoints but I would literally get the same old doom and gloom diatribe from you in return. I would repeatedly offer opposing viewpoints and you would seemingly post the same cut-and-paste irrelevant replies.

I would roll out voting statistics, voting patterns, links, and what not.

You'd ignore them for the same "DLC is evil" diatribe.

Look at you original post? Any basis for your feelings? Any stats?

It's better now if I just point that out to people.

Hey, people - if you can't get in on Q's latest attempt at dividing DU and insulting a portion of DU's population, just wait a week. The same piece - reworded - will be posted next week.

...put me on ignore? It's clear that you have no interest in defending the New Democratic position on war and corporate whoredom. The fact is that you can't defend it without admitting that the DLC and their Neocon buddies are lying to us.

Point out anything you want. That's up to you.

But stop pretending that it's 'me' that's 'dividing' DU and the Democratic party and NOT the 'New Democrats' that were too elitist to be plain old Democrats.

Stats? One only has to LOOK around them to see that what I'm writing is true. But the DLCers don't want Democrats to know the whole truth. They don't want them to know that they're supporting an illegal war and war criminals or that they're encouraged to vote for Candidates more beholden to corporate special interests than The People.

Many Democrats are sill unaware that there are Republicans in our party disguised as democrats.

I guess you didn't read it.

If I put you on ignore, then I'd miss out on challenging your obvious bitter diatribes.

But stop pretending that it's 'me' that's 'dividing' DU and NOT the 'New Democrats' that were too elitist to be plain old Democrats.

I don't see any "New Dems" writing weekly divisive diatribes.

Stats? One only has to LOOK around them to see that what I'm writing is true.

Ah. What I would expect from someone with no stats.

...no...I don't read all of your posts these days. I already know what's in them before I open this thread. You're obviously here to defend the DLC and 'new' Democrats because you're part of that..uh...organization.

But I would bet that other posters reading this thread see something very familar in your scribes. And if they've seen your other posts on this board...they already know about your disdain for the 'loony left'. What's difficult to understand is why you even bother to pretend that there is any kind of unity between the left and right factions of the Dem party?

Projection. The DLC divides the party into camps by trying to force it to the right against the wishes of the majority and vilifying the left and then cries about division when they're called on it.

Progressives have tried working with the RWing of the party all through the 90s. But they took advantage of the left and gave us horrible trade policies that hurt workers...a welfare 'reform' act that hurts the poor...and literally gave the free press to the right in the 96 legislation. We saw the same thing continue after 2000 when the right was given elections won by Democrats...criminal acts by the Bush WH ignored for the sake of 'unity' and murderous wars fought for no other reason than the Neocons and Neodems wanted them.

Don't presume to lecture me about truth and unity. The New Democrats are in bed with the Bush administration on too many issues important to the future of the party and country. We on the loony left will not let this happen without a fight.

..your last reply is no different than anything you ever reply with.

Pepperbelly put is nicely here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1688856&mesg_id=1688922

In other words, you ain't got jack to back up your divisive screeds beyond circular reasoning.

Up in your reply #6, you wrote:

Stats? One only has to LOOK around them to see that what I'm writing is true.

Then, in #29, you said:

the proof is in the pudding

Without iany concrete evidence, this is the same reasoning that gave us myths and fables.

misperception ;) self-deleted

It simply doesn't occur to some people that change is extremely difficult work and may require a lifetime of commitment in order for something to get done. Human beings do not change things on a whim, it takes a great deal of advocacy and perseverance to convince people that something that has been going on for a long period of time can be made better. That is a simple fact.

Liberalism, almost by definition, proposes changes to an established way of doing things. When liberal ideas first appear they are almost universally condemned as radical changes that threaten to topple the known social and political order. Human society thrives on order. Changes to that known order are perceived as threats to the very fabric of society. That's why change is hard. You are fighting against human nature itself. That doesn't mean it can't be done; it means that you need to understand what you are fighting against and develop a sense of what it is going to take to get a sufficient number of citizens and movers and shakers on your side to make a change take effect. Again, this can take a lifetime of commitment.

Look at the history of civil rights in this country. There have been agitators for civil rights for all citizens since the first settlers came to these shores. They have had opposition who have used the societal means for enforcing order to maintain the established system. Order is always backed up with references to religious texts and mandates and with inciting fear that disrupting the way things are done will bring down chaos and societal crisis. This pattern is repeated every time change is proposed. It is what you fight against as a liberal. I just thank all the liberals who came before me for not giving up on Women's rights, Civil Rights, religious liberty concerns and so forth for not giving up.

Change can happen. How bad do you want it? Bad enough to endure the bad times when it looks like you will never get what you want? Bad enough to ensure that you are a voice of hope and inspiration to those who need some in order to maintain their commitment? Are you on the side that never gives up or the side that makes up excuses for why they can't get what they want even though they want it real bad. (You can't get what you want sometimes because there are powerful forces arrayed against you who have the money, means and warm bodies to block you.) I would rather be one of those who work to 'Keep hope alive' than one of those who tells others that the struggle itself is hopeless. Maybe that's just me, but it helps me to keep things in perspective and to keep my eyes on the prize.

...and it seems that many HAVE given up and plan to simply accept what happens to their party and country. Perhaps many of the changes have been so gradual that some have not noticed them or think they can be changed BACK with their side in power?

I don't believe in coincidence theories. And it's no coincidence that factions in both parties are working FOR corporations and against those who want them to be made accountable. These same factions support bankrupcy bills, 'tort reform' and are rabidly anti-union and worker's rights. They both have nice, fluffy rhetoric to make Americans believe they're on the same side...but the reality on the ground contradicts their very words.

The Right and the RWing of the Democratic party can no longer defend their illegal war(s)...so they've resorted to using the time-honored tactics of dividing the nation into 'patriots' and those who 'hate America'. They certainly can't admit that they fighting the 'war on terrorism'...not for the American people or their safety and security...but for lust of power and corporate greed. How many Americans would support these 'wars' if they knew the whole truth? The answer is few...which is why the Neocons and Neodems think of themselves as patriotic when they lie for the sake of 'unity'.

Other posters have stated that America has been through this before. But I submit that America has never been subjected to this type of tyranny and corruption. Never before has a president been 'given' so much power and the ability to work outside the rule of law and Constitutional checks and balances. This country is under the control of a few individuals and their corporate media. Their success is dependent on the cooperation of enough Democrats to make it appear 'bipartisan' in nature.

Our country is falling...and it pisses me off that so many Americans can't or won't see it.

I honestly can't see what in your sweeping (and long) overview is being offered up for discussion.

...is the beginning of a process that brings discussion. Take from it what you will and bring your thoughts to the table.

The overriding theme is this: The New Democrats have joined with the 'new' Republicans to transform America into a corporate, warring state that replaces social programs with 'private' corporate entities. Granted...they're only in the beginning stages...but have already made great strides in destroying worker's rights and holding their corporate sponsors blameless and above the law.

And let's not forget that 'some' Democrats are helping them along...with their promotion and support for legislation and laws that literally hand over our hard-earned tax dollars to corporate welfare/warfare and to their religious supporters.

Because this post is long doesn't make it an editorial. Read it or pass it by. Comment or not....but this is now the reality of 'our' country.

specifically making an argument that you believe important to the future of the Democratic Party, and making it in a very appropriate forum ... i.e. an online community of Democrats of all stripes ... I follow these threads after a fashion and one thing that always bothers me about it: there are so many broad assertions of fact that are not fact at all, I think your contentions would be served if when arguing that your belief or opinion is true, please work on establishing the validity of your contention through something more than circular reasoning.

For example, in this piece you posted today, in the very first paragraph, you said, "It's not because the people don't like their message, policies or agenda...it's because the Reagan Demiocrats, New Democrats, Neoconservatives and their 'religious' Right allies have for decades worked in concert to keep them from power."

If this is true, it is indeed quite important. I would like to know if it is, in fact, true. I am left still wondering after reading your treatise. As a political scientist and a rhetoritician, I would love to get this sorted out. Do you have anything at all that actually establishes the veracity of that initial claim? If so, please post it because if what you assert is true, it would be quite important for us to know for sure.

...just as we wanted to 'know for sure' that Iraq had WMD before our country attacked them without provocation.

Start with this link: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php

And study the links within that article. It should give you a guideline to the framework of how the party was 'infiltrated' in the 80s and 90s and forced to the right. Also relevent to this discussion is the PNAC and PPI and the crossover with the DLC.

The 'religious right' isn't a direct ally of the Neodems...but they are pandering to them now to build their base on the right.

Please keep in mind that most of this information is not widely disseminated because it would make many Democrats look like hypocrites if it were known that some were playing both sides against the middle.

Thanks for your post.

By the way...some interesting reading linked from the above page.

Sources

Photo: Progressive Policy Institute
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=1100


(1) Progressive Policy Institute: Biography: Will Marshall III
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=1100


(2) Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, October 30, 2003
http://www.ndol.org/documents/Progressive_Internationalism_1003.pdf


(3) Tom Barry, "Pax Americana: What's the Alternative?" Right Web Analysis, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), April 21, 2004
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0404paxamericana.php


(4) Ronald Brownstein, "Candidates All Press for Global Iraq Effort," Los Angeles Times, December 4, 2003
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-allies4dec04,1,3761146.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage


(5) "They Said It," GOP.com, December 4, 2003
http://www.rnc.org/news/read.aspx?ID=3782


(6) Will Marshall, "Stay and Win in Iraq," Blueprint, January 8, 2004
http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=252289


(7) Statements on Iraq, Project for the New American Century
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.php


(8) "U.S. Committee on NATO," Right Web Profile, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), March 2004.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/uscnato.php


(9) ) "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," Right Web Profile, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), December 2003
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/cli.php


(10) "Open Letter to President Bush," NotesOnline, SD/USA, March 2003


(11) "Social Democrats/USA," Group Watch Profile, Interhemispheric Resource Center, November 1989
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/sd-usa.php


(12) Will Marshall, "The National Security Case Against George W. Bush," Blueprint Magazine, November 20, 2003
http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=252199



Recommended citation: "Will Marshall," Right Web Profiles (Silver City, NM: Interhemispheric Resource Center, May 2004).


Web location: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php

I am talking about the linkage you alleged between our losses and the different groups you mentioned as having hijacked the party. I don't actually believe that was the cause. If you could prove that, you might be onto something.

You're a very intelligent person but you seem to be having problems connecting the dots.

How is it that a complete loser from Texas is able to lie and cheat his way into office and there are still a good number of Democrats willing to work with him? Do you really think they're working with him because they're concerned about 'bipartisanship' for the good of the people and our country? No...they're working with him on certain issues because they agree with what he's trying to do. They WANT these changes to happen but don't necessarily want to be blamed or take responsibility for them.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the same (D)emocrats that have been pushing the party to the right since the 80s are now collaborating with Bush? It's their golden opportunity to move the party further to the right and then blame the all-powerful RWing Bush junta for being 'forced' in that position. They both 'claim' that America is becoming more 'conservative' but that's not true. The corporate state and their media is trying their hardest to push the country in that direction...but can't quite get there as long as the Democratic party remains intact as the 'party of the people'.

It's also no coincidence that both the Neocons and Neodems equate the word 'liberal' with enemies of the state. The grassroots Left is literally the only thing that stands in their way.

Your connection of the dots is not nearly solid enough to reach the conclusion you reached. For my money, the three biggest factors in the last two losses were the total war declared against the Democratic nominees by the MSM (the NY Times and WP leading the way), our incompentent representatives on the media (i.e. talking heads) and dangerously buggy vote tabulation software.

The whole DLC thing does not even make the top 5 in my analysis. IOW, if you "fix" the problem the way you outline, you still lose because of the direct reasons I cited.

"The dogs bark, but the caravan passes on."

Carry on.

appreciate your posts. They always make me think about things, often I agree sometimes not, but they do make me think about things I may not have thought about before or to further think of things I need to think more about. I rarely reply but that does not mean they do not help a lot of us to think and rethink. Thanks.

But never is a very long time. All it takes is a missed meal and politics can change immediately. Don't underestimate the power of hunger.

Revolution is only one meal away. This fact is lost on the wealthy and powerful.

Ignore the sandy-haired posters, Q. They're part of the problem, not the solution.

...that the RWing of the Democratic party doesn't want any part of this particular truth?

I would love to know how a majority of 'rank and file' Democrats felt about where the party was headed? It's too bad that we couldn't poll every registered Democrat with straight forward questions that didn't try to 'push' them one way or another. I can't imagine that a Democrat would be against worker's rights, choice or many of the other traditional principles that made the party great...like NOT GOING TO WAR UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.

There was a time when I thought that it was such a shame that the Republicans allowed the Neocons to take over their party and use it for their own criminal purposes. But now that the same thing is happening to the Dem party...I understand just how easy it is for a small group of wealthy, 'white' men to take control of a party AND a country. And NOW I know how the German people felt in 1930s Germany. History repeats.

It threatens their buckets of corporate cash. Naturally they're opposed to Democrats learning these disturbing little details.

I do think that the rank-and-file, if exposed to the evidence, would agree with you, and piss on those who want to sell them out. Most Dems are good, honest people who believe in helping the average Joe and Jane, not in allowing rapacious corporate "persons" to succeed at their expense.

The election of Dean to chairman, I feel, sent a message from the more knowledgeable, active base - a message of "fuck off, you corporate whore Dems, we're sick of your lies and selling out of our rights and needs".

Ultimately, the DLC is failing, and its recent flailings are just desperate attempts to cling to what little power they have left. I think it's a wonderful thing that the "NeoDems", as you call them, are sweating a bit, and even better that their pro-corporate, anti-worker, civil rights-lite vision is crumbling.

Let the fanboys continue to try to sell the DLC message. Fewer people are buying it every day (and I can't help but notice that some here on DU have gone from defending it to deriding it, likely in no small part due to information that people like madfloridian, Eloriel, yourself and others have shared with DU).

Keep up the good fight. The only way to make sure the DLC doesn't regain control is to keep exposing the truth about their origin, funding, and rightwing alliances (like, oh, the Koch Brothers).

:yourock:

...Dean and the grassroots was to give him a position that had NO power to make changes. He had much more power as an 'independent' Democrat. In the end result...he'll be rebuilding a party that will be 'encouraged' to throw their support behind another DLC candidate in 2008. The only candidate...we'll be told...that has a chance of winning.

I don't believe that the DLC is failing or falling. They have the perpetual war they've always wanted and can share power with the Neocons as long as the Bushies stay in office. They're both using 9-11, fear, terror and everlasting war to control the agendas of their parties.

Nothing will change until the Democratic party finds a leadership that is willing to tell the whole truth to the American people. About government/corporate fraud and corruption. About election fraud. About illegal wars. About war crimes.

We WILL NOT find this type of leadership in the New Democratic Coalition.

I appreciate your posts and your exposing the hypocrisy of our own home grown right-wing elements.

Progressives don't get elected President because progressive voters don't have enough confidence in the appeal of their ideas to put up a strong fight. They just give up, sit on the sidelines, and let someone supposedly more "electable" to go down losing without a fight. The attitude expressed in the title of your post is why progressives don't win.

Although I believe another issue is candidates that are more progressive have problems organizing, not only because the voters lack the confidence in the appeal of their ideas, but because they can seldom agree on the ideas and what issues the candidate should put forward.

Between you both, we have a winner!

...shallow analysis. But if all it took was confidence than Al Sharpton would be president today.

This thread was originally entitled: Why New Democrats and Neocons fear a strong Progressive Leadership. But I changed it so the usual whiners wouldn't have as much to whine about right out of the gate. Guess I was wrong.

I would have countered with "Why faux progressives would rather belly ache about the system than organize and put up candidates the masses would actually vote for."

Hysterical your use of the word "whine."

Posts like the one that started the thread are nothing but self serving 'woe are the prooogresssiives' whines.

Bilderberg, yes? One of our posters on General Clark's blog has done a lot of reasearch on this and at the end of my post I'll include a snip of one of her posts from there with the link to one of the Bilderberg sites.

Personally Q, I think you are right on on many of your points - one thing that should make sense to most people is how eerily quiet the Dems were after the Radical Regressives stole not one but TWO elections. No one can possibly believe that if all of us out here know what went on, that the guys on the inside don't know.

The theories of One World Power are not conspiracy theories as we're supposed to believe. This is personally one of the reasons I support General Clark. His interests and beliefs are centered on preserving this country and our constitution as well as ensuring our best interests do not harm others. He is not part of or involved in this elite "club" - hence, he was essentially blacked out by the Corporate controlled media. Thankfully, he is also "scary" smart and I believe will be able to deal with it if and when he decides to run for office again.

*************

This is from ms in la:

A little bit o Bilderberg info for those discussing it earlier vis a vis PNAC. Globalization has always been a Bilderberger dream. These are mostly compiled clips from American Free Press site and another Bilder site I visit:
~~~~~~~

Ever since it began Bilderberg has promoted the integration of European nations into a United States of Europe run not by elected representatives but by appointed 'Commissioners' who many believe to be in the pockets of banks and big business. This is nothing new. European based multinationals such as Philips and Volvo played a major part in designing the superstructure of the European State.
~~~~~~~~

The list forced out of Bilderberg is incomplete, as always. Every time the list has been obtained by whatever means, there are people who attended but are not mentioned. For example, this year, AFP was able to get a call through to Andrew Parisiliti at Westfields during the meeting but he is not on Bilderberg's list. Parisiliti is foreign affairs advisor to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a Bilderberg regular who was attending an Asian peace summit at the time. Parisiliti was representing Hagel at Bilderberg. < look for Hagel 2008? >

New invitee in May 2004 : Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) Also in 2004 for the first time, the chairmen of the two major parties were summoned to Bilderberg. Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and Mark Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee, both attended Bilderberg.

Leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties now know what Bilderberg wants them to do. They also know the vast sums of money and global influence that are at stake.

Actions by the WTO reflect the agenda of the secret Bilderberg Group, of which World Bank President James Wolfensohn is a longtime member. < written in 2004 >

~~~~~

Bush wants unrestricted Fast Track to create the "Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)," which would expand NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere and evolve into the "American Union" similar to the European Union--a giant step toward erecting a formal world government. This is a major goal of Bilderberg, which is meeting secretly outside Washington May 30-June 2, 2004.

Chief Bilderberger David Rockefeller has been behind much of the push for the FTAA. As honorary chairman of the Council of the Americas, Rockefeller has been credited with masterminding the sovereignty-stealing, job-robbing free trade pact and being its leading cheerleader.

Rockefeller's group counts some of the leading multinational corporations as its largest supporters, including the 3-M Corporation and the Boeing Corporation.
~~~~~~

---During the Bilderberg conference, two of Turkey's largest newspapers, Hurriyet and Zaman, reported that, despite Muslim opposition, Turkey's Treasury Minister Ali Babacan was attending with a handful of state bureaucrats. Zaman wrote: " `This, the first serious en counter between the new Justice and Development Party (AKP) government and the "Lords of the New World Order," which have been following Turkey closely for years, is truly significant,' says researcher Aytunc Altindal.

http://www.bilderberg.org/index.htm

...are taking the theft of TWO elections far too casually. It's like the end of democracy in America is not that big of deal to them as long as they get a cut of the plunder or a promise of power.

The truth of the matter is glaringly obvious: we've been sold out to corporate interests. There is something seriously wrong with our party if every Dem isn't pissed about it.

One doesn't even need to look at the Bilderbergs to understand what's going on. Just take a closer look at Lieberman, Kerry and Hillary to see the future of the party.

To me, saying the corporations are fighting to keep someone who supports working people from becoming president is like saying the sky is blue. Of course this is the case, and always will be. The solution is just to keep working and persevere - work with local people trying to change things as long as it takes, and eventually you get a momentum going that can't be stopped. There has been much success for various movements over the past decades. Labor is on it's back now - the AFL-CIO leadership was too busy undermining foreign worker movements to worry about the attacks on labor at home for the past decades. Nonetheless, rank-and-file workers are organizing and fighting back, and if they keep working and are smart about things, the labor movement will be back.

...but first we must fully understand what and who we're fighting. It should go without saying that the Neocons and the zealots in the WH present the most serious danger. But we should never forget that the Bushies couldn't have attained so much unbridled power without the help of the corporate sellout faction of the Democratic party. They were there to help Bush escape accountability after Enron and 9-11 and even today support his 'doctrine' of aggressive war for profit.

While it's true that 'Labor' must share some blame for their loss of power...it's also true that the Neocons and Neodems have been on a Union Busting campaign since the 80s. Have you noticed that none of the top New Democratic candidates ever mention unions or collective bargaining? That's because they don't want to be beholden to labor at the risk of offending their corporate paymasters.

It's very difficult to mount a united offensive against the Bushies when you have powerful interests within the Democratic party working with them and supporting their policies. I wouldn't be surprised if these same 'democrats' help Bush pass some version of his privatization of Social Security and other social programs. (See: NAFTA, Welfare 'reform' and telecommunications act of 1996)

The Democratic party can't survive as the 'party of the people' as long as the Neodems are in the driver's seat. First we must decide who we are and what we want as a PARTY before we take one more step towards choosing another candidate for president. This can't be done as long as we're pulling in two separate directions.

all knowing, you will not gather any significant numbers. You'll be forever frustrated in your "Mensa political" circle.

Momma always told me to respect (not talk above) my peers AND to use honey (goodwill) to attract support vice vinegar (arrogance) and exclusivity.

Good luck *new* democrats. You've seemingly formed an intelligent but very exclusive and lonely club. ;)

Momma always told me to respect (not talk above) my peers AND to use honey (goodwill) to attract support vice vinegar (arrogance) and exclusivity.

Al From and Will "PNAC ROCKS!" Marshall should try to learn that lesson.

...who wondered what the hell I was still doing on a board that had obviously been overrun by moderates, centrists and middle of the roaders who seemed to be selling out the party of our parents and grandparents. He had left DU a long time ago...frustrated that the party was changing...being forced really...into something that so closely resembled the Right as to be indistinguishable at times. I told him that I frankly don't know why I still try to get out of the message that the party can reclaim their legacy..if they could only throw out the traitors before it was too late. He suggested that it was already too late.

So here we are...actually debating with those who think it's okay to cooperate with the criminal Bush government, support his policies that harm the American people and help him to wage his aggressive wars without cause. (And we're told that WE are the ones dividing the party and country).

All of this because the 'new' Democrats don't want to be associated with those most in need of help from the only party left even close to a party of the people. Democrats that support Bush's illegal wars don't necessarily believe that it will accomplish anything beyond death and destruction. They support it because their benefactors are getting very rich off war proifts and that supercedes any concern about having to LIE to the people in order to keep it going.

And now that the 'new' Democrats have thrown away the base of the party...they're catering and pandering to the right in order to pick up voters that like their GOP-lite policies. The traditional base of the party are now on their own...wondering how long they can stay in a party that has no plans to represent them or their interests.

Based on my observations, I would say that saying DU is to the right of the democratic base is a very hard point to support. I wouldn't say that the majority of DUers are 'New Democrats', if any. The fact that someone supported Clinton puts them in the majority among Democrats, it doesn't make them a Republican in disguise.

NT!

It did not occur to me until the other night when another thread was overtaken by a DLCer that the Democratic Party, and seemingly DU, have been infiltrated by the repukes. Not that everyone who is moderate or advocates DLC values is a repuke in disguise, but clearly the "movement" is an arm of the rovian rnc. It was a frickin light bulb moment, particularly thinking back to an obnoxious DLCer who engaged in personal attacks to make their point...such a rovian thing to do!

Traditional Democratic values is a winner. Now, how do we purge those who detest those values?

You'd think they'd just love the guy if your theory is correct and they're working in some kind of concert.

Alternate theory: progressives and populists are more in the minority than they want to admit. Or that folks disagreed with them about their chosen candidates. It could happen.

I thought that Dean was being pushed as a frontrunner in much the same way Hillary is now, by those who thought Dean would be easy to beat just as they think Hillary will be easy to beat. Both were frontrunners before a vote was cast.

It might be as you say, but then again it might just be that the progressives and populists need to stop looking for conspiracy theories and simply get their acts together. If you can't admit there is a problem, then you can't fix it. You can only rail against the powers that be, which doesn't get anyone anywhere.

One criticism I heard about the Deaniacs during the primaries was that they were long on enthusiasm but short on knowing what the hell they were doing. That probably had alot to do with Dean bringing folks into the process who hadn't been there before, which is a good thing if they stick around and continue to work through 2006 and beyond.

I agree 100% that the progressive wing of the democratic party needs to get organized. It also needs to be confident. I'd say this also applies to pretty much the rest of our party as well.

But it isn't either/or.

We also have huge business interests and power interests that do go to extremes to manipulate the system. THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. Plato talked about it, H.L. Menkin talked about it. Machievelli talked about it at length.

Manipulating public perception, influencing votes, buying power...baiting and switching, inflitrating your opposition...none of this is new. If we described the events in our own country or own party but label it the actions of Argentina or Uzbekistan no one blinks an eye when they accept the corruption and duplicity. It's only because it's so close to home and personal that we find it unthinkable.

I don't always agree with Q's reasoning...there are plenty of holes that could be plugged in the arguments. But I'm hard pressed to disagree with the conclusions made...even if I don't think they are encompassing enough.

Win...but win for a reason. And be sure that in victory you maintain the nobility that brought you to the battle in the first place.

Our paid people that do the campaigns ... the functionaries ... the ones who present our side on the talking head shows ... those folk are the problem. When they show up to be interviewed, for the most part, they are woefully ill-prepared to discuss even the basic facts of the current controveries. During the Shit Boat Liars in 04, I howled with outrage when our spokespeople didn't have a clue regarding the circumstances ... the substance of what occurred. Instead of knowing what was available in the public domain, these assholes choose instead to sound defensive and stupid at the same time by uttering talking points that are clearly just that and that do not even make any sense to begin with.

:grr:

WE think that both Senator Kerry AND President Bush served honorably and we should discuss yadda-yadda.

How fucking lame is that?

The Shit Boat Liars were lying freaks who should have been confronted with their own words and their own circumstances and not allowed to fillibuster endlessly with their lies.

Our people suck and whatever they paid these lightweight airheads was too fucking much. They need to run every one of them off and start over. Those people are losers.

I thought that Dean was being pushed as a front-runner in much the same way Hillary is now, by those who thought Dean would be easy to beat just as they think Hillary will be easy to beat. Both were front-runners before a vote was cast.

Categorically untrue. Kerry was the front-runner at the start of the race but some other guy drew a crowd of 500 because of his message. That became a 1000. Then 5000. Then 10,000+. A crowd of 10,000 in a presidential election, by a non-incumbent, is an unbelievable achievement. Like Dean's message, or not, he earned his status as front-runner. Kerry didn't draw crowds of 10,000 until he was the nominee. Which fades into Point 2...

One criticism I heard about the Deaniacs during the primaries was that they were long on enthusiasm but short on knowing what the hell they were doing.

Categorically true. Hand-in-hand with that, was that the Washington Dems in the race knew exactly what they were doing and how to take advantage of the naivete.

I wonder why the neocons seem to hate neodem Clinton so much then

Because he co-opted their message and took credit for it. Not to mention, the very fact that he held the reins of power was galling. Galling, I tell you.

Progressive and populist seem to be used interchangeablely, but they are quite different political traditions.

Progressivism is rooted in the north, particularly New England and the upper northwest. Its historic characteristics were fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, and pacifism of some degree. One of the best 20th century examples was Robert LaFollette.

Populism is rooted in the South and Midwest, as far north as Wisconsin. It was more divergent than progressivism in terms of regional attitudes, but the central characteristics were fiscal/economic liberalism and socially moderate/conservative. Additionally, midwestern populists were generally closer to progressives on war and the use of force generally. Southern populists were and are quite hawkish by comparison.

Additionally, the charge of the Democratic party having been infiltrated by moderate and conservative Democrats is not supportable, historically. The Democratic party, historically, was a coalition of Southerners and northern ethnics, particularly Catholics. It was not a truly liberal party, as measured by the standards of LaFollette and co., until the 1970s. The moderate and conservative Democrats, to a large degree, are the remaining base of the FDR coalition.

As for character assassination, in one case, the candidate did the job himself, with little or no help from anyone else. McGovern, in the middle of a shooting war, toured the country with a delegate from the National Liberation Front.

The 1970s Democratic party shifted from a labor base to a corporate base on its own. The charge that moderates and conservatives somehow did this doesn't hold water when the fact that Southern committee chairmen were purged after the 1974 midterm elections is considered. Party leaders made a conscious choice to shift from economic liberalism to social liberalism. It was a Democratic Congress and Democratic president who deregulated finance in the late 70s and abolished the state limits on interest. It was a Democratic Congress who collaborated in the abolition of the Great Society (except Head Start).

I'm not trying to insult anyone, so I hope that this is not taken in that way. I only want to show that the history on this subject is not black and white by any means. Problem solving requires that the problems be correctly identified. I just didn't feel that they were.

I've read nearly every post to this point. I agree with much of Q has stated...both now and before. It "feels" true in some respects. Nonetheless, I understand the contradicting points and I would be what I oppose if I allowed myself to be enveloped in broad general statements that have little solid proof. Besides, we can't just look at the presidency and congress. the movement must start at lower levels.

I like your clarifying of historical points. To me, the system is broken. Yes, that's obvious, I know. But to BLAME "new dems" and the lot is valid up to a certain point. Then it becomes murky.
I'm not sure what the solution is. But the problem lies both in the corporations and those comfy insiders (D&R) that refuse to change the mechanisms that allow corporations to use government to do their bidding. It's complicated.

I just a wish a mass media outlet would surface that abandons status quo paradigms of "news" and tackles real issues to alter our pathetic national discourse. People can't want change without knowing why they should.

not everyone thinks outside the box the like us. even many rank and file dems go on blind faith and gut feelings as many republicans do. That broad partly informed or misinformed middle is where a large part of our population resides. they don't visit blogs or alternative news sources or spend a lot of time wondering about big issues. They work, watch TV and spend much of their leisure chit chatting about small talk in their immediate little world. the large issues of current events, politics, social issues and policy are beyond their everyday consciousness. this apathy or indifference allows the problems to flourish unabated. We are not vigilent as a people. we're "too busy". I know all about it. I'm surrounded by firends and family who know very little of what we DUers see, hear and discuss everyday.

Ever wonder how many people really know about the bills and congressional votes and laws that we talk about?? If my little corner of the world is any accurate cross section of America, I'd say it's much less than 50% of the voting public that actually VOTES!

If all 59,000,000 people that voted for Kerry knew and discussed what we knew and discussed, yes, dems and liberals would be much more aware and concerned and the party would reflect that in progressive candidates winning in droves across the country on all levels up to and including the presidential candidate.

...and come up with a theory that supports your preconceived notions. It's certainly true that most Americans are too busy laboring just to survive to get involved in the finer aspects of politics. But they DO know about the end results of those politics by their standard of living.

Some would suggest that most Americans don't vote because they're just too lazy or disinterested. Others would say that they've given up on a system that looks more and more like a Banana Republic than a Democratic Republic. There is no reason to believe that this will change anytime soon because of the awful state of the Democratic party and their complicity with the Little Dictator.

Another thing Democrats hate to admit is that Kerry probably got more 'anyone but Bush' votes than votes of confidence. This is a reflection of the division in the party and the awareness that Kerry was following in the path of the 'new' Democrats and their disdain for 'redistribution' of wealth to anyone but the ruling classes.

It's a pity that more of those who run around pushing the myth of a golden age in which the Democratic Party was leftist do not know the history of their own party. We have always been a coalition, sometimes an uneasy one, and we have generally been moderate. Them's the facts, and no amount of rehashing favorite myths will change it.

FDR's tenure. He ran as pro-business, got elected and then stole the Socialist's platform. And now he is remembered as one of the greatest <Dem> presidents ever (I regard his tenure that way as well. It's not words, it's deeds). A popular and powerful force, the Socialist Party, didn't grab the reigns of power but they had their basic agenda enacted. Their power as a party waned after FDR's presidency. Now, that that agenda is being eroded there is only one thing to do...

prior to the great depression, some of us liberals would have found more comfort with certain wings of the republican party. They do not have a very conservative history either. The party emerged after the Whigs fell. The GOP was the party of the Northeast and free states: ie progressive. They were the progressive reform party to counter the more conservative democratic party based in the south. THIS was the party of Lincoln. At the turn of the century, the party began to split.

Teddy R's Bull Moose party (which formed from the more liberal wing of the GOP) had a lot of ideals that survive today in the Democratic Party like anti-monopoly initiatives to name but one.

Just another thought on Party history.

...but it will probably take more than I have to offer now....at 3am...to form a complete answer to your post. Suffice it to say that I believe you're partially correct in some instances...

I believe most everyone knows the history of the party in the general terms you have used...so let's not start with the 'Jeffersonians'. You seem to have left out a whole swath of history...beginning in the 30s to the 70s and entirely ignored the 80s and 90s.

The 72 election was the harbinger of things to come in 2004...with an anti-war, pro-worker Democratic candidate...successfully labeled as a 'radical' by Nixon's operatives...against an incumbent 'wartime' president. And since the Vietnam war was pretty much being fought for the same reasons as Iraq...the same conditions were in play. That is...Nixon and the GOP were beholden to defense contractors and other war profiteers. McGovern lost because he told the truth about the war, 'Big Business' hated his 'minimum income' policies and the Democratic party was still in the process of splitting up over the civil rights acts of 64. And of course we can never discount Nixon's dirty tricks and their influence on the campaign. But in spite of all of this...Democrats kept Congress.

It wasn't until the 80s when the final splits in the party took place. We can get a feeling about the principles and issues important to the party at the time by reading an excerpt of a speech by Ted Kennedy at the 1980 Democratic National Convention In New York:

"...Our cause has been, since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the cause of the common man and the common woman.

Our commitment has been, since the days of Andrew Jackson, to all those he called "the humble members of society -- the farmers, mechanics, and laborers." On this foundation we have defined our values, refined our policies, and refreshed our faith.

Now I take the unusual step of carrying the cause and the commitment of my campaign personally to our national convention. I speak out of a deep sense of urgency about the anguish and anxiety I have seen across America.

I speak out of a deep belief in the ideals of the Democratic Party, and in the potential of that Party and of a President to make a difference. And I speak out of a deep trust in our capacity to proceed with boldness and a common vision that will feel and heal the suffering of our time and the divisions of our Party.

The economic plank of this platform on its face concerns only material things, but it is also a moral issue that I raise tonight. It has taken many forms over many years. In this campaign and in this country that we seek to lead, the challenge in 1980 is to give our voice and our vote for these fundamental democratic principles.

Let us pledge that we will never misuse unemployment, high interest rates, and human misery as false weapons against inflation.

Let us pledge that employment will be the first priority of our economic policy.

Let us pledge that there will be security for all those who are now at work, and let us pledge that there will be jobs for all who are out of work; and we will not compromise on the issues of jobs.

These are not simplistic pledges. Simply put, they are the heart of our tradition, and they have been the soul of our Party across the generations. It is the glory and the greatness of our tradition to speak for those who have no voice, to remember those who are forgotten, to respond to the frustrations and fulfill the aspirations of all Americans seeking a better life in a better land.

We dare not forsake that tradition..."

----------

President Carter seemed to agree:

"....I see a future of justice--the justice of good jobs, decent health care, quality education, a full opportunity for all people regardless of color or language or religion; the simple human justice of equal rights for all men and for all women, guaranteed equal rights at last under the Constitution of the United States of America.

And I see a future of peace--a peace born of wisdom and based on a fairness toward all countries of the world, a peace guaranteed both by American military strength and by American moral strength as well.

That is the future I want for all people, a future of confidence and hope and a good life. It's the future America must choose, and with your help and with your commitment, it is the future America will choose.

But there is another possible future. In that other future I see despair--despair of millions who would struggle for equal opportunity and a better life and struggle alone. And I see surrender--the surrender of our energy future to the merchants of oil, the surrender of our economic future to a bizarre program of massive tax cuts for the rich, service cuts for the poor, and massive inflation for everyone. And I see risk--the risk of international confrontation, the risk of an uncontrollable, unaffordable, and unwinnable nuclear arms race.

No one, Democrat or Republican either, consciously seeks such a future, and I do not claim that my opponent does. But I do question the disturbing commitments and policies already made by him and by those with him who have now captured control of the Republican Party. The consequences of those commitments and policies would drive us down the wrong road. It's up to all of us to make sure America rejects this alarming and even perilous destiny.

The only way to build a better future is to start with the realities of the present. But while we Democrats grapple with the real challenges of a real world, others talk about a world of tinsel and make-believe."

-----

As you can see...the 'party' was fully committed to labor and economic justice at that convention. At least...MOST of the party. A consensus brought the party platform around these issues: reproductive rights, unemployment and poverty, civil rights, progressive taxation, multilateral foreign policy, social welfare, environmentalism, public education, and labor unions/worker's rights.

But what you fail to recognize is that when the party fractured in the 60s and 70s over civil rights and the Vietnam war...the 80s and 90s brought a permanent divide between traditional and 'new' Democrats. They referred to themselves as 'new' because they no longer wanted to be tied to the liberal politics mentioned above. The New Democratic 'movement' brought supply-side economics to the party and a push to end the 'social welfare' platform of the 70s and 80s. They finally succeeded by 2004 when the DLC and their allies literally penned the entire (pro-war, pro-corporation) platform against the wishes of over 90 percent of the delegates.

There are now literally two Democratic parties. And while you may not call it 'infiltration'...the party has indeed been taken over by those who want to erase the legacy of the "party of the people" and replace it with the 'third way' of so-called 'Centrism' that shares power with the Right.

The New Democrats see this as a natural evolution of a party in flux. But what it does is create a void where a two-party system of government blends into one to represent the same corporate/defense/energy/religious interests at the expense of the working class that support it with their taxes.

We're now in the second term of the worst presidency in American history. Not because he was a better man or had better ideas than Gore or Kerry. But because the New Democrats have weakened the Democratic party to the extent that millions of once faithful voters have jumped ship rather than support the politics of a 'new' party that throws worker's to the wolves, panders to religious fanatics, allows criminals to run our government without restraint or checks and balances, pens legislation that helps corporations and hurts Americans, enables corporate corruption/war profiteering and lies to the American people about threats to national security and the need for perpetual war.

Using any labels or historical context at your disposal...they still don't explain what happened to the Democratic party between 1980 and 2004. We are no longer the party that leads the way on reproductive rights, unemployment and poverty, civil rights, progressive taxation, multilateral foreign policy, social welfare, environmentalism, public education, and labor unions/worker's rights. We've become a watered-down version of Bush's Republican party...more concerned about winning the hearts and minds of his allies than the people we've pledged to represent as the party of the people.

I'm no Kennedy fan, but I will credit Ted with being the only one of the bunch to never forget economic liberalism. That is one of his most consistent positions.

You're right that I didn't touch on the last 25 years of Democratic history. At the time, there was no point in doing so. My goal was to point out that many Democrats who are reviled as DINOs are what remains of the original coalition. I was trying to draw an ironic contrast between their being labled as DINOs when they represent the iconic era of Democratic politics.

The party spliit during Vietnam because the base of the party gradually began to change. This was not solely a civil rights issue. The actions of the 'New Left' during the war and the stereotypes die hard. That legacy has hurt the Democratic party in the South much more than civil rights. Most of the old Dixiecrats are dead or dying, but the generation that grew up with protestors waving NLF flags is alive and well.

The split of the party was a shift of bases. The GOP began making inroads in the South, partly due to civil rights and partly due to a distrust of Democrats with foreign policy. Consider the fact that in 1964, the largest majority in history repudiated the Republican vision of the Cold War as extremist. 8 years later, the second largest majority in history would repudiate the Democratic vision of the Cold War as extremist. Why did this happen? A shifting of bases. The base of the Democratic began to move north, out of the rural south and the ethnic wards of large cities.

Did the party retain a commitment to historic Democratic ideals? Not really. The lofty rhetoric aside, it was Democratic Congresses that connived with Nixon to end the Great Society, with Carter to deregulate finance, and Reagan to shift the burden of taxation. This is indisputable fact. None of those presidents could have passed bill one without significant Democratic support.

The so-called 'New Democrats' are actually a splinter of the New Left. They retained the social liberalism of the New Left, yet traded it in for economic policies that were to the right of Carter (who was to the right of LBJ in economics). The problem with this approach is that it rejects instinctual liberalism in favor of intellectual liberalism. Intellectual liberalism is hard to sell and implement because it's just an exercise in thought. Unless people can see the burning in your veins at blatant injustice, they feel free to ignore it. After all, if it doesn't matter to the speaker, why should it bother them? (note: my use of 'you' is the generic you, not you specifically)

The analysis that millions of Democrats left the party due to some connivance with the post-1994 GOP is incorrect. The Southern and Catholic votes for Democratic candidates have been falling for years. Those are the voters who have been most likely to desert the Democratic party. Why?

They left for a variety of reasons. Civil rights alienated the Dixiecrats. The legacy of the antiwar movement and the spectacle of a Democratic presidential candidate campaigning with the enemy at his side scared millions of voters into the arms of Nixon. Contrary to popular belief, the protestors did not change public opinion on the war. Public approval of the war declined as a function of casualties, with over 50% disapproving after about 20,000 Americans had died. Even at that point, the war was far more popular than either the NLF or SDS.

The Democratic party, starting in the 1970s, became addicted to corporate sponsorship. Not just one part, but all of it. During the 1980s, corporate donations began to regularly exceed donations from labor. A few diehards remembered the old party, but the vast majority did not. The difference between the parties in the time of their majority, according to lobbyists, was one of degree, not kind. The GOP is far more rapacious and willing to wield the weapon of legislation to get their way.

The distinction between traditional and New Democrats is partly correct, but partly wrong. There are old line Democrats, remnants of the New Left, and New Democrats. The old line Democrats are what's left of the FDR-Truman-Johnson coalition. They tend toward economic liberalism and social conservatism/moderation. The New Left was socially liberal and economically illiterate. They attempted to change the social fabric of the country without understanding the basic economic realities of their coalition. The New Democrats retained social liberalism and made a half-assed attempt to reconcile the old traditions with Eisenhowerish economic policy.

The best example I can give of the current situation is the 1948 election. There were the Dixiecrats (today's GOP leadership), the Wallace Democrats (today's liberal-leftist Democrats), the Dewey Republicans (New Democrats), and Truman Democrats. Notice how I left out an example of the Truman Democrats? That's because there are none...at least not as prominent leaders. There are no economically liberal, socially moderate/conservative, and moderately hawkish Democratic leaders anymore. As that combination represents at least a plurality, if not a majority, of the American public, it's a loss for all.

Endnote: Social moderation will likely be the most misunderstood phrase I use. The best example I can think of at the moment is Truman's speech on civil rights during his 1940 Senate race. He argued, much like Lincoln, that the Constitution demanded equal rights for all.

Also, the term hawk might also be misunderstood. When I say moderately hawkish, what I have in mind is Scoop Jackson's comment about being 'a wise old owl.' The point of the comment was that he was more sensitive to war costs (in all forms) than pure hawks, but more willing to use force than pure doves. In one sentence, owls would support a judicious use of force at the proper time.

Concerning McGovern...

He didn't lose to dirty tricks. Dirty tricks can't produce a majority of almost 61%. He didn't lose because he told the truth about the war, which is not the corporatist conspiracy theory. He lost because he ran an incompetent campaign and because he was deemed untrustworthy as commander-in-chief by millions of Democrats. I know I've said it before, but the man campaigned with an NLF delegate at his side. Actions like that compelled millions of Democrats to side with the most hated Republican of the era. The wonder of McGovern is not that Nixon won. The wonder of McGovern is that he won nearly 40% of the vote and still only took one state.

P.S. This is a bit of a rant. If my tone offends, let me apologize in advance (or retrospect considering that this is a P.S.). I'm not trying to be an ass, though I suspect I might have come off that way. Once again, I'm sorry if I did.

...was about the impact of the last two or three decades in specific. (An early morning rant without solid context.) But you chose to disregard them while dissembling about populists and now 'dinos'. The last two decades brought us the consolidation of two main political forces in America. And I don't mean the Republican and Democratic parties. Both these forces were controlled by and for the benefit of corporations and the wealthy...a longing for a return to an oligarchy. Now included in that control structure is the corporate media. What you don't include in your analysis: the forces 'behind' the parties influencing policies from the shadows. Politicians like Clinton and Kerry understand they have no real power and must play the game or accept that they'll never reach the White House. Clinton was more successful than Kerry only because he was willing to compromise with those attempting to rid American politics of a party that presumed to represent the 'have-nots' and the working class.

These 'think tanks'...like the Heritage Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute drive the agenda behind the scenes...using millions in corporate cash and the influence of the 'free press' turned corporate ministry of truth to forge policy for both parties. As you can well see...they've been effective in changing domestic and foreign policy and were the catalysis behind welfare and media 'reform' and the Gulf wars.

I won't respond to your post point by point because you have in essence agreed with several of my points without admitting to it. I didn't imply that the split in the party was solely due to either the civil rights act of 1964 or the Vietnam war. There were many factors...but these two in particular led to the policies we see today in the Neoconservative and New Democratic movements. Both Neocons and Neodems have adopted similar foreign policies...both based on unilateralist stances. The main difference is that Neodems call theirs 'progressive internationalism'. But it still means using the American military to dominate the world's resources and build more bases to launch strikes for 'democracy'...all outside the requirements of national security.

Once again you're trying to suggest that any one reason I mentioned broke up the base of the party...resulting in a mass exodus of once faithful voters. The exodus was halted for a time in 2004 when many in third parties and disenfranchised Dems already wandering from the party realized they would have to vote AGAINST Bush or suffer the fate of a destroyed nation. But the exodus will continue in 2008 as the grassroots attempts to find a politician they can believe in and one not beholden to anyone but the people.

Your attempt to take the debate back to the 40s and 70s leads us astray. I submit that the final blow to both parties happened much later and centered around the Neoconservatives and New Democrats. They are NOT opposing forces. And please know that I don't consider you an 'ass'. I enjoy reading your stuff and the only fault I can find with your writing is that it seems to concentrate on what's written in history books and party literature and not what has happened behind the scenes to force drastic changes in both parties and the very face of American politics.

It's interesting to me that you have taken a broad brush historical approach rather than choosing sides. I find it a refreshing break...but it has little or nothing to do with the real politics of the 'shadow parties'.

I hope to continue this exchange after I get a bit of sleep or at least some java.

There has been a succession of blows against the old coalition.

The first blow was the ascendancy of the New Left in the Democratic party. This began with the McGovern campaign and was consolidated with the purge of southern committee chairmen.

The second blow was the shift away from a labor base. Party leadership no longer represented the old base.

The third blow is the extreme dovishness on the part of many prominent Democrats (though this is changing, somewhat). This is not in reference to Iraq, so please don't construe it like that. The party is popularly perceived to be weak on defense and foreign policy and...there is truth to that. Witness the hurried rush of New Democrats to recast themselves as Truman Democrats. It seems like the panicked rearmament that began during the Carter years. Realization is beginning to sink in that foreign policy is not only a matter of waving carrots. It's a matter of carrot and stick. Quite a bit less stick than carrot, but, for a long time, any stick has been too much stick for many Democrats.

I just don't agree with most of your analysis. I don't view corporations as evil nor do I see a nefarious conspiracy on the part of corporate America. So what do I see?

I see a federal government that has been progressively weakened by the enemies of capitalism. Those enemies are the GOP. I don't view their policies as necessarily evil, just short-sighted in the extreme.

Corporations can be a terrific method of funding ventures that would otherwise not be undertaken. They can also be dangerous to American democracy because of their size and resulting influence. I disagree with any assessment that says what's good for corporate America is necessarily good for all Americans. I just think they need reacquaintance with the fact that they are fictitious, state-created entities and, as such, are subject to regulation. In fact, I find myself agreeing more and more with the Brandeisian view, which holds that 'bigness' in itself is harmful to our traditions due the latent influence that bigness brings.

The fight in the party today is between New Democrats, who are still running from McGovern, and the remnants of the New Left, which still views LBJ as the prime enemy. Are the New Democrats colluding with the GOP? Doubtful. What they really seem to be doing is to trying to draw a foreign policy contrast with the New Left, but without having thought through their assumptions. I see them relying on Republican assumptions for their ideas, to some extent. The New Left still repudiates an assertive foreign policy (though I think they're right to oppose an aggressive one).

If I have a side, it's the unrepresented Truman Democrats. The old FDR-Truman-LBJ coalition was amazingly successful and remains the dominant paradigm of political thought for most Americans.

The analysis was spot on.

And it isn't the first time you've seen it, either.

For example, in a similar thread of yours (there's been so many), I presented THIS to you:



I also rather like what DUer Dolstein had to say about the three post-FDR "wings" of the Democratic party:



Now, to review what adwon said in Post #40:



Q, you're belief that the Dem party has been this tradition left-liberal utopia until the evil moderates "infiltrated it" is not only unsubstantiated factually, but is fantasy.

Ironic you would say, It's easy to take snippets from history...
and come up with a theory that supports your preconceived notions.

Your initial post doesn't even take any historical accounts to validate your preconcieved notions.

The brief period you pine for began in the late 60s, reached a peak with McGovern's presidential run, and has slowly dissipated since.

Note to adwon: I've enjoyed your analysis and will be bookmarking your posts for future reference. I used to try to answer Q's weekly rants like you have done, but it seems to go mostly unanswered while what I consider his rants continue to fuel the fire of divisiveness on a weekly basis.

You can talk about 'fantasy' all you want...but at lest the poster you're defending can disagree without resorting to such nastiness.

We seem to be concentrating on DIFFERENT times in history. While I believe that it's important to understand the history of America and the two political parties...this has nothing to do with the drastic changes in the 80s and 90s. This is the period I'm talking about...even though I had mentioned other times and other Democrats...like McGovern.

Maybe we need to start from TODAY and work backwards? Then perhaps you could explain the role New Democrats are playing in taking the party to the right?

Frankly...I wish you WOULD bookmark adwon's posts. They will show you how to debate without referring to those with opposing views as the 'loony left' and suggesting that they live in a fantasy world?

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

you're one to talk about nastiness... no one will soon forget the vitriol you inject in your posts everytime you pull from your cut and paste file.

Though you say you're post is mainly concerned with the 80s and 90s, the post itself says differently.

You metntion MKJ jr. and McGovern. 80s and 90s???

They worked together to character assassinate Clinton until he joined with them

Huh????

Proof?

You just also changed the focus of you entire message.

In fact, why didn't he breat 38% of the popular vote. And why did he lose the electoral college, 520 - 17? Does it ever occur to you that this country is simply much more right wing than we are? There are idiots voting Republican who make $9/hr, have no health insurance for themselves or their kids, and can't afford to send their kids to school. We are fighting an incredible ignorance, my friend. THAT is the reason progressives don't win.

...and whatever the policians can work to their advantage.

This country is made up of mostly the working poor and a dwindling middle class. It's not they who oppose a living wage, national health care or adequate funding for public education.

We are indeed fighting an incredible ignorance...but the ignorance isn't just on the Republican side. There are a good number of Dems that have no idea what's going on within their own party and how they're being sold out.

what the fuck it's voting for. You're right when you say this: "This country is made up of mostly the working poor and a dwindling middle class. It's not they who oppose a living wage, national health care or adequate funding for public education." You're right, they want all those progressive things. But they are obviously too stupid to realize that the people they vote for are opposed to those things. Until we can educate the population, nothing will change in either party. The parties' platforms are a reflection of public attitudes. We can't expect any politician to champion things that won't get them elected. When the polls start showing the people are going to vote for universal health care and don't give a half of a shit about gay marriage, then we'll have politicians advocating universal health care and not saying a word about gay marriage. But as long as the country is too ignorant to realize that these conservative politicians are ruining their lives, there's nothing we can do.

...and they don't seem to care what it means in the end result. Every Dem voted for Kerry (for instance) knowing that he supported a war based on lies and deceptions. They voted for him because they wanted Democrats to be in power. This is the same thing that motivates Republicans. They know Bush is a liar and a criminal...but they voted for him because they felt they had no alternative but to vote the party line. Like the Democrats...winning and power is everything.

the dollar is declining; the deficit is spiraling out of control; $2 trillion have been added to the national debt since Bush took office; health care costs skyrocketed, as have education costs; gas prices are through the roof, and Bush won't develop alternative energy; and on and on and on. They voted for him anyway, because they're either ignorant of those problems, or they don't realize he and the Republicans in congress caused them.

Now, you also pegged Democrats wrong. I supported Kerry, not because "winning and power is everything," as you indicated. I supported Kerry because he OPPOSED Bush's tax cuts for billionaires; OPPOSED just about all of Bush's environmental regulation rollbacks, including the weakening of the clean air act (and now he's opposing drilling in the arctic); OPPOSED $87 billion of tax money going into Halliburton's pocket, even as the richest Americans get gigantic tax breaks; OPPOSED Bush's extremist court justices; and on and on and on. He supports strong labor and environment laws, an increase in the minimum wage, taxing the rich to finance the deficit, cutting health care costs by refusing to bow down to the drug companies, strong education spending, a women's right to choose, gay civil unions, separation of church and state, etc. Can you tell me why he's such a bad candidate?

...and I'm not sure that's possible for 60 million people. At least I hope there aren't that many clueless citizens in America.

I think most of them DO know what they're voting for. They're voting for the guy they think will win and they don't give a shit if he has to lie, cheat and steal to do it. They don't care about the massive deficits or deregulation of industry or the environment because it coincides with their goal to once and for all rid our government of the LIBERAL ideology and establish a base of power for their party. Like any other fascists in history...power and control is everything to them.

Yes...Kerry opposed many of Bush's policies. But that wasn't enough. He ran as a 'new' Democrat and ran around the country touting his rejectioin of 'redistribution' of wealth downward. In other words...he was for corporate over social welfare.

But what turned me and many others off to Kerry was his support for Bush's unprovoked, aggressive war. I refuse to believe that he didn't know it was illegal and immoral. Whatever courage he demonstrated during and after Vietnam was lost when he took political cover behind the many other Democrats that voted for and continue to support a war that didn't have to happen. He and too many other Democrats are responsible for unnecessarily putting Americans in harm's way and killing thousands of innocent Iraqis.

This is why I'm suggesting that there must be a similar 'mass hysteria' on the Democratic side for so many to support a war (slaughter) that's needlessly taking lives and plundering our treasury. I and many others refuse to join in that hysteria and live a lie.

Ive always said its harder for a progressive to win a Democratic primary than a generl election.

It remains so.

The fact that the 2 biggest names in "progressive politics" this decade has been John McCain and Wesley Clark should show us that in addition to the media , military industrial, and corperate propaganda (as if the 3 are seperate entities) we also have our own un-educated selves to blame.

Now all we "liberals" need is Nelson Rockefellar to raise from his grave.


Shesh!

...and not just our party. But I understand what you're saying.

DUers keep talking about what we 'need'...but all the while the nation is turning in a direction that's not only destroying the very infrastructure of our social institutions...but taking us towards a second American revolution.

There is only one thing that can accomplish what we all seem to want:

Honesty

Integrity

Honor

Duty

Accountability

The changes in America have been so gradual that many don't even seem to notice that we're no longer a working democracy. No one politician is the answer.

Here we are, with ever increasing income-inequality, ever-more citizens without health care, ever-more hated abroad, killing ever-more civilians in an illegal war, with ever-more minorities in poverty and prison, with ever-increasing wage erosion - and our fearless champion Hillary talks about VIDEO GAMES?

Even without touching on International issues, what about this Administrations attempts to gut every safety net that could keep children fed, warm, immunized, and schooled? What about the disgraceful rate of child poverty and hunger? THOSE are the issues a Democrat should be talking about, issues on which a majority of Americans agree, issues on which this Administration can be attacked - and she talks about video games.

Our corporate masters do not want us to be talking about the impact of hunger and poverty on our Nation's children. Hillary's choice of issues speaks all too loudly to her loyalties.

...for political cover. It's hard to tell whether they're just biding their time until Bush is out of office or are actively working on issues popular with the RWing in order to broaden their 'base'. Either way...it's a cowardice of astounding proportions.

support militarism, corporate-dominated trade, privatization, and budget cuts to everything except the Pentagon because "that's what the American people want," and any other approach would cause us to lose elections.

They act like entertainment executives who put brainless TV shows and movies out with the excuse "It's what people want."

Right, just last year, I saw the masses marching in the street, chanting, "We want poker games televised on four different channels!"

Thank goodness the five major media corporations listened to the voice of the people. The pent-up demand for watching total strangers play cards is finally being met, and the American people are sobbing in gratitude./sarcasm off/

The media have so effectively shut out left-wing views that most Americans wouldn't recognize a left-wing view if it came up and socked them on the left ear.

I'd like all the conservative Democrats to try an experiment. Ride the local buses (yes, you a middle class person, ride the local buses! I know that's asking a lot, having you actually associate with the people that the Democratic party is supposed to be concerned with, but there's no better way to hear unfiltered conversations among blue collar people) and strike up conversations with your fellow riders. What you will find most of all is confusion and vast amounts of misinformation, such as thinking that all forms of coercion are "socialist," including compulsory overtime in private businesses.

The media have succeeded in dumbing people down so that they truly believe that the only possible political positions are extreme right and center right. If they're not fundamentalists, or if they're independent-minded enough to realize that right-wing economics is their enemy, they don't see any strong, easily understood alternatives coming from the center-right Dems who are on TV all the time, so they opt out of politics completely. The talking heads on TV simply do not speak to the concerns of blue collar voters, with a few local exceptions.

They looked at the last presidential campaign and wondered what the Vietnam War had to do with their lives now: being unable to make ends meet, having no health insurance, their kids drifting without any firm job prospects or hope of affordable higher education, public services decreasing as sales taxes and property taxes go up, jobs being sent to Third World factories with no provisions being made for the workers left behind. When Kerry addressed those issues, if he did at all, it was always in a vague, distant way, not in the immediate, specific, Huey Long type of way that appeals to that type of voter.

Add to that a pop culture that seems to emphasize "kicking ass," not for any particular reason, just on general principles. I heard people saying that they liked Bush and Cheney because they "kicked ass." So there were some of your Bush voters, but there were just as many, if not more, who were completely turned off by all politics, because in their experience, politicians had never done anything but cut back services while raising taxes.

I see the Busheviks appealing to people who are angry about the way their lives are going but who don't understand why their lives are so crappy projecting their anger onto political figures who appear "strong" and "tough." That also explains the Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura phenomena: they look like bruisers, they say exactly what they think, and they're the perfect fantasy figures for the angry, hurting, but confused and inarticulate working class voters.

I think the Dems are going to continue to lose elections until the Beltway types understand this.

...want to silence the liberal ideal in America...you won't hear either of them moan about a media that presents one point of view (theirs).

I remember watching CNN before the shock and awe and invasion of Iraq. What I saw made it clear that it wasn't 'news' at all...it was 24 hr a day propaganda with little or no representation from those who felt it was a very large mistake to attack Iraq. This nation was going to war and the media was there to help the Neocons and Neodems make it happen. Nationalism be thy name.

A Dem may win an election now and then...but not a liberal or progressive Dem...and only a Dem (like Clinton) who agrees to play ball with the ruling class.

the only coverage of the Iraq invasion that I could stand to watch was that on the Canada-based News World International. CNN and to a lesser extent the BBC were "mostly saying hurray for our side." :-(

of seems to be the Dems problem of focusing on core values. I'm somewhat of a newbie on this board but have been around long enough to remember the Kennedys, the Vietnam War, Carter, Reagan, etc. and have studied history enough to know that era we are in is like no other in our nation's existence. Progressives have been around in other forms starting with the Founders, those who worked to end slavery (more than 60 years of the 19th Century), the labor movement, the New Deal, civil rights, women's rights, etc. but for all those great movements there had to be an undercurrent of world opinion and other "Progressive" actions happening outside the US for the voting public to notice and pay attention to where our country needed to go. I think that we are entering an era where Europe (watch the effects of the Kyoto Treaty) may lead and eventually show the US voting public the need to reign in corporate power and greed, elect "Progressive" thinkers to meet the challenges of increasing unemployment and uninsured families, deteriorating environment, and failure of leadership. Unfortunately, we won't see the effects overnight but can work locally to support effective candidates to re-build the base so that decisions made by Repug controlled boards of elections, secretary of states, etc. come to an end and the confidence in elections returns. Forget MSM as a pipeline to the masses because it is all corporate now and, as Q says, Progressives will never again see balanced reporting unless those who have the ability to buy their own media outlets get started and get something on the air.... maybe Jerry Springer and Air America is a start but, again, what do people associate Jerry Springer with? I don't think he's one to put a lot of money on to convince the general public to move left.... The Right has found the answer to winning... simple message (right or wrong), unity in purpose and message, divide with personal attacks and conquer, and control the mechanics. This is the age of short attention spans and even shorter thought processes so to win again, a major shift in the public's perception of the Progressive core values will have to occur. We will have to stay persistent in our message, challenge every claim of the Right, and enlist the aid of supporters worldwide.

It comes down to this: there are only TWO sides to any issue. Right or Wrong. (true or false) Yet...in American politics...we're asked to believe that there are variations of these principles that are 'acceptable' in order to 'win' and attain enough power to do what's right once in high office. This is the type of fool's errand that voters are asked to embark upon at each and every election cycle when they have to choose between the lesser of evils.

The New Democrats insist that it's an unattainable 'purity' to want more than politicians are willing to give. This is to say that we have no choice and must simply accept what the one-party system disguised as a democracy throws at us. This type of thinking is the antithesis to the ideal of a government of, by and for the people. In other words...both parties now expect us to give up our heritage for the sake of THEIR power and privilege.

It pisses me off that so many (D)emocrats are willing to give away a generation's struggle for individual rights, equality and government accountability to The People. Well...it's not theirs to give and it's time we let them know it.

Playing the devil's advocate...it may be too late to buy up enough media to make a difference. The other side has been at it since the 80s and now own a majority of mass communications networks. And isn't it strange that here in FREE America that we're even HAVING a discussion about getting together enough money to have a voice in the FREE PRESS?

The problem appears to be that "the people" have to settle for one voice in a democracy (unless the country adopts New England style town-hall meetings) and when that happens, it ALWAYS falls to the lesser of evils, or the best of the rest..... then, to achieve anything in this system, a person is forced to always compromise to get a little of what she wants to accomplish. It's cumbersome, unwieldy, and accomplishes little but it's what we have. The trick is to find that person who does not sacrifice principle but yet can get the program implemented. I can think of a few people in our history who have been able to push our democracy in a different direction, but very few.

...and therein is the problem. A great example of this would be the Iraq invasion and occupation. There were only a few voices in the Democratic party that could be heard opposing the idea of attacking Iraq without cause or clear evidence. Byrd and Kennedy were among the most vocal in the months before the war. But most of the leadership WANTED to attack Iraq and depose Saddam. The Bush Doctrine of aggressive war gave them an opportunity to accomplish this goal without taking direct responsibility or blame.

The same goes for the Patriot Act, tort 'reform', bankruptcy bill, tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of industries that donate heavily to both parties...especially the DLC. Since these changes are happening on Bush's watch...the New Dems and their allies can offer just enough votes to help them pass and then sit back and pretend that they couldn't stop it. Is this compromise? Or complicity?