Problems with the Left in the United States

Jerome Armstrong posted a right on comment that if Labor fails to get a majority in the UK then the progressive Liberal Democrats (they used to be the center party FYI but Labor sppeeded like a bullet right so fast that the Liberal Dems are now the party of the "left")will be required to form a coalition party which will move U.K.s government policys (yes... *policys* folks is whats important not partisanship) significantly to the left.


Now look at what we are dealing with in the USA, just read the endlessly idiotic responces (see link). Nobody has a clue thats its actually a GOOD thing for the Labor (the U.K. equal to the Democratic party here) party to not get an outright majority. Its like all the idiots here who moan about Nader or lecture us about the "dream candidate" Wes Clark (talk about making the same old stale stuff fresh all over again,shesh).

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/7/224943/6210#comment_top


Let me remind people of the Canadian election.The ruling party (similar to our Democratic party)was falling far below the 50% majority it had enjoyed in the polls. Many elite "liberals" here talked about how "bad" that was. They never considered the fact that Canadians were voting their conscience and deliverig 20% of their otes to progressive 3rd partys.Infact the 2 progressive 3rd partys nearly got as much as the GOPish conservative party , which got just 29%.The ruling Canadian "Democrat-ish" party got 36% and was forced to move sharply left in POLICY promises to form a rulig coalition with the progressive 3rd partys.



Just read the responces to see what kind of idiocy we are dealing with in this country.For no other reason than to simply let us know where we stand.

EDIT: The part where the foolishness starts to show it the "Dont get your hopes up" post. After that , no matter how many times these partisan U.S. idiots are told, they cant seem to get it through their skull that a coalition is a good thing ,infact they keep thinking he meant a Conservative-Liberal Dem coalition (SAD!), then others are "hurt" he criticised the overpaid US pollster consultants.

This post is worth discussing, but the subject line is only going to draw flames. If you just change that, the potential for productive discussion will go up immensely.

Thanks.

supporters of Nader and Clark out of there if he wants to be taken seriously.

Why would anyone want to piss me off on a Friday, but a fool.

Canada and the UK are Parliamentary governments. If ya want change, ya gotta start by working with wutcha got ... yanno?

....half of all Americans dont know which party controls congress.


LOL reminds me of a convsersation I had with a fromer military man once in a library.He was an African American about 55 years old and him and me were talking to each other about how bad people start to stink in summer time in our town,He was ready to go north for the summer to avoid the stench.


I told him "well at least you can wonder around and talk to people on benchs now that its getting warmer".

He hissed so loud at me "have you ever listened to how STUPID people are?!" and told me about how he has traveled the world and talked to people in many countrys and reached the conclusion that we are BY FAR the most stupid people in the world.

Him and me exchanged endless storys backing each other up. On of my many storys was the poll 6 years into the Clinton presidency (neither of us liked Clinton btw, but thats not the point)most Americans couldnt name the VP.

Ill spare people any more details.

Wes Clark (talk about making the same old stale stuff fresh all over again,shesh).

:) I must be missing the point.

In the US, there is no political left with any power. There is no parliamentary system of government, and as a result no ruling coalitions. Splintering the vote robs a party of power. Otherwise, we would've have a Dem/Green majority in 2000.

Do you mean that the US posts on British politics didn't grasp that a Labor minority would move the country left? Well, that's probably true, although I don't know what country the posters were from in most cases. That's expecting a little much from people used to a different system of government.

No left with any power in the USA?

Your kidding!


Everytime a prominent progressive (Green party , Nader, etc. heck I even heard the socalist party candidate in 1996 say she thought about dropping out so she didnt hurt Clinton)trys to reach a deal similar to the Labor-Lib DEM approach , he/she egts all kinds of none coperation and dirty tricks.

Did you know that the most progressive party in Great Brittain (the Lberal Democrats) mainly only runs in marginal or right wing seats that Labor cant win in?

Yup they try HARD to not hurt each other plus have laws that make ballot access a snap.

The Liberal Dems win in marginal seats. In the USA the DLC not only messes up Democratic primarys with endless corperate dollars to defeat populists , but wont allow any election reform or dollar donations to help a progressive 3rd party complete a compromise offer where each dont run in the same seats when it could split the vote.

And FYI the percentage of voting age Americans who vote GOP in the USA arent any higher than the same percentage of consevatives who vote for right wing partys in Canada, Europe , etc.

The difference is that people have more choices , especially progressive choices so turnout is MUCH higher.

Thats how we "win".

You have ten candidates for president on some of these ballots. In Florida, for example, you can vote Green, Socialist, Socialist Worker, or Progressive Libertarian. It's that the British parliamentary system is designed to give smaller parties leverage, where in the US systems it's 51% takes all. So most voters wisely use their vote for one of the two dominant parties.

There is no "deal" to be made between a small left party and the Dems. Third parties rarely have leverage. They're third parties precisely because they reject both dominant parties and would rather tilt at windmills than compromise and support the Dems. 2000 was one of the few elections in which a left-leaning third party actually had leverage and could have changed the election. Predictably, they did not take that opportunity.

I guess you really don't get it after all.

When I look at the European Parliament, they are still with some center right parties such as the UDF in France and the FDP in Germany while the Labor is with the PSOE, PS and SDP.

If you are British, may be you can clarify the situation. It was my understanding that, except when it came to foreign affairs, the Labour was still left of the Liberal Democrats (who were also fairly anti-unions).

Blair wouldnt increases taxes.

Paddy Ashdown advocates increasing the top marginal rate about 5% from 40% to 45% to help fund health care and education.

Take Blair away and maybe Labor would somewhat return to its old place.

The point is that Labor needs to get their vote totals chopped down to size , so the combination of progressive Labor members and Liberal Democrats can create a powerful liberal majority in a coalition government.

with this line Its like all the idiots here who moan about Nader or lecture us about the "dream candidate" Wes Clark (talk about making the same old stale stuff fresh all over again,shesh).

But you are even less informed than I would have ever suspected. We do not have the same governmental structured system, as England and Canada. Doh!

I recommend that you do more reading, and less posting. Your ignorance is showing right about now!

We have winner take all districts.
They have winner take all districts.

We have 35% turnout in mid term (congressional off year elections)elections, they have 75% turnout in parliamentary elections.

The have human beings with minds voting.

We have humanoids with "minds" voting plus progressives sitting elections out due to having no reaon to vote..

Here are three different references to the word in your post.
#1. Its like all the idiots here who moan ...
#2. what kind of idiocy we are dealing with ....
#3. these partisan U.S. idiots....

I think that's 3 times too many, considering your utter lack of knowledge on the issue that you are posting about.

Seems like it takes one to call one. :eyes:

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

Like what election have you won, to think you can tell others that they are idiots? Like who died and made you Conventional Wisdom?

It is against the rules to make Blanket negative comments against an entire group of Democrats based on who they support.

Your thread and your post is the kind that is of no help to this party.

You have a right to your opinion, but you have an obligation to adhere to the rules set down on this discussion board.

I know that I could call a lot of people a lot of things, but that's not what DU is about.

But this isnt what we are told ad infinitum.

Its the almost timeless "nobody can win but the good gerneral" crap that is so annoying.

Wes Clark isnt the Alpha and Omega of winning elections.


I posted in general discussion a link about Clark and I was very grateful to the General for what he was reported to have said in that link. Had to do with Streibers Dreamland.

You calling Clark supporter idiots, makes it very hard for me to even address the actual gist of your post. So how is that constructive on your part?

You attempting to dictate what Clark supporters should do and say doesn't make you the omega dogmega of this board.

I don't have a problem you calling for Democratic party dis-unity, but calling me and others names is useless and totally uncalled for. period.

In different words.

And Clark used the slogan in debates weeks after he first ran "Im Wes Clark and I want to beat George Bush" in responce to everybody attacking each other in the debate.

A fair point.I dont want dis-unity for the sake of dis-unity nor do I want any probems at all.

But there are problems.

Blind partisanship. Th ABB really worked last time , didnt it?

Please show me where I have earned being called an idiot by you.

Thank you!

I thought I made an off the cuff general comment in the context of a much larger serious issue?

I cant draw parallels when I show what our problems are?

Sorry you took my comment the wrong way.

I guess I took that the "wrong way," too. :eyes:

make a point without breaking DU rules. Some folks got it, and some folks obviously don't.

Thus far you have called Clark Supporters (I'm one of them)idiots who are arrogant.

Yes, you spelled my name out: C-L-A-R-K S-U-P-P-O-R-T-E-R

If the fucking issue is so important, why include the insults? It just detracts from the "Oh So" important context of your point.

If drawing parallels means insulting folks and breaking DU rules, then no, you can't draw fucking parallels!

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

You say.....Clark supporters are more arrogant than others and it seems to be a definig feature of the creed.

You've got DU rules mixed up.
rule #2: Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

Rule #3: Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements.

Since I got accused of calling Clark supporters idiots , I felt it was fair to point out that I think they are the opposite which is arrogant.

Honestly it isnt all or even most.

Just a vocal bunch of know-it-alls.

Let it rest.

Your proving my point.

Just burn me at the stake and chant "heretic heretic" if it makes you feel better.

Then GET OVER IT!

Telling me to "GET OVER IT"!

The only point I have proven is that blanket name calling is not a DU debating tactic that is honorable or well received.

My point is that I've got a lot of opinions about many, many here at DU, but my purpose for participating in a political community is not to put others in that community down.

Those who feel the need put others down, without anything more than some opinionated relative vague observation should be called a bigot, imo.

If voicing your condenscending opinions about an entire group of those with which you share a virtual community with makes you feel superior, so be it. But feeling it is not being it.

MODS!!!!

Spank this naughty meanie!!!!

ALERT ALERT!!!!

Did you hear what she called me?

O my...O my word.....GASP..she called me...oh um.....(deep throat).. A-R-R-O-G-A-N-T.

NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Because I don't really give a damn as to what you truly think.

You don't pay my salary or pay my bills, so your opinion is just that.

As an immigrant Black French Woman, I am used to dealing with bigots of all stripes. I am accustomed to those who want to feel "superior" by putting others down. I have been called uppity many times. You didn't write the book.

I would say "if that makes you feel any better" but you already let me know how much you "give a damn as to what..." I ..."truly think"

-So she said-

END QUOTE

Since I put it in terms, THAT EVEN YOU COULD UNDERSTAND.

Hope you get losta more hits on your shoddily worded thread.

You make Democratic party dis-unity really easy. Good luck on your quest.

"Its like all the idiots here who ... lecture us about the "dream candidate" Wes Clark ...."

What does it sound like when you say it out loud?

No burning, but how hard is it to say you're sorry for calling people idiots?

Maybe I think most Clark supporters lecture me on the all important issues?

Granted a large minority are arrogant-pain in the butt-broken records and all.

O.K.

Im sorry for calling the broken records constantly lecture us on politics (issues be damned and not mentioned)"idiots" whether they be Clark , DEan Clinton , Feingold, Bush , Gore , Dole, supporters or not.

I like being told that only one man can win.

As for Clark supporters I dont know what to say because I never called them idiots.I didnt even call the ones with guilty consciences idiots.

Remember..all Crusaders were Christians but not all Christians were Crusaders.

will always be fools.

Quote: Its like all the idiots here who moan about Nader or lecture us about the "dream candidate" Wes Clark (talk about making the same old stale stuff fresh all over again,shesh).

That's the scenario that you fail to mention. If Labor fails to get a majority then it's not entirely clear which party would get a plurality, but whichever party that is would be asked by the Queen to form a government. So if the Torries do get a plurality instead of Labor then they would get first chance to form a coalition government would would almost certainly be to the right of the present government.

Myself, I will shed no tears if Labor loses. That's what they deserve after supporting Bush's illegal Iraq war.

However many months a conservative government can survice in the UK is a matter of dispute between 1 or 2.

If the Queen is that stupid then maybe the monarchy finally will rot.

Not that Im against the consevatives getting a Vote Of No Confidence like minutes after their first poposal.

LOL more elections for junkys to follow.

She is above politics and she is obliged to ask the party with the most seats to try to form a government whether she likes them or not.

No skin off my back.

I like more than 1 election in a year, might puff me up a bit.

EDIT,Im not from UK but like democracy to work everywhere.

In parliamentary systems, the focus is on the party. In the American system, the focus is on individuals. There's no party discipline here like in the UK or Canada. It takes a 2/3 vote to expel a member from either house here and that's impossible without a showing of illegality or assault (Bully Brooks). It's my understanding that the parties in a parliamentary system have much greater control over the individual members and are able to expel them nearly at will.

Not only that, but the last time a leftist (distinguised from liberal) candidate ran for president, he split the Democratic vote and the liberal candidate still won. That year was 1948.

.... progressives are forced here to look for a TOP down solution.

Help Greens or others get ballot access and they have already agreed to try hard to to (EDIT)NOT split votes.

Democrats want TOTAL POWER like Republicans.

Issues be damned.

The last time a leftist candidate with more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning is what I should have said.

What issues?

I'm not terribly well versed in Green party philosophy, but it occurs to me that when its chief spokesman claims there's no difference between the two major parties, he doesn't belong in office. That's the hallmark of a crusader and a crusader is the last kind of person I want in office. They're too likely to forget the golden rule of politics: those in control of the resources of all have no right to be unselfish with those resources.

The Democratic party already "lost because of Nader" so how can they hurt any worse with ballot access.

Nader tried in both 2000 and 2004 to not hurt Democrats without any reciprocity.The 2000 and 2004 (not Nader) green did likewise.

I thought we were the "Democratic" party anyway?

Either we increase turnout or we dont. These low turnout elections only hurt Democrats not the GOP.

How does this relate to either of my posts? I'm genuinely confused here.

Did you ever listen to Prime Ministers Questions on Sunday night on C-SPAN?

You would have no clue that the Liberal Dems and Labor work together to avoide hurting each other in elections.

Here in the USA a 3rd party cant be vn remotel critical of the major party.

Heck ,most American Democrats would think Labor should deny Liberal Dems ballot access this instant!!!

The trouble with 3d parties in the US is that this form of government is not conducive to coalition governments. I'm passingly familiar with the concord between the two Ls, but it's just not applicable here. Third parties can critique all they like, but they are seen as a protest vote, not as a viable choice.

Maybe if the 3d parties concentrated on building real party structures rather than grandstanding every 4 years, there would be a multiparty system. The trouble is that only the Libertarians consistently run candidates for at least half the offices available in a given cycle. With the current system, a viable 3d party needs to be able to carry seats in Congress in order to make itself heard.

was a complete asshole who invaded a country by lying about WMDs and the result were a whole bunch of dead people and a bunch of money gone from the treasury, I'd vote with an opposition party too.

That's what the British are facing, and that is why Liberal Democrats are breaking away from the Labor party. Methinks it's a good reason.

and
the Nader certainly was critical of Democrats in 2000 and did hurt the Democratic party. Florida was lost by 537 (?) and Nader got 90,000+ votes. I think his critique was heard loudly and widely.

he's repeatedly shot himself in the foot. :rofl:

Jumping Jiminy? Cause from where I sit, both feet were shot to hell.