New here, but...

The last thing I want to do is offend the die-hard democrats here, and, being new, I feel I should be a little more careful than some of the veterans.

This said, I'm going to crawl out on a limb and wave my flag a bit.

There was a time in this country when the left was organized and coherent. It spawned the labor movement and the civil rights movement, as well as the cultural revolution that changed the face of America for the better. (For the most part).

But over the last several years, if not the last few decades, the left has been hijacked by corporate interests in the persons of what the right has dubbed "the liberal elite." Children of privilege who don't really have the background to represent the working masses because they themselves haven't ever held a real job. Scions of wealthy families who claim to represent the working classes but don't.
These are the people who rode the fringes of the cultural revolution in the sixties, children of privilege who rebelled against their families but, in time, returned to the fold to become lawyers and business leaders not all that much different than those they once rebelled against.

Another word for these folks is "daytrippers."

This is part of the reason the rhetoric of the democratic party doesn't really seem to match the voting record. It isn't really coming across as the party of the working people because those who speak for it now were rarely, if ever, members of the working classes.

The right's accusation of "appeasement" isn't completely spurious. Some of these folks are missing an important part of what it takes to communicate with the classes they allege to represent. A true sense of outrage, perhaps. There is a sense of disconnection with the common people who have to get up every day and slave away in a factory, or work laborious jobs in the service sector.

When the right howls "Class warfare!" the left's response SHOULD be "damn straight!" It IS class warfare, but the first shots have been fired by the Neo-cons...the rest of us are just trying to survive the war without too many casualties.

Now, I'd like to state that I don't intend any insult to those people of principle who might come from said backgrounds. Some of them DO understand, at least in theory, what it's like to live on less than $100,000, $50,000, or even $25,000 a year. Some of what they do reflects this.

But they're not truly capable of connecting with those who deal with it every day. The democratic leadership needs to stop quailing away from the notion of drawing a little idological blood. They need to start talking tough and not shrinking in fear from the neo-con backlash should they say something that hits a little close to home. They need to start talking tough, to re-connect with the rough-and-tumble constituency that carried the labor and civil rights movements through times of blood, sweat, and tears throughout various parts of the Twentieth Century. They need to be able to stand up and say, without fear, that they're tired of watching the "little guy" getting screwed by Big Business and (face it) Big Government.

They need to start stealing some of the Right's thunder whenever possible. Despite allegedly being the "Party of Smaller Government" the Republicans have swelled government to historical size. The left needs to start politicking for smaller, more responsive government. Government that understands that people are the greatest resource we have as a nation. That the average worker is the foundation for everything we've built as a country...not the corporations. It's the little guy and gal who can use the tax breaks, if anyone can.

This is getting a little long, so I'll stop here. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Welcome!

:hi:

I agree with you when you talk about not shrinking away from drawing ideological blood. I get the feeling from a lot of Democrats now that it's not that their heart isn't in it, or that they don't really believe what they're saying, but that they're too self-conscious about sounding "shrill" or "over the top" when they criticize the * administration. This is not a concern the right has: John Cornyn is allowed to use the slippery-slope strawman on gay marriage, somehow equating it to man-and-box-turtle marriage. Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum is allowed to spread his filth, with little if any restraint put on him by either his own internal editor or the party itself, no matter how absurd, hateful, or worthless what he has to say might be.

Democrats have to realize that the facts are on our side. We shouldn't shrink away from saying that * lied about the Iraq war - he did, and we know he did, and recent relevations give us ample evidence to prove that he did. Still, nobody in Congress is making noise over it. A torturer is the Attorney General, a liar the Secretary of State, and a man whose only area of expertise is in the department of "death squads" is now in charge of intelligence, and very little resistance was put up by Congressional Democrats.

regarding Pat Robertson's comment that our judges are a greater threat to America than Al Qaeda and other gems from the past 2 decades (I'd love to have them all).

Fanatical Neo-cons and fascist Christians get a pass even when spouting the most outrageous nonsense, yet if you question the numerous indiscretion or criminal activities of anyone on the right you're a liberal wingnut...

Those on the left need to shoot back. I actually think "political correctness" has left more than a few of them tongue-tied. They don't want to offend anyone.

Offend away. Combat lies and venomous rhetoric with truth and clarity. Be rude if you have to. Say what MUST be said. "Yeah, it's Class Warfare...what of it? You may have us out-financed, but we have you outnumbered. By a larger margin now than when you fired the first shot."

Like Al Queida uses the Iraq war to recruit terrorists, the left needs to use the Class War to recruit voters. "Tired of being screwed over by lying corporate whores? Vote for us. We're kicking out the corporate whores from OUR side of the aisle. We don't need 'em and we don't want 'em."

Of course, the left would have to start cleaning house before saying this, but... :shrug: It needs to be done, in my opinion.

The Libertarians call themselves "The Party of Principle." They oppose Bush and his policies with stronger language than the Democrats. Of course, they're hardly worried about offending their base.

The left needs to revitalize its base. This isn't going to be done by kissing up to economic principles that harm that base.

Make these bastard, all of 'em on both sides of the isle EARN there means. No corp money. If you take the big-time money out of politics you end up with a different breed of politician.

Madeleine Albright, although she had some interesting things to say (Bill Maher Fri) but (as you said)displayed that same PC/I wont say shit if I have a mouth full attitude about calling the GOP out in the harshest terms. I see it as tantamount to Nero fiddling...

It all NEEDS to be said, in the harshest terms. Repeatedly!

privileged circumstances. It sure ain't true of me, and it's not true of people I know who think politically along the same lines. I think the day trippers you refer to are a sixties phenomenon; most of them are republicans now. The GOP can have'em.

The rest of your post contains elements I agree with.

I'm referring to the leadership. The politicians who stand in the spotlight and claim to speak for the constituency. How many of them actually grew up in the working classes? It's a serious question.

Some did abandon the left for the right. But many did not. The fact is, the leadership of the Democratic party has had to make concessions with corporate interests for campaign funding, and the practical side of everyday politicking requires compromise. You know, the whole "if you support this bill, I'll support THAT one."

The fact that so many Democrats voted for the "Bankruptcy Reform Bill" without making certain that the activies of predatory lenders were curtailed, and that provisions were made for emergency medical circumstances, makes it increasingly difficult to believe that the left hasn't been betrayed body and soul by those who only CLAIM to stand for the rest of us.

...is, in my opinion, exactly what we have in Howard Dean. He's not from a poor or Middle Class background but, as a doctor whose practice served working families, he has confronted our problems and seen the big picture in terms of our daily struggles. His record of governance in Vermont proves that.

And, for everything that he can bring to a party badly in need of re-discovering its roots, he scares not only the right wing but the entrenched powerbrokers on the left, as well. It's why the media did everything they could to sink his candidacy, even crucifying him for his "rebel yell."

And by the way, welcome to DU, Mythsaje. I like your name. Does it have a particular meaning?

I'm a new author, using the pen name Saje Williams. Many of my primary characters are the old Gods of mythology, de-mysticized.
Therefore, Mythsaje. :D

for the most part. And his "rebel yell" that the media had so much fun with didn't faze me in the least. I thought it showed passion, which the left desperately needs, in my opinion.

Unfortunately no one stood up at the time and said exactly that.

Too many dems don't really know the economic damage that has been done to lower income people over the past 30 years.

But would add that we (the people) need to do the same, engage those we know and question there motivation or lack there of...

Too many people (that I know) are too afraid to stand up to those who support this administration even though those people (for the most part) are extremely ill informed and rely on the most bias sources to form opinion.

The Bush Administration is a collection of greedy sociopaths and to support or ignore that fact is a character flaw for which those we know need to be called out!

Rally the people to bombard the government because unfortunately, unless our politicians feel that their office is threatened most will continue as they have...

One of the Rights greatest attributes is they're vocal and organized to be affective with their message.

and welcome to DU!

TC

But over the last several years, if not the last few decades, the left has been hijacked by corporate interests in the persons of what the right has dubbed "the liberal elite." Children of privilege who don't really have the background to represent the working masses because they themselves haven't ever held a real job. Scions of wealthy families who claim to represent the working classes but don't.
These are the people who rode the fringes of the cultural revolution in the sixties, children of privilege who rebelled against their families but, in time, returned to the fold to become lawyers and business leaders not all that much different than those they once rebelled against.

What a bunch of crap. I guess we're supposed to take it easy on new members, but this is a wagonload of horseshit. Kerry wasn't a 'child of privilege.' Dean wasn't. Edwards certainly wasn't. Clark wasn't. Bill Clinton certainly wasn't. Dennis Kucinich certainly wasn't. The list goes on and on.

Another word for these folks is "daytrippers."

Oh brother. I anxiously await your posts calling for a third party, and how Nader's right, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

so I'm rather thick skinned. I have no problem with earnest disagreement.

I will say, however, that even if the people you cite aren't the children of privilege, some of them certainly have gained a great deal of momentum voting like they are.

Nader's platform resonates with people because the Dem's have failed to protect us. However you'd like to levy the blame, they let it happen, it's out of control and so far there are very few wins in the "Justice" column.

Base on the tone of your reply to this post you obviously have a clearer perspective on what's happening and what should be done so why not enlighten us...

Kerry's Father was a Foreign Service Officer in the Eisenhower administration? Sounds a bit privileged to me. Graduated from Yale? Not your average citizen, there.

Bill Clinton's background shows how he managed to connect so easily with average citizens. No surprise there.

I'm having a problem finding any information on Dean's upbringing, though his wife was the daughter of two doctors. Dean went to Yale too, however. That's indicative of something.

Al Gore is the child of another U.S. Senator. That speaks volumes in itself. Graduated from Harvard.

Lieberman. Another Yale graduate.

Pelosi? Father was Mayor of Baltimore.

Murray? Rangel? Lee? Obama? Wyden? Reid?

Maybe we should just demand that Dem leaders not graduate from Yale and Harvard.

that ALL of the Democrats were from privileged backgrounds, but that those who are, and vote like it, should be held under a lot of scrutiny. Who, exactly, are they serving? The people they PROFESS to serve, or another master altogether?

from "privileged" backgrounds were unable to connect with people not-of-privilege, and that (without any real proof) that it was these "scions of wealthy families" that voted 'yes' on the bankruptcy bill.

But you never gave specific examples. The most obvious thing would be to list all the 'yes' traitors and show their privileged backgrounds. Then, maybe, your argument would hold water.

And funny how you brought up that damn liberal elitist Nancy "Father was Mayor of Baltimore" Pelosi:

Sirota, via Atrios: http://www.atrios.blogspot.com

I didn't accuse Pelosi of anything. Just mentioned that her father was a Mayor of Baltimore, as was her brother. Not a criticism, just an observation.

I'm pointing out a possible trend, not trying to assault or insult anyone in particular. There are those in Democratic circles who DO come from privileged backgrounds and it seems to those who do not that they cannot be expected to truly connect with people of lower socio-economic classes as easily as those who actually come from those classes themselves.

It's like working in a factory under someone who's only done admistrative work in an office and knows nothing about the actual production work being done on the floor. They make assumptions about what is and what is not possible, and issue directives that are, at base, impossible to implement due to circumstances they can't understand.

It's not impossible for wealthy politicos to connect to the masses, or be genuinely involved in their struggles, but they definitely can't look at them and say "I understand what you're going through." Because they don't. Because they can't. Not on anything but an intellectual level, which isn't the same thing.

that's connecting. A person who has tried to support a family on $10.00 an hour, or grew up in a household where this was the case, understands things that a person who grew up in a $500,000 home and went to Yale can't possibly grasp. Not just intellectually, but at the very core of their being.

don't make an argument.

You don't have to 'grasp at the very core of your being' to be an effective, worthy Dem leader. You just have to care. FDR seemed to do just fine.

Of course, he had his own sort of hardship to deal with, didn't he? And, no, you don't have to live it yourself, but you're going to have to have some sort of dialog to connect to those who do.

Having a problem deciding what Ivy League school you're going to attend is a bit different from trying to figure out how to get the money to go to college in the first place, and support yourself while you're there.

I think the Dems are tiptoeing around a lot of very big issues because they don't know how to address them...they might understand, eviscerally, why they're a problem, but don't know exactly why. Or, even if they do, they're not incensed about them the way someone who FEELS the pain. I get the impression from Kucinich that he DOES. (Been reading up on him after hearing so many DUers raving about him). Anyone who TRULY represents the working classes should get downright pissed off at some of this.

Take the reduction in college grants at a time when tuition rates are skyrocketing. How is it that the children of privilege feel justified in taking opportunity away from those who are less fortunate? How is it that the Democrats aren't screaming about this at the top of their lungs?

Do the children of privilege have student loans to pay back? I somehow doubt it. Do they live the first ten years of their after-college life deciding whether to eat mac and cheese or top ramen in order to pay back these loans? Probably not. (Maybe a slight exaggeration, but you get my point).

wealthy background. Grew up on park avenue.

Not to bash the Good Doctor, but he ain't a prole.

You will not be alone here but some might like you to think that. I am glad you are here.

Welcome to DU.

You said:

" The democratic leadership needs to stop quailing away from the notion of drawing a little ideological blood. "...

Could you elaborate a bit on this idea? -- How do you go about 'drawing a little ideological blood', given the ideological mindset we are confronted with in the repub party and red states?

fighting fire with fire. Not shrinking from the hard topics that generate backlash, but saying things that make the average American voter stand up and say "yeah!"

Hi Mythsaje, I'm new here too.

down, other than the obvious ones who are currently on trial or whatever?

How big should the market play a role?

I just don't understand it when you jump in with 'liberal elite' which are Bush's words to try and make the 'elite'in the USA an intellectual liberal one rather than the 'rich elite who actually control the corporations' "some call you the elite - I just call you my base".

You are saying I take it that upper middle class people should be kicked out of the party?

To me you seem to be parroting what a freeper would want some DUer to say, to tear apart our big tent.

Oh and the markets? Any time you eat or wear or sleep on or own something (including dollar bills) that you did not produce all by yourself on your own front lawn... you are in a market. And if you are middle class at all, you are rich by the standards of the world. People outside of markets have no choice. They just subsist. Oh and the markets in the future? Well the 20th Century was a complete luck out bubble for North Americans. It is over and will never happen again. All we can do to continue to keep our middle class alive is to trade with the emerging giants who will have middle classes 10 times greater than that of the USA. And we trade too so that the very, very poorest people on the planet, the Africans, have a chance at open world markets for the first time ever! Because we are all rich to them. I wonder why it is that so much of what you say parrots exactly what the Rovbots want us to be discussing. How we trade and whether we use 'this' corporations or 'that' coop is up to you and me personally.

Excuse me if I don't isolate myself from any liberal I deem to 'lucky' and attack them. Because in fact we are all very, very lucky in North America except for the very poorest of the poor (here). All of us are rich.

do you want me to address first?

I never said anything about shutting down corporations. But they shouldn't have political influence out of proportion with that of the average citizen.

What does the economic/financial status of the citizens of the third world countries have to do with how little the Democratic Party seems to be representing the working classes of the United States?

And I'm aware that those things I consume are produced by other people. Primarily other people making a bare living wage. What's your point?

And welcome to DU.

The recent Bankruptcy Reform bill was an example that sticks in my head. That was certainly class warfare, and even more so did it pit Corporate America against the interests of regular citizens. You expect Republicans to vote for the Corporate side, it's what they do, but a significant number of Democrats voted for it as well. Why? Which constituents were they representing with that "yea" vote?

I think corporate money needs to be expelled from the political picture. All of it, from lobbyists to outright campaign donations. It is no surprise that politicians vote the way their corporate sponsors tell them to, if anything it is a wonder they don't wear suits with enough logos on them to shame a Nascar racing team.

time in doing research for buyblue (a long slog but important for us to get power back from he corporations). You should help out. They need people to invest the time into following the actions of corporate political donations so that the corporations who support the right over the left are obvious. And it is all transparent to voters and to shoppers in the next few years. And we can decide to shop at the corporations that really do believe in the same things we do. And that we can use our power to force the corporations to behave or else face a choice between one half of the American Market or the other. So go to buyblue and log on to volunteer. It is hard work. But well worth the effort.

As to the rest of the world..yes..what do a bunch of starving people have to do with domestic policies in the USA? You either let them participate in the world market by opening up agriculture, etc. to them, or you shut them out. What to do? Do you know that Bagwhatti, one of the world's foremost radical economists is for open trade? Why? Because it really will move people from subsistence agriculture to making a small income (and then being able to pay for a water pump or get a loan to start a small business, etc.). And America has to support open trade because otherwise you are being elitist.

As to your third point you think that someone in Africa who makes a blanket you then buy through a coop or a coop store... and get the money to buy the school uniform to send her kid to school.. and buy a sewing machine in common with 20 other women.. if you think that is nothing and the village water pump is nothing (so people don't get the worms or have to live by the swamp or walk 5 miles to the river every day to get water..)why should you care?

Well - if you have no empathy you should not care. And then the people who you have had no feelings for will come and attack you some day. Just like the ME did on 9/11. We know enough about world history to know that you do not recklessly disregard big issues of justice unless you want to risk your own security. Modern things will make Africa perhaps cheaper to hook up to the world. The internet & satellite phones already mean they do not have to put up miles and miles of telephone poles everywhere.

So get with what is happening in this century. And remember that if you want to be cruel and not push for democracy and sharing world markets.. you will pay for it.

Perhaps you do not care about your children. Perhaps you want very much to preach from the pulpit of the Rovbot agenda. I don't understand your way of thinking.

We have to be open to the world. And not so over-privileged that we think that the wealth American had by having relatively closed markets in their own country but open ones abroad.. with no competition from other Western Nations right after the war, or any of the soviet block for the whole time communism existed, or from the third world... that somehow ... given that we had all those things going for the North American market in the 20th century.. that we can have it again. That it is our right. That - that is the way the world should be and the world should just stay that way? Because the world has not done that. So the 20th Century wealth we were used to is over. It is already gone. Do you want to adjust to reality or not?


As to straw man - I don't even understand what that means. I see the term used here. Please explain?

No offense, but this appears to be copied from a Corporate Sales Brochure Lobbying for NAFTA during the 90's.



"Perhaps you do not care about your children. Perhaps you want very much to preach from the pulpit of the Rovbot agenda. I don't understand your way of thinking."

OH!!! Free Trade is ALL about helping the poor little children. Cut Throat Record PROFITS have noooothiiinnnngggg to do with it. Its the poooor starving little children. If you don't support CAFTA, you hate the little children!!!!!
(for compassionate reasons, I edited out the rofl icon here))



" And remember that if you want to be cruel and not push for democracy and sharing world markets.. you will pay for it."
If you don't support Global Corporatism, you are CRUEL and are AGAINST Democracy, and if that's not enough, you better get with the Corporate Program or you will pay for it and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT so don't come crying to me!!!!



"you think that someone in Africa who makes a blanket you then buy through a coop or a coop store... and get the money to buy the school uniform to send her kid to school.. and buy a sewing machine in common with 20 other women.. if you think that is nothing and the village water pump is nothing (so people don't get the worms or have to live by the swamp or walk 5 miles to the river every day to get water.."

There is nothing even funny about this. This is the spiffy sales brochure produced by the Corporate PR teams in the 90's to SELL Global Corporatism. The TRUTH about Global Free Markets is VASTLY DIFFERENT. Go look for yourself.

The REALITY of the Global Free Trade agreements is that 3rd World Markets HAVE NOT been opened to American products. The Global Corporations that have been relocated there don't pay their employees enough to buy a product made in America. Are you aware of our current trades DEFICIT.
These agreements have only provided Global Corporations (only the real biggies get to play) with an endless supply of slave labor. As soon as an area begins to voice ANY concerns about Human Rights, fair wages, safe working conditions, or environmental problems, these Corporations PACK UP AND MOVE!!! Mexico is now LOSING jobs to China and most areas are WORSE off than before NAFTA Opened these markets.

Your use of clean drinking water is especially interesting. Before being allowed into the FREE MARKET, most 3rd World Countries are obligated to privatize their water systems (sell out to a Global Corporation). NO WHERE in the WORLD has this privatization resulted in cheaper water, better distribution, or even cleaner water. In most cases, the PRICE for drinking water has TRIPLED, putting it out of reach of people who used to drink for free.


you think that someone in Africa who makes a blanket you then buy through a coop or a coop store... and get the money to buy the school uniform to send her kid to school..

Which co-op do you shop at to buy your low cost imported Chinese textile goods? the Wal-Mart Co-Op? nuff said.

is a threat to the corporations.. you do not understand them. They are terrified. Corporations were invented to be transnationals in business when transnational was impossible for the average guy to participate in unless they were part of a corporations. And then the American Revolution happened. And people in the USA decided that they could do the trade themselves and not have to buy 'this & that' from some elite family compact in England.

It is how America evolved. By simply saying.. no - I do not have to go with established elites. We can be across that big wide ocean and we can trade as well as England can. (or any of the European powers).

To say that water is being buyed up by corporations in the third world is true in a few cases. So how you gonna fight that? You buy from someone local and they get together with a bank loan and drill into the aquifers below their own dam selves. A whole village may be able to get the loan from benevolent 'first world' microbanks if they agree to tend a few extra fields over a decade. They get the drills, they get the $500 well, they free up labor (mostly woman's) to tend those extra fields. They pay the loan back..then they are creating wealth for their own selves when the extra field has paid for the well. And they have cash.

Don't pretend that people who have nothing don't need that cash.

Don't pretend that they do not benefit.

Don't pretend that the internet will get their products to market without a corporation.. or with a corporations that follows some sort of humane laws.

I don't know what your family was doing 200 years ago. But mine was removing stumps from fields in North America where they could at least get ahold of fields that the elites hadn't given to themselves. They had nothing in that first generation. The second generation they had a little more. And they went from agrarian to cities and farms to businesses ... according to their abilities.

To pretend that this does not need to happen in the rest of the world is very selfish.

The original post was about how upper middle class should not participate in the fight against corporations. We are all upper middle class in North America unless we are poor. We all get to make choices with what 'extra' money we have. And that makes us rich.

You worry that nobody is buying American..but have you looked at the profits from abroad? The middle class in India, China, Brazil and Russian will be a middle class 10 times as big as the power of Western buying power is today. You either participate or you do not. You can participate purely as a coop. Or as part of corporations that have some heart.

There are shades of grey. But the fact that the poorest in the world get to finally participate in World Markets (if they had tried before some elite (USA, Britain, Old world wealth) came along and shut them down or shut down their democracy (because it was not right wing enough). They had the excuse of communists wreaking human creativity or ingenuity for 70 years out of the 20th century. They have no excuse now.

So what is it going to be. Is America, which is now half the world's economy but will be 1/20 of the world's middle class in 40 years, is America going to participate in that? yes or no. A clear black and white proposition for you.

If you think we need to participate then you have every right to talk about corporate citizenship and 'norms' such as..will health care and government monopoly on that be the accepted norm. Right now, in the West, the USA is the only place that does not have that. Why? Because it works so well to deliver preventive health care and better health & it keeps costs down.

If you hide in wanting to shut the doors, our markets will be destroyed. The wealth (made in North America in the 1950s and nowhere else) will take place in other places. Cause that is where all the growth (of middle classes) is. Outside. And wealth in the 1950s went not just to corporations. It upped the standard of living of 75% of the Americans too.

Fact is: middle class is a wealthy thing.

You can be for the middle class and against too much power in the hands of the elites.

snip

The original post was about how upper middle class should not participate in the fight against corporations.

Huh? My point was that I question whether they ARE, not whether they should. That there's a big difference between saying one's a democrat and for the people, and voting that way.

A straw man is a fallacy in logic, where, rather than addressing the opposing viewpoints themselves, one sets up somewhat similar arguments that can easily be countered and sets to debating them instead.

In example, you throw up the third world at me when I was referring specifically to OUR country and the supposed democracy we're not getting due to the debts our politicos owe to special and corporate interest. The third world is another topic altogether and bringing that into a debate involving our very own politicians and political parties can do nothing but muddy the waters, particularly when you assume that because I'm NOT addressing those points at this time it means I have no interest in the subject.

If we don't tend to our own problems here in the U.S., we will never be in any position to help those in the third world. It's a simple fact. As individuals we might be able to do a little, but not enough to make a difference.

I agree with your observations. You have many friends here, and a few very vocal opponents. Don't let it get to you.


The MAJOR reason the Democratic Party cannot produce a unified, specific, easy to understand National Campaign is the presence of so much Corporate Money in the Party. Its difficult for the Democratic Party to stand in front of the nation and proclaim they are for the working class when so many Democrats are voting AGAINST the Working Class.

The leadership of the Democratic Party is dependent (or believes it is dependent) on LARGE donations that are controlled by those who represent the OWNERS of the Large Corporations. These Single Sources of LARGE donations open the Democratic Party to extortion and control by a handful of Special Interests (the people who OWN the Corporations). These Corporate Owned Democrats can also depend on cover from the Corporate Owned Media.

There are several well financed organizations and lobbying groups INSIDE the Democratic Party whose purpose is to STRENGTHEN the power of the Large Corporations. The DLC (Democratic Leadership Council), the PPI (Progressive Policy Institute), The Third Way, The New Democrats, to name just a few. They are well financed, have slick marketing brochures, and STRONG Media support, but make NO MISTAKE, They ALL serve the SAME MASTER.

"One cannot serve two masters."
I forget who said that, but it certainly applies to the Democratic Party. There are those here who argue that the Democratic Party is a BIG TENT and there is room for ALL. I STRONGLY Disagree.
While the Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, there is NO ROOM for those who would advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR, the Working Class, and the POOR.

Sadly (and shamefully) in just the last few months, we have seen Democratic Party Leaders casting their votes for the RICH CORPORATE INTERESTS and shitting on the BASE of the Democratic party.

Some believe the party is too far gone to save. I'm not there yet. There are new and growing organizations INSIDE the Democratic Party that are fighting the Corporate Money Interests. Naturally, they don't get any mention from the CorpoMedia, and the Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party are using their resources to marginalize the voices of those who are speaking for the people. They are screaming terms like fringe left, loony left, left wing wackos in spite of the facts that the majority of Americans (both Democratic AND Republican) when polled on the individual issues SUPPORT the issues being fought for by the so called loony left.

If you are looking for Democrats who are working for the issues of the REAL Democrats, you can find them here:

http://www.pdamerica.org/

for the info.

I'd also like to extend a thanks for the welcome to you and the rest of the DUers who greeted me. It's nice to know I'm not standing in the cold, despite having relatively thick skin.

:toast:

-Jesus

I agree wholeheartedly. Welcome to DU. Now you can get the real news.

Rich people abstain.

I would love to see more middle class people, women and minorities in our Senate and House. But unfortunately, there is exactly one way to make the path even for all people so that they can fight with equal arms, whether they are the son of a factory worker, an unemployed man, or a rich person. The system consists in fixing the laws that govern political campaigns, forbid that people finance their own campaign, limit the amount of money that can be put in one race, state financing and free time on TV, allow somebody who competes seriously to get paid for that so that his family does not suffer...

But the idea that somebody that comes from a rich background cannot represent us because he comes from a rich background is just a sign of intolerance and would have prevented us from at least one of our greatest president: FDR.

In the same time, we have several examples of people who financed their campaign totally themselves (whether their parents are poor or rich). I find that totally unacceptable because a person who is more modest but as able cannot compete.

Well, I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I don't think that those who come from wealthy backgrounds should be automatically disqualified, but I do think it reasonable to ask the question if they should make a habit of voting in such a way to place undue burdens on the lower classes for the benefit of their brethren in the upper crust.

At that point they're little more than stealth candidates with a completely different agenda from those who actually signed on to help the common people.

A friend of mine has offered a few possible solutions to part of the problem, at least. One...all campaign contributions go into a general fund to be distributed by the parties to finance the campaigns of the various candidates. Any party with more than 100,000 registered members on a state level, or 1,000,000 registered members on the federal level, might be entitled to either an equal share, or a proportionate percentage of the fund, divided at the state and federal levels as needed.

Likewise, the media would be required to donate a certain amount of airtime for campaign purposes, to be divided up in a similar manner as above. There would be NO paid for campaign advertising whatsoever. Any airtime would be offered as a community service. We could have cable access channels devoted to the purpose, for that matter.

Private groups or individuals could pay for any political advertising they wanted on their own, but these ads would be clearly marked as not being associated with the candidates or parties in question, with the groups being identified specifically during the message. ("This ad sponsored by the AARP," for example, "Or this represents the opinion of the NRA."

There are a lot of rough edges in the idea, but, in my opinion, it has potential.

:hi:

Galbraith's Affluent Society right now and in his foreword he brought up soemthing he hadn't anticipated when he wrote the book, and that seriously troubles me now....


do we even have a working class? or rather a working class that sees themselvesa s working class? The New Deal, the Unions, the Fair labor Act have all gotten us to a place where even if you're poor, you're comfortable (unless your homeless) - and what galbraith noted - what came with the comfort wasn't a need to help others come up - but more of a "fuck it, i got mine - who care's what you've got" mentality.


So i don't think it can all be blamed on "Limousine Liberals" - a lot of it has to do with just plain human nature.

I think complacency IS part of the problem. Like the folks who tell me "I don't do politics."

Your choice. But politics will 'do you' regardless.

I think the #1 barrier to developing this constituency is the war on drugs. Whatever efforts we make in the trailer park will be hampered by the percentage of people with felonies who can't vote. Just imagine how ineffective political efforts in this environment are as compared to say, a suburban megachurch. For every dollar they spend buying off evangelists, they might get ten votes to our one spending if we spend that dollar in the trailer park (or equivalent poverty area). We would be better off seeking popularity like Qadafy, by literally buying people a ton of stuff, than by spending on regular organizing campaigns.

All decisions affecting the poorest Americans are made by people who are TERRIFIED to walk among them. Whatever else you want to say about him, we need more leaders like Mayor Jerry Brown in the sense that he will roll up on gangbangers hanging at the bus stop, roll down his window and say, "How's it going, guys?" The rather macho culture of the poorest people doesn't care what class you come from--after all, they generally aspire to be wealthy themselves, but also don't want to hear about who your daddy was. What they want to see is someone who walks unafraid, who commands respect.

have a slightly different view of power than the 'elite,' that's for sure. Most couldn't care less about politics in general, and probably have never seen a candidate they'd consider voting for, even if they could register. Most politicians speak a completely different language.

At how much they can be moved by contact with a true leader. "Can you dig it brothers?"

If you watch Jerry Springer, it helps you forget how hungry these people are for dignity and a purpose in life. Don't lose faith.

That's what this country desperately needs...someone who's sincerely the voice of the people, who can reach out to people like you describe, as well as the harried middle-class soccer mom who barely has time to buy new clothes, much less map out the political landscape.

This last weekend I read "nickel and dimed" and it was an interesting read for multiple reasons.

The premise is that a reporter/essayist for Harpers, the NYTimes Magazine, and other publications decided to spend a month each being a maid, a waitress, and a Wal-Mart employee, to see if she could live on each wage.

It was an interesting glimpse into the lives of minumum wage workers, but it was also an interesting glimpse into the author's own suppositions and designed outcomes.

The most interesting aspect of the book is that she felt the need to interpret the lives of minimum wage workers for a liberal, middle to upper middle class audience who ostensibly has no direct experience of the issues and headaches she encounters. Throughout the book she expects people to "know" or "sense" that she's really a PhD writing a book, but nobody "knows" or in the end, cares.

The fact that a large segment of liberals, and especially liberal politicians, are not in touch with the lives of minimum wage workers is a huge problem for the party.

Kudos for raising this point.