Can the Democratic party be made more progressive?

I have already gotten involved in my local politics
but what else can be done in a redneck/red state to undo
decades of 'southern democrat' influence?

Certainly there are "leftist" causes, such as ending the Iraq war, upholding abortion rights, furthering gay rights, eliminating corporate welfare, and ending drug prohibition which are worthwhile and desirable. I think a great many Americans endorse these goals.

However, if you mean socializing the economy even more than it already is, then I would have to question the wisdom of such an agenda.

should we move away from Bush's supply side economics, ie; giving tax breaks to the rich in the hope that it somehow trickles down, or do we try to find a way to more equitably distribute the nations wealth? Bill Clinton's economy was doing a decent job of that - was he socializing the economy?

Shouldn't we move to the left of the current model?

However, if you mean socializing the economy even more than it already is, then I would have to question the wisdom of such an agenda.

If anything, we have been de-socializing the economy since the 80's. Look at all that fallout we have had from the deregulation of the electric and gas industries.

To me, moving to the left means making something more democratic and under the control of all people. Moving to the right makes something more autocratic and under the control of fewer people...

While the pursuit of peace and justice are noble goals, we have to reform some of our institutions in order to permanently achieve these goals.

is that it is dictatorship by the majority. Of course, that's peachy until "they" become the majority and "we" get screwed.

I favor a system where individuals can make decisions for themselves, and are not subject to any gang which can muster 51% of the vote.

making everybody more equal. Thus it becomes more difficult for a majority to trample on the rights of the minority and vice versa.

As for your argument that individual identity is not consistent with democracy, true democracy is not synonomous with groupthink. You have a herd mentality among the masses precisely because our major institutions are not democratic. For example, if we had a democratic media that reported the truth instead of the standard corporate product, you would undoubtably see more freethinking among the masses.

power as those from the largest populated states.

n/t

somebody that can connect with those rural white southerners who should be voting Democratic, while also appealing to the urban vote and the shrinking middle class. Somebody that can frame the issues in common sense ways.

beginning on a community level as opposed to national.

All of the outrage and vision that change is needed should be
inplace already, but too many I know still think "moderate".

And then somewhere along the way he sold his soul. What a wasted presidency.

as were many of us....we chose to look beyond his DLC rhetoric, triangulating everything...and buy the man from "hope" line. He was always a centrist, and never wandered from the plantation. He didn't have a progressive bone in his body....we just wanted him so bad....ahem, and I'm an old married man.

The man who chaired the DLC, the group which claims that Democrats need to move to the center or they will lose elections, actually had to run to the left as an economic populist in order to get elected.

I think Feingold possesses the Populist attributes which should appeal to the working class throughout the country.

and he would also allow the national politics to be more broadly representive of the entire country, instead of simply appealing to the mentality of the "Soutehrn Man" which is not representative of the entire country.

btw...I'm qualified to speak on the "Southern Man" mentality as i was born and raised there - and am a southern ex-patriot.

The belief that Democrats/liberals hold "common people" in contempt is one of the most powerful pieces of propaganda in the GOP's arsenal, and attitudes like yours only serve to validate it in the eyes of people whose support we need.

I first posted that I would call those to whom I refer
as bubbas, but I know people that have named their kid bubba.

In these parts, redneck is not necessarily a derogatory term.
Besides, what do I care if I do offend some people, should I walk
through life on my tiptoes for fear of a reaction?

test here at DU. And if you don't fit into the mold conconcocted in the heads of a vast minority of the Democratic party and an even more vast minority of society at large, you're deemed a sell out, a DLCer and a bush bot. This coming from the very people who really enable people like bush by supporting non Democratic candidates. Boggles the mind. :eyes:

and then blame the progressvies when the party loses elections after abandoning progressive values - and as they (DLC) promote Right Wing positions.

why are you so unable to see the stark contradictions in the concept you keep promulgating?

Funny, that...

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

Democratic Underground would not be possible without the participation of like-minded individuals from across the country and, indeed, from around the world. The content for the site is provided by people who feel that their views are not represented by the conservative "mainstream" media in the U.S. We accept article submissions from those on the left who wish to write, so that DU represents a variety of progressive viewpoints.

As it says, Dems of all kinds are welcome here (note the small percentage of conservatives and rightwingers, usually DLCers, who are welcome to post), but DU was started for, and remains dedicated to, progressive politics.

So, if you have a problem with the 'litmus test', take it up with the guys who founded this website.

you really know what I meant.

I was born and raised in deep Red Neck country, where when i was kid in the 50's and 60's - big road side bill board signs would read: "Welcome to KKK Country" -

Why should the Democratic Party seek the votes from these people, and why do they think it's required to get elected?

And there was a time when we were the party of rural working people. Not coincidentally, I think, that was also when we ran this country.

and there is a CLASS WAR on and always has been.

When I refer to Red Necks - it's the Red Necks I grew up with.

I don't want my kin folk running this country anymore - they've driven it to the ground, and have practically destroyed it.

I'm an ACLU Card Carrying Progressive and Southern Ex-Patriot and proud of it.

I've got my daddy to thank for it, it's just about the only decent he did for me was expose me to the rest of the country at a very young age, by virture of being a Lifer' in the United States Marine Corps. And even though we were mostly in the South, I had just enough exposure to cultures in California and Hawaii to make a profound impact on my view of the world and our own history.

Btw, just because we have had leaders from the "Rural" areas that have been runnin' thangs a lot of the time, doesn't necessarily make it healthy for the entirety of our population, especially in the past century.

A southern Red Neck CARES little about the socio-economic conditions MOST AMERICANS live through and have to endure, ESPECIALLY the working poor. The Southern Red Neck Man would rather impose their ignorance and bigotry on to the rest of the nation and I just can't abide by that paradigm any longer.

I'm talking about people who have to work and/or in the cities and too many have to commute deplorable distances from outlying suburbs to cities in order to make the wages to make ends meet.

Maybe you've noticed that the most heavily populated cities tend to be VERY VERY BLUE.? Not the case in the Rural areas either in the south or the North West for that matter. Yep, they're up in the central valleys of California, Oregon Washington, Idaho and so beyond.

The least populated, the more red neck, interesting isn't it?

Laws of the Land means Laws that govern the PEOPLE of the land. If the laws are going to be governing the PEOPLE of the Land, shouldn't the PEOPLE have a voice about the laws that they will be ruled by?

Some say, that it shouldn't be that way, and we talk about how we would have never abolished Slavery if it we were a real democracy. And that's true.

But see, if we're going to go off around the world invading countries to force democracies in other nations, under both a Bush or Clinton administration, i think we had better sit down and figure out if we really want our country to be democratic as well or not.

Or if it's even worth the trouble.

and he's the most progressive/liberal person I know. Don't paint everyone with the same broad brush. Some of the most compassionate, considerate people I know who will go out of their way to help another in need are southern and, by your standards, could be considered rednecks. They may not be the most educated or speak the Queen's English, but they know the difference between right and wrong.

Be a little more thoughful with your descriptions.

and during that time, sadly, we had to keep quiet on a certain issue regarding a certain minority race of people - in order to keep our majority.

but 'WE' can not have a narrow focus on issues and be intolerant of others positions and ideas. If we are going to replace and defeat the republicans and their heinous acts against this country and the rest of the world, we need to work as a collective body having many ideas and opinions that are left of center.

of the human condition. Progressives aren't necessarily violent but they are potentially revolutionary and not surprisingly overtly intolerant of forces in society that undermine both human dignity and physical integrity.

:hi:


If the Right in the party would be respectful of the Left in the party, and quit trying to demonize and marginalize and disenfranchise us at every turn, and if we on the Left were actually welcomed to a seat at the table, in order to put forward our "issues" - and negotiate from the place of empowerment- - perhaps we could actually "work effectively" on our shared goals together.

This could happen, if the Right Wing of the party wasn't so keenly interested in making sure the Left never get a seat at the table in the first place.

For the Right Wing of the party, they've got nothing to lose by shutting out the Left, because if by playing out their power grab, if the Democratic Party still loses, the Right Wing of the Party still WINS when Republicans take power anyway.

All things are not equal, and the party has to be honest about how this works.

And that includes the constant floating of lists of candidates of their own slate with the intention of front loading the head of the ticket long before the primaries even roll around.

Elements on the left end of the Party's spectrum would do well to cease attempting to demonize and marginalize those towards the centerist and pragmatic fields of the Party's spectrum. For better or worse, the Democratic Party is a coalition of small and disparate elements that requires for any success against the worst elements of reaction in our polity that all come together and hold as a fist, rather than stand apart like outstretched fingers, with which no blow can be effectively struck. Together we certainly outnumber the enemy, but intercine quarrels create a situation wherein some elements will not co-operate with others, and the result is a subtraction of strength sufficient to enable the enemy to triumph despite our theoretically greater number.

at the left - as if to say the left have no legitimate argument to make in this regard. Those who identify as "Centrists" or "Moderates" need to be more honest about how much that term is being mis-applied or inaccurately defined in the context of the constant righward shifting of the so called "center".

At this current rate of diminished perspective, Mussolini will soon be considered as a Centrist or Moderate.

Ok, I admit that's something of an exageration, but i think you get my drift...

There is no doubt that there has been a sort of "red shift" to the right in public discourse on politics, that has been in train for at least two decades, and that is a very troubling phenomenon. You are quite correct that a number of positions that in my youth would have been viewed as barely left of center are now freely described by some as "far left", and a good deal that would then have been viewed as "loony right" proclaimed to be within the mainstream. Part of this, certainly, is the result of rightist organization and funding of various platforms and echo chambers, but as these are beyond our power to directly affect, it would seem wiser for us on the left to focus our attentions on what contributionsd to this may have come from our own activities, since we have the power to alter our own behavior.

One of the most serious structural problems contributing to this is the divorce of the activist left and what we might call still for convenience "blue collar" people, which occured during the Viet Nam period and was cemented in the Reagan era. It seems to me the left has seriously under-rated the attachment of such people to traditional totems of patriotism, and the personal attachment such people have to the view of their country as good and great. This seems to me to be a leading reason why it does not seem possible for the left to tap into the tremendous discontent among these same people with the conditions of their work and the poor wages they receive. Viewing the left as "anti=patriot", they will then give no hearing to anything else from that direction, even though it might really be just what they want to hear. Politics simply cannot be done successfully without an appreciation of emotional and irrational factors, for therse dictate the greatest proportion of political behavior, particularly among people who do not pay a great deal of attention to political life normally.

This really is not intended to be flame bait. But consider the following.
If by more progressive, you mean more liberal on social issues, it would mean that there would be a substantial risk of alientating the foolowing groups:

Catholic/Union households in the Rust Belt.
Suburban White Collar upwardly-mobiles in the suburbs.
And all but the most urban districts in the South.

That's the hard reality.

It would be a recipe for electoral suicide.

That is not to completely discount progressive philosophy...but I think it makes more sense to concentrate progressive politics in the House and with certain Senate seats.

I think the days of truly liberal presidents are gone. Consider that for every moderate-conservative voter that is pushed away you would have to find two progressive voters to replace them... If we can be totally honest, the party has never been able to motivate historically apathetic new voters, nor does ithave the organizational infrastructo to get those folks out to the polls.

Hard reality, but I think largely accurate.

We have a great oppurtunity to sieze control back in 2006 and 2008, but I do not think we can get there by being more progressive largely because the GOP does an astoundingly good job at Demonizing liberalism and scaring moderate voters. We have done an abysmal job at finding our way out of the box they put the Dems in. The majority of the voting population is scared of liberal politics.

it's just that there is very little representation of liberal ideas in the media and so people parrot the bad mouthing of "liberals" even when if you examine issues on a case by case basis these very same people would be called liberal.

But until the powers that be figure out how to overcome the deomization....the electoral calculus does not change

I borrowed this from :LynnTheDem
Mon Dec-26-05 02:38 AM
Response to Original message

139. a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman


Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal....


The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

support politically what they already believe. And wasn't there another study/ poll done recently that said that the vast majority of Americans also want the next president to be the opposite of Bush*? If so, that person would hardly be a "moderate".

conservative. But the thing is, a lot of "liberals" are also "conservative" on some issues. So, let's just throw the labels out. They just don't serve any real purpose.

sorry. but how would you propose to do away with these labels. I doubt seriously the GOP would agree.

is that he agrees with this. Labels are an unnecessary distraction for people trying to get out a message that can appeal to the majority of voters. Let's see how that works out for him. ;)

:shrug:

just curious...

Why do you think people who supports Warner are paid operatives or otherwise involved in his campaign?

I won't list all my observations, but I'll list a few..

1 - Because of the hyped promotion in this forum of a figure who otherwise would have no other national notoriety (relevant to the office he's seeking).

2- Because after watching his interview (twice) on C-Span, found his personality did not come close to matching how he was being charachterized in this forum by at least one other forum member, which i found to be somewhat curious.

3 - because the timing was co-ordinated with others..

Just an interesting observation..

Now I have a question for you... refresh my memory, have you found other posts of mine asking others the same question about the same individual?

Not necessarily disputing, just need my memory jogged, because I don't recall asking this question to anyone other than in this thread..

I have seen several instances of people accusing others of being "paid operatives" and such.

Don't recall if it was you - but I'm seeing a lot of it.

But back on topic:

The traits you list sound a lot like Dean supporters.

close though, i supported Dean to chair DNC... ;)

I'm looking at Russ Feingold right now... see what develops :shrug:

That IS what we were discussing - whether strong supporters of a candidate here on DU are paid to be so.

moderate. Just think, if we win consecutive elections instead of losing consecutive elections we can push through a more progressive agenda...OVER TIME... But as long as we keep getting rejected at the ballot box, we have to gain the trust of the electorate before we can change society. We started that with Clinton. But then the impatient left ruined it for everybody by shunning Al Gore. Now they bitch the loudest. I can't stand it.

I personally agree. but man you are a glutton.

:hi:

The lack of clarity you seem to advocate is the reason we are in this mess in the first place.

For over 30 years, the conservatives have basically been unchallenged by the Democrats, who were so busy running away from the "liberal" label that they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

As a result, Alan Greenspan -- the embodiement of right wing corporate economics -- became the poster boy for the Democrats. The Democrats embraced the same supply-side, "free market" right wing ideology as the GOP. They just wrapped it in a "kinder and gentler" package by supporting liberal social issues.

And so average Americans and the disadvantaged have been screwed six ways to Sunday. Many knew in their bones that something was wrong, but the democrats stopped standing for their real economic interests. So the "swing" voters and the "center" gave in to either apathy and fatalism or to the blandishments and lies of people like Rush Limbaugh.

The ONLY way the Democrats are going to revive in any meaningful way is to become strong advocates for real reform for economic justice and actual democracy that average people can relate to from their own experience.

you forgot the sarcasm smiley!! i hope!
the left ruined things for everybody (the non-lefty Dems??? bwaaaahh!!!) by being impatient! :rofl:

party.

The GOP is good at demonizing Liberals therefore the party should abandon Liberalism - and move more to the Right.

Why even fucking bother?

That the Hard reality, and its worth fixing.

Its hardly a rationization. Surely you have to admit that there is a difference between Presidential POlitics and Congressional Politics.

There have only been two progresive Presidents. LBJ and FDR But both were so because of pragmatic demands FDR had the Great Depression and LBJ had Racial Unrest and Poverty.

JFK? JFK was and idealist and visionary more than a true liberal. That's it...that is the only three in the history of the nation. Not Carter, not Clinton.

Moreso, there is overwhelming evidence that when we run liberal candidate in November, they do terribly. We lose big. McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis.

It has not happened in forty years. What has changed to make you think a progressive can win?

This is not an issue of throwing in the towel. Find me a progressive who is charismatic, sharp as a tact; able to take on the the Neo-Cons and the religious right and win converts in droves and won't cower at the L word and I will listen. But every datum of evidence says that the electoral math and campaign financing (lack of corporate support would have to be overcome)is daunting with a progressive as the Standard Bearer.

Dukakis was a crap candidate. Put up a crap candidate without strong credentials who sucks the charisma right out of a room, and a loss is hardly surprising.

The right is energized and they vote. The Left is demoralized because our leaders offer little true opposition and compromise so often that it has given far too much validation to extreme right positions. Offer a true Progressive, who has clear positions and speaks with confidence and charisma, and you won't need to worry about appealing to undereducated fearful rednecks and fundamentalists; the base will VOTE, and not for the green candidate! Studies have already shown that the majority of the country desires "the opposite of Bush*" as our next President. Not giving them that will ensure our defeat.

He was a breath of fresh air after watergate who barely eaked out a victory. He hardly has much of an aganda and he certainy did not run as a liberal

Well is that nor how MoOndale ran in 1984? Look at the outcome. A true, articulate unabashed liberal, running as a lioberal against Ronnie Reagan....We got trounced.

Lesson: its the Messenger and not the message that wins prsiedntial politics. We tend to put up< candidate who the common manviews as elitist. rather then the guy down the street who volunteers to mow your lawn while you are on vacation. Reagan, Clinton and Bush all posess that that that is why they won.[br />

He has a sort of populist quality and I think the country is hungry for just that precisely at this juncture in history.

He's deeply principled, genuinely cares about the Constitution, and "Peoples Rights" the condition of our democracy. He's able to communicate in "straight talk" and has a lot of other leadership attributes which I think could appeal to people across the spectrum, without trying to be phony and trying to appeal to the bible thumping nut jobs.

And he has not accepted campaign contributions from Big Business, Multi-National Corporate donors.

I think that should have a lot of play in the next few election cycles. Whether or not the people excersise their civic responsibilities by becoming better informed about what's happened to our democracy and our economy vis a vis disasterous trade policies implemented by both partys in the last three administrations, remains to be seen.

I do think that all the old patterns and analysis have to be tossed in the waste can - the current paradigm is going to shift, but hopefully not in the traditional directions (left vs right).

I want to see advance moving forward vertically, not horizontaly or circular.

labels because of the way the RW has framed the issues. We need to set and control the debate-NOT move further to the right (the entire playing field has been shifted to the far right, making modern Democrats no different than Reagan era republicans). I recall reading an LBN article a month or two ago that stated that the vast majority wants the next President to be the opposite of Bush*. What we need to offer is true opposition, not validate their insane fascist positions by embracing them in whole or in part.

East and West?


Franklin D. Roosevelt
“The Economic Bill of Rights”
Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”

source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950), 40-42

It is about personal security.

But how do you sell that to a populace who believes it is overtaxed and loathes big government.

I mean its fine for a party platform (do thoise things even exists anymore) but how do you translate those rights into an agenda?

were able to change and re-frame the debate. This was on several fronts, perhaps media and building grassroots organizations being the most important. There is no simple formula and it will take take, money and lots of work.

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

Your characterization is exactly what Rush Limbaugh would say. "Any effort by government to protect the rights of working people is socialism. Anything done to protect wages and job security is the same as a guaranteed government job. Any effort to prevent the natural evolution of a so-called "free market" into a monopolistic oligarchy is automatically a communist command-and-control economy."

That's a load of bunk. There are a millon number of degrees between the "anything goes" jungle that right wingers advocate and centrally controlled socialism.

...I don't like being fucked by statists, either on the Right or the Left. Is that so bad?

But not all the possibilities. A Democracy is not, by definition, an Oligarchy.

The problem with your characvterization is that you place it as an either/or choice with no shades of variation possible.

That is exactly what the right-wing does. The economy has to be either a totally uncontrolled "free market" or "socialism."

Roosevelt's statements were goals. The way to accomplish them is always arguable, becuse there are endless possibilities. However those basic economic rights are what a government SHOULD have as core principles.

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

__ Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth – George Orwell from 1984

Now some words from the mist:

Franklin D. Roosevelt

“The Economic Bill of Rights”
Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union

“We cannot be content, no matter how high the general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed." --Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1944

"true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence" - FDR.

When the State becomes involved in providing "economic security", independence is the first thing to go. This is true for corporations as well as individuals. When Bush calls the tune, the CEOs who suck on the Federal tit must dance a jig for him. Is this "independence"? I think we can agree that these corporations have sold their souls - if they had souls to begin with, that is.

As far as "equality in the pursuit of happiness" goes, well, we simply aren't all equal in our abilities or capacities. We never will be.

you take this way to the extreme. The FDR list is an acknowledgement of basic human rights. Everyone has the right to have the opportunity to have these things. When any sector of a population is disenfranchised it drags on the population as a whole.

The first thing needed to make the Dem party more progressive is to get them out of the deep pockets of the corporations and lobbyists and back to the basics of human rights for all citizens.

First, all of these goals are achievable, regardless of your derision of them. In fact, many of them were achieved, some in the very manner in which you deride them as in the past, and even the present. To give an example, due to the unemployment of the Great Depression, many workers were hired by the federal government to build dams and other public works(rural electrification). This provided for a basis for economic recovery from the laissez faire "free market" economy that lead to the Great Depression in the first place. The Minimum wage, which you apparently don't like, also came from this era, along with Social Security, HUD, and many other programs that benefit the poor and disenfranchised. I guess you also don't like anti-trust laws, health and worker safety rules and regulations, price controls on "natural" monopolies, like gas and electricity. I guess you think Medicare, Medicaid and other programs of that sort should also be abolished. My question is, why are you on this board in the first place?

How can you look at George Bush and think otherwise?

Norway, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia etc and etc

all totalitarian states

although they didn't go as far as FDR was proposing

too bad Truman wasn't too keen on it...

but then he thought we should deal with Japan with the Atomic Bomb too.. and he established the CIA followed with the National Security Act of 1947 after abolishing the O.S.S.!

It's been down hill ever since...

I look how the far right working from the aftermath of the Goldwater landslide defeat of 1964 changed the big tent Republicans into a distinctly right wing party; so right wing that poor old Barry wasn't even welcome anymore. But, to do this the right wing did back in general elections candidates and Presidents who were clearly not there ideological soul-mates. Richard Nixon would be a socialist wacko by current Republican Party standards. But, it was the Nixon era that gave real rise to to the longterm agenda of the right-wing.

Since we do not have a system such as exist in much of Europe which is accommodating to third parties and there is realistically no possibility whatsoever that will change anytime prior to the collapse of the current order which I do not anticipate will happen anytime soon--we have no choice in my opinion but to work with what we do have.

Furthermore any survey of actual congressional voting records will demonstrate that with the exception of the likes of Zell Miller almost any Democrat including Lieberman and definitely Clinton are still much more progressive than any "moderate" Republican.

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA

What is PDA?
A large group of progressive grassroots activists from across the country who want to support other progressive grassroots activists locally.

What is PDA's mission?
Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) exists to carry the progressive agenda from the American grassroots to Congress to guide the development of progressive legislation, fight for its passage into law, and support the realization of progressive policies at the state and local levels.

LEARN MORE ABOUT PDA at http://www.pdamerica.org

n/t

This country does not need or want two conservative corporatist parties. Let the Republicans sell out to that Anti-American agenda, and the Democrats can move on with the Peoples' business.

At least that's what several polls indicate.

many polls show that Americans are liberal in all but name
I borrowed this from:
LynnTheDem
Mon Dec-26-05 02:38 AM
Response to Original message

139. a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman


Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml


The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

:shrug:

will you please provide links?

These attitudes contrast sharply with the opinions of both Democratic officials and rank-and-file Democrats. A Gallup poll of Democratic National Committee members (in February 2005) showed that, by more than two-to-one (52%-23%) the DNC members want the party to become more moderate, rather than more liberal. That view is shared by Democrats nationally; in a January survey, Gallup found that 59% of Democrats wanted the party to take a more moderate course.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=933

Let me guess.

The polls were bogus?

People don't really know what "moderate" means?

and it is true that the word liberal has been successfully demonized--but when it comes to specific issues the country at large seems to have a very different view. (see polls listed above)

I know DNC members on the local level - both state and national - who work hard on the grassroots level that are alarmed at the shrillness coming from the far left.

And while we're both employing anecdotal evidence, most Democrats I know that are actually involved in the party (not liberal organizations like MoveOn) yearn for the days moderate voices.

No.

But they are out of step with the political mainstream.

The Rollingstone Article on MoveOn said it best:

"Listing the issues that resonate most with their membership, Boyd and Blades cite the environment, the Iraq War, campaign-finance reform, media reform, voting reform and corporate reform. Somewhere after freedom, opportunity and responsibility comes 'the overlay of security concerns that everybody shares.' Terrorism as a specific concern is notably absent. As are jobs. As is health care. As is education.

There's nothing inherently good or bad in any of this. It's just that MoveOn's values aren't middle-American values. They're the values of an educated, steadily employed middle and upper-middle class with time to dedicate to politics -- and disposable income to leverage when they're agitated. That's fine, as long as the group sticks to mobilizing fellow travelers on the left. But the risks are greater when it presumes to speak for the entire party."

But we're moving off topic which seems to be the norm whenever discussions like this happen.

As for the polls, there was a third one from Zogby:

"Democrats want their leaders to make modest compromises on their principles in order to win over voters from the middle of the political spectrum, while most Republicans want their leaders to stand firm on issues, even if it means losing moderate support, the poll shows. While 61% of Democrats agreed it was better to compromise to win broader support, just 44% of Republicans agreed. Independents, by a 58% majority, agreed that softening some ideological stances to attract moderates was the best strategy.

The survey showed that 93% of Independents, 63% of Republicans, and 79% of Democrats wanted candidates who were independent of party leaders and were willing to compromise to get things done."

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1050

speaks for the whole party, Move-one or anyone else

and I guess I would say yes to a poll if asked if the party should make modest compromises

and you are correct that he did not say that move-one was far left.

They are an advocacy organization that does not address a number of issues. Most advocacy organizations do not. I don't see where they are out of the mainstream on the issues that they are involved with.

but then we are getting off topic

Seems to me the counter-intuitive one that the way to gain support grom the fence-sitters is to ignore them rather than seek to cater to them. The Republican attitude seems to work in general elections, on recent evidence. The reason for this, it seems to me, is that elections are not rational exercises, but rather emotional ones. In their course, lines are drawn between groups, and persons must choose on which side of a political boundary they will range themselves. The general criterion employed is an assesment of strength and combativeness displayed by the cointenders for allegiance. Those who are not strongly committed to any particular ideology or view seem to react more favorably to a line which boils down to Mr. Butler's parting address to Miss Scarlett....

Isn't Delores Huertas on the DNC national?

And which "local" DNC are you associated with, which state?

and are you a delegate?

You do have a practice of misrepresenting what people have posted.

represents National to me...

please clarify..

I apologize for that. I guess I'm just touchy about that particular phrase and the way some use it.

Skimming through it, it appears to offer quite a different analysis than the one you posit.

And it's a Pew poll, not a Gallop.

If you read it closer, you might see the quote from it concerning the two Gallup polls I pasted into post #70.

...there are three recent polls srongly suggesting that Democrats want the party to be more moderate and attract more moderates.

Couple that with the Pew survey that shows how out of touch so-called "Dean activists" are with the rest of the party, and the MoveOn poll Rolling Stone magazine wrote about that showed how out of touch MoveOn members are with rank and file Democrats, and you begin to see a pattern.

in the Democratic party is the book The Emerging Democratic Majority by John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira.

The one that talked about the fact that the DNC was not listening to the progressive base?

And I didn't see the part where Pew said that Dean Activists were "out of touch" with the rest of the party, can you cite that specifically please and point to exact segement..

And, of course, I didn't SAY that Pew said Dean activists were "out of touch" with the rest of the party. But that is a logical conclusion when you consider:

Dean lost the primaries - having won only one in his home state, VT.
Dean activists only part of the electorate who voted for Dean in small numbers.

Pew reveals many issues where "Dean activists" have different political belief and practices than the party as a whole.

As does the Rolling Stone article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7048293?rnd=1109791839961&has-player=unknown

I wasn't one of them, since I hadn't heard of him until just before the primaries got started (with debates)and I was Kucinich supporter.

But as I recall watching events as broadcast on C-Span - I was drawing my own conclusions.

First I could see that Kerry was hijacking Dean's platform in Iowa. Trying to be more "anti-war" than Dean - Carol King and other celebs and luminaries were 'in town' holding meet ups and 'town halls'on behalf of Kerry, touting anti-war creds, and the term "Electability" was bantered about EXTENSIVELY, at the same time Kerry had his arsenal of Viet Nam Vets to come out and tout his service credentials. All this was broadcast on C-Span.

Anyone with eyes (or ears) could see (or hear) the party was backing Kerry and Gephart right from the start in Iowa. Though Gephart was also an important player, certainly Kerry had the funding and backing others did not.

This is simply to say, there's a lot more behind the scenes wheelin' and dealin' that tends to skew to a great extent how and why elections are "won" and "lost" ... people know this - it's dishonest to pretend that the results represent what "most" Americans believe or think on any given issue.

In a word, it's largely ENGINEERED.

That's why these discussions and conclusions get skewed, because none of these critical and relevant components are factored into the analysis.

others might call your interpretations "completely off the wall", "crack brained", or just plain :tinfoilhat: .

You're going to find very few people out in the real world who agree with your reading on what happened in Iowa.

To say that "Anyone with eyes (or ears) could see (or hear) the party was backing Kerry and Gephart right from the start in Iowa" is not only incredibley condescending, it's insulting.

"That's why these discussions and conclusions get skewed"

yikes!

:rofl:

So I figured you accidentally posted the wrong link... weirder things have happened on occasion even to the best of people.. ;)

thanks for the clarification...

..is that only one or two will take up the subject of the polls in question.

Others only want to analyze what several posters havc said.

I'm not sure if this is an attempt to move off topic or if this is the way they discuss things in real life (God, I hope not!) But let's cut to the nitty gritty.

Three polls DO indicate that the Democratic party - as a whole - would like the party to be more moderate. These polls were done by Gallup (2) and Zogby.

Further, Pew Research found that "Dean activists" (not necessarily typical Dean voters) have differing political beliefs and demographics such as race, education, income, and religious practices, that are different in proportion than those of the rest of the party. I believe that qualifies as being "out of touch" with the rest of the party. YOU may not think so, but I do. And no, the Pew article didn't say "out of touch," that was my description. So please don't distract once again like was done to another poster (wylwolf) in this thread by questioning where the term "out of touch" was in the survey.

Additionally, the MoveOn survey revealed further how "out of touch" MoveOn member are in regards to national priorities.

Please discuss the polls and surveys rationally and with facts and figures. This constant semantic word play and accusing people of saying things they didn't and subject changing in these threads gets really tedious.

I think a southern democrat is tantamount to a moderate Republican. I also think educating and engaging people locally will help, keeping in mind they are much more conservative, as you no doubt well know, in southern states.

You have your work cut out for you.

It's great that you're active, but we need every progressive out there to know that they play a cruciial role.

getting ALL private, especially corporate money out of politics. Provide modest public funding of campaigns focused on educating voters about candidate's positions, PERIOD.

without the prospect of becoming immensely wealthy, the corporatist politicians would go screw someone else. This would leave room for actual ideas in politics instead of just money.

As long as politicians suck at the tits of corporations and the wealthy, many will be less then progressive, even Democrats. Clean Money Clean Elections systems works. Check it out on http://www.publicampaign.org/

pro-farm, pro-labor and union, and even pro-Christian, but not the Bush kind of Christian. The Jimmy Carter or Rev Jackson kind of Christian. The rest of the economic package, like Universal healthcare, will fall in line at that point.

NoFederales

here's a list of some critically important issues (in no particular order):

health care
special interests and lobbying
fair elections
jobs
government corruption
global warming
national energy policy
retirement security
education
Iraq

feel free to add others ...

these are real problems that need real solutions ... the right wing solution? do nothing for citizens and do everything for commercial interests?

now does anyone actually want to argue that the "moderate" position on these issues is much different that the "left" position? let's go down the list ...

the "left" is pushing single payer health care ... do moderates oppose single payer? the bottom line is that both center and left refuse to accept the current bullshit and both groups recognize the need to put reasonable health care ahead of corporate profits ...

special interests and lobbying ... the left would likely prefer to ban all paid lobbying ... perhaps moderates would allow more lobbying but both groups clearly want to see the interests of the American people put ahead of a narrow, greedy, corporate segment of the country ...

fair elections? yeah, maybe the left is more convinced than party moderates that the last two elections were stolen ... but both groups insist on ensuring that there is a verifiable audit trail to prove the integrity of the election process ... no real differences here ...

jobs? perhaps moderates are more tolerant of Clinton's NAFTA and WTO initiatives ... but is there anyone who does not have strong concerns about the decline of American labor and the movement to other countries of good American jobs? again, there's a problem here that needs to be solved ... i think both center and left agree on that ...

government corruption? do moderates believe there's a moderate amount of corruption and the left believes there's tons of corruption ... both groups see what's going on with Abramoff, Delay, Frist, Cheney, et al ... there's no difference here ...

global warming? again, this is not, or certainly shouldn't be, a political spectrum issue ... do moderates believe global warming MIGHT become a risk way off in the future but the left believes we've already reached a crisis state? the science dictates the reality; not the political spectrum ... global warming is real and needs to be addressed ASAP ...

national energy strategy? do moderates think we should be able to lower our dependence on foreign oil a moderate amount while the left believes we should eliminate this dependence completely? does the left insist on only using renewable sources while moderates believe it's fine to burn coal, oil or anything else that burns as long as we have a little solar energy or maybe a little research into new technologies? the point is that we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels and the quicker we start making the transition the better ... it's not a political spectrum issue ...

retirement security? do moderates have a different view on protecting pension plans from greedy stockholder abuses that would be any different from the views of those on the left? do we all agree that senior citizens should have decent health care, housing, food and a reasonable lifestyle? again, specific programs might differ but the bottom line is still pretty much the same ...

education? would moderates allow "some" religion the public schools? would they be willing to cut back "just a little" on education funding? would they be willing to teach "ID" in the schools or allow vouchers for private, religious schools? public education means public!! i think that Democratic Party moderates and the Party's left wing both fully support "public" education and firmly believe in the separation between church and state ...

and last but not least, we come to the real make or break issue ... our differences are real although they need not be ... this is a huge problem for the Party and i don't see us moving in the right direction to resolve our differences ... many are feeling pretty good right now because of bush's low poll numbers ... they shouldn't be ... those numbers, when bush manipulates world events for political gain, could change overnight ... Americans were firmly behind bush right after 9/11; who's to say they wouldn't feel the same way if there were another attack??

the Party has not put in place a PROCESS to resolve our differences ... once again, we are a Party of elite individuals each with their own "solution" to Iraq ... diversity is a great starting point ... considering a wide range of alternative approaches is the right way to analyze any problem ... but that analysis should seek common ground once alternatives have been defined ... there is no absolute requirement that we come to a single point of view but it is critical for all to have a genuine voice in the process ... that has not been happening and the Party's left has clearly been alienated by the Party's actions and inactions ... what is needed is dialog and voter involvement ...

the bottom line to moving the Party anywhere is to improve our intra-Party communication ... with the exception of Iraq, i believe the differences between center and left are more in style than in substance ... the difference is, nevertheless, still important ... the left wants to hear elite Democrats talk about the corruption of Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big everything else ... we want to hear real solutions to the corruption that paid lobbying embodies ... it's nothing more than legalized bribery ... we want our representatives to reflect an understanding that there is a war going on between large, corporate stockholders and workers ... on Iraq, common ground would be possible if it were being sought ... the left wants OUT NOW ... the moderates have an array of programs spread over various periods of time with various conditions for withdrawal ... what is needed to effect a compromise is a "not later than" date somewhere between "Now" and "one year" ... give bush a "time budget" and make him live within it!! how we withdraw troops in the interim, either phasing down pro rata each month or phasing down based on achieving certain benchmarks could be a subject for negotiation ...

the Party does not need to "become more progressive"; it needs to agree on the problems that confront the country and propose real solutions to them ... problems that are key concerns of the left are not yet adequately on the Party's radar ... that doesn't mean they don't really exist - they do!! time is really getting short for the kind of process we need to be successful in 2006 ... i'm afraid too many are more confident than circumstances warrant ... the midterms are going to be very closely contested and the Party will need every single vote, every single dollar, and every single campaign worker it can attract to the big tent ... i don't see the necessary communication taking place right now to be as effective as we're going to need to be ... it doesn't have to be this way; if we do nothing but maintain the current state of affairs, we will not do nearly as well as we could do ...

for your work on this.

Then they will pander to liberals like the Republicans pander to the fundies. It's not that complicated.

Lieberman would be perfect for this.

We have to fix the Democratic party, not abandon it. The way the present system is, thrid parties have a function but they'll never be in power and they'll never govern.

Embrace personal liberty, equality, justice, education, economic opportunity, and peace.

...even regionally, where a hot-button issue cries for progressive action. Nationally, however, is a very tough sell. Politicians in power like to stay in power, and the easy way to do that is not take risks. Hover in the general vicinity of "Center", however the populace decides to determine that...

I've only included three polling companies but there are more mainstream polling stats at the site i just didn't feeling like pasting them all here, go to: http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

I linked to there from C-Span http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?z1=&PopupMenu_Name=Politics/Elections&CatCodePairs=Issue,PE;

Zogby which i include (below) i believe is more accurate because it has a higher sampling ratio and the % of "unsure" i think reflects a more more accurate sentiment on the subject at this juncture..

So look for your favorite candidate (or your least favorite) and be happy or disappointed, your mileage may vary.


CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.

Dec. 9-11, 2005. N=446 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 5.

Hillary Rodham Clinton 43
John Edwards 14
John Kerry 14
Joe Biden 8
Mark Warner 3
Bill Richardson 3
Evan Bayh 1
Tom Vilsack 1
Someone else 1
None (vol.) 4
All/Any (vol.) 1
Unsure 7
===================
Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll. Dec. 8-11, 2005. N=460 Democrats/Democratic leaners nationwide.


Hillary Clinton 33
John Kerry 17
John Edwards 15
Joe Biden 7
Bill Richardson 4
Russ Feingold 4
Mark Warner 4
Wesley Clark 3
Evan Bayh 3
Tom Vilsack -
Unsure 11

Without Clinton (recalculated, based on second choice of Clinton voters):
%
John Kerry 28
John Edwards 23
Joe Biden 9
Russ Feingold 6
Bill Richardson 6
Wesley Clark 5
Mark Warner 5
Evan Bayh 4
Tom Vilsack -
Unsure 14

===========================================
Zogby America Poll. Dec. 6-8, 2005. N=1,013 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"If the Democratic primary for president were held today, for whom would you vote: ?" Asked of potential Democratic primary voters

%

Hillary Clinton 26
John Edwards 12
Joe Lieberman 10
John Kerry 9
Barack Obama 7
Joe Biden 3
Wesley Clark 3
Bill Richardson 3
Mark Warner 1
Evan Bayh 1
Tim Kaine 1
Someone else 6
Won't vote/Unsure 19

I do like the fact that he at least talks about the working poor in America and the two America's -- what he actually proposes is still unclear. But at least he is raising the issue. Will have to wait and see. I'm still completely neutral.

He was # 3 on the Washington Journal's --insiders poll:

http://nationaljournal.com/insiders.pdf

I would be interested in knowing where these polls are taken, which regions they target..

If we nominate her, we will get President re:puke: again.

The two other alternatives for progressives:

1. Stop being progressive and just accept that things cannot change.

2. Leave the Democratic Party and support or form a third party. But efforts at that are almost certainly futile and could likely lead to even more reactionary policies.

On countless issues we are on the side of the vast majority of Americans (see polls below). We have to do what every other successful mass movement in history has done, like build the grassroots organizations, form coalitions with others who we share common ground with (IE: sports people who share our environmental concerns, low income people and those concerned with their interest, labor and trade activist, progressive minded religious people) and build the media infrastructure like the right wing succeeded in doing, STAY INVOLVED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL and build the coordinating networks. Much of this is already happening, but is still in its infancy.

But HELL YES IT IS POSSIBLE. But do not be surprised to find a lot of resistance from the entrenched elites. And it is not a matter of simply getting the right presidential candidate. That is putting the cart before the horse.

polls:

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem
______________________

139. a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman


Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml


The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

But win first.

I'm sorry...but that means that we need to push the more whacky fringes to the sidelines until AFTER power is retaken.