RMD's theory of progressive/moderate coexistance.

Ok, this DLC vs. lefty freeper thing is pissing the hell out of me. I said I'd stop, but it's getting the better of me nonetheless. So here goes...

I can sum this up in two simple phrases: "Something for everybody" and "you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself", to quote Ricky Nelson on that second one.

Part one... progressives and DLC can live together. Perhaps, they can both help each other. The progressives can satisfy the base and push us in a leftward direction. The DLC types can work among moderates and left leaning Republicans. Maybe the moderates are a little scared by some of the more leftist rhetoric. Maybe the progressives are tired of status quo moderates. Both sides can do what they do best. We can have primaries featuring one of each. Let the best candidate win. After it's over, both sides support the candidate. With both ends of the Democratic spectrum pulling in votes, we'll have a better chance of winning! And for those who say that there's no common ground between both sides, I say look again; and this time without the filter glasses.

So, instead of a "this town is only big enough for one of us" mentality, why can't we all live together. Maybe it's more of a yin-yang thing instead of a fight to the death.

Oh, and one last remark... for all the fiery progressives' telling off the moderates calling them "fascist lite" and such, the moderates have done a good job not retorting and telling the progressives to piss of and join the Greens.

there are non DLC members like Harry Reid who are very conservative, far more than the average dlc member.

the dlc is pretty diverse also. people like Mark Warner, Evan Bayh,Bill Clinton, etc think Kerry is too liberal. even though they are all dlc members.

and there is the case of Robert Byrd who is very conservative yet some so called progressives view him as the ideal leader. and all based on Iraq. if that was the standard than Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak would fit in also as they both are/were anti Iraq war also and share Byrd's view on other issues.

people are really stupid with this labeling. one jackass claimed Russel Feingold was DLC in response to some thread about how he would vote for the patriot act. dumbasses who don't even know the issues or why Feingold said he would vote for it. rather than respond to those points the fool just claimed Feingold was dlc even though he isn't.

i consider myself a progressive. i consider Kerry a progressive. i DON'T consider Byrd a progressive. i don't consider Reid a progressive. i consider even Lieberman more of a progressive than Byrd or Reid based on voting records.

People are positioned on two spectrums, first on economic issues, and second on social issues. One is between liberal and conservative, and the second is between populist and libertarian. So it would look something like this:

Liberal<---------Moderate----------->Conservative

cross-combined with:

Populist<----------Moderate--------->Libertarian

I got this from OnTheIssues.org, a site from the primaries so I don't know if it's still up. For example, they say JK is a libertarian-leaning liberal--hence the confusion for some lefties at DU. He's not populist enough for them. (Populism is related to socialism, isn't it, while libertarianism is related to capitalism?)

The left promotes its own agenda, drawing a clear distinction between left and center. The centrists label Republicans as the fundie neocon right, forcing moderate Republicans to either stand up or abandon the party. Neither group shoots at the other. We all win. If we let the McCain/Giuliani/Whitman bunch claim the center, we're lost for decades. That's what has happened so far and it's annoying as hell. But the Democratic centrists have to start standing up for working people, that is true too.

The DLC should stop acting left any sign of leftward activity is death to the party ultimately, meanwhile the left should realize that the DLC is a mere faction, like the Rockefeller Republicans were in the GOP. The problem on the boards as I see it, people are too eager to blame the DLC when the Democrats cave in or whatever, Feingolds vote on the patriot act had nothing to do with the DLC, if I were to show people a list of who's who in the DLC, there would be a lot of shocks, a lot of the most popular governors on the board like Rendell, Granholm, etc are all DLC. I consider myself in between the "progressive" and "DLC" though, dont like the rhetoric of either to be frank, I consider myself a traditional liberal.

I should have written that post, but you beat me to it.

Its my way of thinking, I think the DLC is quite foolish, but I also think the far left is foolish too. Ironically my biggest grievences with both groups is the same, I find the DLC too hawkish since I also think theyre hawkish for the sake of being hawkish and I dont like the far left's military isolationism. I guess I am what one would call an internationalist on foreign policy. I wish more people would think in between the two ways, I guess thats why I like Kerry, hes a liberal but hes not extremely left wing to the point hes an extremeist who is narrow minded but nor is he a centrist who plays to both sides.