Thom Hartmann - Should progressives break away from the Democratic Party?

Run time: 09:37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri290GEqJbo   Posted on YouTube: August 12, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 12, 2009 By DU Member: thomhartmann Views on DU: 1265

 
The Thom Hartmann Program can be heard daily M-F 12-3pm ET. Visit www.thomhartmann.com to listen live, join the community or purchase a podcast.

If you're posting here, you are probably a Democrat. And this party's leadership STILL doesn't really respect you. If you don't at least raise the question of forming another party from now and then, won't that guarantee the leadership will go on not respecting you and simply dismissing you with the phrase "they have nowhere else to go"?

I don't think a third-party is the best choice, as of now. But how do we get them to not leave us out in the cold if they know we're just going to vote for them no matter what?

(I would personally appeal to the mods NOT to delete this thread, since this is a discussion we have to have now and again.)

They are misinformed; therefore as they don't understand the issue; they are just choc full of unfounded fears; of death panels and rationing. They need to be educated quickly. It might take a busload of kindergarten teachers to explain to them what it is thats being proposed. Maybe some clergy. Maybe a basball player. But this ignorance in America cannot stand.

Then we can force the Dems more left which is where they are supposed to be anyway. The diehard centrists can form their own, Don't Rock The Boat, We Like It This Way Party.

You always always have an informed and reasonable approach to any subject/debate/problem!!
ThankYou.

after hearing the conclusion. It is going to happen.
Democratic ideals people are sick of republican lite representation.

1) The teabaggers/birthers aren't organized in opposition to the GOP - they are the GOP. They're set up for the sole purpose of discrediting Barack Obama & his policies for the benefit of the Republican party. To do so they've tapped into the most reliable sources - the irrational racist roots of their supporters. Note that there is no widespread condemnation of the movements tactics & objectives by any representative of the national party, and the Republican propaganda machine isn't trying to alleviate the movements fears or re-direct it's energies more constructively. Instead, the movement is being exploited for ratings.

2) America is a fascist country, mostly because of the success the Republicans have had over the last 30 yrs twisting govt policies to their advantage and that of their corporate sponsors. If we aren't able to make immediate, drastic changes to make it right (and considering that the Obama administration won't even acknowledge in the smallest way that the previous regime was a criminal enterprise, such changes are highly unlikely) then we need to be able to work in the system as it is.

3) To break away from the Democratic party means destroying the Democratic coalition. That means 30-40 years in the wilderness while we build our own Progressive coalition. All the problems we face today will get worse, and new ones will arise. Without real progressive voices in govt, the very worst choices will inevitably be made.

4) Given the fascist nature of our political system, having influence means having money - money to buy & control print, broadcast, cable & internet media - to disseminate our message. Building a real grassroots campaign (not astroturf) is comparatively easy to taking control of the govt.

Given all that, we also have to consider that getting Democrats and progressives in particular to do anything in the numbers necessary to make changes happen is like herding cats - it seldom works & the cats don't appreciate it.

to listen to your thoughts and learn from your knowledge. From what I've witnessed over decades is the base of the party has become the zealots who want a theocracy and the racially intolerant. In such cases you can't call their bluff. Now that leaves the moderates many of whom have left. McCain split those two groups and that's why Palin was brought in.

I have warned my republican relatives that the country is tired of being held down by the extremists..much like Megan McCain is saying. To call them a "movement" gives them too much credit imho. They've always voted republican and have always been there. It's why their congressmen cater to them. They're useful. I would agree the voices from the other side haven't been as strong as those 2 groups have but that's changing. We do need to get back to the "yes we can" hope. You counter negativity with positive reinforcment. It would have been helpful to have investigations of the past administration from the beginning to drive the point of accountability but here we are.

There will be health insurance reform that might need more tweaking later. In any case the voices we're hearing from the right are still the same only racheted up. Now's the time to stay strong and keep pointing out the hypocrisy exposing their corruption.
Sanders and Ensign are examples of how they will hang theirselves given enough rope.

What, exactly, makes someone a "Progressive?" I am a Liberal Democrat in the vein of FDR's New Deal, and have been for all of my adult life. I am fiscally conservative, and socially liberal, and place love of country right up there with love of family. I am a military veteran, saw combat in VietNam, and hate the very thought of war.

The "Progressives" and "Independents" that I have dealt with over the past several years seem to be not only anti-war, but also anti-military. They call the USA an "imperial nation," with evil designs on the rest of the world. They are opposed to compromise with the other 50% of our neighbors and co-citizens, and to me are just as divisive as the neoconservative religious-right.

Form a third political party? Feel free, but I will stick with the Democratic Party, and good old American-style Liberalism. I like herding cats...:-)

Most Congresspeople already are progressive. It would be much easier to get rid of the few non-progressives than try and start over from scratch.

You say "Most Congress people already are progressive.". If that is true, let them prove it by voting and passing a single-payer bill.

After all, if they are really MOST, let them prove their bona fides to those who elected them! Otherwise, off the ship!

I would say that 45 out of the 60 Senators are progressive; which is MOST. But, don't take my word for it. Ask someone like Barney Frank. He agrees with me, and he knows these people a lot better than you are I.

If there was public funding of elections sure. But I can't say the majority are progressive when they take far too much special interest money and it clearly influences how they vote.

at this point, what with the Rs dwindling to permanent minority status. Breaking away would only empower the Rs. Any progressive candidate who made it to Congress would still caucus with the Ds, so what's the point?

Yes - most Ds are already progressives. The solution is to run progressive candidates against the Blue Dog types. Good luck unseating them, though. They happen to represent their constituency which is solidly R and R-lite. Most likely, getting rid of a Blue Dog would mean a pick up for an R, not a progressive.

Better to let the Rs self-destruct, Give it another decade before pushing for a break away from the D party.

And yes it is difficult to unseat them, but its still the best option. Organize and inform. If the public knows the facts (which have a liberal bias) they will slowly move over. If the DLC puts all their money on a Blue Dog, then progressives have to donate and come out and support the more progressive opponent.

Take it from me. Living in Canada. We have a third party which we would define as "progressive", the New Democratic Party. So what happens is that the moderate party called ironically the "Liberal" party, which is much like the modern corporate supported Blue Dog wing of the Democratic party, pays homage to the left to steal votes from the NDP during an election, and then governs from the center/right when in power. And when the Liberal party gets in trouble through scandal, the voters split the vote, with the conservative voters going Conservative, and the progressive voters going Green or NDP, and some remain with the Liberals. So the Conservatives get in with a minority. This is the case now. We have an extreme right winger Conservative prime minister through default.

But the Liberals will eventually get back in as the dominant party. Because they ride the fence. They can say they are more tolerant (of things like gay marriage) but then also call the NDP far left tax-and-spend loonies. They get the best of both worlds. And the NDP never has and never will have any chance of governing.

All it would do is drive the Democrats further to the right, and alienate the progressives even more.

democratic vote. The last thing the democrats need to do is split. Just looking back at the 2008 election, given how god damn awful the republicans were at governing over the last 8 years, an amazing 45.7% still voted for the republicans to get back into office. That's 60 million people.

The last thing the Democrats need to do is split as it will guarantee a republican majority.

btw, 45.7% ... still voted for the repubs after running the country into the ground over the last 8 years, put America onto trajectory for another great depression, started a fake war, 911 happened on there watch, ripped apart the constitution with illegal wire tapping and dismantling habeas corpus ... yet still somehow, managed to get 60 million people to vote for them.

fuck me.