What defines a "Liberal" Dem or a "Moderate" Dem?

We went to a local Dem Social last night and I had the mind blowing experience of getting referred to as a "Moderate" Democrat. I have to admit that the guy who said it is somebody I view as a "newby" to the whole process (in spite of his age,) but it did make me start to wonder about how we define "Liberal" or "Moderate" Democrats.



I am a Labor union member.

I have been active with social justice organizations locally for years running the gamut from GLBT issues, to Health Care Access, to Women's rights issues.

I hate taxes.

I think our government should not kill its citizens--including the death penalty and sending our military off to any war.

I think we need to do a better job of taking care of our veterans and of making sure our soldiers have the equipment they need to stay safe if they DO have to fight.

ANY military use is a failure of diplomacy, in my opinion. I feel that the damn diplomats and politicians should be front and center if bullets start flying.

I think every aspect of health care (including access to dental care!) is a right not a commodity to be sold. I fully support Universal (Single Payer) Health Care.

I believe treatment rather than incarceration is the answer for most drug related crimes.

I think we need legitimate sex ed with honest non-judgmental information regarding sexuality and reproduction. I also think we need to spend money on contraceptive research along with distribution of free contraceptives on demand.

I fully support the right of two consenting adults to marry and be treated with equal rights no matter the gender content of the relationship.

I oppose the use of Eminent Domain for anything other than the public welfare, and I fully support the rights of property ownership.



"Moderate" or not? What values or opinions define a "Liberal" or "Moderate" view? Discuss and debate, please!




Laura

and if someone does try and define me, I usually nip back with something counter to the just proposed definition thereby negating their assertion.

Besides, I drift in and out of time based on my own perceptual experiences, some days I am a socialist democrat, other liberal, other moderate...mood swings are probably the most influencial factor and I should probably be on meds ;-) , but forget that noise, why would I want to shut down such an important part of my persona...;-)

Edited to add: Big D - Democrat. That is all I can accept at this time.

would accept some level of dead innocent Iraqi civilians in Iraq and have the war continue because he doesn't want the Republicans who started this godawful mess to blame the war on the Democrats.

The moderate Democrat accepts some amount of people not getting a livable wage.

The moderate Democrat would accept private companies running the Medicare part D system that does nothing significant for the middle class.

The moderate Democrat would accept some amount of people not getting health insurance.

The moderate Democrat would not say a peep about the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004 or even say to fellow Democrats not to make a big deal of it because it would make us look bad, just accept the results and move on.

I think it depends on who's looking at you. I'm a flaming liberal to some. A communist to others. And apparently about half of a monster to you. Gee, thanks. Appreciate it. No, really. I just love having you define me when I don't even know you.

I've stood next to people at peace protests who were Greens, or Socialists, who hate the rich (one went bananas all over Tammy Faye because she dared to suicide her rich self). To them, I was a moderate.

You do not describe me. At all.

I agree with everything you said.

My opinion is that terms like "moderate", "liberal", "progressive", and so on are tools used to divide rather than unite us.

I'm all about unity right now, and your stances seem quite reasonable to me, and probably most Americans would agree.

My mom is nearly 80, my uncle is 62, I'm 52, my wife is 59, and my kids are 27 and 19. We all would agree with you.

Great post because it shows how the irritainment media would portray us all as divided, when most of us really aren't.

K & R

I agree. Anytime a label is used to categorize or seperate people in the political debate, it is meant to be divisive. There has to be a unifying element in order for any movement to gain true strength and right now in the Democratic Party we need to remember that there is a single unifying element that unites us all and makes us the BIG D - Democrat and that is taking back the Whitehouse come 2008.

Victory.

I have seen WAY too many time in recent years (both locally and nationally) when the split in the party continued AFTER the last Primary vote was counted. I see it here at DU too, especially when people are saying they will never vote for _______ and will go third party if this is the Dem nominee.

I dunno. Are we letting external forces divide us with definitions? Is THAT the problem our party faces?

I see a lot of people on here discussing Cindy Sheehan. I have to admit, I'm really kind of mixed on this subject because I am not a huge Pelosi fan. I have a deep respect for Cindy Sheehan, but I question the political wisdom of introducing third party into this discussion. Seems to me that this should a Dem Primary issue. I don't live in that district so I'm relieved not to have to choose sides on it, but I am VERY worried that somehow the Dem party as a whole will be defined on just that one race somehow...



Laura

objective that ALL D's (whatever the flavor) want. The Republican Party out and Democratic Leaders in.

As for other issues that are divisive, it is best to avoid discussion and try and focus on the issues that unite the party.

The core values that should unite us all, IMO.

http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/cdv/cdv_definition.html

JMO

as long as they are not labels like DINO, PINO, or troll. Labels only become divisive if radical Democrats no longer want to accept moderates or vice versa. Otherwise it just says where people are. Except that one thing about a moderate Democrat is that they might vote for a moderate Republican, such as, Giuliani over a radical Democrat such as Kucinich. And the radical Democrat might vote for a Green over a moderate Democrat such as Biden, or Clinton.

I don't get that idea that it is better to go Green or GOP than to work your full ticket. I understand Independent as a concept, but in my mind that makes you not a Dem or a Republican.

I have had races where I was on the losing side of a primary. It sucks, but the deal is, that IF you want to be considered a member of a party your support is there for the full ticket in the General.

I like Kucinich and I will work Hil if she is the nominee. FWIW, the last two Dem Presidential nominees were not the ones I worked in the Primary--but I still worked the full ticket. I have known more than a couple of people who can't say that same thing and I do not consider them to be Democrats. I see them as Independents.



Laura

I have done both, voted for a Republican in 1994 and 1996 and voted for a socialist in 1992 and 1996. Except for the vote in 1996, I kinda see those votes as mistakes, but part of that was due to the candidates message. I evaluated the candidates based on what I heard and saw and made my decision.

I work on the website and at headquarters and fundraisers for the local party which supports the whole ticket, but I make my own decisions in the voting booth.

I think of them as being to the right of me.

I have toyed with the idea of voting for Hagel, just because he seems like an honest man, but not so much for his politics.

Labels can be divisive however if they are used as the person in post 2 used them, with obvious antagonism toward the label "moderate"

...agree lockstep on any particular sets of issues so what defines a moderate versus a more extreme view is difficult to pin down.

I hope I never do see any sort of definition. I find definitions limiting.

I joke that if they announced the world was ending in two hours that the local Dems would call a meeting to discuss and debate for 90 minutes how they feel about it THEN they'd issue a statement...

I feel we lose something if we don't fight it out "inside the family" but I also think we Dems form a circular firing squad all too often. I am encouraged at the passion I see from the folks new to the political process (as someone who has been at this for a long time I find that political dreams often fall prey to memories of prior losses!) but I am also worried that these new voices will not be able to sustain for very long. Unity suffers in that kind of environ.

In some company I am viewed as being a (gasp!) Socialist. In other company I am seen as being somehow not liberal enough. It isn't that I define myself (or even really care how others view me if I'm being honest about it) with these terms, but it IS how the discussion is being framed inside our own party.

So who is doing it? WHO defines us, who do they do it, and how do we stop them?


Laura

I do find myself often disgusted by the "you're not liberal enough" crowd. I will say that at least. Far from a definition, but just a generalized complaint kind of in the same vein as you've mentioned.

In short, I consider myself to be a progressive libertarian. The individual does not need to be socially regulated, nor does culture need to be engineered. People are generally good about finding, even if it takes them longer than the early adopters, that which works best in their lives. I say let them go about their business. There are plenty of collective entities in this country which wield greater power in this country greater than what a single individual can, and they've largely declared us insignificant to the political process. THESE are the entities which need to be brought under control. There is a society which functions poorly because too many are being led around by too few, being convinced that big government is a bad thing. If this is true, how come so many in this country will identify the best times in the past century as those which were quietly times of big government?

I am often disgusted by banter around here that basically devolves into a tirade amounting to starting with "Well if I were the Decider..." and ending with people thrown in jail for thoughtcrime.

It chokes my brain to no end to see people who have been basically had their necks stepped on by a corrupt political system all too ready to get their own size 12s on my carotid artery when it suits them to do so. THESE are the ones I feel are the ones who stand to gain most by a system of categorization, of political "boxing" if you will.

How do we stop them? We don't. We can only point out the error of this kind of arrogance. Whether they choose to see it or not is their decision. Only THEY can stop them. And they have to want it for themselves.

Taxes don't make my day, but they're the admission price to an organized society. I would, however, prefer to see them getting back to we the people instead of being poured into that five sided welfare office for arms dealers.

Other than that, you sound like the Democratic Party's base, a base that has been ignored for too many years.

When my taxes feed people who need it, when I'm paying to educate and house our population, and paying to prevent or cure illness I'll be fine with taxes.

We agree a great deal, I suspect!


:hi:


Laura

Recent videos featuring Bill O'Reilly trashing "Far Left blogs" had me thinking the same thing... if you're "Left" you're always on the "Far Left" (aka "Extremist") wing. To them, there is no such thing as "just plain old 'Left'" or "Moderate Left". There's just the FAR Left.

and it was probably his "pet" issue. Take taxes, for example-you said you hate any kind of taxes. He might be one who was seeing taxation as a way of leveling the playing field between richer and poorer people, and be glad to pay taxes to bring this about.

I am a Labor union member.
not liberal or conservative - self interest.
I have been active with social justice organizations locally for years running the gamut from GLBT issues, to Health Care Access, to Women's rights issues.
all liberal
I hate taxes.
conservative. In Africa, there are no taxes. Provide your own security, water, roads. Taxes give us everything that is good - schools, hospitals, libraries.
I think our government should not kill its citizens--including the death penalty and sending our military off to any war.
liberal
I think we need to do a better job of taking care of our veterans and of making sure our soldiers have the equipment they need to stay safe if they DO have to fight.
both
ANY military use is a failure of diplomacy, in my opinion. I feel that the damn diplomats and politicians should be front and center if bullets start flying.
both
I think every aspect of health care (including access to dental care!) is a right not a commodity to be sold. I fully support Universal (Single Payer) Health Care.
liberal
I believe treatment rather than incarceration is the answer for most drug related crimes.
liberal
I think we need legitimate sex ed with honest non-judgmental information regarding sexuality and reproduction. I also think we need to spend money on contraceptive research along with distribution of free contraceptives on demand.
liberal
I fully support the right of two consenting adults to marry and be treated with equal rights no matter the gender content of the relationship.
liberal
I oppose the use of Eminent Domain for anything other than the public welfare, and I fully support the rights of property ownership.
both
For me, a liberal is someone that feels that government can be a positive aspect of humanity. Yes, big government.
Hillary is a pro-death penalty, pro-drug war progressive. I am a liberal. Sounds like you are one too. :hi:

As I have said in here already, I have NO problem paying taxes for stuff like education or provision of needs like medical treatment, housing, food and public safety. I even think building and supporting an infrastructure is a good plan. I get the need for taxes. What I do NOT get is the ever increasing tax burden with an ever shrinking return.

I have a HUGE problem paying taxes so assholes like Denny Hastert, Dubya and his ilk can fly all over creation on my dime.

I have a REALLY big problem paying taxes to subsidize the invasion of another nation.

I even have a problem paying for the administration of a half assed plan like Leave No Child's Behind Alone.

I am not thrilled to think that my dime paid for dog and pony show crap investigations (like the 9/11 farce.)



We can do better. THAT is why I flinch when my taxes go up.


Laura

peace and low stress to you.

It probably has nothing to do with issues or beliefs but in which candidate he thinks you support & if his perception of that candidate is
ilberal or moderate.

From each according to his ability , to each according to his needs...

:hi:


Laura

if you vote democratic you're a democrat. Some people like to make other democrats feel bad if they aren't quite up to their own purity tests. Just ignore them. (incidentally, according to polls I've seen most democrats don't consider themselves Liberal--most say they are moderate. Heck today many people on DU would be calling FDR a moderate or even conservative democrat).

to some people. The local peace group thought they could do better than the Dems in 2004, and seemed rather anagonistic to us in some ways, as if they were saying "get out of the way and we'll do the real work". But all we ended up doing was duplicating efforts and annoying people who got sick of being canvassed multiple times.

Or, more seriously, it's in the eye of the beholder. Most of y'all are a bit to the right of me, on most things, so I probably qualify as a Liberal Democrat.

All joking aside, I am curious, can you tell me how we differ?

What makes YOU Liberal? I self define as a Liberal too, and I am curious what our differences are...


Laura

...to ignore the vast inequities capitalism creates; small-d democratic control of said government is the best defense against the ills of the "free market." I don't dream up excuses to hate. I don't dream up excuses--especially that of "patriotism"--for stifling dissent; I value diversity in all its manifestations, and want to see freedoms abridged only to prevent measurable harm. My humanity isn't predicated on prehistoric notions of masculine supremacy, and I don't include "kicking ass" among the goals of international diplomacy. I value learning and open government as prerequisites for democracy. I decry religious dogma used as governing principles.

The * Administration and its corporate cronies/masters are the antithesis of these things. The Democratic Party is, frankly, not a lot better these days, but it's the only sane choice in a regrettably small field.