Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The "ideal" Democratic Party.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 07:44 PM
Original message
The "ideal" Democratic Party.
They would always stand up for the little guy against the corporations.

They would always stand up for principle and our Constitution.

There would be no "blue dogs" or "conservative wannabes" in our Party.

They would always stand together on important votes.

They would pass laws to help the working man - easier to unionize, better wages, and healthcare for all.

They would prosecute anyone and everyone that broke the laws of our country and who broke our international treaties.

They would have backbones and stand firm for what they believe.

They would be proud to call themselves "liberals".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. It would be significantly smaller than the current one.
That's the tradeoff, of course. Big tent and some level of national prominence or small tent and irrelevance.

The Republican Party managed the transition from one to the other in relatively speedy fashion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
31. For every Blue Dog that left
we might bring back a progressive who has left the current Democratic party out of disgust with its inability to stand for anything.

The gamble would be all those corporate dollars that might stop flowing into campaign treasuries - but a party people actually believed in might not need as many dollars to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Blue Dog Democrats exist for a reason.
Because liberals are simply not going to get elected in many of the areas they represent.

Ben Nelson, for example, everyone's favorite conservative Democrat. He represents a state that is nearly 70% Republican, most of which is very conservative. We're simply not going to elect a liberal Democrat there in the current political climate.

Our alternative to Ben in his most recent contest was a Republican significantly more conservative than he is. Pete Ricketts would have been much worse, hard as that may be to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. So cal them populists if the word liberal scares the voters.
if the progressive message were able to get out we'd win more seats even in red seats. The problem is the conservatives (including Blue Dogs) control the message and have too many people voting against their own interests.

I would rather see the Blue Dogs be honest about what they believe and go back to the Republican party where they belong. A majority does no good if they're still voting like Republicans. All that results in is more people backing away from both parties. I see it in my area, every year fewer people stay involved because they're as fed up with both parties putting corporations ahead of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Ok, get rid of Michelle Bachmann, and we'll talk.
When a blue state like Minnesota is represented by a whackjob like her, do you not see how other states - particularly those a lot redder than Minnesota - are going to have difficulty electing progressives and liberals?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. Only part of Minnesota is represented by Bachmann
and that area of the state has always been a bit odd (to be polite about it). This last time she won in 3-way race. The third party candidate who appears to have been a deliberate plant to siphon votes from the DFLer got 10% of the vote - had he not been in the race the DFLer would have won.

Sadly, Minnesota is not as blue as it used to be. More and more Minnesotans do not identify with either party and view them both as corrupt and unresponsive. I know a lot of long time active DFLers who are getting fed up and have either dropped out or are thinking about it (myself included).







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. They would end wars-- They are evil and unnecessary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. War is sometimes necessary.
Edited on Sat May-16-09 08:16 PM by armyowalgreens
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Sorry, I do not agree
War is for the rich to make money on. The real people are hurt every time. You may want to cite Hitler, Stalin, Nixon , Bush. It was always about power (i.e., money) The populace are alweays the victims of the power seekers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. You are citing violent actions taken by evil doers as an excuse against war...
Yet their must be someone countering those actions.

As I said before, war is sometimes necessary. It's necessary because someone must fight against evil doers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. evil doers? that meme sounds familiar..hmmmmm nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I'm talking about evil in the non-religious sense
Read a book called "On evil" by Adam Morton.

It takes a utilitarian/secular stance on evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is about money, and Oil
and pipelines. and lies. and Dems with spines would acknowledge that, but many are making too much money off of the military industrial state themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I don't believe I ever said that the Iraq War was a just war...
I never said that modern warfare by the US is justified. I said that War is sometimes necessary. Big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. I think it would be difficult to argue that countering Japan and Germany in WW2 wasn't necessary.
Someone might certainly try, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Well I consider that pre-modern US combat.
I'd say the Vietnam war era forward is generally pocked with inappropriate US conflict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Agreed.
I was responding mainly to the "sometimes war is necessary" statement and possible claims to the contrary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. war is a racket
and after the last 8 yrs people should know that by now. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Um, did you just use the phrase "ideal political party" or is there something wrong with my eyes?
Politics is not ideal. That's why it's politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I think they meant in an ideal system allowing for a redress of grievences.
Not a utopian paradise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Sorry, you're right.
Grievances should be the primary concern of any political party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. Political parties are inherently bad in an ideal world.
They foster mob mentality and ignorance.

The only reason they are necessary is because we function in a really fucked up world that only allows political participation through a party system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. Blue Dogs are Democrats, just as Progressives are Democrats..
Just saying.. I would not want such party purity..leads to dictatorship by committee..no thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. As evinced, apparently, by the 'D' next to their name.
Certainly not by their voting record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Contrary to popular belief, party identification is self-applied.
Anyone who wants to be a Democrat can be one.

There is not, nor has there ever been, a requirement that candidates follow the party platform in its entirety or conform to some set of standards demanded by some mythical "True" Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Some of us, however, know the difference between
ally and enemy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I have no idea what that has to do with party identification.
If the only "real" Democrats are those that vote based on your preferred stance on every issue, then I'm sure at some point, every single one of them will disappoint you. If we look hard enough, I'm sure we could disqualify them all based on one vote or another. That'll eventually leave just one "true" Democrat.

That does not, however, mean that they aren't really Democrats. It just means that they don't meet your requirements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Excellent point. Some Duers are falling victim to the same syndrome they complain about
One strength of the Democratic party is that they welcome diverse beliefs under the blanket of being a "democrat". We understand that just because we have differing opinion, that doesn't mean we aren't all democrats.

To argue that one set of beliefs is the only true way of being a democrat is to fall into the close-minded world of the republican party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. And look what it did to the GOP.
I find it odd that some are calling for what is essentially ideological purity in the face of the monumental, very recent failure of same in the GOP.

I understand disappointment and I understand wanting our Democratic leaders to pursue more liberal and progressive standards. I think that's something we all want. At the same time, I understand that a San Francisco Democrat and a Lincoln, Nebraska, Democrat can be two very different things and that we need them both to maintain a majority.

Even with 60 seats in the Senate, if we eliminate the Dems that don't fit the DU standard, we're right back in the minority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. I, really, expect very little.
Unfortunately, I receive even less than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. Is no-one but approx 100 DUers, according to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
19. you would have to assume integrity and honesty would prevail
they would have to give up huge huge kickbacks and money from lobbyists. they would have to give up their $tocks and $hares in anything that compromised their integrity. They would never be able to lie. or coverup to save themselves.
I dont think many creatures like that exist in politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
21. And We've Seen What "Ideologially Pure" is doing to the GOOP...
I like a diverse party, not an insular one. I would bet that if you got 10 DUers (randomly selected) and asked them to prioritize your list or important issues, I'll bet you'd get 10 different answers...and Viva La Difference. Healthy, honest debate is good for a democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
35. I don't think we're talking purity
I think we're talking about a party that does have a few core beliefs rather than the one we have that stands for nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
38. What items in the OP's list do you consider negotiable?
To his list, I would add:

Pledged to support the public school system.

Pledged to support the separation of Church and State.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
22. That's certainly the Democratic Party I want. It's not the one I have.
We must all learn to deal effectively with the party we have. That's what it means to be a member of the reality-based community.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crickets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #22
40. mmm, reality
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
30. Mmmm, purity.
/sigh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
western mass Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #30
41. Mmm...right-wing apologists.
sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##



This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO, ROBOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC