For the Record. I have not left the Democratic Party

Nor have I, in my opinion, advocated that anyone else leave the Democratic Party. I remain a registered Democrat and I continue to do active support for my Democratic Party at the local level. Last night I was out helping gather Democratic Party member signatures on petitions to allow the candidates selected by our County Democratic Convention to appear on the ballot for the next election.

What I said in a now locked post was that I no longer believe I can be considered "a loyal Democrat", which is a profound personal shift for me. I said that I was willing "to risk" a break with the Democratic Party, not that I was making a break from the Democratic Party. It is no longer inconsceivable to me that I could in the future identify with a political party other than the Democrats. I do not at the moment identify with a political party other than the Democrats. I would far rather support Democrats than oppose them, but appeals to Party Unity no longer trump my need to defend positions that I feel are at the core of what made me a Democrat in the first place.

I said I now am far more open to backing Democratic Party primary challanges to sitting Democrats if the challanger is willing to openly and directly articulate the nature of the crisis that is now facing our country, which at root I believe is class warfare being waged by super wealthy interests seeking to further their own interests at the expense of the rest of us. I will consider backing such primary challanges even if I think it unlikely that person will win the primary, and even if, in some instances, I suspect it could weaken a sitting Democrat heading into a general election fight. Those positions are perfectly in keeping with my rights as a registered Democrat to participate in the Party sanctioned electoral process.

I acknowledge that I may be approaching a slippery slope that could make it hard for me to remain a Democrat, but it is still my intent and desire to remain one if possible.

In a way I partially understand and accept why my earlier thread was locked. An OP launches an unedited discussion. Personally I think it was a discussion healthy for DU to have, but that is just my opinion on that matter. I do not believe that my OP in and of itself broke DU rules, but I accept that it is the responsibility of DU's Administers and moderators to exercise their judgement as to when the continuation of a thread discussion no longer is in the best interests of DU and its stated mission.

I am not trying to prolong the discussion on a locked thread through this one. I just want to clarify my onwn currrent position vis a vis the Democratic Party.

Thank You

P.S. I accept that it may become necessary for this thread to become locked also.

and there has been so little of it lately, unlike when I first discovered DU in 2004. Seems all we get now are talking points which were bad when the other side did it. That was what distinguished democrats, they could think, not just spout talking points.

The OP expressed eloquently what people are feeling and thinking everywhere, not just on DU. And ignoring it and expecting that without some kind of resolution to those feelings, people will just jump on board like robots and donate and volunteer their time etc. when they perceive that the only time the party realizes they exist is when there is an election.

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

while staying within the Republican party for the most part. And by doing this they have instilled fear in other sitting Republicans. With this strategy the Tea Partiers have been able to push the policies of their party in their preferred direction. Much more so than if they had started up some lame-ass third party.

...because they're just being manipulated by the powers that be.

...is as foolish as those tea partiers who don't know they're being manipulated by corporate power.

it's healthy. The democratic party IMO has too much corporate domination anymore because of the way our elections are won by how much money someone gets. It's really a stupid system, and we have a supreme court that likes it that way. It's a vicious system and does nothing to guarantee the best people for the majority of the people rise to the top.

Sadly too many in this country fall for marketing hype and slick propaganda. I don't think running to a third party helps get the extreme money out of our political system. It probably just ensures your voice will be marginalized.

I want the democratic party to get back to more what it used to be, the party for the majority of the people, not corporate, bankster and wall street interests. I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

Though many people are beginning to wake up, I don't know if our leaders want the party to actually work toward its stated platform. Too many have been bought off or are really Republicans pulling a con.

imo we'll see a true people's party before long - but it probably won't be the Dem party.

is the right catalyst and the right people/person, not the right party, but "a true people's party."

The Democratic party is not the party I joined decades ago. It is now merely the lesser of two evils. God help us.

For me it's *always* been the lesser of evils.

The Democratic party was a buffer between the middle class and the abuses of the far right. Once upon a time the Democratic party had a set of core beliefs that it stood by.

I have been seeing Democrats on this website lately calling for fiscal policies that implement, 'supply side solutions.' The more the republican ideology fails, the more the Democratic party moves to adopt republican positions. We are up shit creek without a boat or a paddle. Meanwhile the republican party does whatever it pleases with less and less in their way.


God help us.

Those that wish we didn't notice are crazy.

are not angry because we don't agree just a few of the issues. It is because we disagree with the dem party on the vast majority of the issues. We could go along with a 20% disagreement, but we are heading into a 80 to 90% disagreement with the party heads. The average person has no one to represent them. And, yes, I said average.

I read a definition of working class versus middle class, and where the average person is located. Working class means that if you lost your job, you would be in trouble within two weeks. Middle class means that if you lost your job, you could hang on for at least a year. The average person in this country would identify with the working class.

When Eisenhower and Nixon is to the left of the dem sitting President, then the dem party no longer represents me. The dem party only seems to care about what big business wants, and not it's employee.

zalinda

I don't see anything better. The major problem with the democratic party today is it no longer represents "we the people" out here. Rather, it represents institutional interests with big money. Often I feel like the poor republicans that vote republican thinking they're getting a pot of gold and in the big picture they lose out big time.

you are creating a strawman there - and until the New Democrats, the DLC and Third Way democrats, started taking over there was never an issue of the Dems being the lesser of two evils. During my politically aware life - from the early 60s until the 80s, the Democrats had clear principles and fought for those principles. Even during the Humphrey/McCarthy civil war, it was a question of tactics, not of principles. We were all FDR Democrats.

Then the Republican infiltration began.

Party members.

I have been a Democratic Party supporter and member (once I could vote) and just as long or longer than the neo-liberals that now lead the Party.

The neo-liberals actively do not represent the People but are in thrall to money, corporate globalism, military empire, and power.

If Clarence Thomas is not indicted and convicted, I will not vote again for POTUS Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

I already will not vote again for DiFi as her husband Richard Blum received 8 figure no bid DoD contracts into what had been shell companies under GWB.

I have zero intention of leaving the Democratic Party but will not vote for a neo-liberal and will actively campaign and donate to and vote for liberal Democrats or leave my ballot blank in Federal elections if my only choice is a neo-liberal.

locked.

Many of us have reached the point you have.

a good discussion by a democratic group. I certainly don't want to leave the democratic party or DU, but I think it's healthy to discuss what the democratic party is and where it's going. I've been a democratic for well over a 1/2 century, it has changed a lot over the last 30 years or so, and I'm not so sure its direction is best.

I think with some changes it could capture a majority of the nation. There are a lot of pissed off people in this country. Well, IMO, the paradigm for the democratic party needs to change. It needs to take a high risk bold new direction with a very heavy interest on the people, not the banksters, wall street and corporate interests. The latter of whom need to be put back in their box for the survivorship of the country to not become a third world country with a monied elite.

Of, course I also want to know why mine was locked.

the mods messed up on that one I think. I also think alot of whinners kept alerting and also misinterpreted the meaning of your post to shut down debate.

I think it must be hard to admin DU during an important election year in which Democrats are defending the Presidency when the time honored thing to do is promote the coming together ofdifferent Democratic factions toward a common cause. I get that.

Under those circumstances it might be dicey to have one of the highest rated threads on the site seeming to urge disloyalty, even when the truth is much more complex than that. Almost all of us want to believe in the Democratic Party as a force that exists to guard the interests of most Americans. It is painful to feel a necessity to call that into question.

But I note that DU chose to add this OP to it's list of featured Journal discussions, even after my last one was removed from that list and my thread locked. I love this place and I can only imagine how difficult it must be to keep DU steady in these stormy seas. By pointing to this thread, which is more muted by nature and more limited in the scope of what it discusses than my last one, DU left a marker to that earlier discussion also. I appreciate that.

is our ability to think for ourselves, criticize the idiocy of our leaders, and replace them when that is necessary.

The point of polite criticism and quiet acceptance of party discipline has long ago come and gone, and the point of rebellion and active efforts at replacement of leadership has arrived. The leadership has failed us! No more movement to the Right!

Take back the White House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, along with the House!

Remember Anthony Weiner! Indict Clarence Thomas!

Utterly ridiculous that it was locked.

Many of us are undergoing profound "personal shifts" at this point, as it becomes more and more clear that our party has thoroughly lost its way. I think that your thread VERY much was a discussion that is healthy for DU to have. I suspect that many others agree.

I provided a rational, eloquent defense against the constant claims that anyone who dares question the path our party has taken is a mouth-breathing troll.

Can't have that!

for eloquently supporting civil society.

For years now many people have been dissatisfied with the 2 party directions and choices. Like it was time for a major change like the rise of a viable third party, which is the historical response to 2 party non-responsiveness.

To prevent a liberal type party from starting and growing in influence, the corporate interests in the non-peoples (R) party took the initiative and created the Tea Party to collect and channel the aggrieved and influence both parties positions.

Democrats were thus shut out of promoting a Green or Labor party to influence policy. The Dems could not do such a thing effectively because the corporate influence money controls the media spotlight and popular focus as well as who gets elected.

Nicely stated, thanx for making that point. I am less concerned with building (of dismantling) a party now than I am in building a populist progressive movement. If the Democratic Party can shift to legitimately be served by such a movement, more power to it. Ideally it would be the most efficient way to change the direction we are headed as a nation, but one way or another we must fight to change that direction.

It left me.

and was dismayed to see the lock.

They now occupy the space on the spectrum that used to belong to the moderate right, business wing of the republican party. They no longer represent the average person.

Sorry to hear it got locked.

We need to have deep-to-the-core open honest discussions about the state of Democratic Party, which has become a shadow of its former self, without getting it locked-up.

Thank you for pointing out what needed to be said, and thank you to all who have added to a serious, calm discussion of those points.

It left me, too. 18 years ago, when it moved from being the Party of the Working Person to the Party of Who Else Ya Gonna Vote For, Chump?

We need to take back our Party, not start a new one. We thought we were taking it back when we voted for Obama, but we were badly hoodwinked.

Thanks for a thoughtful post.

This is your last chance.
After this, there is no turning back.
You take the blue pill. The story ends. You wake up in your bed, and believe, whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill. You stay in wonderland. And I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

We need people posting here that will discuss such terms as "loyalty" when talking about party politics.
People like you.
The discussion was pretty good, but the real truth is -- there is no last chance.

We wake up every day, every single day, and decide whether we will do the right thing.
Or something less.
Some Democrats do something less on some of those days, too.
However, we are born with a trait that robots do not have, the ability to forgive others for failing to do the right thing.

In this volatile environment, it really won't matter in a week or 2 if a strong voice like Representative Weiner's voice is heard or not.
Because the House of Representatives is impotent this term.
They can't really do anything because the Senate is controlled by the other party.
Ours.
The checks and balances that the Constitution called for.

So, we are stuck, like we were in 1978, with a divided Congress not willing to work with each other, and we will suffer for it like we did then.
For 2 whole years.
But, we can't hold the President responsible for the fact that the House of Representatives went back to being controlled by Republicans last year, because we knew there would be a price for electing the first black man to the White House.

This is the price we must pay.
For ours is a racist nation, and progress is slow.
But, keep your eye on the prize, for that is the goal that we are striving for.

a majority on this site agrees with you I think.

...both on this thread and the earlier one.

I know it is a hard time for Democrats of conscience, including many who are more conservitive than I, and many who are trying to find ways to stay effective in a money climate rigged to keep certain discussions off the table for politicians who seek the money that they need to compete.

But the fact remains that we are in a deepening crisis and overall still headed in the wrong direction. Something about the way politics has been conducted in this country is failing us. Pretending otherwise is foolish when the trend lines are so clear.

I no longer vote for parties-- I vote for liberals and liberal policy positions. Period. Since 2002 that has not included many democrats.

In my recent experience, DU has fallen into a pattern of heavy censorship on certain subjects. The traditional limits on debate have become very confining in what many of us consider to be a changed political environment. To give an obvious example. DU rules state: "You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website."

The way this rule appears to work is: a) I can criticize Barack Obama; b) I can advocate voting for somebody other than Obama in a primary; and c) I can NOT advocate voting for another Democrat for president if, as most of us assume, Obama is the nominee- because that would be "working for the defeat of a Democratic candidate."

I happen to believe that electing a Democrat to office is not as important as electing a person who will represent the best interests of the majority of the electorate. Looking at the coming elections in 2012, I believe two things: Obama can and will be re-elected and given re-election, he will be unable to govern effectively in protecting the interests of the majority of our citizens.

I think this is a discussion worth having here and the rules, or the enforcement of the rules, should allow such discussion.

I missed this but would like to check it out.

Thanks,
Rp

We used to actually discuss ideas, allowing for nuanced disagreements between positions.

Things seem to have hardened a lot in the last few years with posters forcing their "opponents" into more cartoonish positions than they intended and using the strawman approach to defeat them.

It is a kind of "you're either with us or against us" bunker mentality and it is the death of discussion.

I was disappointed but not surprised that your original post was deleted.

Personally, I would like to see a more hands-off approach by the Admins and Mods similar to what we see in the "Gay Discussion" epic thread.

I understood that you were not advocating against the Democratic Party. If anyone read your OP carefully, surely they would have seen that.

But as I said, we are forcing each other into cartoon-like typecast roles and not doing the "nuance thing" these days.

Unrecced for self-absorption.

It was when I tried to post it there that I discovered the thread was locked. I would rather have made a simple clarification on that thread than start a new OP with this as the subject.

who knows?

Stick with the Dems. Let's kick the Koch-DLC'ers out, instead of switching to a 3rd party.

...Corporate Democrats is that the real message about what is going on inside this country doesn't get out. For reasons we often talk about the media seldom takes strong Liberals seriously and they virtually never give non deragatory coverage to anyone left of that. By the rules of "the game" the center of the Democratic Party is defined as "the left" in mainstream politics. What corporate controlled elected Democrats say is defacto called the left alternative to Republican positions.

The media also considers the voice of the corporate business community as represented by the Chammber of Commerce, the Busines Roundtable etc to be seperate from the Republican party viewpoint and give seperate coverage to that, especially through business reports on news shows and business channels on cable. A similar thing happens with the Eeligious Right getting airtime. And now with the emergence of "the Tea Party" Republican views get reported on twicel the exteme views and the ultra extreme views. Organized Labor no longer gets a voice in media reporting on politics.

We have a small slice of cable and radio talk media. We have online media, like DU and others, that we have access to, and then we have the National Democratic Party defacto representing everything left of the Republican Party everywhere else. Given the class war underway we simply can't afford to let so called "new Democrats" go unchallanged as the acknowledged voice of the working and middle clasases. Even if some grassroots Primary challenges to sitting "cautious" Democrats ultimately results in some seats being lost to Democrats in the short terem, it is essential that the terms of national political debate shift to acknowledge the real issues and that strong alternatives to the Rightward drift of current politics get expressed. I think we have to accept increased conflict within the Democratic Party in order to counter and ultimately shatter the silent bipartisan consensus over what gets acknowledged and allowed in political debate.

I'd love a caucus option on DU, but the hosts are lacking in tech savvy. They don't owe me any more than $40 bucks worth of fun, though. I'm well repaid already.

I agree with you, we ARE the Dems. And the whole American Public agree with us. We're fighting corporate media, Rove & Koch, and Citizens United. What is amusing, clinically speaking, is that the repugs got all of the money they are spending, subverting American Democracy, by stealing it from the taxpaying Americans, who hate them and all of their aspirations.

5 angry protesting teabaggers are news. 5 million of us against the war are negligble. 'Heads repugs win, tails we lose'.

Among 537 Federally elected people, more than a hundred are on our side. I want Speaker Pelosi back in. I will not give the DCCC any more money, cause I warned her to back Weiner, and she did not. Ditto for Act Blue. But I'll give Emily's List money, and support our cause. I'm organized Labor, I love Trumka, and I'm still a Democrat.

Let's kick the DINO's asses to the curb.