I don't think Progressives should abandon the Democratic Party

I think we need an active left wing populist movement independent of the Democratic Party - that no doubt should interact with the Democratic Party, but NOT as a subordinate part of it.

We don't need another progressive paper coalition of the sort that from time to time sponsors national rallies. We need a movement that encourages people to physically come together at the local level on a regular basis.

I know there are many good national progressive organizations already. I'm not talking about reinventing those wheels. Each has worthwhile agendas of issues that they pursue and means by which they pursue them, and that includes the Democratic Party. This should be broader and less concerned with implementing detailed action plans.

What I think we need is a movement that will make Noise, in every sense of that term. We need a populist movement that reframes the broad terms of political debate in this nation, by talking about the trends that have weakened our country and decimated the working and middle classes while abandoning the poor. It should be a movement that exists to connect the dots that many inside the Democratic Party are often hesitant to see connected, for fear of alienating potential sources of campaign funds, or alienating "centrist voters", or whatever other reasons they may worry about.

This type movement shouldn't in my opinion officially run candidates for office, though it could support candidates when appropriate. I purposely used the term "populist movement" rather than "political movement" or even "progressive movement". I think the word progressive can become too closely associated with specific political factions in the minds of some who could be drawn to this movement, though openly identified progressives and progressive groups would be more than welcome inside it. I stress populist over political because politics is associated, rightfully so, with the horse trading and compromises needed to enact specific elements of policy agendas. That's what we elect politicians to do, among other things, to represent their constituents during that horse trading.

Our movement would exist to be influence the broad constituencies that make up America, after the wealthy elites are filtered out. It should have a few defining principles about justice, about process, about a reasonable social contract that honors the needs of those who form the base upon which this nation is built, not just those who ride so well off on top of it. We can oppose any concentration of power that robs the average citizen of adequate control of his or her own life. But our movement would point out that the greatest concentration of power today does not originate with a heavy handed government, it is the increasingly unchecked power of the super wealthy and their commercial special interests that is riding rough shod over American Democracy.

I would hope and even expect that such a movement would find allies inside the Democratic Party, and that the strength of such a movement would increase the political strength of those allies. Although the Tea Party movement was only quasi grass roots at best, there is still much that we can learn from it. We need our own thunder, and if we go about it well, increasingly our thunder will be America's thunder, holding politics and politicians accountable to represent the true interests of the American people.

I haven't gone that far to the right as I aged.

Today's "centrist" is yesterday's radical rightie.

The Dem party is rushing right at an alarming rate.

that exists outside it's formal structure, but for now I don't think another party is the answer.

Just like you probably think that the world is more dangerous than it was 20 years ago, when in fact it's objectively safer.

It's human nature to believe things are getting worse as we go along. It's actually the way our brains are wired.

There are far too many studies establishing that we are not just going through the same old same old. The last time statistics painted this type of economic picture, the Democrats were electing FDR.

And if you do research on the history of FDR, you'll find that he was considered weak tea, a sellout, too conservative, etcetera by the radicals of his own era. Not to mention that most of the "New Deal" was either compromises or the fragments that Roosevelt was able to keep in the law, after most of his plans got overturned.

I think the pendulum of those compromises is now far right of center. It's not that FDR was a flaming Socialist, but he tugged the pendulum of his day toward the left. That hasn't happened in a while.

From the radical left, everything looks right.

From any "radical" vantage point, everything outside it seems to exist in a contrary direction. But sometimes objects appear smaller in your rear view mirror and sometimes they really are smaller. HOW far things may be moving to the right is subject to honest debate and is not always only subjective.

Just curious what in your view constitutes 'radical'.

From the conservative end of the so-called "center" everything even slightly liberal looks left and radical.

"Every Change is for the Worse" -- Joe Heller character.

On edit: I'm with Yeats and Heller, because of their impressive credentials. I'm with Tom, too.

But then I've had my eye on things for a long time...

nail meet hammer....:toast:

My question is, what does it mean to be liberal/progressive on an island? I'm talking about 100 people who agree on values, and come together to make a community. What does that community look like? How does it operate?

I'm seeing a problem here (and in myself) where we look to DC for too many answers, and that really limits us as far as creating something resilient: All our hopes shouldn't be trashed because the other party takes over federally. We need to set things up so we can continue on with our lives when that kind of thing happens, as it inevitably does. We need to focus on small scale communities, where our voices really do matter.

I think we need to bring an outside (of party structure) force to bear on the Democratic Party to shift the current inertia inside it. Rather than get bound up in all the legal and policy minutia of buiding or forming a new political party - I think we can be more effective at shifting the public dialog over the root causes of what people are unhappy about today.

We are the majority of the Party. Kick the Koch-DLCers sorry behinds out.

I tend to think the abusive relationship it had with progressives is about to turn into a quiet abandonment. This isn't a conclusion I'm particularly happy about but just how it looks right now.

I no longer donate money to the National Party though I do to some of its candidates. It's often more important to me now who is willing to widely raise imortant issuses effectively, and who will still defend true traditional Democratic Party values than it is to me which Democrat is most likely to win in the General Election. Democrats have to earn my support now. When they aren't fighting hard for issues important to the majority of Americans I won't fight for them. Ifm the public wakes up to what is really happening in America today and the Democratic Party is reluctant to champiion their causes, they will not win elections. That is what I am working toward. I don't want Democrats to lose elections but I am working for the day when they understand that their continued success depends on doing the right thing for the poor, and the working and middle classes in America. There lies our winning coalition once the veil is pulled back on what the power elites have been up to for 30 years.

It may act and talk differently at times.
But.

Remove progressives, you are left with a limp, lifeless, aimless party.

not "democratic party".

they assume we won't leave. But the point comes when we will if other options fail.

Just don't show up on election day. If they won't fight for us then it will not make much difference in the end anyway.

and speak out. Form relationships and work for the candidates we like.

I plan to start going back to meetings in July or August of this year. I've already talked to members of my local club about that.

I was very active in the local club at one point, but work and health issues ended my involvement. But here I am again.

One great experience was being a delegate at a state convention. Unfortunately, I do not have the money to attend meetings at the state level in cities in which I have to stay overnight or for which I have to get an airline ticket. But I want to be active locally.

You have to understand that a low personal budget can really cramp your involvement in the local Democratic movement. It would be great if we could find a way to get around that for a lot of unemployed and older people. Teleconferencing is an alternative for long-distance communications.

I do not believe Activists are consulted on each piece
of legislation. Or are they??

If history is repeating itself, and it shows all the signs of doing so, the GOP will marginalize itself to the point that it will only sputter on as a local party. The more moderate Hamiltonians will join the Democrats, making the party even stodgier and less responsive to the people than it is now. Progressives will have no choice but to leave, starting a new party around one or two main issues. Once those issues have been accomplished, either coopted by the Democrats or by one or two Progressive administrations, the party will become complacent and apathetic and the Hamiltonians will take it over and have their own party again.

This might have played out in the 1930s had Roosevelt not saved capitalism by being a traitor to his class. This time, we lack a Roosevelt because they're being picked off by manufactured scandals every time they stick their heads up (or their necks out), so this time it's likely to play on out.

that they can raise anonymous millions.

divide is. I am at one with Democratic citizens. My respect and approval of the leaders is plummeting as if going over the cliff with weights.

I stand with the followers, not the leaders and all their votes and words support what they are doing to the country.

Starting with Habeas Corpus, I am stunned and sickened. There is nothing Democratic about our leaders except for a few and if Weiner stood where I thought he did - they just dumped him shamelessly.

Progressives not wanted

...other Democrats will follow. Just like they did when they "thought" Obama was a "progressive".

Otherwise it's just cerebral theory.

One hesitates to use the word blackmail, but if that's what it takes to even make the Democrats take liberal/progressive populism even slightly seriously, so be it.

I am not saying the we really should leave. But this waiting for crumbs, and getting hands slapped continually has not worked in terms of having a reliably liberal Democratic Party.They need to be made to worry as much about gaining the votes of liberals and progressive populists as they are about those mythical "swing voters."

I just want a more balanced political system -- but unfortunately that may take more pressure.

One is to no longer be held hostage to the lesser of two evils argument. It has methodically been leading us toward greater evil since the Democratic Party now essentially feels we are identured to be loyal to it because of that argument, and hence they are free to continually abandon us on key issues som as to mollify other constituencies, starting with corporate America.

The other form of pressure is to scream bloody murder about what is happening to America and not give a damn if that complicatres the electoral strategy of this or that Democrat or even National Democratic strategy. That's the point of building a populist movement, to become less dependent on the Democratic Party framing the issues as they see fit.

The Democratic party already left them.

but progressives would still only make up a minority of the Party.

But majorities of the American public can be mobilized to fight along with those progressives on a range of issues once an ongoing effort to conncect the economic dots shows them the real picture of how special interests are playing them. That's populism.

As it is most Democratic candidates usually avoid connecting those dots for voters for fear of... fear of what? Fear of losing campaign funding? Fear of losing access to the economic halls of power? Fear of upsetting the apple cart that they have accustomed themselves to riding? Fear of insider access to big money making schemes? Fear of not landing a cushy high paying job after the leave or are kicked out of office?

I think that you are, in general, correct. However, I do have two points for consideration.

Your post boils down to this: We need a truly populist movement, independent of any political party. It would be much like the Tea Party, except genuine, and much larger. I agree on all these points. But it needs to be said that something like this will, unfortunately, require some sort of funding to start and maintain. The base is not likely to be very exploitable, because you're fighting for the poor and the unfortunate, not the wealthy elite. So either we find a way to keep this completely cost free, or it will be very difficult to run.

What do you think?

Labor Unions didn't start our with corporate sponsors. Look at the millions of dollors that grass roots supported Presidential candidates were able to raise via the internet in 2004 and 2008. When people have a strong enough reason to believe in something they find ways to raise money. People give regularly to churches, some people actually tithe.

Where there's a will there's a way to organize. We may never have the capacity to pay for national TV media buys of any significance, but we can pull together to stage sit ins and picket lines. We can pull together to show up at town hall meetings. A lot of that funding can be done on the local grassroots level if people actually start meeting and working together at the grass roots local level.

I've been fortunate to have lived to be part of some powerful movements in recent American History. There were no Koch brothers funding the Civil Rights movement. There was no National Chamber of Commerce funding the anti-Viet Nam War movement. In the 70's and 80's I was deeply involved in the anti-nuclear power movement. It was grass roots and decentralized but we stayed in touch with each other none the less, did skills sharing, polled resourses, coordinated messaging, and made a difference without ever having any outside material support beyond the level of a few American Friends Service Committee workers dedicating their time and opening up their offices to us.

Populism is theme oriented, it is about focusing on the stuff that is important to people's economic survival. It is about newlsetters and email chains. It is about holding small rallies in many communities and bringing in speakers who are good at connecting the dots that matter to people.

And there is so much material to work with. It can be shared by means as simple as scraping together the money to make a hundred copies of one of the many articals that hit the DU greates list that show how the rich are getting richer and everyone else is getting screwed. and then passing them out at work places. Bypass partisan lables, bypass political buzz phrases (even liberal and progressive) and just call itg people getting together to make our country strong again for all of the people who live her, not just the elites.

... the Populist movement?

Frankly, this is a really, really good idea. Can we start now? And I'm not kidding.

That is especially true of any grass roots decentralized movement. It's an idea that takes shape and a message that breaks through that has to echo from lots of places in order to penetrate. If it happens though perhaps it should be called New Populism, populism for the 21st century so to speak.

There are lots of people, including thousands here at DU, with the organizing skills needed to help bring people together IF the time for that feels ripe to a large enough number of people to push in the same direction. I don't think that's not something you or I can decide on our own. A buzz of sorts has to build for that.

look what the tea party movement (whether manufactured or not) did to the Republican Party. It is unrecognizable compared to what it used to stand for.

We can do the same thing, but learn to unify around our IDEOLOGIES and not PERSONALITIES-- we stand up in sheer numbers and force our public servants to do their jobs. WE take the LEAD--like we should. If we wait for individuals to lead us, they will be targeted successfully. But masses of people standing together--this is what all the RW money is trying to prevent.


The Republican RW (and Democratic RW) attacks by character assassination, and cannot attract anyone with their ideologies--because they have NONE--they back the corporations and MIC. Period. That is not an American ideology, it is a social disease.

We have to stick together, put our differences aside people--and come together this year. And don't listen to all the insults from without and within--DO NOT ENGAGE, BUT UNITE.

K&R X 10,00000!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

edited to add: Movements are about individuals deciding how they wish to be SEEN, HEARD, AND REPRESENTED--this is a paradigm shift away from just waiting for some group to get enough cash together. A homeless person, injured vet, the unemployed ALL have a voice in a people's movement--this is about US, you and me.

Just my 2cents.

They gather steam when regular people shift their priorities and start acting together to make sure that their concerns are seen and heard by those who would just as soon ignore or deflect them. The freedom movement inside Egypt had lots of leading lights but it wasn't the property of any political party. It changed public perceptions of what was normal and acceptable and forced political structures and parties to answer to their demands.

I think this is going to happen in the U.S. the question of course is when. But better it happen sooner than later because the damage being done to our collective future under the status quo is deep and long lasting.

There was a movement that opposed a Democratic Presiden, LBJ, on the Viet Nam war. There was an active and aggressive (non violent) Civil Rights movement while JFK was our Democratic President. Neither movement ever was subordinant to the perceived needs of any political party - they weren't political movements in that sense. They were not confused with third Party movements, they had issues that they demanded be dealt with by whoever was in power. Millions of Democrats voters and many Democratic office holders tppk part in those movements and none thought for a moment that they had to be channeled into and contained within Democratic Party structures.

Till I am represented I will vote for the person who makes the worst possible decisions. At least they do not lie and maybe will piss enough people off. Failing that it will be hell and mostly thats what it is now.

I never was a blue dog Democrat but a came close to being a yellow dog Democrat. Maybe I'm more of a red dog Democrat now. I stay registered as a Democrat for starters because I believe Democratic Primaries can be conscious raising experiences for the electorate when a good candidate runs in one. And sometimes a good Democrat gets elected. That happens a hell of a lot more often than good Republicans, Greens, Socialists, Reform Party or Libertarian candidates actually getting elected.

The Democratic Party has an organized apparatus for supporting its candidates and getting its message outy that is not equaled by any other political party that would want me in it. When that can be used well for good people it is a blessing. But I have no blind loyalty to Democrats now. I do some volunteer work at the local level fof the Party, but I will not muffle my viewpoints in order to fit in. I am not looking to find a viable third party, I am trying to create conditions that compells the Democratic Party to be more responsive to the average persons needs and less beholden to wealthy special interests. When Democrats run candidates I believe in I am willing to work for them as well as vote for them. When they don't they can't on my vote being in their bank.

Repug.

I rudely failed to post a +1 to the OP, though I've been jumping all over your post. (In your favor, I think). I DID + 1 it though.

All aboard!:



Dear MoveOn member,

America's in a tough spot right now. So many people are hurting. Yet in Washington and our state capitols, the big debate is about how much more pain to inflict. How many teachers to fire. How many new tax breaks to give the rich.

It's pretty clear by now that we can't wait for Barack Obama, or the Democrats, to save us. But the one thing that might turn things around is an honest-to-God mass movement—something on the scale of the civil rights movement or the antiwar movement—built around a vision of an economy that works for all of us, not just the top 2%.

So today we're launching a $1 million fundraising drive for one of the biggest things we've ever tried—joining with dozens of other progressive organizations to lift up a new, grassroots movement to rescue the economy and bring the American Dream within reach for all Americans...


https://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/dream_launch.html?bg_id=hpc5&id=28211-4148791-czMVWDx&t=3

Move On won't send fundraiser e-mails over here anymore.

The Missouri GA has moved to the extreme right with a huge increase in republicans last year.
The state committee recognized a few problems.
One problem we have is uncontested races.
And more than that, candidate recruitment and grooming.
A solution that they have been talking about is to get Democrats elected all over.
School boards, city councils, county commissions..... All of the lower level offices that sometimes seem irrelevant so that they begin moving up into state politics.
Aside from elected office, another bottom up move is for Democrats to join boards and committees even if they seem to be overrun by republicans, (ie chamber of commerce). As more and more Democrats fill these offices and positions, a bottom up institutional movement might go a long way toward making the kinds of changes we want to see.

Assuming that the Democrats who step in to run for those local posts have strong Democratic values. Our problem is not simply to elect more Democrats, although most likely ultimate progress will depend on that happening. Our problem is to elect Democrats with spine who see the big picture and whose loyalties remain solidly with the people and not with those who attempt to buy them. I am unhappy with many elected Democrats. Just electing more like those does not solve the problem. That's why I feel that we also need an activist movement that is not completely dependent on a political party for leadership.

volunteer for them or even run ourselves. If not we need to be joining boards and organizations that have political influence. In small towns and cities that are growing, groups that plan development have huge influence on how much power some corporations gain in the area.
I am less certain about how it works in large cities, but at the very least neighborhood associations have influence over city politics.
Whoever said "all politics is local" had a point. Get progressive friends together and join those boards en masse.