General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOn liberal "purity".
There has been much bombast, angst and anger concerning the liberals on this board, both before and after the election. Many have stated that those of us on the left are becoming the fringe, that we're the left wing version of the Tea Party, and pretty much that liberals should just shut up and go along with the program because we, and our political viewpoints are too extreme. Let's address some of these misconceptions, shall we.
Let's first address the notion that our positions are too extreme. I've been recently going through the 1976 Democratic Party Platform, and it is amazing what an "extreme" document it really was.
For instance, this is what it says about health care in this country: "We need a comprehensive national health insurance system with universal and mandatory coverage. Such a national health insurance system should be financed by a combination of employer-employee shared payroll taxes and general tax revenues. Consideration should be given to developing a means of support for national health insurance that taxes all forms of economic income. We must achieve all that is practical while we strive for what is ideal, taking intelligent steps to make adequate health services a right for all our people. As resources permit, this system should not discriminate against the mentally ill."
Wow, advocating for government run, single payer universal health care, those rotten liberals.
Let's take a look at another purist liberal position, Social Security: "We will not permit an erosion of social security benefits, and while our ultimate goal is a health security system ensuring comprehensive and quality care for all Americans, health costs paid by senior citizens under the present system must be reduced."
That wouldn't go over very well in today's Democratic Party, since it seems like both Democrats and Republicans are now on board with cutting Social Security benefits, and both parties seem perfectly ready to screw seniors over health care costs. Let's move on, shall we.
On the defense budget, you know, the budget that those hippie liberals keep wanting to cut: "Barring any major change in the international situation, with the proper management, with the proper kind of investment of defense dollars, and with the proper choice of military programs, we believe we can reduce present defense spending by about $5 billion to $7 billion. We must be tough-minded about the development of new weapons systems which add only marginal military value. The size of our defense budget should not be dictated by bureaucratic imperatives or the needs of defense contractors but by our assessment of international realities."
Back in the day, when a billion was still a hefty sum, cutting seven billion off the military budget actually meant something, approximately three percent of the annual military budget. Nor was this just going to be a one time cut, "The Pentagon has one of the federal government's most overgrown bureaucracies. The Department of Defense can be operated more effectively and efficiently and its budget reduced, without in any way compromising our defense posture. Our armed forces have many more admirals and generals today than during World War II, when our fighting force was much larger than now. We can reduce the ratio of officers to men and of support forces to combat troops." Wow, Democrats actually advocating for real, meaningful, ongoing and permanent cuts to the military, how liberal is that. Apparently too liberal for today's Democratic party.
What about another extreme left position, women's rights? We seek ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, to insure that sex discrimination in all its forms will be ended, implementation of Title IX, and elimination of discrimination against women in all federal programs." Wow, unbashedly, unreservedly, the Democrats were very liberal on the issue of women's rights.
And here's one I'm personally adamant about, as are many of my fellow far left extremists, namely protecting our civil liberties. Imagine my surprise upon finding that nearly forty years ago, the Democratic party agreed with me, "We pledge effective and vigorous action to protect citizens' privacy from bureaucratic technological intrusions, such as wiretapping and bugging without judicial scrutiny and supervision; and a full and complete pardon for those who are in legal or financial jeopardy because of their peace fill opposition to the Vietnam War, with deserters to be considered on a case-by-case basis." Whoa!
I think that the problem isn't that those of us on the "liberal", or "extreme left" of the Democratic party aren't that extreme, but simply left behind by a Democratic party that has moved to the right. We're not extreme, or purists, but simply stuck on the contention that the Democratic party should stand for the same positions it stood for in our youth. Stuck with the ideal of a party that was truly left, stuck in time before the DLC, Third Way and other neo-Democratic movements that have come since.
In other words, we're not "purists" or "extreme leftists", rather we're simply good old fashioned Democrats who haven't changed, but sadly living in a political world where the Democratic party has changed in a quite radical way, and not for the better.
So when somebody tries to hang the tag of being a leftist tea bagger on you, laugh and tell them that no, you aren't. You just stand for what the Democratic party once stood for, what proud Democrats like Carter, Kennedy, and Mondale stood for. The extremists are those who continue to insist and force the party to move to the right, and to move so far that once were considered standard operating convictions a mere thirty six years ago are now considered extreme.
Gee, and let's not even get into the socialist, commie, purist, extreme positions that that notorious radical leftist FDR held. I'm afraid far too many people around here would die of embarrassment.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(73,753 posts)
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)
Skittles
(171,709 posts)
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)After Mondale and Dukakis got their asses kicked by a doddering old Reagan and Poppy Bush in epic landslides.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)What happened to doing what is right, standing on principle? Sacrificed, thrown out the window so that we can say that the Democratic party won? What kind of win is it for the party if the people of this country lose in the process? Was it a winning situation for the poor and needy when Clinton stripped welfare to the bone and called it "reform"? Is it a winning situation for us now as we are now subject to warrantless wiretaps and potentially being put on the President's personal kill list? Will it be a win in the future when Social Security and Medicare benefits are cut?
Politics isn't about the scorecard, it is about standing up and doing right for the people of this country. When you do that, we all win.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)thing we have in common - we both know the GOP has turned into a party of lunatics.
Keeping a lunatic out of the White House is the #1 priority for me politically.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)
ChaoticTrilby
(211 posts)Eventually, our party "victories" will just be the "Whack-Jobs" winning over the "Even Whackier Whack-Jobs" if we let the Democratic party move further and further to the right. What kind of victories will those be? Hollow ones, I think.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)overwhelmingly to the Left of both parties at this point.
That is why in order to get elected, Obama had to move back from his right of center positions during the campaign and become more Liberal.
Run someone like Bernie Sanders and he would probably win in a landslide. As he does consistently in his own state.
But they do not want to give the people that choice, Corporate America is threatened by actual, real Liberal policies.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Things have changed.
Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #33)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)n/t
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)what they want. That is the same thing as losing.
So you don't like the Left? What about the policies of the Left don't you like?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)And I haven't changed my position on one damn issue.
High school friends once accused me of having moved Left. We went through every issue any of us could think of and found that I was the only person who did not pull a 180 on every issue except for the one on which we still agreed.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)with facts and history is the difference between Teabaggers and Socialist, commie, Leftist, extremist or in other words " My People " Liberals .
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)how do you reconcile that with his being responsible for perhaps the biggest violation of civil rights in US history?
Sid
msongs
(73,753 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)How do you reconcile that with his ongoing stripping of all of our civil liberties, including his own personal kill list?
At least FDR limited his civil rights violation to a particular ethnic group, during a time of war, what's Obama's excuse?
Oh, and for your information, you're wrong about Japanese internment being the biggest violation of civil rights in our history. I would submit that both slavery and our war against Native Americans were far bigger civil rights violations. But I understand, you have to denigrate a true liberal like FDR because he makes your guy Obama look bad by comparison.
But hey, if you look closely at the OP, you'll see that Democrats back in '76 make Obama look bad.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)has left the building. 
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Did you really just type that?
A civil rights violation is less bad when it's a racist civil rights violation?
Sid
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
dflprincess
(29,341 posts)by trashing FDR. Go figure.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Looks like I'm another of those stuck in a time warp.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Or are you going to continue to trash FDR because he makes Obama look really, really bad by comparison. As does Carter, Mondale, and every Democrat who signed on to that '76 Democratic platform.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)marriage equality and expanded women's rights.
The health care portion of the 1976 platform includes a lot of the principle of the current law. Thirty-five years later, ACA is the law of the land.
The 1976 platform included welfare reform, and we know how that went down years later.
Also, 1976 jump started deregulation.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)It is essentially calling for single payer, government run UHC for everybody, not an insurance industry run health care system that is, in essence, derived from Romney/Heritage Foundation/Nixon care.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)In 1975, national health expenditures averaged $547 per person—an almost 40 per cent increase in four years. Inflation and recession have combined to erode the effectiveness of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
An increasingly high proportion of health costs have been shifted back to the elderly. An increasing Republican emphasis on restricting eligibility and services is emasculating basic medical care for older citizens who cannot meet the rising costs of good health.
We need a comprehensive national health insurance system with universal and mandatory coverage. Such a national health insurance system should be financed by a combination of employer-employee shared payroll taxes and general tax revenues. Consideration should be given to developing a means of support for national health insurance that taxes all forms of economic income. We must achieve all that is practical while we strive for what is ideal, taking intelligent steps to make adequate health services a right for all our people. As resources permit, this system should not discriminate against the mentally ill.
Maximum personal interrelationships between patients and their physicians should be preserved. We should experiment with new forms of medical care delivery to mold a national health policy that will meet our needs in a fiscally responsible manner.
We must shift our emphasis in both private and public health care away from hospitalization and acute-care services to preventive medicine and the early detection of the major cripplers and killers of the American people. We further support increased federal aid to the government laboratories as well as private institutions to seek the cure to heart disease, cancer, sickle cell anemia, paralysis from spinal cord injury, drug addiction and other such afflictions.
National health insurance must also bring about a more responsive consumer-oriented system of health care delivery. Incentives must be used to increase the number of primary health care providers, and shift emphasis away from limited-application, technology-intensive programs. By reducing the barriers to primary preventive care, we can lower the need for costly hospitalization. Communities must be encouraged to avoid duplication of expensive technologies and meet the genuine needs of their populations. The development of community health centers must be resumed. We must develop new health careers, and promote a better distribution of health care professionals, including the more efficient use of paramedics. All levels of government should concern themselves with increasing the number of doctors and para-medical personnel in the field of primary health care.
A further need is the comprehensive treatment of mental illness, including the development of Community Mental Health Centers that provide comprehensive social services not only to alleviate, but to prevent mental stresses resulting from social isolation and economic dislocation. Of particular importance is improved access to the health care system by underserved population groups.
We must have national health insurance with strong built-in cost and quality controls. Rates for institutional care and physicians' services should be set in advance, prospectively. Alternative approaches to health care delivery, based on prepayment financing, should be encouraged and developed.
<...>
As I said, a premise is not the same as a law, and now health care is the law of the land. There is actual reform in place, something tangible to be improved upon.
That's huge.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But to try and say, or pretend, or fantasize that the ACA is in anyway derived from the '76 party platform and its call for single payer, government run UHC is simply ludicrous.
And for you to label Romney/Heritage Foundation/Nixon care as huge is an exercise in hyperbole. It is a gift to the insurance industry, a piece of Republican legislation that modern Dems adapted and called their own, a perfect example of how far the party has moved to the right.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"But to try and say, or pretend, or fantasize that the ACA is in anyway derived from the '76 party platform and its call for single payer, government run UHC is simply ludicrous. "
...fantasy, you seem to forget that health care was part of the reason that Kennedy primaried Carter in 1980:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#1980_presidential_campaign
MadHound
(34,179 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)I suspect nothing, just another tactic of yours trying to deflect criticism away from Obama, the DLC and Third Way Dems.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)No one, not Carter. The Democratic Platform embraced reform, and it sounded almost like the current law. In fact, the President who would enact the platform was pushing a very modest plan.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And the need to cut - not slash...
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)plotting attacks on the USA.
In Yemen you have no US Constitutional rights.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Don't forget the son who was killed, and who was innocent.
And yes, at least nominally, as a US citizen you have rights guaranteed to you as a US citizen, even if you are abroad. One of those rights is due process from your government.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)DU is riddled with people channeling Arnaud Amalric.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)And you would know that how?
Because President Obama said so?
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)U.S. citizens always have constitutional rights unless they choose to waiver them. Furthermore even if he did waiver his rights, his son did not. Maybe you should read up on the Constitution before you talk about it.
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)That's straight from Pamela Gellar. Fucking disgusting speech. Plus, the extrajudicial killing of American citizens is unconstitutional, in the extreme. Constitutional rights apply everywhere.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Next we'll be seeing those other hateful, racist labels like 'camel jockey' and 'raghead'. It's a shame what passes for Progressive Democratic dialogue lately.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I still think we met somewhere before btw.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Also, the calculation of his administration was that with a retirement age of 65, not many people that paid into Social Security would live long enough to collect. Progress always looks more impressive in hindsight.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)This is the guy who could only see his way clear to relocate Gitmo rather than putting detainees on trial, releasing those he could not, or even just relocating prisoners like Bush did on hundreds of occasions and then signed his own constitutionally dubious handcuffs into law.
The same fella who declared his authority to kill without the benefit of charges, much less a trial in the face of a non-existential threat, like the Axis powers.
Hell, even Lincoln suspended habeas corpus across the nation.
Please.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)AND he welcomed their hatred.
Seems to have taken Obama 4 years to just figure out that they *do* hate him.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I guess I fail history.
In all seriousness - there was a tremendous amount of craziness going on. The world was on fire, millions were dying every month. Bad things can happen under those circumstances, it's amazing the whole thing didn't go off the rails.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021652355#post25
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1846914
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1704148
And how does that reconcile with your other, eh, un-liberal postings?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Likewise, "conspiracy story" implies unfounded in fact.
What an interesting choice of words, though, yours. Both terms are used to paint their object as somehow "tainted" in their reportage. I challenge you to find any falsehood in what I post. Feel free to go through my journal here and on the old DU. I admit, I have made mistakes. When I was made aware of them, I admited it and thanked the person who corrected the record.
Both terms you used also are liberally applied by supporters of the Warren Report, a study demonstrably based on incomplete and biased data supplied by U.S. government agencies directly implicated by the facts of the case.
For instance, the role of the CIA in obstructing investigators in 1963 and the Congressional investigation in the 1970s.
For instance, the role of the FBI in destroying evidence after the assassination and in letting at least one suspect walk free.
For instance, the role of the Warren Commission in fitting the "facts" to "prove" Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt as a lone gunman.
Getting back to my original point: Where have posted anything in support of FDR, JFK or other liberals on DU, siddithers? Is there even one example?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)because of your excellent contributions over the years. I know you were among those whose posts I sought out during the horrible Bush years. Your work on the Bush Crime Family incomparable.
I wish we had more people who contributed worthwhile material to the forum because so many of the best are gone or just lurk unwilling to deal with the kind of empty, useless garbage that gets posted here now.
Thanks for all you do to make DU a worthwhile place to still visit.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)No one in this country believes the CT handed out by the Warren Commission. At least no Progressive Democrats that I ever met, but then they can think for themselves which is why they are such a threat to the stupid, paranoid, right wing morons who believe every word their right wing leaders tell them.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts) 
zappaman
(20,627 posts)That's really what no progressive Democrats believe.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)thousand or more page novels. It's really not at all remarkable to be able to read text.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Bush kidnapped from Afghanistan and elsewhere, but right here in the US? And that we are still harassing and spying on Muslim Americans for no reason whatsoever.
And no one has stepped forward other than the Civil Liberties organizations to put a stop to the egregious harassment of those Americans so far.
A few Dems in NY have but nothing substantive from the Dem Party leadership despite the many calls for an end to the anti-Constitutional harassment of American citizens.
It really is shameful.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)I'm like-minded. I hate this capitulation to the pro-corporate, anti-labor, party of Reagan bullshit the Democrats stand for today. And I hate people going along with terrible, ridiculous policies just because the politician has a "D" after his name.
These people are fucking us and we let it happen. There is no party that stands for the regular working person anymore. That party left us years ago.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)randomtagger
(125 posts)is that other liberals on this board call me a troll because I didn't support a ban on wolf hunting, argued that not all GM crops are bad, and that pesticides can prevent malaria. For this I was endlessly harassed by a legion of assholes who insisted that I hate animals and that I am a secret conservative in disguise.
mike_c
(37,051 posts)...I agree with you on those points and have argued them vigorously on DU. As far as I'm aware no one calls me a troll. They just put me on Ignore, LOL.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)you're a troll, because if you're not, the party is in worse trouble than I suspected.
randomtagger
(125 posts)No, I am not a troll, and there should not be a witch hunt going after centrist liberals. Trying to silence more moderate voices is what cost the Republicans the election.
reACTIONary
(7,162 posts)reACTIONary
(7,162 posts)I'm all for wildlife management which is necessary to protect wildlife, I'm all for genetically engineered crops, pesticides are necessary for healthy happy, well fed populations.
I'm not sure if I just haven't spoken up on this issues or not, but despite holding these views and seeing contrary views posted, I haven't felt endlessly harassed by a legion of assholes. Just one or two, and they gave up rather quickly.
You forgot to mention fracking....
randomtagger
(125 posts)I am highly skeptical of the practice, but I want to see scientific studies (not a documentary) that prove it is harmful to the public at large.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)right that I often see little difference between the parties.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)
K/RDoctor_J
(36,392 posts)Yep, we're the "fringe", but if the president gets clobbered at the mid-terms, it's because we didn't show up. It won't be because he adopted positions that were too conservative for Reagan, nope. It's our need for ponies.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)others. Not everyone will agree with you all of the time. We all have varying degrees of endorsing political ideas and circumstances in life and in the world in general impact our understandings of what may or may not be desirable. Rather than beating up someone else with a label, perhaps focusing on the tasks at hand would be a better use of time.
Another thing you should consider is that when you get a majority, by definition you end up with people in the tent who are closer to conservatism. Are you advocating that those who join "us" be expelled because they may not be 100% in sync with you or me? I am a a liberal and a progressive. You cannot be one without the other as far as I'm concerned. I don't insist that people agree with me 100% of the time and to the nth degree. I just need to work with them. Common cause is something you need to factor into your worldview. This notion that there are those who are somehow more worthy in their political beliefs is not how you get people to contribute to the critical mass that gets things actually done--and we need to get things done. You can be a proud whatever you want to call yourself and still find common cause.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I must get real. That other smear that the "very serious people" in the party try to hang around the necks of the liberals, in order to be dismissive of us, to belittle us.
Well son, let's get real here. The liberals in this party have basically gone along to get along within the party for the past forty years, and just what has it gotten them? Very, very little. While all the other people in this big tent, DLC, Third Way, Big Business, all of these and more have been regularly fed and cared for, with choice pieces of legislation being dropped on their plate on a regular schedule. Yet if liberals dare to raise a voice in complaint, they are told to eat their peas. Hell, as a liberal I would absolutely love to have some peas on my plate to eat, but you know what, for the past forty years that plate has been pretty bare, with even the crumbs going away about twenty years ago.
You think that I, or other liberals in this coalition, don't want to work with others? WHERE IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK DLC, THIRD WAY AND CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS GET THE VOTES TO GET ELECTED AND THE SUPPORT TO PASS THEIR LEGISLATION? Oh, yeah, those pie in the sky, don't know how to compromise liberals who haul their sorry asses out every couple of years to do the grunt work and the heavy lifting, even though in many cases, if truth be told, they're working against their own best self interest.
HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT WE NEED TO MAKE COMMON CAUSE? How much more common cause do you want us liberals to make, give up our first born child to the party? You are apparently blind to the fact that it is the liberals in this party who've been bending over backwards to make common cause, time and again, just hoping for some sort of crumb, and getting nothing but scorn in return.
WAKE UP! Liberals aren't adverse to compromise or working together, we've been doing that for years and decades. The only difference now is that we're starting to wonder why we've been doing so much hard work for so long in return for so very little.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)You have truly made a decision that you can label with impunity, without personal knowledge of the commitment of others, and who have also done considerable grunt work to move the ball down the field. I truly don't understand why you think that you are somehow more in tune when essentially we agree on almost everything. I've learned in life that sometimes you pick your battle and live to fight another day. We are moving forward in spite of all of the opposition--whether you choose to believe it or not. We've survived the Bush years and we'll survive the era of the Koch brothers. I'd rather expend my efforts on dealing change within my own community. We turned this county blue in 2008 and it stayed blue. It was hard work and still bears fruit. A lot of that work was not done by being confrontational all of the time. Rather, many hours of conversations with others, sometimes over coffee or sometimes on the aisle at the grocery store or in the post office, and we moved people to consider alternatives to some fairly well entrenched biases.
dionysus
(26,467 posts) MadHound
(34,179 posts)"We've survived the Bush years and we'll survive the era of the Koch brothers."
We've survived. We've survived the Bush II years, and we've survived the Bush I and Reagan and Ford and Nixon years.
We've survived.
The thing is, we should be thriving. But modern Democratic political strategy has been to always take the fall back position as a "compromise". Thus, over the past forty years, we've fallen back and fallen back, a party always in retreat, even when it is power.
Yeah, we've survived.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)How's that working for Republicans?
We need to entice the party left, not toss out centrists we haven't convinced yet.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face. We can move the party to the left while bringing others with us. There's no need for anyone to berate and insult others on the left while doing so. It's self-defeating.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Just like a real party, if you keep moving it around and asking folks to follow you to the new location, they are just going to let you wander off and do your own thing while they have a party. Or a Party.
People who want to join a party come to the party. People who ask the party to come to them are trying to end the party and make it a whole new thing. Same for a Party.
frylock
(34,825 posts)thanks for making the OP's point.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Alternatively, you could actually read the second half of my post. It's actually kinda important for the point I'm making.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for them.
They are now realizing that having those way far to the right members in their party did not appeal to a country that is way further to the Left. They were convinced by the lie that the country was a right wing country.
I think we should be worried about this awakening on their part. I hear they are now admitting that they have to do more for immigrants and stop trashing them eg. Several of them have been saying they became 'way too extreme and need to reevaluate where they stand'. If they swing back to a more moderate position, some of the Reagan Republicans currently in the Dem Party might be attracted back.
This would be a good thing, With the Right Wingers out of the Dem Party, the Dems can move back towards Left of Center and attract back the left leaning Independents and progressives who have become disgusted with their right wing swing. That would move the whole country Left.
But if Dems swing anymore right, they will lose in the next elections especially if their right of center voters can go back to being real Republicans again and their left wing too disgusted to even vote.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Funny, that democratic presidential candidates run as liberals, but then shrink toward centrism after being elected. This country wants a progressive/liberal, not someone who uses ideals to fool folks just to get elected. We want representation... I think that's called being real.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Representation based on honesty. Too many people are confusing ideology with reality. Regardless of your hopes or aspirations, you still need to operate in the realm of what is possible at the moment.
frylock
(34,825 posts)everyone finish your drink!
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Unless you operate totally within the framework of delusion, walk outside and do a reality check on what you meet there. Regardless of your hopes and aspirations and your fears, you still actually need to operationalize them in the real world. The real world may not be accepting of any of them. Your effectiveness at convincing others of their value is a test of your ability to understand and operate with real people in real settings. Have another one, or two or three.
frylock
(34,825 posts)you are such a better person then me, bless your little heart.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)I want no part of.
No problem with common cause as long as long as it is actually a common cause rather than sucking up shit and being told to pretend it is delicious for the benefit of lining wealthy folk's pockets and cutting ourselves off at the knees for a fake ass team that is working against my interests but asking for my money, time, and votes made up of people who claim to have similar or even the same goals but do nothing but mock, make excuses, and spin like a top and when pressed tend to admit they aren't trying to do shit except win a game for the sole purpose of winning the game and will roll on ANYTHING to get that W and will do little more with the prizes than scheme to win again.
Rudderless, amoral, game playing assholes who seem mostly concerned with the same thing the opposition is power and getting someone else to pay taxes.
reACTIONary
(7,162 posts)...playing a game for the sole purpose of winning a game. I don't recall anyone "admitting" to this. I only recall accusations (such as yours) that this is the case. It is simply a smear.
Pragmatists want to win elections because winning elections again and again, over and over is the only way to implement policy and move the country forward. That is what pragmatists want to do.
Personally, I'm not sure that there is a necessary conflict between pragmatists and purists:
- Max Weber from Politics as a Vocation
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I spent too much time listening to various 'moderates' claim to be Pragmatists with one breath, then with the next claim to be deeply religious and getting all their opinions from God. Obama did this Folks who shout about the Sanctity of Marriage for years while claiming to be Pragmatists are folks who are just picking words out of the blue because they think it makes their bigotry and capitulation sound like something high blown when it is just bigotry and capitulation.
So yeah. Faith Based Pragmatists. Who say both 'the result defines the value of actions' and 'God has immuatable laws for human behavior' depending on which bit of rhetorical nonsense sounds best that moment.
The value of the word 'Pragatism' is defined by the results of using the word. The results I see from the use of that word amounts to much confusion, liquidation of actual word meanings, and absolutely nothing of value. The word has been destroyed by misuse, overuse, and use by those who are anything but Pramatists.
Everyone wants to impliment policy via winning elections. That is not the definition of Pragmatism. And you, you are not a Pragmatist from what I see. Another poster most clearly says it is all about winning when asked. Yet you prefer the faith based, fictional version of this thread in which no one said it is all about winning. Faith based, unseen things, we make it up and call it moderate pragmatism....
reACTIONary
(7,162 posts)... strangest locutions I've heard in a long time. "Much confusion, liquidation of actual word meanings, and absolutely nothing of value"... you said it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)conservatism so long as we stop caving into them and we run Progressive Candidates.
What are you willing to give to them now? We gave them their disastrous wars, their HC bill without a PO, we protected them from prosecution for war crimes, and for Wall STreet corruption and crimes? We gave in and spend tax dollars we couldn't afford to bail them out.
We let them privatize Education, HC and now they are aiming for SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
So how much more of the Democratic platform should we sacrifice in order to appease a Party that has twice been trounced in four years?
Don't you think it's time that Republicans began to compromise for a change?
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)disagreeing on any of these issues? I think not. Nor have I ever advocated for privatization of anything. The only thing I have said is that I believe that we can work to effect change in our individual communities by actually talking to others rather than arguing all of the time. This notion that you get cooties from talking to the people in your community who may not agree with you politically is what I consistently respond to. The strident insistence that we are always in full on shout mode is not always constructive. I have found that because I recognize the fact that people need to be brought along, apparently that makes me some kind of traitor to the left regardless the fact that the policies or political stands I take are not unlike your own. I speak from my experiences of dealing with others and what has worked for me.
I personally find it offensive to have those experiences discounted and derided. It gets old and stale. There needs to be some recognition of the fact that not everyone functions in cookie cutter communities nor are we all clones of one another. There also needs to be some recognition that the leadership of parties are not the rank and file of the parties. The rank and file are our neighbors, our families, our coworkers, and our fellow citizens. They are not mortal enemies and can be convinced to change their minds. I have seen it happen many times and not once has it been because people were screaming in each other's faces. You don't get someone to take a step in your direction when you are always setting yourself up to be unapproachable. Intimidation is how the Republicans have done this and it has gotten them where?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)also. There has been a lot of propaganda in this country trying to convince people that progressive ideas are not popular and that the Dem Party needs to swing to the right in order to win. But polls show that this is not the case.
Eg, right now on their website, the Third Way is claiming that they are responsible for the Dems winning in this election. They claim that the Dem Party needed to 'move to the right' on foreign policy and on economics in order to win. Nothing could be further from the truth. People voted for Progressive Dems in spite of the Third Way and the Right because they support progressive policies. They also are responsible for the persistent lie that it was Progressives who lost the 2010 election, despite the fact that Progressive candidates mostly won while it was their own Blue Dogs who lost and that Progressives did vote, it was Independents who stayed home.
To combat the propaganda that Progressive ideas are 'retarded' our side needs to talk about ISSUES rather than always reacting to the right wing propaganda that is so pervasive in this country. If we spent as much time and money talking about how effective Dem policies are instead of always reacting to the negative propaganda, and then fighting among ourselves, we would be far better off.
I also talk to people in the RL and it is amazing sometimes how uninformed many of them are mainly because they have bought into the MSM and Fox trashing of the 'left'. But if you ask them 'do you think we should get rid of SS, Medicare and Medicaid, eg, I have not yet met anyone who wants to do that, right or left.
Dems have not been good at framing the issues for some reason. They are not strong enough on combatting the lies told by Republicans and that leaves people who are not political junkies hearing only one side.
Anyhow, thanks for your comment and sorry if I misunderstood you.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)
Or maybe I did and I just want to fuck with the DLCers.
Either way, Obama is just one big, Meh!
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I prefer to see him as the POTUS and nothing more, not the guy I would most want to have a beer with.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)I am not a liberal. I am a democrat. The radical left calls me "centrist" and accuse me of moving too far to the right. Or some bullshit like that.
democrat does NOT equal liberal. But they have done a good job of making people believe that. A lot of people on DU included.
Im not any more republican, conservative or right wing than the OP, but I also acknowledge reality. The radical left is not helping anything or anyone.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And sometimes it has made for some strange bedfellows. But the fact of the matter is that by any objective standard, the Democratic party has moved far to the right over the past forty years, so far that what used to pass for Eisenhower Republicanism is now considered to be Obama Democratic. Sorry, but I simply can't stand still for that.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)DURec, because I haven't changed.
The New Democrat Centrist Party has.
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center]
[/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)...it's as goofy and extreme as right wingers who call us commies for things like single payer.
union_maid
(3,502 posts)The word "pure" is often used by those who know there is an oppositon which must be contended with whether we like it or not. Nothing goofy about calling people who would leave us with nothing if they can't get single payer "purists", because that's a pretty nice word for what they are in my opinion.
Liberal1975
(87 posts)First of all I agree with the basic premise that we cannot give ground on Medicare and Social Security. And I also agree that the Democratic party has moved too much the center (or the right).
However before we create a false history of the liberal movement in this country let's put some stuff in perspective. The Democratic party has not always been a "large tent" until Kennedy and LBJ enforced Brown v Board of Education the south was as democratic as it is republican now, maybe it means the tent was bigger but it sure had a lot of racists in it! In the same vein the labor movement in the rust belt began to weaken when African American workers migrated from the south and started joining the labor movement, giving the anti labor elements a classic wedge issue which was used expertly by both Nixon and Reagan.
Reagan used this to con blue collar workers into believing the Democratic party had abandoned the interests of the white working class in favor of the interests of minorities in the inner cities, the "Cadillac Welfare Queen" was as much a dog whistle for white blue collar workers as it was for racist southerners.
He could not have won, without support from the rust belt, especially as demographics stood then. The people abandoned the Democratic party before the party abandoned you and me.
Let's not forget Carter won in 1976 because of the gigantic scandal that was Watergate, as the 1972 election demonstrated the Republicans had already managed to turn white blue collar union workers against the party. 1976 was not a victory for Carter as much as a repudiation of Nixon.
Now we have a unique opportunity I think of truly uniting as the people regardless of race, sexual orientation or age. This is a coalition that would have been impossible to solidify in this way in 1976.
So what we need to do is educate those around us so that we can go back to the progressive principals as ALL the people. Not just the white, straight and Christian people that made up the bulk of both parties in the heyday of the labor movement and the New Deal. Just my two cents.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)call "purity" I call "Convictions." It's a hard concept for those who walk to the negotiating table with their dicks in their hands all ready and eager to give away OTHER PEOPLE'S rights.
union_maid
(3,502 posts)I'd bet that more than half, and maybe most, of the people objecting to the purists on this board are not objecting to their positions so much as their tendency to demonize any elected official who compromises no matter what the reason. The other side does have some cards to play and always has. The fact that the good guys haven't won every battle doesn't mean it's always a betrayal. Personally, I'd like a social democracy. Screaming that Democrats suck has not moved us an iota closer to that. OWS, I believe, has helped move the dialogue to the left, but that's because their anger, or at least the most public face of it, was aimed right where it belonged.
I could not abide the Nader apologists because they loved costing Gore an election, even though afterward they would not take any responsibility for what they'd done. That's purity in its most destructive form. It cost thousands and thousands of lives and moved the country to a place where we could not even recognize ourselves. Nice going.
Right now, I'm sick at the rhetoric that's being leveled at President Obama here on this board. I can't even find the words. After what the Republicans put him through from the day after his inauguration until now, you'd think you'd have his back, but there is so much of this superior tone. Like you're better than him? In your wildest dreams. We are so lucky to have him and you don't have a freaking clue.
And please don't call yourselves "the liberals". You're not the only liberals here. Most of us are liberals. The difference is whether you're a person who sees the Democratic party as the best vehicle to move forward or whether you don't. We are trying to learn from the past for the most part. We know we're in a good moment, but that can turn on a dime. And you know what? It's hard to be sure that "liberal" is the right term for people who reserve most of their criticism for Democrats and hardly bother to comment on the culpability of Republicans. I noticed that with Nader and it's still true among the very pure today.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Why do we always compromise in a way that hurts the poor and the middle class? Why don't we try compromising with the racists or the homophobes or the misogynists?
Oh right. Because there's no money in that. If there was they'd be on the table too.
Edited to add: And I'm not even talking about Obama. He's actually been kind of impressive lately. Especially opposing the Right to Work for Less laws.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)(at least on DU) that everything gets boiled down to, "I'm THE real Democrat!" "No, I AM!" "No, it's ME!"
Add in the "I'm more progressiver than you are," BS, along with "No, I'm the progressivest!"
(Spell check just went into seizures).
The Democratic party has always been a Big Tent - that's part of its problem, and part of its allure. It is a party that consists of people - people whose principles might greatly differ one from to the next, whose goals may differ in terms of priority, whose voice is made up of the many, not the few who self-proclaim as being more "pure" in their party affiliation than those who disagree with them on any number of issues.
There never was a Camelot. There never was a time when all Democrats held exactly the same principles, the same aims, the same thoughts on how best to go where we, as a party, want/need to go. It is our diversity that lends strength to our purpose; it is our differences that lead the way to compromise (which has become a dirty word for some, instead of being what it is - a way of dealing with those who oppose our ideals and our ideas).
This notion that the party has been moved to the right is ridiculous. The repeal of DADT, the implementation of the ACA, the president standing up for marriage equality - these are not RW ideas. They are Democratic ideas, and our perseverance as a party has led the way - and will continue to do so.
It is a consistent theme among certain posters here that they are somehow 'more pure' in their ideology than others. They point to that non-existent Camelot where all Democrats were on the same page, and the Party's 'principles' were held as sacrosanct. In truth, the party's principles have often changed as the times changed; priorities shift, old unworkable ideas are abandoned, and replaced with new criteria - just as the nation, and the world, changes around us.
We Democrats have adapted to that change - the GOP, for the most part, has not. And we've seen where that has led them. And it's not a place I want to go.
I am particularly tired of the persecution complex that many here have wrapped themselves in: "As a far-leftist, I have been abandoned by the party. My voice is never heeded. I am being ignored." Well, maybe certain voices are not being heard because they're too busy whining about what shoulda been/coulda been, instead of contributing to what IS right now - and not what supposedly existed once upon a time.
Maybe if those of which I speak stopped dismissing anyone they believe to be lower than them on the 'purity' scale and actually listened to what others in their party have to say, they just might discover (oh, my!) that theirs is not the only opinion (one they seem to believe should be held in some kind of myth-based esteem), and theirs is not the only course to be considered as a valid way of achieving the party's ultimate goals.
While I am probably far to the left of many Democrats, I welcome the voices of the many. There are things to be considered as emanating from both ends of the spectrum, and few of them are totally out of sync with each other. But dismissing those who don't agree with the self-proclaimed "real Democrats" is not only childish, it is divisive and counter-productive.
Those who adhere to the true principles of the Democratic Party are those who embrace ALL, not the few who agree with them. Viewing the political world as it IS - and not as some wish it to be, or as it allegedly was in their own mind - makes positive change not only possible, but inevitable.
If you truly feel that the Party has abandoned you, maybe it has - for very good reason. Maybe, just maybe, the rest of us have moved on to deal with reality, instead of joining you in mourning the death of something you have conjured up in your own head, and take such obvious pleasure in using as a yardstick by which to measure your fellow party members in order to find them wanting.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Does that mean I have to embrace NAFTA, the '96 Telecom Act, Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist, NDAA, Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, ongoing, omnipresent war, cutting our civil liberties due to terra or drugs or whatever the latest bogeyman is being foisted upon us to cut back on our civil liberties? Do I have to embrace all of those Democratic policies and people, even though it is painfully obvious that those policies and people are a danger to myself and this country?
Sorry, I don't have arms large enough to embrace what I know to be so wrong.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)that's exactly what I said. Right?
Why does listening to those whose opinions differ from your own translate to 'embracing' anyone, or anything?
But have it your own way. Maybe someday you'll find that perfect party whose every elected representative is perfect, whose every member agrees with you and/or defers to your greater wisdom, and whose every policy and action is in complete harmony with your viewpoint, without regard to anyone's opinion - other than yours.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)can't be expected to pay their fair share!
The Third Way, lol, for some reason the very mention of this wing of the Democratic Party drives a few people on DU into a frenzy, but as we all know, the Third Way crept under the Big Tent a while ago and are now, as they say on their website, very proud of the influence they have on the Dem Party.
Going to be lots of discussion about The Third Way's influence on the party over the next number of years.
They really do hate Liberals because Liberal policies force their Wall Street backers to make sure this country's wealth is shared by all of its people.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)We just won a huge victory on 11/06/12 and now DU seems to be reverting back to dividing itself and each other over ideology and who is the most "pure" Democrat out here and back to trashing the Democratic Party in general for it's increasingly "right-wing lurch", which seems like a weird statement IMHO considering that within the past 4 years, the Democratic Party and it's party's leader has finally "evolved" on gay marriage and now supports FULL marriage equality and is even refusing to continue supporting DOMA in the courts, Democrats eliminated the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the armed forces, Democrats are broadly favor of taxing the wealthy while ensuring lower income taxes for middle- and lower-class folks, and they pushed for and set us on the road to comprehensive health care reform in this country. Perfect on every front? No. But what party is? I don't agree with everything President Obama has done and the Democratic Party has its share of douchebags too but I'd still want them (Democrats) being the ones writing and enforcing the laws and nominating the judges, etc. any day of the week over the Republicans, which is why I'll pretty much vote for any candidate for public office with a "D" beside their name. I don't know how prevalent it is here on DU or elsewhere but I don't like to hear people bash fellow Democrats from the left anymore than I like to hear people bash fellow Democrats from the right. We're all supposed to be in it together against the Mad Republican Tea Party. Let's not lose sight of that.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)quite a long time ago.
And how long y'all been workin' for Mr. Drysdale?
Milburn Drysdale, Bank President, with Ms. Hathaway, servile underling of Bank President Drysdale,
Bevely Hills Bank of Commerce:
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Them new fangled Label-Makers can print out pictures and everythin' nowadays!
Order now while supplies last! The Label-Maker 3000 can spew out labels that read Third Wayer! Conservadem! Republican-lite! as fast as you can say, "Hey! You don't agree with me, so I'm going to stick a label on you!"
Fun for kids from six to twelve! No experience (or thought processes) necessary!
If you act now, we will throw in our state-of-the-art Strawman Synthesizer Kit and our handy booklet, "How to Pretend You Know What You're Talking About on Political Websites!"
Operators are standing by. Please have your credit card ready.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts) Dyedinthewoolliberal
(16,211 posts)Right the fuck on!!!!!!!!!!!!!
leftlibdem420
(256 posts)1. Generally speaking, don't be a bigot or an enabler of bigotry.
2. Do not support any unjust laws.
3. Any restriction on personal or economic freedom must occur only insofar as it is necessary to fulfil some collective goal. Restrictions arbitrarily rooted in moral hygiene or in attempts to limit the freedoms of others in the pursuit of a private goal do not aspire to this standard and are illegitimate even where they have force of law.
4. All human citizens are equal before the law. Corporations are neither human nor persons.
5. No law shall ever be passed for the purposes of furthering the aims of the 1% unless the rest of us either benefit or are unaffected by said law.
6. Legitimate governments are those which are elected via universal suffrage using free, fair, and representative electoral systems. Their authority must be checked by both the constitution which governs them as well as the people which they govern.
7. All people are equal before the law. That equality must never be undermined by wealth, status, or privilege.
There's a lot of other stuff I believe that is not fundamental to social liberalism. My interpretation is obviously quite Rawlsian.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Thank you.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Resonance_Chamber
(142 posts)say that the Democratic Party with each passing year becomes more and more of a corporate party no longer interested in working people.
Even some people here on DU proudly post how they undermine workers evey single day.
If you refuse to have your working brothers and sisters back you are in effect stabbing them in the back.
Sad, very sad.
reteachinwi
(579 posts)When I would mentor young teachers experiencing the frustrations of the profession I would say "It's right to expect a lot from the students. It's also right to accept what you get as results." We got Obama. He is preferable to messers(sp) Romney and Ryan. I don't like NDAA, Arne Duncan, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, ACA(Medicare for all?), the below lukewarm support for labor, and the list goes on. As I would say to my men tees;"So, young lady(lad), once more into the breech, the battle is on, the balance uncertain, the outcome depends on YOU." Away we go!
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I'm moderate myself but appreciate your integrity and knowledge of the issues you're passionate about.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Which is why I clicked the recommend button so fast it made my keyboard flop.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Couldn't agree more. It's very discouraging to not only not see advancement of classically popular Democratic programs but the slow dismantling of them. I'm all for pragmatism, but not at the expense of what so many fought and suffered to advance and protect. And certainly not for the benefit of the investor class who are more likely to make deals with drug cartels and Iran than struggling Americans.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)The people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, indeed our entire country, now suffer from Santayana's warning.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
Continue reading at NowPublic.com: "Those who misquote George Santayana are condemned to paraphrase him." | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/those-who-misquote-george-santayana-are-condemned-paraphrase-him#ixzz2Etn31Mps
& Rec !!!
CrispyQ
(40,969 posts)I printed the platform out yesterday & read it last night. Thank you for posting. I used it as ammo in a letter to my senators & rep this morning.