General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo any of you disagree that STRONG support for a Progressive would move our party left?
Do any of you disagree that ignoring that most serious advocate for economic and social justice can only underscore the message that even the Democratic voters doesn't actually care that much as long as it is a Dem? (And will therefore have the opposite effect).
We have SEEN how the Right Wing has moved consistently to the right by amplifying their right wing voices through an ever-increasing ramping up of advocacy candidates (you know, the ones we know are nuts). In return, we have seen their more astute politicians moving to match that in order to stay alive with their base.
Why not the same for the Left? Don't we need to show our advocacy of Progressive and Liberal policies through our support?
What am I missing here? It seems very clear.
blm
(112,920 posts)I'm pragmatic like that. ; )
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Bernie is trying to push the money issue about Hillary, it will not sway her supporters. We knew the Clintons has amassed much since Bill left office. Do I care this hard working couple has done so well, hell no, I look at her qualifications. Bernie is running around "the money, the Money", only his base is listening.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I think most people -if not all- would agree to the statement that Bernie Sanders is perceived as more "out there" on the left fringe. Even if you disagree, you may agree that it is the generally accepted perception.
As such, advocacy for him would still send the stronger signal of support for the left.
Am I wrong in this?
Also, I don't think they are even saying the same thing. Bernie for example has never made any apologies for necessary military intervention, drones. He is outspoken against the TPP, money in politics, etc.
I don't see them as being equivalent in either words or actions. Do you really?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)In handling national security. BTW, I have not seen an apology from Bernie on this vote either. A president has to handle all issues not just a few they are interested in changing. Do I want the candidates pulled further left, no that is not where we need to go.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I'm glad to get that out in the open.
I suppose if that is how you feel, there is no way we will ever agree on a candidate and further discussion would be pointless.
Still, it is good to be open about such things.
So thanks for your honesty.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Tell us... how has giving weapons to shadowy groups worked out for us in the past?
Or like the TPP, will it really work this time, honest?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Regardless of what Hillary says when she campaigns, it's clear Bernie has devoted his life to the 99% and also clear that he lives his life accordingly.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Now that you claim they are basically the same as Hillary's, are you saying you disagree with ALL of Hillary's positions?
I am not criticizing the Clintons for making money. I, and other Sanders supporters are criticizing the corporate relationships the Clinton's have fostered over their time in politics.
Sander's contributors are unions and teachers. Clinton's are Wall Street executives and media monopolies.
Sander's economic policies are decidedly in line with FDR and the New Deal. Clinton's policies are decidedly Neo-Liberal and in line with the Third Way/DLC.
Sander's foreign policies are decidedly anti-war and non-interventionist. Clinton's policies are decidedly Neo-Conservative and closely aligned with PNAC.
The only place where their policies and positions overlap and are the same are in social issues. Both are for civil rights, equal rights for women, gay marriage, etc. And even then, Clinton has had to evolve in several areas where Sanders was to begin with.
To preach, that they are somehow the same is disingenuous. To preach that it is only about them making money is specious.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Plus, Bernie has the record to show he practices what he preaches. And he's on fire when he does.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)see his 12 important initiatives. Where are HRC's stands on issues like the TPP and fracking?
You claim that the two candidates are same basic thing. Nothing could be more wrong. The do agree on some social issues, but some issues she is not making a commitment. And for some things like regulating the banks, they couldn't be farther apart. Sen Sanders wants to control the big banks that blackmailed us into paying them $1 trillion dollars in 2008. Clinton tells the banksters at one of her paid speeches, that bashing the banks was unproductive and foolish.
You seem to be promulgating the new anti-Sanders meme about him "push the money issue about Hillary." I don't believe that is true. I think it's a meme made up by the anti-Sanders group. Do you have a quote?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)they are saying the "same basic thing"?
How exactly does that work?
You don't want the party to move further left (your words). Do you think Bernie would pull the Party further left? Would Hillary?
If those answers are different, then they aren't for the same basic things. But, I think you know that.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Both of these candidates are talking about the amount of money allowed in campaigns. They are talking about wages, jobs, healthcare, and income inequality.
In my opinion going left in the party will not work, extremes doesn't really work. We see how the TP is working or not working, there are more people in the middle areas than on the fringes.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I don't believe that so I definitely DO favor one over the other.
Your point that they are talking about the same things is meaningless if you don't believe they are truly for the same things.
So, again, since you don't think the Party should go to the left:
Do you think Bernie would pull the Party to the left?
Do you think Hillary would pull the Party to the left?
Would love an answer to those questions. For the record, I don't think Hillary would pull the Party to the left, but I do think Bernie would. A truly outrageous opinion I'm sure. Do you agree?
Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Don't tiptoe around your beliefs.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)They are both talking about the same issues as I stated, the are basic issues and important in the DNC platform.
Perhaps you missed when I said I do not want the DNC to go further left, Hillary is about as far left as I want.
I have answered your question, its over.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)We both know that's not true it seems.
That's all I wanted from you so thank you.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I have stated now for the third time I do not want the party to go further left. why are you badgering me?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions with your initial post.
It ultimately doesn't matter though.
We'll always have social issues!!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Perhaps you didn't understand the questions that I was asking. Ultimately, as I said, it doesn't really matter does it?
P.S. I will NEVER put you on ignore. Ever.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)"Nobody likes an underdog" ~ Don Sutherland in Hunger Games
Never-the-less I'm fully supporting Bernie Sanders for POTUS.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Pay no attention. A transplant from Yankees territory to Red Sox Nation is making a silly joke with no intent to lead a valuable discussion astray. Please just ignore it.
eloydude
(376 posts)Because triangulation is not going to work in this current environment.
It's time to get a fresh direction from the status quo.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)We are a hopelessly divided electorate in many ways and I think only by pushing (pilling?) HARD on the left can we have any hope of moving the center back to the left direction.
It has moved right ever since Clinton -not because HE was right, but because he was too centrist and was DEFINED by the other party as LEFT. That had the net effect of redefining the center as the left and thus moving the goalposts to the right.
We need to correct the common misperception that what is centrist is left. It isn't. Left is anti-war, pro-Union, anti-guns, pro-living wage, pro-woman's, gay rights, pro- universal health care etc, etc.
It is NOT compromise. Compromise is what may be achieved after tooth and nail fighting for the left but starting in the middle is not being a Progressive.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I don't care what lip service is or is not paid to that. Some of the most vocal posters do NOT want it moved left.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked
The motive may not be salary per se. It may be a job, a tax rate or some other kind of economic interest. It may be a genuine, albeit mistaken,* belief that only centrists can win elections and LOTE is better than nothing. But something is certainly driving a contingent of posters--and it's not a desire to have the Party "get back to where it once belonged," to adapt a lyric.
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)There are some very wealthy Democrats who may be focused on social issues only and really do not see the importance of it coming ALONG with economic justice, I suppose.
blm
(112,920 posts)And some here who even worked with party establishment. They don't hide their point of view.
They don't match up exactly with mine, but, since I'm one of the heavy lifters doing GOTV in a swing state I appreciate that they are still ON the left in the voting booth.
And, yes, any time the general candidate begins using the language of the further left candidate and they come to some solidarity in their positions, then it is good for the entire party. Historically, that is what usually happens when one drops out and negotiates the endorsement of the other.
Is anyone even surprised this occurs?
Must be a young crowd. ; )
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Just strike that "I suppose" and you'll be on the money.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You can't be a liberal or progressive and not get behind Bernie. He is the obvious choice if you are liberal or progressive and want someone to take up your cause.
merrily
(45,251 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Sure you can -- if you think he can't beat the Rethug in the general. Then you should vote for the person you think can.
But it's too early to know. We'll see how he does in the primaries.
onecaliberal
(32,486 posts)"Why not the same for the Left? Don't we need to show our advocacy of Progressive and Liberal policies through our support?"
Indeed we do. That's why I'm for Bernie.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)and lost the Senate and the House by more seats - the States that had Obama's politics on the referendums showed that the people voted for them. Increasing minimum wage was one, and I forget the other...
So yes, we should have any Dems on any TV interviews give the left viewpoints. It can't hurt.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Also, poll after poll for years has shown Americans lean left on issue after issue, especially if the propaganda machine has not yet convinced them otherwise as to a given issue.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036
TM99
(8,352 posts)Moderate business oriented Republicans were not forced to the right by their extreme right voters and constituents. They were replaced. First the Christian right muzzled in. Goldwater warned against them in the late 1960's. Then the Tea Party, which is really nothing more than Randian libertarianism finished the job. Moderate conservatives in the vein of Eisenhower and Roosevelt were driven from the party or are now so in the minority that they hold no sway over policy or positions.
The same is now happening to the Democratic party. As the GOP lurched extremely right, Clinton's centrist DLC triangulation allowed moderate conservatism (with socially liberal positions) to dominate the Democratic party. And with each election since then of Democrats on all levels of government, fewer and fewer FDR Democrats are being voted for or even heard.
Sanders is consider fringe today. When I was growing up in a moderate Republican household, he would have been considered a distinguished FDR Democratic opponent. He would not have been seen as an extremist or fringe element in the Democratic Party.
There is no way that the Democratic Party can return to the FDR liberal position until the DLC neoliberalism is defeated on a local and national level. Sanders running will not push Clinton to the left. It is impossible. She is already 'left' on social issues just like he, but she will not abandon nor will the national party at this point abandon the neo-liberal economic policies started under Clinton and expanded under Obama or the neo-conservative foreign policy first accepted under Clinton and then fully embraced by Obama.
Sadly, support alone for a progressive, unless it is the progressive winning this election cycle, will not move this party to the left.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)traditional base = unions.
That is the only hope I can see for serious leverage.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We need Sen Sanders to break open the DLC lock on our party. The Third Way need their own party.
TM99
(8,352 posts)The DLC is not concerned with unions and have worked now for over 30 years to crush them. It started with Clinton and NAFTA, it has expanded with Obama and Arne Duncan and his lies about 'putting on his soft shoes', and it will continue as long as Obama and Clinton can push through the TPP.
They will say whatever is necessary to get elected by the base, but turn on the base at the drop of a dime.
I agree with Rhett. The only way to stop them is to remove them from office.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)You even say so in your post.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)If so, of course.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)But the Republicans win by winning local stuff. ALEC was an extremely clever and successful approach. It's worked so well that after gerrymandering two times in two decades, they have almost complete control of local politics.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Look, we've already told you people that we'll fight hard for the crap you Leftys care about. Doing good stuff for people is the very cornerstone of our campaign, for chrissakes.
I don't see how it could get any better than that.
Regards,
TWM
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)record of progressive advocacy and action.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Nuff said, I think.
TM99
(8,352 posts)does not make one a progressive overall.
Please give me advocacy and action that HRC has done that progressive in economic policies and foreign policies?
Because if we are just talking social issues, HRC and Sanders have both been strong advocates there for decades. What distinguishes them in economic and foreign policy issues is what is at stake now.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Mainstream, I think.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I was trying to be gracious.
I do believe she is sincere to a point when she is pushing strongly for civil rights and equal rights, however, she has lagged behind on some social issues like gay marriage.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I want the best Dem we have to offer to lead our nation as President.
certainot
(9,090 posts)until they realize the big factor the last 25 yrs is rw radio.
you can support all you want but they have 1000 coordinated radio stations and ignoring that fact, like the left does studiously, is truly idiotic and the worst political mistake in history
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)The Tea Party was able to influence their party by working at the local level, so they won a number of seats in the House and eventually Presidential candidates emerged. People here focus only on the presidency because they are looking for an entertainer in chief, someone who expresses their anger. If Sanders should become president, they'll turn on him in a NY minute because what he could change is very limited when congress and campaign finance remains the same. Here people don't want to talk about public financing. They insist the issue of money in politics is a DCL plot to distract from Hillary Clinton. They don't care about changing the system and certainly aren't willing to do anything to bring about change. In fact, some boast about writing four figure checks.
So no, nothing will change because people refuse to think about anything other than the next political messiah they insist will fulfill all their dreams. Of course he can't because the Presidency is a constitutional office with limited powers. Sanders like Obama would be limited by what he can accomplish by executive order.
Then there is the fact that all people here talk about is moving the country "left" as though that means anything. How is a label an agenda for reform? It isn't. More than a few people here advance a narrow middle- and upper-middle class white male agenda and insist that is "left" while issues that affect the majority of Americans are "social" and therefore inferior. It's become clear to me that a certain contingency is engaged in the noble struggle of the upper 10 percent vs. the 1%, and they will turn around and insult and demean anyone who doesn't sublimate their own interests for their betters.
So, in sum, to have an influence people would have to: 1) focus on electoral politics beyond the presidency
2) Develop issues to organize around; 3) Find a way to resist insulting those less privileged than themselves as aligned with Goldman Sachs and the 1 percent because they have the nerve to care about issues much of this white upper-middle class ignores.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I find myself in strong agreement with your first two paragraphs. Certainly with the gerrymandering and the focus on local elections, Republicans have cleverly entrenched themselves and were able to make bureaucratic changes that have made it easier to affect reforms in line with their agenda and I agree we must do the same. You are right that focusing on the presidency is a mistake and I thank you for that reminder.
However, wrt the term "left" meaning nothing, that is both true and not true. Like all words, it is meant to signify something and if the term has been watered down, we have politics, willful misdirection and bloviating all over the internet to thank for that. But it still means something to me and that includes, of necessity, a focus on economic equality (wealth distribution), and the very social issues that you are trying to say are being "peeled off" by the "top 10% vs. 1%".
I certainly do not think social issues are inferior in the least, although I do think that they are used somewhat cynically by some politicians as soon as it becomes clear that they are "safe" enough such as the relatively recent conversion on Gay rights by some D-named pols, etc. Economic redistribution is a much more dangerous position to take because it cuts across party lines. While all Dems will overwhelmingly agree that Gay rights and equal pay for women are the 100% right thing to do, when you start to advocate for serious economic reform and changing tax structures, THAT is when you put yourself in hot water with the wealthy of your own party. It is for that reason that I admire Sanders and feel gun-shy about the Clintons and their big money support.
So to sum up on my side, I agree with your summation 1 and 2, but your 3 seems strange to me. Because it appears to be the safe social issues that all Dems agree with but the rather cowardly adherence to the Wall street corporacracy supporting most of the inequality (social and economic -which I do not think as different as you seem to suggest).
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, yeah, I'm not sure that extremists (not that Sanders is particularly "extreme"; I think both his opponents and supporters are kind of seeing what they want to see there) actually effectively move parties in their direction.
I could easily imagine a situation in which a candidate who has the party's left locked up pushes the "establishment" candidate to tack to the center in the primaries to pick up the disaffected centrists.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 11:03 AM - Edit history (1)
That is why it is a source of conflict.
The next Democratic President can move the Party (and nation) left if that President can enact major changes in fiscal and national policy.
Those changes in policy will only happen if we control the legislative agenda in Congress.
The ACA happened only because Obama was backed by Democrats in control of the House and Senate.
So I disagree with your premise because a "Progressive" in the White House will be limited to executive orders if he or she does not have the backing of Congress to pass law. If Republicans maintain control of the Senate, I suspect that attempting to place a Treasury Secretary much different than the one we have now will never be approved.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Otherwise, the party goes into longer term "tell the liberals to keep quiet" mode