Mustn't we reevaluate our party since it is is going through a right wing realignment?

[Dragonfli]

And has successfully been doing so since the founding of the DLC

The entire goal of the neoliberal, "new" Democrat movement, under Al From and the Clintons (and all the other "new Democrats" AKA "Third Way" Democrats) has been since at least the 80's, to court and bring into the fold moderate Republicans, replacing the working class voters with them.

They refer to the RW takeover of the party as an "intellectual leveraged buyout" And history shows they DID take over the party.

My suggested most current reading on the subject would be Thomas Frank's new book, Listen, Liberal – or – What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?


[center][font size="4"; color="B22222"]If Sanders does not bring the party back, one must realize they will complete the realignment[/font][/center]

It may well likely be too late to reclaim the party from within if he fails, so we must consider all viable options in order to keep a party of the people, not an easy task, which is why Bernie Sanders calls such a task a political revolution. That is not hyperbole but honesty.

If true liberal ideals, a moral economy, and an equal society that grows beyond bigotry in all it's forms is to ever be achievable again, let alone in time to stop the demise of many species including our own. It will be nearly impossible by the method we had hoped for, that is, by saving the party from it's complete makeover and thus reclaiming it because in a few years such will no longer be a viable option. Let me explain if I might.

Those that vote for hawkish Neo-Liberals such as Clinton are not in denial, they are simply not at all like the Democrats of the pre "intellectual leveraged buyout of the Party" by the Koch funded DLC, beginning before, but put actively into legislative practice by William J. Clinton and his DLC allies with the assist of Newt Gingrich beginning in 1992 (Welfare destruction, deregulation and tough on mostly minority crime bills) were passed with a purpose, one that continues unto our present day.

They are indeed not in denial or uneducated politically as some may assume, but rather they are like the candidates they support, neo-liberals. Some are also even neocons as well, much like Hillary Clinton.

Many of us call these sort of voters limousine liberals, or latte' liberals but they are something else (more accurate and less derogatory).

I have understood this a long time, most are comfortable financially (not necessarily rich yet many are) but able to always pay their bills, save for retirement, usually live in the 'burbs and own at least two cars (plus a starter car for their teenage child old enough to drive).

They like to consider themselves politically correct, believe in equality just enough to support it verbally and feel "evolved" (while thinking they deserve a badge for doing so) but would never put themselves in harms way for the rights and equality that sound as good to them coming out of their mouths as their own flatulence smells to them coming out of their own asses (they detect a whiff of roses when they breath it in). It becomes hard to ignore that such declarations, formed of methane as they are, are meaningless slogans, with little action to support such claims of "equal rights".

They ARE moderate Republicans (like the ones that no longer exist outside the Democratic party), I remember back when most Republicans were sane and many (certainly not the Goldwater or John Birch types though) believed in civil rights, choice and other equality issues, they were different in that they believed in Republican fiscal values, the old bootstrap philosophy made popular by Ayn Rand (even if the Democratic version would never admit it).

The party is going through a realignment, as parties do over the course of decades, (just as the Republican Party once was the anti-slavery party but have been quite the opposite for a long time now) - The Democratic party is changing into the moderate Republican party of my childhood (except they are far more hawkish than the old Rs used to be). There is no more room for the new Deal, The Great Society, or the working class in this newly realigning party.

The Republicans have also been going through a realignment during the same 35 year period as ours has. One of the reasons one no longer finds Moderate Republicans in the Republican Party, but only in ours, under their new (D) banner. Their realignment has already turned them into the modern equivalent of the John Birch Society wackos of old, but they are not finished yet, just as we are not finished yet.

Once the Realignments of the parties are complete, ours will be fully Republican, with no vestige of economic morality left, even in the "fringe" that was once the heart of the party. The Republicans in their completion will be the Fascist US party (they of course like the brand name they already have, Republican sounds so much like a "Republic" (a form of representative democracy this country was first created to be, and if one believes the bullshit group psychosis still is), so they will never call themselves Fascists.

I suppose the question to the average Citizen is, do you want to be-
A Republican (under a new brand name)?
A Fascist (under a new brand name)?

Or hope the worst of the newly realigned parties self destructs, leaving room in our two party system for some form of labor party like the Democratic party once was (perhaps the Democratic party itself), with a deep belief as well in full equality for all of us and a livable, for our type of mammal, biosphere. (personalty I hope the one turning fascist is the one that self destructs, but that is just me). If/when such, which now appears inevitable, happens, perhaps it will leave the Neoliberal/ Neocon coalition as the party occupying the newly opened space in our two party system to grow in greed and corporate acquiescence, while attempting to promote coups and wars worldwide.

If not, it will leave an open space for those that are not global corporatists and war seeking profiteers to reclaim a newly formed labor party, Those of us so much like the pre 80's Democratic party of Social Democracy made popular for and by the working class and which would again welcome a New Deal, Great Society, Civil Liberty, war on Poverty, and green initiative style of governance that used to hold the spot now held by these "New" Democrats, these "Moderate" Republicans that have taken to wearing those itchy Democratic suits ever since they took over the party of the people and turned it into the party of Corporations, Banks, And war that relies on poverty as the fuel for it's new gilded age dripping with the blood of innocents.

Ours has to be more than a labor party, but it must be that and more, it must also include equality and unity for moral reasons of course, but also for a very pragmatic reason. We need to repair a biosphere so terribly damaged that it will take (all hands on deck in unity) if it is to matter enough, and in time, so that it may continue supporting our form of life rather than succumbing to yet another series of ELEs That will leave our earth very, different and without our species - to have yet another go at continuing it's varying evolution experiments among the remaining species to suit the new environment.

I only ask that you give this perspective some thought, and come to your own conclusions

[CrowCityDem]

1. Hillary and the DNC are not right wing. They are more moderate than you like, that's all.

[Armstead]

3. Aiding and abetting the ongoing power grab of Wall St and Corporate Monopolists is not moderate

[Ferd Berfel]

38. Well Said!

it is not moderate Democratic, it is right wing Republican.

Wall Street IS NOT a friend to the Poor and Middle Class.

To push that lie is Orwellian at best. Right Wing propaganda is more to the point.

If the poor and Middle-class are not your focus, you are not a Democrat.

[Baobab]

44. If allowing the people to decide is a CHANGE that reduces profits it may beforbidden by trade policy

Its possible that the "right to regulate" in many areas (such as health care and educational services - as well as apparently explicitly clear that the right to regulate in health insurance may already have been intended to have been given away (however its not clear if any countries are entitled to compensation yet but this is likely to change very soon!!! and become a property right that has 'vested' under current international trade regulatory structures- What is meant by "may have vested"? that would mean that an event which transfered the property (the right to regulate0 to its new owners may have already have occurred.

If so, reverting to the previous state (democracy) would be a event that requires compensatory action by the people to compensate corporations for their lost expected profits unless it could be proven that the Administrations who may have initiated the transfer were operating outside of their powers.

If indeed that is the case it would behoove the nation to immediately initiate proceedings to recover the lost "property" namely "the right to regulate".

One way to attempt to hedge our bets would be to do what the Europeans are doing and attempt to insert such a clause into newer trade agreements despite the opposition of the United States.

If that is not already the case now it certainly will be after TPP is signed during the lame duck session.

Since the compensation is based on lost EXPECTED profits, ignoring any probable future economic crashes it would likely be so astronomical as to cause one.

[Ferd Berfel]

90. If TPP is enacted

everything will be subservient to corporate profits - everything.

[LanternWaste]

41. And bumper-stickers filled with the flavor-of-the-day pejoratives are not arguments.

And bumper-stickers filled with the flavor-of-the-day pejoratives are not arguments.

Though no doubt, someone will pretend it is.

[Armstead]

43. Not the flavor of the day

It's been a core issue since 1980, and made worse by the Clinton's and their ilk since 1992

[whatthehey]

154. And yet funnily enough

This Pre-DLC DINO Corporatist Oligarchic Clintonite Bankster 1976 Dem Party platform reads remarkably akin to our current version, replete with concern for free trade, reducing regulatory and bureaucratic overreach, ok with gun ownership, etc. Both rail against much the same evils.

It's a bit stronger to the left on health care (I wish they'd have carried out those promises), a bit more explicitly pro-union, but a fair bit more rightward on welfare, positing a must-work-for-welfare scenario that draws aghast comparisons to slavery whenever raised on DU these days. I've attached both links for comparison.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29606

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[Armstead]

155. The 70's were a mess and the Democrats were trying to figure out what to be

1976 was probably the years when it started the right turn...But it went into hyper-drive in the 80's and 90's

I worked in the primary for Sen. Fred Harris, who was the Bernie Sanders of that year....And for the same reasons, so it is a bit of deja vu

[whatthehey]

156. So ok Clinton's didn't start it. When should we grab the platform of the *real* Dem party?

Sorry but I don't want to rely on memories, mine included. Where is the firebreathing liberal progressive standard from which we have fallen proudly communicated by the Democratic Party speaking officially for itself?

The Reps I agree certainly have fallen. Shorn of religious puffery, I could get behind Eisenhower's Republican platform myself, on economics at least (nobody in the 50s was pushing much social liberalism). I've scanned a few Dem versions and I just haven't come across this glory day of progressive purity yet. Certainly nothing that shows the Clintons or DLC created some massive sea change in what the party wanted. Messaging, yep albeit I'm relying on that memory thing there admittedly, but that messaging gained us the WH. Official stances? Not a huge move.

[Armstead]

157. There never was a Golden Era....But on balance the Dems had more principles

I don't want to convey false nostalgia. Democrats have always had a mixed platform, and most politicians, including the great ones, had feet of clay. And they were products of their time.

But on balance I'd take the approach of the old Democratic Party when it did stand for many liberal principles and fought for them. LBJ, well you know Vietnam...But he also pushed the War on Poverty/Great Society/Civil Rights agenda, and did a lot of good things that would be scoffed at today as "ponies.'

Carter was ineffectual in some ways, and a little too conservative on certain economic issues -- but he was a thoroughly decent man who tried to bring integrity to foreign policy and the behavior of politics and government. He didn't get in bed with the oligarchs to make bug bucks.

Truman dropped the Big One. But he also fought for a lot of liberal things.

Humphrey got tarred in his later years for his association with Johnson and the war. But he was also a fighter for civil rights back before it was given much thought, and he also championed a lot of good liberal causes.

Frankly IMO the problem today is not that there are no good Democratic leaders. But too many have the feet of clay rather than the strengths of past leaders. It has lost its compass, and has jettisoned too many of the positive elements of the past.

[whatthehey]

158. And Clinton and Obama likewise

They are far more socially liberal than any of those you listed in their presidencies or campaigns. Carter didn't extend same sex domestic partner insurance for federal employees for a start. Humphrey didn't campaign on ending racial profiling and reducing mandatory sentences for drug crimes. None of them pushed to increase the minimum wage by a huge margin.

That's the real crux. Democrats are always a mixed bag, always prioritizing some issues over others. We are not doctrinaire absolutists like the GOP. Clinton will be just the same. She would do some things you like and some you don't. Me too. As you said, there was no Golden Age, so the nast evil Clintons obviously didn't destroy it. It's just easy to look back and remember the solar panels but not the work-for-benefits, the CRA but not the carpet bombing. No doubt Democrats a generation hence will be blaming the Castros for souring the glorious liberalism of Obama, because they will remember the gay marriage victory and not Libya.

[Broward]

4. You're either getting hoodwinked or you're doing the hoodwinking.

[CrowCityDem]

5. You need to realize what the right wing actually is.

[bahrbearian]

8. The Right wing is pro War ,pro Wall Street, against Single Payer , just like Hillary.

[CrowCityDem]

12. Bernie voted to remove Saddam, build F-35s, deregulate derivatives. He's a conservative!!

[bahrbearian]

16. Lol and Hillary is a Progressive who like to get things done" Like War, Coups, and Donations

[TwilightZone]

17. That kind of stuff is only conservative...

if it's done by others.

[bahrbearian]

21. Remind me of the Vote Bernie made to remove Saddam was It the IRW?

[CrowCityDem]

22. 1999. Authored by Rumsfeld. Made regime change the official US stance.

[Exilednight]

28. but regime change does not, nor does it always, come through war. Saddam was a

Dictator of the worst kind, but one country does not need invade another country to complete such goals, just look at the Arab Spring.

[Kip Humphrey]

26. A conservative Democratic Socialist? Twisting political categories to avoid the painful truth about

Hillary and the 3rd-Way Republicrat Party! I hope that relieves your brain pressure.

[CrowCityDem]

46. I'm saying you can't use two positions to determine the whole.

[immoderate]

9. Could it be a Democratic supply sider?

--imm

[arcane1]

20. They are playing their assigned role. Nothing more.

[bahrbearian]

6. OK , you convinced me.

[-none]

7. And yet you think Bernie and his supporters are fringe Left wing?

What's in the political middle between them then? And more importantly, where is it? That's a pretty wide gap.
The actual political middle, is not where that hand painted sign, stuck in the narrow crack between the Democratic party and the Republican party, says it is.
Hint, It is not anywhere near where the 1% or their supporters positions are either.

[Eleanors38]

77. Heh. Bernie is just LBJ with a 4-barrel carburetor.

[SheenaR]

10. I do not support her in the Primary

But by virtually every analysis of worldwide political thought (except for the ones where you can plug in your own answers), she falls to the right of center. Sanders is actually considered moderate.

The problem is we have totally lost sight of the fact that everyone has moved to the right.

[CrowCityDem]

11. Comparing us to Europe doesn't work. Different people, differing issues.

By the standards of American politics, which is where we are, Hillary is decidedly left of center. You can yell and scream all you want about how the American center isn't far enough left, but it doesn't change the facts. Hillary is an American progressive.

[SheenaR]

13. I disagree with you

I feel Sanders is close to center. And I support him. I am not calling her a far right loon, but she is not an American Progressive in the way it once meant. She is a modern day progressive, which allows for compromise at the drop of a hat and allows for constituents to get screwed by it. See also: Barack Obama, whom I loved.

[CrowCityDem]

18. Bernie is the center? Who in this country is to his left?

[SheenaR]

23. I didn't say center

I said close to center. We don't have a far left to speak of. Do we have militiant groups? Is there a communist element? Sanders is not far-left

[CrowCityDem]

45. We don't live in vaccuums.

If there is no one to your left, you are the far left.

[arendt]

53. This isn't family feud. Just because we have no serious left...

does not make the moderate left we do have into extremists.

Taken to its rhetorical conclusion, the moderate left = communism. And, that is how it has been played since WW2. McGovern was a communist. Carter was a communist. And recently, Obama is a communist.

You mistake rhetoric for reality. You don't make center-left into extreme left by saying its so. You don't make HRC into a progressive by saying she is one.

But, of course, the corporate media have destroyed language, meaning, and logic. Leaving you free to make idiotic statements like this one.

[CrowCityDem]

58. If there is no, as you put it, serious left, the center is not where you think it is.

The center is the midpoint, not a philosophy unto itself. Taking a look at our political system, Hillary is clearly to the left of its center.

[arendt]

63. If left,right, and center mean different things in different places, they are meaningless words.

I could call the Gulag "centrist" in Stalin's Russia.

Now we all know that the Gulag was hideous, but by your logic, its OK.

You deliberately conflate opinion with policy. It is at least propaganda, and at worst an outright lie.

[CrowCityDem]

66. I didn't say the center's 'ok', just that it's the center. Center is a measurement, not a philosophy

[arendt]

69. A measurement is not a policy.

You continue to pretend that a meaningless, constantly shifting, easily manipulable NUMBER constitutes a rational policy.

Trump has no policy. Trump agrees with you. His policy, like Hillary's, is WINNING. Winning is a number.

Medieval scholasticism would make your kind of argument, because it is completely detached from reality. Policies are not changed by labels. Labels do not equal policies.

[AgingAmerican]

106. Liberal is immediately to the left of center. Conservative immediately to the right

There is no 'centrist' ideology in the USA.

[Seeinghope]

116. There are 3 centres. The center between the Republicans and the Democrats. And then the two

Centres within each Party. Hillary is far right of center in the Democratic Party. She is close to the Republican Party.......if not far left in the Republican Party ideology wise.

[senz]

78. We have anti-business leftists who oppose capitalism.

Bernie is not anti-business and does not oppose capitalism.

[forjusticethunders]

34. The American center isn't far enough left.

Now, what are "progressives" going to do about it?

Hint: The answer is nothing other than bitch just like the past 50 years.

[arendt]

54. Well, can't say you're wrong. Chris Hedges agrees with you.

Can we assume that you dislike the existing left and would dislike a further-left left even more?

Just asking.

[forjusticethunders]

84. I want a left that:

1: Is intersectional and places marginalized people in the front of the movement (no whining about identity politics or social issues being divisive, for example)
2: Is willing to work with moderates even if it requires compromising in the short term (because coalition building will, if done properly, move the moderates left)
3: Has concrete plans and solutions that can be defended objectively
4: Is willing to accept blame for its failures and reevaluate strategy and tactics instead of blaming the people who rejected them.
5: Is interested more in coalition building, grassroots activism, local and state engagement, voter registration, and other nuts and bolts organizing than grand protests for attention.

The ideology isn't the issue, the attitude is. The left does a lot of virtue signaling and very little actual productive action and a lot of people are seeing through this and rejecting the current iterations of "progressive politics"

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. First off, read history as to why that has happened

do start with the Turner Raids. It is instructive. Then cross to the rise of the New Left, some of whom have become far right. As to the intersectional and marginalized, that left was marginalized a while ago. We are where we are is not accidental. And I am not blaming the people who were propagandized to believe Sanders is a damn commie, for example, when we actually have real commies in the country, as marginalized and inconsequential as they are right now.

I also recommend you read thomas Frank's excellent book on this, "Listen Liberal."

by the way, with the rise of two right wing parties, that new left will rise, and I do not mean the 1960s version either. It is bubbling around you,

[Sparkly]

130. "The Turner Raids"

Could you explain, please? Are you talking about Nat Turner? John Turner? Turner media?

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. 1917

They were done to stop them scary commies from infiltrating the United States. We have had a multigenerational effort to destroy any semblance of an organized left in this country. By the way, include Occupy in your list

My error also meant Palmer raids.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Palmer_Raids_1919-1920.aspx

Do not post near bed time .

Or well after

[arendt]

126. There is some overlap in our positions, but...

I agree with 2-5 because they are concrete and logical. I completely disagree with 1.

Identity politics has historically been shown to provoke irrational, easily-manipulable backlash and polarization. It solidifies the group and fragments the society. Just because you say it is not allowed doesn't mean that it is not completely divisive.

IMHO, identity politics has been the death of liberalism. It is tribalism**** to demand that a person be identified by one and only one aspect of their lives. Nixon started us on this road when he began handing out Federal jobs based on race ( Philadelphia Plan ). His intention was to set the largely white, racist labor movement against the Civil Rights movement. That is what happened. Over time, this lets-you-and-him-fight manipulation has led to identity politics, and total success for the GOP, the Southern Strategy, etc.

Whatever happened to equal rights? Equal justice under law? That is all you can get in a society dominated by a rapacious 1% who play divide and conquer games all the time. Identity politics is doing the 1%'s work for them.

Tell me, when I am arguing against a non-tribal issue, like income inequality, how do I "place marginalized people in the front of the movement"? If I pick a tribe, then all the other tribes say - look this is more favoritism for tribe X. I will not support this. When the issue is broader than a tribe, as it is with income, to focus on one group, to say one group is the most burdened is to start a "who is more victimized contest" that leaves everyone angry - both the most victimized who feel dissed, and the other victims who feel ignored.

Identity politics has reached ludicrous levels with children as young as five deciding they are transsexuals. Please. A kid that age has no idea what he or she is saying. But "liberal" parents feel they have to defend their child on this ludicrous claim. There have been tomboys since forever. But now, they or their parents say they are transsexuals. I am willing to accept that they might turn out to be gay; but that they are "in the wrong body and require surgery"? Give me a break.

There is now a new identity group: "binaries". These are kids who demand to be treated as male one day and female the next. I am not joking. My wife is a psychologist and she has to deal with this complete nonsense. The fact that it blew up out of nowhere right after gay rights was settled makes the whole thing seem like a plot to keep the tribalism going.

I do not support the outlandish overkill that is identity politics today. I support the kind of civil rights movement approach to enforcing the laws impartially. Of course, since we do not enforce many laws at all, when it comes to the 1%, corporations, or the MIC, I doubt what I want will happen. But I will not support the divide-and-conquer mistake of identity politics.

**** I do not use "tribe" as a codeword for "race". I use it to mean the kind of politics based only on group loyalty and not on explicit political principles or Constitutions. That is why people call the Middle East "Tribes with Flags".

[forjusticethunders]

128. Tell us how you really feel

Please continue to ensure black, LGBT, Hispanic and other marginalized people will never feel solidarity with white "progressives".

"Identity politics". Aka "your issues don't matter".

[arendt]

138. The issues are real. Identity politics is the wrong approach.

Please explain how identity politics makes white progressives feel solidarity with black people.

IP has degenerated into a complete farce. The results of it show up in my wife's psychology office every day. IP is no longer just about race, its about any concern that a person can convince a quorum of a "tribe" to buy into.

Another problems with IP is that there is no real as to when enough has been accomplished. So the outliers can continue to claim victimhood when the majority have moved on. That is how IP generates backlash. Does anyone think that pushing for reparations for slavery in the current political situation is going to do anything but drive more white voters to vote for Trump? I'm just waiting for coal miners to demand reparations for two centuries of brutalization and impoverishment. It is factual arguable, but political poison.

[arendt]

139. "no rule as to when", not "no real as to when" n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. Minefield ahead...oh well

I will give you a real example from real life. My town, our local power elite has been successful, before IP became a thing by the way, to keep AA and Mexicans at each other's throats. To the point that this city is actually segregated, with AA living in their hood and Mexicans living in the barrio.

Then we got an influx of immigrants, starting with Vietnamese. Oh boy that started to upset that apple cart. So these days, the most successful fight for a single objective, reforming the Civilian Review Board, is an effort led by a few white middle class women from Occupy, working along side leaders from both the Mexican and Black communities with some faith leaders dropped into the mix.

None of them is doing this because my tribe. They are working together and this is starting to expand to other issues. Some of these folks are also regulars with the fight for 15. Where you can see the taint of IP is with the climate change folks, mostly middle and upper (did I mention white) movement. Though, me acting as a bridge, not a journalist, I pointed this to the leaders of that movement. They were not internally aware of this, and now have feeders to the other groups, and slowly the folks from both the hood and and the barrio are also becoming part of this, within the context of social and environmental justice.

The trigger for some of this was actually Occupy, where people from everywhere came under the same tent, both figuratively and factually.

City hall is shitting a brick. These walls are not completely down, but they are crumbling, and that is changing local politics in major ways. So far they have not been able to disrupt that. And lord knows they are trying. IP is to the point that people are fighting each other for control of what means to be poor, for example. When all poor people walk together there is strength in numbers.

[Sparkly]

131. When we're past racism and sexism, that might make sense.

But we aren't.

[arendt]

140. IP is not going to get us past racism

IP inflames backlash. IP is counter-productive towards its goals and destructive to the solidarity of the party.

We have had 30 years, and the only success IP has had is with gay rights - a topic that costs the 1% nothing financially (which is all they care about) but gives their propagandists more ways to inflame the fundie rubes.

Also, gayness cuts across all "tribes". There are rich gays, poor gays, black gays, white gays, male gays, female gays. Gayness can hide, as it had done for millienia. All those facts mitigate against a racist/sexist kind of backlash, where the "otherness" is out there for all tribalists to see.

[vintx]

132. This. All of this.

[All in it together]

29. From where you stand that is, she looks lefty to you

They're not liberal/progressive like real l/p would like. So at least you can admit it.

Moderate? Hard to tell what she is.

[AgingAmerican]

31. Pro fracking

Pro Private Prisons
Pro endless war
Pro Austerity
Pro Wall Street

Right wing

[Ferd Berfel]

39. Not to mention...

[bvar22]

95. also not to mention,

"The Era of Big Government is OVER!"--- Bill Clinton, 1996 SOTU.
echoing Ronald Reagan

[Ferd Berfel]

98. translation;

the era of big government for the poor and middle-class is over. The era of welfare for corporations and the 1% is just getting started.

[reddread]

159. "Corporations are Free at last!"

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. +1

Right. What "right-wing re-alignment"? When the Democrats start talking like George W. Bush, Paul Ryan, or Donald Trump, I'll be more convinced.

[Dragonfli]

40. They are Right Wing by definition, their goals and their actions, their only "moderation" lies in

their social platform, over time even that has slowly begun to erode.

Was Eisenhower Right Wing? I believe he was. Here is a quote naming him in the Republican platform of the time:

Our great President Dwight D. Eisenhower has counseled us further: "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."

While jealously guarding the free institutions and preserving the principles upon which our Republic was founded and has flourished, the purpose of the Republican Party is to establish and maintain a peaceful world and build at home a dynamic prosperity in which every citizen fairly shares.

That belief is almost identical to that of the New Democrats that have taken control of the party.

New Democrats, in the politics of the United States, are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with centrist social/cultural/pluralist positions and neoliberal fiscal values. They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions

After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner. The DLC disbanded in 2011 during an apparent re-branding of the New Democrat movement when money ties to the Koch bros. and Koch representatives placed on the DLC's board embarrassingly became common knowledge among the Democratic left. The DLC is survived by the Third Way, The New Democrat Coalition, and Al From's Progressive Policy Institute among other corporate funded groups that continue to sell their Economic-Right/Social-Left brand of "Centrism" to America.

The only difference between the Eisenhower Right Wing and the New Democratic Right Wing that anybody with an ounce of political historical understanding is that the New Democratic version of moderate Right Wing appears to include a great deal more Military "adventurism" and a great deal less "maintain a peaceful world and build at home a dynamic prosperity in which every citizen fairly shares within it", I will admit however that the New Democratic Right Wing is split on this issue of "the eternal war Doctrine", Hillary Clinton being on the side of the neocon hawks in such internal debates.

You mistakenly believe that by comparing Moderate Right Wingers to near Fascists (Modern Republicans) somehow changes the meanings of words in the political lexicon, it does not. Your argument is both lacking in substance and is also fallacious.

Perhaps you are conflating Right and Left political definitions with what is called the "Overton window"

The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept. It is used by media pundits.

But even then, Bernie Sanders and "New Democrats" both fall within that window and still fall respectively with Center Left and Right Wing as is revealed by national polling on issues

82% oppose cutting Social Security benefits in order to reduce the debt.
67% oppose cutting Social Security to make the program more solvent in the long term.
63% oppose reducing Social Security benefits for people earning more than $60,000 or more when they retire.
69% oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 69.
66% support enacting Social Security taxes on wages about $106,800 (the Pay Roll Tax Cap) to make the program more solvent....

82% oppose reducing Medicate benefits in order to reduce the nation’s budget deficit.
64% oppose spending cuts to Medicare.
76% believe cutting Medicare to help reduce the budget deficit is mostly or totally unacceptable.....

58% say people should not have their Medicaid benefits taken away in order to deal with state budget problems.
69% oppose cutting spending on Medicaid in order to reduce the national debt.
76% oppose cutting state funding for the Medicaid health insurance program....

76% support increasing the taxes paid by people who make more than one million dollars a year
63% support increasing the taxes paid by people who make more than $250,000 a year.
64% think it is a good idea for the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share in taxes and can afford to pay more for programs and government operations......

Now, let us compare the New right Wing Democrats to an actual Center left Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people — whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth — is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

If the theme seems familiar, you will not find it on the "far left", as you would describe such, they are not the words of Trotsky Or Eugene Debs, but rather those of a center right Democrat, the closest thing we have to such a Democrat in our modern party is Bernie Sanders, who, like FDR, is not "far left fringe" but ideologically a center left Democrat, nothing more than a pre "Al From, Clinton - takeover of the party" Democrat.

His words sound rather like those spoken by FDR, do they not?

Quite the contrast to the agreeing words of both Eisenhower and the New Democrats.

I like the pre Right wing Democratic party and it was the one I joined many years ago. I feel we must return to what we once were AND MORE, I would like that party as it was but with added unity and equality for all humans no matter their insignificant differences in melanin, sex, sexual preferences, gender identities, or other minor differences. I would also like to see an effort to save the environment on a scale that would make the Manhattan Project, and the moon landing appear as trivial hobbies in comparison.

I suppose that would make me a "mouth frothing raving Communist" in your eyes, but I care so very little about how others judge by political beliefs that such would not even phase me, let alone leave me feeling insulted or disgraced.

[CrowCityDem]

49. That's fine. It doesn't change that Hillary is to the left of TODAY'S center.

[Dragonfli]

52. I disagree, besides, you are CHANGING DEFINITION AGAIN did you not read the polls that refute even

the false definition of center?

Reality does not change with altered perception, or else the world would have gone through profound changes everytime someone dropped LSD.

as arduously unfun as it is to discuss serious matters with one lacking the understanding of the actual meanings of words, I really have to leave and attend to matters IRL.

I will help you however, had you used the statement "to the center of the belief systems of the two existing parties" your statement may have actually been correct.

[CrowCityDem]

56. Since there is no set philosophy from the "center party", of course I meant the center of our two.

[arendt]

55. More rhetorical bullshit

Old joke:

Fact: there was a three man race: the US ran first, the Russians ran second.

Propagandist: The US was third from last, while the Russians came in second.

Your stance is pure propaganda. The correct answer to a question of fact is not the majority opinion about the fact.

I accept that the country has been pushed to the right. I do not accept calling that right "the left".

[CrowCityDem]

59. Jim Crow used to be 'centrist' policy. Politics changes with time.

[arendt]

71. Who cares. Jim Crow was heinous wherever on your phony L/R/C scale you put it.

Your definition adds no value, but it does subtract from meaningful discussion, and deserved outrage.

You are now defending Jim Crow. I guess that puts Hillary in the same boat.

[CrowCityDem]

72. I'm not defending anything.

I'm trying to get the point across that there are not etched-in-stone definitions of left, right, and center. As time and society change, so to does where the balance of opinion sits.

If 90% of the country are hardcore left-wingers, the center would be much further to the left than it is now. If the country drifts right over time, so does the center. It's not a hard concept to understand.

So what, exactly, are these totally defined 'center' policies that you believe exist?

[arendt]

73. I don't think there are "center" policies.

There are socially-inclusive, anti-war policies, beginning with the French Revolution, moving through Emancipation of slaves, voting rights for women, the destruction of Jim Crow, Social Security.

There are socially-exclusive, pro-violence policies: police state levels of surveillance, militarism to the detriment of society (i.e., no social safety net, crumbling infrastructure), tribalism of all sorts (racism, sexism, theocratic cultism).

What is a clearly-definable center policy? Not caring at all about society? Not caring at all about war? Not caring about tribalism ripping a country apart? Gee sounds like a neoliberal or a libertarian.

As Jim Hightower says, all you find in the middle of the road are dead skunks and yellow lines.

[CrowCityDem]

75. So you can't define the center, and yet it can never shift? Yeah, that's a solid argument.

[arendt]

76. It doesn't shift because it doesn't exist/

This is getting tiresome.

All you have is wordgames. A number is not a policy.

We are done here.

Goodbye. Forever.

[COLGATE4]

101. OMG!!!! Not "Goodbye FOREVER". Crushing blow. nt

[vintx]

133. At least you tried. Reality doesn't matter cause they're with her. nt

[Dragonfli]

143. They appear to have constructed their own reality, it really is quite fascinating in a detached way

to observe it.

Perhaps thy are doing what Cheney (or was it a different fuckwad?) did when describing "we make our own reality, you nay comment on it, as you will, but we create what is real" paraphrased, because I am not in the mood to research at the moment.

This is objective reality in the world of political theory and science and the well defined terms used to discuss people and parties within such an objective reality.

[AgingAmerican]

107. There is no such thing as 'todays' center

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. Actually what it does not change is that HRC

Is a center right conservative politician, now leading a center right party. My friends in the RNC are fascists. Ergo, there is a real vacuum, that will be filled...to the left

Either the Rs after a period of crisis will go back to Lincoln, I am sure you will miss the reference, or we will see a new party, could be the greens, could be a new party, emerge left of center while the Rs continue to self destruct.

In the meantime, yes, the Democratic Party is also splitting, just in a less spectacular fashion. Enjoy being the Conservative party. Sooner or later the donkeys will be despised by the left as much as the Republicans are. In fact, I am starting to hear that talk locally from sources, including life long democrats who are not just leaving the party organization and committes, but formally re-registering as NDPs, or the two who went green. That is just the beginning.

I admit, seeing in real time what one predicted here 10 years ago is kind of scary. Though I did say in my lifetime. That usually leads to instability, which we do have and it is starting to be more than just obvious. The US has had three major realignments and 3 others that were minor. One of the major ones included a real life, not so civil, civil war.

[CrowCityDem]

150. Yeah, because that platform...

of protecting civil rights, demanding pay equality, pushing for a 40% increase in the minimum wage, transitioning off of coal, raising taxes on the top 1%, expanding health care coverage, reducing the burden of college costs, and increasing Wall Street regulation are SO CONSERVATIVE.

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. Because of actions like pushing for trade agreements that benefit

Business, not labor. Not pushing for single payer when most of the country favors it. When attacking things like Occupy because that was a real threat to the power structure, tne transition from coal to fracking is robbing Peter to give to Paul and not forcing Shell to leave 80 percent of reserves on tne ground.

Raising taxes on the 1 percent is just talk, it has not happened, while we talk about issues like this, income innequality has increased to dangerous levels, not seen since 1929 under a democratic administration, and of course bankers in the US never really faced any music after crashing tne world economy.

I could go in. These are conservative actions

[tabasco]

47. Here is an objective, unbiased analysis from politicalcompass.org

[CrowCityDem]

48. That compares us to Europe. I'm talking about American politics.

[arendt]

61. Again, this is the equivalent of "moral relativism"

The fact of what constitutes a leftwing political agenda do not depend on what country we are talking about. Your argument is propagandistic.

[CrowCityDem]

64. Everything is relative.

What is and isn't left wing is dependent on where you are, just like everything else is. If there isn't an active communist party in your country, the fringe of that nation's politics aren't as extreme as countries that do have one. It's the same way that weather deemed 'hot' will depend on whether you come from a country where it never gets above 80, or one where its 110 all summer.

[arendt]

70. Fine. Then, from where I stand, you are a complete propagandist.

There you go again.

80 degrees is the same as 110 degrees. Another complete lie.

More rhetorical bullshit. You have no clothes. You are an intellectual embarrassment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. We actually have an active communist party in the United States

http://www.cpusa.org/

You were saying? Just because the media keeps you ignorant and in a single paradigm does not mean you are correct. By the way, snazzy new site. They no longer get funding from Moscow either... that stopped generations ago.

And political science paradigms are not dependent on relative things.

[Dragonfli]

120. "And political science paradigms are not dependent on relative things." Thank you for stating that.

The graph is objective and you answered a poster using subjective criteria to try to change the meanings of words. I have not had much time today (or much of the week in fact) to properly address responses both positive and negative in my own OPs or replies of late.

I am very thankful for the way you and the others have picked up my "slack".

I should not be causing you more work by my absence, but must admit to a certain amount of pride regarding the way my fellow posters have successfully countered nonsense while injected even more information into my posts in my absence.

I have learned in a very humble way, that I need not micromanage my postings within this community that is still full of many great posters.

I truly love learning this!

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. You welcome and RWers used to do this as well

Oh wait...I forgot about changes

[tabasco]

74. Right versus left are universal standards, not "U.S. standards"

Perhaps you see all the politicians on the graph are U.S. politicians.

I find that this analysis is quite correct and useful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. No, that puts our politics in a standard political science structure

the people are to the left of the standard politics in this country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Political science is not that malleable

they are right of center, that means right wing.

[AgingAmerican]

105. What does "Moderate" mean?

Moderate is the Democratic buzzword for 'conservative'

[LiberalElite]

161. They're moderate all right -

moderate Republicans. The GOP went far loony-bin right over the decades and the Democratic Party was dragged along with little if any protest from its "leaders". See: Democratic Leadership Council.

[yourpaljoey]

2. This genie is out of the bottle... this party will change forever when Sanders is denied

You know Sanders and team are talking about this
sub rosa.

[highprincipleswork]

14. The timid and Republican lite Democrats simply create a bigger monster Republican Party all the time

[Orsino]

15. Our party is indergoing a left-wing realignment. Long overdue. n/t

[BillZBubb]

30. ??? With Hillary leading the party?

Our party is continuing it's move to the right. The left of the party is getting kicked to the curb as usual. Hillary will be our first neocon nominee. She'll be our first nominee who has made millions kissing the butts of Wall Street.

The Democrats are a center-right party now and there is no movement to the left. The Sanders "insurrection" is the last gasp of the left.

The corporations and the .1%'ers have won.

[Orsino]

33. Despite Clinton's likely win.

An awful lot of Sanders delegates are picking out silly hats for the convention.

The movement predates Sanders. Sanders is trying to make it a Democratic thing, and meeting with significant success.

No, Clinton's donors are not going to write the entire platform. She and they are the past that is being overtaken. Not all at once, but it's happening.

[silvershadow]

57. That's right. Not all at once, but it is already underway. And now that Sanders has

started the active movement and people are waking up, it won't slow down, it will only hasten. *I still think he will win this

[Fairgo]

81. my hope

is that you are right

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. I disagree.

Given very local evidence, the party is starting to split. Her win means that fork and internal battle is over. Liberals will need a new home.

We have seen life time left wing democrats pushed out of committes or the actual structure. This is not just happening here, from what they say. A few have become NDPs, two joined the greens, and immediately went to work in committees.

It is just far less...spectacular than the Republicans. I knew it was sub rosa, but it is starting to bubble to the surface.

[Orsino]

148. It's still happening to our party.

Whether it has to lead to a split remains to be seen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. There is a nasty sub rosa conflict

The convention will be must watch tv, for both parties actually, because of it.

But IMHO both parties are splitting. The R business faction will be democrats before you can say realignment. The tea party is not sustainable long term. But the left, the not wanted sign is going up.

We are already seeing language here, for example, that we only saw with freepers ten years ago. It meets community standards too

[H2O Man]

19. Recommended!

Very well done. Thank you for this. Your OP ranks with the very best that DU has offered since I joined in 2003. In fact, it is of the high quality that was much more common years ago.

I cannot help but laugh when I read one of the first responses, that claimed that Hillary and the DNC are not right-wing, but instead are moderate. I had just been thinking of writing an OP that advocates using words correctly. Certainly, Hillary Clinton is good on some specific social issues. She tends to take liberal positions on "family issues." Despite her being slow in advocating for equal rights for some -- think marriage equality -- I suspect that most Democrats are comfortable with her current positions on social issues.

Yet, it is undeniable that she takes a pro-energy corporation stance that is neither liberal nor progressive when it comes to the environment. More, her stances on international trade policy depends upon what audience she is speaking to at the moment.

Equally unsettling is her pro-war positions on international matters. This is particularly true when it comes to the region known as the Middle East. It is a weak argument to say that this was simply because Bush and Cheney lied about the threat that Iraq posed to our nation. One need look no further than her years as Secretary of State to refute that lie.

By no coincidence, the combination of liberal in domestic policy, plus being a war hawk when it comes to the Middle East, is the very definition of neoconservatism. It is a group that includes both some republicans and some Democrats. This group has exercised an agenda that has done significant harm to our nation since the 1980s. It is sad to see forum members here pretending that under Hillary Clinton, neoconservatist policies would be a good thing.

[Dragonfli]

42. Any compliment from you I consider high praise as your posts have always been so well thought out

reasonable, and intelligent. To me, you represent the best of what once was here. Thank you for your early encouragement in writing this as an OP rather than a reply destined for little notice, I expect to be swarmed by the usual critics, both with valid memberships and those that are paid socks answerable only to the talking points they receive from David Brock or his inder-staff.

I also expect, that certain things are self evident (axioms of political reality) and there will be those that understand what I am writing about, and perhaps even why. By luck, chance, or other, I will have to leave this OP to it's own development as I must leave for most of the rest of the day.

Hopefully it will achieve it's intended purpose, but failing that, if it is hidden, or I am banned in my absence, I wish you well and I thank you very much for your encouragement.

[mrdmk]

99. My thanks to both of you, both of you organize your thoughts and write them down

in a factual basis with logical reasoning.

Once again, thank you!

[Optimism]

115. H2O and Dragon...

Thank you both. Your wisdom is refreshing and much appreciated! Keep up the good work.

[JimDandy]

152. Excellent job you two. n/t

[Maedhros]

24. Liberal and progressive ideals are much, much more important than the Party. [n/t]

[Onlooker]

25. Just because Bernie gets support from primarily white voters in conservative areas ...

... doesn't mean the Democratic Party is quite conservative. In fact, many parts of the liberal base (such as people of color) have rejected Bernie.

[djean111]

27. The Democratic Party started to leave me when I was told it was a big tent that included Rick

Warren. It has slid to the right, on a smear of Third Way and Wall Street and corporate money. Down here in Florida, I can see Debbie Wasserman-Schultz openly campaigning for her GOP buddies and refusing to support liberals. That New Democrat Coalition keeps getting new members - it is a nest of Third Way-advised DINOs.

I will be resigning after the August primary for Rubio's seat, and I will see where I can find a home. The Third Way, IMO, has successfully taken over the Democratic Party.

[Autumn]

32. I came to the conclusion that the democratic party is not my party so I left it.

Where the democratic party goes now is of no concern to me.

[Maedhros]

109. This is the Party's strategy:

1. Elect ever-more-corporate candidates (because Republicans bad)
2. ?
3. Progressive government!

Everyone keeps assuring me that #3 will happen, if I only stop asking for it.

At this point, I don't care what they say. GO DO IT, then I will consider joining you.

[Autumn]

111. Jamie Dimon whipping votes on the Senate floor at Obama's behest was the final straw.

I went down and switched to Unaffiliated. I switched back to caucus for Bernie after he won CO I left the democratic party for the last time. I no longer feel any obligation or concern about that party. I have found it very liberating, I'll never go back.

[Maedhros]

114. I left in 2009 or so, came back for Bernie, will leave ASAP.

I, too, find it liberating. After one sheds one's emotional connection to the Democratic Party, one can see what it is more clearly. And it isn't pretty. Not by a long shot.

[amborin]

35. Barney Frank, Wall Street banker, in charge of DNC rules committe?

[Dem2]

37. Laughable and insulting

Dispatch with the flame bait title and lead in and you might get a reasonable response.

[Sparkly]

50. LOL!! "Right wing realignment"

The sanctimonious handwringing of some "leftier than thous" is getting to be insufferable.

[Attorney in Texas]

60. I think it is going through a "progressive vs. elitist" realignment even more than a "right vs. left

realignment.

Trump would successfully cast Hillary as an elitist who is more interested in Wall Street than Main Street.

[Seeinghope]

117. That sounds about right to me!

[Lil Missy]

62. Better idea: The losers could start their own party. The majority wins in this Country.

Not to mention there are far more votes in the middle than there are on the far-left, purity wing.

[arendt]

67. Right, and I can start my own car company in my garage.

National political parties now require literally billions of dollars per election. They require massive media platforms. They are assaulted by something like 50 lobbyists per elected official.

Besides, this election is a watershed. Lose it, and the TPP will permanently destroy our democracy.

No, starting my own party is a non-starter. Getting my party back from the Wall St. puppets that are running it today is a much better bet, even if it is very unlikely.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Take heart. They may take the radical step of redesigning the donut logo and....

streamline their fundraising.

[Arugula Latte]

68. I've decided I will no longer aid and abet the rightward drift of the party by voting for DINOs.

If we continue down the rightwing DWS/Clintonian path, I'm out. I'm Green.

[Vincardog]

93. ++

[ViseGrip]

80. Remember the day when it was Democrats that were blocking women from voting?

Did you all know that is was the republicans that helped them? The 'parties' have been through three distinct flips. Another one is coming.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. and another three general party realignments.

we are entering the 7th political system.

[oldandhappy]

83. Not sure many want to question it.

I have been startled at the lightening speed which which clinton supporters have been supportive of her hard right turn. I'll probably get alerted for even noticing. I would like to have us question things. Conversation is hard right now. I am looking for people coming together to support people. I am against fracking and that seems to put me somewhere out of sight, sigh.

[randome]

88. Seems like you should have done some introspection about the 'revolution' -BEFORE the 'revolution'.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Sky Masterson]

89. Great post! K&R

I am finding it harder and harder to invest any time or heart in this new Democrat party.
Why do they deserve it?
The differences between the DNC (Besides a few wedge Issues)and the repukes are getting harder and harder to identify.
I have been a Democrat my whole voting life and I am having a hard time believing that this new party has the integrity worthy of my support.

[felix_numinous]

91. K&R We need representation, period.

This election will inspire a mass exodus, and the forming of another party no matter how it turns out. We know who cares about us and who doesn't. Labor groups, Minority groups, Independents and Greens could join to make this a majority party, We all share the same goals in shaping the future, that is for sure. All is speculation at this point.

It would be interesting to see how large the Third Way party actually is in numbers compared with the Progressives (or what we decide to call ourselves). The Democratic Convention should be an eye opener.

Thanks for an interesting discussion

[bjo59]

92. I have to admit that I stopped registering Democrat after Bill Clinton's first term.

I re-registered as Democrat this year for one reason only: Bernie Sanders. The party has already re-aligned (so much evidence of that on this message board). Bernie may be able to restore the legitimacy of the party as the party of the people; if not, I think party will split (or political parties will just fade away altogether). There is something really, really wrong when people who call themselves "Democrat," "progressive," and even (weirdly) "left," defend the neocon/neoliberal worldview. But then the corporate overlords have been busily working away at altering the mass consciousness for a long, long time.

[Warren DeMontague]

94. MEGACHURCH MOMS!

I suspect we will stop hearing about marriage equality and start hearing about how we need government to clean up all the sex on cable television.

[bvar22]

96. Excellent Essay, Dragonfli

I have copied it, and pasted it to my Liberal Bible.

I inherited the Working Person's Party of FDR, Truman, and JFK from my parents.
That allowed me and my Blue Collar family to live comfortably on a single Working Man's Wages, send 3 children through University, 2 through Grad School (graduating debt free), pay off a comfortable Working Class Home, save for my parent's retirement, and take vacations every year.

I enjoyed the fruits of a Liberal Democratic Party, and joined as soon as I was of age, respecting the traditions of FDR, and later, despite the WAR, the tremendous Liberal achievements of LBJ's Great Society, War on Poverty, and Equal Rights.

We weren't perfect, but we were headed in the right direction.

I am ashamed of the Party we are leaving to our children.


Again, Well Done... A+.

---bvar22
A mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ New Deal Great Society Democrat
who is now labeled as a "Far Leftist" in the 3rd Way Democratic Party.
I haven't changed.
The 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]

[Dragonfli]

110. I'm sure you were quite pleased with my FDR quote in response to a sock that claims that Hillary

and the DNC are the "true left" and the rest of us are "far left" lunatics or some such garbage in my reply post #40, I know it is one of your favorite quotes.' I did not even know i was "far left" (I don't even own a book or essay by trotsky perhaps I am required to get one).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511941536#post40

My, I have been gone most of the day and will be busy most of the night, but it appears this thread is growing. I only wish I had the time to respond to more excellent points and utter garbage (it appears I attract both, sigh)

[elana i am]

113. this sure ain't the party of

wellstone anymore is it?

and once upon a time sanders, wellstone and kucinich were considred heroes here on this very board. where did that DU go?

[vintx]

134. I ask myself that every time I visit this site now

Wellstone is so sorely missed

[Todays_Illusion]

97. Good post we should have had this conversation after the conservative Clinton administration. I am

disturbed at how far right we were moved during that administration.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

100. Well said!

The middle has been moved so far to the right that we're not far from both parties rejecting reject St. Ronnie as too liberal.

[BlueStateLib]

102. So Long, Centrist Democrats

So Long, Centrist Democrats

Democrats are moving ever further left; Republicans would be crazy to follow

[bigtree]

104. you had the chance to 're-align' the party

...and your gadfly candidate's call for revolution against our party was defeated, not by the republicans and conservatives, but rank-and-file Democrats voting for Hillary.

You'll have another chance in November to vote against the party.

[Dragonfli]

108. I did not, nor have ever wished to realign the party as a Right wing fiscal party that Resembles

What was once called "Moderate Republican", but with an extremely hawkish new twist.

I simply wish we had a party of the people, the party I joined and still am loyal to, rather than a right wing and extreme right wing choice of parties, neither of which I joined. So what, I am not alone, more people than you realize want a people's party rather than yet another right wing party, I am not alone wishing to reclaim it from the infiltrators

It would have been helpful had you actually read the OP, as it is a statement completely opposite your replied "misinterpretation of my words".

So you believe in fiscal right values while condescendingly trying to retain long time party allies via a more socially liberal sub-plank of your party (even if such has become largely lip service.)

So what? You are not alone, that is what Al From and Republican business leaders envisioned for the party and why they formed the DLC and later other corporate funded groups to accomplish those goals.

At least have the decency to be honest and admit that the one time heart of the party, the pre-late eighties party did not want or initiate such a realignment, it wa your buds AL From and Bill Clinton that did that. Yet oddly you accuse me of it?

Your post is dishonest at best and slanderous more likely by intent, you should self delete.
Own your Moderate Right wing beliefs rather than cower and pretend I am the one responsible for the parties newest realignment!


Others here can read and you have just outed your less than honest proclivities.

[bigtree]

122. you sure talk some twaddle

...I have never identified my politics with From, the DLC, or any of the other boogeymen you folks use to try and engineer a wedge between members of our party. There isn't ONE progressive issue that I don't agree with and advocate. I've NEVER been a moderate or any of the other inventions you've used here to insult me.

That makes almost everything you've written here a product of your own manipulations or imagination. It's pure fantasy and that's what's characterized this bogus revolution of Sanders. You don't have a clue about my political views, but in an effort to elevate your own to some sort of cool kid status here, you've defined me with every rhetorical wedge you can dream up. You're debating with figments of your own imagination. It would be funny if it wasn't so disruptive and divisive.

I'm certain you think your rhetoric is the height of progressiveness, but it just comes off as ignorant. State your own views and leave me to my own. Better yet, save this drivel for someone who actually gives a shit about what you think.

You are so blocked.

[Dragonfli]

135. Pretty long winded answer tio dance your way out of falsely claiming I wanted a party realignment

You pretend the truth twaddle (Democracy)
I consider your lying dance twaddle (dumb..)
Since you refuse to discuss honestly.

Therefore - we are twaddle Dem and twaddle Dumb

I can live with that lets just place each other on ignore, here, I'l make it easy by going first
Just do as I do, I'll even add pictures so you won't "misremember" any instructions

[vintx]

137. So basically you're saying that you reject reality and substitute it with your own?

All you've done is state that you're a progressive who disagrees with conservative policies, and that you think the party is fine.

You have not demonstrated via argument or refutation even one point in the OP.

At least the "don't compare us to Europe!" guy tried to argue his points.

[Optimism]

112. Yes we must.

The lockstep of the superdelegates this year has really been a dispiriting eye opener. Fast track, TPP, another Clinton... nope, this party doesn't represent me anymore. I'll definitely be voting third party if Clinton is the nominee. The two party system is a farce, especially when given the choices jammed down our throat this year. Enough is definitely enough!

[2banon]

118. Another OUTSTANDING OP Dragonfli!

These questions you raise here has haunted me for decades actually. Changing party affiliation to Peace & Freedom or Green on a number of "mid term" elections but always returning to the Democratic party for the big one, the Presidential Elections. And every time, I'd find myself "pulling my hair out" for too many political moments, statements, policy positions, etc etc to count and eventually holding my nose to pull the lever, cuz SCOTUS and REPUKES.

The need for a Political Revolution has been long, long time in the making, it took someone like Bernie to spark the fire, and light it "within the system".

I'm not quite ready to write Bernie off as an actual contender, in fact I'm more enthused than ever. But I know the party elite will likely have their way. Whether or not TPTB will be able to coronate her come November and keep the throne from Drump remains to be seen.

I suspect they will rue the day they threw their support behind someone who is so obviously more likely to get trounced when they could have made a completely different decision and achieved Victory instead, if for no other reason than SCOTUS/REPUKES.

My appreciation for you and your contributions runs deep, thank you once again.

[Dragonfli]

119. You are most welcome, all I do is simply speak my mind, I have payed attention for decades /nt

[2banon]

127. Yes, I believe Bernie supporters are probably the most highly informed of the entire electorate.

Collectively, We've been paying very close attention throughout the decades, and that includes Millennials having a KEEN understanding of history, and hell, they KNOW it's just a bad to worse set of socio-economic conditions, climatic conditions, social justice matters, "going forward" UNLESS we act now while have an opportunity to cease the moment to actualize a significant paradigm shift in our political dynamics and process.

[moriah]

121. Call me a "moderate" for saying this if you will, but...

.... while safety net programs MUST exist, people would have an easier time getting off of those programs if we didn't penalize them by yanking benefits abruptly that are required for them to keep the jobs they have (like child care). And since everyone wants a better life than merely subsidence, such incentives will encourage people to work as much as they can, rather than having to watch their hours so they don't go over the edge and lose childcare benefits or half their SNAP.

That's the exact situation a dear friend of mine and her husband were in when they got pregnant, got married, and were both working to raise their daughter. How can you show yourself worthy of a promotion at a minimum wage job by working extra hours as needed, if that's going to push you over the income limit and $250-300.worth of benefits be taken away for $25 too much income?

Reforms to SSDI that would save money would include letting already enrolled people who can work making less than their benefit amount but more than the current extremely low "substantial gainful activity" level to make a work attempt without fearing they will come out worse financially if they try and succeed, by offering partial benefits until they are back to making what they would have pre-tax on SSDI if they continue to have significant impairment from the disabling condition. Since SSDI is already a large reduction in income from pre-disability employment in most cases, it doesn't encourage people to try if there is a penalty for success. Transitioning from SSI disability is even more difficult, since often with it the recipient must receive housing, food, and medical assistance to even come close to making ends meet. Both often require training and educational assistance, too.

For everything, we need to incentivice success without penalizing failure or success. We should never take a dollar of benefits unless the person has earned at least twice that amount (if someone is at the borderline income level for a program, maybe ask them to pay back $10.00 if they were $25.00 over, when it comes to childcare or housing, rather than kick them off of the programs immediately.) An SSI recipient might end up staying longer in subsidized housing under that model, but eventually they may make enough to move out, and if they get worse they don't have to go through the full application process again because they already have a documented file -- nor are they left homeless. One of the two in a young family may be able to get a promotion and no longer need child care assistance at all. In the interim, both are working to their maximum abilities (contributing to the economy) and getting to actually better their standard of living.

And if there's one thing universal about humanity, it's that we want to better ourselves. If the transition from "welfare to work" (I put it in quotes because "welfare" no longer exists even if the Republicans forgot about killing it) is easier and incentiviced, people will do it naturally themselves. (That's why they created EITC, for example, but it doesn't go far enough and Republicans want it gone, too.)

[disillusioned73]

123. K&R..

What a fantastic OP.. so well said and plainly laid out - I am in complete agreement. What worries me though is where do we go from here??.. if the Democrats have chosen to NOT be the party of labor/people anymore (obvious to anyone paying attention) where will the alternative come from??... how have new parties evolved over history?? how does one go about building and sustaining a real third party??.. it seems daunting and improbable, but I don't know the complete history of the parties and their various transitions throughout history.. rebuild from within might still be the best option at this point.. just like Bernie is trying to do.

disillusioned... itz becoming an understatement

[Enthusiast]

124. Kicked and recommended!

[Triana]

125. THIS is what so many Democrats today don't grok. At ALL.

Maybe they're to young to know or remember what the Democratic Party used to stand for but whatever it is, it's dangerously ignorant.

We have ONE chance to save the party and with it, the country.

It's Election 2016.

After that, we're DONE. As in COOKED.

The US Democratic Party is now the Republican Party. The Republican Party is now The Fascist Party. US Progressives who used to be the Democratic Party? Nowhere to be found in politics and marginalized everywhere else. See: Sanders. Occupy Wall Street

[vintx]

129. So incredibly well thought out, I wish more people saw this dynamic for what it is.

What it is is undeniable.

[myrna minx]

136. Thank you so much for this thread.

This is the kind of discourse I came to love about DU and has been woefully absent for some time. K&R

I hope join the conversation later, but just wanted to stop by and thank you.

[Jitter65]

141. It is not a "right wing alignment." It is a right (as in correct) alignment. The days of just

protesting and screaming about racial, gender, and income injustice are winding down...not because the cause is not right but because the methods and optics are wrong. The appeal to our base has to be as smart as Trumps appeal to the nasty base of the GOP. They use everything to cover their real beliefs. Jobs were lost by the thousands in W.VA and other rust belt areas BEFORE NAFTA and BEFORE Obama came into office. The economy was much worse off six years ago than it is now and times were much tougher.

The right wing base was demoralized when Obama won in 2008 but they thought that their GOP elected officials would ruin him. They didn't. That's when all the anger started. They could almost happily be unemployed collecting benefits from he government they say they despise until that same government was led by a man named Barak Hussein Obama. After the promise to keep him from winning a second term failed the anger became volatile. They are really angry that the folks they sent to Washington didn't finish him off as promised and that is what Trump is really appealing to. There are many pockets of new jobs and thriving industries in the rust belt. The people who have really been left behind and suffering the most are the blacks and Hispanics in the decaying rust belt cities. Most others, though very vocally unhappy, are not suffering as much as one would believe.

I have been criticized for saying this before but deep down we know it is true: there is seething racism, homophobia, and to a lesser extent sexism that is raising the Trump voters to new openness. If we think it is really about an income gap...that incidentally has existed since the inception of this nation...we deceive ourselves. But "income gap" and" the wealthy not paying their fair" share are convenient covers for the hateful right and the revolutionary left.

And there you have it. Whichever side faces these realties and can organize around the true interests of their base will win in November. Right now, Trump is doing the best job.

[Dragonfli]

142. You didn't read the OP, it is coming from politicians and corporate "think tanks"

What I wrote had nothing whatsoever to do with "methods" of screaming or protesting, it has to do with a change in the party's priorities and goals toward the right wing, and away from New Deal, Great Society, etc. policies.

Perhaps I never should have written that those that vote for people that believe in neoliberal and neocon policies of the "new" Democrats (that made a calculated decision to move right on fiscal policies to match Reaganism, in think tank meetings) were not naive or ill informed but rather agreed with the neoliberal policies, that may have been a mistake, as you appear to prove with your post.

[LWolf]

160. Yes, we must.

Either we take back the party from within, or we abandon it to self-destruct.

Personally, I think the Sanders candidacy offers the last viable opportunity to take the party back from within.

I know that I don't want to work for the party of neo-liberals, and that I will no longer be supporting that party should the current effort not succeed.