Senator Mark Warner suggests cutting social security. Think he's the only Dem

[Dragonfli]

37. Exactly why bother switching parties when ours is is going through a right wing realignment?

Last edited Mon May 9, 2016, 08:40 PM - Edit history (2)

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="3"; 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