Will Democratic Party be more progressive or more moderate by next election?

[BainsBane]

7. what did he mean when he said it in the 1960s?

The period he now claims he wants to return the party to? The fact is he has always been critical of the party, even as it was enormously successful electorally.

Progressivism has lost all meaning. We see endless threads with no discussion of issues. We see declarations of the demise of the party because the guy who won the election for DNC brings a background fighting for labor rights and against voter disenfranchisement, but is despised for not backing the right person in the primary.

It's become clear to me that power plays about control over the party have been falsely and cynically cast as about "corporate control" vs. The people. It's time for people to start thinking for themselves, quit relying on slogans and labels and identify what it is they actually care about. If the only goal is advancing one politician's interests or another's, then be honest about it. Don't pretend it's an ideological battle when it is about power plays where opponents are cast as ideological foes--not because of their actual positions but because people have decided to use political patronage* as a proxy for ideology. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/sanders-revolution-resists-dnc-loss-235404 It isn't, and nothing shows that more clearly than what was done to Jaime Harrison (along with the litany of conservative positions, Like pro-life, pro-Assad, and anti-Iran peace deal, pro-gun and anti-immigration reform justified because of those patronage networks). It's also demonstrated by the fact that none of Perez' critics can point to any problems with him other than he was backed by "the establishment" (in actuality, President Obama) rather than Sanders.

I will no longer accept empty labels. It is incumbent on those who claim they want to reform the party to be specific about policies and principles they want to promote. The stakes are to great to fail to do so. Politicians are not ideologies. Using them as proxies for it is a false construct that solves nothing. Rather, it promotes factionalism for its own sake. If people would instead articulate key ideas--policies and reforms--they want to see the party champion, they will likely find a great deal of common ground.

I happen to love Maxine Waters, but I am not going to declare anyone who doesn't share my personal view of her as the "DLC" or a "corporatist" or "establishment." Those who have decided to identify themselves according to a settled primary need to move beyond the assumption that doing so suffices for ideology or principle. It does not.

(*Note that by patronage I'm referring to political networks related to support for a given politician rather than political spoils.)