Debunking the "must move to the right" mentality

[Stop_the_War]

After the election of 2004 there has been alot of talk among Democrats about whether to "move right". Many have fallen into this delusion that to win we must become exactly like the Republicans, some even go so far as to try to out-Republican the Republicans. That is sad.

Let's say, the Democratic Party moves right or moves to the center or whatever, and we win the election. But ask yourselves for one moment, would we have REALLY won? Does throwing away our beliefs and becoming like the Republicans mean we would have won? I would rather lose than abandon the things I stand for such as liberty and peace.

Some say we need to try all we can to get these mysterious "center votes" by moving right-wards. But what exactly IS the center? Is the center a political ideology? Or is it just a group of undecideds that can be swayed either way? Centrists are more often swayed by a good strategy than anything else.

Whenever someone suggests we run a "liberal" candidate for President, there is always somebody who says "but they will never win in the southern states". Well people, let's grasp some reality for a sec. Even with an honest election, we're not going to win many of the southern states anyway! With a good strategy, we might win some though.

If the Democratic Party moves to the right or to the center-right, then this same Democratic Party will lose many liberals that make up alot of its base. That's something to remember.

peace.

[Stop_the_War]

1. kick

[Lone Pawn]

2. I think the fundamental point you're missing

is that rather than 'move to the right,' we need to stop acting like we don't give a damn about what moderates or centrists think. Which is what you're doing at the moment, and it's what turns people off about extremists on both ends. It's why Pat Buchanan will never be president, and it's why Dennis Kucinich will never be president. Both appeal only to the hardcore faithful, and rather creep out everyone else.

[saracat]

5. Hmm. Then Why is it George Bush is President?

He is an extremist! It is said the fudamentalist vote put him over the top! Why does extremism work for Repukes?

[BrklynLiberal]

16. Absolutely true!!!! His main base is the extremist vote.

If the Democratic party moves to the left, are the "centrist" Democrats actually going to vote Republican? Makes no sense to me. The reason so many centrist Dems may have voted Repuke is because they were not able to see enough of a difference between the Repukes and the Dems. If they had been offered a clear difference, they would not have voted for the Moran. That lack of differentiation may very well have been the reason that so may people did not even bother to vote.

What was it about Howard Dean's ideas that were so hard core extremist?
His ideas were winning ideas, and that is why his campaign was undermined by both the Repukes and the DLC(crypto-Repuke-lites).

[Lone Pawn]

21. If Howard Dean had winning ideas,

he plain and simple would have won the primaries.
You know what the biggest character flaw with JK was among independent voters? First was flipflop, second was Too Liberal. I don't see a whole lot of "He's Too Much Like Bush" there.

[lostinacause]

31. Wouldn't that mean that Kerry had winning ideas.

[BiggJawn]

94. If Dean hadn't had the DLC meddling with him...

He may have gone farther.
Love your screen name. "Lone Pawn"

Is that as in "Pawn of Al From"?

[lostinacause]

30. What you say makes no sense.

Are you saying that people are more likely to vote for someone (Democrat) whose stance differs from them then they are to vote for someone (Democrat) with a similar stance to theirs?

(It seems that you are also saying that when someone is going to vote a for a certain party it doesn’t make a difference how either party acts unless they move so close that people get confused.)

I liked Howard Dean's ideas. They seemed clear and reasonable.

[Mockingbird]

72. Well, if it comforts you...

I really don't think there is enough evidence that people went with Georgie boy because of a lack of differentiation.

Some of those self-avowed centrist undecideds, the ones the media played up - whined a lot about how dirty politics was, how accusative it all was - and apparently still didn't vote for Kerry, the rational & fair candidate.

(I am convinced a swath of "centrists" are also those "undecideds," or very similar).

They just want to shut out all controversy. Which substantiates the nutcase position.

[Lone Pawn]

20. Not really.

Americans don't pay enough attention to the issues. Most believe that he's rather centrist--moreover, class identification counts for far more.

[lostinacause]

29. They do a very good job at reaching to the center.

Kerry was also very uninspiring and changed his view depending on who he was speaking.

[tom_paine]

47. It works because of the Double-Standard inherent in ALL Totalitarian

Nations, not just Imperial Amerika.

It comes from having a corrupted and broken media that only reports one side and actively practices information suppression/omission for stories that could be detrimental to THE LEADER and THE PARTY.

It comes from not having a System of Checks and Balances, where THE PARTY can perform the most odious corruptions in broad daylight shamelessly, while the Opposition cannot even jaywalk without the house falling on them.

Just like the Old Soviet Union and the New BushPutinist Russia.

If you think about it, that is the answer for ALL of the qwuestions of the "How come the Busheviks can do ____________, but we can't?" or "How come the Busheviks don't get investigated for __________, which is the exact same thing Clionton got excoriated for, ONLY WORSE?" (One Example of Dozens: Harken Stock Swindle vs. Whitewater)

The answer is actually a lot simpler than you think, but it involves the painful exercise of admitting to yourself things that you may be laothe to admit about our Nation and ourselves.

[Mockingbird]

74. You assume he IS prez.

For my money the election was clearly tainted, once again.

If the outcome would have been different in an honest election, I don't know. But it was bad enough to refuse to acknowledge the common conclusion.

Extremism worked for Repubs because they appealed to the sellout factor in EXTREME fundamentalists. Proselytizing for self-affirmation is their bag.

[madeline_con]

99. In my personal experience...

I've observed that a lot of peole sit around an TALK what sounds like left talk, but they don't walk the walk. IOW, whenit's time to vote, they don't bother, or they secretly vote for e Rapub, having believed all the propaganda put out by them during the lection.

[BurtWorm]

6. It's not that we don't give a damn what moderates or centrists think.

It's that we don't give a damn what "moderates" or "centrists" (i.e., closet agitators for rightward drift) think.

[Stop_the_War]

7. exactly n/t

[Lone Pawn]

22. I'm talking about voters, not DU posters or politicians.

And DU is outright callous towards actual moderates and centrists. You know, the centrists and moderates that exist in the real world, not the echo-chamber of DU, where "moderate" is "George W. Bush is an evil, horrible man, but I wouldn't go so far as to call him Antichrist." Most Americans actually *don't* think GWB is evil, and trying to put forth candidates who will call him such is no more effective for capturing swing voters than Clinton-bashing was--it's good for riling up the extremist base, but nothing else.

Oh, and by the way, we at DU are extremists. It's good to keep that in mind.

[BurtWorm]

25. You think "we at DU are extremists?"

It IS good to keep that in mind. ;)

[porphyrian]

10. Fuck the so-called moderates.

What good has pandering to them done in the last three major elections? We need to be the party of the left, period. If the waffling undecideds don't like it, let them form their own party.

[Lone Pawn]

23. You want to be the party of the left,

go join the Greens.

If you want to be the party that actually gets good things accomplished, though not quite as fast as you'd like, join the Dems.

For God's sake, you're in the minority in this party. Most Dems are moderates. Four times as many Americans call themselves centrists or conservative as self-identify liberal. If you want to say "fuck you" to all but 16% of America, fine. Just don't expect to win any elections, and don't expect the Democratic party to pay attention to such idiotic extremism.

[porphyrian]

26. Whose ass are you pulling your numbers out of ?

Where were all the centrist votes in the last three major elections? The Democratic party wasted those elections trying to appeal to them, and it didn't make one fucking difference. I don't give a shit what people want to call themselves, the party needs to appeal to its base, which is the left, not the center.

[foreigncorrespondent]

46. Again...

...I say; have you not noticed that since the dems have moved further to the right they have been losing? No I didn't think you did.

[saracat]

50. The Repukes have told the liberals to go fuck themselves and it worked for

them! George Bush told the whole world to go fuck itself and he gort reelected! It is only NOT taking a stand and trying to meld into the "moderates" translation those who represent "nothing" so they can't be held accountable, that causes us to lose!
And I take great offense at your statements that we who wish to go to the left are in the minority! I have been a Dem for ovwer thirty years and I now live in a red state. I don't know any Dems who really wouldn't like to see us move a bit more left. Even moderates would like to see a more "progressive" stance. That is why people like Lieberman are almost uniformly hated. We are NOT the minority. And for the record, it was the so called "extremists "liberals that got all the "good things accomplished "like the Civil Rights Act and all the social programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

[mvd]

65. But to talk about extremism..

you'd have to look at Bush. He's about as extreme as it gets - and he's been possibly elected once and was close to being elected once (he was not elected in 2000) by the politically ignorant or self-serving masses. A lot of it is how the message is framed. And I don't view people at DU as extremists. Many of the values I see here are: expanding health care, income equality, no war based on lies, being for civil rights, keeping separation of church and state, making abortion a choice, keeping social security out of the hands of Wall Street, etc. Those make sense to me.

[lostinacause]

68. Bush is able to convince people that what he is doing is best for the

average person. It is really impressive to watch how his speeches. His writers are incredibly gifted. Every speech seems to hit the audience exactly where it is most beneficial. His speeches catch a large percent of the population while not alienating any of his base. The way he uses word is good to. He is able to hide any of the limitations and shortcomings of issues very well. He bends rules of logic and economics effectively.

[Mockingbird]

75. Yeah right... it worked so well in 2004.

Yeah, your thumb is on the pulse - if liberals go to the right of Stalin, EVERYONE will flock to Dems. Or if they are better dressed Republicans.

In other words, I think you are overstating your case.
You sound too much like you figure where you are is the heart of the Dems. But is it the heart of liberalism & progressive outlook?

Having a broad base is important & liberals tend to have that. TOLERANCE for a variety of ideas & a willingness to examine them.
The message appeals to some old school moderate Republicans too, in light of their miserable NeoCON alternative.

Its the territory & opportunity that Christine Whittman, the former NeoCON mole at the EPA is mining: The middle. Its what Karl Rove's next creation will feign, if it becomes apparent that enough people are wising up to the date rape we have in this administration.

PASSION & being right is important too, not just who has the best packaging.


Before the emancipation of slaves, some played the middle.
AND they were wrong.

[BiggJawn]

93. Go tell Al From we're not buying today...

For god's sake, your DLC couldn't get a guy with a huge net elected dogcatcher if he was the only one running.

If people want to vote for ReTHUGlicans, they're gonna vote for the REAL thing, not some ReTHUG-Lite like LIEberman or Bayh.

The Doctor is In, deal with it. Yeeeehahhhh!

[Warpy]

18. The proof that we don't need more moves to the right

is in the LOSS OF ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT!!!

It's astounding to me that party conservatives are too pigheaded to get it.

[Stop_the_War]

19. exactly

[Lone Pawn]

24. Did I say we need to 'move to the right?'

No, I did not. You could have at least read my post. I said we need to stop alienating conservatives and moderates. Telling them to fuck themselves doesn't lend itself to winning votes.

[foreigncorrespondent]

48. And that is exactly...

...what the dems have been doing, and guess what? They haven't actually been winning many since, have they?

They need to stop pandering to people who aren't likely to vote for them in the first place, and begin pandering to their own voter base again, before they don't have a voter base left.

[lostinacause]

33. How does that establish cause?

It could be, and in my opinion is, something other the being "too far right" that has caused the situation to be the way it is.

[Cuban_Liberal]

86. Lost to whom?

The even MORE conservative Republicans. It's time the left wing realized that.

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. Oh please!

So now the rights of people don't matter. Just so long as the centrists and moderates are kept happy? Hmmm! Sounds to me like that would be more of what the world has already faced over the last four years with the idiot in charge.

Haven't you begun to notice that since the left has shifted further to the right they haven't actually won really big in elections? Has to be a reason for that. Could it be that most who happen to be further to the left are not voting or voting for an independant candidate as a result?

[Mockingbird]

71. Well, if Stalin ran as a Dem...

Re: is that rather than 'move to the right,' we need to stop acting like we don't give a damn about what moderates or centrists think.
---------

Well, if Stalin ran as a Dem there'd be a chance of broad support, hey...

Yes, one should care what "centrists" think. But trade in your idealism for popular support at any cost?...


A fair number of those "centrists" are fooling themselves, too - or simply don't understand the facts. They just want things to go smoothly & not have too much noise in the neighborhood.

Its the same complacency as those "undecided" voters that lived in a cocoon until 15 seconds before they pulled the lever that everyone was courting.

Where once a cousin specie had to sleep lightly to guard against saber tooth tigers, people now have to remain wary of other dangers.

Pre-packaged no fuss Democracy - just add water.

[moddemny]

89. Thank you.

Dennis Kucinich has a shot in about 20 years.

Pat Buchanan never.

Don't worry DUers its trending in the right direction toward the better extreme in the long run.

In the meantime have to recapture the center and then shift left.

[Stop_the_War]

3. kick

[jdj]

4. I think Al Sharpton put it most succintly

the so-called rightwing stuff "isnt politics".

He said they are distracting us with stuff that isn't politics. Democrats are for the little guy, the common worker, the American way. That's why bush HAS to run of stuff that is statistically rare like homosexuality and abortion.

I'm surprised more people aren't offended by this and don't demand that he pay more attention to what is going on their reality.

[lostinacause]

27. The "rightwing stuff" is politics.

If the homosexuals were able to be discriminated against and abortions were a criminal offence the left would behave very similarly to the right.

(I’m not saying that they are right in doing it; only that social conditions are part of politics. Also by discrimination I mean hate crimes and discriminatory hiring.)

[Stop_the_War]

8. kick

[Stop_the_War]

9. kick

[Snivi Yllom]

11. Totally dead on

We were sold a bunch of bull how Kerry was the answer and we HAD to move center. He was a terrible candidate and got stomped. Now we are seeing the moving to the center of candidates like Hillary Clinton in anticipation of 2008.

Im praying Dean sees the entire picture and uses his brain instead of succumbing to the pressure to win at all costs.

[lostinacause]

56. Kerry tried to be everything to everyone. He was not at the center

or really anywhere for that matter.

[FDU]

12. I appreciate your thoughts.

I believe the Democratic party needs to move steadily more progressive and populist. But my reasons fall, as do most others I believe, in that our gov't is here to serve the people.

Also, and I must admit this, there's a part of me that wishes the Democratic Party would move to the left simply to either confirm or lay to rest the debate as to whether the party needs to move more to the left (I hope that made sense). We've already seen the results of what happens when we stay put. Until it's actually done and we can see tangible results, I'm afraid this debate of "move left or move right" will continue.

FDU

[Selatius]

13. The implicit message is Democratic values are inferior

That's the assumption one automatically takes when one goes down this route. You're more likely to win if you have a consistent, coherent message and are willing to stand up for it, and you're more likely to win if you stand up for the people everytime, not just some of the time. Many Democratic senators and representatives have forgotten this. They feel they can sacrifice one issue for another and try and have it both ways.

It's not about being leftist or rightist. It's about being consistent, having integrity, and being forthright. Just standing up is enough.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. Do not move right! As the Dems move right, so do the Repukes!!!

As Lakoff said in a quote by Arianna Huffington:
Let's stop questioning ourselves, and what did we do wrong.
As was quoted on another thread in December:

THIS IS WORTH READING AND REMEMBERING!!!

"As cognitive psychologist George Lakoff told me: "Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are." It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right."

From this article:

THE NEXT DNC CHAIR: WHY YOU SHOULD CARE

Arianna Huffington, AlterNet


Nominating for greatest

[Stop_the_War]

15. thank you for posting that quote n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

17. I totally agree with your position. n/t

[lostinacause]

28. There is a theory called the mean voter theory that is used

to establish how people behave strategically. Based on a two party system If you move to a point where you can capture the mean voter you will end up winning elections. This is made a little more complex then when the option of abstaining or throwing away a vote to send a message. A simple way to account for this is subtracting any lost voter from a stance. From this there is sufficient reasoning to suggest moving more to the center would help to win elections.

[Silverhair]

32. We need to think differently that right - left.

If that is all we can do - we lose. It is that simple. Instead we need to come up with new ideas that take into account the concerns of our own base and the center to center-right. I believe we can do it, but not by hanging on to old ideas. Principles - yes, those don't change. But the specific method of expressing those principles may need to change.

[lostinacause]

36. The way the ideas are expressed is less important then the

way policy is to be carried out. In my opinion the democrats miss the mark on certain issues like response to globalization and pursuing equality in an efficient way. The choices people have in regard to mobility have increased for both the person and the corporation. The democrats seem slow to recognize these changes and are still looking at old methods most of which have become increasingly more costly. The values are important; they just have to be approached from a different way.

[Silverhair]

41. Yes. It think a bit of time out of power will make us rethink.

Our principles will not change, but the specific applications will.

[lostinacause]

59. I hope the rethinking happens sooner rather then later. -nt

[iconoclastNYC]

52. Time to try a new theory

That theory has FAILED. Remember that the Perot spoiler is what won it for Clinton.

Democrats need to offer strong leadership, fight aggressively and passionately and put our winning issues back on the forefront of American politics.

Moving to the right in some shrewd calculating manner to try to win turns democrats into politicans. The American Public wants a leader. This is how Bush wins. He is seen as a strong leader and he put his strong issues, Terror and War as the central issues.

[porphyrian]

53. That theory has lost us the last three major elections.

It's a piece of shit, and it doesn't work in reality.

[lostinacause]

55. Or maybe....

Democrats have done a poor job reaching out to the median voter.

[porphyrian]

57. That's funny! You're a card!

So, do the republicans pay you to spout this crap, or do you really live in such a bubble that you actually believe it?

[lostinacause]

58. Do some research on mean voter theory and then tell me I am wrong.

There is very good evedence to suggest I am right. Regarding my "crap", I don't see why a Republican would pay me to give good advice.

My "bubble" is bigger then you can possibly imagine. The median voter theory is multidimensional when it comes to dealing with people who are irrational and ill-informed. (All people, including myself, have elements of irrationality.) I left most of this out because it would prove excessively complicated. I even addressed a problem with causality and its determination.

(I honestly believe that someone who believes as you do about this issue is doing more to help the republicans then I am. I have no interest in giving bad advice or seeing greater republican power. If they get too powerful there will be no consequences for excessively poor policies.)

[porphyrian]

60. I like to use my imagination, too.

However, you are still wrong. The Democratic party needs to appeal to its base, which lies on the left, not in the center. There is empirical evidence that the theory you embrace is patently wrong, and your refusal to accept the facts is becoming tiresome.

[lostinacause]

61. Could you point out some academic writings that say this.

As far as I understand it the median voter theory is the best behavior model for understanding voting behavior in a two party system.

[porphyrian]

62. You didn't hear me.

Fuck your theory. The empirical evidence says it's bullshit.

[lostinacause]

63. It is not a controlled investigation.

There are various things that affect the way the public votes beyond the apparent stance that the politician takes. Your "empirical evidence" is likely a coincidence. (again: A multidimensional median voter theory incorporates many external issues.)

[porphyrian]

64. How many more "coincidences" are you willing to endure?

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

[lostinacause]

66. There is very good literature in philosophy and economics

on establishing cause. Unfortunately, the very fate you suggest I am pushing for is indeed the fate that is expected to happen on "the cure" you suggest.

[porphyrian]

67. Well spoken, but wrong.

Your belief is the one behind the failure of the Democratic party. Hide behind your books if you like, reality proves you wrong. The Democratic base is to the left, not the center.

[lostinacause]

69. I can't be proven wrong.

All that either one of us has is our best guess since are ability to analyze the difference between coincidence and cause is limited to an empirical system and estimations of causality. We could argue the potential validity of our arguments but my belief is that we have already passed that point as the theories are both simple in nature. Thank you for the discussion.

[porphyrian]

70. You are proven wrong.

Empirically.

[lostinacause]

76. Here's why you are only able to believe that I am wrong.

You cannot prove something about cause empirically. Take a simple situation of there being 4 conditions and a conclusion. There are two trials based on the possible outcomes it is not possible that you could come to a conclusion about causality in any circumstance. Now consider what having an infinite amount of factors and only a finite capacity to understand them. For any given issue no matter how sure we are about the causality we can not be proven wrong. By extension I cannot be proven wrong by any realm that is emperical.

[porphyrian]

78. You are wrong, and are wasting your time. - n/t

[lostinacause]

79. Logical empiricists and satiations would hold me correct.

Your whims are not sufficient to get me to doubt the correctness of the causality belief. I'm not wasting my time because I am enjoying myself. If I were trying to get you to think in a certain way I would be wasting my time. I don't however expect anybody to think the same way I do.

[porphyrian]

83. Wrong. - n/t

[lostinacause]

84. It seems you must have the last word.

(Repeating yourself does not change the correctness of you assertion)

[porphyrian]

87. I could say the same thing for you.

And that your opinion is wrong.

[lostinacause]

88. What if I said that purely for being ironic?

Would I then want the last word?

[porphyrian]

91. I don't really care. - n/t

[lostinacause]

95. It's one of those "This sentence is false" situations -nt

[harpboy_ak]

97. screw the academics!

lostinacause: "Could you point out some academic writings that say this."

screw the academics! when have they won an election for us? the fact is that this idiotic centrist theory cost us the past 3 elections!

screw the DLC and the corporate shills in Dem clothing inside the bleeping beltway, too. the party needs to return to its roots and organize from the ground up. that's why howard was selected, not some bleeping academic, bloodsucking "consultant", or corporate slimeball.

[moddemny]

90. republicans pay you to spout this crap

here we go with the same old tired sellout accusations

[Nadienne]

34. Even before the election, there was a lot of talk

of whether or not Democrats should "move right."

Whoever won that arguement, I don't know. Is "Universal Health Care" on the party platform?

Even if we registered Democrats decided to take a stand for workers' rights, etc, those for whom we could vote that would take such a stand (like Kucinich) are few and far between: they just don't have the money to launch an effective campaign. It takes money to have the media exposure that wins campaigns. And some of those who have the money to win, in my opinion, might have different priorities than the rest of us, no matter what party they call their own.

That being said, I wish Democrats would stop "moving right." I wish I believed that they're all trying to protect the rights of the working class.

[lostinacause]

35. What are the "rights of the working class"?

[Nadienne]

37. The rights of the class of people

who work for a living. They are rights like access to health care, clean air and water. Basically, what I mean is that when there is an issue that boils down to corporate interests versus the rights of ordinary people, I would like to see ordinary people win out.

[lostinacause]

54. So you mean the interests of the working class people

[AuntiBush]

38. If the Dem's move to the right, they're NO LONGER DEMS!

What would be the point. Why is "Democrat," which clearly is another form of the word "Democracy" be such a dirty word.

People have to stop worrying about labels. "Liberal." Great. I thank you if you'd call me that, taking it as a major compliment. That tells me you understand I'm trying my best to be kind, loving, gentle, open to all fellow human beings, live and let live, I care for the poor, the hungry, and other's feelings and freedoms. Civil liberties, you know.

The DNC needs to stop worrying about labels. Stop worrying about the Religious Fanatics. I know plenty of Tabernacle types, and they detest Bush & Co and actually like the Dems and are themselves.

[Carl Yasutomo]

39. Folks, it's not just about how far left or right you are

Democrats keep searching for that magical, optimal point on the left-right spectrum that will win elections. Well, guess what, folks, there is a LOT that enters into a voter's decision besides just whether a party is too far left or right!

Having observed the last several elections, I am a firm believer that personality, for example, is an extremely important determinant of voter's choices. Does the candidate seem genuine, warm, and concerned about my problems? Is his/her manner reassuring or off-putting? I know this is incredibly superficial and a sad fact of democracy, but it is the truth. You think Reagan would have won by such a landslide if he had had the demeanor of, I don't know, just about any other politician out there today? Clinton, similarly, was very charismatic.

Voters' decisions are also guided by who *inspires* them. Does the candidate genuinely believe in his/her convictions? Does the candidate have the guts to stand up for what s/he believes? Does the candidate inspire us and make us feel good about ourselves and the future of our country?

The problem with Democrats is that many of them have totally lost sight of these intangible, fuzzy, "feel good" qualities that are necessary in a truly winning candidate. Republicans have been honing their public personas for years, ever since Reagan demonstrated the importance of good PR. This is why Bush, who actually acts like a bumbling moron much of the time, has been carefully and successfully stage managed as "just plain folks," a guy you could "have a beer with," etc. The Republicans know the importance of such intangibles as a candidate's perceived "accessibility" and genuineness.

Democrats are so preoccupied with trying to find the magical point on the spectrum that they are constantly tweaking their positions on the issues. This is why people perceive them as wishy-washy and pandering. It is why Democrats so often act apologetic or ashamed of being liberal. When a far-right conservative is called conservative, do they act embarrassed? Of course not. Democrats need to adopt the Republican habit of not apologizing for our beliefs. When someone accuses you of being a liberal, the correct response is "You're damn right! And here's why I believe what I do..."

What the Democrats need is not to move to the center or to find that magical point on the spectrum that will appeal to the most voters. They desperately need to learn how to INSPIRE people, how to make voters feel comfortable with them, and to project a strong image that will stick in the public consciousness and change the atmosphere of the debate so that Republicans can no longer get away with shaming us into backing off from our beliefs.

[NewJeffCT]

81. great post

I agree 100%. Too many of our candidates in recent years have been perceived as wishy washy flip floppers - Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale...

We need to find a charismatic & inspiring candidate (I also think Clinton won as a centrist because he was so charismatic, not because of his policies...)

[0rganism]

40. Goldwater, 1964. Did the GOP suddenly "move to the center"?

Hell no. They radicalized. Forty years ago they started, in the watershed year of 1965. While liberals were busy passing the civil rights laws and building up social programs, conservatives were laying a long term plan to tear it all the way down, and we never noticed until it was too late. It took them ten years to get started, and another ten years to build up the momentum, but now they own the federal government, the mass media, and the "morals" vote.

This is their decade of triumphal reforms. Watch closely, and consider carefully how they accomplished it. As the Great Society unravels around us, we're in an excellent position to start planning the next movement to replace it with something stronger and more progressive.

[WyLoochka]

43. Perhaps people don't recall

Goldwater scared the living daylights out of people in '64 because he was perceived as too conservative. And indeed he was. But now, the majority of pols in the Repuke Party, are way to the right of even Goldwater in his wildest dreams.

It was then and there, in '64-'65, that the "conservatives" started on their disciplined "rhetorical propaganda" campaign and that's all it is - really. They carefuly crafted and controlled language and constantly beat up on the media in order to turn the tables so that Democrats would be perceived as the too scary liberals.

The 1968 Democratic Convention debacle - both inside and outside - was a gift to the lying propagandizing Repukes. They've been able to increasingly scare the populace about those "libruls" ever since.

Yet, in opinion poll public policy questions - a large majority of the populace remains steadfastly liberal when responding to fairly aksed questions.

This nation was founded by liberals. Do not confuse the puritan fundies with the founders, which is a mistake many make. The puritans had gone down in shame and overwhelming repudiation following the Salem Witch Trial debacle looooonnnnng before the country was actually founded.

What this country needs to do is to return to it's liberal roots and who is best equipped to lead the way? Liberals - of course. The "moderates" will come along, but we liberals absolutely have to strike out on the path and start going that way before they will do that.

[NewJeffCT]

82. I've been saying that for 18 months on DU

In 1964, Goldwater was so far to the right that he was scary to the mainstream. However, the Republicans have so effectively taken over the government & the media that a Goldwater clone today would be running as a 'liberal' Republican, and somebody that is more conservative than Goldwater in Jon McCain is now a fiercely independent moderate.

Goldwater was pro-choice, pro-environment and pro gays in the military. All 3 are anathema to today's RW Republicans.

That is the job of the Ann Coulters and Michelle Malkins of the RW. They are so far out there and so radical that when a RW Republican runs for office, the RWers can at least say, "well, I'm more liberal than Ann Coulter"

[ananda]

42. right is wrong

Right is wrong, and left is right.

Sue, a proud leftie liberal

[Clark2008]

45. See, now, this is why I'm such a Clark fan.

As a Southerner, I know that anyone PERCEIVED as liberal won't pick up any red states.
However, by virtue of the fact that he was in the military for 34 years and rose to its highest ranks, the VERY LIBERAL Clark is PERCEIVED as a centrist. Even after reading his position papers, which are progressive as hell, people still think he's a centrist. What better way to get people to open up their minds and forget what they've been "taught" by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for the past 12 years? If right-leaning moderates thought Clark was a liberal, they wouldn't even bother to read his position papers - but, because they THINK he's a centrist, they might.
We do need to reach out to the Southern and mid-Western states. If there wasn't such a vaccum on media coverage in these areas, (most of our media is decidedly to the right of Attila the Hun) I'm sure many people would completely agree with liberal issues. They just don't know about them or the liberal idea is spun out of control by the neo-fascists on the radio.
This is why I don't support Hillary, for example. She's a centrist perceived as a liberal.
Just some random thoughts.

[Mockingbird]

73. Perceptions will stand until 2008?

Spin works!
The NeoCONs will retire & not attack Hillary or Clark, of course.

I don't know that much about Clark, but he was impressive after the primaries. He would have made a good running mate for Kerry, but I wonder if anyone could accept a general in the #2 spot? And did he warrant the #1, with Kerry as #2?

Name recognition is important. So whoever it is - will have to get noticed early. Which also means that the disinformation campaign against any likely candidates has already started. This time, its spit in their eye IMMEDIATELY.

That was a big part of Clark's problem - he was unknown. We had to be wary of someone without a record because nonsense qualifications were what we were fighting in Georgie boy.

But retaliation against spin with counterspin approaching the the crap the NeoCONs fling is much like retaliation on the football field - the original transgression gets overlooked - the response gets the call.

So we need to keep hitting hard with facts, in full pads.

[formernaderite]

49. I think what we want is a populist candidate

...not someone beholden to special interests, who promotes a triangulation formula to make everyone happy. The shift to the right has happened as we have ceded ground, and the public really can't tell the difference except when one candidate runs on divisive issues.
Bush mastered what the press likes to call "plain spoken language". Regardless if "we" can't stand it...the populace can.
Kerry was a great candidate philisophically, but not so good at delivering a simple message. He was not a true populist and it showed. My issue has always been that Iowa's straw poll primary, creates peer pressure to cede control to the deal makers.

[_TJ_]

51. pendulum effect

The zeitgeist of a nation is like a pendulum. It swings to
the right, then it swings to the left. It always comes back
from where it's gone.

Revolution, counter-revolution, counter-counter-revolution and
so on...

[Satara]

77. A party for all !

We do not need to try to be more rightwing-ish. I think that would be a huge mistake for 2006 and 2008.

We need to do more reaching out to those who do not vote. And find a way to make them want to vote. There is too much "it doesn't affect me" stuff going on, imho x(

[Spinoza]

80. Many of Clinton's policies

(ending 'Welfare As We Know It', Nafta, bombing Kosovo without U.N. authorization, etc.) would appear today to be very 'right-wing' to many DUer's. Never-the-less, most of us would give quite a lot to have a Clinton style Presidency today instead of what we do have. 'Moving Right', similar to a Clinton Presidency, is probably the ONLY option we have which would give us back the White House.

[JNelson6563]

85. Amen!

The base has been neglected for far too long and has shrunk as a result. We need to recoup our base and add to it by being original, not Rethug-lite.

Julie

[Riding this Donkey]

92. I agree, we cannot move right, we need to find issues and a way to

express them that can do nothing but garner support for our plights.

We have to stop being so divisive within our own party too.

All of our issue are important, but one is not more important than the other.

We hurt ourselves when we identify ourselves with only one issue and fight others on theirs. And give ammunition to our enemies.

We have to have faith and trust in eachother to know that once we get back into power we will have eachothers backs, no matter what is said in trying to get there.

[GreenPoet64]

96. kick n/t

[Prism]

98. From a Centrist Dem

Not sure if this is the greatest thread to get my feet wet in, especially given what I'm about to say, but live and learn.

I consider myself a centrist Democrat in the Clintonian mold. I suppose what people call a DLC-er here. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, for ending corporate welfare and off-shore tax loopholes, against organized prayer in public schools, for increased educational funding in poor and minority areas, etc. You get the idea.

The thing is, there is this perception here that the party has moved to the Right. From where I'm standing, the party seems to have moved decidedly Left.

There is a phrase that is pretty apt. "I don't have a problem with God, I just dislike his fan club." When trying to make up my mind during the 2004 election, my problem wasn't really with Kerry as much as Kerry supporters. BusHitler, fascism, Michael Moore, the conspiracy theories about 9-11, etc. The rhetoric coming from a sizeable portion of the Democratic party during the election took a decidedly Left-wing turn.

Now, that plays well with the base, I suppose. It doesn't play well with people like me. In fact, it looked decidedly unhinged. It's as if my best friend, who is normally intelligent, sober-minded, and conscientious suddenly snorted a line of coke and was trying to convince me to get in the car with him.

The rhetoric affects people. It does turn off moderates. I simply couldn't bring myself to vote Democratic in the last election. And it was mainly the more extreme supporters who drove me to that decision. My friends who are more liberal than I, and who would seem quite at home here, would get belligerent if I did not believe exactly as they did. If I didn't think Bush was the anti-christ and the worst leader in human history, then something was wrong with me. I must be morally and intellectual defective, right? And god help me if I agreed with one, tiny thing the president did. Then I never heard the end of it.

And after saying those kinds of things over and over, for months on end, they honestly expected me to vote for who they supported? Sorry, wasn't going to happen.

Clinton was the master. He could wrap up any idea and sell it effectively. He knew when he had to reach out, when he didn't have to, and when he could get tough. Republican Congress or no, this was a president who could shut down the government and nail the Republicans to the wall for it.

Politics are about compromise. Clinton was a great compromiser. And yet he still brought peace and prosperity to this country. He was more conservative than some might have liked, but he got things done. Now, it seems as if people want no compromise, that candidates must be more ideologically pure.

That's not going to fly. At least not with the Democratic party, which is by definition more coalitional than Republicans. The liberal base is not as large as the solidly red base of the Republican party. The party must nominate candidates with the ability to draw together all kinds of disparate interests. In the 2004, it seemed like the only thing uniting the party was Bush hatred. That wasn't good enough.

The Democratic Party needs moderates far more than the Republicans do. Republicans can win on their base alone. They can ratchet up that rhetoric, appeal to prejudices, and invoke Jesus to get a nice, solid turnout every time.

Not so with the Dems. And, I'm afraid, if the party moves further to the Left, adheres to that base, and discards the moderates, well, it can look forward to losing election after election after election.

JMHO. Sorry for the length. Been reading here a long time, and it seems I have so much to say and am squeezing everything into one post. Will try to avoid sloppiness in the future.

[madeline_con]

101. Man, that was good!

And sort of what I was trying to get at, onlt from the religion angle. I hope the guys from the DNC read DU. :)

[madeline_con]

100. I['ll try again.

My other post was misspelled and not very clear.

I've read a lot of commentary lately about the Democratic party no longer appealing to religious people.

It seems to me that just because DUH-bya is an insane evagelist on a mission from God, a lot of Dems shun anyone who's religious.

This isn't new, but we need to remember this point: the dems got their start in the churches, with civil disobedience and the courage of religious people challenging the status quo.

We need to get back to that grass roots level, and include the poor and disenfranchised, instead of treating them like retarded charges we pay only lip service to.

If the neocons think they have a huge voting block with the Fundies, imagine their surprise if all the poor and needy sudden;y decided to take the country back to 'the people'.