Why it's hard to be a Democrat

[FrenchieCat]

Somebody posted a link to this article in another thread,
and I found it timely.

It's hard to be a Democrat because we have to be so many things to so many different people. We're undisciplined, disorganized, and we're up against billionaires who don't like to share and don't play well with others.

These billionaires own the corporations and sit on the boards of all the major media outlets. They control the message and they use fear to divide us, so many will vote against their own best interests. They embrace the uninformed, paranoid and gullible among us, and they call themselves and their minions Republicans. They are well funded, organized and unified around the basic emotions of fear and greed.
<>
Republicans cry "class warfare" when we point out what they do. Like a pick pocket complaining, you looked at his hands as he robbed you blind. When the news is bad they blame the "liberal media" even though they own the companies and sit on the boards that make the decisions that shape the news. If Al Gore had been president during the 9/11 attacks and had failed to act on the August 6, 2001 PDB: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" he would have been burned alive .....

While Democrats are not without flaws, the Republican Party is the one pressing the agenda of the super-rich and powerful. While these may not be the original ideals of the party, they are a cancer that has taken over our government. Before you wince too hard, read the concerns of former presidents who wrote about the threat to our Democracy of corporate wealth and power.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson 1816, (U.S. President 1801-09)


"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (U.S. President 1861-65)


"This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." - Rutherford B. Hayes, 1876 (U.S. President 1877-81)

"Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters." - Grover Cleveland, 1888 (U.S. President 1885-89 and 1892-96)

"The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being. There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done." - Theodore Roosevelt, 1910 (U.S. President 1901-09)

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1938 (U.S. President 1933-45)

What use to be known as "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is now called a "jobless recovery." Over the last 30 years, the poor and middle class have been squeezed tighter and tighter while the wealthy have become filthy rich. The richest 10% in the US now own over 70% of our total accumulated wealth. In 1970 there were 190 billionaires and now there are more than 3,100 billionaires while middle-class jobs are outsourced, work hours increase, income declines, and poverty has reached an all time high in our country.

Benito Mussolini claimed credit for defining fascism stating: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." In 1938, Mussolini established the first fascist state by replacing the Italian Parliament with the "Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni" - the Chamber of Fascist Corporations.

Democrats don't use God as an excuse to ignore science; we thank God for the science he gives us to perform miracles like healing the sick and feeding the poor. We are thankful for the science that warns us about global warming and tells us why missile defense won't work...Democrats don't try to take God's place by legislating discrimination into the Constitution in God's name.

It's hard to be a Democrat because you have to go up to people you don't know and beg them to register to vote, volunteer and donate money. Republicans just scrub Democrats from the voter rolls. We Democrats are fighting to restore our democracy on a field that is rigged against us. It's easier to hate your enemies, insult your allies, ignore the poor and ignore science because the alternatives are complex and difficult. And that is why it's hard to be a Democrat.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/03_hard.html

Written on September 3, 2004

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Recommended, even though it didn't show. Yet.

Thank you, FrenchieCat...

This is a very important article. I appreciate your posting it...

On edit: Now, someone else's rec is showing!

[FrenchieCat]

2. Thank you!

:hi:

[BanTheGOP]

53. Thank YOU, Frenchie! You have just showed why the GOP is NOT a political party!

I can NOT STAND IT when people tell me the republican Party is a political organization. It is, in fact, the most destructive, most reprehensible organization in the history of the planet, and why it's allowed to exist is beyond me. We have to start enacting RICO statutes against the financial shenanigans and ban the party, NOW!

[Wait Wut]

6. Mine showed!

:bounce:

I've been saying that for years.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Kick & Recommend

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. K & R

:kick:

[Cali_Democrat]

5. It's also hard because Wall Street and other nefarious interests also buy off Democratic politicians

They are successful in many cases. People see politicians on both sides protecting Wall Street and the 1%. They see those special interests donate handsomely to both Democratic and Republicans candidates. People then see those same politicians fighting for Wall Street and the 1% when they get elected.

Why are the politicians fighting for Wall Street? Because they've essentially been purchased by those specials interests via campaign contributions and other methods.

The relationship between the politicians and Wall Street special interests is very similar to the relationship between a prostitute and her John. One pays and the other performs services.

People see this and they get discouraged.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. You speak for "the people" now?

:rofl:

I'm "a people", and you never asked if you could speak for me, and I don't remember giving my consent. :hi:

[Cali_Democrat]

9. I speak for myself. It was my opinion

However, I know a lot of people that feel exactly as I do...they agree with my opinion. You'll find many of them right here on this website.

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. "This website" represents "the people" about as much as the tea party.

Ever hear of an "echo chamber"? :shrug:

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Many Americans feel politicians are bought off by special interest money

In case you weren't aware.

[Jackpine Radical]

34. I think Tea Party comparisons are wrongheaded.

The Baggers all sing the same hateful little tunes on demand, like a Satanic chorus. I wouldn't even credit them with a groupmind. They did not invent, and don't even understand, the consequences of their destructive platform. They are totally predictable tools of their owners, and their owners are psychopathic authoritarians of the sort Bob Altemeyer has written about extensively.

DU, on the other hand, probably has more opinions than it does members. (Hell, I know I have 3 or 4 mutually contradictory opinions on almost any given topic.)

We may be dysfunctional, we may spend most of our energy battling each other, but never accuse us of being an echo chamber.

[saras]

41. Finally, someone admits the truth.

"Hell, I know I have 3 or 4 mutually contradictory opinions on almost any given topic."

An opinion is what you have when you don't have all the facts. There's an infinite number of ways of drawing a line through a series of points, and adding a single point invalidates the vast majority of them.

[Jackpine Radical]

44. Hypothesis testing.

And yest, that's pretty much what I meant with my comment.

[Mr Deltoid]

39. So DU is the same as the Tea Party in your mind?

Interesting...

[Vanje]

48. Oh. You speak for this website now

Sure you do/

[emilyg]

38. You speak for me.

[Vanje]

49. You speak for me

[theaocp]

17. I don't see "the people" anywhere in the post above.

Perhaps you should stop be so condescending and pay attention.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. "I don't see"......

You should have that printed on a tee-shirt. ;)

[Cali_Democrat]

22. What's your opinion? Do you think special interest money has too much influence on politicians?

If you look at the campaign contributions of many politicians in Washington DC, much of it comes from corporations and the very wealthy. The money is flowing to both Democrats and Republicans. Do you think that they have too much influence on shaping public policy because of these campaign contributions?

Here's an excellent website detailing that information: http://www.opensecrets.org

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Well, duh. No one should have to raise & spend a billion dollars to hold public office.

But you work within the system you're given, and it's worth putting pressure on Congress to change how we finance elections. Remember Citizen's United? :shrug:

[theaocp]

33. How is any Democrat different, then?

All politicians should be judged with this inherent concept in mind. Incentives are very slippery. That's why I judge Obama through the company he keeps, as well as his actions.

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. Something tells me you don't much care if a democrat actually wins.

I'm a "Democrat", therefore I work for "Democrats", and I support "Democrats", and I post on what used to be a "Democratic" website before the influx. :hi:

[Mr Deltoid]

40. "But you work within the system you're given"

So, Democrats must take money from the very same people who destroyed the economy, and allow them to destroy it all over again?

Because, 'you work within the system you're given?'

Interesting...

[theaocp]

32. That's not even a nice dodge.

You ignored the opportunity to self-reflect on what you posted and went back to snark. What's next? You're going to edit your post like Clark to make yourself feel better?

[sulphurdunn]

52. Do you really believe

you live in a country where anyone, anywhere at anytime ever gave a shit about getting your consent to use the word "people"? :crazy:

[FrenchieCat]

10. It is an uneven playing field at best.....

When one party has a huge media mouthpiece working against the other party,
and in addition to that, enough out there who choose to emphasize the ways that
Democrats may be similar to Republicans without also emphasizing the fact
that Democrats in so very many ways are very different from Republicans,
it makes things for Democrats even more difficult.

That's why it is hard to be a Democrat. Because everyone is kicking Democrats up the ass,
and holding them to standards that are impossible to uphold, while leaving Republicans
largely alone. It only makes Republicans look that much better, and enables them in every way.

If Romney raises 5 billion dollars made possible by the United Citizen's ruling,
and he and his party are able to crush Democrats in every way,
while some in the Democratic party continue to encourage folks not to give to
the Democrats as a way of punishment, what will you be emphasizing then to help Democrats
stay discouraged?

[Hippo_Tron]

20. A large part of the 99% started voting for Nixon and Reagan long before the Democrats...

Started taking money from Wall Street. I don't disagree with you that, in large part, both parties are bought and paid for and the status quo fucking sucks. But it's not like a group of people sat in a room and conspired to make the Democratic Party work more for the elites. The Democrats were faced with a huge part of their base deciding that resisting social change was far more important to them than economic issues. Therefore they were left with the choice of either starting to to former well off former Moderate Republicans who were turned off by Reagan's social policies, or basically face extinction.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Unfortunately, that's what happened. The Republican nearly had a monopoly...

and then many Democrats realized that it would be impossible to compete by ignoring it all.
Of course, we pay for it dearly with corporate based policies instituted that we are forced
to live under.

Money out of elections is the only answer, but how can we get that done? Corporations aren't people...not even close.

Harder still is that we all understand the problem, and we even know what the solution is....
but it's the solution that's damn near impossible to get done....as always.

[FSogol]

7. K&R. n/t

[11 Bravo]

12. Rec'd. (And I will be shoving that Lincoln quote up a few teabagger asses.

[mojowork_n]

14. WOW, awesome. Thanks for re-posting that one n/t

[FrenchieCat]

16. Like I said, someone dropped it into another thread,

and when I read it, I said...wow, not much has changed!

[libinnyandia]

15. Democrats

As feel like Will Rogers. And it is hard to feel optimistic when our party is so disunited, as least compared to the GOP, who all drink the same kool-aid.

[Worship Money]

21. Yeah

This party has a lot of different wings, and the real progessive and liberal elements of the party are mainly grass roots. We have a really big disconnect with the MUCH more corporate friendly and center-right version that unfortunately serves as the legitimate face of the party.

The Republicans are just completely bought, all of them, and are a centrally run machine. They have tons of advantages that stem from this.

[Mimosa]

18. K&R n/t

[JNelson6563]

24. K&R Excellent piece!

:toast:

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. excellent article Frenchi, kick and recommend!

[Karenina]

27. . .

[Pab Sungenis]

28. It's hard to be a Democrat when

a certain segment of the Party tells you that your civil rights don't matter, so sit down, shut up, and toe the Party line.

[Jamastiene]

51. +1000000

Well said.

[Shining Jack]

54. +1

Plus if you dare to criticize the anointed one in any way you're in for a big flaming fest.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Tripe. Faith talk. To be rejected.

'Be all things to all people' is yes, St Paul, the same one who hates gays. It is an awful teaching. It says 'fool and glad hand them'.
What we need to be is OURSELVES with out own principles, consistent and true. Do that and you can not fail. Run around trying to 'be all things to all people' and what you wind up being is nothing, a void, a reflection of the room around you and nothing else.
And the bit about 'not trying to take God's place by legislating discrimination' is offensive, considering the President and many other Democrats directly say that they do not support equal rights for GLBT people BECAUSE of their so called 'faith'. President says 'I am a Christian so I think marriage is for one man and one woman' (Newt and Calista) then he goes on about Sacraments, Sanctity, God in the Mix, and his entire rationale for opposing equal rights is religious, dogmatic, theocratic bullshit.
So this writer lacks self inspection and honesty. Too busy trying to please everyone. You can not stand with haters and the hated. Life is such that you do, in fact, have to pick a side. You can not butter your toast on both sides, all you get is greasy fingers and spoiled toast.
One of the most short sighted bits of excuse making I have ever read.

[RandomKoolzip]

30. Exactly. +1.

Anyone trying to be all things to all people will end up being no one to anybody. That's why the profile of Democrats in the public consciousness is so low. Find the RIGHT things to fight for, the right PEOPLE to fight for, and become principled about making sure THOSE priorities always are first. People don't vote for Dems because they have no idea what Dems stand for - they purport to be on the side of the underdog but are awash in corporate money; they refuse to wear the "liberal" or "progressive" label" and instead come off as weak-willed appeasers; they run away from their greatest strengths whenever a news camera is shined on them: "I am neither liberal NOR conservative!," "There is NOT two Americas," etc. Sorry, but there ARE two Americas, and one of them is beating the SHIT out of the other.

[DonCoquixote]

31. Hmm

I think the point that you missed is that we have a problem deciding who "ourselves" actually are, as many people are fighting to define that, whereas the GOP does not even have to try.

Also, did you really think sher was trying to offened gays by saying we do not have the right to take God's place? Isn't discrimination when people try to do exactly that?

I do not condone Obama's flip flops on gay rights, point blank. I also know he is scared, since the running meme is "when the democrats favor gays, they give the GOP live ammo." Let me ask you this, how do we reach joe sixpack and jane church is a way that they will realize that no, the world will not fall apart if Gays marry? It is an unfair question, yes, but we still need to think of an answer, or else the GOP will automatically gain ammo. Granted, it would have been better for Obama to go froward, consequences be damned, especially as the GOP will never forgive him for killing DADT, but that does not mean we can just ignore the elephant in the room, that we somehow need to deprogram the church types, in a language that they can understand, or else we will just get the GOP in the Oval Office every year. This is not sarcasm, this is me asking for a "HOW" for the problem, instead of simply stating the problem over and over again.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. The first step toward 'how' is to cease the steaming self service

"Democrats don't try to take God's place by legislating discrimination into the Constitution in God's name." Is a self serving statement, when the facts of the matter are not avoided. He did not offend by saying it is wrong to 'take God's place' but by saying Democrats do not do that, when they do. Obama says 'I am a Christian, so I believe....'then it's 'one man, one woman, Sacraments, Sanctity and God is in the mix'. Obama offers nothing but religious reasons for opposing equal rights.
Prop 8 passed only because Democrats voted for it. DOMA? Hell, Wellstone voted for DOMA.
This article is an example of the problem. The author starts with Biblical shit about 'being all things to all people' which is rotten advice. Be yourself, to everyone. Why? Because no one can be both an ally to hate preachers and those they hate.
As long as Democratic politicians spout 'God is in the mix' and 'sanctity sacrament, one man one woman' and as long as Democratic voters turn out to vote for discriminatory legislation because of their 'faith' it is a pure lie to say :"Democrats don't try to take God's place by legislating discrimination into the Constitution in God's name."
Step one is stop trying to scam me. Stop trying to be different things for different people. Stop saying 'we do not do it' when in fact, we do. Stop telling me Democrats do not push 'God in the mix' and stop telling me Democratic votes did not pass Prop 8. The OP is from CA, as is the first poster in the thread, high fives for 'not discriminating' when they did in fact, pass Prop 8.
In the interim between election day (Prop 8) and Inaugural, Rick Warren equated gay relationships with incest and pedophilia. When we complained that such an outrageous speaker of hate was being honored, we were told he is 'America's Minister' and that it was just 'on two minute prayer'. I invite you to check DU search, and see what Democrats said about that man, and about Prop 8. He called us criminals, and the bulk of the DU sided with him, honored him, defended, rationalized and in various ways made it 'ok' for him to be there. Such bullshit does not indicate truth in this statement: "Democrats don't try to take God's place by legislating discrimination into the Constitution in God's name" DOMA, Prop 8...etc
First comes honesty, not more bullshit.

[DonCoquixote]

36. Ok, let me clarify

What strategy do you have to win over people who would be prey to the GOP because of the gay issue?

[Bluenorthwest]

37. You tell me how to reach "Joe and Jane Churchy' while the

President preens over his religious objections to equality? He is arguing on the side of Joe and Jane, and that coupled with this insistence from the straights that gay people hold responsibility to educate your communities even as 'our' politicians feed their ignorance makes for an impossible scenario, in which straights keep vomiting dogmatic rhetoric and somehow, we are supposed to argue with both Obama and Bachmann, without any help form the straights and in fact, tons of nasty 'God in the mix, they are not Sanctified' bullshit from 'our side'.
It gets old. But step one is honesty: as long as the religious objections keep coming from Democrats, it is unfair to say shit like this:
'Democrats don't try to take God's place by legislating discrimination into the Constitution in God's name.'
Why is it unfair? Because Democrats do legislate, and they do rave about what they claim God tells them to do and not do. It is steaming bullshit to claim otherwise, bullshit posted so that straights can feel good about themselves, in spite of the truth of the matter.

[DonCoquixote]

45. that coupled with this insistence from the straights that gay people hold responsibility to educate

Actually, many of us "straights" want to get through to the church types as ,much as you do, albeit for different reasons. I my own case, I have banged my head against the abortion issue, the education issue (as in, no the reason the Chinese are kicking our ass is not because we removed prayer), and a host of others which are tied into religion. Believe it or not, not all "straights" go to church. I ask you how to deal with them because I myself have banged my own head against the wall, and whether we like to admit it or not, we are stuck in the same mess. The one point we may differ is this, some gays (and I am not assuming where you stand, I do not know you) may think that staying home will send a message to Obama. I say that sending the message to Obama is pointless when the GOP gets what they want, how they want it, and will make their first order of business to not only take away what few inches of progress we got, but to go back several miles. It is not a question anymore of merely winning an election, but how to tilt things leftward when the billionaires have the sheep riled up. For what it is worth, I think the solution for that will come from culture, i.e. the sort of work that folks like Oprah, Ellen, and Rosie O Donnell did to demystify the whole issue of LGBT life. As much as Politics should be the horse, it is the cart, and I think we may need to have the Mike Moores win fights culturally, on LGBT and all other issues. BUT, and this is a big but, as long as we democrats act like we are all single issue voters, we will lose, period. We have to learn that the problems of the other people in the party ARE OUR PROBLEMS, whether it is marriage, immigration, labor rights, or a host of other things that may not apply to us as individuals, because the minute we say "not our problem", the enemy will hit us in our weakest point. THAT is what any BIG tent should be, not some idealistic fantasy, but the knowledge that we are all we have. And yes, Obama is failing that, and yes, we need to figure out how to pound that into his head, but as someone that head to hear the future tea party members gloat in 2004 that they got Bush back in, I know this, fighting with each other is NOT going to help.

[truedelphi]

42. Why it's hard to be a Democrat who acts like one...

George Seldes, who was a Chicago Tribune correspondant during the late Nineteen teens and up until 1929, he relates the following conversation that he had with Dorothy Thompson -another news reporter and the wife of Sinclair Lewis:

Thompson told Seldes in 1935 that while en route by ocean liner from France to NYC how Harry F. Sinclair, a Big Money Guy, took her away from the table where they had been eating to talk privately.

"See those folks at the table who were eating with us?" Harry F Sinclair asks Thompson?

"Yes," answers Dorothy.

"Well, all of us are the ones who decide who gets nominated to run for the Presidency and who gets to win that office."

Among those he meant was an important associate of the Giannini family, the people who established Bank of America.

""We give money on both sides of the aisle, so that no matter what, one of our people is always in a place to do our bidding."

"What about FDR?" asked Dorothy.

"Our support for him was a major misjudgement on our part. We saw to it that he had money and of course, we fully expected for him to say the sort of things that he always said. We just didn't expect him to act on those statements."

Sinclair went on to state that the Inner Circle of Power Brokers was attempting to raise some five to twenty million to defeat FDR in 1936.

But the voting machinery was still non-hackable back in that era. And FDR had millions upon millions of everyday people to vote him back in.

Obama campaigned as a progressive in October of 2008. He made statements that only a progressive would make. But he tipped his hand to everyone when he told "Sixty Minutes" the last Sunday in Nov of 2008 that he thought that Paulson was doing a good job. By the time he appointed his "Good Buddy" Tim Geithner, to head Treasury, a lot of us were becoming suspicious. And now a lot of us are out in the streets.

The Big Money/Inner Circle of the Elite supported this man, Barack Obama, and he has been true to them. And what can the average voter do about it? I suggest if you want a democracy in which elected officials act the way that FDR acted, you find the Nearest "Occupy" and stand there till those in Washington hear us.

[Hutzpa]

43. This is the killer line in my opinion

We're undisciplined, disorganized, and we're up against billionaires who don't like to share and
don't play well with others.

Maybe the billionaires wanted it like that, they wanted the democratic party to be disorganized, undisciplined.

One cannot help but think why is it that every time when the party is about to embark
on challenging issues there seems to be some type of push backs or disobedience shown by few within the
party.

Then there is the question of corruption in the form of small favors, how do you get rid of that?

[mtnsnake]

46. My favorite paragraph:

These billionaires own the corporations and sit on the boards of all the major media outlets. They control the message and they use fear to divide us, so many will vote against their own best interests. They embrace the uninformed, paranoid and gullible among us, and they call themselves and their minions Republicans. They are well funded, organized and unified around the basic emotions of fear and greed.

Pretty much sums up the way it is.

[Edweird]

50. It's hard because the de-facto leader of the party is embracing Reaganism and far RW policy.

[FrenchieCat]

55. No, it's always been hard.....the article is from 2004.