Are "progressives" out of touch with the Democratic Party?

[kentuck]

Are their demands out of touch with political reality?

Do they need to change their viewpoints to fit the reality of today's world?

Are their ideals about FDR and the New Deal no longer relevant with the problems we face today?

I think this is an important discussion for Democrats to have. I hope it can be done without malice or personal attacks.

[lpbk2713]

1. The unreccers got to this before I did.

My + rec didn't register.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Obviously.

We have 'far left loon' ideas like medicare for everyone, increasing social security benefits, taxing the rich, funding education for everyone, reducing the size of our military to sane levels, and getting wall street out of washington and back to new york where it belongs.

None of that seems to be on the Democratic Party agenda.

[LWolf]

32. +1

[Hell Hath No Fury]

33. Yes, I am clearly wildy out of touch --

with today's Democratic Party.

And that is a tragedy.

[Cal33]

39. "Getting wall street out of washington and back to new york where it belongs."

The above clearly is not too far left. Not to do so would be aiding and abetting
in the crimes of Wall Street.

Not so long ago someone wrote that it's no longer blue vs. red, or Dems. vs. Repubs.
Today it's Corporations vs. You and Me. I think this is very true and very much
to the point -- Repubs. are being robbed by the corporations, too -- along with
everybody else.

[Hello_Kitty]

41. PONIES!!1!

Careful, Warren, such talk upsets the Sensible Centrists.

[some guy]

72. +2

[leftstreet]

3. The party leadership is out of touch with most Americans, period

'Progressive,' 'moderate,' 'conservative,' 'liberal'... everybody pretty much wants a livable wage, some fucking single payer healthcare, a non-toxic environment, and a decent future for their kids.

It's not brain surgery

[Hannah Bell]

49. +100

[heppcatt]

4. I don't think so.

If you propose progressive policies and do not label them as such, they are widely popular. Even the AM radio echo chamber will admit this, that is why the right is constant at always framing the word or ideas of progressives in negative light. So as soon as people hear the word, the listeners mind shuts down and places everything said after on ignore.
The right has done a very good job the last 40 years at psychologically framing ideas, it doesn't help to have centrist Democrats reinforcing the myth that the nation is center right.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. That's a very good point. The problem is that until that narrative changes,

we are forced to face this reality. People wrongly self-identify as conservative or moderate before they call themselves liberal or progressive. That was due to a real concerted and brilliant effort by Republicans and conservatives for decades and how they were able to effectively use language and symbols to wage this war on liberalism. They are winning. And until we start connecting good public policies to liberalism and getting people to realize that a liberal policy isn't a bad policy just because it's liberal, then I don't have a solution.

I fault the Democratic Party in as much as it has failed to frame the issues and apply "moral values" to liberal policies. The Right has been highly successful getting Americans to believe that they are morally virtuous and that their policies and ideology represent "moral values."

Some of that blame, however, should also be directed at liberals/progressives themselves, too, for not fighting back but rather running from the world "liberal" and buying into the Right's divisive rhetoric.

[jtown1123]

5. The New Deal is something we all can fight for. Unfortunately, a lot of centrist

Dems have bought into the intergenerational warfare bs over Social Security and Medicare and also bought into Pete Peterson, Heritage, CATO talking points about Social Security "insolvency." Really sad. Wish we could unite all Dems on these important programs.

[JNelson6563]

6. I think the problem is instant gratification

Politics doesn't work like that. So many "progressives" have never been involved in politics so they throw fits all the time because they don't understand this ain't the drive thru at McDonalds.

I especially get a kick out of those who boldly proclaim they pay the President's salary, by gawd they better get what they want! When I read that nonsense I always laugh and think "that's right! Proclaim your ignorance proudly!" lolz

They seem to forget there are over 300 million Americans who pay the President's salary and, believe it or not, there's a whole lot of opinions out there that the President (if it's not an asshole like Bush who completely disregarded opinions other than his) is obligated to listen to everybody.

Julie

[bvar22]

52. The Very Rich were "instantly Gratified"....

...by the "extension" of the Bush Tax Cuts.
+ $400Billion to top 1% to be paid for by the children of the Woirking Class.
Now THAT is some Gratification!!!!

I would have been "instantly Gratified" by a REAL Public Option.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[JNelson6563]

93. Ok, while it's fun to toss around talking points

you seem to have missed my point.

Let's talk about the long view in politics for just a moment. We've got the right wing/corporations with their Faux News and the infotainment "news", right? They took some time to achieve the level of dominance they have now, didn't it? It took much planning and long term effort. That is how the right works. They chip away endless, tirelessly. They never stop.

Now let's look at the left. Oh sure, every four years we're out in force but what about in-between Presidential elections? Good luck finding your local Dems. Oh and you can't find the Greens at any time so there's that. We don't patiently build our political machine in off years, we don't patiently recruit candidates for local office with the notion those candidates will keep going on to higher office. No, we tend to scramble at election time, find folks who never ran for office and often have only a tenuous grasp of how politics work and they run for Congress.

Now, to your tourettes style talking points, you make my point beautifully. You would've been instantly gratified with a real public option eh? Well who's to say there won't be one down the road? Oh yes, I know, not soon enough. Remember, social security didn't look anything like it does now when it was first passed. But it will take a long term effort and a strong determination. Not once every four years, but constant.

Oh, and one more thing we should think about, who do we target with our ire when we want something to happen? Well here on DU we focus on our own. We go after those who would be most likely to agree with our views. We ignore those who most forcefully block anything we really want to happen. When the 9/11 first responders legislation was on the table who did the NY firefighters go and pressure? Mot those who were supportive. We should watch and learn.

Sadly, it's far more fun and easy to just keep bleating out anti-Obama talking points, isn't it?

Julie

[rurallib]

7. The ideals of the new deal have never been more relevant

to the citizens of the US.
If there are those who feel that they no longer are, I would wonder why?

[jtown1123]

13. I wonder the same thing. It's pretty disheartening to see a lot of Dems

repeat the same right wing "serious" talk about cutting SS and Medicare. Their BS propoganda campaign has worked well. It's amazing what a billion dollars can buy.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

17. What are you saying?

:-)

[MindandSoul]

14. I totally agree. And progressive ideas such as reducing the gap between

the very wealthy and the poor, affordable healthcare for all, and a decent "safety net" are more relevent today than every also!
In fact, on all those items, we, as a Country, are far beyond the other developped nations!

And we are falling further behind!

[GreenTea]

8. Get real! More republican propaganda lies manipulation & the media pounding the bullshit in as truth

You're calling it, so name an item, any item where progressives are "out of touch" and it'll surely be laced with the usual greedy republicans (and blue-dog democrats, fucking moderates) distortions lies and rhetoric...go ahead...offer an issue where progressives are 'out of touch"?

[kctim]

29. Single-payer healthcare

[GreenTea]

31. WRONG! "Single-payer" is absolutely the best & most needed necessity for ALL .....

Over 60 million people can't afford health care - Over 60 million have zero, none, no health care at all simply because they can't afford the insurance corporations outrageous premium & rates.

And at least another 60 million more people are alarmingly UNDER-INSURED....Again, because of the greedy insurance corporations who offer only outrageous rates for very little coverage in return.

Single-payer health-care was polled at over 60% of American wanting it, or wanting at the very LEAST a Public Option - Progressives are right on the money with the American people who want single payer, and the fucking republicans, corporations and fucking moderates are the ones out of touch!

And as usual Obama gave into the republicans, corporations & blue-dogs moderates and refused to fight for single-payer, he dropped the public option as well and 'compromised' with the republicans and the rich and their corporations won out again....

You can't come up with anything, not one item - because progressive are the main-stream but you are fed the opposite by the media you watch & listen to that constantly feed you lies, and especially about polling!

[kctim]

34. Sigh! Such misplaced anger

Support of single-payer is not 'out of touch' because progressives THINK it is the "best & most needed necessity for ALL.....," it is because the majority in fact do NOT support it. It is easy to get 60% to agree that 'free' healthcare would be great, but it is another thing to get them to agree to pay for it. You do realize that the polls also showed that less than half were willing to pay what it would take, don't you?

I don't like or trust polls, but if you wish to believe one that says 60% want single payer then you have to compare that to the poll that showed 80%+ of Americans are satisfied with their current health insurance plans. I know, you only support and pick the polls that support you're personal opinions, but thats not really accurate, is it.

PRESIDENT Obama got what he could and saying he refused to for it is dishonest at best. IF the American public wanted it, they would have voted for reps who would enable PRESIDENT Obama to get it. Instead, they voted for the other side or they did not support it enough to show up and vote.

So, that IS "one item" where progressives are out of touch when it comes to the solution. We can continue on with other issues like gay-marriage, immigration, the 2nd Amendment etc... if you wish, but the results will be the same.

Sorry, but things are NOT main-stream simply because progressives think it is whats best and everybody who disagrees with you are not brainwashed.

[GreenTea]

51. Your problen is you watch far too much Fox "news"....

Only Fox 'news' & the republicans spewed out that same "80%" bullshit made-up polling number....But your a moderate whatever that means and you've voted for republican ideology in the past this much is clear....you should get some fucking anger at the motherfucking republicans and corporations who are absolutely sucking us dry & killing us!!

It's ridiculous to get into semantics with you and you're moderate ideology....so I prefer to just shame you with your own corporate mined regressive cold-hearted thinking!

By quoting that 80% means every single person in American is satisfied with what the are paying for health care (only the over 60 million aren't and they are the 20%) get fucking real - You really believe this shit? 80% of the people are happy that corporations are over-charging, gouging throwing sick people who are too expensive/not profitable off their premiums, while the insurance corporations are making huge profits on sick people, you believe 80% are happy with this system? Then you're more than crazy for believing it!

You must also agree with pharmaceuticals corporations charging outrageous prices for their pills while the government is not allowed to bargain with the pharmaceutical industry for lower cost, as they also want laws against people going elsewhere....and republicans want to give them these laws.

You're just another moderate clown....believing in greedy, inefficient, corner-cutting, over-charging, collusive, corporatism is better than what government can do, you are the same people who want to destroy Social Security and give to the money instead to the same government subsidized corporate welfare, incompetent corporations who demand bailouts, bankruptcies, tax havens, and stealing of pensions to take care of peoples retirement? Yeah B of A and Goldman Sachs can really be trusted with peoples retirement investments - they'll just plea HELP again, keep the money and our taxes will bail them out again and the retired investors will be fucked!....progressive SS worked extremely well for over 70 years until the republicans started stealing from the fund and lying telling people SS can't work just just as they do single payer....as even the GOA say SS will be find at least as far as 2046...

While the insurance corporations are reaping in billions each years in government subsidies from our taxes....you side with these liars & thieves just as the republicans do....Heath care insurers making 40 million dollar a year in bonuses buying new corporate jets on money that could be going to lower rates....rates too high that over sixty

What kind of health care do you have that you are so satisfied with.

It every Americans RIGHT to have access to free health care though our taxes (instead of paying trillions for wars for greedy selfish corporations profits & massive tax cuts for the rich))as EVERY civilized nation in the world offers their people. as well as FREE education.....The rich will never be satisfied of course the majority of American want and demand single-payer health care for ALL!

[kctim]

95. You should try to read what is actually written

I clearly stated that I have no faith in polls, but since you tried (and failed) to use one to support your opinion, I brought up others that show you like only polls which support your personal opinion.
You can't shame someone when you have no idea of what you are talking about. Especially when your points are based on emotion rather than facts.

80% means that 80% of the people polled are satisfied with their current healthcare plan. In case you still do not understand what that means, it means that those without are not part of the poll. And no, that does not mean people are totally happy with pricing. It only means that 80+% are satisfied with their current plan, 20% are not and that the healthcare horror stories being used are NOT the norm.

The problem with progressives is that they do not ask WHY people are against things like single-payer. IF you did, you would better understand their position and would not be so out of touch. Most people may envy those with money, but they do not fear, loathe and resent them as progressives do.

I made no mention of SS not working or of getting rid of it, that was only an assumption created by you to help yourself deal with those who dare think for themselves. Since you bring it up though, I will tell you that I believe SS is one of our countrys best programs and that I believe it would not even be an issue if it was still a a safety net program as it was intended to be. Instead, it is now THE retirement plan of millions of people and that is also part of the funding problem it faces.
Single payer would be THE healthcare plan and would face the same funding problems unless the taxes for it are very very high. Progressives are fine with high taxes but the majority are not, progressives are out of touch when it comes to taxes.

You're last statement and the liberty of defining it as YOU wish, is just another example of how out of touch you are. You cannot show me anywhere, where it says free health care through taxes is a right of anyone, but I can show you where fair and equal ACCESS to health care is.

IF Americans wanted and demanded single-payer health care for ALL, they would stop voting in Republicans and moderate Democrats AND they would be willing to pay for it.
That is not the case at this point in time of our nations history. Sorry, but you are out of touch with the majority.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. Sigh. Such a complacent persepctive

You seem to be espousing going along to get along.

The fact is, the things that poll highly are things that get sold. The right owns the media. Right wing ideas get sold.

We had NO leadership on healthcare. Single payer had no seat at the table. Obama started "negotiating" in the center.

Polls are reflective of what bullshit gets sold.

[Jackpine Radical]

57. Your point is well-taken, as usual, Stinky.

I would add that the polls are not designed to register leftward opinions.

Consider the following poll question: "Do you support Obama's health care plan?

If I answer No because I favor single-payer and it is not, then my vote will end up getting counted as against "government-run" (as Fox would put it) health care. Nobody is giving me the option to express my view that it is not progressive enough. Any attempt to make that point is likely to get counted in the same column as the response of someone who hates the idea of "gubmint interference in my health care."

[kctim]

98. Two quick questions JR

1. Even if that vote was placed in that column, why was the 'willing to pay for it' answer so low?

2. Why do progressives want government to control their health care when they claim corporations own government?

[Jackpine Radical]

106. I think the first question tends to be worded deceptively in the polls--

it should really be something like "Would you rather pay 20% of your income to private insurers or 12% more of your income in taxes for the same level of health care?"

And the second question is not at all simple. Traditionally, progressives have seen government as a counterbalance to the power of the giant corporations. From this perspective, for government to take over health care would be a step to reduce the corporate ownership of government.

[kctim]

111. Very valid points, thanks

I can't say that I disagree, but IMO, even with govt take over of health care, the only way we can really reduce the "corporate ownership" of govt, and by default of health care, is at the election box.
IF the corps own the govt, then it does us no good getting single-payer.

[Jackpine Radical]

119. The corporations and financiers took a much simpler route.

They exercised their ownership of government by simply preventing us from getting single-payer in the first place.

[kctim]

122. Then why do the people not vote for reps who will get single-payer for them?

Wouldn't one be 'out of touch' for simply ignoring the answer to that question? Or for creating excuses in order to dismiss differing opinions and beliefs?

[Jackpine Radical]

124. Because the insurance industry put forth a massive disinformation campaign.

Realize that about 15% of GDP passes through the hands of the heqlth insurance industry, and you will begin to get a grasp of what they could afford to do if they thought they were fighting for their collective life.

Consider, for example, all the lies about the Canadian system that they planted into the public consciousness.

I believe Obama,knowing what they could do to him, gave away not just single payer, but the Public Option as well and then gave them the mandate in exchange for the few real benefits included in the present plan--pre-existing conditions, more child coverage, etc.

Remember the Harry &Louise canpaigns of 1993-4 when the Clintons tried for a health care plan?

[kctim]

97. Then why did single-payer or the public option not get sold?

They both polled highly and were highlighted in the 'media,' so if polls are reflective of what gets sold, one of those should be a done deal.

The truth is, the majority are not willing to pay the high taxes to have single-payer or they place other things above it. THAT is why single payer did not have a 'seat at the table,' and PRESIDENT Obama started negotiating from the center to try and avoid what ended up happening in the 2010 elections.

Government mandates usually have that effect on elections.

[hootinholler]

104. They did 'get sold'

There are two parts to sales. One is building your product up and the other is tearing your competing product down.

Part of that process was the presentation of single payer requiring higher taxes. While marginally true, the part that wasn't presented was that the taxes would have been (and still would be) far less a drag on the economy than our current insurance plan (even with the reforms) and it was seldom pointed out in a serious way what the actual economic benefits would be. The smart large employers were for it, unless they were in an industry that benefits from not having a single payer plan.

This is not the only issue that is sold this way. In fact all one has to do is brand a position as leftist and the media will castigate it without flinching and the low information voters will reject it without thought.

-Hoot

[Jackpine Radical]

108. Exactly.

Single-payer was portrayed as a tax increase with no corresponding increase in available wages due to employers and employees no longer having to pay for private insurance. AndAmerican private insurance is much more expensive than government health coverage anywhere else in the developed world.

[kctim]

114. The problems are

1. They are 'projected' economic benefits, not actual.
2. MUCH higher taxes that will only rise, just as Medicare tax.
3. Government mandate to get those taxes means no choice.

Our country is not yet at the point where the majority of people accept those things. So, did President Obama 'roll over' when he got what he could or did he 'roll over' because he did not fight for what the majority do not yet accept?

[hootinholler]

115. Strawmen, not problems.

1. They were 'projected' (sic) by the CBO, who is pretty damned good at projections of government spending, and any projection based on a plan is actualized when the plan is implemented. Just like the projected $600B we are going to borrow for as the unpaid tax bonus for the wealthy is continued will be actualized.

2. Where are you getting those projections? ;) Your claim that taxes will rise implies that there is no benefit to an employer or the employee. If the tax should rise even to 10% (as opposed to the current reformed amount of like 3.9%), but the employer/employee component they currently pay (between 8% / 12% private/government Sept. 2010) goes away, for most it's a wash with the national benefit that *everyone* is covered above the table instead of hiding the costs of uncovered persons in higher provider fees paid by those who are not big enough to negotiate them down.

3. No choice of what? Providers? Bullshit. Insurance companies? Well, yeah, isn't that the point?

Our country certainly is at the point where most people would embrace these changes if they were fairly presented. They are not. They are sold to the public who has also been sold the idea that if it's progressive, it's bad.

The President did appear to considerably weaken his position before any serious negotiation began with the agreement with PHARMA and abandoning a single payer plan (or even a path to one) and then waffled on supporting the public option, which I shouldn't need to remind you was a compromise to begin with. Had he called for it, the progressive voices would have exploded in support of a single payer plan.

The President didn't 'roll over' (sic, an observation: you love 'scary' quotes) and please don't try to put words into my mouth with the way you 'phrase' your 'questions' :rofl:

-Hoot

[GreenTea]

59. Progressives are in touch with the majority of the American people over 60%

And the fucking republicans want to continue to letting the insurance corporations run our health care system with no government option and no competition....republicans have always said fuck the people and while protecting the corporations interest instead....the insurance companies now have no real competition they are in collusion raising premiums every six month's...

Exactly like the handful of oil companies, the collusive corporations prices are fixed, buy gas here or just go across the street to another corporations selling the gas it's the same price or a penny or a difference that's collusion, monopolies! You either pay what the oil companies demand.

Same with health care corporations you either buy from the big insurance corporations or you have no insurance... You get sick too bad...The big insurance companies have their smaller companies to make it seem like there's more companies out there...but their all price fixing and the CEOs & executives are living like filthy rich kings!

Fuck the insurance companies and their elitist lavish lifestyle.

Republicans are fighting to keep insurance companies for profit only, as our only option - Single-Payer or even the public option would mean competition for the insurance corporations, republicans hate competition, they prefer a rigged game, collusion , no competition means sky high profits because there's no place else for one to go...the insurance companies, like all corporations & monopolies set prices among themselves to keep profits as high as possible, fuck sick people, it's about PROFITS!

It's should be a safety net for people who get sick and the insurance companies and republicans think it should be about profits & privatization....to charge outrageous fees, throw people off policies if the hospital bill is too large and not accepting people if they are sick, that's the republican plan health care, corporate profit....

For middle-class Americans, corporate health insurance offers little protection.

"Nationally, a quarter of insurance corporations cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year," the report reads.

We are fucked again without single-payer, right back where we stated at the mercy of the insurance companies...certainly not looking out for your well being but for profit and corporations always cut corners for more profits.

Progressives are in touch with the majority of the American people over 60% who want a single-payer health care for ALL Americans citizens.

[Jackpine Radical]

54. I don't think you know Kentuck's track record around here.

Read the OP as a challenge, less direct, but with the same thrust as yours here. C'mon, people. Let's hear all about how & where the progressives are out of touch.

[kentuck]

55. Thanks Jackpine...

It was an honest attempt to discuss where the progressives are out of touch. I understand the passion and the anger on the progressive side but I am willing to make the effort to listen to all viewpoints.

[Time for change]

112. It's a rhetorical question - There is no claim in the OP that progressives are out of touch

The OP is meant to stimulate discussion in this issue.

[craigmatic]

9. I think it's the other way around. The party is out of touch with progressives.

Ideology and strength of position shape political reality and this fact should never be forgotten. That's what the republicans do. They create reality around their ideology. Why can't we?

[Wwagsthedog]

36. +1

[rug]

10. Or vice versa.

[T Wolf]

11. There does need to be a divorce - who initiates it is irrelevant. Liberals/progressives no

longer espouse values that are welcome within the Democratic Party.

I guess, now that racism and sexism and war and poverty and injustice have been eliminated, we can all simply settle into a utopian existence within the capitalist system that so many in the party seem to prefer.

Those who push for quaint things like peace and justice and equality will just have to take their ponies to some other party if they want any satisfaction. The Democratic Party is not the organization to corral those strays.

[kctim]

12. I don't think they are out of touch at all

they just need to accept and respect the fact that their viewpoints are not the only viewpoints of the Party. This would allow us to work together as a party and would probably even curb the number of Democrat votes against "progressive" policy.

[LaPera]

15. Dude....You're out of touch!!

Without a doubt, certainly NOT progressives!

[Jackpine Radical]

58. You're mistaking a question for a statement.

[LaPera]

60. Nope, you're interpreting it the way you want to believe he's phrasing it

As am I......However, I'm also going by the many past post by the same starter of this thread and what I've seen in the past as far too moderate of positions for my taste and very liberal progressive thinking & ideology.....Sorry, just calling it the way I see it!

[kentuck]

67. Go read my journal, LaPera.

I dare you. :-)

[hfojvt]

18. you are asking DU?

DU is a place that prides itself on being out of the mainstream.

One example. Shortly after 9/11 Bush had an approval rating of 90%. 90%, think of that. That is a huge, huge majority. Many, if not most DUers though, are proud to be part of the 10%. So proud, that we/they look with contempt at the other 90%. What a bunch of lunatics and ignorant morons who ever approved of George W. Bush.

Of course, you could say that by the time the 2006 elections rolled around that Bush's approval rating was about 29% which puts DU back in the solid majority, but the point is that much of DU was in the 10% group when it was only 10%.

[OnyxCollie]

19. It's all an illusion.

Neither party serves the people. They only serve the elites.

Once we realize that, we can stop going 'round in circles to explain the government's actions.

The modern State is expected to assume responsibility for an irreducible minimum of
welfare functions far exceeding the traditional spheres of State activity: defense, foreign affairs, police, and a
machinery of justice.39 In the United States no less than in Great Britain, France, Scandinavia, India, or the
Soviet Union, the State is expected to give minimum insurance against such national vicissitudes as
unemployment, sickness, and accidents suffered in the course of employment. The most conservative
Republican Administration in the United States would not be permitted to watch passively-as it
still could a generation ago-a major depression. It would be compelled by public opinion to enact a program
of public works and other relief measures designed to stimulate employment. Such a minimum program
entails continuous heavy taxation.

Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.

The totalitarian economy, as many have observed, has been developed in keeping with plans oriented to
a final (if not yet precisely defined) goal. It is thus a goal-oriented economy, the goal being communism.
Those in charge of the Soviet society have assumed that economic and social development in all its
aspects can be purposefully steered by man in the direction of an ideal solution.

This produces consequences not only economic but also political, where, to a large extent, economic life
is self-directive and ultimate goals, such as plenty and progress, are purposely vague.

To be less totalitarian such operations would have to involve some degree of withdrawal on the part of
those in charge from their commitment to total social and economic engineering, thus granting to those
living under the system the opportunity to make important choices not in keeping with the goal.

But such a politically meaningful development would in turn involve a further condition, which at the
present appears highly unlikely, namely the decline of ideology and a basic reconsideration of the firmly
instituted schemes of economic development. Barring that, the totalitarian economic system would
continue to exert pressures for the maintenance of a dictatorship capable of enforcing the kind of
discipline that such total plans demand. It is doubtful that as long as the party remains in power the
tendency of the regime to stress unattainable goals will vanish. Indeed, it is these goals, inherent
in the current ideology, which justify to the population the sacrifices which the party's domination involves.
Thus, as long as the party continues to hold its successful grip on the instruments of power, we can
expect it to continue stressing first the long-range goals of an ultimate utopia, and then the consequent
sacrifices to achieve them, even though possibly at a diminishing rate of effort.

Brzezinski, Z. (1956). Totalitarianism and rationality. The American Political Science Review, 50(3), 751-763.

[rhett o rick]

20. I have asked those that bad mouth progressives here to tell me on what issues they differ from progr

progressives. I have never gotten an answer. They want to spew hatred and divide the party. They never want to tell how they disagree with the progressives.

[blindpig]

102. I disagree with liberals/progressives about capitalism.

They seem to be OK with it, a tweak here, a reform there, and all would be hunky dory. Bullshit. What we see happening right now is what reformism gets ya. The New Deal was a temporary expedient, they started chipping away at it as soon as WWII ended, Taft-Hartley was a devastating blow to labor. And now the retrenchment is in it's final act and everybody acts so surprised. As long as Capital exists it will inexorably take up all of the air in the room, growth is a necessity for it and it will go where ever profit beckons.

You either love capitalism or ya hate it, prevarication leaves on the center line with the 'possum. People need to decide which side they are on.

[OHdem10]

21. I am with FDR and the New Deal. Herbert Hoover and his

cut cut cut, belt-tightning threw us into a Depression.

[Recursion]

116. The irony being that Herbert Hoover was technically a "Progressive" and FDR was not

And, worse yet, "Progressive" Democrats were people like Strom Thurmond and Jamie Whitten.

The Great Depression, along with Prohibition, was seen at the time as the final failure of Progressive policies. FDR's reforms initiated the corporately-managed economy we had in the War and Postwar periods. Translating policies and (moreso) names of policies across decades is difficult.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. Not "all" progressives, just the ones who don't understand that this country

isn't liberal/progressive. The Democratic Party is a big tent. It is a big tent precisely because there aren't enough progressives getting voted to Congress.

It's easier to blame the president and the Democratic Party itself than to work hard to get more progressives elected to office.

That's why the teabaggers and Republicans do so well. They galvanize their base to action. We sit here on a forum and do nothing but bitch about Obama "shoulda-woulda-coulda" rather than getting out and running good candidates for office.

[Tesha]

35. No, this country isn't "liberal/progressive", just ignorant.

And possibly, even stupid.

Tesha

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

70. That, too! But sadly that's the case. And until it changes, we're forced to live in this reality!

[Amonester]

74. the teabagsters and Republicans do so well because they own -

MOST OF M$M, AND FOK$-NEEYUZE, $EE-ENNEN, AwOL, RW-RADIO WAVE$ that catapult their lying propaganda 24-7 all over the place.

And http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1296155071179146825#">THIS* is their ULTIMATE WET dReam OF A GOAL!

*Soylent Greed .. uh Green (from around 59:50 til the end)

[johnaries]

23. What kinds of "progressives"? I think you have to consider that

there are many different kinds of progressives and also that the Democratic Party is a "big tent" party. You can't broad-brush either.

[BzaDem]

25. I think that's two separate questions. The ideals of FDR are certainly relevant to the problems we

face today.

But that doesn't mean we can enact the ideals of FDR in the current political environment.

To a certain extent, a lot of the criticism about Obama's HCR, FinReg, the stimulus, etc was similar in form to liberal criticism of Social Security during FDR's time. Yet SS turned out to be fine, and so will the remarkable legislative achievements Obama signed into law.

But now that Republicans control Congress, obviously there are significant limits to what can be accomplished legislatively.

[mrdmk]

85. I have to agree with you 100%

And I have to expand on that claim, the Republicans have controlled the House and Senate since 1946 and have not given up on that control.

So, with your political climate, anybody with a progressive thought in their head should turn themselves into the local mental health institution (i.e. the funny-farm), or would it be better if we as group just gave-up, do nothing and save the society the expense having to care for us while getting our heads in the right place?

Btw: The Republicans are not taking official control of the House until January 12, 2011! If that is not the case, please refer to my first sentence.

[pnorman]

26. The people referred to here as "progressives",

may not have an accurate picture of what actually took place during those FDR years.

[Recursion]

117. Nor the Hoover years, which were actually called "Progressive"

And there's a general unwillingness to link FDR's reforms with the subsequent rise of the large corporation as the dominant force in the US economy, which seems obvious at least to me.

[Jackpine Radical]

121. That would be worth a little essay in a thread of its own.

People have long said that FDR saved the capitalists from themselves (not to mention the Wobblies, the disgruntled veterans of WWI, and various other elements, in a variety of reddish hues, who were ready to pull down the system and probably would have done so by 1936 or so.

[damntexdem]

27. We lost touch as it hurried to the right.

Any connection is increasingly nebulous.

It's not the ideals of the left that are irrelevant today, it is increasingly the Democratic Party.

And in the U.S., so-called "political reality" is increasingly out of touch with the real world; and when they inevitably collide, it is not the real world that will be hurt.

[Iggo]

28. Other way around.

[grahamhgreen]

30. We are the Democratic Party. nt

[Angry Dragon]

37. The first thing that needs to be done is to define "progressive"

[Zax2me]

38. Other way around!

[Broderick]

40. I just know

I am out of touch with everyone at times. LOL.

[deutsey]

42. With the triumph of corporatism and the wealthy elites in the class war

progressive ideals will once again become quite relevant. No amount of TV distraction will offset the bleak realities that more and more Americans are forced to deal with.

It's up to the Democratic Party to determine whether it wants to continue supporting the elite's status quo and continue dying a slow death or once again tap the power of progressivism and revitalise itself.

They have forgotten that the last time they did that they dominated American politics for decades.

[H2O Man]

43. "In matters of conscience,

the law of the majority has no place. It is slavery to be amenable to the majority no matter what its decisions are." -- Gandhi

"Progressives" are the conscience of not only the Democratic Party, but indeed, the nation. Hence, I never feel "out of place," pr any pressure whatsoever to change my views on matters of conscience.

[kentuck]

45. I like that quote by Gandhi, Waterman...

We should all take it to heart, in my opinion.

[H2O Man]

50. It is one

of the ones that I like best. (I have a notebook of Gandhi quotes that I started when I was 19.)

[somone]

80. Perfect response!

Progressives have no business defending the status quo and insidious backsliding and U-turns disguised as incrementalism.

[patrice]

44. I am not comfortable with using the term "Progressive" as interchangeable with Liberal and/or Left.

I don't think of Progress as being primarily ideological. IMO, it's about improvement, about changing a given situation for the better regardless of the ideological identity of that improvement; it's genuine solution oriented incrementalism, yes solutions that actually redress wrongs, but changing the less immediate hierarchy and it's over-arching conceptual identity are less important than what is being done at a grassroots' concrete level to make something better.

[pnwmom]

46. Depends entirely on how you define "progressive." n/t

[bvar22]

47. I am "out of touch" with the "New Democrat" Party.

THIS is the "Democratic Party" I joined 44 years ago:

"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:

1) The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

2) The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

3) The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

4) 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;

5) The right of every family to a decent home;

6) The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

7) The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

8) 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.

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

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."---FDR

I would Go to The Wall for THAT "Democratic Party".
Today's Wall Street owned, Trickle Down, "Free Market" "New Democrat Party".....not so much.

I used to be a MainstreamCenter FDR/LBJ, Pro-LABOR Democrat.
I haven't changed,
but today, I am relegated to the "Fucking Retard" fringe Left Wing of the "New Democrat" Party.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[annabanana]

90. +100,000 . .. . . .n/t

[WiffenPoof]

48. It's Simple...

...at least to me.

It wasn't that long ago I was simply a Democrat. Now I'm considered a Progressive.

-PLA

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

56. I'm to the left of the Party...

In retrospect, despite being a Bill Clinton Kool Aide drinker, had I listened then to what I've learned about his policies today, I wouldn't be an admirer. And to be certain, that has nothing to do with me moving further left. It has everything to do with knowledge. Ignorance is bliss, and I was quite blissful during Clinton's presidency. For me, Obama jumped the shark by usurping progressive principles to get elected, then abandoning them before he even took office.

I don't think either the party or I will be changing anytime soon.

[SidDithers]

61. Yes...nt

Sid

[jotsy]

62. I'd say the DLC is out of touch with the democratic principle.

Politics is theater, to use it as a precursor characterizing reality is to reveal that the level of applicable reality is negligible.

What is the reality of today's world? According to what we get from the few true journalists remains, governments lie about there activities and intentions and then criminalize those in possession of any contrary truth.

The problems we face today are a result. The effect of Reaganomics, and other subsequent dismantling of deregulation that existed to safeguard against the feeding frenzy we've since witnessed.

Many an important talk to engage in Mr. Tuck to be sure, but I do so as a person, a parent, not as or on behalf of what's best for a political label.

MSNBC misquoted me, maybe they did it better, who's to say? I have said in these forums more than once:

I won't row right and I don't want to lean left because it is time to move forward. The job of being a 21st century progressive is bringing forward to now and now to forward by delivering a higher standard of leadership, as earnest as it is effective.

[DailyGrind51]

63. The Democratic Party is out of touch with its own platform and principles!

[ClassWarrior]

99. Winner.

NGU.

[blindpig]

103. How so?

The Democratic Party fully supports Capitalism and that's what's for dinner. Eat it or go hungry at the banquet of American electoral politics.

[alarimer]

64. No, progressive values are what work.

The New Deal WORKED. What they are doing now with dismantle the New Deal and return us to the days when old people simply starved to death.

I think the Democratic Party should go the way of the dodo and be replaced by a Progressive Party. In reality, the American people favor progressive ideas, whenever they are polled on specific questions. It is our elected representatives that are completely out of touch.

[Union Scribe]

65. Lol.

Love that last paragraph. I look forward to your next thread: "Are women bad drivers? I hope we can discuss this important issue without malice or personal attacks."

[kentuck]

68. I resent that personal attack.

Nowhere in my post do I make such a comparative statement.

[Union Scribe]

75. Lol at your indignation.

Do you really think that insulting a group of people in the guise of a question, and then pretending to be genuinely curious (and offended at even the SUGGESTION that huff puff how dare you...etc.), is a new tactic? Fox News has been doing it for like a decade.

[kentuck]

76. What group, pray tell, is insulted?

Surely you must belong to that group? Also, your tactic has been around much longer than you have.

[Union Scribe]

78. That "out of touch with the party/reality/etc" bullshit is a line that needs retired

And desperately. It's not an honest question, because it is so obviously garbage. Progressives have been completely shat on by this administration and its defenders on DU, and when people "ask" such rhetorical questions I have no choice but to assume they are either rubbing salt in the wound or have been dragged so far right by this lurching party and political landscape that they have no connection to the ideals left behind (with the "out of touch" progressives).

[kentuck]

79. You are so wrong.

Need I say more?

[niceypoo]

84. You have gotten it 100% completely ....

...backwards.

Congratulations!

[JoePhilly]

66. I would say their ideals are overall great, acceptance of political reality ...

Not so much.

Most of the ultimate goals are shared.

But I think most of the fighting on DU is about priorities and timing.

Which mess to attack first (or next) and how hard to push. Move one ball all the way, or move many part of the way.

DADT first or Healthcare, or the economy, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or war crimes, or unemployment, or .... on and on.

The mess is so huge that no matter where Obama focuses, some of us will want him to focus somewhere else.

[PhillySane]

71. We've got threads here

where people will go on and on about how Michael Vick needs to be banished from the earth, let alone the NFL (in my own opinion, they let him back much too early). But very little is said these days about Bush, Cheyney, Rumsfeld and that whole crew who, as far as I'm concerned, committed crimes much greater than Vick's. Start there. Let's not forget we are only two years removed from that regime. In the ten years that have passed since they stole the presidency (and by the way, though I haven't been a regular here lately, I've been here before) this country has moved so far to the right, the fascist right, I barely recognize it anymore.

Obama has a huge problem on his hands. I knew this from the day he was elected. I breathed a sigh of relief knowing, at least, we were out of the Bush/Cheyney woods. Well, little did I know just how deep in those woods we really were. Now I know how far we have to go to get out. And we may not have much time. It's only two years until 2012. From my viewpoint, it doesn't matter how unrealistic my progressive agenda may seem to others. I have to keep pushing it. I have to keep screaming it at the top of my lungs. Because, I know how quickly things can change in this country. I know how easily people forget the past. The recent past. And very soon, we could all be right back to where we were in 2000.

So, I will rant. I will rave. I will never quiet my raging passion for America to realize its long forgotten promise. At least to get us back to where we were before the Bush nightmare began.

You'll be hearing a lot more from me now.

[JoePhilly]

73. Oh yea ... no argument here ...

We on the left need to rant and rave, but constructively.

My sense is that Obama understands the political reality and is working forward against the most urgent messes.

I don't always agree with him, but I can almost always understand the approach he took and why he took it.

I do not think he is ideological at all, I think he is pragmatic. Trying to gain ground where he can, hold ground where he can.

So we do need to keep pushing, but rather than attack Obama, we need to focus on the real obstacle, the GOP.

[eridani]

86. Political reality is created by people. Give me one good reason we should opt out

--of this process.

[gkhouston]

69. A "Democrat" who considers the New Deal "no longer relevant" is out of touch, IMO. n/t

[Recursion]

120. The New Deal as passed in the 1930s, verbatim?

Or the principle that the government is obligated to pay for social safety nets, which are funded by taxes on payroll, as well as coordinate and regulate commercial activities that are important to infrastructure?

I'd say the former is largely irrelevant in many ways, which is why so few New Deal laws are still on the books as written (even SS has changed significantly). The latter is definitely still relevant and still true; disagreements over how to do that doesn't mean that we disagree about the goal.

[uponit7771]

77. FUCK YES!! By now even people in Russia realize Obama doesn't have the votes and being "angry" means

...nothing to people who vote against SCHIP for children and give Oil companies tax breaks.

[Canuckistanian]

81. "the reality of today's world"

That's the problem right there.

RWers have sold us a bill of goods. And for decades, we believed them (OK, not ALL of us).

And look where it has us. Financial crises, a growing police state and a less informed populace.

FDR and the New Deal saved the capitalist system. It was necessary and the proper course of action.

It needs to be done again.

[blindpig]

105. So, you want to do this all over again?

As long as Capital is intact it will inevitably go for the whole ball of wax.

Past time to get off of this merry-go-round.

[Kurovski]

82. You can't pin this on me!! My hands was on the table the whole time!!

I didn't touch nobody!!!

[niceypoo]

83. No

The 'centrists' are. There is no center in US politics.

[walldude]

87. Yes. Obviously.

Look at Sids response. He's not kidding, and many DU'ers feel like he does. However, while the world falls apart we can at least enjoy the bitter satisfaction that we were right.... again

[ClassWarrior]

100. What does Sudden Infant Death Syndrome have to do with it?

NGU.

[yurbud]

88. What is the ''reality'' you would like us to get in touch with? That the rich have won and the rest

have to beg them for crumbs?

That any government program that doesn't benefit the rich must be starved of funds or ''reformed'' so it benefits primarily the rich?

It is self-proclaimed ''centrists'' and ''pragmatists'' who are out of touch with reality. The Reagan Revolution destroyed the blue collar middle class and is working on doing the same to those of us with college degrees.

People saw the moral bankruptcy of those policies during the Bush years, and wanted something more like the New Deal consensus that last from FDR until 1980.

Instead, when voters handed Democrats the reins of power, they tried to deviate as little as possible from core Republican foreign and economic policies. It is no wonder they got their asses handed to them in the last election.

If you have a choice between Coke or something that says it contains almost as much Coke as Coke itself, that's not much of a choice, nor is the outcome that hard to figure out.

[yurbud]

89. you need to reword the question: How can you give people a hat full of shit and convince them it's

a chocolate cake (even after they take a bite)?

That is the real challenge for DLC Democrats. They want to do the opposite of what most Democratic voters want and even most Americans in general, but they want to figure out how to do it and still get elected.

[Le Taz Hot]

91. Actually, I think it's the other way around.

To use an old axiom: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."

[robcon]

92. I think progressives are totally out of touch with the Democratic Party.

I usually point to the support for Dennis Kucinich in 2008 - he had about 40% of the DU vote, yet couldn't get 4% in any primary.

[rucky]

94. Thank god our demands are out of touch with political reality!

Political reality in no way resembles the reality that average Americans face. Political reality sucks, and anything that works within that dysfunctional framework is doomed to fail.

There's a fundamental need to change the system, and progressives are fighting for that.

[RegieRocker]

96. No they aren't Democratic enough!

[TBF]

101. No, the party is out of touch with progressives. Class warfare continues,

and this party supports the owners.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fadedrose]

109. Well, I've wondered the same things...

Are their ideals about FDR and the New Deal no longer relevant with the problems we face today?

Their ideals are relevant to the FDR Democratic Party. The problem is that the Democratic Party of today needs a new name, new leaders and an agenda that explains itself clearly. They also need to stop asking progressives for their money.

Why do we need a Democratic party that is a rubber stamp of the Reps?

How come all of the countries in the world have national health care except for the US?

Instead of worrying about progressives being Democrats, why not just change the name of the DLC Democrats. You left us, we didn't leave.

[Overseas]

110. The Bush Crashes -- moral and economic --- provided the best opportunity

to surge forward with a 21st Century FDR approach on very practical, pragmatic grounds. That's why I was not worried about having a practical, pragmatic President. He would demonstrate how practical the FDR approach could be, with the Bush Republican Crash as clear evidence of the need for profound change. The Bush Crash was the spectacular failure of 30-years of Supply-Side Economics. Far from trickling down to us, our national wealth was torn away from us to patch up the disasters of deregulation.

Our Democratic legislators should have been readied as a block to stand up for a rebalancing of our economy to Democratic Demand-Side Economics.

Medicare for All could have been their compassionate cry for the people, because so many of us had lost so much in the crash and were being evicted from our homes. There are practical, pragmatic reasons for it, but Democrats could have distinguished their mandate by pushing very very hard for the public-private mixed system that is Medicare on purely compassionate grounds first. We are Democrats and we have a mandate to protect the people and strengthen our social safety nets. The people can't wait any longer for national health security.

While I wanted my Democrats to go ahead and wave the Democratic Demand-Side economic flag proudly, especially after the horrendous Republican crash of our economy and our military (by defying the Nuremberg principles and Geneva Conventions), Democrats could actually have done the "bipartisan" thing by pointing out that they were bipartisan with what Republicans claimed to be--

Republicans say they are fiscally responsible-- our major industrial competitors have the government handling medical costs, we should too. Let's finally get on an equal footing with them. That would help our small businesses compete.

Republicans say they are strong on defense-- but they allowed war profiteering and reckless conduct by military contractors, so we need to undo that. Brutal bombing wars have created more enemies for our country, we need to undo that. We will focus on intelligence and seduction-- building schools and hospitals and encouraging the establishment of more small businesses by the local people for the local people. Pouring our billions into jobs for the local people to rebuild their own infrastructure rather than pouring them into hiring giant American firms to contract out all those jobs for years and years.

Republicans say they are strong on defense-- so many of our wars were focused on securing access to oil, so by putting our desperate people back to work on infrastructure projects that included as much green technology as possible, we could reduce our country's use of oil, thus stretching the remaining supplies for use by the private sector, and catching up with the rest of the world in green technology markets. We would also make sure there is more oil left for our children to enjoy petroleum based goods if we could make our shared infrastructure as green as possible. We could also have more options in case restricting oil supplies was used as a threat against us in the future. That's a much smarter defense of our country and its future.

Republicans say they are fiscally responsible, so we will be bipartisan with that ideal and let the tax cuts for the top 2% expire on schedule. But since we all can see the data that tax cuts for the middle and lower classes are spent immediately, which stimulates local economies that need it desperately after the Bush Crash, we will keep the middle class tax cuts.

We could have even done that bipartisan thing if my Democrats had banded together behind that sort of plan. Bipartisan with Republican myths about themselves. Fiscal responsibility-- check. Stronger on defense-- we can do that too.

I really thought we would do that. That's why I was so excited to vote for a practical, pragmatic new Democratic President. Those moves would have been the most practical to rebuild our country after the Bush crash and ensure its long term health.

But my Democrats were not practical and pragmatic for the future of our country. They didn't recoil in horror from Supply-Side Economics after the spectacular and very painful Republican Crash. They didn't pragmatically seize the opportunity to ensure their majority for decades to come by standing as a block to really move our country forward to more sustainable, compassionate, effective policies, even with the mandate they were given by millions of suffering citizens who knew it was time for Democratic Demand-Side Economics again.

Sadly, it seems that pragmatism has been relegated to politicians' individual careers-- "Sorry pal, multinational corporations now have more power than nation states. We Democrats deregulated our mass media so conservative corporations own most of it now, with token liberal voices to sustain the illusion of a free press, so they can destroy any of us who pose a real threat to their absolute power. We've gotta be pragmatic about our individual re-election. Look at how corporate-funded right wing PR firms roused a bunch of tea party groups to push the Republicans even further to the right. That was their demonstration that they could crush any of us with a few million dollars, so we have to tow the party line.The private sector can do better. The private sector can do better. The unions are demanding too much. Those entitlements to stave off starvation are too expensive for us. Privatize it all. Let the rich decide who really deserves charity. "

[Lorien]

113. If Progressives and Liberals aren't welcome in the Democratic Party, then who is?

Oh yeah; corporatists a.k.a "Reagan Republicans".

[KoKo]

123. That does seem to be the "target" of

Dem Party these days.

[Recursion]

118. No, but since the days of Marat (if not earlier)...

...the Left has seemed to take more pleasure in villifying those who are insufficiently left-wing, rather than those who are right-wing.