Isn't it logically better for the party to move left?

[Beatrix]

Few people will disagree that republicans are the more rightward party while democrats are the more leftward party.

People who vote republican WANT the republican positions.

People who vote democratic want LESS right leaning positions. (otherwise they would be voting republican)

When the democratic party moves right in an attempt to capture republican votes it does so under the assumption that republicans will go for the imitation over the real deal. This doesn't work out logically. So why do that?

Let's put it in our perspective to better understand.

Let's pretend today Bush and the republican party as a whole came out in full support of abortion. Further, let's pretend they also came out supporting higher minimum wage, civil unions, and repeal of the patriot act. Well hells bells that's a major policy change for them! They've just moved left to a degree.

Now - REALISTICALLY - are you going to vote republican instead of democratic now? I sure as hell know I'm not even though those positions are desirable to me. So what have they just accomplished? They have almost certainly royally pissed off the base. The christian fundamentalist nut jobs are not going to be happy with civil unions and abortion. The rich are not going to be happy with higher minimum wage. And the "we gots ta kill them terrarists" fascists are not going to be happy the constitution will still be intact.

So what did they get in the end? They didn't get any sizeable amount of democratic votes. I'm sure they got SOME, but did they get enough to compensate for the loss of votes they suffered from pissing off the rightward elements of their party? Not bloody likely.

The same thing is true on the flip side. It's empirically apparent that going to the right is NOT giving us enough votes to floor the repubs. This is obvious from the defeats in 2002 and the loss in 2000. We should have Gore in the white house right now. Instead, we got screwed (as some would say) by Nader. If you add the green vote to the dem vote across the board the numbers start looking really nice. (and this doesn't even take in to account people who stay home but would vote for a more left leaning dem party)

If we could bring in the green vote we should be able to win both the white house AND more congressional seats by a comfortable margin. If the party moves left to bring in the green vote more than likely we will NOT be pushing the base to vote republican as a result. Why? Because much of the green platform (no, not all of it) is palatable to most democrats.

How so? Look at this official green party site that highlights the "differences" between the 3 parties (and I grant you some of it like the abortion "support?" is BS) - http://www.therealdifference.com/issues.html

How many dems are against a minimum wage increase? Against the patriot act? War in Iraq? The situation with Yucca mountain? Nuke waste in Nevada? Enron? 2000 election investigation? Election reforms? Fuel efficiency? Missile defense shield? We could shatter that list if we wanted to and lose practically NO votes. We could adopt most of it with no problem.

It seems to me like going to the left is a whole heck of a lot easier than moving to the right.

[kentuck]

1. Surely if GWB had a mandate with the election of 2000..?

Then the next Democrat that gets the WH can claim a mandate as well, and present whatever agenda he wishes, no matter how far left it may be....

[Tina H]

5. or, for that matter, no matter how "center" it may alternatively be . . .

[Tina H]

2. to answer the titular question: yes n/t

pretty much for the reasons you present at length. Good post.

Don't worry about the ol' flame retardant suit. Centrists can't flame too good. It's a big part of what makes'em centrists.

[IrateCitizen]

3. Your base assumption that people vote on positions is incorrect

People vote on simple impressions and catchphrases, for the most part. They don't have much of a clue as to what the positions of candidates and/or parties really are.

I don't really categorize it as their fault as much as I do the chattering classes that make up the media punditry. If you ever want good examples of the worthlessness of our mainstream media as a purveyor of useful news, check out Bob Somersby's "The Daily Howler".

[Beatrix]

7. This only supports the position

If people don't vote on issues (and I assume that is the masses) then moving left won't matter with them.

HOWEVER - Greens vote Green over Dem purely on ISSUES. That's who we will be capturing.

[IrateCitizen]

13. Hard-core Greens are hardly a critical group

If you really want to change the paradigm, you have to invest time to create real, vibrant grassroots networks to bypass the chattering classes. Going after the Greens will only capture a small percentage of votes (maybe 2%) while giving the chattering classes and GOP plenty of ammunition to alienate another 5%-10% of those fickle, misinformed "swing voters" in the mushy middle.

As much as I sympathize and agree with much of the Green platform, swinging too hard to the "left" without creating the necessary infrastructure or investing time and effort in proper marketing strategies for those ideas is a losing proposition.

I'm not against moving left over time. I'm against doing it without thinking about HOW we're going to accomplish it successfully first.

[Beatrix]

20. You imply that repubs base things on truth

"GOP plenty of ammunition to alienate"

So before repubs put up an ad saying Max Cleland isn't patriotic enough they are checking the facts? We don't need to give them ammunition - they make their own. If we take this fact in to consideration we have no reason not to move left.

[IrateCitizen]

23. No, I actually believe quite the opposite

They lie like a Persian rug. But the question isn't whether or not they lie or tell the truth -- the question is what the public perceives to be true. When their lies are repeated by the chattering classes (remember the "Al Gore is a liar" shtick during 2000), then it has the REAL potential to alienate.

Look, I'm simply pointing out realities we have to contend with. When it comes down to actual issues, I'm probably in large agreement with you. I just don't believe its wise to pretend that certain realities don't exist, because it leads ultimately to a failed strategy.

[sangh0]

4. No

Most people do NOT vote based on party or ideology.

And that listing of the "differences" is filled with lies. Not a great way to promote the Greens. Everyone KNOWS that the Democratic Party supports abortion rights. There's no question mark about that.

Unless you're a Green, and have no regard for the truth

People who vote democratic want LESS right leaning positions

So those people who voted for Zell Miller wanted a liberal? Surprise on them!!

[Beatrix]

6. Greens exclusively do

And I never "promoted" the greens. I'm trying to find a way to get them to vote dem. Care to tell me how that is promoting?

"So those people who voted for Zell Miller wanted a liberal? Surprise on them!!"

No shit. Believe it or not he actually comes from a conservative region. Further - he wasn't pimping for bush before he was elected now was he? And look at all the people who want him GONE as a result of it.

[sangh0]

33. There aren't enough Greens

to make it worthwhile attracting their votes by moving left, because in doing so we will alienate several times as many voters who are closer to the middle. IMO, one has to consider the votes that are LOST by any move, and not just focus solely on the votes gained. Soch amove might gain 1000 votes, but it might alos lose 10,000.

My reference to the promotion of the Greens was to the website, and not to you. I apologize for not being clearer.

No shit. Believe it or not he actually comes from a conservative region. Further - he wasn't pimping for bush before he was elected now was he? And look at all the people who want him GONE as a result of it.

Two things

1) Your argument was based, at least in part, on the idea that people who vote for Democrats do so because they want a candidate with a Democratic ideology. The evidence strongly indicates that this is not true. Since your premise is probably wrong, your remedy is also called into question.

2) The people who want Zell gone are not the people in his state. They voted for him, which suggests that they do not want him gone.

[IA_Young_Dem]

8. If we move farther left,

we'll lose votes. The Democratic party has a lot of centrists in addition to liberals, and we'd lose the centrists if we move too far left.

[Beatrix]

11. Too far left?

Minimum wage increase is "too far left"? Opposition to the patriot act is "too far left"? Interesting. But holding american citizens with out trial isn't "too far right"? Torturing prisoners isn't "too far right"? Working actively to destroy the bill of rights isn't "too far right"? Funny how the repubs can get away with being "too far right" but my god a minimum wage increase is just too damn left I guess.

[kentuck]

12. But if Repubs move too far to the right...

it's OK?

[Forkboy]

16. By the same token

we'd lose the liberals if we move too far right.And this is happening now.I know a lot of people who are voting against Bush,not for Kerry.If Kerry does win that Bush threat wont be there in 2008.Then what?

[Beatrix]

17. Yup

Some people can't see the big picture though.

[kentuck]

28. If the Repubs can make people thing Bush is a "moderate"....

it is all a matter of perception. whatever agenda Democrats decide to pursue, they should absolutely define it as moderate and in the interest of middle America.

[Beatrix]

32. Exactly

Most left positions are moderate. We just have to frame them that way. Because the repubs have made far right positions "moderate" any sane positions are framed as "far left".

[Frances]

9. No

The candidates that are perceived as being left do not win elections. I should know. I have supported them over the years.

[el_gato]

18. but look at what the rightist DLC has done to the party

moving to the right has all but destroyed the democratic party

Trying to be republican-lite is the problem.

[messiah]

10. Moving to the right is better, it's

just evolution. No democrat will stop their parties movement to the right it's inevitable.

[Beatrix]

14. If that is true

then we as a nation are fu**ed. When does this "evolution" stop? When we have concentration camps on every street corner?

[messiah]

40. Yes this nation is "fu**ed"

The downfall will stop when people from outside of the two party system rise up.

[amjsjc]

41. No, not at all...

Rather we're just filling the political vacuum left by the Republicans who are themselves moving right. For example a lot of fiscal conservatives, who have traditionally voted Republican, are having second thoughts about voting for the Bush administration for obvious reasons. This is a large chunk of the Republican's base and if the democrats can present these voters with a platform they find attractive then they can lure away large numbers of them. The result could well be fatal for Bush. This is not the same as the Democrats deciding to become fascist...

[Pillowbiter]

22. Evolution is something nature controls

voting, at least in principle, is something the people control.

PB

[messiah]

39. The nature of man

will never change. One side gives up more and more one side gains every year that passes.

[Alerter_]

15. only if we want to win elections

If we want war in the Middle East and pro-corporate policies, we should not move left, and let the Republicans win.

[Dookus]

19. Not really

Democrats already support much of what you list.

The problem is, as much as I'd like to see more leftist policies put in place, I'm in the minority. We'd all like to see, say, Universal Health Care, but it doesn't come for free. It's not like we can just wave a wand and get it.

The fact is, elections are decided in the middle. The 3-4% of far- left voters (Greens) don't make up for the 20% in the middle. Believe me, if all the polling done by candidates showed they could win by running far to the left, they'd do so. But the polls don't show that.

Our system is set up, for better or worse, to accommodate big changes slowly, through compromise. That's very dissatisfying in the short term, but it also puts the brakes on the other side.

[Beatrix]

21. "big changes slowly"

I'm not sure about that. Look at what the regime has accomplished in less than 4 years.

[Dookus]

24. What changed?

fiscal irresponsibility? Nothing new. Using force against other countries? We've been doing it regularly for well over a century.

Foreign policy is the one area most prone to rapid change, largely because it rests almost solely in the executive branch, and is largely "reactive" (at least in this maladministration).

My point, though, is running on a platform similar to say, Kucinich's, would lead to a Bush landslide. You and I and most people here recognize some very serious problems in this country that should be changed. But we haven't convinced most Americans of that path.

[Beatrix]

30. What changed?

I'm hoping that wasn't a serious question - but if it was see here http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html

Adopting key parts of the green platform doesn't equal DKs platform. It gives us green votes with out losing the base. Most of the green platform is very palatible to working class moderate people. It only seems "too left" because the repubs have taken us so far right.

[Dookus]

35. ok

I read the list. Very little on it has not been mainstream Republican positions for a long time now.

I believe the Democratic positions on most issues is much closer to the Green's positions than the Republicans' are. If the far-left, as they are prone to do, decide to reject the good while waiting for the perfect, they'll wait a damned long time.

None of this has to do with MY personal positions on the issues, many of which match the Greens'. It has to do with the political reality of winning elections before anything can be done. When the Greens draw 2-3% of the vote, it doesn't convince me there's a huge national groundswell for those issues as presented by the Greens.

[Alerter_]

25. 20% of "swing voters" in the "middle"?

Nonsense. As Kerry gets more pro-war and pro-corporate, Democrats better watch their left flank, and hope their "base" comes out to vote.

[Dookus]

31. Why is it nonsense?

Most analyses I've read state that both parties have a base of about 35-40% and the rest is the middle, up for grabs.

Also, how has Kerry become "MORE" pro-war? By refusing to say he'll pull all troops out the day he's inaugurated? He would lose the election in a landslide with such a promise.

He didn't start the war. He didn't lead it. He didn't cheer-lead for it. But that's in the past - we're there now. We now need to leave Iraq better than we found it. Leaving tomorrow won't accomplish that.

And THAT is exactly why the war was such a godawful idea in the first place - once you go in, there's no easy way out. But I trust Kerry much more than Bush to reject the idea of an American Empire.

[Beatrix]

36. I wonder about this

"He would lose the election in a landslide with such a promise. "

Bush & Pals have been implying that we will be "out" of Iraq soon (what is it - a month deadline now? and yes, I know it's a blatant lie) - yet he is doing about the same as usual in the polls... Certainly not something that indicates a landslide loss is coming for the position you claim will be a landslide loss.

"We now need to leave Iraq better than we found it."

Not possible. We didn't want to go in to begin with just because we KNEW we couldn't leave it better than when we came in. Would we have opposed the war if we thought we could make life great for all involved? No one other than god him self would be able to fix this mess. Mark my words - staying in will lead to another Vietnam in terms of numbers of either Iraqi or American dead/scared for life, and I think many americans realize that.

A faster exit solution is desired.

[sangh0]

37. Poor logic

Bush & Pals have been implying that we will be "out" of Iraq soon (what is it - a month deadline now? and yes, I know it's a blatant lie) - yet he is doing about the same as usual in the polls... Certainly not something that indicates a landslide loss is coming for the position you claim will be a landslide loss.

It doesn't prove the opposite --that a call for an immediate pullout would be popular-- either. However, when a group of people as liberal leaning as DU is can't agree on an immediate pullout, it's hard to believe it would go over well in the general population, which is more conservative than DU and much more supportive of the war than DU is.

[Dookus]

38. well

luckily, Bush now seems to be adopting Kerry's plan (similar to Kucinich's, in fact). I'm not saying, and neither is Kerry, that US troops need to be there indefinitely. It requires an international force.

Now the question is: WHO is better able to put together that force? I think one of Kerry's major campaign issues is going to be that Bush has so ruined our world standing that he is unable to do so. I think that's a potent argument, and will benefit Kerry a great deal.

Seriously, if Kerry ran on the platform of pulling out and letting Iraq fall into civil war, it would be a political loser.

I hate this war. You hate this war. We never should've gone in. But I don't think just running away, leaving Iraq to turn into an anti-American theocracy would just compound the problem.

[GreenArrow]

26. it's not about logic

it's about winning at all costs.

[Beatrix]

27. Well then

time to move left.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. The 'party' is simply the people who are in it.

There are only two ways to 'move it' in one direction or another: change people's minds, or change the people.

[Beatrix]

34. The party is only controlled by those in it

but it involves millions of others. If the people in the party want to succeed they need to work for change for those who are not inside the party. These people appreciate (and vote for) what one party offers them over another, but they are not politically active within the party. Still, this doesn't change the fact that they are the key factor to the success of the party. If they don't like us moving right (as is apparent) then we should move left.

[NoPasaran]

42. Exactly

If you want to see a Greener Democratic Party, Greens need to move in to the Democratic Party and change it from within.

[sangh0]

44. Yep, I don't know why some people think VT would get more diverse

by sending the few non-whites in VT to some other state.

[IranianDemocrat]

43. Nope.

Just because DU is a haven for socialists that doesn't mean they make up the majority of the party.

[eridani]

45. The left needs better marketing of ideas, not a rightward shift.

How the Democrats Were Betamaxed
By Laurie Spivak
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18395


Think of a "marketplace of ideas" where the products are policies, positions, and issues all competing for dominance. On the surface, this may seem like the stuff of dreams for "free market" conservatives, but it turns out it's a nightmare. You see, what we find is that in this marketplace, Democrats actually have the better product and Americans prefer the policies of Democrats by a wide margin to those of the GOP. In the realm of ideas, just as in any marketplace, the superior or preferred product usually wins out, but not always. An inferior product can dominate in the market when it has superior marketing, and this is precisely what we have seen come to pass in U.S. politics over the past two decades.

When we fail to view the world through the conservative business lens, we can easily see all of this as a vast rightwing conspiracy. However if we recall the frame of the marketplace of ideas, then we see it for it is: a well-run operation that recognized its weakness – a less desirable product – and figured out a way to dominate in the marketplace through an incredibly successful, integrated marketing strategy. Branded by the right and blind-sided by the conservative marketing machine, for more than a decade Democrats have been running to the right and abandoning core progressive issues and values in an attempt to keep pace with conservatives. This has been completely the wrong response.

Conservatives, after all, are dominating through superior marketing, not with better ideas or policies. However, because Democrats have failed to grasp the root of the problem, they have reacted to the growing conservative dominance by trying to fit into a more conservative mold. This wrong-headed response has played into the hands of conservatives. Democrats have lost ground in the marketplace of ideas, and have helped to tarnish their brand, as the right and left alike branded them as "wafflers," "Republican-lite" and "spineless liberals."

What Democrats should have done was stick to their principles and progressive policies and develop an equally formidable marketing strategy. It's not too late.