Let's take a walk down "Liberal" Lane, shall we?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

Kerry- 3rd wayer.
Clinton- 3rd wayer.
Carter- left-leaning centrist.
Johnson- Schizo...Great Society and the Vietnam MIC.
Kennedy- left-leaning centrist.
Truman- left-leaning centrist, Fair Deal Democrat.
Roosevelt- ran as a centrist but enacted the greatest slate of progressive legislation in our nation's history. However, he needed the backdrop of the Depression in order to do so. Progressive Capitalist? :shrug:

The flip-side:

Chimp- neo-con (fascist).
Reagan- winger.
Ford- centrist.
Nixon- right-leaning centrist.
Ike- moderate Republican.



So it's been 60 years (with a tip o' the hat to Johnson) since a true slate of progressive legislation has been the order of the day. That slate produced the greatest transference of wealth in the history of the world, giving birth to the American Middle Class. For three generations we have been walking-down all that progress. Centrist and Conservative legislation since FDR has produced the greatest concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, the American Oligarchy, in the history of the world. It's crystal clear that progressive issues worked best for most and centrism/conservatism is a fraud foisted upon the people (judged by who controls the wealth). What'll it take to return politics to progressivism? My fear, another Depression (Have a nice day!:))

So what say you, 3rd way and centrist Dems? It's been 3 generations since we've played progressive politics. The cards are getting frayed and bent. Isn't it about time for a New Deal?

[Radical Activist]

1. the greatest transference of wealth in the history of the world

I like your post, but I think there are greater transfers of wealth, like during the Reagan years. Lets not forget that supply side economics was about income redistribution and class warfare.

I have to think Russian revolution was a greater transfer of wealth too.

[Az]

2. Great

"I think we must expect great things from you, Mr. Potter....After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things—terrible, yes, but great" - Olivander from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. The Reagan transference definately marks the shift into overdrive.

Top marginal tax rates reduced from the 70th+ percentile to the 30th percentile. As for the Russian Revolution, didn't the wealth just transfer from the czars to the apparatchiks? Did Joe Soviet ever really benefit?

[msmcghee]

4. You sound like you believe . .

. . that our policies were a result of their ideology.

In fact, they were elected by US voters because of their ideology. Therefore, their policies were a result of what voters were looking for.

If the voters wanted something different they would have elected someone else.

I keep saying that everybody focuses on the person running for office. That's good. But if he doesn't get enough votes he won't be elected - and someone who gets more votes will (generally).

We have to change the mindset of the American voter. Then the candidates will appear who appeal to that mindset. It's a great system. We just have to learn how to play the game as well as the pukes.

We have a natural advantage - because our way will appeal to more people - if both views are sold with the same effectiveness. We haven't been marketing our ideas and world view. Too many Dem pols think that since we have a better, more fair system, the voters will see that and vote for us.

Naive. :eyes:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. Almost completely disagree.

It's naive to think that the voter's get what they want. (Wasn't sure if you were calling my post or Dem pols naive; doesn't matter either way)

First, always first, there is money. Center-right politics serves the interests of the monied classes. Therefore the money is funneled to the candidates accordingly. No dough, no show. Thus a slew of center-right candidates.

Second, is the media. Not the kind you buy, the kind you get. Media is owned by the monied interests. Media serving the message of such interests will favor the center-right candidate. Thus a slew of successful center-right candidates.

Third, is media. The kind you buy. See the first rule to see who gets the most access to the airwaves.

Fourth, is the Party. How does the party keep itself viable? Money. In order to maintain an open channel to that money the party needs to align itself with, guess who?, the monied interests. Case in point: Kucinich (a candidate that I didn't financially support). 95% of his views are mainstream, common sense views. Why wasn't money directed his way? Because common sense is usually not in the interests of big money. So the Party pushed Lieberman and Kerry. All but disregarding the rest. Sure the Party said "We have a great cast of candidates, all would make great Presidents," but behind the scenes, only two or three were being pushed.

Fifth, sixth and seventh is money. See a trend developing? No money, no exposure. No exposure, no nomination.

So to believe that the people are selecting the representatives that they want, is to me, naive. Many studies clearly show that a majority of Americans believe in environmental, social justice, corporate responsibility, etc... issues. Now if this is true, and I contend that it is, why do they keep electing politicians that hold contrary positions to their own? They don't want to, the system is skewed against them. It is of interest to note that the candidate that enacted the most progressive slate of legislation, FDR, ran as a centrist. Coinky-dink? I think not.

Who's naive? :eyes:

[msmcghee]

12. I agree with you, almost completely.

My refence to "Naive" was to the Dem pols who don't seem to think that we need to sell our message. Who believe that if we just tell the truth we'll get the votes.

You ask - Many studies clearly show that a majority of Americans believe in environmental, social justice, corporate responsibility, etc... issues. Now if this is true, and I contend that it is, why do they keep electing politicians that hold contrary positions to their own?

The reason is that the pukes are selling their ideology and we are not. They've been doing this for the last twenty years. They have created the mindset in almost half the electorate that dems are sleazy, soft on crime, easy on wellfare, are tax and spend and can't fight our way our of a paper bag, much less fight terrorists. That has given them both houses of congress, the executive, the supremes and the media.

Voters are voting against their interests. That's the power of marketing my friend.

It happens all the time in commerce. The fact is, unfortunately, the worst product in the world can be sold with good marketing - and the best product in the world will languish on the shelves without it - especially if the competition has good marketing.

Liberals are like artists. We tend to believe that because we have the best ideas, the fairest, most sensible approach to policy, etc. the public should be smart enough to figure out which product is the best on their own and will take the time to do it.

Anyone who believes that is naive.

Clinton was so successful because he understood how to sell his message. I've got my fingers crossed for Kerry. It would be terrible if he won just because Bush* was soooo bad - and then, once elected, didn't have the ability to sell the American people on his agenda.

If he can sell the voters - the pukes in congress will have to go along or face losing their jobs. That's how Clinton got them to accept his budget that turned the economy around so miraculously.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. An interesting point that you bring up is selling ideology.

Your point is right on the money. Pugs are moving cars off the lot. Dems are having trouble because there's a dealership (Pugs) who has been in town longer and sells the same make and model, only with flashier colors.

As you said, it comes down to marketing. You can't be seen as an inferior version of the same product, you've got to be seen as different and better. Republican-lite is neither. And the marketing tools are there. The party that brought you the weekend through it's support of labor (anti-argument: less pay, no overtime). A fairer tax code (anti-argument: Pugs gave you 5% of the people owning 90% of the wealth). Regulation of industry (anti: Enron). Etc...

It's there for the picking. We just can't be afraid to grab it.

[msmcghee]

16. Yeah, it's like they've got . .

. . a real dog for a product (no offense to my canine friends) but they sell the hell out of it, spending big bucks on marketing. They also know how to "sell the sizzle". People don't buy things because they make sense. They buy stuff because it makes them feel good.

Puke ideology is designed to make folks feel good. Who wouldn't feel good knowing that they are right all the time and virtuous and patriotic and God's chosen few.

We've got the best approach to governance by far, by any measure. The voters even agree with that when we poll them on values.

But we expect the voters to figure out logically that we represent those values . . and then we get pissed off when they don't and we wonder why they vote against us and their own interests.

We're not selling progressive values - the sizzle that makes people feel good about being an American. We're almost apologizing for them.

Dammit, government can work for the good of all the people, as Clinton proved decisively. We should be all over that message. Throwing it right in the face of Delay and Frist and the rest of those rats. It is message that all real Americans would love to hear.

Don't get me started. :eyes:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. I don't want to get you started...BUT...

...I think that Clinton was great because of his marketeering, not his policy. Mate Clinton (marketing) with Kucinich, Jackson-Lee, Waxman or Sanders (progressive ideals) and you've got one hell of a country. I supported Dean because I saw him as a bridge to that coitus, but I'm perfectly willing to have the real thing.

[I thought so.]

5. Lets see.

Wallace
Stevenson(twice)
Humprey
Mcgovern
Mondale
Dukakis

Got a clue yet?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. No shit. It's a party divided. Repugs win because Dems peel off.

They peel off because they are indoctrinated by money and media (see post #7) to be afraid of progressivism. My point is that the last President who enacted progressive policies was an unqualified success. The centrists who followed have only worked to tear down that success. Nearly every candidate on your list would have been better than who they lost to.


Ike (debatable)
Nixon.
Reagan.
Bush.

Got a clue yet?

[TexasSissy]

6. Kennedy was a liberal.

Far left.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Erm.....no he wasn't.

He may well have turned out to be, with another term, but he was very much pro big-defense--the first place one looks. He tried to overthrow Cuba. Not the most liberal stance that I can think of. His civil rights policies were moving in the right direction but I think that was more a product of Bobby than John.

What were the "far left liberal" policies that were enacted under Kennedy?

[Deja Q]

10. Reagan is the godfather of neo-con-ism, if not the father.

He's just as evil as *.

Moreso for being the creator of, and not an innovator of.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. I don't necessarily disagree.

I'm more trying to point my efforts against the self-defeating policies of centrism and the illusion that there is an active and productive "left" in this country.

[Junkdrawer]

11. The next big advances for progressives have to address foreign slave labor

The world economy is simply too interconnected to ignore the competition from cents-an-hour foreign labor. Gephardt's "International Minimum Wage" (enacted as a tax on foreign goods made by underpaid workers) seems like a good start to me.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. I have no problem with an Int. min. wage. (Just Gephardt)

Imo, the next big advance for progressives is.....to be progressive!