what do we do if the party refuses to swing to the left?

[codegreen]

all the appeasement bullshit has barely even begun yet, and i'm already beyond disgusted with it. we're still stuck with a two-party system in this country because there's no instant runoff voting, so i don't think abandoning the party will do anything more than further solidify the Republican stranglehold on the capital... so what can we do?

it seems to me that time and time again, year after year, the party refuses to listen to the people crying out for a hard stance, for a backbone, for a truly left wing party. the leadership and the elected officials repeatedly refuse to do what we all know they must, what we all keep saying they must: appeal to their base! no more of this middle-ground crap that the Republicans have been running away from for a decade (and, in doing so, winning).

this election showed that the proudly, strongly leftwing Democrats got elected in most places, while the ho-hum appeasers had their asses handed to them. and, as usual, there's no learning anything. why, the ingrained, deaf, worthless Democratic leadership wouldn't be worthless and deaf if the actually learned things, would they? so of course we can't have that.

anyway, my rant is deteriorating as usual. so what the hell are we going to do about this? what can we do with a leadership that is always being dragged around by the nose by a corrupt and worthless media? i would love to just wipe half our party leadership and elected officials right out of their seats, and put in people from the streets, the roots, the blogs, the people who will really stand up and really be Democrats again.

i'm so frustrated i can't even finish this thing. what the hell can we do with a leadership that ignores us and licks the Republicans boots year after year??

[Options Remain]

1. they are not ignoring us.

they are ignoring the country.

They need to act before the country does.

TearForger

[codegreen]

2. i didn't just mean us at DU, i meant those like us all over the country

so i guess we're saying the same thing?

[Midlodemocrat]

3. Remember

John Kerry, allegedly the most liberal senator in Congress, received more votes than Ronald Reagan. I don't think they are ignoring us.

[codegreen]

8. that's awfully irrelevent because of a) population increase and b) we lost

[Midlodemocrat]

18. But, you missed my point

Even though there was a population increase, the right tried awfully hard to paint JK as even more liberal than Teddy Kennedy and he still got a helluva lotta votes.

[codegreen]

20. if he had run strong on the environment, defended his senate career,

ignored the DLC-types and the crappy advisors he had, gone after Bush truly hard, and innumerable other strong-leftwing things, he would have won. going after 'swing voters' instead of appealing to our base is what lost it for us, in congress for 10 years now, and in this election.

[Midlodemocrat]

22. Well, personally, I think he just wanted to run

...on vision, as opposed to negativity, which is what won * the election.

[codegreen]

28. yep. it's a real shame, it should have worked, but still

congress should have been won, and that's where the 'party line' is required; we need a party line of Feingold, Salizar, Kucinich, Dean... we need it to our backbone if we ever want to win again

[Midlodemocrat]

29. I think Chimpy and friends are going to self destruct

...which will help us gain control again. I do think it is heartening that so many voted for a man who is proud to be called a liberal. Maybe liberal is no longer a four letter word. One can hope.

[codegreen]

32. i agree, but i disagree that Kerry was proud to be called liberal...

i always heard him divert it into a discussion about whether Bush was conservative or not... i never saw him embrace liberal openly; he should have, though.

when Bush and Co. get out of office, we need the Democratic wing of the Democratic party to come into power after them, not the centrists. so my argument for stronger left leaning leadership is still prudent, and we need to build it now, not just from the bottom, but also through demanding change in direction at the top.

[Midlodemocrat]

35. Well, he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate

...I think he realized that calling himself a liberal was the kiss of death, thanks to Ronald Reagan.

[codegreen]

38. thanks to no backbone and no explanations, and no free media

is more like it. we need leadership that agressively goes after the misinformation that has flooded the public for years and years. define things! explain things! stand up for many things! dare to be leftwing and 'extreme'! these are the lessons the party refuses to learn.

and that 'most liberal voting record in the senate' thing was just for one year, and was from some crappy thinktank somewhere. i hope you're joking in referring to it, or your showing symptoms of the very problems i'm saying have gone unaddressed day in, day out for what seems like forever now.

[Midlodemocrat]

42. No, he does have a very liberal voting record

...along with Kennedy and Biden for starters.

[codegreen]

45. nonetheless, he presented himself as a centrist and wouldn't defened

most of the liberal things about him, or his senate career (no mention of BCCI, barely any mention of the environment, etc)

[Midlodemocrat]

46. I think his thinking might have more along the lines

of 'hey, it worked for the Big Dog'. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Big Dog, but he is not nearly liberal enough for me. Welfare reform almost did me in I was so made and the Don't ask, don't tell policy was simply ridiculous.

[codegreen]

48. exactly. and contrary to popular opinion, 'big dog' won because of Perot

NAFTA and all that other shit was horrible, and our party has been worthless every since. and we still have people all over this board saying 'well we need to be MORE centrist' and 'go vote green if you want a left party'

my god, if this is how it will be, then this party does deserve to die. and this nation is going to go so far down the shitter... all thanks to our voting system coupled with a blind/deaf Dem party and a corrupt worthless media. ugh.

[sangh0]

4. The premise of your question is unrealistic

There is no one identifiable person who speaks for "the party" The Democratic Party is a coalition of different groups, each of which speak for themselves as well as a portion of the party.

time and time again, year after year, the party refuses to listen to the people

"the party" has no ears, but the politicians who run as Democrats listen to their constituents, their supporters, and their funders, often in reverse order.

[codegreen]

7. i'm just not seeing it. if they pick Reid as minority leader, and the way

Pelosi has been talking recently, it's not sitting well with me.

the people who have failed us, the DLC-types, the bad advisors, they all need to go.

the party line, to whatever extent we have one, has got to become more strong, more left, more populist, more responsive. i want our party to be tough, like the Republicans, without being Republican-lite, without compromising on anything, or at least far less. i want a party that takes many stands. stands for a living wage, stands against corporate personhood, against corporate welfare. and stands for equality and human rights.

for example, contrary to current political dogma, i think we should have stood up FOR gay marraige, or at least for getting government out of the marraige business and just do civil unions... but the party leadership would say 'that's too different', 'that's too complicated'...

i want a party that isn't afraid to be different and complicated, but instead is proudly complicated and nuanced and informative! a party that requires and demands thought, and doesn't send out pathetic spokesmen to the media that allow everything to be dumbed down, who allow to be run over roughshod.

[sangh0]

13. You don't want to see it

You'd rather think that "Pelosi = 'the party'" so you can justify your poorly thought out rants

the people who have failed us, the DLC-types, the bad advisors, they all need to go.

They are not "the party". And you don't get to decide who a Democrat is, and who can stay and who has to go.

the party line, to whatever extent we have one

There is no "party line", and even you KNOW that. That's why you can't identify what it is.

for example, contrary to current political dogma, i think we should have stood up FOR gay marraige,

Meanwhile, GLBT organizations have been publicly stating that they do not plan on challenging most of the gay marriage bans that recently passed into law. SO let's bash "the party" for not doing what the GLBT orgs aren't doing.

i want a party that isn't afraid to be different and complicated

No you don't. The party IS different and complicated, and THAT is what you have a problem with. THAT is why you want to purge "the party" of everyone you don't like.

[codegreen]

19. *sigh*

1) i was referring to party leadership. and contrary to your insistence, i am not trying to just speak for myself, but for those who agree, and i've seen plenty of them.

2)in my phrasing it that way, i was indicating we should have a party line, and one different from whatever we have know, if we have one, which you seem to think we don't, but i'm not going to count on you as an authority as to whether that is the case.

3)there was more to that sentence that was really my central point, and the party should lead. if the GBLT orgs know they live in a country where no one will stand up for them, certainly not the former 'party of the people', (y'know, the same party that refuses to stand for and demand a living wage and a real national non-profit healthcare system) then i don't care. we shouldn't expect groups being relegated to fifth-class citizenship to lead for us. we should stand up for the people.

4)it doesn't stand up for its complication, or for complicated stances. it desperately attempts to fit into the soundbyte culture, and the leadership is continually going middle-ground, Rethug-lite. and what i meant by different was different from the opposition, not different as in 'sure we've got diversity in our party but the leadership is always leaning right because, well, the opposition party is winning by running right, so let's follow them or we'll lose; oh and let's ignore our base for most part'. anyway, you know what i meant and insist on twisting it into something else. we have a party that tolerates diversity, yes, but the leadership is the problem in that it is NOT diverse, instead it is consistently refusing to go left, and consistently letting the media and the other side dumb things down and shun nuance.

btw, when i aknowledge my rants are poorly thought out within the rant, i don't see why you need to keep telling me how poorly thought out they are. (that's why i said they were in the first place)

[sangh0]

56. *sigh*

i was referring to party leadership...

Umm, Minority Leader in the Senate is NOT a "party leader". The "party leader" is the one who leads the party. The party being the DNC, the only logical "leader" of "the party" would be the one who is in charge of the DNC. You know who that is, right? You know it's NOT the Minority Leader, right?

SO why are you saying the Minority Leader is the party leadership.

in my phrasing it that way, i was indicating we should have a party line,

Which is why YOU, if anyone, should be thrown out of the party. Imagine a DEMOCRAT taking a stance in favor of enforcing opinions.

we shouldn't expect groups being relegated to fifth-class citizenship to lead for us. we should stand up for the people.

Please name the social movement that was led by politicians?

we shouldn't expect groups being relegated to fifth-class citizenship to lead for us. we should stand up for the people.

And your idea to increase diversity is to force people to agree with you or they get thrown out of the party

BRILLIANT!!!

[dpbrown]

5. Become the leadership

People like Donna Brazile and Paul Begala eventually prove that it's all about the "pundits" and until the people who are supposed to provide the effective echo chamber for progressive ideas are replaced, it'll be more of the same:

1. Bad advice to candidate to "stay the course"
2. Handwringing about failed candidate's inability to "connect with the voters"
3. Book tour by pundits hawking new means of "connecting"
4. Money rolling in to pundits' pockets
5. Cycle repeats

Dean and Kucinich had it right - we've got to become the party, and then show that there is a method of defining and reaching the constituency that progressives keep saying is going to change the nation.

[codegreen]

11. well, that's nice it'll take years to trickle up... the leadership now

has GOT to start standing tall for the base.

and, yeah, i'd like to run but i'm uneducated and have too many skeletons in the closet...

[sangh0]

15. Lazy gets you nowhere

and looking for quick fixes is for simple minded folks.

[codegreen]

24. look, if you won't honestly comment on what i say

and insist on twisting things, ignoring parts of this sentence and that, and also constantly being personally condescending, you can just leave me alone.

it is not 'lazy' to say i'm not educated enough to function as an elected local official, or to say i'm unelectable for personal reasons you could at least have the slight decency to take at face value and believe.

those in power of the party are the ones that CAN do things quick, and i'm seeing them run right or stay stagnant again instead of running left where they have refused to for 10 years (10 years of losing, again i point out). what i want to do is to get them to listen and to respond, and that shouldn't take much longer than 'quick'. it should be instantaneous, after yet again reality has pointed out to these people the leaning right is a losing gameplan. they need to run left, the gameplan they have avoided for too many years.

[greenohio]

6. I was saying this during the election

and all anybody did was beat up the greens. "Vote for Kerry, he can win, Nader can't."

If principle is all you care about, vote green. If you care about winning, the party has to move back to the center where Clinton had it.

[codegreen]

9. with no IRV, Greens haven't a chance on national scale.

Clinton wouldn't have won without Perot, and besides he was so middle and betrayed us on NAFTA and abandoning healthcare; the 'back to the center' party has lost congress for a decade, accomplished barely anything other than continously losing while standing for very little, tossing the base breadcrumbs, and letting the media and the Rethugs frame all debate.

i want a strong leftwing party to rival the level of extreme rightwingness the Rethugs have been going for for a decade.

and THAT'S the only way we'll really win, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. It's going to take time. Get ranked voting (IRV is okay but has issues)

in your town and county. Start from the bottom up because there is no way it's coming from the top down under **.

[codegreen]

25. ah sorry i wasn't aware of the difference...

i'll look that up after responding to all these comments!

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. Have lots of info about it linked to my site, but basically

the problem is that IRV could conceivably give the GOP the edge in the long run, since I an many others would probably spread votes around:

Ergo:

If I and many others on the left vote:

1) Green
2) Socialist
3) Indy Progressive
4) Dems

Odds are the GOP could clean up the majority needed while my ballot is shuffling around among the smaller parties.


Also, there is the concern I would have about:

Do I rank Green first? What if they have the least number of votes, in which case I ought to make them second. Although, if all the Greens are splitting between first and second, then we will be sure to get knocked out, in which case will we even have the percentage necessary to maintain ballot status?


However, I would still rather take my chances with IRV than stick with the plurality voting we have now. Esp here in Maine, since we have publicly financed elections.

[codegreen]

34. ah, i hadn't thought of that... you're right.

the vote reform movement seems to have centered around IRV though... damn this is frustrating. i'd like to see what the 'ranked voting' system would be... i'm looking around on the web but it seems hard to find any diffinitive info on one system as opposed to the other...

(edit:) found your site. thanks!

[GreenPartyVoter]

37. Personally, I am intrigued by the Borda and condorcet methods

But I can just see my local election officials get all up in arms over the extra work involved. As it is, the elction officials are the ones who shot down IRV here in Maine. But we still have a chance of getting it. Yet another bill going through the legislature.

[codegreen]

40. good! i wonder if it could get through here in Missouri...

so many right winger freaks here; if i wasn't so overworked i might be able to try getting petitions signed or something.

[GreenPartyVoter]

44. Seriously, the folks who want the Constitution or Libertarian parties to

take off will be happy to help you out when you explain how ranked/preferential voting helps them.

[codegreen]

49. i've been thinking that. it's something that should appeal to all

and i think we could do it. i would love to do it if not for my excuses. i hope it happens. if we had a real party, a left wing party instead of a worthless centrist leadership of our party, we would make ranked/preferential voting part of the platform.

but too many believe the centrist theory. it's pathetic.

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. If we want centrist policies, we should get them by bringing

polarized parties to the table and carving out a middle ground.

-----------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[EndElectoral]

23. If the Dem's go further right, what's the point, they no longer reflect

my beleifs and I would have to go Green or move to another country.

[codegreen]

26. then we have got to get them to listen!

they can't keep ignoring those of us who have been calling on them to go left! i'm glad we agree

[greenohio]

41. It is accept that Clinton would have beat Dole without Perot.

Learn from 2004 people. The nation is at the center. We need a centrist candidate for the Dems. If all you care about is leftest principles then vote green. If you want to win, support centrist candidates from the midwest or south. Or just get used to repukes running everything.

[codegreen]

47. are you saying Kerry was too leftist?

why tell me to vote Green because of principles when they CAN'T WIN DUE TO OUR VOTING SYSTEM?

you are toeing the DLC line, that we need to only run southerners, that we can never ever ever be leftist or leftwing, and are being blind to the fact the the other side has won time and time and time again by being strongly rightwing and running away from the center.

it is amazing how differently you and i see things.

[greenohio]

57. Kerry was PERCEIVED to be too left to win...

I tell you to vote green because if we keep putting up old coastal democrats, we will continue to lose anyway. We need a new democrat from middle america.

Kerry was rated most liberal. He is from the east coast. There was no shakin the image, regardless of whether he was leftwing or not.

Clinton, ran from through the middle from middle america.

If we move further left, we move into oblivian. If you want to move left, go green.

[pippin]

10. Unify around people like Dean and Kucinich

[codegreen]

12. done and done.

[LiberalPersona]

14. Party swinging left or not

We need to push with all our might for election reform. That includes abolishing the electoral college and making the country use IRV.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

16. Win.

[depakid]

17. The so called cenrists IGNORE THE FACT

that Republicans have been running away from the center for over 20 years and have been making gain after gain, while the DEMS- running toward the center- have just been piling up losses. This fact is conveniently dismissed by "the centrists" as indicating that the country is "becomimg more conservative." However, if that's the case- why are these far-right reactionaries winning over and over. They're not conservative. They're extremists.

Moreover, in survey after survey, on issue after issue- it turns out that the majority of the population sides with progressives on almost all the major issues. Pick a few and see if that's not true.

So, in my mind- the whole "gotta move to the center thing is not only both narrow-minded and implistic but isn't supported by the sociological nor the electoral evidence. In short, it's bogus rationalization.

[codegreen]

27. thank you! you worded it much better than i could

now it's time to start kickimg some centrist ass!

[The Wielding Truth]

30. Start a new Party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Let Me See If I Understand This....

There are supposed progressive majorities on "almost all the major issues" but the Republicans control every level of government...


So the voters are punishing the Democrats for not being progressive enough by voting for the party that is even less progressive...


That makes no sense at all....


Reality is a bitch...

According to exit polls 34% of Americans identify themselves as conservative , 45% of Americans identify themselves as moderates,
and only 21% of Americans identify themselves as liberals....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html


A dispassionate observer would be compelled to conclude that the center is where the votes are at...

But, hey don't let your ideology get in the way of blowing another election..

[codegreen]

36. those polled don't even know what liberal or progressive is

who has been out there defining it for them, besides Rush and Newt, for the last ten years?

most people want universal healthcare. polls have shown this. that is a progressive issue, and that, in a sense, is a demonstration of how America is more progressive than not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I Hear That Argument All The Time

So the 21% of Americans that identify themselves as liberal know what they are and the other 79% of those who identify themselves as conservatives or moderates are fools...


Most Americans like universal health care as a grand concept but most Americans are loathe to give up their private health plans especially when their employer pays for it...

[codegreen]

43. yes, i am standing up and saying Americans are ignorant and uneducated.

and that they don't know they're progressive, any more than they know the truth about much anything thanks to our horrid media, overworked populace, deliberate misinformation everywhere, and general apathy due to the lack of a real opposition party in a position of prominense that can actually get elected (if it would only stop this centrist bull)

disagree with this argument that you 'hear all the time', but it's true nonetheless.

[Q]

51. How many identified themselves as 'progressive'?

- None you say? Perhaps that's because the question wasn't asked.

- The Democratic leadership and their followers can't make enough excuses as to why their centrism has been a failure. Every time we lose...their answer to the question why is that we must become even more centrist....saying NEXT TIME the results will be different.

- Yet it's clear...at least to the traditional base of the party...that they've abandoned segments of society deemed 'unpopular' by the Right. The GOPers hated unions and the influence they had with the Democratic party and it wasn't long before the Dem party threw them away in order to collect campaign cash from corporations that didn't want to unionize. The debate about unions simply disappeared once the Dem leadership appeased the Right.

- The same thing has happened with many 'traditional' Democratic issues. It was always easier for the weak-kneed leadership to concede on issues in exchange for ready cash from corporate lobbyists.

- But 'DemocratSinceBirth' has nicely identified a problem that we need to confront: the Democratic leadership MUST stop using polls and intimidation from RWingers to chart the course of our party. Is it any wonder Bush* could use the flip-flop rhetoric against Kerry and others? The party needs to stop being what they THINK the polls want...and start being what we know the people want: a party that truly represents them and their interests.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. I 'm Lost

They asked folks after they voted what political ideology they identify with and only twenty one percent of them identified themselves as liberal so folks here are saying that in order to win elections the Democratic party has to move more to the left ....


That reminds me of a great line from the movie Boyz In The Hood where Laurence Fishburne tells his son to study hard for the SAT especially the math part because numbers don't lie inferring that the verbal part can be culturally biased....


It seems to me that it's a mathematical certainty that the votes are distributed along a modified Bell Curve that tilts to the right...

And I really don't think substituting the word progressive for liberal is going to convince a conservative or moderate that he is really a liberal ...

Sometime an ideological rigidity is the enemy of critical analysis; a malady that the neither the left nor the right is entirely immune from....

[hippiechick]

50. Hey Codegreen...

I am as flummoxed and flabbergasted as you are.

At this point, I have no ideas to offer but just wanted to let you know that I hear ya' loud and clear.

:hi:

:hippie:

[codegreen]

52. thank you thank you thank you!

it is encouraging, those that have commented here that aren't toeing the failed, tired, centrist line.

:toast:

[w4rma]

55. The shift to the "left" (which, imho, is actually "right") on gun control

within the Democratic Party is a loser. The Democratic Party MUST lose the label of gun control. Gun control just ticks off rural folks to the point where they do not hear any other issue. Lose the issue. It's lost anyway and the Democratic Party should have never been fighting for removing gun rights. These folks have to be willing to listen to Democrats to vote for Democrats. Removing more gun control from the Democratic Party agenda will help Dems in rural areas talk to other folks openly about Democrats.

God is an issue that NATIONAL Democrats need to learn how to talk about. Wear God on your sleeve as President Carter did and how Bush does. The Democratic base in the Northeast and West needs to allow national Democrats to talk about God and Christianity. The Democratic base needs to let this happen so that rural Christians who are only rarely exposed to other religions and are taught to be intolerant of them by their peers will LISTEN to national Democrats again as they did with FDR.

Abortion is basically gone. Girls will have to die by the coathanger, in America, before rural folks start to rethink that issue again. That, their intolerance of gays and their indignity about sex are pretty much all that Repugs have to point at on morals. The Repug leadership is immoral, according to their own definitions, in every way if you remove those 3 issues.

You can't give in to the big corporates because they are the folks behind the Republican Party pushing them and covering for them. They are the true base of the Republican Party. They are the folks who need to be pushed out of power even more than the the Repukes do. If they fall, then the Repukes fall (but not neccessarily vice versa).

You can't give in on fighting against voter fraud because without a fair vote, issues do not matter. You can't give in on tactical issues, ever. Anything and everything that degrades our democracy must be fought at because we will never get back into power under a dictatorship without a civil war.