Can we talk about a PROGRESSIVE COALITION within the Dems?

[marions ghost]

A lot of us progressives and grassroots organizers are aware of the serious shortcomings of the Democratic party. See the current discussion about this “Is It Time to Start a Progressive Party? (posted by The Sushi Bandit) – http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2138142&mesg_id=2138142

***
So for those who believe a 3rd party is unrealistic at the present time, can we discuss creating a strong coalition WITHIN the Democratic party? Is this worth it? What would it take?

There IS opportunity now...obviously. With the Neo-cons not looking good and the growing abuses of the administration exposed, it is time to look forward more positively and get out of this downtrodden mindset we have been laboring under, where we are always compromised, always begging for crumbs from our own party. I’m assuming that we are together at least on one point--that we have been betrayed by the DLC. It seems the Corporate Democrats have used us for a long time. As Douglas Carpenter said: “In 1973 DNC Chair Robert Strauss basically threw away the small donor list and grassroots activist list of the Democratic Party and turned the party away from progressive policies and toward corporate lobbyist dependency.”

Maybe we can get out of the trap of talking left-right-center politics. This has not served us well. We have been isolated into “the fringe left” when a lot of us are about as “far left” as Howard Dean. As OneBlueSky said : “The issue is --there is a very small group that controls everything versus the people. ..the right-left stuff is what they push on us to keep us from focusing on the REAL dichotomy.”

How can we become an effective presence within the Democratic party? I think we need our own identity and name (names give visibility and help to avoid stereotyping) –in other words how can we create a positive place for Dems like us to go? We may not have big money, but we do have numbers and so we can do it with small-donor money. I’m tired of working to get people elected to office who really don’t represent my views whatsoever (though they may pretend to). Been there, DONE that, like so many posting in the other thread. I’m tired of putting up and going along with the DLC mentality…but I don’t see a separate 3rd party as realistic in the current climate. So what kind of organization do we need—those of us who are no longer prepared to swallow the passive “go along and get along” philosophy? As Telly Savalas said: “If the progressive movement can’t win the ear of the 'left-most' of the two major parties, then how can it be expected to win the ear of the entire nation?”

Where are we now on this?" It seems that Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) is trying to be this kind of organization--am I correct about this? Will they be able to form a strong alliance of progressives who actually have some clout within the Democratic party? In the previous discussion, nadinbrzezinski said “Democracy for America and PDA... they are trying...within the strictures of the 50 national parties, but mark my words, if the DLC tries to block this evolution, it will get ugly...”
I wonder, if this really is an evolutionary moment for the party... if MAYBE the Corporate Democrats could find out that a progressive agenda isn’t so scary after all.

[Tamyrlin79]

1. Well, the first batch of new "progressive dems" would be

Howard Dean supporters.

They want a progressive coalition, too. And Democracy for America (the org formed from the Dean campaign) has finally created the tool to make this truly possible: DFA-Link. (See my DU post on that very subject here..)

I would encourage all progressives to join the network as individuals, even if they don't join an existing group or form a new one of their own. The more who do join, the more effective this new tool is in organizing us. Using it, we can now make connections with progressives in our own communities that we previously didn't even know existed. We can form new organizations, build coalitions, etc.

Thus, we can organize ourselves on the Left to the same degree that the Religious Right is organized on the...er, um... Right.

[The Sushi Bandit]

9. Good stuff here!!

we need to keep this subject on the fore-front of Democrats minds. The DLC must be neutralized. Progressives need to take back "our" party!

[genius]

21. You mean the Kucinich supporters.

Anti-war, anti-free trade, anti-death penalty, pro-universal health care, pro-peace.

[Cocoa]

2. such a coalition does exist

About Us

The Congressional Progressive Caucus was established in the U.S. House of Representatives in the early 1990s. It reflects the diversity and strength of the American people, and we seek to give voice to the needs and aspirations of all Americans and to build a more just and humane society.

The new Co-Chairwomen of the 61-Member Congressional Progressive Caucus, U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, welcome your interest in the growing Progressive Caucus. Our Caucus Members want to do more than speak out against extremism from the Right. We want to take on the Bush Administration's agenda by providing a comprehensive, thoughtful, progressive alternative -- what we call The Progressive Promise -- Fairness for All (PDF).

http://www.congressionalprogressivecaucus.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=27

Caucus Members

Neil Abercrombie
Tammy Baldwin
Xavier Becerra
Madeleine Z. Bordallo
Corrine Brown
Sherrod Brown
Michael Capuano
Julia Carson
Donna Christensen
William “Lacy” Clay
Emanuel Cleaver
John Conyers
Danny Davis
Peter DeFazio
Rosa DeLauro
Lane Evans
Sam Farr
Chaka Fattah
Bob Filner
Barney Frank
Raul Grijalva
Luis Gutierrez
Maurice Hinchey
Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Marcy Kaptur
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Dennis Kucinich
Tom Lantos
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Ed Markey
Jim McDermott
James McGovern
Cytnhia McKinney
George Miller
Gwen Moore
Jerry Nadler
Eleanor Holmes-Norton
John Olver
Major Owens
Ed Pastor
Donald Payne
Bobby Rush
Bernie Sanders
Jan Schakowsky
Jose Serrano
Louise Slaughter
Hilda Solis
Pete Stark
Bennie Thompson
John Tierney
Tom Udall
Nydia Velazquez
Maxine Waters
Diane Watson
Mel Watt
Henry Waxman
Lynn Woolsey

[Zodiak]

3. Why no senators?

Surely there is a senator or two who would qualify. Boxer? Harkin?

But I like the idea...we need to have our voice heard, and it doesn't matter whether the word "liberal" is used or not. Republicans and Democratic "leaders" have both soiled the term for their own political ends.

[Cocoa]

5. at least two potential Senators on that list

Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders are running for Senate in 2006. :bounce:

[Zodiak]

6. That would be great!

Will the caucus extend its membership to senators, then?

Perhaps we progressive blogger types have not been doing enough of our homework. Maybe we should funnel all of our donations through groups like the Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Moveon.org.....and of course Howard Dean's DNC (as long as it can be earmarked). In this manner, representatives and senators that want a pice of the grassroots funds have to play ball with the grassroots. It would swell the membership of these organizations, even though we may not agree that greed is the noblest of motivators.

I sincerely think that John Kerry and Hillary wold not be DLC members if it wasn't for the pursuit of money and influence. Neither of them are pure corporatists or social conservatives, and their voting records are outliers compared to the other DLC members. Put tonsand tons of money into progressive organizations (by-passing the regular party machinery), and progressivism will increase in the party.

Fail to do that, and we will be forced to watch our own representatives betray us time and time again as they pursue thecorporate dollar.

[eridani]

25. It would be really great if this group could act in unison more often

But I suppose it would be a lot like herding cats.

[mestup]

4. It would take actually defining "progressive."

I lurked here a long time before ever posting. What I see time and again are discussions that just deteriorate and fade away. But before they do, they dance around the elephant in the Dem's living room. Universal Healthcare. Wages. Jobs/unions.

Strong supporter of the DLC often get referred to as "republicans," and strong supporters of the grassroots are "utopian dreamers."

But people seem uncomfortable defining exactly what they do/don't support.

[Zodiak]

7. Not me

I define myself as a progressive, and I support unions all of the way. I support a living wage for all full-time workers. I support universal healthcare, and I think that jobs are created by maintinaing a healthy domestic market, not funneling cash into the top 1% with little possibility of being injected into the market.

That is not hard at all, as I think that my position on these issues practically defines a progressive nowadays. I also do not think any of this is "utopian" in nature. We dump a ton of cash into healthcare already and get crap in return. Universal healthcare at least offers an opportunity to eliminate profiteering and the additional cost of the uninsured. Sure, Bill Frist's company would be out of business, but since they have been acting like damned criminals, I don't really think that it or its ilk are a tremendous loss to us.

I think the disparity in worker's rights across the world precludes any free trade from occuring between nations that experience this disparity. Therefore, policies shold encourage domestic markets over foreign markets and diplomatic policy should encourage worker's right worldwide. When we get to a position where we can negotiate a living wage for workers overseas, then the free trade people can be made no happy. forcing it now only encourages opportunism and bleeds us dry of jobs. Also, I favor closing our domestic market off from companies that outsource. If you want to have your factories, offices, and mailboxes overseas, you should not be able to trade in our stock exchange or participate freely in our markets (subject to worker's rights standards).

By the way....I have connotative definition of liberal vs. progressive. A liberal tends to care about liberal social policy equally with economic policy, but a progressive tends to concentrate on the economic chiefly (although may agree with social policy, as well).

I'm sure there would be some who disagree, though.

[unlawflcombatnt]

24. I like your definition

Especially regarding "free" trade. We need to protect American jobs from competition with slave labor. If we can't get foreign labor rights protections, then we need to levy heavy tariffs on goods from those countries.

If American companies are allowed to exploit foreign workers, American workers can only compete with them by allowing themselves to be exploited.

[madfloridian]

8. We like two groups like that...DFA and Progressive Majority.

Both of these work with the DNC, not against it as some do. I don't think a progressive group which actively works against the party right now is a good idea. That said we do like these groups.

www.progressivemajority.com

Here is their advisory committee:

Senator Jon Corzine
Senator Patty Murray
Representative Tammy Baldwin
Representative Sherrod Brown
Representative John Conyers, Jr.
Representative Peter DeFazio
Representative Rosa DeLauro
Representative Lane Evans
Representative Bob Filner
Representative Barney Frank
Representative Raúl Grijalva
Representative Luis Gutierrez
Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
Representative Barbara Lee
Representative Betty McCollum
Representative George Miller
Representative Jerrold Nadler
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton
Representative John Olver
Representative Nancy Pelosi
Representative Martin Sabo
Representative Jan Schakowsky
Representative Hilda Solis
Representative Pete Stark
Representative Chris Van Hollen
Representative Maxine Waters
Representative Diane Watson
Representative Henry Waxman
Representative Lynne Woolsey

We also belong to DFA Democracy for America, which arose from the Dean campaign. They have their DFA list up now with bios and pictures. They concentrate more on local candidates. Not entirely, but in great part.

www.democracyforamerica.com
www.blogforamerica.com

[marions ghost]

10. Not talking about

"working against the party" here, I don't think. Working "with" is the idea.

The question at this point --are groups like the DFA and the Progressive Majority REALLY answering to the needs of those of us here? Are they really getting the message? Certainly the Progressive Majority seems to be worth supporting, with all those congressional Dems on the advisory committee. But do people perceive this as the way to go for us--so that we will be able to harness what power we do have against those who are primarily interested in corporate concerns? Are these two groups you advocate seen as having the potential for a strong presence within the Democratic party? If so, how's that going?

How does PDA fit in--are they not perceived as working with the DNC?

[madfloridian]

11. They answer my needs. They work with the party.

DFA is under the leadership of Jim Dean, Howard's brother. They do work with the party. There a lot of us in local groups, some large, some medium, some small.

Progressive Majority...well, look at the list I posted. I think those folks are pretty much activists, don't you?

I have to be careful what I say about the other, but they are very critical of Dean and the DNC.

[marions ghost]

13. thanks for your perspective madfloridian

I know that Howard Dean is making a difference in state Dem parties. Maybe at some point you can give us an update on how well you think DFA is doing to meet the needs of progressives within the party. I realize the organization is new and will take time to develop.

[madfloridian]

17. I think it depends on who is considered progressive.

I think progressives are people who are wanting change. I think we get that. Locally a lot is done in meeting with congress folks. They don't especially like it, but they let us. They are not used to be confronted on their votes here in Florida, and they get defensive.

So I am quite pleased. I think that you just have to define progressive. Not easy, because the PPI calls themselves a progressive group.

[welshTerrier2]

12. hmmmm ... tough questions ...

let me start off by giving my very best answer: i have no idea ...

first, some somewhat simplistic observations ... others in the Party hold most or all of the power ... are they likely to "share power" with us if we simply ask them to or will we have to have something to negotiate with?

second, who exactly are we? how will we establish an identity to highlight the commonalities we share?

third, what are our realistic goals? goals could range from non-specific, long-term coalition building, calling for Party reforms to give "us" a greater voice in the platform process, and/or running specific candidates ...

my goals thus far, only acting as an individual, have been to try to engage key Democrats or their representatives in discussions of the issues I value most ... at this time, my primary concerns have been: 1. Iraq 2. US Imperialism 3. Corporate infestation of our democratic institutions ... to simplify this: stop the damned war and return power to the people ...

It is NOT necessarily clear to me that those who would not label themselves "progressives" would necessarily disagree with progressives on some issues ... we speak too often in terms of labels or through candidates; what we need to do is define the problems we believe should be addressed with the highest priority and then discuss an array of possible solutions ... absent the labels and candidate allegiances, i find many people much more open to an honest discussion of ideas ...

so, where does this lead to? as i said at the start, i really have no idea ... perhaps we do need to become a separate organized block within the Party ... would the goal of this ultimately be both visibility and leverage? would we threaten to withhold our votes from candidates who were unreceptive to our ideas? or would we just cave in an "go along" no matter what happened?

for me, the near-term bottom line would be to focus less on organization building and more on issues definition ... this can increasingly be done through online blogs and forums (like DU) ... i'm not at all opposed to "building coalitions" but the goal of doing so is not necessarily clear to me ...

so there's my meandering inconclusive ramble ... speaking strictly for myself, i am growing increasingly frustrated with the Democratic Party's continuing equivocation on the war in Iraq ... i have "stayed behind" in the Party to try to make a difference and i have not yet abandonned that mission ... but i also hold out very little hope the Party will call for withdrawal from Iraq anytime soon and that is NOT OK with me ... in all likelihood, I'll be voting for a progressive non-Democrat for President in 2008 ... i will continue to support progressive Democrats as much as i can when they are on the ballot ...

[marions ghost]

19. thanks for thinking out loud on that welsh terrior...

you raise good questions...and at this point in such a volatile political situation, there are a LOT of questions. I'm not sure anyone's crystal ball is all that reliable right now.

I agree that we need some straight talk among us that is not caught up with labels and candidate alliances, as u say. That would allow for fresh ideas, seems to me. We need to be ready to offer some sort of vision as the Neo-con machine sputters (and we hope will hit the ditch). People are receptive to new ideas right now. I'm sure the object of any coalition supportive of the Dem party would be to achieve certain goals and apply leverage. But I'm interested that you see the priority as less about coalition-building and more about issues definition at the moment. Usually they go together...any further comments on that?

You know, we've been down so long, it seems like 'up' is something we have to work at to imagine. Right, just who are "we'?--what's our identity really--what are our priorities? Are we 'progressives' or is that label too overused? One thing I think we are NOT -- and that is some tired bunch of "fringe radicals' -- no, that characterization is all wrong. I think that we are intelligent realists burned by the abuses of both parties --but especially by the Rethugs-- we are looking for new answers, and we will support those who seem to have them. We know we've come across a great divide, and there's no going back.
Thanks, am still mulling over what you said.

[welshTerrier2]

20. the process i see ...

the great issues facing our country seem to me to be:
1. citizens have little or no control over what their government and their party do ... we need to "renew our democracy"
2. there is way too much money in the political system ... corporations and the super-wealthy should have no more influence than any citizen does ...
3. we should outlaw paid lobbying which is nothing more than legalized bribery ...
4. we have an imperialist foreign policy ... everything our government does overseas it does to further the interests of a wealthy few at the expense of sovereign nations and the American people ... our military has become a private security force for big oil ... any "progressive platform" we build should include calls for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq ...
5. our political parties have grown too big and fat and do not provide a sufficient diversity of ideas in the national dialog ... efforts should be made to reform the political parties ...
6. candidates running for office should only be allowed to address the public themselves as "talking heads" ... no music, no flags waving, no kissing babies, no aircraft carriers ... these phony "settings and glitz" distort rather than inform and create an environment of fraudulent information about the candidate ... the public deserves better ...
7. MSM should be required to provide free time to all "reasonable" candidates ... the amount of time would decrease for less popular candidates as the election grew closer ... the same for debates ... the first debate might include 10 candidates from all different parties, the second maybe the top 5 and the last one maybe the top 3 ...
8. capital gain tax "discounts" on the sale of stock would decrease pro-rata based on the percentage of a company's workforce that is US-based ... if a company chose to hire more employees overseas, their stock would become less appealing to shareholders ... shareholders in companies with non-US-based headquarters would receive no capital gain "discounts" at all ...
9. elected Congressmen and Senators should have to spend a certain amount of time meeting with constituents in their districts in public forums ...
10. no corporation should be allowed to own more than 5% of radio, TV and print combined on a national basis and no more than 25% in any individual market ...

so there are some issues ... i could envision a process either through an internet-based petition or through groups like PDA to build a consensus on say, our top 10 issues ... once we built a "progressive Democrat platform", we would enter into some form of negotiating process with other constituencies in the Democratic Party ... each and every elected Democrat would be asked to provide feedback on the 10 items in our "progressive platform" ...

we would be asking our elected reps for a buy-in on our platform ... where differences remain, compromise would be sought ... the goal would be to build party unity by building a "unity of ideas" ...

100% agreement would not be likely and should not be the goal ... the goal is ultimately party unity ...

NOW, if the party was unresponsive to our "progressive platform" and had no interest in meeting with progressives or honoring their views, then a decision has to be made ... my decision would be to support progressives in the Democratic Party as a first choice and then progressives in other parties where no progressive Democrat willing to find common ground with our "progressive platform" is running ...

again, it's not that i'm opposed to building a coalition of progressives as a first step ... i guess it's a question of whether a group would be formed first to generate ideas or whether ideas could be solicited online (or however) and a group could "coalesce" around those ideas ... but regardless of the process, identifying the issues we believe in and the issues we want to fight for within our own party is a critical step ... if we are to remain Democrats, the Democratic Party will have to show an openness to responding to our ideas ... and if they won't, i think they have to understand that we will not support them ... if they believe we'll just "go along in the end", it will be easy for them to ignore us ...

so to recap, we build a platform and a coalition in either order and then we lobby the Democratic Party to negotiate with us and incorporate our ideas into the Party's platform ... if we're successful, we become a part of the big tent and its platform; if we're not, we support only progressive Democrats inside the Party and progressives outside the Party where none is running ...

[radio4progressives]

14. Same ole Same Ole - when are we going to dispel the myths?

I am tired and weary of the same tired line that it is never "a good time for third parties" .

The fact is there exist more than three political parties. And by the way, you know now there is the progressive caucus AND I'm a dues paying member of the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA)which actively supports and recruits progressive candidates for office.

But what needs to be done is to ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM NOW - so that we can have a much more REPRESENTATIVE election process (and result)- and the various parties can focus on their core principles without playing the game of two sides against the middle - where only the CORPORATE ELITE WIN and everyone else LOSES, no matter what part of the political "spectrum" registered voters
(individual level) resides.

And since there are millions of people who recognizes this fact too well, and who refuse to throw their vote away for "tweedle dee" or "tweedle dum" in the name of so called party "loyalty" or "unity"- and since there will be multiple parties in elections, and all will be condemned as "spoilers" by the DP/RP - it is imperative that Americans see the wisdom in abolishing the Electoral College system, (an anti-democratic system) and implement PR and IRV for Presidential elections for 2008.

[marions ghost]

15. 1) If we had a system

of Proportional Representation in place, obviously more of us could get behind a third party. But we don't have such a system. 2) It would be great if we could abolish the Electoral College system NOW, and so exactly how do you propose to do that before 2008? I'm talking about making such goals a reality too, but I think we are way behind the 8-ball and must harness our power collectively somehow before we can have a chance of changing anything about our antiquated dysfunctional system. Do you know if any of the 3 new progressive orgs being discussed here have either of these as a stated goal?

I agree with you that millions of people are tired of throwing their votes away. If going along with the DLC had done something FOR us, it would be one thing...but it's easy to see that it hasn't. Serving the people was obviously not a part of the DLC's "winning" strategy. I think we're all tired of the rhetoric and want to see some effective action. So tell me how these miracles would realistically be accomplished by 2008? What lobbyists with how much money?

[jokerman93]

16. kicked and nominated

:kick:

[IndianaGreen]

18. Oppose the war, and you will have a coalition

Support the war, and you will go the way of the Whigs.

[genius]

22. Progressives are too often under attack here.

A lot of Bush supporters regularly follow me so that they can follow up all of my postings with attacks on any atatements against Bush and with support for Bush's policies. Some of these people believe that Bush is so misjudged. The poor innocent thing.

It would be good to have a forum where it is safe to post the truth about Bush and about the need to impeach him.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. If someone is attacking progressives and defending Bush on this board

you should alert on them immediately. That's normally considered a sufficient cause for immediate tombstoning.