Is the Democratic Party in Transformation ?

[kentuck]

Joe Lieberman says he is a middle ground, moderate Democrat. The voters said they wanted no part of it. He finished fifth in NH. Is the Party of Clinton, DLC, Joe Lieberman-types finished? Are we looking at a new Democratic Party in the making?

Even the frontrunners, Kerry and Dean, may not understand the extent of the "transformation". For example, they still support Nafta and the trade treaties. The voters want that changed immediately. They see the jobs evaporating right before their eyes. The candidates do not seem to see the same thing. Or they are in denial because of their former support. Only Dennis Kucinich and Sharpton are on top of this issue.

All the Democrats are talking healthcare reform as a major issue but few of them want to reform as much as the Democratic voters. Only Dennis Kucinich is calling for a single-payer system that will remove the corporate interest that has corrupted the healthcare system.

Democratic voters are looking for change. It is unfortunate that it has taken a disaster like George W Bush to awaken them. The Democratic candidates are aware of that fact, if nothing else. But, the Democratic Party seems to be transforming for this election cycle. The moderates, like Joe Lieberman and others, will be left standing at the side of the road if they do not get on board.

[Faygo Kid]

1. No, the Dems are waking up

What was once considered conservative, is now considered moderate. What was once considered liberal, is now considered radical leftist. Meanwhile, the once-conservative Right has adopted a radical, neo-con policy for social and economic control. The labels mean nothing anymore.

[camero]

2. To heck with this "electable" or "unelectable" stuff

We should tell all the candidates that they will not get our votes in the primary (there have only been 2 so far, it's still early) until x, x, and x happens. Go to the candidate with the most progressive agenda and then let the other candidates outbid him.

A true dem would be crazy to vote for Bush.

[library_max]

5. Yeah, but

"true dems" make up a whole lot less than 50% of the electorate. If we push our candidates to "outbid" each other on progressive red-meat issues, we will kiss away the middle voters and (thereby) the election.

[camero]

8. Nothing ever changes by going to the middle

Just more of the same. It's why you see nothing done on NAFTA or health care.

[bleedingheart]

9. bingo...

The scenery never changes if you sit on the fence...

[library_max]

13. FDR ran to the middle. LBJ ran to the middle.

Want to make a case that they changed nothing, got nothing done?

How you campaign determines whether you get into office, which is why smart politicians run to the middle. What you do once you get into office is the important thing, but of course it's moot if you can't get elected.

[camero]

14. Not familiar with how FDR ran

But that situation was pretty much forced on him. There were open calls for revolution at the time. FDR would not have done anything he did without this.

And LBJ pretty much dumped the war on poverty when Vietnam escalated. When you use guns, butter is the first to suffer. Nixon was actually a more liberal president with the creation of COLA and Medicaid.

[library_max]

15. Whew. Neither FDR nor LBJ liberal enough for ya.

I guess I can see why you'd be frustrated with Democratic politics. If you'd been at the Last Supper, you'd have complained because there wasn't any ketchup.

[camero]

17. They were forced to be liberal

That is the point. They were of the upper class also and saw that it was better to give a little than to risk an uprising. Jesus was more liberal than any of them thanks. I don't think he talked of killing or told someone to kill.

[ldoolin]

18. Yes, and..

Yes, and what was considered the middle in FDR's day, about where Kucinich is on the spectrum, is now considered radical leftist. In FDR's day the Socialist Party and Communist Party were very strong and there were massive movements like Share the Wealth and the Townsend Plan calling for confiscating the wealth of the rich and redistributing it. FDR ran to the middle all right, by rejecting those proposals from the left and proposing his own more moderate plans, like Social Security, the United Nations, etc. Congress actually came very close to passing the Townsend Plan and might have, had FDR not stepped in with the more moderate Social Security proposal.

We will NEVER have any more progressive social change like we got from FDR unless we have a strong far left in this country, to push the political middle ground back to the center where it belongs. Right now what is considered the middle is really what was considered the right-wing back in FDR's day.

On edit: That's also why we had a more recent period of progressive social change, during the late 1960s and early 1970s especially during the 2-year window of opportunity right after Nixon's resignation in '74. It happened because just like during the 1930s, we had a strong and vocal far left in this country and a strong left wing of the Democratic Party, which pushed the acceptable center back in a more moderate to liberal direction.

Running to the middle back in FDR's day made sense. Running to the "middle" today means running to the right and compromising with PNAC, Rush Limbaugh, and the Christian Coalition.

[library_max]

20. Oh come on.

The first thing FDR did in office was to subsidize private banks. And throughout his administration, he refused to support civil rights legislation or integrate the military.

FDR did a hell of a lot for progressive causes and moved the country to the left. But it's ridiculous to say that what was center in his day is left nowadays. Where were environmental protection, job safety legislation, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, religious freedom, and the whole welfare state in the 1930s and 1940s?

Running to the middle always makes sense. Running to the base always loses presidential elections, even when the Republicans do it (e.g. Goldwater).

[camero]

21. Goldwater lost because

People were asking whose finger was on the button after he proposed using tactical nukes in Vietnam. If only people would ask themselves that today.

[ldoolin]

24. Re: Come on

But it's ridiculous to say that what was center in his day is left nowadays. Where were environmental protection, job safety legislation, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, religious freedom, and the whole welfare state in the 1930s and 1940s?

Gotta respond to this one. What makes a progressive a progressive is not whether they took positions that are in keeping with what progressive means today, but whether they took positions which were progressive for their time. For example: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson weren't just liberals or progressives by the standards of their day, they were outright far-left revolutionists who led an insurrrection against the old European monarchy, imperialism, and theocracy. But somebody today who would want to adopt the political views of Washington and Jefferson would be considered an ultra-right winger, probably a Bircher or an extreme Libertarian. By today's stadards, they would be on the far right. By 1776 standards, they were on the far left.

Now looking at what "liberal", "centrist", and "conservative" mean right now according to the conventional wisdom, a "liberal" is somebody who wants to hold on to the gains made during the 1930s (New Deal, Social Security), 1950s and 60s (civil rights, Great Society), and the late 60s/early 70s (women's rights, environmental protection etc.) but without making any further progress. A conservative is somebody who wants to dismantle those gains completely, and a "centrist" is somebody who would allow those gains to be rolled back at a slower pace than the conservatives would like. I can assure you, that is *not* what FDR and LBJ had in mind when they ran to the center. The center of political gravity has become very skewed to the right in the past two decades.

What I mean by this is that a "liberal" no longer means somebody who wants further progressive social change from what we have now, the way Washington and Jefferson, FDR, and LBJ all worked for in their time, but it now means somebody who wants to hold on to the gains of the past and stop them from being dismantled if possible. A "centrist" no longer means somebody like FDR proposing progressive programs that were more moderate than those proposed by the far left, but rather somebody who wants to let the right wing have their way and dismantle progress, only at a slower pace.

Running to the base always loses presidential elections, even when the Republicans do it (e.g. Goldwater).

Reagan in 1980 would seem to disprove this.

Even so, it was Goldwater's run in 1964 that set up the base for the New Right movement that now runs this country.

Our need as I see it, is to have our equivalent of Goldwater that will allow us to establish the base for a new liberal majority in the coming decades. That doesn't necessarily mean losing badly like Goldwater, but it does mean some catalyst will have to happen that will mobilize a new liberal base to build on, the way the New Right did with the base energized by Goldwater. I had high hopes that the Howard Dean campaign might have been that catalyst. It still might prove to be.

[library_max]

25. First, Reagan saw that the center had moved.

It wasn't exactly rocket science. Prop 13, the reaction to the hostage crisis, the unquiet death of the Equal Rights Amendment. Reagan was running to center.

As for Goldwater and losing now to create a new Democratic Party for the future, watch what the Republicans are doing with the judiciary. Watch what they are doing with redistricting. Watch what they are doing with BBV. They're not just the party in power at the moment. They're trying to create a "reich that will last a thousand years."

[maggrwaggr]

3. I thought it was (Dean) but apparently it's not (Kerry)

Not to slam Kerry, but he's the insider career politician that I thought we were all determined to get rid of this election.

Guess I was wrong. Democrats are just as likely to operate from a fear-based place as anyone.

Going for the "safe" bet.

Oh well ......... we had a big chance here to transform our government in this country, and we're blowing it.

Back to the same old same old, status quo.

[onecitizen]

19. yeah, I'm with you there........

I thought there was going to be real change. Ha! Within a month all the fire that was in some of our bellies is gone. Things are boring and the same as they've been for years now. I had hope with Dean. I really did. But to me, Kerry is more of the same.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Yes, it has been in a period of transition for some time

In the 1960s, there was a little cautious toe-dabbling in the waters of diversity, and what was popularly known at the time as "social justice," however this was short-lived, and the party has in the intervening years, made different choices.

Whether the party will "split" within itself or merge with the Republicans to formalize the one-party feudalist system, will depend on a number of factors:

As the middle class is phased out, most will slip quietly into poverty without a fight. Others may react like the California grocery workers. Whether any will take stronger action is unknown, as is whether the predictable regime response to such action will discourage repeats, or provoke them.

At the present time, it does not appear likely that the rest of the world will act to save itself from US aggression. However, there are some economic moves afoot, and as the US continues to "impose its will" on its properties around the globe, there may be some deterrent action on the part of "terrorists," namely that rogue sector that refers to those US properties as "other countries."

Probably the most accurate scenario is to be found in the old children's story of "The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg."

As it rips, the goose's belly makes a tearing sound. Physicians report a market increase in complaints of tinnitus.

[Solomon]

6. Is the Democratic Party in transformation?

I hope so.

[library_max]

7. Well, if we're not careful

we could be "transforming" into a permanent minority party, with our place as the progressive party eventually taken by the progressive wing of the Republican Party - you know, the one that opposes the death penalty for criticizing the president and thinks there ought to be an election every now and then just for show.

Or we could wake up and remember that politics is about compromise and appealing to the broad middle. I take the Iowa and New Hampshire returns as a sign that we (Democrats, not necessarily DUers) are doing just that.

[camero]

10. We've been "compromising" for 30 years

And it has gotten us nowhere. Just farther and farther to the right. Which is what they want.

[bleedingheart]

11. the compromise should come from debate ...not by

compromising your positions from the get go...

The problem with today's Dems is that they are compromising before they ever get to the bargaining table.

[library_max]

12. You don't get to the bargaining table if you don't get elected.

You don't get elected if you don't compromise.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

32. Yes, the broad middle wants their jobs outsourced!

I agree - politics is about compromise, appealing to the broad middle. Let's not forget that the majority of people in the US don't want their jobs outsourced, and they don't want less regulation on corporations.

You listen to some of the "centrists" and "moderates" here on DU and they act like the middle class of America's number one priority is following market fundamentalist orthodoxy. Fact is, most Americans agree with Kucinich (and Dean's speeches) about "free trade" agreement and outsourcing.

[Cleita]

16. I think it's the old party making a comeback.

The DLC is not a good fit for liberal politics. Truthfully, I have been wondering lately what a centrist is? To me a centrist was always a compromise position reached to include as broad a spectrum of ideas as possible rather than pandering to special interest groups. Yet, those who call themselves centrists from both parties are really special interest groups in themselves. I think we need to start defining new terms for our party.

[JanMichael]

22. I sure hope so. "Repug Lite" was wearing thin on me.

I would guess that the current front runner, Kerry, is probably the most Liberal of the major players.

That's a sign.

Of course the broad based moral, not active sadly, support of Kucinich is also a positive signal that a momentum shift is in the works.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Bill Clinton is not Joe Lieberman...

Clinton would not be praising the Iraq war if he were running for president now.

[SharonAnn]

26. It is for me. I won't contribute to the DNC or any "centrist"

candidate. I won't support in any way a "conservative" candidate.

So, if we don't have any decent candidates running here then I send money to Emily's List and their recommended candidates and other progressive candidates around the U.S.

No more helping the rich to steal from me, my family, and my community. No more "Religious Right" trying to change U.S. policies to get their ridiculous restrictions in place. They really are the Tali-born-agains.

And if I hear any words like "our Tennessee values" then I know I'm listening to a rascist, homophobic, ignorance demagogue. These are not my people.

[GreyV]

27. Joe Lieberman...

At times Joe Lieberman is more to the right than Bush himself, especially when it comes to Israel and mideast affairs or his global foreign policy in general.

"Is the Democratic Party in Transformation"

Nope, just in plain ole disarray.

[Lexingtonian]

28. sort of

The country continues to become more socially liberal, and the Party has finally moved- lurched- that way again. The country has floundered around on economic issues and is now essentially back to moderate on that, and so is the Party- after some bumbling. The Left wing of the Party has been vehement but, supportwise, in a holding pattern.

Imho, the story is a unifying within rather than a shift. 80% of the Party is now liberal/Left relative to the center and clustering ever more firmly around a moderate liberal/Left politics. What it lacks in extremisms it makes up for in determination and appeal. It's a maturation that is increasingly effective politically.

Healthcare is not an easy issue. There is a role for limited for-profit corporation involvement. And as long as people demand ever more health care as a result of technical improvement that continues to lengthen their lives, costs per capita are going to keep going up. Because the old can't really pay for all of that, it means that costs must be shifted onto the young. If you think about it, single payer systems are not going to improve things much until costs have stabilized- they'll keep running deficits- and until then, a muddled and non-transparent financing system is going to be the necessitated solution. No one can defend the present system's high overhead costs, but look at what it accomplishes by its apparent chaos: a lot of people who are getting a relatively bad deal don't recognize the fact, the corporations who are very much victims have a lot of trouble complaining, and it is capable of passing on increases in cost burden relatively smoothly in a way that it can't be shifted around too easily.

In short: until technology optimizes and the relatively sickly pre-Boomer generation dies out, and thus costs settle, single payer is too difficult politically. And the trouble is that it is too transparent, because neither workers nor companies nor users are yet willing to commit themselves to concrete responsibility- every party intends to cost-shift to the others to the extent possible. The right answer is a negotiated agreement enforced by the government, but as costs continue to rise (pre-Boomers and early Boomers will take more out of the system economically than they were able to put in, per capita productivity was simply not that high during their work life) it's nearly impossible to arrange a fair deal. Particularly because many companies don't want to or think they really need to, that is true. But also because of racism and other social phenomena that still lead a lot of Americans to demand better treatment for their own than others'.

At bottom, healthcare is about renewing our social contract to a standard of equality better than any previous version of it- an economic aspect of social justice. But so far that has been resisted- in part because there was not enough material wealth to treat everyone well until recently, but also because Americans have until recently seen themselves as partitioned into a confederacy of racial and ethnic and class groups governed by selfinterest of each group. As racial and ethnic subgroups give way as primary identity, it has become easier to deal with things as a federated- dedicated to increased outward unity- people rather than a confederacy.

[Seldona]

29. I think more than the Democratic Party is in transformation.

People really are sick of the current system.

And this party is the obvious place to come when looking for change. At least good change.

The kind of changes being pushed for by neocons are changing the very things our country is based on. And not in a good way.

And people are sick and tired of it.

I say the more the merrier.

[Laughing Mirror]

30. Sharpton supports single-payer system like Dennis K

Just for the record.

[Jose Diablo]

31. I think the middle has shifted to the left n/t

[dusty64]

33. I'll believe that

one when I see it, so far it appears to be business as usual. I'm sure the Democratic rank and file are hungry for a fight and desire true opposition and leadership, however their leadership continues with the tried and true recipe for failure that has worked so well for them the last ten years.

[DinahMoeHum]

34. In order for this transformation to take place. . .

those of us who support candidates who lose to the eventual nominee should not pout, take their support and their vote, and stay home. There's much we have to do, even if/when our candidate wins the general election.

For instance, if Howard Dean* ends up dropping out of the race or losing the nomination, his supporters should not whine and threaten to vote third-party. They should lend their talents to the Senate, Congressional, state-office and local-office races.

(*I also include supporters of Gephardt, Kuchinich, Clark, whoever)

And if/when the Democrat wins the general election, the supporters should take a short vacation, then come back to concentrate their efforts on local levels, their cities, towns, and such; so that we will have viable candidates for the various gubernatorial, Senate, and Congressional races. We have to plan to consolidate our influence so that voting results in 2006 will solidify the Dem President's position. We didn't do that in the months prior to November 1994, and you all know how that turned out for Clinton. Let that debacle stand as a lesson for all of us.

And if that means taking over the DNC-DLC leadership, so be it. Let's put them on notice: If they screw up in 2004, they're gone.

:kick:

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. If the voters wanted NAFTA that changed immediately

wouldn't they be supporting a candidate that pushed for that? The anti-NAFTA candidates don't seem to be faring very well.