left and center - here's the problem

[ulysses]

(This isn't presented as anything like an original thought, but it needs to be brought out. Again.)

Imagine a game of tug-of-war. The goal (as you'll recall, for those who haven't played in a while - I spend my days in an elementary school, so...) is to pull the center of the rope in your direction past a certain point.

Now imagine a game of tug-of-war in which your side - which is already wearing flip-flop sandals while the other side is wearing treaded combat boots (read: the media) - gives two or three steps leeway before the game even starts because it gets them closer to the center and the center is where the game is won or lost.

Who is going to win?

As a leftist, and not even anywhere near a radical one, I don't even remotely want to expel Democratic centrists from the party because I think we can use everyone we can *reasonably* fit under the tent. I just don't want them running the damned show because the Repuke center certainly isn't running *their* show, and if you start a game standing closer to your opponent's side than they are standing to yours, you will lose.

So, no - the answer in 2004 may not be a radical leftist, and it will take more than one or two (or three or four) non-neocon administrations to repair the damage done. But we have to start moving left, because we're sitting well right of the center line now.

[Terwilliger]

1. you see how interested they are

they still want Wes Clark or some other "Southern looking" thing...it will bring us more problems

[ulysses]

3. ah well

Just another reminder that the actual goals of good government (aka "starry-eyed idealism") mean even less during the primary season than they do during the general campaign in our America...:shrug:

[JohnKleeb]

4. do I look Southern?

lol sorry guys no picture..............now. I think honestly I could pass for Eastern European. Interesting anaylis Uly and a :hi: to two of our best lefties here.

[Nederland]

2. What in the world

...makes you think an election is anything like a game of tug-of-war? The analogy doesn't even remotely fit.

[ulysses]

6. not to a single election, no.

I mean it in relation to actual governance and the state of mind of the nation, both of which impact heavily on elections.

[Terwilliger]

7. its a perfect analogy

leftist candidate locks in leftist vote...block of weight
rightist candidate locks in rightist vote...block of weight

leftists and rightist candidates start talking like the other, and do their best to "come across" to the other side

[Nederland]

20. Response

The only way the analogy works is if you describe it this way. An election as a game of tug of war that starts with three groups of people: some on the left side of the rope, some on the right side of the rope, and a large bunch of people standing around that haven't picked a side yet. The right and the left are hurling insults at each other, trying to convince the undecideds that the other side is evil. As a result, most of the people standing around leave in disgust. Some however, decide to chose what they consider to be the lesser of two evils and join that side. The side that ends up with the most people wins. There is no pulling on the rope, the rope actually doesn't even matter. This is not a contest of strength, it is a contest of convincing people to join your side and ending up with more people.

If you think the above sounds like a game of tug-of-war, fine. I think to most people though its a bit of a stretch...

[Mairead]

25. It's a MUCH better metaphor than the horserace one!

[dudeness]

5. the problem for your party as i see it..

is the fact you seem to be all over the place in policy formulation and delivery...even on moral issues such as Israel, Iraq ,the dems cannot find a consistant theme or position..this needs to be addressed ..imho..

[MaverickX]

8. I don't get it?

What's inconsisent on Iraq, Israel, etcc is the Dem party doesn't have an official opinion. Whats the Dem position on Iraq?

[Terwilliger]

12. seems Dems want Israel o be for Israelis

ahh but there's that little problem with disenfranchising an entire people, and Dems look hypocritical

In Iraq, we knew all about Saddam Hussein, helped him to power, built him up, gave him what he needed....and NOW he's a bad guy and thats why we kill thousands of innocent Iraqis?

Maybe they should get one.

[dudeness]

13. watching the debate no#2

there was a clear differentiation between candidates on israel and on the war with iraq..you are absolutely correct the dems seemed to have no policy position on these issues..I believe that a party must take firm positions on issues of such importance and stick with them..the repubs will always be able to throw back at the dems that they supported the war thus removing any political and moral advantage they had on the subject..and we end with the situation of kerry playing with words as to whether he supported the invasion or not..

[KG]

9. there's no reasoning with the centrists, uly.

they're too busy trying to convince themselves idealism is a bad thing. :(

[ulysses]

23. we do what we can, though

The misguided among us need only a gentle, guiding hand. :7

[moez]

10. Now imagine your scenario

Where everyone on the left side is trying to cling to the very tip of the rope. Nobody can get an adequate grip on it to pull very well. So you lose. No left. No center. No anything.

At least with fighting for the center you may gain a little. Then you can begin pulling back to the left again slowly. The right-wingers didn't get where they are all at once. Bush campaigned more center than he ended up.

My point is, you have to get in before you can make a change. It may be a short-term sell-out, but you have to get in....

[ulysses]

15. look, no offense, but

I'm so sick of this "they took the rope away from me!" crybaby bullshit that I could spit. Grab the goddamned rope and pull. To not do so is the political equivalent of fainting.

If you'll actually read the initial post, you might see that I'm aware that the rope has indeed moved to the right. Shock! Horror! When did this happen? The point is to not grab it and simply stop where you are.

[newyawker99]

26. Hi moez!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[roughsatori]

11. Even DU is moving more center and slightly right

of center. There has been an influx of reactionary moderates to the board.

Funny the other evening a poster used "hysterical left" as an insult--To adapt that phrase: I am seeing more and more "hysterical centrists" on DU. They seem to think that "electable" means Republicanesque.

[KG]

16. 'They seem to think that "electable" means Republicanesque'

wow, did you nail it with that phrase! :)

[no name no slogan]

17. Yeah, it's like "liberal" is some sort of insult

It's the influence of the "New Democrats", the Clinton Worhshippers, the Gore-bots, the "electable" crowd. They've slowly taken over our party and turned it from the party of the progressive working class into the party of the Soccer Moms, white zinfandel-sippers and yuppies. They're all too willing to "compromise" so they're not perceived as "shrill".

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

[charlie]

19. In the past couple of days

I've seen a handful of "centrists" declare that if Candidate XXX gets the nod, they'd sit out the election or vote third party. That amused the hell out of me. I hope to see more of them draw lines in the sand, then maybe we'll no longer have to endure the bloody stupid charge that ideological rigidity is solely an affliction of the Left.

[roughsatori]

21. I've seen that also, and the ironic thing is they don't get jumped on

the way a person would who said they would vote Green if certain Democrats were nominated. I even bookmarked one to see if they were attacked for that stance, but they were not. I have noticed that the people who have said this tend to favor a particular possible Candidate.

[no name no slogan]

14. EXACTLY

The Repubs spent the 80s recruiting the Religious Right into their party. This was a block that previously either 1) didn't vote or 2) voted for conservative Democrats. Just look what it did for them. Even though they're still not the majority party in this nation, they've were able to dominate most national elections for the last two decades of the 20th Century.

I hate to say it, but the Dems need to look to the tacticts the Repubs used to re-energize their party, post-Nixon/Ford. They need to go after the leftward "fringe", and get them involved in the process. I'm quite sure a lot of the moderates don't agree with the fringees on many issues-- but how many times do you see Olympia Snowe agreeing with Pat Robertson, who are both Republicans?

The Democratic party needs a serious kick in the ass. It needs to reach out to those who haven't supported them in the past because the party has been afraid of being seen as "too liberal". Right now in this country, we've got two center-right parties, and the left is completely unrepresented. We can do better.

[kwolf68]

18. I believe the line has move

LEFT.

How can it NOT when the right-wing party is sponsoring federal laws to spend money on drugs, health care, education?

No, they don't want to go as far as the Left, but the bottom line is by their own actions the Republicans are admitting this nation wants some sort of social safety net and some form of Govt control in this nation. I prefer to legitimize it as democratically set rules of commerce.

The Right Wing is against all this. They have trotted around in their circles the abolishment of the DEA, EPA, DOI, etc...

Now the debate isn't about whether or NOT govt should assume a role, but WHICH ROLES.

The Right wing party is no longer a limited government party anymore. They have co-opted issues the mass of voters want even if its inherently left wing policy.

In turn, they will then achieve power combining the workings of the Liberal ideology with tax cuts, rabid jingosim, and "family values" to create a coalition they hope will render the Democrats impotent.

I believe the line has moved LEFT, we just need to have it defined more clearly.

Keep in mind, it isn't about ideology with Naz...errr, I mean Republicans. It's about power. They know right-wing ideology will get them train tickets back to their districts (except for Tom Delay) and back into private sector life....Its about gaining the power, THEN advancing your ideology.

Hitler didn't persecute Socialists and build the death camps until after he had power. Before he had power he advocated worker ownership, labor rights and national trusts under the banner of National Socialism.

Once you have power then you can use that power to quell dissent. You take over the media, eliminate competitors and do what you want. I believe we are in the throws of a version of American Nazism right now. That is why 2004 is so freaking important.

[Kamika]

22. I dont get why we should move to the left

The democratic party isnt a LEFT party, it is a rightwing party. Its just left to the conservative party.

[buddhamama]

24. the times there are a changing

the move to the left and most don't even recognize it.

where are people on the issues after close to three yrs of Bush? more left than before. they may not label themselves as such, but, the issues that are being talked about are leftist issues ie., universal healthcare,trade, and yes even War.

the repubs have done us a great favor.