If we had to move to the right to win, would it be worth it?

[ck4829]

Sun Tzu one said "If you become your enemy, then your enemy has won".

IF the Democrats moved to the Right on GLBT Equality, women's rights, minority rights, etc. and won, would it be worth it?

It wouldn't be, IMHO.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. But what

would we win? Those are key planks of our platform.

[against all enemies]

7. The Pukes ran to the left of their beliefs and they sure have won

alot.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. I have to admit

I am not a real student of politics. Explain what you mean by the Reps. running farther left?

I didn't think they could get any more conservative.

Not arguing, now... looking forward to illuminating my ignorance a bit!

[against all enemies]

30. When the campaign before the general population they tone down

their right wing crap. Then once elected bam, pukes all the time.

[Melodybe]

8. Exactly, there are some things we should never stop fighting for

civil rights is one of those things.

Corporatists Demcorats would love for us to be cool with moving to the right, fuck them cause we have principles.

[Fovea]

2. to answer with another question

If, to destroy Nixon's majority, we had decided to abandon civil rights in 1972, would that have been right?

These are one and the same question, IMO.

[ulysses]

3. no.

Moving to the right, even if we won, wouldn't be winning.

[prodigal_green]

4. It would be a victory for individual politicians

but not for the ideas. The ideas are more important than individual men holding power.

[ret5hd]

5. No (nt)

[JDPriestly]

6. A move to the right will not win.

It will just keep voters from going to the polls. We compromised on Kerry. He moved to the right. It didn't work. We need to boldly assert what we believe in and stick to it.

[MADem]

9. Uh, the GOP moved to the LEFT to steal the election

Otherwise they could not have gotten within cheating range to do it.

Think back, friends. Remember the "competence" that the monkey promised? The suit, the regular workday, the professional air of the administration? The NO NATION BUILDING???? Cheney stepping left on gay issues? Hell, even here in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney won by saying he would not screw with the prevailing opinion on choice.

They didn't fucking MEAN a word of it. Hey, if we have to play by their rules, and goosestep an inch or two to the right to get the prize, we can just as quickly hop back to the left once we hold all the cards.

Pragmatic politics....

[Seabiscuit]

19. No, the Repukes moved to the right. The Xtian right.

That's how they won. They didn't pick up any liberal or centrist votes. And even with the evangelicals they had to steal the elections.

[MADem]

21. No, not on TEE VEE they didn't

They did go out into the churches, one by one, and deliver a different speech to the acolytes, but on TV, they trended left--and in the urban areas, that is what people saw.

They went out of their way to tell everyone, don't worry, no big changes, hey, Dick has a gay daughter, we have a BIG tent (we bus in dark folk to pepper it, but hey, it is a huge tent)...we don't want any foreign entanglements, we won't be like Clinton in Bosnia, we're CEOs, we are efficient, we'll run this place like a business, not a frat house...

Well, they ran our business into the ground, they maxxed out the credit card, and now we have to clean up their mess. But they lied to get the elections close enough to steal...

[ClassWarrior]

10. It wouldn't be worth it, and it wouldn't win anyway.

Put that nonsense out of your mind!

I really respect Sun Tsu, by the way. Have you read George Lakoff yet?

NGU.

[cornermouse]

11. I'm sick of the right.

[ldf]

12. i'm right there with you, ck

but you know? if the party would present a coherent and clear message on all that is good that we stand for, i believe the american people would respond.

AND everytime the republicans tell a lie to promote their agenda, call it just that, a BALD FACED LIE, and explain it to the people.

ALL americans are not dummies. some are, but most aren't.

when presented with a clear image of what we stand for, i do believe we would win, and win big.

but our leaders have all been co-opted. in other words, bought. not necessarily by money, but certainly by the promise of their continued place in the power game.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. That's how we got

where we are today. :(

[Seabiscuit]

15. Sun Tzu is right.

[guinivere]

16. No

Sell out on rights and everybody loses.

[terrya]

17. Of course it wouldn't be worth it. We'd then become just like them

I will always be a liberal. I will not be willing to sell my soul to win.

I would be horrified to see this party sell out its core constituencies.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Been there, done that, it sucked, next topic.

[bemildred]

20. We been "moving to the right" some 30 years now.

The premise is false.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

22. Answer in The Nation..... link

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030421/mcgovern

The President and his team, building on the trauma of 9/11, have falsely linked Saddam Hussein's Iraq to that tragedy and then falsely built him up as a deadly threat to America and to world peace. These falsehoods are rejected by the UN and nearly all of the world's people. We will, of course, win the war with Iraq. But what of the question raised in the Bible that both George Bush and I read: "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul," or the soul of his nation?

[B Calm]

23. If we move anymore to the right, will lose for sure!

[FuzzyThinker]

24. No , not at all.

even Kerry was moving to the right too much.

[DLnyc]

25. 1.Moving to the right won't win. 2.It wouldn't be worth it anyway. But

I do think there are much better positions Dems could take to capture votes in the center and, especially, from non;(currently)-voters:

1. It's easy for middle class liberals to say that they don't mind paying higher taxes to get good services. But large numbers of working class people are barely surviving on their salaries and high taxes are, justifiably, a big deal for these people. Also, many people in rural areas don't see very much evidence of useful government programs in their area and they are, justifiably, angry at high taxes.

I would like to see Dems propose a much higher individual exemption on income taxes, to be paid for by restoring estate taxes (after a generous minimum of, say, 2 million to protect small farms and others), raising the tax rates on the very wealthy (say over 1 or 2 milolion income) back towards the 89% it was before Reagan, instead of the high 30's where it is now, and a progressive tax on corporations, based on size.

The income tax was originally sold, as I understand it, on the basis that no one would be taxed on the portion of their income required for subsistence. An exclusion of something like 30,000 per person (perhaps adjusted for regional standards of living) with, say, a maximum of 60,000 per family would go a long way towards honoring this concept.

2. I don't think 'big government' is a particularly progressive value. Corporate power and government power can be equally dangerous, depending on how they are used. Of course, repubs really mean less government interference with their larcenous polluting corporate buddies when they talk about 'less government'. But perhaps it resonates because Dems have, especially in the 60's and 70's, I think, been guilty of throwing money at social problems without regard to its effectiveness. Also, patronage was a big Democratic habit for many years (especially in the 1800's, I think).

So I think Dems can promise (and deliver) better management and less bureaucracy without abandoning their principals

On several issues, though, I think Dems must not compromise and in fact loose a huge amount of support from the center when they do compromise. Top among these I would put limiting corporate power, stopping corporate manipulation of government, providing effective emergency management, providing support for elementary and secondary education, protecting the environment, equality of opportunity (Civil Rights), freedom of the press, a fair electoral system, supporting workers rights, enforcing equal access to the electoral machinery (and to the counting process), and a rejection of dreams of empire led by an imperial presidency.

Basically, I think Dems would do a lot better if they demonstrated a willingness and a trackrecord at stopping BOTH corporate and govenmental ripping off of the little guy.

Sorry to go on so long, but these are things I think about a lot.

[chaska]

26. NO!!!! AND WE DON'T HAVE TO, SO STOP ASKING!!!

[gollygee]

27. No, and it wouldn't work anyway

Given a choice between Republicans and quasi-Republicans, people will choose real Republicans.

[ninkasi]

28. No!

Not ever.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. No

Because we are pretty close to where the majority of the country is on these issues....

The only reason Bush won was because people thought he was a daddy who could protect em...

He has failed and will be nothing but a lame duck to the end of his term....

[spanone]

31. One thing I've learned in last five years. They are dangerously wrong.

I would support going farther to the left.

[Bouncy Ball]

33. I would support that, as well.

And long overdue, in my opinion!

[Bouncy Ball]

32. Not hell no, not shit no, not damn no

but FUCK NO.

[bearfan454]

34. No way.

We should go WAY LEFT right now.

[Egalitariat]

35. No, and here's why

The Democratic Party is a coalition of issues-based groups. It's not like we are one group that cares about issues 1-10. We're more like 10 groups that care super passionately about one issue. The one issue my group cares about happens to be one that the Democratic Party supports.

If we were one group that cares about issues 1-10, then we could drop one of them so that we could further the other 9. And all of us would vote together because, let's face it, 9 is better than 0.

But what really happens is that when we drop an issue, we also lose the voter group associated with that issue, and that is enough to cost us the election.

So, in the end, we end up with 0.

I'm with Will Rogers.

[DemCam]

36. S**t yes.........

I'm not proud at all. We lefties are never gonna get all the "left" that we want...not in this decade...not in our lifetimes?

We can get all on our horses pretty and high and curse those on our side that don't meet our LEFT standards and we can all just sit on our justified righteousness...cause after all we are just so superior...que no? And we can just stun ourselves into other lost elections and never make the connection with the times that we find ourselves in.

We have a paradigm shift. I'm not so sure I understand it, but this world is not the world that I've come to know. We have to work like hell to understand why working people are voting Republican, why Latinos are voting Republican, why small business people are voting Republican, why women are voting Republican, why young people, especially guys, are voting Republican.

So, yes...if we have to go to the right...i.e. the center...and get ourselves rid of these Neo-Cons..and get back to the "Happy Days are Here Again" of that frickin' sell-out Bill Clinton...

Then, yes...let's get our asses to the right. I'd rather be the left version of right than this nightmare we're living now.

[MisterP]

39. paradigm shift: tuning down the wood chipper you're being fed to from

60 rpm to 30.
Now THAT's progress!

[MisterP]

37. if "we" "won" that way, then THEY would be the winners

since the same policies will be perpetuated, maybe a little slower
One aortal hole or two?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

38. I care about what issues win, not individual politicians or even parties

If tomorrow the Republicans embraced every issue of the left as their own, then I'd have no trouble becoming a Republican and supporting that party.

If Democrats win in name only, then it's no win in my opinion.

[Az]

40. We must raise our voice on what is right, not move to the right

We are not campaigning just to hang posters that say Democrat in offices. We are campaigning to champion ideas. If the ideas are not winning votes then we have to redouble our efforts to explain the ideas so that the sense of them reach more people. To do anything less is to give up the reason we strive.

By moving to whatever is politically advantageous we do further damage to ourselves. I just spent the weekend with a group of people who are not terribly active politically. I asked them about what they vote for. It is for candidates that they believe stand by the things they champion.

If we do not make an effort to change the course of the United States then the course of the United States will not change. That means telling the people the ideas that we believe in. That means supporting candidates that stand for things rather than for politicians that say soothing words to get votes.