It's time we stopped kidding ourselves about centrist independents.

[ulysses]

They've had eleven years, and three presidential election cycles, to be convinced that the Democrats are their party. Yet, there they sit, uncommitted. They got free trade, they got gays in the military, they got welfare, they got the PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Iraq. Still, there they sit. Want, want, want, need, need, need. Maybe I'll vote for Bush again.

Gee, it's almost like blackmail, isn't it?

Can someone please explain to me how what Green-sympathizing Dems is materially different from this?

Fact: Ralph Nader ran in 1996 and caused barely a ripple in the election process, because precious few liberal Democrats voted for him.

Fact: Ralph Nader ran in 2000 and caused quite a large ripple in the election process, because quite a few more Democrats voted for him than had in 1996.

So, on one side, you have a group of independent voters who have no allegiance whatsoever to the Democratic Party, and on the other side, you have a group of voters who are either Dem, independent or Green but who, as leftists, have largely (although not entirely) voted Dem in the past and who would vote Dem again given half a fricking reason.

What's your strategy? Be real.

[bahrbearian]

1. I sure don't know

I'm more Green than Libratrian

[Sagan]

2. hey, I resent that...

I consider myself an independent centrist, and I've supported Democrats ever since the neo-cons took over the GOP. I submit that independents like me have had BETTER vision than many Democrats, given the DLC and it's questionable version of centrism.

[ulysses]

3. would you consider yourself

a hardcore Dem voter now as a result of what the neocons have perpetrated? Are you a "forever Dem"?

[Sagan]

6. well...

I would consider voting for a moderate, fiscal conservative Republican. Say a Lincoln Chafee type. Of course, the problem there is that I would essentially be strengthening a party controlled by the fundamentalists. But here in Texas, I have a choice between fundamentalists and Democrats. That choice is easy.

I can't say how I'll think "forever", but I cannot see a time in the forseeable future where I could be persuaded to vote for a Republican.

[ulysses]

7. so, to be all hardnosed and shit,

which of us is the better buy for the Dems?

[Sagan]

70. I'm sorry.. I don't understand the question..

Do you mean, which Democratic candidate do I feel is better? Or do you mean which one of us supports the Democratic party more?

[dolstein]

4. 45% of independents and 52% of moderates voted for Al Gore in 2000

The independents who voted for Al Gore in 2000 comprised roughly 12% of the electorate.

The moderates who voted for Al Gore in 2000 comprised over 25% of the electorate.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

[ulysses]

5. and if that had been enough

we wouldn't still, three years on, have all the hand-wringing about the Nader voters, would we?

Beyond that, what percentage of moderates and independents will vote Dem in 2004? Surely you know...

[dolstein]

8. So you'd give up 25% of the vote to pick up 3%?

Talk about "fuzzy math."

As for what percentage of independents and moderates will support the Democratic nominee in 2004, that obviously depends on who the Democrats nominate. But I can assure you that the number of independents and moderates who vote for the nominee will be many times greater than the number of Greens who vote for the nominee, for the simple reason that Greens make up a miniscule portion of the electorate.

If you can tell me a way the Democratic nominee can pick up the relative handful of Green voters without losing at least as many moderate and independent votes, I'm all ears. If not, this discussion is a total waste of time.

[ulysses]

9. nooo...

If you can tell me a way the Democratic nominee can pick up the relative handful of Green voters without losing at least as many moderate and independent votes, I'm all ears. If not, this discussion is a total waste of time.

Once you lose the false idea that Green voters demand 100% compliance on this or that, it becomes fairly easy to see. I don't expect you to lose that idea, though, because it's too easy to use it to bash the left. Still, compromise is possible for those who want it.

[dolstein]

14. Fine, then answer the question

Please tell me what the Democratic nominee can do to attract the support of Green voters that wouldn't end up costing him the support of at least as many independent and moderate voters.

[ulysses]

15. when did you ask it?

No matter - you'll note that I'm doing what I can below to actually answer a direct question. I'd like to expect the same from you in the future.

Honestly, I can't say for sure, because I don't speak for Green voters much less for moderates. That said, I'll bet that a strong stand in favor of the social safety net would do a world of good in attracting left support. If moderates can't deal, then oh well.

[bpilgrim]

18. they could embrace - or at least mouth - POPULIST ideas/slogans

it worked for ahhhunuld, and hey, it's ALL about WINNING, right :shrug:

:hi:

peace

[Sterling]

57. Be Howard Dean

He is the last chance for compromise with the Greens. Better take it or else bu bye Dem party.

[Mairead]

25. Dolstein, the 2.7% Green vote was only a fraction of the total Green vote

The vast majority, maybe 9 out of 10, of Greens and Greenish voted for Gore (to our sorrow).

[AP]

31. Only one in ten people who preferred Nader two weeks before the election

ended up voting for him (I'm sure about the 1 in 10 number, not exactly sure about the 2 week number).

It's crucially important to remember that 27% of Americans ranked Nader first out of the three candidates (so you can't totally dismiss Greens), but 90% of them didn't vote for him in the end (so your really don't have to worry about them voting for the wrong person).

Furthermore, you have to acknowledge that the number of Green-preferrers who vote Dem will totally be a factor of the closeness of the race.

Certainly, it's nice to argue with Republicans at cocktail parties that more Americans voted for your candidate. However, you have to recognize that if you're going to have multiple candidates, winning margins will depend on the perception on election day of winning margins.

Ie, lot so CA and NY voters only voted for Nader to send a message and because Gore was going to be a big winner.

[Terwilliger]

43. Nader would have been (and should have been) a big winner too

so, tell me, outside of your claim that Gore ran a bad campaign, why was the election so close? Was it Gore's inability to articulate a message? What should the message have been?

[AP]

48. It was because from Jan 21, 1993, the Republicans knew exactly

who they'd be facing in tne next election, either Bill Clinton or Al Gore. OK, maybe from '97, they knew they'd be running against Al, and they knew they wanted a Bush to run.

They had all that time to tailor a candidate to beat Al. They had so little respect for Al, they didn't bother running Jeb. They're saving him for later.

Gore was the WRONG candidate to run against Bush. He was the son of a senator, and his biography looked a little too much like Bush's. There was not enough contrast. They needed another candidate like Clinton and they didn't have one.

Edwards, is like Clinton. And he'll beat Bush next year.

By the way, when you say Nader could have (and should have) won, what do you mean? How could he have and how should he have?

[Terwilliger]

50. I meant winning the matching funds for the GP

and not being the scapegoat of the Dems

[AP]

58. I bet Republicans were more afraid of Greens getting matching funds

then Democrats.

By the way, I love the Green Party, but I wanted to smack Peter Camejo the other day. I heard him interviewed with some other people. Like, three of the people on the panel talked about how whorish the media was during the campaign. Camejo said that that it was ridiculous to blame the media. He said that the Democrats were just trying to blame the media when it was their policies which failed.

I don't disagree that the Dems are doing the best the job they could do policy-wise. But Camejo is fooling himself if he thinks the media isn't whoring terrible. I'd love to give Camejo a week with the Green Party and the Democrats switching places. If he didn't think the media was whoring for Republicans against Democrats, he'd definitely know it after being at the receiving end of the media's screwing of them for a week.

The media tries to destroy moderates like Clinton, Gore, Davis, etc. etc. He should see what they'd do to real liberals.

[Mairead]

65. Camejo gave Media Inc a pass? Damn' stupid of him!

Or dishonest, one or the other.

[Ardee]

75. Link please

Directly after the recall election Camejo noted that only one newspaper in California regular covered his campaign, The Mercury News, so that remark purported to be his rings strangely hollow......

I wish youd provided a link so one might ascertain if that quote was part of a larger message to democrats about looking inward for blame.......

[indigo32]

106. It was on Democracy Now

probably the day after the election. I heard it too.

[Bandit]

102. You said something that rang a bell in my head

The GOP knew years before who they were going to run against. I remember watching McLaughin Group one day and a couple of Right-wingers (I can't even remeber who now) were talking about Al Gore and how best to attack him. One of them said They couldn't attack him on honesty because he was a true "Boyscout" their words not mine. Then the other said "we'll have to do something about that" They let it drop then and I forgot about it. The rest is history

[George_Bonanza]

10. I would respect Nader a lot more

If he would recognize that even conservative Dems are not nearly as bad as neo-con Republicans. What's centrist Gore doing now? Trying to establish a liberal media network in America. What's neo-con Bush doing now? Empowering the rich and fight bad wars. Do you see a difference here, Mr. Nader?

[burr]

33. Anyone can "recognize" this.

That doesn't mean we have to vote for them. The three biggest mistakes I have made as a voter was voting for Zell Miller in 2000, state Senator Guy Middleton in 1996, and Nathan Deal in 1994. Three votes cast for Democrats, but we got Republicans instead.

I'm sick of being used as a voter. And for me it shall never again be a partisan reflex. I will no longer be backstabbed by DINOs running for office.

[Cheswick2.0]

11. fact, some of your facts are suspect

Fact Nader ran in 1996 but did not campaign...certainly did not spend the whole time lying about he democratic candidate. I think that has a lot more to do with the vote totals for him than any other reason. Pretending that Gore was more conservative than clinton (which is the only way your reasoning works) just doesn't hold up.

Whoever votes for the Democratic candidate now is included in the coalition whoever does not is excluded. Why should anyone care what someone did in the past (unless they are running for office)? You need to be real. People in the center will also vote democrat if given a fricken reason. :shrug:

[ulysses]

12. ...

Pretending that Gore was more conservative than clinton (which is the only way your reasoning works) just doesn't hold up.

I don't think Gore was *more* conservative than Clinton. I do think he's *as* conservative as Clinton, which is why I voted for Nader in 1996 too.

Whoever votes for the Democratic candidate now is included in the coalition whoever does not is excluded.

Thanks for the heads up, but that's not how coalitions are built. You're the one who needs to be real, Ches.

[Tinoire]

13. You know - I just want to see us attract the right kind of people

who will support out platform and our progressive candidates.

I am really tired of seeing my Green friends, and Dems who are thinking about going Green, get insulted and pushed out.

I'll take Centrist, Green, Independent votes as long as they're progressive and be happy about it. I didn't see Gore as a flaming liberal but he was Liberal enough for me and I worked my little tush off for him even though policy-wise I preferred Nader (even as a Dem).

I'm angry about Gore's loss but my anger is directed more at all the other factors because I think the Nader factor was pretty minimal. It was just as instrumental as the Perot factor in Clinton's win which was maybe the drop that made the glass over-flow but what about all the other factors?

I just hope all progressives can come together and elect a candidate we can all support this time. Btw, I hope your guy wins. He's mine also and Nader promised he wouldn't run if DK got the nomination. I really hope DK does because his base is deep! Peace

[LWolf]

67. I too want a candidate

who will work to further progressive goals and ideals.

I guess it depends on which end you are on. Many of those of us on the left end don't feel that our issues are valued the way we would like them to be. In an ideal world, the centrist dems would not want to disenfranchise the rest of us. And the party wouldn't hemmorage voters from the left.

I believe that choosing the candidate who actually represents where you want the party and the nation to go is an essential, vital part of the democratic process. I believe that choosing less than the best is failure by default before the election even gets here.

And I would like for all of my democratic partners, centrists, progressives, independents, 3rd party members, and anyone else we hope will help us defeat Bush...I would like them all to value my input into the process. As I value theirs.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Here we go again.

Nader didn't do squat the last two times he ran. The Greens are pretty much dead in the water. They can't get locals elected, they can't get nationals elected.

Nobody votes for them. That's life.

Contrast Greens with that schmuck Perot, who actually did make a ripple. And he didn't make that ripple being a "progressive."

Personally, I'd gladly join the Greens if I thought they had half a chance in hell of winning a school board election, but it just ain't happening.

This isn't some dream world where we can jump up and down about our "principles" and figure everyone's going along for the ride. The simple fact is that anyone who gets tarred with a leftwing label is a loser these days.

Yeah, you can point to Wellstone or Barney Frank, but they are exceptions to the rule. You're always gonna have a few.

I have no idea when this is going to change, but it hasn't changed yet, and I can't see why we should starve when we could have half a loaf. We've got thirteen months till the next Presidential election, and that's not enough time to educate the voting public. It is, however, more than enough time to come up with an alternative who can win this thing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Uh, there are Greens in local offices

at least in Oregon, and in a few other states as well.

In my opinion, they're going about things correctly, building credibility in local politics first.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. OK...

I was a bit flip. And building a party through local offices is the proper way to go. But it's rough going in most places.

My main point still stands, though-- it's damn difficult to get a leftwing candidate elected in most parts of the country. That will change, it always does, but that change will take a while.

For now if we can get a leftwinger in here and there, that's fine, but if we have to swing to the right to preserve any opposition at all, them's the breaks.

[Ardee]

76. yeah, a bit flip...

as well as a bit confused Ill wager.

Moving to the right is the ticket,huh? Acting like, speakinglike and pretending to be Bush is the way to defeat him, huh? Yeah thats the ticket, become the enemy that'll sure convince the voters to make a change..........the results of the 2002 elections might have escaped your attention but Ill refresh your memory, a few democratic "locks" were defeated as they ran campaigns of agreement with Bush while some who ignored the DLC mandate to cower and stifle actually won......

[TreasonousBastard]

116. Who's confused?

I live in a district with no Republicans, and completely controlled by machine politics and the revolving loyalties among 3 Democratic parties. You might have noticed that Texas crap gerrymandering half a dozen new guaranteed Republican House seats.

That's kinda the way it works in the real world. A lot of it, anyway. I envy anyone who lives somewhere where a candidate for anything doesn't have to fight his way through various political bosses, a system set up to stop infidels from upsetting it, and an apathetic or preprogrammed populace. What a world-- where a candidate is actually elected on his positions.

Personally, I have a "Congressman for Life" who isn't such a bad guy, but the only way he's getting out of there is by retiring or pissing off certain party bosses. I have a mayor who has been given a job for life and runs unopposed until he pisses off his godfather. The city council is set up the same way. County government is too weird for words, and at least one Democrat turned Republican to simply to run against the machine.

We have a number of guaranteed Republican congressional districts, and
some have been running wingnuts to push even moderate Republicans out of the way. The Democratic House members are largely picked by county bosses, often with the approval of the Governor.

So, out of 13 House seats, maybe we have two or three seats in play at all, and maybe, just maybe, someone to the left of Rush Holt might win one. But, even Holt's been having a tough time keeping his job, so if you're gonna hope to get a Republican district to vote Democrat, you're probably gonna have to run a RepubliCrat. Less of a risk that way. Could run a leftwinger as an experiment and make appropriate adjustments in two years, I suppose. There's one guy trying that now, and he's running by maxing out his credit cards. None of the money guys in the party think it's worth the trouble to support him.

Locally, we have a few fun places where lots of stuff is in play, and the election turns on parking or "No Mall in the Valley." Schools and property taxes are always good for a fight. I've seen a couple of towns where if you can show you understand accounting or contracts better than the people in there, you got the job no matter what your political affiliations or beliefs.

Beat Shrub?

You beat him the way you beat any incumbant. Pounce on the failures and find someone who can pierce the natural tendency to support the incumbant. That somebody may or may not be a leftie. It all depends on the perceptions of what the voters want.

I don't think we've swung away from a generally conservative mindset yet. People are worried about the economy, the war, and a bunch of other stuff, but I don't think they'll accept left-wing solutions at this point.

[no name no slogan]

53. AND Minnesota too, Lydia!

We've got at least two Mpls councilpeople who ran with Green endorsements last time. Also, I know of at least one councilmember in Duluth who has had Green backing (as well as DFL) on all his races. :)

[Armstead]

29. Um, a Green won a school board election in my city

And my city is not a hotbed of liberalism.

Just thought I'd point that out.

[dsc]

17. Do you wish to compare the amount of effort Nader put in in 96

to that which he did in 2000? He spent well under $1 million and did virtually no campaigning in 1996. Go ahead, name a half dozen states he went to 5 times or more in 96. I think that might have had a little something to do with the difference in votes.

[ulysses]

21. no, I don't.

You're absolutely right about the difference in effort. My point is that very few non-GP members voted for him in 1996 so no one cared. He took a bite out of the liberal Democratic base in 2000 and suddenly the man was Satan incarnate.

[Padraig18]

22. 'Satan incarnate'

Maybe because he cost Al Gore 3 or 4 states and the Presidency, ya think? Thanks, St. Ralph, for 4 years of BushCo--- he couldn't have done it without your help.

[ulysses]

23. you're not getting it. color me stunned.

Nader had an impact in 2000 because he attracted a number of liberal and progressive voters from the Democratic base, voters who had been taken for granted by the Dem leadership. But of course it's more fun to repeat the "St. Ralph" thing...:eyes:

[stevedeshazer]

45. Which 3-4 states, Mr. Green_Hater?

Can you back it up? Got a link?

[Padraig18]

52. Correction, and yes:

FL and NH, and NH's votes would have rendered FL irrelevant..

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/popular_vote_2000.html

[Padraig18]

54. PS

I'm not a 'Green hater', I'm a Green skeptic--- BIG difference. That "Trojan Horse" thang, don't ya know? :eyes:

[stevedeshazer]

59. Agreed on New Hampshire

Not on Florida.

You could say the same about Pat Buchanan or Harry Browne.

Point is, I guess, what's with all the anti-green posts? If they don't matter anymore, why bother?

[Padraig18]

61. My point:

I do not unliaterally oppose a detente with the Greens; I have said before in numerous other posts that I will welcome *anyone* who will rally to the cause of defeating the BFEE in 2004--- repeat, rally to the cause of defeating the BFEE in 2004. I would welcome the Green's help, give their input respectful consideration and allow them to have a hand in shaping the party platform, etc., but not unless and until I am certain that they will not do what they did in 2000, which is in my opinion engage in a HORRENDOUSLY destructive national display of narcissism.

Sweeping our differences under the rug will NOT solve the problem--- only honesty will. I will (and have) acknowledged that the more liberal/left elements of the Democratic party have SOME legitimate reasons to be dissatisfied with the party's current stance on many issues. I will concede that the DLC has contributed mightily to this disaffection. I will concede that the media, the SCOTUS, the BFEE, etc., ALL contributed to our defeat in 2000. I expect EQUAL HONESTY from the Green party we are urged to 'woo' for THEIR participation in the disaster which has befallen this nation. *No one* gets a free pass for what happened.

Make any more sense to you now? There was a GREAT deal of honesty after that thread from BOTH sides, don't you think, and isn't that better than silent, mutual resentment?

:hi:

[loyalsister]

24. Flip side

Say Ralph was an Independent candidate who said the Dems needed to edge towards to the right and took a bite out of the base that way. How do you view him then? Would a different ideology change your reaction to his influence on the election?

[rhite5]

27. I'll answer that one ....

I am MUCH more concerned with the issues and the solutions of the Left than I am concerned about party-building, Green or Dem. I will support capable people who espouse left-leaning solutions for most elective offices -- from school board or city council to state legislator. When it comes to national offices, (Congress, Senate or Prez) my decision will be more calculated. I will vote for the lefty when it seems safe to do so. (and pray for the day we can get proportional representation in Washington -- the 2-party eternal fight is killing our country)

In any case, I want the voices of the left to get a good hearing in the national dialog. How else are we going to keep the public aware that there are better solutions to the problems of today?

[ShaneGR]

26. Yeah, Bill Clinton was a loser

Congrats on the work convincing people of this!

[ulysses]

28. How is this about Bill Clinton?

What the hell, I'll play along.

The man's the premier politician of our age. He's not a loser. He's also not my idea of a lasting Democratic benchmark. We can do better, and we need to do better.

Feel better? Good. Now, care to address what I actually posted?

[pmbryant]

30. Simple mathematics

Convert a 'green' voter and Dems gain a vote and (anonymous 3rd party candidate) loses one. Net gain of 1 vote.

Convert a 'centrist' voter and not only do the Dems gain a vote, but Bush loses one. Net gain of 2 votes.

Given the stark differences between the parties these days, virtually all easily converted 'green' voters will already vote Dem. Converting the remainder will be very hard work and has only half the payoff of converting centrists. Centrist swing-voters tend not to hold very strong positions and are more easily swayed back-and-forth anyway.

The winning strategy is thus clear, for better or for worse.

(EDIT: I should add that the pool of centrist swing-voters is also much larger than the pool of 'green' voters. That just reinforces the argument above.)

--Peter

[ulysses]

32. but what do you have to do

to *convert* those centrists? The Dems haven't exactly been kicking them in the shins over the last decade and a half. How much more do we have to give? I think you're overstating the difference in ease between attracting progressives and attracting centrists, as well as (maybe) falling for the canard that progressives are so "pure" that attracting both is completely impossible.

Let's assume your math though, Peter, and say that the wisest choice for the Democrats is to officially become The Party For People Who Are Easily Swayed. If so, amen. Parties change. Let's just not keep playing games, though, about what that party will be able to offer to the left.

[pmbryant]

36. Go after Bush on his lies

Centrists only even consider Bush because of his PR spin on issues like education, environmental protection, terrorism, etc. The lies in all those areas are too numerous to count. Unfortunately, the GOP has perfected their spin/lie machine and the media outlets to promote it in the last decade, and that makes our job of reaching centrist voters much tougher.

The Dem party obviously has plenty to offer to the left because the vast majority of progressives vote for Democrats already. The Democrats are the best choice for fiscal sanity, for the future of the social safety net (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, hopefully universal health insurance), for the protection of this country (e.g., no poorly-planned unilateral military escapades that detract from the true war on terror), for the protection of our environment, for the protection of civil rights of minorities, etc etc.

The few progressives who cannot vote for Dems in the next election, who simply cannot already see the massive stake we have in defeating the Bushies in 2004, are truly lost causes, in my opinion. Fortunately, all evidence indicates that such people are very few in number.

--Peter

[ulysses]

38. actually, I had more in mind

a longer view than the 2004 election. As bad as Bush is, we face a lot of problems that didn't come in with him. He does need to go, but I want a party that's better than simply "better than Bush". We're not going to get that from a party whose main focus is the courting of centrists.

[pmbryant]

39. Fight our battles one at a time

Trying to fight more than one battle at once is a recipe for disaster.

We are not going to get what we want from a party that is completely out of power. The longer the government remains in full GOP hands, the more likely the judicial branch will take a swing into the hands of the far right corporate fringe. If that happens, it will take decades to undo.

Whatever policies we want, we will need a majority coalitioin to implement them politically. Sadly, progressives simply do not make up a majority of the country at this time. So we have two choices: (1) court centrists; (2) convert centrists into progressives.

(1) is the short-term strategy;

(2) is the long-term strategy.

Do you see any alternatives to these two choices?

--Peter

[ulysses]

40. no, I don't.

What I also don't see is any effort at #2 anywhere on the horizon.

Coalitions are great. I'd love to see one. Then again, when I posted concerning the creation of one, I was informed that the party doesn't need progressives. You'll let me know if Al From calls, won't you?

[pmbryant]

41. We all have to work on #2

#2 is what we all, individually, have to work on. The national Dem party doesn't have the resources to do this by themselves and it's completely unrealistic to expect them to.

This is our task, and if we're not working on persuading people to progressive ideals, then we're falling down on the job.

I don't know who told you that the party doesn't need progressives. I certainly didn't. That statement is patently ridiculous, given that the vast majority of progressives already vote Democratic and form the base of the party.

Not sure what the Al From comment is about. He is DLC, isn't he? I think the DLC's recent tactics of denigrating progressive activists are an abomination, as well as politically stupid, so please don't associate me with them. The DLC's time has passed, and they are desperately trying to regain some of the power they used to have (and failing miserably as Lieberman's candidacy illustrates). Please don't put undue emphasis on what those people say.

--Peter

[ulysses]

42. while that's true as far as it goes,

we're not going to get much done unless we're organized. Maybe that doesn't come from the party, but I'd like to know from where it *does* come. Hell, the national party could help by simply fighting back against the constant wingnut talking points, but it doesn't.

I didn't mean to associate you with From - my apologies. I meant that the DLC is standing squarely in the way of any meaningful compromise between party progressives and centrists. We can talk about building a new coalition all the livelong day, but until both sides are interested in talking, there isn't much point to it.

[pmbryant]

44. Democrats are the party of the people

So it is up to the people to organize the party, not the other way around.

The GOP can get away with top-down organization because they are the party of the fat cats. The Dems need to organize from the bottom up. That means us, I'm afraid. (And I truly am afraid, because I have little-to-no experience at this kind of thing. ;-) )

The best tactic in dealing with the DLC, in my opinion: ignore them. They are fading away. I don't think they ever represented a sizeable number of voters. Their consituency these days certainly is very small. I think they will soon fade away into irrelevance.

--Peter

[Terwilliger]

46. you think the DLC is fading away??

all the while a conservative predeliction dominates the party?

[pmbryant]

47. Watch their candidate fall in the polls

Lieberman is following the classic DLC strategy in this primary, and his poll numbers have collapsed in the process.

--Peter

[ulysses]

87. Ignore - no.

To be honest, with a few exceptions among regular folks, and a very few exceptions among elected officials, I consider the DLC an enemy. One does not ignore an enemy, especially one that has snuck up on you in the past.

[pmbryant]

100. If your enemy is killing itself, stand back and let it do so

And focus your energy on the enemy that actually has power.

The Bushies have power (the government, the courts, the media).

The DLC does not (see Lieberman's campaign flounder the more he pushes the DLC line).

This is not 1996 anymore.

--Peter

[Padraig18]

101. He's right

"Never jump in front of a perfectly good train wreck!"

[ulysses]

103. I'm not buying it.

When I see liberalism resurgent in the Democratic Party as a whole, then maybe. Until then, it's dangerous to step on a snake and think that the issue is concluded.

[pmbryant]

112. That's unfortunate

The 'moderates' in the Dem party (not the DLC, which does not speak for the vast majority of Dem moderates) will remain in the party and their influence will always be there.

Liberals do not make up the Democratic Party as a whole, so liberalism will never be 'resurgent in the Democratic Party as a whole'. But looking at the top candidates for the Presidential nomination, liberalism is alive and well (note all the talk about expanding health coverage in particular), so I'm not sure what you're worried about.

Perhaps we need to discuss more specific problems you have?

:shrug:

--Peter

[ulysses]

130. and that's fine.

The 'moderates' in the Dem party (not the DLC, which does not speak for the vast majority of Dem moderates) will remain in the party and their influence will always be there.

I have no problem with that.

Liberals do not make up the Democratic Party as a whole, so liberalism will never be 'resurgent in the Democratic Party as a whole'.

I haven't been writing very clearly of late. By "resurgent" I mean "allowed at least some representative voice" and by "as a whole" I mean at all levels of the party, not throughout the rank and file. I want party progressives to have a voice. At the national leadership level, where Terry McAuliffe lives, we do not.

The discussions of the expansion of health care coverage that I've heard among the candidates, while heartening somewhat, are not proof to my mind that the top candidates really "get it". Maybe I'd feel better if I saw the top brass of the party getting behind some kind, any kind, of plan to cover the most vulnerable in our society, getting behind some kind of offensive meant to take on the insurance lobby, but I don't.

For specific problems that I have, particularly with the DLC and its approach, you needn't look any further than the welfare "reform" bill from 1996. When was the last time you heard anything about its effects? The five year ban kicked in just as the recession was getting going - does anyone wonder what the effects of the "reform" have been? Even assuming that those effects could be at least somewhat counterbalanced by some measurable electoral swing in the middle towards a Democratic Party willing to screw the poor, have they? Has there been any measurable swing due to that New Dem willingness?

[Dhalgren]

35. Give me the senerio where

Mr. Centrist says, "Hey I like that Bush, I'm going to vote for him. Oh, wait here's a Democrat that I like much more, I'm switchin'!" If you have a person who at this late date is waffling over whether or not to vote for Bush, what will it take to have him/her go Demo? And why, if he/she likes Bush enough right now to vote Rep. would they which to the Dems?

[pmbryant]

37. Bush's re-elect numbers are in the 40s

You don't have to convince Bush voters to switch. You just have to convince the undecided voters.

--Peter

[Mairead]

77. "the pool of centrist swing-voters is also much larger"

49% of the population didn't bother to vote in 2000 (and doesn't bother generally, either).
49% of the population believe that the US socioeconomic system needs major, fundamental changes or scrapped altogether.

What conclusion would you draw from that?

[pmbryant]

78. I'm going to need a reference for that 2nd number

It is simply not believable on its own.

If non-voters were secret radicals, why didn't more of them turn out to vote for Nader, or one of the other 3rd party candidates, last time?

Non-voters are simply that: people who don't bother to vote.

--Peter

[Mairead]

80. That second number comes from the

1996 edition of the General Social Survey, a near-3000-item instrument administered every 2 years by NORC at U/Chi. They survey a large rather than minimal sample for it. The breakdown was

07% thought we have the best possible socioeconomic system
44% thought it's basically okay but wants some work
37% thought it wants major, fundamental changes
08% thought it wants complete scrapping and replacement

You'll have to go to a uni or big public library for a copy -- it's not online as far as I can tell.

(edit) The last administration was in 2002, had over 4200 items, and sampled 43698 people. You can get a copy of the results db, with codebooks, on cdrom for about $300.

[pmbryant]

99. Equating those people with non-voters is a mistake

The numbers you provide show 45% want either "major, fundamental changes" (37%; unspecified what those changes are) or "complete scrapping" (8%).

Since it's not specified what "major, fundamental changes" means, I have no clue what to read into these numbers. For example, perhaps these were all people who wanted "welfare reform" (this was 1996 after all) and considered that to be "major, fundamental change". :shrug:

Anyway, equating these people with non-voters is logically incorrect, and almost certainly completely mistaken, because people who want "major, fundamental change" would appear to be more likely to vote than people who think everything is "basically ok".

--Peter

[Mairead]

111. That's rather convoluted logic

You can say the equation is not proven, but you can't say it's a mistake. It would only be a mistake if we knew they're not the same people. As it stands, it's a matter of opinion and inference.

As to people who want major change being more likely to vote, that only makes sense if they think they can get the major change by voting. I'd certainly like the money that comes from winning the Mass Lottery, too, but I never 'vote' (buy a ticket) because I know my chances of success are effectively zero.

The Census asked people why they didn't vote in 2000. This is what they said (I tried to put it in a table, but apparently the interpreter doesn't understand tables. Numbers are thousands):


All reasons 18,724 100.0
Forgot to vote 742 4.0
Voting makes no difference 2,292 12.2
Too busy, conflicting schedule 3,917 20.9
Candidates/issues did not appeal 1,443 7.7
Medical 2,765 14.8
Transportation problems 443 2.4
Out of town or away from home 1,916 10.2
Registration problems 1,284 6.9
Bad weather conditions 119 0.6
Problems with polling place 489 2.6
Other reason, not specified 1,901 10.2
Refused or don't know 1,412 7.5

Note the reasons given. Most of them look to me like variations on a theme: 'not important'. If, say, they would have received a day's pay for voting, how many non-voters do you think there would still have been? The registration ones, some of the medical ones, some of the transportation/bad weather ones, some of the out-of-town ones. Probably not more.

(Nice catch on the 45% vs 49%, btw. It bothers me a little that I made that mistake, because I'm usually more careful)

[Woodstock]

34. Give up just when we've got them? No thanks.

Oh, wait a minute, I have to change my answer.

I was responding to your title "Centrist Independents."

Now I see you mean Greens.

If you really want centrist Independents, without giving up a damned thing, you've got them in the form of Independents, Libertarians, and moderate Republicans who are looking for an alternative to Bush. CATO and The American Conservative people, among others, have been bashing Bush and the neocons, and actually saying nice things about Dean and Clark, two candidates a lot of us at DU happen to like.

If the Greens want to vote for these guys, too, that's fine by me.

I don't see how we have to give anything up, frankly, to get their votes.

[0rganism]

49. No, it's time we stopped kidding ourselves about a Democratic left

Look, the Democrats are well-positioned to be a major force in the center of American politics. They can take that centrist vote away from the right-sliding rethugs, and swing the pendulum back to the center. Just don't count on Democrats to swing it back to the left, that's not where the votes are.

You fool yourself if you think the Democrats, especially those elected at the national level, are going to seriously address the factors that make the party unsuitable for what remains of the political left in this sad country. It's too risky. They can't advocate healthcare for all Americans, because that puts them on the HMO hitlist. They can't advocate legalizing hemp or decriminalizing non-violent posession, because that hits them with the "soft on crime" stigma from the prison industry and the pharmaceutical lobby. They can't speak up on foreign policy issues, because the defense industry lobbyists will pillory them as "soft on communism/terrorism/whateverism" to get their big budget handouts. Go too far up on the ecological protection, and they get hammered for "tree hugging" by the resource extraction industrialists. And so on. This is brutal, career-wrecking shit we're talking here.

Campaign advertising by corporate lobbyists is powerful, perhaps the most powerful force in American politics today. The Democratic party would be a ship of fools not to recognize it. We have a national attention deficit disorder, and the capitalists are using it to financial advantage.

The most we can hope for from the current Democratic party is to maintain some of the socially liberal values that are pretty well in the mainstream by now, and don't cost the corporados anything. That's centrism. That's Democratic. That's what the people who are subjected to reams of advertising every day want to see from the "loyal opposition."

Don't blame Democrats for doing what they need to do to keep a job.

The left, the ecologists, the fair-traders, the single-payers, on the other hand, well, we just have to accept that our position is FRINGE. Oh yes, don't deny that it is. Maybe lots of people agree with us in principle, but when that ad money starts coming in, their votes follow the money. It's not because our ideas don't jive with common sense or what people really want, it's because big money propaganda campaigns are raw power.

It's going to take a lot of hard work from the bottom up before a real left re-emerges in American politics. And Nader is right, and some of the people on this board who dislike Greens intensely are also right, that such a leftist movement will oppose both Democrats and republicans. It will be forced to do so, because both of the dominant parties are propped up by amazing PAC money, leveraging fear and smear against one-another to achieve the center-right balance that is America in 2003.

Low profile Greens are slipping under the radar, winning elections on the local level, precisely because the big money doesn't care too much who sits on the schoolboard of Nome or the county commission in Scappoose, the small stuff. But the higher the stakes, the greater the pushback will be. I'm convinced now that it's essential that the left movement pick its election targets carefully, stealthily, and only in races uncontested by one of the "big two". We also need to lobby at the state level for IRV, which is the logical transition to a three or four party system. Until we have that in place, let's do our very best to support Democratic candidates at the national level. Supporting a Green presidential contender, for instance, would be political suicide in this climate of panicked anxiety.

By the same token, I've decided not to rejoin the Democrats during the primary. The Democrats are better off WITHOUT a sudden skew from leftist voters, for reasons expressed adequately in other subthreads. The stronger the Democrats are in keeping the center, including centrist independents, the better off we'll be during the dark ages.

The worm has indeed turned: Democrats have become the conservatives, republicans the reactionary radical reformers. It would be folly to let the latter proceed unopposed.

[Terwilliger]

51. all good except for one thing

if the Democrats run "the center" (which is a HIGHLY dubious assertion, btw) then they're not Democrats anymore and should give up the name

[0rganism]

62. What's in a name?

It's not like the Republicans are all that republican, and I've yet to see a Green party member who was actually green, under the makeup. If Democrats want to keep on calling themselves Democrats, the more power to them, I'd say. Saves money on reprinting all the envelopes, for one thing.

And I'm not asserting that the Democrats DO run "the center", but rather that they've positioned themselves quite well to represent it.

[stevedeshazer]

55. Great post

I agree, plus bonus points for working in a Scappoose reference. You wouldn't know it, but I know a lot about that Scappoose board of commissioners.

Yes, I accept my role as one on the fringe, dammit.

[0rganism]

63. In all honesty...

I was just guessing about Scappoose. :-D

A toast, a toast to the unrepresentable Fringe! :toast:

[rucky]

60. Wow...I was all ready to disagree

From your header, but you are diddly-damn dead on! After the primary, I'm switching parties, registering Green, voting Democrat in the big ones and Green in the rest (lots to choose from here - just east of Scappoose).

Democracy...gotta love it.

[0rganism]

64. that's what happened to my parents

You've got to understand, my mother was a longtime activist in the Democratic party in her town. She really thought there was a way to change the party from within.

All through 2000, the parents were beating on me about how Ralph Nader was spoiling the election for Al Gore. I was ambivalent, maintained that the Green platform was appropriate to my beliefs, and that the Democrats were legislating to the center to have a better chance at snagging the big donors. Can't say I blame them, but I wasn't big on voting for them either.

Well, after the 2000 election disaster and the 2002 primaries, my parents joined the Green party, too.

Right now, it's kind of a mixed bag. You won't have anyone representing your views in congress, but sometimes it's easier to sleep at night.

[Woodstock]

66. Interesting

Your last sentence.

But you leave out of the equation the neocons vs. conservatives enmity. That's where the really interesting battle is. I just heard on the radio the most piss poor job of defending the administration by the conservative guest - he kept saying things like "that's how they are" with veiled disgust.

[0rganism]

73. neocons vs. paleocons

This is an interesting distinction, and any short-term headway made against the neoconservative onslaught is (IMHO) likely to come from strange bedfellow alliances between paleoconservatives and the Democrats. Eventually, some paleocons in congress may shift to caucus with the Democrats, following the Jeffords path.

The centrist Democratic party is really where they belong now.

It's worth observing how issues2000 positions the parties themselves, based on platform, using the two-axis format that's been popular lately.

This is where the http://www.issues2000.org/Republican_Party.htm">Republican party platform is now:


This is the http://www.issues2000.org/Democratic_Party.htm">Democratic platform:


Is it any wonder that many leftists feel dissatisfied with the Democratic party? It's totally set itself up to be centrist with respect to the issues. Criticizing Democrats for rightish behavior is pointless; they're just following the overall plan!

This, then, is where the score average (i.e., midpoint) of the two platforms, equally weighted, gets us:


With all three branches of federal government nominally controlled by the republicans, I'd have to slide that balance a bit more towards the Right-Conservative zone to represent where we are today, about 30-60.

A real ideological opposition to the Republican party looks more like the http://www.issues2000.org/Green_Party.htm">Green platform:


Ironically, having a vibrant Left pulling from OUTSIDE the Democratic party would actually be to the centrist Democrats' advantage, because they'd be representing a compromise rather than the sole opposition. The Democrats would be positioned as the deal makers who enable centrist governance, rather than an ineffectual roadblock to GOP dominance. If all three party platforms were equally represented, they'd average out at 43-40, which is quite close to what the Democratic platform scores now.

The Democrats should be in an enviable position, compared to republicans. Unlike the GOP, which can only achieve its goals through domination, the centrist Democrats can achieve theirs by playing off two extremes -- but one of those extremes is missing!

So the question is, how do we get solid representation of the Left in American politics? The Republicans sure won't do it, Democrats can't do it, so where does that leave us? There's no allowance in the constitution for proportional representation, so we're left with the state-by-state remedies. Instant Runoff Voting is constitutional, and provides the kind of liberty in candidate choice that will fit a winner-take-all system at this time, which is why I see adoption of some kind of IRV as the necessary intermediate stage to a three-party or more-party system.

[ulysses]

89. Organism

After having rolled your (thoughtful and well-said) post around in my head for a while, I disagree. I disagree because you're leaving out what it's usually up to the centrists to leave out - the fact that people's minds do, in fact, change.

We haven't been taken over by some invincible center-right deity - we've been hit, repeatedly, by a rightwing spin machine and, in response, we've fallen on our swords, again repeatedly. What Democrats need to do to keep a job is fucking fight back.

Sorry. I'm not headed down the rabbit hole.

[0rganism]

109. fighting back isn't what keeps a job, please understand this

Remember what happened to Max Cleland when he took a stand -- along with the other Democrats -- for employee job security in the DHS? That's but one example of how "fighting back" makes a Democrat vulnerable.

When one takes a position, one is exposed to criticism from the opposition and supported by accolades from the proponents. In this case, Cleland's constituency apparently expected him to cave to the demands of the bush cabal. He didn't and he lost his job as a result. Of course, he may have thought he had popular support for his position at the time, and this is where the big money comes into play.

People's minds do change, and this is part of the problem. They change far too easily, with exposure to clever advertising campaigns. It's all too easy to pull effective ad-hominem attacks on Democrats with the rightwing spin machine you mention. To date, Democrats have done NOTHING to contain this spin -- arguably, by not opposing the telecom deregulation act of 1996, the Democrats endorsed the creation of the very spin machine that's abusing them now.

By the time Cleland fought back, he'd already been discredited as a terrorist, or at least a terrorist enabler, and by then it's too late.

I have to disagree with you, that "invincible center-right deity" exists. Its churches are in every home with a television, and its high priest is George W. Bush. Until some viable opposition which does not rely on corporate media to speak to its constituents emerges, those who pay homage to corporate PAC money for their political survival must be careful not to commit heresy.

Ari wasn't bullshitting when he said, "watch what you say, watch what you do." He was spelling out the rules of engagement for the war on terrorists, environmentalists, union organizers, and Democrats. The new & improved wingnut media can turn the mildest of subjective indiscretions into a cause celebre. Don't believe me? Look at the catastrophic spin appied to the Wellstone memorial.

If Democrats want to do battle in the spin machine, they need to break through on the FCC anti-regulation front. But watch out! Tom Delay won't even allow a floor vote on the new FCC unrules. Why should he? They're on his side.

This isn't running down a rabbit hole, this is grim fucking reality. The next year is going to be very instructive to those who think a left-leaning campaign can be waged within a conservative spin media.

[ulysses]

110. you said it yourself!

Until some viable opposition which does not rely on corporate media to speak to its constituents emerges, those who pay homage to corporate PAC money for their political survival must be careful not to commit heresy.

That's what I mean by fighting back.

re: Max Cleland. Max may have taken a stand for DHS employees, but he caved on a great deal else, especially in his own media. You should have seen his campaign spots on the teevee - Bush made nearly as many positive appearances as Max himself did. Cleland lost, not because he dared fight the Bush regime, but because his campaign didn't fight back effectively or loudly enough against Chambliss. Q said it last night - kiss Bush ass and lose anyway.

We'll have to disagree on this. It's only grim fucking reality because we let it be, and will only continue to be if we continue to let it be.

[quaker bill]

56. No

Building coalitions is how elections are won. Polls indicate 40+ percent of the public see themselves as Conservative and about 20 percent see themselves as liberal.

Give up on the centrists and we will be a small minority party.

Conservatives and Neo-Cons were once a small minority. How did they change this? They took over the republican party one step at a time. In the interim, they raised hell on the edges, but when it came down to it played ball and kept the party going.

I am an unapologetic liberal. Even Kucinich is still too far right for my preference. I do not expect to see an American government suitable to me in my lifetime.

That being aside, I would like to vote for a winner this time. Then at least something like the things I care about stands a chance of becomming policy.

[tlcandie]

68. I lean to green, but Nader scared me ... a LOT ..

My question is this:

Why do we have to label ourselves at all? AND even if we do, WHY on earth are we never allowed room to grow and/or change?

I mean even in real life I HOPE and STRIVE to grow and change which might mean my values change because I finally get something that I couldn't see before.

Why should someone be forced or shamed into staying in one party for LIFE?! Putting it that way makes it seem like prison with no where to move.

Rats in a cage...and this one of our own making :(

[tlcandie]

69. We keep talking from some pre-arranged pot and/or polls here ..

We are leaving out the disenfranchised voters from 2000 and others who will possibly be voting in 2004 for the FIRST time! If ever there was a time for a voter revolution, it seems to be now.

I think there's a lot that will be going into the pot here and stirring it with the same old stick might be foolishness. :shrugs:

[jiacinto]

71. 2.74% against 10% of the vote

Yeah the Democrats could do a full court press to get the Nader extremists back. And they would be left with the same number of votes they got in the landslides of the 1970s and the 1980s.

[Iverson]

72. ideas vs. no ideas

My admittedly unfair subject line is for the purpose of illustrating your unfair subject line. A false dichotomy is a false dichotomy.

What is a "Nader extremist," by the way? Do you mean Green voter? Have you yet cottoned to the fact that a lot of them were Democrats longer than you've been alive?

A Democrat interested in winning would pursue both the left and the center. It is not a naturalistic truth that berating and denouncing the left is an essential element of being a good centrist.

I hope that the Green-ness of the author will not obscure the meaning of the words.

[sandnsea]

74. Pick a side, that's my stand

Independents piss me off way more than Greens. I respect Greens, they've got an actual agenda they believe in. I just wish they would get practical in the Presidential election, or other close Congressional elections. Independents, on the other hand, strike me as total idiots. If they haven't seen that there's no such thing as 'voting for the individual' by now, then they're really not paying attention at all. A vote for a Republican is a vote for Bush ideology. Period. We really have got to get that message out this year.

At the same time, mainstream America, even Democrats, are not as left as Greens or as left as most people on DU. Just because a Democrat takes the same position as Bush, say on Syria, doesn't mean there's no difference between the two parties. It means that some policy is U.S. policy and reflect the views of the vast majority of Americans. DU people may disagree with those views, but they really aren't in the mainstream on some of these things. The Patriot Act is the same. Most Americans would find it ludicrous to totally repeal the Patriot Act. To elect a Presidential nominee who is out of the mainstream of America would guarantee defeat. Not only would be lose the so-called indpendents, we'd lose a whole bunch of centrist Democrats too. Nobody is going to vote for a President who isn't going to protect U.S. security. We can't win with only 30% of the people on our side, and that's about the most a left leaning Democrat could hope to get.

[JVS]

79. yeah

How about those independents who vote split ticket because "Deadlock in the government is good"?

[IrateCitizen]

81. You're attacking this from the wrong angle, uly

The key is not to abandon this group of "independent centrists". But, counter to what the DLC and the corporate arm of the Democratic Party would lead us to believe, catering to them and adopting Republican positions while presenting a "pretty face" is not the correct strategy either.

The American Prospect did a GREAT series of articles on this in a recent issue, on how the Republicans hijack language. One of the articles laid all of this "presentation" thing out in strong terms.

These middle-of-the-roaders don't vote for Republicans because they necessarily agree with them. The often vote for them because they aren't overly absorbed by politics, and therefore are more likely to vote for whomever articulates their views the most boldly.

What the party, on a national level at least, needs to do is to stop worrying about "what the electorate will think", stop worrying about "what the Republicans will say", stop worrying about "what corporate interests will be alienated" -- and simply get back to being loud and proud to be Democrats. Don't be afraid to tie ideas together into an overarching vision.

But most of all, our candidates need to be Democrats -- stand up for traditional Democratic values such as fairness, helping each other out, working with the community of nations, etc. -- and not be in the least ashamed to do so. In fact, they should be LOUD AND PROUD to do so. If they can do that, and stop being so damned wishy-washy about so many things, then the PEOPLE will respond to that message. And the "leftists" will also come home because they will at least offer a sense of HOPE.

[ulysses]

82. I was angry when I posted this

in response to a similar thread about Greens. It's always the ones we're pissed off about that float, isn't it? :eyes:

I don't want to abandon independent centrists. I don't think that people who, pretty much by definition, don't stand for much of anything in particular make much of a basis on which to found a new version of the Democratic Party, but I don't want to abandon them or tell them to screw off. I should have made that more clear.

Are those AP articles online? I'd like to read them. You're exactly on target, especially in saying If they can do that, and stop being so damned wishy-washy about so many things, then the PEOPLE will respond to that message. I was about ready this morning to admit the triumph of the politics of meaninglessness and just go do something else for a long time, but maybe I'll stick around. ;-)

Thanks, Chris.

[Padraig18]

83. There was a point to it, ulysses

Read post 61 in this thread. :hi:

[ulysses]

85. I think you're still missing how coalitions work

I would welcome the Green's help, give their input respectful consideration and allow them to have a hand in shaping the party platform, etc., but not unless and until I am certain that they will not do what they did in 2000, which is in my opinion engage in a HORRENDOUSLY destructive national display of narcissism.

Feel how you want, but coalitions don't, to my mind anyway, work on a "vote my way and we'll see about your issues" basis. The vote is pretty much the only power the individual has - why would he or she give it away sight unseen? We've seen what the party will do to attract centrists. What will it do to keep the base?

Also, just as a matter of nomenclature - when I say "Greens" here, I mean "progressives".

[Padraig18]

88. It is refreshing to hear the word 'coalition'

As you were angry that day, so was I, ulysses. I had read my umpteenth Green post of the afternoon positively bellowing the political equivalent of "Repent of your heresy, heathen, for *I* alone know the truth!", and the title of my topic was the actual thought that went through my head at that time. :P

I like it when people use the word coalition, because it means two important things: mutual respect and trust--- that's how things get done. I would gladly form a coalition with the Greens, and I said I would incoroporate some of their issues into the platform, etc., if they want to form a coalition to defeat the BFEE. But I think there is enough mutual distrust at this point that we need to clear the air on the subject; each side has valid reasons, and to pretend otherwise is not helpful. :)

Edit: typos

[ulysses]

90. yes, well,

I've been here for almost two and a half years, and we've been "clearing the air" the whole damned time. I and others have made several attempts at bridging the gap, and have been met either with silence or the news that the Democratic party doesn't need progressives in order to be successful.

What would you suggest?

[Padraig18]

92. I mean no offense

Quite seriously. It would also help if the progressives quit belittling the centrists and others who do not march in lockstep with them on every issue. We're Democrats, not The Borg. :)

[ulysses]

94. I'm not a big fan of unilateral cease-fires.

You show me the DU centrists willing to talk, and we'll talk.

[Padraig18]

95. *raises hand*

Although technically I'd be left-of-center! :hi:

[Loyal]

84. We didn't get gays in the military

Clinton wanted it but the military was having none of it, so they compromised with Don't ask Don't tell.

[ulysses]

86. which wasn't a compromise.

Truman integrated the army racially. Why couldn't Clinton based on sexual preference?

[Loyal]

91. I agree that he should have

But Clinton was kind of a wimp about that. Don't forget that Truman, while he had his good points, was also a vicious anti-semite.

[ulysses]

93. what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Don't forget that Truman, while he had his good points, was also a vicious anti-semite.

Yeah, I read the journals thing too. How does that apply to this discussion?

[jiacinto]

98. Congress would have codified the ban

DADT was the only alternative, stopping short of having Congress make the ban law.

[ulysses]

104. and that's the danger

of compromises that really aren't. People still get thrown out of the military for being gay, but we have this "compromise" thing that makes a lot of folks feel all good inside that at least Clinton did something.

What's the material difference between DADT and the codification of the ban?

[jiacinto]

105. Easy

The condification of the ban would have made it an unofficial. Having DADT at least, while it doesn't end the ban, gives the gay community some cover.

[ulysses]

107. what cover does it give?

If the result is the same, what cover does it give?

[jiacinto]

108. Recruits aren't asked if they are when they apply

Point being, would you rather have it codified and have be it a former policy that would NEVER be changed--at least not for the forseeable future?

So you would rather have had Clinton force the services to allow gays in, thus leading Congress to codify the ban by a veto proof margin, so that their situation is worse rather than not having DADT?

[IrateCitizen]

113. Carlos, you obviously know nothing about the realities of the military

Do you honestly think that gays and lesbians serving in the military now have it easier under DADT? Give me a break!

The military is STILL virulently homophobic. Soldiers who are suspected homosexuals can easily be harassed, and quite often this harassment is done with the knowledge and implicit approval of superior officers.

What this basically means is that gays in the military STILL have to deny a major part of who they are as a person and hide that part of them in secret. It means that they STILL live in fear of being "outed" by their fellow soldiers. It means they STILL live in fear not only of psychological abuse, but outright physical attack, in the event that they are suspected of being gay.

DADT is a chickenshit policy, there's no other way of looking at it. It has turned out, in reality, to be very little different than the outright ban on homosexuals in the military. It was one of the first instances of Clinton sacrificing a clear moral stance in dealing with the Republicans, and it helped those bullies to realize that they could threaten and cajole and eventually get their way with a lot of things, because Bill Clinton was not going to go head-to-head with them on these kinds of issues.

[jiacinto]

114. Would you rather have the ban codified?

I didn't life was easier for gays. Would you rather have had both the Senate and the House codify the ban via veto proof majorities? Because the votes were there.

That was what would happened if Clinton pushed through the executive order. Then-Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, along with an overwhelming majority of Congress, were ready to codify the ban and make it permanent via legislation.

Then things would have gotten much worse. Would you rather have that happened?

So even if Clinton pushed for it until the end the outcome would still have been adversial.

[IrateCitizen]

115. Gotten much worse for whom, Carlos?

For the politicians, or for the people actually affected by the policies?

Your post indicates that you have a complete absence of knowledge of how this issue REALLY plays out within the military ranks. Gays are really not any better off under DADT than they were before. How would you feel about having to deny a central part of who you are in order to maintain your livelihood and avoid possibly severe mental and/or physical abuse?

[jiacinto]

117. I wouldn't like it

But so you would have had the ban codified then?

[IrateCitizen]

118. No, I would have taken a stand on what I saw as a moral issue

The way in which we treat others -- it doesn't get much more moral than that.

Can you imagine if Truman would have taken the same approach when it came down to desegregating the military? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that he did so by Executive Order, not through Congress.

Personally, I think that Clinton should have done it by executive order. Screw all the homophobes and bigots in Congress. This was a fundamental issue of equal rights for PEOPLE, and Clinton indicated that he was willing to compromise it away in the name of political expediency, rather than to fight for what he believed to be right.

[jiacinto]

120. But the end result would have been worse

So then you would rather have the ban codified, which means that repealing it and getting rid of it would be much harder just so that you could "take a stand"? Because that is what would happened.

I remember the debate at the time. Senator Nunn was ready, along with a large veto proof majority of both House houses, to codify the ban into law. That means that that they would have overturned Clinton's Executive Order and made the anti-gay policy law.

Then it would have been much more worse.

[IrateCitizen]

123. Once again, worse for whom? The politicians, or the people affected?

Honestly, do you read anything other people write. I completely understand what you are saying regarding the "codifying" argument -- I'm just trying to point out to you that the current REALITY for those most directly affected is really not any better than before.

I agree that there is a time for compromise, but only when what you're getting is STILL significantly better than what you currently have. I think that this falls into a category where the compromise didn't produce a positive net result. It was a compromise of principles, and it helped set the tone for many other similar instances during the Clinton presidency.

[jiacinto]

96. Because Congress would have codified the ban

If Clinton had indeed integrated the armed forces based on sexual prefernce then the Congress was going to codify the ban via legislation by margins that would override any veto. They had more than enough votes to ram it through Congress.

[ComerPerro]

97. I see your point

But there are a ton of moderates, and the Republican party is doing everything they can to get them. They are threatening them with terrorism, keeping them in fear, trying to work them into a patriotic frenzy. Of course, they are also telling them about those "looney liberals", and how the party is run by "radical fringe left-wing extremists".
Of course, its a lie. But we can't attempt to counter this by presenting a largely Green platform.

Don't get me wrong, I have no respect for swing voters or moderates. They are just tools who vote for whoevery they are told to by the media.
But I think it would be nice to be able to counter Bush's fanatic, right-wing policies (which come damn close to fascism) with something more appealing. We can still have liberal issues as our platforms. Its just that we can't leave the centrists with only two choices, left and right. If we do that, they will vote for whoever has the most money and the "coolest" ads.

[Hep]

119. Huzzah!

I recently got into a debate with some people because I don't think independents should be abllowed to vote in our D primary. They were pissed because they can't sign the petition to get Dean on the NC ballot. I told them TOUGH. Either you register D and vow to help us change our party, or you just wait until November 2004 to make a difference in the voting booth.

[ulysses]

131. that one completely galls me.

The idea that people who aren't even members of the damned party should have a say in the selection of the party's candidates is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long, long time.

[dpbrown]

121. You hit the nail smack in the middle of the head, there

We're being sold a bill of goods now that we've got to go for the "middle" if we want to beat Bush.

The illusion that Bush is going to be hard to beat is one that all sorts of partisans are using for their own purposes. The truth is that Bush got 50 million votes last time, and lost. Gore got more (the highest numbers a Democrat ever got - the MOST DESIRED Democratic President ever). Since 2000, Bush has done everything possible to piss off anyone who crossed over to vote for him, so the simple equation is that Bush won't get 50 million votes this time.

That means the candidate has only to a) pick up all Gore's votes, b) get some of Gore's votes and some of the votes of the disaffected "middle", and/or c) pick up the Democratic core and the people who've left the party on idealistic grounds.

The DLC and Republicans would have us believe that the 40/40/20 rule means that 40% will always vote for either of the major parties, and all the other votes are in the "middle" but I don't think that's true.

Fully 80 million people didn't vote in the last election, and if only a fraction of them are people for whom the same tired message of a "little bit of this and a little bit of that" doesn't resonate, causing them to decide not to vote, then a candidate who is *very* strong on the issues will bring those voters out, and turn the 40/40/20 rule on its head.

We should also consider that the Republicans are getting *their* people to "fall in line" (rather than falling in love) on the faaaaar right. In turn, Democrats are telling us that we should be sniping off Republican turncoats who are left in the middle? The same rationale that allowed Reagan, a far right Republican who appealed to people as a populist, to beat Carter, a centrist, should make obvious to Democrats that a candidate who espouses strong Democratic core values and who is appealing as a populist can provide the best antidote to the mauling the BFEE has done to our nation and the world.

A candidate who is only middling on a) the death penalty, b) universal single-payer health care, c) getting out of NAFTA and the WTO, d) turning Iraq over to the UN and cancelling Halliburton's war pirate contracts, and e) a federal law for gay unions, has only the "populist" (or angry) part going for him or her. Bush has a stronger case, based on inertia and incumbency, against a person who doesn't represent dynamic change from the status quo. The numbers say Bush'll lose a race based on issues alone, but it'll be closer than it has to be.

And that's probably what he's counting on. That's why Rove and DeLay are working so hard to overturn the electoral process, install nonverifiable black-box voting machines, redistrict, and recall. If the race is close at all, then it'll be harder to ferret out the impact of rigged touch-screen voting machines afterwards. That's why the exit polling company went out of business after the 2000 election, after correctly calling Florida for Gore. The Republicans can't afford that kind of embarrassing scrutiny this time around. Hagel's election using black box voting hasn't even been adequately scrutinized, even though he's one of the owners of the companies that produce these election-stealing machines.

Gore won the popular vote and he won Florida, as the Newspaper Consortium proved. Thus the Green Party didn't cost the Democrats the election. The election should be even more a rout for the Democrats this time, because as I pointed out, Bush has done everything he possibly could to alienate anyone from moderate Republicans to crossover Democrats who voted for him when he lost last time. The only thing to fear will be election-stealing by the Republicans coupled with running a Milquetoast candidate with positions that don't adequately differ from the status quo of a nation beat down by nearly 16 years of Reagan, Bush, and Bush the Stunted.

Instead of worrying about how to bring back Democrats to a party that arguably left them first, Democrats should be thinking about how to reenergize their core constituencies by supporting candidates who fight strongly for traditional liberal Democratic values. Kucinich already *has* the support of the Green Party, and the Natural Law Party, and a lot of other folks the Democratic Party turned its back on (including Granny D). It's just as likely as not that at least *some* of the people who clambered enthusiastically back on board for a Kucinich candidacy won't stick around if the Democrats go back to their starry-eyed fawning over jilted moderate Republican voters, and back to ignoring their base.

The 40/40/20 Democrats and others who argue that the "center" is more important than the former core are already making up their minds that the "fringes" (in their minds) don't matter, so I wouldn't worry too much about how much Green Party support a non-traditional-liberal Democrat is going to get. Likely it'll be similar to what happened in 2000, because it'll signal that the Democrats care more about capturing the (they say bigger) 10-20% in the "middle" than any part of the 3% Green Party vote from 2000 and whatever part of the 45% or 80 million people who didn't vote last time because no candidate had strong enough issues to motivate them.

And that's the perpetual argument, isn't it. The Republicans successfully get their people to line up on the far right, and the Democrats ignore their base and suck up to the former Republicans the neocons left behind (teasing traditional Democrats for wanting to "fall in love"), while more and more people quit voting or join other parties because it just looks like "politics as usual" to them with both sides splitting right-wing hairs and missing the big picture.

Yawn.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[jiacinto]

122. The Death Penalty

That isn't a winning issue for Democrats. I've said it before. Most Americans don't support criminals and their rights. Why you don't get that, I don't know.

You need more than the base to win. Again where you think that 35-45% of the vote is enough to win is beyond me. Neither party can win without the base AND those swing voters. You fail to realize that.

DK's agenda is out of step with the values of millions of Americans. That's the hard truth. Most Americans support the death penalty. Most Ameircans don't want universal health care. If they did Hillary's plan would have passed.

And if we do rush to get the Greens' support then we alienate the softer parts of our base and the swing voters. Then you have a George McGovern/Mondale landslide.

Nonvoters: There is no evidence to claim that they are Democrats. There just isn't.

[dpbrown]

124. The mind-set that death is the worst penalty is the problem

And I've said it before - to you, in fact.

No one supports criminals and their rights, but few people want to execute innocent people. The way to get people on board is to change the mindset that death is the worst you can do to someone, while ensuring that a living person can be set free if found innocent later. The Death Penalty is overbroad and outdated, and "why you don't get that, I don't know", to adopt your oversimplistic, dismissive, and superior retort.

The self-named centrists (and seeing as how you jumped on this, that must mean you) are willing to give up the 3% of the sure liberal voters (Greens) and the idea that you can get any decent part of the 40-50% of the people who don't vote (80 million last time), for less than or at most half of these waffling 10-20% who are constantly bellyaching while refusing to commit while pulling the debate to the right-wing that the original poster of this article is referring to.

Any way you look at it, no appeal to "centrists" is going to net much over "half" of the independent 20% of the 40/40/20 "rule" that election consultants hawk all the time.

At some point, drifting to the right by the Democrats will mean that the Green Party and various and sundry other parties that that guaranteed committed voting bloc is made up of will equal and surpass the number of the waffling 10-20% of those "refuse to commit" self-named independents in the "mushy, focus-group middle."

Therefore you fail to realize that there are more "sure" voters in the Green Party plus the Natural Law Party vote, plus a few Ron Paul loving Libertarians to more than offset the barely 10% of the total vote that is actually "captured" by these middle-of-the-road moderate Republican lovers who are ignoring the Democratic base at what has become now a constant cost in lost governor seats, and lost Representative seats, and lost Senate seats.

What happened with the Clinton health plan is not even closely analagous to what's happening in the nation right now with ballooning health care costs and administrative waste. The private health plan in Maine uses more administrators to cover its 2.5 million subscribers than the entire Canadian system uses to cover 25 million. Privatized = Waste. It's as simple as that.

And there's equally no evidence, if you want to talk in negatives, that populist issues aren't the ones that would resonate with the people who are choosing not to vote. In fact, there's more evidence that the people who voted for Reagan or Bush the Stunted who did so out of some inchoate likeability factor were people who really thought these aristocratic thugs would do something "good for people" and that's populist appeal.

Regular people can understand that. Jaded people hawking right-wing talking points can't.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[IrateCitizen]

125. Awesome post, Dan!

But I hope you're not expecting it to sink in on the person to whom you are replying....

In any case, this is about actually standing for something vs. twisting in the wind. THAT is why these "undecideds" vote for the Republicans -- because they are bold and committed. Think about it, who are you more likely to respond to as a leader -- someone who is willing to "take the bull by the balls" (even if that might end up pissing the bull off and getting you killed), or someone who comes off as waffling and apologetic for their beliefs?

[no name no slogan]

132. Well said, Dan!

This is the point I've been arguing for the last ten years with other Democrats. No matter how much the Repubs spend, or how many John Birchers welcome into their party, the fact STILL remains that more Americans identify with the Democrats on the big issues (jobs, corporate power, taxes) than the Repubs.

When our candidates start REPRESENTING our platform (instead of running away from it), we WILL win more elections.

--from the "other Dan" in Minnesota (the guy who played the "king of the hill" theme last night warming up for the Kucinich rally) :)

[Iverson]

127. The Death Penalty

"Most Americans don't support criminals and their rights. Why you don't get that, I don't know."

Being against the death penalty is not the same thing as supporting criminals. Why you don't get that, I don't know.

[IrateCitizen]

128. Come on now, Iverson, you DO know why he doesn't get that

Because he's as stubborn and obstinate as an old mule, that's why.

[Iverson]

129. maybe

However, I am also stubborn, and I happen to know that Mr. jiacinto has had the benefit of higher learning, so I expect him to honor that in his arguments.

Eventually, he will be unafraid to (appear to) lose an argument if the result is a greater fidelity to learning and reason. Calling him stubborn and obstinate, even if true, will likely delay that day. Calling him on his tabloid arguments is the only way that I can think of to bring about some thoughtful change in his positions.

[Bushknew]

126. The strategy should be clear É

Even though Greens may be only about 10% of the electorate, no one can deny that itÕs enough of a percentage to win or lose elections.

The strategy of moving the Democratic party to the middle is a failure. Al Gore and the 2000 election are proof of that.

The Dems lost in 2000 because they could not get the Green vote.

The winning strategy is clear, nominate Dennis Kucinich and Dems and Greens
wonÕt be divided. Together, we would overwhelmingly beat Bush, even with Republican election fraud.

I hear a lot of Dems and Repugs characterize Dennis Kucinich as angry.

Well, I would characterize him as passionate.

BTW, If you are not angry we the state of the country, you should be.