Do 'Conservative Democrats' want the 'Far Left' to leave the party?

[Q]

- In thread after thread we've seen numerous posts where 'conservative' Democrats complain about 'liberals' and trash anyone to the left of them. They call them everything from 'far left' to radicals to extremists and accuse them of destroying the party with their 'out of touch' politics.

- We hear the same thing from the DLC and other conservative Democrats.

- Would they be happier if we simply left the party? Is that what they want? I ask because many on the left are beginning to feel they're not welcome in the New Democratic party.

- If the Democratic party needs 'all the votes they can get' to defeat Bush*....why are the conservative Democrats trying to purge liberals, stifle their voices and keep them from leadership roles in the party of the 'big tent'?

- Well?

[demnan]

1. I don't know

Yet they'd be the first to bitch if liberals did leave the party and voted Green. At least that's what I observe.

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. I really do think we are all working for the same cause. It is just

looking this way right now because we are in the middle of a heated battle for the Democratic nomination. I see it this way, we all want the same end, a better world for us, and our successors. Until we get that candidate, we are going to batter each other, moderates are going to hate those on the left and vice versa...it'll calm down, it always does.

[EdGy]

23. I strongly disagree

the DLC dems are not working for the same cause

Zell Miller has thrown his support behind the most right wing extremist president we've ever had, who is gutting and destroying everything that Democrats historically have valued.

The DLC really wants the same thing the REpublicans want, but a kinder softer version of the GOP agenda.

So the DLC dems will happily destroy the Democratic party if it seems like it'll "fall into the hands of" progressive dems, because that is the greatest danger to the GOP agenda.

There is so much evidence on this point that I'd think it would be common knowledge by now.

[maha]

47. The DLC is not helping us.

I think the DLC needs to go away. We can't go back to the 1990s, however much we'd like to. We're at war for America, and the DLC doesn't get that.

[HFishbine]

3. Yes

To make room for more Zell Millers.

[mmonk]

4. centrists aren't conservatives,

and conservatives are already leaving, so there's no reason for the liberals to leave.

[mrgorth]

5. I think they want us to shut up

if we leave they have much less power. They just want us to do what we're told.

[prolesunited]

12. Ding! Ding! Ding!

I think we have a winner here.

[bleedingheart]

37. That's the winner all right.

I see the DLC as Democrats who are ashamed to face the reality they are really Republicans... perhaps counseling would help them make a final choice in the matter.

[Terwilliger]

62. correct...shutup and vote!

They want our vote, but what we believe isn't part of "the plan"

[La_Serpiente]

6. I think America has reached the point

where we cannot have a two party system anymore. We have to transcend our alliances and see where our hope lies.

However, I will wait till 2004. If we lose in 2004, that's when we'll all know that our party leaders have failed us. We can either go to the Green party and build up the political infrastructure there, or we can stick to the Democratic party and vote out the leadership and do a massive overhaul of the party in general.

[KittyWampus]

7. No. And It 'd Be Nice If Many On The Smackdown Left

would realize that there's a difference between having Progressive GOALS and using Moderate Imagery to achieve those goals.

The same way Rove used a Moderate image to sell Junior.

No, I'm NOT talking about being wishy washy doormats...

There might be some Moderate or Conservative Democrats who wish to "purge" just as there are quite a few Extremist Democrats here on DU who wish to purge Conservative.

Personally, I am a Socialist leaning Democrat who understands the importance of maintaining a Temperate Image.

Conservatives aren't going anywhere... so they HAVE to be worked with. Unless someone has a plan for disposing of them.

[Q]

11. You want 'temperance' while you're being raped?

- I don't see the benefit in what the other side refers to as 'date rape' bipartisanship.

- We've already been 'slapped-down' by the neocons...and many conservative Dems still want to play nice with them.

- The problem remains: the party bosses and the monied interests are STEERING the party to the right...while pushing liberals right OUT of the party. This leaves the party dominated by conservatives and a complete rejection of the 'old way' of the New Deal.

[KittyWampus]

13. As Someone Who Practises Martial Arts

I can atest for the value of remaining unemotional when under attack.

My stupidest mistakes have been when I have let myself lose my "peace".

Knowing when to take a stand and when to let the prevailing winds blow over you is a very tricky business.

I think Liberals could learn to manipulate Moderate Images & Terminology much more effectively.

Family Values is a code term for the Far Right. The Left could certainly start talking about Family & Values and how WE represent the Commonlity of America.

[bryant69]

14. Is your problem with . . .

"Conservative" liberal posters on this board?

Or the DLC?

You should pick an argument and focus, in my opinion.

[bryant69]

8. Turnabout

On the other hand I've seen lots of posts by far left liberals describing centrists as traitors and sell outs. You yourself call centrist democrats conservative democrats.

I think if we didn't attack each other and focused on President Bush, well that would be better.

But even there we are going to differ on tactics and philosophy. Some seem to feel that the message of the Democratic party should be to rub the Americans people's noses in how terrible they are; a strategy I feel is doomed to move us to fringes.

I guess the best thing to do is to just learn not to take it personal and not make personal attacks and keep our eyes on the goal, eliminating the madness of President Bush.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Bombtrack]

9. does the 'far left' want moderates to leave the party?

This board is far more hostile to any idea, creative or common, that isn't considered liberal or leftist or progressive.

Whenever I talk about needing to get enough independants in elections, or defend our troops or israel or something like that from an outright fringe attack,

I get accused of being Bush or Rove or brainwased etc.

To answer your question, no I don't want you to leave the party, but I think that on this board, it's harder for people like me, who have a few nuanced views of "liberal" issue positions, to get a point across

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Labels Are Amorphous

but I doubt there are many "conservative Democrats" left.....

Most of them like Zell Miller, Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, and Ben Nighthourse Campbell have already left the party....


Our goal should be to the nominate the most progressive candidate palatable to the greatest amount of people...

[Q]

16. Nah...you can see how 'conservatives' on the left...

...show utter disdain for anyone that speaks outside of the acceptable envelope manufactured by the likes of the DLC.

- Moore is a good example. They don't care WHAT he has to say...they'll attack him because he's not a blind supporter of DLC 'new right' politics.

- And despite all the evidence to the contrary...the NeoDems keep pushing us to the right (they call it the 'center') and we keep losing because of it. They've outright rejected anything 'liberal' and spread misinformation that the 'country' has become more conservative. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[mmonk]

19. Have you been out in the real world lately?

Unfortunately, the people out there really are turning right. I'm really worried that liberals and center left people are going to get swamped unless we start pulling together at some point.

[Terwilliger]

67. centrists are not 'center-left'

center-Democrats should be anywhere from progressive to liberal, but nowadays they are just barely left-of-center (in most cases)

The American people are largely liberal...it's the definition of the system we live under. If somehow the Democrats could get back to that basic, they'd have a clear mandate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. A Conservative Dem IMHO

would oppose

affirmative action

abortion

and gay rights....

Not too many of them left....

As an aside, supporting Bush's wars does not make a Dem conservative just misguided....

Even Holy Joe* is moderate to liberal on most economic and social issues... There are very few Gene Taylors left in the Democratic party...


*Holy Joe refers to Joe's sanctimonious attitude not his religious beliefs....

[Terwilliger]

68. OK...then why do so many think of Joe as a conservative?

if it isn't his legislative record...what is it?

[wyldwolf]

33. ha ha ha!

- Moore is a good example. They don't care WHAT he has to say...they'll attack him because he's not a blind supporter of DLC 'new right' politics.

Actually, I see the far left attacking Moore because he finally understands that winning is the most important thing now. For that, the far left calls hims a sell-out.

- And despite all the evidence to the contrary...the NeoDems keep pushing us to the right (they call it the 'center') and we keep losing because of it. They've outright rejected anything 'liberal' and spread misinformation that the 'country' has become more conservative. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What evidence to the contrary?

[Terwilliger]

69. OMG...it's the 'far-left' that doesn't like Moore?

wyldwolf, the ultra-revisionist!!

What evidence to the contrary?

What evidence to support? It really is in your own structural interests to claim that the country is, either, further to the right than we think, or going to the right.

If the people had a clear choice, the center of this country would be left-of-center, because a "conservative democracy" is not what this country is all about. If that were the case, we wouldn't have what we do have today.

[wyldwolf]

74. A lot of them don't now...

..because he likes Clark. And the statement Q made, "Moore is a good example. They don't care WHAT he has to say...they'll attack him because he's not a blind supporter of DLC 'new right' politics" has little or no basis in reality.

And despite all the evidence to the contrary...the NeoDems keep pushing us to the right (they call it the 'center') and we keep losing because of it. They've outright rejected anything 'liberal' and spread misinformation that the 'country' has become more conservative. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Q made the charge but, just like throughout the thread, he throws seemingly baseless charges like this around and ignores the call for proof.

You said:

If the people had a clear choice, the center of this country would be left-of-center, because a "conservative democracy" is not what this country is all about. If that were the case, we wouldn't have what we do have today.

That is also a baseless charge. Show me some stats to confirm it?

[Terwilliger]

65. er...when did Zell Miller leave the party?

I would have thought that would be some considerable news.

[livinontheedge]

15. It would be politically suicidal to reject ANY democrat.

It will take every democrat, lefties and centrists, and a fair share of independents to throw Bush to the curb in '04.

[Donna Zen]

17. Check out "The 2% Solution"

Miller discusses the "center" early on in the book. With the parties evenly divided on the national level, the only difference is the center which Miller sees as the suburban, politically disconnected vote. Both sides court that sweet spot.

Only when one of the parties gains a clear majority (FDR days) can that party push for the "big" ideas. With redistricting and the theft of California via propaganda, the reps. are trying to create the illusion of a clear majority in the hope of passing their reichwing, revolutionary agenda.

If Clinton had been permitted to govern rather than fend off law suits, we might have a clear majority today. After all, our ideas work and the swing was in our direction.

These are dangerous days. What should be happening to correct the course is being stiffled. We are being defined by the opposition; we tear ourselves apart and waste time in the process; and we are resistant to the very nature of coalition building. As far as the DLC's message goes, I see it very differently. Offering the center a different vision for the USA does not mean I have to change my politics. Compassionate conservative my ass! That was an appeal to the center so that the regime could inflict hard-right policies.

First get a clear majority...which may mean not talking about ideology but stressing consensus. That in no way alters a progressive's ideals, rather it alters their mindset: "You can't be progressive unless you're making progress."

[Q]

25. The DLC literature completely rejects...

...the 'liberal' ideology and politics. I frankly don't understand their approach. Why would they reject anyone within the party?

- Whether we like to admit it or not...left vs right factions have developed within the party. How can we kick bush's* ass when we can't agree how to proceed?

- These are dangerous days...demanding proactive politics...not concessions and date rape bipartisanship.

[wyldwolf]

35. Still, you're on the wrong track...

The DLC literature completely rejects the 'liberal' ideology and politics. I frankly don't understand their approach. Why would they reject anyone within the party?

Show me proof of this?

- Whether we like to admit it or not...left vs right factions have developed within the party. How can we kick bush's* ass when we can't agree how to proceed?

It's many on the far left who can't proceed - adhering to meaningless purity tests "principles" in light of the most dangerous administration we've known. How many times have I heard further left people on this board stubbornly claim they won't vote dem unless the candidate is ________________ ? Too many times.

[Iverson]

43. eh? proof?

"Show me proof of this?"

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450004&subid=900020&contentid=252144

That's just the latest from Blueprint magazine. Is that an official enough source for you?

Really, it's kind of astonishing that there's even an argument about whether the DLC rejects liberal ideology. That rejection was their reason for being.

"It's many on the far left who can't proceed - adhering to meaningless purity tests "principles" in light of the most dangerous administration we've known."

You're the one who put principles in quotes. I need say no more.

[wyldwolf]

50. Yeah, proof...

show me proof that the DLC literature completely rejects the 'liberal' ideology and politics.

I see nothing at your link proving this. Perhaps it rejects what YOU think are liberal ideology and politics - but I can't speak for you.

So until you provide proof that the DLC literature completely rejects the 'liberal' ideology and politics, you need say no more.

[Iverson]

51. sorry, pal

I'm not going to do your reading for you, and belaboring the obvious is the game of younger people with more leisure time.

Have a bipartisan day.

[wyldwolf]

54. OK, I get it...

... you HAVE no proof.

Have a reactionary day!

[EV1Ltimm]

18. 'Conservative Democrats' want to be republican ball-washers.

scrub scrub scrub... How's that Mr. President?

scrub scrub scrub... There you go Mr. Lott, can you see yourself in them?

I like my politics to be black and white. The way I see it, a congressman (for example) can't be in the gray area or else he'll risk alienating both sides of his constiuency by being a wishy-washy bastard. Stay democrat or stay republican, you can't be both.

But anyhoo... The far left acts as the catalyst for our party; the fuel that drives our political ideals and gives us our sense of direction and determination. Sure they'll come up with some crazy shit every once in a while that'll make you slap your forehead and wonder what the hell they're thinking, but i'm sure that equal rights, womens suffrage, reproductive rights etc was thought up by someone branded as "liberal" or "far-left"; as proper terminology allows.

It's the same thing with the far-right... driving the republican party's sense of gun-toting, bible-thumping, overbearing dictatorial leanings.

Being a "conservative democrat" seems like mixing oil and water. It's going to dilute two unique solutions and nobody is really going to want anything to do with it.

[Q]

20. And then they act shocked that parties like the Greens exist...

...and no, I'm not defending the Greens. But it's no coincidence that the Republican party isn't challenged by third parties. The Greens and other third parties on the left exist ONLY because the New Democratic party isn't serving the interests of anyone left of Lieberman.

- Conservative Democrats have made it clear that 'far left' (liberal) politics are no longer welcome in the party. They simply refuse to fund or support any kind of progressive or 'populist' candidate.

[mobiggsly]

22. leaving would get us no where

In a winner take all system like we have, the party splitting would be bad news. What I want is for Democrats to tone it down on some of these social issues, so we can actually get someone elected out here in middle America. Alot of far left ideas are just not acceptable to alot of people out here, but as luck would have it, far right ideas don't sound so bad until you realize that they're totally screwing over your country.

[kodi]

24. nonsense

absolute nonsense, i dont know what threads you refer to about centrists trashing leftist democrats.

on DU, it is by far more likely around here that the fringe left that trashes moderate democrats and uses ad hominum assaults on those who they call sell-outs to liberalism. as if liberalism is the only strain of philosophy acceptable for a democrat to hold.

stalinist liberalism is just as bad as conservative, fascist right wingers where both demand ideological purity to the "cause."

what is the difference in policies that make liberals so different than moderates in the democratic party?

often this site causes me to chuckle and shake my head in dispair because while most ardent denizens of this site are like me, progressive and liberal, but they dont seem to realize how out of step we are to mainstream america on many issues. and it is not merely that we have the facts and understand things more, we usually do, but that is not the point. the point is how to take our ideas and ideals mainstream and effectively promote them so that our ideas and ideals become the majority view in the land.

it seems that many liberals are enamoured to their illusions about riding the horse of liberalism thru the gates of triumph while moderates are concentrating on finding the god damned horse first and making sure it is not lame.

liberalism and progressivism have a great story to tell, the best story for humanity to tell, but we haven't yet found a way to translate the facts that are overwhelmingly on our side of most issues into a strong narrative which can inspire the majority to vote with us.

http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/sept60/jfk140960_ny04.html

“I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.


”OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT DISCHARGED BY AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF VIRTUOUS ENDS. OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVES WITH SOCIAL INVENTION, WITH POLITICAL SKILL, AND EXECUTIVE VIGOR. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them..."

JFK 1960, in his acceptance speech before the liberal party of new york when nonimated by them for the presidency.

Kennedy was making it clear that Liberalism was at best founded in a set of principles on human behavior and how to solve the nation’s problems. It was not an ideology, but a pragmatic approach, flowing from these ideas. His words highlighted go right to the heart of this debate, viz., how the necessary things get done, not the warm fuzzy feeling some have about the “Brotherhood of Man.”

liberalism is not a religion, it is a political philosophy that expresses equality. attacking those who do not believe in it or parts of it is little different that declaring a person a heretic because their religious beliefs are different than yours.

[wyldwolf]

26. Though I don't consider myself a "conservative" dem.. I disagree with you.

For one thing, I think some on the far left try claim exclusive ownership of the term "liberal." Everything left of center is liberal, though to varying degrees

- In thread after thread we've seen numerous posts where 'conservative' Democrats complain about 'liberals' and trash anyone to the left of them. They call them everything from 'far left' to radicals to extremists and accuse them of destroying the party with their 'out of touch' politics.

Funny. I hear the same thing from those on the far left about the more moderate democrats. Those on the far left mistakenly claim they are the base of the party and call the moderates "republican lites."

- We hear the same thing from the DLC and other conservative Democrats.

I try to stay out of all the DLC bashing but remember - the moderate democrats have always controlled the party

- Would they be happier if we simply left the party? Is that what they want? I ask because many on the left are beginning to feel they're not welcome in the New Democratic party.

No, but we get the feeling those on the far left feel they should be handed over the keys to the party without earning them,

- If the Democratic party needs 'all the votes they can get' to defeat Bush*....why are the conservative Democrats trying to purge liberals, stifle their voices and keep them from leadership roles in the party of the 'big tent'?

On the contrary - I feel those on the far left lack the means to project their voices in an effective way so they feel those means should be handed to them.

[CMT]

27. just what this country needs is two conservative parites

and that is what some in the DLC and idiots like Zell Miller seem to want. I say screw them.

[Hep]

28. One thing needs to be clear

The center-left did not start a war with the far left. It was the other way around.

AndI think everyone on the left needs to stick together. We hold the same core principles.

I don't know how far left I am, honestly.

[Q]

36. Actually...the DLCers started this 'war'...

...with their anti-liberal rhetoric. They're trying to make liberals the outcasts of the party. They attack liberals for their proactive position on Bush's* war and actually defend many of Bush's* policies.

- "Liberals" are attacked and called extremists when they question the party leadership's appeasement of the Bush* regime or when they have complaints about letting Bush* off the hook on so many lies and scandals.

- There is indeed a deep divide in the party...centered around how we should approach the most corrupt government in US history.

[wyldwolf]

39. Give me some examples of DLC anti-liberal rhetoric?

[Q]

44. Visit their website...

...and determine for yourself.

- For instance...they describe the progressive/liberal opposition to the Iraq 'war' as 'living in the past' and trying to relive Vietnam.

- There are many examples of their contempt for liberals. It's quite surprising.

[kodi]

46. but your initial post refered to here at DU not somewhere off site

i could just as well refer to far leftist sites that are critical of moderates to counter effectively your point.

[wyldwolf]

52. I have..

..and see nothing that shows they completely rejects the 'liberal' ideology and politics. perhaps I'm missing it? Or maybe you're not sure yourself and are just parotting what others are saying?

Why not give specifics proving your charge?

[Hep]

57. The word liberal

has been taken over by the RIGHT WING, not the DLC. The DLC just represents those who bought in to the RW rhetoric.

Don't get me wrong, I have no respect for the DLC, but the DLC has never taken a position of starting the party over from scratch.

Again, I don't know where I am on the spectrum, but when you start saying D's and R's are the same, you've lost my support.

[Beaker]

29. I'm a liberal FIRST, and a Democrat second-

I WILL NOT vote for a conservative Dem to replace the Boy King. Sooner or later, the political winds will once again blow in a leftist direction.

[Beaker]

30. I'm a liberal FIRST, and a Democrat second-

I WILL NOT vote for a conservative Dem to replace the Boy King. Sooner or later, the political winds will once again blow in a leftist direction.

[JanMichael]

31. Probably but they'd never say that here.

At least not the sane ones.

OK, from the other POV, as a "far, far, Left Dem", do I want Zell gone? Yes, I do.

[Iverson]

32. The answer is "sort of."

The "far left," a notion that is constantly redefined as long as the center is also being redefined, are clearly unwelcome when they speak up. If they remain mute and provide votes, then they are unquestionably welcome.

Pragmatism is the great invocation in explaining the need for the far left's (read: left's) silence. Since mainstream America must be courted, a moderate message is necessary. Unfortunately, the notion of moderate is also constantly redefined as the center drifts lazily rightward.

Too few seem to want to see a rather obvious viscious circle. Shh!

[mmonk]

34. This election could be watershed in the negative for us

if democrats don't pull together this time. The democrats risk becoming a permanent minority party if some leave to go to the greens this time. You can disagree if you like, but show me where I'm wrong.

[Q]

40. Dems only become Greens when disillusioned with the party...

...and the 'conservative' Dems seem to be pushing them out with their anti-liberal/progressive message.

- Perhaps we need to understand why parties like the Greens exist in the first place?

- My major complain with the NeoDems is that they're unwilling to confront Bush* on all his lies, investigate, hold hearings or call for impeachment. This gives Bush* the upper hand in the 2004 election. An upper hand he shouldn't have considering all the blatant corruption right in front of our faces.

[mmonk]

49. Going green this time is more high risk.

[Terwilliger]

64. than the first time?

look, give me a break with all this "high risk"..."terrible fascism awaits"..."GW will destroy America"..."there won't be an election in 2008"...etc.

Ya know, I hear DUers and some callers on Washington Journal saying these things.

I say we listen to John Kerry, Democratic Senator from Massachussetts...

"George W. Bush is a good man trying to do good things..."

Don't let me hear this "high risk" blather until some leading Democrats say the same thing.

[calimary]

38. How about maybe the conservatives leaving the party?

I'm just totally sick of those people. If they think it's so right to align with the bushies, then let them go lie down in THAT bed. Good riddance to them!

[mmonk]

41. Anyone who aligns with the Bushies

could not really be considered a democrat. There aren't many shared values anymore between republicans and democrats. That's why I was so upset with those in congress that agreed with giving a blank check to this president over Iraq. It's congress's duty to declare war or not, not passing it on to the executive branch.

[Q]

42. No one should have to 'leave' the party...

...and that's really not the point. The NeoDems need to drop the 'extremist' rhetoric against liberals and listen to them...instead of simply dismissing what they have to say.

[mobiggsly]

45. if moderates left the party

You'd never crack double digits in electoral votes again, and that's a promise. It's unbelievable to me that alot of people can't see that there are any points of view between Hillary and Bushco.

[Q]

48. It's not only a matter of the moderate 'point of view'...

...it's the actual purging of the liberal point of view from the party.

- It's strange that the 'conservatives' of the party have such a sudden affection for the 'middle class'...yet never want to acknowledge that they're drive towards the center leaves the working class poor with little or no representation.

[wyldwolf]

53. C'mon, Q, give us PROOF!

[ShaneGR]

55. Conservatives?

I think criticism of the far left doesn't make someone a conservative. It makes them pragmatic. This is about getting rid of Bush, not ideological purity.

[CWebster]

56. Of course

Because their path to power has been by compromising the party to play defense while in power leaving it powerless and victimized out of power.

They triangulated the store away and are so compromised they can't resist the radical onslaught. But they hold the reins now, and they are holding on for dear life even if it means the death of the party.

[Silverhair]

58. The Party may be about to split.

If we take a disasterous loss in 04, the party may indeed split into two different parties. I foresee this as a possibility. I don't know if I like it or not, yet.

[Hep]

59. Split

So that the left can NEVER win an election?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Not By Themselves

since by most estimates they are less than twenty percent of the electorate...


Political attitudes can best be plotted on a Bell Curve that tilts slightly right....

[IrateCitizen]

66. Grover Cleveland vs. William Jennings Bryan, part deux

That's where I basically see this "struggle for the soul of the party" headed.

Grover Cleveland could probably be compared in modern times to Bill Clinton. Not that it's a completely 100% accurate comparison, but this is the one that it made by Kevin Phillips in his book Wealth and Democracy. Cleveland took pains to assauge the fears of railroad barons, industrialists and financiers that their interests would be well represented upon his election. Likewise, Bill Clinton, under the advisement of Robert "Citicorp" Rubin, went to great lengths to craft policy that convinced Wall St. that he was going to boost their interests. Both of them, as a result, were in office during economic bubbles centered around speculative finance created by these "business-friendly" policies. While neither of them were really Republicans, they were not exactly champions of working Americans either. They built political careers out of catering to powerful business interests.

William Jennings Bryan was the person who came along and captured the rage and disillusionment of the farmers and laborers all across America. Even though he lost twice to William McKinley, his campaigns helped lay the foundation for the Wilson victories in 1912 and 1916, and even for FDR's New Deal policies in response to the excesses of the 1920's that led to the Great Depression.

Who is our William Jennings Bryan? I'm not really sure. A case could be made for Howard Dean -- not because of populist policies, but because of the way that his campaign is energizing the rage and disaffection of grassroots voters. A case could be made for Dennis Kucinich, except he lack's Bryan's charisma and is probably too much of a rigid ideologue. To be quite honest, I would say that the closest thing we had to a modern-day William Jennings Bryan was the late Paul Wellstone -- an unapologetic liberal who built his success around organizing and energizing the grassroots, sticking up for working folks, and seeking ways to make politics "about the importance of people's lives", as he once said.

But basically, this is the struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party that is taking place. And while I am biased, I truly believe that unless the side built on populism wins out, we will see the demise of the Democratic Party.

[gasperc]

60. conservative dems should stop voting for the GOP

eom

:mad:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. It Depends On How You Define Conservative?

If Ted Kennedy got involved in some of these thnreads he would look like a reactionary....

RFK and JFK too if they were around...

[Terwilliger]

71. what is reactionary?

is reacting to something reactionary? is it better to just do nothing? or is the ethic that you treat something in due time?

I say time is up.

[Blue_Roses]

70. NO, NO, NO

leaving the party will not help our situation. Bottomline. It's like my child saying, "no one will be my friend." Turning, tucking tail, and leaving without finding out how they can make a difference for the better of the party,but more importantly, our freedom is not what we need.

The Democratic umbrella is huge and that is what makes it so great.

What IS important to remember now, is what we are up against and what works now and what clearly doesn't. Throwing ideas around like we do is good for clarity, but it also adds diversity and helps to come to a solution. There is always room for compromise under this umbrella--from all of us.

[gulliver]

72. No way.

I love the far left. But then again, I'm not sure I'm a conservative Dem.

I like Moore's take on liberalism as "common sense" in his new book, "Dude Where's My Country."

I like Clark's take on labels as serving no useful purpose.

I'm in this because politics is a process, not static thing. Labels just divide, hide, and oversimplify. I'm a "just do the right thing whatever you want to call it Democrat."

[Skinner]

73. This should have been locked long ago.

Sorry I missed it earlier.

This is thoroughly divisive and inflammatory. This is not the place to discuss which faction should leave or be purged from the Democratic party.

Skinner
DU Admin