How far Left?

[kvnf]

This post is a question about whether the Democratic Party should move left or play the center. I'll offer a suggestion, and would like to see it criticised or supported as everyone sees fit. I'm trying to formulate my own opinion, and I'm basically looking for help.

I'm a young person--20 years old. I'm very progressive, and if we had a system that allowed 3rd parties a shot at winning, I'd probably vote for socialists or the green party. That being said, I am a proud democrat, and I'm comfortable voting democrat.

But here's my question...

It's my understanding that the Republican party as we know it today is actually the result of a radical movement within that party begining in the 60s with Goldwater (am I right?)...a strategy that didn't yield results immediately but has led to their side controling the White House more than us over the last 30+ years.

In our own party, there was a movement to the left, with candidates like McGovern, but instead of sticking with that movement despite early failures--like the Republicans--we gave it up and decided the political center was safer. So we get 8 years of Clinton, who barely wins his elections, and lose a close one in 2000.

What if the Democrats had stuck with the movement to the left? At the very least, no one would be out there saying "there's no difference between the R's and the D's" (I think one reason some people don't vote is because they believe this--and this was one of the arguments that got Nader his vote). It would be easier to draw differences between the two parties.

An example, I watch Prime Minister's Questions on C-SPAN, and Tony Blair can just tear into his opposition (sure he's got a big majority) because they're so fundamentally different politically. Isn't it better to be more different from your opponent than similar?

So, my question is...why can the Republicans be successful away from the center but not us? Is it because the people in this country don't like progressive ideas? Or can we be successful by moving to the left?

[max2000]

1. You've got to look at everything

It's not what's said, but what's done. Democrats have always been left of center. Clinton's the exception with NAFTA and welfare reform. Republicans are returning to their pre-depression platform. This compassionate conservative crap. Look at what Republicans are doing versus what they are saying. "Medicare will cover more seniors and their drug costs" (crap- costs more and big bonuses to industry), "Clear Sky Initiative" (crap-polluters get free ride), "No Child Left Behind" (crap-set impossibly high standard then don't fund so they can't be met and schools lose their fed. funding)
I know this, because I live in Texas and are left knee deep in the crap Little Bushie left behind.

O.K.- the reason they weave such language around their actions is because most people in this country are left, they just don't admit it because wind bags like Rush Limbaugh call it a dirty word, (he must still be high on his pain killers)

If you ask people would they like Social Security so grandma isn't living in the street or dependant on relatives, they'd say YES.
If you ask people would they fund public education for a skilled workforce, they'd say YES.
If you ask people would they fund health care? Ask around, then see if you want to lean left.

People don't think, and they don't believe what goes on will effect them. And they watch too much national television, filtered info...

To answer your question (finally) is Democrats haven't moved and we don't have to move. Republicans have gone radical, and to cover it they call Democrats extremely liberal. It's crap, and Dems have to start calling a spade a spade loud as hell especially in this election.

[kvnf]

3. but dems vote for stupid cra*

Like the dems who voted for this recent Medicare bill, for example.
What kind of cra* is that? This bill was a disgrace...terrible...yet it had bi-partisan support!

What keeps me in the party are the "liberals" like Kennedy who get fired up over things like this.
I think most of a candidates denounced the bill...I know Dean did.
Just out of curiosity, anyone know how Lieberman voted on it?

-Kevin

[max2000]

4. Look at congress

Ok, majority holds control of what and when bills come to the floor for a vote. Ever since Republicans had the majority, a bill is only released to be read a few HOURS before a vote. Democrats are locked out of these commitees. These bills are thousand of pages. The medicare bill, a fifeen minute vote, was held open for THREE HOURS while GOPers bribed and stong armed for votes to pass. The budget, is being put forward as an Omnibus bill, all in one, one vote, no debate or discussion. Full of Republican Pork. I think the Dems who voted for Medifraud, should just call themselves Republicans for commiting such as treasonist act on the party. But I think we all need to realize whats going on in our representative government that is now run like a communist state.

[alapolitical]

20. I believe you meant to say fascist state.

[bleedingheart]

9. The funny part is that as the Repubs move to their Gilded Age roots

the Dems seem to be confused.

We need to fight them by being the progressive party of FDRoosevelt.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. You have your historical facts correct

Though Goldwater today would be considered a political moderate, I fear! There has been a move to the right in this country, often motivated by lies and manipulation by Republicans in power, starting with the dirty tricks perpetrated on the McGovern campaign by Nixon (these tricks didn't come out until around 1974, and were more widespread than the Watergate break-in).

But because of the McGovern defeat, many Democrats felt the need to go to the center. Thank heaven they never ever went so low as to pander to racists, like the Republicans have done. But the Republicans have been able to use propaganda effectively to paint liberals as reckless; hence the timid attitude of Democrats.

We had major liberal reforms in response to the Great Depression, and I fear it will take a national catastrophe of that scale to make the Dems go very far left again. Of course, with the way Bush is mistreating this country, that national catastrophe might not be that far off.

[DrFunkenstein]

5. Choice: Polarizing Centrist (HD) Or Bridge-Building Progressive (JK)

Dean is a centrist, but has the style of a radical. Mainly because he presents things in stark binaries of "us and them." Kerry has a long progressive record, but comes across as middle of the road.

Which one seems better to you?

[CWebster]

11. Dean is a gifted populist

Kerry can't connect.

In a corporate controlled political climate that panders only to elites, a populist movement is the only option.

[LWolf]

16. Dennis Kucinich.

I like Kerry, too. But Dennis is my man.

:hi:

[Polemonium]

6. drop the label, and represent the people

when the dust settles you will have moved "left" because most people support health care, education, and taking care of people. Become a populist, not a cetrist or lefty. It won't result in the massive progressive agenda that I'd like to see some day, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. If folks feel they are represented it won't matter how the pundits label it.

[CWebster]

7. the Republican strategy

was to attack, bully and use divisive tactics- rather than actually promote their own agenda which they knew had a limited appeal.

The Democrats, during the "me first" greed-is-good yuppie years were constitutionally unfit to wage a counter-movement and played passive aggressive through triangulation strategy, which as a result, moved the entire field dangerously further to the Right.

[lostnfound]

8. One word: Money. Wealth opposes progressivism & pushes rightward. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. This Poll Has Been Posted So Many Times...I Hope Somebody Links It Again

17% of Americans define themselves as liberal


40% of Americans define themselves as moderate (and)


35% of Americans define temselves as conservative


Does it make sense for the Democrats to go left in light of these facts?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Also- Labour Moved To The Center

Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder, and Bill Clinton all embraced "Third Way" politics which rejected ideologically based solutions to problems in favor of solutions based on evidence and reason...


I rememember when the Chinese president was asked his opinion on adapting market based reforms and if this was a betrayal of communism. He said he doesn't care what "you call the cat as long as it catchs the mouse."

[mrgorth]

13. england and Germany

have health care. We need to move to the left because "centrist" DLC policies aren't delivering.

[Silverhair]

14. The reason we don't have health care is because of Hillary.

She botched it badly. The politicas will was there. The Republicans were ready to go along. Then she made incredibly stupid blunders and created opposition where there didn't need to be any.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Bob Dole

who was the Senate minority leader wanted a deal. Newt Gingrich put the kabosh on it and got the insurance companies to finance the opposition.

Remember the infamous Harry and Louise ads.....


Universal health care is a good goal but I'm not smart enough to come up with the plan....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Moving Left Is Such A Nebulous Term I Don't Know What It Means

but embracing universal health is a good idea that has popular support....

The devil is in the details...

[goldilox369]

25. i agree

we do need universal healthcare (and dental, but i'll take what i can get for right now) and it is all in the details, the problem is that people don't want to do something about it until it's absolutely perfect, and it won't ever be. I like Dean, because at least he's got a plan that will work, and work now, and will give us room to grow and improve the situation while everyone is still covered. it's not going to be easy to switch from private to public, but, for god sake, i think the health and well-being of the people of this country is up to all of us, as a group. i guess i'm liberal like that.

[YNGW]

18. I've often wondered.....

..... if our party shouldn't nominate someone like Kucinich or someone even further to the left than him. I've heard so many in our party say we need to move further to the left, so it would be interesting to see what would happen should we nominate that type of candidate. Either there are enough progressives (and by that I mean those who wish the party were more left-wing) in this country who would come to the polls who in the past just haven't gotten excited enough about the Democratic nominee and either don't vote at all or voted Green, or there really aren't that many progressives and we would get slaughtered, in which case those people could be shoved into a corner and the debate of whether or not the party needs to go further left could be laid to rest.

Kind of a drastic way to find out, but at least the debate would have reached a conclusion. Having read some of the reports and comments from those who supported the Green candidate in the SF Mayor's race this morning, it appears as though many SF Democrats already feel like the party has lost its soul. Of course, SF is another world, but I'm sure there are many across our country who have become dissolusioned.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I Agree......

We should nominate the most liberal candidate and see what happens......


I suspect we would get 35% of the vote......


But it would be cathartic....

[pistoff democrat]

21. I don't mean to be a party pooper, but

it's been done.

McGovern - 1972

You don't think BushCo wouldn't pull out Nixon's bag o' tricks?

[YNGW]

22. Reply

For something that's been done already (McGovern), we certainly have several people who continue to insist that we need to go further left, that doing so would bring about unity.

I'm not saying the party should or shouldn't go further left. I'm not saying it has been done before w/ McGovern or it hasn't. I'm just saying the debate continues.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Ahhhhh

You could have gone further left than McGovern...

At least McGovern tried to move to the center....

That's the difference between my 35% and the 38% McGovern got....

[PissedOffPollyana]

24. '72 is not a good barometer, IMO

Wouldn't the righteous anger built up from the war have something to do with it, no matter the viewpoint of the Dem candidate? Isn't it conceivable that the backlash was merely one against the party responsible for the deaths of thousands of American sons & daughters and not liberalism? On top of that, wasn't Tricky Dick going pretty strong at the time? From what I've read (I was only 5 that year), Nixon was seeming to be keeping promises and all the chicanery had not really come to light yet. Lest we forget that some of our BushCo faves made their bones in coverups and selective truths during this administration.

It seems a shame to throw the soul & heritage of the party out over one election that could be the product of still very present rage over 'Nam.

How we can canonize Wellstone, yet marginalize Kucinich is beyond me; how many here would have supported a Wellstone campaign? I wonder sometimes if the appreciation of a great Democrat requires the safety of a posthumous berth...
~Mich
WWWD - Who Would Wellstone Demand?

[Fleshdancer]

26. The left is not evil

I think part of the reason why Republicans can move further from the center is because they have the power to do so. There is absolutely no reason for these people to compromise when they have the Senate, House, and WH.

The Democrats are at a huge disadvantage. The DLC wants to remain relevent so of course they're big cheerleaders for the party to stay in the center. The problem I have with this is that if you start at the middle with no power, then in order to get anything done you must compromise everything. At that point, what would be the difference between the Democratic Party and moderate Republicans??? Isn't this the same reason why no one here likes Lieberman?

The so called "liberal" media is full of right wingers who constantly squak about Dean being too left and they are downright patronizing and insulting to wonderful candidates like Kucinich. At DU someone would get laughed at for saying Dean was too liberal, but what's happening to the millions of people who rely solely on their televisions for political information??

Forget having any information on the other candidates...the media has already deemed Dean the frontrunner. Disclaimer: Just because I'm a Dean supporter, don't assume I'm happy about this. It's toxic to the entire political system and I wish the media would start doing their job and covering the actual issues.

Then there's the 2000 election. The more liberal portion of our party split off and created the Green Party after being virtually ignored in the 1990's. We claim we have a big tent, but look at us today. Split and fighting with each other over whether Kerry should have said "fuck" or Dean mentioning the confederate flag or when the exact moment it time it was when Clark joined the Democratic Party.

I guess this is my longwinded way of saying this party needs to move back to the left, defend doing so, and fight back. Not just with the Republican party, but the media as well. But that's just my opinion.