How conservative can you get and still be a Democrat?

[Q]

- A quick rant on this fine Wednesday morning:

- I get a kick out of some of the threads around here when posters ask where they 'belong'. They make a little list of things they think they believe in and ask if they're 'welcome' in the Democratic party. It's as if they looking for someone to define them.

- As my Granddad used to say: you're BORN a Democrat. It's in your blood. You shouldn't have to ask anyone if you're a Democrat. It's something you believe with every fiber of your being.

- My Granddad would have laughed, then cried at the sight of the 'New Democrat'. He would have called them Republicans. But today they're known as 'moderates' or 'centrists' who can't quite decide where they belong.

- The New Centrists claim that you don't have to adopt Democratic principles and values in order to be a Democrat. They say you can just 'mix and match' and take bits and pieces from each party until you come up with something in the middle called a New Democrat.

- Can you be a Democrat and not 'believe' in abortion? Sure. But it's a Democratic principle to allow a woman to make her own choice when it comes to having one.

- Can you be a Democrat and believe Affirmative Action is 'racist'? Actually, the answer to this one is a resounding no. Affirmative Action more than likely needs a 'tune-up' as most programs do...but to claim it's 'racist' is to say it was never needed in the first place. This is a position more in tune with the Republicans.

- Can you be a Democrat and think the government shouldn't run 'social programs'? I agree with Lincoln on this one, who said (paraphrased) that government was intended to do...with all it's resources...what the individual couldn't do. Who would run 'social programs' if not the government? Corporations? The Church? The only entity capable of such a thing is a government of, by and for the people.

- The government either works for the people or for itself. The Bush* government is a great example of a government working for itself in the name of the corporations who sponsor it. A government that worked for the people would be more interested in the 'common good' than what was best for the few.

- The Conservative idea of 'smaller government' is just a cynical ploy to redirect the nation's wealth to the corporate state. The corporate state then divides that wealth among the 'ruling class'...who then (in theory) spread that wealth in a 'trickle down' fashion among the working class. But as we can see...the result from Bush's* tax giveaways to the wealthy didn't bring more jobs for the working class. It simply swelled the bank accounts and investments of the ruling class.

- The New Democratic philosophy strays far from traditional Democratic principles and values. It's easy to call yourself a Democrat. It's difficult to actually be one and ignore the siren song of the corporate lobbyists promising something for nothing.

- Being a Democrat means caring about those without food, shelter and clothing. It's about pooling resources in a Democracy and sharing those resources with everyone who needs them. It's about caring that some are denied these necessities because of the color of their skin or gender. It's about using OUR government to keep the corporate wolves from taking more than their share while the people struggle and starve.

- A Democracy without rules of governance that apply to all eventually favors the few over the many. Being a Democrat means that you reject the idea of trickle down economics and corporate welfare. A Democrat would ask why the people's money should go to the corporate 'middleman' instead of directly to the people to be used for the common good.

- My Granddad would say that there's no such thing as a Conservative Democrat. I thank God that he's not around to see this new breed of Democrat who looks, thinks and acts like a Republican.

[Killarney]

1. As long as a person votes Democratic in 11/04 they are good enough for me!

:toast:

[Democrats unite]

8. Thats good enough for me also.

eom

[JohnLocke]

52. I'll drink to that!

[papau]

2. Conservative - about what?

the general idea of helping the nation is common to both parties.

the idea that gov can help is MORE common to Dems. But there is an obvious range of what "more" is - indeed as to which gov program is covered - and indeed as to the need for fiscal discipine in the face of the need for the gov program.

And in the end, you are only a debating society club if you can not pull 51% to your candidate.

But I buy you are born with a desire to help, or an ability to ignore, the immediate needs of the poor and minorities, as you persue the greater good for America.

[ret5hd]

9. I disagree on one point, papau...

"the general idea of helping the nation is common to both parties"

I whole heartedly believe that this is not even a slight concern of those currently holding the reins:

bush* lott cheney rumsfeld perle etc etc etc down the list of corrupt neocons and family

and then all of the far religious right

between these 2 groups, we are on a course that no sane man can conclude is a path towards growth, stability, safety, prosperity, etc. Not for individuals, not for the nation, not for the world.

we are on a path of nihilation, destruction, and evil. We are on the path of armageddon because the bush*bunch allows it so they can reach their goals of greed and power.

we are on a path of greed and lust for power because the religious right allows it so they can reach their goal of armageddon.

We are led by the insane...those insane with greed and those insane with self-fulfilling apocalyptic fantasies.

They are evil. They are soulless.

[papau]

13. OK - but Reagan evil was indifference more than callous - Bush is evil

with only PR caring - but that PR is broadcast by his friends in the media to the point that the image we are fighting is at worst incompetence and indiffereance.

I agree as to Bush being the first really evil president in my lifetime, but I do not see that as a possible sale to the public with the media covering up every "mis-step" and new position.

"incompetence and indiffereance is Bush" does - and will - sell, because the facts really can't be hidden by the media deep enough.

[vi5]

3. To me, where democrats can differ is in one area...

You can still be a democrat and believe that systems or certain laws need tweaking or some fixing. Where you cross the line to republican is when you want them scrapped entirely.

[bryant69]

4. Despite all your rhetoric

Being a Democrat means exactly one thing, and only one thing, you have registered as a member of the Democratic Party.

I mean, I share many of the values you espouse, and I disagree with others, but I sure don't believe that the Democratic Party is your private little club and you get to decide who goes and who stays.

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

[Selwynn]

16. That's exactly why our party is utterly weak and ineffective too.

[INTELBYTES]

5. I'm a pro-life democrat

I usually don't mention it on any forum on the D.U. because it usually draws scorn. So yes, I do think you can be a "conservative" democrat while still agreeing with the ideals of those on this message board.

[Selwynn]

18. Agreement in essentials, freedom in non-essentials.

[LiberalFighter]

38. It shouldn't matter if you are "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice"

What matters is that both views accept the position that it is the woman's choice ultimately and don't try to force some other woman to have or not have an abortion.

I don't have a problem with any woman that doesn't want to have an abortion that is their choice not mine.

I don't have a problem with any woman that has an abortion that too is their choice not mine.

In both cases the woman will live with their decision. Some with regrets and others with happiness.

And for the record "Pro-Choice" does not mean that the woman is forced to have an abortion or that is the only option. "Pro-Choice" means the woman can make the choice between giving birth or having an abortion.

[leyton]

39. Yup

Same here, I'm pro-life and I'm probably to the right of most of the people on this board, but I'm still a Democrat. Why? Because I have my beliefs on various issues, and more of them fall in line with the Democratic platform than the Republican platform. It's not an all-or-nothing game.

Q: As others have said, the Democratic party is just as much mine as it is yours. If you want to try and move the party in one direction, that's your prerogative; if I want to move it in the other direction, that's my prerogative.

If one could put people on a spectrum from Far Left to Far Right, there would be people all across it, and just because there are Democrats that aren't as liberal as you are doesn't mean that they can't call themselves Democrats. That's as absurd as me saying you're too liberal for the Democratic party.

[Q]

50. Except that it's not individuals 'moving' the party...

....it's groups like the DLC and New Democrats that are doing the moving. They're not working with liberals and others within the party to create a new platform and make changes that way. They're practically creating their own party. That's why they call themselves 'new' Democrats.

- The changes they're trying to make are decidedly conservative in nature. At the same time they're enabling the Bush* regime and their far-right agenda. What's Democratic about any of this? They're abandoning the Democratic party and creating a subsidiary of the GOP.

[SharonAnn]

44. Don't you mean you're "Anti-choice"? That sounds like your

real position, that a woman should not be able to choose.

Personally I think that's pretty disrespectful to women and that they don't need other people telling them what to do.

Call it what it is, you're "anti-choice".

It's OK with me to have that as your position but you must call it what it is and not try to disguise it.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Wot's new about it?

Doesn't anybody remember the Dixiecrats? Many of whom are now Republicans.

Ed Koch?

[Blue_Roses]

7. this would make a good

flyer. I like the way you summed it up. Well done.

It is clear and defined.

:kick:

[oc2002]

10. Amen, thats a great summary of what I was thinking.

Well done!

[DemExpat]

11. Well, I feel 100% Democrat - I really was born one into a family

and community of Republicans.

Life experience, and observations of living in a country where social programs were far too generous and indiscriminate in the 60s and 70s - leading to an atmosphere of ENTITLEMENT, over-use and abuse of social services and welfare instead of aid and relief for the needy - has brought me to a moderate, centrist position while remaining faithful to Democratic ideals of equality, sharing, and care for those less fortunate.

My emphasis has shifted from giving aid generously to helping others help themselves as equals - not as lesser people needy of superior's aid - and this is where my view will be conservative to some here - but definitely born out of a passionate desire to see others get a better deal in life

This is hardly Republican, as Repubs I've known often regard misfortune as almost always the person's fault somehow....

I could rant about this original post dictating what a Democrat is to all who feel they belong to it - something I reject almost as much as extreme left or right ideas of how society should be....

DemEx

[Indiana Democrat]

12. Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman...

...are good examples, I think.

[htuttle]

23. Zell Miller....

...recently pledged to campaign for BUSH in the 2004 election, and has been bashing all the Democratic nominees at every opportunity.

Is this the example of a conservative Democrat you want to put forward?


:eyes:


No thanks. Zell is a DINO.

[guajira]

14. One of my Conservative Friends Just Registered as a Democrat!!

I was shocked (and thrilled!) when he mentioned it! Of course I asked him why, and he said it was because the Republican party is not the same as it was.

Thank you B* the uniter! One more Democratic vote!

[cryofan]

15. Howard Dean is about as far right as you can go, and still be Democrat

although I would argue that he is only a Democrat in name.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. So only one or two approved candidates in your opinion?

Nice recipe for losing.

[Selwynn]

17. This is why that party is so weak: we don't know what we're for and...

...we try to be everything to everybody. We have no spine anymore, if x position looks popular, than we try to be that, if y point of view scores well in the polls, then we try to be that.

Being a member of a party is supposed to mean something - it is supposed to mean freedom in the non-essential issues to be sure, but it is also supposed to mean

AGREEMENT

in the essentials!

There should be some core values that define every Democrat - if you don't hold them, you're not a democrat. Q sums up what those core values are very well.

There is nothing wrong with answering the question of "is there room for me in the party?" with the following question, "can you support these core values? If you can, yes. If you can't then no."

The biggest problem with the democratic party today is that it has surrendered its moral high ground, sold out to big business, and decided to care more about "winning" (even though it isn't very good at that either) than about standing for what is right. It has surrendered its leadership on the issues, leadership based in idea commitments and a belief about what values are right for the country, and now looks to polls and moneyed interests to tell it where it should stand on issues.

I'm tired of people who hold views that should be defined as fundamentally opposite of the democratic party asking if there is "room for them" in the democratic party and then being welcomed with such open arms.

[DemExpat]

20. I'm afraid that it is the implementation of core ideals into society

that is the problem.....

HOW to create/foster equality, fairness, caring in a huge and ever more complicated society....

DemEx

[Selwynn]

24. By pointing out what is R_I_G_H_T and then boldly LEADING the way

[DemExpat]

31. If only it was that simple.....

When ideals are transformed into policy, other factors start influencing the desired result....factors like human reaction to legislation, too many diverse requests leading to overload and loss of clear rules and objectives, bureaucracy, high cost, etc. etc.

It is also very difficult to get consensus on what exactly IS right....and this will only get worse as diversity increases.


:hi:

DemEx

[Q]

19. Do we want citizens to join the Democratic party...

...simply for their vote? Or do we want their vote AND to believe in Democratic values and principles?

- The Democratic party has already been 'watered down' to the point where many voters can't tell the difference between them on many crucial issues. What good does it do to simply look for more voters that don't care about the traditions and principles that separate us from the 'anti-people' party of the Republicans?

- I'm all for compromise...but not the type of compromise that gives things away without concessions in return.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

21. Q you're my kind of Democrat...just like your granddad

:7

[Q]

22. There has never been a Republican in my family...

...and no one looked around to see which way the wind was blowing before they decided how to vote. We've always voted for the candidate that worked for the people as a 'public servant'.

- Perhaps a majority of the 'New Democrats' are too young to understand what it 'really' means to be a Democrat. A 'big tent' certainly doesn't mean compromising your principles, selling out for campaign cash or adopting an ideology in conflict with all the above.

- If you're going to call yourself a Democrat...then BE a Democrat and all that it entails.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

27. amen

[MysticMind]

25. total misconceptions about New Democrats

My Granddad would have laughed, then cried at the sight of the 'New Democrat'. He would have called them Republicans. But today they're known as 'moderates' or 'centrists' who can't quite decide where they belong.

Most of today's anti-government Republicans were once Democrats so you have no point there.



The New Centrists claim that you don't have to adopt Democratic principles and values in order to be a Democrat. They say you can just 'mix and match' and take bits and pieces from each party until you come up with something in the middle called a New Democrat.

I've never heard any prominent New Democrat say we should take anything from the Republicans. New Democrats believe in progressive goals and principles but promotes them in a way that recognizes the world is a different place that it was under FDR.


New Democrats are not opposed to affirmative action by any means, the Clinton record stands by itself. Also New Democrats have never said government shouldn't run social programs. Which New Democrat has said that?

New Democrats are NOT conservative Democrats. Honestly you sound more conservative wanting to go back to the "good old days." I find it hard to believe your grandfather didn't know what a conservative Democrat was, practically the entire Southern Democratic party was conservative.

[DemExpat]

34. Well said, MM....

The Democratic Party is changing just as the world is changing at breakneck speed....

Repubs are the Dinos (as in dinosauer) here, the reactionaries, and I agree that the New Democrats are having to re-adjust - to promote and find ways of championing progressive goals and principles in such a New World.

And longing for the "good ol' days" will not help at all IMO.

DemEx

[Q]

48. Why promote 'progressive' as opposed to 'Democratic' values?

- That's what I don't get about this so-called 'progressive' movement. It's an obvious attempt to separate from the Democratic party to promote new or different 'values'.

- This leads to the question: why are New Democrats spillting from the party and what are they offering that's different? Are they really 'progressive'? Or is this their cover as they spin Democratic values into campaign gold?

- Of course the 'new' Democrats can't outright SAY they're offering Republican lite. What Democrat would vote for THAT? Instead they're offering incremental changes that mean the same thing.

- In fact...there was a 'good old day' for the Democratic party. It was called the 'New Deal'. As Bill Moyers and Gore Vidal have recently stated...it was the last time the government actually gave back to the people instead of the wealthy class.

[Cleita]

28. I can see where fair minded Republicans are upset

when they see the facist turn their party has taken and are looking for an alternative. The problem is that they can't just adopt the principles of the Democratic Party. They want to change it to suit their ideology. We have been infiltrated by these Lite Republicans and I don't think it's a good thing unless we can convince them about the error of their thinking. I believe all us liberal Democrats should get a missionary zeal about making converts from these ranks.

If my Republican parents were alive today, they too would be looking elsewhere because they would have a hard time accepting the New Republican Party.

[Q]

30. I believe you're right when you say that...

...many Republicans are disgusted with their party and are looking for alternatives. Their influence has helped 'change' the Democratic party with the willing assistance of the more conservative Democrats (like Lieberman).

- Instead of adopting Democratic principles and values...many that come in from the Cold Right want to change the Dem party from within. That's okay as long as the changes reflect the aforementioned values and not simply a transformation into something resembling GOP-lite.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

32. Zell Miller

[htuttle]

33. Can a person campaign for Bush and still be a Democrat?

Zell has already stated that he's supporting Bush in 2004, and offered to campaign for him in GA.

How can he still be considered a Democrat after that, other than in name only?

[DemExpat]

35. Now, THAT, to me, is not being a Democrat!

:grr:

DemEx

[Q]

36. Zell is a Republican...

...who can't get elected as such in his state (district). So he adopts the mantle of Democrat until the votes come in and then does whatever the hell he wants AFTER the election. In this way he's very much like Bush*...who pretends to be a moderate and then governs to the FAR right.

[leftofthedial]

40. I'm not defending him or agreeing with him

just pointing out that he still has a "D" beside his name.

I think he is a fascist POS personally.

But, like it or not, he's a "Democrat."

[Q]

43. I don't like it...and that's what this thread is all about...

...or maybe you've noticed?

- What good is a Democrat that votes and acts like a Republican? What exactly does a 'D" mean in that context? Zell is a 'placeholder' Democrat and that's about it. But he votes with the far-right and is proud to support Bush*.

- The Democratic party has never been perfect...but there WAS a time when they knew what they wanted and how to get there. Now the party is full of compromisers and closet conservatives who have sold out the very people they pretend to represent.

[Pepperbelly]

37. I have never voted for a gop nor will I but ...

it still dismays me, Q, that I come to visit DU so rarely these days and STILL see you teeing off on the people who are on the same side as you rather than the ones who are not. I think you need to take a long hard look at that.

Peace.

[Q]

41. Perhaps...

...it's not rare enough?

- Frankly...I'm getting tired of being told that certain people are 'on our side'. That's just plain bullshit. They're on their side...and the 'old school' Democrats are in their way.

- Not to mention that this is first thread of this type I've posted for a long time. It's too bad that you only come out from lurking to bring the same tired nonsense.

[NavajoRug]

42. You contradict yourself in your post . . .

1. "As my Granddad used to say: you're BORN a Democrat. It's in your blood. You shouldn't have to ask anyone if you're a Democrat. It's something you believe with every fiber of your being. My Granddad would have laughed, then cried at the sight of the 'New Democrat'. He would have called them Republicans. But today they're known as 'moderates' or 'centrists' who can't quite decide where they belong."

2. "Can you be a Democrat and not 'believe' in abortion? Sure. But it's a Democratic principle to allow a woman to make her own choice when it comes to having one."

There is a clear inconsistency in these two statements, because the Democratic Party of your Granddad's younger days certainly DID NOT support the concept of allowing a woman to make her own choice about abortion. How can you call something a "Democratic principle" when the subject wasn't even a matter of discussion until the last 35 years or so?

This issue in particular speaks volumes about what is wrong with the Democratic Party -- because abortion in this country is actually a very REPUBLICAN issue. Abortion has been specifically aimed at limiting population growth among poor and/or minorities in this country, and I for one do not want this to be remembered as a "Democratic principle."

[Q]

45. My Granddad actually did believe it was up to a women to decide...

...but you're right that it wasn't the accepted notion at the time. I come from a family of liberals...as you may have guessed. Our family...even back in Granddad's time...have always believed in 'equal rights'...even for women.

- My point about abortion was related to another thread that asked if one could be against abortion and be a Democrat. The answer is yes...you can be against it in principle but still not agree with the Right's position that Big Brother must make the decision FOR the woman.

- The 'Democratic principle' I was referring to is the right of the woman to decide.

[NavajoRug]

46. You may have come from a family of liberals . . .

. . . but that didn't make you a Democrat by definition. This is particularly relevant to the discussion about abortion, because before Roe v. Wade in 1973 there was no stronger supporter in government of the "right to choose" than New York governor Nelson Rockefeller (Republican). This is why the real agenda of the pro-abortion movement should be easy to figure out -- because early support for "abortion rights" cut across party lines but was most definitely strongest in areas of the Northeast with large minority populations in urban centers.

[DemExpat]

47. I also understand the American political parties as having

"switched sides" on issues throughout American history.
It has only been since FDR and the Civil Rights years that Dems latched onto the ideals that some leftists now feel is the root of the Democratic Party.

DemEx

[Q]

49. Once again...the part about abortion...

...was an 'answer' to another thread where the thread author said he was 'against' abortion and thought Affirmative Action was 'rascist'. I'd link it for you but it seems to have fallen off the front page. I'll look for it later. On edit: these are the points I was responding to in the other thread:

1. I think abortion is wrong.
2. I think affirmative action is racist, along with the policy of "diversity" on university campuses.
3. I generally think social programs run by the government are a bad idea.


- The 'right to choose' or 'choice' has been a consistent part of the Democratic platform. In fact...here's an except from the most recent platform:

CHOICE

The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans - not government - can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction. This year's Supreme Court rulings show to us all that eliminating a woman's right to choose is only one justice away. That's why the stakes in this election are as high as ever.

- Regardless of which party or person believes in choice...it's part of the platform I happen to agree with.

[NavajoRug]

51. That's exactly what I'm talking about, though . . .

"The 'right to choose' or 'choice' has been a consistent part of the Democratic platform."

In my opinion, there is a difference between something being a "Democratic principle" and something being a "consistent part of the Democratic platform." The 'right to choose' did not become a consistent part of the Democratic platform because it is a Democratic principle, but because the special interest groups that advocate for a 'right to choose' have been strong supporters of the Democratic Party.

This is what makes the system so convoluted -- You end up with long-standing Democratic Party players like labor leaders voicing public support for the "right to choose" even though: 1) it has nothing to do with labor advocacy, and 2) it has actually hastened the destruction of labor unions in this country.

[Q]

53. You're arguing semantics...

...when I clearly stated in an opening sentence that this was a 'Wednesday morning rant'.

- For the sake of argument:

principle

n 1: a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct.

- The right for a woman to make her own reproductive decisions IS a Democratic principle. The right to choose is consistent with individual rights...which is a Democratic principle.

- If you have a point...I sure wish you would get to it. Want to talk about labor advocacy? That would be fine...because your 'it's not a principle' rhetoric is going nowhere.

[NavajoRug]

54. Sorry -- I'll try to be clear about this . . .

"The right to choose is consistent with individual rights...which is a Democratic principle."

"Individual rights" is not a Democratic principle, but it should be -- otherwise, the Democratic Party would not support most gun control legislation in this country.

If you want to know why the Democratic Party has been losing so many elections in the last decade, consider this: Calling a "Democratic principle" in response to pressure from special interest money/pressure does not make it a real Democratic principle, and does not endear this party to many voters.

But I agree that you've raised a very interesting point here -- because as I think about all of the things that I would consider Democratic principles, it's becoming clear to me that Bill Clinton was actually more of a Republican than a Democrat.

[Q]

56. Granted...there is a wide gap...

...between what Democrats profess they believe in and what they have become.

- It's telling that you equate individual rights with gun ownership. That should be the least of anyone's worries when it comes to the rights of the individual.

- But you're making my point for me. The 'choice' issue isn't about pressure from a 'speical interest group'...unless you call women a special interest. Choice has always been a grassroots issue.

- I won't argue that the Democratic party hasn't succumbed to special interest pressure and money. That's the conservative influence I've been talking about. That is...campaign cash and power granted by corporations being more important than what was once the Democratic party of the people 'principle'.

- Clinton was indeed a better Republican than a Democrat. He traded 'principles' for power and cash and temporary 'success' that equated winning with progress.

[NavajoRug]

59. You have to understand the context of gun ownership . . .

"It's telling that you equate individual rights with gun ownership. That should be the least of anyone's worries when it comes to the rights of the individual."

Actually, the history of this topic in particular is what makes "gun ownership" in the context of individual rights so important. Because when the U.S. Constitution was written, it was a citizen's right to keep and bear arms that was supposed to serve as his means of protection against a powerful government.

When they crafted the Second Amendment, they didn't envision someone using a gun to hunt turkeys, or someone carrying a gun on a subway train to protect himself from an armed robber -- they envisioned someone using the gun to fight off a "government" (i.e., British) soldier or magistrate attempting to violate one of the basic rights of a citizen.

[seixon]

55. Problem...

The goals and policies of each political party change with time. You don't have to be a socialist to be a Democrat. A "democrat" is someone who supports the Democratic Party, whatever that means. There are no rigid molds of what the Democratic party is, or what a democrat is.

The dictionary states a democrat as:

A member of the Democratic Party

The other definition has nothing to do with political parties, as it is:

an advocate of democracy

which is something that is a founding belief among Americans of all parties.

A democrat is an advocate of a democracy.
A republican is an advocate of a republic.

A republic is a form of democracy. The United States is and always has been a republic.

Therefore many of the things you are trying to say in your post are incorrect, as being a "democrat" or a "Democrat" has nothing to do with issues. It has to do with what party you support, even if you don't support everything that party does, etc.

In other words, you can be pro-life and be a democrat as long as you still support the Democratic party, or are an advocate of democracy, which doesn't have anything to do with the issue of abortion.

I think you are thinking of "socialist" or something along that line... replace all the "Democrat" words in your post and replace them with another more representative word.

[Q]

57. Then Abraham Lincoln was a 'socialist'...

...but don't tell the Republicans.

- A representative government is by definition a government of, by and for the people. At least that's what jefferson had in mind.

- We're faced with two choices in how to approach a Democratic Republic. Right now our government is practicing 'trickle up'...where money is taken from the poor and middle class and divided among the ruling class. This is the end result of eliminating social welfare and replacing it with corporate welfare.

- At least with social welfare the poor and middle class see some return on their investment in the form of social services. Corporate welfare offers nothing beyond the 'possibility' of a few new jobs...created or not at the option of the fat cats.

- The term 'pro-life' was invented by conservatives who wanted 'choice' advocates to be thought of as 'baby killers'. Choice has always been about women's rights...not so much about abortion itself.

[Terwilliger]

58. an advocate of democracy?

core Democrats aren't socialist, but their view of humanity isn't measured at Fort Knox either

[Q]

60. I've had a few New Democrats call me a 'socialist' before...

...because I'm a 'liberal'. Now we have both the RWing and the new wing of the Democratic party trying to demonize anyone to the left of them. Just one more similarity betwen the New Left and Right.

- Conservative Dems insist that they represent some sort of party 'progress'. That is...they're dragging the party along with them into the next century. They say they're 'responding' to a changing world...changes anyone to the left of them just can't see as they do. They interpret these changes as a more 'conservative' America that rejects the 'new deal' and 'great societies'.

- The problem is that they're basing these changes on information coming from a corporate controlled media and RWing think tanks that coincidentally also want to replace social welfare with corporate welfare...permanently.

- Society hasn't changed as much as the New Left and Right suggest. What has changed is the way politicians and their special interests use the media to control how and what Americans think.

- Happy New Year!

[DemExpat]

61. But society has and is changing immeasurably!

Borders are being dissolved, interests of nations are increasingly interconnected with international interests and influences. (Not just corporate intersts, but environmental, human rights, International Organizations like the UN interests and pressures). It certainly is not simply what the media is saying to control thinking.

To maintain a well-functioning social welfare and security system you have to have a way to monitor its use, its effects - positive or negative - and to control expenditures, along with creating the services needed for the growing diversities of needs and desires (culturally/ethnically based).

When countries were relatively insulated within borders, this seemed to work OK in Europe with the social systems. Now things are changing and Europe is having to re-think their strategies.

For one thing, European countries are feeling a pressure to modify their social systems in order to economically compete internationally, to cut down rising costs, and to stop influx of peoples coming to countries to enjoy the generous benefits.

Another factor is the increasing premeability of borders concerning human movement around the globe - how can countries maintain an overseeable service with so many people coming and going, with so many dual-nationals, people maintaining rights in several countries at once, diasporas etc? How can governments offer fair/equal services with the amazing increase in diversity of requests?

I believe that many leftist thinkers (and rightwing ones as well!) are not aware of the increasing complexities caused by globalization - globalization brought about not only by corporate interests, but by communications, media, travel and tourism, and migrations. This is something to be studied in earnest in order to get a glimpse of the challenges facing our world in the near future. There really is no way to stop globalization processes IMO, and the increasing changes this brings to nations and societies.

The desire to create and maintain a safety net and basic services is a good one, only the problems with implementation with increasing mobility and movement of peoples are pretty daunting. And with the absolute necessity for governments to monitor costs to keep afloat in an international economy.

Possibly an International social service system would be the only possible workable alternative to national ones IMO. An international minimum wage, international human rights charter, international environmental policies, international minimum health and education services, disability, etc. Standards that all countries embrace for the good of all...

This is what IMO liberals should be looking for to keep Democratic, individual choice, and basic welfare needs met in our world today and tomorrow. To focus on helping people help themselves the world over, and to provide a minimum safety net for those who fall through the holes...on an international basis.

This, to me, is really the only hope for our future - to approach problems more on a global level, while attending to local needs as well, of course.

Perhaps living in America you might feel somewhat insulated to global processes in your daily lives, but, in Europe, it is incredibly visible how the world and society is changing, has changed, in the last couple of decades.

I believe that men like Clinton are acutely aware of these processes, and that is why I think the Democratic party is trying to find a new basis - a painful and messy process - but one that must be worked through IMO. I also believe that Clark will also try to move the world forward within a more international framework.

Of course, this is my major interest as well, as the focus of my studies is on these processes......:-)

A most Happy New Year for us all!!!!
:hi:

DemEx

[Q]

62. You make it sound much more complicated than it really is...

- The New Dems are selling out the working class for corporate cash and the power they offer to help 'win' elections. They think invading countries like Iraq is a great idea and that enabling Bush* will get them a seat at the table of power.

- The world hasn't changed....but the propaganda has.

[DemExpat]

64. I think that seeing the complexity is vital

and the world is absolutely changing - if only from technological changes! I thought only conservative Republicans clung to the image of a static world...to hang onto power.

I'm surprised to see this view here in this context.

We'll just have to disagree on this point.
:hi:

DemEx

[NewJerseyDem]

63. Nobody has the right to define the democratic party

The democratic party is a constantly changing organization. Nobody can say what the party is or isn't. There was a time when most of the party was very conservative. All those southern senators like Richard Russell and Harry Byrd were segregationists and certainly wouldn't support affirmative action but they certainly were democrats. So I guess that you would have to be a segregationist to be a democrat according to them. But, the party has changed over the decades.

If I were alive 100 years ago I would probably be a republican. People like Teddy Roosevelt seem to me to be a hell of a lot better than people like William Jennings Bryan (I'm sure he wasn't pro-choice!!!!).

I happen to be against affirmative action. It is racist and it is discrimination. So now you think that you have the right to say I'm not a democrat. Who the hell gave you control of this party?

This pary is inclusive and anyone who wants to join can join if they want to.

[Q]

65. No one 'happens' to be against Affirmative Action...

...that decision is based on a set of criteria which in turn is based on a set of prejudices.

- I've never suggested that you're 'not a Democrat' if you think AA is 'racist'. What I have suggested that calling AA racist is something a RWinger would do while ignoring both history and current events.

- It's very strange that you would say that I'm trying to 'control' this party by expressing my opinion. I'm in no position to control anything. And neither are you.

- What I do see is an effort by conservative Democrats to 'change' the party into something else entirely. They're not doing it by trying to change the platform and working within the party. They're creating a entirely NEW party in direct opposition to the Democratic party.

- Sure...anyone can join the party. Everyone should be welcomed. But at what point do we admit that we're no longer the 'party of the people' and have become too beholden to special interests and corporate campaign cash?

- More than half of the country no longer bothers to vote. Many registered Democrats voted for Bush* in 2000. Thousands of mostly Black votes were purged in that election and the party did nothing to defend their civil rights. Do you see a trend here? Democrats don't want a party that mimics the Republicans. They want a party that fights for their rights...not just a party that wants to win regardless of what they have to compromise in the process.