DO DEMOCRATS STAND IN THE WAY OF PROGRESSIVE CHANGE?

[ulTRAX]

As a Progressive I have no use for the Democratic Party except as the lesser of the evils. While I worked for Kerry to be elected... I held my nose when I voted for him. Being from MASS I haven't voted for him since he supported NAFTA.

We know progressive reforms will never come from the Right. But the Left here in the US is too mired in a dysfunctional two party system to ever propose them. This is compounded by the ideological blinders we all wear.

I'm reminded of something Noam Chomsky once said about how ideology often restricts thought to a permissible range of ideas. He used the example of the Vietnam war where the "hawks" believed the US had a right to be in Vietnam and should use all necessary means to win the war. The "doves" also believed the US had a right to be there but thought the cost of winning were too high. The more the two sides debated, the more the hidden assumption of the US having the right to be in Vietnam was reinforced. That assumption WAS the acceptable range of permissible thought. Outside of that spectrum was the anti-war movement that believed the US had NO right to be in Vietnam.

I believe that such ideological blind spots exist in both Parties. Their positions get molded by constituency groups and they gloss over contradictions... and soon no one questions that some positions are just what the party stands for. It's just the air that they breathe. No one bothers to even think about the basics anymore.

These positions also are molded by the dysfunctional dynamics of a 2 party system. Both parties keep co-opting the development of a third parties by stealing and watering down their issues... then they pander to the "great middle". What the Democrats fail to understand it is a strategic blunder to continually pander to the middle because they lose the chance to educate the public and build a constituency that will support REAL progressive issues. Look at the 2004 election.

What did Kerry accomplish in soft-balling the deficit issue? He refused to even use the true Bush deficit numbers because his own deficit reduction plan depended on bogus numbers. As the Right moves on with its strangle the beast agenda what did Kerry accomplish in not educating the public about their plans? As Social Security is threatened by a massive debt.... what did Kerry do to educate the people? If the market is sometimes dysfunctional... as it is in the pharmaceutical sector resulting in obscenely high drug prices.... how will there EVER be pressure for real reforms if the real problem isn't even discussed? Needless to say, the Democratic Party will never get into issues such as corporate personhood or revoking corporate charters for misbehavior. It's a classic Catch 22 and in the process Democrats have lost any vision of true progressive reforms... and I would argue now STAND IN THE WAY of the reforms and policies true Progressives most want to see.

So what is to be done? How can we ever extract ourselves from this dysfunctional system? How can we get back in touch with our core principles? Do we have any anymore? How can we build a constituency for a real Progressive agenda?

I want to drag back up the proposal for a DU Think Tank which I made some weeks back: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

I was working on a proposal with wt2... but I haven't heard from this person in 2 weeks. I think this process of ideological renewal is vital... perhaps not to a dysfunctional Democratic Party that's lost its way... but to true Progressives who want to break free of the tar baby trap of American politics. We need a Progressive vision of where we want to take the US in 10-20-50 years... and sadly it's not going to ever come from the Democratic Party.

[IrateCitizen]

1. Yes, absolutely...

Whether or not they provide a larger impediment than the Republicans, however, is a matter of debate.

There will be those who say that the Republicans represent the greater impediment to change, and that nothing gets accomplished without sympathetic Democrats in office. And, they have a point.

There will also be those who say that the Democrats provide the illusion of reform, and that at least Republicans provide opposition movements a galvanizing force, so the Democrats actually inhibit progressive change the most. I would say that this group also has a point.

In any event, the party that traditionally, in the 20th century, has at least taken incremental steps toward progressive reforms has usually been the Democrats. But I would also say that they have stood in the way of many reforms as well, and in some regards are only slightly, marginally better than the Republicans.

[justinsb]

2. A strong 3rd party on the left would help alot

In Canada we have the NDP (New Democratic Party) who have never and likely will never take power but they do provide a constant voice for the left, keep the Liberals from going too far right, and make the Liberals (who are to the left of your democrats) look moderate.

[w4rma]

3. You guys have a parlamentary system don't you? Not a winner take all. (nt)

[justinsb]

4. Yes but

you still have to win your riding - winner take all. It's not a proportional representation system. Ridings are roughly the same as congressional district and the person with the most votes wins.

[Telly Savalas]

10. One big difference, though...

is that the analogue of the Republican Party in Canada gets only about 30% of the popular vote versus 50% in the U.S. Hence the center and the left have the luxury of being able to divide. Whereas in the U.S., it's impossible to make any headway versus the GOP unless the opposition stands united.

[justinsb]

11. In many areas it's not though...

The GOP pull nowhere near half in places like the inner cities of LA and NY, places where there is severe poverty, an abundance of union members, or alot of recent immigrants do not tend to be 50/50 these are considered 'safe' democratic districts and this is where a progressive 3rd party could take them on.

[Telly Savalas]

16. These are the places though

that typically already have the most liberal members of the Democratic party representing them.

[ulTRAX]

44. true but

There's only one way out of this dilemma.. and that's to insist that Democrats start to FINALLY support democracy. If there's ever going to be a true Progressive Party in the US that can win seats in the federal government there have to be reforms that weaken the 2 party system... reforms such as proportional repesentation and provisions for run-off elections.

But given that such reforms are not even being discussed by Democrats you can see what a long road there is to go. In fact I believe rather than see a Progressive Party as a ally that could bring more people into the political process.... the Democratic establishment would fight such reforms tooth and nail to protect their own power.

[ulTRAX]

6. single district plurality voting

Because all federal voting have elections based on set geographical districts/state.... a sizeable political minority nationally can forever be deprived of representation because they can't muster a win in any district/state. An unintended result is a two party system.

Because we also have plurality voting with no provisions for run-off elections... a united minority can win over a divided majority. This further strengthens the 2 party system.

The 2 party system can not be effectively challenged unless there are political reforms that make it easier for 3ed parties to develop. I wish that Progressives realized this and had some long term strategy for introducing such reforms. I have some thoughts on how this could be done.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2162 and I think the poor response the topic has gotten is just another indication of just how Democrats cherish their ideological blinders.

[justinsb]

8. Here the NDP wins

largely in inner cities, and strong union areas. The Unions here realized long ago where their true interests lie and are now strongly tied to the NDP.

[LoZoccolo]

5. No it wouldn't.

Nader lost.

The people have spoken.

[ulTRAX]

7. so did Kerry

So what's your point?

Aside from the fact that the federal government is anti-democratic... it can allow a minority to rule... we also have the same problem with plurality voting when there's no provision for a run-off. So in 2000... a united minority was able to win over a divided majority of Gore/Nader voters.

Now you can blame Nader for that... but it SHOULD be every citizen's RIGHT to run on a platform they believe in and to vote their conscience and not risk throwing the election to a minority.

That Democrats can't see that this is at the HEART of what democracy should be is a damning indictment on the moral bankruptcy of the party.

[LoZoccolo]

9. My point is that not many people want a left-wing third party.

Nor do they wan't a further left candidate - Kucinich would have swept the primaries were that so.

[ulTRAX]

12. maybe you are making my point

Maybe the reason Progressives don't stand a chance in this system is because they join with the Democrats as the lesser of the evils... and in the process never have a chance to develop a constituency for Progressive issues.

The issue is not just whether Progressives are being margainaized... but is the 2 party system so inherently corrupting that the the two parties don't even dare tell the truth to the American People any more? I go back to my examples of the debt, Social Security... the pharmaceutical industry. There's countless more.

[ulTRAX]

13. Kucinich

I should add that in 2004 Progressive voters were split between Kucinich, Dean and Nader.... THEN worried about a candidate that could win against Bush... a war president. So 2004 is hardly a good example.

Generally unless we can separate ALL those who vote Democratic as the lesser of the evils as opposed to actually believe in the Democratic Party... there's no way to truly find out what percentage of the public today is Progressive. And that still is no indication of who might go further Left if Progressive values and issues had equal exposure. There's a feedback effect that has to be taken into account... and we see it in the Right.

[LoZoccolo]

14. Then you really can't say anything about the Democrats...

...standing in the way of progressive change just yet.

[ulTRAX]

17. if true then

If true then you'd be able to show where the Democrats have promoted Progressive ideas.... not progressive given the narrow ideological spectrum in the US... but progressive within the broader political spectrum in the other advanced democracies.

OK... let's start with an obvious issue... does the Democratic Party even promote democratic ideals or push for democratic reforms? I think the evidence is clear that most Democrats... even most here... blindly accept the anti-democratic elements of our Constitution as well as the dysfunctional aspects of our two party system.

The sad fact is the Democratic Party is AWOL on democracy itself and doesn't even have the intellectual integrity to confront that obvious contradiction.

[LoZoccolo]

18. You said that kind of thing when the Kerry message board edited your post.

And what you call "blindly accepting" is really "doing what we can".

You blindly accept gravity every time you walk down a staircase, knowing full well that there are low-gravity environments in outer space.

[ulTRAX]

19. are you suggesting.....

LoZoccolo wrote: "And what you call "blindly accepting" is really "doing what we can".

You blindly accept gravity every time you walk down a staircase, knowing full well that there are low-gravity environments in outer space."

Are you suggesting a dysfunctional and anti-democratic political system created by humans... one that goes unchallenged even by a party that has the gall to proclaim itself "democratic"... should be considered as immutable as the law of gravity?

Maybe you are. Please correct me if I have it wrong.

[LoZoccolo]

21. No.

But it isn't going to change any time soon, and certainly not out of schism (rather than advocacy).

[ulTRAX]

22. your approach goes nowhere

There already is a schism... just look at how so many Democrats despise Nader. The current system forces Progressive citizens either to vote their conscience and never get representation or to vote the lesser of the evils and never see any true progress toward truly progressive policies under the Democrats. That's what the so-called Democratic party offers as democracy.

As long as there is a two party system this will never change because dynamics are both dysfunctional and self-perpetuating. Unless there is a plan to dismantle this system and move to a multi-party system.... 100 years from now, just as it has been for the last 150, no third party stands any real chance.

[F.Gordon]

15. "How can we build a constituency for a real Progressive agenda?"

You can't.

You admit that you abandoned the Democratic Party (and Kerry) over NAFTA. But then you go on listing all your "progressive ideals". Your Grocery List of things you'd like to see happen. You'll use one progressive ideal to compromise all your others.

The Democratic Party doesn't "stand in the way" of progressive change. You don't allow it to make any changes.

Only real change will come about when the Party is focused and consistent from the bottom - up. The "progressive movement" crumbles into 100 different pieces at the bottom and never gets anywhere.

You can hate the DLC....say what you want...but they are implementing the correct strategy. They are consistent from the bottom - up, and they identify Democrats in office that promote their ideals and back them.

[ulTRAX]

24. I'm not responsible for the failures of the Dems

F.Gordon wrote: "How can we build a constituency for a real Progressive agenda? You can't.You admit that you abandoned the Democratic Party (and Kerry) over NAFTA.
But then you go on listing all your "progressive ideals". Your Grocery List of things you'd like to see happen. You'll use one progressive ideal to compromise all your others."

Uh... no... actually I only kept voting for Kerry because I respected him in his anti-war days. NAFTA was the last straw. Other than that I don't think I voted Democratic for Prez since McGovern... then finally Kerry.

FG: "The Democratic Party doesn't "stand in the way" of progressive change. You don't allow it to make any changes."

Any suggestion that the lack of progressive ideals in the Democratic Party is my fault is laughable.

FG: "Only real change will come about when the Party is focused and consistent from the bottom - up. The "progressive movement" crumbles into 100 different pieces at the bottom and never gets anywhere."

Which is why in other threads I suggested two possible remedies. The first is to do a bottom up ideological review upon which to build a Progressive vision of an America we'd like to see in 50 years. Second... that we start a 50 year plan to finally bring democracy to the US... so we can move to a multi-party system. The two go hand in hand.

FG: "You can hate the DLC....say what you want...but they are implementing the correct strategy. They are consistent from the bottom - up, and they identify Democrats in office that promote their ideals and back them."

What I actually resent are those who have deluded themselves that our dysfunctional and anti-democratic political system is democracy at work... and work to perpetuate this lie. I'm sure the DLC is on that list... but so are the vast majority of Democrats.

[F.Gordon]

26. You personally? No.

I'm fairly certain we both want the same end-goal, we just part ways on who it to blame for why nothing gets done.

I guess I'm just as guilty as you are in that regards. You blame the Democratic Party.... I get defensive .... I blame the Progressive Movement. You go back to blaming the Democrats. Rinse and Repeat. Rinse and Repeat. Nothing gets done.

I'd like to see a 50 year plan shortened to 12 years. Anything that extends beyond an entire generation won't work because what is important in the immediate future may or may not be important in 50 years. Besides, I won't be around in 50 years.

You'd be wise to study the DLC. Not their positions, their issues, but how they operate. Their organization. I see so much now that I saw in the 60's and 70's. 100's of different progressive groups. Nothing getting done. Then the progressives get older... priorities change or they just give up.

Peace.
:hippie:

[ulTRAX]

29. is 50 years too long? depends

Is 50 years too long? It depends on what the ultimate goal is. Since I believe in democratic principles my goal is to bring democracy to our anti-democratic federal government. This would entail numerous amendments to abolish the EC... have run-off voting, out-law Gerrymandering, perhaps most importantly convert the Senate to a national parliament based on national party elections resulting in proportional representation. This is the only sure fire way to ever give 3ed parties a chance.

Needless to say there's plenty of smaller foundation stones that are a prerequisite to such reforms... and some might be obtainable in 10 years. Please see my post on first reforming state governments: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2162

[F.Gordon]

30. Ahhh...I see

If you'd stop bashing us old crusty Democrats you would see that we can work together .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=142x1367

I want third party involvement in government, but not with our winner take all system. And you're probably right, something like this could take an entire generation to put in place.

[ulTRAX]

31. if Democrats.....

I don't think I've ever "bashed" Democrats. I just have little respect for them and sometimes blunt honesty is what's needed to snap people out of their comas. I certainly wish that Democrats valued democracy enough to work for it... but the vast majority don't. They have given up on given up on progressive principles and substituted the dysfunctionality of the system as the new principle.

As for a transition taking a generation... we better get started. ;-)

[Redleg]

20. Good luck with that.

Sneer.

[ulTRAX]

25. good luck with what?

If you're going to join a thread, at least have something to add.

[Redleg]

27. Good luck with the third party thing. If it works perhaps I'll join.

LOL. I guess that doesn't constitute a real contribution to this thread either.

[ulTRAX]

28. you misunderstand

While I have no use for the Democrats beyond being the lesser of the evils... my approach is to introduce political/ideological reforms that will move the US to a multi-party system. Given the ideological resistance, I fully expect this could take 50 years.

I think this process could be helped by Progressives in the Democratic Party but I don't expect mainstream Democrats to have a clue why such reforms are important.

[Redleg]

32. I think you may be right but I think a lot of Dems do realize reform

is important. I just hope they understand reform to be in creating a more progressive party rather than a republican-lite party. It will take a lot of time but perhaps we are more motivated now that we have lost again.

[ulTRAX]

34. When I see the Democrats take a firm stand.......

Redleg wrote: "I think you may be right but I think a lot of Dems do realize reform is important. I just hope they understand reform to be in creating a more progressive party rather than a republican-lite party. It will take a lot of time but perhaps we are more motivated now that we have lost again."

I have to disagree. I think there's a knee-jerk tendency to believe Democrats are so progressive they'll agree to anything that sounds like a "reform". Yet my experience has been that most Democrats are loath to even question the anti-democratic nature of our federal system. When was the last time there was a serious attempt to abolish the Electoral College? Carter in 1976? Hillery mentioned it back in 2000. Is that it? The EC wasn't even an issue in 2004... and I bet most Dems partisans would have LOVED the EC if Kerry won Ohio yet lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. Partisans believe in Parties... not principles such as democracy.

When I see the Democrats take a firm stand for TRUE democratic reforms, I'll believe the Party has seen the light.

[Redleg]

39. Yes, but the party is people.

I know several Dems who do want to see real reform and a return to principles such as economic fairness, equal rights under the law, etc.

[ulTRAX]

41. Democrats are at war with their Progressives

Redleg wrote: "I know several Dems who do want to see real reform and a return to principles such as economic fairness, equal rights under the law, etc."

I'm sure there may be a few Progressives in the Democratic Party. Hell, I'm a flaming Progressive and I'm currently a Dem... not for long though. I only joined for some primary battles and a symbolic statement for the campaign. The real question is how can we move to a multi-party system where every voter can vote their conscience and expect some representation, where middle of the road Dems can be in a working coalition with Progressives instead of trying to sabotage the Progressive wing in the Democratic Party. The dynamics of elections can totally change if there's less emphasis on rushing to the middle.

Such reforms have to come from the Democratic Party but in its current state it's pretty devoid of the democratic values that must underlie such reforms. There has to be some ideological renewal. Which is why I proposed the Think Tank project.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Yes. By offering a themselves as a false "opposition" party.

They have bought into the "moderate" myth and now only offer token opposition to the reactionaries. In effect, they have become a party of panderers to the Republican agenda, offering only a watered down version of it as an "alternative".

[UpsideDownFlag]

36. touche. nt

[ulTRAX]

37. much of this is because...

Tierra_y_Libertad wrote: "Yes. By offering a themselves as a false "opposition" party. They have bought into the "moderate" myth and now only offer token opposition to the reactionaries. In effect, they have become a party of panderers to the Republican agenda, offering only a watered down version of it as an "alternative"."

Much of this may be due to Democrats adjusting to the dynamics of a dysfunctional political system instead of sticking to principles and trying to reform it. Soon all principles are watered down and everything is geared to winning elections even if the Party doesn't stand for much anymore.

[Endangered Specie]

33. I find the Democratic Party to be fairly welcoming to progressives.

especially in my local group in college, plus there are quite a few progressive dems on the national scale.

[ulTRAX]

35. you may be right... but.......

Democrats need those Progressives that might bolt for a true Progressive third party. That hardly means the Democratic Party ever intends to be Progressive.... at least in the broader spectrum of politics of the advanced industrial democracies.

[rman]

38. yet DLC says it will not let *their* party be hijacked by progressives

welcoming indeed

[ulTRAX]

40. Arrogance of many Dems

Many Dems seem to think they are OWED the votes of Progressives who have no choice but to lose everything with a third party or hold their nose and vote the lesser of the evils. We saw this arrogance in 2004 when so many Dems vilified Nader for daring to run. These people are absolutely devoid of basic democratic values such as the right of every citizens to run on a platform they believe in... and it's every person's right to vote their conscience and get some representation.

If there's EVER to be reforms that lead to a multi-party system that allows for such basic democratic rights, it's never going to come from the Right. Yet the Dems, the Party from which progressive social change SHOULD be originating, instead embraces a dysfunctional political system that for 220 years has denied citizens those basic rights. Worst, the Democrat Party is perpetuating this dysfunctional system by refusing to even raise these issues.

[President Jesus]

42. no, culture jihadists are who stand in the way

rule #1 in achieving victory: know thy enemy. I assure you, the evangelical taliban know who theirs is.

Sounds like you don't.

[ulTRAX]

43. you miss the point

I'm well aware that the Right most opposes Progressive reforms and have said numerous times such reforms must come from the Left... and that includes having support from Democratic Party.

The issue I'm raising is that the Democratic Party has so succumbed to the dysfunctional dynamics of our political system, it's now intellectually and morally bankrupt. It doesn't have deep principles or a vision of where they way to take America. They have a collection of constituency issues. Where the Democrats SHOULD be a force for truly progressive change, they are now a major force in perpetuating the dysfunctional system.

Given the current dysfunctionality of the political system, a Progressive third party will suffer the same fate as all the rest. Given the ideological and legal hurdles, the move to a multi-party system must be done in small steps.

I do NOT believe that just trying to get Progressives elected alone will accomplish much. I believe that progressive groups must support Progressive candidates who are willing to bring democratic reforms to the states... reforms such as proportional representation, provisions for run-off elections... etc. Only THOSE sorts of reforms will begin to build up independent third parties in preparation for reforming the federal government.

[Krupskaya]

45. Yes...and the opposite is true.

Progressives stand in the way of democratic, and Democratic, change.

[ulTRAX]

46. explain

I see support for democratic values as Progressive. But the so-called Democratic Party is AWOL on democracy. So the only thing Progressives stand in the way of is a further move to the Right.

[aloneinva]

47. We don't need to become republicallite

our cause is lost forever if we just keep taking it and going with the "winner". I voted for Dean even when he was sure to lose because HE is what he needed. He was a candidate of Destiny, He would have beaten bushie with easy going full out against the killing and on the ecomemy. Kerry was right there with bushie on almost everything, Kerry just tried to take te moment and be what Dean has always been.

Right now I'm looking for a party for hire next time arounf. I do have al lot of love for the green party for having enough guts to at least push for recounts where the election was stolen away from us!!!!