Power Play (Future of Dem Party--excellent!)

[janx]

The battle for the “soul of the Democratic Party” has begun, with the opening skirmishes over Howard Dean and reproductive rights.


http://www.alternet.org/story/20922/

The aftermath of an electoral defeat is never pretty. In 2004, all elements of the Democratic Party – moderates, old-fashioned liberals, progressives – came together to help John Kerry defeat George Bush. When that quest ended in ashes on Nov. 2, there were plenty of recriminations, and a whole lot of finger pointing. With the second consecutive loss for Democrats, it was bound to raise deeper questions about the party’s ideology and a larger struggle between starkly different visions for the future. This appears to be one of those times.

As the Democratic National Committee (DNC) gears up to select a new chairman on Feb. 10, the party finds itself caught up in a powerful tug-of-war over its principles and its platform.

On one side are the progressives, pushing for a bold new approach that includes adopting a populist agenda, a clear anti-war message and a real commitment to the grassroots. On the other side are members of the Beltway establishment – mostly represented by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) – who are clamoring for a more centrist/conservative platform that would embrace an aggressive, hawkish position toward the "clear and present danger” posed by global terrorism, while moving away from the party’s long-term commitment to a progressive social issues agenda, especially on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

The battle is being played out inside the Beltway in Washington, D.C., with articles in leading opinion journals being served up and volleyed like balls in a tennis match. The debate is beginning to escalate, and soon one can expect the media pundits to begin talking incessantly about "the struggle for the soul of the Democratic party."

(Much more at link!)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Dean for DNC Chairman.

Democrats have gone to the right after every loss and they keep on losing again and again.

:eyes:

We need to be a real alternative to the right wing. As for Bob Kerrey :puke:
we are tolerant of those who do NOT believe in abortion. Harry Reid is our leader in the Senate and Dennis Kucinich would make a great leader in the house.

[TexasSissy]

2. This story presents the two sides incorrectly, IMO.

It's clear that it's a progressive that wrote the article, since they present a skewed picture of the "other side," that being the more centrist one.

I disagree that the two sides are that black and white, or that there are just two sides. I disagree that the centrist group embraces an aggressive, hawkish position toward global terrorism. I disagree that the centrist group is moving away from the Dem. Party's long-term commitment to abortion rights or gay rights (note: gay marriage is not part of the "gay rights" issue as defined by the Dem. Party - that is a distinct and separate issue, on which neither party has taken an affirmative position ever).

It's hard to take an article seriously when it is so obviously slanted toward one side.

[msgadget]

3. I saw three sides represented in the article,

progressive, centrist and populist.

[leanin_green]

20. Let's not forget the disillusioned/disenfranchised side.

[msgadget]

29. Nope, can't forget them

because, based on what I read here, they're the largest portion right now.

[wyldwolf]

8. good accessment

you beat me to it.

[moggie12]

4. Please take pity and explain the terminology to me

I’m thoroughly confused by the terminology in the article that was attached. The author wrote, “If you are a progressive, a populist Democrat, someone who thinks moving the party to the center is a dead end in this political debate, then it may be time to step up and make yourself heard.”

Are progressive and populist the same thing, as he seems to be implying? I’m a “newbie” to this site as well as to some of the lingo and rhetoric. I’m pretty sure I’m a “populist”, but “progressive” I’m not so sure about (mainly because of some of the replies I got back to a few of my DU posts...).

In regard to “populist”, I take it the phrase to mean the old Andy Jackson populism, i.e., “we’re for the working guy, not the ‘money speculators’.” This fits me to a T, I think, because one of the things that bothers me most about the “New” Democrats is that they seem to have become captive to the Wall Street and Silicon valley crowd (it kills me that Democrats in Congress aren’t better regulating the hedge fund cowboys, not putting a stop to excessive stock option expensing, etc., etc.) So, if populism means not letting the rich guys unfairly grab all the money then, yes, I’m a populist. I’m assuming this is what Howard Dean meant when he was talking about taking the Party back from the corporate interests? If someone can point me to some website, book or whatever that can further explain just what the heck “populism” means these days or can give me their thoughts, I would greatly appreciate it (the Progress for America website doesn’t go into this).

Okay, so what about “progressive”? Just sticking to economic issues for the time being, what does “socially progressive” mean exactly? Does it mean you’re in favor of “social programs” such as Medicaid, Pell grants, universal health care, etc? I’m assuming “progressive taxation” fits in with being a progressive but is this something Centrists also are in favor of?? Can you be a progressive if you think Clinton’s welfare reform policy was needed or is that some kind of an unofficial “litmus test” that means you’re a Centrist? Again, if anybody can point me to some good articles or can give me their insight, I’d be much appreciative.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. I get the impression

that populism means something rather different in America to what it's used to mean here in the UK. I got in to quite a heated argument with someone here a month or two ago about it, and it turned out that we meant completely different things by it.

In the UK, populist is usually used as a derogatory term, to imply pandering to the lowest common denominator and offering bread-and-circuses policies that will win votes, but not actually do good. It's usually but not exclusively applied to right wing politicians and policies like reintroducing corporal punishment or leaving the EU.

I get the impression that in the US it's used to denote a brand of left-wing politics based around grassroots activism and a belief in the wisdom of the electorate - not a philosophy I entirely agree with, but by no means a bad one, and not really populist in the UK sense of the word, given the right-wing propensities of the US electorate.

[InvisibleBallots]

14. populism in the US is both "good" and "bad"

"Progressive populism" is the good, nice kind, while "right-wing" or "religious" or "conservative" populism is the bad, scary kind. The main idea of populism is grassroots involvment, and at least to me, preferably, the kind that is organized from the bottom level up.

I would say that Dean and Pim Fortuyn shared many similarities, and Dean's remark about "guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks" should be seen in that context. Dean would have won, and brought the Democrats a majority in Congress, if he had been specifically anti-immigration. I also believe he could have done it in a non-racist way.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Is there a continuous spectrum, do you think?

Or are all American populists fairly far left or far right?

If so, does that lend support to the claim that America is "polarised"?

[janx]

25. A populist can be either left or right--or in between.

In the U.S., it's a more general term that points to more power for the people. It's not tied to any one ideology.

[InvisibleBallots]

26. populist is always considered "far, far" something by corporate media

and the establishment of wealthy people. The fact that regular people get involved in the government is the thing that makes it "radical", whether it's left or right is more of a flavor.

[madfloridian]

13. Dean is now using only the word "reform".

He says things need to change from the ground up.

[Radical Activist]

15. The terms can mean different things to different people. My take:

Traditionally progressive has refereed to the far left, mostly on economic issues.
Wikipidia has a good entry on the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

You might also look at their entry on the US Progressive Party to see what kind of people have run for President as Progressives. Socialists and ultra-liberals were part of the last two Progressive party efforts.

More recently the term has been used differently by Democrats who want a term to use other than liberal since liberal has been so demonized. That takes away some of its distinct meaning. Even more recently I've heard Dean supporters make the term almost meaningless so they can call Dean a progressive even though he's a moderate. When you point out that Dean has a very moderate record, not a liberal one, they just pretend that progressive doesn't mean liberal, which has never been the case before.

Traditionally, populism was a rural agrarian movement. A good book on that is The Populist Moment:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195024176/ref=sib_rdr_dp/102-9684673-8145746

When the urban progressive and rural populist movements started to merge together in the late 1800's we had the early stages of what became the New Deal coalition. That was the basis of the Democratic Party base for decades until the DLC came along and sold out the party to corporate interests. We have been losing ever since.

Now, populist more often refers to anyone who appeals to the working class or family farmers, especially in the South and Midwest. The Republicans constantly used the term class warfare to describe and discourage economic populism. John Edwards, Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich were the candidates with the most class-conscious economic populist messages in the last campaign.

[moggie12]

31. Thank you so much for the info on "populism"

Finally, I understand bit better. I especially thank you for taking the time to provide the two links.

[necso]

5. I believe that the issue is

populism versus business-as-usual politics.

Populism is not right, center or left. Nor is it a uniform whole over the entire country -- if it actually reflects the concerns of the population(s) being represented. (Of course, this entails a certain amount of tolerance for differing viewpoints on certain issues long held dear by one group or another.)

But there are central issues in populism that are national ones. And to imply that populism is anti-war goes too far (the original article only leaves open such an interpretation through association); the American people are broadly in favor of measures that improve national security. It is just a question of what measures actually improve that security (in a cost-effective manner), with war being a last resort (at least when the issue is presented somewhat truthfully and rationally to the people).

The war in Iraq, which is costing us lives, gobbling up our national wealth, running down our armed forces and harming their morale, creating ever more "terrorists" and people that hate (and misperceive) us, weakening our alliances, and harming our national reputation, is not a measure which improves our national security -- rather, it gravely injures it.

Indeed, at this point, it is hard to argue that any (allied or friendly) nation's security is enhanced by the Iraq fiasco. (Of course, certain idiots believe that expanding the fiasco to encompass new battlefields would somehow improve the net effect -- but this is insane -- and a measure of a growing desperation.)

And it is to be expected that various groups will attempt to define populism as inline with the politics that they espouse, as a means of redirecting and redefining populism as some form of business-as-usual politics (specifically those politics defined by their own views and interests). The utility of such an approach is, of course, zero, and it is little more than an attempt to discredit populism and fall back on the traditional left-versus-right arguments that have brought us nothing but marginalization.

And characterizing Dr Dean (albeit indirectly) as some sort of superliberal seems a trifle farfetched to me. (But then, I would prefer to see Dr Dean continuing his grassroots efforts and not becoming a captive of the Party bureaucracy.) As a Presidential candidate, Dr Dean was not a resounding success, seemingly deserted by many of his supporters. However, as an organizer, inspiring people to become active in the Party, Dr Dean must be judged a success. And it is these sorts of grassroots efforts that we must continue, without falling into the trap of trying to define some uniform, all-encompassing, national agenda that will satisfy all elements of the Party and ensure both national and local success. (There probably isn't any such beast and arguing that there must be one is probably counterproductive.) Rather, we should work the grassroots, and let a national agenda emerge from that process (and from such original thinking as we can muster) and from the battles of the next Presidential primary.

Populism is about the people, and leading the people in new directions (in ways and words that they can understand), not about some force-fit with business-as-usual politics. -- And the words and forms of business-as-usual politics do us little good in this struggle.

The core issue in populism is not right versus left, but rather the extent to which populism reflects what is best for the people (as understood by their "leaders") versus what the people themselves think is best. This is a difficult problem and one that holds challenges for the future of populism within the Party. -- And there are also issues like civil rights, civil liberties, the rule of law, and the availability of individual educational and economic opportunities, that the Party must never turn its back on, regardless of the "will of the people".

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[paulk]

6. It's nowhere near that black and white

and like the poster upthread says - this article is too slanted and (I think) simplistic to be taken seriously.

This whole "progressives vs the DLC" thing has really got to stop.

[Ravenseye]

7. The Democrats DO need to move towards the Center.

If the Democractic party moves more to the center, they'll be moving to the Left. They're already a center-right party, not even a left party. A left party would openly be putting in constitutional amendments FOR gay marriage and universal health care and fighting for it instead of kinda sorta wella disagreeing with the more Far-Right party.

So yes. They need to move towards the center so they can move to the Left.

[Lostnote03]

10. Lawrence O'Donnell for Chair!!!!!n/t

[mandyky]

11. The Dem party has a choice - elect Dean as DNC Chair or

he can run again for Prez in 08, maybe even as an Independent.

[madfloridian]

12. This shows how Bob Kerry twists what he knows Dean stands for.

Kerrey is smart enough to know that Dean is not saying "go left". and the party is playing word games with our future.

SNIP.."''Which Howard Dean are we talking about?'' Kerrey asked. ''If we're talking about the Howard Dean who was governor of Vermont, I would say ‘Fine.’ But if it's presidential candidate Dean, I would say probably ‘No.’ The committee has got to figure out how to keep people like me in it. If he's firing people up and he's saying we've got to swing to the left – it's harder to swing along with him. And hell, I live in New York City. I don't live in Nebraska anymore.''

Bob Kerrey totally misuses the term. He KNOWS Dean is not doing that.

SNIP...What Kerrey sees as left-liberal, Dean sees as a wake-up call for the party not to go rightward. ''Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party that the way to win is to be more like Republicans,'' Dean said in his first major post-election address. “If we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. We cannot win by being Republican-lite.''

[paulk]

22. How is Kerrey twisting anything?

He's saying what he believes - that if the perception of Dean and his movement is a swing to the left - and it's hard not to arrive at that conclusion based on his campaign ("the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party - which means the liberal wing") - then he won't get people like Bob Kerrey, a conservative Democrat from a conservative state, to go along with him. Which is why Kerrey doesn't support Dean as DNC chair. That seems a perfectly reasonable position for Kerrey to take.

[janx]

24. He's basing his argument on his interpretation of

"The democratic wing of the Democratic party." He is assuming that the "democratic wing" means the most liberal wing.

He might not be doing this intentionally.

[madfloridian]

27. You don't think he should try to separate perception from reality?

Or would that be too much to ask of a party leader? We are talking about the future of our country, and Kerrey can not even take time to examine what a candidate really stands for?

That is a sad commentary on the party.

[paulk]

28. well, that is one of the fundamental problems with Howard Dean

there is a lot of confusion about what he stands for.

"We're talking about the future of the country?"

??????????

The country will end if Howard Dean doesn't get the DNC chair? I don't understand what you're trying to say.


And why is it a sad commentary on the party? Bob Kerrey isn't the party. He's just one person.

[madfloridian]

30. "they can call us liberal or whatever they want"..."go forward"

You misinterpreted my response, that is not what I meant. Yes the future of our party and our country is at stake....but he is not the answer. We are the answer, the people. We need to have two parties again.

http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/DeanInterview041230.htm

HD: .... I think that what the DLC simply represents is there ARE people in the party who are, who do believe that “republican lite” is the way to go, and I don’t think that is the way to go and I made that very clear.

Q Amen, brother.

HD: You know, I don’t think we should dwell on that., I really think we should , instead of worrying about that there’s some other groups that want to move to the right, I think we ought to keep going straight forward. I think we are the moderate folks. They can tag us with the word “liberal” or whatever they want, and there’s nothing wrong with “liberal”, believe me, but I don't think we should pay attention to that any more. That’s one thing I would do differently if I were ,if I had to go back and do it over again, I wouldn’t bother with the DLC or the retrograde(s) , their forces in the party, I would try to move forward on our own agenda. You get sucked in to letting somebody else frame the agenda, that’s a problem. We shouldn’t let the Republicans do it nor should we let the DLC or anybody else like that do it....."END SNIP

The problem is the labeling...it just can't be done anymore.

[orpupilofnature57]

16. The catch word is PROGRESSIVE, TAKES THE SOUL OUT OF THE STRUGGLE

Appeasement didn't work in Europe, it will(I HOPE) never work in the land of LIBERTY

[Clarkie1]

17. We need both!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"an aggressive, hawkish position toward the "clear and present danger” posed by global terrorism" (minus the neo-con policies)

AND

"long-term commitment to a progressive social issues agenda, especially on issues such as abortion and gay rights"

So I guess in this batte between the "beltway" and the "progressives" I'm somewhere in the middle? A pragmatic progressive?

[orpupilofnature57]

23. You see! you used THAT word twice in a different text. Its ambiguous

[madfloridian]

21. Dean has pointedly been using "reform".

It is a good solid word. I love it.

[Hugin]

32. Seems to me...

A paraphrase of that article would be...

"We eat our wounded."

Not true of me.