Is someone really a Democrat if they believe in privatization?

[yurbud]

Poll question: Is someone really a Democrat if they believe in privatization?

Many Democrats support privatization or what are euphemistically called "public-private partnerships" which means a private entity takes over a public service.

Here in California, we got a taste of what that leads to with the electricity blackouts and blackmail by energy traders a few years ago.

In other countries, the same thing is done with water. A few local (or even national) officials are bribed and suddenly the price of water skyrockets while access and quality plummet.

Whatever someone thinks about abortion, gay rights, or gun control, can they really be a Democrat if they believe in giving this kind of power to private parties?

[Skinner]

1. I am getting really tired of the "who is the Real Democrat" thing.

The United States is a two-party system. In a country of 300 million people, each major party is going to include a very wide range of people with a number of different opinions.

[yurbud]

3. should the tent be so big you don't know what you are getting

when you vote for a party?

It seems to like it's worth discussing whether its good for democracy to have both parties pursuing ideas so harmful to the common good, not just here but abroad.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. Then don't vote for the party

Vote for the individual. If privatization is important enough to you personally that it would make you a single issue voter, it's your right to vote for someone else. That would be, imo, a stupid choice, but it is your right.

Don't get me wrong. I can't think of a single privatization proposal I favor. And I think most Democrats tend to be against privatization. We are the party which generally believes that government exists to promote the common good. Like it says in the Constitution.

But if we keep trying to purge the party of everyone who disagrees with us on every hot button issue, we will never become the majority party again.

[yurbud]

19. this is the opposite of a hot button issue, it is an economic fundamental

that will affect the quality of your life even if you don't know what it is.

I was giving a college final one day when a rolling black out hit, and the kids finished their essays crowded under the dim emergency light. That blackout wasn't an accident, but a man-made shortage designed to blackmail us.

Now imagine that happening with water.

That's the future.

[Jai4WKC08]

28. And abortion is a fundamental of personal freedom

And protecting the environment is a fundamental of world survival. And safeguarding our civil liberties is fundamental to our constitutional form of government. And and and...

Every one of us can point to issues that are more important to us than most of the others. For some, a single issue outweighs all of the others combined.

In a two-party system, our party must include as many members of as many divergent opinions as possible in order to complete with the other guys. That may be a serious weakness in our system, but it's a fact of life. It means we all have to work extra hard at tolerance of those who are basically on our side but who have different opinions and priorities than our own.

It means the centrist/DLC-type Democrats should not try to marginalize the activist base, but it means the base should not try to purge those who are less progressive either.

[yurbud]

29. Do you think that screwing other people and even Americans so

a handful of people can profit is good for the country as a whole?

Why do you think leftist populists are winning election after election in South America and their militaries refuse to follow our orders now?

The choice there is stark: either abandon neoliberalism and deal with the people as human beings, or work to overthrow, assassinate their wildly popular leaders, or invade their countries.

We've already tried two out of those three on Hugo Chavez. I don't want my country killing guys like him and replacing them just because some corporation got their panties in a knot.

[Jai4WKC08]

35. Whoa! Hold on there...

Maybe you need to re-read my first reply. I specifically said I don't support privitization. So why are you asking if I think it's good? Of course not.

I can't imagine how Chavez comes into this thread. It's about privatization and who's a "real Democrat," right? There's not a single Democrat that I know of, neoliberal (which I am not) or otherwise, who advocates, or even supports, an attempt to overthrow or assassinate Chavez, or invade Venuzuela.

You must be confusing me with Pat Robertson. :sarcasm:

[yurbud]

36. apologies for missing your first comment--any defend Chavez?

Any senator come out in his defense?

Chavez comes into this because what our government is doing to him is what happens to any leader who resists neoliberalism and privatization of their country.

In Britain and New Zealand, the supposedly left parties were taken over by those who favor this stuff, and the people are left without a voice in a major party on economic and foreign policy issues.

[Jai4WKC08]

39. Ok, apology accepted. Please disregard that part of my reply below

Chavez is pretty hard to defend. A military dictator is a bad thing, whether he's on the left or right.

I do agree with you that the current administration would like to take him out because he resists their economic agenda. That's privitization, but it's a whole lot of other things too. And because he sits on a helluva lot of oil.

I'll have to apologize for being another dumb American who doesn't know as much about what's happening in Britain and New Zealand as she probably should. I didn't see much neoliberalism when I lived in Germany, but that was in the 1980s.

But out of sincere curiosity... why did the people in Britain re-elect Tony Blair's party if not for economic issues? They sure don't seem to be happy with what he's doing in Iraq.

[Ken Burch]

56. Chavez isn't a dictator. He's repeatedly won free and fair elections.

Those who oppose him in Venezuela don't give a shit about democracy. They just want the rich back in power.

That's the choice in that country, Hugo Chavez or the triumph of greed and arrogance.

And as for this country, it is clear that privatization has become nothing more than another form of kickback and political payoff and has never been to the good of working people.

[yurbud]

30. abortion affects some people a couple of times in their life...

neoliberalism affects whether you have water when you turn on the tap, and whether a government can spend money on education and social programs.

It doesn't speak well for Wesley Clark that you are defending a policy that harms people all over the world.

[Jai4WKC08]

37. Where did I defend privatization?

I said I'm against it. I specifically said that most Democrats are against it: "We are the party which generally believes that government exists to promote the common good. Like it says in the Constitution." I have heard Clark state that as a basic Democratic value.

But I beg to differ with you about abortion. If a woman can't get one when she needs it, it most certainly does affect her whole life.

[Ken Burch]

54. Problem is, your approach sound like the nightmare Nineties thing

of saying "we can't ask ANYTHING of Clinton, it's enough to elect SOMEBODY WHO CALLS HIMSELF A DEMOCRAT".

Why should we even BE a party if we hold people who are elected under our banner to no standards whatsoever?

The Republicans never compromised on anything that mattered after 1980.

If they can win on principle, we can too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. My town used to run its own garbage collection service.

The service was contracted out to the service that serves the surrounding area. It saved taxpayers lots of money and increased recycling.

The town also has a 5000 acre forest, instead of hiring loggers and buying log trucks directly, that service is contracted out.

Are these examples of unacceptable fundamental encroachments on our quality of life? I think not, therefore the answer to your question is "it depends". Privatization is occasionally appropriate, but not for necessary and and not easily replaceable services.

[rman]

70. You make a lot of sense

But privitization-as-we-know-it - for the most part - isn't very sensible. That's what the opposition to privitizatin is about.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Amen!

[yurbud]

32. I will vote for any Dem over any Republican in general election until then

We need to hold Dems feet to the fire or they will listen to business interests more than us.

Until we get clean money or some similar reform, we have a disadvantage: the wealthy and business get attention from pols because of their donations. The only way we can compensate is being louder, persistent, and in ever increasing numbers.

[Neil Lisst]

34. Ditto! It's a friggin' buffet line. Just pass the stuff you don't like,

and let everyone take the stuff they like. I hate asperagus in butter, but I never feel the urge to tell others not to eat it.

We are in the minority at the top levels of the federal government, and any Democrat who thinks they own the definition of what constitutes a DEMOCRAT has already lost the definition contest. We are everyone who feels they don't have a place in the Republican party, PERIOD.

[DUHandle]

40. Voting record is the only way to determine who a Democrat is

And whoever brought up the Big Tent thing is right on the money.

[Virginia Dare]

2. I put other...

I don't think privatization should be a wedge issue for the Democrats per se. There might be some situations where it makes sense, though I can't think of any right now. I think the big problem is that we've swung way too far towards privatization and the Democrats need to shine a light on that fact.

[BlackHeart]

4. You didn't really define Privitazation

what do you mean, SS, the electric utility or GM?

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. I DON't believe in privatization -- but I am sure there are many Democrats

who do.

The Democratic Party has always had a wide range of opinion. In the 1960's the party of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern was also the party of Lester Maddox and George Wallace.

If it is wrong for those in the right-wing of the party to call progressives names like; "far-left" or "fringe" -- it is also wrong for progressives say that they are not Democrats.

[guidod]

110. Tell me one Democrat that doesn't.

[beyurslf]

6. I work for a company that is the "privatized" contractor in my state.

Foster care and adoption are privatized here. I work a non-profit (not corporate america). Children's stay in state custody has dropped dramatically since privatization and fewer kids are pulled out multiple times. Yes, it was rough at first and many of the companies that started the contracts went bankrupt (including mine). Most did not survive that but mine did. Now, the contracts save the state money, the contractors meet their financial goals, and kids needs are met.
Next year, SRS (our version of DHS in most states) won't be involved at all after a child is removed from the home and placed in state custody. We will be the only contact with the family, children, and the court.

All the talk on here about who is a real Democrat and that I must not be--simply because I believe that privatization is not the worst thing that can happen--is really stupid. I believe we as a society have a moral obligation to help the kids who are most in need in our communities, and to give them every opportunity for success. If we do this through privatization, then so be it.

[Dr.Phool]

9. My wife does the exact job in Jeb Bush's Privatized Florida

And it's a nightmare. These hard-working, dedicated caseworkers are underpaid, overworked, and they have a high rate of turnover. The Department of Children and Families was underfunded to begin with. Then it was privatized, turned over to non profits. The first year they barely scraped by. The next year it was turned over to another non-profit, and the budget was cut. After a round of layoffs and pay cuts they managed to scrape by. This inspired Jeb's minions to cut their budget by another $5 million.

State guidelines say each case worker should have no more than 15 cases. They're handling approx 45 each now. They just went through another round of lay-offs. People are putting in 12 hour days with no extra compensation. No pension plans, pay for your own healthcare, and lousy wages.

Now spread that scenario to schools, prisons, etc., Welcome to Florida!

The government does have legitimate duties, and they should not be privatized, because profit will always take precedence over people and service.

[Bridget Burke]

13. The Texas privatization plan is having problems.

The Center for Public Policy Priorities supports the difficult decision the Texas Health and Human Services Commission made Wednesday to delay for at least 30 days the next phase of a new system that uses privately run call centers to help people apply for food stamps, Medicaid, and TANF.

Since the January launch of pilots in Travis and Hays counties, the new system has been marked by technical difficulties, staffing shortages, and inadequate training of private call center staff. These problems have delayed services to clients, caused thousands of children to lose their health insurance, and frustrated both clients and staff.

Lots more info here: www.cppp.org/research.php?aid=516

[itzamirakul]

67. Face it, you approve of privatization for selfish reasons...you are

benefitting from a particular privatized business. Well, let's see how you might feel if that privatized job had knocked you out of your job (doing the same work) at the state office of DHS. Sort of like people feel when their jobs are outsourced.

While I don't blame you for being happy to have a job, you need to realize that you probably took another American's job.(OK, stuff happens...) And while the government did not make a profit while running such agencies as yours, the private company for whom you are working IS making a profit.

You spoke of bankruptcy...well, I doubt that they could have recovered if not quietly funded by some rich backer.

So, basically, YOU have a reason for supporting privatization. It is paying your bills, right now. But now, if you happen to LOSE that job for any reason.....well...we'll see how you feel about privatization then.

[nickshepDEM]

7. Depends on the industry.

[stray cat]

8. No they have to agree to an exact platform decided by me!

[yurbud]

25. how often are privatization and deregulation NOT result of corruption?

This should be in line with Democrats "culture of corruption" meme about GOP, if they have the balls to do it.

[adwon]

11. Pretty biased options

I don't really see the point of offering a poll if the options are going to be so skewed.

[Ken Burch]

68. I take it, then, that you are more or less pro-privatization.

Can you point to any instances in this country(or anywhere in the world)where privatization has had positive or progressive consequences?

Or, for that matter, any American politician who has managed o be progressive on any meaningful issues while supporting privatization or other conservative economic views(such as support for what Corporate America calls "free trade")?

[adwon]

80. If you like

I just found the "options" to be needlessly antagonistic. The OP wasn't interested in sparking a genuine discussion, but on castigating those who disagree on a particular issue. If that was the point of this forum, I would expect it to be named Crossfire.

[Ken Burch]

101. Ok, I stand corrected.

I've been sparing with MrBenchley.

That has an effect on people.

Didn't mean to attack you.

[depakid]

12. When California "deregulated" energy in the 90's

and literally invited Enron and others to steal from its citizens (despite being warned by several progressive organizations what would happen) the bill went through with almost no public debate- and was supported by an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the legislature.

Stupidity and poor understanding of economics isn't the province of one political party.

[Bridget Burke]

14. Los Angeles did OK during the "energy crisis"....

Because the city's power has been publicly held for a long time. Mostly due to the labor movement.

On its own, as well as in coalition with other groups, the labor movement marshaled its rank and file on behalf of public power. It turned out hundreds of poll-watchers and canvassers on election day. The pro-bond unions never did win over the dissenting faction; rather, they overwhelmed it at the polls. On May 8, 1914, L.A.'s voters emphatically endorsed the power bonds by a hefty 71%-29%, with the city's working-class wards providing by far the largest margin of victory.

Within a year, Los Angeles sold its bonds and began buying out the three investor-owned utilities. The first public power flowed into local homes and businesses in 1916. Two decades later, the DWP eliminated the last of its private competition and consolidated the working-class legacy of kilowatt and water socialism that has served the city so well in the current energy crisis.

www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-06.htm

[depakid]

16. I lived there at the time

and that guy with the southern drawl who ran DWP was one slick operator. He wasn't fooled for one second about the energy deregulation "plan" or what was going on in the spot markets.

And since we were on DWP- no rolling blackouts in my neighborhood... in fact, as I recall, DWP made a tidy profit from some of the other entities involved.

To this day, it baffles me why so many Dems went along with that boondoggle.

[yurbud]

22. I lived in LA county with DWP but worked in Ventura county where they

got it.

It was a pretty stark difference and put a major strain on our school's finances.

[yurbud]

23. It would be nice if this was the province of one party so we could

vote against it.

[izzybeans]

17. I'm sure there is room for them.

As long as they are prepared to explain how it relates to core moral issues such as equality, liberty, and fair-play. If they can reconcile exploiting public goods for private profit with the durable inequality created by this same "free market" then sure come on in. Otherwise there are other parties for that.

Two party systems will not work win both parties are united on such a destructive issue. Community values and solidarity will go the way of the dodo birds.

All we'll have left is our strip malls, inflated utility prices, and increasing debt. The next spiral downward is to turn to blaming outsiders for the troubles that our own social system creates for us. We'll be a bunch of fragmented and disconnected privates, with no public trust. And we'll be pointing the finger away from the culprit the whole time. The limited spaces we do have to sustain community solidarity will become fragmented as such. Meanwhile the voices in the wilderness will ask why? Why not keep the public free from private monopoly? Why not trust your neighbor? Don't you see your 'privatization' drives us apart and buttresses the status inequalities we all desire to erase?

So as long as we are able to reconcile a few contradictions, I'll say this tent can find room. But only if there is an attempt to reconcile them. Because privatization may not in theory violate liberal values, it just happens to do so in practice. Because once it occurs, we relinquish public control to corporate governance where there is no democratic process. That would be my basis of acceptability. Fundamentalist free-marketers need not apply. I prefer my theory begin with the people.

[Neil Lisst]

18. didn't we learn from the Salem trials witch hunts don't work?

big tent!!

[yurbud]

20. read up on neoliberalism and ask yourself if it causes terrorism and

the tide of illegal immigrants coming here.

[Neil Lisst]

33. no thanks, I've already been to school.

The topic is DO YOU THINK IT'S YOUR JOB TO RIP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY UP WITH NONSENSE LITMUS TESTS?

I said NO, it's my job to keep the party together.

As for your non sequitur, who cares?

[yurbud]

47. If you don't know the difference between narrow litmus tests and

underlying principles of policy, you're going to fall for every propaganda pitch to sell a war that comes along.

Do you think policies like this might have something to do with people being out of jobs here and good jobs going overseas, or worse, corporations importing foreign workers to work for sub-American wages on H-1 visas?

Do you understand the difference between issues that affect some people some of the time and those that affect us all the time on the most basic survival level?

Go ask somebody in Central America or South America how peripheral this issue is.

In addition, in case you didn't notice, neoliberalism looks a hell of a lot like what Bush is doing to us--running up huge deficits to give money to cronies while demanding austerity for social programs.

The name of a political party should mean more than the name of a football team, it should stand for a set of ideas.

Almost any Democrat is going to be better than almost any Republican, but if it's just a little better we've only slowed our descent into the Third World, not reversed it.

[Neil Lisst]

48. I know the difference between a Democrat and a demagogue

I know the difference between a Democrat and a demagogue.

I'm a Democrat, and I don't use your litmus tests - yours or anyone else's.

You have a vision of the Democratic party that would get about 5% of the vote, not 51%.

[yurbud]

51. isn't the demagogue the one who tries to get votes without worrying

about substance?

This is more long term, strategic vision and underlying principles.

You seem to be confusing that with catchphrases used to lure the rubes into the tent so the pol is free to do whatever he wants once elected.

[Ken Burch]

99. Neil, we don't HAVE to campaign as if it goes without saying

that the majority of the voters will always be conservative. We don't need to act anymore as if its shameful to be progressive and idealistic, like we did in the Nineties. Try freeing your mind a bit.

[Ken Burch]

57. As history has shown, electing non-progressive Democrats means

Electing Democrats who end up stopping Democratic legislation and causing Democratic defeats.

[wyldwolf]

65. A few examples of this are in order, I believe... So let's see them.

[Ken Burch]

66. Not a problem

We start with the non-progressive wing of the Democratic party that used its committee chair for decades to block passage not only of any meaningful civil rights legislation
but also the passage of an antilynching law.

Then there the non-progressive Democrats who refused to vote to sustain Harry Truman's veto of the Taft-Hartley Act.

And the non-progressives who went along with HUAC and Joe McCarthy.

And who wouldn't let the party win the 1968 election becaused they loved the war in Vietnam more than they cared about the War on Poverty.

And who lowered themselves to deserting the party in 1972 to sentence the country to another term of Nixon.

And who abandonned the last tattered scraps of their humanity to help Reagan waste billions of dollars on tax cuts for the rich, a completely unjustified nuclear arms buildup and the arming of bandits, torturers and murderers in Central America in the 1980's and who still(Hi Joe and Hillar)cheerlead for the slaughter campaign in Iraq.

The "Democrats" who are guilty of the above basically stopped being Democrats. In fact, they stopped being civiilized human beings.

They were, and are, of no use to this party.

[wyldwolf]

86. Years? Names?

What you're trying to do here is project the failings of the "progressive wing" on the rest of the party.

The progressive wing abandoned Truman.

The progressive wing abandoned the party in 1968, then lost decisively in 1972.

[Ken Burch]

89. The years and names aren't THAT important

But a few...

Taft-Hartley was 1947, of course.
If all Democrats had voted to sustain Truman's veto
Taft-Hartley would have died. You would, I hope, accept that
the passage of Taft-Hartley was a tragedy for all working Americans.

And it is not true that "progressives abandoned Truman". Yes, the Progressive Party did run Henry Wallace, the man who should never have been dumped as vice president, when Truman was in the process of abandoning the New Deal. But millions of progressive voters came back to the Democratic ticket when Truman moved left in response.

In 1968, progressives didn't abandon the party, the party did everything it could in Chicago to make them leave. Clearly, the country had turned against the war by Chicago, but the option of supporting peace was suppressed brutally in that convention. There was no good reason to treat the doves(in and outside the convention)so roughly.

Four years later, when those same doves had worked honorably and decently to bring the party back to life,
the establishment wing, who had no reason to destroy McGovern's chances, childishly walked away as a block.
Nothing had been done to them in '72 to justify this.

In the 1980's the majority of the voters stauchly opposed Reagan's nuclear buildup and his support of the reactionary government of El Salvador and the bandit Contra army in Nicaragua. If all Democratic members of Congress had defended Democratic principles rather than a third of them voting for every weapon Ronnie ever wanted, the lives of tens of thousands of Cenntral Americans would have been
saved. I hope you'll agree that votes of non-progressive
Democrats in support of Reagan's wars were a tragic mistake.

And, of course, virtually every non-progressive Democratic Senator and Congressmember in 1993 and 1994, for their valiant work in saving the American people fromm the scourge of accessible and easily affordable universal health care. Thanks guys, couldna done it without you.


Names, of course, include(for various periods) Congressman Rankin(chair of HUAC in Democratic years)Senator McCarran of Nevada, Senator Bilbo, Senator Russell,, Senator Stennis, the first Senator Dodd, Scoop Jackson (The Senator from Boeing), Congressan Mica of Florida(who let all sorts of Central American military funding out of committee by voting with Republicans, whom he later crossed the aisle to join)and oh, so many others, including our beloved "Holy War Joe" Lieberman, who today gleefully defends the continued deaths of innocent Iraqis and American troops.

Clearly, a thoroughly progressive and moral Democratic Party would have been stronger and more worthwhile.

[wyldwolf]

90. well, sure they are

you said,

As history has shown, electing non-progressive Democrats means electing Democrats who end up stopping Democratic legislation and causing Democratic defeats.

you have yet to demonstrate this.

In post 66, you claim "the non-progressive wing" of the party used its committee chair for decades to block passage not only of any meaningful civil rights legislation but also the passage of an antilynching law.

What you fails to acknowledge was that this was mainly the Dixiecrats. Certainly you aren't implying that they were the only "non-progressives" in the party?

Then, you use Harry Truman as an example yet Truman is a prime example of the "non-progressive" wing of the party. In fact, the "progressives" of the day left the party because of Truman. Yes, they did abandon him. Progressives voted for Henry Wallace.

* Truman never never abandoned the new deal. Link? Proof? Fantasy?

In 1968, the progressives DID abandon the party.

The progressives abandoned JFK.

If you'd like to discuss how the "progressives" have caused the party damage with their "my way or the highway" mentality one more time, I'd be more than happy to. However, this time I will press you harder for sources and links. I know how you hate that.

[Ken Burch]

95. "the progressives abandoned JFK"?

Say what? When did THAT happen?

Also, about 90% of the people who were planning to vote for Henry Wallace did come back to Truman. In case you didn't notice, they provided the margin of victory. Despite their return, Truman launched a completely unjustified attack on "subversives". That is, the subversives who put him over the top.

And you know perfectly well that, after Chicago, the Democratic Party had no right to ask progressives to continue to support it.
Despite that, a lot of them did come back. George McGovern campaigned all over the country for Humphrey. Even McCarthy, despite the contempt his delegates were treated with in Chicago, endorsed Humphrey in the end. You do admit that the party was wrong to reject the peace plank that year, don't you? You can't really argue that progressives OWED Humphrey their support.

Former Iowa Senator John Culver's biography of Henry Wallace provides all the necessary proof that Truman, between 1945 and 1946, veered sharply to the right. He was no longer fighting for FDR's goal of "Freedom From Want". Truman moved left and became electable again because of the Wallace challenge. Because of that, he fought for national health insurance(your wing of the party stopped that) and because of that Truman accepted Hubert Humphrey's civil rights plank at the 1948 convention, when he would never have accepted it had he been leading in the polls.

And Truman, himself, is actually a mixed figure.

He was good on some things, bad on others. He never needed to cave to the red-baiters. But he did veto Taft-Hartley.

And as to sourcing, I've provided it repeatedly only to have you reject it in every instance. There is no sourcing that any human being could provide that would ever satisfy you, even though you know I'm telling the truth.

[wyldwolf]

105. See, there's another little piece of party history you're unaware of.

The "progressives" backed Adlai Stevenson, who refused to give Kennedy the nominating speech. And Kennedy actually ran AWAY from the "progressives" of the party.

Also, about 90% of the people who were planning to vote for Henry Wallace did come back to Truman. In case you didn't notice, they provided the margin of victory. Despite their return, Truman launched a completely unjustified attack on "subversives". That is, the subversives who put him over the top.

Another baseless claim. And one Truman himself would have disagreed with. Truman himself said he was glad to have won without the leftwing's support. "Truman - Years of Trial and Hope"

Any sources stats for your "claim?"

I would expect a biography of Henry Wallace to claim that Truman "veered right." I would suspect most Wallace supporters did, too, which is why they abandoned Truman. But since you have obviously read the biography you speak of, quote a few facts from it to support your claim. I suspect, though, you're parrotting someone's fabrications and revisionist history.

And as to sourcing, I've provided it repeatedly only to have you reject it in every instance.

Perhaps we have a difference of opinion on what sourcing is, then. Show me some links and quotes from reference works to support your claims. THAT is what I consider sourcing, not hearsay and imagination.

[Ken Burch]

112. Well, I did actually know about the "Draft Stevenson" movement

at the 1960 convention, but I didn't think that you could actually call it "abandoning" for people within the Democratic party to oppose the nomination of someone who hasn't actually been nominated.

Then again, that draft effort actually failed miserably, with most liberals coming back to JFK in the end to stop LBJ from being nominated.

liberals NEVER broke with JFK after he was elected, though.

And my statement about progressives coming back to Truman is based on the fact that Henry Wallace's poll ratings collapsed in the summer and fall of 1948. A number of observers, including Oregon senator Wayne Morse(then still a Lafollette Progressive and a Republican)predicted that Wallace might win 10 million votes. In the end, Wallace received about 1 million.
And Truman DID move leftwards(at least on domestic issues)in response to the Wallace challenge, announcing his "Fair Deal" proposals at that time.
If Truman had stayed liberal after winning in 1948, rather than trying to coopt the "Red Scare", the Democratic Party would have, in my view, retained its popularity and possibly even avoided the rout of 1952.

[wyldwolf]

120. He was in on it

Stevenson said he wouldn't run for the nomination but would accept a draft (wink wink, nudge nudge.)

I didn't think that you could actually call it "abandoning" for people within the Democratic party to oppose the nomination of someone who hasn't actually been nominated.

The nomination is typically pretty well in the bag at the time of the convention. As it was for Kennedy who had won most of the primaries. Yet the Stevenson people were still trying to flip the nomination on the convention floor based on a Stevenson speech that all but begged "nominated me instead." Not unheard of, but still a manuever designed to essentially rob the primary voters of their choice.

liberals NEVER broke with JFK after he was elected, though.

Again, you're wrong. The party liberals, and Stevenson, felt that he deserved to be Secretary of State. JFK offered the UN Ambassadorship, a post that Stevenson resented as "beneath his dignity." The party liberal threatened a "revolt." Robert F. Kennedy, Thirteen Days (New York, 1969)

Liberal broke with JFK again over his selection of LBJ as VP.

And my statement about progressives coming back to Truman is based on the fact that Henry Wallace's poll ratings collapsed in the summer and fall of 1948.

You are always quoting poll numbers but you never provide evidence of these numbers. That might work with some people. It does sound impressive.

Wallace did turn off many voters because of his stance on communism - but that is the very stance that the left was supporting him for. It is doubtful they rejoined Truman over that being that that was the reason they left Truman.

Now, where are the sources and links you claim to have?

[Ken Burch]

125. You're using a pretty rigid definition of "walking out"

Do you really mean that any public criticism of an incumbent Democratic president by other Democrats is "walking out"?

According to Arthur Schlesinger jr, in A THOUSAND DAYS, JFK did not, in fact, go into the convention with the nomination assured. LBJ was still trying hard to defeat JFK, and a lot of people OTHER than liberals say Kennedy, before the nomination, as a lightweight, irregardless of his views on the issues.

It goes without saying that all the liberals would have worked for JFK had he lived to seek reelection, and that's what really matters as far as party loyalty.

It wasn't "walking out" to say that Stevenson was more deserving of the Secratary of State position than Dean Rusk. Indeed, thousands of young Americans, and a million Vietnamese might be alive today if someone other than Rusk, whose main qualification was mindless stubbornness and an absurd belief that any left-of-center political forces in the Third World should be treated as communist and rooted out by brute force. And when Stevenson had the ridiculous confrontation with Cuba during the October Missile Crisis, we can clearly say that he was forced to abandon his dignity.

I'm going to private message you regarding my search for poll numbers.

[wyldwolf]

126. "walking out?"

Have I used those words?

It goes without saying that all the liberals would have worked for JFK had he lived to seek reelection, and that's what really matters as far as party loyalty.

I'll quote you on that next time you start or take part in a Democrat-bashing thread.

[Ken Burch]

127. Well, I didn't say that every Democrat has to support EVERY

Democratic incumbent to prove that he or she is loyal to the party. It wasn't automatically disloyal, for example, to launch the "dump Johnson" movement. Millions of Democrats had become convinced that the war in Vietnam had to be stopped as quickly as possible, that that war was poisoning the country and sapping the resources needed to fight our domestic problems.
They were expressing loyalty to the ideals of the Democratic Party, ideals that, as they saw it, were far more important than the survival of any particular individual.

But there is no basis to say that the liberals who were critical of JFK were disloyal to the party or that they would have been opposed to JFK's reelection.

And come one, wyldwolf, it's not "Democrat-bashing" simply to criticize incumbent Democratic politicians. Leave that kind of talk to Benchley.

[wyldwolf]

128. So we pick and choose?

...and declare any Democrat unworthy of our support a Dino or some other nonsense?

... or any Democrat who believes in privatization - as is the case in THIS thread?

Or any number of other heretic defining issues?

[Ken Burch]

130. Obviously, we make distinctions.

Are you really saying that, once elected, no Democrat should EVER face criticism or dissent from within the party?

That would have meant that the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts would never have been introduced, let alone passed, since it took pressure from below and outside to get our leaders to move on them.

And that would have meant that U.S. troops would STILL be fighting and dying in Vietnam, for all we know, since our leadership(in both parties)would probably never have let that war end of their own volition.

And perhaps privitization is an extreme example, but the party has to expect SOMETHING from those it elects. Otherwise, why even call it a party?

And, in the final analysis, it is unhealthy for our party to leave its grass roots, its activist base, its heart and soul, out in the cold as far as policy and ideas are concerned.

Presidents, Senators and Congressmembers are officeholders, not popes. We should never treat them as infallible. Otherwise, they start believing that maybe they are, and trust me, you don't want to go there.

[wyldwolf]

131. On the contrary

Are you really saying that, once elected, no Democrat should EVER face criticism or dissent from within the party?

No. I am saying that once elected, anyone who constantly criticizes Democrats based on pet issues, declaring him/her a Dino in one breath then a true patriot in the next based on single votes are litmus-driven purists.

We get a lot of false assumption on what a "Democratic position" should and shouldn't be with no regard to pre-1972 party history, calls, for purges, etc.

We get a lot of that here, and you are always more than happy to join in.

And perhaps privitization is an extreme example, but the party has to expect SOMETHING from those it elects. Otherwise, why even call it a party?

See, there is an example of the mindset I just mentioned. I, and obviously many others, believe we ARE and have been getting something from the elects.


Presidents, Senators and Congressmembers are officeholders, not popes. We should never treat them as infallible.

They're not heretics, either, which is how they are treated when one difference of opinion or policy arises between them and the "I know better than you" crowd.

[Ken Burch]

132. I'm not sure it's really a "single issue" with most of us.

It's about a whole set of values. A lot of us would like a party that, while being willing to use force, would be very careful about when to use it and what to use it to defend. For example, we should never again use any form of force or coercion to get rid of another country's democratic government.

We'd like an economic viewpoint that didn't put accumulation of wealth for the view before all other considerations.

We'd like conventions where policy was actually debated and where the platform was created by real contributions from all, rather than simply being tailored to what big campaign contributors and the leadership would prefer.

We'd like an operating relationship between officeholders and the party in which activists could always expect to be heard and respected.

Those are a few broadstroke things activists and progressives would prefer.

It isn't any ONE issue. It's issue after issue after issue.

[Ken Burch]

98. Well, the Nineties proved that having NO litmus tests

meant the election of a Democratic president was meaningless.

You would agree that we must elect a president clearly to Clinton's left in order to make the effort worth it, I hope.

What is power without principle?

[wyldwolf]

107. Clinton had loads of principles

You will never be satisfied with what we get because, to the far left, having something to complain about and protest is what defines you.

[DuaneBidoux]

21. NO--we need at least one party that doesn't belong to corporate America?

And what party would that be? It sure isn't the Democratic party that exists now.

[yurbud]

24. that's why we need to fix it.

[dolstein]

26. Sure. Privatization can be a good thing in some areas

For instance, I wouldn't have a problem contracting out, for example, certain publishing jobs to a private company as long as it's done through a competitive bidding process and there's a real savings to the taxpayer. I wouldn't have a problem contracting out responsibility for operating the dining service on Capitol Hill either. There are some tasks that just don't need to be done by government employees and can in fact divert time and resources away from more important matters.

On the other hand, I'm not in favor of privatization for privatization's sake. Just because it's possible for a job to be done by a private company doesn't mean it should be. We shouldn't contract out management of prisons or the operation of nuclear power plants.

[eridani]

111. Or the ELECTION PROCESS!!!!

Ahem.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. I wish your question had been are you for or against privatization

in general.

Then I would of voted against. But I don't think it would be intellectually honest to say that a person is not a Democrat on the basis of that question alone.

[yurbud]

42. I will do that

[yurbud]

31. all YES: 33%, NO 65%--pretty consistent with any poll here

the majority is progressive, but the leadership of the party won't acknowledge that with policy changes.

[rinsd]

38. the majority of DU is progressive and DU isn't close to representative

of rank and file Democrats so why exactly should the party leader pay attention to what the majority of Duers want?

[yurbud]

41. has anyone asked the question? Do you want privatized electricity,

water, and other public services?

Should we force other countries to privatize everything including essential services so corporations can profit?

What do you suppose the response would be?

[DUHandle]

43. I surprised the Indiana toll road privatization

with a European International didn't hit the board.

[yurbud]

45. why didn't North Korea get the bid? You know their toll gaurds would

be tougher.

[wyldwolf]

64. Referring to a DU poll as indicative of "the majority" ...

bwahahahahahahahaha!

[MrBenchley]

44. Hey, why not just start your own party...

Clearly none are pure enough to stand with you....(snicker)

[yurbud]

46. I'd like the Dems to be the party in FDR quote in your signature, not

just the business party without religious nuts.

[MrBenchley]

50. I'd like to go at least one day

without some "progressive purist" trying to hold one of these half-assed witch hunts....guess we all have our cross to bear.

[Ken Burch]

55. You just want us to shut up and blindly obey

And settle for a party that stands for nothing.

Why do you want victories in name only?

Why do you hate anyone who cares about working people and the poor?

Was all that conservatism worth it just to get your precious assault weapon ban?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

63. We don't hate REAL Democrats. We have a problem

with Democrats who act like Republicans.

False Democrats who hate what the Democratic party stands for, which is liberalism, inclusion, peace, equality and tolerance.

Democrats who think corporations should matter more than workers and generals should matter more than peace activists.

Y'know...like Lieberman and Hillary.

[MrBenchley]

73. Well, that sums you yobbos up in a nutshell (emphasis on nut)

Democratic Senators aren't real Democrats...but anonymous bobos on the internet who sling mindlessly silly slurs are....(snicker)

[Ken Burch]

74. I post under my own name. I am not an "anonymous yobbo".

Btw, is "MrBenchley" YOUR real name?

And are you saying that we should grant semi-papal
infallibility to anyone who happens to get elected as a
Democrat?

I don't recall you exempting Paul Wellstone , Cynthia McKinney or Dennis Kucinich from withering attacks from the cencenter-right, even though all of them were elected and reelected as Democrats.

And Joseph Lieberman, who for no comprehensible reason is your model of the ideal Democratic officeholder, would never have taken the Connecitcut Sennate seat away from Lowell Weicker if thousands of progressive activists hadn't put their "purism" aside for the good of the party and worked like hell to elect him.

[MrBenchley]

75. Like I said....

By the way, feel free to pull up one of those attacks on Paul Wellstone you "remember" me making......I'll wait right here, laughing at your empty dishonesty.

Now go have a big wet sloppy sob over poor Lowell Weicker to somebody who gives a shit.

[Ken Burch]

78. Nothing in my posts coult seriously be taken as "sobbing over Lowell

Weicker". It was weird, though that Lieberman, the Democratic candidate, defeated a sittiing Republican senator
by running to his right. Lieberman didn't NEED to do that.
People were tired of Weicker by then and would have elected
any Democrat to replaace him.

That should have made even you a bit uncomfortable.

Again, I ask, why is supporting HolyWarJoe your acid test of whether someone is a Democrat and "an American"?

You have never once answered that question.

(And there is no way you could hate Dennis Kucinich and supoort Paul Wellstone at the same time. It isn't humanly possible, and Dennis has never done anything that harmed the Democratic Party at all, let alone harmed it enough to justify your hatred and contempt for him.)

[MrBenchley]

81. Nothing except the sobbing....

And I have very little interest in your fantasies.

[Ken Burch]

96. Exactly what do you mean by "sobbing"?

I'm glad Weicker lost. What do you need to hear to accept that I mean that?
Do I have to regard Lieberman as a god who walks the Earth to prove that?
Stop it already. You aren't serving any purpose with these smears.

[Ken Burch]

104. I didn't say "every Democratic Senator", and you know it

I meant the right wing minority like Lieberman, Scoop Jackson in the past, and all the bad guys who wouldn't let national health insurance or the abolition of the Electoral College or other such measures get through.

You know perfectly well I wasn't slamming the entire friggin' caucus. Just the traitors.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

61. Geeze, Ken, it's you Democrat-haters who seem to be suffering

from the honesty deficiency.

"Some of us actually WANT the Democrats to win"
And those of us who don't are starting these witch hunt threads.....day after day after day....

[Ken Burch]

62. Exactly what does someone have to do to prove

that they AREN'T a "Democrat-hater"?

You'd think that never supporting the Republican presidential candidate against the Democrat(which is something a lot of DLC'ers can't honestly say they've never done)would prove it.

You'd think that participating in Democratic caucuses and state conventions for years(as I have done)would prove it.

You'd think that helping draft the state Democratic platform(as I have done and as a lot of progressives have tried to start doing again after years of being kept out in the cold and punished for no reason)would prove it.

Why does loving the war-loving, Republican-loving, life-hating Joe Lieberman have to be the only way a person can prove to YOU that they are a loyal Democrat?

[MrBenchley]

72. Call for Nancy Drew, cause it's a fucking mystery

Yeah, Ken jumps into another Democrat bashing thread to try to pretend he's not doing exactly what he's doing.

[Ken Burch]

76. ANY criticism of an incumbent CONSERVATIVE Democrat

is "Democrat-bashing"?

And what is it when you slam incumbent PROGRESSIVE Democrats?

What, exactly, are you accusing me of?

You aren't really accusing me of working to replace conservative Democrats with Republicans, are you?

If, so, I dare you to be man enough to accuse me of it directly, and to provide specific proof that I, Ken Burch, wh o has never voted for or supported a Republican candidate in my life, am somehow a diabolically effective agent of the Dark Lord Rove.

Prove it(and no, your "rented mule" rant doesn't count) or retract. Or, be known as what you are.

[MrBenchley]

77. Yeah, guess we need Nancy Drew (snicker)

I'll let your posts like these speak for themselves, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

79. My posts simply show that I am an honorable and LOYAL

progressive Democrat. I have never harmed the Democratic Party. Prove your insinuations. You can't because you know
I am innocent.

[MrBenchley]

82. Which is why you're here on yet another tired witch hunt

[Ken Burch]

83. It's the RIGHT that does witchhunts, not the Left.

You remember nothing about the Fifties if you honestly think that a few posts holding Democratic office holders accountable to principle is the moral equivalent of Joe McCarthy and HUAC ruining peoples's lives.

Shame on you for even thinking there's a comparison.
You should know better, living in the home state of Arthur Miller.

[MrBenchley]

91. It's the left that does witch hunts here....

as we see from this thread....

And there's the same disregard for honesty and decency among our "progressive purists" that Tail Gunner Joe had. So stick your "shame" where the sun doesn't shine.

[Ken Burch]

94. I have never told a lie in any post here on DU

I don't lie.

And you know it.

Stop poisoning DU.

[MrBenchley]

106. Pout louder....

[Ken Burch]

113. Abuse and insult louder.

Smear louder.

Knock yourself out.

I'm not going to let you get away with abusing people for no reason.

Either make substantive cases for your allegations or stop spreading them.

[LWolf]

114. Hint:

The "Bob Boudelang" attitude of sneer, <snicker,> derision, disrespect, and bigotry exists whether the author is satirizing the right or denigrating the left. Same style, same attitudes, doesn't seem to know any other way of communicating with those he disagrees with. While it can be mildly amusing when it's satire, it's an embarrassing display when it's not. If you aren't a "party purist," you're fair game.

[MrBenchley]

119. Geeze, wolf, it's the same disgraceful mindset

whether it's on the right or left....it deserves nothing less than contempt.

[MrBenchley]

116. All I'm doing is pointing out your tactics, Ken.

If you don't like it, tough titty.

"Either make substantive cases for your allegations"
Been there, done that. I notice we're still waiting to see you produce those attacks on Wellstone you cvlaim I made.

[Ken Burch]

117. You haven't been there nor gone anywhere near doing that.

There is no progressive conspiracy against the Democratic Party. Never has been, never will be.

And there is nothing deeply insidious in my "tactics", Benchley. All I am doing(and I can't be held responsible for what anyone else does, btw)is calling for Democratic officeholders to be true to Democratic and democratic principles and(in the case of those Democrats who continue to cheerlead for Bush on the war)basic morality and decency.

There is no way that that can hurt the party.

And perhaps you didn't attack Wellstone, but in attacking Kucinich you are attacking the man who fights harder and more passionately for Wellstone's values than anyone else. The idea that a person could admire Wellstone and hate Kucinich seems completely schizoid. Same with Cynthia McKinney, who you have falsely accused of antisemitism because of what her FATHER said. Children don't always echo the worst of their parents. The teenage daughter of David Irving, the British Holocaust denier, for example, carries a copy of THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK with her at all times to let the world know that she rejects her father's poisonous beliefs. The son of the former South African prime minister D.F. Malan joined the African National Congress and devoted his life to ending the apartheid system. Cynthia McKinney herself has said nothing that can be taken as antisemitic.

It looks very much as if you can't tolerate the presence of anyone to your left in the Democratic Party. If that isn't true, then, at best, you accept them being in the party as long as they have no say within it whatsoever(as it was in the Nineties).

What you don't seem to get is that, in treating people to your left with the contempt and derision you show them, you are driving thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands(depending on how many people read these threads)away from political involvement at a time when the party desperately needs the passionate support of anybody we can find.

And I'm waiting for you to retract your false accusation that I, myself, am somehow secretly working for Republicans.

[MrBenchley]

118. He says, in yet another tedious witch hunt thread

Hand me another BIG laugh.

"you are driving thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands(depending on how many people read these threads)away from political involvement"
Yes, if only there were no dissent then you could lead a glorious leftist revolution....(snicker)

[Ken Burch]

124. What you do isn't dissent, Benchley.

Dissent is making arguements for alternative point of view, making a case for what YOU believe in.
I've never seen you do that. All you do is insult and berate and abuse anyone who doesn't share your view of the universe. There is no way that what you do here could possibly win people to your viewpoint.

And the weird thing is, we don't disagree on everything. I agree with your position on gun control.
All I'm trying to do is strengthen the party by making it a place where progressives and idealists are at least as welcome as CEO's and arms merchants. The Democrats need idealists and people with dreams of a better world if we are going to not only win, but make winning matter. I have made lots of compromises with moderates in the past. I worked hard for Clinton in '92. I campaigned for Carter in Oregon in the fall of '76. Both times, had I been a "purist" I could have sat it out or worked for other candidates. A lot of other people you disagree with can say the same.

Try something other than just insults and namecalling. Try to set a respectable tone. You might be surprised, some people might actually listen to you.

[wyldwolf]

122. I think you repeat the exaggerations and fabrications of others...

I guess we could use the rightwing definition of "lie." You have to know what you're saying isn't true to qualify something as a "lie."

[daringthedevil]

52. Hell yes! Although there are some things that the government must do,

they always do it less efficiently than the private sector.

[Telly Savalas]

93. Great assertion.

[leesa]

53. I don't think you are too bright if you believe in privatization. It's a

disaster every time it's tried. Shared risk for necessary items (healthcare, water, military, infrastructure) is far cheaper and more efficient when run by the government in study after study. It's only when the anti-government folk get in there to mess it up that it becomes a problem.

[Clarkie1]

60. Being a Democrat isn't about matters of policy such as this.

Being a Democrat is about important ideas...such as a liberal mind, openess, freedomm of expression, a celebration of our diversity, an international, global persective on economic, environmental, and peace issues, protecting our elderly, protecting our children, and a strong commitment to education and reason.

Now, social security is one one to protect and respect our elderly who have worked hard all their life. And personally, I don't believe in privatization. But we should have a discussion. All Democrats want some kind of security for our elders, and it's a priority for us. That's what makes us different than those who value for example, tax breaks more than people.

We put people first!

[rman]

69. You can't seriously say that privatization is not an important idea

I mean, just look at health care, and water, and electricity,

and ELECTIONS.

Privatization ties right in with "globalization", neo-liberalism, the so called "Free Market" and so called "Free Trade Agreements".

Privatization is about putting corporations first.
It IS important.

[Clarkie1]

71. It's an important idea, but it's a matter of policy.

It's not one of the "big ideas" of liberalism. There are values, and then their are methods to achieve those values. I do not believe privatization makes since economically or philosophically (from my point of view), but that is an opinion of policy.

[rman]

85. It's a big idea of the RW and it's a big idea of neo-liberalism.

But liberals have no stance on the issue?

Tell me, how does exploiting public goods for private profit, aka privitization, relate to core moral issues such as equality, liberty, and fair-play?

[Hippo_Tron]

84. I feel that it is my duty as a Democrat to uphold FDR's legacy

I have no problem with who we allow into our party, but privatization should not be part of our platform, especially on things like social security.

[onenote]

115. and if that legacy includes rounding citizens and putting them in camps?

My point is that what is or isn't part of the Democratic party and what our leaders stand has never been completely fixed or static. I'm neither entirely for nor entirely against privatization. It depends on what government function is at issue. Social security -- no. Other things, maybe so.

onenote

[ulysses]

87. oh hell, why not?

Three cheers for the free market and the happiness it brings to everyone involved.

[dansolo]

88. The problem isn't with privatization, per se

The real problem is when certain connected companies get preferential tratment through targeted tax breaks, favorable legislation and regulations, and no bid contracts. If there was truly a level playing field, privatization wouldn't be such a bad thing. That said, there are certain things that should remain under the purview of the government, and not private corporate entities.

[QC]

92. We must purge the kulaks and counterrevolutionaries now!

Down with the impure running dogs of imperialism!

All hail the glorious people's revolution!

[Ken Burch]

100. That's not anything like we're saying.

Defending core values doesn't make you a Stalinist, FFS.

[slackmaster]

97. YES--you are a commie for even asking the question.

Broad-brush opposition to privatization is not required for a person to identify himself or herself as a Democrat.

Clearly there are some things that can be handled best by government, some that are best managed privately, and some things that fall in between the two extremes.

[TheLeftyMom]

103. ROFL n/t

[TheLeftyMom]

102. I think there are things too important to give to 'tha man'

NO--some functions are too important to be vulnerable to private greed and extortion

That's what I selected. I can see corporate sponsorship of a remodel of a city building. I can see corporate partnerships in revitalizing communities and building parks, etc. There can be a place for it -- some good publicity and do-gooding on the corporation's part and the community benefits.

But when they privatized the adoption/foster care system in Kansas, it was a huge failure. Still is, but they keep plugging away at the grand experiment. And these aren't even corporate entities -- a lot of them are church organizations that were doing the work on the private side for years. There's just no accountability -- forget about the greed and extortion, there just isn't a good enough chain of command to make it work.

Then there are things like you mentioned, electricity and water... man... I don't like corporate hacks having their fingers in that particular pie.

[fujiyama]

108. Privatization of what?

Utilities, public lands, vital resources (like water)? If they support privatizing those, they are likely a corporate whore.

But I don't prefer everything to be nationalized.

[guidod]

109. Who ever thinks that democrats aren't in bed with

corporate America should check their meds.

[Clarkie1]

121. This thread seems rather fascist to me, frankly.

Are we going to purge The Party?

[many a good man]

123. A true liberal thinker would judge each case on its merits

and avoid ideological knee-jerk reactions. Privatization in some cases may be more effective. In other cases it amounts to government-sponsored racketeering.

I expect my representatives to put the PUBLIC interest first!

[MissMarple]

129. Some essential service should never be privatized.....for some it's OK.

Police & fire protection, code regulation, water and power supplies, welfare and child protective services, and the judicial system are a few that should not. IMHO

It's not an either or kind of thing.