Should this be the "Litmus Test" for Democratic nominee?

[Armstead]

Trying to sort through my own feelings about what has happened in the primaries and all that has led up to it, I came to a very simple "litmus test" for my enthusiasm about any candidate.

"Is it all 'Bush's fault' that we face so many problems right now?"

Any candidate who casts it that way, IMO, is merely a shallow centrist who either refuses or does not see the real problems that face us.

Bush is terrible. I will be ABB, because I want to see him gone.

But as bad as Bush is, IMO, he is merely a symptom of the larger problems of concentration of economic wealth and political power in this country.

That is partly the result of active support of the corporate agenda by the GOP, which is to be expected. But it has also been enabled by the acquiescence, cowardice and support of that agenda by too many Democrats. (Not all Democrats, but the centrist leaders of the DLC ilk.)

Unless a Democratic nominee acknowledges that it goes much deeper than Bush and the GOP, it will be IMO the "same old, same old." Partisan sniping with no real alternative vision offered.

And also, IMO, a lack of PRINCIPLED OPPOSITION and a REAL AGENDA for CHANGE and a reconnection of politics to real people is what the Democrats will need to win.

Just my opinion, and once again, I am ultimately ABB. But I believe it is just as important to really shake the trees at this point.

[leftyandproud]

1. ..

"And also, IMO, a lack of PRINCIPLED OPPOSITION and a REAL AGENDA for CHANGE and a reconnection of politics to real people is what the Democrats will need to win."

We got this with my man Kucinich...
and you see how it played out.

The base just didn't get behind him...putting some vague notion of "electability" above principle and someone who promised a REAL change in direction for our country.

:(

[Babavoom]

29. Can we make the process better?

I know it is a tough one...the smarter and purer one is, the harder it is to get the base to support you and be perceived as electable. But you know, this whole thing about elect ability is being exploited by the media. Isn't it the media that has promoted this "fear factor" of elect ability? It still is a process and as faulty as that process is, we have to stay with it. Stay in the process and maybe we can make the process better. I would much rather struggle in the progressive democratic process than to give up and allow the country to be manipulated by the regressive process of the Republican agenda. So don't give up. Hang in there and encourage others to hang in there. I loved your guy, and would have voted for him. But I also see value in the others. We need to recognize the good....then hold them to it.

[newyawker99]

40. Hi Babavoom!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Mairead]

36. Right on. Too many people simply don't want to know.

'Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.' --GBS

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. I'm afraid too many voters have bought that line as well

When we get a Democrat in the White House, we will have to keep nipping at his heels to remind him who put him there and keep him aware of the possibility of being a one-term president.

My greatest fear is that a Dem will take the White House, basically do nothing but slow the Big Boys down a bit, and the public will become disillusioned and will either stay home, revert to the Republicans (on the grounds that they at least have "family values and patriotism"), or go Green.

[Dhalgren]

15. Any "top tier" candidate who gets elected President

will piss on the progressives, regardless of how much support we give them. For almost three years, I have been writing to Dems in power and the party and have gotten perfunctory responses (if any, at all) - except from Kucinich. He has always responded in a direct and incouraging way - even before he was running for Pres. Now, I get letters from every Democratic Tom, Dick, and Harry asking for money. I send my meager donations to Dennis Kucinich - the others are just users.

[Babavoom]

27. You're over reacting, Dear....

I got great responses to my input in the Dean campaign. I also saw that response to many others who were able to talk to a real, warm, alert, intelligent human being! Don't be so quick to judge. I think this has been one of our biggest shortcomings. We tend to be very self-critical and unforgiving within our own party. Uh..I don't think the Republications do that as much as we do. I don't think they tend to be very self-critical (or self aware) at all. They tend to vote for any Republican--and guess what? It worked. It got them elected! And it got them elected again. So step my step we just kept creeping their way. Also, I think that sometimes, we just get lost in the process and the pressure of the situation we find ourselves in. There is tremendous pressure and competition to get enough money to beat Bush. So yeah, you get a lot of squeezing for money. I think you are being too harsh or maybe you are just misunderstanding something here. I can't agree that the "others are just users". It isn't true. And aren't you over reacting--just a little bit?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. That is because progressive organizations are small

Presidents can get away with pissing on their backers since they are a whole branch by themselves. Reps can't get away with it, Senators not too much.

If progressives want power, they have to organize, get more people and money, and learn how to use it. When they do that they can be a powerful force.

But so far, instead of staying and fighting, progressives often choose to write papers about the problems and get mad and join the Greens. That guarentees they'll never have any clout.

When you have enough power - *then* you can threaten to quit and act as a spoiler. They will listen then.

[angryinoville]

3. So which...

Candidate do you believe will take the proper stand?

[Armstead]

7. I'd rather not say

I've said it on many otehr posts, but i am trying to keep an open mind. I also am trying to avoid the usual flame fests that get into personality rather than substance.

I think any Democratic nominee COULD be an agent for energizing change, if they choose to.

[corporatewhore]

4. I find it funny yet sad that people think social/economic injustice only

happens under republicans like i have been saying most of these so called liberals like kerry are infact neoliberals

[Avalux]

5. I agree with you

regardless of party, Democratic or Republican, establishment candidates will tow the line, not upset the apple cart. I fear it will never change.

[Iverson]

6. Apparently there should be no litmus test.

I wish there were, but that is simple wishful thinking. You cannot force people to be against invasions or media mergers or empire. You cannot force them to favor social justice or a living wage or even separation of church and state.

The question for me becomes how do people react given free will. The prognosis is not good.

[Armstead]

9. You only have free will if you are goven choices and information

I don't think people are being given information. Just spin for the most part.

That's part of the problem.

[krkaufman]

12. Churchill line said it best

My brother has been quoting this Winston Churchill line a lot during these splendid, democratic Democratic Party primaries...

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Free will is negated in the absence of information and the intelligence with which to parse information into knowledge; and slavery follows.

[Terwilliger]

14. good line...sad one, but good

[krkaufman]

25. Another Churchill line, for a "fair and balanced" view

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." -- Winston Churchill

http://www.quotecha.com/quotes/quotation_16578.html

[HazMat]

8. No

Any Democrat would lead the country in a vastly different direction. I'm so sick of hearing people say there's no difference between the parties (or some other variation of Nader's theme), and that extreme change is neccessary to really make this country better.

Clinton was a centrist and the country has changed dramatically since the Bush regime assumed power - that should tell people how different the parties are. And all of the Dem candiates with a shot at the nomination are to the left of Clinton.

[Armstead]

13. We've had extreme change

It's taken us to a right-wing corporate never-never land.

Clinton helped bring us to this point. Many of the bad things that have been happening in the last three years are just logical extensions of what was occurring in the 90's.

[HazMat]

16. I disagree

Under Clinton, there was a great economy, jobs, security, and more good will in our society. The vast majority of Americans had it very good under Bill Clinton. Some on the left don't like Clinton's centrism, but he was very successful at bringing about a more fair society, especially since he had to deal with the mess created by Reagan.

[Armstead]

19. Much of that economy was built on sand

Corporations became ever larger and more powerful, and the politcal system and government moved further and further away from the people. Economic polarization was occurring then. Deregulation helped cement the domonance of Big Business.

Yes it was bettere then now. And Clinton was miles better than Bush. But we can do much better and shouldn;t delude ourselves.

[RichM]

23. Exactly wrong. Your phrase "a more fair society" is exactly what Clinton

neither aimed for, nor achieved. You are confusing the adrenaline rush of a speculative boom (achieved largely by Wall St fraud) with a "great economy." If you look into the matter more closely than you apparently have (for example, read Kevin Phillips' "Wealth and Democracy" or any serious account of the trajectory of the US wealth distribution over the last 25 years) you'll see that wealth concentration and inequality increased under Clinton just as it did under Reagan and Bush I.

Your phrase about "the vast majority of Americans" is pure hooey. Only a narrow slice of the population did well under Clinton -- those that participated in the dotcom boom, as well as the true financial elite.

Clinton quietly gave away the store to the rightwing. He caved on almost everything important. He didn't cut defense spending. He allowed Welfare Reform & the Telecom Act of '96 to go through. He championed NAFTA. In short, he did everything the corporatists wanted, while posturing as a "liberal." Note that since leaving office, he has not taken a single hard swing at Bush, actively helped get Bush off the hook in YellowcakeGate, & had his wife go vote for the IWR.

[HazMat]

31. I'm not a leftist, so I probably don't see things how you do.

I'm a moderate liberal (fiscal conservative/social liberal), which means my views are much more similar to Clinton's (and to much of the Party's) than to most here. I disagree with some of Clinton's conservative positions, while welcoming others. For example, I disagreed with DOMA, NAFTA, and the Telecom Act, while agreeing with his most of his fiscal policy, Welfare Reform and foreign policy. Overall, I think Clinton was a very good president who helped move this country in a positive direction.

[corporatewhore]

24. obviously your job didnt go to mexico because of nafta

I rember the day that the levi plant in my community that was a big source of the jobs down there left accross the border

[MadHound]

28. LOL you are a funny guy HM

And you are apparently wearing rose colored glasses when you view the past decade. The economy that you touted as so good was built on a stock market bubble and a hi tech bubble. In reality things like well paying manufacturing jobs took a hike under the Clinton passed NAFTA(so much for the Dems union base), we achieved a record disparity between the rich and the rest of us. Underemployment reached record proportions(that continue to grow today), we transitioned to a full blown service economy rife with low paying McJobs. Security took a hike as the number of working poor exploded to record proportions. And the hi-tech bubble that Clinton built this "great economy" on, well Clinton insured it's demise with the passage of NAFTA, GATT, and an expanded H-1B visa program. As far as good will goes, hah, I guess you missed out on all of the liberal bashing that went on, the widening of the racial divide, and the increased hostility of hard right conservatives and the religous right.

No, there was nothing fair at all about Clinton's society, or his administration.

[lyonn]

30. Clinton had to deal with Rep. congress

You're right, Reagan's mess. Our Banking and mtg. industry's failures were paid for by tax payers when Reagan gave them full rein. Our debt was flashing on Time Square. Clinton fixed that without much pain to the nation. He did not get health care taken care of but he had the republican congress to deal with to say nothing of the judicial system investigating him from day one. Clinton was respected by basically the entire world. Now all of this is gone. He wasn't perfect but damn good.

[RichM]

10. There is really something to this, because it translates to admitting that

there is something more fundamentally wrong with our society, than merely the color of the jersey worn by the party in power. To make such an acknowledgement is the first step on the path towards seeing the truth.

Only DK, Dean & Sharpton pass this litmus test. (Dean doesn't pass it by all that much, IMO, but let's give him some credit for his positive contributions.) Figures like Martin Luther King Jr. passed this test with flying colors.

Fundamentally, the delusion that America is The Land Of Virtue, with no real hideous deficiencies, is at the very core of rightwing ideology. Any move away from it is a move in the right direction.

[stickdog]

11. This election could have been about the truth vs the lies.

But the media can't have anybody giving them away.

The corporate media are our biggest enemy here. Like the pink tutu Dems, they led the cheers as Bush used 9/11 to take away our freedoms, forge a new Department of Homeland Pork and start a neverending string of wars against anyone he pleases.

[question everything]

17. Yes and No

It is true that the GOP caters to its big donors: chemical, pharmaceutical and other industrial conglomerates.

However, during the past 20 years, or so, the percentage of people working for these large corporations actually declined. We have seen our manufacturing and industrial economic base replaced with the "service industry," comprising now two-thirds of our economy.

Starting with the "happy" Reagan years of the 80s, we have seen the acquisitions and mergers of smaller, stable organizations. During these years we have seen the elevation of the Wall Street bankers and lawyers to the highest levels of income, replacing the old-fashioned entrepreneurs who would at least took risks. And we have seen the continuous widening of the gap between the highest and lowest paid employees withing the same organization, from 40 to 400.

We have seen the corruption in determining the values of publicly trading corporations, where the shareholders expect to see the income and share prices go up every quarter, losing patience with the slow but steady growth of research-based organizations. To maintain this positive balance sheets, we have seen the loss of million of jobs, the elimination of stable, good jobs with good benefits, replacing them with "service jobs" with no benefits. And, coincidentally, we saw the migration of businesses from the industrial northeast and the Midwest to the south and southwest where labor laws are more favorable to the employers.

The result of all saw thousands of us going through periods of unemployment and underemployment, trying to start our own businesses, or being self-employed.

Many of these new self-employed and the ones working for small companies (less than 50) have no use for traditional government programs. They do not care about employer-sponsored pensions; they do not have any. They do not care about employer-paid health insurance; they do not have any and even if they do, when the company goes out of business there is no COBRA. They see many government program at best, as irrelevant; at worst, as hindrance. These are the people who live in the "sprawl" communities all over the country. These are the "industrial park dads" that voted Republican in the 2002 election cycle.

We know, of course, that when something bad happens to them, they do run for their government for help but are too busy with their own circle of family and friends to think in broad term. Talk to any one who is against "government provided health care" and mention someone that s/he knows. Perhaps a self employed contractor who had a heart attack and cannot get any insurance. A DES daughter, etc.

What we need to do is to talk about security for all: security of retirement and of health care and of jobs without sounding like a big government program.

[Armstead]

18. I agree liberal and progressive agenda needs to be modern

But they should not be abandoned.

For one thing, the connections that exist between all of these things need to be spelled out clearly. Why people have been dislocated. Why government programs have been made to seem irrelevant. The lie behinbd the Rush Limbaugh mantra that "You too will be rich someday."

Specific answers can't gop back to the New Deal or industrial model. But there arecways of bringing them up to date.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. Kerry can "shake the trees", but how do you go about it?

Kerry's seen the tree from every concievable perspective- he's been down on the ground kicking the trunk, and now he's up in the branches with everyone else. He definitely knows how to do it, and I think he will- and will do it successfully.
People like Nader and Dean are going about it the wrong way. You have to get right into and inside the apparatus before you can take it over. I think Kerry will pleasantly surprise most liberals and progressives.
For example- yesterday's flap over Kerry's gay marriage statements- I don't fear for one second that Kerry will ever compromise the rights of gays- he simply needed to play down the issue rhetorically. The substance of Kerry's support for gays is not diminished at all, for he knows his statement was simply a matter of opinion and not law. The courts will rule for gay marriage no matter what he says.
The same for the flag amendment- he knows he can say "I'd like to punch someone in the face who burns one", but the law allows it and he knows that.
Kerry has not abandoned any of the tings he has fought for for so long, and he is about to get into the ultimate position to act on them.

[Armstead]

21. I hope you're right

But to do that, in my opinion, he ought to tale a few more pages from Dean and Kucinich and talk about corporate power, the real problem of media concentration, the disconnect between average people and politics, etc.

He has to get more specific than the "special interests" and blaming the safe bogeymen like drug companies.

[Mairead]

37. I've asked this before, but received no reply: How do you know he will?

His behavior in the past 2 years has been sharply different to his past. What makes you believe that the far past is a more valid predictor than his recent past?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. It isn't.

[John_H]

22. Absolutely. Can you beat Bush?

[Babavoom]

26. Progress Lost and Found?

;-) You said "PRINCIPLED OPPOSITION and a REAL AGENDA for CHANGE and a reconnection of politics to real people is what the Democrats need to win. I agree and I think it is what the whole country needs in order to climb out of the hole we've dug for ourselves. We can't just keep going on the way we are. We have to think long and hard about not only about what we are doing wrong, but recognize when we do something right. Many old centrist democrats have achieved real progress and have put through real changes. But many of these steps toward real change and real progress have not been 1. reported by the media 2. recognized, praised or rewarded and actively presented to the public in any systematic way by the Dems and 3. reversed by Bush and Co. and so people don't even know they ever existed in the first place! I know this because I was on the Dem Central Committee for a couple of years in the 80s. I did see a problem with developing a real agenda for change. The older generation seemed jealous and closed--not letting the younger gen take the ropes. On the other hand, I also saw tremendous work being done, accomplishments that went unnoticed and unrecognized. While it is true that the old guard has become entrenched and ineffective, it is good to realize that there has been a concerted effort by the right wing to "bury" their accomplishments and even, IMO, to promote the idea that the Democratic party is ineffectual. They win both ways: Young Dems are put off and splinter off into Greens, Independents, or just don't vote at all AND the Repubs can just become stronger by default. That is one thing I really like about Dean's campaign. He lets people IN--particularly young people. He has at least shown the rest of us how to lay out a real agenda. But anyone one can do that. I see it happening in the other campaigns, don't you? We just have to DO IT. So lets "JUST DO IT". We can. Let's just lay it out---! What would be your list for an Agenda for Change?

[Armstead]

33. Good post..Welcome to DU

(One suggestion. Break your posts into paragraphs.)

You make a good point that the positive things Democrats do often get buried by the media. (One reason media reform is important.) overcoming that requires smart and aggressive PR and message creation, and strong advocates getting more exposire.

I think an agenda for change has to start with at least acknowledging the big picture, in a non-partisan way as Dean, and Kucinich and Sharpton have done. In addition, don't be afraid of attacking the way Bush and the GOP have ben part of that, but not in an "It's all their fault way." Rather acknowledge that the Democratic Party needs to be reformed too.

As for what to do about it, the first step is greatr corporate accountability. That includes using anti-trust laws to stop further big consolidations (which are occurring as we speak), and regulation that is strong but not abusive.

Less automatic acceptance of NAFTA style "free trade" and -- as Kucinich says -- more emphasis on bi-laterl treaties instead of these "super agreements" that are really political and not trade-oriented.

Also a reform of politics, largely by doing, as Dean did. And relying moe on the grassroots like Dean, Kucinich and Clark have done.

Those kinds of things.

[zoeyfong]

32. True, there are serious problems that cut through all parties.

The gap between rich and poor, money in politics, and corporate (right wing) ownership of the media are bigger problems that most people in this country are aware of.

[ulysses]

34. I've had a hard time calling myself "ABB"

(although I guess I functionally am, really) because, while any of the candidates would indeed be better than Bush, simply being better than Bush isn't enough.

Ah well. As Iverson says, we can't force people into progressive views.

[Armstead]

39. ABB should = Progressive

If the Democrats would only realize that a progressive agenda backed and supported by the party aparatus would equal victory.

The problem with Dean and Kucinich is that the Democrat Establishment has done everything possible to undermine and/or ignore them.

If instead they'd get on the bus, I think the basic message would resonate in the same way with the mainstream.

But as long as unimaginative Bozos are in thrall to the Corporate teat and conventional wisdom of the conservatives, they will resist, I guess. So they will be locked into the losing strategy that economic issues is merely "We'll create more jobs" without actually recognizing why jobs are being decimated and marginalized and what is necesary to change that.

[buddhamama]

41. can't say the words

"ABB". in many ways this is the most bleak, depressing election that i have been involved in. getting rid of Bush IS important, i just wish we didn't have to surrender without at least attempting to put up a fight.

[ulysses]

42. it's starting to feel pretty grim, yes. n/t