How the hell are we supposed to take our Dem Party BACK? (A RANT)

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

No matter who wins the next election, it is unlikely that we will see much tangible change. Offshoring will continue. Excessive military spending will continue. The airwaves will still be dominated by powerful financial interests who spout corporatist propaganda.

At best we'll have a Clintonite Democrat who might give workers a little bit more of a cushion to land on. At best. Maybe the (overhyped) economic figures will improve and we'll hear, "How could you be complaining? Have you seen the GDP growth figures?? The unemployment rate?" These figures are of course usually misleading.

Now we have two frontrunners who are both eating from the hands of the international corporations. Yes, you're right that Obama and Clinton will support liberals on cultural issues like abortion and gay rights. This is easy since the corporations have nothing to lose from these issues. But private interests will continue to control our government, and our very nation will continue to disintegrate into indebtured-servitude, mindless consumerism, shittier jobs, and longer hours. Unions will continue to be dismantled. Universities will become more and more expensive.

Health care, even if it becomes universal, will still be in the hands of the insurance companies who will bleed us dry.

Perhaps we'll have new wars to fight to continue to boost this disgraceful military budget.

Even if Al Gore were elected, who is to say that he won't have his hands tied like he did in the 90s? Who is to say that he will stop the hemorrhaging of jobs?

How many candidates have spoken out against H1Bs? But even then, talk is cheap.


We need action, but we are simply pawns in a game where corporate financial interests weigh far too heavily. Our party has sold us out. They take our votes for granted because they know we are desperate. They know we cannot have eight more years of Bushism. So we are like dogs at the kitchen table waiting for our masters to feed us crumbs of bread.

It's the corporations who set the agenda, and we're the ones who vote for whatever they give us. We see our rock star candidates on TV and we act like they do us a favor by running for president. Maybe they don't give a fuck about us, despite their smiles. Maybe we're alone. Maybe in our privatized non-union new stage of consumer capitalism, all is lost.

I can't believe people here think they are actually driving the party, when it's private corporations who drive the party who, in turn, drive us.

Party of the people? Not anymore apparently.

[Gato Moteado]

1. hey i work on GOTV....speak for yourself.......

....just kidding.

i wrote a post like this last week, though i admit mine was more angry....but those are the types of responses i got from a lot of people. i basically pointed out that the system is rigged and owned by corporations that also own the media. i said that our voting and working within the system will never effect the change we need.

i took a lot of abuse after that post.

[napi21]

2. Money has ALWAYS driven politics and our Gov't.

Money has become even more important since almost every American has a TV in their home. The networks charge a LOT for ads, not only for a candidate, but for a particular policy position. The 90% of Americans who are the majority simply don't have the disposable income to fight back, and I don't see anything changing in my lifetime...IF EVER!

It would be political suicide for any candidate to talk about breaking up the network monopolies, or those of the newspapers etc. It's akin to writing a LTTE that your boss is a crook and is stealing from the Company that pays YOUR salary. Remember what happened to Dean immediately after he was on a TV interview and said he would break up the media monopolies? He went from the media darling to an out of control fool!

[bvar22]

45. Kucinich has also pledged to break up the Media Monopolies....

...and LOOK at the coverage he gets!

[Ladyhawk]

3. Another one figures it out. :)

We are alone.

[Gato Moteado]

10. sometimes i feel that way

but try to point that out here and you get hammered.

[Ladyhawk]

13. I was a little slow on the uptake.

I hoped a Democratic Congress would turn things around, but now I see that those who have been telling me it's all a dog and pony show were right. The only thing that remains undecided for me is deciding what to do about it.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

14. It seems it really is just a dog and pony show

We're alone, but I'm glad I'm not alone in here. I'm glad some of you see where I'm coming from.

[Ladyhawk]

15. I don't know how long we'll be tolerated.

In the meantime I'm looking for non-violent alternatives to ending the dog and pony show. I'm going to look into this: http://www.foavc.org/ .

[sandnsea]

4. Suppressing the vote

Great tactic, but not a particularly Democratic one.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

6. How am I "suppressing" the vote? n/t

[Gato Moteado]

8. see what i mean?

nt

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

11. Yep

Weird.

[roody]

5. I think you can really create change

on a local level. Try putting your energy and attention into county races and/or school board. A small group, even one person, can change things locally if they get the word out.

[elocs]

7. The greatest impact that a person or small group of persons can have is on the local level.

Your school board, village, town, city, or county government. That is where it starts. Effective and long term change does not happen from the president down.

[Gato Moteado]

9. i think the OP realizes that change doesn't happen from the pres down....

....that was the point of the post. that there are outside influences that control the government and in order to fix things we need to get rid of these influences.

[roody]

36. And once in a while YOU WIN!

[frebrd]

12. K&R

[polichick]

16. There's a lot of truth in what you've posted...

After thirty years of supporting Dems with my time, money and votes, I'm no longer sure it's worth bothering with at the federal level. Sometimes I think the country will have to completely crash and burn before Americans take back the government. Thought Bush and Co. might finally be the catalyst, but apparently even that train wreck wasn't enough.

All the primary coverage functions as yet another distraction ~ not so very different from American Idol.

[TwilightGardener]

17. My favorite part:

"our very nation will continue to disintegrate into indebtured-servitude, mindless consumerism, shittier jobs, and longer hours"--sorry, I don't buy that life is harder today than in years past. "Mindless consumerism" is something that WE THE PEOPLE do--nobody forces us to spend our money. If I want to buy some worthless trinket off ebay, or a new Hummer, or whatever, that's under MY control. What "shittier jobs" are you referring to: cutting chickens' heads off in processing plants? Standing at a factory assembly line? Cleaning out bins of rotten corn at grain elevators? Does anyone at DU actually DO these jobs, or do we mostly work in the safe, clean white-collar or customer-service arena? Why are our jobs "shitty", then? It's a free country--go do whatever you'd like.

My working-class parents didn't give me a dime for college. I got student loans, a solid university education, and a ticket to a middle-class income. As a nurse (not working as one now), I worked 36 hours (three shifts) a week--not excessive. Plenty of time off, enough money to pay the bills, and buy trinkets off of ebay. Many of us in America got exactly the kind of life we wanted. There's almost no excuse for not doing so. I don't blame Hillary, Obama, or any other Dem politician for my "shitty" life, because frankly, my life--in every conceivable way--is much easier than my parents' or grandparents' lives--and I'm willing to bet it's the same for most of DU. Your anger is misdirected. Get pissed off at Republicans for their warmongering that makes us unsafe and hated in the world, or their attempts to kill Roe V. Wade and send women back to the coat-hanger, or their BIG-TIME corporate-loving ways (much more so than Dems) that will poison our environment, or their "screw you, got mine" attitude.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

19. I'd rather have a solid union job at a plant, than two part-times at Walmart and BestBuy n/t

[TwilightGardener]

24. Are you a college student? Are you planning to get a union plant job,

or become a professional? I'm guessing you're not in college to work at a steel mill or a grain elevator. Blue-collar jobs are not that hard to come by, anyway, if you want one. But why would you? Because to a lot of people, THEY SUCK! Unless doing the same thing over and over, in uncomfortable/dangerous/unclean conditions, 8 or 10 hours a day, every day, without using your brain, appeals to you. I work at a blue-collar job right now--by choice (the upsides outweigh the downsides for my particular situation). Try it out first, before you make it sound like a really great option. And do well in school, so that neither Best Buy nor the Pella Window factory becomes your only options. What a great country we live in, overall!

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

26. Not to be patronizing but...

If you think going to school is a milestone to success, you're wrong. Because of the shift in the economy and the gutting of "blue collar" jobs, college is becoming almost a necessity.

You think 8 to 10 hours a day is bad? Try 11-15 doing the same boring shit in an office. Please man. I suggest you stop responding to my thread.

EDIT: In fact, I suggest you put me on ignore.

[TwilightGardener]

29. Post a thread, spout opinions, and then ask me not to comment? Why?

Was I offensive or abusive? LOL! And college is not a milestone to success? The guy who griped about University education getting more expensive in his OP? Then why bother, Mr. Student? Hie thee down to the chicken-plucking factory and be a proud, noble chicken-plucker--wouldn't want one of those well-paid "boring" office jobs. :rofl:

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

31. Because you're not paying attention to what I'm saying

Why do I bother with college? What is the alternative to college? It's true I make my own choices, but the set of alternatives I have is forced upon me.

If I hadn't gone to college, life would be more difficult.

In your last section you insult employees of meat-packing plants. Are you sure you belong here?

I implore you to put me on ignore and stop answering to my threads.

Do not respond to this, because you will not get a response from me. Maybe you should do some soul-searching and see what your fellow citizens go through. Life isn't a TV show.

[TwilightGardener]

33. "Do not respond to this"--that free speech is a bitch, no?

Post a thread, get some comments--some you don't agree with. Who'd-a thought? I don't care if you don't respond--the last word's fine with me. Where did I insult meat-packing workers? Just said to go be one, if you find blue-collar jobs like that fulfilling--nothing shameful about it (speaking as a proud, noble blue-collar woman myself). My opinions don't fit your worldview, or what you want to see in your thread, but are every bit as legitimate as yours. That's what makes DU a great forum instead of a circle jerk. And "life isn't a TV show"? Well, mine sure as hell isn't!

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

20. Oh, and life isn't easier now

We get more kicks, for sure. But is it easier? No. Longer hours, greater debt, families struggling to stay afloat, limited union power, outsourcing, etc.

Please spare me, and everyone else, this sort of rosey-colored hogwash.

[TwilightGardener]

25. Debt--the American way. So we can have new cars and live in suburban subdivisions,

and go on vacations, and have DVD players, and Ipods, and stainless steel appliances. Not Obama's fault. Mine. Outsourcing--hate it, something should be done, but protect yourself by getting into a career that can't be relocated (nursing, perhaps?). Long hours--I don't see this happening, unless you count commute time from everyone wanting to live in the suburbs/exurbs. Families struggling to stay afloat--some are, some are broken by divorce/health issues, some just haven't figured out a way to budget or deny themselves the so-called "trappings" of middle to upper-middle class life, or haven't figured out a way to go back to school and improve their lots in life. My view is realistic--not rosey-colored. I am speaking from my own perspective, and from what I learned in my 37 years.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. My 37 year-old daughter has a more realistic worldview than you do.

Everybody in the U.S. cannot "protect themselves by getting into a career that can't be outsourced," like nursing. If everyone went into nursing, there'd be more nurses than jobs available and a lot of unemployed nurses.

You really are naive for your age.

[Wiley50]

46. What do you expect from someone who thinks the war on drugs is just great

i should have put her on ignore a long time ago
but I have a policy not to do that to anyone
unless they're stalking me or something

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

47. I'm really tempted to you use the ignore button on wienerdog

Never have I heard such insane blithering.

[LBJDemocrat]

48. You can't really protect yourself against outsourcing.

Almost any job that doesn't involve cooking, domestic transportation, and face-to-face customer service is outsourceable.

Auto-worker? Outsourceable.
Telemarketer? Outsourceable.
Phone customer service? Outsourceable.
Engineer? Outsourceable or threatened by H1-Bs.
Financial analyst? Outsourceable (just beginning to see this happen) and threatened by H1-Bs.

A lot of people get into huge amounts of debt to pay for college and graduate to find a stale job market.

You're lucky go have gotten into nursing. But when the market "adjusts", and when people find that it really is a good job that's safe from outsourcing, you may find that the excess competition will hurt your future prospects or even get you replaced by someone younger.

I hate to say it, but you're exhibiting a bit of an overconfident "Fuck you, Jack; I got mine" attitude.

[TwilightGardener]

50. I am against outsourcing--to me it is the ultimate "fuck you" of corporations

to hard-working Americans. I mentioned that I hated it in my post. I wasn't "lucky" to get into nursing--I backed into it (with massive student loans, patched-together day-care, mac-n-cheese dinners and an old Chevy Cavalier that died a new death on a daily basis) because we're a military family and it was very difficult to start all over again trying to find a decent-paying job wherever we moved--and we moved a LOT. I also went into nursing, among other reasons, for the pay, the flexibility of scheduling (I'm a mom), and the opportunities--NOT because I really loved it. It was a fully calculated move--it helped protect my family against the economic hardships of starting over every two years. I don't work as an RN right now, but I keep my license as an insurance policy, or until a good opportunity presents itself. That's my attitude, more or less--do what you can to protect yourself from a bad economic fate.

I searched the post you are replying to and I don't think I have an "I got mine" attitude--I just don't go along with the OP saying that the Democratic party is necessarily to blame (or will be to blame) for privatization leading to things like "mindless consumerism", shitty jobs, outsourcing, high cost of tuition, etc. We live in a capitalist, free-market country, and Dems, WHEN they win the WH, will have an opportunity to hopefully take on and fix the downsides of that reality, but I don't share the pessimism, or the "woe is us, all our candidates are corporate sell-outs, we're doomed", because my own life experience does not lead me to that conclusion. I also don't think our lives are harder than for past generations, who had things like infectious disease, racism, female oppression, limited educational opportunites, etc. as part of daily life. I feel lucky to live in this country, in this time, imperfect as it is--and I don't mind saying so.

[Solon]

55. OK, you really are delusional...

I also don't think our lives are harder than for past generations, who had things like infectious disease, racism, female oppression, limited educational opportunites, etc. as part of daily life.

OK, first, infectious disease, it seems you were out of nursing for a while now to forget about the "superbugs" that have been popping up in hospitals. As far as the racism, female oppression, and limited educational opportunities, can you please specify the exact date they went away? Because as far as I can tell, they are still here.

As far as differences between now and then, which you haven't specified, and makes me think you are thinking 19th century, rather than a single generation. So let's compare the 1970s to today, let's see, stronger Unions, job stability, median wage that was a full 30% higher than it is today, lowest poverty rate in the 20th century, etc. We have more gadgets now, so fucking what? Its not like the poor could ever afford those.

[ellisonz]

59. Thank you.

Proud Member of Generation Fucked!

:evilfrown:

[TwilightGardener]

64. Infectious disease--do we have still have kids in iron lungs? Last

time I checked, no. Superbugs--big problem in hospital-acquired infections, but yet, cardiovascular disease (from eating and couch-potatoing ourselves to death in our easy, well-fed society) is our biggest killer. Not TB, not diphtheria. Those were the scourges of my grandparents and great-grandparents--many folks died. We are blessed to live in the age of antibiotics and vaccinations. There's no question the economy is different, some have gotten left behind, and there are definite problems to be addressed--offshoring/outsourcing, immigration, crappy minimum wage. My point is, why bash Dems about it before they've even gotten a chance to work on the problems?

And no, I don't believe life is worse today. Racism--it's gotten better--first serious black candidate in history, and he's doing tremendously well. Female oppression--gotten better--I can do whatever I want, although my wages may still not be the same. Limited educational oppotunities--my mom wasn't allowed to attend college, although she very bright. Her family couldn't afford it in those times, and it was considered a "waste" for women. I hold two degrees, by the grace of Pell grants, students loans, and working several jobs. Gadgets--I sit today typing on a computer, reaching any number of people around the world, which is amazing--I don't take it for granted. I don't have a laptop, my computer is a few years old, and it cost me a thousand bucks on the "easy installments" plan, but I am lucky to have it. Modern life isn't perfect, but it's pretty good. And on another note--why personal attacks like "delusional"? Unnecessary. Just state your point.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

57. No jobs out there.

I thought law was not able to be outsourced. I couldn't find a paralegal job with a biology degree and a law degree which is a doctorate.

I did everything right, worked hard, got educated, Spent 12 years in college, paid my way through graduate school at night, and it didn't do me a damn bit of good.

I fell out of the middle class in the 90s. I can't get a shitty job even if I wanted one.
I can't get a secretarial job even though I can type 115 words per minute on a computer and have fabulous grammar and spelling skills.

I blame it on Bill Clinton and NAFTA but it started with Reagan's union busting.

[ellisonz]

60. Three Words: Richard Milhous Nixon

By Tom Oliphant

"Richard Nixon is a no good , lying bastard.
He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the
same time, and if he ever caught himself
telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in."

-Harry S Truman

"Richard Nixon has never been one of my favorite people anyway. For years I've regarded his existence as a monument to all the rancid genes and broken chromosomes that corrupt the possibilities of the American Dream; he was a foul caricature of himself, a man with no soul, no inner convictions, with the integrity of a hyena and the style of a poison toad. The Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless; I couldn't imagine him laughing at anything except maybe a paraplegic who wanted to vote Democratic but couldn't quite reach the lever on the voting machine."

-Hunter S. Thompson, Pageant (July 1968)

[Warren Stupidity]

39. It is hopeless to demand that somebody else put you on ignore.

Instead just put that person on ignore yourself and, instantly, you will no longer be bothered by their posts.

[DemBones DemBones]

27. You don't remember the Fifties and most of the Sixties, when one income

could support a family with four or five children. I grew up in a military family (not an officer's family, so it was essentially working-class) and had to borrow money to pay what my merit scholarship didn't. But times have changed.

You got your college education before the cuts in student loans made that more difficult to do. Nurses will always be in demand and they can't outsource nursing jobs, though you can bet they'll hire more nurses' aides, who will work cheaper. And if they can, they won't have full-time employees because then they have to pay benefits. That's what the game is now: cheap labor and no pensions or benefits vs. huge salaries plus golden parachutes for CEOs, even CEOs who screw up in their jobs.

A lot of kids with college degrees are doing telemarketing or waiting tables today. Their life is not easier than their parents' or grandparents'. I'm older than you are and my life has not been easier than my parents' or grandparents', either.

I foresee hard times for future generations in corporate-ruled America. I'd leave this country in a minute if I could. The military-industrial complex is out of control and the ruling class wants to eliminate the middle class.

You are apparently unaware that there are thousands of permanently unemployed people in this country, people whose unemployment benefits ran out years ago and who have never been able to find another job. The older you get, the less likely you are to be hired. Thousands of people become homeless every year -- I should say every month -- and remain homeless for years. Thousands have no medical insurance and no money for medical care. Bill Clinton ended "welfare as we know it" and Bush has slashed away more and more at worthwhile programs. If your husband left you, you might find out that even as a nurse you'd have a hard time making it alone, especially if you have children. You sound an awful lot like a Republican in your posts here. "Everything is just peachy keen in the USA and anyone who says otherwise is just lazy."

You actually said "There's almost no excuse for not doing so" (getting the kind of life one wants.) You really need to get out more and meet some people who are not as privileged as you.

[TwilightGardener]

32. "Priveleged"? Are you serious? Did you miss the part of my post

about my NOT being especially priveleged (except for the fact, of course, that my parents loved me and have always had a stable marriage and enough money for the very basics)? I have made my way through life using many of the tools that anyone can use--public education, loans and grants, help-wanted ads, career research, budgeting, prioritizing, etc. I feel that my life is under my control, to a very large extent. The fifties/sixties were but a brief moment of our nation's economic/cultural history, one that is unlikely to be repeated, for many reasons. Farm work drying up, factories going full-tilt, Moms staying home, post-war economic boom, home-building and buying fueled by GI benefits, the beginnings our our modern "mindless consumerism"--all helped shape the economy then. Things have definitely changed, and it is a struggle for some to adapt, but overall, I don't see us going to hell in a handbasket. There are big problems facing us, but they are surmountable, and I will challenge my party to help fix them. If constant bitching about America is what makes someone a Dem, and seeing the good in American life makes someone a Repub, then color me a very surprised Republican (gee, my voter registration card will need updating, LOL!). I am part of tht military-industrial complex, by the way. It's my family's bread and butter. I believe in a strong, superior military, and always will--as long as it's used responsibly (hopefully as a deterrent more than a weapon), and is run effectively/efficiently.

You say you'd leave this country if you could. I don't know what to say to that. My husband has made his career out of defending it, with my blessing and support, so I obviously love it and can't relate. Peace and good luck whatever you decide to do.

[bling bling]

51. Best post I've read all week.

Thought provoking. I love it.

I don't care what anybody else thinks. I *love* it when people remind me how fortunate I am. Not everyone in this country is so fortunate, to be sure. But many of us are a lot better off than we think. We just need to remember it from time to time.

[TwilightGardener]

54. Thanks, fellow Obama supporter!

[Peace Patriot]

18. Throw Diebold/ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

That's the problem. It gives the War Party the final edge they need to thwart the will of 70+% of the American people.

The "Help America Vote for Bush's War Act" (electronic voting) was passed at the same times as the Iraq War Resolution (Oct. 2002), and is closely related to it. They knew that 56% of the American people who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning (Feb. '03) would only grow. And they were right. It's now over 70%. The American people have shown amazing resistance to relentless, 24/7 warmongering, all channels, all the time. The war is a war crime of the first magnitude--completely unjustified slaughter and violent occupation. Americans are overwhelmingly peace-minded and just. They can only be kept in control by stealing elections. Many methods are used for this, but voting machines run on "TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, make it nearly impossible for the system to be moved. They've got war locked in--decades of war, bleeding us dry, until we are like the destitute, slave labor millions, ravaged by imperial war, in Russia under the Tsar in 1917.

The "trade secret" code is a priority #1 problem that can be probably best be solved at the state/local level, where ordinary people still have some influence. Maybe start with demanding handcounts of the Absentee Ballot votes and posting of the results BEFORE any electronics are involved. AB voters are a big constituency for transparent vote counting. Get rid of touchscreens (no paper trail voting). Demand AT LEAST a 10% handcount check for optiscans. Remember that all votes can be fiddled in the central electronic tabulators--and the only way to know for sure is public handcount and posting the results BEFORE (or possibly while) those ballots are entered into the system.

Long road ahead of us. This is the first essential step back toward democracy.

Be of good heart! Do not be discouraged! Many, many people have struggled under fascist rule before us, and there are many riveting stories of endurance, persistence and ultimate triumph. South Africa is a good example. Our civil rights movement another. And there are many CURRENT peaceful and democratic triumphs over fascist rule in South America today (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Nicaragua), after decades and centuries of suffering.

We are not alone.

You are not alone.

Don't let the war profiteering corporate news monopolies convince you otherwise.

[illinoisprogressive]

21. Gore is not a babe in woods either. he was a pol for many years. sorry.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

23. No need to apologize

I'm fully aware of what he did to the Party and the people in the 90s.

[bunnies]

22. Buy it.

Seems like Politicians these days are like commodities. Bought, Sold, Traded. They care about whomever owns them at the time. Sad as it is. Maybe all the people could chip in and then, perhaps we could buy us a few? Can Democratic citizens form a corporation? :shrug: I fear its our only hope.

[ulysses]

28. you're not.

Which is to say that there's no established means. If we want to do it, we have to find our own way.

[Odin2005]

34. Cynical, defeatist, BS.

That's the same BS rhetoric behind the "voting doesn't matter" meme that allows special interests control our government :grr:

[ellisonz]

61. I second that rational conclusion.

My hat is off to you:headbang:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Back? When did you have it.

I worry that a lot of DUers hark back to a mythical golden age when the Democratic party was massively more left-wing than it is currently; I'm not an expert on US political history but I don't think there has ever been such a time.

If you want to take *over* the Democratic party and move it to the left, then good luck to you - I don't think you'll succeed, but I think it would be a good thing if you were to, provided you didn't render it unelectable (which would be a non-trivial worry, I think).

But "back" is, I think, a misnomer.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

37. Explain The Great Society then n/t

[wyldwolf]

43. what is there to explain? You're taking a period in Dem history of massive social programs...

...but neglecting to mention that it was also a period of massive defense spending and social conservative thinking among the Democratic majority. Abortion was illegal in all 50 states, any thoughts of gay marriage would have had you run out of town tared and feathered.

Remember - Democrats ruled during the "Leave it Beaver" era in America.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. The new deal reform era was vastly more left wing than now.

The social agenda fizzled out in the cold war nonsense of the 50's and 60's, reached a crisis as Johnson both pushed it forward with his Great Society programs and wrecked the party FDR put together over civil rights and vietnam. The wreckage over civil rights was inevitable, the wreckage over vietnam was idiocy. The progressive wing of the party, defeated at the polls with McGovern, pretty much abandoned the party to the corporate asshats we are struggling with now.

Truman was proposing national health insurance, we still can't get one 'annointed' candidate to propose anything other than corrupt mandated private insurance purchase programs. The corruption at the national level is at least as bad as it was in the last quarter of the 19th century, if not far worse.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

41. Can I shake your hand?

:pals:

[wyldwolf]

44. only the aspect of the New Deal

...otherwise, FDR's Democrats were militaristic and nationalistic. FDR conspired to keep the progressive movement at bay, and he imprisoned a whole race of people.

It was also FDR's intent to dismantle much of the New Deal after the depression. In fact, in one of his SOTU speeches, he said this business of relief must end.

FDR had several chances to push universal healthcare and he declined to do so each time. He refused to include it in the the Social Security Bill of 1935 because he felt it would endanger the bill's chance of passing. The concept was also included in the Wagner National Health Act of 1939 but it never received FDR’s full support.

Truman suggested national health insurance as many have but, as is usually the case, never put a working plan on the table. Truman, in fact, abhorred in socialist-leaning tendencies in the US Government but was committed to universal healthcare. The Dems dropped the ball on it and when the GOP took over congress in 1946, the idea fizzled.

But healthcare can't be the sole issue that one bases the OP's premise on. Truman, like FDR before him and Dems afterward, were social conservatives and military hawks.

[wyldwolf]

42. you're absolutely correct

I worry that a lot of DUers hark back to a mythical golden age when the Democratic party was massively more left-wing than it is currently; I'm not an expert on US political history but I don't think there has ever been such a time.

There wasn't

[Hippo_Tron]

52. I think the 1970's is to a certain extent this era

But I'll admit that it's not as mythical as people make it out to be. That being said here are some examples...

Back then there was no serious war on drugs. Now the Democratic Party won't even propose de-criminalizing marijuana. That is a significant shift to the right.

The rich used to pay significantly higher tax rates than they did any time in the post Reagan era. Nobody in the Democratic Party will propose that we return to the pre-Reagan tax levels, only to the levels that we had under Clinton.

There was no "Welfare Reform" back then. Nobody in either party even considered it, except for the fringe right wingers.

[wyldwolf]

58. Yes, a brief period in the 70s, though not that liberal at all - let's compare the 70s to pre-70s

Back then (1970s) there was no serious war on drugs. Now the Democratic Party won't even propose de-criminalizing marijuana. That is a significant shift to the right.

The Democratic party didn't propose it in the 70s, either. By comparison, by 1965, with Democrats firmly in control of the government, abortion was a federal crime and illegal in all 50 states. That began to change in the 70s - a significant shift to the left.

Harry Truman praised the NRA during his administration. By the 1970s, gun control became the hallmark of Democratic politics, another significant shift to the left.

There was no "Welfare Reform" back then. Nobody in either party even considered it,

Welfare reform was considered by FDR (who stated "this business of relief must end), JFK (who proposed one the first Welfare to Work programs), and RFK (who first stated welfare should be a hand-up, not a hand out.)

Nixon proposed major incentives for welfare repients to return to work (1969 Family Assistance Plan.) Conservatives thought it expanded welfare. Liberals thought it too restrictive, and it died in Congress.

So, you are correct. Brief moment in the 70s when the Dem party became a bit more liberal. Ironically, it Democratic policies in this decade that helped Reagan to a landslide victory in 1980.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. The right wing also got more organized during the 70's

Gun control, as you mentioned, is a great example of this. The NRA supported the Gun Control legislation passed in 1968. But by the late 70's the organization was infiltrated by right wingers. We also saw the rise of the religious right in the 70's.

Reagan's rise, IMO, was only possible because of Carter's horrible luck with OPEC and the hostage situation. Had Carter won re-election, the GOP establishment would've told Reagan to go back to California because nobody cared about what he had to say.

The reason Reagan was such a lasting political force was due to the rise of the organized right wing as well as at least convincing people that the Democratic Party's shift to the left was bad for America.

As far as drugs, go, most serious drug penalties didn't exist until Reagan came into power. Carter's administration firmly believed that long prison terms for drug users did more harm than good.

[wyldwolf]

67. true, but the Democrats had a solid hold on Congress the entire decade

Gun control, as you mentioned, is a great example of this. The NRA supported the Gun Control legislation passed in 1968. But by the late 70's the organization was infiltrated by right wingers. We also saw the rise of the religious right in the 70's.

True, but the Democrats had a solid hold on Congress the entire decade. The religious right reared it's ugly head for the first time in 1980. The first election it actually influenced, though, by mobilizing voters was the midterms in 1994.

Reagan's rise, IMO, was only possible because of Carter's horrible luck with OPEC and the hostage situation.

Only to a small extent. Southern Democrats had been migrating to the GOP in Federal elections since the 1960s. With a little more luck for Carter, we may have held the GOP at bay an election or two longer, but in reality the Democrat's fate had been sealed (and predicted as a matter of fact) in the late 60s. (see: http://www.amazon.com/emerging-Republican-majority-Kevin-Phillips/dp/0870000586)

[Hippo_Tron]

69. I've heard of that book, very tempted to order it now

Thanks for reminding me about it.

In my view, the South going to the GOP was inevitable. But consider that Nixon won the South easily in 1972 and he wasn't nearly as right wing as Reagan was. Even the infamous Barry Goldwater thought Reagan was too far to the right. The GOP would've eventually come to power, but it may have very well been the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the party that was in control.

[wyldwolf]

72. The book I referenced suggested a Southern Strategy.

[onenote]

68. serious drug penalties predated Reagan

I'm guessing you never heard of the Boggs Act. Enacated in 1951. Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. A Democrat was president. Under the Boggs Act, the penalties for possession of pot were as follows:

First offense 2 - 5 years
Second offense 5 - 10 years
Third and subsequent offenses 10 - 20 years

Penalties for drug possession were stiffened further in 1956, pursuant to the Narcotic Control Act of 1956.

It is true that in the 1970s, some of these provisions were repealed only to see a comeback during the Reagan years. But again, the idea that the Democratic party of today is out of step with the Democratic party of the past is a simplification that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. The case could just as easily be made that the party of the early 1970s was the version that broke from the traditional party mold (such as it was) and that it led ultimately to a resurgance for the repubs in the 1980s.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. Were those laws seriously enforced?

Because from what I've read, we didn't have massive amounts of people in prison for drugs until the 80's.

[election_2004]

38. Overall, I believe Barack is cleaner than Hillary

But you're right, whoever the next Democrat elected president ends up being, people shouldn't hesitate to hold him/her accountable for any bad decisions or misguided leadership.

Enough with the messiah/god/hero-worship...regardless of who your messiah/god/hero happens to be.

[bvar22]

49. K&R

Do you find it odd that over 60% of the American Voters (Democrat & Republican) support ENDING the Occupation, and yet the two frontrunners in the Democratic Party have pledged to continue the Occupation, and possibly expand it to Iran?

Do you find it odd that a candidate who pledges to continue the Occupation would find ANY support on a Progressive website?



Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died

Everybody talking to their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long stem rose
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that you love me baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that you've been faithful
Ah give or take a night or two
Everybody knows you've been discreet
But there were so many people you just had to meet
Without your clothes
And everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

And everybody knows that it's now or never
Everybody knows that it's me or you
And everybody knows that you live forever
Ah when you've done a line or two
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows

And everybody knows that the Plague is coming
Everybody knows that it's moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But there's gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows

And everybody knows that you're in trouble
Everybody knows what you've been through
From the bloody cross on top of Calvary
To the beach of Malibu
Everybody knows it's coming apart
Take one last look at this Sacred Heart
Before it blows
And everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

Oh everybody knows, everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows
---Leonard Cohen


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[jmp]

53. You can't.

Old dogs have trouble learning new tricks. Until the Green Party supplants the Democratic Party, there will be no true "left" in US politics.

[Le Taz Hot]

56. There are many on this board

that feel the way you do and yes, we get hammered (and worse) regularly. I kept quiet for several weeks after the 2006 election because everyone around here was so elated. However, beginning with that dog-and-pony "first 100 hours" horseshit, I could see that virtually nothing was going to change. Why? Because they have no incentive to change. It's a cozy little deal for all except the American people.

You might take a look at Kucinich since he's not a corporate shill like the rest of them. Will he win the nomination? No, because the big boys aren't behind him. But you'll at least be voting your conscience and you can write in whoever you want for the general election as we already know who will "win" the nomination.

I know it doesn't change anything and I'm afraid America will be lost through apathy, greed and laziness. The best we can do is fight the good fight in our little corner of the world so we can look back and say "at least I tried."

[ellisonz]

62. I have one wikipedia link that disproves the entire premise of this thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide

If you've somehow never read this "capital" work than you have deprived yourself of perspective.

[mike_c]

63. rec'd....

Good rant, and spot on.

[Zorra]

66. Bottom line: "It's the corporations who set the agenda" - but I would

change the word "who" to "that" - corporations are not people.

Below is a paragraph from an essay written by Marcos in the 90's.

"The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . ."

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3849/marcos_7pieces.html

SMUN, I agree with most of what you wrote. Unfortunately, it is what it is. We need to find a way to fix it. I'm going to continue to support Dem leaders that seem to recognize this root problem, leaders like Dennis Kucinich, so that they can get their message out as much as possible, and continue to be a voice for democracy and egalitarianism:

Corporate Power

The challenge before us today is whether we can maintain a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether we will timidly accept the economic, social, and political consequences of a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.
snip---
Government at the state and federal levels must reclaim its rightful role as regulator in the public interest, restructure electric rates to protect residents and small businesses, finance the construction of municipal power systems, and ensure -- as my Progressive Tax Act of 2003 does -- that corporations pay their fair share in taxes.
snip---
We cannot stand by idly while powerful economic engines -- virtually unregulated corporations -- violate workers' rights, human rights, and the environment, sweeping aside antitrust laws, eliminating competition.

We need a new relationship between our government and corporate America, an arms-length relationship, so that our elected leaders are capable of independently affirming and safeguarding the public interest. Just as our founders understood the need for separation of church and state, we need to institutionalize the separation of corporations and the state. This begins with government taking the responsibility to establish the conditions under which corporations can do business in the United States, including the establishment of a federal corporate charter that describes and clearly delineates corporate rights and responsibilities.

http://www.kucinichforcongress.com/issues/corp_power.php

Rep. Kucinich obviously knows what's going on, and I'd love to see him in the WH. Corporate interests will do everything they can to prevent him from getting the Dem nomination and becoming POTUS.

So it's totally up to We the People to get him nominated and elected despite their opposition, and the opposition of conservative "Democrats" that do not appear to understand the bottom line, or are so much like republicans that they are either corrupt or genuinely support a government of, by, and for the corporations.

Anyway, we're not alone.

[sadiesworld]

71. .

[PATRICK]

73. Besides the corporate control argument

a simpler one is that the last successful dem administration created an establishment that seeks to re-enter with 'experience". This type of self-propagation has been going on a looong time. There are the worst of the young Nixon orcs now running the presidency and politics. The same advisers, the same talking heads, the same officials to plug into the next post, depending on their party into their resume.
That is understandable, but considering the oppressive and ruinous results when people mean change it won't happen with reshuffling the old marked deck. it will at the least be predictable, stupid escalation
of past mistakes to prevent being shuffled out to the opposing party's ancient team.

It is not just the Clintons but it seems so since our last administrative team comes from those eight years. The "Reagan" team and some the Bush I team skulk on the sidelines waiting for another shot at the American suckers. Who won't in this sense, right off the bat NOT provide any change at all? Romney. McCain. Hillary. Who would be pressured into drawing the most from the previous party administration for talent or be forced to get "bi-partisan" representation from the other party? That is an open question. people like DK are the most sure thing not to restore the old faces.

Realistically, change will not be dramatic unless the winner decides to piss everyone off. No one is going to get a mandate for that attempted DC suicide. We need someone who will bring in the most non-warhorse crowd, progressive, future looking and hopefully not as likely to get set in their ways to become the next Roman Curia. The better the progressive president, the better the efforts that might be made to advance the process at the congressional levels. Nothing succeeds like success. The more things change the bigger the full circle and hopefully it gets big enough so it won't close and shrink.