Is the base of the democratic party "moderate" or "liberal"?

[ringmastery]

For all of the talk about finding a candidate the base will like, it seems the base of the party is much more middle of the road than many of the members here would like to believe.

Just look at the members in congress. If people here are calling John Kerry republican lite, and he has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate, where does that leave the rest of the democrats in the senate?

Clearly, DU is out of step with the democratic party at large. In public polls and newspaper articles, democratic voters are united as never before around ABB and John Kerry. At DU, it's WW III. Kucinich polls 30% or more here and gets single digits everywhere else.

There seems to be a huge disconnect to what people at DU think the "base" of the party is and the actual "base" of the party.

Why should the most liberal fringe of democrats dictate to the majority that we must have a very progressive or liberal candidate when the majority is perfectly happy with a moderate?

[mhr]

1. Most Are Liberal On The Issues But Call Themselves Moderate

To be politically correct.

[Adelante]

2. I don't relate to "moderate"

I'm a liberal. Kerry's a liberal. I don't get what you're trying to do here. :shrug:

[ringmastery]

3. I'm just curious why DU is so different

from everywhere else.

[SangamonTaylor]

5. it's the internet

[IrateCitizen]

9. Because people here are political junkies

We tend to be VERY well-informed about issues around us, and we also exist in a bubble in which we are bouncing ideas and opinions off of primarily like-minded people.

Even in my local town Democratic committee, I find a lot of long-time folks who are very informed and involved on LOCAL issues, but they really don't know a great deal about NATIONAL issues. Therefore, their assumptions tend to lead them to much different conclusions -- even if our basic goals (see my post #7 below) are very much the same.

Even with respect to conservatives (not raging reactionary RWers, but true conservatives), we all have the same basic concerns. It's just our difference in perspective and assumptions that get in the way of being able to come to an amicable solution to the problems behind those concerns.

[GreenArrow]

42. It is?

It used to be, maybe, but it's changed a lot in the last year and a half.

Maybe it still is, compared to the population at large.

6. these terms get bandied about without definition too much

Define liberal.

Is Kerry a liberal or a neo-liberal?
Is it liberal to be in favor of protecting the environment or conservative (conserve-ative)?

Is it liberal to be in favor of the Bill of Rights or conservative?
The ACLU is considered liberal and is in favor of the the Bill of Rights and yet a strict constructionist judge who is conservative would also be in favor of the Bill of Rights.

I'm just commenting because I think using overarching terms such as liberal, moderate, conservative, socialist, etc. ends up confusing the issue, unless everyone is on the same page about what the terms mean contextually.

edited for typo

[Mattforclark]

4. Librul and proud of it

[IrateCitizen]

7. They are both

What exactly IS the "base" of the party? While some of us here at DU like to portray ourselves as the "base", we are really just a part of it. The "base" is a rather complex animal, that cannot be broken down into simple labels like "moderate" or "liberal".

It's also different things in different areas. Affluent liberals living on Park Avenue are part of the "base" -- but so are blue-collar union workers in Cleveland and Detroit. Likewise with vegan anti-war activists in CA, and environmentalists in New England. The base consists of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Agnostics/Atheists.

ALL of these folks -- and many more -- are the "base" of the party. That is our biggest strength -- and weakness. However, there are some basic tenets that virtually all of the "base" can rally around:

1. Fair play -- if you work hard, you should be able to achieve a decent quality of life, and shouldn't be penalized for it
2. Equal rights -- people should not be discriminated against within the law for any reason
3. Equality of opportunity -- the kid growing up in Compton should be provided with the same tools by which to achieve success as the kid in Beverly Hills
4. Contributing your fair share -- if you reap great benefits in our society, you should contribute your fair share BACK to it, to help provide for point #3.
5. Looking to the future -- you cannot mortgage present economic policy or the environment on the backs of future generations

The big fights occur on HOW to achieve these broad goals. That is where we become caught up in the whole idea of labels -- and end up arguing over the 20% or so that separates the vast majority of us rather than concentrating on the 80% or more that we basically can agree upon.

[tedzbear]

18. Exzzzzzzzzzzellent post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank u so much. I am going to copy your 5 points and keep it on file. When I look at Kerry or any other candidate, I should take what they say and compare it to these 5 "holy of holies." Otherwise I will get easily caught up in that 20% (my queer issues, etc.) that actually depend on whether or not we achieve the other 80%. It is a balancing act for a voter, just as much as it is for a candidate.

IrateCitizen, did you make that up now or did you get it from somewhere. If it's in a book, can I have the title, author???
Thanks.

:bounce:

[IrateCitizen]

22. No, I came up with those all by myself!

The thing to keep in mind is that, quite often, those politicians who are most successful at the level at which they can directly interact with the people are those who are most adept at listening to people's problems and providing common-sense solutions. One thing that unites the vast majority of liberals, moderates and conservatives is the problems we face in our daily lives. Politicians who are skillful at solving those problems will naturally gain popular support.

For proof of this, just look at Bernie Sanders in VT. A lot of Republicans will vote for him because he listens to them, and he gets things done -- plain and simple.

The problem we encounter is when we drift past the zone at which politicians directly interact with the people. It is there that you enter into the media-driven hype of TV ads and the Beltway bubble. That is a bit more difficult to overcome, and it tends to be more susceptible to wedge issues -- which gives a natural advantage to the Republicans, because that's their bread-and-butter.

But this phenomenon can be countered -- if we're willing to work at it from a long-term perspective rather than just looking at the next election. It will require perserverance, hard work and the ability to define our views into a coherent vision. But if we want to change the rules of the game to ones that favor US, rather than continually playing by the rules set up by the Republicans and their backers, it is work that must be done.

In a nutshell, THAT is my biggest gripe with the DLC. They have no vision. They play by the rules set up by the Republicans -- which explains why they have come to represent views that, 25 years ago, would have made Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller look like flaming liberals! They have HAD to drift to the right in order to play within the rules GIVEN to them, rather than seeking to recreate their own.

[tedzbear]

30. Irate citizen, you get MY vote...

for op-ed chief at the NYT! How about the Wall Street Journal? NO? Oh, come on.
Would it be THAT stressful working with pundits like Thomas Friedman, et al.??????

answer: yes

:bounce:

[IrateCitizen]

32. They would have to install a metal detector at my office door...

... to keep me from sneaking a pistol in and shooting myself, if I had to deal with Thomas Friedman on anywhere close to a daily basis. :grr:

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. I have no clue

I'd like to think there are more Kucinich-like folks in the Dem party than not, but really not sure on that.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. It's not pro war, pro corporatist conservative like the DLC, that's a fact

Admittedly I lean about as far to the left as one can go and remain in this party (at least for now). My parents are definitely more centrist, but still Democrats. Obviously there's a spectrum of viepoints that runs along those lines, and that's not neccessarily a bad thing. It's the right wing infiltrators that piss me off. The positions of the current DLC are not compatible with Democratic values. Hell, some of them are even to the right of traditional Republican values!

[ringmastery]

12. would you rather the DLC people go away

and become republicans?

We would never get more than 40% in any national election and probably lose dozens of seats in congress.

[IrateCitizen]

15. The problem is, the DLC view 25 years ago...

... WAS the moderate Republican view. Hell, the DLC probably would have labelled either Nelson Rockefeller or Richard Nixon as too liberal for their liking.

Additionally, the DLC is quite fond of tearing down those segments of the party that are too "liberal" for their liking. With the kind of memos and talking points they put out disparaging anyone who might have questioned the initial invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation, you would think that they were written by Republicans.

DLC folks most certainly can expect to have a seat at the table. But by no means should they be entitled to the head seat, and by no means to they have the right to tear down anyone who disagrees with them in the name of promoting "unity" within the party. There is just too much diversity within the Democratic Party to expect everyone to fall in line automatically -- it has to operate more on a consensus process.

[ringmastery]

17. but what if they can't play by those rules what should they do

leave and bolt to join the republican party?

The democratic party will cease to be competitive if that happens. On the flip side, the ex-DLC people may make the republican party slightly more moderate, but that's a pretty pissy concession.

[IrateCitizen]

26. Here's my real gripe with the DLC

They are a group of people totally fixated on the short-term, acting without any impression of imagination or vision. Rather than seek to change the rules of the game over the long term, they are perfectly content to play by the Republicans' rules. They eschew any kind of grassroots organizing for fundraising and media hype.

Need proof of this? They have advocated concepts like abandoning the working class in favor of upscale professionals. They have gone beyond disagreeing with those who oppose the current overt militarism and crossed into open disparagement. The ideas they offer are packaged as new -- but they are actually stale ideas that were the domain of the Republican Party of 25-30 years ago.

Looking at short-term electoral victories is fine -- in fact, it is needed in order to be successful. But concentrating on those victories to the exclusion of any kind of long-term plan is downright self-destructive. Playing the game by the rules set by the other side is completely foolhardy. So long as you play by the other side's rules, you're guaranteed to drift more and more toward them.

It is only by the imagination of those willing to break out of the current rules, and to dictate new rules by acting with boldness and vision that we will be able to ensure a long-term success that will have the capability of truly transforming our society for the better. Right now, the DLC isn't offering it.

[tedzbear]

20. That's not the ONLY scenario...

We could end up with a three party system. The right wing part of the democratic party might join up with the left wing part of the repugs and voilà! Just because Karl Rove is calling the shots is no reason his agenda will end up controlling the center. He could lose a good chunk of his left wing base if a popular independent candidate suddenly appeared.

:bounce:

21. three parties in America?!?!

but , but :evilgrin:

[AntiCoup2K4]

23. They can't "become" Republicans, they ARE Republicans!

The DLC exists to destroy the Democratic party from the inside. And so far, they're doing a damn good job of it. We will never get this party, let alone this country, into the 21st century until we say enough is enough and throw these bastards overboard.

[GreenArrow]

43. it isn't?

Then how do Edwards and Kerry -- pro IWR, pro occupation, pro Patriot Act, pro War on Terror (TM), etc. end up with 75 percent plus of the vote in Tuesday's primaries?

[BL_Zebub]

47. Well, by the time Super Tuesday came around, they were the only 2 running.

...Or so the media and the Democrats who Love Corporatism would have you believe.

[johnlal]

11. I don't get your point

"Why should the most liberal fringe of democrats dictate to the majority that we must have a very progressive or liberal candidate when the majority is perfectly happy with a moderate?"

If the majority is responsible for the nomination of Kerry, then how is the "liberal fringe" dictating anything? Quite the opposite. The establishment is dictating that Kerry should have the nomination to the disappointment of the "liberal fringe". I'm for ABB, but I have to think that the DLC is happy to play ABB up to its advantage. You can say anything you want to about Kerry's liberal credentials. When he voted to go to war in Iraq, he ignored all of our voices. That still hurts, and he has to make amends. He is still side-stepping the issue.

[ringmastery]

14. well

people who say things like...pick my guy or I will vote for Nader are dictating things to the rest of the party, trying to hold the party hostage.

16. that's politics

that's how you negotiate.
You can say "do this or else I'll do this" as a bargaining point even if you intend to not actually go through with what you're threatening.
What's wrong with that?
If you cave at the beginning you'll never get anything.

Real world here.

[tedzbear]

25. I wish more people here at DU would respect your philosophy...

...and not tear into us fringers when we bring up opposing arguments to various issues, including whether or not to support a certain candidate.

Better that I stand my ground now until Nov. and put my agenda out there loud and clear, then stand in silence. Come Nov. when I vote, then I'll probably compromise and vote for the lesser of two evils. But for now we still have 3 democrats running for the nomination, so lets discuss the various options. Debate is healthy. Arrogant dismissals of opposing viewpoints are not.

:kick:

[sangh0]

27. That's not negotiating

You can say "do this or else I'll do this" as a bargaining point even if you intend to not actually go through with what you're threatening.

There is no intention of gaining anything or compromising on anything, both of which are essential to negotiating. The intention is merely to hurt the Dems by portraying them as unprincipled. If these people were really negotiating, they would at some point compromise.

If you cave at the beginning you'll never get anything.

And if you never compromise, you also get nothing. People who don't compromise at the beginning, middle, and end have no interest in negotiating.

Real world here

31. speak

for yourself

"There is no intention of gaining anything or compromising on anything,"

Depends on the person. That is how negotiating works. The way I described. Of course there are those who are guilty of what you are describing,but that doesn't mean that negotiation doesn't work the way I described.

In my world whether it's real or not.

(on edit) Glad to see you showed up. I think. No, I know, really.

[sangh0]

39. Right, it depends on the person

I said nothing different. I merely pointed out that there are people who have made their intentions obvious.

That is how negotiating works. The way I described

I agree. But there are people who have no intention of compromising and no intention of negotiating. That's how politics works. The way I described.

Politics is real too.

[johnlal]

34. I still don't get it

If the majority supports the "moderate" view, then they will prevail. If dissenters are a significant voice, then the candidate needs to address their concerns, or risk losing the election. In the original post, you called this the "liberal fringe". If it is just a "fringe" group, you have no worries. However, if this is a significant voice, it should not be ignored, it should be addressed.

[tedzbear]

13. Most definitely moderate...

...and bordering on conservative. Otherwise Kucinich or Dean would have won the nomination.

I have brought up left wing causes repeatedly at DU and always get rudely attacked for not respecting the "current" party dogma. Does membership in DU require that I walk in lock step with the majority's will? It sure seems like it. In the real world it's even worse cause then I have to deal with the repugs (ugh). They are no day at the beach let me tell you.


There is no reason the democrats have to pander to the liberal "fringe," although I wonder what you consider the fringe to be. The democrats need to be careful. If they pull too far to the right they WILL alienate a sizable percentage of their supporters and make Karl Rove very happy. Kerry has to dance with both the left and the right in his party and somehow make them all reasonably happy. We will see in Nov. if he has been successful or not.

:kick:

[redqueen]

19. Thanks for posting this

It makes it quite clear I'm in the wrong damn country, if the major 'left' party is as close as it is to the far-right.

[DuctapeFatwa]

24. A European poster the other day said something in passing, just

an almost parenthetical remark during discussion of another topic, he mentioned that the most conservative politician in his country is considerably to the left of Dennis Kucinich.

(No I don't remember the poster's name, the country or have a link)

I think people tend to forget that in the US, most people do not vote, or participate in politics in any way, and especially among the poor, the level of sophistication in regard to the relevance of "who wins" to their lives that is considerably higher than that found in the voting class.

If asked, most people would probably guess that the poor would tend to be more gullible than their more affluent brothers, when it comes to American politics, however, the opposite is true.

The "base" of both parties consists largely of people who have not only the basics they need for survival, but some left over, touchingly out of touch with the tininess of the minority they represent, mercifully unaware of the state of the thread by which they hang.

35. Bingo!

[tedzbear]

37. Clarification request...

"I think people tend to forget that in the US, most people do not vote, or participate in politics in any way, and especially among the poor, the level of sophistication in regard to the relevance of "who wins" to their lives that is considerably higher than that found in the voting class."

You are saying the poor have a damn good idea of how "irrelevant" their political choices are to their actual lot in life? And that's why they don't bother to vote?

[DuctapeFatwa]

40. Not just the poor. In all fairness, the poor are not intended to vote

Polls open for 12 hours on a working day, long distances between home and workplace, general logisitics of poverty.

In addition to that, yes, poor people are more likely than the affluent to understand that it doesn't matter a hill of beans which rich white man gets a fancy new office, in terms of whether they have rent money or not, and any change that does affect them will be for the worse, and not the better.

[lastliberalintexas]

41. A joke I heard in DC once

told of a British comedy troupe performing in the states. They started off by giving a primer on UK politics for the American audience, something as follows:

The parties in the UK are quite different from those you have here in the US, so let me first explain which parties we have in Britain. For instance, we have the Liberal Party, which is just as its name implies- bleeding hearts, worried about the poor and justice. Here in America, the Liberals would be considered Socialists.

Then there is the Labour Party, fairly moderate and middle of the road. Here in America, they too would be considered Socialists.

Then we have our very conservative, God save the monarchy Tories who occupy the right wing of the European political spectrum. Short of the Neo-Nazis, they are probably the most conservative party we have in the UK. Here in America, the Tories would be considered... Socialists.


Unfortunately, that "joke" is rather telling about the political climate in the US- and I think I first heard it in 1992! We've had even more of a shift to the right in the decade since.

The sad thing is that Americans are far more liberal than we think. When asked *issue* oriented questions, Americans tend to be pro-choice, favor universal health care, want to protect the environment, etc. It is only when they are asked questions about ideology that people self-identify as conservatives- and then probably because of the villification of anything associated with the left in America.

[redqueen]

45. Very good points

One of the most important goals of the progressive movement should be the political education and re-enfranchisement of the poor.

[mvd]

28. I think the base agrees with Kerry on many things

People want better health care, job security, and better education - while wanting lower taxes for the middle class. The base tends to be socially moderate, "patriotic," and not big on gun control - and I think Kerry has understood which issues won't play well.

[sangh0]

29. The Democratic "base" is a liberal fantasy

which unsurprisingly puts liberals at the center of the base. Unfortunately, reality and it's legions of union member, blacks, professionals, ROman Catholics, etc, many of whom are socially conservative, show that liberals are just one more minority member of a great coalition

[Indiana Democrat]

33. The "Base" is Liberal. The "Rank and File" Democrats are Moderate.

"Rank and File" being those Democrats who have elected Evan Byah time and time again in Indiana. The kind of Democrats I have as friends. The kind of Democrats who are spat apon at DU.

[goodhue]

36. more moderate

than it likes to think

[GreenArrow]

38. The "base" is clearly moderate to right leaning,

as the primary season should be making clear. The "left" must assimilate, or be judged obsolete, and nullified.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. Let's define our terms here

First of all, there are two types of liberalism/conservative: social and political/economic.

The social liberals believe that people should do what they want unless it hurts someone else. The social conservatives believe that "standards must be upheld."

The political/economic liberals believe in a strong social safety net and a concern for the "little person" in political matters. The political/economic conservatives believe in a "sink or swim" philosophy and a minimal safety net at most and would be likely to say "What's good for General Motors is good for America" and "we need a stronger defense."

People can be social liberals and poli/econ conservatives, in which case they probably belong to the DLC.

If they are social liberals and poli/econ liberals, they're probably posting on DU and voting for "fringe" candidates, and the DLC wishes they would shut up and go away, except when it comes to giving money to the DNC or voting for Democratic candidates.

If they are social conservatives and poli/econ liberals, they're probably working class or ethnic voters.

I'm convinced that the Dem party lost the Reagan Democrats because it took the social liberal + poli/econ conservative route. They saw that the party was working against their economic interests, especially after the Congressional Dems failed to stand up for the fired air traffic controllers and other examples of union busting and failed to help the thousands of farmers who lost farms that had been in their families for generations. At the same time, the party was pushing social liberalism on people who were suffering from severe "future shock" at the social changes that had happened since 1964.

The Reagan Democrats knew deep down that the Republicanites didn't have their poli/econ interests at heart, but they were taken in by the Republicanites' "traditional values," an implied promise of a return to Ozzie and Harriet Land.

The Democratic Party DLC style is the Democratic Party of the power elites. The rich have always been more laissez-faire about discreet personal behavior than the middle and working classes have been, and they are insulated from the inevitable painful adjustments that occur when new groups are given equal rights. (Remember the Boston school busing controversy, in which the protestors--even those who acknowledged the rightness of integration-- had a very good point: that only working class people were being asked to integrate their schools.) Taken from a working class point of view, they've been brought up one way, and those "limousine liberals" from the other side of town are telling them that it's okay to do the opposite. No matter who is right, that comes off as arrogant...

...especially when it's coupled with an almost total disregard for the economic well-being of the working class.

Yeah, welfare reform: let's set up rigid rules that will kick people off welfare and into minimum wage jobs without improving their standard of living and that will make no allowances for unforeseen circumstances, such as an economic downtown.

Yeah, free trade: let's have policies that make it easy for American manufacturers to avoid paying even the piddly U.S. minimum wage and ship jobs by the thousands to Third World countries, with no provisions for replacing the jobs that leave.

Yeah, tax benefits for corporations--never mind that all legitimate business expenses are already tax deductible, and that corporations are now paying far less of the total tax burden than they did in the 1950s. Let's give them more tax breaks! Compensate for the tax breaks by cutting government services (times are tough, you know) and/or raising the sales tax and property taxes and state/local income taxes on individuals.

Yeah, a strong defense: let's keep bankrupting our country by buildings weapons systems against enemies who no longer exist and by pretending that spending hundreds of billions on combat equipment while keeping soldiers and veterans in poor conditions will somehow do what exactly? and that any of this will prevent terrorism.

Yeah, tough on crime: lock up all those pot smokers! Have rigid sentencing guidelines ! Have the highest level of incarceration in the Western world! Cut the social services that may prevent youth from going into crime!

So why would a working class person vote Democratic under the DLC program? They get the "limousine liberal" social attitudes that they're suspicious of and economic programs remarkably similar to those of the Republicans.

What's not to like? :evilgrin:

[Joanne98]

46. I'm so far to the left

I'm practically a marxist. If the corporate "crime wave" gets any worse, I'm becoming a "get rid of ownership of private property" zealot.}(

[NNN0LHI]

48. These labels really don't work

I consider myself an ultra-liberal. But I am also a pragmatist. I have found this to be a good combination for me.

Don

[Dhalgren]

49. Obviously, way-moderate.

I think it's called "Centrist". "The People Have Spoken" or so they say.

[bhunt70]

50. ever so slightly left of moderate.

[genius]

51. It's the news coverage that determines the winners - not their stances

The reason everyone who sees Dennis loves him is that he speaks for 90% of Americans. But the news media pretends he doesn't exist and tells us who can win. That is the reason for the way the votes goes. I voted for Feinstein but I can't stand her.