Some are so far left that they’re not worth courting to Democrats

[DisgustiPatriotiated]

The rhetoric is so vicious and closed minded that it’s not worth the time or trouble to have them in the Democratic Party. They aren’t really with us but to antagonize about taking their votes elsewhere. I have run across a couple posts like this tonight.

I’m all for having patience for those who need time to come around, but I’m not so much for playing punching bag for those who have no need or desire for compromise or progress in any way shape or form and only wish to piss and moan. There are some people that just aren’t worth saving in the Democratic Party, and I suggest they are people who really aren’t in the Party now anyway.

I’ve reached my limit in my community with a certain faction of people, which is for sure. We are ready to move on with, or without, a few disgruntled asses who demand their votes be begged for. (My words about the asses) It’s time to get to work.

Some people can never be pleased no matter what. As another poster said, they are ideologically pure, and there is no way to ever meet that goal, thus, they are always destined to lose. What kid of a goal is that? One in which is always destined to lose?

Forget it. I say there are some people we need to press on without. No begging. I say fuck them – they are going to vote Nader or Green anyway. I’m not kissing anyone’s ass in the meantime.

edit: please - I am not referring to Democrats or lefties who are going to, even reluctantly, vote for Kerry. I am only referring to those far lefties who have no intention of voting for Kerry and only hang around to antagonize or bash.

I have encountered more than one tonight, which is what precipitated this post.

[WildClarySage]

1. rest in peace,

man

[Union Thug]

2. I take issue with this...

I'm one of those that you would consider "so far left.." etc. (probably further to the left than most greens), and while i'm not 100 percent pleased by it, I'll definately be voting for Kerry come election day. Don't label all of us as piss-and-moaners. A lot of us understand the defeat Bush imperative all too well. =)

[DisgustiPatriotiated]

3. Then you are not who I am referring to.

I will edit my post to clarify that.

[bluestateguy]

4. I tend to agree

Although, not every Nader voter or leaner is in this category, at least not in March of the election year. Some of those people telling the pollsters "Nader" are diehard Dean or Kucinich supporters who are having trouble letting go. Their numbers will decline. Still, there are some extreme Left wackos who will vote for Nader come hell or high water (it's not like THEY have to suffer in a second Bush Administration). I don't think these people are really part of the coalition anyway. They probably didn't vote for Clinton in the 90's either, and they may not have even voted for Mondale and Dukakis. Only a Stallinist candidate would suit their needs.

[DisgustiPatriotiated]

5. Please see edits

[MadHound]

6. LOL, you are funny

Compromise, yeah right. When somebody even mentions the word compromise around here, you can hear the noise of necks stiffening across the nation. Even FDR had to compromise with the Socialists, and wound up tossing them the bones of Unemployment and Social Security. Yet when someone says "hey, great idea to bring in the progressives this fall, toss them the Universal Health Care bone" you hear one of two things; silence or the sound of indignant laughter.

Most Democrats don't want to compromise. The general feeling is that they're entitled to any person's vote who is to the left of Attila the Hun. And those on the far left(that would be those to the left of LBJ), well hell, they're the base, and can be ignored. I mean after all(so the Dem reasoning goes) who else are they going to vote for? The 'Pugs? So the far left is cheerfully left to rot, while the Dems go begging for those Reagan Dems vote, even though the far left HAS been the most loyal Dem voters, even though they have been the activist, grass roots, energetic base of the Dems for decades. I mean after all, who is it you see out on the streets going door to door. Well it sure isn't the Reagan Dems, or the soccer moms. It's that long hair who's out there and hustling, picking up those votes, it's that "eviromental whacko" who is manning the phones, it is that "peacenik" out there registering voters. Year after year after bloody goddamn year.

So after years and decades of being ridiculed within our own party or simply ignored, we've gotten fed up. We've either dropped out of the voting process altogether, or have joined the third party movement. The Democratic party is going to have to *gasp* EARN our votes now, just like they have to EARN the independent and swing vote. I know that that is a rude shock to many of you, but damnit, the left has been taken for granted for entirely too long. But it isn't too late. You can still get those far left votes back into the fold. But gee, it means having to COMPROMISE. You know, toss us a bone, like real UHC, not that smoke and mirrors shit Clinton tried to pull in the early '90s. Or perhaps a living wage plank in the platform. Something, anything to show that the Dems recognize, appreciate and care about the progressives. If the Dems do this, then they win this fall, for the left is pragmatic enough to vote FOR something, when they have a stake in it. Otherwise, continue to ignore and ridicule us, well, of course, we're gone. We know when we're not wanted.

So we'll see how this plays out. The ball is in the Dems' court. Are you going to loosen those stiff necks and compromise. Or will you continue the same ol' same ol', mock, ignore and continue to think you're entitled to our vote? The decision is up to you, and whether the Dems win or lose is at stake.

Choose.

[blondeatlast]

7. DK supporter turned Kerry supporter here; you stated it very well.

I think the problem is that many see things as I do; the important thing now is to see that the Chimp is not re-elected.

Personally, I find voting for Kerry far more digestible than voting for Clinton was. He was hardly the Dem hero, definitely a lesser evil, to me, a lifelong Dem from an ancestry full of feisty dems.

But the Dems need to throw us a bone indeed; DK's UHC plan would be an excellent one; a call for a living wage law would be a second one.

I want to see Dennis have a real presence at the Convention. That meant he had to make a choice; continue to run and strengthen his presence or pledge unity. Tough call for him.

Kerry has my physical and monetary support, though; there is too much at stake now.

[info being]

82. I feel the same way as you. I will hold my nose and vote Kerry.

How's that for compromise. I'd like to see one of these mainstream Dems compromise on anything.

[Sugarbleus]

86. LOL---->'how's that for compromise'...hehehehe well said.. n/t

[bushbegone04]

87. I will do the same but am crushed over Dean

I will vote for Kerry but what brought me to register to vote for the first time ever was Howard Dean. Now that I see him buddy buddy with John Kerry, it upsets me. I respected Dean for his straightforwardness, and even though I know I have to do what is good for the party, I don't respect Kerry due to IWR and really have a lot of negative feelings now toward Dean. I feel like he fooled me. A lot of my friends feel same, and some even refuse to vote at all now or are voting for Nader (I am trying to talk them out of it of course) but they just feel "used" by Dean.

Am I making sense? It is late and I am rambling.

[sangha]

8. Unemployment and Social Security were "bones"?

Those programs did more than any other in American history to reduce poverty. Before SS, 50% of the elderly were poor.

This is just another indication of how the fringe left must, in order to justify it's opposition to the Democrats, denigrate and minimize any and every achievement the Democrats have had, no matter how great.

[blondeatlast]

10. You are correct, and I wish I'd been more careful in my previous

post.

That's the Party I remember, and we are well on our way to achieving it again, IMHO.

I'm not one of those who sees Kerry as Bush-lite, not in the least. He has proven his liberal case to me. I would love to see DK win, but it ain't gonna happen.

I can vote for JK while taking a deep, cleansing breath, knowing that the stench of this corrupt administration will be eliminated.

It's a new day for Democrats, if one chooses to see it that way.

[MadHound]

15. Always the literalist aren't you Sang

Do you understand the concept of speaking metaphorically? That is what I'm doing here. Let me explain so that you won't be oh so offended.

In the midterm elections of 1934, FDR and the Democrats were feeling the heat from the left. The Socialists and Communists were on the rise, the people were angry, and the Democratic administration worried that enough of these third party candidates could not only siphon off enough votes to allow the 'Pugs victory, but also win in their own right(Eugene Debs anybody). This third party movement also did not portend well for for FDR's own re-election bid. So though he wasn't initially in favor of the idea, FDR and the Democratic leadership decided to steal a couple of planks from the Socialists and make them their own. The two he took were Old Age Insurance(renamed Social Security) and unemployment insurance.

Timed to have the Congressional debates in the fall of '34, the message to the left was clear, if you wish to be pragmatic and see two of your more cherished issues enacted, vote Democratic and they will be. The ploy worked, with Dems sweeping into power in '34, with SS and unemployment being signed into law and enacted in '35. Thus a deal was struck between those on the far left and those in the middle(which was more to the left than today). Continue to vote and work for the Democratic party, and the far left/progressive wing would forever after have a prominent place in the party, with the power to shape portions of the Democratic platform.

This arrangement worked well, and brought the Democrats success throughout the middle and latter parts of the twentieth century. However, somewhere around the Carter administration a group of corporatist Dems started agitating against this arrangement. The party was too far left they claimed(though ironically polls, but then and now, indicate that the populace in general was as far, if not further left than the Dems). The solution was to wrench the party to the center in pursuit of the ever fickle "swing voter" Though this strategy was pursued in the eighties, it wasn't successful. However when this ever rightward drift was paired with some serious pandering to corporations and big business, it succeeded wonderfully, at least for the New Dems. A Democrat, Bill Clinton, was elected, and then re-elected. However the notion of Democrats of being for the little guy was paid little service except lip service, and the progressives and far lefts remaining in the party were ridiculed and harrassed, the far left vote was taken for granted, and the successful arrangement from the FDR era was forgotten. Corporate money reigned supreme, and following the tutelage of his corporate masters, Clinton spoke like a Dem, but ruled like a 'Pug. Slashing civil right in the name of the WOD, cutting down the social safety net with welfare "reform", and paying back his corporate masters with gifts like NAFTA and the '96 Telecom Act, the nineties saw the outright corruption of both the Democratic party and our government by the insideous evil of corporate money and greed.

Recognizing this trend, those on the far left started agitating for change. First from within the party, and then from without. Some dropped out of voting and politics altogether, throwing up their hands and calling for a curse upon both houses. But some decided to fight back. While not successful in gaining many prominent office holders, it had been shown before that a third party running from the left could influence the debate, and perhaps change the two party/same corporate master direction that this country was headed towards. Thus we saw the rise of the Greens and Nader.

The issue is still undecided on whether or not the far left can be successful with this strategy. One would think that after the demonstration of '00 and '02 that the Democratic party would realize that they need to appease the far left in order to win an election. However, judging from the tenor of the debate, and the moves that the Democratic leadership has made, this lesson hasn't been learned. Forgetting the examples of history, ignoring the cries from the left, the Democratic leadership, through fearmongering and bully boy tactics, continues to insist on swinging ever further rightward, and whoreing itself out for that corporate cash. So be it. But if this strategy is continued, it doesn't take a crystal ball to see that the Dems won't be winning anytime soon, and that it is quite possible they will dry up and blow away like the Whigs.

So the ball is now in the Dem's court. Forget your stiff necked pride, and cease your corporate whoring, make a reconciliation with the far left, and the Democratic party can return to greatness. Or continue down your foolish path, and be thrown upon the dustbin of history.

[sangh0]

17. I understand propoganda

Do you understand the concept of speaking metaphorically? That is what I'm doing here

IOW, you're not telling the truth.

So though he wasn't initially in favor of the idea, FDR and the Democratic leadership decided to steal a couple of planks from the Socialists and make them their own. The two he took were Old Age Insurance(renamed Social Security) and unemployment insurance.

And here's an example of how you play loose with the truth. FDR co-opted more than two of the Socialists programs. Child labor laws, worker safety programs, welfare, regulation of markets, etc are some other examples.

Timed to have the Congressional debates in the fall of '34, the message to the left was clear, if you wish to be pragmatic and see two of your more cherished issues enacted, vote Democratic and they will be. The ploy worked, with Dems sweeping into power in '34, with SS and unemployment being signed into law and enacted in '35.

And another example of your distorted version of the truth is how you describe a deal that was made AND KEPT as "a ploy". Even you acknowledge that the Dems gave "far left/progressive wing...a prominent place in the party"

Some "ploy"

The only ploy being used here is your efforts to ignore and distort any and every Dem achievement, many of which are of historic importance, while emphasizing their failures as misportraying them as intentional. And under no circumstances will you refer to the complete failure of the fringe left to achieve ANYTHING for those people (ex the poor, minorities) whose interests it claims to protect.

And now my favorite lines from your screed:

While not successful in gaining many prominent office holders, it had been shown before that a third party running from the left could influence the debate, and perhaps change the two party/same corporate master direction that this country was headed towards. Thus we saw the rise of the Greens and Nader.

Really? It really "had been shown" that a 3rd party on the left could influence the debate?

Care to back up that silly assertion by pointing how Nader influenced the debate in 2000?

[MadHound]

20. You know Sang . . .

Oh hell, never mind, you're not even worth it anymore. Keep your head buried for all I care. If you can't see history and reality staring you in the face, then who am I to try and teach you.

Propoganda, yeah right. Tell you what, go do some research and then get back to me. Here, another book to add to your reading list. "Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons" Not that I expect you to peruse it. Spin and denial are the only two gears you know.

[sangh0]

21. Yep, propoganda

as demonstrated by your inability to credit the great achievements the Dems have made like SS, Unemployment, child labor laws, market regulations, reducing poverty, discrimination, etc.

[redqueen]

24. Didn't you just credit Socialists

with influencing Dems to do those things?

Why not give credit where it's due? Why insist we be so grateful to them for listening to far lefties then, when all they do now is scream about how we're betraying them by trying to influence them to do something positive?

[sangh0]

32. Yes, I did

When Socialists work WITH Dems, socialistic policies get passed and implemented. When Socialists work AGAINST Dems, they do not and it's inaccurate to describe them as "trying to influence" Dems.

That's why I credit the Socialists (and the Dems) when they compromise, and don't credit them when they don't.

[redqueen]

36. Not just socialists, though

This is about far left policies being given the cold shoulder by Democrats. FDR realized the split was a danger to his election and adopted those policies. Did the Socialist Party really work with Democrats, or did the Democrats sense the split and adopt them independently? That's a rather crucial point, I think.

I guess it just seems to me that since the Democrats are refusing to consider the lefties' planks again (UHC, living wage, etc.), then that really could be viewed as a very good reason to go back to the method that inspired the Democrats and FDR to adopt those wonderful planks in the first place -- leave the party and influence it from the outside.

[sangh0]

46. Did the Socialist Party really work with Democrats...?

The answer is obviously a "Yes". If the Socialisats were trying to defeat the Dems and destroy the party, they would not have compromised.

I guess it just seems to me that since the Democrats are refusing to consider the lefties' planks again (UHC, living wage, etc.), then that really could be viewed as a very good reason to go back to the method that inspired the Democrats and FDR to adopt those wonderful planks in the first place -- leave the party and influence it from the outside.

Well, that is always a possibility, but speaking realistically, what are the odds that that will happen between now and November?

IOW, if you're talking about a long-term strategy, then you do have a point. But if you're talking about the upcoming election (and here you should take a look up to see the name of this forum), I have to repeat my question "what are the odds that that will happen between now and November?"

[redqueen]

49. Well I can't just say 'the Socialists'

In any group there are many people and you can't really force them to do anything without some threat involved.

However, I was more asking if the party itself had worked with Democrats, or if this was done by Democrats on their own, in the hopes of picking up some of those votes. Did the Socialist party agree not to run a candidate against FDR in exhange for the adoption those planks, maybe?

[sangh0]

55. No, you didn't

It's just that there doesn't seem to be a precise term to use for the people we are discussing.

However, I was more asking if the party itself had worked with Democrats...

As reality alway is, things were not as clear-cut as some would make it out to be. It wasn't a situation where one was either a Repuke, Dem or Socialist. There were many Dems with Socialist sympathies, and vice-versa so it would accurate to say that there was some cooperation. But as far as I know, there was no explicit bargain or negotiation between the Socialists and the Dems.

[redqueen]

22. So Democrats should give us MORE than UHC? Great!

"FDR co-opted more than two of the Socialists programs. Child labor laws, worker safety programs, welfare, regulation of markets, etc are some other examples."

This is great news! Some of the greatest achievements of the Dem party were made not by any will to do these things on their own, but by being forced to by far lefties!

You're welcome, centrists!


"Really? It really "had been shown" that a 3rd party on the left could influence the debate?"

But, you just referred to this yourself ^... remember? The Socialists were the reason FDR gave us all those lovely programs so many defend to this day, despite the centrists' attempts to ensure the right-wing corporatists hog up all the public airwaves and stifle debate?


"Care to back up that silly assertion by pointing how Nader influenced the debate in 2000?"

The fact is that Nader SHOULD HAVE influenced the debate. If Gore had gone populist earlier, the margin very well may have been higher and not stealable.

It will be very interesting to see how close this election is. More interesting still to ponder how it would change if only the Dems would listen to the lefties again!

:)

[sangh0]

33. see #32

above

The fact is that Nader SHOULD HAVE influenced the debate

You left out the fact about how Nader DID NOT influence the debate. "Should, woulda, coulda" is for losers.

[redqueen]

37. Yep

Who lost again?

[sangh0]

47. Bush*

Bush* lost the election.

[Hav]

12. funny

"You can still get those far left votes back into the fold. But gee, it means having to COMPROMISE."

Then compromise should come from both sides and not only one side demanding their agenda getting realised 100% while everything else what is done is regarded as worthless.

[blondeatlast]

13. Indeed. One thing that will win this election is the UNION vote--

which sould be a reliable Democratic base, but hasn't.

Unions are ours for the taking this year, and Union endorsement is consistently one of our strongest supports.

[MadHound]

16. Compromise means that both sides must give a little

Unfortunatey, the Democrats have taken the radical tactic of simply taking the far left vote for granted("who else ya gonna vote for hippie, the 'Pugs? BWAHAHAHAHA!). When working within the party for change didn't produce any results whatsoever, then many of us decided to try and enact change from without. As noted above, this was a successful tactic before, perhaps it will be again, the jury is still out on that one.

But I think if the Dems once again took a lesson from FDR and stole a couple of planks from the Greens, like UHC, or living wage mandates, enough people on the far left/progressive end of the spectrum are pragmatic enough to come swarming back to the Dems in droves. In addition, being as that a large portion of the non-voting block are former Dems, and poor to the point where they don't see any party making a difference in their hand to mouth lives, if the Democratic party offered such sweeping programs like UHC, you could pick up at least twenty five percent of the non-voting block, who would go Dem out of sheer self interest. Think about it, that's 12 million plus additional votes, all for the Dems. That's not just a landslide victory for Kerry, that's long coattails for all Dems running.

Greens and Naderites aren't looking for for "their agenda getting realised 100%". For the most part, those on the far left are tough nosed, pragmatic politicos(after all, most are former Dems). But what we are looking for is some recognicition on the part of the Democratic party that we exist, and that the party needs and wants us. You throw us a couple of bones, and the Democratic party will see great success. You don't, well you don't need a crystal ball to realize the party will die a quiet death.

[Dhalgren]

18. Getting two points from the progressives agenda

is not "100%" of what we want. By only agreeing to two items we have compromised away a long, long list of items - and what has the centrist/right given up? Not being able to pay off their corporate masters with ever higher medical and drug costs? Not being able to pay off their masters with ever higher insurance costs? Being forced to accept the idea that poor working class families need a living wage? Jesus, you guys think that because Bush is so bad, it allows you to be almost as bad, but just a little less - so, "Who'd you rather have in power?" It is a scam and everyone is beginning to see it.

[sangh0]

23. More fringe propoganda

According to the fringe's propoganda, SS and Unemployment insurance were the only leftist programs the Democrats succeeded in having implemented.

I guess Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, EPA, CRA 1964, etc were all Republican ideas

[redqueen]

26. The point is that they were far left ideas

and the party succeeded by adopting them as their own.

Why are they refusing to do so now, in a time of such crisis? Don't they realize how much is at stake now?

It's like a game of chicken, with far lefties insisting that the party should keep moving forward, and the party leaders and centrists insisting that conservatism isn't really all that bad. Who will flinch?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

28. You may be right, but

I still would like to point those things out for anyone else who's unclear on the concept of just how all that wonderful stuff that he mentioned got into the party platform to begin with!

So glad you two had this discussion. It just reaffirms that we out on the far left, still sending money to Kucinich and still insisting that our voices be heard are RIGHT!

[Hav]

29. .

"Sang's mission it seems is to distort, distract and disparage anything the progressives have to say."

You do a fine job of what you accuse other people of when it's about what Dems have achieved and their future goals.

[MadHound]

39. Sorry friend, but you're jumping into a lake

That you don't know the depth of.

Sang and myself have a long sparring history. While in some cases a sparring partner helps you refine your arguement, that is not always the case, nor is that the case here. While I have and continue to provide sources for my opinions and historical accuracy, I have yet to one single source referenced by my oh so esteemed sparring partner. In fact I am usually subject to jeering attacks, calls on my credibility, etc. etc. mind you, without a single shred of evidence to back his happy ass up. Naturally, being two people who are stubborn and won't back down, the language gets a little hot, but hey, this is sometimes to be expected on these boards.

Now if you wish to join in on this debate, fine with me. But please, don't be like my pugilistic partner in debate and refuse to source your claims. Most matters that I discuss, I reference, and if I don't, ask me and I will. But don't simply make bald faced statements with nothing to back yourself up.

Cheers

[Hav]

48. .

Do you mean like you backed up your claims with sources in the post I replied to?
Quite hard for me to see how you backed up your claims in any of your posts. Instead, I see nothing else than stating your own personal opinions but nothing to back it up. That's fine, it's a message board. But before you lecture other people, it may be wise to do what you demand of other people.
Otherwise people here may come to the conclusion that you might be a hypocrite.

[MadHound]

59. Actually Hav, I did source the claims I made, way back in post #20

And for a repeat here: "Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons"

An excellent history of not just right wing populism in America, but of left wing populism as well, I highly recomend it. And yes, I do draw upon my personal experiences also. I've worked in the Democratic party for over thirty years, since I was eleven years old. I've done everything from door to door, to phone banks, to state administration. I've seen a lot, and been through a lot. My experience should qualify me to speak upon matters I know about. I would also challenge you to find any substansive thread exchange involving Sang and myself where I didn't provide links or sources.

But hey, don't pay attention to me, I'm just lecturing by the seat of my pants, eh?

[Hav]

62. .

Yet, for the most part, what you do is voicing your own opinion based on experience and your personal selective use of what you consider your sources. What you voice in the end is mostly still your opinion, that's what everybody else is doing here. Whether you base it on a book stating an opinion, it's still your opinion and hardly worth more than anyone's else opinion. It's still as biased and occasionally distorted to make your personal point.
You have got your agenda and ideas, some other people have different views. That's fine.
You made a claim in the post I replied to that you hardly backed up, I disagreed and it eventually got deleted. So I'm not the only one who disagreed with the tone and content.

[MadHound]

63. ?

So what would satisfy your standard of credibility? Historical facts(such as FDR's deal with the Socialists, or the Dem's moving ever rightward) are historical facts. Though they can be revised at a later date, the evidence to overturn them needs to be great. As for my conflict with Sang, that is between him and myself, there is no need for you to be piling on.

Yes, I have opinions, and they are worth as much as anyone else's. However, I respect a person's opinion if they have something substanitive to back themselves up with. I've noticed that you also are expressing your opinion, and like Sang, you have no sources backing yourself up. You haven't read the book I've mentioned, nor have you linked to any threads on which I didn't use sources, nor apparently(otherwise I'm sure you would have mentioned it) do you have the Democratic party experience that I possess. You are simply making unsubstantiated claims. Perhaps you should become more educated. If you wish I can PM you a reading list. Then you can judge for yourself whether or not my outlook is "biased and occasionally distorted."

Once again, you are jumping into a lake whose depths you haven't plumbed.

[sangh0]

65. Sources don't back up opinions

They back up facts. Until you identify which factual assertion of mine you are contesting, I will not supply any cites because I won't pretend that citations back up my opinions. I also won't make a habit of claiming that those who disagree with me are "jumping into a lake whose depths you haven't plumbed"

[sangh0]

35. No, that's only HALF the point

No one here has denied that it's possible for the far left to influence the Dem party and it's policies. The REAL issue IMO is HOW the Socialists managed to influence the debate, and the answer to that is "Compromise, compromise, compromise"

Describing SS and Unemployment as "bones" thrown to the Socialists, and the ONLY TWO achievements of the Democratic Party is NOT an indication that one is willing to compromise.

[redqueen]

38. Getting offtrack here

I can't argue MadHound's characterizations of the planks in question, OK? Take that up with him if you wish. I can't speak for him.

However, regarding the issue of compromise. Who compromised? It seems to me that it was the Democratic Party who compromised, by adopting the socialist planks. It helped them immensely, as well as the whole country, ever since.

So who should compromise now? What if socialists had compromised then, and voted Democratic even WITHOUT those planks adopted?

[Hav]

40. .

You mean only Democrats should compromise?
It may have worked out well back then but that's not a guarentee.

Maybe Dems shouldn't take the far left vote for granted but the far left shouldn't take for granted as well that the Dems will compromise to whatever they wish without them compromising at all?

[redqueen]

42. No no no, that's not what I'm saying

In fact, it seems to me the left has been compromising, for a around 30 years, and with little to show for it, which is why we see the resurgence of the third-party progressive movement gaining strength.

So your second sentence about the left never compromising at all... that just doesn't seem to reflect reality to me. Based on how many lefties still vote Democratic despite their disgust with how much the party has morphed into conservative right wingers - it seems the left is the only party in this equation who has compromised at all, for decades!

[Hav]

50. ok

I have nothing against adopting or listening to some of the ideas of "leftists". When both sides come to a common ground, it's fine by me and I'm sure that it's to the advantage of the people.

[sangh0]

51. I'm confused

Just before you acknowledged that it was the Dems who compromised. Now, in this post, you are saying that "the left is THE ONLY PARTY ...who has compromised"... "with little to show for it"

IMO, the muddled nature of your claims is the result of an oversimplification of the process you are trying to describer. IMO, it's a lot more complex than simply "One side compromised, the other didn't" The truth lies in between.

The socialists pressured the Dems, but the main reason for why this was successful was the fact that they were able to garner significant support for their policies. By demonstrating that those policies were popular enough to gain votes for the party, they were able to influence the Dems enough to get them to implement those policies.

I do not see a similar level of support for the policies (ie renunciation of IWR votes, an end to imperialism, repeal of the PATRIOT Act, etc) that some are demanding from the DNC.

[redqueen]

54. Nuance

In the example we discussed, the dems did compromise -- in the 30's. Now, not so much.

True, the planks you mentioned are probably not as popular as others, such as the planks I have been referring to. Don't most Americans want true single payer UHC? Don't they want a living wage?

[sangh0]

57. A really good point

If the left concentrated more on issues that people feel have a direct effect on their daily lives, issues like a single-payer UHC, they would find the DNC more willing to compromise. Unfortunately, many seem to be concentrating on IWR (even though the invasion is over), PATRIOT Act, etc.

It's not that those issues aren't important. However, they just don't get the same level of support that UHC could get, IMO of course. And in the end, the left's ability to influence the debate absolutely depends on the level of support they can gain for the policies they are promoting.

[redqueen]

58. Agreed!

Wow, we agree! I'm marking my calendar! ;)

[no name no slogan]

83. True, that

any first-year PoliSci student who takes a course on American Politics knows that this pattern has been repeated throughout history, and will probably be repeated again.

Typically, in our two-party system, the two major parties tend to reside slightly to the left or right of the political center. When one (or both) of these parties moves too far to one side, or an issue of importance to the public is not being addressed, a third party will crop up in the place where one of the major parties used to reside.

Eventually, one of two things happens: the platform of the nascent 3rd party is adopted/co-opted by one of the major parties (like FDR in 1932/34), OR the new 3rd party replaces one of the previous two parties.

For example, look at the 1850s. We had two major parties, the Whigs and the Democrats. The issue of slavery was very divisive, and neither party took a stance on the issue itself. The Whigs effectively tore themselves apart over their position on it, and up cropped a new party, the Republicans. The Repubs were, for the most part, anti-slavery, while the Democrats (mostly based in the south back then) were pro-slavery. The Whigs disappeared, and the Republicans became the new major 2nd party.

Something similar happened in 2000, with Nader. While the Repubs spent the 1980s-1990s moving far to the right with the help of socially conservative Christians, the Dems feebly attempted to capture the corporate-friendly economic conservative vote by moving to the right. The Dems effectively abandoned the economic liberals on the left in their dash to the right, thereby opening up a BIG hole on the left where the Dems used to be.

Many left-leaning folk perceived the two parties as being very similar on several important issues: "free trade", the drug war, corporate control of civic life, the death penalty, etc. The Dems and Repubs were nearly identical on those issues in 2000. Hence, the popularity of Nader and the Greens, who somehow managed to garner 5% of the vote despite being ridiculed and ignored by the two major parties.

The Greens are certainly not on the map for national elections, but they have achieved major-party status in several states (my home of MN included), and their influence is growning. Unless the Dems make a commitment to some of the platform of the Greens (which were at home in the Dem plank of the 1960s), they may face the same fate as the Whigs.

(sorry for the length, but these last four years have many precedents in American politics)

:D

[IrateCitizen]

41. Both sides compromised then, redqueen...

The Democrats compromised by adopting a few of the things that the socialists had been pushing for. The Socialists compromised by abandoning calls for an end to capitalism, and casting their lot with one of the major parties.

The end result was that both sides won. The Democrats were swept into office and the Republicans removed, and the Socialists saw some of their programs implemented as policy.

[redqueen]

43. Thanks

Appreciate the clarifcation. However, such a radical demand as the one for an end to capitalism isn't being made by any party this time 'round.

Do you know if the negotiation was formal or did the Dems just decide to co-opt the planks and hope that the votes followed?

[sangh0]

52. There wasn't any formal negotiation

Just a bunch of politicians who were concerned about getting votes. When the left can demonstrate a similar level of support for their demands --like a renunciation of the IWR vote-- then the Dems will co-opt them again.

[mouse7]

45. That may be true in another election. Beating Bush too important.

The working poor are not considered the base of the Party by the party anymore. The suburban middle class is. I know that. However, Dumbya is a special case. Dumbya is the most dangerous person to ever reside in the White House. Dumbya must be stopped at all costs.

[MadHound]

61. And this is what happens when the Democrats cry wolf once too often

We in the progressive wing of the party have had the boogeyman of "(insert current 'Pug candidate here) is worse than Hitler" shaken in our face every four years since I can remember. And most of us are cowed into submission, and vote and work for the Dem nominee(myself, even including the '00 debacle). When this support is brought up later, and all of our hard work is pointed out, and we wish to make changes from within, hell, we get either laughed or scolded out of the room.

So for many of us, that boogeyman holds no more fear, and the bully boy tactics don't work. We want to see something real and substanitive on the table before we commit. Not just vague promises of future change. We have ridden such promises to an ever rightward, corporatist Democratic party that we see before us now. So instead, we want real change, real compromise, no just a steady diet of vague nothings.

Yes, I agree, Bush is a horrible president. But what is worse is the two party/ same corporate master system of government that we see emerging now in front of us. If a real change in the direction our government, party and country is taking is to be effected, we have to start now. Otherwise the corporatist will control BOTH parties, and then the US is truly screwed.

[sangh0]

66. More fringe propoganda

Now we have a claim (sans cites despites the poster's claim to being able to back his claims up with cites) that the Dems constantly say "(insert current 'Pug candidate here) is worse than Hitler"

Do you have cite for how that was done when Clinton ran against Dole?

How about when Clinton ran against GHW Bush?

You also claim that "If a real change in the direction our government, party and country is taking is to be effected, we have to start now. Otherwise the corporatist will control BOTH parties, and then the US is truly screwed"

Do you have a cite that proves this true, or can you only cite someone who agrees with your opinion?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[blondeatlast]

11. We need a Democrat in the WH, then we can set the party

back on track from within.

That's my agenda. I want to see DK have a huge presence at the Convention, but I plan to volunteer for Kerry's election as soon as I am able.

This election is even more important than 2000. Now we know EXACTLY what the stakes are and what we are up against.

Edit: Even DK wasn't my ideal candidate. My ideal just isn't gonna happen, EVER.

[Guaranteed]

14. We need to learn how to LEAD first.

Right now our party is totally ineffective because they lack conviction. The Republican party gained all of it's strength during the Clinton years with our appeasement. Then, with Bush, their hard work came to fruition. We're going to have to do the same thing they did to counter them: find some solid principles to work toward.

[ulTRAX]

60. that's what they ALWAYS say

I'm not voting Nader as I did in 96 and 2000. I'll hold my nose and vote Kerry.

But your comment is just so much nonsense. Just what REAL democratic reforms did Clinton push for? Abolition of the EC? A run-off system for presidential races to eliminate the "spoiler" effect? A call that the 3.9 MILLION ex-cons now deprived of the vote should have it restored? A massive reduction in military spending? How about a reform of the Senate or of the amendment process?

The BEST the Democrats have done while in power is push some moderate reforms. Otherwise they are AWOL on democracy itself. The party that SHOULD know better is the biggest obstacle to TRUE reform in the US simply because they don't have any vision where they want to take this nation nor do they stand for much that is worthwhile.

[sangh0]

69. Just what REAL democratic reforms did Clinton push for?

Universal health care, energy taxes, gays in the military, progressive income taxes....and that was just his first year.

[redqueen]

70. Uh oh

UHC? Sort of... keeping profit for private insurers in the mix was stupid though.

Gays in the military? Only if "Don't ask, don't tell" is good enough for you. How many other countries have a problem with this?

Progressive income taxes... I'm torn. He did raise taxes on the upper bracket, but as far as real reforms, I don't know if this really should count. It wasn't a reform -- more like an adjustment to the current system.

[sangh0]

71. Maybe not single-payer UHC, but UHC just the same.

I agree with your criticism of Clinton's plan. However, flawed as it was, it was still a progressive proposal and no one can say that Clinton did not fight for it.

wrt "Don't ask, don't tell" you are once again spot on with your criticism. However, as flawed as the result was, Clinton DID fight to include gays in the military, and that is progressive also.

wrt taxes - point taken. How much reform that represented is filled with subjectivity.

[ulTRAX]

78. you don't seem to know what democracy is...

sangh0 wrote: "Just what REAL democratic reforms did Clinton push for? Universal health care, energy taxes, gays in the military, progressive income taxes....and that was just his first year."

How do ANY of the policies you mentioned qualify as democratic reforms to our anti-democratic system? You obviously confuse the agenda of the Democratic Party with democracy. In reality... the Democrats are AWOL on the issue of democracy itself.

[JVS]

73. 2 clashing ideas

We need a Democrat in the WH, then we can set the party back on track.

Now that we have a Democrat in the WH, complaining only strengthens the VRWC against him.

Alternatively: We won the WH, why tamper with success?

[legin]

19. I'm a write-off, thank goodness for that

'cause I know what Democratic Party courtship rituals to the left are usually like, they usually involve someone kicking you in the head, hard, several times. And that's when the're in a good mood.

[WI_DEM]

25. yeah isn't it a shame

the bad guys are the ones who stand up for peace and actually maybe even march in protest to war. They are the ones who truly want equality and equal rights and a world with clean air and water and land that is preserved from development. The people who are sick of jobs being exported so that our companies can pay as little as possible to some poor person in a third world country. These leftists are the bad guys.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

30. Or their may be some here...

who want us to believe the "leftists" are the bad guys.

I've noticed a whole of of "left" bashing here recently.

Imagine how easy it would be to go onto an annonymous internet board and post endlessly about those nasty "leftists".

What better way to drive a wedge in a party you may be wanting to defeating sometime soon? Hmmm? :)

[redqueen]

31. It would be a great tactic

IF these disruptors already knew in advance that the Dems wouldn't pull an FDR and co-opt the lefties. If the Dems did that it would backfire on the repubs' tactic -- very successfully for Dems if history is any reference. In that election over 100 Democrats were elected to Congress and the Senate.

Nothing in politics happens by accident.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. Just for instance, I can guarantee that if the Democrats

adopted something like Canadian-style universal health care, not the jerry-built Scotch-taped corporate-dominated monstrosity that Clinton tried to pass and that Kerry seems to be imitating, but real single-payer health care, they would

a) be the object of a vast negative advertising campaign BUT

b) gain hordes of eager volunteers from all walks of life AND

c) attract favorable attention from the millions of Americans of all socio-economic classes, races, and geographical locations who have been screwed over by the insurance companies

d) persuade most of the "far leftists" to vote Democratic

But the corporate contributors wouldn't like it, so the Dem powers that be would rather suffer through another stealable squeaker of an election than upset the Big Boys.

[redqueen]

79. Another squeaker

I think that's what many of us are afraid of... that it will be close enough to steal again.

And what's even scarier (to me at least, anyway) is the apparent lack of concern over BBV.

[amazona]

34. there are always people like that

Do the best you can and move on. We don't want to pander to extremists and become like the GOP which has become a wholly owned subsidiary of Hysterical Fundamentalism Christian Hate. Far left ideas usually have much more more merit and much more thought-provoking potential than far right ideas but even the highest ideals can be negative if they cause a person to take a destructive action (like voting for Nader in a close race). Still you can't stop adults from making their own mistakes. Sigh. I don't blame you for becoming annoyed. There's a lot at stake.

[ulTRAX]

44. Your lack of principles and vision is appalling

DisgustiPatriotiated wrote: "Forget it. I say there are some people we need to press on without. No begging. I say fuck them – they are going to vote Nader or Green anyway. I’m not kissing anyone’s ass in the meantime."

TRANSLATION: what you are doing is using our dysfunctional political system and a Democratic Party that is AWOL on democracy itself, as your base assumption. Those you criticize are merely principled citizens who have their priorities straight and are more in keeping with TRUE progressive movements in other advanced democracies. You are bashing those who want to vote their conscience instead of holding their noses and voting for Kerry. Guess what... some are sick of a system where the BEST alternative is to vote the lesser of the evils.

I RESENT people like you who are mired in a dysfunctional system and have NO vision to EVER move the Democrats out of the morally bankrupt ideological swamp they are mired in. It should be clear that 1: the Democrats COULD work harder for Nader's supporters. 2: They COULD be working for the elimination of the anti-democratic EC and to get a run-off system to eliminate the "spoiler" effect of third parties.

When the Democrats FINALLY start advocating for democratic reforms at the federal level... and FINALLY have the common sense to go after that 50% of the population that refuses to vote instead of focusing on their traditional base.. THEN you can rant about the Naderites and Greens are being destructive.

In the mean time my view is that it's the lack of democratic principles and vision on the parts of the Democratic Party, the party that SHOULD be leading the charge for a progressive agenda, that is the biggest obstacle to true reform in this nation.

[molly]

53. AMEN - you said it well!

:yourock:

[nomaco-10]

56. If some dems here don't stop this.....

constant call to redefine the democratic party on a daily basis, it will be the undoing of any hopes of a democratic victory in 2004.

I've noticed that calling out the "lefties" is a recurring theme on this board as of late and it's not helpful. Why are some here so determined to keep attaching a label to everyone in the party? Let's see, we have the Moderates, the Centrists, the Liberals, the Populists, the Yellow dogs, the Progressives, the list goes on and on. Whatever happened to the concept that we are a "big tent"?

If some of the people on this board continue with this type of rhetoric, the party will splinter into a dozen factions and the acrimony of the primaries will carry over right into the election. And don't give me that Green crap. The Greens don't represent the bulk of this board or the democratic party, they never were the base, so don't even go there. Nader and the Greens have become a code word around here for "Progressives" and "house cleaning" is just another way of saying the "purge" has begun.

If anybody would have told me last year that I'd be logging in here and see posts like "Chomsky is a slogging fuckwit" and "Al Gore is a loser", I'd of told them they were crazy. Funny thing is, these are now the very people that claim to be the new "base" of the democratic party.

If the insults and innuendos don't cease, no matter how cleverly you may think they are parsed, the democratic party will be harmed from within and Rove won't have to lift a finger. So, please stop recycling and regurgitating these divisive posts about lefties and house cleaning on a daily basis. For the good of our party, please stop it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

64. I agree that people shouldn't be stereotyped

and I agree there are problems in the party.

I think this thread was not terribly useful and is demeaning to many.
Many people who have issues with the Democrats are life long Democrats...that said, I think there is really generalized divisive crap on both sides of this argument.

One side does not wish to acknowledge that the party has been tepid due to forming the kinds of corporate alliances that lead to it. The other side UNFAIRLY generalizes the party as complete sell outs when that also is false.

[nomaco-10]

67. You are a rare commodity ....

these days on du when you can see both sides of any issue. It seems like everybody's got their demo-meter going at warped speed to detect those that might be leaning left to the detriment of the democratic party in their opinion. It's very troubling.

[IrateCitizen]

68. Just what we need -- another relatively new poster coming in...

and telling us all about what we "need" to do.

Perhaps if you'd been here a while, you'd realize that this subject has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum -- and that all you're doing by bringing it up YET AGAIN is pouring salt on old wounds.

Personally, I've found that things work a lot better here if you don't take your point of view as being the unadulterated gospel, and that you try to see things from another's perspective BEFORE you post.

Who knows? You might just end up discussing something productive about that 95% of things on which you probably agree, rather than pissing all over each others' shoes about the 5% on which you don't. :dunce:

[parlights]

72. snobbery

I am a new poster, just a side note, everyone deserves an opinion in this forum (except of course freepers etc.). I thought this thing thrives on new people. If you disagree with him so much then say why in a pithy substantive counter argument rather than an ad hominem attack. Maybey this has been talked about so much because it is such an issue, just don't discount the opinion. I am turned off by your "I am more progressive than thou attitude." The o.g. poster at least comes from the right side...er "left?" side of the fence and deserves to post what he said. For my part, I was interested in the colloquy it created.

[ulysses]

74. I think you're missing the point.

It's not snobbery, and yes, new folks certainly deserve and have their opinion here...but, as IC said, change maybe five or ten words and this exact same post (the thread starter) has appeared here on DU hundreds of times in the last three years. This one has turned out no differently than its predecessors.

Maybe it's inevitable that the same ideas/memes/opinions keep coming up, but reinventing the wheel gets old after, oh, 250 times or so.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. Nothing about Irate Citizen's post was an ad hominem attack

He didn't discount the opinion, he addressed the divisive, obsessive compulsive dysfunctional behavior head on.

[w4rma]

76. Imho, Nader supporters are more anti-establisment than left. (nt)

[SendTheGOPPacking]

80. I don't know where to begin with this.

While I share some of the frustration, and sometimes the anger, I am also a frustrated lefty at heart and I don't think it is fair to fire a shot across the bow at everyone in order to take aim at the few who, as you say, have no intention of voting for Kerry anyway and only wish to antagonize.

I have no intention of bolting from the Party, but I hope to get back to that place with my far lefty heart some day too, where I really belong and where this Party used to be. So don't shot them all before we get there.

On the other hand, I'm also a little disappointed at some of the comments here directed at newer members. It's a bit disconcerting, to say the least.

[info being]

81. Your backpeddling at the end make you...

a stereotype demonstrating what's wrong with the Dem Party.

As for your close-mindedness...that's another issue altogether.

[AmyStrange]

84. How does this help get votes for Kerry?

Why aren't you doing something constructive instead of destructive?

d

[kodi]

85. it was me referenced in para 4, but one should listen & keep an open mind

and the remark was that their perfectionism is so perfect that no results are achieved.

bur remember......."Oh that a man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a Heaven for?"......Robert Browning

we should at the least listen to what ideologues have to say, they are our ourselves at our best and worst.

[Rhiannon12866]

88. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care one bit about one's idealogical

perspective. They can rant and rave among themselves on variances of the issues all they want. All I care about is that they will vote against Bush* in November. We need every single vote. That's all that counts. We need to evict the squatter-in-chief from the White House. Why they vote against him is up to them, as long as they do. This is the most important election in a very long time. As Will Pitt said, and I have his book, "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence" and I really believe this, as well.