Beyond Personalities: Can Democratic Party heal its Big Split in 04?

[Armstead]

I am worried sick about the Democratic Party. IMO the primaries are not merely a contest between personalities, but a microcosm of the bigger struggle going on about the future direction of the Democratic Party -- and of American Politics.

In my opinionated view, I see the Big Split as a battle between a truly liberal and progressive party and one that has become mushy and corporate and as much in bed with the status-quo elites as the Republicans. Put another way, it is whether the "feel good" and indistinct nature of DLC Clintonomics will prevail over the more populist and liberal/progressive counterpart to that.

If it is possible to meld these factions into one coherent mass-scale movement with common goals and language, it could be an unstoppable force. But is that possible? Or is this really a schism that is unbridgable, because the factions and agenda and message are so different?

This all gets down both to specific policies and agenda. But it also has to do with the broader message and overall priorities and goals of the Democratic Party.

I can see lots of potential scenerios for the upcoming election and beyond. Some are positive, in which all sides actaully engage in soul searching and come up with a more truly mainstream form of liberalism and progressive politics that appeals to the "center" as well as the "left." That would be ideal.

However, there are also bleaker possibilities. It could bring a hardening of the divisions, as these factions move futher apart to irreconcilable positions. Or the Corporate Centrists could tighten their grip, leaving liberals and progressives with nowhere else to go, other than apathy and disillusionment or the Green Party. Or the "left" could elbow out the "centrists" and marginalize the Democrats.

Frankly, I dunno which will happen or if something totally unforeseen happens.

I'd like to hear what others think -- without getting into candidate pushing or bashing. Any opinions or predictions?

[sandnsea]

1. The left could make Bush the centrist

I'm not sure anybody has thought of that.

[Armstead]

2. Please explain

Not sure I understand your meaning.

[blm]

3. I don't like the corporate centrists at all, & despise the FAUX populist

who governed as corporate friendly and now sells himself as the opposite.

Shame on the opportunist and on all those who fall for that line of BS.

[Armstead]

4. That doesn't answer the question

My effort was to look beyond the personalities, no matter who gets nominated.

The unnamed candidate you mention is seen by many on the left as an attempt to be pragmatic and compromise.

That's the real question, is whether compromises are possible from both factions, or if we are doomed to a party that is eitehr terminally split or completely stifles the left or morphs into two seperate parties.

[CWebster]

9. Divided we fall

If centrist corporate types keep a stranglehold on the party it is as compromised as if it was divided because they are so ineffectual in providing a strong, principled and representitive opposition. Either way they win, and that is why the fight is so vital to wrench it away from them and their actors-- and about more than ousting Bush. It is just as much about being capable of standing up to and challenging Bush in the future as well.

[Walt Starr]

10. That was very eloquent

Thank you for putting my feelings into words.

:)

[Padraig18]

30. We've sort of gathered that, blm.

The absolute subtlety of your messages has been endearing and charming, but I think virtually everyone who's been here for more than a week understands full-well who you do and don't support. :eyes:

[BootinUp]

5. Which candidate

has the more populist/liberal/progressive platform?

I must have missed that.

[Armstead]

12. You missed it because...

I didn't say it.

I am deliberatly trying to avoid the usual back and forth about specific candidates, because there are much bigger questions at stake. Frankly, with the exception of Kucinich and Sharpton, there is not a whole lot of difference in terms of most issues, among the major candidates. The specific proposals any of them have will be ground into hamburger and changed in the legislative process anyway.

The more important question is what will be the "voice" of the Deocratic Party, and whose loyalties will it serve. Corporate Elite or ordinary Americans?

[BootinUp]

13. So then I agree with you

I was just checking, cause I don't see much difference issue wise. So it really comes down to getting a mandate in the election (a clear majority). Otherwise we're just talking about fantasies.

[OHdem10]

6. Yes, the divide can be overcome if--

both wings of the party resolve in their own minds "we can make this thing work". But the most important step of all must be taken. We have to form a strong national party with Leaders who have some real clout. This does not mean authoritarian. It only means when some serious calls need to be made , there is someone(s) to make the call.

This example is given in sincerity--not to flame. Stay calm and hear me out please. This is not to say one wing of the party is better or more represents the party as a whole.This is simply to illustrate where one of our most basic problems lies. It is this type situation that brings a feeling of complete betrayal and hard feelings.

Here goes. The turnover of one our best issues to George Bush still brings knots in my stomach.I know (we all know) that it was DLC Senators<about eleven of them,> who voted for Bush's version of the bill. Republicans in his own party refused to vote for this bill. Had our Senators held out we could have won that vote. If we cannot discuss this issue we can never understand what happened and the bitterness continues.

There was commentary everywhere on the Net damning Tom Daschle
as Senate Leader. I could never completely agree with this.
My point is we have such weak National Party Organization--I question exactly how much power does Daschle really have??
The only solution is some principles which apply to both wings of the party. Left to our own devices the Liberals could go to far and
need to be reigned in.

Here is my point. There should be a common understnding in both wings--"we will never concede our most important issues to the
Opposition Party". Therefore when it was time for a vote on Medicare
Daschle should have had the power to hold the reigns on some of those DLC Members. If there were some who apparently had to vote with Republicans, there should have been the abilty to say. "This number can vote but we are not going to permit you to give away our Issue".Consequencs have to be felt. The same should hold true for Liberals if they are straying off the field.

In conclusion there has to be some authority invested in our leaders
in order for each wing to begin to trust each other again.

Example 2. When Zell Miller was making the rounds, utterly condemning our party--there should have been several Leaders out in front refuting his attacks.

Yes the divide can be overcome but it has to be done with clarity , honesty and a serious move to give someone some authority to say "there are limits" to each wing.

[KittyWampus]

7. The Split Is Between Those Who Want Progress

and those who want status quo.

As a Progressive, I don't want a candidate who will simply rearrange the deck chairs and replace the existing cronies with his own.

In order for us to Progress, we must change the focus of our economy.

Away from Petroleum and away from the Military/Congresssional Industrial Complex.

Simply revoking tax cuts will NOT solve any of the systemic or long term problems.

We need a candidate who can start the US on the road towards taming Defense Spending.

Any other split in the party is merely cosmetic and the product of those who enjoy using wedge politics.

[Turkw]

38. There is not status quo anymore, the right has been gaining ground for

years and Bush has accelerated this immensely.

On the other hand there is a cultural gap that the Democratic party does not seem to be able to address well. The Republicans make wedge issues and use divisive terms to get voters turned off to Democrats.

[Walt Starr]

8. Can it? Yes

Will it? :shrug:

[sweetheart]

11. its just a patch

This election, rather than a earth-shattering revival of left politics is rather a final battle for "third way" ism. It seems that the whole thing was a sham on both sides of the atlantic, and that the center has failed to lead left politics forward except to war.

This election is not the issue. It is a long term retrenchment that is the question. Do we do what the neocon's did in the 70's and strategically shift the ground of battle on to liberal soil?

It don't matter who i vote for, as outside of DK, i'll be holding my nose and truly only voting "not bush", and not pro-whomever... as the center stands for nothing positive about "democratic" systems.

Is this election the last gasp of the left, or not? Perhaps it will take a sound defeat in a world war to shift that political ground. That is what did it in britain... and it would not take many cities in the US to be nuked to do exactly that... how many, 10?

I think it will come down to that, and these obstinate evil fucks in the white house will drive the country to world war and only when 50 million americans are dead and some cities uninhabitable for decades will it occurr to them how fragile their power really was.

[Armstead]

14. Kick

It's good to see the comments beyond "candidate bashing." We ned to get past that, regardless of who one supports.

[Iverson]

15. It can. It also won't.

It is extremely unusual for any agent to voluntarily cede power. The centrist-DLC types currently have that power and show no interest in even acknowledging a meaningful split. Lefties are fringe elements to be dismissed in dependent clauses in self-satisfied opinion pieces in Blueprint magazine and elsewhere.

To heal a split, both sides have to want it.

[nomaco-10]

16. The democratic party is at a crossroads...

and depending on the outcome of the primaries and the GE it may very well splinter and crack into a million pieces sort of like like Humpty Dumpty... and all the king's horses and all the kings men may never be able to put it back together again.
You see, the very thing that makes the democratic party the great institution it has become, is the very thing that will destroy it. By that I mean, we as democrats have always embraced the differences in people, we believe in open debate and dialogue where as the republicans never waiver from their views on god, guns, gays, abortion and racism. This type of pandering appeals to a great many people in this country whose hatred and ignorance have spawned the ideologs and neocons that will be not only be the ruination of this country, but maybe even the rest of the world. (I have less kind words to describe this group).
So in order to counter these morans and hatemongers who appear to be in compliance and "lockstep" within the republican party, what do we do? We come up with our own little version of lockstep, ABB and that is what will splinter and divide this party and everything it has stood for.
There are a few good men left in this party fighting hard to make it stand for something again and I stand with them, but depending on who gets the nom, I may not be standing in line at the polls.

[arewethereyet]

17. funny how much this discussion sounds like history

from McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis eras.

But we have a chance by nominating Edwards to pull this all together.

[MidwestMomma]

18. A lot of the doomsday talk of the Party is media/Repug spin.

The Rights best weapon against any real change in our country is to take every chance it gets to show Democrats as weak and self-destructing. I don't buy it.

I think part of our party's 'image' problem is actually what defines us as a party. We are the party of diverse people and diverse views. Therefore, it is very difficult to elect representatives to satisfy all the demands we have as members of the Democratic party.

It's easier for the Republicans to satisfy their base and appear as a 'united' party because the issues important to their voters are fewer in number and less complex. It seems to me what divides our 2 parties is that many Republicans care about things that effect them personally while most Democrats care more about the good of the common person.

And arguments to the contrary, I think the good of the common person is still what is important to our party and to our elected officials. I just think it's harder nowadays to define our key issues because they have become more numerous over the years because we are evolving as a party as the world evolves.

The appeal of the Republican party is that many people want the good old days back when life was simpler. And you know what, as I get older, I can understand that longing. But I also remember a lot of the comfort of the 'good ole days' was paid for by minorities and women. And then I remember why it is important to put aside such yearnings and continue to challenge this complex world head on. And that's what defines the Democratic party for me.

[Cocoa]

19. I agree about the spin

and I think the "chasm" is artificial. I don't see a dividing line between true dems and dems in name only. Maybe you could draw the line at the Progressive Caucus, but then you'd be saying that anyone not in that group is "as in bed with corporate interests as the Republicans", which is just silly.

Diversity, not division, is what the dems are about.

[Armstead]

20. I don't think it's just spin

Many people who are librals and progressives feel abandined by the centrist leadership of the Democratic party. That's not because the Democrats are too moderate, but because under the DLC it is MOVED AWAY from the positions and message that we believe is important.

This is true both in broad terms, and in terms of specifics. Too often the Democratic centrists have sided with the Corporate Conservative interests and agenda, and bought into the republican line that whatever is good for Big Business is good for America.

This is true in their lack of challenge to mega-mergers over the years; their embrace of the "all growth is good" philosophy; the embrace of Corporate laissez faire Globalization; avoidence of issues of economic polarization and the surpression of the middle and working classes, the embrace of privatization and deregulation, and the abandonment of the poor.

True moderate positions would address these issues in clear terms. If there were merely differences over speciic issues or strategies, it would not be a schism. But too many in the DLC center seem to be pulling in a different direction than even moderate liberalism.

[MidwestMomma]

23. Yeah, I know...

When you explain it like that it does seem like its impossible for us to continue as one party. I was just trying to say that the media does its best to drive home every dividing issue to weaken us. But now that I think of it, that is probably a cop out by me and insulting to those that have a deep concerns of where the party is heading. Sorry about that.

Of course to me the bigger question is why are we limited to a 2 party government in our country anyway. It seems we are so brainwashed that's it's either 'us' or 'them' that we've backed ourselves into a corner politically in this country.

I'm not very well informed on this, but isn't it true that many European countries have multiple parties to choose from and that multiple parties are represented in their version of the Congress?

But I think a lot of us feel that the death of the Democratic party means the death of Democracy so we fight all the harder to keep our party whole. I don't know...Thanks for the thought-provoking post. I will think more about this and come back with any new thoughts.

[Armstead]

24. We should have multiple parties

In Europe, fopr example, the Greens and center left often work together on issues and positions of common concern to create a majority.

Those are parliamentary governments, but I believe it ought to be possible for similar forms of coalitions to exist under our system. Say the Greens won ten House seats, for example. That could make the difference in votes, if they and Democrats worked together.

But since we seem to be stuck with two major parties, they ought to be clearly different enough to offer a true choice. Dioversity does not have to mean watering down so much that the two parties overlap so much as they do now.

[tedoll78]

21. My biggest point of anger..

is that certain people in Washington call themselves Democrats, and then they don't bother to stand-up and fight for core Democratic principles. I'd be willing to vote for any one of the nine, from Lieberman to Kucinich, and I'd do it happily - if the nominee were to stand and fight for our principles.

There is indeed a split in the party, but I percieve it as more stylistic than policy-wise. There are those who believe in the principles of the Democratic Party but are way too eager to roll over and be Bush's cell block bottom boys, and there are those who spend every free moment they have sharpening their shivs, waiting for the next confrontation, ready to stand their ground.

[tedoll78]

22. Also..

I think the split will heal itself if everyone in the race decides to take the initiative to make it heal. If each of the eight candidates who didn't get the nomination is gracious about stepping-out and deferential to the nominee, there's a good chance of party unity. In fact, if I had my way, I'd love to see all of them on stage after it's decided, shaking hands, hugging, etc. That kind of photo op speaks volumes to many voters.

[Bad Thoughts]

25. Disagree in part

I do fear that the party is heading toward a split, but it is not one that is determined by how left or how center different candidates and their constituents and supporters are. There is no obvious pull between the extremes of the democratic spectrum, Lieberman against Kucinich and vice-versa. This is especially true since the leading candidates are being slippery with their identification with the center or left of the party. And many of the positions of the candidates can still be seen as variations of one another.

The greater part of the friction has to do with the presentation of the party--what image should democrats give to the wider American electorate? Should it be the big tent? Should it be a determined avant-garde? Early in the campaign Kerry made an interesting appeal to a common political heritage based on Theodore Roosevelt's reforms for corporate responsibility. Too bad he abandoned that message.

[Armstead]

26. I agree in part

I don't think some issues ought to be defined as "left" "right" or "center" because in today';s conditions things like excessive corporate concentration and the pushing down of the middle and lower classes can;t be cpnveniently labeled that way.

We do need a clearer identity. IMO that ought to be a liberal and progressive Big Tent that also appeals to moderates. IMO that would be possible to achieve, but the so-called "centrists" have to recognize that in the present situation the oligarchy and corporate status quo is actually ultra conservative and needs to be challenged. That could resonate with the "true center" as well as liberals and progressives IMO.

[Upfront]

27. No Idea

But if they don't there will be a new 3rd party by the 2008 election, and I will be leaving the Democratic party to join it.

[Armstead]

28. Would be great if that wasn;t necessary

But it will take a concerted effort to avoid that fate.

[ulysses]

29. not in '04, but ABB and ABB-type leanings

will give the appearance that it's either healed or never existed. That'll certainly be Al From's take, just before he launches another editorial assault on the "activist elites".

[TexasSissy]

31. I think the Dem. Party leaders have some top level deciding to do.

I think the Dem. Party, in the wake of all the losses in the last few years, and in the wake of all the bickering in 2003, has some top level decisions to make on party platform and where the party is headed.

Clearly, what was working in the past is no longer working. They need to figure out where they have gone wrong, where they have lost the votes. Are they really representing what people are looking for? Things such as that.

They need to form and execute a national plan. The Republican Party has done this. There is no area that they have left untouched. They formed a national plan to execute the plan in every state, and it has worked remarkably well. For example, they formed a plan to force redistricting in every state possible. Illegal? Possibly. It was overturned in one state, but the redistricting was left intact in Texas, giving the Repub. Party several new districts. Why doesn't the Dem. Party do that?

However, I don't see any indication that the Dem. Party leaders are re-examining the platform or its mission or the execution of its mission. And the losses continue. In Texas, one of our state legislators just changed his party from Democrat to Republican.

[TexasSissy]

32. A group that is more inclusive and tolerant has more members.

Isn't that the goal? You can't win without votes. You can have the purest far left or progressive party you want, but then that would mean fewer members in the group, wouldn't it? Fewer members = fewer votes.

That's why the Republican Party hasn't totally been taken over by the conservative far right, because that would alienate members of its group that are on the left of the party.

Besides, as a member of the Dem. Party, I would WANT to be inclusive and tolerant of others' views, as long as they don't totally contradict the platform. I recognize that the party is not going to totally be MY thinking on every subject.

If I only want to belong to a group that agrees 100% with MY way of thinking, there will be only one member in my group: Me. And I won't be winning any elections with one vote.

[Armstead]

33. I think the "too left" label is misleading

I agree that the Democratic Party needs to be inclusive and appeal to the "center." But that's not where it is heading in its cirrent incarnation.

This is my opinion obviously, but I believe the label of "too left" has become a synonym of attack against anyone who challemges the power of the corporate status quo.

That ought to be a much bigger issue than "left" and "right." The soimple fact is that corporations have gotten way too big for their britches over the last 20 years, and that is devestating for democracy and for the prospects of the middle and lower classes.

We are headed towards a society that is increasingly economically polarized between a shrinking number of "haves" and a growing number of "have-nots." We also are seeing a loss of public input into government and politics, which is a threat to democracy. We are also seeing a health-care system that is essentially killing people by making it more difficult to afford healthcare...etc. etc. etc.

Those are not just issues of the left. The only way we are to solve them is to break away from the corporate conservative frame that has stifled the ability of the Democratic Party to be an efective representative of the middle, working and lower classes.

[TexasSissy]

47. I couldn't agree more.

Getting this across to Americans is what the Dem. Party has been unable to do the last few years. Of course, there are other issues, and these are keeping people from voting Democratic - gay rights, affirmative action, and others. Should the Dem. Party drop these issues? I'm not saying that. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. But the party has to reflect what Americans feel, or it will cease to exist.

[KoKo]

34. One test will be to see what happens here on DU when a candidate is

finally chosen. The big split here is very evident. Watching us will give big clues. Lately it's not looking so good for healing. It's more a "frenzy" with many folks getting "turned off."

That's about all I can add, because I just don't know "out there" what's going on with the "average Dem."

I just know that the Media are working hard to rip the country apart to gain support for Bush, so we won't hear anything accurate from them about whether we can "heal" or not.

[adadem]

36. Doesn't help

that we have divisive remarks made by a candidate or two. This is not the time for party re-making...that should have happened after the 02 losses....not now when so much is at stake.

[democratreformed]

35. Based on my experience thus far,

I am afraid that the split might very well be permanent. One of my biggest fears is that all this will lead to a long-term Republican majority b/c the Democrats will split into two separate parties with one being called something else.

Of course, I am fairly new to being involved in all this and what do I know?

[ShimokitaJer]

40. At the risk of committing a blasphemy

I believe the demise of the Democratic party would be good for the nation, leading naturally to the demise of the Republican party (which would be even better for the nation).

Right now the only thing that allows the Republicans to vote in lockstep is the myth of the Democratic party mobilized to take away the bibles from the evangelicals, the guns from the hunters, private property away from everyone, and to turn everyone gay. The contradictions betweent the various Republican factions can only be glossed over when there is a single opposition party against which to rally defenses. Right now, all the fears of the Republicans are centered in a mythical "Democrat mindset" that the media is only too willing to help propagate.

The cracks in the Republican party are already beginning to show, the natural result of having control over both the presidency and Congress, and seeing what is gained. So far, the answer has been an incredibly expensive nation-building war that has gutted our defenses, a massively wasteful corporate giveaway Medicare bill, a pork-filled appropriations bill, and increased pandering to the fundamentalists. Don't think the foreign policy realists, the fiscal conservatives, and the states rightists in the Republican party are too stupid to see where their party is heading.

The two parties have so many internal contradictions that the only reason they still exist as coherent entities is to hold onto the power they retain as the two leaders of the American political oligarchy. The demise of either will result in the demise of the other, and good riddance to both.

[democratreformed]

42. Blasphemy or not,

I completely understand what you are saying. I have considered whether sticking together just for power is a good thing as well. For now, I have decided that it is. But, I could change my mind.

[KoKo]

43. Unfortunately, we already have the "demise" of the Dem Party. From here

on it has to be UP! From loss of Congress in 96 and Clinton's Impeachment on we have lost our Party. Now we have WH, Senate and House all one Party and the Media, too.

We have to hope we can "head off" further destruction or "implosion." The only way to do it, is to fight for our "grassroots" issues. And, as far as Foreign Policy so-called Weakness...just take a look at the failed policy and incredible debt of the Bush/PNAC crowd. Talk about Failed Foreign Policy!

Any candidate who speaks up and tells the truth about the Repugs will win. But, they have to speak loudly and forcefully and "outrageously" to be heard. Without the "soundbyte" they won't be covered, and that's the way it is until we clean out this infestation of the Corporatists in our TV and Print media. It's all a game to them, and they praise the team that fights the dirtiest because with "Reality TV" the dirtier the better to capture the public's attention.

I wish that wasn't so, but we Dems have to wake up and realize that those are the rules we are forced to play under for now. Since 1996.(actually it's gone on for decades before, but I won't get into that, now...this is the result of all that.)

[ShimokitaJer]

37. I think you're dealing with a false dichotomy

The two parties have done an impressive job of casting themselves as opposite extremes when in fact the voters who elect them share many of the same values. Some of the values we call progressive, liberal, or fringe are very much in the mainstream. It's only by forcing us to fight on the most extreme versions of those issues that the two parties are able to maintain the illusion that the other side is something to be feared and voted against at all costs. What we have to realize is that, by buying into these false labels, we have encouraged a focus the lowest common denominator: the money. And here too, the two parties have managed to convince us that supporting corporate rights over personal freedoms is the political center: the one issue both parties have to embrace to succeed.

The center we need to find is not the center of corporate sellout, but the center of populism. Polls show that a majority of Americans are pro-choice, are interested in health care reform, want to preserve Medicare, want stricter corporate controls, want to protect the environment, are in favor of protections for labor, want separation of church and state, etc. What is needed is either a third party in the center, or for one of the two parties to recreate themselves to appeal to that center. The Republicans have done a good job of pretending to be the "party of the people" in the past, but in this election cycle they have no chance of disassociating themselves from the extremist policies of its current leadership. The Democratic party CAN embrace these values to pull voters from both its liberal base and from the ranks of disgruntled Republicans. Of course, what it most needs to do, many candidates refuse to consider: reject the corporate-friendly, lobbyist funded "center" they have created.

This is not a fight between the left and right sides of the party. It is a fight between special interests and the public interest. And that fight extends beyond the Democratic party. The sooner we realize that not all Republicans are racist bible-thumping zealots, the sooner we can put a party in power that really has the power to enact progressive change. Personally, I hope that party is the Democrats, but if it's not I won't hesitate an instant to jump ship.

[Armstead]

39. I actually agree with you

I agree with almost all of what your wrote. However, I do believe that the dichotomy is real, because the DLC faction has moved so far to the tight that they are corporate enablers.

Hope you read a post I made about this above this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=52695&mesg_id=59819&page=

[ShimokitaJer]

41. I agree with that part of your argument

The part I take issue with is the defining of the opposite of the DLC as liberal. Corporatism is not the opposite of liberalism. In fact, it is the wedge we can use to drive truly conservative voters away from the Republican party.

The success of the "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" label should make it obvious that conservative and liberal are fictional extremes. Republican=conservative=free-market is as false as Democrat=liberal=welfare state. They are merely traditional labels retained because they do such a good job of mobilizing party support. Accepting that the divide in the Democratic party is between the traditional left and a centrist DLC can only help maintain the stereotype and feed two-party control.

What we need to overcome is the sense that appealing to the center means selling out liberal ideals. Imposing and enforcing tighter controls on corporations and cutting corporate welfare can appeal to voters from both parties, and is a very real way to emphasize personal freedoms, protect the environment, and increase funding for education, health, and other social programs. The values we end up promoting are progressive values, even if we refuse to let the Republicans put that label on them.

[Armstead]

44. Once again I agree but....

The DLC is the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how you define the opposition to that.

The biggest problem is that the DLC mentality refuses to acknowledge the destriuctive nature of the Corporate Mindset that has been imposed on America.

That is the opposite of what liberals supposedly believe in, not just government programs. Elimination of the safety net is a helpful byproduct to the corporate sector of the demise of liberalism. It creates a desperate populace willing to be abused merely to survive because they have nowhere else to turn.

Big government should not be the centerpiece of a Democratic/liberal/populist agenda. But a healthy government with the proitrities of meeting unmet social needs should be.

[ShimokitaJer]

45. I absolutely agree that the DLC are corporate whores

But I think it does matter how we define the opposition to those corporate attitudes. The Democratic party is in a position to change the party loyalty of many dissatisfied Republican voters, but if we define the Democratic field as a choice between "liberal" and "corporate," we aren't leaving former Repubs much of a choice. The right wing media has so throughly corrupted the term that the knee-jerk response is to reject it. What we have to do is define corporatism as the worst element of both parties, not merely as the opposite side of the spectrum from liberalism. Pushing for protection of personal freedoms over corporate "rights" and preservation of common welfare over corporate holdings is a banner that Americans on both sides of the political fence can accept. The American people are ready to embrace liberal ideas; all they're nervous about is the liberal label.

[welshTerrier2]

48. Targeting Corporatism

real nice exchange here Armstead and ShimokitaJer ...

Take a look at the current state of affairs in the battle against corporatism (shield your eyes):

Republicans:
1. don't let government tie the hands of american industry
2. we're already losing jobs because of excessive red tape
3. trial lawyers and outrageous liability lawsuits are killing american business and the dems are in bed with the trial lawyers
4. american corporations aren't, for the most part, huge multi-nationals ... most are mom and pop operations that need less regulation, not more ...
5. we lead the world in our ingenuity ... look at the great things american industry builds ... and look at pharmaceutical research that saves lives ... again, we need less red tape, not more ...
6. the free market is the most efficient business engine the world has ever known ...

ok, that's enough of that crap ...

and what do we hear from the Democrats:
1. corporations aren't paying their fair share of taxes
2. corporate crime goes unpunished in this country
3. american corporations are exporting our jobs and moving offshore to avoid paying taxes
4. the military-industrial complex drains funds away from critically needed programs
5. special interests receive special treatment because they help fund political campaigns

in today's debate, edwards raised the argument that all paid lobbying should be outlawed ... he was able to get gephardt to agree ... and kerry also stated that he agreed with kucinich's observations about the self-serving nature of corporations in many areas of the law ...

the trick, it seems to me, is to present a message that opposes corporate abuses without being "anti-business". democrats should present a pro-corporate agenda (e.g. subsidizing of research to build more environmentally friendly products, providing tax breaks for corporations that hire more workers (job tax credit) or build new plants in areas of high unemployment, or facilitating reporting requirements to the federal government (enhanced software, regulatory reviews, etc).

the "we're against corporations" message is a loser for democrats ... the right message is that we're against those corporations that don't play by the rules ... the right message is that we're against the buying and selling of our government to narrow corporate interests ... the democrats should push the argument that we oppose paid lobbyists ... americans, for the most part, myself excluded by the way, are not opposed to capitalism ... but they want the game to be played fairly ... recent polls have shown the democrats getting real traction with the "special interests" argument ... the halliburton scam in iraq is a great example ... had the same price gouging been publicized just after the invasion began, i don't think it would have gotten the notice it did now ...

i hope others will contribute to this discussion about exactly how democrats should address the issue of corporatism ... it could be a major issue in the next election if it's framed correctly ... but painting all corporations as "the bad guys" won't get it done ... we need to focus on selected, improper corporate conduct and its effects on our country ...

[Armstead]

54. Free-enterprise captalism versus corporatism

Welsh Terrier,
You are right. It is a quandry to challenge corporate power without seeming anti-business.

I think it can be done though, if the reality can somehow be ctystallized to fit into the "sound byte" culture of today. That is, that concept that resonates with people in a way that connects with what they already know and sense.

I believe most people realize the system is rotten. Many people have been seduced by conservative Republicanism into thinking that the culprit is Big Government and Liburahls, rather than the corporations and elite who pull the strings.

IMO the best way to address that is to be honest about the present situation. Over the last 20 years, what most people think of as free-enterprise capiyalism has been distorted into Corporatism, which is a totally different beast. It actually is just as opposed to free-enterprise capitalism as any "ism" becaue it eliminates competition, erodes the rights of workers and citizens and steals opportunity from small and medium sized businesses.

What we need to do, IMO, is to stop going along with the nonsense that has been fed through GOP and from Democrat centrists, and start being honest about the real impact of concentration of wealth and power. That, I believe, would resonate with people, from the left to the honest conservatives.

[ShimokitaJer]

55. I agree... we can't let ourselves be painted as "anti-business"

And I think there are certain aspects of corporatism that we can attack without fear of being labeled as such:

- eliminating corporate personhood -- the average person on the street can understand and will respond to the contradiction in corporations being granted all the rights of a citizen but being exempt from some of the responsibilities and granted additional protections.

- debunking the myth of self-regulation -- most people can see this for what it is: a way to give the appearance of responsibility while avoiding actual change. The fact that it is capable of working in some industries is not a convincing argument for letting it be the sole check on corporate excess.

- eliminating paid lobbying -- the public understanding of "special interests" may still be pretty shaky, but at least distrust of lobbyists has finally starting to reach a tipping point that will allow this. As you mentioned, it seems at least some Dems are ready to make an issue of it.

- the divorcing off the terms "corporation" and "business" -- many Dems already make this distinction by touting their support for small to medium-sized businesses and distinguishing them from large multinationals

- championing meaningful punishments, including jail terms and the rescinding of corporate charters for the worst offenders -- this one's a little trickier, of course, but most people seem to have forgotten that corporations exist by the goodwill of the state. It's time they were reminded. (okay, I admit this one's a bit of a fantasy, right up there with defining the CEO's salary in direct relation to the lowest-paid employee. If I've gone too far, just pretend I stopped after "jail terms")

Even though the Enron, Worldcom, etc. scandals are no longer on the front pages, they're still very much in the public consciousness and the bad press Halliburton has been receiving gives credence to the worst suspicions Americans have about corporations in bed with government. The Bush administration's corporate connections offer the Dems a golden opportunity to seize control of this issue. Hell, if we play our cards right, we might even be able to take over the "business-friendly" label in a more-meaningful way than the Republicans ever did.

Of course, that means giving up their own sources of corporate lobbying money and fighting for meaningful campaign finance reform, something some Dems still seem unwilling to do.

[welshTerrier2]

56. I Stand Corrected

in a previous post, i indicated that both edwards and gephardt indicated that they would support legislation to ban paid lobbyists ... i stated that based on my recollection of statements they each made during yesterday's debate in Iowa ...

I had a chance to see a rerun of the debate and my statement was incorrect ... neither candidate discussed the banning of paid lobbyists ... what they did both oppose, however, was the banning of political contributions from lobbyists ...

it's too bad ... i was surprised edwards and gephardt supported such a progressive position ... it turns out they did not ... still, i'm glad they're taking the first step of banning contributions from lobbyists ... when we get big money out of the legislative process, and not just the political process, then we'll really start making some progress ...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. "The fiscally conservative/socially liberal" routine

is precisely the ethos of the elites: don't spend money on those shiftless poor people, but let us smoke a discreet joint. In fact, it's just a kinder, gentler libertarianism that sounds good until you see how it works in practice with every smaller government budgets and unmet needs.

The Democratic party needs to take a look at the actual needs of the country in a pragmatic, not an ideological way.

[welshTerrier2]

53. nice phrase: "the ethos of the elites" ...

i'm struggling with your post ... if being fiscally conservative means that you oppose spending on social programs to help the neediest in our society, then i'm in full agreement with you ...

but if it means "living within your means" and striving for a balanced budget while doing all you reasonably can on social programs, then i think i disagree with you ...

for me, fiscal conservatism means the latter ... and adding the socially liberal label goes far beyond libertarian support for pot smoking ... it means that we value people over profits and that our nation's spending priorities should focus on the needs of the american people ...

the idea of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" implies that we should choose the right spending priorities with an understanding that resources are limited, in most situations, by the amount of revenues ... inflationary pressure created by deficit spending is no friend to the poor ...

[flaminbats]

46. Both parties have internal divisions, but they only appear in rough times.

In 1968 and 1972 the Vietnam War and social issues divided our party. In 1980 the Kennedy-Carter primary split the party along these same lines. In 1984 Gary Hart won the moderate, baby-boomer voters while Mondale won the traditional liberals. In 1988 Jackson won the liberal activists while Dukakis won the more conventional voters. Clinton only healed these splits by making Bush the issue, and by stressing economic not social issues, and in 1976 Carter eased these tensions by focusing on the economy and honesty in government.

But this division between the liberal activists and conventional party voters shall always exist, and the only way for any Democrat to win is to gain the support of both groups.

[KoKo]

49. But, in the past we've "flip flopped" between issues and had a War and mor

wars now.

We need to get together had have a more cohesive philosophy than we've had in the past. Or we are forever going to be at the whims of the Corporatists and DLC'ers who were great for '92 but that's really their ONLY "Claim to Fame!" And, look at what happened to Clinton.

If we have a "hard core base" which Dean could build....we might be "golden" for more years than Clinton and Carter gave us.

Our whole DEMOCRACY is at stake here! If we don't do a "last stand" agains the "interlopers" then we will be lost....or in the "wilderness" more years than some of us want to imagine. Just my humble opinion......here.

[welshTerrier2]

51. the only way ??

But this division between the liberal activists and conventional party voters shall always exist, and the only way for any Democrat to win is to gain the support of both groups.

first, i think these labels only serve to divide us ... your binary definition of the inner workings of democrats fails to recognize the infinite gradations along an ideological spectrum ... e.g. is john kerry more appealing to conventional party voters than john edwards? and if so, is he that way on all issues? the labels just don't really work ...

secondly, while i'd rather see more focus on the issues than on personalities, you can't deny that looks, campaign style, home state or region and a wide array of other lame criteria play a major role in candidate selection ... to narrowly reduce choices to "liberal" or "conventional" seems far too simplistic ...

finally, your statement that democrats can only win by winning the support of "both groups" omits any acknowledgement of the vast multitudes who do not vote at all ... i see no reason that a candidate who could mobilize those who don't normally vote couldn't win convincingly ...

we need to get way beyond the left versus center argument ... let's leave the labels to those who seek to divide us ...

[kerry-is-my-prez]

50. I'm very concerned also - glad others have realized that this is problem

We cannot afford to lose this election. We need someone who can unify this party.

[Scott Lee]

57. Under a NEW Democratic Party, I hope.

A Party that is no longer lorded by a ruling elite of party insiders.

A Party that opposes the GOP instead of going along with them.

A Party that relearns what it was about in the first place - for the common citizen, the American worker.

OK, that sounded like a PSA, but you get the picture. A party split is a good thing. The body has to get sick and purge before it can get better.

[arewethereyet]

58. no problem Armstead

things will come together.

If Dr Dean is filtered out there will be a small number who will just go vote green like the always do, no change.

If he does not, some will go Green and some will go right but the larger portion will carry on.

The drop off will be smaller than you fear. The real problem will be money.

The internet is OK to find 1 million avid supporters but thats already happened and no more will appear from it. It will take money to drive the human and media effort.

If you want something legitimate to worry about, worry about that. Dr Dean will not attract enough money. Others could (but not the General).

Its Edwards, Kerry or Lieberman with Edwards/Kerry the best bet.