Leftist and liberal bashing on this board

[inthebrain]

Maybe it ain't just the board and perhaps I'm stretching here a bit. I recall the election of Clinton and his eight years with a lot of Democrats showing disdain for the left and liberals in general as well.

Personally I am more socialistcally inclined than I am Liberal. Liberals never really were in favor of overthrowing the capitalist but years ago they used to be more critical of it and had a much more reformist stance than they do today. Much in the way of FDR. The last thirty or so years the Liberals have pretty much ditched their reformist stances and have become what they are today. Much more in favor of capitalistic control of our daily lives than limiting it. As opposed to the socialist ideal of giving complete democratic control of the means of production the working classes and totally eliminating and control to the capitalist over the lives of people.

Today, with the racist cartoon in the NY post you see more of a caving of liberals (Racism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism are tools of control in capitalist societies) whereas you see a degradation of an African American president as monkey being passed off "unintentional racism". Then there is the liberal bashing and left bashing that ensues (which is now commonplace on this board) that would not have taken place years ago while Bush was president.

It's amazing how an election win by this party sees a repeat of the anti liberal and anti leftist sentiment of the Clinton years. Obama has not been in power for six months and this stuff is flying out the woodworks already.

Meanwhile, working class people getting plowed under have been BEGGING for this party to get back to it's FDRish liberal reformist roots to fix this mess. That this parties legacy and what's expected of it when Democrats are voted into office. When they back off of it thats when they start losing elections like they did through most of these last 20 years up until recently.

So what's the deal? The base is the only thing that can push Obama the right way and if the liberals of this party (even if you call yourself a "progressive") don't start embracing their reformist roots this party may not have another shot. They fuck this up it's gonna be a long time getting back.

And what's the deal with all the liberal and leftist bashing taking place lately? Did you guys just bite your tongues for the last eight year or what? Why all the hate?

[Selatius]

1. I favor a more socialistically inclined economy than the one we currently have as well.

I favor a society with a large co-op sector as well as a private sector with the state merely acting as a facilitator for the development and spread of co-ops. I believe people should be free to own private capital, but that's only because I feel that ultimately, co-ops will prevail over traditionally structured firms and will be the largest fixture in the economy, with traditional firms relegated to secondary status.

Definitely, most Democrats, in comparison, are to the right of my position. FDR would make a good friend as far as discussion of economic issues and so would have Truman and LBJ with the exception of Viet Nam, but I would have little in common with Obama's economic positions and even less with Blue Dog Democrats and Democrats who count themselves with the DLC. Those kind of Democrats were the kinds I called Republicans decades ago.

[Mika]

2. If you think that's bad..

.. check out a Cuba thread or two on DU. If you post infant mortality stats (with a link) you're a commie Trotskyite Stalin supporter who eats babies with Castro.

:hi:

[leftstreet]

3. All ur Reliably Republican Voters R belong to Us

Hey, the DLC Democrats started going after the swing-Reagany voters, and they got them!

And yeah, if they fuck this up the Republicans (or GOD FORBID the Orwellian Libertarian Front) or a viable third party has a chance.

Most likely just be the Repubs though. Re-branding themselves as the populist, working person party.

[inthebrain]

4. Do you think it's from "recovering republicans" bringing that stuff here?

[leftstreet]

6. er..no

All the genuine 'recovering Republicans' I know are pretty much further left than the Limo liberals.

Frankly I think the Dems have courted the Capitalist Cheerleading Class long enough that we're seeing the results.

:hide:

[truedelphi]

7. That could well be the case. n/t

[genna]

39. Do you mean on both the social and foreign policy areas?

What's the difference between limo liberals and the other kinds of former Northeastern Republicans?

[Two Americas]

77. over the last 30 days

I am working in agriculture, a very conservative rural bunch there, and I give political talks to small groups. Things have been shifting for a while now, and just over the last 30 days I have noticed that I now get far more resistance and hostility here toward left wing politics then I do from Republican voting people. It is very clear and distinct, and I think it represents a significant shift in political attitudes. The two major parties have changed dramatically in the past, and this could be one of those times. The pattern is that there are major upheavals and shifts and populist uprisings every 80 years - 1690s, 1770s, 1860s, 1930s - and we are due for another one now.

[Mika]

5. It could work. Only in America! The GOP could become the new and improved IWW™.

:patriot:

[leftstreet]

9. As both parties embrace corporate interests, viola Voter Vacuum!

Sucks

[EraOfResponsibility]

19. HA! You actually think republicans are smart enough to do that???

*snicker* Honey, the Green Party has a better chance of becoming a stronger party than the REthuglicans EVER changing their ways.

[Two Americas]

94. not how it works

For example, when the Republican party arose in the 1850's, the people were drawn from both the Whigs and the Democrats around the issue of anti-slavery. Today a movement could arise that was anti-corporate, and that would draw people from both existing parties. An anti-corporate populist uprising is very likely, in my view. That is what the American Revolution was about - it was the British Crown corporations that were the target of the resistance, not so much the British government.

The everyday rank and file Republican voters are moving dramatically to the Left. The upper crust in the party, from the local activists up to the Beltway folks and the politicians has been becoming more and more conservative on the true political issues of wealth and power, and also more authoritarian and gentrified.

The political alignments and coalitions are extremely unstable and volatile right now. That has helped the Democrats in the last couple of cycles, but if the party keeps moving toward conservatism that can change very quickly. There is a danger - for the Democratic party - because the people are moving the opposite direction from the party leadership. The people have just rejected conservatism, especially on economic issues. Yet we have many voices, the most dominant voices within the party, attacking the Left and calling for conservatism under various guises - practicality, being realistic, moderation, centrism, compromise, bi-partisanship and the like.

[anonymous171]

135. How are they going to do that? Oh I know, they will use Religion, as always. nt

[TheWraith]

8. Funny how the ever-so-reliable Democrat bashing shows up too.

Except that the Democrat bashing is based on bullshit "news" stories that are proven to be false, gross misinterpretations of the facts, and wild-ass overreactions because Democrat X hasn't done exactly what you wanted; or if they did, they didn't do enough of it; or they didn't do it soon enough.

If you want to avoid people bashing you, make sure that you're not having a temper tantrum because 30 days in the world hasn't been completely fixed to your satisfaction.

[inthebrain]

25. I don't care if people "bash me"..

My general point (perhaps I left it out) is that a lot of these people who are gettin shit on lately in this party are the ones that gave it the balls it needed to win these elections.

It wasn't no centrist or conservative Democrat that was calling Bush's WMD claims BS. That was the left long before anyone else got onboard with it.

A lot of these people worked hard to get this party where it is today.

[Two Americas]

96. that is provocative and inflammatory

Left wing people are posting articles and making commentary just as they have all along. The reactions to what Democrats do are exactly the sane as they were 6 months ago, 6 years ago, and for some of us 40 years ago. That hasn't changed. What has changed is there is now suddenly a lot of intolerance of any criticism, and a lot of malicious attacks on any and all critics, as perfectly illustrated by your post right here.

I don't think anyone here has taken this position of "30 days and the world hasn't been completely fixed to their satisfaction" or anything like that. But it gets repeated over and over again for the purpose of smearing any and all critics.

This is telling -

"If you want to avoid people bashing you, make sure that you're not having a temper tantrum because 30 days in the world hasn't been completely fixed to your satisfaction."

So you are saying that if - in your view - a person os doing that absurd thing you accuse people of doing, and that I have seen no one do, then it is OK to bash them, and if they get bashed they have only themselves to blame.

Who gets accused of "having a temper tantrum" because things are not being fixed quickly enough? Those expressing left wing opinions.

You just admitted that people are in fact being bashed, and that if they don't want to be bashed they should stop saying the things they are saying, and that you think it is justified, when expressing left wing opinions, and the "of they are having a temper tantrum" is merely a fig leaf, a false and subjective reason for rationalizing the suppression of freedom of speech and diversity of opinion.

"Stop expressing opinions I don't like, or you will be bashed." You just said it. That is what we are complaining about, and what people are denying is happening. Of course, accurately describing this as an attempt at suppression of freedom of speech will ALSO earn one a bashing, as well as ridicule and personal attack.

You don't claim that it isn't happening - you justify and defend it, and blame the victims.

[PVnRT]

108. Yep, keep on beating that strawman

"...wild-ass overreactions because Democrat X hasn't done exactly what you wanted..."

"...make sure that you're not having a temper tantrum because 30 days in the world hasn't been completely fixed to your satisfaction..."

I've yet to see anyone on this board seriously complain that Obama sucks because all of our problems aren't fixed one month after inauguration. Not that I expect the STFU Brigade to let facts get in the way of their incessant whining.

[FrenchieCat]

10. You are basically saying that we need to hold Obama's feet to the fire,

and I might normally agree.....however, the problem is after the GOP media is finished with him, there may be little left of President Obama to hold up to the fire.

of course, by the time all parties "concerned" have piled-on Obama and weakened his public support, the "left" will be surprised that he was rendered unable to pass health reform as he promised, although they will conveniently forget the part they played.

But given that the health reforms he promised aren't good enough anyways, guess it won't matter if things stay as they are, hey? For all we know, in 4 years, liberals might be scratching their asses trying to figure out what happened when we start all over again with a Republican asshole President once more.

[leftstreet]

11. Obama has the political capital to call for single payer healthcare

Right now.

Live on the teevee.

The guy is a rockstar. All over the globe actually.

People would gladly support him in any way he suggested. If he announced that the CongressCritters would try to oppose him, and he'd like as many of us as possible to come to DC in support of him - the inaugural crowds would look small by comparison.

He will slowly lose that capital if he doesn't use it though.

[FrenchieCat]

15. He is not going to call for single payer healthcare,

and he never said he would.

You must not remember that we had an election, and Dennis Kucinich ran and lost.

[cascadiance]

30. And some communists ran against FDR and lost too! But that didn't stop their influence over him!

Those that lost to him, and other more progressive elements of the days of the depression, which were quite sizable then, as they are growing now as well, will lobby to get changes in.

The problem today is that the infrastructure, being *owned* by the corporate lobbyists, makes it that much harder for someone like Kucinich (or even Edwards, were he not to be tainted by scandal) to speak for what many people really want at the grass roots level and get elected.

I think Obama has been challenging that this election "is about you", because he WANTS to be pushed by the people's voices, so he has ammunition to move his agenda to embrace what the people want, or what others can show help the growing frustrated concerns of an increasingly active and potentially more violent populace.

Obama can't continue to ignore an increasingly frustrated populace that's disproportionately represented so much less than other well heeled entities by lobbyists, which call the shots today.

At some point, the masses will get so frustrated with trying to get heard through peaceful and democratic means and do other things that much more distasteful. Do you want to wait until the government's forced to declare martial law and the breakdown of our rights that will happen at that point? I don't think Obama really wants that (where Bush might have embraced that)...

Obama needs to understand that single payer health care is what is ultimately needed to remove the LEECHES that the insurance companies are on this system for people's health that should be a right and not a "privilege". Many are increasingly becoming aware that allowing leeches to profit from this while everyone else suffers hurts our companies competitively when they are forced to pay insurance for employees, or forced to drop them, which leads to an unhealthy and even more economically damaged middle class and work force.

The health insurance *experiment* that Nixon and folks started is shown to be a failure. All other civilized companies have left it behind as they've already come to this conclusion. Going to single payer health care not only will help restore people's health in our economy, it will restore some degree of economic security for many people that is NECESSARY to restore the health of economic spending in our economy to help its recovery.

All the frickin' BS about us going to "socialized medicine" with some big fear mongering that that entails should be exposed for what it is! Unsubstantiated *FEAR MONGERING*... The rest of the world shows that WE are the country that has failed our health care systems with not having this sort of system, not the other way around.

[mvd]

50. Yes, Aetna just had another major rate increase in this recession!

I hope Obama reels them in, and from there we can work towards single payer.

[cascadiance]

80. Damn, that must be why a doctor I just got before the end of the year's office is dropping them!

And of course we as employees don't REALLY have choice in who we use unless we anticipate ALL of these wrinkles ahead of time during the brief periods we're allow to change our medical plans...

They must have priced Aetna's plan to high for their office. Therefore if I want to stick with this specialist (and they do seem to be good), I need to pay about 20% more on any fees I pay for services...

[mvd]

97. It wasn't a huge increase for me, but it was for my parents

Unfortunately, my parents looked around and a $100 cheaper plan had twice the deductible! So Aetna really has them under a barrel unless Obama can provide some kind of ceiling/controls. Bush really wrecked our health care system, and it wasn't good before Bush.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inthebrain]

12. The GOP is going to attack him from the right and that's going to lead him rightward

That's their whole goal.

If the constituency of this party does not learn to criticize Obama from the left they are dead in the water. Where is he left to go?

It's quite clear, historically and presently, that the country doesn't just desire change, it desires radical change. If the liberals and progressives of this party are too afraid to do this, what's the point?

YOu have to establish yourselves as a constutiency. Not one that is just going to try and deflect and defend attacks from the right. Do that and you wind up with table scraps.

Obama is leaning rightward and picking very conservative Democrats and Moderate Republicans because there are no reprocussions from the Liberals and progressives in this party. They look to be in a very uncomfortable position of defend at all cost while the right is still on offense.

Clinton OTHO really didn't have any defenders from the reformist Liberals and Progressives because he basicly told them to go screw as well. The ones that chose to stick around really didn't hold his feet to the fire either and that's why nothing was accomplished. They were left going along with Clinton's philosphy of "being reasonable" with the Limbaughs and Ginghrich's while Clinton dismantelted Welfare and screwed labor out of the NAFTA agreement.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I don't believe that "attacking" Obama is going to lead him anywhere

other than where he intended to go.

I believe that constructive criticism is healthy.
I believe that making shit up is lying.


An example is....Pres. Obama has promised us Health Care Reform.
However, Pres. Obama did not run on or promise us single Payer Health Care reform.
Yes, we can write letters, etc.... asking that he consider Single Payer.
However, if he chooses not to proceed on that route, using strong arm tactics in order
to force him to go that route becomes counterproductive, as that is not what he ever intended to do.

[inthebrain]

27. Since when is using "strong arm tactics" counter productive?

MLK used strong arm tactics to direct LBJ where he wanted to go.

That's why you saw the voting rights act and the civil rights act passed. He wasn't gonna sit back and right friendly little letters to him.

Same with FDR who was forced into a reformist position after Hoover. As a matter of fact FDR was famous for saying "Make me".

That's how things get done.

[Two Americas]

44. this is not a dictatorship

Where a leader "intended to go" is not how our representative democracy works. No politician can merely impose his will and ignore public opinion and go where he intended to go.

Pressuring politicians in a representative democracy is never counterproductive, it is essential if we are to keep our freedom and if we are to be a self-governing people.

You are demanding that people see the President as a strong man, as a larger than life figure to whom we must all submit. That does a terrible disservice to the President himself - you are using him, misusing him, to satisfy your own need for an authoritarian figure to look up to - it is a danger to the success of the administration, and it is a threat to our freedom and to our representative democracy.

It is not up to you to decide when someone else is engaging in constructive criticism that is healthy, and when they are "making shit up" and "lying." When and if you disagree with someone, make your case and support and defend it rather than merely throwing insults around.

[PVnRT]

111. Oh please. Anything you don't approve of is an "attack"

Which is basically anything not couched in glowing terms about Obama. Whatever.

[Two Americas]

13. nothing to do with Obama

I just don't think this has anything to do with Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

17. I read this in the OP.....

The base is the only thing that can push Obama the right way

so it seems to have something to do with Obama to me.
Plus, if that were the case, that this had nothing to do with Obama,
it wouldn't be posted in this Presidential forum, right?.

[Two Americas]

37. here is why

The same dynamic would be happening, the same issues would be involved, and the same things would be at stake regardless of who was president. Ergo, it is not all primarily and mainly about Obama, the personality, and the battle is not between those who love him and those who hate him, as you relentlessly insist we must all see this. That drama is going on mostly in your own imagination. That is fine, and no one would deny that to you. We are resistant to your attempts to force that view on all of the rest of us.

There is another way that this is not all about Obama - for you - because at one time you were expressing the same feelings the same way about Wes Clark and at another time about John Kerry. I think it is fine that you have a hero. I do not think that it is fine to demand that the rest of us all see politics the same way that you do, and demand that we orient our political thinking and speaking around hero figures - for or against.


...

[FrenchieCat]

45. Your assumptions about me are your opinions and are quite personal......

so let explain this, so that even you can understand: Admittedly, what activated my activism to begin with was witnessing George Bush steal the presidency in 2000, so it would be a natural progression that politics to some degree would involve personalities and my interest in how those personalities can move the issues that I am interested in; issues that are quite numerous.

Wes Clark was someone I believed would have been a great President for the times in which he ran, and I do believe that he would have beaten George Bush had he been given the chance. He wasn't.

As for John Kerry, I was never "enthralled" or enthused as I saw the writing on the wall shortly after he got the nomination. The media wasn't going to allow him to win.

I will admit as an African American, I do have an affinity toward Barack Obama, although initially I supported Hillary Clinton more (up until October of 2007).

But now, you have sparked my curiosity as to who you were before you became Two Americas. I asked this because you didn't become active at DU until 2007 according to your profile, meaning that for you to know my history as well as you think would mean that you were on these boards before assuming the identity that you currently own. So who were you? possibly AP?

You see, your posting history also reveals that you very much favored a political personality of your own. So you can try to talk down at me in referencing my wanting a "hero"....but please be careful as one can become quite hypocritical when assigning to others what they themselves may bave engaged in. Possibly, since your "personality" didn't make it, you now believe yourself as being superior. Please know that you are not superior....nor do you own the corner market on much of anything.

And you see, that is my problem with you; you clearly believe yourself to be better in how you approach issues...but that is only your self serving opinion, but it is not a verifiable fact.

[Two Americas]

47. right

We have been down this path. You posted dozens of links to prove my supposed disloyalty a couple of weeks ago, and I posted the entire content from those, stood by them, and did not try to hide anything. But I will not submit to intimidation, to insinuations and veiled threats. This is not the only board in the world, and I worked for Clark. I am more than willing to talk about that experience. I came here when Edwards started running, because his message was an opportunity to speak out for left wing politics and for the have nots. It had nothing to do with his personalty or character - both of which suck. The fact that people at one time supported candidates other than Obama - most of the people here - does not make them suspect or disloyal nor does it mean that they have a hidden agenda. Yet you have insinuated that numerous times.

As I said the last time you tried to make insinuations about by character, I have worked for and supported Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, Jerry Brown, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and hundreds of other politicians at all levels. I have criticized all if them exactly the same way I have criticized some actions by the current resident. I have been cpnsistent on that for 40 years, and never ran into the hostility that critics are getting now.

On race - you well know that I completely agree with you about the significance of electing an African American man to the White House. You know that I have always acknowledged that race was a factor in the election. You know that I have always been outspoken about the double standard, about the greater burden carried by people of color when seeking positions of power and influence.

I don't hate you and am not trying to take you down or harm or humiliate or embarrass you. I disagree with you about one issue.

I think that it is an important and constructive ingredient in the mix for some to be expressing the loyalty and dedication and admiration for the President that you are expressing. I just do not think that it is the only ingredient, or the only way to support the President, As I have said before, I am more than willing to co-exist peacefully and would never go after you and attack you because you admire the President. But when you attack others, I am going to respond.

This business if who joined DU when - hint hint - and speculation as to their motives or their loyalty or agenda is just malicious. I have never been a member at DailyKos, but do you suppose that means I do not read there, do not know the members - often in real life or from other boards or mailing lists, that I do not know what people are saying there? Because I am not a member there, does that make me suspect - a possible "troll" or "freeper" or something? Nonsense. There are hundreds of boards and groups an mailing lists. It is not up to you to decide or enforce who is an enemy, who is disloyal, and who is true blue.

My assumptions about you are my observations and not the least bit "personal." You were in fact, in public, expressing the same things about Clark and Kerry that you are now expressing about Obama. I remember you doing that in mailing lists. I mentioned it only because you denied my statement that this was not really all about Obama.

Unlike you, I don't think there is anything wrong with you supporting someone other than Obama at one time, so I am not criticizing you for supporting Clark and Kerry. But your point of view on this - how we should all best support politicians - predates your support for Obama, and so therefore is not all about Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

56. You like to write I see.....

You have made it a consistent point of yours to coyly insult me and other DUers for that matter, of being the kind of supporters who are more into "personalities" rather than issues, and you have held yourself up as being the opposite, and you believe yourself to be quite superior for it. In otherwords, we are the superficial lightweight fans, while you are the heavyduty issue oriented serious thinker so you would wish.

My response to you is that I don't believe that we are as different as to what we actual do to help our respective causes at the end of the day (even if you believe yourself to be more valuable and/or serious). You want to pull Obama to the left by being consistently critical as to what he does and says, and I believe that we can get more done by being supportive of the President this early on and give him a chance to literally show us what he has in mind, because I believe that it is precisely the support that he is perceived as having that gives him the strength and the backup to get things done that we want done.

As far as everything else you mentioned...it is frankly a waste of both of our time to go there.

[Two Americas]

58. I am not insuting you

I disagree with you, on one issue - how best to support Democratic party politicians. But I can accept your approach. No problem. You are the one who aggressively attacks others for their approach. When you do that, these discussions happen. Otherwise, live and let live and I would never pester you.

I never called you "superficial lightweight fans." I never claimed to be the heavier thinker. Are you saying that my arguments were persuasive? If so, good. Even if you still disagree with me, we understand one another better. I am not "coyly insulting" you or anyone else. I am flat out giving my opinion on this, straightforwardly and honestly. I disagree with you, on one point. That is the only thing I talk about when we have these debates.

I respect your opinion that "we can get more done by being supportive of the President this early on and give him a chance to literally show us what he has in mind, because I believe that it is precisely the support that he is perceived as having that gives him the strength and the backup to get things done that we want done." That is legitimate and valid, and well expressed. Thank you for accurately and fairly characterizing my position - ""pull Obama to the left by being consistently critical as to what he does and says." Although I rarely criticize Obama, and never merely for the sake of doing it. Mostly I defend the right of others to express dissent. But yes, I think we should be critical of all of our elected officials, and I think it is our job to pull them to the left.

I just don't agree with it. That is to say, I think your approach can play a constructive role, I just do not think that it is the only way to support the administration.

[FrenchieCat]

61. You said...."No problem. You are the one who aggressively attacks others for their approach."

and I say that you are becoming quite transparent.

Keep it up. :)

[Two Americas]

66. yes

I said that "you are the one who aggressively attacks others for their approach."

That is not an "insult." You are doing that.

Your response? An insinuation, unfounded and malicious, about my motives or agenda - "you are becoming quite transparent."

[PVnRT]

109. You accuse him of personal attacks, yet bring up he's "only been here since 2007"

There's a word for that, and it starts with an H. To say nothing of your stalking his threads for "disloyal" comments.

[Two Americas]

57. thinking some more on this

I have always stood with the people who supported a particular candidate first and that is where my allegiance has been (within a context of having an opportunity to advance left wing politics, regardless of whether the qualities and positions of the particular politicians are perfect.

I supported Bill Clinton mostly because the people in my neighborhood, poor and working class Black people, supported him. I stood with them, despite disagreeing with Clinton politically and I was always outspokenly critical of Clinton. That did not mean I did not support him, it meant that my primary loyalty was not to him as a personality, or to the success of his career.

I supported Clark because Clark was attracting minority people, because he had a track record of promoting minority people and women in the military, because he was advocating tax exemption for all making less than $50,000 a year, and because his ag program was the only one that was left wing of all of the candidates. He was also attracting poor rural whites, and was the only candidate getting support both from people in rural west Virginia and urban Detroit. That was unique. I stood with those people, not with Clark. I was loyal to those people, not to the politician. When Clark hired DLC operatives, I was an outspoken critic of them from then on. I believe he betrayed us, just as I believe Edwards betrayed us. That is the nature of politics. But for those who were loyal to Clark the personality, they saw any criticism of Clark as treason and viciously attacked the critics.

I supported Edwards because of the people he was attracting - poor people and people speaking for the poor. Who cares what he "was?" I stood with the people who stood with him.

I think that is the basis for the disagreement here. I have always first and foremost stood with the supporters of different candidates - my loyalty and allegiance is to them. You ask us to pledge our loyalty and allegiance to the politicians. TYhaty is the difference I think - a different approach to politics.

I am not "against Obama" as you have accused me of being many times. I am just not first and foremost loyal to the personality of Obama, but that has been true of all politicians. I have voted straight Democrat in over 40 elections, and have worked for dozens and dozens of Democratic politicians. That, to me, is real support. I resent being accused of being against Democrats, or of being disloyal - and those are the mildest attacks - merely because I take a different approach to politics than you do, and because I think that support means something different thing than you think it should mean.

[FrenchieCat]

63. At this point.....

:boring:

[Two Americas]

67. that is fine

I am mostly writing for the benefit of others, those reading this exchange.

[PVnRT]

110. I have a feeling

If FrenchieCat were running this website, she would require a loyalty oath of all members and ban anyone who violated it.

[eridani]

22. Right. Every well-heeled interest group has gotten their ropes out

--tied them to Obama's waist, and gotten down to the business of hauling him as far in their direction as he can. And all us little people who are sick and tired of being jacked around by private health insurance CEOs and banking parasites are supposed to drop our ropes? Well, fuck that! And the horse it rode in on.

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. Then take the GOP media down.

Repeal Clinton's 1996 Telecommunications Act, and enforce existing antitrust laws to break up these ridiculously huge (and always right wing) media corporations. And pass new laws, when needed to eliminate any obvious conflict of interest in media ownership, such as a major defense contractor like General Electric owning TV networks (anything with an "NBC" in the name)

[Two Americas]

14. it is stunning really

I think you are seeing this accurately. Over the past few days it has become worse than ever. The group of people who control the discussion within liberalism and the party, well represented here, are swinging hard to the right.

Leftists and left wing ideas are under vicious attack as never before here, often under the guise of "loyalty to Obama." It really has nothing to do with Obama, and he is not to blame. He is being used by people who wish to drive the party to the right.

Every topic now is dominated by authoritarian, conservative and reactionary talking points. Bigotry has found a home here now, as well.

This very point of view I am expressing here has been and will again come under attack and be mocked and ridiculed.

In real life I work in agriculture, and talk left wing politics to many Republican groups. Over the last couple of weeks this has become a much more hostile environment to left wing ideas than those groups and much more right wing than those conservative groups are.

The centrists, or whatever you want to call them - deeply conservative on economic issues, very gentrified and aristocratic, and very authoritarian - were willing to tolerate the left so long as we helped get rid of the Republicans. Now we are seen as the enemy, and are disposable. This is going to put the administration in a very bad position, since the deteriorating conditions demand a left wing approach. But I think that for those who control the party at all levels, the left has always been seen as a bigger enemy than the right. That was somewhat hidden from view during the Bush years, but the curtain has been ripped back now and the conservatives get bolder every day.

The mid-level relatively upscale activists in the party, as represented here, have now become the most potent conservative and reactionary force in the country. It has been stunning to watch the transformation occur.

This is a very strange thing. The public has just thoroughly and utterly rejected Reaganomics and the religious right, and yet you would think it were the left that had been repudiated to read DU. By the relentless insistence from some here that this is all about our team winning, and loyalty to that team, rather than our principles and ideals winning and loyalty to those, that gives perfect cover for this hard turn to the right.

[inthebrain]

26. My thing is that I really don't believe in this "centrist" thing. Or that centrists really exist

We all have issues that polarize us in one direction or the other.

I think it funny that abortion is an issue that most people define themselves as pro choice and it's a few lifers that get the arguement on the table. The majority of Americans, 70%, are pro choice. But this issue gets debated as if it's the most important thing on Americans minds.

And there really are no centrists in the discussion.

I think the issue with the economy now is really interesting because it is drawing new battle lines. Lots of poeple not really happy with either parties solutions to it. I wonder how much of their arguing about it is staged. A stimulus bill was going to pass no matter what. It could have looked like anything and still had the label "Stimulus Bill".

Most folks I have talked to are not happy with it. Lots of folks think they should have forgiven all the student loan debt and secured the mortgages that were threatened and provided to those who have lost their homes.

Not only in the mortgage crisis but Katrina as well.

The Banks need to be slapped down as they are no raising their interest rates on credit cards to 30% despite getting billions from the government. Money that all of us worked so hard to earn to benefit us.

[Runcible Spoon]

48. I've been enjoying your posts on this issue lately.

Please stick around and don't let the Blue Dog apologists get you down!

[dionysus]

28. if you think the party is lurching hard to the right you're crazy.

[Two Americas]

36. great example

That is what I am talking about. That is what Republican voting people initially say - a little more respectfully, since it is only here that people call those with whom they disagree "crazy" - because they believe the propaganda about the Democratic party being "the far left." The difference is that with them I can show them how that is not the case, and furthermore I have much success convincing them that positions far to the left of the Democratic party are in their best interests and the best interests of the country. Here, the conservatism is much more stubbornly embedded in people's thinking, and they are much less open-minded.

[dionysus]

42. no, it's not. you're spouting off about how the party is so conservative, you're simply full of

crap.

you're saying DU is full of conservatives?

hooookay buddy

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Runcible Spoon]

49. yep, DU's got plenty of Blue Dog sympathizers.

Why that is shocking to you of all people is beyond me :eyes:

[dionysus]

51. i'd say the blue dog\dlc types are a very,very, very tiny minority here.

[leftstreet]

52. Actually you're probably right. They're just the loudest

I'd say the majority of members/lurkers are decidedly very far to the left of the DLCers.

[Runcible Spoon]

54. DAMN I JUST wrote something really similar lol.

I am not even going to get into how some people seem to have a real agenda with what they post here, to the extent that I suspect they're paid. If they're NOT paid, they're entirely obsessive and I think that is actually more disturbing.

[leftstreet]

55. lol

exactly!

[kenfrequed]

114. I would agree

While I might believe independent working class blue dogs occasionally posting here, full scale pro-corporate DLC types would not really be believable to me.

Where would the energy come from? What the hell do they rally around? Honestly the DLC is not a real grass roots/voters organization and has no populist or public energy to draw from. Therefore it is likely to me that any DLC types here are either paid or are underworked interns.

[Two Americas]

71. the tail wags the dog

It is always easier to argue for the status quo and to defend power. Then, the double standard here means that the few, the conservatives (and on matters of economics and power, which is what politics is about, they are as conservative as any Republican) can dominate and control the discussion. It is also easier to tear down than to build, and the conservatives are not interested in persuading anyone to their ideas or building a following or a consensus - they win if they can successfully tear the left down, because then power and authority will not be challenged.

[Runcible Spoon]

53. well you know how effective pontificating about of DU as a whole is.

The vast majority of posts are the work of a very small percentage of posters; one need only arrange any forum "by author" and do a simple count if it's not already intuitive.

All irrelevant anyway considering what passes for a "liberal" these days.

[dionysus]

43. can you expound upon what your "positions far to the left of the Democratic party" are?

you talking about doing away with capitalism, socialism, communism, what?

[Two Americas]

60. good question

I think we need to do with finance in all areas the same thing we did with it in agriculture in the 30's. That is the main thing, in my view. As it is the bankers, financiers, speculators, manipulators and investors own everything and control our economy, our lives and our government.

The left means the politics of aggressively fighting for the interests of 90% of the people, the workers and the producers, in response to the way that the right wingers aggressively and relentlessly fight for the interests of the upper 1%, and the way that the Democrats fight for the interests of the upper 10% - the upscale progressives.

The Democratic party politicians are continually compromising with the program that benefits the upper 1%, and pander to the upper 10% - the upscale gentrified - and conservative on true political issues of power and economics - people calling themselves "progressives." I don't blame the politicians for that - there is no left for them to represent. There never will be a left if we don't keep talking about it.

[inthebrain]

79. This party just like the Republicans, always lurches to the right after the elections

It's really easy to predict.

Crap, Bush in 2000 and 2004 ran much more to the left than his actual positions. So did McCain and Obama in this election.

The Democratic Party as a whole is not really a leftist party or even a liberal party. It only acts that way when it's on it's heels like it was these last eight years. Mainly because the public is much more to the left than the folks in Washington. Overall, the wine and cheeze crowd there only take pieces of each ideology that produces the most profit for the capitalist class.

This is what creates voter apathy and it's rightly justified.

[Political Heretic]

20. There's no connection to Obama.

Who wrote the bill again?

I keep forgetting.... who's been connected to this bill for almost a month?

Oh yeah... CONGRESS.

There's no connection to Obama except for those who stubbornly WANT to see one.

Not being fucking stupid has nothing to do with bashing liberals. I'm as "liberal" as they come, I'm just not a moron.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Obama's been connected to this bill since before he was elected.

It's pretty much all he's talked about during his transition and his short presidency.

To say this isn't representative of Obama is to throw all of your credibility out the window.

[depakid]

21. When people shout for the downfall of "capitalism"

They're probably not going to get many takers.

Has nothing whatsoever to do with bashing "the left" or "liberalism."

[inthebrain]

23. I don't think shouting for the downfall of capitalism was really the point here

Oh, and right now, there are MANY TAKERS. THe people losing their homes, can't find jobs or getting screwed by NAFTA right now are not too happy with the system.

Which one you think is gonna get more takers right now? The guy singing the praises of capitalism or the one who criticizes it or offers to overthrow it?

I treated two homeless veterans this week. Both of them fought in Vietnam. YOu think these guys are taken in when someone sings the praises of capitalism?

These guys think this country is shit cause they spillt blood for it and were left for dead when they came home dissabled.

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. Depends on what you mean by "capitalism"

Capitalism isn't inherently evil if it's properly regulated. Like it was before 1980.

[tomp]

87. oh, yes, those halcyon days of properly regulated capitalism!

that's a joke right? you really must be kidding.

[Raineyb]

141. It's not really necessary to call for the downfall of captalism.

Especially as it has been practiced in this country for the last 30 years. It's already fallen. Rebooting the system to something a lot less susceptible to bubbles would be ideal especially if we want to make sure it doesn't happen again.

That being said it is not people shouting for the downfall of capitalism that's provoking the ire of the blue dogs on this board.

Regards

[wyldwolf]

29. Amazing people see what they want to see and disregard the rest

[Jennicut]

31. I am hardly a "Centrist". I consider myself a liberal. Obama is a liberal. He was never a socialist.

Nor will he ever be one. We will have a mix of some socialistic ideas now but our basic core we our and will remain a capitalistic country. There are simply not enough people who want it to be a socialistic one. For God sakes, we had Shrub, an extreme Neo con, for President for 8 years. We just moved to the left with Obama in a major way. Maybe not left enough for some but its a big country. There is also no "hate" but fractions within the Democratic party itself. I feel like I am in the middle of the Dem party. Not a conservative Dem but a mix of a moderate and left one. I think this is where Obama's ideology is. He is not Bill Clinton but neither is he Dennis Kucinich. He is somewhere in between. Not every Dem agrees with the extreme left of the party nor the DLC part. I am kind of here. It will only get more interesting now that the Rethugs have lost many of their voters and they have come to the Dems. Overall we have just had a huge improvement over Bush. Is the country ready to move to the left? Absolutely. They got behind the stimulus package.

[Two Americas]

74. what we "are"

Politics is not about what we "are" it is about what we do and say. It is also not about "personal values" or "personal choices" it is about collective action. It is not about philosophies and ideologies and positions, it is about power and economics.

Describing politics the way you are sets a context, defines the playing field, and does so in such a way that favors a conservative view, and conservative political ideas are more easily advanced and promoted.

[Jennicut]

84. Perhaps but labeling all people who are Dems as either ultra left or DLC conservatives misses

a whole heck of a lot of us. Hello...we moderates exist here too! It also all depends on where your perspective is. I talk to my conservative Rush listening parents and I am a "socialist". I come here and I am no where near being as left as some people. I just think Dems fighting Dems is pointless and futile.

[Two Americas]

98. moderates

"Moderate" is a social position, it is not about politics. It is an answer in social settings to the question "what are you" that is socially acceptable and bland and creates no controversy. It might be at best about "current events" and shallow partisan electoral politics, but that is not really politics, it is pop entertainment. So being "moderate" is to be aloof and disconnected on matters of pop entertainment and shallow partisanship, and extremely disconnected and aloof and uninvolved in anything that could justifiably be called politics.

There are not any "ultra Lefts" that I can see. The political ruling class, and there sycophants and apologists from the minor gentry, are so far to the right that anything looks "ultra Left" by comparison. I hear many blue collar people say "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" and "it is a rich man's war and a poor man's fight." Those sentiments are far, far to the Left from those of almost everyone here. The Republicans and right wing propagandists have been able to leverage those class resentments into support for the Republican party, because the Democratic party is dominated by aristocratic and gentrified apologists for the ruling class and has abandoned the field - and the working class - to the right wingers.

Being "moderate" on politics - halfway between - is like being "moderate" on murder. There is no such thing. It would, in those cases, be merely a reluctance to tackle the problem of rape and murder or speak out about them. Halfway would mean that the victim is still dead, and the murderer still walks, and more murders are certain to happen.

The right wing is trying to destroy us, you know, every bit as much as a murderer is trying to kill their victim.

But if we applied the same logic to murder as we do to politics, that would mean that stopping murder and punishing it would be seen as the "extremist" and "purist" position - to be rejected - and would rationalize and justify not stopping the murderer because we say we are "against murder" and are taking a "moderate" and "middle" position on the issue. Murder would then go on, because of our lack of clarity and/or courage, but we would claim we were not responsible for it because we were not pro-murder and were really different than those murderers - we were "moderate."

[Jennicut]

101. I don't know. I guess so. But that is where I feel most comfortable...liberal to moderate

Hard to change at 33.

[kenfrequed]

115. But that is the problem

Accepting a label like 'moderate' allows you to be lumped into absurdly broad and non-descriptive categories. There are no real moderates as it is a category without a true definition.

What is a moderates view on Universal Healthcare? Ask twenty self descirbed moderates and get twenty different positions.

What about an issue already as broad as the environment? It is hard enough to get 20 members of the Green party to agree on what the most pressing issue is and how to solve it (which is why they tend to eschew the left-right thing), without asking a bunch of people that haven't bothered to inform themselves enough to articulate a position.

Oh yes and then there is the one that screws us over the most as liberal democrats the 'Im a fiscally conservative and socially liberal.' As I have said many, many times before you may as well say "Hey we're Democrats and we suck at money." Fiscally conservative is what got us into this damned mess in the first place.

[inthebrain]

131. I always think it funny that moderates can never be the absoutists

but it is absolute that the moderate always gets it right.

Meanwhile it is absolute that those on radical extremes are always absolutists.

Even more ironic is that the moderates are those that are accepting of very extreme actions by a government that is radically extremist. This is the view that a moderate doesn't tolerate radicalism and comes to rationale conclusions on everything.

It's really weird how that works.

[Two Americas]

121. that is OK

Just give it some consideration, is all I ask. I appreciate your thoughts on this.

No need to change who you are. Your thinking on politics need not be rigidly attached to your personal identity or self-image.

[Chulanowa]

33. Well, the I/P and Guns forum have always been hangouts for leftist-bashers

Since we're all gun-grabbing antisemite terrorist-lovers and all that stuff.

Maybe the infection is spreading?

[Occam Bandage]

34. We have one thing in common with the Religious Right.

All disagreement is persecution.

[Still Sensible]

38. I've certainly seen that cut both ways

personally, I would like to see a socially conscious capitalism. That means that as a country we have to get by the bogeyman of "socialism" any time any socially conscious policy is suggested.

The truth is that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are already socialistic programs that work as well as they are allowed to. Medicare alone (and my upbringing as an Army brat with full medical, dental, etc.) tells me that a single payer system can indeed work well. Is it politically possible at this time, I don't know. Getting people to be willing to go for it as a part of the tax burden might be pretty tough... but I do know it would be easier to get something like that done if you could incorporate a way to not create a large number of unemployed.

Socially conscious capitalism also means a solid regulatory framework to prevent/punish abuses. It never ceases to amaze me that our justice system throws the book at some of the most minor offenses and yet what they call "white collar crime" is generally a slap on the wrist--despite the fact that the former may have had a few victims while the latter typically has hundreds, thousands or millions.

[Two Americas]

41. you can't get there that way

You can't get to "socially conscious capitalism" without a strong and militant political left, because that "socially conscious capitalism" represents a compromise between the left and the right. The left represents the interests of the working people and the have nots, the right represents the interests of the wealthy and powerful few. If one side is advocating strongly for the wealthy and powerful few, and the other is advocating something halfway between the right and the left as a "reasonable" compromise, we will continue to slide to the right.

The New Deal did not happen by anyone (other than a few politicians) advocating the New Deal, it came because millions were very militantly and loudly advocating politics far to the left of the New Deal. The New Deal was what we wound up with, after the battle.

Politics is a struggle, and it is about economics and power - who has access to power and resources and who does not. It is not a buffet table where we merely choose an outcome from the available choices. You must fight for whatever you want, and the right wing is already fighting - r3lentlessly, ruthlessly and very effectively. The Republicans and right wingers are fighting to protect and expand the power and wealth of their clients, the few who already have mist of the wealth and power, not for an ideology or philosophy. There is not way to persuade them or convince them or convert them to your "socially conscious capitalism" ideas.

You say that "getting people to be willing to go for it as a part of the tax burden might be pretty tough." No it wouldn't be, not if you are talking about the vast majority of the people, the have nots. It will be impossible to convince the upper class to go along with this, on the other hand. They will have to be forced. But the rest of the people? No problem. We do need to be at least trying though, we need to be fighting for the interests of the have nots of we expect their support, rather than advocating bland and wishy washy cpmpromises.

[Still Sensible]

46. You are absolutely right, and I in no way

wanted to suggest otherwise. I did, however, want to point out that the more liberal side could also tone down the rhetoric a little bit. Look, I detect purity patrols on both sides of most questions that really get discussed here.

There is one group of folks that are ready to pounce if you 1) say a good word about any business that isn't a "mom & pop;" 2) suggest there might be something short of single payer health care that would get everyone insured; 3) give any quarter to the notion that you need independents and moderates to acquire and maintain power; 4) suggest that some wars are worth fighting; 5) express a belief that Obama's somewhat centrist approach is already showing some progressive gains.

Then there is the other group that is ready to flame away if you 1) suggest that some form of socialism might be the right way to go or that capitalism must be replaced; 2) believe that a woman's right to choose must be without any restriction; 3) suggest that all war is evil and the military should be reduced or eliminated; 4) believe that Obama has ignored the true liberals in his actions since election.

In my opinion we all need to be willing to appreciate the big tent we have and stop trying to shout down anyone that has legitimate disagreements. On the other hand, for the freepers that lurk here--fuck 'em.

[Two Americas]

62. not in my view

I think that the leftists here are far too accommodating, and that they have to work twice as hard as the conservatives and are under much heavier restrictions and handicaps. I would like to see them much more aggressive and outspoken. The left is weak and retiring in this country, while the right wing is extremely aggressive and relentless. I think we have come to accept aggression and dominance by right wing and conservative points of view, nationally and in the Democratic party and here. The we are hyper-alert and hyper-sensitive to any outspoken assertiveness from the left, and are quick to criticize that. This is how things are everywhere in the country, so there should be no surprise that it happens here.

As it is, the discussion is heavily weighted to favor the conservatives - who are after all a small minority here - and they are able to control and dominate the discussion and relentlessly bully leftists.

A lot of this is gentrification, which we are supposed to see as politically neutral and merely a matter of 'good manners" or politeness or something. But gentrification is a potent weapon for conservatism, especially here. People are free to be as hateful and ugly as they like when defending power, or when attacking everyone from poor people to GLBTQ people. The "you are being rude ( or angry, or whatever)" charge is made against those advocating for the poor, or the persecuted, or those criticizing privilege, power and property. There is an obvious double standard, and people are largely unaware of it.

As I have said, the Democratic party hangs out a sign - "we welcome the poor, the downtrodden, the persecuted and abused" - but then complain bitterly when people show up and track mud on the lovely imported carpet.

We hear this -"I support poor people (GLBTQ people, homeless people, blue collar people, minority people) but they are going about their cause the wrong way and need to be more polite and patient and stop alienating their supporters."

The Democratic party needs to get rid of that gentrified carpet, or take down that damned sign.

If we accept that the playing field is level and that are all equal - and that "both sides are at fault" - then we have surrendered the battle from the outset. The playing field is NOT level, and that is WHY we are leftists. You can't ask people to surrender on that. That is the whole battle.

it is the unlevel playing field that is the problem, not what happens on the playing field.

[liberalsince1968]

40. I so agree with this.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. I don't think "the base" of the Democratic Party is what you actually think it is

The base of the Democratic Party is an extremely fragmented group of voters who are mostly concerned about their particular issues. A very small portion of that base actually consists of what you call the left. The fact of the matter is that in the 1930's the leftists and socialists were a serious political force to be reckoned with. That is not the case anymore. The left is now a small group that is not well organized and has little power.

[Uzybone]

64. very well put

the self anointed purists who like to slap themselves on the back, support fringe candidates, lose elections on every levels are the small team. In fact they'd rather we (progressives, liberals, democrats) be out of power because it will vindicate the self righteous feelings they have about themselves. They feel they are too good and pure for America.

[Two Americas]

73. lol!

Could you possibly put together a more malicious and insulting post?

Oh, no, leftists are not being attacked here. Where would anyone get that goofy idea?

[PVnRT]

112. You should wear leather gloves to carry that cross around

I hear it has some nasty splinters.

[leftstreet]

68. In a way you're absolutely right

In the 30s the leftists and socialists were a serious political force to be reckoned with.

We have a vacuum, a void.

[cascadiance]

81. When times get tough the masses start moving to the left!

So what may have appeared to be a small divergent wing of the party a few years ago, is less so now the more and more this country slips into recession and more and more of our rights are taken away and the average joe perceives that he has no power with those in power now compared to the bankers who get all kinds of SOCIALIZED WELFARE thrown at them... The "fringe left" basically isn't "fringe" any more, despite the corporate media's insistence that they aren't.

A lot of these people are feeling alone now and not listened to, but it's just a matter of time that they find their voices of support with we the progressive wing of the party, and will start pushing more for us to get more power in the decisions being made.

[Two Americas]

99. of course

That is what politics is about - not "ideologies" and "philosophies" and "personal values" or "positions on issues" - but rather power and economics - who has access to resources and who does not. Liberals have turned politics into some sort of esoteric hobby activity for the few over the past 30 years, and see politics as a buffet table from which we select our personal choices so that we "have" a "political philosophy" and think that being "into politics" means watching and reading MSM political commentary and keeping up with current events and having "opinions" about those events. That has about as much to do with politics as our preference in restaurants does, or our taste in clothing and fashion. Hell, sports fans are more sophisticated and knowledgeable and passionate about their hobby than activists are about politics. Listen to sports radio - it is far more interesting and engaging than listening to activists talk about politics, and the people are far more knowledgeable and insightful about sports.

The right wing does not have any philosophy or ideology or positions on issues. They just help the few grab all the loot they can before the people wake up. They make up issues and ideologies out of thin air to fool and distract people.

[Two Americas]

72. agreed

All politics is driven by small factions, and always has been, competing for the attention of the public. The so-called "centrists" and "mainstream Democrats" are themselves a small faction, every bit as small as the leftists.

A small faction of upscale and gentrified people, mostly from the upper 10% income bracket and mostly suburban and white and professional, control and dominates the Democratic party.

There is a difference between the "base" - those described above - and the natural and potential constituency. If the party moved to the Left - listened to the small leftist faction rather than the small conservative faction - the party would enjoy the support of its natural and potential constituency to a much greater degree, and that would be the end of the extreme right wing having any power.

Most of the resistance to the Democratic party among the general public and everyday people - expressed as voting Republican or not voting at all - is opposition to the upscale and gentrified faction that controls the Democratic party, not opposition to the political Left. But the upscale few who control the party would rather smash the Left than smash the right - even if that means losing elections to the Republicans - since the Left is a greater threat to their privilege, power, and property than the right is.

[SidneyCarton]

65. You're right, the outright bashing of liberalism...

Of which I myself have participated from time to time, is wrong. In my personal case, I find the ongoing and seeming eternal outrage sometimes present on this board to be tiresome.

Nevertheless, you are right, FDRish reforms are precisely what we need. Whether we will get them or not is another question altogether, perhaps I am too cynical, but I can't see enough legislators or politicians having the courage to stand up for this issue.

[Two Americas]

69. that is why we must pressure them

The source of "the courage to stand up" and fight, for politicians, is strong public pressure. The source of public pressure is dissent and criticism. That is the way politics has worked since the beginning of time. Why do we think we are immune, obviated from the responsibilities of this, able to avoid having the courage we need to do what is required of us? Why do we think we can merely select a leader and then sit back and hope they have the right qualities and that this will result in them doing something for us? That is a very odd modern view of politics there.

[liberal1973]

70. I'm a proud liberal

If I have to deal with anything that some idiot has said, then I dish it back to them.

I don't play around with them. :)

[leftofthedial]

75. DLC zombies are every bit as damaged and dangerous

as repuke zombies

[wyldwolf]

76. but less so than "progressive" zombies

[leftofthedial]

85. Brains!

[Two Americas]

78. don't give them an opening

If the discussion descends into an exchange of insults, the conservatives win and the discussion gets shut down. I know it is a pain in the ass, because there is a double standard and leftists have to work twice as hard and be much more careful about what they say. That is just the way it is for now. Our opponents lurk, watch for one slip up, and then pounce - as you can see.

They can name-call and make personal insults. We can't. Don't be baited into their game, and don't give them a opening.

[Jennicut]

83. I don't get the fractioning of the Dem party. We are a huge party right now.

I have no love for the DLC but we are all Dems here on DU. This is not DU Ultra Left or DU Moderate Left or Du DLC Left. Its for all Dems. I think each part of the Dem party is equally big if you look at the voters as a whole. The problem with the DLC is the country has moved leftward and we don't NEED a third way anymore to even get a foot in the door. However, how far to the left is the country willing to go is the question.

[leftofthedial]

86. Let's all cheer the escalation in Afghanistan!

Go-o-o-o-o-o-o-o Dems!

There is FAR more hostility here to those on the left than there is toward the DLCers.

So far, we've been right about everything, from how dangerous bush was to the right's politicization of 9-11, to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, to the criminality of the bushes, to the destruction of the economy through deregulation...

It's getting old being marginalized, despite having FUCKING NAILED the truth repeatedly for the last decade.

[tomp]

89. the last decade? that's all you give the left credit for? nt

[leftofthedial]

116. those of us here

I give the left credit since there was such a thing, pre-revolution, renaissance, whenever

[Two Americas]

91. here is the thing

I have spoken socialism to tens of thousand of people all over the country for decades. I don't think I have ever converted even one "progressive" or "liberal" to socialism. Sometimes I think I have, but then a month later they have listened to NPR and talked to their upscale friends and are spouting conservative ideas again about power and economics. But I am converting half of the everyday Republicans I talk to now. There is just no comparison. The liberal and progressive activists may well be the most stubbornly conservative group in the country now. I think that it may be that their self-images as winners - as the better people, as successful and smart, as educated somebodies, as enlightened people - just precludes being leftists or identifying with the poor and the working class. That is the only explanation I can come up with. It is remarkable.

[Jennicut]

92. I think the thing is that not every Dem wants to be a socialist or a conservative. That is very

black and white. I took a test on where I stood on the scale of the political compass. I scored around where Ghandi did.



I guess that makes me....a liberal with some libertarian leanings (not economically but socially)?. :shrug:

[Two Americas]

102. all politicians are in the upper right hand corner

All politicians are in the upper right hand corner - power and wealth. They have to travel in those circles to be politicians. They are all conservative.

That doesn't mean that we have to be. Politicians are not personal heroes to emulate and mimic. It makes no sense to copy them. They are politicians. All of us should be in the lower left hand corner, if we are going to have integrity and stand for ourselves and our brothers and sisters in the same situation. It has nothing to do with philosophies or ideologies, it has to do with wealth and power - who has it and who does not. The lower left corner is "have not" and the upper right is "have." Lower right and upper left is "confused" lol.

You are looking for a label for yourself. That doesn't accomplish anything or mean anything. Just be yourself and think for yourself. You don't need a label.

[Jennicut]

103. Well, how else would won get elected without power and wealth? LOL

I really don't know what I am other then a liberal and a Democrat so that is good enough for me. Totalinarianists and libertarians...lovely people all the way around, huh? I do find it fascinating.

[Two Americas]

105. exactly

I didn't say it made them bad people, it is just the way things are. But if we copy them, idolize them, nothing can ever change.

"Totalitarian" by the way is not an ideology. There are many "moderates" as well as "liberals" and "progressives" here who are very authoritarian and who talk about politics in totalitarian terms.

90% of the membership here is in the lower left hand quadrant - TahitiNut did a lot of work on that. hat also reflects where the public is, when they are surveyed - as Pew Research did - on political questions without any clues as to what was "liberal" or "conservative," Democrat or Republican - no labels, in other words. However, to read the threads here the opposite is true. 90% of the opinions are from the upper right hand corner. A few, the conservatives among us, dominate the discussion and pull a variety of tricks to make themselves look more numerous and popular than they are.

Thanks for the great discussion, Jennicut, and for posting your thoughts and for reading and considering mine. Much appreciated.

[Runcible Spoon]

129. I think the biggest problem is accountability to the people once one is elected.

US presidents haven't had a particularly good track record on this. The government is not afraid of the people.

[Jennicut]

93. True. L ike I said, the DLC and conservative Dems are not really

that great but what are we going to do with them? The voters in certain states put them in instead of the Repukes. I do think we need to put in as liberal a candidate as we can get in any part of the country in all the races. But my Governor is a Republican and way more liberal than tons of Dems in Congress. I am from Connecticut. A Repub here would be a conservative Dem in another state and sometimes more like a moderate Dem. I am not sure what the answer is. Kick them out of the Dem party and we just have more Repukes or lovely independents like my Senator, Joe Loserman. Keep them in and we have a whole bunch of slightly worthless Dems.

[Maven]

106. Obama is behind the escalation in Afghanistan, not "DLC and conservaitve Dems" in the abstract.

Unless you're saying they're actually the same thing...?

[leftofthedial]

119. making a distinction is a trifling semantical frivolity

[leftofthedial]

117. we have a choice:

find some way to create a viable third party,

or wait until the current system becomes so untenable (a time not too far off now) that violent revolution is the only recourse

Changing either of the current "two-party" system (actually one set of overarching interests) won't happen.

[Two Americas]

88. "Dem" means little or nothing

Saying we are all Dems doesn't mean much anymore. I am running into more opposition from Dems now then I do from Republicans. I have been a loyal Dem for over 40 years, and I haven't changed. I am loyal first and foremost to the people and then to the traditional principles and ideals of the party. If the people who control the party are not loyal to the people - the everyday people, the common people, the poor people, the working people - nor to the principles and ideals, and tell me and those who agree with me to get lost, then what is it that we are to be loyal to? What does being a Dem mean?

Increasingly, the people who are in control over the party at all levels are condescending and antagonistic toward the common people, are dismissive of the principles and ideals - mocking and ridiculing them as "purist" or else red-baiting those who try to advocate for them - and are aggressively defending the interests of the investors and financial people and wealthy people, and on and on.

The voters do not figure into this equation. The voters voted for Democrats despite the right wingers effectively portraying then as "socialists," and despite the arrogance and contempt that the party leadership show to the common people. The people rejected Reaganomics. Yet the domineering ones in the party at all levels, and here, are resisting that and are trying to prop Reaganomics back up, and are calling opposition to Reaganomics "far left" and "purist" and every other smear imaginable.

At some point something will happen - an escalation of war, a violent suppression of civil disobedience, the crushing of a Labor union - and the split will be complete, because there will be those here who cheer those actions on, so long as Democrats are doing them, and there will be those of us who will have to oppose those actions. Which way the people go is yet to be seen, but they rejected the Republicans and have yet to be won over by the Democrats so things could change in a heartbeat. I do think that whatever happens, business as usual is highly unlikely and a repeat of the Clinton years is not possible.

[leftofthedial]

118. the two parties both represent the same very narrow range of interests.

Sure they disagree on some things, but their primary goal is the same--perpetuate the oligarchical status quo.

[JohnnieGordon]

90. Actually DU isn't for all Dems, 1/3 of Dems voted for Prop 8 in California

But it's against DU rules to argue against gay marriage here. So DU does have standards relating to liberal ideology, it can't be denied.

Not that the place doesn't have homophobic assholes, but in theory at least, it's not supposed to. And they know there are lines they can't cross.

[inthebrain]

120. What passes for the "left" or "liberalism" today is really just moderate conservatism.

The Democratic Party and it's base is not that far off from the extreme right of the Republicans. They are just a hair off eachother. Mainly on economic issues.

[Two Americas]

122. yes

A small very conservative faction successfully dominates the discussion on what passes for the Left in this country. They want us to see Democrats as better managers of the same "free market" Reaganomics programs then the Republicans are, and also as smarter and more fashionable and modernistic, and to think that this is the only possible alternative to the right wingers. Anything outside of that very narrow thinking is then labeled as "ultra Left" so it can be ridiculed and dismissed.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

82. Kick & Fucking Recommended!!!

[Waiting For Everyman]

95. I have news for you - working class people are "xenophobes"

because they are not stupid. They can recognize their own interest, regardless of globalism being the "cool" fad attitude.

[Two Americas]

100. so are people here

Including being deeply prejudiced against our own people and justify that by calling them "xenophobes" and the like.

When times get tough, people look for scapegoats. There was a strong Nativist movement in the 1850's, right before the people overwhelmingly turned against slavery. Nativism is an indicator of volatility and instability.

A strong Left will cause Nativism, and much racism, to disappear because people will be able to accurately identify their true antagonists, and will find common cause against them.

The gentrified and aristocratic attitudes here, the condescending and contemptuous sentiments toward the common people, and the authoritarianism will not be so easy to overcome and represents a bulwark of conservatism - disguised as it is - and a powerful defense of the status quo and the ruling class.

[inthebrain]

123. Polls taken about immigration do not reflect that

and that nationalistic garbage is something served up by the bosses to protect their own class interests.

Unions by and large don't buy into the xenophobic BS. Do you think it's cause they are stupid?

[Waiting For Everyman]

124. Globalism benefits the bosses, not workers.

Poll some people on the streets of Detroit and see if they like immigrants taking their jobs, and how they feel about free trade. Do a poll in the boardrooms of NY, and yeah, you might find some advocates for it there.

[inthebrain]

132. Globalism that only allows capital capital to go where it likes

and makes outsiders second class citizens or the other extreme where it doesn't allow citizens free movement to go where they like for a better deal.


Catching on yet?

Globalization is nothing new. It's just colonialzation with a different package and dressed up in passivity.

I think it ironic that you are complaining about free movement of capital for the capitalist because it benefits them. Meanwhile free movement of labor should never be allowed(Although the capitalists is certainly taking advantage of this BECUASE IT WORKS) to form unions and work where they as well can get a better deal.

That's what I'm talking about.

Xenophobia serves the fucking bosses.

[Waiting For Everyman]

133. That's the most absurd assertion I've heard in a long time.

The "free movement of labor"? Who are you trying to kid? That's nothing but the old familiar "race to the bottom", and yes, labor is onto that scam, not for it. You need a reality check. Either that, or you think any propaganda you care to float will be agreed with.

[inthebrain]

136. If you think labor think it a scam

perhaps you should read what the Teamsters and the AFL/CIO have to say about it.

HAHAHAHA!!!!

Yeah, that's a real scam.

And Lou Dobbs, the mouthpiece for CNN (Otherwise known as CorporateNewsNetwork) is really bucking back at the system. Take the hint, the American ruling class LOOOOOOVVVEESSS that guy. His opinions on the matter of immigration are no different than the hoity toity WASPS of yester year.

If this guys antimmigrant sentiment really cut into CNNs bottom line they'd cut him from the airwaives.

War is peace.

right?

[Waiting For Everyman]

134. (dupe)

[billyoc]

104. The most radical revolutionary is a conservative the day after the revolution.

Underground my ass.

[OneBlueSky]

107. realistically, the left is the only direction left to go . . .

we've tried the right, with disastrous consequences . . . centrist means middle of the road which means more of the same, also disastrous . . .

what we haven't tried are liberal or progressive or socialist solutions to what are seemingly unsolvable and overwhelming crises . . . look for that to change as the Obama administration gets its feet wet and realizes just what its real options are . . .

hello, FDR . . . goodbye, Ronald Reagan . . .

[bread_and_roses]

113. There will always be those who think that dead skunk in the middle of the road smells sweet (n/t)

[LWolf]

125. Especially ironic

given the site's self identification as ...one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.


When I found DU, in the waning months of 2002, I was surprised to find that there were still people out there to the left of me. Having spent my entire adult life in a hard-core right-wing area, I was the only left-leaning person I knew. At DU, I wasn't even that; a moderate, if you can believe it.

In 2009, I'm too far left to be at DU. DUers regularly point out to me that I "might be on the wrong board." I don't think I've changed all that much, to tell the truth. My foundation, my principles, my stances, are still the same.

DU, though, has grown tremendously. I think it's a natural outcome of that growth that the ideology is now more mainstream than "left-wing." And mainstream in the U.S. means corporate, fascist, and right-of-center.

From my perspective over here on the left, anyway.

In reality, I think that the current edition of DU is not "progressive," unless it's the "progressive" aligned with the "Progressive Policy Institute." It's not "left-wing." It's partisan, and it swings where ever it needs to in order to promote partisan goals.

Which are not about issues, but about who holds power.

[Moochy]

126. K&R

:yourock: Well said!

[kwenu]

127. I think you're confused. The Democratic Party is not a socialist party.

Liberal yes. Progressive yes. Socialist? Not really. I've seen these threads from socialists who express such disappointment from the fact that Obama isn't causing a socialist revolution. That's because he's not a socialist and never claimed to be.

The U.S. is mixed capitalist/socialist economy and that is what the overwhelming majority of Americans support. I think your expectations are a little bit off.

There is a Socialist Worker's Party in the U.S. that is probably more in line with what you're thinking but the Democratic Party is a closer to the center than that.

[inthebrain]

128. Nope. I I'm not the one that's confused

I never once claimed that it was a socialist party.

I said that it is supposed to be a party of capitalist reforms which is has backed down from.

It's no where close to that and now stands as a moderat right wing party.

And the US is no where close to being a mixed Capitalistic/Socialistic economy. No where class. We are one of the most extreme non regulatory capitalist nations on the freakin planet. That's why you don't see people from Europe flocking to our shores anymore.

[kwenu]

139. Either way you have expectations that might not be reasonably placed.

You'll have to explain what was backed down from and where it was promised to you. I frankly don't believe you'll be able to support that. As I've said in another response, I think Obama has so far begun to work on the agenda he set out. Now mind you he's only been there a good month.

I'm pretty confident in telling you there may be some progressive things that you will like but there won't be any reform of the extent that reflects a true socialist government. The United States doesn't have a tradition of strong socialist ideology like Europe and I don't realistically see that changing any time soon. We're a simple textbook mixed economy not an ideologically based mixed economy.

And truth be told, I put no greater value on Europeans flocking here than I do on anyone else.

[inthebrain]

140. Like I said, I think you are the one that's confused

I never said anything about anything being promised to me.

Nor have I once EVER claimed this party was anyting that remotely resembles a socialist party.

I said it's supposed to be a reformist party. One that passes reforms to "save" the capitalist system. Oh, and Obama has cited FDR a number of times in his speeches. This party loves to milk that for all it's worth while it isn't anything that closely resembles FDR reformism.

It's even to the right of Nixon.

[Runcible Spoon]

130. I haven't seen a single socialist on this board who was "disappointed" Obama didn't usher in revolut

revolution. If anything, they (we) are disappointed the PEOPLE haven't pushed more for change with a government which should be marginally more sympathetic to the working classes. As with any structural shift to any social institution, it will probably take a crisis or a tragic flashpoint like a high profile death to motivate activism. It's really sad change can't happen for change's sake, and that people have to die or starve to get it.

The only "surprised" people I see or hear from are the ones that really bought the message that Obama was a progressive; the campaign at the very least allowed that untruth to germinate in the voting populace if it didn't outright manufacture it. Obama is, like every other successful politician, carefully managed and very little that is not highly calculated makes it out to the public unintentionally.

[kwenu]

138. Well, I think I have seen a few of those threads.

I certainly respect your right to your view but I think Obama is exactly what he said he is. So much so that I'm still surprised by it. I gave credence to what he said on his website and what came out of his mouth. I can't speak for what other people idealized or why and I don't believe there was any false advertising.

I think Obama is progressive in terms of standard U.S. politics but nowhere near a true socialist. If he were he never would have been elected. The socialist party had candidates in the 2008 election and I don't think they even garnered over 10,000 votes total. I think there are many other 3rd parties (Green,Constitution,Libertarian) that have limited viability but the socialists haven't gotten to that level and I don't see anything, even including a major catastrophic event that will change that dynamic anytime soon. Now, Republicans called Obama a socialist and still do but they are so far right that everyone who isn't a Republican and doesn't agree 100 percent with the conservative agenda is a socialist.

I'm not saying any of this to be argumentative or to belittle at all. I just think it is truthful to say its unlikely that the United States will elect a socialist government and true socialists who are in the democratic party or support democratic candidates are setting themselves up for serious disappointment even though I believe there will be a few things that you might be impressed with. European countries have a long tradition with socialism. The United States just doesn't.

[and-justice-for-all]

137. Leftist and liberal bashing??

I obviously missed all the 'fun' stuff..

[Runcible Spoon]

144. here ya go:

Straight off of the deleted hits from THIS THREAD actually:
Actually check your PM I don't want this thread locked.

[comrade snarky]

142. When I disagree with you

It's a reasoned argument and a thoughtful discussion even when I call you a republican asshat.

When you disagree with me it's bashing! Basher!!!


That's what I see.

[BlooInBloo]

143. You're in the ihateobama forum - what the fuck more do you want?

Sheesh. Fucking whiners.