Is it now a Three-Way contest for the Soul of The Democrats?

[Armstead]

Since the November 06 election -- and now after the State of the Union -- it's possible that what was once seen as a two-way struggle for the direction of the Democratic Party may have now have three alternatives.

Before I go on, an important point. I am not describing something that's cut-and-dried. There are many overlaps, and possibilities for these differing views to come together. So I am talking in terms of an underlying dynamic.

Before November, it was generally perceived as a contest for dominance between the "left" and the "centrist" Democrats. Both terms are misleading, but you know the basics.

The "left" would be the straightforward liberals and progressives, ranging from Kucinich to Kennedy and the other shades of Democrats who are unapologetically and clearly in the populist liberal tradition....On the other side would be the "centrists" who have presented themselves as a "third way" including the DLC, Clintonism and others who have tried to be equally aligned with the "base" and corporate America.

The November election has added a third flavor to the mix. These are what might be called Hardass Liberal Populists.

The Media and other Poo-bahs have called them "Conservative Democrats," but that is misleading. Jim Webb's speech was a good example of this. Despite his military orientation and Reagan Republican past, his response to Bush was clearly in the tradition of Blue-Collar Liberalism. He brought out in no uncertain terms the Dirty Little Secret of today's society -- the growing chasm between the oligarchs and the rest of us. He attacked the values of Corporate America. He said that one of the major challenges is to use a mix of government and public opinion to restore a balance between Uber Capitalism and Social/Economic Moral Values.

How this will play out, only time will tell. But IMO it could be very healthy, and could reinvogotrate both the Democratic Party and American Politics. It could once again makes politics relevant and healthy to average people. And, more important, it could be just what the US needs to restore the balance that has been lost over the last 30 years.


In that sense, people like Webb may represent the REAL center of American politics, not the corporate mush that is sold as DLC "centrism."

If people like Webb and Tester actually Walk Their Talk as legislators, this new/old form of liberalism may also provide a larger area of common ground on which Democrats could find ways to agree rather than fight among ourselves.

That's what I'm hoping anyway.

[cynatnite]

1. I do think most people will be looking to the democrats in '08...

and not paying as much attention to the repugs. They're fed up.

[derby378]

2. I think Webb should convince Paul Hackett to run again

If anyone could sell Paul another campaign run, I think Jim could do it.

[blm]

24. probably - but Sherrod Brown is as populist as a lawmaker gets.

Hackett needs to go after Voinovich's seat.

[derby378]

31. Oh, I wasn't talking about the Senate...

I think Hackett should go after "Mean Jean" Schmidt's seat in the House.

[blm]

32. I'd love to see that demon lose her seat.

.

[Selatius]

3. The Democratic Party used to have quite a few populists in the past.

Before the culture wars of the 1960s, many Democrats were often socially conservative. Some of them were very socially conservative, but that did not necessarily mean they were not leftist or even far leftist on economic policy.

Today, we would call people who are socially moderate to socially conservative yet economically leftwing to even far leftwing communitarians. Another apt term is "statist" in that the individual favors not only government intervention to help people with economic issues but also government intervention in the social lives of citizens in order to enforce morality and regulate "deviant" behavior.

[porphyrian]

6. You aren't saying populists are social conservatives, are you?

Populists simply put people and democracy before corporate interests. Can't populists be social liberals?

[Armstead]

7. IMO it should not be either/or

My opiniuon is that politics should be primarily about Money and Power.

That's not to dismiss social issues. But it is a somewhat different realm. And, in a political sense, the urge for social justice and human rights can only be advanced is Money and Power are dealt with.

The fusion of unrelated issues has been one of the primary problems. When the public feels they have to choose "sides" based on such things as their opinions on guns or abortion, it distracts from the larger choices that face us.

[porphyrian]

9. I agree.

I personally believe populism is what most Americans share regardless of what team they choose to join - it puts us all before the minority corporate interests that have been buying influence in our government at our expense for far too long. We are the ones who have to live with the consequences of their single-minded battle for profit. One's opinion on social issues have little to do with this.

[Selatius]

8. Populists, historically speaking, tend to trend socially moderate to socially conservative.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be called a populist.

You would be called liberal instead.

A hardline populist would likely not agree with liberals over gay marriage as it moves against tradition and the general prevailing attitude of the public who are either agnostic or opposed to the idea, but he likely would agree with liberals on things like the New Deal and fair trade and better working conditions.

[porphyrian]

10. Maybe it's historically true, but it's not in the definition of populism.

I don't really care what the label is. Both liberal and populist apply to me, by definition.

[Selatius]

11. We seem to be in agreement; we just use different frames of debate.

With respect to my understanding of populism, a populist's ultimate goal is to seek consensus on economic issues affecting people everyday. In history, the populists have claimed to be leftists, centrists, rightists, to asserting they are none of the three in order to avoid the political baggage that comes with those terms.

On social issues, they historically tend to be all over the place depending on the social environment. The main concerns for them are "meat and potatoes" issues like the minimum wage, health care reform, fair trade, etc. This is how I define it. I don't know how you define yours.

You could technically claim to be both, but on the other hand, I've never seen a liberal disagree with a populist over the minimum wage, but I have seen them disagree over things such as giving gay couples the same rights afforded to straight couples, which is why I generally apply the term populist to people who agree with liberals on economic issues but remain agnostic or even opposed to the liberal on social issues. Otherwise, it just becomes confusing for me unless I use longer descriptors like "conservative populist" and "liberal populist" and "moderate populist" to differentiate the differences among populists with their social views with their economic views not being in question.

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. You are confusing Populism with State Capitalism or Neoliberalism

Which are a form of the "statism" you describe.

Populists tend to be liberal on economic issues and libertarian on social issues. We view government as an institution that has grown up to the present size purely to moderate the effects of rapacious state-sponsored corporatism. (This is not necessarily a good thing.)

The difference is that we have no patience for cultural warriors and strident moral relativists, like most so-called "left liberals" (most of whom use their moral relativism to trumpet upper-middle-class, postmodern neoliberalism in which their interests are always protected.)

But we believe in live and let live.

Oh, and Populists hate jingoism, but we also dislike the sort of American exceptionalism that is advocated by some on the left (like Chomsky).

As numerous "radical" commentators have said to Chomsky, there is nothing exceptional about American behavor compared to every other empire in history.

If you don't support America being an empire, say so. And make sure that your neighbors understand that our present distribution of both wealth and consumer goods is made possible because of empire.

I think it's a shame when people don't remember what Populism was about. I'm a member of a Populist group and most of THEM don't remember what Populism was about. Some of them are simply leftists who are preoccupied with cultural issues.

[aquart]

4. No. It's a primary process in which Democrats vote.

Suddenly, people are getting as hysterical over Webb as they did over Obama. It's like watching a 12-year-old get a crush with the sudden onset of puberty.

[Armstead]

5. You are misreading my post

First of all, I deliberately did NOT mention anything about the 08 presidential elections. This is much bigger than that.

Secondly, I am not "swooning" over Webb. I merely used him as an example of this trend. He could turn out to be a great Senator or a complete dud. I don't know.

[On the Road]

12. I Think the Poles are Shifting, So to Speak

There were always left and center wings of some type within the party and probably always will be, but the nature of those wings changes over time. Organized labor and hawkish elements have diminished, for example, and fiscallly conservative and socially liberal elements have increased.

The center of the party used to be held by GOP accomodationists. This was clearly a losing strategy. What Howard Dean's ascendence brought with it is a more principled and combative centrism that appeals ordinary people and has certain conservative elements. Jim Webb is on the same page, whatever specific differences there might be. And I think it spells doom for the DLC.

[krispos42]

13. I have a question about this re: abortion

Many of the new Democrats on the Hill. Some of them, such as Jim Webb (iirc) is a pro-lifer. However, he is also a Democrat. He was protrayed as being a Republican for most of his life based on defense issues and he believed that Republicans were strong on defense.

Turns out that's not quite true; Repubicans are strong on defense spending!

However, überChristofascists like Brownbeck are running on the promise (as usual) to overturn Roe v. Wade. You know, the usual "save the children" line of base appeal. They always seem to forget ot tell the masses that the President can't overturn a Supreme Court decision, especially one that discovers a intrinsic human right.

My question about Webb (and others like him) is are they pro-life to the point of fanatasism, or just pro-life in there personal life? Are they crusaders, or do they just find the process distasteful?

[Armstead]

14. I'm not sure Webb is that socially conservative

http://www.issues2000.org/Social/James_Webb_Abortion.htm

Webb says, "I drifted away from the Democratic Party on national security issues but I never left on social issues and issues of economic fairness." He opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, believes trade agreements should require other nations to improve labor standards and wages, and backs abortion rights as defined by the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. "I believe the power of the government ends at my front door unless there is a compelling reason to come inside," he says.

[sandnsea]

17. Tester and Webb are pro-choice

And I think they're both against gay marriage bans, but for civil unions. I don't know where anybody is getting the idea they're socially conservative from, they really aren't. They're right where most of America is at on social issues.

[krispos42]

29. Thanks to both of you that responded! :-) n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Personally I'm looking for a fourth way

I agree with Clinton and the DLC on the principles trade, but with Webb on almost everything else. I think that trying to protect blue collar jobs for the next generation is pointless and that the days of going into unskilled labor after high school are long gone.

The problem is that along with throwing open our borders we need to spend billions of dollars overhauling our education system even the GOP says it's "big government". Singapore did this and they were actually prepared for the outsourcing of blue collar jobs. We didn't and now we have people with no choice but to work at Wal-Mart. Clinton and the DLC weren't willing to do this because they are convinced that all problems can be solved without "big government" solutions which is bogus. Some problems to have big government solutions and education is one of them.

My ideal politicians mostly come out of movies. Jed Bartlet fits my description perfectly because he's a proud liberal Democrat and also a brilliant economist who believes that opening our borders is good.

The fictionalized Clinton in primary colors is also a good example when he tells the unemployed factory workers "No politician can bring your job back. This country needs to go back to school."

In reality this fourth way doesn't exist because populists continue to vote for protectionism and DLC candidates promise in their campaigns that they will protect blue collar jobs but then support trade when they get elected.

[Armstead]

16. Where I disagree...

I think to a large extent the notion that "training is the answer" is a bogus idea.
The problem with globalization is that it is based on a naive idea that different nations should fill different roles in the economy.

IMO a truly healthy economy has opportunities at all levels, from lowly manual labor up to ultra specialized high-skilled positions. That's because people have all kinds of varying skills, intelligence levels and circumstances. It's also healthier for national economies to be as self-sufficient as possible. That doesn't mean isolated. But it does mean producing its own goods and services domestically as
The notion that America can concentrate on "high value" jobs and let the rest of the world do the lowly dirty work isn;t realistic. We aren't inherently smarter than the rest of the world.

Even the high-tech, high skilled jobs are getting outsourced. Whenever new categories are created, once they are established they are shipped overseas. So it's just a treadmill....How many peopel trained to fill the software development roles in the 1990's that are now being outsourced.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I don't mean just training I mean education

Training is based on the notion that you can just re-train workers to do something else once their jobs are outsourced and that will solve the problem.

I'm saying that all Americans need good primary, secondary, and for almost all higher education so that they can get skills that will help them in all fields not just one.

And I don't agree with you about the ideal economy. Our standard of living greatly increases because of specialization and there is no reason for us to keep producing things that we aren't efficient at producing. There is absolutely no reason to have our clothes made in the United States instead of Mexico other than the fact that our textile workers lose their jobs, which wouldn't be a problem if we'd educate the next generation so that they don't have to be textile workers.

While the manufacturing sector on all levels is being outsourced, the service sector is actually a huge amount of US exports. And I'm not talking about working at Wal-Mart or McDonalds I'm talking about financial services, contracting work, and things like that. The United States is much better at those services than any other nation and thus those industries are rapidly expanding. If we would invest in human capital, then we would have the resources to create new service industries which there will be a market for as other nations increase their demand for our services.

And while you do have a point that it's arrogant to think that we can have all of the high level jobs and the rest of the world can do the dirty work it is the reality for the time being. The developing world doesn't have the resources to train massive amounts of people to do high level jobs. The United States had to start from the ground up with agriculture and manufacturing and that is what the developing world is doing now. Maybe 200 years from now the United States will have to go back to manufacturing its own clothes and electronics because Indonesia has the resources to train its own investment bankers. But for now this is simply not the case.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

19. Much of the country...

DID "go back to school" -- high tech was the answer to the problems of American jobs, remember? People retrained and those coming up prepared to enter that field. How many times did we hear Clinton those were the jobs of the future?

And just how long did that future last? What was it, ten years? Many of those high tech jobs that were going to be our salvation have gone the way of the blue collar jobs -- overseas. And now we hear that white collar, mid management jobs are heading overseas, too.

What do we go to school for now? And how long will those new "jobs of the future" last?

(And if you answered, only as long as it takes Big Business to figure out a way to do it cheaper and with less regulation overseas, you've won yourself a prize.)

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Again, training vs. education and service vs. manufacturing

Manufacturing on all levels has been outsourced but service is still being exported instead of imported. Education gives people skills for all fields not just for one.

[sandnsea]

23. Who is going to pay for it?

What if you haven't even paid off the training you got when your previous jobs were outsourced??

Here's another newsflash. What do you do when you discover all your previous bosses are DEAD.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. The government should pay for a major education overhaul and affordable higher education

Americans are the ones saving huge amounts of money because of the cheaper goods they buy due to trade and corporations are saving a huge money due to the cheaper labor they get overseas. Therefore they should give some of that back in taxes to pay for education overhaul needed to prepare the population for the new economy.

[Irreverend IX]

25. A nation with no manufacturing base...

Is a house of cards that will collapse as soon as the flow of goods from outside is interrupted.

My ideal politicians mostly come out of movies. Jed Bartlet fits my description perfectly because he's a proud liberal Democrat and also a brilliant economist who believes that opening our borders is good.

Prosperity through open borders... a dream that can only come true on a TV screen.

[sandnsea]

18. Sounds good to me

Let's call 'em "Big Momma" Democrats!

[Rosemary2205]

20. Getting Democrats on the same page is like herding cats.

our strength and our weakness is that we are so diverse.

[JCMach1]

27. The Huey Long wing of the party has been reborn

and about damn time...

[tom_paine]

28. That is an amazingly cogent thought, Armstead

You have articulated something about Webb that has been on the edge of my mind, but that I couldn't fully see or put into the words.

But Real Centrism and False, Corporate DLC "Centrism" really nails it!

Thanx.

:toast:

[Egalitarian]

33. I'm not sure to Whom, but I'm praying...

That messages of this sort become the norm for the Democratic party. Otherwise, I'll proceed with my disaster planning.