Are liberals marginalizing themselves?

[JamesA1102]

This is a question that I really think needs to be considered by those on the left. As any political analyst will tell you, most elections are won in the middle, not at the extremes of right or left. Thus, any Senator, Governor, Member of Congress, Mayor or President needs to do is win over enough of these centerist/moderate/independent voters to add to their base to achieve 51% and victory. The larger or more secure the base is, the fewer of these independents need to be won over.

The GOP has had a large & secure base for over 30 years despite giving that base little more than lip service on issues like abortion. Thus, they don't need to win over that many moderates in order to win elections.

The same is not true of Democrats. Too often many in the base make the perfect the enemy of the good and abandon the Dems either by not voting or voting for a third party candidate. Thus, the Dems are more and more forced to pander to centerist/moderate voters to get re-elected. Which in turn alienates the base even more and the cycle repeats itself.

The net result is that over the years Democratic incumbants on average have had to become more moderate while GOP incumbants have not.

While no candidate or political party is owed anyones vote, setting the bar too high on certain issues or looking at the glass as half empty rather than as half full can be damaging overall. Why should any Democratic incumbant stick their neck out on certain issues knowing that in the end they will have to accept some compromise, because that is the way our system works, and then will be abandoned by their base because they accepted said compromise. The safer path it to not take a chance in the first place and just tack to the middle.

Therefore, the insistance by some on the left for 100% ideological purity can only serve to marginalize themselves. If the left abandons someone who has a 85%-90% record of voting for progressive legislation, because of the 10% to 15% that they didn't; they why should any incumbant bother to listen to the base. The end result is that the left becomes more and more marginalized because incumbants need to more and more go after the middle to win.

Now I'm not saying that certain Dems that go too far afield like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu shouldn't be primaried. Of course they should. But at the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if we want a repeat of 1994 or 2000. Do we want the GOP to control Congress next year? Do we want Sarah Palin to be the next President?

[ananda]

1. No.

If liberals are marginalized, it's because of the concerted
attacks and the disinformation campaign that has been
going on since LBJ.

[JamesA1102]

4. I don't dispute what you say.

And would add that the MSN is guilty in marginalizing the left. But that doesn't mean that the left still can't further marginalize themselves by their own action or inaction.

[chimpymustgo]

32. Liberals aren't asking for "ideological purity". Just put the needs of the PEOPLE over CORPORATION

with some regularity.

[JamesA1102]

34. Many aren't. That is true.

But there are many who are as well.

[howaboutme]

88. Exactly - consider using the movement

Most of our politicians are there for two reasons.....self interest and moneyed interests. The people are there for them once or twice a year when they need votes. The rest of the time the people are the sacrificial lambs. The lobbyists of the rich and corporations control Congress and they will continue to do so until we the people turn off our TVs and start making major noise in the streets.

The Tea Party movement scares the hell out of politicians because it means the people are rising up. Some believe it is a Republican or conservative movement. I don't agree. I think the Rs are trying to hijack it and some in the Democratic Party are there to oppose it, but I see as most important the movement where the people get on the streets to make themselves heard.

If they have a rally near me I'll use the opportunity to be there with my sign that says "ELIMINATE CORRUPTION WITH PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTIONS" or "RESTORE AMERICA AS IT WAS... 90% TAX ON OLIGARCHS AND THE RICH". Use the Tea Party Movement for your message and stick your sign in front of cameras.

We need to rebuild America for Americans.

[Ghost Dog]

108. Absolutely right,

imho.

Welcome to DU :)

[goclark]

2. K and R

[ShortnFiery]

3. "A liberal" in today's vernacular is ANYONE who threatens increasing *Corporatism.* ...

of our Democratic Party. Presently our elected NATIONAL leaders "almost all" serve corporations NOT their constituents. Therefore, I reject the entire premise of your argument. :thumbsdown:

[Donnachaidh]

6. +1000000!

:thumbsup:

[fascisthunter]

13. it's amazing how liberals are marginalized even when not in power

and not responsible for all the shit we see today. Somehow this fictional perception of liberalism is continuous drummed online.

[JamesA1102]

14. Well thanks for keeping an open mind

Which is the definition of being a liberal.

[krabigirl]

45. yep.

[debbierlus]

49. I agree with you completely -

Are we really still this far away from truth? Do people not understand that standing up for principle and demanding that the politicians fight for the people they elect instead of the corporate interests is the only way?

This is a one party system. We need to be discussing how to reclaim our government.

I can't believe that we are still discussing how to win at this unwinnable game. It is time for a complete change of approach.

[backwoodsbob]

80. short..sweet..and to the point

agree with everything you said

[GreenMetalFlake]

111. 110%

[Orsino]

113. Yes. This. n/t

[EFerrari]

5. If your presumption is true, i.e. Democrats have to run to the right

then why did both Bill Clinton and President Obama run to the left of their presidencies? Am I missing something?

[JamesA1102]

12. Run to the left in their Presidencies?

I have a feeling you're the only here who thinks that.

[chimpymustgo]

33. Nope. Both ran on hope and change and helping people . Clinton was considered a "centrist" in

office. Obama is so far center-right.

[Ghost Dog]

43. Semantics:

both ran (ie. campaigned) well to the left of what turned out to be their policies once in their Presidencies.

(edit: btw. I both kick and rec. debate on this, I consider, seminal issue, for exposure, whether I agree with the conclusions of the OP or not. I could go on, I could say a lot more, I could even rant. But since my ADSL connection is fragile just now due the welcome rains over here, I'll be grateful just to be able to post this brief comment, and to be privileged to be allowed to listen, connectivity permitting, to the more closely-informed discussion amongst you folks, my friends).

[EFerrari]

41. No, I said that badly. I meant, as candidates they were to the left

of the presidents they became.

[rurallib]

30. Man I would love to see some examples of Clinton and Obama running left.

[EFerrari]

40. Well, lefter? I'm not claiming they ran as Greens, lol.

[villager]

7. Argument is usless in an age when the far-right gets to define "the middle"

Then waits for everyone to buy into this idea of "centrism" -- formerly known as the middle-right -- being "the norm."

[rurallib]

29. Just talking to a friend. He said his 'moderate' republican friends

think the current Democratic leadership is about right.
YIPES!
Back in Nixon's day I was considered a moderate, now I am considered way left. I haven't changed my views that much. The country has been drug right.
The media and the republican party is selling their version of moderate - and a majority aren't buying it.

[KittyWampus]

8. the only group marginalizing themselves is the tiny faction on DU that are ideologue purists

They are few in number on DU and yet are very loud here.

But, as poll numbers indicate, they aren't significant in the real world.

Not to Democrats nor to American politics.

Think of tiny yapping dogs. Annoying as heck, but not a great threat.

[sharesunited]

22. We could not, for example, amass as a disruptive force at any Congressional town hall meeting.

Agreed. Lacking in numbers AND unity.

[JamesA1102]

26. Numbers, no. Unity, yes.

I think there are a lot more numbers out there than we realize. Many who self-identify as moderates have liberal views on most issues. They just don't want to call themselves liberal.

[JamesA1102]

56. I think there are a lot more than you think.

But as by most of the responses to my original posts that too many are so blinded by their ideological purity that they refuse to even consider the point I'm trying to make. Some seem to rather beat their chests in self-rightous indignation than consider a different way of doing things.

[noamnety]

9. Marginalization: active or passive verb?

I view marginalization more as something done TO people, not by them. Historically, Native Americans weren't marginalized because of their actions, they were marginalized by others who took land, property, and rights FROM them. I supposed they could have been not-marginalized/not forced onto reservations by supporting those who oppressed them, if you want to look at it that way - but I'd argue that forced assimilation is still a form of marginalization.

If you look at issues like marriage equality now, I would never say gays are marginalizing themselves, they are fighting back because they've been marginalized by others. Poor people are being marginalized by CEO's in the health care industry who are more concerned with lining their pockets than in serving the health needs of the lower classes. It's not that the uninsured are marginalizing themselves, they are refusing to support those who are marginalizing - and destroying them.

[KittyWampus]

10. what about teabaggers? You don't think they are cutting THEMSELVES off from the rest of America?

[noamnety]

11. Not exactly, no.

They have a set of strong (extremist) opinions. Those opinions are founded in racism, sexism and ignorance - but right vs. wrong is a separate issue from marginalized or not marginalized.

Are they being oppressed in some way? Is the system marginalizing them? I think they have a much stronger influence over the GOP than lefties have over the democratic party. Some may disagree with that statement.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, I don't think you can accurately compare the marginalization of primarily straight white christians who make up that movement and who the existing economic and justice systems favors (note: "favors," not "guarantees financial success"), to groups who are marginalized BY existing economic and justice systems and thus refuse to support those systems.

[JamesA1102]

16. People and movements can marginalize themselves.

Just look at Rudy Guiliani. Don't you think he marginalized himself with his comments?

[noamnety]

23. I haven't been paying attention to Guiliani, so I don't know what he's said.

I don't think of him as an oppressed marginalized person, though. What's he got, 40, 50 million dollars? And a hell of a lot more power than most of the people in this world.

[JamesA1102]

24. You're taking a very narrow definition of the word marginalization nt

[noamnety]

42. There are two ways I see it being used in this thread.

1. Whether the people themselves are marginalized by those in power.
2. Whether certain views are marginalized by those in power.

My concern is primarily with the first point, and the second point becomes an issue when it's related - when the marginalization of voices of those with little/no power results in yet more oppression, that's a problem. That's why I am not concerned with Guiliani or the tea baggers, and whether or not their voices are marginalized, because they are in the position of fighting for oppressors, not the oppressed.

Going back to the OP's point, I don't believe supporting those who are complicit in marginalizing the voices of the oppressed is a path toward reducing the oppression itself.

There is some poor logic that I see in the OP. Let me see if I can spell that out:

1. The left should support the center, otherwise they hold no power to influence anything because the center doesn't care about their votes.
2. If the left doesn't support the center, the right will win. (Often expressed as "it'll be your fault if Palin wins.")


It seems clear to me that that second point is where the power of the left potentially lies - the fear that the loss of the left WILL result in the loss of elections, as some claim it has in the past.

[JamesA1102]

54. You've totally missed the point. Don't be so myopic.

People can marginalize themselves by the actions they take. Happens all the time.

And the left can marginalize itself by taking a my way or the highway attitude instead of carefully picking their battles and changing things from within. It's a matter of tactics and patience.

[noamnety]

63. I think telling them to "pick their battles"

is a way of trying to marginalize them. If you are coercing people into not voicing their concerns, how is that not marginalizing them?

[JamesA1102]

64. No it is suggesting to use more effective tactics

in order to achieve goals.

[noamnety]

65. Would one of those more effective tactics

be to stop being vocal about some of the policies they disagree with?

[JamesA1102]

67. Not at all.

In fact just the opposite. Be more vocal but be willing to accept compromise sometimes and not walk away when we don't get 100% of what we want.

[noamnety]

70. I don't know anyone who hasn't accepted a level of compromise already.

I keep hearing about purity tests, statements like we're gonna walk if we don't get 100% of what we want, but that ignores the reality that for many people we're not getting much of anything of what we want. If we thought we'd be getting most of what we think's important, it would be a different story I think. There's a sense among many that what we're being asked to compromise deep down isn't a thing here or there, though - it's our principles at the most basic level. (Invasions, cluster bombs, human rights violations, unprovoked ICE raids, handouts to CEOs and banks while more and more people are living on the streets and/or without enough to eat and/or without basic health care, federally supported discrimination against women and gays, testing standards designed to destroy public education, etc)

[TomClash]

15. Are you generalizing?

Specifics might help. For example the garbage that appears to be passing for "financial reform" should be trashed by progressives.

On health care, good luck running with a tax on "cadillac" (read "union" in many cases) health plans and forcing people to pay 10-20% of their disposable income for health insurance that barely insures them. Any Dem political pundit who wants to run his or her candidate on that platform is an idiot.

So what specifically do you mean?

[JamesA1102]

17. Not generalizing but taking a wider view.

Didn't want this to be about one specific issues because it then becomes about that issue and too many fail to see the forest for the trees.

[mdmc]

18. Perhaps, but reward is not our concern. Duty requires action

The teabaggers are "marginalizing" themselves too. Someone has to stop the corporations.

[JamesA1102]

20. Yes but there is smart action and not so smart action.

What I'm talking about is tactics.

[mdmc]

21. Well, we can either join the corporatist, or rage against the machine

And, as our political party (the Democratic Party) has been taken over by corporatist, perhaps raging against the machine is not a good tactic.
But, ya gotta serve somebody. It might be the devil, it might be the Lord, but you are gonna have to serve somebody..

[JamesA1102]

25. Or you can change the machine from within

by smartly picking your battles.

[mdmc]

35. that is the only choice

We need to be the change that we want to see in the world.
Take the fight to the corporatist..

[fascisthunter]

19. There are only a Handful of liberals in the Democratic Party

I think your definition of a "liberal" may be off a bit.

This isn't about ideological purity, as much as it's about not being corrupt as opposed to being corrupt.

[TransitJohn]

85. You win the thread.

:thumbsup:

[fascisthunter]

116. thanks

[BeFree]

27. Well

I read it right here on DU that Pelosi and Reid are actually our enemies and must be run out of office.

If that's not hitting the margins, there never will be.

When is the last time the pubbies ever screwed themselves? Rayguns credo was "never speak ill of brother pubbies". It worked rather well.

P.S. Finally, the pubbies are marginalizing like the dems are and have done via Pelosi and Reid. Down in Fla they are eating themselves up. Must have learned how to do that from the dems, eh? Is it contagious now?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. When was the last time the Republicans had "leadership" that caved in

to the other side so easily?

[JamesA1102]

57. And the reason they haven't is because

they know they have a base they can count on even if the don't deliever 100%. Because they know their base has their backs they can afford to stick their necks out a bit.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. And they have that base because people know what they stand for

They can at least count on the Republicans to lower taxes and dump on the poor and give lip service to "Christian" values and build up the military.

What do the Democrats stand for these days?

I honestly can't tell you, because there seems to be nothing that they aren't willing to bargain away

You know, even one little tidbit for the Left would bring the base back, something like REAL health care reform (at the very least, making the insurance companies subject to anti-trust laws and/or opening Medicare to younger people), getting out of Afghanistan instead of farther in, not rewarding the financial institutions for their greed and recklessness, repealing the Patriot Act, revoking Don't Ask Don't Tell (a simple executive order), levying severe fines on EMPLOYERS who hire illegal immigrants, suspending the H-1B visa program except to employers who prove that they can't find qualified Americans at ANY price (this would be popular with everyone except the high tech companies, and it's no less than what every other Western country does--tried to get a job in Europe or Canada lately?), getting rid of the privatization advocates in the educational field, fixing the country's infrastructure. Stuff like that.

No, we get diddly squat. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. Niente.

We don't even get lip service. Instead, we're told to sit down and shut up like good little Democrats because McCain would have been worse.

Big whoop.

We don't need perfect, because there is no such thing as perfect. But to be repeatedly slapped in the face is intolerable.

Just to take one example, I'm straight, but with many GLBT friends. The GLBT community voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and he can't even take the little baby step of revoking Don't Ask Don't Tell, which he could do on his own in an few minutes.

If he can't even do such a simple thing for a loyal constituency, the rest of us only have more disappointment ahead of us.

The Dems cannot continue to rely on their base to give money and do GOTV every time and then turn around and tell them, "You're too far left. We can't give you anything."

Let's see how well the Dems do with just their beloved "moderates."

[JamesA1102]

69. This is the exact myopic attitude that I'm talking about.

If you really look at the record a lot of good things have been done the last year or so. From raising the mimimum wage to the lilly ledbetter. But rather than focus on what has been done and focus on what still can be done, the focus is on the negative. It's like punishing a child for getting a B rather than an A. Instead we need more positive reinforcement.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. No, in this case it's more like the administration got A's in gym and attendance

and D's and F's in everything else.

Raising minimum wage, good. Lilly Ledbetter, good.

But those aren't the BIG issues, the ones that can really harm this country, and in the one instance where they claimed to be instituting real reforms, they completely sold out to the insurance industry.

Big whoop.

What if Obama had said plainly and clearly that he would not sign any bill that didn't contain a non-profit public option open to every American who wanted it?

And don't give me that co-dependent garbage about "what's politically feasible." The Dems are in the majority. Something is politically feasible if they decide that it is.

Honestly, the lockstep Dem partisans act like a abused spouse who says, "Yes, he ignores me, spends money only on himself, cares more about the opinions of other women than about mine, takes me for granted, expects me to drop everything and help him but never responds when I need help, blames me when he screws up because I didn't warn him, and yet, he won't listen to me when I do warn him, and he tells me I'm silly when I complain, but damn, he brings me flowers on my birthday, so I have nothing to complain about."

[JamesA1102]

75. Those aren't big issues unless you make minimum wage.

I think there is too much focus on looking at the glass as half empty rather than half full.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. Well, you can maybe make minimum wage IF you have a job

Minimum wage is the easy stuff, a simple yes or no vote. But repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is even easier. Just a few minutes writing an executive order.

The war issue is important because it is distorting and ruining our entire economy. The Iraq War alone is costing about $250 million per day, which works out to about $2800 per SECOND, and that's not even counting the tremendous and needless loss of American and even more Iraqi lives.

You guys have such a pathetically low standard for success.

If Ronald Reagan had been as timid as Obama, we'd still be taxing the rich at appropriately high levels.

[JamesA1102]

89. Well there you are wrong.

DADT is an act of congress. It can only be repealed by congress. The Executive branch can't issue and order to a department of government to order them to break the law. The people who are have been saying that it can are just pedaling misinformation.

And last I heard our troops were withdrawing from Iraq.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. Nope, DOMA is an act of Congress

Don't Ask Don't Tell was an executive order.

And what good does it do to withdraw the troops from Iraq only to send them to Afghanistan, and possibly to Yemen?

[JamesA1102]

97. No it is Federal Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

And other than Joe Lieberman, no one has been talking about sending troops to Yeman.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

100. Looked it up, and you're right, BUT

the sources I found said that Obama could issue an executive order suspending enforcement of the law and urge a member of Congress to submit a bill of repeal.

[JamesA1102]

101. That is misinformation.

The President cannot order any department to violate Federal Law. And I believe Harry Reid has state that a repeal bill is in the works.

[donco6]

103. Our minimum wage in Colorado was already higher and still is.

So, yeah, not a big thing here.

[Generic Other]

95. that's what a liberal sounds like!!

and that's the kind of change I voted for! Thank you Lydia for articulating it so well.

Of course the middle-of-the-right democrats don't think our views are relevant anymore.

[autorank]

28. "Liberals" is the wrong term - "citizens" are never marginalized

The "liberal" marginalization is a DNC corporatist invention to negate promises made or strongly
implied in the campaign and ongoing. The b.s. about "winning" in the middle is b.s. too. First
of all, we don't know who wins the elections because the votes are counted in private, never viewed,
and it's done by right wing voting companies. Second, we do have a major example of "the middle"
losing big.

VA went 1.9 million for Obama in 2008, huge huge victory over McCain. Largest turnout in years.
But when the VA Democrats went to "THE MIDDLE," the 2009 Dem candidate for governor got 0.8 million
votes, a loss of 1.1 million. Those were not middle voters, they were citizens who had promises
made and not kept, citizens who need fair labor rules, good health care options, and jobs.

So the biggest, best example of "the middle" hypothesis was in Virginia, a border state now and
I just showed how what you'd call "the left" or "the liberal" block stayed home - 1.1 million and
we lost huge.

I don't understand why people can't see this. It's so obvious.

[CANDO]

93. Yeah! Since when has "the middle" gotten off their asses for a damned thing in our country?

eom

[StarfarerBill]

31. Do we want the Democrats to replace the Republicans as the last word in corporatism?

No, we don't...and if the Democratic Party continues its downward slide, that's exactly what will happen: the Party will become the de facto Old Republicans, while the latter become the latest in neofascists.

The Party centrists and conservatives seem unconcerned with this trend; some even seem to be enabling it. If the progressive wing doesn't pitch in to stop it and encourage others to do so as well, no one will.

[riverdale]

36. Has this ever happened?

Has a candidate ever run as a moderate... ok they all do ... BUT then taken a hard turn to the left after winning the election? If so, how did that turn out for him? Maybe that would answer your question.
It seems to me that the rightwing people get what they vote for. Left wing voters get suckered into a candidate who promises to be progressive, then goes more rightwing every time.

[Warpy]

37. Uh, check out a few opinion polls to find out where the center is

before you pop off about liberals marginalizing themselves. The center is liberal, at least when it comes to ending the wars, increasing taxes on the richest, capping executive pay, breaking up the biggest banks, and getting us public health insurance.

Liberals aren't marginalizing themselves, they're being marginalized by a corporatist party leadership that is blindly playing to themselves and their own interest instead of to the party base, the center.

This is why Democrats are going to lose. A demoralized base will not bother to vote.

[JamesA1102]

38. Yet in the latest Gallup poll more people call themselves

moderate (36%) than liberal (21%).

[Warpy]

39. They are moderates. Their positions are liberal

Get it yet?

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. No he don't

and you are right, the "party" is in for another wake up call, not that it will even push in the snooze alarm.

But you will have the corporatists blaming them dirty hippies (liberals) for losing it again.

That is so predictable it is like... does the sun rises?

[dflprincess]

96. You are correct

Righ now we have the DLCers claiming the left is not needed and irrelevant but when things go south in November they'll blame it all on the Democratic wing of the party.

[JamesA1102]

58. But that is exactly my point.

While they generally hold mostly liberal positions they identify themselves as moderates because the are not 100% liberal on every position.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Better Believe It]

46. "Do we want the GOP to control Congress next year? " They lost control?

[Better Believe It]

48. If the Democratic Party moves farther to the right will they stumble over Republicans?

[GreenPartyVoter]

105. Some days it sure doesn't feel like it. :^(

[anonymous171]

50. Ronald Reagan was a right wing extremist. Ronald Reagan won two terms.

The whole "extremists don't win" line is total bullshit.

[JamesA1102]

59. You miss the point.

Reagan had a large base the he could count on despite not outlawing abortion, canceling Social Security. Because of that he didn't need to be more moderate and get more votes from the center.

[anonymous171]

60. He got that large base by being so extreme. nt

[JamesA1102]

68. Really? Did he outlaw abortion?

Did he eliminate all entitlements? Did he reduce the deficit? No didn't and his base still stuck with him.

[malaise]

51. NO- better question

Have moderates allowed the politicians to sell out to American people to lobbyists?

reword

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. How has working within the party turned out so far? It's moved right.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[xchrom]

53. You just made Ronald Reagan very happy.

And no neither you or other 'centrists'
will ever understand that.

[CANDO]

61. The problem is how far the political spectrum has been shifted.

Being a Liberal is not an extreme position, but the corporate right has made it that way, perception wise, over the past 40 years. Does anyone on this board feel like an extremist for asking for universal health care? Then why is that position painted as such in the media? The so-called left is not marginalizing itself for simply asking for a seat at the table of discussion. I don't buy the meme you are presenting.

[JamesA1102]

66. But you have to ask youself why the political spectrum has shifted

Why do more people identify themselves as conservative and support the GOP over the last few decades. Because their ideas are superior? Because their policies have been better for the country? No. I don't think so. There has to be other reasons why the right has been so much more effective.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. Because they OWN the media

Might that not be it?

Try working on a progressive's political campaign some time, and you'll see what I mean about the media.

[JamesA1102]

76. It is part of it sure.

But not all of it. We need to take a wide view and change what we can change.

[Better Believe It]

78. Because liberals and the left have failed to organize progressive mass movements

They have been almost entirely dependend on "good" politicians, Democratic and Republican, for assistance and help. No self reliance and independence.

[JamesA1102]

82. Exactly right! nt

[CANDO]

92. The answer is billions poured into media by the corporate right.

They funded think tanks and bought up media and put mouthpieces all over the AM dial. Why can't the liberals even get radio talkers in places like NYC, Philly, DC, SF, LA? For dogs sake, there is something wrong about being blocked off the airways in dense population areas which are overwhelmingly liberal. But you can get every damned right wing talker there is 24/7 in every square inch of this country. That is not our fault, and I accept no blame for it. It still seems you are blaming us and/or buying the "extreme left" meme.

[datasuspect]

71. bin laden 9-11

al qaeda

[LooseWilly]

72. No, liberals aren't marginalizing themselves... they're finally just sick of being told to shut up.

Your entire argument about "going after the moderates" to add to the numbers of the "base" presumes that liberals are part of the base, and presumes that the actions of "going after the moderates" won't, in turn, cost the support of the "base"... and most importantly, for some reason you are casting the "blame" for a party's loss of a portion of the base - onto the portion of the "base" - which is ridiculous. If the party loses a portion of its base, it is the "fault" of the party.

So, I submit to you that the question your OP should be asking is: Is the Democratic party marginalizing itself, by alienating a portion of its presumed base?

And the answer I have to that is: yes.


As for that last little spot of fearmongering, and I do consider it fearmongering: "Do we want the GOP to control Congress next year? Do we want Sarah Palin to be the next President?" My answer is... maybe the moderates of the party should ask themselves that question before they insist on 100% Centrist Idealogical Purity. (Centrists may be the "center" of the universe, by definition... but that doesn't make them the "most important" faction.)

And, just for your edification, I'll also answer that spot of fearmongering from within the context of the OP's own perspective: I, personally, don't give a shit if Sarah Palin is the next president. If the "compromise" of the Democratic party is going to take the form of "liberals get lip service and the Landrieus/Nelsons/Liebermans of the party get all the spoils", then I have nothing to lose if Sarah Palin is the next president. And that is the power that liberals can use to prevent their own marginalization... if the Democratic Party thinks they can piss on our shoes, metaphorically, then the Democratic Party will simply lose.

Liberals aren't marginalizing themselves. We're marginalizing the DLC types... by dragging them out of power if they don't "play ball".

That's my plan anyway. Seemed to work pretty well in 2000. Maybe next time the DLC-types will get the fucking message... it's not their party, it's our party. Without the "liberals", the "centrists' lose.

:toast:

[JamesA1102]

77. You're right it is our party.

What I'm saying is that we need to take it back and not just walk away when we don't get 100% of what we want. As Ted Kennedy use to say sometimes you have to accept a half a loaf.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. Easier said than done

I've known of cases in which local or state parties were controlled by DLCers who froze out or browbeat anyone who didn't toe the most conservative line.

I personally was frozen out of a local party organization in Oregon in 1989 (they kept "losing" my address no matter how often I supplied it) because I introduced a resolution condemning intervention in Central America, and the local party was controlled by fiercely hawkish Scoop Jackson Democrats. I didn't become active again till 2002, even though I always voted Dem with the exception of 1996, when I voted for Nader.

[Vidar]

79. No.

[liberal_at_heart]

81. The middle can't win without the left

That's why they keep telling us if we vote third party or don't vote at all we are responsible for the republicans winning. The liberals aren't marginalizing themselves. They are becoming stronger.

[CakeGrrl]

84. It's a two-way street

Kucinich or any one nearly as left as he doesn't have a hope of getting near the WH. Liberals might be getting stronger, but they're not enough to elevate far-left politicians to the national stage.

So what or who should "give"? Or is there another way?

[liberal_at_heart]

87. All I can do is vote my conscience.

The democratic party has become too far right for my taste and they accept too much money from corporations. So, I will vote for a progressive democrat when one is available and vote third party if one is not. I'm not going to vote democrat just so the party can win. To me that is not true democracy. You are welcome to vote for anyone you want. I would never try to bully you, but I won't be bullied either by those who claim that it is my fault that the republicans win. If you want to vote for a middle democrat you are welcome to do so. I respect your vote. I consider each and every individual's right to vote sacred. That is what my female ancestors fought for and I take it very seriously. I will vote for someone I belieive in and if they don't win they don't win. I will not vote for the party just so they can have a victory and just so they can go about their business of taking money from corporations and writing legislation in favor of the corporations.

[johan helge]

90. Great, James!

Well said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7354478

Sadly, just ten years after the Nader catastrophe, and just when the Dems have achieved "the biggest piece of progressive legislation since Medicare" (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/obama-get-me-rewrite/), DU had become Nader Underground.

[JamesA1102]

99. Thanks.

It is too bad so many here are blinded by their own ideological myopia to get the point.

[johan helge]

106. I'm sure

it feels good to say go-to-hell to too-conservative Democrats, but that makes Republicans smile. I think the best feeling comes from being a real enemy of the Repubs, i.e. someone who contributes in the fight against them.

[TheKentuckian]

109. What about the millions of Democrats that actually voted for Bush?

Why do you expect 110% loyalty from the people you tell to shut the fuck up and be happy a nutter is running the show but forgive and forget the millions of moderate and centrist supposed Democrats that jumped the fence for Reagan and Dubya?

The Nader blamers never want to even mention that right flank even though they give them everything they ever have demanded for years on end and still flit off when they see someone they think they'd like to share a beer with. I'm not to much on Ralpie boy myself but this logic has stretched way past what is reasonable. Its not right to use this little talking point on the left when the right is the really fickle end of the tent.

[johan helge]

117. I blame everyone

who didn't vote for Gore, of course - Naderites, conservative Democrats, Republicans, all of them share responsibility for the Bush catastrophe.

One thing is special about the Naderites, though: They knew, or should have known, how awful Bush was. Still, they helped him. The others didn't know what they were doing. The Naderites knew.

[LaydeeBug]

94. wrong on the second sentence, and then I stopped reading. Once the premise is bullshit.... nt

[JamesA1102]

98. Thanks for keeping an open mind.

Which is the definition of being liberal.

[omega minimo]

102. !?!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::puke:

[grahamhgreen]

104. Circular logic. We are margininalized because we don't ALLOW ourselves to be marginalized. Wrong.

[Xicano]

107. A win in the "center" is not a win when one is left of center.

Especially since the center has migrated so far to the right. n/t

[mmonk]

110. You've got it backwards. The Democrats abandoned the base

for a new ideology called the Third Way. The real question is can it survive by dictating what its voting base wants. The spin is that the traditional Democratic values are too liberal.

[Orsino]

112. Fuck, no.

American corporate conservatism, prudery and general toadying to the rich have marginalized liberalism.

[DailyGrind51]

114. Rahm and others are making it appear so!

[RedCloud]

115. Most of the world is left of "center". We pretend that conservatives are omnipresent.

So if we had a one government world do you really think the conservatives would do well?

It's the old divide and conquer routine and we are in the belly of the monster.

[Odin2005]

118. We are being marginalized by the DLC Fascist corporate stooges.