And that gulf is just as wide and dangerous for our party.
It is the way the the party has been divided into two main segments in the minds of the party leaders and the media. I don't know whether to call that divide a left and right problem or something else.
First let me say that hubby and I voted last week. We voted as best we could to keep teabaggers from running this state. I think we did a good job. We have no contact with the party locally. They don't send emails to any Democrats who are not in attendance at meetings, and if you miss 3 meetings you are out. Well, my hubby's illness and our granddaughter's sudden death easily took care of those meetings and more.
When we used to be considered members locally, we got the emails and tips on amendments, etc. Now we don't. But we were smart enough to figure them out, and our unions mailed out ideas as well.
The division is one in which those whom the party leaders consider to be left of their centrist stances are considered to be threatening to the party. They feel we need to be warned to be compliant and not to speak too loudly or brashly.
It happens locally and nationally, and it should not be that way.
We on "the left" have been right on nearly every major issue. We have been ignored.
Here are some examples of things we got very right and
the leaders in DC got terribly wrong.1.We on "the left" did not vote for or support this Iraq invasion that has bankrupted our country in the name of oil-grabbing and "spreading Democracy" at the point of a gun. It falls to our new president to figure out how to handle this invasion that was approved of by our former Democratic president.
2. "The left as a whole did not support the deregulation that began in the 90s. That is another reason we are in such trouble financially today as a country. It was not our idea to take the eye off corporations and let them have their merry way with our country as they took our jobs overseas.
12 years ago Molly Ivins spoke out on this deregulation of the banking industry.
“AUSTIN - Watch the House pass a bad bill. Watch the Senate make it worse. Watch the banking industry dig its own grave. Watch supposedly smart people set up a financial disaster. Can we see President Clinton veto this mess? Veto, Clinton, veto.
.."In May, the House passed (by one vote) a bill to eliminate barriers between banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies. This sets up financial holding companies that can offer all three types of services simultaneously. The most obvious risk is that a blunder in the insurance or brokerage end of the business could bring down a bank, putting insured deposits at risk. The taxpayers, of course, then wind up with the tab, as we did with the savings-and-loan mess.
And 3rd and 4th things we were correct about:
3. Those of us on "the left" did not cause the bankruptcies and foreclosures that are looming. The ones who chose to vote for the bankruptcy bill are the problem. Our Democrats who are denying help to homeowners are the problem.
..."Pelosi told fellow Democrats during a closed-door meeting that the idea of letting judges rewrite mortgages to help bankrupt homeowners avoid foreclosure won't be a part of the emergency legislation. That provision, pushed by several Democrats, would be a deal-breaker for Republicans whose votes are needed to pass the measure, she said, according to lawmakers at the meeting.
I consider #4 the Fisa Bill:
Coalition of 27 groups opposed the FISA bill
What the bill will do.
The bill would authorize massive warrantless surveillance.
The bill would require no individualized warrant even when an American’s communications clearly are of interest to the government.
The bill would curtail effective judicial review of surveillance.
The bill would grant retroactive immunity for wrongdoing.
The bill would not provide a reasonable sunset.
The leader of the DLC in 1992, Al From, actually admitted they were attempting to make the party neutral on important matters that count. His goal was to win, and he wanted to stand for nothing that would keep Democrats from winning.
Al From admits DLC decided in effect to make the Democratic party neutral.One of the important things we had to do in 1992 was remove the obstacles that kept people from voting Democratic in the first place," he said.
That included addressing issues of welfare, fiscal discipline and crime. "As long as people thought we were going to take money form (from) people who worked and give it to people who didn't work, they didn't want to listen to anything else," he added. "The Republicans have to make people understand that they're not just a right-wing, southern party."
A fellow DLC founder Simon Rosenberg verified what Al From said.
Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."
..."..."Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party. Though the DLC painted itself using the palette of the liberal left--as "an effort to revive the Democratic Party's progressive tradition," with New Democrats being the "trustees of the real tradition of the Democratic Party"--its mission was far more confrontational. With few resources, and taking heavy flak from the big guns of the Democratic left, the DLC proclaimed its intention, Mighty Mouse–style, to rescue the Democratic Party from the influence of 1960s-era activists and the AFL-CIO, to ease its identification with hot-button social issues, and, perhaps most centrally, to reinvent the party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a probusiness, pro–free market outlook.
Right after the election in 2008,
the lectures began to the left. They have continued on since then. From Steve Hildebrand at Huff Post:
I could go on and on. The point I'm making here is that our new president, the Congress and all Americans must come together to solve these problems. This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making. Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you, that isn't the way he thinks and it's not likely the way he will lead. The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people - not just those on the left.
Also Will Marshall of the DLC/PPI
had some words for us.Since the 2004 election, wealthy liberals, lefty bloggers, and interest groups have been demanding that Democrats reciprocate their opponents' belligerent partisanship. Only by standing up for core liberal convictions, they argue, can Democrats galvanize a new progressive majority and "take America back." It sounds stirring, but there are three problems with that theory.
First, most 2006 voters expressed a strong preference for cooperation over partisan confrontation between Bush and the Democratic Congress. Second, in moderate America, there simply aren't enough liberals to get Democrats anywhere near a majority. Third, liberal and centrist Democrats sometimes interpret their party's core principles differently, especially on such important issues as the use of force, the benefits of trade, the role of government, and questions about religion and morality."
That is the same argument going on today at this forum. It is a misrepresentation of what many of us are saying and feeling.
I have not called for "belligerent" partisanship ever. Others here have not either.
We have asked that our party stand up for women's rights, the rights of gays to marry and serve their country. We have asked our party to stand up for keeping Social Security as the wonderful program it is, giving seniors who paid into it all these years a little bit of security in this crazy financial environment.
Our party needs to seriously examine its attitude toward those in the party they consider to be "liberals" "the left", or whatever the term may be.
Stop using right wing terminology to refer to us, and allow us to feel a part of things.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
