Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

For three years, we've been told that liberals are not "the base".

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:28 PM
Original message
For three years, we've been told that liberals are not "the base".
I think that narrative is finally dead. I haven't said much in the wake of this disappointment, but I feel pretty strongly about what I'm about to say. It's pretty damned obvious now who the REAL "base" is. We found the greatest level of Democratic loyalty from the progressive, liberal voters--NOT the centrists. We kept LIBERAL seats--not centrist ones. When push came to shove, the centrist voters ran to the Republicans while the liberal voters stood strong behind the party. Never again will I listen to or accept the argument that liberals are not "the base" of the Democratic Party. There is no doubt now--we ARE. Deny all you want, the numbers don't lie.

Now the conservative types who are left--your time in charge is over. It's time to stop pretending that your fringe agenda is the "mainstream" Democratic view, because this election has conclusively proven that it ISN'T. The most loyal members of this party are the liberals. We are the ones who inspire voters to come to the polls--not you. We lost a few from our ranks, but not NEARLY as many as you lost. It's time to face reality: the Democratic Party is a party of liberals, and our voters are the only ones who can be counted upon to stick with the party when things get tough. Once upon a time, we were told (by you) that the "fringe" wing should be the one that has to compromise. Well, that fringe wing is now YOU. Are you willing to hold yourselves to the same standard that you forced upon us?

For my fellow liberals: it's time to honor the TRUE base. It's time to stand strong behind our liberal principles and push back against the conservative lies. We don't compromise with insanity. We can work with the (few) sane Republicans that are left, but we are the last remaining brick wall that stands between the American people and Teabagger fascism. It's time to step up to that responsibility.

And it IS a responsibility. It's going to take hard work to convince America that the conservative agenda is wrong. We have an incredible monetary disadvantage. We have a mainstream media that is openly hostile to us. The only avenue for reform that we have left is to take our case directly to the people. We need to make the differences between us and the conservative side a LOT more clear. We need to figure out what our most cherished liberal principles are, and we need to STICK to them. No more failed attempts to compromise with fascist nutcases. We'll compromise where compromise is appropriate, but we can no longer afford to compromise ourselves right out of power. I think we're already feeling the truth of that.

We've spent a long time being marginalized, often within the ranks of our own party. I know that a lot of us are still angry about that. But leaders don't have time to be resentful. Leaders need to move the party forward. If we want to be leaders, then we have to TAKE the mantle of power and move our party forward. We now have the most ideologically liberal Democratic Party that we've had in years. The Blue Dogs have been taken out of the power equation. We can't let this opportunity slip by unheeded. We don't have a majority right now, but the minority we have is a strong one.

Obama will do as Obama must do, but for the rest of us--if we don't have the power to govern at will, then at least we have the power to protect as much as we can, and to work at the level of the people to elect LIBERAL Democrats next time. We've often heard that the primaries are the proper place to settle intra-party arguments. It was meant to be dismissive at the time it was said to us, but let's take it at face value--as an opportunity. This is our silver lining. And the first thing we need to realize as a party is that we have left behind the people who used to be our greatest strength: the working class.

Our country needs us. We know that we're right--we know that our principles are the best ones for America's future. Now we need to work our asses off to make that case to the American people--especially to the working people who've been lied to and manipulated for a very long time. It'll be frustrating. It'll be difficult. We're dealing with an electorate that's been engineered by the right-wing to have disdain for education, for political awareness, and for human compassion. What's been done CAN be undone, but it won't be easy. We need to be out there in the midst of it. People don't change because of distant ideological theories; they change because someone makes a positive difference in their lives. The REAL "change" has to come from that level--and it doesn't even have to be entirely political. You teach people empathy by LIVING empathy--in the small things as well as the large. That means we have to interact on a personal level with people who disagree with us politically. And we have to be KIND to them. Drive your elderly neighbor to the grocery store. Volunteer at the food bank. Pick up trash at your local park. Be a Big Brother or Big Sister. Teach literacy to struggling adults. Take it upon yourself to BE the kind of person that you want others to be. A common theme here is that words are not enough--we need action. Well, the most effective kind of action is not going to come from Obama and the Dems on the Hill. It's going to come from US. We have the ability to change minds on a personal level; to be a living embodiment of liberal principles in action, helping to change lives for the better. But doing that requires a lot of physical work, and it requires us all to step outside of our comfort zones.

For example: meet and make friends with people you wouldn't ordinarily have the opportunity to meet in your daily life. Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that, for example, there are a LOT of poor Moms and Dads in the underprivileged areas of your region who desperately need friendships and human interactions that don't involve either a toddler or "Do you want fries with that?" And those friendships can be the conduit from which struggling, reactionary people can learn that "liberal" is NOT a four-letter-word. We're never going to find our power base in the privileged classes; it's time to look to the working class and to the poor. They are often ignored, and many, many don't vote because they feel completely alienated from the political process. Make them feel included again. Make them feel WANTED. People who have a personal connection to us will be a lot less susceptible to the right-wing "The Democrats want to ban the BIBLE!" lies and manipulation attempts. By establishing bonds with those who have no sense of political efficacy, you help CREATE political efficacy. That, in turn, helps to solidify the populist, liberal, WORKING CLASS "base" that our party has ignored for FAR too long. In the end, regardless of whether we're middle-class or working-class or poor, we're NOT wealthy. That puts us all on the same side, whether we realize it or not. The enemy is not Joe Six Pack. The enemy is the person who lied to Joe Six Pack and convinced him that tax cuts for rich people somehow benefit HIM. The enemy is the greed that inspired the televangelist that influenced the pastor of Joe Six Pack's church. The enemy is the "Faux" media that lied to Joe Six Pack and implied that his President is a Kenyan Muslim who's probably the anti-Christ. The enemy is the billionaire who spent Joe's pension on Republican campaign donations and then lied to Joe and told him that the Democrats forced him to do it. When you get right down to it, Joe himself is not the problem--but Joe can be part of the solution.

You are liberal because you have a heart and a painfully keen sense of justice. Be proud enough of that to share it with the people who feel completely left out.

Are you up for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. The party is against us
The DLC types run the party right now, not Deaniacs or any liberals of any sort. Obama will continue to work against us. So will the DSCC and the DCCC, not to mention the DLC/OFA. The reality is that our only hope is the "all politics are local" approach, and you can't imagine how "red" it is around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Misplaced blame.
Obama was trying to pass a progressive agenda through a conservative US Senate. Too bad you didn't care to help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. What you said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. GOP plan
He openly admitted that he was trying to pass a plan basically the same as a 1995 GOP plan for health insurance reform. He also openly admitted that he regularly rejected the suggestions of the left (on Fox news no less). He also stated he wasn't a progressive, but a "new democrat", which is what the DLC likes to call themselves these days. I'm not sure where you get the idea that he was trying to pass progressive legislation. Even he doesn't try to represent it that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. You've left the reality based community.
A plan that was described as having some similarities to the 95 GOP plan (while still having important differences) was not what Obama first proposed. It was the watered down version that had to be voted on because the Senate blocked Obama's more progressive plan.

There's no record of Obama calling himself a new democrat. A rumor was placed in politico claiming he did. It was an effort to manipulate gullible people like yourself who will believe anything negative about Obama.

It's true that Obama presents progressive legislation in terms that appeal to moderates and conservatives. I guess he thinks that progressives are smart enough to look at the details without needing him to scream and shout about how liberal he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #18
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
xiamiam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
37. obama does not have a liberal agenda no matter how many times you say it..nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
44. + infinity
Edited on Thu Nov-04-10 12:03 PM by HughMoran
I wish you luck in your arguments, realizing the utter futility of using logic and reason in your arguments. Reactionary is all there is. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArcticFox Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
60. If Obama is progressive in any way
Then pigs must be flying from JFK to VIE in seventeen minutes flat..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
61. Obama was televised calling himself a "New" Democrat nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
51. Yes, I particularly enjoyed his appearance on Fox where he bragged about 'beating back' proposals...
from the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. No. Resigning the Patriot Act, Killing DADT repeal, etc. etc. was not progressive.
You. You PERSONALLY and people like you who apologize for torture and anything else under the sun, you who posture as a "radical activist" in order to confuse people into thinking that the right is the center--it's your fault. You PERSONALLY and people like you who pissed all over the base. It's more your fault than anyone else's.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #6
30. The HCR Bill the WH negotiated had already traded away PO and script drug reimport - not progressive
Edited on Thu Nov-04-10 07:18 AM by leveymg
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/21/obama
Initially, this issue arose in the context of the health care debate, when progressive critics were complaining that the Obama White House was doing nothing to ensure passage of the public option. In response, Obama defenders insisted that the fault lay not with Obama, but with Democratic members of Congress over whom Obama had no leverage. All year long, they told their readers not to blame Obama for the lack of a public option because there was just nothing the helpless, powerless leader could do. Except now it is conclusively clear that Obama never wanted the public option from the start -- Russ Feingold said as much, and The New York Times revealed that Obama secretly negotiated away the public option in deals with industry representatives very early on in the process. Thus, critics who were complaining that Obama was publicly claiming to want to the public option while ensuring it would not be enacted were correct, while those who kept telling their readers that the fault lay with Democratic members of Congress -- not Obama -- were engaged in pure apologia.


You're also wrong about this part - we tried our damnedest to get a progressive Health Care Bill passed, but the Administration and the Blue Dogs in the Senate had made that impossible. If there's anyone who did nothing to help, it was the White House inner-circle and its apologists. Look in the mirror when you make that accusation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
45. Fail
Progressives aren't buying DLC propaganda anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
56. +1,000. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
46. No, not so liberal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
62. LOL!
"progressive agenda"...:rofl:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
43. DLC blah blah blah
I don't read posts where people start out with the defunct "DLC" acronym.

Also, I was wondering, you post almost exclusively in a way that tears down Democrats, the Democratic Party and anybody who isn't just like you. Is that productive? Seems to be the opposite to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
48. We are the party. We are democrats.
And it's up to us to work our asses off during the primaries for progressive candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, if we are the base why did we lose?
What did we do that pissed off so many Americans that they'd rather have tea?
How come the most liberal candidates lost?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The most liberal candidates didn't lose.
The Progressive Caucus stood firm, losing only 3 seats. The Blue Dogs lost almost half their entire Congressional group. The COUNTRY might not be liberal--yet--but the party sure as hell IS. The meme that the "base" of our party is centrist has been firmly put to bed.

Now, as I said in my OP, the challenge is to get out there and convince the COUNTRY that we're right. The infighting will be reduced because many of the "centrist" types are gone now. We've solidified as a liberal party. Now it's time to get to work and start winning over right-wing voters to our side.

As I mentioned above, the best place to start is with the working class and the poor. That populist, liberal, working-class voter base has been ignored for FAR too long. Win over the poor and the low-wage workers, and we'll win over the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Oh, ok
So how do the republicans get the "poor working class" to put them in office again and again?

Seen a fine chap with a "I voted" sticker yesterday. So, I started a conversation about politics. In that conversation told him I was a liberal tree-hugger.

Ya know what he said?

The liberal tree-huggers were to blame for BP's mistake in the gulf.
How did the republicans do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. By lying
"So how do the republicans get the "poor working class" to put them in office again and again?"

Mostly by lying, and relying on Democrats to be too timid to challenge the lies. It would be unseemly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bergie321 Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
49. By controlling
The propaganda in the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MedicalAdmin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
54. Use the socratic method against that.
Ask pointed directed questions in a spirit of inquiry and learning.

For example after Senor Asshat, er "a fine chap" said that "liberal tree-huggers were to blame for BP's mistake in the gulf," I would reply with a question like "really? I did not know that. How did us liberals do that?" Keep the questions coming and be ready to interject, not fact, but rhetoric. You have to get them fired up, THEN you can press your case.

Never let a repub have the last word especially when the last word is pure BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #54
82. No, I got the last word
As he slid away on his belly like the snake he is, I told him that it didn't have to happen, that is was quite avoidable and we have to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Ya know, just what tree-huggers have been saying all along.

I got the last word and he knows I am damn right. He just snaked away as fast as he could. Seen it a hundred times. The south end of a snake slithering north.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
72. They prefer the GOP because they know the GOP.
They are the party of bad ideas and twisted morals, but they stand up and fight for those bad ideas and twisted morality. The Democrats OTOH, have shown themselves to be utterly feckless and corrupt. More than willing to sell out their ideals, constituents, and each other for power.

The republiks tell these working-class ignoramuses that they are completely on their own and it is all up to them, they tell them that they will not help them, and then they don't.

People want to know where they stand and both parties have made it clear exactly where that is, alone.

The current strategy of telling people that the basic premise of the 'republik philosophy' is correct, but Democrats have a less painful way of screwing them only keeps the Democrats in the "other guys" position, so they only vote for them when they are pissed at the republiks.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmeraldCityGrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. The Latino community needs to be embraced as well.
They are not particularly happy with Obama but certainly supported Dems around the country.
Rubio is a poor example because the Cuban Community historically votes repuke.

If we ignore these very important voters, Jeb Bush, Rubio et al. are going to be courting their vote in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Agree. And to be honest, I count the Latino community as part of the larger working-class base.
There aren't many American Latino millionaires--know what I mean? If we're reaching out to the working-class and the poor, then we're also reaching out to minority communities who deal with poverty and educational obstacles as a daily fact of life.

Those people on the bottom of the capitalist pyramid are the ones we need to convert--the poor people, the wage slaves, the immigrants, and the oppressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gaedel Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
76. Latino
The GOP had three Latinos/Latinas running for statewide offices this year(Rubio and two governors got elected). We had zero Latinos/Latinas running for senator or governor.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
33. But they are a minority in the House now
Significantly less powerful than they were when they had moderate Dems to make up the numbers. Guess who will be Speaker after Jan. 3?

So you can't work with the Blue Dogs. Now you have to work with Republicans.

What is hard about understanding that Blue Dogs come from conservative districts. It sounds like you do not understand that each representative comes from a geographic district.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
39. Grayson and Feingold didn't lose? And the Blue Dogs who lost were newbies in Republican districts
or swing districts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
57. That argument is a bit off an chicken and egg problem
Seeing as the Blue Dogs mostly stems from redder districts (the reason for them being Blue Dogs in the first place, give or take) - they would also be more likely to lose in an election climate like the present as they would have a smaller base to begin with ("a base" being your way of defining it or the way you do not think it should be defined.)
Only if you can succesfully argue that they would have stood a better chance if they were _more_ liberal will your argument really hold up. But I don't think anyone thinks they were punished for not being liberal enough. They had a D at their name in purple or red districts.

Likewise it stands to reason that the more blue the district the more liberal the representative.

But you are right that the election left the average party representative more liberal. And if you define the base as those who will always vote for a D over an R, I would say you are right. But can you keep the party line aligned with the base and still win?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Right fucking on! We progressive liberals ARE the base! Time for you conserva-dems
Edited on Wed Nov-03-10 01:37 PM by Subdivisions
to get in the back fucking seat!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
29. Time for them to get on the other bus where they belong.
How about they go back to the Republican Party and push them to the left instead of stinking up our house and pushing it to the right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. Exactly that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gaedel Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
77. Like in 1972?? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. Both progressives and centrists lost last night
All five progressives in the freshman class of the House lost their seats: Alan Grayson, Tom Perriello, Carol Shea-Porter, Mary Jo Kilroy, and John Hall
Russ Feingold lost his seat.

You can't talk about the role of progressives in races that involved conservative or even swing districts. House races are very constrained: New York City progressives don't vote in Florida or New Hampshire elections.
And you can't explain Russ Feingold's loss in Wisconsin and draw any conclusions about anything regarding the base.

I am a diehard liberal/progressive, but I don't know what you are talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. I disagree. I think we CAN draw conclusions.
I think the the Dems in "swing" districts lost because they tried to be Republicans. When given the choice between a Republican who's honest about being a Republican and a Republican who pretends to be a Democrat, people will generally pick the real one. People in those districts WANT partisanship. They want clear divisions. When they don't get it, they go for the most honest choice.

Take my district, for example. Ordinarily this is a moderate (but solidly) Blue district. My county is the "big" county in the district, where most of the population resides, and we went for Obama pretty handily in the 2008 election. However, we just elected a Republican to the House for the first time in a VERY long time? Why? Because the voters here weren't given any real choices. They had two practically identical candidates--one claiming to be a Democrat, the other a Republican, but BOTH espousing solidly Republican ideologies and positions.

I think the liberals were disgusted and unmotivated, and the moderate swing voters decided that, since their positions were pretty much the same, an honest Republican was better than a Republican lying and pretending to be a Democrat. The Dem who lost was NOT expected to lose; his family is very prominent here, politically, and his Dad was much-beloved in local politics here for decades. But he still lost to a no-name Republican in a Democratic region. There's really no explanation for it other than recognizing that people here rejected the whole "DINOs for red districts" political strategy--as they did over and over again throughout the country.

My point is that we've already lost--so why not put forth the effort to sell LIBERALISM to the people? Why not try the old, traditional approach of making clear boundaries between what WE believe and what THEY believe, and letting people choose based on reality rather than fake political posturing?

I think people would like us a lot more if we were honest and unafraid of defending what we believe is right.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
66. I think you have an interesting hypothesis
but I need to see facts and statistics. Been working way too much to break it down by percentage for decent analysis.

What you say *may* be true, or it may merely seem that way. Indeed, it may be the case in some parts of the country and not in others. Beware simplistic analysis. My gut says that Harry Truman was right- give people a choice between a DINO and a Republican and they'll vote for the Republican; might very well be true in reverse - given a choice between a RINO and a Progressive a lot of people might well trust authenticity over 'say anything to get elected' prevarication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. Gee, I thought "progressives" are the base. I'm really confused by this.
I'm an unapologetic liberal who is also progressive. These are not mutually exclusive terms, in my opionion. You cannot be liberal without being progressive anymore than you can be progressive without being liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I don't disagree. I use the terms interchangeably.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. There is some distinction made by some on these boards which
I don't understand. Perhaps I'm just not smart enough to get the nuance of the jargon now, but liberal has for some become a dirty word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Well it's not a dirty word to me. I'm proud of it.
And of progressive. I think we'd do better, in regard to elections, if MORE people defended their liberalism instead of trying to hide it, minimize it, or run away from it.

People like honesty and clear choices. They don't like feeling lied to and manipulated. When you run an ideological Republican as a Democrat, it's a LIE. If we think people are too stupid to see through that, if we think that people are going to continue to accept being treated like 5-year-olds who can't tell the difference, then we're going to continue to lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
11. Well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. You are wrong...
In every exit poll I have seen, the self-described Democrats voted for Democrats just as fervently as Republicans voted for Republicans. Hell, more Democrats even voted in Ohio than Republicans. It has been my experience that liberals/progressives are more likely to identify as independents than your rank and file Democrat who is upset with the leadership. And in this election, Independents went overwhelmingly Republican in Ohio. If it was just Repubs vs. Dems, the Dems would have won. But the G*d Damned Independents swung Republican.

The vast majority of rank and file Democrats are not self-described liberals/progressives, even if their values match up, as much as some may want to think so. Independents, to be blunt, as a whole (and with obvious exceptions), are a group of voters that are too intellectually lazy or apathetic to committ themselves one way or the other, and are most likely to give creedence to the phrase "vote ALL the bums out!". They don't distinguish between the parties and are easily swayed by present circumstances. In other words, they don't think critically, which, as we have seen, makes them easy pickens for Repubs, especially this year.

It is all about the independent voters. The Republican voters are by and large too far gone, especially anyone who identifies as Republican anymore. Only if independent voters are split does party loyalty become much of a factor. Liberals/progressives are more likely to vote for a third party like the Greens, and we have already seen how that helped to hurt certain Democrats in this election. Rank and file Democrats are the base, and they are more loyal than liberals/progressives as well as more numerous. They are not moderates at all per se, but they are willing to hold their noses, however liberal/progressive they may be, to vote for Democrats.

As long as there is a two party system, the base of the Democratic Party will not be liberals/progressives (as we define them).

I wish I was wrong, but you can expect the party to move even more to the right as a result of this election, including the President. You see, the Democrats respond to such electoral changes logically, in terms of trying to get elected. The Republicans, lately, have not, but it doesn't seem to have hurt them, so maybe it is time for Democrats to move far left, even if most of America defines itself as conservative out of mistaken identity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Independents don't distinguish between the parties
Because the Democrats are so busy trying to bury those differences. They should embrace liberalism instead of cowering from it, so that the independents can tell the difference.

It also has the bonus of doing the right thing when you get a chance to implement policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
67. Your analysis is wrong, MellowDem
The reality is that the Democratic Party is and will now be, to a large extent, managed by the Democrats who hold office. The rest of us have a voice when we volunteer or when we vote, but it is the Democrats who win elections who have the power.

At this time, the Democrats who have won the recent elections -- especially for the House and here in California, the Senate and the governor's position, are liberals. So now the Party will be managed by elected officials who are more liberal.

Having worked at the grass-root level, having been a delegate at the state convention, having watched how things work and heard the history of local and statewide politics, that's just how it really works.

So liberals are and will continue to be the base. This election strengthened the hand of the liberals within the Party. No doubt about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
20. Fantastic post, and so true. Inspired!
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
23. kick,you said it well
but I expect many folks to still be in denial
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
24. I was interested to see that Progressive Caucus held firm while the Blue Dogs...
...were decimated. I wonder what message the party will take from that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Hopefully the right one, DM.
Or else we're in for worse in the future, I fear. We can't keep doing the same things over and over, expecting a different result. That's the definition of insanity, and will lead to nothing but disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
69. The Party is now the Progressive Caucus.
The Party is lead by the elected Democrats. Pelosi still leads the Party in the House, for example. She will be leading a group of people who are more liberal than before.

Here in California, Jerry Brown has a reputation for being centrist but more liberal. For example, he was the mayor of Oakland, a pretty liberal town. He will lead in a liberal direction.

For Nancy Pelosi or whomever the now more strongly liberal Democratic caucus elect to lead them, the drift will be to the left because the leader of the Democratic caucus will be elected by and answer to a group of representatives who are more progressive or liberal than those elected in 2006 and 2008. That's just the reality. That is what the numbers dictate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #24
80. Pretty clear message
"Blue Dogs," who can win in red districts, lost to somebody to the right of them.
Progressives, who cannot win in red districts, did NOT win in any red district, won as expected in blue districts.

But, you ARE the base, so you go right ahead and try and force us moderates to vote for progressive candidates, since you think that is what we really want. You won't like the results, but since agreeing with progressives 100% is the top priority, I'm sure it will be worth it in the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
25. Yes!
:thumbsup: :dem: :fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
31. Ironic isn't it ?
Obama went out his way to turn off progressives, and they are wise to respect his wishes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
32. Look, I agree the dems have pissed on their base for far too long. But...
this insane meme that because the centrists lost the country wanted the party to go further to the left is absolute bullshit. You guys know better. Blue dogs were in conservative districts. Therefore they were in the most danger. The reason the progressive cacus was pretty much untouched is the fact that most of the progressives in congress are from safe liberal districts. It's as simple as that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #32
70. Fact is that progressives and liberals now run the party.
Sorry, but the conservative, Blue Dog Democrats are out. They lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gaedel Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #70
79. So we are in the minority now
But the progressives sure as hell control the party!

We need those swing districts to get back into the majority.

The DLC was created because of 1984 and 1988.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #79
83. We need to educate Americans about progressive values.
They think we are Communists. Fact is we are not Communists at all. We are just realistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
34. The professional class of the Dems (not to be confused with the "Professional Left")
Not only ignores the working class base, but often shows utter disdain for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
35. JFK On What It Means To Be A Liberal (1960)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
71. WillyT, It's worth quoting from that wonderful link you provided. Thanks.
I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

. . . .

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/JFK+Pre-Pres/1960/002PREPRES12SPEECHES_60SE002PREPRES12SPEECHES_60SEP14e.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #71
81. Anytime JD, Anytime !!!
:bounce:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
38. Oh Liberals and Progressives are the base. Just not the whining ivory tower purists who spout crap
against the Democrats on this board day and day out.

You aren't "the true base".

What a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
felix_numinous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
40. With the radicalization of the right
dominating politics as it is today, the left needs to off balance them by having just as much weight politically. By silencing or marginalizing the progressive left, the country is being dragged to the right.

There is nothing wrong with centrist Democrats having a voice, but the progressives need more representation, and more acknowledgment from the administration. Our voices are the first to be silenced when Repubs take over, while the centrists Democrats make like they are the only ones in the party--and we are not going to let that happen again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
41. Yes. Have been for a long time. Rec'd. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
42. I am recommending this because it is spot on. However,
I fear that our President and his advisors don't get it. I thought they did after the loss of Kennedy's seat to Brown. But they didn't. I'm not sure why anyone would think they get now. They don't get it. They think compromise and free give-aways to the Republicans is the way to go. They think the base is a nuisance and they have our vote wrapped up. And they do, don't they? At the end of the day, we'll still vote for them because it's the better alternative. But my husband wouldn't vote. He's an independent. He refused to vote for the republicans because they got us into this mess, but didn't think the democrats were delivering on their promises either. He was really disappointed that there was no public option. People want leaders with backbone. They always have, they always will. That's not Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
47. K&R
:loveya:

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
50. You do know that the largest percentage of voters in this country are independents right
I can PM you a link which shows that party affiliation hasn't really changed in 25 years..Its roughly 42% independent, 36% Democrat, 28% Republican. Of that 36% only maybe half of that are self-identified liberals.
In this election as opposed to 2008 more independents voted for republicans than democrats. This election wasn't about the "ignored" liberal wing (because they came out in force in their traditional homes in Maryland, California and Massachusettes) or even about the extreme right wing nuts (many of whom lost). It was about unemployment still being high and the economy being bad. Not being liberal enough isn't the reason why the Dems lost. Nor is it about it being too liberal (which is what the right and many independents say--too much spending not enough problem solving).
People need to look at what the mood is of the country. And if you look at numerous breakdowns of polls (on Pew there is one particular one, that you Lyric should read, called Static America) its telling you that the American public doesn't want a shift away from center, which is what so many people here on DU seem to think is the problem...They want solutions. And to many, the Democrats have not offered them (not that they haven't tried but people don't pay attention to details). So they are trying the other party. THATS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REPUBLICANS in 2008--the people who had voted for them in the past, perceived them as no longer listening to their needs-and therefore many independents voted with the Dems and agaisnt the Republicans.
Mark this well..the party that seems more interested in getting things done and working together to make things better will have the edge in 2012. The party that insists that only THEY have the answers and that they refuse to compromise with anyone else, which is what the idiot Republicans are saying now is going to be kicked to the curb.
So yeah, you can be proud of yourself as a liberal. And you can say, I refuse to work with any of THEM (and meanwhile the FReeper types can say the same thing about being proud of their views and they won't work with those awful liberals who have been "proven" wrong in the last two years). But I can promise you, you won't like the results. This country wants its problems solved. And whatever party or person APPEARS to have done that is going to be rewarded. Me, I think the Republicans are going to alienate the electorate very quickly with their "Our way or the highway" attitudes. I'd rather not see Liberals play the same stupid game. I chose to believe as well, that more than just liberals have something to offer when it comes to contributing to solving our problems. Because like it or not, we still have plenty of them. And solving those problems is more important than purity of political belief on EITHER side of the aisle.
I guess that makes me a sell out. But whatever, I was raised to believe that together we succeed, divided we fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArcticFox Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #50
64. I was independent for years
Basically because I could see the two party system doesn't work and that the two parties are more alike than they are different. Neither cares about anything but power and pleasing the people who have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #50
73. So, what solutions did the Republicans offer?
I didn't hear any other than keeping the tax cuts for the rich (which they claim will help small businesses -- baloney) and cutting or privatizing Social Security. Oh, and discriminating against gays and lesbians and ending abortions and protecting gun rights (which are in no danger from liberals at this time), keeping the wars going, curtailing the human rights of anyone who disagrees with them.

Let's see, those sound like a real attractive solutions, don't they. (Sarcasm for last sentence.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
52. Big K & R! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N_E_1 for Tennis Donating Member (437 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
53. Believe in this ...
Thanks to WillyT's link I think this quote sums it up.

Believe in this, spread this word, people will follow ... This is something no reasonable person would argue with.

"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."

JFK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
55. Maybe you guys should have voted, then
Instead of spending two years telling yourselves that we should let Republicans win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. We did vote. That's why the Blue Dogs went down
and not our caucus. And not only did I vote, I delivered a precinct for Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #55
74. The point in the OP is that liberals voted Democratic.
It's the non-liberals in the party who stayed home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArcticFox Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
58. I don't feel like I have a place in the "Democratic" party
They don't want me. Half the time I can't stand them either. Ok, more than half the time. Hell, they even welcome that backstabbing Joseph Lieberman into their "caucus."

The only people in Congress I can depend on to take a consistent stand in favor of people without power are: Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, and Alan Grayson.

The reason: they don't want no stinkin' Lib'rals in their party.

It's time to break away. Democratic representation is now split approximately 50/50 between progressive and conservative democrats. Now's the time for a progressive democratic/green/peace and freedom consolidation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
63. Truly great post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
65. Excellent post
Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
68. Thank you, Lyric. That was beautifully written
and feels very true to me.

It's too late for me to recommend this, but if I could I would a thousand times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuelahWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
75. Too late to rec but I can kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertDiamond Donating Member (838 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
78. Wow! So beautifully written and so full of wisdom! Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuttyFluffers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
84. off to the top of the topic list with thee!
K&R! O8)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC