Democratic Party needs to differentiate itself from the Republicans

[howaboutme]

and not become more like it, which is what I fear many in the Party believe. They want more business friendly, more plutocratic, more trickle-down, which in the end means less opportunity for average Americans.

But what should one expect with a two Party system, when one Party receives its donations from big business and the other from Wall Street? The interests of both Parties are served only by serving the elite.

Here are some examples. War becomes more palatable as it is profitable (they are pounding the drums to take out Iran). Obama conceivably might be convinced it is a good way to jump start the economy as did Bush. Investigations into business dealings and corruption become far fewer and less aggressive. Bonuses by Wall Street are chided but nothing happens. Investigations into BP's spill are done by a handcuffed commission without subpoena power.

I am convinced that the real threat to average Americans comes from plutocratic corporatism and not from conservatism per se. There is much more in common with average Americans who consider themselves liberal, and those who consider themselves conservative. But instead they've been hoodwinked by forces and media experts at convincing people to vote against their interests.

Is changing voter registration to Independent a possible method of bringing the politicians back to the people and so that neither Party will count us their base? Candidates will need to direct their efforts to average Americans, and not for other countries or for big business to get votes. They need to serve us 365 days a year instead of just bullcrap promises at election time. Will making the Parties weaker and less assured of their base, make them hungrier for votes from the people? Am I totally naive?

[leftstreet]

1. Well, there is that new logo...

K&R

Good post

[Jackpine Radical]

2. "plutocratic corporatism"--precisely.

Plutocratic corporatism has no party. It merely leases or buys politicians as it sees fit. It's not about conservative or liberal social values. It's not about abortion or gay marriage. It's not about guns or God.Those are only the handles by which they manipulate the electorate. It's about money.

[howaboutme]

4. QUESTION: How can millions of Americans

who are dedicated to the simplistic notion that all of our problems come about from evil conservatives or evil liberals, ever become informed (and cynical enough about politics) to see that the commonality is far more about immense global money interests at work moving us all in the direction of liberal and conservative serfdom?

[Jackpine Radical]

5. The problem is somewhat compounded

by the fact that the media, especially here, but really globally, are the propaganda instruments of the Hegemony. I think that's largely what the internet neutrality fight is all about. Not so much the profit for the big providers (although that too), but for control over this new, increasingly important loose cannon in the communication world.

[howaboutme]

8. It's not just the message, but total CENSORSHIP.

The mainstream media a short time ago controlled everything. Today the internet is about equality. We all can offer up a web page and an uncensored environment and that scares the hell out of the elitists that control the world and it all comes down to their power and increasing their wealth.

The MSM once determined what we read, viewed, or heard. They controlled print headlines,letters to the editor, what books were published, what is available in our library, what we hear on the radio, and what we see on TV. They controlled 99% of the message and we controlled nothing.

Now that they don't control it all they are frantically working on an agenda to get it back and are equating net neutrality to a liberal agenda is a goal.

It is critical to our Democracy and to both right and left that we should all have the right to an uncensored message and that is most important.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Yes.

That is essentially a more elaborated version of what I was trying to say.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Yes.

That is essentially a more elaborated version of what I was trying to say.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Excellent idea. Too bad that so many of the Dems in charge do not agree.

George Lakoff has been discussing the disadvantages of the Dems moving to the right for years..

http://www.web-source.net/html_codes_chart.htm

Democrats are constantly resorting to disaster messaging. Here's a description of the typical situation:

* The Republicans out-message the Democrats. The Democrats, having no effective response, face disaster: They lose politically, either in electoral support or failure on crucial legislation.

* The Democrats then take polls and do focus groups. The pollsters discover that extremist Republicans control the most common ("mainstream") way of thinking and talking about the given issue.

* The pollsters recommend that Democrats move to the right: adopt conservative Republican language and a less extreme version of conservative policy, along with weakened versions of some Democratic ideas.

* The Democrats believe that, if they follow this advice, they can gain enough independent and Republican support to pass legislation that, at least, will be some improvement on the extreme Republican position.

* Otherwise, the pollsters warn, Democrats will lose popular support - and elections - to the Republicans, because mainstream thought and language resides with the Republicans.

* Believing the pollsters, the Democrats change their policy and their messaging and move to the right.

* The Republicans demand even more and refuse to support the Democrats.

We have seen this on issues like health care, immigration, global warming, finance reform, and so on. We are seeing it again on the Death Gusher in the Gulf. It happens even with a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

Why? Is there anything the Democrats can do about it? First, it has to be understood. It doesn't just happen.

[TheKentuckian]

10. That's what I'm saying!

They also forget in a real two party system eventually the electorate grows weary of the party in power or even revolts from them and has to go with the other guys regardless of how they feel about them.

It is then the party fresh from the wilderness job to do things differently, revolutions have been reversed by the rebels becoming the establishment as quick as they have power.

The objective to blur the lines enough to confuse the electorate into selecting them over the other guys is abdication of the system which causes the Republicans by design or reaction to strain to differentiate and since they have spent decades demonizing the left they have no choice but become overtly radical and utterly contrarian.

[BrklynLiberal]

15. Interestng concept..by continuously moving to the right, the Dems have forced the

repukes to keep moving to the right ...and into their present insane positions!!!

[OHdem10]

6. Exactly: Look who lost seats. Given the choice between

a real Republican and a Fake Republican, the people
chose real Republicans.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Harry Truman lives on.

[ClassWarrior]

7. David Sirota suggests that "the two real parties in Washington are not the..."

"...Republicans and Democrats but the Money Party and the People Party."

http://www.openleft.com/diary/20828/obamas-money-party-debt-commission-validates-push-for-public-health-insurance-option

NGU.

[howaboutme]

11. David Sirota nails it!

We need to get the message to the people.

Forget Parties! We need to hone in on the candidates and how they actually vote, which is why I'm going with the big "I" as in INDEPENDENT. I'll never forgive Bill Clinton for voting in NAFTA and most favored nation status for China. But that is standard operating procedure for Repubs.

[Tx4obama]

9. Help spread the word about what President Obama HAS done in his first 20 months - see link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9553200