Prinicipled centrists vs compromising liberals.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Is there a good way of telling whether an elected Democrat who is not supporting left-wing positions is doing so because they genuinely believe that centrist/centre-right government is the right thing, or because even though they think that left-wing government would be better they feel the need to compromise (either to win reelection, or as a quid pro quo for Republicans compromising on something else)?

Are the strategies that you would use to pressure/encourage/enable the two types to support more left-wing positions the same, or different?

[TBF]

1. I think you can tell by looking at what they've done and who they

associate with. Obama has hidden his DLC position at times, and that was his undoing. Once we figured it out (and he in fact verified it recently with his "blue dog" talk) we knew where he was coming from with his policies.

As for pressuring/encouraging/enabling either - I'd rather we keep them out entirely. I don't want a democratic president who is a blue dog or a well-meaning compromiser. The republicans sure don't do it that way - they elect someone like Bush (hard core conservative) and then they back him up. You'll never hear a republican talk about compromise unless they are trying to trick you into supporting their position somehow.

[sendero]

5. Exactly..

... the way you get to the middle is elect Reps for a while and then Dems. But it only works when Dems act like Dems.

Obama is functionally a Republican so we are not getting pulled back to the center to offset 8 years of Bush.

There's really nothing we can do about it now, except make sure we have an alternative in 2012.

[Jakes Progress]

2. It is good to contemplate

what strategy for pressure would work for each. Our problem is that, unpressed, the results are the for either type - a spiraling downward to conservative domination.

The best pressure for either is to vote them out. Primary them.

[rucky]

3. It comes down to how much we pressure the Blue Dogs

to tow the party line.

If their excuse is that they fear losing re-election, and we accept that as a basis for compromise, then we know why we're doing things the way we do.

It's ironic that we'll bend over backwards on legislation for the sitting Blue Dogs in the Senate, but if a congressional candidate is running in a conservative district, they get no support from the party if they're progressive (Grayson). That should tell you where the priorities are.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. I think you hit the nail on the head- it doesn't matter what the label

is- If our Democratic representatives cannot be counted on to support our policies, we are doomed to having to yield to the Republican pressure. As frustrating as it is, the Republicans understand this and are able to work as a unified force. We aren't. Which makes it nearly impossibe for our policies to survive- and which makes compromise unavoidable.

[mmonk]

4. Compromise is usually an agreement between two opposing

viewpoints to give up something and meet in the middle. What's happening today I'm not convinced is. It appears to be tinkerings around the same ideology.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. I've never met a centrist in life. Never.

And those who claim to be such here are never, ever able to define what their principles are, how centrists can tell they are centrists. They have no idea. My theory is that most people pick a lable they think sounds like it means 'reasonable' or 'correct' and run with it. 'Centrists' think that makes them sound diplomatic, a friend to the world. They are going for a Goldielocks sort of politics, not too this, not too that.
Personally I think 'centrists' are Republicans who are not well liked by other Republicans most of the time, so they claim to be 'centrist' Democrats.
The center is a moveable place, defined by the right and left. A 'centrist' is someone who would be in the center no matter what the context was. Each government in history would have had 'centrists' who were trying to slip between the factions in that government. It is not a set of principles but a series of choices. There is a center between monsterous and abusive. A center between saintly and good, a center between Republican and Liberatarin, between Facsist and Communist.
When your principles can not be seen until placed next to someone else's for contrast, you have in fact no principles.

[Celtic Raven]

7. Well said

Especially the last line.

:applause:

[fascisthunter]

8. well stated... they stand for nothing

yet want to claim they do when something is popular in the media

[TBF]

10. Yes - in fact I know some Palin supporters are calling themselves "independents" -

to distance themselves from traditional republicans, so it's really important to look beyond the labels.

[laughingliberal]

11. +1000 nt