The Democrats' task is not to "placate the Left." It is to sell liberalism to the "middle"

[Armstead]

Okay, in a nutshell, here is the crux of it, in my opinion of course.

I and many others have said this in many ways. But it bears repeating in light of the events of the last week or so. And in light of all the conventional wisdom crap that's been peddled about what Obama "needed to do" in his SOTU speech.

The Beltway pundits and strategists (and many among us amateur pundits and strategists) keep repeating a stupid meme. It usually boils down to this: "Obama has to figure out a way to placate the "left wing" of the Democratic base, while also appealing to the "center" and the "mainstream independents." ....or a slight variation: "He has to move to the center, and hope that the left wing will continue to support him."

To that I say Bulls**t....In my opinion, of course.

It is based on a false choice and CONservative premise. See, there is this idiotic notion that has been around for years that "the left" or "the liberal wing" or "progressives" are some kind of weird cult who do not share the values or goals of "real" ordinary Americans. There is an accompanying idiotic belief that if a politician like Obama "caters to the left" he is automatically doing something that "swing voters" will disapprove of.

The GOP and the CONservative machine has been great at embedding this fallacy into the national consciousness. Their job is to protect and advance the interests of the Corporate Elite and other oligarchs. And they're doing a fine job. I tip my hat to them, and I admire their effectiveness. Honestly. They have done a great job at selling snake oil.

Basically, for the last 30 years They have been winning. They have CONvinced average Americans that ultra-conservativsm, a political ideology and economic philosophy that is directly opposed to their own self interest is actually good for them.

They have also successfully demonized liberalism. They have made it seem that a political philosophy based on the good old American values of fair play, common self-interest and shared economic well being, plus tolerance and individual freedom, is some weird belief held only by a bunch of fruity leftists and militant representatives of the undeserving poor.

And they are still winning, even after losing two national elections, being booted into the minority in Congress and being evicted from the White House. All of this is a "mere flesh wound." They'll put a few band-aids on, and get right back out there and KICK OUR ASS yet again.

But the GOP isn't the real problem. The real reason CONservatism has become so embedded is the sellout of the Democratic Party, and the surrender of the Democratic Party to the GOP/CONservative drumbeat. This is NOT something new. It started sometime in the 70's. At first it was understandable. Back then, the Democratic party and liberalism had come to seem to represent all of the social divisions and econlomic problems that were besetting the country back then. It had come to be perceived as the Party of Minority Special Interests and Unfair Restraints on Free Enterprise....So the Democratic leadership tried to clean up its image and realign with the middle class.

But in the process the Democratic party threw the baby out with the bathwater. They joined the GOP in rejecting and marginalizing economic liberalism. This was partially intellectual among those who have bought into the CONservative philosophy themselves. Or actual corruption, by some. Or both. It was also due to cowardice by other Democrats who worried that seeming "too liberal" was too politically dangerous.

Of course it wasn't simple. Life is complicated. Some Democratic leaders did not cave in, and remained staunch liberals and progressives. But in the overall context they were pushed to the margins, while the corrupt and/or cowardly "centrists" took the controls.

So, institutionally the Democratic Party became enablers of same economic ideology as the Republicans. They sat silently as industry after industry was consolidated under monopolistic monsters. They went along with scams like unfettered corporate "free trade" and deregulation and privatization and the gutting of the safety net. They empowered Alan Greenspan and the right-wing Chicago School of ultra-right wing economics. They joined the Club of crony capitalism.

And -- unfortunately, they joined the GOP in stifling and marginalizing any alternative to this narrow spectrum of thought. The Centrist Conservative Democratic Party was only slightly less aggressive than the GOP at making sure that quaint notions like Anti-Trust Enforcemet or meaningful Financial Regulation or a Public Health Coverage were made to seem like naive stupidity or anti-business socialist encroachments.

Then came last year. The House of Cards that had been erected by Free Market Religion finally came tumbling down. Everyone (except the protected elites) got screwed by the excesses and the concentrations of power that had evolved.

It was a prime opportunity for a resurgence of Liberal and Progressive reform. The public had experienced the blowback from Right-Wing Corporate Conservatism. They were angry and wanted change. They wanted the political system and government opened up and cleaned up.

It was also a prime time to make it clear that Liberalism and Progressive Populism are solidly mainstream philosophies.It wasd a time to sell the ideas that we had run away from for too long. It was time to make it clear that it was not a choice between "liberals" and "real Americans."

But what has happened since then? Unfortunately, rather than leading the charge for meaningful liberal/progtressive reform, the Democratic Party wet its collective pants in public. They retreated into the phony "centrist" position of intimidated enablers of right-wing GOP nonsense.

Rather than actively advocating for Liberal and Progressive Principles, and explaining them, too many Democrats are spending their time bashing progressives and liberals and keeping them on the margins. It's been happening at the top and down here in the trenches in places like DU.

Some of it, frankly, is blind partisanship. If Obama came out tomorrow and said "I will not sign any healthcare bill that does not allow anyone to buy into Medicare at any age" many who have been attacking "bill kiillers" would change stripes and praise him.

Some of it is also continuing to buy into the notion of this false choice between "liberal and progressive" and "the center."

At this point in history, our job (in my opinion) should not be to run away from what most of us actually believe. We should not be assuming that "Americans" will recoil at truly liberal and progressive reform. We should stop helping perpetuating the fallacies pushed by the the GOP and the corporate oligarchs that America is an inherently right wing country.

Our job -- whether moderate or more strident -- should be to make it clear by message and actions to "the middle" that they will be better off individually and as a society with a healthy dose of liberalism and progressive populism.

In other words, open the center further to the left.

[stray cat]

1. Thats only good for winning elections, responsible governing and getting things done

much better not to do any of the above and be "pure"

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Huh? What does that mean? nt

[Armstead]

3. I was wondering the same

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Too many, even on OUR side, don't seem to realize that the 'center'

IS liberal.

Liberalism is the basis for democracy. Liberalism is the basis for 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'.

Economic liberalism provides protection against predatory capitalism AND against statist economic domination - on one side we have unfettered monopolies, on the other we have five-year plans. Regulated capitalism, with strong unions, stands in the CENTER.

Political liberalism provides protection against feudal minority rule on one side where the leaders rule despite the will of the majority, and mob rule on the other where the government works ONLY for the majority.

You want to be a centrist? Be a liberal.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. In most countries, people like Kucinich, Feingold, Sanders, and Grayson

would be considered only slightly to the left of center.

The mainstream Democrats would be considered conservatives, and the Republicans would be on a par with the British National Party (racists and cultural reactionaries) or the Japanese splinter groups that go around in loudspeaker trucks declaring that the world picked on poor little Japan for no reason in the 1940s.

[Armstead]

6. I wish more "moderates" would actually listen to them without blinders on

Sanders, for example, may call himelf a "socialist" but his policies and advocacy is more like good fighting liberalism.

I think a lot of Democrats who are so paranoid about "the left" would actually listen to them, they might actually find themselves getting "fired up" and inspired.

[truedelphi]

8. Thank you, thank you, thank you. It is only

because of our media skewing things to the right, as when they play up the small numbers of Tea Baggers, and the fact that the media pretends that most people are loyal Demsor loyal Repugs.

Actually 40% of all Americans are not interested in being loyal to either party. They vote for the person and not for the party, unless it absolutely cannot be avoided.

[paulk]

7. k and r

"So, institutionally the Democratic Party became enablers of same economic ideology as the Republicans. They sat silently as industry after industry was consolidated under monopolistic monsters. They went along with scams like unfettered corporate "free trade" and deregulation and privatization and the gutting of the safety net. They empowered Alan Greenspan and the right-wing Chicago School of ultra-right wing economics. They joined the Club of crony capitalism."

-----------

In many ways they were forced to cater to the corporatists, in order to get the money to even compete. Thus the rise of the DLC. The unfortunate effect of the Democrats moving toward the right has been the Republicans moving even farther to the right. And the end result has been no one standing up for the left anymore. I do think a large part of Obama's electorate were voters fed up with the influence of big business on both parties and Obama's percieved populism. A populism that shows up in speeches far more than it shows up in policy.

Which I know isn't really what you're talking about, but I can't get over the "spending freeze" in the SOTU and how it accepts and reenforces a fundemental conservative economic view...

[Armstead]

10. If they had been stronger they could have "extorted" corporate money

I think the extent to which they catered to corporations was part of the problem, because they became too dependent on them for the wrong reasons.

That word "extortion" sounds harsh, but the fact is that corportions have to curry favor with both parties, inorder to keep their hands in. They might not have liked a trult liberal democratic Party, but they'd still send some form of tribute. And in a bigger sense, it would have been helpful if the Democrats had also been champions of election reform to even the scales more.

I agree with you that populism was a strng force in 2008-09 (and still). Another weay of stating my OP would be that democfrats should be bringing liberal/progressive populism to the center.

[ProSense]

9. "Democrats are spending their time bashing progressives and liberals" There you go again

pretending that only the critics are progressives.

"It's been happening at the top and down here in the trenches in places like DU."

You have an issue with the President, that's your problem, but claiming that people who disagree with you aren't progressive is a bit self-righteous.

[Armstead]

11. Labeling those who are disapponted and wanted to see a better health bill as "bill killers"....

is bashing progressives.

It's fine to disagree on strategies and tactics. But the people who are "Obama's way or the highway" and who have relentlessly bashed those who differ from the orthodoxy as "far left whiners" "wanting ponies" etc. are participating in the effort to marginalize the so-called left.

[ProSense]

12. Labeling people who want to kill the bill "bill killers" is appropriate.

Again, why is it that you think you're above criticism? Why is it that you think some of the people criticizing you aren't progressive?

More self-righteous crap.

[Armstead]

13. I certainly don't think I'm abive criticism. I like a good argument.

But saying that people who wanted Congress and Obama to fight for a better HCR (even if it meant small incremental steps like a public option) wanted to kill healthcare reform is a characterization that is flat-out wrong.

[democracy1st]

25. you're trying to talk common sense with someone that sees no wrong coming from this admin!

[PVnRT]

14. K&R

[bvar22]

15. sell liberalism to the "middle"

That would be an easy "sell", since the MAJORITY of America is well to the LEFT of both Political Parties, at least on Economic Issues (Populist).


Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls (2005) by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of self-described "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

Economic Justice IS the BIGGEST Social Issue in America.

[Armstead]

16. A couple of the states that votede for Bush in 2004 also....

voted to raise their state's minimum wage.

That would indicate that beyond the "politics as sports" syndrome and the distracting side issues, Americans do believe in economic justice. The problem is, as I noted ion the OP, there has not been a poltical party that actually fights for that in years.

[inna]

17. KR

:kick:

[ibegurpard]

18. well they haven't been doing that either

[Armstead]

19. I known, hence the OP

[DeadEyeDyck]

20. I think it is best for all when each side moves to the

pure side of the spectrum. The left should go left and the right shold go right. Most people rightfully complain that both parties are too much the same. It is better when the issues are clearly defined.

Rememeber, compromise is a process to insure that everyone invloved is pissed off.

[Armstead]

21. Everybody's pissed off now, so I guess there's nothing to lose

[hfojvt]

22. I think you are missing some history

although I only go back to 1972. In 1972, the ultra-liberal George McGovern got trounced. Fair, or unfair, that trouncing sorta discredited the left wing. The voters rejected it. Democrats, however, are and were a big tent, containing not just a left wing, but also some fairly conservative Democrats. Carter, a southern Democrat became the standard bearer in 1976 and squeaked out a victory. To appease the left wing, he added Mondale, a protege of Humphrey, to the ticket.

However, the media spent four years roasting Carter and due to oil shocks and reduced war spending, the economy was kinda stumbling along during Carter's years. Proposition 13 passed in California, and Kennedy challenged Carter in the Democratic Primary. Carter won the primary, but Kennedy did not concede graciously and Carter got hammered in the 1980 election. Actually it just looked like a landslide. Reagan only won by 50.75 to 41.01 to 6.61 for John Anderson, but Reagan won the electoral college by 489 to 49 as Carter only won six states - Georgia, Minnesota, West Virginia, Rhode Island, DC, and Hawaii.

Worse than that, Republicans picked up 12 seats and took control of the Senate. Democrats still had control of the House by 242-192 but they had lost 35 seats while Republicans gained 34. This was celebrated by the M$M as 'the country has shifted to the right'. Democrats bounced back in 1982, re-taking 26 house seats and re-took the Senate in 1986, but the 1984 Presidential election was an electoral college disaster and 1988 was not much better. Bush only took 53% of the popular vote, but almost 80% of the electoral college.

It was those four large defeats - McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis that made it seem like we needed "new" Democrats to compete. Cliton sorta ran as a Reaganite, promising a middle class tax cut and attacking Bush-41 for raising taxes. And he won, which seemed to give validation to his 'new' Democratic Party. Then the 1994 elections were a bloodbath, with Democrats losing 9 Senate seats and 54 House seats, and control of both houses.

At the same time, it seems like the Republican party was shifting to the right as well. The moderate Jacob Javits was defeated by Al D'Amato. The 1994 election brought in a bunch of hard-righters with Newt Gingrich at their head. They have also used the scandals of Nixon, Gary Hart and Clinton to campaign based on their character and downplay their conservatism which only comes out after the election. That seemed to force Clinton further to the right.

So I don't think it is fair to say that "They sat silently as industry after industry was consolidated under monopolistic monsters. They went along with scams like unfettered corporate "free trade" and deregulation and privatization and the gutting of the safety net. They empowered Alan Greenspan and the right-wing Chicago School of ultra-right wing economics. They joined the Club of crony capitalism."

First, because the party has been trying to manage in the face of some stunning defeats, and second because a majority of Democrats have opposed and spoken out against things like NAFTA and welfare reform.

[depakid]

23. An "ultra-liberal" eh?

That "term of art" pretty much tells me EVERYTHING I need to know about your history (and your distorted take on history).

[democracy1st]

24. I 2nd that!

[hfojvt]

26. well I was there and that's how they framed it

do you consider McGovern to have been a moderate?

[depakid]

27. The term is only prevalent in Republican fundraising materials

I know, because I was there through much of that time, too and had to analyze the materials from time to time. Do, I suppose the term irks me (that crap was never pleasant to read).

So no offense meant- but Democratic presidential losses weren't a failure of liberalism- but more of the choices of candidates and circumstances. In 1984, for instance Gary Hart could well have beaten Reagan- as his strengths trumped Reagan's strengths both personally and regionally. But instead, the Dem establishment chose a sure loser. Mondale never had a chance- much like Dole in 1996.

Dukakis of course is infamous for blowing a 28 point lead in a matter of a few months- due to his willful refusal to fight and fight back against Bush I.

There's a theme in the latter- and we've seen it time and time again. Indeed, we're seeing it again right now, going into 2010.

And it has nothing to do with the (sometimes overwhelming) popularity of liberal positions on the issues.

[hfojvt]

29. Why should Mondale be a sure loser though?

And was he chosen by the establishment or by the primary voters? Although I was 22 at the time, I did not remember a tight primary, I thought Mondale was the front-runner and heavy favorite from the beginning. I may have gotten that impression because I was watching the news in Minnesota.

But that was the argument that New Democrats made, was that the old way had been tried and it had failed badly. After huge losses in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988 a different strategy was needed.

In any case, it is not like the public was overwhelmingly supporting liberal ideas and liberal politicians and then the Democratic Party just decided to go conservative. Both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were bad policy, but they are also easy to sell. Especially when the wealthy beneficiaries will do the marketing and invest hundreds of thousands in advertising so they can save millions in taxes.

[RBInMaine]

28. Middle America is ready for a "populist" narrative on many items, BUT, they DO NOT WANT TOO MUCH GOV

ERNMENT. Most in the middle like their health plans. They just want to make sure they are secure and lest costly. They are also very concerned about deficits. BUT, they want JOBS JOBS JOBS, financial regulations, alternative energy that works and is cheaper than oil, the ability to pay for college for thie kids, and campaign finance reform. THESE are areas where progresive populism can win. They don't want too much government, but they DO want ENOUGH government and government that works for THEM and NOT Wall Street.