Why do some people think that those with the weakest Democratic values are better Dems...

[ClassWarrior]

...than those with the strongest Democratic values?

:crazy:

I sincerely don't get it.

NGU.

[pnwmom]

1. Because they vote?

:shrug:

[William769]

2. Those who scream the loudest are usually the weakest.

[krawhitham]

57. +1

[Me.]

3. Because They're Jackasses?

[xchrom]

4. It's a wonder. Nt

[frazzled]

5. It all depends on where you're standing ...

and what kind of glasses you have on.

You may think I don't have as strong Democratic values as you. And at the very same moment I may think you don't have as strong Democratic values as me.

Sometimes, the people who claim to be most progressive to me seem not to be progressive at all. Many seem to be more libertarian than liberal. Others espouse views that at times verge on sexist; or they "cling to their guns," deriding those who support attempts at sensible gun control; or are so caught up in seeing the world through the lens of anti-corporatism that they fail entirely to empathize with the plight of the poor or otherwise struggling individuals (the health care debate here was rife with that).

So who says who has more "Democratic" values than somebody else? Often, it's in the eye of the beholder.

[karynnj]

8. + 10000

Very well said

[great white snark]

9. +1

Thank you.

[sufrommich]

11. Yep. nt

[polmaven]

12. You nailed it!

++++++ Thank you.

[ClassWarrior]

39. Professor Lakoff nailed it first...

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

Read the rest at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. Thank You.

:applause:

[CakeGrrl]

16. Well-said.

I think that seeking to separate/classify "good" vs. "bad" Dems is a red flag.

I vote for the Dem on the ballot. Period.

[ClassWarrior]

46. That's exactly my point!! Classifying "good" vs. "bad" Dems is wrong. So why do so many weak Dems...

...try to classify the strong Dems that way? Hmmm?

NGU.

[Anatos]

86. Was that on purpose?

You think calling others "weak Dems" is somehow not insulting the way calling them "bad Dems" is? Or are you just trying to be a daft prat for comedic effect?

[ClassWarrior]

103. You'd prefer "nice people with not-very-strong Dem values?"

How about "nice people with slightly-stronger-Dem-values-than-Rape-Publican-values?"

NGU.

[Wait Wut]

17. Excellent.

:applause:

I don't need to pass a purity test. I have no personal agenda, so I don't have to pick sides. It keeps me from becoming overly emotional about any one particular subject so that I can be sympathetic towards all. I see too many people willing to sacrifice others for something they believe in.

[bigwillq]

19. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[ClassWarrior]

20. True. That's an excellent example of "biconceptualism." The secret that the RW has known...

...for years, and that many on our side still refuse to embrace:

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

21. But that still doesn't answer the question...

Why do some Dems who identify themselves as "centrists" - which, by definition, means further to the right than other Dems - think that makes them better Dems than the ones who are closer to the Democratic end of the spectrum?

:crazy:

NGU.

[shellgame26]

34. The spectrum isn't flat

it's curved. And those on the fringe (both left and right) end up blending..hence much of the same rhetoric coming from both (extreme) sides. The middle is where rationality and balance originates.

The "middle way" is the path to wisdom-Siddhartha

[ClassWarrior]

35. Honestly, there is no "spectrum" at all.

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

Read the rest at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[Number23]

47. Wow. Fantastic post

:thumbsup:

[Anatos]

87. Now we're getting somewhere

The answer is obvious why centrist Democrats believe they are "better" Democrats than the more ideologically pure liberal Democrats. Because they are. 'Democrat' is a political party; someone who gets elected is a "better Democrat" than someone who doesn't - it is irrelevant what their personal, political, or ideological beliefs are. But what you're doing is substituting "agrees with me" for "better Democrat", and that is why the Democratic Party itself is so weak in comparison to the Republican. Because of people like you. So thanks for that.

Just sayin'. ;-)

[ellisonz]

33. +1000

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

6. Really? Strong Democratic values unrecced at Democratic Underground?

NGU.

[sufrommich]

10. I think you're actually being unrecced for your thinly veiled

attack on democrats you deem unworthy.

[ClassWarrior]

22. Actually, I asked why some Democrats seem to think to other Democrats are unworthy.

Reading comprehension is your friend. :hi:

NGU.

[joshcryer]

65. You used words like 'weak democratic values' and 'strong democratic values'...

...and asked why the 'weak democratic values' were seen as 'better.'

You gave no examples, of course, and it certainly is not a mere question about why some democrats seem to think other democrats are unworthy.

You in fact appear to think that somehow your view of strong democratic values equals worth, despite that weak democratic values, per your own observation, are better.

[bigwillq]

18. Oh noes!1

We're doomed.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

13. Because each of us thinks our own values are the best

Who doesn't?

Politics is about living with other people. Including those who disagree with you some of the time, most of the time and nearly all of the time.

[NorthCarolina]

15. You get a hearty Rec from me on this one. nt

[AtomicKitten]

23. Who thinks that? Did you just make up a premise to kvetch?

[CakeGrrl]

24. Methinks so, as well as to

snark at people who 'misunderstand' - see post #22.

[ClassWarrior]

25. If you don't see it, why did you answer? Just to kvetch?

Seriously. How does it concern you?

:shrug:

NGU.

[SidDithers]

26. Why do some people who don't support Democrats think they are better Democrats?...nt

Sid

[ClassWarrior]

28. Exactly.

NGU.

[jefferson_dem]

42. One would think a base-line litmus test for being a good Democrat is actually supporting Democrats.

:shrug:

Interesting OP, for sure.

[ClassWarrior]

49. That's exactly what I'm saying!! Why do weak Dems think...

...they're the only Dems who support Dems?? That they're the only "good" Dems?

:crazy:

NGU.

[bvar22]

27. The closer a "Democrat" gets to these traditional Democratic Party Values,

the stronger I support them:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."---FDR, 1944

If a "Democrat" is NOT willing to Proudly and Unequivocally STAND for these Human RIGHTS as enumerated by FDR in his State of the Union Address, then I will have trouble standing for them.

The above are RIGHTS,
NOT Commodities to be sold to Americans at the best possible Profit Margin for the Ownership Class.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Swede]

29. Who decides who is the strongest Democrat? You?

Litmus tests?

[ClassWarrior]

30. Are you saying you don't know what Democratic values are?

NGU.

[Swede]

31. Are you?

[ClassWarrior]

32. Am I what?

NGU.

[TheKentuckian]

36. Because you can't fleece the people and turn over the country to the corporations

actually following Democratic ideals. The Turd Way is the only way to facilitate the TeaPubliKlans and big money.

[Ikonoklast]

37. Some people say...

False premise from the start.

Prove your assertation first.

[ClassWarrior]

38. I see it every day. If you don't, I envy your bliss.

NGU.

[great white snark]

43. That proves nothing, please show an instance.

Thanks.

[ElboRuum]

40. Curiosity...

Why the implied litmus test, better vs. worse, weak vs. strong, etc.?

I should think it unreasonable for people calling themselves liberal or Democrat having 100% similar values, I'd expect difference both in values and in degree. People are people, therefore different.

[ClassWarrior]

48. Weak vs. strong is just a fact. No test needed.

If political values go along a spectrum from left to right, it'd look something like this. Right?

Progressive Democrats ---------- "Centrists" ---------- Radical Rape-Publicans

So, by their very definition, "centrist" Democrats are farther to the right than every other Democrat. Right?

Which makes them the ones with the weakest Democratic values, and progressive Dems the ones with the strongest Democratic values. That's just a fact.

As for the better vs. worse shit, that's what I'm asking! Why are the weak Dems trying to apply a litmus test to the rest?? I don't get it.

NGU.

[ElboRuum]

53. Fact...

Well, yes, but the presumption is that some standard defines weak vs. strong, correct? In this case, I suppose, though not made explicitly, there is some standard being expressed here, weak vs. strong, and the comparison is made. You make a case for weak vs. strong in an implicit sense, then take a group, apply the standard, then claim that they are the ones applying the litmus test.

That in and of itself IS a litmus test.

[joshcryer]

69. That's merely one way of looking at it.

If one progressive democrat does not get progressive legislation passed, then that progressive democrat, in my view, has weak democratic values, full stop. They're just using the platform to espouse their ideology, without actually making their ideology pervade the politics.

So it would be more like:

Failing Progressives...Succeeding Progressives...Leftists...Centrists...Conservatives...Succeeding Far Right Conservatives...Failing Far Right Conservatives.

We can box them in, namewise, as something like this:

Kucinich...Sanders...Frank...Giffords...Lamborn...DeMint...(Ron) Paul

As you can see, as you progress toward stiff ideology you become irrelevant because you won't budge or change on certain issues.

What's interesting about this however is that the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) is the largest in the Congress, and yet we still bemoan Democratic actions, for some bizarre reason. Get 50-60 elected and things change pretty dramatically.

[ClassWarrior]

104. Effectiveness has nothing to do with values.

James "Crazy Hair" Trafficant was a "centrist," and he couldn't pass gas in a bean factory.

:shrug:

Of course, you can cherry-pick names for that spectrum to achieve whatever effect you want. But that's the beauty of being a "centrist." You get to shift the goalposts whenever it's to your advantage.

NGU.

[jefferson_dem]

41. Agreed.

Too many cheer those who saddle up with the teabagging republican scoundrels in opposing the democratic president and democratic congress...and the democratic values and proposals they espouse. Clearly, they do not have the best interests of the democratic party at heart and, as such, they should be called out on it, with vigor.

Thanks for posting!

[blkmusclmachine]

44. Q: Why do some people think that those with the weakest Democratic values are better?

A: Because those "some people" are Republicans.

[populist3]

45. weak dem values

probably because those dems can sell-out and slurp up
more campaign donations

[DCBob]

50. If by "strongest" you mean "extremist" and "weakest" you mean "pragmatic" then here is your answer.

Blindly clinging to purist idealistic values with no willingness to negotiate or compromise is not often the best approach to making progress.

[ClassWarrior]

51. And calling your allies names IS the best approach to making progress?

Thank you for that expert counsel.

:eyes:

NGU.

[DCBob]

52. Your comment about some being "weakest" Democrats is not exactly a compliment.

Thanks for the pathetic reply.

[ClassWarrior]

54. No, it's simply a fact. See post #48.

NGU.

[GoCubsGo]

55. But, that' is EXACTLY what YOU are doing here.

You are accusing many of your fellow Democrats of not being "better" Democrats, and accusing them of having "weaker" values. And, you think THAT is the best approach to making progress? Really?

:crazy:

[ClassWarrior]

56. Do you believe there's a political spectrum that goes from Dem to "centrist" to Rape-Publican?

NGU.

[GoCubsGo]

58. No.

[ClassWarrior]

74. Neither do I. This is how it actually works...

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[GoCubsGo]

77. Sorry, but I don't believe that, either.

See Post #5. You can keep posting that opinion piece all you want here, but it's not going to make it right.

[ClassWarrior]

91. There's the "centrist" battle cry... "Don't believe anything!!"

:eyes:

NGU.

[GoCubsGo]

93. Sure, whatever you say.

:eyes:

[joshcryer]

60. Heh, says an OP with a "weak/strong" distinction made about others.

Cute.

[ClassWarrior]

105. Do you believe there's a political spectrum that goes from Dem to "centrist" to Rape-Publican?

NGU.

[joshcryer]

62. I don't even think it's pragmatic, I think it's reasonable.

Mind you, I think full on socialism with free health care, food, housing, with a standard of living we've come to appreciate (electricity, internet, refrigeration, hot water) is perfectly reasonable.

But I do not think that in the United States of America it would be reasonable in the current political environment.

Just like I do not think it would be reasonable in, say, Hawaii to ban surfing.

Political ideology (what we believe) and political action (what we do) tend to be far different things in the end.

Ideologically I could say I'm against voting for corporate politicians, which they all are.

Yet I drove 200+ people to the polls in 2010 and got more people voting than I ever had in my life.

Basically what we have are people speaking their political ideology without giving any reasonable analysis as to the probability of success. None, nada, zilch. They act all high and mighty because they hold this political ideology, and a lot of times I would agree with it and even expound upon it (be further left), but it is simply doesn't work in our current political environment.

You have to compromise, you have to reach across the isle, etc, etc.

If you don't want to do that, then you have to still fight to be in the elective majority, so that those changes you want can be done. So you got to get the House and Senate back with Progressives you identify with.

[DCBob]

78. +1

well said.

[GoCubsGo]

79. Exactly right.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Anatos]

88. Hey now

your subject line was accurate enough, but there's nothing about being more liberal/socialist that makes it "blindly clinging to purist idealistic values". Certainly someone who doesn't understand the necessity and value of compromise and even concession is problematic for more practically-minded Democrats. But using phrases like "blindly clinging to purist idealistic values" seems a little harsh, when those values are in fact the same principles we share with them. We're just not as fanatical about not getting anything done until they are accommodated by everyone else.

[Anatos]

59. It is called pragmatism

the art of being practical is far more important, in terms of getting what you want, in politics, than how profoundly idealistic and unswervingly principled you can be.

[ZenaD]

61. So if one side wants to drown your entire family and the other doesn't

A pragmatic approach would be to let them drown half?

[joshcryer]

63. You have rendered the word 'principle' meaningless by pretending there is principle...

...in allowing someone to drown.

[ZenaD]

64. Well given how the GOP's stance on healthcare is 'let them die' I'd say my analogy is appropriate

"Pragmatism" seems to dictate compromising with these sociopaths right out of gate. It's bizarro world to me.

[joshcryer]

66. The only way to avoid pragmatism is to either run, or get people you like into office.

That's the only way.

If you do not believe you can get people you like into office or that you can run (or you've tried and failed), the practical, self-interested option would be to vote the lesser of whatever evil and hope for the best.

Otherwise sitting home and bemoaning a political situation you have no control over, and indeed, going so far as to bash the person who's at least trying (remember you didn't run and you didn't get that person you like elected) is a bit much, and certainly unreasonable.

[ZenaD]

68. "Lesser of two evils" is you conceding the OP's point

You're admitting they're weak on Dem values. And yes, I'm forced to vote for them more often than not since I live in a red state. Why do you think I sit out elections? Do you always jump to that conclusion when someone disagrees with you?

[joshcryer]

70. No, weakness and strength is not simply a matter of what they believe.

It's a matter of getting stuff done, period.

If your "democratic values" start with "I'm not budging" then what's very DEMOCRATIC about that?

[ZenaD]

71. The Dem I voted for for Congress believed, strongly, in repealing the estate tax

Had he not lost to his GOP rival I have no doubt he'd have been quite successful getting stuff done, particularly in the many areas where he actually agreed with Republicans.

It was a Deficit Commission and a Deficit Super committee instead of a Jobs Commission and Jobs Super committee because enough prominent Dems agreed with the GOP on what the priority should be.

[joshcryer]

72. Vote for someone else, run, yourself.

[ZenaD]

73. And the DNC will firehose my centrist opponent with money because I'm not 'pragmatic'

I am considering running for a local office, though.

[great white snark]

80. Good luck with your local run.

That is if you choose to do so and I hope you do.

I don't really subscribe to the DNC boogeyman....if the constituents want a liberal they will elect one.

[ZenaD]

84. Occasionally an underfunded underdog pulls it off

But the majority of times money wins elections. That was the whole point of Citizens United. And I've personally seen the DNC 'bogeyman' in action. When they've decided to target a district with their handpicked candidate it gets real ugly for the primary challenger.

[Anatos]

89. Your school board needs you!

In a way it is a cop-out, to dismiss another Democrat's concerns by urging them to run. But I'm certainly not going to take anyone seriously who criticizes the President (we are still in General Discussion: Presidency, aren't we?) who hasn't at least run for school board. You don't get to denounce and then ignore the other side, no matter how batshit conservative insane they are. They elect people, too. It's America.

[Anatos]

83. One cannot

discuss pragmatism while being stupid on purpose.

[ClassWarrior]

75. There's a perfect example of what I mean. Claiming to be "far more important" than other Dems.

Aren't we all important? Don't we all bring something important to the party?

NGU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. Please re-read what you're replying to

It says "the art of being practical is far more important" . It's not saying one Democrat is more important than another.

Really, this concept of whether you're talking about a person or an idea is very simple, and pretty fundamental to political discussion, especially on DU (that's why you can call an idea put forward here 'stupid', but not a DUer). I can't see how someone who's been here over 8 years can't understand it.

[Anatos]

85. thank you

[ClassWarrior]

90. By "the art of being practical," I assume you mean negotiating skills. That's a different...

...subject entirely.

Yes, "the art of being practical" is important, and many people with strong Democratic values were good negotiators. Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold come to mind. So your point is moot.

Really, this concept of whether you're talking about values or negotiation skills is very simple, and pretty fundamental to political discussion. I can't see how someone who has a half a brain cell can't understand it.

:eyes:

NGU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. I didn't say "the art of being practical", but I wouldn't say it just means "negotiating skills"

so I can't see what you're getting at. I would have said it involves advocating policies that will be voted for, for instance.

Since you didn't mention any particular Democrats in the OP, but now you are, even though your wording in #75 ('Claiming to be "far more important" than other Dems', 'Aren't we all important') was about Democrats at the DU level, not elected politicians, you seem to be changing the subject.

My point is that you accused another DUer of claiming to be more important than other DUers, amongst whom you included yourself (because you said 'we'). You had been making this personal. If you are now trying to say this is not about 'we' at all, then that at least will stop personal feelings being part of your complaint.

[WiffenPoof]

67. I Am Who I Am...

...feel free to label it as you wish. My values lean more towards being an FDR Democrat. I don't understand Blue Dogs.

-P

[DCBob]

76. weakest / strongest ??

Did you ever consider that those whom you define as "weakest" may actually have stonger values than those you define as "strongest" its just that they have a different view on how to get things done? The "weakest" may simply be more patient, looking at longer term strategic approach to success.

[Marnie]

81. Define what you mean by "Democratic" values.

Are you talking about the party of the concept.

give some examples of what you consider a weak value or as strong value much less who you consider to be specific examples of a weak democrat or a strong democrat.

Personally I find Berny Sanders to be among the strongest supporters of Democratic values as envisioned in the Constitution, but he is not a Democrat, and he is what I would define as a Populist. I can't vote for him but I would love to see about 61 like him in the Senate.

[Swede]

92. He means Democrats that fail his litmus test.

nt

[provis99]

95. no, he means a Democrat who doesn't give a damn about the party platform.

[joshcryer]

96. Heh

Pretty much. Democrats who place political ideology over political action.

[ClassWarrior]

99. I agree about Sen. Sanders. And I find this a good summary of our values...

I believe that progressive values are traditional American values, that progressive principles are fundamental American principles, and that progressive policy directions point the way to where most Americans really want our country to go. The job of unifying progressives is really the job of bringing our country together around its finest traditional values.

CONSERVATIVES believe in...
STRONG DEFENSE
FREE MARKETS
LOWER TAXES
SMALLER GOVERNMENT
FAMILY VALUES

PROGRESSIVES believe in...
STRONGER AMERICA
BROAD PROSPERITY
BETTER FUTURE
EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT
MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY

• A stronger America is not just about defense, but about every dimension of strength: our effectiveness in the world, our economy, our educational system, our health care system, our families, our communities, our environment, and so forth.

• Broad prosperity is the effect that markets are supposed to bring about. But all markets are constructed for someone's benefit; no markets are completely free. Markets should be constructed for the broadest possible prosperity, and they haven't been.

• Americans want and deserve a better future — economically, educationally, environmentally, and in all other areas of life — for themselves and their children. Lowering taxes, primarily for the super-rich elite, has had the effect of defunding programs that would make a better future possible in all these areas. The proper goal is a better future for all Americans.

• Smaller government is, in conservative propaganda, supposed to eliminate waste. It is really about eliminating social programs. Effective government is what we need our government to accomplish to create a better future.

• Conservative family values are those of a strict father family — authoritarian, hierarchical, every man for himself, based around discipline and punishment. Progressives live by the best values of both families and communities: mutual responsibility, which is authoritative, equal, two-way, and based around caring, responsibility (both individual and social), and strength.

The remarkable thing is just how much progressives do agree on. These are just the things that voters tend to care about most: our values, our principles, and the direction in which we want to take the nation.

More, much more, here: http://www.infoamerica.org/teoria_textos/manifiesto_lakoff.pdf

NGU.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. Democratic values change pretty much every few decades or so

Actually, one of our longest lasting values was white supremacy since that lasted from about the time the party was founded until the 1960's or so.

We've never at any point really been an anti-war or pacifist party. We've been more committed to a social safety net and workers' right than the Republicans, but that's a development of the post-FDR era, a relatively short period when you think about it. The right to choice is a Democratic value, also a relatively recent one. Gay rights (some of them) are a Democratic value, also a relatively recent one.

I think it's hard to define strong Democratic values, because the Democratic Party's values change frequently.

Maybe the post should've been titled "why do some people think that Democrats who are more politically right are better than Democrats who are more politically left".

[DCBob]

98. +1

[ClassWarrior]

100. Hooray for weak, shifting values!!

:puke:

NGU.

[One of the 99]

101. I think this depends on what you define as Democratic values

That sounds like something very subjective to me.

[ClassWarrior]

102. See what you think about the summary on post #99...

NGU.

[Safetykitten]

107. I don't get it either.