Are "progressives" a drag on the Democratic Party?

[kentuck]

Do they create unneeded divisions when we really need to be united as a Party?

Are they too idealistic or unrealistic to get anything done that needs to be done?

Are they too critical and unappreciative of the job that President Obama has done?

Would the Democratic Party be a better and stronger Party without the "progressives"?

Do you think progressives are detrimental to our Party or are they just a necessary evil that we have to accept and that we have to continue to try and change to our way of thinking?

Do you think this post is as divisive as the Ralph Nader posts that have everyone fired up?

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Wow.....

:popcorn:

[Parker CA]

3. +1, and I'll take lots of extra butter on mine, please. ;)

[FarLeftFist]

2. Without the Libs and Progressives there would be a 3rd party that would put both parties to shame.

And it would be formed by the Libs and Progressives.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. SO FREAKIN' TRUE!

So, that leads to this question: Why are the Progressives, Liberals, Treehuggers, Bleeding Hearts, and Commie Pinkos NOT forming their own party? Why stay with something broken that doesn't work?

[kctim]

14. The would have to win before they put anybody to shame

and that's not going to happen.

[LaurenG]

4. Oh boy

no
no
no
no
no

I'm not reading the Nader post so I don't know.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[tblue]

6. With friends like you, who needs Republicans?

Good luck with that.

[meegbear]

7. Perhaps.

[dtexdem]

8. I don't give a damn. The issue is whether the Democratic Party is a drag on progressives.

There is some evidence of that. So, if it is a drag, what can be done about it?

[FiveGoodMen]

13. Spot on!

:fistbump:

[xchrom]

9. why not? new dems want to be a laissez faire political party.

not many progressives are going to go along with that - so yes progressives would be a drag on laissez faire political schemes.

[jaxx]

11. I don't know, are they?

Seems like you're going fishing here.

[dmallind]

12. No.

Here I am assuming the DU usage of the term, which equates as far as I can tell with ideological stances on the very left edge of the party and beyond it into socialist and even communist realms. In reality the label applies to all Dems and many independents. I am certainly fine with pointing out how non-representative the DU "purity" progressives are of the larger party let alone electorate, but they still remain a constituency within it. Much like many Republicans have views more at home in the Constitution party, but they still vote Republican and contribute to Republican victories and power, so Dems who have views more akin to Greens or the DSA (the DU progressive definition) who still vote and contribute to the Democratic cause are useful.

The netroots angst and emotionally driven unrealistic loathing of Obama has almost zero impact on the fortunes of the larger party, or Obama personally.

[white_wolf]

24. So about this last sentence:

"The netroots angst and emotionally driven unrealistic loathing of Obama has almost zero impact on the fortunes of the larger party, or Obama personally." Does that mean you all will stop blaming people who didn't vote in 2010 for the lost of the democrats or those who are considering not voting or voting 3rd party in 2012? I mean, after all, if they have zero impact on the fortunes of the party then you shouldn't have any reason to complain.

[dmallind]

29. Well I used a present tense statement, but I'll look into my crystal ball

Do I blame people who stayed home for 2010. Yes but that's not relevant here - because surveys clearly showed that liberals voted at about the same rate, conservatives much more and independents much less than in 2008. So the people who stayed home were not on the whole reflective of DU purity-progressives. There were the idiots who can't seem to see or care about the difference between the parties and make up their damn minds. Do I also think the far left who did stay home were wrong? Surely, but that wasn't what aswung the pendulum. Obama's support and approval is far weaker amongst conservative Democrats and independents than liberal Dems. Always has been and that's the electoral problem he has, not the DU sound and fury.

Will I blame the far left if it's the same in 2012? Not if 2012 is like 2010 - see above. If it's like 2000 then certainly, because Nader's vanity campaign and the utter morons who bought the Tweedledee/Tweedledum no difference shite dd have an impact - a carefully co-ordinated impact between Ralph and his Republican financial backers who put most of his futile efforts into swing states where enough votes coulf be siphoned away from the Dem who could win to the idiot personality cult figure who couldn't to make sure the Republicans DID win.

2004 was different - far left leaning voters had learned their lesson of chasing lies and rainbows (but oh how some of them forget) so Nader's next vanity run had no affect and the level of support he got had no impact. If, as I hope if I am to retain any faith whatsoever in human intelligence, the 2004 exemplar is closer to 2012 than the 2000 backstabbing, then no I certainly won't blame the DU style progressives if Obama loses. I will still think any individual who does not vote for the best available option with a chance to actually DO something is an utter fool, but that's not the same question.

[RZM]

26. Wow.

That's about as well put as it could be.

[kenny blankenship]

15. The only anchor dragging on the Democrats as they speed-morph into Reagan Republicans?

Yes, they are.

Is there any point, at this late stage, to trying to slow the final whoring out of the Democratic Party? Probably not.

[MineralMan]

16. Not necessarily. They just have a decision to make, I think.

What that decision is is obvious. They can either join the battle to move in a progressive direction by taking back Congress and state legislatures or they can withdraw from the battle for another four years and hope the atmosphere will improve down the road. I think the first option is far preferable to the second, since four years leaves a lot of time for further damage to be done to the country.

I'm absolutely certain that the Democrats can retake the Congress, hold the White House, and probably regain control of several state legislatures with the help of the progressives in making sure that most Democrats turn out and vote. If progressives choose the other option, then I'm not so certain those things will happen, although they still might.

I know what I'll be doing. And I'm starting now. What others will do is beyond my ability to predict. I don't hold DU up as any sort of reliable forecast tool, though. If I did, I'd be very depressed right now.

[Bandit]

17. I wish I knew what the Democratic Party stands for these days

Then I could answer your question...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Maybe O and the 3rd Way Dems could try negotiating with the Left rather than pandering to the right.

But, I sure ain't holding my breath for that to happen.

[ClarkUSA]

19. Bullshit. Republicans & "3rd Way Dems" like Mark Penn are accusing Pres. Obama of "class warfare"...

... while unions are cheering and throwing money into ads in the beginning of a sustained effort to support President Obama's jobs bill.

Mark Penn story: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=775985&mesg_id=775985

Unions throw money into supporting Pres. Obama's jobs bill:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x778054

Your negative rhetoric is demonstrably false.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Obama is a 3rd Way Dem. A centrist. Certainly not a Leftist.

Or, didn't you notice his sellouts to the right, his "necessary" wars, his establishment of the Catfood Commission, to name a few 3rd Way Clintonian policies he's pursued? BTW Mark Penn worked for Hillary, who hardly qualifies as progressive.

[ClarkUSA]

21. His jobs bill is very liberal. FYI, Obama rejected Al From long ago when he was a new Senator.

“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

Ben Smith of Politico knows this fact:

"The DLC sought for a time to identify itself with Obama's message and his campaign, but found itself relatively unwelcome there and the final move cements its place as a central force in Clintonism and the Clinton historical record."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0711/DLC_records_to_Clinton_Foundation.html

Your negative opinion-based rhetoric is not credible. Furthermore, didn't you say that you had left the Democratic party long ago? If by "Leftist" you mean Communist, then you're out of luck. Also, haven't you said you won't be voting for President Obama in 2012? If that's how you feel, then it's clear that anything you say is bound to be consistently negative and totally counterproductive to re-electing this Democratic President.

FWIW, Pres. Obama is a liberal Democrat who's been stymied by an insanely partisan political atmosphere on both sides of the aisle and beyond.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. LOL.

Boo-hoo for the poor powerless prez.

I haven't left the Democratic Party. I'm not a Communist (though that has nothing to do with it). I haven't said I won't be voting for Obama. I have said that I will vote for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot. Which, is what I will do.

Obama is about as "liberal" as Bill & Hillary.

"Counter-productive to re-electing this Democratic President." Really? If that were the case why aren't you and other "liberals" immune to my, and others, heresy in not owing our votes to anyone.

[ClarkUSA]

28. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

I'm not interested in your opinions, as they are the same old, same old negative rhetoric I have come to expect. But I am happy to prove you wrong on factual grounds, as I already have.

< If that were the case why aren't you and other "liberals" immune to my, and others, heresy in not owing our votes to anyone. >

We are. But it is counterproductive to have to deal with false narratives like the one I just debunked coming from you, because they are misleading in their demonization of this President's policies, which have been more liberal than any president in decades and certainly more liberal than anything that came out of Bill Clinton's WH (HCR, DADT repeal, declaring DOMA unconstitutional, ending extraordinary rendition which was invented under Clinton, Wall Street re-regulation after Bubba scraped Glass-Steagall, credit card reform, his proposed Jobs Bill, which top Clintonian lieutenant Mark Penn has attacked as "class warfare").

< Obama is about as "liberal" as Bill & Hillary. >

The fact that he rejected Hillary's advice on both the Afghanistan "surge" (where she sided w/Gen. McChrystal on wanting 80K more troops for 10+ years) and the Afghanistan troop drawdown (where she sided with Gates on wanting to withdraw much fewer troops over a longer time period) should be a clue that he's more liberal than she is. His ending the Iraq war as promised is another clue he's doing what he can as CIC to keep his campaign promises. Ditto for ending the Afghanistan war.

If you continue to peddle your false narrative for the next campaign year despite my pointing out these facts, then you are deliberately ignoring the facts in favor of misleading rhetoric, which is counterproductive to re-electing this Democratic President.

[defendandprotect]

22. Without liberals there would be no Democratic Party --- aside from Koch Bros. DLC ....

True -- many in Dem party would like to see liberals go away --

but they still want their votes because they need them ---

and they still want their $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ --- !!



We need to toss the Koch Bros. DLC/Third Way'ers out of the Dem Party --

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. I am only what I believe in

I want fair wages, safe working conditions, social justice, a safety net for the unfortunate, a pension for those who have served, freedom to choose, freedom to marry, freedom to pray and to go home to the family I love in peace.

I support policies that I believe will best nurture those beliefs.

I welcome debate because I believe what I work for is achievable and good and I'm willing to share.

I understand not everyone agrees with everything I say and I'm OK with that.

I want to appeal to peoples' good sides. Forcing them to accept what I believe in contradicts what I believe in.

I will make my best case and vote for my best candidate.

I will NOT compromise my principles. I will not embrace war for profit or the impoverishment of children as sacrifices for my vote. Last time I checked the politicians need my vote more than I need their wars and poverty.

If that makes me naive -- well -- I like me being naive.

[ThomWV]

25. It probably is, but Progressives are the only thing that distinguishes Democrats from Republicans

Progressives drag the Party in the right direction and without them the Democratic Party would be indistinguishable from the Republicans - as if you could tell the difference half the time as it is.

[LoZoccolo]

30. I don't think so; they generally support the Democratic Party.

I know that they mostly approve of Barack Obama, and I think that most of them have a view to support as much progress as we can get at the polls while working to gain consenses for more in the future. On the Internet it appears different, that there is massive progressive alienation, but I think that's just because the Internet gives people a big megaphone and attracts the loudest complainers. But if you went to meet-ups in real life, like the ones that appear in my signature line, then you'd see that they are generally pragmatic and work within the system that the party offers for progress.

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. They are necessary for voting in elections. The rest of the time I imagine they are supposed

to sit down and be quiet.

[Zorra]

32. Without progressives the Democratic party would never win

another presidential election.

Progressives/labor are the heart and soul of the Democratic party. Without progressives and labor, the Democratic party would assimilate into the republican party, because there would not be enough differences between the two to make the Democratic party necessary anymore.