NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets hear from the liberals and Democrats on this board. I am curious of your take on this. Here are some articles with several different viewpoints;


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163619,00.html
If the Democratic Leadership Council has anything to say about it, the Democratic Party will reach out more to voters in the center of political America.
"We've got to be for something, and it is pretty clear that America is waiting for us. They are desperate to know what we are for," Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (search) told those attending the group's conference on Monday.

To appeal both to the traditional Democratic liberal base and moderate voters, the DLC is pushing for a shift on some key issues:



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/huffpost/20050726/cm_huffpost/004729_200507261818
"Now, it's true -- the DLC is really just a group of Beltway-insulated corporate-funded hacks who have spent the better part of the last decade trying to undermine the Democratic Party's traditional working class base -- a base that had kept Democrats in power for 40 years and now, thanks to the DLC, has been forfeited to the Republicans. "


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-25-clinton-united_x.htm
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, on Monday pressed Democrats to adopt a tough stand on national security and urged the party to show a united front to counter "the hard-right ideology in Washington."
"Let's start by uniting against the hard-right ideology in Washington," Clinton said. "All too often we have allowed ourselves to be split between left, right and center."

So what is your opinion? A step in the right direction (get it - "right" - ar-ar!) or a misstep? Will it cost more votes from the base or expand with more votes from the center? Is it a sellout? A false front? A solid new direction? Please share.

Lets hear from the liberals and Democrats on this board. I am curious of your take on this. Here are some articles with several different viewpoints;


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163619,00.html
If the Democratic Leadership Council has anything to say about it, the Democratic Party will reach out more to voters in the center of political America.
"We've got to be for something, and it is pretty clear that America is waiting for us. They are desperate to know what we are for," Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (search) told those attending the group's conference on Monday.

To appeal both to the traditional Democratic liberal base and moderate voters, the DLC is pushing for a shift on some key issues:



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/huffpost/20050726/cm_huffpost/004729_200507261818
"Now, it's true -- the DLC is really just a group of Beltway-insulated corporate-funded hacks who have spent the better part of the last decade trying to undermine the Democratic Party's traditional working class base -- a base that had kept Democrats in power for 40 years and now, thanks to the DLC, has been forfeited to the Republicans. "


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-25-clinton-united_x.htm
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, on Monday pressed Democrats to adopt a tough stand on national security and urged the party to show a united front to counter "the hard-right ideology in Washington."
"Let's start by uniting against the hard-right ideology in Washington," Clinton said. "All too often we have allowed ourselves to be split between left, right and center."

So what is your opinion? A step in the right direction (get it - "right" - ar-ar!) or a misstep? Will it cost more votes from the base or expand with more votes from the center? Is it a sellout? A false front? A solid new direction? Please share.

They can do whatever they want.

They still won't win back the whitehouse for at least another 8 years or so.

They need to let gay marriage sit, stop promoting gun control and endorse crime prevention/control, and champion either defecit reduction or fighting offshoring.

Keep it on that narrow focus (with a candidate like Edwards, not Kerry), and they'd probably win in 2008.

In short, stand for something and stop being the anti-Republican party.
Pick issues stick to them -- don't let the GOP adopt them.

The DEMs need to increase the kind of voter it attracts, and not just "write off" large tracts of the nation.

So what is your opinion? A step in the right direction (get it - "right" - ar-ar!) or a misstep? Will it cost more votes from the base or expand with more votes from the center? Is it a sellout? A false front? A solid new direction? Please share.

Personally, I don't think the Democrats could lose any votes from the base, unless they moved further to the right than GWB. For the hardcore liberal base of the Democratic Party, they are the only viable option. You could vote Green or Libertarian, but politicans of those parties unfortunatly have no chance of being elected in the near future.

However, I do think it is selling out, because it is giving up what the Democrats traditionally believe in, assuming that they still believe in worker's rights and social welfare and stuff like that. At least, the DLC seems to have adopted the idea that the only way to win over moderates is to co-opt Republican-Lite ideas and policies. This will truly sink the Demcrats, because if we turn into Republican-Lite as a last-ditch effort to grab power, the liberal base <i>will</i> move to different third-parties, like the Green or the Libertarians.

People like Clinton and Vilsack are right, however, because the Democrats can't be the party of Bush haters. Clinton hating didn't get Dole elected in '96, nor did Bush hating get Kerry elected in '04. They need to come up with fresh ideas, like Social Security was in the 30s.

Given the gravity of this topic to liberals in America I am amazed at the lace of participation. Maybe I should have started with a more incinidary title?

So what is your opinion? A step in the right direction (get it - "right" - ar-ar!) or a misstep? Will it cost more votes from the base or expand with more votes from the center? Is it a sellout? A false front? A solid new direction? Please share.
Considering that the US Democrats are already on the right of me, and that in Germany they would probably get along best with the CDU...
I'm not nearly as surprised as I should be. The US seems to be moving to the right, despite what some desperate voices are still proclaiming.

if Dems want more votes. they ought to accept religious people in the party wherever they crop up. if they just keep catering to those on the far left, they wont get the white house back.

Moving more towards the center can only help either party, it cannot hurt unless you become totally unable to differentiate yourself from the other party (which may actually be the current problem).

The logic behind this statement is very simple and it is a widely recognized theorem of political science. I could illustrate this better with a simple drawing, but since it is too difficult to make ascii art in this forum, Ill have to do it by explenation only.

All other things being equal, the voter will tend to vote for the party that is closer to them on the political spectrum. Using the liberal vs conservative spectrum, this means that all other things being equal, a person on the liberal side of the spectrum will vote for the liberal because that is the candidate that is closest to their own beliefs in the political spectrum. They would not vote for the conservative because the conservative is further from their own place in the political spectrum than the liberal is. Therefore, the only thing a party can do to get more voters is move closer to the center because those are the people who are up for grabs. In this case, democrats already have everyone as liberal as they are or more liberal in the bag, the people they need to work on are those who arent as liberal as them but arent as conservative as the republicans (the people in the center).

Therefore, this is a good move.

The thing about the DLC is that they like to talk like they're full of grand centrist initiatives and great ideas for the Democratic party, but when it comes down to winning elections, their strategy is lousy. They've had one success in the twelve years or so they've been around, and that was William Jefferson Clinton--and he won because he's a brilliant politician, not because of some strategy the DLC put forward. Since Clinton's election in 1992, there's been one other success, and that was Clinton's re-election--they've lost seats in practically every election since then (with the exception of 1998, when Newt's impeachment overreaching cost the Republicans some seats).

But can anyone, even DLC fans, talk about significant DLC positions on issues--any issues? Most people can't, and there's a reason for that. Part of their strategy deals with incrementalism--small changes to policy that don't offend anyone, which makes sense in legislative terms, but is deadly on the campaign trail, because they're not memorable. One of the most deadly attacks against John Kerry last year--and the only truly fair one as far as I'm concerned--was that it was hard to know where he stood on an issue. It's because he had no bold initiative to be identified with--that's the DLC in a nutshell.

Their problem isn't that they're centrist--it's that they're trying to hard to be inoffensive (with the mistaken impression that that makes them unattackable) that they never seem to be standing for anything. In a different time politically, that might have been sensible, but we live in a harshly politicized and partisan atmosphere now, where citizens either won't or can't take the time to be fully informed on issues and where egregious and false attacks usually work, and trying to be mushy doesn't work to win elections. And in the end, that's the ultimate measure of success--winning elections.

its all so hillary can have more media! Sure leave em at it!

Therefore, this is a good move.

The unknown variable is where the center is. Is it moving left, right or static? A strategy of moving with the crowd may be a sound strategy - but at what point does it become selling out for power?

As a democrat for 30+ years I can tell you with a huge degree of certainty that neither direction will do even an ounce of good. It is the very people proposing these options that are the problem in the first place. These are the folks that we fled from, not one side or the other, but both. How a party could be so short sighted, I will never know.
Who on earth could you possibly fool by saying move to the right with Hillary. The bitch is the poster girl for Socialists Inc! Good grief people wake up and quit the business of trying to trick people, driving the country in the dirt, obstructing anything and everything without so much as alternative suggestion.
Even though I realize the democratic party is only the same as the one I was in by name, I really feel sorry for the lot of you and the rest of us, because the degree of destruction ya'll have allowed to go on, leaves Republicans unchecked and will in time be a very bad thing for America. In the meantime, do not allow anyone from California or the Northeast to run for office or speak in public. They are killing you!

Given the gravity of this topic to liberals in America I am amazed at the lace of participation. Maybe I should have started with a more incinidary title?



Incendiary.


Grammar Girl awaaaaayyyyy!!!!! *flies off*

if Dems want more votes. they ought to accept religious people in the party wherever they crop up. if they just keep catering to those on the far left, they wont get the white house back.



"The Republicans are just a party of white Christians!" probably didn't help them much either :D

if Dems want more votes. they ought to accept religious people in the party wherever they crop up. if they just keep catering to those on the far left, they wont get the white house back.
your name isnt very telltale. catholics and black christian groups are usually democrats, hardcore evangelicals will always go straight to the hard right. democrats should stop catering to the right and right center, you don't see the rightwing catering to the left or the center do you? democrats need to take a stand and be like "fuck yall, this is where we stand"

Ihatevacations']your name isnt very telltale. catholics and black christian groups are usually democrats, hardcore evangelicals will always go straight to the hard right. democrats should stop catering to the right and right center, you don't see the rightwing catering to the left or the center do you? democrats need to take a stand and be like "fuck yall, this is where we stand"



That's been losing them elections. The conservatives outnumber the liberals in this country, it seems, so taking a firm leftist stance isn't exactly the most logical thing to do in this case, assuming they want to win elections.

That's been losing them elections. The conservatives outnumber the liberals in this country, it seems, so taking a firm leftist stance isn't exactly the most logical thing to do in this case, assuming they want to win elections.

Yes that is true however, logic has not been a strong point among the remanents of the democratic party for quite some time. Besides, it really is a matter of too little too late. Losing 1/3 of the AFL-CIO the other day and stating that it was in part because of their support for the democratic party amounts to a death blow for 06 and 08. That is the loss of millions of votes that will now not go to a democrat under any circumstance, not to mention the loss of millions of dollars in contributions.

That's been losing them elections. The conservatives outnumber the liberals in this country, it seems, so taking a firm leftist stance isn't exactly the most logical thing to do in this case, assuming they want to win elections.
the conservatives outnumber the liberals? You mgiht want to check the studies on how many people agree with abortion and all that "liberal" jazz. Maybe more voting americans vote republican, but that doesn't prove anything for you

Liverbreath']As a democrat for 30+ years I can tell you with a huge degree of certainty that neither direction will do even an ounce of good. It is the very people proposing these options that are the problem in the first place. These are the folks that we fled from, not one side or the other, but both. How a party could be so short sighted, I will never know.
Who on earth could you possibly fool by saying move to the right with Hillary. The bitch is the poster girl for Socialists Inc! Good grief people wake up and quit the business of trying to trick people, driving the country in the dirt, obstructing anything and everything without so much as alternative suggestion.
Even though I realize the democratic party is only the same as the one I was in by name, I really feel sorry for the lot of you and the rest of us, because the degree of destruction ya'll have allowed to go on, leaves Republicans unchecked and will in time be a very bad thing for America. In the meantime, do not allow anyone from California or the Northeast to run for office or speak in public. They are killing you!

Are you sure you're a Democrat? If so, why?

Are you sure you're a Democrat? If so, why?



I think he's one of the rare rational Democrats that supports worker's rights (and I'm all for them, a corporation's best assets are its employees and it needs to treat them that way) without embracing the secular socialism as expressed by the Dark Queen Clinton.

Ihatevacations']your name isnt very telltale. catholics and black christian groups are usually democrats, hardcore evangelicals will always go straight to the hard right. democrats should stop catering to the right and right center, you don't see the rightwing catering to the left or the center do you? democrats need to take a stand and be like "fuck yall, this is where we stand"
SO then you feel this move is a sellout?

Liverbreath']Yes that is true however, logic has not been a strong point among the remanents of the democratic party for quite some time. Besides, it really is a matter of too little too late. Losing 1/3 of the AFL-CIO the other day and stating that it was in part because of their support for the democratic party amounts to a death blow for 06 and 08. That is the loss of millions of votes that will now not go to a democrat under any circumstance, not to mention the loss of millions of dollars in contributions.
I handn't heard the split had anything at all to do with political affiliation. Do you have more info about this? My understanding was that it had more to do with declineing membership and a failure to evolve to include the more service oriented jobs.

I handn't heard the split had anything at all to do with political affiliation. Do you have more info about this? My understanding was that it had more to do with declinging membership and a failure to evolve to include the more service oriented jobs.



One of the major factors was all the political lobbying the leadership had done to get Democrats in office. It took attention away from the real union issues, and the members didn't take too kindly to it.

Ihatevacations']the conservatives outnumber the liberals? You mgiht want to check the studies on how many people agree with abortion and all that "liberal" jazz. Maybe more voting americans vote republican, but that doesn't prove anything for you
I would be curious what surveys (which are not studies) you have which would describe American political leanings. Are they all single issue only? Are they about social, fiscal or legal issues?

Left, right, center... it's not really the point. The crux of the situation seems to be that the Dems have become a party with no real heart with which to bleed from. They are as fragmented as a schizophrenic's mind.
When every special interest group in America is tugging in different directions, how the hell do you expect to win elections? Their message (if they have one) is so muddied that it's become nearly impossible to decipher.

Sounds to me like the Democrats are finally figuring this out, and want to come together to find the core that drives the party. This is the best idea they've had in decades... Although it won't be nearly as entertaining to watch them anymore if they figure out just what it is they're really for. :p

Given the gravity of this topic to liberals in America I am amazed at the lace of participation. Maybe I should have started with a more incinidary title?

We prefer embroidered participation. Lace participation works for the issues that matter to the strictly wine and cheese set, but it's just too fussy for working class liberals.

I think we can agree that the DEMs need to be a party that stands FOR something and just be against everything the GOP is for?

My take is, the Democrats' failure has little to do with political strategy. It's simply demographics and the fact that the left has been screwed by a changing nation.

There are blue states and red states, each of which has a population count which translates into political power. First, how much influence a given American has over the political process depends on the population of the state they live in. Residents of North Dakota have more per capita electoral votes than residents of New York, and thus more sway over elections. Tally this up and you find that the conservative rural populations have a big edge over the more liberal urban populations.

Second, people are migrating in large numbers within the United States. Hundreds of thousands of people are leaving densely packed blue states and moving to sparser red ones. It is enough to up the electoral count of the recipient states but not enough to sway those states' election results, hence electoral power of the conservative states is increasing at the expense of the liberal ones.

Also people in this country are getting older, and older people are usually more conservative. The baby boomers are aging and people are living longer, so the mean age is dragging the political spectrum ever more to the right. The same age-group bulge that made us so liberal in the 60s is now making us very conservative, except more so because older people are more likely to vote.

So there you have it. Politician may make clever moves that sway a few million voters, but demographics change the political composition of the entire nation. And there's no way for Democrats to magically make Americans more liberal. Either they go with the flow or they fall.

Liverbreath']
Who on earth could you possibly fool by saying move to the right with Hillary. The bitch is the poster girl for Socialists Inc!
Only in your delusional mind is Hillary a socialist, and if you're one of those Zell Miller Democrats, then don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way out of the party. The only--and I repeat ONLY--people who actually think Hillary Clinton is a socialist are the people on the right who have turned Clinton-hatred into an industry. Hillary is a center-left corporatist at the very best of times, much like her husband.

I would be curious what surveys (which are not studies) you have which would describe American political leanings. Are they all single issue only? Are they about social, fiscal or legal issues?
On individual issues, polls seem to indicate that majorities--and at times, significant majorities--agree with the Democratic party's stated positions. But that's on individual issues, and issues don't win elections, at least not most of the time--politicians win elections, and lately, Republicans have had better message discipline and better politicians, and as a result, people have been voting against the issues they support.

There's also a phenomenon to certain issues, like abortion, where a majority may favor the access granted by Roe, but the minority is far more activist, and is more likely to remove support for a candidate if they don't back that issue. For example, a candidate may look at the demographics of his electoral area and notice that if he's pro-choice, 30% of the electorate will vote against him, even if he's with them on every other issue. If he adopts that position, however, then all he has to do is convince 21% of the population to agree with him on enough other stuff that his anti-abortion stance won't matter, because they're not as ideologically driven as the anti-abortion part is. Basically, it means that there's less electoral risk in accepting their position than in opposing it, because most pro-choicers aren't as adamant that their politicians adhere to the party line.

Incendiary.


Grammar Girl awaaaaayyyyy!!!!! *flies off*Eh... weah you stay goin Girl... I gots your Kryptonite right ova hea! :D

hawaiian surf club (http://www.hawaiiansurfclub.com/what.htm)

Pidgen English Dictionary (http://www.e-hawaii.com/fun/pidgin/default.asp)

Only in your delusional mind is Hillary a socialist, and if you're one of those Zell Miller Democrats, then don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way out of the party. The only--and I repeat ONLY--people who actually think Hillary Clinton is a socialist are the people on the right who have turned Clinton-hatred into an industry. Hillary is a center-left corporatist at the very best of times, much like her husband.


"Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. "



"The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not." (Irony redefined)


"When I am talking about "It Takes a Village", I'm obviously not talking just about or even primarily about geographical villages any longer, but about the network of relationships and values that do connect us and binds us together."

Would you tell your parents something for me? Ask them, if they have a gun in their house, please lock it or take it out of their house. Will you do that as good citizens? [to a group of schoolchildren]"

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking
about what is best for society."





Her work with Marian Wright Edelman she now calls a “personal turning point.” Hillary spent the summer of 1970 in Washington working on behalf of poor families, some of them in migrant labor camps. Under the tutelage of Edelman, Hillary published her first scholarly article“ Children Under the Law.” At the time, children had almost no legal rights. Hillary argued that “categorizing everyone under 18 or 21 as a minor is artificial and simplistic; it obscures the dramatic differences among children of different ages and the striking similarities between older children and adults.“ She advocated abolishing the legal status of ”minor,“ and with it the presumption that children are legally incompetent. Instead, she argued for a new concept of children as ”child citizens“ who should have all the procedural rights granted adults under the Constitution. This was the turning point at which Hillary declared, ”I want to be a voice for America’s children.“




[While writing “It Takes a Village”, Hillary saw that] what happens between parents and children is not separate from what happens between government and governed. There is no dividing line between foreign policy and women’s and children’s issues, no hard and soft issues. Her book was meant to encourage broad support within communities for raising a child. Hillary knew how vital it was to have teachers and mentors as a counterforce to the limitations a child might be unable to escape at home.



[On the Today show in Jan. 1998, one week into the Monica Lewinsky scandal] Mrs. Clinton said, “.the President has denied these allegations on all counts, unequivocally.... The real story here, for anybody willing to tell it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president. When all this is put into context... some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.” (Irrelevant, but comical nonetheless)



America faces a capital, educational & digital divide that needs to be bridged, especially to help minorities move forward in the 21st century. The lack of equal opportunity for access to capital and jobs is one of the unfinished pieces of business from the last century. We should support tax credits & incentives and government guaranteed loans to leverage billions in new private investment and reduce the initial risk for businesses that agree to hang out their shingles in areas of high unemployment.

Are you sure you're a Democrat? If so, why?

I should qualify that with a "was as democrat", as I no longer contribute to the party financially. I was very much a democrat, and a representative of the International Typographical Union. I was also born a democrat, and so deeply saddened at the direction it has been taken it used to make me literally sick to my stomach. You ask why so I am going to tell you.
I was because, democrats used to represent the average middle class working family, with a great deal of pride and effectivness. They were people from our own backgrounds, with a set of values that you didn't have to worry about changing from day to day. They believed in Americans, and America and didn't set out to weaken it at every opportunity. They didn't just provide lip service to the working people of America and then go sell them out when the first special interest group came along with a few bucks to throw at them. Something they now do with a great deal fanfare and celebration. We are now in a situation that leaves the vast majority of Americans without representation, but a whole lot of little bitty special intrest groups are getting little trinkets thrown to them like bones, if they have the right price. They have become a party that stands for everything, and nothing at the same time.

I handn't heard the split had anything at all to do with political affiliation. Do you have more info about this? My understanding was that it had more to do with declineing membership and a failure to evolve to include the more service oriented jobs.

Yes, I read a few of the statements to the press and the international so I am not exactly sure which one it was, but I believe it was the teamsters statement that came right out and said it. I will go back and check to see if I saved it. I ususally do as I was also a member of the AFL CIO for 16 years. I was actually a little bit surprised they just said it flat out, but they had been warning the democratic party for several years they were getting fed up with giving them support only to get shit on.

Liverbreath']Yes, I read a few of the statements to the press and the international so I am not exactly sure which one it was, but I believe it was the teamsters statement that came right out and said it. I will go back and check to see if I saved it. I ususally do as I was also a member of the AFL CIO for 16 years. I was actually a little bit surprised they just said it flat out, but they had been warning the democratic party for several years they were getting fed up with giving them support only to get shit on.

The statements to the press have actually said the break-away unions were upset that the AFL-CIO spent more time working on politics and less time on increasing the size and people in the Unions. That is their big disagreement, not that they need to now give their support to the Republican party.


Naginah

"Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. "



Kind of hard to wear a center-left corporatist self adhesive label with statements like that and expect anyone to buy it, but there's aways a few.

The last "centrist" Democratic President and the last good Democratic President we had in this country was Harry Truman. If the Democrats are to stand a reasonable chance of winning in the next election, they need to become more Trumanesque in philosophy and in actions.

I am a Republican, but I have a lot of respect for Truman and think he was one of our greatest Presidents.

Liverbreath']Kind of hard to wear a center-left corporatist self adhesive label with statements like that and expect anyone to buy it, but there's aways a few.
I took it in the context of being a Hillary quote.

Excellent observations made by many. I wonder if a small part of the Democrat's problem is that they have too large an umbrella. How can they develop and support a practical ideology that necessarily includes a wide range of interests, from women's rights to gun owners? Actually, every possible political perspective besides that of the Republicans.

They've had too make too many internal compromises to keep their diverse group content, and as a result have succeeded in survival but not in victory.

The fight is now, and possibly always has been, for the political center. Why do they make compromises to keep the far left of the Democratic party happy when doing so costs the votes of far greater numbers of more conservative Democrats? Moderate Republicans, and of course centrists, would drift toward the Dem's were this to happen.

Maybe it's time to let the left fringe migrate to Nader and other alternative parties. Some say that a split in the party would be disastrous, but it could be key to success. It may be time to realize that it's impossible to be all things to all people.

An earlier poster mentioned demographics - here are some 3-D graphs you might find interesting, the 'purpleization' of America:

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

The statements to the press have actually said the break-away unions were upset that the AFL-CIO spent more time working on politics and less time on increasing the size and people in the Unions. That is their big disagreement, not that they need to now give their support to the Republican party.


Naginah

They will now be giving their support only to independent labor issue oriented individuals. Now, if you combine the number of people this represents (4 million maybe?), with the number that withdrew their support from the democrats in AFSMCE last month (third largest union in america), and the number of democrats that have left the party in the past 6 years what does that tell us? Who will be hurt by this? They don't need to give their support to the Republicans to destroy the democrats. Simply withdrawing their support is enough to ensure the democrats as a whole are crippled beyond hope. Some may not realize it just yet, but that slippery slope politicians like to talk about is right under the democrats feet and it is not over.

I took it in the context of being a Hillary quote.

Yes, I should have added a "snip" in there to be clear I was referring to the whole thing.