I would like to devise a litmus test for Democrats.

[kentuck]

What would disqualify a person from being a member of our political Party?
==================

If they were an NRA member, would that be an automatic disqualifier?
Or if they were an NRA member and did not support background checks, would that disqualify them?

It they were an atheist, would they be accepted in our Party?
If they were an avowed Christian, would that disqualify them?

If they did not support human rights, including for gays, would that be an automatic disqualifier?

If they did not support citizenship for Latinos that are undocumented, would that disqualify them?

If they did not believe in climate change, would that be an automatic disqualifier?

If they did not vote for Barack Obama in the last election, would that be a disqualifier?

If they supported "right to work" laws, would that be a deal buster for them?
If they were anti-union and anti-education, should they be accepted in our Party?

If they supported tax cuts for huge corporations, would that be a deal breaker?
If they thought we needed to make cuts in social programs so we could give more taxbreaks to the wealthy, the "job creators", would that disqualify them from being in our Party?

If they thought Social Security and Medicare needed to be privatized, would that disqualify them?

If they believed that more trade treaties were good for our economy and our workers, would that be a disqualifier?

If they thought we needed to spend more on the defense department, would that be OK?

If they believed in the Bible and denied science, would that be someone that would be accepted in our Party?
==============

I think we need some parameters about what it means to be a Democrat and just how much are we able to tolerate from a candidate before they can receive our support and our vote? Or perhaps there should be no litmus test whatsoever??

[bravenak]

1. Supporting the racist/youth targeting drug war.

And being an open bigot in any way. Must be willing to work on biases.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Haven't you just failed most of the Democratic party? N.T.

[bravenak]

27. Yes. It is all my fault. I only voted once and got what I wanted through ballot measures.

I'm selfish. Voted for minumum wage and I haven't made that since high school. Voted for weed.....
Voted for the envoronment. Voted for union rights, never been in a union but I know I'd be even more of a slave without them. Seems to me, I know I'm too young to have an opinion be listened to, but it seems like progressive policies won, the candidates lost. Maybe they should support progressive policies? Just a thought.

[sabrina 1]

31. Yes, sadly that is probably true. So, what should be done about it? I definitely do not

support the racist, for-profit Drug 'War' which has created brutal cartels that make the Mafia like choir boys and has failed as far as ending drug abuse. But then it was never intended to do that.

So, what should Dem voters who are now so far apart from the policies of their party who seem lean further and further to the right with every passing day, do about what we know now?

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. well on the national level an open atheist is not electable - probably on the state level as well

No one on the state level or national level or outside of some very peculiar districts are going to say openly that they don't believe the Bible - although they might like Pope Francis express that they feel science and religion are compatible. It is simply the reality of how most Americans think. You can't run against Jesus or old glory and expect to win -at least outside of a few peculiar localities - It is just how it is.

[kentuck]

15. Are you saying all politicians are phony if they need to be?

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. phony might be too strong of a word - but people - not just politicians will frequently jump through

whatever hoops they thinks is necessary to achieve their ends

[kentuck]

22. That's the nature of politics, I suppose...

to find the most accepting and pleasant way to express their position.

[aspirant]

28. evolution

I'm evolving on this. I keep being led back to the "Public Servant" aspect of politicians. Why do "We The People" give up our power to individuals that maybe will advocate our positions only for electability.I think we seem to be talking around the problem. It's not to determine who they are before the election but how to insure they are required to vote what the majority of their constituents demand. Our politicians shouldn't be leaders but should be led by us. On the other hand,when they run with a (D) by their name the people should know their moral principles. These must be cemented by the party, not the candidate. From that perspective, I'm on board with grassroot messaging to re-introduce our brand. Each (D),(R) community/state must be able to offer specific messaging for there local needs with the national party's and grassroots financial support. The question here is defining our national platform. How specific can you get without limiting the needs of localities. I don't know that answer but I hope I know it when I see it. That's the beauty of teamwork;adding then subtracting, adjusting and rewording, participating and pondering until thru our labor a child is born. As that child grows and encounters new challenges, we must be supportive.

[sabrina 1]

32. Excellent post. Thank you, and this:

Our politicians shouldn't be leaders but should be led by us. is something some people seem to have no concept of, they ADORE and pay homage to people who are supposedly working for the people, only for a short time, and should never be viewed as 'friends who care about us' until we can look at the work they have done, assess it and decide whether or not the have done the job we hired them to do.

The glorification of politicians is a dangerous thing, it has a tendency to blind people to their own interests and mostly, the interests of the country.

And this:

That's the beauty of teamwork;adding then subtracting, adjusting and rewording, participating and pondering until thru our labor a child is born.

Yes, mature people working towards what is the best that can be achieved for the benefit of most, if not all of the people.

What we have now is 'you're rubber, I'm glue' level of political discourse, which I believe suits those who are not particularly interested in the Common Good, but more in their own profit margins.

What we have right now, isn't working for a vast majority of the people, that we know. So the question is, 'was it our fault because we allowed those whose own interests prefer things the way they are, to dictate how we talk to each other? I think definitely we all fell for the 'my team' 'your team' tactics and fostered the divisions that have ensured nothing is going to change until we stop being LED and start LEADING.

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. frankly, I think most professional Republican politicians whether elected officials or professional

operatives are movement conservatives - people who are ideologically driven. Most Democratic professional politicians whether elected officials or professional operatives are not. They are career goal driven.

[sabrina 1]

35. That's an interesting observation. 'Career goal driven'. I'm not sure if that is true across the

board. I think you are right that today, many Republicans ARE ideologically driven, but many are also career goal driven. See the jobs they go to after they leave, or are kicked out of office eg. Same thing with Dems, although I think you are right that TODAY more Dems are more career goal driven than they used to be.

The numbers of Dems who actually were driven by ideology, are diminishing rapidly. Some of the best Progressives are gone, even the Progressive Caucus is shrinking in numbers. Politicians are well compensated for their 'work' after they leave office now.

I'll think your observation some more, it is possible that this is why they appear to have no real message, despite the fact that the message should be very simple for them.

[aspirant]

37. our votes

My thought is what difference does it make if they are career or ideologically driven, they are our employees. If we are in control of how they vote they can be Vulcans as far as I am concerned. If you want to get rid of money in politics, control our politicians votes. What lobbyists and/or corporations will financially invest into a politician if he can't get a 100% guarantee of that politicians vote. I would love to be a fly on the wall when after taking their money and voting against them, the politician responds that his hands are tied by the voices of his constituency. Our politicians are out of control now and we must use our power to pull back the reins. What methods we use are our choices.

[JaneyVee]

3. Yes, disqualified to all except their religion.

[MrMickeysMom]

20. ...

[truedelphi]

4. And if they are guilty of some of those things, but actually hold down an elected office,

So they not only say they want to privatize Social Security, or the school system, but can see various back room deals to make it happen and then also they preach austerity when it comes to Social Security but they still want wars in Libya, Syria, and the Ukraine, would that make them ineligible of remaining Democrats?

[BlueStreak]

5. There are a few disqualification positions, but it is more important every Dem support core values

And I think this is a pretty good list:

http://workingforamericans.org/

I don't see why should support any candidate that cannot embrace these values in a full-throated way and talk about them every single day, referring to these values no matter what question is asked.

When people ask McConnell or Boehner any question the answer always comes back that we have to kill Obamacare. Well, Dems need a message that resonates with the public and they have to repeat this every day. Every hour. No matter what question is asked.

The only thing on your list that would be automatic disqualification IMHO are privatizing Social Security, equivocating on climate change, equal rights for all minorities and gays, I'd have to look at the others carefully, weighing the context and alternatives.

[LP2K12]

6. So...

You basically don't want those who have seen the error of their ways? Or is just for those running for office as a Dem? Because on one hand you mention qualifications to be a member of the party and then you mention candidacy.

There are plenty of us who vote blue who are former Republicans. I registered Republican straight out of high school and voted for Bush during my enlistment. I realized how wrong I was and voted for Obama and haven't gone back since. I was a member of the NRA for quite some time as well.

"Hey! You support citizenship for undocumented lationos, but you can't be in our party for reasons x, y, and z."

Doesn't sound right...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. I'm not the author, but...

I think he's talking about current, not former views, and probably also about candidates for office, not rank and file voters.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. I don't see every single one of those as a disqualifier

but there certainly are a lot of them that scream "DINO" at the top of their lungs.

When your 'tent' is expanding to include positions that are central to the opposition party, you're watering down the brand so much as to make it a meaningless label. What does being a 'Democrat' even mean when you simply start taking over Republican positions?

[aspirant]

44. A slight of hand

It means Good Cop,Bad Cop

[BlindTiresias]

8. I'll give it a shot

NRA, not sure on this one. This is often used to marginalize progressives in rural areas so a reframing might be necessary.

I think that anyone who is egalitarian should be allowed in no matter religious affiliation. Many "New Atheists" are just as hostile to the poor and disenfranchised as right wing Christians.

Equal rights should be supported no matter what.

Citizenship for undocumented workers is also sticky, and the conversation should be on making the path to citizenship not a kafka-esque ordeal imo.

Disbelief in climate change is a national security issue, no entry into the party for deniers.

Barack Obama, the outcome of his legacy is too uncertain to make determinations at this point. Unsure on this one.

Right to work, no entry

Anti-union and anti-education, no entry

Corporate tax cuts, no entry

Austerity policies, no entry

Privatization as a general policy? No entry

Trade policies that only enrich the capital class? No entry

DOD spending? Depends, I'd prefer smarter spending rather than nonsense like the F-35.

Belief in the Bible is not a problem, however denying science is harmful. No entry.

[aquart]

9. What's a passing grade?

[Mnemosyne]

11. K&R for excellent questions, kentuck. nt

[hfojvt]

12. Das reich der Zwei

Do it right, and the "party" will consist of me, and my shadow.

[wandy]

13. One of the things working for us is the exclusiveness of.......

the Teapublican party. It is becoming something of a club where only certain values are accepted. It has been said that even saint reagan could not win the GOP nomination in todays environment.
The smaller the tent the fewer it holds.
With any luck the Teapublican party will become a small club.

Do we really want to become a small club?
Oh sure any group allowing for vast diversity will surely bicker amongst themselves.
Bicker, not stone the non believers.
That might just be our strength.

[el_bryanto]

14. I'm pretty sure you can find someone on this board to passionately defend both sides of

every single one of those suggestions.

Bryant

[CK_John]

16. In NY it is just a check box and a signature, when you renew your driver lic or go to any.

city, town or county office.

[kentuck]

17. I don't think it is a definite black or white question...

And each of the questions carry different weight.

I think anyone can be in our Party but if they want to run for office, there has to be a belief system that coincides and mirrors what most Democrats believe.

I think some of the questions are automatic disqualifiers. If candidates for office is a gun nut that supports "right-to-work" laws, then that is sufficient for me to make a decision.

However, if they are an NRA member that believes we should have some controls on gun sales, and is a devout Christian, who is pro-life, but does not believe in passing judgement onto others about decisions between themselves and their doctors, and did not vote for Barack Obama in the last election, then I personally would not disqualify that person as a potential candidate. I may not vote for them but I would not disqualify them.

[Basic LA]

18. Good question.

A litmus test is a good idea. It all depends, I think, on this question: To solve the country's problems, we go after:
A) Greedy fat cats.
B) The lazy poor.
This is what defines the two sides. Everything else is window dressing.

[SomethingFishy]

26. The Lazy Poor...

I'm poor. 2 paychecks away from homeless. Yet I work 60-80 hours a week and I'm tops in my field. Haven't seen a raise in 10 years, not even a cost of living raise. I get paid a flat rate for a week, no overtime.

I have worked more hours at my job and done more physical labor than any 20 billionaires put together.

But hey, label me lazy.

How about

1. Greedy Fat Cats and
2. Those that do all the fucking work around here.

[Basic LA]

36. They do not see it that way.

That's the problem.

[Rex]

21. Simple, party and principles over profit.

A lot of unethical people out there get paid to keep it from being that way. It is a billion dollar industry.

[Baclava]

23. A Purity Control Test?

oh dear, I haven't been taking notes

[SomethingFishy]

24. How about this...

As long as what you suggest doesn't hurt anyone, you're in.

LMFAO this reminds me of George Carlin's "Two Commandments". You wanna come up with a fucking laundry list when you can boil the whole thing down to "don't be a fucking moron".

[aspirant]

30. adding now

I like it.
Old eastern belief; Do no harm to yourself or others
Maybe a little refinement; If repubs respond, everyone must pull themselves up by their bootstraps and if we interfere we are harming their progress. What should we add?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. HMMM

If they were an NRA member, would that be an automatic disqualifier? BEGRUDGINGLY NO
Or if they were an NRA member and did not support background checks, would that disqualify them? YES[

It they were an atheist, would they be accepted in our Party? YES
If they were an avowed Christian, would that disqualify them? N0.THAT WOULD ELIMINATE A LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE

If they did not support human rights, including for gays, would that be an automatic disqualifier? YES

If they did not support citizenship for Latinos that are undocumented, would that disqualify them? DEPENDS
If they did not believe in climate change, would that be an automatic disqualifier? NO

If they did not vote for Barack Obama in the last election, would that be a disqualifier? YES

If they supported "right to work" laws, would that be a deal buster for them? YES
If they were anti-union and anti-education, should they be accepted in our Party? NO

If they supported tax cuts for huge corporations, would that be a deal breaker? DEPENDS
If they thought we needed to make cuts in social programs so we could give more taxbreaks to the wealthy, the "job creators", would that disqualify them from being in our Party? YES

If they thought Social Security and Medicare needed to be privatized, would that disqualify them? YES
If they believed that more trade treaties were good for our economy and our workers, would that be a disqualifier? DEPENDS
If they thought we needed to spend more on the defense department, would that be OK? DEPENDS
If they believed in the Bible and denied science, would that be someone that would be accepted in our Party? THEY AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND SUCH A POSITION IS SUICIDE IN A NATION WHERE NEARLY NINETY PERCENT OF PEOPLE BELIEVE IN A DEITY

[Recursion]

34. The party has always been a multi-ideology coalition

Frankly, if you can win your district and then vote for Pelosi for Speaker, that's enough for me...

[bigwillq]

38. My test results

If they were an NRA member, would that be an automatic disqualifier?

NOT an NRA member, and I've never owned a gun, but I consider myself pro-gun rights.

Or if they were an NRA member and did not support background checks, would that disqualify them?

I support background checks.

It they were an atheist, would they be accepted in our Party?

Atheist

If they were an avowed Christian, would that disqualify them?

N/A


If they did not support human rights, including for gays, would that be an automatic disqualifier?

Support human rights

If they did not support citizenship for Latinos that are undocumented, would that disqualify them?

Support citizenship

If they did not believe in climate change, would that be an automatic disqualifier?

Believe in climate change

If they did not vote for Barack Obama in the last election, would that be a disqualifier?

Did NOT vote for Obama in 2012

If they supported "right to work" laws, would that be a deal buster for them?

Do NOT support right to work laws

If they were anti-union and anti-education, should they be accepted in our Party?

Pro union

If they supported tax cuts for huge corporations, would that be a deal breaker?

Do NOT support tax cuts for huge corporations

If they thought we needed to make cuts in social programs so we could give more taxbreaks to the wealthy, the "job creators", would that disqualify them from being in our Party?

Do NOT believe we should cut social programs to give more tax breaks to the wealthy

If they thought Social Security and Medicare needed to be privatized, would that disqualify them?

Do NOT believe in privatization

If they believed that more trade treaties were good for our economy and our workers, would that be a disqualifier?

Do NOT believe trade treaties are good for economy and our workers

If they thought we needed to spend more on the defense department, would that be OK?

Do NOT believe we should spend more on defense, but that might change under some circumstances

If they believed in the Bible and denied science, would that be someone that would be accepted in our Party?

I believe in science

Am I am democrat?

[petronius]

39. Magic 8 Ball says:

[bigwillq]

43. Woo Hoo!

[WhiteAndNerdy]

40. I don't know if it's specific positions so much.

I don't know if it's specific positions so much as the philosophical foundation of a person's political thought. Sometimes a person can be solidly liberal, but fail to apply liberal principles to one or two particular issues, so they may hold positions that are inconsistent with our values. Often these people eventually realize the contradiction and correct it, but if you judge them on those one or two issues that they haven't fully worked out for themselves, you'll misjudge their overall orientation.

The difference between modern American conservatism and modern American liberalism seems to be the degree to which we recognize the need for collective problem-solving. Conservatives have taken the idea of individualism to such an extreme that they're in denial about basic facts of human existence, like the fact that we're a social species and most of what we do involves a community in one way or another. This has gone so far that some right-wing extremists are starting to talk about problem-solving itself as a bad thing, because problem-solving usually requires collective action. On the left, we recognize the necessity of working together (without going to the opposite extreme and denying individual rights or responsibility).

So I'd look more at a person's reasoning process than specific positions they hold on various issues. Do they go to extremes with individual rights and responsibility, or do they welcome collective problem-solving?

[aspirant]

41. lock'em up

Last edited Sun Nov 9, 2014, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)

I ask, what was the reasoning processes when the dems signed a food stamp cut? If 51% of his/her constituency had the progressive value of helping their brothers/sisters in need and we had a system of locking in our reps into voting for the majority of his/her district/state, why would our employee's (politicians) reasoning processes matter?

[IdiocracyTheNewNorm]

42. The only true test is ones actions

For example if one says they support working people and unions, yet drives a Honda Accord, you will know they don’t support unions, why because their words do not match their deeds.

Back in 07/08 Pres Obama said that he will put on his walking shoes and come out in support of working people.

6 years later the walking shoes are in his closest collecting dust most likely still in the original box they came in.

You will know them by their deeds.