Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemocrats Aren't "Moving Left". They're Returning to Their Roots.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/04/elections-2018-democrats-history-liberal-progressive-socialist-222187Be advised: Democrats are in danger of going too far left in 2018. So warn Republicans like Mitt Romney and ex-Democrats like Joe Lieberman and public personae as diverse as James Comey and Howard Schultz. In recent months, the pundit class has determined that the partys leftward lurch heralds the rise of a liberal tea partya movement that could very well unmoor Democrats from their longstanding center-left traditions, in close imitation of the spiral of events that caused the Republican Party to turn sharply to the right in recent years.
Whats fueling this argument? For one, more Democrats have rallied, either noisily or cautiously, around such policy innovations as Medicare for all, universal college and a universal basic income. That a smattering of Democratic candidates have elected to call themselves democratic socialists has only fueled the claim that such programs are socialist. The center is Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, not Eugene Debs and Michael Harrington, warned New York Times opinion columnist Bret Stephens recently. (Debs and Harrington were self-identified socialists.)
But theres something wrong with this historical interpretation: Truman strongly supported single-payer health care. Moynihan supported a universal basic income in the 1960s. Dating back to World War II, Democrats sought to make a government-paid education available to as many Americans as possible. If Democrats are marching to the left, that road leads directly back to platforms and politicians who, in their day, commanded wide support and existed firmly in the mainstream of political thought.
. . .
What pundits today decry as a radical turn in Democratic policy and politics actually finds its antecedents in 1944. With the country fully mobilized for war, President Franklin Roosevelt called for a second Bill of Rights an economic bill of rights that would entitle all Americans to a useful and remunerative job, the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation, the right to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care and the right to a good education. His speech found partial inspiration in a report by the National Resource Planning Board, which advanced the necessity of a socially provided income.
. . .
To be sure, Democrats never came close to delivering on the promise that FDR established in 1944. It was always an aspirational goala North Star that would compete with the gravitational pull of political reality. As well, a booming economy between the mid-1940s and mid-1970s demanded that liberals recalibrate their ambitions and propose a more patchwork system of support for people who had been left behind.
In fits and starts, from the 1970s onward, a new generation of Democratic leaders moved their party closer to the center. From the Watergate babies of the 1970s, many of whom rejected the partys traditional anti-monopoly stance and big-ticket spending agenda, to the Democratic Leadership Councilwhose crowning moment came with the election of Bill Clinton in 1992Democrats continued to pay homage to FDR even as they trained their sites on a more modest set of policy aspirations.
In this sense, it is true that many Democrats are moving back to their roots. And those roots lead to policies that commanded broad supportand to leaders who commanded broad popularityin their day. . . .
Whats fueling this argument? For one, more Democrats have rallied, either noisily or cautiously, around such policy innovations as Medicare for all, universal college and a universal basic income. That a smattering of Democratic candidates have elected to call themselves democratic socialists has only fueled the claim that such programs are socialist. The center is Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, not Eugene Debs and Michael Harrington, warned New York Times opinion columnist Bret Stephens recently. (Debs and Harrington were self-identified socialists.)
But theres something wrong with this historical interpretation: Truman strongly supported single-payer health care. Moynihan supported a universal basic income in the 1960s. Dating back to World War II, Democrats sought to make a government-paid education available to as many Americans as possible. If Democrats are marching to the left, that road leads directly back to platforms and politicians who, in their day, commanded wide support and existed firmly in the mainstream of political thought.
. . .
What pundits today decry as a radical turn in Democratic policy and politics actually finds its antecedents in 1944. With the country fully mobilized for war, President Franklin Roosevelt called for a second Bill of Rights an economic bill of rights that would entitle all Americans to a useful and remunerative job, the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation, the right to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care and the right to a good education. His speech found partial inspiration in a report by the National Resource Planning Board, which advanced the necessity of a socially provided income.
. . .
To be sure, Democrats never came close to delivering on the promise that FDR established in 1944. It was always an aspirational goala North Star that would compete with the gravitational pull of political reality. As well, a booming economy between the mid-1940s and mid-1970s demanded that liberals recalibrate their ambitions and propose a more patchwork system of support for people who had been left behind.
In fits and starts, from the 1970s onward, a new generation of Democratic leaders moved their party closer to the center. From the Watergate babies of the 1970s, many of whom rejected the partys traditional anti-monopoly stance and big-ticket spending agenda, to the Democratic Leadership Councilwhose crowning moment came with the election of Bill Clinton in 1992Democrats continued to pay homage to FDR even as they trained their sites on a more modest set of policy aspirations.
In this sense, it is true that many Democrats are moving back to their roots. And those roots lead to policies that commanded broad supportand to leaders who commanded broad popularityin their day. . . .
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 638 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (11)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democrats Aren't "Moving Left". They're Returning to Their Roots. (Original Post)
CousinIT
Jun 2019
OP
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)1. K&R! Quite true!!! n/t
delisen
(6,042 posts)2. Reagan won 18-29 yr olds in 1984. In 1980 Carter & Reagan split this vote
In 1980 there was a third party candidate, Anderson.
There was a rightward turn among younger voters in the 1980s, It was not the leaders moving the country right in the 1980s--it was the electorate, and younger voters were buying into what Reaganism was selling.
Politicians are not necessarily "leaders." They are often followers of an electorate that becomes more conservative.
marble falls
(57,077 posts)3. And if we tack a little further left, that's OK, too.