Democrats should be wooing progressives, not scolding them.

[mother earth]

Last edited Sun May 31, 2015, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/05/30/search-democratic-soul

In Search of the Democratic Soul
Democrats should be wooing progressives, not scolding them (by Richard Eskow)

A Google search for the phrase "soul of the Democratic Party" yields thousands of hits, because the struggle for that soul has been a perennial subject of debate. I've probably used the phrase myself.

But after a week spent tracking the independent left's political progress, I've become even more convinced that politicians should seek the soul of the country instead. Tap into that, and the rest will follow.

Still, the debate over the Democratic soul continues. Political strategist Robert Creamer said this week that progressives have already won it. He dismisses the notion of a split between the party's "Hillary Clinton" and "Elizabeth Warren" wings, and says Democrats now largely agree on economic problems and their solutions.

"There are still pro-Wall Street, corporatist -- and even socially conservative -- elements in the Democratic coalition," Creamer acknowledges. But, he says, "it's hard to tell the difference between a Clinton speech and a Warren speech when it comes to most economic questions -- and particularly ... the overarching narrative."

(Edited to meet DU copyright standard. For full article click above link. )

-----------

"Large majorities", yeah, that's right. We are THE large majority. It is not up to MSM to frame a horse race, WE are the framers. We need to shout it from the rooftops and spread the word far and wide, amongst our independent and, yes, gop'er friends and family and everyone we know. We are the MAJORITY. We are fed up, we have a disappearing middle class & only the wealthy have done well during these economic times.

Where is our recovery? More importantly, where is our voice in gov't? Where are the laws to tear down what's been strangling families and driving social and economic inequality?

I know where I see our voice, it is fast becoming crystal clear, if you don't get, you soon will. Give 'em hell, Bernie!

Yeah, this video is from 2012, and what has changed? The Anger has grown, WE ARE THE MAJORITY. Deal with it. We aren't going quietly, it ends with us. WE are the framers, let them look back on this time & understand one thing. We are done with the corporate coup. We do not support the oligarchy.

It is time to ask one question, do you support the people? Do you enable the people? Or do you support and enable the oligarchy?

[ananda]

1. This LIBERAL would like to be represented some day!

..

[CharlotteVale]

68. +100000

[rurallib]

128. never stopped calling myself a liberal

and if anybody asks me I proudly tell them I am a liberal.
Then just to help them understand why, I list a few liberal accomplishments.

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. Wooing them to be Democrats?

this Liberal IS one....and so is Hillary by the way...

[mother earth]

6. Well then, I'll be expecting her to come out strong against TPP, & jail sentences for banksters

instead of fines, for starters.

We need all democratic voices to come out strong against OLIGARCHY. You can't do that while supporting TPP & a pittance of a fine for the too big to fails/jails.

[Thinkingabout]

12. See, here goes the scolding.

The TPP will be a done deal before the election, she has said she will make her opinion on the final agreement, she has given the answer.

[cui bono]

63. Why not help push it in the direction she wants it to go?

If she wants to represent the people, the people have a right, a NEED, to know where she stands on everything.

[mother earth]

82. BS, Warren & Sanders have come out strong against it. Scolding? Questioning is not scolding, not

having an answer is evasion of the question.

She will make her opinion on the final agreement? Really, she helped write it. She knows all too well what the agreement will do to what's left of this country. She's not kidding anyone.

Or am I misunderstanding, and you are scolding me for having the audacity to ask a question of a candidate who wants the nomination of our party?

[Thinkingabout]

85. Don't know how the state department works, eh?

You say she knows what is in TPP and should give an opinion, by now you know she has said she will give an opinion after the final agreement and you continue to ask.

[mother earth]

90. Has she said she'd give an opinion after the agreement? Funny, those who are

against it have no issue with speaking out. Enough said.

[Enthusiast]

26. Yeah. If that graph was accurate I would be supporting Hillary.

But that graph is absurd.

[Recursion]

41. That graph is a libertarian recruiting tool

I wish DU would block that server, honestly...

[FSogol]

48. ^^^This^^^ +1 n/t

[MissDeeds]

47. That graph is trotted out in nearly every thread

Last edited Sun May 31, 2015, 05:55 PM - Edit history (1)

and no matter how often it's used, it's still wrong. It's not convincing anyone.

[mother earth]

84. It is meaningless, there is nothing to back it up, a nonsensical tool...

[Robbins]

10. Keep posting these charts

they don't make her a liberal.

economic issues she is corporist.her talk now doesn't erase her and her husband's ties to wall street.Yeah she voted against CAFTA
but she supported nafta and helped to neograte TPP which she won't take position on

she is hawk.voted for iraq.Is to right on obama on war.spoke postivly on henry Kissinger.Kissinger who was nixon's secretary of
state.

Hawkish pols don't help racial problems in country.untill we end militazian of police and have independent investigations of police whenever there is officer shooting nothing will change.

Her husband signed DOMA Into law.as well as de-regulated the banks and signed republican wellfare bill which hurt single mothers.

She is no liberal she is another corporist DINO like her husband and Obama.

[SoapBox]

32. Ditto!

HRC is no Liberal.

Stop saying that...DINO is being generous.

[Exilednight]

72. I completely agree.

[rhett o rick]

14. That graphic is inaccurate. It was no liberal that helped George Bush lie

about WMD to the American people. One million dead and 5 millions lives ruined. That's not actions of a liberal.

[ablamj]

16. i mentioned that yesterday

But she keeps insisting her graphs are accurate and keeps posting them all over DU.

[rhett o rick]

40. What doesn't make sense is that some denigrate liberals but then turn

around and try like hell to convince us that HRC is liberal.

[ablamj]

42. agreed

!

[cui bono]

64. And call themselves liberal with a capital L, when they clearly are not.

[Carewfan]

37. Not according to this...

This is from Political Compass for 2008 elections.

[ablamj]

44. oh but

She's become so much more libral since then...

[mother earth]

93. She is populist too, doncha know.

[rhett o rick]

45. Looks closer to reality. However, I think candidate Obama should have been lower and to the left

of what is indicated. I also think that President Obama should be higher on the chart.

[L0oniX]

60. +1

[Thinkingabout]

106. Is this the one put out by the UK source?

[cui bono]

62. Is that graphic from that site that doesn't take everyting into account?

Or something like that?

Link to source please... I believe it was shown to have a deficiency in criteria or to have some sort of bias quite a while ago.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. I guess this is the answer of the day

[cui bono]

104. Not any more.

But I'm sure it will be again in about two and a half months.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. They have no problem blaming the Left when their candidates lose.

[daleanime]

25. +1

[2banon]

27. Indeed. Yet, they claim (and act accordingly) the left is so fringe as to not matter.

All of the issues that matter to the poor, the working poor and middle class is sooo "fringe" during campaigns and the launching of their favorite oligarchs, as to insist we just don't matter.

But when their anointed one loses, it's all our fault.

.

[Autumn]

4. The democratic leadership knows that we Democrats will vote for any democrat.

Slap that magic D on there and we will hold our nose and vote for them. It has always worked... before. There comes a time when that carrot on a stick, just out of reach becomes something that just is of no value.

[mother earth]

8. I don't know about that any more. I get the feeling some are questioning voting at all if all if it

means maintaining the status quo, but if you do intend to vote, NOW is the time to fight like hell.

Remember, TPP will be blamed on the democrats since Obama has fought valiantly to fast track it. The legacy is in the making, and those who support it, are part of the oligarchy.

To me, it is a question of what any candidate truly supports, there is no grey area. You either enable and empower oligarchy or the voice of the people.

[Autumn]

11. Like I said there are those of us who have always done that

but this time it's different. At least it is to me. I'm not giving up this time.

[mother earth]

76. Amen to that. We do not support the oligarchy.

[Robbins]

13. It doesn't work with me anymore

TPP was last strew for me.I won't support any candiate who supports TPP.Hillary being silent says like usual she acutlly supports more
corporate friendly union killing trade deal.

Obama can go to hell now for all i care.we haven't gotten out of middle east so what was point of electing him.he continued bush's
abuses of power.the top 1% continues to make off like gangbusters while 99% suffer and now he works with GOP to pass TPP and
bashes Elizabeth Warren while prasing paul Ryan and GOP leadership.

Enough is Enough.

[merrily]

35. She was not silent about TPP as S of S. She helped negotiate it and supported it.

More recently, she's silent and/or undecided. Not buying it.

[mother earth]

77. Truly. It tells us all we need to know. TPP is THE litmus test. nt

[Bohunk68]

126. I agree. Silence=Consent

[jeff47]

20. That was their theory in 2010 and 2014. Didn't work so well. (nt)

[merrily]

36. +1 Understatement of the century. Well, 1928 was almost a century ago.

[cui bono]

65. Yep, especially when we can see that tactic has taken the Dem Party further right,

enough now that the 'leadership' is centrist. That's not good enough for me. If the country is going to be ruined, I'm not going to vote to help that.

I will not vote for anyone any more who does not represent the people of America over the 1%. Period. Let the Cons win and ruin the country, then maybe we can get the Dem Party back in line. But if we keep going along with their game of making us take what they want us to have, you can kiss democracy goodbye.

[bvar22]

66. Many Democrats are voting out of undeserved "Brand Loyalty".

30 years ago, The Democratic Party was the Party of the Middle Class, Working Class, and the Poor.
Sadly, this is no longer true.

[abelenkpe]

5. K&R

[Orsino]

7. Scolding's fine by me.

Just be specific.

[Thinkingabout]

9. I read this post and the first thing which comes to mind is the "scolding" of progressives.

I wonder if it is ever taken into account of the amount of "scolding" of Democrats by those who claim to be progressive. It needs to stop, we are entitled to our opinions and should be respectful of each other. We have listened for years for years as the RW has torn President Obama apart cell by cell and then even here on DU there is too much disrespect of President Obama, he didn't get a single payer healthcare, he didn't do everything one thinks he could accomplish, he let me down, why? It plays into the hands of the GOP, we don't need to help the GOP, we need to build a stronger DNC.
The same talking points are given everyday which attacks Hillary, and oh if someone post something about Bernie they are attacked. There will be a time on DU this will not be allowed, why not have a hearty discussion promoting the candidate you are supporting and give good examples why your candidate is better. We know there are issues on Hillary, O'Malley and Bernie which does not fit our thought on these issues but tearing down the other candidates does not change the minds of the current supporters and it is actually a turn off to getting the undecided to listen.

Bottom line, the scolding needs to stop, allow for different opinions, promote DNC candidates, electing Democrats is the objective of DU, let's honor the administrators who have promoted and provided for DU.

[treestar]

18. +1

And they play the victim with this "scolding" - scolding is mere disagreement or pushback. Yet they can criticize and criticize and never have that called scolding. It's the Hippie Punching contingent that insists they are the victims whenever someone criticizes them, yet they have the right to unmitigated complaining and criticizing of others.

[jeff47]

22. Yes, the poor, oppressed centrists that are in complete control of the party leadership

and the only ones who get media attention. Look at how they suffer!

There will be a time on DU this will not be allowed, why not have a hearty discussion promoting the candidate you are supporting and give good examples why your candidate is better.

Then make your argument for Clinton without referring to anyone else. No "We have to keep the Republicans out". No "Sanders can't win". If you want to keep a high road and show how great your candidate is, do so. It does not require mentioning anyone other than your candidate.

But be prepared to back that up with concrete actions by your candidate. You can't only say "I just know Clinton would cut defense spending". You have to show some evidence.

If your argument requires mentioning someone else, then you do not have a good candidate. You have a not-as-bad candidate. If that motivates you, fine. But you should not expect that argument to play well with people who want to change the status quo - you are inherently supporting the status quo with that argument.

Bottom line, the scolding needs to stop, allow for different opinions, promote DNC candidates, electing Democrats is the objective of DU, let's honor the administrators who have promoted and provided for DU.

Fucking democracy and people having their own opinions.

Bottom line: Centrism is behind the failures of 2014, 2010, 2004, 2002 and 2000. In all of those elections, the national theme was "Republican lite". 2008 and 2012 were large successes with unabashedly liberal campaign themes - "Hope and Change" isn't "Keep the Republicans out". Crazy liberal ideas get high turnout, and thus Democratic victories. We should do more of that, if our goal is to actually keep the Republicans out of power.

[kentuck]

29. I would hope...

that if Bernie does not win, then Hillary will be a much stronger candidate because of Bernie being in the race. I think you are right about those "crazy liberal ideas".

[merrily]

38. If Bernie does not win, maybe O'Malley will be the much stronger

candidate for having been in the race with Bernie.

Or vice versa.

[Carewfan]

49. I think she will ignore the 99% and favor the 1%

once she clears the nomination and there wouldn't be any difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

It's going to be about the 1% vs the 99%.

[daleanime]

31. +1

[Thinkingabout]

34. The title of this thread is "Democrats should be wooing progressives, not scolding them"

Why can't progressives woo Democrats?


And then you add:

Fucking democracy and people having their own opinions.

Bottom line: Centrism is behind the failures of 2014, 2010, 2004, 2002 and 2000. In all of those elections, the national theme was "Republican lite". 2008 and 2012 were large successes with unabashedly liberal campaign themes - "Hope and Change" isn't "Keep the Republicans out". Crazy liberal ideas get high turnout, and thus Democratic victories. We should do more of that, if our goal is to actually keep the Republicans out of power.

Is this your plan to woo or be wooed? BTW, I do promote Hillary's experience, record, stand on the issues and foreign experience.

[Carewfan]

50. Looking at those losses

`Centrism certainly is a failure.

Hillary is a centrist or even right of center.

Looking at the 2014 elections, progressive issues won.

Let's go with a progressive candidate - Bernie Sanders. It's time, and let's give it a go.

[jeff47]

67. Well, step 1 is to stop throwing us out of the party.

As you do with "Why can't progressives woo Democrats?"

We're Democrats, too. If you want respect, step #1 is to not shit on the people you are demanding respect from.

Is this your plan to woo or be wooed?

Neither. It's pointing out reality does not fit your ideology. If you were correct about the need for centrism, those results would be the other direction - the centrism of 2014, 2010, 2004, 2002 and 2000 would have won, and the "crazy liberals" would have lost 2012, 2008 and 2006.

You claim to be all about pragmatism and being realistic. Well, there's reality right there.

The other bit-o-reality is this presidential election will be decided in the Democratic primary. The Democratic candidate only needs 1 large or 2 small swing states to get to 270 electoral votes. The Republican needs all 10 swing states, and has to turn one "blue" state. That will not happen unless the Democratic candidate runs a Gore-quality campaign. Both O'Malley and Sanders have faced difficult, contested campaigns and should do just fine.

BTW, I do promote Hillary's experience, record, stand on the issues and foreign experience.

Yet when challenged for things like the IWR vote, you turn to "Republicans bad!".

Again, if you have a good candidate, they can stand on their own.

Sanders and O'Malley have plenty of warts on their records. Their supporters will have to deal with them too.

[merrily]

43. +1 Preach! (It is Sunday, after all.)

[merrily]

39. Boo hoo. DU's right has been making the most horrible accusations about the left for years.

Racist, sexist, Republicans, far, far left, costing Democrats elections, depressing the vote, don't vote.

Then there was the alert stalking. Getting members of DU's left banned or driving them off.

What remains of DU's left finally started pushing back and y'all sure been having more complaints about the pushback than DU's left ever did about years of attacks from DU's right.

[smokey nj]

56. Amen!!!

[Enthusiast]

58. +1 a whole bunch!

[MannyGoldstein]

70. That's my feeling, as well. nt

[Scuba]

123. + another

[marym625]

127. +1000

I find it very telling how easily those on the left of DU are kicked while those on the right just keep coming back. Review after review, hide after hide.

Oh well. At least it's been calmer the last few days

[Zorra]

130. +1 The DU right is so blatantly dishonest they are an embarrassment

to the Democratic party.

[Scuba]

122. That's one big pile of shit.

[rhett o rick]

15. There is the Democratic Leadership and the grassroots Democrats. Two very different beasts.

The Party leaders would rather lose than turn to the Progressives. The 2000 election is a good example. Win-Win for the Powers That Be. If Gore didn't win, they had Bush. Win-Win.

And here we are again. The Powers That Be are not worried if they have HRC running against Bush. Again it's a win either way for the corporatists. Therefore the Party leaders, like the DNC, don't give a crap about no stinkin' Progressives.

[GoneFishin]

19. Yes. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that they are used to having their way all

of the time because they have an endless money supply, that they are not going to settle for a 50/50 chance of being heard when they can stack the deck and have a 100% guarantee of getting everything they want.

It's exactly what you would expect from the spoiled megalomaniacal emotionally stunted bastards.

[treestar]

17. Why bother?

Progressives should quit being so demanding. And it's never good enough for them anyway. Why are their votes more valuable than those of the rest of us? Never seen such an entitled group before.

They refuse to compromise and thus cannot be worked with or ever satisfied with any deal.

[jeff47]

21. Because it works.

It's amusing how many "pragmatic" people turn away from what has actually won recent elections, instead insisting we do what has lost over and over again recently. It isn't 1992 anymore.

2006, 2008, 2012 - "Hope and change". AKA, turn away from centrism. Yeah, Obama didn't live up to his campaign theme. The reasons as to why can be debated for centuries.

2014, 2010, 2004, 2002, 2000 - "Republican lite". Democrats lost.

Someone who was actually pragmatic might notice all those failures, and realize that winning requires a different strategy. Especially when polling shows that "the vast middle" does not actually exist, and cross-party-line voting almost never happens now. They might also notice that polling shows massive support for a whole lot of "crazy liberal" ideas.

Someone who's an ideologue and refuses to compromise might insist that centrism is the only way to win. The ideology wasn't wrong, Gore, Kerry, Coakley, Grimes, Landreau, Hagan and so many others failed the ideology.

[treestar]

87. Anyone who wants to be POTUS will of necessity compromise

the "the center." That is where most of the votes are.

And you are as incorrect as the Republicans when they say they lost because their candidates for not extreme enough. Look at what happened to McGovern. Dennis Kucinich would have lost badly too. The country contains many people to the right of you and a huge number will necessarily be in the center and out from there.

If only they heard Bernie they'd agree with him and vote with him is not what would happen. They'd hear him and run from the "socialism." I can agree with him and at the same time realize most people don't, and we'd lose the election if we picked someone from the left of our center (as Democrats).

[jeff47]

96. And, unsurprisingly, we're back to all those people failing your ideology.

Anyone who wants to be POTUS will of necessity compromise the "the center." That is where most of the votes are.

That's where most of the votes were. We are no longer in 1992.

The southern realignment kicked off by Atwater is done. Cross-party voting is minuscule now, and has been for more than a decade. There is no vast pool of voters in the middle that go from one party to the other. Instead, Democratic-leaning "marginally attached voters" either vote Democrat or stay home. Republican-leaning "marginally attached voters" vote Republican or stay home. Those marginally-attached voters aren't centrists. They're all over the map.

You are trying to get those marginally attached Republicans to vote Democratic. They'll pull their own arm off before they pull the lever for a Democrat.

Look at what happened to McGovern.

Guess what? It isn't 1972 either.

So, you have one example from 43 years ago. I provided 6 from 1 to 15 years ago. I wonder which ones are more relevant to next year...hrm...

The country contains many people to the right of you and a huge number will necessarily be in the center and out from there.

Wrong. The population used to be a bell curve around the center. But times change and politics changes. Polling shows that are now two lumps in the distribution, a Democratic-leaning hump and a Republican-leaning hump. There is a pit in the middle.

You are aiming for the pit.

Again, if your theory was correct, Gore would have won. Kerry would have won. Coakley would have won either race. Obama should have lost in 2008 and 2012. 2010 and 2014 should have been successes. All of those races followed your approach.

The exact opposite happened. Targeting the center greatly hurt Democratic turnout, and won virtually no cross-party votes from Republicans. And even in "wave" elections like 2010 and 2014, not hiding from the term "Liberal" won.

You are demanding we do it again, despite the constant stream of failure in the last 15 years. Why should we listen to you when you keep being wrong?

[treestar]

108. The voters are where they are

your dreams notwithstanding.

[Skittles]

120. they're NOT center

when voters are actually questioned they offer views that are very much LEFT of center

[Scuba]

124. Then explain the centrist candidate losses accompanied by progressive referendum wins in 2014.

[YoungDemCA]

114. It's a myth that Obama ran as a non-centrist progressive candidate

And furthermore, Democrats don't win or lose votes based on ideology. You severely overestimate the American electorate's ideological convictions.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

51. They refuse to compromise?

Then how did we get the ACA? You have no idea what you're talking about. Is there a Zell Miller forum? He seems to be more your type.

[treestar]

88. What? The ones in Congress you mean?

Who wanted more than the ACA but could not get enough votes in their own body? Though Pelosi did have a public option in the House Bill.

I'm talking about the people of DU who are never satisfied and threatened not to vote in 2010 because they didn't get it all and then helped create a Republican Congress for ages. There is no reason to attempt to woo voters who will never be satisfied. I don't know why they demand to be wooed either. They are not helping or out campaigning but sitting waiting to be wooed. That's not how you get what you want out of politics.

[cui bono]

74. Yes. Those damn progressives demanding equal rights, civil rights, privacy, social security.

What a selfish bunch they are. They'll never be happy unless everyone is treated fairly and allowed to get a living wage. Why should we care about what they want?

They are just mad because the 1% are getting 90% of the income in this country, what whiners they are.

You're right, they just won't be satisfied until people have justice, equal rights and a living wage. Fuck them. So damn entitled.



Never would think that on a Democratic board someone would rail against those who are fighting for social and economic justice for all, as well as our constitutional rights.

Progressives should quit being so demanding. And it's never good enough for them anyway. Why are their votes more valuable than those of the rest of us? Never seen such an entitled group before.

They refuse to compromise and thus cannot be worked with or ever satisfied with any deal.

That little rant of yours shows just how far right Dems have gone. What a travesty. When a Dem sounds just like a Con, even a 1%er!

[arcane1]

79. "Things would go so much more smoothly if these progressives just went along with conservatives."

"Success" apparently means different things to different people.

[treestar]

92. You mean Republicans?

Or are you labeling other Democrats "conservatives." Well then, we all exist and work together. Why don't you get some candidates to woo the Third Wayers? Why is one side of the party better than the other. Especially one that has a longer way to go to convince the voters in general to go along with things like single payer, more socialist type of safety net.

[YoungDemCA]

115. They're not willing to meet anyone else halfway - or even a quarter of the way

They think compromise is a bad word. Funny, the Tea Partiers think the same thing.

[treestar]

91. You've changed to the goal from the means

No we want all those things too - it is dishonest to say the Progressive who demands to be wooed by others wants it more - they want to be made much of and "wooed."

In getting those things, you have to be part of some larger movement working for those things. Instead they are saying those already out there should beg them to join. If we have to beg them to join, they don't really care about equality, etc.

The very demand to be wooed is saying they expect to be served, not work alongside. And it's never good enough anyway. Whatever progress the people who actually volunteer to campaign, etc. make is never enough.

[cui bono]

98. I responded directly to your post.

You abhor progressives. Got it. That was crystal clear from your last post. And that is the biggest problem. Centrists think they own the Dem Party and if we don't accept what you are willing to allow us we are called whiners. Well, the history of this country is full of rights that were won by those you think will never be satisfied. That's a good thing. As soon as you get complacent the corporatists come in and take things over. And the fight is far from over. Look at all the systemic racism/sexism/homophobia in this country. Should we settle for that? No! We keep fighting. Look at the income disparity. Should we settle for that? No! We keep fighting. That's what democracy is about. You want to sit back and be happy with a few bread crumbs, have at it, but don't chastise people who are continuing to fight for equality and justice for all and who continue to fight for our constitutional rights.

You tell us we will never be satisfied and then tell us we have to be part of some larger movement. We are part of a larger movement. But you resent us for it. I believe it's because you are fine with corporate/RW policy. Progressives are not. Progressives seem to never be satisfied because we have a Dem POTUS who is enacting/enforcing/FIGHTING FOR Republican corporate policy. Why should we be satisfied with that? We should not be and so we continue to fight for what is right for the American people, not for global corporations.

You don't have to beg us to join, we're here, you just happen to be ignoring us. You are so willing to defend Republican policies that we have to kick and scream to even get noticed. You yourself were defending the TPP. That is complete conservative/corporate policy. There is not one thing about it that smacks of the Democratic Party.

If you are going to let the term "woo" upset you enough to discount progressives and dismiss progressives as people who don't volunteer to campaign, etc, then you are doing exactly the opposite of what you claim you want to accomplish. You can't ask us to just fight for what you want, things like the TPP, you will NEVER get a progressive to fight for that. Centrist/RW policy is NOT okay.

We don't want you to beg us to participate - we ARE participating - we want you to stop working to enact centrist/Republican policies and start fighting for what the Dem Party used to stand for, the people. And stop telling us to STFU as Rahm did, and stop telling us we want too much. Fairness and equality and justice are never too much.

[treestar]

107. We do not demand to be "wooed."

[Art_from_Ark]

132. Great post!

[BrotherIvan]

133. Bravo!!

[kentuck]

23. Progressives. Schmogressives. They are a minority in the Democratic Party anymore...

It doesn't matter what they say or what they want.

The moneyed interests have taken over the Party and they will cavort around with the big bankers and foreign multi-corporations and call it "pragmatism". That's just the way it is done, they say.

So sit down and shut up.

But please remember to vote and work to put our corporate candidates into the White House. We have to be pragmatic...

[PatrickforO]

24. Maybe at a visceral level, people are feeling that our current neoliberal capitalist model is

unsustainable. Because it is.

And they are asking some pointed questions about why we don't have policies in place that use OUR tax dollars that WE'VE paid in to make our lives better. Single payer healthcare. Free college and graduate school. Expanded Social Security. Massive cuts in the military/national security bloat. Bringing our troops home, and investing heavily in veterans benefits instead of the massive wait lists we have now. Tax code changed so the 30+ Fortune 500 companies currently NOT paying ANY U.S. income tax pay their fair share. Massive upgrades to our infrastructure. The tax code changed so capital gains are taxed as regular income. Imposing a transaction tax on stock trades to get the 'bots out of day trading. Getting rid of the Fed and nationalizing the central bank so we HAVE the money to do the things we need. Focusing on investments that allow a rapid transition away from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy.

CEO salaries capped, corporate charters changed away from primacy to shareholders toward responsibility to all stakeholders. 'Too big to fail' banks split up. Heavy regulations on Wall Street, including reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. Subsidies to big oil and gas companies stopped.

I guess that's enough for a start.

[kentuck]

28. Or the alternative?

Just keep the status quo, except at a slightly slower rate?

[PatrickforO]

57. The problem with that is that we may not have time to uphold the status quo because of

climate change accelerated by our own carbon emissions.

Plus, I can share this quote from Martin Luther King Junior's 'Letter from the Birmingham Jail.' It speaks to the establishment question, "Why can't we go more slowly? This is a bad time...Sweeping change will upset people..."

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

And again...

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

So, basically, kentuck, when a so-called moderate Democrat says they agree with the goals we seek, but cannot agree with (the) methods of direct action being advocated, all they are really doing is paying lip service to the things that matter but then ignoring those things when they come to power. That is no longer acceptable because the damage we've done to the very earth on which we live makes change urgent. That's one of the reasons I liked Obama enough in 08 to volunteer for his campaign. He spoke of the 'urgency of now.'

That's why the point of my original post is that it seems to me that our species is reaching a 'quickening' around issues of social, economic and environmental justice. This is the meaning of the concept 'meme.' These memes come from what Jung called he collective unconscious - the collective genetic 'memory' of our species over millennia of life. People are coming to 'know' at a visceral level that our current neoliberal capitalist model that spouts deregulation, privatization and ending social safety nets in favor of the supposedly benign 'invisible hand' of the market is unsustainable. Thus, deep inside more and more of us, there is a hunger for leaders who not only SAY the right things, but DO the right things.

Unless we take some prompt actions right now, kentuck, I'll say what I've said before: there will be massive social unrest. Since I would hate to live in such a time at my age, I try and advocate more rapid change within the system. Even NASA, DOD, the armed forces, many multinational corporations and certainly local thought leaders throughout the world are now saying the current system is unsustainable. It is elementary that if we begin changes now, those necessary changes (for our survival as a species) will be much less painful than if we wait longer and 'keep the status quo.'

[kentuck]

71. The "urgency of now"..

I think a lot of liberals feel that way. It is a time for action, not just talk. We have reached a point that requires action, in my opinion. I think Bernie Sanders feels the same way. The US Government is a large ship, and unless he has a lot of like-minded help, it will take a long time to turn it around...

[Enthusiast]

30. +1

[merrily]

33. FDR's 40 years of coattails were no coincidence.

Let's talk polls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036


Chart: America Is More Liberal Than Politicians Think
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778489


Politicians and mainstream media need to stop repeating the Big Lie about how far right Americans have gone. Politicians went right. So did mainstream, corporate media. Maybe they hoped they'd make Americans follow them. However, Americans did not go right, even on issues that both of the two largest political parties and msm harangued them about incessantly.

[MohRokTah]

52. The Left CONSTANTLY excoriated FDR.

Far worse than they have done to Obama.

Just sayin'.

[merrily]

54. Irrelevant to my post and totally beside the point.

Probably a half truth at best, too. But, let's just leave it at irrevelant. Deflection attempts are so boring.

[MohRokTah]

55. I disagree completely with that.

It's entirely relevant to your point and demonstrates how little effect the LEft has actually had on real policy and the coattails of FDR.

[fredamae]

46. I agree but look at it from

a slightly different perspective.
"We" who consider ourselves liberal/populists aka: The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party should NOT have to Beg and Criticize our elected Democratic officials who simply Call themselves Democrats, to Stand With and For their Base!
That is a Huge Problem and has Stunk up the Dem Party for Decades.
We can no longer pretend that "river of crap" that runs beneath "our" party doesn't exist, nor can we continue to Ignore it has Breached the banks...

[Maedhros]

53. Democrats should BE Progressives. [n/t]

[merrily]

59. Most rank and file Democrats are. Some rank and file Republicans, too. Please see sources linked in

Reply 33, above http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6757494

[Susan.Garvin]

61. Sigh

They keep telling us progressives aren't electable. I guess not, if we never nominate one.

[mother earth]

69. We will, and they will be. Despite doing their best to marginalize & persuade us otherwise, the

majority in this country are fed up with both parties because of the corporate coup d'état and the revolving door that keeps l% rich & unfettered by law. The huge lack of accountability has reached its tipping point.

They like to call it a populist movement, but it could be called the fed up & not gonna take it any more era, which is really what it is.

When our country has become an oligarchy right before our eyes, thanks to deregulation & the revolving door, there's no choice left but to out and out revolt & go LEFT.

(Edited to add: Welcome to DU. )

[kentuck]

73. The "tipping point"?

Perhaps?

[mother earth]

75. Well, if it hasn't pushed us there yet, than I don't know what will.

[merrily]

78. Look at how electible Third Way Democrats were in 2014.

Two years after Clinton became President, we lost both houses of Congress for the first time since the Eisenhower administration. We can probably thank how horrid Bush 43 was for our success in 2006. That and Obama's coattails gave us 2008 victories. However, 2010 and 2014 were horrific.

If that's being more electible, I'll eat the capitol building fragment by fragment.

[YoungDemCA]

118. If more people voted for progressives, they would win more often

nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

80. Just doesn't happen. We're the Cassandras.

We point out the likely failures in advance, then instead of getting 'street cred' for knowing our butts from our elbows, get blamed for those outcomes, while the Party folks double down on the bad ideas, just like in that cartoon someone posted earlier, saying to themselves 'The problem was that we just didn't do ENOUGH of the stupid things we were doing.'

[mother earth]

81. I think things have gone too far, TPTB have taken us to the edge & all is NOT well, too many are

living on less with more to pay for everything. When our gov't represents oligarchy, there is not democratic party, there is no republican party, there is only OLIGARCHY. Are we going to act against the takeover, or are we going to allow it & cheer it on?

This is our fight. It doesn't matter who wins in the election, if we no longer have a voice. That's where we are now. Our voice has been silenced to empower oligarchy interests. If Bernie Sanders does not win the nomination, I fear for our country.

Poverty is growing, along with it, anger is growing. The boiling point is here, all we have to do is look at Baltimore for an example of what inequality has wrought.

It is going to require all of us, a social movement, that is truly growing today, to change things. I'm not going to empower anything that does not represent my values.

It's time to put an end to this illusion we are being fed, the revolution will not be televised.

[Egnever]

86. Such horseshit

The democr4atic party isn't a store you buy stuff from it is a party you are or arent a part of. You are the party make it what you want. Crying that they arent kissing your ass screams you aren't involved in doing a damn thing to make the changes you want happen besides bitching.

[mother earth]

94. Well, the oligarchy is buying something.

Money is being well spent too, by way of deregulation & the revolving door.

I think a lot of ass kissing is going on, and it is working well for the l%.

[Egnever]

95. The oligarchy...

LOL

The Democratic party is a disorganized mess. Go to local party meetings you will quickly see how easy it is to make changes.


Pretending it is some closed off system that gives you what it wants shows a complete lack of participation.

[DCBob]

105. +1

It amazing why so many on the left think they are shut out of the process. I think Hillary would be very open to some serious dialogue with progressive leaders to formulate a more progressive/liberal agenda during her administration. But if they are only interested in staying on the sidelines and hurling stones.. they wont get anywhere with that.

[mother earth]

110. The "Process" has been hijacked, my friend. That is the problem. nt

[DCBob]

111. There are issues with the "Process" but you wont solve them by bashing Democrats.

Obama, Hillary and other Democrats are our best hope of fixing this mess.

[mother earth]

129. I'm not bashing Democrats, my support is with Bernie Sanders at this time. That's support, not

bashing. Yes, I agree with the article I posted. We need to embrace our progressive values, it is the best of the best of democratic principles, imho. I've been a democrat by entire life, if I criticize it is because of how far right our party has been pushed. No one can deny this.

[mother earth]

109. First of all, I am not the author of the article in the OP,

and the article, if one reads it, speaks more about the issues at hand & the infighting of the democratic party. Yeah, I'll agree, it is a mess.

You know what else is a mess? How quickly we buy into corporate candidates, or at least we used to. That seems to be changing, which is my point entirely. The majority of people in this country are angry & it is not business as usual for the democratic party, nor is it for the republicans, which further makes my point. There is one nominee that can make all the difference. Agree with me or not, I really don't care. It is my opinion.

So your jabs are of no consequence, just a little game, have at it.

[YoungDemCA]

117. +1000. Threads like this are pretty sad, actually

If your'e not willing to participate, you have no right to complain in this way. Well OK, you have the right to complain. And others have the right to not take your complaints seriously.

[L0oniX]

89. They'd just throw us under the bus again.

[DCBob]

97. Progressives should be wooing our likely nominee...

if they want to participate in the next administration.

[cui bono]

99. Oh really? So democracy isn't about voting for who you think will be the best person

to represent you?

Hmph. I've been had!!!

[DCBob]

100. Sure you can vote for whomever you want..

But if you care about having a voice during the next 4-8 years of the Hillary Clinton administration you might consider the old saying.."if you can't beat em join em".

[cui bono]

101. So you think the party leadership should only listen to its members who agree with them?

That party members with differing views be damned?

[DCBob]

103. Not at all.. I think she will try to surround herself with people of all political persuasions.

But if you are only interested in bashing her then I dont think she would be interested in giving you much attention.

[cui bono]

119. Who am I bashing and where am I bashing them?

[DCBob]

121. My comments were not meant to refer to you specifically.

[U4ikLefty]

102. They think we will cave & vote for the annointed one because we have "no other choice."

I feel they are mistaken.

[99Forever]

112. The real Democrat is wooing me...

... his name is Bernie Sanders. I'm smitten.

[Pastiche423]

113. I'm smitten too

And it feels so damn good!

[YoungDemCA]

116. ....

[Scuba]

125. K&R

[beam me up scottie]

131. kick