The Democratic Party in 2016 Primaries is either going to completely morph into a new

[Seeinghope]

Political party that is nothing like the traditional Democratic Party of the 60's and 70's or is will be resurrected and we will be blessed with the Democratic values of the JFK, RFK, HHH and LBJ days.

Those prominent Democrats who stood for real Democratic values would not recognize the Democratic Party today. Bernie Sanders is the only one who is still holding onto their values and that can keep the Democratic Party Democratic.

[oldandhappy]

1. We are watching!

[onehandle]

2. Cool story, bro. nt

[Recursion]

3. About that... the Left really, really needs to get over the 1960s

The party adapts to the times; it's not some frozen-in-amber model of what the Olds remember from their halcyon days, and it shouldn't be.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. i wanna see you tell a vietnam vet to get over it

Let me know when you do so i can bring all my friends to watch.

[Recursion]

7. Since their average age is about 70 I'm sure I'd be fine

There are plenty of Vietnam vets at my VFW and Legion posts, and they seem like nice guys, though very old. But they aren't "the Left", so I'm not sure what your point was.

[Recursion]

16. What? The Vietnam vets at my VFW post are both old and conservative. What's "abusive" about pointing

that out? Since I'm talking about what those of us on the Left need to do, and that doesn't include them, I don't see what you're getting so defensive about.

[Recursion]

18. Well, you and Viva did exactly what I'm talking about

I said "the Left needs to get over the 60s". There was a lot more to the 60s than the Vietnam War (and more of it happened in the 70s than the 60s, for that matter), but that's right where Viva went. But the fact is the grandchildren of Vietnam vets are voting this cycle and the party has a lot more useful things to do than humoring a faction that's still stuck on an accounting of it.

[Human101948]

56. Those grandchildren support the socialist left policies of Bernie Sanders by a large majority...

so what are you talking about?

[Recursion]

57. Indeed, and they'd be horrified by the policies of JFK or FDR

Which is pretty much my point.

[AgingAmerican]

67. Who are 'they'?

[Recursion]

69. Younger Sanders supporters

As opposed to the older Sanders supporters, who simply choose to ignore lots of JFK's and FDR's actual policies because they don't fit the golden tint that memory has given the past for them.

[AgingAmerican]

70. Which policies specifically?

[Recursion]

71. Caving to the South on the New Deal for one

by leaving most majority-black occupations not covered by Social Security. Obviously internment. Both JFK and FDR campaigned on cutting taxes, which doesn't go well with the zeitgeist today. JFK's hawkishness would be a hard swallow for a lot of younger supporters, too. And, hell, if one man represents the Democratic Party of the 1960s (what the OP wants to return to) it's LBJ -- do you really need a breakdown of all the ways his policies would alienate Sanders's supporters?

[AgingAmerican]

72. So Millennials would be against Social Security?

I agree about JFKs hawkishness, but I don't recall JFK ever being held in the same regard as FDR.

LBJ represents leftist policies in the 60s because of the voting rights act, the civil rights act and the social safety net. Not because of his Vietnam war policies.

[Human101948]

78. Of course anyone who reads history will know about these things

But what we cling to are the goods things that were done, not the bad. and there are many progressive accomplishments that can be cherished and defended. Love the Civil Rights act under LBJ, hate the Vietnam War, for instance.

Should we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[AgingAmerican]

66. Do you consider yourself to be a part of 'the right'?

Because you obviously don't consider yourself a part of the left.

[Recursion]

68. No, the left, which is why I try to give others on the left with me advice (nt)

[hobbit709]

47. Most of the vietnam vets I know want to have nothing to do with the VFW or the American Legion.

Pretty much all of my buddies are liberal lefties.

[VulgarPoet]

77. Do you know how hard it is to get a VFW, AL, IVAW, et al member to show a valid DD-214?

Part of the reason why when I'm out, I'll have nothing to do with those organizations. Too many possible walking instances of stolen valor for my liking-- another reason I can't support Clinton. Sniper fire in Bosnia, my ass.

[Fumesucker]

33. I remember going to the VFW a long time ago as a recently discharged vet

I got told by the WWII vets hanging out there "We won our war"...

Never set foot in a VFW again, they are conservative to the core but that doesn't mean all Vietnam Vets are conservative.

[Recursion]

34. Yeah, I prefer the Legion a lot (nt)

[whathehell]

52. You don't know what you're talking about..

It might be time to shut up and listen to those who were there.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

5. The people most supporting the 1960esque democrat are young people nt

[Recursion]

8. He's not a 1960esque Democrat. Hell, he protested LBJ back in the 1960s

FFS, people complain about centrism in the Democratic party today, and then point to the 1960s as a better time? It's surreal.

[Ken Burch]

12. He protested LBJ in solidarity with the PEOPLE of the Democratic Party. n/t.

[Recursion]

15. Who, remember, were not the majority of the party, nor even close to it

This is what I'm talking about downthread. That's over and gone. It's 2016, and we need to nominate someone in 2016.

[KPN]

9. Oh, you mean the future of the party?

[highprincipleswork]

10. Perhaps you'd prefer a party indefinitely dedicated to appeasing the ways of Ronald Reagan?

[Recursion]

21. Why? That's the right's version of this and it's even worse when they do it

The solutions to the problems of a half century ago are not the solutions to today's problems.

[highprincipleswork]

25. Don't fucking call me a rightist.

[Recursion]

27. Huh? I didn't (nt)

[pdsimdars]

32. What is wrong with this thread?

Is it the time of day?
Do people loose their sh*t at this hour or something?
You seem to be posting some simple statements and some people go brezerk. What is that?

[highprincipleswork]

41. OK then. I've read more, and I'm getting your drift.

But there is nothing inherently wrong with the "old solutions" either. They actually worked to set-up a very robust economy.

Yes, the world has changed and will change and the globalism of it and the automation of it and even the Internet of it are things we haven't dealt with very well.

But the fundamental thing that has to be reinstated is a fundamental premise of government as being "for the common good". That essential characteristic, in the founding papers, has been lost for some berserk form of the American dream which is strictly "dog eat dog". That experiment is not working, and does not have to be. We are all in this together, and we will rise or fall together, one way or the other.

I hope and assume that you will agree with this, and that any healthy economy has its roots in also effectively contributing to the welfare of an entire nation, not just the wealthiest 1 percent.

[fun n serious]

42. A refreshing post with wisdom. Thank you nt

[RKP5637]

51. Exceptionally well said!!! n/t

[Armstead]

81. The principles are the same

As is motivation of those who oppose solutions that benefit thae majority over the elite minority and the massive corporations and institutions they control.

[Ken Burch]

11. Adapting to the times doesn't have to mean moving to the right.

And it can't ever be consistent with anything this party is about to give corporate donors a major say in what we stand for.

You're either with the streets, or the suites. You can't pretend to be with both.

[Recursion]

14. Indeed it doesn't, nor am I suggesting that

It does, however, mean letting go of a lot of old fights from a half century ago, and it means no longer pretending the universe revolves around a period between JFK and Patty Hearst.

[kristopher]

19. So you think everything is fine. That the principles you endorse dropping mean...?

It's clear the reference we are pointing to in this thread are collectively, the principles of social democracy that FRD spelled out and that Bernie is campaigning for.

As I read it, you think that the embodiment of the left, the principles of the left that we are talking about is a "frozen-in-amber model of what the Olds remember from their halcyon day" and that we should "adapt to the times".

Is that accurate?

[Recursion]

20. Ask seeinghope, who specifically called out the "traditional" party of the 60s and 70s

Ignoring (it seems to me) that there were a lot of changes between the party that started the 1960s and the party that ended the 1970s, also ignoring that FDR was elected three decades before and dead two decades before the 1960s.

the principles of the left that we are talking about is a "frozen-in-amber model of what the Olds remember from their halcyon day" and that we should "adapt to the times".

Yes, the problems we face now are different than the problems we faced then, and need different solutions.

[kristopher]

22. No, I would like you to be specific about the policies you want to drop.

Stop insinuating that change must occur without spelling it out.

What specific policy changes do we engage?
What values dictate our top 5 priorities?

What goes?
What stays?

We all KNOW what the Democratic party is; in both fact and ideal. And we both perceive a disconnect between the facts as they are and the professed ideal.

You are suggesting we need to update the system to repair this disconnect and you are trying to sway us to your view; so be specific. What is your way to deal with corporatism controlling policymaking?

[Recursion]

23. Sure thing. Our last platform was 2012 so I'll go with that

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#economy-built-to-last

I'd start here. Manufacturing employment isn't coming back any more than agricultural employment is. We need to raise wages in the service industry rather than trying to recreate a simulacrum of the 1950s economy.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#cutting-waste

The deficit is not a problem and we don't need a plan for cutting it

More troubling is what's missing:

Where's any talk about how to deal with automation rendering more and more jobs unnecessary? What's our party's plan? What about standing up to states that deny civil rights to LGBT persons? (In fairness that wasn't quite so clearly an issue in 2012.) I'm glad to see it includes the goal of lowering emissions, but we really need to be talking about strategies to ameliorate the damage that's already happening right now. The sole talk about transit is highways, FFS. We need to be thinking past that.

[kristopher]

26. You seem to have drifted from the original question.

Sorry to push this, but we started here; I've added bold to key points.

So you think everything is fine. That the principles you endorse dropping mean...?
It's clear the reference we are pointing to in this thread are collectively, the principles of social democracy that FRD spelled out and that Bernie is campaigning for.

As I read it, you think that the embodiment of the left, the principles of the left that we are talking about is a "frozen-in-amber model of what the Olds remember from their halcyon day" and that we should "adapt to the times".
Is that accurate?

When I framed my question on policy specifics, it was a follow to what I viewed as a non-answer to the question on principles. I expected your answer to have more of a principle -> policy link.

Without a guiding set of principles about who the economy is working for your policy specific aren't particularly informative since they don't allow a broad-based understanding of what the policies are supposed to actually accomplish when crafted. There are a lot of ways to solve problems, and the devil is in the details dictated by people's principles.

ETA: What I'm asking is a standard of how policy is made - first we clarify the normative economics we are applying, then we move on to the positive picture.

[Recursion]

28. Exactly: you equate FDR with "principles of social democracy"

You see one and only one way to be a social Democrat, FDR's. That's it in a nutshell.

We need to keep the principles of social democracy, and that means moving on from 80 years ago. We have a vastly different economy now, and a vastly slower government (in the 1930s you could just decide to build a road somewhere; it takes years and years now to even get approval for a route).

[kristopher]

38. So you are not willing to articulate the principles that you live by?

You see one and only one way to be a social Democrat, FDR's. That's it in a nutshell.

This isn't complicated and you are a clever, articulate person. So when you try to drag a red herring towards me to deflect yet again from the question, you must know how strongly it seems you are trying to avoid clearly defining the values and principles you are following in your evaluation.

When you say that I "see one and only one way to be a social Democrat" it tells me nothing and we've already established that in the first post I made

I'd like to know what "way" do you see to be a social democrat that is different?

Values, principles, policies.

People.

[Recursion]

40. Well, I told you: I want a social democratic movement that moves past

the fetishization of manufacturing, embraces the service economy, and starts doing the legwork for what a largely-automated future will look like. You didn't like that answer, though.

[kristopher]

43. That has nothing to do with values or principles.

It may describe one possible configuration of a future economy, but it tells us nothing about what happens to the fruits of production or the relationship of the individual citizen of the state to the economy. That's where you have to absolutely must start or else you are only placing band-aids. The principles we espouse serve the same purpose of guidance whether they are applied to manufacturing or to service jobs because they are an over-arching idea that sketches out what the human condition "should be".

That's ok. I understand that you seek to preserve the status quo with a little tweaking around the edges.

Sorry to tell you this, that means you aren't even close to embracing or even understanding what democratic socialism is all about. I see nothing to tell me elsewise when you balk at FDR and deride what was happening in the 60s.

"Ignoring (it seems to me) that there were a lot of changes between the party that started the 1960s and the party that ended the 1970s, also ignoring that FDR was elected three decades before and dead two decades before the 1960s."

Let me ask you this - what was the right wing doing during that period of 60s/70s change which you find so compelling? You say the problems are different, and I tell you they are the same and are centered on a single issue: a fair division of resources.
Do you note the word "fair"?
That's why the values and principles discussion has to come first. If we can't agree on what's fair and that we should use the democratic process to place that distribution into effect, we effectively let the 1% decide and enter a state of indentured servitude. Any limits they establish will not restrain their own accumulation of power, and that, my friend, makes "democracy" nothing but a sham.

[Recursion]

44. Maybe to you it doesn't (nt)

[kristopher]

45. Empirically it doesn't.

Words have meanings.

[whathehell]

53. Historians voted FDR the third greatest president* in all of U S history..

You could do a lot worse for a role model.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. George Washington is often voted the greatest. Let's bring back slavery. N.T.

[whathehell]

74. Of course, because that's the reason for his rank, modern historians being notoriously pro-slavery..

Are you shitting me?


I thought you were one of the sharper folks here, but I must be confusing you with another, because

that is the most embarrassingly lame post I believe I've ever seen.

[pdsimdars]

35. Not so sure you're right about that.

Certainly there are differences, but the basic model is much the same. There are patterns throughout history. For instance we have a greater income gap than was there just before the great crash. Whenever we have these income gaps it ends badly.
And isn't the rule of the banksters similar to the trust barons (or whatever they were called).
It's good to look at history and see what happened and what worked and what didn't work.

[Avalon Sparks]

24. Hillary is Supply Side and Endless War...and Free Trade

Well, The "New Dems" your adapting to...

Are supporting the Reagan and Bush gameplans in Critical areas.

Supply side and Free Trade have middle class losing ground.

Endless War is devouring our Tax Dollars and Blowing up the Dept.

Is That What You Want "New Dem"?

[PatrickforO]

29. Perhaps the party is misjudging the times.

The concept of 'adapting' is pretty lame there, Recursion.

It would be better, would it not, if party leaders had a VISION, shared that with the people and then CHANGED THE TIMES FOR THE BETTER??? I mean, doesn't that sound better than 'adapting' to the predatory capitalist shit hole this country has become? I think it does.

[Recursion]

30. I can't think of a time I'd rather be alive in the US than right now.

Literally.

Can you? And if so, when?

I don't recognize the shithole a lot of people seem convinced we are.

(Keep in mind you aren't guaranteed to be white, male, or straight when you go back.)

[pdsimdars]

37. Now I see. . .. I guess I missed part of the earlier conversation

I see how people could disagree. . . . .
We're on the verge of becoming a fascist state and this is the best of times for you?
Go online and listen to some Thom Hartmann. . . he's great with history, knows it well and explains it well.

But that is true on the social issues. We've come a long way. We gotta get that economic side fixed up or we're gone. Maybe that's the reason you guys are whistling past each other. . .
On the social issues, we're much better off. . . . but on the economic issues (which they seem to be talking about) we're pretty near the sh*thole.

[Recursion]

39. Eh, we've always been one step away from becoming a fascist state

But that is true on the social issues. We've come a long way.

To say the least.

We gotta get that economic side fixed up or we're gone.

There's stuff we could improve, sure, but I'd say we're better than most other times in US history. People pine for the days of one-earner families but seem to forget that that was based on keeping women and minorities out of the workforce (not to mention every other industrialized country having recently been bombed to oblivion).

but on the economic issues (which they seem to be talking about) we're pretty near the sh*thole.

I don't see it. Incomes are higher than at any point except the 2006-2008 bubble, as are wages (at every quintile; not just for the very rich, though theirs are by far up the most). And household debt is down from that time. I'd guess the 1990s were a pretty good time economically (particularly the later part), but then again that's precisely the time period a lot of DU seems to be railing against.

[kristopher]

46. You don't seem to know what fascism is.

"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

ABSTRACTEach of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

The last paragraph of their findings:

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

[KitSileya]

54. Yeah, the party they are dreaming off was a whole lot whiter, and had tons of dixiecrats.

Today, the party is overwhelmingly diverse. The majority of white men vote republican, and white women vacillate (I am a white woman myself) but minorities are now the backbone of the party. That's why the party of today isn't the party of the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's. The world is a different place today. Had BS lived in the 30's, would he and his supporters have supported the 'war-mongering' FDR or would they have denounced him as a hawk that murdered a whole lot of women and children?

[djean111]

59. Oh, my - "the Left really, really needs to get over the 1960s" - heh, or else find or

start a new party, eventually.

Maybe Third Way and neocon governance is okay with you, but I will not be enabling it. Ever. Nor will the newly energized voters.

[ljm2002]

76. Your snarky reply notwithstanding...

...the fact is that the biggest support for Bernie comes from the ranks of the young folks (not "the Olds", as you so dismissively call us), who were not even born until the 1960s were 20 years or more in the past -- but who are very savvy with modern stuff like the Internet and social media.

Wow you hit a trifecta: bad analysis, snark and ageism all rolled into one pi(th)(ss)y post.

Well if you are lucky, one day you too will be "an Old".

Pffffffffffffft.

[Hydra]

6. I don't know that we're going back

But something significant will indeed happen- either we are going left, or our party is kicking us out permanently.

[PATRICK]

36. All the iconic discussions

of the past contain confusion and tragic divisions we should indeed get past- and progress where FDR left off. Kennedy and Johnson tried to build on that but failed to go far enough beyond incremental change. Hell, I guess getting shot is failing? Constant war was the pivot that turned to the hungry reaction building within the restive conservative elements of the Democrats(maybe they longed for ante-bellum splendor, who knows?) and of course the totally at sea Gilded Age GOP who wanted to undo everything psotive given to the people since the Great Depression(oh, we could keep the dirt-eating poverty!). The bastards won on both sides and the road kill lane of rightward leaning "bi-partisanship", a true love fest of the enemies of the state.

The people have been split and exploited over war, moral values(who gets punished?), and our economy re-modeled on our exploitation of Latin American killing fields. The "new" conservative ideas!

We've needed new ideas and democratic power to progress them for at least half a century and what we have gotten is a bath of sh*t, less health care, less housing, less jobs, less life expectancy, continual war, mainly exporting jobs and wealth. There is so much that can be done simply expanding FDR's new Bill of Rights, restoring fairness in media and tax codes before we even get to the renaissance of production suited to THIS time and what is to come that there are no rational arguments to go backward, go slow, adopt hypocritical and ancient rightist idiocy, or simply have faith in turgid, bloody orgy pragmatism.

No, people born after a certain time of progress and disasters have little appreciation for the historical trajectory than how they are screwed now and so plainly marked for getting worse in a future that is certain to be, shall we say, more challenging than any the human race has faced before.

It's gone right beyond the two parties and their checkered past and careers buried in tainted seas of wealth. Too many people "hope" it has gone beyond the people too. In the past they've shot a few gifted leaders who had the vision to really lead us in the true direction. The only division is between those who gratuitously do nothing but harm and those who try to help others. The chasm between those two cannot be crossed.

[pdsimdars]

31. It's not the 60s or 70s, it's Bill Clinton

The party had always been for the people and labor, etc. But Bill Clinton hatched the plan that changed that. They decided that if the Republicans could get all that money from corporations, why couldn't they do it too. And thus he abandoned unions and went for Wall Street and no one has looked back since. That's why you see all those logos about the Turd Way -- where the Democrats sold out to Corporate America too.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. +1

[brooklynite]

49. Funny...I thought Bill Clinton hatched a plan to let the Democratic Party win...

...after it lost 4 out of 5 Elections by 49 States, 44 States, 49 States and 40 States.

[leftofcool]

50. Nope, don't want the days of pre-Civil Rights thank you very much

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. So, pro segregation and opposed to gay rights?

Sorry, but I prefer the modern Democratic party,

[Recursion]

61. The cognitive dissonance in this thread is bizarre (nt)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. Extreme, but I wouldn't say bizarre or surprising.

You're trying to challenge a deeply entrenched narrative that casts the people who hold it as the heroes. That's never going to go well.

[ljm2002]

82. Social vs. economic issues...

...you are using social issues as a cudgel in order to avoid dealing with economic issues. And dishonestly, at that, since you know full well that no one here wants to go back to segregation, or a time when there were no civil rights for LBGT.

In the past, whatever else its faults, the Democratic Party stood for working people and unions, as distinguished from the wealthy, the captains of industry and the managerial class. This was a very clear difference between the two parties. Clinton and the Third Way came along and upended that arrangement, so now we don't have any party that specifically protects the interests of working people.

Maybe that was a pragmatic decision on Clinton's part, so "we" could "win". But who is "we", and what does it mean to "win"? Our party won the Presidency, and we had an economic boom (in large part fueled by the tech boom) -- but some of the financial policies enacted at that time came back to bite us all in our collective ass, too. And the Democratic Party has become a party that protects the interests of the wealthy and the corporations; a kinder, gentler party than the Republican Party, to be sure (see: social issues), but one that is no longer really in tune with the economic needs and interests of the masses.

The Democratic leadership believes they can continue to exploit differences with their Republican counterparts on social issues, and thereby avoid addressing the fact that nowadays their economic policies are broadly aligned to serve the agenda of the corporate state rather than the interests of the working class.

[Cobalt Violet]

60. I'm an old school dem.

I wouldn't join the Democratic Party of today. It's way too war oriented, poverty ignoring, pro-corporate, anti-middle class and wall street ass kissing for my taste. I hope we can get our party back or it's time to look outside. I really don't want to be part of party that promotes traditional republican right-wing policies. At a crossroads for sure.

[VulgarPoet]

65. This.

That or mass exodus. They can keep propping up corporatist, neo-colonial two-steps-and-a-tango-from-right-wing "Democrats" all they like; but I don't want to hear any whining that they're not pulling any of the vote after this. The democratic party has devolved to somewhere just above filth.

[treestar]

62. The party is made up of the people in it

Most of us are not interested in Bernie the Savior.

[marions ghost]

73. This is what we have now --in effect:

[gollygee]

75. No, it won't

There isn't nearly as much disagreement among Democrats as you'd think from reading DU.

The Republican Party is going to be shaken up or killed off, but the Democratic Party will continue pretty much as it is. I think Bernie has changed things -he's shown more progressive Democrats that they actually have a chance at winning if they run, so more people on the left side of things will decide to run for various offices. But it isn't going to be completely remade.

[JoePhilly]

79. 8 months ago, Warren was the only one who could save us.

But she didn't wan the job of savior.

So now its Bernie's turn.

[Kip Humphrey]

80. Let us all return to the 60's in our politic and turn left instead of right.

[Seeinghope]

83. You can go back thruout all of history and see common threads. Wealth, power belonging to leaders

Squeezing every penny from everyone else. Political factions warring .. Literally trying to take over and or over zealous powers trying to over reach and gain and control enormous territories. All superpowers failing from within first. Governments not working together and people becoming more and more disenfranchised.

The values of the Democrats from the 60's and 70's believed in civil rights and were not afraid to stand up for injustices. LBJ was nailed because of the Vietnam war but he was amazing in his human rights, civil rights..... There was more of a feeling of pushing for peace and being vocal about it, being proud of simpler values, valuing acceptance of others. Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King.....the time back then was electrified. Now it seems so many are just asleep at the wheel. Complacency. When people watch the leaders lie and lie and smear their own party members and say "ho hum, they have more experience". It is like eithics do not count to the Democrats any more. It is all about who will win, who can keep the status quo, even thought the status quo sucks. The Democrats don't get that it isn't just goi g to the voting booth once every 2 years or so to do your duty. It goes way beyond that now. The country has gone too far too the right. It will take a momentous movement to make the huge changes that need to be made and that means doing what Bernie Sanders is doing right now. Votes can be screwed around with as we are witnessing UNLESS more people get involved and go beyond just voting. People need to realize that we are at the point that we need to fight to have our votes even count! That is why the 60's and 70's are so well remembered. The people were still alive and they still showed that they cared. There was an appreciation of people like a Bernie Sanders. This nation was nowhere near as bad off as it is right now. Many people that call themselves Democrats now were actually Republicans back then. We need real Democrats to wake up again.

The big corporations were not shipping jobs overseas, Democrats had a strong more protective domestic platform for people. It wasn't business oriented. That was the Republicans. Our Domestic Platform was something to be proud of and was something to continue to expand upon, instead it has gone into the opposite direction and some of the gains from then are being threatened.

Democrats...or those that call themselves Democrats are hardly recognizable for their Domestic Policy ideas. Those ideas are totally different than what they were 30 years ago EXCEPT the ideals from 30 years ago are echoed to gather support and to sound good. That is the problem. The words are empty and really meaningless to so many of the Democratic Party. There is no real comprehension of what they really mean. The values are all but forgotten..

The irony is that this should come with the 1st woman that could be elected President of the United States. She does not represent Democratic Values. A former Socialist is more Democrat.