2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI don't think that the greatest danger to the Democratic Party is the GOP
And I don't think that the greatest danger to the GOP is the the Democratic Party. The greatest danger to both parties comes from within their own ranks, or from the allied independents who consider themselves too pure ideologically to be Demarcates or Republicans.
It is the far left and far right zealots who are determined to drag the major parties to their extremist positions regardless of the costs who most endanger their parties and the American political system. The more radicalized the major parties become, the less effective they will be in governing. We have already seen the stifling gridlock in Washington. The further to the major parties drift to the left and to the right, the less chance there will be that they can cooperate to solve our nation's most pressing problems.
More moderate Democrats don't tend to be loud and passionate, but it is time that we must raise our voices and be counted or we will be overrun by our more passionate, less numerous associates.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
still_one
(92,136 posts)supporters are moving to support Hillary
Response to still_one (Reply #1)
Post removed
still_one
(92,136 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)dumb enough to waste their votes, or not vote for the Democratic nominee.
Response to synergie (Reply #98)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Like millions of people are all friends with one another? How absurd.
Voting is a right and civic responsibility, not a friendship circle.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)The American people as a whole have, and we really, really need to redevelop one. That's the major problem identified in the first of these two excellent articles in the current The Atlantic.
Why Is Populism Winning on the American Right?: The answer may have less to to with the Trump phenomenon, and more daunting implications, than it seems.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/populism-american-right/489800/
How American Politics Went Insane: It happened gradually—and until the U.S. figures out how to treat the problem, it will only get worse.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/
Tal Vez
(660 posts)An interesting question is whether the people most unhappy with the way things are going are unhappy because they think that change is occurring too slowly or too quickly.
Many of them are in pain because the world is changing so swiftly that they are having a difficult time adapting to the changes. Many of them actually want to reverse some of these changes. Yet, they are upset because they believe that political institutions are too slow and stodgy. And, they are right. Unfortunately, progressivism and righting social wrongs have always taken time in democratic societies.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)The bigots get to vote too. And having it any other way will ruin any progressive/leftist/socialist project in the long run.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)I can't tell you how many times I have been amused watching some bigot tell me (in one way or another): "You may like Obama, but for a lot of us, he really isn't like the other presidents. He's different and I may not be able to put my finger on the exact difference, but he is different and he's a danger to our country."
There's really nothing to say - Obama is different. 
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)holy hell
honestly that beats anything North Korea can think of.
We gotta realize this shit is on the level of brainwashing. I bet he truly, in his heart of hearts believes he's not racist. That's on the lizard brain level though, it's that deep.
That's why every white person should really examine themselves because racism can penetrate into the lizard brain level, so deep that they associate "black skin" with "bad stuff" even why they tell themselves "it's NOT because he's black".
MO_Dem
(2,358 posts)We are a big tent 
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)"my way or highway" parties ... or use their old names "fascist" and "communist" party.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(then again, you probably call anybody who tries to organize the workers at any of your suppliers back home "a Red"
.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Wow, you guys are to GOTV as Kryptonite is to Superman.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)open thought.
Thanks but no thanks. I'll stay a Democrat for life.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Did you just cut-and-paste it from the other time?
Oh, and nobody here is "far left"...far left means the Khmer Rouge, the sort of people who kill you for disagreeing with them. Not just people who happen to be more radical than your personal comfort zone.
The left has just as much of a right to be part of the Democratic Party, and to influence it, you do or as anyone else does. It's OUR party, too.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)those so far to the left that they believe everyone to their right is a conservative.
Far left refers to those are better described as socialists than progressives or liberals.
Far left refers to those who consider themselves ideologically pure.
Far left refers to those who would never vote for anyone who doesn't fully support every social program know to man and instead would leave those who cannot defend themselves to the mercies of a Trump administration.
Such people do exist and they were attracted to DU like flies to honey to support Bernie Sanders.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She said that Sanders would be considered a 'centrist' in that country.
You guys are so far to the right now that you have lost touch with reality. You seem to think that GOTV means 'Circular firing squad'.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Then again it is strange that Australia's two political parties are usually describe in this manner, "Within Australian political culture, the Coalition Party is considered centre-right and the Labor Party is considered centre-left." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Australia
That doesn't sound like someone who describes himself as a "Democratic Socialist" would be considered a "centralist" in Australia
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The words conservative and left wing have very different meanings on the other sides of the oceans.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Note that your OP here is all about how Republicans are less of a threat than liberal Democrats in your eyes. You look to the right and feel comfort and kinship. You look to the left and shout 'threat to our common good'. This OP is really all about you. The story it tells is your story.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Spot on my friend. My British friend says the same thing.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Both the dems and GOP have spent too much time fighting the culture war for the grassroots and to little time fighting for economic justice for the working class.
Also the Bill Clinton and the DLC pulled the dems too far to the right and now we need a strong left to pull it back.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)HRC's strength in the polls has grown as the platform has become more progressive.
Is we did what you probably want and used the 1996 platform again, Jill Stein would probably be over 15% in the polls by now.
It simply doesn't work to keep the party as far to the right as possible and try to browbeat progressives into supporting it.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Now to win the election she will have do some pivoting to the center to get the centralist independents who decide Presidential elections in swing states on board. Yes, it is going to be a bumpy ride.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)like you have practical solutions and confidence in your ability to implement them.
That doesn't require public shows of contempt for the left. The voters don't see us as the problem anymore.
What the polls show is that most people don't hate and fear the left to the degree you do.
The country is changing...the assumptions of 1992, or even 2008, no longer apply.
You should be HAPPY that Sanders supporters are coming over to HRC on the merits of the platform.
Between us, we can put together a majority in November.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The political center is currently to the left off the Democratic party.
Y'see, Western politics fall on a right-left spectrum.
Now in sane systems, there are a multitude of viable parties, which helps keep the reality of this spectrum clear. Some parties are more to one side than other parties are, and it's clear that hte parties are defined by the spectrum.
In the united States though, our winner-take-all political system forces a situation where there are only ever two viable parties. THis tends to create the illusion that one party defines "left" and the otherparty defines "right." Which is why we talk about the Republicans "flipping" or the Dixiecrats "flipping" or what have you. Except they didn't flip, because there is nowhere to "flip" to. They simply changed party alliegance to a party closer to them on the spectrum.
In reality America's political parties fall out this way (no, it's not precisely-measured, it's just to convey a point.):
The Democrats are a right-of-center party that happen to have a notable amount of support from left-of-center voters - because the only other viable party is a proto-fascist far right party. This creates a conflict in the Democratic party, between the party apparatus itself which really, really, really wants to be 1980's Republicans, and a sizable portion of its base which actually falls to the left of, say, Bernie Sanders (he's left-of-center, but more center than left.)
If you want to straddle the actual political center, that necessitates a move left.
On the other hand, as I noted, there's this weird tendency to let the parties define the spectrum. If you believe the Democrats define what is "left" and hte Republicans define what is "right" then your center is here:
This is why Democrats talking about "centrism" is so worrying.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)Political scientists use a 4 quadrant system to describe American political spectrums and that is where you find your greens and libertarians.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and we got President McGovern, President Mondale and President Dukakis. Oh wait .... none of them won. All lost by a landslide.
Then Bill Clinton came and brought the party to where people would actually vote for our candidate and he won.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)His campaign was build on honesty and integrity though, and the Eagleton affair made him look dishonest and just like any other politician. The polling data on it is very dramatic.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)For a while he looked like he had a real chance of pulling off a win, although its always hard against an incumbent of course.
What people tend to ignore when they're busy sneering at McGovern though if who exactly they think would have actually beaten Nixon out of the primary field. Do you really believe Musky or Humphrey would have done better?
McGovern would have had a much better chance if the party had come together around him, instead of helping sabotage his run in the hope that it'd stop him reforming the party machinery.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Here is a chart of polls in the 1972 election. Nixon never polled under 50% and McGovern never polled over 40%. McGovern had NO shot. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_1972
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Is DU no longer a place where people can just have conversations about political issues or history? Is it completely necessary to go on the attack when someone says something you think is incorrect?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and that is what my post was about.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)If I'm incorrect, I'd love to learn more and expand my knowledge. I've been reading about that race recently, and I'm just basing it from the things I've heard, I'm not old enough to have been around for that election. I heard there was a big conflict between the old Democratic party powers like Mayor Daley and his cronies and the new forces that came up in reaction to the debacle of '68.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I consider that a revision in the light of the facts. I didn't attack your person but the idea alone.
I think we were both very civil. 
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)And start eating into Nixon's lead, until the Eagleton affair robbed him off all his momentum, and the party in fighting cemented it. It could just be optimistic recounts though. I know we have some people here who were around for that race, it'd be fascinating to get some first hand accounts.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Eagleton thing didn't help -- even hurt a little but did not have a significant impact on the election.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)
Who were you supporting in that race?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts) 
MADem
(135,425 posts)No, he didn't. That's not even close to accurate. He got past Eagleton with precision--he cut that guy loose in a HURRY and called in the substitute, Sergent Shriver, Maria's daddy, whose connection to the Kennedy family was well known and provided a certain amount of value added. This value added was desperately needed because McGovern was a crap candidate--he asked every main line Dem in town to be his VP before he hastily settled on Eagleton, and they all--Kennedy, Muskie, a host of others--REFUSED. They knew a leaky, sinking ship when they saw it.
If you want to "blame" a person for McGovern's defeat (besides McGovern, of course--his campaign was poorly run and he was a craptastic candidate, poor man) you could start with Robert Novak and his blind article about amnesty (from Vietnam draft dodging--still a big deal back then), abortion and acid. It was very "catchy" and served to make people fearful of that "counter-culture hippie guy" who was actually a middle aged veteran.
He lost because he was a poor candidate. And, as usual, the "youth vote" that made so much noise on his behalf didn't show up to vote.
He might have done better had he even mentioned his rather heroic performance in the Army Air Corps during WW2, but many voters were unaware that he had any military background at all--he refused to use it as a "Been There, Done That" justification for his views, and that was a strategic error on his part.
Even at that, though, he didn't have a prayer--he was just not a good pick. And, in reference to more recent brouhahas with regard to super delegates, McGovern is the BIG reason we have a super delegate system, which (to add more 'strange bedfellows' to the mix) was designed, in part, by Sanders staffer Tad Devine.
A glance at the electoral map will remind people just how horrible that result was. That was not just a defeat, it was a brutal ROUT. It was humiliating.
Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)
Post removed
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I have always regarded ideologies as crunches for those not able or unwilling to think for themselves. Ideologies are not personal, they are shared and passed from person to person. Those who depend on ideologies guide their thinking are obviously relying on others who have supposedly thought things through to give them guidelines to be used to view their world and make decisions.
People, especially politicians, who rely on ideologies are dangerous. Instead of keeping an open mind they make choices and seek only solutions which comply with their per-ordained concepts. And yes the ideologically controlled socialist and far left liberals are equally as dangerous as their far right counterparts and they both often behave in similar fashions.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So believing in nothing is good to you? Wow! My condolences
Please explain how having no core beliefs attracts people to the party?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Ideologies are shared belief systems. In their worst forms they are equivalent to "group think". I don't rely on others to guide my thinking. Nor is my belief system so hardened and regimented that I categorically reject ideas and solutions that don't fit into some ideology.
Try reading the classic "The True Believer" some day. It refers to people who are slaves to some ideology or another.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)However, one can and should be flexible *within* an ideological framework in order to accomplish your overall short to medium term goals.
For example, I'm far to the left of anyone of the Democratic Party but I can support the party because it is the strongest institution for defending and expanding the interests of the working class. Furthermore, its membership is at least willing to listen to socialist viewpoints, and may accept the need for socialist solutions. However, said solutions would need to be pragmatically implemented within the current framework lest chaos ensue, similar to how capitalism (a radical extreme viewpoint circa 1700) grew out of feudalism and mercantilism.
The problem with a lot of "leftists" is that they have this idea where we're going to put a million people into the streets of DC and New York and have a 2017 version of Petrograd. That's not happening, barring an absolute worst case Trump victory scenario, and in that scenario it's 10x more likely that the leftist organizers end up in camps. In reality, socialism is going to be the result of slow, grassroots organizing, technological changes, coalition-building with more moderate factions, and new forms of inclusive economic organization, not methods that were outdated 50 years ago.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)i·de·ol·o·gy
noun
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Note that the definition does not include the need for a collective belief in these ideas. If it's a system of ideas it's an ideology even if it is yours and yours alone. That's what the word means.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... that it is not passed from person to person, mentor or teacher to student, parents to children. Some, like Bernie Sanders picked it up from professors, fellow students and by reading the writings of socialist and other far left thinkers of the early 20th century. Think back. What was the source of your current ideology; I don't believe your developed it entirely on your own.
Regardless of how they are acquired, it cannot be denied that ideologies are usually rigid frameworks which which are applied to one's perceptions of the real world. To the truly obsessed, anything that doesn't fit into that framework is simply wrong and must be totally rejected, there can be no compromises. To say that being devoted to an ideology inhibits the innovation and flexibility to correct difficult situations is a total understatement. It's all or nothing with such people. The Bernie or Bust folks are perfect examples.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)background. I corrected your incorrect definition of the word. I cited a dictionary. This for some reason sets you off profoundly.
What's most telling is that you lack specific ideas upon which you differ from the Democrats you despise worse than Republicans. All you are doing is characterizing and throwing around words you don't use correctly, whose definitions cause you to further preach and castigate others.
Those who characterize others negatively while praising themselves have two clear objectives, self promotion and the destruction of others. That's not even political ideology, it's just basic marketing.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)....attack your opponent and/or his messaging. Nice try.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Centrism, triangulation, syncretism, etc.
It may startle you CajunBLazer, but politics is a rich and deep field with complexities beyond the buzzwords you pick up while browing an old copy of Newsweek in the restroom.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)An open mind like you said above and a williness to see the other side leads to compromise. Which these far ideologies abhor as giving up thier ideals rather than an acknowledgement of other viewpoints.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)us "extremists" merely want to see it back where it belongs.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Right? Typical.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)not to turn into a second Republican party.
Between today's Democratic party and the Republican party of the 1960s,
there isn't one hell of a lot of difference.
Thanks for asking!
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Anyone to the right of your far left positions is a conservative. If the the Democratic Party remains more moderate than you would like it's "becoming an other Republican Party". When are you going to learn that your perspective is warped and that your warped labeling system does not affect reality.
It has been a lot of fun toying with you guys, but am going to bed now.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Sleep well. When you wake up, the communists will be running things!
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)No toying is what one does when one's sparring partner is inadequate. It's what my karate instructor does when sparring with his new students.
And I have no fear that your 3% to 7% sliver of the American electorate is every going to control anything other than the Green Party.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Not hard at all to see why it's the right thing to do.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)to see the obvious? And who made you the fount of all wisdom who is destined to teach those too simple to absorb your superior views without instruction?
I have long since grown tired of the superior attitude of the zealots of the far left and the far right.
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)But I don't know where the idea comes from. 30 years ago I remember Democrats caving in to Reagan.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)What is further right about the party in this election than in 1986, thirty years ago? In what way?
George II
(67,782 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)They have been delivered by both parties since the Reagan era; which Clinton certainly continued in the 1990s.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)We know that extremists on both the left and right are the greatest dangers to our system of government. We know their constant efforts to pull their parties further to the left and to the right are the chief sources of gridlock in Washington.
We haven't pigeonholed ourselves with inflexible ideologies which makes us free to try new ideas and compromise when necessary to make incremental steps toward achieving our goals. We know how to succeed in politics, the zealots on the far left and the far right don't and never will. Their constant failures have caused both camps to retreat into conspiracy theories and a "the system is rigged" mentality. It's sad really.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)The United States needs a course correction.
It is in need of a dramatic shift to the left not only on social but on economic, and other, policies.
This so-called moderate meme is, reading between the lines, encouraging the status quo of neoliberalism.
People need to be aware.
“Democrats” must care.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)used by the far left to denigrate progressives who dare to be moderate then themselves.
One cannot lessen the inherent ineffectiveness that comes with swearing allegiance to an rigid and unbending ideology by trying to label others with derogatory terms.
Shifts to the right and left have occurred many times in our nation's history, but never too far to the left or too far to the right and this shift will be no different.
You see, in the American people we have a built in mechanism which prevents shifts to the extremes. When the group temporarily in power pushes policy too far to the right or too far to the left, the public is exposed to the ugly underbelly of far right or far left extremism and a the voters step away and begin to shift in the opposite direction. That time comes when the public begins to understand that the perceived advantages of moving further to the left or right are counter balanced by equally or even more important disadvantages.
That is why this country has never and will never in the future swing to the far right, or for that matter to the left a much as you desire. Throughout our county's history many far right and far left zealots have lived out their entire lives pining for the entire country to join them in their righteous cause and have died unfulfilled. The current generation will join them in the same state sooner or later.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Go ahead and look it up.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Neoliberalism refers to those who "...support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy".
And just as the far left misuses the word "conservatives" to denegrate progressives who are more moderate than themselves, they also misuse the word "neoliberal" for the same purpose.
By definition, I am not a a neoliberal and in my opinion, neither is Hillary Clinton. If you dare to use that term to describe me and/or Hillary, I will consider it an attack on another DU member and/or an attack on the Democratic nominee and I will initiate an alert. If you are cleared by a DU jury I will protest to the site administration that the jury did not do their duty in compliance with the TOS. You have been fairly warned.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)However, if you call me or Hilary Clinton a "neoliberal" I will consider that alert worthy.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #126)
Post removed
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)
katsy
(4,246 posts)Is that the "we moderates" that got us majority gop house & senate?
Don't hold your ideology as a holier than thou example. We have had failures across the left to right spectrum of ideologies so yours is neither special nor a winning strategy necessarily.
That far left you like to bash amounted to almost 40% of primary voters so it is, in fact, not an outlier ideology at all. And the difference in positions between "far left" SBS & HRC are miniscule in comparison to the Democratic party vs gop. Maybe your focus should be on bashing the fucking gop moreso than mainstream progressives, which you so inaccurately label as "far left".
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Does the topic author want to tell other people what—and how—they should think?
katsy
(4,246 posts)Because with some people anyone who is "not me" is a threat or wrong.
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)It has been since the 80s if not earlier.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)The Democratic Party knows this, the Republican Party knows this, the Ruling Class knows this- and they've been astonishingly successful at making sure the Working Class never learns this." ~ Anonymous
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)themselves would do well to recall that the same verbiage about pragmatism and moderation were employed for many years by the conservative Democrats who opposed LGBT rights and marriage equality. They always asserted that their regressive and bigoted views were really 'moderate and pragmatic'.
This was the practice for so very long that now, when I hear such assertions of wise, calm and pragmatic moderation I always ask for specifics. If I am 'too left' for the so called 'moderate' that 'moderate' needs to specify what they mean exactly by that, or I simply assume they are dressing up their biases and self interests in their habitually self serving verbiage about moderate politics and how horrible and radical others are. Remember, what we now call 'LGBT activists' used to be called 'militant homosexuals' by both Republicans and 'moderate Democrats' opposed to progress and human rights.
So what specifically are you to my right on? What are your differences with those you characterize as 'radicals' and threats worse than Republicans? Your conclusions are very strongly phrased but your supporting arguments are absent.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)It is totally disingenuous and a weak argument at best. I could compare Bernie Sanders to Lenin and Trotsky, but I would never do that because it would be totally disingenuous and a weak argument at best.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)asked that you specify what you mean so that you avoid being lumped in with the folks who wail that they are the pragmatic moderate sages when they are really just progress resistant dogmatists.
I note that you did not see fit to offer any specific ways in which we differ or that 'moderates' differ fro the progressives you characterize as a threat. The entire point of your OP is to set yourself apart from those terrible sinners you see all around you, but when asked to do so you really can't name the things that set you apart. I think that's meaningful.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)...the zealots of the far left aren't "sinners", they are simply simple and misinformed.
I thought I had point out the ways in which the far left differs from far more moderate progressives but let me boil it down to you. Their rigidity in their thought patterns and their perceived purity of ideology prevents far left zealots from making the compromises on which our system of government depends. Unwilling to take a few slices of progress in their insistence in to carry off the entire loaf makes them perpetual losers in the political arena which in turn engenders in them a kind of paranoia that the system is rigged against them.
That should be clear enough for anyone; I am not going to try again.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)lots of characterizations of others in the negative and of yourself in the positive. For all your bluster you can't name even one single policy difference, all you do is rant against the flaws you see in others and the wonders you see in yourself.
This is exactly what Evangelical preachers do, what conservatives do and as I said at the top of this exchange it is exactly what the 'moderates' who opposed LGBT rights did, painted themselves as guardians of wisdom and others as a bunch of zealots. And as I said, that tactic is vapid, boring and unimpressive. If you can't manage to verbalize your political positions and explain how they are so different from those of other Democrats whom you say are worse than Republicans I guess your entire objective is to say crappy things about other Democrats. And that's a shitty objective to have during a General Election cycle or any other time.
Vapid, free of content, I still have not heard you mention any issue, idea or policy and all you have done is rage against people you find to be inferior to yourself. That's what all conservatives with no actual point of view do. Rant instead of reason.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)It's why the one powerful leftist party is dominated by liberals, rather than radicals. Radicals/extremists/fars are typically too rigid in their thinking and actions to grow into major power blocs. Facing enemies jointly helps them stay unified, but remove the exterior threat and they start fighting among themselves over relatively minor matters and usually break up instead of agreeing to work together.
As for political positions, that is a perfect case in point. The liberals' are extremely similar to Bernie's, just differing in time lines and methods, but a unwillingness to cooperate that results from excessive righteousness and total indifference to and contempt for other people's opinions requires of his followers absolute rejection of any compromise, no matter how small. All solutions must be Bernie's, and all who don't join him are regarded implacably as enemies to be defeated.
This is now how things get done in a Democracy, where coalitions must be built to create majorities. But the inevitable failure of the smaller radical groups to cooperate to achieve their goals will be blamed on liberal corruption (what else could it be?), never by a good look in the mirror for the answers.
Imo, Bernie's more radical followers are very fortunate that what they want is for the most part what liberals want, but by now I know most will never admit that to themselves, much less anyone else.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)really say why. Got it. Now we all understand.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)In fact I regard far right zealots on the Republicans on the far right as just as dangerous and probably more so.
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #91)
ismnotwasm This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The greatest danger to both parties comes from within their own ranks, or from the allied independents who consider themselves too pure ideologically to be Demarcates or Republicans."
That's your OP- 'Democrats who do not agree with me are worse than Republicans but I can't say what it is they have to agree with me about even when repeatedly asked'.
You are saying that Democrats are a greater threat to this Party than Republicans. Own your work.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)And I believe the far right is equally or even more dangerous.
The reason being that we can deal with moderate Republicans and moderate conservatives if need be. However, no one can deal effectively with the far right and the far left. They are so dangerous because these zealots are constantly trying to make the basic mechanisms of our government unworkable. They are both constantly trying to force more moderate Democratic and Republican congressman and Senators to be more supportive to their extreme, never compromise positions. Because they are so loud and passionate, if allowed, they can wield power out of proportion to their meager numbers. This has already caused gridlock in Washington. If allowed to flourish, the extremists on both sides will make this country ungovernable.
I say it is time for the far more numerous moderates on both sides of the isle to stand up and be counted and begin ignoring their extremest allies and start governing again. And guess what, the vast majority of the American people agree with me.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)recommendations, for which Bernie is fighting. There are others. I am mentioning only
a few:
- $15 minimum wage.
- Free tuition for public universities and colleges.
- Bring down in size those huge banks that almost brought down the entire American
economy in 2008, so that they will never be able to do it again.
- Stop the death penalty in our entire nation. It was stopped once for about 14 years
until the Republicans fought to bring it back again (and they succeeded).
- Stop allowing private prisons to exist in our nation. It seems that only English-speaking
countries allow this practice in modern times. Canada recently stopped this ugly and
disgusting practice of humans making profits on the misery of fellow humans. Among
other things, it's also called "Modern Slavery." I believe Britain and Australia are the
only countries outside of our own that still maintain private prisons.
Do you think of the above examples as being extreme?
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Those who are ignorant of the history of the party, or purposely revise it to fit their narratives.
Those who view the Democratic party as the easiest vehicle to their agenda.
Those who want to burn the party down and rebuild it in their image.
Puritopian
A Puritopian is a self-described liberal or progressive whose political orientation is to be angry, dissatisfied and unhappy with the state of the nation, because in their view, liberal policies are not being implemented quickly or forcefully enough. They have particular contempt for Democratic presidents.
They are ideological purists who disdain compromise and incremental change, which they see as "selling out" liberal ideas like full employment, an end to war, and liberal social policy. Their views can often sound like utopian fantasy where opposing views never exist.
Puritopians dislike Republicans but reserve their greatest disdain for Democratic presidents, whom they relentlessly attack for not meeting a set of ideological goal posts that are constantly adjusted to ensure that the president will be deemed a disappointment, "not progressive enough" or "just like a Republican" no matter what policy achievements are made.
Puritopians routinely dismiss or ignore congress' role in making or impeding policy, believing presidents can simply "use the bully pulpit" in order to overcome constitutional or legislative obstacles.
Puritopians have an affinity for 3rd party politics as a way to punish Democratic presidents. They are especially hostile to President Obama and deem anyone who expresses a lack of ill will toward him to be "Obamabots" and enemies of liberalism.
Puritopian supersedes Emo Progressive. (Seen as too pejorative).
Example1: After Eric Holder announced congress had blocked the Justice Department from trying 9/11 mastermind KSM in civilian court, social networks lit up with puritopians complaining that President Obama had broken his campaign promise to end military tribunals. Their criticism did not mention congressional Democrats who helped block Holder.
Example2: Puritopians dismissed healthcare reform as a failure, saying President Obama should have used the bully pulpit to achieve a single payer system, despite the fact that Sen. Harry Reid made it clear that such a plan could not pass the Senate.
#puritopian #puritopians #firebaggers #emo progressive #emo prog #greenwaldians #hamwaldians
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Puritopian
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)ZEALOT
It is the zealots of both sides that are a danger.
G_j
(40,366 posts)
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm
Economic Bill of Rights
January 11, 1944
Often referred to as the "Second Bill of Rights"
Excerpted from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's message to Congress on the State of the Union. This was proposed not to amend the Constitution, but rather as a political challenge, encouraging Congress to draft legislation to achieve these aspirations. It is sometimes referred to as the "Second Bill of Rights."
It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people — whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth — is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
-The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
-The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
-The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
-The right of every family to a decent home;
-The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
-The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
-The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)I bet Japanese Americans have a far different view of FDR.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)who based his government work programs, one of his greatest achievements, which he used to slowly pull the country out of depression on the supply and demand principles put forth by John Maynard Keynes who was one of the first to explain how the free market works.
The whole purpose of the government jobs programs was to help the free market pull the country out of depression. (Of course FDR had to use deficit spending to pay the workers.) Government jobs put money in workers' pockets which they used to buy goods which in tern created more jobs which put money in more people's pockets which....(and so on). Even the Social Security system was originally designed to put more money into the systems.
Funny that you guys adore a free market capitalist whose main contribution was to introduce government into the free market system.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)There was a 3 tiered agreement between business, labor and government. He may have made concessions toward labor but business got concessions too, from the government. It was all three working together particularily during WWII which grew the U.S. economy.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)it is usually ineffective as well. Those who you are trying to trash know the truth and most others do as well.
For instance, I could compare Bernie Sanders to a well known communist, but I would never do that because the comparison would patently false and intellectually dishonest.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That's the entire content and objective of your OP. So turnabout is always fair play.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)like the tea party clowns in their little try cornered hats, and on a behavioral level, if not a policy level, the comparison is intellectually honest. A quick investigation will assure you that I am certainly not the first observer of behavioral similarities between the far right and the far left. It has been the subject of many political/philological studies. Read up on the "Horseshoe Theory" of political science.
In fact, one of the most famous political physiology books of ever written, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" published by Eric Hoffer in 1951 covers the phenomenon quite thoroughly. Check it out.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)yet you call that very tactic intellectually dishonest. That's the point. You say Democrats you don't like are a worse threat than Republicans and you do use the word Republicans. Then you say such comparisons are intellectually dishonest. You are a self contradicting hypocrite riding on a high horse you can't control.
My first post to you in this thread bears repeating. This posturing about claiming to be the wise and moderate 'center' holding back the radical hordes is a posture and set of rhetoric that has been burned out and is no longer effective in the least. Blaring that you are super pragmatic and other people are just extremists is not an argument, it's a sermon, a characterization and this time in history is far too nuanced and important for that low level gutter sniping to be allowed in the way of actual and informed discussions.
If you want to boast and pick fights, go down to the local bar like the other straight white guys in Red States do and get yourself some action. I don't think that aggressive baiting is suited to a DU General Election Season.
villager
(26,001 posts)....and ineffective, in this thread.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)UNTIL IT RUNS INTO CHANGING EXPECTATIONS OF THE POPULACE. You wouldn't even be talking about "extremists" on the left IF the ideas they espouse haven't been getting a real boost in popularity by the masses. Maybe not a majority yet, but those ideas ARE now being talked about in a positive way.
Politics is not a static sociology, it is ever changing, but the people who have benefitted from the previous regime have a vested interest in keeping it the way it is. As an example of what I mean, Bernie's policy proposals, in most cases, are supported by a majority of the people of this country, yet the established political class has a vested interest in keeping the status quo the same and NOT changing to these positions because they have benefitted from the status quo AS IT IS NOW. When this dissonance between what the people WANT their government to be and what their government IS is NOT resolved by the political class that means the definition of the "center" has changed even if the political class hasn't recognized the change. The old center has become the new right because the actual center has shifted left. And this can work in the other direction too as we saw in the 80s with Reagan when the center shifted right.
In short, what YOU (and other supporters of the status quo) consider "far left" and "extremist" might not be that anymore. Maybe you and folks like you are the new center-right or right wing.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)own most of the wealth in the world, and are bribing and corrupting the entire world with ever
less opposition as time goes on.
In this country the Republicans have already sold out to them completely, and we Democrats
are among the few left, who are still putting up some resistance to these greedy, all-devouring
monsters.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)but extremist on both side of the aisle are greatest danger to our system of government.
You don't have to be an extremist to be against greedy corporations.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)an Oligarchy. And I see the Oligarchs taking over our nation more and more. This
is here, open for anyone who is willing to see.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts).... against us" narratives. you get that way after losing too many political battles because of your refusal to compromise.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)as "not rigging"?
Vinca
(50,261 posts)We horrible people to your left want every single American to have access to medical care, no questions asked. The far right doesn't care if Americans die in the street. We horrible people on the far left would like young people to graduate from college without decades of debt repayment ahead of them. The far right prefers they remain ignorant. We horrible people on the far left would opt to spend money dedicated to the war machine on infrastructure, hungry children and the homeless. The far right can't buy enough battleships or start enough wars. Do not compare the far left and the far right. Please.
G_j
(40,366 posts)and it's a deliberate tactic to devide the left.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)It is very true that the far left and the far right have very different goals, but in their behavior they are very, very similar. (Look up the the Horseshoe Principle of Political Science). Both the far left and the far right believe that they have a monopoly on the truth. The both believe in a rigid ideology. They both consider themselves ideologically pure and thus both are very adverse to compromise.
Both refer to more moderate people with similar political goals as themselves as members of the opposition, i.e those of the far left call moderate progressives "conservatives" and those on the far right refer to more moderate conservatives as "liberals". Both the far left and far right are very passionate about their politics and tend to be very politically active and very verbal about their causes.
Because of their rejection of compromise and unwillingness to take incremental steps toward progress, both sides lose far more political battles then they win. To rationalize their many failures, both sides turn to conspiracy theories and "the system is rigged against us" narratives.
I am sure there are other comparisons that can be made, but those should suffice.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)If you say so.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)...if you say so, it must be true.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Why do you think he is being foolish?
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)And?
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Vinca
(50,261 posts)If you don't start by wanting it all, you end up with nothing. If you start your demands in the center, you end up with GOP legislation being signed into law. The far left doesn't reject compromise, we reject starting from the center you speak of and then ending up with Republican-lite or worse as the final result. Thanks to your way of thinking, the Democratic center is far, far from the center it held years ago. Think big or don't bother thinking at all.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Just don't complain if you lose.
Vinca
(50,261 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)the Democratic Party just as they have been to the Republican Party - to the point that prominent Republicans have publicly said that they would vote for and support the Democratic Party nominee.
The Democratic Party leadership have seen it happen in real time, and they've successfully stopped it - with Democratic voters - from getting a solid footing in our Party. This is a GOOD thing.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)And Democrats don’t win general elections only with so-called moderates.
Every vote, every group within, a political party is needed—and that is before being able to win crossover voters from the opposition party and, most likely with that, independents.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Corporations. When the Corporations say "Jump," the GOP jumps. And, as I've written
in a post above, we are more of an Oligarchy today than we are a Democracy, and we
are going still further down the drain. That's the way the Corporations want it. They
want to be the bosses, and make everyone else their servants.
senz
(11,945 posts)then Reagan stole the 1980 election and proceeded to deregulate corporations, lower taxes on the wealthy, and institute trickle down economics that began the handover of the government to private, unelected interests which effected a terrible transformation in the socioeconomic life of our country.
Then a fellow named Al From, who had worked with D.C. Democrats for years, began to sell Democrats on the idea of compromising our values and principles in order to get along with the new management. He started the DLC which eventually absorbed a slew of Democratic politicians and pushed the party firmly to the right. This movement was eventually known as "The Third Way."
That is what ruined the once good and great Democratic Party, the party of the people.
Some of us would like very much to return the Party to its FDR roots.
And, of course, some would not.
Ford_Prefect
(7,886 posts)They want to wear the brand of we the people but they do not understand it must be earned, not owned. If you are not willing take the risk of actually standing up when it matters then you do not deserve the honor. A no-risk candidate delivers no ability to lead since they don't know or care what may be lost.
The party of the people was formed around the idea that ALL the people need to be heard, and protected, and given hope. The party of the New Deal and the Great Society and the Big Tent was and is a real working dynamic, not just a set of slogans to be recanted or edited when convenience dictates.
Either we all go forward together or we all go down together, there is no third way.
Native
(5,940 posts)insta8er
(960 posts)same heap? wow....interesting views.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)ignoring reality.
Sanders's huge numbers with the 35 and under crowd showed the Party it's future. Tie-in the natural link between social and economic Justice that wins both POC, younger voters, and workers and you have the winning formula. Ignore it and lose, plain and simple.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)are going to be thirty-somethings, who may be more interested in figuring out how to buy a condo or house or to support a family than in paying higher taxes to give younger people free college.
Age isn't a fixed characteristic, and people's views often change as they get older.
