Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

valerief

(53,235 posts)
6. That was my first thought, too, but it sounds too GOP, like Real Americans.
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:18 PM
Jan 2016

Also, it doesn't describe anything (New New doesn't either).

That's why I went with Democratic Democrats, but there must be a better name than that, too.

TIME TO PANIC

(1,894 posts)
8. You're right, it doesn't sound very inclusive.
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:29 PM
Jan 2016

I like Democratic Democrats because it points out how undemocratic our party leaders have become.

 

ErisDiscordia

(443 posts)
5. Power to the People! The People's Party!
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:17 PM
Jan 2016

How about the genuine, original, Jefferson to FDR Democrats, Rebooted?

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
12. The DLC and New Coke both debuted in 1985.
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 05:06 PM
Jan 2016

New Coke was roundly rejected and disappeared. They went back to Coke Classic.

Now it's time for the New Democrats to be FIRMLY and SOUNDLY rejected and to disappear. Any politician that openly identifies as a "New Democrat" should feel the sound rejection of the voters so that we don't have elected Democrats that would ever presume to identify as a "New Democrat" in the future. We don't want "New Democrats".

I'll take Classic Democrats, FDR-Democrats, Bernie-Democrats, or just Democrats.

No more New Democrats though. That shit is nasty. Just like New Coke. We need to get rid of that shit from the Party. This country needs to have a political party that actually serves the needs of the people first and foremost. We don't need two political parties that both OPENLY serve Wall Street and Big Business. That's ridiculous.





Cleita

(75,480 posts)
13. Nope. We are the FDR Democrats and that makes us the
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 05:12 PM
Jan 2016

core of the real Democratic Party, the party of the working class and common citizen, which makes us old Democrats. The ones who have grabbed power right now are corporate Trojan horses and it's time for us to send them back to the Republican Party where they belong and are frankly needed to clean up the corruption in that party.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
14. Are you referring to the Peter Beinart article?
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 08:44 PM
Jan 2016
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/12/the-rise-of-the-new-new-left.html

Younger Democratic politicians are less worshipful of Clinton. Yet his influence on their worldview is no less profound. Start with the most famous, still-youngish Democrat, a man who although a decade older than Rubio, Jindal, and Cruz, hails from the same Reagan-Clinton generation: Barack Obama. Because he opposed the Iraq War, and sometimes critiqued the Clintons as too cautious when running against Hillary in 2008, some commentators depicted Obama’s victory as a rejection of Clintonism. But to read The Audacity of Hope—Obama’s most detailed exposition of his political outlook—is to be reminded how much of a Clintonian Obama actually is. At Clintonism’s core was the conviction that to revive their party, Democrats must first acknowledge what Reagan got right.

Obama, in describing his own political evolution, does that again and again: “as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan’s election … I understood his appeal” (page 31). “Reagan’s central insight … contained a good deal of truth” (page 157). “In arguments with some of my friends on the left, I would find myself in the curious position of defending aspects of Reagan’s worldview” (page 289). Having given Reagan his due, Obama then sketches out a worldview in between the Reaganite right and unreconstructed, pre-Reagan left. “The explanations of both the right and the left have become mirror images of each other” (page 24), he declares in a chapter in which he derides “either/or thinking” (page 40). “It was Bill Clinton’s singular contribution that he tried to transcend this ideological deadlock” (page 34). Had the term not already been taken, Obama might well have called his intermediary path the “third way.”

The nationally visible Democrats rising behind Obama generally share his pro-capitalist, anti-bureaucratic, Reaganized liberalism. The most prominent is 43-year-old Cory Booker, who is famously close to Wall Street and supports introducing market competition into education via government-funded vouchers for private schools. In the words of New York magazine, “Booker is essentially a Clinton Democrat.” Gavin Newsom, the 45-year-old lieutenant governor of California, has embraced Silicon Valley in the same way Booker has embraced Wall Street. His book, Citizenville, calls for Americans to “reinvent government,” a phrase cribbed from Al Gore’s effort to strip away government bureaucracy in the 1990s. “In the private sector,” he told Time, “leaders are willing to take risks and find innovative solutions. In the public sector, politicians are risk-averse.” Julian Castro, the 39-year-old mayor of San Antonio and 2012 Democratic convention keynote speaker, is a fiscal conservative who supports NAFTA.

The argument between the children of Reagan and the children of Clinton is fierce, but ideologically, it tilts toward the right. Even after the financial crisis, the Clinton Democrats who lead their party don’t want to nationalize the banks, institute a single-payer health-care system, raise the top tax rate back to its pre-Reagan high, stop negotiating free-trade deals, launch a war on poverty, or appoint labor leaders rather than Wall Streeters to top economic posts. They want to regulate capitalism modestly. Their Reaganite Republican adversaries, by contrast, want to deregulate it radically. By pre-Reagan standards, the economic debate is taking place on the conservative side of the field. But—and this is the key point--there’s reason to believe that America’s next political generation will challenge those limits in ways that cause the leaders of both parties fits

<snip>

It is these two factors—their economic hardship in an age of limited government protection and their resistance to right-wing cultural populism—that best explain why on economic issues, Millennials lean so far left. In 2010, Pew found that two-thirds of Millennials favored a bigger government with more services over a cheaper one with fewer services, a margin 25 points above the rest of the population. While large majorities of older and middle-aged Americans favored repealing Obamacare in late 2012, Millennials favored expanding it, by 17 points. Millennials are substantially more pro–labor union than the population at large.

The only economic issue on which Millennials show much libertarian instinct is the privatization of Social Security, which they disproportionately favor. But this may be less significant than it first appears. Historically, younger voters have long been more pro–Social Security privatization than older ones, with support dropping as they near retirement age. In fact, when asked if the government should spend more money on Social Security, Millennials are significantly more likely than past cohorts of young people to say yes.

Most striking of all, Millennials are more willing than their elders to challenge cherished American myths about capitalism and class. According to a 2011 Pew study, Americans under 30 are the only segment of the population to describe themselves as “have nots” rather than “haves.” They are far more likely than older Americans to say that business enjoys more control over their lives than government. And unlike older Americans, who favor capitalism over socialism by roughly 25 points, Millennials, narrowly, favor socialism.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Are we the New New Democr...