General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: In 18 years since Naders run, what has been accomplished by attacking the Dem party from the left? [View all]Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Are they all "attacking" the Democratic Party simply by existing with views that are left of centrist Democrats? Should they pretend to believe something other than what they believe? Should they be sent to political reeducation camps until their views cause no discomfort to centrist Democrats? Or should they too be allowed to make the case for what they believe in?
Ralph Nader, for what it's worth, ran against the Democratic Party candidate for President in the 2000 General Election. I opposed that. Jill Stein ran against the Democratic Party candidate for President in 2016. I opposed that too. There are very few Stein supporters on DU. This is a straw man argument here. The Libertarians did much better than the Greens in 2016. The people who supported Bernie Sanders, however, chose to work through the Democratic Party, and the overwhelming majority of them still choose to do so. I am a Democrat. I am not attacking myself when I advocate for my future vision of the Democratic Party any more so than are any who supported Clinton in the primaries or those who may love Senator Claire McCaskill.
So I reject your premise that holding differing views from some other Democrats means one is attacking the Democratic Party
What do people gain through open honest debates on policy priorities? Involvement for one thing, engagement. Democratic Party membership by percentage of the voters had been overall falling for decades. A progressive vision for the Democratic Party has revitalized interest in it among younger generations. Many, myself included, believe that more Democrats in Congress have "grown a spine" in resisting a rightward political drift in this country because of advocacy from it's more progressive base. And this isn't a clear cut Clinton/Sanders dynamic. Many of Hillary's supporters embraced and participated in Black Live Matter for example . Since Bill Clinton left office many Democrats have been pushed to the left on issues like the criminal justice system and the war on drugs. And on privatization, including but not limited to private prisons. Bill and Hillary Clinton have responded as well. A movement toward free public college for the working and middle class has gathered momentum. Clinton and Sanders came together on that in the platform committee - and now New York State is implementing it. Bill Clinton famously once said "the era of big government is over" in 1996 while he pursued deregulation across the board. Since 2000 the Democratic Party left has insisted on a stronger government role in regulating the excesses of the oligarchy, and our party (yes OUR party) has corrected that rightward lurch as a result.
When Obama, whose Presidency I largely admire, first took office he was open to a grand bargain with the Republicans that would have "adjusted" the growth rate of Social Security, arguing that it would not be a "cut" since the amount spent on it would continue to rise. Sound familiar? That is the argument that Republicans now use to defend Trumpcare - which they say does not "cut" Medicaid. The Democratic base vehemently rejected that line of manipulative reasoning when Obama flirted with it, and to his credit he backed off from it and never went there again.
Our Vice Presidential nominee in 2004 was one of the Co-sponsors of the Iraq War Resolution. Our last Majority leader in the House before Pelosi supported it also. But the Democratic base moved left on all of them. I was willing to support Hillary Clinton in 2008 despite her IWR vote, not to mention my vote for her in 2016, but I am glad that the base has held Democratic Party leader's feet to the fire on matters of War and Peace. Obama "attacked" from the left in the primaries on that matter in 2008, if you insist on using that language.