"There is no room for centrists and moderates in the Democratic Party."

[msallied]

This is a statement I have heard frequently among those who support HRC's and the like's DLC policies. Truly, is there room in our party for a Democrat who walks and talks like a Republican? Is there room in the Republican for those who walk and talk like Democrats?

In my opinion, no. In my opinion, if you are going to uphold the words and values held dear by the opposite party, then the opposite party is probably the one you should be in. That's not to say that I don't hold centrist/moderate views of my own. I disagree with fellow Democrats on several issues, but the buck stops at a certain point. At a certain point, we have to see the damage people do to their respective parties when, in the aftermath of defeats, they think the solution lay in trying to sound more like their opponents. I feel this has a tendency to damage politics more than it helps it, because to the typical voter, there doesn't seem to be a real discernible choice between the two candidates.

What is your stance on this issue?

[LSparkle]

1. I absolutely agree -- we have pro-life Dems and Dem hunters

I think what divides Democrats from Republicans are economic issues -- not
cultural issues. I can co-exist with Democrats who are pro-life and who
support gun rights and who may wish there were prayer in schools, but I
cannot abide Democrats who run counter to one of the basic beliefs of
the Democratic Party -- that work should be valued at least as much as
wealth. We have historically been the party of the workers (vs. the party
of management, the Repugs), and those Democrats who vote to limit union
and workers' rights in favor of cozying up to Big Business are the ones
I object to.

[redqueen]

13. "economic issues" - BINGO!

:thumbsup:

[msallied]

22. Very good. I agree. n/t

[jackster]

26. LSparkle, please don't use the term "pro=life"

Using the term pro-life just plays into their hands. Do you know anyone who is anti-life? No, we're all PRO LIFE. Rather, Some of us might be pro-choice and others anti-choice.

[LSparkle]

29. I absolutely stand (sit) corrected -- I hate that term myself

and I'm ashamed that I advanced its usage. You're right about us all
being pro-life ... anti-choice is a far better description of the
position they're taking.

[TooBigaTent]

40. So, you can "co-exist with Democrats who are

pro-life and who support gun rights and who may wish there were prayer in schools."

Does that mean that you welcome people who would ban all reproductive choice for women, including contraception?

Does that mean you are comfortable with people who want everyone, including school students, to carry guns?

Does that mean you would support someone who wants to have their religious practices forced on your children in schools?

How about someone who believes that homosexual Americans should not have any rights? Or that inter-racial marriages should be illegal?

Exactly what values are deal-breakers?

[LSparkle]

43. All are deal-breakers, but moderate Dems aren't taking those stands

What you've cited are very extreme right-wing positions, which wouldn't
probably be held by people who consider themselves (albeit moderate/
conservative) Democrats. People who espouse the beliefs you've noted
DON'T belong in the Democratic Party.

[MADem]

2. So, you're saying that moderates and centrists should leave the party?

You do realize that's MOST of the party, don't you? The moderates and centrists, who make up the MAJORITY of the party, are too mature to suggest that instead you make the first move, and shove off. It's because the moderates and centrists are more tolerant of the many differences within the party than those like you, who are foolish lockstep ideologues.

And you apparently have no idea how a real Republican walks and talks.

Such hyperbole might make you feel good, shitstirring often has that effect, but it's divisive and unhelpful.

But then, that was your point, wasn't it?

[msallied]

11. Wow... why are you jumping on my case?

I am trying to provide an area for thoughtful discussion. You seem angry and defensive for no reason.

And I never claimed that there was anything wrong with a moderate. You make a good point that moderates make up the majority of the party. But I do believe there is a difference between being a moderate and talking/acting like a Republican. While values issues are a little more flexible, there is a pretty hard set of core beliefs that each party holds dear. And I've seen more and more Democrats move away from this over the years (particularly in the pursuit of big business/special interests) that has been disconcerting.

[MADem]

27. You don't get "thoughtful discussion" when your subject line advocates shoving

seventy percent, or more, of the party out the door.

THAT's why I'm "jumping on your case."

I find it tiresome that unless you're cheering on Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan, that you're made to feel as if you are not welcome here. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground, not FAR, FAR LEFT UNDERGROUND. But it sure feels like the latter on way too many days.

Jack Murtha is a CONSERVATIVE--not a MODERATE--Democrat. He is more like a Republican in MUCH of his thinking. Yet he did one thing right, so for now, he gets a pass. He'll be shit on when the time is right, no doubt.

Linc Chaffee WAS a Republican (he's now an independent) who is more liberal than many, if not most, Democrats.

This "attitude" about how Democrats like working people and Republicans don't is what keeps us out of the White House. That's not the "difference" in the two parties. Quite simply, one party wants to shrink and drown the federal government--and particularly anything that looks or smells like a "social" program-- in a bathtub (after they've feathered the nests of their cronies with war profits), and the other doesn't.

If it were all about working people, you wouldn't have a term like "Reagan Democrats." You wouldn't see so many "working people" voting for Bush--he didn't get into office on the votes of rich people, you know....

I'm not "angry and defensive." I am outright pissed off at blatant mischaracterizations that approach "blame laying" on an entire segment of the party (the ones that make up the CORE of the party, too) and suggestions such as you touted in your subject line. I'd hardly call that "no reason," either.

[SeaLyons]

12. ...

:thumbsup:

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Nice way to ignore what the OP said.

There is plenty of room in the party for moderates, even conservatives, EXCEPT those who stand against the basic economic foundations of the Democratic party.

Anti-union Democrats are welcome to go away.
Pro-corporate Democrats are welcome to go away.
Anti-labor Democrats are welcome to go away.

If you think WalMart to be a better business citizen than Mom & Pop, you're in the wrong fucking party.

[MADem]

39. You know what I think? I think you're not the party gatekeeper.

You don't get to decide who is "welcome to go away." I'd wager that didactic, hectoring scolds are probably more unwelcome than the evildoers you cite.

And I didn't "ignore" what the OP said. You apparently managed to ignore what I said, though.

Heckuvajob, there Brownie.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. Yes, I have ignored what you said.

Let's make it official, OK.

You're ignored.

Maybe once the DLC has been gutted and Democrats have retaken the party we'll have something to say to each other.

[MADem]

42. Oh goodie--be sure to take your ball as you stomp off home now!

:rofl:

[HereSince1628]

47. Can you share a link?

I'd be interested in reading an article about moderates and centrists making up the majority of the the Democratic Party.

[MADem]

50. All you need to do is look at who got elected to the House and Senate.

Jim Webb isn't a barking liberal. Neither is Joe Sestak. Those "fighting Dems" aren't Code Pink fans.

But here, some reading: http://www.slate.com/id/2153271/

http://www.starnewsonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061116/NEWS/611160383/-1/State

[HereSince1628]

53. Let us remember ALL the calls on DU to back the Dem candidate

The fact that moderate (former-Webb and future republicans--Liebermann) democrats have recieved general support 2 years ago doesn't mean anything about the current balance of centrist vs non centrists of the Democratic base.

[MADem]

54. Yes, it does. Because all of those serving in the House labor under two year terms.

And these moderates and centrists will be returned to their seats. In fact, the only Democrat facing a newsworthy challenge IS a barking liberal, our own Madame Speaker, who votes like a liberal but conducts herself like a Speaker for ALL of the House, and for her pains is challenged by a batshit crazy scold who isn't going to win.

The Senators have less of a hassle, because they've got those cozy six year terms and most of the incumbents whose seats are up this time are GOP, and many of THEM are retiring because they don't want to deal with the shit. We'll have a majority on the Hill, but it won't be a barking liberal majority--it'll reflect the states that send the congresspeople to DC, and it will be a group of moderates, not radicals.

[On the Road]

3. I Do Not Believe It is Not About Centrism Per Se

Howard Dean is a moderate.

In a nutshell, I believe the difference is about John Edwards's theme that "they won't give it to you -- have have to take it."

[cali]

6. Howard Dean is a Vermont moderate

As we've seen, he's viewed by much of the country as a raging liberal.

[LSparkle]

9. Depends on what he's "moderate" about

Cultural moderates are OK but when you start talking like Joe LIEberman
and being a foreign policy hawk, then you gotta go ...

[ShortnFiery]

4. I agree. Politicians using "wedge issues' to keep themselves in power is deceitful

It's morally bankrupt and the brainchild of the belated Lee Atwater. Karl Rove was mentored by Lee Atwater and such "divide and conquer" politics has defined The Republican Party for over 30 years.

Yes, if you find yourself agreeing with Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough or Sean Hannity, then yes, IMO, you need to consider switching your party loyalties to the GOP. :shrug:

[bluestateguy]

5. Obama and Clinton have very similar views on the issues

On some issues Obama is Left of her, but on others she is Left of him.

This primary is a clash of personalities and a contest over how the Democratic Party will be organized in the future.

[Texas Hill Country]

8. they are virtual photocopies of eachother on the issues... agreed.

[ShortnFiery]

16. No, Obama's Foreign Policy team will be more engaged and pro-active.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

The Obama Doctrine
Spencer Ackerman | March 24, 2008

When Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama met in California for the Jan. 31 debate, their back-and-forth resembled their many previous encounters, with the Democratic presidential hopefuls scrambling for the small policy yardage between them. And then Obama said something about the Iraq War that wasn't incremental at all. "I don't want to just end the war," he said, "but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place."

Until this point in the primaries, Clinton and Obama had sounded very similar on this issue. Despite their differences in the past (Obama opposed the war, while Clinton voted for it), both were calling for major troop withdrawals, with some residual force left behind to hedge against catastrophe. But Obama's concise declaration of intent at the debate upended this assumption. Clinton stumbled to find a counterargument, eventually saying her vote in October 2002 "was not authority for a pre-emptive war." Then she questioned Obama's ability to lead, saying that the Democratic nominee must have "the necessary credentials and gravitas for commander in chief."

If Clinton's response on Iraq sounds familiar, that's because it's structurally identical to the defensive crouch John Kerry assumed in 2004: Voting against the war wasn't a mistake; the mistakes were all George W. Bush's, and bringing the war to a responsible conclusion requires a wise man or woman with military credibility. In that debate, Obama offered an alternative path. Ending the war is only the first step. After we're out of Iraq, a corrosive mind-set will still be infecting the foreign-policy establishment and the body politic. That rot must be eliminated.

[JoFerret]

45. God save us

(I don't believe in god nor in any such crap as the "Obama doctine" whatever that might portend pretend to be.)

And that is NOT a slice at Obama either.

[crankychatter]

7. Two categories of "centrism"

One - Where policy agreements from opposing camps occur as a consequence of
their taking money from the same Corporate Cookie Jar

Two - Where coalitions are formed on shared issues between camps that differ otherwise

Compromise for the purposes of passing legislation is pragmatic and sensible, old school legislation.

When compromise and pragmatism are used as the rhetoric, the smokescreen to justify corruption and complicity... it's a function of number one.

Ideological Purity and hard headed moral certitude, are part of problem - NOT the solution. It's a tool of the "divide and conquer" strategists.

Frankly, Obama's a goddamn genius. Won't this be a refreshing change?

I'm praying to the god I don't believe in, more often than usual.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Correction: The Clintonian DLC represents "conservative CORPORATE democrats" eom

[depakid]

14. Considering that Democrats have seemingly narrowed the choice between 2 "centrists" and "moderates"

a rational person (who doesn't engage in magical thinking) might wonder what you're talking about.

[rinsd]

18. !!!

:spray:

[msallied]

21. I'm discussing the rationale given to me

regarding Hillary Clinton's DLC ties.

[GoldieAZ49]

15. what is the 'certain point'?

There will be fewer and fewer centrist and moderates in the Dem party at the rate we are going.

I don't see them going into the Repub party, I see the indies getting much bigger and people voting based on the individual running not a party platform. Maybe that is how is should be.

[msallied]

20. So long as we maintain this notion of a 2-party system

People will continue to feel that their party doesn't truly represent them or their interests.

[zonmoy]

17. If you get rid of the moderates and right wingers in the party

you would pretty much need to get rid of everyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich

[msallied]

19. Doesn't that bother you?

Do you feel that the Democrats have been hijacked, if this is the case?

[zonmoy]

25. I would consider sending the Dino's and the other right winger back to the repukes

or to an even worse fate the only way to save the democratic party from becoming either irrelevant or self destructing on purpose any time they have a slight chance of going against their corporatist masters.

[rinsd]

28. Or the Democratic party you envision never existed?

:shrug:

Blue Dogs & New Democrats outnumber the Progressive caucus.

Without either, there is no majority.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. The New Democrats are neither. nt

[Ytzak]

23. If you can actually show me the center of the political spectrum...

We can decide if we like centrists or not.

The center will always drift with the electorate. Reagan redefined the center way to the right, and it stayed there through Bush I, Clinton I, and Bush II. In 2006, when Democrats retook the house and public sentiment turned against the war and most of the pablum pedaled by the right, the center shifted left.

I for one will welcome anyone who wants to cast a vote for the Democratic nominee in November. That will show that the center has move back to the left. Then, we can get busy holding he balls and ovaries of the house and Senate to the fire so they enact progressive legislation.

[msallied]

24. It's not the voters I'm concerned about so much...

as the candidates who might possibly be Republicans in Democrat's clothing...

[Nickster]

30. Exactly. The nutbars have moved the center so far to the right that a centrist is still considered

way to the right of most Americans. Heck, back in 2000, I considered myself a moderate Independent, but now I'm considered way to the left and I'm fairly certain that my core values didn't change that much in 8 years.

[Ytzak]

44. About 80% of the Democratic party is to the right of Europe.

We need to move the center back to the left. But I still say that anyone who will vote for a Democrat in Novemember is welcome. We can work on removing the skin walkers and replacing them with progressive Democrats.

[Adelante]

31. I'm not of the small tent school

The bigger the tent, the better, as far as I'm concerned. What we can't allow is for domination by centrists. But that's up to us. We have to support the DNC and exert pressure on our elected Dems, as needed. We have to let them know we're in the game and we're staying in. We have to insist on Democratic liberal values. If we don't, then those with the money and power will take up every inch of space we leave behind.

[baldguy]

32. Obama is a moderate. Hillary is a conservative.

The Republicans are fascists.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. "..moderation in principle is always a vice." - Tom Paine

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice."

A vice that is all too often embraced by ambitious politicians pandering to the complacent and fearful.

[endarkenment]

34. HRC's and the like's DLC policies are center-right.

Actually Obama's positions are basically center-right as well. There is not a lot of policy difference between the stated platforms of either candidate, and no room at all for actual progressive left or center-left policies in either party. See Dennis Kucinich's failed progressive-left campaign and John Edward's failed center-left campaign.

[BzaDem]

35. The whole question is where the point is. It isn't black and white.

Obviously, Lieberman went far beyond what's acceptable. But HRC falls well within the Democratic party. She holds MORE liberal views than Obama on healthcare, forclosure reform, and subprime reform.

You mention that we need to stop thinking that acting more like our opponent will win us elections. That is true to a certain extent. But the opposite is also true. If we move farther and farther away for the sole purpose of making a distinction, we won't win. Some people on this board just won't accept the fact that America on average is more centrist than they are. Going further and further away from the center may make for good policy, but there comes a point where it won't result in winning elections. Americans won't vote for someone they think is far out of their viewpoint on issues.

Of course the question entirely comes down how much do we have to go to the center or to the left to avoid these problems. That's very complicated, and depends on the issue. But to say that there's some magical point where we need to be is looking at it too simplistically.

[TooBigaTent]

38. It is clear from posts here and the actions of the party "leaders" that there is no room

for liberals in the Democratic Party. We are told to shut up and vote for the "D" or else we are traitors to the party.

Want the Bush criminals held accountable - don't rock the boat and alienate those center-right voters.

Want an immediate end to the war - must not criticize those enabling its continuation (politicians AND troops).

Want curbs instituted on the corporations that are running the US into the ground - must keep powder dry for something in the unknown future.

Today's Democratic party is so conservative in its actions and policies that old-fashioned, labor-oriented, peace-preferring, environment-defending people are consistently ignored and ostracized. We are handed two center-right corporatists and told to be happy.

We seem to welcome anti-choice people, machine-guns are my right fanatics, homosexual-hating bigots, anti-immigrant nationalists, racist and sexist supporters, corporate apologists, religious delusionals, and many others more readily than those dreaded "leftists" who dare to speak the truth about what has happened to the party. Exactly what so-called Dem principles are negotiable? It would seem that everything is on the table, except defending the Constitution.

The result is that now, on the cusp of what should have been an historic, exciting, most-important election, large sectors of the Democratic Party are pissed off enough to contemplate not supporting the nominee in November. How fucked up is that?

And we are all to blame. Some, more than others.

[Phillycat]

46. Both of our candidates are moderates/centrists.

Everyone outside of the DU-verse can see this. In fact, before we all lost our damned minds, when there were still other candidates in the race, Obama and Clinton were the last two candidates on every DU poll, BECAUSE they are moderates and because their positions are basically the same.

[El Pinko]

48. Hillary & Co are not "centrists", they essentially are moderate republicans, by the old standards.

To me, a Kucinich would be a labor-left liberal. A Teddy Kennedy would be a mainstream liberal. John Edwards would be a centrist. Joe Biden a moderate, and Hillary/Obama & the DLC would be center/right.

None of them would have been at all out of place in the pre-Reagan GOP, but he pulled that party so far to the extreme right that now the democratic party is stuck with all the moderate republicans.

At least that's how I see it.



PS - what is referred to as "centrist" by US media would be considered quite right-leaning in almost any other advanced nation...

[mod mom]

49. DLC is corporatist NOT centrist. They just spin "centrist' in attempt to gather support.

[brindis_desala]

51. Herein lies the obvious dysfunction of our two-party system.

This inability to distinguish clear lines between competing interests is why the corporations have had free reign in setting the political agenda. Guess who's winning... hint it's not "we, the people"

[BlooInBloo]

52. Ok Lieberman.