I'd be interested in what you Kerrycrats think of this article

[paulk]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2112612

I expressed a dissenting view and have so far received only a derogatory reply that "no one believes my bullshit". whatever.

I think this whole discussion of why Democrats lose is worth having -

and the Kerry forum is the place to have it

[karynnj]

1. I just posted this there, then saw this and you are right they are

proving that any argument that looks beyond right/left and we need to expand the party by (throwing out all the centrists) which would work really well. Anyway, here were factors, I could think of but I agree with you that losing the racists was our biggest source of loss.

I posted:
Lyndon Johnson even realized that this was likely to be the cost of the civil rights act when he pushed for it because it was the right thing to do. If you look only at the Senate, comparing the parties of the Senators in Johnson's time to now - the difference is in the South. But many of the Democrats in the South were segregationists. The only way they helped liberals is that as part of the Democratic caucus they voted Democrat for the Speaker or Majority leader. We lost the racists - so you can say we became purer, but at a cost.

Last year, we had a bad hand to play in the Senate - 5 seats that were up were in the south. Possibly if Breaux (LA), Edwards (NC), and Graham (FL) would have opted to stand for election, we would have done better. If they all won,(47,1, 52) would be easier to deal with, although still bad. (I'm not sure if Zell Miller running - on either parties line would have made things better.)

The other thing that cut against the Democrats, is that with the shift away from industrial jobs, the most powerful unions lost an enormous amount of power. The union, more than anything else was able to clearly spell out that the Republicans favored the privileged. This also hurt because in many states, it was the organizational skills of the union that were put to work getting out the vote and popularizing the Democratic candidates.

The shift to the suburbs from the cities hurt as well. In a city it is easy to see the interdependencies of the people whose lives touch yours. Actually seeing people who are homeless, hungry, or sick touches the conscience of most people. Putting a dollar in their cup, does little to correct the problem and you see it day after day. Societal change and government action is needed to fix that. In the suburbs, it's easier to consider the Republican idea that voluntary individual charity is the answer. This may have changed with Katrina showing that individuals need good government - no one in NO could have done anything to prevent their misfortunes.

Another factor, is that the population has not remained the same, each year new voters are added and others leave. We have been gradually losing people who were old enough to remember FDR. (I've done some phone banking - calling the 60+ year olds is great.) They are predominately Democratic.

There are now a huge number of people who came of age when Reagan was President. In the late 60s early 70s, being a college Republican or in ROTC was a good way to be very very lonely. In the mid 90s, I was shocked when a niece ruled out the college I went to as having way too many conservatives.

In the high school vote in my Republican town, the high school juniors and seniors picked Kerry by 51% - while the real vote in the town went to Bush. Nation-wide, the youth vote went by a pretty big margin to Kerry. By 2008, all the 14-almost 18 year olds of 2004 will be old enough to vote. Adding them, if they look like the kids 4 years older, would give us a win IF nothing else happened.

Additionally, if there is a sense of betrayal and people totally turn on Bush, it may lead to a re-assessment of Ronald Reagan. (In fact, two of Kerry's main accomplishments were the genuinely good work on investigating the Contra/cocaine scandal and BCCI. How, when the media is canonizing Reagan, does Kerry use the fact that he spent years proving (thus stopping) that the US, under Reagan, looked the other way and allowed the Contras to fund their right wing revolution by inundating our inner-cities with cheap crack cocaine. All while they had the chutzpah to say "No" to drugs.

[Island Blue]

2. While I don't really agree with the article you linked to,

I don't really agree with your reply in that thread either. The shift toward the Republican Party in the South doesn't have "everything to do with racism." (Although I'll have to admit, I never get tired of hearing that assessment. :crazy:) If anything, the shift toward the Republican Party in the South has much more to do with the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity. I know plenty of Southerns who aren't racist at all, but who vote Republican because of their "faith". (And yes, there are some who use their faith as a smoke screen to be racist - no doubt.)

Another interesting factor in the Republicanization of the South (and one that I've NEVER heard mentioned anywhere) is that over the past 20 - 30 years there has been a rather large migration into the region of folks from other areas (i.e. up north). I think these people tend to A.) be very involved politically and B.) tend to vote Republican. I know in the county I live in (in NC) if you had an "R" beside your name 20 years ago and wanted to run for local office you would have been laughed out of town. During the past 20 years however, we have had a HUGE influx of transported northerners and most of them are Republicans with large amounts of money to spend. (As compared to the local population which had always been working class Democrats.) This has totally changed the political landscape of the county I live in, and I suspect this has happened in other places in the South as well.

Sorry for that long rant that really has nothing to do with your question proposed to the Kerry Forum - your question is certainly a good one!

[karynnj]

4. Both your points are interesting

It's really interesting that people moving from the north are mostly Republican. In NC, does the Research triangle have many Democrats? Most of the people I knew in the research arm of a telephone company tended to be Democrats.

I guess the racism argument was true mainly in the 60s and 70s as some Democratic politicians became Republican politicians. I apologize for repeating it, because it's counter productive to assign a negative motive when a reasonable alternative is more likely.

It's better to think it's religious values, because their may be more hope to win them back by being true to our real values. There were some evangelicals that backed Kerry in the election.

[Island Blue]

7. You have a point about folks who have moved to places like RTP

They may not be Repukes. Raleigh/Durham tends to lean more to the Democratic side than some other places in the state. I was thinking mainly of folks who have retired (or retired early) and moved down here. I would really like to see some statistics on this (there may be some - I guess I should look, huh?). Also, I don't know about Florida which may or may not be considered a Southern state depending on who you ask.

In my first post I was mainly referring to what Paul K said in his response to the OP in GD-P.

[karynnj]

9. Florida seems to be the story of two coasts

From what I've been told, the east coast of Florida has lots of NY/NJ etc retirees. They are also largely Jewish. Those retirees are mostly Democrats. On the west coast in places like Ft Myers, the retirees are mostly Republicans often from the Midwest.

[paulk]

13. saying that it "has everything to do with racism"

is a bit of hyperbole on my part - but, it was mostly in reaction being that the article I responded to didn't mention it as a factor at all. It definitely is a factor in the Democratic loss of the South. And I think a large one. To me, one of the underlying tenets of Republicanism is an appeal to racism. It's most often done these days with a nod and a wink; but it's surely there.

It's interesting that you mention an influx of Republicans into the South large enough to change the political equation. The same thing happened here in Colorado - with Republicans from CA and TX moving here to take advantage of the low property values (that's changed!). There used to be more registered Dems here than Reps back in the days when we were electing people like Gary Hart and Tim Wirth to the Senate. Not any more.

I wonder if the reason in the South was the same - wealthy northeastern Republicans buying up cheap property?

[TayTay]

3. What is the center anyway?

Robert Reich once said that there are two political parties in Massachusetts, but they are both the Democratic Party. One is a progressive movement that features social issues such as gay rights, pro-choice, an aggressive embrace of civil rights and democratic reform. The other party is pro-union and progressive on economic issues. The two don't always see eye to eye and there are problems. (Which is why MA has a Rethug Gov.; that last Govs race didn't reconcile the worlds. Sigh!)

The center is MA is when you get working class Dems to believe that other Dems are not out to screw them over and take their money to give to 'oppressed' sub-groups. The center is when libs figure out that their best features are often compassionate programs that give a helping hand to lower middle-class and poor voters when they need it for home heating fuel, or to buy food.

The groups don't meet over social issues. I just saw a letter to the editor in the Lowell Sun that came from a Dem. He was pissed because a local Rep had voted against the Gay Marriage amendment. This Dem was pissed because he wanted to vote on the amendment next year. He is a 'fiscal Dem' but not a lib. There are lib Dems who advocate for tax increases for schools and such and their arguments don't seem to recognize that $10-20 bucks a month for a tax increase are too much for many people and it's not a matter of not loving the schools. They can't afford it. (This feeds the 'liberal Dems are insensitive' meme.) Sigh!

What is the vital center? What does it mean? Is it a matter of social issues versus bread-and-butter economic issues? If Sen. Kerry advocates for better benefits for Vets and for home-heating cost relief (or summer-cooling relief in the South) and for health coverage for those who don't have it, is that the center? If he advocates for the Clinton phrase of keeping abortion, 'Safe, legal and rare,' does that make him a liberal or is that a center position? Are there two Democratic Parties in America and can they be reconciled? Is it possible for the Dems to reframe the religious wars into a discussion of poverty and what can be done about it and whether or not poverty is a moral and social issue. (What would Jesus say about American attitudes toward the poor?)

What is the center, exactly. What are centrist positions?

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. I'm tending more and more to agree with your "economic" Dem

I have always considered myself a liberal, but I finally have to say: economically liberal issues matter more to me, ultimately, than traditional social liberal issues, civil rights notwithstanding - I believe that anything that violates the spirit of the Constitution - of liberty - is anathema to America. That said, how do you define civil liberties? Is it gay marriage, or civil unions? Affirmative action? Some civil rights issues I believe have far more Constitutional import than others, and can be prioritized - civil unions vs. gay marriage, or anti-discrimination acts vs. affirmative action. I am pro-choice because I define it strictly as a civil liberties issue, for example. I am the daughter of a union laborer, however, and economic, populist liberalism is my guiding philosophy. I'm sorry if this makes no sense, I've had like no sleep this weekend and feel like a zombie.

[TayTay]

6. It made perfect sense.

Take the fair trae and free trade issue. A lot of Dems were very angry about the passage of NAFTA in the mid-90's. Free trade is a good thing, loss of American jobs because of outsourcing and the 'race to the bottom' on wages is a bad thing. What is the center? How does the Democratic Party argue that improving working conditions in other countries and trying to get fair and decent labor laws passed in poor countries that outlaw child-labor and mandate safe working conditions is a good thing for American workers.

A lot of Southern Dems are pissed at their Reps who voted for CAFTA. This appears to me to be based on the outsourcing argument and the fear of lost jobs. Can the Dems successfully combine the two arguments? Fair trade is a good thing for the world and fair trade does mean the loss of some American jobs and fair trade doesn't have to be a loser for Americans if we can make educational initiatives and worker training initiatives in other areas that would restore American jobs?

What is the vital center on an issue like Free Trade (or is it Fair trade?)

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Honestly, though I am a proud liberal, I think my (our) position is center

Because really, the two extremes would be a state-controlled market (undiluted communism) on the left, or an unfettered free-market (undiluted capitialist) system on the right. What I want - and what it seems like everyone here in this group, at any rate, wants - is a system which is capitalist at its base, but with enough regulations and standards implemented within the system to prevent it from pursuing its natural path, which is the concentration of massive quantities of wealth in fewer and fewer hands until a handful of corporate conglomorates hold a monopoly over everything (if you don't think this is the natural end result of unfettered capitalism, just look at what's happened in the past 20 years with basically unregulated markets - huge mergers, AOLTimeWarner, Sony Bertlesmann, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, TexacoChevron, etc, a handful of giant MNCs holding embarrassing amounts of the world's wealth).

What I want is neither pure communism nor pure capitalism. If this makes my position the objective center, I am unafraid to assume that mantle, though I do not feel that I am violating any of my dearly held liberal tenets in saying so. After all, a word is just a word.

[karynnj]

8. It actually makes a huge amount of sense

I think I am about the same. The test for me would be; if I was faced with an economic liberal/social conservative vs a economic conservative/true libertarian which would I pick. Although I can't name a single economic liberal/social conservative (Reid?, Casey?), I would prefer him/her to an economic conservative/libertarian. especially if you throw in a sensible foreign policy.

Libertarian doesn't match social liberal (anti- discrimination, affirnative action etc, but on several current issues they are in sync.

I think last year, there were people who had to pick between economic policies that helped them (Kerry) and their desire to have conservative social policies (not Kerry).

[TayTay]

10. But what about the Bankruptcy Bill?

Reid voted FOR that. Does that make him a conservative economic Dem? Kerry voted against it? Does that make him a liberal economic Dem? (What about all those Kerry votes for a balanced budget?)

The lines are blurred. I sometimes feel like I don't know what the center is and who is occupying it at any given moment. Take the pro-choice discussion. The best event would be to have programs in place so that education and prevention occur and that abortions decrease because there is less need for them. What does that position occupy? Is it liberal to want more programs in place to decrease the need or is it centrist to state that we want less abortions in the first place. (The one constant is that abortion needs to remain legal and available.)

[karynnj]

11. I think what I wrote doesn't make sense in retrospect

because it tries to define everyone by the extremes, when there's a whole spectrum.

[TayTay]

12. It does make sense

because we don't know what the definitions are. (I certainly don't anyway.) Te debates on DU are confusing because I don't know what constitutes the vital center and how one arrives at it. It's all open to debate at this point.

[paulk]

14. the center is different depending where you are

the center in Alabama is a way different place than the center in ... Northern CA, for instance. That's something I find very frustrating in trying to talk to people here at DU - it's all black and white for so many here.

It's very strange to have worked most of my life in an environment where my views were to the left, often the extreme left, of most of the people I was around. Then to come here to DU, where I've been called a Republican more than once...

Too many people on the left see the Democratic Party as some kind of monolithic thing... There are states in this country where the center is well to the right of what most people on this board find acceptable. The Democratic Party held power for many years because of an uneasy alliance between Southern segregationists and Northeastern liberals, where economic policies were granted precedence and social issues like institutionalized racism were ignored.

The genius of the right has been to split the country along lines defined by social issues, not economic ones.

The Democratic Party (and the left) needs to understand this.

[beachmom]

16. So true, Paulk, about the center

Here in red country, people no doubt think I am a flaming liberal, but when I log on here, I feel like a moderate or centrist. Since Communism has next to NO following in the U.S. (I was in Italy this summer and was surprised how communism is, well, chic in Rome), I'm not sure people would buy your thinking, WEL, about being a centrist. Since the whole country has moved to the right -- okay, in the circles I travel, left points of view are not even KNOWN -- saying you're for a few environmental regulations on the coal industry makes you a flaming liberal. That's where we're at. Rush Limbaugh is considered mainstream, when in fact he is to the right of the president. I swung by him the other day (okay, I was bored and desperate), and he was moning about how the federal government was paying for the rebuilding of the Gulf coast, and bitching how people feel "entitled" to be helped out. And then he moaned about how Louisiana, one of the poorest states in the union and has been deprived of a huge percentage of their tax revenue from this storm, isn't paying for reconstruction. When you're starting with that point of view, EVERYTHING to the left of that extreme thinking, people will label "liberal".

But there's a lot of wiggle room. I guess I'm a little closer to trying to preserve free market forces, that when industry gets TOO weighed down by regulation, that the economy slows down. However, I am for environmental regulation and universal health care. And I guess I have a big problem with the fast food industry -- both with the labor practices and the disgusting food they serve us. So what am I? A centrist or a liberal? On DU, I'm a centrist, but somewhere else, I'm an anti-capitalist liberal. In regards to the South, I am, of course, a northerner transplant, and a reliable Democratic voter. But a lot of the people I know here, are not rascist in an overt way, yet they rail against welfare for the poor. They rail against illegal immigration. And who are the focus of their fury -- why poor blacks and Mexicans. But when they have problems of their own, they never think that if government were different maybe problems of, say, no health insurance, wouldn't be there. They're just so against government as a possible solution to their problems, I don't know how you undo that. The social issues are just a cultural battle that are put on the top.