Will the Democratic Party once again champion the working people?

[SparkyMac]

In his new book "A Time to Fight", Senator Jim Webb points out that the Democratic party has almost totally abandoned the working men and women.

Does anyone disagree -- and is there anything we can do to put the Party back on it's historic course before the 2008 election ?

Page 104 to 105

Beginning with the Jacksonian admonition in the 1820s that we should measure the health of our society not at the apex but at its base,

the principal focus of the Democratic Party until the 1970s was always the well-being of our working men and women. During the "culture wars," that emphasis shifted beyond the civil rights victories and the poverty programs to a broad pastiche of non-economic issues. In the American political debate, economic fairness often took a back seat to a wide variety of interest-group rights, as well as such hot-button issues as reproductive rights, privacy, rights, gun control, and the health of the environment. In key debates, the Democratic Party still stood for the well-being of the poor and dispossessed. But somewhere along the way it lost its historic emphasis on working men and women.

These other issues were all deserving of attention and certainly of debate. But the most important domestic challenge facing America -- economic fairness for its workers -- was not reaching the venues of government where true, in-depth debate could even he held. And in the 1990s, as globalization kicked into full swing, bringing along with it the internationalization of corporate America and the creation of such international economic bodies as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) an(] World Trade Organization (WTO), the legitimate need for protecting the economic conditions of the American worker fell by the wayside. Indeed, comprehensive worker protection was not even specifically addressed in these landmark agreements.

If the Democratic Party was not going to insist on protecting the economic well-being of our workers, then who would ? And if neither party was going to speak principally for working people, then what would become the dividing line when Americans decided to cast a vote ? When the Democrats deemphasized the well-being of the American worker, the issues of the culture wars took over the debate. In fact, those issues ended up redefining the divisions between the two dominant political parties. And once these debates went into full swing, a lot of more conservative Americans engaged in predictable arid often enraged counterattacks on a variety of these social issues, pushing econonic issues even further off the table.

[tularetom]

1. Hillary will - as long as the working people are white

[papau]

3. Love the smear - and lie - Hillary will indeed be an advocate for all working people - unlike Obama

[polichick]

2. Maybe John Edwards is reestablishing his DC office in order to...

...lead the fight for working class Americans. (I hope.)

[dubeskin]

4. I've noticed this as well - especially in this election

There has become a sense of disenfranchisement of the working class. Obama has called them "bitter" and "Gun-clinging" and yet Hillary has gone and insisted that only whites work. Both front-runners have abandoned the people that got them to where they are. The working class and poor have always been the backbone of the Democratic Party, and without those votes, it will be impossible to win in November.

The Party is in a place right now where they have to re-energize and find their footing again. In the 80s there was the Resurgence of Conservatism, and I feel like this election will need to be the Revitalization of Liberalism -when the Democrats return to championing the working class, poor, and downtrodden. We need to return to our Populist roots, and go back to the core social values of equality and nonviolence.

[WA98296]

5. If we are willing to vote out more and more DLCers, whose goal it is to move AWAY from populism

Bill Clinton ran as a populist but that changed as soon as he was elected.

[Individualist]

6. Only if voters will stop returning DLCers to their Congressional positions

[AndyTiedye]

7. I Disagree With the Implication that We Should Give Up Reproductive Rights, Privacy, in Exchange

During the "culture wars," that emphasis shifted beyond the civil rights victories and the poverty programs to a broad pastiche of non-economic issues. In the American political debate, economic fairness often took a back seat to a wide variety of interest-group rights, as well as such hot-button issues as reproductive rights, privacy, rights, gun control, and the health of the environment.

The implication being that we should be willing to give up on reproductive rights, privacy, and the environment if it will help us get the votes for "comprehensive worker protection", whatever that is.

I disagree with that most strongly.

[alarimer]

11. I do too.

Democrats can do more to help the working class, especially by getting rid of the DLC, corporate types. But I am not willing to sacrifice civil rights in order to win their votes. By forcing out the only true populists in the race, we are left with only corporate types for potential nominees. Obama will do nothing to help them. Hell, Bill Clinton sold them down the river with Nafta and Welfare reform. So I guess they turn to those wedge issues because they know that neither party will really help them. Both are too enslaved by corporate interests.

Gay marriage and women's reproductive freedom will have to be forced down their throats because they will never be "ready" to accept it. Just like civil rights, it is worth losing a few elections to do what is right. Another reason I am no longer a Democrat is that most of the current crop are too wishy-washy and willing to compromise on these issues (as well as on the environment). There is no compromise.

[comradebillyboy]

8. yes Webb is right

you can see the democrats contempt for working class Americans all over DU.

[Juche]

9. They pretty much have to

Seeing how since movement conservatives have taken over america in 1980 the working class hasn't had an inflation adjusted raise, they are going to have to. Education, healthcare, housing, fuel and food are all growing in price and wages are stagnant. Jobs offer fewer benefits. In 1992 workers produced $28/hr of wealth and were paid $15/hr to do it. Today they produce $36/hr in wealth and are paid $15/hr to do it. This can't continue and something will give. You can't have healthcare or real estate double in price every decade without a raise.

Obama, Edwards & Hillary have all been pushing for better worker treatment, esp. with their unity on EFCA.

In ten years when workers produce $40/hr in wealth and are paid $15/hr to do it and virtually nobody can afford college or healthcare the democrats will have no choice but to actually start doing something.

[LWolf]

10. Not until Democratic voters refuse to elect

centrist/corporate neoliberals.

[Obama4ever]

12. President Obama is the answer

[MrSlayer]

13. I don't know if they can.

The Neos (corporatists) are in both parties and have gathered so much power over the past 50 years that I doubt they will ever relinquish it and give it back to the people. Every President since Ike have been Neos (with the exceptions of Kennedy, whom they killed and Carter whom they crippled in congress) and two of the three candidates still standing are as well. Obama might be too, we'll have to monitor him closely to know for sure. His ties to the CFR are disturbing so there is a good chance he's compromised as well. I don't think we're ever going to have an FDR again. The owners of the country will not allow it. A true blue, old school Democrat like Kucinich is laughed off and marginalized when his platform is the closest to what the Democratic Party allegedly stands for. No, they could champion the working man but they won't.

[SparkyMac]

14. I fear you are right.

Let me mention one other thing I read in Webb's book that surprised me. On page 95 he says that the top 10% whose income is over $100,000 -- collect 48.5% of all income.

That is scary. As recently as 1980 the top 10% collected only about 32%.

And they complain because they pay taxes.