Democratic Socialists are not yet the majority in the Democratic Party...

[kentuck]

...but someday, they may be?

Nevertheless, I would think the Democratic Party would remain open to all ideas that are common-sensical and intelligent?

The Democratic Socialists are mostly a reaction to the right-wing surge into uncertainty and chaos, in my opinion. They are honestly attempting to inform people of the many different ways we are getting screwed by the elite in this country. They may go as far to point out that our present House and Senate do nothing about those elite that might possess as much wealth as from $70-115 Billion Dollars each! It's a matter of economic democracy, in a lot of ways. The elite take the wealth of this country and pretend it is their own. Some Democratic Socialists may believe that we have a right, and a duty, to tax these folks at a level that helps society as a whole, moreso than they as individuals. Logically, we cannot expect people to choose to pay more taxes. It is up to the people, thru their ballot, to decide if that is something they might prefer?

Right-wingers are attacking Democratic Socialists as the ruling arm of the Democratic Party and they are no different from "Communists". That is their present argument.

I would argue that the Democratic Socialists are a big part of the Democratic Party but not the majority. At least, not for now.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Good thoughts,my dear kentuck, and I agree with you.

[kentuck]

2. Thanks Peggy!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. You're welcome, dear kentuck!

I'm not usually up this early, but today I am. I like it when my social media sites aren't so hectic!

[manor321]

4. Democrats always find a way to lose

And using the term socialist is going to do it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. We do NOT always do that.

History is on our side in the coming midterms.

[brush]

107. Check out the photo of AOC's rally for a candidate she's backing in this link.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10938472

What is up with that? 90% white people, is that what Democratic Socialism is all about?

And that rally is in Detroit, a majority AA city.

Not good if you're that out of sync with the base of the party.

[HopeAgain]

11. Democrats always forget the momentum that a promise

of real change can bring. It's hand-wringing and worrying about what the Republicans will say that leads us to losing.

[docgee]

22. This 100%!

We don't need to work with them. We need to over take them. And if the corporate media doesn't like it we will leave them in the rubble also.

[rainy]

76. What you said!

[Duppers]

77. We need only to convince the INDEPENDENTS.

They can be swayed by both sides and we have to figure out how to best do it.

[stonecutter357]

18. cool story bro !

[Squinch]

5. I would argue that, in this moment in time, none of that matters. Let's shelve it and come back

to it after the election.

At this moment in time, I don't care if they are a Democratic socialist, nudist, antiflouridationist or sadomasochist.

If they have a D, we all need to vote for them.

[kentuck]

8. Amen!

There are more important battles.

[backtoblue]

84. Wholeheartedly agree!

[beachbum bob]

7. democratic socialists are a small portion of the democratic party, but news is going to focus on

them to breed dissension and give republicans reasons to mobilize.

[Squinch]

9. Exactly. So we should not focus on it and not allow ourselves to be divided.

[beachbum bob]

12. The everyday democratic voter doesn't care, we have our aim of retaking our country, policy

discussion can happen afterward. The problem has been with the extreme elements who have an attitude at times that "if we don't get way", we won't play....seen it 2000 and we saw it in 2016. Both times the media exacerbated the issues in the run up to the elections. Lets not forget, the Media has a great responsibility for the bad stuff that happens

and look at what that attitude gave america...

[Squinch]

17. But even here in recent days I've noticed a new unity. The response to the obvious trolls seems

much more of a "shut up and go away" where previously the threads might have degenerated into a Bernie/Hillary fight.

We are slow on the uptake, but we get it eventually.

[beachbum bob]

19. Hopefully lessons have been learned that any voice that comes into play that breeds dissention

is a ploy to divide a growing united democratic party. Listen, if all people who have some shared beliefs in what we democrats stand for unite with us and VOTE, no republican would ever win an election. That is the greatest fear in GOPland and the elite.

[pazzyanne]

37. The trolls and bots are on Facebook (I don't do twitter, etc) actively pushing this right now.

Lots of Democratic socialist language and #walkaway being used. There are a lot of people pushing back against this type of propaganda so maybe we learned something last election. At least we can hope we have.

[Squinch]

46. Am I misreading it or did the "walkaway" nonsense fall flat on its face? I've seen more ridicule of

it than anything else, but I'm not on FB or twitter.

[pazzyanne]

56. Yes, it is.

People are attacking the #walkaway as a Russian propaganda to discourage people from standing up for Democrats every time it appears on a thread. Seeing less and less of it every day.

[peggysue2]

67. Hamilton 68 charted the . . .

growth of the fizzled 'movement,' which was bot and troll inspired. The meme crashed and burned from exposure to sunlight. Sort'a like vampires

[Honeycombe8]

41. News doesn't focus on it. The socialists do.

The socialists do, as they try to take over the Democratic Party. Progressives are not socialists, per se.

People have a visceral reaction to the word socialist, and will not vote for it. I am not a socialist. I am a Democrat. Read the Democratic Party Platform below. It does not contain the word socialist. It does, however, contain the word progressive.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/2016_DNC_Platform.pdf

The definition of socialism:

(1) a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

(2) (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

[KPN]

54. Socialism does not equal democratic socialism. But yes, we would do better by emphasizing the

issues and goals of as opposed to using the label socialist or socialism in any way ourselves. Just talk about the economic inequity issue and the goals/policies to deal with it and enhance economic well-being and stability for all as part of the overall party agenda.

[Honeycombe8]

106. That's too long to fit on the ballot. nt

[brush]

111. That makes too much sense. Some seem to want to distinguish themselves...

from the rest of the party.

Check out the photo of AOC's rally for a candidate she's backing in this link.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10938472

What's up. Where's the diversity?

[peggysue2]

71. Yes, claiming the DSA

is larger than it is and turning the organization into a boogie man is the whole point. The DSA clocked in last year with 19,000 paying members, an uptick certainly from 3 years ago. But that hardly makes the group the 'majority' of the Democratic Party. Wishful thinking. It does, however, make the group a perfect meme for the GOP and Russia-huggers to wrap their anti-democratic memes around.

As Democrats, we need to be smarter and concentrate on the task ahead: flooding the polling stations in November, voting for all Dems everywhere and then saving the f*cking country. The Trumpsters are the clear and present danger. The DSA feeding-frenzy is background noise.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-democratic-socialists-20170308-story.html

[SkyDancer]

115. DSA membership is fast growing and now is over 40k

and most of the new people are young voters.

Link to tweet

[peggysue2]

122. Even if that is true . . .

there are over 70 million registered Democrats in the country. The socialists are not a new phenomenon; they've been around for a long time. And it's not the first time that there's been an uptick in membership. The 1930's, a time of real hardship, saw the same increase. It's also not a mistake that the GOP has targeted the movement because they (Republicans) don't have a lot working for them at the moment. Making the DSA into the boogie man is a political strategy, one they're hoping will stem the rising tide as we head into November.

I stand by my point: Democrats need to be smarter and refuse to be caught up in the weeds. The election in November is a national security election. If we want to preserve the Republic then we must contain Trump, and that means electing Democrats everywhere.

[SkyDancer]

123. The weeds?

Well considering the largest voting bloc is now millennial's who favor "socialism" over capitalism, I see this as a good thing and keep in mind they're running as Democrats. A victory is a victory for us! We're a big tent party that appeals to a wide range of people and beliefs, the more inclusive we are, they better because that's how we won't just win in 2020 but absolutely crush it.

[peggysue2]

124. Yes, we are a big tent party

And by the weeds, I mean the noise to hamper Democrats to do what we need to do, as in save the country from the Trumpsters. The argument over socialism vs capitalism is a specious one because voters/people change over time, even millennials. I wouldn't bet money on lifetime membership.

But that's not the issue or the argument at the moment. The important thing is that we're all working, leaning in the same direction for electoral success. Because our lives--all of them--really do depend on it.

[SkyDancer]

141. Preach it!

[wasupaloopa]

10. If we would get rid of the labels and talk about issues we would not have the division and the

repubs would not have the chance to give us a sucker punch.

I kind of blame the Democratic Socialists for the division and for giving the repubs a way to attack us. By wanting to show they are different from the rest of us they hurt us.

Just talk about the issues you think are important like income inequality and stop with the "we are getting screwed by the elite."

We need to be a united strong party this November.

[Boomer]

31. Wow.

You want a united front, but meanwhile you're blaming Democratic Socialists for the division within the party. Way to mend fences, right?

I've been a Democratic Socialist for over 40 years, back when this was a core principle of the Democratic party. It's just another term for FDR Dem that has somehow become an epithet even among other Democrats.

As far as I'm concerned, I've stayed true to the roots of my party, but I've had to compromise those core beliefs to accommodate an increasing shift to the right across our nation. Instead of recognizing the compromises we've made, we're now being vilified as "different" and scolded to stay on topic, to be quiet and let the right wing of our own party present the approved talking points for a united front.

I'm voting Dem in November, as I always have, but it's statements like yours that make me feel like an outsider.

[wasupaloopa]

38. Wow, You just don't get it

I said lose the labels

I didn't criticize anything you believe in. Just rephrase it this time! Talk about issues and not which people believe what.

[pazzyanne]

39. Calm down, Boomer. No one is using Democratic Socialist in a derogatory fashion here.

However we need to be aware of what is happening on social media and how things are being presented there. I am a self described socialist myself and proud of it. However, I admit that others do not see that word (socialist) in a positive light. We need to promote our platform heavily and use Democratic Socialist a little lighter if we want to win. It is all about semantics, not substance. We can fight for our right to call ourselves Democratic Socialists or we can fight for our platform. The win is the prize we are seeking. Someday we will be able to do both, use the words Democratic Socialism and our platform at the same time. Progress grows slowly.

[kentuck]

93. I think Democratic Socialists are a coalition within the Democratic Party.

I think that is why they were willing to accept Bernie as a Democrat. He may have called himself an "Independent" or an "Independent Socialist" but the majority of people that voted for him were voting for a Democrat, in my opinion.

[pazzyanne]

105. Agree, kentuck.

[Honeycombe8]

42. That's a term you just call yourself. There is no "Democratic Socialist" party.

I can call myself anything, and vote however I want. But that doesn't make either party have MY label that I call myself.

[lancelyons]

60. There are no democratic socialists.. The are democrats.

We have to stop playing into the hands that the republicans are trying to deal us.

Democrats stand for.

- Affordable healthcare
- medicare for all (not free)
- gun control assault weapons ban
- clean campaign finance
- support seniors, lgbtq
- mobilizing against climate change
- affordable college
- living wage

This IS NOT Socialism but Good ideas

[wasupaloopa]

62. I use to belong to the Demacrtic Socialists of America. The "Democratic" in the name has

nothing to do with the Democratic party. It means policy should be arrived at through democracy with a small d.

Yet someone wins am election and says they are a Democratic Socialist and all those Democrats who believe they are more progressive than the rest of us come out of the woodwork and let us know where we are wrong and they are right.

We need to vote as one party this November against the repubs not argue who has the best policies.

[JCanete]

65. Would you walk away from any term the GOP attempted to redefine and label us with? like

progressive or liberal? We've done that in the past and it was an embarrassing shit-show.

also, the most prominent democratic socialist's voters voted for Clinton, so what divisions have they sewn? What proof do you have that you are so keen to blame them...I guess us...for?

[DinahMoeHum]

13. When they start winning GENERAL ELECTIONS. . .

. . .in so-called "fly-over country", we can truly take them seriously and say they have arrived.

Until then, we should vote for any warm body that has a "D" next to it.

You can't get from the right to the left without passing through the middle.

[Honeycombe8]

45. If there is an "R" running, we should vote against that person...

unless it's a "R" by another name.

It would be better,and the only way to have lasting members, is to have people choose to vote for Democrats, rather than just against Republicans. But the Dem Party needs any and all votes it can get.

Using the word socialist gets in the way of that. And it DOES, in fact, mean something different from "Democrat" and "progressive."

[SkyDancer]

116. DSA has won several elections

Their focus is on local politics not federal. That does seem to be changing however rather recently.
I found this highlighting some of their wins from November, I know there's been several more since then. Lee Carter was a big win, he beat the GOP whip in VA.

They're all running as Democrats. Sounds good to me!

[janterry]

14. I wish they wouldn't use that name

Democratic socialists. I'm a very left wing liberal who lives in a very left wing state. So, Bernie is our Senator and it works. But I've lived in the South - and that doesn't work well down there. I just wish that we called everyone democrats - and used the term very liberal
to describe the 'socialistic' wing of the party. It makes it much easier and is less of a target.

That said, they are pushing the party about several important issues - including healthcare for all. And I support those efforts. Moreover, if it makes young people MORE inclined to become democrats (to embrace our 'big tent' party) then it's a good thing.

We just have to get ahead of the narrative on this.

[peggysue2]

125. I live in the South at the moment

Transplant from the MidAtlantic. The word 'socialism' is an anathema in this region, akin to the Devil's servants.

But yes, the ongoing argument on who is growing faster and we're the true progressives and yada, yada complaints about Democratic leadership is totally pointless in a time of crisis, as in saving the country. If we don't contain the Trumpster, we all lose.

Everything.

I suspect there are few if any Democrats who think healthcare doesn't need a major overhaul. Obamacare, never a perfect approach, was beginning to get off the ground but the Trumpster with Republican help have thrown every monkey wrench into the mix they could find.

We have no chance of a remedy without gaining back the majority.

Gun control is a major concern for millennials and Democrats of all ages.

We have no chance of turning this around without gaining back the majority.

The current immigration policy is cruel, despicable and UnAmerican.

We have no chance . . .

And so it goes.

There are a lot of issues out there but we have to win to have any impact. Fighting among ourselves is counterproductive, only wasting time and energy.

Eyes on the prize. We have one shot at this. We dare not miss.

[rogerashton]

15. Good post.

As a long-time democratic socialist who has voted straight Democratic tickets since 1980 (and mostly since 1964) I find Kentuck's point very well considered. Here are some further thoughts. 1) Democratic socialists were not a "big part" of the Democratic Party before 2016. Whatever else Bernie did -- and I see his contribution to the party as all positive even if, unlike me, he doesn't register as a Democrat -- he made it respectable for a Democrat to be a democratic socialist. 2) I don't see socialists becoming a majority of Democrats or a majority in the country in the foreseeable future. If we are to have a socialist system in this country, it will be because only socialist institutions can solve our problems. Thus, the job of democratic socialists is to focus on solutions. (That is, of course, a Fabian socialist position.) 3) On that, socialists do not always agree among ourselves on everything -- we are, after all Americans! and human beings. -- Most democratic socialists realize that nationalization of the "commanding heights" was a failure (some Fabians understood that at the time) and lean more toward employee control of enterprises, rather than public ownership. My own thought is that some public ownership will be needed, but needs to be carefully set up, something like a public index mutual fund. 4) The reasons why I am a democratic socialist have recently been summarized by, of all things, the Economist magazine: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/07/21/as-inequality-grows-so-does-the-political-influence-of-the-rich

[Boomer]

33. Wait, what?

You do know that it used to "respectable" to be a Democratic Socialist? Yes, I know it's been decades, but this is not some new fangled philosophy that Bernie Sanders introduced to the mainstream. Sanders is trying to get us, as a country, to REMEMBER when this was not considered to be radical thinking.

Our society is riddled with socialist institutions that solved very big problems. Everywhere you turn are public roadways, public libraries, public schools, as well as Social Security and Medicaid. As Democrats, we should be reminding everyone that we're already living as socialist Democrats and that is a familiar, rather than a scary, concept.

Trying to avoid the use of the term "socialist Democrat" is playing into the hands of Republicans. We've let them turn it into a scare tactic, we've given them the power to use it against us. The solution is not to agree to their terms. It's to take the sting out of that label, because it's nothing to be ashamed of.

[Honeycombe8]

47. Like it or not, many will not vote for a "socialist."

It means something different from Democratic and progressive.

It doesn't matter whether one agrees with the voters' assessment or not. The reality is that they have a problem with that.

If a person has to stop and explain what his self-identification means, he's already lost the election, IMO.

Socialism:

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More

policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More

(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

[leftofcool]

49. Tell that to the hard liners here in Kentucky

Even the more left leaning Democrats here think anything that has the word socialism/socialist in it is evil and to be avoided. If you want to label yourself, go ahead. It doesn't work in this State with well established Democratic leaders.

[rogerashton]

63. Decades ago

There was something called the Socialist Party of the USA, led by Gene Debs and later by Norman Thomas, and perhaps it was respectable (though Debs ran for president while in prison), but it was not part of the Democratic Party. Probably since the 1930s, and certainly since the 1970s, there have been some socialists in the Democratic Party. Some of us have been, to adapt an old quote, socialists still -- very still -- before 2016.

As I observed, socialists don't agree among themselves on everything. Like Engels, I don't see every government enterprise or economic intervention as socialist. Public roadways, for example, are hardly socialist: Adam Smith observes that transportation facilities are "the best of all improvements" because they favor the extension of the market economy.

Nevertheless, we seem to agree on the main thing -- that as democratic socialists or socialist Democrats we need to focus on solutions, understanding that the solutions that will work and will persist are those that best serve the large majority of Americans who work for a living.

[former9thward]

102. It would be nice if people who called themselves socialist knew what socialism was.

Socialism is the government owning and controlling the means of production. The government owns everything that makes up the economy and directs everything. It has nothing to do with the things you mentioned. Most of those things existed long before socialism was even thought of. Social security and medicare was developed in 1880s Germany by the biggest enemy of socialism in Europe -- the Iron Chancellor Otto van Bismark.

[Hortensis]

16. Lol. Not yet? Seriously, a wide range of viewpoints

is always represented in the Democratic Party, from far left to our remaining conservatives, but strongly dominated by liberals.

We're constantly attacked by hostiles, of course, for what they smear as "identity politics," which tries to hide the reality that Democrats are the party of our very diverse nation. Our many interest blocs represent virtually everyone in America who is not a white supremacist or so far left that they like to regard Sanders and democratic socialists as mainstream Democrats. Our small but real democratic socialist bloc is one of the many who are us.

And btw, it's nice to see people on DU coalescing around this label of a defined political philosophy. Since all liberals (and many more more conservatives than people realize, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower and even a bunch of trumpsters) believe in progressive government, trying to differentiate identity via that old label really wasn't working. But this new label should help its adherents and the media understand what they stand for, help them fend off lies from enemies about who they are, and give them direction.

I strongly recommend reading about democratic socialism (also liberalism and the Democratic Party, but those for another day hopefully). Here's a link to the Democratic Socialists of America website: https://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism

[kentuck]

94. Yep.

[BeyondGeography]

20. Right now we're all over the map and that's a good thing

You have pro-Pelosi, anti-Pelosi, candidates self-identifying as socialists, supposed bomb throwers like Maxine Waters stating categorically that Democrats are not Socialists...it all adds up to a moving target which is not making things easy for Republicans, who have one big fat problem occupying the center of the stage.

[7962]

29. It sure is "one big fat problem"!! nt

[ananda]

21. That's because so many Reeps have joined the party.

They now call themselves progressives.

Liberals still exist though, thank goodness!

[Nanjeanne]

23. Maybe they don't identify that way but the policies the candidates espouse are not

only the majority in the Dem party — they are also pretty much the majority in the country.

[watoos]

24. I have to laugh, well, maybe cry.

Republicans don't eat their own like Democrats do.

I don't hear Republicans claiming that Libertarian Republicans are going to be the ruination of their party, hell, Trump doesn't even condemn the White Supremacist wing of the party.

IMO just because right wing billionaires control the narrative, control the M$M, is not a good enough reason for me to even complain about Democratic Socialists hurting our party. Call me a Socialist, ok, now let's talk about the issues instead of just talking about a label that the right wing M$M gave to a faction of our party.

Democrats have an uphill battle because the right controls the narrative, controls the M$M, including msnbc.

The right is good at messaging, just the mention of the name Nancy Pelosi is supposed to elicit negativity when in fact Nancy Pelosi was one of the best Speakers of the House, ever.

I'm not taking the bait that is being put out there that I have to whisper the words Democratic Socialists. I'm proud that they are a part of the Democratic party.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. It's a big tent; let's keep divisive battles to primaries & after elections. Unite for elections. nt

[FreepFryer]

26. THIS. Obsess on internal Democratic Party politics at our peril. Only coalition will DEFEAT THE GOP.

[ouija]

27. I understand

Why Republicans are scared of the term, “Socialist,” but I don’t understand why some Democrats are?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. Not scared. As we say, a big tent. But some districts need different candidates than others to win.

Fight the label and candidate battles in the primaries.

Unite for the election behind whoever is the Democratic candidate and their platform. If you don't like a piece of it, don't mention it until after the election. Present a unified front against all opposition in order to win the election.

Push the policies you desire after the election. Shape policy then. Promote members from within then.

It is much easier to push a Democratic elected politician toward your desired policies than a Republican elected politician. Period.

(note: This post and my previous one do not mention one or another position on the spectra, nor labels either.)

[FreepFryer]

36. Once again, spot on. (n/t)

[7962]

28. And what are they supposed to "do" about those with wealth?

Most of the richest people are rich on paper; must of their wealth is attached to the value of stock. Like Zuckerberg; probably 90% of his worth is FB stock.
If the Party starts taking about ways to stop people from keeping what they've earned or invested in, we'll be in trouble for a long time. Just look at the figures; there aren't enough rich people to pay for everything most of us want. Even at a much higher tax rate. And every year fewer and fewer people pay into the income tax system.

[wasupaloopa]

53. Wealth has been moving to the rich in greater and greater number every year. It is not because they

work harder or are smarter. It has been right wing government policy that has done it.

The middle class was built by government policy. We think we need to shift wealth to a more equitable distribution with government policy.

We are not asking to take wealth away but tax policy should not favor the wealthy as the latest "reform" does.

The last recession was caused by unrestrained investing. Bring back sensible regulation.

[Glamrock]

30. To those on the right

Democrat=Communist, socialist, fascist, athiest, vegetarian. Whether socialists "rule" the Democratic party or not. Done caring what they think or what they call me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. Sure, they're not persuadable. But they are trying to persuade persuadable voters to the right wing.

Democrats need to persuade persuadable voters to vote Democratic.

It's not about the unpersuadable. That's a straw man in this discussion.

[Glamrock]

43. Regardless.

Running from it is not how to win. Embracing that label and using every accusation as a teachable moment is.

It's done like this, "If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal". - JFK

When some Republican throws out the socialist label, own that shit! Yes, we are against 6 figure college tuition costs for $50,000 a year jobs. Yes we are for universal single payer healthcare as opposed to insurance company CEO's making 7 figures by denying healthcare to the ill. Etc.,etc., etc. Yes we are for taxing the wealthy to make life better for middle America. Why does Secretary Devoss need 10 $40 million yachts? Etc, etc, etc.

[colsohlibgal]

32. It's Possible

Economic inequality, gentrification, poll after poll shows the economic gap widening.

A rising tide lifts all boats. Pay people a living wage, give them healthcare to protect them....they buy stuff the businesses are selling. Everybody wins.

I’m doing quite well, the majority of us are doing well enough. But there are millions barely getting by or not getting by at all.

[Sancho]

40. There have been "democratic socialists" for a long time...

when I was in college, it was the SDS who got a lot of headlines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society
You can follow the history back to the early 1900s socialist movements. DU is not likely to be the place to debate what a "socialist" or a "communist" or a "Democrat" actually supports, because there are a lot of shades of grey.

It's unlikely the "socialist" movement will become the majority in the US, but some of the ideas parallel the current Democratic positions enough to avoid splitting the vote and allowing the repubs to win elections - as they continue to do.

It's time to vote AGAINST the GOP, no matter what you think you are FOR. Otherwise, idealism will usher in assholes like tRump.

[NurseJackie]

44. "yet" ... HA! :-D

[lancelyons]

48. Democratic Socialist is a BS Term used by the RIGHT.

If you look at who they coined as a Socialist (Ocasia Cortez) she laid our her platform.

- Affordable healthcare
- medicare for all (not free)
- gun control assault weapons ban
- clean campaign finance
- support seniors, lgbtq
- mobilizing against climate change
- affordable college
- living wage

THIS IS NOT SOCIALISM. this is good solid democratic ideas.

Dont be played by the right. We have a Democratic party and it covers a number of different people and styles. There are multiple things that are important to us. But the key is that the Democratic party is the Party of WE THE PEOPLE.

Push back on that label.

[SHRED]

55. Well said

[JCanete]

64. "liberal" has also been used by the right, and we shrunk the fuck away from it. Any name will be

used by the right. Socialism is no longer a dirty word with the upcoming generation, and some of these ideas have roots in socialist thinking. We don't have a capitalist economy, we have a mixed economy, so its fine that Sanders and Cortez and others go under this label, but they are smart to make their message not about branding, but about the policies they are actually promoting. Anything else, YES, can be easily coopted and defined by your enemies or others looking to ride those coat-tales without being particularly clear on what they stand for.

[wryter2000]

50. I have no problem with this

Just please may some of them stop calling the rest of us warmongers, corporatists, and "no different from Republicans."

[George II]

51. That will never happen, and they're not even close to being a "big part" of the Democratic Party.

[SkyDancer]

119. Never say never

Look who's in the white house, a moron game show host. This country elected W twice.

[peggysue2]

132. LOL!!

That is not a winning approach: GW to the Trumpster to Democratic Socialists.

You just blew up your entire argument.

We can agree to disagree on this issue of would'a, could'a, should'a. But something we must agree on is the Democratic Party sweeping the November elections. Because that gives everyone a fighting chance to turn this thing around, not only for ourselves or one particular party/political philosophy but for the future of the country.

[SkyDancer]

140. Well a winning approach isn't what I had in mind

We are going to sweep this November, no questions asked.

What I was referring to though is politics is crazy. Who would have ever thought 10 years ago we'd be talking about socialists winning races and Trump as POTUS?

Hollywood couldn't write this for a script.

[peggysue2]

142. Okay, here you and I agree

Politics at the moment is absolutely off the charts. As for the November elections? I'm cautiously optimistic to getting really excited about our prospects. I don't want to see anyone get complacent because the specter of 2016 is ever present--we all thought we knew the outcome, until we didn't.

But you're right. I couldn't write a piece of fiction like this and ever expect a reader to suspend their disbelief. It's just too, too bizarre. And ugly.

[SHRED]

52. You can bet Putin is using the "socialist" label

In an effort to divide us and turn the electorate off.

[heaven05]

57. Just because of the divisivness

this MINOR faction of DS have sown in our Party in this critical time in our political history, I HOPE THEY NEVER BECOME THE MAJORITY of our Party. It will then be a destroyed Party. Period. I will fight them also, always. I dealt with the socialists in my college years. Doesn't work here in any major way. Plus those socialists that I dealt with were racist pigs always trying to whitesplain how I should react to blatant white racism by hoping for a good job. All racism would then just melt away and I would live happily ever after. Hmmmm, where have I heard that as a major plank in the minor faction politics? Marginalize, marginalize, marginalize this minor faction under a very large liberal/progressive Democratic Party tent, not socialist Democratic Party. Then we can be about PRIORITY 1...beating the repthugs by GOTV for the Democratic Party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. We have more immediate challenges than relabeling our party.

[OregonBlue]

59. It would be a mistake for the Democratic Socialists to emphasize the Socialist. Many people who

might otherwise like the message and agree on the issues will have a hard time getting past the word. Those that are concerned about the GOP's obvious lurch toward Russia are not going to be comforted by the idea of joining the "Democratic Socialists". Socialista are so old hat. Progressive is a much more positive and modern label. People like to believe they are progressive.

[KPN]

61. Democratic Socialists are moderates by post WWII standards. And they are moderates

by my and many others' standards today. Drop the label -- just call ourselves Democrats. And when pressed to label ourselves, use the word "moderate"!

[Duppers]

78. +100

[Garrett78]

66. Democratic Socialists aren't socialists. They're Social Democrats.

At least the mainstream ones, such as Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez. They promote the Nordic Model, which is not rooted in socialism.

It's an unfortunate labeling error, and it enables Republicans to more easily get away with causing division.

[Quixote1818]

68. They used to be back in the 50's, 60's and 70's. They are just New Deal Democrats

The Democratic Party is much further right than at used to be.

[Blue_true]

70. Man, that last sentence was some pure White privileges.

To use an overused term. "The Democratic Party is farther right than it was in the 50s and 60s"? Tell that to any Black person, or and Hispanic, or any Asian, or any Anerican Indian. The claim that the modern Democratic Party is farther right than 58 - 68 years ago is just fucking way out wrong.

[Quixote1818]

72. Not talking about racial justice issues and neither is the OP

Pretty much the entire Democratic party is awesome on social justice.

[Blue_true]

74. If there is no racial justice, there cannot be social justice.

The fact that you partition them in your mind is telling.

[Quixote1818]

80. Are you seriously accusing me of being prejudice?

I have posted literally hundreds if not thousands of posts that support blacks, gays and lesbians, hispanics etc. I am literally shaking I am so upset right now. This is absolutely the most disgusting post I have ever been involved with on DU in 15 years.



And here is what you said in the event you try to hide it:

If there is no racial justice, there cannot be social justice.

The fact that you partition them in your mind is telling.

[Blue_true]

83. No. I have read your posts and generally like them.

But in this case I think that your overwhelming passion for social justice is not allowing you to see that racial justice is equally as important and if you don't have one held to a high level of importance, you can't have the other reaching a high level of importance. I don't think that it has anything to do with you being racist because I certainly don't feel that you are even remotely racist.

Everyone have positions that cause them to not fully equate two important issues, that is just human nature, I certainly have that problem on some policy issues. I have been hard on people that use the term wypipo because of my belief that on a fundamental level, using the term adds to racial animus instead of calling it out, some people absolutely disagree with my viewpoint.

[Quixote1818]

87. Okay, gotcha

Sorry, we just disagree. I see what you are saying about Social Justice and Racial Justice but I think we are talking about different things. I think this is much more nuanced than you are trying to make it out to be. It's not black and white. The Democratic establishment generally does a good job sticking up for the civil rights of minorities but their resistance to things like universal HC, and the things grassroots are pushing and the attacks on the grassroots to me shows they could do better on Social Justice which ultimately would help minorities. DU used to be hard core for all these issues until lately which is so odd. I don't know what has happened to this place.

[Blue_true]

88. We can agree to disagree.

I just don't think we will get equal outcomes on issues like healthcare, pay, home ownership or access to business capital if we don't equate racial and social justice and treat them as inseparable in policy discussions.

If am sure that you want a true colorblind society, I certainly want that. But I am no fool, we have built in systemic problems that have to be rooted out and eliminated before we can have a colorblind society that produces the same outcome for the same effort.

[Quixote1818]

95. I agree with what you just said

But I still think there has been a shift from left to right on the Democratic Party being less about labor and more connected with Wall Street. I think this shift occurred in the 1990's because with the dismantling of the labor unions by Reagan Democrats had no place to go for campaign funding. So Bill Clinton started courting Wall Street out of necessity. The very wealthy still call most of the shots and it's extremely hard to break free from this so Party leaders who are afraid to be cut off take more moderate stances on issues but I think they generally give the green light on civil rights as long as they get their way most of the time on financial issues. I think Hillary was a practical choice in that she knows how the current system works. She knows what the donors allow but I do believe deep down she is liberal so her approach was to push as much of a liberal agenda as she felt she could get through. Like Obama she is a pragmatist.

The grassroots want to get the party away from the big money and do more sweeping changes like FDR used to get through. So there is a tug-a-war between where the party used to be and those who understand how difficult it is to fight against the donors.

Until we get money out of politics or unless a giant grassroots movement can go around this establishment, not too much will change.
But the fact is Richard Nixon is considered too liberal for today's Democratic Party. He reviled LBJ when it came to social programs and welfare programs. I just want the Democratic Party to get back to pushing a New Deal type agenda which is generally a Social Democratic agenda. I also understand this is not an easy battle and should be done with care.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/business/the-gops-journey-from-the-liberal-days-of-nixon.html

[betsuni]

99. Could you please explain what you mean here:

"Richard Nixon is considered too liberal for today's Democratic Party. He reviled LBJ when it came to social programs and welfare programs. I just want the Democratic Party to get back to pushing a New Deal type agenda which is generally a Social Democratic agenda."

Why would Nixon be considered too liberal because he didn't like social and welfare programs?

[KPN]

104. It seems like we can't have one without the other.

In my view, we won’t have racial justice without social justice either.

[Blue_true]

110. I agree. They are inseparable as policy, IMO. nt

[bettyellen]

85. Nope. He's pointing out it's a privilege to be able to set aside the issue. And it undoubtedly is.

[Quixote1818]

73. Noam Chomsky says pretty much exactly what I said in this video

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2018, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

[Blue_true]

75. You buttress your argument by using a guy that is tone dealf on racial justice.

Chomsky is stuck in the anti war sixties, a time when white kids became free love hippies while POC died in Vietnam.

[Quixote1818]

81. Quit using your absolutely disgusting strawman argument to change the subject

to try to suggest I am not racially sensitive. This is so absolutely disgusting and insulting I am sitting here stunned.

[Blue_true]

86. It is possible to not give an issue it's due importance without being insensitive to it.

When I look at people that have a deep passion for social justice, I often don't see them fully recognize and work into their arguments that POC have and still face barriers that make talk of social justice a moot point for them. To get to second base, a person has to get on first base first. Some people have not gotten a fair chance to get to first base, a major issue for us as a society is how to fix that without creating more problems.

[Quixote1818]

89. Sure, I just took your other post wrong

and got riled up. When you said white privilege and then said what I said was "telling". I just saw red and missed the point of what you wrote. But I am still disagree that there was any white privilege going on. That is one of the things I strive extremely hard not to do.

[Blue_true]

108. No problem, we are democrats, we disagree a lot. nt

[melman]

92. 'white kids became free love hippies while POC died in Vietnam'

85% of the the American military fatalities in Vietnam were white.

[Blue_true]

109. Blacks died at a higher percentage per capital.

But, you have a point, it should not have been Whites but instead privileged kids. The dying was done by poor kids.

One of my oldest brothers did not die there, but he might as well have, he came home broken with PTSD and ailments from his Marine gunnery crew being sprayed with Agent Orange as they worked in jungles. It took the Pentagon years to own up to what it did, by then my brother was dead. My family was poor, none of my oldest brothers could run off to Canada or get deferments like Trump and Bush, they had to stand for the Draft and two got drafted at about the same time, two others got drafted but failed their physical. Of the two that went into the service, the oldest became a paratrooper and was involved in the Dominican crisis and the younger one joined the Marines and did four tours in Vietnam.

[JI7]

90. not true, many of those democrats were bigots who stopped supporting

those programs when non whites were going to benefit.

just like the farmers today who welcome welfare for themselves while opposing anything to help non whites.

[Quixote1818]

96. See this point

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. I was talking about the way the party made decisions then vs now. Back then the labor unions were our biggest donors and today it's Wall Street. I am sure there were plenty of racist Democrats then compared to now or we would not have been winning states like Texas.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10939352

[JI7]

98. none of that changes anything. white people stopped supporting many things including unions

once minorities and women started to gain more rights.

unions were always full of racists.

[Quixote1818]

100. Sorry, we are talking about two different things

I am sure there were plenty of racists in the Democratic Party then and more than today but the fact is both the Democratic Party and the Republican party have both shifted way, way, way right when it came to policy. This is what the GOP's Platform was in the 1950s. It sounds like Bernie Sanders. And Democrats were further left than this back then:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/28/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-1956-republican-platform-was-prett/

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25838

[JI7]

101. and most republicans today would not disagree with generalities like that

just like most trump voters will say they are not racist.

you still refuse to see that opposition to many of these things is because many white people don't want minorities to get anything.

[DFW]

69. During the sixties, we had a great anti-war slogan

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2018, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

"What if they had a war and nobody came?"

That's pretty much how I feel about threads like this. It's a conflict that will never have a winner, and I'm just not interested in joining.

-----------------------
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."--Will Rogers. As true now as it was then.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."--Will Rogers. Also true. You can be right, but what good is it if you're "dead" right? The only good mind is an open mind.

"A fool and his money are soon elected."--Will Rogers. Talk about prescient! Keep your eye on who the real enemy is. Don't become part of a movie satire. Who cares if you're PFJ or JPF?

[Hortensis]

79. :) "A fool and his money are soon elected."

Oh, yes! Now, THAT is as true now as ever, maybe more so.

But revisit that first Will Rogers quote, DFW. I don't believe it's still valid. Back in those days, the liberal/progressive wing of the Republican Party were still returning to take over the shrunken, moribund Democratic Party. They had to share it with the knuckledragging, rabidly racist southern and western conservatives who'd occupied it after the civil war and bitterly resented their polar opposites' return. And even if it once again became the more inclusive party, the other blocs were nowhere near as accepting of their diversity as we are now.

Contrast with these days. After the great sorting out that's continued after the Civil Rights Act of 1965, only some, relatively moderate conservatives are left. Only half the blacks who voted Democrat during the FDR era were actually registered Democrats, but the vast majority are, and vote, Democrat now. Many other groups unite in the Dem Party to pursue their shared interests.

As for this current fuss, the dissenting bloc now beginning to identify as democratic socialists basically shares most of the same goals as the liberal mainstream, even if they refuse to admit it.

And they're far fewer than they imagine, mislead by conservative and Russian foes who puff them up as a major force in the party. They don't even begin to have the support among the electorate and the votes in state and federal legislatures, though, to obstruct the way the tea-party types on the right do.

Looks to me like we're more united today behind common goals against common foes, organized as Will put it, than we've ever been. Certainly more so than the crippled Republican Party. I'm guessing both TR and FDR would have considered this a dream party.

[DFW]

91. I get what you're pointing to

But having gone through the split of the German Greens with the "Realos" vs. the "Fundis," only to find that the "Fundis" were being financed by the Soviets and the Stasi when the Wall fell, I never automatically take splinter groups at face value. In Germany, some of the Fundis actually went to the PDS ("Party of Democratic Socialism" ), the renamed East German state party (SED), even though not all of the newcomers supported the wall murders.

Though we SHOULD be united against our well-funded common foe, we are less so than we could be, and that leaves openings for "surprise Republican upsets" where there should be none. Only winners get to quarrel over the results of a victory. Losers are left to lament. As a minority party, that should be the Republicans. In 2016, despite that, they gloated. Anyone willingly and/or knowingly giving them slightest chance to gloat again is no ally of mine, even if he or she flies the same flag as I do.

I also see your point about hostile forces helping to "puff them (the 'dissenting bloc,' as you put it) up as a major force in the Party," when indeed they are not, but the fact remains that in close races a minor force is enough to upset the apple cart. I make no judgment as to their motives, that's the war I refuse to fight in. But their effects will be felt--in some areas more than others, obviously. If the Republican party is indeed "crippled," they are still as dangerous as a wounded rattlesnake, and just as full of venom. Don't forget, I know some of these characters. Charming as some might be in person, they'd sign both our execution orders if they thought it politically expedient. Anyone giving even one of them a chance to succeed they would otherwise not have had, no matter how noble their professed motive, is not our ally. Our unity really IS that fragile, I fear. Putin knows it. Murdoch knows it. The Kochs know it. Frank Luntz knows it. Sean Hannity knows it. Mitch McConnell knows it.

It is up to us to be vigilant.

[Blue_true]

112. I could have wrote what you wrote, not as well. I can't disagree with a word. nt

[Hortensis]

126. "they'd (Republicans) sign both our execution orders"

Agree entirely with the dangerous people in power on the right and with the danger of some leftists inadvertently empowering the evils of the right. I'm really with you all the way. Their ability to act as spoilers, so carried away by anger at not being able to prevail over the majority of Democrats that they're willing to sacrifice everything to it, is tragically proven.

That said, I was pointing out the complete inability of this type to actually dominate the party, an idea our foes in the press are pushing with everything they have to dismay Democrats, not just feed the animosity of the right. People really need to know that can't happen.

After all, the spoiler voters we're talking about are those who this year are voting third party or refusing to vote at all for mainstream Democrats, and those who will again in 2020. In 2016 they were the angry remnant left behind after 90% of Sanders' followers moved to support Hillary.

They won't change either; exactly like their tea-party counterparts on the right, they will never be satisfied by anything the mainstream does.

I could well be wrong, but that many of them are joining those identifying as democratic socialists should help mainstream Democrats. Many of that 90% who were drawn to Sanders when they couldn't have Warren mistook him for just a variation on Democrats like her and them.

A specific, defined ideological identity will help everyone differentiate spoiler-vote types from the rest of the trees in the Democratic forest and to better understand their motivations and goals.

Unfortunately, Sanders' economical progressive but social conservative populist followers can accommodate themselves under the mantle of democratic socialism, and that's where I'm guessing the most danger lies. There are vast numbers of them on right and left, and with both covert and overt assistance from our enemies it's not hard to imagine them taking over.

In any case, the right's swiftboating machine and Russia are both claiming the Democratic Party has been taken over by socialists. Clarity is desperately needed, above all by Democratic and potential swing voters who are vulnerable to these lies.

My husband's Jewish, btw, and every one of his relatives in Europe died either in the death camps or before. Believe me, I never look at the right these days without wondering what they will do here and to whom if we don't stop them.

[RandySF]

82. It's the current fad, especially in Brooklyn.

Even Cynthia Nixon's in on the act.

[betsuni]

97. FDR/Democratic Socialist/grassroots is the new tattoo.

[betsuni]

103. I learned something in this thread.

For the longest time I've been asking what an FDR Democrat is and not getting an answer. Finally today I've learned it means a Democratic Socialist. The FDR Democrats want the Democratic Party to "get back to pushing a New Deal type agenda."

Now my question is who are the Democrats not supporting New Deal type policies? The ones who are "resistant to universal health care" and "attack the grassroots"? Oh heck, I probably won't get an answer to that one either. It's probably the mythical Establishment who never have names.

[Blue_true]

113. For some people.

It is easier to create demons to fight than fight the demons staring them in the eyeballs, ready to vanquish them.

The demon staring us in the eyeballs is the corrupt Republican Party. Anyone who is after another demon is lost and shouldn't be taken seriously if we plan to win the fight with the real demon.

[KPN]

114. Who? One could argue all of us when you

look at results and trend over the past 40+ years. Like the slow boiling a frog story, we are where we are as a result of a long slippery slope that many were relatively unaware if not oblivious or apathetic about.

[betsuni]

117. The Republican Party has become more right wing.

To the point that bipartisanship is taboo. I haven't seen any evidence that the Democratic Party has become more like the Republicans. Name names.

[KPN]

120. They are only similar in that they have both

shifted to the right on domestic economic issues and policy over the past 40+ years. Who here is saying that the the Democratic Party is becoming more like today’s Republican Party relative to policy?

[betsuni]

121. Who here?

I keep seeing claims that Third Way/Establishment/right wing of the Democratic Party/Centrists/Moderates/Corporatists do not want universal health care and equality in general and ignore working people because they are controlled by Wall Street. They plot to keep down the grassroots FDR Dems because they are TERRIFIED of losing power to the true progressives. This is saying that both parties are the same.

How have Democrats shifted to the right on domestic economic issues and policy over the past 40+ years? Is this about trade? A global economy isn't going away. Why don't people get mad at corporations for automation and outsourcing and shifting manufacturing abroad? Republicans have been in charge of legislature more than Democrats. They're the ones cutting taxes and deregulating. They're the ones wanting unregulated capitalism.

[KPN]

127. I haven't seen any claims re: Dems don't want universal health care

or “equality in general” regardless of what label (aside maybe from blue dog) one puts on them.

I do see plenty of posts that express concern about ties to Wall Street and the influence of corporations in the legislative process. Legitimate concerns in my view.

I have seen posts that bemoan the “establishment” and the perception that the “establishment” has a bias toward neoliberal dogma which has adversely effected labor and working (and more recently middle) class income. And posts that express a perceived desire of the “establishment” to maintain control of Party levers. These perceptions strike me as having some legitimacy as well.

Having perceptions that give rise to concerns about the Democratic Party is not “saying the two parties are the same.”

Is this about “trade”? In part, yes ... it’s a concern about fair trade. But people (many progressives) are, to use your words, mad at corporations for ... outsourcing and shifting manufacturing abroad. Plenty of progressives are concerned, upset and angry about that. I don’t see or hear anyone denying the existence of the global economy or promoting ultra-nationalism here. But I do see what I believe are legitimate concerns about trade policy and regulations that better consider and moderate adverse impacts on domestic labor, as well as concern about the powers handed over to corporations in defining and then mediating trade policy encompassed in the existing and proposed trade acts.

Regarding Republicans are to blame primarily (which is basically what your last few sentences seem to say), that strikes me as an excuse. It basically says the Democratic Party bears no responsibility ... for a lot of really bad juju that has decimated labor and more recently the middle class over the past 40+ years. And that is non-sensical. Yet it gets stated repeatedly by some posters here at DU. It’s no wonder some feel like the “establishment” wants to maintain status quo.

[betsuni]

129. LOL

[KPN]

131. And this is the typical response that occurs

eventually here when discussing this. It says a lot.

[betsuni]

135. LOL you worked really hard.

[KPN]

136. Also typical and telling.

[betsuni]

137. Typical and telling of what?

That I'm a Democrat?

[Kaleva]

138. Making a claim without providing evidence is a tell

[betsuni]

139. What?

[phleshdef]

118. These labels can kiss my ass. I just want every American to have a shot at a good quality of life.

I believe we need a culture of compassion, celebrated intellectualism and some overall god damn decency. I also believe in being pragmatic toward that goal. Others can label me whatever they want. I've been accused of everything.

[Eyeball_Kid]

128. Whoever defines the terms controls the discussion.

"Socialism" can be, and is, defined as communist tyranny by the fascist right wing. But the "democratic socialist" set of issues and concerns are generally favored by the majority of US citizens, as articulated routinely by Bernie Sanders during the 2016 campaign. It's therefore to the fascist right wing's advantage to conflate "democratic socialism" with the "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage of Marxist Communism in an effort to discredit the majority opinions of US citizens. And let's face it: the fascist right wing has a stranglehold on the MSM.

[brooklynite]

143. ...and it's in the "Democratic Socialists" advantage to NOT misuse the term "socialist"

"Democratic" is a political term. SOCIALIST is an economic term with a specific meaning (e.g. the State controls the means of production). In the English language, the first word modifies the second word.

The proper language to define what Democratic Socialists claim to support is "Social Democrat".

[peggysue2]

144. Excellent point!

[pwb]

130. Socialist democrat is net vote loss.

You might as well use Nazi democrats? It has the same division. This is a Putin play his bots will pounce on to use against us. Democrats should not push this, it is not a smart move even if it has good intentions. Less informed voters will turn away from us. Please give this a rest.

[Kaleva]

134. Repubs have been labeliing Dems as bomb throwing radical leftists for decades.

The 1972 election is an example.

[awesomerwb1]

133. 2018 2018 2018 2018

Vote for the D in November.

2 0 1 8

Eyes on the prize.

2 0 1 8

[peggysue2]

145. Yes!!

That's the winning mantra. Everywhere.

[lagomorph777]

146. Same ol' GOP arguments since the 1950s.

Democratic Socialism is likely to rise in importance as a part of the Democratic Party, and yes, partly in reaction to the reactionaries. But also, what freaks out the Russiapublicans is that economic justice is a very appealing idea to most people, once they understand what it really means.