The marginalization of "The Left" through the years. Not hearing us now at all.

[madfloridian]

As the Republicans catered to their right wing extremists, the Democrats made sure their left wing was not given much credence. In a way they were even preceding the time that Newt Gingrich and his GOPAC made liberal a bad word.

In 1985 at the formation of a Democratic policy think tank it was made clear whom they were going to target.

1985 Blueprint for reforming the party

In his "Saving the Democratic Party" memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a "governing council" that would draft a "blueprint" for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from "the new bosses"-organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups-that were keeping the party from modernizing. From's memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, "Within a few weeks, it counted 75 members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group 'the white male caucus.'"

And there was a conference by them in 1986, where it was made even more clear what they thought about liberals.

In a 1986 conference on the legacy of the Johnson administration’s "Great Society" initiatives, DLC chairman Gov. Charles Robb of Virginia took up the neoconservative critique of liberalism first articulated in the early 1970s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, and other neoconservatives. According to Robb, "While racial discrimination has by no means vanished from our society, it's time to shift the primary focus from racism – the traditional enemy without – to self-defeating patterns of behavior – the enemy within." This speech signaled the end of the "New Politics" of the 1960s and 1970s in the Democratic Party and the rise of a new social conservatism in the party. Robb's speech opened room for Democratic Party stalwarts to back away from political agendas that proposed government initiatives to address poverty, discrimination, and crime, and to join the traditional conservatives and neoconservatives in opposing affirmative action, social safety-net programs, and job-creation initiatives. Thus, the New Democrats of the DLC added their voices to the chorus of those calling for stiffer prison sentences, an end to affirmative action, reduced welfare benefits, and less progressive tax policies.

Actually Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Dem Network, and a founder of the DLC said it even more plainly.

freed... from positions making it difficult for us to win. Simon Rosenberg.

"Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

After Obama was elected, Al From wrote an op ed. He said that the anti-war people could not be allowed to control the party.

Recently, Al From, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, used a front page New York Times story to warn Senator Obama and other Democratic leaders that, "the antiwar people cannot define the Democratic Party."

Al From is wrong, again.

For years, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been warning the Democratic Party about the dangers of being associated with progressive values, ideas and policies. Time and again, their advice has proven disastrous.

The truth that From hopes we'll forget is that, after years of failure using the DLC's Republican-lite strategy, Democrats took back Congress in 2006 with a progressive, antiwar message. As the New York Times reported that fall, "the vast majority of House candidates in competitive races ran as Iraq war critics," as did all six new Democratic Senators.

Then they ran differently in 2010....and lost.

When Bruce Reed took over as chair in 2009, he declared the battle won. The battle against the left, that is.

Our party should cherish its left, its liberals...not speak condescendingly toward them.

“The political mission of the DLC has been largely accomplished,” said Reed, who’s had the group’s No. 2 post since 2001. “Twenty-five years ago, the forgotten middle class had serious doubts about Democrats, and now Democrats are winning the middle class, suburban voters, moderates by handsome margins. Our next challenge is to deliver on that promise and earn those votes for years to come.”

Notice he did not mention the rest of the Democratic party. Not a word about those on the left.

Evan Bayh had the nerve to say the Democratic party was being taken over by the left.

Bayh has a history of sparring with the left in his party. As chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council in 2003, he warned of then-rising presidential campaign of Howard Dean. “The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over by the far left,” he told DLC members in 2003. “We have an important choice to make: Do we want to vent, or do we want to govern?”

Blanche Lincoln was very upset with the criticisms of the left in her last campaign. Her words were not very sympathetic.

In a new interview with The Hill, Sen. Blanche Lincoln -- facing a tough Democratic primary challenge funded by national progressives on Tuesday -- called out her opponents on the Democratic left wing. Lincoln said she is facing criticism from a political movement that she suggested is divorced from the political reality.

"Just like the far right, I think the far left also believes that you've got to be with them 100 percent of the time or you don't meet the test," Lincoln told the paper. "I don't think there's anybody that you're going to be with 100 percent of the time -- not and be true to your constituency. My first commitment here is to Arkansas."

Trouble is that the votes taken on a national level affect people throughout the country. We must speak out if we disagree.

There was on very insulting comment made about us in the 90s by Rob Shapiro, a VP of the group.

Seems the "intellectual leveraged buyout" of the Democratic party has worked quite well.

Rob Shapiro, the DLC VP at the time, and a Clinton advisor, spoke clearly about their purpose.

What we've done in the Democratic Party," explains institute Vice President Rob Shapiro, a Clinton economic adviser, "is an intellectual leveraged buyout." The DLC, presumably, is acting as arbitrageur, selling off unprofitable mind-sets to produce a lean and efficient philosophy for the "New Democrat," as DLCers call their slick bimonthly magazine.

Unprofitable mind-sets sold off to be more efficient. We have learned through the years that a whole lot of Democratic ideals were considered "unprofitable mind-sets"...and they had to go.

That's us liberals and progressives by the way.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Let's get one thing straight from the get-go: What the MSM calls "The Left" is the middle.

The authentic left doesn't have a voice.

Not even through Rachel Maddow, not in an authentic open way.

And sure as hell not through Chris Mathews.

K/R

[liberal_at_heart]

2. The left has left for other parties such as the Green Party

There are a few of us stragglers behind but I have to wonder for how long.

[madfloridian]

6. We have the internet forums, bloggers. That's about it. You're right.

We have sort of 3 shows on MSNBC, but they more and more often use more centrist ideas. Probably to survive.

[HiPointDem]

7. what they call the 'far left' is the middle. what they call the left is the center-

right, i.e. obama.

what they call 'terrorists and anarchists' is the left.

[ananda]

71. Agree!

Obama governs to the right, just not quite as far right as the Reeps.

[woo me with science]

77. +1 It is the American People, the 99 percent, who have been sold out.

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2013, 01:33 PM - Edit history (2)

Not just liberals.

A bipartisan corporate oligarchy has been purchased into power, and they don't give a damn what we think out in the country, no matter what party we belong to. We don't have representation anymore, because we can't afford to buy it.

[Cleita]

104. The real left that remains on the radio has also been kicked under the bus

with all the liberal radio stations going to another format like sports, libertarian news or Spanish and it's happening very quickly since Obama got reelected. But Limbug and Beck still dominate the airwaves

[PDJane]

3. Actually, the marginalization of the left began much earlier.

I watched it start. When? Around about the time that the war in Vietnam became an issue, when the left was talking about things like equality and justice and peace and all of those things. The right began then and there to dismantle what they could of the left at that point. Hippies became freaks and stoners; the great unwashed. The authentic left began to lose their jobs in education, the campus newspapers began to change, and between then and 1980, the pendulum was pushed back to the right.

Jimmy Carter was disdained and abused in the media, the right began their underhanded stealing of power, and the whole thing is almost complete.

[madfloridian]

4. Yes, much earlier. And now the Third Way takes over for the DLC...

Yes, it was just easier to put a post into a tighter time frame. I think the fact that I never paid much attention politically to details until Iraq is why I see things that way. The DLC taunted us who were Dean supporters, called us fringe, and worse.

The GOP moves right to follow the teaparty, the Dems move right to follow the policies of the think tanks who fund them....and there are a lot of us who are ignored.

[ProSense]

58. This is seriously

"The DLC taunted us who were Dean supporters, called us fringe, and worse. "

...pure victimization. Howard Dean is a centrist Dem, a deficit hawk. Everytime he comes out in support of such policies, the excuse is he's going establishment. He is what he is, and he's not the "left" who you claim is being "marginalized."

Dean's 50-State Strategy did wonders for the Democratic Majority, but it also brought in many moderate and conservative members of Congress from 2005 to 2008.

The Progressive Caucus has grown in strength, the Blue Dog coaliation has been marginalized since 2008. That isn't to say there aren't any conservative Democrats left, but they are the ones being "marginalized." A lot of them are afraid of their own shadows.

If liberal Democrats stood up and fought hard, the Party could be made to move left. Playing the victim isn't going to do that.

[madfloridian]

65. In 2004 they delivered a slap in the face to huge numbers of caring people.

I think you know by now that I am very critical of Dean's return to centrism after his campaign. I have written about it a lot. But it was the DLC who wrote article after article proclaiming us fringe.

You can call it playing the victim all you want. But many of us realized then that we had no more role in our party. Local DFA folks who had made gains in leadership were ridiculed and forced to back off.

The biggest "victims" right now are the poor, the disabled, and in my priorities the teachers and students in public schools.

There are going to be a hell of a lot more victims before this is all over. Obama's stances on education and the safety nets are hurting his own party. The Democrats in congress who are up for re-election are the ones to pay, not the president.

The lack of fighting back against the extremists in the GOP has put this country at harm.

I notice that several people in this thread are calling it victimization. Must be the only way to defend the spoken and written words of a party to ignore its own members.

[ProSense]

67. I'm saying

"I think you know by now that I am very critical of Dean's return to centrism after his campaign. I have written about it a lot. But it was the DLC who wrote article after article proclaiming us fringe.

You can call it playing the victim all you want. But many of us realized then that we had no more role in our party. Local DFA folks who had made gains in leadership were ridiculed and forced to back off.

The biggest "victims" right now are the poor, the disabled, and in my priorities the teachers and students in public schools. "

...that Dean is a centrist, and constantly pointing to 2004 when he has proven his political stance over the years is not constructive.

There are policies in place now that are helping people: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2558873

The situation is far from perfect, but it requires fighting, it always will. There are people still fighting.

Senate Opposes ‘Chained CPI’ Cuts to Social Security, Veterans’ Benefits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022558947

[madfloridian]

70. As Molly Ivins said he was a "fighting centrist". Not one who shut out a whole part of the party.

At the time though he was feared by the party enough that they needed to do whatever they could to stop his influence over so many. It would never have worked if we had been empowered.

I doubt you are interested, but I have gathered a lot more of the words of the think tanks and Dem politicians against those of us who supported him.

It showed the party's true colors, probably the first time we had seen them out in the open.

I point to 2004 because they were actively destroying anti-war activists by constant attacks. Why in the world would a party do that?

The situation is what it is on purpose now. Fighting back makes us feel a little empowered, but that's about all it does right now.

[ProSense]

73. A centrist is still a centrist.

At the time though he was feared by the party enough that they needed to do whatever they could to stop his influence over so many. It would never have worked if we had been empowered.

I doubt you are interested, but I have gathered a lot more of the words of the think tanks and Dem politicians against those of us who supported him.

It showed the party's true colors, probably the first time we had seen them out in the open.

I point to 2004 because they were actively destroying anti-war activists by constant attacks. Why in the world would a party do that?

The situation is what it is on purpose now. Fighting back makes us feel a little empowered, but that's about all it does right now.

I'm interested, and there were a lot of false claims in 2004.

[Jakes Progress]

97. PS. Don't take on MF.

She is knowledgeable and smart. She has her facts straight and is unflinchingly honest.

You're better off jousting with a gadfly lightweight like myself.

[ProSense]

101. Did you

"You're better off jousting with a gadfly lightweight like myself. "

...vote: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022559350

It's likely a number of people will refuse to own those Senators, and have made excuses for them in the past.

Time to confront the Keystone supporters.

[Jakes Progress]

110. I

Now that's the kind of non-sequitor that we have come to expect. Not a thing about the topic. Avoids responsibility for junk posted above. Way to go.

And yes I did.....

No Democratic or democratic or even "compassionate" republicans from here. I wish I could vote out a liar who puts D's by his/her name and calls him/herself a Democrat.

[ProSense]

112. Here's

"Now that's the kind of non-sequitor that we have come to expect. Not a thing about the topic. Avoids responsibility for junk posted above. Way to go. "

...what I've "come to expect": http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2559681

A little hypocrisy. I know, it's not your fault.

[Jakes Progress]

155. Again and as ever.

Off the topic of the OP. Not germane to the post. Avoiding sense or responsibility. I also like that you love my writing so much. Study it an learn.

I may be lightweight. I may be a pain. But I am never a hypocrite. That would be someone who pretends to be someone else. That would be someone who interrupts discussion with misdirection instead of addressing the issue. That would be someone who professes to be a Democrat but backs right wing programs because of personality adulation.

I just love these little fits of yours. They keep bumping MadFloridian's post to the top where it needs to be. Thank you.

[ProSense]

160. LOL!

"I just love these little fits of yours. They keep bumping MadFloridian's post to the top where it needs to be. Thank you."

I'm not afraid of information. I'm not into "let it sink."

I know the left, and anyone can pretend that the left's position in the Democratic Party is now less than it was since the 1970s.

The notion is ludicrous, and the makeup of Congress is proof. Sure, the corporate interests are still significantly represented, but tell me about the Reagan, Bush and Clinton years. The DLC was killed off and is now repackaged as Third Way (fooling no one).

Paying attention to those assholes other than to denounce them is silly. They have no influence. If they did that idiotic venture "Americans Elect" would have had more sway.

They do the same thing they've always done, co-opt and pretend while pushing RW policies. Maybe it's time people stop assigning them more power than they have.

Hillary 2016, anyone?

Maybe we should all give up.

[patrice]

182. "stop assigning them more power than they have" I'd like to suggest part of how that mistake is

going down:

Not everyone who disagrees with what calls itself "the Left" is DLC/Neo-Liberal/the Third Way, but SOME or this marginalization that is going on is the result of how what calls itself "the Left" marginalizes itself by assuming that anyone who disagrees about ANYTHING "Leftist" IS DLC. Liberals are inherently anti-authoritarian, so that kind of doctrinaire straight-jacket just DOES NOT WORK, especially when, probably to a significant extent, the disagreements are about tactics NOT Liberal or Left principles.

I, for instance, will not cut our nose off to spite anyone else's face, so ISSUES are a higher priority with me than factional (base-building) discipline. Progress on ISSUES feels as though it is threatened from what calls itself "the Left", because it appears that in order to prove their organizing bona fides they will in fact consider taking a candidate or office holder down or paralyzing them, even though they might hold a relatively useful strategy position relative to the development of issues (e.g. PO and Health Care), in order to demonstrate the presence of "the Left" in the arena.

I understand the necessity of doing that when you're a nobody, but I also think that doing that would not be possible if what calls itself "the Left" were in fact the Left, and not just a peri-Left, because an authentic Left would NOT betray the people in order to score against someone else whom they attack because they think s/he is betraying the people, especially when it is quite likely that what calls itself "the Left" doesn't appear to fully grasp the current configuration of some of the people's most important issues, such as health care, e.g. some pretty significant misunderstandings about the PPACA that still exist and appear even to have been purposefully propagated by some of "the Left" on this board in the name of base-buidling against PO.

What calls itself "the Left" complains about being marginalized, but it never appears to do enough of a self-critique to hypothesize that at least some of the aversion is how THEY threaten important issues and then expect candidates and office-holder to MOVE IN THEIR DIRECTION because of those threats when in truth the exact opposite of that is what happens. Yes, our votes mean something and we are the ones who make that true, but timing and tactics are VITAL to that and if you don't get it right you hurt the issues, therefore you hurt yourself and everyone else runs away from you, which ends up only making you worse and everyone else even more averse etc. etc. etc. until you figure it out, or, that is, IF you get it figured out.

I don't have a lot of hope for this dynamic anymore. I hope I'm wrong.

*(rhetorical you, above, of course)

[Jakes Progress]

186. Snicker

You know the left. That's rich.

How is the make up of Congress prove that the left has more power now than in the past? Who said the left had more power under reagan? You toss out ideas that reflect nothing to do with the topic. You may not be able to fathom more than 20 years, but some can. The liberal wing of the party had more sway over the policy and platform at one time than it does now. To argue otherwise is a sign of ignorance. Liberals are currently ignored by the party except during elections. No liberal can stomach the double down on bush's education program that is going on now. But there isn't even a hint of listening to the anyone that doesn't represent full scale corporate edu-biz. Sell the children. No liberal can understand why the man we elected is leading the budget battle with a strategy based on giving in on SS and Medicare. But they are. They are arguing the RW line that the budget must be got to by austerity and sacrifice by the poor. Sure the republicans are insane. The neo-cons took over their party. The reagan-democrats took over ours. Failing to see that as true just indicates how the person failing to see is willfully blind. Or a new democrat.

Thanks again.

[ProSense]

192. LOL!

"You know the left. That's rich. "

No, it's fact.

"How is the make up of Congress prove that the left has more power now than in the past? "

From the OP:

In 1985 at the formation of a Democratic policy think tank it was made clear whom they were going to target.

The DLC was killed off and Third Way is fooling no one.

"You may not be able to fathom more than 20 years, but some can. The liberal wing of the party had more sway over the policy and platform at one time than it does now. To argue otherwise is a sign of ignorance. Liberals are currently ignored by the party except during elections."

The OP starts at 1985. Speaking of "ignorance," you're arguing about liberals being "currently ignored" and at the same time admitting that the problem dates back long before 1985.

Here's what I know: In the 1990s Wall Street was deregulated. In 2012, Elizabeth Warren won.

I know that in the 1990s, DOMA became the law of the land. In 2013, even Claire McCaskill has to face reality: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/claire-mccaskill-announces-support-for-gay-marriage

"The neo-cons took over their party. The reagan-democrats took over ours. Failing to see that as true just indicates how the person failing to see is willfully blind. Or a new democrat."

Frankly, that's defeatist bullshit that doesn't match reality. Things are shifting back. The arguments are coming from all side. No one is sitting back and allowing the kind of triangulation that was common over the last few decades.

Elizabeth Warren Embarrasses Hapless Bank Regulators At First Hearing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022377143

WARREN TO BERNANKE: "So when are we gonna get rid of 'too big to fail?'"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022434722

Pay attention. Things are changing.

Eugene Robinson: Obama, winning the argument
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381931

[Jakes Progress]

222. Whirl

around.

Glad to see you coming around. This post sounds almost like a different personality (or person) from the above. You know. Actually addressing the issue. Lots of old time blue lines. Hmmmm. The multiplicity that is PS.

Regardless of the position you started from, it's nice that you are agreeing with the OP. I know, I know. Everything under Obama is glorious. I know. He's the most liberal president ever, ever. But take off that crap and you are getting the idea.

[Fuddnik]

136. The marginilization continues with this poster.

Never stops trying.

[ProSense]

140. Please, get over yourself. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

154. Pot meet kettle.

Just because most here are onto your shtick, you shouldn't get all huffy. It gets old. Especially when you play your games with those who obviously know more and have an actual point to make.

[ProSense]

156. You know

"Just because most here are onto your shtick, you shouldn't get all huffy. It gets old. Especially when you play your games with those who obviously know more and have an actual point to make. "

...I think comments like that are clownish. I mean, do you want a cookie for self-declaring that you speak for "most here"?

I really don't give a shit about your characterizations, but obviously you think that I should.

[Jakes Progress]

158. Sure

you do. If you didn't give a shit, you wouldn't keep replying and bumping an OP that you argue against to the top over an over.

Thank you for the cookie.

[ProSense]

161. Look

"If you didn't give a shit, you wouldn't keep replying and bumping an OP that you argue against to the top over an over."

...bump!

I checked, and still don't give a shit.

[Jakes Progress]

189. Est

Thanks again. Now you. Then I'll wait a while for mine so it can bump twice.

It's cute how you say you don't care, but can't stop saying you don't care. Kinda touching really.

[MoclipsHumptulips]

218. This ^^^^!

Well said, and from the outside reading in here you are spot on Jakes Progress.

[rhett o rick]

209. During the buildup to the IWar, the centrist couldnt wait to kiss Bush's behind.

The "extreme" Left voted for sanity. I guess opposing the neocons is "extreme".

[JDPriestly]

125. Dean should have been given a great deal more recognition by the Obama

administration than he was. He should have been offered a cabinet post. Dean, whether he is universally liked or not, responded to the disillusionment of a segment of the Democratic Party, invited its members to get active, showed them how, and the result is a much more successful and unified party.

President Obama has given far too much credit to his buddies from Chicago and Wall Street and shut out organizers and Democrats from the rest of the country.

Unless that situation is changed before 2016, we face some tough times.

The Republicans are undergoing self-analysis. They don't seem to be getting very far with it, but at least they are doing it. We Democrats need to start think about our future in a country in which the 99% have been pretty much decimated economically by the 1% that takes it all. That reality is going to become harder and harder to gloss over and touch up.

And Democrats are going to be blamed for it if we don't start doing more about economic disparity between the rich and the rest of us right now.

We have to bring the jobs back. Most of our problems including the problems with Social Security and Medicare can be solved if we just have more jobs. I hear almost nothing about that. It's as if the Obama administration is happy with the high unemployment rates we have today.

Those high unemployment rates are the core of the problem, and they are due to our trade policies and the dictatorship of the multi-nationals.

[madfloridian]

127. Excellent post.

You make many good points.

[ProSense]

129. My point is

"Dean, whether he is universally liked or not, responded to the disillusionment of a segment of the Democratic Party, invited its members to get active, showed them how, and the result is a much more successful and unified party. "

...that he is a centrist and a deficit hawk. You are making points not really knowing where he would come down. For example, he supports sequestration.

<...>

Looking at Washington and what’s happening there, you came out saying that you think that the sequester wasn’t necessarily a bad idea and perhaps the only way we can get some military cuts. Are you still feeling that way about things now that the sequester has gone into effect?
I am. I mean the House, of course, added some of it back, but I don’t think the Senate will allow that to happen. Look, the military has gotten enormous. They don’t ever cut it and they just keep adding to it. The Congress gives the military stuff the military doesn’t even want. And it was never going to get cut by either the Democrats or the Republicans if they had to vote on the cuts. So, I see this as … you know this is doing some damage to things that I care about and to some people that I care about, but the need to get the military cut is just overwhelming because nothing’s been done for 25, 30 years. So, I think that the military needs to be cut. A lot of the baggage that the Congress put in there needs to be taken out. They need to make some tough decisions between weapons systems instead of just getting everything and that’s what the sequester’s going to do.

So, again, it’s not ideal but, given that they don’t have the guts to cut the military in Congress, this is the best way to get it done.

What’s your prediction about the sequester’s impact on the economy and the middle class?
I think it’ll be fine. There will be some hardships for some individuals, there’s no question about that, but I think that most of the economists’ predictions are going to be wrong.

If you were sitting in the White House right now and looking to make the “Grand Bargain” that everyone talks about, what would that look like to you?
Well, the Republicans are never going to do it. First of all, the Obama administration should have never left all of that revenue on the table for people earning under $400,000 a year. What I would do is I would close a bunch of corporate loopholes like get rid of the oil depletion allowance. And I do think you can reform Medicare without cutting benefits. What you need to do is have Medicare become a program where the providers are paid by the patient, not by the procedure. Because the whole system depends on what doctors do, which is ME, a doctor, and we get paid whether it works or not. It’s a silly way to pay people.

http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/03/interview-gov-howard-dean-talks-about-gun-control-sequester-and-more.html

Uh, he said "reform."

Unless that situation is changed before 2016, we face some tough times.

The Republicans are undergoing self-analysis. They don't seem to be getting very far with it, but at least they are doing it. We Democrats need to start think about our future in a country in which the 99% have been pretty much decimated economically by the 1% that takes it all. That reality is going to become harder and harder to gloss over and touch up.

And Democrats are going to be blamed for it if we don't start doing more about economic disparity between the rich and the rest of us right now.

Like I said, here are things that really will make a difference in people's lives: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2558873

You credit the Republicans with "self-analysis." All I see is a party still trying to dupe people, as the efforts at the link above shows.

[Jakes Progress]

190. Are there

any Democrats that you do like or agree with?

[ProSense]

193. May I

"Are there any Democrats that you do like or agree with? "

...suggest that you stop chasing bullshit straw men?

[Jakes Progress]

223. You might

stop strewing them all over the thread if you don't want to stumble over them.

Oh. And you could answer the question. (Yeah, right.)

[JDPriestly]

196. President Obama has done a lot of little things, some of which you list,

to help the middle-class and the poor, and certainly, if a Republican were president, we would be hurting really, really badly now. But the Democrats, especially those in Congress need to do much, much more to get a long-term solution to the disparity of wealth. What we have now is weakening our country and making a mockery of democracy.

One of the things that needs to be done is to tax each transaction on Wall Street. We need international cooperation on that. What is happening in Cyprus is very interesting. Apparently they had 0% taxes and 10% interest and a huge financial sector that overwhelmed the size of the economy. (Per the Guardian. Sorry I do not have the link.)

Nothing will work to improve the social problems in our society unless we get rid of the exaggerated disparity between rich and poor and the erosion of the wealth of the middle class. It isn't a matter of depriving people of what they earn or of destroying incentives for people. It is a matter, to the contrary of giving incentives to more people to live in ways that they feel good about, ways that include them in society on the whole and make them feel positive and successful in their lives rather than angry and depressed most of the time. The disparity in wealth we have now is tearing our society apart.

President Obama has some sense of this, but he has not infused Democrats with a passion to do something to change our society.

As for this.

And I do think you can reform Medicare without cutting benefits. What you need to do is have Medicare become a program where the providers are paid by the patient, not by the procedure.

I'm with Kaiser and I think that is what I have -- the providers are paid by the patient (that is per patient) and only a little by the procedure. At least I hope that is what I am getting. That's the way it should be.

[rhett o rick]

221. I think the oligarch overlords have politics right where they want it. We have a wacko right wing

nut party that are like Hitler's brown shirts. They will bash heads or whatever it takes. Then you have the Conservative Party. A party that now includes those that have abandoned the brown shirts. When they slithered under our tent they didnt change they brought their ideologies with them.

Think about it. If you were a Democratic President running for a second term, who would you woo? Every Liberal you woo is only worth one vote. While every conservative you woo is worth two votes, one directly and one by denying that vote to your opponent. And if you woo the conservatives you will still get 60% or more of the liberal votes anywayz. They have nowhere to turn.

We are being played like fiddles.

[rhett o rick]

103. "If liberal Democrats stood up and fought hard, the Party could be made to move left. Playing the

victim isnt going to do that." Your assumption that the liberal Democrats arent fighting hard and playing the victim is an insult. When I go to a rally, a town hall meeting, a protest, workshop, door-belling, phone-banking, etc., only liberals show up. None of the conserva-dems, no Third Way, no DLC lovers, only liberals.

The Democratic Party moved to the right because of big money. The oligarchs arent stupid, they have their "brown shirts", the Repukes, to do the head cracking, and then they have their conserva-Dems that are "so much better than the other guy".

It's the game of good cops/ bad cops, or good politician/ bad politician. Both are financially supported by the oligarchs. Nether are looking out for the middle class, working class, or poor.

I dont know who you hang out with but the liberals I know are fighting hard both within the Party and without.

Granted the Congressional Progressive Caucus is getting stronger but it still has to sit in the back of the Democratic bus. Outside organizations like moveon.org and Progress Change Campaign Committee have to carry the load the Party should be carrying, and get Sen Warren and Rep Grayson elected. If it were up to the Party machine, they would reelect Lieberman.

[ProSense]

105. No, that's

"Your assumption that the liberal Democrats arent fighting hard and playing the victim is an insult. When I go to a rally, a town hall meeting, a protest, workshop, door-belling, phone-banking, etc., only liberals show up. None of the conserva-dems, no Third Way, no DLC lovers, only liberals.

The Democratic Party moved to the right because of big money...Granted the Congressional Progressive Caucus is getting stronger but it still has to sit in the back of the Democratic bus. Outside organizations like moveon.org and Progress Change Campaign Committee have to carry the load the Party should be carrying, and get Sen Warren and Rep Grayson elected. If it were up to the Party machine, they would reelect Lieberman."

...not my assumption. As I stated here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=25588730, "the situation is far from perfect, but it requires fighting, it always will. There are people still fighting."

And here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2558873):

"The people mentioned in the OP have been obstacles to getting these passed. Evan Bayh was always a tool. Blanche Lincoln lost her seat because she voted against the health care law.

Make no mistake, there are still tools in the Senate (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022553362), but they're not likely to act as unified as the DLC elements of the past, which included Joe Lieberman (who was primarily responsible for killing the public option)."

[JDPriestly]

197. So true!

[TheKentuckian]

114. I don't subscribe to the substitution of centrist for moderate.

It is willful in our politics to bolster the number of those that supposedly support corporatist economics, the security state, and utilizing the military to achieve economic ends. When really most of those folks have a range of ideas that make up a personal ideology.

Dean is a deficit hawk but even economically he doesn't subscribe to the larger beltway framework that describes the actual centrists nor do his prescriptions for the deficit always line up with the common wisdom.

"Centrist" is a scam that is part and parcel of what the OP describes. Center of what? A bunch of salesman bullshit.

[rhett o rick]

208. Centrist is a conservative that's ashamed to admit it.

When a centrist starts bashing the Left, ask them to explain on which issues they differ from the Left and they refuse to respond. Centrist sounds so "safe".

People here talk about the extreme Left but fail to explain why they are extreme. Is freedom from the Patriot Act and domestic spying, extreme. Is wanting decent health care? Is Sen Sanders extreme?

[TheKentuckian]

220. Fuckin A

[dionysus]

128. simply, you've been anti Dem since Dean flamed out (though it wasn't his fault, it was the media).

Dead is awesome, I am a Deaniac, but he's a centrist Dem who is straight talking and kick ass, so some think he is an uber leftist hero.

say hello to the Treebaggers for me.

[madfloridian]

131. That is such a unbelievable thing for you to say.

It shows you have no clue what I am saying at all.

Treebaggers? Really, now that is childish.

[hfojvt]

21. but Carter himself was a southern conservadem

that's partly why he was primaried by Kennedy.

The left also became marginalized by three straight shellackings handed to leftish Presidential candidates - McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis. The moderate voters proved more willing to vote Republican than to vote left. With the help of Perot, Clinton proved that at least the DLC could win.

But the marginalization of the left began much, much earlier. Back in 1912, Eugene Debs could get 12% of the vote in Oklahoma. and 9% of the vote in Florida and Texas. The marginalization happened during WWI when some leaders of the left, including Debs, got sent to prison for opposing US entry into WWI. Further, the public perception sorta became that many of the goals of the left were carried out by the Roosevelts - things like the income tax, popular election of Senators, various social programs. Although, Norman Thomas said they were "carried out on a stretcher".

But another thing that weakened the left, besides the repression of the war, or their own factionalism as they split into warring camps led by various charismatic leaders, was probably the post-war prosperities, and perhaps also the Russian revolution. The first made socialism seem unnecessary since capitalism was so successful at bringing widespread prosperity, and the second turned socialism/communism into both a) the enemy of America and b) a failed, repressive system.

[Vinnie From Indy]

53. Cheers!

eom

[socialist_n_TN]

163. Truth about the shellackings of leftish Presidential candidates........

The problem with the Conservadems is that they keep on fighting the political wars of the last century. Things have changed, but they haven't. A left economic populism would work VERY well now, but they're too scared to try it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they are the ones with access to the money and the money is perfectly happy with the way things are because it allows them to make MORE money.

Who was it who said that old canard about how it's hard to convince someone whose livelihood is dependent on them NOT being convinced? Or something like that. That's the situation the moderate left finds itself in now. It takes so much money to run Federal campaigns that they've GOT to cozy up to the big contributors, but when they cozy up to the big contributors, they can't get contributions based on a left economic populist candidacy. So they HAVE to go to the Third Way positions to get the necessary funds to compete.

[loudsue]

83. You are correct: The Powell Manifesto set out the entire plan. Nixon's appointee to

the Supreme Court wrote it all out, how, exactly, the right was never again going to be put in a position to answer to the masses. Some of the things he wrote in a letter to Adolph Coors:

1) Control the message. Take over every media outlet, buy them out, force friendly legislation to enable the takeover. Run full-page ads in every newspaper, and recruit people sympathetic to the (ultra conservative) cause. Target guns & abortion, and issues that appeal to the conservative ideas.

2) No more liberal ideas in college classrooms. By giving large grants to colleges, (research project by way of corporate grants, sports teams, etc) they could have a big say in which professors got hired, fired, and tenured, and what the curriculum would be. (Much like what we're seeing in privatized elementary and charter schools in our times now) .

3) Through the Chamber of Commerce, small business could be funded and supported with start-up money for entrepreneurs who were sympathetic to their cause. (This focused on the Chamber of Commerce to be taken over, and made a powerhouse of conservative voices. )

4) Control the message at divinity schools, who were a ripe-for-the-picking already-organized conservative leaning bed of influence. (By the way, there was a video made in the early 80's showing a fetus in the womb, which was VERY graphic, responding to stimulation, showing it as if it was human. All set to really appropriately dramatic music. THIS was shown in sunday schools and church groups to whip up an anti-abortion frenzy. Some of us old folks remember this. )

5) Create and fund PACs for even local races, from school boards (especially) and county commissioner/city council positions, to mayor, dog catcher, etc. , grooming conservative candidates for higher office. Even run conservatives for the democratic primaries. (i.e., the infiltration of the democratic party. Should I say, the VERY INTENTIONAL infiltration into the democratic party) .

6) Control which judges were appointed to the bench.


There was more, but all this started with Powell's leadership, and Nixon appointed him to the supreme court BECAUSE of his stance on this takeover.

[JDPriestly]

122. Kennedy was not at all on the left, but the marginalization started

with his assassination which was quickly followed by those of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. The leadership of the left was decimated -- literally killed off.

What arose to replace it was sold out -- LBJ -- or disorganized and angry -- Abby Hoffman and friends.

The left of the intellectuals, labor, the poor and socially dispossessed like African-Americans and women have not unified until now. I think that the Occupy movement established a common ground. The issue that Occupy identified -- that the 1% takes and leaves as little as possible, whether of the wealth or of the political power, to the rest of us -- is common to the grievances of all of us from moderate to extreme left.

Now it is up to the 99% to unite around the realization that we have to work together to get some say in what goes on in the country.

Personally, I think that we have much more in common with the Tea-Bagger crowd than we think. They blame the government. We blame the 1%. In fact, we are talking about the same crowd because the government is pretty much controlled, lock, stock and barrel, by the 1%. As is most everything in our country and the world.

We have to find some way to persuade the Tea-Baggers that we understand what they are really mad about and that they need to join us in changing things.

Start by joining your local Democratic organizations. Go to the Democratic Party Convention in your state. Find out how you do it from your local Club. Be a voice. Change starts with us.

[dreamnightwind]

144. Excellent post

I do think we need to reach out to more than just the left, and I don't mean we need to be more corporate-centrist, I'm agreeing that we need to find ways to reach those on the right who are disillusioned with the way things are but have misdiagnosed the causes.

The same forces that have disenfranchised the left are ruining the futures of the teabaggers, too. They have been conned into seeing a dysfunctional government and thinking that the solution is to shrink government, get government off our backs. Unfortunately the backs they''re getting government off of is the backs of the multinationals, who would like nothing better than to render government incapable of regulating them.

We don't need less government, necessarily, nor more government, necessarily, we need government that serves the 99% and not just the 1%. The laws and regulations that are passed are often literally written by corporate lobbyists to accelerate the transfer of wealth in their direction. That's what we have to get into the heads of the people, be they left, center, or right. And that's the ticket to a coalition that can truly restore power to the people in this country.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

5. The concept of World Peace is now "Far Left" in Washington....

As is "Clean Air", "Clean Water",..."Bank Regulation"....

[madfloridian]

8. Very true.

And of course my passion is public education because I was a teacher over 30 years. It is sinful what they are doing to public schools in the name of reform. Obama and Arne do NOT hear a word that teachers, students, and parents are saying. They are simply pretending they do not exist.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

81. Look what Bush did to "No Child Left Behind"....

Ted Kennedy came up with a way of identifying which schools were under-performing so they could get what they needed and Bush not only didn't fund it but flipped the intent of the law to punish those schools by cutting their funding.

100 years ago we were building high schools with an observatory on the roof. Now the kids are in trailers.

[liberal_at_heart]

87. Race To The Top=No Child Left Behind

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. How about we try something new?

Like not asking the rich what we can have?

Just do it and send them the bill.

[liberal_at_heart]

94. I'm on board with that.

I'm tired of begging for scraps.

[Ken Burch]

9. And "Dying of Old Age If You're Not Rich".

[ReRe]

10. Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to read this important post

K&R

.... and read the links too. Really, if all this is Greek to anyone, you need to take time to do a little reading, and start here.

When that part of the Democratic Party started rubbing elbows with the right wing, this country turned into a corrupt "Corporatocracy". They sold out, basically. They are DINOs. I never bought into it, and could spot one a mile away. Still can.

Evan Bayh. So different than his Dad, Birch Bayh!

Thanks for this outstanding post, madfloridian!

[madfloridian]

16. Thanks, they deliberately set out to ignore the left. Planned it.

That is tragic.

[ReRe]

19. They wanted "one party rule" I guess...

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2013, 04:45 AM - Edit history (1)

... but I think it is going down the tubes, MF. And young people don't know all these things, so we need to lovingly tell them the truth. History tells a very important story. MLK, Jr said "The truth, crushed to the ground, will rise again," in March of 1965 on the steps of the State House in Montgomery, AL.

And yes, it was tragic what the wolves in sheep's clothing did. I go from depression to elation these days. Here are videos to see that a couple DUers uploaded a couple days ago. I found hope in learning what the two men had to say about our crashed economy. Look at them and see if you recognize them. If you haven't listened to them, I highly recommend you do:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017107129

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017107439



Edited to correct MLK, Jr facts

[hay rick]

11. The media have been co-opted and

the Democratic Party of Obama has become a me-too corporate party, pushing massive free trade agreements and speaking of the courage to put "entitlements" on the chopping block. I can not imagine a Republican Treasury Secretary being more submissive to Wall Street than Tim Geithner was over the last 4 years... Good article on the state of our national political debate here: http://www.alternet.org/does-irrationality-doom-america?akid=10230.227380.s_90ud&rd=1&src=newsletter813486&t=4&paging=off

The Democratic Party needs a purge.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

22. Don't forget the "think tanks" and the Federalist Society. They've gone about a very successful

purge of left leaning justices on all levels of the system - not to mention in their own party. The amount of money that goes to manipulating how judges get appointed - or filibustered - is part of the plan:

http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/intro.htm

Remember, there were once liberals in the Republican Party. It's seems impossible, but there were. For that the corporate overlords clearly won the battle. And maybe the war.

[markiv]

106. Geithner is not submissive to Wall Street

he IS Wall Sreet

how can one be submissive to oneself?

[Zorra]

12. K&R nt

[blkmusclmachine]

13. The Progressive/"Left" in today's DEM Party? DOA.

The Party's long gone all-in on "Centrism," which means right-of-center. Way right of Center.

[HereSince1628]

47. They take the left for granted in an attempt to be appealling

enough to get elected, because as Rahm says getting elected is job 1.
So the dems are looking for things that contribute to that purpose:

Those extra votes beyond the democratic base, votes we see as to the right.
Those extra million$ available from big donors who we see as just to the right.
Getting something done that's just a bit to the right . . .
by making another concession just to the right. . .
because doing the doable depends upon not letting principles tie you down.

A step right here a step right there and pretty soon your thinking like the right in preparation of yet another 'conquest' of republican positions.

[woo me with science]

14. K&R. Our representation has been sold. nt

[bbgrunt]

15. +100000

[DeSwiss]

17. K&R n/t

[SleeplessinSoCal]

18. I've got a wee bit of hope owing to the very dedicated base of Occupy Wall Street

Occasional reports on their important work and exposes around the country may eventually build a mass and hopefully a tipping point. It may be the most vitally important movement to arise since the civil rights movement.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. only a couple weeks ago I heard one of the Sunday morning infotainment

panel shows going on about the country being split between the Tea Party types who want to cut too much and the "far left" who don't want any cuts to "entitlement programs." They used the words "far left" over and over and over again to refer to people who don't want to accept any benefit cuts for Social Security or Medicare. Never mind the fact that at least 80% of the American population according to a multitude of polls also oppose any benefit cuts to Social Security or Medicare. I thought "far left" meant people like those Trotskyites and Maoists nuts you see at all the big demonstrations - or at least people who are seriously talking about the eminent overthrow of the capitalist system. In the sane and rational world that is what is meant by "far left" - How can "far left" possibly mean supporting an opinion held by 80% of Americans - even most Republicans? So if holding this absolutely mainstream opinion that is supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans is far left - and these words not just coming from the GOP but from "the sensible Democrats." So what does that make those of us who think the safety net should be expanded? What does it make those of us who know that many elderly and disabled people cannot possibly continue surviving with what meager income they have now - and thus feel that benefits and services for the elderly and disabled should in fact be significantly improved? That is not even on the table - That is now according to the "sensible Democrats" way beyond "far left" and way beyond the beyond the pale and apparently in the world of left-wing cloud cuckoo land.

[socialist_n_TN]

62. Yeah those pesky Trotskyites......

Who were on the side of those "entitlement programs" before anybody else was. Who were against the fascists before anybody else was. And most importantly, who saw this whole capitalist end game almost a century ago. And make no mistake, labeling reformist positions as "far left" IS a part of the capitalist end game.

Those "pesky Trotskyites" know that regulating capitalism over the long term is like riding a tiger. It's impossible to do and you're always in danger of being eaten. Good luck with that regulation thing.

[liberal_at_heart]

93. I like your screen name. I may have to change mine to include socialist.

I think socialists aren't afraid to be a little more assertive. Sometimes we liberals are a little too accommodating. It's time to make a little noise.

[socialist_n_TN]

165. Feel free.....

I don't know about all socialists, but the bunch I run with are VERY assertive. And yes, "liberals" have a rep of being pretty milquetoast. Asking politely of the capitalists get you, at best, ignored. You've got to demand.

[Left Turn Only]

118. Socialist Isn't a Bad Word.

I agree totally. The fact that so many on the left cringe at their own roots shows just how far the conservative strategy has come.

[socialist_n_TN]

168. "The fact that so many on the left cringe at their own roots......

shows just how far the conservative strategy has come." Well that and how few people on the "left" today actually realize what left actually MEANS. That also shows how far the conservative strategy has come.

Some of the people on here who claim to be "left" leave me . Only in the USA and in the Democratic Party could someone be a neoliberal and claim to be "left" because he/she believes in the correct positions on a few social issues. In the historical and world arena on the REAL left, the social issues are "Of course" issues, almost going without saying. On economic democracy is where the actual left is found and NOT IN NEOLIBERALISM!

Welcome to DU BTW.

[Douglas Carpenter]

134. it's not going to happen - The Leninist total - collectivist model

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2013, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

has been tried numerous times and it does not work. It is worse than even oppressive sweat-shop capitalism in terms of the on the ground reality it produces. The only successful systems that grant prosperity and democratic rights to the vast overwhelming majority are the social-democratic or as some call them the democratic socialist models where socialism and capitalism are mixed. Even Hugo Chavez's model encouraged and saw a major increased in the private sector and produced astounding results. Even though the Chavez model is not quite the same as the Scandinavian type social democratic model the principle of a mixed economy with multi-party democracy is the same. This is not an ideological positions - nothing else works. Social democracy is indeed under attack and there have been cutbacks - but it still survives and it is not going away. while the bureaucratic collectivist models are buried in the dustbin of history.

[bread_and_roses]

148. Socialism does not = "The Leninist total - collectivist model"

I am way too tired to go into it, but a cursory reading even somewhere like WIKI should clarify that. And equating the two is one way of demonizing any proposal that "interferes" with the "market," or in which "the commons" or workers exercise any power.

[Douglas Carpenter]

152. I know that - but the Trotskyist model does

I am a socialist

[socialist_n_TN]

159. The Leninist model is the only one that has been proven to actually.....

bring capitalism down. What has to be watched for is the bureaucratization of the Leninist model which fossilizes bad trends into years long bad policies, ironically, because bureaucracies are inherently conservative. The Leninist-TROTSKYIST model never had a chance to work long term. Trotskyism is the Marxist road not taken. It's also closer to classic Marxism, than what Stalin turned Leninism into.

It's time to try it. Otherwise, you don't have a chance to bring capitalism down in order to even TRY something else.

BTW, we prefer TrotskyIST, not TrotskyITE. Trotskyite is a slur that the Stalinists invented.

[Douglas Carpenter]

172. yes the Leninist model is the only model that has actually taken capitalism down and was able to

sustain at least for decades. But at what price and what kind of society did it create? We can only judge that by asking those who lived under it and we know that it was never able to sustain support from the majority of their own working classes for whom they claimed to be empowering. However ideologically appealing it may be, however stirred we may become when singing "and in the final conflict" - However much those words move us - in every single experiment where capitalism has been taken down and completely replaced with a collectivist economy - every single time we have ended up with oppressive and impoverished dictatorships less free and much poorer than any one of several capitalist nations. Even if the Trotskyist model could work - that is as relevant today as anarcho-syndicalism - It is not going to happen. We can only look at what has been tried down here on planet earth. However boring and un-ideologically appealing social democracy is - it works.


"Whenever I see an American with a glow in their eyes talking about workers and peasants uniting, something deep inside my heart tells me to watch out...There is a new brand of Irish Catholicism on the rise." Eugene O'Neill

[LeftInTX]

164. I've heard "far left" in the MSM over and over

I often wonder what viewers who are on SS and Medicare think. I wonder if gram and gramps along with assisted living residents are scratching their heads and thinking "I'm on the far left"?

I remember my grandmother couldn't stand Newt Gingrich and his attacks on seniors. She was a conservative white lady from Tallahassee, Florida.

[whathehell]

23. I think the true American Left was tied to Unions and economic issues, now they mostly represent

"social issues".

Ed Schultz is the ONLY one I recall talking about everyday economic issues,

that affect many, if not most of us -- Labor unions, Living Wages, etc.

A well known progressive author, Todd Gitlin, warned back in the early nineties, late eighties,

that liberals were becoming too concerned with "identity politics".

As just one example, he spoke of people becoming embroiled in fights over, the manner in

which Christopher Columbus was depicted in school textbooks

while, in his words "The Right is marching through the halls of power,

including the White House". I think there is MUCH truth to it...We took our eye off the ball, and now we

have declining wages, union busting, and a tiny, ever shrinking middle class.

[liberal_at_heart]

26. we've given into the lie that we have to focus on one or the other.

They have told us we must pick the social justice battle in order to keep the conservative Christians out of office, but in order to do this we must sacrifice unions, education, and social programs. Okay so we're not under the tyranny of the conservative Christians. But we are under the tyranny of the 1%. So why must we focus only on one or the other? I say we focus on both. We cannot sacrifice unions, education, and social programs. In order to have social justice you must have economic justice. You cannot have one without the other.

[whathehell]

41. I don't recall anyone promoting that dichotomy, and it's definitely a wrongheaded idea,

since one can do both, but the dems dropped the ball on the economic end of things

and that is clearly important since it affects EVERYONE -- Gays, Straights,

Men, Women, Whites and Minorities.

A cynic might conclude that dumping the unions and economic

issues was part of their "caving" to the corporations.

I'm a feminist, so I give all due respect to cultural issues, but I can't help

but consider how the Dems, in this respect, have gotten

like the repubs -- Focus on anything that doesn't cost MONEY.

[graham4anything]

30. Guess what? Those like Elizabeth Warren, who voted for Ronald Reagan & 41 killed the unions

the disconnect is amazing.

1980 fracture and hating Jimmy Carter who some considered arrogant and much as I loved
Teddy, 1980 was the singular WRONG time for him to run, then for him to run away from that handshake.

Hell, Carter should have ditched Mondale that night, and embraced Teddy, Teddy should have became the VP and together they had the votes, apart, look what happened.

Then the debate. One freakin' line that was way in advance scripted (NOT ADLIBBED, Reagan read scripts, not an adlibber) and the parallel between the hostage sabatoge and the end of the war sabatoge by Nixon was amazing.

Yet proud democratic voters proudly voted for Reagan.

(and let's not get into the fact that probably millions of would have been 1984 and 1988 and 1992 democratic voters and major liberals all died from AIDS while Ronald Reagan did diddlysquat for 7 years.)

Then people complain about the unions.

Anyone remember the air traffic controllers? That was a major stab in the back to unions,
all brought to you by that wonderful smiling Ronald Reagan(who was a direct clone of another republican people loved for just ONE stupid line he said off the cuff) Eisenhower.

Eye off the ball?
Hell it was the Reagan / 41/ Nader voters.

Could have been 53 years, or even 81 straight years of democratic presidents now.

Instead of winning the revolution in 2008, then wanting to again abandon the cause just when good things are starting.

SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

And read the title of this post.

(btw, this entire answer is not necessarily related to the post it is tagging along to)

[whathehell]

40. Guess what?...I was a living, breathing, thinking adult during that time and no one I knew

voted for Reagan....Boo on EW for Voting for Reagan, but she seems to have

redeemed herself since then.

The Reagan administration (yes, I recall the firing of the air traffic controllers) by itself

didn't and couldn't kill unions. The labor unions were a DEMOCRATIC constituency

and it was their responsibility to keep it that way.

[hay rick]

43. Hillary campaigned for Goldwater.

She mostly redeemed herself during the Viet Nam War era, campaigning for Eugene McCarthy. My concern is that she would continue the neoliberalism of her husband and the Obama administration.

[whathehell]

49. Yes, and as I understand it, she was quite liberal in college but that's changed.

and that I fear the same thing, that she would simply continue the lame, watered down

brand of Democratic politics that has been going on for decades now.

I would like a REAL democrat in the White House for a change,

not the toothless DINOS we've been getting since Bill Clinton.

[former9thward]

80. "mostly redeemed herself"

I sure she is relieved that she has been redeemed to you for her actions as a 17 year old. The idea that someone would hold what a 17 year old did 50 years later is absurd.

[JHB]

51. Any discussion of the 1980 election that does not include the words "hostage crisis" and...

..."Desert One" is not talking about the 1980 election.

Nor one that leaves out the portion of Jewish normally-Democratic voters who were single-issue "pro-Israel" voters who believed Carter was anti-Israel (such as Ed Koch, who was pretty gleeful in the harm Carter suffered on that score).

[Eleanors38]

91. ^^^^! Once we had leaders & a platform which backed...

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, realistic environmental protections, equal rights, freedom of choice, worker rights & protections, fair pay, balanced trade agreements, good education, health care for all, and some notion of worth when we invested.


Now, all I'm supposed to wear is a goddam gun-control T-shirt.

Hubert Humphrey would roll in his grave.

[whathehell]

215. Yes...In fact it was not long ago at all that BOTH parties called Social Security "The 3rd Rail"...

Touch it and you Die!...and I'm appalled to see a supposedly 'democratic' president

try to "bargain" it away in the form of cuts, especially on such a specious and bullshit

reason like "the deficit"....Even Ronald Fucking Reagan is on TAPE admitting that Social Security

does NOT contribute to the National Debt.

No true democrat actually INITIATES cuts to the Democrat's Signature Issue.

For 2016 I think we must look VERY closely at more than the gender or race of the next democratic presidential candidate

What really counts is their records and their POLICIES.

[Eleanors38]

217. I'm afraid we have 2 choices: Party takeover or 3rd party.

[whathehell]

219. Yes, I think you're right. I'm a member of Progressive Democrats of America

We're going with the "takeover", at least for now.

[MFrohike]

153. Yep

Social issues are the icing on the cake. If you're being driven into poverty and working increasingly harder for less, your "freedoms" aren't worth a damn.

It is pretty funny that Todd Gitlin, one of the people who enabled identity politics, warned about its dangers.

[whathehell]

213. Yes, absolutely.

The economy affects EVERYONE, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation.

As the inimitable Al Sharpton once said, "It's not who you go to bed with at night,

It's whether you've got a JOB to go to in the morning'!

As for Gitlin, well, I don't know....In enabling identity politics, he may not, from the outset, have

anticipating their going on to surpass other concerns.

Whatever the reason, anyone can change.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

24. Local TV station/website calls *anything* not Teabilly/Koch

"Left-leaning"

It has no equivalent term for the Teabilly/Koch contingent, which it considers the Norm. Anything else is "left-leaning"

We can raise awareness of DLC and vote their asses out.

[quinnox]

25. yup, you know its bad when some so called Democrats are sounding like

republicans. Such as making a case for "fixing social security" or drones, or a "grand bargain" that would decimate social programs. And then if you speak out against this, a certain devoted brigade will start swarming and name-calling - "you must be an Obama basher or a Ron Paul fan" and other stupid nonsense. It is past time for the Democratic party to start embracing the left, after all, they are almost always right. History proves it.

[Le Taz Hot]

27. K & R

as always with your very thoughtful, well-researched and informative posts. I always look forward to them.

But, MF, and this is the first time I've ever said this, I see the beginnings of a sea change. Liberals are still here. We're STILL activists. We've been marginalized, yes, and by "our" own party, but by our very nature, we're not going to stay down forever because we're A-C-T-I-V-I-S-T-S.

Someone upthread mentioned the Occupy Movement and the wonderful direction they've turned to (buying and then forgiving debt). I see and hear Elizabeth Warren, after TWO MONTHS in the Senate, and tears literally come to my eyes. She is what representation is SUPPOSED to be. Sometimes all ideologies have to have is someone about which they can coalesce and my eye is on Elizabeth Warren. Further, I think seeing her speak out and the support she gets will encourage others to speak out and maybe start running for office again knowing full well that their biggest enemy won't be the Republicans but the Third-Way Democrat establishment. Elizabeth Warren is coming out at just the right time. She has backers from some HUGE powerhouse organizations and an incredible grass-roots support base from all over the country. I think that groundswell of support is indicative of the frustration we liberals have felt at being bound and gagged by, not only the media, but by what used to be "our" own party.

I think we're coming back and we're coming back with a vengeance.

[graham4anything]

28. It's called hindsight.

Look how miserable the people and the press treated the singular #1 liberal president,
far to the left of FDR, President Lyndon Johnson.

And look what the mass exodus from him in 1968 acheived

NOTHING but a few bright spots in a sea of 50 years of NOTHING AT ALL.

Damn shame in retrospect. Damn, damn shame.

LBJ would have beaten Nixon. The people should have begged him to run in 1968, both before Bobby even entered, and he would not have had LBJ not left, and then again after Bobby died.

HHH was a vastly inferior politician and ran with all of LBJ's baggage, and with NO acheivements on his own to give the people anything.

And most of the people have a blind spot here- HHH would have been the nominee had RFK not been killed anyhow.
Primaries and nominees were different then, and TPTB would have still nominated HHH.

Shame of it all.

Democratic party could have kept power for 53 years now (and even longer had the idiots who liked Ike voted twice for AES, a vastly better person and would have made a great President.

The damn shame is that ONE singular sentence in Eisenhower's life got all these supposed democratic people to seem to like Ike, while he was the original Ronald Reagan, and someone who was considered a very lightweight on the smarts level. One stupid sentence that was complete opposite of his whole life.

And the mistreatment of Jimmy Carter. Sheesh, besides the 3rd party/protesters that voted for John Anderson, they voted for Ronald Reagan and then Bush41.

(EVEN Elizabeth Warren, the Goddess to the left, she was a republican then and she voted for both Reagan and Bush41).

So, how did those who voted for Reagan/Bush41/Bush43 and will again do the same and vote against the democratic party in 2014 and 2016, how did that protest vote go for you all?
How is President Nader, I mean W do in 2000 and 2004? Because they all might have been clones of each other.
Ralph Nader was 100% correct in theory-just go the names of the party mixed up.
Two were one and the same. A vote for Nader directly 100% was a vote for W Bush.
voting for the Green Party in 2000 was THE EXACT SAME as voting for W.

Damn sure wish LBJ was reelected in 1968. Because had he been nominated, he would have won. Nixon couldn't beat LBJ. But anyone else, Nixon would have won.

BTW- LBJ was far to the left of Bobby Kennedy, in every single way.

And where were the voters in 1992 for Jerry Brown/Jesse Jackson?
How many supposed far left, refused to vote for Jerry because Jesse would have been the VP choice? I myself voted for Jerry twice, and twice cast my primary vote for Jesse Jackson.

Look at the 1968 electoral college vote, and tell me with all honesty that LBJ would not have beaten Nixon.
It would have been bloody, but he would have prevailed.

Funny how the mind plays tricks on people over the years, in hindsight, and retrospect, it is very easy to see. W won in 2004, LBJ would have won in 1968.
Because LBJ played the game better than HHH, and the same people who LOVED LBJ, had no extra reason to come out and vote for HHH(shades of 2010's other message besides the protest one).

In 2014- ALL DEMOCRATIC PARTY VOTERS must vote for the democratic candidate or the one who will caucus with them.
Becuase if you want all the liberal social issues, you sure as hell AIN'T gonna get them from a protest vote or the rpeublican(and both go to the republican candidate when the democratic candidate is not seated).

[liberal_at_heart]

29. I will vote for whom I think will best "represent" me

The current batch of democrats do not represent me. I will no longer sacrifice economic justice for social justice. I will fight for both, and I will not be bullied.

[graham4anything]

31. Like Elizabeth Warren who voted for Reagan and Bush41.

Because yeah, 1968, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004
how did those protest votes do for you?

Social issues are far more important than any others.
Without the social issues, there is NO freedom (a word very badly misused and abused by both the far right and the far left.

Kristofferson wrote about "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose".
And my meaning and his are the same as proven by interviews by him.

People like Elizabeth Warren, sure, they were free to vote for Reagan/Bush41 and they did.

Those who love Ed, do they have any idea he was a major REPUBLICAN and a far right conservative til he saw $$$$ and switched sides???

Be my guest, vote for whomever you are free to vote for, but please accept the consequences.

Like workers? Then yeah, sure, Reagan was the person to vote for in 1980.
Then rail against the system in 2013.

Because yeah, sure, you are going to get what you want from Jeb Bush, Chris Chrstie, or
the Jorg Haider clone, Rand Paul, dazzling in his suits and charima, and a better voice than the equally dangerous Ron Paul.

Yeah, and Ralph will take another vote. He loves the Bush's. He elected one. And would gladly do the same with Jeb if he were a little less lazy.

Take it to the bank.
Ralph Nader did.

And I would happily vote for Elizabeth Warren were she on my ballot in Nov. 2016.
However, please know her history.

Me, domestic social issues far outtrump foreign issues.
Without freedom, there is NOTHING.

And yeah, sure, Gay Marriage would be happening had McCain or Mitt won.
Yeah, sure.
Great for the protest voters in 2010 who sat on their hands while the repubs snuck in.
None of those people won, the democratic protest voters blew it.

Instead of holding their noses and voting for people like Jon Corzine.
(and their beloved Russ Feingold...where were his voters? Why did he lose?Then sulk and leave the arena?)

Voting has consequences. Not voting is a free right. But then accept what happened.
Like Reagan beating Carter and Bush41 becoming President.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. If it is liberal democrats' fault for social justice issues losses, who's fault is it that we have

suffered economic justice issue losses? We are told to vote democrat or we will be under the tyranny of the conservative Christians. Well, we are under the tyranny of the 1%. Why is it centrist democrats get to demand liberals vote for a centrist democrat to avoid tyranny of conservative Christians, but liberal democrats don't get to demand centrist vote for a liberal democrat to avoid the tyranny of the 1%? Personally, I don't like demanding anybody do anything. If you want to vote centrist, that is your vote. Every person's vote is sacred and should never be influenced. But I know who I will vote for. I will vote for a liberal who will represent my values and will fight for the economic future of my family.

[graham4anything]

34. You lost me at 1%. and YOUR last line says it all.

I am tired of that contrieved sound byte.
And your last line is so, so telling.
You wrote (and this is a direct line from your own post I am quoting from
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR WORDS-"I will vote for a liberal who will represent my values and will fight for the economic future of my family."
===================================================================
Again, there are only 2 choices.
It is not a multiple choice test.

But until one is totally free, they don't see how wrong it was to do that.

(I.E.-taken politically, Kristoffeson's freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose was voting for Ralph Nader. Without thinking of what happens after that, just being proud to be free to vote for Ralph Nader.

Then as Kristofferson has written, going to the beach and wailing at the moon for all that was lost because of that "FREEDOM".

Yeah, be my guest, you are free.

But actions =consequences.

And you ain't gonna get it from anyone but Hillary in 2016.
Now, you may say you ain't gonna get it from Hillary either, but you sure as Hell ain't gonna get it from anyone else named Jeb Bush, Chris Chrstie, Rubio, Santorium, Huckabee, etc.

BTW, your last line is all telling.
I do not know if you realize it or not, but your last line says 100% of everything.

[liberal_at_heart]

35. you better believe actions have consequences and just as you blame me for social issue losses I

blame you for economic issue losses. I'm done with this conversation.

[graham4anything]

37. It's MY right to continue it.

being that my conversation is not based on any singular person and in retrospect, every single word I always say is indeed true.

Selling LBJ and Jimmy Carter down the river, well, ...

and 9-11 bankrupt the world. Had Al Gore won (winning=being seated, nothing else matters if one is not seated), 9-11 would not have happened.
Note it was President Obama that got OBL, not the Bush's, who were happy to keep America bankrupt all 7 years after 9-11.

any protest vote will lead to Jeb Bush being 45. A simple, stated fact.

Would you have voted for John V. Lindsay for President in 1972?
There in lies the question people should have to answer.
John V. Lindsay actually was, what people have dreamed Bobby would be.

(btw, I again do NOT hold it against Elizabeth Warren for being a republican in the past and voting for Reagan and Bush. Because I trust that she has learned now which party is on her side, and which isn't, and she would NOT IMHO vote for Jeb Bush, nor want him to become President in 2016, and she will vote for Hillary if Hillary is the nominee).

The point is moving forward for which of the two will do more.

and again, would you have voted for John V. Lindsay for President in 1972?

[liberal_at_heart]

38. It's also my right to put you on ignore.

[graham4anything]

39. JFK so truely said "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do"

Truer words were never said than those.

Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your country.

Because yeah, unions and Reagan, there was a great tight connection there. In all the wrong ways.

If only JVL won in 1972, ...what a wonderful, wonderful world it would be.
There has never been a populist, true to heart, like JVL was.
When the nation burned JVL kept NYC standing tall and proud.

Had JVL been President, the WTC and NYC still would be standing tall and proud.

But one can't whine and wish for things that never will be, one needs to go FORWARD.

And President Obama is the best thing there is since JVL in 1972.
Too bad some tossed JVL into the river.

I am working for the continuation of President Obama's agenda forever.
10% of something is a helleva lot better than 100% of nothing.

[rhett o rick]

113. "10% of something is a helleva lot better than 100% of nothing. "

Today you rationalize settling for 10% and tomorrow you'll rationalize 9%. It's the conservatives that try to get us to "settle" for less because it's better than nothing. With that philosophy we'll end up with nothing.

And maybe you are happy with 10% but millions of Americans are getting 0%, losing homes, retirements, jobs, health care, and living in cars. Ask them if they like your 10%. Will you ever draw a line? or just keep retreating?

I dont see your conservatives fighting for freedoms lost with the Patriot Act, domestic spying, or indefinite detention.

Interesting how you want to blame liberals (those that would vote for Nader) and not the oligarchs that own most of Congress.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

115. It's just the usual "not as bad" bullshit worded differently.

[graham4anything]

116. So, did you complain when RFK spied on Dr. King?

Anyone who voted for Nader voted for W.
Nader himself admits he threw the race. Why deny Nader's own words?
So anyone must be happy with the Bush's who voted for Nader.
99% of the country does not like Nader.

[rhett o rick]

123. Sorry, I am not going to bite. nm

[HughBeaumont]

214. "You lost me at 1%" - Please explain that.

This ought to be good. You don't think there IS such a thing or that they're overwhelming advantages are NOT affecting nearly every aspect of middle/working/poor life?

[patrice]

198. Liberals could make that demand of centrists if Liberals/the Left could SUCCEED. They don't succeed

because they threaten social and economic issues.

When it's between an un-articulated vision, without any road map, and with some indeterminate timeline, and some very fine, noble and actually authentic principles vs. care for a sick child or any other concrete NEED, people opt for more immediate forms of problem solving.

I think what Liberals should do is to learn how to do real base-building without threatening progress on social issues. No one needs to really lose sight of who they are in more inclusive relationships. That begins by understanding that public political threats produce the OPPOSITE effect that one might intend, because the opposition KNOWS all they have to do is wait for those who are threatening to make good on their threats, which failures will then snowball with others who were never part of the Left to begin with and never would be, but are just reacting to political failures that are affecting what they need.

Yes that threat with ones vote can an should be used in the right situation at the right time, in a very specific way, but blanket erosion of the only base there is for social justice only keeps the Left/Liberals permanently on the outside, because they are hurting the only ones who can be their natural allies and give them the kind of success they need to help them build more of a base for the Left.

And that pipe-dream that something big will happen to bring it all down and "we'll start all over" neglects to factor in that Liberals won't be the only one's "starting over". It won't be just like throwing a switch and presto chango everyone is on the Left. There will be much more REGRESSION than people realize. A lot of the resources that the Left needs in order to succeed politically can be lost to the time and stress of that kind of environment.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

126. There was no "mass exodus" in 1968

The race was so close that we didn't know till the next afternoon that Nixon had won.

I was a student at the University of Minnesota, and every time I arrived at a new class, people would ask, "Have you heard any new results? Have you heard any new results?"

Nixon won by a hair, and if Humphrey (and LBJ) had disavowed the Vietnam War, they would have won.

[patrice]

199. I remember too. & If HHH had won, Nixon wouldn't have split Labor & choked all of the poorer unions

but the Farm Workers.

[patrice]

201. +1!

[Fumesucker]

32. A lot of us in my generation remember how the unions were largely pro-Vietnam war

It's made it very difficult to be strongly pro-union, unions came out as socially conservative in that era.

Indeed I knew quite a few union members in 2003, I can't think of a single one who was against the Iraq war.

The unions doomed themselves when they bought into the social conservative ethos, no not all of them did and not all the union members but enough did that I for one saw no reason other than more money to consider joining a union. Why would I join an organization that for the most part is working against my ideals?

[graham4anything]

36. The Serenity Canard again always holds true, corny as it is

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.


and btw, 3000 people died on 9-11.
ALL the firemen and the cops were AMERICAN UNION members. ALL OF THEM.

Have the wisdom to know that you are never going to stop wars.
They have happened since the Big Bang, and they will happen centuries from now.
The wars may be different then than they are now, then they were in the past.
But they will happen.

with acceptance of that wisdom, ignore all the war stuff and focus on that which one
can change.

And accept that 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

And that the USA was built on compromise in all forms, and wishing for 100% is nice, but it ain't gonna happen.

1977-1978-first part of 1979 were as close as it could get to perfect happiness and times.
And like JVL in NYC was crucified for what he did in future years and tossed in the river, Jimmy Carter in the nation will NOT happen that way again. So many democratic people did not like him, let alone those on the other side.
What a damn shame it was.

But in that knowledge of knowing Jimmy Carter could not return as Jimmy Carter, he brought to us, Barack Obama, and this time Carter and Kennedy were on the same side.
Selling President Obama down the river, well, how did Ronald Reagan do for those in 1980 when his term caused 1 million and more to die from AIDS because he did nothing, and started wars, and gave us 41(who for all intent and purpose was President for 7 of the 8 reagan years anyhow, much like Cheney was during W's term).(and Cheney was created by Bush in the first place, not vice versa).

So, well, the stupid corny serenity canard.

Don't rail against the system, change the parts that can be better.

Things get a little easier once you understand.

But you are of course free to do as you choose.

BTW, read up on Mayor John V. Lindsay. And remember one tid-bit- JVL got MORE primary votes in the few 1972 primaries he ran in, then eventual nominee George McGovern.
Little remembered fact.

And read up-he was the #1 populist, union person.
read up on what happened to his great name after that.(if you don't already know).

[hay rick]

63. Does the current Democratic Party completely embody your ideals?

I'm a union member and I demonstrated against the war in Iraq. As I remember, my union (NALC) didn't have a foreign policy.

[Fumesucker]

95. Considering my age and where I live the likelihood of me ever being in a union is nil

And the union members I personally know are every single one more culturally conservative than I am, some of them a great deal so.

Like my former son in law, a union member who made sure to tell me he voted for "everyone with an R by their name".

[LWolf]

66. This union member was right here in '03,

and quite clearly against the Iraq war.

[socialist_n_TN]

72. I think he said pretty clearly that the unions were for the Vietnam war....

And guess what? I was there AND a Boilermaker (shop steward no less) in the early 70s and a lot of union members WERE supporters of the Vietnam war. Especially a lot of the older members and CERTAINLY a lot of the leadership. Now, it was different for my generation in the unions then who opposed US policy in large numbers, but I could see the point of young people who were distrustful of the unions simply BECAUSE of that stance. Hell, Jimmy Hoffa and the TEAMSTERS of all unions, supported Nixon. Vietnam was THE issue and it was pretty black and white for most people. My early Marxist background allowed me to see past this one issue and didn't turn me off to unions in general, but most people don't (and didn't) have that background. Vietnam WAS the issue. And for most, the ONLY issue.

I think it had changed some by '03 and the Iraq war, but I'm sure some (most?) of the LEADERSHIP of the unions were at least somewhat supportive of the Iraq adventure. After all, the polls showed that, at one point, 90% of the people WERE supportive, so it would stand to reason that this included union members too. Also, remember that most union leaderships are to the right of the membership, so YOU personally, could have been against the Iraq war and your leadership could have been supportive.

[LWolf]

138. .

<snip>

"Indeed I knew quite a few union members in 2003, I can't think of a single one who was against the Iraq war."

I know what Fumesucker said. I know which part I was responding to.

I remember that much of the country was scared into war by the Bush administration's fear mongering. I remember that those of us who did not support the war were in the minority, whether we were union members or not; that the rest of the craven nation caved; fear and the drums of vengeance drove them. It stands to reason that a minority will not be a majority in a subgroup. Union membership was not a factor in whether or not one was for, or against, the Iraq war. Not where I stood.

As far as most union leaderships being to the right of the membership, I can't speak for most. Mine certainly is. My local union sometimes does a good job of representing members in contract negotiations. Sometimes not. As far as political action goes, our national leadership is always pandering to the Democrat, even when that Democrat is destroying us. I urged them, in the last 2 elections, not to endorse any candidate. They won't do that, though, hoping that their pandering will gain them some points when the election is over. Which it hasn't. Not with membership, and not with the current administration.

[socialist_n_TN]

162. Yeah, my apologies. I posted focusing on the Vietnam part.....

and just didn't pay attention to the Iraq part of the original post in this sub thread. Mea culpa.

[LWolf]

211. Accepted.

[Phillip McCleod]

78. yep spot on.

in 1992 i was 19 and got to vote for the 1st time.. bill clinton, duh.. i lived in atlantic highlands, new jersey at the time boarding with a friend's uncle.. big in his local union.. electricians' if i remember correctly..

and yeah he voted clinton, too..

he also railed against the 'n***ers', 'k*kes', 'f*gs' at the dinner table *every single night*. i lasted all of two weeks dining with them (a requirement of being a boarder in his home, he told us). then i had to move out. couldn't do it. couldn't keep my big yap shut and the middle-class white irish-catholic 'daddy' at the head of the table wouldn't have me making him look stupid, small and racist in front of his family. i was asked to leave.

that was my last close-up encounter with blue-collar union types. from then on i have preferred the great unwashed.. poor, vocal and most of all.. progressive.

[tabbycat31]

86. That could just be Atlantic Highlands

Google the name Anna Little--- she was the Highlands mayor for years and has run unsuccessfully for Congress twice. She's NJ's Michelle Bachmann.

[Phillip McCleod]

90. i don't know how things are now..

..i know my own parents' blue-collar blue-voting attitudes have changed vis-a-vis LGBT rights since then, but they were never of the culturally bigoted mentality as east coast working-class in those days.

than tone and mentality are part of why i can't stand ed schultz, even if i agree with him 95% of the time. there's a definite privileged paternalistic attitude among white working-class of being the 'backbone' of the party and so should receive deference. i've encountered it not just in atlantic highlands (i also lived in east orange, red bank and eatontown) or even just new jersey. i'm sorry but it's somewhat a prevailing attitude in the male-dominanted union culture we as a party have inherited.

[xchrom]

42. du rec. nt

[MadHound]

44. The Democratic party will continue to swing to the right as long as the left lets them,

Which is why there is a need for a healthy, liberal, third party movement in this country, it keeps the Democratic party honest. With it, the left is not taken for granted by the Democrats, and we see genuine liberal legislation supported by the Democratic party. Without it, all the Democratic party does is pay polite lip service, and demand that we fall in line every four years("who else you gonna vote for, a Republican?&quot .

[hay rick]

50. I agree.

I want a better Democratic Party- not one that just wins some elections. I want a party that wins elections and governs well. Not a party that negotiates massive corporate-rights free trade agreements, puts Social Security on the chopping block, and reinforces too big to fail banks.

Right now, liberals are "stuck voters" who are offered the choice between bad and worse. We need to turn that around. We need to force the Dems in the "center" to move back to the left or face defeat. Hello primaries.

[treestar]

45. It is quite sad for the left to play the victim like this

We have freedom of speech and don't have to depend on the MSM as much as previously.

It sounds like the left has been defeated and has nothing to say but that they are victims with "no voice."

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. It's sad to engage in a personal attack

Not surprised though.

[madfloridian]

59. They are the victim. The people quoted in the OP made them victims. Deliberately.

Trust me, right now the biggest victims are the poor, those in need, and close to my heart the teachers and the public schools.

Of course the left are victims. As to having a voice, what good is that if those with pre-set agendas do not choose to listen.

We have plenty to say, but who is listening?

[Eleanors38]

96. That victimization thing...

The FR knows about this more than anyone. They know that everyime the term is used the message is: "See? They are weak! They must have government -- even their own stinking party, who doesn't want 'em either -- come wipe their fannies." They LOVE victimization politics because they know weakness. They are bullies because that's how you deal with victims. Through strength they kick the weak victims til they squeal like a pig. A circular, self-fulfilling prophecy, and the RW calls the shots.

I don't like the term "victimization."

[patrice]

203. +1 THAT's what keeps what calls itself "the Left" marginalized & hence from becoming what would

authentically be the Left.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

119. When the left fights back by not voting for the centrists the centrists claim 'victimhood".

[socialist_n_TN]

169. Funny how that works isn't it.....

[treestar]

177. Not voting makes you the ultimate victim

Especially when you can vote. Nothing stops you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

187. I always vote.

I vote policies not party or politician.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[liberal_at_heart]

194. That is a great quote by John Quincy Adams

Centrist democrats try to tell us our votes are lost or worse yet work for the enemy. But when you vote your conscience your vote is never lost.

[99Forever]

46. Excellent post.

The Democratic Party has been gutted and is a hollow shell filled with ...

... well, I won't go on. We all know the truth.

[forestpath]

48. K&R The Democratic party now seems like just a branch of the Republican party.

Except for a few - very few - like Alan Grayson.

[Cal Carpenter]

52. Understanding the fundamental differences between 'liberal' and 'left'

is important here. Conflating those words, or believing that they are *not* mutually exclusive, is part of what stalls us out or gives us unrealistic expectations of the Dem party. 'Liberalism', while socially left-leaning, is a center-right political system. Period. There is nothing 'Left' about liberalism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. And that leads to the obvious nerd question?

If you are talking of Classical liberalism, you got a very partial point. If you are talking of New Deal Liberalism, it is centre left by any analysis, with tinges of very much European Social democracy.

Most "on the left" think Roosevelt, not John Stuart Mill.

[Cal Carpenter]

57. I am talking about the results of policy

not theory. No need for nerdiness, just sober observation.

Where are we now? A right wing economy with increasing inequality and lower wages, less power for workers (in the workplace and the pocketbook), less protections for the common good (from the workplace to the environment). For any step forward we take 2 steps back.

FDR and the New Deal were an anomaly. The gains made then are basically gone now, and they were made out of desperation to save capitalism - not as an attempt at fundamental, lasting change to the system.

Many decades later, we have had economic policy pushed by both parties that have further codified the right of for-profit companies' interests to trump those of the common good (decades of wars and colonialism, NAFTA, CAFTA, ACA, etc) within our own country and internationally.

Romanticizing the past will get us nowhere.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Forgive me, but social security was a center left policy

The NLBR was as well, my lord the right, for the first time in US history, for labor to strike was very much left, not even center left.

Go read Roosevelt's second bill of rights, very much left.

That is what people have in mind when they talk left, not John Stuart Mill.

That is what people want. Let me repeat that.

Take the labels off, and Americans are very much a center left country. What you see are the results of decades of propaganda...and forgive me for saying it, but you have fallen for it.

Our power elites have as well, I fear that nothing short of revolution will wake them up...and not all revolutions involve violent uprisings.

But you know how powerful propaganda has been, shaped by the Cold War, American Exceptionalism and religiosity, that even organized labor gave up the commie right to strike...that is propaganda at work and the Cold War. Yup, working still on what has led to this sad state of affairs when Unions vote to give up the strike.

[99Forever]

64. Personally...

... parsing definitions is a worthless distraction to me.

It doesn't require a highbrow debate for most of us to have a pretty good idea of what is meant by "the left" or "liberal." The issues are life and death to us, not some abstract concept to be batted around by "think tanks" and "researchers" and well insulated "policy wonks."

Hey, but that just my take.

[socialist_n_TN]

171. Knowing the definitions isn't just an academic exercise.......

If you don't know he differences between say, "socialist" and "liberal" you might think that they are merely degrees of the same thing. So you might be a socialist in your beliefs and wind up expecting WAY too much from a "liberal" politician or political party. Conversely, if you're liberal and you get involved with a REAL socialist or leftist group, it might scare the shit out of you and put you off politics altogether. It pays to know these definitions, especially since it does not involve a huge amount of research.

[99Forever]

173. I'm not interested in your filibuster.

Save it for someone who gives a damn about wonky horseshit. I care about REAL WORLD issues, the shit killing people RIGHT FUCKING NOW, not a bunch of academic claptrap.

[madfloridian]

68. Not sure I understand.

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2013, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Of course I could say that those I am writing about are those who stand for the values that Democrats have traditionally stood for, not the right wing values of cutting safety nets and destroying public education among others. That is what our party is standing for right now. That's tragic, no matter what you call us...left, liberal, whatever.

They set out to destroy this side of the party, the side that is really supportive of the people and their needs.

[ProSense]

55. Here are things

that really will make a difference in people's lives. In fact, they will be transformational in the long run: health care reform, student loan reform and Wall Street reform.

Rubio: ‘ObamaCare’s Full Repeal Remains Our Ultimate Goal’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022552023

Senate Republicans Unanimously Support Repeal of Student Loan Reform Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022557183

(CFPB Orders) American Express to pay $85 million in customer refunds
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021447012

From the OP:

Unprofitable mind-sets sold off to be more efficient. We have learned through the years that a whole lot of Democratic ideals were considered "unprofitable mind-sets"...and they had to go.

The people mentioned in the OP have been obstacles to getting these passed. Evan Bayh was always a tool. Blanche Lincoln lost her seat because she voted against the health care law.

Make no mistake, there are still tools in the Senate (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022553362), but they're not likely to act as unified as the DLC elements of the past, which included Joe Lieberman (who was primarily responsible for killing the public option).

[Starry Messenger]

61. K&R

[randr]

69. Tea Party caucus-28, Progressive caucus-70+

Hell I just found out there is a progressive caucus.
Whose fault is this. The progressives don't yell loud enough!

[madfloridian]

74. If they yell and no one covers it, is there still noise?

Do you remember that millions marched against the Iraq invasion, and no major media covered it?

The tea party has huge huge funding from billionaires and much access to media.

[TheKentuckian]

120. They would draw coverage (nasty though it might be) if they said NO and

insisted on demands being met or "leadership" can pound sand.

Numbers are meaningless if they do not come with demands and consequences.

You have to be willing to settle for nothing and have to be able to say no to assert power, mewing like kittens and always following the company line makes you meaningless in a debate.

The people that are willing to say no are the ones who are accommodated and negotiated with.

[dreamnightwind]

150. There's some truth to that

but it's mostly about whether or not your yelling serves the interests of the people who own everything. If so, 50 fools with teabags hanging off of their hats is a grass-roots revolution to be reckoned with. If not, a million people in the D.C. streets simply get ignored.

The progressive caucus could use a little more backbone, so I'm not arguing against that. Their budget proposal is pretty good, unfortunately it won't be taken seriously by any of our Democratic leaders. I can see where this would be an opportunity for them to refuse to go along with any more centrist budget proposal, but them our Dems in leadership would just cut them out and fashion a bargain with the Republicans rather than incorporate the ideas of the progressive caucus. Why? Because they're on the phone, every day, dialing for dollars from the top corporations, and they have to be able to justify the campaign donations they are seeking.

One very interesting point in MF's OP was that the corporatists set up a fund of money that could be used to insulate the corporate Dems from popular backlash as they betrayed our interests. We need to do the same for the left. If our politicians could fearlessly support good policy without thinking about what they will tell corporations when they make the donor calls, it would be a game changer. We need a large, deeply funded progressive "bank" that our politicians can draw from for campaign money, and we need to make damn sure that money goes to progressives.

[liberal_at_heart]

88. oh, wow. I have heard of the progressive caucus but had no idea there were 70.

Why don't we hear more from them?

[patrice]

206. They have been trying to communicate about their budget proposal. Petition link in my post #205

Pardon, if this is duplicative information for you.

[patrice]

205. Have you seen the CPC's Budget Proposal? Links here:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70#.UUeALbstFks.facebook

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/27/1647221/progressive-sequester-plan-most-popular/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/02/05/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/Balancing%20Act%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf#.UUd7-2hHX0E.facebook

Petition link, PLEASE SHARE:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-consider-and-promote-progressive-caucus-budget-plan-we-feel-it-most-equitable/10078lWf

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Yet, the 3rd Way/DLC types still expect us to vote for their candidates and blame us when they lose.

[marmar]

76. k/r

[Phillip McCleod]

79. it's time to start showing up at our local dem party meetings then.

we proud 'leftists' don't show up.. not in numbers that count. if blue-dogs and centrists have taken over the party whose fault is it when they're the ones with the time and energy to influence local politics, which yeah does spread outward to the state and nation. look at what repugs did already.. they control local politics nationwide.

*that said*..

..when we socialist-leaning leftists have shown up in the past (i have anyway) there is no place for us. we are *not* welcome. we are the *opposite* of welcome. freaking republicans would be more welcome at my local dem party meetings than you.. if you're as left-leaning as i am.. or me. to those in control of my local dem party, us leftists are the far graver danger to their continued rule than any gun-nut or small-gov't whacko.

sad but true reality.

doesn't mean we shouldn't start showing up and making a scene to *change* that ugly fact, and take our party back from the centrists who control it locally. in fact i'll take my own advice.

[Egalitarian Thug]

82. K&R

[ProSense]

84. Please

respond to this poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022559350

Thanks in advance.

[southernyankeebelle]

85. The democratic party has left the poor people behind and they embrace corporate

welfare all the way. thanks to this posting it explains so much why we on the left feel left way out. The party of today is just repbulican lite only alittle nicer speaking. They are willing to give us a few crumbs enough for us to bearly get by to support our families. I kept wondering why they politicans never went to the low income areas of West Virginia where the white poor really have a hard time. Or even to the inner cities where the black and brown people are having very hard times. They don't give a damn about any of us really. I don't know if I will even vote next time.

[WillyT]

89. HUGE K & R !!!

[progressoid]

99. Reed: "Our next challenge is to deliver on that promise (to the middle class)"

So far, your delivery has been a colossal failure Harry.

[Octafish]

102. Alex Cary documented the 'leveraged buy-out' of Mass Media in his History of Propaganda...

To help spread light on the Mighty MIC-Corporate Wurlitzer, Maria Galardin's TUC (Time of Useful Consciousness) Radio:

Alex Carey: Corporations and Propaganda
The Attack on Democracy

The 20th century, said Carey, is marked by three historic developments: the growth of democracy via the expansion of the franchise, the growth of corporations, and the growth of propaganda to protect corporations from democracy. Carey wrote that the people of the US have been subjected to an unparalleled, expensive, 3/4 century long propaganda effort designed to expand corporate rights by undermining democracy and destroying the unions. And, in his manuscript, unpublished during his life time, he described that history, going back to World War I and ending with the Reagan era. Carey covers the little known role of the US Chamber of Commerce in the McCarthy witch hunts of post WWII and shows how the continued campaign against "Big Government" plays an important role in bringing Reagan to power.

John Pilger called Carey "a second Orwell", Noam Chomsky dedicated his book, Manufacturing Consent, to him. And even though TUC Radio runs our documentary based on Carey's manuscript at least every two years and draws a huge response each time, Alex Carey is still unknown.

Given today's spotlight on corporations that may change. It is not only the Occupy movement that inspired me to present this program again at this time. By an amazing historic coincidence Bill Moyers and Charlie Cray of Greenpeace have just added the missing chapter to Carey's analysis. Carey's manuscript ends in 1988 when he committed suicide. Moyers and Cray begin with 1971 and bring the corporate propaganda project up to date.

This is a fairly complex production with many voices, historic sound clips, and source material. The program has been used by writers and students of history and propaganda. Alex Carey: Taking the Risk out of Democracy, Corporate Propaganda VS Freedom and Liberty with a foreword by Noam Chomsky was published by the University of Illinois Press in 1995.

SOURCE: http://tucradio.org/new.html

Thank your for another outstanding post and thread, madfloridian! If you find a moment, here's the first part (scroll down at the link for the second part) on Carey.

http://tucradio.org/AlexCarey_ONE.mp3

Helps explain how we got here and what we need to do to move forward, starting with putting the "Public" into Airwaves again.

[madfloridian]

130. Thanks, octafish. I will be checking that out.

I was not aware of that site.

[Octafish]

180. Maria Gilardin is TOPS and TUC Radio is an amazing resource, an antidote to MSM...

I especially appreciate the Michael Parenti archive, history and analysis seldom heard anywhere:

http://www.tucradio.org/parenti.html

Outstanding, for those who can handle the truth.

[OnyxCollie]

188. You turned me on to TUC Radio/Michael Parenti about a year ago.

Thank you for that.

I've listened to almost all the shows there, some multiple times. I even cited two of Michael Parenti's lectures in my thesis!

Pirate Television is also a great resource.

http://www.piratetvseattle.com/

[Octafish]

212. Thank you for the heads-up, OnyxCollie!

Pirate Television is looking good: Lots of individuals and what they're about -- a resource of Truth, which is the one thing fascists fear most.

[Doctor_J]

149. And this history ended BEFORE the Hate Radio era

so it's actually gotten much worse since Carey wrote his history.

[Octafish]

181. ABC and the Rise of Rush Limbaugh

CIA and national security types have played a major role in the ascension of the right via media.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm

[colsohlibgal]

107. Bingo

Remember what happened when true liberals ran for president, people like Kucinich and Feingold. The MSM immediately ignored and marginalized them right out of the race.

Recently, on MSM you heard about the GOP Ryan budget, the official dem Patty Murray budget, but almost nothing about the progressive caucus budget.

I hate it when people equate the far left with the far right. Or call us kooks. It's kooky to give average people a chance, to give every one an almost equal shot at good health care and education? To want a system that treats everyone equally, women/men, straight/bi or gay, or trans.

JFK spoke his famous words about that, his "if by liberal you mean...." talk

I'm kind of with Bill Maher about this, if people really paid attention and studied a bit and yes, were a bit brighter, we'd be in better shape - as with all those tea party types who want to cut spending but don't want to cut anything mentioned, the "take your government hands off my medicare" crowd that Alexandra Pelosi brilliantly exposed.

[liberal_at_heart]

108. I loved Kucinich. Everyone laughed at him but he was one of the only ones with the courage

to say no to the Iraq War.

[markiv]

109. Henry Wallace would not recognise today's Democratic party

he was a great man, a true progressive and a self made rich as hell man, a rare combination

[Jakes Progress]

111. K&R for one of DU's best and brightest.

Everyone should make a point of reading everything MadFloridian writes. I have disagreed with her, but never found her sloppy or uninformed.

(Dumb me. I originally posted this to a subthread. Quite a wrong place to put it. MF's posts are always well-researched, thought-out, and worth the time.)

[ljm2002]

117. The left has always been marginalized in this country...

...because that is where the true threat to the oligarchy lies, and they know it.

A left populist message would resonate with the majority of the population, if recent polls are any guide. BUT, because of the unrelenting propaganda against the left and liberalism, the message would have to be presented as a purely populist message without reference to its roots in leftist thinking.

Everybody hates the fat cat banksters. There was something like 90% opposition to the bank bailouts.

Everybody hates that health care costs continue to rise and that insurers continue to take advantage of all of us.

A huge majority of people across all political and religious persuasions believes that birth control should be readily available to all women.

Liberals and conservatives alike are concerned about the environment and want to leave a better world for their children.

But we have allowed our overall agreement on policies to be splintered into a game of "who's to blame". It's not just the right who have taken advantage of our divisions; we all know it's the bought-and-paid-for politicians on both sides of the aisle who are playing us like a fiddle so they can continue to take their dirty dollars from dirty lobbyists and continue on in power.

Must we wait for the world to burn, before we can point at them and ask: Power to what purpose, sir? To what purpose?

[YoungDemCA]

141. Very well said.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

121. They'll never hear us until we make them earn our votes.

They rely on the "not as bad" meme to lure the left into voting for them and then blame us when we don't.

[davidn3600]

124. Democrats know that they do not have to earn our vote...that it's already locked in

They already know we are not going to vote for the Republican. We have no leverage to force the party to the left.

That's the problem with a two-party monopoly. You are constantly voting for the lesser of two evils which results in the law of diminishing returns to set in.

[madfloridian]

132. I agree.

[graham4anything]

151. Pres.Obama is the #1 greatest president since LBJ.MOST democratic voters LOVE HIM

It is bull to say lesser of two evils.

I am sure some will say they hated LBJ too.

Like LBJ said "If tomorrow he walked on water, the haters would say LBJ couldn't swim"

Ralph Nader and Ross Perot and Ron Paul are all major Bush backers as proven by their votes.
They were not liberals.

Of course, many democratic voters today would have hated AES as they did and voted for
Reagan the first, Ike the miliatry general who was 100% against anything a democratic person would have wanted him to be, til he said ONE sentence out of a zillion probably spoken in haste and misinterpreted too, being that Ike was the one who started Vietnam and who took care of the German POWS at the end of the war, no way Ike actually believed that one line.

All the way with LBJ, but people sold him down the river. Twas a shame.
63 years it could have been.(or would you believe 86 years of democratic presidents, instead of just 4 and counting.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

166. "Hey, Hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?" Weren't words of love for a "great" president.

Rather they were words of contempt for a war criminal.

[graham4anything]

167. Eisenhower started the war. Soundbytes sound nice, but are very misguided, dontchathink?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

170. And, your "liberal" hero escalated it to the point of killing millions and refused to end it.

All to show he was "tough" on Communism and please the right.

And, the people shouting well earned epithets and accusations at him weren't conservatives or moderates.

[graham4anything]

175. What a whitewashing of history. LBJ was far to the left of McCarthy & McGovern put together.

99.9% of all people, were 100% for Afghanastan and Korea and WW2 and WW1, etc.
It is a myth that the supposed far left perpetrates these days to make people forget that.

Late years of Vietnam were not liked, nor was Iraq, but all the others had bipartisian appeal.
And if you remember, it was Nixon that ended the war, because of sabatoge during the LBJ years, and it was JFK that hired McNamara in the first place.

But it is all a distraction to a simple fact.
LBJ would have creamed Nixon, and the Wallace racists wouldn't have won what they did,
proving yet again 3rd parties ruin everything.
Look to California and their 40 electoral votes, all of which went to Nixon, who received Mitt's 47% in California, THANKS to 3rd party of Wallace. 53% of California did not vote for HHH.

At heart, LBJ was a bigger peacenik than George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy and far to the left on all the more important social issues than both put together, who really were just singular issue candidates. LBJ was also far to the left of RFK on social issues.
If they had been President in 1964, they would have done the same thing. So would have
anyone.
You forget, losing was not an option back then, which is why there was a space race to the moon at the same exact time. There was no room for losing.

You also forget there was almost NO chance Bobby Kennedy would have been the nominee
and there was almost no chance HHH was going to win the electoral college.
(rules were later changed to stop that, for well, not sure if it has until 2008 been for the better.)

Nixon did a good job at exploiting the fracture and the racism.

but in retrospect, did Reagan/Bush/Bush and in future Jeb, bring you peace?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

185. Oh, right. LBJ was a real peacenik. "Losing was not an option." But, he did lose.

And, it was an option. He just lacked the courage and decency to end a lost war. He was a coward trying to hide behind "patriotism", the flag, and the troops he sent to kill and die so he could look tough.

In the end he was merely pathetic.

[graham4anything]

207. 1968 showed what happened (prior to 2000) when some 3rd party ruined things.

Without Wallace, and just 4percent more in California, LBJ easily would have been President.

HHH never stood a chance BECAUSE of Wallace.

Without LBJ Wallace had the south. HHH had nothing in the south to latch onto.
LBJ would have overcome that.

1968 was a fascinating race. Perhaps the most intriguing election and the most
what could have been.

We never had a battle of titans.
Which is what America needs.

2016 will bring forth the titans.

And finally then the battle for the soul of the country, liberal vs. conservative with two who could win will be such.

Hillary/Napolitano vs. Bush/??(Christie?Carson?Portman?Condie?)
With Hillary kicking Bush's rear end to finally ending their presidential runs forever. Three strikes and the Bush's are out.

But never agian a 3rd party. Never Again.

and the war did end, but long time later, and it was from the republicans responsiblity.

LBJ losing gave rise to the Bush family.
So if one doesn't like Bush's, it goes without saying they should have begged LBJ back in the race. He would have beaten Nixon. HHH was an inferior candidate(though a great person, super nice guy, and great views, but he just was a terrible candidate for 1968.
(and he would have been the nominee if Bobby was still around. Bobby's time could have been 1972 and 1976.)

[Jakes Progress]

157. Yep. And the drift to the right

becomes a rolling train.

Meanwhile the appeasers and enablers cheer every step to the right, crowing that at least it wasn't two steps. Then they cheer the two steps to the right crowing that it wasn't three steps.

It's inexorable.

[zentrum]

133. Really important article. Thanks. n/t

[Rex]

135. I wish this wasn't true.

But it is. Sadly. Great, yet very disturbing, post MF.

[Dragonfli]

137. Very well done, thank you for posting on this issue, you missed very little, the Koch connection

is embarrassing to the DLC, so I'd like to mention that as it demonstrates well their true intentions and allies.

Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council

http://www.correntewire.com/why_its_feature_not_bug_koch_family_funds_dlc

One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

[stupidicus]

139. Good post. Nothing new to those of us that have lived it

come to understand it, and use it to explain things like why chained cpi, etc, are "on the table".

It's certainly something the younger "dem" crowd needs to learn and understand, particulary before they lock horns with the older donkeys over criticsms of the "third way/New Dem" efforts. It's the reason why the politics in DC have increasingly moved rightward as the citizenry in this country have moved leftward. The tailwind has long been the myth of us being a "center/right" nation, fighting the non-existent headwinds generated by an equally mythical "liberal" media.

[limpyhobbler]

142. What is described here is just the latest installment of purging the left from US politics.

Capitalists don't like competition so they try to eliminate it.

It started in the 1920s with the demonizing of communists and socialists. It continued with HUAC in the 1950s. Continued in the 80's and 90's with the DLC and Third Way, when corporate America finally purchased the Democratic Party. By Clinton years Democrats had reached parity with the Republicans for corporate funding. And in 2008 Obama actually raised more corporate money than Romney. The voices of the people are basically locked out of mainstream debate.

All these chapters in history comprise a single story of the ongoing incremental marginalization and exclusion of the American left. What we're seeing now isn't anything new.

What American liberals have failed to recognize is that because they help exclude radicals, communists, socialists, and anarchists from legitimate politics, they weaken themselves, because they have nobody to form alliances with in government went it comes to issues like protecting health care, pensions, civil liberties, and the environment.

[YoungDemCA]

143. In my experience, "Centrism" has been used as an excuse...

..for certain Democrats to sell the American people down the river, one popular public program at a time.

K&R

[dreamnightwind]

145. K & R from another unprofitable mindset

Excellent post, MF, thanks!

[idwiyo]

146. K&R

[Doctor_J]

147. Liberal is now an epithet among Dems too

in DC and at DU. That is why no one in DC is fighting for UHC, unions, jobs, environmental protections, the poor, public schools, or any public services.

[NRaleighLiberal]

174. kick and rec. n/t

[LeftInTX]

176. Kicked and bookmarked

[Rain Mcloud]

178. Still they wonder how the RW rose to prominence.

Go ahead cut off your left arm and then have the nerve to ask me for money every day in the mail.
Sacrificing your queen,3D chess or not is a recipe for losing relevance in the mind of the disenfranchised.
Go ahead forfeit SSI and don't stop there let the public service sector starve.
We don't need no steenking badges or firemen either,screw the dog catchers,teachers and librarians.
The job creators will not have to pay taxes again once those liberal moochers have gone toes up and there will be a new Neo-Con Paradise in this country instead of the one that they had hoped for in Iraq.
The DLC,like lambs to the slaughter,they are so goddammed gullible!

[mountain grammy]

179. I believe the military has been running the country since Truman stood up to

MacArthur in 1951. The military never trusted Democrats again. The 1952 election of General Eisenhower was a bloodless coup that entrenched the military in American politics. Only JFK looked like he would have the guts and the backing of the people to go against the military and once and for all establish the most important Democratic value of all; peace.

[patrice]

183. AGREE! That was demonstrated also because Henry Wallace lost the nomination to Truman.

And then Wallace's own words came back to us as window dressing for Eisenhower, who had to have listened to the floor fight at the convention that nominated Truman VERY carefully, as Democrats had solicited him pretty strongly to become a Democrat during the previous year.

Wallace was a visionary who knew we had to do something really REAL for the South, with the collaboration of LABOR, or lose the South; we all know how THAT turned out. At least half of Labor later got co-opted by Nixon (because they were pro-Vietnam War) and the Southern Strategy was born.

[defacto7]

184. Kick this incredible thread....

just to be a part of it. I can add nothing.

[Samantha]

191. Not that Al From cares, but liberals hold him in even more contempt than he holds us

As far as "them" making liberal a dirty word, that is all in their minds. I proudly advertise myself as a liberal, and I am not alone.

Al From and his DLC was such a successful PR endeavor, they had to shut down and change their organization's name. The truly annoying thing about the New Dems is that they pretend to speak for the Democrats when in reality they speak for a minority of trojan horses which have penetrated our parameters.

And why exactly does Al From think anyone would take the time to read an opinion piece of his? Someone should tell him that encouraging a political party to keep its distance from organized labor, feminists, etc. will leave that party out in the political cold huddling for warmth up against a Republican party likewise shivering from the cold.

It is time to quit playing defense and start initiating our offensive maneuvers.

Sam

[midnight]

195. K&R... Madflordian.... Thank you for your efforts this coming week!

Social Security Defenders blogathon kicks off Monday the 25th

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/23/1196505/-Social-Security-Defenders-blogathon-kicks-off-Monday-the-25th

[madfloridian]

202. Yep, mine is due the 28th.

Getting ideas for it now...hard to pull it all together.

[moondust]

200. Reagan was obviously "transformational."

I tend to think of that period as the beginning of the Washington-Wall Street axis that exists to serve itself, that to some extent forgot about the rest of the country except to exploit it for votes and profits. Financialization and profiteering are the domain of the Right, with some exceptions, but everyone was more or less forced to adapt to the paradigm.

Now after thirty years of mostly right-wing economics and marginalization of the Left, the inevitable decay and collapse from neglect and wealth concentration are widespread and growing. There's no telling at this point how much longer it can stagger on even if some minor fixes should somehow make it through the Republican Wall of Obstruction.

[Generation_Why]

204. The marginalization of the left is made easy by rigid, zealous ideologues...

That make it embarrassing, at times, to wear the label of liberal.

Just scroll through the threads list on GD at any given time and you'll see what I mean.

Some of the posters on this site would be horrifying if they ever obtained power.

[mountain grammy]

210. This is an excellent post and thread..

Took me over an hour to read it all, and I read every post.
For the most part, I agree with madfloridian and it should make all of us mad. Not only at the never ending trashing of liberals for the last 40+ years, but that we crawled into our shells and let it happen. I know, I for one, cowered at the constant barrage of criticism and hate directed at liberals. When Clinton was elected and the media painting him as a liberal, I finally saw the light. Fox news and conservative talk radio was changing the media.. the corporates learned that truth and challenging officials' statements now was considered "liberal bias" and they didn't have to follow those rules anymore. When I wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper about the lack of honest news reporting, I was confronted everywhere I went.
Many people I thought were intelligent, accused me of not respecting our sainted military and I was just an old anti war hippie who spit on soldiers coming home from Vietnam...Say what? My husband is a Vietnam vet, I said, my parents both served in WWII and my dad was a career Marine. Well, I was told, you are the problem, wanting a weak country run by a bunch of peaceniks while we are overrun by Communists. At first, I was so shocked by the reaction, I couldn't speak. When I did try to argue, I got talking points thrown in my face "Oh, that Clinton, he's just soooo sleazy." At the time, I had just bought my own business, and realized conservative town officials really didn't like us liberals. For the sake of my livelihood, it was 15 years before I wrote another letter. I was "marginalized," and I'm mad at myself for retreating, but I had plenty of company.
We've got a lot of ground to make up, and with the climate crisis upon us, we probably don't have enough time.

[madfloridian]

216. Oh wow did I ever relate to your post.

I wrote a lot of letters to the editors, and most of them got published. That was during the Dean campaign and the lead up to the Iraq invasion. It did not take long to learn that our neighbors were totally taken in by FOX. One of them yelled at us in our own home for speaking out against the war.

And you are right. My family, though mostly Republicans, had always been the kind, common sense kind of people. Bush's rhetoric fooled them. It got to where it was easier not to communicate.

Yes, they have trashed us for ages. It's a shame.