The Democratic "Tea Party"?

[kentuck]

There is a transition going on within the Democratic Party. There is a deep division between the Party loyalists and the "progressive" wing of the Party. Those that think these divisions will be healed by the next election may be whistling past the graveyard. There are many that do not want to discuss it - it will only help the "other" Party, they say.

But, we see the evidence all around us. The Netroots Nation, considered progressive, heckles and boos Nancy Pelosi because she defends the NSA against the whistleblower (traitor) Edward Snowden. Some Democrats are accused of throwing the President "under the bus". The disenchantment within the Democratic Party is real.

Will these differences be healed by the next election? It's possible, but not with the continued path the Party has been on. The names that have been bandied about as the next President will not fire up these Democrats that are still looking for hope and change.

They would rather lose by standing on Democratic Party principles than win with adopting Republican right-wing ideas. That may be an unthinkable position for many to comprehend? But that is the bridge that we must cross.

[cali]

1. what? transition? says who?

deep divisions? I doubt they're any deeper than they've been historically.

Your use of Netroots Nation as an example is a lousy one. Read the articles that make it clear that most attending still support the President.

And screw calling people "tea party" democrats.

And fuck no, I wouldn't rather lose the Presidency to the republicans.

Codswallop on top of nonsense.

[kentuck]

2. Thanks for clarifying your position, cali.

[cali]

5. My position is rather hard to pin down, ken

but I'll bet almost anything that you're wrong on this. Same thing was predicted prior to the 2012 election. It was a fail.

[kentuck]

7. Personally, I hope I am wrong.

But I see it here everyday. If we lose, the "progressives" will be blamed anyway. I think the Democratic Party has lost touch with the people. Of course, the Republican Party has never been in touch with the people. But the name of the game is to get your supporters to the polls. You do not do that by vilifying them or stabbing them in the back. The left is hungry and they want a piece of the pie.

[Eleanors38]

25. You touched on an important point, getting your people to the polls...

the people who do this are the activists, the worker bees. If they are discouraged enough, if they have little of their idealism left, they will vote for Democrats, but they will drop their activist role. I've seen this before. It is clear that the mainstream-corporatist Democratic "leadership" want nothing to do with progressive thought, and are willing to take a chance at turning off the liberal/progressive elements of the Party in favor of other constituencies and corporatist/financial interests.

I don't think there is a symmetrical Tea Party equivalence if for no other reason than thus far the TP folks have shown far more resolve and grind than a "lefty" equivalent. But maybe an amalgam of Occupy folks (once they get over their preOccupation with process) can come together with worker rights groups and, yes, disillusioned TPs will emerge to get at the internals of the Democratic Party.

[graham4anything]

41. If they would run for office AS DEMOCRATIC candidates, but they are anonymous and therefore

they have zero power.

Dr. King never needed a mask, in fact, Dr. King fought against those in masks.


Even the legendary Mark Rudd, on his website says, that working within the democratic party would have been better than what they did.

Take Ralph nader-(please)... he threw the election of 2000 to continue his whine, yet he could have run for senate or house and actually
done something, but he was at the end of the day, way too lazy to actually do any real job. This way he opening his whine vineyard
and distributed bottles of whine for whomever would listen.

[Monkie]

3. learn from the mistakes of the UK progressives and blair, they are now considered unelectable

what happened with in the UK with blair and "new-labour" parallels the rise of obama, he was also elected on a wave of hope after one of the worst periods of right-wing government the UK had seen, but when blair came to office, and did a complete right-turn, joined with bush and betrayed his progressive base it damaged the labour party considerably.
when the labour party refused to break with this past for fear of division, the wound was left to fester, and now, with a hugely unpopular right-wing government in power that is cutting services to the bone the support for labour has still not returned, the party is still divided, and widely considered as unelectable, and could be for a generation.

when given a choice between right-wing lite and the real deal "regular" voters are chosing the real thing in the UK, and progressives are discouraged and many stay home. with distrust in big business and bankers at a all time high there is a huge opportunity to persuade the "centrist" voters and even some "natural" right-winger's that progressive policies are the answer, there is a huge vacuum on the left begging to be filled.

i'll keep out of this discussion but felt this perspective from the UK could be illuminating.

[magellan]

37. That's an apt analogy

I was living in the UK when bLiar became PM. Although I couldn't vote, I was caught up in the overwhelming desire for a new direction. He squandered that fairly quickly. New Labour was a bust. It was a weird amalgamation that I can only describe in hindsight as Neocon and Neoliberal. It strayed too far from its roots. And that's pretty much the misguided path the Dems have taken here.

[newfie11]

4. It seems to me the Democratic Party has changed

One must decide if you want to vote for folks that will continue the way we are going now or more progressives.

There are a few great ones in the Democratic Party, but there are blue dogs and those in between. With gerrymandering the time maybe running out on getting Dems elected.

We have a president that I feel is in between.

What we have now has not any resemblance of the Party of the past.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. This is primarily an academic exercise

that is going on among and between a tiny subset of those interested in politics - notably due to the proliferation and availability of mass-communication via the internet (discussion boards, blogs, etc). The rest the citizenry is going on about their business living their lives while various forces battle it out trying to garner their attention. And the more the hysterics in the arguments, the more they are turned off.

[carolinayellowdog]

8. the faithful of both parties are turning against the leaders, with unpredictable results

when the leaders agree we need universal surveillance and the faithful agree we don't

[gordianot]

9. It is one thing to be upset, then think about President McCain or Romney.

Maybe a new Supreme Court Justice Scalia or a Vice President Palin and Vice President Ryan? I will take a weak knee wimpy Democrat who caves to Corporate intrests over full blown outright 100% blatant Fascism.

[kentuck]

10. I fear that is not going to work anymore...

Like the little boy that cried "Wolf!"... Caving to corporate interests and Fascism is too close to the same thing.

[NightWatcher]

11. Too early in the AM for false equivalency

Those of us who are more left leaning than the majority of the office holders from the Democratic Party are in no way the same as the TeaBaggers.

They obstruct daily business while holding their party hostage. We simply hope for more.

We're not insane, they are.

[canoeist52]

12. Sadly, we've lost the young generation.

They will simply not vote in the next election. Without their votes, we'll be stuck with 50/50 close elections.

[HereSince1628]

13. ISTM the democratic leaning 'wing' of a Democratic Party, wouldn't involve

the dutiful loyalty to an established elite, because that would be patently undemocratic.


Ponder that for a minute or two.

There IS a division but it's mostly between the leaders who assume themselves to be elite 'leaders' and the Party base who are disgruntled about a too apparent lack of the 'leaders' fulfilling the expectation the base has about being represented.

Supporters of REAL democracy wouldn't want leaders who proclaim themselves separated by elite status from the base.
And that is why the elite by invitation only good-old-politicians club known as the DLC had to change its name even if it's holdovers haven't changed their personal attitudes about their elite position.

[Th1onein]

55. What does "ISTM" mean?

[hootinholler]

14. Hey Kentuck

I generally agree with you, but what the fuck is this progressives aren't party loyalists shit? I see it the other way around, those DLC, er, Third Way (they had to change their name) centrists are the ones who have abandoned the party defined recently by FDR, JFK, LBJ and dragged it right from where we've been.

So in my mind progressives are the loyalists to the party. Go the fuck on and cross that bridge at least we know where we stand then. The fact is people would rather vote for a real republican rather than a republican lite democrat. People would rather vote for a real democrat than stands up than a republican. We don't need you to win. A funny thing happens when a real democrat runs, the people who are too disgusted to vote because they have nothing to vote for come in and vote for us.

So fuck you third way pricks sideways, and we ain't even close to the mother fucking racist selfish tea fucking baggers over here in the Democratic wing of the fucking democratic party. So why don't you bastards support the party by stop taking food from our children and grandparents and giving it to the Koch shithead mother fucking one percenters!

[geek tragedy]

16. According to your second paragraph, the President must be

a 'real Democrat' since he won twice with over 50% of the vote--which had not happened since FDR.

But, that's not how he's portrayed in some circles.

[hootinholler]

19. No, I don't mean to imply that, he is not, Clinton was not

Clinton was able to gain a lot of the alleged Regan Democrats with the DLC shit. It was new and Looked better than the Poppy Bush scandal ridden bullshit. He was the lesser of two evils.

Obama vs batshit fucking crazy? Batshit crazy got the batshit crazy vote, Obama got the rest. Yeah, even I was sucked in in 2008, I thought there would be real change.

[geek tragedy]

24. McCain and Romney were not perceived as crazy by the vast majority of voters.

They lost because Obama's policy ideas were better than theirs

How many Democrats voted for you such that you think you can determine that the man who's gotten more Democratic votes than anyone in history is not a 'real Democrat?"' By what authority do you nullify the millions and millions of Democrats who reject your claim?

[hootinholler]

28. Personal experience is my authority. McCain was recognized as batshit crazy

At least around my area, which at the time was reliably R. As to Rmoney, that was tighter had Obama not been the incumbent he might not have won.

What makes you think that working towards the corporate state is a recipe for success in the future?

[geek tragedy]

56. The last question is a loaded one. Care to rephrase? nt

[kentuck]

17. Perhaps a poor choice of words...

But, in my opinion, the progressives do not see the present Democratic Party establishment as loyal to democratic principles and are not as loyal as they might have been in the past. Progressives see themselves as the "real" Democrats. There is a chasm that has developed between the DLC types and the progressives and this is the only similarity to the Republican Tea Partiers. That is why I put it in "parenthesis" with a "question mark?" I think there needs to be some changes in our Party this time around. The left will not buy the same medicine as in the past.

I think you are saying the same thing, only in a different way.

[hootinholler]

21. Violent agreement on most...

But to say the progressives aren't loyal has it the wrong way around in my mind. We continually vote the lesser of two evils in hopes that someday, someway, we will have someone to vote for instead of always voting against the batshit crazies.

[kentuck]

48. I would agree with you to the extent...

...We have continually voted for the "lesser of two evils". I think maybe that patience is running thin??

[leveymg]

29. I agree. The Third Way centrists and neocons are Rockefeller Republicans. Liberal GOP.

Great point. They're not Democratic loyalists - they'll go back to the other party when they think that's the most effective way to rule the country.

[geek tragedy]

15. There is no such wing of the party

For one thing, those hating on Obama and cheering for his 'destruction' aren't Democrats in large measure.

Second, those complaining the loudest and most vituperatively are the least likely to get off their ass and do anything about it. They figure by posting articles by Chris Hedges and John Pilger and denouncing Democrats as corporatist con men that they've done their part.

Winning elections and changing things requires dedication and real work, something the Internet shriekers lack.

That, and they don't have Koch brothers money like the Tea Party did.

Tea Party won several primaries by replacing standard wingnuts with their equivalent of Kucinich.

[kentuck]

18. But...

Their vote counts just as much as yours.

[geek tragedy]

20. Those that vote, sure.

But the left's big uprising--Occupy--decided to make itself avowedly apolitical and disclaimed any interest in elections.

Because both parties are evil, we must stay true to our principals, etc.

Which sounds lovely in theory, but is a lousy way to change the world.

The Tea Party causes fear in Republican office holders. The so-called equivalent on the Demoxratic side provokes mere annoyance.

[kentuck]

49. "The so-called equivalent on the Demoxratic side provokes mere annoyance."

Now that's respect!

[geek tragedy]

54. How many incumbents have lost because they pissed off that wing?

That's the only kind of respect that counts.

[Sgent]

66. Lieberman

is the only one I can think of -- and he was overwhelming re-elected because of it (the R's smartly IMHO abandoned the "real" republican in the race)

[sabrina 1]

22. Lol, so now John Pilger, one of the UK's most respected investigative journalists, is on 'the list'?

And Chris Hedges?

You seem very impressed with the Tea Party's 'accomplishments'. What you don't seem to understand is they are all Republicans and the whole TP pretext was just a scam, not grassroots, Republicans.

Do you figure that those posting hourly attacks on Progressive Democrats, are the least likely to do much of anything else? I do. And the other thing I think is that people who spend all their time attacking Progressive Democrats are trying to divide the Dem Party to help the Far Right win.

Here's what I think, I think that now that Progressive Dems see the way politics in DC works more clearly, they will NEVER leave the party, they, who are responsible for the victories of the party up to now, will now redirect their energy. They will NOT ever again be talked into supporting any Third Party infiltrators into the party.

They will put all that boundless energy into opposing right wingers with a 'D' after their names and filling Congress with Progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson.

And they've already begun. They also post articles by John Pilger and Chris Hedges and Amy Goodman (you forgot to mention her) and will continue to do so as they are real, Progressive Democrats. They don't read Hannity and O'Reilly and they sure don't give clicks to any right wing publications.

[geek tragedy]

23. Pilger is respected in the fringe of the anti-American left.

In the real world, he's a left-wing Orly Taitz who called Obama a "glossy Uncle Tom" and believes Obama is an undercover CIA agent and has been since he graduated from college.

So, other than being racist and a nut, he's awesome.

Labor unions and actual issue-based activists have been the ones pushing candidates like Warren. Internet complainers, not so much.

[leveymg]

26. Have you ever read any of his work, gt?

He is one of the best long-form journalists in the English language. Just because you disagree with him on this one, don't say he's "fringe" and not widely respected, because that is just not true.

The John Pilger is "racist and a nut" stuff is bullshit, and you know better.

[geek tragedy]

57. If he's not racist, then neither is Paula Deen.

And, the theory that Obama was planted by the CIA in the WhiteHouse as part of a 30 year long conspiracy is not something rational people believe.

Pilger writes the same column every time--everything is the fault of the US and Israel. Zzzzzzz.

[leveymg]

61. I wouldn't say that makes Pilger a racist and a nut any more than it makes him Paula Deen

How many of his columns have you really seen - read anything of his other than his column? Which - Daily Mirror or New Statesman?

[geek tragedy]

62. I've been aware of him for more than a decade.

He also dismissed marriage equality as a distraction from 'real' issues, like Bradley Manning, stating that "bourgeois equality is not a human right."

Racist, nutty, hard left ideologue who tells fellow travelers what they want to hear.

That is who John Pilger is.

[leveymg]

64. I've been long aware of Rush Limbaugh, too, but I don't listen to him, and don't claim to know much

about the specifics of his broadcasts. Rarely say a word about the jerk.

What do you really know of Pilger's work? Sounds like you've picked up some critical talking points about him, without bothering to make up your own mind. Are British Left-wing writers really that anethema to you? Do the same Cold War stereotypes drive you away from enjoying Fisk, Hedges, Ali, early Hitchens, going back to Orwell?

[Recursion]

33. Also both parties are weighted towards their own right

Republicans have a base in the right and can pick up some moderates. By numbers, the Democratic base is those same moderates the Republicans are trying to pick off, and has been for decades (this is another reason "mirror image" arguments about the two parties seem to fall flat so often). It's tempting for activists to think there is a silent majority with them, but it's rarely the case.

[geek tragedy]

58. The Democrats have two bases--presidential years and off-year. nt

[Recursion]

60. That's a very good point (nt)

[pampango]

27. The Republican Party is torn, too. Their tea party/fundamentalist wing battles their "moderate" win.

In our party the progressive wing battles with our "moderate" wing. Both parties have had these internal struggles forever.

The right wing of the Republican Party is certainly having "success" in its party though that "success" has cost them some winnable Senate seats and, arguably, success at winning the presidency last year when Obama seemed vulnerable.

We still have a few, though shrinking in number, conservative - Blue Dog - Democrats while they have successfully banished anyone resembling a liberal from republican ranks.

[Recursion]

32. Blue Dogs were defeated by Republicans. Moderate Republicans were defeated by Republicans

The only major Democratic infighting I've seen was because of redistricting, where for example Kucinich lost to a less outspokenly liberal Democrat.

[Recursion]

30. The Tea Party is the only reason we still control the Senate

If you feel it's more important to stomp your feet than to keep the Senate, go for it.

[kentuck]

50. Hey, I'm just a reporter!

Don't kill the messenger.

[Recursion]

59. Oh, yeah, there are masses of Democrats who feel like you

[sibelian]

31. I've never understood why the elected Dems in general don't push further left.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that they genuinely don't believe in doing so.

[Zorra]

34. We need revolution. Until we revolt, we will always be forced to choose between conservative

republican or Third Way republican for President.

The game is rigged by wealthy private interests. Until these interests are quarantined, there can be no significant progressive change. Unified direct action non-violent revolution is our only possible avenue for achieving any significant progressive change.

Until these interests are quarantined, our government will remain the servant of Business, As Usual, and we will continue to lose rights and economic power and mobility as these interests gain more power, wealth and control at a rate that increases daily.

The catch 22 is that, while progressives generally are restrained by conscience from voting third party or not voting for a Democrat even if they view the candidate as conservative, centrists have no qualms about voting for a republican if the Democratic candidate is a genuine progressive.

They will sell us out again, in a shrew's heartbeat, just like they did in 1980 when they elected Reagan. If Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson were to be nominated for President in 2016, something that is virtually impossible under the status quo, centrists would vote for the republican candidate in droves, just like they did in 1980.

[graham4anything]

39. you are funny- you use 1980 and Elizabeth Warren, yet in 1980 WARREN VOTED FOR REAGAN!!!

[Zorra]

44. Usual centrist strawman propaganda, deflecting from the issue. Hillary was hardcore Republican

when she was younger. Hillary was President of Wellesley College's Young Republicans Club, and campaigned against your (purported, self-described) avatar hero, LBJ.

Stephanie Miller voted for Reagan as well

One primary difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives can easily change and adapt as they gather new information, while conservatives find change extremely difficult. It is possible that this is why it is apparently so difficult for a large number centrists to change their positions when confronted with indisputable facts that are contrary to their dearly held beliefs.

[bHillary Clinton Was a Republican]

What many people don't know about Hilary, is that she used to be a hardcore Republican. When she was a teenager, she canvassed and campaigned for Republican Richard Nixon for President. She worked for Republican Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964, and was even elected president of Wellesley College's Young Republicans club. Due to issues like the Vietnam War however, Hilary left the Republican Party to help candidates like Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. Imagine the current political atmosphere if she never had a change of heart to switch parties in the early 1970s...

The issue here is: No progressive would ever vote for a republican. Period. Many centrists, on the other hand, as history shows, would sell out their fellow Democrats in a heartbeat and vote for a republican candidate if they believed that the Democratic candidate was too progressive.

[graham4anything]

45. I bet the people who keep putting Obama down, will love the Nader Court rulings on Monday/Tuesday.

it's so ironic.

and of course, in 1968, all the protesters directly did was to elect Richard Nixon president.

LBJ would have kicked Nixon's ass in 1968.

How will you like what Ralph Nader's SCOTUS is going to do on Monday and Tuesday if the 4 liberals couldn't hold off the 5 that
Ralph Nader and Ronald Reagan and Bush41 named?

Of course, the same hate Obama defend Ralph Nader but Al Gore wouldn't have picked Alito or Roberts, and Nader stole NH
way before the court gave it to W in December.

The democratic would have kept control of presidency for 84 years now, were it not for fracture, and protests and sabatoge in 1968 and 1980 by Reagan and Nixon(whom the supposed (not by me I like Adlai) Eisenhower groupies keep forgetting that Ike got Nixon into power in the first place, it was his doing, and Ike started the Vietnam War.

Attempts at fracture won't work.
Ralph Nader insured it in 2000.

[Zorra]

46. Exactly the point of my first post.

Progressives have only two choices for President:

A Third Way republican, or a conservative republican.

Third Way republican/Reagan Democrats ensure it.

As I recall, Al Gore actually won the 2000 election, but had it blatantly stolen from him by the conservative SCOTUS at the time.

Or am I misinformed about this?

And do you believe that people should not speak out against obvious corruption in government? The war in Vietnam was based on repeated lies, as proven by the evidence uncovered by Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and later, Democratic Senator Frank Church. The War in Iraq was based on lies. Am I a bad Democrat, an unpatriotic American, for protesting against those wars?

So what you are saying is that we should all just STFU when confronted with evil.

That's what any "Good American" should do, isn't it?

[gulliver]

35. The left couple of feathers is not a wing.

For every blind hysteric wailing about Obama there are 20 who are glad as hell we have him. Anyone on the left who is angry right now is probably up to their nose in the quicksand and therefore doing what Thoreau says desperate people do. Theirs are not political positions. They are simply cries for help and that is too bad.

But most of them realize that we need to win liberal power one step at a time or suffer a Reagan or Bush again. We can easily do without the votes of those few who don't get it. For every one of those alienated we gain the support of ten sane liberals.

[DCBob]

36. I think those on the "progressive left" simply feel frustrated and abandoned.

Barack Obama looked and sounded like the real deal to them but he never delivered the FDR\JFK\LBJ type administration they were counting on. The problem was they projected way too much. Obama never made those kinds of claims. He always spoke of being the transformational President and bringing the country back together after the eight horrendous years of the Bush/Cheney regime.

Now after 4+ years of Obama many on the left feel like nothing has changed and are ready to dump Obama and the Democratic party. Its unfortunate because I think Obama has done great given the circumstances. Few could have done better. In fact a RW conservative or a LW liberal/progressive sitting in the WH during this time might have resulted in catastrophe. The "progressive left" has been too bush bashing him to notice.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. So who defines "the progressive left"?

with some arrogant assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with certain extreme perspectives, is not "progressive" or "left". This is just bullshit.

[DCBob]

42. Those whose claim to be Democrats but readily bash Obama for not being progressive enough.

[DCBob]

43. I agree that it does seem the terms "progressive" and "left" have been hijacked..

by groups who may not actually be best defined by those words.

[kentuck]

51. I think if you are on the "progressive left", you know it.

Keep kicking sand in their face and they will take that Charles Atlas course. You know what happened then, right?

[graham4anything]

38. Yeah, its going to be 80-20 soon, and the next election is THIS TUESDAY, lest you forget

5 on the left 15 on the right

and the 80 will live in peace and harmony

I for one can't wait for the 80-20

btw, The Netroots nation backs Hillary as was posted yesterday

BTW-you wrote this thread with other words the other day.

Hillary in a landslide in 2016.

ANd did you notice CLinton and Warren stood with each other for Markey, who is running for senate Tuesday.

I bet though some of the 20 want Markey to lose if they admitted it to themselves, whatchathink?

[Harmony Blue]

47. This rightwing trajectory would have been a non issue

if Gore was President of the United States. That will be defined as the turning point in U.S. history by historians in the future.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

52. It's time for a third party,

a People's Party, a Labor Party, something, anything to give rise to the ideas and voices that are not heard or are marginalized under the current system.

[backscatter712]

53. If the Democrats that are in office aren't standing up for Democratic values, they deserve to lose.

Sorry. They, and you, don't have the right to demand my loyalty. That is earned. And if you don't earn it, you can kiss my ass.

Obama needs to get on top of this, and there is only one way. One. To put the NSA on a fucking leash. If he doesn't do that, he doesn't deserve our loyalty.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Let me offer another perspective...complicated by the fall of empire.

The Republicans are going down, the way f the Whigs.

Do you remember what the Democrats were in 1860? They were a pro slavery, pro business party. Democrats have become a pro business party. What I fear we need is face facts and realize we need a new pro labor, pro working class party.

That, assuming external forces don't push it harder, will take more than a generation.

[kentuck]

65. You may be right?

Or people become enlightened to the way of politics?

[Scuba]

67. "lose by standing on Democratic Party principles than win with adopting Republican right-wing ideas"

Total claptrap.

Remember, half the population doesn't vote, because neither party offers them squat. That's where the votes are, waiting for the Democrats to advocate for ...

A living wage

Medicare for All

Strengthening Social Security

Legalizing pot

Cutting defense to pay for it all.


Every time a Democrat moves to the right to pick up one vote, he/she loses three. The available votes are further left.