General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA serious question about Bernie Sanders
I've been a big booster of Bernie since the 90's, when he was one of the voices in the wilderness trying to bring attention to the damage that was being done beneath the glossy surface of the Unsustainable Bubble. He was warning about the rise of Big Money and Corporate Power when it was not even on the radar of the mainstream.
For example, while President Clinton and too many other Democrats were singing the praises of right-wing economist Alan Greenspan as Fed Chair, in hearings Bernie regularly called him out on the carpet and forced Greenspan to go on the defensive about the harmful effects of those policies on average Americans.
And, a very important point, he is also a very shrewd politician. He is so powerful as a political figure in Vermont that he is consistently re-elected by very strong margins.
And, despite the stereotype, Vermont is not all granola-crunching hippies. It has plenty of rednecks and hard-asses and libertarian business types....Despite his scrubby exterior, he knows how politics works and he knows how to to work the ropelines. People who don't necessarily identify themselves as liberals or progressives vote for him because they know that he is on their side. People trust him.
And, while his politics are based in principle, he is actually a pragmatist. He'll make deals and compromise when necessary, if it moves things closer to the goal. But people accept that because he has integrity.
Although he calls himself a democratic socialist, his actual policies are basically mainstream traditional FDR liberalism -- or what used to be called mainstrem liberalism. He is not calling for a socialist takeover of the economy or anything like that. Just policies that are more geared to supporting average people and aiding the disadvantaged and leveling the economic and political playing field more, to favor the majority.
Okay, I'm sounding like a fanboy. My question touches on something larger than him.
It seems to me that the politics he represents is a potential winner, if it were more pervasive. It could strengthen the Democratic Party politically, and also do a hell of a lot of good for the country.
My question is: Why isn't that approach taken more seriously and adopted by the Democratic Party?
I know what one of the answers is. Money has polluted both parties, and the Big Money doesn't like the idea of a liberal progressive populist....I also know what else some might say. He comers across like a cranky professor with a New York accent, and that would never play in Peoria....To which I say the same principles and character and smarts that Bernie has could take different forms in other regions.
But why don't more of the rank and file Democrats demand this? Why do too many shy away from supporting candidates like Sanders and why aren't more of them being sought out and groomed?
Your thoughts would be appreciated, even if you think my assessment is off base.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)It was easy ten years ago for the system to successfully market the idea that progressive alternatives like Sanders were too impractical, too far left, too willing to tilt economically toward the poor at the expense of the working and/or middle class.
Now *everyone* is poor. Or within sight of poverty. And everyone is worried about their own and the country's future. Not so EZ to sell the "socialist boogeyman " idea under such circumstances.
The di Blasio blow-out in NYC (and especially his apparent decision to actually *govern* progressively and not simply mouth the rhetoric) might be a harbinger of things to come nationally.
I hope so.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)when his salary demands upon his not understanding it". And by salary I mean campaign contributions and future lobbying jobs (as well as bribes, which one would be naive to think they don't take)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Thanks for saying this.
glinda
(14,807 posts)But I suspect rank and file Dems are just that. Rank (P.U) and file as they fall in line in order to get re-elected. Or so they think. That thinking needs to be broken and maybe the only way is if new people with integrity or similar thinking like Sanders, are elected.
I also think the Dems biggest blight to humanity is that they speak shyly/cautiously/etc.... when they talk about things. What I like about Bernie is that he is straight talking and strong in his statements. There is little hedging. There is strength in that behavior.
Maybe the problem is that we need more and more of his kind asap because the ones in there probably do not believe what he believes. Nor do they act the same. Bernie scores %100 on animal issues. I like that also.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The thing about Bernie is that he is straightforward.
Despite his professorial demeanor, he talks like an average person in many ways. often what e says is what many people (who are not teabaggers of fundies) say in real life in their living rooms to their friends and family.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)way for those with the most money to accrue increasingly larger amounts of money.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)and they use that power and influence to change the rules to make them more favorable to their own chances of obtaining more money that then gives them more power and influence, which they use to change the rules to make them more favorable to their own chances of obtaining more money that then gives them more power and influence, which they use to...
Well, you get the idea.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I know a number of people who are financially successful to varying degrees and have money to spare. They are liberal and also believe in many of the basic principles of Sanders. They are not Koch brothers rich, but they contribute a lot to causes and the Democratic party.
I suspect there are a lot of successful liberals who would kick in to candidates who express that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)on politics.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)my point was that not all people with money are selfish sociopaths, and not all businesses are empires of evil.
( Plus businesses and individuals are also pragmatic, and if they see a potentially winning horse, they'll place some of their bets on it.)
Combine that with grass-roots smaller donations in large amounts, and it can at least move towards leveling the playing field somewhat.
I do agree that the Kochs and their ilk are a formidable obstacle. But I'd rather not assume defeat because that guarantees the bastids will win out.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Almost all large businesses are controlled by those that choose to back conservatives. There may be a lot of rich liberals but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they seem to choke. Liberals dont control the armed forces, CIA, FBI, NSA, election systems, etc. Liberals actually dont control much of anything. I cant think of a scenario where that will change. The best we can hope for is that the wealthy elite will decide that IT'S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST, not to beat us too badly. With globalization, I think that wont happen. If the wealthy elite will let people starve in Africa, they will do the same in America. We had some leverage when we were the labor force for their factories. Now they will throw us aside. American capitalism will kill the middle class, and eventually implode globally.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I agree things are really shitty, and seem to be getting shittier every day.
But there are also more hopeful signs, and examples where the people (or whatever term you care to use) are able to beat the bastids, or at least come to a draw.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Jane Watson Stetson. She's a Vermonter and also the heiress to a big chunk of Big Blue. There are lots of wealthy liberals who are dems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Watson_Stetson
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)they dont hold a candle to the conservatives. Liberals dont own networks, newspapers, radio stations, major businesses, etc. And if they donate to Democrats they must not be backing progressives. Penny Pritzker is a wealthy Democrat but not a liberal. Seems to me that wealthy liberals are only liberal re. social issues but not fiscal.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It is possible to break through the money machine. Niot easy but it does happen.
I mean Barack Obama started out running against the big money behind the Clinton machine...Yes as he got more successful he attracted corporate money (and it affected his policies). But Obama does indicate that if people smell a winning trend, money will follow.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)...In 2008.
It can be done.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)And the general population is spread out, dumb, and scared. And very "nativist," esp. in the hinterlands.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)[center]
[/center]
- K&R
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)I was referring to that idea here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4468656
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We need to keep asking them loud and clear. The more we ask and the more we talk about the ideas that Bernie and a couple of other members of Congress care about, the more people we will get to agree with hus. Bernie's ideas make sense to ordinary Americans. That's a big advantage for those uf us who agree with him.
Thanks for your post. I'm with you.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Harriet Tubman
>"But why don't more of the rank and file Democrats demand this?"<
That's a good question you pose. I'll have to add that to others I sometimes think about, such as why slaves stayed when they could have freed themselves, why victims of adult abuse don't leave, and why pedophiles are able to molest their victims for so long without complaint.
But when I think about such things, I always remember this quote "The most powerful weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." Steven Biko (anti-apartheid activist, murdered by South African police).
In my own opinion, that's the "why" you are looking for. The hard question is how to change it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)What really gets me (at age 61) is that we now have no ethical expectations of business or politics anymore.
I don't want to idealize the past, but one thing is very clear to me. Business behavior and "values" that would have been considered inconceivable and beyond the pale 40 years ago are commonplace now.
Like the contrast between the wages of those at the top and the middle and bottom. There have always been the wealthy -- but the difference between what the wealthy get now and then is staggering. Especially when contrasted with what has happen to overall incomes for the rest of us.
If someone from back then were to come here now, they wouldn't believe it -- and they wouldn't believe we accept it.
Somehow we've got to reverse the drip,drip,drip that got us to this sorry state.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)in our lifetime. I think what we have to look forward to is a country that has failed a third of its people, and we will all share in that misery.
That's assuming we don't make the planet unlivable first, which is a distinct possibility.
I think those of us who remember how can group together and make life a little more livable, but even that I am not sure of.
I miss the Carter years
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"At least I'm getting old to know that it's not going be my problem for much longer..."
I used to argue with her and say that was a bad attitude. but I'm beginning to see what she meant.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)that at least mouthed the platitudes of a society built for everyone. Of course because of Stalinism, it didn't live up to those ideals, but it still talked the talk. Capitalists and their toadies in the political class HAD to appear socially conscious of the average citizen or they would look bad compared to the USSR and lose the war for the hearts and minds of the world.
With the capitalist restoration in the USSR, the need for that pretense collapsed and capitalism could relax into it's natural state.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)As long as the government and corporations had to prove "our" system superior to the "red menace" we were getting by.
Now we are just something to exploit or something that gets in the way of that exploitation.
Things are fucked. At least we recognize that.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)If I were a poor person and I had a choice to live in the US, the USSR, and France, I'd pick France without a second thought. Between the US and the USSR would be a tougher choice and it would depend on the circumstances. We really do treat poor people like shit in this country, but the USSR often wasn't a pleasant place to live either.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I'm also 61 and, like you, I remember what it was like back then. People today think this is SOP, it is not! This is radical corruption from sea to shining sea.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)
Powerful! And so applicable to today's corporate slavery under which we all have to live.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)And bucket loads of it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I know the Koch types , and the Wall Street shitheads and nasty Corporate Greed-heads don't.
But there are a lot of successful people who also are human beings. I know some. They would agree with many of the basic principles that people like Sanders stand for.
That could be one source a democratic Democratic Party could tap into.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Hard fact: To make major change, even in how campaigns are financed, will Require efforts which are by definition under-financed.
In my hands-on experiences when progressive politics was at a high point 40+ yrs ago, you could not out-spend the opposition; YOU COULDN'T!
Yet we still won. There has to be (and there was in fact) something more than money.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
polynomial
(750 posts)It’s just recently that I’ve come of age, trying to feel that pulse of what is happening. To peel away from what we call mainstream media whether it is the electromagnetic spectrum or in that slang term those papers magazine or book political pamphleteers. Find them all totally biased with six figure Journalist that have a cushy life expressing the tunnel vision that jumps off the track way too often.
Plus, adjusting to the new blog style of communications that is somewhere in the field of an ancient Plato’s dialog instant to view and participate by many in mixed sophist with statistical dreamers that sift through booby trapped legislation called a loop hole using modular mathematics the average citizen has no comprehension. The really funny era was the Ross Perot diagram approach reduced to a sucking sound somewhere in Mexico that is really an echo from Wall Street.
The Democratic Underground presents a composite of many minds. Everyones life experience is important not just today’s college education. Many are beginning to think it is our pedagogical way that our education system is dysfunctional.
Imagine the cool jobs that are out there in that fog of on the job training in system internships that flourished in ancient time before governments established things like the Gymnasium in Europe or the American college deficit system.
There are a few that get to look through the prism of metadata to decipher or figure a new code that views the ontology streaming at man always begging that question of being why are we on this ship called earth.
Right now a profit drawn based on hate through secrecy and war is something that is souring the poor, middle majority of the world introducing a natural distribution exposing the upper crust that hoards not only the Jekyll and Hyde money schemes of government, cypher the language of law.
All woven with religious reflection a power that prints wealth shipped on skids to others complicit to the guided chime in six hours of Wall Street to the divine hour that appears to be clashing more in the electromagnetic spectrum with intellectual skill not protecting the basic Constitution we all take an oath to. Turn the other cheek then ask not what your country can do for you and see what happens. This!
democrank
(11,096 posts)I think Howard Dean had/has a partial solution to your answer....a 50-state strategy: red states, blue states, purple states. Dean always said that folks are more similar than different at their core, no matter where they live. Joblessness is joblessness whether you live in Vemont, Texas or Mississippi. In my opinion, our party has failed to deliver our message. And, we have very few leaders (like Bernie Sanders) who are willing to stand up and tell the truth, no matter what.
Here in Vermont, you can see Bernie bumperstickers everywhere, whether on the bumper of a new Volvo or on the bumper of a rusted-out pickup truck. It`s his message of common-sense programs guided by fairness. Folks understand that. Plus, Bernie listens and folks understand that too. I don`t mean for this to be a I heart Bernie reply, I simply respect the message and the method and believe we can learn from it.
We don`t have to agree on every little detail, but certainly we can, as a party, agree on a few principles whether "our friends across the aisle" like it or not. If we step back and take a look at the state of things, none of us should be very proud. We`ve voted for mediocre then complained about a lack of quality.We can attempt to distract one another by pointing to this teeny dot over here or that teeny dot over there, but truth be told, the "for the people" part has failed. In my view, it`s back to basics time. BACK TO BASICS, that`s a message millions of folks would nod their heads at....jobs, community, family.... especially if we emphasized all for one and one for all.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's the thing about Sanders. He does address the basic things that most average people can identify with and ultimately agree with.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Okay, I'm sounding like a fanboy. My question touches on something larger than him."
...one man can't do it alone. The reality is that there will always be a need for compromise, from the farm bill to minimum wage. I mean, if it were up to Sanders alone, I'm sure he would be proposing a minimum wage higher than $10.10.
Wal-mart pays its employees so little that many of the low-wage workers must rely on food stamps to feed their families and Medicaid to pay doctors when their children get sick. “Do you think the wealthiest family in this country should have large numbers of employees that depend on Medicaid,” Sen. Bernie Sanders asked a panel of experts at a Joint Economic Committee hearing Thursday. “That is corporate welfare of the worst kind,” said Robert Reich, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a former U.S. Secretary of Labor. The hearing was called to look at the economic impact of raising the federal minimum wage. Sanders is cosponsor of a bill that would boost the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from the current level of $7.25.
Watch Sanders at the Joint Economic Committee hearing
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/welfare-for-walmart
If it were up to Sanders alone, Guantanamo would be closed.
Sen. Bernie Sanders departed today on a congressional delegation trip to Cuba. The senators will discuss human rights, trade and health care issues in Havana and also travel to Guantánamo Bay Naval Base where the United States since 2002 has detained prisoners with suspected links to al Qaeda.
Sanders has supported President Barack Obama’s effort to close the military prison. “We should aggressively defend ourselves against terrorism, but we must do so in a way that is consistent with our nation’s core values,” he said. The prison at Guantánamo Bay has “significantly damaged the United States’ moral standing, undermined our foreign policy, and encouraged terrorism rather than effectively combated it.”
During the Havana leg of the trip, the delegation plans to meet with Alan Gross, an American arrested in 2009 while working as a subcontractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development to set up Internet access for Cubans. Gross is serving a 15-year sentence. His case has become an obstacle to improving ties between the United States and Cuba, which have not had formal diplomatic relations since 1961.
Sanders supports normalized relations between the two nations. “American businesses are losing billions of dollars because of the economic embargo. Meanwhile, Canadians and Europeans are creating jobs through their investments in Cuba,” he said. “My hope is that Cuba moves toward a more democratic society while, at the same time, the United States will respect the independence of the Cuban people.”
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/senate-delegation-heads-to-cuba
On the efforts to close Guantanmo.
WASHINGTON – The Senate late last night passed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, which will ease transfer restrictions for detainees currently held at the military detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, most of whom have been held without charge or trial for over a decade. The bill, which passed the House of Representatives last week, cleared the Senate by a vote of 84-15. The improved transfer provisions were sponsored by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and were strongly supported by the White House and the Defense Department.
"This is a big step forward for meeting the goal of closing Guantánamo and ending indefinite detention. For the first time ever, Congress is making it easier, rather than harder, for the Defense Department to close Guantánamo – and this win only happened because the White House and Defense Secretary worked hand in hand with the leadership of the congressional committees," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. "After years of a blame-game between Congress and the White House, both worked together to clear away obstacles to transferring out of Guantánamo the vast majority of detainees who have never been charged with a crime."
The current population at Guantánamo stands at 158 detainees, approximately half of whom were cleared for transfer to their home or third-party countries by U.S. national security officials four years ago. Also, periodic review boards have recently started reviews of detainees who have not been charged with a crime and had not been cleared in the earlier reviews. While the legislation eases the transfer restrictions for sending detainees to countries abroad, it continues to prohibit the transfer of detainees to the United States for any reason, including for trial or medical emergencies.
"There has been a sea change on the Guantánamo issue, both in Congress and at the White House. With the president’s renewed commitment to closing it, and the support of Congress, there now is reason to hope that the job of closing Guantánamo and ending indefinite detention can get done before the president leaves office," said Anders. "As big as this win is, there is more work left to be done. The Defense Department has to use the new transfer provisions to step up transfers out of Guantánamo, and Congress needs to remove the remaining ban on using federal criminal courts to try detainees."
President Obama is expected to sign the defense bill into law before the end of the year.
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/senate-eases-transfer-restrictions-guantanamo-detainees
Today I have signed into law H.R. 3304, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014." I have signed this annual defense authorization legislation because it will provide pay and bonuses for our service members, enhance counterterrorism initiatives abroad, build the security capacity of key partners, and expand efforts to prevent sexual assault and strengthen protections for victims.
Since taking office, I have repeatedly called upon the Congress to work with my Administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The continued operation of the facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists.
For the past several years, the Congress has enacted unwarranted and burdensome restrictions that have impeded my ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo. Earlier this year I again called upon the Congress to lift these restrictions and, in this bill, the Congress has taken a positive step in that direction. Section 1035 of this Act gives the Administration additional flexibility to transfer detainees abroad by easing rigid restrictions that have hindered negotiations with foreign countries and interfered with executive branch determinations about how and where to transfer detainees. Section 1035 does not, however, eliminate all of the unwarranted limitations on foreign transfers and, in certain circumstances, would violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. Of course, even in the absence of any statutory restrictions, my Administration would transfer a detainee only if the threat the detainee may pose can be sufficiently mitigated and only when consistent with our humane treatment policy. Section 1035 nevertheless represents an improvement over current law and is a welcome step toward closing the facility.
In contrast, sections 1033 and 1034 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1033 renews the bar against using appropriated funds to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any Guantanamo detainee in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by the Congress. Section 1034 renews the bar against using appropriated funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I oppose these provisions, as I have in years past, and will continue to work with the Congress to remove these restrictions. The executive branch must have the authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security interests. Moreover, section 1034 would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
The detention facility at Guantanamo continues to impose significant costs on the American people. I am encouraged that this Act provides the Executive greater flexibility to transfer Guantanamo detainees abroad, and look forward to working with the Congress to take the additional steps needed to close the facility. In the event that the restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees in sections 1034 and 1035 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/26/statement-president-hr-3304
bananas
(27,509 posts)Some say the universe was created 16 billion years ago - others say it was 6 thousand years ago!
Let's compromise and call it 6 thousand years and 4 months!
Yay!
"Yes, we must appease - oops! I mean compromise with - extreme ultra-right wing crackpots!"
...it's not that "we must." It's that for some reason it happens. Clearly there were Democrats who didn't see the need to "appease." http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024464953#post4
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Stil the results were the same, republicans won the day kicking more of the needy while they are down and funneling money to the already wealthy. Great theater, nasty reality.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)For one thing, he is one of a substantial number of Senators, Congresscritters and other politicians at different levels who are of the same basic mold, in very degrees. They range from traditional populist midwest liberals ,like Tom Harkin to urban progressives like Rep. Barbara Lee...and many others across the country with different personalities, demographic profiles and approaches.
And, as you frequently point out, he even shares some of that with President Obama.
The problem is that Bernie and others of his ilk have to fight as much against the Democratic Wall St. Corporate DLC crowd as they do against Republicans to be heard and make an impact.
And -- what you consistently fail to understand -- is that too often the very top ones who ought to be supportive like President Obama do not "have their backs" when push comes to shove. And this is not about compromise, because often in those situations, the folks like Sanders are undercut by the Democratic "centrists."
I do not intend to get into a long-winded back and forth with you to nit pick irrelevant personality details. But the point is, while i admire Bernie a hell of a lot, it is not about him or a cult of personality about him.
It is the fact that he -- and many other Democrats -- are too often marginalized by what might actually be the minority, which are those Corporate Democrats who ultimately put the interests of Wall St. ahead of Main St.
That's what we need to change. (In my opinion, of course.)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"For one thing, he is one of a substantial number of Senators, Congresscritters and other politicians at different levels who are of the same basic mold, in very degrees. They range from traditional populist midwest liberals ,like Tom Harkin to urban progressives like Rep. Barbara Lee...and many others across the country with different personalities, demographic profiles and approaches. "
...in the Senate, which just voted for the Farm bill and is working to pass legislation to increase the minimum wage.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Thanks for pointing this out.
It's still not enough. Keep demanding, at all levels of politics and government. Obama may take the lead, but neither he, nor Sanders, nor anyone else for that matter, can possibly do this alone.
This is why Democrats need to unite, more than ever, along thoroughly progressive lines. Especially given how horrible the Republicans have become-I think we can all agree on that point!
bananas
(27,509 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Whatever one thinks of his performance as president, one thing President Obama did do as a candidate was fire up the electorate and get people to care. And -- for a brief moment -- did appear at least to loosen the bonds of the Clinton DLC machine, and the GOP.
So the potential for a more involved populace is there. Now, if only there'd be more candidates who actually walk their talk once in office.
polichick
(37,152 posts)(those who tend to be followers), and some are more fed up than ever and may not participate in the future unless there is a real people's revolution of some kind. A lot of young people who voted for Obama in their first election feel they've been had. I don't blame them - imo, as a Dem activist for over 30 years, he was in many ways a Trojan Horse.
(I agree, for a brief moment it seemed that the DLC days were behind us - but that's when we were seeing and listening to Campaign Obama.)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)did succeed in getting him elected.
It's too bad that he turned out to be different than advertised, but at least it demonstrated that the energy and ability to make real change is out there waiting to be tapped.
At least I hope so.
polichick
(37,152 posts)People will rally for something real, but I don't see that coming by way of this party.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There's a lot of democrats in leadership (and grass roots) who would take us in a better direction, if they can get out from under the lumbering yolk of the Oligarch Wing of the Democratic party.
I'd prefer a three ( left , center and conservative) party system that acted as parliamentary ones do with more ability to form coalitions on specific issues.
But we seem to be stuck with the D/R system for the forseeable future. So best we can do is try to make the Democratic Party more democratic.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Not a populist con by corporate Dems.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The Party, after the McGovern debacle and its party participation reforms in the mid-70s, moved toward the center to signal it was through with FDR-LBJ reforms and progressive economic policies, and to declare it was no longer a threat to corporate power. It has therefore eschewed specific ideological stances which could be remotely suggestive of anti-corporation policies as these policies Would be framed as such by the increasingly extreme Far Right.
But with a rather blank slate, the FR has had a field day by framing the Democratic "Party" in toto, esp. around issues of "soft on drugs, weak on foreign policy, pro-abotion, soft on crime, soft on terrorism, anti guns, etc. Americans don't like "softness" and "weakness" in politics, and readily associate the terms with the Party or anyone who has a non-ideological approach as this signals untrustworthy-ness as well.
The Party's remaining "leadership," MSM, and the Obama Administration are routinely hostile to Anyone who advocates Anything close to a Sanders, FDR, or an LBJ. Keeping corporate power reassured is All-Important with All Elites, now.
I hope this helps answer "why."
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And your analysis is basically the same as mine.
And, I hate to say it, but I would add that some of the undercurrent of that shift to the right in the Democratic party was an attempt by its leadership to distance itself from minorities. It was thought that the Democrats had become too identified with the "left," the poor, ethnic minorities, gays and anyone outside of the so-called mainstream. So they disregarded much of its base. It was one long "Sister Soljah moment."
But times change, the demographic makeup of the country is changing and issues shift. I just hope the Democratic party realizes that before its too late.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)That could, for instance, mean less of an audience for expensive political ads, so that money influences the races less.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Actually, in this part of the world, the long cold winters probably lead to more TV watching. (I don't live in Vermont myself, but am a neighbor of it.)
But politics is more personal. If someone like Bernie makes an appearance at a local function, a larger portion of the population is likely to see him. And there's also the fact that if people don't know him personaly, there are still fewer "degrees of seperation" between the candidate and the population.
But that's not all that different from the characteristics of many "red states" too. In fact, I think some politicians with atrocious right-wing political stances get and stay in office because their constituents like them personally or have been directly assisted by them.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I agree with you to an extent. We're kind of lazy and we take the path of least resistance -- which corporate backed candidates and political operatives atre more than willing to provide.
But it's not inevitable. We could, with just a little more effort, break out of that pattern.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)the process of selecting them. From local and state Democratic Party organizations to very poor turnout at primary elections, the bulk of people do not participate. So, those who do not get what they get.
There is an answer for that: robust individual participation in all aspects of politics.
Local Democratic Party organizations are as close as Googling Democratic Party {state}. Getting involved in the process is as easy as showing up and participating.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)As always, it's easy for a "centrist" to be pleased with our system of government-by-patronage.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)I'm thinking especially of people who have to work long hours, who have kids to take care of, or who simply lack education or the means of participating in local and state Democratic Parties on a regular basis.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)
fredamae
(4,458 posts)leadership in the Dem party doesn't actually Want what they say they want for us--maybe-it's just all talk.
A quick review of their votes compared to interviews, campaign promises and "soap-box" speeches reveals a Lot.
When these guys are interviewed they always speak of the harm and horrors of what the GOP is cutting, deregulating, banking regulation enforcement Many etc's--and then go vote - in support of GOP's agendas.
I mean, many of tese same people Talk like Sanders--but few Vote with him--few support his legislative agendas...
Do the math. Ask Your Sen/Rep-"What the hell is going on in DC?"....
Keep a close eye on Dems over TPP/TATP/TITP and Keystone...as a quick example.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But there are Dems (and an independent like Sanders) in Congress and leadership who are not cynical and bought off.
How to get more of them, and more of them in influential positions, is the trick.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)vetting. Which means we have to Stop just voting a "Straight Dem Ticket" for the sake of voting for Dems-any Dems-cuz All Dems are Safe and Good-because they are Not GOP. This practice is dangerous.
We-WE- have to do this "Vetting" work Together. It takes work.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)would love someone like Bernie. It's the Corporate Democrats, the ones currently in power, that see that as a threat as it doesn't support the corporatism they seem to worship. When a true liberal does enter a race, too often the PNAC-loving Democrats-in-Charge will take down that candidate in the myriad of ways that are within their reach. They'll put all their muscle and money and influence to harpoon the liberal candidate and, when that doesn't work, character assassination with something as stupid as the "Dean scream."
Too often it works all too well.
Senator Sanders appeals to the average American because he's established a history of fighting for We The People. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are the antithesis of Sanders and Elizabeth Warren with the latter two posing a clear threat to the current status quo. It's all about monied interests and, in that sense, BOTH parties, as they are currently arrayed, are equal.
WE need to search out and support better candidates and quit letting Das Party pick for us and we do that by voting with our feet. Reject candidates like Hillary Clinton outright and let Das Party know that we'll look elsewhere for candidates if the Democrats can't offer us anything better than corporate lackeys. Believe it or not, it's WE who have the power. We've just ALLOWED the major political parties to take over. We are the ones who need to, and can, take back the process.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But that picture of Mr. Bean is giving me a headache
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)People would never recognize me and I'd have to introduce myself all over again.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I didn't even know that was Rowen Atkins. 
glinda
(14,807 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)The Democratic Party is very diverse though, and represents a wide variety of people and interests. This is both a strength and a challenge. The challenge comes from the factionalism that can lead to bitter disputes. You see this on DU quite often.
I think Bernie Sanders himself has the right idea with the "South Forward" PAC that he is starting. The best places to begin to organize are in the places that the Democratic Party establishment has given up on. Similar idea with Howard Dean's 50-state strategy. Not that it will be initially very successful in results, but what matters is the effort to reach out to the "red" districts and their voters.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)power distribution system and the people that run it are not interested in sharing any of that power.
It is not a coincidence that Bernie Sanders is just about the poorest Senator with a net worth of less than $1M ($800K on the high end of the range) after holding elected office since 1981. By contrast Dianne Feinstein has had a very similar career over the same time period, yet has managed to rise from middle class mom to a personal net worth of somewhere between $70M - $100M.
This is not new at all, but is still actively ignored or discounted.
I think rank and file Democrats do want this, but the Party will never support it and as we've seen so often before, will work against them even when it costs a seat or seats. Majorities come and go, but the ideas of people like Bernie Sanders are far too dangerous to that power system to tolerate. Some will get through here and there, but the national party has the means and uses it to keep it under control, at least so far.
cali
(114,904 posts)for almost (yikes) 40 years. Big money doesn't pour into Vermont- thankfully.
brooklynite
(94,608 posts)Most people probably are as liberal as you (a politically active blogger) are. Could that become the face of the Democratic Party? Maybe. Could a Party that liberal be competitive nationwide? I doubt it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Yes there are a lot of people who aren't.
But if you look at issues of power and money, and how that affects average people, a lot of people are more liberal on the issues than you'd think, especially when separated from labels.
For example, in numerous elections in red states where conservatives Republicans have won, the population has also voted to approve raises in the minimum wage.
I think when we start with the premise that our ideas could not possibly be successful politically, we are defeating ourselves.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The American people poll right with him on trade agreements, holding the criminal banks responsible, cutting military excess, reining in the military industrial complex, raising the minimum wage, preserving social security and medicare, preserving the environment, taxing corporations and the wealthy at a fair rate. Bernie isn't really that liberal.
Bernie could win in a landslide. Because the people would perceive him as honest. Such a rarity.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Recent Gallup poll shows that only 22% of all American voters consider themselves loyal to the Republican Party. And only 32% consider themselves loyal to the Democratic Party.
But a whopping 44% of all Americans are sick unto death of these two dinosaur parties, which are continually selling us out. As a nation we are sick of the job out-sourcing; the endless wars for profit; and sick also of how the Biggest Financials Firms run the economy, due to COngress caving to them, and Obama appointing only Big Banking policy henchman to US Treasury and to the Fed. People are tired of the diversion of the military budget to surveillance rather than to a Peace Dividend that could prop up states whose budgets are deplorable, that could return people to work re-building the decaying infra structure etc.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)But most people are also relatively ignorant/uninformed (or worse, misinformed) about the parties and where they stand on the issues. The Right (especially the Republican Party) prey on this lack of knowledge and confusion over what the word "liberal" really means.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)...against everything that is impirtant to average people, and in favor of anything strange or different.
Hence the war on Christmas, the IRS "scandal" Liberal Hollywood Celebrities, etc
dotymed
(5,610 posts)I guess you can tell by my avatar that I think Bernie Sanders, as POTUS, would turn this country around. His progressive, populist ideas have been consistently in the best interests of the common man/woman.
I remember during the ACA "negotiations" after a public argument against (Obama's) "settling" for: a for profit, health insurance mandate instead of a more inclusive, non-profit plan. President Obama held "private" talks with Sanders, eventually convincing him to "get on board" with the ACA.
That was one other time that I "took issue" with a vote by Bernie. I know that 100% agreement is impossible. His excellent record speaks for itself.
I have not heard why Senator Sanders voted for this farm bill. It seems like a vote for TPTB and against the poor.
I hope Senator Sanders tells us why he voted for this anti-"poor people" legislation.
When I say "poor" I am speaking of millions of Americans who, during this time of crippling inequality, cannot afford to feed themselves/family.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Senate Passes Farm Bill
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
WASHNGTON, Feb. 4 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today issued the following statement after he voted with the 68-32 majority to pass and send to President Barack Obama a new five-year farm bill:
“This was a difficult vote on a bill which has some positive provisions but also some very negative ones.
“This bill will bring greater stability to Vermont dairy farmers by helping them to manage risks and produce products more efficiently. It also is good news that a successful MILC program will stay in place until new insurance provisions for dairy farmers are implemented.
“The bill encourages increased access to healthy, local foods and will build on a growing movement in Vermont which has created agriculture jobs and provided local food for Vermonters. Another provision helps low-income seniors shop at farmers’ markets and roadside stands that are popular across Vermont.
“I am very disappointed that this bill makes $8.6 billion in cuts over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. While the final bill steps back from $40 billion in food stamp cuts that House Republicans had demanded, it is both morally and economically wrong to cut assistance to families in a very difficult economy.
“I am very pleased that Governor Shumlin has assured me that he will work with the Vermont Legislature to prevent cuts in food stamps for Vermont families and seniors receiving home heating assistance.”
dotymed
(5,610 posts)good provisions for Vermont. That is his current job. He does it very well, he represents Vermont and most of the time
the needs of his average constituents coincide with the needs of average America.
just because (especially because) I support a politician, I do not "give them a pass" for voting (signing) legislation that is not
is not in the best interest of the majority.
In this case, as a Vermont Senator, at this point, I still think Bernie Sanders is the best.
I want him as our POTUS.
tblue37
(65,409 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and of course in Vermont, retail politics is not only possible but vital if you want to be elected. Even here in the Northeast Kingdom, Bernie gets elected by large margins.
I also want to note that the Vermont legislature has literally scores of progressives who are as liberal- and quite a few more so than Bernie.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Back in the day (not to sound like an old fart) many of the people who we might consider redneck -- or to be less pejorative, working-class, blue collar types -- were liberal because they knew that ultimately that's where their bread is buttered.
And many people such as hunters and other outdoors enthusiasts want the environment protected. Their reasons for appreciating nature may differ from many progressives, but the goal is the same.
Plus, except for on the right-wing fringes, the "social issues" are less divisive within the larger population than they used to be. or at least less polarizing.
Over the years the Democrats let that ball get stolen from them. A re-emphasis on economic progressive populism would do wonders in this day and age.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Exactly. And it need not be mutually exclusive with progressive stances on so-called "social issues."
treestar
(82,383 posts)so there is one state with a majority who will vote him in. That's a good thing. But he is not a Democrat. The Democrats represent the people who vote with them - why would they represent anyone else?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)First off, I tried to ex-plain in my original post that it was not just about Bernie.
The second point is I wondered why the Democrats don't look to his success and do more to emulate that in a real sense.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)That's my question.
The Democratic Party refuses to mount a serious challenge to the Republicans in the "red" states and districts, thereby helping to ensure that more Republicans get elected-and retain their seats, and gerrymander their districts. It just gets harder from there for the Democrats.
Bernie has the right idea with the "South Forward" PAC. There are a lot of progressive people in the South and other Republican-majority or plurality regions whose voices aren't being heard, who are drowned out by the Republican dominance of the region and are understandably frustrated with the Democrats' lack of attention to their states.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Not the center as defined by the propaganda sources in both parties and the corporations. But dead center with regard to holding the banks responsible, preserving the safety net, trade policy, the size and scope of the military and taxing corporations and the wealthy at a fair rate. On these issues the American people poll more than 50%, well more than 50%. And that is how to determine "centrist".
The very worst way to determine "centrist" is the way it's done by the American media—they ask the politicians and pundits, the profession misleaders, the professional liars if you will.
The professional liars want you to believe Bernie is some sort of wild eyed commie when nothing could be further from the truth.
That's what I have to say about Bernie.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)If not, I think you may like it.
It’s no secret that the Democratic Party and progressives are reeling in the South. The Tea Party is ascendant and Republicans have supermajorities in many state houses. Public education, labor, womens’ health and the very right to vote are under concerted – and successful – attack.
This must change.
South Forward is an integrated, multi-faceted approach to revitalizing and growing the Democratic South. While winning elections is the real goal, our early focus will be on “building the bench” and capacity-building for State parties and others.
More: http://southforward.org/about/
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Thnx
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The pendulum will probably rock back some as they filter out and people who don't remember McGovern or Mondale take over more of the apparatus.