If you object to "litmus tests", aren't you basically saying we should stand for nothing?

[Ken Burch]

If we don't have at least SOME hard expectations to hold candidates to, is it worth electing them at all?

Surely, it can't be good enough to just elect someone who's slightly better than not, most days.

Without "litmus tests", what is the meaning of ANY of what we do in politics?

[TreasonousBastard]

1. But, we all have different litmus...

because litmus can have degrees of color.

I have several things I consider extremely important, but what if no candidate agrees with me on all of them? Or any of them?

Since I can't invent a candidate on the spot, I go with the one closest to what I want. Not necessarily the "least bad" unless I happen to be in a sea of teabaggery, but the one who come closest to what I want.

Isn't the way it's supposed to work?

[Ken Burch]

4. Well, you always make SOME compromises.

But those who object to litmus tests are saying that we shouldn't have any standards at all. They're saying we should just shut up and take whatever we're given.

We did that in the Nineties because too many of us accepted the lie that "liberals" and "liberalism" were to blame for the three straight losses. As a result, we got two victories in presidential elections that ended up being nearly useless and an attitude from our party's leaders that progressives were in the minority in the party and had no right to expect anything.

[ColesCountyDem]

8. That's what YOU say they are saying.

Nice straw man argument.

The actual position most anti-litmus test supporters hold is that it is illogical to let the perfect become the enemy of the perfectly good. A perfect example of this-- one that always comes to mind for me-- was the 1998 Illinois gubernatorial election.

Our party's nominee was Congressman Glenn Poshard. Congressman Poshard was personally 'pro-life' and also a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Poshard stated publicly and repeatedly that despite his personal views on those two matters, he would, as governor, enforce the 'law of the land' (Roe v. Wade and the Brady Bill). In all other areas important to liberals and progressives-- worker's rights, education, minimum wage, strong environmental and conservation laws, belief in a progressive income tax, etc.-- Poshard was firmly left-of-center, and his public record as both a state and federal legislator supported those claims. Poshard also brought a record of sterling honesty and personal integrity with him. He refused to accept any corporate or special interest group donations and limited private donations to a small amount per individual, causing him to be outspent by a 4:1 margin.

Poshard's views on the matter of choice and the 2nd Amendment attracted support from both independents and disaffected Republicans, but caused many 'litmus test' liberals to either not support Poshard or to support the Republican nominee, George Ryan. Poshard was the first person to alert the public to Ryan's ties to the 'license for bribes' scandal, a scandal that would eventually result in Ryan's federal indictment and imprisonment. Because Poshard's personal views caused him to fail the 'litmus tests' on reproductive freedom and gun control, he lost the election 51% - 47%.

Did the people of Illinois benefit in any way whatsoever by Poshard's defeat and Ryan's election? I submit that we clearly did not.

[baldguy]

15. When good people refuse to support good candidates, the people lose.

[ColesCountyDem]

18. Precisely!

Democrats refused to support one of the finest, most decent and honorable gubernatorial nominees since Adlai Stevenson II, because he didn't pass their 'litmus test', and look what it got us-- one of the most corrupt spendthrifts to ever serve as governor.

[Ken Burch]

42. Out of curiousity, what "test" did Adlai The Second fail?

My recollection is that he lost because he was a bland, passionless centrist with all the charisma of unwrapped week-old headcheese.

Also, Illinois politics can be unusually weird(it's the only state I know of in which corruption indictments are considered just another step on the way UP the ladder, and Richard J. Daley organized a primary challenge to an early Seventies Dem governor, Dan Walker, for the sole apparent reason that Walker was a downstate Protestant, and then there was the year the Larouchies won all the statewide Dem primaries).

And remember, NOT being choosy is why you guys got stuck with Blagojevich.

[ColesCountyDem]

48. We weren't subjecting candidates to litmus tests then.

I'm a native Illinoisan, so I agree that our politics can be weird, at times.

Walker was a vain, obnoxious, vindictive ass, and hardly the 'Mr. Clean' he claimed to be (he later went to prison too, remember). He challenged Lt. Gov. Paul Simon in the primary, and his only criticism of Simon was that he had accepted the support of the Daley machine (Simon was also a downstate Protestant, by the way). In '74, Walker attempted to 'primary' every single Democratic representative and senator he perceived as being an 'enemy' (shades of Nixon).

As far as Balgojevich goes, there was not even a hint of corruption, etc., surrounding him, at the time he ran for governor. Furthermore, he was the candidate best positioned to end 26 years of Republican governorships, and even downstate Democrats agreed that that was the 'greater good' and voted for him.

[Ken Burch]

44. True, but it isn't usually GOOD candidates who fail those tests.

I remember the Eighties, when a lot of pundits were saying the party should stop insisting that Dem presidential nominees support choice and the ERA. Was there ANYBODY out there in that era who would have BEEN a great Dem presidential candidate(in terms of being Dem on the vast bulk of the issues)that was anti-choice and anti-ERA?

I can't imagine such a person even walking the Earth in that era.

[Ken Burch]

46. I wish Poshard had won, but he brought that on himself.

He made his anti-choice and pro-gun stances a massive part of his campaign, and it really read as if he was hitting those notes as a deliberate "fuck YOU!" stance to the progressive wing of the party.

It's like those who demanded(and finally got their way on this)that "pro-life&quot I.E.,anti-woman)Dems like Bob Casey be allowed to speak at the Democratic convention(it's not like those guys had ever been persecuted, btw, they'd just lost the argument within the party and not been willing to let it go). Those who demanded "pro-life" speakers at Dem conventions didn't just want the party to let those people speak...they weren't going to give it a rest until the party capitulated and took the right-wing position on that issue(as it did before 1972-btw, Dems would have lost 49 states on an "abortion is evil and should be burned at the stake" platform in '72, and we should all admit that.)

[ColesCountyDem]

50. He didn't make an issue out of it, KB-- his opponents did.

His opponents in both the primary and S.O.S. George Ryan (R-paroled), his G.E. opponent, unrelentingly hammered away at Poshard's honest answers to questions about both issues. Poshard also made it crystal clear that his positions were personal beliefs, and that as governor, he would enforce the law of the land on both issues (Roe and Brady); that's quite different from a deliberate "fuck YOU!" stance. It also ignored his decades-long record as a solid progressive on every other issue of importance to the middle class and the poor. His loss was every bit as much due to a Chicago vs. Downstate cat fight as it was his positions on reproductive freedom and the 2nd Amendment.

[treestar]

40. They are not supposed to be given

We are supposed to choose them together with others. You can't get total agreement.

[Ken Burch]

45. Perhaps, but you can get agreement on basic core values.

As I pointed out just now in my Eighties example, there WERE no great potential Dem presidential nominees who were anti-ERA and anti-choice. And it pretty much goes without saying that if you WERE anti-ERA and anti-choice, you couldn't possibly have any good stands on anything else. If you agree with Phyllis Schlafly on anything, you're of the dark side.

[treestar]

51. But you could, this is how the saying

"politics makes strange bedfellows" comes about. You might not be in the same party, but might be part of a coalition on some bill. There are people who are anti-choice who are liberal on economic values.

When it comes to Presidential nominees, of course the Democratic party wouldn't choose someone anti-ERA or anti-choice. But they might choose someone who might think the TPP or NAFTA are good ideas. Maybe being for against such agreements is not a core value.

[Warpy]

2. I've been growled at for refusing to cross the "choice" line

but quite honestly, any politician who wants to destroy that most basic civil right to sovereignty over our own bodies, he is very unlikely to have progressive or even humane stances on other issues.

So far, I've been proven right about the lot of them.

For me, it would be like crossing the abolitionist line in the 1850s. Just can't do it. They run an antichoice Democrat, I'm writing in George Carlin. Even dead, he'd be a more effective Democrat.

[YoungDemCA]

28. This, especially this part...

any politician who wants to destroy that most basic civil right to sovereignty over our own bodies, he is very unlikely to have progressive or even humane stances on other issues.

Well said.

[treestar]

52. For what it's worth, the other side says the same thing

People who are not "pro-life" can't have the values and character it takes to be POTUS. This is one issue voting and not even true. Or at least we can admit it on their side - McCain doesn't have good values across the board due to his being anti-choice; Palin, etc. the same.

I can't see it happening, and in fact the Republicans might go with a pro-choice candidate before the Democrats ever go with an anti-choice one.

[Warpy]

58. They're just as wrong as the pro slavery side was and for the same reason.

They didn't recognize the humanity of the people of color in bondage. They now don't recognize the humanity of women. Yes, they're basically the same people down through time.

And no, they won't cross the line, either.

[Kalidurga]

3. I look for a candidate that is strong on civil rights

I would never vote for any that isn't. It would be nice if we could also have a candidate that is against the privatization of prisons, who is pro-worker and pro-union. And would be willing to go on the record saying we need to close down a great many of our military bases that are in foreign countries and stop making nuclear weapons. But, that won't happen in my lifetime.

[IdiocracyTheNewNorm]

5. If there are no standards or litmus test, we stand for nothing

[blkmusclmachine]

6. ,

,

[whistler162]

7. Obviously you aren't a Liberal or Democrat

since you failed my litmus test.

[ColesCountyDem]

9. ^^^^^ This! +1. n/t

[wyldwolf]

11. exactly

[LostInAnomie]

38. *ding *ding *ding* We have a winner.

Apparently, he must stand for nothing.

[wyldwolf]

10. Who determines the litmus test?

[TexasProgresive]

12. I'm OK with a litmus test

since litmus paper only test whether a liquid or gas is >ph7 or <ph7. That means the analogy of a litmus test for candidates would just test if they are more liberal than conservative and not test and specific issue. It would not even test how liberal or conservative a candidate is, for that you would need something like Universal Indicator which gives a range of colors.

Sorry to bring this up but analogies are never perfect but this one is very weak.

Edit to add: If all of us judge on specific "single issues" that we hold dear then few or no people will get elected because there is no perfect fit.

[krawhitham]

13. litmus tests are for primaries, after that it is all about control of Committees

Climate denier James Inhofe of Oklahoma, will chair the Environment and Public Works Committee

Ted Cruz, another climate denier, is next-in-line to become chair of the Subcommittee on Science and Space, which oversees agencies like the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

[jtuck004]

16. Giving a litmus test to those two would be like drug testing people who can't even buy food.

Waste of good litmus paper.

[baldguy]

14. First purges, then litmus tests ... what's next? Loyalty oaths? Hugo Boss uniforms?

What is it with you people?

We need to work to get people to JOIN liberals, not make up excuses exclude them.

[ColesCountyDem]

19. Common sense has no place in this debate!

[Ken Burch]

27. So put together a common program on a few issues then.

Don't do it by telling people to shut up and take what they're given.

It's not like there was ever this huge group of really great candidates we could have had if only we'd been willing to be cool with them having several right-wing positions.

And we never had to take that path in 1992, because the party could have elected ANY Dem that year(including Tom Harkin) if they had just got all factions to work as hard for the candidate as they worked for Clinton-Gore.

[YoungDemCA]

29. We already have a common program

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

[Ken Burch]

30. no, that's a non-program. It says nothing and stands for nothing. n/t.

[YoungDemCA]

31. Then do something to change it

If you're that upset about the Democratic Party platform.

[baldguy]

34. That's what the litmus tests are for.

And anyone who doesn't like it can sit down & shut up.

All they need now are some of those snazzy uniforms.

[Ken Burch]

35. I will be. And I won't be alone.

But that's what people who have what you dismiss as "litmus" test are trying to do as well...change politics and change life.

They're just standing up for what they believe in, and those who are Democrats are doing so in a party that very often demonizes people for expecting the party to stand for anything.

You can't do anything of value in office if you're elected on a program of vague half-wishes, and most leading major-party politicians, have a natural inclination to do as little as they can in exchange for the votes they receive.

That's just the way it works, and that's why people develop what some dismiss as "litmus tests".

[treestar]

53. But whoever they elected is the one they chose

They were not given that person, they picked them. We could have chosen Kucinich and we didn't.

If we are on the far left of the party, we will end up being ahead of our time and living with voting for people we don't think are liberal enough in order to get somewhere. We can't demand we be given Kucinich as President. He has to have the votes.

Granted the media does not help and if they didn't do the crap they do, a lot of the softer minded and less intelligent people, or the ones who won't pay attention, might vote differently or vote at all. But blaming the people who do get picked for doing other than what the people who elected them want isn't quite right. It's like saying we have greater rights and somehow our votes should count more.

[Orsino]

17. No.

There's a huge excluded middle there.

[Ken Burch]

26. "the middle" is now a meaningless term.

What there is are "the haves" and "the have-nots".

The "haves" manage to win because they convince a chunk of the "have nots" that if they follow orders from the "haves", they might become "haves" themselves someday.

It's our task to find the way to show this faction of the "have-nots" that they are on a dead-end road...that the "haves" will NEVER let them get to be "movin' on up, to the East Side, to a de-luxe apartment in the sky-hi-hi" as I believe Dale Carnegie once said(or maybe it was someone else), so they should find achievable dreams instead...like making this into a country and a world where they can live with dignity and respect and work with each other to make a better life of all, eventually.

[Orsino]

37. I referred to the enormous excluded middle...

...between litmus tests and standing for nothing.

Most of us are mixed bags of issues. Few of us take no stance, and few of us are single-issue voters.

[HereSince1628]

20. Litmus paper tests one characteristic...voter support is usually more complicated

Litmus tests would be really hard one someone straddling the social liberal-economic conservative divide.

hmmm. really? hmmmmmmm maybe there SHOULD be litmus tests.

[hobbit709]

21. Some around here think the only litmus is there a D after their name.

No matter how miserable their votes and stands are to the people, as long as it's a D it makes it OK.

[chrisa]

22. On the other hand, litmus tests basically mean, "I refuse to listen to anything you have to say."

They're part of the problem in politics right now - everything is so polarized that every issue is politicized, and everybody in the middle is ignored by the media. Basically what you get is two unreasonable sides arguing over something petty.

[Ken Burch]

25. NO...they mean "I'll listen, but I have the right to expect some things."

"I can't be expected just to take what I'm given, because what I believe in matters to me".

It's the difference between insisting on being treated with respect and equality and being willing to "know my place".

[chrisa]

36. Personal beliefs and expectations mean nothing for a party's core values.

I will continue to insist that someone can be an arch-Conservative except for one issue and still call themselves a Democrat. Party affiliation is totally meaningless, especially if based on stances of arbitrary issues.

There is no right to expect "certain things" of Democrats, because there is no solid definition of a Democrat. It's more of a personal decision guided by which party your beliefs are most similar to rather than a simplistic litmus test (principles forced by party, lest you fail the test and not be 'one of them').

Also, litmus tests breed party-over-principles hacks as candidates. I'd rather have someone I disagree with on some issues who stands for something rather than a hack who rides the party line on the rails just because it's politically convenient.

[treestar]

55. The others have a right to the same respect

No one says be in your place. It's a coalition and attempt to cooperate. Especially a political party. It's completely loose. You don't have to join and can join another one or start one. Why does any one person have a right to such respect from others in terms of others yielding on their views?

[treestar]

54. +1 the media wants a show

That's why they focus on the two extremes.

[LanternWaste]

23. And who will pretend to be clever enough to develop the litmus test?

And who will pretend to be clever enough to develop the litmus test? Is not the party platform in and of itself, an appropriate parameter of inclusion/exclusion?

[Iggo]

24. No.

[donco]

32. I wonder what

"litmus tests"a herd of lemmings has?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. I think it means you're saying

You don't actually care what the people we elect actually do, as long as they have a (D) beside their name.

Is there another single job in existence where the employer actually objects to the concept of defining what the job is and asking the employee to actually do it before hiring someone? Or heck, even after hiring them.

[treestar]

39. Black and white thinking

There are so many issues. I would say the known liberal position on most or many can put people in the same party. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

[Savannahmann]

41. Fine, name a topic that voters in Alabama can agree with voters from San Francisco.

Abortion? Nope.

Business taxation? Nope.

Commerce regulation? Possibly. But it would have to be a narrowly worded bugger that didn't do much.

Defense. Come on man. Do I really need to explain the different viewpoints?

Environment? Possibly, but again, narrowly worded, with enough protections for farmers, property owners, hunters, fishermen, oil workers that it would not please those in San Francisco or New York.

Economy. Nope. Alabama is a Right to Fire state, and they want it that way. The Unions in the North East and West Coast would never accept that.

Equality. Being a majority Southern Baptist state, they believe that marriage is between a man and woman. They will not accept equal marriage for at least a decade, probably two. San Francisco and Seattle, New York and Los Angeles won't take that sitting down.

Government. They didn't do exit polling in Alabama, but my guess is that it would be even more conservative than Georgia, and I have exit polling for them. http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/GA/governor 56% think that Government does too much. So do we now support smaller Government that does nothing?

Should I continue? Justice. Alabama is a death penalty state. Very popular option for those damned criminals who kill someone. Not so popular in Liberal enclaves though. So you come out against the Death Penalty, and lose the conservative states. Come out for it, and lose the blue states. Decisions decisions.

Foreign Relations? Bomb them all man. Or Show much restraint depending on what part of the country you're from.

Not to fear, the Republicans have the same problems. To keep the Republicans from purple/northern states in office, they can't move too far right, but they can't go left without losing the people from the conservative south and western states like Wyoming, Nebraska, North Dakota, and I could go on and on and on.

So what can we stand for as a party. We could become populist, we're in favor of whatever the people are in favor of, but that problem is that we're not in favor of doing the people's bidding.

When you boil it down, this is what the two parties believe. Democrats believe in more equality. The Rich should be taxed until it hurts them as much as it hurts the family of four making 70k, or the single mother working two jobs to pay for her kids to have a decent place to live.

Republicans believe in Liberty. They want you to fly, and succeed or fail on your own. You fail, tough shit, get yourself up and get moving man. The Republicans will often shout that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Perhaps that is true, from a very narrow point of view. But we see Republicans eating that free food when a Hurricane blows through, or a forest fire consumes a hundred houses. They sit down and wear free clothing from the Red Cross organized by FEMA, eating food prepared by the National Guard, paid for by the Federal Taxpayer.

I think that in the most basic premise I can think of, describes the two parties. We believe in equality, that everyone should be treated equally, and be given equal opportunity. The Republicans want liberty, to promote friends over the best qualified, to deny the equality of the GLBT crowd. I imagine that this is really too broad, but that is what we stand for generally speaking.

But as far as single issues, the problem is that we don't want to define national issues. First, we'll offend someone is now a given. Second, we might actually have to address the issue, and that will offend a lot more people. I don't know, perhaps I'm tired this evening, and perhaps I'm feeling a little more cynical than usual.

Before the election, I wanted the party to come out with a few populist ideals that would be our national agenda. I suggested reigning in the NSA, and demilitarizing the police as a good first step. But mostly, I shouted, and begged. I pleaded and proclaimed that we needed to address the economy. If you ignore that, all the other things are nothing more than pieces of fluff. Imagine a big buffet table and on it is a dozen vienna sausages with toothpicks jammed into them haphazardly. A dozen feet left and right of this is nothing but empty table. That was our campaign this year. We had vienna sausages, which are all right, but there was nothing else on the table

We campaigned on the one thing we could get Democrats to agree to. Republicans suck worse than we suck. We need to find a half dozen, or even a true dozen issues that poll very well around the nation, and embrace those things. Then we have the national campaign we need to win big. We have more than GOTV! (You always have to put the exclamation point after GOTV to show you're fucking serious about it man) And we had the War on Women. We see how well those two things played out.

[Ken Burch]

43. That's an extreme example.

Alabama is never going to vote Democratic again no matter what.

And it's not like we were better off when the national party was cool with Alabama Dem senators being segregationists.

[Savannahmann]

47. Indeed? So we write off Alabama.

Well I suppose that's fine. What states should we look at winning? I mean, if we're going to write off Alabama, I guess we toss Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Iowa, well you get the point. Now, what that means is that the Senate is put forever out of reach of Democratic Control. The Republicans will always control the Senate since the Democratic Party is according to you better off without those damned Conservative states.

So then we can focus on our nation campaign for the Presidency, and perhaps the House. But the House is already difficult in the extreme to take control of. So we'll focus on the Presidency. That way the President will always be Democratic, and the Congress will always be Republican.

So we need 270 Electoral votes. If we go off of President Obama's electoral victory of 2012, we start with potentially 332 Electoral Votes. We can afford to lose Florida, Ohio, and Colorado and still maintain 276 votes.



Now, Romney won 24 states, and if we lose the three mentioned above the Republicans would control 27 states, or 54 Senate Seats. Which interestingly enough is what they are going to control come January.

But we still have the Presidency, and that is really all that matters. This way, the Conservatives control the legislative process and get to write the laws, and the President gets to either sign, or veto them. That will show those 27 states who is in charge, or something.

But what that really means is we can't afford to lose Minnesota, Wisconsin, or the combination of Iowa/New Mexico. Because then, then we're totally screwed. I mean, its not like the Republicans have ever won anything in Pennsylvania before.

But at least we have a party that is pure enough to make you happy, even if it is pretty much considered a small regional power politically speaking.

But as long as we keep ourselves above 270, we can rule those other states, somehow. I mean, we won't control the Congress, but we could give some really scalding speeches about how awful they are. Can't you imagine it, we stand there safe in the bastion of Democratic Party power, and shake our fist ineffectively at the 27 states that didn't vote for us. That will really show them.

We've won in the South before. President Clinton won 379 Electoral votes in 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996

A slight improvement over 1992 when we won 370 Electoral votes.

But let's look at the year 2k. When just about everyone ranting here bemoans the Florida Decision by the Supreme Court. Do you realize that Al Gore would have won the Presidency without Florida if he had won his home state of Tennessee? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

We can only alienate so many people before we find ourselves in the semi permanent minority. We shrug and hope that Manchen does go to the Republicans because he's Conservative, a DINO. But we can't tell the people of his state that we are going to put them all out of work and that is what is needed without doing something for them at the same time. If we're going to take the coal jobs, we have to give them something else. Same with Louisiana and the oil jobs.

So you tell me, what do we stand for that won't alienate a majority of the electoral votes we need to win the Presidential? What can we take to our collective heart as a political party that won't ceed the Congress to the Republicans for the foreseeable future? Because as we saw in 2k, writing off the home state of the Candidate made it possible to lose the entire election.

Simply put, we need some of those states that have issues which are not in keeping with the ivory tower Liberal view of what the party should be. Call it what you want, Realpolitik, watering down the party, kowtowing to the DINO's. The point remains that we must win some of those states with issues outside of the normal accepted thought process here on DU.

We have to accept that populist issues matter to the voters.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. No, I'm saying that many different issues all matter.

There should be a party position on most issues.

The test should be "do you agree with us on most issues"; there should be some single-issue tests (anyone who supports eating babies should be out, no matter how many other issues they agree with me on) but the main test should be an "on average".

[el_bryanto]

56. The problem with litmus tests is that everybody cares about different issues

And in many cases cares very passionately about those issues. So an issue which might be a deal breaker for me - my personal litmus test - may not register to other people.

For example I'm concerned with Wall Street coziness - I believe that Wall Street market and investment has a role to play in our economy but for the last few decades it's been more and more corrupted by the enormous amounts of money to be made. We saw the results of that corruption in 2008 when the economy took an enormous hit and we are still suffering for it. So I want someone who will get Wall Street under control; and someone who's pals with Wall Street and likely to appoint Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce who are friendly with Wall Street frustrates me.

That's an important issue; but I know that many people here would disagree with me on a) what I think is wrong with the system and b) how important it is compared with, say, Gay Rights or people dying in Iraq or growing environmental catastrophes.

And the tendency is to accuse those of not agreeing with your particular litmus test of not really caring about the issues or being a sell out. It's problematic.

Bryant

[CK_John]

57. We have the DNC platform revised and updated at the national convention every 4 yrs but...

nobody reads it because it's written by policy wonks and not candidates. It's part of the process that should be limited IMO to a max of 5 bullet points and a 30sec video for each point.

In other words a campaign kit.

[dionysus]

59. good idea.

[Ken Burch]

60. The platform should be controlled by Democratic activists, not by "the pros".

Especially since this last election proves that our "pros" will never elect anybody again.

It's supposed to be OUR platform, not the paid staff of the party's platform.