Liberals aren't Democrats?

[angrychair]

"Senator Warren will be a liaison to the liberal groups in our base to ensure that they have a voice in leadership meetings and discussions," the source said."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-senate-democratic-leadership

What the hell is a "liberal group" in the Democratic Party? Are we not all liberals?

When did Democrat leadership start needing a liaison to talk to what should be the mainstream for the Democratic Party? Are Warren's ideas so fringe for Democrat leadership?

So confused as to the direction my party want to go in at this point.

[kelly1mm]

1. You asked "Are we not all liberals?" Simple answer = no. Big tent and all. nt

[angrychair]

4. not that big a tent

There is no room for Rand Paul or Rmoney ideals in our tent.

I've always operated under the principal that liberal and Democrat were synonymous. Not to be mean but, from my perspective, you are a liberal or a DINO. I don't understand how a person can call themselves a Democrat and say they are not also a liberal.

[kelly1mm]

6. OK. You are free to have any position you wish as to what is a 'true Scott' Democrat. Others may

disagree. However, there are (and always have been) different types of Democrats and the party has always had some tension between different factions. You can see it here on DU often.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. +1 for reality; but ...

I would note TENSION. not warfare ... especially during election season.

[cascadiance]

9. There are specific Libertarian stances that I also share, but I hate a lot of the rest of them...

Issues like:

- rights to privacy
- stopping the war on drugs and many other consensual activity victimless "crimes".
- avoiding going to war when possible.

I think there are ways to work WITH them on those issues, and to have similar stances to Libertarians (like Snowden on our rights to privacy), and still be strong liberals, despite some people's attempts to smear more progressive elements of the Democratic Party with our similar stances on issues such as these.

But I will fight HARD those like Rand Paul to privatize so much that they do, some closet racism that he and his father have, and other areas where they don't share our values. I do feel that there are too many problems that Libertarians have, that I still can't vote for them in political office races. Now, perhaps an interesting thing might be for a progressive president if we get one elected, putting a Libertarian in charge of a cabinet position that is dedicated on one of the above issues where we share values with, to help open our tent and actually bring in young people that have been lead to join with other Libertarians on the above issues, but aren't aware of the other areas that Libertarians are probably not having an agenda that coincides with theirs.

[angrychair]

11. the items you list

Issues like: 

- rights to privacy 
- stopping the war on drugs and many other consensual activity victimless "crimes". 
- avoiding going to war when possible. 

Are and always have been Democratic principles before they were libertarian. Believing in these things does not mean you lean libertarian, it means you are a Democrat

[cascadiance]

14. But many young people sometimes get confused in to thinking they are Libertarian and not Democratic

... principles, especially when Obama's administration and many Democrats have often stood against these issues with things like supporting the NSA and threatening Libertarians like Snowden for trying to tell us how our rights of privacy have been violated.

Yes, I believe as you do, that these have long been Democratic principles as well too! All the more reason we should make sure our representatives stand for them, and maybe at times align with Libertarians willing to do some legislation that might help us with these in the coming term to make sure that the message gets sent to young people that you don't need to vote for a Libertarian to get support on these sorts of issues. I think it would be smart politics too, if we can show that Democrats aligned with some Libertarians are one of the few cases where things get done then, and that the people will then elect reps in the following elections including a lot more Democrats and some Republicans/Libertarians that will solidify us in providing legal support for all of these principles then too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. Historically, that is not true ...

The Democratic Party has never been, particularly, anti-war or about stopping the war on drugs or pro-" consensual activity victimless "crimes" (whatever that means).

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Sadly ...

There is no room for Rand Paul or Rmoney ideals in our tent.

Apparently, there is ... at least, on DU.

[TheKentuckian]

25. I find I think striking that you crossed the Rmoney out. Are you saying you can find room for

those values even as you accuse others on for embracing Rand Paul values with your lame as picture of God knows who?

[merrily]

28. If you are obviously leftist, but you are not an unconditional loyalist,

then it follows, as night follows day that you must be a libertarian from the left.

Because "no true Democrat" would criticize the party from within.

Wait: in the subject line to substitute "but you are not an almost unconditional loyalist,"

One less nit for the nitpickers to nitpick.

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. No ...

I am showing you where DUer have stated that there IS room for rand paul, at least in DU.

I have yet to see anyone here say there is room for Romney.

[TheKentuckian]

47. You are the one that decided that being a strong supporter of natural rights and civil liberties whi

opposing military and clandestine adventures for profit and a failed war on control our own bodies are "Rand Paul ideals" when such are among the reasons some of us became Democrats before anyone had heard of the regular Republican that play acts at being a Libertarian.

The constitution as a gawddamn piece of paper was a right wing machination and an idiotic one at that, Democrats joining it is them becoming right wing and taking a side against the people and the ideals for which we have long aspired.

No, when either Paul or Rmoney are distilled, they are the same ideology one that seeks to further corporate dominance and crushing poverty while funnelling wealth and power to the few. To break labor and bring down wages. To Use God's green Earth as a dumpster. To exploit and dominate. To plunder the commons for the enrichment of the few.

So it is with them and so is for the Turd Way. No, their is not room for that garbage that is everything against broad prosperity and equality in opportunity.

Yeah, there is too much room here for Rmoney values to me, it sure as fuck wasn't some throwaway statement to me when the leader of our party went on national TV stating that he and Rmoney are the same on Social Security.

It has not evaded my awareness of the many that opposed ending the Bush tax cuts and strongly supported actually expanding them (as we ended up doing), fucking crying poverty for the "poor, struggling families" making a quarter million or more that in the next breath were calling struggling folks making scraps deadbeats for not wanting a forced payment to a corporate cartel in their seemingly beloved Gingrich/RomneyCare model.

I also notice who supports Bush spooks like Clapper as well as Bush foreign policy while embracing Bush corporate driven education deform.

It is clear who has the stomach for Bush style "self regulation" of industry and those who add their voices to the Rmoney chorus on how government interacts with business.

No, sir there is far to much quarter given to Rmoney ideology right here. Many seem more than content to be Rainbow Reganites. Hell, content is misleading when adamant is much more accurate

[merrily]

27. That's mostly in the mind of some DUers, though.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. And on the pages of DU. eom

[merrily]

45. Links?

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Use the DU search feature ...

enter any number of search terms. I suggest "Stand with rand" or "rand paul democrats" ... and you will find plenty links to DUers embracing "the ideals of rand paul."

[merrily]

49. Two problems with that. One, the most hits that I will turn up will probably be from the accusers.

Second, I support the claims I make if asked. I don't see it as my job to also support the ones you make.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Where do you think I got the stand with rand picture ...

that you responded to?

[merrily]

51. How is that responsive to my comment?

But, since that was your reply, I don't commit all your posts to memory, let alone ponder or try to guess the source of photos you post. However,if you did recently post something that you could have linked to when I asked for a link, it might have been simpler just to give me that link, instead of starting another back and forth.

[Hortensis]

19. The DP has always included groups of nonliberals. Such as non-Christian religious groups

who can't fight religious oppression on their own and band with those who truly believe in freedom of religion.

Populations around the planet are made up of a full spectrum of liberal and conservative personalities, but non-Christian and non-white American conservatives are rejected and treated poorly (at best) by today's GOP as a whole, who'd get rid of all of them if they could. So they vote Democrat.

Of course, of those minority groups, our Hispanics are becoming larger and stronger every year. We'll lose their conservatives eventually. It's only a matter of time before Hispanic cons get tired of both supporting Democrat policies they don't agree with and being pushed out of their natural party affiliation by some nasty white supremacists they match and eventually surpass in number. When that happens, minority conservatives of all types, at least the Christians, will likely follow, and both parties will have to undergo major new alignments.

As for "always," remember your history? Such as the rabidly racist Southern Democrats who mostly fled the party with President Truman's civil rights legislation and finally for good with President Johnson's civil rights legislation? Names like Jesse Helms, Lester Maddox, George Wallace, many others? Their type finally hated us even more than they hated northeastern Republicans and moved over to form most of the virulent base of the GOP.

Today's Blue Dog Democrats are a kinder, gentler legacy from that group, although not all are from the south, just most.

[angrychair]

21. you have some good points

Of course I am more in the camp of "freedom from religion" than "freedom of religion". Still a thoughtful point and well taken.

While not ignorant of our Party's history I have made the choice to narrow my perspective to the last 40-50 years, a little past the Southern racist exodus, but within my lifetime.
I think we should acknowledge our history but not draw conclusions or limit our current or past achievements because of that history.
DINOs come in all stripes and colors.I think sometimes, in those limited cases when our ideals mesh with those of diffetent political positions doesn't mean we are like them...they are just trying to be like us. There is no such thing as "liberal-Democrat" or "libertarian-Democrat". I stand by my statement "you are either a liberal or DINO". You have the freedom to call yourself whatever you want but as a Democrat ( I.e. liberal) either you stand for our core values or you do not.

[Hortensis]

23. Cordially disagree. Democrats are whoever register as Democrats. It's a political party,

not one ideology or one set of core values.

Now, I know people I call single-issue liberals, like a rabidly conservative neighbor with multiple sclerosis who always feels the government doesn't do enough for MS sufferers but complains constantly about entitlements gone wild for OTHER, undeserving people. But that's ideology, not a political label. If he had registered and voted as a Democrat, he'd be a Democrat.

We would agree, I'm pretty sure, in both being glad he did not, though.

[TheKentuckian]

46. The non ideological political party is a lie. You will end up being for something and working toward

aims while struggling against some other things and working to pull away from some goals whether you admit it or not.

What we have is not a party without an ideology but rather a party with an ideology it cannot effectively sell, cannot clearly present, and must not claim and keep it's constituencies together nor credible sell its self to the ardent of the ideology the one other party has so it likes to mislead, conflate, and distract from what they have become about in what amounts to a zombie walk.

[LP2K12]

20. There's no room for someone like me?

[img][/img]

[angrychair]

22. Depends on you

Not me. Not sure how the test defined your positions. The simple response is the same: a Democrat is a liberal and a liberal is a Democrat. The current core values (Party planks) of the Democratic Party are liberal values. Party planks tend to be "purist" in nature and therefore a better was to compare and contrast with your personal values. If you can agree with them and will defend them than you are a liberal i.e. a Democrat. Party planks can change bur right now it allows for the easiest definition I can give.

Don't mean to sound like a zealot but I truly believe that the "watering down" of our brand goes to the heart of our current situation.

[merrily]

26. The OP also asked if liberals aren't Democrats. A big tent doesn't =

needing a liasion in the alleged Senate leadership to only one nook of the big tent.

[mazzarro]

2. This confirms that liberals are considered the fringe group in the party...

I guess the party officially is dominated, owned and controlled by the Third Way'ers/DLC'ers, centrists and corporate democrats; in the view of the party leadership. Liberals are a small minority that they need to throw a bone or two once in a while.

[Cal33]

12. Yes, these middle-of-the-roaders have had their day, and they have failed. Maybe they're

beginning to acknowledge that something is missing in their political outlook after all.

[blkmusclmachine]

16. The DLC/Third Way that runs the DEM Party likes the status quo. They must be thrilled w/losing the

Senate to their champagne-sipping golfing pals in the GOP. They are all 1%'ers. They wouldn't recognize a liberal/progressive piece of legislation if it came up and stared them right in the face. Now they can both get to work on making sure we lose 2016, because this is a "Center-Right" Country. They should know. They've been working on making it one for over 30 years now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. No ...

It's more a recognition that some Democrats self-identify as "liberal" before "Democratic."

[merrily]

32. The split in the party that was formalized by New Democrats necessitates that in some

circumstances On DU, however, we should start with the assumption that everyone who posts read the TOS at some point and therefore is a Democrat or an outright disruptor who will soon be banned. Ergo, on DU, people should not have to say things like, "I am a Democrat."

Besides, it is how one registered to vote that is the be all and end all? Or one's set of political goals and ideals?

The first time I registered, I registered as a Democrat. Then I moved to Massachusetts.

In Massachusetts, which is extraordinarily blue as far as modern day Presidential elections, almost everyone registers independent, and so did I. In 2004, I was so butthurt that Bush got re-elected that, as a personal protest, I walked to City Hall and changed my registration to Democratic None of it made a bit of difference in my voting behavior.

Republicans were once the more liberal of the two parties, esp. on the race issue (liberal, as things up to the early 20th century go). Martin Luther King, Sr. was a Republican for that reason So was Senator Brooke of Massachusetts (or so he later said).

But, the parties morphed on that issue. Should people who were pro the Civil Rights Act have self identified "first" as Republican, or should they have self identified as believers in equal rights? Does Party really trump everything?

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Many are confusing ...

a political organization with political philosophy/ideology.

[merrily]

44. The political organization that broke from its roots--at least its 20th century roots--may have

confused them. I imagine many got confused when Republicans went bat shit racist after they had associated Democrats with that for a century.

It may be another transitional time for the Democratic Party.

[merrily]

34. Did we really need further confirmation after

Rahm, Obama and Obama's Press Secretary all publicly scolded the left of the Party within a few month-period during Obama's first term? The disdain and impatience could hardly have been clearer--and these are professional politicians, known for ability to be smooth talkers, to be "politic" when they speak.

Whenever Obama has talked about "my friends on the left and my friends on the right" as though neither is part of his own group, I've scratched my head, too. But that can parsed. Things Rahm and Gibbs said cannot.

Plus, the last four Presidential nominees have been Clinton (a founding member of the DLC), Gore (same), Kerry (a founding member of the Senate New Democrat Caucus) and Obama, who--after he got elected--self identified as a New Democrat, and later, as someone who would have been considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s (aka the Reagan Era). Besides, look at the recent heads of the DNC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category emocratic_National_Committee_chairs

I suspect, but clearly do not know for certain, that Dean and Kerry may have struck a deal in 2004. Aside from Dean........

The House has a (dwindling) House Progressive Caucus and a House New Democrat Caucus. The Senate has a New Democrat Caucus, but no Senate Progressive Caucus.

Seriously, how much more confirmation did we need?

[mazzarro]

36. Exactly indeed. We do not need anymore confirmation -- n/t

[merrily]

37. Agree. This just seems bizarre to me.

I do not see it with the same optimism as some. Or, more accurately, I have no made up my mind yet.

[Dawgs]

3. No. Not all liberals are Democrats, and not all Democrats are liberals. n/t

[angrychair]

5. please see response #4 NT

[packman]

7. And not all Republicans are conservatives

which really confuses the hell out of me. I guess I want to think of myself as a progressive liberal when it comes to social and environmental issues and somewhat of a conservative liberal on crime and fiscal issues.

[merrily]

33. And not all conservatives are Republicans.

Conservatives of any party are not necessarily conservative on fiscal issues. There is almost no amount they will withhold from the Pentagon, Homeland Security, etc. They don't regulation or big government---unless they do. So, they want the FCC censoring sexually explicit language, but not enforcing political fairness. The don't want tax increases--unless it's Reagan and Poppy and they do. And so on.

When people say they are fiscally conservative, they usually mean they don't want tax money wasted or spent unnecessarily or excessively and they don't want their taxes increased. Well, I don't anyone who wants those things. Voting Republican gets you a lot of rhetoric against those things, but does not necessarily get you action

[progressoid]

8. How many elected Democrats will even call themselves Liberals?

We haven't been at the table for decades. But it's even worse now.

[noiretextatique]

10. totally the opposite of the rank-and-file

more of whom are now identifying as liberals.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/uprising-more-and-more-democrats-identifying-liberals

[merrily]

29. I identify as a traditional Democrat and a populist. I don't think many today have a clue what

"liberal" means--and that is complicated by the fact that we are getting more global: "Liberal" means something very different to someone from abroad than it does to a 1960's hippie. And what a1960's liberal thought was further right than what liberals before McCarthy thought. Today, a lot of people simply think it's something like a synonym for "Democrat."

"Progressive" is another word that seems to mean different things. In 2008, both Obama and Hillary referred to their policies as "progressive." The founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, Will Marshall, was a DLC founder who signed the PNAC letter, urging Bush to invade Iraq. http://www.publiceye.org/pnac_chart/pnac.html I don't think most people who are calling themselves progressives on DU mean the same thing by that word as Hillary and Marshall do. Just a hunch.

Basically, I think we may need a new word, one that will mean the same thing to European DUers as it means to USians and one that distinguishes the policies of the Republican left (who founded the Progressive Party) from those of Democratic left.

The policies of Teddy Roosevelt, apart from his racism, were indeed ahead of their time before women got the vote. Today, not so much. But the Will Marshall/DLC brand of progressivism doesn't go as far as Teddy on all things. Teddy was adamantly against monopolies, like the ones Disney and Comcast have become. You don't see a lot of that from Third Wayers.

[appalachiablue]

15. 'My favorite Republican President' said by Alan Greenspan about Bill Clinton (sorry to say).

A big enough tent for Repugs? The Third Way, New Dems. ('Repub. Lite') faction from the early '90s has to reckon with longtime and newer liberal democrats. The term liberal has been demonized too long. Enough. The Democratic Party is the Party of the People, as FDR, Truman ad others knew. Wall Street and Corporate backed Dems. who have endorsed free market Reaganomics for 30+ years must address our new reality and return to Democratic Party principles.

[merrily]

30. What's in a name? I finished writing Reply 29 about a second before reading your post.

[davidpdx]

24. The problem is that progressives are told we are not true Democrats

because we have to compromise our ideals and vote for conservative Democrats who will screw us over on votes like Keystone and votes for reforming the filibuster. I've seen this said on DU time and time again over the last six months. These are the same people who throw a stink about Elizabeth Warren. Frankly I'm fucking sick of it.

I will not hold my nose vote for a Democrat who betrays their party. In the mid-term election I chose not to vote for the person who was the sitting congressman and Democrat in my state because he is a bluedog for both the primary and general election. At the same time I didn't vote for another candidate either so no one can accuse me of voting for a Republican. Did that congressman win? Yes, by a hell of a lot in both the primary and general.

I hope that I will not have to do so again.

(Note to jury: In the event that someone chooses to alert this for what I said in the latter half of the post, I did not vote against the Democrat I left my ballot blank.)

[merrily]

31. Yeah. The No True Scotsman logical fallacy is big on DU.

[shenmue]

35. I've been called not a liberal

but I've called myself a liberal Democrat my whole life.

I get tired of the outburst brigade at DU- not coincidentally, filled with 250-post types who suddenly claim to know everything - who tell me I don't know anything and should be cast out of the party.

This board has turned into 'Logan's Run.' Hit a certain age? Gotta go. Support certain candidates? Get called "corporatist" over and over. Never mind treating people like individuals or asking them what they actually believe.

If you want to work for some shitty scandal site, go and do that. Politics is for people who think, not hive dwellers who have tantrums.

[fredamae]

40. Cool, then should Every

"not really a Democrat Liberal" drop the "D" party identification for NAV or Ind?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been a Democrat from the "Dem Wing" since before a lot of these little asshole were born.

DSCC/DCCC/DNC need new advisors cuz they ones they're listening to now? Are gonna cause the whole party to implode before long---and somehow I don't believe the "Mighty Corporate Elite Wall Street Dems" are gonna want to deal with that just months out from the General election.
Fk 'em.

[Warpy]

52. I hate to tell you this

but liberals went out of power in 1969. It's why our wages suck, we never got single payer health care, why voting rights are chipped away, and why there have been so many dreary Republicans in office since then. Truman was right, given a conservative Democrat and a right wing Republican, people will vote for the real thing and they'll stay home rather than voting for the fake.

If you've looked at history in depth and breadth, you know the party has simply reverted to the majority, pro business, anti labor party it was before the Great Depression. Wage increases, when they've had the votes to pass them, have been parsimonious in the extreme and the country has pretty much been handed over to Wall Street.

The question is what we're prepared to do about this, since we will never have the funding the conservatives in both parties get without trying. All we have are numbers and the truth. We are overdue for a massive populist movement. The Tea Party is a symptom of that.

Keeping the party out of power by refusing to vote for business as usual that is killing us is not working.

[Recursion]

53. The majority of Democrats do not self-identify as liberal

It varies, but in general about 40% of the Democratic party calls themselves "liberal", 40% "moderate", and 20% "conservative".