2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAs a progressive, I have to wonder if we are now persona non grata when it comes to the
Democratic Party. The circular nature of the arguments these days is starting to feel that way. I'm asking honestly. I'm not used the divisions getting this deep. I don't have to be hit over the head either. Just say it if it is true. Say no, the tent is big enough if we are welcome. Because right now, some of us are wondering that. You say we have no where to go, but that isn't true. We can fight for the same things inside or outside the party, your call.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)"The Democratic Party is exactly as it should be and will remain. Those who view it as "too corporate" need to go form their own party."
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)should it have stayed the party of slavery or should it have evolved.
Paka
(2,760 posts)Life itself is about change.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
2banon
(7,321 posts)tells ya all you need to know. my instincts were right on the money, no pun intended.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)They've been left for dead by the money-grubbing third-way vampires.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)that i want the GOP to win because I refuse to clap harder for HRC.
I am told I need to be pragmatic. "Pragmatic" is a word that gets thrown around just before the blade slips between your ribs.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If I am not willing to fully support the "pregressive" agenda (as if that were one thing).
Seem we like we both have some grievances.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)are representative of the party then this party is not for me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Largely ... and I know this will cause consternation ... because the economic primacy argument/approach of progressives, is not significantly represented within the Democratic Party. As such, the break-down along racial lines is not occurring within the Democratic Party (again, outside of the internet).
villager
(26,001 posts)...a Bircher/fascist party.
Kinda leaves those of us with "old fashioned" Democratic values a bit out in the cold, ultimately.
udbcrzy2
(891 posts)I was born a Democrat, but I feel like some in our party do not hold Democratic values. It's the Blue Dog's who have ruined it, they should have formed a new party.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)They will tolerate progressives and stuff like that as long as the paymasters get want they want.
If anyone threatens that center of power with a credible challenge from below, they'll be slandered and buried all the way.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)
2banon
(7,321 posts)
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)The problem is that it's so pervasive that most of us are no longer aware of it.
And that, my friends, is the bottom line. 
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)They used to ignore us. Now they fling poo at us.
Progress!
LuvLoogie
(7,028 posts)Who is your precinct captain?
I have been a Democrat for decades and I don't know who my precinct captain is. I did actually move from Saint Paul to Minneapolis last your, but I really don't like your tone on this.
LuvLoogie
(7,028 posts)You say you have been a Democrat for decades. Okay, I am asking if Manny is a member of the Democratic Party. Becoming an activist in your state/local Democratic Party goes beyond registering to vote as a Democrat. Maybe Manny is not registered as a Democrat.
Manny and the OP speak of being persona non grata or ignored by the Democratic Party. So I ask whether they are involved at all on a local level within the party organization. If they are trying to effect change within the Democratic Party, how have they gone about it?
There is a Progressive Caucus in Congress. Jan Schakowsky introduced the Peoples Budget. She is a stalwart Democrat. I don't think she is giving up.
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/236658-stark-choices-peoples-budget-vs-republican-plan
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I actually go to my precinct caucuses and have been a state delegate here in Minnesota twice now in addition to other volunteer work. Again, I don't always know who my precinct captain is as I have moved but somehow the question just felt kind of dismissive of a long time activist who seems very involved in progressive politics. Manny having opinions that differ slightly from your own is not a good enough reason for a question like that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)so, what are their names?
LuvLoogie
(7,028 posts)If so, what was the most recent agenda? Did you become a party member? (Are you a party member?)
Have you provided any input in the party meetings you have attended? Who is your precinct captain? Does he/she not welcome your time or input?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)You won't get an answer, because they have none.
Democratic activists in my local county party are all way more liberal than I am, but I respect them a thousand times more than those people on the DU, who constantly write the Obama-bashing screeds and link to anti-Hillary lies written by libertarians. Actual Democratic activists actually do things, talk to people, canvass.
But you'll never get the people here to acknowledge it. The vast majority just like to wallow in lazy self-righteousness, not actually do anything that takes work. And the ironic thing is that even though I don't completely agree with my very liberal representatives, I've done some very real things to support them, and in so doing have done more for the "liberal" cause than most of the people here.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
murielm99
(30,763 posts)very enlightening. You see how people work together, no matter what candidate they prefer in the primaries. You see how the local parties connect with the state, and how the elected representative work together at all levels.
My brother and I were talking about that this evening. By serving on juries, serving as election judges, registering voters, canvassing, making phone calls, serving as precinct committeemen and elected Democratic county officers, we have gotten to see how much more open the process is than the cynics here would ever believe. Even attending a few fund raisers for state and local candidates is an educational experience.
Is there corruption? Of course. I live in Illinois, for crying out loud. It seems as though we produce either statesmen or crooks. I know that is not true, but it looks that way from the outside.
My local activists are all very liberal, too. And many of them are older, blue collar types, those often referred to, as you name yourself, conservative Democrats. They are not as conservative as they appear. And the black Democrats are just about our most loyal voting bloc. You would never think that by reading DU. Just how much more are they supposed to take?
I grew up a Democrat. I helped my dad with work for the party when I was eight years old.
As far as taking over the local groups, try joining them and see what happens. You might just be surprised by how well they work together. For example, I got an email from our county chairman. He was sending an email to everyone announcing the meetings that were taking place the other night -- for Bernie supporters. There was no indication of his own preference. He was just passing the information along, making sure everyone had the news and the choice.
This thread does not sound like the Democratic Party I know. It sounds like the Pity Party.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and would suggest, bringing that mentality to the Party (pardon the pun) is exactly why folks find/feel themselves on the outside.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of what we are fighting against, the Corporate Right Wing takeover of the government.
Traditional Democrats who realized they were not welcome in their own party by the Third Way, began to rebuild their party from the ground up several years ago.
They are now working locally and statewide across the country, succeeding in the last two mid terms to get Traditional Democrats elected to school boards, state legislatures and helped KEEP Traditional Dems in Congress while supporting ONLY Traditional Dems for vacant seats in Congress.
They also succeeded almost 100% in getting Progressive Policies on their local ballots, no longer counting on DC Third Way leaders to get things done.
They are building on this in every election and because a majority of Americans oppose Third Way policies, the success of these initiatives has been tremendous.
They are not about to be pushed out of the Dem Party, they ARE taking control to make sure it becomes a strong Party of the People.
It's been an exciting decade as rather than continue to wonder why Progressives are not supported by the Party leadership, Dems across the country are doing it themselves.
And that is why Third Way candidates did so poorly in both mid terms. Next election should see more Progressive Dems chosen and supported by the VOTERS as people join forces to make sure we have a Democratic Party representing Democratic principles in power removing the corporate purchased members who care nothing for the Working Class.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)sold us out to the big corporations like Goldman-Sachs.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I was the only person who bothered to accept the invitation to attend, apart from people who were already party officers, and their ideas were disorganized and crimgeworthy. After sitting through it, I could see why they can't get anyone interested in working with them in our county.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that likened what we are seeing to neighborhood kids playing football on a playground and a "new' kid comes along wanting to change the game to baseball.
I'll try and find it ... but it was based on what I observed at two local Democratic Party meetings ... during OWS. It was only two, because the "new" kids didn't show up for the 3rd gathering.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)I've also noticed our elected officials just seem to ignore our work and platforms in recent years.
LuvLoogie
(7,028 posts)If "the people" don't have any leverage it is because "the people" don't vote. Bernie said so himself at the close of his NRN remarks. When was the last time there was even 40% turn out during the off-year congressional elections? I can't attribute that apathy entirely to voter suppression.
Many people may say it's because there are no inspiring leaders. F ^%# that. My daughters are my inspiration to vote. My Mom is my inspiration to vote. My Wife is my inspiration to vote.
I am not emotionally attached to the Democratic party, nor am I attached to MY ideal. I look at the percentages and I ignore the noise. I just know that I will never vote GOP (again--I did once for an attorney general back in the 80s). I don't anticipate another paradigm shift in party labels as what occured due to the Civil Rights Act.
I was truly torn between Barack and Hillary. I voted for President Obama twice and I am really glad I get a chance to vote for Hillary again.
For an activist, voting is only the first step. But I think that the BIGGEST obstacle to progressive governance is a disconnected electorate. I do not blame the politicians.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Response to BainsBane (Reply #13)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Did you even bother to read the Twitter feed?
Response to BainsBane (Reply #16)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Really? And what makes you think that? Have you seen their tax returns?
Sewage, meaning black lives? Yes, I can see how offended you would be that black people think they have a right not to be murdered by cops and that politicians should address those concerns.
Your post would be an example of what is not even close to progressive.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #19)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Cha
(297,655 posts)BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)Response to BainsBane (Reply #19)
Name removed Message auto-removed
1monster
(11,012 posts)pinko) liberal.
To be honest, I've always thought that "Progressive" was a cop out by those who allowed the dirty tricks Republicans to define what a liberal is.. Hiding behind the "progressive" label weakened us, weakened the message, and conceded to the Repubs that they had won.
So, Progressives, define or redefine "progressive" however you want. It doesn't matter to me one whit because I am not a progressive.
I AM A PROUD LIBERAL!!!
(Disclaimer: This is not directed personally at you. You (personally) just gave me the opening. 
)
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)
Hatchling
(2,323 posts)Solidarity!
LordshipLadyship
(405 posts)I thought progressive had something to do with progresso pasta or something like that. 
Neither Repulsivecans or even Dems define or pigeonhole us. 
My wife and I are liberals. I have a Ph.D in tree hugging and bead wearing. 
1monster
(11,012 posts) mmonk
(52,589 posts)However, people can be liberal and be for a monarchy. I think it's beyond liberal and conservative at this point.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...when you are able to form a progressive majority, you can credibly dismiss the factions in the party that you're opposed to.. Right now, the only vehicle you have with any possibility of accomplishing your ideals legislatively, is the Democratic party. It's nice to dream past the party, but it's not yet a reality that progressives can legislate without them.
What you're leaning to is nothing but an out-of-power third party. It's your call.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)politics is about coalition building
...when you are able to form a progressive majority, you can credibly dismiss the factions in the party that you're opposed to
Why should a party be a closed platform that only accepts those who follow in lock step? Isn't that the republican party? Isn't the Democratic Party supposed to be a big tent? But what you just said there
"you can credibly dismiss the factions in the party that you're opposed to"
that is not a big tent. That is what the Hillary supporters are trying to do now to the "progressives" in the party. If we all split off because we are being "dismissed", doesn't that also weaken the party for you?
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...I firmly believe in our Democratic coalition. We all bring our ideals to the political arena from many diverse and disparate regions of the nation and are challenged to reconcile those interests and concerns in our national legislature, using the platform of our coalition to elevate those into action or law.
I believe progressives who are expressing frustration are stymied by our own movement's inability to attract the support needed to even contemplate rejecting many of the factions that we disagree with. Although you're correct that we can't afford to alienate numbers of our coalition, I don't believe we should be tolerant of those interests which we feel are destructive or corrupt. 'Big tent' shouldn't be so acquiescing of conservative policy or politics that we lose the wisdom of our Democratic principles. Still, we are challenged to move those factions in disagreement toward our agenda through the persuasion of our voting process. It should be remembered, though, that politics isn't best practiced as a zero-sum game. It's about coalition building, more than it's about obstinacy.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Though I think the problem comes in with regard to what those core principles are. Some of the same people who complain about DINOs ironically advance a worldview similar to the GOP in many respects, especially in regard to the concerns of people of color of women as "divisive." I see some with an antiquated worldview that don't understand society has moved on, that Democrats have a responsibility to listen to diverse voices and represent those constituencies.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)that is not hyperbole. See where the moderates in our party have allowed us to drift? We continue to drift to the right as the Republicans drift even further to the right. We need massive change now. There is talk about how we need to change, but nobody is brave enough to stand up for it. We need to wake up the moderates who are afraid to rock the boat, but you know what? I'm not sure that is possible until "they" are hurting and clearly they are not hurting yet. Maybe they will resist until people are willing to die for change again. I was hoping we had more courage than that.
This is my greatest fear. We will have to suffer a lot more, until there is no middle class left, before we have the numbers to actually effect change. People are afraid to change the status quo, even when they recognize that they are barely hanging on. People are afraid to risk losing to the republicans, when in fact, if they joined the progressives, we'd have the power to actually DO something.
I've about given up on the democratic party.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)by telling voters that you will inform them of how you will vote on a key piece of legislation after they are President.
That just reeks.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...I'm certainly not defending her campaign; not in what I wrote or what I represent in this primary. You need to argue all of that out with someone who actually supports her primary campaign.
The op made the suggestion of moving beyond the Democratic party. That's what I'm responding to. There's a notion in the op's premise that there's some ideal outside of the democratic process in which we could leave the Democratic party behind. What it all comes down to, though, is attracting enough support among voters to achieve enough representation in the legislature (and the presidency) to advance those ideals we espouse. There's no sidestepping or shortcutting that process, so, yes, it is a circular effort. The alternative is a process where that outcome is dictated by one side or the other. Politics is about persuasion; first of the electorate, then in debate among the legislators in the political arena. Here we are at the beginning, again. Is it difficult; frustrating? Yes it is. That's our democratic system of governance.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and it wasn't directed at you bigtree. You are the genuine article 
mmonk
(52,589 posts)since 2010 in active ways including marches and volunteering. The party structure I don't think, is the vehicle.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)There you go, and that is our frontrunner.
Some get in the face figuratively of other DUers and question why we are looking for alternatives.
That is the same shit that caused her to lose to Obama.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Hillary is a typical third-way democrat and doesn't want to have to stake out solid positions she doesn't have to that might interfere with fund raising. It represents a kind of politics that should have already gone out of style but hasn't. It actually has interefered with the Democrats acting and speaking more regarding more economically populist issues (and it is why Sanders is doing so well.)
It sounds like good wonkish inside the belt strategy but it relies very heavily on branding and name recognition a hell of a lot more than solid policy. All the policy proposals put forth by the Clinton campaign have been the usual 'revenue neutral' nonsense that is meant to be as inoffensive while changing things as litte as possible and not appearing threatening. All of this gets packaged inside of speeches without specifics and vague platform without promises. It just doesn't inspire much and actually turns off the base a bit.
A lot of the problem is that the DNC is still populated by politicians that like to jump in and out of private enterprises to make a bit of money. It really isn't workable at all and we end up getting all sorts of lobbyists into the system even more. In a lot of ways most of this isn't even Hillary's fault. I wonder if she has imagined how things could be different sometimes and then just rationalized that what she is doing is the best that could be done, which is so much more sad.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Even when Obama was running he never had a liberal platform but people had rose colored glasses at the time and just fell for it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)My decision has been validated over the last few years.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)and that's a long time.
Now that our lives have gotten worse, and our progressive (or liberal, I don't care about labels) goals have more urgency, and we have a candidate to champion those policies, we see that the emperors of our party truly wear no clothes.
They, and the people who can't see past identity politics (a valid subset of liberal politics but not by any means the big picture) that couldn't care less about the oligarchy (I saw one of them say exactly that on this site), are pushing back against our efforts to stand up and fight. They are relentless, but the tide is against them. Our lives get worse, and the need for a non-corporate left to rise into power becomes more obvious to more people. The wars never end. Prisons are built instead of schools. The climate is going completely to hell. The nascent fascist police state grows ever stronger. The sincere identity-focused people will see that we represent their interests better than the corporations and join us, the insincere ones are corporate trolls.
I say stay in this party and fight like hell. It's our party, the money people have captured it but have no moral authority.
It would be useful to have an active subset of the Democratic Party that pressures the party from within, and whose votes can't be taken for granted. I don't see any other way to get them to listen to us, their only compass is bottom line profits, they couldn't care less about our welfare. Ideally we would be putting up more candidates like Sanders, plenty of obstacles to that but he is showing the way.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Thank you for your thoughtful post.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)We stay and fight. That means getting involved. Going to caucuses, voting and campaigning. Educating more of the people. Regardless of what the other faction wants we will hang in there.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I can see value in organizing formally as a separate entity that keeps its home within the Democratic Party, preparing the ground for leaving if they won't listen and address our concerns.
They've ignored us, lied to us, spat upon us, insulted us, and sold us out pretty much my entire adult life, going back to the late 70's or early 80's. No more. If they want our votes they need to step up and represent.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Path to citizenship, a more progressive tax system, work for social justice, millions more with access to healthcare.
The republican work against all of those, while democrats overwhelming support them. The party is more progressive than you are giving them credit for. Republicans do hold congress.
Clearly some fall further left than the current state of the party. I hope they would help move the party left from within. It is why I am really happy to see Sanders join the party after all these years.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It has become predictable ovr the last 30 yeears that eitehr when a situation cries out for intervention and change, the GOP goes to the absolute worst position. Bit Democratic leadership follows them -- just not so extreme.
Healthcare, for example. What is truly needed is to jettison the system of for-profit insurance, and offer universal affordable public coverage based on income. But Democrats have rejected that aas roundly as Republicans.
After ignoring it for over a decade, it resurfaced with Obamacare. The GOP railed against it. Bit what was implemented was originally a Republican plan that further enslaved us to the Big Insurers. It did contain some good things, bit overall, it further embedded those Big Insurers as the Masters of Healthcare.
What infuriated me during that whole mess was the refusal to even consider a mild alternative of expanded Medicare eligibility, to offer a public alternative. We were told it was because we had to get something the GOP could suppot. But ALSO to placate Joe Lieberman.
So even a mild compromise was taken off the table. Abnd the GOP still is resisting and trying to overturn it.
I am convinced that if Obama and other "centrist" Dems had actually supported that and explained the benefits to the public in non-apologetic ways, we cold have at least had the START of the tyoe of healthcare system that every other country in the world has.
That's just one example. Could site many others.
Just sayin, while tghe GOP is awful, at least they are honestly awful, and push what they want clearly. An they have gotten what they want for 30 years, without a political partrty that actually challenges them.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I have made the exact same arguments as you and overall still hold those thoughts. Here is where, in my opinion, you go wrong. That line of thought, which I do agree with, is not the end all be all with respect to if legislation moves us in a progressive direction. It is an argument based on the thought that legislation that does not fully change the fundamentals of a structure in society then it cannot be progressive in nature. The ACA made no fundamental changes to the healthcare industry in this country. We agree on that.
It did place numerous more regulations on health insurance companies than were previously on the books. Almost all progressive in nature. It is funneling tax revenues to people who really need it. That is a direction that is progressive in nature even though private enterprises are receiving the funds. Yes, that hurt me to type and pisses me of to this day. But millions who really need it now have health insurance subside sided by the government.
The system was in no way fundamentally changed. Through history, take legislation that fundamentally changed industries in a progressive nature at the federal level all at once, and you would be talking about numbers in the 10's. Talking incrementally, it's in the thousands. That is progress. Progress the other side of the isle fights against tooth and nail while democrats fight for it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)My own view is that Medcare should be made available to everyone, at a price based on percentage of income.
It can be voluntary. That's automatically a more moderate compromise from mandatory universal coverage, it would at least offer an option and a competitive baseline to keep private insurers from gouging consumers.
That would be transformation step -- but it is also would have been very doable, and integrated into the present system.
What I was (am) so frustrated by is that we squandered that opportunity, and preempted it for the foreseeable future. Rather than ,oving cloer to social insurance we further embedded private insurance as the basis of the system. Instead, we ended up with a needlessly complicated system, that still squeezes too many people who do not fit into the category of subsidized care and gave us the worst of both worlds.
There was a proposal in that direction of expanded Medicare eligibility , and many Democrats supported that. But President Obama and other leadership chose not to support it. Instead they pushed for a system that -- while it had some good elements -- was ultimately a gift to insurers by delivering a literally captive market of "consumers" who had to buy their product.
I am convinced that if Obama, and the other Democratic leaders, had unified and aggressively sold the idea of opening up Medicare to the younger public on a voluntary basis, and explained it clearly (it really is a simple concept) and directly challenged the corporate/GOP propaganda, it could have passed with public support.
We keep doing that stuff, and shooting ourselves in the foot on so many issues. I think we'd at least move in the right (better) direction by at least basing our compromises in a coherent liberal/progressive philosophy.
I agree with everything you said and would add to it one argument.
The main characteristic of the ACA is that it embedded private insurance companies as the health care gate keepers and gave them up to 20% of all premiums as profit and administration. Although, it is possible that that number will be squeezed by market mechanisms and negotiation, this may be unsustainable.
The cost of our health care system like our defense system is ultimately unsustainable. I think a big part of this is the inclusion of profit motives and private insurance. This is not fact but is opinion. Probably agreed to by many.
If this opinion is actually correct, the ACA did not solve anything on a long term basis. In the short term, the government is paying for more peoples health needs (plus the profit to the insurance companies) but if the system fails what then. It will be claimed (as is claimed now by Republicans) that Government run health care is a failure. It may be impossible to get a real solution in the future. Right or wrong, failures are blamed on the political party who pushed it.
So I do not dispute that the ACA contains some helpful changes that improve the current system as it drives off a cliff. However, I believe it is still driving off the cliff and passing the ACA will make it harder to change directions (or prevent driving off the cliff) in the future. I think we had a real window to make a significant change as you discuss and totally blew it by concentrating on short term goals that prevent real long term change.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But it makes things needlessly complicated and has already caused a lot of smaller problems.
But the real problem is the perpetuation of the role of private insurers as the gatekeepers. People will continue to get squeezed by the extortionary nature of it.
Rilgin
(787 posts)I thought your post was very well written and mirrors a lot of my own thought on the ACA and the process that led to it.
Much of what we wrote and what people who disagree with us are matters of opinion and conjecture. For example, a big claim of ACA proponents is that anything better was not possible. This is opinion and conjecture. As you point out, he did not really try to instill a public option or expand medicare. He did not put his executive weight on the house bill passed by Nancy Pelosi which included a public option passed a year before the Senate passed the Bachhus written bill without the public option. In fact, the white house deliberately said the House bill would not be the model bill but the model bill would come out of Bacchus' committee. We will never know if he actually lobbied for the public option or the house passed bill (as he has for the TPP) whether we would have got more. We do not know if he had mobilized millions to the mall for single payer if he would have forced the political system to recognize single payer.
Similarly it is opinion on the long term effects of the ACA. I suspect that we do not actually disagree. You mention complications and squeezing users, I used the word crashing. I mean basically the same thing, costs will rise and the health care system will be expensive and not serve its users. I may think it will be considered a pure failure more than you and I think at some point, if it does not serve the public, the republicans and libertarians could stigmitize the ACA enough to repeal it.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I overwhelmingly agree with you on most all of what you wrote here. Once again, it does not speak to terms of progressives not being welcome as the op states. Most of what you state I have simply stopped re-hashing.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Been this way for a long time. They want our votes, but they'll only take our ideas when things become so overwhelming they can't avoid them, then they take credit for having implemented them - after making people suffer for decades longer than they had to.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the bathwater. When they see a weakness the rw zooms in for the kill. And we tend not to fight back.
One of the only things I have really seen us - the people - fight for is Social Security and that may not be true in the future because even my very Democrat children do not believe that Social Security will be there for them. I got so tired of hearing that I finally said "It sure as hell will not be if you are not going to fight for it." She looked very hurt but said no more.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I remember working for Sen/ Fred Harris -- an earlier version of Bernie/Wellstone, etc. -- in the primary against Jimmy Carter.
Same old dismissive shit was going on back then. Liberal/progressive policies being jettisoned in order to cater to Big Business and the "Silent Majority."
Since then, the overall situation in the country has gotten much worse. But at least the awareness of issues progressives have been trying to get recognized has increased, and things like the effort to get E Warren to run and currently Berniemania are much more widespread.
But the entrenched status quo has also gotten more entrenched, and in some respects more determined than ever to hold on to power and stifle actual reform.
I don;t know where it's going. Maybe it'll lead to a revitalized more diverse and liberal Democratic Party. Or maybe "more of the same" will lead to a third party (and maybe a fourth party in the GOP).
Dunno.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The three leading candidates for the nomination are all running on progressive platforms. We currently in the midst of a historically progressive presidency, which would have accomplished even more if not for GOP obstruction.
As for the divisions, first of all realize that the anti-Democratic wing of the Democratic party is really pretty small. Obama has extremely high approval numbers among liberal Dems, as does Hillary.
True, there are a sliver of hard-left purists who would like the tent to only include people like Kucinich and Sanders. That's not going to happen. But progressives like me are the heart of the Democratic party.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's the all-purpose putdown used to marginalize anyone who wants to see actual reform -- including moderate liberal reform -- that addresses the systemic rot that is occurring in our economic system.
I say that as a card carrying capitalist, and moderate liberal, not some radical socialist.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)"real Democrats"?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'd say both Obama and Clinton are "real Democrats in some respects on some issues. But on other issues they are, as Obama has acknowledged, similar to Republicans.
I'd expect Republicans to jump in, for example, on these awful "free trade" agreements like TPP and push for their passage as corporate wish lists.
I'd also expect Liberal/Progressive Democrats to oppose that, and learn from the mistakes of the past. I'd also expect them to ;listen to unions, liberal economists and others instead of Robert Rubin and Jeff Immelt (of GE).
Instead I'd expect Democrats to push for legitimate trade policies that are focused solely on the mechanisms of trade. And to push for policies that actually do protect American workers and domestic small and medium sized businesses, as well as the interests of consumers, the environment -- and also overseas workers through our power as a large market.
And I especially would NOT expect Democrats to hand over democracy to unaccountable corporate bodies who can sue governments to overturn any laws or policies that interfere with Corporate Profits.
Compromise is one thing. Selling out is something differrenet.
That's just one example.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Obama has been opposed strongly by the GOP on virtually every issue, one notable exception being TPP. To even suggest he's not a "real Democrat" because of TPP is just as absurd as suggesting that Bernie is not a "real Democrat" because of his vote for gun industry immunity.
By the way, in surveys more Democrats are in favor of trade agreements and TPP than against, so even the premise that it's not "Democratic" to support TPP is highly questionable. You are free to disagree with Obama about the costs and benefits of TPP, but to insist that Obama is in favor of it because of "corporate wish lists" as opposed to for the reasons that he says -- that it will raise labor and environmental standards among trading partners, and increase our influence in Asia -- is absurd.
I believe that, with all the good that Obama's done, he's earned it for people who disagree with him about TPP at least recognize that he's not in favor because he only cares about corporations and rich people, he's in favor of it because he disagrees about whether it will help or harm ordinary Americans.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I said "some" issues, first of all.
But why is it that progressives/liberals feel like they are forced to challenge their own elected representatives so much?
I can only speak for myself but I Wish to Holy Jesus that once President Obama was in office I could have relaxed and basked in the knowledge that someone was in the WH that would consistently stand up for my liberal beliefs. I supported him and I was thrilled when he was elected.
Instead, dispite the many good things he has done, it too often felt like it wasn't the "base" that was calling the shots, but the same Oligarchs who have done so much damage already.
Also, the opposition of the GOP is political, reflexive -- and it is also why they are winning, regardless of what percentage of actual power they hold at any given time.
Why do you think they oppose Obamacare, which was originally hatched by a conservative think tank, promoted by Republicans and first implemented originally by Romney?
Not because Republican leaders have any honest philosophical objections. It's because they are using it as leverage to push for an even more right wing Darwinian health care system. If they lose that fight, at least they have a health care system that is based on their own principles, and guarantees the continued market power of the health Insurance Industry with a captive consumer market.
As for public support for TPP....That has more to do with the complexity of the issue and the lack of accurate media coverage -- and a natural tendency to want to give the president the benefit of the doubt. It's a whole lot easier to say "Well President Obama says this will promote jobs and do all these good things, so it must be true."
Unfortunately that s the same thing that was said to sell the earlier free trade agreements, and those didn't turn out so good. But President Obama says this will be different this time so it must be different.....Even though they won't let us see it until it is too late.
Again, I am not saying he is not a Democrat. I think he has been great in many ways. But we can -- and should -- try to do a lot better to tackle the core problems, instead of mistaking "compromise" with surrender,
I think too many people equate progressive with support gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. They completely ignore fiscal policy. A lot of us are sick of seeing big money interests dictate a policy of tax cuts for billionaires and middle class jobs moving overseas and those same "progressives" I described earlier not seeing a problem as long as democrats can raise money and win elections. If we support candidates that will not try to get the big money out of politics we're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)All the leading Dems are progressive on both. This includes Obama, Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley.
None of them support tax cuts for billionaires, in fact all of them support raising them. Hillary's economic plan in particular has won praises by leading progressive economists like Krugman and Stiglitz. And all of them are opposed to Citizens United, and in favor of getting big money out of politics. And so on.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Didn't he extend the Bush tax cuts twice? I know he did once, but could be wrong about the second time.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)He left the Bush tax cuts in place at lower rates, but repealed the top marginal rate cut, which effectively means raising taxes on billionaires.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Meaning, he supports lower tax rates for the rich.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)He raised that back to pre-W levels.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Man, I'd like to see your neighborhood! 
TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)Some of our candidates talk about getting money out of politics, keeping jobs in America and progressive taxes but their actions send mixed messages at best. I'm much more about action than campaign talk.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That may be the view of someone outside of the Democratic Party and/or Left; but, we're seeing the progressives (on DU) focusing, almost, exclusively on fiscal policy ... while calling those arguing for supporting SSM, a woman's right to choose, and racial/social justice, divisive.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The underlying problem in our system is that it force people into either/or positions.
There are, for example, plenty of people who are socially liberal but conservative on economics.Just as there are many people whose views on economics are liberal/progressive, but they may be conservative on one or more social issues.
The current system imposes templates that force people to choose. Someone who strongly believes in economic justice, for example, but is also strongly against abortion rights, is stuck between a rock and a hard place, in terms of allying themselves with a political party (or perhaps candidate).
One of the core strategies that undermines unity on issues of Money and Power as the GOP's exploitation of that. They conned many people into supporting corporate conservative economic policies that are not in their best interests by aligning them in people's minds with "family values" and, frankly bigotry.
The Democrats have been flat footed for many years on how to respond to that. Either sold out social issues in an attempt to counter that, or they became socially liberal while ultimately supporting conservative economics.
That tension has been at the core of a lot of things. Today it;s expressed in the so-called conflict between social ajustice and economic justice issues. It's not that they are incompatable -- in fact they go hand in hand. But there are a lot of squabbles over priorities, which creates division.
We all have our own individuals opinions on that. But no easy answers to that fundamental dilemma unfortunately.
TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)I'm in fights constantly with the family over a whole range of social issues. We agree more on fiscal policy. I hope no one is suggesting I'm not a real democrat.
Agony
(2,605 posts)" I'm a progressive, and I don't remotely feel like persona non grata."
"The three leading candidates for the nomination are all running on progressive platforms. We currently in the midst of a historically progressive presidency, which would have accomplished even more if not for GOP obstruction.
As for the divisions, first of all realize that the anti-Democratic wing of the Democratic party is really pretty small. Obama has extremely high approval numbers among liberal Dems, as does Hillary.
True, there are a sliver of hard-left purists who would like the tent to only include people like Kucinich and Sanders. That's not going to happen. But progressives like me are the heart of the Democratic party."
#delusional
140 char be damned
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)detention, domestic spying, drone killing, the TPP, etc.
There is a clear division in the Democratic Party including the progressive wing of Sen Sanders and Sen Warren and the non-progressive wing including Clinton and Obama. Just because one believes in some social issues doesn't make them progressive.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The world has changed dramatically in past 20-30 years and politics need to change to stay relevant. We still have to fight for progressive issues but we also need to face reality. To win we need to make compromises. And it affects both sides. Take a look at gay marriage and abortion... many Republicans now support those issues when just 10 years ago that would be unheard of. Its simply a matter of survival.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm all for compromise. But it is not compromise to join with the GOP to remove all of the financial regulations. It was not compromise to remove the regulatory system that had created a diverse and accountable banking and financial services industry and replace it with an unregulated Wild West, in which huge banking monopolies could form, and in which they could act with such reckless greed that they tanked the economy.
If Democrats had been less corrupt and/or cowardly in the 80's and 90s the mess we're in could have been avoided -- or at least minimized.
But instead, "purists" who warned of the consequences were told "don't be a purist. the world is changing and we have to compromise." That's just code for Accept and Obey.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)" The mystery of where the milk went to was soon cleared up. It was mixed every day into the pigs' mash. The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness-room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others.
"Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?"
Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone. "
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
HFRN
(1,469 posts)that's *exactly* what you just said
and that's exactly what's happening
note: the rich could not care less about the social issues, Koch's in particular (Libertarian)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)so long as we "compromise" with Republicans and bankers on economic issues.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)compromise because we on the bottom of this pig pile always get the worst of it.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Not sure I want to survive along with that sort of party. I have some self esteem left.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)strident heterosexual majority was telling us about your Big Tent when 100% of your candidates were ranting about Sanctity of Marriage 'God is in the Mix!!!' they shouted during rallies with hate spewing anti gay evangelists, Obama did such rallies. For the Inauguration Rick Warren represented you folks, the Sanctified Straights just had to send another nasty message our way 'we got your votes, now kiss our ass' you guys said.
Arrested, harassed, discharged, beaten, allowed to die off in mass numbers while the majority of which you are a part did nothing but elect Reagan again.
Yeah, things are really rough on you as a white straight Democrat. Poor, poor creature.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the OP clearly reflects that progressive and Democrat are not synonymous.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)I must not be communicating well with some. I don't split everything up. I feel your justified hatred but it is misdirected.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)That asswipe was Obama's WH chief of staff for a couple of years.
Does that answer your question?
fredamae
(4,458 posts)welcomed for a Long time "under the big dem tent". Third Way DWS the other day, w/Tweety..said that the Dem party Really is a Big Tent and Everyone is welcome-she just failed to mention Leadership in the party have made "the club" a Black Tie Only Club. Sure, we're all Welcomed...however "we" can't All qualify ($$$$$$$) for Member$hip.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)so I can caucus for him. Win or lose I will switch back to Unaffiliated for the general. It's not a matter of having no place to go for me, it's a matter of I chose to not be a member of this current democratic party.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Please remember to use coasters on the tables during your stay.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)
Hydra
(14,459 posts)It's just that some of us realize it and some of us don't. Our party decided that they couldn't win elections without being Moderate Republicans. It's a silly idea, since there hasn't been a legally elected Republican in the WH since before 1980.
Most of our party signed on the dotted line, and it shows with how our country has disintegrated in the last 3 decades. Our party has been a willing force pushing for the things that did that. Lately, all of the positive changes have come from the bottom- LBGT rights were considered "unimportant" by the "centerists" for instance. Economic inequality is being pushed back against from that camp as well, but the higher minimum wage movement is working.
We're not welcome in our party, but trying to send us out of the tent won't make us go away. They seriously think that we have no options outside of them...but when everyone figures out that they are the new GOP, there will be votes for a People's Party.
Response to mmonk (Original post)
m-lekktor This message was self-deleted by its author.
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 2, 2015, 01:38 PM - Edit history (1)
From the very beginning, and throughout my active participation, I've seen people come to party meetings of one sort or another and express their dissatisfaction with the status quo. Invariably, they wanted to change things in major ways. Problem was that they ignored the realities of politics in a nation that relies, more or less, on majority rule. Also invariably, they left, never to return to the discussion.
Why do we have two major parties? Because we are based on majority rule, in general. What that means is that there are basically two choices for everything we vote on, either in the polling place or in our legislative bodies. That carries right down to precinct and district level political organizations. We vote on everything, and the majority rules in almost all cases.
I've attended a few dozen Democratic Party conventions, usually at the district level. One of the things that happens at those conventions is the introduction of resolutions that are basically designed to become part of a platform at that level or that will be voted on again at a higher level.
We vote at those conventions on those resolutions. No majority vote and the resolution goes no farther. Majority rules, because that's how our system is set up. The Democratic Party is a big tent. It's members include people that favor a wide range of views, starting with centrist views and moving toward the left. But, it's a majority thing. Stuff that's borderline centrist or borderline leftist rarely can get a majority of agreement.
A lot of people show up every year, but then leave and don't return, because what will get majority support isn't what those people want. They opt themselves out of the party discussion with only a one-time try. This is what I've seen over and over again.
We have a two-party system because everything of any importance, from electing a President to passing laws in federal and state legislatures requires a majority vote. We don't have thriving third parties, because they interfere with those majority decisions, and don't have enough participants to get a majority for their point of view.
That is the system that is in place. There's no real way to change it, since a change also requires majority agreement. Is that a flaw in the system? That depends on your point of view. It is a flaw if the majority won't support things you believe are crucial. It is a flaw if you cannot get majority support for what you want.
A lot of people won't participate in the political system that is in place. It's too lethargic and slow to change, in their opinion. So, they refuse to participate. The thing is that the system in place is the one that is in place. Lacking majority agreement that major change is needed, there's no way to get those changes.
Change in a two-party majority-based system cannot come quickly. That's both the beauty and the ugliness of two-party systems. Those who reject the party system don't participate in it. They lock themselves out of the way such systems change over time. They want a system that supports the minority views they hold, and refuse to participate in any system that doesn't support those minority views.
I don't see a solution. The Democratic Party is truly a big tent party. If you participate, your point of view will be heard, but may not be accepted by a majority. If you persist, you may be able to gain that majority support. If you leave, you will not gain any support at all and things will continue as they are, with only incremental changes.
The tent flap is open, and every point of view is welcome. Every point of view will not immediately get the support of the majority, though. If you want your point of view to be accepted by the majority, you have to stay under the tent until that happens. If you leave, your point of view is off the table. You have to be in the tent to be heard.
I know: tl;dr. But there it is.
N.B.: I'm going to post this as an OP.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)thank you, that was well put.
Agony
(2,605 posts)this isn't anything new, it simply requires eternal vigilance and struggle.
Even FDR had banker friends with undue money and influence and he managed to do many good things for people.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 2, 2015, 12:37 PM - Edit history (1)
the official faction of the party's been telling us "don't vote third-party, vote primary!" and then punishing us for daring to have a primary; frankly the group that says "we have to win before we do anything" isn't that interested in winning--with a source of funding secured (like oil for the PRI in Mexico or the AD in Venezuela) it doesn't really matter if a candidate wins or loses anymore, and they try and make sure that those who do win play "the game" of money for influence: if in fact they win too hard that's a problem because then people will expect them to pass laws rather than be good "veal"--these types were RELIEVED by Brown's victory because the heat was off
Dems and voters are sick of being called Commie-Nazis every time they want something, of being told by pols who *endorsed GOP candidates two years before* that Pubs are winning because voters are swine who hardly deserve the ballot, of differences that exist only to get us to vote for the similarities, of economic and social justice being divided by people believing in neither, of being told that GOP policies will start up the camps and chimneys by Dems who immediately pass those policies, of being promised the moon and stars and then having to warm their hands over the oil-drum fire while the partying and popping champagne for the 15th time in a row, of being blamed for wars by people who voted for them, of being called Dixie-whistlin' Klansmen who don't listen by supporters of the CCA candidate--and of being told over and over that this was all lies, that it's some Firebagger fabrication or some blond rapist traitor who defected to run Putin's temple; then people show them the MSM story confirming it and OPs get deleted and cries of "tone policing" are leveled
it's been over a decade and we all remember Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, Buono, Lutrin, etc. now we're at the terminus of DLCer logic: Clinton isn't a lefty radical like Sanders and votes with him 104% of the time so stop complaining; they're openly telling us that her record is utterly irrelevant: she's against Wall Street, war, fracking, TPP, H1Bs, backing a kingpin's brutal junta and al-Qaeda in Libya *because they don't want her to be*: they're openly delirious and demand that we be, too
the more open the hypocrisy the louder they lecture--it's a sorta show of strength, over reality itself maybe
Hydra
(14,459 posts)The Bush Administration freely stated that they were rewriting reality. The Obama Administration ran on the idea that people don't care about issues, they wanted someone they could identify with in the WH. The Bush Admin tried to pull the same thing as well- the whole "You'd like to have a beer with him!" line.
A show of strength over reality indeed.
But ya, seems our "Leaders" would rather not have our input, they no longer need our money, and our votes can be diebolded. Where does that leave us?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)too bad he was literally dying before he could edit it--it's like two books stuck together (so it's more Dostoevsky than Zamyatin)
who needs Diebold when you get the same cash flow win or lose? you even get to play the brave resistance!
Hydra
(14,459 posts)You actually do need diebold though- as people stop voting, the regime is seen as less credible. The media has to pretend that a lot of people are engaged and supportive of the regime, and the votes have to be rigged in specific ways and numbers to back that up.
Of course, this presupposes the people in charge actually care to do the kabuki. They're barely trying these days.
Response to mmonk (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)I'm one of them, and it does make a difference. The Party has its flaws, but giving up and going home does not change things. 75% of Americans see politics as a distant game that they only care about maybe once every four years, and how the rest of us stay engaged shapes their choices when it comes time to vote. If we let the Democratic Party stray to the right, it's because most of the people involved are in favor of that. The more of us left-wingers involves in the process, the further left the Democratic Party will go.
Conservative Republicans have known this for a long time, which is why their party has more closely adhered with their ideology since 1968.
Hatchling
(2,323 posts)They don't like us, but they need us to win. And they are scared by our defection to a candidate that actually has liberal values all the time as opposed to only during elections or when it becomes politically correct to have those values.
The only time I have seen this much vitriol about a candidate on this board was in 2008.
olddots
(10,237 posts)and demonized by the Republican party ...You get used to it .
elleng
(131,107 posts)Fighting for Martin O'Malley, a real progressive candidate with proven experience and announced plans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251488948
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281
senz
(11,945 posts)Paraphrasing, if you don't like what the Democratic Party is doing, take it over from within. He suggests that we get active in our local Democratic organization and change it from within. That's how the far right took over the Republican Party.
But I would add: the power of the oligarchs is peaking, and political types have a weakness for powerful in-groups, so they gravitate toward the "Big Boys" who can grant them access to what they want.
Those of us who champion the have-nots, who prefer to work from the bottom up, will always face barriers by social do-gooders who can't resist money, ego strokes, and group support.
Also, when we say "the Democrats," do we mean ALL Democrats? Hope not, because about half of the Dems in the legislative branch are good progressives - or, if you like, genuine liberals. That is, not sold out.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Simply, Bernie Sanders and supporters are progressive democrats, and want social advances while regulating corporations and removing the power of oligarchs to influence government. Sanders and his supporters advocate for the advance of democracy, and various safety net and employment protections for the 99%, and protection for the the democratic process. Bernie is supported by small donations from working people who sick to death of oligarchy, and are give as much as they can afford to help Bernie kick the oligarchs to the curb. Senator Sanders has a long record of advocating and legislating for these issues.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are Third Way, and want social advances while maintaining the present system of rule by Wall St. oligarchy. They support protecting oligarchy from democrats and democracy. Secretary Clinton has little else but her words as an ambitious Wall St candidate for President to indicate otherwise.
Let's get real. Clinton is a DLC/Third Way New Democrat, supported by Wall St. giant multi-national corporations, and wealthy oligarchs, who are dumping millions into her campaign to help ensure that they remain in control of our government. They are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know she will primarily promote and serve the interests of the 1%, to the extreme detriment of the working people of the US.
She's a wealthy oligarch, and an oligarchist. Those who support her candidacy support oligarchy, whether they are aware of it, or not, and whether they wish to, or not.
A rose, by any other name, still smells like a rose.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Cool, that's fine.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Certain prerequisite characteristics within the source of the attempted character assassination must first exist before a person of integrity can have their character assassinated by that source.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Thanks.
Response to mmonk (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)He said we are the outsiders, not insiders like the multi-millionaire Democratic politicians running Washington and this country alongside the insider Republicans. He also said there is an economic crash coming because of the policies of the insiders and if that happens before the 2016 election Bernie will win the presidency. If not Hillary will win. My own opinion I might add, if the crash happens during Hillary's presidency, she will be blamed for it.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)I can't afford another round. Like close to $2 million because of financial deregulation coupled with refusals to regulate derivatives (lost 75% to 80% of my worth). I'm not like a Republican and can just vote against my interests because the party goes a certain way and attribute blame to scapegoats and others.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The emotional attachment to the Party melts away, and it becomes so much easier to rationally assess the Party's actions. One can focus on issues rather than horse-races and personalities.
It allows for personal political growth, and I recommend it to anyone frustrated by the seeming futility of banging one's head against the system.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Fighting outside the system with Moral Monday has given good insight.