Should the left Dems take over the party?

[quinnox]

Is it time for the left to become the party leadership, and determine the agenda? Is it time for the moderates and conservative Dems to make way for the left?

[cherryperry]

1. It's way past overdue,

but I fear the country just ain't ready yet. First we need to get a win in 2004, next we'll head toward a change in party leadership, how's that sound?

[liberalnurse]

2. We should unite as one voice.....

The moderates and conservative democrats need to embrace all. I'm refering to the DLC. The *bush regime is counting on dividing the democrats. Remember who the enemy is...

I believe we need to determine our Democratic Presidential Candidate now verses July 2004....I'm looking at uniting the party...

The longer we wait and bicker amongst ourselves the better hand the repukes build.....

[NicRic]

4. Agree !

I also think that person should be Al Gore our President in exile ! Justice and a better(by far) President then the faker we have now !Most people ,I believe are moderate Dems ,the far extremes on either side seem to do more to devide there parties ! I know I want a open minded President that is open to any idea on how to fix a problem. That is what I admired about President Clinton ,he would listen to all opinions on a issuse and then make a informed decision ! RE-ELECT GORE 2004 !

[Leftist78]

44. now IS the time for bickering

That's part of what a primary is all about. As long as everybody involved understands that we're still on the same team, and what we're trying to do right now is work out the game plan for the big game.

I think most people here can get enthusiastically behind any candidate that wins the nomination, (except Lieberman) and when it becomes apparent that we have that person I think we will, but right now we're all fighting to make sure our wing of the party is the one that gets that nomination, and I think that's ok.

I personally believe the only nightmare scenario is if whomever we end up with loses. If that person is a DLC type, the Left (including myself) will be screaming, "I told you so" to the DLC people. If the person is a Moderate-Lefty like Dean, and he loses the DLC will be the ones screaming, "I told you so". Either way, if we lose the aftermath will turn into a nasty internal power struggle.

[Leftist78]

45. now IS the time for bickering

That's part of what a primary is all about. As long as everybody involved understands that we're still on the same team, and what we're trying to do right now is work out the game plan for the big game.

I think most people here can get enthusiastically behind any candidate that wins the nomination, (except Lieberman) and when it becomes apparent that we have that person I think we will, but right now we're all fighting to make sure our wing of the party is the one that gets that nomination, and I think that's ok.

I personally believe the only nightmare scenario is if whomever we end up with loses. If that person is a DLC type, the Left (including myself) will be screaming, "I told you so" to the DLC people. If the person is a Moderate-Lefty like Dean, and he loses the DLC will be the ones screaming, "I told you so". Either way, if we lose the aftermath will turn into a nasty internal power struggle.

[Cha]

3. We could just all work together as opposed to the dlc

trying to use their worn muscle to shove the left out of
the way.

I had no problem with them until they started trying to set the agenda and write off the validity of the left.

But they came across as ridulous so now I have no use for them.

Come to find out they aren't even Democratic middle. More repugnant than anything.

[liberalnurse]

5. Yes I agree....

I'm just hoping it does not come to that.....I really frown on the division of democrats....I think the Dean campaign will show the strength of "the voice of the people" to the DLC.....

Thats where I'm sitting......

[Iris]

53. it is enought to make me consider "going Green"

Really. I' m serious. I used to be a vote for anyone who has a (D) after his name, but after I heard the DLC doesn't want "lefties" anymore, I'm starting to change my thinking.

[Dhalgren]

6. I agree that we need to oust the Emperor

but the schism in out party is not going away. We have broad, fundamental differences between the left and the right in our party. At some point in time (maybe after '04) the Democratic party will have to either break up or one of the two factions will have to leave and either form a new party or join an existing one. The right Dems are almost Republicans in most of their ideology and the left almost Green, but not quite.

Which ever faction wins the nomination in '04, we'll all vote for the Dem no matter what. But the faction that loses the '04 nomination should leave the party after the Nov. elections.

I know that if one of the DLC candidates wins the nomination, I'll vote for him this time. But I will then leave the party forever. It doesn't do any good to continually subvert your own political beliefs in a party that has no use for you. I hope that the right wing of the party will do the same, if the nomination goes against them.

[liberalnurse]

10. The right Dems act like a private clique...

Thats the problem. Too connected to lobbyist and corporate monies...It also is a problem for the left dems as a result. I sense they will come around....They will see at the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primaries that the people are the backbone of the party. We have been complacent in the past...but no more.

[Classical_Liberal]

7. Whether it is left or not does't matter

Dean is not a leftests but he has sure got everyones panties in a bunch.

[Terwilliger]

8. "moderates" I have no problem with

but I'd like to see a MAJOR contribution to party decisions by the Progressive Majority.

[jiacinto]

9. I don't think either side should have complete control

nt

[Terwilliger]

12. wonderful concession

from the man who says `The left will destroy the Democratic party! Mondale and Dukakis were a rejection of those policies! I have proof! I have proof!'

[Nederland]

35. Be nice to Carlos

Unlike many on the left, he has never threatened to leave the party or vote for someone else if a his candidate didn't get the nomination.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Yes! It would be nice to have an opposition party

to the corporatists now running things. There is some sign of movement in the direction...not much, but some. Gephardt gone as house leader, Dean at least seen as a "leftist" (mistakenly, but it gives us some traction), and the seeming growth of spine by some Democrats to actually attack the fratboy emperor. And, the DLC's shrill attacks bespeak fear on the part of the rightwing corporate hacks in the party.

Will we win? Perhaps not this round, but our time will come as the people begin to see the cost of having a one party state.

[ShimokitaJer]

13. I think that would bring out the young voters

The lack of leadership on the left side of the party is, I think, a big reason for the lack of young Democratic voters... or rather, the lack of young voters period.

The DLC likes the party to maintain the status quo and keep the proven sources of funding coming in. They are like a dying corporation which refuses to invest in an unproven new business model and would rather fade away than risk burning out. To appeal to young voters, whose opinions are far less reflected in polls and election results since disgust has caused many to absent themselves, the party has to move to the left.

Of course, those are also the same reasons why the moderates, conservatives, centrists, pragmatists, appeasers (call them what you will, it always means sacrificing some of your ideals to hold onto power) will never "make way for the left." Power will never be given to the left, so if the left wants power in the Democratic party, it has to take it.

[realFedUp]

14. I think we need the old-timers backroom org skills

and they need the young activists to do more of the work on the ground and on the Internet....as well as using the org skills of
the unions.

The Dem party needs all of us to oust the fascist administration
now ruining this country and the world.

We could use a "table in the round" meeting of all the top
left Internet founders...bushwatch, bartcop, truthout, buzzflash,
american politics etc...along with top union leaders, top Dem
strategists and a representative from each Dem who's currently
running for president.

Let's start getting creative...put our minds and hearts together,
not work on ways to pull us apart.

Peace, love and the last of any Bush in our futures.

[Armstead]

15. It's not left or right

IMO there ought to be room for both moderates and the more radical "left" in the Democratic Party.

But only if it is a spectrum that addresses a couple of key issues. Acknowledging that over the last 30 years, the majority of the population has lost power and wealth to an Elite Corporate Oligarchy.

The core goal should be Fundamental reform to put the Corporate Elite in their proper place (and counter the message of their fucked up values of greed and lust for power) so that we can have a democracy again.

Every issue flows from that in one way or the other.

The centrists have to acknowledge that core fact, and stop enabling the continued perpetuation of this Oligarchy.

We can argue about the specifics as a family after that.

[ShimokitaJer]

16. ... and if those key issues aren't addressed?

Should lefties jump ship like so many Nader voters did last time?

We've been told to grin and bear it so often that even our idealism about the Democratic party is starting to wear thin. Why should we trust the centrists to include us in their administration if they refuse to include our issues in their platform?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Vote to win.

Should we abandon the Democratic Party if it insists on nominating yet another "centrist" loser? Nope. I plan on voting Democratic for sure..for my rep and senator. Both progressive, anti-war, Democrats. If the Democratic Party nominates an anti-war candidate - Dean looks like the only one possible - I'll vote Democratic. If not, I'll vote Green.

I've been a registered Democrat since 1965 but I've voted against Democrats (and their Republican pals) a few times out of pure disgust. Usually, I hold my nose, stifle my gag reflex, and vote for the Democrat, simply because he/she is "not as bad". But, I'm not compelled to - especially as the Greens offer us an alternative.

If the Democrats want to keep the left - make us an offer.

[tomp]

21. excellent point.

that really does boil it down to what i think of as a reasonable line-in-the-sand. if we can't agree on greatly reducing corporate influence on govt we really shouldn't be in the same party. and yes, all other issues flow from that.

now, guess what, the right wing of the democratic party will NEVER go for it.

what next?

[sangha]

17. More important

*CAN* the left Dems take over the party?

[Capn Sunshine]

18. NEVER HAPPEN

A brief reading of THIS website, the leftwing representative sample of the Democratic party, reveals the difficulty the "Left" has in uniting behind a solid front. The leftwing of the democratic party is not a solid tangible united movement or front. This by it's very nature is not a possibilty.

The reason the moderates run the party apparatus is because they are willing to give creedence, acknowlegement and time to the arguments and dialog that IS the democratic party.

From what is plainly on view here daily, I sincerely doubt the "left" of this party would give the same lattitude to the other members of the party.

OR am I wrong in assuming the first thing you would do is a purge of all the "republican lite" factions like the DLC or the "you sold us out" Greens?

[ShimokitaJer]

19. I think you've got that backwards

"The reason the moderates run the party apparatus is because they are willing to give creedence, acknowlegement and time to the arguments and dialog that IS the democratic party."

No, the democratic party base is defined in the way it is because the moderates run the party apparatus. And they expect the more liberal elements to vote Democratic whether or not their issues are represented by the platform of the Democratic candidate. What liberal issues did Gore/Lieberman espouse in 2000 that would make us want to vote for them? All we got were warnings to toe the line... and that's still all the "Anybody but Bush" crowd are offering us.

No, the "liberal wing" of the Democratic party isn't a cohesive voting block... because after NAFTA and the WTO we're learning how far we can trust those who insist on our loyalty without earning it.

I, for one, thing the careful scrutiny of the differences between all these presidential candidates is a good thing, and saying "I'll vote for Gore... or Clark... or whoever... no matter what basis they campaign on." is no way to forge consensus -- it's a way of giving up.

[tomp]

22. "The reason the moderates run the party apparatus...

...is because they are willing to give creedence, acknowlegement and time to the arguments and dialog that IS the democratic party."

what world are you livin' in?

[sangha]

23. The real one

where the Democratic Party still promotes plenty of liberal policies (gay rights, civil rights, minimum wage, welfare, etc) and where the leftists are more likely to leave the Democratic Party than take it over.

[tomp]

25. if that's your interpretation of the quote...

...what language do you speak? my point is that the quote is virtually meaningless in its subjectivity. it defines the party as...something...i'll be damned if i know what...

[sangha]

29. I speak English

and the Democratic Party, for all it's faults, realizes that you don't win elections by turning people away for deviating from, or adhering to, a doctrine.

[John_H]

24. The left is already more powerful than the DLC

Of course, i'm talking about the "traditional" left, or if you're a two-percenter, the less right wing-than-the-dlc left. Why? Well, 'cause most dems fall into this category.

I'm tired of proving the DLC is the minority wing of the party (do an FEC search and total contributions from traditional groups versus corporations and you'll see the light). Remember, the Greens want the DLC to "become" the democratic party in the eye's of y'all, which is why all you see around here is DLC DLC DLC. Smart politics, ain't true.

Here's a little advice for the far left crowd--you want the party to move left? Get out and vote dem and bring your friends. The numbers will be crystal clear to the political folks at the DNC. Then you'll have some juice. Right now, you're correctly viewed as the folks that bolt on a dime.

[ShimokitaJer]

26. more powerful, yes... but not as well organized or funded

That is why the DLC has been able to set the agenda.

And, I'm sorry, but saying you'll support the Democratic Party whether or not they actually defend your agenda is NO way to get your agenda heard.

[John_H]

27. Maybe. but you'd have a much better chance

than supporting someone else. That's a good way to get written off for good--and play right into Ralph's "death struggle" hand.

It seems like a no brainer to me that organizing and fighting from within, assembling a block of voters who will remain loyal to a point (ie labor) gets you more influence than fighting from the outside.

Lets say Kerry or Dean beat bush by a small margin, and that margin is attributable in large measure to a strong left of center turnout--you think the left wouldn't have a voice? You bet we would.

Let's say one of them beats bush dispite lots of folks on the left bolting. Then you'll hear, "Uh, why don't you go ask ralph nader for that cabinet position."

Of course the third option is that you want the Dems to lose because the left witholds their votes. in which case you are far far more cynical and stupid than KKKArl Rove on his worst day.

[ShimokitaJer]

30. Let's say instead that Lieberman beats Bush

Do I have any reason to expect that he would suddenly become an anti-corporate activist just because so many lefties were wise enough to give him our votes on election day.

I would happily support either Kerry or Dean, because they address issues I care about. The issue is whether or not I should support candidates who do not. I say promising them support despite their ignoring issues I care about teaches them only that they can continue to ignore the issues I care about.

[blm]

28. The DLC finally caved to the left.

From, who always resented Kerry's liberalism and independence from corporate influences, gave in to the pressure from the left. He is now shifting DLC support from the centrist Lieberman to progressive Kerry. I'll bet Clinton twisted his arm. heh

Progressives just won a big round.

[ShimokitaJer]

31. Great news! Got a source for it?

I think the key words to remember here are "gave in to pressure." The Democratic party leadership wants our time, money, and votes, and we only get our agenda heard if we control the ability to withdraw them.

[blm]

39. check Doc Funkenstein's thread in Politics & Campaigns.

He also has a listing of Kerry's liberal ratings from Nader's own group.

[ShimokitaJer]

41. Thanx

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Says more about Kerry than the DLC

I guess they see him as the last hope of the rightwing warmongers.

[blm]

38. Considering his solid liberal credentials

and Dean's solid centrist credentials, the left WON this round. From gave in.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Considering his cowardly war vote

his "credentials" as a liberal are sadly diminished. Most liberals try to prevent war and the bloodshed of innocents. Kerry sold his "credentials" cheaply for the sake of wrapping himself in the flag. A position familiar to scoundrels.

If Dean is such a "centrist" why is the rightwing DLC attacking him and supporting Kerry?

[blm]

42. Because Dean attacked them when he was mining

the left for $$$$ and support.

You want to TRY arguing that Dean didn't govern for 11 years as a compromising centrist in Vermont? He was the New Dem poster child as governor. He tried to give himself liberal credentials by coopting Nader's rhetoric from 2000. His centrist record doesn't match his hot rhetoric.

If you refuse to recognize that Kerry and others preserved the viability of the UN with their negotiated vote supporting the resolution, then, that's your problem.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Preserved the viability of the UN????

Good lord, you don't really believe that stack of steaming B.S. do you? Kerry and the other VichyDems voted for the war because they wanted to save their sorry asses by waving the flag.

The UN is now viable again because Bush and his supporters are seeing their "liberation" falling apart behind the lies they told and the mess in Iraq.

As to Dean's "centrism", I agree, but I can live with it, just like I lived with Clinton. Better a left leaning centrist than a phony liberal with blood on his hands. Kerry proved himself just another "say anything", "take no risks", vote chasing, politician with that sellout vote. Now he's trying to save his failing candidacy by whining about the war he helped start.

[blm]

49. Suit yourself. I disagree with everything you said there.

It shows a distinct lack of understanding the dynamics that Clinton was dealing with in 98.

[Nederland]

32. If you are prepared to lose, go ahead

The Democratic Party can ill afford to allow either the right or the left to dominate. The bottom line is that no Democrat since Jimmy Carter has gotten more than 50% of the vote. This party simply cannot afford to lose anyone currently in its ranks.

[Clete]

34. Yep.

There really isn't that much room for the middle as it is today in any left wing party. It used to be that what passes for the middle today was right-wing fifty years ago. Wackos to the far right were rightfully known as fascists. Today, they run the country. We need to have our progressive voices heard.

[Spoonman]

36. It would

split the party, and you would never see another victory at the polls.
The repukes would have the majority EVERY time

[Gringo]

58. Since the left has not set the agenda since 72

You can't really say that with any authority. All you can do is quote whored-out media talking heads and stupid polls. The reality is that in '02, DLC democrats lost seats BIG TIME, and REAL democrats kept their seats. We are unpopulare because we are seen as a pale imitation of them, rather than as a real alternative.

Since you consistently advocate our emulating the republicans, are their ANY issues that you think we should stake out a left position on? Do you believe that the present leadership is "too liberal"?

[Spoonman]

59. Maybe I'm

misreading this,
Since you consistently advocate our emulating the republicans, are their ANY issues that you think we should stake out a left position on?

Are you implying something here?
Please demonstrate the point your trying to make.

My answer is based on what I've seen here at DU!
How many users are on this site, almost 30,000.
And we can't even agree on the majority of issues.
I have very liberal views on many issues, and I have views on others that many here believe to be conservative.

The point I'm trying to make is - if the Democratic party becomes too left or too right, people will leave, hence splitting the party. It would be a repeat of the split the republicans experienced in 92 with many of their, and ours by the way, voting for Ross Perot.

It is a delicate balancing act that must be played to gain the "center" vote.

[Gringo]

60. I'm not necessarily implying anything

And perhaps I'm wrong to put you in a defensive position. If I had real "suspicions" about you, I'd have already hit the alert button. But I do remember names, and I've yet to see you take a democrat position on anything, so I was just wondering if you had one, or if yoyu're just one of these DLC guys (like the one who donated $2000 to Bush's campaign) trying to "help" the party by making it a weak imitation of the GOP.

I have no problems with democrats being in the center, but in the center of the democratic party - somewhere between the moderates and the liberals. Staking out positions in the center between Tom Delay and Richard Gephardt (which is what the DLC advocates) is a recipe for the end of out party. It alienates millions of liberals, many of whom have goven up voting or gone green.

"It would be a repeat of the split the republicans experienced in 92 with many of their, and ours by the way, voting for Ross Perot."

I disagree - Perot vs. Bush was not a center/right problem, it was Perot running against Bush's record of dismal failure (now being duplicated threefold by the son), particularly on the balooning deficits and NAFTA destroying jobs. It was a populist candidate running against an elitist candidate with a sneering contempt for the average American.

The rightwing vote could easily be split again this year by a right-populist candidate like a Pat Buchanan, in view of Bush's colossal failures in every arena, giving the election easily to a center-left candidate like Dean.

So anyway, if you are indeed a democrat, I apologize. It would be nice to hear you take our side on something once in a while, though.

[Spoonman]

61. Perhaps you

missed several comment I've made regarding my stances on abortion, separation of church and state etc.
I openly admit to being atheist and supporting Roe v. Wade.
I believe we should remove “in god we trust” and replace it with “redeemable at participating locations only”.

When I speak about Perot, I speaking about the things I know to be fact, not theory or speculation. Everyone of the 12-15 people I know that voted for him was swayed by the thought that their perspective party was too extreem one way or the other. It was the common factor for all of them.

After reviewing the rules for this site, I failed to find yours or any definition of a Democratic party member.
In a way you have validated my original post, the separation has already begun.

[Forkboy]

37. We need moderates and "fringe leftists" to win

One or the other by themselves is in trouble.

[ulysses]

47. a good point

Personally, I'd be happy with having the progressive party voice be equal to that of moderates.

[chadm]

43. Won't happen

trace the funding to the source and you'll see who gets to determine which way the party goes. You're dreaming.

[Iverson]

46. Only if ...

... you want to make the Green Party unnecessary.

[Pepperbelly]

50. the one who takes over the party is the one with the most votes ...

Period.

No one EVER makes way for you in politics. It is always an expression of power and that power is in the ballot. If you want power, take it.

Otherwise, forget about it.

[ulysses]

52. replace "votes" with "money"

and you have a point. The power, in our current system, is in the dollar.

[Pepperbelly]

54. the power of any party ...

rests in the votes it commands. The money follows that but the votes have to come first.

Otherwise, the Tax Reform Party would be top dog in the dollar derby.

[ulysses]

55. money follows the votes?

You genuinely believe that?

[Pepperbelly]

56. it takes votes to take office ...

and it is the power of office and the possibility of influence that draws money. If you umpteen ka-zillion dollars, you still have only one vote. Without the votes, there is no power.

Look at Perot. He had more than enough money to fund a top-notch Presidential campaign and spent it liberally and ended up with exactly ZERO electoral votes. Did you see other big money follow the Reform Party after they fizzled in their quest for power.

The big money hasn't always been as pervasive as it is now. Of course, there has always been the influence of money in the system but to make it clearly understandable I will select a somewhat vulgar metaphor: if a party does not have power, the money stays away because they have shit-little to offer for the money. Thus, the Greens can be purer than Ceaser's wife but I do not think they would draw big money even if they were willing to court it.

And there is a limit to what money can do for a campaign. It is the lifeblood of political communication in the post industrial age but it is not the be-all-end-all of weapons in the arsenal. If it were, no incumbent would EVER lose.

This is such a basic concept, Uly. The corps and the rich guys do not give money for nothing nor do they throw it at those who do have power that can be influenced.

[ulysses]

57. ah, Pepperbelly

And there is a limit to what money can do for a campaign. It is the lifeblood of political communication in the post industrial age but it is not the be-all-end-all of weapons in the arsenal. If it were, no incumbent would EVER lose.

This is where your assumption that money only follows power turns to bite you. Money follows ideology (gasp!) and is followed by power in turn. Ask Cynthia McKinney. If you don't believe her, ask Max Cleland.

[dpbrown]

51. The DLC is already just another bickering special interest group

They're trying to reposition themselves, having woefully underestimated the response people who actually took on Bush would get, in order to forestall their inevitable decline into irrelevance.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[David__77]

62. Yes, but along with others...

the left should have an important place at the table. I think FDR Democrats should lead the party, but not to the exclusion of others--but in order to build a new coalition.

[CWebster]

63. The Party defined

" Larkin said that many Democrats are concerned that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's antiwar and anti-tax rhetoric against President Bush may cause voters to feel that the Democrats are a divisive party... Larkin believes the party has lost its way by allowing liberal, populist Democrats to control the party's agenda, at the expense of issues, such as growing the economy, that appeal to a broader group of voters.... Asked which of the 11 Democratic candidates he feels most embodies the DLC's principles, Larkin said, 'I find that John Kerry is more open to the future of the country. We want a leader who can provide a better vision for America, and Kerry has always been inventive and thoughtful in that regard.'... Some Massachusetts Democrats disagree that the party has been too liberal, or that the conservative Democrat voting bloc has been alienated by the party's recent candidates...'I don't think the DLC strategy of eschewing the progressive aspects of American or Massachusetts politics is going to get us there,' said Rep. James J. Marzilli Jr. of Arlington. 'Democrats need to stand for something. When you articulate ideas and policies they'll agree with, by and large, the electorate responds well.'"


http://www.berkshireeagle.com/Stories/0,1413,101~7514~1545905,00.html

Where will you cast your lot for the future of the Democratic Party?

[ShimokitaJer]

64. Disgusting

Does anyone still want to try and convince me that working with the DLC is my best bet for moving forward with my concerns on social issues?

[CWebster]

66. Don't know,,,why don't you ask the Kucinich supporters

who herald DLC's choice as their alternative to social change and progress?

[ShimokitaJer]

68. say wha?

Sorry. I'm missing your reference.

[CWebster]

69. The second choice,apparently, for many Kucinich supporters

is the DLC's new darling, Kerry. I am just waiting for them to reconcile the gap from progressive to anti-Left, pro-corporate centrist endorsed candidate.

Don't expect a reply.

[roberthall10]

65. What Do We Mean By "Left"?

In the case of Dean, who you presumably are referring to,it means opposition to an unnecessary war, and a desire to restore the fiscal interity of the nation. These are not in fact leftist positions.

[ShimokitaJer]

67. Why do you presume he's talking about Dean?

I think we all define left differently depending on our own favorite issues. Personally, I'd define it as a focus on supporting social programs, especially health care; promoting equal rights regardless of gender, religion, or sexual orientation; protecting the environment, including promoting alternative energy sources; and protecting worker's rights.

I'd say he's reacting more to the direction the Democratic party has taken toward corporatism rather than promoting a single candidate. Otherwise, someone probably would have been named.