The problem with moving to the right

[genius]

It lends support to this IAC nonsense. The IAC leaders don't see a difference between Bush and Kerry and the Democratic platform is giving the IAC's position more credibility. They should be marching to impeach Bush. He's the war-mongering racist. If the Democrats cared about offending the left, most people would just tell the anti-Democrats to shut up.

(From an email from the IAC)
Thousands to March Against War and Racism

Statement from the Coalition to Protest the DNC

Thousands of people are arriving in Boston to protest the
Kerry-Bush war policies. Activists, veterans, clergy,
union members, students, and others are coming to march to
the site of the Democratic National Convention to take a
stand against war and racism. Both parties support the
colonial occupation of Iraq, Haiti, and Palestine, attacks
on unions and workers, and the repressive Patriot Act.
The conventions of both parties are lavish gatherings of
millionaires and corporate-owned politicians. The only
forum for the people is on the streets, and we will be
there by the thousands to demand, "Bring the Troops Home
Now! End Colonial Occupation of Iraq, Palestine, and
Haiti. Money for jobs, housing, health care, and
education, not for war and occupation."

Volunteers are arriving from all over the country, from as
far away as San Diego, California and Raleigh, North
Carolina. Causeway Street on Sunday, July 25, will see a
large, united demonstration--the only forum for those who
oppose the Bush-Kerry policies of war and racism.

The Coalition to Protest the DNC has won a great victory
for free speech over the politicians and police who
attempted to stop the march from taking place. We have
permits to march down Causeway Street, directly in front
of the Fleet Center, site of the DNC. However, we
denounce the decision of Judge Woodlock allow the "protest
pen" to stand. Even thouch Woodlock called the pen "an
affront to free speech" and "corrosive of democratic
values," and admitted that it was appropriately referred
to as an "internment pen," he chose to allow this
abomination to stand. By doing so, he demonstrated utter
contempt for free speech and set a dangerous precedent.
We call for the pen to be torn down now. We invite all
who have come to Boston to protest the DNC to boycott the
pen. Do not voluntarily go into Judge Woodlock's
internment camp--join us on the street in front of the DNC
to take a united stand against war, racism, and
repression.

We further denounce the dangerous and unnecessary media
campaign waged against the non-violent demonstrators
coming to Boston. The Police Department and the Federal
Agencies brought in to suppress dissent, have issued false
statements claiming that demonstrators were planning to
commit acts of "terrrorism," including attacking media
vehicles. There is no threat of violence coming from
demonstrators. These lies are being spread at the last
minute in order to frighten the residents of Boston, to
attempt to scare away and intimidate protestors, and to
divert attention from the issues being raised by the
thousands of people coming to Boston to protest against a
brutal and illegal war, against racist attacks on
immigrants, and the anti-worker policies of both corporate
parties. For the media to even mention violence in
association with the protests is ridiculous; we should
instead be talking about the real violence: the colonial
war against Iraq, which has resulted in the deaths of more
than 900 U.S. troops and thousand of Iraqis, illegal
roundups and detention of Muslim and Arab people, the
continual brutalization of people of color by police, and
the war being waged by politicians of both parties against
working people in the US.

We call for all opposed to the Bush-Kerry policies to join
us. We will gather at 12 noon at Boston Common for a
rally and then march on the Democratic National
Convention.

This demonstration is organized by the Coaltion to Protest
the DNC, which includes Chuck Turner, Boston City Council;
ANSWER Boston; The New England Human Rights Organization
for Haiti; Union of Minority Neighborhoods; The MLK
Bolivarian Circle; The Greater Roxbury Workers
Association; USWA Local 8751, Boston School Bus Drivers;
The International Action Center; Chelsea United Against
the War; The Women?s Fightback Network and the Stonewall
Warriors.

March on the DNC!
Sunday, July 25

[Dookus]

1. it's very simple

the party can move to the left to capture the 3% on that side, or move to the middle to capture the 10% there.

You can't have both - you can't run as a far-leftist and pick up the middle. If the IAC and those like them think Kerry = Bush, then no amount of capitulation will work: they're too far gone.

[genius]

2. The majority of Americans agree with the left on the issues.

Check out the issue polls and surveys. Americans are extremely liberal when it comes to the issues.

Bush is worse than a conservative. He's a terrorist. And I'm hoping that Kerry is just pretending to be conservative to get votes. I'm been trying to convince the IAC people to vote for Kerry. It's like pulling teeth and Kerry's not helping.

[Dookus]

5. No

people agree with many of the GOALS of the left, not the actual implementations possible.

Ask people if they're for "health care for everybody". Of course they answer yes. Ask them if they support government-funded single-payer "socialized" medicine, and the answer is no.

It's a delusion of the far left that they have the support they claim.

[genius]

6. Yes. There's a whole chapter in "Dude, Where's My Country"

dedicated to the polls and surveys. There are tons of polls he did not have space for in his book that show majority support for even more leftist issues.

[Dookus]

9. Then why didn't Kucinich

do better in the primaries?

As I said, it's a delusion of the far left.

[cosmicvortex20]

31. I agree with this

Every faction always deludes themselves into thinking "they" have the answer to all ills. Totally non-objective. You wont be able to convince the hard left that they cant pick up the middle by acting left... Thats why their called "middle" and "left" instead of the same word.

[G_j]

35. because Americans were never even given a chance

to hear what he has to say. pretty simple

[Classical_Liberal]

38. The corporate media, and the corporate dems

.

[leesa]

47. Because corporate media chose Kerry for us and Kucinich had zero

media support. Not too hard to figure out if your eyes are open.

[Zidane]

48. Oh I don't know

Maybe the right wing media giving him almost ZERO air time? Maybe not having his positions stated even ONCE on the major media.

Not to mention the DLC was out to eliminate him just like Dean.

This country is LIBERAL. If it was not society would reflect it. Look at what the republicans stand for - are you REALLY telling me you believe the majority of americans agree with them on the issues?

But whatever. If this repub-lite shit costs us another election at least we (progressives) will win in the long run. Why? Because it will be the last nail in the coffin for the DLC and the repub-lite strategy. Not only that - after 4 more years of bush this country will be so sick of it the majority of people will want to go hard left ASAP. More than likely we'll be able to run (and win with) Kucinich or someone very close to him.

[Kanary]

10. Where could one find those polls that were left out?

Thanks for the info!

:hi:

[sandnsea]

11. Then the middle agrees with you

If your theory is correct and most Americans want leftist policies then the middle does too. So why is it so difficult to win the middle with leftist policies??? Seems they'd be waiting for a leftist to run. Shock, shock, they aren't. Kucinich couldn't even get 5% of the Dem vote, overall, and he isn't even as left as some would like. If a leftist candidate can't even do well among Democrats, no way leftist policies are going to win an election. That's just common sense.

[wyldwolf]

16. Moore was referring to social issues and he is right...

Americans agree with the left on abortion, gun control, etc.

But your line: majority support for even more leftist issues will be considered your imagination until you can show us such polls.

I'll be waiting...

[genius]

4. They've put together million person marches in Washington

And they've got a multiple of that in supporters. We need to convince them that the Democrats are on their side. Or perhaps some of these people just need a good psychiatrist.

[Kipepeo]

8. I disagree

I don't think that moving to the middle will somehow capture a larger percentage. I am afraid we will lose some of the left, but more impoartantly, I think we can gain a lot of new voters by refusing to move towards the right. My biggest feeling has always been: how do you tap into the huge percentage of people who don't vote? I don't think the way to reach those people is to move to the middle. I think it's to do something new.

just my opinion though...

[Kanary]

12. Nope, not just "your opinion" Many analysts and columnist have

said exactly the same thing.

It's falling on deaf ears.

How many losses will it take to learn it, do you think?

You got it exactly about those who don't vote.

EXACTLY

Kanary

[wyldwolf]

20. which losses?

Any data to show they happened because of a move to the right?

[Kanary]

24. *smoochie*

[genius]

27. 2002 should be evidence enough of the effect of moving to the "center"

Want a repeat?

[wyldwolf]

29. Want to show us some evidence of this?

[Zidane]

49. Texas

dems are running progressive candidates this year. It's an experiment to see how well progressives do.

I think the party figured out after we won ZERO state wide seats last election with the repub-lite strat that they should make a major change. Hopefully things will go well... If progressive candidates can do well in Texas then I predict the rest of the nation might adopt progressives dems as well.

[leesa]

45. "They're too far gone" Kerry plans to continue the oil wars, have

many, many more people murdered in an illegal war and you call people who think this is wrong, "too far gone". What kind of ethical system do YOU follow???

[classof56]

3. Hey, Faux News is gonna love this!

After the "veiled threats" of potential terrorist attacks against the media during the DNC that recently "surfaced", I figure we'll be lucky to have any media coverage at all. Faux, though, will be well-protected by Bushco minions so they can report the "truth" about these protesters in particular.

Will be interesting. Glad DU will be there to give us our daily/hourly/maybe more often updates.

Bush Must Go!!!

[CaTeacher]

7. The problem with going after the middle, is not

only the danger of losing the 5% at the far left, but also the danger that your base may not be as energized to vote and work on getting out the vote.

Turn-out of YOUR core supporters is more important than chasing after the elusive undecided people. (A bird in hand is worth more than two in the BUSH).

[Kanary]

13. I personally know a lot of that "base" who is not energized

I fear this one is going to be a hard lesson to learn.......

[salonghorn70]

14. Dookus Is Right

American voters are not "extremly liberal on the issues." The average voter is in the middle. A tilt to the far left would have Kerry running about 10 pts behind Bush. I believe that it is perfectly ok to hold whatever far left view that you want. BUT, you just have to realize that most Americans aren't there.

[Kanary]

15. Dang! I just *hate* all those polls and surveys being wrong!

[wyldwolf]

26. which polls and surveys?

Wait! *smoochie*

[genius]

21. Congratulations on buying into the Bush rhetoric

[Zidane]

50. Guess what?

The repubs have taken us so far right that what SHOULD be the middle (in a sane pre-repub rule nation) is actually "far left" in comparison.

It's like comparing Zell Miller running in Nazi Germany to Hitler and his party. OF COURSE Miller is going to be "far left" in comparison, but that doesn't mean he is in fact far left of sane people. Certainly no one here will say Miller is "far left", but when you put him up against a far right opponent then it screws up the perspective.

Most progressives who want to run for office in the party are not "far left". They are actually moderate, but only seem "far left" when compared to the bush regime and where they have taken us.

Apparently it is now "far left" to want health care for all.

It is now "far left" to oppose the Iraq war.

It is now "far left" to want to bring back a fair and balanced media.

It's now "far left" to want quality guranteed education pre-k through college.

It's also "far left" to support civil rights, unions, opposing fascist legislation, and wanting a clean environment.

The above is what Kucinich supports. Is anyone going to honestly say MOST working class americans do NOT support the above? Are you telling me THAT is actually "far left" and out of touch with the "middle"? Like hell it is. It's only "far left" and out of touch when you compare it to the current regime.

But oh well - Kucinich was too out of touch with middle america it seems. Seems Ashcroft and the regime is more in touch. It seems that most americans like the government having the ability to take you away in to the night with out reason, hate unions, hate civil rights, don't like having jobs, don't like good education, and hate having health care. Yup, that's your average american.

[Still_Loves_John]

17. A few thoughts

1. It's important to remember that Kerry is a move to the left from Clinton and Gore.

2. I think some of these people are just never going to be happy with the Democratic party. It's a waste of energy to pursue them. They may be closer to us ideologically than to the Republicans, but they're still ideologically removed. And, as Dookus said, the trade off between the moderates and the far left favors the moderates.

3. I actually do think that a far-left candidate can win in the general election. The American people have shown that they really don't care about someone's message as much as they do their personality. If we ran a Democratic Ronald Reagan, who put a moderate face on left policies, he would probably win.

[knight_of_the_star]

18. THat could hurt us considerably

And it will play into Bush's hands about being a so-called "uniter" and a "popular President" especially since the media will put more weight behind this protest even though fifty times their numbers will be hitting New York.

[genius]

22. I agree. 68 really hurt us. Does anyone remember anything good

about that convention. Whenit is spoke about, we hear about the Chicago Seven.

[wyldwolf]

19. What I've seen in this thread so far...

..to "prove" this point:

There are tons of polls he did not have space for in his book that show majority support for even more leftist issues.

Where? Which polls?

Many analysts and columnist have said exactly the same thing

Like... who?


I personally know a lot of that "base" who is not energized

I personally know many more who are. The problem with this "I personally know" crap is it can't be verified.

Anyone have any cold hard stats and facts or just more personal opinion and psychic revelations?

[Kanary]

23. *smoochie*

[genius]

25. How about doing some research.

Did you read the long list of specific polling information in Moore's book? I notice you didn't focus on the unsubstantiated comments by the conservatives who are trying to convince others to move to the right. You might look at gallup polls on the support for a moratorium on the death penalty. They're a conservative group and yet they show that moaratorium support is in the seventy-percents. If you look at the hundreds of polls on the Internet regarding troop pull-out from Iraq, you'll discover that the vast majority of Americans want us out. Just look and then you won't need us to convince you.

[wyldwolf]

28. yes, but there is nothing to indicate...

...in his book that there are tons of polls he did not have space for in his book that show majority support for even more leftist issues.

Sorry.

You are correct that Americans on average favor liberal views on mainstream social issues, but have given no evidence of your above claim.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. I'm sure President Gore will tell us how well a move to the right works.

The Democrats no longer even show up for the good fight. They're too busy devising "realistic" plans how to be more like the puglys.

[The Blue Knight]

32. If you don't like the move to the right

Why don't you quit bitching online about it, get involved, and actually try to change it? Like, oh, I dunno, Dennis Kucinich?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. I am. I'm voting for Cobb.

What are you doing?

[Darranar]

34. Moving right furtherly restricts political dialogue in this country...

while it may, occasionally, win elections, it will lessen the effect of such victories. Furthermore, if no one is willing to criticize certain "centrist" Bush policies, because it may lose them votes, how in the world will such policies ever end?

Moving to the center allows the Republicans to set the debate, allowing them and their propaganda machines to move the "center" even further right, destroying more and more essential programs and policies of this country. It makes the Democrats seem weak-willed and flip-flopping, unwilling to stand straight on any issue.

My preference would probably be for these protestors to wait until inauguration day to express their (completely justified) concerns about the disgusting bipartisan policies of the establishment, rather than undermine the lesser of two evils at an important point of his campaign. Despite the atrocious corporate policies of both establishment parties, Kerry is preferable to Bush, whose administration has plunged this nation into a hole of destruction. At this time, support for Kerry, or at the very least less opposition to Kerry than to Bush, is essential.

[The Blue Knight]

36. I volunteered for Kucinich

I spent many hours calling people all over the States on behalf of Kucinich, wrote letters to primary voters and to the Editor of my local paper.

Of course, I can't vote for Cobb, nor can I vote for Kerry, as I'm 17 years old and won't be 18 until December. But I can still do shit.

And since Kucinich endorsed Kerry, I'll begin doing the same volunteer work for Kerry once the convention is over.

So you're voting for Cobb? Why not just vote for Bush?

[Darranar]

37. No, I am not voting for Cobb...

I thought my last paragraph made that clear by implication.

Kerry is the lesser of two evils at a point where even tiny differences can mean huge amounts. He deserves the support of progressives everywhere, though it need not be (and in my case is not) enthusiastic.

[Suspicious]

39. "He deserves the support of progressives everywhere"

How is this?

He may need the support of progressives everywhere, but how do you come to the conclusion that he deserves their support?

To be quite honest, as a progressive, he has not said much during his campaign that comes close to appealing to me, and his voting record - on major, crucial issues - is not good. I fail to see how he deserves anything from me.


Edited for typo.

[Darranar]

52. That was a poor choice of words on my part...

he certainly does not deserve the support of progressives everywhere, but he should recieve it anyway.

[midwayer]

40. Howard Winant and the poitics of race

Not sure exactly when this was written but found it interesting,

It does indeed look like the neocons have moved to the far right

Found this somewhere other than his website

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/winant.htm

Howard Winant sees the present racial order in North America as consisting of a set of conflicting "racial projects." Each of these projects has an ideology based upon a unique understanding of the "meaning" of race. Each project also has a resultant political agenda.

Project 1: The Far Right

Ideology: Represents race in terms of inherent, natural characteristics; rights and privileges assigned accordingly; traditional far right operates through terror; renovated far right organizes whites politically.

Agenda: Open racial conflict; equality seen as a subversion of the "natural order"; the state is in the hands of the "race mixers." Whites need to form their own organizations and pressure the state for "white rights."

Project 2: New Right

Ideology: Understands racial mobilization as a threat to "traditional values"; perceives racial meanings and identities as operating "subtextually"; engages in racial "coding"; articulates class and gender interests as racial.

Agenda: Racial conflict focuses on the state; racial (in)equality determined by access to state institutions and relative political power.

Project 3: Neoconservatism

Ideology: Denies the salience of racial "difference," or argues that it is a vestige of the past, when invidious distinctions and practices had not yet been reformed; after the passage of civil rights laws, any collective articulation of racial "difference" amounts to "racism in reverse."

Agenda: Conservative egalitarianism. Individualism, meritocracy, universalism. Rejection of any form of group rights; strives to create a "color-blind" state.

Project 4: Pragmatic liberalism

Ideology: Racial identities serve to organize interests and channel political and cultural activities; as long as principles of pluralism and tolerance are upheld, a certain degree of group identity and racial mobilization can be accepted as the price of social peace.

Agenda: Cultural and political pluralism; affirmative action as "goals, not quotas." State racial policy as moderating and eroding the legacy of discrimination.

Project 5: Radical democracy

Ideology: Racial difference accepted and celebrated; flexibility of racial identities; multiplicity and "decenteredness" of various forms of "difference," including race.

Agenda: State racial policy as redistribution. Racial politics as part of "decentered" but interconnected pattern of "new social movements." Extension of democratic rights and of societal control over the state.

Personal Exercise: Where do you place yourself within this range of "racial projects"?

[midwayer]

41. Or "the New Right" (eom)

[Q]

42. I've noticed that many Democrats...

...have accepted the harmful rhetoric of the right and DLC as gospel. One doesn't have to be 'FAR LEFT' to be concerned about issues that affect a MAJORITY of Americans. Yet...RWingers and the DLC are asking us to vote against our own interests.

- You don't need a POLL or a survey to tell you that most Americans are of the working class and are extremely interested in war, worker's rights, unions, a living wage and healthcare. It should go without saying that these same Americans have the right to protest an unjust war without being called 'extremists'...considering that those who will fight and die in this 'war' will come from their families and communities.

- Of course 'conservative' Democrats don't want you to believe that a majority of working class Americans could be against their push to the right. They push this crap right along side the Republicans...knowing that most Americans have no voice in the public debate.

[G_j]

46. & the "far left" label

is right out of the Repub play book.
-I hate it when that happens... :-(


over half of the American ppl are now reportedly against the war.
Thats a big "far left"

[midwayer]

43. Constructing and Resisting the New World (Racial)Order*

Here are Winant's thoughts which include the problems of mobilizing the Left

+ more articles in the index

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/winant/comprac.html

[midwayer]

44. sorry... link to Winant home page

with more articles listed

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/winant/

[midwayer]

51. Winants conclusion

"Race splits "us"; class splits "them." We do not need to be
class reductionists to see that a progressive racial politics
must address the dynamics of class. We must understand the
struggle for racial justice as central to the struggle for social
justice, as central to any resistance to capital's drive to
dominate, to discipline, to control not only labor, but society
as a whole. We must understand that logic in order to resist it."

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/winant/comprac.html