Do we need a Progressive Party?

[xultar]

I'm thinking we need to let the Democrats continue to stew in their own juices.

Do we need a new party? The Progressive Party?

[ramapo]

1. Yes but it will likely fragment the electorate further

I was thinking this morning how unprogressive the US is in general.

There hasn't been a progressive movement in 90 years or so.

The baby boomers, especially the children of the '60s, have turned out to be not very progressive despite some of the massive social changes.
Follow-on generations are basically regressive.

The Democratic Party has some nominally progressive policies but have really spent the past 30 years flailing about in search of themselves.

Except for Carter, there has not been a majority Democratic president since LBJ. You can argue that Carter won only because of Watergate and it was a narrow win at that

[bowens43]

2. No. What we need is

a new conservative party. A fundamentalist party.

We will never win by dividing our own party but we may win by dividing theirs. It will be much easier to split of the hard core religious right then to split off a significant number of the democrats. Maybe this is something some of us now onb theleft should thnk about.

[xultar]

6. I could go for that. WHat type of raw meat do we throw them?

[mtnsnake]

7. I have a feeling this will eventually happen on its own. It's just

a matter of time and the fundies won't be satisfied with sharing parties, even with Republicans. In time, I'll bet that many repukes will find themselves being shoved away by the same people who got them where they are now.

[Mike L]

37. There is one already-- The Constitution Party.

It's bible-thumpin heaven.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. We should go for a multi-party set-up

------------------------------------------------------
Fight the fraud; fund the recount!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[Birthmark]

3. Hmm...

All I can really say is that the Democratic Party couldn't find a way to beat the worst, most inept, most corrupt President in US history. We'd be fools not to take serious stock or consider forming another, hopefully more progressive party.

[xultar]

4. Maybe just rename and regroup the Dems...? I dont' know

I don't want the same old same old leadership that the DNC seems to offer over and over again.

[Birthmark]

9. I would be suspicious of anything begun...

...by former DNC members and outright opposed to anything started by DLC members. They're the ones that got us into this mess. We need principles and ideas, not strategy and tactics.

[AP]

5. We need cross-party endorsements in every state and not just NY.

We need to make it easier for more ideas to be debated in public (ie, more parties), but we need a way for those new parties to throw their support to bigger parties so that they don't cost the bigger parties losses at the polls).

Most states had cross-party endorsements, but the hegemony saw how that was working to help the progressive parties in the early 20th century, so politicians who preferred the status quo outlawed cross party endorsements just about everywhere except NY.

[Fleurs du Mal]

8. Divide & Conquer

This is the reichwing strategy.

[SOS]

10. Ideas for the Democratic Party

Stop accepting ALL corporate and PAC money.
Replace McAuliffe.
Marginalize the DLC through a grassroots revolt.
Put forward an anti-Wall Street Populist message
Co-opt the states rights angle on divisive issues like marijuana and gay marriage.
Promote energy independence.
Promote a conservative position on overseas military engagements.

Just some thoughts on how to stop triangulating and start winning.

[njmst12]

Did'nt Progressive try this in 2000 by backing Nader and we still Lost?

[Mike L]

38. Good point.

[69KV]

16. Some good ones

"Replace McAuliffe.
Marginalize the DLC through a grassroots revolt.
Put forward an anti-Wall Street Populist message
Co-opt the states rights angle on divisive issues like marijuana and gay marriage.
Promote energy independence."

All great ideas.

This one I guess depends on what is meant by conservative:
"Promote a conservative position on overseas military engagements."

Conservative meaning becoming more hawkish and right wing or conservative meaning use force as the last resort not the first resort?

This one I cannot agree with, because it is a recipe for the party not being able to compete effectively in any election:
"Stop accepting ALL corporate and PAC money."

On the contrary, I want to see a complete cutoff of corporate and PAC money to the Republican Party, not to us. That's why I'm a big supporter of boycotting companies that donate large amounts to Repigs.

[SOS]

27. By conservative

I meant last resort. Use the US Armed Forces judiciously, only when absolutely necessary.
A clear argument could be made for the use of force against the Taliban regime in Afg. but no such cassus belli exists for Iraq. Our Senators simply should not have voted for the IWR.

PAC and corporate money puts us in a very tough spot. How do we come out against the pharma, oil, insurance and banking industries while cashing their checks?
Imagine a campaign where we unilaterally dump these parasites. Our candidate could say "Unlike the Republicans who are financed by big business, we are the party financed only by the people" We would finally be free to slam these vampires and that would resonate in the red states as well as the blue.

50 million voters @ $10 a piece = half a billion dollars.
We don't need their money or their hands around our throats.

Boycotting Rep businesses is excellent and I've been very conscious of every dollar spent and into whose pocket that dollar goes.

We can come together on many exciting new ideas for the future. The DLC way has failed.

[Walt Starr]

11. Jump ship and you have guaranteed a Republican monopoly on politics

for a thousand years.

[69KV]

12. No.

We need all the people still wasting their effort on third parties to all join the Democrats, en masse.


2% of the vote split 8 ways equals 8 LOSERS.

[njmst12]

14. I WILL JOIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

If Howard dean was to split of and take with him half of the democratic party to form a progrssive party, I am very sure many demcrats will join the republican party. What ever is left of the democratic party and the new progressive pary will be so weeak that both parties will be permenently living in the minority. Becoming a moderate republican will at least be an opportunity to empower changes we need

[Philostopher]

20. Where does this come from?

I've seen nothing to indicate Dean had any intention of doing anything but trying to organize within the Democratic Party, and to help local progressives get elected as Democrats. Where did you come up with this, is this a new 'hate Dean' talking point I've managed to miss somehow?

[njmst12]

23. ??

No...There is nothing wrong with being howard dean or progressive. Infact, I support dean in the primaries. No one would deny that dean is one of the most prominent progressives in the democratic party. I was just using him as an example!

[Philostopher]

33. I guess it was the 'subject' line of your post ...

it kind of seemed to run into the text -- "I will join the Republican Party if Howard Dean ... etc." It read like some things I remember people posting here back during the primaries, I was just afraid that stuff was rolling through here again -- if it was just an example, fine. There were some pretty obnoxious posts from both sides, back then, I always worry some of that will start up again. Thought it might have been yet another rumor about him, that's all. If you missed that here, consider yourself lucky if you were a Dean supporter!

[Sterling]

35. I think you should do that now.

I think the RW Dems should leave the party and try to either impose some sanity on the Repukes or split the party while the progressives are left to build a strong minority party.

Since that is the only hope Dems will ever have is to be a weak minority party we may as well start from the ground up the right way this time.

[Placebo]

15. And FURTHER Aid In Splintering the Resistance...

to the Republicans and all those who stand with them? I don't think so.

[njmst12]

21. Sure...

You can either make your voice heared where it matters, fold up and give up, or continue screaming in a room full of deaf toothless bull dogs in the progressive party of democratic party. Option one to me means joining moderate republican like Hagel, Lugar, powell etc in the party that's going to be controlling America for ever if this were to happen. It will be very sad, but with all the chips on the table it will be the best option to me.

[ShaneGR]

17. I'll just say F it and stop caring....

Because the people on my side are too stupid (or arrogant) to figure out how to win.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. Yes, then we can have two parties relegated to irrelevance.

That'll show 'em.

Knock the Dems all you want, but Kerry got more Dems to vote (and other parties including Repubs against Bush) than any candidate in history. He got MORE votes than Al Gore, he got a higher percentage of votes than Clinton did EITHER time, and aside from not responding to the Swift Boat smear campaign fast enough, he ran the best campaign that could have been run against George Bush.


Reading the posts on DU including my own the morning he conceded, informs me about the problem with the party...it's US.

[69KV]

25. What you said.

I'm keeping a historical perspective in mind.

Kerry was the first time since 1988 we had a northeasterner heading the ticket. Kerry was the first time since 1960 we had a Catholic heading the ticket. The last Democratic landslide we ever had was 1964 with LBJ.

We arguably only won in 1992 and 1996 because of H. Ross Perot playing the spoiler role, and in 1976 because of Watergate. In both cases we had a relatively conservative southerner heading the ticket. And 1976 was a *very* close election, 50.08% for Carter, 48.02% for Ford. So was 1960, the last time we had a liberal Catholic northeasterner heading the ticket: Kennedy 49.72%, Nixon 49.55%.

The best election to compare 2004 with is 1988. Dukakis only took 10 states plus DC running against Bush's daddy. The list of states that went red in 1988 that are now solid blue is long and amazing: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, California, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Connecticut.

Comparing 1988 with 2004, both had similar lineups, a liberal northeasterner against a Bush. We just had one of the most hotly contested elections in the nation's history with that lineup. In 1988, there was no contest.

2004 was a test of whether we could win a national election with a solid liberal heading the ticket, without a southerner heading the ticket, and without Ross Perot playing the spoiler role. And we came very, very close to winning. Looking at the last 4 decades, that is an amazing feat. What it tells me is our long national nightmare of Nixonism-Reaganism-Bushism is almost at an end, and liberalism is resurgent.

Given that, I am amazed at all the people saying they are going to leave the country, or calling for liberals to abandon the Democratic Party. Retreat, when we are almost on the verge of triumph? Liberalism is resurgent in this country and if we don't build on that momentum like the right wing did after Goldwater '64, we are fumbling a big opportunity. It's practically being handed to us on a platter.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. This post deserves a little tweaking and a thread of it's own

(the tweaking only because it is in response to my post.) Thanks

[69KV]

29. Done

Okay it has its own thread :)

[oscar111]

34. Pet Goat, and more AAR, and no Diebold,

we would have won easily.

Diebold was our biggest unseen torpedo. Our general.. kerry... should have spoken out in .. about April.

Next time, more AAR, no diebold, and some good ads.

[Sterling]

36. "but Kerry got more Dems to vote" no he did not, Bush did that

And Kerry failed us horribly.

[kentuck]

19. Do we really have a choice ?

Seems like we are forced to be a Progressive Party?

[xultar]

24. those are my thoughts exactly

[Bucky]

22. Yes, fragmenting the opposition is exactly the help Bush needs

We've got to get at least two more wars going on if we intend to over turn the 22nd Amendment in time for the 2008 elections.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. We already have one - The Green Party

Which, after 39 years of nose holding as a Democrat, I'll be registering in.

[Mike L]

39. Then why are you still posting here?

[democracyindanger]

30. Yes. And you can run Nader again.

[PATRICK]

31. Two separate questions

The first was true whoever won the election. The second is in the quick process of invalidating itself as a party at all, support it as you may heartily desire. And both maybe rendered moot without ever having fair elections in a system set against reforming their utter loss. A system in the process of utterly making elections void.

[fwiff]

32. Any new party is fine, but first you have to allow fusion tickets.

The greens are progressive, so is working families, new party, etc. And IMO they get diluted,because we have a winner take all electoral system.

[bemildred]

40. I've been watching since about 1960.

I've seen lots of 3rd party runs. They litter the California
ballot now. We need to take control of the Democratic party
(or the Republican would do as well actually). The current system
is rigged in their favor. Once you get one of them under democratic
control with democratic leaders that are beholden to the voters
rather than corporate money and party hacks, you can work on
the other issues that need to be resolved. Until then, you will
be thwarted at every step by the rigged and dishonest duopoly
that we have now.

Edit: of course, one of the things you would want to address is
opening up the party system, there should be at least four or five
to allow for all points of view to be able to vote for what they
believe is right.