Many people are in the wrong party

[m berst]

Many people at DU are moderate to liberal Republicans. I don't mean this as an insult, as my Grandfather was a good and decent Dewey Republican, and he would have fit in here better than I do. When I say that people here are Republicans, I don't mean Bush supporters - as if he were a true Republican! - or dittoheads. I mean people who embrace the concept of the free market, are basically in favor of corporatism and suburbanization, and place "personal responsibility" above socialism and community solidarity. Over this mainstream moderate Republican philosophy is a thin veneer of liberalism on a handful of issues - pro-choice, for example.

On the other hand, on 90% of the issues two thirds of the Bush voters are liberals, when this is defined as agreeing with progressive liberal positions on specific policy areas with no labels attached to identify them as "liberal" or "Democratic."

Would we not do better to steer clear of the hot button reactionary issues from the theocratric agenda, and present a strong progressive populist platform to the working class, and let the DLC people gravitate to the Republican party and introduce some sanity and common sense over there?


edited for typos

[theboss]

1. I think you just described Jack Kennedy

"I mean people who embrace the concept of the free market, are basically in favor of corporatism and suburbanization, and place "personal responsibility" above socialism and community solidarity. Over this mainstream moderate Republican philosophy is a thin veneer of liberalism on a handful of issues - pro-choice, for example."

Me and Jack are stayin'.

[Warpy]

6. Kennedy started out his presidency

by cutting income taxes on the richest 1%. Somehow, I don't think that would sit to well with most people on DU. Kennedy was no liberal, not at first. We don't know what he would have become, whether he would have extricated us from Vietnam or what he would have fought for because he was murdered.

So please don't pull Kennedy out as a shining example of liberalism.

[theboss]

11. He's a shining example of a Democrat

And that's what we are talking about.

[meow2u3]

35. What Repukes don't tell you about Kennedy

Kennedy cut taxes on the rich when the top tax rate was 91%! He cut that top tax rate to a more reasonable 70%.

[GR]

189. Tax Rates Were 90% Then, Not 35%....

nfm

[GR]

188. Oh Please...If You Really Believe There Is A "Free" Market...

I suppose you'll be hanging your stocking on Christmas eve too.

[leanin_green]

278. It's only free to those who can afford to play.

Just what is a true Democrat anyway?

[joelogan]

204. Kennedy sucked! (i feel like I am in a zombie movie)

People keep bringing up the dead past. Kennedy was a warmongering tax cutting neoliberal. Leave him in the grave! Good place for him!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

207. If You Really Think Kennedy Sucks Then I Respectfully Suggest You

Are On The Wrong Board...

We at DU don't agree on a lot but the lion's share of us agree John Kennedy was a great Democratic president...

[joelogan]

218. then, in my opinion, the lion's share of you are wrong

we have never had a great president, Republican or Democrat. Just my humble opinion.

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joelogan]

244. are you calling me a freeper?

don't beat around the bush! If you got something to say, say it!

[liberalpragmatist]

2. I know you mean well, but this is still insulting

I consider myself a believer in the free market and capitalism. What I believe in is a social-democratic market system. That's what the vast majority of Democrats believe and its not what the Republican party believes. Nor will the Republicans believe that for any conceivable time in the future.

Far more unites most Democrats than disunites us. If you're going to expell capitalists from the party then you might as well kiss the Democratic Party goodbye - there will be none left. Why do have to talk about so much division and whose a "true Dem"? We agree on so much and we need to stick together, not rip ourselves apart.

[m berst]

8. not really

Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes have given Republicanism a bad name. I am talking about traditional Republicanism and it shouldn't be seen as an insult.

There is no possibility for those of us who embrace FDR liberalism to make any headway in the Democratic party so long as we are fighting for the basic foundations of liberalism and have to compromise continually for the sake of an ersatz coalition. It is self-defeating.

I believe that if we could present a platform to the working people and to the minority people and the poor - a platform that would be seen as "too far left" by many modern Democrats - that we could build a massive movement. We can't do that now because we are forced to incorporate traditional Republicanism in the party, and we lose the blue collar voters to the Republicans on a couple of reactionary so-called issues.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. FDR Wasn't A Socialist...

If anything FDR was a Keynesian....

Arthur Schlessinger in his seminal work on FDR argues convincingly that FDR was a conservative in that he conserved capitalism by protecting it from it's own excesses by regulating it and providing a welfare system to protect folks from it's ups and downs...


I remember the last interview that John Lennon gave before he was assassinated in 1980 for Playboy the interviewer asked him if he was a socialist...

He said if socialism means that the government should make sure that granny gets her teeth fixed then he's a socialist....

By that definition a lot of folks would be socialists but if socialism means a command economy and leveling then you are talking about a system that couldn't even command the allegiance of five percent of America...

[m berst]

12. that is the common wisdom anymore

I am arguing against it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Poor People Don't Want Socialism....

They want a chance....


I am for all equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome....

[m berst]

44. and they "have a chance" now?

"I am for all equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome...."

That is standard Republicanism. As liberals we measure opportunity by outcome. When more and more people are suffering, we look at the system, not at the indivdual.

[GR]

192. What About Retarded People? Should They Starve...

What about the infirm, the halt and the lame...should they just go "f" themselves in live in the streets...Nobody I know is advocating equality of outcome just a floor which everyone deserves...Food, shelter, HEALTHCARE, JOBS at a LIVING WAGE,...etc.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

205. Maybe Someone Will Put "Reading Is Fundamental " Under Your Christmas Tree

I said ad infinitum and ad nauseum I am an advocate of the welfare state ...

Here's an example from this thread...


DemocratSinceBirth (1000+ posts) Thu Nov-18-04 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #66

86. You Are Using The Words Liberalism And Socialism As Synonyms





Tell me what am I


I favor social security


unemployment insurance


disability insurance


universal access to medical care


and welfare for those who can't find a job...


oh, and Mr. PC policeman the term "retarded" is pejorative... I think it became verboten among enlightened folks around the same time as "deaf and dumb" did..... If you think "retarded" is not a pejorative word tell a parent with a Downs Syndrome child their son or daughter is retarded...

[The Sad Little Pony]

43. POLITICIANS...

...always give their parties a "bad name".
Both parties.
All parties.

[sandnsea]

36. enlightened capitalism

I would like to see Democrats never use "free market" ever again. Mostly, it doesn't exist when you look at subsidies and Wal-mart and a whole lot more things. But also, it doesn't work. We had it before the progressive movement at the turn of the last century, it was a bad bad thing. When you look at what it's doing to people and the environment around the world, it's still a bad bad thing. John Kerry called it "enlightened entrepreneuership", I would agree with that. Free market is complete crap.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. If Free Markets Are Complete Crap How Come China

and India have abandoned their socialist or command economies...

I own my own business... The first obligation of any business is to make a profit... It is up to the government to make sure that profit is made responsibly...


There has never been a government is history where a command economy and a democratic political system have occurred simultaneously....

[sandnsea]

45. Sorry, that's just sick

If you really think you have a right to fuck people over if the government doesn't catch you, than you really are in the wrong party. I want no part of that kind of free market.

Of course, you distorted what I said to justify your shitty business practices. I said enlightened CAPITALISM, not socialism like you want to pretend.

[Nederland]

50. Come on now

The free market is merely a system where people give up their money voluntarily for things they want/need. Its not about "fucking people over". The vast vast majority of business owners in this country are merely selling a product or services to willing buyers.

[sandnsea]

61. yeah, and

if the products or services are bogus, oh fucking well, let the buyer beware. While the people who sell those products or sevices dodge their taxes, then turn around and suck the government dry for every subsidy they can find. Please, don't even pretend. There is no such thing as a "free market".

[Nederland]

64. You exagerrate

I repeat, the vast majority of business owners in this country are honest people selling services and products to willing buyers. You merely choose to concentrate on those that don't because that's what the media tells you to do. As for dodging taxes and sucking the government dry, socialists aren't the only people opposed to those things.

[sandnsea]

71. The media???

You must be joking. What media tells me to focus on the failings of capitalism???

My post differentiated between free market and enlightened capitalism. The person who responded is the one who said they had no ethical responsiblity to engage in honest business, their only responsibility was to make a profit. You approve?

There's more to business than buyers and sellers. There's operating in a way that is friendly to the environment and doesn't pass on health and clean-up costs to the taxpayer. There's paying your employees and not passing on housing, food and health care costs on to the taxpayer. There's not taking advantage of government contracts by over-billing. Lots of things and most businesses violate a sense of ethics from one degree to another. We just all turn the other way because it's "free market" and then lamblast the victims, the employees or consumers who get fucked, because we've all been indoctrinated to believe in this free market mantra that does not exist.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. Quit Putting Fucking Words In My Mouth...

Economics 101...

A business that has liabilities that exceed it's assets will not be long for this world....


I have friends who do similar work to mine... They work sixty hours a week and take home $400.00... The only person that's getting fucked is them....

[sandnsea]

77. See #76

That's what you said.

[m berst]

145. really good point

No doubt that people who have not run their own business and have only pulled a paycheck have no clue what it is like.

This is another unfortunate division. People are right to mistrust capitalism and to be aware of the potential abuses of a totally unfettered marketplace. Unfortunately, it is not the CEO's of the multi-nationals who are the targets of their wrath, it is struggling small business owners such as yourself.

This is similar IMHO to everyday liberal Christians being targeted with the wrath that should be focused on Robertson and the Dominionists.

It seems to me that Christians and non-Christians, workers and business owners, professionals and laborers, African American and white, men and women, gays and straights - aren't we all in the same boat and all oppressed by a tyranical minority of people who are running the country into the ground for the sake of increasing their own wealth and power? How do we overcome the divisions and pull together in solidarity?

I started this thread not to add another bone of contention and issue to argue about, rather to start a discussion about what fundamental beliefs and views we might share so that we can put things into perspective and form a united front that will attract people away from the right wing idiocy. I started with the concept of the old liberal positions and sensibilities around which we built coalitions in the past.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. What Do You Do For Your Fellow Man...

I mentor at risk kids and am a caregiver to my eighty six year old mom who has stage three colon cancer, is an amputee, and confined to a wheel chair...

How fucking dare you tell me what party I belong to...

[sandnsea]

72. So?

That justifies having no ethics in your business practices? You're the one who said it's up to the government to make the rules and if they don't, too bad for whoever gets screwed. How fucking dare you put up a smokescreen of at risk kids to hide your shameful lack of business ethics.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. Quit Putting Words In My Fucking Mouth...

You don't know shit about me....


You don't know I have dressed my mom in the morning when she gets up and put her in a nightgown before she goes to bed... For eight years in a row with maybe two or three days of respite in that entire time....


I feel bad talking this way to a woman


on edit- I removed the invectives but I am frosted....

[sandnsea]

81. See #76

They're you're words. Not much I can do about that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. I Never Implied A Business Should Be Unethical....

The first responsibility of a business is to make or profit or stay in business...

I never said a profit should be made unethically . irresponsibly...or illegally...

You said that....

Who do we know that shoots first and then asks questions...

[sandnsea]

87. See #76

Yes you did.

[RafterMan]

90. No he didn't

He was just saying government needed to regulate business practices.

You misinterpreted it for the privilege of being a sanctimonious twit.

[sandnsea]

93. No he didn't

He said it's his responsiblity to make a profit, it's government's job to make sure he makes it responsibily. THAT is what he said. The government doesn't ensure free marketers make their profit responsibly, and they're doing less every day. And free marketers know that. It's a complete bullshit argument and absolves the free marketer from any responsiblity to society or the environment or anything else. It's bullshit.

[RafterMan]

98. So how is your shame-based model working out?

You complain that the government doing less is a problem, but someone calls on them to do more and you get all bent out of shape.

Some people like crack cocaine, some people like moral outrage. Smoke up, I guess.

[sandnsea]

105. Like what?

Worry about fish feelings? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Government should create the best environment for people to succeed while allowing them to live their personal lives without obstruction.

[RafterMan]

109. Like make sure businesses earn their profit responsibly!

Goodness. That is the alarmingly controversial statement with which you are taking such umbrage.

Have you relented in your criticism?

[sandnsea]

111. This is insane

Who said I didn't think government should set business regulations??? The government has alot of business regulations. I have my own. Let me give you an example. I was watching a program where Goodwill and Dell have teamed up to recycle computers. They CHARGE people $10 to dump off old computers. Then Goodwill workers refurbish them. Then Dell sells them on their web site, for a whopping profit I'm sure. How they've set up this enterprise to take nonprofit tax deductions, I don't know, but I'm sure that's there too.

Clients used to give us their old computers. I felt bad about taking them for free and reselling them. So we give our clients a trade-in value. Ha. I should have just contacted a local nonprofit group and made a mint. It's unbelievable. People are paying for their old computers to be taken so Dell can make a fortune off of them.

A business person ought to have ethics outside government regulation. I don't have a right to make profit at any expense, just because the government hasn't regulated something yet.

[RafterMan]

118. But you are the only person who has brought that argument

to this thread. Nobody has argued that business should be more unethical. It's not in the original post. It's just a phantom in your head.

The business owner must turn a profit, the government is needed for regulation. What is so monstrous?

[sandnsea]

121. Well no

Cheswick saw what I saw, so I wouldn't say I'm the only one who read it that way. The corporate free marketer is the one who will repeatedly say it's his obligation to make a profit, first, last and always. Business owes its stockholders a profit. Bla bla bla. At any cost to the laborer, society, or anything else. Maybe the lesson is don't repeat Republican talking points if you don't want to be called a Republcian.

[RafterMan]

124. Yeah

Especially if your name is DemocratSinceBirth and you've made tens of thousands of Democrat-oriented posts on a board called Democratic Underground.

Best watch it with those Republican talking points.

:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. If A Company Doesn't Make A Profit It's Shares Will Be Reduced To Zero

They will lose access to capital and go out of business...

Shareholders will lose their investments and employees will lose their jobs....

That's an inexorable law of economics that can't be repealed...


Also, I think the business bashing is getting out of hand... I think most employers , large and small act responsibly if not out of altruism than out of self preservation....


Again...

The first responsibility of a business is to make a profit....

That's not a Republican talking point but an immutable law of economics...


I'll show you how easy it is to prove by stating the opposite...

The first responsibility of a business is to not make a profit...

Respectfully, this debate is becoming sterile...

[sandnsea]

129. There you go

I suspect my first impressions were right. Taxpayers subsidizing the business cost of environmental damage, labor, security, transportation, etc.; is not a free market business. A business that does not consider that in its obligation to make a profit is not ethical. That is an unworkable "law of economics" in the modern world. It is a change of attitude that the Democratic Party needs to support.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

144. Here We Go Again...

Your first impressions were correct...


I am a poor schmuck salesperson cum magazine publisher who works out of his home office so he can keep an eye on his eighty six year old wheel chair confined mother who sits in the next room watching tv...

If it makes you feel better about yourself that I am Ken Lay or the captain of the Exxon Valdees God bless you....


I never said I am in favor of all the horrible things you think businesses do...

Orwell was right....

"Some things are so bizzare that only an intellectual could believe them...."

I'm through....

Good Night...

[MsTryska]

225. Are you insane?

now it seems you're arguing jsut to be arguing.



you need to stop taking the socialist worker classes, and start taking econ 101.

[FlaGranny]

237. Arguing just to be arguing

seems to be the modus operandi of this poster in all threads I've seen him/her appear in.

[MsTryska]

273. *lol*

well it certainly brings them a lot of attention, doesn't it?

[hfojvt]

163. I strongly disagree

and I was in "business" for seven years.
The first responsibility of my bookstore was to sell quality literature. Related to that was a responsibility to read a wide variety of authors and genres.
My second responsibility was to provide a wide selection at low prices.
My third responsibility was to allow the residents of this small town to order almost any book ever published.
My fourth responsibility was to put my porn-peddling local competition out of business.
I certainly would not put making a profit over any of those goals. I regularly got catalogues from Ingram books and The Texas Bookman and as I read through them, my FIRST question was not "will this sell?" but "is this a good book?"
That is what I would mean by saying that "the first responsibility is to make a profit" shows a complete lack of values.
Also, as a graduate student of economics, I get offended when people talk blithely about "immutable laws". There are no such things. The value system that says "put profits above all" is certainly not one of them, even if it is the value system of most large employers.
My experience with employers is that they treat employees like toilet paper, they use them to wipe up shit and then they flush them away.
I think it was Emerson who said "we get what we aim for, if we aim to make quality shoes, we will get that. If we aim to make a profitable shoe company, we will get that, and people will be poorly shod."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

201. How Did You Eat If Your Business Didn't Make A Profit?

Say I am a working class guy with a pick up and a lawnmower...


I cut people's lawns and use that money to pay for my lawnmower, pick up truck, and gas... If I'm lucky maybe I can even buy health insurance for my family...


The money left over I use to pay my bills ....


If I don't make a profit I can't pay my bills....


How could that scenario be controversial....


If you think making a profit isn't the first obligation of business I'll see your Emerson and raise you with Orwell "some ideas are so bizzare only an intellectual would believe them."

Since you are such the altruist I'll work for free if you are willing to subsidize me...

You can pm me so we can work out the details...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

203. Why

"My fourth responsibility was to put my porn-peddling local
competition out of business."


Why would you deny foks access to sexual material?


Some folks use it as a marital aid... Some folks use it because they can't get laid...

[m berst]

252. absolutely right, but there is more to it

"The first responsibility of a business is to make a profit...."

Certainly, this goes without saying, although "the first necessity for a business is to make a profit" might be a more useful way to state it.

This skips over a few steps, however, and overly simplifies the picture. The first responsibility of any business person is to support and sustain the community that creates the tools, resources and regulatory climate that allow businesses to thrive and prosper, so that opportunities for future entrepreneurs are not impaired by short-sighted and destructive business activities today. Then, any business person must have an idea, and must assess the value of that idea to the community, and how best to deliver that value. At no point can the business person escape being a member of that community. At no point is a business person an island, nor can he or she operate in a vacuum.

One quick example of what I am talking about - food safety as it applies to agricultural practices. The small family fruit growers are much more conscientious about safe farming practices, and safe food, than the absentee corporate owners of factory farms are. This is because the small family growers are raising their children on the farm, their children are eating fruit right off the tree, they go to church with their neighbors, serve on the local soil and water conservation board, and perhaps the local school board, and participate in the local farm co-op. There is a built in sense of responsibility that influences the way that they farm, as a result.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

254. I Have Never Seen A Simple Proposition So Distorted....

The first obligation of any business is to make a profit....


Whether that business is a legal brothel in Nevada, a one man lawn mowing business in Arizona, a nail salon run by recent immigrants, or Wal-Mart...


In any of those instances if they don't make a profit they will cease to be....

Of course the sex workers should protect themselves and their customers, the lawn mowing guy shouldn't break the homeowner's sprinkler system and not tell him , the nail salon should cut your cuticles and not your skin. and Wal-Mart should strive to pay their workers a living wage...

But, for the love of god if they are spending more than they take in they will go broke just as a human being who extrudes more than he consumes will eventually persish...

Do I need crayons or a Sharpie to make it clearer...

[xequals]

142. Society, the laborer and the business owner are one and the same.

The laborer who demands a higher salary and benefits or the consumer who demands a lower price and a better product is as much of a capitalist as the business owner who demands the best work for the lowest wage.

Capitalism is only a natural system of trade -libertarian economics- exactly what people have done since the beginning of time and will always do no matter what the government says. Even in the USSR there was a free market: the black market. There is a free market in this country for marijuana and prostitution and everything else deemed to be illegal.

As a center-left libertarian, I believe that a free market and a free society are the natural order of things, and will rise to the surface regardless of what any government says. I am center-left because I believe in the need to regulate in order to keep the freee market and free society actually free. Without sensible regulation and a basic social safety net we would devolve into feudalism.

[Nederland]

230. Good Post (nt)

[m berst]

256. Abraham Lincoln weighs in

Lincoln expressed the idea of what he called the "true American system" for balancing and prioritizing the needs of labor and capital for the greater good of the entire society.

The place of labor in society -

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

And on property rights -

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

And on the "true system" -

"I am glad to see that a system of labor prevails in New England under which laborers CAN strike when they want to, where they are not obliged to work under all circumstances, and are not tied down and obliged to labor whether you pay them or not! I like the system which lets a man quit when he wants to, and wish it might prevail every where. One of the reasons why I am opposed to Slavery is just here.

"What is the true condition of the laborer? I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else. When one starts as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor, for his whole life.

"I am not ashamed to confess twenty five years ago I was a hired laborer, mauling rails, at work on a flat- boat -- just what might happen to any poor man’s son! I want every man to have the chance -- and I believe a black man is entitled to it -- in which he can better his condition -- when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system."

The next excerpt from Lincoln's address to the Wisconsin Agricultural fair is a little long, but well worth the read and very relevant to the debate here. Lincoln contrasts the "Mudsill" theory of labor with the theory of free labor, and ties that in with the issue of slavery and the importance of education.

<snip>

The world is agreed that labor is the source from which human wants are mainly supplied. There is no dispute upon this point. From this point, however, men immediately diverge. Much disputation is maintained as to the best way of applying and controlling the labor element. By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital"that nobody labors, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of that capital, induces him to do it. Having assumed this, they proceed to consider whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent; or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far they naturally conclude that all laborers are necessarily either hired laborers, or slaves. They further assume that whoever is once a hired laborer, is fatally fixed in that condition for life; and thence again that his condition is as bad as, or worse than that of a slave. This is the "mud-sill" theory.

But another class of reasoners hold the opinion that there is no such relation between capital and labor, as assumed; and that there is no such thing as a freeman being fatally fixed for life, in the condition of a hired laborer, that both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them groundless. They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed"that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor. Hence they hold that labor is the superior"greatly the superior"of capital.

They do not deny that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital. The error, as they hold, is in assuming that the whole labor of the world exists within that relation. A few men own capital; and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital, hire, or buy, another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class, neither work for others, nor have others working for them. Even in all our slave States, except South Carolina, a majority of the whole people of all colors, are neither slaves nor masters. In these Free States, a large majority are neither hirers nor hired.

Men, with their families, wives, sons and daughters, work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, labor with their own hands, and also buy slaves or hire freemen to labor for them; but this is only a mixed, and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class. Again, as has already been said, the opponents of the "mud-sill" theory insist that there is not, of necessity, any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. There is demonstration for saying this. Many independent men, in this assembly, doubtless a few years ago were hired laborers. And their case is almost if not quite the general rule.

The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land, for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This, say its advocates, is free labor, the just and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all, gives hope to all, and energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. If any continue through life in the condition of the hired laborer, it is not the fault of the system, but because of either a dependent nature which prefers it, or improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune. I have said this much about the elements of labor generally, as introductory to the consideration of a new phase which that element is in process of assuming.

The old general rule was that educated people did not perform manual labor. They managed to eat their bread, leaving the toil of producing it to the uneducated. This was not an insupportable evil to the working bees, so long as the class of drones remained very small. But now, especially in these free States, nearly all are educated---quite too nearly all, to leave the labor of the uneducated, in any wise adequate to the support of the whole. It follows from this that henceforth educated people must labor. Otherwise, education itself would become a positive and intolerable evil. No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive. From these premises the problem springs, "How can labor and education be the most satisfactorily combined?"

By the "mud-sill" theory it is assumed that labor and education are incompatible; and any practical combination of them impossible. According to that theory, a blind horse upon a tread-mill, is a perfect illustration of what a laborer should be"all the better for being blind, that he could not tread out of place, or kick understandingly. According to that theory, the education of laborers, is not only useless, but pernicious, and dangerous. In fact, it is, in some sort, deemed a misfortune that laborers should have heads at all. Those same heads are regarded as explosive materials, only to be safely kept in damp places, as far as possible from that peculiar sort of fire which ignites them. A Yankee who could invent a strong handed man without a head would receive the everlasting gratitude of the "mud-sill" advocates. But Free Labor says "no!"

Free Labor argues that, as the Author of man makes every individual with one head and one pair of hands, it was probably intended that heads and hands should co-operate as friends; and that that particular head, should direct and control that particular pair of hands. As each man has one mouth to be fed, and one pair of hands to furnish food, it was probably intended that that particular pair of hands should feed that particular mouth, that each head is the natural guardian, director, and protector of the hands and mouth inseparably connected with it; and that being so, every head should be cultivated, and improved, by whatever will add to its capacity for performing its charge. In one word Free Labor insists on universal education.

I have so far stated the opposite theories of "Mud-Sill" and "Free Labor" without declaring any preference of my own between them. On an occasion like this I ought not to declare any. I suppose, however, I shall not be mistaken, in assuming as a fact, that the people of Wisconsin prefer free labor, with its natural companion, education.

<snip>

[m berst]

276. check post #256

I have always felt that Lincoln best expressed the unique system that has worked best in America. I would be interested to hear your opinion on what he says if you get a chance to take a look.

Speaking of the black market, you might get a kick out of this:

In conversations about the global agriculture issues, I often ask people why it is that drugs are grown more profitably than food in many countries? The answer is that drugs are more nearly a free market commodity than say, bananas or coffee, as those food commodities are dominated and manipulated by giant corporations. The lesson? The way to grow more food and fight starvation and help small farmers around the world would be for the US government to make food illegal and declare a War on Food! People would get locked up for eating, but at least they wouldn't be hungry. How it possibly be that US policies create a global shortage of food, but yet drugs are easily available? Food is easier to grow and there is more demand.

Everybody who wants drugs can get them. Let's apply the same system to hunger. If we outlawed food, I bet it would take about 60 days for food to get to every hungry person on the planet.

Are the prices for drugs really sky high, as people say? In other words, are there people who would be users if the prices were lower? Or is it that there aren't enough people interested, hence not enough demand, hence higher prices?

As for dosage - food three times a day - is that really relevant? In both cases, drugs for the addict and food for the hungry, people take the daily dose they need, if they can get it. Are there more people in the world who need food in the world and can't get it, or are there more people who need drugs and can't get them?

These distinctions- legal or illegal - seem arbitrary and ludicrous, and the way drugs can't be stopped and food can't flow makes me wonder if the whole game isn't rigged.

Who cares if it is "legal" to buy food if you can't get it? Who cares if it is "legal" to grow food if you can't make a living at it?

With the globalization of trade we are now seeing the situation in many places where in the same rural region the farmer can't make a living at growing food and the people in that region can't afford to buy food. Global trade is forcing them to work for and buy from corporations like Monsanto. That is the logical extension of the corporatization and globalization of the food industry.

Growing drugs is a better deal for the people in that region. Why? Because we Americans will pay them a lot more for drugs than we will for food. People would rather dodge the police than fight Monsanto. Why? Because Monsanto is a bigger threat to the law-abiding citizen than the police are to the criminal, and Monsanto has more reliable "back-up" from the US federal government than law enforcement does.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. I Am Just A Schmuck One Man Business...

I just stated a truism....

The first obligation of a company is to make a profit ....


If a company doesn't make a profit it will go kaput....


Then I added it is the government's job to make sure businesses act responsibly or to use a high fallutin term to create an adequate regulatory environment....


Only in the world that befuddled Winston Smith would I have to defend myself after stating those truisms that I run a business that would make Ken Lay or the late John Gotti blush...

[sandnsea]

114. But you know

I still disagree. I understand the business principle, truly, I'm a business person. But the first obligation really ought to be like doctors, first do no harm. After that, profit with a keen eye to the laborer who is key to that profit. I really think we've got to figure out a way to measure environmental and social damage into business models.

[Nederland]

88. Who are you?

Rush Limbaugh's wet dream Democrat?

It is impossible to simultaneously be pro-employee and anti-employer.

[sandnsea]

92. Who is anti-employer????

How many times does one have to type the word CAPITALISM before a free marketer can READ IT. I'm talking about ethics, responsible capitalism. I don't know how anybody can deny they're nearly nonexistent, especially in emerging economies; and that if Bush had his way they'd be nonexistent everywhere. Enlightened capitalism. And it would be preferable if personal business owners would operate their businesses that way as well, and not say they're free to do anything unless the government says no.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. I Never Said That...

You are inferring what's not there....


It's assumed that a individual will act with integrity... I didn't know it has to be spelled out...


Here's a situation....

My air conditioner breaks... I call the a c repairman and assume he will fix it for a fair price....

He doesn't have to say to mr , "Mr. Smith, I am an ethical repairman..."


I assume evberybody is ethical until they prove elsewise...

Isn't that a correct view of human nature...

[sandnsea]

104. Let's assume then

Let's assume we do away with all chemical regulations relating to air conditioning. Does the repairman have a responsiblity to operate his business ethically, or can he dump known poisons in an air conditioning system because "it's the government's job to make sure he makes his profit responsibly". Reading your comment, it sounded like you would think the repairman does not have that responsiblity. Alot of free marketers say people will stop buying from the repairman if he's using poisons. The truth is, cost and ignorance and intentional suppression of that information will drive that business more than any notion of a free market. Enlightened capitalism, the right blend of government and business, and hopefully an eventual change to a business climate where ethics becomes part of the equation in making a profit.

And if I misunderstood what you were saying, I apologize. It sure sounded like the kind of free market nonsense that says profit before all else and that is wrong, doesn't work, and when you consider all other factors, really doesn't exist.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. Nope...

That's the failing of liberterianism....

Their inability to distinguish between self directed and other directed acts...


If a company is blowing crap into the air it affects me and by the time I get around to suing them it could be too late... And to add insult to injury the Republicans want to remove the regulations that prevent companies from hurting folks and then turn around and say you can't sue them when you are injured in the name of tort reform...

In a nutshell I believe the market is the best deliverer of goods and services and it's the job of the government to regulate those markets....



And of course folks should act with integrity...

[sandnsea]

113. The market

Which is slightly different than saying your responsibility is to make a profit. Government's responsibility is to see to it you do it honorably. That just sounds like the kind of cat and mouse games that came out of Enron. We agree that government has to regulate, and that business ought to regulate itself as well. Without becoming onerous. Your first post honestly didn't sound that way.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. It Was Implied... I Didn't Think One Has To Announce They Run An Honorable

Business....

[MsTryska]

223. How did you jump to the conclusion

that this person doesn't have ethical businesses practice.

as an outsider, it seems to me your projecting your feelings on to someone else.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Thank You....I Am A Magazine Publisher....

I sell ads to people most of whom can buy and sell me and then use that money to pay folks to do design work, write the copy, and print my magazines...I keep what is left...

I get up each and every fucking morning and call people to buy ads... I call it dialing for dollars... If I don't sell any ads I'll be fucking broke and myself and my eighty six year old mom who is confined to a wheelchair will be out on the street....


It's not like I own a fucking company store in a early twentieth century West Virginia coal mining town and charge Granny five bucks for a tube of toothpaste...

And I never said anything about screwing people over... Business is about making a profit whether you are Wal-Mart or Wally's Lawn Mowing Service... If you can't take in more money than you spend you will be out of business and your employees will be out of a job...

The laws of economics are immutable....

Oh by the way... Sandandsea I farm out some of my business to fellow DUers .... I think they can tell you I am more than fair.....

[sandnsea]

76. That's not what you said

The first obligation of any business is to make a profit... It is up to the government to make sure that profit is made responsibly...

THAT is what you said. Your FIRST obligation ought to be to have ethics, that ought to be anybody's first obligation.

[Cheswick2.0]

53. I have many relatives who own businesses

They say the first resposibility of a business is to provide a reasonable living and a decent work place for all employees. They are the kind of people who hang on to employees in tough times and cut their own profit instead.

The first obligation of your business is whatever you think it sould be. That is all up to your priorities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. I Agree..

They say the first resposibility of a business is to provide a reasonable living and a decent work place for all employees. They are the kind of people who hang on to employees in tough times and cut their own profit instead.


But if you are not making a profit you can't stay in business for long...


And of course you should make a profit by staying within the rules...

That's just common sense....

[m berst]

117. good point Cheswick

Back before Reagan and Limbaugh completely destroyed our national political discussion, while most small business owners voted Republican, not all did. The job of the Democratic party was to support and sustain that business ethic that recognized a need for a sense of social responsibility.

Henry Ford had a better grasp of this than many Democrats who advocate "free market" forces do today. Old Henry realized that he had to pay people enough money for them to be able to afford to buy his cars. Many Dems have joined Republicans now in policies that are so skewed towards the interests of capital, that the average American can no longer afford the products of the businesses they are slaving away to help build. "Free" and easy credit has masked this to some extent, as many people "own" nice cars and nice houses and think they are prospering. You never hear anyone say anymore that the bank owns their house, as I used to hear all the time from mortgage holders. My Grandfather bought his home with a shoe box full of cash saved up from his union job at Chrysler. No THAT was a true ownership society, and it could only have existed thanks to liberalism and a Democratic party that stood for the worker, not the capitalists.

[GR]

194. Ever Heard Of Europe...?

nfm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

214. What European Countries Have Command Economies?

Once again folks are conflating socialism with advanced welfare states....

[rman]

245. What is a command economy?

I've never heard of it before.

Welfare is a consequence of socialism, socialism is in essence the labor movement; the most recent succesfull resistance movement against capitalist, oppressive exploiters (by now so long ago that many people have forgotten).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

247. Surely You Jest

http://www.gppsd.ab.ca/gpcomp/academ/soc/33/Command.html

[rman]

240. So, no Personal Responsibility for Corporations then?

"first obligation of any business is to make a profit... up to the government to make sure that profit is made responsibly..."

In other words: it's ok for corporations to try and do anything they can get away with in order to make a profit, corporations don't have to carry responisbility for the consequences of their actions.

Meanwhile citizens have to take more personal responsibility.

So much for consistency in the corporatist doctrine.

"first obligation of any business is to make a profit"
First obligation by law, no less. Sometimes people come up with the wrong laws. Good thing laws can be changed.
www.reclaimdemocracy.org

[DemocratSinceBirth]

249. Another One With The Non Sequitars...

If I said I have a penis... It is up to the government to regulate behavior that affects others...

Would you infer from that I think it's o k to go to bars, give men or women rufies, wait for them to pass out and sodomize them....

[m berst]

112. many will argue, and still think they are Dems

You are of course right here - right, that is, in the opinion of a liberal Dem with a liberal bias. I am happy to say that I am a liberal and I am a Democrat, and I am tired of having moderates re-define who we are and what we stand for in the interests of practicality, realism and winning.

The notion of "free markets" is not something to be automatically accepted as true or immutable, and in fact was, and should be, a line of cleavage between the two parties.

There is nothing wrong with free market advocates and with the perspective of some small busines owners whi see everything through a lens of competitve market forces, but it is not liberalism and it is not in the interests of the working class. If the Democratic party is forced to take the same position on "free markets" as the Republicans, then I have to ask what is left of the Democratic party? This is not to say that Democrats reject markets, or reject iniative and fre enterprise, but rather that we see the needs of the workers and the poor as needing to be balanced with the perogatives of the capitalists.

If both parties are advocating for the capitalists, where do the people find their voice? One could argue "too bad" and say that if those people wanted to be capitalists they could be and they have no one to blame for their powerlessness but themselves. That is fine. That is historically called "Republicanism." Both my Wilkie Republican Grandfather, and my UAW FDR Democratic Grandfather would have agreed that this was a good definition of Republicanism. One would have been for it and the other against it, but they wouldn't be mixed up over definitions and allegiances as so many people are today.

[The Wielding Truth]

73. Capitalism works but it also must be tempered with conscience.

I stand for free trade but not to the expense of losing our country's identity and moral obligation.Social conscience should not just exist in the private sector but in the bones of our government. Those who need should be able to be feed and challenged by the greater community.This is what makes me a Democrat.
World trade is essential but dominant uncontrolled corporate power is a travesty. Check and balances. Ethics and accountability. We must ask that the toothpaste we buy is not made of unsafe ingredients or stolen labor. It isn't simple but we can not be irresponsible like our Republican counter parts, in power now.
I believe business must have a conscience. As Clinton showed that smaller government and environmental protection can exist we must show that business and honor must also.
Business monopolies are dangerous to our economic and civil freedoms.
Even the greediest of corporations hates to see another company get ahead. Greed must be controlled by showing the havenots that the prize must be shared. Government must intercede.
Now we are caught in an Animal House of power hungry novices. We however can not afford to wait until they mature. We at DU have opened the door for our message to proudly emerge,so it will soon be time to take it from door to door and from local newspaper to radio.

[joelogan]

210. strawman

social democracy is not free market. Capitalism can exist outside of the free market. Social democracy is capitalist but not free market.

You cannot be a believer in social democracy and believe in the free market.

No offense, but it sounds like berst is talking about you! :-)

[Zynx]

3. I believe in a just economic system, but it must be a free market.

No other system works well other than a system based, at least mostly, on a free market. Even socialist countries largely have private industry with opportunity to become very wealthy.

[m berst]

30. that is fine

It is traditional mainstream Republicanism and I think that it has a legitimate place in the political dialogue.

[GR]

195. The Problem Is, The Market Has NO MORALITY...

If left to it's own devices...government must be made and allowed to sanction it's behavior....There must be RULES OF THE GAME, just like there are in any sporting event...Republicans don't want any rules...Without rules you get Merck and VIOXX, Enron, Worlcom, and on and on...It the only rule is to make a profit, then we're all screwed...

[Nederland]

272. Nonsense

The market has as much or as little morality as any economic system. Like any system, its morality is determined by its members. Their can be immoral socialist systems just as easily as their can be immoral socialist systems.

[jzodda]

4. No it would not be better

Why should a political party have just "zombies" in it, meaning they all think the same things? Diversity is good, being a big tent party is good. Let the Rep party have all the narrow minded "one issue" people.

There is room for everybody in our party as long as you are not a bigot. At least thats how I feel. If you hate minorites and gays and such well then the Rep party is for you.

[Zynx]

5. Exactly, we should be the biggest tent we can be.

That's how we win elections.

[m berst]

14. we are not a big tent

We are very restrictive, in fact.That is why we are losing ground and on our way to being a minority party.

"Big tent" always means include a lot of intellectual conservatives and professionals and academics. Race, class, the working people, the poor - those are all exluded from the big tent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. How Are We Restrictive?

And aren't most conservative intellectuals in the Republican party?

[m berst]

23. an oxymoron there

Republican intellectuals?? lol

The restrictiveness comes from a bias that is almost unconcious among many Dems.

You can walk into any right wing organization and your skills will be immediately put to use and you will be well-financed. There are no litmus-tests, no life style requirements, no sophistication requirements, no degrees needed, and no bona fides or credentials need to be shown. If you can do the job, you are put to work.

This is not the case in liberal and progressive organizations. There is a strong class bias and intellectual snobbery that is insurmountable. Working class peope, as well as artists and writers and other independent voices, are marginalized and driven away because they don't fit into the upscale club of clever winners.

The liberal, leftist, and progressive organizations, in contrast, are a tight knit bunch of self-righteous hierarchy-oriented and status-conscious insiders, and common people and outsiders are not welcome. The people who control these organizations are the ones who give us this idea that we have no where to go. We are reluctant to criticize them because we "agree with them" or think they are "for the right causes" so they get a free ride.

The everyday regular people, 70% of the population or more, are where we can go. They have no one listening to them or speaking for them. They are therefore vulnerable to the pseudo-populism of the Republican party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. The 70% Of The People You Are Referring To Don't Want Socialism...

And you seem to be conflating liberalism and socialism...


Socialism is ultimately the antithesis and rejection of liberalism...

[m berst]

38. they don't know what socialism is

They don't like the label.

In any case, this presumed rejection of socialism by the majority of the people is used as an excuse to abandon liberalism. We drift and drift and drift towards the right wing ruling class agenda.

[joelogan]

215. Berst, you are NAILING THESE SUCKERS TO THE WALL

You really have them pegged!

In order to move the party forward, we need to turn it to the left economically, and to the right socially.

What I mean is make progressive taxes on earned and unearned income the centerpiece of the party platform. Raise the taxes on the rich--raise them a LOT!

Cut back on imports from 3rd world and Asian countries, especially where advanced manufacturing is involved, i.e., we want the fabrication of components back from Japan and Taiwan.

Also, focus on spending all that tax revenue on universal healthcare and longterm unemployment, and emphasize that these benefits are given out to everyone regardless of color.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

250. Wow

"In order to move the party forward, we need to turn it to the left economically, and to the right socially."


"Turn to the right socially"


If the Democratic party can't protect me from having the government tell me who I can and can't fuck, what I can and can't watch, and what I can and can't say the Democratic party should go the way of the Whigs....


"Cut back on imports from 3rd world and Asian countries, especially where advanced manufacturing is involved, i.e., we want the fabrication of components back from Japan and Taiwan."

How about folks in Japan and Taiwan... Aren't they entitled to make a living by selling us their goods or is the comfort of the white man paramount to the comfort of the Asian man...

Besides the morality of it they would stop buying goods from us....



What a fucking dystopia you are offereing us....

[Nosmo King]

7. If the Democrats can stick to the basics

like securing Social Security, being good stewards of the environment and helping people who truly need help, there is no limit to the gains (politically) made.

Let the social conservatives rip each other to shreds over their ever narrowing template of moral standards. I smell infighting there that will only help cast the light of truth on their neo-Victorian agenda.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Thought Only Reactionaries Called Democrats Socialists...

nt

[m berst]

16. thank you for that

What is wrong with socialism, in any case? People can argue that it only would attract 5% of the population, but it is only the label that 95% of the people reject. The positions would have wide support - of course, because they address the needs of the majority of the people - but we can't strongly present them to the people because we have to compromise with corporate interests and an upper class liberal mentality that protects and defends privilege and entitlement, while justifying the system as a meritocracy and ignoring the built-in social inequalities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Define Socialism...

And I am bit confused because you are implying that the Democratic party is at it's heart a socialist party and folks who aren't socialists don't really belong...


If we purged the non-socialists from the party there would be practically no one left....


I support free markets and individual initiative with a robust social safety net for those who lack the ability to compete; the poor, the infirm, the elderly...


However I find a command economy and leveling unworkable and ultimately destructive of the innate human instinct to achieve....

[m berst]

41. socialism

"However I find a command economy and leveling unworkable and ultimately destructive of the innate human instinct to achieve..."

Cetainly. That is traditional mainstream Republicanism when you place that as the first priority. It is a legitimate and worthy position. Historically it is in opposition to the struggles of the working class, and I say that it is not compatible with a party that pretends to represent the workers and the poor. That doesn't make it wrong, and I don't bring it up for the sake of argument, rather for the sake of clarity.


Socialism

The political and social scheme of Robert Owen, of Montgomeryshire, who in 1816 published a work to show that society was in a wretched condition, and all its institutions and religious systems were based on wrong principles. The prevailing system is competition, but Owen maintained that the proper principle is co-operation; he therefore advocated a community of property and the abolition of degrees of rank. (1771-1858.) The Socialists are called also Owenites (3 syl.). In France the Fourierists and St. Simonians are similar sorts of communists, who receive their designations from Fourier and St. Simon

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. I'll Go With JFK

"All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop our talents."

-John Kennedy

[m berst]

54. agreed

It is right wing slander to say that socialism, or liberalsim, is about making the results equal. As JFK says, we are committed to equal opportunity. However, Republicans justify all kinds of abuse and oppression by misrepresnting that ideal. We look at results as a measure of how well we are doing in providing and protecting equal opportunity. We don't dimiss glaring inequalities in results based on race, or gender by misusing the Republican slander of liberalism.

Republicans say that "hey women have equal opportunity" and defy you to contradict that. As liberals we need to be able to say that the unequal results indicate unequal opportunity. To fail to do that, and to fall back on a false meritocracy Republican argument is to covertly accept the idea that certain groups of people are failing because they must be inferior in some way.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. The Government Should Ensure We All Start At The Same Place

but where we go from there is a function of our own initiative, skill, and luck...

[hughee99]

85. Outcome vs. Opportunity...

It all depends on where you draw the line. As an example, leaving out the socio-economic aspect for simplicity... does everyone have the opportunity to go to a public school? Yes. Do all students graduate? No. Repukes believe that all students have the opportunity to get a high school degree. We look foward on this and say that not all people have the opportunity to go to college. Is the high school degree the outcome or a prerequisite for the opportunity to go to college? It's both, it's the outcome from one experience and provides the opportunity for another. At the very beginning (before public school) it is only an opportunity. At what point is education only an outcome and not the basis for another opportunity?

If an 18 year old student voluntarily drops out of school, they are denying themselves an opportunity, by determining their own outcome. Should the government step in and either force them to graduate, or give them a meaningless degree in order to give them the same opportunities as graduates?

I guess the big question is what opportunities does the governement need make sure that all people have, and which opportunities must be provided by the people themselves, based on the outcome of previous opportunities?

[m berst]

96. let's reframe it

"It all depends on where you draw the line. As an example, leaving out the socio-economic aspect for simplicity... does everyone have the opportunity to go to a public school? Yes. Do all students graduate? I guess the big question is what opportunities does the governement need make sure that all people have, and which opportunities must be provided by the people themselves, based on the outcome of previous opportunities?"

If you start put with the idea that the opportunities in society are already skewed, then you are on your way to liberalism. If you see society as bascially already fair and more or less equal, then you can never understand liberal principles.

If there were no unfairness, we would have no need for any government whatsoever. If government advances the interests of the rich and powerful, then what is government for? The rich and powerful will do just fine with no government. It is called feudalism. The purpose of government, and especially the United States government, is to protect the lives and well being of the majority of people who were not born to wealth and privilege, or who were not among the lucky or exceptionally talented few who were able to amass wealth and power.

As liberals, we see that much of society in based on inequities and on injustice. We see that much of the wealth and power in the country is inherited, entrenched and rife with cronyism and corruption. We see the devastating effect this has on the average citizen. We take a stand with the average citizen against entrenched money, power and privilege.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. Nope... We Don't Have Equal Resources...

That';s where the government comes in...

[hughee99]

116. That's sort of my point...

If you see resources as the "opportunity", then the only way everyone can have equal opportunity is to have equal resources. Everyone must have the same amount money and choose to spend it the same way, look the same, and have the same talents, like in Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. Every person has unique talents, but those talents are not always in keeping with the opportunities someone might seek. Just like music and art, math, science and other things are also talents. You can teach me how to play the guitar, but I'll never sound like Jimi Hendrix, You can teach me how to sculpt, but I'll never be on par with of Rodan or Michaelangelo. I don't have the talent or creativity for such things. If I want to be an artist, there is really nothing government or anyone else can do to make me a great one. Even with the same opportunities, many who enter a field do not ever have a chance to be "great". Some people understand this inequity and are willing to live with it, some seek other pursuits that they may be better equipped for, and some lash out at the system, because of a real or perceived "bias" against them. I do not agree that bias is always unfair, either. Certainly, any arbitrary bias is unfair (I won't hire that person because they're a minority...), but we all use "bias" every day to help our decision making. I could spend my money on William Shatners "Greatest Hits". I think Shatner's music sucks, so I buy something else. I'm biased against his music, and, I think, rightly so. At what point should outcome and opportunity no longer be in the hands of the government? When is it the governments responsibility to rectify a resource unfairness, and when is it in the hands of the individual? I think these are questions that need to be answered before government can seriously seek to rectify the problem.

[m berst]

120. "talent" can be a biased concept and mis-used

Democrats believe historically that the presumed divide between the talented and the untalented, and its connection to the subsequent disparity in wealth and power, is over-rated.

Many have talents - as care-givers for example - that will never bring them fame or make them a million on the open market. Democrats see them as nevertheless important assets to the society and deserving of the resources needed to practice their skills and contribute to the greater good of all of the citizens.

The "cream rising to the top" argument to explain how society should work is a valid viewpoint, but it is traditional Republicanism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

130. I Am A Full Time Caregiver As Well As A Full Time Business Owner...

While I am toiling away at those two tasks Kobe Bryant is getting paid tens of millions of dollars to play basketball...


That's life...


But at least Kobe is paying forty percent in taxes to support the government's responsibilities...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. I See Your Point...

IMHO, equal access to a quality education is the key... What you do with that access will determine how far you get in life....


I harken back to LBJ's musings on inequality that you can not have a fair race when one of the contestants is in shackles...

It is government's job to remove those shackles but once the shackles are off you are on your own as long as you remain intact physically and emotionally....

[vixannewigg]

17. May be true

I am not particularly informed about economic policies. I vote Democrat because the Republicans are in bed with the religious right, do not want to give gay people the same rights as straight people, and want to take away my right to choose. In terms of Republican ideals, the current state of the party seems to have changed drastically from what it was intended to be. If a socially moderate Republican ran against a socially moderate Democrat, I would vote completely based on the candidate and wouldn't care about the parties at all.

But that's not George Bush and that's not this administration.

I guess I identify myself as a Democrat as a reaction to what the Republican party is not.

[Guava Jelly]

18. calling me a republican is fighting words

I.d rather be called pigshit then a republican

[m berst]

24. my point exactly

You are identifying with a party as though it were a team and reacting to the label.

[Guava Jelly]

75. I am reacting to a mentality

mine and thiers..
My mentality is that anyone that has been alive these last 4 years and still blindly support bush and vote republican..
then they are filth to me pure and simple..
And lucky me i get to eat turkey this year with filth that carries my genetic code

[m berst]

108. I am objecting to this

It is only in the interests of the totalitarians and the Dominionists for us to demonize half of the population as "filth" and the like. It is an inadequate and weak response to the challenge, and is incompatible with being a liberal IMHO, and counter-productive to advancing the liberal program. A truly strong stance takes on the policies and the powerful men at the top, not the citizenry. We seek to educate the people who are voting against their own interests, not to hate and destroy them.

We can hardly blame the average person in this country for being wooed over to the Republican side when we are doing such a terrible job of offering them a clear and powerful alternative in terms that make any sense to them.

Hatred and name-calling won't make up for our own failures as liberals and can only lead to a greater likelihood of totalitarianism and civil strife.

[Guava Jelly]

135. Hey if they voted for bush and the republicans

they told the world that they support starting needless wars on people that never atacked us.
Sending 1200+ troops to die for a lie
the support shunning the world torturing prisoners
and giving america away to the rich and fanatic..
to me thats filth deal with it..

[m berst]

147. I agree

The people who planned and are running this despicable foreign policy and genocidal war on false pretenses and in violation of domestic and international law are deserving of our contempt and censure. Absolutely.

I don't believe that all Republican voters are vile filth, however. I'd like to knock some sense into them sometimes, but we can attack the adminstratiion without demonizing half the population, and we can provide a strong and positive alternative for people.

[eridani]

169. Are you aware of what some of them also voted for?

60% of BUSH SUPPORTERS in Florida voted for an increase in the minimum wage, indexed to inflation yet. This was strongly opposed by Jeb, needless to say.

So whythehell weren't Dems talking about this on the national level?

[catbert836]

19. Although what you're describing the perfect DUer as is

a socialist. Which I certainly am, although I don't think many people around here are. Democrats in general are not socialists, but I wish more were. Then maybe we could stand up to the Repukes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I Can Distinguish Myself From Being A Republican Without Being A Socialist

nt

[m berst]

47. no argument there - eom

[willysnout]

20. Brilliant! You Want To Expel People?

Tell me, how many elections have you won?

[m berst]

28. No, I want to invite people

I want to invite millions of working class Bush voters back into the party of the people. To do that we have to dump our conservative leadership and break out of the framework that the reactionaries have set up for the political discussion.

Drop any talk anymore about theocratic issues pro or con and the vast majority of Bush voters will be ready for a message of true liberalism. I think that then many conservative Democrats will find that they are much closer to Rockefeller and Wilkie Republicanism than they are to FDR, Stevenson, and Robert Kennedy. That is a good thing, because they can retrieve the Republican party from insanity and toss the fascists and theocrats out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. FDR, Adlai Stevenson, and RFK Were Liberals...

You keep conflating liberalism and socialism....

[m berst]

150. well, gee I don't mean to conflate the two

Although I am not seeing the hard and fast line between the two. The Democrats - as far as that goes, Bismarck in Germany - have instituted many reforms that are properly called "socialism" without having to invoke the spectre of Communist Soviet policies and programs. We should start accusing the Republicans of "feudalism" every time they move towards helping protect entrenched wealth and privilege rather than worrying about them calling us socialists every time we move away from feudalism.

They will call us socialists no matter what we do or say. First they took away the word "socialist" from us, they have ruined "liberal" and they are working on "Democrat" now. Why don't we let them worry about the labels they are going to pin on us?

How come they can call our ideas socialism and we can't call their's feudalism? How about we call their programs for what they are - feudalism, theocracy and totalitarianism?

[fujiyama]

173. I suppose Democrats

could call the republican agenda "feudalism". It'd certainly be accurate.

However, feudalism, unlike socialism and liberalism have not been used much in the modern vernacular. Most people think of feudalism and they think of farms, peasants, and medieval Europe.

Liberalism and conservatism are seen as two sides of the idealogical spectrum. It is tought early on. Conservative = right, Liberal = left.

Socialism as a bad word obviously arises from the Red Scare. China and the Soviet Union called themselves "socialist" states. The Americans didn't want to associate themselves with that, even if the Europeans had a much more sofisticated approach and realised that there was nothing wrong in being a socialist democracy.

[willysnout]

37. A Pragmatic Interruption

The way this would happen would likely be if the Democrats were to say that they'd be happy to cave on the "moral" issues, i.e. abotion and homosexual rights, and simultaneously move to the left on economic issues like being more pro-union, setting a higher minimum wage, adopting trade protectionism, and raising taxes on the wealthy.

There would be three practical issues. One is that you'd rip the Democratic Party apart because today's economic liberals also tend to be the social liberals although not exclusively so. Secondly, you'd destroy the funding base of the party because people with money would be alarmed at a radical shift to the left. Thirdly, you wouldn't attract anything more than minimal working-class support because many of those people would go to church and hear about the Democrats turning communist.

In practical terms, therefore, your plan would be a disaster. And frankly, it sounds like something out of those Socialist Worker newspapers that get distributed in a couple neighborhoods here in Seattle.

[m berst]

228. does the party need to "cave" on any issues?

The Republicans set the issues up so that the Democrats can't win on them.

I think the majority of Americans, when asked if GLBT people should be mistreated, or subject to discrimination or legal sanctions, would say no. Thge Republicans turn that on its head - do you think that "they" should get "special privileges" and advance "their agenda." If you don't attack the way they have set the discussion up, there are only two possible positions to take - one sanctioning bigotry, or the other and suffering voter backlash.

I believe that if the party was strongly speaking out about the ways in which the blue collar workers' rights are being denied, a larger context for human rights would be established within which bigotry against minority groups would be easier to address, since we have established a commonality of interest about civil rights in general.

[Iris]

26. Who is really for "suburbanization"?

If anyone here is "for" suburbanization, they should get his head examined. Why would anyone think sitting in your car several hours a day is a good thing?

[m berst]

132. rofl

Yeah, it would seem like common sense, wouldn't it? Why is half of the population of the world lusting after the Leave it to Beaver lifestyle? I mean, barbecuing is OK, but hardly something to base your life on.

People say "schools" and they say "freedom from crime" and they say "investment in real estate." All of those are closely related to institutional and systemic racism and brought us the war on drugs, the "public school crisis" the decay of city centers, and a host of other social problems. (I realize that this is very unpopular to say, even among Dems.)

[American Tragedy]

242. Look, I wouldn't want to live in the suburbs either

However, it would be extremely difficult to argue that crime and homicide are equally common in certain parts of the inner city and on the outskirts. In this city at least the facts would contradict that. I can understand why people with young children might be disturbed by this, after watching the news and seeing young people murdered in front of their houses every week on the same side of town. Whatever the historical cause of this situation may be, most parents would not choose to expose their children to such an environment if they have another option.

[MsTryska]

27. I'm a Teddy Roosevelt Republican, I suppose.

I like the environment, i think Big Business requires a few shackles...i think he and i may disagree on foreign policy tho.

[m berst]

29. that's what I am saying, thanks

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if we could once again have a choice between Teddy's Republicanism and FDR's Democratic platform? That woukd be a much more accurate reflection of the people's political positions, and would serve the needs of the people much better. It is entirely achievable and practical - I would say inevitable - that we restore that traditional political dichotomy and dump fascism versus fascism light.

[Iris]

32. yes. This is starting to make sense now. eom

[m berst]

46. it seems confrontational, I know

But it really is not. It is just an attempt to cut through the fog and get some clarity.

I almost said "most here are Republicans" as the title. That would have really sent people off the deep end.

I want to break up the meaningless attachment to labels and get beyond the idiotic talking points. We can't re-build the Democratic party if we don't agree on what it stands for. We can't reach agreement if we don't know where people honestly stand on the issues - the real issues, not the pseudo-issues of the right wing.

You can't build a party on "we are better than them" and base your strategy and platform solely on "winning." That is not only common sense, but the events of the last 30 years have proven it to be a mistake in practice as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. What Was FDR's Platform....

He was a Keynesian who defecit spent his way out of the Depression with a lot of help from WW2...


He saved capitalism from itself by ridding it of it's excesses...


I know you don't know it but you are making the classic right wing argument that Democrats equal liberals equal socialists....

[m berst]

149. I understand the danger dsb

Yes, I know that the Republicans say democrats = liberals = socialists, but I also know that they say that regardless of how liberal or conservative we are. From their perspective Rockafeller was a socialist.

Democratic Party Platform 1936

We hold this truth to be self-evident—that the test of a representative government is its ability to promote the safety and happiness of the people.

We hold this truth to be self-evident—that 12 years of Republican leadership left our Nation sorely stricken in body, mind, and spirit; and that three years of Democratic leadership have put it back on the road to restored health and prosperity.

We hold this truth to be self-evident—that 12 years of Republican surrender to the dictatorship of a privileged few have been supplanted by a Democratic leadership which has returned the people themselves to the places of authority, and has revived in them new faith and restored the hope which they had almost lost.

We hold this truth to be self-evident—that this three-year recovery in all the basic values of life and the reestablishment of the American way of living has been brought about by humanizing the policies of the Federal Government as they affect the personal, financial, industrial, and agricultural well-being of the American people.

We hold this truth to be self-evident—that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are:

(1) Protection of the family and the home.

(2) Establishment of a democracy of opportunity for all the people.

(3) Aid to those overtaken by disaster. These obligations, neglected through 12 years of the old leadership, have once more been recognized by American Government. Under the new leadership they will never be neglected.

For the Protection of the Family and the Home

(1) We have begun and shall continue the successful drive to rid our land of kidnappers and bandits. We shall continue to use the powers of government to end the activities of the malefactors of great wealth who defraud and exploit the people.

Savings and Investment

(2) We have safeguarded the thrift of our citizens by restraining those who would gamble with other peoples savings, by requiring truth in the sale of securities; by putting the brakes upon the use of credit for speculation; by outlawing the manipulation of prices in stock and commodity markets; by curbing the overweening power and unholy practices of utility holding companies; by insuring fifty million bank accounts.

Old Age and Social Security

(3) We have built foundations for the security of those who are faced with the hazards of unemployment and old age; for the orphaned, the crippled, and the blind. On the foundation of the Social Security Act we are determined to erect a structure of economic security for all our people, making sure that this benefit shall keep step with the ever-increasing capacity of America to provide a high standard of living for all its citizens.

Consumer

(4) We will act to secure to the consumer fair value, honest sales and a decreased spread between the price he pays and the price the producer receives.

Rural Electrification

(5) This administration has fostered power rate yardsticks in the Tennessee Valley and in several other parts of the Nation. As a result, electricity has been made available to the people at a lower rate. We will continue to promote plans for rural electrification and for cheap power by means of the yardstick method.

Housing

(6) We maintain that our people are entitled to decent, adequate housing at a price which they can afford. In the last three years, the Federal Government, having saved more than two million homes from foreclosure, has taken the first steps in our history to provide decent housing for people of meagre incomes. We believe every encouragement should be given to the building of new homes by private enterprise; and that the Government should steadily extend its housing program toward the goal of adequate housing for those forced through economic necessities to live in unhealthy and slum conditions.

Veterans

(7) We shall continue just treatment of our war veterans and their dependents.

For the Establishment of a Democracy of Opportunity

Agriculture

We have taken the farmers off the road to ruin. We have kept our pledge to agriculture to use all available means to raise farm income toward its pre-war purchasing power. The farmer is no longer suffering from 15-cent corn, 3-cent hogs, 2 1/2-cent beef at the farm, 5-cent wool, 30-cent wheat, 5-cent cotton, and 8-cent sugar.

By Federal legislation, we have reduced the farmer's indebtedness and doubled his net income. In cooperation with the States and through the varmers' own committees, we are restoring the fertility of his land and checking the erosion of his soil. We are bringing electricity and good roads to his home.

We will continue to improve the soil conservation and domestic allotment program with payments to farmers.

We will continue a fair-minded administration of agricultural laws, quick to recognize and meet new problems and conditions. We recognize the gravity of the evils of farm tenancy, and we pledge the full cooperation of the Government in the refinancing of farm indebtedness at the lowest possible rates of interest and over a long term of years.

We favor the production of all the market will absorb, both at home and abroad, plus a reserve supply sufficient to insure fair prices to consumers; we favor judicious commodity loans on seasonal surpluses; and we favor assistance within Federal authority to enable farmers to adjust and balance production with demand, at a fair profit to the farmers.

We favor encouragement of sound, practical farm co-operatives.

By the purchase and retirement of ten million acres of sub-marginal land, and assistance to those attempting to eke out an existence upon it, we have made a good beginning toward proper land use and rural rehabilitation.

The farmer has been returned to the road to freedom and prosperity. We will keep him on that road.

Labor

We have given the army of America's industrial workers something more substantial than the Republicans' dinner pail full of promises. We have increased the worker's pay and shortened his hours; we have undertaken to put an end to the sweated labor of his wife and children; we have written into the law of the land his right to collective bargaining and self-organization free from the interference of employers; we have provided Federal machinery for the peaceful settlement of labor disputes.

We will continue to protect the worker and we will guard his rights, both as wage-earner and consumer, in the production and consumption of all commodities, including coal and water power and other natural resource products.

The worker has been returned to the road to freedom and prosperity. We will keep him on that road.

Business

We have taken the American business man out of the red. We have saved his bank and given it a sounder foundation; we have extended credit; we have lowered interest rates; we have undertaken to free him from the ravages of cutthroat competition.

The American business man has been returned to the road to freedom and prosperity. We will keep him on that road.

Youth

We have aided youth to stay in school; given them constructive occupation; opened the door to opportunity which 12 years of Republican neglect had closed.

Our youth have been returned to the road to freedom and prosperity. We will keep them on that road.

Monopoly and Concentration of Economic Power

Monopolies and the concentration of economic power, the creation of Republican rule and privilege, continue to be the master of the producer, the exploiter of the consumer, and the enemy of the independent operator. This is a problem challenging the unceasing effort of untrammeled public officials in every branch of the Government. We pledge vigorously and fearlessly to enforce the criminal and civil provisions of the existing anti-trust laws, and to the extent that their effectiveness has been weakened by new corporate devices or judicial construction, we propose by law to restore their efficacy in stamping out monopolistic practices and the concentration of economic power.

Aid to Those Overtaken By Disaster

We have aided and will continue to aid those who have been visited by widespread drought and floods, and have adopted a Nation-wide flood-control policy.

Unemployment

We believe that unemployment is a national problem, and that it is an inescapable obligation of our Government to meet it in a national way.

Due to our stimulation of private business, more than five million people have been reemployed; and we shall continue to maintain that the first objective of a program of economic security is maximum employment in private industry at adequate wages. Where business fails to supply such employment, we believe that work at prevailing wages should be provided in cooperation with State and local governments on useful public projects, to the end that the national wealth may be increased, the skill and energy of the worker may be utilized, his morale maintained, and the unemployed assured the opportunity to earn the necessities of life.

The Constitution

The Republican platform proposes to meet many pressing national problems solely by action of the separate States. We know that drought, dust storms, floods, minimum wages, maximum hours, child labor, and working conditions in industry, monopolistic and unfair business practices cannot be adequately handled exclusively by 48 separate State legislatures, 48 separate State administrations, and 48 separate State courts. Transactions and activities which inevitably overflow State boundaries call for both State and Federal treatment.

We have sought and will continue to seek to meet these problems through legislation within the Constitution.

If these problems cannot be effectively solved by legislation within the Constitution, we shall seek such clarifying amendment as will assure to the legislatures of the several States and to the Congress of the United States, each within its proper jurisdiction, the power to enact those laws which the State and Federal legislatures, within their respective spheres, shall find necessary, in order adequately to regulate commerce, protect public health and safety and safeguard economic security. Thus we propose to maintain the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The Merit System in Government

For the protection of government itself and promotion of its efficiency, we pledge the immediate extension of the merit system through the classified civil service—which was first established and fostered under Democratic auspices—to all non-policy-making positions in the Federal service.

We shall subject to the civil service law all continuing positions which, because of the emergency, have been exempt from its operation.

Civil Liberties

We shall continue to guard the freedom of speech, press, radio, religion and assembly which our Constitution guarantees; with equal rights to all and special privileges to none.

Government Finance

The Administration has stopped deflation, restored values and enabled business to go ahead with confidence.

When national income shrinks, government income is imperilled. In reviving national income, we have fortified government finance. We have raised the public credit to a position of unsurpassed security. The interest rate on Government bonds has been reduced to the lowest point in twenty eight years. The same Government bonds which in 1932 sold under 83 are now selling over 104.

We approve the objective of a permanently sound currency so stabilized as to prevent the former wide fluctuations in value which injured in turn producers, debtors, and property owners on the one hand, and wage-earners and creditors on the other, a currency which will permit full utilization of the country's resources. We assert that today we have the soundest currency in the world.

We are determined to reduce the expenses of government. We are being aided therein by the recession in unemployment. As the requirements of relief decline and national income advances, an increasing percentage of Federal expenditures can and will be met from current revenues, secured from taxes levied in accordance with ability to pay. Our retrenchment, tax and recovery programs thus reflect our firm determination to achieve a balanced budget and the reduction of the national debt at the earliest possible moment.

Foreign Policy

In our relationship with other nations, this Government will continue to extend the policy of the Good Neighbor. We reaffirm our opposition to war as an instrument of national policy, and declare that disputes between nations should be settled by peaceful means. We shall continue to observe a true neutrality in the disputes of others; to be prepared, resolutely to resist aggression against ourselves; to work for peace and to take the profits out of war; to guard against being drawn, by political commitments, international banking or private trading, into any war which may develop anywhere.

We shall continue to foster the increase in our foreign trade which has been achieved by this administration; to seek by mutual agreement the lowering of those tariff barriers, quotas and embargoes which have been raised against our exports of agricultural and industrial products; but continue as in the past to give adequate protection to our farmers and manufacturers against unfair competition or the dumping on our shores of commodities and goods produced abroad by cheap labor or subsidized by foreign governments.

The Issue

The issue in this election is plain. The American people are called upon to choose between a Republican administration that has and would again regiment them in the service of privileged groups and a Democratic administration dedicated to the establishment of equal economic opportunity for all our people.

We have faith in the destiny of our nation. We are sufficiently endowed with natural resources and with productive capacity to provide for all a quality of life that meets the standards of real Americanism.

Dedicated to a government of liberal American principles, we are determined to oppose equally, the despotism of Communism and the menace of concealed Fascism.

We hold this final truth to be self-evident—that the interests, the security and the happiness of the people of the United States of America can be perpetuated only under democratic government as conceived by the founders of our nation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

209. Exactly -FDR Made Capitalism Efficient And More Humane....

nt

[m berst]

257. if we look at FDR's approach and methods...

... and Abraham Lincoln's theories on labor, we have IMHO a perfect template for the balancing and prioritizing of the respective interests of labor and capital. The idea that capital or labor must dominate the other, to the destruction of the other, has been shown to be false by what Lincoln called the "true American system." In this system, labor is seen as prior to, and superior to, capital. At the same time, this does not mean that private enterprise is therefore hampered or discouraged. The presumption is that any common laborer can aspire to himself become the capitalist and hire other laborers and should not have obstacles placed in his path. Therefore we encourage entrepreneurship and protect private property since all may aspire to it and may achieve it, without allowing the degradation or dehumanization of labor.

Today's worker, tomorrow's boss, should a person so choose. The ideal for which to strive is a system that allows free enterprise to fully flourish, while protecting the worker from abuse and opening avenues and opportunities for upward mobility for all people.

This would mean rejecting a command economy, and the idea of "free markets" and instead pragmatically blending ideas from both schools of thought to best achieve the goal of a just and prosperous society. Justice and prosperity don't need to be mutually exclusive.

[MsTryska]

34. ooh id we did that, i might have a tought time deciding which party

i wanted to be with.

i'd have to be one of those undecideds.

[fujiyama]

172. And who exactly

is supposed to take the republican party back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt?

That party is dead. The republican party is now the party of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. John McCain's '00 primary run was the final confirmation. Before he completely sold out to the fanatics himself, he asked the party whether they were that of Pat Robertson or Teddy Roosevelt. The party rejected him and overwhelmingly chose the dim witted supposed "born again", the choice of the religious right AND the corporate elite. Make no mistake - both those forces are linked.

You are talking about world that doesn't even exist. Moderate republicans are getting replaced or dying out. There exist only 4 or 5 senators I would consider moderate republicans (all from the northeast - the two senators from Maine, Spectar and Chafee). I don't think even Spectar can be considered all that "moderate". He still votes with Bush and the party agenda most of the time, whether or not he believes in it. The same goes with Snowe and Collins of Maine. The only true moderate is Chafee, who actually refused to vote for Bush this time. Depending on how you view McCain (I view him with suspicion and distrust), you can count him as a "moderate".

So, what exactly are you proposing? That social moderates and liberals leave the democratic party so the party can supposedly make headway with socially conservative blue collar types that vote republican?

That's a great idea. Let's purge the party of white collar social moderates in favor of a socialist agenda - one that would doom us with both the moderates AND with the blue collar types that have no interest in a socialist agenda.

Now, I'm not saying socialist ideas are bad. FDR adopted some (albeit watered down) socialist ideas. But if you want to abandon social progressivism, for a socially conservative economic populism, you will be stuck with neither.

I'm staying in the party. If you want to leave, feel free.

[MsTryska]

212. So why don't we, the democrats, co-opt the party of Teddy Roosevelt.

I mean much of what he stood for is what we allegedly stand for today.

I think Lincoln embodies another part of what we say we stand for.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

40. Republican for Kerry looking for a new party...

The Republican party of today is hateful and so full of itself. I am a moderate Republican who is only staying Republican so I can vote in the PA primary in 2006 AGAINST Santorum (In PA you can only vote in the primary within the party you are registered).

I think a lot of moderates either don't realize the crazy right-wing agenda YET or they believed the fear factor card played by Bush's campaign.

PLEASE help the blue state of PA oust Santorum in 06. Maybe Chris Heinz could run against him either in the primary or as the Dem candidate in the general election?

[Cheswick2.0]

51. Hi, I am from NE PA

In 2002 I worked with lots of republicans on the Rendell Campaign. Good people.

I was wondering when the rational republicans would show up.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

59. Mod Republican in Pittsburgh

Ya, I think as this admin. pulls more and more radical moves, the moderate Republicans will finally wake up and look for a new home.

I am absolutely serious about the need to get Ricky boy out of this blue state in 06. We need a serious strategy and money.

[m berst]

62. the nutcases drove them out of the RNC

I grew up with many good, decent and honorable Republicans. They have a legitimate place in our political dialogue. I completely disagree with them politically, but that is ok.

I never got into a screaming, insulting argument with any Republican in the 60's or 70's like I do now with Democrats on almost a daily basis. I think the arguments stem from cinfusion, and I think people are confused about their ideology and which party they are historically in alignment with.

The Republican party has been hijacked by some scary people, and many decent and intelligent people who would have been Republicans are now in the Demicratic party. Since they tend to be better off and better educated, they dominate the party and have alienated the workers, the minorities and the poor. Now they are busy alienating Christians.

[liberalpragmatist]

107. Fmr. Liberal Republican Barbara Hafer's probably going to run

The state treasurer. She was a longtime liberal Republican, just switched to the Dems a couple years ago after she endorsed Rendell. So unless there's some other reason for you not to like her that I'm not aware of, she should be ideologically quite in line with you and many other Pennsylvania Republicans, who were, historically, quite liberal.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

42. Bullshit (eom)

DTH

[m berst]

49. thank you

Thank you for your thoughtful and considered opinion in the true spirit of liberalism.

</sarcasm>

And thank you for making my point for me. The outright hostile rejection of a plea for the party to return to its roots as a voice for the working people and the poor people would never be met with a dismissive one word insult in a context of a true commitment to what liberalism stands for.

I call for a restorastion of liberalism.

[QC]

55. The Democratic Party was never entirely, or even primarily,

a leftist party. Even during the days of Roosevelt, it was a coalition, sometimes uneasy, between rural Southerners, northern laborers and ethnics, farmers and union members, Catholics and Southern Baptists, rich people (like FDR himself) and poor people, etc.

So, you are calling for the restoration of something that never was. Fantasy, in other words. And frankly, the idea of fragmenting the progressive coalition in the face of rightist hegemony is a stupendously bad strategy.

If you're going to advocate this sort of thing, you should expect for people to call bullshit on it.

[m berst]

66. understood

You make a good point, but I would come to a different conclusion.

Yes, we need to build a coalition of many diverse elements. We do that with broad, inclusive fundamental principles of liberalism. Today we are trying to run on narrow, exclusive, hot button issues while abandoning the broad principles of liberalism.

We should be fighting like tigers for the repeal of the Patriot act, the end to unfair trade agreements, and to stop the war. Instead we fight on same sex marriage and other issues that the reactionaries are defining. We will sooner get to same sex marriage if we first build a coalition around the broader platform issues, and restore ALL civil rights, then we will get to the broader issues by fighting on the narrow ones.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. You Are Using The Words Liberalism And Socialism As Synonyms

They are not...

Here....


Tell me what am I


I favor social security


unemployment insurance


disability insurance


universal access to medical care


and welfare for those who can't find a job...

[m berst]

97. no, I didn't mean to

I am trying to buck the trend that sees them as virtual opposites.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. I Am A Welfare State Liberal.....

but not a socialist....

[m berst]

126. how would you define the difference?

I can remember when state ownership of the railroads, the steel industry and the coal mining industry were being seriously discussed in Democratic party circles. That seems like socialism to me, but then so does social security.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

133. Because I Believe In Free Markets And The Government Should Get Involved

Only When Inequities Exist....


And if airlines keep losing money eventually they might be nationalized...


I don't have a problem with that...

[m berst]

136. ok

Historically, the Democratic party has taken the position that enormous inequities already exist, not that we should be alert for "when" they might occur. The Republican party traditionally takes this position - that things are going along pretty much OK as they are, and that no changes are needed.

Do you see our society as massively and obviously skewed and distorted for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many today, or no?

[fujiyama]

174. We chose

NOT to fight on gay marriage.

This was an issue that was thrown into the public eye by the republicans. It was a social wedge issue that Democrats had no interest in touching.

Whether trying to avoid it was a mistake or not is a matter of debate. In some exit polls a large number believed that Kerry supported gay marriage, even though he made it clear on several occasions that he opposed it. This may have been because Rove was able to skillfully spin Democrats' opposition to the FMA as support of gay marriage. At least Kerry had the decency NOT to endorse state by state bans, something which apparently Clinton urged him to do.

As for your other issues - I agree 100%. The PATRIOT Act should be repealed, the party should speak out against the war, and we should repeal and/or end unfair trade agreements (which rarely benefit workers here or abroad).

[cattleman22]

259. Republicans chose but were helped by MA courts

If it had not been for the MA court, I don't think that republicans would have had much traction for the issue of gay marriage. While the blame still lies with the Republicans for focussing on the issue, the court decision enraged and motivated the bigots.

[tsuki]

78. Thank you for the reality check.

Being a Democrat in the 60's meant different things to different folks. It was not about painting people into a box. We had a couple of young up-and-comers in the Democratic party in our area about ten years ago. They wanted to have a fish fry to have the folks come out and met their "conservative" democratic candidates. (Conservative is a buzz word in this area for fiscal conservatives, PAYGO)

The Democratic Party said if they did that, they would be disciplined. Since different words have different meanings in different areas, should a liberal northerner or westerner define the word for a southerner?

Both candidates became Republicans, although they were liberal about social issues and environment, they felt the Democratic Party was too authoritarian. They are out of politics now, but I always wonder about them. They were young and would have stayed in office for a long time. I know both of them would have be howling about Bushco.

But thanks to the Democratic Party, the area is Republican.

Where do you draw the line? Any Democrat that runs in this area will have to be a PAYGO.

[Nederland]

52. I agree

And the people in the wrong party are people like you. I think a person with your idealogy belongs in the socialist party.

[Selatius]

56. Anarcho-syndicalist here

You could also probably call my ideology anarcho-socialism. I believe that socialism can only be accomplished voluntarily and through direct action by the people, not imposed from above by the state. People should be given a choice, in my opinion. If people in middle America don't want universal health care, then I don't see why that should be used to prevent people on the west coast and northeast from collaborating together to bring that about.

I'll try and boil it down to simple analogies. In capitalism, it is the owner who runs the company, and the workers do what he says whenever he says it. In socialism, the government runs the company, and the workers do what the government says. That government may or may not be democratic (democratic socialism vs. authoritarian socialism), but democratically elected governments invariably are favored above all else, plus democratically elected governments are more liable to the people than undemocratic ones. In anarcho-syndicalism, it is the workers that directly own the factory, and it is the workers that tell themselves what to do and what not to do.

An example of anarcho-syndicalism can be found by studying the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s. Many owners abandoned their businesses in the chaos, so the workers took over the factories and administered it themselves and shared in the profits of the enterprise. They elected managers to handle orders and production schedules and such, and by many accounts they were successful. They had to be a successful in order to survive. They were eventually annihilated by authoritarian socialists under the direction of Stalin and fascist groups supported by Hitler. They both feared an independent movement that they had no control over. Francisco Franco, the fascist, eventually won over all.

I suggest to folks to dig around on their own time and look around with respect to anarcho-syndicalism (or anarcho-socialism).

[tsuki]

57. I am guilty. A JFK Democrat here. (JF Kennedy, Bobby too)

[stray cat]

58. We no longer have a republican party that includes moderates in America

Its been hijacked by large corporations masquerading as individuals ie Bush Co.

[many a good man]

60. MEDICARE and SOCIAL SECURITY are SOCIALIST programs!

So is public education, Head Start, and arguably even the military.

I think you'll find the vast majority of Americans support these institutions. Are the vast majority of Americans socialists?

The word is as misunderstood as it is disparaging (at least in the United States). Both laissez-faire capitalism ("free market") and command economies have proven their ineffectiveness historically. The challenge of our times is to find the most effective mixture of socialist and market solutions.

America works best when leaders work together to find rational solutions to problems. Practicality beats ideology. All of our leaders need to be in the "reality-based" community.

[m berst]

63. amen n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. We Are Still Conflating Too Many Isms...

The fire department and police department are socialist institutions...


Yes, the mixed economy works best...


But in this thread we have gone from Utopian Socialism to Keynesianism to Laissez Faire Capitalism...


The Dems aren't a "pure" party...


If you want ideological purity than the Pugs and Dems ain't your party...

Try the liberterians....

[m berst]

134. they aren't brand names

Political parties and ideologies are not brand names that we shop for hoping to try them out and find the one that fits us best. So I am not looking for a party that fits, I am looking for a fit into the party. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I would like to see something besides the ever-rightward drift be given some serious consideration within the party rather than being dismissed out of hand as idealistic or purist, or being told to go shop around for another party. (Love it or leave it and we don't need your kind, in other words.)

For some reason, when a person expresses a view more to the left than is currently fashionable, they are seen as "purists" while conservative or centrist views are seen as "practical" and realistic. This is the result of the built in bias that has permeated the Democratic party and this is what I am trying to discuss.

We are in trouble if people expressing left wing viewpoints are told to "try the libertarians" as though one's own personal confort or associations were what was important in politics. I am perfectly confoprtable in the Democratic party - although I do need to go back and read the speeches of leaders from the past to get my bearings back after talking to many modern Dems - but it seems that there are many Dems who are not comfortable with old school left wing liberalism. Too radical, too left wing, too purist, they say.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

138. All Are Welcome In The Democratic Party...

I am just saying if a person is looking for consistency than libertarianism is a good ideology to choose even though a guy can poke holes in that ideology too...

[Selatius]

70. Most people aren't *pure* socialist though

Most people in the US are capitalist at heart. The difference that should and must be noted is that there are many people who think safety valves and regulatory mechanisms on the markets to prevent monopolization and abuse of not only workers but the environment are good ideas, and many also feel that there should be *some* amount of wealth redistribution (i.e. public education system, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Pell Grants, etc.). All of these programs are a redistribution of wealth in that it is an investment in the people.

Yes, most people aren't socialists, but that doesn't mean that things such as universal health care are bad ideas either. It's shades of gray, not black and white.

[The Straight Story]

123. To some extent

I would agree but my main thought on this is how some things are federal versus state and then local. I think, and I could be wrong, that most people do like some socialist style programs but on a local level mainly as such things can more cater to the needs of that group of people in the community. Federalizing ambulance and fire might sound like a grand idea to some, but the needs are so varied on a local level that it would probably waste more money than it saves - the compromise, inject federal dollars into such programs for those communities to use to supplement their own money and allow them to choose (in other words it is like a capitalism-socialism mix to some extent).

I don't think people are opposed to pooling their money for a common cause and given that many people do such already in their churches, et al, it is not a foreign concept - it becomes foreign when they have to pay for something many don't want or there are stringent laws nationally regarding it - say for example paying for abortions for those on low income, it does not benefit the majority, goes against their moral values, and diverts funding from roads and such which most use. Now that may be a brash and somewhat twisted example but I think it does to some extent capture the mindset of the quasi-socialist minded people (ie those who want the best of both worlds).

The general mantra I hear from right-wing to libertarians are that taxes are for infrastructure and defense and the government should stick to those things on a national level. The more liberal minded want to use a larger umbrella and use the tax wealth to help a broader range of people and incorporate their morals into government but using funds to help those with less (ie, many churches have for a long time helped the poor, the churches decided we should all do this and raise taxes to help the poor so they have to do so less of the time and more people are helped. Of course, one could say it had nothing to do with the churches which is good, because if it had it would have been stopped cold by seperation of church and state values).

And in other ways this does touch the church state thing, except it is not church but ideals/philosophy. While the hard core right wants to stick to a simple model of taxation for the overall needs those of a liberal persuasion have a set of values and ideas they want to have codified and funded - and herein lays the problems. We may all agree on some core things like funding needed services we all use, but then we branch off into what else should and should not be funded - and the we battle over why (like the church helping the poor above - if right wing christians say that helping the poor is biblical and they wanted to use your tax dollars many would be upset by such language, but if we say we want to do it because we feel it is a good thing relative to our own personal morals and values it is ok.)

I am not slamming the left or right here, just making observations on how some things can appear. I can be and may well be seen to be totally wrong, but perception is what is a key because people vote on perception often. And if perceptions are skewed we should look at how the package is being advertised.

[Nederland]

65. Question

Did you like Clinton?

[m berst]

80. not politically

Bill Clinton is a brilliant man and a good man. I'd love to have him playing sax in my band. :-) I would love to have him as a professor, a neighbor, a buddy. So I won't bash a good man and a brilliant man.

I also have deep respect for his early and strong stance against racism as a young person in the South in the 60's.

I would never advocate expelling Clinton from the party. However, I believe that his leadership did great damage to the party. I say that with a lot of sadness because I so much wanted him to succeed and to lead the party back to traditional liberalism. Unfortunatley the country made a steady march towards fascist totalitarianism and theocratic rule all through his leadership.

Right man in the wrong position at the wrong time, perhaps?

[Nederland]

83. I only ask because

...Bill Clinton is the person that DU likes best:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1369855


perhaps you should reconsider you notion of who is in the wrong party.

[m berst]

99. ok

Are you saying that anyone to the left of Bill Clinton is in the wrong party?

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

84. His lies didn't get anyone killed

I liked Bill Clinton and voted for him as a moderate Republican. I found the entire witch hunt by Kenneth Starr & Co. trivial nonsense in the grand scheme of Presidential duties. I wish he hadn't tried to be such a slickster under oath...that's what he couldn't shake.

But I could have cared less about his sex life. Much greater damage is being done by the current admin. that does have REAL CONSEQUENCES for our country.

I'd vote for Bill again.

[m berst]

131. no doubt there

Bill Clinton is a far better man than George Bush. But that isn't saying a whole lot. As to whether he was a good leader for the party, that is a separate issue.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

91. In the Neo-Con society...........

.......moderates are now labeled as left-leaning liberals, left-wingers are far left radicals, etc and so on. The conservatives have managed to shift the middle just to the right of center so now the likes of Mitt Romney and Arlen Specter are considered "middle of the road". And even that is changing to show the more progressive right wing leanings of the GOP.

I think it's sad that populists are now being told by the media and the religious right that they are the radicals for thinking abortion should be legal, prayer should remain out of school, we need gun control, we do need some social programs etc....slowly, America is being told how to think by making it bad to stray from center. They moved the line, I say that's bullshit.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

94. If that's a radical, then I've now become one...

Wow, I agree with legal AND SAFE abortion, separation of church and state, some social programs needed for the greater good...unfortunately, as much as I like the idea of gun control, I think this country is hopeless on that issue.

Jeez, and I'm a "partyless" moderate Republican looking for a party...didn't realize I was so radical.

[m berst]

101. amazing isn't it?

The whole political discussion has been shifted so far to the extreme right that people who formerly identified themselves as Republicans now find themselves to the left of the Democrats!

[Q]

115. Many are in the right party...

...and that is a blessing.

[jzodda]

137. I feel like I am in the right party and I am blessed.

I do not believe in true socialism, as I do not believe that mankind is ready for such a system. I wont elaborate why in this thread but I will say the following:

I am in the party that cares about the working class, cares about unions, cares about children out of wedlock, cares about civil rights for ALL of us, cares about the disparity between the richest among us and the poorest, cares about helping those in need and not afraid to say that the government should and must help them. I care about healh care and the un-insured, I care about pollution and protecting endangered species, I care about stem cell research, I am pro-choice with restrictions as I think its a necessary evil. I do not take the Bible literally and I do not want everybody to be able to walk the streets with an assault rifle. I embrace immigrants as their new blood enriches our country, so that would make me a multiculturalist.

DO I think that sometimes an idea from the Reps comes out thats good? Sure, only a fool thinks the other side is wrong all the time but my worldview is totally opposite from the Rep party.

With all that above you actually think there is room for me in the Republican party? no way!

[m berst]

227. I couldn't have said it any better n/t

[Telly Savalas]

127. Dude, you're rewriting history...

Yeah, back in the 40's there was the Dewey wing of the GOP, but there was still a pretty conservative wing of it as well (e.g. Robert A. Taft). There were liberal and conservative wings of the Democratic party then too. While a handful of people here might have prefered the liberal wing of the GOP to the moderate one of the Dems 60 years ago, all of them would have had a place in the Democratic Party then, and they still do now.

[m berst]

151. so are you saying...

... that there has been no shift to the right?

[Telly Savalas]

185. Since Dewey...

it would be hard to measure a shift to the right. Do you think Kerry's advocacy of civil unions for gays would have gone over well in the '44 or '48 campaigns? Neither Brown v. Topeka Board of Education nor Roe v. Wade had been decided yet. Racist southern Dixiecrats still thrived. Can you really call FDR's internment camps for the Japanese sound liberal policy? This time also saw the election of foaming at the mouth senators like Joseph McCarthy. It wasn't the Christian Coalition in the 80's that put the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, you know. Finally, most of the legislation we have now that protects our environment came well after Dewey's heyday.

Yes, things have drifted to the right on many economic issues, but to equate modern moderate Democrats with the GOP of 60 years ago is to ignore a lot of history.

[m berst]

229. true, it cannot be measured by your examples

"...to equate modern moderate Democrats with the GOP of 60 years ago is to ignore a lot of history."

The history involved here, though, is not directly connected to right and left. Whatever problems that are rife in society at any point, the Democratic party takes a progressive stand. So the question is not whether or not today's Democratic party is more liberal on race than the Democratic party was in 1940, but rather is the party today facing the issues that need to be faced today with the same vigor that the party was then, given that the social conditions outside of the party's control are different?

FDR faced a different set of challenges with race than we do today. Democrats today face a different set of challenges with religious issues in the public arena than FDR faced. Different conditions exist in society at different times, and different problems arise. But the party can have a consistent posture and a consistent set of principles, regardless of the social conditions.

We need to place things like the party's stance on race in the context of the times. Although conditions were worse then, it could be argued that the party was more aggressive against the problems than it is now. It is easy for the party to be against school segregation today - 50 years after the decision. That doesn't mean that the party today is more liberal than it was the year before Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.

[Telly Savalas]

236. Huh?

Racist southern Dixiecrats of the first half and middle of the 20th century were not more progressive than the Dewey/Willkie wing of the Republicans.

[m berst]

246. on the one issue, no

That is a regional phenomenon, and also set in a different time, so it doesn't tell us whether the Democratic party is more or less progressive today than it was then.

Interesting, though that there were segments of the two parties that overlapped so much at one time, so that there were people in the Republican party who were more progressive on race than many were in the Democratic party. That was true maybe until Reagan's presidency, I guess, when the "values" issues started polarizing the two parties. That shows a lot more party organization around larger economic issues than we have today. People could be more or less progressive on race in either party then. I remember environmental progressives in the Republican party too, such as William Milliken, Michigan governor around 1970.

[sendero]

128. Sure let's kick out the center..

.... and get 25% of the vote in 2008. We can tout our purity, and lick our wounds into infinity.

[m berst]

156. you are making an assumption

Your assumption is that none of the people from the demographic that votes for Bush - workers - would ever vote Dem. So, eliminate the centrist Dems, you think, and there would only be 25% of the people left. I am saying that if we returned the party to being the pro-labor party we would attract back 2 blue collar voters for every centrist white collar person we lost. So that means that we would have 60% of the people, not 24%. That is what we used to have before we moved to the right.

So long as our positions have to accomodate the moderate centrists, we can't attract back the workers and the poor. This past year has been all about appealing to that demographic that once was called "moderate Republican" at the expense of the working class, who then become susceptible to being wooed over to the pseudo-populism of the Republicans.

[sendero]

179. Well....

.... that point of view has some validity, yet does it?

Your assumption is that "since we are not left enough", the "left" votes for the "right".

I'm not sure I buy it. I can't disprove it, but as Rummy would say, it is "unknowable".

I have argued in other threads that I believe we are becoming hidebound with myopic leaders who are afraid to take a stand (vis a vis picking Vilsack over Dean to head the DNC. What has Vilsack ever done?) And perhaps it would be inconsistent of me to take that stand and take this one as well. I'm not sure.

One thing we probably do agree on, the Dem party better break some eggs soon or we will never eat an omelet again. Or should we? After all be did "barely" lose :)

[m berst]

182. yes it does

But only if we allow the right wingers to define left and right. I am not necessarily advocating we go more left in the sense that Republicans mean that. I am talking about the left as we once defined it ourselves. We have been painted into a corner where even advocacy for moderate liberalism is seen as radical and too far left.

We are "left" on issues that belong in church, not government. The party has strayed far, far to the right on the core liberal issues of economic justice and opportunity.

The further to the right the party drifts, the more the Republicans say we are "too far to the left" for the American people. They have us caught in a trap.

[zulchzulu]

139. I'm an Independent with no need to join ANY "Party"

I've been able to get by for years without having to somehow join a Politics Church...I mean...a political party.

While my political tendencies lean more toward the Democratic Party (whatever that really means), I find the "organized religion" part of it a bit offensive for my taste.

I can make fun of the hypocrisy of Democrats as much as Repuglicans...there are no shortage of twits.

Both "sides" have equally bizarre entertainment value politically.

[willysnout]

140. Hey Dem Since Birth

Trust me, you are more than welcome in the Democratic Party and don't let anyone make you think otherwise. Most of the people giving you shit here wouldn't know a debit from a credit and have never struggled to meet a payroll. And I want to also give you a big thumbs up as a caregiver. You are the kind of person I want in my party and in my humble opinion anyone who says otherwise can go F themselves. So hang in there and keep fighting the good fight, o.k.?

[xequals]

141. I'm an independent who would probably fit into the old Repub party

I'm a moderate libertarian and believe that a free market goes hand in hand with a free and secular society. I am as strongly opposed to the nanny socialism of the left as I am the theo-fascism of the right. I believe fiscal responsibility means stepping in to regulate corporate power when necessary to keep the free market free and strong, and social responsibility means having a basic social safety net to keep society free and strong.

However, the current Republican party bares no resemblance to anything moderate or libertarian.

Although I disagree with Democrats on many issues, I voted for Kerry simply to get Bush and the theocrats out, because he seemed a lot more moderate and reasonable and traditional American leader than the crew currently in power.

My wish is to see the Democratic party move in a more libertarian direction. The DLC is more concerned with polls and centrism; I am not. I believe gay Americans should have the same rights as all - including the right to marry. I believe God and government should be separate as the founding fathers intended. I believe marijuana, prostitution and many other things should be legal and regulated like anything else. I believe in the right of the individual against the state. I oppose the Patriot Act. I oppose the Iraq invasion and imperialism. I am not a centrist by any means. I am someone who believes in America the way it was intended to be before the socialists and the facists took over: a free, secular democracy.

What party do I belong in ? Hopefully the Democratic Party one day when it moves in the direction I hope it does. All indications are that the Dems will become the old Republicans and the Republicans will become the old Democrats; they have already switched regions. Once the southern theocrats push the GOP off the right edge, I see no scenario where the libertarian leaning Repubs and independents don't leave the GOP, and no scenario where the Dems don't try to accomodate these voters. I believe the remaining leftists will be pushed to the margins even further than they have been, to the point where they are only a few percent of the electorate. It is clear over the past 40 years that America has completely rejected liberalism, and the Democratic party would be wise to move in a more libertarian direction, which would only alienate the economic leftists, since social liberals already agree with libertarians on many issues.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. J S Mill

My favorite quote...

"...over his own body and mind the individual is sovereign"

[m berst]

157. thanks xequals

Very well thought through analysis, and an honest and forthright description of your own views. A real pleasure to read.

Should the Democratic party fail to return to its pro-labor roots, I believe that your scenario becomes a very distinct possibility. In either case. I think it is safe to say that both parties are in transition, neither is stable, and many people are trapped in the wrong party or feel they have no party that represents them.

This, I believe, is one of the reaons for all of the upset when these issues are raised. People are off-balance because they are conpromising their views so much to fit into one party or the other. 90% of their views are in alignment with the opposite party, but there are 3-4 "can't compromise on it" issues holding them to the party they are in. So we have pro-choice Dems who are Republicans on almost every other issue, and we have anti-choice Republicans who are Democrats on almost every other issue.

If people were happy and secure in their choice of party, they wouldn't get so angry about it when they are questioned.

The Democrats are becoming the party of the educated, the small business owners, the intellectuals, middle management, and technical workers. Largely secular, mostly white and suburban, and focused on the needs of suburbia. They are held to the liberal side of the aisle by a few cultural issues mostly in rejection of the Republican positions. If the Republicans changed their stance on 3 or 4 issues that really are reactionary rather than conservative positions, most of these people would become Republicans.

On the other hand, there are millions of blue collar people voting Republican, who would switch to Democratic in an instant if the party stood for a pro-labor populist agenda once again against the fat cats and the elite.

[robbedvoter]

146. left the dem party - no longer middle class or pure enough.

I'll take my liberal views in Independentland.
And, one suggestion: if you do cater to middle class only - you may realize that W is shrinking your base on daily basis.

[willysnout]

148. You'll Be Back

[kentuck]

152. Damn !! Did you hit a nerve !

:) Or what ??

[m berst]

154. hasn't ben as bad as I expected it to be

It seems like we are trapped in a web of right wing concepts and can't tell who is who anymore or have any intelligent conversations. Lots of "Crossfire" style verbal jousting, and lots of winning moments, but little in the way of true understanding. It occured to me that there may be some profound and fundamental differences between those calling themselves Dems that is obscured by the "anybody but Bush" glue that holds the group together.

All of the blue collar people got lured over to the Republicans, against their best interests. It seems to me that a lot of the more intelligent, educated and talented, but conservative people who used to be the moderate wing of the Republican party are now running the Democratic party. This is causing a lot of confusion for older Democrats, it is watering down the message and the identity of the party, and it is leaving the Republican party in the hands of maniacs.

[greenohio]

153. I'm a Republican if I believe in the free market???

Huh? Maybe you should join the communist party, because I don't think most democrats are against the free market.

[m berst]

155. sure, possibly

What would be so terrible about that? Historically democrats have not been in favor of the idea of "free markets" at the expense of losing all of our manufacturing jobs, busting our unions, and undermining our labor market. That is what is happening now.

I think that there is an opportunity for a broad based and successful opposition movement to the "free market-party-rules" idea, and I think the Democratic party could be that party. If it were, I think the Democratic party could attract back the Reagan Dems. I think the Democratic party would be the pro-labor party again if it were not for the people who have drifted here who would have been called moderate Republicans a generation ago.

[greenohio]

158. I don't think "free market" means what you think it means.

There are manufacturing jobs, unions and a labor market because of free markets. What do you think all of the factories and union labor are making product for....fun?

That said, you can be pro free market and pro labor, since they both need each other.

[m berst]

159. I know what the Republicans mean by it

And they are the ones who are creating policy based on the theory. Free market means the end of the American skilled worker. So far. Judging by the results of their "free market" policies.

[greenohio]

160. Do you mean "free trade"?

I assume you are refering to the free trade agreements. That makes a little more sense. Free markets means capitalism. Free trade means sending jobs to Mexico. Free markets good. Free trade bad.

[m berst]

162. part of the same problem, no?

"Free markets" is an illusion, just like free trade is. It is Republican code for "anything goes" in business. That is what I see. I am not arguing against capitalism. Are capitalism and free markets synonymous in your mind?

All markets are controlled and regulated to one extent or another. The question is, by whom and to whose benefit? "Free markets" means the Republican parties fat cat donors can do whatever they please. Most of what they please is in controlled markets. One good example of a controlled market is broadcast and cable media. Republicans grant a monopoly first to their corporate buddies - THEN talk about the "free market" after you and I have been locked out of it.

That would be the liberal point of view about free markets, so I admit to being biased.

[Warren Stupidity]

200. Its not really 'anything goes'...

it is more like 'it all goes to us'.

The right has completely controlled the basis for political dialog in this country. Instead of univeral healthcare, like every other modern industrial democracy, most of which deliver superior health services to their people, we debate absurd corrupt government/insurance industry programs like the clintonista crapola. Candidates who actually utter UH are marginalized by the Compliant Media as fringe candidates.

It is assumed that we will default on SS obligations, the only debate is how badly we will screw which generation. The thought that we might actually fund SS/medicare is not even allowed to be discussed.

8 years of clintonista DLC rightardism and we did NOTHING about energy dependence.

Nixon was more of a progressive democratic-socialist than Kerry or Clinton.

Oh no lets not discuss programs and policies that would help working families, too scary. We might lose an election. We might lose both houses of congress, the presidency, and the courts. Nah, better to be the pro-business party that differs only in its enthusiasm for abortion and gay marriage from the party of the fundamentalist/imperialist radical right.

I feel better now. Costa Rica is warm and welcoming.

[Telly Savalas]

211. In the early 20th century it was the Republicans that were pro-tariff

I believe that Woodrow Wilson was a free-trader who opposed protectionism.

[cattleman22]

238. I agree

The Dems would be better off throwing the communists and socialists out than throwing out all of those who believe in the free market with some restraints.

[chaska]

161. M Berst, I don't know who you are or where you come from, but...

I sure hope you stick around. You're doing the lord's work, friend.

I have been trying to make many of the same points you raise since the election.

I'm really disappointed at some of the ignorant, and all of the rude, comments I've read in this thread.

What MB is basically advocating is that we get back to a true understanding of the terms liberal and conservative. We are not living true to who we are.

It's been awhile since I've taken any government or politics courses so help me out here. I don't claim to have the best memory ... or all the answers. BUT....

To simplify things to a degree that will iritate the hell out of a lot of folks, the left is defined by the word 'Egalitarian', and the right by the word 'Liberty'. Taken to their logical extremes the left path leads to true democracy where ever decision is made by every person effected by that decision. Following the path to the right we end up with all power in the hands of one - a king. Obviously, both parties fall in between these extremes.

We Dems stand with the masses, the workers, the poor. We are egalitarians, we want to bring everybody to as close to equality as possible. The Republicans stand for the opposite: power and resources in the hands of an ever smaller pool of ever more privileged people.

The bottom line in determining where you stand is not social issues, it's fiscal or resource issues (however you choose to describe it). If you don't support steps taken to improve the financial lot of the poorer among us you are not a true Democrat, regardless of where you stand on social issues.

I've gone on too long, and it's late. I'll handoff now.

[m berst]

166. you are much too kind

:-)

Thanks for the kind and supportive words, chaska.

[chaska]

164. I really should go to bed.

M Berst is absolutely correct, we need to concentrate on getting back all of those working class folks. That's our constituency, that's who we are. Those people leaving for the Green party should not have to leave. It's the people in the middle who should be having a hard time trying to decide which party they want to be in. There truly are a lot of socially liberal Republicans on this forum, especially lately. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that these people think they're Democrats and they simply aren't. Those folks should go back and reclaim their party from the wachos.

...Or better yet, clarify their thinking, and decide that they don't want to stand with those who want an ever more exclusive club of rich people, and join us as true Democrats.

~~~~~~~~

Please let's try to avoid the terms 'Socialism' and 'Free Market'. Those terms are so overloaded with baggage that nobody truly understands what they mean. They are hot button words that derail discussion ... which is exactly how the right uses them.

[iamthebandfanman]

165. eh?

"and place "personal responsibility" above socialism and community solidarity"

you cant have them together?

[m berst]

167. read the thread

"you can be pro free market and pro labor"

What do you think?

It sure doesn't look like they are very compatible. Workers need unions and solidarity. The philosophy of 100% self reliance and the lone wolf is fundamentally incompatible with that, and it causes tremendous dissension within both parties. Both groups lose, ultimately, and the sharks prey on all of us under the banner of "free markets." The shark sees the minnow as just another fish - equal among fishes. The minnow knows better.

The strength of our democracy was always in the tension between two classes whose interests are very different.Now we have hatred and name-calling because people are taking sides that don't align with their interests except on a couple of issues, and they are issues that belong in church, not government.

On one side, the working poor, the rural farmers, the minority comunities, the care givers and teachers and the skilled labor have distinct needs for protection from big money and the ravages of the unfettered marketplace and support for community programs like schools and infrastructure.

On the other side, the intellectuals, the middle managers, the entrepreneuers, bankers, real estate people and developers, and corporate leaders have a different set of needs and desires.

Right now we have many people trapped in the wrong party, and both parties are working at cross purposes and failing to truly represent the needs of their constituencies. Working people would not be voting Republican if they had a party to support that represented them. The Democrtaic party does not now. many professional people would not be voting for the Democratic party if they had a party to vote for that represneted them. The Republican party does not.

With this re-alignment of parties and constituencies I am suggesting, there would be a number of great benefits for all of us.

- Environmental concerns would no longer be partisan and politicized, and both parties would be pro-environment, which is a true refection of the people's position on the issue.

- Church issues would no longer be partisan, and "live and let live" would once again be the rule when it comes to personal moral decisions.

- The Republican party would be brought back from thuggery and fascism, and could represent an enlightened management and ownership class once again.

- The Democratic party would be free to advocate for the needs and welfare of the least forunate or aggressive among us without the constraints of appealing to upper middle class, and upwardly mobile whites from the corporate world. Care givers, teachers, and service industry people and many others who are providing vital services and are now neglected and marginalized would have a voice again, and a chance at a decent living. Labor would once again have a strong and uncompromised advocate.

In the barnyard, the weak chicken is attacked. Our democracy is weak. It is being attacked now by those who wish to overthrow it, and it is teetering on the brink of being eradicated. We are divided and unable to protect it. If people were in proper alignment with the party that best represents all of their interests, the health of our democracy would return, and we would find that we have much more in common than the tyrants would have us believe. Then we can join together to protect ourselves from tyranny and save our country.

[HuskerDem]

168. Before I even finish reading your post..... please tell me......

Who died and gave you divine right to define the Democratic party today?

Just curious.

[eridani]

170. Um, I think he was asking people to join in a dialogue about that

What's the problem?

[m berst]

177. hi eridani!

:hi:

:pals:

[m berst]

171. FDR

And I admit that I did take on the job to restore his vision here for consideration by the other members to the best of my limited abilities solely on my own initative.

I claimed no right, divine or otherwise. I am not even demanding that people actually read my post before they attack me, although I would recommend that approach.


on edit - goofed up the html tags

[Francine Frensky]

175. I think this was written by a freeper pretending to be a dem

he's trying to divide us further, even though unity is the number one thing our party needs.

[m berst]

176. expand on that a little

You are talking to the person you just accused now, in violation of the rules here, I believe.

Could you explain in a little more detail why you would say this?

[Francine Frensky]

178. It's illogical to say after a loss that we need LESS people

what you are saying is that we democrats need to divide into two parties: your "true" democratic party (as you define in your post), and those who believe in a free market/capitalism.

Now, I consider myself a Harry Truman democrat: if you want to live like a republican, vote democrat. I believe capitalism is the most efficient and effective economic system available. HOWEVER, the reason I am not a republican is because I believe that true capitalism, uncontrolled by government, is a cruel beast that would not be a pleasant system to live under.

Here's what is cruel about pure capitalism: it doesn't protect the sick, the elderly, the handicapped, the environment, the arts, the unskilled/untalented. I believe we need a strong government to stand up for these powerless entities. I believe in safety nets provided by the government, not just by wealthy families to their own.

That's why I'm a democrat, in a nutshell. For economic reasons.

And I personally don't think you will capture the poor, they never vote, and without donations from these "centrists" you despise, your "pure" democratic party will fail miserably.

And I do apologise if I've broken some rules, but I just can't understand why kicking people out helps the dems.

[m berst]

181. I think that you misunderstood

Very early in the thread someone had the same misunderstanding and we discussed it there. No where did I say anything about kicking anyone out.

"I do apologise if I've broken some rules..."

Thanks. No problem. I think calling someone by that "f" word - as in member of a certain website - is a no-no.

Read some of the other thoughts in the thread and see if you don't think there is some merit in what we are saying, Francine.

- Mike

[Julien Sorel]

180. Who is "we"?

Would we not do better to steer clear of the hot button reactionary issues from the theocratric agenda, and present a strong progressive populist platform to the working class, and let the DLC people gravitate to the Republican party and introduce some sanity and common sense over there?

You can take your socialism and join or start a socialist party. It is absurd to speak of "we" as though you, and people of your outlook, are the Democratic Party, or even speak for the average Democrat, because you aren't, you don't, you never have been, and you never did.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

183. I Think We Are Being A Tad Bit Rough On The Fella..

He seem to be conflating liberalism, socialism, Keynesisanism and I still don't know what he wants the Democratic party to represent...

[m berst]

186. guilty of that, yes

I am not trying to make fine distinctions between what is socialism and what isn't, so it may seem fuzzy. I think that one of the biggest challenges for (some of us and I do not mean to be speaking for anyone else nor am I presuming to speak for all Democrats nor for the party) is to break out of the trap of the labels and the rigid ideologies, especially when it is the right wingers defining those labels and ideologies for us.

I feel as though I were being charged with mixing up the Texas Longhorns with the A&M Aggies and so creating chaos and ruining the football game.

Do you not see the party drifting, and do you not think that it is worthwhile to look at where the party has been and where it is headed? If, in fact, the traditional constituencies and the traditional positions of the two parties have become co-mingled, could that not be the source of much confusion and frustration?

[theboss]

190. Where do you think the Party has been?

That seems to be the issue. The party I know believes in a free market in which government reserves the right to step in to curb its excesses (unlike the Republicans who believe in a free market untethered), that believes it's the governments job to protect the civil rights of individuals (unlike Republicans who believe in the law of the jungle), and a party that believes America must lead the world through fair dealing and moral clarity (unlike Republicans who believe you we are meant to rule the world, not lead it).

I don't know what you think the Party once stood for in this never-never world where we were all happy socialists.

[m berst]

196. that word again

"...this never-never world where we were all happy socialists..."

So, you do not see a rightward drift in the Democratic party? No one is talking about happy socialism never never worlds here that I have seen.

[theboss]

199. Yes, the Party has drifted Right in the past 20 years

I also think that the country has drifted Right in the last 20 years. You don't lose as many Congressional seats over 20 years as we have without some sort of sea change in the population.

I do think that a Correction is in order. But if we suddenly make a hard turn to the Left, I'm not sure many people will come with us.

[m berst]

202. yes, that is the paradox

If the party steers hard left, it seems that it would lose more support. Yet, drifting to the right the party is also losing support.

I am thinking that it may be more a matter of prioritizing the issues then going left or right on them, and re-establishing the traditional constituency.

This idea started forming in my mind last winter when I observed a very surprising thing. Living and working in farm country, the neighbors and clients are about 70% Republican voters. They know me as the resident liberal and I don't hesitate to talk politics. I noticed that they were open and supportive of Clark and Dean and even Kucinich - ironically, more so than my Democratic friends. Yet Kerry they would not consider. Now, my first reaction was to think that they should consider Kerry and what is wrong with them anyway? In other words, they are just dumb Republicans. Yet they supported all of these very progressive ideas from the other candidates, and were supportive of Dean's strong stance against the war.

I am guessing that the left-right split in the country is more complicated than we think. I think there is another axis populist-elitist that is as strong or maybe stronger than the left right split. For whatever reason - and I am not lauding or criticizing one candidate over another here - for some reason Clark and Dean have a populist stick-up-for-the-little-guy appeal that Kerry didn't have, and a straight talking approach that Kerry didn't have.

I don't think that it is just image, though. Comparing the platforms, so many of Kerry's solutions involved tax breaks to corporations for doing the right thing, while the other candidates took more straightforward populist stands against corporations and big business. This all made Kerry look like the same old horse trading insider representing the big money people and the academics and suburban liberals.

These are just observations, and I sure don't have it all figured out so I am not trying to "sell" anybody anything here.



on edit - spelling

[rman]

241. i think drifting to the left hasn't been tried in a long, long time

-

[cattleman22]

260. Populist vs Elitist

I think this may be more of what you picked up on rather than anti-free market that you have been discussing. Coming from a rural area, even well educated rural people tend to distrust people from urban areas who tend to think of themselves as being so much better.

This is based the observation that many, but not all, urban elites who move to rural areas do two things. One thing is that they try to suburbanize the area and two they attempt to strip away private property rights with restrictive zoning. In my home county, an urban family moved out to the country. The son was speeding on a curvy, rural road and ran into some farm equipment that had all required reflectors and lights. The family blamed the farmer and started a campaign to ban all farm equipment from any state road. This does not sit well and makes some rural people look down on urban/liberal/elites.

[m berst]

262. very relevant and a great observation

I work in agriculture, and that is exactly what we see in farm country, too. This is a blind spot for many liberals, and it is difficult to get a conversation going about the bias of elitism and suburbia that permeates the Democratic party. Criticizing suburban attitudes and lifestyles is the one thing that is certain to get a violent response from Dems.

Farm country is plagued by transplanted suburbanites, and the immediate and very real impact of that dovetails with many Democratic party positions and statements in the farmer's mind into a coherent - and accurate - picture of elitist ignorant and arrogant. They don't want do-gooders moving in on them, driving property values up, and lobbying against farmers, and they don't want do-gooder suburban liberals telling them how to farm. The farmer sees himself as the victim of liberalism, and this is something that very few Dems are willing to look at.

Grandiose agricultural plans based on limited or erroneous information - re-inventing the wheel - are dangerous. Much of the organic movement, and other idyllic farming ideas dreamed up by suburban intellectuals, is based on the assumption that farming practices are unenlightened and that agriculture is the proper arena for attacking people for the sake of the environment.

Aside from setting aside land as wilderness areas, farming is the safest and most environmentally sound use of land that we have. Attack sprawl. Attack development. Attack unfair trade. Attack the ever-growing highway, automobile, Interstate, and oil complex. Attack the corporations that are bribing our politicians, flaunting our laws, destroying our environment and oppressing our workers. Leave our family farmers alone. They know what they are doing. They are the good guys.

The attack on farmers, exemplified by the organic movement, is the best example of elitist liberalism gone very wrong. Farmers are among those who do not want to live in John Kerry's vision of a beautiful society - a world where "enlightened" corporate and government bureaucrats who never did an honest day's work in their lives make all of our decisions for us.

We have organic farmers in Michigan. They are nice enough people. They grew up in suburbs of Detroit and Chicago. They went to college - but never ag school. They had wonderful lucrative corporate jobs. They built equity in their suburban homes. They sat in their offices at their corporate jobs for years and day dreamed about "someday" - they would escape the rat race and enjoy an idyllic rural life. They dreamed up perfect farming ideas without ever having bothered to learn anything about agriculture.

They buy up land for their retirement hobby farms, and build beautiful suburban homes on farm land. They are under no pressure to make their "farm" self supporting, so they can do everything "right" and "natural." This retirement farm idea is getting popular, and is putting tremendous development pressure on us here, as every corporate refugee wants their beautiful chunk of the rural landscape - with all the convenience of home, of course.

They can't be bothered with getting involved with the MSU research people, with the farming coops, with the soil and water conservation boards. They can't be bothered with meeting the local farmers - too rough and crude for their delicate upper class tastes. They don't think they have anything to learn. They spend a lot of time doing interviews with media and holding meetings to talk about what is wrong with farming. Are you getting the picture?

It is very dangerous to have people who are playing at farming driving the agriculture debate.

[cattleman22]

263. We finally found common ground. I agree completely

I agree completely about organic. Organic farming is the greatest marketing fraud ever. In many instances, organic farming results in even greater pollution and environmental harm.


There are a couple of isses related to the issue of ex-urbanites moving to the country and then proceding to create policies to surbanize the area.


If the dem party can look at this issue in a way that does not affect private property rights too much, then they could definately do much better in rural areas. Also getting rid of gun control would help as well.

[m berst]

264. yes we are in agreement in many ways

Organic, property rights, gun control - all a matter of different points of view rather than different motivating ideals or principles.

We need a political context that allows us to find common interests rather than one that increases divisive differences. You and I both know that farmers are educated, knowledgeable and skilled, and we know that they are looked down on and misunderstood by the suburbanites that dominate the Democratic party. That isn't because we are smarter - well, in my case it isn't :-) - but because we benefit by having a point of view that they don't have.

[m berst]

184. why not address the issue raised here?

Rather than hurling insults, why not present your objections to what has been said here?

I used the word "we" in response to another poster, and in the context my meaning was clear. Your insult is somewhat generic, and gets thrown into the conversation most commonly when a person is suspected of being insincere or having a covert agenda. A cursory reading of my posts on the thread would disabuse you of that notion in short order.

It is rather surprising that the word "socialism" would be used as an insult here, as well.

I also object to anyone being told to leave because someone objects to their opinion.

[Julien Sorel]

187. Wow.

There are some genuinely interesting people here.


You start a thread claiming a lot of people here are actually Republicans, and advocated "letting them gravitate to the Republican Party," or some such nonsense, then claim someone told you to leave?

And I see no insults, hurled or otherwise, in my first post. If you can point them out, do so.

[m berst]

193. why not offer your view?

I can't prove that you intended your remarks to be sarcastic and insulting, of course, and it seems foolish to argue about that. Calling someone's post "some such nonsense" and telling someone to "go join a socialist party" seems a tad contentious to me, but if you meant it as a serious suggestion, then I would like to hear your reasoning. I certainly did not advocate socialism, noir claim to be a socialist, although I did point out that many reforms the party has supported over the years are socialist ideas, and I also pointed out that the right wingers have turned the word into a slur. How does that warrant a call for me to leave and form or join a socialist party? And was that not meant in a sneering way?

You apparently - and correct me if I am wrong - have a strong objection to something here.

"You start a thread claiming a lot of people here are actually Republicans, and advocated 'letting them gravitate to the Republican Party'"

Yes, I did start a thread. The title of the thread claims that "many people are in the wrong party." Then I said in the opening sentences -

"Many people at DU are moderate to liberal Republicans. I don't mean this as an insult, as my Grandfather was a good and decent Dewey Republican, and he would have fit in here better than I do. When I say that people here are Republicans, I don't mean Bush supporters - as if he were a true Republican! - or dittoheads."

That is an observation that I am making, and I stand by it. I could be wrong. It would seem to be a worthwhile subject to introduce, judging by the number of responses, so I don't think it can fairly be characterized as "some such nonsense" as though it were irrelevant or unproductive.

As far as what others should or should not do, there have been many opinions offered in the thread, and I haven't tried to force my view on anyone, nor have I discounted or ridiculed anyone else's view.

To say "let people gravitate..." is hardly dictating or enforcing my opinion on anyone, is it? At least one poster says that they would gravitate to the Republican party, if the Republican party returned to its traditional principles.

What possible harm can this discussion do?

[Julien Sorel]

208. If this,

I mean people who embrace the concept of the free market, are basically in favor of corporatism and suburbanization, and place "personal responsibility" above socialism and community solidarity.

in conjunction with the rest of your post isn't advocating the Democratic Party embrace socialism...

As I stated in my original post: the Democratic Party has never, in its history, been about socialism, or the sorts of principles you espouse above and elsewhere. Saying "we" should implies otherwise.


My own views on what the party, as opposed to "we," should do, are hardly relevant to this sub-discussion.

[m berst]

217. yikes, I see the problem now

I used the word "socialism" in that sentence. I didn't realize that I had, so maybe I am a closet socialist. :-)

Should read...

"I mean people who embrace the concept of the free market, are basically in favor of corporatism and suburbanization, and place "personal responsibility" above social and community solidarity."

My bad. I can't believe I did that. No wonder people keep complaining about socialism in the thread. I couldn't figure it out.

I am not a socialist, and do not support the elimination of private property. I do, along with most Democrats, support some programs that are sometimes called socialism, such as social security.

I completely missed that, Julien. Sorry.

[eridani]

268. Restrictions on private property are necessary to preserve it

If the richest people are allowed to buy up everything, then many fewer people are able to be property owners. Limit what people can own, and more people will be able to be owners.

Why is it that people use defense of private property per se to fudge the question of exactly what kinds of things are allowed to be property in the first place? Wasn't all that long ago that people were included in that category.

In Ripples, the Grateful Dead once sang

Let it be known, there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of men.

The more I think about it, the more I have concluded that unrestricted ownership of anything that was not made by the hands of men is ethically wrong for the same reason that slavery is ethically wrong. Private property should be restricted to the products of human labor, IMO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

191. How About FDR's Approach To The Great Depression?

Be open to a myriad of solutions and see which one works...

[m berst]

198. yes, I think so too

That approach seems to me to be the most effective. FDR did not compromise on the underlying fundamental principles of liberalism, nor lose sight of who the constituency was, but on implementation of policy and specific remedies, he took a very pragmatic approach.

I think when anyone talks about the rightward drift of the party, people presume that this means a call for being idealistic and not practical. Of course, success in politics requires pragmatism and practicality. Success also does require some idealism. I see the party as long on the pragmatic right now and short on idealism.

[Telly Savalas]

213. Let's not forget...

that FDR frequently worked closely with big business to get results. The liberal cause isn't about "going after the corporations", it's about getting the country to work right.

I'm with you on the comments about pragmatism and idealism though. I think that the best our party has to offer (folks like Feingold, Obama, and Dean) are people that provide a good balance between idealism and pragmatism. Gettin more people like them in office would do much towards reenergizing the party.

[m berst]

258. yes, a balance is best IMHO

It is more a question of how can all be best served? By considering labor, or capital first when making policy? Republicanism says that by letting capital and the needs of capital direct our social policies, all will be best served by an imaginary "free market" that will automatically bring justice and fairness.

The Democratic party historiclly says that left unfettered, capital will tend to accumulate in a few hands, will degrade labor, create injustice, weaken the infrastructure that allowed capital to be amassed in the first place, and lead to a stagnant society and misery for the majority of the people. Policies that foster a balance, by first addressing the needs of the weaker and less powerful - the worker - can be implemented without declaring war on capital, and without discouraging initiative or free enterprise.

[LWolf]

197. I can't speak to party definitions;

I've never belonged to a party before 2001, and have always been turned off and turned away by party politics. I've usually voted for democrats in my 44 year life-span, and some 3rd party candidates; not republicans. I joined the Democratic Party in 2001 because they seemed the first line of defense to hold back the avalanche to the right that I perceived.

I honestly can't say what makes a real democrat or republican; I can say that neither are holding out welcoming arms to progressives. Democrats allow us a place at the table, if not a warm welcome. Republicans delight in demonizing us. If I had to label myself, that's the label I'd use; progressive. But I don't really like labels. I like balance. I value personal and social responsibility equally. I abhor corporate power holding equally with every other corrupted system of power/control.

I don't know much about politics, or political parties, and that's ok. I feel cleaner that way. I do know this, though:

If we are going to see real, fundamental, meaningful change, forward progress, for real people on the planet, we are going to leave the polarization and the labeling behind, find some common issues we can come together on without all the hot air and misleading rhetoric, and actually craft a new vision that allows all at the table, and values personal and social responsibility equally.

Maybe the first step is to reclaim the definition of republican for those that haven't fallen into the abyss, and find them some authentic representatives. And, of course, the same for the democrats.

[Dr Ron]

206. Sounds like a prescription for a permanent minority party

This very well could be a turning point for the future of the Democratic Party.

If the goal is to become a winning party, it is necessary to go beyond a liberal base as defined in this post. A party defined in this manner would be doomed to be a permanent opposition party, ending our tradition of a two party system, and the checks and balances it results in.

The Democratic Party can benefit by the trend towards division based upon "moral issues." For many people, there is a question of voting upon perceived economic interests. leading to Republican sympathies, and liberal social issues. As most here probably realize, the "moral issues" cuts both ways as many of us feel as strongly in opposing the trend towards politicizing religious issues in the Republican Party.

If the Democratic Party is to both have any long term interest to me, as well as to survive as a major party, it must present itself as an alternative to Republican theocratic rule without alienating those who support the free market.

Rather than opposing the free market, the Democrats would be better off in followings their long term traditions of reforming the abuses of the free market. Even Donald Trump has noted that the economy does better under the Democrats.

[m berst]

219. excellent points

I am not suggesting abolishing free markets, if by that people mean there would be no more markets. "Free markets" has been used by the Republicans as cover for a totally unregulated business environment, and a market that is often anything but free. I would be interested, though, to know how you would describe free markets.

All markets, it seems to me, are regulated one way or another. One way is to grant monopolies to our friends with no accountability, a Bush adminstration favorite. Another would be to regulate business and markets in such a way that the needs of the broader community are more likely to be met. We are well on our way to a free for all for the few, with substantially diminished opportunity for the many, IMHO, and it is happening under the "free markets" banner.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

216. There Is Much Confusion Here Because Folks Are Debating On Paralell Tracks

Liberalism and Socialism are two distinct ideologies....


In the United States we have a mixed economy....

[m berst]

221. my mistake

My op has the word socialism in it, and it was an error. Sorry, that caused a lot of confusion. I meant "personal over social and community needs" and typed socialism instead of social. Of course, maybe it was a Freudian slip and I am a closet socialist, eh? :-)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

224. There's Nothing Wrong With Being A Socialist...

I was a Democratic Socialist throughout grad school....


Folks here need to read Marx... He ridicules utopian socialism as futile because it attempts to place a socialist veneer over the superstructure that is needed to maintain a capitalist economy....

To Marx socialism was government control over the means of production and the abolition of private property for private property was the tree from which all inequalities grow... The more private property I have and the less private property you have the greater the power I have to control you...

But we are over intellectualizing this...

I want the government to be there to help folks when they need it...

The best safety net would function as a trampolene and not a hammock...

[m berst]

226. not saying there is

It is driving the discussion off course somewhat, though, because one of the definitions of socialism is public ownership of all property, and as many are pointing out, that would be a disastrous position for the Democratic party to take.

My main point that both parties have strayed from their traditional principles and positions, and that many people are therefore in the "wrong" party. I didn't mean so much to overhaul the Democratic party, rather to suggest that it return to its historical positions and attract its traditional constituency back. At the same time, there may be many now in the Democratic party who are Rockefeller Republicans by the old standards. If this is true - that the positions and constituencies of the two parties have become co-mingled - this could be a source of a lot of the trouble we are seeing.

[eridani]

269. The issue is what things belong in the public sphere

IMO that can be summed up in one word--infrastructure. Roads, water, health care, fire and police protection, land use issues are all infrastructure. Most other things should be outside. Cheap labor feudalists of course think that there shouldn't be such a thing as the public sphere, and trash the whole enterprise as socialism.

I think what people mean when they say 'pure' socialism is that everything ought to be in the public sphere. That isn't the case at all, and I sure don't know many progressives who think that.

[m berst]

275. well stated

I don't think there is any realistic possibility of the United States ever going to a command economy with state control of the means of production. If it didn't happen in the 30's, it isn't going to happen. The specter of this, however, has been used by Republicans since the Russian Revolution to justify "free market" extremism.

We see the same policies being imposed on Iraq now that the Republicans are imposing on us here, and it is about as far as could be from "free markets" or free anything else. Iraqi farmers will not even have the freedom to control their own seeds, as that "franchise" will be granted to Monsanto. Iraqi businesses are being shut out of all the reconstruction contracts, and the Iraqi infrastructure is being handed to US corporations. That isn't "free markets," in fact it is obscene to use the word "free" or "freedom" in association with anything this administration is doing. Freedom for bullies. Freedom for the rich and powerful. Freedom for the barbaric and violent. Freedom for the haters, the destroyers, the manipulators, the greedy and the ruthless.

[robcon]

220. The Democratic Party has never been socialist.

At no time during the last 200+ years has the Democratic Party, or its main candidates, ever promoted socialism.

The idea that we 'must be' socialist, or we are the Republican Party, is repellent to me.

[m berst]

222. yes I know

There is an error in the op, and we just noticed it. Too late to fix it. Sorry. I was talking about social needs and community, and typed "socialism." I couldn't figure out why people kept calling me a socialist.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

231. Even For Socialism To Work You Need Individual Responsibility....

Think of a community park....


If folks don't clean up after themselves the park will be ruined...

[chaska]

232. Wow Mike, I don't know how you've managed to remain civil throughout...

this whole discussion.

Obviously, people are reacting to the word 'socialism'. Too bad about the mistake above. Start a new thread, this ones getting pretty big. Let's please NOT talk about Socialism, that's not the issue here.

The issue is that we've forgotten who we are as a party. I can't believe what I'm seeing here. Mike is being attacked for the same reasons, with the same line of reasoning, that the Republican use against us. What are you people doing spouting conservative ... uh, excuse me, regressive talking points?

No one is saying that we need to cede voters to the republicans. What Mike is saying is that we need to get back those tradtional Dem voters that handed the victory to Georgie boy. Those working class people (I'm one) simply do not belong in the Republican party.

It's hard for me to believe that the right has succeeded to the degree that you cannot even promote a traditional liberal agenda on DU of all places without being attacked. We are desparately in need of a history review here.

We are in trouble here, people. We have lost our base. Those people who are traditionally dem voters have completely forgotten that WE are the party of the people, that we stand for working people. Even Dems have forgotten it ... judging from this thread.

I don't know how accurate the info is, but I heard that we lost the Hispanic vote or at least more of it than we should have. To the degree we lost it, we lost it on the basis of social issues that belong in church discussions not political discussions. I can't think of a more proper constituency for the Democratic party than the Hispanic population as it exist in this country today. If we lose them, we're done. We have to go after that vote and through pocketbook issues not social issues.

Please, if you are a latecomer to this discussion read M Berst's posts. He is right.

[m berst]

266. thanks for the kind words. :) n/t

.

[chaska]

233. And please, let's try to be civil.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

234. Yes...

A lot of uncivil posters...


And the original poster made some valid points but even he admits he created confusion when he said to be a good Democrat one has to be a good socialist....


If he had said to be a good Democrat one has to have a good social conscience he would have been fine...


But then again his thread wouldn't have garnered two hundred responses....

[m berst]

261. the thread has become an allegory

Hey DSB, the structure of the conversation is analogous to the subject matter! :-)

Just as with the mixed economy we are discussing - a blend of individualistic initiative (primarily the interests of capital) and communal needs (primarily the interests of labor) - so too, the thread has become a mix of individualistic initiative (flamers) and communal needs (thoughtful and considerate deliberation.)

Not too much of a stretch...

[rman]

239. "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism...

, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
-- Benito Mussolini

Another associations with the word "corporatism":

"corporate controlled media"
"corporate controlled government"
"corporate controlled elections"- our vote got privitised and deregulated just like our media.

A vast number of people here are very well aware of those issues and don't favor corporatism very much.

"Community solidarity":
I'd like to see a lot more of that.
What's so cool about not caring about that member of society who's chips happen to be down?

"Personal responsibility":
From where comes that notion anyway, that we somehow do not carry enough personal responsibility?
What about a person's responsibility towards the community - and by consequence: what about the community's responsibility towards individuals?
We all benefit from the fact that we're part of that greater whole called "community" or "society", so we all owe something to society. For me it stands to reason that those who benefit more from society also owe more to society. Contribute and benefit in proportion.

"Free Trade" sounds nice, but so do "No Child Left Behind", "Clean Air Act" and "Tax Cut for the Poor".

Maybe the DLC is sane as far as corporatists go. Let them gravitate towards the Republican party, they should be homesick by now.
The Dem party doesn't need more corporatist leadership, it needs more community leadership: unions, teachers, doctors know much better then CEO's what's up "on the floor" of society, where the vast majority of people dwell.

When asked in polls, many people at DU identify themselves as moderate democrats, while in fact they are pretty darn liberal, many downright progressive - progressive Left that is.

[American Tragedy]

243. You really need to operationally define all of these terms

Socialism, liberalism, corporatism, populism, and other words have very different connotations to everybody, and I think that is the cause of the discord here. You not only need to define these terms, but the extent to which they might be implemented, since for instance we may individually envision socialism at different degrees of government control.

[m berst]

248. we do, yes

I didn't intend to introduce the word socialism into the thread, and that has caused a lot of mischief. Agreeing on the meaning of the word "liberal" is difficult enough since the Republicans have so trashed it out, without trying to wrestle with socialism.

Let's tackle populism, though.

I found a great article on the subject. I think that the ideas from the populist movement can break through the futility progressives experience. The problem of expanding the base of the Democratic party may not be a right-left dilemma, or a matter of a policy or position debate, but more a matter of finding an easier path to the goal - re-building the broad constituency that the Democratic party once enjoyed.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_070500_populism.htm

<snip>

In strictly historical terms, Populism refers to a third-party movement that materialized in America in the 1890s, generating a spirited energy that also caused a certain alarm near the seats of the mighty.

In an effort to restructure American politics, Populists formed the People's party, which was free of corporate influence. The new party polled over a million votes in its initial campaign in 1892, made sizable gains in 1894, and then joined with the free-silver wing of the Democratic party to support William Jennings Bryan's unsuccessful presidential candidacy in 1896. Having lost much of its distinctive identity in the course of its "fusion" with the Democrats, the third party suffered an abrupt decline thereafter.

The parent institution of populism, the National Farmers Alliance and Industrial Union, set up an elaborate lecturing system that turned some forty thousand "suballiances" into a veritable schoolroom of economic and political inquiry. The Populist reforms were not only broadly egalitarian and democratic but workable as well. Instead of appearing as mindless provincials, the reformers were regarded as humanistic advocates who numbered within their ranks prominent reform editors and organizers—Catholic, Jewish, and African-American as well as white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. Historian Walter T. K. Nugent summarized matters in the title of his book: The Tolerant Populists.

The Populist experience shows how easily election campaigns and the legislative process are made vulnerable to powerful economic influences and how these malpractices can be brought into public view through critical appraisals generated by self-organized popular constituencies. There is a third, rather unwanted, discovery—the multiple hazards to popular democracy that persist in highly stratified and socially isolated modern populations. As the Populist experience clarifies the interrelationship of these dynamics, a series of long-standing assumptions about political conduct in the modern state have come under sustained revaluation.

<snip>

Check this next segment out about voter apathy. There is the key to transforming progressive politics into a mass popular movement. Helping average citizens overcome their "hesitancy to expose themselves to retribution and ridicule by opposing sanctioned authority."

<snip>

For generations, many scholars took the sudden appearance of citizen politics in any society as some sort of "spontaneous" happening through which the routine "apathy" of "ordinary people" was somehow temporarily overcome. As the enormous practical difficulties involved in creating organized citizen advocacy have become better understood, it is increasingly apparent that serious political movements are laboriously constructed by human hands and are in no sense "spontaneous." Indeed, the term is used by scholars to describe moments of political organization they have not otherwise researched. As such, the word spontaneous routinely conceals the social relations it purports to describe.

Moreover, given the powerful economic and cultural authority invested in prevailing forms of elite governance, the hesitancy of average citizens to expose themselves to retribution and ridicule by opposing sanctioned authority clearly involves an intelligent (if cautious) response that cannot accurately be described as "apathetic." The process through which social fear is, on occasion, overcome stands as an important and neglected question that bears directly on the long-term durability of democratic substance in any society.

<snip>

Think about it. If so many progressives feel beat up by the DLC apologists, what chance does the average person have against them?

[Niche]

251. Has anyone read the post Mind of a Bush Voter? Uhh...

Had to email (buying his couch with his tax return really got me). Jason emailed me back saying that "We shouldn't focus on Republican scandals...we should start a progressive movement"... How about prosecuting Bush for his CRIMES! Is that progressive enough? Beware the "progressives" who supported Bush... Hey really stay off my DU. I feel so invaded...

[Niche]

253. P.S.

... not getting caught up in Rep. scandals and just move on... scandals???? move on???? Hey, Delay! There's a scandal--CRIME!

[blindpig]

255. I'd nominate this sucker for the front page if it weren't too late

THIS is why I come here. You are an asset to this board, m berst. I tend to agree with you though i think some kind of 3 party arrangement is needed. Don't know how the hell that could be engineered. Must run. Danke.

[Kahuna]

265. Who died and left you boss?

:puke:

[m berst]

267. difficult to understand

I would have liked to hear your opinions on the subject, and it saddens me that you felt the need express hostility to a stranger in such a simplistic and cowardly way. This behavior seems to be part of a spreading epidemic - not especially here - but most places, increasingly so, and it is becoming more and more accepted and tolerated in my observations, for what they may be worth.

There is nothing wrong with people holding differing opinions, but there is something very wrong with people robotically throwing talking points and clever barbed phrases at each other for the express purpose of spiritually destroying the person with whom you are conversing.

The whole point of having political discussions is not to "win" - winning being defined as driving the person you are talking to into an abject and miserable state of frustration or anger - but to explore and develop ideas, reach consensus and identify areas of differing views and opinions and learn how to accept and respect those.

Endless jeering, mocking one-liners and "gotchas" are certain and telling expressions of a deep almost sociopathic emotional immaturity, wouldn't it seem? Is it not the mindset that would enjoy torturing a small animal or pulling the wings off of insects? The mindset that gets secret pleasure imagining the humiliation and degradation of others? The mindset that can not distinguish between the emotions of love and compassion, and the thrill and hormonal rush of cruelty and sadism? It is a sign and a symptom of a society gone very, very wrong, I should think.

The level of discourse in this country is on a par with a shouting match between 12 year old bullies on a playground - worse! actually when I think back to the most obnoxious, malicious and violent kids in my working class neighborhood.

That is inexcusable behavior by civilized adults, and continuing to behave that way is damaging to the social fabric of the country - that which sustains and supports us and makes life worth living. I have often appealed to people's patriotism as a last resort call for intelligence and common sense and fair play and basic decency toward their fellow citizens. Not only does that get nowhere, but the very fact that I call for it makes me the target of yet more derisive and mean-spirited abuse. I am not complaining, as I have come to accept the fact that a shockingly high percentage of adult Americans are the functional equivalents emotionally of badly abused and poorly socialized, uneducated, ignorant and obnoxious over-grown juvenile delinquents.

Patriotism is no longer a shared set of common values and principles that can be fallen back on. "Things aren't like that now!" people say if you cite the words of the founders of the country, or "what did they know" or "he has been proved wrong!"

Common courtesy is mocked and jeered at. Winning is everything, and winning means making your fellow human beings as miserable as possible. Isolation and independence and self gratification are praised, while compassion and consideration, altruism and sacrifice are derided and dismissed as sentimental and weak, or "show offy" and pretentious - "who made you boss?!"

The coarser the language the better, and taking care to use the English language as an educated, civilized person who respects others, and has respect for their own thoughts, and who has a desire to express them to others, is seen as though IT were the discourteous, rude or hostile approach. "How dare you come across so high and mighty like you know more than us!" is the response.

Perversely, people are more comfortable with screaming and name-calling - this seems more friendly to them, or at least familiar perhaps, and they are content and happy knowing that the other speaker is a fellow spiritual hog wallowing in the moral mud of stupidity, bigotry, self-centeredness and depravity.

[shockra]

270. m berst, you're a gem

I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts, no matter what thread you're in. From the first post I read of yours you struck me as exceptional. Wise, thoughtful, intelligent, and knowledgeable! I'm very glad there are people like you around.

Don't take all the crap too personally. Your analysis of the level of discourse these days is spot on. I posted on another board for almost six years, and it didn't matter whether I used humor, logic, facts, kindness -- a lot of people were just mean and destructive. Always. Doesn't even matter if you try to find common ground with them, or have gotten along with them for months. Or if you hit back at the nasty ones. There's no damn solution! I tried and quit dozens of times, out of frustration or concern for my self-preservation.

Your thread addresses one of the most important issues right now. And the person (Jay Bradfield) that Niche was referring to above actually wrote something that I essentially agree with on his blog, called "Where Lackoff was Wrong" at jaybradfield.blogspot.com:

Where Lackoff is Wrong

The NYT has a good article suming up George Lackoff's new book "Don't Think of an Elephant!"

Lackoff is right about the need to "frame" issues. However, it does not take a linguistics professor from Berkeley to figure that out. I seriously doubt that the conservative movement relied on Lackoff's research when they started emphasizing the need to frame issues over 30 years ago.

Unfortunately, Lackoff's noble attempt at educating progressives misses some key points. First of all, to frame an issue a candidate actually has to have some sort of group identity himself. Conservatives can pull this off because there is a highly active, motivated, and well-coordinated conservative movement that supports their candidates. Where is the corresponding progressive movement? It makes no sense to develop a progressive "frame" if there is no organizational and communication infratructure to back it up. Think of the success of the right-wing "echo chamber."

What the Democrats are missing is not just the ability to frame issues. They are missing a large, organized, centrally-coordinated progressive movement with which they can work hand in glove to deliver a coreherent message in which diverse issues are integrated into a compelling progressive worldview.

The problems progressive face is far more complicated than just the need to "frame" the issues. What progressives need is the development a tightly-networked "progressive movement" inside Washington, DC. This is the secret to the conservatives success. In effect the conservative movement acts as a living, breathing, complex social organism.

Democrats need to get out of thinking in linear hyperanalytic terms (which academics like Lackoff are prone to do) and start thinking in organic terms. This is hard to do, esp. for wonks and intellectual types. However, it is necessary to break the grip of conventional political science analysis and start thinking not about what "Democrats" or "progressive candidates" must do, but rather what must the "progressive movement" do?

Once we reframe our institutional analysis in these terms then progressives can start realistically planning for a progressive governing majority, which is what the radical conservatives did over 20+ years ago.

[Kahuna]

277. "Cowardly?" I personally think that people get way to wrapped up..

in labels instead of trying to just be human beings. Just be human man and forget all that other bull. Listen to what Sly sang in Everyday People. It's about stupid labels that divide us. You aren't really saying anything that clever that hasn't been said before. So, get over yourself.

[robbedvoter]

271. As the Dems shun "liberal" and only represent the middle class, wrong

party for me all right. Also, watch out for that middle class: W will be shrinking it to nothing. Maybe one day, poor people will have a party too, and maybe liberals will be welcome. Until then, there's no "right" party for me. Which is fine, since elections don't exist anymore, i don't quite see the point.

[muse]

274. No way. At the heart of liberalism is tolerance, so Democrats are always

going to be a "big tent" party and include a continuum of people from far left to people to the right of moderate. This is what makes us the progressive party - the party that can cause true progress in our country. The only way progress can happen is through partnerships, relationships, negotiations and understanding of shared ideas and values. The Republic pary by definition - conservatism - resists this and none of us are going over there.

[welshTerrier2]

279. agree some; disagree some ...

first, as others have done, let me compliment you on a well reasoned, articulate post ... your post embodies what DU should aspire to: genuine discourse instead of embracing the rigidity of labels ...

now, i'd like to take issue with you and let me say that this point is very important to me, where you made the following observation:

I mean people who embrace the concept of the free market, are basically in favor of corporatism and suburbanization, and place "personal responsibility" above socialism and community solidarity. ...

let's just focus on corporatism ... allow me, for the sake of discussion, to define corporatism as a view that would support the rights of corporations to function relatively unencumbered by government regulation ... it would honor, as a societal benefit, the successful corporation in that jobs and wealth would be created ... the exact definition isn't really critical to my point, but i thought having at least some definition would be useful ...

now, if you asked democrats whether government has at times, interfered with business to a degree that led to economic downturns, some might agree ... if you asked whether restrictive laws have at times caused corporations to reduce the number of employees on their payrolls, some might agree ... if we stopped our investigation without reframing the issue, you could probably find a reasonable amount of support for calling many democrats corporatists ...

but suppose we asked our questions very differently ... suppose we asked which should be taxed at a higher rate: earnings resulting from a workers labor or income from dollars invested by an investor? suppose we asked who should incur the cost of cleaning up pollution: taxpayers or the corporations that created the pollution? suppose we asked whether corporations that knowingly produce unsafe products or create unsafe work environments should be shielded by laws that limit the amount that victims can recover as damages ...

the point of all this is that I have proudly joined the red flag brigade on DU ... from now on, and i often fall into the trap myself, i plan to highlight all incidents of labelling ... so i return to my focus where you suggested that many democrats are "corporatists" ... if we fail to frame the issue correctly and we don't do our job educating the electorate, many might agree with statements that could lead to your conclusion ... the problem i have with your line of thinking, though, is that the label leads to lazy thinking and fails to educate and capture our natural constituency ...

so, I do not agree that many Democrats are "corporatists" ... I believe that when we make a proper case for anti-corporatism, most Democrats, and many who have voted republican, will be with us ... the devil's in the details ... we just have work to do ...