a Friday evening hypothetical - say we rid our platform

[ulysses]

of everything that even remotely smells of liberalism and the liberal tradition in American politics - out with affirmative action, out with support for reproductive rights, out with the separation of church & state, out with support for public education. Ditch the economic safety net wholesale - no welfare, no AFDC, no free/reduced price school lunches (the schools are all privatized anyway) at all, nada. Out with all economic regulatory measures - no food inspectors, no SEC, no nothing. A scorched earth policy designed to free ourselves of the chains of liberalism that bind us, to mangle a mixed metaphor or two.

1. Would we then be perfectly centrist?

2. Would we be poised to win?

3. If so, on what platform would we win?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

1. if you get rid of all that stuff

we're republicans!

[Sandpiper]

2. Efforts to be Centrist are futile

The political Center is constantly shifting, based on the political climate of the country.

Trying to be perfectly centrist is like chasing the horizon.

[Mojambo]

3. If that happened there would be no "we" n/t

[pmbryant]

4. Uh, what's the point of this?

No one is promoting anything even remotely like this hypothetical. This is needlessly divisive.

--Peter

[ulysses]

5. I disagree, Peter.

The going idea is that liberalism is bad for the party. I'm simply carrying the thought to its logical conclusion.

[DireStrike]

6. You've sparked the Devil's Advocate in me

Though I agree with your position, moderatism is about NOT carrying things to their logical conclusion.

[ulysses]

7. I meant the logical conclusion to the argument. n/t

[DireStrike]

17. Ah, but which argument is being argued?

That liberalism is bad, or that centrism is good?

And how are the terms defined?

I'll be the first to shout down anyone saying that liberalism is bad, but "Centrism" dwells in murkier waters.

[ulysses]

19. "that liberalism is bad"

And how are the terms defined?

Please don't tell me that you're going to call Roosevelt-era alphabet soup programs centrist...

[DireStrike]

21. Not at all

I'm just trying to point out that not every advocate of centrism is, either.

I would say the kind of people we need to avoid are "extreme centrists". I view actual moderate centrists now as light republicans. And right now, they're on our side. Sort of.

I'm just being a diction nazi. Don't mind me.

[ulysses]

22. extreme centrists, moderate centrists, light republicans...

You're thinking too much.

[DireStrike]

23. Probably. Better than not enough.

ie, GOP.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. FDR Was A Small C Conservative...

He conserved capitalism by removing it's excesses...


The Republicans are intent on restoring those excesses and will probably destroy capitalism in the process

[ulysses]

35. yes, I know he was.

He conserved capitalism by removing it's excesses...

The New Deal was actually watered-down socialism. Yes, he did it to save capitalism, but the fact remains that he did it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. He Had No Choice...

And unfortunately America would have embraced fascist not democratic solutions to the Great Depression if not for FDR's programs and the stimulus and uniting effect of WW2....

[pmbryant]

10. (ah, never mind)

Have a good weekend.

[ulysses]

11. isn't it?

If liberalism is bad for the party, then why isn't the absence of all things liberal the ultimate good in that regard? Seems to me like it follows.

[pmbryant]

14. Oops, didn't edit quick enough.

First of all, I don't know who is saying "liberalism" is bad, except for maybe Al "Mr. Irrelevant" From. And I certainly am not, so I don't want to get involved, which is why I realized my previous post was a mistake, which is why I tried to edit it, which is why yada yada yada. :-)

Have a good weekend! I'm off to the races.

:hi:

Peter

[atreides1]

12. I Disagree

I don't think that it's needlesssly divisive, I feel that we need to know who wants to stay with the issues that are important to most of us, and who wants to change or redo the message.

For those that want to stay the course, how do you convince people on the other side to open their minds, and to be tolerant of others, and their differences?

For those that want to redo the message, what do you suggest, what would you change, what would you be willing to drop from the platform
in order to win?

These two questions are important, and before this party can move forward they need to be answered.

[Nederland]

8. Answer to #1

No. We would be right wing.

Moderation and centrist thinking is completely the opposite of what you propose.

[ulysses]

9. is it?

All I'm hearing from moderates and centrists is that we have to get rid of liberalism in the party, and what I posted regarded liberal programs and ideas.

[oneold1-4u]

13. No political division?

would mean only ONE and that one at this time is bush. Hasn't anyone seen this as the desired outcome of all this.
We can't walk away dejectedly and ever again hope to be emboldened by unity. It will never happen!!

[geniph]

15. Conciliation, accommodation, and bending over

will lead to us being perpetual doormats. Our opponents regard compromise as a sign of weakness and will go for the jugular instantly. This policy would also alienate every one of our core constituencies.

It'd make the corporate backers happy, but all the money in the world can't make people vote for you.

My opinion of those who're advising this: :puke:

[ulysses]

24. hi, Geni!

Much agreed, as always. :hi:

[hollowdweller]

16. No won't help. Need to have more democratic viewpoints on the news.

Swiftboat wasn't a liberal or conservative issue and it hurt Kerry. His wishy washy ness on the war hurt him and it HELPED him when he moved to the left. Willie Horton wasn't a liberal conservative issue really. Neither was Whitewater, Genifer Flowers, or 90% of the stuff they threw at Clinton.

[Deja Q]

18. Well, they're already trying to shove Michael Moore away. You really think

it's hypothetical?

[ulysses]

20. not by much, perhaps.

:)

[itzamirakul]

47. You are right about the centrists shoving

Michael Moore away. The pro-centrists on this board are quick to point out that Moore is not a Democrat - that he is an independent, and like the rightwingers, they divert the topic from whether or not we should be grateful for the expose that Moore did. Instead we are subjected to watching secret powerbrokers like Al From, spit out virulent statments against Moore instead of attacking the Social Security Reforms. The centrist leaders seem more aggressive in hammering at their own liberal base than at attacking Bush's policies to change Democracy in America.

[ulysses]

25. a Saturday morning

:kick:

[Q]

26. No one is saying liberalism bad?

I hear this all the time...and again on this thread. Some accuse Al From of being the only one saying it...but many in the Dem party have been repudiating liberalism ever since the big mean RWingers scared them away from even using that word in public.

Republicans use the 'L' word in every campaign. The Bushies used it effectively in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns...forcing Democrats to not just abandon the word...but any program or policy that the Right branded as liberal.

This is why Kerry became a War Hawk during the campaign: reporting for duty...promising to KILL any 'terrorist' he could get his hands on. It's also why he told business groups that he was not a 'redistributionist' Democrat.

The Dem party has ALREADY ran away from most of the aforementioned issues. Simply saying one is FOR these issues/ideals is not enough. One must actively defend and support these issues in order for them to be relevant to a political party.

Democrats still half-heartedly defend programs like social security...but factions within the party agree with privatization schemes...which tend to weaken the argument for Democrats.

It's no longer a running joke when people refer to the One-Party-State. But that's really what it is when a two-party system of government is replaced by two parties with the same goals.

[ulysses]

27. much as I appreciate Nederland's response,

I was hoping for more input from our moderates and centrists on what the ultimate goal is for the party and whether ridding ourselves of every last vestigial bit of liberalism (I forgot the minimum wage the first time around) would finally make the party competitive again. Anybody?

[buddhamama]

28. in reading this

i am reminded of Garrison Keillor's song "We're All Republicans Now".

[ulysses]

29. heh!

:hi:

[buddhamama]

30. hey

are you familiar with the song, John? I don't want to be a republican and, that is what the party would be if they gave in, gave up their liberal positions. A choice between Conservative Repub or Moderate Repub, is really no choice at all.

:hi:

[ulysses]

31. yup.

We're all Republicans now
We're all united and how
For national security
And cultural purity
We're all Republicans now
Down with the income tax
Get government off our backs
Less regulation—let people be free
To work overtime and have two jobs or three
Put strict constructionists back on the courts
Let liberals have it right in the shorts
It's a free country so go and have fun
But not in my backyard cause I have a gun
We're all Republicans
All Republicans
All Republicans now.

We're all Republicans now
We're happy Republicans now
God put us in office He
'S fulfulling his prophecy
We're all Republicans now
So if health care you can't afford
You better talk to the Lord

He brought us to power—it's His Will we do
We're only His Servants when we're pounding on you
He told us to battle and never relent
We weren't just elected, no, we were sent
No matter what happens, we're not to blame
For He has redeemed us from guilt and from shame
We're all Republicans
All Republicans
All Republicans now.

:)

[itzamirakul]

50. Hey, Ulysses...

I don't know much about Buddhamama. Are these the lyrics to a song?
Can you tell me a little more about it? PM me if you would rather instead of posting it on this thread but there may be others who would like to know also.

BTW, I was on another thread and I saw where you invited a pro-centrist to comment on this thread, so I decided to come over to read the thread. I am so glad that I did. I would have missed some very interesting, important info and some very good thoughts. How about a list of the contributions that liberals have made to America. I am copying your original post for that reason. Can you think of some more? I have some folks that I need to teach. Thanks! :)

[buddhamama]

65. well,

if you were to ask me- i would say buddhamama is a liberal and, pretty cool. :-)

don't know if John has already answered your question...yes, these are actually lyrics to a song. Garrison Keillor hosts his own weekly radio show "A Prairie Home Companion". It's Garrison's song. I heard it on his show-of which I am a big fan.

[ulysses]

66. I'd agree with that assessment.

:D

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. No-We Would Have Created The Mother Of All Strawmen

The granddaddy of all logical fallacies....

[ulysses]

33. like I said last night,

I'm only taking the idea that liberalism is harmful to the party's electoral chances to its logical conclusion - the erasure of liberalism from the party. That is the idea these days, right? That we can't afford liberalism?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. The Republicans Are The Center Right Party....

We will always be the center left party....


The battle is for the folks in the middle since folks on the far left and far right will gravitate to the major party that is closest to them... Of course I'm not blind to the fact that some of these folks will end up in third parties but they are a small minority.....


And I'll bet I can get 80% support for the proposition that schools should give poor kids free lunch or the government should help poor families live a better life...

I think we are close to where the American people are on most issues.... I am willing to listen to centrists on choice and gay marriage as long as it doesn't compromise my and my party's belief in civil rights for all which is non negotiable.

[ulysses]

41. ok, so then...

And I'll bet I can get 80% support for the proposition that schools should give poor kids free lunch or the government should help poor families live a better life...

With those kinds of numbers, is liberalism a liability at all?

[wyldwolf]

38. ok, hypothetically

say we rid our platform of everything that even remotely smells of liberalism and the liberal tradition in American politics

Then we'd have a male dominated, majority rule, totalitarian state.

Would we then be perfectly centrist?

I believe I have a different impression on what a centrist is...

A centrist is someone who takes what they feel are the best policies of the left and right. For example, they may be anti-choice but pro-public education or vice versa. Further, there would be disagreement on the weight to assign each issue. Is women's reproductive rights more important than Civil rights? Are civil rights more important than gun control? Do you get points added or taken away for your stand on each issue in an attempt to achieve a perfect centrist score?

So, the answer is "no" because there can be no perfect centrist, IMHO.

I feel a moderate can be slightly left or slightly right of a centrist. I am a moderate - left of center.

Would we be poised to win?

No, because I don't believe it is possible to be a true centrist.

Further, in the partisan atmosphere of today, the only way to be assured a win (without fraud) is if the other guys have screwed up so royally that a portion of their voters vote against them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I Disagree

A person who takes a bunch of right wing positions and a bunch of left wing positions is not a centrist

[wyldwolf]

43. so you believe a centrist take no position at all?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. He Would Take Centrist Positions On Most Issues...

Slobodan Milosevic favored universal health care but he also favored ethnic cleansing...


I would hardly call him a liberal or moderate... Same for Lyndon LaRouche.... On some issues he's on the far left and on some issues he's on the far right...


If you want I can give you the moderate take on the great issues of the day....

[wyldwolf]

49. that's what I just said

a centrist takes what he feels are the best policies of the left and right.

If you want I can give you the moderate take on the great issues of the day....

No thanks. I'm a third generation moderate democrat who benefited from long political discusions with my father and grandfather. I know moderate democratic positions well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. A Centrist Is Centrist On All Issues Not Some

He's not a left winger on some issues and a right winger on others...


In your example you said a centrist could be anti-choice. Centrism and a anti-choice position is mutually exclusive...


A centrist would support abortion but not abortion on demand... He would most likely oppose late term abortion and support parental notification...


In my example you had nuts like Milosevic and LaRouche taking different ideological positions on different issues out of some some bizarre personal whim...

[ulysses]

40. thanks.

So, is liberalism bad for the party? I'm trying to keep track of the zeitgeist, as it were...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. nothing wrong with libreralism...

I don't run away from the label but it means different things to different people....

[ulysses]

44. then why has the party tried for twenty years to shed it? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. We Should Define Liberalism First...

The problem is the enemies of liberalism take anything that's unacceptable to most Americans and call it liberalism....


They have turned it into a cartoon...

[wyldwolf]

52. I agree with both of your points

so let's say we defined liberalism using an issues-based model.

For example: Let's assume we both agree gun control is liberal just as an example.

Is complete gun control the only accepted position on this issue to be considered liberal? Can one believe certain types of firearms should be banned but other are perfectly fine to possess and still be a liberal?

Abortion:

If one believes abortion into the third trimester should be illegal, but before the third trimester perfectly legal, is he/she still liberal?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. That Person Would Be A Moderate Liberal...

or a center left liberal...


I really get confused ....


I don't know what the source of the tension is sometimes...

[wyldwolf]

55. but that person would still be a liberal - that's my point.

Let's take another issue - welfare.

I've seen liberals on DU advocate lifelong welfare for people. (I mean perfectly healthy people who can work.)

That is a liberal position.

Others believe welfare and other social programs are necessary, but should end at some point for an individual.

The position of FDR, Kennedy, and LBJ, by the way.

Is that also a liberal position?

NO welfare, of course, is the conservative stance.

So as we assign levels of liberalness to each issue, we then conflict over who is liberally pure. "Purity" arguments are rightwing, in my experience.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. That's A Thorny Question On Welfare...

Somebody who says an able bodied person* shouldn't work is not a liberal but a nut....

However I don't believe they should be allowed to starve......




*of course I don't think single mothers with young children should be compelled to work if that interferes with the duties as a parent...

[wyldwolf]

58. thorny indeed, but I think you get my point

..and we could discuss every issue this same way.

Gay marriage, for example:

Liberal position: Gays should be allowed to marry

Conservative position: They should not.

So if I were to say, government should not be in the business of marriage, only civil unions, which should be granted to everyone who wants them.

Marriage is a religious institution so the church's should decide if they will marry homosexuals.

Would that be a liberal position? What if I said I support gay marriage but would advocate the above as a compromise if the right for gays to marry just wasn't ever going to happen.

Would I still be a liberal?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. you would be a pramatic liberal (nt)

i support gay marriage but it ain't happening anytime soom on a national level...

[MAlibdem]

69. you'd be ducking the question.

and caving to the right's redefintion of marraige.

we want to expand the institution.

they want to change it.

[ulysses]

67. ah - welfare.

I've seen liberals on DU advocate lifelong welfare for people. (I mean perfectly healthy people who can work.)

That is a liberal position.

Not all perfectly healthy people can find jobs. Bear in mind that the Federal Reserve massages interest rates to help keep the unemployment rate at a certain level, 5-7%, in order to fight wage inflation.

Should healthy folks who can find work work? Of course. Should we impose arbitrary five-year lifetime limits on welfare benefits? No, and I doubt that Kennedy or Johnson would have said so either.

[wyldwolf]

46. of course not because...

..there are different shades of liberalism.

We're both liberal - but I suspect you are more liberal than I.

The basic tenants of liberalism we agee on.

But what I might consider extreme liberalism is bad for the party just as extreme conservativism is bad the the GOP.

You might say, "it hasn't seemed to have stopped the GOP."

Well, the are old guard repubicans who don't even recognize the party anymore.

And their obvious ability to frame the debate better than us, and to marginalize our positions through deception, have put them on top.

I don't believe extreme liberalism has a foothold in our party, but the right has convinced people otherwise.

[itzamirakul]

54. Please define "extreme liberalism" for me..

because I am afraid I may be infected with that disorder. Can you give me a list of ideas or something that would make one an "extreme liberal?"

[wyldwolf]

56. let's cut the sarcasm and speak rationally

You know the definition of "extreme."

If one is extremely strong, they are very strong.

If one is extremely liberal, they are very liberal.

Extremes in either direction is always bad for an organization.

Now, what constitutes "extreme" and "moderate" libralism and all point in between?

That answer may be eventually found in the conversation DemocratSinceBirth and I are having in this very thread.

[itzamirakul]

60. Sorry if I came off as being sarcastic..

I often intend to be sarcastic, but seriously, in this case I really was not.

Of course I understand what the word "extreme" means. But what I was seeking from you was YOUR interpretation of what an "extreme liberal" is. I mean, is it extreme to strongly be in favor of civil rights? or of being strongly in favor of keeping the liberal agenda that was first created by the FDR administration?

How does a more moderate Democrat explain that it is unwise to have "stong" feelings about the platform the party has had for over fifty years? What would a more moderate Democrat suggest that we compromise on or how would we compromise?

This is not sarcasm...it is an honest desire to have a dialogue about the differences in belief. When I said I was afraid I was infected with the "extreme liberal disorder" I was being sincere. I would like to know how a moderate sees things differently.

[wyldwolf]

62. perspectives

is it extreme to strongly be in favor of civil rights?

No

or of being strongly in favor of keeping the liberal agenda that was first created by the FDR administration?

Well, you and I differ here. FDR was a moderate - despised equally by the left and right.

His social programs were the result of desperate times. He even said that "the federal government must and will quit this business of relief." Kennedy and LBJ believed social programs should be a hand-up not a hand-out.

How does a more moderate Democrat explain that it is unwise to have "stong" feelings about the platform the party has had for over fifty years?

Moderate democrats differ over what that 50 year platform consists of.

The FDR mention above, for example.

I believe that what many here consider to be the 50 year old dem platform is really more of the McGovern influence in the party.

I'm not saying McGovern's policies positions were bad, but they were a move away from Democrats up to that point.

The counter-culture and anti-war movement of the 60s were not necessarily democrats. Remember, it happened under a Dem administration and a dem controlled congress.

[itzamirakul]

63. I hear what you are saying but

I am afraid that I still do not understand what you mean by extreme liberals.

You mention social programs as being a "hand-up" rather than a "hand-out" which is what I am sure that most liberals would agree with strongly. The problem comes about when new "poor" people are added to the equation. When those who have used the "hand-up" as a means of conquering the stalemate of poverty have moved to a level of being more self-sufficent, there are always more and new people to take their place, especially after the enactment of new immigration laws). (And under Bush's policies, they will increase.) So, even though FDR might have acted because of "desperate times," I think you will agree that for many people, desperate times have been on-going.

Your mention of McGovern catches me short since I am afraid that I do not know enough about his policies to discuss them intelligently. So that is an area that I will have to bone up on.

Since I was a functioning, fully-employed adult in the 60's, I must say that counterculture had little meaning to me. I was aware of it, but to me, it seemed a rebellious movement against the strict puritanical lifestyle that was enforced on young white people. I was supportive of many of their goals, but uninvolved in the violent aspects of their movement just as I was uninvolved in the anti-war movement though I supported its ideals. But the civil rights issue was all encompassing in my life. It was extreme in those days to support voting rights and non-discrimination, but many of us did.

I am aware that many democrats from the south opposed (and still oppose) the civil rights act and thus I consider myself an extreme liberal because I continue to strongly support it. IMHO, moderate Democrats would compromise civil rights laws in order to "go along to get along."

[wyldwolf]

64. ok

You mention social programs as being a "hand-up" rather than a "hand-out" which is what I am sure that most liberals would agree with strongly.

No, not really. I've seen people on this board that find it abhorrent that the government would make people work for their welfare - which is what Kennedy and LBJ proposed.

The problem comes about when new "poor" people are added to the equation. When those who have used the "hand-up" as a means of conquering the stalemate of poverty have moved to a level of being more self-sufficient, there are always more and new people to take their place, especially after the enactment of new immigration laws).

No argument here. But there are those (many in fact) who abuse the system. At the risk of using a phrase often considered rightwing, the welfare system was not designed to be a "cradle to grave" program, nor should it be IMO. Yet, that happens and when reform is suggested to correct it, it is demonized by the left.

Now I realize that we can't allow citizens to starve and I realize that we can't allow children to perish in the streets. That is where working moderate compromises come in. What is the solution? I don't know. But, IMO, taxpayers shouldn't support the ones who abuse the system. I would advocate a Kennedy-like job corp. for those who are coming off of welfare.

I know when I was just unemployment for a year, I would have jumped at the chance to do something as simple as pick up trash on the roads for a little extra cash.

Your mention of McGovern catches me short since I am afraid that I do not know enough about his policies... I must say that counterculture had little meaning to me. I was aware of it, but to me, it seemed a rebellious movement against the strict puritanical lifestyle that was enforced on young white people. I was supportive of many of their goals, but uninvolved in the violent aspects of their movement just as I was uninvolved in the anti-war movement though I supported its ideals.

McGovern was not liberal in the sense that many here are, but he was branded a radical by the right. However, he is best known for his opposition to the viet nam war and was a vocal critic of LBJ. He ideology on viet nam did spring from the 60s counter culture and anti-war movement.

Many on the left draw from McGovern's positions on the Viet Nam war and strongly identify with their counterparts in the 60s when referencing the Iraq war.

But remember, Viet Nam was mostly run by Democrats. Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ were Cold Warriors. LBJ initially opposed Civil Rights legislation, FDR entered WWII on a LIHOP theory and placed thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps, only enacted the new deal out of depression and probably never intended for it to be permanent. The Dem agenda of the 50s and 60s was anti-communists.. Robert Kennedy worked for Joe McCarthy... I could go on.

My point is, while the Dem platform of the past 50 years has been significantly more progressive than the Republican one, it hasn't been the bastion of liberalism many here attribute to it. The idea that is has has sprung mainly from McGovernites.

So when people say the DLC is moving the party right, what is actually happening is they're advocating pre-McGovern dem policies, or, a return to more traditional moderate dem politics.

I am aware that many democrats from the south opposed (and still oppose) the civil rights act and thus I consider myself an extreme liberal because I continue to strongly support it.

Well, those democrats essentially weeded themselves out and joined the GOP or reformed themselves

IMHO, moderate Democrats would compromise civil rights laws in order to "go along to get along."

I'm a moderate dem - third generation. I belong to a large and growing dem organization composed of mostly mainstream moderate dems.

I know of NO moderate dem who would compromise civil rights nor is there any evidence to suggest moderate dems in elected office would.

[itzamirakul]

68. Thank you for your

informative and considerate response.

While I certainly learned a lot from it, I have one problem with the "moving right" part favored by the moderate Democrats. You have absolutely NO IDEA of how bad life was for many citizens during what the Republicans like to think of as the wonderful world of the 1950s. I realize that the Dixicrats weeded themselves out of the Party for the most part, but there are still some Democrats who think life was a golden party in those days. I know from personal experience that it was not and that is why I consider myself (to use your term) an extreme liberal - because I strongly oppose moving in that direction.

If I thought that ANY part of the Republican platform was worthy of being emulated, then rather than being a moderate Democrat, I would simply be a total Republican. I have been a loyal, straight-ticket voting Democrat for over forty years. I would like to remain that way, but if the Party continues to be run by what I consider "traitorous" DINOs then that is it for me.

Again, I do thank you for a decent, respectful, sane dialogue on this matter.

[ulysses]

61. I'm headed out.

(just to let y'all know that I'm not ignoring the thread. Back later...)