If someone wanted to destroy the Democratic Party

[pnwmom]

leading the American public to reject both Democrats and Republicans in favor of a third party,

what better way than to push for the Democrats to vote for a draft?

Does anyone know what the Green Party's stand is on the idea of universal service?

[pooja]

1. Really, we shouldn't be so 2-partied. The originating sytem

wasn't designed on party...that is a Brittish concept. It was supposed to be a nominated citizen that you felt would best represent you in Govt. It is now the reason we have way to many problems with corruption now.

ON Edit:

Personally, I don't think it will be a Green Party... I think it will be Progressive party.

[Ravy]

5. Political Parties started shortly after the Constitution was written..

and included most of the founding fathers. I think the Constitutional protection for freedom of assembly virtually guarantees political parties.

[pooja]

19. Its constitutionally legal to have political parties... Also, the founding

father's were originally British, some of those ideas were transcended into the constitution.

[Ravy]

21. My point is, that by making them legal, you are practically guaranteeing

that they will come into existance.

It is strategic for like-minded individuals to funnel their votes to a single candidate, even though there may be another candidate that they like even better.

Let's say that the country was 70% progressive and 30% conservative. If the conservatives put up a single candidate, and the progressives put up a dozen, and there was no consensus of the progressives, then the conservative would most likely win. In order for preservation of the species (in this case, political power), political parties are a natural outcropping of the right of free assembly.

It is why many Democrats hate the Greens yet mostly agree with the Green platform. It is why the Republicans fund the Greens.

I have to admit, I loved it when John Anderson and Ross Perot ran for president, but it all came back to bite me big-time when Nader ran.

[nealmhughes]

24. Were the Greens only to be a policy wing of the Democratic Party!

I would venture that most Progressive Democrats are supporters of much of the Green Party's agenda. What one gets most is the offering of outside candidates to act in theory as "purified" candidates, but to in effect recently, at least, to act as spoilers for the Democratic candidates.

It goes to show why the little d must be put back into the policies of the big D Democratic Party. A small cadre of self-appointed and self-perpetuating "experts" and "insiders" need to be let go ==> along with their corporate money and agneda.

Tester and Schweitzer are a great step in that direction. Of course there is Dennis and Bernie...even though Bernie isn't technically a Democrat, but will vote with them in caucus and had the endorsement of the Vermont Demo Party...

Were the big corporate dollar Democrats out of the loop, then independent candidates could get a shot at nominations and the Green Party would be a debating society. Now debating societies are a good thing, but not necessarily when the take away votes.

The Party must be reformed from within or else to have the third parties stop acting as spoilers and as allies in the change of direction of the party.

To summarize: "Great ideas! I like that! I support that! I'll add that to my personal Democratic Platform! Please don't take votes away from us, though!"

[amandabeech]

25. Some founding fathers railed on the evils of faction, as they called

the party sytem, if I remember my history correctly.

They then proceeded to draw up lines quickly.

I think that it's something in human nature.

[cali]

2. I haven't a clue, and it doesn't really matter what

their stance is. Pelosi has made it clear that the draft will not be up for a vote. And if you're insinuating that Rangel is out to destroy the dem party, that strikes me as silly. The draft is a non-issue.

[pnwmom]

3. I don't think Rangel is out to destroy the party.

But a surprising number of DUers have indicated that they think there is no difference between even liberal Dems and Republicans. They have advocated for a third party on these pages.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

7. With all due respect...

... but a surprising number of DUer's do not see beyond the past six years, when history is a factor. I would also wager that a surprising number of DUer's were not alive or cognizant during the past 30 years as the GOP headed the U.S. of A. down the deregulation path, ie.... deregulation of accounting, deregulation of free press laws, etc. And therefore do not fully appreciate the differences between Democratic Party members and Republicans.

Though I am not a Green Party member, I do consider myself progressive, and The Nation had an article out this fall, describing how self described "mouthpieces of the Greens" are actually playing right into the GOP's plans for the marginalizing of the progressive movement by blowing hot air instead of putting the energy used for making that hot air into real grassroots endeavors. The result: more acrimony between those who desire a progressive form of government.

[Greyhound]

17. With all due respect...

You left one vital fact out of your, otherwise accurate, assessment. The Greedy Oil Party set the agenda, the Democratic Party made it happen. We have controlled the legislature for an overwhelming majority of that time, and many of the same traitors are still there, still working to kill our nation so they can install their corporate oligarchy.

We have to realize that class is the real issue, and every move the government makes benefits one class over the others. Ignore what they say, watch what they do.

[emanymton]

4. Public Service And The Military Draft Are Winners For Society.

§ ---

A national community draft can be a useful tool for social engineering. Combining this with a military service draft can be beneficial to all. The idea could be a useful program for improving the future for _all_ Americans. The Democratic Party might find this a useful movement.

Requiring members of a community to perform public service as a part of being included in a community benefits both the person and society. This is done by connecting the person to the community. Keeping people involved with the system. Keeping system honest.

Drafting members of a community into service to and for the good of the community has benefits.

1 reinforces the connection of the knowledgeable individual to the community. Reinforcing the connection of the person to the community by allowing the person to provide needed services. (Pool of trained representatives available to use within the community.) Working as a trained life-guard at the local community swimming pool gives outlet for quality of life activities and programs.

2 keeps the people involved with their community and society. Community centers with well trained and profession staff keep the human network working for people. It involves people in their communities. An example of this is parents, as their children go through school become active in the school.

3 ensures the system remains true to its roots and focused on serving the individuals/community/country. The flow of people into and through the system ensure the system provides the desired services. The system is not a mystery. The administration held accountable from within. Schools work best when administration, parents and students are directly involved.

A young person can be given a choice to enter military service or go into community service. In the end, society has a pool of trained talent ready for extended use to the community.

Leading the society for the good of the society has always been a successful concept that has helped the progressive and liberals improve the world we live in. The Democratic Party has to remember from where it has come and then lead US back there again.


§ ___

[acmejack]

6. The rest of the industrialized world is brilliant when it comes to

Health Care but they are apparently fools when it comes to National Service. They all have National Health Care-Great, they all have mandatory service-they're idiots. Americans have want it all but choose to give nothing, it is just like taxes. We would like to have all the services and infrastructure without paying a dime. It is the American way. I have despaired of any form of National Service, I agree it would be a boon to the national character and Society as a whole, but it is obviously a nonstarter. People are so vehemently opposed, they are totally unwilling to even discuss it rationally.

So forget it, it is destined to be just another good idea consigned to the junk heap of history. I believe it could be the salvation of this Nation. But that is a problem for those who will come after me, I will be gone in a few years, so as they say-not my problem.

[pnwmom]

8. All of the industrialized world has National Service?

Examples?

[acmejack]

13. Here is the list from the wikipedia

But I attached a site that is very promising on conscription ion the world that has a lot more detail, do check it out!

Military Service

7.1 Austria
7.2 Belarus
7.3 Bermuda
7.4 Brazil
7.5 Bulgaria
7.6 Chile
7.7 China (PRC)
7.8 Croatia
7.9 Cyprus
7.10 Denmark
7.11 Egypt
7.12 Eritrea
7.13 Finland
7.14 Germany
7.15 Greece
7.16 Iran
7.17 Israel
7.18 Korea, South
7.19 Lebanon
7.20 Malaysia
7.21 Mexico
7.22 Norway
7.23 Poland
7.24 Russia
7.25 Serbia and Montenegro
7.26 Singapore
7.27 Sweden
7.28 Switzerland
7.29 Taiwan (ROC)
7.30 Turkey
7.31 Ukraine
7.32 Venezuela

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Countries_with_mandatory_military_service_.28partial_list.29

Conscription and armies in the world
http://www.c3.hu/~farkashe/english/countries.htm

THE QUESTION OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE
Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to Commission resolution 1995/83
http://hri.ca/fortherecord1997/documentation/commission/e-cn4-1997-99.htm

[pnwmom]

35. That is hardly the whole industrialized world.

And if you read the entries, you see Rangel's proposal doesn't resemble any of them.

Just glancing through, I can see that Brazil, for example, exempts anyone who is in college or has a job! Other countries only draft a small fraction of eligibles and have a draft period of 4 or 6 or 9 months. Many exempt women. And, of course, "conscripts" in some of these countries know that the chance they will actually see combat is virtually nil.

[Demeter]

9. They Have Mandatory National Service (But NO Desire To Make War)

and that's why we can't have a mandatory national service law. Until there's some kind of short-circuit to prevent wars of opportunity, and war for corporate profiteering, and wars to boost re-election campaigns, and wars to annex oil fields, and wars on drugs, and what-have-you, there is no way any sane person would support it.

If the military is ONLY for defense against attack on American soil by foreign power, then it is feasible.

And 9/11 could have been handled the same way as the previous attack on the World Trade Center was: a criminal act, prosecuted in the courts, investigated by FBI, etc.

[dbonds]

12. I never put health care and national service together before, but...

now that I have: That is actually a great justification for having national health care, if everyone had to some type of national service. That ends the arguments that people don't deserve free health care. I have always supported national health care, and never wanted to serve in military, but setting up the system this way would make me think of the service as payment of sorts for the health care. There would need to be a non military (or at least non fighter path)to service to make that a viable option though.

[emanymton]

18. Free National Health Care Is A Right ...

as is free public education. The people in USA have the right to expect nothing less from their leaders than to press forward with a complete system design to care and help the people. Public service 'draft' can be tool to assist all into making the system working for the benefit of the people.

The concept of required national service does not have to be exclusively service in the military. National health care is not the only area where people could serve society. It is important but not the only one. So much needs to be improved by positive leadership.

[INdemo]

10. Rangel mentioned the draft and the Republicans found a weapon

Rangel has given the Republicans an issue that could hurt the Democrats in 2008. I can just hear it now.."Elect a Democrat and we will see the draft reinstated". Karl Rove will use this issue because a very large majority of Americans dont want to even think about a draft.I dont thnk any draft legislation will ever pass but we cant be sure.But still it is now an issue and the Repukes will use it in the name of fear.

[enough already]

11. Worst....idea....ever

Rangel is politically tone deaf at best, and a complete fucking moron at worst. A military draft is NOT what we stand for. Kudos to Pelosi for trying to slap down this stupidity, but she has her work cut out for her holding back the tide given some of the pro-draft sentiment here. God help the Democratic Party...

[INdemo]

14. Well when Rangel mentioned the draft all of the MSM talking heads

smiled and raised their glasses for a toast to Rangel.The point is the media will run with this issue until a day after forever.It was really very stupid for him to open up this can of worms..The Republicans are like vulchers just waiting to pounce on anything they can use against the Democrats or any Democratic leader.I dont believe a draft bill would ever pass but the Republicans now have some ammo to begin replenishing their arsenal with.

[beaconess]

23. When Charlie Rangel raised the issue, the MSM actually started talking about who

is serving and who isn't and, for the first time, there have been real discussions about how so many of those who support the war aren't making any sacrifices.

And, thanks to Rangel, there will be hearings on the issue and the war's biggest Republican pushers will be exposed as the opportunistic hypocrites that they are.

The only people in this discussion who are tone deaf are those who can only see everything in black and white and have knee-jerk reactions to any approach that has more subtlety, depth and sophistication than simply screaming "I HATE GEORGE BUSH!"

Charles Rangel - hardly a novice - knows just what he's doing and he's doing it masterfully.

Bravo, Charlie - well done!

[pnwmom]

36. The average American will only read the headlines.

"Top Democrat fights for draft."

But he doesn't care because he'll get credit for this in the only place that matters -- his own district.

[beaconess]

39. So Democrats shouldn't say anything with more depth than a headline

because people won't understand?

I'm sorry, but I expect my leaders to have more complex thoughts and comments.

Besides, I don't think Democrats are as stupid as you seem to think they are.

And I'm not in Rangel's district, but I give him lots of credit for what he's doing - and so do a lot of others around the country.

[pnwmom]

41. This is all a publicity stunt, as he has admitted. So he should

have been more careful not to make a stand in a way that is likely to backfire on all of us.

[beaconess]

43. He didn't say it's a "publicity stunt" - he said he's doing it to highlight the issue

and provoke discussion. Which he is doing very effectively. And he's not done yet. There will be hearings and analysis and further debate about the hypocrisy, inequity and lack of sacrifice, as well as the profiteering, prevalent in the Iraq War.

Nothing has backfired on us at all. We're also smart enough as a party to counter any misinformation put forth by the GOP.

Why do you have a problem with our openly discussing this issue? Why do you think we're supposed to shut up and not say anything because we might make the GOP mad? It's not like they will leave us alone if we talk about something else they like better instead.

[pnwmom]

44. He's doing it only for the publicity, which makes it a publicity stunt.

[beaconess]

45. Your continued insistence on mischaracterizing what Rangel says and does

shows the speciousness of your argument.

First, you claimed that he "admitted" this was a "publicity stunt." When I pointed out that he did no such thing, you now claim he's only doing it for the "publicity." That, too, is a falsehood.

But you obviously think we're all supposed to just shut up and not bring up any issue that the GOP doesn't want us to talk about since they might use it against us and anyone who does so is just engaging in "publicity stunts."

Fortunately, everyone doesn't feel that way. And I'm glad that Democrats are willing to continue pushing these issues, despite naysayers like you who don't seem to have a clue about the value of the bully pulpit.

[pnwmom]

46. I don't appreciate my sons being used as PAWNS

in the service of people who have issues they want to address.

Find another way.

[emanymton]

26. Leave GOP In Dust. - Identify The Problem, Find A Solution and ...

Work toward solving the problem! Use your talents to solve the problem. Be active in your leadership, let the GOP be reactive. In a year from now the plan will be working and the issues will be being solved.

May I suggest not worrying about what the GOP will say. They are going to make up their lies no matter what happens. Get away from the beltway mentality.

[pnwmom]

37. I am less worried about what the GOP will say and more worried

about what the American public will THINK. They will be angry because they elected us to end the war in Iraq, not to open up the possibility of even larger scale combat in more parts of the world by starting a draft.

They will feel betrayed, and they'll be justified.

[DemBones DemBones]

15. Everyone should read Thom Hartman's article

supporting Thomas Jefferson's support of national service. Switzerland does it the way Jefferson wanted; all able-bodied men are required to serve in a local militia and have a firearm in their home. In case Switerland ever needed an army, all the militias would be joined together. This way, they have their need for defense covered but they don't maintain a standing army.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

"As president, Jefferson again tried to revive his argument. He slashed the size of the army to just over 3000 soldiers, closing forts and cutting costs. But he couldn't kill off the army altogether, because the citizen's militia had never been formalized at a federal level.

After he left office, Jefferson came to the conclusion that if he couldn't get rid of the army, then every man should be a member of it, if only for a brief time. This would insure diversity of opinions in the army, and minimize the chances of a military coup or a military culture that could become so powerful it would influence the government or seduce the president into playing commander-in-chief too often in foreign adventures.

Jefferson was also morally offended by the idea of an army that people would join only because they were so poor there was no other way to get an education and a job (for such people, he wanted universal free public education, including free college tuition - which he brought into being when he founded the University of Virginia).

He wrote his thoughts on the topic in a June 18, 1813 letter to his old friend and future president James Monroe.

"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies," he wrote, pleased that his army had taken on a different nature during his tenure as President, just completed five years earlier. "But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings."

Read the rest at:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/576

[ClassWarrior]

16. I used to think Freeps were the only ones so afraid to discuss ideas...

...that they'd make idiotic accusations like this just to avoid doing so.

NGU.

[emanymton]

29. So Join In The Discussion.

Discussing the issue of a draft (both military and national service) shows leadership.

What will you have people do, remain silent in fear of what the GOP will say?

Lead the discussion and let the GOP react.

[enough already]

34. Seems to me that the issue is being discussed

Perhaps you don't like people vocally opposing your point of view. Sorry, but I refuse to bow down and kiss Charlie Rangel's ass everytime he proposes something this utterly stupid.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

20. I am totally against a Draft. Even for "Public Service."

No one should be forced into anything.

[emanymton]

27. Welcome To DU. - In The Abstract I Agree With You ...

But in the world we live, one lives with exceptions. A draft and national service are two.

[Fire Walk With Me]

22. The theft of the Treasury may force Democrats to raise taxes at some point.

That would not be popular. I wonder if moderates were voting against Bush instead of voting for Democrats, and if they were, how can we keep them on board?

Anyway, Newt and others have been spending tons of energy demonizing liberals and democrats for years now, and it's not slowing down. What is happening is that they have to be nastier and nastier in order to stay on agenda, and it's hurting them. They don't have anything positive to say, so their hollow trashing of the Democratic party will appear increasingly viscious and without substance to more and more people, an easy win for us.

[enough already]

33. One way to ensure NOT keeping them on is a draft

I think you can sell tax increases. You can't sell a soccer mom that her kids are going into the military because Charlie Rangel and Democrats said so, and oh, by the way, keep voting Democrat.

[pnwmom]

38. You're absolutely right, enough already.

You're reading this mom's mind. And I know plenty more just like me.

[LoZoccolo]

28. "what better way"? There are tons.

"Free Mumia" is like the first which comes to mind.

[ulysses]

30. true.

"Ditch your traditional allies and coopt your opponent's ideas" is another one.

[LoZoccolo]

31. Or being obnoxious.

I remember that Dean lost Iowa because people were fed up with being inundated with orange hats.

[beaconess]

40. LOL - ain't that the truth?

[noamnety]

32. Here's how I would destroy it:

Instant Runoff Voting.

[Kelly Rupert]

42. they'd fund the Greens.