so, how could we go about fostering center/left cooperation

[ulysses]

and end the infighting?

We talk a lot about the need for compromise in order to get anything done, especially now that we actually have at least one hand on the levers of power. Nothing much ever proceeds from that talk, though. I've made suggestions in the past, but I'm likely not the best DUer to do the specifics given my status as a bomb-throwing lefty. :)

So make some suggestions, DU! What are some areas of common understanding, beyond party identification, on which we can move forward and actually realize more of this community's potential?

[bahrbearian]

1. Make the Center come talk to the left.. don't bring them a cake.

[ulysses]

2. I don't think they're coming

without the cake, though.

[bahrbearian]

3. Then just talk to them on the porch, don't invite them in.

The Left wing Bloggers won this victory, not the DlC

[ulysses]

4. I'm not disagreeing with you on that

and I'm not talking about the DLC particularly (you can search my old posts for my feelings about From and his merry gang), but I do think a meeting of minds and efforts would be good, if we can bring it about fairly, between progressives and Dem centrists.

[LoZoccolo]

5. If people have an unpopular or not-widely-known position...

...they should take responsibility for making it popular or known, rather than blaming Democrats for representing more popular concerns and punishing people for not sharing their opinions by imposing or threatening to impose Republicans on them.

[ulysses]

7. that's helpful.

Guess I'm not on ignore any more, huh? :)

[CrispyQ]

6. I would like to know what far left means.

What values & policies fall under the heading of far left vs. center? I hear people use the term 'far left' like it's a bad thing & I wonder what is it about being far left that is bad?

Are the values listed in the essay "A Day in the Life of Joe Conservative" far left? Is it far left to want corporate money & vote counting systems out of our elections? Is it far left to expect rich people to pay more into a system that benefits them more? Is it far left to want our citizens, ALL OF THEM, to have access to good health care?

Is it far left to expect everyone to sacrifice something for the common good?

[ulysses]

8. that's an eye of the beholder thing, I think.

:)

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Stick to economic populism. We can all agree on that.

Once we've made society as good as possible for as many as possible, broaden the battlefield.

[ulysses]

10. can we?

There are a number of folks who wouldn't agree with what I consider economic populism, given my opposition to NAFTA & CAFTA, etc. Compromise is possible, I would think, but how?

[Zodiak]

19. I agree, lumberjack.

The blue dogs and the progressive coalition can agree on those principes. The DLC, on the other hand...

There is no viable coalition within the Democratic party that can work on social issues, unfortunately. The DLC is all over the place on social issues (mostly conservative, though), and the blue dogs are conservative on social issues. The progressives are, of course, more liberal. all together, it is a pretty even split...but the Republicans win in the end because they can caucus with half of the Dems on social issues.

But economic populism is the key to a unified Democratic message. And it will justifiably marginalize and eventually replace the DLC. One party in this country should stand for economic justice, and it should be us (the Dems).

[nodular]

45. Maybe that's a little pessimistic.

The Blue Dogs are projecting 44 members for their caucus. The Progressives are projecting 70, according to a recent DU post. It seems to me that the other Democratic caucuses are in between the two, but generally on the left of the spectrum.

I think the Blue Dogs will pick a few key issues they feel they can get a compromise on from the leadership and get some legislation they actually want, stake out a small number of other issues where they feel they have to remain in opposition regardless of external factors (because these issues are too central to their core beliefs), and go along with the leadership on everything else.

A simple majority can pass legislation in the House, which the Democrats should now be able to do. In the Senate, the Republicans can filibuster if they have 40 votes. Everything that passes the Senate will probably require Republican cooperation.

Of course, it is unlikely that anything can be veto-proof at this point. here, Bush's reluctance to veto things should work in the Democrats favor. Presumably, he will be the vetoing more frequently, but I believe he will also try pretty hard to find things that he can avoid vetoing.

[Greyhound]

27. Did you see this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2986503&mesg_id=2986503

What common ground will we have to compromise from? The two theories are diametrically opposed.

[EST]

11. Probably the only real way to accomplish this task is one in

which the congressional will overrides the voting public's will. Feingold might get behind it, but you can almost count the others on the thumbs of one hand.

That solution is, of course, end the system of unlimited corporate financing. No more quasi-legal bribery through the use of corporatism advocates - lobbyists.

The trickle down or kiss down, kick up results of this change would be in these areas:

The billions of dollars that corporatism feeds to politicians, by rights, should go into the tax coffers.
Why? With the huge bribe supports flowing to campaigns cut off, those campaigns will have to be publicly financed and paygo demands that the bread comes from somewhere.

This will get very messy, but cleaning up this terrible corruption has to actually include changes.

This is going to fall into some re-regulation and rules changes, the most important of these is that
we can demand a new tone in campaigning, that civility and lack of spin (lying) are the watchwords, with offenders subject to disqualification and ejection.

There is a lot more we need to advocate, all of which are fairly simple but complicated in the aggregate.

One of the things that would be a credit to the folks that get it passed and would knit up a lot of rifts would be to eliminate social security!
Yup, I'm flippin' crazy, but heres how to do it, giving republicans a week long orgasm.

Take the stock market, all of them, and cut it in half. One half goes to the investing wizards to play with the other half being sliced up into three hundred million pieces-each one assigned to a citizen.
Each month the market is analyzed and averaged over that month and those shares pay a dividend-just barely enough to get by, if that person is frugal and that share cannot be assigned, although it would have a voting value that an entrepreneur could campaign for your support by voting your block his way.
This is pretty airy-fairy, pie in the sky, and outside the flow of consequences from breaking the grip of corporatism.

Another benefit of public financing this way is that the huge hunk of campaign cash that is transferred to wingnut multi media owners is greatly reduced and evened out.
A side effect of this, as well as re-institution of the fairness doctrine, would be that media outlets would become more accessible and affordable for smaller investors, again reducing the friction between ideologies.

Edited to add: the neato effect would also accrue-defunding of the DLC-whodathunkit?

[ulysses]

12. agreed on ending the corporate influence

but could we even come together as a party on that?

[EST]

14. Depends on how seriously the new ethics broom sweeps.

On December 14, 2005, a group of primarily democratic house members presented a list of fourteen ar fifteen ethics rules, which they promised would be put in place when the shifting winds of politics permitted it.

Standing out in this presentation was the issue of transparency. All financials will be posted on the internet, campaign and otherwise. A system to at least start on this is supposed to be abuilding right now, with testing next year and roll out early 2008.

The other standout was that every bill has to be posted online, for public perusal, for 72 hours prior to floor debate--no exceptions. This would clip ear marking and illegal bill changes, such have been an ultimate low point in the culture of corruption.

Both of these should promote bi-partisanship and reduce rancor, eliminating a lot of garbage campaigning.

Reducing campaigning to three months, insisting that representatives come to town and stay-no more tuesday through thursday workweeks-and thus eliminating the eighteen month campaign for a two year assignment.

This would promote family togetherness by allowing the congress critters the time to get together a lot more-getting more work done as well.

[ulysses]

13. to clarify:

What I'm hoping for here is a concrete example of compromise between Dem center and Dem left (in current usage - let's say the center would be Bayh, the left Feingold, roughly). What's the issue, and how could we move the logjam so that both "sides" get something?

[EST]

15. See above-dump the dlc.

Whatever you think of the dlc, they are responsible for a lot of the conflict between dem houses. They even were the source of trouble around campaign financing, with Carville and Emanuel acting like assholes and trying to kick Dean around. Their goal, of course, was to get a dlc worm installed as dnc chair, thus putting them in cortrol af all the marbles, dnc, dscc and dccc.

And all the cabbage.

[wyldwolf]

17. how about dump "progressives?"

Their unbending "my way or the highway, I refuse to compromise" MO cost, or nearly cost, Democrats elections in '48, '68, '72, and 2000. They also contributed to negative public perception of the party in 1980.

[EST]

48. That could work.

The problem is that "progressives" are people, whereas the dlc is an organization that, due to corporatism funding and thereby the accumulation of influence beyond what the numbers should indicate, gives people-voters-less and less choice as to representatives.

The restriction or elimination of corporate bribery would return more power to the voters and help to reverse the accumulating fascism.

The various politicians involved would compete on a more level field and, hopefully, make the effort to form a more coherent whole.

[Morgana LaFey]

32. I'm leery of "compromise"

because in politics it seems to mean:

* the left loses something, and it's usually something important if not vital
* as a result things just keep lurching rightward and i'm sick of that, nor can the country really stand much more

The so-called "center" is under the delusion that the nation is "center." It's not. It's leftward leaning and always has been, always will be. We believe in fairness, equality, helping those less fortunate, etc., and that's not where the center is.

Further, the "center" are really pro-corporatist, and that's already anti-American and anti-democracy because it's inherently fascist.

No, don't want no compromise. I'm all for win/win situations, I've just never seen any in politics that didn't end up hurting people that didn't need no more hurt in their lives.

[ulysses]

37. it's too bad that that has become the working definition

of compromise. I know what you mean, but I had something more genuine in mind.

I'm told, though, that this isn't going to do anything, so never mind. :)

[wyldwolf]

16. for starters... in respects to DU...

...end the anti-DLC/anti-centrist threads. How often do you see anti-progressive threads? Answer: ONLY as a response to the former.

No one here can make statements with impunity.

See, Ulysses, you can't even start a goodwill thread without someone (post 15) taking a swipe. Swipes I feel compelled more and more to respond to in kind.

[ulysses]

18. #15 wasn't the first swipe.

LoZo added his $.02 upthread.

Besides, I can no more stop anti-DLC threads than you can make From and Wittman be more inclusive. I'd like to think that we could have a productive discussion regardless (which would likely serve better to create more understanding than a prohibition on thread topics anyway), but maybe not.

[wyldwolf]

20. sure it was

In respects to people who hold unfamiliar or unpopular positions, it should be up to them to make those known instead of attacking others for the positions they hold.

And, of course, I don't think you can stop anti-DLC threads, but then again, you can't really do anything to foster a better environment on the topic of your OP.

In regards to productive discussion, I attempted one last summer. Simple premise. Without launching into the typical anti-DLC tirades, offer up sensible alternative policy proposals from progressive groups like PDA. You would have thought I insulted everyone's mother with that request.

[ulysses]

21. ah well.

Thought I'd give it a shot.

[wyldwolf]

22. you're admired for doing so

[ulysses]

25. yeah, that and fifty cents

Back to the usual fun, then.

[Greyhound]

24. Typical. The answer is always to suppress dissent, with you guys.

Suppression, repression, and prohibition, are the answers to all of the problems this country faces, if we don't allow any discussion, there isn't any problem.

[wyldwolf]

29. personal attacks and broad brush smears aren't "dissent." You want to dissent?

... then offer compelling and factual alternatives to the DLC.

[Greyhound]

35. So you can ignore them and try to change the issue? Been down that road with you before. n/t

[wyldwolf]

39. what issue have I changed?

[Greyhound]

23. Not likely because "the center", as you call it, is not the center of anything

other than an irrational desire to subjugate the world under a corporate banner. Theirs is the philosophy of capitalistic collectivism.

Compromise is a two way street and they are unwilling to engage. Face it, they are reich-wing ideologues masquerading as Democrats in order to subvert any progress toward equality.

[Roialus]

28. Back the Bus up...

O rly?

I'm of the opinion that nonsensical oppositional paranoid rhetoric such as I see in that post is one of the major reasons why the center and left can't work together. If you aren't willing to give them a modicum of respect (and assume that they are malicious rather than simply mistaken), they'll understandably be reluctant to work with you.

[wyldwolf]

30. welcome to DU ...

... where paranoia is king.

[Greyhound]

31. Why is it always the progressives or liberals that are expected to do

all the compromising? That is capitulation and we are living the result of that surrender.

[wyldwolf]

33. certainly don't know how you gather that

The very definition of "centrism" involves compromise.

By the same token, the ideologically rigid (both left and right) are known for threatening to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way.

[Greyhound]

36. "Centrist" health care - force people to buy insurance they can ill afford

from corporate "providers" that refuse to provide, so that corporate profits are not effected. Offer tax credits that cannot be used by the majority of uninsured because they already fall below the income threshold.

"Centrist" campaign reform - take away free dinners while leaving the system of legalized bribery in place so we can maintain the revolving door between government regulation and the industry they regulated (remember how both Cheney and Rumsfeld have made their millions)

These are "centrist solutions".

[wyldwolf]

38. prime example you just gave

The right's position is ZERO government involvement in healthcare.
The left's is 100% government funded healthcare.

Of course, both want their way and won't settle for compromise. Unfortunately for both the left and the right, compromise on most issues will happen.

[many a good man]

42. Your response is 100% off the mark

The mighty scary American left. :sarcasm: Find me five Democrats on the Hill who propose that the govt take over 100% of health insurance costs and 100% of medical services delivery. You can't. They don't exist.

What you will find are dozens of non-ideological pragmatists who are willing to look at other countries for lessons in molding a health care system that can meet the needs of its citizens in the 21st century. The current "system" certainly can not.

You'll see some with ideas for gradually expanding MediCare to help cover 90+% of those who can't afford the current for-profit health insurance system. You see some who look at ALL the rich countries and a large number of medium-wealth countries who have turned over insurance to the government, but leave hospitals and providers in the private (single payer). You won't find any who advocate socializing health care top to bottom.

The so-called "leftists" you see would be considered centrists in just about any other country on this planet. You see people who are looking for solutions to life and death problems and who ARE willing to compromise. Your broad-brush attacks are (for the most part) way off the mark, wolf.

[wyldwolf]

43. I think yours is

Find me five Democrats on the Hill who propose that the govt take over 100% of health insurance costs and 100% of medical services delivery. You can't. They don't exist.

True - because they know better. But there is very few on the Hill that represent the views of the "American left." But there are plenty on DU advocating a complete single payer system.

[many a good man]

44. More Americans than politicians support single-payer

Surveys show more than half of Americans support a Canadian-style single payer system. Where are their representatives in Washington? They're not there because Congress is far to the right of the average American citizen. They keep mum so as not to upset their corporate donors.

Democrats and independents on the whole support a mix of "liberal" and "conservative" positions. Liberal positions have been muted the past 25 years, mostly due to the big money boys and the fawning press. People are starting to demand change. Populist politicians supporting liberal economic policies can win big in "conservative" states.

[Greyhound]

46. "It is very difficult to make a person understand, when their salary depends

on not understanding." I think that was Mark Twain, but it sums up the problem. You say there are no politicians advocating the position of a significant number of citizens, as if it indicates a problem with the citizens, when people who do not depend on "not understanding" see quite clearly where the problem lies.

[Solon]

47. Do you even know what a single payer system IS?

The Government takes over for the INSURANCE side of the equation, not necessarily the service side of it. It is Medicare for all, basically, the Government uses tax money you pay in as a "premium" of sorts, for a non-profit government run organization that will then dispense funds to hospitals, pharmacies, etc. to pay for your health care. This saves money for each individual(only one plan means a HUGE pool of "customers"), and also, the Government can then negotiate, fairly, with Pharmaceuticals and health care providers for fair market prices for said services and products. This is the system most people in this country can get behind, hell, the majority already support it!

[Morgana LaFey]

34. THANK you. Much better said than my pitiful attempt upthread.

:thumbsup:

And so damn true it makes my teeth hurt.

[Clark2008]

26. Listen to Aretha Franklin: R-E-S-P-E-C-T

find out what it means to me.

[LWolf]

40. Nice idea.

I can see things are going smoothly here, lol.

How about if both sides agree on the following:

hand-counted paper ballots
fairness doctrine
restore civil liberties lost under the patriot act
no corporate personhood
100% publicly financed campaigns; no outside donors, no PACS, etc.. leaving a level playing field where issues count more than war chests funded by special interests.

[ulysses]

41. it's my biennial compulsion to tilt at windmills.

:D

I think your offering provides a decent basis on which to start. We'll see if it draws any other response...