The "Left" and the Elections

[bigtree]

Does the Left have to show that it can actually win national elections before we follow them? What does the left think of the majority of voters who don't vote for their candidates?

Does the Left serve itself by unleashing such scorn on those who disagree with them? Isn't the Left's power in effecting change dependent on building coalitions?

How can the Left build necessary coalitions at the same time it is trashing the elected majority? They scorn the compromises made by the majority, but doesn't the Left need to coalesce if they want to further their agenda in our political system of compromise?

Here's an old article that expresses my concerns:

The "Left" and the Elections
By Magali Sarfatti Larson
Sep 2, 2003
http://www.mikehersh.com/The_Left_and_the_Elections.shtml

If one more "progressive" informs me with ponderous self-indulgence that "Dean is not on the left" (thank you for the news) I will stop even listening to anything that calls itself "from the left." The Greens talk as if this was still "business as usual," cocksure that they pushed Gore "to the left!" (No evidence needs to be given, right?). Dream on!

>>>

We can go on dealing with our not too coherent utopias and symbolic ideal principles (let's endorse a woman candidate - never mind her record - let's support a black candidate because he is black, let's run Ralph Nader ... who cares if we use resources and energy in "advancing" principles that died on the branch after the last "spoiler campaign" of 2000?).

The fact is that we do not have anything resembling a set of clear ideas for an extremely complicated world. Much of the "left" refuses to analyze what the larger sections of the public actually think, or feel, or know (isn't it that 62% still believe Iraq attacked us on September 11? and 59% agree the invasion of Iraq was "worth it"?).

In fact, we can think what we like and deal in political talk that has absolutely no effect, because we don't have the remotest hope or even the faintest illusion of ever coming close to governing. This irrelevance and ideological disconnect has become the hallmark of the American "left" and the rest of the world knows it well.

[Dennis Quaranta]

1. Patronizing, and Wrong

This Mike Hersh person - whoever he is - is using a strawman argument to define the Left as out of touch. The reference to coffee houses is a dead giveaway. He means coffee houses full of beatniks.

We need to stop pandering to the right wing. The definition of the Left, the one offered by Herbert Marcuse, is much simpler. Marcuse defines the political spectrum as comprised of the people in power extending to the people who have no power.

[bigtree]

2. Hersh is a good writer and a Democrat

Here's another for some insight as to where he is coming from:

Why Vote Straight Democrat?
By Mike Hersh
Nov 4, 2002
http://www.mikehersh.com/Why_Vote_Straight_Democrat.shtml

"Republican policies -- written by industry lobbyists and "religious" right wing bigots -- hurt regular Americans by accident and design. Their extreme agenda keeps us down and divided. They distract working and middle class people with "wedge" issues like guns, gays and gestation while they plot to give $billions of our tax dollars to idle rich Republican supporters and off-shore corporations.

Republicans don't respect voting rights, separation of church and state, freedom of speech or checks and balances. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and even without absolute power the right wing extreme is more than corrupt enough already.

"Sending a message" with votes hurt progressives in 2000. That's a luxury we can't afford this time. This is a key election. It may be our last election. Vote Democrat this time, so you will have a chance to vote next time.

Vote against Bush, but also for a better America. Convince as many people as you can to vote proudly for Democrats and for themselves."




MikeHersh.com invites you to reproduce, reprint or broadcast any material at this site, provided you identify the as MikeHersh.com. All Internet and email summaries, excerpts or other written reproductions must include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

3. Left policies do work

just look at the new deal and FDR policies

[bigtree]

4. I meant something like the writer cited, 'Left of Dean'

Greens, Nader, and the like. Progressives. I don't want to pigeonhole the left.

But some are asserting that many of the inituitives of the Democratic party are too far right. I am mostly satisfied with the fights our Democratic leadership has fought in the face of a republican majority. I want more, but I am satisfied with the vision and committment of our party to achieve its goals.

The presidency would be a good start.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

5. Marking this to comment tomorrow

I have something to say but I'm too pooped.

[jazzsammich]

6. good idea.

i'm doing the same.

--jim k

got 3 hours to sleep before i'm up again. ugh.

[bigtree]

7. My wife says that politics reminds her of her granddad's cuckoo clock

You could open the face, stick in the key and wind it by hand, and that old clock would run for a day and a half.

If you were in a hurry, you could pull down one of two chains that hung there with metal pine cones on the ends and that would wind the clock for the day. And of course, the next day you would have to come back and pull the other side of the chain down.

You can wind me up. Or if you are in a hurry, you can pull on one of my chains. Cuckoo! :)

[enki23]

8. mike hersh is a conniving lil' shit

who used to post at DU. has quite a rovian streak, at least in intent, but he doesn't seem good enough at it to get very far. he got caught in a silly little scheme and went *poof,* for some reason, not long after.

[bigtree]

9. Not that I can dicern from his site. He wrote two reasonable pieces here

He seems like a committed Democrat. Can you address the points without trashing the writer?



edit: This is rovian?:

Bush is Beatable, Pass it On.
By Mike Hersh and E. O'Connell
Jan 1, 2004

"The Bush White House always puts their political interests over the public good. Now, they're even intentionally endangering our national security to further their cover-ups."
http://www.mikehersh.com/Bush_is_Beatable.shtml

[enki23]

11. i *can* address whatever points i choose to address

doesn't mean i'll be correct. and should i fail to address them well, it doesn't mean *they* are correct. but that's all obvious, or should be. i'm not an authority on many things. others here are saying as much as i would. i'll let them handle that end of the argument.

see, zell miller is right about some things, sometimes, as well. so is george w bush. i don't feel the need to congratulate either of them for it, and i don't feel the need to preface anything i might say about them with "while <foo> is sometimes correct in saying...".

i'm not making it my job to stifle the asshole, but i feel perfectly at ease calling the asshole an asshole. i can find other writers who say the same and more. his endless tirades against "the left" left me with a bad taste in my mouth a long time ago, and even if he *weren't* a slimy fuck i'd disagree with him as often as not. yes, some my reasons are personal as much as political. i'm perfectly at ease with that too.

[bigtree]

16. Sorry about you and Mike Hersh. I don't want to get in the middle of that

I do feel that if we take an all or nothing approach to politics we may well find ourselves throwing stones from the outside. That may be acceptable to some but I can think of much worse than Democrats. And I think that we have to take some responsibility for how our message is recieved by the voting public. And we need to take responsibility for ensuring that in our rigid opposition we don't knock our party down, and in our refusal to unify, make way for the right-wing to dominate.

If the Left can't maintain a national majority of support it will either have to stand alone or unify with those in the Democratic party who will work to further their agenda. I worry that the Left seems to be satisfied with the notion of standing alone. If we cannot unify, then we will all be on the outside.

"What a hundred years is not enough to build, one day is more than enough to destroy."

[IrateCitizen]

18. But there's an alternative perspective you're ignoring

I worry that the Left seems to be satisfied with the notion of standing alone.

There are many on the left (myself included) who feel that their votes are taken for granted while the Democratic Party drifts further and further right by playing within the parameters defined by the right-wing, and we wonder quite often if our votes are actually going toward stopping this rightward drift, or helping to enable it.

You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

And for the record, as someone who was here also during Mike Hersh's time on this site -- he is an autocrat who would often resort to name-calling, denigration and ad-hominem as his means for dealing with anyone who dared disagree with him. Hearing about the need for the left to unify with everyone else from Mike Hersh is just about as convincing to me as calls for "bipartisanship" and "unity" from the Bush Administration.

[bigtree]

28. I hear you. I don't cotton to that kind of debate

I apologize for my ignorance of Hersh's digressions.

[Iverson]

10. same ol' same ol'

Define the left as utopian and out of touch, and you will conclude, unamazingly, that the left is utopian and out of touch.

Likewise, project being cocksure into the Greens, and believing becomes seeing. If that particular straw man (Greens pulled Dems left) were true, I doubt we'd see Kucinich and Sharpton marginalized in their own party, even by so-called progressives here on DU.

I understand the argument that pandering to ignorance may be politically wise in the short term, but that still does not make it either true or a good idea to suggest that preventive invasion is peachy keen or even that angels walk among us.

I, too, decry a lack of clear ideas, to which Mr. Hersh is clearly contributing. That is the predictable result of pandering to the day's majority.

[bigtree]

12. What do you conclude from the small amount of support that the left

is able to gather in national elections? Does this speak to the acceptability of their message?

How can the Left achieve anything of its agenda and still hold fast to its principles in our political system of compromise? Or should the like minded be satisfied with their agitation from the outside with an 'all or nothing' approach to politics?

Also if there are marginal gains resulting from that agitation, how does the Left acknowledge that and still maintain its rigidity and independence? Doesn't the first compromise they make put them in the same position as those they decry?

We can argue about individual issues, pro or con, but I don't want constant agitation. And I think half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. I don't think it makes any sense to let the dog in while you are busy throwing the cat out.

[xchrom]

13. how much to the left do you think

the democratic party would move at all if it weren't for leftist activists in the party and the constant shit they kick around?
it's flok who refuse to remain complacent about the state of the world who gets things moving.
mr hersh presents the left with the notion that now and forever the only party the left can ever appeal to is the democratic party and that in the end leftists are out of touch with real americans .
what arrogant hogwash -- the left is now and always as much real, regular america as anyone else.
and if the left bitches and moans and supports the rights of gay people and other sordid out of touch topics then i suggest mr hersh contemplate winning elections without the lefts involvemnt at all.

[Iverson]

14. a few things

What I conclude, though is probably not with your set of warrants.

I conclude that the left is a harbinger of progress. For example, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act and so on were not concocted one day by centrists. They were the result of a combination of efforts both within and without electoral politics. Therefore, the voice of the left in electoral politics is essential for some kind of civilized progress. It is a minimum, but not sufficient condition.

I disagree that the left is a monolithic bloc that insists upon "all or nothing." That is a convenient misrepresentation.

I think that "acceptability" is not a neutral quality that bursts forth spontaneously from nature. It is up to each of us to decide what is acceptable, and that is not necessarily limited by what was accepted in the past. Thus, Brown vs. Bd. of Education (1954) was possible even when conventional wisdom may have dismissed it as unacceptable.

"Doesn't the first compromise they make put them in the same position as those they decry?"

Of course not. That would only be true if a silly caricature were accepted.

It doesn't have to be you who constantly agitates. Maybe your help in getting a place at the table would be nice, though.

[IrateCitizen]

15. You can't get support if you aren't heard

The discourse of the mainstream media is set up in a manner to completely shut out voices of "the left". Instead, it operates within the boundaries of "conventional wisdom" -- which places its boundaries somewhere around the center and the far right.

Just look at cable news shows if you want a good example -- Crossfire, for instance. On the right, you have Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak. Both are hard-core, right-wing conservatives. But who is on the "left"? James Carville and Paul Begala, two former Clinton advisors.

Judging by this, I would have to assume that Bill Clinton is the view of the "left". But he's not (and neither are Carville nor Begala) -- he's really a total centrist.

So, the end debate is not between right and left, but right and center. However, when the public discerns this as being between "right and left" (because, after all, that is how it is sold), they come to view the center-right as actually being the center.

It doesn't matter whether or not they, personally, would be inclined to support progressive policies -- since those views are not discussed within the news media, they tend to dismiss them out of hand, and instead opt for the more "mainstream" views.

For another instance, just look at media coverage in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. During that entire time, there were plenty of advocates of neoimperialism (Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Bill Kristol, the entire Bush Administration) who were given endless exposure on all of the news shows in order to pimp their schemes. Debate on the invasion was not framed in a manner of whether or not it should happen, but rather under what pretext. There were no true representatives of "the left" who were given any time in order to present a case of why an invasion was just plain wrong. Instead, we saw many current and former Democratic officials who were presented as the "left" view whose difference was merely the timetable of invasion rather than the basic question of whether such unilateralist policy was wrong or right.

But, don't take my word for all of this. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman have done some invaluable work on the role of the media in framing the debate and pushing a certain perspective. You can find an excerpt of their work, Manufacturing Consent by clicking on the following link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

It's about ten pages, but it presents an interesting case of the propaganda model of the supposedly "free" media here in the United States. I highly suggest you read it for starters. If your interest is picqued, another good Chomsky work on the same subject is Propaganda and the Public Mind.

And if you're predisposed against Chomsky, I can assure you that these works are more in line with his work as a linguist -- they don't revert to the detailed analysis of US foreign policy quite as much, with the accompanying debatable conclusions.

[bigtree]

23. So in order to prevent the message from being compromised

in what you feel is a middle to right atmosphere, you would maintain a hard tack to the left to counter that.

And I gather that you feel that if the media were more balanced than the public would be more in tune with the Left's agenda, thus garnering more support in these national contests.

I feel that it is the public who pulls to the center in these national elections with their votes. Not some conspiratorial force of media. People are as informed as they ever were. The voters are to be credited (or blamed) for the state of national affairs. They have routinely pulled to the center.

Perhaps this is a pigeonholed view of the Left. I don't mean to denegrate policies like the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act. They were the product of the left in their time. But they have become centrist ideals in our present system.

The center of the Democrat debate is not pro-war, but has argued for more of an interventionist role in Iraq than the Left. The Democratic 'centrists' are not anti-civil rights, but some have supported temporary restrictions of liberties in terror legislation and have argued against G&L marriage while supporting other human rights.

The Left is not without its contradictions. It argues for international human rights, yet is wary and unsupportive of most military interventions and shuns free trade which could open and reform neglected markets in closed, oppressive societies. It argues for free expression, yet, rightly condems expressions of hate.

There is an inherent capitulation in government. It is the instrument of our collective conscience. We must sometimes bend our priciples in our political system of compromise. That is the reality of our paticipatory democracy.

Hopefully the Left can continue grow and influence without tearing down the forest.

[IrateCitizen]

27. After reading this post of yours...

... it has really done little more than confirm what others have presented as your initial premise: the "left" should not be listened to because it is not a viable political force, and that it is not a viable force because nobody wants to listen to it.

I feel that it is the public who pulls to the center in these national elections with their votes. Not some conspiratorial force of media. People are as informed as they ever were. The voters are to be credited (or blamed) for the state of national affairs. They have routinely pulled to the center.

This is a prime example of your circular reasoning. I provided you with two examples to back up my hypothesis, which you have dismissed out of hand. But, rather than provide your own examples to back up your dismissal, you provide only your preconceived opinions on the matter, attempting to present them as fact.

"I feel that it is the public who pulls to the center...."
The center as defined by whom? Not the mainstream media, is it? Nah, nothing to see here, move along.

"People are as informed as they ever were."
About what? Laci Peterson? Elizabeth Smart? The latest castaway on Survivor? Al Gore's preference for earthtones? That George Bush is a "wartime president" who is "committed to protecting the American people"? John Kerry's latest hairstyle or the fact that Howard Dean let out an impassioned scream at a campaign rally? Do all sides of an issue even matter anymore?

"They have routinely pulled to the center."
Simply a restatement of your previous point, not any more valid than the first time.

So, your argument is essentially, the people have pulled to the center because... they have pulled to the center. It's true because it's true!

Sorry, but I am compelled to call "rubbish" on this, because that's what it is, and I won't permit you to take us for fools by trying to present it.

And I must say that I disagree with your current assessment of "centrists": "The center of the Democrat debate is not pro-war, but has argued for more of an interventionist role in Iraq than the Left. The Democratic 'centrists' are not anti-civil rights, but some have supported temporary restrictions of liberties in terror legislation and have argued against G&L marriage while supporting other human rights."

I fail to see what any of this is other than twisting in the wind. It isn't leading -- it's following. It's avoidance of controversy or challenge at any cost.

And you continue along with several misconceptions of "the left" that you once again attempt to present as some kind of factual thesis:
"It argues for international human rights, yet is wary and unsupportive of most military interventions and shuns free trade which could open and reform neglected markets in closed, oppressive societies."

First, you're damn straight that the left is wary of most military intervention, because history has shown that most military intervention has resulted in the imposition of tyrants and dictators in their wake, except when those interventions are employed in an effort to RESTORE democratic process where it once was. Additonally, most of us on the "left" look to think outside of the box, and explore other kinds of intervention than just military intervention.

Furthermore, regarding trade, you don't know what you're talking about here. Most of "the left" supports trade -- it just doesn't support a system in which the only citizenship recognized is corporate citizenship, and where profit is literally pursued at the expense of human life and dignity.

Your attempt here, and it's quite obvious, is to paint these issues as all being an either/or dichotomy without any space for nuance. It's a classic tactic used to discredit anyone on the "left" -- most often by the right wing, but it's good to see centrists using it now, too!

There is an inherent capitulation in government. It is the instrument of our collective conscience. We must sometimes bend our priciples in our political system of compromise. That is the reality of our paticipatory democracy.

And the reality of compromise is to do it in a manner than gets you a net win. Compromising to the point that it is a net loss is not compromise -- it's a degree of capitulation. While I agree that compromise is a feature of our political system, there is a time for compromise and there is a time for standing your ground. The problem with the centrists/corporatists is that they've forgotten where that line lies with the Republicans, and instead would rather concentrate their fights on the left wing.

"Hopefully the Left can continue grow and influence without tearing down the forest."

You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by just getting to the point you have sought to make with this thread -- that is: "CENTER GOOD, LEFT BAD."

But hey, thanks for at least TRYING to pretend that you were interested in a meaningful exchange. I just hope you don't take too much offense in my pointing out the disingenuity of that cooperative spirit.

Wait, on second thought... I really don't care.

[bigtree]

39. I did want a debate. I wasn't able to hold up my premise

It crumbled. I set up weak straw men that were most reasonably refuted. But I tried to hold up my premise. Don't dismiss my query as disingenuous just because you may be able to prove me wrong. You make strong rational points, and I mostly accept them. I won't defend corrupting corporatism; in the media or elsewhere. I see the results of the narrowed debate.

But realize that I truly am a longtime defender of the centrist approach to governance on most matters. I have an open mind though as I personally view most issues with a liberal bias.

Again, I'm going to take from this discussion a committment to hold our candidates to a more ambitious set of ideals, even if I feel they may or may not be acceptable (yet) to the broader public. I would ask however that we weigh our concerns against the prospect of another four years of a facist republican regime. Perhaps the Left's backbone will be a step up to the discussion and subsequent achievement of these ideals in our government.

[Iverson]

41. Consider this.

There is a great deal of mistrust between lefties and centrists right now. I could describe why I say so if you really need it, but I hope that you'll accept that as a given.
This may create a poisonous atmosphere for discussion.

One way to sidestep it is to reframe the discussion along a continuum of populism, as Armstead and others sometimes do.

As a Green, I can tell you that it is maddening when someone goes through the motions of discussion without actually listening.
We need to have forums for discussion that do not demonize our would-be allies. Unfortunately, polemics is easier, and we all have limits to our patience.

If you personally like centrism better, then I say run with it. I just object fundamentally to shutting out the discourse of the left, which I happen to prefer.

[bigtree]

42. Polemics

Guilty as charged. I am duly chastened.

Armstead. Continuum of Populism? I'm clueless

Thanks for listening! :)

[IrateCitizen]

43. On Armstead and "continuum of populism":

What Iverson is referring to is the poster named Armstead who posted on this thread, and how he consistently frames issues not in terms of right and left, but between corporatism and populism.

Corporatism is an elitist approach whereby policy is crafted first and foremost to the benefit of corporations and moneyed elites (like we have now, for all intents and purposes). Populism is an age-old philosophy that gains popular support by espousing an "us vs. them" attitude, and predominantly refers to economic issue and attempts to unite the poor, working class and middle class against the rich.

Of course, populism has been confused since the days of George Wallace, where it was seized upon by "law and order" types to reinforce wedge social issues like race and guns. But there is still a tradition of economic progressive populism in this country waiting to be seized upon. But the first step toward that is for candidates to actually stand up and fight for what they believe, and to fight in the name of the people rather than narrower economic interests.

[Iverson]

44. to clarify

In note #20 of this thread, poster Armstead has argued that the whole left-right axis misses the point. Instead, the most meaningful question is populism (vs. corporatism, I assume). It is possible to have a populism of the right wing as well as of the left wing. It is possible to have liberal corporatism as well as conservative (and worse) corporatism.

The term "continuum" was just used to imply many points along a line, not just absolute yes/no kinds of views.

FYI, I partly agree with Armstead. I think that there's plenty worth discussing in left-right terms, but that populism is also a worthwhile way of analyzing the political landscape. Thus, populists of all stripes may not like the IMF essentially moving in and negating a sovereign state's laws. Plenty of lefties and righties can agree on that, even if their visions for society are different.

Also, I am not meaning to accuse you personally of polemics, but that is undeniably the default mode of discussion, and we're all swimming in the same ocean.

[bigtree]

49. I obviously need to retreat and consider my own blather

I am intrigued by the acknowledgement of a continuum of populism of course because it gives me a legitimate seat at this table to argue that centrists also have defendable principles. Another time perhaps, when I am better informed.

(. . . as he quietly closes the page he feels fortunate to have survived his assault with his head and heart intact.)

[IrateCitizen]

50. Re: centrist populism

IMHO, as a "lefty", the two are not mutually exclusive. The problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of "centrists" within the Democratic Party have essentially become Corporatists.

And while true centrism and populism ARE compatible, corporatism and populism are not. Perhaps this could help explain why Joe Lieberman regularly expresses nothing but seething disdain for anything remotely resembling populism.

[HFishbine]

19. Circulus in demonstrando

You nailed it Iverson. It's a technique that is as disingenuous as it is effective.

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!"

Circular arguments appear a lot in debate, but they are not always so easy to spot as the example above. They are always illegitimate, though, and pointing them out in a debate round looks really good if you can do it. The best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven, and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! But they have yet to tell us why it's true."

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

[Iverson]

22. and the Golden Syllogism Award goes to ...

... (May I have the envelope, please?) ...

FX: tearing paper

... HFishbine! ...

FX: audience applause

... who proved to us that the reason a circular argument is so effective is because it's circular.

[HFishbine]

24. Thank you, thank you.

Now I know you really like me. But this award really belongs to my fans.

[bigtree]

26. Is this like labeling my argument as disingenuous?

And then discounting it?

[IrateCitizen]

32. No, your argument is disingenuous because it is circular

As was pointed out by several posters on this thread. It is disingenuous because it offers only the initial hypothesis as proof.

[bigtree]

33. Thanks for listening

[IrateCitizen]

36. I wouldn't have reached that conclusion if I DIDN'T listen

If I were to take serious issue with your line of thought and NOT express those reservations, then I would be doing myself, everyone else, and you a grave disservice. I apologize if you find my responses to be too harsh and not sugar-coated enough for your liking, but so long as you continue to perpetuate what I perceive to be serious misconceptions, I will continue to call foul on them.

[bigtree]

17. Bring it on

These are refreshing defenses. I am enlightened. Truly.

[Armstead]

20. It's not "Left" ...It's Corporatism vs. Populism

I am so f*****g sick of this shit.

When will people who dismiss the need for reform "get it?" This is not about trying to install the socialist utopia.

It's about restoring America to some semblence of democracy and actual free-enterprise capitalism from the theft of the economy, government and society by the corporatist conservatives and elite oligarchy.

Unfortunately, too many in the Democratic Party have become defacto Corporate Conservatives themselves, by buying into the same set of assumptions.

Tryng to pull the nation's "center" back to a more truly balanced center requires an admission that the system is broken and needs fixing. That's not "left." It ought to be something all Democrats would support, regardless of whetehr they are moderate liberal or Green meanie.

There's plenty of time to argue about "left" down the road. But those who dismiss all calls for honesty about the need for fundamental reform NOW as leftist utopians totally miss the point.

[charlie]

21. You SAID it

Yes, indeed! :thumbsup:

[bigtree]

25. How do you achieve that? How do you garner national support

without tearing at the center. Won't the result be the further empowering of the right as we divide. I feel that the Democratic Congress does represent the aspirations of the Left. They don't have the power or the numbers to effect those aspirations, but I don't feel that they are neglecting them either.

Most of the blame for the lack of progressivism in Congress can be laid firmly at the door of the republicans. I don't have any reservations in stating that I feel the agenda set foward by our Democratic leaders represented the best of our aspirations and was not the centrist caricacture of our leadership that has been painted by the Left.

I think there is more than enough opportunity for any of our Democratic candidates to carry that agenda forward with success. That doesn't mean that everything will be agreed on, but I am confident of our party's leaders determination and committment to further these principles that identify the left. And I am confident of our candidates determination to respect these principles also.

[enki23]

29. one thing i'll say on this issue. and that's it.

in order to garner enough support for the sort of policies "the left" has in mind, the left has to circumvent the public relations propaganda machine. approximately one in six dollars of corporate spending goes to marketing and advertising. we called that propaganda, because that's what it is, until the word became reserved for nazis only.

now i'm not saying the machine is centrally controlled. don't try to pin the conspiracy theorist crap on me, i won't stand for it. there's no conspiracy of puppetmasters. there's only power doing what is necessary to retain and increase itself. it's the nature of our game. they say so themselves, it's their dogma. and to defeat this, we have to get around the massive, *massive* barrage of this dogma.

and you can't do this, i don't think you can do this, by pouring all your support into the more benign wing of the same beast. you do that only when you have to, and perhaps right now we might have to. but we do it with our noses plugged tight, and one hand on our wallets. not because "there is no popular support for leftist politics." there is plenty of support for it, it's just that the populace doesn't know what the fuck it is. it doesn't have all the information, and doesn't (or can't) take the time to find it.

in any case, "the left" can make its own decisions. it is, on average, smarter and better informed by far than any of "the center." some make stupid decisions, others don't. but if someone on "the left" comes up with a different answer than yours, consider that it might just be because he or she wasn't asking the same question. finding the right question is fraught with more uncertainty, by far, than finding the right answer to it.

i didn't change your mind. i don't care. we, you and i, aren't asking the same questions.

[IrateCitizen]

30. enki, have I told you lately how much I love ya?

:loveya:

You just said it all, with that differentiation between "questions" and "answers". And let's face it -- it is with the "questions" and not the "answers" where true imagination lies.

And as one of the greatest questioners in modern times, Albert Einstein, said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

[bigtree]

35. I am not standing a ridgedly against your views as it might seem

by my query. I am listening and trying to learn.

I'm sorry that you see me as such an unreasonable opponent. I am open to reason. I am weighing the responses. Thanks for listening.

[IrateCitizen]

37. Might I suggest the following as an alternative question/answer?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=318929

[bigtree]

38. Fantastic argument

The Left would not serve anyone by abandoning their principles. Their hard tack then is designed to give courage to those who would shy away from populism in the face of the assault from the right.

I am inagreement that the Left can influence the debate with their principled stand. Clinton didn't talk about the deficit until Tsongas cut into his support with his message of fiscal discipline.

Similarly, there are elements of the Left's agenda that have been appropriated into this campaign. So, at the end of our nominating process we will have to decide whether these principles have been compromised and whether or not the nominee shows enough committment to these ideals. Here's hoping that our nominee represents the best of these ideals so that he has the broadest possible base of support to carry these ideals through to enactment.

I'm going to take from this discussion a committment to hold our candidates to these ideals, even if I feel they may or may not be acceptable (yet) to the broader public. I would ask however that we weigh our concerns against the prospect of another four years of a facist republican regime. Perhaps the Left's backbone will be a step up to the discussion and subsequent achievement of these ideals in our government.

[Armstead]

34. Once again....

The core issue in all of this is not "left."

It is about the extreme control a handful of corporate monopolists have gained. This has skewed everything.

Correcting that is not a left agenda. It's at the core of why so many are suffering from falling wages, job insecurity, lack of healthcare, etc. It also is why Big Media has assumed so much control with no competition or accountability.

Addressing this is not "left."

[bigtree]

45. I won't disagree with that

I won't defend the corporatism of our media or our government.

Do all issues that garner support in the Center stem from corporatism? Are there issues that polarize just on the merits?

I want to ask if you think Centrists are inherently corrupt, or do you see any redeeming principles in their political positions on any issue?

[xchrom]

47. armstead, irate citizen, and enki in one thread

feels like the old days.
part of what is missing in this thread is the idea that the democratic party is the establishment. they are part and parcel of corporatism.
and therefore part of an extreme agenda -- i.e. nafta while originally a democratic party proposition has been shown to be harmful horizontally and vertically -- but you don't find democrat legislators abandoning it.
the list you present, armstead, falling wages etc, have not raised the ire of democrats in control the way it should if the democrats were true leftists as is so often touted in the world we live.
i would contend that centrists are a version of conservatism -- centrists don't look for change more than a conservative -- but can be dragged to a change in order not to be unseated.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

40. Amen!

Armstead you are so right.

"It's about restoring America to some semblence of democracy and actual free-enterprise capitalism from the theft of the economy, government and society by the corporatist conservatives and elite oligarchy."

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Terwilliger]

46. MIKE HERSH??????

:eyes:

[bigtree]

48. I had no idea of his history here.

I am forewarned.