The Democratic Party of today is more in line with the following Pre-Clinton president:

[redstate_democrat]

As far as the politicians go, which president, as far as policy goes, would they be more in line with today based on the president's economic, foreign policy, and domestic agenda policies while they were president?

[redstate_democrat]

1. OH MY!

Whomever voted LBJ I would REALLY like to know why you suggested that one. Also Reagan is interesting too. I would say Nixon before Reagan if I were going with a Republican.

[Dragonfli]

2. I voted Reagan - Noticing the supply side slant to the economic leaders of the party

Seeing them rise to power in the cabinet and can't help noticing the pro-corporate slant of the DLC.
JMO and mostly based on economic policy that is not nearly as liberal as advertised.

[redstate_democrat]

3. Hmmm. Thanks for your response.

I see where you're coming from with this. I get the feeling that a lot of those corporate Dems will feel nauseous by the economic policies Obama is about to enact. Hence, Evan Bayh's Blue Dog insurgency in the Senate. They will just not let go of it. What I want to know is what makes Evan Bayh, Landrieu and the likes of them different than say, Olympia Snowe?

[Dragonfli]

4. She is more reasonable sometimes? (just kidding sort of) nt

[redstate_democrat]

6. HA!

*tweety style*

[RoyGBiv]

5. Unanswerable question ...

I have seen no policy, no program, no agenda put forth that would allow me to make such a comparison.

Stated goals, inferred policy, implied agenda means nothing.

Beginning Jan 20th we will start to see evidence that will allow us to begin to make such comparisons. The key word there is "begin." All of these Presidents have their entire terms behind them from which we can form a judgment. The incoming President has no record. The Democratic party, as a whole, has a varied agenda that is not directly comparable to any agenda of any incarnation of the party during the terms of these Presidents.

The literal meaning of "prejudice" involves a "pre-judgment." I cannot judge what Obama and the Democratic party under his leadership will do. I hope for the best and fear for the worst and continue to make noise about those issues that I deem most important. That's all any of us can do.

[redstate_democrat]

7. I hear you.

But this wasn't meant as a forecast of what is to come, since, obviously we don't really know beyond what has been promised. I'm talking about the Party as it is, literally, today. The kinds of politicians we have in Washington in the House and Senate. The general makeup of the party. Senators like Bayh, Reid, Landrieu, Feinstein, Boxer, Feingold - the mixture of the different leanings. What do they all share in common and why are they Democrats? What is the meaning of a Democrat? These questions may seem silly, but when you have Democrats voting with Republicans on a lot of issues dealing with foreign policy and economics, then what makes them different than say a moderate or liberal Republican?

[RoyGBiv]

13. The party as it is ...

Yeah, I get that, but given the tenor of the post and the general atmosphere of the forum as a whole over the past few days, I suspect at least some presumption of what is about to happen, regardless of your actual intent.

The party as it is compares to none of the above, imo. I have a rather detailed, mostly boring opinion of this, but I'll summarize by saying that politics in general "changed" (I use that word as a summary ... it's a detailed concept actually) in 1972 and that the political parties of today cannot be directly compared to to the political parties of the same name prior to then. The Democratic party that elected Carter in '76 was clearly not the Democratic party that fought over the nomination of a candidate in either '68 or '72. Again, imo.

That's not a negative assessment entirely. We've advanced in some areas, regressed in others. Regardless, we're different.

And, now, I think we're experiencing a political realignment of a kind not seen since '32. That doesn't mean we're comparable to FDR, but we damn well should be if we want to survive.

[redstate_democrat]

15. Do you think this realignment will be to adjust to a more "pragmatic" stance, drawing in the big

middle or will we double down? After Bush, I guess folks are just exhausted and are just looking for common sense solutions. And that doesn't mean governing from the left, right, or center, but being flexible when need be?

Yeah, I get what you're saying about that "change" that occurred between the parties. The Silent Majority, Reagan Democrats, etc, seeing Democrats as nothing more than welfare state loving big government hippies, leading to the insurgence of neoconservativism.

[RoyGBiv]

16. I really wish I had an answer ...

This is probably too personal, but, seriously, I wish I could sit in a room with people like you and just talk this out and try to come to some kind of conclusion that left me feeling comfortable about it all or at least more certain of our (meaning those who are considered "left") place in the grand scheme of things. I think it might help if we who have fought so much and for so long and have achieve so little could find some solidarity ... agree on some common principles. Forums like this are supposedly the answer, but really they're not because disagreement here gets blown out of all proportion, and we end up fighting amongst ourselves about crap we actually agree on in the broadest sense. It's a little crazy.

Anyway ...

What I think is that right now we are faced with a tremendous crisis of which very few people alive today have any memory. This is game changing stuff, life or death, end of the world as we know it. It's not economics entirely, although that's a big part of it, but also the environment, energy, the way we work day to day, get to where we need to go, do what we need to do. The world, she is a'changing, and we damn well better be aware of it, prepared for it, and ready to deal with those changes. And I think "common sense solutions" will be necessary for us to get through this crisis in a way that doesn't leave us living in a world that would be more recognizable to our 19th century ancestors than our parents. It's a coin toss right now how that will go. If Obama is as intelligent as I hope he is, as I think he is, the party-politics solutions, the strict adherence to ideology, will not be the questions he faces. What he will face are the questions of whether this works or whether it doesn't, and my hope is that he goes for what does work.

We're going to have to deal with some experimentation in the next several years, probably beyond Obama's terms of office. Some of these experiments will fail. More, hopefully, will succeed. I *think* the Democratic party is best suited to deal with that. I am certain the Republicans are not, unless we're all resigned to hoping for the rapture and just letting all else go to hell.

I dunno if I addressed your question directly, but those are my thoughts and what the question of comparing Democrats of today to prior administrations move me to consider.

[IndianaGreen]

8. I agree with you

The jury is still out!

[Phredicles]

9. If you mean Reid/Pelosi Democrats, the answer can only be

Neville Chamberlain.:banghead:

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Far, Far To The Right Of Eisenhower

By today's standards, Ike was a flaming liberal! 91% top tax bracket, and he liked it that way:

http://blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal

[redstate_democrat]

11. And it took Kennedy to liberate the wealthy with his tax cut.

But seriously, I can't believe the top tax bracket was 91%. I think that was kind of ridiculous.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Capital Gains Were Lower

All told, the wealthiest Americans paid 50% under Ike. Today, they pay 17%.

[redstate_democrat]

14. Whew! I think the wealthy have more than made out well the past 50 years.

Doesn't really seem to matter who's president for them.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. The 91% rate was a relic of the World War II era

Kennedy lowered the rate to the super free-market uber conservative rate of 70%. There was far more stuff you could write off back then, however, and that's how people avoided actually paying those rates. They still paid far more than they do now, though.

[eridani]

28. That wasn't 91% of everything--just 91% of all over a certain amount

Not sure what the cutoff was.

[Two Americas]

17. was reading Reagan's speeches

I was reading through all of Reagan's speeches the other night and was really surprised. What seemed very right wing at the time and extremist has become mainstream. He would fit right in here, and among today's Democrats. Actually reading him today, he sounds more reasonable and moderate and less right wing than posts I read here everyday.

On the other hand, those who speak the ideas of FDR, RFK or Dr, King here are smeared and attacked as "fringe" and "purist" and now "ideologue" is in vogue. (Reagan never went that far, but people here do every day.)

This must have happened so gradually that most of us are not completely aware of it.

"The rich are people too, and deserve more power and are being persecuted."

"Welfare and stuff like that doesn't work because people cheat."

"Free markets are the best way to go."

"We need to be pragmatic. Lofty ideals of equality and justice are fine and everything, but we need to be practical."

"The gays and other special interest groups are causing a lot of problems, are not mainstream, and shouldn't expect to get their way." (Reagan never went that far, but people here do every day.)

"Unions are OK I guess, and have there place, or did at one time, but now they go to far or are obsolete and not needed." (Reagan never went that far, but people here do every day.)

"Regulations can actually do more harm than good."

"The poor will always be there, they probably prefer it, or are mentally ill or something, so there is not much we can do."

"The wealthy and powerful people are smarter and work harder, so they deserve what they have."

"Freedom means the freedom to make personal choices, and everyone's circumstances are the result of their personal decisions, and the rest of us have no responsibility for that."

"When the government tries to help minority people, then the majority is being oppressed and persecuted."

"Those minority people would get a lot farther if they were more polite and accommodating, instead of being so strident."

[redstate_democrat]

21. We are a very complex group, us Democrats.

[Two Americas]

27. for the time being, yes

It has happened in the past that parties switched positions. The Republicans were once the "liberal" party. The Democratic party may well be evolving into the dominant conservative party of the future.

Many people who in the past would have been Republicans, now call themselves Democrats because they can't accept the Republican party positions on the "cultural war issues." They are conservative but support reproductive rights, for example. Many blue collar voters who in the past would have voted Democratic have been voting Republican in recent years in opposition to modern liberalism, as opposed to opposition to the political Left, and who have been vulnerable to the right wing "culture war" appeals as a result.

That is highly unstable, and may finally be correcting itself. For right now, we have people with incompatible and irreconcilable positions calling themselves Democrats, and there is no consensus anymore about what being a Democrat even means.

It is not possible to have a "diverse group" making up a political party that "includes" people who stand for the traditional core principles of the Republican party - with support for a few liberal causes - and people who stand for the traditional core principles of the Democratic party. The two sets of principles are - by definition - oppositional and incompatible. This coalition can't last.

[kenny blankenship]

24. +1 Attention span and memory: you has it!

The Democrats have been bullied and have caved and grovelled so far over to the right that they could easily apply for partnership in coalition govts with European NeoFascist Parties, if they were suddenly to be transported across the Atlantic and maybe even back a few decades.

[Two Americas]

29. I was amazed

I was telling someone here that they were spouting the Reagan doctrine, they denied that, so I thought I would go to the source. I was wrong, and the poster was right. They were not spouting the Reagan doctrine, but something farther to the right. Reagan seems tame and moderate in his reactionary and conservative views when compared to things we routinely hear from Democrats now.

[Occam Bandage]

18. This poll is hilarious.

DU is possibly the least-informed place on the Internet short of Free Republic.

(I voted for Nixon. I'm surprised nobody else did. His positions on the environment, health care, and foreign policy are almost exactly those of Obama and Clinton.)

[RoyGBiv]

19. A riddle ...

A common riddle among historians and political scientist is, "Who was the last liberal President?"

Answer: Nixon.

Scary thought.

[redstate_democrat]

20. That's why I said Nixon before Reagan although I can understand Reagan too.

Nixon's Comprehensive Health Insurance Act, is basically the Democrat's plan today. Who would of thunk it? Nixon had always been thought of us an undercover liberal, though. And to think he also expanded Affirmative Action, too. Does this sound like something that would be in the GOP platform today:

We need to work out a system that includes a greater emphasis on preventive care, sufficient public funding for health insurance for those who cannot afford it in the private sector, competition among healthcare providers and health insurance providers to keep down the costs of both, and decoupling the cost of healthcare from the cost of adding workers to the payroll." Richard Nixon, 1992.

Edited: I didn't realize you put Obama in there. Obama is nothing like Nixon. The health care plan Nixon proposed might be similar to the Democrats, but um I think that's about it. Obama is not like any politician we've seen before.

[redstate_democrat]

23. Oh my, I didn't realize you added Obama in there

I don't think Obama is in line with Nixon. His health care policy might be similar, but I.... I don't think we've seen anyone like Obama before.

[anonymous171]

22. Ronald Reagan-lite.

[IsItJustMe]

26. It sure isn't McGovern. Tell you that much right now. To me, even the so called liberals of today

are right wingers.

[wyldwolf]

30. Truman/Kennedy