This election wasn't a shift to the left, so much as a shift back to the middle

[Ignacio Upton]

For anyone thinking that this midterm election is the beginning of a realignment, it isn't. We beat the Republicans because this year overwhelmingly favored us, even after Kerry, Saddam, and robocalls. However, we could have picked up many more seats had it not been for that trifecta of tricks, and if this were a neutral year in terms of our chances, we would have not picked up many seats in either house.The Right-Wing Noise Machine did what it was supposed to do every year, it just didn't work this time because of outside dynamics.

That said, this election year the voters sent a message to the Republicans, and that is "we're sick of right-wing ideologues." What the public wants is a return to the middle, where Social Security privatizers, Norquistites, and Schiavo obsessors are marginalized. At the same time, a lot of what was traditionally considered moderate in legislation (ie. raising the minimum wage and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy) have been labeled as "liberal" initiatives by the right-wingers. The public supports a lot of what we are doing because many of our positions have historicaly been moderate ones.

[aquart]

1. DEFINE "MIDDLE."

Until you can tell me what that is, instead of assuming it's something everybody knows because it has such well-known boundaries, stop bothering me with this crap.

[Ignacio Upton]

4. Middle is what is now being called "left" by the GOP

The minimum wage increase is a moderate position, and so is repealing the upper-income Bush tax cuts.

[dchill]

19. So, by definition, the shift is necessarily...

TO THE LEFT.

[sandnsea]

2. Don't Label Me!

The real message of Tuesday’s election is that America woke up and said “Stop labeling me”! The threat of Nancy Pelosi liberal San Francisco values and the gay marriage agenda from New Jersey didn’t stop voters from choosing the D. While the punditocracy wants to conclude this election isn’t a rejection of pure conservatism, it’s hard to ignore the basic fact that six years of pure conservatism is what led to the tsunami of change.

Newly elected Democrats don’t fit the mold of the classic liberal, but they have also been chosen over the ultra-conservative religious of the past. Harold Ford Jr’s conservative Christian persona didn’t win the day in Tennessee, even in light of Corker’s sleazy campaign tactics and blind trust problems involving his real estate dealings. Mike Beebe of Arkansas, now one of the bluest states in the union, won on a platform of strong populist economic change. Like Tester and Webb on social issues, Beebe believes government ends where the front door begins. Whatever their personal views may be, they understand the Constitution does not allow government to impose social regulations onto the individual.

Consider also, the number of landmark elections that took place across the country. Not only have we elected the first woman Speaker of the House, we’ve also elected the first Italian-American Speaker of the House. Keith Ellison has been elected from Minneapolis, the First Muslim in Congress. Massachusetts has elected its first African-American governor. South Dakota has rejected its draconian abortion ban and Missouri has passed stem cell research.

The politics of the future will embrace this kind of enlightened pragmatism Americans are known for. This country is ultimately interested in results, put up or shut up. How many times someone goes to church each week or how many peace marches one organized is not nearly as important as whether the world is a safe place for its citizens. Americans, ultimately, voted for progress and results, a return to a thoughtful democracy.

Long live the Age of Enlightenment!

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/

[Hippo_Tron]

3. I don't mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thread?

You're admitting that most of the initiatives that we support are actually moderate and popular with the public. So why the need to tell us that the Democrats shouldn't govern too far to the left. What specific thing or things that someone has proposed that you think that the Democrats shouldn't do because it is "too partisan".

[Ignacio Upton]

5. I deleted that last sentence

I re-read the last paragraph and it does sound contradictory.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. Fair enough

It's just that I'm so tired of people saying that we should reject "far left" or "liberal" policies in their rhetoric without specifically giving examples of what Democrats should and should not do. It seems like an attempt to say "my wing of the party knows what they are doing, your wing of the party doesn't."

But I agree with you that policies demonized as "liberal" by the GOP is in fact moderate and very popular with the public.

[sandnsea]

6. I'll give you a few

Real open borders, free health care, any gun laws, dept of peace, guaranteed job, instant impeachment, video game censorship, repeal the death penalty, etc.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Universal healthcare aside, who is proposing those

Dennis Kucinich is proposing the Department of Peace. Do you really think that he has any clout within the caucus whatsoever? And the majority of Americans support universal healthcare if we can find a way to do it without long waiting lists. And while plenty of people support repealing the death penalty, myself included, we're also aware that it simply isn't going to happen.

[sandnsea]

12. Impeachment? Video games? Guns?

People are, people will. I was just giving examples of things varying Democrats talk about that aren't so helpful, whether I agree with the specific issues or not.

And universal health care does not necessarily mean single payer and single payer isn't 'free' which is why I wish people would stop using the word altogether. Democrats DO want to introduce health care initivatives, so let's stop alienating half the country by using the word 'free'.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Well there's no such thing as "free" I think the people that term are the GOP

And I used the term universal to not necessarily mean single payer, because the country supports universal but not necessarily single payer although single payer is one way to achieve this. Personally I think that we should have a serious discussion about different possibilities of how we can make sure that all Americans have coverage.

And I'll agree with you that Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman look like idiots when they hold a press conference to complain about Grand Theft Auto. I think they know that too, but Hillary is banking on overwhelmingly winning white women when she runs for President and that's why she does it. As far as guns go, I don't see us proposing new gun laws go, I'll agree with you more or less. I'd like to see an Assault Weapons Ban that actually works. I'm not in favor of outlawing handguns but I dn't see any reason for people to own semi-automatic AK-47's and Mac 10's. I don't think that the people who are NRA members even want to own these types of weapons, they are just ideologues. As the previous law was written it was just ridden with loophooles anyway. Chances are the democrats will just try to re-new the old AWB and I'd rather Democrats not do anything than do that.

[sandnsea]

15. I was just throwing things out

Two years is a long time and I was just pointing out there are some landmines out there that Dems could get sucked into. I hope we don't.

The Greens and left are the ones I generally hear use the word 'free health care' and I want to scream every time they do it. The right uses 'government run' health care. I just hope we get something that works. I actually have a totally new solution based on my local non-profit health system. Their low-income program just writes off hospital and doctor bills. Make a federal law, if you take Medicare and Medicaid money, you have to implement a program that covers the uninsured who are under 300% of poverty. Bing-bang, problem solved. Don't you think?

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Your idea sounds pretty good, as I said I think there needs to be a discussion

Healthcare is a complicated policy and we need to discuss several different possibilities.

[benEzra]

18. You aware that a semiautomatic firearm is NON-automatic, yes?

As far as guns go, I don't see us proposing new gun laws go, I'll agree with you more or less. I'd like to see an Assault Weapons Ban that actually works. I'm not in favor of outlawing handguns but I dn't see any reason for people to own semi-automatic AK-47's and Mac 10's. I don't think that the people who are NRA members even want to own these types of weapons, they are just ideologues. As the previous law was written it was just ridden with loophooles anyway. Chances are the democrats will just try to re-new the old AWB and I'd rather Democrats not do anything than do that.

You are aware that a semiautomatic firearm is NON automatic (unlike a real AK-47), yes?

I don't even know where to start in addressing that, except to point out that the guns you are talking about banning are among the most popular civilian target rifles in the United States, and that there are likely several times as many owners of modern-looking carbines as there are duck hunters.

My wife owns one of the 7 *MILLION* SKS carbines in the United States, a highly collectible http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?act=module&module=gallery&cmd=si&img=501">1952 Tula. I own a civilian NON-automatic AK-47 lookalike, which is an economical choice for recreational target shooting, and a Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle (also on the anti-gun lobby's ban list). And THE most popular centerfire target platform in the United States is the AR-15, one of the best civilian target rifles ever made.


My SAR-1 civilian carbine, 7.62x39mm (.30 Russian Short)--no, this is NOT a real AK-47.


My Ruger mini-14 Ranch rifle, 5.56x45mm (.223 Remington)

I don't think you understand at all where we gun owners are coming from. The vast majority of us (80%) are NOT hunters. Outlawing small-caliber nonhunting-style rifles on the grounds that we "don't need them for hunting," and restricting civilian firearms to pre-1861 magazine capacities, hits us pretty close to home. I want to keep my little carbines, and my wife wants to keep her SKS and her 15-round 9mm pistol, thanks.

Please read the following with an open mind; I think it may explain a little better where gun owners like me are coming from:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[SmokingJacket]

7. Well, the whole left-right spectrum thing, with "moderate" in the

middle, is really just an imperfect metaphor. It's not like we're actually "moving" in a "direction" that has crazed raw-foods activists and communists at the other end of it.

All we can really say is that a handful of corrupt supporters of war and unfettered capitalism were kicked out. Whee! Sanity is creeping back.

[baby_mouse]

10. Well, I respect your right to your opinion and everything but how do you KNOW that?

I'm seeing a lot of these threads. I don't know if the assertions are right or wrong but I can't see how you can either, not after mere days past the election. Are there loads of polls? There's no point listening to the MSM, they just spin like tops.

[pinto]

11. I disagree, somewhat. Our sweep was a repudiation of (R) policy

to date, both domestic and foreign. They tried the domestic wedge issues run up the middle, the terror at every corner ruse, the need to "stay the course" in Iraq gambit and the usual branding of our approach as "dangerously liberal", thinking one of them, or more, would resonate with their voters. They didn't. It wasn't outside dynamics, per se, that gave us this win.

It was *our* alternatives to managing this country, domestically and, yes, in international relations (here I mean primarily Iraq), that made the sweep possible. And those alternatives were well represented by a broad swath of Democratic partisans.

Have we moved the country to the left? Yep. Have we moved the country closer to the middle? Yep. Both are accurate, imo. We have moved the country away from the right wing extremists who had built a base of operations in the Congress and enabled the Administration to run as unfettered as possible, without any constraint from the majority of American interests.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Who is "The Public"?

The majority? Should we pursue only policies that are popular with "The Public"? I can give a long list of policies that were very unpopular with the majority and considered dangerously "radical".

Here's a few:

Breaking with Great Britain.

Ending Slavery

Ending Jim Crow Laws

Women's Suffrage

The 8 hour day

Labor Unions

Ending the war in Vietnam

Civil Rights

Affirmative Action

Abortion Rights

and, many more.

Politicians don't "lead" they follow the voters, the money, and the pressure put on them by segments of "the public".

“In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.” Gandhi

[meisje]

17. The DU Left will be disappointed in this congress

[Vidar]

21. Haven't seen one I've liked yet.

[lostnfound]

20. You've got a good point, if I interpret your post correctly..

which is that the language being used to describe what just happened matters. Saying that it 'moved to the left' conjures up fear in the hearts of brainwashed masses; saying that it 'moved back to center' puts it in the (correct) light that our country is freeng itself from (RW) extremists.

Good framing.