Do we need to rebuild the Democratic Party almost from scratch?

[MannyGoldstein]

My opinion:

For 18 years I've felt that our Party has been triangulating unceasingly, which simply serves to move the "middle" to the right. There were a few years where Dr. Dean seemed to be laying the groundwork for a return of the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party", but now he's been ejected.

And here we are. Very, very, very far to the right. So far to the right that even Dennis Kucinich, the Democrat's token far-lefty, is actually to the right of post-war Republican Presidents before Reagan. Compared to Kucinich, Eisenhower was a power-Marxist.

To return our Party to its roots of fighting for the 95%, I think we need to clear out our Democratic Party and rebuild it virtually from scratch. It's a great party with a great history of fighting for working Americans, but it sure needs a renewal.

-----------------

What's your opinion?

Thanks!

[damntexdem]

1. 'Almost' from scratch? How about completely from scratch?

When Dems attack Social Security and Medicare, we are in deep, deep shit.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Some Democrats are quite good

Dean, Franken, most of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Sanders (if we can convince him to change his official affiliation, Boxer, and others that I'm not thinking of right now. These could be the core of a rebuilt Party.

[LoZoccolo]

2. What does that even mean?

The party membership chooses the candidates. If they are choosing people that you in particular do not like right now, why would they choose different ones after you've told them that everybody has to leave their positions? And how are you going to get them to do that, may I ask?

You have the power to replace everyone in there right now already, and the effort required to do it in your clearing plan is more than that required to do it in your current system.

This is what I hate about netroots politics, it allows people to waste time on daydreaming and wild speculation and think they're participating in democracy.

If anyone else is fed up with that tendency, check out the first two links in my signature.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. You seem to be right twice a day.

Yes, we have the power. You're correct.

The problem is that http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah">candidates lie to us, then they become incumbents and moon us while screaming "who the %$&# else ya gonna vote for, chumps?". Then the Party Faithful start up a rousing chorus of "if we primary the incumbent them Palin becomes President".

This is a huge problem. I don't have a solution right now, but I am interested in seeing if people have had enough of this cycle.

I'm curious: how would you solve this problem?

[LoZoccolo]

12. Why wouldn't they lie under your new plan?

I don't think that there's any substitute for getting more people within the party to agree with you, and get them to make a habit of spending a few hours a month participating, and this goal will have to be adapted for every person who wants more consensus around their issues.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. As I wrote, I don't have a solution yet

I'm just trying to understand if there's agreement (at DU) on the goal.

[yurbud]

41. I think there are ways to tell if they are lying. If they have run for any office before

they have a track record of votes and actions that should be looked at more closely than any words coming out of their mouth.

[yurbud]

44. Do not give money or vote for revolving door candidates who go from gov't service to corporate

officer or lobbyist and back, and make candidates pledge not to do so, and maybe sign a contract to repay every penny of campaign contributions and give their congressional or presidential pension to their constituents if they do.

And also never, ever vote for them or allow them to take a regulatory position again.

[marsis]

16. So you're saying

the Democrats are too stupid to vote, just like the Republicans, because when you look at the D party, it just isn't working anymore!
It's all about the money, follow the money and you'll find the problem with Congress. The people have the illusion of voting, that is all they now have.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. You're right, sort of, but actually it is one and the same

Most people spend most of their time concentrating on the details of their personal lives. We delegate it to others to pursue social goals on our behalf after deciding which team of experts (in this case Party Leaders and committee members) to give our support to for that purpose. It is the exception, not the norm, to mount a grass roots effort to either change the course of those committee members or to reject their advice and challange their recruitment and nominating efforts through grass roots primary challanges.

Yes it can all be done from inside the Party if enough people join the party process prepared to fight for new priorities from within against the resourses and inertia of the status quo. But for all practical purposes if the goals are sweeping enough, that amounts to tearing down the current Party structure and rebuilding it. It all stays "inside the Party" but the question is, is the need to change confined to tinkering at the margins in a few key places or is a sweeping top to bottom overhaul what one thinks is needed now? You can call the latter option anything you want, but it would at least be the equivelent of Tea Partyt activists attempting to seize control of the National Republican Party.

[Maru Kitteh]

59. + one thousand brazillion - I couldn't possibly agree with you more.

"This is what I hate about netroots politics, it allows people to waste time on daydreaming and wild speculation and think they're participating in democracy."

:applause:

[dflprincess]

101. The party membership does not always get to choose the candidates

The DSCC, DNC and state party leadership shoved Amy Klobuchar down our throats by effectively strong arming one candidate to drop out and ignoring another one and cutting him out of the process.

[MineralMan]

4. My opinion is that you'll need a different name for your party.

I don't see a minority taking over the current Democratic Party. Unless you have a realistic plan to do that, I don't see a path toward what you want to do. There's already an organized Democratic Party. You want something else? Start something else.

[AsahinaKimi]

6. what MM said..

agree

[MineralMan]

7. Thank you.

[AsahinaKimi]

11. YW

dou itashimashite! *bows*

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Thanks, but I didn't ask *how*. I asked *what*.

I'm curious as to how DUers feel.

Of course, you're free to respond in any way you'd like.

[MineralMan]

14. "If" without "how" is dreaming.

If you're curious about how I feel, then you have your answer.

[sabrina 1]

89. And I disagree with you. No movement starts with action first

it starts with planning, dreaming as you call it. And no, we do not have to leave our party, nor will we, much as it may be desirable to the righwing of the party. We have to get rid of those who have taken it over with the intention of steering it to the right for the benefit of Corporations.

We can start, and many have already, by not donating to any Party Pacs where they get to choose the candidates. We already made that mistake, and saw how the party pushed out real progressives who could have won had they had enough money and support.

So now we know to donate directly to those progressive candidates and let it be known, which I think we have, that we cannot not be counted on ever again to support someone who is a Republican in everything but name only just because 'we need the votes'. We didn't get the votes, so that tactic failed, completely.

And FYI, there is no way we are leaving this party. It just took a little time after the Bush years to see the picture and what has to be done to get good progressives, not Corporate tools, elected.

This party will be and is receiving a different message this time. They do not own our votes, we do. And the best time to make them pay attention is now, coming up to an election.

[kenny blankenship]

35. Correct. The current crop of "Democrats" have destroyed the brand forever.

A Democratic Party "that fights for the 95%" - who would believe it now?

[Romulox]

60. Nonsense. The "centrists" had no compunction about horning in on an established Party

The idea that political coalitions are like musical chairs--previous in flux, but now, as the music stops, made permanent--has no bearing in reality.

The "centrist" coalition is failing. No evidence to suggest it will hold. :hi:

[MineralMan]

63. Well, I'll watch for the collective you at the caucuses and conventions next

year. Somehow, I didn't see the collective you there last year. Funny, huh? Just the regular folks showed up.

[Romulox]

72. Will these be your first?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2705446

[MineralMan]

74. Will these be my first what?

I see you went to my profile, then to the thread that contains my GBCW post at Free Republic back in 2006. That's why I put it there in my profile. I spent time there arguing with Freepers and trying to present alternative viewpoints. It was stupid and futile. So, I quit trying. Lots of people have tried that. It doesn't work. Thanks for linking to that old archived thread.

So, if you'll ask a question that makes some sense, I'll be happy to answer it. If you're asking about Democratic organization activities, I've been involved in them in every election since I was old enough to vote, in 1966. I've helped Democrats get elected in every precinct and district where I've lived, from my 35 years in Califoria to my 6 years in Minnesota. Right now, I'm in Ward 6, Precinct 13 in Saint Paul, MN. You can see my web site for that DFL precinct organization at the link in my signature line.

If you had some other question, and I've misunderstood you, please clarify, and I'll be glad to answer it.

[Romulox]

78. "George W. Bush is not a deity. He screws up, sometimes."

Whether people believe your story or not is their business. I don't.

Either way, you simply don't have the credentials to claim to speak for the "mainstream" of the Party or question others.

[MineralMan]

83. It's a matter of no concern to me whether you believe my story

or not. Truly. I am as I present myself. I'm not even anonymous. You can do all the research you wish on me. You'll find that I am as I present myself.

And I'm speaking for nobody but myself here. I'm one person. I post my ideas, just like everyone else does. As far as questioning goes, I figure any DUer can question anyone on this forum. That seems to be the structure here. Some people agree with me. Others disagree. That's also the nature of this forum. If you have a problem with me being here, I suggest you take it up with the administrators. If you disagree with something I post, please say so, and we can discuss it.

I posted that link to that thread where someone posted my parting message at Free Republic for one reason. I left Free Republic in 2006. I joined DU in 2008. That's all a matter of public information. I posted the link that you put in your post the day I joined DU. Why? Because I'm using the same screen name I used there, and the same screen name I've used on almost every forum I've ever participated in. So, someone would no doubt bring up the fact that I used to post on Free Republic. I did, so I posted a link in my profile to make it public and to explain on the day I joined DU. So, you found nothing that I didn't intend should be found. Why would I do that, except to make it clear who I was, where I'd been, and to make it easy for people to learn that information?

So, you've revealed nothing I didn't reveal myself when I joined this forum. You can even go to Free Republic and use their search tool to see every post I made there. I'm who I am, and I am as I present myself. I speak for myself, alone, and I'm honest about who I am and what I've done. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant.

[bvar22]

95. That makes a lot of sense.

A moderate Republican would feel right at home in today's New Democrat Centrist Party.
Thats the problem.

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their WORKS you will know them."

[Romulox]

107. It boils down to a "where you lying then or are you lying now?" situation.

Either way, your credibility is shot.

So don't you ever think you'll be able to get comfortable enough to administer purity tests. :hi:

[Kermitt Gribble]

61. A minority has already taken over the Democratic Party. n/t

[MineralMan]

64. Has it? And how did they do that, do you suppose?

I doubt it was by not working on it or failing to show up at caucuses and conventions and the like. So, how do you think they manage to "take over?"

[bvar22]

82. Simple.

We Reformed the Democratic Party
the Old Fashioned Way!

We BOUGHT IT!!!
Hahahahahahaha!



"By their WORKS you will know them."

[MineralMan]

84. OK. I understand that's what you think.

I'm sure I can't change your thinking, so I won't try any further.

[sabrina 1]

111. They managed it with money, big money.

Going to caucuses is a waste of time when candidates are bought and paid for. May as well go to Republican caucuses and conventions.

So, different tactics are necessary to get the money out of politics, meanwhile any money the people have to spend, goes directly to progressive candidates, like Kucinich and Grayson and Weiner, who I hope will run again.

Those who don't like it, can go back to the party they left. We don't need two Republican parties. I am more than encouraged that so many are now awake. They fooled a lot of people while Bush was president and people were desperate to get rid of him. The dynamics have changed now.

[JoePhilly]

81. yup ... sounds like the "kill it to save it" plan ... might as well, sail

across the ocean to the new world.

[el_bryanto]

5. How much does the Democratic Party's move reflect the move of the Country Rightward?

I mean if we are going to rebuild the Democratic Party and keep it relevant, aren't we gong to have to do something about that?

Bryant

[MannyGoldstein]

23. When FDR took office, the country was unanimous in the need to replace Hoover

but very divided on whether to move left or right to solve its depression.

In four years, FDR halved unemployment and GDP grew 8% per year. After the 1936 election, I believe that less than 10 Republicans were left in the Senate. For the next 50 years, America was Liberal. Results change minds.

[mmonk]

36. +1

[el_bryanto]

39. You are not wrong there; but I think Obama lacks that spirit of experimentation

I think he's a very milddle of the road, small "c" conservative guy by nature, and, as has been noted elsewhere, indebted to corporate interests.

[dflprincess]

100. The country only thinks it's moved right - largely because the Republicans

have done such a fine job of demonizing terms like "liberal" or "left". When polled on individual issues the majority fall to the left. We need to run candidates who recognize that and run on those issues.

[JackRiddler]

8. Need to rebuild the whole US political system to be democratic in the first place.

[RKP5637]

15. Exactly! The system now is rigged by default. Money buys power and policy, and the

pyramiding of extreme wealth combined with corporate wealth are allowing a few to control the political system in this country.

We get choreographed politicians and the masses clap their hands like seals depending on which hot buttons are pushed for segments of the masses engineered by slick marketing and propaganda techniques.

[MineralMan]

33. The "masses," eh?

You planning to do away with the popular vote? Good luck with that. Those "masses" are the ones who make the decisions. Contempt for them isn't going to get you what you want. It really isn't.

I think you're looking for a different system of government altogether. Good luck with that, too.

Waste of time...

[RKP5637]

43. I'll never see it, too old, but I think there will be major upheavals in the future.

PS: I don't think I said I wanted to "... do away with the popular vote?" Rather I was lamenting how the masses are controlled and allow themselves to be controlled.

[MineralMan]

86. I won't either. I'm going to be 66 next month. I figure I've got a

couple more elections in which to be active, then I won't have the energy any longer. It'll be up to the next batch to get it done, I guess. Until then, though, I'll just keep on doing what I've done in the past and hope for the best.

[RKP5637]

99. Happy Early Birthday! I turned 67 not long ago, feel pretty much the same, but

I still don't get where the years went to so quickly!

[MineralMan]

19. Again, a good idea. How do you plan to accomplish that goal?

Is the US political system not a product of the US population? While change would be a good thing, I don't see a path to it. The opposition to your idea will far outnumber those in favor of it. The only thing I can see that could overcome that is some sort of military dictatorship, really.

If you have a different idea than that, I'd love to hear it.

[RKP5637]

38. I always end up with your analysis. There are some good ideas, really

excellent ideas, but how does one accomplish these goals, or even get them in front of the masses. I would like, for example, to see money out of politics, the buying and basically bribing of politicians ... but how is this accomplished. Even SCOTUS seems OK by it.

Sometimes I think (and I know it sounds horrible and ridiculous) that a complete economic collapse might change the system.

I might be off base here, but my observation of history is that gradual change often results in little change. Throughout history IMO it seems major change in political systems has only come about by major upheavals. Hence I conclude that "The only thing I can see that could overcome that is some sort of military dictatorship, really." And who really knows what that outcome would be. There are many examples in history that demonstrate people are in horrible straits after an event such as that.

One thing I do predict is the current system is unsustainable without massive poverty in the country. In our global economy money/wealth is highly portable and I question anymore how much of the wealth really has any geographical loyalty. As one of my friends once said, very wealthy, it's a fool that thinks the monied and powerful think like the rest of us.

[ProSense]

13. Maybe it's

a perception thing.

"For 18 years I've felt that our Party has been triangulating unceasingly, which simply serves to move the "middle" to the right. There were a few years where Dr. Dean seemed to be laying the groundwork for a return of the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party", but now he's been ejected."

Dean supports charter schools, the Libya mission and Medicaid block granting, something Obama doesn't support.

[kctim]

17. If you can't get us to vote for progressives now

why would we vote for them after you have filled the Party with them during the rebuild?

[xphile]

91. Maybe you'll just go to the Republican party

where you probably belong in the first place.

:shrug:

[kctim]

92. So you would be ok with

tens of millions of votes going to the Republican Party instead of the Democratic Party? Simply because we don't agree with the minority part of the Party 100% of the time? Wow.
Thankfully, the majority of Democrats do not share such views.

[xphile]

96. I don't think tens of millions of votes will go to the Republican part by disposing of the

corporatist rot that resides in the party.

More people believe in progressive ideals than call themselves progressive. They won't be turning to the Republicans just because the party kicked some feckless, useless corporatist wankers out of the party.

We don't need the Ben Nelsons, the Mary Landrieus, the Blanche Lincolns and others of their ilk. Those "Democrats" who on key issues, issues of life and death, issues of regulation of corporations, issues on labor, where we really fucking need them to vote with the rest of the Dems, insist on voting with the Republicans then they should fucking join them or get the fuck in line. But there are certain things that are supposed to separate the Democratic party from the Republicans and the times when they take the easy vote with the party on things where their numbers aren't crucial doesn't make up for the times when they allowed Republican filibusters to continue because they voted with the Republicans. 85% voting record with the party doesn't mean shit when the 15% of the time they vote with the Republicans are at time when they are blocking any chance in hell of progress because they're too busy doing the work of the people who bought and paid for their asses. If they want to be in a party with people who openly work on the behalf of those who will pollute, poison, and rip us off, let them join the Republican party. That's where their sorry asses belong in the first place.

[kctim]

104. If more people believed in progressive ideals

then they would be willing to pay for them, which they are not willing to do at this time in our nations history. Example: 70% liked the idea of healthcare for all, but less than half were will to pay what would be needed to accomplish such a thing.
People may not turn to the Republican Party just because the Party kicks out a rep who does not tow the Party line as told, but they have a better chance of doing it if it happens to THEIR rep. Now I'm not saying that the 80% majority of Democrats who are moderates all would vote for Republicans, IMO it would be around a third or so. EVERY vote is needed in 50/50 elections.

The Nelsons of the Party are there because voters believe they represent them the best and when the Party ignores that fact, such candidates get removed. By a Republican, not a progressive.

As a Party, we must be practical, not emotional.

[xphile]

105. Practical? It is not practical to make it appear as if you stand for NOTHING.

People will respect someone who states what they believe in and fight for them. That's why so many people will vote for a Republican even if they don't agree with them.

And they don't agree with them. When you ask people without the labels people are a hell of a lot more progressive. But no one is going to vote for some wishy-washy milquetoast candidate who caves at the smallest bit of pushback. Which is exactly what corporate Dems do time after time. The Nelsons of the party are exactly why people think Democrats don't stand for anything. They are not the best. They are a millstone around the party's neck and when the party seeks to please them and ignores its progressive base, it loses.

And as long as the party refuses to learn that lesson and continues to suck up to the right wing, it will continue to lose.

[kctim]

109. It is however, practical to understand and respect

the FACT that all Democrats do NOT hold the same beliefs on EVERY issue.

Why do you believe Democrats who do not tow the progressive line stand for nothing? The Nelsons of the Party state what they believe in, fight for them, and their constituents keep voting for them. If they did not, they would not keep getting re-elected.

I agree that most people favor progressive ideas, the problems and disagreements come with the solutions to reach the goal. But not every Democrat favors higher taxes, the loss of individual rights etc... to the same extent in order to reach the goal.
The Party loses when it tries to force things onto its voters, such as anti 2nd Amendment under Clinton and HCR under President Obama.

The ONLY lesson the Party needs to learn is that we must WORK TOGETHER.

[xphile]

110. Because people who are bought and paid for stand for nothing. People who run on

populist rhetoric and then do the opposite clearly do not believe in what they promised in which case they can't be trusted on any damn thing.

The Nelsons of the party are bought and paid for by corporations. If they want to be bought that's fine but they can't be bought and remain a Democrat. We already have a party with politicians who are openly bought and paid for by corporations. They're called Republicans and that's where they need to go if they can't be bothered to to stand up for what the Democratic party is supposed to stand for.

If you're anti-labor, you're a fucking Republican. Get the fuck out.
Don't believe in universal health care? You're a Republican get the fuck out.
Anti-intellectual? You're a Republican get the fuck out.
Don't believe in regulation of corporations? You're a Republican. Get fuck out!
Don't believe in a progressive tax system and want to burden people in the lower and middle class while letting the rich off the hook? You're a Republican! Get the fuck out!
Want to gut Social Security and Medicare? You're a Republican. Get fuck out!
Anti-environmental protection? You're a Republican. Get the fuck out.
If you want to get in between a woman and her doctor and make the woman's medical choices for her you're a Republican and need to get the fuck out.

You don't compromise what you believe with people like that. There's no respect from the public that way and you don't get anything done without watering it down to the point where it means nothing.

You don't work with people whose agenda is to antithetical to yours.

Republicans who don't like the extremists in their party need to go back to their party and take it from the whack jobs. But they are not welcomed to come to this party and turn it into a slightly less odious version of the Republican party.

There's supposed to be a distinct difference between the parties. Those who agree with the Republicans on key issues need to get fuck out so the rest of us can go about working on the ideals that we actually stand for instead of having to deal with these compromises which eliminates the progressive position before negotiations even begin.

[kctim]

114. Wow

It is amazing to see people advocating for millions of people to leave the Party that they claim to support. Even more amazing that it is the 20% crowd telling that to the 80+%.

Just to be clear, are you saying that anyone who does not agree with YOU on EVERY ONE of your examples should leave the party and join the Republicans? That since I do not support UHC, I should join the Republican Party even though I agree with you on the rest?

"You don't compromise what you believe with people like that"

But yet, you want those people to compromise what they believe and agree with you, or leave the party.

How do I "go back to their party" when I come from a long line of farmers who were Democrats and I myself have been one the entire 44 years I have been on this rock?

[xphile]

117. You are not part of the 80% and neither are the people of whom I am speaking.

Your math is off.

If these so-called Democrats don't agree with things in the platform. They need to get the fuck out. The people of whom I speak are the 20%. If that includes you so be it. But people who work against workers, the poor, anti-intellectuals, anti-health care are NOT Democrats and need to get the fuck out. There is no compromise. These people need to leave. Republicans are not watering down their message with Republicans who do not believe in significant swaths of the part platform. Why the hell are we weaking ourselves by tolerating those who work against significant parts of ours?

[kctim]

119. My math is just fine

Polls show it and elections have shown it so far. If it was not true, then the branches would be 80% progressive and ALL progressive legislation would be law by now.

The progressives problem is that they think EVERYBODY must believe in their solutions to the same degree as they do. It is their way or the highway because only they know what is best for everybody.
According to you, I am anti-health care and NOT a Democrat because I said I do not support universal health care, and you come to this conclusion without asking me what I DO support. There is no compromise only because you do not care what I do support. Funny thing is, what I do support is alot closer to what you support than a Republican would be, but you want me to vote for the Republican instead of the Democrat.

I still say working together as Democrats is the best route to effective solutions.

[sabrina 1]

112. The Nelsons are there because of money, nothing more.

They do not speak for Democrats and last November the people kicked out most of them. Hopefully we can finish the job next time.

[kctim]

115. The people kicked them out

because the healthcare bill that was being forced on them. They would have voted for the progressive candidate, not the Republican one, IF they wanted UHC.

[zipplewrath]

20. Realignment

The two parties are on the verge of realignment. It has happened before. The dems went after the "corporate" moderate GOP and got alot of them as the GOP went after the social conservatives. Now, you are seeing an approach on the democratic LEFT of the GOP. They are moving towards a less agressive military foreign policy and trapping the democrats on the "pro-war" side. They are doing the same thing on the whole health care "mandate" issue. They, not the democrats, passed a medicare drug policy, and accepted the additional costs. They've been out to destroy organized labor, and pull that segment of the population in as the "Reagan democrats".

It's a large realignment that started with Reagan and is continuing to this day.

[sufrommich]

21. "I think we need to clear out our Democratic Party "

Sure, that'll work. Less is more. :eyes:

[Donnachaidh]

22. they need to purge the corporats and other vermin

And any Dems who work hand in hand with the MIC. Kick them out, and disinfect the party. Wanna be a *centrist*? Go find your own party.

[MineralMan]

24. How are you planning to conduct that "purge?"

Are you even involved in your local Democratic Party organization? How will you purge people from the party?

If you are not part of it, you don't get to purge anyone from the current organization.

When I moved to Minnesota, I got involved with the local Democratic Party organization, known here as the DFL. You would not believe how few people are actively involved. Seriously. So, I immediately became the chair of the local precinct, which didn't even have a chair at the time. I've been a convention delegate for every convention I could afford to attend, simply by being willing to do that. I've led nominating caucuses and convinced enough people to join them to guarantee that our candidate had delegates at the convention. It's easy to do. Few people do it. But that's how candidates get selected here in Minnesota. Other states do it differently, but it all involved the Democratic Party organization. You'll change nothing from outside of that organization.

If you want to change the party, the pathway is already there. But, you must be part of what you wish to change, or you will change nothing.

If you're not willing to do it that way, then the only hope you have is to form a new party and try to attract people to it. Many have tried. None have succeeded.

Get involved if you want to change things. If you don't get involved, you'll change not a damn thing. It is that simple.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Do you recognize that *what* comes before *how*?

A good set of requirements is needed before deciding on a strategy.

Your suggested "how" is commendable, but most of us (at least in this poll) don't think it's working.

[sufrommich]

28. Requirements for what? Who gets to call themselves democrats?

Will you be going door to door?

[MineralMan]

32. Hey! That's what I do in my own precinct. Door to door for

every election.

[MineralMan]

31. I have a "what." My "what" is getting the most progressive

candidate that can be elected nominated and elected. I work very hard at that "what." My Congressional representative is Betty McCollum. Go look her up. If you want to know the "how," just ask me and I'll tell you. She won in 2010 with 60% of the vote in her district. MN CD-4. You can visit the web site for the DFL precinct organization I chair at the link in my signature line.

You want progressives in office? Put them there. That's what we did.

If you want to advocate "purges" online, then go right ahead. I'd rather elect progressive legislators. That seems more productive.

[sufrommich]

25. Should we "purge" the 90% who disagree with you? nt

[MineralMan]

29. It's a pipe dream, really.

In every party organization, it's all done within the organization. Never from without. In the Minnesota DFL, we vote on every damn thing. There are so many votes that it's almost dumbfounding. But that's where it all begins, and it begins at the precinct level. Other states do it differently, but there is a Democratic Party organization in every one of them. Nobody's purging anyone without being part of that organization, yet I don't see any of the pipe-dreamers at any of our meetings. They're not there. They have no voice, because they aren't there. Why is that?

This is all philosophical nonsense. You want to change a political party, you have to become part of that party and get to work. If you don't want to do that, then you'll change nothing.

Betty McCollum is my Congressional representative. Anyone can look up her progressive credentials. Want to know how she got elected? Just ask me, and I'll tell you. It was all done from within the DFL organization in her Congressional district. It can't be done any other way.

[dionysus]

51. more like a crack pipe dream.

[MineralMan]

57. Well, pipe dream refers to opium, but crack will do as a

replacement, I think...

[OhioChick]

34. I agree wholeheartedly n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. I've written OP's about my choice, but in short...

Political parties at best exist to implement the will of the people, at second best they will respond to the will of the people out of concern for their own political survival. But it rapidly gets worse than that. Political parties can ignore the will of the people or actively work to misinform the public by diverting public attention from what really matters and by distorting reality to one that leaves them safe and secure in power etc.

I think its time to go over the heads of the established Parties directly to the people. Neither the Civil Rights movement nor the Anti Viet Nam war movement operated within the confines of any political party. Instead they helped mold public opinion and that in turn got the attention of political parties seeking electoral support. If there is a movement now for economic justice for example, I think the Democratic Party is more likely to swing toward positions we believe in than the Republican Party. That's fine with me, let's make them do it.

[SidDithers]

30. Is that what you meant when you posted that you would have preferred 2008 to have gone to McCain?...

Sid

[undeterred]

40. Follow Wisconsin, follow Russ Feingold.

The Democratic Party in Wisconsin is moving in the right direction. I don't know if I could have said that two years ago.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. So you're from the "we need to hit bottom" school

I suspect that you're right.

The US and Germany both hit their respective economic bottoms in the late 1920s. Both followed very different paths out. Let's hope we follow a good path this time!

[undeterred]

46. Walker was the bottom.

Seeing over a hundred thousand people in the streets around the capitol on a snowy february day made me realize something really huge was happening. They were just ordinary people, not activists.

[RKP5637]

49. In a weird way Walker has been good for the country in that his extreme governorship

might have woken people up across the country to be careful of whom they vote for.

[undeterred]

55. Walker and every Republican governor that has gone too far...

In our state it brought out the best in our Democratic Senators. It brought out a lot of things in people that I had never seen. I have "apolitical" neighbors who now have signs in their windows that say "Walker, your pink slip is coming."

[Armstead]

45. Other -- Somewhere between One and Two

A serious renovation is needed, more than moderate changes, but the whole things does not need to be built from the ground up.

[justiceischeap]

47. Not just the parties but the entire Federal government, as it is, needs to be retooled

I think a good start would be term limits for all politicians, campaign finance reform, COngressional pay based on a sliding scale--if you're a millionaire, do you really need a 6 figure salary? Removing the power that lobbyists have within the government. I think we need to cut back on some of the Federal departments the government has, see if they can be streamlined. Appoint only people with experience to Federal posts.

[Taverner]

48. Silly rabbit that would require the party to give a shit

And they don't, at least not about us

Just tell your children and grandchildren someday there might be a country that values its citizen.

Stay safe and take care of your loved ones, that's about as much as anyone can do

[MannyGoldstein]

50. It's our Party and our government

We have the vote - we need to figure out how to use it to get results.

[Taverner]

52. Not any more it isn't

Citizens United and now the curtailing of class action suits has pretty much rendered the private citizen an unperson.

If we organize, they bring out the guns.

Hell, if we even talk of organizing, we get fired.

Take care of your friends and family, its the only thing you can do.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Corporations can't vote (yet!)

We need to be smarter at enlightening voters. Or we perish.

I'd like to try smarter before I go to perish.

[Taverner]

56. Not directly, but indirectly they can

They are the kingmakers. You will never see a candidate on the national level who is not beholden to corporations. The few that aren't are being purged (thinking Kucinich, Feingold, and that New York rep who DU helped the corporations purge from the rolls. Can't think of his name....I remmeber it rhyming with "cleaner")

[dembotoz]

54. obama drives me crazy and i hate that it makes me an outcast

i have learned to keep my mouth shut--except perhaps for here.

thank god for du

[RKP5637]

62. I know exactly what you mean. I thought I was voting for

some combination of FDR/JFK/LBJ. I never thought of myself as a radical, but a moderate left democratic really siding with "we the people." I've not moved radically left, but the goal posts have moved radically to the right. I guess by TPTB I'm now some far lefty.

[FreeJoe]

58. I voted other

I don't like the whole "left" vs "right" divide. I think that it dramatically oversimplifies things.

First, I think that the Democratic Party, to remain successful, needs to keep a big tent outlook. If we start trying to "purify" the party, we'll be a smaller party with no influence.

My personal view is that the party needs to move "left" on defense issues. We need to be more aggressively peaceful. Our inability to wind down (and not start more) wars is horrible.

I think that we're doing relatively well on most social issues. I'd like it if we could make a lot more sexual orientation equality progress, but we've moved farther faster than I thought we would and we're still moving in the right direction. I also wish the party could make more progress on ending the "war on drugs". We're making slow progress, but it is very slow.

On economic issues, I'd prefer to see the party liberalize in the classic sense. I'd like to see more economic freedom rather than less. I know that puts me at odds with most people here. Maybe that's why I like to see the party as a big tent.

[AndyTiedye]

65. We Do Not Have the Luxury of Time to Rebuild the Party From Scratch

While we took the next decade or two rebuilding our party from scratch,
the Teabaggers would be turning the country into Jesusland
and making the poor and elderly hosanna for food.

By the time we were done "rebuilding" our party, it would be too late for our country.

[MineralMan]

80. +10

[Peacetrain]

66. This is what you get with a big tent party.... Lots of voices from yours to the blue dogs

We have NOT moved to the right in 30 years.. we are a center left party. We have not been a left of left party since Walter Mondale.

Who are you going to cleanse from the party?

It does not work that way.

Voices grow stronger from one political era to the next.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. We've previously had a Democratic President who strives to gut Social Security?

see http://fdrdemocrats.org/the-common-sense-guide-to-social-security/6/

I think the evidence demonstrates that today's elected Democrats are very far to the right compared to their predecessors (or compared to what they campaigned on).

[Peacetrain]

68. The only thing that is going to make a true difference with social security is to raise the caps

And there is no evidence that the President is going to gut SS.. NONE. Because he had a commission look at issues from both parties point of view..does not mean he is going to gut SS. There is nothing anywhere, any place , any how that shows that.

[MannyGoldstein]

69. Did you read my linked article?

Or look at this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x931203">Social Security: the little secret that's fooling even most DUers.

[Peacetrain]

71. Yes I did.. and let me point this out.. projections are just that .

we could have 1% growth or be Japan and hit stagnation. We need to lift the caps and have not projections and reworking numbers.. that is what the crunchers go.. but actually capital in.. solid hard sink your teeth into it stuff.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. I agree in principle. The problem is that

if we ask to reinforce Social Security, the Republicans and many Democrats will seize on that and claim that we need to reinforce it because we know it's in trouble. Then it will be slashed to "save" it.

[Peacetrain]

75. Manny they are always, always going to try that. If we just lift the caps

to 210,000, we will have to revisit it in 35 or 40 years like they did in the 80's. If we can lift those caps to 500,000 or better yet completely.. well we would be on gravy street. The government would hold the extra money in bonds just like it does now.. but that would give us such a income vs outgo ratio that we would be in the black.

we we would get it back and then some :) can you imagine an 6.2% on a billionaire

They are not going to cut benefits..not going to happen..but what might happen is that the prescription drug act may be put on a pay as you go theme.. As it is now..that is the largest drain in those programs on the budget, because it is not paid for..no taxes taken for it.

I have always said, that the republicans did that for a reason..to use that deficit they knew would happen to attack SS and Medicare. Try to mark SS and Medicare with that debt they created.

[Peacetrain]

70. Let me add this Manny.. we ALL have to fight to have those caps lifted

not just for the retirees coming up, but for the safety net for our children and grandchildren,

We need to get it into the platform and run on it.

I know people will disagree with me on that, but I am not thinking about my own hide or even the next 30 years.. I am looking a 100 years out

[AtomicKitten]

77. It isn't the president (like you keep claiming), it's the Koch Bros, the GOP, Faux News.

did you see this in Political Videos? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x594404

[MannyGoldstein]

87. Then why did the President create a commission designed to gut Social Security?

He appointed to two most accomplished foes of Social Security to run the commission, then a majority of those named to the commission were already on record as saying that Social Security needs deep cuts.

Why do that unless Obama wanted to slash Social Security? I don't see any other way in which that move makes sense.

[AtomicKitten]

90. It wasn't designed to 'gut Social Security, in fact the directive didn't include "entitlements."

IMO the commission was set up to quell the notion that President Obama wasn't serious about the debt. My complaint, however, is that it has pulled the conversation regarding the debt to the right by elevating the debt over stimulating the economy.

If the Democrats acquiesce to the wingnuts and agree to detrimental changes to Social Security, I'll be right there with you loudly calling bullshit on it. Until then I don't see much point in setting myself on fire over of a prediction.

What is interesting is that the commission recommended the Public Option. Now that's one recommendations I loudly applaud.

[MannyGoldstein]

102. But why the very two people who are at the vanguard of slashing benefits?

I don't see that as likely to be a coincidence. And, true to form, they (and their committee) voted to cut benefits by 22% over time. No way Obama could not know that would happen.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

79. You have it exactly correct.

The Democratic Party already exists and has a long history and a solid organization. It would be very, very difficult, if not impossible to create a radical change in that Party.

The Greens are a party that actually exists, and that manages to get some people elected to office, mostly in state and local elections, but...

Now, I don't support third parties for national offices, because they don't have any history of success, but the Green Party represents much of what is being discussed here. I'm a Democrat, and am active in Democratic politics on the local level, so the Greens aren't for me. I truly believe in evolutionary, rather than revolutionary change, and work very hard for that.

But, to think that it's possible to "rebuild" the Democratic Party into a new form is just a fantasy. It's not going to happen.

[Rex]

85. No.

[SoapBox]

88. K & R

[BzaDem]

93. Or, you could convince the party to nominate different candidates. If you can't do that, then why do

you think there will ever be any way to get what you want?

No one is entitled to get what they want in politics. There will always be some on both sides who never get what they want, for their entire life. To avoid being in that set, you need to convince people to agree with you.

You say Kucinich is merely a token liberal. Putting the absurdity of that statement aside (I didn't realize Eisenhower supported Single Payer), Kucinich got a negligible percentage of the vote in the 2008 primary. Nothing is going to change until the percentage of the party and country that agree with you is non-negligible. And I don't just mean agree on policy in polls -- I mean agree to actually vote to nominate and elect a candidate you prefer. Until that happens, talking about "rebuilding the party" is about as productive as talking about changing the law of gravity.

[TBF]

97. Wow - I actually agree with this. "Rebuilding the party" is futile.

Organizing other action - if we go in that direction we can talk.

[marions ghost]

106. Ditto

"rebuilding the party is futile." Agree with you at this point. All the hard won advantages we did get in recent years have been squandered.

The problem is, In America there can be no viable third parties. So liberals will never be represented and we'll always be stuck with whatever The Democrats want to be, or appear to be. And that won't be very attractive into the foreseeable future. We are only skidding against the slide into total control by corporations and wealthy conservatives. Just hold your nose and vote Dem. There are no alternatives. Starting from scratch? Not possible unless you had millions of Americans putting on pressure for that. And most people are too hard up, tired, or disinterested to put in the time.

Anyone who disagrees, tell me where is the People's Power? What party represents the welfare of the people? We are witnessing a tragic betrayal, the most profound kind of lie. People should be ashamed to call this a Democracy. These are Dark Ages.

[sabrina 1]

113. Nothing is going to change until money stops buying and selling

candidates. If the Corporatists wanted Kucinich in the WH, he would be there. We even buy SC judges in this country. So there is simply no way to judge what the people actually want, other than polls on the issues, until the money is removed from the system.

You can buy anything. And they have, they have bought both parties now and the SC.

[Stinky The Clown]

94. Manny, I would argue with your calling the party "great". I think "once great" is far more accurate

I agree with everything else you've said.

I find myself looking back wistfully to guys like Nixon and Johnson. How sad is *that*?

Hell, even Bumbling Jerry Ford was tolerable.







I am convinced that what was the Democratic Party has been infiltrated by a new, mean spirited crowd that once would have been hard line secular repubicans. They left and took over the Democratic Party when the religious crazies took over their party.

[Jim Lane]

98. Explaining my "Other" vote

The Democratic Party is too far to the right, but "rebuild it from scratch" isn't a sensible option, given the nature of a modern American political party.

There is no one person or even a single small cabal that controls the party. The national party is an amalgam of state parties, and even within each state party, there are smaller divisions. In the 2012 primaries, your Democratic governor might find that his endorsed candidate for the nomination in the 1st Congressional District won, but his endorsee in the 2nd loses. One of those races goes to a Blue Dog and the other to a real progressive.

The point is that changing the Democratic Party is an incremental process and one that will never be completed. While you're trying to replace the Blue Dog in the 1st CD, the conservaDems and their big-money backers are targeting your idol in the 2nd.

If "from scratch" means throwing out all current officeholders, then it's clearly wrong. We have some who are good (e.g., Kucinich), and some who are nowhere near as good but are the best we can reasonably hope for given their districts (e.g., Matheson).

As compared with the drama of rebuilding from scratch, my doctrine of a long incremental struggle seems uninspiring and difficult. Well, it is difficult. There's no magic bullet. Patient slogging, and much toil for small gains, is the only way.

[begin_within]

103. The party needs to detach from corporate money.

That is what cripples the party from making any real progress.

[lonestarnot]

108. Key word "almost." Yes.

[JoePhilly]

116. How will you "clear out the Democratic party" exactly?

[DeSwiss]

118. Other

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a
new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~Richard Buckminster Fuller