So How are Moderates helping?

[Bonobo]

I will keep this short. The logic of it seems obvious to me and Rachel said this the other night as well.

Basically, the Republican's bargaining position is strongly bolstered by the heavy support they get from the "zealots" in their party.
When Boehner negotiates with Pres. Obama, he knows he has people further right supporting him and so he is pushed in that direction with no fear of having his legs cut out from under him.

When Rachel asked if a similar thing was possible on the Dem side, the answer was a resounding "Yes". Pres. Obama must and can only be pushed by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

So I have 2 basic questions:

1. Why do moderates act as if the hard-pushing from the far lefties on this board are harmful to the cause of the left?

2. If Dems vote for Dems despite what they do and their votes can ALWAYS be relied on, what kind of pressure/leverage do the self-proclaimed "moderates" here think they can apply and how?

[Bonobo]

1. Changed OP subject heading.

[nashville_brook]

2. good questions.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[slipslidingaway]

4. knr nt

[provis99]

5. you don't quite get it.

The moderates are OPPOSED to the left. That's why they're moderates, and not leftists.

[white_wolf]

6. but but... moderates are sensible and pragmatic while

we leftists are childish and and need to just toe the party line. :sarcasm:

[kenny blankenship]

7. They help the way they always do

By pretending that it's rational to meet religiously crazy people, resource grabbing warprofiteers, Big Brother surveillance state snoops, and goosestepping Fascists halfway.

That's help the modern Republican Party couldn't do without. Somebody has to pretend that they are not insane and that their "ideas" are not laughable, and moderate Democrats always oblige. The thing is, they don't seem to notice or understand that they keep moving half the distance to the right, half the remaining distance to the right, half the remaining distance to the right, without getting anything in return. The right keeps moving right, and it keeps getting crazier, stupider and more violent and dangerous in its rhetoric all the time, dragging the country into an incoherent, dysfunctional morass - and moderates go right along with them. The result is that today's "moderate Democrats" are on most important matters of foreign and domestic policy about where the rightmost snarling fringe of the Republican Party was in the early 1980s. If they don't cut the umbilicus to Reagan, where will they be tomorrow?

[Bonobo]

8. +1.

We have been inching to the right for my whole life and since WW2 and Clinton leapfrogged.

They just don't seem to understand that the real war is a war of ideas.

[dmallind]

9. Getting Dems the WH and Senate for a start

Without moderates the party would have the same influence as leftist-only parties like the Greens and Socialists have - absolutely none whatsoever. Sorry if that's not enough for the ideologues.

[Bonobo]

10. "Getting the WH" is meaningless without maintaining principles. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. We had Dems in the Senate and White House from the beginning of 2009

till nearly the end of 2010, and the ConservaDems and Obama STILL wanted to compromise with the Republicanites--not at the end of negotiations, but by anticipating their objections and compromising FIRST and STILL not getting any Republicanite votes.

Ineptness or corruption?

[white_wolf]

11. So, who cares?

If the Democrats have to sacrifice principles and ideas to get elected than are they worth electing?

[Telly Savalas]

14. If the results they yield represent a material difference from the GOP, then yes

Principles are meaningless if you have no mechanism to act on them.

[Bonobo]

15. Following one-half step to the center of far-right politicians as they dash to the right...

Will only lead you one-half step more slowly to the right.

We are going in the wrong direction and that is becoming the new normal (or re-defined as the leftm if you will).

Do you have trouble understanding that part of this crazy dance?

[Telly Savalas]

17. Then get progressives elected.

Don't elect moderates and whine about them not being leftists.

If you can't get leftists elected, then maybe it's you that have the wrong approach.

[Bonobo]

19. It would be easier without go-along to get-along mods undermining the message. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. And the MSM that either ignore or ridicule progressives

Any progressive movement will have to start on the local level, where candidates can use guerrilla marketing to overcome the media blackout.

[Telly Savalas]

21. Fuck the generalities. Let's talk specifics.

Sen. McCaskill. She's been an obvious disappointment.

There's essentially 3 options here:

1. Run a better Democrat against her in the primary and win with that candidate in November: I think we'd both agree that this would be the ideal scenario. Got a name of someone? Preferably someone who's expressed interest in running? I don't so that leave us with options 2 and 3.

2. Vote for McCaskill as the lesser of two evils: this is where I'd lean as despite her faults, she represents an improvement over the wingnut the GOP is going to nominate.

3. Withhold a vote for McCaskill: I don't see the logic here. If the idea is that she'll be gone and we can find somebody better in six years, why fucking wait six years? That essentially defers option 1 for 6 years, and in the meantime we're one step closer to Medicare vouchers. What's the point? If she loses, you haven't pressured her, because she's not in office. If she wins, you haven't pressured her because she knows she's getting her votes from places other than the left. This "pressure" bullshit doesn't hold water.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Change has come]

25. Please edit the spelling error in your last sentence. n/t

[Bonobo]

28. Sorry, I went out and missed the chance.

I am guessing I meant to write "bigger" or something but I don't remember the message...

[Change has come]

30. bigger picture...

I should have copied the message for you. It was good.

[Bonobo]

31. If I recall... I said "option 4 is..."

I said that the 4th option was to NOT vote for the DINO and then, in the future, a Democratic bean-counter with full access to all your meta-data, parsed in 6 different ways, will look at the numbers of "expected democratic votes" and "actual votes" and then he will drill into the data and figure out that his cushy job is in danger if the Dem Party doesn't start putting up REAL Democrats.

However, if the enabling wing of the Democratic Party continues its policy of voting without having any internal standards and promising their loyalty no matter what is done, it is a GUARANTEE of a future of more of the same.

[Change has come]

32. bingo.

Which directly leads to the centrist argument, "You wish McCain-Palin were elected".

[Marr]

23. Well, they're not.

They seem to be selling the same thing, just phased in a bit more slowly.

[PVnRT]

38. We had a mechanism to act on them for Obama's first two years

Instead, the moderates and the Republicans crushed every initiative coming from the White House.

A mechanism to get work done is meaningless without any principles to act upon.

[w4rma]

33. I'm sorry but we already had that not long ago.

And the "centrists" sabotaged us.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. So you are saying that if the Democrats were more liberal

the 'moderates' would go be Republicans? Makes sense as they used to be called 'Reagan Democrats' for doing just that. Interesting to see that proclaimed openly, that the moderates would be Republicans if the Democrats were not conservative enough for them. What, do they like our logo better or what?

[Telly Savalas]

12. Complaining on the internet isn't hard-pushing

The zealots in the GOP focus on getting their own elected, and they largely succeed. In contrast at DU there's about a 100 to 1 ratio of posts saying we need to primary somebody to posts discussing constructive action to promote a superior alternative. This attitude seems to be reflected in the real world too. So whereas the more left-wing elements of the Democratic Party only get a few token folks elected, the extremists of the GOP essentially control the party.

Paul Ryan didn't propose his batshit crazy radical proposal because he had extremists somehow pushing him. He did it because he's an extremist himself.

Or in more positive terms, Dennis Kucinich acts the way he does because that's who he is, not because progressives in Cleveland are putting his feet to the fire. Same thing with Bernie Sanders.

The problem we encounter is that folks like Kucinich and Sanders simply aren't electable in most areas -- recall this is a country where a majority of the people just voted for an extremist right wing organization to control its legislature. If you think I'm wrong, then be the fucking change and make it happen.

[Bonobo]

13. But witholding votes for those who do not support Democratic values is.

And agreeing to go along with Dems no matter what they do is damaging us, not helping us.

[Telly Savalas]

16. You didn't even read my post.

I think I outlined a pretty clear distinction between your bullshit notion of "pressuring" a politician, and electing people that truly represent your values. But hey, keep on going with that "I'll hold my breath until I get what I want" approach. It's obviously been doing a great job at getting what you want.

[Bonobo]

18. No you didn't.

You gave no idea of how politicians can be pressured by promising them your vote no matter what they do.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Dennis and Bernie get support, not 'feet to the fire' because they

actually represent those who elected them. Also, I am constantly amused by the 'moderates' who post these long, frequent declarations of the pointlessness of posting on the internet. So absurd that it is not even ironic, it is just flat out funny. It is a common talking point around here of late. People who post constantly and in great detail explain to those who they don't agree with that posting is pointless, a waste of time, and they try to persuade others that no one is ever persuaded on the internet......
The posts are like something from Lewis Carroll.

[damntexdem]

20. Moderates should be outraged and threatening to withdraw all support if stabbed in the back again.

The moderates should be joining the left in pressuring Obama and congressional Dems to not cave or move further right.

[JVS]

24. Moderates help?

[center rising]

26. Moderates and centrists decide elections

[mmonk]

47. Like 2010?

[Rex]

27. Because a lot of them think the far left are a bunch of crazy loonies

like the far right. Don't tell me you've never seen posts like that here.

[Keith Bee]

29. K&R

Point.

[mmonk]

34. What's a moderate?

Either one is for corporatism and/or privatization or against it.

[stillwaiting]

35. They are helping ensure right wing legislation is what gets passed and implemented.

By starting with a centrist position when the Repubs start with a FAR right position, the result will be right wing legislation.

Mission accomplished for them, I guess...

[H2O Man]

37. Way recommended.

I am planning an OP on this very topic.

I agree 100%. The Democratic Left has the ability to make the entire party stronger.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. Hey, maybe you could address how today's 'moderates' used

to be called 'Reagan Democrats' because they voted for Republicans like Reagan, which is to say the worst Republicans of all. Now they say 'moderate' but then they were Reagan Democrats and proud of it, too.

[Bonobo]

42. I'm pleased to hear that H2O Man.

I'm looking forward to a great post.

I lack your eloquence and always enjoy your great OPs.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. I notice they do not exactly rush to define their contributions to the

Party as a whole. They are right wingers, the 'moderate' label used to be 'Reagan Democrats' and that is what they are. Each one who says they are moderate has at least one major right wing opinion. I assume many of them are anti-equality and don't like to say so in decent company. Or they have some other prejudice or sexist view. Maybe they oppose birth control. Who knows? They feel very different from liberals because they are very different, they understand the Republicans well because they are, at times, Republicans.
At best, 'moderates' are those who like to butter their toast on both sides and pretend their fingers don't get greasy.

[JoePhilly]

43. If all the moderate hear from the left and the right is ... "Obama bad" ... they stay home.

It is really that simple.

And that's what happened in 2010.

On edit: there is a big difference between "pushing" and "demonizing".

[Bonobo]

44. Huh?

I thought the prevailing story was that the "embittered left" stayed home and caused the 2010 disaster...

Maybe you should get the story straight.

Now you are saying that the right and left "demonized" Obama so much that the "moderates" stayed home?

I give you points for originality anyway.

[JoePhilly]

46. The middle stayed home, not the left.

The left THREATENS to stay home. But they don't.

Many of the moderates aren't following politics on a daily basis. What they hear are sound bites. They hear the tone of the messages, the details, not so much. Part of why they are moderate is because they don't follow the details.

Go out from DU and find some moderate Democrats. You will find they are not following the details of the message from the right or the left. They hear the core message. Obama bad.

And that's the only message they hear because it is the same message from the right and the left.

[mmonk]

51. The new voters in 2008 looking for change stayed home in 2010.

That's my assessment. The centrists are too much invested in the new democrat identification to stay home IMO.

[JoePhilly]

53. Most of the new voters also are not people who followed politics closely.

Prior to the 2008 election, the OBAMA GOOD message was dominant. As many have noted, lots of folks saw whatever they wanted to see in Obama, often ignoring his moderate positions during the campaign.

Its why the GOP and right wing mockingly called him the Messiah.

But in less then one year, when it became clear that Obama was never going to be able to accomplish everything quickly, the complaining started.

It is as if he had 1 year to clean up 30 years of GOP damage, and he had to do it with the most obstructionist GOP in American history standing in his way.

And so by 2010, the "Obama bad" message from the right and the left became the only message. And the new voters, and dem leaning moderates, stayed home.

The "Obama bad" message had the opposite effect on the moderates in the GOP. They came out.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Don't know about PA, but here in Oregon, we criticize who we

wish, and yet we elected Democrats across the board in 2010, with the highest midterm turnout in decades. How did you guys do with the 'mum's the word' style, the 'support it all and shout at those who don't' method?
Out here, telling someone to not criticize a politician will get you laughed by all voters of all Parties.
Say 'howdy' to your Senator Toomey for us! We have two Democrats in the Senate. So do the States to our North and South. Say hi to Pat for all of us! You guys elected him, with all that 'support'.
I think the only 'support' that matters to a President is a vote for him or her, and then placing Democrats in the Congress to have his back. Words are fun, but they just do not match the power of a Senate vote. We liberal 'critics' gave Obama all the Democrats possible. Say hello to Toomey for us!

[leeroysphitz]

45. It"s more important to appear centrist than to defend good policy. n/t

[xchrom]

52. recommend

[crickets]

54. Excellent OP, Bonobo.

K&R just to hold steady at 21 recs. This is an important conversation that needs to be brought out into the light of day, but apparently there are some moderates out there who'd rather not be a topic of discussion. :)

Kudos from a member of the liberal wing.

[Bonobo]

55. I still have not seen any credible answers to the main question I asked.

How does anyone in the Democratic Party exert leverage over him if they promise away their votes to him EVEN AS he sells the rug right out from under their feet.

Where is the mechanism of pressure in that scenario?