Does anyone else think it's time for a Populist Party?

[Horse with no Name]

It is becoming apparent that the DLC and factions thereof really only want our money and our votes...they basically have no use for us a whole.
I'm tired of inadequacy in our party.
I'm tired of serving the corporate master.
It is time for a change.

[European Socialist]

1. yes, the average person has no representation anymore.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Sure...

Splintering the anti-Republican vote is always a good idea...(sic)


Actually, a third party always hurts the party nearest to it...

[Kralizec]

3. Let's get a Parlimentary system going here!!

edit: typo

[Mandate My Ass]

12. Yes and IRV

:thumbsup:

[KingFlorez]

14. You probably mean proportional representation

Which is the same thing as the parliamentary system.

[harrison]

4. Yes. it is past time.

[Skidmore]

5. If the Dems are unwilling to adopt a more populist message,

then I think it will happen. The PDA is a great bunch of people with good ideas, but the party appears unwilling to incorporate them and seems more interested in dissing anyone with more progressive ideas.

We need a party on the line of the Minnesotan DFL. They have the right balance of constituency and a good solid populist platform.

[smoogatz]

6. I'd prefer a Progressive party. Populism smacks of pandering

and Huey Long style corruption--not to mention racism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Good Point...

The populist movements of the late nineteeth century fell apart because of race....

[theHandpuppet]

22. I agree -- good suggestion

"Populism" carries too much baggage to appeal to me. I much prefer "progressive".

[blm]

7. Does a Populist Party put the left in power or does it help the GOP?

And does the Populist Party control the media or the voting machines?

If the Dems exposed the GOP control of the media and the voting machines, the net result would be Dems winning offices all over the country, and that shift alone would give them the freedom to be more progressive.

IMO, the moderate Dems have thought they needed to play the centrist semantics game because the corporate media forces them to or risk being ignored as a public voice entirely.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. A Third Party Always Hurts The Party Nearest To It

eom

[Jackpine Radical]

9. I could see a third leftist party--but only if

we have a national policy of instant-runoff voting. I can't see either party buying into that idea because it cuts into their power.

[omega minimo]

11. We don't need a third party

We need a second :evilgrin:

From Secretary of the Future Kurt Vonnegut:

We have only a one party government. It's the winners. And then everybody else is the losers. And the winners divided into two parties. The Republicans and the Democrats. What a charade the combat between the Republicans and the Democrats is. It's rich kids...We had to choose between two members of Skull and Bones!

Excerpt from his new book "A Man Without A Country"
http://www.wnyc.org/books/52135
http://www.vonnegut.com

[oc2002]

13. populistunderground.com

well, if you build it, they will come.

if anything, it will split the party or force the DNC to take notice that they either listen and change or die.

[Bridget Burke]

15. Weren't you asking about a Progressive Party last week?

I'd like the Democratic party to become more Populist & more Progressive.

But the US system is not set up for 3rd parties. In national elections, you would be flushing your vote away.

[Horse with no Name]

21. Actually I think you are twisting my words

I said we needed to be more progressive.
I know the system is set up for 2 parties, however, I would like to see the second.
I see the Republicans and I am seeing a watered down version of the Republicans--of course with a few exceptions.
For example...does LIEberman represent anything that you stand for?
What about BIDen?
We are being sold out to the corporations. They want our money but don't want to give us a say...take Hackett for example.
He is a good grassroots candidate, yet they don't want him.
As far as I am concerned, the Democrats would serve themselves well to start looking outside the beltway to strengthen our party.
I don't think they are willing to do it.

[tx_dem41]

16. No, I'm a member of democraticunderground.com.

Might I suggest other websites?

[Horse with no Name]

19. If you need one

I'm fine where I am.

[Czolgosz]

17. We have a populist party: it's the Democratic Party. We just need to work

to ensure that the populist vision of the party prevails over the Republican-lite vision. John Edwards, for example, is one hell of a populist candidate.

Still, if we could ever get true representation through a parliamentary system, then we can talk about fragmenting the left into a populist left and whatever remains, but until that time we need to stand together. Remember: in Bush's Divided States of America, the party with the best cohesion holds a huge advantage.

[Horse with no Name]

20. Howard Dean is a populist

We need the grassroots effort...but I am not willing to keep giving grassroots money for it to be spent on centrist candidates.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

18. Populism won't work...

... Tom Daschle was/is a "Prairie Populist" and look what they did to him here. Too much "doing what is right for the people" that comes from both Democratic and Republican parties are grasped by Populists for it to even float.

[oc2002]

23. Dashle was a gutless centrist, republican lite senator as I recall.

nt.,

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

24. I rest my case...

... too many here have no idea of what a populist is.

Hint: Pick up a history book and go back a little over 100 years.

[Czolgosz]

27. I'm not so sure. For one, Daschele wasn't such a populist. He voted for

anti-populist legislation (1) restricting rules on personal bankruptcy (2) allowing international free trade with countries that do not observe fair labor practices or comparable environmental standards so as to allow trade on a level playing field (3) neutering welfare.

Also, I don't subscribe to the "as goes South Dakota, so goes the United States" line of thinking.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

31. Once again...

... pick up a history book. Populists pushed the issues of the people they represented, ie.... the midwesterners. Start thinking Grangers, who encompassed people of all races who were tired of getting shafted in their platforms, if you still are stumped as to what Populists were. Populists were strongly linked to their local middle to lower class societies.

That is why it won't fly. If anyone votes for their own local interests, short sighted people scream "leeeebrullll" or "republican lite".

[corbett]

25. Progressive Democrats Of America Are Just What You Need (video)

They've done a whole lot in their short life and they are the heart of our policial future:

http://www.pdamerica.org/video.php

[H2O Man]

26. One of the

things I find interesting is how many political parties there used to be in the pre-Civil War era. I'm not sure that the current "democrat-republican" set-up meets the needs of the majority of people in America. The stunningly high percentage of people who do not vote is enough to indicate that there is a void that needs to be filled.

[Ksec]

28. Populism YES!

Eithe the Dems get back to their populism or we branch off in a true peoples party

[Jim Lane]

29. Two words: Open primaries

You could create a minor party that would split our vote every November so that RW candidates always win. Or you could recruit the people who would run as Populist Party candidats and get them to seek the Democratic nomination.

Anyone who has enough votes to win in November as a Populist should have enough votes to win a Democratic primary.

[Rowdyboy]

30. Right, Nader didn't do enough damage in 2000....Lets split the Democratic

vote even more so Republicans never have to worry they might lose another election. That'll show 'em! Take that corporate America!