In their own words. An "intellectual buyout" of the Democratic Party.

[madfloridian]

There's often a lot of denial about the purposes of the forerunner to the Third Way...the DLC.

They intended to change the party into one that could get enough money without having to rely on the party's traditional constituents.

Simon Rosenberg 2001:
SNIP..."Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

http://prospect.org/article/how-dlc-does-it

And here's another kicker. It's hard to deny these words of the earlier members like Rob Shapiro.

Seems the "intellectual leveraged buyout" of the Democratic party has worked quite well.

The post is originally by Lloyd Grove of the Washington Post.

Al From, the Life of the Party

Senator Herman Talmadge attributed Al From's Southern twang to his hanging around so many Dixie Centrists.

But some would suggest a different explanation for From's -- pronounced "frahm's" -- strange and mysterious mode of speech, which occasionally recalls former Georgia Sen. Herman Talmadge, jaw chock-full of tobacco juice. It's all those Dixie centrists he's been consorting with during his seven years at the helm of the Democratic Leadership Council.

Rob Shapiro, the DLC VP at the time, and a Clinton advisor, spoke clearly about their purpose.

What we've done in the Democratic Party," explains institute Vice President Rob Shapiro, a Clinton economic adviser, "is an intellectual leveraged buyout." The DLC, presumably, is acting as arbitrageur, selling off unprofitable mind-sets to produce a lean and efficient philosophy for the "New Democrat," as DLCers call their slick bimonthly magazine.

Unprofitable mind-sets sold off to be more efficient. We have learned through the years that a whole lot of Democratic ideals were considered "unprofitable mind-sets"...and they had to go.

I have been thinking of this comment from 1992 as we see a commission appointed by the president putting Social Security on the table and not backing down at all.

I have thought of it as I realize this group is getting their long-time goal of charter schools accomplished finally under this administration.

They are still lecturing the left, the liberals to stop complaining.

[Cosmic Kitten]

1. K&R

...get enough money without having to rely on
the party's traditional constituents

And some people wonder why we cant have
sparkle farting ponies and unicorns!

[Octafish]

2. TPP has ''LARRY SUMMERS'' written all over it.

Summers looked at Stiglitz like Stiglitz was some kind of naive fool who'd read too many civics books.

http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-goldman-sacked/

[merrily]

8. Another familiar tactic of the pragmatic woodchucks.

If someone disagrees with you, pretend it's only because they are, at best, totally fucking out of touch with reality.

[winter is coming]

53. Don't be a purist.

We wouldn't the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

[merrily]

75. I'm a

liberal Democratic Socialist Trotskyite. But I am pragmatic."

"My candidate for POTUS is Bernie Warren (insert name of most liberal Dem imaginable here). I really have no use for Hillary. But, the bullshit that gets posted about her 24/7 here is too annoying to leave unrebutted."

"The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican. If Democrat run the ebola virus, I'm voting for the ebola virus. Nuff said."

"You demand that everyone agree with you 100% on every issue. You'd better run because the only candidate who'll ever satisfy you is you."

"Corporations are everywhere and everything. Not only has there never been a President who is not a corporatist, there never will be and never can be a President who is not a corporatist."

"The left is anti-American."

"Party is everything." (Candidates don't matter; issues don't matter; legislation doesn't matter. the country going down the tubes doesn't matter.)

And so and so mind numbingly on.


Note: If debated by a leftist, all of the above can, and probably will, be accompanied by ever escalating ad homs.

OMG. Just occurred to me. I hope Third Way Manny doesn't sue me for copyright infringement.

[winter is coming]

81. TWM's lawyers are going to take you for every heart you have.

[merrily]

82. Oh, noes, not my hearts! Manny has so many more than I do anyway.

[winter is coming]

83. And now you know the ugly truth about how he got them. n/t

[merrily]

84. ...

[MannyGoldstein]

94. Bookmarking your post for future reference

I can link back to it and save lots of time.

Regards,

TWM

[merrily]

76. P.S. Supreme Court.

[madfloridian]

3. "The Center Holds" by David Brooks 2007.Slams liberals.

Sending messages to the grassroots, netroots, liberals, activists who speak with emotion.

The Center Holds

by David Brooks

In the beginning of August, liberal bloggers met at the YearlyKos convention while centrist Democrats met at the Democratic Leadership Council's National Conversation. Almost every Democratic presidential candidate attended YearlyKos, and none visited the D.L.C.

At the time, that seemed a sign that the left was gaining the upper hand in its perpetual struggle with the center over the soul of the Democratic Party. But now it's clear that was only cosmetic.

Ouch, that hurt.

Now it's evident that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the "netroots. You can learn most of what you need to know by paying attention to two different groups -- high school educated women in the Midwest, and the old Clinton establishment in Washington.

Yes, that is who is in charge. David Brooks is right about who controls the message in DC.

..."The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots' self-righteousness and bullying. They also know their party has a historic opportunity to pick up disaffected Republicans and moderates, so long as they don't blow it by drifting into cuckoo land. They also know that a Democratic president is going to face challenges from Iran and elsewhere that are going to require hard-line, hawkish responses.

Ouch, again.

[Bandit]

20. I guess I live in cuckoo land because I believe in people first and Big Business second..

Not popular in the Democratic Party I guess. The Democratic Party, the Party of the People.. Ha Ha what a joke..

[zeemike]

37. Well it is the party of the people.

The people that count...and if you don't have money how can you count?
And that is no joke.

[ND-Dem]

67. Like Kos represents the left. lol.

[DonCoquixote]

69. analyzed

.."The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots' self-righteousness and bullying. They also know their party has a historic opportunity to pick up disaffected Republicans and moderates, so long as they don't blow it by drifting into cuckoo land.

Define Cuckoo land? Was welfare reform cuckoo land? Was Nafta? The road to hell is not marked with neon signs.

[jollyreaper2112]

85. simple

Anyone who believes in democratic ideals is a wackadoodle. If you don't embrace corporatism you aren't Serious People. Get with the fucking program, hippie.

You'll notice that the Republicans show their balls by punching hippies and never, ever dare go against the wishes of the base. They are in fear of their base. The Democrats show their balls by punching hippies, their sign of strength is showing contempt for the base. Funny, that.

[Scuba]

4. "They are still lecturing the left, the liberals to stop complaining." Right here, every day.

[winter is coming]

30. While expecting their support. n/t

[merrily]

38. sometimes demanding. Though I think part of that may

be to goad posters into saying things for which their posts could be hidden or they could be banned.

If they get you to say you'll vote for Hillary, no matter what, good for them. And, if you get a hide or get banned, that's fine with them, too.

[daleanime]

61. +1

next couple of years are going to be hard, here's hoping we'll have something to look forward to.

[merrily]

73. Thanks. I am looking forward to the next election, hoping Dems will gain

back some seats.

[daleanime]

96. If we are willing to engage the base....

we will. If we continue to marginalize it, we won't.

[merrily]

113. Well, according to the Third Way loyalists, New Democrats are the base and

more traditional Democrats, like me, are the fringe. I think most Dem politicians are Third Way at this point. And I think most voters are clueless.

It's probably very hard for us political junkies to underestimate the extent of low info among voters, even voters who have more than average interest in politics, like a lot of the Hollywood crowd.

Most Americans have no clue that this is the New Democrat Party not the party they've understood the Democratic Party to be since the New Deal. And no one with money and power, not mass media, not New Democrat politicians or traditional Democratic politicians or Republican politicians wants to educate the American public about that. Despite all the blah blah about electability, they know very well which Democratic Party most Americans would prefer. They also know which one they and big donors would prefer. So, they don't really want to leave it up to most Americans. So, they leave us as few choices and as little say as they think they can get away with.

[daleanime]

116. Simply check out how little coverage the low voter turnout from the last cycle.....

got in the MSM. The best way to control the vote is to suppress it.


So much work to be done.

[merrily]

117. Obama covered it Nov 2014: "Those who voted, I heard you. Those who didn't vote, I heard you, too."

I think Third Way heard it, too.

Last night was a sad one for Third Way. A number of our friends and current and former Honorary Senate co-chairs lost their seats. We believe in and respect these Senators, and we fear that Congress and the country will be worse off with their absence in Washington. Everyone is disgusted with all of the gridlock and the failures, but the tragedy of last night’s results is that these Senators were part of the solution, not the problem.

The reasons for their losses were many. Chief among them was a feeling on the part of voters that Democrats were not offering solutions equal to the task of restoring function to a dysfunctional government, and driving economic growth and prosperity that would make their lives better or more secure.

While the results were disappointing, it was a night filled with resolve. At Third Way, we are determined to help find a path forward through the dysfunction and discord. The country can ill afford two more wasted years of gridlock, and we will be offering ideas that can work even in a time of divided government. We hope that the Senators-Elect are coming to Washington in the spirit of comity, cooperation, and progress that the majority of their voters so clearly are demanding.

http://www.thirdway.org/press/press-releases/third-way-statement-on-the-outcome-of-the-2014-elections; http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025769052



(I find it REALLY hard to believe that the Third Way think tank just realized that the night of the 2014 midterm. Hell, the 2010 and 2012 gains the Republicans had made in Congress and states should have been a clue.)

Hillary is trying to "cover" it by hiring a fleet of advisors to come up for a strategy to appeal to populists without sounding "combative" and without hurting the feelings of the rich.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251394503

We'll soon see whether all that alleged realization translates to changes in anything besides cosmetics and rhetoric, including campaign rhetoric.

[daleanime]

118. There will be pain...

the question is, will it be shared or do the few continue to be excepted?

[merrily]

119. The few will continue to be excepted until the many change.

The many have incentive to change. The few and their enablers do not. Ergo, if we leave it up to them, we can expect more of the same.

Do I, however, know what to do? Aside from focusing as locally as I can, no.

[ND-Dem]

68. I don't think they want ordinary voters support, actually. The rudeness and lack of regard for

ordinary Democrats' concerns tells me they want to lose.

[merrily]

74. Also a possibility.

I wondered about that during th Martha Coakley Scott Brown contest.

[CrispyQ]

5. This says it all:

They intended to change the party into one that could get enough money without having to rely on the party's traditional constituents.

One cannot serve two masters.

[hifiguy]

6. +1

The party was sold lock stock and barrel. Mostly by the Clintons.

[antigop]

14. yep. nt

[hifiguy]

16. And Hillary wants to finalize the the deal for good

by selling the final crumbs to Wall Street and the MIC.

Disgusting.

[840high]

64. Oh yes.

[woodsprite]

7. Yup, follow the money. It's all about the money. n/t

[HappyMe]

9. It isn't about issues.

It's all about the mighty dollars and who has the most. They don't seem to want or need us any more.

[merrily]

11. Not about issues, not about electability.

[CrispyQ]

21. The electoral system is so corrupt & compromised,

I no longer believe we will affect change via the ballot box.

Citizen's United
electronic voting
gerrymandering
voter disenfranchisement
corporate owned media with an agenda
apathetic/unengaged population

That's a helluva list.

[HappyMe]

24. With a list like that,

it's pretty damn easy to get discouraged. As soon as it seems like headway is being made with one, another backslides. I think we are forever stuck with Citizens United. Too much money, too many corporations, too many favors owed.

[Divernan]

92. In Penn., GOP got so damned arrogant, they lost the governorhip.

GOP Gov. Corbett's gutting of public education and whorish sell out to Big Fracking were so blatantly exploitative, that he was the first gov. in PA's history to not be elected to a second term The Pirate Parrot could have beaten him. However, we got what promises to be a fine new Dem. Governor, Tom Wolf. And now Phillie has been selected for the Dems 2016 convention - which we hope will help us overcome some of the gerry mandered Congressional Districts, plus defeat GOP Senator Toomey.

Toomey is following the WINGNUT Strategy that even Rick Santorum followed every sixth year attempting to shift to the center during election years to appeal to moderates. Then once elected, becoming a full fledged WINGNUT for five and a half more years. The electorate caught on to Santorum and Toomey will be the next Pennsylvania Republican Senator to lose his Senate Seat. McConnell is allowing Toomey to shift to the center, but he is so connected with ultra Conservative monied special interests groups it is almost funny how now he wants to shift to being a moderate.

I'm supporting retired admiral Joe Sestak for the next PA Senator.

[ancianita]

89. It hurts. But it's true.

[merrily]

10. Thanks, madfloridian. According to Conyers, both OASDI and Medicare were put on the table.

[rhett o rick]

12. Stop yer complaining, drink your cool aide and vote HRC. nm

[hifiguy]

28. Nope. No, nae, never.

[840high]

65. No way in hell will I vote for her.

[rhett o rick]

70. Me either. One has to draw the line somewhere. nm

[SusanaMontana41]

126. Kool-Aid? More like antifreeze.

Slower death. More suffering.

[Phlem]

13. Fuckers!

[antigop]

15. thanks, mad. They screwed American workers. nt

[jalan48]

17. It's about maintaining the illusion of a two party system.

[daredtowork]

18. Everyone says they "won't spoil" with a third party

But if the Democrats have been "bought" out by these Pod People Democrats, isn't the only way to scoot out from under them and set up a Real Democrat party that Real Democrats can then join? Perhaps this splinters the party for one election cycle, but ultimately wouldn't the need to win elections mean the "right-tending" people would drift back to the GOP, and the "left-tending" people would drift to join the Real Democrats?

[WDIM]

27. They rigged the system

Third parties dont have a chance. First its almost impossible for a third party to get on the ballot and second if they do get on the ballot its almost impossible to get any media attention. The public at large already doesnt pay attention at all and the definately dont pay attention to third parties. It would take somebody very well known with millions of supporters already in place to even make a scratch on the surface.

[daredtowork]

29. It seems to me

what needs to happen is that the party splinter needs to be so big that it actually costs an election. Then people will panic over the true cost of "stealing" a party, and the membership will sort itself out back into the two-party system to make things winnable again.

I know that's not going to happen. But I do think it's the only thing short of actual revolution that's going to prevent the Left's expulsion at this point.

[merrily]

40. It needs a lot of time to take hold and a buttload of money up front and no one will provide that.

Maybe some names, too. Look what happened to the Greens after the Nader Green split.

[zeemike]

41. The error in that is in the need to win elections.

No they don't need to win elections because if the GOP wins it is fine with the PTB...and none of the Dems will fall out of power or lose any of the money they take in from being losers.
If they lose their elected office there is a nice job waiting for them on some board of directors somewhere and a clone will take their place to run in the next election.
The game is rigged so it is heads they win tails they win.

[sabrina 1]

19. That thinking, 'unprofitable mindsets (SS, Public School Ed, etc) replaced by 'more efficient

mindsets', Wall St mindsets, has permeated the Dem Party for quite a while now.

You see its disastrous influence in the mantra that 'we don't care who the Dem nominee is, we just want to beat the red team' thinking.

And it failed, miserably, in 2010 and 2014 because people woke up and found out what was going so wrong with their country.

[merrily]

42. Supreme Court, LOTE, say hello to President CruZZZZZzzzzzzzz

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. This is why I refuse to support Hillary....

The party took a turn towards the Left with Obama not because HE was a hard core Liberal but because those around him were. Some of them went to DC and got into the offices formerly occupied by Clinton's DLC types. Those types are itching to get back into their old jobs and go back to claiming Liberalism is a total FAILURE.

For those who like the progress the party has made towards issues important to Liberals be prepared to see it all trashed by people who claim to be "the adults in the room".

[HereSince1628]

23. The issue was regional... it made it hard for democrats to win in SOME places

Places that were traditionally conservative and anti-labor. The bad times there can't be forgotten.
.

[Android3.14]

25. Cribbed from a previous post, unfortunately

But still sort of relevant.

[merrily]

43. Great thread. thanks. Archivists awe me some, esp. if they are not archiving for

purposes of some one on one feud or "gotcha."

[madfloridian]

44. You only found one?

Look again.

[Exultant Democracy]

26. Do not let down. These are historical facts about the Clintion Faction of the democractic party

the outrage against us calling the Clintons third way is absurd, considering it was a moniker they self identified with. They literally give speeches and write articles about the wonders of triangulation.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. Hill's always been on the make; now she's on the remake.

And dammit, you're focusing on the flaws in the whitewash.

Or maybe I should say "Bluewash."

[arcane1]

31. But the Supreme Court! Or something...

[blkmusclmachine]

32. DLC = GOP lite.

[WillyT]

33. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[LondonReign2]

34. Kick

[hibbing]

36. unprofitable mind-sets

What the hell is that about?

Peace

[SixString]

39. DU Rec.

[Enthusiast]

45. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch! Fuck 'em!

[Kermitt Gribble]

46. K&R

Great post, mad!

[wyldwolf]

47. "without having to rely on the party's traditional constituents."

The Democratic party's ship ran ashore in the 1980s precisely because we had to rely on the party's "traditional constituents."

Every time someone makes the point you did in your OP, I'm reminded of a piece from The American Prospect by Michael Tomasky in which he very succinctly addressed the Democratic Party's over-reliance on 'traditional constituents.' Why? Because the party has lot of them. The diverse coalition as means of financial support in a time where Republicans were increasingly out-raising us (and beating us at the ballot box) made that system difficult to maintain if our goal was to win elections

For many years -- during their years of dominance and success, the period of the New Deal up through the first part of the Great Society -- the Democrats practiced a brand of liberalism quite different from today’s. Yes, it certainly sought to expand both rights and prosperity. But it did something more: That liberalism was built around the idea -- the philosophical principle -- that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.

Many of today's Democrats - of the further left variety - still cling to the outdated post-Great Society notion that the Party must cater to every interest group's whims. It's important to remember how central the interest group/group rights framework was to the Left until around the time the DLC formed. Back in 1988, one of the Rev. Jesse Jackson's best known speeches invoked his grandmother's quilts as a metaphor for the Democratic Party, and then he proceeded through a litany of "the groups" (everyone from small business people and farmers to gays and lesbians), addressing each with the warning: "Your patch is too small."

That quilt is better indicative of a Democratic Party that had become a loose confederation squabbling groups who could never be collectively pleased, a state that manifested itself with dwindling votes at the ballot box.

One last thing before the wailing and gnashing of teeth begins, before the obligatory 'fuck you's' and threats to leave the party. You referenced a review of Al From's book by Lloyd Grove. I rather like Matt Stoller's, which ended with this very important piece of advice - advice 'progressives' have always ignored and probably always will. Recycling the same anti-Clinton, anti-DLC screeds on message board is just so much easier.

...if you expect changes in philosophy and behavior (from the Democratic Party) you’re going to have to do what Al From did. Which is, organize. And don’t just organize to put Democrats in power, organize around ideas the way that Al From did. From’s ideas were incredibly consequential, and they are today the basis for how the West is run.

http://bit.ly/1zybePv

[madfloridian]

49. Hey ww address the last few election losses.

I have seen all kinds of excuses for 2010 and 2014 and the huge losses.

They have been ignoring their "traditional constituents".....and they lost.

And they surely are getting enough corporate money. And the more they get the more they ignore us.

One last thing before the wailing and gnashing of teeth begins, before the obligatory 'fuck you's' and threats to leave the party. You referenced a review of Al From's book by Lloyd Grove. I rather like Matt Stoller's, which ended with this very important piece of advice - advice 'progressives' have always ignored and probably always will. Recycling the same anti-Clinton, anti-DLC screeds on message board is just so much easier.

Yes, it is not hard to do. And "they" keep recycling their warnings to the left about "bipartisanship". Which now amounts to our side not making waves on the political scene.

[Phlem]

51. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Thank You.

I know life long Republican's more open minded than him.

[wyldwolf]

52. I've done that ad nauseam here. Probably in your threads, too

Here's the cliff's note summary.

Since Nixon's southern strategy, Democrats have often under-performed in midterms.

Core Democratic groups (Young people, Hispanics) don't vote in mid-terms in large numbers. This trend pre-dates the DLC by many election cycles.

Independents swung right in '10 and '14.

Obama proved to be a major liability in the 2010 election. Fifty-five percent of voters disapproved of the way the president was handling his job, including 58 percent of independents. Of those who disapproved of Obama, 86 percent voted for a Republican House candidate. Even more to the point, 37 percent of voters overall, as well as 37 percent of independents, claimed a reason for their House vote was to express opposition to President Obama.

These are not 'excuses,' they are facts. Unlike your stated opinion that people were ignored.

Yes, it is not hard to do.

Then why have 'progressives' NEVER done it? I can guarantee you this. If you and I are still on DU in 10 years, we'll have either a centrist Democrat or a Republican president and you'll still be posting the same posts on an almost weekly basis that do little more than collect recs and dittos.

And "they" keep recycling their warnings to the left about "bipartisanship".

post a few.

[madfloridian]

54. Can I include "post partisanship" as well?

Gonna take a while to round them up.

[wyldwolf]

55. SURE! Just makes sure they adhere to the method we established.

Recycling screeds - similarly worded, almost cut-and-paste versions of each other.

[madfloridian]

57. Heck, why retype when one can cut and paste?

[wyldwolf]

58. why do either?

[madfloridian]

59. Because their goals of the last few decades are changing our country.

[wyldwolf]

60. so cutting and pasting the same post over and over is going to make a difference?

Chances are most here who feel as you do have already read and believe your thoughts on this topic. What other reason could you have other than ditto/rec collecting?

Not that I mind, though. They're usually full of holes in terms of historical accuracy and it's great fun pointing them out. DU would be a little boring without the entertainment. Kinda like a Ground Hog Day movie happening on day 1 of PolySci 101.

[madfloridian]

114. Still condescending. Groundhog day?

These are posts that need repeating. Nothing is changing, the think tanks just try to be unobtrusive about their warnings to liberals.

[wyldwolf]

115. Still repetitive?

These are posts that need repeating. Nothing is changing, the think tanks just try to be unobtrusive about their warnings to liberals.

If you're goal is to collect recs and dittos.

[rhett o rick]

71. So the question is, do you stand up for principles, or do you sell out to be a "winner"?

[wyldwolf]

79. That question is too black or white, this or that

The question is do you formulate a philosophy that resonates with a lot of people, organize to spread that philosophy in a meaningful way then find candidates who believe that philosophy (and don't just pay it lip service around election season) who can actually win a national election? Or do you continue bellyaching on the internet while comforting yourself that hanging out with the choir in a bubble preaching the same lines over and over and over again actually accomplishes something?

I'm guessing the latter because 'progressives' have seldom shown an aptitude to organize anything on a state or national level. You whisper about some secret progressive majority but they somehow never make it to the polls in November. So you create these progressive mythologies around figures like FDR, Truman, JFK, Carter and Obama to validate your belief in 'progressive' dominance that only people in your small sphere believe and are easily refuted by countless reference materials and first hand accounts.

So Rick, what's it gonna be? Are you going to be an internet slactivist or a progressive thought leader who plants the seeds for your Reagan or Clinton?

Who is your Al From?

[rhett o rick]

86. Interesting that you admit you don't consider yourself progressive. Will you go the next

step and admit you are conservative? That you support the Big Brother spying of the NSA/CIA Deep State, the piracy of Wall Street Banksters, the "Free" Trade deals that will enslave our workers, the MIC and their continual wars. That you welcome the comfort of big brother and big money government.

You think that the question of whether you support the people or the wealthy 1% is too black or white. Not so.

The Iraq War was an atrocity of huge proportions that brought Iraq untold damage and was used by the 1% to redistribute wealth from the lower classes of the USofA to the wealthy 1%. Your Corp-Media plays it down and some pretend it never happened. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and we are left with wounded vets begging in our streets for a hand out. The decision to go to war with an innocent nation was a black or white decision. Those with principles stood out against it, and those that supported it can be lumped in a group with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

Go ahead and skoff at those that stand for principles against Wall Street and their puppets. There is a populist/progressive movement that gets no publicity from your Corp-Media, but they will start to make a difference. They may not have the hundreds of billions to buy elections like the Oligarchs (Goldman-Sachs) and their puppets but you can only push people so far.

[wyldwolf]

87. When have I ever NOT admitted I wasn't a 'progressive?' That isn't interesting at all.

step and admit you are conservative?

Here's a prime example of black/white, either/or thinking fundamentalists like 'progressives' are know for.

* the need to force reality to fit his ideology or belief, rather than adjust his beliefs to fit reality
* the belief that he can speak out on almost any issue, even on those where he is uninformed.
* the belief that her ideology answers all questions.
* a focus on ideological condemnations of opponents
* the belief that opponents are not sincere in their beliefs
* the tendency to ignore new facts and continue repeating the same mantra over and over again
* the feeling that there is hardly ever any need to change his mind.
* Black and white, either/or thinking, two opposite options are put on the table as if they were the only options. In reality, there is a wide continuum of different options.

I'm progressive (adjective), not a "progressive" (noun.) Why is that either interesting or surprising on a board called DEMOCRATIC underground?

Wall Street blah blah blah Iraq blah blah blah.

[rhett o rick]

103. Maybe you will accept definitions from dictionary.com. A Progressive (noun) is "a person who is

progressive or who favors progress or reform, especially in political matters."

Not sure how you can be progressive but not be a progressive.

[wyldwolf]

107. Sure. Progressive (noun) vs. "progressive" (noun)

"Progressive" (noun) see also progressive fundamentalism

The desire to purge ideas that are different. For many on the Left, the movement they pursue cannot tolerate dissent. Politicians who disagree with them on as little as an issue are ridiculed, reviled and plotted against.

Characteristics:

* the need to force reality to fit ideology or belief, rather than adjust beliefs to fit reality
* the belief that one can speak out on almost any issue, even on those where he/she is uninformed
* the belief that their ideology answers all questions.
* a focus on ideological condemnations of opponents
* the belief that opponents are not sincere in their beliefs
* the tendency to ignore new facts and continue repeating the same mantra over and over again
* the feeling that there is hardly ever any need to change his mind.
* Black and white, either/or thinking, two opposite options are put on the table as if they were the only options.

[rhett o rick]

109. Really? You could apply that to anyone you disagree with. Where did you get that

garbage? Do you think there are "progressive fundamentalist" that meet that definition on this message board?

I think your accusation is a bit ironic in that the progressives on this board are willing to entertain a lot of different candidates for 2016. Seems to me that those that stick with someone that has proven to be unreliable and in the pocket of the Big Banks with such a fervor as we see here, are the fundamentalists.

I also notice the tendency for some to interchange the words "reality" and "status quo".

[wyldwolf]

110. But I'm applying it to "progressives."

Where did you get that garbage? Do you think there are "progressive fundamentalist" that meet that definition on this message board?

Yup.

I think your accusation is a bit ironic in that the progressives on this board are willing to entertain a lot of different candidates for 2016.

Sure they are. But a lot of 'progressives' are not.

[LondonReign2]

88. He not only admits he isn't a progressive, he uses the term as a slur

in the exact same way Limbaugh uses Liberal as a slur.

Republicans in Democrats' clothing.

[CrispyQ]

101. Howard Dean did a good job with the 50 State Strategy, but the dem leadership dropped it.

From May 2013

http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/gov-democrat-howard-deans-fifty-state-strategy.html

snip...

At this point, even Dean has retreated somewhat from a full-blown 50-state strategy. A group he recently helped launch that aims to flip Republican-held state legislatures is focusing on swing states rather than solidly red ones.

Still, Dean said he continues to believe that every state, no matter how unfriendly to his party, deserves to have a basic level of institutional, financial, technological and personnel support, which can be "relatively inexpensive."

"It would be a terrible mistake to leave even one state out of a basic package of training, IT and staffing," he said. "I don't advocate putting a zillion dollars into Alaska, but I do advocate having a competent, well-run Democratic Party in place, because you never know where lightning is going to strike."

And here, an interesting interview with him from Nov 2014.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/25/people_yelled_and_carried_on_howard_dean_on_how_he_remade_the_dnc_and_dems_new_path_forward/

snip...

The point is that if you give up before you start, then you give up. The 50-state strategy was never about giving the same amount of money to Alabama as you give to Colorado. Never about that. But it was about giving everybody a base, and some competence level to work off, and then they were on their own. And it’s amazing what people will do if you give them a chance. Especially people who have been beaten down for years by the national party, who feel that nobody cares about them. The DCCC and DSCC wouldn’t put any money into these places for years, they didn’t care. And anybody who could self-fund, they became the candidate. That’s no way to run a party.

He makes some other interesting comments, although I have to completely disagree with his assessment that the repubs have exterminated the tea party.

[wyldwolf]

108. I don't entirely disagree

He's being more realistic than he was in 2006.

he continues to believe that every state, no matter how unfriendly to his party, deserves to have a basic level of institutional, financial, technological and personnel support, which can be "relatively inexpensive."

Relative to what? But sure, it's easy to imagine how a basic level of institutional, technological and personnel support could be done on the cheap. Financial? Eh. Maybe. Perhaps training to learn how to fund-raise. I still contend that in close races, limited funds should be re-allocated to winnable races. But this is really another conversation (one that's been had here quite often.)

[madfloridian]

123. Sometimes there actually IS just "this or that"

Sometimes there actually IS just right or wrong.

[wyldwolf]

124. Not in politics

Not ever politics.

[HereSince1628]

48. But, but, remember it's PRAGMATIC to back these folks!

Why is it that a group of elitists bent on lifting themselves and who broadly ignore the interests of their voting base got away and continue to get away with this???????

[winter is coming]

50. Buyout? More like a sellout. n/t

[JEB]

56. Unprofitable mindset here and I vote.

[blackspade]

62. DU Rec

[whereisjustice]

63. Let's legislate exclusively for the benefit of rich people. What could go wrong? eom

[RiverLover]

80. 2014~nt

[ND-Dem]

66. K&R and I remember reading stories along the same lines at the time.

[MannyGoldstein]

72. Looks like a job for...

[Jefferson23]

91. lol, now that is funny.

[nikto]

77. Great topic!

The Democratic Wing of The Democratic Party is all but dead.

[uriel1972]

78. I'm just gonna throw this in here...

The difference between pragmatic and expedient.
Pragmatism is about getting the job done no matter the personal cost to oneself.
Expedience is about taking the easiest option.
I call myself pragmatic because I believe if something is necessary it must be done.
My definition of necessary is something that protects and enhances the lives of as many people as possible.
The expedient person cares only about what enriches themselves or their cohorts.

I'm just saying pragmatic is not necessarily an insult.

[closeupready]

90. DLC and Third Way Democrats are all in it for THEMSELVES. They do NOT CARE

about the poor, workers, the sick, the elderly ... their personal ambition drives them to compromise the well-being of every single Democratic constituency in attempting to get further in politics, by promoting a message of simply averaging - take a position located in the exact middle between whatever Republicans are pushing and what Democrats can live with.

[L0oniX]

93. Capitalism and party mixed. What ever brings in more money for the campaign ...wins.

[pa28]

95. And the results of 'freeing themselves from positions that make it difficult to win'.

How did that work out for us anyway?

Republicans now control the Senate, 70% of state legislative chambers around the country, 31 of 50 governorships and enjoy a historically large majority in the house.

We've done it their way for twenty years and lost everything that wasn't bolted down.

[TheKentuckian]

98. But, but Bill Clinton won a three way race 20+ years ago what else do you need to know?

[stupidicus]

97. well, their "buyout" should be expected from unprincipled "sellouts"

I've asked myself many times at what point does excessive use of pragmatism equate to the abandonment of the principles one chips away at while being pragmatic.

I can see why they characterized it as a "buyout" as opposed to their being sellouts, and the economic successes of the BC admin put off/curtailed the now arising widespread awareness of whose bread really got the buttering, and why...

I've long thought that the Pea Party was created largely to play the role of hatchetpeople in this great political play

S

ome political analysts like Kenneth Baer contend the DLC embodies the spirit of Truman-Kennedy era Democrats and were vital to the Democratic party's resurgence after the election losses of liberals George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis.[24][25] Simon Rosenberg, a long time Democratic campaign operative and strategist, said recently, "there is a strong argument to be made that the DLC has been the most influential think tank in American politics over the past generation... the DLC helped set in motion a period of party modernization that has helped the Democratic Party overcome the potent and ultimately ruinous rise of the New Right."[26]

As the awareness of the role and criticisms of the thirdwayers, so does their need for a scarier rightwingnut bogeyman to keep us in the herd. Was the dem message in the midterms "here's what we'll do for you!" or "here's what those baddies will do to you!".

There was and has been no "intellectual buyout", it was the pursuit and use of fear identical to that used by their rightwing cousins to keep their rather base base in line...

[DeSwiss]

99. If you keep voting for the people who do the things you don't want......

...they have no incentive nor reason to change. Of course, if they're willing to lie, that's one thing.

- But I don't have to by voting for them and adding justification to their reasoning that Democrats just stand for winning and nothing else.......

K&R

[Baitball Blogger]

100. We'll stop complaining when they stop being so crooked.

[Jamastiene]

106. It needs to be a New Party that can defeat TWO other parties

that are working together to defeat any hope for anyone on the left anywhere in America too. That's the hard part.

[PatrickforO]

104. The overarching goal we must have is to cooperate around a common goal.

The problem is that the common sense good of the people has been attacked on 1,000 different fronts by capitalists skillfully using divide and conquer strategies that fragment us into narrow 'liberal' special interests. And we all know the litany - abortion access, gay rights, social security, etc.

So it is laudable that the Dems are trying to create a simpler message that is 'winnable.' However, the message that is ACTUALLY 'winnable' is a populist one. Consider Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and a very small group of colleagues. Theirs is a message that smacks of REAL truth and justice.

The elephant in the room is NOT those issues. It is human-caused climate change. To use a cliché, if we don't create cooperation around THIS common goal - saving our planet - we are doing nothing more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

[Jamastiene]

105. I once thought about writing an OP on DU asking,

"If you are a conservative or right of center moderate Democrat, what made you decide to be in the Democratic Party instead of the Republican Party?"

The thing is, I already know the real answer. So, the answers in the thread would just piss me off for being the lying excuses they would be.

It is a strategic move and an underhanded one at that. Their real goal is to keep moving what is considered "the center" further and further right and cut liberals completely out of the political process. There is no mealy-mouthed lying excuse the Third Wayers could put into a reply that would explain THAT fact away.

What better way to keep the Democratic Party going further and further right than to join it and work from the inside to make damn sure liberals have no power at all? The higher ups in the Democratic Party are corrupt and/or brain damaged and more than willing to sell the party out to those disgusting, deranged, sadistic people. So, what little opposition there is to the complete takeover of the Democratic Party as a new party for right wingers only gets told to STFU, bend over, and take it from Reagan worshiping, homophobic, sexist, racist, right wing dirt bags.

We have no real choices. We are expected to pretend we believe we do, but I cannot do that. I have never been able to pretend I believe something I know is bullshit. That they expect us to pretend we don't see through them is just salt in the wound. Our only choices are to put up with fucking Dixiecrats, Blue Dogs, Third Wayers, and a plethora of other sadistic, right wing fuckheads inside the Democratic Party or go off and huddle in the corner with the Green Party and hope one of them has a lot of weed, heroin, or something even stronger to numb our senses for the rest of our lives, because that party is going nowhere in America. The Green Party doesn't have enough money to buy an election for dog catcher, much less a position at the state level, and forget the national level. Elections are bought nowadays, not won. As long as the people in charge of the rules about that ARE the corrupt assholes who don't mind selling out the people of America, that is never going to change.

At this point, the left is better off just getting as stoned as fucking possible, stay that way, and try to bide our time until we finally get to die and finally get the fuck away from Third Wayers. There is no relief coming and no hope going against two right wing parties to try to make America a better place.

I feel pretty much the same way about being stuck in an impoverished BLUE county that is more right wing than many blood red Republican counties. There truly is no difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party where I live. It is all ultra right wing rednecks who walk around covered in female deer piss, drunk off their asses, abusing anything that doesn't have a dick swinging between its legs, and even some that do, and praising God all at the same time. Both "sides" tell me I'm going to Hell for being gay and both make my life a living Hell here. I can't wait to die just to get the fuck away from them. Raping lesbians is expected of good Christians here and they do it routinely, no matter which political party they have joined. There are no people on Earth worse than these people in this county where I live.

That is why I finally decided not to make that OP. I already know the real answer and hate them for it worse than they can possibly EVER imagine. The thing is, I think I hate them even worse for expecting me to pretend I don't see through their real mission. Once you see it, you cannot un-see it. Then again, I have never been very good at pretending I don't smell bullshit when there is a huge, steaming pile of it in the middle of the room.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

111. We lost the House. We lost the Senate. We lost a majority of state legislatures...

We lost a majority of governors.

The only office that stands between us and total irrelevancy and abject defeat is the White House and there's no guarantee we hold on to that and this is what we are worried about.


You want to see the shit that happens when Republicans have carte blanche. This is the shit that happens:

On Friday, Arkansas’s legislature passed a bill preventing cities and counties from enacting their own laws to protect LGBT people. The state’s House of Representatives voted 57-20 to put the bill through; it has already cleared the state Senate and Gov. Asa Hutchison, a Republican, is not expected to veto it. The bill’s sponsor told BuzzFeed News that it was created to encourage consistent policies and attract businesses, and because he did not want cities expanding civil-rights laws to LGBT people. Rep. Clarke Tucker, a Democrat, called the bill a “proactive act of discrimination” on the House floor.

Lord, you don't have to protect me from my enemies. I can take care of them by myself. Protect me from my friends.

[madfloridian]

112. I think we need to keep up with Third Ways' Twitter.

And read between and over and under the lines while watching. I don't follow them, just keep an eye out.

Right now they are expounding on the values of trade deals.

https://twitter.com/ThirdWayTweet

[daredtowork]

120. Candidates approach donors by positioning themselves against the Left

The Left is always "angry" or "wing" (meaning "unreasonable" or "off-center" or "not with the normal point of view&quot .

There is then a tacit social contract formed to associate only with people from this intangible center. And that means shunning anyone who tries to raise issues that might be associated with the "angry" left - NAMELY ISSUES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE!

What these politicians are doing are leveraging peer pressure psychology, and they have been throwing the poorest, weakest, and most vulnerable people in the country under the bus for decades to do it. They have been doing it for their own personal aggrandizement in playing their political games.

I suppose the one that rises to the top by promising yields of maximum profit wins?

[madfloridian]

121. Yes, very good post. So true.

[woo me with science]

122. kick

[Electric Monk]

125. +