Peter Daou: How The Dem Establishment Shunned The Left, Spawned The Tea Party & Moved America Right

http://peterdaou.com/2011/08/the-triangle-conventional-wisdom-manufactured-by-the-right

Peter Daou

How The Democratic Establishment Shunned The Left, Spawned The Tea Party & Moved America Right

- snip -

My fundamental disagreement with Drum is where to place the blame. From my perspective, it falls squarely with the Democratic establishment, not the broad liberal community.

Here’s why. Imagine a scenario where Democrats, instead of marginalizing the netroots, treated them with the same awe and respect the tea Party engenders on the GOP side. Imagine an Obama presidency where the health care debate started with a fierce fight for single-payer; where Gitmo had been closed; where gay rights were unequivocally supported; where Bush and Cheney were investigated for sanctioning torture; where climate change was a top priority; where Bush’s civil liberties violations were prosecuted rather than reinforced; where the Bush tax cuts expired; where the stimulus was much bigger; where programs for the poor, for research, jobs, infrastructure, science, education, were enhanced at the expense of war and profits for the wealthy; where the Republican assault on women’s rights was met with furious resistance. I could go on and on.

As I said previously, faced with a public that holds opposing views, politicians can either change their positions to match the public’s views or change the public’s views to match their positions. Only when Democrats decide to do the latter will America’s rightward shift be halted or reversed.

If the White House and Democratic leadership were in sync with the activist left rather than insulting them at every opportunity, the media would follow and the triangle would form. Look at Obama and Bush’s big swings in approval – the American public is far more malleable than Democrats acknowledge. In a nation where anxiety abounds, strong, principled, powerful, determined voices will change minds. Republicans know that and they have a system to take advantage of it.

MORE

to move things left. It's a losing strategy for them because it turns us off even more. We aren't angry, disappointed and vocal because we want to divide but because we are being divided.

and attacked isn't any way to go about any type of coalition. I know I've been in the trenches for a very long time and am tired of how I'm being treated.

I was a Democrat when being a Democrat was "COOL"! The old school Democrat who went out and worked FOR THE PEOPLE because we cared for the little guy, not what what it bought us. If that's Liberal, then that's what I'll remain.

Here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1651666&mesg_id=1663479

Got into an argument over tax policy, which is near and dear to me. Started with the facts (imo) and those were rejected or blown off with a shrug. In my response, I seemed to quickly turn to insults. Tried to stop myself as I did it. Cripes, I always preach that insults are not persuasive, but I couldn't seem to stop myself. How, I seemed to think, could this frigging doofus just blithely cast aside the facts? But I was too pissed to just stick with facts and logic.

The same is probably true about Obama. I don't think Obama defenders/supporters are the only ones who insult. These days I am routinely calling Obama every name in the book. Again, I know that is not the best, or even effective at all, as a way to persuade those who disagree, but again, I really cannot stop myself as the traitor in the White House has me spitting fire.

But in some ways, as I have said for some time, we are angry because people are making us angry. Every day when we hang out at DU, we read dozens of essays, articles and other rants, many of which have the same basic theme - "I am angry at Obama, and you should be too".

But the division and anger does not happen because of Obama, it happens because activists are trying to make it happen. They want to make it happen as a way to fire up other people to do things that will move Obama to the left.

And other activists get angry about that, because they see it as counter-productive in a battle to defeat Republicans. I felt the same way before the 2010 elections. I wanted the Democrats to win the 2010 elections, and it did not seem to me like Obama-bashing was gonna help in that cause.

So, now it is time to start thinking about 2012 and how we can win in Congress in those elections. Again, Obama-bashing, no matter how much the spineless traitor has it coming, is not going to help Democrats win in 2012. And presumably winning in 2012 is our goal, or at least very, very important in reaching our other goals.

'Down with Obama' -alternative =questionable credibility =losing strategy

I thought they were a media creation funded by the Koch brothers and emboldened by the Republican Party?

"where climate change was a top priority"

The climate change bill failed in Congress because everyone was yelling: Kill the bill.

July 2009: House passes landmark climate change bill

September 2009: Boxer, Kerry Set to Introduce Climate Bill in Senate

October 2009: Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill: Chairman’s mark and EPA analysis released

November 2009:Boxer Statement on Committee Passage of S. 1733 – The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act

Unfortunately, by the time the bill got to the full Senate, it was attacked from all sides. Close = no bill.

it turns me off. Dress it up anyway you want and put a bow around and call it process or being reasonable if you like, but what defined the Democratic Party at one time is being dismantled before your eyes and Democrats are helping and using the language formerly attributable to Republicans. I can't escape that.

what does that have to do with creating the teabaggers?

Let's just absolve Koch and Republicans and blame Dems for this too.

Ridiculous.

every chance I get. When the New Dems and the Blue Dogs do that, let me know.

do you mean accepting that Democrats created the teabaggers and absolve the Koch brothers, Republicans and the media?

Absurd!

You may disagree with people, which is fine.

But instead of just looking to reinforce your predetermined, and rather rigid, positions with a cute little put-down, you might at least try to see things through other peoples eyes, and engage constructively.

If you acknowledge that people who disagree with you are not idiots, you'd have a lot better luck maybe swaying them, or at least having constructive debate.

It reads: Attack all questioners. Praise, Praise 24/7. Ignore principle.

Nothing in there about empathy or understanding or reality.

I don't see how democrats could possibly be responsible for creating the tea party. I think these groups started on their own and were then fed fuel (money, the temporary illusion of respect) by Republicans who recognized a good thing (energy for a dying party) when they saw it. Now, they're afraid of them.

They were pulled out of Frank Luntz' ass and the illusio of Fux news.

That defends the establishment at every turn.

right to move even farther right to maintain their distinction - thus creating the Tea Party.

It does not absolve the Koch brothers when they are behind BOTH the Tea Party and the 'New Democrats'.

on the scene and gobbled up all the airtime in the media with practically ZERO response from the WH, who were missing in action that summer. The field was left open to an insane, phony, creation of the far right and by NOT taking the microphone away from them, YES, the Democratic Leadership helped to give them credibility.

But then, as we now know, they had their own reasons for that. As Daou says, 'imagine if the Dems had come out swinging for Single Payer', or Medicare for all? That is what the American want. The teabaggers would have lost that battle had it ever been a battle. But we know now that that was never the plan. And the teabaggers were useful in distracting people from that battle.

The current Dem Leadership AGREES with many of the 'ideas' of the right. All you have to do is read their platform and everything that has been puzzling people for so long, becomes clear.

that Republicans made such a HUGE comeback in 2010? Democrats must not have done what voters expected of them even if they did what you expected... Democrats were trounced for a reason. Wonder when Democrats will figure that out? :shrug:

a lot of people pushed this meme and a lot of people bought into it:

"Oh, and for all those older Americans who voted GOP last year because those nasty Democrats were going to cut Medicare, I have just one word: suckers!" (Krugman, April)

Democrats were just not filled with enthusiasm. Democrats had Super Majorities in both Houses and the Presidency yet settled time and time again for Republican inpired legislation. The Health Care Bill that the Right likes to call "Obamacare" was basically identical the what Republicans put forth in opposition to Clinton's Health Care Bill, in other words a Republican inspired Bill. There was not a single bill signed by Obama that could be called a real Democratic Bill. There was nothing done, when democrats had the Power, that would inspire Democrats...And it continues to go down hill..

"The Health Care Bill that the Right likes to call "Obamacare" was basically identical the what Republicans put forth in opposition to Clinton's Health Care Bill, in other words a Republican inspired Bill. There was not a single bill signed by Obama that could be called a real Democratic Bill. "

As opposed to the real Democratic bills (NAFTA, repealing Glass-Stegall, DOMA, DADT, Welfare reform, etc.) signed by Clinton?

The health care bill is more progressive than Clinton's. It included catastrophic care coverage (picked up for Kerry's 2004 plan), free preventive care for seniors, and it provides a funded path to single payer for states.

I truly wish I could feel like you. I am about as Liberal as one could be I suppose and would love nothing more than to feel good about the direction of our country. I would love to have what it takes to Defend our Democrats and Obama as you consistantly do. I admire that in you, however I just don't have it in me any more. Democrats, especially Obama have been extremely disappointing to me since they held their super majorities and still allowed themselves to be pushed around by a very loud minority..When Democrats stand up and declare Republican policies are bad for America, as they pretty much all have done, and then capitulate into allowing those same policies to continue, well it causes me to lose heart. If I feel the same way I do now in November of 2012 I will find it extremely difficult to bother voting in Federal elections. I will still vote local for my local dog-catcher etc. but for President or Representative, I can't even hold my nose and vote..Think about this. If we had a Republican President these past two years do you believe Democrats in Congress would have voted the exact same way they have under Obama?

and Obama lost the Independents who voted jobs and the economy.

its manufactures, stole its resources & forced its own manufactures on it to drain the country of its specie. then they moved capital to the colonies & did the same to britain. now they're moving capital to asia & doing the same to us.

F'nDogs. Fuck the traitor Democrats that embrace compromise with the extremest on the far right.

Fuck the traitor Turd Way.

so clearly it exists because of the Democrats.

Sure some lame stuff. But overall, Obama legitimized them and said they have a valid point and let's work together.

That's a noble concept, but it should have become evident very quickly that it was a losing strategy.

he and other democrats should have gone out and relentlessly SOLD liberalism as an alternative to TeaParty Right Wing Radicalism.

With no coherent opposite message, too many low-information "swing" voters saw the tea party and GOP as an appealing solution to the mess.

And its what they've been hearing since February 2009.

1) A right wing meme that says Obama is a socialist, communist, Muslim, fascist, kenyan, who loves terrorists, hates America, wants to residtribute all the wealth to the lower classes, and who wants to destroy the country.

2) A left wing meme that says Obama is a corporatist who only cares about the rich, has done nothing to help the poor or the middle class, who INTENDS to dismantle social security and medicare.

Interestingly, at the detail level, these two memes are diametrically opposed. Complete opposite framings.

And yet, they share something important. Both at their core send the same message. Obama is bad.

Now ... the media who helps promote and push these two diametrically opposed views doesn't care WHICH of these messages resonates with the "low invormation voter". That doesn't matter, because the core message is the same.

Some low information voters will respond to the right wing version, some to the left wing version. What's the impact of that.

1) It will increase right wing turn out among low info voters susceptible to a right wing framing. Those voters will have the energy to leave the house and vote to remove Obama, because he's bad.

2) It will reduce left wing turn out among low information voters susceptible to a left wing framing. Those voters will decide Obama is bad, and stay home.

Now you want Obama to change the 2nd message. He can't. Because no matter what he does, the media will push the "why its bad" meme. And the so called liberal media sure isn't doing anything to stop that.

The only voices who are being allowed on TV, and those who have an ax to grind.

Have you noticed that killing OBL got about 5 minutes of attention? And the media brought on Bush cronies to take credit for it. Just recently, the government added birth control as a standard part of insurance plans, no co-pay, should have been big news ... no mention almost anywhere. DADT is ending ... does Obama get credit for that, nope. Extending unemployment insurance nope. He gets 800B in stimuls, that good ... nope, needed to be 1 trillion.

The teabaggers may be frustrated with the GOP, but they are on the same page. They all want the same thing -- To shrink government down to nothing, so the only institution that has any influence is "the markets." The baggers message has been continually reinforced by the mainstream GOP, because they are basically the same message. Only the style and rhetoric are somewhat different.

But the Democrats? Do they stand for anything in the public perception? Do they present an equally clear set of core values and goals?

Naw. It's just a lot of mixed messages and mush overall. The "centrists" have no core values to sell, except to espouse watered-down conservatism.

What you hear from "the left" (whatever that is) is a very real feeling of having been ignored and in some cases betrayed. Most of them felt inspired and enthused by Obama's election and the majorities in House and Senate. But it became very clear that rather than advocating for basic liberalism and progressive policies, Obama was out to sell some vague notion of "centrist bipartisanship" that seemed more intent on placating the right wing and the elites of Wall St. and big corporations.

This was not simply a matter of not going "fast enough" or "far enough" overnight. Rather it was a completely different set of goals and priorities.And it wasn't a matter of "far left" priorities. We simply wanted the frustrations of average Americans to be addressed by mainstream LIBERAL message and policies. We DID NOT expect that Obama would spend more time agreeing with the right wing and corporate interests while consistently distancing himself and marginalizing a substantial portion of the base that got him there.

Worst yet, it was not a smart political strategy. Rather than looking like the "adult" he has come across to many in the center as looking weak and ineffectual. It is obvious that he is either getting rolled or else doesn't know what he wants. "Nice guy but so what? We need a guy like Romney in there who knows how to run an economy."


REGARDING THE MEDIA -- Yes they are very unhelpful. But it is not accurate to simply "blame the media." They are not going to present a balanced picture when one side is clear and passionate the other side either says nothing or a bunch of "me too" platitudes about "compromise without any meat to it.

I agree with everything you say in Paragraph 1.

The reason the GOP sends the same message, and the Democrats send a "mushy message" is because the Democratic party is actually much more diverse. They struggle to present one "clear" message, because they represent so many constituents.

As an example. As a party, we want to advance gay rights, and immigration reform, and assistance for the poor, and for students, and so on ... we actually have a LARGE set agenda items. And we want all to be "high priority".

As you correctly state, the Tea Party / GOP has a very narrow agenda, their agenda is .. "the government should DO NOTHING."

SO let's me boil those down ... Dems want the government to "do things", the GOP does not.

The problem thus inherent in the situation, is that the only way the Dems can get the government to do ANYTHING, is to work with Republicans.

The GOP doesn't need a bipartisan approach to shut down the government. But the Dems need at least SOME bipartisan effort to pass ANYTHING.

So when Obama calls for a bipartisan approach, he's not asking DEM voters to push for bipartisanship.

Given the fact that the GOP wants to do NOTHING, he needs to find some path to get at least a few of them to vote YES.

If he decides, "screw it we won't work with them at all" ... guess what, they still win ... because nothing happens, which is what they really want. They want the government to DO NOTHING.

And so ... we are not talking about a vague notion of bipartisanship, just for grins ... the need for "some" bipartisanship is required if we Dems want the government to do ANYTHING AT ALL.

Sure ... Obama could have dropped HCR, dropped financial reform, allowed the default, so on ... and the GOP wins if he does. They want nothing to happen. They want the government frozen.

That is their goal.

But other things to also keep in mind.

There is also disagreement among the GOP. Many don't want the government to do nothing. They too want it to do something -- Blow things up in other countries, force you to behave as they want in your private life, put you "on watch" if you look or act a little bit different, and toss your ass out if you come here from another country, put a cross on the flag....etc.

Also, they don't really want to strip the government back from the economy. They want what's left to work for corporate abusers and Big Money. Subsidies for Big Oil and rules to rig the field for other business interests, and also to use privatization to make government a customer of the prison-industrial complex, military contractors etc. Also, fortunately, stripping back regulations does require doing things that requires legislative and administrative approval.

So the deck is not only stacked against Democrats/liberals in terms of needing some level of bipartisanship or other political and legal machinations.
Because of all this, it is not only a one-way street.

REGARDING MESSAGING: I believe that "messaging" and tactics are also important. There too Democrats and liberals fail miserably -- but could do much better if the doors were open liberal populism and the grass roots (not just progressives but blue collar types, etc.) instead of its increased dependence on the Beltway/Wall St./Corporate Axis of Insiders.

Obama has, at times, been absolutely brilliant and inspiring in terms of delivering a liberal Democratic message. So has Bill Clinton. The problem, is however, is they then undercut that by running to some mythical "center" instead of sticking to liberal guns. Democrats do not do not necessarily have to become Michael Moore -- But a lot more Bernie Sanders, Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy and even Tom Harkin liberalism would make a big difference-- if they backed that up with real action and commitment. . And focus especially on issues of Wealth and Power.

That (in my opinion) is how the Democrats could become much more potent politically, expose the sham at the heart of the modern GOP and do some actual good in the process.

Of course your mileage may vary.

you have it exactly right. spot on.
how otherwise thinking people can't see this, is way beyond comprehension.

All we ever hear from Obama is that he agrees with the Repukes that the deficit is a "crisis" instead of a countermessage that it is a longterm problem, but certainly not an emergency. Longterm unemployment is the only real crisis.

All we hear is that only the private sector can create jobs, instead of the countermessage that only increases in taxation on the rich and on corporations can generate aggregate demand by hiring more people to produce public goods.

All we hear is that the most vulnerable people must participate in "shared sacrifice," instead of a countermessage that such "sacrifices" are going to impoverish and even kill a log of them.

I agree with you that the media willl have it in for Obama no matter what he does, but why does that obligate him to go along with it?

Over the past 50 years, the position taken by the left has proved to be correct, the position of the right is wrong, and the center is filled with idiots who don't know what's going on so they swing with whoever is shouting loudest.

The Fucking DLC has long tried to place themselves between the right and the left, but when the right is wrong and the left is right, then any position to the right of the left is wrong.

Wake the fuck up - you're being played the Koch brothers.

social security checks. the usa doesn't have any money.

both parties are sending those messages.

most average people didn't care. They were more worried about finding a job.

No it isn't.

The other side is truly evil and unhinged.

We should not be compromising with them ever.

They are the enemy.

that the tea party is not gthe enemy. They are our family and neighbors. They may be completely wrongheaded ab out issues -- and some (many) may be assholes. But it is simplistic to call them the "enemy."

My aunt, for example is a hard-core teabagger. Her views are like fingers on a chalkboard to me. But she is also a loving wonderful woman, who's done a lot of good things in her life. So we have to go after the message, but remember those are just people.

Gosh I realize I sounded like Obama there for a minute. :)

He's just doing his job like you're doing yours.

But if his job is trying to destroy everything you care about, then he's the enemy.

Same thing here.

They funded them! :sarcasm:

http://www.belowboston.com/diary/2553/ed-kilgore-pens-a-oped-taunting-liberalsprogressives-a-day-early-lol

Ed Kilgore - the man who was the policy director of the DLC during it's heyday( which you would know if you read this diary), the guy who said this about the money given to the DLC by the Koch Brothers

Earlier in the book, Frank takes his anti-DLC rhetoric to an even higher pitch. He notes that generous contributions from the Kansas oil billionaires who run Koch Industries have propped up numerous institutions that champion laissez-faire economics, from the Cato Institute to Citizens for a Sound Economy. And he includes the DLC on his list of Koch-funded "hothouses of the right."

"That's crazy," says Ed Kilgore, the DLC's policy director. "If you can't tell the difference between the DLC and the Republicans, you're not paying attention."

Sure, the DLC took some Koch money, Kilgore says.But it has never advocated abandoning the working class or taking economic issues off the table, and it is proud of Clinton's economic record. "If you have to be self-consciously and vocally anti-business in order to be considered a legitimate Democrat or progressive," he says -- well, sheesh: That would rule out the party's current presidential nominee.

Informed of this return fire, Frank seems uncharacteristically exasperated. But his fundamental stance remains: Bring 'em on.

Has the DLC taken economic issues off the table? "Of course they haven't taken them off the table -- they've just become Republicans."

Oh, that's right. There weren't any.

They had to wait to get their 15 minutes during the Dem-inspired Healthcare Town Halls

you deserve them, we don't.

Are you describing the Tea Party or the DLC?

marginalizing movement politics among your base.

Join us, stop fighting us!

We became loud and visible during the Bush years, pushing the Democrats to stand for Democratic Party principles the way the Tea Party pushed the Republicans to start enacting the program of Crazy Shit Republicans Believe.

What happened was that the Democrats took our energy and money and started doing shit like passing the Health Care Reform ideas of Bob Dole, Mitt Romney and the fucking HERITAGE FOUNDATION. Oh yeah, AND they doubled down on Bush's Wars and granted immunity to AT&T warrantless wiretappers spying on the entire country and to CIA/Dyncorp Torture Squads, and let the banksters get off with token prosecutions and no significant reforms whilst paying themselves huge bonuses from our taxes.

They didn't just ignore us, they pissed in our faces. Now they help the T-Baggers pass the phased, incrementalized end of the New Deal.

Why reform it? Seriously something this corrupt needs to go away.

:sarcasm:

K&R

"Imagine an Obama presidency where the health care debate started with a fierce fight for single-payer"

What the hell does that mean? As someone who worked for Hillary's campaign, did Daou envision Hillary starting the health care debate with "a fierce fight for single-payer"

Here's what Obama did: He got health care reform passed.

Pinning the teabaggers on Dems is beyond ridiculous.

..."Clinton White House Communications Director Peter Daou", bub. Get it right.

Oh, that's going to leave a mark!!

and America's hunger for a voice of liberal conviction is plausible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1650436

I'm mad, but not with the president. It's with the people who decided they wouldn't vote last year and that allow the teabaggers to come to power. It's really simple. Their side votes with it's inconvenient and our side stays home. Until that changes we are in for some rough times.

You may not be be, but a vast majority of the progressives who dominate the netroots are infuriated, saddened, and feeling disenfranchized and demoralized by events. Dare I say, few of us will be working so hard to get Obama reelected.

If I were an Establishment Republican, I'd be delighted by Barack Obama and most of the Democratic leadership. I know Boehner and the GOP majority was when they endorsed the Compromise Bill. Giddy laughter. Applause in the pit of the House on Sunday.

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

Kelsey Grammer a Democrat?

Gore:

They do that, don't they.

Then we come here to DU and the same thing happens when we stand for things which Democrats have traditionally believed.

that have our values, then goddamn it show up to vote for them even in the fucking off elections. You know, the POTUS went to WI 6 times and our side still stayed home. This why we lose. Not because of he president.

But he has never been warm to the left, the liberals, the professional left, or whatever we are called now.

It's not the fact he went there, it's the fact that our party has shunned us.

I absolutely HATE it when I see "progressives" spout this utter nonsense:

From the linked blog post:

partial quote from KEVIN DRUM:
This is why I blame the broad liberal community for our failures, not just President Obama. My biggest beef with Obama is the same one I had three years ago, namely that he’s never really even tried to move public opinion in a specifically progressive direction. But that hardly even matters unless all the rest of us have laid the groundwork. And we haven’t. Wonks, hacks, activists, all of us. We just haven’t persuaded the public to support our vision of government. Until we do, the tea party tendency will always be more powerful than we are.


DAOU buys into the premise:
My fundamental disagreement with Drum is where to place the blame. From my perspective, it falls squarely with the Democratic establishment, not the broad liberal community.

The underlying premise I'm objecting to (because it's a flat out LIE) is: that the American public does not support progressive ideals and policies. And it's just not true. The American public is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of progressive / liberal / core Democratic principles and policies:

Conservatives should be scared. Liberalism is coming and there's nothing they can do about it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x729862

Thom Hartmann: 92% of Americans are SOCIALISTS!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x577837

Do you remember this? " WHAT HAS GOP DONE FOR WORKERS?" It was posted on DU, years ago.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x819857

Why I Am PUMPED To Be a Democrat Today (Good News, Everyone!)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x505887

Majority of Americans Want Swedish-Style Democracy and Income (Tax) Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9201612#9201680

Pew: Sorry, tea party: Voters prefer government projects
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8870738

The finer points of Liberalism http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/05/13_Liberalism.html

The Democratic Party platform of 1900
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7278343

The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8311732&mesg_id=8312675

TYT: Polls Show Americans Are Progressive On Most Issues (w/ Links)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x489046#489053

"American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas..." - George Lakoff
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8670463&mesg_id=8670495

Why Washington is More Right-Wing Than the Rest of the Country (Cenk @ Huffington Post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x544937#544964

Anybody recognize themselves here: Nate Silver - The Two Progressivisms
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x41921

Chomsky has often pointed out that the proof of America's liberalism is that the right wing needs to keep a lock on information/truth -- control over our free press, TV/radio, news gathering organizations, publications, publishing houses. Even a tiny pebble of truth will shatter their mirror of myths!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7274861&mesg_id=7281208

GRITtv: Progressives Win When Base is Energized
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWMXI5FA6rU

Conservative Media vs. Progressive Media: New #'s And A Great Milestone! (Featured @ DailyKos)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x460304

David Sirota: Welcome to this era when populism is popular
a new Rasmussen poll on attitudes toward government and corporations shows 75 percent of the country "can be classified on the populist or mainstream side of the divide" while just 14 percent "side with the political class."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x444052

the people are moving to the left
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5426255
Link: Poll: Just 53% Favor Capitalism Over Socialism
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/04/09
and: More Americans Question Religion's Role in Politics
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=334

Postelection poll results contradict media claims that U.S. is a "center-right" country
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3591253

TYT: After The Elections - Is This Still A Center-Right Country?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x236546

Dean doesn't think we are a "center right" country. Will be on C-Span at 8:45 tonight
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4388211

Cenk: Is America Fundamentally A Liberal Country?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4294198

Jerry Springer Explains How We Are ALL Liberals!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sm743AQVsE

America is a Liberal Country by Cenk Uygur
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/23/123459/05/937/639783

George Lakoff: No Center, No Centrists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4234877#4235720

Greenwald - The baseless, and failed, "Move to the Center" cliche
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3538872

(Joe Conason) Reality: America Isn’t Conservative
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x303211#303339

DLC in a Nutshell
....It's also why there was such a meek response on GOP voter suppression. A growing progressive base was ultimately a threat to centrists for the same reason it threatens the GOP.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3449652#3450378

It's a Progressive Nation After All
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3316584

Democrats trusted more on 10 key issues...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x976217



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

So the problem isn't the need to CONVINCE the public, it's the need to ARTICULATE and confirm and validate and echo to the public what the public already knows and wants in an appealing, common sense way. And Dauo's right about that: it has to be done by the Establishment.

Trouble is, our Dem Establishment isn't that progressive -- too many of them are bought and paid for, for one thing. For another, the Dem Establishment keeps real progressives out of running, where possible.

I'll read them later tonight, but I just wanted to say :thumbsup: on what you're saying. The problem isn't getting the public to agree with liberal principles, it's getting them to realize that they agree with liberal principles.

The problem isn't getting the public to agree with liberal principles, it's getting them to realize that they agree with liberal principles.

However, with calling us names and ignoring us how do we actually get this out there. Some of us have been trying for so very long. Given that there are so many attacks here and elsewhere, even from the WH, it makes the job extremely difficult.

And given where I live, it's almost impossible to get my county to even think Progressive. Dem Party here leans RIGHT! And it's a Red, Red County.

But now that my eyes are opened, I realize he has a lot of good things to say.

Where was he during the primary? Did we hear anything good from him during the campaign?

The Party will not defy it's Capitalist masters who probably find the prescription above hilarious.

Not willing to go along with the idea of the Dems creating them.

in the Age of Phoney Bi-Partisanship. The D's don't stand for social/economic justice anymore, if they ever did.

He needs to get a job other than just bitching for a living!!

Sounds like a song by Huey Newton's Band, The News.

"Bitching for a living, cuz I'm living for the bitchin'!"

:rofl:

That's what I hoped we had with this president, but to say the least I'm more than a little disappointed.

Just sayin'.

He was as left as FDR on domestic policy with the Great Society, Medicare and the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

when it comes to both issues, and organization.

Let's face it, we're all over the freekin' map.

we are not centralized because we do not have our own party. we are co-opted within the democratic party, the leadership of which is dedicated to suppressing us, and doing a damn fine job of it, i must say. from the looks of du, for example, there are many well-meaning people who are still under the sway of the moribund dream of the democratic party. of course, some here, the most vocal obamaphiliacs, are real agents of that party and are working hammer and tong 24/7 to marginalize true progressives.

the answer is simple but not easy. leave the democratic party, form our own progressive party, and call out the masses to the streets.

I keep asking the 'down with Obama' crowd this and all I get are...

a third party would be able to nominate someone. frankly, i don't much care who it is, as long as they are considerably to the left of obama.

and that's all you got? a lame question and an ugly graphic?

IMO, it's more than lame, it's ignoble.
It's subversive.
It's Undemocratic.

by malignant obamaphilia or too ignorant of history or just too intellectually deprived to get what i'm saying.

either way you end up being dangerous to your fellow humans and get no quarter from me.

just because i am unwilling to name a candidate does not mean my proposal is incorrect. that's just your shallow thinking at work.

ANYONE BUT OBAMA could hardly do any worse, literally (and i say that as the world economy tanks the day after obama's big deal).

but another thing you just don't get, is that it's not always about "winning". sometimes taking the correct stand is the only tenable moral position, irrespective of how any election turns out. the education of the american people regarding their betrayal by the democratic party in particular and the liberal class in general is absolutely essential.

support for the party of obama or holding up obama as some unavoidable necessity or even as having anything good about him at all is what is lame, ignoble, subversive and undemocratic.

but it does not surprise me that you use projection as well as any republican and accuse others of your very sins.

we're over the cliff and you're cheering the guy who gave the last push, while berating me for trying to break the fall somehow.

Damn, If I had only known her 30 years ago!

God, what a woman. :loveya:

Damn! Damn! Damn! :banghead:





http://www.elizabethwarrenforpresident.com/

the rich have to give us something now and then only when the masses are marching in the streets (see fdr, johnson) because that is the only thing they are worried about, mass struggle.

the dems NEVER start bargaining from the left. This is because they are anti-left (i.e., anti-working class--essentially synonymous). This is because their job is specifically to suppress the left with smoke and mirrors (and, yes, oratory, otherwise known as sweet nothings).

when millions of americans begin marching and keep marching one of two things will happen: the rich will cede something more than bones and crumbs (or perhaps will stop stealing our remaining bones and crumbs) or civil war will begin (i.e., troops, security forces, whatever will attack) and we will be Egypt.

the real problem is that this is already known to people who are paying attention. any one of you who does not think what i have stated here is the truth is part of the problem.

if you want to solve the problem of the u.s. and the world, start marching, in the many millions. expecting anything else is futile.

this is why we need a third party. someone needs to call people out to this task.

I know its not wise to run against an incumbent sitting president but if this president is not going to help us then why should we help him.

Why it should not be so is anyone guess. The tea party of destructive, vindictive, brutish and selfish. Most far left liberals that I know are peaceful and respectful.

I guess that says something about the priorities of our leaders.

I guess when Hillary derisively denigrated liberal activists during 2008, Daou must've quit his job as her Internet guru in protest, right?

He also must've recoiled at the lack of single payer in Hillary's health plan, too, eh?

Also, I suppose the birth of the Tea Party had nothing to do Dick Armey funding an astroturf "movement" or Faux News sponsoring their every move with a free live telethon or the rabidly racist right wingnut reaction to America's first African-American president, right?

:sarcasm:

For Daou to remake himself into some sort of progressive commentator is like a leopard - or should I say PUMA? -- trying to change his spots, considering when Hillary plucked him out of obscurity, he was working for Salon.com as a pro-establishment blogger of rather staid centrist leanings, making him a perfect fit for her campaign.

Maybe he's hoping people have short memories and that P.T. Barnum is right.

Of course it was hypocritical for him not to go after both Clintons for the same thing he's complaining about now.

:)

really a nice guy who wanted to believe in the POSSIBILTIES of the Clintons when progressives like him are in the mix. (He could have just had a long sitdown with Robert Reich.)

And I say that as someone who never cut Pete ANY slack for taking the Clinton job.

Like crazy to promote jobs and growth, that's how past presidents have did it. When they started screaming about the money, instead of caving to their shrill we should of said f you, we are the majority. We would be in good shape now. I forget which president it was, but after WWII he borrowed for rebuilding infrastructure and the GI Bill. It turned this country around.

nuts who've dominated the South for so long that they've begun to make inroads elsewhere.

The left didn't spawn them. They represent an evil willingness to put profit before human well being that has been with us since the days of slavery.

Let's go back to calling them that name, since they don't like it, and they are scum who deserve to be ostracized.

I keep getting fundraiser letters from the National Democratic Party and I keep sending them back explaining I only give individually to real liberals, that I don't want a dime of it to go to people like Baucus. Too many DINOs, not enough progressives.

I'm beginning to resent and challenge this dismissal as the "professional left", as if it's a bad thing. If it's bad to care about the plight of the struggling middle class and lower class, to care about a fair shot for everyone, so be it.

Also the Obama apoligists are realy starting to irritate me, they just don't see they are the mirror version of the R's who would rationalize everything Dubya did.

We had two years with control of both congressional bodies and the WH and about all we got done was the crappy Health Care Bill that perpetuates and even awards our current "let's make an unecessary 3rd party insanely rich" system.

The Democrats were hijacked by republiCONs and it started with the Koch brothers starting the DLC. That was a way to get CONservative republiCONs in the Democrat Party.

Our job is to fire them all and get real progressives and liberals in our government.
The current lot of Democrats are mostly traitors to our Democracy and US constitution.

Obama is going to find out next year that when you ignore and insult your base, his VOTING BASE will ignore him!

I want to applaud some of the more thoughtful discussion on this thread, like between Armstead and JoePhilly.

I also want to try to put down a thought I've had for some time. Of course, "the Dem establishment spawned the tea party" is a rhetorical flourish. Yes the Koch's, Armey, Fox News et all created the teabaggers, the crazies, who now somehow have enough power to negotiate the terms of our surrender.

Something stuck in my mind about the uprising in Egypt. Mubarak held enough popular support to stay in power because it was him or the "crazies" (somehow the "crazies" always seem to be right-wing fundamentalists). And that's what we were sold - sure, there's some human rights/democracy issues with Mubarak but he's a moderate, just look at those crazies - that's why he's our ally.

"Kubuki Theatre" is thrown around here a lot, and when I used it a party with low-information Democratic friends, I found I had to explain it. Perhaps a better phraseology would be - like Mubarak had a symbiotic relationship with his "crazies", I see the Obama administration and the Democratic establishment as having a symbiotic relationship with the tea baggers. They give the uninspiring but easy slogan for 2012 - "Do you want the crazies to take over?" And I hear the Rahmian undertone, "Where else are you going to go?" And in dog-whistle frequencies, I hear "these Tea Partiers are Americans with their legitimate concerns" simultaneously with "our drug-addled professional left-wing fringe extremists probably want us to dismantle the pentagon! (chuckle)". And yes, as someone involved with my local Democratic party, I'm insulted.

Whatever Daou's history, which for some here seems to be a substitute for actually being able to discuss anything, I totally agree with:

"Look at Obama and Bush’s big swings in approval – the American public is far more malleable than Democrats acknowledge. In a nation where anxiety abounds, strong, principled, powerful, determined voices will change minds. Republicans know that and they have a system to take advantage of it."

Which leads me to a heresy - after a lot of thought I would welcome and get behind any credible Democratic challenger to Obama. It would tap into some of the awesome grassroots power I witnessed in 2008. And like the relentless triumphant Rethug planners, I'm willing to brace for the fact that we may lose a few battles. Does that ever stop them?

Americans are not apathetic zombies who only care about "Dancing With Stars". I think a "strong, principled, powerful, determined voice" is more important than the "good cop, bad cop" "austerity" menu we've been given, and believe me, I fucking hate the bad cop.

how they're all sitting watching dancing with the stars.

obama knew how to run a campaign & brought out a lot of new voters.

too bad he doesn't know how to run his administration in the same inspirational fashion.

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

There's some excellent commentary on this thread and I appreciate all the feedback on the post. I've been saying many of the same things since being an early DU member (as Skinner, Will Pitt and others will attest). It's been a long journey since those early days - I remember meeting great DUers during the many Iraq war protests we all attended - but the problems haven't changed much. Dems simply refuse to cooperate with progressive activists to move public opinion in our direction, so they're forever chasing notoriously fickle indies, moderates, etc. It's a formula for continued failure.

bog I have read in years. I explains in painful detail what we are facing and why.

Thank you.

... is that this is be design not by mistake.