A True Democrat - what will that be?

[sandnsea]

We have the most bizarre situation I've ever seen. Where everybody seems to be on the wrong side. We want to reclaim the Democratic soul of the party. Yet Kucinich is the only one running on those policies and Democrats repeatedly claim he's too far left and unelectable. Since the DNC saw that 15 years ago, why beat them over the head about it? Yet we do.

In their desire to transform the party, they moved too far right, ie Joe Lieberman. Yikes!

Gephardt put the brakes on alot of things in the 90's. NAFTA, WTO, unions, Medicare, welfare, etc. Without those brakes, we probably would have moved even further right. Yet he gets lumped right in there as a New Democrat.

Kerry went with much of the economic changes while also trying to include regulations that would make these new trade policies fair and less harmful to new countries economically and environmentally. He's also always worked to close corporate loopholes. He never went along with some of the civil rights move to the right, fighting partial-birth abortion, DOMA, and continuing to fight the death penalty. He gets lumped right in there as a Joe Lieberman type New Democrat.

Edwards uses Ted Kennedy as a role model. He is solidly against corporate power and special interests. To my knowledge, his civil rights record is as good as any Democrat. He gets lumped right in there as a Joe Lieberman type New Democrat.

Then we come to Howard Dean, the guy who is supposed to be saving the party. In the 90's, this is the guy who governed Vermont most in accordance with the New Democrat principles. In many cases, he was to the right of the Clinton New Democrats. Cutting Medicare & Medicaid growth, supporting HMO's, pro-death penalty, pro-gun, works closely with business, compromises on the environment, pro welfare reform, lax on legal aid for criminals, for class based affirmative action, etc. On GLBT and abortion, traditional Democrat. I don't buy his election year enlightenment, many do.

So what are we to do? If Democrats as a whole reject the traditional Democrat, Kucinich, then what are we really saying? If we embrace someone who has been a New Democrat until February 2003, what are we saying?

I have never embraced the New Democrat platform. Republican policies are horrible. None of the candidates are 100% where I'd like them to be on every issue. But if we're talking about transforming the party and making it work for the people again, we better be damn sure we elect someone who's record matches our goals. We better scratch the surface and see what's underneath. We better read between the lines and listen to the meaning behind the words. Words like states' rights. It's a very difficult and trying time in the United States and in the Democratic Party. I hope justified, but short-sighted, anger doesn't cause us to overlook the bigger picture. Where are we going and who is really going to take us there?

(I omit Clark only because he doesn't fit in here anywhere. Except possibly as an example of needing a candidate no Democrat can point fingers at. That's how confused we are, it seems.)

[curse10]

Great post sandnsea

I don't see why we are sacrificing liberal values at a time like this. Have we lost such faith in our own belief system that we are expected to support someone who doesn't even share our same values half the time?

[joeybee12]

1. I only have one criteria (criterium??) for a Dem--one who DOESN'T roll

over and play dead.

Not many who are running fit into this category.

[depakid]

2. Ditto

That translated into 5% + persentage points in many key places.

[K-W]

3. PLayed dead, maybe, died, no.

Playing dead may very well have been the best strategy. It seems it wasnt now, but hindsight is 20/20. Other than lieberman I think all the candidates have made it pretty clear they are and will fight Bush. I think this is a good point to make. Dean is probably closer to Clinton than most of the others in the race.

[sandnsea]

4. Let's dig into that

Election year enlightenment. Howard Dean rails about that. Makes for good campaign fodder. But since he was a New Democrat all through the 90's, what would he have done in Congress the last 3 years? He won't repeal all of the Patriot Act, he probably would have voted for it. He recognized a need for new strategies in fighting terrorism, he probably would have voted for Homeland Security. He supported Biden-Lugar, claimed Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed; there's an argument he would have voted for IWR. Had he been in Congress, he would have been a New Democrat and lumped right in there with the roll-overs.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. Howard Dean really puts on a show though

too bad he was off the radar for so long.

Thanks for the great insights in this thread 'sand'.

[sandnsea]

17. See post #16

I'm serious. What is a True Democrat going to look like.

[YNGW]

5. Please Clarify

>We want to reclaim the Democratic soul of the party. Yet Kucinich is the only one running on those policies and Democrats repeatedly claim he's too far left and unelectable....If Democrats as a whole reject the traditional Democrat, Kucinich, then what are we really saying?

I apologize in advance if I'm missing your point, but you're saying Kucinich is the only one running on the policies that are the "soul of the party", the "traditional Democrat" as you put it, yet "Democrats repeatedly claim he's too far left and unelectable." I then have to question whether or not Kucinich is REALLY running on these policies as you describe them.

It seems to me if someone is running on the "policies of the Democratic party", then they would similtaniously be capturing the "souls" of the Democratic constituancy, which Kucinich is not. His poll numbers reflect that. Maybe where he is politically (left) is not where "the traditional Democrat" really resides.

[K-W]

7. Have you been sleeeping through the last 20 years?

Being liberal is out of style in the dem party today.

[YNGW]

9. Oh Really!?!

You need to have a chat with some of our fellow DUers.

:)

[K-W]

24. DU is not a good sample of the party as a whole

thats an understatement

[sandnsea]

8. So what is a True Democrat?

What do you think? People say they want to return to Democratic roots. Anti-NAFTA, WTO. Real health care for everybody. Peace and not war. Real civil rights for all. Kucinich represents what most people on DU say are real Democratic values. Yet he doesn't have the support because he's too far left. So what does that say about us, as Democrats? Are we not really as far left as we claim? What's the deal? Where are we going?

[YNGW]

14. Reply

>Kucinich represents what most people on DU say are real Democratic values.

I can't say that DU is an accurate measuring stick to define what a "traditional Democrat" believes.

>Are we not really as far left as we claim?

That's my question to you. You said Kucinich was running on the "policies of the Democratic Party" yet he is being viewed as too far left by other Democrats. Now, if he were running on traditional Democratic party values, why would traditional Democrats consider him to be too far left?

If you think about it, I think you answered your own question.

[sandnsea]

15. So we aren't transforming the Party?

If not, where are we going?

[YNGW]

19. I'll be straight with you.....

There are several in the party who desire to have the Democratic move strongly to the left. I mean real strongly to the left. I almost wish our party would nominate Kucinich or someone either further to the left of him and run them in 2004. Either she/he would win and then we would know we could win running from the far left, or she/he would get hammered and we could take these people who want to move to the far left, show them the door, and get on with doing what Democrats have always done best; promoting individual responsibility, the business community and the working class. To me, that's a winning ticket.

Kucinich, though I think he's sincere, represents a lot of the "Bush Knew", anti-Israel, conspiracy theory around every corner crowd who are easy targets for the Repugs to point to and make us all out to be wingnuts. That's why I say let a Kucinich type candidate run, because (unfortunately for the party) I think he would get slaughtered. But, then we can give these way-far-left people the boot and move forward. Kinda a hard way to seperate the wheat from the chaff, but it may come down to that.

[sandnsea]

22. Fair enough

So how far right? Or center. Whichever. I'm really wanting to get a debate going here because I think it's really important for people to start looking at all of this and figure out what exactly being a Democrat is, or is going to be and why.

And, is there any way to talk to the far-left because we need them as much as the far-right needs their Christian coalition.

And one more thing, I haven't noticed Dennis saying alot of these kinds of things out on the campaign trail. I've heard a different candidate talking about what Bush knew, etc.

[YNGW]

26. sandnsea

I appreciate this topic. It's one of the best I've seen here in quite a while. I don't know the answers, but you're asking good questions.

The only answer I know right now is to this question: Are you hungry? And the answer is Yes, and I'm breaking for lunch.

Take Care.

[no name no slogan]

21. Traditional Democratic values of the TRADITIONAL Democratic Party

You said Kucinich was running on the "policies of the Democratic Party" yet he is being viewed as too far left by other Democrats. Now, if he were running on traditional Democratic party values, why would traditional Democrats consider him to be too far left?

The only "Other Democrats" who consider Kucinich too far left are
either:

1) "New Democrats" (who are not distinguishable from Rockefeller Republicans like Jim Jeffords or G.H.W. Bush, pre-Reagan); or
2) traditional Democrats who believe the right-wing and "New Democrat" hype that the only way to get elected as a Democrat is to run as somebody who resembles a Republican.

The "New Democrats" that control the party now have done their damnedest to suckle at the corporate teat by getting behind things like NAFTA, "Welfare Reform" and the so-called "War on Drugs", and eschewing things like universal single-payer healthcare, all in the name of "winning elections". But, seeing as there's no viable alternative, the old traditional Democrats keep voting for the "New Democrats", even if they'd prefer candidates who are more in line with traditional Democratic values.

It's scary how far to the right this party has creeped since the late 80s. It's so bad that even a traditional, New Deal Democrat like Kucinich is seen as not only liberal, but "wacko" by large numbers of so-called Democrats.

The Democratic party has become the center-right party in this country while the Republican party has almost become far-right. We are totally ignoring our base on the left side of us in an attempt to win over the fickle "swing voter" soccer moms and suburban yuppies. This has "worked" so well that we've lost the Senate, House and a majority of governorships, AND managed to send voter turnout into the 50th percentile. Even Clinton never won a presidential election with a majority of the popular vote, and he's our party's "champion".

[sandnsea]

23. Look at the post again

You seem to be lumping people together. If you look closely at the original post, you'll see that other than Joe Lieberman, there is NO "New Democrat" that fits your description. Well, there's one other one. But anyway, the rest only fit the label in one form or other about 50% at most. Why are we lumping them all together this way?

[YNGW]

25. Maybe....

>We are totally ignoring our base on the left side of us

Maybe because there's really not that many of you to make it worth the party's consideration.

On the other hand, maybe the party recognizes that you have no choice BUT to vote from the Democratic candidate if you want a real chance at defeating Bush, so they can afford to take you for granted.

There could be any number of reasons.

But I don't see how calling people "so-called Democrats" will help you. Young people tend to be more "liberal" than older people in my viewpoint, simply because they have had more real-life experiences. IMO, the party goes too far left and older voters will feel isolated.

Besides that, right and left are very personal to all of us. What's left to some is right to others, so to say the party is center-right can only be your personal opinion based upon where you personally are politically.

[Droopy]

6. Nice post

I appreciate the kind words about Kucinich. It amazes me that he doesn't get more support. I would think that DU would be in love with him just because of the stand he took against the war and the Patriot Act alone.

[liberalcapitalist]

10. Dennis Kucinich!

But don't forget Al and CMB too.

[sandnsea]

11. They aren't New Democrats

Either could be included along with DK, I agree. We're saying we want our party back, yet rejecting the ones who have held the party line. Them included.

[Armstead]

12. Kucinich is the real soul of the Demicratic Party

But he is not good as a presidential candidate. Not that Kucinich isn't great as a person. And I totally support DK's aenda, and I wish the package were better. But in terms of presidential politics, he doesn't have the shallow stuff you need.

Kerry is a good man too. And in many ways more liberal than Dean. But he has become too enmeshed in the world of Washington insiders. And, frankly he comes across as arrogent and dull.

Dean is a moderate, but I think he is being straight, and I also think he has been listening to the left. The rest, like Kerry, seem to think that concerns such as corporate power are irrelevant. I know he talks about it, but his ideads are more whittling around the edges but keeping the same ecesses intact.

It's all a mess. Maybe we have to live with the reality that this is a perioid for regrouping in the wilderness. Unfortunately that is going on as an election cycle is here. Maybe 08 is treally the opportunity. Dunno.

But I think Dean has a shot at winning, and of all the major candidates he is the one who comes closest to expressing what I feel.

[sandnsea]

16. Principles over personalities

This isn't a candidate thread. It's a where are we going thread. What is a True Democrat going to look like thread.

[Armstead]

18. I believe in a few years a "true Democrat" will look like Kucinich

You're the one who brought up candidates, but since you asked, I think Kucinich is leading the way for a new form of liberalism that addresses modern realities.

It's time is not here yet, but I think that's the direction things are heading in. Whether the true Democrats ultimately have to find a new home and create a third party, I don;t know. But I think the liberal/progressive direction Kucionich is point is a wave of the future.

[sandnsea]

20. Who takes us in that direction?

Based on his record?

What I was trying to get to by posting the candidates names and record, was that they've NOT all held the exact same beliefs over the last ten years. I think it's important to look at that and see which one would truly lead us to where Kucinich is at, if that's even where we really want to go. Which I'm also not so sure of based on different DU threads, going back months. I've seen widely varying views on business, affirmative action, guns, the death penalty, etc., always. So where are we really going?

This is really just an objective debating thread for me, not a candidate thread.

[goodhue]

27. Kucinich

I realize you're trying to steer debate away from candidates, but the reason this answer will keep coming up is that Kucinich supports sincerely believe that the DK campaign is about building a movement towards the coming transformation. Its not merely about the White House in 2004 although that is the immediate goal.

The Progressive Vision
<1> Universal Health Care with a Single Payer Plan
<2> Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
<3> Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
<4> Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
<5> Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights
<6> Balance Between Workers and Corporations
<7> Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K through College
<8> A Renewed Commitment to Peace and Diplomacy
<9> Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms
<10> Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy

[sandnsea]

31. Centrists, come here!!!

Okay, this is what I was looking for. Here is the "left" vision.

Centrists... agree/disagree. Why?

On NAFTA/WTO I disagree because I believe if we don't have freer trade policies we leave much of the world in poverty. We also alienate countries like N Korea and Cuba where trade can open the door to cultural exchange. When people have something of their own to fight to keep, they'll start demanding political change in their own countries which will eventually lead to peaceful relations around the world. This is a bit simplistic due to the nature of a forum, but basically what I think.

On balance between workers and corporations, I think the balance has gone way to the advantage of corporations. Bobby's articles line out my thinking on that quite well.

Hopefully others will chime in because I think this is really important stuff. And what other candidate comes closest to this particular vision, other than Kucinich? Gephardt has fought for most of this and I wonder if people truly know that.

[indigo32]

32. I'm not sure I'm a centrist

but I have to agree with what you say about 3 and 6

1. I wonder about #2...it seems like SS is hardly enough to eat dogfood anyway... I honestly don't know how people do it.

2. I also don't know nearly enough about the Patriot Act to give an educated opinion. I'm sure there are parts that need to go... and I think ALL our candidates agree on that... the whole thing ????

3. Free college? I've seen some interesting discussion here about that. We gain alot by educating our society, I will say that.

[sandnsea]

33. The Patriot Act

Our candidates have really failed on educating the public about this act. They've talked about how badly it's being implemented and about some of the portions that need to go. Kerry introduced legislation to get rid of the worst of it. But none of them have really said what the good parts are and why we need them. Or even why we need the controversial parts if they think we do. I wish I understood all of what's in there too. What I hate the most is the way we pass laws, like RICO, then use it to prosecute people it was never intended to go after. Very scary.

[indigo32]

28. Sandnsea

I would say... (I KNOW this isn't a candidate thread... but this question comes from your consternation over who is leading I think, and thats fair enough) that right now... the reason the front runner is a Centrist/New Democrat...is because he's the one whos been able to create the perception of leadership. I have immense respect for Dick Gephart and John Kerry, but this does not appear to be a good time for them. We are OBVIOUSLY in a difficult period (loosing our majority, ect), and struggling with our identity, and DESPARATE for the PERCEPTION of leadership. Cuz thats all it is... a perception really. I mean somehow the Chimp manages to create that with alot of people.

I agree with MOST of what Dennis Kucinich says... though I cringe when I hear people say he is "the soul of the Democratic party." We have a platform created by alot of us. But the ability to create that leadership perception is a big part of it too.

[ErasureAcer]

30. Be the change you want to see in the world

If you say it is going to look like Kucinich and you don't support Kucinich you're not helping that to be a realization.

I can only take it by deductive reasoning that you don't want the democratic party to go down the road of Kucinich.

[blm]

29. Great post, sandnsea. This liberal agrees with your analysis of the facts.

.

[indigo32]

34. Kick

for an interesting discussion