If we had a Democratic Party as far to the left as the Repubs are .....

[kentuck]

to the right....what would it look like? What would they be saying? What policies would they be promoting and passing? Why is impossible for the Democrats to move to the left but the Repubs can move to the right of Mussolini and still win? Why is that? Just curious..

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. one reason is messaging

another is controlling of the airwaves

The third one, keep people stupid while you rob them blind

[jmaier]

5. The 4th is that more people

self identify with conservative labels than with liberal labels. Forget issue specifics, just broad label. It would be a move toward permanent minority. Rightwingers can run under a broad "conservative" cover to gain power. Leftwingers have no broad liberal cover to mask the move to power.

Pretty basic.

On a personal level, the goal is to find a responsible position. Frankly, not all far left positions are wise, well thought out or would make useful policy. You'll note that Howard Dean's appeal to the left wing is on 1 specific issue anti-Iraq war and the nebulous and emotionally satisfying 2) speak truth to power. On most issues, he is right in step with Reid's common sense center.

[LaurenG]

2. I think I missed the point

I'm removing my post. :shrug:

[Jade Fox]

3. It would look like my personal fantasy....

of life in America.

Conservatives trade in fear, not hope. Fear works better, unfortunately.

[jody]

4. Are the Repubs far to the right? Perhaps they are more centrist than we

Dems wish to admit. If we Dems wish to win battles for control of our government, we must fight in the center and that means focusing on issues that are important to 10 percent of the voters who decide close elections.

So far, we've given every battle to Karl Rove's propaganda machine.

I'm tired of being absolutely best on every measure of morality and democracy and losing elections to the likes of Rove and his evil cabal.

[kentuck]

8. So, you think the Repubs are closer to the center ?

and that is why they are winning??

[jody]

9. Yes. n/t

[kentuck]

10. What issues do we need to move to the center ?

that are handicapping us at present, in your opinion?

[jody]

11. Several but one that has cost us the presidency in the last two elections

is the right to keep and bear arms. I understand that others can make the same claim for issues like same-sex relationships but, Democratic leaders like Clinton and Gore agree with me.

The Democratic Party has attempted to move toward the center on RKBA by including in our platform the plank, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

That's a start but it's confusing because the revised AWB sponsored by some Democratic leaders is viewed as a veiled attempt to ban all semi automatic firearms.

The ten percent of swing voters who decide presidential elections are not about to give up their natural, inherent, inalienable to self defense and firearms, particularly handguns, are the most effective, efficient tool for exercising that right. Add to that the simple fact that SCOTUS has said governments are not obligate to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody and you realize that self-defense is a personal choice.

Similar arguments exist for other issues that are super important to swing voters. Rove and his evil crew know that and they've exploited swing voters to the detriment of Democratic candidates.

[OrwellwasRight]

14. I have never seen any studies that suggest that anyone voted solely

on the gun issue in the 2004 Presidential election, much less that demonstrated that that is why the Dems lost.

Is this just your feeling or can you point to some data?

For me, anyone that gets all emotional about needing to have the abililty to kill other human beings in a manner that doesn't even give them a chance to run away has some serious problems. Want to own a gun? OK. But vote for a lying mass murderer because of your obsession with guns? We're not getting that voter anyway not matter how much we sell out.

[jody]

16. A quick google turned up one statement by GOP hack George Will

"Bill Clinton believes that advocating gun control cost Democrats 20 of the 52 House seats they lost in the 1994 elections that ended 40 years of Democratic control of the House." see "The NRA on election eve"

I encourage you to visit DU's "Gun Rights & Gun Control" forum for lively discussions on the topic.

RKBA was widely debated among Dem leaders before the last election and that's why our platform was changed to say "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

[MsTryska]

20. That's not exactly true......

the gun issue is a major reason why democrats aren't favored in the first place.

the candidate is irrelevant.


just like for many of us dem or liberal leaning women, the matter of choice is why we don't favor republicans in general.

[OrwellwasRight]

24. I'm not sure that Geogre Will

is the voice of authority on this (even though I think he is a very smart guy). I would want to see some actual regression analysis to show that guns made the difference before I was willing to go down that track.

We all have a right to our Monday morning quarterbacking, but in my experience doing outreach, watching the town hall meetings, and watching the polls during 2004, I hardly think that guns were a decisive issue. No one told me that's why they weren't voting for Kerry (though I did hear other reasons).

And I reiterate that we won't get the racist gun nuts who whole up in Montana anyway, so why sell out to them?

Our position (the Dem party position) on guns is completely rational to rational people (whether they are rational gun owners or people with a more anti-violence streak), and we need not sell out, especially when what the polls do point to is that people voted for Bush based on fear of terrorism.

We have to combat the Right Wing Propoganda Machine (which is genius and kicks our ass) instead of compromising our values.

[MsTryska]

25. Well...i live deep in the heart of a Red State...

and people around here take their guns pretty seriously.

Many of them have the perception that the Dems are anti-gun, so it's a turn-off from the start....

[AndyTiedye]

12. So Which Constituancy Should We Throw to the Lions?

That is what you are asking us to do, you know.

Do we leave women at the tender mercies of the back-alley abortionists?

Do we exclude gay people from their rights under contract law? That's
what most of the anti-gay-marriage laws do.

Do we make everyone who isn't a Bible-thumping "Christian" into a
second-class citizen (or worse)?

Those are not the beliefs of the center, those are the dictates of
the cabal that has seized power in this country.

I believe that the Demoocratic Party Should be closer to the center.
To get there, they need to move several clicks to the LEFT!

[jody]

13. We don't throw any group to the lions. We can emphasize pro-choice

on many issues that divide us. Our form of government is an attempt to balance individual liberty with social responsibility, personal choice is one attempt at that goal.

[formernaderite]

21. The center keeps moving to the right...

and the dems follow along. I think the monikers "liberal" and "conservative" are misnomers now. We need a populist and progressive party that speaks to people without speaking down to them. If we continue to move to the middle, the middle just keeps moving to the right.

[wyldwolf]

6. public perception

I don't believe the public has fully caught on to how far right the GOP has moved. They're starting to, and polling suggests it.

The Dems did move further left through the 60s up until around '94 and it caught up with us.

[OrwellwasRight]

15. Actually, you're buying into the Republican rhetoric.

The Dems started moving back from their left-wing zenith in 1972. Our tax structure has never been so progressive, the gap between the rich and poor was never so small, and greedy personal consumption was never so reviled as in the 50s and 60s. We are a shadow of our former selves, and no longer act on the beliefs we claim to hold: an end to poverty, equality for all, universal quality healthcare and education, etc.

Now we are all about incrementalism and not pissing off our big corporate donors.

What would America look like if the Dems actually took a stand on the left? Ever feel so inspired by the Civil Rights Movement that you cry? that's how great it would be.

[wyldwolf]

18. no actually I'm not

I've been around the block long enough not to buy into much rightwing spin.

I'm referring to the writings of Adrian Wooldridge, reporter for The Economist; Ruy Teixeira, a fellow at the Center for American Progress and at the Century Foundation; and historian Philip A. Klinkner, author of "Court and Country in American Politics: The Democratic Party and the 1994 Election.

All said that the reason the Democrats were turned out in 1994 was that liberal Democratic ideals -- or at least the way they were presented -- no longer resonated with the majority of Americans and that they'd moved to far from the American mainstream.

You may feel that the Dems started moving back from their left-wing zenith in 1972. I feel there were still major elements of it into the early 90s still present in Congress. Whatever. Fact is, and as my post suggested, there was/is a public perception that during the period of the late 60 to the early 90s, the Dems had moved to far from the American mainstream (left) and were turned out for it in '94.

[OrwellwasRight]

19. Try Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips

You'll see that the neither Clinton nor the Democrats presented truly liberal views in the 90s (DK and Jim McDermott excluded). Exectly what "liberal" notion did we forge ahead on in the 90s? And I've been around the block long enough to realize that Kerry is a shadow of McGovern when it comes to bs labels such as "most liberal voting record."

In the 90s, we (Dems) were pro-NAFTA, we let the ranchers and miners do what they would to public lands in the west w/o a peep, we started backing off on Affirmative Action, we claimed to be for universal health care until it got difficult (then we gave up), we claimed to be for civli rights for homosexuals (then we gave up), oh yeah, and we were for TANF. I'm not debating the merits of any of these issues with you,

I'm just saying that to believe that that party was as liberal as the party of the 60s is to buy in to the Rush Limbaugh spin. He has capitalized on "liberal" being a dirty word and will anhialate the truth in order to get manstream masses to believe him.

Better yet, read a speech by RFK or FDR and try to imagine ANY Democrat giving the same speech today. The wouldn't and they won't.

It's not that the Dems are so far to the left, taking money from big corporate America (just different companies), it's that idealism has becoem quaint and laughable in our post-modern society.

[wyldwolf]

26. If you'll read my posts closer

You'll see that I've said plainly that the Dems were turned out in '94 based on growing public wariness of them through the 60s, 70's, and 80s.

I've never said the party was as liberal in '94 as it was in the 60s but have plainly said the perception was that it was.

The rest of your reply, though I agree, is really irrelevant to that point.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

22. With all due respect to AW and PAK,

by 1994, there was absolutely only a ghost of a 60's liberal tendency left in the Dems. What had taken its place was the constant trumpetings of Rush and wannabes on the AM radio about the evil evil liberals. In other words, their work is relevant if Limbaugh's world of evildoers (aka liberals) really existed.

While there were some excesses in the liberal movement in the 60's (the last era of true liberalism), as there are with most incipient movements, the goals espoused by the larger movement (civil liberties for all) were as necessary and noble as any ever championed in human history.

If you look carefully, there has not been a political leader (other than Gore, really) in the last three decades, that has championed progressive causes. We are constantly debating only regressive measures (how much can we restrict personal freedoms? how much can we impose religion on science and in general? etc) and figuring how far back we need to turn the clock. The most staggering set-back is this Intelligent Design imposition -- echoes of the 15th 16th centuries, for shame.

This is the reason why I like the word progressive better than the word liberal -- progressive captures our ideals better than liberal does and in any case, I think the true opposite of conservative is really progressive. It also captures nicely the constitutional ideal "for a more perfect union" -- progressives want to look for ways to better ourselves and our lives: less war, less violence, more individual liberties and a more egalitarian society, progressively better.

There can really be no middle ground between those who want to overrule science and those who believe in science. There is only one correct position there. Similarly, there is no middle ground between people who want to impose their religion on to the public square and those who do not, etc. It is up to us educate people to get there, not forfeit the ground and retreat to a "middleground" that is really located back in the 16th century, simply because the political landscape is against us temporarily...

[kentuck]

23. We'd better find out before the next election...

Are there any Democratic polls that would assist in finding out what the people think on this matter?

[wyldwolf]

27. well, there are polls that suggest which direction Democrats ...

...want to move in.

[LittleClarkie]

7. Dem ugly isn't any prettier than Repub ugly

Ideologues make me nervous. They're anti-Democratic.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Because that's what the MSM and the bought-off DINOs keep saying

If the Democrats were as far to the left as the Republicans are to the right, Dennis Kucinich would be a centrist, and there would be no Green Party, because its members would be happy as Democrats.

I don't think most people realize just how far towards fascism the Republicans have gone, and all they know of the Dems is that the media say they're "too far left."

These days, so few people have ever met a real "far left" politician that one who appeared and spoke the truth would seem not "far left" to them, but like a breath of fresh air.