Left versus Center: we could get passed this if we really wanted to ...

[welshTerrier2]

i see very few "real and functional" differences between moderates and lefties on DU ... i expect some won't accept this and will cling to the joys they feel with this sibling rivalry ... the battle they are fighting is counter-productive and illusory because it too often focusses on candidates and political strategy rather than working for common ground on key issues ...

the most common difference i see argued is that moderates are willing to be "practical" and "compromise" and that lefties expected a fight on every issue ... this may be a real difference between democratic moderates and lefties ... it does lead to genuine clashes ... but this is more of a difference on political strategy than a difference on core values ... it's more of a how to achieve "it" than a definition of exactly what "it" is ...

one frequent theme when people are challenged to articulate differences is that moderates believe we shouldn't spend beyond our means ... the question I would ask is whether they believe far lefties think we should spend beyond our means ???

this spending argument is a republican myth ... anyone who believes in running up massive deficits isn't a leftie; they're idiots ... big deficits are just poor economic policy ...

I rarely see substantive differences on core values and policies articulated in the left versus center arguments ... this is not to say that differences don't exist at all but rather to highlight that they do not seem to be central to the discourse ...

we really need to get past this left versus center squabbling ... we need to get down to a detailed definition of our core values ... I believe when we do, we'll find very little difference if any between moderates and lefties ... our greatest weakness as a party is that we have problems defining our message, consistently and frequently communicating our message and getting more democrats to participate in the political process ... it's way past time to drop the labels and end the in-fighting ...

here's what I believe to be THE TWO ISSUES ... if we focussed on these central issues (see below), and took aggressive steps to find common ground, we could roar forward as a united front ... instead of spending so much time "pushing candidates", DU'ers should invest the bulk of their time and effort addressing these two central issues ... nothing will help your candidate or the Party more !!!

and what are THE ISSUES??

I see a country that aspires to democracy but is moving further and further away from it every day ... "one man (or woman), one vote" has been replaced by a government that is sold to the highest bidder ... foreign policy is about protecting multi-nationals from global political and market instabilities ... who do you think is spending billions to whisper in your Congressman's ear?

we are losing our democracy ... for me, all the other issues are "pretend" ... they are "pretend" not because they are unimportant but because we are too weak to bring about the changes we seek ... you either have a voice or you don't ...

and domestic policy? last year's Medicare debacle was written by pharmaceutical industry lobbyists ... does anyone really believe the corporate profit motive didn't define the terms of the new law? do you think HMO's might have made a buck or two when the law was passed?

both foreign and domestic policies are being written for and by corporate interests ... neither party moderates nor the Party's left support this un-democratic process ...

this is not a left/right divide ... the average citizen has virtually no power to shape the direction of the country ... the values that average citizens hold, be they left, center or moderate, are subjugated to the will of the greediest, wealthiest and most powerful ... to have a relatively equal voice is ISSUE ONE ...

with this understanding, and understanding that we are all sinking in the same little boat, this issue must be central to everything we do ... viewing the world through the very narrow but exacting lens of a loss of democracy, we are all brothers and sisters in the same struggle ... to see and hear the petty bickering with so much at stake is a most distressing business ...

the bottom line is, a house divided cannot stand ... our goal should not be unity for the sake of unity ... our goal should be to lose the labels and get down to ironing out the details ... in the end, we may have disagreements ... many of these disagreements are likely to be more of degree than of direction ... and they are likely to be more focussed on strategy than on values ... our differences, beyond the issues cited above, are small compared to the really big issues on which we all agree ...

the democrats, elected democrats that is, need to fight on each and every issue ... if they don't, and they start with all that gibberish about "we are all Americans", the party's activist base will be gone and it will be difficult to re-energize it any time soon ...

and the second critical issue is, of course, the war ... what Harry Reid did yesterday was a blow for liberty ... "the left" has been pushing for that type of stand-up courage for a very long time ... this can be a unifying event if the Democrats maintain Reid's fighting spirit ... but even with investigation, even with impeachment proceedings, some accomodation between elected Democrats and the Party's left must be reached on the war ... there's room for compromise and negotiation; there is not room for shutting anyone out of the intra-Party dialog ... the war, even given Reid's great efforts yesterday, will remain a stumbling block until real communication occurs ... every Democrat, regardless of their personal views on the war, should push the Party to find common ground between currently enumerated positions from elected Democrats and those calling for immediate withdrawal ...

and don't for one minute think the activist base means only the left wing ... in the last election, we were unified as never before ... moderates and lefties stood together to fight the fight ... the hidden truth is that many so-called moderates who support candidates who have not called for immediate withdrawal are secretly hoping they will ... doing so would bring their candidates far greater support from across the spectrum than they currently enjoy ... perhaps no one will admit to that but i believe it's true ...

i hope that democrats do get the message ... i hope they understand that they need a better and clearer message and that the laundry list of policies needs to support a short list of "master themes" ... i hope they understand that compromising with the neo-con (i.e. neo-convict) agenda is never an option ... i hope they come to understand that they need a media presence everyday and the Party's themes need to be repeated over and over and over ... they need to understand that you do not have to "pick your battles"; there is only one battle !! if the democrats want to join the fight, as Reid did yesterday, their new-found combativeness is worthy of praise from across the Party's political spectrum ...

if Democrats want unity, and they should, they should make it Job One and do what is necessary to achieve it ... yesterday was a great first step ...

[TheFarseer]

1. that's very true

If we get corporate money out of politics and get the interests of the people to the forefront, then we will have won half the battle right there.

[mestup]

2. "what Harry Reid did yesterday was a blow for liberty "

Not sure I understand this.
:shrug:

[feistydem]

3. Holy rant, Batman.

The term 'lefty' reeks of a slur to me --and I'm not even a 'lefty' who needs to get PAST the centrist-perceived divide. I think you make a lot of assumptions without a lot of facts.

As an independent thinker --I support Harry Reid's actions yesterday and today. I just wish he and the Dems had acted sooner.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The politicians don't "lead" the people do.

I've been a Democrat since 1965. I've never confused what the party is and what it's function is. In my view, political parties of whatever stripe, are vehicles to achieve aims. Frequently, my ideals about government clash with the Democratic Party's. Usually, I have voted (D) for lack of a better alternative, not because I support their platform or the politicians who are on the ticket. The "lesser of two evils" rule.

If the party or the candidate depart too far from what I believe in, or are so obviously in the hands of interests I abhor, I have no qualms about voting 3rd Party (Peace & Freedom in '68, Green in 2006).

I feel no loyalty to any particular party. They are the vehicle to achieve an end. Sometimes those ends require compromise. Sometimes, the compromises offered by the Democrats, i.e. the IWR vote, abortion rights, or just plain pandering, are beyond my capacity to hold my nose.

Politics is the means to an end. I marched in Civil Rights and Anti-war protests, not because I like walking and yelling, but because they were a means to an end. Equal rights and Peace.

IMO we must not confuse what we are seeking with the vehicle used to get us there. If it veers to far off the path, it's time to select another vehicle.

[welshTerrier2]

6. i agree with what you wrote ... mostly ...

i have no qualms about supporting third party candidates if the Democrats don't represent your views ... none whatsoever ...

and i very much see the Democratic Party as a source of power that hopefully will fit with my beliefs and represent me ... my loyalties are to my values and beliefs; not to any party ...

so i strongly agree with your second to last sentence: "IMO we must not confuse what we are seeking with the vehicle used to get us there." ... if the bus isn't traveling in the right direction, why would you want to pay the fare and go where it's going?

but i also think you omitted an important step from your last sentence: "If it veers to far off the path, it's time to select another vehicle." ... i have no problems selecting another vehicle ... it's just that i'd want to make damned sure the old one couldn't be repaired before i do ...

political parties should be a means to an end; not an end in themselves ... but in the current two-party climate, fighting for reform at the sources of greatest power, makes at least some sense ... this does NOT speak to how one would ultimately vote ... right now, i'm working for change both inside and outside the Party; when it comes time to vote, I'll be voting for a progressive candidate regardless of party label ... I hope that will be a Democrat; perhaps it won't be ...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. I don't think we disagree.

I'm all for "repairing" the Democratic Party. The question is, what works? If continuing to vote for the "lesser of two evils" as the party tries to capture the right by pandering to their interests works, then I must have missed the victory parties. If withholding my vote (voting 3rd party) causes the party to move left to capture the left, as I've seen happen here in my own congressional district, so be it.

All issues are not equal. I think we agree about that. I can stomach naming a bridge after Ronald Reagan. I can settle for a compromise on 75,000 acres of wilderness rather than the 100,000 I would prefer, I can even stomach some politician droning on about "God Bless America" or being soppily patriotic "John Kerry, reporting for duty", (tho' that did bring an urge to vomit). I do understand political gamesmanship, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it. When it crosses the bounds to forfeiting principles to the point that it costs lives (IWR) or threatens basic freedoms (voting for/or acquiescing by inaction) I consider the bus off the road and I have no qualms about bailing out and seeking another way - even if it means some short term losses.

[eallen]

5. The difference isn't fiscal prudence as much as deeper economic issues.

Some on the left are simply antagonistic to capitalism, not believing that it is the engine that creates our wealth. Others have simplistic views of economics. When oil hit $70/bbl, they said, why not just have the government cap the price? I posted at least a half dozen times here explaining that that would trade a high price for a shortage, even if it were the sellers themselves who imposed the cap.

I think a lot of what separates the leftists from the moderates is that we moderates (or should I say liberals?) are not looking for a revolution in how the economy works, but just for practical solutions to significant problems that take into account how the economy works.

[welshTerrier2]

10. i'm glad you raised this ...

i expect you would consider my views far to the left and would strongly disagree with me on many issues ... i am a socialist ... i believe the oil industry has to be nationalized ... i'm for capping wealth because i believe the super-wealthy have always acquired excessive power and do great damage to our democracy ... i'm not anti-wealth just for the sake of picking on the wealthy; i'm not in favor of "making everyone exactly equal"; my concern is the infestation of big money in the political process ... i'm open to all the "liberal" reforms about lobbyist disclosure requirements and campaign finance reform and public financing of campaigns and all the rest of it ... if that stuff works, fine ... no need to be more intrusive ... it's just that it has NEVER worked and i'm skeptical it can EVER work ... happy to try whatever you offer as a first step ...

so i understand that "moderates" will strongly disagree with these ideas ... but in the context of the left-right debate, IT DOESN'T MATTER ...

why do i say that? i say that because this is not what i see being debated when these left-right or left-center battles arise on DU ... there's very little talk about economic systems ... what i do see are terms flying around like "corporatism" ...

well, maybe those terms are more frequently used by people on the left ... but does anyone believe you could get a bunch of moderate Democrats to get all enthusiastic about allowing big money and mega-corporations to have undue influence in our political processes and in our domestic and foreign policies? the simple answer is "No" ... what is a perceived difference on the abuse of big money and mega-corporations is NOT a substantial difference between left and center at all ... i acknowledge that we would differ on the proposed remedies to corporate abuse but i think it no small thing that we would agree on the central nature of the problem ...

emphasizing far away objectives like a revolution that would overturn capitalism misses the understanding that there are many "closer miles" we can walk together to further our common objectives ... if that roads divides into two paths many miles and many years from here, we both will have benefitted from the path we walked together ...

[eallen]

11. Those are good points. I agree with limiting corporate influence...

I'm hotly following the case with Tom DeLay. I fear many don't really know what is going on there. Texas is one of a few states that has a quaint law against corporate donations to political campaigns, and it is that which DeLay stands accused of violating.

But yes, I suspect we agree on some things. I would ban paid corporate lobbying entirely. K-street? Burn it to the ground! Well, OK, not literally. Just get rid of all the lobbyists and let others rent the offices.

:hippie:

[The Magistrate]

7. You Make Some Excellent Points, Mr. Terrier

That was a pleasure to read.

The time has certainly come when our Party must fight: it is essential preparation for a good turn-out by our side in the up-coming Congressional election....

"The art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, followed by audacious attack."

[welshTerrier2]

8. to quote a "DU original" ...

thank you, Sir ...

your civility in discourse is ALWAYS appreciated !!

[The Magistrate]

9. Much Appreciated, Sir

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[welshTerrier2]

13. awwww, what the hell ... i wrote this whole long thing ...

i think i'll give it a ... kick ...