We are wimps...Most people are progressive populists, but we give up.

[Armstead]

If I hear one more time that the country is "too conservative" to support poiliticians who stand up and fight for liberalism and progressive populism, I'm gonna barf.

Most people are progressive populists and liberals in their guts, when it comes to the real issues. They are that way because of a basic belief in fair play -- They also recognize that it's in their own self-interest.

There is a very simple reason it seems otherwise. Our side -- Democrats/liberals/progressives -- are a bunch of apologetic wimps. We are afraid to acknowledge and fight for the core principles regarding Money and Power that are as mainstream as Apple Pie. instead we call it "too far left." That's a bunch of hooey.

What passes for "conservatism" and "centrism" today is just a damn con-job. Do you really think turning the economy into a Corporate Feudal State, undermiining the middle class and decimating the poor,gutting Social Security, turning our public sector over to Enron style pyramid schemes, going to useless wars based on lies, etc. etc. etc. are REALLY majority positions?

Get real. The only reason real liberals and progressives seem to be too "fringe" for the rest of the country is because we have given up the battle.

The only way that will change is if we STOP thinking that we are somehow out of the mainstream.

End of rant.

[onenote]

1. if most people are as progressive as you say, why aren't more

progressives running for office and winning?

[Armstead]

3. When they are good politicians -- they do

Bernie Sanders is just one example. He is very much to the left, and even describes himself as a democratic socialist.

And he continually wins his statewide House seat by margins so strong that the GOP basically gave up on trying to defeat him.

And despite the stereotype of Vermont as Lala Land, it is filled with hard-scrabble rural folks and blue collar hardasses. And most of them vote for Bernie because they know one thing about him. He's on their side and he's a fighter for their real interests on the issues that matter.

[RethugAssKicker]

48. Agree 100%.... but , just a point... Look at your own

choice of words:

"And despite the stereotype of Vermont as Lala Land, it is filled with hard-scrabble rural folks and blue collar hardasses. "

You yourself, sort of describe liberals as "LaLa" people and infer that cons are "hard"... Your own definitions make the rethugs seem more "manly and mature", while liberals as immature and wishy-washy!

[Armstead]

53. Actually, I'm countering that stereotype

Perhaps I said it badly, but "Vermont as LaLa Land" is often brought up as a counter-attack whenever Bernie Sanders' amazing political track record is mentioned. "He couldn't succeed anywhere else," it is said by some. "He only wins because it's Vermont."

My point is that progressive politics has little to do with "lifestyle" and personality.

The so-called "manly men" are open to progressive politics if it's presented in a way they can relate to. That belies the stereotype of liberals as immature and wishy washy.

[leesa]

50. Media controls the message. Conservatives have a headlock on the media.

Americans are completely susceptible to PR manipulation and they have been made to believe the darndest things by the GOP sales pros. Americans can be sold anything with the right manipulation. The GOP excels in this manipulation and they bought all the outlets.

[rman]

64. Because big capital rules, not the voice of the people

Big capital owns the media and the electoral system, and lobbies government. So big capital in effect owns the government, and progressive policies are opposite of the interests of big capital.

[Minnesota Libra]

2. I respectively disagree. This country began turning..........

....conservative during the Carter years, which brought in Reagan, and hasn't turned back yet. I do think that might be in the process of changing now, thanks to the WH Idiot and his Handlers, but it isn't a done deal yet by any means.

[Armstead]

4. It depends on what you mean by "conservative" --- and why

The current political template evolved for a number of reasons. But a big part of it was complete deception by Corporate Conservatives and complete capitulation by our side on the real issues of money and power.

The Democrats gave up. They mistook the superficial aspects of conservatism (the wedge social issues) for the meat and potatoes of real politics, which is all about Money and Power.

The Democrats gave up fighting for real progressive populism and liberalism, and instead became what they should have been fighting. They became Corporate Enablers. They allowed the fight to shift to no-win issues like gun control.

Scratch the surface of many moderate and so-called conservative voters today, and you'll find that whatever they think of "guns, God and gays" they are also in support of the basic pronciples of progresive populism and liberalism.

The real problem is that we stopped giving them a real choice on those core issues.

[Minnesota Libra]

6. I truly wish.............

....those who think that Liberals "...stopped giving them a real choice on those core issues" would themselves run for office. Then those unhappy Progressives could show us all how the Liberal/Progressive representation is supposed to be done. I'd be willing to bet those same Progressives would end up realizing 20/20 hindsight is one thing, being in the fight from the beginning is quite another matter.

[Armstead]

10. I'd be a loiusy candidate -- but i do what I can in other ways

We all have our own roles to fill. If I had the qualities to run for office I would. But I don't so I don't, and I focus my energies on other ways to contribute to the cause.

However, as I noted above, being a good politician is not the same as eitehr selling out or being cowardly. If the GOP thought that way, they'd still be in the minority.

I am firmly convinced (and experience shows) that a good candidate can take on the beast and win.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. I blame the rise of the yuppie liberals in the late 1970s

for the ascendancy of the Republicans.

They were all for abortion rights, feminism (because they wanted to fulfill their professional aspirations), and affirmative action (only they didn't want their kids attending desegregated schools).

Now abortion rights, feminism, and affirmative action are all good things, but not as the ONLY public face of liberalism.

Joe and Joan Bluecollar looked at that program and asked, "What's in it for me?" Abortion offended their traditional moral code, feminism *appeared* to mean that Joan Bluecollar had to work at a crappy job just so the family could make ends meet, and affirmative action *appeared* to suggest that the Democrats thought that only black people had problems.

Where was the defense of the unions when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers? Where were low-cost loans for farmers facing ruin in the early 1980s? Why the support for NAFTA and other "free" trade programs? Why such a timid, bureaucratic health plan from Clinton when he had the political capital to institute single payer and could have gone to the public to have them pressure their Congresscritters, a tactic that Reagan used repeatedly and successfully? Where's the leadership on affordable housing?

"Oh," say the apologists for the status quo. "We can't do anything because we're not in power."

Bullfeathers.

In preparation for my upcoming trip to England, I've been looking at the websites of British political parties. They all state their positions on specific issues. They all have "shadow ministers," i.e. MPs whom they would appoint as Minister of Whatever if they got into power.

Why can't the Democrats do the same? Why can't they develop a set of specific (not vague like "We're for quality education" as if any political party would say otherwise) proposals and have ALL the Congresscritters tout them at every public appearance and media interview?

It would be a way around the media blackout (face-to-face encounters with as many actual voters as possible and maximum use of local media, which give incumbents nearly automatic access.).

[Armstead]

55. Yes, they didn;t help

Taking on the trappings buit abandoning the real goal of equal opportunity and economic justice.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. The demise of labor completely screwed us

But as far as having party platforms like the British have, it's a bit harder for us. For one, political power is centralized into the House of Commons which in turn elects the government. Here, we have House elections, Senate elections, and Presidential elections seperately and also we make a much bigger deal about electing Governors here than they do in England. Since politics is centralized into one body, it allows them to elect a clear leader and decide on a clear platform for their party because the only people making that decision are the MP's.

Here, you would have to get the House members, Senate members, Governors, etc. to agree on a solid platform and that's very difficult unless we are having a national convention in which case the nominee selects people to write the platform. The same goes for selecting a party leader. Unless our party controls the white house, we only have a party leader when we nominate a candidate for President. In England, they will often keep their party leader even if their party loses the election. Here, we abandon our presidential candidate the second that they lose the election because nobody wants to be associated with a loser. Party leaders when your party doesn't control the white house are much more difficult to come by. Newt Gingrich was one example during the 90's and that is partly why the Republicans were so successful even if they didn't have the White House. Tip O'Neil played this role for us during the 80's but still was consistently undermined by "Reagan Democrats".

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren't very powerful figures and neither can gain the following of the entire party. This is especially true because they are both have minority status. As weak as Tom Daschle was, he was still considered by many to be the leader of the party when the Democrats controlled the Senate.

Also, Democrats have always seemed to have a problem with factions. I think it was Mark Twain who said, "I'm not a member of an organized political party. I'm a democrat."

[Greyhound]

15. The country didn't turn conservative, the media did.

So that's what we were fed and continue to be fed by the soma-box.

It during this time that the networks started actively promoting the corporate agenda, Walter Cronkite retired over the news departments, for the first time, having to compete for ratings. He said it would lead to exactly what we have today, no news, all distraction.

[Armstead]

19. That was one of the Democrats' biggest mistakes

Over the years, it was frustrating and baffling to see Democratic legislators (and presidents) roll over and go along with the drive to deregulate the media and allow such concentration of ownership.

How could supposedly intelligent leaders actually go along with nonesense like "Reducing the number of media owners will enhance competition" over the last 30 years. And letting those who control the public airwaves totally abandon the requirements to provide public service and balance.

That's one of the many examples where the Democrats missed the boat. Now we're all paying the price for this loss of vigilance.

[Greyhound]

23. And that is the source of my pessimism. I can't believe that they

(the Democratic reps) are so stupid that they didn't know exactly where this would lead. After all, it's not like there weren't plenty of people (myself among them) telling them what it would yield.

[Armstead]

35. The source of my optimism is.....

...that as the chickens come home to roost that public pressure will either force the morons and political prostitutes who supported crap like this to change or be booted out and replaced by politicians who are smarter and more receptive to the public interest.

BTW, I'd call it deliberate and cautious optimism. It's often tempting to let it go, but I believe that collective optimism is a necessary prerequisite for positive change -- even on those days when the evidence saeems to indicate otehrwise.

[jobycom]

5. There are progressives in just about every primary

They always campaign hard for their issues. They rarely make a good showing, except in districts with unusually high progressive demographics. It isn't that the Democrats who run are always the ones who play for the middle. It's that those are the Democrats who win against the populist candidates in the primaries. Populists can't even win in OUR party, much less in general elections.

[Armstead]

13. The populists are up against the status quo

They are usually ill funded, and painted as "fringe" candidates by both the media and by the Democratic establishment who prefer those who are in the "good ol boy and girl" network. So they have to fight the same party that supposedly represents their interests, as well as the GOP and the Media Presstitutes.

Also, to be honest, many of those are not very good candidates. They are either too much purists in the way they deliver their message, or they won't make the cosmetic changes necessary. Seeing some scruffy guy with a beard and long hair in a debate is not a key to victory....There is a difference between compromise and selling out.

What I am saying is that the core of the Democratic Party ought to embrace the principles and the people who are actual progressives, instead of joining with the GOP to marginalize them.

[Greyhound]

17. As usual,you are exactly right. Truly representative candidates are

the only thing that both the re:puke:s and Democrats fear. That is why you rarely see truly liberal people running for office, they run but, thanks to the corporatocracy, we just don't see them.

[jobycom]

20. I think part of what you're saying is right, but there's a lot of denial

in it, too.

Everybody who is out of power believes if they can just get someone to listen to their message that everyone will agree. Living in the south, I hear that from fundamentalists to KKK members to white supremacy groups so far out they make the KKK seem mainstream. I'm certainly not comparing the progressive movements to such extremists, only pointing out that people always believe they are right and everyone loves them.

If the Democratic party could win with progressives, they'd be splitting their guts trying to get progressive candidates. I've worked closely enough with party organizers and politicians and campaign managers to know what I'm talking about. I see a lot of people who come in with the attitude that Dems lose because they sell out, that if only they listened to the "people" and became more progressive that they would win. It doesn't happen. The "people" aren't progressive. It isn't because of, as your stereotype suggests, culturally fringe candidates running as progressives. There are quite clean-cut progressives and populists running for office. They don't win. People don't like their message. People vote for the more moderate candidates. Elections are won in the middle.

Where I agree with you, is that we would win a lot more people over if our candidates campaigned on what they believed instead of playing it safe. There are a lot of people who would like a progressive message if they heard it from a supporter, rather than from the right-wingers who set up straw-man images of progressives. I'd like to hear more of a debate, I'd like to hear Dems speak their mind more instead of running a campaign on the averages, trying to maximize their votes without losing any. That's where I agree with you.

But if the Democrats dumped every moderate candidate they have now, funded clean-cut populists with attractive images and nice focus-group tested speeches, we'd lose, and we'd lose by a lot more than we lose now. There may be some areas where that would work (Austin, for instance, where the most populist candidate usually does win. Check out Lloyd Doggett). But generally in those areas progressives are already winning.

My biggest complaint about Democratic candidates is the way they try to trick people into voting for them. Rather than running on their issues, they try to run as moderates to conservatives, and then hope to sneak a few of their opinions in when they win. They don't usually win, because they don't excite anyone. But the progressives in the party aren't completely blameless. Look at Hillary. Her voting record is as liberal/progressive as anyone in the Senate, and yet progressives have started attacking her on issues that they misunderstand in the first place. She's just the current example. I could say Gore or Kerry, too. Gore was the most populist candidate for president we've ever had. His speech at the convention was a thing of beauty. And yet the biggest factor next to cheating in his "loss" was a candidate who pretended to be progressive and attacked Gore as a conservative. The progressive movement cuts its own throat. It would rather lose than yield, and frankly, I believe it would rather lose than win, as I saw in 2000. Not the whole movement, but enough of it to weaken our chances of ever getting this nation headed that way.

[Armstead]

27. Gore as an example

Parts of what you say I agree with, and are basically the same thing I've been saying...Other parts I disagree with.

Let me first start with a core difference of opinion. I believe -- and it was the point of my original post -- that what is often labeled as "left" or progressive or liberal IS MODERATE....at least on the issues of Money and Power. Both hard-right conservatism and Corporate Centrism are OUTSIDE the mainstream, when you look at them strictly in terms of issues outside of the labeling.

I can give you many examples. But most people support and appreciate things like Medicare and Social Security (even as they bitch about them). Those are solidly mainstream programs. But today, Democrats are scared to death to even attempt to support equivalent programs to address modern problems, such as finding a way to make health care affordable and universal....It's the same thing with many other issues. Most people are not happyt to see our economy being concentrated into the hands of a few multinational empires, small business being decimated, their own wages plummeting, their jobs being lost to Corporate Globalization, etc. etc.

We have to stop equating timidity with moderate. They are very different. Today, liberalism and progressive populism are only branded as too "far out" by the establishment politicians and media because what passes for the "center" is so far to the right. BUT people have not changed, and gained some "conservative" gene.

>>"My biggest complaint about Democratic candidates is the way they try to trick people into voting for them. Rather than running on their issues, they try to run as moderates to conservatives, and then hope to sneak a few of their opinions in when they win. They don't usually win, because they don't excite anyone."

I agree with that totally. That's a core of the problem. It's also a no-win position, because portrayting yourself as one thing while hoping to slip something else through is like being a little bit pregnant. Can't be done.

You're also right about Gore's nomination speech. It was a thing of beauty. When I saw it, I got excited about our prospects for 2000 for the first time...But where I disagree with you is that he did not really run as a populist or progressive after that. Unfortunately, he allowed himself to be guided and stifled by folks like Donna Brazile, and he didn't really follow through on that populist campaign. That was a classic example of what I'm talking about. If he'd been the real Gore, I think his marghin would have been so big that neither Bush nore Nader could have messed it up.

And I agree that some progressives do more harm than good by either being judgemental and overly purist, or by not making some concessions to the cosmetics of politics. But as I said above, compromise is not the same as selling out.

But more to the point, the positions of Nader -- if you examine them outside of him and the political structure -- were ones that could resonate with a majority, if they came from a good candidate who was backed by the Democratic establishment.

I can't speak to your observations about the failures of progressive Democrats in specific campaigns. In some respects "all politics is local" and they may have either been poor candidates, had ineffective campaign staffs or faced other circumstances.

[jobycom]

41. Great discussion, as always

I seem to recall we've had similar discussions over the years, here. These long post discussions are what drew me to DU back when, and there aren't enough of them anymore.

You make an intriguing point about monetary centrism being outside the mainstream these days. I was thinking of the whole progressive slate, from environmentalism to pacifism and such. When you narrow it down to just the economic policy, I can start to agree with you. I think most Americans are upset with the complete lack of control of corporations, with outsourcing, with the complete corporate takeover of the economy--especially since wages go down as corporate control goes up. In that regard, yes, I can see your point. A platform with a strong progressive message on the economy--including health care, better retirement structures, and especially progressive taxation--but with a more mainstream message on foreign policy and cultural/societal issues might be the ticket. Not that it would be perfect for me--I'd be more progressive on social issues and a little less on monetary issues, I think. But even so, that would be closer to my views than what we have now, and closer than much of what we get from the Dem Party.

On Gore, I blame Nader for Gore's move towards the middle, although I think Gore's move was less pronounced than it is sometimes claimed. He began to sound less like a populist the more Nader gained in strength. I think Gore had expected to win the left when he made his convention speech, but as Nader began to poll closer to three percent, I think Gore moved more towards the middle to make up ground he was losing to Nader. That's not revisionism, that was my impression at the time, as I watched him do it. It's easy to blame Donna Brazille (and fun, because she was a terrible campaign manager), but Gore had to deal with the loss of as much as 3% of his voting base, on the left. His other option was to begin campaigning against Nader, and there was too much risk that he would only split the left more, and maybe lose some of the middle. So he went to the middle instead. When I blame Nader for hurting Gore in the election, that's more of what I'm talking about. Nader's votes were barely enough to cost Gore New Hampshire (I assume as fact that Bush altered ballots in Florida, and would have just altered more if Gore had had all the Nader votes), and even then, you can't reconstruct the election that way. Many of those voters may have stayed home or voted for someone else, and even then, there's no way to calculate how many progressives got involved because of Nader and then wound up voting for Gore. It's not just a simple numbers game.

But Nader drove Gore more to the right, and that hurt him.

In some ways the whole Gore/Nader thing is a dead issue, but in other ways not. I think we can look at it for lessons. Of course, what lessons we get from it can be debated endlessly, but still, it's an important case study.

So I guess the bottom line is that I have come to agree that Americans are more progressive on economic issues than Dems assume, but not progressive on enough issues for a sraightline progressive message to win nationally. As you say, there are local elections, and they are all different.

[Armstead]

52. Thanks

DU is a chance to hash out these kinds of thing and try to get below the suraces.

I guess my bottom line is that the Dems (and others on the left half) should find common ground on the issues of money and power and all of the related issues to that. We should be challenging the precepts of corporate CONservatism, and hammering home the fact that progressive policies benefit the majority.

The social issues (or what I'd call lifestyle issues) should be left to individual candidates more, as it would be difficult to come to unanymous agreement on issues like gun control, gay rights etc.

(Although, I do think we could position oursaelves as the party of individual freedom, in contrast to the GOP, who want to regulate what people do in the bedroom and who advocate Big Brother spying on everyone.)

[havocmom]

7. Ponder how hard and how long the neocons have taken

to get to power. Think about all the steps they took to work on the group-think in America. Consider how they had to change media ownership laws so they could consolidate the outlets AND CONTROL THE MESSAGE. Do not forget the radical changes to methods of actually casting ballots and the many ways that and counting ballots is all controlled by the neocons.

If most people were already of like minds with the conservatives and neoconservatives, none of that effort would have been needed for them to take over.

Most people are NOT, by nature, ultra right. The national personality has been twisted for several decades for the ultra right to get this much power. People have been lied to, brainwashed, manipulated, kept in the dark & fed bullshit. Many Americans are like abused children, they respond to the stimuli presented to them. That stimuli has been very carefully planned and administered. And yes, people have gotten too lazy and easily distracted. It is human nature to take the path of least resistance.

All part of the plan.

Point is, none of it would have been needed if the majority actually agreed with the neocons, ultra right, corporatists.

Getting back to populist messages will resonate, if we keep at it and don't give up.

edited for typo

[monarch]

9. Great positive message! n/t

[havocmom]

31. Thanks. Just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

And posted it to my journal

[INdemo]

11. Most Democrats in my area are afraid to admit they are Democrats

In this red state county most fear even having bumper stickers or yard signs showing their support for progressive candidates...But Republicans have their signs everywhere..Now I ask why is that.
I have my yard signs during the campaign season,my bumper stickers,etc..and I actually have relatives that ask why I display these(and they are Democrats)My answer is always a few choice words that sounds like Duck em'(Republicans)
So in short when Democrats become more vocal locally and less fearful or worried about consequences than our party will certainly progress.

[havocmom]

29. Many life-long Republicans in my area have announced

that if the current power is Republican, then THEY aren't Republicans. Many here are getting quite vocal in there denunciations of the GOP in its current incarnation.

This is big for two reasons.
1. Folks here are pretty tight lipped, especially about politics. If they are coming out and speaking, it means they are plenty riled up. And for every one who speaks out, we can count on others who silently agree.

2. This area so disproportionately GOP that the few registered DEMS in the county can meet in an old VW Bug. If folks around here are openly confronting the GOP leaders, they have had enough and sense the seriousness of the threat to all of us.

The big point these recent GOP ship jumpers make is: What do the DEMS stand for? What ARE the DEM ideas for solving America's serious problems.

We HAVE to stop letting Rove and the neocons set the debate and define the terms. When they do that, we are always on the defensive and cannot effectively get out message out. We need to be pro-active and aggressive about define ourselves OURSELVES. We have to ask hard questions and offer solid alternatives to the course the GOP wants America to stay.

We have to return to our populist heritage. WE ARE THE PARTY OF THE PEOPLE. We have to insist on candidates who understand that and have the intestinal fortitude to act.

[Armstead]

14. Yes -- The present version of CONservatism does not come naturally

It has required a long, hard sales pitch -- and a lot of Orwellian double-speak and falsehoods -- to get people to stop listening to their own instincts and buy into that crap.

[monarch]

8. K & R

Keep on ranting. I'm with you. Every time I think about emigrating, it's more because I am disgusted with the people who support this evil regime rather than with the evil regime itself. I would like to think that it's because they feel powerless to do anything and because they think that their votes don't matter or that they'd like a president who they could have a beer with.

I really do want to believe that the citizens of this once-great country are better than their voting (or nonvoting) behavior would seem to indicate. They can't all be as stupid or craven as they appear to be.

[Armstead]

18. People are individuals

I've learned from experience that you can't judge a book by its cover.

Once you actually get to talking with people who you might assume are brain-dead zombies or who you think might hold atrrocious opinions, I've found that many will surprise you. they do support the things we support, even if it is not articulated.

Or they migbht have some opinions that are very different (maybe even awful), but they still agree with basic progressive principles on the issues of Money and Power.

The biggest problem is that fatalism you referred to. Insterad of the old hard-assed union guys supporting Democrats passionatly because they knew the Dems would fight for them, they now either say "Why bother? No one cares about us." Or else they succumb to the seductive Rovian issues like guns and gays.

[drm604]

24. Voting behavior

Don't judge the people's voting behavior by who's occupying office. In recent years, one often has little to do with the other.

[Greyhound]

12. The game is just distraction. The two "adversaries" fight over a shrinking

number of participants to create an illusion of choice. Why else do you think neither party is playing to the disenchanted and disgusted? Those that no longer vote because they know it will make no real difference in their lives are the real majority, and anybody that convinces them that they can make a real difference can walk away with the whole thing (until they are assassinated).

Unfortunately, I believe it is too late for anyone like that to get any exposure, and therefore will be silenced.

[Armstead]

16. I'm not that pessimistic

There are still a lot of good people within the system, and they have attained and held positions of power and have not been eliminated or otehrwise made to shut up.

I'm not criticizing all Democrats in my original post. The problem is that there's just not enough of those who are willing break that "don't rock the boat" mold these days.

[Greyhound]

21. There are indeed good people in the system (on both sides)

but they are marginalized and ignored. Look at Dennis Kucinich, he's been in the House for ten years and what support has The Party given him? Spots on two feel-good, do-nothing committees, Education and the workforce and Government Reform.

I wish I could muster as much hope as you seem to possess.

[Greyhound]

28. Here we are, another case in point from today;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2715163&mesg_id=2715163

"it cannot be a healthy situation for the Democratic Party when the majority of Democrats who oppose the bush "stay the course" position, according to a very recent Gallup poll, believe we should IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW from Iraq and not even one Senator is willing to represent this view ..."

:banghead:

[Armstead]

33. I empathize with your frustratioin on that....

...but I think the current situation in Iraq is something that has its own dynamics. It's a different dynamic than core domestic issues of Money and Power.

Personally, I was vehemently against the war from before it started, and I am still vehemently against it. We made a huge cock-up of it. I also believe we ought to get out as soon as possible. I also wish more Democratic politicians would call this war what it is, and represent the anti-war sentioment more openly.

However, I am somewhat reluctant to support simple immediate withdrawal at this point for a very basic reason. We screwed up their country, and we owe it to the Iraqi people to find some way to get out SOON, without just throwing it open to complete chaos or the imposition of some new dictatorship....I don't know how we can do that -- and I know our presence does more harm than good -- but that's something we have to figure out. I think a lot of Democrats in Congress are trying to figure that out.

Again, I'm not defending their wimpiness on the war. but in the long run, IMO our bigger concerns are those core issues of money and power (which are a big part of the reason we got enmeshed in Iraq in the first place).

[Greyhound]

37. Iraq is the example I ran into...

but it is the same with all of the important issue. Health-care, majority favors universal single-payer, not one proposal. Immigration, majority support severe, enforced, employer sanctions (the one strategy with some chance of success, and with much less cost than the two predetermined failures they have proposed) not one proposal...

Anyway, sorry, keep fighting the good fight.

[Armstead]

38. I'm with you on all those others..

It is absolutely ridiculous that 20 years after health care started becoming a worse problem that we have nothing to show for it. Not even any noble efforts. (Hillarycare was just a sop to placate the insurance industry.)

[Greyhound]

71. Right again, and that's why I don't believe for an instant

that there is any will at all in DC to fix this system, only a desire to placate and stall until their asses are out of office and set up in their cushy new lives as "lobbyists" or as "consultants". :grr:

[opihimoimoi]

22. The answer lies in the direction of WE....not ME

Too many peeps out there, Left, Right, and Inbetween, cannot bring themselves to think for the WHOLE..in this case, for the Nation and other Peeps.

Far too many are selfcentered and spoiled....enough so that our mess was created...

The Solution is Ignorance and its Reduction....

We need to reduce The Ig level. Start with the Prez....

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. I recall the travel writer Paul Theroux once commented on how he

walked into an expatriate bar in Tonga and there was a right-wing Republican ranting away on a usual right-wing tirade. Mr. Theroux briefly reflected on how much he could walk into a bar almost anywhere in the world where there were Americans and there would be some right-wing jerk ranting away on their usual right-wing tirades. And how much he would like to just once walk into an obscure expatriate bar somewhere in the world and hear someone ranting away on how they are sick and tired of that god-damned military budget and they are sick and tired about hearing about cuts in social spending.

I think this partly sums up the problem. Right-wingers are always willing to voice their opinion anytime and any place. Progressives are usually just so timid. This has got to change. Striving for peace and justice are hardly fringe beliefs. They are as mainstream and as American as apple pie and baseball. It is the ideology of unfairness and never ending war and that are fringe.

[meganmonkey]

26. Partisan activists also tend to forget about the almost 50% of adults

who don't vote regularly. Now, many will argue that the reason that people don't vote is apathy or ignorance or whatever. That may be true for a small percentage, but the vast majority of people who stay home on election day do so because neither party represents them. It isn't about left or right or whatever bullshit divisive issues the Dems and Repubs are focusing on - it is about PRIORITIES. And the priorities of the people, the working-class people, are job security, health care, education, and the war. Lip service during campaign season is not enough to get these people to the polls, because they aren't stupid (and they may go so far as to imply that loyal Dems ARE stupid for falling for the lip service year after election year, but that's another thread altogether).

I am sure I will get flamed as I often do when I point this out, but so be it. I spend between 4-7 hours a week demonstrating on a street corner and talking to folks about politics and this is what I hear. No I have no links, no I have no proof, but this is the word on the street and if the Dems don't want to hear it then they will continue to suffer for it at elections.

Peace!

[Armstead]

30. No flames from me

What passes for politics today seems remote and irrelevant to most people -- because it is. When neither party is really addressing your concerns, you tend to feel like you don't really have a horse in the race.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Someone has to explain why we go after the 10% of swing voters

When we could go after the 50% that don't vote. We always complain that we can't win the House due to gerrymandering. The truth is that the incumbents are safe because they win a large majority of the people who actually show up to vote. Why can't we simply convince a good chunk of the people that don't already vote to support us and throw the incumbents out of office rather than trying to convince a few swing voters and some of the people that generally support the incumbent? I know it's not that simple, but we need to start thinking in this direction.

[meganmonkey]

65. To some extent, it really is that simple

The more the Dems try to get the 'swing voters', the more they push away the nonvoters. I can say this with confidence as a lifelong independent - the more I see Dems pushing something like a flag-burning amendment as a priority, or belittling the efforts of the few hard-core anti-war Dems, or missing their chance to block CAFTA, the more I am pushed away. And I say this as someone who does pay attention to the nuances of electoral politics and grasps that there is more going on behind the scenes - but for those who have completely given up on the 2-party system and who see these types of headlines, it just reinforces what they already know about the corporate duopoly and keeps them away from the voting booth.

I am afraid that the reality is that TPTB in the Dem party really are as beholden as the Repubs to the corporate control of our federal gov't and while we get a few bones thrown to us by folks like Conyers and Kucinich and even Kerry, the corporate Dems will inevitable outnumber the 'good guys'. It's really frustrating.

And it isn't as simple as the left-right continuum (as in - 'the Dems need to be more leftist to get new voters' - 'no- they need to get more centrist' - I believe this is a false dichotomy) because the real issues that real (nonvoting) people struggle with aren't gay marriage or abortion or flag-burning, it's food and jobs and health care. Plain and simple. But by playing these games with wedge issues that have NO place in federal politics (IMO) they jsut turn off more and more people.


Blech.

[Armstead]

66. Yes, it is simple in a sense

I think trying to make distinctions between conservatives, swing voters, non-voters, core voters, etc. is a lesson in futility.

The truth is the truth. Common sense is common sense.

Likewise idiocy is idiocy. Wrong is wrong.

Whiole people can disagree about specifics of individual policies, there is enough simple truth out there that moderates, liberals,progressives should be able to agree on to build a political majority of common sense and common decency.

[welshTerrier2]

32. the political spectrum myth

great post, Armstead!!

we hear "Democrats can't talk about corporatism - that's a socialist, lefty thing that would kill us"

the truth is we used to call them "fat cats" or "special interests" ... we used to be a party that wasn't afraid to be called "anti-business" ... it is NOT anti-business to recognize that some businesses are abusing our country and our government ... and it's not a left-center-right issue to say so ... we should look beyond the narrowness of the labels and reclaim the rights of all Americans to have their government act in the best interests of all the people rather than giving away everything to powerful, corporate interests ...

[Armstead]

34. Eggs-Ackley -- You hit the nail right on the head

[Totally Committed]

36. I agree...

And that's the way the DLC wants it, too... QUIET... AFRAID TO LOSE VOTES... SET TO VOTE FOR THEIR CARDBOARD CORPORATIST CANDIDATES (they figure, who else are we gonna vote for once thwy're nominated, after all...)

Just as it is not unpatriotic to question our governemnt's authority to go to war, it is not anti-business to (as you say)... "recognize that some businesses are abusing our country and our government". And, we need to start now -- loudly.

TC

[Armstead]

39. It's actually PRO BUSINESS to support a more level playing field

It's really only a relatively small handful of Big Businesses that gain from the trends that both Republicans and Democrats have supported over the last 30 years.

The average small or miod-sized business keeps getting more and more squeezed or eliminated by Free Market Fundamentalism, and the pressure of both Corporate Monopolists and Phony Free Trade Globalization.

[jjrjsa]

40. Sorry, but I disagree...

The USA is a very conservative nation by industrialized nation standards, specially on ECONOMIC issues. A lot of people here oppose welfare programs because they're "handouts". People generally support tax-cuts, even for the top-2% because a lot of people dream of being rich themselves. People are generally against "big government" and I could go on and on and on.

Oddly, on SOCIAL issues, I think the USA is pretty moderate when you look at it compared to other 1st world nations. Despite the rise of fundamentalism and our xenophobic and racist history, we're still a lot more tolerant of minorities than many Euro and Asian 1st world countries, our abortion laws are about as liberal as they get (Though the FUNDING is an issue) and unless the GOP can stack the Supreme Court with more right-wingers, we will probably have gay marriage soon under the same rationale that we struck down anti-sodomy laws.

So yeah, I think a majority of americans think that they can be rich someday or their kids will be rich someday so they don't support major progressive economic programs. They also have a phobia of big government programs, even when they help them. Of course, there is always the fundies, but I am talking about the average american.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. there are polls which show a lot of American are more progressive

recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News

http://alternet.org/story/29788

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.
2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").
3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.
4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.
6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.
7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."
8. 69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right dire

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

Some more polls:

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_May_2005_Graphs.pdf

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://www.cdi.org/polling/5-foreign-aid.cfm

[Armstead]

44. There's a balance that we've lost

I would agree with you that in some ways Americans are either conservative or, more accurately, libertarian in some respects. They want to be left alone, and they don't like being artificially restrained. Actually, I think that's more human nature than American.

However, it's a lot more complicated than you imply. I think they want a balance between the two ideologies.

I'm libertarian in some ways. I don't like to see my money given to some lazy good-for-nothing, for example. The conservative capitalizing on that stereotype of undeserving lazy people collecting welfare because they don't want to work is a big reason many peopel turned against it.

BUT I don't think people are against social welfare programs that actually provide a safety net for those who truly need it. Only the hard-hearted jerks would say that no social welfare should be given out. That Scrooge-like percentage of the population is a lost cause and represents the portion that we will never win over. But I don't believe it's a majority.

Some of the reaction against social welfare programs also has to do with the way they were handled. It did become a big bureaucratic mess in the 70's.

But the goal of doing it smarter is different than rejecting the basic goal.

Also, people don't like Big Institutions. That got aimed at Big Government, but if we're smart, we should be able to point out that Big Business is also bureaucratic and abusive if it's allowed to operate with no restraints.

Liberals and progressives did need to honestly address the flaws and mistakes of our application of philosophy. But that is different than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[iconoclastNYC]

43. Too many of us believe the myths created by the GOP, corporate media, and

The DLC.

This country is ripe for a progressive populist take over, that's why the DLC is fighting so hard and so dirty to keep control of our party. If and when we take over expect the DLC to make a big show of "leaving the party" and forming a third party a la Liberman.

[LincolnMcGrath]

46. Well said.

[Radical Activist]

47. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Very True. Liberals are their own worst enemy. We don't support each other and don't articulate our positions because we're afraid liberalism is unelectable. Its dumb and destructive.

[bdamomma]

49. Liberalism has been turned into a dirty word by these fascists

we have to turn that around, I am glad to be a liberal.

[grasswire]

51. I urge you to read the report at American Prospect

It will give you the demographics to support your argument. And it spells out a strategy that will knock your socks off. It's called "The Politics of Definition."

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11435

[Armstead]

54. Thjanks -- I've started reading it

There's a lot to digest so I'll have to wait until I have more time, but from a quick scan, I'd say it's pretty much in line with what i'm talking about.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. absolutely excellent article

snip: "a majority of Americans do not believe progressives or Democrats stand for anything. 1 Despite difficult times for the GOP in early 2006, Republicans continue to hold double-digit advantages over Democrats on the key attribute of “know what they stand for” and fewer than four in 10 voters believe the Democratic Party has “a clear set of policies for the country”. 2 "

snip:"The relative advantage among partisans is staggering: Republican voters give their party an 84-point advantage on knowing what they stand for -- exactly double the 42-point margin for Democrats among their own partisan identifiers. "

link:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11435

[grasswire]

69. I hope more DU-ers will read that article

I think it's very important.

[Dr Fate]

56. Many DEMS would rather abide by media polls than shape the debate.

Polls that are influenced by RW media perceptions, BTW.

We tend to go with the prevailing perceptions the polls say exist as opposed to shaping the polls ourselves.

Like Iraq- we followed "the polls" that said everyone wanted to invade (they all thought Bush was telling the truth)- instead of presenting the case as to why we should not (Bush was NOT telling the truth)-which could have driven those poll #s down.

So instead we went with the polls & set ourselves up as "Flip-floppers."

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

59. Socialist? That says more about you than me, champ.

I don't recall calling for the overthrow of capitalism in my post. Or even that we should emulate Sweden.

The fact that you seem to think that the only alternative to monopolistic corporatism and uncontrolled "free markets" is socialism indicates that your view of the political spectrum starts somewhere on the right and ends somewhere to the right side of the middle.

I'll accept your premise that my complaints are jkust phony strawman arguments if you can tell me why the majority of the Democratic Party has sat back for 30 years and allowed the economy to be hijacked by corporate monoliths; why there has not been a huge battle even for lesser changes in healthcare than single payer; Why Democrats like Clinton were big boosters of Enron; why Democrats supported the "race to the bottom" that was an inevitable byproduct of "free market globalization" etc. etc. etc.

[AuntiBush]

60. I Totally Agree, Armstead.

Good rant!

On Edit: We are no where out of the mainstream thinkings. I'd bet my last dime few Republicans would give-up their Social Security, less they're part of that very top 1-2 percenters. Even they must have or had a grandparent(s), or parent(s) that have or are collecting. And I've met plenty in recent months that know how to get freebies from the very Gov't. help programs they reportedly don't agree with and I mean plenty.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. economic populism combined with social libertarianism is a winner.

Too bad very few in our party are brave enough to really try either.

[Armstead]

68. Yes I agree

The difference between liberals and conservatives is not simply a matter of cons being for smaller government and libs being for big government.

Conservatives are all in favor of authoritarian Big Government when it comes to people's private lives and behavior. The only time they are libertarian is when it comes to allowing Big Business to do whatever it wants.

If the Dems came out for economic regulation and personal freedom (libertarian), that'd be a winner, IMO.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. Corporations have too many rights

Individuals, too few.

Like you, I think that the 'conventional wisdom' that the (corporate-owned) media in this country promulgates is completely upside down from reality. In reality, if you're talking about voters that aren't being reached, you have millions of socially libertarain, educated urban voters who resent a government telling them what they may or may not do with their own bodies, for instance.

And you have millions of people who would be receptive to a SPHC system (45 Million Americans have no health insurance- duh!) including those heartland 'values voters'- but the media or the conventional wisdom nabobs only offer as the playbook pandering to the religious right and trying to out-Jesus the jesus crowd - something we're never going to be able to do even if it was desirable to do so... All the while decidedly not taking bold stands on economic issues OR the personal privacy and self-determination issues.

[mrgorth]

67. This is a great thread.

I can't even finish the whole thing.