Is it a good or bad time for progressives to force the Democratic Party left?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: Is it a good or bad time for progressives to force the Democratic Party left?

Now that the Christian right is forcing the GOP right?

Argument against forcing Dems left: Let the GOP disintegrate. That will make the center move toward the Dems. It's a good thing when bad things happen to the GOP. There's no reason to do anything. The GOP will lose. The Dems will win. We can worry about forcing the party left after the election.

Argument for: There is absolutely no evidence that the Democratic Party will ever give the progressive base its due. The only way to make them give us our due is to scare the living shit out of them by threatening a strike, sit-out, move-out toward a true progressive candidate. They will not give progressives their due until they are made to understand that they need progressives more than we need them.

What say you all?

[redqueen]

1. Why would the center move to the dems?

What is the 'center'? Is that not the 'mushy middle' who doesn't really pay too much attention except to the headlines? Aren't they more vulnerable to the constant lies and manipulation in the news? And since the mainstream media is still overwhelmingly corporatist...

How does that help?

[BurtWorm]

6. Good questions.

As I voted for forcing the party left, I, too, am interested in answers to them.

:toast:

[renie408]

7. No, the middle are the people

are the ones who don't think in extremes. They aren't uber religious, but they don't think you have to switch the name of the Halloween party at school to 'the Fall Celebration'. They don't want abortion to be illegal, but they want some limits set. They don't want to take away everybody's guns, but they think gun control is a good idea. They aren't socialists, but they want some effective social programs.

I am probably politically middle left. Idealistically, I am more left, but realistically I know it isn't any more fair for me to think that 300 million people should live with my ideals than I should have to live with Pat Robertson's ideals. I think that instead of the two parties trying to KILL each other, they should figure out a common ground where most people would feel fine and the two edges could live with it, even if it does not represent them completely.

[redqueen]

9. But the real middle is *nowhere near* the right-wing...

the right-wing is so far from moderate it's not even funny anymore... so calling people like you describe above 'the center'... it just doesn't make sense... unless we're talking about the people who believe the corporate media lies.

It's not about vague 'ideals'. It's about a party that locksteps in support of lying to start a war of choice for oil, war crimes, shredding the constitution / bill of rights, etc. I don't consider forcing the country to stop doing that is forcing them to live with my ideals.

[Greyhound]

27. There is no "middle" as it is portrayed by the media and oft repeated here, there, and everywhere.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1970057&mesg_id=1970057">Please read this post.

The "centrist" and/or "swing voter" is a myth created to alienate people just as two, and only two, parties exist to give the illusion of choice. There is no middle because the there is no room between the power brokers.

There are two classes, that is the only significant division.

[benEzra]

42. Guns aren't a right-left issue.

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

And note that the primary push within the Democratic party for more gun bans (culminating in the loss of the House/Senate in '94 over the asinine Feinstein ban) has been the DLC, not the party's more liberal wing.

[renie408]

2. I wonder about this.

I am wondering if the left base forces the Dem party more left and the right base pushes the GOP more right...if what will really happen is that the middle will abandon them both and THAT will end up being the next third party. There are a lot more people in the middle than on either end.

[cascadiance]

11. The question is where will the "centrist" corporatist pols go then?

If they try to take over this party (like they've had control of both majori parties), they might get a lot of resistance from those who don't want to have the party control taken away from people's control. And how will they try to masquerade as "centrist" in that new party when the party itself would already identify itself as "wholly "centrist"? A more "left" Democratic Party would completely throw the corporatist elements out!

I think the key to avoiding the corporatists taking over such a party is to point out to centrists wanting to defect, that if this does happen, they'd probably have LESS voice in deciding national politics than they would in sticking to a Democratic Party where the left would like to make it more of a democratic party with a small "d" to keep the people more involved at th grass roots level in deciding how things are run.

[Selatius]

23. We're beating around the bush. We need some serious campaign finance reform.

All federal elections should be publicly funded. Get the private money out of the system. This forces corporatist politicians out into the open by forcing them to run on their platform instead of on money alone. I like how Maine and Arizona ran reformed their campaign finance system.

There, if you can pass a viability test (5 dollar donations equal to 5 percent of the number of registered voters or something similar), agree to forego private donations, agree not to spend your own money on the campaign, and agree to spending guidelines, then you get full public financing. If outspent by your corporatist opponent supported by big business, you get matching funds up to a certain amount to mitigate your opponent's advantage. The upshot is that it is constitutional, as it does not challenge the Supreme Court's ruling that the right to donate money to political campaigns is protected by the 1st Amendment. You have a right to donate money, but the politician would also have the right to deny it as well, especially if he is getting funded by taxpayer dollars.

[cascadiance]

36. Oh Fully agree with you! That is my number one issue too!

And as you note, that's the best way to expose the corporatists and separate them from the TRUE bipartisan centrist politicians that balance the needs of different groups of people instead of falsely being their definition of "bipartisan" which balances (or at least pretends to balance) the needs of a segment of the voting population with their corporate sponsors.

I guess I'm speculating what happens if these "centrists" try to break free from the Dems before we can get such needed campaign finance reform in place.

Another thing that might help is instant runoff voting. That way, we can even look at Green Party entries or other decent non-Dem candidates and not jeopardize the chances of the "lesser of two evils" if we're forced into those choices by the corporatists as they usually try to engineer things in such fashion.

[sufrommich]

24. There are a lot more people in the middle,

most people don't adhere to any ideology so strongly that it becomes religion. The GOP is about to find this out if the majority GOP votes Guiliani or McCain or any other so called moderate in their party during the primaries.A third party,which is being threatened,will destroy them. The problem with winning elections by catering to either extreme,is that the rest of the country eventually tire of government working badly in order to please the purists.Both extremes,left and right, find the thought of big tent political compromise to be vile and impure. It eventually leaves them impotently gnashing their teeth while the rest of the electorate moves on.

[Ninga]

3. Yes, well past time. But it will take a President with political courage to do what it right.

I am ready to sit in, stand in, lie in, and vote in.......what ever it takes.

[jpgray]

4. First, how do you plan on accomplishing this? Second, how do you keep it from helping the GOP

Third, how will Demoracts losing in 2008 help our causes in human rights, foreign policy, etc.? Fourth, since when do Democrats move left when they lose?

[leftchick]

5. forget the timing, it won't happen

there is too much money and influence from AIPAC/DLC and Corporations for the true left to have any affect at all on the party. Just look at how Kucinich is marginalized. I believe it is about thirty years too late. Just my 2 cents.

[TahitiNut]

8. Any corporation's, including a political party, primary objective is immortality.

The "March of Dimes" still exists.

As the disposable income of America's working class has been decimated, America has lost its "Labor Party." The fundamental rule for any corporation is "follow the money." That's the "Catch-22" of politics in the U.S.

Inherited income is taxed at 0% (up to enormous amounts).
Unearned income (from the labor of others) is taxed at up to 15%.
Earned income (from one's own labor) is taxed up to 35% and more.

That refelcts the priorities and preferences of our political class.

[redqueen]

10. As for how I voted... I think this is a great time.

The stakes are sky-high. The GOP is in the sewer.

What, it makes sense to wait till their numbers *aren't* in the tank?

[liberal N proud]

12. There never is a good time, but then again

There is no time like the present

[Greyhound]

31. Your handle and your statement are at odds, please explain. n/t

[liberal N proud]

33. No one ever wants change but look at the times

and the need for change now more than ever.
Funny thing about my response is you can't tell how I voted in the poll.

[Greyhound]

43. Thanks, I see what you meant now, limitations of language and comprehension. n/t

:kick:

[xchrom]

13. it's always time to move to the left. n/t

[OHdem10]

14. For years now we have had a Center Right Government

Many GOp Congressmen have stated this. Tomm Delay explained
in his book interveiew on all TV Channels how he and Gop successfully
engineered this.

The sad thing is some Democrats affirmed this CenterRIGHT government
by incessantly voting with the GOP and not making noise to the
Media about what was occurring.

IMO, much of the unrest and anger in the country is this CenterRight
Government. THe People know there is something bad wrong but may
not be able to verbalize it as the Center Right Policies pushing
the country over the clift.

Therefore, Progessives Liberals must do some pushing to get the county
back to center. We have not seen the Center in years.
IN order to get to center, there must be a left turn.

In order to get the center there must be a left turn.

At the present the country is in Center Right Position.

Turn left to get us back to center.

My point is we do not want to overreach as the GOP did ,
but a left turn required.

[Selatius]

15. You can't move left in this environment.

The moderate Republicans are being forced into the Democratic Party. How do you move left when the Repubs are dumping right wingers on you?

[MyNameGoesHere]

16. Sure and let's rename this site PU

for progressive underground.

[stimbox]

20. PU sounds better than DLCU, which is what it has become. n/t

[BurtWorm]

21. Okay, that was funny.

:spray:

[bryant69]

17. The power doesn't exist

Progressives can't afford to make good on a threat to leave the party.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[The Stranger]

18. Force the "LEADERSHIP" to ALIGN WITH THEIR BASE.

[Richard Steele]

19. Considering that the majority of VOTERS are far more "left" than the Party, I'd say yes. nm

[mmonk]

22. If we force the party left,

we may be able to stand against torture, wars for oil based on lies, for the constitution and constitutional rights for Americans, etc. In fact if we force the party left, there won't be anymore lapdogs and chickenshits in the face of radical republican fascism. So yes, anytime would be a good time to force the party left. We could eventually become similar to what we had before.

[Elspeth]

25. What exactly entails moving the party "left"? (See post)

1. Ending the war?

Even the latest Republican "maverick", Ron Paul, is talking about ending the war in terms that no Dem has touched, except for Kucinich. Most Dems ARE for ending the war, are against sending any more young people to die, and are for getting America out of the torture business.

2. Health Care?

Out here in CA, the insurance industry is sponsoring "health reform", which basically involves taxpayer dollars subsidizing the insurance industry. If "left" means that healthcare is NOT in the hands of the insurance industry, then I'm all for it, as are most Dems.

3. Church and State?

How many Dems are really against gay couples having some kind of legal union? against a rape victim being able to get an abortion, including poor ones? For a theocratic state?

4. Corporate Control of politicians?

Ah, here may be the rub. At their root, most Americans are really opposed to politicians being totally in the hands of corporations, represented by dollars "donated" to elections, PACs, etc. But most politicians, it seems, NEED those funds to fight this rigged horserace we call the Election, making all politicians, left, right and center, de facto corporate supporters. Until Congress changes the laws on how it funds its own political races, the corporatist agenda IS the politician's agenda. The American people, however, regardless of party, don't really want Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil deciding if we go to war again. Even the brainwashed, if you pull them away from anal-cyst druggie Limbaugh, can be brought around by pointing out the e coli outbreaks and all the other corporate disregard of them as people.

If pushing the party "left" means wresting Democrats free from the agenda of huge multinational corporations in favor of what is best for the American people, then I am all for it.

[The Stranger]

28. You make excellent points.

The whole original post seems to be buying into the corporate media lie that the Left is "fringe" or "radical," when in fact, issue-by-issue, it appears to be closer to the middle of the American electorate.

[Elspeth]

30. Exactly. The real issue is the corporations vs. the people

and the people are losing thanks to the financial co-opting of the people's representatives.

[sufrommich]

34. Great reply and good desciption

of the true"middle".

[On the Road]

26. It's Better Than Any Election in the Last 40 Years

[Greyhound]

29. Better than good, this is the first time in my lifetime that there is a chance to do it. n/t

[dkofos]

32. How about we force them to represent the people!!

[porphyrian]

35. Can we force them to come back to the left?

They don't seem to be responsive to anything we've done yet.

[Wiregrass Willie]

37. We must run from the center in order to govern from the left

If the party moves left before election day, we will not be able to govern from any direction.

[kwassa]

38. Going further left will give the Congress and Presidency to the Republicans

Simple as that.

Many in the GOP are alienated from their own party now, but they will not be attracted to a leftist party. Like it or not, elections are won in the middle, not by either the left or right.

[rucky]

39. There are some things there are never a good time to do.

Fire someone. Divorce someone. Ask someone for money. Play hardball against people who are not quite as bad as worse people who may win if we do.

[Totally Committed]

40. There IS no "pushing them left", at this point.

Time to grab a parachute and prepare to jump, unless you want to ride this Party into the ground.

Just my opinion, of course.

TC

[2rth2pwr]

41. I keep reading that we need to move "them" to the left

The "them" will be our nominee, and right now that person looks like it will be Hillary.

How, pray tell, are you going to pull her to the "left"?

[DemGa]

44. They'll only go as far left as the corporate powers will allow

beyond that, and it's their destruction.

Guess that makes me "other."