Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can a group as fractious as DU agree on what the Democratic Party should stand for?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:07 AM
Original message
Can a group as fractious as DU agree on what the Democratic Party should stand for?
I say yes, and I bet I can show it with a few quotes from only one Democrat:

Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off.


Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.


I believe that in every country the people themselves are more peaceably and liberally inclined than their governments.


In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up or else all go down as one people.


It isn't sufficient just to want - you've got to ask yourself what you are going to do to get the things you want.


Selfishness is the only real atheism; aspiration, unselfishness, the only real religion.


The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little.


But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'll go with no.
Not a horrible thing, really. Big Tent and all.

That "Selfishness is the only real atheism" quote bothers me, for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Seems to me you are ignoring the second half of the quote
While religious DUers will likely ignore the first half, and also get upset. Ah, DU! What a lovely place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I see how you could think that, but no.
Even though the second half is somewhat anti-religion, it doesn't make up for how the first half conflates atheism with the lousy value of selfishness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I think the point is that we have false ideas of what religion truly is--but you proved your point!
:D I suppose there will always be a nit to pick concerning -anything- posted on DU, and in a way that's great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. ... and then of course we've immediately alienated the devoted Faithful among us. ;) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Maybe this thread meets expectations, but in a different way than I intended
Edited on Mon Oct-15-07 10:15 AM by jpgray
A constant questioning of authority seems healthy enough to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. For a few years now, I've had a sig line that quoted Will Rogers
from the 1920s - "I'm not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat."

it has not changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
6. i just dont understand how greed and hatred can be a better uniter
that social justice and economic justice can.

ie: why the republican party is more organized/motivated/unified than us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Quid pro quo mass marketing combined with apathy work really, really well.
Edited on Mon Oct-15-07 09:43 AM by jpgray
Witness progressive policies being immensely popular while progressive candidates are marginalized and die at the ballot the box. Make campaigns an image PR race and avoid fair coverage of the issues, and you can hide subjectivity in the media fairly easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. The Republicans are more honest with themselves about their values
It's hard to claim to be for the "little guy" while pursuing a big money agenda. The Republicans make no such claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. The problem is that we can't agree on what "social justice and economic justice" mean
Edited on Mon Oct-15-07 10:43 AM by LSdemocrat
Whereas there really isn't much to define if you believe in "every man for himself".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
7. How about "ALL of US" and ALL of USA
In sharp contrast to the party of the Corps
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brazenly Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
10. I hope not!
It's by debating and testing ideas that we grow. Metooism is for Republicans. They call it unity, but it's really rigidity and it's breaking them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
11. the Democratic Party must continue to stand with her constituents, us, no matter what
we change as we go through life facing each day's new dilemma's
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
14. probably not...
Even more importantly, can Dems on The Hill agree?

I'm clueless what our elected ones define as Democratic. Case in point, that crazy 92-3 vote authorizing another 150 billion for shrub's war.

The lines between blue and red blur more with each passing week the war and the war enablers march on...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
16. That line about demonizing atheism ain't gonna fly
I'm not an atheist, but my wife is, and some of my best friends are. Might want to rethink that a little...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SergeyDovlatov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
17. Absolutely. Fundamentals rarely change. It is only our tolerance
for how far politicians can stray from them that is different among us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
18. Historically, no.
Edited on Mon Oct-15-07 12:00 PM by Selatius
The Democratic Party has ultimately acted really more like a coalition of disparate interest groups than anything else. The glue that holds the coalition together is the fact that in our political system, the tendency is for only two political parties to become viable at any one time. This is the nature of single-member district plurality voting. (SMDP system) Otherwise, if the US adopted a multi-party system, the Democratic Party would disintegrate quickly.

It takes immensely strong individuals to force the party to adopt major policies through internal partisan warfare. Only LBJ and FDR were powerful enough to strong-arm through major economic programs and reforms. Nobody else has come close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC