Why moderates and centrists should not control or influence the party rhetoric

[NobleCynic]

Conservatives vote for causes. And their slogans are simple and straight to the point. i.e.

- Stop abortion! Cut taxes! Vote for Jesus! Vote for Capitalism! Vote for Strong Defense!

There is a simplicity and power to the absolutes. And the Republicans have mastered this approach. Even when you disagree, you understand and respect their stance because you know exactly where it is they stand. It is a method which continually inspires.

The Liberals also have causes. But we run as moderates. You'll win sure, but only because people are voting against the Republicans, not because they're voting for you. Give me a moderate Dem slogan that isn't just an anti-Republican rant. There isn't one.

- Go moderation! Fight for the middle path! Status quo! A vote for a Democrat is a vote for
- incremental change! Vote for compromise!

Real inspiring. The problem is that while you may win as a moderate, you'll never inspire. You're basically resigning yourself to being the lesser evil. You won't shift the debate, you won't convince anyone that your stance is correct, you're only convincing them the Republican stance is going too far. You may win, but allow the center to drift ever rightward. The electorate pays little attention to politics, they believe that the center is in the middle, in between where the two parties stand. Whenever you move center, you push they center farther away. We don't hate moderate and centrist Dems. On a lot of issues they're right. But they cannot be in charge of the party rhetoric. The party has to stand for something, and standing for moderation is they same as standing for nothing. It is a self-defeating path.

However, I am not saying that moderates should be discounted when actually implementing policy. What I am saying is campaign for something big not something small.

[wyldwolf]

1. simple solution for you

Get more "progressives"* elected and in positions of power in the party.

Now, you get to figure out HOW to do it.

[Hissyspit]

3. Simple. Just do everything different from how the "centrists" have done things over the past seven

years. :evilgrin:

I run away now.







"Ooh. Yummy. Bullshit."

[wyldwolf]

11. let me know when it starts

[NobleCynic]

7. What's the asterix for? n/t

[Mojorabbit]

8. I joined progressive democrats of america

which is trying to start progressive caususes in each state. I am convinced it is the only way to be heard.

[NobleCynic]

9. PDA is a good example of what we need to do.

Mobilization across the party to further the ideology, not just the election results.

[leftist_not_liberal]

10. If progressives would take More Progressive stands

they'd get elected more. The MAJORITY knows politics is a rigged game of, by, and exclusively for the upscale and therefore does not waste its time on activity it knows will never directly affect it other than deleteriously.

[Fredda Weinberg]

2. Peace and prosperity is a good platform. Let's be proud of ourselves again

I like HRC's slogan. We can win and move forward together ... or certainly we shall perish.

[NobleCynic]

6. That's not a bad slogan

I'm not a Hillary fan, but the slogan is good. Direct, powerful, and it ties in to multiple different causes. Environment, international affairs, it indirectly references both. Not bad. A good slogan should shorter if possible, but it isn't bad.

However, I thought the Clinton slogan was "Let the Conversation Begin." Maybe it changed since then, but that is the last I saw. And "Let the Conversation Begin." is about the most wish-washy moderate slogan I can think of.

[OKNancy]

4. What about liberals/progressives who chose to vote and

advocate for someone considered to be more "centrist" because it's the smart and practical thing to do for their state's electoral votes.

For example, I would like and would wish for all the things that Dennis Kucinich advocates, but I am pragmatic enough to know that he would never win and never carry the electoral votes in my state.
( also, I just don't care for him on a gut/personal level)

I also know that people who believe like I do are a minority. We live in a moderate nation and change has always come gradually. We may not like it, but that is REALITY.

[NobleCynic]

5. I am not saying we should govern on the ideological extreme

I'm saying we should run our campaigns a little farther out.

And regarding Dennis Kucinich. He has absolutely no chance in hell of winning, but not because of his platform. It's because he's short and looks like a squirrel. We're a vain nation. In the age of radio, Kucinich could have been a contender. In the age of TV and internet, he looks like a squirrel. It's not fair, but I don't believe his ideology is the primary reason he'll never get above 5% in the polls.

[cuke]

12. How did that work out for Nader?

campaigning as a progressive, I mean.

[tkmorris]

13. Pretty well, considering he ran as a Green

Now imagine someone running as a Liberal Democrat and saying similar things. They'd do a good deal better since they would be running as one of the two parties that most people consider as viable in this nation.

On the other hand, since you only intended to piss in the punchbowl, this is all tangential to the OP. How about addressing the points made honestly, without any agenda? It's liberating, trust me.

[cuke]

14. OK, how's it working out for Kucinich?

I'm not going to debate some theory without seeing how it's worked out in the real world. In order to be true, this liberal could only do better than a more moderate dem by doing one of two things (or both)

1 - Get votes from the people who might vote for a repuke

Do you really think that someone considering the repuke is going go for someone who is more liberal than most dems?

2 - Appeal to non-voters and get them to vote dem

I keep hearing over and over how all those non-voters would suddenly start voting if only there was a candidate who spoke to their issues, with the assumption that "their issues" were liberal. There isn't one bit of evidence to support that assumption and a great deal of evidence that contradicts it.

For one thing, they have always had the option of enrolling in the dem party and voting for Kucinich in the primary. They never do

For another, they have always had Nader to vote for. The fact that he is not a dem would not matter to these people because they are not dems.

So if you really want me to address the points, I'd appreciate it you didn't merely make assertions about how such a liberal candidate would do, but instead back it up with some evidence.