The Neocons have successfully shifted the political spectrum of the US, including DU, to the Right.

[baby_mouse]

Poll question: The Neocons have successfully shifted the political spectrum of the US, including DU, to the Right.

So, here we are.

DU posters against abortion, DU posters against gay marriage, DU posters for the Death Penalty, DU posters not really that bothered about warrantless wiretapping, la di da. How much things can change in a few small years.

Interesting, isn't it, that somehow its always the DU posters espousing right wing views who know where the centre is?

[lostnotforgotten]

1. I Remember When DU Felt Progressive - That Was Years Ago Now

eom

[notadmblnd]

2. yes, but it's only been done to save us from ourselves.

:sarcasm:

[baby_mouse]

7. Oh my GOD if you hadn't had that sarcasm tag... NT

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. I do believe things have shifted rightward. Something like 90 Congressional reps worked on

getting impeachment hearings and investigations etc for WaterGate. How many are trying to get ** impeached nowadays? Just look at where the so-called Left leaders of the Dems are these days at political compass. All in the same quadrant as the Repubs, except for Dennis K who is in the lower left quadrant where most "liberals" reside.

However, in the case of DU I think we have a lot of disaffected RW and center-right folks who had nowhere else to go when the Repubs went crazy(er), so a change here was to be expected. I am not wild about some of their views, (especially this use of purist/idealist/liberal crap) however we can all agree that we don't need any more **-like "leadership" so I let it go in one ear and out the other most days.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. But, here it's called "practical politics" and "securing the middle class vote".

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

[housewolf]

5. Just throwing this out as a thouoght...

not advocating for it, just a possible thought...

Perhaps those issues that you bring up are really matters of personal feelings and beliefs and are not truly left/right issues. Perhaps they are issues that individuals consider and come to their own opinions on because they are person and not rightfully within the realm of left/right politics, inspite of them having been appropriated by political parties. Perhaps issues of morals such as these do not rightfully belong to the world of bi-lateral politics where shades of grey are irrelevant.

[baby_mouse]

12. ..........

I'm going to assume that was a joke.

[housewolf]

29. I'm for free thought and shades of grey

for people considering issues and making up their own minds about what they think is right and wrong, not for toeing the line of any political party or ideology.

With 300 million people in this country, there is no way that 2 political parties that are polarized against each other are going to represent all the views that are out there. Two polarized paries leave no room for shades of grey, while I believe life is more filled with shades of grey than with black/white polarizations. What's right for one may or may not be right for someone else, particularly regarding social issues, but the field of issues is enormous. To think that everyone who is aligned with you on one (or some) issues needs to be aligned with you on all (or most) issues) is disrespectful of each individuals' rights to think and act for themselves.

Association with a political party is a matter of expedience in order to support candidates in being elected. Adoption of a political ideology is a personal matter based on ones own beliefs in what's right and wrong in the vast spectrum of life (or sould be). People associate within the political party that BEST fits with their ideology but there will always issues where there are differences for the simple fact that regarding most issues, agreement comes in shades of grey rather than black and white.

[Bandit]

55. But shades of grey is a Liberal tenet

With Conservatives it is "Us or Them" "right or wrong" no in betweens. Liberals believe in thought process.

[LostInAnomie]

6. It's kind of silly to blame neocons for DUers with differing opinions.

Especially, on subjects where smart, reasonable people can disagree.

[baby_mouse]

11. No it isn't.

The neocons have set the agenda for the past 8 years and gradually, this site has slid rightwards on order to pick up right wing voters that have decided the neocons have gone too far. As a result we now have loads of right wing people on the board.

The site is now completely focussed on winning at all costs, no matter what the policy is, and any semblance of left wing theory is automatically derided subtly, as too "extreme". This is useless.

If you're not winning FOR anything, why bother winning?

When I joined this site, it was a left wing site. It isn't any more. It's becoming more and more like a general political discussion board.

[LostInAnomie]

18. With all due respect...

... I don't think too many "right wing voters" are going to be signing up for a site named "Democratic Underground".

With any successful site with a growing number of members you are going to get a number of differing opinions. Discussion of these opinions on issues is the purpose of a forum.

Blaming the Neocons for any subsequent "rightward" shift seems like it is misplacing the blame.

[baby_mouse]

22. I understand your position, I disagree with it.

Thank you for answering politely.

Firstly, there are folk on the site who have proclaimed an abandonment of the party of the right, as I did, but have not necessarily said that they've abandoned all of their right wing views.

Discussion of these opinions on issues is the purpose of a forum.

You are correct, but in the past DU made a specific point of being a place for left-wing voters to discuss *their* views, leaving slug-outs between the wings to other sites. One might find the occasional troll leaving the occasional turd but these were usually dealt with rapidly. There are fewer trolls now than ever before and far more people politely putting views that have traditionally been seen as fundamental to the Right.

*I* am sensing a shift in emphasis now that the run up to the big election is the next hurdle, an emphasis on compromise and centrism. I'm sure I don't have to point you at specific examples.

Also, you are aware that pulling what is perceived to be "the centre" this way and that is essentially how politics works? Bush got in the first time round by appealing to the centre and painting the left as extreme. It is my suspicion that the Neocons knew exactly what they were doing when they founded their base in the far right, it wasn't to get far right policies enacted but just to solidify the centre as more right than the left could ever dig the US out of. That way they get to keep their money and their oil.

[lynettebro440]

48. Plus I remember in the good old days

of fighting them more then fighting ourselves. The people here today are racist, bigoted, foul mouth, demeaning and opinionated to a point where the enjoyment sure is gone. What was just doesn't seem to be what is. People have changed too much.

[baby_mouse]

54. Yup.

[stray cat]

8. Don't tell me the republicans have a big tent and dems have a litmus test...

How is a litmus test a progressive value? Dems can be "pure" and losers but that hasn't done much for the country for the last 8 years.

[Overseas]

9. No -- it ain't just the neocons. It's the broader right wing.

They've carefully purchased more and more media and created a huge propaganda machine to do their work over the past couple of decades.

WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA, by Eric Alterman, tells how it was done.

[laststeamtrain]

10. Too many damn 'Reagan democrats'.

IMO there ain't no such animal.

It's not that recent. It started in the '80s.

There's something seriously wrong with people who grew up in the Reagan/Bush era.

A failure of political imagination.

Sign me,
Grumpy

[MedleyMisty]

23. I was born in 1980

I am in the extreme bottom left corner on the political compass.

What's seriously wrong with me? That I think universal health care and education are possible and that war for profit is wrong? That I don't think corporations should rule the world? That I like the idea of the planet still supporting human life after the Baby Boomers have died?

[laststeamtrain]

32. There you go. You're like me.

We belong in the Social Democratic Party. But there isn't one.

We vote against things, not for things. It's a bummer.

I'm 56. My parents both lived into their 80s. I will die eventually but I'm thinking like 30 years. I hope you're not too impatient.

My statements were too general. For that I'm sorry. My blanket condemnation was uncalled for.

Keep the faith.

[LeftishBrit]

13. I don't know that it's so much a question of DU having been pushed to the right overall...

as that:

(a) There have always been some people on DU who were against the war, but not liberal on other issues. I do think that DU includes a few people who are anti-war on neo-isolationist grounds, rather than progressive or humanitarian grounds. (E.g. Ron Paul sympathizers).

(b) As Bush and the war have become increasingly unpopular, it's been increasingly possible to be anti-Bush and anti-war without being very liberal. So it wouldn't be surprising if some such people have joined DU.

But I'm not sure that there's been a big change. E.g. there have been death-penalty polls at intervals for quite a long time - certainly ever since I joined in 2004 - and they always seem to give similar results: about three-quarters against but one-quarter in favour.

[baby_mouse]

31. Hm...

It's more the content of posting that I've been paying attention to than the polls, but I suppose the polls are really a more accurate way of collating information. I don't think I could always hold to that, though, what you tend to get in polls is people who want to vote in polls and it's mostly the "usual suspects". Says I, having posted a poll.

[DailyGrind51]

14. Very few Progressives, with the possible exception of

Thom Hartmann, have the cojones to defend that "socialism" in some areas is not necessarily a bad thing. They allow the neo-cons and libertarians to control the argument, out of the desire to seek common ground for civil discourse. The "right" doesn't give a shit, resulting to labeling and name-calling to appear dominant.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Americans have always been like that. DUers just operate under the conceit that they're different.

[Enrique]

16. DU posters against abortion and gay marriage?

I've managed to spend countless hours on DU and have never heard such opinions expressed here.

I believe you, I believe there have been such opinions expressed here, but would have to be such an extremely small fraction of a percentage point of what is said here that I don't quite get why anyone would care. I mean, those folks would be outnumbered by approximately a brazillion to one.

[baby_mouse]

26. Shrug. I see more and more of them.

However, it is a very big site. It's possibly a selection artefact on my behalf, given that threads on those subjects are the ones that interest me.

Perhaps what I see is merely a shift in emphasis in the way these views are expressed. There seem to me to be more people expressing traditionally RW stances and also, I think they are doing so more politely.

[Enrique]

46. if people express RW stances on DU they generally are tombstoned

do you hit "alert" on these posts?

[baby_mouse]

57. Some, but not all.

Often it's better to see them argued with.

There was a post earlier on this year explaining that position, allowing RW ideology to be brought to light so that people can see the counterpoints, leave the alerting and tombstoning for the really obnoxious offenders. Some of the views being put up are couched in "I'm a leftie really, but I think 'X'", leading me, at least, feeling ambivalent about alerting.

For example, there was a long, complex post on the GLBT forum from a gay person saying he didn't support gay marriage. His post was ell thought through and although I disagreed with it I thought it was sufficiently polite as to stay up and be dealt with point by point but most people in response to him just shrugged and said how awful it was that he was posting the thing in the first place. I'm told that Skinner has said in the past that support of gay marriage is necessary to participate on DU (I've never seen this written down anywhere).

In characterising what I perceive to be a shift to the right on DU I am attempting to describe a phenomenon that I perceive objectively without making too much of a value judgement. There are obvious advantages to having more people on the site, particularly in cases where right wingers have chosen to join to see what its like over here, but in taking that approach we run the risk of having too many points to deal with at once. There's only so much discussion one person can participate in, and if more and more centrists, rightists and moderates gather politely on DU to express their opinions then I think the eventual effect is a shift the emphasis of the board, simply through factors politeness and volume.

I don't know whether or not this is good.

[TahitiNut]

17. "Somehow its always the DU posters espousing right wing views who know where the centre is?"

Yes ... that's endlessly 'interesting' to me. Always the 'pragmatists,' they offer constant guidance in the ways of cowardice and complicity. I've learned that being a 'purist' is akin to riding the short yellow bus. It's with undying appreciation that I accept their condescension and unerring sense of the fruitlessness of opposition and dissent, especially those forms of dissent that attract disapproval. Heaven forbid that dissent be impolite. I aspire to the heights of self-esteem that would permit me such certitude.

I live in gratitude. I'm especially appreciative that I've learned to say 'progressive' instead of 'liberal' - which we all know is a Bad Word.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. I find it amusing that those that accuse dissenters of being "purists" demand party loyalty.

And, that they do so without any sense of irony about their position.

[baby_mouse]

39. No trace of it.

It's particularly depressing.

[JHB]

19. We have different perspectives. There is no hive mind. We are not Borg.

...and if you think its because of the neocons, you have a lot of learning to do before you become a grown_upmouse.

[baby_mouse]

24. Fewer insults, please, and more paying of attention.

The Neocons agenda included a permanent Republican majority, but this was not necessarily to be enacted by Republicans. It's the right wing policy they want, they don't care who enacts it.

[Swamp Rat]

20. I have no doubt.

The shift has occurred almost everywhere, at all levels of discourse.




edit: k&r :hi:

[baby_mouse]

28. Thank GOD. From the responses I was getting elsewhere...

I'm starting to feel more than a little horrified.

[Swamp Rat]

36. I am horrified period.

[G_j]

21. if so many Dems support Bush policy, & we are 'supposed' to support them

then who are "we" supporting exactly?

[pnwmom]

25. It wasn't the neocons.

It was the break-up of the Soviet Union. Without the Soviet Union holding down the left flank, the whole system moved more to the right. Suddenly, our "moderates" became "leftists."

[LostInAnomie]

30. That's a good answer.

We simply don't have a real idea of what "left" means anymore. Anymore the idea of making sure that children have health coverage is considered Marxist dogma.

[pnwmom]

35. That's what I think. We've lost the context that we used to have. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

27. Yes, they have.

I'm starting to feel like a foreigner in my own country.

[pinto]

33. I don't think so. And submit that the situation is not as austere as you propose.

There is, and always has been, a broad spectrum within the polar opposites of a simple "for" or "against". To argue that it's one or the other seems to simplify discussion to a point where there is, simply, no discussion.

And to distill discussion on national policy to a handful of red flag issues dismisses the big picture. Not that singular issues are unimportant, aren't key to our agenda, or that there is real passion around some - but the notion that we are as a whole moving to the right misses something, imo.

i.e., there have always been Democrats who don't favor abortion, yet support the rest of what we call Democratic ideals, and compromise with the majority to personal support choice. Hence, it's not pro-abortion or anti-abortion. It's pro-choice. An effective compromise for all concerned.

Same with any of the wedge issues so loved by the media and RW politicos in re: all things Democratic.

A personal example. I don't favor state imposition of the death penalty - at any time, in any case. And I realize there are many Democrats that differ. So be it. I'll continue to voice my opposition when it comes up and encourage we move away from the practice in our country.

Yet, I don't propose that be a standard that defines my participation in the party, politics in general or, for that matter, Democratic Underground.

In a larger sense, I really think political nuance, the shades of political thought, is making a come back.

Perhaps we are all recoiling from the extremism of the last eight years.

Not moving right, left or to the center - but to a rationality of politics that works.

[baby_mouse]

38. A considered optimism. Okay...

There is, and always has been, a broad spectrum within the polar opposites of a simple "for" or "against". To argue that it's one or the other seems to simplify discussion to a point where there is, simply, no discussion.

Exploring the broad spectrum with constructive results would seem to me to depend on knowing the facts and extracting useful cognition from them from which policy can be constructed. But that's not really what I'm seeing. What I'm seeing is a great deal of talk about how that approach is preferable to extremism, without much content of any specific compromise on any specific issue and "extremism" being anything that I understand to be based on core left-wing principles. As yet... your last paragraph address that point actually. Perhaps I just have a propensity to look at inflammatory threads...

And to distill discussion on national policy to a handful of red flag issues dismisses the big picture. Not that singular issues are unimportant, aren't key to our agenda, or that there is real passion around some - but the notion that we are as a whole moving to the right misses something, imo.

i.e., there have always been Democrats who don't favor abortion, yet support the rest of what we call Democratic ideals, and compromise with the majority to personal support choice. Hence, it's not pro-abortion or anti-abortion. It's pro-choice. An effective compromise for all concerned. Same with any of the wedge issues so loved by the media and RW politicos in re: all things Democratic.

I would counter that (possibly slightly from the side of what you're saying) with the necessity for standards.

One has to have some form of principle to build ethics out of, the sanctity of human rights, the necessity for individual liberties, an understanding of what the political system is *for*. Almost any system can be said to "work" if there's no clear definition of the kind of work it's supposed to do, if there is no group understanding of the *goal* of a system then almost anything the system does can be called "progress". Progress is an advance towards an objective. What is the current objective of the Democratic Party of the US? This is unclear to me. Simply getting a Democrat into the White House? It would be a shame if the madness of the current administration clouded its opponents into substituting their positive goals for reactionary ones. I don't think there's a future for left wing politics of the US in simply defining itself as being NotBushco.

I don't really see the value in describing something as a "wedge" issue. I have no problem using the term as it's easy to see which issues *are* wedge issues, but I have a hard time seeing *why* they are. The red flag topics, (providing you and I agree on what these would be, I'm guessing we would) are such, I think, because they touch on those core principles that liberals in the past held dear, fairness for all, equality for all, and the freedom to make up your own mind about what you want to do with your life. These aren't particularly contentious principles, they can only be made to appear contentious by choosing arguments where the answer isn't necessarily clear. I often think this term has rather uselessly supplanted an understanding that these issues are the ones that people are interested in, perhaps for good reasons.

I feel strongly that one must take a long-term principled view over a short term pragmatic view every time, as I believe principles are not the ivory towers they are often made out to be but are in fact inescapable conclusions arrived at from analysing political situations pragmatically. Principle flows *from* pragmatism in my book.

A personal example. I don't favor state imposition of the death penalty - at any time, in any case. And I realize there are many Democrats that differ. So be it. I'll continue to voice my opposition when it comes up and encourage we move away from the practice in our country.

Yet, I don't propose that be a standard that defines my participation in the party, politics in general or, for that matter, Democratic Underground.

In a larger sense, I really think political nuance, the shades of political thought, is making a come back.

Perhaps we are all recoiling from the extremism of the last eight years.

Not moving right, left or to the center - but to a rationality of politics that works.

Yeah, that SOUNDS good... but what do you mean when you say it "works"? If all you're saying is that it's possible to form policy more rapidly because people aren't arguing all time then you're right if the system's goal is simply to form policy of some kind, but that's not good enough for me, I want a system that forms *good* policy, policy that actually benefits the members of the society that it governs. That's the focus for me, not policy that two people happen to agree on. I'm happy to have massive disagreements with people who think things I think are obviously useless, and there are plenty of those! I'd far rather have A US president steamrollering in education reform, justice reform and a sensible peace initiative in the Middle East than patiently twiddling his thumbs at interminable meetings waiting for republicans to say yes, however disagreeable he may appear to the Right as a result, because I BELIEVE in those things.

[pinto]

49. Thanks for your reply.

When I advocate for a political agenda "that works" - I mean across the spectrum of possibilities and probabilities. I intend to work for a more progressive party platform. And I realize we move forward step by step, at times. If we box ourselves in to an all or nothing framework, nothing happens.

Thanks again, I appreciate your comments. Let's go get those bastards.

:kick:

[Leopolds Ghost]

37. It's the New Democrats Hillary and Obama have brought to the table -- Center rightists feel comfort

in those two candidates so long as they proomise to kill liberalism
in the Democratic Party and make it a "real alternative to the
Republicans now that they are too far to the right even for me."

You know, all the "disaffected Dems" who hate Jesse Jackson.

Hillary and Obama proved to be tools of the center-right machine
that has been running the Dems as a puppet colony for 20 years now.

Note how rife they are over on GD: P. Those people have no interest
in progressive politics, only self-advancement, loyalty oaths, and
advancement of the wealthy "creative class". Their only hobby horses
are the social issues of the investor class and the political junkies.

They don't care about the constitution (warrantless spying) or social
justice (welfare, public housing) or environment (auto addiction,
sprawl) or economic justice (fair trade, keeping jobs on these shores,
making it economically unprofitable to import scabs at slave wages).

Note that Obama & Hillary have taken the center-right position on all
these issues, none of which will be mentioned in the corpmedia
state-run television debates (the corps being the new aristocracy that
runs the state.)

[Leopolds Ghost]

40. It's also Overton Window -- right wing think tank strategy for media dominance 1978-2008

From a series of right wing (and left wing) sites explaining how Overton
crafted the post-Reagan strategy for pushing the dialogue continually to
the right: it is a scientific approach with clearly defined operational principles.

Note: this graphic is originally from an avowedly conservative site
written by a blogger who worked for Overton, and on the Hill.



http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=overton+window&gbv=2

[baby_mouse]

41. THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!

Thank you thank you THANK YOU!

[Wizard777]

44. Trying to shift things so far to the right. The new left becomes the old right.

[Wizard777]

42. Yeah some are even trying to pass around blueberry kool aid. I won't drink it!

I'm waiting for them to start posting daily talking points. Once friendly cliques are turning to Brownshirt squads. Hell I even sent Skinner a letter telling him if this crap keeps up. He's gonna have to change the name to Free Republic Underground. So obviously Skinner is still on board with democratic priniples like freedom of speech. I'm still here. So there's still hope.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. The car story.

A Republican "operative" and Democratic "operative" are driving. The Republican says, "Let's turn right here." The Democrat says, "O.K. But, let's turn the Left blinker on."

[charlyvi]

45. I think it's more the Social Conservatives and Free Market Fundamentalists.

Neocons are war mongering, depraved, power hungry assholes, but I don't think they really give a shit about gay rights or abortion. abortion or

[windoe]

47. No one shifted me anywhere.

There is proof we have been infiltrated, I believe many posts to be from hidden trolls, or at least ex- Republicans. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who watch too much M$M news and spit that out too.

[Canuckistanian]

50. From an outsiders's POV, YES, THEY HAVE.

I'm astounded at how some DUers perceive "the center".

After almost 8 years of Bush and the MSM, the "center" seems to have drifted several light years to the right.

Either that or the true progressives have already left for greener pastures.

[Lars39]

51. It's both. :^(

[baby_mouse]

53. many progressives HAVE left

not just the country but this site also.

[spotbird]

52. DU posters daring to ask

Tony Snow's accomplishments?

[hfojvt]

56. you mean DU posters who want Democrats to win

instead of being the fifth column of party purists?

I notice you didn't mention DU posters against progressive taxes. Economic issues aren't progressive?

[NC_Nurse]

58. It's backlash time, baby!

Karmic return, and about time too.

[blues90]

59. I still have not accepted the term progressive

The entire idea of changing the descriptive as if this will really make a difference. This does not change the person or their mindset. It's like some brainwashing new banner , moving forward in successive steps yet where have we moved to , like of a cliff?

It's all laid out in some form of simple language like colors of red and blue and the middle purple or the orange and red terror alerts and terms like progressive and moving forward.

Simple language, easy to remember terms that are used to engulf everything wrapping it into one mindless package so it's appealing and sells easily to the masses. I can think of a lot of diseases or changes of the earth that are progressive.