Independents are not "Centrists"

[Lorien]

Independents are Greens and Libertarians and Socialists and Neo-nazis and pot smoking conservatives and Communists and teabaggers and Christian hippies and single issue voters and apolitical people who rarely pay attention and angry voters who hate both parties and those who just dislike labels. Calling yourself an Independent does not mean that you embrace middle of the road policies. More often than not, it simply means that you feel unrepresented, which most of us are. I'm registered as a Democrat because I want to vote in the primaries, but I identify myself to any pollster as an "Independent" because my positions on the issues are to the Left of those of the current Democratic party. By attempting to appeal to everyone, the Centrist more often than not alienates nearly everyone who calls themselves an Independent...except the small percentage of those who actually do identify themselves as Centrists. Confusing the two isn't a winning strategy.

[Oregone]

1. Centrism generally means that you do not mind promoting the general welfare as long as...

private industry can profit while you do so. But at the end of the day, they will compromise on the extent and efficiency of the promotion of welfare for the further glorification of private industry.

Its not as benign of a philosophy as they make out. Rarely can you really make everyone happy, to varying degrees, at the same time.

[bvar22]

52. CENTRISM!!!!

...because it is so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!!!
:party:

[Bjorn Against]

2. This is true

No matter how much the DLC may want us to believe otherwise, the vast majority of independents are not represented by their policies. I am an independent and I am well to the left of center.

[RC]

46. We have two political centers.

The real political center which is way over on the horizon to the Left in this country and the current political center, a few feet away, which has to be tied back so it doesn't fall over the Right edge.

All most people see is the current political center on the Right and they think that is the real center.
Is it any wonder that "Socialism" is so easy to bad mouth?

[rhett o rick]

3. Two types of centrists. The conservatives afraid to call themselves Palin Republicans.

and the Conservative Democrats (Blue Damn Dogs). Oh yes, there is another group. Those that support progressive issues but are afraid to call themselves progressives. When someone calls themselves a centrist, ask them what they believe in. It is always interesting.

[Green_Lantern]

7. that's not the only "centrists"..

Real centrists base the approach to the issues based on the needs of the people. The groups you mention just call themselves centrists.

[rhett o rick]

74. I truly have been trying to learn what a "true centrist" believes in.

You say, "Real centrists base the approach to the issues based on the needs of the people." Please give a couple of examples.

[rhett o rick]

85. I have asked over and over how "centrists" differ from progressives. Never have gotten a response.nt

[wyldwolf]

20. well, then, there must be the fourth group only progressives fail to see

Those that embrace some progressive issues and some that are more traditionally conservative.

Tons of us. But like I said, only progressives pretend we don't exist.

[rhett o rick]

73. Why is it so necessary to be antagonistic? I am truly interested in hearing

a "true centrist" explain those issues of the "traditionally conservative" that they support. I have never gotten a "centrist" to explain their standings on issues. What conservative issue do you support?

[rhett o rick]

86. Why wont your respond and tell us how you differ specifically with progressives? nt

[Green_Lantern]

4. I thought centrist meant you are conservative on some issues

And liberal on others. I think you're confusing centrist and moderate.

The problem is the political spectrum has apparently shifted rightward so even moderate positions are "liberal" now so moderate has almost become meaningless.

As for the last point, there isn't much evidence that self described Independents reject centrist candidates.

I think a true centrist politician bases their approach to issues based on listening to the people so The Democrats who opposed a govt. insurance are really not centrist they are either conservative an/or corporatist.

[Bjorn Against]

6. I am a self described independent and I reject "centrist" candidates

[Green_Lantern]

11. that's you...

And also it depends on who you identify as centrist. Did you vote for Obama or Clinton?

[Bjorn Against]

21. I voted for Obama, but he can't count on my vote in 2012

I don't identify anyone as a centrist only as a "centrist", those are the DLCers who I would never even consider voting for. I had hoped that with his prior experience as a community organizer Obama would have done more to stand up for the communities he used to represent rather than the corporate interests, he has disappointed me so I don't know that I will be able to vote for him again.

My point was however that you said "there isn't much evidence that self described Independents reject centrist candidates", well I am an independent and I do reject "centrist" candidates and I know there are many other independents who have similar feelings to my own. Independents do not all think alike and we don't like it when the pundits try to trap us into a single voting bloc that does not represent our viewpoints at all.

[Green_Lantern]

26. it has nothing to do with pundits...

But you voted for Obama so either you didn't pay attention during the campaign or you really would vote for a centrist if they did what you want them to do.

[Bjorn Against]

32. Obama campaigned on some liberal principles...

He campaigned on ending the war in Iraq, he campaigned on closing Guantanamo Bay and ending torture, he campaigned on getting lobbyists out of the White House, he campaigned on providing a public health care option, he campaigned on alternative energy and stopping global warming. The guy worked as a community organizer for poor people in the inner city, I had hopes that he might use his office in ways that would move a progressive agenda forward. He hasn't done that yet and he has disappointed me on many key issues that made him win my vote in the first place, thus he hasn't earned my vote for reelection.

Saying I would vote for a "centrist" if they did what I want them to do is not exactly true, because if they did what I want them to do they wouldn't be "centrists". I gave Obama a chance to prove he was not a "centrist" and he has not done so, therefore unless something changes I am not likely to support his reelection campaign.

[Green_Lantern]

37. Obama ran as a center candidate...

Center-left but still in the middle. He said he would even bring Republicans into his administration.

[Bjorn Against]

40. He may have said that he would bring in Republicans, but I expected him to bring in progressives too

I knew he said he would bring some Republicans into his administration, and while I was hesitant about that idea it was not enough to get me to vote against him. I also thought he would put some progressives in his cabinet however, and I was extremely disappointed when this did not happen. Progressives worked hard to get him elected, but we were forgotten the moment the election ended. He never said that progressives would not have a seat at the table, but I feel the moment he got into office our seat was pulled away from us.

[Toots]

81. I paid attention during the campaign

"Beginning on Day One"..."One Brigade a Month" I also paid attention just a month ago when Obama went into some detail telling us exactly why a Civilian Trial was so very important, not just to america but to the rest of the world as well.

[wyldwolf]

29. you're correct in that respect but apparantly some people deny it

It's easy to deny something doesn't exist if you want to downplay it's significance.

Centrists ARE liberal on some issues and conservative on others. We are very clear and adamant in our positions, not occupying a middle ground on every issue. :shrug:

[Flaneur]

36. "Moderate" IS a meaningless label.

[xchrom]

5. Recommend

I am a 'leftist' because I find the most reason and rational ideas there.
I find too little of that in 'centrism'.

[Green_Lantern]

13. I'm a centrist mainly because I hate having to align my views

To fit some label.

[mike_c]

8. yup-- I'm green and I'm liberal as hell....

I doubt that there is a "centrist" bone in my body. :rofl:

[enlightenment]

9. It used to be that 'Independent' just meant someone who

did not register with any political party. Then they created an 'Independent' party. Since then, I prefer 'unaffiliated' - my political views have never been so neat and tidy as to conform to any political parties platform/statement of ideals/etc., and I've never been much for conformity, anyway.

Thank you for reminding people that just because someone doesn't tattoo a "D" on their forehead, it doesn't mean they don't ascribe to values a registered and political party proud "D" would find agreeable.

[hfojvt]

10. I am not sure why independents should be so important anyway

although it seems logical to me that many of them would be centrists.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=225683
"204 million eligible voters (age 18 or older)
63 million registered Democrats
47 million registered Republicans
32 million registered as independents or with minor party
62 million not registered"

According to those numbers there are almost twice as many Democrats as there are independents. So why should they be more important than the Democrats anyway?

Interestingly enough, this thread also was at the top of my google search and makes a pretty good point too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3057915

[krabigirl]

33. Well, in my area, there are as many unaffliated voters as there are Dems.

[DonCoquixote]

44. Because

While Obama got in due to increased leftist activity, he also got the vote of many people that would NEVER vote Democratic, the people that simply could not vote GOP because McCain and Palin made a royal mess that could not be made palatable no matter how much ketchup you poured on it. However, if Obama was really centre-left, he would have realized that these "independents" are actually weak voters that respect strength more than reason, or as the father of all centrists put it, Clinton, put it, people prefer someone wrong and strong than someone that thinks. He would have shoved harder, knowing that people would bend, rather than allow Fox News to reassure the weak middle "it's ok, the GOP is back, you don;t have to vote for the scary Black man next election."

[Lorien]

78. Amazing. Throughout the last election the MSM constantly stressed the

importance of "independent" voters and suggested many times that there were more independents than either Dems or Repugs. Apparently they were adding in the unregistered and then dreaming up a few million on top of that! Bottom line; it appears that the MSM doesn't want "mainstream America" to know that most voters registered as Democrats.

[cali]

12. wrong. polls indicate that there are lots of independents that are centrists and

so do actual elections.

[HughMoran]

15. Kinda funny. O/P could be interpreted as "none", but "lots" is not 'all' either

Something called 'gray' comes to mind. :shrug:

[Lorien]

77. The Mainstream media, and many here on DU, often suggest that

Independent="Centrist". That they are one and the same. The fact is that self identified Centrists-those who really don't take a stand on any issue and blow with whatever wind the MSM directs at them- only make up a small portion of Independents who actually VOTE. There are fewer registered Independents than there are Democrats (and more Dems than repugs) so insisting that a candidate needs to embrace nothing to appeal to "mainstream" voters is folly, imho. Independents are a very diverse group, many of whom hold strong opinions on the issues. Voters will put more of their trust in politicians who take a stand and defend it: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978087669 even if they don't always agree with them. What can any voter count on in a centrist? To toe the corporatist line? That notion may be comforting to those who prefer the status quo, but not to the majority that voted overwhelmingly for Change.

[Lorien]

84. Also, I think that any centrist who objectively looks at the political parties today

would register with the Democratic party. The Democrats are now center-right, while the GOP has ended up barking from an insane asylum.

[Green_Lantern]

17. elections??? that's bs..

We don't worry about winning elections on DU. We can impliment progressive policies without worrying about elections ::sarcasm::

Conservatives in Massachussetts just got lucky ::sarcasm::

[Bjorn Against]

28. What type of centrist viewpoints do the polls suggest these people hold?

I have seen plenty of polls that suggest that people call themselves centrists but very few to tell me what the term centrist actually means to them. I am pretty certain you would never be able to find me a poll that shows most independents subscribe to the DLC agenda for example. I am a leftist independent, but my belief is that the majority of independents are apathetic and vote more on the basis of personalities rather than on issues, they are not seeking some bland DLC candidate.

[Green_Lantern]

34. I agree on the DLC point..

I think most independent voters will vote for centrists who will listen to them and the DLC doesn't so I'm not saying they support the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

41. third way policies were/are poll driven.

Interesting the knock on the Clinton years by so many on the left and right was the policies were poll-driven (which explains the general popularity of them).

I am pretty certain you would never be able to find me a poll that shows most independents subscribe to the DLC agenda for example

because no poll has ever been worded that way. On an issue by issue basis, however, I've seen polls that do indicate a third-way preference (safe-rare-legal on abortion for example.) The DLC's run of electoral success is testament to it.

[Bjorn Against]

42. Their run of electoral success? The DLC has been falling apart for years now

Aside from Clinton the DLC has very few big electoral successes to speak of, and the DLCs issues are hardly representative of the American people or independents. You don't hear people cheering for the so-called "free-trade" deals that sent our jobs overseas, but the DLC was a major leader in pushing these policies at the expense of the American worker. You don't hear too many people cheering the WTO, you hear plenty of people who are upset because their job was shipped off to China.

[wyldwolf]

45. "Aside from Clinton the DLC has very few big electoral successes to speak of"

Well, does "big" only mean the presidency? Because DLC members have secured the nomination or the presidency 4 of the past 5 presidential cycles, and the 5th being someone who has declared himself a new Democrat (just doesn't have the DLC membership card but benefits from agreement with them.)

Can "big" mean Senate, House, and Governorships?

There are 68 current members of the House New Democrat coalition - the house arm of the DLC.

Former house members who have left for other positions or have passed:

* Bob Matsui (CA-5), charter member, deceased
* Juanita Millender-McDonald (CA-37), deceased
* Jim Davis (FL-11), charter member, did not seek re-election
* Peter Deutsch (FL-20), charter member, did not seek re-election
* Denise Majette (GA-4), did not seek re-election
* Ed Case (HI-2), did not seek re-election
* James A. Barcia (MI-5), charter member, did not seek re-election
* Bill Luther (MN-6), charter member, lost re-election following redistricting
* John J. LaFalce (NY-29), charter member, did not seek re-election
* Karen McCarthy (MO-5), charter member, did not seek re-election
* Thomas C. Sawyer (OH-14), charter member, lost re-election following redistricting
* Bob Clement (TN-5), charter member, did not seek re-election
* Harold Ford (TN-9), did not seek re-election
* Max Sandlin (TX-1), charter member, lost re-election following redistricting
* Jim Turner (TX-2), charter member, did not seek re-election
* Charles Stenholm (TX-17), charter member, lost re-election following redistricting
* Ken Bentsen (TX-25), charter member, did not seek re-election
* Chris Bell (TX-25), lost re-election following redistricting
* Tim Mahoney (FL-16), lost re-election in 2008
* Nick Lampson (TX-22), lost re-election in 2008
* Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20), appointed to Hillary Clinton's vacant Senate seat
* Ellen Tauscher (CA-10), appointed Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs

Current senators

* Blanche Lincoln (AR, founder)
* Dianne Feinstein (CA, by 2001)
* Thomas R. Carper (DE, by 2001; co-chair from 2003)
* Joe Lieberman (CT, founder)
* Bill Nelson (FL, by 2001)
* Evan Bayh (IN, founder)
* Mary Landrieu (LA, founder, co-chair from 2003)
* John Kerry (MA, from 2000<7>)
* Debbie Stabenow (MI, by 2001)
* Kent Conrad (ND, from 2000)
* Ben Nelson (NE, by 2001)
* Tim Johnson (SD, from 2000)
* Maria Cantwell (WA, by 2001)
* Herb Kohl (WI, from 2000)

Former senators

* Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2009 <8>)
* Bob Graham (FL, founder, chair from 2000-2003; retired from Senate in 2003)
* Max Cleland (GA, from 2000; defeated in 2002)
* Zell Miller (GA, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2004)
* John Breaux (LA, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
* Jean Carnahan (MO, from 2001; defeated in 2002)
* John Edwards (NC, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
* Bob Kerrey (NE, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
* Richard Bryan (NV, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
* Chuck Robb (VA, from 2000; defeated in 2000)

Al Gore

Current Governors

# Gov. Mike Beebe of Arkansas
# Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee
# Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin
# Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan
# Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington
# Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma
# Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia
# Gov. Joe Manchin of West Virginia
# Gov. Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware
# Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania
# Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico

Revent former Governors like DNC chair Tim Kaine.

The Obama administration is full of DLC members...

State legislators and local council people...

You don't hear people cheering for the so-called "free-trade" deals that sent our jobs overseas, but the DLC was a major leader in pushing these policies at the expense of the American worker. You don't hear too many people cheering the WTO, you hear plenty of people who are upset because their job was shipped off to China.

Since I did say "issue by issue" here is my standard challenge to those who make your point. Let's go issue by issue and compare polling to the DLC's policy positions.

[Bjorn Against]

51. I notice you did not bother to list all the DLC losses...

You know as well as I do that the DLC has lost a good number of races in recent years, which is why you had to list all the people who are no longer serving to pad your list. You may think I am going to be impressed to see the name of Zell Miller on your list, a man who has been out of office for five years and is largely viewed as a crazy zealot but I am not impressed by it. Furthermore considering there is usually only one Democratic candidate on the ticket a win by a DLC candidate hardly proves that the people prefer a DLC candidate to a progressive, the fact is they never were given a progressive choice in many cases.

If you want to look at how your issues poll with the public take a look at the Iraq War, sure you may have had a lead in the polls to begin with but the American public figured out that the DLC and their allies in the Bush administration screwed us over badly when they sold that war to the American people.

[wyldwolf]

53. I didn't list the infinite number of progressive losses either because we're discussing 'wins.'

You know as well as I do that the DLC has lost a good number of races in recent years, which is why you had to list all the people who are no longer serving to pad your list.

What do you mean by "recent?" You keep throwing out these words like "BIG races" and "RECENT years." In 2006 over half the new Democratic House members were DLC. In 2008 saw DLCers Mark Udall, Tom Udall, and Mark Warner elected to the Senate. No one is saying the DLC hasn't lost races. I am saying "progressives" have lost more so losses by one of these factions certainly can't be held up as proof they're not viable

You may think I am going to be impressed to see the name of Zell Miller on your list, a man who has been out of office for five years and is largely viewed as a crazy zealot but I am not impressed by it.

Frankly I don't give a rat's ass if you impressed. My intention is to prove your branding of the DLC as electoral losers as false, which I'm doing a fine job of, by the way.

Furthermore considering there is usually only one Democratic candidate on the ticket a win by a DLC candidate hardly proves that the people prefer a DLC candidate to a progressive, the fact is they never were given a progressive choice in many cases.

That's what primaries are for. I can't recall a single instance where a progressive took office after a centrist Democratic incumbent was primaried. Kinda says something.

[Bjorn Against]

55. We can not discuss only wins and pretend that losses don't matter

"I didn't list the infinite number of progressive losses either because we're discussing 'wins.'"

You can not merely discuss wins and pretend that losses don't matter. Sure there are progressives that lose as well, I don't deny that but you were talking about the DLC's run of electoral successes as proof that the public stands with the DLC. If you are going to use elections as proof of your popularity then we need to look at both wins and losses. Personally I think elections are a poor barometer for reading the public's stances on issues, people vote for candidates they disagree with all the time often without even realizing the candidate's stances.

I am saying "progressives" have lost more so losses by one of these factions certainly can't be held up as proof they're not viable.

You cited 68 members of the New Democrat coalition, but there are currently 83 members of the house Progressive Caucus. If my math is right 83 is more than 68 which would seem to suggest progressives are doing a better job of get elected and maintaining their seats than the DLC are. Now I am not trying to have it both ways here and I will admit that elections are not proof of the public's stance on issues when my side wins either, but the fact is that the progressives have more seats in Congress than the DLC does.


I can't recall a single instance where a progressive took office after a centrist Democratic incumbent was primaried. Kinda says something.

There are very few incumbents that get primaried period, it hardly ever happens because the incumbents have so many advantages in money, name recognition and party backing. Successful primaries are extremely rare whether it is the DLC or progressives mounting the challenge. I do know one thing however, I am not aware of any progressive who has lost a primary but then bolted from the party to become an independent with strong Republican backing. We would have had a Democrat from Connecticut who had won after a primary victory if the DLC candidate had actually respected the will of the voters. The DLC candidate was far more loyal to Republicans than he was to Democrats however, and so now for all intents and purposes the Republicans control that seat in the Senate because the DLC candidate completely sold out to them.

[wyldwolf]

59. sure we can, because your contention is "The DLC has been falling apart for years now"

Which is factually false.

1. House New Democrat coalition has added members in the double digits in each of the last two election cycles. The DLC now has the highest number of members in the House in their history.
2. Senate New Democrat Coalition has added members in the last two election cycles.
3. Of the 25 Democratic governors, 17 are New Democrats: Mike Beebe - Arkansas, Bill Ritter - Colorado, Chet Culver - Iowa, Steve Beshear - Kentucky, John Baldacci - Maine, Martin O'Malley - Maryland, Jennifer Granholm - Michigan, Brian Schweitzer - Montana, Bill Richardson - New Mexico, Ted Strickland - Ohio, Brad Henry - Oklahoma, Ed Rendell - Pennsylvania, Phil Bredesen - Tennessee, Christine Gregoire - Washington, Joe Manchin - West Virginia, Jim Doyle - Wisconsin, Dave Freudenthal - Wyoming
4. President Obama's cabinet/staff is DLC-heavy with Clinton, Emanuel, Napolitano, Salazar, and Vilsack
5. Howard Dean was replaced as DNC Chair by former Governor Tim Kaine - a DLCer.
6. "It was Bill Clinton that recognized the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems. Clinton's third way... tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of Americans. - Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope
“I am a New Democrat.” Barack Obama to the New Democrat Coalition.

you were talking about the DLC's run of electoral successes as proof that the public stands with the DLC.

Nope, never said that. My exact words were: "On an issue by issue basis, however, I've seen polls that do indicate a third-way preference." Which is true. The public at large, indeed most Democrats, don't know what the DLC is. They know the names, though. The credibility gap here is you saying "The DLC has been falling apart for years now."

There are very few incumbents that get primaried period, it hardly ever happens because the incumbents have so many advantages in money, name recognition and party backing.

Fact remains, though, I don't recall a single time it happened despite all the crowing and threats from the netroots. Further, these incumbents weren't always incumbents - but they DID win.

I do know one thing however, I am not aware of any progressive who has lost a primary but then bolted from the party to become an independent with strong Republican backing.

But I do know a progressive who lost a primary and then bolted from the party to be a Green. Same effect.

[Bjorn Against]

72. I can concede that there are a lot of DLC hacks in office...

I am not backing down on my point that the DLC has been electoral losers because there are plenty of cases I can point to of the DLC getting destroyed at the ballot box, most recently Martha Coakley who was a DLCer that was slaughtered at the ballot box in one of the bluest states in the nation. I know that while I continue to point out the DLC's failures at the ballot box you will continue to point out their victories, we will be going back and forth all night and in the end I probably won't convince you that the DLC agenda is a losing one and you will not convince me it is a winning one.

In the end however it doesn't matter so much who wins and who loses, it matters what they do when they get in office. This is not a numbers game, what happens in Washington effects people's lives, and yes many of the issues they will decide on are life or death. The DLC has helped to destroy people's lives, and whether they win elections or not they can not run and hide from their actions.

The DLC stood firmly behind George Bush when he launched our nation into war, the members of the DLC not only voted for his war but they cheered it on loudly and helped him spread blatant lies across the nation. Now countless numbers of people are dead, and the reasons for going to war were complete lies. There were many of us who saw the lies before the war started, we heard people like former UN Weapons Inspectors Scott Ritter and Hans Blix tell us that there was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs, but the Bush Administration and their friends in the DLC kept lying and telling us that if we did not go to war our country was at risk. It was all a lie, but the DLC helped sell the lie and they are directly responsible for all the dead bodies that resulted from that lie.

Then there is "free trade". Our nation is facing the highest unemployment rate it has seen in decades in large part because so many of our jobs have been shipped off to China and other countries that pay low wages and have no environmental standards to speak of. People are struggling to survive in this economy, and because of the DLC teaming up with the Republicans to support "free trade" there are no jobs left for them to seek out.

The DLC not only supported shipping our jobs overseas, but they pushed through "welfare reform" and now many of the people who lost the job are trying to find a way to land job before their benefits run out. They are facing the five year limit and soon they will have to find a job, but there are no jobs so they are about to be screwed because the DLC and their Republican allies thought they could push through a welfare to work program at the same time that they were shipping our jobs overseas.

Then there is the issue of torture, the DLC supported Bush when he pushed through the Military Commissions Act and in doing so put their rubber stamp on torture and doing away with habeas corpus. The Democrats had the majority at the time and the bill could have easily been defeated, but the DLC decided it would help Bush trash the Constitution and enable torture.

And let's not forget about health care and how the DLC took millions from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries while Americans were being price gouged and denied coverage, let's not forget that the DLC stood in opposition to equality while gays and lesbians were being denied equal rights under the law, let's not forget that the DLC actively opposed environmental regulations on their corporate donors even as it became increasingly clear that our planet was being threatened by global warming.

We could go back and forth on whether the DLC has had a good record of electoral victories, I will continue to argue that they don't and you will no doubt continue to argue that they do. In the end though it becomes a meaningless debate, the issue is not so much whether they have won the numbers game the issue is have they won anything for the American people. The answer to that question is that they done far more harm to this nation than they have good, and we have a countless number of dead bodies in Iraq and millions of unemployed Americans to prove their failure. You can sit and brag about your candidates sitting in public office all you want, but in the end I hope you will one day realize the damage the DLC has done to America and I hope you will speak up against those who have sent our troops to their deaths and killed countless thousands of innocent Iraqis in the process.

[wyldwolf]

79. I can point out there aren't that many "progressives" in office

I am not backing down on my point that the DLC has been electoral losers because there are plenty of cases I can point to of the DLC getting destroyed at the ballot box, most recently Martha Coakley who was a DLCer that was slaughtered at the ballot box in one of the bluest states in the nation.

Again, your point wasn't that the DLC are electoral losers. Hell, the entire Democratic party were mostly electoral losers from 2000 - 2006. YOUR point was "The DLC has been falling apart for years now" when in fact that isn't the case (unless you think they were at one time constant winners. Additionally, Martha Coakley is not a DLCer. All four candidates in the MASS primary stated virtually identical positions on the issues. Even if she were, it still easy to point out that he won the primary. But this "progressive" crutch of labeling anything "DLC" they don't like has gone beyond tedious and has entered the hysterical zone.

In the end however it doesn't matter so much who wins and who loses,

But that was your point! Electoral losses! Falling apart for years! The fact you're now changing your tune and saying it doesn't matter who wins and loses shows you just lost the debate.

We could go back and forth on whether the DLC has had a good record of electoral victories, I will continue to argue that they don't and you will no doubt continue to argue that they do.

The record shows they do. And it's a much better win-loss record than "progressives." Your arguing against public record.



<---- snip of typical and constantly repeated "progresssive" whining about the DLC --------->

[Bjorn Against]

80. Unless you think 68 is a larger number than 83 there are more progressives in Congress

And as much you may want to deny it Martha Coakley was a member of the DLC.

http://progressiveindependent.com/shalom/activism/dlcpods2.htm
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252141&kaid=85&subid=108

See I can go back and forth with you and counter your points about elections, I was not running away from my initial argument but I feel it is more important to focus on how much the DLC has destroyed America. You can call it "whining" to point out all the dead bodies DLC supporters of the war have created and you can call it whining to talk about all the jobs they have shipped over seas, but I dare you to tell a person who lost their job to a sweatshop in China that they are whining to their face.

[wyldwolf]

83. We're not just discussing House members, are we now?

:)

It's far too easy to add in the dreaded Blue Dog Coalition and eclipse the progressive caucus on Congress, but your point wasn't members of congress as I keep pointing out - it was "The DLC has been falling apart for years," which I have repeatedly shown is not the case.

Oh, got me. Coakley IS a member of the DLC. And she won the primary. Why couldn't a "progresssive" even win a primary for Kennedy's seat?

I was not running away from my initial argument

Yes you are

but I feel it is more important to focus on how much the DLC has destroyed America.

There is absolutely nothing you can add to that tired old "progressive" argument that has not been repeated on DU over and over and over again. It's a technique to detract from the real conversation. Whining.

[eridani]

Rendell said he would sign single payer

Is he still a centrist?

[wyldwolf]

60. sure. Why do you ask?

[eridani]

63. Gee, I always thought that single payer was so far to the left

--that it is totally crazy and completely undoable.

[wyldwolf]

65. It is a very liberal postion

See, one can be in favor of a public option or even single payer and still be a centrist.

For example - the person who both supports the public option AND the death penalty (or school vouchers... or whatever.)

The definition of a centrist is one who holds both liberal and conservative positions depending on the issue.

[eridani]

56. And what do you call 77% being in favor of a public option? n/t

[wyldwolf]

61. I call it "77% being liberal on that issue."

I'm in favor of a public option. Still a centrist. :)

[eridani]

62. Defining liberal positions as centrist is a big help to conservatives

--who are always shifting the notion of "center" to the right.

[wyldwolf]

64. you might be right. But that isn't what I did

I said the public option is a liberal issue I'm in favor of yet I'm still a centrist.

[eridani]

68. So, an economic populist who is centrist on social issues like

--abortion, guns, gays, the death penalty is just like someone who is liberal on all the social issues but is thrilled about the constant distribution of income and wealth upward?

[wyldwolf]

69. I can't answer for anyone but myself - sorry. but..

There are certainly economic populists, pro-health care reform, pro-civil/gay rights folks who are also pro-death penalty, pro-gun, and pro-military. Asking me to explain or justify anyone elses politics is kind of pointless.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Yes, when people say that they're "centrists" or "moderates," you find

that they don't know much about politics, aren't really interested, and don't like the worst examples from each party.

[HughMoran]

14. Who stated that independents were centrists anyway?

:shrug:

[JackRiddler]

16. Excellent. "Centrists" is also a PR trick...

MOST politicians seek to play it.

I remember Ronald Reagan playing it, saying something to the effect of, "most of us are caught between right and left." Even Bush Jr. did this, sometimes. Obama does it all the time.

It doesn't matter at all what the politician making a grab for the "centrist" label stands for, as long as he can frame himself as standing between two arbitrarily defined and undesirable "extremes" and therefore capture the image of being reasonable and "moderate."

There is no centrist platform or ideology, because centrism is the lie that the centrist has no ideology. Usually the centrist represents the ambient ideology, the one so common it's usually not even noticed, which in this country is that of the "market," "patriotism," "protecting our children," workerism, the national security state and empire.

The politician usually adopts the label out of opportunism. The voter who adopts the label most often does so out of neurosis, a desire to appear a certain way: inoffensive, polite, not "crazy." Safe and cozy.

[leftstreet]

18. +1

Excellent description

[Green_Lantern]

23. and politicians use the words "liberal" and "conservative"..

As pr moves too.

[wyldwolf]

25. "progressive" as well.

[Green_Lantern]

30. yeah like "progressives" who defend the Taliban..

By saying it's just as bad for women in America or bash religious people.

[JackRiddler]

43. Yes, of course, except that "liberal" is almost always an attack label...

and "conservative" is usually considered good. Which tells you even more about the ambient politics.

[Lorien]

38. Spot on and well put

And I think that the politician also adopts the label for the same reason some voters do; to appear, as you say "inoffensive, polite, not "crazy." Safe and cozy." Under that title they don't have to take positions which they later vote against. They can be the blank slate that the voter projects their own beliefs onto (usually which representing the corporations, not the voters).

[RainDog]

19. This is SOOOO TRUE!!

it is amazing that the right wingers think that everyone who claims he or she is an independent is right wing.

that's blatant bullshit propaganda.

[WillyT]

22. Exactly !!! - K & R !!!

:applause:

:kick:

:hi:

[jsmithsen]

24. 3 axes

I like to think of politics has having three axes.
The Y axis is about economics. Top - policies similar to the leaders of Big Business. Bottom - policies similar to Labor
The X axis is about culture. Right - Christian Conservative. Left - Cultural/Social Libertarian.
The Z axis is about foreign policy and (related) civil liberties. Right - Neocon. Left - antiwar.

There is a tremendous amount of overlap between the latter two as should be self-evident, so we can think of 2 axes (top-bottom; right-left).

The Republicans own TR. The Democrats own BL (though with plenty of disenchantment as noted above).

Independents include TL (the classic "Seattle" "Yuppie" "economic conservative/cultural libertarian").

Independents also include BR (the classic "Reagan Democrat").

When the RP is most successful it wins over both groups of Independents. However there are enormous differences between the two groups of Independents. Trying to win over the BR alienates the TL. The Tea Party represents a shift in focus from BR to TL. (A smart move - IMO neoliberal economic policies become more popular - at least for some time - as more and more people are forced to "think like businessmen").

The Obama election may or may not be the last time the DP wins over the TL (who hated Bush because of the Christian/neocons) and the BR (who hated Bush because of the economic devastation of the Heartland in favor of the coastal cities).

[nannah]

27. i think that independents and centrists are inherently different

a centrist is someone with ideology/positions well within the mainstream, in the center. for a visual, imagine a circular cake; cut a piece of the cake from the middle that is 2" wide and bisects the cake in the middle, leaving two half moon shapes on either side.

independents are people who don't feel comfortable nestled within the mainstream of either party, hence they hold them selves independent from all parties. they may be seen as the wedge shape pieces of cake at the top and bottom of each half moon or the crust of the curve; or they could be total cupcakes.

[Lorien]

39. Interesting. Then perhaps the Centrist -by being "mainstream"-is someone who simply swallows whateve

the MSM throws at them and votes whatever way the MSM indicates that they should. The non-thinker. The Consumer. The Corporatist.

[krabigirl]

31. Yep. Definitely agree.

[Dappleganger]

35. I'm going to have to begin calling myself 'unaffiliated' instead of Independent...

let's see how long that will last.

[MadBadger]

47. Very true, though there are a decent amount of Independents who are centrists.

[treestar]

48. The ones I meet consider themselves above it all

And that's about it. They have a shallow political understanding and some vague idea they don't like either the Ds or Rs.

They are just better than everyone else in some undefineable way, in their own minds.

[Uben]

49. I could be a centrist....

As far as politics are concerned, I know that neither party is always right on issues. I am a democrat because I have never voted otherwise. That does not make me a liberal or a progressive, though. I vote according to what I believe to be the best solution to a given issue, which is not always progressive/liberal. I'll admit that 90% of the time, I do take the progressive side of things, but occasionally I don't. I am pro death penalty and anti-gun control, two issues usually associated with the right. I have a strong belief in a persons right own a gun responsibly and I do not believe the American public should be burdened with keeping a murderer alive for another fifty years on our dime. I don't know what that makes me, and I don't really care what label someone places on me. That's who I am.

I am a strong proponent of HCR with a public option, or better yet, single-payer! Those are definitely progressive/liberal issues. I believe in helping those less fortunate because we are not all born equally. Some are faced with abject poverty, handicaps, or are disadvantaged just by shear
location.

I live in a right-wing bastion. Ninety percent of the people where I live are republicans...at this point. I have to interact with these people on a daily basis, and I do not bring politics into conversation. That's not to say I shy away when some asshole starts spewing lies. If they want my opinion, I'll give em both barrels! That is a rare occasion, because I make a point not to affilliate myself with such cretons.

I was born a poor white child. Not really poor, just had young struggling parents, not unlike 98% of Americans. My parents voted both ways over the years and achieved middle-class status through hard work and diligent saving. I did it the same way.

I pride myself with being informed, politically, something I acquired when I joined this wonderful site nine years ago. Using fact rather than hearsay is much more appealing and wins more arguments, when speaking to somone with a clue (not always easy to find).

So, whether I'm centrist, blue-dog, yellow-dog, or moderate (seems everyone has a different definition of these groups), I am what I am, and have no intentions or desire to change. What I am labeled is not important. What I am, is.

[Jennicut]

50. I used to be an independent, in my twenties. I was a traditional centrist, voting for both

moderate Repubs and so called moderate Dems. I am now an unabashed liberal (the first 4 years of Bush did that) and will never vote Repub again.
I guess there are a few real centrists left.

[Uncle Joe]

54. I totally agree, but the corporate media don't want the American People to know that.

The corporate media prefers for the people to remain in their narrow psychological box; thus making it easier for manipulation purposes.

Thanks for the thread, Lorien.

[LWolf]

57. K & R

[Faryn Balyncd]

58. Damn right!

k and r

[JerseygirlCT]

67. True. A friend likes to call them "unaffiliated" nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

70. "Centrist" politicians are CORPORATIST....Independent VOTERS are ANTI-CORPORATIST.

Whatever else independent voters are (whether Green, libertarian, socialist, teabaggers, or whatever) the great majority of independent voters DESPISE the policies of the pseudo-"centrist" CORPORATIST politicians who are portrayed by the corporate media as appealing to independents.

The portrayal of corporatists like Baucus and Liebermann as "centrists", and presumably as representing middle America is one of the BIGGEST lies of corporate propaganda.

And the key issue is corporatism, which has hijacked the rhetoric of both "conservatism" and "progressivism" within both parties, and used both conservative and progressive rhetoric to advance corporatist policies.




:kick:

[Lorien]

75. I think that you and nannah are on to something there

what the MSM calls "mainstream" is corporatist-that's the agenda they're pushing. "Centrists" consider themselves "mainstream" because they swallow every corporate instruction and position; they're the non-critical thinkers. The ones that feel safe inside the status quo and the "reality" constructed for them by the mainstream media.

[jotsy]

71. Hear here! thanx for saying that so well!

I'm way too interested in forward to be swayed by the zombies of either side.

[amborin]

76. k and r

[JoeyT]

82. "Centrist" is a nonsense phrase anyway.

People that fall between the extreme right and extreme left are moderates. Centrists are people that triangulate so they can lay claim to a false sense of rationality. They can't logically defend a single position they hold, they just know (or think) they're not on the edge.
At this point "moderate" would actually refer to someone most people consider a liberal, but that poses no real problems for a centrist. They don't adjust their positions based on actual outliers. They adjust their positions based on where they're told those outliers are. Centrists usually fall well to the right of the actual center.

FWIW most of the people that watch Fox consider themselves the center or slightly right of center.

[rhett o rick]

87. I have asked so-called "centrists" over and over how they stand on specific issues. Never get an

answer. This leads me to believe that they support right wing stands but are afraid to say so. Why else would they bad-mouth the left? What stands on the left dont they agree with?

[stillwaiting]

88. It's funny how centrists can bash, and I do mean BASH, left wing principles so regularly.

I seldom see them bash, or even be critical, of right wing policies.

"Centrists" are neoliberal in economic policy by supporting the status quo. This makes them my political opponents. There is no compromising with centrists for they DEMAND to get their way. They enable conservatives to continue to get their way for the most part, and they absolutely prevent any truly liberal or progressive legislation from ever being considered publicly (much less passed).

"Centrists" are enemies of true progressives and liberals just as much as conservatives are since they all support the neo-liberal policies that have led our nation to this point, and it will continue to get worse for as long as we maintain the status quo.

[rhett o rick]

92. Centrists seem to be able to bash the left here in DU with impunity.

As long as they claim to be Democrats they have a free hand. They wouldnt get away with it if it was revealed that they are really DINO's.

That's why I ask them to tell me how they stand on major issues. They refuse because it would reveal that they are republicans.

[GinaMaria]

89. Centrism? I would welcome Centrists at this point

To be centrist we would have to move considerably to the left just to find the center again.

[stillwaiting]

90. Thank you! I no longer call myself a Democrat and probably never will. I am an independent.

With that said, I don't EVER anticipate voting for a Republican in my life.

For the short term I might vote for a Democrat, but at the same time if ANY 3rd parties start representing liberals and progressives I will work for them over the Democrats. I can't believe how many issues the Dems haven't even begun to fight for that they campaigned and advocated for - LOUDLY might I add.

If surveyed I'm an independent. I also happen to be a strong progressive and liberal to the left of the Democratic Party. I'd be considered a moderate in most of the civilized countries.

[SimonPhoenix]

91. You are incorrect. I am a "centrist", though I dislike the term.

I call myself centrist and I'm not registered with any political party. I used to be a registered Democrat but I've been a registered independent for four years now. I hold some positions that are very liberal (unfettered abortion rights and gay marriage), and I hold some that many would consider to be very conservative (unfettered gun rights and stronger enforcement of immigration laws), and I hold a libertarian position (drug legalization). If I had to pick one political party that I agree with the most, it would be the libertarians, with whom I agree about 70% of the time. But they have no chance of winning so I usually don't even vote. And I disagree with them on some big issues-I do think that everyone should be required to have health insurance, although I don't think that single-payer is the answer. I'd prefer to see heavy regulation of private insurance companies with every American in the same pool so that the risk-spread is more palatable and some laws that prevent the insurance companies in existence from refusing to accept people with pre-existing conditions. The government could set a maximum multiplier to prevent private insurance companies from gouging those with pre-existing conditions who desperately need insurance, while also preventing those who could have bought insurance for years, had the disposable income to, but chose not to, yet are now very sick, from profiting at the expense of small business owners who have had to pay exorbitant rates for individual plans for years.

I haven't voted since 2000. I live in New York, so it's not like my vote makes a difference anyway. I have many friends who feel the same way-people who stopped voting in college when they realized that there's no politician who they agree with more than a slight majority of the time. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. I personally believe that most politicians are either inherently corrupt or become corrupt soon after taking office. The politicians that aren't inherently corrupt end up corrupted by the system that allows the government to possess tremendous and sometimes seemingly-unlimited power, which it then doles out to favored corporations and unions. In the end, the people who get screwed are the independent little guys and girls, who have no powerful pol to contact to stop what they perceive as a grave injustice.