Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yavin4

(35,310 posts)
Sun May 5, 2013, 04:46 PM May 2013

Why Hasn't The American Left Convinced More Americans To Vote For More Progressive Candidates?

All of our issues would be better served if more Americans voted for progressives across all elective offices, city, county, state, and federal.

For example, income equality would be better addressed if forming unions were made easier, but we need progressive federal and state legislators to make that happen.

Does anyone have an answer?

268 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Hasn't The American Left Convinced More Americans To Vote For More Progressive Candidates? (Original Post) Yavin4 May 2013 OP
Well, between the "lone nuts" and the private plane "accidents," it seems progressives aren't villager May 2013 #1
dingdingdingdingding! n/t mattclearing May 2013 #69
THIS. HughBeaumont May 2013 #100
This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl May 2013 #236
I think the assassinations of the '60s broke the left's back deutsey May 2013 #104
So, um, this "COINTELPRO" thing... Kurovski Mar 2014 #268
Because progressives have been too busy attacking insufficiently-progressive fellow-travelers Recursion May 2013 #2
Pretty much. joshcryer May 2013 #25
Nailed it in post #2 Number23 May 2013 #55
Sure seems that way. DCBob May 2013 #64
Absolutely!!!!!!!!! LeftInTX May 2013 #79
Bingo! BlueCaliDem May 2013 #66
This (nt) LostOne4Ever May 2013 #67
There it is. Bobbie Jo May 2013 #71
Actually it's because so many "Dems" have embraced Doctor_J May 2013 #75
It is the very type of disingenuous bullshit that you just posted that pushes so called progressives bluestate10 May 2013 #164
If we abuse traditional Democrats, liberals and progressives enough... AgingAmerican May 2013 #233
Bingo. MotherPetrie May 2013 #251
Exactly.... Historic NY May 2013 #78
That doesnt even make any sense. What have the centrists done but compromise with Republicans? nm rhett o rick May 2013 #84
No, it doesn't make sense. Marr May 2013 #85
What doesn't make sense about what he said? Number23 May 2013 #89
Hurt my feelings? Your giving yourselves way too much credit. Disparaging the left is a game to you. rhett o rick May 2013 #94
I wasn't even talking you. My response was to Mar Number23 May 2013 #98
" your lofty and mostly laughable ideals". Explain which ideals you think are "lofty and laughable." rhett o rick May 2013 #99
Um, looks like you need Bobbie Jo May 2013 #120
Your post is very clearly stated. rhett o rick May 2013 #134
You seem confused Bobbie Jo May 2013 #143
LoL. Whatever. rhett o rick May 2013 #147
Seriously? Bobbie Jo May 2013 #148
When you run out of decent discussion, just start ridiculing. nm rhett o rick May 2013 #149
When you can't admit Bobbie Jo May 2013 #150
Not just wrong. Clueless and wrong. And he knows it. Number23 May 2013 #154
He asked you to elaborate. AgingAmerican May 2013 #203
That poster is doing bad enough without having you as his spokesman Number23 May 2013 #207
No elaboration forthcoming AgingAmerican May 2013 #222
Post removed Post removed May 2013 #225
I don't think it's possible for you to have misread/misunderstood more than you have Number23 May 2013 #156
You will get no answer to this. woo me with science May 2013 #123
I have done this dance dozens of times* and yet to get one response to the question, rhett o rick May 2013 #135
You and the poster you're responding to are symptomatic of exactly the kind of crap Number23 May 2013 #157
It's the same fifteen sycophants every time. Marr May 2013 #234
As you know Bobbie Jo May 2013 #244
Yes, it's a big conspiracy against you and all your friends. Marr May 2013 #245
lol Bobbie Jo May 2013 #246
Now *this* is what we call projection. Marr May 2013 #248
Sorry Bobbie Jo May 2013 #249
Alright then-- I hope your alternate universe is having nice weather today. Marr May 2013 #250
How brave of you. You didn't address her until 10 minutes after she was locked out... Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #253
Oh, god-- you, too now? Marr May 2013 #254
The "trees" are full of you guys. Ask one of them. Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #255
LMAO Bobbie Jo May 2013 #258
I've noticed you BOG-sorts behave like a highschool clique. Marr May 2013 #259
Not that accuracy seems to matter Bobbie Jo May 2013 #260
... Marr May 2013 #261
... Bobbie Jo May 2013 #262
HOW CAN LIBERALS REACH AMERICANS?? Number23 May 2013 #153
Sorry im new here LostOne4Ever May 2013 #175
Right? Bobbie Jo May 2013 #177
Cept no citations AgingAmerican May 2013 #181
The truth will set you free. Or maybe not... Number23 May 2013 #183
And to those who backed & pushed FDR I say thank you. raouldukelives May 2013 #178
"Backing" is the operative word here in your "backing and pushing" phrase Number23 May 2013 #184
Absolute made up nonsense. AgingAmerican May 2013 #180
Why the hell would I make something up that is easily verified by a five second search Number23 May 2013 #182
Revisionist puff pieces AgingAmerican May 2013 #185
Denial is a deep, DEEP thing to come out of... Number23 May 2013 #186
You have offered nothing to back your claims AgingAmerican May 2013 #196
Father Coughin was a LIBERAL Number23 May 2013 #206
Father Coughlin was pro Hitler AgingAmerican May 2013 #221
Oh God. You have lost it. You don't think that there liberals that are anti-Semitic? Number23 May 2013 #223
Naziism/Fascism are the extremes of the right AgingAmerican May 2013 #240
You ask for links LostOne4Ever May 2013 #187
Inigo Montoya! Number23 May 2013 #189
Honestly LostOne4Ever May 2013 #190
You pounce on a figure of speech, but offer no evidence AgingAmerican May 2013 #197
More Confirmation Bias LostOne4Ever May 2013 #219
Nice list of 'liberals' you have there lol AgingAmerican May 2013 #224
Hey, when someone says that a journalist can't be a liberal Number23 May 2013 #226
Agreed LostOne4Ever May 2013 #227
I think that's what they call, in the real world, a hella smackdown!!!! Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #231
I'm really surprised at how many people don't know this part of FDR history. I thought it was Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #264
+1,000 freshwest Mar 2014 #267
There are probably lots of reasons. JDPriestly May 2013 #235
Well, at least one "left-wing" candidate that I know of, Art_from_Ark May 2013 #166
That sucks. Do you think that the "left wing" candidate would have won? Number23 May 2013 #168
The "left-wing" candidate, Bill Halter, forced a run-off in the primary Art_from_Ark May 2013 #170
Sorry I'm just seeing this! Number23 May 2013 #208
Note I put "left-wing" in quotes Art_from_Ark May 2013 #239
Bill Clinton supported Blanche Lincoln, too, and campaigned vigorously for her. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #265
Exhibit "B" Bobbie Jo May 2013 #93
Exhibit "A" Bobbie Jo May 2013 #92
And since "centrism" is really just another name for a current version of Republincanism villager May 2013 #117
When the Repub Party started to go off the rails, many started to slither under our tent. rhett o rick May 2013 #136
Centrists and moderate-liberals have been responsible for 100% of the progress that has taken bluestate10 May 2013 #165
Ok, so tell me what issues the left espouses that you dont agree with. rhett o rick May 2013 #172
You know, the "lofty and laughable ideals". Marr May 2013 #201
That's a non-sequitur: cprise May 2013 #91
Brilliant!! The Left enjoyed a lot of victories in the 1960's, but when Johnson declared that Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #109
Government was 'taken away' from whites by the civil rights movement cprise May 2013 #241
Good post Fumesucker May 2013 #243
That's the answer. nt sibelian May 2013 #96
dingdingdingdingding! n/t SidDithers May 2013 #102
Exactly. HappyMe May 2013 #108
because the rightist apparatchiks control the apparatus; same reason that for the last 50 years HiPointDem May 2013 #125
It is always easier to blame "them", or use terms that every day people understand, but bluestate10 May 2013 #167
who should i blame but the guilty? and ps: *i'm* an everyday person too. HiPointDem May 2013 #179
Heh! Scurrilous May 2013 #131
Hey! It's not their fault people don't appreciate being "corrected" Warren DeMontague May 2013 #133
Yep. Losing sight of the REAL problem. CakeGrrl May 2013 #242
Rhetoric. jazzimov May 2013 #3
I agree very much with this... nenagh May 2013 #106
I sometimes wonder if we're too late. The media is now controlled by corporations. Even the local Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #111
If they had the same access to money... burnodo May 2013 #4
And the media. truebluegreen May 2013 #14
There's a reason they don't. The people who shell out the most $$ for elections winter is coming May 2013 #77
In the long path of human beings, money over the longterm has never beaten conviction and bluestate10 May 2013 #169
Who claimed that money surely wins? burnodo May 2013 #176
Like who? geckosfeet May 2013 #5
We have the DEM Party fighting against us, too. It's not just the GOP, y'know. blkmusclmachine May 2013 #6
So, The Dem party is stopping you from talking to your fellow Americans Yavin4 May 2013 #10
Reason and logic have no place in this country anymore. Brigid May 2013 #21
Yes, our access to national platforms is exactly the same as any pro-corporate politicians is! villager May 2013 #30
No, the Democratic Party is stopping him from having progressive candidates for whom to vote. Egalitarian Thug May 2013 #247
We have in CA. Starry Messenger May 2013 #7
That's One State. There are Others Yavin4 May 2013 #8
One of the largest-just saying, it's not some pipe dream. Starry Messenger May 2013 #11
Congrats on that, but it's still not enough Yavin4 May 2013 #13
Why ask then? Starry Messenger May 2013 #17
The OP is from Canada Rex May 2013 #28
I thought he lived in New York for some reason. Starry Messenger May 2013 #40
He does, that was evidently another person with the same name on DU2. Rex May 2013 #44
I think that it is the suggestion that they are lazy treestar May 2013 #50
Well, we've asked the OP what he is doing. So far, crickets. Starry Messenger May 2013 #52
None of us can prove anything here other than that we post on DU treestar May 2013 #57
Well, then this seems more like a meta OP. Starry Messenger May 2013 #60
I "slammed" people? All I did was ask a question. Yavin4 May 2013 #140
If you'd actually been interested in answers to that, we could have discussed it. Starry Messenger May 2013 #144
Those are all your own interpretations Yavin4 May 2013 #145
And that seems enough for many: You aren't a prog if I don't see posts in "______." Eleanors38 May 2013 #110
Did I use the term "lazy" in my OP? n/t Yavin4 May 2013 #139
Oregon provides you with 2 Democratic Senators, 4 out of 5 House members Bluenorthwest May 2013 #29
I'm from NY Yavin4 May 2013 #32
It's because the Democratic Party sold its soul to Wall Street decades ago. alarimer May 2013 #9
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. nt truebluegreen May 2013 #15
This is what I would say also...... socialist_n_TN May 2013 #65
Progressives generally don't get party backing and funding in America. leveymg May 2013 #12
Why do you need funding to convince your fellow Americans to vote for progressives? Yavin4 May 2013 #16
That was then, this is now. Rex May 2013 #24
They weren't up for voting for they were busying working to get legislation passed KoKo May 2013 #80
Because the Party doesn't support True Progressives when they have a Blue Dog KoKo May 2013 #82
that depends on the district tabbycat31 May 2013 #19
This is all the more reason to run as a Blue Dog... joshcryer May 2013 #26
that could be a possibility tabbycat31 May 2013 #38
So did your candidates win or lose? Bluenorthwest May 2013 #45
I'm batting 500 tabbycat31 May 2013 #49
Why is that a bad thing? Occulus May 2013 #63
Last week, I told the story of Representative Donna Edwards. For years she ran against a Blue Dog Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #112
So of the 4 Blue Doggy Dogs you have worked for how many have won? Bluenorthwest May 2013 #41
2 tabbycat31 May 2013 #48
they do Enrique May 2013 #18
It boils down to race, and profit matt819 May 2013 #20
AMEN!! RACE has always been the undergird of American politics. We see this today Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #113
this is so simplistic cali May 2013 #22
Because America votes for whoever the PTB decides will run for office. Rex May 2013 #23
So, Based on most of the posts on my thread, it's a lost cause Yavin4 May 2013 #27
No you are skipping over the reason and cherry picking your result. Rex May 2013 #31
I dunno. I'm not from Canada. n/t Yavin4 May 2013 #34
My apologies then, it must have been another Yavin on DU2 Rex May 2013 #37
Then where are you from, because you speak of Americans as if we were separate from precious Bluenorthwest May 2013 #43
You do. treestar May 2013 #47
It costs money to buy air time. Octafish May 2013 #33
So, there's no hope then. Yavin4 May 2013 #36
It is about money, do you understand that? Rex May 2013 #39
If enough Americans were persuaded they could donate the money treestar May 2013 #46
There are a few here trying to define it as 'there is nothing we can do' Rex May 2013 #51
They complain of being hated, but the reason is they are the ones treestar May 2013 #53
The GOP is lucky that the other party likes to hate on itself. Rex May 2013 #56
The reality is that things are getting worse consistently for the last 40 years for the 99%. rhett o rick May 2013 #161
Edit-- responded to the wrong post. Marr May 2013 #86
Honestly, we liberals need to stop bashing center-left or moderately liberal Democrats. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #114
+1 Jamaal510 May 2013 #217
There's always hope. We can use the Internets and the public spaces of our communities. Octafish May 2013 #42
It's not that there's no hope... Hippo_Tron May 2013 #61
Because they are shut out of the American propaganda machine. LWolf May 2013 #35
There is truth in this ^^^ Eleanors38 May 2013 #116
True - how often do you see a true liberal on the Sunday morning talk shows? NewJeffCT May 2013 #132
on many social issues incredible advancements have been made. But on economic issues things have Douglas Carpenter May 2013 #54
the left havent whored themselves like the center or right Rise Rebel Resist May 2013 #58
Because we don't have a lot of money Hippo_Tron May 2013 #59
Corporations control the major media? limpyhobbler May 2013 #62
+100 did not watch the videos but corporate media plays ... slipslidingaway May 2013 #68
Six corporations control 98% of the media nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #70
Things aren't bad enough yet steve2470 May 2013 #72
We need to be a Liberal Stalwart like your brother and NEVER give up! The wingnuts never give up! Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #115
Your brother is probably right. As long as the hologram of prosperity (cheap consumer goods) Eleanors38 May 2013 #118
Co-opted by the "Not as Bad" party with the issues watered down to useless. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #73
No media access Doctor_J May 2013 #74
because they are conditioned to like flash over substance Skittles May 2013 #76
'Cause the American Left Dyedinthewoolliberal May 2013 #81
"Well done is better than well said" - Ben Franklin MannyGoldstein May 2013 #83
The Progressive Caucus is the largest in Washington. HooptieWagon May 2013 #87
A great question but I think you need to take it one step at a time. hughee99 May 2013 #88
Over 18,000 posts and you don't know? Really? nt Zorra May 2013 #90
Suiciding, accidenting, overdosing, Reserve Army of Lone Gunmen, & Media Fear n' Disruption machine dogknob May 2013 #95
It sounds like you accept the notion that we have a far right party and a center right party. Marr May 2013 #97
Well, for this post anyway. Third Way messaging demands the same sort of mental contortions woo me with science May 2013 #122
Exactly-- shifting excuses. Marr May 2013 #126
That's your interpretation of what I asked Yavin4 May 2013 #142
It naturally follows from your point. /nt Marr May 2013 #202
Everyone with money and power scales centrist to batshit-insane right wing-ding. HughBeaumont May 2013 #101
It is the money, honey. djean111 May 2013 #103
+10000 YoungDemCA May 2013 #257
I agree! We have failed miserably in terms of messaging. And when we lose battles we tend to Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #105
THREAD. WINNER. Thank you for your HONESTY. Number23 May 2013 #162
But you think the goals of liberals are "lofty and laughable". Marr May 2013 #204
Oh, so you DID see my post to you! Number23 May 2013 #209
You act like you think you posted some kind of clever argument. Marr May 2013 #212
And you act as though you've posted something honest or even remotely relevant Number23 May 2013 #215
^^^^ This!!! ^^^^ Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #263
nanny-statism Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #107
AKA corporate welfare AgingAmerican May 2013 #200
Let Me Guess.....CUZ OBAMA!!!!!!! Skraxx May 2013 #119
The whiny center-right AgingAmerican May 2013 #199
What snide, disingenuous Third Way propaganda this is. woo me with science May 2013 #121
Well and truly said. Thank you. (n/t) djean111 May 2013 #124
I have a question for you. Yavin4 May 2013 #127
Could it be a little of this, a little of that? limpyhobbler May 2013 #129
Unfortunately, skilled, smooth talking, charismatic corporate sponsored politicians Zorra May 2013 #130
So, the people are "too gullible" to see through the mass media Yavin4 May 2013 #138
Yes, you have that correct. The system is controlled by wealthy private interests. Zorra May 2013 #174
AWESOME questions. AWESOME Number23 May 2013 #160
*snap* ~ Thread win. You are awesome real, woo. Zorra May 2013 #128
Bravo! Bravo! You have totally and awesomely hit the nail on the head! scarletwoman May 2013 #159
The mainstream party sabotages them, and the corporate press and media deny them publicity Lydia Leftcoast May 2013 #137
Okay. How does the Left counter that then? Yavin4 May 2013 #141
Guerrilla marketing Lydia Leftcoast May 2013 #173
Weak candidates. morningfog May 2013 #146
Gerrymandering dem in texas May 2013 #151
The silly protesters taking down LBJ gave us everything bad and in fact,made the war go on longer graham4anything May 2013 #152
The "American left" is not blameless... kentuck May 2013 #155
Too much emphasis on gun control derby378 May 2013 #158
Because...... Hotler May 2013 #163
Because it takes some intelligence to vote for progressive candidates. Zoeisright May 2013 #171
Yeah! Stupid Voters! That's a good way to appeal to 45% of the electorate! brooklynite May 2013 #192
It's time for truth. Conservatives and conservatism are bad for children. Zorra May 2013 #198
Those people who represent today's political Right are not true conservatives. Jamaal510 May 2013 #218
But who is/was a true conservative? Strom Thurmond? Ronald Reagan? Jesse Helms? Zorra May 2013 #220
It's the old Adlai Stevenson joke Nevernose May 2013 #228
there is no organized american left. there's a bunch of front groups associated with the demo- HiPointDem May 2013 #188
...because Americans aren't, by and large, progressive. brooklynite May 2013 #191
That requires a sustained effort that offers people positive choices using positive language. stevenleser May 2013 #193
IOW, We Have To Be More Likeable. If people don't like you, then they turn off to you. Yavin4 May 2013 #194
Not exactly. The message has to be a positive one, not necessarily the folks saying it. stevenleser May 2013 #195
Very nicely said, Steven. And as has been pointed out, Exhibits A-Z of exactly what Number23 May 2013 #211
Because the AMERICAN RIGHT owns the media. Atman May 2013 #205
We're too busy talking down to red states Prism May 2013 #210
all politicians want to win. All politicians are convinced their constituents are far more librechik May 2013 #213
Two reasons, I think Spike89 May 2013 #214
The responses to this thread have been illuminating. Thanks for posting it Number23 May 2013 #216
Thank you, my love. You ain't too shabby yourself!! Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #266
Most people don't believe anything unless Warpy May 2013 #229
I also agree this was a great thread. LeftInTX May 2013 #230
Because racism trumps everything. nt aaaaaa5a May 2013 #232
The average opinion of those on the right fujiyama May 2013 #237
THE PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS IS THE LARGEST DEM CAUCUS IN CONGRESS! grahamhgreen May 2013 #238
It is the Democratic party that has the most say on who runs. Agnosticsherbet May 2013 #252
A better question would be: Why has the Democratic Party attacked, bullied, mocked, and ridiculed... YoungDemCA May 2013 #256
 

villager

(26,001 posts)
1. Well, between the "lone nuts" and the private plane "accidents," it seems progressives aren't
Sun May 5, 2013, 04:51 PM
May 2013

...allowed to get too damn far on the national stage, whether they're voted for or not.

HughBeaumont

(24,461 posts)
100. THIS.
Mon May 6, 2013, 08:55 AM
May 2013

It's all by design.

If any one of us were president, we'd have to be in a bulletproof popemobile and witness our planes getting fueled. The wealthy and their "persons" tend to get itchy trigger fingers when you tax them and take away their gravy trains.

Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #100)

deutsey

(20,166 posts)
104. I think the assassinations of the '60s broke the left's back
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:19 AM
May 2013

COINTELPRO also played a huge role in fracturing and undermining the left, but the factionalism and extremism of the left during that time eventually helped to make it loopy and irrelevant to mainstream America as well.

Reaganism came along in the '80s and through its reactionary revisionism and propaganda (and growing rightwing domination of media) turned "liberal" into a dirty word, building on the success of the Red Scares of the early 1900s and 1950s that turned "socialist" and "communist" into dirty words.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
2. Because progressives have been too busy attacking insufficiently-progressive fellow-travelers
Sun May 5, 2013, 04:52 PM
May 2013

Apparently that's more fun.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
64. Sure seems that way.
Sun May 5, 2013, 07:06 PM
May 2013

If they turned turned their focus to the Republicans there is no telling what we could do.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
75. Actually it's because so many "Dems" have embraced
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:02 PM
May 2013

torture, indefinite detention, SS cuts, HeritageCare, top-heavy tax cuts, union-busting, school privatization, Medicare cuts, and liberal bashing, following the lead of our "Dem" president.

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
164. It is the very type of disingenuous bullshit that you just posted that pushes so called progressives
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:33 PM
May 2013

to the crying/whining fringes. Seek first to properly define that which you disagree with, no paint it with untrue fantasy. I don't care for conservatives, but some of the conservatives that I meet are hard working and dedicated people that have fucked up viewpoints on others in the society that we share.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
233. If we abuse traditional Democrats, liberals and progressives enough...
Wed May 8, 2013, 01:17 AM
May 2013

maybe they will eventually leave! Then we will have TWO right wing parties! Utiopia!

Creeping Fascism: From Nazi Germany to Post 9/11 America


 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
85. No, it doesn't make sense.
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:49 PM
May 2013

But I love the way the pep squad just mindlessly machine-guns their anxious support anyway.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
89. What doesn't make sense about what he said?
Sun May 5, 2013, 11:25 PM
May 2013

The reason there are so few left wing candidates is because many of the "left" would rather tear down center-left or not "as progressive as thou" candidates rather than focus their (extremely limited) resources on the Republicans. As a result, progressive candidates (even alot of GREAT progressive candidates) don't even bother putting their hats in the ring, knowing that the Repubs will give no quarter and the "left" will castigate and criticize everything they do damn near as much as conservatives instead of supporting them. What doesn't make sense or is difficult to understand about that?

As for the second bit of your post, did the numerous posts of support for post #2 hurt your feelings or something? Your knee-jerk and totally unnecessary hostility is the only thing "mindless" so far. There was nothing "mindless" or "anxious" about my support for the post. I wholeheartedly agree with it.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
94. Hurt my feelings? Your giving yourselves way too much credit. Disparaging the left is a game to you.
Mon May 6, 2013, 01:14 AM
May 2013

Instead of fighting the corporatists, centrists want to compromise with them and fight the left.

The reason there are so many corporatist candidates is that the corporations have the money. It's not rocket science. And the reason so many Democrats bow to the corporatists is............ I dont know why. Maybe you can tell me.

The 99% are in a horrible position. Some are calling it a depression. It sure isnt because we are upholding too many leftist principles. Centrists want to merge with their allies the Republicans AND CUT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, and strengthen the Patriot Act.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
98. I wasn't even talking you. My response was to Mar
Mon May 6, 2013, 01:55 AM
May 2013

And your response is typical of the "if we just criticize EVERYTHING, everyone will want to listen to us!1!!one" mindset alot of people on this site unfortunately possess.

You whine (incessantly, I might add) about how liberals are not listened to. The entire point of this OP was to try to find reasons why that is. Instead of turning a critical eye to how liberals present themselves and their ideals, you AS USUAL want to whine about corporations and "corporatists."

That doesn't explain why Americans a) gravitate almost naturally towards liberal ideals but yet b) really dislike most liberals. Hell, for all we know this inability to connect with average Americans may be one of the primary reasons for the rise of corporatism and conservatism in the first place. Perhaps if people had something better to cling to, an actual liberal party that gets out there and does the work, that raises their voices loud for reasons other than tearing down the Dem party and doesn't talk down to average Americans as if everyone is stupid (while at the same time displaying some ASTOUNDING levels of misinformation and downright stupidity themselves). That is practical and effective, and far more interested in things than being ever so "disappointed" in everything and everyone. If there was a liberal party that did this, there would be a HELL of alot more people in this country happy to hang their hats on the liberal mantle in this country.

Because for alot (no where near all but enough) of you, displaying your liberal cred means doing nothing more than explaining ad nauseum, how xyz Democrat doesn't come NEARLY close enough to your lofty and mostly laughable ideals of what a liberal should be. Calling everyone a "corporatist" and the ever so clever and mature "Turd Way" does not a political movement make. That may be enough for the "more liberal than thou crowd", but the rest of us are looking for a hell of a lot more.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
99. " your lofty and mostly laughable ideals". Explain which ideals you think are "lofty and laughable."
Mon May 6, 2013, 08:41 AM
May 2013

Maybe it's ending homelessness, or SS and Medicare for our seniors, or health care for all children, etc.

Which ideals are laughable?

As far as corporatism goes, I say a majority of politicians in Wash DC are beholden to major corporations. Dont you agree? Is the idea of reducing corporate control a laughable ideal to some? If so, isnt it fair to call them "corporatists"?

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
120. Um, looks like you need
Mon May 6, 2013, 10:29 AM
May 2013

To reread the post instead of plucking a phrase mid sentence to twist into.....whatever that is.

You continue to demonstrate the point with each post.





 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
134. Your post is very clearly stated.
Mon May 6, 2013, 03:56 PM
May 2013

"And your response is typical of the "if we just criticize EVERYTHING, everyone will want to listen to us!1!!one" mindset alot of people on this site unfortunately possess." Pretty sweeping statement. Can you elaborate on what is criticized without justification?

" Instead of turning a critical eye to how liberals present themselves and their ideals, you AS USUAL want to whine about corporations and "corporatists." I am curious how liberals present themselves and their ideals as wrong or inappropriate. Can you elaborate on that statement. Also, is whining about corporate control of Congress a bad thing?

As far as this statement, "your lofty and mostly laughable ideals of what a liberal should be." is part of a long sentence but is a statement and stands on it's own. But it's you in the post that explains how liberals arent meeting your standards. But of course you wont elaborate on what those standards are.

"That may be enough for the "more liberal than thou crowd", but the rest of us are looking for a hell of a lot more. " Really, you are looking "for a hell of a lot more?" Can you give an example?

And your attempts at controlling the discussion thru ridicule is unlike a "politically liberal person", which I assume you are.

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
143. You seem confused
Mon May 6, 2013, 04:38 PM
May 2013

You're referring to Number 23's post, and quoting her.

I was the one who suggested you reread her post because your response didn't seem to match up with what she actually posted. Perhaps you should read it a third time.

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
148. Seriously?
Mon May 6, 2013, 05:17 PM
May 2013

You obviously posted in the wrong place and mis attributed a page full of quotes.

LOL whatever, indeed. Accuracy doesn't seem to matter much in your world. Can't say I'm surprised.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
207. That poster is doing bad enough without having you as his spokesman
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:07 PM
May 2013

Worry about your own lack of contribution to this thread.

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #222)

Number23

(24,544 posts)
156. I don't think it's possible for you to have misread/misunderstood more than you have
Mon May 6, 2013, 07:04 PM
May 2013

You haven't gotten anything right in my post, which may explain why you responded to someone else thinking it was me.

I am curious how liberals present themselves and their ideals as wrong or inappropriate. I asked you to turn a critical eye to how liberals present themselves. You didn't even understand that point. I see no need to continue.

Your entire response is actually quite sad. But it certainly does explain a lot.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
123. You will get no answer to this.
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:00 AM
May 2013

First rule of Third Way on messaging: The conversation stops when you are asked to explain what your true political values really are.


 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
135. I have done this dance dozens of times* and yet to get one response to the question,
Mon May 6, 2013, 04:03 PM
May 2013

"how do your values differ from those on the "left"." (that you disparage so passionately) They usually resort to ridicule.

Rationalization is their comfort.

What I find interesting is that they will bash the left mercilessly and then when they lose an election they whine that the left didnt support their guy/gal.


*and yes I know what it means when I try to get different results using the same method.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
157. You and the poster you're responding to are symptomatic of exactly the kind of crap
Mon May 6, 2013, 07:19 PM
May 2013

that got about 15 people to high five post #2.

You guys tear everybody down, particularly this president, and yet when asked what can be done differently to make the "left" more effective, you have nothing. But you are real quick to reach for the most absurdly stupid insults. I noticed the poster you responded to was quick to pull out the Third Way stupidity, and I'd already mentioned that this is exactly the kind of response and tactics that makes most people ignore "liberals."

There was no ridicule (or not all that much) in my posts to you. I asked you very straightforward questions and stated my case I think, very clearly. The fact that you appear to be unable to understand very simple statements and respond intelligently to my post is your problem, not mine. And as another poster said, instead of admitting you got nothing or are wrong, you dig in and start with your insults.

Oh, and FYI Calling someone a Third Wayer doesn't mean a goddamned thing to 99% of the people on this web site. It is certainly not an insult to me as I don't know what it is even is, and don't give enough of a damn to take the four seconds it would take to do a Google search on it. So if you're going to ignore people's legitimate questions to you and start tossing around insults, at least throw out a few that mean something to the masses, and not just the paranoid lunatics who use it.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
234. It's the same fifteen sycophants every time.
Wed May 8, 2013, 01:43 AM
May 2013

Excitedly jumping up and down like Jack Russell Terriers for one another whenever one of them makes some asinine attack on "the left".

It's just kind of pathetic. You don't offer anything but the above mentioned high-fiving of empty commentaries, and of course, long-winded, nonsensical, rambling insults like the one I'm responding to.

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
244. As you know
Wed May 8, 2013, 08:06 AM
May 2013

the poster you're responding to was locked out of this thread. I suppose it's safe to come back and have the last word now.

If you can't shut her down with your words, use the alert system.

Talk about pathetic.


 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
245. Yes, it's a big conspiracy against you and all your friends.
Wed May 8, 2013, 12:05 PM
May 2013

For god's sake, how would I even know that person had been locked out of the thread, alerted on, etc.? Catch a breath.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
248. Now *this* is what we call projection.
Wed May 8, 2013, 01:55 PM
May 2013

I am not out to get you, I promise. I'm not a part of any sub-forum where like-minded people gather and point out posts they disagree with, so they can descend upon them en masse and abuse the alert system to have them removed.

I do not alert on posts as a general rule, as a matter of fact, and on the rare occasions when I do vote to hide something, it is not simply because I disagree with the sentiment being expressed.

But why don't you enlighten me on how I might've known who had been kicked from the thread, and exactly what one has to do in order to be so removed. You're clearly very familiar with the process.

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
249. Sorry
Wed May 8, 2013, 03:26 PM
May 2013

I don't speak passive-aggressivese, and your tactics have been exposed repeatedly throughout this thread for all to see.



Tarheel_Dem

(31,200 posts)
253. How brave of you. You didn't address her until 10 minutes after she was locked out...
Wed May 8, 2013, 05:02 PM
May 2013

of the thread. And speaking of "nonsensical, rambling insults" I think your "fifteen sycophants" who "jump up and down like Jack Russell Terriers" remark, is commonly referred to as broadbrush namecalling, but I'm sure you don't see the irony. Ruff. Ruff. We may be fewer in number at Democratic Underground than you & your cohorts, but we comprise the majority of the actual Democratic Party, where unlike DU, shit talking actually matters.

"About a year ago, 74% of liberals approved of Obama's job. Now it's 80%. (92% for liberal Democrats)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2761625


 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
254. Oh, god-- you, too now?
Wed May 8, 2013, 05:50 PM
May 2013

Help me out here, because, as I explained to the other one a while ago-- I don't even know how one can tell if another poster has been locked out of a thread.

I suppose I'm just not as familiar with the mechanics of the whole thing, since I don't make a hobby of alerting on people and trying to get them locked out of discussions. If you're not available for explaining, perhaps one of the other members of the BOG dog pile... or the BOGpile... is?

Tarheel_Dem

(31,200 posts)
255. The "trees" are full of you guys. Ask one of them.
Wed May 8, 2013, 06:36 PM
May 2013

When will you get it? Nobody, outside of DU, gives a shit about your pissing & moaning. You never responded to any of her queries, directly; you waited until she was locked out. Any DU'er, with as many posts as you have, knows that a deleted post locks the poster out, but nice try. Like I said, "how brave". Is there any wonder why new age progressives are so ineffective?

As for the "BOGpile", again I say...."Ruff! Ruff!" You just keep proving your own point, unintentionally, with every subsequent post. Talk about your "nonsensical insults". You've conquered DU, now go out and conquer the world!

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
258. LMAO
Wed May 8, 2013, 07:23 PM
May 2013

Seriously? You need someone to tell you how to read DU?

How long have you suffered from this inability?

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
259. I've noticed you BOG-sorts behave like a highschool clique.
Wed May 8, 2013, 07:36 PM
May 2013

You all anxiously high-five each other over some seriously lame arguments, and dog pile onto anyone who argues with you, attempting to "win" the thread with sheer volume and repetition.

Is it just because you've got nothing left to say, since all of your predictions and excuses turned out to be garbage ('rope-a-dope' remains my favorite, by the way)?

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
260. Not that accuracy seems to matter
Wed May 8, 2013, 08:51 PM
May 2013

much to your cohort, I challenge you to find one of my posts in the BOG on DU3.

Not that I don't read there occasionally. and share an affinity with the DU'ers who post there, you toss around labels willy nilly as if they're gospel.

You're getting called on it, and it's about damn time.

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
262. ...
Wed May 8, 2013, 09:53 PM
May 2013

Ok, didn't recall since it was 2 years ago at the beginning of DU3 and I haven't posted since.

That's fine, this is what a correction looks like.

I guess I could have said "Lol whatever."

Funny that someone so adept at using the search function needs assistance reading a thread, or understanding how alerts and hidden posts work.

I still think that's funny as hell.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
153. HOW CAN LIBERALS REACH AMERICANS??
Mon May 6, 2013, 06:58 PM
May 2013

HOW CAN LIBERALS GET MORE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES IN OFFICE?

Since the small caps in the OP apparently whizzed by your head as you seem absolutely INVESTED in blaming everything on corporations.

HOW CAN LIBERALS GET MORE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES IN OFFICE?

This is the question asked over and over and over again by those us beyond disgusted/exasperated and absolutely repulsed by the shrillness of some of the "liberal" posters here. Besides "holding the president's feet to the fire!1" aka "incessantly criticizing Democrats" no one has anything resembling answer. Which I would dare to say, is the VERY CRUX OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM that alot of Americans have with liberals.

HOW CAN LIBERALS GET MORE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES IN OFFICE?

And as for your absolutely astounding comment about "ending homelessness, or SS and Medicare for our seniors, or health care for all children, etc." which is so vague to be almost meaningless, I'll just point out that FDR, the patron saint of GD that so many here seem to spend so much time pleasuring themselves to his memory, got EVERY BIT of the same criticisms that Obama has received, except the left was much more vitriolic and angry with FDR at the time.

FDR got "the New Deal doesn't go far enough" from liberals. Sound familiar?
FDR got "you're too comfy-cozy with bankers" from liberals. Sound familiar?
FDR was accused of "not doing enough for the poor" by liberals. Sound familiar?

He could do no right by the liberal wing during his time and now, hilariously, the man is absolutely lionized by some on the left for the same policies that he was savaged for by the left during his time. It just goes to show that there are people that learn NOTHING from history. Absolutely NOTHING.

And this is to everyone's detriment, in my opinion. It is a crying shame that people who are interested and committed in the greater good and taking care of the less fortunate are also so caught up in being nay-sayers, finger-waggers and constant complainers that they are far more successful in alienating and ostracizing than they have ever, EVER been at affecting lasting change in this country. It is TRULY a damned shame.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
175. Sorry im new here
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:37 PM
May 2013

Is there anyway to rec individual posters like the one im replying to.

Every single thing he/she said was brilliantly stated and reasoned out and needs to be highlighted in some way!!!

raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
178. And to those who backed & pushed FDR I say thank you.
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:45 AM
May 2013

Just as I would thank those who never backed down on calling out for ending slavery or demanding equal rights or speaking out against wars. It's how things get done. You don't back down, even if the messenger is someone you like, maybe even especially if.
This is something people on the right get. They just apply it to tax cuts, weapons & profits instead of promoting the general welfare.
Luckily we understand the correct thing to do is to try and meet in the middle, or as FDR liberals would have called it, the far right.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
184. "Backing" is the operative word here in your "backing and pushing" phrase
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:51 AM
May 2013

Because one without the other is carping and being counter-productive. Which is what I think is happening right now from alot of people.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
180. Absolute made up nonsense.
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:11 AM
May 2013

"He could do no right by the liberal wing during his time" This is pure bullshit.

"the New Deal doesn't go far enough" from liberals. Sound familiar? No, because you made it up.
FDR got "you're too comfy-cozy with bankers" from liberals. Sound familiar? No, because you made it up.
FDR was accused of "not doing enough for the poor" by liberals. Sound familiar? No, because you made it up.

Please post sources to back up your claims. Thanks in advance.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
182. Why the hell would I make something up that is easily verified by a five second search
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:47 AM
May 2013

on the Internet?

Just because it is something that you wish was not the truth, doesn't mean that it is untrue.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/08/11/891631/-UPDATED-Liberal-Criticism-of-Franklin-Roosevelt-and-The-New-Deal
http://www.ushistory.org/us/49f.asp
Look up the names Father Charles Coughlin, Francis Townsend and Huey Long and their criticisms of FDR.

"Indeed, during FDR’s first three years in office, his version of the New Deal faced more serious challenges from populists and insurgents on the left than from Republicans." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2011/08/mischaracterizing_fdr_to_indic031397.php DAMN that sounds familiar.

Read and learn. Seriously.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
186. Denial is a deep, DEEP thing to come out of...
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:25 AM
May 2013
http://www.ssa.gov/history/cough.html

Unlike yourself, these "revisionist puff pieces" have a hell of alot of material evidence (aka FACTS) to back them up.
 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
196. You have offered nothing to back your claims
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:27 PM
May 2013

"He could do no right by the liberal wing during his time"

Father Coughlin was the Rush Limbaugh of the PRE WWII era, not a liberal. Why do you even mention him? Some Rush Limbaugh style idiot is your proof that liberals didn't like FDR?

List the Democratic congressmen and movement within the DEMOCRATIC PARTY that felt "he could do no right".

Please don't post op/ed pieces as 'proof'. They are OPINION puff pieces.

Thanks in advance.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
206. Father Coughin was a LIBERAL
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:06 PM
May 2013

That is acknowledged by every source that matters. Even the briefest of perusals of the SS link I gave you should have made that abundantly clear to you. He was furious that FDR didn't turn out to be the radical leftist in office that he'd been on the campaign.

And I already gave you a name to a Democratic politician that was furious with FDR for being too cozy with bankers. But you are too busy being argumentative and ignorant to notice.

Edit: By the way, love the shift away from "liberals" to now specifically "Democratic politicians" that criticized FDR. Too bad for you, I have already supplied evidence of both so your shape-shifting is just sort of baffling as well as embarrassing.

I also just want to take a second and thank you for being exactly the type of person that keeps the liberal party from being the force that it could be. You and a few others in this thread have proven the OPs point precisely.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
221. Father Coughlin was pro Hitler
Tue May 7, 2013, 11:31 PM
May 2013

and a Fascist. Naziism and fascism are the extremes of the RIGHT WING. He openly called for Jews to be abused and expelled. He was as right wing as you can get.

You are repeating a GOP talking point AKA "Hitler was a liberal"

Hmmmm.......



Number23

(24,544 posts)
223. Oh God. You have lost it. You don't think that there liberals that are anti-Semitic?
Tue May 7, 2013, 11:46 PM
May 2013

He was a radical leftist. He was a populist. He was a LIBERAL. Every account says that. What the hell right wing person passionately supports FDR but then abandons that support because he felt FDR was "too comfortable with bankers" and didn't do enough for the poor? What right winger does that?

He may have been a raging anti-Semite and that was his downfall. And his anti-Semitism became more pronounced after he began declaring the New Deal a failure and calling FDR a con man. But he was a radical leftist who supported FDR because he thought he was too but abandoned that support when FDR took office because he thought FDR was too much of a middle man.

You bring new meaning to confirmation bias. The numerous times you have attempted to change the subject, deflect, back track etc. during this conversation is nothing short of astonishing.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
240. Naziism/Fascism are the extremes of the right
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:46 AM
May 2013

Communism is the extreme of the left. It's basic political science.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
187. You ask for links
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:50 AM
May 2013

Then dismisses the links without giving any real reasons. I think you are committing an act of confirmation bias.

As for the term "puff pieces":

IDTIMWYTIM

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery#Puff_piece[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary.

Neither article seems to be a "story of exaggerating praise" and both seem to be well documented.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
189. Inigo Montoya!
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:10 AM
May 2013


I'm probably spelling that wrong but you know who I'm talking about!

Thanks for your great posts in this thread! "Confirmation bias" is an excellent description of that person's post. I used "head up ass denialism" before I self-edited.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
190. Honestly
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:24 AM
May 2013

This thread reminds me of this cracked article.

Especially numbers 1,3, and 5.

Edit: I like your original term better myself, but I get why you edited it out.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
197. You pounce on a figure of speech, but offer no evidence
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:33 PM
May 2013

Please list the names of the liberal congressmen and Democrats from that era that felt, "He could do no right"

Op/eds are opinion pieces. Please do not post them as 'evidence'.

LostOne4Ever

(9,262 posts)
219. More Confirmation Bias
Tue May 7, 2013, 10:39 PM
May 2013

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]AgingAmerican[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Op/eds are opinion pieces. Please do not post them as 'evidence'.

Except when they provide actual FACTS to back up their arguments and even provide citations.

If I post an opinion piece and state that evolution is a fact, and has been observed in real time in the populations of a variety of different organism, does the fact that its an op-ed make that any less of a fact? Especially if I give citations to numerous biological studies? Your premise does not support your conclusion and numerous counter-examples exist to prove it baseless.

From the links People who criticized FDR from the left:
Huey Long
Charles Coughlin
William Lemke
John Flynn
Earl Browder
Burton Wheeler

But if you want an non-op source here is one, Spark Notes!

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
224. Nice list of 'liberals' you have there lol
Tue May 7, 2013, 11:47 PM
May 2013

2 senators (1 isolationist and one left wing Democrat)
1 Communist
1 Journalist - not affiliated with either party
1 Republican
1 Nazi/Fascist Right wing talk show host

Out of your list ONE person could be called liberal or progressive.

Your logical fallacy is known as the "Hasty generalization"

Number23

(24,544 posts)
226. Hey, when someone says that a journalist can't be a liberal
Wed May 8, 2013, 12:11 AM
May 2013

It's better to just walk away. And the news that Communists can't be liberals must be a HELL of a shock to the numerous people around the world that embrace both philosophies.

Let that one stew in his ignorance alone. He asks for something and then when it is handed to him on a silver platter, is incapable of reading and understanding it. Let him stew by himself. There are far more interesting and intelligent people to converse with here.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
264. I'm really surprised at how many people don't know this part of FDR history. I thought it was
Thu May 9, 2013, 07:37 PM
May 2013

pretty well known that during his last term, the Republicans forced him to take austerity measures, cutting various programs, and he obliged them. Liberals in the party were furious! The country fell back into a recession.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
235. There are probably lots of reasons.
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:14 AM
May 2013

1) We aren't focusing on the problems of ordinary people -- like divorce, divided families, trying to keep a family going without having enough money, trying to stay hopeful when everything goes wrong, being sick and not being able to afford to get well or not having a way to get well, having to take care of sick or poor parents, having to put your kids in lousy day care while you work for pay too low to cover your costs, working in a restaurant, working in a hotel, driving a truck, feeling angry at people who have good jobs when you work really hard plus overtime for not nearly enough to take care of your family. Having to pay for taxes on top of all that.

2) We think in the abstract and talk in the abstract and don't get real enough.

3) We try to be too nice about topics that people have been taught to focus their anger on -- like immigration and race and guns and private property, gay rights and paying debts. We don't come out and say what we really want on these issues. We beat around the bush when we need to make our beliefs clear. We try not to offend the stupid Republicans. We try not to step on toes. We cower when we should attack. Instead, let's just say what we think. Coming out in favor of gay and lesbian marriage did not hurt Obama one bit. Supporting immigrants won't hurt either. Let's be true to what we believe in. We don't have to attack or cower. We just have to say what we think. Our fear of being who we are goes back to the McCarthy era. We don't need to feel that way. We have nothing to fear but fear.

4) We don't have enough of our own media. That is because we don't have a lot of money. But we can make up for this by creating our own outreach person to person. We need a lot more volunteers who talk plain talk with people and know how to listen.

Most people have progressive thoughts and ideas. More Americans lean to the left and support progressive ideas than support conservative ones. But they don't support or like intellectual language. And we haven't figured out how to talk about our ideas without intellectual language. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not good at it.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
166. Well, at least one "left-wing" candidate that I know of,
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:50 PM
May 2013

that is, "left-wing" for Arkansas, was campaigned against in a Senate primary by both a sitting Democratic president and a former Democratic president, in favor of the center-right DLC "Democrat". The center-right candidate won the primary but then suffered an ignominious defeat at the hands of her Republican opponent in the general election.

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
170. The "left-wing" candidate, Bill Halter, forced a run-off in the primary
Mon May 6, 2013, 10:05 PM
May 2013

If Obama hadn't stuck his nose where it didn't belong, then Halter probably would have done better, maybe even won. And Halter reminded me of the young Bill Clinton, who ran for political office 3 times in the '70s as a liberal (and won twice). It was almost like the "old" Bill Clinton was campaigning against the "young" Bill Clinton

Number23

(24,544 posts)
208. Sorry I'm just seeing this!
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:08 PM
May 2013

Well, I for one am extraordinarily dubious that out of all the states in the US, that Arkansas would be one of the ones to put a "left wing" candidate in office.

But if you feel that this is what happened, I am really sorry for you and for the state of Arkansas that Halter was kept out of office.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
239. Note I put "left-wing" in quotes
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:37 AM
May 2013

I also further qualified it by saying "left-wing for Arkansas".

Nevertheless, excluding presidential elections, Arkansas has been one of the most Democratic of all states at both the state and national levels. No other state can top Arkansas's record of having Democrats in the Senate (only 8 years total for Republicans in the Senate (both seats combined) since Reconstruction. We also used to nearly always have 3 Democrats and 1 Republican in Congress until this past election. Also, most state positions had been held by Democrats until the recent election, when we got a Republican legislature for the first time since Reconstruction.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
117. And since "centrism" is really just another name for a current version of Republincanism
Mon May 6, 2013, 10:23 AM
May 2013

...we essentially just have factions of the Republican party -- regardless of what they call themselves -- trying to reach a "compromise" on the right side -- which is to say the wrong side -- of the spectrum. Or the aisle.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
136. When the Repub Party started to go off the rails, many started to slither under our tent.
Mon May 6, 2013, 04:09 PM
May 2013

Some among us think that is swell. Yeah more Democrats. Not caring that those "new Democrats" BROUGHT THEIR NASTY REPUBLICAN VALUES WITH THEM.

For these lost souls, rationalization is the key to their happiness. They rationalize that the D behind a politician's name is more important than that politician's ideals.

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
165. Centrists and moderate-liberals have been responsible for 100% of the progress that has taken
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:46 PM
May 2013

place in the last 21 years. The extreme left had progressive ideas banned to the sidelines, Reagan was ruining the country, with no voice to challenge him. I have had my fill of the extreme left, they hated on Jimmy Carter and gave us Reagan. They voted the conscious and helped to produce President George W Bush, which, given their bent toward fantasy, they blame all of a right-wing US Supreme Court. The fact is save their efforts, there WOULDN'T have been a US Supreme Court ruling, or a need for a ruling.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
172. Ok, so tell me what issues the left espouses that you dont agree with.
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:08 PM
May 2013

What progressive ideas have been "banned to the sidelines"?

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
201. You know, the "lofty and laughable ideals".
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:02 PM
May 2013

Like the ones they'll immediately spin around and assure you that Obama sincerely supports as well.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
91. That's a non-sequitur:
Sun May 5, 2013, 11:48 PM
May 2013

If its the 'centrists' who garner the power, then the attacks clearly don't have much of an effect.

--

BTW- Thank you for informing us that the only thing the Left needs to succeed is to silence its left-wing critics. Let us blame the failure of the Gun Background Check bill on the Democrats' left wing instead of the people who actually stopped it.

You see, its fun to be a psychopath... After having done most of the work of stamping out overt socialism from the political landscape and lingua franca in the mid-late 20th century, a Democrat who has 'failed' can always be certain that its merely some odd person in the room, suggestive phrase, or other subtle and subversive influence (like empathy for the poor) has crept in and caused the "real" politics to go off-balance. Thankfully, there are plenty of corporate-news entertainers who will take up the task of denouncing the unsavoury influence post-haste, so that one can hopefully try again properly with Wall St aligned methods.

Of course, there is never any need for the neoliberal elite to blame themselves unless they have somehow offended a large corporate interest.

--

As to the OP question of how we got here:

The system has been set to fail for decades. No part of it is equipped to deal with a lack of 'frontier' or ecological concepts of limits. These conditions scare TPTB mightily because they know that unsustainable pressures are building and the task of rebuilding a national identity and core business models (even civilization) is not the career they signed up for; in 'doing the right thing' they see myriad decisions that are thankless or worse. So, they say F-ck it, lets ride this consumerism juggernaut for all its worth and see if it can whip up some zero-sacrifice, delivered-to-your-door techno fixes that keep every fatcat's business model intact. This requires work to undermine democratic institutions, but at the behest of the corporate class so that their media outlets will celebrate you while you celebrate consumption. (BTW- Jimmy Carter definitely did not celebrate consumption.)

The Left has so little influence because it collided with consumerism sometime in the early 1970s. Our natural audience became an unnatural class of consumer zombies, mollified by a plethora of new marketing schemes, product and brand obsessions, antidepressants, randy sexual pursuit, and a new mythology of what it means to be 'happy' (no ideas admitted-- unless they are for new products and services, thankyouverymuch).

Some points of failure on the road to consumerism-as-policy:

1. Central banking and Corporate personhood became tools of the financial elite back in the Edwardian era. A fix has been too long in coming.

2. The White Flight away from coexistence and toward an 'American dream' that marries shallow materialism with the illusion of pastoral ("country&quot suburban living and white identity. This lasted until the 2008 crisis and has borne as much malignancy as any other development.

3. Baby boomers reacting to their 'cold' upbringing (partly due to postwar attitudes, and the erasure of community atmosphere because of the White Flight and general increased mobility)... A flight toward irrational world views followed (hippies and evangelical neocons sprouted from the same branch and have much in common) with the pursuit of strong emotion in everyday life.

4. 'Lifestyles': The resurgence of marketing and PR influence, computerized and re-tuned to the identities and fantasies of the 70s counterculture and fashionable hangers-on. The counterculture had been anti-consumption up to that point. Now people with psychology degrees wearing torn bluejeans brainwash us into seeing products/services as the lens through which we resolve emotional fulfilment; to stop planning, live in the moment and respond impulsively.

4a. The explosive increase of sugar and meat in our diets, with behavioural consequences.

5. The War On Drugs: A trashing of the Bill Of Rights. Very bad precedents were set when people responded to this hysteria, causing mass disenfranchisement and a burgeoning police state.

In the post-cold war years, the above factors combined to alienate working class people from each other (with relations at an all-time low now) while merger-mania concentrated corporate wealth and power. News media were routed, their most recognized/trusted visages pasted onto the carapace of Wall St. conglomerates while the 'journalism' became remunerated with stock options. Few configurations could yield more natural antipathy toward the Left.





 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
109. Brilliant!! The Left enjoyed a lot of victories in the 1960's, but when Johnson declared that
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:38 AM
May 2013

the South was lost to the Republicans due to the extension of civil rights, that was the end. We got Nixon because LBJ was too politically bruised to run again. (That's why it is so ridiculous to compare Obama to LBJ or JFK; the historical and political circumstances were completely different!)

Watergate changed everything!! After Watergate, Americans grew increasingly distrustful of government and that ironically played right into the hands of the Republican Party. I felt sorry for Jimmy Carter because he not only inherited the horrible economic politicies of Nixon/Ford, he also inherited the apathy of the American people. Reagan was able to craft a message that worked well, and the political right was able to manipulate the American voter, playing on racial fear and hatred, distrust of the government, the preeminence of the corporations. It worked. The conservative movement was able to do something phenomenal: marry corporate interests/anti-government sentiment with Christian values.

Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas" and "The Wrecking Crew," along with Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine," is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand why the political left is losing this war.

"Conservatives Without Conscience," by John Dean discusses pre- and post-Watergate sentiment and how conservatives were able to capitalize on that sentiment through clever messaging, imagery, and pro-corporate/anti-government propaganda.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
241. Government was 'taken away' from whites by the civil rights movement
Wed May 8, 2013, 05:00 AM
May 2013

...on paper and in concept at least. That allowed social conservatives to align with free-market "conservatives" and both had fundamentalist factions that grew considerably after Johnson's term.

The rectitude of the Left in its stance on race and gender was so towering, and the sea change so bracing, that the Right could neither argue against nor reconcile with the new American identity. And the lens that brought the new identity into focus counter to the white patriarchy was a (big) government that set about mingling their kids with other races and upending their home lives via social services that judged them and often "took" their families away (actually enabled their families to "rebel" against them).

If the unreconstructed dominant white males could not have a government devoted to them specifically, then no one else could have it, either. As groups like the Heritage Foundation preached free-market fundamentalism to social conservatives, the recurring theme they evoked was the disposal or murder of government-- make it small enough to drown in a bathtub, like some biblically wayward child. (Its no surprise to me that today's Right that grew up on this stuff has created an America so hostile to children; Its part of the neocon/neoliberal social template.)

The above is what motivates the average, non-elite conservative demographic at its core.

A new facet was added in the 1990s: Anti-environmentalism which stands in for anti-communism. The pursuit of living large is non-negotiable, otherwise there is no reason for average people to believe they are going to make it big one day; no reason to identify with the wealthy and their aims.

Within this miasma of political instinct and calculation you have three tracks: 1) Those who believe that sabotage of government regulation and infrastructure is desirable because it allows a less encumbered environment for bringing people to Jesus before the imminent Second Coming; 2) Those who worship the market instead, and believe that pure "free trade" is preferable to democracy and will bring government under the control of market forces-- when infrastructure fails its because the market deemed it necessary to smite the "evil" poor; 3) Elites who tell themselves that 1&2 can't really be serious or influential enough in modern times to do much damage, and that borrowing from their zeitgeist is OK because it allows the private sector to get things done for their social strata.

1) Dominionist, 2) Social Darwinist, 3) Third Way... they all preach and abide by consumerism. Frighteningly, its 2&3 that do so for the same reasons which are economic growth, innovation and keeping people entertained/docile.

Some would say there is a fourth segment, the Tea Party. They are the unsophisticated cohort of 1&2 for the most part. But I'd say that doesn't make them any less of a burgeoning fascist movement.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
243. Good post
Wed May 8, 2013, 05:43 AM
May 2013

I think you nailed it with this..

The rectitude of the Left in its stance on race and gender was so towering, and the sea change so bracing, that the Right could neither argue against nor reconcile with the new American identity.



HappyMe

(20,277 posts)
108. Exactly.
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:37 AM
May 2013

Instead of attacking others, they should just get their message out. By attacking only, imo, they just come across as cranky asshats with no clear agenda.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
125. because the rightist apparatchiks control the apparatus; same reason that for the last 50 years
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:35 AM
May 2013

only UFT apparatchiks have gotten into power in the NYC teachers union.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
133. Hey! It's not their fault people don't appreciate being "corrected"
Mon May 6, 2013, 03:48 PM
May 2013


I thought that's why people signed onto sites like DU- to have their moral and ethical betters explain to them the myriad ways they are deficient and doing it wrong.

jazzimov

(1,456 posts)
3. Rhetoric.
Sun May 5, 2013, 04:54 PM
May 2013

The RW won the propaganda war a long time ago - to the point that even the word "Liberal" had bad connotations. What is happening now is that more people are experiencing the bad effects of the RW policies and are beginning to see the rhetoric as the lies that they are.

We on the Left need to accelerate that process by sticking to the FACTS and exposing the lies.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
111. I sometimes wonder if we're too late. The media is now controlled by corporations. Even the local
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:45 AM
May 2013

news is chuck full pro-conservative propaganda. Newspaper subscriptions are down, and now the KKKoch Bros. are talking about buying up all the major newspapers.

This is the failure of the political left. Rather than being proactive, the left has been REACTIONARY. The left has been lazy. You see it everywhere on the left, even on DU: nothing but reaction--whining, blaming everyone but the obstructionists, not doing anything constructive but complaining. It's not just on DU; it's everywhere on the political left. And then we wonder why we can't get enough progressives elected to office. Why bother?

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
14. And the media.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:04 PM
May 2013

Don't forget the pathetic media, buying into Republican framing and pushing the corporate line.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
77. There's a reason they don't. The people who shell out the most $$ for elections
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:08 PM
May 2013

don't like what progressives would to the 1%.

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
169. In the long path of human beings, money over the longterm has never beaten conviction and
Mon May 6, 2013, 10:02 PM
May 2013

discipline. The claim that money surely wins provides an easy out and avoids the long grinding engagements that people who truly change society understand must be fought.

 

burnodo

(2,017 posts)
176. Who claimed that money surely wins?
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:38 PM
May 2013

Money gets you access to people who are receptive to what you have to say.

Yavin4

(35,310 posts)
10. So, The Dem party is stopping you from talking to your fellow Americans
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:00 PM
May 2013

and persuading them with reason and logic to vote for more progressive candidates in local, state, and national elections?

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
30. Yes, our access to national platforms is exactly the same as any pro-corporate politicians is!
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:39 PM
May 2013

What the hell are we waiting for!?

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
247. No, the Democratic Party is stopping him from having progressive candidates for whom to vote.
Wed May 8, 2013, 12:49 PM
May 2013

The pseudo-Dems that run the party are who determines who gets through.

See Gore Vidal;

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently… and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
17. Why ask then?
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:08 PM
May 2013

Your OP makes no sense. Are you saying the American Left is too lazy to get off their ass and get progressives elected or did you just want to vent about something?

Are you talking to voters and getting people to vote for progressives? Are you helping get progressive bills pass that support labor? Those are things I do. If my state with millions and millions of voters can do it, other states can too.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
28. The OP is from Canada
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:37 PM
May 2013

so I doubt they are working in the States to pass any kind of progressive policy.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
40. I thought he lived in New York for some reason.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:45 PM
May 2013

I just don't get how an OP like this is supposed to help us in 2014.

It ignores the fact that right-wing groups have been cutting into the progressive stronghold, unionism, like a hot knife through butter, with billions of dollars.

We lost MI to right-to-work, a cultural travesty, and the more we shed union membership the harder it is to mobilize to GOTV for progressives.

I'm really not sure what his point is. I feel like it is to bash DUers for wanting the US to be more progressive and suggesting that "Hey kids, let's get out there and put on a show" is going to get more progressives elected. I think everyone knows what the stakes are, how difficult it is and what we're up against. But mass mobilization takes funding and organization.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
44. He does, that was evidently another person with the same name on DU2.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:50 PM
May 2013

I don't think it is meant to help, I think he is trying to understand something that is easy to grasp - who has the money and power in America? Look at that group and how they get their message out and you realize that they are NOT progressives.

They are anti-union, pro free market, right to work state type of billionaires. The Left doesn't have anything that comes close to it in comparison.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
50. I think that it is the suggestion that they are lazy
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:56 PM
May 2013

They don't get progressives elected and then complain about the other voters not doing it for them, blaming the establishment or whatever for not just electing these progressives. They seem to have a sense of entitlement. They thought Obama was going to do it for them - that's why they are so "disappointed" and "betrayed." Obama was supposed to bring in progressives with his 2008 coattails, they thought he didn't do enough, so they "stayed home" and they've been complaining ever since. They have no thoughts for an office lower than the Presidency, and expect a President to do it all for them. Every last bit of campaigning and working and convincing. The "bully pulpit" is so foolproof that if Obama's speeches don't magically cause majorities of the voters of red states to vote in progressives, it must be Obama's speeches are not angry and passionate enough.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
52. Well, we've asked the OP what he is doing. So far, crickets.
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:03 PM
May 2013

I would bet a poll would show that many DUers are active in electoral work. This notion of the "lazy DUer" of the left is a strawman.

And there are states, like I explained <---- that are doing the work the OP claims to be interested in. If he actually gave a rat's ass about solutions instead of just igniting some snark-fest out of pique, we could have discussed it.

Repukes are teh problem. Focus on them instead of some leftist chimera. Is Yavin helping in other states to remove right-wing corporate influence on gerrymandering, practically guaranteeing that the legislatures are going to stay teabaggeratti?

treestar

(82,383 posts)
57. None of us can prove anything here other than that we post on DU
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:16 PM
May 2013

Nobody can really prove they've done a lot of canvassing. California is a good start. It is a large state with a lot of votes. In a way the Senate is an unfair thing - California ends up with no more influence than Delaware.

To get the kind of change we want, with our system, we need those red states with two Senators but low populations. Somehow to find a way to get through to those people that progressive ideas are good. That is admittedly difficult, and much harder than the way they sit there and blame the President for not convincing them of that on his own. Like if his speeches were just more passionate, etc., if he just refused to compromise, then these people with disproportionate Senatorial power are just going to come over.

There are many posters here who "yawn" or get snarky about the President's "powerlessness" when we mention the reality of the Senate or the current House composition. We can have the most liberal President in the world, but we need the lower offices too. It turns out the voters don't make a hierarchy out of it. We don't have the Parliamentary system (which some days I think would be better for progressives, since most liberal programs once started are popular and people don't want to get rid of them - there is plenty of right wing angst on that - but in the US, we have a harder time getting them started).

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
60. Well, then this seems more like a meta OP.
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:24 PM
May 2013

Making posts about what Yavin thinks the work entails would be more productive than slamming a small group of people who say things that annoy him, since he also has no proof of anything he does other than post here on DU.

Otherwise it would save everyone's time if he'd just PM those people with "You annoy me". Good people who took the OP in good faith have now wasted time on this.

Yavin4

(35,310 posts)
140. I "slammed" people? All I did was ask a question.
Mon May 6, 2013, 04:18 PM
May 2013
All of our issues would be better served if more Americans voted for progressives across all elective offices, city, county, state, and federal.

For example, income equality would be better addressed if forming unions were made easier, but we need progressive federal and state legislators to make that happen.

Does anyone have an answer?


Where in my post do I slam anyone?

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
144. If you'd actually been interested in answers to that, we could have discussed it.
Mon May 6, 2013, 04:43 PM
May 2013

The fact that you handwaved CA's achievements in this area as mere nothings? Doesn't really speak well of the motives of the OP.

Either like treestar you wish to take the hide out of leftists who you feel are getting snotty about Obama, or you simply wish to assert that centrism is the only thing you think wins elections, so left suck it up.

If you want to be passive-aggressive on top of it, that's on you. What seems to be implied was obvious to people who took your OP as a ripe opportunity to rip the left.

Last word to you, I'm done wasting time on this.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
110. And that seems enough for many: You aren't a prog if I don't see posts in "______."
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:44 AM
May 2013

And if I don't see posts in "______," "_______," and "______" you are a RW troll. Registering voters, being in marches, organizing campaigns means little. The proof of activism is posting in a lotta groups & fora, ya know? And, of course, elevating ones abilities to "hurt feelings" for some reason.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
29. Oregon provides you with 2 Democratic Senators, 4 out of 5 House members
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:38 PM
May 2013

Washington, sort of similar. You can bet your bippy it's not enough, but the fault is a regional fault, tons of States in the Mid West and South vote for Republicans only. What State are YOU from, OP? One of those low turn out, Blue Doggy Dog States? You tell us.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
9. It's because the Democratic Party sold its soul to Wall Street decades ago.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:00 PM
May 2013

We've been had. The corporate types are awash in cash, while true progressives are declared "unelectable."

Then there's the canard: "What are you going to do, vote for a Republican?" Of course not, Democrats hold their noses and vote for the lesser of evils (sometimes not so lesser as in the case of Blue Dogs).

Personally, I won't register as a Democrat anymore and only vote for the best ones. I vote strategically. In Texas, where Obama had no chance, I would have voted to Jill Stein, had I still be living there. He lost North Carolina as well, but it was more competitive, so I did hold my nose and voted for him.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
65. This is what I would say also......
Sun May 5, 2013, 07:25 PM
May 2013

The Tennessean this morning had an article about House members and the money the ALREADY had in the bank for 2014. The Tennessee delegation of course is now very Republican with one Blue Dog (Cooper) and one actual leftish Rep (Cohen). The Republicans and Cooper, the Blue Dog have over a million dollars in the bank for 2014. How many progressives are going to be able to match this kind of corporate fundraising? And that lack of campaign funds is what makes them "unelectable".

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
12. Progressives generally don't get party backing and funding in America.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:03 PM
May 2013

The quality of Democratic candidates is generally no better than the quality of the local and State Democratic Committees that select them. Then, there is the problem of campaign finance. When Rahm Emanual was head of the DCCC, he refused to fund many progressive candidates who had been nominated and were in need of funding.

Does that answer your question?

Yavin4

(35,310 posts)
16. Why do you need funding to convince your fellow Americans to vote for progressives?
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:06 PM
May 2013

The Civil Rights marchers did not have funding.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
24. That was then, this is now.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:36 PM
May 2013

We also didn't live in a plutocracy during the Civil Rights movement. The M$M and the 1% get to decide who they run for office, then we get to vote for them.

No one in Big Money wants a liberal pr progressive in office, they are to scared of what will happen to the free, unregulated market.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
80. They weren't up for voting for they were busying working to get legislation passed
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:33 PM
May 2013

by targeting, sit in's and grassroots, though.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
82. Because the Party doesn't support True Progressives when they have a Blue Dog
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:36 PM
May 2013

they can push.

It's true...and have experience with it as do other DU'ers who have been active for years. We've had to deal with the "fixed Dem Party Apparatus" in our states.

You don't seem to be involved in grassroots efforts or you wouldn't have asked the question you did.

tabbycat31

(6,336 posts)
19. that depends on the district
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:21 PM
May 2013

With gerrymandering, most of the progressives are in ultra safe Democratic districts. In a swing or lean R district, you have to run a Blue Dog if you want to win the election.

If you want to build up a progressive base in a non progressive part of the country, I would suggest to start at the local level. When you have a candidate running for office as "Councilman Progressive" or "Mayor Progressive" he/she will appeal to a lot more swing voters than "Progressive" will.

I've been a staffer on 4 campaigns, and all 4 have been Blue Dog districts. I just had an interview for another, also a Blue Dog in a rural district.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
45. So did your candidates win or lose?
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:52 PM
May 2013

I note that people often say 'only a Blue Dog can win' and yet the Blue Dogs lose anyway.

Occulus

(20,599 posts)
63. Why is that a bad thing?
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:47 PM
May 2013

Why can't we set up a continuous stream of one-term progressives, all of whom share a commitment to progressive causes, and are willing to continue the agenda and intents of their predecessors? Why does American politics need to be a career?

They- Republicans- lie to get elected all the time. They do it because it works: a lie can travel 'round the world while the truth is putting on its pants. In keeping with that, there is no sin in lying to defeat evil people; in that context, outright lying is a virtue, and telling truths you know will get you defeated only helps your political enemies. It's slimy, smarmy, and a disgusting perversion of the concepts of civil service and patriotism, but it's also the reality of the way the system works. We need to acknowledge and deal with what is real, and stop trying to act as if the world is as it should be.

There is a time and a place for telling the truth. American political races have no such time and place. We keep losing in these areas of the country because we have failed to learn that lesson. The Republicans win because they lie to the public about their intentions and lie about the facts and lie about their lies and are absolutely vicious about it; if they ever actually told these people the truth, the voters would not vote for them, full stop.

We need to be just as vicious. We need to be the real-life Frank Underwood from House of Cards. We need to start lying, or we will continue to lose.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
112. Last week, I told the story of Representative Donna Edwards. For years she ran against a Blue Dog
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:53 AM
May 2013

Democrat named Al Wynn, and he had all the advantages: smarts, charisma, and a ton of money. She continued to lose but never gave up. Finally in 2006, she beat him...and beat him badly!! Rather than deal with the humiliation, he ended up quitting Congress and not finishing his term, so she had to run again to fill her own freaking seat.

The point is that progressives/liberals need to be more patient. The political right has always been patient. They lose elections and don't just give up or talk shit about how they are going to register as Independent or vote Green. You never hear a conservative utter such nonsense.

We need to continue to fight and if we lose a few, we lose a few.

tabbycat31

(6,336 posts)
48. 2
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:54 PM
May 2013

And one by 648 votes in a year that wiped out Blue Dogs. (He lost in 2012).

The two that have lost--- both were long shots. One ran against a guy who in the last two elections ran unopposed and won with 89%. (This was a recall election).

The other was in a rural, southern district in a presidential year (2012) where the president lost by 29 points. We outperformed the other Democrats on the ticket (president, senate), but that seat is much more winnable in a midterm year. A Blue Dog held that seat for 28 years until 2010 when he was wiped out. The district had been trending red for awhile.

matt819

(10,749 posts)
20. It boils down to race, and profit
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:25 PM
May 2013

Not the president's race.

Race: From Cadillac welfare queens to Willy Horton to where we are today, Republicans have convinced their followers that all entitlements are going to inner city blacks and Hispanics, people so unlike themselves as to be damn near alien species.

Profit: Whether as the result of a long-term strategy or simply due to greed, wealthy conservatives have found a way to profit from all the changes due to the defunding of the federal government, including for-profit health care and education, privatization of previously federal responsibilities, etc.

Sure, sure, the issues are far more complex, but I think it boils down to these two factors.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
113. AMEN!! RACE has always been the undergird of American politics. We see this today
Mon May 6, 2013, 10:00 AM
May 2013

with Gingrich's "Welfare President" and now turning unemployment insurance, social security benefits, Medicare/Medicaid...it's ALL welfare. The conservative movement has done a masterful job of racializing politics. It may not work for them all the time, but ask President Obama--he knows it's about race; he just can't admit it, sadly.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
22. this is so simplistic
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:31 PM
May 2013

there is a large segment of the population that cannot be convinced. PERIOD. not to mention that there's the whole red state/blue state divide. Do you actually think you can get progressives elected in Oklahoma? nope. not gonna happen.

there is hope. It lies in demographics and states like Texas eventually going blue.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
23. Because America votes for whoever the PTB decides will run for office.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:34 PM
May 2013

If they don't like someone, they don't get to run. There are some exceptions, but that is pretty much SOP.

Yavin4

(35,310 posts)
27. So, Based on most of the posts on my thread, it's a lost cause
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:37 PM
May 2013

Because of money, the Dem party, the media, etc., there's nothing that the American Left can do to convince more Americans to vote for progressive candidates.

Do I have that right?

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
31. No you are skipping over the reason and cherry picking your result.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:39 PM
May 2013

So no you are wrong, it has nothing to do with that. How do you guys do it in Canada? I hear you have a really shitty RWing in charge right now. What are you doing to get progressives back in office?

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
37. My apologies then, it must have been another Yavin on DU2
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:43 PM
May 2013

that I talked to that was from Canada. My mistake. How do you guys do it in NY then?

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
43. Then where are you from, because you speak of Americans as if we were separate from precious
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:49 PM
May 2013

Yavin4. What do you do, float above all nations like the transfigured Elijah?

treestar

(82,383 posts)
47. You do.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:53 PM
May 2013

There is a type personality that prefers to be cranky. Thus all positive suggestions will be shot down. There must not be any hope! If there was, they'd have to get away from the keyboard and get involved.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
33. It costs money to buy air time.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:41 PM
May 2013

Most of the campaign dollars raised go to buying commercials for radio and tee vee.

Odd how many of those same media also are owned by conservative corporations.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
46. If enough Americans were persuaded they could donate the money
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:52 PM
May 2013

A large number of small donations can be a lot more than big donations from a few rich donors.

But that's a cop out, too. We can talk to people day to day, convince people to look into more than just the slick TV ads and such; think about the issues. It seems there is this giving up by saying oh well they have more money and most voters don't care, so there is nothing we can do.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
51. There are a few here trying to define it as 'there is nothing we can do'
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:01 PM
May 2013

and you are right there is a lot we can do. Some things we cannot do are what is crippling us I think right now. Something we cannot do is get our foot in the door with the M$M. That we cannot do. We cannot get progressives elected to the national stage in huge numbers, so far. That is something we are working on.

Right now the Left is behind the 8-ball. Thanks to so many people out there that love to bash it on a daily basis and so many from our own party too. It hurts our chances when our own party hates us.

The 1% are not progressives nor do their numbers rank as liberals either. It is hard to get liberals to become shallow minded assholes like their billionaire counterparts in the RWing. And it is not just a few rich donors...that is simply not true.

We need our own national spotlight and some down to earth progressives manning that spotlight and NOT the crazy side of the Left either. Last thing we need is a libertarian pretending to be a liberal on national TV speaking for that side of the party.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
53. They complain of being hated, but the reason is they are the ones
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:09 PM
May 2013

always bashing the people in the center (rather than those on the right!). That works against their own goals, so I don't know why they do it. They seem determined to take the center/slightly left of center down more than they want to take the right down. That gets frustrating, so it's no wonder they are "hated." They don't have any plans to help, just criticism and crying "betrayal" as if their opinions are inherently more valuable that those left of center but not as far left as they are, or expect the nation to be.

I usually agree with them politically, but the reality is they are causing damage to any cause they want to espouse, blaming the rest of us for not convincing the center to be as far left as they would like. They think the President's "bully pulpit" means he alone should be able to convince right wingers into progressiveness! If they are willing to take any of it off of his shoulders, they blame Pelosi or Harry Reid. They seem to think the leaders should just do it for us, and if they don't they don't have Svengali-like hold over the masses, they deserve our scorn.

The reality is, this country's Constitution makes progressive change slow. It is geared to avoid changes and requires a lot of votes to get them made. Even the right wing would see that, in that they complain the liberal programs they don't like will never go away (why didn't they repeal them all when they had the chance after 911? That just shows how hard and long term it is).

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
56. The GOP is lucky that the other party likes to hate on itself.
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:16 PM
May 2013

The GOP has an infinite amount of power compared to grass roots progressives. Progressives and liberals cannot get their own party to like them. I don't think it has anything to do with the Constitution, since republicans love to violate it on a term by term basis.

As long as there are some that will not listen to any kind of criticism, progressives have no chance at a national shot. There are too many that will hate on them in their own party. And the haters are in the majority, so I wouldn't expect any progressive as POTUS anytime soon.

I mean I do not in the least bit...too much blind obedience and shouting down at those the simply disagree.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
161. The reality is that things are getting worse consistently for the last 40 years for the 99%.
Mon May 6, 2013, 07:35 PM
May 2013

And at each stage the centrists say that it's ok, it could be worse. Pres Obama is certainly better than a republican but his continued appointments of conservatives will not help our recovery. You say change takes time. But during the Bush admin lots of changes happened and quite easily. He literally stopped the operations of most departments. Katrina was an example of his neutralizing government agencies. Trillions were looted. The Constitution didnt stop him and doesnt limit change. The Patriot Act and domestic spying are a couple of examples where the Constitution was completely ignored. As well as the AUMF. Bank bailouts and massive transfers of wealth. And yet the centrists will tell you that the left has "lofty ideals" (I got that from an earlier post today).

I dont want SS and Medicare cut. In fact I want the SS cap raised and Medicare for all. I want affordable health care for all or at least for all children. I want the banks to be held accountable for stealing millions of people's homes. I want my government to punish employers that steal employees retirement accounts. These are not lofty ideals. They are basic and decent.

I get frustrated when the Pres not only ignores Wall Street but appoints Wall Street friendlies to regulating positions. And then he spends my tax money prosecuting medical marijuana dispensers and sends them to prison for 20 years.

I want SS and Medicare strengthened. The far right wants to kill them altogether. The so-called center thinks that small cuts are needed to keep the far right happy.

We are in a class war with the left on the side of the 99% and the right on the side of the 1%. Which side is the so-called center?

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
114. Honestly, we liberals need to stop bashing center-left or moderately liberal Democrats.
Mon May 6, 2013, 10:04 AM
May 2013

The purity test is ridiculous. Once we do that and become more unified against the right, we'll have more of a chance. But this constant bashing of fellow Democrats does more damage. This unwillingness to accept that a Democrat from Utah can't be as liberal as a Democrat from my home state of Maryland, hurts us!!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
42. There's always hope. We can use the Internets and the public spaces of our communities.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:49 PM
May 2013

Create the first ripple, other drops fall in and create more ripples...once enough waves join together we can form a wave that can knock over anything. For that to happen, all we have to do is spread the truth. Person to person. Through the Internet. At the local public space. Wherever citizens gather who care. That is our most powerful weapon and it's free.

PS: We need the President to lead on this. It's been a long time since I've heard one say he was proud to be a Liberal and wanted to use the powers of government to make life better for ALL Americans. Without that leadership from above, it's just more work for those of us drebs who give a damn.

Hippo_Tron

(25,453 posts)
61. It's not that there's no hope...
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:26 PM
May 2013

It's that right now you have a vicious cycle where you need money to advocate for those who don't have any money and there isn't a clear and easy path to get out of that logjam. But if big money won 100% of the time, there never would've been a New Deal or a Great Society. You keep fighting the good fight and one day there will be an opportunity to turn the tide.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
35. Because they are shut out of the American propaganda machine.
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:41 PM
May 2013

The message is not heard; and, when it is, it is demeaned, disparaged, and diminished. By the Democratic Party, and by Democrats.

The best candidates are always attacked as "fringe" and "unelectable," which is the propaganda machine's way of wielding fear to keep people obediently in line.

NewJeffCT

(56,827 posts)
132. True - how often do you see a true liberal on the Sunday morning talk shows?
Mon May 6, 2013, 03:44 PM
May 2013

Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders, Raul Grijalva, etc?

Almost never.

Too often, the non-Administration Democrats on those shows are moderates like Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, etc. (And, Joe Lieberman was very popular for several years from 2000-2008) I can understand Reid, since he's the Senate majority leader.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
54. on many social issues incredible advancements have been made. But on economic issues things have
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:11 PM
May 2013

largely gone backwards. At the moment progress on economic and even foreign policy issues do look like a lost cost - But things can change and change quickly

I grew up in a world where all Help Wanted adds even from major city newspapers were strictly segregated - Help Wanted Women - Help Wanted Men. Very few people even thought at the time that things could or would ever be different. I grew up in a world where it was liberal to believe that homosexuality was a disease that should be treated as opposed to criminal behavior that must be punished. Almost everyone thought that way and very few people imagined the world would ever be different. You would have had trouble counting on one hand the number of even the most liberal and progressive of elected office holders that would have said publicly that gay people were normal and should have full equal rights. Even most gay people thought there was something wrong with themselves and would certainly have never foreseen the day when 58% of Americans believed that gay people should have equal marriage rights like everyone else.

The ark of history moves slowly and unevenly and sometimes takes steps backwards - but in the big picture - it moves always toward progress . - At some point we may see equally dramatic changes - just as incredible on the economic front and even the foreign policy front that we have seen on the social issues front.

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
62. Corporations control the major media?
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:44 PM
May 2013

Last edited Mon May 6, 2013, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Corporate media paints a distorted picture of reality. Especially including supposedly "liberal" MSNBC.

This is a typical example of the kind of emotional appeals and propaganda that MSNBC brainwashes their "liberal" viewers with -



Can you believe that piece of crap actually ran on the Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz shows just to brainwash liberals?

Here's another example -


Our opponents own everything so it's hard to compete with that kind of power.

The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that states how propaganda, including systemic biases, function in mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda.

The theory posits that the way in which news is structured (through advertising, media ownership, government sourcing and others) creates an inherent conflict of interest which acts as propaganda for undemocratic forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
70. Six corporations control 98% of the media
Sun May 5, 2013, 08:01 PM
May 2013

This is one of many reasons to break up the monopolies

Can this be changed? I believe the web is one means, why you are seeing efforts to bring it under total corporate control.

steve2470

(37,455 posts)
72. Things aren't bad enough yet
Sun May 5, 2013, 09:06 PM
May 2013

My brother is a Democratic/progressive activist in North Florida. He is absolutely tireless in campaigning for Democrats and liberal causes. I greatly admire that about him. We had a long conversation a few months ago about WHY things aren't changing and/or fast enough.

My conclusion, which he did not strongly disagree with, is that things simply aren't bad enough yet economically. Yes, things ARE bad but the official data does not reflect it and the media by and large does not reflect it.

I hate to say this, because I desperately do not want this to happen, but things seem to have to get worse before they get better. The critical mass of angry motivated people is not there yet. Too many buy into the conservative corporate paradigm and blame themselves when their situation is unhappy.

On the social issues front, I think progressives ARE making progress. It's the economic issues that lag far behind. Again, I do NOT want things to get worse but the Great Depression sure as hell motivated people to change the system from the semi-fascist 1920's.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
115. We need to be a Liberal Stalwart like your brother and NEVER give up! The wingnuts never give up!
Mon May 6, 2013, 10:07 AM
May 2013

NEVER!!

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
118. Your brother is probably right. As long as the hologram of prosperity (cheap consumer goods)
Mon May 6, 2013, 10:26 AM
May 2013

Can be maintained and accessed thru more credit/ debt expansion, things won't be seen as so "bad." If consumption goes south, then the rumbles will be felt.

I grew up in N. Central Fla & was active there for years before transferring that to Texas decades ago. Frying pan meet fire.

Dyedinthewoolliberal

(15,463 posts)
81. 'Cause the American Left
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:34 PM
May 2013

doesn't get taken seriously. We are all loony dreamers or hard core anarchists, according to the media.............. :O)

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
83. "Well done is better than well said" - Ben Franklin
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:37 PM
May 2013

Most "progressives" run for office as progressives, and upon gaining office sprint hard right and attach to Wall Street's teat like a Rottweiler to a sirloin.

Obama meets regularly with Jamie and Lloyd. Krugman is persona non grata. Judge the results for yourself.

So people elect Progressives, continue to be economically sodomized, and wonder "where's the beef?" Doesn't help the Progressive brand.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
87. The Progressive Caucus is the largest in Washington.
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:56 PM
May 2013

Problem is, the DLCers control the Party and the message. The Corporatist Dems even view Progressives as a greater enemy than Republicans. One only has to look at Wasserman-Schultz, who when she was director of the DCCC "Red to Blue" program, denied funds to progressive candidates running against her Republican friends. The Democratic Party of Florida is even more hostile to Progressives. And then theres Rahm Emmanuel's outright hostility and scorn of Progressives. Frankly, if this trend continues (and I see no evidence it won't), then Progressives will continue to leave the party (as they did voting for Nader) and vote Green or something.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
88. A great question but I think you need to take it one step at a time.
Sun May 5, 2013, 11:00 PM
May 2013

First, we need to understand why the American Left hasn't convinced more Democrats to vote for Progressive Candidates. If we can't get our "own house in order", I don't think we can expect non-Dems (or "not currently Dems&quot to get excited about our candidates.

dogknob

(2,431 posts)
95. Suiciding, accidenting, overdosing, Reserve Army of Lone Gunmen, & Media Fear n' Disruption machine
Mon May 6, 2013, 01:20 AM
May 2013

We will not get anywhere unless the media and telecom are re-regulated... and that will probably have to be done by force.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
97. It sounds like you accept the notion that we have a far right party and a center right party.
Mon May 6, 2013, 01:39 AM
May 2013

So why don't you tell us why you think the left has little to no representation in our government.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
122. Well, for this post anyway. Third Way messaging demands the same sort of mental contortions
Mon May 6, 2013, 10:53 AM
May 2013

as Schroedinger's Cat.

Either our Democratic politicians are right-wing because the country really leans rightward and those "fucking retarded" (thanks, Rahm) hippies just are out of touch with that reality...

OR our Democratic politicians really do care about the elderly and the poor and the same values and policy goals as traditional Democrats, but they just can't get past those recalcitrant Republicans to represent the will of the people.

It's like living in Wonderland, with all the shifting excuses. But it's a very special type of Wonderland, unequalled in its snide contempt for average Americans.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
126. Exactly-- shifting excuses.
Mon May 6, 2013, 12:33 PM
May 2013

It's why I don't bother really engaging on questions like this anymore. The entire groundwork their argument is based around can flip 180 degrees as needed. And back again.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
103. It is the money, honey.
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:07 AM
May 2013

Big money runs the show now. Big money does NOT bankroll progressives.
It is, IMO, ludicrous to point fingers at complaining progressives. And you know what? An example - Obama made some progressive noises, and progressives voted for him and then oh dear, we should have known he was not a progressive.
Where is the chance to elect a progressive to higher office these days?

So - are people seriously fucking telling progressives they must change what they believe in and be enthusiastic for the current crop, Obama on down, of corporate-owned third-way DLC Dino's? Fuck that.
I end up voting for what really is the lesser of two evils - but I am supposed to join the choir and warble hosannas?

The tea baggers are successful BECAUSE THEY HAVE KOCH MONEY BEHIND THEM.
It is not a matter of principle. If progressives had as much money and power behind them, they could be as successful as the teabaggers.
But the 1% is not going to back any liberal or progressive candidate, ever.

There's a great Leonard Cohen song that pretty much spells out how things have been for a long long time - "Everybody Knows" - check the lyrics out sometime.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
105. I agree! We have failed miserably in terms of messaging. And when we lose battles we tend to
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:23 AM
May 2013

give up. The political right NEVER does that. Their voters NEVER threaten to stay home and not vote. They seldom start third parties (ironic, since the Republican Party was a third party) to hurt their own party. They just never give up no matter how badly they lose, no matter what issues haven't been taken up. They are resilent.

The political left is unorganized, sloppy, and whiny. Rather than come together and support a person, we tend to run away from candidates who are not ideologically pure on every single issue. There are too many issues on the left. If the candidate neglects to address any one or more of the millions of issues, we get angry and fail to support that candidate. The political right keeps things simple: God, guns, and gays. That's it. Pretty simple. Idiotic but simple. Dumbed-down, but still simple.

We also don't have a masterful language manipulator working for us like a Frank Luntz. There are great people out there like Drew Westen, for instance, but the Democratic Party is an ideologically fractured and diverse party. That's the good news. The bad news is that it is because the party is so diverse that it is often difficult to come up with a unifying message or messages on more than a few issues.

And finally, we must realize that the machine that the conservative right has created has taken decades to build. From the think tanks, to the political mastery of grooming candidates at the local level for office. The left is impatient and lazy. Democrats used to excel at running local candidates for office. The party's recruiting efforts were unmatched. But then we lost the drive and the message. The Republicans built their conservative empire from the ground-up and they were able to manipulate the message through dominance of talk radio and mainstream media. The creation of think tanks funneled that message, too, and an effort to color facts with a conservative bias became the norm.

When Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, conservatives were able to push their *simple* messages through a filter. Anti-government sentiment is not new. It's always been here since the country's founding. But for some reason, conservatives have been able to push the message that the government does nothing good...to the point where you hear Democrats buying into this crap, too.

Liberals need to realize that in order for the president to get anything progressive done, you must MAKE him do so by electing more progressive Democrats to Congress. It's really that simple. However, if we liberals continue to fail at messaging, continue to be disorganized and divided, and rather than taking action, whine about what's not being done, then we have to accept the status quo.

Just my thoughts.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
162. THREAD. WINNER. Thank you for your HONESTY.
Mon May 6, 2013, 07:59 PM
May 2013

But I guess when you can blame everything on corporations and Third Wayers (and notice that the people who do this never, ever seem to blame Republicans for anything), why the hell would you ever need to do some introspection.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
204. But you think the goals of liberals are "lofty and laughable".
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:10 PM
May 2013

So really, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you then downplay the relevance of terms like "Third Wayer"?

Number23

(24,544 posts)
209. Oh, so you DID see my post to you!
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:24 PM
May 2013

I was wondering 'cause you were so quick to leap into the conversation with your "machine gunning support" comment but turned blind and fingerless when I and another poster called you out on it.

Though, after reading this post I can understand why you didn't bother responding upthread. That is one seriously bad interpretation of what I didn't say. I said some liberals think that being a liberal means nothing more than tearing down Dems that don't meet their laughable ideals of what a liberal should be. How you get "I think the goals of liberals are lofty and laughable" out of that is something ever so... special indeed.

The relevance of the Third Way only appears to dwell in the minds of the paranoid cretins who think that calling someone this is an insult. Most of us don't know or care about the Third Way. And the ones that seem to be so absolutely CONSUMED by this group/movement/cause whatever seem to be the most incoherent ones here. So that does say something, but probably not what the anti-Third Wayers were hoping.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
212. You act like you think you posted some kind of clever argument.
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:43 PM
May 2013

Yes, I saw your post upthread. I chose not to respond because you weren't doing much more than mindlessly ranting, and because your "lofty and laughable" comment was, I felt, a better condemnation of your position than anything I could ever say.

"...your lofty and mostly laughable ideals of what a liberal should be". Those are your words, describing the divide between people like yourself and people on "the left". I'd love to know which of those lofty, laughable traits you disagree with, however-- if you can keep yourself together for a moment.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
215. And you act as though you've posted something honest or even remotely relevant
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:54 PM
May 2013

that "..." before the cherry picked bit of quote that you posted says everything that needs to be said about you. Truly.

And you keep using the word "mindless." If ever there was a case of projection, you have highlighted it beautifully.

Edit: And I just double checked, my comment about some liberals tearing down Dems that don't meet their lofty and laughable ideals ws in response to rhet orick, not you. So your comment that you didn't respond because of that particular comment shows that you are even more dishonest and full of it than at first glance. Not a good look. At all.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
121. What snide, disingenuous Third Way propaganda this is.
Mon May 6, 2013, 10:38 AM
May 2013

Last edited Mon May 6, 2013, 04:32 PM - Edit history (5)

As though the mechanisms for silencing liberal voices weren't brazenly clear and in our faces every single day.

This inane OP pretends that the multi-billion dollar corporate media machine does not exist, and that it does not dominate the airwaves and the national conversation to promote its own candidates and destroy non-corporate upstarts before they even have a chance to begin. It entirely denies and ignores the billions and billions in funding required even to compete in elections at the national level. It ignores the deliberate restructuring of countless aspects of our political process over the past 30 years to shut out non-corporate voices, including the shameful seizing of control of the debate process and access to debates by the two corporate parties, changes in balloting and districting, and changes in campaign financing that allow plutocrats to hand-pick candidates and media memes.

The tone of this OP is the same, sneering "blame the victim and rub it in your face" garbage that we have come to expect from the Third Way. Like in the very same corporatists' "bootstraps" speeches to impoverished families, we are mocked and told, ludicrously, that we are just not trying hard enough.

This when ALL the evidence shows that the electorate is on our side already, but just are not given the chance to vote for a candidate who represents our views. Polling screams over and over again that the electorate craves more progressive policy positions. The proof of the scam is that corporate candidates invariably veer LEFTWARD during election season, brazenly lying that they support a public option, or want to defend Social Security...because they know as well as we do what the country really wants to hear. They spew the lies and the promises, and the desperate masses vote overwhelmingly for the lesser of two "viable" evils we are presented, and then as soon as the election is over these faux liberals are fellating the One Percent again.

What cynical, simplistic, manipulative garbage this OP is. What a marvelous example of how stupid Americans are assumed to be, and in what contempt we are held by the very ones who claim to represent us and be working on our behalf. And the icing on the cake is the use of the pronoun, "we," as though these Third Way vultures share any of the same economic values and goals as the millions of human beings out in the country they continually lecture and mock.

No, the country is not right-leaning. No, competing in national elections and the media is not simply a matter of will-power and a superior message. And, no, the Third Way is not on the side of the American people.

Yavin4

(35,310 posts)
127. I have a question for you.
Mon May 6, 2013, 01:01 PM
May 2013

If this is true:

This inane OP pretends that the multi-billion dollar corporate media machine does not exist, and that it does not dominate the airwaves and the national conversation to promote its own candidates and destroy non-corporate upstarts before they even have a chance to begin. It entirely denies and ignores the billions and billions in funding required even to compete in elections at the national level. It ignores the deliberate restructuring of countless aspects of our political process over the past 30 years to shut out non-corporate voices, including the shameful seizing of control of the debate process by the two corporate parties, changes in balloting and districting, and changes in campaign financing that allow plutocrats to hand-pick candidates and media memes.


then how can this be true?:

when ALL the evidence shows that the electorate is on our side already, but just are not given the chance to vote for a candidate who represents our views. Polling screams over and over again that the electorate craves more progressive policy positions.


If the electorate is brainwashed by the corporate dominated media, then why do they crave progressive policies?

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
129. Could it be a little of this, a little of that?
Mon May 6, 2013, 03:01 PM
May 2013

The mass media define the terms of the debate. For example convincing people we must cut Social Security to reduce the deficit, and repeating that as if it were a fact.

People still oppose Social Security cuts and wish they had more candidates who would vigorously defend Social Security. But over time, after enough exposure to the big lie presented as factual news, some people get confused and start to believe it.

In general it seems like the people who control the mass media and restrict the acceptable range of debate, are also the same people who restrict the options available to us when we go vote. They own and fund the media channels. They slobber money over politicians.

The big money special interests use their money to dominate the media message, spewing lies and emotional appeals, trying to shape public opinion. To the extent they aren't able to convince people, they also use their money to dominate the political process. They restrict the available political options and they influence the election results by campaign donations and direct spending such as via super-PACS and astroturfing.

So a little of this, a little of that.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
130. Unfortunately, skilled, smooth talking, charismatic corporate sponsored politicians
Mon May 6, 2013, 03:35 PM
May 2013

pretend to be progressive and get nominated by deceiving too many gullible people into believing they are progressive by repeatedly lying to us while they are campaigning.

After they get elected, they only primarily represent the wealthy private interests that sponsor them.

This is how the Third Way/DLC operates. They are skilled corporate marketers who make a living preying on the hopes, dreams, and needs of naive and uninformed citizens.

People crave progressive policies due to their reason and necessity.

People get RW Third Way representation because of their naivete.

Marketing. It's what wealthy private interests do to increase their profit, power, and control. They excel at deception.

You can make a lot of coin selling snake oil in this world ~ all you need is a smooth, forked tongue, a pretty face, and a shiny bottle of dreams to sell.

Yavin4

(35,310 posts)
138. So, the people are "too gullible" to see through the mass media
Mon May 6, 2013, 04:14 PM
May 2013

They just swallow what the charismatice corporate sponsored pols tell them, and there's no other way of reaching out to them. No other way to counter the mass media. No other way to reach them.

And there's nothing that the Left can do about it?

Do I have that corect?

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
174. Yes, you have that correct. The system is controlled by wealthy private interests.
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:16 PM
May 2013

The only possibility for change is some form of revolution.

We need an Elizabeth Warren, but we will be forced to accept a Hillary Clinton ~ the MSM and the DNC will insure that a Hillary Clinton is nominated. The Hillary Clinton will run against the heinous republican, and we will all be forced to vote for the Hillary Clinton. The bottom line of the 1% will increase, and the 99% will continue to sink into serfdom.

As for the gullibility of the conservative center, and right, spectrum of American voters...this about says it all:



Number23

(24,544 posts)
160. AWESOME questions. AWESOME
Mon May 6, 2013, 07:34 PM
May 2013
If the electorate is brainwashed by the corporate dominated media, then why do they crave progressive policies?

I made a similar point upthread - that Americans have always naturally leaned towards liberal principles but yet, tend to truly despise liberals. Corporations have gotten much too powerful and hold far too much sway in how we think, what we see etc. but there is really no getting around these questions.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
159. Bravo! Bravo! You have totally and awesomely hit the nail on the head!
Mon May 6, 2013, 07:28 PM
May 2013

I'm damn sick of being blamed for the boot on my neck.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
137. The mainstream party sabotages them, and the corporate press and media deny them publicity
Mon May 6, 2013, 04:14 PM
May 2013

That's what I've seen ever since the craven DLC decided that traditional Democrats were "too liberal" and had to become quasi-Republicans to succeed.

But maybe the peasants are starting to revolt.

Here in Minneapolis, some DFL city council members who had voted corporate welfare for a billionaire's football stadium (without following the rule that any such expenditures have to be put up for a vote) are finding themselves not endorsed at the precinct caucuses.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
173. Guerrilla marketing
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:16 PM
May 2013

I've told the story before, but in the 2004 Minnesota caucuses, Kucinich got 17%, his best showing anywhere. This was not because "Minnesota is a liberal state," because DK did not do well in Madison, Wisconsin, or Portland, Oregon, or Berkeley, California, or any other place that is typically considered more left than average.

We had a dedicated team of volunteers who leafleted at the State Fair in 2003, set up a table at any event that allowed tabling, had campaign info translated into the major immigrant languages, leafleted at Twins and Vikings games, put signs on freeway bridges, and badgered local media to provide coverage. We leafleted our neighborhoods. Dennis came to speak in the Twin Cities four times.

Some of the volunteers "adopted" a county in Iowa, and DK won that county. He got 27% in the urban areas of the Twin Cities and won a few precincts.

Sad to say, I and the other veterans of 2004 were ready to go when DK announced his candidacy in 2007, but the call never came. None of us were contacted until we got a begging phone call asking for money just before Dennis withdrew. I don't know if someone deliberately sabotaged the campaign or what.

But anyway, this offers a clue for how to get leftists elected, especially now that so many people are so discontented with both parties. If the mass media and the party power structure won't respect you, bypass them.

If I were telling a real left party or faction how to gain control, I'd tell them to start small. Do what the righties did. Run for school board, city council, anything that doesn't require a lot of money and can make efficient use of person-to-person actions.

Also, be sure to find out what the real local concerns are and propose solutions. Back in the 1980s, someone ran for city council on the Citizens' Party platform. Unfortunately, his campaign was all about non-intervention in Central America and nuclear disarmament, both laudable goals, but Minneapolis was not sending military advisors to Central America or making nuclear weapons. Minneapolis residents in those days were concerned about snow removal, a remarkably ham-fisted school integration program, and a cabal of real estate speculators who were driving up rents. The Citizens' Party candidate had nothing to say about those issues and barely got any votes.

dem in texas

(2,672 posts)
151. Gerrymandering
Mon May 6, 2013, 06:07 PM
May 2013

Much of it has to do with the way the districts are gerrymandered for all levels of elections. In a federal election, my democratic vote means nothing because I live in Texas. Here in Dallas, I live in a area that is strongly Democratic, but the state and local keep slicing the districts apart so the powers to be can have their selected candidates elected. Scott Griggs used to be my Dallas city councilman. Now he has been thrown in with another city council member because he did not vote for the toll road in the river bottoms. I have not good choice for councilman anymore, both candidates will vote with the white citizens council to build the toll road. I have voted against the road once and the matter won't die because land developers who own the land edging the flood area keep the matter alive. They just keep changing the make-up of the voting districts and sooner or later they will get what they want. I image it is happening everywhere. Look at Austin, a heavy democratic stronghold, it was split up, I think with parts of the town in five districts. I used to live in Anchorage, Alaska and had the same thing happen there. I lived in the Muldoon area, but had to go out on O'Malley road to vote because of gerrymandering.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
152. The silly protesters taking down LBJ gave us everything bad and in fact,made the war go on longer
Mon May 6, 2013, 06:09 PM
May 2013

The democratic party easily could have been president since 1960

and if not for those hating "the egghead" and electing Reagan the first(Eisenhower),
in actuality, the democratic party would have had the presidency since FDR.

stupid were the fracturers and the protesters and the whiners who wanted 100%.

Do you all remember-it took LBJ getting republican votes and having 67 senators to ram through what ONLY LBJ did.

yet the silly protesters blamed LBJ for the one thing any president would have done, and in fact Truman/Eisenhower/JFK started Vietnam anyhow.

and they would happily sell the party down again


EASY ANSWER-
ONE has to vote straight democratic, get the 67 that LBJ had, get rid of the REPUBLICANS from office the next 6 cycles

and then it can be 80-20.

doing anything else is just well, oh so obvious.

any defection only helps Jeb Bush and the Bush family again.

one can whine and hide that fact, but it is the truth.

these stupid soundbytes the 3rd way is the Nader way.Stop with the soundbytes. Take the loss and whine whine whine.


kentuck

(110,916 posts)
155. The "American left" is not blameless...
Mon May 6, 2013, 07:04 PM
May 2013

They have not tried to convince voters that their side is the correct one. They have simply gone along with the PTB within the Democratic Party. For the last 25 years, that has been the DLC, a group of centrist Democrats that persuaded the rest of the Party, including the left, that they were better at winning elections. But it did not come without a price.

derby378

(30,252 posts)
158. Too much emphasis on gun control
Mon May 6, 2013, 07:27 PM
May 2013

I've run across a few folks with the same story: "You know, I'd be willing to give my vote to some of these Democrats, but the only thing stopping me is that I'm afraid they're gonna rip up the Second Amendment, so that's a deal-breaker."

Democratic candidates need to get behind Toomey-Manchin and promote the hell out of it until it becomes a reality. But any loose talk about new gun bans or even magazine bans will be met with increased resistance even within our own party. And with the midterms coming up before we know it, this could be rather important.

Hotler

(11,325 posts)
163. Because......
Mon May 6, 2013, 08:10 PM
May 2013

even to many democrats and liberials have the attitude "I have mine. Fuck the rest of you." or "Until it happens to me and my family I'm not getting involved."

Zoeisright

(8,339 posts)
171. Because it takes some intelligence to vote for progressive candidates.
Mon May 6, 2013, 10:53 PM
May 2013

And stupid people always go with the candidate who tells them what they want to hear: that they are smart people (which they're not), their bigotry is A-OK (which it's not), that the poor are poor because they made poor choices (also wrong), and that looking down on others makes them feel better.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
198. It's time for truth. Conservatives and conservatism are bad for children.
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:40 PM
May 2013

Conservatism has all but destroyed our country and democracy. Reagan and Bush were violent, evil monsters; austerity is causing human suffering worldwide.

Being conservative is stupid, and is totally not cool.

Shout it from the rooftops, acknowledge the obvious truth: Conservatism is anti-life. It is a destructive and inhuman philosophy of action and being.

We must stop coddling conservatives, stop pretending that their ideas have any constructive value. It has been proven over and over that conservatism is a destructive force in every area of human and planetary existence.

Limbaugh and his ilk were successful at brainwashing naive people into believing that conservative is good and liberal is bad by repeatedly pounding that message into people's heads day after day, month after month, year after year.

Liberal became a four letter word because of deliberate, sustained RW corporatist propaganda, and even some on the left bought into the lies

This is generally apparent; quite obvious even here at DU.

Now we are faced with having to undo the brainwashing Limbaugh and his fascist ilk have instilled into the national collective consciousness. It's time for kindness, reason, equality, justice, and sanity to reign.

Corporatism = Conservatism

Sing it with me:

♫ Conservatives, and conservatism, are really bad for children, kittens, all life, and our lovely home, this planet earth. ♫

Really, really bad.

This is what conservativism does to children

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
218. Those people who represent today's political Right are not true conservatives.
Tue May 7, 2013, 10:09 PM
May 2013

Last edited Tue May 7, 2013, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)

They're nothing but reactionaries and regressives. They favor policies that mirror what life used to be like in the Gilded Era. Most so-called conservatives nowadays care very little about actually "conserving" anything, whether it's the Big 3, Roe v. Wade, Affirmative Action, gay rights, the Civil Rights Act, affordable health care, or the environment. And they always increase the deficit and unemployment when in office.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
220. But who is/was a true conservative? Strom Thurmond? Ronald Reagan? Jesse Helms?
Tue May 7, 2013, 11:27 PM
May 2013

Joe McCarthy? George Wallace? J. Edgar Hoover? Richard Nixon? Pat Buchanan? Pat Robertson? Barry Goldwater? Rahm Emanuel? Dick Cheney? Gerald Ford? Evan Bayh? William F. Buckley? Herbert Hoover? Calvin Coolidge? Ayn Rand? Hitler? Mussolini? Limbaugh? Stalin? Fred Phelps? George F. Will? Al From? Will Marshall?


Honestly, I think this ideal of "the true conservative" is nothing but a myth created by people who grew up during the Reagan years and got brainwashed into believing that conservatism was something noble and desirable.

It simply isn't. Conservatism is intolerant, greed driven, icky, stupid, and destructive.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
228. It's the old Adlai Stevenson joke
Wed May 8, 2013, 12:27 AM
May 2013

His advisors told him that Adlai was winning the intellectual vote, and he responded with, "Yes, but how do we get the other ninety percent of voters?"

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
188. there is no organized american left. there's a bunch of front groups associated with the demo-
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:55 AM
May 2013

cratic party and some special interest groups funded by foundations.

brooklynite

(93,626 posts)
191. ...because Americans aren't, by and large, progressive.
Tue May 7, 2013, 07:21 AM
May 2013

They're middle of the road, centrist, and VERY small "c" conservative (not ideologically, but resistant to major change in either direction).

As a result, faced with a progressive who wants to change things and a Conservative who claims he doesn't (whether or not that's true), they'll tend to go for the Conservative.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
193. That requires a sustained effort that offers people positive choices using positive language.
Tue May 7, 2013, 08:28 AM
May 2013

The folks who think that the Democratic Party is not progressive enough do not seem to be able to put anything like that together.

They are very good at attacking Democrats and other people. They don't seem to have much political game beyond that.

Yavin4

(35,310 posts)
194. IOW, We Have To Be More Likeable. If people don't like you, then they turn off to you.
Tue May 7, 2013, 09:32 AM
May 2013

How would you propose overcoming the massive advantage that the corporate media has?

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
195. Not exactly. The message has to be a positive one, not necessarily the folks saying it.
Tue May 7, 2013, 10:40 AM
May 2013

Although that helps.

Negative wording and campaigning works in elections and it works to stop other folks initiatives for being passed. It's not so good as a reason to adopt a slate of laws or policies that you are suggesting are best for people.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
211. Very nicely said, Steven. And as has been pointed out, Exhibits A-Z of exactly what
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:40 PM
May 2013

you're talking about have shown up over and over again in this thread.

Atman

(31,464 posts)
205. Because the AMERICAN RIGHT owns the media.
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:13 PM
May 2013

Period. Seriously, end of discussion.

If the mythical "George Soros" was everything that the Right claims he is, the left would own several tv networks. But it's all bullshit. We're wallowing in the results of a concerted 30+ year effort by the GOP to take over the dialog through sheer force of DOLLARS. The left still thinks we can play fair, while the right kicks us in the balls and laughs about it.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
210. We're too busy talking down to red states
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:58 PM
May 2013

Unfortunately, there is a vast cultural gulf between progressive and conservative areas of the country that requires bridging. Instead of trying to understand rural and southern America, progressives like to mock and belittle them endlessly with a (somewhat unearned) sense of inherent superiority.

It's difficult to persuade someone you're actively shitting on.

But, we still delight in it. Just read the gun threads around here. I am pretty solidly for gun control, but holy hell, I'm glad no one reads DU to be persuaded. The hatred and disdain for the Other is so thick, I can't believe people don't actively choke on it.

We have, over time, become a not so pleasant people. Not that Republicans are either. But you can't ask for a vote after spitting on someone. Just doesnt work.

librechik

(30,659 posts)
213. all politicians want to win. All politicians are convinced their constituents are far more
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:48 PM
May 2013

conservative than they actually are. Therefore politicians run on a conservative agenda. And voters complain they can't fine progressives to vote for.

Spike89

(1,569 posts)
214. Two reasons, I think
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:48 PM
May 2013

The first is the biggest and hardest to combat. When it comes to progressive economic issues, the message is, if not counterintuitive, at least somewhat complicated compared to the right wing's simple sloganeering. Taxation is obvious example...teabaggers shout "no more taxes" and progressives shout "tax fairly and spend the money on infrastructure, jobs programs and other areas where it will help all of us". No one likes paying taxes, but progressives know that they are needed to maintain a strong society. It is difficult to make nuanced arguments against slogan chanters.

The second reason is related somewhat, but really is an image problem. Progressives lead with our hearts on social issues and aren't as reactionary as conservatives. We're still associated with the counter-culture in many older people's minds, and in some instances on some issues, even the younger generations. That makes us easy enough targets for simplified attacks--we're "anti-America", anti-religion, soft on crime, etc. Even when we are right and the general population moves toward our views (marriage equality) we win the battle, but still get tarred with the broad brush strokes of being anti-family, immoral, etc. Even among those who agree with most of the Democratic social platform, we're seen as the party/ideology that is more touchy-feely than pragmatic realists.

So, we have the reputation of not being as "practical" as the other side, and when it comes to economics, that is major problem. In a nutshell, we have a more difficult time explaining our economic positions and less reputation as "serious" in the realm of economic theory. The media buys into this, partly because it is in their interest to do so, partly because it all makes for grand theater (which is what they exist for).

One last example of this in action...the "job creators" meme is accepted by virtually everyone on the right, the vast majority of the middle, and possibly even a majority of the left. Business owners DO NOT create jobs. Demand for a business' products or services creates jobs. Demand comes from the people, not business owners. For instance, if Joe Blow opens a tea bagging business, he only hires someone if he absolutely must in order to satisfy his customer base. All corporations (by design) and most businesses have one goal--maximize profit. The only way to do that is to keep costs low and prices high--that means minimum workforce to supply the demand. It isn't rocket science. Businesses are not in the business of creating jobs, they are actually in the business of minimizing the amount of payroll they must pay.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
216. The responses to this thread have been illuminating. Thanks for posting it
Tue May 7, 2013, 07:31 PM
May 2013

I do think you could have shown a bit more support to what Starry Messenger was saying.

But besides the small handful of non-reading, truth-shredding denialists, I think you've gotten at least a few people to think about how things could be done a bit differently. LiberalStalwarts posts have been phenomenal. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2804986

Warpy

(110,744 posts)
229. Most people don't believe anything unless
Wed May 8, 2013, 12:34 AM
May 2013

they hear it from some pompous talking head on television.

And we know what they're all telling them.

The corporate stranglehold on our media is part of the problem, certainly. The left has been shut out since the early 70s.

LeftInTX

(24,417 posts)
230. I also agree this was a great thread.
Wed May 8, 2013, 12:35 AM
May 2013

I would like to see more progressives elected, but it isn't easy.

I see a lot plain old bashing here on DU. Sure sometimes it's fun to bash and have a sense of humor about things. And it is important to be critical, especially if being critical can lead to change. But when people bash Obama and keep bashing him, it drives me nuts. It reminds me of kids I went to high school with. The kids who would always make fun of the teachers.


It makes me scratch my head because I joined this forum to not only learn more about politics, but also because I want to be a better citizen myself.

If you live in a district who can elect a progressive, I think it is great. Keep at it. But don't undermine the efforts of those that live in red states or purple districts. We can't help it and we have to work harder than everyone else.

fujiyama

(15,185 posts)
237. The average opinion of those on the right
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:26 AM
May 2013

is that progressives are generally weak, against individual merit, and are not in favor of hard work.

That's impression from the conservatives I've worked with. Never mind that much of the ideology on the right rests on disproven beliefs than cutting spending (austerity!) during economic downturns actually works. And don't bother mentioning such lack of investment cuts off the necessary creativity and innovation needed for the nation to get ahead.

So basically it's just blind ideological worship - on everything - environment, spending, health care, etc.

Oh and they hate gays and are paranoid because they love their guns more than just about anything else. Oh and progressives don't believe in God and hate Christians, but love Islam.

So the 3-Gs. It may be cliche, but that's all it really boils down to.

 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
238. THE PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS IS THE LARGEST DEM CAUCUS IN CONGRESS!
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:37 AM
May 2013

So, there.

And before I go, Elizabeth Warren, motherf*ckers!

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
252. It is the Democratic party that has the most say on who runs.
Wed May 8, 2013, 04:14 PM
May 2013

You want more progressives, liberals, and leftists, then people need to organize at the local level. Get a sufficient number of progressives to run for position in the Democratic party leadership in your district or town. Elect progressives as city councils, school commissioners, mayors. Move these people to state elected office, and then federal elected office. A real "progressive" or "liberal" is not going to appear magically with a following that will get him or her elected.

The left in this country has been moribund for decades. The Republicans moved from right wing to far right wing to radical right. The democrats followed across the political center and now range from barely left to center to classic Conservatives. The Affordable Health Care Act is better than what we hand, bit is almost completely a Conservative Republican bill from the 1990's. So, in many ways, the Democratic party is now a 1990's Republican Party. The Republican Party consists of radicals and John Birch Society want-to-bes who the Republicans rejected in the 50's.

Getting real "progressives" in control will require a long slow slog and will need grassroots level organization.

 

YoungDemCA

(5,714 posts)
256. A better question would be: Why has the Democratic Party attacked, bullied, mocked, and ridiculed...
Wed May 8, 2013, 07:00 PM
May 2013

..anything remotely "progressive", let alone "Left", and why has the Democratic Party become so much closer to the Republican Party on almost every substantive, meaningful issue?

Before you chastise the Left, realize that the Left has almost entirely been shut out of the halls of power, the media, and any public platform that would give them influence.

How do you convince more Americans to vote for progressive, left-wing candidates? It's not a fair fight to begin with. The Right has untold amounts of wealth, which buys them access to politicians of both parties and to the mainstream media (who, in this corporate conglomerate world, have the same interests as the Right-profit). The Right has a vast network of think tanks, journals, and other propaganda outlets, which subject the people to right-wing propaganda on a daily basis. And the Democratic Party at best, only mildly resists these developments and at worst, is a willing collaborator in the deprivation of the American working class and poor.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why Hasn't The American L...