Naming liberal values after a single politician is fucking weird

[La Lioness Priyanka]

i don't know why that is a thing except to keep the infighting in the democratic party going.

I support social justice and economic justice and politicians who can stand up for these values. I don't have Andrew Cuomo values or Bill de Blasio values, they both represent my values in some significant ways.

[Fast Walker 52]

1. I haven't seen that-- can you give an example?

Like "Sanders values"?

[msanthrope]

21. Who said anyone was talking about a person who is not a Democrat?

To the jury....... in plain fact Sanders is registered as an Independent and not a Democrat.

[Fast Walker 52]

23. he ran as a Democrat, of course, and he's the only person I've heard referred to in that way at all

[bravenak]

2. I agree. It should never be about one single politician

[MineralMan]

3. Very true. If you look back and read the

Democratic platforms from past conventions, you'll see that those values are always reflected in them. Of course, platforms are just targets set by the party, but they are consistent.

Would that we could accomplish all the goals set in our platforms. Sadly, there are always forces working against that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. and some of those forces are the voters

some people like to pretend that Heidi Heitkamp has the same voters with the same values as Liz Warren. they are being completely untruthful.

[MineralMan]

7. One of the things I have always enjoyed about Minnesota's

caucus system was the ability, at the precinct level, for an individual to present a resolution or platform statement. Those are voted on by caucus attendees and, if they pass, they go on to the next level convention. So, on up the line, those resolutions and platform statements get voted on. The ones that survive or are the same as others that pass, end up at the state convention. From there, they are taken to the national convention for consideration.

It's one of the ways that the Democratic Party is responsive to input from individuals. I've presented some of those things at our caucus meetings, and have seen them go through the process. Where my resolutions or platform statements have been essentially the same as others from other caucuses and convention, they have gone on to become part of the state Party's platform or have become state resolutions.

We can influence the party as individuals, and we most definitely should.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. agreed. i just find it weird how much angrier people here get at the 2 blue dog dems

than ALL the GOP voting for trump's nominees. including some from far less red states than WV.

[MineralMan]

10. Yes. While I am sometimes frustrated by those particular Democrats,

I try to look at their voting record. If they vote mainly with the Democratic Caucus, I don't criticize them too heavily. I realize that it's very, very difficult for Democrats to get elected in some districts. I wouldn't vote for a blue dog, but I don't have to where I live. Everyone isn't so lucky, though.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. i'd vote for a blue dog over a GOP any day

[MineralMan]

12. Yes. Any Democrat is better that the whole lot of Republicans.

Even the blue dogs. Not always, and not on every issue, but overall.

[HassleCat]

5. I could maybe see Roosevelt.

Since the New Deal was such a genesis for the modern Democratic Party. Even then, your point stands that one person cannot really cover the whole thing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. yeah, and the new deal purposefully excluded blacks

so to that effect even calling in Roosevelt values, in the current day Democratic party, is fucking weird.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Unless we are talking about Eleanor Roosevelt...

What an amazing woman she was, it's still hard to find any fault with her.

Just had to say that. I agree with the OP

[Blue_true]

28. It excluded Blacks and the SS Retirement age was selected at 65 years old

because few men that paid into SS was expected to live long enough to collect.

[NurseJackie]

13. It divisive. When people do things like that ...

... what they're suggesting is that ONLY that politician represents those values. Or that that one god-like politician represents the values so perfectly, that he/she and only he/she, is the standard by which all other politicians should be judged.

It's a vain form of self-flattery, and it's something that's typically done by the hard-core supporters of that politician. The vanity and self flattery is that they are boasting THEIR OWN intelligence or THEIR OWN perfection by being a supporter of the so-named politician.

It also alienates other people who happen to support other politicians who also share similar liberal values. The underlying message from people who name liberal values after a single politician is also a passive-aggressive put-down and insult.

i don't know why that is a thing except to keep the infighting in the democratic party going.

You're correct. That's the purpose entirely. It accomplishes nothing of value.

I support social justice and economic justice and politicians who can stand up for these values. I don't have Andrew Cuomo values or Bill de Blasio values, they both represent my values in some significant ways.

Exactly. Yes. Thank you. The type of behavior you've described does seem to ignore that fact.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. super passive aggressive way of basically claiming 'i am more liberal than thou'

like fuck you, no you are not.

(obviously not referring to you Nursejackie)

[keithbvadu2]

19. Religious purity... Political purity.

Thou hast the correct attitude/platform/belief system.

As long as you agree with me.

Thinking of the Sanders people who said they would not vote for Hillary because Sanders did not win.

'My way' - not 'Our way'.

[Blue_true]

29. As a young worker, I agreed vigorously with an extremely leftward

person who was advocating voting for Ross Perot solely because Perot's stance on the then not yet approved NAFTA Treaty. None of Perot's caveman views on all other issues mattered to that person. That argument took place before some on the far left voted for Nader because Gore was not good enough and that voted for Stein because Hillary was not good enough.

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. Agreed.

[NurseJackie]

16. BUT ... I think it's appropriate to name LIBERAL laws, acts and ammendments after the politician/s

... who wrote them (introduced them, sponsored them, etc.)

If you think about it ... when it comes to LIBERAL or PROGRESSIVE politicians, that's a very nice way to recognize their efforts. It's also a pretty good way to measure a politician's success and respect and influence and success.

I'm sure there are some exceptions (especially when it comes to ugly and REGRESSIVE laws). The Hyde Amendment comes to mind.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. Sure. Obamacare, for instance.

Love how it's getting more and more popular by the minute

[NurseJackie]

18. When any liberal leader has difficulty in turning his or her visions into reality, that tells me ...

... that he or she may not be as successful as some believe or assert.

I suppose it's one thing when a politician's rhetoric is able to enthrall liberal voters, but what he or she is actually able to accomplish (in the form of legislation) is the TRUE MEASURE of whether he or she has been an effective representative or just a gadfly to entertain those who are perpetually discontent.

We probably shouldn't consider things like resolutions, which are either symbolic or procedural in nature... I'm talking about things that actually help citizens and make their lives better, or that help our government to run better, or that benefit our planet.

Now, I realize that I'm probably sounding a bit harsh. So I'd like to add that junior (or first-term) lawmakers shouldn't be judged as critically as their more seasoned colleagues. After all, it does take a while to get a feel for how things run, and to develop friendships and alliances. In that regard, it makes sense that first-term senators may not be as effective as someone who's been in congress for 25 years.

I imagine it might be difficult (at first) for a newly-minted lawmaker to find his or or political niche where he or she can advance their political and ideological priorities.

Sen. Jack Reed (for example) is a Rhode Island Democrat who has amassed 25 years in Congress and who has has had eight bills signed into law out of 376 introduced. That's an impressive record of success.

[keithbvadu2]

20. Democrats should STOP calling it Obamacare.

Democrats should STOP calling it Obamacare.

The GOP has framed it as stopping Obamacare which is an evil name to their base.

Start calling it only by the name 'ACA' and local names such as Kynect which people who have it like.

Many of the base do not know they are the same.

Keep hammering that republicans want to repeal what many of their base wants to keep.

'Republicans want to cancel your ACA healthcare insurance'

[Leith]

22. I've Been Avoiding That Term, Too

For the same reasons.

[ismnotwasm]

24. Especially if they obviously have very little understanding of history

Certain "FDR" fans for instance.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. Yup

[Warren DeMontague]

25. You mean I can't call it "Debbie Wasserman Schultz Cannabis Legalization" anymore?

No, of course I can't.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/on-medical-marijuana-debbie-wasserman-schultz-sounds-like-a-republican-6544176

[JHan]

26. I've never understood it myself.

Liberal values have evolved over time, due to the efforts of many.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists.

Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"


Tao Te Ching, Ch. 17

[Orsino]

31. The whole "I'm with her" thing was a similar shorthand.

I didn't like saying I was "with" Bernie, either, though that's not intended as a slight. Maybe it's the contrarian in me, but the implied abdocation of responsibility is unappealing. Neither candidate was perfect in my sight; in the primary and the general I supported the candidate whose values and history best reflected my own beliefs..

When the match is close enough, the shorthand is very convenient.