You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #4: Your response is fine and appreciated, just as it always is. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-02-14 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Your response is fine and appreciated, just as it always is.
Edited on Sun Feb-02-14 06:51 PM by No Elephants
We agree on all the important things, anyway.

Always good to see you, too!

Demonization of the word "liberal" may have started with the right, but it is now very much a bipartisan endeavor, thanks to organizations like the DLC, Third Way, etc.

Maybe it was always a bipartisan endeavor: There was always a conservative wing of the Democratic Party, mostly white Southern males. It is from that wing, for the most part, that DLC arose. Hillary and Lieberman were notable exceptions to that general comment, she as to gender and he as to geography.

And most of them were thought to have Presidential nominee potentil as well, at the time the DLC formed officially--Bubba Clinton, Lieberman and Gore ran and Hillary probably will. Others, like Warner and Robb were mentioned as having potential, and so on. And, if you think about it, it's hard for Republicans to dissuade Democratic voters about anything. Unless influential Democrats help the Republicans with the discrediting, Democratic voters will just dig in their heels all the more. Besides, I never noticed any push back from elected Democrats to defend the word "liberal."

We know that the discrediting had begun before JFK's Presidential campaign because he apparently felt compelled to explain why he was proud to get the nomination of the NY Liberal Party. /

The word "liberal" has lost its meaning at this point, anyway. Saw someone post at DU3 that he or she heartily approved of the job that Obama is doing and that poster called himself or herself "extremeliberal." I also see the pro-Obama, pro-Hillary wing there describing themselves as "liberal."

If they are liberals and even extreme liberals, what the hell am I? I feel a lot more kinship with Democrats like FDR, Truman, LBJ, et al. I do not agree with them on everything, nor do I consider them saints. To the contrary, I consider heinous some of the things for which they were responsible, like internment of the Japanese. However, I recognize them as Democrats. Bubba, Hillary, Obama--I have no clue what they are. But, again, if they are "liberal," as so many claim they are, what am I?

Another thing that is making the word "liberal" meaningless is that it has always meant something very different outside the US than it means in the US, more of a pro-business stance. I won't say "free market" because free markets seems to cost taxpayers a hell of a lot. The existence of two very different definitions of "liberal" becomes more of a problem as the world gets smaller. I've been berated for being liberal by Europeans whom I would consider liberal by the American definition. They and I agreed on issues, but the word alone tripped us up. They thought I was pro big business. And I had no other word to use for myself.

And then the fricking word "neoliberal" further dilutes and confuses the meaning of "liberal." Not wure what to do about all that, even if I could do anything.

The word "progressive," which the DLCers foisted on us, is also meaningless, IMO. I think many people who use it think it means what "liberal" used to mean in the 1960s and 1970s. I think they intended to be meaningless and, almost for that reason, acceptable to everyone.

Will Marshall helped found the DLC, signed the PNAC letter and also founded the Progressive Policy Institute--which used to describe its website as "the place for pragmatic progressives"--as distinguished, I supposed, from the wholly impractical liberals--as if the New Deal were not a pragmatic response to the Crash of 1929 cum Dustbowl.

Didn't seem to stop FDR and other D.C. Democrats from getting elected, either. If FDR had been blessed with eternal life, he'd probably still be President. And Democrats controlled Congress almost continuously for 40 years. But, hell, if you really believe that the only way Democrats can get elected is to be culturally liberal Republicans, why don't we just have one party and work to make it more culturally liberal?

Apparently, the Republican Party has at least four wings already, anyway. If that is the way to go, we've been wasting billions of dollars and work hours on ginning up a fake electoral division. Cause I sure ain't recognizing the New Democrats. (Even the fact that they dubbed themselves the New Democrat Coalition, rather than the New Democratic Coalition seems more of a Republican choice than a Democratic one.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC