Is there a place in the Democratic party for the DLC/centrists?

[DLCfromGA]

I've been sort of disheartened by the political atmosphere of the past year. I pretty young (22) and I got into politics during the Clinton era. I was a big fan of him and members of his administration (Rubin, Cohen, Clark, Albright, etc.) I was drawn to his centrist wing of the party-- I am a big supporter of free trade, balanced budgets, but also support more spending on education, health care, etc. The "New Democrats" seemed to be delivering on that agenda.

Now, it seems like the New Democrats and DLC are on the run. I think Bush has done a horrible job in a lot of areas (lack of commitment to trade, bungling Iraq, disregard for allies, huge defecits, horrible farm bill, political flip flopping, etc.) I would love for Bush to be pushed out in 2004...

For someone with beliefs like Clinton. However, a lot of the people on this board and in Democratic circles seem to disagree. I want a president that supports health care and education funding, free trade, is not a mindless corporate basher, is solid national defense, and is generally socially liberal... but I don't know if one (Lieberman) is going to win the primary. I don't know if I could support a candidate that wants to revoke NAFTA/GATT, have "reregulation," and weaken national defense, even over G Dubb. It seems that Democrats want an anti-Bush instead of a solid candidate with solid policies.

A lot of you guys seem to rail against the DLC, though they form a large part of the elected officers.

So I ask you guys... Is there any place for the DLC or people like me (pro business, pro-national defense, pro health care/education, pro social liberties, pro free trade, pro-balanced budget) in the Democratic party?

[mouse7]

1. How about the surface of the sun? n/t

[mot78]

2. Yes

The anger at the DLC is mostly because they haven't been agressive enough towards Bush. I consider myself to be moderate, but not in the DLC-pandering to Bush way. I used to respect the DLC, but the way they've treated Dean and the fact that they botched the 2002 midterms (despite "their" sucess in getting Clinton and Gore the popular vote...wait it was Clinton and Gore who did that themselves!)

I see no reason why "moderates" shouldn't be Democrats, but the problem with the DLC as a group is that they're inheritly a reactive group (their very existence is a reaction to the Reagan/Bush admin's sucesses)offering little in the way of bold initiatives, while trying to mold the Democrats into a party that only works on the Reagan-inspired political spectrum that we've been on for the last two decades.
They either have to become proactive and reach out to Dems of other stripes, or become irrelevant as a group.

[DLCfromGA]

5. True

This is probably true as some prominent DLCers (Clinton and Gore may be two of them) were much more liberal than they practiced...

There seem to be few centrist Democrats by conviction (Breaux, one of the best, is leaving). Ford Jr, Lieberman, Baucus seem to be a few of them. I hope more arise in the next few years.

I've always voted Democrat (though I have split my ticket a few times), but there seems to be a lack of centrism in both parties nowadays...

[blindpig]

54. Breaux one of the best?

That scum bucket is a big fat zero on the environment. fuck him.

[Hippo_Tron]

144. You don't understand the concept of centrist democrat do you?

Centrist democrats don't vote with their caucus 100% of the time. They vote with whatever they feel is best even if that sometimes means voting Republican. And no you can't replace them with liberals in the primary because they are generally well respected by their entire state (had Breaux run again there probably would've been no serious challange). You people need to get over the fact that nto every democrat is going to vote how you think they should.

[Zephyrbird]

75. "I've always voted Democrat, but split my ticket a few times."

???????????????????????????

Either you've always voted Democrat, or you're a ticket splitter. You can't "always vote Democrat" yet vote for Republicans now and then.

:shrug:

[mouse7]

7. No, it's a lot more than that.

The free trade agenda is doomed to failure. High growth economic policies are not sustainable. Economic growth is now a caniballistic illusion. The only way it can happen now is by eating the workforce that must support it. Wages and benefits must be slashed to make those rosy economic projections.

Right now, corporations have rights that people never have had and never will. A person cannot decide they are going to change their residency for tax purposed to Bermuda, take their health care plan from Canada, and vote in the US. Corporations now do that.

What is happening is not free trade. It's corporate protectionism.

[Bandit]

32. "Wages and benefits must be slashed "

There was a national policy group, I can't remember what they are called, but they said minimum wage was too high in Alaska and that if we wanted to have lower unemployment we need to lower our minimum wage. They said after doing their study they determined that each state with high minimum wage also had high unemployment. Cut the people's wages if they want to work seems to be their answer.

[mikehiggins]

3. Sure, why not?

The Democratic party is not a purist type organization that requires you pass a litmus test to join.

It is a political party and there are lots of points of view included within its boundaries.

Glad to see you take an interest.

[mouse7]

4. Seriously...

I feel that if you had the time to get to know the real effects of the forces of "free trade" and got to see and hear from the voices of fair trade, you would probably significantly alter your opinions.

[DLCfromGA]

6. I've researched the topic extensively...

And I continue to support trade and financial market liberalization... as do most developing countries... too bad Bush is inconsistent on the issue, issuing billions in subsidies to agribusiness in the US, imposing pointless steel tariffs, and the like...

[mouse7]

8. You support corporate protectionism, not free trade.

PEOPLE do not have the same rights and protections that corporations do in the WTO, NAFTA, and other trade agreements.

Please explain to me why corporations deserve more civil rights than people do.

[Isome]

9. They do not support free trade.

What most developing countries do support is FAIR TRADE.

[IrateCitizen]

23. In that case, you must be blind!

I continue to support trade and financial market liberalization... as do most developing countries....

News flash! Developing countries do NOT support financial market liberalization! In fact, they have been almost steadfastly AGAINST it because they don't have the institutions in place to support it, they don't have the NATIVE financial institutions in place to compete with outside interests, and it more than often results in large-scale capital flight.

Financial market liberalization? Ha! That's a good one. Just ask the Pacific Rim countries who had it shoved down their throats in the mid 1990's by the IMF -- leading to the Asian financial crisis of 1997.

What developing countries want is MARKET ACCESS. They want the rules to be fair in BOTH directions. There is high resistance to this by the US and EU (whether the US administration is a "D" or "R"). In fact, this is what led to the walkout of the developing nations in the Cancun WTO talks -- the US and EU were pushing financial market liberalization while refusing to lower their agricultural barriers. But hey, you've researched this topic "extensively", so you must know this already. :eyes:

[HereSince1628]

10. What makes you think that DLC is in the center and not on the right?

The DLC is to the democratic party as the Libertarians are to Republicans.

Instead of trying to highjack a party, the DLC ought to take its own international third way rhetoric seriously and go its own way. Then they can ask the question, is there room for democrats in the DLC?

[K-W]

11. The DLC is liberal

Get a grip. They are moderate liberals who feel that the best strategy for getting elected is to battle for the center. So far that startegy has gotten us a 2 term democratic president and nearly got us another to follow him. It has also lead to many democrats getting or keeping seats in congress. Obviously not enough though.

To disagree with them totally is as foolish as agreeing with them totally. To charecterize them the way you have is just as bad. They certainly arent progressive heroes. And in a pefect world we wouldnt have to entertain that kind of thinking. But this world is far from perfect and without DLC type centrists, we wouldnt have anywhere near the power we have now and wed have no hope for power in the future.

I think a reasonable critique of the DLC strategy is that it isnt a solution in many cases and that we cant simply abandon progressives as a party, because they will not stick with us if they feel alienated. The leadership did abandon them to a large degree and the Greens and the current Dean campaign are good sigs and will hopefully act to correct the party. But we can no more afford to lose the centrists and moderates than we can the progresssives. We need both groups and both strategies.

[mouse7]

16. The DLC and us have NO power

We have lost the White House because the DLC refused to fight for the White House in 2000. The DLC has lost both houses of Congress. The Democratic party is basically powerless because of the DLC, and so are we.

The DLC is not "liberal." The organization is committed to being a tool of corporate power. For example, all these media problems we are having right now were caused by the 1996 Clinton deregulation of broadcast media.

Progressives like me know the solution is tossing these corporate lackeys out of the party power structure. If they wantr to remain members in a re-vitalized progressive movement, great. However, they will never again set us marching to the drummer of corporate cynicism again.

Nader? He's a tool of the right. He knows it, too, but he's got too much ego to abandon a spotlight pointing at him. Nader saw those donations from oil companies in Green party ledgers. Nader know a good chunk of his money in 2000 came from those attempting to drive a wedge in the party to hamstring the progressive movement.

[HereSince1628]

35. That's not what it says on their website

They profess that their third-way is distinctly different than liberalism.

I have serious doubts about whether they have a centrist ideology. Chasing the mode of distributions of popular opinion seems rather independent of any guiding ideology other than the pragmatics of expressing what are percieved as popular views.

The downside of the DLC's approach is that polling and triangulation on repubilcan positions promotes a reactionary rather than affirmative movement.

[Deesh]

12. Hi, DLC from GA.

What you say you are -- pro-business, pro-defense, pro-health care & education, etc. -- most liberal Democrats are those things, too. Dennis Kucinich is anti-Corporate greed, but not anti-business. A Democrat who opposes Bush's disastrous Iraq occupation is not anti-defense.

The suspicion many have on the DLC is that it kowtows to the Gingrich Republicans, and in the wake of that kowtowing, people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas get appointed to the Supreme Court.

Max Cleland, it seems to me, fit your criteria as a Centrist Democrat, and Ralph Reed and the Republicans smeared him and defeated him in Georgia. Lies were published about Max Cleland's "lack of patriotism." In the same way year ago, Indiana's Birch Bayh was defeated by Dan Quayle, who lied about Bayh's abortion record.

The national party does very little to challenge events like this, and that's why Howard Dean is leading in national polls -- because many Democrats are goddam sick of being stomped on. Why hasn't Terry McAuliffe risen to defend his candidates against these smears?

We just can no longer look to national leadership for leadership. It doesn't come to the defense of even centrist Democrats.

I'd like you to stay in the party -- your post was the post of an intelligent and welcoming human being. But the centrist strategy has lost us control of the House and Senate and White House, and some very good men and women.

[maggrwaggr]

13. spending less $ on national defense is not "weakening" national defense

During the Clinton years the military shrunk, bases were closed, yet we still have the fiercest military the world has ever seen.

It really pisses me off when people have this knee-jerk reaction that giving the DOD less money to waste means we're "soft on defense".

Do you realize that the United States spends 50 cents of every dollar spent on military IN THE WORLD?

It's overkill. Why spend ten dollars when one dollar will do the trick?

Well ..... because you're giving your FRIENDS the other nine dollars! That's why!

[Merlin]

14. The problem is that the DLC has gone South.

I was an active participant in the DLC from its early days in '87 through the early Clinton years. They had a pretty large tent back then. They had some very creative ideas for achieving liberal goals using traditional means. They were supportive of liberal objectives like health care for all, expanding Head Start, fortifying social security and Medicare, increasing opportunities for minorities, strengthening inner cities, etc.

Problem is that in the post-Clinton era, the DLC has become a wholly owned subsidiary of Joe Liberman. As its relevance has dwindled, in the wake of Clinton's successes at achieving many DLC goals, the DLC has become more and more dominated by those with the narrowest view of what the Democratic party should stand for.

The DLC has gone South on us. It has isolated itself. While I have great appreciation for it's earlier work in bringing the Democratic party to the center on fiscal (anti-deficit) and some social (crime) issues, It has--by ever narrowing its tent--earned its fate.

[FDRrocks]

15. Yes, the whole damned party is centrist, practically.

[pansypoo53219]

17. yes

but not in the presidential race after caving in to the chimperor. and if anybody's is paying attention, Dean is QUITE centrist.
this time we need a CLEAR dilineation between US and THEM.

[mouse7]

18. I know Dean is a moderate

Issues wise, 6 of the candidates are to the right of Nixon. Look it up. Nixon had a progressive tax structure, price controls, and opened the door to China.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. You have a candidates a lill confused...

Lieberman is strong on national defense but so are Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, and Clark. They are all pro balanced budget, pro business, pro-healthcare, pro education, pro social liberties, and NAFTA ain't going anywhere. Lieberman might be the last candidate you want to vote for to get another Clinton because Lieb is socially conservative.

[DLCfromGA]

20. Any candidate...

That calls for widespread "reregulation" is not pro-growth or pro-business...

Kerry was my choice pre-campaign, but his campaign has been lackluster and confused, I no longer know what he stands for..

Bob Rubin for President...

[IrateCitizen]

25. And any candidate that refuses to call for it at all...

... is definitely NOT pro-environment or pro-competition. So take your pick.

[IrateCitizen]

21. DLCers fail for trying to be everything to everyone...

... and in the end, turn out to be nothing to anyone.

Just look at your views in a little more detail:
... DLC or people like me (pro business, pro-national defense, pro health care/education, pro social liberties, pro free trade, pro-balanced budget....

You say you're "pro-national defense". What exactly does that mean? Do you support strictly the idea of using military force only for the purpose of repelling an invasion on the mainland US? Or do you support the stationing of US troops in some 150 nations around the world, with the ability to project overwhelming force on a global scale? Do you support the idea of "pre-emptive war"? When you look at such a baseless, blanket statement as "pro-national defense" in these terms, it could appear that your stance is NOT what you claim it to be, but rather that you are actually pro-national OFFENSE, or even pro-IMPERIALISM.

Secondly, you bring up the term "pro-business" in the same vein as "pro-free trade". How do you reconcile these two stances, when the "free trade" stance is so actively undermining US-businesses -- especially smaller ones? Since you've expressed your admiration for Robert Rubin (whom I admit I absolutely despise), it could be said that your stance is really more pro-CORPORATE FINANCE than "pro-business". Don't believe me? Take Joseph Stiglitz's word for it, read his book Globalization and its Discontents. And for the record, Stiglitz was an economic advisor to the first Clinton administration, chief economist for the World Bank, and 2001 Nobel Laureate in economics. He's hardly an "outsider".

Thirdly, you say you're "pro-healthcare/education" and yet "pro-free trade", "pro-business" and "pro-balanced budget" at the same time. Once again, these kinds of labels are meaningless. What is important is HOW you think that these issues should be reconciled, and WHERE you plan to get the money from. If you're contributing hundreds of billions to the Pentagon, and you're in favor of a balanced budget, then how will you pay for health care and education, especially for the lower economic strata? How do you balance the "pro-business" stance of cutting taxes with providing the funds to maintain these programs?

Equally telling is one, EXTREMELY important issue that is curiously lacking from your list: THE ENVIRONMENT. Do you not believe that this is an important issue for us, especially considering that EVERYTHING we need in order to sustain our lives comes from the earth -- an earth that is rapidly approaching an ecological crisis? Perhaps you don't believe that things are really that bad yet? I'd suggest you read The Sacred Balance by David Suzuki and Affluenza by DeGraff, et.al. for a good synopsis.

In short, the problem with a point of view like this is that it is all about "having your cake and eating it too". The real world is one that is full of problems, and those problems don't go away by simply ignoring them. Unfortunately, that is the DLC approach. It is all about trying to tell people what they want to hear, rather than challenging and/or inspiring them.

Of course, that is just one progressive's view -- and I am well aware that my views are minority ones here in the US. But just because it's a minority view, doesn't mean that it doesn't have any truth....

[DLCfromGA]

53. To answer your questions:

1. The US military needs to be involved worldwide to protect US interests. I supported wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and in principle, supported a war in Iraq, though I think Bush lied about it (I thought Clinton should have invaded Iraq right after Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors...)

2. Many smaller business benefit from cheaper imports of raw materials, as do many small retailers. And I think Bob Rubin is one of the best things to happen to the Democratic party in a while... I just finished reading his book (I may read Stiglitz's book just to get the opposite view, but I recommend Rubin's new book to you as well). In the long run, free trade benefits US businesses by forcing them to become more efficient and competitive.

3. The environment is extremely important and is one area in which I am solidly in the core Democratic position.

4. Pro-business does not have to mean pro-large scale income tax reductions as practiced under Bush. Most of Bush's tax cuts should be repealed (dividend tax cut and tax cuts for lower and middle income families should stay- reinstate upper income tax cuts and estate tax). Use those tax funds to pay for education, increased health care, defense, and defecit/debt reduction.

Also, get rid of corporate subsidies and pork barrel spending.

[IrateCitizen]

62. Your response merely confirms my view

1. The US military needs to be involved worldwide to protect US interests.

What you're describing is not a Democratic Republic, it is an empire. You cannot have both, it is either one or the other. I urge you to go back and read some of the writings of the founding fathers, and their warnings against becoming involved in foreign entanglements.

Furthermore, there are other ways than military means by which to engage the world. There is a novel concept out there called international cooperation. Sadly, our record in that category is pretty damned poor. We cooperate only when we get to call the shots.

Lastly on this point, are you in the military? If not, you seem pretty damned gung-ho about supporting wars. I'd suggest that if you want to talk the talk, you should be prepared to walk the walk.

2. Many smaller business benefit from cheaper imports of raw materials, as do many small retailers. And I think Bob Rubin is one of the best things to happen to the Democratic party in a while... I just finished reading his book (I may read Stiglitz's book just to get the opposite view, but I recommend Rubin's new book to you as well). In the long run, free trade benefits US businesses by forcing them to become more efficient and competitive.

Bob Rubin is a shill for the financial industry. It's all he knows, and all he cares about. When he talks of businesses being "more efficient and competitive", he means boosting stock price by whatever means are necessary (cutting environmental standards, outsourcing, cutting wages, layoffs, etc.). To be quite honest, I have no interest in reading Rubin's book, because I have judged him by his record. His clamoring for Federal bailouts in the wake of the Enron collapse for Citigroup was just shameless. He wants the private financial sector to reap all the benefits, but the public to bear all the risk and cost. It's classic neoliberal economics, and it's a total sham.

3. The environment is extremely important and is one area in which I am solidly in the core Democratic position.

You can't be pro-environment and yet empower business to circumvent environmental policies. While the Bush administration is abysmal on the environment, the Clinton administration was really only marginally better. A bunch of last-minute provisions (the majority of which they knew would be repealed) does not an environmentalist make. They did nothing to improve fuel efficiency standards. They made no efforts to significantly transform energy sources and use. They empowered corporate polluters by simply moving it off our shores through "free trade". In short, your position on this issue is yet another example of trying to "have it both ways".

4. Pro-business does not have to mean pro-large scale income tax reductions as practiced under Bush. Most of Bush's tax cuts should be repealed (dividend tax cut and tax cuts for lower and middle income families should stay- reinstate upper income tax cuts and estate tax). Use those tax funds to pay for education, increased health care, defense, and defecit/debt reduction.

I agree with this point with the exception of defense. You go on to say that you want to get rid of pork-barrel spending and corporate subsidy. That's all defense spending is. We currently spend more than the next 25 nations around the world combined. Do you honestly want to make that more?

[dontomas]

67. I have a question...ok more of a statement.

There is a novel concept out there called international cooperation. Sadly, our record in that category is pretty damned poor.We cooperate only when we get to call the shots.

I agree that there should be more international cooperation. I agree 100% but we live in the real world where that isn't happening. When the United States undertakes a military action with other countries or the UN (IE Kosovo or Gulf War I), we generally send in more troops, hardware, and spend more money than anyone else. Why shouldn't we call the shots?

However, I do agree that there needs to be a US presence to protect assets (be they embassies, allies, citizens, economic, or whatever I've forgotten) abroad.

[IrateCitizen]

68. Whatever we do, we shouldn't dare to think outside the box!

When the United States undertakes a military action with other countries or the UN (IE Kosovo or Gulf War I), we generally send in more troops, hardware, and spend more money than anyone else. Why shouldn't we call the shots?

The problem is that most of our "solutions" to "problems" fall back on the military. It's the easy out that doesn't require much thought. What we have to do is to learn to break free of this box, of this reliance on short-term REACTION (which is what any military "solution" really is) and begin looking at things in a long-term view. I fully realize that to do so is to break free of some ten thousand years of human conditioning -- but if we are going to survive and evolve as a species, it is something we MUST do.

Is such a viewpoint idealistic? I readily admit so. But it is also necessary, because we cannot continue to destroy ourselves and our planet through these "real world solutions" that fall back almost unerringly on the use of brute force.

However, I do agree that there needs to be a US presence to protect assets (be they embassies, allies, citizens, economic, or whatever I've forgotten) abroad.

Assets abroad? By what right do we "own" them? I prefer to look at things through the "blue marble" lens. When you look at the earth from space, you don't see any national boundaries. You don't see any trademarks or property lines. You just see the earth as it TRULY exists -- a blue, brown, green and white marble hurtling through space that just happens to be populated by 6 billion human beings. The resources of the earth are not "owned" by anyone. They are here to be shared among the denizens of the planet.

Once again, is such a line of thought idealistic? Yes. But where has the "real world" thinking gotten us, outside of a rapidly deteriorating ecosystem and neverending violence, death and destruction?

[dontomas]

73. Maybe I'm just to pragmatic...

But I can't see through the "blue marble lens." Thanks for explaining that because I would have been completely lost if you hadn't.

I see (metaphorically, of course) those lines. Not just between countries but people, religions, and cultures. You're right about this being a 10,000 trap of violence, but how can we make it stop?

Now, I believe that every person has a right to their own beliefs and ideologies, but should never impose those said beliefs on another. But there are those who would eradicate other cultures and religions because they are different. And I would fight those who would take my beliefs away.

And as far as "owning" is concerned - how would you share those resources?

And finally, I apologize for how long it took me to draft a response. I actually had to do some work...at work right in the middle of the post.

[IrateCitizen]

76. People tell me all the time I'm overly idealistic!

So I won't berate you for being too pragmatic. ;-)

I see (metaphorically, of course) those lines. Not just between countries but people, religions, and cultures. You're right about this being a 10,000 trap of violence, but how can we make it stop?

Highlighting the differences between us is what leads to those lines and that violence. We are so conditioned to be constantly afraid of the "other" that it prevents us from seeing the multitudes of ways in which we're alike. For starters, we're all human beings. It has to start in how we view our relation to each other.

Now, I believe that every person has a right to their own beliefs and ideologies, but should never impose those said beliefs on another. But there are those who would eradicate other cultures and religions because they are different. And I would fight those who would take my beliefs away.

I agree, but see point #1. There are different ways to fight besides violence. One way is to make such a viewpoint so far out of the mainstream that it is rendered completely irrevelant. Case in point being Islamic militants. The majority of people throughout the Middle East do not believe the same thing as Osama bin Laden. But through our belligerence and interference over decades, we have helped make his abhorrent views more relevant rather than rendering them largely irrevalent. Working with others and cooperating would go much further toward this goal than attacking, killing, and attempting to dominate them (as we are currently doing).

And as far as "owning" is concerned - how would you share those resources?

Once again, it comes down to a choice between self-destructive competition or enlightened self-interest through cooperation. First, we must stop looking at everything through the short-term lens, and focus instead on long-term effects. Secondly, we need to look at each other as fellow human beings rather than "others". Thirdly, we need to eliminate the "more is better" unfulfillment trap and instead learn the meaning of "enough" as the true key to fulfillment. Fourthly, we need to come to respect the earth as the source of our very life on this planet -- because we need its fresh water, clean air and arable soil for our very survival.

I'm going through a book right now called Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin. It's a program to revolutionize your life by the way you view your relationship with money and the world around you. In one passage, the authors are talking about a young Filipino activist they met who was completely disillusioned with the United States. He believed that the US was truly not interested in dealing with the rest of the world in a fair manner. When asked what would change his opinion on that, he cited two simple things:
1. Expression of a true desire for equitable cooperation
2. Getting back to a sense of spirituality.

Right now, our spirituality as a nation is the worship of Mammon. Our shopping malls are our churches, our automobiles and single-family houses our pews. By getting back to spirituality, I'm not talking about "old-style religion". I'm simply talking about a greater awareness of our connection with the rest of the world and the people in it.

If THAT happens, then the whole concept of "owning" or "protecting" becomes quite foreign. But the key all lies in being willing to think outside of the box -- something that we're not very willing to do as a nation.

[PSR40004]

22. I've tried to figure this out myself...

I'm not young but I too wonder if the far left of the party is pushing many moderates to the Republicans.

[Bridget Burke]

24. Please give us a list....

Of the "far left" Democrats who've been making news with their extremist beliefs. I'm not young, either, but I don't think that opposing an illegal, pre-emptive war is too radical. I'm old enough to remember Vietnam.

And, what's this "re-regulation" I'm hearing about? What's wrong with trying to protect the environment? Trying to curb dishonest business practices? Trying to keep people healthy? (I'm not a vegetarian, but gave up on ground beef last year. Mad Cow Disease is a frightening possibility but Salmonella is a more immediate threat; I'll spare you the details.)

[PSR40004]

30. when Dean said

He was tired of getting beat up in the south over God, guns and gays do you think he was talking of the moderate positions that got Bill Clinton elected or those on the far right that bring quotes of the far left to paint all dems as anti GGG. It's not insuring a secular state but those that want santa out of christmas decorations, it not those proposing reasonable gun laws but those that talk of banning all guns. It's not equality for gays but those pushing marrage rights and the like thats costing us alot of votes in places we need to win.

Too often those on the far left view everyone right of them as right wing conservatives, things are realitive to where you are but remember if your views are left (or right) of the norm then you need to consider that. One of the problems in the political landscape IMO is too many on either side that have a irrational hatered for everyone not agreeing with them.

[Blue_Chill]

26. Of course there is

In fact people like yourself (and I) are the majority of the democratic party.

[randr]

27. Must we be reminded

The DLC, with Al Gore, won the last election. The failing of the DLC can be placed at the foot of the many, more liberal, democrats who were absent from debate in the Clinton years. Our complacency and apathy during that period made it possible for Bush to succeed.
Now that so many of us are awake we need to let the DLC know we are here with our votes and our agenda and, subsequently, the DLC needs to acknowledge us.
A fractured party is just what the repugs want. Are we going to play into their hands or show the strength needed to bring unity back to this nation?

[regnaD kciN]

51. Must YOU be reminded...

The DLC, with Al Gore, won the last election.

That it was Gore, not the Democratic LOSERship Council, who won the last election. In fact, the Democratic LOSERship Council repudiated Gore, and blamed his "defeat" on his being "too liberal."

:eyes:

[barbaraann]

28. There is not one "mindless corporate basher" in this country.

That is just a misleading red herring.

There is no "mindless corporate bashing" going on anywhere that I have ever seen--only criticism of coporations for bad behavior based on facts.

[Iverson]

29. yes, the place is solidly in control

Now if only your brethren would quit trying to keep liberals and lefties silent, the Democratic Party might be able to achieve something besides corporate funding.

Maybe instead of pretending that you're on the outs, you could take a look at the Democratic base and ask if you want to trade places. It should be instructive.

[Ksec]

31. ignore this. wrong place

[MadHound]

33. Do you wish for some fine cheese

To go with that fine whine? Puhleeze dude, the DLC/DNC/ centerist position IS the Democratic party! I don't know what rock you've been living under the past decade, but in case you haven't noticed, the Democratic Party has gone so far over to the "center" that even Nixon looks liberal by comparison. In the process they've also become fine corporate whores for whoever pays them the big bucks. Meanwhile, if you are anywhere to the left of Lieberman, you are either driven from the party, dragged through the mud, or ignored in the hopes that you will go away. Why the hell do you think so many Dems are going Green? Or dropping out of voting altogether? Nope, sorry, but the centerists now rule the roost in the Democratic party, thus turning our way of government into the two party/one corporate master form of government.

[Cooley Hurd]

34. The "Big Tent" party should be inclusive to all Dems...

...of all stripes. I'm afraid the DLC is the part of the party that feels the need to be exclusive of those to the left of them (like Howard Dean, for example). I'm utterly ashamed of the DNC's treatment of Dean and his supporters. They should embrace the support Howard Dean enjoys, instead of poo-pooing it and trying to undermine Dean's strength within the party. Terry McAuliffe hardly has the moral authority to speak poorly of Dean (or his supporters), given his track record vis-a-vis the crushing defeat of our candidates in 2002.

[Lars39]

37. After hearing Al Fromm yesterday on NPR,

I was practically frothing. He had more negatives to spit out about a Democratic Candidate(Howard Dean) than about the sociopath in the WH. I can honestly see why people have gone green.

[Indiana Democrat]

36. Yes, of course...It's called the "Winning Place"...

...but you'll need to lay a bit low here.

[IrateCitizen]

38. But once again, what good is it to gain the world...

... if you sell your soul in the process?

[Terwilliger]

42. hippie bleeding-heart commie pinko!

:D

[IrateCitizen]

43. Thanks for the compliment, Terwilliger!

I wear that label like a badge of honor! :D

[Indiana Democrat]

77. Who's selling their soul?

The only ones I can think of are those on the hard left and hard right who sell their soul to lost causes.

[IrateCitizen]

79. I'll give you a short list...

1. Those who approve of the doctrine of "pre-emptive war" as a solution to our problems with the rest of the world, but just disagree upon the "manner" in which it was waged.

2. Those who would willingly sell out workers around the globe in the name of "free trade" and neoliberal economics.

3. Those who would sell out badly needed environmental measures in the name of the same as #2.

4. Those who would agree to cut welfare expenditures while simultaneously voting to shell out billions in corporate subsidy.

There's 4 for ya. But then again, I'm just someone who you would probably consider to be "far left" who is selling out for the lost cause of humanity. :shrug:

[MysticMind]

80. oh I see

When did Yugoslavia attack the U.S.? Clinton supported pre-emptive war in some cases too. Even Dean does.

[IrateCitizen]

83. Personally, I don't agree with them either

And I don't pretend that it's a majority view, either. But neither do I believe that it is one that should be driven out of the party.

I guess I'm just too much of a "small-d" democrat who views things through the "blue marble" lens and doesn't believe the resorting to violent means offers true solutions to our problems, rather than a "Big-D" Democrat who views things through the Americentric lens and believes in military "solutions".

[MysticMind]

94. sometimes you need to act quickly..

Like when the Serbs were massacring Albanians. How would you have solved that peacefully?

[IrateCitizen]

96. There were atrocities being committed on both sides there

While the Serbs were more widespread, the KLA was hardly a paragon of virtue, either.

It has also been argued that the US bombing may actually have accelerated atrocities on the Serb side. Whether that is completely true or not, I don't know -- but it can't be ruled out.

We seem to have the belief that a flexing of the muscles can solve any problem we encounter. Just drop a few bombs on it, and call me in the morning. The problem is, a fallback to violence is the EASIEST way out. Waging peace is hard, it requires thinking in ways that we are not used to. I would have to think on this a bit to give you an answer, to be quite honest. I readily admit it's not an easy question.

But if you're talking about "acting quickly," why didn't we act quickly when the massacres were taking place in Rwanda? I mean, things were much worse there than in Yugoslavia.

[MysticMind]

98. did I say we shouldn't have gotten involved

In Rwanda?

[IrateCitizen]

99. No you didn't. I'm just pointing out Clinton's inconsistency

since you held his administration up as an example.

[MysticMind]

100. it wasn't inconsistent..

John McCain once explained why Yugoslavia and not Rwanda.

[IrateCitizen]

101. Last time I checked...

John McCain wasn't in the Clinton administration.

[MysticMind]

102. it's the same reason

....

[DLCfromGA]

88. Too much "either-or" in our statements.

For example, in #4...

Why not reduce welfare expenditure smartly (as done under Clinton) while at the same time reducing corporate subsidies and pork?

[IrateCitizen]

93. The problem was, it wasn't done smartly

Clinton allowed welfare to be gutted per the Republican strategy as part of his "triangulation" strategy. The naysayers at that time warned, "It may work for the short term with an economic boom, but it will be a disaster as soon as a downturn comes."

With the rising numbers of homelessness and poverty (which are also partially attributable to Bush), it looks as if the naysayers may have had a point. The goal should have been to retool welfare -- to turn it into a program that helped get people the tools to succeed. Instead, it was a gutting of the program, seeking to move them from poverty-level assistance into poverty-level jobs, with little hope for advancement.

[Selwynn]

122. I have said this so often.

I don't want to win more than I want to stand for what is right, in power or out of it.

[Q]

39. So you're 'for' corporations and deregulation?

- Are you sure you're not in the wrong party? Or is this simply what you want the party to become?

- You also mention that you would support "G Dubb" over a more liberal candidate. What's up with that?

[MysticMind]

49. I'm for corporations..

Any Democrat who wants to destroy them isn't very smart. Corporations and other businesses provide a tax base to provide all of those social programs Democrats support.

[DLCfromGA]

52. Like someone else said...

I'd gladly cast a vote for George Bush over Kucinich...

Dean was a solid centrist as a Vermont governor, too bad he is currently campaigning way to the left, but I think he'll campaign to the center if/when he gets the nomination...

I am also not a fan of Gephardt... he seems to be stuck in the 1940's...

Other than that, Lieberman, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, even Sharpton over Bush.

[IrateCitizen]

61. That's just plain disgusting

So what you're saying is that you would vote for pre-emptive war, corporate unaccountability, war profiteering, ravaging of the environment, mysogyny, union-busting and class warfare over Dennis Kucinich?

At least we now know where you truly stand. :puke:

[MysticMind]

72. Kucinich won't be nominated so it is

Useless for someone to say they'd vote for Bush over Kucinich. If we nominate Kucinich we're letting the GOP win.

[Terwilliger]

103. how would you vote for Sharpton over Kucinich?

how is it that you'd vote for Bush over Kucinich? Something tells me you're not a Democrat.

[Isome]

147. EVERYTHING...

posted tells me that some people aren't Democrats!

[Upfront]

40. Yes, Maybe.

I am just like you except I want free trade to become fair trade. It is not at this time and our jobs are lost to other countrys because of it. Our main difference is you are supposed to be Democrats yet you attack the Democratic front runner, Dr Dean. If that is your bent, then I don't want anything to do with you. Which is it?

[Terwilliger]

41. this post is a joke, right?

the DLC is very much still in power in the Democratic party...but I'd like to address some issues...

Is there any place for the DLC or people like me (pro business, pro-national defense, pro health care/education, pro social liberties, pro free trade, pro-balanced budget) in the Democratic party?

Could you tell me precisely how non-DLC Democrats are against these things?

[IrateCitizen]

44. I'd prefer to hear his DEFINITIONS of those terms first...

Because I'm always dubious of those who like to use such "blanket terms" in order to define their issue stances.

And I'm doubly dubious of anyone who says they might vote for "G Dubb" over someone too "liberal" for their tastes, but still has the nerve to identify themselves as a Democrat. :puke:

[Terwilliger]

45. well, there's the rub

some "Democrats" WOULD vote for Bush over a liberal (I'd bet you'd see a real civil war if Kucinich actually got the nod)

My problem is, in this big-tent political party, where is the party defined? Halfway between the most conservative and most liberal among us?

[DLCfromGA]

56. Good question

The Democrats consist of a lot of different groups with a lot of different agendas and points of view. I guess the DLC, centrists, budget hawks, and others are just one of those groups.

The party is generally defined as one that is supports social liberties and wants to help the less fortunate in society, though we vary on degrees and means by a lot...

[MysticMind]

82. If Kucinich is nominated

We have no chance of beating Bush.

[IrateCitizen]

84. If Lieberman is nominated

we could have even LESS of a chance of beating Bush.

[MysticMind]

85. I agree...

Unfortunately I don't think a Jewish person would get elected as President.

[IrateCitizen]

90. It has little to do with him being Jewish...

and much more to do with him trying to be, in Jon Stewart's words, "The choice for those who think that George Bush isn't Jewish enough."

Why vote for an imitation of a Republican if you can get the real thing? Lieberman has no grassroots network or support. He would crash and burn based on his lack of charisma and ideas -- not the fact that he's "Jewish".

[LibertyBe11e]

153. puhleez...

it is so obvious to me that DLC ain't no damn democrat it's laughable that any of you would even buy into his garbage... bet he ain't no 22 either.

[mrgorth]

46. Plenty of room

just stop thinking that Joe Lieberman is the only DLC type out there. Most of the candidates are moderates.

[regnaD kciN]

47. The question isn't whether there is "a place for the DLC"...

...the question is whether the DLC gets the "place" they demand -- a position of control over the entire party. A "place" where the DLC gets the exclusive right to set the party's agenda, while "liberals" are ignored and/or demonized, except just before each election, when they will be told it is their duty to vote for the DLC-approved "lesser of two evils."

:puke:

[w4rma]

48. I support Dean and Dean is a moderate. So is Al Gore and Bill Clinton. n/t

[MysticMind]

50. yes of course theirs room for you...

The centrists are the ones who make policy. Hardcore liberals and conservatives are so angry because they rarely get to make policy.

[corporatewhore]

55. dlc gives the dem party the name republicrats

[DLCfromGA]

57. Bob Rubin

What's the grudge against Rubin on these boards?

[IrateCitizen]

60. Because he champions the financial sector over workers

Read some of Robert Reich's accounts of the power struggle that went on between he and Rubin during the first Clinton administration. Reich advocated taking a more progressive populist line, championing policies that more directly benefitted working Americans. Rubin advocated the "what's good for Wall Street is good for America" line. Rubin won out in the end, and the economy was incredibly beneficial to those on the upper ends of the scale -- but many of the former well-paying manufacturing jobs were outsourced and replaced by lower-paying (around 67% on average, with fewer benefits) service-sector jobs. Despite some gains seen toward the bottom of the scale at the very end of the boom, along with a lot of misleading rhetoric, the 1990's were not a great period for the working class.

Secondly, read Joseph Stiglitz's book Globalization and its Discontents. Stiglitz was an economic advisor to the first Clinton administration. He then went on to hold the post of chief economist for the World Bank. He was the 2001 Nobel Laureate in economics as well. He portrays Rubin as an EXTREMELY misguided public figure, who advocated a lot of neoliberal policies both in the US and abroad that were very detrimental to the vast majority of the population of all the countries involved. In short, he's little more than a shill for the financial industry -- and he got Clinton to swallow his sales pitch hook, line and sinker.

Thirdly, you are of course aware that, as Chairman of Citigroup, Rubin went to the Federal Government with hat in hand at the time of the Enron collapse, seeking a bailout for Citigroup investors? It's all part of the public record. I'm sorry, but I see such an action as little more than pure opportunism. He wants the financial sector to reap the profits, but wants the public to bear all the risk.

In short, THAT is why THIS progressive has no love lost for Bob Rubin.

[mmonk]

58. I

joined the DLC before recent events. They have lost me recently though I'm still near centrist (I'm a little left of center). The war has really pushed me away (in that some DLC people seem to have no problem or not enough of a problem with the means on how we got there).

[ldoolin]

59. There is definitely a place for centrists

But the problem as I see it, is centrist has become something entirely different than what it used to be.

A centrist used to mean somebody who believed in FDR's New Deal programs, civil rights and integration, a partnership between the Democratic Party and organized labor, defense of civil liberties and sane fiscal policies from the demagogues of the far right (Joe McCarthy) and far left (Huey Long)...

"Centrist" political theory held that a "vital center" of liberalism and democracy was needed to head off the extreme right and extreme left, which both posed potential threats of authoritarian government. Unless we had a strong safety net, a strong labor movement as a check on corporate power, and advancement in civil rights and freedoms, disgruntled people would turn to communism or fascism instead. See the book "The Vital Center" by Arthur Schlesinger, published right after World War II.

Unfortunately it seems that today, being a "centrist" means letting the right wing of the Republican party set the terms of the political debate, and then rolling over to try and be as palatable to the Republican agenda as possible, and in some cases pandering to demagogues by trying to prove that they are as "strong on defense" and "tough on crime" as the far right. Pro-labor policies have likewise been abandoned by the "centrists" - NAFTA being a case in point. That's not centrism, that's abandoning centrism in favor of a cave-in to the right wing. A real centrist, for example, would never have voted in favor of the Patriot Act, and I doubt it would have ever made it past Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman's desk without being vetoed.

That's one reason why I'm supporting Dean, because he seems to represent a return to real centrism in the Democratic Party.

[Ficus]

63. I hope so but

look at what happened in 2002. That wing of the party caused us to crash and burn. Our majority in the Senate vanished and the Republicans still control the House.

It's not to hard to lose to the Republicans when you constantly point out how right the President is on everything, but if elected you'll just be nicer about implementing those plans. Why vote Democrat when you can have the real deal?

[leesa]

64. You aren't a centrist...you are RW. The policies of unregulated

business and government are destroying our country and NAFTA has taken all our jobs away. Strike first...ask questions later foreign policy has made us pariahs in the world. Why on earth would you want to hold onto these failed policies?

[MysticMind]

86. not all NAFTA supporters are RW..

GORE supported it.

[DLCfromGA]

89. I prefer...

Ask questions, make a determination, then strike if necessary.

A lot of people on the left (and Buchananites on the right) don't want to strike at all...

[Selwynn]

65. You already own the Democratic Party -- is there any place for real dems?

Republican Lite is already the new base of the Democratic party. So I ask you, is there any place for real "Old" Democrats in the "New" Democratic Party? How can there be room when your goals and beliefs are fundamentally and diametrically opposed to mine?

Just curious.

[MysticMind]

78. Is there a place in America for you?

Practically every Social Democratic party on earth has taken on more liberalized economic policies. Even the Chinese communist has embraced certain liberal economic policies, yet the far left of the Dems refuse. Why? Mainly because unions give tons of money to the old left politicians who oppose any liberalization.

On the other end are the poor, the recipients of social programs, who rely on tax revenue which comes from a tax base meaning it requires economic growth to fund.

The DLC isn't Republican-lite, we have all of the same goals supposed real Democrats do, however we actually achieve the goals while you all debate whether or not globalism should occur. Guess what? You're about 15 years late. Democrats may age don't even remember pre-globalization.

[Iverson]

81. self-righteous nonsense

Now that you're done insulting labor and the motives of those who disagree with you, take a look at what so-called liberalization has done. I recommend that you start in Cochabamba, Bolivia.

When you're done with a good laugh on Monsanto's behalf at the expense of the peasants there, tell me again about how it serves democracy to have secret tribunals trump national environmental laws.

That's just a start.

You and yours are the future of the Green Party.

[MysticMind]

91. it shouldn't....

I never said there should be no rules in globalization. I'm not insulting labor, however if you don't think Big Labor is a special interest you're nuts. Of course labor, like every special interest only cares about protecting their own butts. I doubt many Teamsters give a crap about peasants in Bolivia.

[Iverson]

143. non sequitur

You are rebutting points that weren't raised and making inappropriate connections.

You were advocating "liberalization" of trade. You were attacking the motives of those who disagree as stemming from blind support for unions. I gave you a couple of examples to consider that refute those ridiculous assertions.

You're right: you didn't say that trade should have no rules. I also didn't say that you did. Now how about educating yourself about some of the real problems associated with economic globalization? Cochabamba is quite an instructive example, and once you know some of the details, you will see that it doesn't deserve to be ignored with some glib remark about Teamsters.

[Isome]

148. Everyone falls under a "special interest group"...

Women, men, Asians, Latinos, handicapped, businessowners, laborers, teachers, the insurance industry, nurses, doctors, lawyers, homemakers, the unemployed, car manufacturers, ...even CENTRISTS. The phrase itself describes everyone.

[IrateCitizen]

87. And therein lies the problem...

Democrats may age don't even remember pre-globalization.

I would doubt that you've done much to educate yourself on it, either.

Note, I'm not talking about "protectionism" and the like here. I'm talking about what things were like for workers BEFORE a viable labor movement -- and the systematic effort on behalf of the holders of capital to undermine it. I'm talking about what things were like BEFORE the environmental movement, and the efforts of big capital to undermine that as possible. I'm talking about what life was like for most people BEFORE the New Deal -- and how the Right (now assisted by some of the DLCers) has been trying to roll it back ever since.

I'm only 30, but I've done as much as I can to talk to people and read on all of these topics and issues. Perhaps if you attempted to look at things through a much longer view of cause-and-effect rather than in immediate terms, along with daring to think outside of the box, you might come to a slightly different perspective?

[MysticMind]

95. yes I noticed you use all..

The neat cliches and catch-phrases such as the "workers" as if they all make up one neat package of the same interests.

[IrateCitizen]

97. So I guess your only response is a nitpick?

I could get into the competing interests of the AFL and IWW during the early labor movement, and how the AFL aligned itself with industrialists whereas the IWW seeked a worldwide union of all workers, but I'm trying to be succinct and save bandwidth here.

[Terwilliger]

107. "Sorry Jack, the economy's been bad so your pittance is gone"

how are you socially liberal when you're trying to rely on "free market" inconsistencies to take care of those who are less able to compete? I didn't think social liberalism was supposed to be part and parcel with economic darwinism.

[MysticMind]

125. social darwinism would mean

I don't support any regulation whatsoever...Even Bush doesn't want that.

[rman]

66. Dem party = DLC. Is there a place for plain old labor lefties?

You'v got your premises upside down.

[WilliamPitt]

69. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

and yes.

[IrateCitizen]

71. Wassamatta Will? Couldn't do without your "fix"?

I thought you were leaving this place. Glad to see it was a false alarm. The place wouldn't be the same without you. ;-)

[Q]

70. No...but there's certainly a place in the...

...Republican party.

- If there is little to differentiate between Democratic and Republican on certain issues...why not just vote for the party in power?

[MysticMind]

74. being a centrist Democratt..

Doesn't make you a Republican. The DLC is quite different from the GOP, otherwise why would we be Democrats.

[Terwilliger]

104. why are you Democrats?

what separates you from Republicans?

[MysticMind]

106. well how do you define what a Democrat is..

Then I can tell you why I'm a Democrat. One reason is, what have the GOP done for the country?

[Terwilliger]

110. since you don't like the GOP so much, shouldn't you be in opposition?

how are you in opposition to the GOP?

[MysticMind]

112. well you need to tell me what you consider the GOPs agenda to be..

So I can answer you adaquetely.

[Terwilliger]

114. thanks for playing

[MysticMind]

117. difference between GOP and me...

I disagree with them on nearly every issue.

[Terwilliger]

119. REALLY!

like what?

[MysticMind]

121. everything

Fiscal policy, guns, abortion, etc. GOP supports supply-side economics and I don't.

[DLCfromGA]

92. Because

I watched proudly as a Democratic administration supported and administered many centrist, sensible, and successful policies that mirror my views. Republicans have a WORSE record when they are in power on these issues (trade, balanced budgets, social liberalism, etc.)

You all ignore the fact that I support socially liberal ideas across the board, clearly something that the GOP doesn't...

[Terwilliger]

105. how do you support social liberalism...

with centrist and rightist policies on other fronts? You're hoping for a good chocolate and peanut butter mix?

[MysticMind]

108. it depends on how you define

Social liberalism.

[Terwilliger]

111. well, please do so

what do you think you're doing as a "centrist" to help the poor and minorities?

[MysticMind]

113. help the poor and minorities do what exactly..

Some people think just giving out welfare payments will help the poor.

[Terwilliger]

115. well, I didn't say or imply that

...but it does sound like a Repuke talking point.

I want the poor and minorities to become equal citizens with equal chances of living a healthy, productive life free from the constraints of the uber-capitalist juggernaut. Now, how are you going to help them?

[MysticMind]

116. and yours sounds like a Marxist talking point..

So what's your point? Not all businesses are uber-capitalists.

[Terwilliger]

118. thanks for playing

not much fun talking to somebody who keeps changing the subject every other post

[MysticMind]

123. when did I change the subject

You're the one who went from social liberalism to capitalists oppressing everyone. Are you sure you don't want the Dems to go socialist and not liberal?

[DLCfromGA]

126. I support:

1. Gay marriage
2. Abortion rights
3. Civil rights/liberties
4. Sensible gun legislation
5. Oppose censorship

etc.

This is "social liberalism."

[Terwilliger]

128. and how is this different from the rest of the party?

isn't that the thrust of your original post? How are any of the things you mentioned NOT already a part of the Democratic party?

[DLCfromGA]

130. They are

I just differ from the far left of the party on trade, defecit reduction, over regulation of business, national defense, and a variety of other issues.

Many people are asking me "what makes me a Democrat" or "how are you different than the GOP."

My social liberal beliefs are FAR different than the GOP.

[IrateCitizen]

132. And yet, so many other views are very alike them.

For example, from what you've posted on these boards, your foreign policy views would probably be closer to the neocons than anything left-of-center.

"Over-regulation of business"? :wtf: Most of us would settle for REASONABLE regulation of business. Based on the widespread corporate malfeasance of the last few years, we're QUITE a way from reasonable regulation.

As for trade, you obviously need to research this subject a little bit more. I guess you have no problem with the Chapter 11 lawsuits from NAFTA heard by international tribunals, right? Or about the attempts to force developing countries' financial markets open without allowing agricultural equity through the WTO?

While your social issues are far different from the more religiously-infused elements of the GOP, something tells me that you'd fall right in with the "country club" crowd in the GOP.

In essence, a perfect representation of what the DLC has become over the past ten years.

[DLCfromGA]

134. Actually...

I oppose assempts to force developing countries' financial markets open without allowing agricultural equity, which is why I hoped Bush would repeal the farm bill... obviously, he didn't. We should stop subsidizing agribusiness as the expense of developing countries, I agree 100%. That is what free trade is, but GOPers from Kansas don't understand that.

[IrateCitizen]

136. So you're saying you're not far from the GOP on the others?

Here's a news flash -- BOTH the GWB and WJC administrations continued farm subsidies. And the vast majority of subsidy does not go to the small farmer, but to AGRIBUSINESS. In the end, BOTH the small family farmer AND the developing nation farmer are hurt, so that Monsanto and Cargil and ADM can extend their control over food supply.

But hey, clamping down on the excesses of agribusiness might be seen as "over-regulation", and cost us those campaign contributions, right?

[DLCfromGA]

139. Another inconsistency in US trade policy

I don't think any administration has a blemish free record on trade (though WJC has a MUCH better record than Bush). However, I can't get 100% of my preferences in policies, so I choose the politicians that are closest to me.

Say we have a 100 point scale, 0 being ultra conservative, 100 being ultra liberal. I put myself somwhere between 55 and 60. If a GOPer (like McCain for example) runs at 40 or so, and we have a Democrat (like Kucinich) running at 90, I'm gonna take the 15 point differential over the 30 point one.

[IrateCitizen]

141. What in the hell are you basing these numbers on?

Is it anything significant, like votes or actual policy statements or the like? Or are you just pulling them out of your ass?

Richard Freakin' Nixon would be a flaming liberal, economically speaking, to someone like you. Nixon supported price controls and a significant welfare safety net. If he were alive today, he'd be run out of the DLC for heresy!

[DLCfromGA]

135. In addition...

The "country club" crowd in the GOP wants tax cuts for the wealthy, lower education spending, less foreign aid spending and reduced health care spending...

All of which I oppose.

[IrateCitizen]

138. But yet, that you would vote for (in GWB) over a liberal

You don't have to worry, though. Despite your persecution complex, all of the centrists/moderates still have their grubby fingers all over the party machinery. You can still continue to shut out your left wing and grassroots base. Just don't be surprised if we get sick of it some day....

[IrateCitizen]

131. And yet, you said you would vote for Bush over a liberal...

Even though Bush stands against all of these issues, and someone like Kucinich stands for them. :wtf:

I think that your primary issues, given this slip of the tongue, are economic ones -- and that you therefore would fall more in line with the Republicans than the Democrats overall, especially if you're willing to sell out your "social liberalism" for economic conservatism.

[DLCfromGA]

133. I'd vote for Bush over Kucinich (as most DEMOCRATS would)

Because I believe Kucinich would wreck the country more than Bush has/will.

If a GOP equivalent of Kucinich ever got a nomination (Buchanan, DeLay, etc.), I'd work harder equally hard against him, especially since those Republicans are against centrists both economically AND socially (Buchanan is a staunch anti-free trade, anti-sensible economics character).

[IrateCitizen]

137. Then you must not know many true Democrats

Because ALL of the true Democrats I know would vote for Kucinich over Bush in a heartbeat.

Note, I'm talking about Democrats who actually know what in the hell is going on, not those who simply have that "D" on their card but never read anything other than the NY Post.

[JHB]

140. My god, it's true: I've turned into my Father

That realization comes upon me as I read "a staunch anti-free trade, anti-sensible economics character" and think:

What the HELL do you know about 'sensible economics'? You're 22 years old!


On edit: just to clarify: I agree Buchanan is a loon, though I don't put Kuscinich in the same boat. But the question of your expertise stands...

[IrateCitizen]

142. Y'know, I sure didn't want to say it JHB...

But I've been thinking it the whole time.

And I'm only 30 (but there's a WORLD of difference between 30 and 22, IMHO). At least I've come to the point of realization that I really DON'T know that much.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

152. if " you would vote for FUCKING BUSH* over Kucinich" ..

you are no fucking democrat!!!....me thinks a tro_ _?

[MysticMind]

159. I dislike Kucinich as well..

And feel that he's horrible for our party. Not to mention his connection to certain groups in Cleveland that fought black political incorporation. Bush would destroy him in the election.

[LibertyBe11e]

155. NOT this Democrat

"Because I believe Kucinich would wreck the country more than Bush has/will."

Oh, yeah? In what way?

In fact it's your(DLC) kind of twaddle that makes me and many other "born and raised" democrats want to go GREEN. Greens are more democrat than the DLC ever was. ANd if a DLC'er gets the nom, THIS DEM wiill go GREEN.

*catching breath*
but what am I getting so worked up over? It ain't like I'm really talking to a dem anyhow, is it?

[DLCfromGA]

156. I have worked on Democratic campaigns

For moderate Democrats, because I believe in what centrist Democrats stand for.

I have solid Democratic credentials... however, I would not vote for an extreme leftist candidate. That is what Kucinich is.

[IrateCitizen]

161. So what you're saying then, is...

That you value "centrism" first, and the Democratic Party second. In fact, it seems that you would rather vote for a Republican than a liberal Democrat.

If you want to do that, fine. It's your right. But do so with the full realization that when you vote for Republicans, you're not empowering "centrism". You're empowering the more reactionary elements (e.g. Tom DeLay) that have taken over the Republican Party. Given the current political environment in the United States, getting a few liberals or progressives into office is hardly going to end up in our becoming some kind of egalitarian social democracy. In fact, if anything it will pull the party just a slight bit more back toward the left, and further empower the "centrists" whom you hold in such high regard.

But most of all, it's a foolish question for you to ask if there is a "place" for someone like you in the party. You have made it quite clear that you are perfectly willing to abandon the party if it doesn't meet your standards -- AND empower the other side directly in the process. Liberals and progressives on this site have taken an INCREDIBLE amount of grief for "going Green", but at least they are not directly benefitting the Republicans by doing so. You have repeatedly stated on this thread that you would have no problem in giving direct support to the Republican Party. That's not symbolic of a "centrist Democrat". That's a definition of an independent voter.

[DLCfromGA]

163. I would not support the "Republican party"

I would support individual candidates of ANY party (GOP, independent) that I felt met my views.

I call myself a Democrat mainly because I am solidly behind them on social issues. However, I will not vote for an extremist just because of those views over a moderate candidate- of EITHER party. I consider someone like Kucinich an extremist-- that is someone that is a basic danger to what I consider American principles (strong international presense, free markets, etc.) None of the other candidates seem to be that extreme (Sharpton is on some levels, Dean is just a talker, I predict he moves to the center soon).

[IrateCitizen]

164. News Flash Junior!

When you vote for a Republican, you are supporting the REPUBLICAN PARTY. That's the way our electoral system works.

If you are in a Congressional District where the race is between a liberal Democrat and a moderate Republican -- and you vote for the Republican -- you are not just voting for that candidate. Why not? Because that candidate, when in office, will help determine the majority in the House. He/She will also cast a vote for the Speaker of the House -- and the Speaker is who determines what legislation will come to the floor.

By voting for that Republican, you are also voting for Tom DeLay as Majority Leader and his sock-puppet, Dennis Hastert, as Speaker of the House.

By voting for George W. Bush over Dennis Kucinich, you would be voting for another four years of Republican rule and reactionary right-wing policies.

As for "strong American principles", there is no such thing other than what is outlined in the Constitution, IMHO. The preamble speaks of "promoting the general welfare", but doesn't say anything about "free markets". It speaks of "providing for the common defense", but says nothing of a "strong international presence".

I'll stick with the Constitution's guidelines in those areas, thank you very much.

[Selwynn]

154. One point where we agree, Q.

[Zuni]

109. the democratic party is a coalition

and we need the left, center-left and center to unite the country against the bombs and bibles fundy crowd.

[Lars39]

120. A few reasons the DLC does not represent the Democratic Party:

Hats off to Eloriel and others for their investigative powers!

LINKS - What every DUer and every Dem needs to know about the DLC:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=


Behind the DLC Takeover:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7288&forum=DCForumID70&archive=


PNAC and DLC members on the CLI:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7997&forum=DCForumID70&archive=

Interesting thread:Something i did NOT know PNAC/DLC connection:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=20142&forum=DCForumID66&archive=

[TankLV]

124. Of course there is - as long as you can support more left or progressive

candidates that us progressives are pushing - just like we have supported all the conservative, right of center democrats in the past.

Or are you a fairweather democrat, and once your belief's are no longer in the mainstream of democratic thought - I hope I hope - you will find and excuse to drop out?

[DLCfromGA]

127. "Fairweather democrat"

What about ticket splitters and independents?

[JHB]

129. "Mindless corporate bashing"?

Could you define what you mean by "mindless corporate bashing", "pro-business", "pro free trade"?

Having myself grown up in the Reagan/Bush era, I've had time to acquire a more nuanced view of those terms, especially the difference between how they sound in speeches and how they actually are used in American politics, to whit:

"pro business" = "profit and top management payoffs uber alles, screw anything else"
"pro free trade" = "when it works to the advantage of top management"

"mindless corporate bashing" = "recognizing that what benefits top management may be against the interests of a great many other people, taking appropriate action, and not falling for horse-shit from their PR department"

"anti-business" = "anyone whose attitude falls short of 'Ecstatically pro-business'"

I'm no communist, Hell, despite Rethug spittlings to the contrary I'm not even a socialist. I'm all for primarily market economies, but what you witnessed under Clinton was only partially a real capitalist democracy at work. A real "pro business" climate is one that creates jobs that pay enough for people to raise families and get a little ahead on. Over the last century businesses and corporations have howled bloody murder and screamed that they sky would fall for any measure which helped ordinary people and rank & file workers, even the ones which wound up benefiting business. That won't change: any and every measure that doesn't practically wipe the ass of the CEO will be derided as anti-business/corporate bashing. Just because those words are used doesn't make them true.

[info being]

151. Exactly

DLC doesn't yet understand how the terms are defined one way in universities and in the press...but are used in the real world entirely differently. He'll figure it out like we all do.

[Hippo_Tron]

145. My problem with the DLC is that they are weak...

I don't care if they move to the right somewhat or to the left somewhat, the Democrats are still the most practical party in the country and I'm still voting with them. The DLC just isn't trying it seems like. They are in a sense playing not to loose instead of playing to win. Instead of actually running decent campaigns we are stuck with having to use fillibusters to block what little of Bush's agenda we can. My other beef with the DLC is their stances against Dean. Dean isn't my first choice but the DLC shouldn't be having a stance against ANY of our candidates. Plus Dean is no more liberal than Bill Clinton, he just says things that Clinton wouldn't.

[IrateCitizen]

146. No disagreement from this left-wing loony!

You hit the nail on the head -- we need PASSION. Perhaps that could be one of the reasons for Howard Dean's success among the grassroots. Even though he isn't my #1, and I don't view him as any kind of progressive hope, you can't help but admire the guy's chutzpah. He's not afraid to say the things that need to be said. Most of all, he doesn't seem to be afraid to screw up.

The rest of the so-called "front runners" seem to be afraid of saying something "unacceptable" or not representing the opinion-of-the-day. Dean obviously has not been afraid of either of these things.

Perhaps it is centrists like YOU who might save the centrist wing of the party from the DLC -- which it seems would devour itself if given the chance!

[MysticMind]

157. Clinton was weak?

What have you been smoking?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

149. next to zell miller?

[MysticMind]

158. Zell Miller..

Isn't representative of the DLC.

[info being]

150. You must be a business student

You strike me as a business student. I had the same positions as you at 22. Be careful about throwing around terms like free trade...becuase while it is a very good idea theoretically, remember that the WAY it is done, through the WTO, etc., is completely rigged and isn't free at all. Also, remember that pro-business doesn't inevitably mean pro-biggest business. It could mean pro-small business and pro-fair business climate, etc.

You're on the right track though and I think the Democratic Party DOES represent you.

[MysticMind]

160. as a student of international relations...

I find opposition to free trade completely silly. The U.S. economy couldn't survive if we re-nationalized trade while the rest of the world liberalize. The steel tariffs Bush slapped on trade cost us billions of dollars.

[IrateCitizen]

162. That's because you only view the THEORY of it

The key is to look at the way in which it is IMPLEMENTED. The key is to look at how it actually enables more protectionism for corporate interests than it actually opens up a level playing field. The key is to look at the number of Chamber of Commerce officials and corporate lobbyists who are in attendance at every trade ministerial, and the lack of representation from unions, environmentalists, etc. The key is to look at the attempts of the state to squash any dissent to the process -- as evidenced by the widespread police brutality without cause in Miami recently.

The U.S. economy couldn't survive if we re-nationalized trade while the rest of the world liberalize.

The mere fact that you would make such a statement shows me how ill-informed you are about the concerns of those who disagree with the way in which "free trade" is being promoted.

[MysticMind]

165. and you only view the THEORY of why free trade is bad..

We can agree to disagree on trade but supporting free trade doesn't make me a Republican.

[Karenina]

166. True, but it does reveal

a profound lack of understanding. It's impossible to get someone to understand something that his salary depends upon NOT UNDERSTANDING.

[IrateCitizen]

170. I didn't mention anything about THEORY -- I'm talking REALITY

This is an issue that I've actually lobbied Congressional reps on in my region. I'm pretty knowledgable on it. I understand the difference between THEORY and REALITY.

For instance, the THEORY behind it is that it will allow a freer flow of goods and services between nations, increasing efficiency and lowering cost for everyone involved. That's not bad in and of itself -- and the vast majority of those protesting WTO/NAFTA/FTAA, etc. would say the same thing.

HOWEVER...

The way in which it is implemented actually INCREASES protectionism. It's essentially a system set up by the G-8, at the behest of corporations, to control the global trading scheme. Democracy is not even a forethought -- in fact, those who have set up the system the way it is have acted in a manner that could be described as outright CONTEMPT for anything resembling democratic process.

Here's an excellent article to get you started, on one of the best reporters on economic matters out there, William Greider.

The US Right and Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century

Perhaps if you take the time to explore more nuanced views like this, rather than simply buying the "Free Trade Good" mantra repeated by hacks like Thomas Friedman, you might be able to see where some of us are coming from.

[MysticMind]

171. I know where you're coming

You say what you want is real free trade yet everything you talk about doing simply makes it more expensive for average consumers and small businesses to import goods. I disagree that opponents of the WTO support the free flow of goods between nations, they really don't. They say they do so they won't sound like isolationists.

[DoNotRefill]

167. Simply: NO.

sorry 'bout that.

The "big tent" has to be purged to satisfy the ideologically "pure".

[MysticMind]

172. Democrats couldn't win elections in the Midwest and South

Without centrists.

[hope42mro]

168. Good question. Prefer Best to "Liberal"

I feel the same way as you. I know the importance of Free
Trade to global growth and how pro-business policies
eventually provide funding for social services. But like you I
feel out of place when I don't identify with the
"Liberal/ Anti-DLC" group. It sucks that I come to a
democratic website looking for relief from liberal-bashing
only to seek accusations that some candidates aren't
"Progressive/Liberal ENOUGH". Bush won because the
extreme Right has a big dirty mouth, and they love classifying
people into simplified Liberal vs. Conservative categories.
Please don't let us do the same. Not all
"Conservative" policies are detrimental, and not all
"Liberal" policies are feasible. A candidate can
embrace some conservative values/approaches while still being
a Democrat. 

DLCfromGA, I'd go with Clark if I were you. Some call him a
conservative(because he was in the army, and because after
becoming a civilian he thoughtfully considered both parties
before joining the DLC) because he doesn't rant out against
Bush, he objectively criticizes the entire administration and
it's policies. Personally, I prefer how Clark is appeal ling
to moderate conservatives,rather than joining the current
Left-wing factioning. He would not only win over Semi-warm
Bush supporters, but would move this country past its party
polarization.

[MysticMind]

169. I don't trust Clark...

He was a Republican who promoted Bush. I'd prefer someone who has been a Democrat for awhile.

[Capn Sunshine]

173. As a lontime card carrying DLC member I have to ask:

why do you care about left/right/centrist orientation? The "third way philosophy" espouses gravitating away from this. I'm totally comfortable in my skin as a progressive capitalist and I didn't join the DLC to become polarized. We are about stopping that, but guys like From seem to have fallen off the wagon.

The 21st century is about populism and synergy,not chasing a mythical center that keeps getting kicked farther right every time a multinational drives a small independent out of business.

[MysticMind]

174. it's because many DUers arre angry radical liberals

Who have no power in actual politics so they need to get revenge on us centrists.