General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI have been a Democrat my entire life...
But I feel I am drifting away from my Party or my Party is drifting away from me? The Party has been very good with social equality issues. However, I feel that economic equality is no longer as important to our Party leaders as it once was?
It is my opinion that without economic equality, there can be no social equality. It is a pretty tree that will bear no fruit. I believe that without economic equality, higher minimum wages and economic progress for all our citizens, then we will slide backwards instead of progressing forward.
In effect, we are surrendering to the PTB. And they do not have our best interests at the top of their agenda. Just my opinion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Puglover
(16,380 posts)I am probably doing exactly what the PTB want me to do. Losing interest.
djean111
(14,255 posts)And I am certainly not interested in anyone's "legacy" - that is ludicrous.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)stay home. Listen I totally agree with you but right now there isn't anything better to turn to. Do you want Teaparty or religious right in office? I don't so right for now I'll stay with the dems. I'll say am very very disappointed in Obama.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)I think it is music to the ears of those politicians that can depend on your vote no matter what they say or do...
Phlem
(6,323 posts)when I say Obama has turned me into an Independent. I think the whole party has shifted to the right. I'm constantly hearing great things from Bernie that I identify with and a lot of my friends including me are to the left of Obama on almost all his issues.
I hate the knee jerk reaction when someone hear's you say your Independent. They automagically assume you eats yo stoopid cearlz eveh monin.
I'm with Bernie.
-p
Samantha
(9,314 posts)He (Senator Sanders) is a Democratic Socialist and I think if any balance is to be achieved, some Dems must move even further left. I am willing to do that. I believe his official "label" is as an Independent for registration reasons.
President Obama is a New Dem, fiscally conservative and culturally to the left. He did not make that distinction clear (as far as I know) when he was campaigning. But his policies are moving the Democratic party more to the right, especially that chained CPI nonsense, which is a Social Security cut, an absolutely appalling thing for a Democratic President to do. So in order for there to be a truer balance achieved, some Dems will have to move farther to the left, to Bernie's corner.
I don't think if I were you I would be bothered by any knee jerk reaction to you calling yourself an Independent. I am thinking about labeling myself at Democratic Socialist and I really think it is my personal decision if that is what I choose.
Sam
Phlem
(6,323 posts)It's really nice to not live a lie.
Peace to you.
-p
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)A little to the left of Hillary on some public policy questions and some social issues. Pragmatic. Essentially centrist on many questions concerning business and "public-private partnerships".
There is a small core of progressive leaders in the house and senate, although few from my home state of Tennessee.
I think Barack Obama is a good person. I don't incriminate him for not sharing all of my ethics and beliefs. I didn't vote for him in 2012, I voted for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party (who by the way, got 0.03% of the vote, or three one-hundredths of one-percent).
I think progressive candidates have to stand for election. People have to find a way to come together to stand united against corporate power, wealthy interests, anti-science fundamentalists, Ayn Rand, etc., etc, etc.
Good post, Samantha.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I did vote for President Obama in 2008 and in 2012. I don't regret either vote. I think he has done some amazing things in the face of adversity. I did not expect to agree with him on every issue because he himself said election night in Chicago 2008 something like, in respect to the crowd that had gathered, I have gotten so much more from you than you will from me. Obviously badly paraphrased, but he was gently saying we shouldn't expect to agree with everything he did but he obviously knew his base had given him probably more than he deserved.
I think it is okay to adamantly disagree with some of the things he has done but still respect the man, which I do. However, he is a New Dem and I am not. I am a proud liberal. I think this move with respect to the chained CPI is an abomination to the party but I am not going to rant about it. When the Bowles-Simpson recommendations came out, I saw the chained CPI item and researched it. I was angry when I saw the adverse impact it would have on Social Security recipients, government pensions and veterans. So I gathered all of the statistics and sent them to the one person who I thought would pick up the battle-cry. That was Senator Sanders. Two days later, in the evening he came out after calling a press conference and excoriated the principle of a chained CPI. He has not let up on the issue since. I have realized over time my politics agree more with his than anyone who classifies him or herself as a New Dem. In that regard, I do plan to move further left and I make no apologies for that.
But it does make me happy to know there are independent free thinkers in the State of Tennessee. I am really concerned about the moves of the real right-wingers down there who act against the best interests of its good citizens.
I hope to see you around more here in the future and look forward to reading your thoughts on matters.
Sam
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)office? I sure don't
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)
Even though I identify with Bernie more than Obama, I think most of us have gone through this "lesser than 2 evils" choice. And the contrasts have grown starkly evident. I voted Obama ("Rmoney? Are you kidding?"
over Romney as a lot of other Democrats have.
I've known since the beginning that Obama was not as left leaning as I wanted. What I didn't know is that we were voting in a "Moderate Republican".
If my Democratic party moves to the right, do I have too as well?
To be frank, unless one has been living under a rock for the last thousand years, we know enough to not vote R.
-p
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)alternative. Not much better but at least we have some liberal Bernies on the left. Maybe they can't stop them.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Bernie Sanders is listed as an Independent who describes himself as a "democratic socialist". To the best of my knowledge, there is no "democratic socialist party" in the US. Maybe there should be. I am ready to declare that as my party. I may still vote for the Democrat over the Republican, but I am close to disowning the Democratic party.....the only thing that keeps me registered as a Democrat is because so many races in this area are won in the primaries.
If the Democrats started to lose "registered" Democrats, as the Republicans are doing now, they may wake up. It doesn't mean that we have to stay home on election day or that we would vote for Republicans. It is a statement.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)That was my thought too. Maybe they would finally get the message if we all changed our registration to Independent. They keep track of those numbers so if there was a mass exodus they would see just how serious we are about this. We have to get their attention and if it requires hitting them upside the head like this then we should do it.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)
-p
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)whatever you need to tell yourself to make you happy.
Peace.
-p
CrispyQ
(36,424 posts)Me too. But it seems to me that as big money takes over more & more of the political process, even the in primaries it's harder to get good liberal candidates elected. There is a serious problem when you look at your democratic senator's voting record & discover that he's voted with the dems only 30% of the time.
Maybe you're right. Maybe democratic party leadership needs to see an exodus from the party. ???
Just another dem who feels the party has moved so far to the right that they no longer represent me.
which is why I'm starting to identify with Independents.
But don't get me wrong, unless one's been living under a rock for the last thousand years, we, or at least I, never ever vote R. Yes it's that simple because at this point they will only get crazier, sneakier, and more and more vile each day because huge amounts of cash, corrupts.
What do you when the person you worked for to get elected does an about-face on you and starts doing things that aren't even close to Democratic values? I know we get drones flying in our backyards. Woo Hoo!
and no this isn't 3D to the 4th power dimensional chess. He's negotiating with real people's lives, people who live solely on SS. Bluff or not this isn't a fucking game.
-p
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)my own financial interests. The dems are closer to what I want. Do I like everything they bring to the table? No but close to it.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)But if the dems don't slap Obama down hard on this one I will no longer vote or work for them either. I no longer care. I am not going to build my own coffin, even if one of the grinning liars offers to throw in a free pillow.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... but you know what else is music to Republican ears? Cutting Social Security.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)the president might be getting them to come to the table. Maybe he is bluffing (I hope).
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)to realize they been f*cked by who they voted for.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)and because the "god, gays and guns" crowd will vote Rapeuglican no matter what.
aandegoons
(473 posts)We watched them go nuts. And now we are watching our own party go the same way.
The trip gets us to the same place just takes a bit longer.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)happened when dems stayed home in 2010. We must get out the vote in 14. The republicans are praying we stay home. We just can't take the eye off the ball. We need to get the house back and keep the senate. Then we can make the ball move better on our side.
aandegoons
(473 posts)Blame the cause not the effect.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)is just trying to get the republicans to the table for revues. He knows the repubs aren't going to give him revues. It will be a moot point hopefully. The president seems ahead like a chess game.
aandegoons
(473 posts)What makes you think the outcome will be different?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)and unalloyed with the base metal of hypocrisy. I know someone said that, but I can't track it down. Nevertheless, it expresses my opinion of the Democratic Party. I have been voting for 45 years and have never voted for a Republican. Now I will no longer vote for a Democrat either.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)dem to please don't stay home. We need your vote. I am so disappointed with the president but we need your vote in 2014. Come 2016 Clinton will need you also.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)I did say I wouldn't vote for either major Party. While third parties can't win elections, they can often determine their outcomes. If Democrats were looking at mass defections from the progressive movements it might ameliorate the effect of big money in setting policy. In 1912, Eugene Debs got 6 million votes running as a socialist. With a 50-49 split in presidential politics It's time to find a new Debs.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)and force the Democratic party even further to the right.
If we take you at your word, you will not vote for a Democrat no matter what.
The party will have to move further to the right to get votes to make for yours.
Moving left won't do any good, you won't vote Democratic anyway.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)the reasoning that supposes a third party on the left will force the Democratic Party to the right. If that is true then a third party of the right should force the democrats to the left. The Dems keeps moving right because the Republicans keep moving right, because the corporate coffers are on the right. That's a New Democrat strategic sellout going back to the 80s. The result was predictable. Moving left would be the salvation of the Democratic power, return it to power and get my vote.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)did that help the dems? We lost and now we are still living with that.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Had Bill Clinton stuck to Democratic Party Working Class Values,
there would not have been a Nader.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)The "Centrist" Clinton Administration, especially the selling out of Organized LABOR with the "Free Trade" deals and ignoring the Environmental movement in favor of Big Business created a BIG Vacuum on the Left.
Vacuums are filled, both in Physics and Politics.
The only thing dumber than putting Social Security On-the-Table is blaming voters for how they vote.
Losing an election is ALWAYS a Failure of Leadership,
and NEVER the fault of the "lazy" or "stupid" voters.
The JOB of "leadership" is to WIN elections and motivate the troops.
The problem with the very popular pass time on DU of Blaming the Voters
is that NOTHING can be done to fix that problem.
However, it the REAL problem is correctly diagnosed as a strategic failure of LEADERSHIP,
THEN the problem CAN be fixed.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)you are referring to the 2000 presidential race. The fix was in from the get go, and it was common knowledge among people who were paying attention to the larceny being committed in those states by their Republican governors. Neither Florida nor Ohio would have gone for Gore even if Nader hadn't run, and the majority in both states had voted for Gore.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Can't you have any productive thing to suggest other than "Let's keep on drifting right by doing the same thing over and over"?
There are alternatives to staying home. First would be if fan boys would stop enabling this misbehaving president by praising his RW actions and excusing his neo-con leanings. Another would be convincing those we elected that we won't vote for them just because they are not as bad won't cut it anymore. Telling your congressman or president that you are going to vote for them no matter what they do is not a good bargaining strategy. It is, however, the very strategy that Obama uses with the republicans. He gives in to begin with. We see how well that does.
So shouting at those who have become disgusted that they have no choice and that you intend to forgive and forget any behavior that comes from the white house is not a strategy for change. It is a co-dependent mess.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)the events. Remember 2010 when dems stayed home and we got tea baggers. Nuff said.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Still only see black and white. Still unable to crawl out from under the memes.
You do what you want. If everybody else does the same thing. We will soon be a wholly republican-neocon-right wing run country. Regardless of what letter is by anyone's name.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)trying to push a person like Hillary Clinton on Dems when we are demanding REAL democratic candidates, not DINOs, to represent us. In 2008, I voted for Obama, an unknown but likely corporateer, because Hillary Clinton was a DINO and a known corporateer. Obama has now proven to me that he is a corporateer and DINO.
I'm in the last half of my life. My time is my most valuable commodity. I'd rather work to get someone through the primaries who has a real Democratic backbone (someone on par with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders), instead of supporting another DINO and corporateer like Clinton or Obama.
Other Dems like me also aren't willing anymore to vote DINOs into office who then set about smothering major principles of the Democratic party.
When Democratic principles get marginalized, WE end up living in the margins.
It's simple: If a Dem wants my vote, she/he needs to vote like a Dem.
lovelyrita
(241 posts)I live in Central Florida and am on the board of the local DEC. Getting involved locally and showing up for meetings can give you control over who gets elected locally. Some of those local candidates will end up running for state or national offices eventually. This way the focus can be on electing actual progressive candidates.
When you look at politics from the largest national level, it can seem so overwhelming. How can one person fight the massive money of the corporations or the media machine? Locally, you can feel like you are actually doing something, accomplishing something. It really is so important.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)The president isn't czar. We need to pick candidates from state assemblies that are doing the work of the people and send them to the house.
Then we will know we have democrats new to the national scene, who are still representing the people in their districts.
It isn't going to be effective taking on the president, that's why we have congressional representatives.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)period. Remember the whole country has to vote for a president.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)PDA, DFA and PCCC. Dont donate to blue dogs. Kick their sorry asses to the curb.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)Also donate to individual candidates and ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center and NARAL.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)they get a whole slew of right-wing initiatives enacted, while all the while declaring him a socialist
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)to the table. For some reasons dems always seem to shoot themselves in the foot.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Also need to build organizations to promote our values and use those organizations as a power base to influence the political parties.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)I feel powerless, helpless, cheated, lied to, decieved...
We no longer have anything resembling a representative government, we have effectively been stripped of citizenship and we are now simply subjects.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Will we see progressives like McGovern again before we die?
CountAllVotes
(20,867 posts)
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I agree 1000%. The Democratic Party has moved very far to the right on economic issues, actually to the right of Nixon, fer cripes sake. If there isn't an immediate turnaround, I don't think we are just sliding backwards, I honestly believe we are circling the bowl and the time is VERY short to correct it.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)UBEEDelusional
(54 posts)Clinton and the third way wrecking crew have really hurt the party and we are still stuck with the legacy. There are lots of good liberals and progressives in the wings we just have to wait to get rid of the corporate dead wood before we get change. We are also going to have to stop voting for those who are not liberal or progressive just because they call themselves dem.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)we need to shove them out.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)but I don't expect to live to see them wander back up the driveway.
Jack Sprat
(2,500 posts)that to be a loyal Democrat, you cannot criticize a President who campaigned on protecting Social Security and Medicare and then offers both up as concessions to a GOP intent on destroying both.
If we lose the midterms and the next general election, Obama's Republican values will be the cause. Eisenhower was more of a Democrat than Obama by far.
bluethruandthru
(3,918 posts)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)
City Lights
(25,171 posts)I've been a Democrat my entire life, too. My views haven't changed all that much through the years, but now I find myself on the radical end of the left.
My hope well is running dry...
ananda
(28,836 posts)..
2Design
(9,099 posts)Puglover
(16,380 posts)Ever visited a country on the "continent" of South America? I live in Ecuador. FYI it is far from your description of "unsafe country with people in shacks."
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)on the hills surrounding Caracas, the rich lived in gated compounds with armed guards, and armed forces patrolled public shopping areas.
We're a long way from that, but headed in that direction.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)too? The one that painted the continent of South America as an "unsafe country where people live in shacks."
My 12 year old niece would not write in vague generalities like that.
totodeinhere
(13,057 posts)who are working hard for social and economic justice. At this rate South America will soon pass us.
democrank
(11,085 posts)Trust me....your party is drifting, you`re not.
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)I voted green..they need matching money which translates to 5% of the votes..or the stranglehold will never be broken. I don't think either the dems or repubs can be fixed...too many lies..too much bullshit. I've never seen anything like it..this absolute collusion with the corporate elite by both parties. I figured Obama out in the first term, first year..sorry it took me that long. The broken heart because of the utter betrayal lasted well over a year. Now, I expect nothing from him or his administration except everything that I don't believe in..nothing.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)First Presidential Vote... Jimmy Carter 1976...
Last Presidential Vote... Barack Obama 2012...
840high
(17,196 posts)
life long demo
(1,113 posts)I didn't turn 21 until after he was murdered. I still play "what if" game in my head every once in a while.
Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)I voted Reagan because my parents were Republican.
Then I went to college and learned to think for myself. I have never voted Republican since for any office and unless hell freezes over I never will again. I have always voted straight Democratic ticket since 1981.
I converted my Mom shortly after and she voted Democrat in every election until she passed in 2008. I also converted my sister who is still also voting straight ticket.
Now I feel abandoned too and like there is no where to turn. Its like some one posted on here before I feel like we are in a horribly written cop show or movie. Where we are all just stuck in one colossal good cop/bad cop epic fail scene, where no one has our best interests at heart anymore. I wish we had a good defense attorney to carry on the metaphor.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)The more I see DC as a Potemkin village.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)
gateley
(62,683 posts)Well said.
M_A
(72 posts)proud left leaning Indy and will stay that way.
Hi friend!
-p
gordianot
(15,234 posts)My driving hatred of Republicans is consuming. Those who insist on compromise with Republicans are delusional.
AnnieK401
(541 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)question that explains politics and that is "who benefits." If one wishes to know who benefits then one need only follow the money.
Jack Sprat
(2,500 posts)If there ever comes a day when senators and representatives at all levels of government are confined to one term of office, where no campaign can utilize nothing beyond public money, and where lobbying and lobbyists become illegal underneath a strict law requiring prison time for those who violate the restriction, then we might start making headway toward cleaning up American politics. I am for trying.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)It's a fact. If their "think tanks" have convinced them otherwise, they are out of their minds. It is money WE put into the system, and deserve to get back. Wall Street can't wait to get their itchy hands on it, though, and they will fabricate any crisis necessary, buy of any politician they can, to get hold of that trust.
lamp_shade
(14,816 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Of course, you are wrong. It's not the same ones. Recent events have accelerated the disappointment stampede. There are fewer and fewer choir members now.
lamp_shade
(14,816 posts)piss and moan about. It's amusing. Really.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Are you claiming that you are part of the same bunch? Do you know what a pollyanna is? Are you amused about cutting SS?
You can't say I'm wrong if you don't know what is said. Your posts indicates a lack of understanding.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)We are winning three battles that I didn't see us winning during my lifetime. Those battles involve Gay rights, immigrant inclusion and the demographic battle for voters of the future.
Women's economic and reproductive freedom and worker wages are more difficult nuts to crack, but in time the arc toward justice will produce right and fair results. Will that happen soon? I think higher wages for low paid workers is upon us and will happen within two years. Old resistance like Walmart will fold and join the parade offering higher hourly pay and benefits that are fair to it's workers. I don't share your feeling on wages, they will come up for lower paid workers and we will get better as a society because of that. A younger class of business people is growing, that class believes in economic fairness and who don't believe in scratching out every buck possible, at the expense of all that get in the way of that goal. The group of good business people is smaller than the bastard group, but the former is growing rapidly, they will force the issue of economic fairness with the bastard group and will win that fight, history is with the good people.
Women's economic freedom and reproductive rights will take longer to win. But if all of us recognize the importance of replacing soon to retire or die Supreme Court Justices with people that interpret the Constitution as the organic document that the founders intended it to be, then women will get full freedom in society and make their own personal decisions without interference from government.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)unfortunately, it ends up like this:
When the Democrats win, we hold the ground, we take a couple of steps forward and we take a step back.
When the Republicans win... we loose EVERYTHING.
It really is that simple at this point.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)I switched my voter registration in Florida to "No Party Affiliation"
So did my wife.
We'll never vote for a Repuke. But, we may pass on some Dems as well.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)and they employ the social / wedge issues just to keep everyone distracted. It is easier for the rich to pick our pockets that way.
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)The rubes fall for it every time.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)
kentuck
mike_c
(36,269 posts)I was a loyal democrat for 30 voting years. The democratic party does not represent my politics any longer.
840high
(17,196 posts)Dem is turning in his grave. This is not his beloved party anymore.
riverbendviewgal
(4,252 posts)http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim
Lawrence Lessig has already transformed intellectual-property law with his Creative Commons innovation. Now he's focused on an even bigger problem: The US' broken political system
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)NanaJackie
(3 posts)Everybody please calm down. I am very fearful of any SS cuts. I can barely buy food as it is. However we all should know by now that this budget isn't getting anywhere. I believe that the President is just trying to prove how unreasonable Republicans are. He is an intelligent man, and I believe he cares very much about Social Security.
gateley
(62,683 posts)He may feel it's the only way to make some progress.
What a job -- I wouldn't want it for the world. Not as cut and dried as it seems to us out here.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)How many times can we be tricked into pulling the finger? How many times can we be tricked into the lesser of two evils? How many times can we believe that the Supreme Court hangs in the balance and you are to blame if you do not vote to keep the status quo? How many times can we say it's just another chess game? It doesn't work anymore with me.
840high
(17,196 posts)Dem party has left us.
LeftInTX
(25,140 posts)Totally agree!!!
It's important to stay focused on those issues. Numbers issues can be complicated and can easily pull the wool over our eyes.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)That would be the result if the Rapeuglicans regain the Presidency and the Senate.
It would not bring greater economic equality either — it would accelerate our flight in the other direction.
There really is no upside to losing.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Look, it's simple. He's throwing seniors to the wolves. And veterans.
Your little issue is on his agenda soon, no doubt.
The "upside" to losing is that the person throwing seniors under the bus wouldn't have a D by their name.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Stop with the lip service during electoral campaigns, Democratic politicians, and say what you mean, do what you say.
JoeDuck
(79 posts)My first vote was when I was 17 years old. Kentucky was one of the first states to allow 18-year-old residents to vote, and we could vote in the primary if we would be 18 before the general election. I voted for John F. Kennedy in that year's primary. I've identified myself as a Democrat ever since, and I tend to be liberal/progressive on almost all issues. The argument that we have to vote for a Democrat because the other party will be so much worse is not persuasive. If you keep petting a dog that bites you when you feed it and pet it, it's going to keep on biting, and it doesn't help to say that at least it doesn't bite as hard as the Doberman pinscher next door. Most people in my little county are registered as Democrats, but in truth, they are Republicans politically and philosophically; they just don't know it. So, what is a Democrat and must I keep voting for people who say they are Democrats even though they seem to share little, if any, of what I stand for? Something has to change. Either I have to become more conservative or my party has to swing back toward the left. I'm too damn old to change. Where does that leave me?
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)has shifted to the left on this issue. Republicans are making it difficult only because they realize that its over for them as far as this subject is concerned.... So they can project to the country that
they will surrender on this issue eventually but they will hold the line on economic equality and claim how much they gave in on the other equality issue...
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)The party will always disappoint you. Vote for the candidate. Not the party.
Indyfan53
(473 posts)Primaries are just as important as the elections themselves. If you don't like who is running, challenge them.
Whatever you do, don't sit home or vote third party in midterm elections. We can't repeat 2010. That's how we got the tea party fascists getting in the way of the recovery.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)A foreign/military policy difference is impossible to find.
An economic distinction between neoliberals and neocons is hard to make, both parties promote a totally unreconstructed notion of absolute free trade, a notion that can't go any further right. The movers and shakers of neither party have put even the least thought or effort into developing and promoting a concept of free-and-fair trade, a concept that's required if participant countries are to move in the direction of environmental damage control, developing a common ground for workers rights, and so on. Neither party promotes the idea that US natural resources are by nature part of a common wealth (along with the air that US citizens breathe!), owned by all citizens and so to be used to benefit all, equally, for now and for future generations.
With regard foreign/military/economic policy the US has only *one* extreme right party, and that party is definitive of what "extreme right" means in the world today.
So what do these two parties differ on? They differ on issues that require social/cultural splits between groups regarding issues of personal morality, in particular anything pertaining to sex and religion. Even w.r.t. these differences, the differences are more or less purely rhetorical.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts) kentuck
(111,052 posts)Not squeezing them all for yourself and hiding them in foreign accounts.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)to be a good little capitalist what you want to do is get 100% profit while investing 0%.
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)A lot of room between what you wrote and actual economic equality. I don't think actual economic equality is possible but certainly the income disparity can and should be reduced.
Perhaps there is a better term?
mick063
(2,424 posts)The 1% has purchased our politicians as half the country has fallen for a lie that was Ronald Reagan's promise. That the "job creators" would trickle wealth down. That the tide which floated the wealthiest boats would float all of our boats.
We are collectively kicking our sickest, poorest, and aging to the curb while the wealthiest enjoy a standard of living that exceeds historic levels.
This is a children's fairy tale come true. The big bad wolf, the wicked witch, and the evil prince have come to life. Our world is filled with the evil we were appropriately taught of as infants.
demwing
(16,916 posts)not people who say "Oh yeah, trickle down failed!" and then turn around and enact trickle down theory.
I don't know how we get there....but I'm convinced it will take at least two things:
1. There has to be a new economic theory in America that embraces some form of populist socialism. Embraces. Not "tacitly acknowledges socialism while pretending we aren't engaging in socialism." Embraces. When capitalism waivers, this new theory has to be silently running in the background, waiting for the right moment.
2. The flag has to be carried by at least two groups: A) The Labor Class B) The Church. Catholic or Protestant, it doesn't really matter. If Socialism comes as a combination of Christian Charity and equal rights for the working stiff, the middle class will embrace it. Then the game is over, and progressives win.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)without the hammer and sickle baggage?
delrem
(9,688 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)in the post you responded to
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)part of the problem with socialism beign sold is that it has a lot of the hammer and sickle, meaning that is got mixed up who also championed a lot of stupid things, such as Stalin, Mao, and to the extent he liked to kill people, Che. If we are going to use sopcialism, it needs to be a homegrown type that owes nothing to communist emes...ther eis hope though, as the Scandivians manage to show the you can take socialist ideas, and clean off the icky red Soviet collectivism and ruthlesness.
demwing
(16,916 posts)I know that to some here at DU, thoughts of political cooperation with the Church will be ridiculed and dismissed. I also know that you are correct, and (accurately or not) socialism evokes images of Mao and Stalin.
My point is that if the banner of socialism is carried into America by the Church, it will "owe nothing to communist memes" and would be free of "icky red Soviet collectivism." It will be a movement based on charity to the poor - and begin with food banks and free medical clinics - areas where the Church already has a history of engagement. What is the prefix most commonly used with the word "communist?" I believe it would be "godless," so let's remove that argument.
Again, I know this is idea embracing help from the Church runs counter to the logic of many DUers. But DU is not representative of the majority of Americans. We are not a theocracy (not a religious country), but we are a country of religious people. Ease socialism in through the Churches, and those religious Americans will follow along.
Now to balance that Church influence, and keep our form of Government from turning theocratic, the other half of this "socialist banner" should be carried by a new Labor effort. Socialism cannot rise up from the ranks of the poor (not without a measure of violence), because it will be looked at as a movement of lazy "takers" trying to get a free ride. It won't rain down from the 1% (that's trickle down theory, and we all know how that works), so it must come from the middle and spread outward. A new labor class - say a United Women's Party - would be ideal. Let the Old Boys network pooh pooh an organized Women's movement. You know they will, and this will only feed the argument that the Old Boys network is out of touch with American values.
It would be better to educate people, and grow change slowly, but I think we are hitting an economic point of no return. If we don't create sudden, non-violent change, we risk losing our democracy, our environment, and out future. We cooperated with the Churches during the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s. We can do so again.
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)I see them, sadly, as an increasingly willing partner with the global economic "power elite," which is increasingly running the economics of the world. Look at the US, including Democrats, now falling into the austerity bullshit that has swept Europe.
Who is driving the economic policies we see taking over the world? Sure as shit not the 99%! It's the 1%.....the oligarchs & mega-corporations. Look at who's being starved out, who is losing out in all of this austerity bullshit -- it's not the 1%! It's not the corporate monoliths! It's the 99%.
I no longer see this as left vs. right. I see it as an incredibly dangerous time for the United States and the world as the power elite buy up the rights to everything, including the natural resources that keep all of us alive, and drive economic policy around the world in such a way that it benefits them and devastates the rest of us.
And sadly, there are precious few politicians and people in power who are standing up and fighting this. People love bernie because he's one of them. I most definitely count Alan Grayson as one, among others. But they are in the minority and they need us to fight LOUDLY with them because this bullshit coming from the ReTHUGS AND DEMOCRATS has to stop.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)All the media we get is framed as Left versus Right, but the real, deadly war is being waged by the one percent against the rest of us.
THANK YOU.
This is the core of it. I wish I could take your post and pin it at the top of every political forum on the internet. We're talking about the replacement of human ethics with corporate ethics. Profit to be gained from every aspect of life...and killing life.
We are only just beginning to see the human results of ceding our government to corporate control. They are discovering opportunities for profit in fresh water rights, in our food supplies, in surveilling and imprisoning more and more of us....And Americans may soon finally even get a first-hand taste of the bloody wars for profit that have been murdering and devastating countless human beings in other countries, for years.
Human beings do not exist in corporate ledgers. Only "human resources" and opportunities for exploiting them.
We're taught in this country to see politics as a sporting event, and the dire conditions in some other countries as something that happens "over there." But now we're watching the takeover of our own representative government by corporations that, by definition, have no compelling interests beyond the acquisition of ever more power and profit.
And it's growing, and going global. Some other countries already know the human devastation that happens when profit-seekers gain governmental power over human beings and ownership of the resources necessary for human survival. We are still being fed the mantra that everything is okay, but we are being moved into a nightmarish future.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Austerity for the 99% to finance more Prosperity for the 1% is what's on the plate.
These are global agreements.
babylonsister
(171,035 posts)ananda
(28,836 posts)..
nightscanner59
(802 posts)Nature will soon speak louder than economics as long as we keep going like we are.
Next election cycle, I might go with: http://www.gp.org/index.php
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)for a lose in the dept. of ethics.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)You're sort of a bell weather-a real Democrat who is sometimes confused by where his party appears to be heading and isn't quite sure how to react.
I tend to agree.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)I'm so glad to see so many people on DU who feel just like I do. These politicians are supposed to work for us. When I registered as a Democrat in the 1970s I didn't sign up to be a cheerleader. We really need to push these people to do the right thing and the first way to do that is to stop making excuses when they make the wrong decision. As citizens we have a responsibility to MAKE THEM do the right thing. When we join together and push them we can overcome the money that is pulling them in the opposite direction.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts) 
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)It seems that the situation is so dire, the system so hopelessly broken that drastic measures must be taken. If there is no social or economic justice in a country, that country cannot call itself democratic nor civilized nor first world. Our elected representatives who wield the levers of power no longer listen to nor work for the people who elect them to serve.
We need IDEAS, STRATEGY, and GOALS.
I am always interested in the fact that Gandhi and later Martin Luther King found the philosophy of passive resistance in the writings Tolstoy. They took his ideas and put them into action. Passive resistance was a way to deal with an overwhelming force. There are other strategies for dealing with this problem, which gave rise to theories of unpredictable violence, i.e. terrorism, but as history has proven, the most successful course of action has been passive resistance. By harnessing the power of truth and justice, the empathy and power of the world's people can turn the tide. We, as well as many other countries, are witnessing a cruel austerity by the powers that be that can only be defeated by a collective effort that will demand sacrifice, but not the same kind of sacrifice as the masters have decreed.
The plutocracy has brought our country to its knees. It has made us wage slaves without the hope of a decent life, health, and now dignity and economic security in our old age. Our very basic needs have been sacrificed to their greed. When there are those who chant fear that the alternative to kleptocracy is more of the same just redder and meaner, we should brush them aside and refuse to listen. There are more than two choices.
The right wing has played a very long game. They have outflanked the left by creating think tanks and creating a zealous base that sat out elections or voted in Tea Party crazies to pull the party HARD right. They have achieved this over the span of forty years by being willing to do things Democrats would never be willing to do. They were willing to lose elections, run insane candidates, and propose unpassable legislation in order to get their real agenda through (see their success on reproductive issues).
They are so far ahead, that a small, incremental ground game cannot keep up. Change cannot come from within a corrupted system. It's time to come up with core ideas that fit the modern times in order to turn this ship in the right direction ( or the left as the case may be). Our country has been captured by financial and corporate interests. What can be done? The answer lies in the fact that we are still, despite the looming threat of globalization and distant markets to exploit, the golden goose in terms of a large economy and its impact upon the world. We are a consumer economy, and in our numbers, we have strength. We need a strategy to mobilize that strength and then convince the rest of the 99% to get on board. This is far more important that cheering any individual politician or party. I do not have the answers, but something must be done.
Enough.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)ideas, strategies, and goals...three things that many on the left scorn. When OWS was around, people slammed it for nto having goals, yet as a strategy to ensure the discomfrt of the center, it worked wonderfully, notice that this CPI move was nto done until OWS died, with everyione com[plainign about it because they said it had no ideas, straigies and goals?
TXcourtney
(5 posts)You say that "It is my opinion that without economic equality, there can be no social equality."
My questions are:
What does economic equality mean to you?
If you were in charge, how would you go about achieving that, in what you would consider a fair and reasonable way, in line with the ideals of the Constitution?
PinkFloyd
(296 posts)Even when the Dems win, the Reps are the ones who really get to govern. Pick almost any issue--gun control, filibuster reform, the budget, trade, taxes, whatever...it seems it almost always goes the R's way and their way is almost always hateful, bigoted, and hard on regular folks.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)is definitely NOT the Democratic Party I once knew.
And I am disgusted with the lies and the betrayal on Social Security and Medicare.
midnight
(26,624 posts)
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)You then get to vote in primaries.
If you mean economic equality as something enforced by the government, the Democratic party that I belong to has never stood for that. It has stood for equality of opportunity, a truly progressive tax system, provision of education for all, a social safety net etc..
The main opponent of the Democrats stand for allowing discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation , and just about any other characteristic that they can measure. They stand for economic inequality, inherited wealth, and corporate personhood.
I know which side I choose.
Alkene
(752 posts)..but kept the Dem. registration as a more or less, Not-a-Republican, affiliation.
After all, where else am I gonna go?
olegramps
(8,200 posts)The workers thrived when unions were strong and were able to elect representatives that actually represented their interest. Now the workers lament and wring their hands at their sorry fate as the wealth is steadily transferred to the upper 10%. The stupid workers not only bought the managements propaganda that unions were their enemy and they would take good care of them, they voted in "Right to Starve' laws. It will only get worse as more workers retire without any pensions and have to rely on Social Security. The banks have a nice solution for their dilemma. They will provide you with a reverse home loan in order to seize the only asset that that many have left leaving you nothing to pass on to your children.
dajoki
(10,678 posts)nineteen50
(1,187 posts)the Democratic party became the corporate party. Don't sleep they will snatch your whole body.
broadcaster75201
(387 posts)Also, the Dems are just as bought and paid for as the GOP.
A friend of mine in Canada marvels that our Liberals are more Conservative than their Conservatives.
Sadly, we HAVE to vote. Part of this disaster is 29 million 2008 Obama voters not showing up in 2010. We can not afford to do that again. Keep voting Liberals into office and it will change in time. We have the two mot important factors on our said ... Time and Demographics.
whathehell
(29,034 posts)Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, and of course, Bernie Sanders
an Independent who caucuses with them.
Sure, they are "good on social issues"....Those don't cost any MONEY!
Bozita
(26,955 posts)
fredamae
(4,458 posts)as were my parents and grandparents....
What we have today is NOT a Democratic Party--while we were distracted and watching the TP take over the GOP? We were also being infiltrated with Moderate GOP players......over the past couple of decades.
Evidenced now by "dem" voting patterns of the day....
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)The Democratic party has been ill for a long time now.
I was "sent down" to Bosnia by Clinton in 1993. My high school year in Kansas showed me in 1989/90 that the Dems today has become GOP of 1990. The democratic party has left it's base, and turned hard Right. They are no longer true to their perceived ideology, or dogma if you will.
Next time: VOTE PROGRESSIVE and NOT DEMOCRATIC!
Some of the readers here might call me a bloody Socialist and a foreigner who shouldn't "barge in" another "countries infernal affairs" but I cannot help myself, since I consider myself to be a true Cosmopolitan and a Liberal at every sense of the word.
YOU have to keep your elected officials feet to the fire ALL THE TIME, and threaten them that THEY WILL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES if they vote with their personal wallets instead of the will of the people.
READ AND LEARN!
http://bohemianwriter1.wordpress.com/
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)I feel this pain as well. It's getting old voting for the party that will do the least harm, not for a party that you feel enthusiastic about.
We're stuck in this two party rut, this monopoly. To get to real democracy there should be IRV and well monitored non computer voting.
Bless the Obama apologists and their chess/checkers mantra but I can't go there. Right out of the gate he appoints people like Rahm Emmanual and the Robert Reich free trade Wall Street insider club. Going forward he has gone after whistleblowers rather than the wrong doers they expose.
Something is rotten here, not so much in Denmark.
Bake
(21,977 posts)
Bake
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)to presume the Democratic Party ever actually stood for economic equality. There was a point, in the FDR-to-LBJ era, when there was some recognition in parts of the Democratic Party that some measure of redistribution of wealth in the name of economic fairness was a good thing; that there was some role for the government in addressing poverty, lack of rural development, and urban blight; but this was never a national thing even within the Democratic Party as a whole (Southern Democrats remained largely conservative and opposed to both the New Deal and LBJ's Great Society; it was with the help of relatively liberal Northeastern Republicans that those things passed in the first place).
And as noted above, the "New Democrats" of the DLC and their courting of business donors, adoption of neoliberal economics, and acceptance of the Reaganite status quo have more or less completed the shift of the Democratic Party to the economic centre-right. It can be argued that the Democratic Party had to change and adapt to the new political reality in the post-Reagan era in order to remain viable, but there's the question of whether it isn't ultimately a Faustian bargain as it will inevitably end with alienating and disaffecting many of the party's former core supporters (who are basically left with nowhere to turn), not unlike the British Labour Party post-Blair.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)kiranon
(1,727 posts)The Republicans have moved so far to the right that they are approaching fascism. The Democratic party/policy/President are not perfect and I oppose Obama's social security compromise but the Democrats are the best we have. Republican Supreme Court appointments have been a disaster for the common man/woman and this country's only hope is to have a more liberal majority on the Supreme Court. So, I will stay a Democrat and vote in every election. As a woman there is no way I would ever vote for a Republican and see women's rights move further into the "Sharia zone".
