What's next for the Democratic Party?

[polichick]

As citizens who value peaceful solutions, we elected the guy who wasn't into stupid wars, who was honored with a Nobel Peace Prize, presumably because he was seen as someone who would strive to find peaceful solutions and work well with other nations.

Now what?

What's next for Americans who want to be peaceful citizens of the world, who want to work with other nations to solve the difficult problems we face, who'd like to get past all the violence so that we can address things like hunger, energy and climate change?

Do we keep hoping that progressive change will come through the Democratic party?

What's next for this party?

[last1standing]

1. Progressive change will only come through us.

I will no longer listen to anyone who demands I vote for a candidate who doesn't share my core values just because he/she has a (D) after their name.

At some point we must realize that the lesser of evils may still be too evil to accept.

[polichick]

2. We've been stuck with the lesser of evils for a while...

I'd really like to vote FOR someone instead of against someone who's worse.

[msongs]

3. announcing...Hillary 2016 lol nt

[polichick]

4. Somebody has to bomb Iran, right?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. Bombers without borders.

[polichick]

10. Funny and sad at the same time.

[warrant46]

88. Back to the good old days of LBJ

Hopefully re-instituting the Voting Rights Act

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. But PalinGingrichRomneyBoogeyman!

[brooklynite]

19. So President Obama is "evil"...

...that's a new low, even for the debate going on here.

[last1standing]

21. Poor you being so offended.

I hope you feel better real soon.

[brooklynite]

23. Thanks but I don't need to...

I live in the rational world, and leftist fantasies about the coming revolution or the Warren/Grayson 2016 campaign tend to be just that.

[last1standing]

25. Ah yes, the rational world where bombs make peace and taxing the poor helps the economy.

You stay away from those nasty leftist fantasies, now.

[polichick]

26. Yes, God forbid we elect people who would put the people first.

You've made it clear what you think is next for this party - more corporate/mic whoring.

That must be your idea of the Democratic way.

[brooklynite]

29. You might be surprised who I support...with votes and financially.

My wife and I were big supporters of Elizabeth Warren (which is why I know she won't run for President). We were supporters of Alan Grayson. I'll be voting for Bill DeBlasio next week.

The reason is that I see them as responsible advocates for progressive policies...and I also see them as within the Democratic mainstream. They're not advocates of bringing down the capitalist system, OR the banking system (as opposed to imposing necessary reforms), so I'm much less likely to be disappointed in them than you are.

[polichick]

30. But it's a fantasy to want people like that in charge?

I just can't stomach the DLC way anymore.

[last1standing]

34. Strange how first he insults Warren/Grayson supporters then claims to support them, isn't it?

Does anyone else smell bullshit?

[polichick]

74. Yep - it's quite pungent!

[daleanime]

28. Oh yes, the 'rational world'....

where dead people are a good thing.

[brooklynite]

31. If you haven't noticed, there are already dead people in Syria...

I guess you don't care about them?

[daleanime]

33. Do you really think that their lonely?

How many bodies should bear the tag "made by Americans"?

[Skittles]

36. YOU KNOW IT LAST1STANDING

[840high]

67. I've reached the

same conclusion. I've had enough.

[reformist2]

7. Getting money out of politics should be everyone's #1 goal. It really is the root of all evil.

[polichick]

11. How though? We have a corporate tool Supreme Court and a party...

that's as close to Wall Street and the pharmaceutical companies as Republicans are to big oil.

[raouldukelives]

54. We need Americans who care enough about the country to not support Wall St.

Who feel deeply enough about issues like climate change that they refuse to fund & assist the ones denying it for a share of the proceeds.
That, sadly, is the only answer. Every dollar in the markets is a vote of confidence for more of the same, and worse.

[polichick]

71. True. That's why I've pulled my money out of the market...

I used to trade quite a bit but I just can't support this system and have found better ways to prepare for retirement.

[Le Taz Hot]

42. And I'll ask you for the 12th time,

how do you do that when the persons responsible for enacting such legislation are the very people benefitting from it? I hate simplistic answers. It makes you look none too smart and it wastes everyone's time. Fuck it. <flush>

[polichick]

72. This is the dilemma - and why I'm asking "what's next?" for this party...

A BIG change has to come - it can't continue to be about voting for the lesser of evils. There's too much at stake now.

[NuclearDem]

8. God, I don't even know anymore.

They're going to keep pushing further to the right, and all the enablers are going to keep using the "but Republcans!!!" scare tactic to make it happen.

[polichick]

12. I don't think that tactic will get people to the polls next time.

[Carolina]

9. Defeat

When they become warmongers using PNAC arguments
When they allow the home front to rot for lack of money but don't hesitate to consider bombing a sovereign nation at all costs

Then defeat shall be their reward

[polichick]

13. A defeat they will have earned I guess...

Maybe Alan Grayson will put his name in the hat - he's been out front on the Syria issue.

[brooklynite]

14. We got the President who isn't into stupid wars...

...but unless you were under the mistaken impression that he was a pacifist isolationist, you elected someone who would apply thoughtfulness and restraint to the use of America's military force...which he has done and continues to do.

[polichick]

15. So Obama is the best we can expect from this party?

[brooklynite]

17. Define the specific military policy you want and I'll tell you...

...if there's a Democrat who meets your standards of purity that can get elected.

[polichick]

20. It isn't just about the military - but corporations and the mic...

Elected officials are supposed to serve the people. We have two parties that serve a very elite and powerful few who have their own power/money agenda.

[brooklynite]

24. That tells me who you don't like (just about everybody)...

...tell me what policies you insist on.

[bluestate10]

49. It is easy to spew out code words. It is much tougher to make change. In order to

make change, a person must have skin in the game and do something other than hate something. If you don't like what corporations are doing, start up your own business and convince potential customers to buy from you for their own good. If you don't like outsourcing, make it a personal policy to buy as many products made in the USA as possible and prompt retailers to add even more USA made products. If you don't like the MIC, as you so euphemistically call it, come up with modern businesses that focus on the future, cleaning up the earth and coming up with efficient sources of clean, renewable energy. Your hated MIC supplies hundred of thousands, if not millions of jobs, work on developing employment opportunities that will absorb displaced defense workers as military spending is rolled back to sustainable levels. Change start local, change what is nearest to you and work with like minded people to expand change to statewide and nationally.

[polichick]

70. Sorry, but U.S. voters should be able to elect people to represent them, not...

whore for corporations.

We're at a time in history where the Supreme Court even carries water for corporations.

Time to recognize that elected Dems rarely serve the people - and it's up to Dem voters to change that.

[LWolf]

45. Interesting.

Anyone who meets my standards of integrity on issues will be automatically dismissed, by you, as "unelectable." As indicated by your "can get elected" phrasing.

If that's true, that nobody worth voting for can be elected, the first front ought to be true election reform, getting private money out of the process.

Of course, if enough people ignored the "unelectable" hysteria and simply voted for those who meet the highest standards on social and economic justice, rejecting the neo-liberals, neo-conservatives, and bat-shit crazy fascists, we might find that we could get some better candidates elected after all.

[brooklynite]

46. Depends on how extreme your position is...

...I'd say that, if you're an isolationist, then you're unlikely to find an acceptable Democrat (but there might be some Republicans you'd like to look at). If you have a more nuanced position, there might be Democrat with the ability to get elected.

I say this not as someone with certainty about the future, but with hard experience of working for candidates for 35 years, many of whom lost. The experience has taught me not to confuse by personal dreams with political reality.

[LWolf]

93. "extreme"

Some interesting words used here.

"Extreme" is subjective and can be "spun" to suit whatever your point is.

"Isolationist?" I'm not an isolationist. Neither am I a supporter of empire, of world domination, or of neo-liberalism. I'm also not in favor of military solutions.

There are many ways that I would characterize myself politically, and none of them have anything to do with "isolationism." Reading between the lines, I'd predict that "isolationist" is a term revving up to characterize those who are NOT neo-liberals, not war-mongers, or not consumed with delusions of empire.

[bluestate10]

50. The fact of the matter, a far Left person WILL NOT get elected in most races today.

Like it or not, that is a fact. You write as if only you and people of your ilk have high standards of integrity, how assuming. I look for people that have commonsense ideas when I vote, I also want outstanding integrity from that person. Instead of railing about getting private money out of politics, why don't you work door to door in your neighborhood to talk to your neighbors and change as many minds as you can? You will find that money can never beat passion and discipline. Money can defeat those that throw their hands up and talk about invisible, powerful forces that they can't overcome, as I sometimes see some on DU writing.

[LWolf]

92. "People of my ilk"

"far Left"



Interesting rebuttal to be found on DU, which used to identify itself as " a premier left-wing discussion forum."

FYI: All of what you wrote is beside my point. Some of it is relevant; still beside the point.

[Jefferson23]

16. When another catastrophe manifests itself from our domestic and or foreign policy, we

may have a response from a large enough percentage of Americans who will demand
public funded elections...rejecting whoever comes into power as an illegitimate POTUS.

We know what the lobbies have changed, it's all been well documented..I almost wish it could
be pursued similar to a personal injury suit. OWS failed for a host of reasons, but the people
did mobilize as a response to a horrific event. I remain hopeful, although we don't have a lot of
options left.



on edit for spelling

[polichick]

18. I hope the catastrophe isn't WWIII. Too bad about OWS...

It was great to have people speaking out about inequality in our economic and justice systems.


Edit: typo

[bluestate10]

52. Your post seems to be a vague illusion to a collection of shadows that can't be fought.

Fundamentally, it sounds like surrender. Try getting involved with your local Democratic party organization, start changing it from within. Talk to other members, share your ideas and listen to their ideas. Talk to potential and existing candidates.

[Jefferson23]

91. Well it may seem that way to you. I am and have been steadily

involved in local politics, working to keep my state not only blue but progressive. With that
said, I do not ignore the fact that money streamed into every conceivable form of legislation
that fixes the outcome for the majority of Americans is real and an up hill battle to fight
against. I mentioned OWS b/c it was a reaction to a catastrophe, I would prefer as anyone
holding my political beliefs, that we see change enacted without living through another one
like the last or, worse.

[fadedrose]

22. I wish I knew

It hasn't measured up to our expectations.

Our President was just too well-liked and popular at the beginning that the Reps had to pull every nasty trick in the bag, cutting funds, no raising taxes, making everything miserable. Neocon Dems provided more disappointment.

And now this. Nobody expected that our man would be dropping bombs and drones. What next?

[polichick]

27. "It hasn't measured up to our expectations."

True. It's like a dim shadow of what it once stood for.

[NoOneMan]

32. Who cares

Who cares about any of the bullshit anymore

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. This will not be popular

but the democratic party is doing what historically it has done for all it's life, since Jefferson, when it was called the Democrat-Republican Party.

Every 75 years or so, the Dems do a 180. What is next for the party is exactly what it has been signaling for ten to fifteen years. It is becoming the party of business, again. And what Labor and the rest of the old coalition need is to wake up and be ready for a new party.

If history is any guide, the Rs are well on their way to implosion, and a new party to the LEFT of the Dems will come from the remnants of the Rs and a good portion of the Ds, mostly the left of center libertarian component, as well as the left of center social democrat component.

The old coalition is quite shattered now.

Oh and a new party will take a few cycles. Perhaps the Greens will be able to absorb all these folks, or a new party will be formed. Suffice it to say the parallels to the rise of the GOP in the 1850s is the best example of that. Lincoln was a labor man after all.

And yes, that is history of the US Political system. We are witnessing that again.

[madrchsod]

37. interesting.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. The political hsitory is fascinating

that is why also during the 1880s the two parties were friends of business. What shook the dems and finally made them turn left where the Grangers, who at one point were 1/3 of Congress. Much of the New Deal came from two sources and the new coalition for the Dems, that took shape between 1910 and 1930, the Grangers and the Socialists. Social Security was a Socialist idea.

Right now I do not see a third party capable of shaking the Dems or the Rs, either of the two major parties, to the point that they would look for a new non business coalition. But the Rs are in real trouble. So we will see if the 1850s repeat themselves from that POV.

[madrchsod]

40. my grandfather was a leader in the grange in western iowa during the 20`s.

i was going to bring up the dixiecrats but it`s to late for that now...!

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Remnants remain in the plains

To this day

[polichick]

44. That's really fascinating...

"The old coalition is quite shattered now." - Maybe that's why I feel like something has to happen.

Not sure we have a lot of time for something new to arise though; the country is a wreck.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. The country was a wreck when the granger rebellion

Took over 1/3 of congress. It was a wreck and we went to a civil war when the republicans rose.

It is because it is a wreck and both parties are ossified and not responsive to people's needs that you will see an alternative. Both republicans and Grangers started at the very local level. Covering this county's bards, commissions and city councils tells me that yes, we are getting close.

Start paying attention to local politics. If you have kids or grand kids the school board is obvious. (Locally we are seeing small time revolts with radicals getting voted out), the less obvious, but just as critical, pay attention to judicial elections.

And yes, most of the time city hall is a snoozer, but pay attention to that as well.

[bluestate10]

55. Left of Democrats coming from some remnants of the republican party?

There hasn't been anyone from the Left in the republican party since the purges of the mid sixties, when liberal republicans were chased out of that party for good. But, I agree with most of what you envision about formation of new parties that can compete to win elections and steer the nation.

Liberal republicans became democrats a long time ago. The only Left party will come from a split of the democratic party. The democratic party is truly a big tent party that as it grows, will begin to show more strains. Any Left party worth it's salts will come from the Democratic party splitting at it's Center, with the Left being joined by socialists and liberal libertarians, and the right picking up the few remaining sane republicans. People at the Center-Left and Center will have to decide which side to join, or will be a swing vote block.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Oh ye of little faith

Don't think national politics.

I can mention five in County politics right now. Some are even nominally still, republicans. A couple are city council members and a third is a mayor.

You think the radical republicans came from the DC corner of the Whig party? Should I mention that Lincoln was involved in State, not national politics?

As right wing and radical as modern day San Diego Republican Central committee is, does not mean that all party members have not been looking. Somehow I doubt San Diego is the only place where moderate, even Liberal Republicans are still involved in local politics.

I highly recommend reading on how local politics shaped the early GOP. If you put your ear to hyper local, to local politics you will see the parallels.

[upi402]

38. an actual Democrat

no more Republican ditto-heads in our party.


effemall

[brooklynite]

47. You can't beat somebody with nobody

Right now, I'd hazard a guess that you don't have a candidate who meets your standards; just the usual list of hopeful names. It may be self-satisfying to complain for the next year about how the Clinton supporters are "annointing the next nominee", but they're working in the political system we have, and it appears that you're not.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Characterizing others is just that, your opinion spewing about others.

And that's all you have left. Who is complaining? You are. Big talk of anointment out of the loser of the last Democratic nomination process. The folks who claimed to 'know' in 2007 were saying it was Hillary vs Rudy, that's what they thought was in the cards. Neither won their nominations.
Folks who claim to know the future in politics are inherently laughable.

[bluestate10]

56. The Democratic party is and will become even more a broad party.

As the republican party implodes, the democratic party will pick up republicans that can't stand the direction of that party. Therein lies the opportunity for the Left to form a new Liberal party that can win elections. As the Democratic party grows, so does it's numbers and ideological strains. The party will one day fracture into two parties that will dominate politically. The challenge of the Left is to gain as much of that split party as possible, that can't be achieved by referring to anyone who don't toe the line exactly as a ditto-head.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. What's next? Politics-as-usual and more sliding to the right..where the money is.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[brooklynite]

53. Gay rights...expanded access to health care....elimination of tax cuts for the wealthy...

Rightward Ho!

[bluestate10]

57. I find it amazing that this President has accomplished more of the Left's dream change

in five years than the Left accomplished in six decades, but the Left view him as inadequate. I see revisionist rants about how wonderful and all so Left dreamy FDR was. Those people should spend time in a library studying all of FDR's policies, what he knowingly didn't do because doing it was politically difficult. The revisionism is a mirror image of what the republican side is doing with it's elevation of Ronald Reagan to sainthood.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Gay rights? Another straight person waving banners not their own.

More than half of this country, 29 States, allow open legal discrimination against GLBT people in housing, employment and the offering of services. Nothing has been done to address that criminal abuse of human rights. There is NO federal level protection at all.
Not to mention that what progress we have made was made by activists pushing for progress over decades, it did not fall from the loving branches of the tree of centrism, nor did it all come from Obama. Most centrists on DU spent years advocating civil unions as equal and as 'the best we can do, if he supports marriage now, he will lose the election' they'd say. But now they wave that flag as if they had been on the front lines with us.
Straight folks wave the 'gay rights' banner as if there was anything like equal rights for us in this nation. This is why we still have to fight for rights even harder, to prevent smug celebrants from causing apathetic heterosexuals to congratulate themselves for work that is not yet done.
Always, pure class from the 'You don't seriously expect rights equal to MINE, do you?' Centrists.

[brooklynite]

61. So, if the President gets NO credit for improvements...

I guess he gets no blame for the things you don't like?

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Is that what I said? No, what I said was it gets old hearing straight credit him for work not

finished, claiming 'gay rights' are settled stuff, and demanding all credit to him for the work done for entire lifetimes by others. Sure, he did his wee bit toward the end by muttering about support for equality. But you know the movement was going on for years and decades while he openly spoke against equality.
The insulting bit is when you insist on celebration when there is legal discrimination against us in the bulk of the nation. The insulting bit is when you pretend that none of us, going back past Harvey Milk's dead body, did a thing and only Obama has credit coming. You and your cohort spend so much time crediting him for other people's work and for work not yet begun that no one has any room for accurate or deserved praise in the scant few places he does have it coming. But understand that most of his political life so far has been as a politician opposed to equality and saying so loudly with hate preachers at his side.
Too much fantasy coming from the centrist straights who were never with us when we laid the foundations for equality and who bickered with us about every action we took to make the changes we have made so far.
Stay classy, straight centrists.

[Harmony Blue]

69. What about the Supreme Court

?

[Johnny Ready]

43. Winston Churchill for 200 Alex.

It is possible the US could walk away from Syria viewed as "caring" in the sense we may have "cared" enough to get involved. This could potentially set off another round of 9-11 type patriotism. If so it will be rather simple for the Dems, to claim Syria as a victory and a showcase of our unique balance of peace and intervention. This could be very helpful during the next presidential election. If played correctly.

Corruption has been mentioned quite a few times in your thread, it is a serious concern. On the other hand I think it was Winston Churchill who said "The only thing worse than democracy is anything else". - or something close to that

Change is like a feather in the wind, you can see it but will be hard pressed to capture it, or control it. Of the choices available today anyone without an R next to their name will be MUCH more likely to be able to comprehend and adjust to change, accordingly. imo.

[n2doc]

48. I think it has to come from the bottom up.

We need to identify and support those who follow the progressive path. And this means time and money. Because the corporate party will always have plenty of money to buy things.

[bluestate10]

59. I agree. Identify good candidates early and support them. Network with other

like minded people to have them identify candidates in their districts and identify like minded voters.

[Harmony Blue]

51. Why is that lefist parties in other countries

openly embrace social programs, green energy, etc?

Why has the Democratic party lost its core values in its zest to capture disillusioned Republicans. Don't they understand the long term ramification of these short term gains? "Winning general elections" is starting to matter a whole less I believe.

[bluestate10]

62. Maybe it's that other countries didn't have the options that the USA had.

Europe, Asia, the Middle-East have higher usage of mobile devices than the USA does because wars caused them not to have built up wired infrastructure like phone lines and phone-jacks built into homes and apartments. Other countries are embracing green energy because that is cheaper for them than building power lines over their countries like we have. Other countries didn't make the choices that they made because of some grand vision, they made those choices out of need.

[Harmony Blue]

83. We have to start to pull back from urban sprawl

and redundant tele communications infra structure. It isn't too late but there has to be a will to start from somewhere.

[polichick]

76. Seems to be a lot about MONEY - the cash it takes to run...

the lure of corporate connections to be used during and after a person "serves." Look at all the Congresscritters working as lobbyists!

Our system actually attracts a lot of sociopaths who have no conscience - and it's perfect for those who have militaristic agendas.

[Egalitarian Thug]

90. Because way back in 1988 a conservative 'D' named Al From had an idea. n/t

[Romulox]

64. Core values: "Free" trade, bombing the middle east, and bankster bailouts.

Not in that order, of course. The Banksters got theirs tout de suite.

[polichick]

77. And it made me sick to see how many visits Billy Tauzin made to the WH...

beginning the minute Obama got there. The president and his staff were much more interested in hearing from this pharmaceutical lobbyist than the people when working on Obamacare.

[Autumn]

65. To tell you the truth. I don't have a clue.

We have a problem here with our party and I see no options at this time.

[fredamae]

66. I called the DSCC

this morning 202-224-2447 to express my concerns about the direction Dem leadership has and is taking the Democratic Party as a whole.

They hung up on me-no arguing my points, no defense of them--just "I've got other calls *click*"
That is no solution. That is not the first time one of the various Dem Orgs have hung up-they don't want to hear from us and If we do call? They could give a rats rear if we leave.
That's one place to start-PR/Membership relations---Why bother "being" a Dem if they don't care if members stay or go because it's "our way or the hiway-Don't like it? then see ya later-bye and Oh, btw-make a donation on your way out."

[polichick]

75. "Oh, btw-make a donation on your way out." LOL

Ain't that the truth?!

I guess it's all going to come down to the people saying "Fuck off" to the political parties as they are, to corporations who refuse to share the wealth with employees, to everything we can stop "donating" to.

PEOPLE POWER is something we don't use enough - and won't, as long as we allow ourselves to be divided.

[fredamae]

79. Yep-You nailed it!

Over the past couple years of my attempts to speak with someone who wants to have a discussion about this "river of crap" running beneath the Dem party and possible solutions--being hung up on Every time or my emails are ignored---
I must wonder if I am the Only one who feels this way and trying to dialog with them--
Their response would be typical to "one lone voice" out here...
Cuz, the way I am received-the only conclusion I have is they simply do not give a rats behind about their "main-street base". Period.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. It took e telling them we are reporters, political reporters,

For them to finally remove us from the list. They don't want to hear it, period

[fredamae]

85. I actually left

the party a few months ago-remaining registered as a Dem (54 years!) because of what they Used to stand for endorses what they've become.
I will not.
The more they emerge-the more folks in "our group" are questioning their Own affiliation as well-but-based upon my personal experience-I'm certain they won't mind losing a whole block of 18 more Dems in our dist...

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. We have been independents for a few years

They kept sending money requests and calling. We told them, we are not democrats, stop bugging us. That was after we told them why we changed to decline to state (the fastest growing "party" in California) several times.

You are reporters, and cover politics, eeeekkkkk run!

[fredamae]

89. Lol-I'll remember that

It only took them about 3 months to get me off the lists--they did advise me about the time lag...

[grahamhgreen]

80. Not Hillary.

[polichick]

82. I do think this Syrian adventure will hurt her chances...

and that's good if we want to change the direction of the party.

[B Calm]

84. I like to see Bernie Sanders in the White House,

but what are the odds of that ever happening?

[polichick]

86. Not good odds in this party...

But it seems like a good time for other parties to form. Honestly, he must hate wasting his time on this party as much as I do. After 40 years of Dem volunteering, I'm done working for this party - though I still have to vote Dem as the lesser of evils because I'd never miss a vote.