Why Does the Liberal, Democratic Establishment Hate Progressives? Seriously

[lovemydogs]

I've seen this fighting for well over a year. The Liberal 'Establishment' (for lack of a better title), or New Democrats, ect., have been fighting with Progressives for so long. I understand the argument during the Primaries but, it is still going on today.

It is like the Liberal Establishment supporters hate Progressives as much as Republicans.

There is this anger or rage and I don't get it.

I tend to be a Progressive and have supported many of the ideas long before Bernie Sanders became a national name. And I was inspired by his run. I have had my problems with the New Democrats/Establishment. I just did not agree with the moderate/republican lite policies. I voted and stuck with democrats but, wished they would move back to their roots. And I did not agree with their squishy responses to Republican bullying.

I wanted the party to be more confident, move away from their privatization and Wall Street love affairs and get back to the main street and everyday people approach and concerns. To fight corporate consolidation, big business bullying, income inequality, ect. and do it strong and proud. Not run away and hide from confrontation and who the democrats proudly were for decades when they were the party of choice in this country.

I personally do not see that as a bad thing or a reason for Liberal democrats/establishment democrats to dislike progressives over.

Please don't be defensive or angry. I am just curious to understand

[JI7]

1. can you give specific names ?

[rwsanders]

38. Easily, but don't want to be banned.

[apcalc]

2. "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[wasupaloopa]

3. Thre OP reads like "Oh poor me everybody hates me"

I am waiting for some examples of the hating Dems.

We all have our political opinions. Having a difference of opinion is not hate. And there isn't one holy pure opinion.

[Boxerfan]

4. -There is a real issue available....We do not need infighting

Try our election format being vulnerable ....

Or the repukes trying to kill millions with the latest tax cut for those who don't need it.

Not to mention Trumplethinskin.

So-Try again with your concern.

[SusanaMontana41]

49. Nothing like a Trumpf presidency

to unite the opposition. Eventually, though, the Democrats will have to sort themselves out.

We have a generation of energized, engaged young voters who refused to support the party's nominee on Election Day. The party should have listened to them then. Now it must listen or risk irrelevance.

I hope the Democratic Party of FDR makes a strong comeback.

#RESIST
#GARLAND4SCOTUS

[lunamagica]

66. By "energized, engaged young voters", you mean those who went to Sander's rallies?

They didn't bother to vote in the primaries. That's why he lost.

[SusanaMontana41]

151. Yeah those are the ones.

That's not why he lost. Come on.

[Hekate]

78. Strangely enough, Hillary WON. She got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump. About 66,000,000....

Last edited Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:22 PM - Edit history (1)

...of us were plenty energized for Hillary. Yet day in and day out the pundits bellyache about white male racists and "energized" young people and how their fee-fees were hurt. How about the feelings of the 66,000,000?

[SusanaMontana41]

150. The only candidate in history more unpopular than Hillary is Donald Trump.

I voted for her.

[disillusioned73]

102. Yes...

"I hope the Democratic Party of FDR makes a strong comeback."

This..

[SusanaMontana41]

153. That's my Democratic Party.

I don't think it's asking too much for my party to defend the middle class and the underclass.

[Adrahil]

5. I think you've got the wrong end of this...

I've never had a problem with the Progressive wing... at least until they started calling me a corporatist DINO....

[lovemydogs]

10. Thanks for saying so. It was an ugly primary and lots of name calling

It takes awhile to get over stuff like that.

[LeftInTX]

146. I agree with Adrahil

Nothing against the progressive wing, I support them and many of their ideas. By the progressive wing, I mean elected officials such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

However on DU it was another story: Obama was called a "corporatist" a zillion times on DU. Posters would claim that he was "worse than Bush". It went on and on. It was all or nothing, no compromise.

If Bernie Sanders had been elected president, he would have struggled with the same issues that Obama struggled with. Obama wanted single payer, it didn't happen because of Congress.

[zipplewrath]

156. Prove it

"Obama wanted single payer, it didn't happen because of Congress. "

He kept them out of the discussions on day 1. He stated it wouldn't work here. He never even called Liberman about the public option, much less open access to medicare or single payer. And the system he created never was intended to cover everyone. So exactly where is this evidence that he "wanted it"?

[beachbum bob]

6. What's a progressive? What's a liberal democrat?..,,

Which ones voted for stein or Ralph Nader?.....I hold zero respect for whatever you call those people

[mwooldri]

57. As a former card carrying UK Liberal Democrat...

... I too have wondered what the difference is.

I thought the word Progressive was synonymous with Liberal Democrat because the Republicans had somehow demonised the term liberal. I've been ok with the term "liberal democrat" because it is where I do align my political views and while the US Democratic Party is neither a liberal nor socialist party it aligns closest with global liberal values... closer to social democracy than the US Republican Party wjich aligns closest with global conservative theory. Except in the case of #45.

Stein is "Green". Thus aligns closest with Social Democrats, but emphasis on environmental policy. Nader has been a Democrat, a Republican, a Populist, a Progressive... hard to pin him down. But neither are mainstream Democrats and neither want to identify as such.

[beachbum bob]

88. unfortunately "liberal and progressive" democrats have voted for both, The OP clearly doesn't

have an understanding what liberal and progressive means

[lovemydogs]

7. I keep seeing angry posts and am cannot figure out the reason

I keep hearing how democrats are infighting. Why.
I would like things to move on and work with each other to defeat republicans

[Ninsianna]

68. It might have something to do with the anger and the unwarranted and untrue

Last edited Mon Jun 12, 2017, 02:55 AM - Edit history (1)

attacks on actual Democrats as found in the OP. Progressives are Democrats, we are not "new" and those of us who are actually progressive are not the ones throwing the feces at the party or the progressives who've been proud to be members and working hard for actual progressive values which no one Senator, regardless of claims otherwise, originated. These are Democratic values that Democrats have been fighting for, ones that "new" and "temporary" additions to the party don't seem to have bothered to educate themselves on.

I would love it if these super special "new" dems, who still don't know much about the party they scorn, would stop attacking us and remember that we're all fighting Trump and the
Republicans, but they seem to be mired in the muck of the 2016 and don't quite understand that there is not "infighting", but a lot of people on the outside who seem to be attacking us and not the actual enemy of progressives and liberals.

It would be nice people stop with the inflammatory and anger filled posts that seem to be targeted to actual create infighting and divisions where none actually exist with real progressives and actual Democrats.

We must simply ignore these divisive forces which don't quite hide their goals to sow dissension, and simply go on with the fight, that these guys seem to enjoy taking all the credit for, despite the fact that they only resist common sense and progressives that have made up the Democratic party that these folks have only joined temporarily, merely to make trouble it seems.

[betsuni]

72. +1

[brer cat]

104. Well said, ninsianna!!

Wish that I could rec this post.

[stevenleser]

8. All kinds of problems with your premise but this link sums up my general position

on the issues between the progressive wing of the party (and further left) and the Democratic Party: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9182447

[luvMIdog]

9. you are almost my username doppelganger lol

[WhiteTara]

11. How much did you donate to the DNC?

To move away from large donors, smaller donors need to step up. Get out and run for office. Please stop trying to turn us into a "me and other" situation.

[SusanaMontana41]

51. We know how to do that. I had Bernie on retainer for a year.

Lots of people did. Happy to engage again.

[WhiteTara]

101. Bernie Sanders is not the DNC

He's not even a democrat. I think you got a poor return on your money. None of his candidates for anything won. The DNC supports democratic candidates in all 50 states and they need your money too.

[Kentonio]

121. It helped promote a little known senator into one of the most influential senators

And helped spread a message we believe in to the country. Worth every dime.

[WhiteTara]

136. That "little known" senator had been in

the Congress for 30 something years. Glad you just discovered him. I've never seen him introduce a single piece of legislation. And his message may pull in lots of rally goers, but it certainly has NOT translated into ANY electoral wins.

So, his message is also that you should run for office. Which one are you going for?

[SusanaMontana41]

149. Dang right he isn't the DNC. I'd do it again. nt

[WhiteTara]

152. Well, actually, he is in the DNC

He is the outreach director.

BTW, you just spend that money. Go Girl Go

[SusanaMontana41]

154. Is he now? I live in a cabin in Alaska

and don't get cable news.

Good for Sen. Schumer!

[LexVegas]

12. Progressives are pro-gun?

[JI7]

37. no, but i could understand someone in some rural areas taking that position if that was the only way

they could win.

[lovemydogs]

13. Look, I am not trying to do anything but, understand something for my own wondering

I am not going to fight. I am not trying to start a fight.
I am trying to understand something and thought I would ask
Period

[elleng]

18. I'm sorry you're not getting answers here.

Maybe some 'answers' here; maybe not: Uncertainty, More Than Populism, Is New Normal in Western Politics.

'Theresa May, Britain’s prime minister, has joined a long line of politicians who have gambled that they understood the populist wave overtaking Western politics and lost.

Thursday’s election capped a year in which the latest theory of politics in the populist era perpetually seemed to prove incorrect, as did many predictions of election outcomes. What explains this seeming inexplicability?

Populism’s individual effects, after all, have become well known. Voters oppose party establishments, scramble demographic coalitions and are more motivated by what they oppose than by what they support.

The problem is that, even among leading scholars, how these factors interact in any given election is still poorly understood.

The changes are simply too complex and too new.

Everyone knows that populism has fundamentally altered the rules of Western politics. But no one has deduced what the new rules are.

The result is that politicians and observers enter each election, whether they know it or not, merely guessing. Miscalculations and surprises have become the new normal.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/world/europe/theresa-may-election-politics-populism-interpreter.html?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016186853

[Demsrule86]

94. Nonsense...this entire OP was designed to start a fight.

[Kentonio]

122. Because it allows people to avoid taking any responsibility for the shitshow that was the campaign

There's a list of targets that goes Comey, Russia, Progressives.

[lovemydogs]

14. Forget it. I was curious about something and thought I would ask

[DanTex]

17. You don't need to "forget it", but you do need to explain what you mean

by "hate progressives". Like some examples of Democrats saying hateful things about progressives. I'm sure some Dems hold positions that you disagree with, that's inevitable, but "hate" is a pretty strong word.

[Quixote1818]

20. Don't take it personal. I think the bulk of DU is more on the Progressive side too

Sometimes a few people can dominate a thread but in reality a lot of people here know exactly what you are pointing out. I think a fare number of people are still angry because Hillary lost and they are blaming it on those who are suspicious of the DNC. The vast, vast, vast majority of Progressives voted for Hillary but for some reason the divide is still flaming. It's unfortunate because if I didn't see all the angry threads I would have forgotten about the divide a long time ago and thought we were all one unit again.

[DanTex]

15. What makes you think they hate progressives? I'm curious to understand.

I'm a progressive and I haven't seen a trace of this supposed hatred. On the contrary, I think the Democratic Party under Obama has embraced progressive values.

[Kentonio]

124. No, you wouldn't have seem a trace of it.

Especially not when you started a thread calling progressives 'alt-left'.

[DanTex]

129. Re-read that thread. It wasn't calling progressives alt-left.

It was calling people like Cornel West and Chris Hedges alt-left.

[Kentonio]

130. Why would you call Cornel West 'alt-left'?

He's been vocally anti-Trump, he's spent most of his life working for equality and justice. Yet we're supposed to call him the left wing version of a fascist because he insulted Obama for not being progressive enough a while back?

[DanTex]

132. For starters, he helped Trump get elected by supporting Jill Stein.

He did so using the same false-equivalency rhetoric that the rest of the alt-left uses, calling Hillary a "neoliberal disaster". And before that he called Obama the n-word. So, yeah, he displays every bit of the unhinged hatred for the Democratic Party that is the hallmark of the alt-left.

It's possible to criticize Democrats from the left without displaying the kind of hatred that West and Stein do. And, more importantly, it's possible to do it without actively, and intentionally, helping Republicans win elections, which is the only thing that the Green party has ever done in national politics.

Nobody who serves as an electoral ally of the GOP has any business criticizing Democrats for not being "progressive" enough.

[Kentonio]

133. Your logic is very strange.

Cornel represents people to the left of the Democratic party. He supports peace, equality and fairness for all. In his opinion, the party does not represent those things nearly often enough and so he does not support them. The only hatred he shows it towards the Republican party however.

You're viewing this from the point of view that if you don't support the party, you're an enemy of the country. Although I do support the party, I find that way of thinking utterly repellent. You have absolutely no right to call good hearted progressive people fascists because they have a different opinion to you, and all you do is push them further away.

What you did here represents one of the biggest illnesses in the party of late. Instead of seeing people voting Green and thinking 'How can we persuade these people that the Democratic party should be their natural home?' you jump straight to calling them fascists, Republican enablers and unhinged. Think about the consequences of these kind of actions for goodness sake.

[DanTex]

135. It's actually very simple. Helping Republicans helps Republicans.

And the only possible outcome of helping the Green Party is to siphon votes away from Democrats and help Republicans win. It's not complicated. Everyone involved in politics understands that, including the Green Party. The Republicans understand it very well, which is why from time to time they actually run ads in favor of the Green Party. And Cornel West isn't stupid, he understands it as well.

I find it supremely ironic that you are asking me to think about the consequences of my actions. How about asking that of Cornel West?

Don't you think West should consider the consequences of calling Hillary Clinton a "neoliberal disaster" in the course of a campaign where doing that will obviously help Trump become president? Why do Cornel West and the other alt-leftists get a pass from the "think about the consequences" thing? After all, I'm just a guy posting on a message board, but Cornel West has a voice that many people listen to. His actions, along with the actions of Jill Stein and others, actually do have very real consequences.

But, no, because he's a "good hearted progressive", I guess you give him a pass for his role as a GOP facilitator. Now that is some strange logic.

[Kentonio]

140. You're making an argument that there is only one morally acceptable use for a persons right to vote

That if they don't vote for us, they're the enemy basically. Not only is that morally and intellectually deeply disturbing, but it's an absolutely terrible way of trying to win over potential voters.

[DanTex]

141. I didn't use the words "morally acceptable", now you're just making things up.

What I am saying is that helping elect Republicans -- which is what alt-leftists like Cornel West and Jill Stein do -- is not progressive.

I'm not challenging their right to support Republicans. Everyone has the right to campaign for and vote for whoever they want. And if Cornel West likes the GOP's anti-environment, anti-worker, pro-wealthy-white-male policies, then sure, he should continue to help getting them elected.

But I have the right, as a progressive, to call out the friends of the GOP on the alt-left. Especially when I see these people who intentionally helped put Trump into office now trying to lay claim on the word "progressive."


The point you keep missing is that Cornel West and his ilk have free will and moral agency of their own. You want to take me to task for potentially driving voters away from the Democratic Party. But I'm just a guy on a message board, whereas Cornel West is a celebrity, and people listen to him. And he literally drives voters away from the Democratic Party, on purpose, and not in some coded language, but by plainly telling his readers and listeners not to vote for Democrats.

Why do you give him a pass for that?

[Kentonio]

142. No you didn't use those exact words.

Instead you said about Cornel..

"So, yeah, he displays every bit of the unhinged hatred for the Democratic Party that is the hallmark of the alt-left"

a) No he doesn't display any hatred towards the Democratic Party. He's highly critical of it on occasion, but then again he's a pacifist with strong beliefs about the wrongness of US foreign and domestic policy under both parties. Why wouldn't he be critical given his moral position?

b) The alt-left is something you've apparently just invented, so describing something as the 'hallmark' of it is kind of strange.

Why do I give Cornel a pass for potentially driving people away from the party? Because frankly it's his decision to make not mine. He's an idealist at a time when I believe we need pragmatists, but when someones spent their life fighting for good causes, I'm hardly going to turn on them when they don't suddenly abandon their principles for what I perceive as the common good. I'd much rather win over voters by selling them a confident, positive message of what we can achieve instead of contributing to the 'with us or against us' mentality that got us into this mess in the first place.

[DanTex]

145. I stand by that. He does display unhinged hatred of the Democratic Party.

It's clear from his words (e.g. calling Obama the n-word), but even more clear is the fact that he actively tried to help Trump win the presidency by endorsing Jill Stein.

No, I didn't make up the alt-left. For example:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/why-the-alt-left-is-a-problem
https://thedailybanter.com/2017/06/the-alt-left-is-losing-its-mind-and-people-are-noticing/

About giving Cornel West a pass, I see your argument, but...

First, there's no "potential" about it. The entire purpose of the Green Party is to drive people away from voting for Dems. There's no way to pretend supporting the Green Party is in the common good. Try to chalk it up do idealism, but Cornel West isn't some young naive 19-year-old, he knows the deal.

The other thing is, Cornel West doesn't abide by your philosophy here. At all. This is one of the intellectual contradictions of the alt-left. They claim that the Dems somehow hate the left, but their attacks on the Democrats are much more severe than any rhetoric going the other way. Obama also spent his life fighting for good causes, then he did a couple things Cornel West didn't like and suddenly West is calling him the n-word.

The whole premise of the OP that the Democratic Party somehow "hates progressive" is completely unfounded. Sure, there are Dems who don't, say, support single payer, but they don't say things like "single payer supporters are a bunch of scumbags". But the far left is constantly calling Dems neoliberal sellouts and corporate whores and worse.

What I see from a lot of the far left is absolute intolerance for any deviations from ideological purity. They can't just say that opponents of single payer are wrong, they also have attribute some kind of evil or corruption. They can't conceive that, hey, some progressives just don't think single payer is the best path to universal coverage in the US.

And then, irony of ironies, the very alt-leftists that accuse the Dems of being too accommodating of the GOP, they actually go out and help get Republicans elected.

And after all that, after Cornel West calls Obama the n-word and goes on to help Trump get elected, I decide to criticize him, and suddenly you accuse me of being divisive. That makes no sense at all.

[Demsrule86]

137. cornell West said horrible things about Pres. Obama and has

Also, during the election when Hillary was running West posted this...He helped elect Trump so fuck him.

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

139. Oh this is after the election...so now you know why I despise the West... plenty more where the

two examples I posted came from...this interview is why Free Speech TV which I used to support gets no money from me.


"CORNEL WEST: Well, I think there’s going to be a lot of different responses. I have a deep love and respect for Brother Bernie Sanders. I always will. I don’t always agree with him. I’m not convinced that the Democratic Party can be reformed. I think it still has a kind of allegiance to a neoliberal orientation. It still has allegiance to Wall Street. The very victory of Nancy Pelosi is a sign that neoliberalism is still hegemonic in the party."


https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/1/cornel_west_bernie_sanders_is_wrong

[Me.]

16. It's About Bernie & His Continual Bashing Of Dems

and people don't like it, progressives and so callled establishment supporters alike.

[leftstreet]

23. Not. It was happening long before Sanders ran

See DLC

[Me.]

24. That True

But the DLC was neither liberal or progressive...centrist all the 3rd way.

[Squinch]

19. "It is still going on today," as you say, because of posts like this. This was originally a

division ginned up by bots who generated a lot of meaningless things for people to say, like "Wall Street love affairs" and "get back to main street and everyday people." They did this while the party was fighting tooth and nail for healthcare and the safety net for "everyday people." The party didn't need to "get back" to anything. The party was the only thing standing between "everyday people" and the disaster that is right now rolling down the hill toward us. The bots' successful trashing of the Democratic party has a lot to do with why the plight of "everyday people" is about to get worse than it has been in generations.

These bots also circulated all kinds of new bad names to call Democrats which sounded even worse than the ones Trump came up with.

And then a group of people inside the party took up the mantle from the bots and ran with it.

Worked like a charm, didn't it?

[Hekate]

79. Bingo, Squinch

The concern expressed by this particular OP is -- concerning.

[mcar]

96. Great reply

[NastyRiffraff]

112. We REALLY need a way to rec a post!

This one is a perfect example. Bravo, Squinch!

[musette_sf]

117. + 1

[crazycatlady]

21. May I ask what your involvement at the local level is?

If you are interested in changing the Democratic Party, go to your local meetings. Get involved in your local municipality or precinct. Step up and run for local office.

If progressives started getting elected at the local level, they'd be taken more seriously at higher levels.

In order to run for office, you need to raise money (or self-fund). That is simply a reality in this day and age.

[L. Coyote]

27. Member of the Republican Party, is my guess.

[crazycatlady]

113. HE was thinking of running against Elizabeth Warren

[nini]

119. ...

[nini]

22. The problem is you don't accept that those you question believe the same things

Politics is a crazy game. Unfortunately to get anything done compromise has to be done. Your side thinks that's weak, others think it is a necessary evil.

The Democratic party covers a wide spectrum of left wingers.. I am far left but I also know all my ideas aren't going to be achieved the way things are in Washington right now overnight. Your type of 'progressives' (which by the way is a label you don't own) calls me too conservative or too lazy to fight because I am pragmatic and quite honestly that pisses me off. I've been fighting for a long time and have some purist question my credentials does annoy me and I have no patience for them.

That won't answer the question the way you want but it's my view.

[mcar]

25. Why do some progressives hate Democrats?

There, fixed it for you.

[LisaM]

29. You beat me to it. My question exactly.

There seems to be a concerted attempt going on to divide and conquer the Democratic party and the biggest successes are not necessarily coming from the right.

[mcar]

40. Yes

One would think true liberals/progressives would be more intent on fighting the horror that engulfs us.

[NurseJackie]

46. Thank you.

[sheshe2]

58. ;)

[betsuni]

67. And they hate a fictional Democratic Party.

Silly!

[Kahuna7]

90. This. nt

[brer cat]

105. Spot on, mcar!

[Gothmog]

109. Great question

[L. Coyote]

26. They don't. But the Republicans and Russians want Progressives to believe this total bullshit.

[sandensea]

28. To the extent this is true, the answer's simple:

[NobodyHere]

30. I didn't know they did

[zentrum]

31. Absolutely agree. And it tends

...to also be a dangerous issue to raise around here. Good luck.

[hrmjustin]

33. I think the notion that the "Liberal, Democratic Establishment Hates Progressives" is...

... ridiculous!

There will always be debate in the party because we are a party of different opinions.

[still_one]

35. "the New Democrats/Establishment, moderate/republican lite policies" spare us the

bullshit

please don't be defensive or angry. I am just curious to understand, why every Democrat running for Senate in those swing states lost to the "ESTABLISHMENT", republican incumbent? What ESTABLISHMENT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

Would someone whose been in public office for 26 years be considered ESTABLISHMENT?

Or perhaps it is just a convenient word to throw around when you are trying to setup a false equivalency between republicans, and what you are characterizing as "new Democrats/establishment"

[sheshe2]

59. +1000

[brer cat]

106. +1000

[Gothmog]

110. Great post

[GulfCoast66]

36. Define progressive for me

And establishment Democrat. Then perhaps I will attempt to seriously answer.

[Nevernose]

39. The vitriol in the answers here..

That should be your first clue. Some of its rational, some of its not.

The dislike between DNC-leaning and progressive-leaning is a two way street, though. Lots of name calling, lots of bitterness over the loss, lots of primary resentment, and that's "both" sides. The amount of defensiveness and anger on this post is a little shocking, even to me.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of grace or magnanimity in this particular thread. I see some hurt people lashing out, and while I'm definitely somewhere to the far left of progressive, I'm not going to take the hostility as indicative of "the establishment."

We can sit here all goddamned day and list each other's sins and flaws -- there's plenty to go around, regardless of who you supported in the primary -- but that's not going to get rid of Trump or save the Endangered Species Act or keep my mother in law's health insurance or a thousand other things that all liberals agree on.

[defacto7]

43. Hear hear! nt

[rwsanders]

41. The ones that do will never bother to reply.

But good for you for trying.

[fleabiscuit]

42. Non Sequitur. nt

[LovingA2andMI]

44. Oh, this is a loaded question and likely thread....

And we are in the Progressive Policy/Fiscal Moderate side of the aisle....

[NurseJackie]

45. LOL

[sheshe2]

60. Yup

[betsuni]

65. Was going to say the same thing.

It is all that really needs to be said.

[SusanaMontana41]

47. What's a "liberal"? What's a "progressive"?

I just know that I want to belong to the Democratic Party of FDR again.

[Hamlette]

48. If you are talking about Bernie, I can tell you, otherwise, I don't hate progressives.

I'm both, liberal and progressive but I was not a Bernie supporter. I expect there would be better arguments but MY Bernie friends are now upset because the Dem party did not support him as much as it supported Hillary and Bernie would have beat Trump.

If you can't see why both of those arguments are bullshit, not sure I can help but I'll try:

1. I supported Hillary because I thought she had a better understanding of the problems facing Americans AND what was possible to help move in the right direction to fixing them. Bernie's interview with the N Y Post is an excellent example. He said he wants to break up the banks. He was asked how he would do that. He said he would tell the Secretary of the Treasury to break them up. When asked of the Sec of Treas had the power to do that he said I don't know but if he doesn't, as president I will have that power and I will do it. This is simply not true. Of course there are things that can be done that might lead to the breakup of the big banks but no one, not even the president can order it. He. Did. Not. Know. That. It was one of his signature issues and he did not know how to even start to do it.

2. Bernie would not commit to support down ballot Dems if he won the nomination. That to me was grounds enough for the party to not support him. Look at Congress. What could Bernie have done with the present Congress? We need a majority in Congress to get anything done, and then it is damned tough. If down ballot candidates are not pure enough for you, explain how you can pass needed legislation with people like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee in the Senate.

3. I worked on my first campaign in 1956. Yep. I was 6 years old and went door to door dropping off campaign literature. I have donated to candidates and the party every election year since I can remember. I've gone to meetings, been a delegate, manned booths at conventions, made more damned phone calls than I can count, I've done my fair share and certainly more than most others. If my party is not good enough for you, don't expect me to knock on doors for you or send you money when you decide to use what I helped build.

It seems to me that so called progressives, and Bernie supporters, think the Dem party is not good enough for them. Of course Dems make me furious at times and believe me, I've voted for tons of them because they truly are the lesser of two evils, but it is not realistic to think you can be president without one of the major parties. Pick one and start working FOR that party, instead of complaining about it when your candidate does not win.

[lunamagica]

69. Wonderful reply. Thank you!

[betsuni]

77. Wow!

[lamp_shade]

82. Bravo!!!

[JustAnotherGen]

85. Excellent reply

There are people who are wired to say/ask - How?

The how and the implementation are critical and were critical. Don't believe me? The current majority has absolutely no idea how to do their jobs.

Let this be a lesson in talk is cheap.

[Kahuna7]

91. This! nt

[brer cat]

107. +1000

Well said.

[TygrBright]

50. I don't understand.

I've been involved with the Democratic Party for more than forty-five years, at various levels of state and local party organization and involvement.

I guess that makes me part of the "establishment."

But I consider myself both liberal and progressive.

Who am I supposed to be hating on, and why?

confuzzledly,
Bright

[Raine1967]

52. Well, i don't hate.

can I supply some straw as a side dish with the red herring?

do you really believe what you wrote? Do you really believe there is HATE?

[brush]

53. Haven't you reversed the actual situation?

Just yesterday there was a thread about Sanders blasting the Democrats yet again.

Seems that's where the hate comes from.

What Democrats are constantly blasting progressives publicly on national TV like we see a certain person doing to Dems at what seems the drop of a hat, almost automatically, and with glee?

[sheshe2]

61. rapturously recieved... nt

[Jamaal510]

62. +1

[mcar]

97. Seems some should be tending their own gardens

Rather than poking at others.

[redstateblues]

54. I'm not buying it. Posts like this sow division.

[FreepFryer]

63. +1. The premise of the OP is its purpose.

[LBM20]

55. You are painting with a broad hyperbolic brush. I think you are WAY off base here.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

56. Because progressives are more often than not a massive liability

People running around confirming every conservative bias, applying lubrication to inclined planes and playing to the favorite conservative memes of the 1970's are not helpful, it's more or less sabotage.

[Jamaal510]

64. A much stronger argument

could be made that there is hostility towards moderate Dems and towards pragmatic progressive Dems from supposed progressives. Nothing short of instant gratification and lofty promises on every issue they care about will satisfy them, thus the moderates and pragmatists in the party are treated as an enemy and scrutinized at least just as much as (and frequently much more than) the GOP.

[sheshe2]

70. This.

So much this!

[JCanete]

75. No, a stronger argument would have been that this fire is fed by both sides of this issue. Also,

that both sides are perfectly capable of resorting to name-calling and debasing people on the other, even while both sides have perfectly legitimate perspectives.

As to scrutinizing our own party, we are supposed to. More than anything else, that is our job as Democrats. It's our party. We own it. Faith has no place in politics. Now, being overly abusive and jumping to conclusions about the intentions of our own politicians, who for the most part are trying to do good things, isn't helpful, but neither is not tending to our own field, not telling our politicians what we want and what behavior we will accept.

[Kahuna7]

92. Yep. I see it and fight it out on twitter everyday. nt

[YCHDT]

115. +100000

[Lunabell]

71. Because we're the lowly working class.

Always the last in line.

[BainsBane]

81. Actually the "working class" progressives point to

the ones who voted for Trump, earn double the median income. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/?utm_term=.5fe60964ff3a

The Democratic base, comprised overwhelmingly of people of color and single women, is far less affluent, averaging household incomes of $50k or less.

I don't know what you personally mean by working class, but there is an odd disconnect in how some prominent politicians use the term since it seems to privilege those with incomes well above the national median over the less affluent Democratic base.

[MiltonBrown]

73. One word:

Corporations

[MiltonBrown]

131. Corporations fund many campaigns and they often get what they want out of it.

Their agenda is not that of regular working people.

As long as corporations fund both parties they will get what they want from both parties. What they want is RW economic policies and LW social policies. That's why we've had great progress in social areas but the economic status of working people has been declining for half a century.

[bdjhawk]

74. Bernie was here in Chicago this weekend

and the only sound bites from his speech that I heard on three different networks local affiliates was that the Democratic party needed to open itself to working people (what?!!) and stop being the party of the East and West Coasts. Nothing about tRump or the Repugs gutting the safety net. I'm sure the Repugs couldn't be happier hearing this from the guy who still leads his followers to hate the only party that would have given the working class, minorities, women, LGBTQ, etc respect. And there are those who will continue to believe that Bernie would have won and that Hillary "cheated" to win the primary!!!

I have always admired Hillary for continuing to try to do good despite the outright lies FAUX, Limpbutt, etc have hysterically pushed for 25 years. Yet I was thrilled that Bernie was saying the things so bluntly and simply in a way I feel that Dems have needed to do for a long time. I truly considered both candidates carefully for the primary, But as another poster mentioned, it was the WAPO interview that revealed just how unprepared Bernie was on foreign policy. The Repugs would have killed him on this, as well as other factors in his background, as only they could do so well. He would not have come close to winning the popular vote.

The fact that his followers still feel harmed and believe that "establishment Dems" hate them is what will kill our chances to get the horrible right wingers out of Congress and the White House. I know so many "progressives" that voted third party in key states because their feelings were hurt. So I really don't have much understanding with people that say the party hasn't gone far enough left/progressive when they are still working to kill the party's chances to protect the most vulnerable in our country and allow the Repugs to continue to sell this country to the highest bidder and protect only the 1%.

[Demsrule86]

95. And not one word about the GOP's attempt to kill millions by repealing the ACA...oh yeah

Sen. Sanders...the Dems are the problems...I don't understand his message...a candidate like Ossoff is not acceptable but Mello and Perriello are?

[Hekate]

76. Given that the 2016 party platform was the most Progressive in decades, the real question is...

...why do Progressives hate the Democratic Party?

Why does Senator Sanders continue to bash us to pieces rather than aiming his ire at the GOP? Why does Thom Hartmann continue to work at RT?

Why excoriate the Democratic Party in the harshest terms possible rather than work with us to eliminate Citizens United and voter suppression tactics? The Democrats didn't cause that shit to happen.

I could go on, but it seems to me that Democrats went out of their way to welcome so-called Progressives and so-called Progressive ideas into this past election cycle and have had precious little thanks for doing so.

[musette_sf]

116. + 1

[BainsBane]

80. The GOP House just passed legislation to deregulate banking

I would think anyone concerned about Wall Street would be focused on opposing that. Yet you do not. Instead you focus on your claims that "new Democrats" hate you. Given that focus on self over policy and the actual state of efforts to deregulate banking, I find your claims unconvincing.

[Hekate]

118. Damn right

[BainsBane]

120. Yet days later

still not a word of concern about that.

[Hekate]

144. In the Here and Now, Bernie is not a friend of ours

[yardwork]

83. Trashing thread.

[secondwind]

84. We are in the fight of our lives and you

bring up nonsense. We are ALL United. Hillary won. The election was stolen

Stick to the real issues!!

[delisen]

86. I do not agree with your terms or definitions so it is impossible to answer

in a meaningful way.

What is a New Democrats?Establishment? what is "Progressive" to you?

What is "liberal" or "liberal establishment."

Are you defining policy or procedure discussions as "Hate?"

Are you confusing goals with strategy or tactics?

It might be useful to define "working class." You haven't used that term here but frequently people talk about "the working class" without defying what they mean so there is no ability to have a meaningful argument or discussion-because there is no agreement on basic terms.

Anger and rage - who, what , and where? I know there are people, besides Republicans, voicing anger at the Democratic Party but it doesn't seem to move beyond noise, name-calling, and labeling.

Who are the Democrats hiding from confrontation? What are the policies you label Republican-lite?

[obamanut2012]

87. They don't -- next!

And, 86 this obvious divisive garbage.

[ProfessorPlum]

89. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[treestar]

93. Because they work so hard to undermine

them? Because they demand their way or the highway? Because they lead to R legislatures and Donald the Orange Toxin as President, all the while saying that the Establishment is not good enough for them? Because they don't vote or vote third party? Because they whine that they are "hated" because they don't help at all and inadvertently help Republicans?

I hope the "burn it down" theory works this time. If the horrors of Donald as POTUS don't, maybe it will prove that theory untrue.

[LeftInTX]

147. +++++

[Paladin]

98. Because they split the party and helped cause the 2016 Clinton defeat.....

and they seem bound and determined to do the same thing in 2018 and 2020.

Easy question, easy answer.

[DemocraticWing]

99. Democrats know their voters would vote for a socialist party, but the leadership prefers capitalism.

[img][/img]

[alarimer]

100. It's a very old argument.

But in my lifetime, Democrats have gone from being the party of working people to the party of, for lack of a better world, the professional classes (doctors, lawyers, finance types, Silicon Valley, etc) and well-educated. Thomas Frank makes this point in his book. I don't think it's the only reason, though.

http://inthesetimes.com/features/listen-liberal-thomas-frank-democratic-party-elites-inequality.html

I think that they also dealt with some devastating losses over the years, beginning with 1968 and then when Reagan won, so the response to that was to turn to the right. And a lot of liberal/progressives are upset about that. To me, the worst parts were deregulation of the financial industry, the ascendance of the free market as the solution to all economic ills (and the fondness for so-called "public-private partnerships" to solve all manner of issues- mostly they fail), the war on (some) drugs which resulted in mass incarceration and the failure to improve the social safety net.

[ismnotwasm]

103. I don't hate progressives. I am one

Not sure what you are implying. Since the election I have a new absolute line in the sand. Well-it's not so new--just check my user name. Bigotry. Whether it's sexism, racism, any other negative ism--I stand against it. No matter which direction it comes from.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

108. I don't have anything against anybody whom votes D

We're all in one big tent. Not exactly sure what's going on right now with the infighting. This past election with Bernie running seems to have exposed some inter-party divisiveness, which mainly seems to be between people whom are long-time supporters of the Democratic Party whom pretty much always reliably vote Democrat and Bernie and his supporters whom tend to be more Independent (like Bernie), may not even be registered as Democrats (like Bernie) and are not always willing to pull the lever for Ds at election time because the Party doesn't "excite" them enough, it doesn't move fast enough on some issue or another or isn't "pure" enough on some issue (or some other reason).

[emulatorloo]

111. They don't. This either a strawman argument or psychological projection on your part.

- Liberals and progressives share the same core set of values.
- the specious rhetoric of 2016 has made the term 'establishment' meaningless, I.e. "Planned Parenthood is Establishment
- however Liberals and Progressives both have problems with what I'll call
self-defined 'progressives'. Some call them

----
Now before we get further there are NO 'PROGRESSIVES' or 'FAUXGRESSIVES' at DU. I will repeat
everyone at DU are sincere liberals and progressives.
--------

Bernie or Busters are one example of 'progressives' of this group, by by no means the only variant.

examples of opinion makers in the limelight are Sarandon, Stein, and YouTube personality "The Sane Progressives.

They call themselves 'progressives' they voted Trump or Stein to 'punish' the American people by helping elect Trump. They are binary thinkers who see everything in symplistic terms. They believe the parties are the same (they aren't) and if they had to choose which party is worst, they attract Democrats and never say a disparaging thing about Republicans.


If you doubt these people exist and want to call me a liar, You can find them on twitter, the bowels of Reddit in SP4 and Way of The Bern, and of course JPR.

[Foamfollower]

114. The REAL question is why did the Alt Left do everything they could to help the Alt Right seize power

[BainsBane]

123. Word.

Though left is not a term I would use in this context.

[MountCleaners]

125. People call themselves "progressive" and not "liberal"

....because of stuff like this - NOT because Republicans demonized the term "liberal". "Progressive" implies a politics that is to the left of "liberal". I'm a progressive who doesn't care for corporate love fests and red-baiting. I also voted for Clinton in the primary, not Sanders. I'm willing to compromise when it comes to voting, but I won't water down my beliefs.


I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[Progressive dog]

126. Some of the "progressive?" leaders spend lots of time attacking

people who belong to the Democratic party. Seriously. Might be a reason.

[Trumpocalypse]

127. It's actually the other way around. nt

[BainsBane]

128. Still not a single word of concern about the GOP vote deregulating banking

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/bank-deregulation-house-239313

None. Not a word of opposition. Not a single comment.

[dawg]

134. A fellow's wife leaves him because he doesn't keep the lawn properly mowed.

He's brokenhearted. Devastated.

She ends up with an unemployed bigot who beats her every night.

Then, one day she makes an appearance on the Jerry Springer Show. She looks like she's aged years, is missing a tooth, and has a noticeably black eye. But instead of talking about her abuser, she's still complaining about her first husband ... and the grass.

[Squinch]

148. !!!!!!! THIS!!!!!!!!! This is so awesome!

[Orsino]

138. Inevitable in a two-party system that there would be infighting.

The money is going to go to Establishment, but in part that's because it's where the voters are. We purists who fancy ourselves as "true" leftists may doom ourselves to the fringe.

People getting together is how shit gets done, but Big Money can fake that for a while. It's important to view what Big Money wants with a lot of suspicion, so that our compromises don't become too horrific.

[haele]

143. Wherefore do you speak? There is no "Democratic Establishment" It's a Coalition of Establishments.

There is no single Democratic Agenda; it's a coalition of Established agendas, ranging across Economic, Environmental, Legal, and Social issues that fall within a diverse mixture of organizations representing Federal, State, Local, and demographics (i.e., social groupings, security interests, and business interests).

And therein lies the rub.
As in all coalitions, if your particular "establishment" not willing to work together with all the others - "democratically" or the leadership of that establishment is playing personal power games or wants to "shake things up" in lieu of operating within an agreed upon operating format, your establishment is not going to be respected by the others. Within all Human efforts, the cooperative hierarchy is what progresses every organization - the old saying "You have to work within the System to change the System" is true.

Unless everyone is within the close proximity on a course of action, it doesn't get done. And "burning down the house" to rebuild it means that only the select organizations are going to be able to be part of the rebuild; human nature is such that any group that doesn't agree for the most part with the groups that destroy the organization to fix it are not going to be invited to come back and participate again.

We have Democratic Coalitions that are not only interested in what's happening now, but what the various futures are possible several steps in advance of what is going on now based on evidence and causality.
There is not a Democratic "Establishment". Our leadership has to be able to multi-task between Economic, Environmental, and Social issues; in effect, to walk, chew gum, and still monitor late breaking issues. Even as interest groups with serious money are constantly attempting to direct the party resources and attention into specific focus areas above other critical issues that other interest groups are focused on.
"Hate" - a rather child-like way of referring to what is typically just normal point of view conflict - only occurs when one group within the coalition is not willing to negotiate or play with others.

If you want an Establishment, play with the Greens or the Republicans. One of those political groups that actually does march lockstep and has clear, narrowly defined short term Party goals to get to one.

Haele

[Hoyt]

155. Fine with so-called progressives, as long as they are not just using that moniker cause it's cool.