Our party hasn't been on a steady rightward march if one looks at all issues

[dsc]

instead of just economic. One can look at the issue of abortion. Pro life democrats in office were an actual things throughout the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. David Bonoir was the number 2 Democrat in the House and opposed abortion in most cases. At this point we have one pro life Democrat left in the Senate (Casey) and he is the son of a popular politician or else he probably wouldn't have been nominated in 2006. There are literally a handful of pro life Democrats in the House. On gay rights, in 1976 Ford and Carter were considered about even with neither being all that good. In 1978, Reagan actually came out against the Briggs Amendment before Carter did. Al Gore ran for President as an anti gay, pro lifer in 1988. The simple fact is that on a significant basket of issues our party has moved very far to the left by any reasonable standard. In 2004, Kucinich had to flip flop on abortion in order to run for President, he also had to flip on gay rights. Many of us have good reason not to be overly nostalgic for the Democratic party of the 1960's, the 1970's or the 1980's.

[Metric System]

1. +1

[daleanime]

2. If your looking at it that way, don't you have to include....

the right ward plunge of the republican party that was enabled?

[dsc]

3. On gay rights they haven't moved right

the country, led by gay rights activists and Democrats have moved left. On abortion, pro choice Republicans used to be a thing, and in NE actually still is to some extent but it is fair to say they have moved right on that. I don't know that the Democrats had any hand in enabling that rightward movement.

[daleanime]

6. So your saying.....

the republican party hasn't gone crazy? Let me check my second amendment rights....

[dsc]

10. On gay rights, their current position would be mainstream in the late 1970's

and early 1980's. They have gotten worse relative to both us and the center of the country, but the haven't changed in an absolute sense. They opposed the repeal of sodomy laws, and now favor their reimposition. they opposed civil rights protections for gays then and do so now. No one favored marriage equality then, they don't now.

[daleanime]

12. I get the feeling....

that you don't want to agree with me, but I'll rest easier knowing that you believe in the sanity of the present day republican party. Keep yourself safe, a lot of people are putting too much effort into making this world a harder place.

[dsc]

13. I am not saying their position is sane

but as an objective matter, the position they have now and the one they had then are about the same. On abortion, they have moved but I don't think we enabled them on that movement.

[Ken Burch]

9. But on social and economic equality, the issues that can actually transform the country

the party has moved steadily right.

And we never had to move right on economics, spending and defense to get the chance to be half-decent on choice and gays.

Now, we can have both...further gains on social issues and freedom from want and the fear from want.

Fighting for both can wipe out anti-LGBTQ, anti-POC, and anti-choice backlash politics

[mcar]

4. A very good analysis

Thanks

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? Honduras?

[dsc]

7. actually on foreign policy for decades the Democrats were the party of intervention

while the GOP wasn't. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson all intervened in a host of countries. I will say that in the 1970's and 1980's were were less so than before than or arguably now but the notion our party was always against foreign involvements or uniformly so, is not accurate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Oh, well. That makes it OK.

And, is the main reason that I've voted 3rd party several times.

[wyldwolf]

11. it certainly proves it isn't a 'new' thing.