The moderate vs. liberal feud going on at DU

[Pushed To The Left]

My view since I began posting here last year is that all of us who are not members of the right wing need to band together to defeat them. Moderates and liberals are on the same side: they are the enemies of the radical right!

A funny thing that has happened to me is that I've sort of ended up on both sides of this. I was really upset in 2004 that so many people were threatening to not vote or to vote 3rd Party, because I was afraid that that would help the right wing remain in power. I officially joined the Democratic Party soon after the election. However, I have also been very vocal in my disappointment with Democrats and Republicans who continue to vote in favor of censorship, who oppose marriage equality, and who support the drug war.

I get a newsletter from the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that is trying to change the drug laws. There was a political cartoon of a homeless man on a street corner with a sign that said "Medical Marijuana Patient". An elephant (representing the Republicans) walks by and stomps his foot. A donkey (representing the Democrats) throws him a penny. Now, the point I think the cartoonist was trying to make was that Democrats weren't that much better than Republicans on the issue. But in my mind, I saw that I would rather have the penny-throwing donkey than the foot-stomping elephant. I want the foot-stomper taken out of power!!

Just because I criticize Democrats doesn't mean that I'm about to switch parties. I want all of us to band together to defeat the right wing! When I vote, I will support the most progressive candidate that has a shot at winning. Most of the time, that is the Democrat. However, if the Republicans nominate somebody like Ron Paul(opposed to the drug war, anti-censorship, critical of the Iraq War)there could be some competition for top progressive! I totally respect socially progressive third parties like the Greens and Libertarians for standing up against social conservatism before everybody else does. The reason I am a Democrat and vote Democratic is because I don't want to split the progressive vote.

We all share the same goal: DESTRUCTION of the radical right!

[applegrove]

1. Nothing wrong with legalizing weed for medical use. As to making it

universally available ... I hear it is pretty bad for a young mind and can cause serious mental illness that otherwise would not occur. That is enough information to change my mind on whether or not it should be legalized. If it will harm teens - then no-way.

[knight_of_the_star]

7. Food will do the job just fine

When you have excess of anything you get problems. Eating too much food causes obesity, leading to a whole gauntlet of problems. Drinking too much alchohol ruins your liver. Smoking too much gives you several different conditions.

That and I would like to see your source on it.

[applegrove]

21. I don't know the exact source. I will look around. n/t

[Erika]

2. We need to better identify issues and positions

Ron Paul is for border restrictions and fiscal conservatism. But he remains solidly tied to the GOP while being called a renegade by the GOP. Which I detest. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Go ahead and vote for him, just don't claim to be a democrat.

[Somawas]

3. Ron Paul is pretty much lionized by the Libertarians I know.

eom

[BikeWriter]

19. I've seen some Ron Paul positions I agreed with.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Your point is well taken that if we don't want to

help the far right remain in power, we've got to unite and put aside some of our differences. They're USING wedge issues like abortion and same sex marriage to beat us and we've got to wise up and stop them from doing that. They use the wedges to distract people from the things that really mean more to them.

[TwentyFive]

5. Well said!!

I personally think neither the moderates nor liberals have the answer to beating the radical right. Certainly, we need each other...even if we disagree.

Think about this: The reason Clinton won was that he masterfully fooled both liberals and moderates into thinking that he was one of them....so, he succesfully united the party! He had the famous War Room, and never allowed the radical right to define him.

So maybe, we're not supposed to get along. All we need is the right smooth talking politican who is talented enough to bring us together.

[burrowowl]

6. Define moderate, liberal,

libertarian, progress, fascist/corporatist, etc.
There is a problem here at DU, some equate libertarian with liberal, progressive with communist, social justice with socialism, hell when I write Pete Dominici (Sen. NM) you have to give a subject, and there is no human rights, civil rights but no human, there is a distinction and union of sets, etc.
Back to you Venn Diagrams, then we can talk. Know where you are at.

[rabid_nerd]

8. I personally consider libertarians as too RW for me

imho..

but I am not a free marketer...

[burrowowl]

12. Right On they

are very much to the far Right!

[rabid_nerd]

16. but to doublespeak,

i am with them on the patriot act, and other personal rights issues

[Igel]

28. They're not on the scale. n/t

[cascadiance]

29. The biggest problem that I have with Libertarians...

... is that many of them (and perhaps a controlling element of their party) buy into the "big government is evil" notion too much, and don't have the same perspective when looking at big business and how they are also prone to inefficiency, corruption, power mongers, etc. as well.

In addition, big business has no stated objective to serve the citizenry (it's reason for existence is to make profits for its investors), but government is *supposed* to be serving it's citizenry.

I will grant Libertarians that recently there have been many infrastructural problems that have hurt government in accomplishing it's purpose of "serving the people" and that they serve other interests more instead (big business that "owns" much of government, or selfish power mongers that want more control over our lives, inefficiencies that just live for themselves). However, this is where it is up to a true "grass roots" party like the one Dean is hopefully building up now to make the government work for us again.

I like that approach, where we work harder to make the government *do it's job* than take away any power the government has to working for us. If Dean can help the Democrats come back and make the government more efficient, fiscally resopnsible, *and* work for all of us us, it will challenge those members of the Libertarians who don't follow the government is *inherently evil* mantra to come on board with the Democrats as working for their true dreams too.

Otherwise, I do see the Libertarians recognizing things such as the uselessness of trying to legislate morality, etc. that has been one of its good points amongst other things that keeps the religious right at bay from trying to hijack it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. There is one common thread with Libertarian beliefs

It's not that *big* government is evil... it's that ALL government is evil. They don't want restrictions on speech, industry, anything. They want a government that really only buts in when it's absolutely necessary, like murder or international conflict. As last that's how I see it.

[me b zola]

9. Of course we need to band together against them

In my mind, legalization laws or even gun rights are smaller issues that can fit into either party's identity. It's the larger issues that frame the way in which you look at the world that should band us together, but in the last twenty years or so, are driving a wedge between us.

For me the issue is this; do we support the corporatist movement?
Should the common man rally behind a Democratic candidate who says they support us, but owe their allegiance to corporate Amerika?
The Proletarians v Bourgeois reality has not left us, we have turned a blind eye to the reality of the oldest, but most powerful, struggle of mankind (or unkind---sorry, had an ee cummings flashback).
Is a Dem? who supports big (multi-national)business really a Dem??
Is i in our best interest to allow them to represent us if they represent corporate Amerika?

I know how I feel. Does Joe Citizen "moderate" believe that this is in his best interest??

[Clarkie1]

10. A very heartening post. I share your sentiments. n/t

[autorank]

11. I agree with you! DU=dialog, out of which comes consensus and action.

The give and take here is great. I see far fewer personal attacks, almost no "newbie abuse," and people arguing a point and then shaking hands electronically.

I went to the 1/6/05 rally and march in DC where Cobb, Jackson, & Gandy spoke. I think the crowd was mostly Greens. Why were they there leading the potent (but numerically modest) protest? To let the world know that John F. Kerry was robbed in Ohio and elsewhere. Third parties rock when they work like the Greens did last time around (and the Libertarians when they joined the Ohio law suit).

We are all there for the duration.

BTW: I'll give you $1000 in new Jacksons if the Republicans ever nominate Ron Paul.

Keep the faith! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=272275

[suigeneris]

15. Right About Ron Paul

The only reason he is attractive to liberals is because as a libertarian we share both his championing of individual rights for thought and action and his abhorence of foreign misadventures. After that he's just a Republican and no friend of ours.

[omega minimo]

13. Moderate, liberal, progressive-- what have you-- need some rabblerousers

to rattle the cage.

Here's the thing: how many people actually believe that this election, and the previous one, were not hijacked? Isn't that Issue #1? In this thread, similar to others on DU, one reads down about a dozen posts to find mention of this, as an aside:

<I went to the 1/6/05 rally and march in DC... the potent (but numerically modest) protest? To let the world know that John F. Kerry was robbed in Ohio and elsewhere.>

This is a non-starter on DU, the stolen election-- but it still pops up almost as an afterthought.

I would like to see "our side" call the wrong wingers on everything they do, starting with the lying and brainwashing, followed swiftly by the hijacked election(s) and THEN hammer them with the issues.

Don't you think the robber barons find it amusing that we are scuttling around after every bone they toss when the Big Issue is that the wrong team is in the WH?

This can be a unifying strategy, in the direction you are recommending. The touchstone for me is the irrefutable clarity of language and power of truth exemplified in Martin Luther King's words. Speak truth to power. If power is illegally gained, why not point it out?

Thanks for the kindness to newbies that was also mentioned here. :hi: And if I am overlooking the obvious, please let me know. So far, it seems to me that ignoring the illegitimacy of the 2004 (and 2000) elections IS overlooking the obvious.

I am motivated by the damage being done by this administration. 2004 WAS "next time."

[Selatius]

14. You've got to expect a lot of voter dissatisfaction within our system

Because it purports to be a big-tent party, you've got a lot of competing interests, and not all the brush ups turn out friendly. Sometimes it can get downright harsh, but I generally chalk this up to the fact that the US electoral system really only allows for two parties, not more than that.

As a result, people are chained to vote either one or the other and make sometimes very large concessions that would otherwise be unacceptable in a more open electoral system. The tendency I've seen is for politicians to tear each other down when it'e either one or the other. I've always felt a multi-party system was preferable because it more often than not encourageous coalition building because it's not "winner-take-all."

People would be freed to vote their conscience first, not the alternative first. This is why I look admiringly at other representative democracies in, say, Germany, Sweden, and even our friends down there in Venezuela. I'm not looking to import their systems wholesale into the US, but I think the level of sophistication of their electoral laws leaves ours in the dust.

It's time for innovation.

[Disturbed]

17. Language.

The RW is good at framing issues.

Instead of calling them Pro-Life why not call them Anti-Choice?

Anti-MJ
Anti-Union
Anti-Public Schools
Anti-Social Security
Anti-Medicare
Anti-Welfare
Anti-Religious choice
Anti-Assisted Suicide

See, these folk are anti a whole lot things that we are for.

[Darranar]

18. Yes, but if the so-called "center" isn't much better, why should I care?

Mass murder under the guise of "humanitarian intervention" is still mass murder. Social injustice with the redistribution of a few pennies is still social injustice. Imperialism with nonsense about a benevolent empire is still imperialism.

If change is necessary then a lot more has to be done than destroying the Radical Right.

[Q]

20. The goal has ALWAYS been to beat the 'radical right'...

...and that shouldn't even be in doubt. But there's something else going on that Democrats have tried to ignore in the quest for 'unity'. Ironically...it has been the call for unity behind leaders and values we don't believe in that has divided us.

As far as internal party unity...what we should be seeking is an even playing field when it comes to choosing a nominee for president. As it is...it comes down to which candidate has the most support from corporations and the monied interests behind the scenes. A candidate who wants corporate accountability and regulation or is anti-Iraq war doesn't have a chance to move within the current party structure.

Let's be honest here. The Democratic party Leadership has been pitiful in their approach to confronting Bush on any number of issues. And it simply stuns the senses to watch some of them actually vote FOR many of his anti-democratic policies and 'initiatives'. How do they explain why they voted for a 'war' that the whole world knows is unprovoked and illegal? And this is but one example. The more 'conservative' Dems have supported Bush on many issues...from allowing his WH to go unexamined during 9-11 investigations to supporting his useless education programs and tax cuts (incentives) for the rich and their industries. And you have Lieberman looking like he wants to have Bush's child.

We know that Republicans follow in lockstep and ignore the scandals and wrongdoing in the Bush WH for the sake of 'party unity'. But the Democrats need to do and be more than that. We must hold our elected representatives accountable for their cooperation with the most corrupt government in US history. Some Democrats are driving the getaway car for the Bush Robber Barons. They are hurting our party and country. This is something we must face and then respond accordingly.

[ClassWarrior]

22. There is no feud. Only trolls trying to create one.

Most DUers understand full well that there are serious problems within our party (duh!!). But no responsible DUer I know would smear someone like Barbara Boxer or Russ Feingold, and then claim that other DUers who request a little civility are rolling over and letting the party screw us. That, to my mind, screams troll.

So, to address your point, I think true DUers ARE all together in defeating the Radical RW, wherever they're found. But when we find them in the Republicon party, it serves us to give them a loud and public humiliation, while when we find them in our party, it's in our best interests to reprimand them privately and not create division.

NGU.

[LoZoccolo]

23. I agree with you on both points.

I think a lot of people think I'm a pretty conservative Democrat or a DLC member, but I actually don't disagree with them on a lot of issues. What I take exception to is people complaining without a plan, or worse, with a plan that has a most likely outcome of damaging more. If people don't like the stance the Democratic Party takes, they should ask themselves - how will they get it there? I like what I think you're probably doing with the Marijuana Policy Project - you're actually advocating an issue, making more people of aware of it, building a consensus. If the Democrats ignore an issue, the best way to get around it, I feel, is to get more support for it. Then they can't ignore it, nor can it be as easily blasted by the Republicans when the Democrats do come around to support it.

But if people secede without doing that kind of work, without participating in democracy beyond just voting, I really don't see how they're going to get what they want. I hear stuff about "taking a stand" but I don't see how that will lead to getting what they want.

[ClassWarrior]

24. I'm with you, Lo...

I was thoroughly amused when I was tagged a DLCer by a clueless troll the other day. Hell, my choices for the Presidential Primary last year were Sharpton, Kucinich, and Mosely-Braun. I work side-by-side with Greens on a variety of campaigns, and secretly yearn for the Greens to - somehow, magically, I guess - become viable. That's not likely to happen under this ridiculous two-party system. So this hard-left Dem feels I have no choice but to help rebuild my lifelong party.

I think anyone here would agree that the Democratic Party BADLY needs to rebuild.

Do we rebuild when we whine and complain about every marginal setback? Or do we tear down?

Do we rebuild when we constantly emphasize our divisions? Or do we tear down?

Do we rebuild when we proclaim that the party's dead because someone said tan and we wanted beige? Or do we tear down?

Dammit, I agree that it all needs to be discussed. Vigorously. With passion. But not with spite and hatred and condescension. That's NOT who we are. That's NOT Progressive values.

And I do feel that there's a need to follow a "DU's 11th Commandment of Politics: Thou shalt not speak ill about your fellow Progressive in public."

Remember, this IS public. We need to be an example of Progressive responsibility and compassion. At the same time, YES, we need to demand swift and merciless action against any Dem who strays. And this is THE place to coordinate and motivate that kind of thing. But we don't have to destroy his or her character to do so. That's Republicon shit. I don't play that.

And we also need to remember that the most effective way for any of us to take errant Dems to the woodshed is by joining our county and state parties and PARTICIPATING. That's the way to get influence over these people. Sure, that means rolling up one's sleeves and getting involved. But then, that IS a Progressive value.

NGU.

[CWebster]

25. A stand against NEO-cons for starters

What were Kerry's e-mails running--20-1 against the IWR?

What's so hard about it? The rest of the world doesn't have a problem going along.

Why do you suppose Dean represents such a threat and attracts so many to his cause?

[LoZoccolo]

26. I like Dean, actually.

I think he's a cool guy, and will make a good DNC chair.

[ClassWarrior]

27. .

[SeekerofTruth]

31. I disagree, Destruction of right is the wrong goal

I'm so tired of hearing how we have to beat * and beat the right. You don't win by trying to beat someone, you win by leading. We must be proactive, not reactive.

Why in 1999 was SS privatizing good, now it's bad?
Why in 1998 was IRAQ regime change good, now it's bad?

Where are our leaders proposals on:
CEO Corruption
Social Security
Economic reform
Foreign Policy
Health Care

I'm so sick of hearing about Bush, I want to hear about Democrats (like Blageovich and Obama) who are trying to make a difference for our side!!!

[Mark E. Smith]

32. When There Is An Administration As Reactionary As This One...

...everyone not aligned with it is a Liberal.

But I must confess to a certain level of fatigue with those who endlessly discuss whether or not the Democratic Party is good enough for them any more. In my opinion our party is the only thing left that stands between us and the corporate rapine of fascism. Desert the Democratic Party and you are deserting America.

It ain't perfect, but it is by far the best we have.