Are we a Neoliberal (DLC) or Liberal Party (DNC)?

[bluedawg12]

Regardless of what Fitzgerald does or does not find the damage to shrub has been done. The polls reflect the diminished trust and respect for him by the American people.

Regardless of Fitzgerald’s findings he is not running again in 2008. He is a badly limping lame duck now.

He is almost beneath or efforts and thoughts and energy. Sometimes I think that he is simply a welcome distraction for the neocons who don’t have to worry about what is failing to happen in Iraq and Afghanistan because we are all too focused on shrub, Katrina, Fitz and Brownie. In the mean time Americans die. Iraqi’s die.

Has anyone heard Sy Hersh talk about Talafar on CSPAN? We resumed bombing in Iraq while the US was concerned with Katrina.

“Up to 5,000 families fled their homes in Talafar when fighting between Coalition forces and insurgents started earlier this month. "We are talking 20-25,000 people," Jette Soerensen, spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva (ICRC), told IRIN on Saturday.

Up to 3,800 United States forces and 5,000 Iraqi troops took part in the operation in which 153 terrorists have been killed and 187 captured, US officials said, denying there were civilian casualties. “ (1)

It is clear that this administration is in trouble. What should also be clear is that once gone the motivators behind this administrations foreign policy will not be gone. Theirs is an ideology that spans both parties.

While the MSM decries the lack of a clear Democratic party response to the obviously wounded animal that is this second term presidency and scoffs at our failure to produce counter plans to the mess the repugs have made, it is not so with- in the ranks of the Democratic party.

The are definitely two camps fighting for pre-eminence in the Democratic Part today,as has become obvious with a little reading.

Mainstream Democrats and liberals are in a debate with neo-liberals. The former is represented by elected Democrat, the former Governor, Howard Dean, M.D, now DNC chairman, and the coalition of elected Democratic Congressmen and former President Clinton led by unelected policy makers Al From and Will Marshall heading the group called the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council)

Dr. Dean is anti- war.

The DLC is pro-war.

Many of the DLC members belong to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy (FDD). (2)


The FDD is a bipartisan group but “Republican Party insiders dominate FDD's board and staff. FDD's three board members are Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Its two “distinguished advisers” are Newt Gingrich and James Woolsey, while other advisers include Gary Bauer, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Walid Phares, Charles Krauthammer, and Frank Gaffney—all prominent neoconservative figures with multiple links to the Defense Policy Board, Center for Security Policy, American Enterprise Institute, Weekly Standard, and Project for the New American Century. Among FDD's advisers are also several prominent Democrats associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive Policy Institute, including Donna Brazzile, a close associate of Sen. Joseph Lieberman; and Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA).” (3)

Some of the ideas espoused by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) have a familiar neoconservative ring to it, especially the notion of American world preeminence as the leading Superpower in a monopolar world, now that the might of the USSR has ended with the end of the cold war. The bipolar world of two superpowers is over, and only the US is left standing, hence the term monopolar world, as coined by neoconservative Dr. Charles Krauthammer.

The neoliberals, also called “New Democrats”, believe that in, “a rapidly changing global environment in which American values and interests are predominant, but in which we face a new series of international challenges based not on a monolithic threat from another superpower, but on regional instability, economic rivalries, ethnic conflicts, rogue states, and terrorism.

As New Democrats, we believe in a Third Way that rejects the old left-right debate and affirms America's basic bargain: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and community of all. “ (4)

The similarity between neocons and neoliberals is in their idea that American values and interests are and should be predominant, thus, our right to invade in order to bring about democracy, even if it turns out no WMD’s were found.

This shared value and philosophy may explain why so many Democrats voted to give President Bush War powers with regard to Iraq in the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq,” passed on October 2, 2002 . (5) This may be also why many Democrats still believe that their vote in favor of the war with Iraq was correct, but the execution was flawed.

The vote in favor of the resolution caused some division among the Democrats.
“The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force (in) Iraq... Most opposition came from Democrats, who were sharply divided on the issue. Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam Hussein over his obligations to the United Nations. But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said Congress and the administration were being driven by fear. "It is fear which leads us to war," Kucinich said. "It is fear which leads us to believe that we must kill or be killed. Fear which leads us to attack those who have not attacked us. Fear which leads us to ring our nation in the very heavens with weapons of mass destruction.

Six House Republicans -- Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee -- joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution. A total of 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats voted for it. “ (6)

Today, the DLC is in favor of remaining in Iraq, although with some recommendations.
“While Democrats have every right to criticize the president for mishandling the war in Iraq, a Democratic effort to force withdrawal from Iraq by a certain date would be a colossal mistake. “ (7)

“The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a think tank in the United States, founded in 1989 and affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. It describes itself as centrist, although left-wing critics frequently describe it as conservative or neoconservative. Its current president is Will Marshall, who writes frequently on foreign policy, defense, economic and cultural issues.” (8)

“Despite the DLC's centrist pretences, the organization spared no criticism of anti-war voices. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal, because of his anti-war stance. The DLC has dismissed other war critics such as filmmaker Michael Moore as "Anti-American" and members of the "loony left". “ (9)

“More vocal critics believe the DLC has essentially become an influential corporate and right-wing implant in the Democratic party. Among the DLC's leadership are individuals with impressive right-of-center credentials, such as Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the DLC and the former legislative director for the Christian Coalition, and Will Marshall, a cosigner of a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) endorsing not only the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, but also a foreign policy that has much in common with the neoconservative world-view. Finally, progressive detractors of the DLC note that the DLC receives funding from the right-wing Bradley Foundation” (9)

Having said all of this, my concern is that all of the energy we now focus on a lame duck president and a party that cannot govern despite being in power over all three branches of government may be wasted energy, lacking in focus, and a big distraction to us which plays into the hands of the opposition.

We need to be focused on where we stand and why. We need to decide whether we follow the neo liberal wing of the Democratic Party, or, as Dr. Dean calls it, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. In order to decide we must engage in a serious discussion about the forces tugging at our party and determine for ourselves which is the best for ourselves as individuals and for America. The stakes are high and we need all of the information and discussion and debate that we possibly can muster. Actually, both sides make some very good points. In order to explore them fully we need to disengage from our pre-occupation with shrub, Fitz, and KKKarl and move on dot damnit!

Thoughts, comments, flames?





References:
(1)http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/9a04dfff405374df0043ede302050407.htm
IRAQ: Displaced families return to devastated Talafar
21 Sep 2005 10:16:44 GMT

(2) http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies


(3) http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/fdd.php

(4) http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=1926
DLC | Key Document | August 1, 2000
The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century

(5) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
October 2, 2002

(6) http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us/
House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq
Bush: U.S. must confront Iraq 'fully and finally'
October 10, 2002

(7) http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253592&kaid=86&subid=84
DLC | Blueprint Magazine | October 21, 2005
Hope and Pride
By Al From

(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Policy_Institute

(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

[xultar]

1. OMFG. Can't we lay this shit to rest for a fuckin minute. Gooogly Moogly

GAWD DAM!

GESUS EFFIN FRACKIN CHRISTO!

[William769]

2. And here I thought we were the Democratic party.

Except for those who seem to want to split it.

[bluedawg12]

3. I thought so too. but are we? n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

8. Those who want to split it

Like Marshall Wittman, Will Marshall, Al From and these other lying sons of bitches who have never voted for a Democrat in their lives?

[bluedawg12]

19. DLC leaders have right wing Christian Coalition and PNAC

backgrounds is a shocking revelation.

"Among the DLC's leadership are individuals with impressive right-of-center credentials, such as Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the DLC and the former legislative director for the Christian Coalition, and Will Marshall, a cosigner of a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) endorsing not only the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, but also a foreign policy that has much in common with the neoconservative world-view. Finally, progressive detractors of the DLC note that the DLC receives funding from the right-wing Bradley Foundation as well as from corporate oil giants, military contractors, and a large number of Fortune 500 companies>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council


It always goes back to th money doesn't it? I'll check ot the Bradley foundation next.

[bluedawg12]

20. the DLC is funded by the Bradely Foundation

go to the link you will be nauseated to see the names: Jeanne kirkpatrick-again and Bill Bennett the gambling morality czar of the RW.

How the heck did these guys get their claws into the party?

"The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is a large and influential right-wing foundation with about half a billion US dollars in assets. According to the Bradley Foundation 1998 Annual Report, it gives away more than $30 million per year. The Foundation has financed efforts to support welfare reform, to promote school vouchers, to deregulate business, and to privatize government services.

The Bradley Foundation has provided important support for think tanks and groups that advocated an attack on Iraq as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, such as the Project for a New American Century and the John M. Olin Center for Strategic Studies. In early 2003, Joyce bragged to a local paper that President George W. Bush and members of his administration were influenced by the policy discussions of those groups. Joyce commented that the attack only hastened Bush's inevitable move towards neoconservatism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Foundation

[Selatius]

24. The Bradley Foundation is, I believe, the LARGEST rightwing foundation

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=1

[bluedawg12]

48. Geez they roll out the big bucks. n/t

[Wilms]

4. OK. The minute is up.

Thanks for laying that out bluedawg12. It may help folk consider these important ideas.

From my point of view, the DLC represents pro-choice republicans. At least that's my way of trying to put words to my feelings about them.

[bluedawg12]

5. Thanks Wilms- I had not heard of them until DU

don't know how much power they actually have in the party.

But it seems that Dr. Dean and the DLC are not of the same mind. How will that play out for our party?

[Wilms]

6. The DLC tried to block him from becoming the DNC Chair.

But not unlike Fundies and Freepers, most registered Dems don't have a clue about this division. And admittedly, it's awkward to fight it.

Not unlike Fundies and Freepers, I think there are a lot of single issue voters who are, let's say, pro-choice. Or, they want a women to be president. Hey, they think, Hillary is a women...and adolescent shit like that.

[bluedawg12]

7. It does seem awkward and odd and we discuss it in ways

the allude to it with out actually talking about it directly.

For example just today we talked about Sen. Schumer and why he would still go to war with Iraq.

and the debate over Sen. Clinton

and the debate we have about getting out of Iraq.

Those have all come up today on DU- and people are divided, now I can see why if these two parties approach these subjects from different points of view philosophically.

How the heck are we going to win unless we are united?

But, how are we going to be united if a powerful group like the DLC does not even support Dr. Dean?

Why not have this all out in the open?

[TheWraith]

9. Powerful group? What powerful group?

A think tank that could neither stop a guy who was arguably the most liberal presidential candidate in decades, nor prevent somebody else from becoming the head of the DNC? That doesn't sound like my definition of a "powerful group."

[bluedawg12]

10. Didn't they side track Dr. Deans bid for the Pres. Nom?

calling him too left wing and the attacks on him as being weak on national security and un-electable?


"The DLC countered that Dean represented the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Dean was elected head of the Democratic National

Committee (DNC) by party activists, over the vocal objections of The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC.) The DLC is a private club who has been able to dominate the DNC and the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so, up until Dean's election to the top spot.

The DLC brought in a lot of corporate campaign money and pushed through a lot of corporate friendly legislation during the Clinton years, such as the telecommunications bill, as well as provideing frequent Democratic legislative votes to Republican sponsored legislation during the bush years that is corporate friendly.

Both Gore and Kerry had lots of DNC advice in their campaigns and the DNC still holds influence in the Party hiarchy, although they appear to be waning from their heyday.

The progressive activists in the party need to come up with a long term agenda and a recognizable organization of our own (with elected public officials and non-elected members) to provide an effective counter balance to the DLC. We need something like the Democratic Voters Council (DVC)to act as a counter balance to the DNC.

[bluedawg12]

16. John Q. Makes me think of: A house divided against itself

cannot long stand.

I think you meant for DLC in some spots where you wrote DNC??

I understand that both Sen. Kerry and Mr. Gore are members of the DLC.

What if anything can be done to bring the party together?

There are many common grounds- since the DLC has some socially liberal ideas.

It does seem like they are to the right on foreign policy and possibly business, as you mentioned.

Also, there is some question on where they actually stand on unions.
I can't imagine that with the DLC policy on free trade that they and the unions are going to have a love fest soon.

Here is something I found earlier on their union stand:

.........

The DLC say’s it is pro-union but is that true?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=1926
DLC | Key Document | August 1, 2000

The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century

>Strengthen the International Labor Organization's power to enforce core labor rights, including the right of free association. <
.......

New Labor, New Democrats--New Alliance?
http://www.prospect.org/print/V9/40/judis-j.html

Since the DLC's founding in 1985, the organization has had virtually nothing positive to say about organized labor. When From and Marshall attacked the "politically powerful interests" that controlled the Democratic Party, they were referring primarily to the AFL-CIO and its unions. They never mentioned labor except to criticize it. They railed against teachers unions for opposing charter schools and public employee unions for resisting outsourcing and industrial unions for opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). When I was interviewing From in spring 1996 about Clinton, of whom he was then critical, he contrasted Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers in 1982 with Clinton's unwillingness to defy Democratic interest groups. "Reagan was so good," From said. "He went ahead and did PATCO. He didn't wait for approval. With Clinton, you would have said, 'You have to check with labor first.' "

[John Q. Citizen]

29. You are correct about "DLC in some spots where I wrote DNC??"

Sorry for the confusing mess up.

I'm not advocating kicking any DLC out of the party, I am advocating a way to balance the elite and in some ways overbearing influence of the DLC with a group that would essentially play the same role for the populist wing of the party, who surprise surprise make up the majority of the party in terms of numbers if not in terms of influence.

[bluedawg12]

33. John Q thank you for your thoughtful reply

The future of this party will be in our unity.

It seems most agree with you, and I do, as well.

[ZombieNixon]

11. I'm curious about your username (please do not take offense in any way).

Your username, bluedawg12, and your avatar (a blue dog) suggest connections or identification with the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of "social and economic conservatives and moderates in the United States Democratic Party" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats). Many BDC members are affiliated with the DLC, yet your post seems to be decrying the DLC's aims and goals. What gives? Am I reading you or your post wrong? Again, please don't be offended; I'm just curious.

[bluedawg12]

13. ZombieNixon- my username ( not offended)

I love dogs.

I am owned by several. Cats too, in fact.

I have posted about them here whenever I can sneak in a dog or cat reference.

So I chose a nickname with the word dog.

I chose blue because of the obvious dichotomy between blue states for Sen. Kerry and red states for shrub. So it was a nod to "blue states".

The avatar is a blue dog because of the nick.

I also post an occasional photo of a blue pitbull, too, because I like the breed and have 2 and they are sweet and loving and very bright. My pit is fawn colored (the male) and the little girl is a beautiful brindle.

Here is my "proof" that "dog gate" does not hold water>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5149185#5149276

My title to the thread in reply :"Tomhood snipped? LOL. Hope he is OK....

My reply: we have 5 pussers, rescue types, each and everyone is wonderful.

On is a little kitten shot in or back yard by some #ss hat with a BB gun. We saved her, but she is mostly blind--but we love her and this little girl is thriving and gets along fine, with a little special care. She gets around by feeling with her whiskers and the little bit he can see out of one eye.

2 dogs, too. They are wonderful little bundles of love- one is a gentle male pit, and the other a brindle girl- pit/boxer. Both loving and gentle.

Here's praying for your little guys.
.............

I am aware of the term blue dawg Democrats and wondered about that when signing up. I recalled them being the pre-civil rights southern democrats who defected to the repug side after the 60's and the passage of civil rights legislation. However, as there were other "bluedawgs" on this forum, hence why I am number 12, I thought it must be OK because others have used this handle and few people even think of, or mention, the old term "blue dog democrat" these days.

I am not aware that they are even still around, I thought they went repug decades ago. I will check them out.
..........

The DLC issue.

I have not posted about the DLC until today. They weren’t a group I was aware of except in passing thread titles or references that did not draw my attention.

But two things happened:

1.) Yesterday I watched Sy Hersh and Scott Ritter on CSPAN.
Ritter said one little line that stuck with me, and got boo’s on the show.
He said that even if Gore had been elected ( at which point Hersh said he was! And got applause) but that even if Al gore were in the white house we would still have gone to war with Iraq. He said that it was inevitable and that it had been in the works since 1995
( or 1991?). That it was never about disarming Iraq it was always, for over 15 years going back to Poppy, about over throwing Saddam.

I wondered about that because the neocons had been relegated to the Raygun era cold warriors in my mind and I envisioned them as old anti-commies who now focused on Iraq. I did not associate them with any Democratic party members or elected officials.
In fact, I have posted here on DU, that my theory was that the neocons sent Pres. Clinton a letter advising him to action against Iraq in 1998 and he did not that he was set up and entrapped into the Monica-gate mess. I felt he was set up by the right and have said so here.

So, I kept thinking about why Ritter made that comment.


2.) There was a rather pointed thread today on the DU about the DLC.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5150512
“The official blame the DLC for everything thread”

“Yes the greatest thread in the history of DU!!!!Blame something on the DLC, anything, no nuance, moderation, or logic on this thread please!!!”

That thread had some heated exchanges and I got curious about who the DLC was and I thought that if there had been un-nuanced, un-moderated, illogical discussions previously then that wasn’t fair. So I looked them up to see if it were even worth weighing in on this, and be nuanced and logical.

I went to the DLC web site and looked them up.

I was struck that they sounded, and even the web site was set up like some of the right wing think tank sites that I had searched before.

I replied that the web site didn’t sound like a typical liberal web site and I wondered why their ideas sounded so right wing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5150512

>B.S.

who wrote this David Frum?

Some of these ideas have merit, some sound like repug talking points.
Has there been a discussion about these "initiatives" with rank and file dems?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&conten... <

After seeing the DLC web site, I wondered if that was the tie in to Ritters comment about Iraq war being a given.

Also, there were other threads today that made sense in light of the DLC web site.

Such as:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5148395
So what do we make of Chuckie Schumer and his...
...saying he still would have voted to give Bunker Boy authorization to invade Iraq regardless of the fact that Bush and his minions lied to him and the American people about the whole thing?

And:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5143719
All Roads Lead to PNAC (Deep Background to Fitz Saga)


And yesterday I decided to track down the history of the Congressional vote to go to war with Iraq because I believed that democrats were being smeared for shrubs war and it was implied that they agreed with him. So I wanted to see just how conditional the Law was and what if any stipulations they gave shrub for him to go to war. It runs out- none.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2177082&mesg_id=2177082
What did they first vote for then against? A look at the law.


Also, I wanted to point out that all of the Dems did the right thing and patriotic thing because they were fed false information by shrubco and could not have known that it was a scam. Till I read Kucinich’s honest dissent against the war, also Kennedy’s and Durbins.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec02/cong...
HAVING THEIR SAY

>September 3, 2002
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Of course I do. I mean, I don't think there's any justification to go to war with Iraq. There's no evidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. There's no -- there's nothing that says that they have the ability to deliver such weapons, if they did have them. There's been no stated intention on their part to harm the United States. I think that we have to...we have an obligation to defend ourselves, but Iraq doesn't have the ability to hurt the United States. But we could hurt ourselves in a world community by moving unilaterally, by for the first time launching a war of aggression<

So I was left wondering why so many dems voted for giving shrub such broad powers and why some didn’t. Could not explain that yesterday so I moved over that one with out too much commentary other than Kucinich had the balls to speak up.

..............

Then today, after reading “The official blame the DLC for everything thread” I ran across the web site for The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The FDD actually has quite a few Dem’s on it’s Board including Sen. Schumer. Never thought I would see him on the Board of a group with neocons like Krystal and Perle, etc.


http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm

The FDD
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/fdd.php
>Republican Party insiders dominate FDD's board and staff. FDD's three board members are Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Its two “distinguished advisers” are Newt Gingrich and James Woolsey, while other advisers include Gary Bauer, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Walid Phares, Charles Krauthammer, and Frank Gaffney—all prominent neoconservative figures with multiple links to the Defense Policy Board, Center for Security Policy, American Enterprise Institute, Weekly Standard, and Project for the New American Century. Among FDD's advisers are also several prominent Democrats associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive Policy Institute, including Donna Brazzile, a close associate of Sen. Joseph Lieberman; and Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA).(2)<

.................

So that’s when I decided to read about the DLC and go their web site, that of their think tank, and check out what others are saying about them. That’s when I posted my thread because I think, as I said, they deserve a discussion that is nuanced, and logical, and they have some good ideas. But, I am not sure how influential they are in the Democratic party, except for the fact that many democratic members of Congress and Pres. Clinton belong. The next, and natural question is, then why isn’t the DNC chairman part of this.

Rather than imagine any motives, conspiracies, affects and plots, I decided to post on this subject and get some information. The DLC makes many points. I had hoped we might go through them and discuss the pro’s and con’s. That seems reasonable only because it seems that every day we are asked to discuss: “what does the demoractic party stand for.”

Here is a issue that is already out there, two schools of thought: the DNC idea proposed by Dr. Dean: get out of Iraq sooner than later, the idea of the DLC which is to stay but change the course, and then those that agree with Cindy Sheehan ( and Ritter and Hersh) which is get out now.

Unless we discuss these ideas we will likely suffer from the same cognitive dissonance that the repugs and conservapigs suffer from–namely: smaller government, except that it is growing, responsible fiscal spending except for the multi-trillion dollar debt, go to war with Iraq because they attacked us on 9-11, except they didn’t and etc.

I expect honesty from the Democratic party. I don’t expect any semblance or similarity to the shadow politics and shadow governance that we see with this secretive administration in power today in D.C. I don’t think any ideas or theories of politics is off limits - no matter how awkward- when there are people writing about them publicly on the internet, in magazines and having meetings about them with powerful politicians.

As far as being for or against the DLC- I am just learning about them today- a I said, they have many good ideas- but they seem to enjoy a reputation that I did not invent and did not cause- whatever is said about them on the net by winkepedia, or the IRC watchdog group, is their doing not mine. My doing is trying to be nuanced, moderated and logical in bringing this to a discussion that someone earlier today on DU said had not yet happened.
.............

Finally, here is my question now.

What if the whole idea of going to war with Iraq was preordained?

What if this decision did indeed cut across both party lines and we would have toppled Saddam no matter who was in office?

What if the Fitzgerald investigation points not only to the WHIGS in the white house but also to the Dems that voted for war?

Where would that leave our party? No better than the repugs and any political ground gained by possible indictments wold be ashes in our mouths.

Could this be why the repugs always point to the fact that” everyone knowing what shrub knew voted for war?

Could that be why on occasion we hear rumblings that the Fitz investigation may not only go up the repug side but also down on the dem side?

I hope not. That would be a disaster.

[ZombieNixon]

14. Gotcha!

(I agree, BTW)

Wow, that was the first post I've made outside the Lounge in months!

[bluedawg12]

15. LOL! OK tag I'm it. heh heh

I've been thinking of going to the lounge. Will have to check it out.

I'll try to keep my replies to only 4 pages typed, over there!

Peace-

bluedoggie

phew- now that doggie-gate is over....

or is it...<evil laughter>

Just to throw you off the scent so to speak--I am really a <<<eek>>

cat!

just kidding...a talking dog I am.

[welshTerrier2]

17. "we need all of the information and discussion and debate"

the most important point you raised, imo, was this one: "The stakes are high and we need all of the information and discussion and debate that we possibly can muster."

i've raised this issue several billion times on DU to little or no avail ... everyone wants to point fingers and demand party unity but no one ever puts forward concrete suggestions about how to achieve it ... demanding that voters "just go along" is not going to work anymore ...

until this problem is resolved, the Democratic Party ain't going nowhere ... until a process of reform and a process of enhanced communication and openness is implemented, nothing will change and the rift will continue to grow wider and wider and wider ...

this is a problem that all Democrats need to focus on but it requires leadership that has not yet been forthcoming from the Party Chair ... talking about supporting the "grassroots" is all well and good; reforming the Party so that each and every Democrat can truly take part in an intra-party dialog is what is ultimately needed ...

[bluedawg12]

21. w.Terrier 2: So the DLC is influential in the

Democractic party. Three guys seem to run it year after year. They have rght wing ties.

The DLC web site sounds like a conservative boiler plate special with all of the old conservapig chestnuts except with a liberal social twist.

And they are funded by the right wing Bradley foundation which boasts support for the neo-cnoservatives and even of induencing neo con policy up the shrub white house.

this is ssomething we must talk about and educte ourselves.

w.Terrier 2- I bet many Dems don't now this about the DLC.

Could simply getting the info. out onto the DU and other places be a start?

I read somewhere that the dailkos scewers them- will check that out next.

[welshTerrier2]

23. focus on issues, platform and strategy

i don't think we necessarily have to get into labels and groups in trying to resolve differences within the Party ... saying this is the "left" versus the DLC means absolutely nothing to 99% of registered Democrats ...

the focus needs to be on our differences on the issues ... what we should be pushing for is party reforms that give much greater voice to each and every Democrat ... we need to convince Party leaders to make our representatives far more accessible to their constituents ... i'd like to see regular, public town meetings in the representatives' home states ... i'd like to see regular referendums conducted on the DNC's website ... and i'd like to see a process where Democrats know their elected leaders have heard them and have responded to them ...

whether it's the DLC, the left, Dixiecrats, western Dems, woman's groups or anyone else dominating the direction of the Party is NOT the point ... i don't like the DLC ... i don't agree with them on several key issues ... but it's not because they are the DLC ... the disagreement is on the issues ... that's what we need to be more open about ...

[bluedawg12]

25. Well that's the reason I posted this

to discuss the issues.

Can you start us off w.Terrier2 ?

On a positive note, what do you agree with them about?

......
Here is their stated Credo from their web site in case anyoe wonders.

DLC January 1, 2001
The New Democrat Credo
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=3775
.........

[welshTerrier2]

27. Iraq and the Dems political strategy

my understanding of the DLC mantra is that they believe "the left" and the Vietnam era peace movement gave the Party a weak image on defense and security issues ... the DLC seeks to counter this image by emphasizing a "tough on defense" posture ... it's more than a posture with them; it's their Holy Grail ...

speaking from "the left", i would like to say that i strongly agree that Democrats should call for a strong national defense ... i think it's important to understand that sometimes we will be forced to fight to protect this country ... and i think it's important to ensure an appropriate level of preparedness and funding for defense and security programs ...

but i see the DLC as having gone way too far with this theme ... being for a strong defense does not include weakening the country by fighting wars that put us at greater risk ... we cannot become so fixated on conveying a more macho image that we make strategic military choices that endanger the country ...

on Iraq, consider the following statistics ... a CBS poll taken in early October showed that 52% of the American people want the US to withdraw from Iraq ASAP ... a similar Pew Research poll put the number at 48% ... and that's a cross-section of Americans; the numbers would likely be much higher among Democrats ... and polls of the Iraqi people are even more disturbing ... a very recent poll taken for the British Ministry of Defense showed that 45% of the Iraqi people condone the insurgent attacks on US and UK troops ... and a whopping 82% want the occupation forces to leave Iraq immediately ...

without rehashing the neverending argument about whether Democrats should have voted for the IWR in the first place, and even ignoring the the reality that we are losing the war and putting the country at greater risk by continuing to occupy Iraq, the polls strongly suggest that the best politics for the Democratic Party would be to recognize that it is time for the US to withdraw ... being tough on defense is critically important; showing real leadership by recognizing when it's time to get out is even more important ...

if we're ever going to get past the serious divide among us over the war, we have to sit down to discuss this issue ... right now, most elected Democrats, especially Senators, have refused to call for withdrawal ... this situation is, by it very nature, alienating to the majority of us who don't agree with them ... without dialog, i fear the disunity we have will hurt us in the next election ... those not calling for dialog and those demanding we "just go along" with elected Democrats "because we have to win" are doing a real disservice ... they see those who are critical of the current pro-occupation strategies as disloyal; i'm afraid their refusal to push for dialog and reform is the real cause of the problems we have ...

[bluedawg12]

31. This does not seem so left wing to me.

You are in favor of a strong national defense. That would mean a strong military.

You and I agree that rehashing the IR vote is futile. Only the RW enjoys bringing that up in our faces.

The problem I see is with the issue of how we currently handle Iraq.

One camp says that pulling out any time soon will destabilize the region. I was thinking along those same lines until recently.

But, I am not seeing much progress over there.
We are approaching the tragic 2,000 dead from our brave troops.
Today we had three major explosions in Baghdad, even if we tolerate that at home, the people of Iraq are being put through living hell, now.

And. yesterday, Ritter made a some well known but note worthy points.

Our presence is fuel to the fire there. We are a magnate for jihadists.

Worse yet, the so called insurgents, are actually being funded by every Islamic state in the region- according to Ritter- including Saudi A., Iran (obviously), Syria ( more obviously) that these nations are Sunni and support the anti-American fighters.

So, I am not so sure anymore that we are keeping the flood tide of chaos back by being there we have tried it for three years.

I am thinking that leaving will actually stop the fighting and create stability-which our presence there does not.

Again, these are important issues to talk about clearly and as you rightly point out- away from who they are, and who pays them, and just getting back to the issues.

But, it takes two to talk. It cannot be that one side simply declares intellectual victory and refuses to parlay.

[welshTerrier2]

34. left wing stereotypes

we are not all pacifists and many of us support a balanced budget ...

it does "take two to talk" ... i think a Senate that votes 100% to continue the occupation is not a Senate that seems open to alternative views ...

without a voice in this Party, those who grudingly supported Kerry in 2004 in spite of bitter disagreement with him on the war, will not be there the next time ... without working for a compromise, i'll be voting only for progressive candidates from now on ... progressive Democrats first, and then progressives of other parties when no progressive Dem is running ...

i hope it doesn't come to that ... we do need to resolve our differences on the issues ... but i see a Democratic Party that makes decisions from the top ... i see a Senate out of touch with the American people and "little" Democrats ... if we are unable to infuse a new democratic (small "d") spirit in the Party very, very soon, our Party will not do well next year or anytime soon ... let's hope that doesn't happen ...

[bluedawg12]

37. This is why Dean is encouraging grass roots

activism and neighborhood get togethers for Dems.

They do work. We had one locally before the '04 elections and this is the only blue county in a red state. The party here is locally active and strong. That's a start.

As far as steroytypes- yes, most people have many issues and we diverge and come together as individuals. We don't walk in lock step like the repugs do.

[bluedawg12]

38. Speaking of sleep- thank you all for your replies

I have learned alot.

I have to sign off shortly. But I'll check back tomorrow.

Thanks again.

[welshTerrier2]

41. dialog between elected Dems and their constituents

i spent the night last night talking, actually arguing, about Dean ... i'm just not up for another round tonight ...

Dean needs to lead the charge to make real reforms in how we communicate within the Party ... i don't think he's done this at all ... i've heard him speak about the "grassroots" but it's always in the context of getting out the vote or raising more money ... it's never in terms of giving greater voice to the grassroots and pushing electing Dems to build closer relationships to the grassroots ... we need to change our internal processes so that each and every Democrat is given a real opportunity to impact the direction of the Party and influence how our elected Democrats vote on the issues ...

Senate Democrats are out of touch with their own constituencies ... i think it's the number one reason so many people don't even vote at all anymore ... i supported Dean for DNC Chair because i believed his message about the "grassroots"; i've been very disappointed so far ...

i hope Dean really does emerge as a champion of the grassroots; i'm concerned now that he won't ...

[bluedawg12]

44. Thanks wT2- so all of the input and ideas here at DU are

mainly for our own amusement? This doesn't trickle up (I know bad metaphore) to the powers that be?

I was hoping they lurked and were in awe of our collective brilliance.

We'll keep pluggin along. I know this, next time there is a local Dem event I will be very well informed and articulate about issues thanks to the DU and the information people share.


Myabe I'll e-mail Dean and ask him to start making a nation wide town meeting- whistle stopping through small towns and large. Get some media coverage.

I am related to a US Congressman (D) - maybe it's time to call his ass on the phone and tell him they need to get back to the people.

Peace and thanks- get some rest.

bluedoggy

[welshTerrier2]

45. "doesn't trickle up" ??

i think they know we're out here ... the internet has made a huge difference ... the problem is, though, that we need "direct dialog" ... we need a real exchange of ideas ...

not too long ago i had the opportunity to blog directly with Wes Clark ... i didn't think he really responded to the question i asked him but i give him a great deal of credit for taking the time to speak directly to people on the net ... we need to see much more of that ...

so our ideas are "trickling up" ... it's just not enough though ... the process needs to be formalized ... it needs to be institutionalized ... it needs to be valued ...

[bluedawg12]

47. On line group chats should be a must with our leadership!

That is do-able right here at th DU!!

Set up a day and time announce the hell out of it, have regular weekly chats on line with Dean, Clark, Hill, Biden, Edwards, Kerry,hell, anyone can come online and chat for an hour.

I wonder if the mods would go for it? Sponsor it? Arrange it?

I have seen this done with a TV show and stars came live to post on a forum- fabulous turnout.

[PhilipShore]

18. Historically liberals are the only ones in the party that win

After the Supreme Court stole the election in 2000--the powers that be in the Democratic Party-- said to themselves regardless of all the money we get from the DLC we had better give some power back to the liberal Democrats, because they historically are the only ones that win against the Republicans.

See John F. Kennedy a Liberal Democrat, whom won specifically because he was a registered Liberal in New York State.

[bluedawg12]

22. Phillip- who do you consider true liberals today

in the Dem party?

Dr. Dean, clearly?

How do others stack up, any idea?

[PhilipShore]

30. liberals

Dr. Dean and Wesley Clark.

[bluedawg12]

32. Phillip- I see that Dean and Clark are on the DNC web

Here is a radio adress from Gen. Clark.

He says things we can all agree with.
He does leave the solution up to the administration for the time being. They control the military. But, is this compatible with those who now see Iraq as a place we need to leave sooner than later?

Retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark delivers the Democratic radio address on Saturday, October 15, 2005.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/10/general_wesley.php

>"Basic questions: How many capable Iraqi forces do we need before we can bring our troops home? How are we going to forge a political consensus between those quarreling factions in Iraq? And what is our strategy for neutralizing the threatening and armed militias there?

"How can we do a better job with less corruption in the reconstruction of Iraq? And, how can we make Iraq's neighbors a part of the solution, instead of a source of the problems inside Iraq?

"Staying the course is not a strategy, it is just a slogan.

"There is no alternative to success in Iraq. This administration has an obligation to provide our men and women in uniform and the American people that strategy.<

[dolstein]

26. Sorry Bluedawg, but you've got it backwards

The DLC represents the true liberals -- the ideological heirs of FDR, Truman and JFK. It's the left-wing special interest groups who took over the national party in 1972, as well as their amen corner in the blogosphere who are the "new" liberals, or as I prefer to call them, leftists.

[bluedawg12]

28. dolstein- can you explain that in a bit more detail?

How do the new liberal differ from the New Democrats?

I ask this in all seriousness. I have not seen a good discussion about this here and am concerned about who I support with time, money and votes.

People point out that there is a rift in ideology between the left and the New Dems but is that true?


Have Dr. Dean and the DLC leadership ever sat down and had a public discussion? or is this a case of ships passing in the night and the dog that barked? Meaning- not one side is sure what the other is saying and maybe they are far apart, maybe they are not?

How is the DLC different from conservatives- they sound a lot alike, and share the same beliefs. Not that this is wrong on the face of it.

But what gives?

Here is the DNC statement of values:
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html


Here is the DLC Credo.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=3775

In some ways they are similar.

Is it foreign policy?

The DNC say's diplomacy and new alliances.
>Our nation stands as a shining example to all the world of freedom and democracy, a unique honor that comes with a responsibility to lead.

Democrats believe that strong international alliances are the cornerstone of our foreign policy. The threat from international terrorism and rogue states requires a new era of alliances led by the United States, based on mutual respect and shared vision<

..........

BTW- I wrote this and posted this on the DU a little while ago.
It sounds alot like the DLC philosophy. Yet, I am not certain we, any of us, are on the same page here. It's all a little cryptic.
I still say we need to forget Fitz, and Wilma and FEMA and Harryette and get on with the business of seriusly coming up with a uniting set of prinicples that will then unite this badly divided nation- courtesy of shurb.

Here's what I wrote, it sounds compatible with the DLC am I nuts or all we all actually saying the same thing here at DU?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Sunday, October 9, 2005

This is my whack at an up dated riff on John Kerry's:Believe in America

Being an American
By The New Millennium Democrat ( that's something catchy I made up)

American courage: the sentinel of liberty, sealed with American blood and self sacrifice.

American might: power balanced with integrity. A strong and capable military and gratitude to those who serve with honor so that this great and free nation may stand in pride and freedom.

American patriotism: love of country, respect for the flag- paid for by the blood of hero’s, and honoring our troops who serve today and vowing that veterans who have answered the call, will not be forgotten.

American ingenuity: taking us from outer space to energy independence. Rich ideas and novel solutions, born and nurtured in freedom, will prevail.

American fairness: preserving and promoting human rights and freedoms for all Americans. The strong protect the weak, the many will not trample on the few. Every American, every individual counts.

American values: stewardship of the environment, valuing education for our kids to raise them up through knowledge and discovery, elevating all Americans to prosperity with good jobs and trusted long term benefits, and ensuring access to great health care.

American support for the ideals of liberty, equality and opportunity. This is the land that many have chosen as their adopted home, and from the farms of the great plains to the steel mill cities, they came for the American Dream and have found a welcoming home and freedom from tyranny.

Now is the time.

Now is the time for American strength.
Now is the time to be secure in our homes and lives and jobs.
Now is the time to ensure for ourselves and for our families, that the ideals of democracy and freedom that we cherish and many have given so much for, will endure.

The New Millennium Democratic Party- together we are stronger than apart, Americans united for prosperity, opportunity, and strength.

......

[dolstein]

40. FDR, Truman and JFK

all supported a strong military and were much more supportive of military intervention aboard than the "liberals" of today. FDR was way out in front of the country when it came to supporting Britain in the war against Germany. It was Truman who started the policy of containment and got us involved in Korea. JFK ran to the right of Nixon on foreign policy and increased the American military presence in Vietnam. People around here vilify LBJ for Vietnam, but the fact is, his foreign policy was very much in line with liberal Democratic traditions. Liberal Democrats were very much opposed to fascism and later communism and were quite willing to combat the spread of either through military force. In 1968, there was a schism in the party between the "hawks," who embraced the pro-military involvement traditions stretching back to FDR, and the "doves," who favored withdrawal from Vietnam. By 1972, the doves took over the party and nominated George McGovern. It was around that time that many foreign policy hawks who had, up to that time, considered themselves liberal Democrats, left the party. For example, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a Humphrey supporter, joined the Republican Party and served under Reagan as his UN ambassador. Indeed, many of todays neoconservatives were once liberal Democrats.

Now I'm sure that most DU'ers consider the exodus of hawks from the Democratic Party to be a good thing. But it's undeniable that public perception of the Democratic Party changed substantially with the 1972 election. Since then, the Democratic Party has lagged behind (often far behind) the Republican Party when it comes to which party is perceived as strong on defense/national security issues. And it's hardly a coincidence that the Democratic Party's decline coincides with this change in people's perception of the parties on matters of foreign policy.

[bluedawg12]

42. dolstein- thank you. Wasn't national security

the chief reason- above and beyond the social wedge issues- that caused many people who were independent or conservative democrats t vote for shrub. He projected himself as a war President?

Among current Democratic national figures who would you say is strong on defense?

Would General Clark be a hawkish Democrat presently?

Sen. Biden?

Sen. Clinton?

Obviously, I am trying to get information about who I may want to support if and when any one declares for the oval office job.

The chief reason for joining DU was to be informed about the issues and the candidates.

Thanks again.

[dolstein]

49. As far as whose likely to be perceived as strong on defense . . .

Clark's not a hawk on Iraq, but he's a former general. And I think that counts for a lot. Clark is probably better positioned than anyone to change people's perception of the Democratic Party on national security matters.

Hillary's one of the more hawkish Democrats, but the goalposts have moved a bit, so I'm not sure that's saying much. I certainly wouldn't consider her in the same league as Joe Lieberman. Besides, let's be honest -- she's a woman. And I can't imagine voters giving a Democratic woman candidate the edge over any Republican on national security matters. All these attempts by her supporters to portray her as some iron lady in the mold of Margaret Thatcher is just plain wishful thinking. After the Republicans get through with her, she'll be Dukakis in a skirt.

I wouldn't consider Biden a hawk and he doesn't have any military experience that I'm aware of.

[1932]

50. JFK did not support military intervention and was at odds with McNamara,

Bundy, Taylor (and almost everyone other than George Ball, Chester, Averell Harriman and John Kenneth Galbraith) regarding Vietnam.

If you read Richard Parker's Galbraith biography, you would not group those three together.

JFK was very suspicious of military Keynesianism (which was what Truman and Eisenhower pursued). FDR and JFK were liberal Keynesians and didn't believe that big military budgets and neoliberal programs which didn't address poverty and social conditions were good for America or the world.

In Pierre Schlesinger's Thousand Days, which is quoted in a footnote in Parker's book at around page 370, Kennedy said that the only war that can be won in Vietnam is one the Vietnamese fight between themselves. He says that as soon as it becomes a white man's war, it becomes unwinnable -- which was the lesson the French learned. Kennedy was also a fierce critic of French imperialism in Algiers and made a speech in the senate against it.

JFK, in other words, was saying that no imperial war can be won. JFK was not a neoliberal.

[dolstein]

51. Pure revisionist history

The fact is that NOBODY knows what JFK would have done about Vietnam had be lived. We only know what he ACTUALLY DID, and that included increasing our presence in Vietnam.

Sorry, but while he lived, Kennedy was a traditional Cold War liberal -- in order words, a hawk.

[1932]

52. It's not revisionist history. It's history. Read Parker's book.

[mrgorth]

53. And I suppose it's safe to assume

that you think FDR and JFK would've been just ducky with the outsourcing of manufacturing and tech jobs to the far east and corporate welfare that we see today?

[bluedawg12]

55. mrgorth- here is some info on jobloss, outsourcing

Globalization has not sent low tech manufacturing jobs overseas thus allowing American workers to perform post-industrialization clean, intellectually stimulating, high tech jobs. Those have been outsourced too.

According to the paper cited below outsourcing of manufacturing and tech jobs have contributed to the longest lasting declines in employment since 1933.

I am not enthusiastic about all the talk of free- markets, and the scorn of isolationism, free-markets now seem to mean nothing more than cheap labor markets.

............
http://www.networkideas.org/news/may2004/news27_US_Unemployment.htm

US Economic Recovery and the Unemployment Drag

Thus the employment situation is adverse not only because of the severe intensity of the jobloss but also due to the extended period during which the employment situation has worsened. The present cycle is one of the longest lasting declines in employment since 1933. ...Another structural shift in US manufacturing industries has been the rising competition from cheap imports especially from China...Manufacturing sector jobs in USA account for only 12% of employed workforce. An overwhelming proportion of the jobs are now in the service sector: service jobs account for more than 80% of the total employment and 78% of GDP.

Just as manufacturing jobs have been threatened by import competition from China, an imminent threat to service-sector jobs in the US arises from business process outsourcing to countries such as India. The present recession has been an opportune moment for many large service industries to move their operations offshore in search of cheap labour resources...Obviously there is clash of interest here: the US multinational lobby is pushing aggressively for more overseas-based operations so that labour costs are minimized, while the domestic worker unions are fighting to retain these jobs within USA in an already job-scarce economy.

It must be mentioned here that social safety net, an essential buffer against economic cycles has been steadily withering away in the US. This has considerably added to the woes of the workers and their families. Unemployment insurance which is the only state programme worth its name has benefited less than 40% of the jobless workers during 2000/1 <15>. Many states have raised the minimum qualification

[1932]

57. Globalization's real achievement is polarization of wealth.

it has shifted more wealth to capital and away from labor even though it has increased wages from labor in some developing countries.

I was listening to a podcast of the radio program "A World of Possibliites" -- their Feb 8, 2005 show, "Two Different Worlds: The Growing Gap Between Rich and Poor" interviews a guy who says that recent economic studies show that polarization of wealth is very bad for societies and very bad for development.

Globalization hasn't been instituted in a way tha passes savings on to consumers in developing countries (they might have been able to tolerate low wages is everything were much cheaper). It has concentrated more profits in the hands of large corporations and wealthy and powerful families within developming economies, while keeping the value of labor very low, especially relative to the profits globalization is producing. It has polarized wealth within nations and between nations.

I think the destabilizing and chaos-inducing repercussions are becoming more apparent.

[bluedawg12]

58. the NAFTA debates and the demise of the middle class

It was implied that NAFTA would bring jobs to places like Mexico and in so doing help their economy and at the same time make US companies wealthier as in successful.

I remember Ross Perot talking about the giant sucking sound of jobs going south of the border.

So what happened?

Good paying industrial jobs left my community and went south of the border.

They did not keep a US company and a Mexican branch - they completely shut down the one in our town.

Then, the company allegedly left Mexico and went to China!

In the meantime, proud, American blue collar workers who had decent wages, health benefits, workers compensation, some had some pension plan ( steel mills) lost it all.

Also, oddly, 5,000 illegal workers cross into the US daily looking for jobs here. If NAFTA brought jobs to them- why are they risking so much to come here?

Because it seems to my economically untrained eye, but they don't lie, and what I see is that workers are getting screwed here AND south of the border, and likely in China too.

You are correct, the disparity between the haves and have nots is growing, this type of policy is destroying our working middle class and America's strength and imperviousness to socialism and the communist scare of the 50's was doomed to fail because America had a strong working middle class. Loosing the middle class is destabilizing.

The wealth pyramid is getting narrower at the top and wider at the bottom thanks to anarcho-capitalism, another neocon Brain storm from Milton Friedman and his supply side economics bull sh*t.

US corporations evade taxes through loop holes, destroy collective bargaining and quality of life by moving over seas, and have no loyalty to any nation, especially our own.

They chase emerging markets and cheap labor and new markets like old whores in chase of moving ships.


lazy faire capitalism my ass.

and that's from some one who believes in success, wealth, and capitalism, but in a way that spreads prosperity and does not create a choke point for uber wealthy robber barons of the 21 st century.

[bluedawg12]

54. A look at: Military Keynesianism

http://www.bized.ac.uk/virtual/economy/library/theory/keynesian1.htm

Keynesians - Beliefs

Keynes didn't agree with the Classical economists!! In fact the easiest way to look at Keynesian theory is to see the arguments he gave for Classical theory being wrong. In essence Keynes argued that markets would not automatically lead to full-employment equilibrium, but in fact the economy could settle in equilibrium at any level of unemployment. This meant that Classical policies of non-intervention would not work. The economy would need prodding if it was to head in the right direction, and this meant active intervention by the government to manage the level of demand.

Keynesian beliefs can be illustrated in terms of the circular flow of income. If there was disequilibrium between leakages and injections, then classical economists believed that prices would adjust to restore the equilibrium. Keynes, however, believed that the level of output (in other words National Income) would adjust. Say, for example, that there was for some reason an increase in injections (perhaps an increase in government expenditure). This would mean an imbalance between leakages and injections. As a result of the extra aggregate demand firms would employ more people. This would mean more income in the economy some of which would be spent and some saved (or paid in tax). The extra spending would prompt the firms in the economy to produce even more, which leads to even more employment and therefore even more income. This process would go on, and on, and on, and on until it stopped! It would eventually stop because each time income increased, the level of leakages (savings, tax and imports) also increased. Once leakages and injections were equal again, equilibrium was restored. This process is called the Multiplier effect
...........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism

Military Keynesianism is a government economic policy in which the government devotes large amounts of spending to the military in an effort to increase economic growth. This is a specific variation on Keynesian economics, developed by English economist John Maynard Keynes. Instances commonly offered as examples of such policies are Germany in the 1930s and the United States in the 1980s, although whether these assessments are accurate is the subject of vigorous debate.

On the supply side, the maintenance of a standing army removes many workers, usually young males with less skills and education, from the civilian workforce. This demographic group ordinarily faces an especially high level of unemployment; some argue that drawing them into military service helps prevent crime or gang activity. In the United States, enlistment is touted as offering direct opportunities for education or skill acquisition, possibly to target this demographic. In this sense, the military might act as an employer of last resort

Many assert that the maintenance of large peacetime armies and growth of military spending will lead a nation into war, while also encouraging militarism and nationalism. These critics often attack the argument that the military prevents young men from sinking into crime by claiming that many soldiers who return from war are worse off physically or mentally than they would have been as an unemployed worker at home.
...........
http://www.free-conversant.com/realtruth/111
How the War Machine is Driving the US Economy
==========================3D===================
Military Keynesianism Might get Bush Re-elected,
But it is Starting to Worry Economists

by Andrew Gumbel,
lndependent/UK, January 6, 2004

What do the war in Iraq and the economic recovery in
the United States have in common?

The war has been a large part of the justification for
the Bush administration to run ever-widening budget
deficits,

The Bush administration itself prefers to attribute the
recovery to its tax cuts, targeted disproportionately
towards the richest Americans.

"The administration is conducting a highly
irresponsible fiscal policy, and there is no legitimate
economist on the face of the earth who doesn't say the
tax cuts are just loony,"...

"The long-term effects of military Keynesianism are
obviously negative on public infrastructure, health,
education and so on, and there are limits on how long
you can keep it up," he said. "What we borrow we will
eventually have to pay back, with interest."

.............
http://info.greenwood.com/books/0313300/0313300240.html
Bastard Keynesianism
The Evolution of Economic Thinking and Policymaking since World War II
By Lynn Turgeon
Economics and Economic History, Contributions in, No. 180 (ISSN: 0084-9235)

"A model of lucid, accessible and yet engaged economic writing. Professor Turgeon tells the fascinating story of how one vision of Keynesianism--the wrong one, in his view--came to America and what this has meant to our economic life since World War II. There are also some nice surprises, such as how policy under Kennedy and Reagan were actually very similar. For professors who want to make economic policy an exciting topic, this would be an excellent supplement to a principles course."
Robert Pollin, Professor of Economics University of California-Riverside
..................
http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/orwell.html

Even though the USA is $5 trillion in debt (the annual surplus a mere drop in the bucket), it continues its profligate spending on killingry, and pushes very hard to get governments and military gangs (those legitimized by DC) to purchase large orders of same.

Russia tried to step off themerry-go-round and is making a tough go of putting the brakes on unbridled militarism, but so far the USA has refused to follow
suit and its liberalism is starting to embrace the "last/only
superpower" ethos, girding itself to moralize about why these
endless wars are necessary -- as usual, the middle class has
little choice but to ape the corporate party line.


The USA is a highly militarized society, verging on a police state
internally, with more of its population incarcerated (percentage
wise) than just about any advanced economy's. As Peter Saint James
pointed out, corporate control is pretty much complete. As Medal
of Freedom R. Buckminster Fuller wrote in Grunch of Giants: "the
USA we have known is now bankrupt and extinct." The DCers are by
this time mere puppets of the supranationals, and a side show
used to keep the compliant and easily hoodwinked USAers believing
they still have an intact democracy

[Writer]

35. Wake me up when this whole goddamned argument is over.

Will I even be alive then? :cry:

[Writer]

36. Dupe.

One time is enough in this thread.

[bluedawg12]

39. Thanks all, good night. n/t

[Carolab]

43. If you are SERIOUS about this, then HERE is where to start NOW

On November 15th, thousands of Democrats will experience our 50-state strategy up close and in person.

In many places there are vitally important elections in just a few weeks -- but we can't afford to stop organizing and stop building after Election Day. Next year's elections will be a national referendum on the Republican culture of corruption in Washington and in the states. We cannot wait until a few months before the election to get ready -- we need to start organizing right now.

On the evening of November 15th, ordinary Americans will open up their homes to their friends and neighbors for a night of planning and action -- our National Organizing Kickoff.

Will you host an Organizing Kickoff meeting on November 15th? It's easy, and you can get started right away:

http://www.democrats.org/events/create

Hosts of National Organizing Kickoff meetings can download all of the materials for a successful meeting. Information from the national and state party will include a briefing on our party-building efforts nationally and locally, a survey of the political landscape in your state and information about opportunities to take action locally.

I will be joining all of the meetings that night in a nationwide conference call.

Every one of us needs to take responsibility for the Democratic organization in our neighborhoods, and this is everyone's opportunity to come together and focus. We have to be organized to get our message out -- we need a network in place now to persuade voters and activate our supporters.

It's up to you to make sure that everyone in your neighborhood is plugged in and ready to do as much as they can. Sign up to host your National Organizing Kickoff event now:

http://www.democrats.org/events/create

To make an impact everywhere we need to organize everywhere. That's what you mandated, and that's why our party has taken the unprecedented step putting organizers on the ground and building state parties across the country.

The event you host will bring everyone up to speed on our progress, our opportunities and the work ahead. Everyone must commit to working on Election Day 2006 -- but the meeting you host now will help create the road map for a year of sustained commitment until then.

As Republican leaders are investigated and indicted, Americans everywhere are tired of politics as usual. The culture of corruption that Republicans have brought to Washington, DC and statehouses across the country is making more and more people realize that we need change.

Hosting a local Organizing Kickoff meeting is the most important step you can take right now to make sure that our party is in a position to change things next year. When you sign up to be a host you will have access to materials to make planning easy:

http://www.democrats.org/events/create

You'll be hearing more about these meetings in the coming weeks. Thank you for your time and your commitment to the idea that together, America can do better.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
----

And it's not a fundraiser!

[bluedawg12]

46. Excellent- these things do work.

They energized our island of a blue county in a red state. we stuck out like a sore thumb. I believe we will co-sponsor a get together with the neighbor across the street. These meetings at home build unity and loyalty.

Also, I have a relative who is a US Congressman (D)- maybe time to button hole him and have a chat that I am armed with tons of info and ideas from DU.

This is a great place to learn if you stay at it and ask questions. I can teach myself allot by simply reading and then posting it and trying to get a discussion going.

Great thread.

thanks for your reply!

bluedoggy

[bluedawg12]

56. NSC Paper 1963, Nam and similarities to Iraq Policy

Here is an NSC document from 1963.

See any similarities between our stay the course plan in Iraq today and 1963?

First, they lay out the security concerns over Nam and how important that is to the US and other free nations.

Then, their program is working and sound.

We will only stay until the "insurgency" has been suppressed.

They will only need another two years to complete the mission.

The policy of the United States... to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society. Today it is our duty to spread democracy and freedom.

.....................
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context1.htm

Record of Action No. 2472, Taken at the 519th Meeting of the National Security Council, Washington, October 2, 1963
McNAMARA-TAYLOR REPORT ON VIETNAM

a. Endorsed the basic presentation on Vietnam made by Secretary McNamara and General Taylor.

b. Noted the President's approval of the following statement of U.S. policy which was later released to the press:

1. The security of South Viet Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet Nam to deny this country to Communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet Nam are capable of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Vietnam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.