Is the party still moving to the right?

[redqueen]

I've been a Democrat (Big D) all my life. I usually vote straight ticket (I'm in Texas, there's a lot to be overcome here).

I've also been dissatisfied for much of that time, and while sending in my donations I always included a little note about my concerns. I also dutifully fill out those surveys they send out about what is important to me.

But the sad thing is that over the past 16 years, things have gotten worse, not better.

I'm really torn up. I recognize that the best chance we have as Americans to achieve anything close to the goald I think are important (voting & election reform, equal pay, a living wage, etc.) is to work from within the party, but I'll be damned if it doesn't seem hopeless at this point.

It seems to me that the party just keeps moving to the right. Maybe I should hold off leaving until after the election, to see what Kerry does. I can't help anticipating his presidency will be along the same lines as Clinton's, though, and that's what has me feeling so defeated.

Is the party still moving right? Or am I missing some crucial pro-people issues we've made headway on?

I'm so very, very disheartened.

:(

edit: shoot, this shouldn't be in this forum. goldangit.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Well.... they are slowing down in their rightward move

but it could just be for the sake of the election.

You know, play populist, get voted in, return to being a corporatist.

Still, they get my vote for Prez THIS time.

[redqueen]

9. That's what Bill did, right?

Tell us he'd get the fairness doctrine back, arguably one of THE MOST IMPORTANT tools in the fight against the right... then didn't do it.

:(

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Yeah... and Gore was headed that way too, I think

but sadly he did not stand up for the Office he won fair and square, so we'll never know.

[KittyWampus]

2. In The Last 15 Years Environmentalism & Civil Rights Have Grown

the problem with a great many people is they want immediate and full scale change.

And also very often allow themselves to be lead unthinkingly in certain directions under the banner of "Progressivism" or "Liberalism".

I happen to be a Social Democrat but know that progress comes in increments and prefers a MODERATE Image.

One should try their best to see BOTH sides of an issue and keep an open mind.

For instance, I can see the benefits of NAFTA as well as the parts that need fixing.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. One can be too conservative in one's "moderate" stances

at times, though. Have you seen the Pentagon's report on global warming? It may be time to kick some things into high gear. :(

[KittyWampus]

7. You Have A Great Point, Sometimes Things DO Happen Suddenly

The past four years have been a serious loss of valuable time in moving ahead and facing Global Volatility.

Let's stay postive though. :)

[Scott Lee]

6. "Just this once"

Thats what the party apparat wants you to do. Swallow your progressivism, ideals for a better society, fresh air breathed into the democratic party so that we can get Bla-zeh into office.

Where have we heard this before?

Your "increments" are in nanosectors, and ultimately end up marching us backwards. No thanks. You have run out of time, you conservative democrats. Change is coming big and hard, and you can no longer procrastinate it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Yeah, just this once

I hate Bush more than I want to vote for a Green. It's true.

But count on me to keep fighting for election reform. It is coming, and from the grassroots on up. Every town and state that puts ranked voting and clean(er) elections in place has a shot at electing better people into office. And quality elected officials means we have a shot at quality policies.

Change _is_ coming.

[redqueen]

10. I never expected immediate or full scale change

But nothing is not the same as something.

Nothing is what has happened wrt electoral reform.

Nothing is what has happened wrt a living wage.

There was some minor environmentalism under Clinton, but even he managed to do most of his work on that in his last days in office. (Was everyone really fooled by that? Really?)

I do try to keep an open mind, but after a decade of NAFTA / WTO policies and seeing the results of that quite plain, is it too much to expect dems to treat this seriously?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. THE PARTY made a mistake by moving to where the votes seemed to be

I can accept that criticism as it relates to Bill Clinton's tenure because it is true, but a LOT of what moved the POPULACE or at least the VOTING populace to the right was redistricting and STATE issues in the 80's and 90's when many people were NOT paying attention. Right to work states went a LONG way to dry up union funds to combat the rightward anti-labor shift, as did the RIGHT's strategy to funnel think tank money through religious and other cultural organizations.

In the 92 election, Pat Buchanan stood at the Repub convention stage and declared a religious and cultural war...rather than FIGHT it as a war, we mocked him...in retrospect..it was the WRONG move.


We need to regain ground and regain voters and retake the high ground on all those issues...moral, ethical and the like..
The ONLY thing I ever OBJECT to in these conversations as I DID on my thread regarding the courts is the fact that there is this desire for INSTANT gratification that will leave people MORE UPSET and disappointed.

[redqueen]

11. Well I said I've been waiting for over a decade.

I don't think I fall into the 'instant gratification' crowd.

I agree we should have fought back in the culture war.

Are we fighting now? More to the point of this thread, is the Democratic party?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. seems to me they have mostly fought vouchers

They circled their wagons in the fight to defend affirmative action and they seem to be fighting now to take the presidency.

YOur state is a perfect example of a state where Democrats once held decent majorities being hijacked...how did Bush beat Richards?

[redqueen]

21. I thought I replied to this earlier...

Mostly money -- bush raised more than any candidate in Texas' history; plus Ann's campaign had to fight against the media (lack of fairness doctrine really hurt). Plus this was while the republicans were taking over congress.

I wish they'd circle their wagons about BBV, or a living wage, or ... *sigh*

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. Actually, the party didn't move right.

What is perceived by many on the left as a 'rightward shift/drift' is, in fact, doing away with the arcane post-1968 rules which gave disproportionate power over rules and representation to various segments of the party. IOW, the party is merely returning to its traditional slightly left-of-center position.

Edit: typo

[redqueen]

12. We're just going to have to agree to disagree, I think.

But thanks for contributing. :hi:

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. *crickets chirping*

Apparently this statement doesn't accept the pre-conceived bias in the initial post--hence the lack of comment...

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. Left of center? How is that possible when "democrats" are saying shit like

..the vile Freeper crap in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=54905

[Cuban_Liberal]

19. That's DU, not the real world.

BIG difference.

[BL_Zebub]

27. Apparently it IS the real world, as the thread in question was inspired

by the DLC's Annointed One's statement. Another steaming hot plate of waffles served up at your local KIHOW.

[redqueen]

22. Okay, let me ask you this:

If it is only 'perceived' as a rightward drift, how do you explain that Nixon's platform would be decried by people on this board as too far left?

[Cuban_Liberal]

25. I don't know that for a fact, and neither do you.

Purest speculation...

[redqueen]

28. Scientists use hypotheses all the time.

Nixon ran on a platform of guaranteeing the minimum income to the poor. He called it a 'matter of justice'. He also urged Congress to create the EPA.


Men Out of Their Time: Slick Willy and Tricky Dick

“When Nixon was elected, the political passion was mobilized on the left - the anti-war, civil rights, feminist, environmental, consumer, gay rights movements were on the march. Congress was dominated by liberal initiative, if not a liberal majority. Nixon had little but contempt for the Great Society or such liberalism, but ended up, in many ways, the last liberal president.

He signed off on major extensions of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Poverty programs rose by 50% during his administration. He created the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, extended the Voting Rights Act, increased spending on the National Endowment for the Arts. By executive order, he mandated affirmative action in employment. He proposed a comprehensive national health care plan. To replace welfare, he proposed a guaranteed annual income for all Americans, working or not working. As Vietnam wound down, he accepted deep cuts in the military budget to help pay for domestic programs. Even in foreign policy, Nixon, the unregenerate Cold Warrior, infuriated conservatives by pushing détente and arms control, and recognition of China. He was, concluded Gary Wills in his brilliant study, Nixon Agonistes, "the authentic voice of surviving American liberalism."”

link

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. And....?

How does that prove that the Democrats have moved to the right?

[redqueen]

30. Because if Nixon campaigned on it, it's not left

Also, the Democrats today are no closer to advocating for a living wage than they were then!

[Cuban_Liberal]

31. Baloney.

Just because Nixon favored it doesn't make it RW. Give me a break! Nixon also advocated following the meical model for treatment of first-time drug offenders; does that make THAT idea RW, as well?:eyes:

[redqueen]

33. That was tongue in cheek

Sorry, should have put the ;) in there.

But my comment was serious. The same programs Nixon advocated are no further along now than they were then.

[Cuban_Liberal]

34. OK.

No blood, no foul. Still, I see no evidence that we've moved rightward, and no one has addressed the issue I raised about the post-1968 rules changes which gave disproportionate influence to certain groups.

[redqueen]

32. More from the link above

"There is one major difference. Nixon - and the people around him - consciously sought to build the conservative movement, and to divide Democrats over cultural and social issues - race, abortion, cultural license. He helped build the Republican Party while in office. Clinton, on the other hand, seems divorced, even antagonistic to the activist base of his party, such as unions. He seems content to govern from the center, legitimating the very right that he should be isolating as extremists. The Democratic Party has suffered devastating reverses during the Clinton years."

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. left? right? it's either pro-corporate or pro-people

Is the Democratic party getting more pro-corporate or more pro-people - you tell me?

[redqueen]

23. More pro-corporate, definitely

But also more pro-right wing. How else to explain Welfare Reform? Not redefining the measurement of poverty to include housing costs?

[AntiCoup2K4]

15. You saw the thread about the Berl... uh.. Palestinian wall, didn't you?

That looked like a page out of Freeperville, and 2/3 of the most stomach turning responses came from supporters of a certain "electable" candidate.

Does that answer the question? :(

[redqueen]

24. Thanks, yes

It certainly does.

:(

[PVnRT]

20. The DLC wants it to move that way

Thanks to a popular media-created illusion that the country is doing the same thing.

[redqueen]

26. Thank you! The media is such a huge problem!

And that's so MUCH of the reason I don't trust Clinton, nor any other DLC'er.

We need advocates in Washington, and the DLC are not our advocates.