A linguistic note: DU's Rage at claims that the 2 parties are "the same" -

[RichM]

Hardly a day goes by on DU without "mainstream Democrats" going into apoplexy about the supposed claim of progressives that the 2 parties are "the same."

Before these fits of indignation get underway (in the "warm-up" phase, so to speak), there's always a small preface, such as "Kerry says blah blah blah. The Repugs say bluh bluh bluh. Now you try and tell ME that the 2 parties are the same!!"

What is invariable is the formulation attributed to progressives: to wit, that the parties are "the same."

The truth is, NO serious progressive really puts it that way (except perhaps when pressed for time, or just having a bad articulation day). Rather, the actual assertion is that the parties are LARGELY the same, or INSUFFICIENTLY different; or that both accept far too many of the same premises & serve largely the same interests.

The linguistic observation here is that DU Democrats routinely use the distorted form of the argument, when preparing to heap scorn upon it. This is dishonest - it's a type of lying. It's deliberate misrepresentation of an argument, an attempt to discredit the REAL argument without ever FACING the real argument.

The question is: Why do DU Democrats attack only the distorted form of the argument, rather than the argument itself? The answer is that it's very easy to prove that the 2 parties are not "the same," but very hard to prove that they're not "largely the same." Democratic Party loyalists fear serious examination of the properly-stated form of the argument - and rightly so. Not only would it be formidably difficult to disprove, but the effort to carefully analyze it would lead to very troubling lines of thought. Far better - or at least simpler - to distort, scream venemously, and ignore.

[phaseolus]

1. My guess --

Perhaps it's less of an attack on progressives, rather an attack on Nader & his followers who are given to using the term "Republicrats" ... ???

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. I suspect that some may WISH that there were more subtantive differences

Not trying to paint with a broad brush, or question the support of Kerry supporters for the crusade, the Policy of Starvation in Palestine, medical treatment as a commercial product, or feudalism and imperialism in general.

Among the small minority of the population that participates in the political process, all the above and more enjoy wide bipartisan support.

However, it is undeniable that within that minority is yet another tiny minority who to one degree or another, harbor thoughts, desires, ideations, about an actual policy shift - a change in government as opposed to a change of spokesman.

While some voice those thoughts, others have some inner conflict, the message that such thoughts are "wrong," or "crazy" is very effective, and as a result some of those so afflicted seek to disassociate themselves from such unacceptable ideation as vehemently as possible.

Not unlike the closeted homosexual in a conservative town who may exaggerate his interest in "manly" pursuits and dating pretty ladies.

[tinanator]

8. when are the "centrists" going to step out of the closet?

and pick up their conservative mantle? These are the folks who think the "lefties" need to join the "opposition" which hates Bush but accepts his policies. No small leap in rationalization. And no leap for mankind, whatsoever.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. And it will not happen. People who are opposed to imperialism, opposed

to slaughter and pillage, opposed to feudalism, are not going to embrace it simply because some caffeinated zealot keeps yammering away about "unity."

As the middle class is phased out, in fact, I expect that there may be quite a few more who are opposed to feudalism, and the rest of the nations on earth do appear to be growing just slightly disenchanted with imperialism, and it is unlikely that Kerry's plan to share the war loot with French corporations will be sufficient to stop the trend...

[JI7]

3. many who take issue consider ourselves progressives

many who take issue with claims that the two parties are alike or mostly alike or not different enough do consider ourselves progressives.

[RichM]

5. Yes yes of course, but the point is, why not state the claim ACCURATELY

when trying to refute it? It's a cheap shot to distort it before attacking it.

[G_j]

4. very well put

and aside from not addressing the real issue at hand, this fosers alienation between people by refusing to acknowledge some real concerns of many fellow "progressives".

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Yup they're the same...

Democrats want healthcare for all Americans, Republicans would rather poor people die.

Democrats support a woman's right to choose, Republicans want to tell women what to do with thier bodies.

Democrats want to protect social security, Republicans want to toss it into the stock market.

Democrats want to protect Medicare and allow seniors to buy drugs from Canada, Republicans want to give big money to the drug companies.

Democrats want education to be funded, Republicans want to make the schools worse so that people will support their voucher program.

Democrats want fiscal responsability and funding of social programs, Republicans want to give billions of dollars to people making over 200,000.

Democrats want jobs to stay in America, Republicans want to send them over to third world countries where they can treat workers like slaves and sell the goods at Wal-Mart.

Democrats want America to be part of the world community, Republicans want to be able to bomb whatever countries they want.

Yup, there's no difference between the two parties.

[LWolf]

9. Uh; sort of.

I dispute a couple of these:

Democrats want healthcare for all Americans, Republicans would rather poor people die.

Say rather that democrats want, someday, in the unknown, undefined future, insurance coverage for all Americans, who can then fight with their insurance companies over whether or not they actually get care. Say that democrats want healthcare for children and seniors, and the working adults can fend for themselves. Say that democrats support better and more care for the wealthy, not the same standard of care and availability of care for all.

Democrats want education to be funded, Republicans want to make the schools worse so that people will support their voucher program.

Say rather that democrats want the same bad, destructive legislative mandates that the republicans do, the same ones that destroy public education and move us further to privatization and corporatization; they just want the bad legislation fully funded, while repubs never had any intention of funding it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Unfortunately, the Democratic mainstream

just wants to enlarge the pool of policyholders that the insurance companies can screw over. I'm a self-employed single person person over 50, and none of the "socially acceptable" candidates had a damned thing for me in the area of health care. I already get a tax credit, but a lot of good that does me when I have to pay premiums or high deductibles up front. All the plans available to me here in Minnesota require a minimum of $250 per month, and that's with a $1000 deductible and 20% co-pays.

That's one reason why I worked on the Kucinich campaign.

[LWolf]

63. This is such a huge issue.

I have pretty decent insurance. But it only covers me; it does not cover my adult sons.

Son # 1 has been in serious pain (lift more than a book, turn pale, start sweating, get dizzy, etc.) with hernias for 3 years now. And he has insurance. He's fought 2 different insurance companies for treatment, and is about to embark on a 3rd, in hopes that someday the hernias will be treated.

Son # 2 has no coverage at all, and never goes to a doctor. Never. No matter what. I bought his last pair of glasses; between the exam, frames, and prescription it was about $350 out of my pocket. Or should I say on my credit card. The rest of his needs go unmet.

Last Sunday he was working on a project for me, went into my garage to get a tool, and got bitten by a black widow spider. He did not go to the doctor. The emergency room would not take him because it wasn't "life threatening." He spent a weak enduring stomach cramps, dizziness, and severe muscle spasms throughout his body. This weekend, he is better, with nothing worse than a body full of really sore muscles. And a week of lost work and pay.

Health care should be automatically given to every last American. Equally. Without reservation. Period.

[IndianaGreen]

21. How do you explain Clinton's bombing of Iraq and Sudan

and Plan Colombia?

In terms of policy goals, there is little difference between PNAC and PPI, they both advocate their own version of American hegemony and imperialism.

[G_j]

7. I posted this piece

to a less than enthusiastic response, but I thought it made some very good points.

The Next TDR
by Charles Derber
Regime change at home will require more than beating Bush.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10088

Charles Derber is professor of sociology at Boston College and author of the forthcoming book, Regime Change Begins At Home: Freeing America From Corporate Rule.

On April 2, 2003, in a campaign talk in Peterborough, New Hampshire, John Kerry said, "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." Kerry's success, both as the anointed Democratic candidate and prospective president, depends on him getting enough Americans to take that idea seriously.

Webster's dictionary defines a regime as a "system of rule." In Iraq, changing the regime required not just taking out Saddam Hussein but changing the despotic system of rule created by the Baathist Party, with American connivance, for 35 years. In U.S. politics, it means sending the president packing. But there's a second stage of regime change that deserves more discussion. We need to abolish the corporate system of rule that currently dominates democracy.
<snip>

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[messiah]

12. I'm here in lower working class heaven

and I agree with RichM.

[WillyBrandt]

11. Why don't people attack the Earth-is-Flat argument

rather than their strawman version of it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. Well gosh allow me to underscore the source of my apoplexy

I frankly get sick of the generalizations with which you and others approach this argument.

I largely agree that too much corporate influence in policy making is the issue, but the SOURCE of that corporate influence is not so much the financial contributions to the party, it is the vetting of policy at their think tanks such as American Enterprise Institute, which policies are CARRIED by Republicans and donations are made to Democrats so as to divide the Dem vote with a bit of cheap insurance.

That which makes the parties similar is that they focus their results on interest groups..in the case of the Republicans, the interest group is wholly and ONLY the mighty dollar.

Given the support of labor unions, women's groups, and environmental orgs, the same CANNOT be said about ALL Dems.

I might add, that you have thrown in an adjective and pretended that you actually defined the justification for the accusation that the parties are LARGELY the same when in fact all you done is blown air.

Define LARGELY the same with specificity.

[Shakespeare]

14. Excellent, excellent, excellent post.

I emphatically concur.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. I like Rich as a person just fine. I only wish he would stop and think as

often as he DEMANDS others do, since the crux of his arguments is that he thinks ( as do those that agree with him without supplying any evidence of such in their high fives) and everyone else is a lemming without synapse.

I just went through a recall in my state where even Dems voted for the Republican based largely on this argument.

The usurped governor was a policy wonk, and was replaced by a person who couldn't care less about the ill effects of policy.

The recall NEVER COULD HAVE OCCURRED had Peter Camejo NOT encouraged Greens to SIGN THE PETITIONS FOR the recall via the "THERE IS LARGELY NO DIFFERENCE MANTRA (insert as many adjectives as you wish to attempt to justify this statement, Rich)

They DID sign the petitions when it was looking like Ted Costa would NOT meet his deadline....

Now the governor that actually provided more healthcare to poor and indigent than probably ANY American governor from either party in decades, and spent MORE on public education than the two governors before him is out...and the guy who will COST these people their healthcare is IN.

Of course, the left got wise and voted against the recall and even abandoned Camejo once they too saw the danger, but it was too little too late.

I view Rich (figuratively not personally) as much the SOURCE of the problem as he views me.

He thinks we can DIVIDE the numbers on the left and still win with no compromise...at least that is the impression he ALWAYS leaves me with.

I am TOTALLY FUCKING CLEAR that that is NOT possible.

[Capn Sunshine]

45. Of course, what he meant was KERRY and BUSH are largely the same

You want your war with PNAC or PPI?
:evilgrin:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

48. I want a responsible conclusion to the war. One Pol Pot was enough

to convince me that we don't just leave a mess in our wake once people no longer have the stomach to complete a war some MAY have supported at the start.

Furthermore, I am not a complete pacifist...so there are some wars we have gotten involved with such as Somalia, that I supported...again...we cut our losses politically and ran and the small arms race in Africa has killed two million people since we did.

[Capn Sunshine]

111. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about withdrawal from Iraq

I'm from the "we broke it , we have to fix it school " on that one.
No, I was referring to the policy of reinstating the draft in preparation for a continuation of the philosophy of America as the forcible purveyor of influence around the globe ( or" a war that will not end in my lifetime" to quote Cheney) a hegemonic monster that is reflected in the PPI paperwork every bit as much as the PNAC.
THAT is why I draw the comparison.

But don't worry, I'm voting for him.
It won't be the first democratic president making useless wars that I will be protesting against.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

122. Got proof of it?

Just because PPI puts out a paper does not mean Kerry will suscribe to their views or adopt their programs.

And can we havean honest discussion of which wars are useless and which are useful?

[CoupdEtat2000]

90. Nice return volly.

[edzontar]

16. Thanks for the thoughtful post. I hope that people will READ it carefully.

Right now, the ascendant argument on DU is to SHUT UP about policy and philosophy and get in line behind Kerry, ABB.

What these people don't seem to GET is that it is possible to part of a Dem and Kerry supporting coalition while still working to promote a much more progressive appraoch to POLICIES in the party and nation as a whole.

One place this could be effective, for example, is in the party PLATFORm process, were it is possible to lobby for better positions on the war, taxes, health care, and the rest.

One thing I am sure of, win or lose as far as Kerry is concerned, is that the progressive movement in the party will not be silenced by the voices of conformity and corporatism--no matter what happens here on in Boston this summer.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Well, then we ask again...

...why vote in such a way to get less of what you want?

[Julien Sorel]

20. Ah, a linguistic lecture from the loony left leaves me

lachrymose.

Personally? I live well. So do the vast majority of Americans. I don't want a radical agenda fucking up a country that has been so successful. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. For me, the Democrats are different enough to warrant my support. The same is true for the vast majority of Democrats, and DP supporters. That's why people with certain political views are laughed at and called marginal, the fringe, the loony left, and so on: being self-absorbed and out of touch tends to lead to marginalization.

[tinanator]

23. yeah, screw the homeless, hungry, unhealthy and underpaid

after all, you got yours, cant we just go along?
Dont bank on it Mr Forbes.

[Ignis]

25. Ah, robust debate from the moneyed classes.

I'm always interested in hearing the philosophical underpinnings of the laisez-faire capitalism as embraced by the owner-class and their merchant/overseer-class henchmen.

Certainly, one should expect that these people could not take all that they can get from a fixed pool of resources--and thus, away from the mouths and hands of others in dire need--without some sort of well-defined and well-defended philosophy that justifies the 'I Got Mine!' means to some grand end.

Sadly, the only arguments I've heard in support of this position were said first and best by Marie Antoinette, vis-a-vis eating cake.

[welshTerrier2]

83. ahhhh, the cake rises

i throw this in only as an interesting historical tidbit ... i actually have no idea whether or not it's true ...

the traditional understanding of "let them eat cake" was that Marie Antoinette was so out of touch with the lives of the poor that when they had no bread, she foolishly, insensitively suggested that they eat cake ... of course, the reality was that they had no cake either ...

but, i've heard a very different version of what lied behind Marie's statement ... the story goes like this (as far as my memory takes me):

the bakeries at the time were able to charge more for cake than for bread ... as a result of this, bread, a very necessary staple in the diets of the poor, became less and less available ... Marie's statement "let them eat cake" was a directive to the bakeries ordering them to sell cake at the same price they usually charged for bread ... it's intent, if the story is true, is the exact opposite of "the common wisdom" about this little piece of history ...

if true, we have a government official standing up for the poor against the greedy excesses of businessmen of the day ...

[kiahzero]

96. It was apparently neither

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_334.html

At the time that whoever-she-was uttered the infamous quotation "let them eat cake," the word "cake" did not refer to the familiar dessert item that the modern-day French call le gateau. The operative term was brioche, a flour-and-water paste that was "caked" onto the interiors of the ovens and baking pans of the professional boulangers of the era. (The modern equivalent is the oil-and-flour mixture applied to non-Teflon cake pans.) At the end of the day, the baker would scrape the leavings from his pans and ovens and set them outside the door for the benefit of beggars and scavengers. Thus, the lady in question was simply giving practical, if somewhat flippant, advice to her poor subjects: If one cannot afford the bourgeois bread, he can avail himself of the poor man's "cake."

[Ignis]

117. Cake, schmake.

Yes, the brioche reference is the accepted historical take on Antoinette's infamous quote. And yes, the important point is the flippancy and callous disregard for the starvation of the poor.

I've never heard the revisionist idea that cake was less expensive than bread--and thus, that Antoinette was some sort of tarted-up revolutionary--but I'd be happy to entertain the notion if you can provide something other than hearsay in support. I'm not opposed to hearsay, mind you, but I've never heard that spin on the quote, so I'm a bit at a loss as to where that idea originated.

---

A fun diversion into historical minutiae. Now then, I wonder if the bellicose Mr. Bunter would be so kind as to support his neo-Antoinettism.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

28. Compassionate Centrism?

TWL

[Julien Sorel]

33. Who said screw anyone?

You did, not me. The average poor person in this country lives a hell of a lot better than the average poor person does in most of the rest of the world. There are far fewer poor people in this country than there are in most of the rest of the world. That's hardly being screwed -- by most peoples' standards. But not yours. Somewhere out there is utopia, and you, genius that you are, know how to get there.

[tinanator]

35. you did, and so did all those who voted NAFTA and GATT, FTAA, WTO etc

when you resort to sordid tactics like the "loony left" remarks, you pretty much spelled it all out. Dont play stupid.
Moreover, there are far fewer rich people than you would suggest. Do you know what the distribution of income looks like? Its called the "L Curve" almost perfectly flat until the very end where it turns left at Albequerque and heads straight up for a LLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGGGG WAY.
http://www.lcurve.org/

[Julien Sorel]

39. Prove to me, that 'NAFTA, GATT, FTAA,

WTO etc" screw the poor.

Who said there were a lot of rich people? I have no idea whose posts you're reading, but they arennnnnnnnnnnnnt miiiiiiiinnneeee.

You condemn things you don't understand, respond to points that aren't made, and then cry about phrases like 'loony left.' Out of touch.

[Zorra]

88. I suggest you find out for yourself

about how NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO screw the poor by doing some extensive traveling in third world countries. There is a wealth of written information on the internet about this subject but a serious tour through Chiapas and converations with some of the more educated indigenous peoples there might broaden your perspective.

[Mairead]

36. I'd recommend that you study some psych, soc, and anthro

They'll tell you--or at least they'll try; success is out of their hands--that it's only the relative differences within the society that matter. So it really doesn't matter whether our poor are better off than their poor. What matters is that the gap between our rich and our poor is characteristic of a sick banana dictatorship and not of a healthy democracy.

That you apparently cannot or will not see that is to your immense discredit, though it probably passes unnoticed in certain environments.

[Julien Sorel]

40. I'm not interested in psych, anthro,

or any of your other psuedo-intellectual mutterings. People here live better than people who live pretty much anywhere else. They are healthier, enjoy more freedoms, and have a positive impact on the living standards, not of themselves, but of people around the world.

Banana dictatorship? Find me anyone in a 'banana dictatorship' who wouldn't trade places, in an instant, with a member of the poorest class in this country. Maybe the top class there wouldn't, but the rest would do it without a blink.

Out of touch, version II.

[G_j]

43. People here live better than people who live pretty much anywhere else.

can you back that up? links, stats etc..?

[Julien Sorel]

50. You have got to be kidding me?

Highest per capita GDP in the world, one of the highest life expectancies in the world (a partial gauge of health); one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, unparalleled world power and influence, I could fill pages with stuff like this. These things are well known; that you need a recital of them means...

Out of touch, Version III

[G_j]

59. great way to avoid the question

calling the questioner "out of touch".

on second thought don't bother...

:argh:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. I first heard that claim from John Stossel

He did a program on poverty once in which he said that the lot of the poor in America was just fine because they live better than the people of Bangladesh. I've heard it again and again from right wingers.

But there's a logical fallacy in that argument. As follows:

Rightwinger/Libertarian (same thing on economic issues): America's poor live better than the average person in the Third World.

Me: So anyone who lives better than a Third World person should be contented? They should be happy with what they have?

RW/L: Yeah, that's right.

Me: So if you had to live on $5,15 per hour would you be contented? That's 10 times the minimum wage in the Third World.

RW/L: That's not what I meant...

Me: And what about all those rich people who complain about high taxes? Shouldn't they be happy with what they have?

RW/L: That's not what I meant...

:evilgrin:

[Julien Sorel]

65. I'm not just comparing the poor here

to the poor in Bangladesh. Look at the entire world. We have fewer poor, per capita, than almost any other nation. Your brilliant rhetorical victory over your slow-witted opponent makes for a breathless story, and I'm sure it's a fine ego-stroke, but it has nothing to do with my argument. Most of the poor or working class here live better than the middle class in almost every other country in the world. Not Bangladesh -- your straw man -- but some of the relatively developed countries. But pat yourself on the back -- after such a brilliant victory, you've earned it. :/

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. You really believe that our poor live

better than the middle class in Europe or Japan or even Taiwan?

I've seen how the poor live in the U.S., and I saw how the middle class lived in seven countries of Europe in 1967--never mind now, when living standards are much higher there--and I've seen how the middle class lives in Japan and Taiwan, and I tell you that I'd rather be middle class in any one of those countries than poor in the U.S.

Yes, in 1967, the middle class in Europe lived better than poor people live here now. They had safe, well-built, well-kept houses, plenty of food, health care, public transit, excellent educational systems, and a newly-rebuilt infrastructure.

The Japanese may have small houses and apartments, but they have plenty to eat, health care, public transit, very little crime, an excellent educational system, and a government that is seriously working on problems like global warming and how to support seniors as their society ages.

Both Japan and Taiwan have a far more equal distribution of wealth than the U.S. does.

I would grant that the poor in the U.S. live better than the poor in China, but the middle class in China in 1990 lived on about a 1940s level--and by all accounts, they live better now.

You need to get around to more countries.

[Julien Sorel]

74. That's why I said

almost. Again, you are putting words in my mouth -- necessary, since your position is so weak.

Hint: 1967 was almost 40 years ago, and I seriously doubt that the middle class in other countries lived better than ours did, anyway, considering that they were just completing their recovery from WWII at that date, and many 'European' countries were still behind the Iron Curtain. Your observations, well, they're your observations; show me some GDP figures, some life expectancy figures, home ownership rates -- something, then we'll talk.

Both Japan and Taiwan have a far more equal distribution of wealth than the U.S. does.

And your point is? The U.S. has a far more equal distribution of wealth than France. Who cares? How big the pie is is at least as important as how the pie is divided.


You need to get your head out of the 60s.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Reading comprehension check

You wrote: "Most of the poor or working class here live better than the middle class in almost every other country in the world. Not Bangladesh -- your straw man -- but some of the relatively developed countries."

I wrote: "Yes, in 1967, the middle class in Europe lived better than poor people live here now."

And I stand by what I said. The middle class in Europe in 1967 lived better than American poor people do now, especially from the point of view of decent housing, sufficient food, access to health care and education, and low crime rates.

[Mairead]

93. I lived in Germany between 1960 and 1967

And the poor then and there were better off than even some of the working poor in the US here and now. Nobody lived in shelters, nobody went hungry or ate at soup kitchens, kids didn't go ragged to school.

For various reasons I won't go into, I've never cared much about the decorative or status value of clothing. In February '63 I had an apparently-poor German woman come up to me and, with worry and kindness radiating from her face, tell me that I needn't wear such a shabby coat, that the Land has an office to distribute good clothing to those that need them. I thanked her and told her I hadn't known that (and, not wanting to ever repeat that mortifying experience, went down to C&A and bought a new coat!)

[Ignis]

116. Equal distribution of wealth: US > France?!?

BillyBunter said:
"The U.S. has a far more equal distribution of wealth than France. Who cares? How big the pie is is at least as important as how the pie is divided."

You're joking, right? I mean, there really must be some irony here that I'm missing, considering that every economic study done along these lines shows precisely the opposite--even when accounting for the relative populations of the two countries in question.

Please provide a link to some support for this outrageous claim...or is this another one from the Antoinette playbook?

[RichM]

121. Billy just makes this stuff up as he goes along. He doesn't know

and doesn't care if it's true or not.

Please see my post #100 on his psychotic abusiveness, as well as his grotesque indifference to factual accuracy.

[Ignis]

123. Yes, it's all true.

(And great analysis, by the way.)

But until the poor man either admits that he is mentally unsound and/or admits that he simply makes up facts to suit his needs, I'll keep asking him to support his assertions.

Let them eat secondary support, one could say.

[Julien Sorel]

131. No, as a matter of fact, I'm not joking.

Break income distribution into quintiles or hextiles, and the difference between the top stratum and bottom stratum in this country is less than the difference in France, by quite a bit. Something like 20 times for France, 10 times for the U.S. in quintiles, even more pronounced for hextiles.

[Dhalgren]

69. Make any class/poverty/health/welfare comparason

with the US and any of the following:

Norway
Denmark
Holland
Germany
Franch
Sweden
Finland
Belgium

Your argument should stipulate that US poor are better off than any 3rd World country - not first world countries.

[Iverson]

57. Why stop there?

Just call them nattering nabobs of negativism and be done with it.

[Julien Sorel]

66. How about pretentious, but

intellectually second-rate, and emotionally immature? Sometimes dispensing with the alliteration gets to the point more quickly.

[Dhalgren]

70. You've never heard of Spiro Agnew?

.

[Julien Sorel]

132. ROFL

No, never have. You guys are just too darn smart with those Agnew quotations. I wish I was smart like you folks -- then maybe I could be a fringe leftist, too.

[kodi]

73. and why not exhibit a discriminating mind? or is that too hard for some?

its must be awfully fun to be so morally smug when assailing as some sort of capitalist roaders those who think that the distinctions between the major parties are not merely imperceptible differences.

there is ample evidence that there are perceptible differences, in philosophy, in policy, and in actions.

and there are also glaring similarities.

but without a contextual framework, arguing about it is merely an exercise in mental masturbation.

one might forcefully not accept that the differences are important, but to do so with any intellectual integrity, one ought to state categorically how the differences do not matter vis-a-vis their world view before embarking on a wholesale assault on those who do see the differences sufficient to support one party over the other.

before another thread chock full of sanctimonious verbal diarrhea, try to place the similarities and the differences in context next time.

[welshTerrier2]

78. a little yes ... a little no ...

i believe the phrase to which Iverson was referring was the poster's use of the term the "loony left" ... the phrase that you criticized as "sanctimonious verbal diarrhea" was a direct quote from none other than richard nixon's VP, spiro agnew ...

agnew loved to encapsulate the entire spectrum of progressives with phrases similary to the "loony left" ...

i agree with your central theme, btw, that it is essential to put adequate context on ones arguments ... many of the posts in this thread, from both those who agree with the essence of the base post and those who do not, have failed to do so ... frankly, i think there's as much merit to RichM's perspective, given the proper "contextual framework", as there is to those who oppose his views (also given the proper contextual framework) ...

my point is that i'm in full agreement with your call for posts containing intellectual integrity but i am speculating that you may have not fairly captured Iverson's intent ... i believe his objection was to the stereotyping and labelling (i.e. "loony left") ... i saw no intent in his post to either argue for or against the democrats as a party nor for or against the proposition that there is no large difference between the parties ...

[kodi]

80. actually, it was written by bill safire, agnew's speech writer

who also coined "crass craftsmen of crud," a term cautiously deleted as a description of some of the attackers of billy bunter

[edzontar]

77. That sig line graphic of yours is pretty "loony left" in my opinion...

Not the sort of thing a professed centrist would be likely to use in any event.

You confuse me, Sir.

[Zorra]

87. The continuation of success usually depends on improvement and

innovation and it is this "don't fix it even though it's broke" type of conservative thinking that is rapidly taking this country to hell in a handbasket. We are not in Oz anymore,`Toto, and maintaining the status quo is absolutely not going to fix our rotting infrastructure, health care industry, declining environment, etc., ad nauseum, and all the subsequent complications that have resulted from lame lip service attempts at addressing these problems once they became apparent. I don't want a conservative agenda fucking up a country even more than it already has. A sustainable radical fix is what this country needs right now. Thomas Jefferson, a person that had quite radical political views, said, "A society that will trade a little order for a little freedom will lose both, and deserve neither." And I believe this also.

Conservative: Favoring traditional views or values: tending to oppose change.

You are quite correct: "Being self-absorbed and out of touch leads to marginalization."

[RichM]

100. Has anyone else noticed the psychotic abusiveness of Mr. Bunter?

He "engages" about 4 DUers in this section of the thread. Nary a one of his posts is less than maximally abusive to whomever he's addressing - even Lydia Leftcoast, who is widely respected on these boards as someone who discusses issues intelligently & objectively, & NEVER stoops to the level of personal insults.

Mr. Bunter, OTOH, never rises above the level of hideous personal abuse, & is not interested in discussing ideas at all. He seems to be one of those types who enjoy anonymous Internet forums mainly because of the opportunities they afford for personal viciousness at no risk.

Another feature of Mr. Bunter's discourse is that he doesn't know what he is talking about, despite flinging non-stop contempt at everyone else. In this post sequence, he makes certain idiotic assertions about the position of the US in the world in terms of life expectancy, per capita income, and the relative well-being of the US poor.

A very brief fact check shows that the US is not the world leader in life expectancy. It's about 17th or so on the list, depending on what year you're talking about, & whether the data is tabulated for each gender separately.

Further: talking about per capita income is the ignoramus's approach to the problem, because averaging Bill Gates etc with everyone else gives a meaningless high number. (The US is also not the country with the highest per capita - it's about 5th or 6th). A more intelligent approach to the problem must consider DISTRIBUTION of wealth - something Bunter knows nothing about and simply makes up as he goes along. For example, he claims that "France has greater income inequality than the US." This is untrue. Various Kevin Phillips articles & "Wealth & Democracy" make very clear that the massive transfer of wealth upwards in the last 25 years has made the US the world leader among industrialized powers in wealth & income inequality, surpassing the European nations that USED to hold that distinction. (Yet the abusive Bunter tells Lydia to "get her head out of the 60's!)

A typically feeble Bunter attempt to move away from insults and grapple with objective concepts goes like this: "How big the pie is is at least as important as how the pie is divided." A moment's thought will make it clear that the division of the pie is NOT less important than the overall size. A pie that's enormous doesn't help most people, if it's distributed in highly unequal fashion - which is exactly the description of today's USA.

Another hilarious thing happens when poor fact-free Billy tries to display his "knowledge" of trade issues. He demands that another poster "prove" that NAFTA, GATT etc have any effect of "screwing the poor." I would have thought that the arguments supporting this viewpoint are fairly well-known by now.

And look at this doozy: "We have fewer poor, per capita, than almost any other nation. ...Most of the poor or working class here live better than the middle class in almost every other country in the world."
- This is so funny! Poor fact-free Billy doesn't even know that all leading industrialized countries have long had far better social safety nets than the US. These nets have prevented people from falling to the depths they can sink to, here. In the developed world, most big cities have NOTHING that compares to the slums & ghettoes of every major American city. It's far worse to be poor in the US than poor in Scandinavia, let alone being middle-class in Scandinavia, for example. And Billy's assertion about the US number of poor per capita is, like most everything else he says, pure hot air.

[redqueen]

101. Nice summary debunking

Well done.

I disagree with you, though, that the damaging effects of the WTO and NAFTA and other FTA's are well known. I think many know next to nothing about these agreements, other than they get cheap stuff because of them.

[G_j]

113. thank you n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

127. Thanks for the nice words, RichM!

:-)

[Forkboy]

130. One of the best posts I've ever fucking seen here!

2 thumbsup!

[Julien Sorel]

133. Reading check:

Never said the U.S. was the leader in life expectancy -- said it had 'one of the highest life expectancies in the world,' which is a fact.

Further: talking about per capita income is the ignoramus's approach to the problem, because averaging Bill Gates etc with everyone else gives a meaningless high number. (The US is also not the country with the highest per capita - it's about 5th or 6th).

This goes back to what's more important -- the size of the pie or how it's sliced. You can cry about income distribution all you want; I'll take absolute income. You are, as usual, factually incorrect: The U.S., as of 2002, had the second-highest per capita GDP in the world, behind Luxemborg, a 'country' of 400,000 people.

I'm not going to go through and fact check the rest of your post, because I would probably end up pointing out more gross reading errors and general stupidity, and I don't have the time. Besides, I don't have anything particularly psychotically abusive to say (with some folks, once I start I'd never stop), which takes much of the fun out of posting here. :-)

[bicentennial_baby]

134. Bravo my man!

You rock!!!!

[Exgeneral]

129. I don't think characterizing someone as "loony left"

Is necessarily the way to win their support in the general, or acknowlege you are on the same side.

You ARE on the same side aren't you?

[kiahzero]

22. Some of us do see the differences as VERY significant

Not only that, but there are certainly some who claim that the two parties are the same.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" says the two candidates are the same - otherwise, the "new boss" wouldn't be the "old boss", would it? So, on its face, your argument is flawed - there are people that feel the parties are the same, and they need to be addressed.

Democratic Party loyalists fear serious examination of the properly-stated form of the argument - and rightly so. Not only would it be formidably difficult to disprove, but the effort to carefully analyze it would lead to very troubling lines of thought.

It's fundamentally difficult to disprove, because it creates a receeding target. No matter how many things I may come up with that Bush and Kerry disagree on, it will never be enough to for some to be satisfied.

[tinanator]

24. yeah of course

Unjustifiable illegal preemptive aggression, Coups to the left and to the right of sovereign countries, trashing 200 years of constitutional protections, shipping our jobs out of the country, none of that matters compared to the real differences. Excellent point.

[Sinistrous]

26. With your formulation, progressives will always be able to accuse

the Democratic Party of being less Left than they (the progressives) desire.

the actual assertion is that the parties are LARGELY the same, or INSUFFICIENTLY different; or that both accept far too many of the same premises & serve largely the same interests.

Not only is your statement no more than a series of un-supported assertions, it contains no limits (i.e. definitions) of what would constitute a sufficient difference, nor does it state what would be acceptable support of these "same" (unspecified) interests.

Your statement leaves the progressives wiggle room as wide as the Mississippi basin to continue to spew their accusation. There are no end points; there are no limits; there is no specification of what would be "sufficient".

Without these specifications, and given the obvious and significant differences between the Democratic Party and the Republicans, this mewling by the progressives is empty rhetoric.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. In fairness to Rich he did call it a linguistic note

...I rather liken it to a semantical slap in the face...but hey...what's in a word?

[Sinistrous]

31. Yes, he did. But in doing so he revealed

some distressingly fuzzy thinking. I await a more usable and defensible formulation from the progressive camp.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. I'm a progressive in spite of some of their claims that I am not pure

enough to consider myself as such...I just find no progress in losing.

[Mairead]

42. "what would constitute a sufficient difference"

I think that's a Zadeh value, i.e. fuzzy. If you find a few people (say, Chomsky and Zinn for starters) whom everyone agrees are 'progressive' or 'far left' or whatever you like, and then collect the set of people whom they would acknowledge as 'progressive' etc., then I'd bet money that, among that group of recognised progressives you would get a considerable degree of agreement on what the sufficient difference is. It won't be absolutely uniform across the group, but most of the items will be agreed by most of the group.

I'd make book that real democracy, an end to imperialist adventurism, no private control over the common wealth, civil rights across the board, and non-profit healthcare are some of the 'sufficient difference' items probably at about the 5% fuzziness level.

[Sinistrous]

47. I hereby claim that Chomsky and Zinn are not progressive enough

and that they are traitors to the cause.

Prove me wrong.

(You can't, because there are no standards by which progressives measure themselves -- or others, for that matter.)

(Now do you see the bullshit you are spewing?)

[Mairead]

61. It's easy to prove you wrong, for some fuzzy value of 'prove'

You're not the definitive judge of your mental stability, and you're not the definitive judge of whether you're a progressive. Or, indeed, whether someone else is.

So if a large number of people wanted to work at it for awhile, they could come up with a decent approximation of who among them qualify as 'progressive'. Because most people are fairly honest and don't have a lot of axes to grind, the Brownian motion of the sorting process would eventually work. You'd get a few people who'd try to say that nobody by they and their friends are progressive, and a few who'd say everyone is, but most people would be more balanced than either of those extremes and would agree at about the 90-95% level on 'progressive' vs 'conservative' labels.

[Sinistrous]

64. The fact that this "large number of people" have not as yet tried

to come up with even this "approximation" is telling. I agree that this would be an improvement in relieving the current chaos of progressive "thought", but where are those with the intellectual discipline to undertake this task?

BTW, Brownian motion is totally random, and never results in sorting anything.

I am afraid your post is a non-contribution to the very real problem I raised.

[Mairead]

94. Brownian motion

Yes, I know that. I was using it metaphorically, for the kind of activity that appears to a non-participant to be random and undirected.

But you knew that, didn't you.

[Sinistrous]

95. No, you were using the term improperly

and probably hoping I would be intimidated with your dragging out terminology from the physical sciences.

Granted, all metaphors are flawed, but some more than others. And then there are alleged metaphors...

[Mairead]

97. Check your facts

[Sinistrous]

99. Oh. Now you are enamored of *facts*.

Let's see some standards for identifying progressivism. While you are at it, a few *facts* justifying the canard that Democrats = Republicans would be nice too.

Your abuse of language and logic has gotten tedious. So, to re-focus on the original issue:

Not only is your (the original poster's)statement no more than a series of un-supported assertions, it contains no limits (i.e. definitions) of what would constitute a sufficient difference, nor does it state what would be acceptable support of these "same" (unspecified) interests.

Your statement leaves the progressives wiggle room as wide as the Mississippi basin to continue to spew their accusation. There are no end points; there are no limits; there is no specification of what would be "sufficient".

Without these specifications, and given the obvious and significant differences between the Democratic Party and the Republicans, this mewling by the progressives is empty rhetoric.

[redqueen]

102. They all supported an illegal war based on known lies

Is that not enough?

Must you quibble about semantics as our democracy is flushed in favor of corporate contributions?

Honestly... will it ever get bad enough for some to take notice? Does it really take the reality of the situation hurting them PERSONALLY before they catch on?

[Mairead]

104. Some people are evidently only playing for points

because they're happy with the status quo. So long as they can keep us enmeshed in trivialities, life is good. For them.

I think you nailed it: they need to get hit personally, and in a major, undeniable way, before they'll grow up and start thinking for themselves.

[redqueen]

105. It absolutely kills me

I cannot ever forget the few pictures I HAVE seen of the Iraqi children we've killed.

UNPAID Family Medical Leave my ass.

Don't toss a pre-chewed piece of gum at me and tell me to stop asking for more.

[Mairead]

114. "I cannot ever forget the few pictures I HAVE seen "

Nor I, nor I. When I see those, or the pics of kids who've been maimed for life--that's worse, really, because the misery goes on and on--I passionately wish I believed in heaven and hell, because the people who participate in killing and maiming children and their parents for money should themselves suffer awhile.

[Sinistrous]

108. Having failed to defend their abuse of language

the *Progressive* shock troops have regressed into self-congratulatory preening.

Obviously a meta-discussion about the mechanics of discussion is beyond them.

Nighty-night. Thank elad for "ignore".

[redqueen]

109. NO ONE is interested in a

'meta discussion' about blah blah blah

while OUR TAXES ARE BEING USED TO KILL CHILDREN

IN AN ILLEGAL WAR THAT DEMOCRATS SUPPORTED AND HELPED SPREAD LIES TO START

(Maybe shouting will help?)

Oh, and nice use of 'shock troops'... is that what shows up to bomb your kids because some liar is helped by another liar on the other side of the aisle half a world away? Just checking... we can use this to help Iraqi parents console themselves... they can mock the murderers by calling them 'shock troops' and maybe that will help them get over the grief of losing their loved ones.

[blm]

27. THIS progressive says some of the so-called progressives are full of it

if they think they can convince the rest of us that Kerry is not much different than Bush.

And why do people like YOU distort Kerry's 35 year record? Because it is easier to make the charge than carefully analyze it? It might lead you to some troubling thoughts...that most of us are right and that Kerry is the most progressive nominee of the last century.

Those who are loyal ONLY to their own vanity are destructive to democracy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. Seems to me we are going backwards thanks to the mutiny of progressives

who slam us for not going forwards enough....shooting yourself in the foot is NOT progress.

[G_j]

37. There is such a thing as differing opinions

not everyone is out to commit mutiny. Unfortunately it's hard to find an example of genuine discussion on this subject here that doesn't quickly degenerate into acrimony. I'm at a loss as to the solution. Personally I'm a little tired of being called a "fringe leftie" etc. since I try not call people names.

whatever........ :shrug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. I don't call anyone the fringe and I DO acknowledge there are problems

my biggest issue is that everyone would rather point the fingers everywhere else.

I think that constructive criticism, combined with effective action is the best avenue.

The right took 30 years to get us here and everyone wants an instant reversal.

Frankly, BTW, I don't regard you as a fringe lefty and don't consider you to be espousing fringe views.

There is nothing wrong with being disappointed with where we are and our level of progress...it is wholly irresponsible for people to view everyone but themselves as the source of the problem.

The left has known for years that they (we) are poorly organized...some have gone to great lengths to bridge that gap.

Sitting behind an internet identity and moaning that there isn't enough difference between Democrats and Republicans simply because one has an agenda the majority would never subscribe to isn't exactly my definition of effective action...

but it PAINS some to find the middle ground.

[G_j]

41. nsma

We've had plenty of respectful dialoge. I didn't mean to imly you personally have called me 'fringe'. I really wish that this general conversation could take place in a constructive way. It's obviously not going away.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. I know. It really does go both ways.

My frustration stems from being involved in labor issues at the policy level and KNOWING what we are up against and being undermined by my own.

Frankly I support a healthy mix if socialism in our democracy. It is what ensures we go about our business at least at home in a humane manner.

Like I said...it just is NOT an instant result and is LARGELY dependent on political will.

One cannot create political will when the (and sorry for the phraseology here, but for lack of a better descriptor) far ends of BOTH sides of the spectrum accuse those of us that would negotiate a compromise of selling out.

In my years in labor policy, I have seen compromises reached that looked BAD at the time and actually ended up working quite well or at least worked better than LOSING ground.

[wyldwolf]

51. you know what? You nailed it right there...

I, too, have toiled in the trenches for democratic causes and it just gripes me to see us being undermined by our own - many of whose entire contribution to our cause it to sit on their asses, pound the keyboard, and whine.

[G_j]

52. you have an excellent vantage point

to address these issues. I noticed even Chomski points out that the most vulnerable can't afford to be idealistic because even small changes can make a world of difference in thier lives and that a Democratic president does represent a difference even though it may not always appear to be earthshaking. That diffence can reflect enomously on the lives of some.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. Two proofs of that are the California recall where the poor and disabled

will be taking it in the shorts on healthcare so that people could pay less taxes on cars they can barely afford to drive that are behemouth gas guzzlers...and of course, the poor and even lower middle class are indeed doing worse under Bush...home forclosures are UP.

So for those who would say there is no difference or that the difference is too slight, I say...speaking in generalities is pure propaganda.

While some may view home ownership as some cloistered middle American dream, I simply would point out...we don't HELP the poor by becoming them.

[G_j]

60. good point

though, I still think that the corporatization of the two party system has to be addressed. The reason I believe Rich M's point is valid is that this trend has increased drastically. Globally, people are losing control over the decision making process, they are losing control over their resourses, even their water. The trend bacame alarming to me under Clinton. Internationals have been involved in a power grab that is hard to turn around. Trade issues are something that need to be firmly addressed. Some of us hope that the Democratics can begin to a get a grip on this. I would like to see a clearer choice. I would like to see a real "difference" there.

[CoupdEtat2000]

89. This was an excellent exchange.

:thumbsup:

... to a poorly posed thread for an old and tired argument. I'm so tired of seeing this recipe for failure posed in the original argument played out.

Or, perhaps I should say a well posed thread for a poor and tired arument for failure. It matters not that it is posed intellectually, it is still a recipe for failure at best. In this case with seething hyperbole between the lines in the original post.

Thank you for an enlightening exchange.

[redqueen]

103. Is it that hard to grasp

given what you've said in this post:

"Globally, people are losing control over the decision making process, they are losing control over their resourses, even their water. The trend bacame alarming to me under Clinton. Internationals have been involved in a power grab that is hard to turn around. Trade issues are something that need to be firmly addressed."

Why the 'fringe lefties' on the board, and throughout the world, actually, are so freaking fed up?

Here we are in the eleventh hour, with water becoming scarcer every day, and the move to privatize every potable drop occurring now, and we're told to take baby steps?

:wow:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. IT's not that hard to grasp and there is nothing fringe about

addressing that issue. It is hard to turn around but your post implies that Clinton actually created the corruption in places such as Argentina where privatisation does threaten this issue.

No one said take baby steps, I realistically pointed out that a reversal won't happen overnight and it CERTAINLY won't occur in an administration with a scorched earth policy. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Kerry's history certainly could not argue that he will engage in a scorched earth policy.

[redqueen]

107. Agreed

However I wasn't engaged in this from a simple "Kerry v. Bush" perspective. When judging individual Democrats, of course a whole bunch of other factors needs to be considered.

No one is saying that Clinton personally caused these problems. The problem he helped to foster is the one we see exemplified in this thread more than once. The idea that corporations are a power we just can't contend with, so we'd better capitulate, and quick, before we're left in the dust. That's the problem he helped to create.

And it's a huge problem, and one that's pretty much crippled the Democratic Party, IMO.

[G_j]

119. the eleventh hour

no, Clinton did not start the trend, nor create the ground which was so fertile for it. The problem has been that the 'acceleration' of destructive trade practices and privatization has been unprecedented. It's a runaway train gaining speed by the minute and people in positions of power have done nothing to put the breaks on. We have arrived at the eleventh hour. The policies of the WTO, IMF, NAFTA and the rest of the "alphabet soup" have created a situation where the policies of democratically elected governments are usurped by the interests of corporations. Decisions are made behind closed doors. Corporations can sue countries if they feel they are being harmed by environmental policies etc. We elect leaders to make decisions in the interests of the people. We don't elect corporations.

Someone has got to apply the breaks. I might add here that DK would have been the one to do it, but given he is not the nominee, some of us feel obliged to keep sounding the alarm, the same alarm. We are looking at a situation where our choices are depressingly limited.
There are major environmental, labor and health issues all connected here.
We will continue to see massive unrest globally. It's only going to get worse, much worse. When push comes to shove, if it takes a third party to realistically address the situation, we will see more people moving in that direction.

I would like to think that Kerry can find the courage to make steps in the right direction. I'm praying that it's within the realm of possibility that he will.
In truth, I believe he is all we have right now. I want to acknowledge that he has a heart where we know Bush has none.
I just hope he is prepared to listen, because we're not going to give him free ride once he's elected.

And to add to the mix, I sure hope he is ready to confront the other runaway trains of the military & prison industrial complexes, but I guess I'll save that topic for another discussion.
:-)

[redqueen]

125. Excellent points

We're VERY late in the game, and it's time for all to be very concerned, if we don't wish to share the third world's living conditions and wage scale.

I do agree that Kerry has a heart where bush has none, and that's all the difference in the world and why I will be voting for him if Texas is in contention (if not I'll protest vote).

And I agree that in addition to the free trade (family-unfriendly investor protection) agreements, we need to hit hard on paper ballots, the prison industrial complex, and the MIC as well (of course).

PEACE!
RQ

[wyldwolf]

34. I wish there was a way to put the "rolling eyes" icon in the subject line

This is another classic from RichM who will be pouting on election day if Kerry wins OR Bush wins.

Actually, RichM, hardly a day goes by on DU without "mainstream Democrats" having to defend against the constant claim of far lefties (you WILL NOT hijack the word "progressive") that the 2 parties are "the same."

[Capn Sunshine]

46. I am a mainstream democrat for 30 odd years now and DLC member for 10

And believe me when I say your conscience knows the difference between "progressive" and "corporatist"

and YOU , my friend WILL NOT hijack the words "mainstream" OR "progressive". Rich has been using those terms when you and general Clark were voting for Nixon.:grr:

You may be under the mistaken impression that you have purchased them, but not everything is for sale.

[wyldwolf]

49. YOU are the one mistaken, "my friend."

I have never tried to hijack the terms. And my using "quotes" around the terms denotes me quoting the original poster. Perhaps you didn't read the entire thread?

However, everyone left of center is a progressive/liberal. No small faction can claim exclusive ownership of the terms to the exclusion of the rest of us. THAT is what those like RichM attempt to do. The constant "Kerry will lose the progressive vote unless..." gets tiresome. Kerry HAS the progressive vote. That is how he won the nomination!

And besides, I never voted Nixon - but I voted with Clark for Clinton twice, and Gore once.

[Capn Sunshine]

56. I never heard Rich M claim anything of the kind

but I've heard a lot of paranoia from the right wing of the party intimating they "know better" how things should be.

I'm just not looking forward to the draft that's coming up, win or lose.

I was hoping that the corporate media monopoly gets broken up

I was hoping we would not undermine any more democratically elected governments in OUR hemisphere.

But the DLC keeps telling me that we "know better" how to do this.

Frankly, I have my doubts.

[wyldwolf]

58. One doesn't have to "claim" anything

One doesn't have to "claim" anything. Implications and insinuations do the job just fine...

Prime example in the first sentense of his post:

Hardly a day goes by on DU without "mainstream Democrats" going into apoplexy about the supposed claim of progressives that the 2 parties are "the same."

Here, he creates a distinction between "mainstream democrats" and progressives where none exists. Sure, some may be more progressive than others (but it is debatable on what "progressive" actually is), but we're ALL progressive on the left.


Another example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=36048

RichM uses a socialist site to foster a claim that Kerry is virtually no different than Bush - something he claims in this thread "no serious progressive" ever does.

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=459852#460233

RichM once again makes a distintion between what he is (a self described progressive) and Democrats.

[DrFunkenstein]

62. I'm A Progressive That Doesn't Generalize Every Member Of The Dem Party

I think that people to the left side of the spectrum like Wellstone, Kennedy, and Kerry on most issues are substantively different than moderate Democrats and certainly Republicans.

A quick glance at the voting score card at Public Citizen will let you know that.

[welshTerrier2]

68. now Rich, there you go again ...

DU's very own shock jock has done it again ...

OK, here's my take on this ... and RichM knows his shoes don't quite fit his rhetoric ... i like these threads ... i think, though Rich is often a wee bit over the top, they do help us "look a little further left" ... at least those of us who don't get so mad at him that we're willing to look for at least a kernel of truth in his central theme ...

so, here's the deal ... if we measure the differences between the republicans and democrats in a very specific way, one could conclude there are no large differences between the parties ... to draw this conclusion, one must (and should) accept the basic premise that neither party is very likely to put an end to exploitationist capitalism and its perverse influence on our democracy ... the wealthy are in control of our government and key policies cater to their interests ... if this is the ULTIMATE MEASURING STICK by which we measure differences between the parties, then the parties are LARGELY the same ...

and should the issue of ultimate control of the government be the ultimate measuring stick or are there many other ways to measure issues in our country ??? it seems to me how you answer this question lies at the core of whether you agree, or disagree, with RichM's base post ...

and if you disagree, because you view the above argument as far too "black or white" and far too narrowly focussed, you are likely to be able to see very significant differences between the two major parties ... perhaps you see a continuum on which government, on behalf of its citizens, provides real regulatory control over the greedy capitalistic instincts of large corporations ... democrats fight for worker safety ... they fight for fair hiring practices ... they fight for all sorts of workers' rights ... democrats want to protect your right to sue corporations with no artificial constraints on the amount of your damages should your claim be found valid in a court ... democrats want to spend more on programs to help people including health care, education, jobs, retirement benefits and on and on ... democrats support putting more cops and firefighters on the streets ... democrats are less likely to support wars ... i support this statement with the IWR vote ... far more democrats opposed the IWR than republicans ... democrats are far more likely to protect civil liberties including habeus corpus, the right to vote, gay marriage, affirmative action etc ...

so, if you think of yourself as mr. leftie, and you truly have your eye on the "big prize" of gaining control of your life and your government, a cynical observation that the parties are largely the same makes a pretty fair amount of sense ... but if you look at a real long laundry list of genuinely important issues, one notch shy of the grand prize though they be, you are surely an advocate for the democratic party ... and statements that the parties are largely the same seem absurd ...

[Dhalgren]

71. Let's say that the Rrepublicans had a left wing in their party.

And that wing was pro-choice, pro-public education, pro-some kind of general health insurence for most people, pro-encrease minimum wage, and pro-separation of church and state. They were pro-labor unions (with in limits) and pro-international ingagement/fairness. How would that wing differ from the Democratic Party? (Don't say it would be more liberal - that would be too funny).

[welshTerrier2]

72. not sure where you're going with this question

but i'll try to answer ...

suppose i were to define the essential difference between the two major parties as an argument between "free market laissez faire" capitalism, supported primarily by the republicans and a more "interventionist" role for governments to play in the commercial marketplace, supported primarily by democrats ... although the republicans you described would be a breath of fresh air compared to the policies we've seen under bush, you did not address this core values issue ...

it seems to me that democrats align themselves with the belief that government needs to protect the weak from the strong ... it needs to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority ... it needs to restrict the role of money when it interferes with the basic tenets of our democracy ... so, with this understanding, the more enlightened republican party you described would still be significantly different, absent other concessions you might make, from the democratic party ...

the argument those of us on the "far left" often support is that the democrats don't go far enough to actually achieve a meaningful result ... democrats seem to want to move the pendulum in the right direction (er, make that the correct direction) but never seem to destroy the institutions that support the evils they seek to redress ... don't get me wrong; i see huge differences between the parties ...

so, even given the concessions you've made, i would still see very substantial differences between the parties ...

[Dhalgren]

75. I think that at one time in the past

The "lassez faire" and the "big government" arguments could be made, but not any longer. Don't get me wrong, I would rather have the more "liberal" wing of the "Mega-party" in power - they are much more conducive to the average citizen's life, liberty, and happiness, so I'll be voting for the Democrat this fall. But, that being said, what separates the two halves of the "Mega-party" is the stances they take on specific issues and policies - not on subtantial direction of the country or on the efficacy of standard operating procedures (i.e. the corporate control of the country). This seems to be the hardest thing for some Democrats to deal with, the FACT that Democrats and Republicans are just not that far apart on essential polity issues. Just look at the positions John Kerry takes and that the vast majority of Democrats obviously agree with - except for opposite stands on a limited number of policy issues, they are not starkly different. I mean no offense to anyone, I'm just saying how it appears to me.

[welshTerrier2]

82. beyond storming the mansions

from your post:


But, that being said, what separates the two halves of the "Mega-party" is the stances they take on specific issues and policies - not on subtantial direction of the country or on the efficacy of standard operating procedures (i.e. the corporate control of the country).


and from my earlier post:


if we measure the differences between the republicans and democrats in a very specific way, one could conclude there are no large differences between the parties ... to draw this conclusion, one must (and should) accept the basic premise that neither party is very likely to put an end to exploitationist capitalism and its perverse influence on our democracy ... the wealthy are in control of our government and key policies cater to their interests ... if this is the ULTIMATE MEASURING STICK by which we measure differences between the parties, then the parties are LARGELY the same ...


so, to the extent this perspective takes us, i see no disagreement between your position and my own ... but i think i give the democrats more credit than you do when i look beyond the "ultimate control of the government by the wealthy and powerful" ...

so let me respond a little to your "they are not starkly different" ... to me, there is a huge difference between one party that wants to cater to corporations by putting caps on those pesky product liability lawsuits and another party that wants to let a jury decide ... one is pro-corporation and the other puts common citizens in control ... this is not a small difference ... it a mega-difference that reflects a core difference in key values ... one party believes in a social safety net and the other thinks everyone has equal opportunity and should be responsible for themselves (i.e. personal accountability) ... these aren't just words ... democrats, however inept they've been at bringing this change about, have fought for health care for all as a basic right ...

i don't want to get too carried away here defending the democratic party ... but to suggest that, at their core, the differences are minor between the parties only holds water if you return to the original point that democrats are not about to "storm the mansions" ... on the day to day skirmishes, which i think you dismiss a little too quickly, there are enormous differences ....

[Dhalgren]

84. Well, I agree that we aren't too far apart here.

I also agree, that it is a matter of emphasis and priorities. I think, though, that the era of Democrats being "for" the safety net may be over. Clinton, after all, ended a lot of the "Great Society" programs in his admin. Also, many Democrats in congress have voted in favor of caps on laws suits and many are very hard to distinquish from "moderate" repubs. There was even a lot of "Democrats" here, on DU, wanting a Republican VP for Kerry. I can fully understand the thinking that the two parties share more than not. But it is a polite suggestion on my part.

[welshTerrier2]

86. democrats support a safety net

I think, though, that the era of Democrats being "for" the safety net may be over.

well, if i told you one party wanted to privatize social security and seemed to be running up the largest deficits in history to ensure that the system collapses, which party would come to mind ... social security is a key part of the safety net ...

and one party, though it's a big tent with many different flavors, wants to fight for health care, or at least health coverage, for all ... does this seem to fit one party more than the other? health care is part of the safety net ...

how about minimum wage, overtime pay, family leave and other worker rights? surely one party has a legitimate case to make for supporting workers and one does not ... protecting workers is part of the safety net ...

one party provides more than $112K in tax cuts to millionaires and one party does not ... the money collected from these tax cuts for the rich would be used for education, health care, and many other safety net programs ... one party supports these tax cuts for the wealthy ... one does not ...

the list goes on and on ...

i'm concerned that you've conflated Clinton's elimination of "welfare as we know it" with viewing democrats as partners with the republicans in doing away with the safety net ... i don't think this is an accurate characterization ...

[tinanator]

98. I remember the safety net for S&L looters

Some things are hard to forget. A half a trillion (or was it much more) stick up ought to be one of them.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

76. I cannot think of any rational argument that supports

the contention that the Democratic party, or Bush and Kerry, are "largely" the same.

This seems like a dishonest hypothesis on its face, and perhaps a self defeating one. I am suspicious of all the hyperbolic rhetoric used to lay the groundwork in this post as well.

[gate of the sun]

79. good post and good point

they are largely the same but many cry big tears over this accusation. I think they are afraid and hoping to find solace in what they believe will make their lives and the people they love not to mention everyone else's life better by electing a democrat. Unfortunately this is not too likely to happen. Believe me when I say I really wish it would. I would like nothing better. Unfortunately I know to much to sleep well knowing we have nominated Kerry. I prefer him over bush only min orly. I think we have many hard times ahead of us and maybe that's what we should focus on. For us on Du to make this jump will be big but it will come. I'm sorry this is so. I can understand and even empathize with those that so desperately want the world to be a better place with Kerry but it's not going to happen. well enough said. I hope I haven't strayed too much off the subject.

[DemPoliticalJunkie]

85. Oh I am so sick of this argument in my state. Frankly,

the so-called progressives here are preventing us from making any progress at all.

[CWebster]

91. And how quickly they forget

Kerry is now championed as Bush's challenger, but recall during the debates when he sided with Bush policy more often than not and challenged Dean for stating we were not safer with Saddam gone. The only thing Kerry held against Bush was his Viet Nam macho stint, but he even defended getting Saddam, stating that he tried to assassinate Papa Bush. I couldn't believe the bitter old sad sack Kerry brought that Republican talking point up since Sy Hirsh discounted the story in a New Yorker piece. Some may choose to forget such incidents to suit their own illusions.

[Hav]

92. .

So everything that Kerry used to attack Bush was the Vietnam stint?
I think it's pretty clear who is forgetting incidents "to suit their own illusions".
Well done there.

[John_H]

110. Because both versions are indistinguishably stupid.

LOL! With his inimitable irony-deafness, Rich hauls out an "definition of is" argument and wants us do something aside from chortle.

What one-percenters really argue is that unless you hold the authoritarian views shared by fewer than two-percent of Americans, there's not enough difference between you and Tom Delay.

Out in reality land, progressives are able to see clearly dozens of
significant differences between Chimp and Kerry. The difference between Chimp's first act as President (signing four union-busting executive orders) and whatever Kerry's will be. Between John Ashcroft and whoever Kerry's AG will be. Between putting coal, oil, and mining executives in senior positions at EPA, Interior, and Energy and not putting them there. And this list of distinguishability goes on and on.

In fact, one of the main reasons Kerry will win is that 99 percent of progressives plainly see the huge differences between Dems and Rethugs. That's why there's unprecedented unity among Dems as I type this.

Better yet, since the one-percenters are going to vocally support candidate who opposes Kerry, they'll be so marginalized that if you want to hear from them, you'll have to find a sociology department cocktail party.

[redqueen]

112. Dismissive and wrong

You arrogantly dismiss anyone who sees the tiny differences between the major parties as a 'one percenter'. Do you really think that all those millions of Americans who don't bother to vote between tweedle dum and tweedle dee, plus the millions who see hardly any difference yet compromise their beliefs every election to vote for the 'lesser evil'... do you really estimate that all these people account for so small a fraction?

What you gloatingly refer to as 'reality land' is really nothing like what a real 'reality land' would look like.

A real 'reality land' would show the dead Iraqi children, murdered with the help of your tax dollars and your good Democratic leaders.

A real reality land would show the farmers committing suicide because their livelihoods have been undercut by NAFTA and other such FTA's, so that we can have cheap VCRs and shoes.

A real reality land would show the increasing numbers of malnourished children showing up in free clinics around this country as a result of the oh-so-wonderful Welfare Reform Act.

A real reality land would show all of Clinton's lame duck environmental legislation for what it was, instead of putting lipstick on it and trying to call it 'environmental responsiblity'.


You assert that "the one-percenters are going to vocally support candidate who opposes Kerry". Who are you talking about?

Only time will tell what Kerry will do if he manages to secure the election. No ones protestations based on either faith or fear amount to a hill of beans.

[Mairead]

120. And you know, RQ, that if we end no better off under Kerry than now

these sods won't own up to a damn'd thing--it'll be the same story in '08: it was all the fault of you leftists, you stabbed us in the back!

[redqueen]

124. Yeah, I can see the blame being deflected again.

But I can't see it working. Because I, and countless other Kucitizens and Deaniacs, will not do the "ABB" dance again, should Kerry fail to prove how different he is, and how he won't go along with PPI's goals of kinder, gentler imperialism.

[sangh0]

126. LOL!

Mairead complains about how leftists will be blamed if Kerry wins, and you complain that leftists will be blamed if Kerry loses.

With friends like that....... (Well, at least they're only 1% of our "friends")

[redqueen]

128. But, sangh0, I didn't complain as you claim

Are you reading someone else's post, perhaps?

:shrug:

[sangh0]

115. A linguistic note: DUer's manipulate "rage" and "fear"

It seems that the newest tactic of those who have no arguments is to claim that the other side possesses an excess of some specific emotion like "rage" and "fear"

It sounds like projection to me.

[jus_the_facts]

118. Oh there IS a difference....a HUGE difference that IS paramount......

....it is because DEMOCRATS refuse to treat REPUKES the way THEY'VE been treated...we ATTEMPT to be BI-PARTISAN all the while WE get DESSIMATED by the RIGHT and they keep on warping and twisting the TRUTH to the masses and the LEFT just keeps on playin' THEIR games instead of EVER doing to them what they've done to US...so we're DOOMED as we BOW to the WILL of the RIGHT...as they continue to BUY the SOULS of our DEM representaion....they continually get STRONGER and we continue to get WEAKER...as their MONEY talks and what they've done to make the TRUTH into BULLSHIT...WALKS!