The democratic party does not want an independent progressive movement

[Juche]

This has been coming up (as a secondary topic) several times lately. It seems that is something the democratic party fears: a well funded, well organized progressive movement that isn't under the control of the dem establishment and that will support policy and principals over just supporting 'anyone' with a D next to their name.

Was this why OFA (which got Obama elected) was moved into the DNC?

Was this why, during the campaign, Obama told supporters he wanted them to offer their funding to him and not to 527 and other independent orgs?


I'm guessing yes on both issues. But lately I've been reading things making me think this was a big fear the dem establishment has, progressives and/or unions breaking off and only supporting progressives instead of supporting 'any' democrat. Or, worse yet (for them) using volunteer efforts and financial support for primaries from the left.

So as a side note, it seems if you want to piss off and scare the democratic party, keep an independent progressive movement going.

Either way, if unions and liberal progressives support progressive candidates in 2010, including in primaries vs conservadems, it might actually intimidate the democratic establishment.

But then you run the risk of a tea party or Nader situation.


I'd rather have a majority with a few conservadems, than a progressive minority. But what is the point of a supermajority if it depends on the transient whims of Lieberman or Nelson?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[asdjrocky]

2. It's all about the establishment.

As long as tpb can make sure the only choice we have is between two corporate whores, this is the way it will be until we have public funding of elections.

This is really a no brainer people.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Republicans don't want an indepent Conservative Tea-party movement...

This is not new.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. OFA ripped off Howard Dean's strategies and even his organizations name

and yet they missed the point entirely.

OFA is no more of a grass roots movement than the teabaggers are.

I will only support Democratic principles. Not any corporatist with a "D" after his or her name.

[RevCheesehead]

13. That's why I unsubscribed my OFA e-mails.

During the Senate healthcare debates, they sent me a friggin' "Happy Holidays" video. Way to take your eyes off the ball, guys. :eyes:

I won't give OFA or the DNC one cent.

[DCBob]

5. You split the vote, you lose...

Naderized.

[Jim Sagle]

9. You DON'T split the vote, we ALL lose...Geithnerized and NAFTAized.

[DCBob]

10. Bushed..

Ouch.

[Tesha]

11. You don't split the vote but elect Democrats who vote like Republicans, you lose too. (NT)

[Individualist]

14. Absolutely!

:thumbsup:

[western mass]

30. Split the vote: Fine by me

Dealing with Nader is easy: Pass enough progressive legislation to appease the left. If right-wing Democrats are so corrupt and selfish that they're willing to lose power rather than give something to progressives, then they're to blame.

[Robb]

6. Considering the size of the tent, it is no small miracle the Democratic Party even exists.

It is its an ability to set aside many, many differences and try to act for the greatest good that is most remarkable. I doubt any "progressive movement" could detach from "must haves" enough to gain any wide consensus or size.

It is also the lack of that ability that is destroying the GOP, by the way.

[Juche]

15. Its more an issue of turnout

The democratic base is basically minorities, white liberals, economically disadvantaged and unions. The GOP base consists of evangelicals and libertarians.

Anyway, the dem base has low turnout. Turnout among latinos, blacks, single mothers, etc. is low vs. evangelicals. In some cases it is about 40% vs 80% (especially in midterms).

The democratic base doesn't seem extremely diverse to me. We are actually the majority. They just don't turn out.

My point was that the efforts of unions & progressive should be on progressive issues and candidates (including primaries from the left) and not just bland support of anything with a D next to their name.

If progressives could do a primary from the left and find a way to increase voter turnout, they could probably replace some of the more conservadems with more liberal ones.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Problem is that they are not even acting "for the greatest good"

Tell me how Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu or Blanche WalMart are fighting for ANYTHING good, because if they are, I'm not seeing it.

I could live with them if they voted for at least SOME good things. Hell, both of my senators get more votes wrong than they should be allowed to get away with, but they hardly compete on a suckiness level than those mentioned.

They're not acting for a greater good, they're doing the exact opposite.

[Tesha]

18. Any movement that could actually galvanize the working class in this country...

...could almost-instantly kick the ass of *BOTH WINGS*
of the Corporatist Party.

They be almost-instantly consigned to the dustbin of history.

Tesha

[Juche]

7. I'm slow I guess

I don't they don't want one, but I really didn't realize how big a threat it could be until lately.

I guess there is some disillusionment because 2008 really started to see more civic participation. We laugh at how the teabaggers are just being suckered by the wealthy and powerful into doing their work for them. But part of me feels like that is all the progressives were in 2008. We were told to participate and get involved, but they wanted to make sure we worked for them in the end of the day. All that talk of 'change' was channeled to make sure we supported the status quo.

I'm naive. Hell, I was an Edwards supporter at first. Turns out he is a sociopath.

[Echo In Light]

8. Phony oppositional (to corp rule) party can't have a genuine one making good on their empty rhetoric

It may just reveal the obvious

[OHdem10]

12. Of course they do not want a Progressive Movement. It would upset

the Conservadems. Conservadems rule.

[tomp]

17. i've said it before and i'll say it again:...

...the democratic party would rather lose elections than move left.

without a robust progressive movement independent of the democratic party, we will have the usual politics of collaboration of the two parties on behalf of the rich. SOMETHING must threaten the conservatism of the democratic party. that right-wingedness, some say fascism, must be exposed. the people simply cannot rely on the democratic party. we have been fooled, arm-twisted, and brow-beaten long enough.

[stillwaiting]

21. I am 100% with you.

I hope that we can build an organization that begins lobbying for progressive causes and not Democratic politicians.

It will take time and money, but it has to be done. We will NOT make any progress with the current system, but we WILL continue to lose out on our vision
for this country regardless of which party is in control.

I am not advocating pulling a Nader, but I am talking of a progressive organization that has absolutely nothing to do with the Dem Party establishment and that can
effectively primary (and expose) corporate Dems that stand against Democratic Party platforms. I hope to find such an organization very, very soon that I can join and help build.

[tomp]

22. if you think nader is a problem...

...you're not 100% with me. nader is held up as a bogeyman for gore's poorly run campaign and bush's theft of the office via the supreme court.

ralph nader is a patriot par excellence, far superior in integrity to barack obama, for example.

i think you are talking about not voting for a third party candidate who is not likely to win. i know this is controversial but if the democratic party refuses to act in a progressive fashion what reasonable choice do we have? they will continue to accept progressive votes and act conservatively (if not fascistically). i will choose the more principled way of "wasting" my vote. it is the only remaining way to send the message that the democratic party's actions are unacceptable.

[CrispyQ]

24. An excellent post, tomp!

Thank you for speaking out in defense of Nader. I voted for Nader in 2000. It was the first time I voted since the 1980 farce. Every single time I've admitted to voting for Nader on this board, fellow DUers blame me for the eight years of Bush. I guess it's easier to place the blame on a fellow liberal, than it is to face the fact that our party has betrayed us.

When we vote for someone just because they have a D behind their name, when we fall for the 'lesser of two evils' argument, the party shifts further to the right. When we continue to vote for those D names, we send the message that we're ok with that. I'm not.

[whathehell]

19. As Thom Hartmann said the other day "The conservadems of today

are like the Republicans of the 50's, 60's and 70's -- Corporatists who have a little bit of civic mindedness...They're NOTHING like the Democrats of past decades.

Republican President Eisenhower was more liberal than some of our "conservadems".

[leveymg]

20. When the baggers make their break w/the GOP, progressive should make their move

America would be a hell of a lot healthier with a choice of four major parties spread across the ideological spectrum, instead of two center-right, corporate-controlled parties.

Progressives would have far more impact as a coherent bloc of votes the conservadems would have to accommodate, rather than as a rump that is ignored after the election is over.

[Repealer]

23. Faint Heart Never........

I do not see anything resembling the kind of CHANGE I voted for.

The Demos lack the courage to follow through on the issues that got them elected.

If I were running the Democratic Party, I guarantee that Lieberman would have had to switch to the GOP a long time ago. At the first sign of resistance to health care reform this double crossing SOB would have lost his committee position. The idea of allowing an obstructionist idiot to block critical legislation is completely braindead.

The problem seems to be that Obama wants to be buddies with GOP players who would as soon see him dead as sitting in the oval office. Party politics is not an exercise in collegiality.

Obama needs to channel some of the character traits that made Lyndon Johnson so effective with legislative matters. LBJ didn't play buddy games with recalcitrant law makers. He invited them into the oval office and explained how those who opposed him would face unrelenting opposition from the President on every bill they proposed. Johnson didn't make idle threats so they knew how costly a fight with LBJ could really be. It didn't take them long to come over to LBJ's side because he was fully capable and perfectly willing to destroy them. Once that message got through they stopped interfering.

The Demos need to learn to use their majority instead of diddling around with idiots.

It is time for the NUCLEAR OPTION and one-way tickets for the GOP back where they came from.

[ThomThom]

25. Some say this may be the perfect time to get a viable left wing

party going. With the tea baggers splitting the republicans and big corporate money going to what is left of them. Dems are going to loose anyway so why not go Green. Some people say.

[Juche]

26. Its not so much a new party

As much as labor and progressives focusing on individual candidates instead of the party as a whole.

OFA was moved into the DNC, and a problem with that is that progressive activists are expected to work for DNC candidates like conservadems and blue dogs. I'd rather work for primaries from the left on these candidates.

One of the reasons the GOP has so much party unity is they fear primaries from the right. The dems don't seem to fear primaries from the left too much because (I'm guessing on this) they have been able to count on labor & progressives supporting them no matter what.

But primaries and attacks from the left may scare them into actually acting progressive. It worked well on Specter. When Specter was being primaried from the right (by Toomey) his voting became much more conservative. After he was primaried from the left by Sestak, his voting became a lot more liberal.

I've read several GOP senators & reps wanted to vote for the stimulus, but didn't because they feared a primary from the right.

[ThomThom]

27. true it is not new but it has not gotten much support even though

most of their positions are supported by progressives. A whole new party might be possible also. Wasting votes on conservative Dems is not going to be an option for a lot of people. Primary challenges would have to come from the leadership of the party and I don't see much of that happening unless more progressives get involved and many may want to go with another party rather than try to buck entrenched power.

[WillyT]

28. Big K & R !!!

:kick:

[McCamy Taylor]

29. Two party system is ideal for corporate fascism. They put one party in power

and use the other party to create the illusion that we have a choice. When the balance tips the other way because of corporate abuses, the other party becomes the official corporate party. Gore Vidal was right, it is all one party, the Money Party.

Welcome to your Corporate Fascist States of America.