Every day I come on here and..............

[socialist_n_TN]

there's a new thread about how the left is so stubborn by wanting left policies implemented.

Speaking as just ONE leftie, I would settle for just some REPRESENTATION on policy issues. Just off the top of my head, WHERE was the hard left position represented in the health care debate? It was a compromise between the center and the right and far right. There was NO single payer advocate represented. The commission to gut (excuse me SAVE) entitlements has representation for the center and the right and, in Simpson, the FAR right. Where is the left representation?

This pattern has been repeated in EVERY policy debate by the Obama administration. The issue is always hammered out between the center and the right and FAR right. The left is NEVER even represented. That's why I'M pissed about it. It would be nice to have my position AT LEAST to have a place at the table.

Guess what happens when you have a "compromise" between center, right and FAR right positions? The "compromise" is a RIGHT wing position.

[Oregone]

1. No, single-payer is a centrist idea

"It was a compromise between the center and the right and far right."

The center wasn't even represented. The entire reform was from the corner of private industry, and by in large, pro-capitalistic.

Cuba has a leftist health care system, Canada is about centrist (privatized providers with socialized insurance), and the US is a right-wingers wet dream

[socialist_n_TN]

5. I looked at the public option as the center position

but, as I said, when compromise comes from positions of center, right, and FAR right the compromise is usually right.

[Oregone]

7. It was a concession to the center to get people on the bandwagon

But it was also a carrot they didn't intend to give up. Including the public option wouldn't of made the entire reform centrist though, at all. The "public option", in various iterations, was so watered down that it meant to have no substantial impact on private industry. And being that this concession was being designed to preserve private profits, it was just a political gimmick to influence perception.

The entire "debate" was a crock of shit the "liberals" pulled off.

[sandnsea]

9. Well it wasn't

A subsidy for health insurance is the center position, the mandate for everybody is the center left position, an increase in medicaid for all adults is even further left along with the public option.

Single Payer is way over there in 5% land, no matter how many times people misreprsent polls to pretend that people wanting a government guarantee of health care necessarily means they want full single payer.

You're not liberal if you can't see views other than your own.

[socialist_n_TN]

15. All the polls I saw during the health care debate

showed the public option running between 60%-70%. That seems pretty centrist to me.

[sandnsea]

32. So nothing left of center is ever popular??? n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

49. You're the one who said the public option

WAS the farther left position, not me. I considered it centrist. Ergo, YOU must think that the public option is a farther left position.

Which would seem to imply that left positions ARE popular.

[sandnsea]

66. It is left of center

Just because it's popular doesn't make it a centrist idea. Plenty of left of center ideas are popular, there are a lot of reasons they don't make it into a final bill. I think mostly because activists are so busy with the extreme left idea that there isn't enough momentum built for the plausible left of center idea. In other words, if we had rallied behind the Kennedy bill in June instead of tearing it apart and demanding single payer, maybe we'd have gotten a public option. But when people are all torn in different directions, they all lose.

[William Z. Foster]

70. no

When we fail to stand in strong opposition to those who do not want us to have anything, we all lose.

You ask the hens to cooperate with the fox on the management of the hen house, and then blame the hens when things go wrong. "If only we had all been together in giving the fox what he wants, things could have been a lot better." No. They would be a lot worse. Everyone cooperating with the fox is what we call "a Republican administration." It is not better, it is much worse. If the damned Republicans can all stand together FOR the insurance companies and against the people, why ion the Hell can we not all stand together AGAINST the insurance companies and for the people? Or do you not believe that the interests and desires of the insurance industry are oppositional to the desperate needs of the people? If you think the two are in alignment, then why haven't the insurance companies already provided the health care we need? Why was there a problem in the first place?

[sandnsea]

79. Because that hasn't worked.

Shall we make a list of demands that haven't been met in the last 50 years and just point to the list of demands whenever legislation comes up?

How well did PNHP do with their strategy of discussing nothing but single payer?

[William Z. Foster]

84. it did work

It is the only thing that has ever worked. It worked for the Abolitionists, it worked for the Suffragettes, it worked for the Labor organizers, it worked for the Civil Rights movement.

We generate the organizations that can bring the pressure those organizations did by speaking out just the way we are doing. You are arguing for the purpose of preventing that from happening, and then when the arguments you and others are using succeed in dominating the discussion and cowing everyone, you claim that the one thing that will work, the only thing that will work - strong, uncompromising advocacy, as the single payer supporters are doing - does not work. You don't want it to work, that is the truth of the matter, you are fighting to stop it from working. That does not mean it won't work, it means that we need to overcome the arguments you are making in the minds of the listeners. We ask here for nothing more or less than a fair and equal chance to do that.

[maryf]

117. +1,000

"You ask the hens to cooperate with the fox on the management of the hen house, and then blame the hens when things go wrong."

I'm stealing this! Just thought I'd let you know! Perfect analogy!

[Enthusiast]

166. Another nice post by William!

If 70% of the American people wanted the public option the public option becomes a 'centrist' position by default.

[nannah]

195. +1000

thanks for your articulate voice. you are right on. and for years when the american people have been polled on health care, a single payer type program gets high percentages. medicare for all who so choose is a way out of the morass. offer medicare for all; negotiate rates of pay with doctors, facilities, and phameceutical industry; then let the consumer choose among options.

[NorthCarolina]

180. The "actual" center is far left of what the "official" center is purported to be. eom

[socialist_n_TN]

193. I think so too

nfm

[Oregone]

27. "Single Payer is way over there in 5% land"

Oh, you are defining "center" based on what this right wing wet dream of an ignorant country prefers. Ah...thats constructive.

[Mojeoux]

34. Lefr? Right? Center? It's ALL MOOT....the Oil Spill Changes Everything !!!!

Get ready to write more letters make more phone calls and send out e-mails.

We must jump on this hard and rally to the new GREEN Economy.

I can be done, and it MUST be done
for every inch of the Gulf of Mexico, and for all
the disgusting messes in the 3rd world by all
Big Old Greedy Old Fucks.

[Oregone]

36. Your "green" economy can suck it

Rapidly expanding production and consumption of earth's resources will spell disaster, whether its driven on green or black fuel

[Enthusiast]

169. The right wing position

is well represented on DU. On every issue. As if we don't hear enough of their bullshit on TV.

[pattmarty]

206. Yep.

[William Z. Foster]

69. what a riot

What difference does it make what we call a position - center, center left blah blah.

"You're not liberal if you can't see views other than your own." Now that is a neat trick. Those who do not want to compromise their position and cave to the right - and why would anyone want to do that or advocate that?? - are not liberals because they "can't see views other than their own."

Just because we don't agree with the right wing positions doesn't mean we can't "see" them. You are making an "up is down" argument. "Those not willing to compromise with the right wing are therefore not left wing." Crazy.

Way over there in that 5% land, eh? Where do you stand? Oh wait for it - you hedged - "people wanting a government guarantee of health care" does not "necessarily means they want full single payer." uh huh. Can you split that hair any finer than that?

Hello? Those of us on the left are certain that single payer IS the way to get "a government guarantee of health care." the goal and the method are not two separate things, and every damned time the conservatives say "we agree with your goal but not your method" they are really trying to block us from getting to the goal. Scaring the public by lying about the method is a way to betray them on the goal they want. There is no dichotomy between what is practical and what is ideal on this subject. Single payer is not some far left idealistic pie-in-the-sky idea, it is the most practical way to get to the goal that we all (or so everyone claims) are trying to get to - given that we are serious about getting there and are being sincere.

If the public does want, as you say, "a government guarantee of health care" then they want some form of single payer. It is our job to tell them that of they want to drive a nail they need a hammer, not to tell them "oh we agree with driving the nail, but hammers are not practical so we will try this marshmallow as the first step and then maybe in the future we can work towards getting that hammer. A marshmallow may take longer, but hey be practical you can't always get everything you want the minute you want it."

And who is advocating that we use a marshmallow? Oh, the industry insiders who do not want us to achieve the goal at all, who are wildly profiting from the current set up. I don't suppose you might think that is relevant to anything, would you?

[tomp]

145. nicely put. nt

[Enthusiast]

172. Wow, William, you should be a

something, a persuader. You have persuaded me. Although I did agree with this position before, you have explained it so well.

You must be banned! :sarcasm:

[kuroman992]

210. [phone]

Facts and figures were never even allowed during this debate by the administration.
They knew the single payer advocates could destroy any other idea with ACTUAL FACTS.

[pattmarty]

204. With your ideology if you lived in ANY European country you would...........

..............be considered a fucking drooling right wing fool.

[iamthebandfanman]

167. sure it is / was

'single payer is a centrist idea'

if by 'idea' you mean centrists went a long with the it because it was popular with consitituents... then sure.

[RufusTFirefly]

197. Exactly. We've been brainwashed into believing sensible ideas are radical. n/t

[JudyM]

2. Here's hoping Maddow got that point across when she met with him last week. n/t

[msongs]

3. obama and congress - aim low and settle for even less - skip going for the best entirely nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

122. +1. nt

[glitch]

189. Who knew "Center" was inspeak for "Mediocre"?

Yeah, we knew.

But at least the alleged "Center" is slowing the triangulation far rightward from stampede to gallop.

[Greyhound]

218. Exactly.

Very sad. He had the opportunity to be great, he opted for a great personal retirement package.

[LaFeminist]

4. Aw come on, be a pragmatist n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

10. You know what's really the joke Fem?

(the joke on me)I WAS a pragmatist. Until a few months ago, I'd hold my nose a vote for the "lesser of two evils". And more's the shame, being a red state leftist, I will probably have to for the foreseeable future. But I'm liking my choices less and less.

[bobbolink]

14. Here's the (sad) joke on *them*.... the more they alienate us,

the fewer of us will vote at all, which means their giving away of everything for "the win" will end up losing.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Grinchie]

89. Bingo!

I'm in your camp.

[WinkyDink]

121. What makes you think they will consider it "losing"? Yes, I'm that cynical.

[Individualist]

159. Excellent point.

[Enthusiast]

174. I can't say I disagree.

How much stronger can they demonstrate this? Maybe they can say "Aw shucks." when they lose.

[glitch]

190. +1 nt

[bobbolink]

239. Come October and they are begging for votes, those of us who just say "No" may make the point.

[Goldstein1984]

125. I've been there for some time

No more being held hostage to the lesser-of-two-evils voting model.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. It's like choosing between slow and aggressive terminal cancer--the end result is the same.

I'm going to vote, I always do, but not for either mainstream party. Those votes will be against the status quo, and the Democratic Party and this President are just a minor variation in that status quo. (Ask the innocent dying in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

[tekisui]

142. Yep. When they lose they will have only themselves to blame.

[tomp]

146. the problem with that hypothesis is that withheld votes don't count anywhere.

the the democrats only need to get a majority of votes cast, not of eligible votes. the only way to "count" is to vote for someone.


i recommend a third party. until and unless voting laws are changed, it's that or revolution.

[William Z. Foster]

238. all sorts of other options

Those who are pushing the party to the right want us to believe that we have a very limited range of options.

1) "Vote Democratic" (which is not about voting at all, but rather really means do not think or speak about anything outside of how it impacts the goal of helping Democratic party politicians get into office.)

2) "Vote Third Party" (which is to be seen only as "helping the Republicans.")

3) "Violent Revolution" (which is used to scare people away from any and all left wing talk.)

That leaves out of consideration 99% of the options available to us, and shuts down all thinking and all discussion - other than talking about horse race politics and the media circus. Framing the supposed options that way is intended to discourage people and to shut down serious discussion about the goals and options. We are to be mere observers, along for the ride, maybe volunteering here and there, donating money, and cheer leading. At that point, why care about politics at all? What is the point? And we wonder why half of the people eligible to vote do not.

[tomp]

148. self delete. nt

[treestar]

213. How can 6% make anyone lose?

Why a tiny minority is so demanding is hard to understand.

[Forkboy]

221. In a Nader thread you're complaining about his voters giving us a Republican president.

Nader had less than 6% but that doesn't stop you from blaming him for Bush. So make up your mind, is 6% a factor or isn't it? You're trying to play it both ways, and it's not going to fly. It's got to be one or the other. Either that's to small an amount to be a factor, in which case you blaming Nader voters for Bush is flat out wrong, or it is enough to be a factor, making your post here flat out wrong. Pick one.

[William Z. Foster]

224. exactly

One the one hand the left is such a tiny fringe that they can be ridiculed and dismissed - "who needs 'em!!!." But then on the other hand, the left can be blamed for all failures of the centrists.

"If only we were all centrists, we would have unity and we would win! It is those pesky fringe radicals who are in the way and causing all of the problems!" they would have us believe.

[treestar]

248. You've got me mixed up with somebody else, I could not care less about Nader

and to me the 2000 election was either valid as is, I just accept it, or maybe screwed up by Florida.

When you know you are in a minority of 6%, you do not demand and boss everybody else around, like if you go home with your marbles everything is going into the crapper. It is not. We do not dance to the tune of 6% of the party.

The sense of entitlement is appalling, or would be, if it mattered.

[Forkboy]

252. You agreed with the OP in this thread.....

Had Nader not run, would the Gulf be full of oil right now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8558832

Your response...

"No. Had Gore been President, regulations would not have been laxly enforced, and new ones might have come into play."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8558832#8560456

Sounds a lot to me like you're certainly blaming the oil spill on a guy who got 3% of the popular vote. That's less than the 6% you say is so irrelevant.

So again, which is it? Is it too little a percentage to take seriously, or does that small percentage have enough power to make you think they're to blame for the stuff like the Gulf oil disaster?

[William Z. Foster]

223. I will help

All politics are driven by small factions competing for the attention of the public. I know you think that "6%" and "tiny minority" smears your opponents and discredits them, but that is false. No matter what people are advocating, they have a duty and responsibility to do that strongly, and that invalidates your "so demanding" smear as well.

The tiny minority that agrees with your point of view - no larger than the people you are attacking, and with less appeal to the general public - seems larger because you so closely align with those in power, and so closely repeat the lines coming from the corporate mass media.

By attacking people for being a minority, and then boasting about running with the herd, one is inadvertently revealing that they are opposed to change and are not siding with the working class people.

[HughMoran]

13. Nice

[Enthusiast]

173. Is this an expression of

:sarcasm: ? It seems appropriate.

[sandnsea]

6. SEIU is the center?

When the freemen show up at the White House to present their political agenda, then you can argue that the socialists aren't being represented.

[ShamelessHussy]

11. lol

[socialist_n_TN]

12. So did I miss Bernie on the Senate "compromise"

gang of six?? Was it a gang of 7 after all?

[sandnsea]

33. Was Bo Gritz there?

OMG, no, because there aren't even any really far right people in Congress.

The left is represented in DC. There are many single payer advocates in Congress. It's baloney that you have no voice in DC.

[socialist_n_TN]

44. Do you REALLY believe that there's no

far right people in Congress? If you truly believe that, we have no basis for discussion.

[sandnsea]

64. Militia Freemen far right??

No. Ron Paul is about as far right as there is. I think there may be a few teabaggers come in this fall. There are far right people, but there could be even further right people. That's my point. Some in the progressive caucus are as far left as someone like Michelle Bachman is right, but she's not getting meetings in the White House either.

And, btw, my Congressman is a member of the Progressive Caucus and he met with Obama on a Medicare issue and got it resolved. I'm sure he isn't the only one.

[socialist_n_TN]

71. Communist Party USA far left??

What's your point? The positions I'm asking to be represented are not FAR left, CPUSA positions. They're positions that MOST of the world has actually been doing for decades. Here they aren't even given a hearing. All I'd like to see is a REAL leftist position at the table.

I've always considered myself politically pragmatic. But to maintain pragmatism, I've got to see at LEAST my position represented. If I saw that, I could continue to believe in incrementalism.

The compromise between the center, the right, and the FAR right is ALWAYS going to be right. What would the compromise between the left, the center, and the right be?

[sandnsea]

81. Real leftist, like socialist?

You need to be more precise.

If you mean like the progressive caucus, it's there. Maybe you need to get on the email list of some of them so you've got someone to support.

[William Z. Foster]

85. here you go

Those who see politics as being about power and economics rather than personal beliefs and personal choices, and who see a battle between the wealthy few and the working many, and who side strongly and unambiguously with the working class people and against the owners, landlords, investors, bosses and management.

Historically, that is the left. That was the basis of FDR's New Deal. That is the basis for organized Labor. You can disagree with that view, you can fight against the side that the left takes, has taken, on political matters. But this "what is the left and what does it really mean" stuff is just a stalking horse for inserting right wing politics into the party and then saying "who is to know what is really left and what is not?"

[pattmarty]

209. No "far right" people in Congress? Here's just a few of the fucking........

........"Reps" that are RW: Michelle Bachmann, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Jean Schmidt, and Marsha Blackburn and that's only off the top of my head of the CRAZIEST ones. So give us all here a fucking break. Enough with the bullshit.

[TheKentuckian]

115. Actually, it was but Hatch walked out and they became the gang of six

What do y'all think the plan really was?

Complete and utter bullshit, is what. There was no compromise. No give and take that just happened to come out the way it did after a real exchange but a set up stacked deck of Right wingers and right leaning centrists, moderates and certainly liberals need not apply.

There was no room for "moonbeams" like Schumer or Rockefeller and certainly no "commies" like Kerry pr Whitehouse or "Nazi Maoist" like Sanders.

There was also not going to be any consideration of any "socialist" HELP mark and hell if any "hard left" House bill was ever going to be more than a place marker while Max and his gang worked up the Presidentially approved roadmap.

The only bill that was ever going to be was the framework that Baucus, Grassley, and Zeke Emanuel lifted from. Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, and the Heritage Foundation.

[socialist_n_TN]

152. Yep Kentuck.............

It was SET UP to be a compromise between the center, the right, and the FAR right. And THAT compromise is ALWAYS going to be a right wing position. That's also the way the entitlements commission is being set up. It's set up with between center, right, and FAR right. And we'll get the SAME fucking results as we got in the health care "reform" bill.

I wonder what the results of a compromise between the left, center, and right would be? We'll never know BECAUSE THE LEFT POSITION IS NOT EVEN BEING REPRESENTED.

[TheKentuckian]

194. I say between right, far right, and corporate interest for the most part

I guess Bingaman might be center.

Center got all but excluded as well. Hell, Schumer is Wall Streets rep and it was too far right for him.

I don't play the centrists are moderates game though. That's a device invented and focused grouped to muddy the waters and reframe the political spectrum.

[Enthusiast]

178. Yep, it was a complete set up

from the get go. Take the faux outrage at the 'staged' town hall meetings for example. The lengths they went to to avoid suspicion is amazing. It was carried off like an intelligence operation.

[femrap]

8. Agreed. nt

[kenny blankenship]

16. Look. He's willing to listen to any idea from any side

so long as Republicans aren't opposed to it.

What more do you fuckers want???

[LooseWilly]

101. Brilliant, insightful, and cogent.

I think you have nailed the crux precisely. Bravo sir !!

[SammyWinstonJack]

124. heheh.

:evilgrin:

[Plucketeer]

202. Spot on, kenny!

Daresn't ire the corporate powers that grease everyone's wheels!

[Richard Steele]

17. K&R

[chillspike]

18. So I guess you'll be voting republican in 2012?

[LaFeminist]

19. When did the OP imply that he likes Republicans?

Does it make sense to expect that someone that considers himself/herself to be a leftist will vote Republican?

Explain how you came to think that OP will vote Republican.

[chillspike]

20. because if the OP's complaints continue to be ignored

and i believe they will because, imo, they are expecting too much too soon and unrealistic, what else can the OP do but submit a protest vote?

[LaFeminist]

23. You do know he has the right to abstain, don't you?

Is it not true that he wants to vote for a candidate to the left of the current one? And didn't it cross your mind that he may choose the option of voting for Obama anyway in order to block Republicans, who are even worse? That optin is called the "lesser of two evils," and I know people who have chosen it.

What made you ignore those possibilities?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[chillspike]

29. What made me ignore them?

why did i ignore it? well, if in the end he is just going to vote for obama anyway, why make his reelection more difficult by spreading all the negativity? I understand if obama is not following your agenda and you want to talk about it and say he's really gotten nothing we wanted done. that's fine. but i think it is a huge positive that a democrat is even in the position of president right now and the idea is not to lose that position. i just think there is a way to criticize our own without piling on in the negativity department.

there is a great business management tactic that might be helpful here in understanding my view. it says whenever you have to point out someone's faults to them it is a great practice to not just open up the conversation with what they are doing wrong. people will close up if they just get all negativity. but people will listen to your reservations about something they've done if you open and close the conversation with praise for what they are doing right.

and i think there are people on DU who are happy with, at least, how Obama is shaping the political landscape and they don't want that part to be forgotten or ignored. and when people come at you with "He hasn't done anything" people get put off. i happen to think by giving the republicans what they want and not going all Left too soon the Obama admin is displaying good political strategy. he has even given a hint of this tactic after the oil spill by saying "we tried it their way"...to me, you never win an issue by resisting your opponent because they can always say "But you haven't even tried our way yet"...On the oil issue we can now say "yes, we did try it your way and look what happened".

i just think you have to fight your battles but you also have to know when to hang back and not engage the enemy. i think if you want real Left policies to get passed you are going to have to have patience and learn to play the game with our elected officials and stop accusing them of being in the pocket of big business. As for why not pass all the Left's agenda now?: When do you think it is better to pass Left policies? When the republicans are still viable and launch a counter attack or when the republican party has imploded on itself and is so weakened and disillusioned they can't even summon any voter enthusiasm anymore? you got to have patience. to me, these complainers have no patience.

[socialist_n_TN]

47. So I'm supposed to just STFU?

Not ask for representation for MY positions at ALL just because the alternative would be worse? How can the left EVER be represented if they're not even ASKED to be involved in the policy discussions?

BTW, I've been "patient" for 38 years. Every Dem that's been elected in national elections has been elected with my vote. EVEN WHEN THEY DIDN'T REALLY REPRESENT MY POSITIONS. They were the "lesser" of two evils. I'll probably have to do it again in '12.

A compromise between the center, the right, and the FAR right means that the compromise is right. What would a compromise between the left, the center, and the right be?

[JI7]

50. Why does your State elect wingnuts like Bob Corker to the Senate ?

[socialist_n_TN]

58. Because there are more idiots in Tennessee

than sane people. So that means I can't have positions on national issues just because most people in this state are idiots?

[JI7]

62. i didn't say you can't have positions, i'm telling you how govt works

the fucking Senators vote on bills.

[William Z. Foster]

83. no

Here is how government works - it responds to public pressure. That is generated by the criticism and analysis that people are doing, and that others are so strongly resisting.

[ProSense]

126. Isn't this OP the ultimate STFU post?

You're complaining that other people don't agree with you.

Every day you come here that's never going to change.

[socialist_n_TN]

156. You know I don't care if people agree with me or not

I just don't want to be told to "Shut up and vote for the Dem or we'll get Sarah Palin" ALL THE FUCKING TIME! It's not even the "vote for the Dem" part of this sentence that I really object to because that outcome is one of a few realistic possibilities. What I object to are the posts that equate the ADVOCACY of left wing positions to electing Sarah Palin. That's total bullshit.

Edited to add a word.

[William Z. Foster]

203. of course not

The leftists are not trying to shut down discussion - far from it. We want a chance to debate the centrists, and too often they refuse to do that. I gladly take on right wingers and Republicans, let alone conservative Democrats, and do not fear them - look forward to it. I will win. It is only when they refuse to stand and defend their positions that they "win." I never walk away. I'll debate them for a week if they want. But typically, once their first few talking points have been demolished, they bail. My political views get stronger when I am surrounded by adversaries, not weaker. The longer the debate goes on, the more fierce the opposition, the better.

The poster you are throwing one liners at is asking for a debate with people who disagree, not trying to eliminate them or avoid them.

[William Z. Foster]

77. not true

The Abolitionists did not back down when the Whigs or even the Republicans got into office, organized labor did not quit when FDR got into office.

Continuing to fight is not "negativity." As the Whigs discovered, playing it safe will not only cause you to lose, it will take you right out of the game.

This obsessive fear of a "Republican counter-attack" makes the Republicans stronger. Do you really think that if every Republican were run out of office and the Democrats held every seat that the Democratic party would have any motivation whatsoever to move to the left or do anything for the people? Of course not.

In any case, moving to the left and fighting Republicans are the same thing. You can't do one and not the other, or you will be trying to go in two directions at once. That is what is happening. That is why we are not getting anywhere.

"The idea is to not lose that position?" Good grief. The idea is to use that position, using it makes it stronger, makes you less likely to lose it. Playing it safe is the most certain way to lose it.

Unbelievable how cowed and frighten into submission people have become. Where does that defeatism come from? The cable TV crap? "Oh, be careful. You will make the Republicans angry and they might hurt you."

If you stand and fight for something you may not win, but if you refuse to stand and fight for anything you are certain to lose.

[socialist_n_TN]

63. So expecting somebody in the discussion

(and I'm talking about the REAL discussion, not the occasional public statement) to advocate for a REAL left position is "expecting too much too soon and unrealistic"?

[William Z. Foster]

75. you are on to something here

It is not the actual implementation of left wing programs that is "impractical" and "unrealistic" and therefore to be avoided so "we" can "win." It is any advocacy of left wing positions that they are objecting to. Now why would that be? I will tell you why. If the public heard left wing positions they would support them, and then where would the so-called "centrists" and "moderates" - conservatives in Democratic party clothing - be?

[chillspike]

118. I don't object to advocacy at all.

I don't object to advocacy at all. And I hear our left politicians advocating Left ideas all the time. What planet are you from?

Grayson, Pelosi, Obama, Franken, Frank, Cleaver, Weiner, etc.

Where you are correct is, for the most part, they are not acting on those ideas at the moment. I just disagree for why they are doing it. I think it's a political strategy for ultimate success for Left policies. Others think they just don't really care about these ideas and are just after political power. I believe, in one sense, they DO want to hold onto power but I believe it is ultimately in order to pass Left legislation. I believe our dems reps are sincerely on our side, they just have to be very careful so as not to lose control of their political gains.

[Bluenorthwest]

137. You include on that list both a person who does not have

full and equal rights, and a person who thinks he should not have equal rights. So that is part of your problem. A 'left politician' does not grand stand about his religion, and how because of those dogmas, others must be treated as second class citizens. Such a politician is conservative, right leaning. No wonder you are confused.

[chillspike]

147. Who?

Frank?

[socialist_n_TN]

160. Not only that, but they're ALL House members

(except for Franken and Obama). I don't have a problem with the House of Representatives. They WILL allow left wing positions to be advocated. But when it comes to the Senate, TPTB won't allow a leftist Senator anywhere NEAR to negotiations for the final bill.

[chillspike]

161. hmmm...

than perhaps you have a point.

[William Z. Foster]

207. politicians

I am not talking about politicians.

[chillspike]

112. You can advocate just don't tear down the whole ediface

In the final analysis, the democrats we have elected are advocating what we want too, they are just not passing the legislation fast enough for some. I believe our dems representatives are sincere about what they preach but when you are an elected politician you have concerns and things to consider that the general public doesn't always understand.

Like this:

1.) you have a crazy tea party movement on the other side brandishing guns at protests that you don't know how it is going to react to any piece of legislation you put forward let alone pass. they could fucking revolt. you have to consider that. you could start a civil war and wreck the country if you're not careful what you propose as a politician.

2.) you have to consider that in order to pass lefty legislation, you have to keep lefty's in power. if the right can still summon the power to kick you out of office and replace you with a righty should they get angry enough, you'll want to be careful of going too left at that time. it would be better to hold onto power and work on weakening the right's position and then strike for more left legislation when the right is weaker or less riled up. you have to wear down the Right constituent's enthusiasm for Right leaning ideas like oil drilling and government deregulation.

3.) you have to consider that your politically elected opposition is trying to take you down by any means necessary. so whenever you go left, they are going to run to their constituents and rile them up against you. that means they will be showing up all angry at town hall meetings, banging on congressional office doors, hogging the media's attention, threatening violence, breaking windows, all that bull shit we've already seen.

4.) you have to consider that, since democrats have historically advocated and even been active in regulating powerful corporations and businesses, they have yet another very power and rich foe to consider who could level their resources against you, even punish the country by pulling out more industry as they have been doing. corporations and businesses can wield a very powerful weapon against democrats and the american people. what they have historically done is whenever dems have tried to pass stiffer regulations to reign in greedy and immoral corporations, they pull out the old "They're killing your jobs" card, claiming the government is punishing workers, when in reality, it was business holding a gun to their own workers heads and telling the government "We will shoot them if you try to regulate us". That's the fucking game they've been playing for decades. that's what our democratic politicians have to deal with.

Our Lefty representatives already have an antagonist. They are the republicans, conservatives and laissez faire free marketers. I'm fine with democrats talking and expressing dissatisfaction with how slow things are moving. But when you have a political alternative that is so revolting as the Right is, doing anything that helps them get elected rather than democrats, and that includes not voting, is just an epic fail. You're asking for epic failure at that point, imo.

Why would you do that to us? Why would you help elect someone from a side that is explicitly and vocally against everything we stand for over someone from your side who is expressly and publicly in favor of everything you stand for but who, granted, just doesn't move fast enough for you? Okay, so you have doubts about some dems' sincerity when they profess to want to pass Lefty legislation. I understand that. But what are you going to do about it? Are you going to help elect someone on the Right who publicly professes to not care about the things you care about? You KNOW what THEY will do. Are you going to help elect a Chris Christie like my friend did when she voted for an independent? Where did that get us? It's like opening the door of a china shop to a bull.

[socialist_n_TN]

170. This whole list merely says that you think

that the Obama administration is scared of the crazies on the right. IOW, they're being blackmailed by what the right MIGHT do. You can't make policies, to coin a phrase, by "negotiatin' with terraists". You've got to stand up to bullies. Anything less than standing up to them and you're enabling them.

[chillspike]

187. well, then we can argue about who and what is enabling

choosing when and how to fight your battles or refusing to vote for your democratic representatives?

[socialist_n_TN]

191. You know, never ONCE anywhere in this thread

or in others have I said I wouldn't vote for my democratic representative. Hey I get grief from my lefty sibs because I AM (or have been for almost 40 years) a pragmatist. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is ingrained into my practical politics because I've lived my whole life in red states.

What I object to is the false equivalency argument that merely by ADVOCATING for left wing positions to be REPRESENTED I'm voting for Sarah Palin.

I will state one thing strongly though. I'm not going to allow RW bullies (whether Republicans or RW Dems) to infringe on MY freedom to advocate what I want. I WILL NOT be imtimidated by thugs.

[chillspike]

196. You'll do what we tell you to...

...or you'll DISAPPEAR like the others!!!

;)
lmao!

[William Z. Foster]

211. misrepresentation

You assume that we are talking about partisan electoral politics, and what the politicians do.

That is the problem - seeing us as merely supporters of various politicians, and seeing the range of possible political ideas to all be contained within the context of what various politicians say.

Political and social change has always come from outside of partisan electoral politics. When you keep the discussion tightly contained within the context of what the rulers are doing and saying, you introduce a powerful bias against the working class people and in favor of those in power.

The way you are describing politics here, we are relegated to minor and relatively powerless roles - as volunteers, cheer leaders, donors, spectators unpaid pr flacks, believers - all for the benefit of various powerful people. That eliminates 99% of the political possibilities and ideas before we even get started or have any discussion, and yes it does eliminate any voice for the political left and precludes any serious change from ever happening.

Our role should be to force the powerful to work for us, not look for ways to work for the powerful.

Also, I urge people to reject these ideas that are based on fear of what the right wingers might do. We rob them of their power by creating an alternative channel for people's dissatisfaction and anger, not by tip-toeing around. We create an alternative by thinking, speaking and acting outside of the very narrow confines of partisan electoral politics. Every great and successful movement for social and political change did that.

[chillspike]

251. You know, as much as that disagrees with my take on things

I don't reject your view...To me, it is not some unpalatable view I won't tolerate at all...It is just another liberal OPTION that I am less confident of but not totally adverse to trying. There are no lines in the sand for me when it comes to my fellow liberal's ideas.

[William Z. Foster]

80. the OP can do what the OP is doing

Continue to speak out. Partisan electoral politics are an effect of social and political change not a cause of change. Speaking out is what causes change, and it is speaking out that some here object to. If a person says "I will vote Dem" then the response is "OK then stop criticizing so we can help them win." If the person says "well the Dems don't own my vote" then the response is "so then you will be voting Republican? We will no longer talk to you."

The who are you going to vote for is a lie. It is a dishonest way to get people to stop talking about certain things,m and has nothing to do with how they vote.

I hate this and all thinking people should reject it - anytime anyone criticizes the party - and how can it ever get better or improve if we don't criticize it? - they are taunted with "so I guess you will be voting Republican then?" The irony is that the bullying may well drive quite a few people to vote third party and hurt the Democratic party. But the ant-left crowd doesn't seem to care. So long as the left shuts up, even if that costs Democratic party victories, they have "won." So it is not really about voting, it is not about loyalty to the Democratic party. It is about pushing conservative politics on the Democratic party and forcing everyone to submit to that.

[Dr.Phool]

92. Yeah, it's a real quick step from one to the other.

If you don't support Obama, you have to support Palin.

What about if I don't like any of the motherfuckers?

[chillspike]

116. You don't HAVE to but

you kind of wind up there. My dem friend didn't support Christie but didn't like Corzine. So she voted independent and got Christie.

[Bluenorthwest]

123. I spent much of yesterday afternoon on threads attacking liberal

elected Democrats. Kucinich, DeFazio, the DLC Obama choir post threads attacking them, during an election cycle, and refuse to say if they are in fact supporting the Republican over the Democrats. So, kid, it is the right wing that is, right now not in 2012, promoting Republicans over Democrats, right here.
Another batch of 'moderates' are pushing Christ over the Democrat in Florida, right here on DU. The 'centrists' are doing so because it is 'pragmatic' to dump the Democrat. To thrash him endlessly.
Liberals vote, sugar, and not for Republicans. The DLC types here, openly oppose Democrats in race after race. And people know that fact, sweetums. The right wing 'centrists' are the problem. Because they so often vote Republican.
How often have you voted Republican? I never have and never will. Have you? How often?

[Individualist]

162. Fortunately, progressives have gotten wise to DLC strategies.

[Enthusiast]

179. Actually I think it is clear

that the OPer the rest of us are expecting and accepting too little.

[Lorien]

40. The OP opposes the Right so the OP must want to vote for the Right

Right?

:crazy:

[socialist_n_TN]

45. When did I say that?

I'll never vote for a Republican. And I'll PROBABLY not abstain. At least, I haven't abstained YET over 38 years of elections.

All I'm saying is that I want representation on policy decisions and I don't think that I've gotten that. When people consider Obama a socialist or even a liberal, then I'm NOT being represented.

When a compromise is effected between the center, the right and the FAR right, the compromise is ALWAYS right.

[Individualist]

67. That meme is as stale as it is asinine.

DLC masterminds need to come up with some new talking points.

[Grinchie]

90. You assume that we'll vote....

Big Mistake.

[Bluebear]

95. God is that a tired answer.

[tango-tee]

108. Oh, this is getting really old and worn.

[Tailormyst]

129. You fail everytime you use this tired BS excuse

[treestar]

21. Bernie Sanders

we don't have a Parliamentary system.

It's one thing to want the policies; another to look at the current political map and deal with reality.

[Cleita]

22. K&R

[lib2DaBone]

25. When will America wake up...

..and realize that the right-wing has driven the country off a cliff?

[Grinchie]

93. And the Democrats were the drunk passengers...

Staop trying to frame it as a republican only problem.. We are witnessing the same shit in thin maladministration daily, along with the propaganda squad prosletyzing how well off we are to boot.

[Individualist]

176. The right wing was holding one side of the steering wheel, and DLC was holding the other.

[demmiblue]

26. There is a very vocal minority here.

Shoot, last year I sorted GDP by author, out of curiosity, and was shocked to find one poster had 400+ active OPs. ONE POSTER!

:wow:

[KonaKane]

28. I'm about as left as they come, but at some point

you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. Our we basically being served? Have we generally stemmed the tide of the worst atrocities brought to us by 14 years of right wing rule, and do we stay on course? If we don't stand together at some point, we will certainly (albeit figuratively) "do it separately" as Ben Franklin once opined.

I believe what you see being rejected here is the micromanaging and mite-picking causes that fragment large movements because someone didn't get exactly the candy bag they wanted. Again, stepping back and viewing the big picture occassionally is necessary so that we don't get tunnel vision.

[chillspike]

31. Nicely said. (nt)

[Lorien]

41. If you look at "the Big Picture" then all you'll see is one giant swindle

by the Megacorps, and the TV suckled Non-Right Wing extremists wetting themselves in glee if they get a sprinkling of crumbs or false hope from time to time.

[KonaKane]

42. So what's your solution?

And I mean VIABLE solution?

[Grinchie]

96. I have one, it's called low turnout in the elections..

No Money, after all, the Corporations have that covered.

Then just sit back and watch the special interets be served until the fraud collapses.

It's beautiful.. The Corporations lose valuable capital, the Government has no mandate, and the people they serve are exposed.

Meanwhile, we ignore the Goverment, resist their onerous regulations, appeal their tax increases, put up private property signs and generally tell then to stay the fuck out. For those that can, start working for themselves and avoid the rat race. We will make a better world for ourselves, starve the system that demands our debt slavery, and generally work toward a gentler civilization based on actual need and not rampant, unneeded consumption.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

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

[KonaKane]

53. Helloooooo.....solution?

Lots of complaining, but not a single solution proferred?

[William Z. Foster]

74. I will gladly field that one

If you are up for it.

[maryf]

119. I am...

please field that one...

[KonaKane]

215. Please, continue.

I havent seen anyone offer a seriously viable one yet, so the floor is yours.

[William Z. Foster]

228. thanks KonaKane

First, I don't claim to have any great brilliant ideas of my own. What I suggest we do is look to successful social justice movements from the past and look to them for solutions. This may take several posts, as it is a big subject, and an extremely important one.

Lorien said "if you look at 'the Big Picture' then all you'll see is one giant swindle by the Megacorps, and the TV suckled Non-Right Wing extremists wetting themselves in glee if they get a sprinkling of crumbs or false hope from time to time."

I am going to assume that you agree with that analysis of the current conditions, that description of the dilemma we face, or you would not be asking for solutions to that dilemma. So we agree that in the larger picture, that there is one giant swindle going on orchestrated by and for the corporations, and that we on the left are being played and misled and thwarted by those with tremendous power, and are being asked to accept this and be happy with the few crumbs that may fall of of the table. If you do not agree with that, then obviously any solutions anyone offers will not have any value for you. Who wants an appendectomy when they don't have appendicitis, who would advocate for appendectomies when they do not believe that such a thing as appendicitis actually exists?

First, I will talk briefly about the trap we are in, since the very first solution to the dilemma is to recognize what we are doing that is not working, and stop doing that.

What is happening with people's thinking today, when we are frustrated and unsuccessful, that was not happening with people's thinking at times when there were successful movements for social and political change? I see two things that are new. First, there is an obsessional with partisan electoral politics as never before, and an insistence that all politics must be seen as being contained within the partisan electoral political process. Secondly, there was a dramatic change in the approach and thinking of people on the left around 1970, away from organizing and agitating and over to various forms of self-expression.

Mark Rudd, SDS leader from the 60's, is an astute observer of this change. As he travels around the country speaking to younger people, he has noticed a resignation and defeatism that he does not remember ever seeing in the 60's. He says "in discussions with young people, they often tell me, 'Nothing anyone does can ever make a difference.'"

The words still sound strange: it's a phrase I never once heard forty years ago, a sentiment obviously false on its surface. Growing up in the fifties and sixties, I and the rest of the country knew about the civil rights movement in the South, and what was most evident was that individuals, joining with others, actually were making a difference. The labor movement of the thirties to the sixties had improved the lives of millions; the anti-war movement had brought down a sitting president — LBJ, March, 1968 — and was actively engaged in stopping the Vietnam war. In the forty years since, the women's, gay rights, disability rights, animal rights, and environmental movements have all registered enormous social and political gains. To old new lefties, such as myself, this is all self-evident.

http://www.markrudd.com/?organizing-and-activism-now/how-to-build-a-movement.html

So to many of us, based on first hand experience and perceptions of undeniable objective reality, it is self-evident that we can "make a difference," yet it is widely held today by people that we cannot.

What has changed there? "So why the defeatism?" Rudd asks, and then goes on to say that "in the absence of knowledge of how these historical movements were built, young people assume that they arose spontaneously, or, perhaps, charismatic leaders suddenly called them into existence. On the third Monday of every January we celebrate Martin Luther King having had a dream; knowledge of the movement itself is lost." People do not know, and are not asking how it was that great movements were actually built in the past. This goes right to the heart of your question about solutions, since it would not be surprising that we have no solutions if we are not even thinking about them, not eve asking any questions, not looking to history for examples of solutions.

The classic recent example of activism that did not make a difference is the anti-war movement. Rudd says "The current anti-war movement's weakness, however, is very much alive in young people's experience. They cite the fact that millions turned out in the streets in the early spring of 2003 to oppose the pending U.S. attack on Iraq, but that these demonstrations had no effect. 'We demonstrated and they didn't listen to us.' Even the activists among them became demoralized as numbers at demonstrations dropped off very quickly, street demonstrations becoming cliches, and, despite a massive shift in public opinion in 2006, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan droned on to today. The very success of the spontaneous early mobilization seems to have contributed to the anti-war movement's long-term weakness."

If they've thought about the problem at all, the activists seem to believe that their repeated expressions of opposition to the war will eventually draw people in. Grimly soldiering on, they have run out of ideas, tactics, strategy. Activism, the expression of our deeply held feelings, used to be only one part of building a movement. It's a tactic which has been elevated to the level of strategy, in the absence of strategy.

What's happened is that we've lost the models of organizing that we once had. Those of us who were young in the anti-Vietnam War movement had the benefit of both the labor and civil rights movements contiguous in time with us. From veterans of these movements who were fighting the war we learned that we needed to build a base through education, agitation, and, most of all, direct connection with people. But there's been at least a thirty year gap between the last successful mass social movements and young people now. A generation, maybe two, has come of age without knowing what organizing is, or even knowing what questions to ask. Most young activists think organizing means making the physical arrangements for a rally or benefit concert. And the words base-building and coalition are not even in the lexicon.

No wonder we don't have an anti-war movement, even as public opinion has turned against the war and as the Republicans self-destruct. But public opinion is not a movement: it's not organized for political action. Seeking some outlet, like water running downhill, public opinion seems to have settled on the Democrats, who are no more deserving of the mantle of opposition party than they were during the Vietnam War.

http://www.markrudd.com/?organizing-and-activism-now/1968-organizing-vs-activism.html

So we are demoralized and ineffective and are back to the same old mindless debates about "lesser of two evils" and "taking baby steps" and "working within the system" and "being the change you wish to see" and "being patient" and "realistic" and "practical." All of those are clearly variations on defeatism. Given that we cannot do anything, cannot make a difference, let's try this...

Something must be missing. Something has changed.

The change was from people being and thinking of themselves as organizers to thinking of themselves as "activists." The difference is that organizing required self-sacrifice and long term planning, while "activism" was mostly about self-expression. The idea is that by expressing oneself - "being the change" and "speaking truth to power" and "taking a stand" - somehow people will be converted, and then rally to the cause, and that this will somehow lead to change.

Rudd here contrasts the mobilization against the war and institutionalized racism at Columbia University with his subsequent involvement in the Weather Underground to illustrate this shift that occurred at that time, the effects of which are still controlling our thinking.

The hard, tedious and laborious work of organizing:

First point, and most important, the student occupation and strike of April and May, 1968, against Columbia’s involvement in the Vietnam War and its institutional racism, were the product of more than three years of concerted, focused, unrelenting organizing. This fact is generally not known or discussed, having been overshadowed by Columbia SDS' aggressive militancy, demonstrated in the building takeovers begun on April 23, and by the subsequent role of Columbia in generating numerous other campus uprisings and Weatherman itself. From the outside, and from this distance in time, it may appear that the uprising was spontaneous, but the reality is otherwise.

http://www.markrudd.com/?organizing-and-activism-now/1968-organizing-vs-activism.html

The politics of self-expression, which now dominates the thinking of liberals and progressives:

In our context, within the United States, adherence to the foco theory was even more stupid: there was no basis whatsoever for Americans to understand revolutionary violence other than as crazy or criminal, a point I've made elsewhere. Moreover, the Weatherman experience, from the summer of 1969 on through to the end of that year, actually deorganized our base, attracting fewer and fewer to join our violent confrontations with the police, our kabuki expressing our determination to build a "white fighting force" to aid the people of the world. I kick myself for not having seen the obvious, that the Weather Underground, no matter how brave, was doomed to defeat and isolation. This was the strategy for which we destroyed SDS. Funny how, unintentionally, you can wind up doing the work of your enemies for them. The FBI should have put us on the payroll.

Weatherman, and the Weather Underground, was the strategy of the Action Faction writ large. In the years since, I've learned that bold action only works in a few rare contexts, such as at Columbia in April, 1968. Without that context, supplied by both history and base-building organizing, bold action is merely self-expression. Weatherman and the Weather Underground were purely existential politics—look at us, this is what we believe—which doesn’t even buy you a cup of coffee.

We thought that people would see our seriousness, our militancy, and because of that, join us. We had no need anymore for careful base-building, education, engagement. Fighting greasers on a beach in Detroit or a street corner in Milwaukee, or running through a high school in Pittsburgh or Chicago was by some strange sort of alchemy supposed to induce the hypothetical revolutionary youth to join our revolution. Handing some kid a leaflet with the words, "There's a war going on in the world. Which side are you on? Come to Chicago Oct. 8!" was somehow going to build a white fighting force. Where were our heads?

http://www.markrudd.com/?organizing-and-activism-now/1968-organizing-vs-activism.html

Rudd is not the final word on this of course, but what he says is a good starting point for understanding where we are and how we got here, seeing the approach we have been taking and being able to imagine a different approach. We need to move away from the politics of self-expression and back to the time-tested methods of organizing, and we can then look to history for specific examples of solutions we can use as models.

[KonaKane]

250. That was awesome, and I agree with most of it. Rudd has it spot on.

I especially liked the part where he gets into the difference between activism and organizing. I have spent alot of my years doing both, and I can definitely vouch for the fact that organizing is much harder, more demanding and more of a gamble. Being an activist gives one the excuse to do something small, or to their liking which might not particularly be that helpful, and then sit down and say "there, I've done my part" and go do something else as if the problem is solved. If I pushed the envelope on that I could almost say that activism is the lazy man's organization.

Also what he said about the anti-war movement in 2003 exactly describes my exaspiration with it. No wait, mine started back in the Gulf War, where a quarter million people jammed San Francisco in 1991 to stop Bush the first from unleashing Desert Storm, and not only was it fruitless; the police with the complicity of the press intentionally shrank the numbers of participants by a good ten times. We were attacked not only by a rogue government, but by our own media who was supposed to be a vanguard for people being told the truth. In 1991, and moreso in 2003, millions of people poured out into the streets to stop those wars and neither actions came close to doint it.

So yes, I do not have confidence in the protest movement anymore. I was an organizer until late 2003. What is the next great form of resistance and political change? I wish I knew. Its not the internet, that's just a tool. It's going to have to come from people.

I'm always open to suggestions.

[William Z. Foster]

76. looking at the big picture

"Have we generally stemmed the tide of the worst atrocities?" No.

There is no "large movement" that could be fragmented. There are a small number of people leading us all reluctantly by the nose.

The question is this: were those atrocities caused by the Democrats going "far left" or by the party tacking right to be "practical" and realistic?" There should not even be a debate about that. Let's advocate for the same things that people did during the 30's - do you really think that would be worse than what we are getting by advocating moderation, compromise and accommodation? I cannot see how there is even any basis for a debate about this.

Why don't we all hang together by you coming over to us? Why must we come over to you? That is what we have been doing, and it has not worked for any of us. However, when we stood strong and in opposition to compromise with the right wing, as in the 30's, then there was a biog tent, then there was a large movement, then the party had huge majorities, and them suddenly left wing programs were no longer "impractical" and "realistic." If you really want the Democrats to win, to stop the Republicans, and to get left wing programs in place, why will you not even consider going back to what did work in the past and abandoning what has so obviously failed?

[socialist_n_TN]

78. YES! The history of left wing politics

showed it's biggest gains in the 30s and, shortly after that, we had the FDR style reforms. Those same reforms that are under the knife by the right wing now. But those reforms DIDN'T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. Without the advocacy of a REAL left wing position to pull the debate LEFT, the moderate reforms that FDR instituted WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.

In every poll, every time, REAL left wing positions are popular BECAUSE THEY MAKE SENSE.

[William Z. Foster]

82. exactly

"Without the advocacy of a REAL left wing position to pull the debate LEFT, the moderate reforms that FDR instituted WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED."

Of course. Well said.

It is the advocacy of left wing positions that people here are objecting to, not the practicality of implementing left wing programs or any of the other excuses they are using for keeping everything in a continual uproar.

No one would be objecting to the advocacy of left wing positions unless they actually wanted the party to move to the right. There is no other reason for doing that.

[KonaKane]

217. Hey, I'm with you for most of that.

But this isn't 1930 anymore. A lot has changed, a lot of history has happened that modify that entire paradigm. I would disagree with you that some of the worst has not been stemmed. I believe it has. My biggest issue, that of military interventionist foreign policy, has been taken way back from where it was. While Obama certainly hasn't given me the cake I wanted (immediate withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan) he has certainly moved in the right direction (an on schedule time table of withdrawal at least in Iraq) and most importantly he is not the sort who will be embarking on new, stupid wars as Bush did. Sometimes one must regard stopping newer atrocities, a victory.

The worst thing we could do is kill us internally with a thousand paper cuts, over microissues while the opposition swoops in once again and takes advantage of that to be in power. I am confident that you don't want that, and I doubt any sincere person here would want that. Let's not do my side/your side. Let's remember that we are on the same side, and the prime directive of that one is to keep the authoritarian right out of power.

[William Z. Foster]

229. good points

I think you are asking the questions that we need to ask.

The paradigm has not changed since the 30's for the wealthiest 1% of the population, by the way. Of course they tell us that the paradigm has changed, so we can therefore do nothing and should pay no attention to history. Wonder why they would want to tell us that?

I would ask that you consider what I have to say about your two points there. The first point sounds like being happy with whatever crumbs fall from the table, thinking that this is the best we can do and that of we do not rally around the politicians tossing us the crumbs we will lose even the crumbs.

The second point is that if we disagree with each other, over what you say are micro-issues, that this weakens us and the extreme right wing swoops in. Are we sure that is true?

[Zhade]

240. Tell that to the innocents getting killed in Pakistan.

The illegal cross-border bombings are a de facto act of war. We're just lucky Pakistan hasn't opted to retaliate.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[tomp]

153. it's obvious you're not as left as you think. and you missed the op's point entirely.

the point is: the left is NEVER represented in the outcomes of laws or policies. if you were as left as you purport yourself to be, you would have gotten it.

instead you resort to the disgusting "i didn't get my pony" argument. part of the problem is that the farther to the right the govt moves the more left-sounding some positions SEEM. yours is not a leftist position in any sense.

[William Z. Foster]

216. politicians are always to the right

It comes with the territory. The political right represents those with power, the left represents those without. Politicians are in power or seeking power, so of course they will always be biased to the interests of the powerful. When people insist that we keep all thinking and talking within the bounds of partisan politics - picking and aligning with different politicians - they are trying to force us into alignment with the powerful. That precludes there being any left wing, of course, and that is their goal.

All of the "practical" and "realistic" and "working within the system" arguments, all of the demands for "practical solutions" and "concrete plans" are delivering the same message: "they have the power, we don't, that is the way things are and we may as well accept that." That is a call for surrender, not a "rational adult assessment of reality" as they like to present it.

Yes, indeed, leftists are talking about things that are not now happening and rejecting the things that are happening. That is the whole point of being involved in politics at all. When people reject ideas because they aren't happening, and defend ideas because they are - and that is what the "here are your choices" arguments are saying - they are not only trying to suppress the left, they are trying to undermine and discourage any broader involvement and participation in politics. There is no political stance more conservative than that one.

And of course it is a STFU. When people respond to any and all calls for new approaches, any and all left wing thinking, with "it is not practical" and the like, they are of course saying "so therefore we should not consider or discuss those things." Of course that is an attempt at silencing the left. Pretty obviously so.

[KonaKane]

219. Oh, I got it just fine. I just don't believe in self sabotage.

Which is what we traditionally do more often than the right does. It is true that the real left is never represented in election outcomes. But some are more friendly to us than others, and we have to take advantage of that. You are not going to turn the American populace leftist overnight. You arent going to do it in the next century. You can, however, realize that in majority they are fairly liberal, and can take build on that push things closer to our desired world view.

Black and white thinking, all or nothing, is simply unrealistic.

[tomp]

242. no, you didn't get it. you only think you got it.

you essentially just repeated what you said above that i responded to, wherein i demonstrated your "pony" argument. you are still basically telling leftists to stfu and go along with the centrist dems because it's impractical or even impossible to do otherwise. we leftists should just lay down for obama and rahm and the powers they serve until it's "practical". or at best, just "incrementalize" freedom and justice in the u.s.and the world. no real leftist would say that.

not that there's anything wrong with strategy, but no leftist would ever let up on the powers that be, not for a moment. your 'black and white thinking" argument is just a straw man. any compromise would be strategic with distinct advantages of improving the material conditions of the working classes while using the situation to openly educate the masses as to the nature of the compromises and the exact costs, to further expose the democrats' complicity in their plight.

in addition, you are blaming the evils of our present situation on right wing rule, but any real leftist knows that the democratic party is as responsible for these evils as much as the repubs, exactly due to the kind of compromises and "real"-politik you speak of. the dems and the repubs wash each others' hands. every leftist knows this.

again, it is blatantly obvious to a real leftist, how un-leftist you are. who is this "we" you are speaking of doing this purported "self"-sabotage? you're not on the same team as me.

to summarize: i simply will not let you pass yourself off as "about as leftist as they come."


p.s: i never said election outcomes, i said law and policy outcomes.

[fascisthunter]

249. "liberal" very well explained

[KonaKane]

253. Nobody died and left you commissar of true leftism, Sir.

So we can dispense with the phoney airs.

Just because you and I have a different idea of Left and how to best pursue it, does not mean that either one of us is lesser for it. I have personally never met a leftist before such as yourself, who is so willing to blow off the a big goal for a bunch of hot air on an internet forum. That is not only impractical, that is downright silly.

So step back and consider your words and your judgements. At the end of the day, none of us will get our cake. If we play our cards right, though, we can get a good semblence of what we wanted to see - which is hopefully a damn sight better than where we were at our worst. Its called compromise, and it's other name is....politics.

[TBF]

35. This leftist wants the whole thing brought down.

Capitalism does not work for most of us - it enslaves us to the very few at the top. The band-aids (compromises, safety nets, etc...) don't work either (as we've so painfully experienced watching the gulf these past few weeks).

It's time to try something new.

[mikita]

43. agreed n/t

[tomp]

154. now that's a leftist!!! people who only think you are leftists, take note. nt

[KonaKane]

222. Destruction with no solution is "leftism"? Not where I come from.

Sorry to see you think it is.

[TBF]

230. The solution is to tear down the capitalism.

Sorry if I was unclear.

[KonaKane]

254. OK, and then what?

You have a technocracy with 350 million people in complex sub-economies. What do you put in capitalism's place and how do you do it?

[PSzymeczek]

233. Return the top marginal rate

for income (from any source) in excess of $5 million to 90%. Invoke a Dracula clause for corporations that offshore their incorporations.

[Curmudgeoness]

37. I don't believe the polls. The problem was how single payer

was presented. People are not opposed to single payer IF it is Medicare (ask any of those teabaggers). People just did not understand what it was supposed to be about, and no one was getting intellegent information out to the "masses". All they got to hear was the talking heads from the extreme right. I agree that the left is left out of any discussion at this time.

[Bonobo]

38. Clinton, being defined as a liberal, meant I was metaphorically pushed off the political map.

There has been no place for me in America since Clinton got Southern Centrist Corporatist redefined as liberal.

[JNelson6563]

39. We need to find more Reps who don't come off as a bit crazy

Sorry, I know Kucinich has a lot of fans here, and I like him too, but some of the off the wall stuff he comes up with tends to undermine his credibility.

Maybe we could take over some districts, totally dominate the voting population and get some serious liberals elected that way.

Julie

[Grinchie]

98. Coming from someone that recentalled me a "Barbiturate Lefty" I have no confidence in your opinion.

Oh, you didn't expect me to see your post and catch you in the act of degrading one of the only Politician's in Congress that is not afraid to speak his mind?

If you heard what some of my analyst friends say, you'd say the same thing about them. Unfortunately, they all can't be "Off the Wall" at the same time, and by separate thought processes.

Feel free to "Take over some districts" and "Totally Dominate the voting population". Good luck with that..

In the meantime, I'll get my ducks in a row and keep watching the news...

Welcome to DU. Julie.

[JNelson6563]

245. Thanks for the welcome, old timer!

Yes, I see you've been here many years, and I, being such a noob, can only give thanks that you are following me around to "catch" me voicing my opinion.

Here's a clue friend, DU admins don't take kindly to stalking so you may want to be a bit more subtle.

Cheers,
Julie--who's so scared now getting "caught" voicing an opinion maybe she'll just lower her voice and put some pearls on

[Bluenorthwest]

128. 100% free of fact, built of slander and characterization

Democratic Underground posters are supposed to support Democratic candidates. Kucincich has supporters here, not fans, because this place crawls with Democrats. Think about it. You paint pictures of 'crazy stuff' but you do not share what you think those things are. Opposing Iraq war? Was that 'crazy stuff'?

This is an election season, and Dennis Kucinich is the Democratic candidate as well as incumbent in his district. The other choice is the Republican. Which choice would you make, which choice do you suggest voters make in Ohio?

[JNelson6563]

244. Turn down the hysteria

My but you read an awful lot into my words!

I hope Kucinich wins his race, of course! And yeah, there are supporters (I'm one) and then there are fans (many pols have 'em) who view him as pretty darn near perfect.

On the "crazy" stuff, yeah, I so clearly recall watching him during a primary "debate" and there were points where he truly came off as a crazy idealist--and not necessarily due to what he was saying but how he said it. Not being against the war, I too am against the war, as are so very many of those I have long worked with in politics. But hey, if you want to inject to non-fact that I take issue with anti-war Dems, go right ahead, it fits with the rest of your projection and fact-free post.

Julie

[William Z. Foster]

232. liberals will never win some districts

Left wing candidates can win almost all districts, however.

The problem is that so many modern liberals and progressives see left versus right as enlightened and stylish versus crude and buffoonish. We see that expressed here daily. That then adds an element to politics that is cultural rather than political, which leads to rural people being resistant to the Democratic party, and urban people being disaffected and not voting at all. It also leads liberalism to often be on the wrong side of the class struggle.

[JNelson6563]

243. Excellent points.

Well said.

[JI7]

46. Why didn't your state vote for Liberal Senators ?

you don't seem to understand how government works.

[socialist_n_TN]

55. I guess not. Why don't you enlighten me?

Wait. I think I've got it. No matter WHAT I actually believe, just STFU and be a good little soldier. Don't even LOBBY for my positions. Yeah, THAT'S the way to change people's minds. Keep it all in my head, THEN they'll see the light.

[JI7]

57. whatever the fuck you are doing sure is working in Tennessee isn't it ? Corker and Alexander

hhahahha

you don't know that Senators vote on health care bills ?

[socialist_n_TN]

60. You don't make a lot of sense

Why was the left position left out of even the DISCUSSION of health care? That's all I was asking.

[JI7]

48. Your Representation is Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker

you can talk all you want but you come from a right wing state and you should try convincing people there first if you want change.

[socialist_n_TN]

51. What do you think I HAVE been doing?

So just because I have crappy representation from my state, I shouldn't have or state any opinions on national matters? Yeah, that makes sense.

[sandnsea]

65. We need you to change Tennessee

It's the people in states like yours who are holding it up for everybody else. Start there. We sure can't come into the south and tell anybody anything, that would never work.

[socialist_n_TN]

68. Once again, you're saying that I can't have

positions on national issues because most of the people in Tennessee are idiots. As far as changing Tennessee, I do what I can and will continue to do so. But I'm not going to shut up just because I've got crappy representation.

[sandnsea]

72. You're talking to the wrong people

You can talk about single payer on this board for the next ten years. It will do no good.

All we're pointing out is that the stupidest part of it is YOU are in a state where your voice actually matters, where it is desperately needed. Why are you arguing with people on a message board who would mostly be just fine with single payer, when we aren't the ones who need convincing.

[William Z. Foster]

87. you have no right

You have no right to condescendingly lecture leftists living in rural areas and states.

I am sorry - actually I am not - that Tennessee stands in the way of you realizing your version of liberal utopia, gentrified and aristocratic.

The contempt and arrogance you express is one of the main reasons that rural people reject the entire left. They cannot get past the arrogance to hear the message - I barely can tolerate it. It is highly destructive and YOU are making our job a lot harder. Then you lecture us. And you are the one always arguing for moving to the right! Shameful.

There are no stronger leftists anywhere in the country, no one who has fought harder and longer than our brothers and sisters in the South. How dare you.

Howard Dean knows better than you do ion this. His first day in office he flew to Mississippi and took the fight there. And we have made tremendous gains in rural areas everywhere. Now, the people there were not looking for your brand of "practical" and "realistic" liberalism when they voted Democratic in the last two elections, were not looking for excuses for bailing out Wall Street and for going slow on social policy and playing it cagey. They are looking for real help. So long as people like you are arguing against getting real help to the people, rural people will not and should not support the party. Why should they? To help the upscale "liberal" owners and bosses and investors from the "beautiful" areas of the country?

Have you ever heard the phrase "say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?" Stop trying to sell us on "new boss" and then telling us we should go out in the country and try to promote that morally bankrupt and politically fatal crap. Go preach that stuff in Seattle and stay out of the rural areas where you will do us far more harm than good.

[sandnsea]

97. That's a riot

The OP wants to preach all about that lovely "upscale liberalsim" and yet you yell at me. Too funny.

If you can get your rural area to support single payer and everything else that you think would help rural people -- well then for chrissake GO DO IT.

As soon as the rural areas want things like single payer and a guaranteed living wage and a post-high school education; then we'll all be on the same page.

If those things are too high-falutin' for your rural areas, then you need to yell at the OP because the OP is the one who insists an all or nothing left wing agenda. And if you're going to say that's what the rural south wants - then what's the hold up and why did they just vote for Blanche Lincoln again.

[socialist_n_TN]

149. My God! There you go again (to coin a phrase)

Telling me that I INSIST on an all or nothing left wing agenda. That's such a self serving BULLSHIT misrepresentation of my position.

What I SAID was that I wanted REPRESENTATION for REAL left wing positions on policy issues. Remember, I've been a fucking pragmatist for nearly 40 years BECAUSE I live (and always HAVE lived) in a red state. I UNDERSTAND incremental progress. But we don't get even incremental progress IF WE DON'T HAVE AN ADVOCACY FOR LEFT WING POSITIONS WHEN THE REAL DECISIONS ARE MADE.

And I fucking HATE "upscale liberalism". I ain't no fucking tea sipper. I was a Boilermaker Union Shop Steward when I was a kid and worked in steel construction AND a member of the board of another industrial steel worker's union. Just because I have been a pragmatist in the past doesn't mean that I'm "liberal". Politically, I'm a militant anti capitalist, and yes, a socialist. If I had MY way these leftist position would be MUCH farther to the left than the positions that I want some advocacy for. The positions I'm wanting advocacy for are the Euro style Democratic Socialist reforms. To me, THAT'S a start. Give me that advocacy, EVEN IF IT LOSES, and I'll be OK for a while.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

103. "They are a bigger threat to working class aspirations and the future of the party"

:rofl:

[Ardent15]

132. Why the laughter?

Have a reason for disagreeing?

[hunter]

135. NPR Lake Wobegon liberals, listening eagerly for the market reports...

They drive nice cars, own their own homes, and have excellent health insurance too.

What do we do when they write checks?

:shrug:

[socialist_n_TN]

188. Take the checks............

the petit bourgiouse (sp?) have a part to play in the class struggle and it's usually donating money.

[Individualist]

52. So Democrats in red states should sit down and shut up?

Bullshit!

[JI7]

56. i said "you can talk all you want" , that's not saying shut up,

but if you really want change look at your fucking senators and other state officials. TEnnessee mostly elects wingnuts.

we don't have a fucking dictator. learn how govt works. it matters where the senators are when it comes to getting things done.

[Individualist]

59. "learn how govt works" - Your condescension is noted and disregarded.

Learn about the reaction of hard core reich wingers to reason.

[JI7]

61. i already know it which is why i know it's hard to get things done

when you got people like Corker in the Senate.

maybe the OP and others hsould learn that also. whatever the fuck they are doing hasn't worked for their state,.

[William Z. Foster]

88. yes

Apparently we are to go out in our rural areas and try to covert people into becoming Seattle liberals and then sell them on some sort of gentrified pro-Wall Street "realistic" and "practical" centrist nonsense.

[BzaDem]

104. Yeah, the reason Tennessee doesn't vote for liberals is because the party isn't liberal enough

and if the party just said "nothing but single payer" then everything would change.

Uh huh.

[Ardent15]

133. There's a difference between liberal and leftist

Ever heard of the Tennessee Valley Authority?

[William Z. Foster]

205. correct

Working class people do not vote for Democrats to the degree that they perceive them as "new boss, same as the old boss," and unfortunately the face of liberalism that people see has more to do with gentrified arrogance then it does with any left wing politics. On the other hand, stand fast for the working class people - universal health care, for example - and Tennessee will vote Democratic. Absolutely.

[Bluenorthwest]

131. What is your State and district?

I see your profile does not share that. So, tell us.

[JI7]

241. it's all Blue California, and i blame California voters for shit like Arnold

and other crap that they support.

why blame the southern conservatives on those on the east and west coasts ?

[ProSense]

54. As opposed to the threads

complaining about the left being victimized?

This is a discussion board, but somehow everyone is supposed to declare agreement with all or nothing?

If that's not what you're arguing, where is the point everyone should agree to compromise?

Seems there are plenty of progressives who know that killing bills isn't the way to effect change.

Principle doesn't mean taking your ball and going home.

This is why Bernie Sanders can find merit in the health care bill.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

105. Prosense makes a lot more sense than you do

so you should probably take your years of "translation" experience and devote them to something you're better at.

[Grinchie]

109. I see you drink from the same well.. Drink deep!

Feel free and listen to his nonsense all you want. It doesn't bother me a bit.

[Bluenorthwest]

134. On your anti Kucinich/DeFazio thread yesterday

about a year old vote, I asked you many time if you do or do not support those two Democratic candidates, or if you instead are suggesting that votes go with the Republican candidate. The denigration of Democratic candidates in the time between primary and general is not what I call supporting Democratic candidates. One of whom is my elected Rep. Who is up for re-election.
I asked you many times to state your position, but you refused to do so. You also refused to share the district you live in. On this thread, there are others who are bashing liberal Democrats, elected and voters, and they also keep their district secret, while gleefully going after other posters on the basis of their geography. Not what I call honest brokering.
Won't even declare support for Democratic Congressional candidates during the general election cycle? Why not?
Here we have two choices, I'm supporting Peter DeFazio, the Democrat. How about you, Pro?

[Bluenorthwest]

140. Do you or do you not support the Democratic candidacies of

Kucinich and DeFazio? Or do you in fact advocate for their opposition? This is a clear question, and you have been asked it many times, and I will continue to ask it.
DeFazio is my Rep, and here, Democrats, a group you might have heard of, are working to elect him yet again. Those who work against his election, we call Republicans. Or 'moderate centrists' as they like to be known, post Cheney.

[Marr]

73. If the Obama Administration has shown us anything, it's that

there is no "left" in American government. Our government-- regardless of which party is in power-- writes law to service big business.

[scarletwoman]

91. Well said. It's been made starkly clear. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

130. +1

:thumbsup:

[scentopine]

100. No one has to vote for people they don't like - if you don't like the centrist policies

don't vote for them. Centrists offer nothing but smug put downs as they defend their march to the right- they work hard to make the left look like they are on the radical fringe.

Just look at their insults against liberals on this board. Centrist and right wing cheerleaders on this board work overtime to moderate and censor dissent from liberals.

We are demanding justice for torture, for wall street criminals, for war spilling the blood of millions, for a poisoned insurance bill that rewards giant corporations, and does nothing to keep costs in control. And the centrists are fighting hard for off-shore oil drilling and banking reform that does nothing to reign in too big to fail. Centrists offer nothing but free market fantasies of a Utopian world where we depend on the kindness of Fortune 500 (centrists take great comfort in the necessary order and limited freedom afforded by corporate culture).

The stimulus and bailouts were a centrist's trickle down wet dream. Watch their handy work as we are now entering a double dip recession.

You don't have to vote for the right wing of either party. Politics is give and take. The centrists have taken your trust and they abuse it every day (behaving like spoiled entitled children). If you don't like the neo-con/neo-lib hybrid at the heart of the modern centrist, don't support them.

As long as you keep sending money to the centrists of either party, they will keep spending it on themselves. Centrists do not give a damn about republican or democrat or public trust. They follow the money and it leads to Fortune 500.

Sure, you can find something good about the centrists - they might have nice families, for instance. Put the good and bad on a scale - war, torture, wire tapping, wall street bailouts, out sourcing, off shore drilling, Salazar and MMS, Geithner, Bernanke, Summers, the hits just keep on coming.

The centrists in both parties are working to capture your cash and keep you in a low wage job. Geithner recently assured India that he'd make sure India's outsourcingg sector would continue to enjoy American support.

We can stop this, by refusing to work for centrists and refusing to vote for centrists.

Progressives and liberals need to form a new political and stop wasting energy fighting the centrist monopoly. We will be far more effective fighting from the outside. Either way we will continue to remain unrepresented in this country and we are hated by both parties for our "ideals and principals".

The centrists offer a country in perpetual war against terror, drugs, teachers, and public service.

Centrists believe a private government run by corporations does a much better job than a public government run by its citizens.

Centrists are doing nothing to stop the massive on-going transfer of wealth from the many to the few in power.

Centrists are only making things worse. We all see this now. That's why they are stepping up their campaign against liberals on DU. They have taken the White House and the Congress and compromise is something centrists do with Republicans while calling liberals "retarded".

Jesus, how much more of this shit are people going to take?

Nevermind. I already know. That's why republicans in both parties are winning. Too many liberals are in an abusive relationship with the two party system. Like a batttered spouse they just can't walk away.

Centrists have offered us nothing. And they still take and take. Centrists aren't worried about losing elections, nor are they worried about making things better in America. They are worried about losing a job with great pay and benefits and corporate connections. They are worried that they'll be thrown into a jobless recovery. We don't have to vote for people who do not like us. We do not have to vote for people who refuse to represent us. We do not have to vote for people who work against us using their corporate sponsorship against us.

We do not have to vote for centrists. Fuck em.

[LooseWilly]

106. Cheers...

:toast:

[BzaDem]

107. Why do you think you can change the two-party system? What makes you think you can even touch it?

You keep saying that "Too many liberals are in an abusive relationship with the two party system."

What makes you think that ANYTHING you do is going to change the two-party sytem? Why do you think that leaving "the relationship" would affect the two party system AT ALL?

You certainly don't have to vote for "centrists" or anyone on the ballot not progressive enough to your liking. That will of course help the Republican and make the country more right (and eventually the "center" more right), but you have the power to make that happen. No one is saying otherwise.

But the idea that you have the power to make a viable third party is fantasy. The Constitution (by winner take all elections and the electoral college) fixes the number of parties at two. The end. If you want to change that, then change the Constitution.

Until then, you can pretend you are somehow defeating the two party system by doing x or y or z, but in reality you are ALWAYS working within it (whether you want to or not). Voting for the Democrat is working within it. Not voting at all (by helping the Republican) is working within it. Voting for a third party (by helping the Republican) is working within it. The idea that there is somehow something you can do to change that (other than a grassroots movement to change the Constitution) is pure, fanciful nonsense.

Politics in this country is ENTIRELY zero-sum between the two parties, regardless of how much power some people think they have to make it otherwise.

[depakid]

113. Doesn't have to be that way- 1992 is a good example of whn it might not have been

and in the years of American decline ahead- serious decline, I have considerable doubt as to whether either of the two major parties will be in power in 2020's.

[BzaDem]

120. 1992 is a perfect example. Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes.

Thanks for making my point. In a system that requires an absolute majority of electoral votes all calculated through 50 different winner-take-all elections, a third party is not going to win or come close. (It is quite doubtful that a third party would win a single state, let alone states that add up to 270.)

And on top of that, even in the impossible event that a third party gets a plurality of the electoral votes (but not a majority), the election would go to the House, where that candidate would need the support of 26 Congressional delegations (with each delegation having one vote).

[depakid]

138. He blew his campaign- so there's no way to draw a valid conclusion about that

Had he not withdrawn and thrown a fit- the situation could have been far different. Nevertheless- it's become clear to most people who are honest with themselves that what's going on at present with both parties isn't working (in the sense that it's not solving the nation's problems).

That's not a sustainable situation- and eventually it will come to a head. Perhaps sooner than we think.

[BzaDem]

141. Well

I could cite polls that paint a different picture, but that would be evidence against your theory, which to you by definition must be wrong. So I'll just let it rest.

[depakid]

144. I could cite polls too at various points of campaigns- and lo and behold, the outcome

was VERY different than what was indicated.

Your nation is just going to have to decline to the point where enough will be enough. Might have been there in 2009- had the Obama administration and the corrupt and complicit Democratic "leadership" in the Senate chosen a different course. But alas, that wasn't to be this time around. You failed to learn the lessons- and so will have to repeat the process.

[BzaDem]

150. I have a feeling that most people have a VERY different idea of the terms "decline" and "lessons"

than you do.

Many would likely consider what you call a "decline" as an "advance" (or possibly neither). Many might also learn very different "lessons" than you. In fact, some might even take your "lessons" and tell you where to shove them.

I might agree with you in many instances. But I am able to analyze my personal views as separate and distinct from the views of others in this country (while you are not even able to admit that there might actually be such a difference between your views and the views of most others).

[depakid]

155. It's pretty objective, really- look at the economic trends

and other data.

Public health indicators for example. The number and percentage of people on food stamps. The raw numbers and per capita rates of incarceration. Education spending- and scores. The list is long- and all point to decline.

Decline which your shallow vision of the political process is responsible for. Right there alongside your corporate right allies.

[BzaDem]

163. Yeah. Economic trends are REALLY positive in the rest of the world.

:rofl:

As for your other indicators (such as incarceration rates, eduction spending, and scores), what makes you think most people give a shit? Many people in this country would be fine with higher incarceration rates, would like lower education spending, and don't care so much about scores (with the exception of their own children).

Of course, I would agree with you on all three. But I accept the fact that others can disagree with me. It seems physically impossible for you to separate your own views of what "decline" is from that of others in this country. You aren't even open to the possibility that other people would completely disagree with you on every aspect of your worldview.

[depakid]

171. They are where I live- though I don't brag about it

Perhaps I should.

Healthy federal budget and growth rate. No recession happened here- because we did out stimulus right.

A 5.4% nationwide unemployment rate (which is high for us). 4 weeks vacation required (often more) plus holidays. A truly robust public option. Clean elections and accountability for corruption in government. Relatively few homeless- and effective continually coming on line programs to deal with.

Well paid teachers and police- a world class education system which never goes unfunded- and where firing teachers or cops like you do would be anathema.

No fundamentalists engaging in wars on science (because, unlike you, this nation mocks them- and didn't give them credibility to take over government positions- or the government as a whole.

A media that doesn't spread hatred and outright falsehoods 24/7 -but :gasp: actually has informative news and analysis of the issues of the day.

Expanded public transit and alternative fuel infrastructure in the cities and across the nation

But you're maybe you're right- as you've tipped your hand. You likely side with those who don't aspire to those things and are content to decline inexorably toward third world socioeconimic status. So long as someone with a "D" behind their name- and on your t-shirt controls the spoils.

[BzaDem]

175. You continuously prove my point.

Your definition of "decline" is (unfortunately) COMPLETELY at odds with the views of many people in this country.

There is a large portion of the country that can calculate their ideological position to be the exact OPPOSITE of yours on EVERY issue. Many have NO PROBLEM firing government employees if it means lower taxes. Many ARE fundamentalists that LOVE engaging in wars on science. (They live off of it.) Faux "News" gets THREE TIMES the viewership of CNN or MSNBC, and no one is forcing them to watch it. Many do not want programs to help those that are less fortunate. Many would MUCH rather have lower educational spending in exchange for lower property taxes (and fewer social services programs in exchange for fewer general taxes).

Of course, many (like me) would agree with you in your goals. But the critical point is that many do NOT. You just assume as objective fact that your goals are the goals of everyone, and that once enough "decline" sets in then we will reverse course. Unfortunately, many people would RECOIL from your definition of success, not embrace it.

[depakid]

182. If your point is America's in decline on nearly every objective measure- and that's desireable

then you're right- I'm proving it.

Think the trends are bad now- wait until petrol rises to $5, $7 an $10 per gallon. Or more.

But you see- here's where the dishonesty comes into play again. MOST people don't want that -and in fact- as I have shown you countless times before, hold progressive positions of the issues- often times (as with the Public option- by substantial or overwhelming margins.

The data's set out here (again): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8311732&mesg_id=8312675

What people need to achieve those goals is leadership and responsible government. If Democrats prove themselves unwilling or incapable to provide it- they'll turn to another party- and eventually- perhaps sooner than you think- a third party.

Who knows, maybe even Bloomberg next go around.

[mvymvy]

255. The National Popular Vote bill

By 2012 the National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[scentopine]

183. couldn't disagree more...

LOL! No one has to vote for things that are fundamentally wrong. There is no natural polarity as you imply. This isn't left balancing right. This is the extreme right wing controlling the policy debate via control of the media and the democrats happy to slip stream behind them. There are plenty of right wing democrats in office who represent the core of the 1980s neo-con. Single payer? Off the table. Wall Street reform? Off the table. Treasury reform? Off the table. Ending the wars? Off the table. Taxes on the rich? Off the table. Ending outsourcing? Off the table. Ban on Arctic drilling and off-shore drilling?> Off the table. And there's plenty more where that came from. You are right - its a zero sum game - right wingers and the rich get all the representation - the non-rich get zero.

The constitution does not prohibit third party representation and does not make it illegal to vote outside the mainstream. As a 30 year democrat whose never voted anything other than straight ticket, it ends with this poisonous administration. I used to laugh at 3rd party votes. No more. I get it. I was a big jerk for not understanding that they were right and I was wrong. I was very wrong.

If you are voting for the centrists it is because you agree with them and want to help them continue their race to the right.

"Politics" is about representation. We send you cash and votes, you get a cushy job with benefits and cash most of us will never enjoy in our lifetime. In return, we demand representation. If you don't represent us, if you don't like us, if you hate us and mock us, call os "those on the left" in a false equivalence with "those on the right" we won't vote for you. It's that simple.

If you are happy with the centrists and they represent you, go ahead and vote mainstream. I won't argue with your right to vote for the same.

Anyone who really believes in freedom and democracy would never attack people for using their power to vote for AND against the very thing working to destroy them. But these are new times with new democrats. Centrists are telling us things are great with Obama. I couldn't disagree more. Its a hell hole of corporate and republican appeasement, a massive transfer of wealth in taxes and jobs to the richest people in the country, and the largest environmental disaster ever. Its one centrist catastrophe after another. And they are doubling down on war.

What is hilarious is all the republicans Obama and the centrists are accommodating and representing in the democratic party will bolt back to the republican party as soon as a charismatic republican candidate surfaces who isn't a mental case. And Obama will have wasted millions of dollars representing and supporting the right wing for nothing. He'll be left standing at the altar with his OFA bride's maids, tears streaming down their cheeks never having had a chance to grab for the bouquet.

I'm not trying to defeat the two party system. And likewise, you haven't won anything if you don't get representation. I am no longer represented by centrist democrats. I don't think we should be spending more on war, more on Wall Street bailouts, I don't agree with rendition, I think torture photos should be release, I believe that wall street banks should be broken up, I believe in campaign reform, etc. These are not things the centrists fight for. In fact right now Summers, Geithner, Bernanke and Obama are fighting AGAINST wall street reform and FOR off-shore oil drilling.

So why should I vote for and send cash to centrists? Wages continue to stagnate, jobs continue to hemorrhage overseas, war continues to cripple us, and the environment is more polluted than ever. Centrists are only too happy to take credit for this and they call it change. Helping them continue this is utter insanity!

[William Z. Foster]

234. it has been changed often

The "two party system" is an affect and not a cause of the political dynamics, and it has changed quite often. Socialists garnering 6% of the vote or so in 30's was sufficient to push the Democrats to the left, for example. The Bull Moose movement caused the Republican party to shift to the right, which led to the Democratic party filling the subsequent vacuum and becoming the left wing party. Before that we had the Jefferson and Jackson shifts, we had the demise of the Whig party and the rise of a third party - the Republicans. More recently we had third party movements in 1948 and 1968 that caused dramatic shifts in the positions of the other two parties.

You keep speaking as though elections drive politics, when the opposite is true - politics drive elections. Elections are a cause not an affect.

The obsession with voting is distracting people, preventing them from thinking clearly and from taking effective political action.

[howard112211]

110. Centrists are what make candidates like Sarah Palin possible.

If there weren't any people willing to "meet half way" with people like Rush Limbaugh, we wouldn't have all these far right clowns pop up on the national stage.

[scentopine]

185. excellent point -nt

[William Z. Foster]

235. yes

As the Democratic party moves farther and farther to the right, the Republicans keep moving farther yet to the right in order to differentiate themselves from the Democrats.

[CanSocDem]

136. Nailed it.

Well said.

.

[Individualist]

165. Hear, hear!

:applause:

[PSzymeczek]

236. We're given nothing else.

And I refuse to stay home.

[scentopine]

247. take a look at write in - we aren't employees of the party

we can write in a candidate that lost a primary. I don't advocate staying home but do advocate not voting for centrists just because they can "win".

The fact is, not having alternatives is exactly what keeps people from the polls. Staying home tells the assholes in washington that they can do whatever they want because we don't matter because we can't be counted.

On the other hand, survey after survey has shown that people vote for who they think can win, not who they think will best represent them. So because people have so little control in their lives voting for a "winner" makes them feel like they are participating. Sort of like voting in a corrupt and unregulated third world country run by a dictator.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

102. K&R

[mmonk]

111. There is no left. If we want one, it is up to us to make it happen.

[defendandprotect]

199. America is a liberal nation . . . that's why the right has to shut down so much

information -- and create so many fake right organizations --

from Christian Coalition to Dobson's group and Bauer's --

just wrote something on that yesterday . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8590491&mesg_id=8595894


And that is what Chomsky has frequently said -- evidently the elites have to

poll reguarly to see what's actually going on in order to combat it!

Chomsky says that they'll regularly get responses to questions about "illegal

aliens" like . . . "Much of this land used to be theirs!"

[TBF]

231. You're right - there are way too few of us.

Liberal is not left. It is a whole different animal ... settling for crumbs is not helping any of us. George Bush may have distracted folks with his general demeanor and war-mongering, but behind the scenes he was working on the tax code and was very competent in that area for the folks who elected him. That gap between rich & poor is a good thing to keep your eye on if you ever wonder what they're doing in office -

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/georegions/northamerica/china03.htm

[rucky]

114. May I suggest a compromise between the compromisers and the non-compromisers?

Can we agree that - at least here on DU - we pretty much want to move the country in the same direction? If we trust each other on that premise, and treat it as a given, then our debates here would be more productive. We could try to figure out HOW to move the country there. Incremental change? Radical change? Somewhere in between? Instead, we fight about tactics as if the other person seeks to damage progress. Those never end well.

There's a fear here that we'll fail if we go about it the wrong way. There's a fear that nothing will work, or that we'll end up doing more harm than good. There's a fear our efforts are being sabotaged, and maybe they are, but policing that here amongst our members is just a distraction (which is what the trolls want).

Maybe change isn't happening fast enough, but let's move beyond the "ifs" and work more on the "hows".

[chillspike]

127. +1

[tomp]

158. sorry, that doesn't work for me.

i believe that there is a sizable number of people on this board and around the country whose vision of where the country should go is not similar enough to mine to allow uniting.

quite a few people here and elsewhere are perfectly happy if the candidate has a D after his/her name. that's not good enough for me, and in fact, to me, is part of the problem, not the solution.

yours is not a real compromise. yours is simply a re-working of the assertion that we can't ask for too much too soon. part of the problem.

[Individualist]

168. Wrong.

"we pretty much want to move the country in the same direction?"

DLC wsnts to move the party further to the right; progressives want to return it to the left. I'd trust a pit viper before I'd trust a DLCer.

[scentopine]

220. I don't think DLC wants to move nation in different direction - they

want corporations at the helm of public policy as much as the republicans do. The DLC simply uses much more flowery language to say things like "drill, baby, drill" and you are either "for us or against us".

Republicans use simple talk that makes them look like simpletons. The flowery language of a centrist suggests a more thoughtful approach to the rape of our treasury. Centrists use big words to sell our jobs and intellectual property to Asia for pennies on the dollar. Both parties put the rich first and offer them special exemption from justice. This is supposed to be a centrist incentive for the non-rich to work harder to become rich so they too can screw over the lazy non-rich.

And a moderate god said "Worship the rich for they are pure and good and god has rewarded them for their purity. Punish the poor because they are worthless and have sinned before the eye of god. Let them be punished in a lake of oil and high interest rates, taxes, fees and penalties for their fall from grace. Let them suffer while the rich have health care. Let the the non-rich serve the noble rich and let poor children go malnourished and suffer for their parents wickedness. Let those without paper be imprisoned. To the non-rich, I shall unleash a wave of centrists and like locusts they shall feed on everything in this world, turning fertile soil into a poisonous blight".

And a majestic, fair and balanced god looked down on his work in America and called it good.

[William Z. Foster]

237. change in direction

A change in direction can happen in an instant. That is what people are impatient for - and rightly so - they are not impatient for results.

I do not think it is a safe assumption that all here "pretty much want to move the country in the same direction." To the contrary, I think there are two completely different and opposite directions being promoted here and in the party at all levels.

What you are saying here is not neutral, they are the positions of one of the factions - that leftists are merely impatient; that leftists merely disagree on tactics with the centrists; that we are all going in the same direction; that this battle hurts the party and helps the Republicans.

[LWolf]

139. +1 and

there is certainly nothing wrong, and everything correct, with sticking to our guns to keep pushing left policies.

[placton]

143. Democorporatist and Republicorporatist parties

it dont matter which - we are just fodder. See Fritz Lang's Metropolis, for Obama's and every politician's idea of what society should be like.

[glitch]

192. That's a wonderful movie, second this.

I call them DemoCons and RepliCons, although DemoCorpse and RepuCorpse might be more descriptive.

[scentopine]

212. Republicrats ? -nt

[DeSwiss]

151. Damn straight!

K&R

[Hamlette]

157. the left position is health care reform

It seems with some people, if you don't get everything you want, you fail to see that the mere fact we got a bill at all is an the astonishing accomplishment.

sort of like beating up Clinton for DADT. He tried to change the outright ban and met resistance he didn't even imagine so he cut a deal. It was an attempt to make it better, and for some it did. But because it didn't make it better for everyone, and it didn't accomplish the impossible, people trash Clinton over it. (Not saying there are not plenty of good reasons to trash Clinton, just saying DADT is not one of them. I followed every second, every word of the national discussion. Clinton did the best he could.)

[JEB]

164. As long as the Insurance Companies

maintain their grip on Health Care we will be paying too much and getting too little, unless of course you are a big shareholder or a Corporate executive. I have seen nothing to dissuade me from this position.

[katandmoon]

177. K&R Thank you, thank you, thank you. We're screwed.

[gtar100]

181. K&R

[UpInArms]

184. I say hold the line and push hard for the policies that are so needed

in our country. Fight the corporatists, the war-mongers and the religious fanatics without fail.

I remember being told that the reason Clinton threw the left under the bus was because we didn't keep pushing.

The rightwing march never stops - neither should we.

[me b zola]

186. K&R

[defendandprotect]

198. Health Care "reform" passed was simply a right wing program- "Romney plan" according to Dean--

And, evidently, what Nixon proposed many decades ago!!

[bluestateboomer]

200. Absolutely Right!

I just want to see someone who articulates positions we believe in.

[pattmarty]

201. Hey, just shut the fuck up and vote the Party line.

:sarcasm:

[colsohlibgal]

208. A Big +1

The rich and powerful, the corporations and the corporatists, have an ever firmer grip on the United States. It's going to take millions in the streets to turn this ship back around.

It's clear now that Obama is what is commonly referred to as a centrist but these days that means...republican lite. With the set up we've had since Obama has been in office a true progressive could have fought for us and rammed through some very good things for the people, like real genuine health care reform, single payer.

The problem in getting a real progressive elected president is the corporate MSM. People like Kucinich and Feingold just get marginalized by the media from the word go.

The bottom line is that we need millions to wake up and finally grasp which way the wind's blowing - and as Dylan says you shouldn't need a weather person to do it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

225. Well said. "Not as bad" has become a piss-poor campaign slogan.

[humbled_opinion]

226. WHAT?

In 2006 America voted Democratic representatives in control of both houses of Congress. IMHO so far we have got nothing that would be considered Progressive in the form of any legislation. If the country wanted Democratic representatives as its majority which it did then why did the Democrats refuse to act like Liberals and Progressives? I don't buy any of this nonsense. The Democrats failed to govern from the Left and now they face defeat in the fall. The best I can muster is an "I TOLD YOU SO".

Again IMHO, the Public Option was their undoing. Its was off the table before it was even debated. It was the only fair option I don't look at it from centrist, left or right. It was fair. Now Obama fought so hard and gave up so much political capital for HCR that looks like it is something Newt Gingrich drafted up and yet the Right is criticizing it for purely political reasons some on the right even criticize it because it went too far right i.e., mandate to purchase from corporations.

Anyway, if our leaders can't lead then we invite the right to make the rules and that is exactly what you are seeing happening today. The right has shifted the centrist position to the Far right and we get screwed because we our reps are chicken shit.

[AllyCat]

227. Oh, you lefties are all just whiners...

...from another proud leftie "whiner". Agree with you completely.

[closeupready]

246. It's an elitist government reflecting an elitist society.

Where the laws and rules apply only to little people, and the wealthy, famous and connected get, at worst, slapped hands. Think about the way your organization is run - managers typically enforce an open door policy where, 'if workers don't like policies, the door is open, don't let it hit your ass on the way out.'

It shouldn't be a surprise that Obama, coming from that kind of background, would dismiss ordinary people, and only use them for votes and money.