We need to totally defeat republicanism then tackle our own party, agree?

[chillspike]

Okay, I want to say upfront that I DO agree with the DUers that say Democrats are not doing any or much of what they promised. There's no disagreement there with me, as some would suggest.

But does anyone agree, since we have such a political advantage lately, at least in the realm of ideas and straight up sanity, that we should first concentrate on the political destruction of our foremost enemies, republicanism and conservatism? And then, when they are out of the way, focus on the discrepancies among our own party?

And I'm not saying we shouldn't try to gently push our representatives now. I'm just saying let's not grant the Right any show of disunity on our side until we've strategized the Republican party out of existence.

You guys are not wrong. I'm just suggesting, since it seems to be so close, we should focus our efforts on the political end of the republican party and THEN address ourselves in a more aggressive manner once they are out of the way.

Not saying you're wrong or that the dems don't have issues. They do. Just suggesting that the more pressing issue is to rid ourselves of our explicitly professed, bat shit crazy enemies and THEN focusing on the professed but hypocritical allies amongst ourselves.

I hope I don't upset anyone with bringing this up again and that the mods let everyone speak. But I understand if this is too divisive a subject for everyone. Thanks.

[rucky]

1. Fight all corruption & corporate control, and take care of both.

Party politics is a distraction from the real fight on our hands.

[rhett o rick]

2. The corporatists in our party are a bigger danger than the repukes. nm

[cali]

4. why? do you think that repug corporatists are a nicer gentler species of corporatists?

look, there is NO opposition to corporatism in the repug party.

[rhett o rick]

16. If we got the DLC-corporatists out of our party, we wouldnt have to worry about

the Repub Party. Do you agree that the DLC-corporatists in our party are a danger. Especially when they continually vote with the republicans.

[cali]

18. you really didn't answer my question. I will, however answer yours.

Yes, I think the corporatists in the dem part pose a danger, but as I said , there are elected dems in the House and Senate who are not DLC corporatists. That is not true of the repuke party.

Do you agree that the repuke party is more corporatist than the dem party? If not, please list some non-corporatist elected repugs.

[rhett o rick]

21. I totally agree with you cali. However, killing the republican party wont solve our problems.

The smart corporatist republicans are migrating into our party. They are influencing our party into moving to the right.

Do you agree that if we took care of our own party, we wouldnt have to worry about a small fringe minority party like the Palin-republicans?

[cali]

25. no, I can't agree with you on that

the repuke party isn't simply some small minority fringe party. In a flawed system where there are only two viable parties, there will always be a significant number of voters ping ponging between the two parties. In addition, I don't believe, as many do here, that the voting public is more liberal than conservative. I believe that many, if not most, voters are persuadable and I further believe that the strong streak of conservative religious beliefs in our culture, partnered with the strong cultural streak of anti-intellectualism in this country, gives the repukes a pretty strong natural base.

[rhett o rick]

26. Let me put it a different way. The repub party is obviously corporate owned.

Those in the public that dont support that wont listen to them. But on the other hand, when Democrats support the same corporations, it isnt so obvious and the public may be influenced to go with the corporatist-Democrats.

I believe it is a huge mistake to break down the war between Republicans and Democrats. The war is between the have's and have-not's. Many Democrats are fighting on the have's side. Because they are Democrats, they are harder to identify and much more dangerous.

[cali]

28. The only people in elected office fighting for the have-nots are dems

it's that simple. it is, at least to a significant degree, about parties.

[rhett o rick]

31. I agree with your statement but not your conclusion.

As long as we dont recognize that we have enemies among us we cant prevail. We must get the DINO's out of our party. The reason we cant get significant bills passed is not because of the republicans, it is because of some Democrats (DINO's). The Democrats have the numbers but the have-not's do not have the numbers.

There are too many corporatists in our party. If we get rid of them, we can dominate the republicans.

[rhett o rick]

32. Changing the subject slightly.

What do you think about this OP?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8629351&mesg_id=8629351

[Raksha]

44. I agree with you...the DLC-corporatists are a bigger danger than the Repukes,

who are for all practical purposes a permanent minority party right now. Or they would be if it weren't for the DLC/Blue Dog types who often vote with the Repukes, as you say.

[treestar]

3. Agree. Attacking one's own party weakens it.

[RC]

5. So, you think having two political corporates parties to choose from is ok?

I don't. We need to clean our own house before we can properly go after he real enemy in this country.

[cali]

6. I think one party is far worse than the other

There are people in the dem party like Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tom Harkin, Barbara Boxer, Pat Leahy, (and yes, for all intents and purposes, Bernie). That's just in the Senate. In the House there are more.

Can you name even one person in the repuke party who isn't a hard and fast corporatist?

[treestar]

34. We have many to choose from

the third parties that exist don't appeal to the voters at present.

Besides, that was not the question. Why am I put on the spot as if I said there ought only be two parties? I said trashing your own party weakens it.

[RC]

38. I said nothing about 3rd parties.

What I an saying is we need to clean out the Obstructionist Republicans from our own party. Otherwise we never will fix the problem. In other words we can't attack the enemy because over half of our own army is the enemy.

[Ardent15]

7. No, pressure from the left strengthens the Democratic Party

You know, the party that's supposed to stand up to the Republicans.

[JoePhilly]

19. No, it allows the press to reshape the narrative ...

Here's what happens.

The right wing screams NO!!! Creating a 35% "against" position. They claim the bill "goes too far".

The Dems screams YES!!! Creating at 35% "For" position. They claim the bill could be better, but some progress is better than nothing.

Then, ~20% representing the the "farther left" scream NO!! They claim the bill does not go far enough.

This creates a 55% AGAINST position, and a 35% FOR position ... which the faux "liberal" media uses as proof that the bill goes TOO FAR.

The remaining 10%, the sheep, wander over to the AGAINST side.

Final result, 65% AGAINST, 35% FOR. The press says the Dems are clearly too liberal (thus the 65%), the country is clearly "center right", and we get nothing accomplished.

This is what almost happened in HCR.

[Mimosa]

40. HCR is pretty much a republican type bill. n/t

[rhett o rick]

17. Removing corporatists from our party will strengthen it. The goal isnt to strengthen

the Democratic Party, the goal is to make it represent "we the people" and not CorpAmerica. What good is a strong Democratic Party if it only supports republican values?

[treestar]

35. It does not represent Republican values

It may not represent yours exactly, which is cannot do for anyone. Yet is much closer than the Republicans.

[chillspike]

8. p.s. Please try to keep it respectful. Thank you.

I don't want to be responsible for another flame fest.

[Ardent15]

9. You can't do one without the other

You can't defeat Republicanism while ignoring the Republicanism in the Democratic Party, and you can't defeat the Republicanism in the Democratic Party while ignoring Republicanism at large.

[cali]

10. Agreed. It's not an either/or proposition.

[chillspike]

13. True but

do you think it would make it easier to eliminate the bad elements in the dem party, the "quiet" conservative dems, if we destroyed the vocal conservative republicans first?

And that once the conservative dems saw that the openly vocal conservative republicans were thoroughly rejected, they would turn completely Left because they would see there is no political advantage in being Right?

That's all I'm saying.

[boston bean]

24. How can that be achieved, when the conservadems are running the show.

We have gotten repub lite and republican agendas from the president on down.

The republicans will be republicans. I want the dems to start acting like democrats.

[chillspike]

11. It's good to hear other perspectives on this

and it is helping me get an idea of where other people are coming from on this. TY

[sendero]

12. How can you defeat..

.... Republicanism by being almost exactly like them?

Obama had a once-in-a-millenium chance to actually change things and he has done almost nothing.

Since he has done almost nothing, the electorate will swing back to the Republicans starting in 2010, even knowing that most of this crap is their fault. It won't matter, it's all about punishing the incumbent for NOT DOING ANYTHING.

[xchrom]

14. a link to the democratic party platform

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

[eilen]

15. The destruction of the Republican Party

today-- what it has morphed into since the 1960's is simply unrecognizable. While it was always the party of big business, there was a rationale. There was acknowledgement to preserving our natural resources-- Nixon started the EPA. Since the Republican party has degenerated into a regional batshit crazy party, the Democratic party has seen less need to fight for their base, the people. The notion of "where else are you going to go?" towards progressives, is arrogant and lacks vision. Co-opting the Republican standpoints and corporate sponsors is dressing like them and walking their walk. While it may have taken the fight away-- by optioning the oppositions stances --for example with the trade agreements, "end to welfare as we know it" policies, privatization of public commons institutions, endless war, rendition, tax cuts, Patriot Act/Homeland Security-- what does it turn the Democratic Party into? Hell, to me if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and behaves as a duck-- it's a fucking duck. Compromising the values we hold dear does not shore up the values, it weakens the will and the moral core. While the Republicans have become cariacatures and virtual maniacs-- one has to think what have the Democrats then become? A strong opponent sharpens and clarifies our ideals. When one has abdicated (clearly having no ideas except for "No" is an abdication, an admittance of lack of vision) the only party left has no motivation or compulsion to do better. Basically they are the only game in town. The Tea Party/Sara Palin/Rand Paul nuts are fringe. They are the circus now, not the far left (although the Left certainly is much better being more creative and innovative). When I heard Tucker Carlson say on C-Span that the Left is happy with the Obama administration because they have not protested nor come out against his policies, I was not only aghast, I was shown an ugly truth. It is true -- whining on a blog or a message board is really no protest or maybe just a weak protest. The Left did not show up in force at Town Hall meetings nor have we mounted clear oppositions to the unemployment/fiscal policies on TARP/Union busting policies/etc. We have done as we were told--sit down and shut up. Where is the big protest on the Gulf? A few brave demonstrators have come out but really, compared to the antiwar protests in the early 1970's and late 1960's it has been weak. I don't even think there is a forum or place to discuss this issues publicly. The commons has been privatized-- the box stores, even the municipal sidewalk in front of the corporate stores are not free for the public to voice an opposition-- we are consumers before we are citizens. If we are not consuming, we have no rights to breathe there, nevermind speak our truths there. Where does the publc congregate, commune and meet anymore?

So my question is: Why is the Democratic Party so willing to bully those on the Left? Why is this okay with the rank and file? Do they not agree with the ideals the Left stands for? I don't think the things the Left today are fighting about is inconsistent with traditional Democratic Party values but I do think that many of the things our current Democratic president is supporting flies in the face of those values so I have to ask-- Is it cognitive dissonance or fear that is keeping rank and file members from demanding better?

These issues and questions have been preoccupying me. I am on the look out for some culture jammers, some organization, some demonstration. We may not have a bully pulpit as Glenn Beck does on our public airways but really, I think it is time to make some noise out there. The People's Wing of the Democratic Party is not asleep nor happy with the status quo. And no, we are not served well by the destruction of the Republican Party, it created a vacum and the Democratic Party Leadership morphed Rightwards to fill it.

[Jamastiene]

20. I appreciate your thoughts on this, but

I'm not sure how we can "defeat" the Republicans first THEN go after Republicanism in the Democratic Party.

I mean, every two years, we have to defeat the Republicans all over again for the House and every 4 years for president, and every 6 years for senators.

There's no chance to "defeat" the Republicans first and then go after the Republicanism in the Democratic Party.

It's a repetitive cycle. It's a constant battle, in other words.

Of course, just defeating Republicanism, regardless of party label, is a constant battle anyhow.

The best we can hope for is squeaking by every 2, 4, and 6 years for a long time and hope sooner or later sheepish (as in shy, afraid to rock the boat) liberals in government finally start pushing back harder. Some do it now, but more need to be empowered to do it before we can get the change we need. That's going to be the trick to it all.

[Gravel Democrat]

22. It sure would be super if somehow this nation realized that jobs are a priority right now

[boston bean]

23. "gently push our representatives"

Somehow I don't think that's gonna work, especially when you are basically giving them your vote for free.

They must do something to earn it.

I am not a purist, but there are somethings that we as a party should not budge on.

Healthcare, not insurance, for ALL, Womens right, LGBT rights, habeaus corpus, dead soldiers and civilians for money or oil, imho.

[Better Believe It]

27. What if Democratic leaders in the Senate like Reid don't want to fight Republicans?

Should we be silent when they publicly "give up" and permit a Republican minority to obstruct and run the Senate by using "fake" filibusters?

[AnArmyVeteran]

37. Reid needs to be demoted so someone with GUTS can fight them.

Reid could FORCE the republicans to actually filibuster instead of having fake ones where they don't even have to show up? What kind of leadership is it to allow your enemy to have fake filibusters? If the republicans had the majorities in both houses of congress they would be ramming through everything they wanted, because that's what they did under Bush. They started two wars, enacted the Patriot Act, and countless other attacks against human beings and the democrats went along with them. WHY???

Why did ONE democrat vote to authorize Bush to go to war when it was obvious to anyone with an IQ over 70 that IRAQ POSED ZERO DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES??? Democrats didn't even challenge the blatant lies from the Bush Regime like when they said Iraq could attack the US "within 45 minutes in the form of a mushroom cloud". WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS in congress go along with that obvious and blatant lie? Any damned fool knew that Iraq had no ability to attack the United States and posed zero danger to us. So why did the democrats cave in to Bush?

Only one democrat voted against the Patriot Act. Just because it was called the 'Patriot Act' democrats trembled in outright fear of voting against it lest they be seen as unpatriotic. Why doesn't the democratic party use patriotic sounding names for every damned one of the bills they are trying to get passed. Why don't they use the same tricks the republicans used?

I'm getting tired of the same old bullshit over and over and over again.

[okie]

29. What if we can't rid ourselves of Republicans?

I think the system is dependent on its two party structure. I think there are larger forces than the Dems and the GOP 'guiding' our nation. The two parties fight it out every few years over who gets to represent the reigning elite interests, and both parties play vital roles in safeguarding those interests. It seems to me that Republicans (at least in the last 50 years or so) invent new, pretty scary ways to expand state power (again, in the service of elite interests), and the Democrats - with friendlier faces, nicer speeches, and a pretense of caring about the poor - entrench, or systematize what the Republicans get started.

One day there will be another Republican president. One day there will be another Republican Congress. We should be realistic about this. The balance of power within the political system shifts. Worrying too much over that is a distraction.

[BeFree]

30. Are you saying

... that we should focus on defeating the republicans?

That until we do, we quit fighting amongst ourselves - shooting ourselves in the foot, so to say?

Why would that be controversial? Sing it!!

[Marr]

33. The Republicans have been as "totally defeated" as they can be in our system.

So yes-- it's time to tackle our own party.

[TheKentuckian]

36. Republicans are Republicans regardless of a letter by their names

and Republicans in our party weaken us far more than any external ones.

I see the OP as a false premise and a stalling technique as much as anything by pretending we can utterly defeat the other party anyway, especially by emulating them in large part.

I'm open to listening to how the premise could be advanced in the OP's mind (or from others who share the sentiment) so I can connect it with a realistic gameplan because it sounds laughable at the moment.

Right now half or more of our party is captured and that seems to be the big anchor to me. Beating Republicans with Republicans leaves the same structural problems.

[Mimosa]

39. It's not 'doable' to defeat the opposing party in a 2 party system

Defeat is temporary. The Democratic party can only win by becoming a better more responsive party.

If the members of a party focus most of the energy and resources on the opponents, that is energy and resources diverted from building consensus and positive change.

Purges in political parties throughout history tend to have negative results.

[donco6]

41. When you're done with that, send me a postcard.

I'll be multitasking over here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. This may be a silly question but...

...How?

I mean, we can grouse as much as we want but it comes down to having an effective policy to accomplish want you want.

If we want to run around on TV and scream the GOP is a bunch of corporatist bastards we have to stop pocketing checks from BP, Goldman Sachs and Big Pharma.

We have to give people something to vote for and not just to vote against. That's why Obama was so successful in 2008.

Otherwise everytime some republican wins an election you're stuck saying 51% or more of that electorate are corporate-owned rich morans.

Good luck trying to win people over by calling them stupid and/or feel bad for being well-off. Try printing campaign posters that say, "Vote democrat or else you're an asshole."

The only other options seem to be stuff we don't really wish to comtemplate.

You either appeal to people's free will and better interests or you don't.

[RidinMyDonkey]

43. Disunity is what makes us better

In my experience there is a lot more "Disunity" among Democrats than Republicans. Most Republicans that I know don't question their leaders or one another. They're usually happy with what they've got. We want more than that. We should fight to defeat the corrupt lawmakers in both parties, or we aren't as great as I thought we were.

[JoeyT]

45. They were pretty much dead at the start of last year.

Thank goodness all that bi-partisanship and theater over HCR managed to breathe life back into their bloated worthless corpses.

[dorkulon]

46. We can't destroy the GOP unless we can present an authentic, ethically sound alternative.

Obviously the GOP is corrupt, but so are the Dems. As long as "they're all the same" is mainly true with regards to honesty and integrity, there's no chance and hardly any point to defeating the Repugs. This whole blue team mentality is how things got this bad.