What do you think the national "democratic" party stands for?

[leftofthedial]

Are there clear guiding principles that inform our "democratic" representatives actions, statements and votes?

If so, what are they?

I think it is perfectly clear what they stand for, but I don't want to believe it.

What do you think?

[leftofthedial]

1. uhhhh . . .

never mind.

[jody]

2. The Democratic Party platform says what it stands for. Clearly many elected politicians who claim

to be Democrats do not follow the party platform.

See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

[leftofthedial]

3. I'd argue that what the party actually does is what it stands for

the platform is just an elaborate advertisement (and there is no truth in political advertising)

[rucky]

5. A kinder, gentler kleptocracy? n/t

[leftchick]

7. you

have that right. Or a kinder fascism?

[leftofthedial]

9. they are slightly "kinder and gentler"

but their result is neither kinder nor gentler. It is exactly the same oligarchy the repuke brownshirts are stomping into America

[H2O Man]

19. Right.

You can tell a tree by its fruit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. In reality? Aquiring and wielding power. See Lord Acton's axiom for the next step.

The same as any other political party's aim. Which also applies to corporations, the Mafia, most religions, and a whole host of other groups that promise to wield the power benevolently but never do.

[leftofthedial]

6. if this is their aim

then they are grotesquely inept

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Not really.

If you consider the power structure a corrupt duopoly that shares a mutual interest in maintaining the status quo, rewards its loyalists handsomely with money perks and privileges, and competes only for the nominal reigns of the duopoly, things are going swimmingly.

From a long view, between 1865 and the early 1900's the corporate elites established this permanent duopoly as they consoldiated their control over both parties and made sure that no new third party movement would ever again be successful. The collapse of the Great Depression and the subsequent World War and Cold War crisis caused a 40 year setback, forcing the elites into a series of reforms in order to maintain control, and to a loss of complete control over the Democratic Party. The Reagan Era and the end of the Cold War has seen a steady erosion of the modest social reforms of the New Deal era and a complete re-assumption of control over both parties by the corporate elites. The duopoly is quite the opposite of inept when it comes to wielding power, as was recently demonstrated by the complete snookering we just suffered after electing what we thought was the opposition party back into power in congress.

[leftofthedial]

15. I'd say the current "democrats" seek personal wealth

they squander what little power we give them, so if power is their aim, they are incompetent.

I think they have sold themselves individually to the highest bidder, although as stupid as they seem to be, it might have been the lowest bidder.

[rucky]

8. I would add some NGO's to the list as well...

realizing that if they fix the problems they set out to, they would no longer have a reason to exist.

[leftofthedial]

11. then there's all the synergistic institutions

churches and poverty/ignorance come to mind

criminals and cops

[jgraz]

26. You got it -- the Pro-Choice wing of the Stay in Office party

And as long as we tell them we'll keep them in office no matter what, they won't give two shits about what we think.

[valerief]

10. All political parties protect the Corporation. Democrats will throw

more crumbs to the working class than Republicans.

[leftofthedial]

12. slightly

but their policies, like NAFTA and CAFTA, are destroying the American working class

[valerief]

14. Yes, because their master is The Corporation. And the bipartisan

outsourcing is destroying the American working class. And the media suppression of real news is part of the institutional dumbing down of American, which is destroying the American working class.

[doggyboy]

16. The Democratic Party is a coalition

there are no "clear guiding principles" that can unite democrats like a Kucinich and a Murtha

[derby378]

17. Not entirely true...

Historically, the Democratic Party has been the party of labor, the party of the little guy. Some Republican progressives like Teddy Roosevelt headed down this avenue as well, but their kind appears to be long gone.

The emphasis on labor and the necessary egalitarianism to make labor work in America, however, has been diluted to a certain extent by, among other things, the DLC's current focus on interfacing with corporations and business owners at the expense of the working-class American.

[leftofthedial]

18. both parties are now rfirmly on the same side on pretty much every issue

as far as I can tell

the differences, where they exist at all, are miniscule and often matters of semantics and rhetoric rather than substance.

[doggyboy]

27. Yes and no (IOW, "not entirely true")

:-)

The Democratic Party's identification as the party of labor is relatively recent in the history of the DNC. It began with the economic instability that occured around the early 1900's and came to it's fruition with FDR. The former was the "no" part

The "yes" part is that since then, the support for labor is probably The Closest Thing the Democratic Party has to a guiding principle, even though lately it's usually honored in the breach.

IOW, nice refutation/response. Thanks

[wildbilln864]

20. CORPORATE POWER! n/t

[leftofthedial]

21. Capitalism!

The economic tool of the oligarchy.

[irish.lambchop]

22. nothing, anymore

[leftofthedial]

24. true

sad

true

[Forkboy]

23. If I ever figure it out I'll let you know.

[BlooInBloo]

25. Aaaah.... More Dem-hate.

[jgraz]

28. You confuse hate and criticism

If you support what the Dems are doing, make your case. A lot of people are trying to figure out exactly how to react to what happened this week, and we don't deserve to be called haters.

[BlooInBloo]

29. No I don't.

[jgraz]

30. Yes, you do

Your turn :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

31. No I don't. :)

[jgraz]

32. OK, I give. That last reply was just too much!

See, I'm a true Democrat. :evilgrin:

[BlooInBloo]

33. I go too far sometimes - it's true.

[Pyrzqxgl]

34. You all go too damn far!

If you're a Democrat and don't like what the more vocal Democrats say, tell them about it and I mean the folks in office. You can send
criticisms to DU til the cows come home and you'll reach part of the party that keeps track of such stuff, but there's always gonna be
folks that won't pay any attention. Tell your Congressman, member of the state legislature or even better the people who advise them
& run their campaigns. Make the Democratic Party be the party of things you believe in by telling them as loudly and on every occasion
possible what you believe in. Don't gripe about it, yell about it where lots of folks can hear. Just maybe some office holders will be able
to hear too.

[LWolf]

35. corporate obedience. n/t

[HardRocker05]

36. not much; self-preservation, maybe. nt