I think that it is odd that you would consider a poster who calls the Democrats weak and gutless and claims that their actions, for years, have been “sucking up” to the Republican Party is, in some odd manner, representative of the Democratic Party.
Der Trihs hates everyone, but happens to have a special distaste for for Right wing views. Using that to place him among the Democrats, or even the Left, indicates a simplistic us-vs-them way of looking at the world that does not reflect any reality and pretending that he is a “public face” of the Democratic Party is just ludicrous.
It might, however, support one of his contentions regarding the way that some, (he would say all), on the political Right behave.
No, oddly enough, you got it right the first time. The whole Blue Dog Caucus were genetically engineered from gophers. It’s a long fnord and complicated story.
If the numbers above accurately portray American voters, then we would do well to listen to them, no?
If the majority of voters are Centrist to Right, then why bother pushing or trying to push towards the Left? That baffles me.
For you to be right with the percentages, the Democratic “Left” should be all but dead. Why do they creep to the forefront pushing liberal ideology that is going to get dismissed out of hand by the more Centrist/Right populace?
Well, look, if you’re involved in politics for the sake of a liberal or progressive or leftist agenda – and many are, at least at the rank-and-file level – no electoral strategy is meaningful unless it serves the end of enacting such, right? Something equivalent to the neoliberal Clinton Administration would defeat the purpose entirely.
I can understand the need for ‘polticking’ for politics sake but geez louise how much money goes into growing government when the far more massive populace wants less government intrusion?
If such things that require polticking for the sake of politics get passed to the detriment of the general public, why are they even sought. It seems like they willingly and condescendingly are passing things they KNOW the public doesn’t want.
Well that, and the fact that the numbers themselves are a bit of a team-spirit building project for the right.
Whether there’s a lot of them or not, it feels good to say “I’m a conservative, and my views represent those of the majority of Americans”
Of course, the rank and file just dispense with the ‘of the majority’ bit and claim:
“I’m a conservative, and my views represent those of Americans.”
Saying that feels even better, but leaves us lefties feeling slighted.
When FDR massively increased federal hiring, it caused people to vote for him. He gave them jobs. If the government is creating jobs through public works & the civil service, the populace doesn’t object to government expansion.
:rolleyes: No, sir. Read for comprehension. What I was describing is politicking for policy’s sake.
E.g., if you get involved in politics for the sake of, say, outlawing abortion, and everybody you backed gets elected but abortion still remains legal, then you have wasted your time and you need to rethink your approach. Continuing, instead, to do the same as before, that would be politicking for politics’ sake.
Shouldn’t all politics be for society’s sake? Isn’t that the standard by which we judge whether a politician or political movement is honest/admirable or not?
Well, IMO, policy should be dictated ‘by the people’ not some agenda that a politician has or wants pushed through. If they have to lie, cheat and steal to get elected so that they can go about enforcing their own or a party agenda then they shouldn’t be in office.
:dubious: In a representative republic, an elected official’s job is not to do the will of the people based on the latest public-opinion poll, it is to do what the official thinks is best for society. That comes under the broad heading of “specialization of labor” – we elect officials to deal with and think about these things for us. Every modern republic needs a specialized class of experienced career politicians, don’t believe any “citizen legislator” bullshit to the contrary. The people get to make their will known bindingly in the elections, when they choose leaders based on the candidates’ general politics (and character), and in referenda where allowed (based on California’s experience, not such a good idea).
Here: “If the numbers above accurately portray American voters, then we would do well to listen to them, no?
If the majority of voters are Centrist to Right, then why bother pushing or trying to push towards the Left? That baffles me.
For you to be right with the percentages, the Democratic “Left” should be all but dead. Why do they creep to the forefront pushing liberal ideology that is going to get dismissed out of hand by the more Centrist/Right populace?”
IF all the above is true, then you are self serving by claiming that the democratically elected official is doing in the best interest of the general public by promoting ‘left of center’ policies.
You are claiming that the Democrats tried to push some liberal agenda, which is wrong. And no, passing a rip-off of an old Republican "heath care “reform” isn’t liberal. The Democrats in office have been consistently acting more to the Right than the people who voted for them.
You are also ignoring the fact that part of the point of having a representative government instead of direct democracy is to have people in charge who have better information than random citizens of what needs to be done to accomplish national goals. If a “liberal agenda” will get the people what they say they want better than a more right wing agenda, then generally that’s what the politicians should go for. The people are much more qualified to specify goals than they are to specify methods; the latter involves far more of the sort of nitty-gritty details that trip up non-specialists…
I don’t think those democrats would have done much better if they had been strong advocates for the health care bill. Look, it’s a cyclical thing. The party (be it Democratic or Republican) does well, and they pick up seats that are normally hostile to them, which leads to more ideological diversity in the caucus. Election goes bad, the recently won seats are the most vulnerable, leads to a caucus that’s more lockstep.
According to NPR several Democrats also paraphrased what you just said here after the election. Of course that then leads to another point that they mentioned: Republicans are already making the mistake in assuming that they got a mandate to dismantle the reforms of the previous congress, in reality the people are angry because the economy soured, the party in power got the blame and they expect the Republicans to help in issues like jobs.
I think that many who voted Republican will be soon be disappointed on the issues that the House will focus early on.
Sure, but claiming that the losses are the result of repudiation of the Democrats by ‘Americans’ is sheer bullshit. In the first place, the people of Inner Podunkistan are not in any way realer ‘Americans’ than the bicoastal sin-mongers. In the second place the Dems lost in those areas because those areas have been weak for Democrats for decades. Sure the party picked up some seats there when GW’s failures became too glaring, but if even conservadems aren’t Republican enough to retain those positions, it’s better to write them off as a temporarily lost cause than piss off the Liberal core by pandering to red states.
