Liberals Who Want the Democratic Party Back - See Inside

Great Debates
21

Hell of a post there, vibrotronica. I’m actually getting the same feeling about Ford that I got about Clinton in the fall of '91. Even if he doesn’t win the race for minority leader this time (he says he’s not dropping out, btw), he could quickly become one of the reorganized party’s most recognized faces.

xeno, my point was simply that very liberal Democrats are a turn-off to precisely the kind of voters the party needs to embrace if it wants to regain the majority. A Pelosi-led party is a minority party.

22

John and minty I’m not sure that a starkly liberal voice wouldn’t be at the same time truer to the Democratic message (if one still exists), and have much stronger appeal to voters than the centrism pushed by some. IOW, I believe moderate liberalism may turn less people off than the poll-following politics masquerading as centrism we’ve had from the D’s for the last decade.

Whether Pelosi’s efforts to give an identity to the party will be sufficiently moderated by the Democratic caucus remains to be seen, but a booster shot of liberalism would be kind of refreshing, I think.

23

xeno, you may wish to join our discussion about the principles and message of the Democratic Party over here.

24

I’m not at all sure any of us really know what we are talking about when we express a hope for the emergence of a strong liberal voice in the Democratic Party, or that we are talking about the same thing. After the collapse of the liberal consensus in the debacle of Vietnam and the election of an apparent slime ball followed by the election of a thoroughly decent man who was overwhelmed by circumstances I don’t know what a liberal is anymore. I know what seems to me to be reasonable and high principled political positions but I am not sure those positions are necessarily liberal.

Is there some litmus test of liberality? CAn a person who simultaneously thinks that Sadam is a risk to stability in the Middle East and also thinks that Israeli ambitions in the occupied territories is a threat to stability qualify as a liberal? Can a liberal think that there is a right to bear arms implied in the Constitution just as a right to privacy, contraception and abortion are? Can a liberal think that the “pledge of allegiance” is only a pro forma and meaningless infringement of First Amendment Rights but that public school sponsored prayer is a major and unacceptable infringement? Is it ill-liberal to think that there ought to be a progressive income tax but that tax breaks ought also be applied progressively?

Is it necessarily conservative to expect government officials to tell the truth and avoid propaganda? Isn’t it a shared liberal and conservative principle for government to keep its nose out of people’s private lives as long as they are not doing it on the streets and scaring the horses? Is it conservative to ask the central government to be the morals and religion police for the whole damned country, if not for the whole world?

We old liberals have been loaded with a heavy yoke. We hold ourselves out as bearing the true flame of the republic but I don’t know what we stand for. It was a lot easier when I started this game and I could point to racial equality under the law, open government and fairness in access to justice as salient issues. But I just don’t know any more. We seem to be placed in the position of defending past gains from the assault of people who think the role of government is to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.

Some body give me a fair definition of “liberal.”

25

Like vibrotronica, I live in Memphis TN. What I know of Ford is that he was speaking at my wife’s school in front of many professors, doctors, and optometry students and he was supposed to address their field and their futures. Instead he went on about how we need to dump more money into public education for 2 hours (since news cameras were present), which didn’t please the school. This seems very political, but I guess that all of these congressmen have to play the politcal game 24/7 regardless of party.

I won’t get into the politics because all I know of Ford is from the local conservative AM radio station (I’m just visiting Memphis for 4 years from Florida), but he is a very likable guy - even for a Republican like me. Like vibrotronica said the people around here love him. He wasn’t even contested this last election by the Republicans (only by and Independent).

26

Why would we need a centrist voice? How much more accomodating could the dems possibly be without actually becoming Republicans?

As a registered Democrat, I’ve been deeply disappointed in the submissive belly-showing coming from the Dems for years. I can’t remember the last time they really stood up to a bad Republican idea and said “Screw that!” It’s nauseating.

27

minty, that’s a great thread; I’ll keep goin’ there.
Spavined Gelding, I’ve been thinking along those lines myself; that “liberalism” and “conservatism” have been pushed out to the margins over the past generation in favor of dumbed-down ideologies. It’s kinda like we were reading from poli-sci texts until Reagan came along, and then we got the Klassic Komix versions. Everything’s drawn in vivid colors, with easy to read captions and no subtext.

I’m thinking of starting a thread about it, but the OP’d have to be a thousand words and it’d immediately discourage everybody from replying. But if you’re interested, maybe we could start up a less structured discussion?
Stoid, I think there’s maybe a bit more to the D’s centrist shift than craven accomodation to Republican influence, but not much. F’rinstance, in the beginning of the current trend (some time in the mid eighties, I’d put it), it seemed like the moderate Dems were just following their base. After a while, and after the centrists became the bigger part of the party, I think they just didn’t notice they’d left the base behind and were keeping up with the “center” being portrayed by an increasingly insulated and inbred punditry.

Or maybe I’m just full of shit tonight. Too much reflection is bad for spiritual health. I need a mental enema. Think I’ll go watch an Adam Sandler movie.

28

Stoid - do you make any room for the possibility that it’s not “craven accomodation” that has moved Democrats to the right, but rather a shift rightwards in the mood of the country, and in the honest convictions of those politicos you impugn?

In other words, is it possible your ideas are simply more out of step with mainstream America than they were before?

  • Rick
29

The problem is not just the Democrats. Liberals are far too eager to jump to that conclusion. It isn’t the Democratic Party that needs new life: but liberals in general. Quite frankly, they suck as a political position (and kids, that’s being used as a technical term, not a prejorative one). Modern liberalism is a wash of poorly thought out mishmash positions built mostly on resentment. It has lost what grounds it had in a strong and coherent ideology of justice. Christopher Hitchens has been dead on about this for some time. New ideas are needed, and people really have to seriously re-think what ore values they want to keep, and use to build a new platoform: because a LOT of the deadweight was GOT to go.

30

What Bricker said. I am a centrist, and I am emphatically not a Republican. I actually find it insulting that you would describe Democrats like myself as such.

31

Of course it is possible.

But if I ever accepted that, I’d either have to shoot myself or move to France.

32

60% of our fellow Americans belong to the Apathy party, the rest of the electorate is pretty evenly divided. Similar stuff happened with the Gingrich Horror: this is it, total control, the Right will rule forever, etc. etc. Get a grip, gang. Its an election, not a holocaust.

The Man Who Fell Up is actually downplaying this, and I think I know why: the Jesus Right. The Jesus Right is allied with the Money Right, but they don’t have that much in common. The Money Right doesn’t really care that much about gays, abortion, and the Decline of Western Civ, as long as theres a buck in it. The Jesus Right ignores the plundering of the commonweal by the corporate fat cats because they dont care. Thier alliance is shaky at best.

The Jesus Right is going to present thier bill. They have been frustrated by years of promises about God in schools, an affirmation of stern public values, hippies and gays lined up and shot, or at least deported to Canada. It ain’t gonna happen 'cause it can’t happen: you cannot legislate a social change that has already occured, it can’t be repealed.

Notice how Trent Lott is already talking about the “partial birth” ban? They’re throwing them a bone because its the best they can do, its way, way too late to criminalize abortion. They will also no doubt make a big whoop-de-fuck-a-doo about keeping “God” in the Pledge, and “faith based” initiatives (with “faith based” funding). They’re hoping to buy off the Jesus Right with 10 cents on the dollar, because without thier support the Right is toast. And they know it. Some kind of “pro-marriage” act, with anti-gay overtones but without any real impact on life styles will also make headlines, but will have just about no impact. Why? Because gays are the only minority who are not particularly disadvantaged economicly.

And now the Pubbies have no one to blame, no one to scapegoat. They can’t claim to really want to press the Jesus Right’s demands, but are unable to because the Damn Democrats stopped them.

The Jesus Right expects a payday. A big one. They ain’t gonna get it. And they’re gonna be pissed.

Hunker down, keep your powder dry, its gonna be a lousy couple of years. But the clock has already started ticking, and it never runs backwards.

33

Are you a career politician, minty? Cuz if you ain’t, then I wasn’t talking about you.

34

That’s not a legitimate distinction, Stoid. If the centrist Democrats I vote for are “Republicans” in your book, you’re still accusing me of being a Republican voter, and I do not appreciate that implication.

It’s a big tent, this party of ours. Don’t go around telling half the guests they don’t belong in it.

35

Well, so much for unshakeable solidarity.

36

Perhaps but who else are they going to vote for? Maybe they will be foolish enough to vote for some third part or stay home. But then they would get no payoff at all.

Liberals wanting to send the democratic party a message in the 2000 race by voting for Nader cost the party the whitehouse.

If the Democratic party wants to win elections then they probably do need to move further to the right because the far left will always be dissatisfied with them and has shown that the won’t support the Democratic party.

37

I didn’t. I said they shouldn’t control it.

And as far as I’m concerned, I don’t see much “Centrist” about voting for far right Republican ideas: big fat tax cuts, war with Iraq. I think of these as extremely Republican ideas.

We’ll see how much farther to the right the Republicans go now, and who votes with them. Then you can get back to me on how you define the center.

38

Pelosi is a co-sponsor for H.R. 690 & H.R. 638. Ford is not. She gets my support, as if that counts for anything.

39

Just so we can be clear Stoid, just what distinguishes a real **D[b/]emocrat from a pseudo Democrat AKA “Fake Republican”.

40

I’m with minty on the foolishness of picking Pelosi. I think it 's fair to say that most of the country doesn’t have much use for either “Northeastern liberals” like Ted Kennedy or Chris Dodd, nor do they care for California, so picking Pelosi–who’s from San Francisco no less–is, indeed, political suicide. The perception, fair or not, is that “those people” would ban all mention of God, hand out condoms to kindergarteners, make “My Two Mommies” required reading for second graders, and get France’s ok on all foreign policy decisions.

Please note–I’m not saying these perceptions are right or fair, because they’re not, but they do exist. It seems to me that the choice is between old school, old-fashioned liberalism, which will move the party to the left or a more moderate (dare I say it, Clintonesque) approach of being socially liberal but moderate/conservative fiscally (I don’t know how to classify Clinton’s foreign policy). If the goal is to win back the White House and/or the Senate, I think the latter approach is the way to go.

On a related note, what do people think of Evan Bayh as a possible presidential candidate? Is he too moderate/conservative to get the nomination?