adaher, what positions of yours do you think are entirely unwelcome in the Democratic party? As far as I can tell, you’d be on the conservative side of the party, but I’m not sure if there’s a single position you hold that’s considered beyond the pale for the party (even if, in aggregate, you’d be one of the most conservative Democrats around).
But if, say, you were a conservative Democrat (or a moderate Republican) in Congress and you advocated some relatively conservative “common sense” improvement to the ACA that helped reduce costs but not coverage, and wanted, in exchange, a modification to the religious rules in favor of your preferred position, then I think there would be plenty of Democrats in Congress who would be willing to work with you.
That’s probably right. I agreed with Bill Clinton on enough to consider myself a lukewarm supporter of his back in the day, and I was enthusiastic for Gore. But back then the DLC was at least equal to the progressives within the party, if not superior in terms of power and public support.
Nowadays I’m probably still a bit to the right of Jon Manchin, which admittedly makes me closer to being a Democrat than a Republican given where the party is right now. I just haven’t seen much evidence that this is an organized group with any real principles. Half of the Blue Dogs are just opportunists, the other half seem to be liberals who say what they need to say back home but vote with the party in DC when it really counts. Manchin seems to be the last of the real conservative Democrats and he may be running off to the Energy Department where he’ll feel more welcome.
Pick a party that you most closely agree with and work your ass off to move the party where you want it to go. I’m a moderate Democrat and I spend far more time battling ‘activists’ on the left of my party than I do against Republicans.
Both parties are large coalitions that include radical and deranged people. If you think every person with a ® or a (D) after their name thinks the same you’d be wrong. And the difference intraparty can be larger than interparty in many cases.
If you want to stay active and you don’t like the fact Trump® is the president, work on issue not party, advocacy. Like free speech? Work to advocate it. Reading these boards it’s apparent it needs all the allies it can get.
Or join a third party and then vote as your conscience and pragmatism dictates. Or join the Dems.
I’m registered Republican. I voted for the Libertarian candidate because I don’t like the Dems stance on things like the Supreme Court or cases like Citizens United. I don’t trust the left with their big government can solve all problems if the citizen’s would just hand over power views. Venezuela is the latest example of socialism not done right this time and still lessons are ignored.
Anyways, this isn’t about my preferences. Just realize that in a 2 party system each party is constantly morphing to assemble a winning coalition of disparate factions. What does blue collar union labor have in common with radical progressives? That’s not a natural alliance.
Parties are the problem. Be an independent. The party system is only a hindrance to governance right now, dividing the nation and making every problem less resolvable.
This was going to be my suggestion. If you don’t feel comfortable with either party as a whole, find specific issues that are important to you and work with groups / organizations / other individuals that focus on those issue. Examples:
free speech - ACLU
RKBA - NRA / SAF
criminal justice reform - BLM
environmental conservation - Sierra Club
tax cuts - Americans for Tax Reform
There’s plenty of non-/bi-partisan advocacy for certain positions / political activism that takes place. It’s not all run through the two dominant political parties.
I realize these are just examples, but it does show why digging a little deeper than surface reputation is important. For example, if you care about environment conservation, you should be aware that the Sierra Club failed a basic seriousness test in opposing Washington State’s carbon pricing initiative. Similarly, if you care about the RKBA, you may be concerned that the NRA doesn’t seem to support this right for ethnic minorities, and has largely transformed into a sneer-at-liberals club. (I’m unfamiliar with ‘SAF.’)
That’s not entirely untrue, but the coalition of Republicans is smaller. Those that stray too close to the center are primaried out by their own party. I don’t remember the last time that’s happened to a Democratic congressperson. While there might be a handful of examples in the past 30 years I’d think most of them would be scandal-driven on the D side.
In terms of a simplified, strictly 1-D, Lib-Con line, I’d say the D’s have members from the 50-90th most liberal percentiles compared to the rest of America, perhaps a few in the 95th, maybe. Whereas Republicans in my opinion range from only around 75 to somewhere in the high 90s. Borrowing an estimate from someone else on this board that around 3% of America are hardcore, David Duke type racists, I’d say the limit on the R side is around 97th most conservative percentile since none of them in power except the current President pay lip service to them. (For example, I was pleasantly surprised that Jeff Sessions of all people, wants a civil rights investigation into the Charlottesville attack.)
ETA: plus, I think there are a lot more Dems on the lower level, around 50-65, because of their support for corporations. A lot of people don’t give a whit about corporations and think these Dems are too conservative. Whereas most GOP’ers are even higher than 75% conservative because they believe in crazy stuff like climate change denial and supply side economics.
I knew there was a little leftish in there somewhere…
To stress something that was intimated before, you might want to involve yourself in local or state politics. At least you’d be more likely to have some influence over things that affect you most directly.
I think you might be surprised at how many Dems are fine with gun rights. I’m fairly liberal, and I’m okay with guns, but I do think sensible regulations do need to be in place. I’m not for a ban, or some kind of demonstration of legitimate need, but I’m all for waiting periods, background checks, and things of that nature. I mean, yes, I’d prefer a world without handguns, but here in the US, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and I don’t think there’s any going back. Honestly, I wish the Democrats would de-emphasize this part of their party platform. I really don’t think the Dems are out to take your guns away or whatever happy horseshit the NRA is peddling (see gun ownership during the Obama presidency–it was one big fucking marketing scheme by the gun industry. And good on 'em, from a purely capitalistic point of view. Were I in that business, I’d do the same shit to scare people and have them buy my stuff.) Guns aren’t going anywhere in the US.
Since I’m an old style Liberal Democrat, you may not like what I say.
The political system is skewed to where there can only be two viable parties–Democrat and Republican. There will not likely be a third(or fourth) candidate in your lifetime who will be elected President. You can wish there will be, you can hope there will be, and you will be wrong.
So what you do is say to yourself–I live in this world. With all the problems that both parties have, will most Americans be better off if the Democrat or Republican gets elected? Then make your choice to vote for the person who will hopefully do their best to benefit most Americans. Or vote for the other candidate because you feel they will do the best for most Americans. Or don’t vote, because you feel that your vote doesn’t count. But, of course it does.
That’s polarization. It is endemic to our times. On many issues, I stand with Democrats though too often I find liberals to be preening, smug, and self-congratulatory. I have to set aside my personal objections and decide which of the 2 parties is most likely to bring about a better world for my children. Looking at the party who elected Trump, right now this is a clear-cut decision. Really it’s been a clear-cut decision since 1995 when Newt Gingrich kicked off the whole scorched-earth campaign of oligarchy masquerading as state’s rights.
Maybe someday we’ll be back in a place where the neo-Nazis seems so small and impotent that we can philosophize about giving them a stage. To me, it seems obvious that this is not a time for selfish dithering that the choices on the menu aren’t exactly what I want.
It’s more curious that this is an obstacle to being a Democrat when recent history shows that Reagan and Bush Jr. who totally blew out the budget in times of fiscal plenty. Fiscal restraint is a party-neutral issue, to be charitable about it.
Would you say the same for someone in CA where there are bans (not total)? They really do want to ban guns here. Or WA where there is state preemption of all gun laws, but the state supreme court upheld a local gun violence tax in spite of preemption? These people would ban guns if they could, IMO.
Losing is poor choice of words. Should be, get used to disappointment. I find both parties to be inconsistent and hypocritical. My hope is that they just fight and nothing gets done - Good track record for that.
