The Democratic platform.

[rjung]

@duality72

Or he could just upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader which is probably the ‘built-in’ reader that came pre-installed on your Mac.

<hijack>

Nope, it isn’t. He’s referring to Apple’s “Preview” app, which handles PDFs and images.

</hijack>

[John_Mace]

@Liberal

The LP Platform is an interesting read:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html

Guaranteed to piss off both sides!

Both “sides” of the center?

[Ravenman]

Awww. The Libertarians have a platform. That’s very cute of them. They’re acting just like a grown-up political party.

[Early_Out]

@Liberal

The LP Platform is an interesting read:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html

Guaranteed to piss off both sides!

I don’t think it’s possible to be “pissed off” and “helpless with mirth” at the same time, so you’re going to have trouble making good on that guarantee.

[Monocracy]

@Liberal

That’s why I say there is no major leftist party anymore. There are only centrists and rightists. Championing personal liberty nowadays is seen as something done by quacks, freeks, and utopianists.

To me, this is one of the major failings of the current Democratic Party. I have 4 friends in Florida who plan on voting for Bush this year. It’s not that they think highly of Bush, but that they just will vote against the Democrat.

Three of the four have libertarian views, although not quite to the extent of Lib or the Libertarian Party. They are hard working, non-religious, productive members of society who believe in personal freedoms. Two of the three are frequent drinkers and pot smokers (but they own their home and land and are successful owners and operators of a small business).

But they fear the Democrats’ tax-and-spend policy. Conservative-pushed buzz words, like “income redistribution”, and scary images, such as the welfare mom with a Mercedes, draw attention away from the current Republicans’ spend policy.

Democrats have almost nothing to offer in the way of personal freedoms. They have embraced the family values rhetoric, been participants in the fight for censorship, and done little for decriminilizing certain drugs. Hell, John Kerry is against gay marriage.

So who do these libertarian-minded people vote for? The Democrats, who offer them nothing, or the Republicans, who at least offer them half? I think there are a lot of people in the country with similar views. If the Democrats could champion the rights for civil liberties, they could swing these Anti-Democrat voters into independents, and push many Anti-Republican voters firmly into the Democrat ranks.

[SPOOFE]

The Democrats, who offer them nothing, or the Republicans, who at least offer them half?

You mean “the Republicans, who at least in theory offer them half”. One of the unfortunate results of the “party blending” that has been going on (Dem’s embracing Family Values, or whatever, as you say) has been pretty much EVERYBODY has forgotten the concept of smaller government.

Both parties are just blurring their lines so much these days… one can easily be far more right than a Republican and still refer to oneself as a Democrat.

MY PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE:

-I think, eventually, the furthest-left aspects of the Dems will break away, either in an attempt to create a new party or join one of the existing, more liberal parties.

-This will leave a far more moderate, overall, Democratic party, which will entice moderate Republicans over to their side.

-This will leave a very right-wing Republican party, where Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps and their gaggle of acolytes can scream and rant all day long. Hopefully, they get crushed under a giant piano.

Probably won’t come true, but I’m pulling for the piano crushing, at the very, very least.

[SPOOFE]

one can easily be far more right than a Republican and still refer to oneself as a Democrat.

… Just waitin’ for Elucidator or someone to have a field day with THAT line…

“Well, sure, SPOOFE, Democrats will always be right, and the Pubbies will always be wrong, yuk yuk!”

[BrainGlutton]

@SPOOFE

-I think, eventually, the furthest-left aspects of the Dems will break away, either in an attempt to create a new party or join one of the existing, more liberal parties.

Well, there’s only a little material to work with there. I mean, there are several parties and non-party political organizations to the left of the Dems, but none of them are very large in membership. Still, the idea of stitching them together into one medium-sized party, that might shave off the left wing of the Democrats – say, the Deaniacs and everybody to their left – is exciting. Here’s the ones I know about (descriptions in quote boxes are from www.politics1.com):

The Communist Party USA – http://www.cpusa.org/

Founded in 1924, the CPUSA reached its peak vote total in 1932 with nominee William Z. Foster (102,000 votes - 4th place). The last national CPUSA ticket – featuring the team of Gus Hall and Angela Davis – was fielded back in 1984 (36,000 votes - 8th place). While the party has not directly fielded any of its own candidates for over a decade, the CPUSA has backed some candidates in various local elections (often in industrial communities) and engaged in grassroots political and labor union organizing. In the 1998 elections, longtime CPUSA leader Hall actually urged party members to vote for all of the Democratic candidates for Congress – arguing that voting for any progressive third party candidates would undermine the efforts to oust the “reactionary” Republicans from control of Congress. As for issues, the CPUSA calls for free universal health care, elimination of the federal income tax on people earning under $60,000 a year, free college education, drastic cuts in military spending, “massive” public works programs, the outlawing of “scabs and union busting,” abolition of corporate monopolies, public ownership of energy and basic industries, huge tax hikes for corporations and the wealthy, and various other programs designed to “beat the power of the capitalist class … [and promote] anti-imperialist freedom struggles around the world.” The CPUSA’s underlying communist ideology hasn’t changed much over the years, but the party’s tactics have undergone a major shift (somewhat reminiscent of those used by the CPUSA in the late 1930s). After the death of hardline communist leader Hall in 2000, Gorbachev-style “reform communist” activist Sam Webb assumed leadership of the CPUSA.

The Democratic Socialists of America – http://www.dsausa.org/

The DSA is the official US full member party of the Socialist International (which includes Tony Blair’s UK Labour Party, the French Parti Socialiste and nearly 140 other political parties around the globe). Unlike most other members of the Socialist International, the DSA has never fielded candidates for office. The DSA explains their mission as follows: “building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.” Thus, the DSA is less like a traditional US political party and much more like a political education and grassroots activism organization. The other US full member of the Socialist International is the Social Democrats USA (linked below). Both DSA and SD-USA each claim to be the one true heir to the ideological legacy of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas – and neither one ever fields any candidates. The DSA – then named the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) – split from the SDUSA in 1972 in a rift over the Vietnam War (SDUSA supported the war and opposed McGovern for President; DSOC supported McGovern and opposed the war).

The Green Party of the United States – http://www.gp.org/

Until 2001, the Greens are largely a collection of fairly autonomous state/local based political entities with only a weak (and sometimes splintered) national leadership structure that largely served to coordinate electoral activities. This faction – formerly named the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) – is the larger and more moderate of the two unrelated Green parties.

The Greens/Green Party USA – http://www.greenparty.org/

The G/GPUSA is the older, smaller and more stridently leftist of the two Green parties. . . . While the Green Party and the rival G/GPUSA appear to be very similar – they advocate tactical (and some ideological) differences and somewhat compete with claims to the titular leadership of the national Green movement. The G/GPUSA largely emphasizes direct action tactics over traditional electoral politics. A majority of the G/GPUSA delegates voted that the party’s 2001 convention to merge into the Green Party of the US – but the motion ultimately failed for lack of the required 2/3 majority. That outcome prompted many of the G/GPUSA activists to independently jump to the Green Party of the US – forming a new leftist caucus within the Green Party of the US – and leaving the G/GPUSA as a sizably diminished and more dogmatically Marxist party.

The Labor Party – http://www.thelaborparty.org/

The Labor Party is a liberal entity created in 1996 by a sizable group of labor unions including the United Mine Workers, the Longshoremen, American Federation of Government Employees, California Nurses Association and many labor union locals. The party says it was formed because “on issues most important to working people -– trade, health care, and the rights to organize, bargain and strike -– both the Democrats and Republicans have failed working people.” Ideologically, they seem close to the style of the late, labor-friendly Vice President Hubert Humphrey and US Senator Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party circa 1960s. A new party, they endorsed their first state and federal candidates in 1998 in Wyoming (“Green/Labor Alliance”) – and two more candidates in local races in California and Ohio in 2001 – but none since then. This group seems closely aligned ideologically with the New Party. The Labor Party has adopted a policy of “running candidates for positions where they can help enact and enforce laws and policies to benefit the working class and where we can best advance the goals and priorities of the Labor Party.” The party also gets involved in local and state ballot initiatives. The Labor Party held a national convention in 2002 and seems to be making some efforts to revive itself as a forum for the debate of issues.

The New Party – http://www.newparty.org/

This leftist party advocates a “democratic revolution” to advance the cause of “social, economic, & political progress” in America. Their agenda is much in the style of the Western European socialist and labor movement – and somewhat similar to that of the late-1990s formed Labor Party (but the NP has more of a controlled growth outlook on environmental issues). Rather than fielding their own national slate or local candidates, the New Party has taken to largely endorsing like-minded candidates from other parties (mainly pro-labor Democrats like Chicago Congressman Danny K. Davis) and focusing on grassroots organizing. An amusing question: if the New Party lasts for 50 years, will they rename themselves the Old Party (or the “Fifty-Something” Party)? The New Party, to date, has endorsed candidates in about 400 local races around the country, and has active affiliate chapters in some communities. The NP site details the party’s long-term strategy.

NOTE: The New Party banked all its hopes on the strategy of “ballot fusion” or “cross-endorsement” – nominating one person as the candidate of more than one party. (I started a GD thread on fusion recently – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=262650.) Unfortunately, this kind of “combination ticket” was outlawed in most states in the late 19th Century for the express purpose of shutting down third parties; at present, it is legal in only ten states. The New Party filed a lawsuit in Minnesota to force the state to allow fusion based on the “freedom of association” clause of the First Amendment. It went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected the argument in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, April 28, 1997. After the Timmons decision, the New Party gradually faded away as a national organization. (There’s still a New Party website, at http://www.newparty.org/, but it hasn’t been updated in years.) But some state-level branches of it survived:
The Working Families Party of New York – http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/
The Connecticut Working Families Party – Registrant WHOIS contact information verification | Namecheap.com
Progressive Minnesota – http://www.progressivemn.org/).
The national-level leadership of the NP decided to channel their energies into creating a new organization dedicated to fighting for fusion as an electoral reform: The New Majority Education Fund: http://www.nmef.org/

Peace and Freedom Party – http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/

Founded in the 1960s as a left-wing party opposed to the Vietnam War, the party reached its peak of support in 1968 when it nominated Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver for President. Although a convicted felon, Cleaver carried nearly 37,000 votes (ironically, Cleaver ultimately became a Reagan Republican in the early 1980s – then a crack addict in the late 1980s – before emerging as an environmental activist in the late 1990s). Famed “baby doctor” Benjamin Spock – a leftist and staunch opponent of the Vietnam War – was the PFP Presidential nominee in 1972. Since then, the small party has largely been dominated by battling factions of Marxist-Leninists (aligned with the Workers World Party), Trotskyists and non-communist left-wing activists. The PFP today is small, with activities largely centered in California. In 1996, the PFP successfully blocked an attempt by the WWP to capture the PFP’s Presidential nomination (and a California ballot spot) for their party’s nominee. In a sign of the party’s serious decline in support, the PFP’s poor showing in the 1998 statewide elections caused the party to lose its California ballot status. Likewise, they were unable to regain official ballot status by successive failed petition attempts for the 2000 and 2002 elections. However, the PFP finally regained its ballot status in 2003 – and is already fielding candidates in 2004 for Congress and other offices.

The Progressive Party of Vermont – http://www.progressiveparty.org/
This is the party of Bernie Sanders – the only independent in the U.S. House of Representatives. Its policies are similar to those of the New Party organizations mentioned above.

The Social Democrats, USA – http://www.socialdemocrats.org/

Like the Democratic Socialists of America (above), the SD-USA is the other official US full member party of the Socialist International. Like the DSA, the SD-USA has never fielded candidates for office. The SD-USA is a group more ideologically centrist, more staunchly anti-communist and more directly aligned with the Democratic Party than the more traditionally leftist DSA. In fact, the views of the SDUSA in 1972 caused the DSA (then named the DSOC) to splinter away in a ideological rift. The SDUSA refused to support George McGovern for President that year because of his opposition to the Vietnam War – versus the DSOC, which supported McGovern and an immediate end to the war. While both DSA and SDUSA claim to be the one true heir to the ideological legacy of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas.

NOTE: Based on materials from their website, the SDs supported the Iraq War, and their foreign policy generally is not much different from the neoconservatives’. They appear to be hardly leftist at all any more, except in the sense of supporting organized labor.

The Socialist Party USA – http://www.sp-usa.org/

The SPUSA are true democratic socialists – advocating left-wing electoral change versus militant revolutionary change. Many of the SP members could easily be members of the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party. Unlike most of the other political parties on this page with “Socialist” in their names, the SP has always been staunchly anti-communist. Founded by labor union leader, ex-Democratic elected official and pacifist Eugene V. Debs in 1900, the SP was once a mighty national third party. Debs himself was the SP nominee for president five times between 1900 and 1920. Debs received over 900,000 votes (6%) in 1912 – the SP’s best showing ever. Former minister and journalist Norman Thomas was the SP Presidential nominee 6 times between 1928 and 1948 – his best showing being 883,000 votes (2.2%) in 1932. The SP also elected congressmen, mayors and other officials throughout the 20th Century (largely during the 1910s through 1950s). The withered and splintered so much that, by the last 1972, it barely existed. The Democratic Socialists of American and the Social Democrats USA --both linked below – are the other splinter groups from the original Debs/Thomas SP. Activist from the old SP reconstituted the party in 1976 and began to again field SP national tickets for the first time in over two decades. Peace activist and former SP-USA National Chairman David McReynolds was the party’s 2000 Presidential nominee, earning ballot status in seven states (7,746 votes - 8th place - 0.01% …plus a bunch more write-in votes in New York and other states where election officials refused to tabulate individual write-in votes). The 2000 showing was a far cry from the SP glory days, but a major improvement over the party’s 1996 showing. For 2004, former Democratic State Senator Walt Brown of Oregon is the SPUSA Presidential nominee.

The Socialist Workers Party – http://www.themilitant.com/

Originally a pro-Trotsky faction within the Communist Party USA, the SWP was formed in 1938 after the CPUSA – acting on orders from Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin – expelled the American Trotskyites. The SWP was for many years the leading voice of Trotskyism in the USA. Since the 1980s, the SWP has drifted away from Trotskyism and moved towards the brand of authoritarian politics espoused by Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s style of Marxism (the SWP sites calls Castro’s Cuba “a shining example for all workers”). The SWP has run candidates for President in every election since 1948 – plus local candidates in various states. Marxist political organizer James Harris was the SWP Presidential nominee in 1996 (ballot status in 11 states - 8,500 votes - 0.01%) and 2000 (ballot status in 14 states - 7,378 votes - 9th place - 0.01%). You can also read the SWP’s newspapers The Militant (English) and Perspectiva Mundial (Spanish) online. It appears that SWP National Chair Martin Koppel will be the SWP Presidential nominee in 2004 – even though he is constitutionally ineligible because he is a foreign-born, naturalized US citizen.

That’s always been the problem with the American left: To doctrinal, too fragmented. A bunch of fucking splitters. Any chance of all these merging or forming a broader alliance?

But, say what you will about these groups – if you look at their platforms they are not in any way vague or meaningless, the way the Republicrats’ platforms are.

(Myself, I’m a member of the DSA and the SPUSA. But a registered Democrat – why not?)

[Sam_Stone]

But they fear the Democrats’ tax-and-spend policy. Conservative-pushed buzz words, like “income redistribution”, and scary images, such as the welfare mom with a Mercedes, draw attention away from the current Republicans’ spend policy.

Or maybe they have studied the issues, and simply don’t agree with you? Why do some of you on the left always assume that Republicans are ill-informed and just need to be enlightened? Many conservatives understand Liberal arguments quite well. We just don’t agree with them. Have some respect for your opponents.

[Early_Out]

@Sam Stone

Or maybe they have studied the issues, and simply don’t agree with you? Why do some of you on the left always assume that Republicans are ill-informed and just need to be enlightened? Many conservatives understand Liberal arguments quite well. We just don’t agree with them. Have some respect for your opponents.

I got the impression that Monocracy was talking about the views of a few close friends, so he’s not making assumptions about some nonspecific conservatives. He’s talking about folks whose thought processes he’s had the opportunity to examine at close range.

Frankly, any conservative who starts talking about the “tax and spend Democrats” is obviously misinformed. Among recent administrations, which had a balanced budget? Clinton (and please don’t tell me that it was the Republican Congress that made that happen - Clinton actually proposed a series of balanced budgets - he didn’t get dragged into it, kicking and screaming, by the Congress). Which had massive deficit spending? Reagan and Bush II. The old canards just don’t apply anymore.