What's causing the division in the Democratic party?

- Some of us 'older' Democrats watch in amazement at what has to be neocon operatives (plants) attempting to destroy the party from within. Pretending to be Democrats...they work like 'COINTELPRO' agents of the 60s-70s-80s...who were secretly 'planted' in left-leaning organizations and groups to cause internal dissent and make them appear 'radical' in the mainstream media and to their own party.

- It seems they were successful. Since the 2000 selection...the debate hasn't been about illegal supreme court decisions, government corruption or civil rights / elections violations. It's been about how it's 'righteous' to hate Nader because he 'cost' Gore (the American people) an election. Or about how the party 'needs' to move to the right in order to 'attract' middle-of-the-roaders.

- Someone out there doesn't WANT the Democratic party to have a unified message or to speak as one voice. Ask yourself these questions: Why is Nader discussed more than the illegal Supreme Court decision that stopped a legal recount and put Bush* in office? Why has it become more important to talk about 'moving to the right' instead of the many accomplishments of the Democratic party?

- Someone is steering the debate AWAY from blaming those fat cat 'Boss Tweeds' in control of the US government. Someone would rather incite infighting, suspicion and doubt among once faithful Democratic voters.

- Do you ever wonder why one Bush* scandal after another quickly fades from the front page news? Are 'Democrats' too busy forming circular firing squads to mount an effective offense against the most corrupt US government in history? Is this the intent of the Democratic Pretenders who tell us to 'move on'? Get over it? Nothing to see here?

- There is no such thing as a 'centrist' in times like these. Instead...they are nothing more than appeasers of tyrants and despots...who expect a share of the booty after the storm. The Democratic party has principles and values that have been established over 200 years...beginning with Jackson and Jefferson. Now we find that some among us that say we 'need' to be more like the Corporate Party and weaken the foundation of what took us decades to build.

- "Someone" is trying to divide us. Don't let them succeed.

.

:crazy:

republicans certainly don't promote democratic disunity. they're the only reason such 'unity' (what there is of it) exists at all.

same could be said of republican unity.

How many times in the news do you see articles and reports about the disarray and lack of focus of the Dem party. Usually on the front page to cover for some heinous thing the Republicans have done.
This is republican propaganda telling us and the world that Dems can't get it together. It is BS, don't fall for it! This lie repeated often enough like all the other Repub lies, has practically paraliyzed the Dems with fear.

:)

I blame the people trying to drag the party to the right.

n/t

with their damned lefty platform. it's a brazen attempt to appeal to lefties.

anyone lefter than clinton...shut the hell up!!! when we need your votes, we will whine about republican efforts to dupe and disenfranchise...but do nothing about actual disenfranchisement. what?!?! you want representation?! :scared: what will swing voters think :scared: just shut the hell up and vote "D"...cause the other guy is much worse.

we're the party of open-minded people and we think for ourselves?

really sad that we are (have) fallen for it ....

People need to wake up.....but can we do it before its too late????

DR

"Why is Nader discussed more than the illegal Supreme Court decision that stopped a legal recount and put Bush* in office?"

Because the illegal Supreme Court decision is agreed upon here. That Nader IS the RW plant in left wing orgs is what's open to debate. That's why it's discussed more.

"Why has it become more important to talk about 'moving to the right' instead of the many accomplishments of the Democratic party? "

Because when a person who is passionate about "moderating" the party sees a loss, their knee-jerk reaction is to "moderate" more. When the left sees a loss, their knee-jerk reaction is to go left. What is really needed is a consensus vision for the future.

www.2020democrats.com is a good start. We have a non-democrat Nader supporter as a co-policy chair for the environmental group. I'm a Nader hater in the same policy group (we also have a DLCer or three). We came to a consensus on objectives and vision, but not on means and degrees.

"Someone is steering the debate AWAY from blaming those fat cat 'Boss Tweeds' in control of the US government."

Umm... Noone is debating that the fat cat 'Boss Tweeds' are to be blamed for everything because we all agree.

"Do you ever wonder why one Bush* scandal after another quickly fades from the front page news? Are 'Democrats' too busy forming circular firing squads to mount an effective offense against the most corrupt US government in history? Is this the intent of the Democratic Pretenders who tell us to 'move on'? Get over it? Nothing to see here?"

I agree with you on this concern. Having 9+ contendors really encourage the circular firing squads. That's why I wish Al Gore would get into the race and seek support from some less able candidates. With enough mutual support, he'd be gangbusters for the nomination. If we could just present a united front (too bad we can't all have our primaries in November this year) then we'd go off on Bush again.

But I fear it'll be mid 2004 if not August in Boston before we're completely united, and hopefully it's not too bloody.

"There is no such thing as a 'centrist' in times like these"

I don't agree. I'm socially very liberal in most areas, but fancy myself a balanced budget type. I guess that makes me a fiscal conservative?

I've also seen many many posts about voting machines and such. Scalia can't go to an event without a protest scheduled.

I really think the divisions are more fraternal than visceral right now within the party.

2 is related. Because the Democratic party has become that second branch, it did not deliver any of the promises of that foundation.

There is no health care, the market price of a day's work has fallen below the market price of a day's survival, the middle class is being phased out, an increasingly huge % of resources, including the means of production is in the hands of a smaller and fatter handful of elite, and no matter how the regime tries to spin the numbers, the number of people who are struggling or losing the struggle to meet basic expenses is skyrocketing.

Although this hasn't impacted as much among the computer owning, internet using, message board posting class yet, it is the reality on the street, among the non-computer owning, internet using, etc masses, and it is working its way upward.

The jobs that are available do not pay enough for even the bare necessities, and as more of the pseudo-affluent, whose fancy cars and houses are really owned by the bank lose their jobs and exhaust their savings, they too will come face to face with the wide array of career choices including burger flipping and floor mopping.

Will they go quietly, and take their place at the bus stop at 5:30 AM to be on time for their shift and bring home their $45 for the day?

Most probably will, since not to do so could bring even worse consequences, but there is the chance that some may not...

I completely agree. You don't have to go back much further than the anti-union turn the Democratic party made under Carter and followed by the DLC in the 1980s. The "New Democrats" decided there was no problems with big business, it was the social programs, the unions, poor mothers on welfare - they were the problem.

And of course, given the choice of Republican or Republican-Lite, people chose the real Republican Reagan, instead of the Lite Republican Democrats.

:-)

:-)

I think you would see a lot of people care about it a lot more.

One of the problems is that the Democrats have traditionally spun themselves as the party of the "people."

But in reality, it is still only the top 25% most affluent who vote.

As the gap between affluent and poor has widened, there has naturally been a shift of interests in that segment of the voting class that considers itself "Democrat."

It would not be in the interests of either branch of the Corporate party if the "people," those masses that the Democrats were supposed to speak for, did vote.

Instead of capital gains and estate taxes, etc, the issues would be health care, child care, a Living Wage, a right to housing, none of which would increase revenues for the corporations, or contribute to achieving the long-term military and economic goals of those who stand to profit from same, regardless of party affiliation.

According to you, the Dems have no interest in GOTV, yet they spend tons of money on GOTV.

According to you, the Dems have no interest in health care, yet every Dem candidate seems to have an interest in health care, as well as a plan(*)

According to you, the Dems have no interest in child care, yet Dems Dems spend millions on it.(*)

According to you, the Dems have no interest in a Living Wage, yet Dems fight all the time to increase the Minimum Wage(*)

According to you, the Dems have no interest in a right to housing, yet Dems fight for money to protect people's right to housing.(*)

(*) I work for an organization that helps provide all of those things for poor people. Every year, Dems FIGHT to get us money. Every year, the Repukes try to shut us down.

Now let's look at it from the point of view of a single mom on a housing project waiting list moving every few weeks from place to place, trying to feed her kid on $5.50 an hour.

What difference does it make to her if a Dem politician tried to get funding for some project that would provide good salaries for his friends who got the admin jobs and maybe provide some service to enough people for a good brochure shot?

What will the clerk at the convenience store (the only one she can walk to) tell her if she offers that instead of whatever food she can find in there for her kids?

Remember, her mom heard those promises. Her grandma even voted a couple of times, right after the civil rights laws were passed, and whenever a pol needed to take a busload for the cameras.

Neither her mom nor her grandma ever got health care, or child care, or housing. That may not jive with a lot of well dressed folks drinking white wine and talking about party unity and this or that rich white man who is such a terrific candidate, but that is the reality for millions and millions of people.

The poor masses are not served by either party. If there is any division in the Dem party, it is a division between those who understand that that's the way things are, and those who don't.

What difference does it make to her if a Dem politician tried to get funding for some project that would provide good salaries for his friends who got the admin jobs and maybe provide some service to enough people for a good brochure shot?

I work for one of those organizations you seem to think exists to provide "good brochure shots". The people who work here don't make "good salaries"; They work for tens of thousands of dollars less than they would make in the private sector. 90% of the money we get goes to providing services for the poor. We help several hundred thousand poor people every year.

That's a lot to squeeze into a brochure, no?

What will the clerk at the convenience store (the only one she can walk to) tell her if she offers that instead of whatever food she can find in there for her kids?

She will not have to go to that clerk. She can come to us and she will get help, thanks to the Dems who fight for our funding. No thanks to the Greens or the Repukes.

Remember, her mom heard those promises. Her grandma even voted a couple of times, right after the civil rights laws were passed, and whenever a pol needed to take a busload for the cameras.

The promise is being kept. If you ever come to NYC, I can show it to you.

Neither her mom nor her grandma ever got health care, or child care, or housing.

Those are the exact thing my org helps acquire for poor people. We do that for thousands of poor people each and every year, thanks to Dems.

That may not jive with a lot of well dressed folks drinking white wine and talking about party unity and this or that rich white man who is such a terrific candidate, but that is the reality for millions and millions of people.

Then tell those Greens to get their ass in gear and help the Dems defeat the Repukes, instead of the other way around.

You're very good at inventing deficiencies with the Democratic Party. I, on the other hand, don't have that luxury, because five days a week I get a front row seat, and I do it for a salary much lower than the market pays. The people doing this are Democrats. There is not one Green to be found helping poor people in my org.

Why is that? What have the Greens actually DONE to help the poor?

Where did I mention the "Greens?"

I'm not holding up any party as an example to follow, there isn't one.

Any time you can help one individual, that is a good thing, and appreciated by that individual.

And it has long been a credo of Republicans that individual charity should take the place of government provided social services.

What I am saying is that regardless of ideologies or lofty arguments by people who have computers, internet access and the skills to use them, the millions of people who do NOT have those things, and whose chance of getting them is about the same as their chance of winning Power Ball, there is NO political party who either serves them, or wants them.

Corporate politics is corporate politics, whether it's about the right clothes to get the promotion, or the right empty words to get the campaign check from the PAC.

The division, if there is one, in the "Democratic Party," is as I said, the division between people who understand that, "realists," if you prefer, and people who do not understand that.

What I am saying is that regardless of ideologies or lofty arguments by people who have computers, internet access and the skills to use them, the millions of people who do NOT have those things, and whose chance of getting them is about the same as their chance of winning Power Ball, there is NO political party who either serves them, or wants them.

And I know that you are wrong, and I can prove it to you. I work for an organization that helps hundreds of thousands of poor people EVERY YEAR. Not only do we prevent their becoming homeless, hungry and sick, we also provide many with "computers, internet access and the skills to use them". You are talking out of your ass when you deny this, as demonstrated by your repeating assertions while providing no evidence to back yourself up.

Remember, her mom heard those promises. Her grandma even voted a couple of times, right after the civil rights laws were passed, and whenever a pol needed to take a busload for the cameras.

The promise is being kept. If you ever come to NYC, I can show it to you.<<<<<

Can you come to Rural Illinois and show me where the promises are being kept? If you ever come to Illinois, I will be more than happy to take you on a tour and show you where the promises aren't being kept.

The Repukes, with the help of the Green Party, is trying to break those promises, and trying to prevent the Dems from continuing to fulfill those promises.

Can you come to Rural Illinois and show me where the promises are being kept?

I don't have to go to Ill. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, equal rights, civil rights, farming subsidies, etc.

No thanks to the Greens. The Dems get the credit

Maybe the "proimses are being kept" in NYC, and that's good, very good. But things aren't like that everywhere. You can pretend they are. You can pretend that the lower class is being helped everywhere, but that isn't going to do much for those who aren't being helped.

with the help of the Green Party. Democrats are still fighting to fulfill those promises. You can pretend that the Dems are doing nothing because some are still in need, but there's overwhelming proof of the Dems intentions in their long record of service to the poor.

Your obsession with the Greens is not healthy. You really need to get some help with that.

I have never once said that the Green Party is the answer. Never. I might have said that it would make sense to vote for a Green Candidate, but that is not the same as saying that the Greens are the saviors of the universe.

Are the Republicans breaking promises? Some of them are, some aren't. Are the Democrats breaking promises? Some of them are, some aren't. It's nice that you have so much faith in the Democrats. For your sake I hope that we don't see the Democrats in control of the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. I think the country would be better off, don't get me wrong, but you will also realize that the Democratic Party isn't what you make it out to be.

What we need is a broad coalition. The big tent that the Democrats claim to be. A tent that allows the Wellstone wing an equal voice. A tent that allows Nader to be heard (that is if Nader is willing to cooperate). We aren't there, in fact we are very far from being there.

"Neither her mom nor her grandma ever got health care, or child care, or housing."
Aren't those earned, not given to a person just because they breathe.

The market value of her labor is not enough to purchase the market value of either child care, health care, food or housing.

There are millions of her.

How does this benefit you?

As a rather extreme leftist, I don't see the "moderates", "centrists", "libertarians", "conservatives" as repuglycan plants. Just fellow Democrats who differ with my opinions on the direction of the party.

This is a Democratic Forum. There are those that want to insist that we all bow to the throne of "unity" and march lockstep to the voting booths without questioning the positions, actions, or words of the candidates. As much as I usually (about 99% of the time)disagree with the "moderates" I consider their arguments valuable even if I treat them with scorn. They are a part of the party and their attempt to move the party to the right deserves a hearing just as much as does the arguments of those of us on the left.

Or, as Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to an organized political party..I'm a Democrat."

to woo the Greens back. It was the Republican-lite DLC that caused the Green movement to form their own party. Jeez, I almost joined myself, but I knew it was not a good solution. I think we ought to go back to our roots as the late Paul Wellstone urged us to, and put the DLC on notice to stop using Republican talking points or go back to where they came from.

The Green Party was around before the DLC even existed.

...and it still seems to pop up in unrelated posts.

- The Dem party seems to have split in half...for whatever reasons. It's difficult getting used to fighting ' Conservative Democrats' to keep the party's principles intact.

- I don't know of any Democrats who joined the party so they could help destroy social programs and public education. We joined the 'party on the left' to use government to help...not oppress...those who can't help themselves. We don't want government used to enrich the few at the expense of the many.

- The Dem party doesn't need to move to the right to win. We DO need to return to the 'party of the people' and represent those without a voice or money.

:crazy: and refuse to take responsiblity for their own parties failures. Easier to have a scapegoat..

because some DEMS are obsessed with the Green Party

Yeah, right. Like Nader and the Greens never talk about the Democratic Party.

and refuse to take responsiblity for their own parties failures.

Only a Green would consider "winning elections" (and SS, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage, weekends, overtime, unions, OSHA, FEMA, FEC, SEC, etc) as a "failure"

Easier to have a scapegoat..

He said, right after blaming the Dems for being obsessed.

How can the Democratic Party win against Republicans when they're also being attacked from both sides of the left?

...in Democracy...whether we like it or not.

- The DLC...on the other hand...is supposedly PART of the Democratic party. It's clear why there's competition between the Greens and Dem party...but WHY should we have to fight the DLC over 'control' of 'our' party?

-

is that the party is made up of some very diverse interest groups.

You have gays/lesbians, professors and aging hippies, government workers, minority groups, feminists, and the inner city poor. Trying to keep all those groups pointed in the same direction is tough enough, but then add in probably the most influencial group of all, labor unions, and it becomes even tougher.

It shouldn't surprise people that gay groups and teamsters don't always agree on everything. It's got to be a constant struggle to balance the interests of all the different groups.

In fairness, the exact same thing can be said of the Republicans, as they try to keep their party together. They have to keep their business interests and religious voters together which isn't so easy either.

I guess the one issue that ties Republicans together is cutting taxes.

I'm not sure what the corresponding issue would be for Democrats - maybe pro-choice.

How are gays and lesbians an interest group? And if they are, are straights an interest group?

I like a big tent party with lots of different views on certian issues, gives us much more of a choice in the primaries and the senate, house, etc. elections.

it doesn't take a freeper to point that out.

or I may have not understood your post. I just stated I like a party that actually disagrees with each other. I hate a party that will support someone just because there is a (D) next to there name. Much like the repukes are doing for Ahnold.

You could say that yesterday's right wing (today's center) is causing division by embracing neoliberal economic policies, by embracing Bush's preventive war doctrine, and by howling for traditional constitutencies to have even less voice than currently.

Conversely, you could argue that lefties and other traditional constituencies are causing division by having the temerity to demand a voice.

What's your pleasure?

Party......I can't read the other posts ....and am being simplistic..but from my heart after reading Gene Lyons article and the many others I read every day on DU.....

It's Lieberman and his enormous ego! He's been the "frontrunner for trashing Dems" and trying to split us. Maybe he's the "front man" for "powers in the Dem Party." But, I blame him the most.......and it goes back to Gore and "Selection 2000"), but he's not put that behind him and moved on....he's still trashing what appears to be (after Gore's magnificent speech against Bush) the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party.

So......yes..I put the blame on Lieberman for trashing us and going with some weird view he has of DLC and what it means to be a Democrat.!

i count myself in the latter group....the unabashed liberal branch of the Democratic Party

SLAPPING THE DONKEY! :kick:BUSHCO* OUT

Gun owners don't trust dems after Clinton/Assualt ban/Reno/Waco.

Loggers and lumber producers feel shafted after the roadless/anti logging bills.

Off-roaders and snowmobilers got screwed with the closures of their trails.

Monogamous belivers didn't like the ruse: "didn't have sex with that woman"

Many small groups feel hosed and that amounts to many.

After the Bush/Clinton NAFTA ordeal, unions were less of a powerful force in the Democratic party. Now there is a struggle for power in the party, and pro-choice groups are gaining ground. Because of the fact that abortion is socially divisive, we've already seen Republicans divide and conquer in many areas, thanks to "Reagan Democrats."

pols like it want it and will sell out their mother to have it. they may not have started out with $$$$$ in mind but, it is a sickness pwoer and money.
politics is a nice business if you want to get rich.
others are genuine and truly do care about the issues and have not become corrupted by the system.

Look at the history back to Nixon and you know that the same cast of characters were Nixon's Lesser Stooges.

Look at what we know about Luci the Bat in '72, moling into McGovern's campaign and how many others?

It is my opinion that the shit that went on in Watergate time abated briefly, then returned with a vengence in the October Surprise and now Watergate encompasses a small fraction of the corruption the Busheviks are up to.

So yes, while I am not saying I am 100% certain, I don't think it's a crazy leap of :tinfoilhat: to say that's it's VERY PROBABLY SO.

...when they pulled dirty tricks or spied on Democrats.

- Also...Robert Parry has an interesting article about how the manipulation of the media by (Republican) governments started with Nixon and later upgraded by Reagan.

You seem to be saying that only the corporatists are possible plants. Isn't it possible that some of the so-called progressives could also be plants? Personally I think that the split is coming from both sides. Listen to some of the rhetoric from both Lieberman and Kucinich, who are arguably the most conservative and liberal candidates respectively. Both of them seem to be determined to tug the Democratic party so much that it is ripping apart at the seams.

Disclaimer: I am not claiming that either Lieberman or Kucinich are GOP plants. I am only addressing the effects that their rhetoric may end up having on the party.

The question of our time is how to behave with the rest of the world.

1) We can create a cooperative, market oriented global order that puts an emphasis on human rights. The idea would be to have G8 working together with respect to trade and fighting terrorism. Since the idea of right underpins this philosophy, interventionism is justified when it comes to ethnic cleansing, international terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction. A high tempo of economic growth is emphasised, and culture is libertarian.

2) We can create trading blocs which have uniform labor and environmental standards. The idea of democracy is key here. Culture decisions would be based on local autonomy. Foreign policy would be underpinned by regional defense agreements. Economically things would be slower, but quality of life issues would be emphasized.

3) An unilateralist, isolationist nationalism which emphasizes cultural homogeneity. Nations act out of strategic interest, and many smaller nations acquire nuclear weapons. Cultural traditions could be emphasized, and trade barriers would be erected.

We see these fissures and fights both within the Republican and Democratic parties. Kucinichistas and Buchananites would be comfortable with something like #3 -- the "American people" are great in spirit, need to return to bilateralism, blah blah blah. Clinton/Blair folks are working to create a world that looks something like #1 -- we don't tolerate nations having weapons of mass destruction, we enforce rights like abortion federally, balance budgets, etc. #2 seems to be the way Europe is headed and a large faction of Greens feel the same way when it comes to "localizing" decision making while creating uniform standards of "fairness" in trade.

Bush initially started off something like #3 but now can't seem to make up his mind whether to go in a #1 or #3-style direction.

Peace!

...not only because our party is split between left and right...but because of the unprecedented turn of events in 2000. It looks as if many Americans still don't understand what happened...including many who call themselves Democrats.

- The takeover of the US government was planned long before the 2000 election. How many of you still believe that it was ONLY A COINCIDENCE that FLORIDA became the state that decided the election? Was it just 'luck' that George's brother and campaign cochair were there to help things along?

- Now it's 2003...and the DLC (the right half of the party) continues to insist that 2000 wasn't 'stolen' and that "Gore lost". This puts the Dem party in the awkward position of having to fight for election reform without the help of the 'conservative Democrats'. Saying that 'Gore lost' allows them to rationalize their push toward the right. Admitting that Gore won...even after being constantly attacked in the media and cheated at the polls...would weaken their argument that Dems can't win with a campaign geared toward the people instead of corporations.

- The Democratic party will remain divided until we reach a concensus on what really happened in 2000 and on 9-11.