Moderates: does the party need the left?

Do you want the votes and money and activism, or can you do this yourselves?

...but just as matter of discussion, I believe moderates are "left." I'm left of center myself, although only slightly.

Now, the way the moderates and the further left compliment each other...

Moderates can organize and raise money better... NEEDED to win

Further lefties can raise public awareness of issues better... NEEDED to win

Moderates can speak to the swing voter better... NEEDED to win.

Further lefties can speak to the OTHER swing voters better (those who border on Green, etc.)... NEEDED to win.

Moderates can organize and raise money better... NEEDED to win

Further lefties can raise public awareness of issues better... NEEDED to win

Moderates can speak to the swing voter better... NEEDED to win.

Further lefties can speak to the OTHER swing voters better (those who border on Green, etc.)... NEEDED to win.

I wouldn't say Dean supporters were center-left or moderate. I'd say they were solid left, and they were able to raise a helluva lot of cash. Different individuals have different strengths. It's not where they lay on the political spectrum but the strengths each and every person possesses. Why can't moderates be as able to raise public awareness on issues ranging from health care to the environment? Pigeonholing people on the left into these neat little boxes seems counter-intuitive

...Dean being one, of course.

But generally I believe what I wrote is traditionally true.

If anything, I generally avoid boxing people into categories because of exceptions but rather approach it by looking at them through a spectrum. I haven't personally seen solid leftists do any better or worse than center-leftists when it came to raising money or raising issues dear to Democrats. I think the issue more than the voter is what animates people. If you brought up the issue of, say, slashing and burning forests, it wouldn't matter who the messenger is, just that the message got across in the first place.

...based on, of course, what MY opinion is on what "center-left" and "solid-left" is...

"Solid left" - raised awareness of illegality and atrocities of current Iraq war (not exclusively, but generally)

"Center-left" - was most instrumental in the DNC raising more cash the the GOP did this year (not exclusively, but generally)

But, of course, you're correct about avoiding boxing people into categories.

Sometimes it's just easy to do so.

I've never seen a true scale by which to measure what a centrist, moderate, and further left dem is.

I consider the DLC decidedly right of center, bordering on out and out conservatives.

It's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.

If we use that as a rubric, anyone left of center would at the very least advocate some safety valves and mechanisms over markets to protect them from their own excesses and abuses. Those right of center would at the very least advocate relaxing regulations over the markets.

Regardless, I'm still weary to accept the notion that it was simply center-leftists who were "generally" responsible for raising more money than the Republicans. If you ask me, it was due in large part to the issue of Bush, not what center-leftists, solid leftists, or even hardcore leftists could do and not do. As I said previously, it think it's the issue more than who the voter is that animates them. This case, it was "Anybody But Bush" that animated people all over the left.

... left/moderates have raised more money.

Perhaps only because they are in power to do so...

Clinton set a record for Dems in fundraising which had nothing to do with W.

That was what made him an effective campaigner, imho. I think it had less to do with with whether he was a center leftist or a hardcore one but because he was good with people, someone able to read people and tell them what they wanted to hear. Him being moderate may have been a factor, but I believe it was a subordinate one to Clinton's charisma, and it seems supportable given his record in contrast to what was happening in the Senate/House throughout his 8 years.

Here's why I think it's important.

Dean managed to inspire an incredible amount of energy and enthusiasm among his supporters and that carried through to the election. But I don't see Dean as very LW himself (note he is not R by any stretch, though!)

Still, he (although he credits the grassroots) managed to generate an enormous investment in the party and the campaign.

I think this shows that the party has NOT completely lost its way as long as we can bring the factions together the way it was done in the final campaign.

We definitely are due for some housecleaning, but pperhaps it's less abig job than we think.

Dean, a very moderate democrat (centrist by Vermont standards) attracted a lot of left wing support because of his (supposed) opposition to the war.

However, Dennis Kucinich also opposed it (he REALLY did), but he didn't get near the support from the left Dean did.

I have to wonder if Dean's supporters actually recognized an electability factor in Dean because he was a moderate.

because he wasn't automatically smeared as a leftist. Until he was. He dropped out before we voted anyway, so I got to vote for Dennis.

..but many on the left also held him up as such.

I didn't see that. Most folks I saw who supported Dean, and I include myself here, saw a moderate who actually *listened* to the concerns of the left, which carried a lot more weight than a lot of moderates (especially those who tend toward "ideological purity" arguments) anticipated.

I did throw my initial support behind Dean for reasons of electability - I thought he was the best chance we had for meaningful change. It was strategic voting applied to the primaries, which I still think is a good idea when a good candidate is there; otherwise, the left is left voting its heart in the primaries and holding its nose in the general.

I supported Dean because the man had guts! If I had wanted a purist leftist, I'd have gone for Kucinich!

I recall many on DU early on in the primaries who flat out denied Howard Dean was a moderate then would give any number of justifications for his moderate positions.

I still know people personally, and come into contact with them while doing work for the local party, who believe Howard Dean came right from the 60s counter culture hippie movement but never "sold out."

I still know people personally, and come into contact with them while doing work for the local party, who believe Howard Dean came right from the 60s counter culture hippie movement but never "sold out."

Dean as hippie? North Fulton has it's share of nutcases too, I guess. :D

Anyway, since you're pretty much the only self-professed moderate who's responded (thank you), I'll ask the next part of the question: if the party needs the left, then why not get significant progressive input on the way the party is run instead of allowing Al From and his merry band to run wild?

...concerning the power they actually have.

From doesn't set the DNC agenda but he is still often too rightwing for me on some issues.

Remember, the party is full of moderates who aren't DLC (Biden, for example, who I have great deal of respect for and would have supported whole heartedly had he run for president...)

However, I do believe in the stated purpose of the DLC.

:)

From doesn't set the DNC agenda

He does as much as anyone else at the higher levels of the party does.

Remember, the party is full of moderates who aren't DLC

I know. Still, the question stands. More simply put, it's a question of whether we're to have a coalition on the center-left, or a tyranny of the majority.

The latter won't last long.

Suit and tie, the whole nine yards. He was hardly a flower child, though I'll bet he's had a few puffs in his time.

I agree with Uly's assessment: I voted for Dean, hoping to fend off Kerry, and wishing I could vote for Dennis. What a strange feeling it was. Largely frustrating.

there was a reason the media turned him into an anti-war ultra liberal...

...just Bush's way of doing it.

Dean endorsed a congressional effort pushed by Sens. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) that was very similar -- in substance and in outcome -- to the resolution that passed both chambers in Congress.

The Biden-Lugar resolution authorized Bush to use force in Iraq -- unilaterally, if necessary -- if a diplomatic solution could not be reached at the United Nations.

The resolution, which never reached the floor of the Senate for a vote, simply required Bush to "make available" to Congress his "determination" that the Iraqi threat "is so grave that the use of force is necessary." The resolution had no provisions requiring Bush to seek "permission" to start the war.

Dean considered the substance of Biden-Lugar and publicly endorsed it, despite the fact that it allowed Bush to pursue war in Iraq, without U.N. support, and without a second congressional resolution. As Ryan Lizza noted last month in The New Republic, "he war resolution Howard Dean supported would probably have led to exactly the same outcome -- a unilateral war with Iraq."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000940.html

..with all statements sourced.

...and constantly imply that they're somehow crazy. Is this how the DLCers plan on keeping the 'lefties' around?

And the moderates of the DLC can't seem to admit that the DLC leadership has intentionally tried to keep progressives from leadership roles or from having a voice in the party. The bottom line is that the DLCers don't want to HEAR from the lefties...they just want their votes and money.

Which means this "lefty" is going to take his money and become an activist for another party should the evil bastards in the DLC prevail!

So your point is?

And the further left can't seem to admit they've never had leadership, can't organize, can't raise money, and thus, can't get any power or influence so would rather whine about it and threaten to walk.

(ulysses, sorry - your thread is about to dissolve into another DLC/ant-DLC flame war.)

WE are the reason the DNC raised as much as it did this year. WE BOUGHT IT, WE OWN IT!!!

If the DLC doesn't like it, we can always walk away and take our money and activism with us.

You're believing your own propaganda.

but apparently you've bought into the DLC propoganda.

I know for a FACT the left contributed millions and thousands upon thousands of manhours.

But apparently you think you can get along fine without us. If the EVIL BASTARDS of the DLC get their way, you'll find out how far you'll get.

Overwhelmingly elected. The margin of victory was 33% and the opposition took only 27%!

Apparently things like that don;t count to the DLC, especially when the bright new star repudiates any connection with that organization.

Where I live in Illinois, we have a name for the DLC. We call 'em Republicans!

Obama is as liberal as they come! He repudiates the FUCKING DLC!

Have you even met Obama? I HAVE!

Gotta agree with ya, Walt, as someone who's also met him.

and both the DLC and the Daley machine are pissed about him, but know they can't do shit about him!

He just won a Senate seat in one of the widest margins ever!

He doesn't owe his election to anyone but the VOTERS, and that scares them shitless.

:evilgrin:

If you noticed, Obama to very liberal stances on the issues, but framed the debate in such a way as to not allow the Republicans any chance against him.

Obama could write a book on how to run and WIN as an unapologetic progressive.

Didn't something like 1/3 of the Republicans vote for him as well?

Obama is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.

John Kerry, by contrast, is a Libertarian-Leaning Liberal.

Obama is not as liberal as they come. For instance his positions on marriage equality and school vouchers are not the most liberal. Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy are examples of hard-core liberals in the Senate. If you're defining anybody to the right of Ted Kennedy as a moderate, then it's not unfair to call Obama a moderate. If your definition of liberal is more inclusive, then you have to accept that some DLC members are liberal.

Obama's repudiation of the DLC, sans expletives, was based on a litmus test of three issues that the DLC had presented to him:

1. Withdrawal from NAFTA
   
2. Universal Health Care
   
3. How he would have voted on the IRW
   

Frankly, the DLC deserved to be repudiated for that. But I don't think the response ought to be accept those points as a litmus test to deny affiliation with DLC liberals like Cantwell, Kerry and Feinstein.

Obama is a liberal who won with a margin of victory of 33% to his opponents total vote of 27%.

Obama is not the moderate claimed by the DLC poster on this thread. Obama did repudiate the DLC.

You would be entirely correct if "DLC" and "moderate" meant the same thing.

If you want to go about applying litmus tests, and exclude all but hard-core liberals from your definition of liberal, then it could be reasonably argued that Obama is not a liberal. In that case you would be incorrect.

And it should go without saying that if you mean to define liberal using Obama's positions as a reference, then you have set up a tautology. Obama is of course Obama.

A number of them won in red-states no less. There was a thread with a letter from Dean to members around here somewhere about it. I forgot the name of the thread.

progressive groups and the individual donors had outraised them this cycle. They said their traditional donor base had dropped!

If the DLC STEALS IT, the money dried up!

And the corporations don't need their stupid asses any more because they BOUGHT the GOP so THEY OWN IT!

They won't invest money in a party that doesn't have any power any more.

And the further left can't seem to admit they've never had leadership, can't organize, can't raise money...

Pretty broad overgeneralization, imo.

... and I save those for reactionaries like Q who makes some pretty broad generalizations himself.

example: And the moderates of the DLC can't seem to admit that the DLC leadership has intentionally tried to keep progressives from leadership roles or from having a voice in the party.

to remember when Q and I were on opposite sides of this particular fence. :D

example: And the moderates of the DLC can't seem to admit that the DLC leadership has intentionally tried to keep progressives from leadership roles or from having a voice in the party.

Q is correct here. No one, including George Bush, scares the poobahs of the DLC more than folks like Cynthia McKinney.

...I reserve that word for the Neocons and PNACers.

My 'point' is that we hear constant complaints from the DLCers on this board that the 'liberals' don't want to compromise with them...but it has become obvious that the DLC doesn't want to compromise or share power with the 'left'. The DLC has nothing but scorn for the 'looney left' and it shows in almost every post of yours here on DU. Coincidentally...the leadership of the DLC shows the same type of disdain for liberals and progressives in general. Their smears against Moore is but one example out of many.

You say that the Left never had any leadership, ect...but the RWingers and the 'new' Democrats have joined forces in character assassination and making sure that no strong leadership on the left threatens their stranglehold. They hunt down and smear any progressive or liberal that even appears to be gaining a populist following. Gore, Dean and Moore are prime examples of the moderates and Neocons getting together to destroy their common enemies.

And you continue to call our complaints and grievances 'whining'. That looks very familiar. What's next? Will you call us 'Sorelosermen'?

Which is fine, I'll take my money and activism elsewhere.

The Left is an embarrassment to the Party... Witness theiur repugnance of Michael Moore, peace signs, antiwar talk, support of justice for the Palestinians.

All the Party wants from the Left is for it to be blind and quiet as we fork over our cash and votes.


Medea Benjamin Dragged Off DNC Floor in Handcuffs

As Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke last night, on the floor of the convention, Medea Benjamin from Global Exchange and CodePink unfurled a pink colored banner that read "End the Occupation of Iraq." That apparently was not one of the DNC-approved messages of the night because within moments of the banner being unfurled, police were called in to remove Medea Benjamin.
Benjamin was dragged off the convention floor and thrown out of the FleetCenter. She said that the DNC was asked whether they wanted her arrested and that they decided that would not look good.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT:
AMY GOODMAN: As Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke last night on the floor of the convention, another woman, Medea Benjamin, from Global Exchange and Code Pink was speaking out. She unfurled a pink-colored banner that read "End the occupation of Iraq" that apparently was not one of the D.N.C.-approved messages of the night because within moments of the banner being unfurled, police were called in to remove her.

POLICE: Clear the aisles.

POLICE: Please clear the aisles.

MEDEA BENJAMIN: End the occupation! Bring the troops home! End the occupation! Bring the troops home! Where's free speech?

AMY GOODMAN: Medea Benjamin dragged off the convention floor and thrown out of the Fleet Center. She said that the Democratic National Convention was asked whether they wanted her arrested and they decided that that would not look good.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (800) 881-2359.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/1327236

Fuck that DLC bullshit!

With thanks to MadFloridian for the article (my comments in blue):

In the words of the DLC, why they seek corporate funding. 2002 article

Rosenberg: "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020805&s=borosage20020726

Traditional interest groups in the Democratic party? Like what Rosie? Women's groups? Environmental groups? Justice groups? I WANT the Democratic Party to accept money from "traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party"

The DLC Comes to Manhattan
by Robert L. Borosage


This past weekend, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) convened a national conversation in New York City. Politicians of all stripes gathered to rub shoulders with lobbyists and corporate contributors in the smarmy swirl that characterizes DLC meetings. The DLC generally uses these occasions to suggest ways that Democrats can benefit by becoming more like Republicans. But on this occasion, members of the DLC should have considered following the example set by Fed Chair Alan Greenspan in his recent Senate testimony: admit up front that they've been wrong. For in the current situation, the DLC is simply out of step with the needs of the country and the opinion of a growing majority of Americans. Here are just a few of the issues the DLC gets wrong:

1. At a time when the public thinks big business has too much influence in Washington, the DLC's mission is to increase the influence of business in the Democratic Party. Or as Simon Rosenberg, head of the DLC's corporate-funded political action committee, the New Democrat Network, put it, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party." But today, two-thirds of the public says big business already has too much influence in Washington. By 50 to 37 percent, Americans say Bush favors the interests of big corporations over ordinary working people. By 49 to 37 percent, they say Democrats favor ordinary working people. That advantage would disappear if the DLC has its way.

(snip)

Corporate scandals:
New Dems joined with Republicans in diluting efforts to clean up the current mess. New Dems in the House offered bipartisan support for the Republican accounting reform bill that was certified as harmless by the accountants' lobby. Before the WorldCom revelations, when it looked like reform was going to be bottled up in the Senate, Lieberman and DLC head Al From launched a PR drive to warn Democrats against being antibusiness and doing too much. (snip)

I ((MadFloridian)) also have an article with New Dem Clinton saying we need to be careful regulating the corporations

AND FINALLY: the icing on the cake.

(snip)

The DLC champions privatization of Social Security as a centerpiece of its program for the new century. Or in DLC speak, as Will Marshall, one of its founders, puts it, "using choice and competition to advance...the big social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare." The DLC provides bipartisan support for a Bush folly that, as Senator Tom Daschle says, would turn Social Security from a guarantee into a gamble...."

What's that you say? The DLC just wants to help us? I don't think so.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020805&s=borosage20020726

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1365751

FASCISM

Voting in favor of the PNAC enabling DLCers is no different from voting for Bush. Not one little iota different!

I recall we discussed this when the DLC started parading its "Progressive Policy Institute" :puke: thinking it was fooling people. We'll never win until people start looking past cosmetic labels and examining the stands on the issues.

Gee it's good to see you Walt!

==
C/PPI | Press Release | April 20, 2004
Three Join DLC/PPI Management Team

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) are pleased to announce the addition of three new members to its management team.

Bill Andresen will become Vice President for Federal Affairs, responsible for expanding relationships between DLC, PPI and Capitol Hill. He comes to the DLC from the Dutko Group where he has been Senior Vice President. Prior to that Mr. Andresen was Chief of Staff to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for 10 years, after serving for 10 years as Chief of Staff to Rep. Mel Levine (D-CA).

Debbie Cox will serve as Chief of Staff for the DLC. Ms. Cox has been with the DLC for nine years, most recently as the National Political Director overseeing the DLC's work with state and local elected officials across the country. She is also a veteran of statewide, state legislative and congressional campaigns in California.

Paul Weinstein Jr. will serve as Chief Operating Officer for PPI, and will continue his policy responsibilities as a senior fellow at the institute. Mr. Weinstein worked in the Clinton Administration for eight years, serving as Chief of Staff of the Domestic Policy Council and as Senior Advisor for Policy Planning to Vice President Gore.

Chuck Alston, who has served as Executive Director of the DLC, is leaving to take a post in the private sector that will be announced shortly.

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) leads the New Democrat movement, a national network of elected officials and community leaders whose innovative ideas are modernizing progressive politics for the 21st Century. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the think tank affiliated with the DLC, is an organization with a mission is to define and promote a new progressive politics for America in the 21st century. For additional information on the DLC or PPI, web users may access the DLC online at www.ndol.org and the PPI at www.ppionline.org, or contact the press office at (202)546-0007.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=85&subsecID=108&contentID=252537

And this is yet one more example of how Clinton f**ked over the Democratic party by bringing these corporate welfarers on board.

Moderates and liberals included. These pissing matches to us no good. Let's beat some Republicans.

Some of you just don't get it. There will be a mass exodus from the party if the DLC maintains control over the agenda and direction.

We've seen that there is little difference between the DLC and the Neocons/PNACers. Many of us just can't vote for this crap any longer. We we're willing to hold on until Kerry got his shot at the White house because Bush* had to go. But now that the election is over...we can once again speak out about the concerns we've had for a decade or longer.

America and our Democratic Republic can't survive a one-party state. We must have an opposition party that represents those the Right refuses to even recognize. We want a party beholden to the people...not the corporations that throw millions at them in exchange for custom-fit legislation and laws that oppress the American people.

Moderates MUST do more than just SAY they 'need' liberals and progressives. They need to put those words into action and sit down with the left and plan together for the future of the party.

There is a world of difference between moderates and republicans. If you can't see that, you're eyes are not open. This the same crap Nader spewed about there being no difference between Gore and Bush. Well, we know that was bullshit.

and way to misrepresent what Nader said.

Please find me a quote from Nader where he said there was "NO" difference; he said there was "not enough of a difference". The nuances seem lost on you. Surprising seeing that we just came out of an election backing a candidate whose entire platform was nothing but nuances that needed entire encylopedias to explain them.

We all KNOW there's a difference. The crumbs the Democratic party throws to the people are a weeeeeee bit larger. Not much. Not enough of a difference between the size of the crumbs but they're larger.

That Bush presidency working great for the Nader believers.

ask me a question and I'll be glad to answer it.

One of us isn't paying attention. Or you're being intentionally obtuse. Read back to that thread and see that the word 'Bush' doesn't appear in any context.

Your hyperbole about this issue is a good example of why the left and right of the Dem party can't seem to work together. For some reason...the NeoDems seem to worship Clinton based on the single fact that he was in office for two terms. But never do they seem to go beyond that in quantifying his presidency.

The DLC is like the crazy uncle who comes to stay for the weekend and brings all his belongings, planning to move in forever. The DLC was a 'think tank' and political operation meant to get Clinton in office. It wasn't meant to stay around and be a permanent fixture of the Democratic party.

But like the Neocons...the Neodems wormed their way in through a crack in the wall and took up residence without really getting the party's 'permission' or approval. Now the party is seemingly stuck with them and no one seems to know how to tell them they were only here for the 'weekend' of Clinton's terms.

Clinton may have ruined the party by subverting it to work for him alone. His 'third way' triangulation made deals with the 'devil' and now the lobbyists and other special interests on the right expect the party to keep those deals intact. But the rest of the party isn't interested...which brings the conflict you see today between the so-called centrists and progressives.

But I must say two things,

Does anyone think FDR and JFK were moderates?

Do the moderates think in negotiations(which is how most laws are written) it is best to start from the center(where you want to end up), or from the left.

The left knows they will probably not get what they want, but will end up hopefully somewhere in the center. Lately everything seems to me to end up very right of center. That's what you get when you start in the center and negotiate against a party that starts at the extreme right.

Who will lick the stamps and make the calls and walk the precincts?

Also, define "moderate" and "right-leaning moderate." The Republican Lexicon definition means "New Right." The "New Right," in English, is really is extreme and radical.

"Left" according to most dictionaries is radical, yet your question is prefaced on a viewpoint that the "left" has more than a negligible role in the (Democratic?) party AND that the right is not "activist" with a radical agenda.

In English terms and my opinion, the Democratic Party is dominated by "New Right" DLC Democrats, whom are extremists, with few moderates and Centrists, and even fewer Leftists, while the Republican Party is dominated by "New Right" and "Neoconservative" Republicans, whom are both extremists, with very few moderates and Centrists, and NO acknowledged extremists.

However, the public is mostly encouraged to perceive that the Republican Party is Moderate while the Democratic Party is liberal and extreme, and that the Democrats are out of touch with moderates and independents, which is an example of the Republican Lexicon as portrayed in the American media and as unsupported by the English language.

Define and label your terms using actual English meanings and then apply or note Republican Party Lexicon, and we can better answer the question you ask.

Historical use of the terms you use has been replaced in popular understanding of them during the past twenty-five years, by a deliberate and successful use of Republican Party Lexicon.

Vocabulary should not convey a mainstream meaning that runs counter to a dictionary definition attributed to such vocabulary. (e.g. Conservative used to describe radical, and radical used to describe conservative, and constrained opinion to describe unrestrained and unprecedented opinion, while interpretive opinion is used to describe restrained opinion based on precedence.)

All too often, I see your type of question raised and the result is a long lasting debate that neglects common understanding and common usage of the English language.

My questions, if answered, would give your terms clarity and avoid questions like "what does left, moderate, or activist mean?"

I ask you to prevent clashes of seemingly equal words and phrases that confuse those reading and responding to your remarks.

If we use exact same words and phrases to convey exact opposite meanings, then someone is just not being truthful. May I suggest it is the one who uses the meanings that may be widely accepted and used, but that dictionaries cannot support?

Finally, I have read this thread in full, and I am not exactly sure of how you will define "left," "moderate," or even "activist."

I apologize if this post seems offensive to you, but it surely is just meant to illuminate the difficulty we are having in understanding each other. Thanks.

Neither one alone can ever obain the neccessary electoral majority needed to govern.