Are NeoDems saying the Democratic platform has sucked all these decades?

If you listen to the New Democrats...you would think that the debate on issues like abortion, separation of church and state, Affirmative action, and social welfare are something new. The New Democrats (neodems) are pretending that we haven't already had a debate that brought compromise on these issues. That millions of Blacks and Women didn't march in the streets for equality, choice and the right to vote. That workers didn't organize to fight sweatshops, child labor and to attain social security, better wages and working conditions.

The laws and policies in place right now on these issues are the result of decades of activism, negotiation, debate and compromise. But now the Moderates want to start over and re-negotiate these issues with the uncompromising right wing of the GOP and their fanatical religious followers. This looks like a repudiation of everything the Democratic party has ever accomplished or stood for over the last half a century. What the Neodems seem to be saying is that they now want to re-negotiate these issues because the new far right extremists in power won't accept them as they stand.

It seems to me that the NeoDems are saying that we've always been wrong on these issues or that they never really believed in them in the first place. That they're willing to compromise and concede on issues central to the Democratic platform suggests that they think the party took the wrong stance and now want to make a 'new deal' with the not-so-loyal opposition.

The New Democrats are trying to rewrite history and are ignoring why many became Democrats in the first place. Democrats have already fought the battles and made the compromises. The end result is the policies and laws on the books today. But now the Moderates want to change all of this so they can gain a bit of political advantage in a marketplace of bigoted, racist, corporate ideas. They want to refight the same battles over again...but this time they intend to lose ground in the name of political opportunism. This is an affront to all the Americans that have fought so hard for decades to bring these bits and pieces of justice and equality for the 'commoners' and the have-nots.

This brings a battle on a second front: Progressives fighting NeoDems to keep the party's legacy and tradition intact and from being sold off bit by bit to right wing and corporate interests for the sake of 'winning'.

I am pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro affirmative action, pro separation of church and state and pro strong safety net....


Where do I fit into your nomenclature?

neoliberal

garden variety liberal

left of center

centrist

moderate

conservative

Oh, and I favor a multilateral foreign policy which relies on force after all the other alternatives have been explored and failed....

What do the issues have to do with it?

I could hold those values and be a Green, a Democrat, a Democratic Socialist...

I think the best way to turn those values into law is through the Democratic party....

but are willing to cut off your legs.

...if you're not one of the New Democrats trying to 're-negotiate' values of the party.

Or is this simply a 'preemptive strike' for general purposes?

where we differ on are tactics...



It's the difference between a liberal and a radical and I am not using the word radical pejoratively... Radical comes from the word root... Radicals want to make root or fundamental changes...


I think liberal democracy is as fine a system that man can perfect when coupled with a mixed economy that rewards individual initiative while protecting the most vulnerable...


We have gotten far away from this system but the system itself is fine......

Lieberman's, who would define himself as a moderate centrist or Boxer, who stands diametrically opposed and might be called a radical?

Is that the framework?

And Barbara Boxer is a garden variety liberal...


Based on the commonly accepted definition of radicalism I don't think Barbara Boxer is a radical.... In fact she is a small c conservative.... She wants to conserve the post Cold War paradign of America acting multilaterally... It was Bush , the radical or reactionary if you will, who rejected this paradigm and reserves the right to act unilaterally .....Even taken into consideration that "9-11 changed everything" it is Bush who has taken the radical or reactionary departure from foreign policy....

As an aside I realize America has acted unilaterally before but never so brazenly or openly in contempt of world opinion...

Back to your original question I am having an extremely difficult time of coming up with a senator that represents an approach I think will lead to legislative or electoral success...

...the New Democrats happen to agree with and support Bush's 'unilateral' approach to foreign policy. Bush may be leading on this issue...but the DLCers have jumped on the bandwagon and fully support forcing 'democracy' on the Middle East at the point of a gun.

Advocates It's Wears...

...and it has become the 'unofficial' party position. Perhaps you didn't know...but the Democratic party leadership supports the Iraq invasion and occupation and the Bush Doctrine of 'preemptive war'. And if Democrats can get away with it politically...they will also support attacks against Iran.

I think their naked personal ambition overrides all else--or else they would have an ethical problem with their "compromises".

...kind of like the Bushies? That winning is more important than principles?

I'm simply trying to understand why some in the leadership are going 'soft' on issues important to most Democrats and sound ready and willing to concede ground?

We've already fought these battles and now it looks like we have to do it all over again because some Dems are looking for leverage.

The Centrist model doesn't work in this climate. I guess the belief is they can hold the base hostage while pandering. I don't know how many more losses it will require, but maybe losing elections isn't as important to them as losing their political relevance.

Which is to please their corporate masters so that the money tap stays open and they retain their hold on power and wealth. And screw anybody who gets in the way of those objectives. The vast majority of our represenatives, whether Democrats or Republicans have been entirely corrupted by corporate cash, and that is what is leading us all down the road to destruction. It is time that we made our votes worth more than money, and the only way to do that is to support candidates who will not take corporate cash, and to work hard to make nation wide elections publicly financed. Until then, it won't make one damn bit of difference who is in office, Dems or 'Pugs, for they will all be doing the corporate shuffle.

Most telling is that in all these "renegotiations" it is the poor, minorities, women, and working people who will lose...to the profit of the 1% and Corporations. Why are some so willing to take steps backward? We have been timidly compromising, giving in, for the last thirty years, where has it gotten us? Greater inequality, escalating losses of civil liberties, a deteriorating enviroment, a gutted safety net, not to mention becoming torturers and slaughterers of children....how much lower do we want to go?

I always want to ask those promoting "compromise" with the radical right agenda which of our great leaps forward were accomplished without bold vision and the demand for justice backed up by civil disobediance and strikes at the least? Ending slavery? No. The vote for women? No. Voting rights for African Americans? No. Labor rights? No. Those who struggled for our rights did not ask for justice in steps - they called for justice now. Not letting women just vote in local elections, say, "on the way" to full enfranchisement.

Demand the whole pie, then fight for every slice- THAT'S pragmatism.

...for the Dem leadership to send signals that they're ready to soften their stance on issues like abortion or even separation of church and state. And let's keep in mind that it's not THEIR rights that they're compromising. These are rights and liberties that the people had to fight for and force the government to recognize.

Beyond this basic argument is the FACT that there is no compromising with the anti-democratic forces in control of our government.

...given the current state of affairs. Yes, OUR hard-fought and hard-won rights, and our hopes for equality, peace, even life for ALL our brothers and sisters - at home, and everywhere.

Lets not have Liberal Democrats being equated with Neo-Cons. There's no such thing as a NeoDem. We've always been here we're just more vocal now.

...if you get rid of your handle: 'sentinel chicken'.

I refer to the New Democrats as Neodems. Sorry if this offends you. Maybe you're just a 'chicken'?

On edit: besides...I couldn't fit 'new democrats' in the title line.

New Democrats....New Donkeys.....Jackasses, perhaps.

While nobody wants to be called a jackass a donkey does all the hard work....


What does an elephant do?

talking about. Who are these people? Can you give me some examples?

Lots of Dems support Bush from time to time and so would I if I was a blue senator* in a red state or a blue senator in a purple state but none are as obsequious in their support as Joe Lieberman...



*that's why I'm not a politician because I can't think of one issue I agree with Bush on and I would hate to vote for something I didn't believe in on political expediency.....

...that is trying to undo decades of struggle by reopening the debate on issues that have already been debated and compromised to death.

New Democrats and their allies have been sending 'signals' to the Bushie Republicans that they're now willing to 'accept' the views of those who want to end abortion and finance the church with tax dollars. This...after already conceding on issues such as Affirmative Action and Worker's rights.

And...Democratic leaders that have allowed the Bush thugs to steal two elections in a row without DEMANDING reform have done great damage to the civil rights movement and have reversed the progress of decades of activism.

All kinds of stuff gets shoehorned in there to appease various single-issue groups, and not enough is done to promote an agenda that appeals to a wider cross-section of Americans. Thus, the message we'd like to see promoted, namely "we are going to use government to benefit society to the greatest extent possible, keep the budget in balance, cultivate good relations with other nations, and stick up for the little guy," gets lost while the Republicans are able to so successfully project an image of the Democratic Party as "baby killers", "surrender monkeys", and "godless communists", that they never have to defend their own godawful platform.

...eliminate or reverse everthing the Dem party has fought for since the 60s and before. This includes:

Ending legal abortions and 'family planning'.

Establish full control of the election and voting process...furthering their agenda to keep minorities from voting or having a voice.

Privatizing social security and all social programs...handing them over to corporations unaccountable to the people and profit the bottom line.

Eliminating what remains of worker's rights.

Directly funding the church with tax dollars and using religion for political advantage.

Waging perpetual war while draining the treasury dry and giving it to war profiteers. This will mean the eventual destruction of America's infrastructure.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. These aren't 'shoehorned' issues for single-issue groups. They're issues vital to the very survival of America, democracy and the Democratic party. They are not negotiable.

For example, if racism really didn't exist, we wouldn't need Affirmative Action. We should be willing to eliminate it when the time comes. I don't think it has, but some do, even mainstream, grassroots Democrats.

We have abortion rights, is it time to talk about too many abortions and irresponsible sex? What's wrong with that? Why can't a Democrat talk about it without getting labeled wishy-washy even though they voted against every anti-abortion law?

I don't think we need to abandon any basic belief, and think we've abandoned too many already. That shouldn't mean we can't have more than one discussion about an issue at a time. We should be able to talk about keeping abortion, and reducing pregnancy, and responsible parenting, and risky sex, and whatever else that relates; without getting labeled a turncoat.

In some ways, we are stuck in the fights of the past, when we need to be looking at solutions for the future.

progressives are good.

We get it already.