Reality

I'll start off by saying that I'm pissed.

I'm pissed at the status quo. I'm pissed at a GOP that isn't far removed from a quotidien Falangist party (and I can prove it, having posted the falangists'platform more than once on various message boards, without saying which party it represented, only to recieve applaude, go figure). I'm pissed at the DNC which denies what the GOP represents, yet sees fit to support initiatives against Chavez' Venezuela, or to hire PNAC spokespersons for Bubba's election campaigns.

What pisses me off the most is that we, as uhmurcans and purported democrats, have submitted ourselves to market-driven policies as opposed to IDEOLOGIES.

I live abroad and have a business partner that is a card-carrying FALANGIST (in Spain). He is amazed by American politics - and can only place the GOP besides the likes of Haider (Austria), Le Pen (France) and the radical Spanish Falangists (which he eschews as too radical). He sees virtually no difference between the GOP and the DNC, based on the foreign policies of both.

It took a lot of soul.searching and study, but ultimately I have to agree with him. The rhetoric of much of the DNC, and especially of the DLC, is wirtually indistinguishable from the GOP - aside from tangential issues such as flag-burning and gay marriages.

Why is this?

Frankly because the DNC in general and the DLC in particular see that it is necessart to be all things to all people in order to return to power. Once in power, it is unclear what either would like to do - at best, Truman's (and he was a conservative Democrat) fight for national healthcare has turned into "affordable healthcare" (as seen in the DNC's CURRENT web).

What is lacking? From my personal POV, it is a return to IDEOLOGY. NO party can be all things to all people and to try to do so is counterproductive. The right has spent BILLIONS on promoting their "values" and undermining whatever is "liberal" - isn't it time to fight back?

From my perspective (and I'm open to discussion), wouldn't it be better to make a damned STAND for a change? Clearly express a set of values and a platform?

FWIW, I'm "-this" close to giving up. With a choice between pre-FDR conservatism and pre-Jackson libertarianism, I'm frankly left out in the cold.

I identify myself as a social libertarian. I would LIKE to see the DNC represent (or SOMEONE in the DNC represent) my values. The GOP is utterly repellent to me. Yet the DNC has been as egregious as the GOP on too many occassions.

What to do? Can't someone - or the bunch of us - talk values and ideologies as opposed to market-driven politics?

C'mon people, let's have a REAL debate on the status quo. Let's talk economics, social policies, foreign policies.... and not the talkingpoints du jour. Surely a few of you folks are capable of conceiving ideological arguments.

Or maybe not.

Whatever. If you care to debate, I'll give it a shot.

Good strong post. I'm sure you've find those debates here. :)

Quite frankly I was intially repelled by DU's rules. It seemd that it eschewed dissent - one had to be a "dem" to participate, and if one stepped to far out of line, one would be out.

I did my duty, posted the requisite posts to be able to actually initiate a thread (which I found a little onerous, but cave canem, right?)

I am happy to note that there is SOME debate here and an awful lot of kneejerkism that would be better placed in a GOP site. But considering what progressives have to go against, I understand it.

My biggest pet peeve about the DNC is, however, the DLC. I do NOT see how pandering to a "center" that has been created by a rw spending $1 billion per year, every year, election or no election, without counting on campaign contributions, can be productive. One of the rw's biggest talkingpoints is appeasement - and here we are supporting a DLC that is the ESSENCE of appeasement.

I live abroad. I am constantly in touch with a VERY wide spectrum of political beliefs. What I MISS in US politics is a CLEARLY DEFINED IDEOLOGY. I cannot support a party or a system where the opponents beliefs overlap in the center, a center that is moved firther and further to the right as mopre billions are invested to hoodwink us.

We're the "noble experiment"? Let's live up to it for once.

We need to redefine the center. It is always the extremists who define the moderates because it is the extremists who frame the debate.

Welcome

The US' and the DNC's greatest economic success took place during FDR's presidency and its aftermath.

Previous to FDR the economic philosophy of the US was little different from today's "trickle down" neoliberalism: a minimum of government intervention, very low taxation, almost no regulation. The result of such economic policies was an erratic cycle of booms and busts, leading to the biggest bust of all... the Depression.

FDR applied Keynesian economic theories to take the US out of the doldrums - the recovery was well under way when WWII began and finished the job.

What did Keynesian economics bring? After WWII it was the consumer society and the buildup of a prosperous middle class. Economic cycles certainly continued but with smaller and softer shifts between peaks and valleys. For the first time in history economic growth and development were not generated solely by big capital but by a combination of consumption and the collective capital accumulated by the middle class.

It isn't coincidence that the influence of Mt. Pellerin neoliberal economists in government coincided with the first decline of the middle class since the Depression. Nixon began the move away from Keynes and at some point (I have been unable to ascertain when), even the DNC embraced neoliberal economics with nary a public debate. Every president since Nixon has, to a greater or lesser degree, contributed toward the prevalence of what I consider an atrocious economic philosophy that has only resulted in greater profits for the wealthy and corporations -- and a decline for everyone else.

Yet virtually every president ultimately falls back on Keynes when the times get rough, at least as far as the idea of "pump priming" the economy through government spending. Even Reagan had to use such "tired Keynesian policies" as priming the pump in order to get out of the funk neoliberal economic policies created - albeit through military spending as opposed to spending that would benefit citizens.

I firmly believe that the role of government is, as the DoI mentions, the "common weal". Thus a government's economic policies must be guided to wards a paramount goal - the prosperity of all its citizens. Plainly neoliberal economics does not have this goal in mind.

So I'll start what I hope will be a debate by posting my ideas for a progressive economic ideology:

1. Taxation MUST be progressive, with the weight of taxation falling heaviest on those who most benefit from society, its laws and the infrastructure that made the wealth for the wealthy. Taxation must weigh the least on the heads of those with less to spend. The tax code must be simplified and the numerous loopholes used by capital to remain under-taxed must be closed.

2. Government must spend in times of economic regression or stagnation and save in times of economic growth - in order to soften the impact of the economic cycle. Such spending should be constructive, labor-intensive and tending to wards improvements in infrastructure, etc.

3. All extremes are almost, by definition, wrong. Laissez faire capitalism is every bit as bad as communism. Thus I support a mixed system of capitalism with some socialist policies. Government intervention in the economy should tend to support capitalism where it is successful and reign in the negative tendencies of capitalism. The litmus test for success and failure must by needs be in accordance with my preamble, the "common weal".

Government intervention should be through regulation and, in extreme cases, nationalization. The latter may be appropriate in such core industries where competition is not viable and that directly affect the basic necessities of the citizens - water, energy, some aspects of transport.

With regards to labor, the entire labor movement has declined after decades of conservative attacks....

------------------

This might be enough to get the ball rolling. Ideas? Criticisms? Debate?

1) tax the rich... Bill Clinton did just that

2) balance budget and save for rainy day... again Clinton's way

3) regulate industry, etc..... 3 in a row, Clinton did that

You sound like someone who would have liked Bill Clinton

And someone like Al Gore, even more. _{campaign slogan?} Gore, Even More!

Too bad Al Gore lost that one SCOTUS vote, eh?

The basis of our democracy has been uprooted, and things are going coo-coo. Whodathunkit?

Nevertheless, the DNC has yet to form the proper ideology when it comes to stolen elections. Don't you wish they would?

They stole the elections.

"1) tax the rich... Bill Clinton did just that"

Not by much.

"2) balance budget and save for rainy day... again Clinton's way"

No argument there.

"3) regulate industry, etc..... 3 in a row, Clinton did that"

Not exactly. And he signed NAFTA.

"You sound like someone who would have liked Bill Clinton"

I didn't. He was wholly neoliberal economically. He did next to nothing to improve social programs. And he was DLC... which as you should know, has ties with AEI, PNAC and Bradley.

He looks good because he was sandwiched between some of the worst potus' we've had. Yet he was far more conservative than... Ike. And worst of all is that he (and Gore and the DLC) set the bar very low with regards to progressive ideals - making it more difficult for future progressives to have a voice.

8 years of peace. EPA lawsuits against polluters. He pushed economic solutions to prevent recessions - why do you think the economy did so well up till now?

But keep throwing out those labels. I thought you wanted to edge away from labels? I do.

Was Clinton perfect? Hell no. But if Al Gore, his vice-president had been given his earned title, we'd be closer. But he was robbed, and here we are.

"8 years of peace."

Not exactly.

"EPA lawsuits against polluters."

More or less than under previous Dem leadership? Here you may have a point.

"He pushed economic solutions to prevent recessions"

Which ones?

"why do you think the economy did so well up till now? "

Cycles? Because he pandered to corps? He nearly lost it bigtime with the collapse of the Paper Tigers - yet after the biggest scare since 1929, what did he propose to avoid future problems? Nothing whatsoever.

"But keep throwing out those labels. I thought you wanted to edge away from labels? I do. "

They're not labels, they're interpretations. Bubba's presidency coincided with a good cycle and so his shortcomings are widely overlooked. And he had a "D" after his name.

Isn't it better to actually analyze in order to improve?

That is a bogus analysis. Half the nation plus plenty of Dems gave Clinton more crap than all the presidents since Johnson combined.

Are you willfully ignoring my stolen election part? Because that too me is the most crucial. President Gore vs. bushco? Like night and day. Agree?

"That is a bogus analysis."

Unless you provide an argument against it, you've said nothing.

"Half the nation plus plenty of Dems gave Clinton more crap than all the presidents since Johnson combined."

Which means? Some of it was deserved, some not. The amount of "crap" received isn't a valid way of analyzing a politician's success or failure and certainly a way of judging his progressivism or conservatism.

"Are you willfully ignoring my stolen election part?"

Actually I don't see what it has to do with the thread. But if you like I'll address it. Was the election stolen? Probably. The system has never been particularly "clean" nor professionally managed.

"President Gore vs. bushco? Like night and day. Agree?"

In some areas, absolutely. Particularly foreign policy. Otherwise my take would be this:

Gore as potus - no movement towards further conservatism yet no movement towards progressivism.

...and in a way, that's good. Have a nice day.

"... arguments. Or maybe not."

Um....OK.

I reckon one of the first things we should do prior to debate is agree to not condescend so much, huh?

Oh, and welcome to DU yadda yadda yadda...

"I reckon one of the first things we should do prior to debate is agree to not condescend so much, huh?"

Well, I started with a rant and a bad mood. And I'm a frustrated teacher and an historian with an attitude.

:banghead:

Pragmatism. That is the excuse used. America is a right leaning country and the only way to get enough support to win a national election is by being Pragmatic. If supporting Gays is a loser than the Pragmatic thing is to drop that support. That is what the DLC represents to me. Pragmatism and it does have some logic to it. IMO though it is time to fore go that and lay our beliefs squarely on the line. We do believe in Government. We believe in Law and Order and we believe in taking care of our fellow citizens. We believe in Equality for all. It is time to start not only talking about those things but to actually start bragging about them. Virtually every worthwhile thing America has done was pushed by Liberals. We need to be proud of that and not ashamed. Pragmatism is a horrible concept....It means you don't stand on principle but results.

"America is a right leaning country and the only way to get enough support to win a national election is by being Pragmatic."

I disagree that it leans right, or better said - if it leans right it is because it has been lead there with practically no opposition. $1 billion per year, every year, spent on rw thinktanks, PR campaigns, etc. (and not including campaign contributions) have been quite successful in making "liberal" a bad word.

If I am trying to elicit a debate it is because the US "left" doesn't seem to offer much other than a softer version of conservatism. For many people this just doesn't cut it. With such a high proportion of abtainers, how many might not be voting because the alternatives are con and con-light?

Pragmatism... the important thing is "winning". The DLC argument. Well, if "winning" means "surrender", I'd rather lose while voting for what I believe in.

Well, I too can be pragmatic. I'd like to see the DNC run on a true reform platform in order to stop the flow of cash that keeps America "rightwing". Surely that's a winner with an important and sellable concept.

Thanks for this!

TC

The trouble is if you lose then no one is in position to vote for what you believe in. I am playing the Devil's Advocate here because like you I am an ideologue. I want us to stand on principle. To strongly voice our beliefs. You asked for debate though. I am not sure what I could debate you on as I probably believe all that you do, the trouble is that there are Americans that don't believe like me. There is a lot of ignorance and hate and fear in America. The only way to prove my ideas work is to get them enacted into law or policy. The only way to get that accomplished is to get someone electyed that thinks like me. There in lies that Pragmatism. If I have to vote for a Democrat that I disagree with to gain a Democratic majority and all that goes with being a majority I will bite my tongue and do so, to a point. I would never ever ever vote for someone like Zell Miller no matter what. Whether America is right leaning or not is not really the point. The point is that DLC believes it is. Compared to twenty years ago I believe it is as well. I think that is what hurts me the most. America has edged further right over the last two decades and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Virtually everythng the Right boasts about has been proved false and yet they maintain substantial support. Is it that our beliefs are just noit exciting enough for Americans? :shrug:

if a candidate wins while using the DLC formula, there is support for the DLC platform, and few bills I would call Progressive would be getting to the floor anyway. More of the NAFTA, CAFTA, Welfare Reform Act ilk -- lots of corporate friendly bullsh*t and nothing to create real relief for the poor and the working-class.

What you speak of is the "lesser of two evils" philosophy. There are those of us here who are against ever voting for the "lesser" ever again. I don't want a "lesser" Republican, I want a GREATER DEMOCRAT!

TC

Whatever happened to honest-to-gawd Liberal, Left-wing ideology? I mean, no Party is going to please all the people all the time, no matter how "pragmatic" they are about every issue under the sun.

I would LOVE to have a candidate with a clearly defined DIFFERENCE in ideology to vote for this time. We Democrats have embraced pragmatism until we have become just a paler shade of Republican. Even Ralph Nader, arguably the most agressively anti-Party-Politics-as-usual candidate, was so pragmatic as to seek and accept funding from the Republicans just to make his point. While I do not agree with his cynical "There are no differences between the Parties" mantra, I do believe with every "pragmatic" decision that is made just to win an election, we move closer to that reality.

Have we all become a bunch of sell-outs or what? Welcome to DU, alvarez. Keep plugging away. You are not the only frustrated apple in the basket around here, by a long-shot!

TC

I will indeed continue to plug away. To date it's costed me dearly; a long-term board friendship seems to have been hurt by my pov (and poor people skills).

As for the "no difference between the parties" mantra, I agree that there are SOME, shallow differences, but in any policy that truly matters (economics, foreign, social) the differences are incredibly hard to see, especially with regards to the DLC.

and I make no apologies for my views. They are what will take this Party down, if we allow them.

TC

No need to "agree" with "my" ideology. I want to debate "liberalism" or "progressivism", and being in the realm of "ideology", pragmatism doesn't really enter into it. I'm not discussing a campaign platform but trying to plant the seed of a "doctrine" that might influence the pragmatists in the long-term.

To get from point a to point b we have to know where we are (that much is pretty clear), where we want to go, and then figure out how to get there. Pragmatism is the third part, I'm working on the second.

If there's going to be a debate (which is seeming less likely, although the conversation is interesting anyways), the thread has to be visible.

Thanx

There's really no other explanation.

The word "liberal" has been so successfully demonized that many try to hide behind the term "progressive", and most shilly-shally and run from any confrontation where someone tags them with the filthy word. (I'm a liberal.)

The 1980 election was a reactionary backlash against the openings of social change of the sixties that were instituted in the seventies. We've become a deeply mean and selfish country since then, and nobody of consequence wants to address that ugly fact. Truly, selfishness has always been the intrinsic dark side to the American character; we were the nation of immigrants who came here to get away from something and better ourselves. The dauntless spirit is the good side, but the "how-dare-you-even-suggest-I-give-a-damn-about-my-fellow-human" attitude is the bad side; it's not ironic that our iconic persona is the steadfast, lonesome cowboy.

What the Reagan atavism did was to take a trait (extreme selfishness) that was a dirty little secret and an embarrassment and make it a virtue. Now we've consolidated this ugliness and the forces of domination and have linked it with the more primitive versions of christianity, and the momentum is truly awesome. To my view, christianity is a controlling death cult that derives its greatest power from extreme egocentricity; the one true duty of a christian is to save his/her own ass and suck up to the power structure. Niceness and the rest of the attendant actions that are present in most religions are secondary at best. Saving oneself is paramount, and succumbing to a big and hierarchical power structure is one's true duty.

Great strengths ARE great weaknesses, and this is where we've grown far too big for our britches.

As for the left, the sad truth about pluralism is that those who really believe in it are far too accommodating, and many of them are just plain weak. The weakness of individuals is starkly shown by the need to appease and appeal to many. A true-blooded republican doesn't give a rat's ass about being hated by virtually everyone he/she contacts as long as the bank balance is good and the barbarians are outside of the gate; a basic democrat cares too much about what others think about him/herself, and this dogs them at every step.

Someone posted an email a long time ago on this board from a classic hard-shelled conservative where the person flatly stated that the right-wingers just had a greater resolve: people whose opinions differed were not to be tolerated, rampant breeding to win the future was critical and the law was just so much bullshit. Once you know you're right, mere social compacts are void and those who disagree are not to be suffered. This is in bright contrast to the pluralist view, and therein lies the problem.

The right has one thing right: giving a damn about what people think about you is folly.

The left needs to focus and realize what a nasty struggle this all is. I hate guns, but now's not the time to bring up any legislation on the subject. I can't stand religion and hate its encroachment on society, but I'm not going to pick any major fights these days. It's a sad irony of history that gay marriage just happened to come up at the time when the reactionaries weren't even close enough to steal the 2004 election, but it did, and that's what happened.

The strength and heart of the left is economic and social fairness. To be spooked by terms like "class warfare" is destruction of the basic thrust of the cause, just like running away from the term "liberal" is tantamount to unconditional surrender.

It's the nature of the beast: if you care about others, you're weaker than if you don't.

To defend xtianity, however (which is to be the devil's advocate as I am agnostic/atheist), the Sermon on the Mount is very far from being an egocentric speech. And Jesus was one of the world's first socialists.

The pity is that Xtian fundamentalism (like its Muslim cousin) is based on unquestioning faith. When to question is a sign of a lack of faith it is an easy and logical step to blindly follow a luminary's interpretation of religion, the world and ultimately politics.

Cognitive dissonance doesn't help much either.

:evilgrin:

Very well-put.

TC

I could kick Carter for letting Reagan get away with "there you go again". And I can kick every potus since JFK for dumbing-down political rhetoric.

"Liberal" is indeed a dirty word these days. I shy away from it - not because of the vilification campaign, but because of the confusion between liberal policies/politics and "neoliberal economics" (which is neither new nor liberal unless one takes the Adam Smith POV towards liberalism).

And thinking this thread over, especially the post on pragmatism, I am probably being "pragmatic" on wanting to elicit a debate on ideology. Traditional progressive policies have been vituperated to the point that Blair had to create his "third way" (a thoroughly despicable attempt at selling con as progressive). So what I propose is to "relabel" the product, redefining certain aspects in order to obviate some weaknesses, capitalize on strengths, and to provide a dialectical opposition to the poorly articulated ideals of the cons.

It one of the difficult challenges liberals face. What is "liberal" and what are "liberal" values?
I understand the pragmatists, which is why in 2000 I started voted Democrat. I understood the danger, finally --what Reagen really stood for.
I never voted for Clinton. I would vote Socialist usually, because I was definitely not a Libertarian as I understood the word, and at the time I saw no difference between republican and Democrat, only the difference between Liberal and conservative. (I was probably closer to an anarchist)
I was not, and am not a political sophisticate or historian, I just knew what my basic value were, and I had a wallop of Scandinavian ancestry common sense. Conservatism, which embodies tradition to the point of stasis, (as well as sexism, racism etc.) NEVER made sense to me. It was apparent that society has to change, and grow or stagnate. And some "traditions" were not worth saving.
In an economic sense as well, conservatism thought seemed to create a new royalty, rather than the so called American dream of anybody obtaining goals and dreams if you "worked hard enough for it"

Since I label myself what is considered another "dirty" word--feminist, it's been hell watching Liberalism, which should be about positive social growth, change, eventually leading to social maturity--become a political doormat. I hope we can change this.

neo cons because US voting is rigged in all ways possible to rig an election.

all this talk about winning in Nov. is wasted breath.

if you want to talk about US foreign policy you will have to talk to the neo cons. the rest of us have no power to do anything.

... pessimistic?

BTW, I see the neocons as only a part of the problem - and a diminishing one at that. They're only interested in foreign policy and are already being marginalized by a significant part of the GOP. It's the neolib economic bunch that pull the strings that matter and the ones with the wherewithal to do what you suspect.

and it's not pessimistic, it's reality. dems won't gain power by voting in rigged elections.

...the left has to deal with $1billion per year, every year, without counting campaign contributions.

Considering what the left has to deal with, the fact that it has kept pace with the GOP is remarkable and shows that the US is not necessarily a conservative country.

Take away the tremendous cash difference and where might we be?

The use of Churches as political tools for the Republicans -- to organize and get out the vote, to rouse the base, AND to raise $$$ -- all while retaining their tax-exempt status. This leads to a certain amount of quid pro quo after the elections, but leads to tremendously prolific $$$ and support for chosen candidates.

TC

the rigged voting lets the neo cons win

I believe it exists, and I believe it has been used against us, but I have no idea what to do about it. I have written letters to electeds, made calls, written LTTE's, signed petitions... but there is is little interest on the part of the people that NEED to believe it and be concerned about it -- out elected Representitives. They haven't got the balls to do ANYTHING, let alone challenge the Bushies about this.

What can we do about it? I feel more hopeless about this than about any other single thing I see as a rock in the road for us Democrats.

TC

:kick:

TC