Labor Liberals vs. Party Progressives

What the rich in this country have managed to do i pit the Old Fashioned , Harry Truman , FDR, Lunch Box Liberals against the Progressives. They are the ones who basically focus on Social Issues like Womens' rights, Civil rights, Gay rights, Reproductive rights The Environment etc.

The Labor Liberals care mostly about Kitchen Table issues.
How do we pay: the Doctor, daycare, house payment, car payment, tuition, braces etc.
Labor liberal CARE about Social Issues they just care about their own families more.

This split began when George McGovern won the nomination in '72 and control of the Party shifted from Hubert Humphrey supporters to Warren Beatty and Jane Fonda.

This Battle has been a long time coming.

Labor liberals live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford large campaign contributions so our candidates, (Harkin in '92 and Edwards or Kucinich today) never have very much money.

Many of the Progressive Liberals , the one dubbed "Latte Liberals" by the media , attended the same Prep Schools and Ivy League Universities as the Ruling Class Republicans. They can afford campaign contributions.

The beginning of the end was when some liberal voters went to Reagan , of all people, because he had a penchant for quoting FDR and Truman.
Some left because they really did have moral questions about the abortion issue. (There goes part of the Catholic vote!)
Whatever it siphoned votes from the Democratic Party to "elsewhere."

Now the party appears to be cannibalizing itself!
Don't think i'm happy about it. Perhaps it's just the ultimate fate of a coalition party. Each faction thinks that it's particular issue should dominate the conversation and no one is willing to back down.

So, here we are , rudderless and at an impasse to which I personally see no remedy.

Since 1980 I have bitten my tongue and supported the Democratic Party Candidate, even though they seemed to offer little to me and minebecause...I'm a Democrat dammit!
But because of our uniquely corrupt system of campaign financing the privileged few the candidates for both parties!

I cannot and will not take it anymore!
These issues are life and death to some of us!
I want to see some fire I want to see some passion!
I want to see some out rage at the plight of low income American workers!

The ones who: Finished school, show up every day to work, keep their children in school, take care of their aging parents, go to church on Sunday (if they are not at their 2nd job at that time!)
Many have College degrees, much good it's done them!
You know, the ones the media has ridiculed for decades now!

The ONLY CANDIDATE I see that from is JOHN EDWARDS!
I will vote for him if he drops out today!

OBama is quoted in his book ridiculing "NEW DEAL" , Great Society " Democrats!
Why would I vote for him? Thats who I AM!

Hillary gets money from Rupert Murdoch! she was on the board and Wal Mart!
Her Hubby pushed through NAFTA!
Why would I vote for her!

So, to paraphrase Princess Leah:
"Help me JOHN EDWARDS.
You are my ONLY HOPE."

As you can see from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4062402&mesg_id=4062402">this post, there seems to be a few people who will as well.

However we need to be careful. John and HRC have the exact same
type voters. They have the working calss, poore and middle class
voters. Be careful in the way he attacks.

vote, but why should they be careful in the way they attack?

They're all going to attack. We have to watch what the republicans do. They're the real enemy here.

We work hard, and we're one step away from disaster; a serious illness or accident could take it all away from us. We struggle and labor and work to survive, and it's always just barely enough.

Hillary Clinton speaks glibly about the issues we face. Barack Obama holds us in contempt. We're the "old" style, he represents the "new."

John Edwards is the only one who is on our side.

It is easy to be glib when when you don't have to worry about how you'll make the car payment because the cat got sick and the vet bill is as much as the car payment and gee, taxes are due and even though our household income is below sixty thousand a year we never get a refund.
and even with Health Insurance, the surgery last fall will mean we have to come up with an extra $250.00 per month from somewhere...
And on and on.
These are not the people who decide where to go on the family vacation, they are the ones who say, "gee, if I work on July 4th I'll get time and a half!"

Labor" issues:

1. The War in Vietnam was bad for labor: the idea was to keep Vietnam, and Southeast Asia, a cheap labor area, by stoppling socialist change there. The American labor movement, with CIA-funded George Meany at its helm, had a lot of pro-war advocates. Where are these people now, when American workers are loosing their jobs to cheap-labor countries?

2. Civil Rights was a labor issue: the existence of an African-American 'underclass' helped keep wages low, by keeping a vulnerable class of people who would have to accept lower wages. Reagan Democrats were damned fools to buy into Ronnie's open race-baiting, and the support they gave him can be blamed, I would say, for a lot of the decline of Labor as a power in the US. Keep in mind that Martin Luther King was beginning to connect the civil rights movement with the anti-war movement and with labor issues when he was assassinated.

3. In the same sense, equal rights for women would tend to lead to better wages for all.

So one might say that the job of the right wing in America has been to drive a wedge between two groups, Labor and Progressives, whose interests mostly coincide. And, in that case, I would say the right wing has done a bang-up job. because Labor and Progressives don't seem to understand each other at all in this country today.

I think your point that there a two different groups is a good one. But I think it is important to keep in mind that the two really have the same basic interest: a decent, livable society for the people of this earth. And also a common enemy: a rabid right wing that wants to keep labor cheap and desperate, progressives scared and marginalized, and everyone fighting each other as much as possible.

Peace.

We know that. We have failed to make that connection for the voters.

Within the context of old school FDR pro-labor politics, all of the progressive causes could be advanced. Within the context of the progressive causes, we lose everything. That is the difference between Edwards and the other candidates we have had for the last 30 years. He is shifting the context. This will allow us to be both idealistic and practical, rather than always having to choose between them, and allow us to practice pragmatic and successful politics without needing to compromise on traditional Democratic party principles and ideals. This also breaks us out of the right wing framing.

What Edwards is doing is something that we have not seen in decades, and many Democrats don't quite trust it yet. They have been burned too many times, and think that the only two choices are either to stick with principle and vote their conscience (and lose) or hold their nose and vote against their values. Edwards shows us the way out of that trap. Sooner or later, almost all Democrats will see that and trust it. Right now, many are like the tiger that has been in a 6 X 6 cage for years - even though the cage has been removed, the tiger keeps pacing in a 6 X 6 area.

Come on out of that trap, Democrats! It is real, and it is safe. There is a whole world of freedom (and success) waiting for us.

FDR and Truman were not afraid to talk about "special interests", "the little guy", "the worker", "monopolists". That would be (and is) called 'class warfare' now. But Edwards is doing it, and Kucinich. I agree with you, this is the way out. But I don't think it will be easy.

It sure would help a lot if some of our other big-shot Democrats (including DK) would show a little support for Edwards, to give people the feeling that we have a consensus building. But, as you say, they're all just pacing that 6 X 6. Sad.

and very true. let's hope he can close the gap!

And I was not knocking progressive movements at all as you point out, their efforts very often co-inside. The trouble is the Media grabbed a hold of people like Warren (how many women has slept with anyway) Beatty and (Hanoi ) Jane Fonda, ( could you BELIEVE they dragged that out again during the Kerry campaign?!?!) and tried to demonize these groups. Trying to make people like a lot of our Dad's and Grandad's uncomfortable. It was not fair but already the Media was turning Corporate!

Environmentalists are "treehuggers", Feminists are mustached unattractive "Feminazi's!
You get the drift. THEY took over and started to define the language!
I asked a Bible -belt friend of mine a while back what she thought "Liberal" meant and she replied; "It's something to do with sex isn't it?" Swear to God!
So , yes I agree with everything you said.

Of course, some of our candidates do everyone a great dis-service when they are asked if they are "liberal" and they respond by running away from that term, rather than giving a good definition and embracing it.

But this game has been around for a long time. Republicans basically can't win on their economic agenda, since it favors the very wealthy few against the vast majority of middle/working class and poor. But they can kind of associate labor-friendly policies with anti-establishment ideas (since rich powerful people are kind of like kings who used to be authorities) and then they can kind of associate anti-establishment ideas with changing sexual/cultural/moral standards hoping (and succeeding, often) to frighten people into voting against their own economic interests.

Interesting and important discussion, I think. Thank you very much for your post.

If we don't move to that model of health care coverage not only are the poor screwed so is the middle class.

Plus being against the War on Some Drugs.