General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsChomsky: The Majority of Today's Elected Democrats Are Moderate Republicans
Election 2016
Chomsky: The Majority of Today's Elected Democrats Are Moderate Republicans
According to Chomsky, America is a two-party state, "but there's only one faction."
By Alexandra Rosenmann / AlterNet
May 13, 2016
The majority of Democrats have shifted to the right so far that the two-party system is almost unrecognizable, according to Noam Chomsky.
"There used to be a quip that the United States was a one-party state with a business party that had two factions: the Democrats and Republicansand that used to be pretty accurate, but its not anymore. The U.S. is still a two-party state, but theres only one faction, and its not Democrats, its moderate Republicans. Todays Democrats have shifted to the right," Chomsky told RT America's Anissa Naouai.
And apparently, so have the Republicans.
According to Chomsky, "[Political scientist] Norman Ornstein simply describes the Republican Party today as a 'radical insurgency that doesnt care about fact, doesnt care about argument, doesnt want to participate in politics, and is simply off the spectrum.'"
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/chomsky-todays-democrats-are-moderate-republicans
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)leftstreet
(36,081 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)leftstreet
(36,081 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)leftstreet
(36,081 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I wonder what the criteria for "Flagged For Review" is? This poster has 7 hides in the last two months. Demeter was FFR with no posts hidden that I can tell.
KPN
(15,587 posts)you'll be budged.
frylock
(34,825 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)You're firmly planted on the right and will not be moved.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)The trust busters? And that would be Secretary Hillary, that great enemy and militant fighter against big business and Wall Street banksters.
She's a popular populist!
Sure she is.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)grounds for banishment from DU?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)To be fair, I think it has to be REALLY explicit to cross the line, but I wouldn't cry if she were PPR'ed. Don't want to see that shit here.
arikara
(5,562 posts)She does not hesitate to express her point of view, the cheeky little devil.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)This is Democratic Underground and not Moderate Republican Underground, so what 'we' are you talking about?
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Congratulations. The Party is now yours. Do with it what you will.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)That is likely to throw a wrench into the long-laid plans of the Radical Center Blue Dogs, DLC, Third Wayers and Clintonites to take over and colonize the Democratic Party.
Bangbangdem
(140 posts)I'm sure you've published as many times as him. And you hold a teaching position at MIT. And I'm sure that you are the foremost linguist in the world. Cmon. You are going n to marginalize him by some off-handed comment?
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)the coup d'etat of the Democratic Party. So it HAS been overthrown by moderate Republicans.
I thought so.
The revolution has started, and it will not be over until the RepubliCONs who joined the Democratic Party go back to their own party, and knock some sense into it.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)a clueless, racist loose canon and a calculating, lying crooked canon.
brooklynite
(93,879 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... don't know when the coup took place.
brooklynite
(93,879 posts)...the DNC members were elected by State Party members who were elected by County Party members who were elected by Democrats.
...the elected officials were elected by voters.
If this bothers you, run some candidates against them (who can win).
ReRe
(10,597 posts)brooklynite
(93,879 posts)And Bernie's THREE endorsed candidates (assuming they all win their Primaries) aren't likely to shake up the House as much as you want.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)It's not over till it's over, brooklynite. And I promise you it will be all over for us all in about 10 weeks, somewhere around July 25-28th, 2016.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)does not mean that there is a coup d'etat. It can be carried on by lying to the constituents to get their votes, then doing what their corporate masters command them to do.
Don't be a fool, and think that just because they have been elected that they are going to do any good for the people.
Billy Ray Joe Bob Clinton repealed Glass-Steagel, and enacted NAFTA, for example.
Now Hilliary wants to make him in charge of recovering the economy, because "he knows how to do that."
You should know that he knows how to do what is good for the corporations, and not the people.
brooklynite
(93,879 posts)In other words, voters just aren't as smart as you are. YOU were able to figure it out, but they're too deluded?
"Vote SANDERS: Unless you're too stupid!"
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)All I am saying is to look at past practice. It is a harbinger of future behavior. It always has been, and always shall be.
Ignore it at your peril.
There are plenty of folks who understand this. There are also many who do not.
I am just trying to raise awareness of this fact.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Dissent is disloyalty.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)brooklynite
(93,879 posts)Intellectuals who pontificate from outside the system aren't worth my time. He's welcome to join the Party leadership (if he's even deigned to register as a Democrat) and advocate for changes; that's what I try to do.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Remind me to switch to independent after this election cycle. The Democrats have become something I just can't fathom anymore.
Any other liberal intellectuals we need to throw under the bus?
fasttense
(17,301 posts)But transforming a once liberal party back to being real liberals and NOT petend RepubliCONS is possible.
What exactly have the Democrats won by being pretend Conservatives? A chnce to be like RepubliCONS? Seems to me they lost too, they just don't know it.
All in it together
(275 posts)And control our government, and get wealthy and hang with the .01%. And keep protecting the .01%'s interests, the multinational corporations and military industrial complex has succeeded wildly due to the Democons (moderate, New Dems, Blue Dogs, 3rd way etc.)
We the people lost real representation in our democracy. Go Bernie and keep going whethe you win this election or not.
arikara
(5,562 posts)and take it back from the teabaggers instead of inflicting themselves on the Democratic party.
leftstreet
(36,081 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)should be one of scorn. After all, he is attacking our party.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Or do you think the working class majority holds the real power in the Democratic Party?
Just wondering.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Not the many who are supposed to vote blindly for the "Party"
Redwoods Red
(137 posts)I think Chomsky's got a little more stature that some shit-slinging anonymous internet warrior.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)sylvanus
(122 posts)Really? this is the shit we've sunk to on DU. Bagging on Noam Chompsky, a voice for honesty and truth, in the bullshit wilderness. WE ARE DONE!
villager
(26,001 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)is dragging it ever rightward for decades as it now has, then people like Chomsky should be praised for pointing this out. There are sooo many who have shunted aside defence of progressive positions and in turn rip into people who take quarrel with neoliberalism all because of their backing a tragically flawed yet corporately- anointed candidate.
A person who puts party unity and toeing the line in support of oligarchy-benefiting ideas BEFORE reasoned defence and promotion of progressive ideas is a threat to the continuation of ANY major progressive political force being left in the USA.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Who whored themselves out for money and power and have killed the Democratic Party that used to represent working people.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)You can start by scorning him.
KPN
(15,587 posts)No wonder you are for Hillary.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Beartracks
(12,761 posts)... the Party.
Well said.
==============
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)coopted by the Oligarchy that supports the Conservative (Clinton) Wing of "our Party". We need to attack those in our party that have sold out to the billionaires and no longer hold to Democratic Principles.
coffeeAM
(180 posts)Xolodno
(6,341 posts)[link:
|onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)To me Chomsky and Captain Obvious are interchangeable as of late
Being mostly a loner, i try to grasp mostly just the bigger points, that way i know when to get out of the path of the herd when it is at stampede levels
onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)With influence has said it.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Then the party apparatchiks said "No, you take what we give you or you don't get anything" Cont.............
ReRe
(10,597 posts)lastone
(588 posts)And those that do not see and understand this are either willfully ignorant or too stupid to process historical logic. Additionally the candidate bringing unprecedented excitement to the democratic party has been marginalized even though he was a 9-1 underdog when the campaign began and it's now basically even - plus the more people hear the more they like of Sanders policies, it's only because Hillary is a brand and most people choose the brand because they don't want to learn about much besides feeding themselves and their families. Given more time Sanders wins this primary and still polls way over trump vs Hillar in a general. Lastly hrc supporters that belittle this movement do so more and more at their and hrc's peril than ever before.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Ever. Period. End of story. And, she's done it to herself.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I loathe her and the party apparatus she rode in on, but I will hold my nose if absolutely necessary.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Still, I refuse to compromise. If all goes well, the point will be moot.
#NotMeUs
#DropOutHillary
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)the same coin this time.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)Most Democrats today prefer to go along with the war mongering. Looking at Obama's record, he went for "intervention" in Syria and Libya but backed away from conflict with Iraq and Iran.
OTOH, Clinton enthusiastically supported all of the above.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Her influences and friends include Kagan, Kissinger, Petraeus, and Gates. Of those, only Gates really fits in the moderate Republican camp (though he was a big part of both Bush admins before Obama kept him), the rest are real neocons.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Afak, mainstream Democrats want fair wages and health care for all, and to reduce the income inequality which has become excessive at least since the 90's.
But what Chomsky really believes in is different. He doesn't want to fix fix the system, he dislikes capitalism. And that's probably not what most Democrats believe in.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Modern day Democrats don't want to fix it either...those lines have went nothing but up.
Mbrow
(1,090 posts)most polling has shown the DNC has moved right of the base for decades.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Try rising taxes in that environment.
SkyIsGrey
(378 posts)n.t.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)1929 = disaster until FDR. 2008 = disaster until the Obama engineered recovery
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)Although I cannot totally Blame Obama. He did want to do more and was stymied by the R House.
Regardless, Obama is very DLC type Demcrat so what he can really do, ala FDR, is not going to happen. So we just stumble along while our country is being bought up for pennies on the dollar. For example, Real estate crises and the opportunities for monied interests to turn us into a nation of renters with no hopes of home ownership. He is also carrying the Oligarchs water to sell us out with deals like the TPP and TPIP. In the end, just another handler sending us down the shit-chute of Fascism and Corporatism.
Pretty pathetic, overall.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)As I already mentioned, he engineered the recovery after a 'Great Recession', maintaining the US at the top of the competitiveness rankings while introducing the Affordable Care Act.
On a rank of 1 best to 44 last, I'm fairly certain Obama will end up ranking around 10-15 in the list of US Presidents.
dflprincess
(28,057 posts)reducing income inequality.
Before Bernie came along, damn few of them ever mentioned any of those issues. A few more may be paying lip service but most of them have Clinton's "no we can't" attitude than any commitment to making it happen.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)dflprincess
(28,057 posts)I've been active in the DFL since 1972, but if Bernie hadn't run this year I don't think I would even have bothered to caucus.
I just hope that the people he brought in to the process this year stick with it because the only way we will take back the Democratic party is if we wrench it away from the Third Way types starting at the local level and working our way up - and it may take several election cycles, but it can be done.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... and this election itself may just be the beginning of the end of the Corporate wing of the Democratic Party. If not this election cycle, then almost assuredly the next.
Real Democrats are going to get this job done eventually. Go Bernie!
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)dflprincess
(28,057 posts)much less propose any remedies.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)If they didn't care, they wouldn't have tried to pass bills to address the issues.
Have you forgotten that we spent nearly two years fighting to get the health care progress we have now? It took two years and the biggest majorities in a generation to do that, so the reticence towards Bernie's plans isn't because Dems are heartless, it's because they know we have so many other things to do that we can't spent the entire next term fighting a fight that we can't win right now.
Fair wages? Dems have been fighting for pay equality. Dems tried to pass minimum wage increases all along. Remember when Bernie was in the fight for $10.10 just a couple years ago? Funny how that wasn't called a conservative cop-out back then.
What mainstream Democrats have no interest in is coddling the delusions of people who think we can wave a magic wand and pass anything that comes to mind.
runaway hero
(835 posts)Even what Hillary tried to do in 1993 was more. How about real change - and not just taking people's money.
Why do you think Trump is winning. People are sick of the same old crap. Give them something new.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)it was whether Democrats care about these issues. The fact that we spent two years and an ocean of political capital to pass the ACA says that yes, contrary to what you're saying, Democrats sure did.
Asking if something could be better is a completely different issue than asking if people are soulless monsters who don't care at all about the people.
Myself, I don't see any way that something more liberal was going to pass at the time, given the makeup of the Senate. I can't fault them too much for getting what they could. If they held out for more, we wouldn't have gotten anything.
runaway hero
(835 posts)Obama started in the middle and got dragged center right, imo. Not his fault entirely but I think we could have got more.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)runaway hero
(835 posts)Lieberman should have had his hands broken, he was coming in weak.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Gene Debs
(582 posts)charge of the health care system while giving the appearance of addressing the problem.
KPN
(15,587 posts)Now there's a winning attitude for you! Hillary's got no better chance of being successful in today's DC climate than Bernie does.
What you folks don't get is: (1) Bernie is and has always been a pragmatic realist when it comes to legislation. Just look at his record. He's also had far more success at reaching across the aisle and getting GOP support for legislation than Hillary -- that's a fact, look it up. And (2) Bernie isn't about to compromise before negotiations even begins! He understands the power of the bully pulpit and the power of the people and will use them, unlike Obama.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)If we don't control the House, and if we don't control the supermajority in the Senate, no amount of fighting is going to give us a far-left government. That was the case when the ACA was being negotiated. When there wasn't a single vote to spare, things like the public option had virtually no chance of passing, so why would you waste your limited political capital on that, when you're not going to wind up getting what you want?
Talking as though we can pass anything we want is reckless. It's the same kind of wishful thinking that people attached to Obama in '08, and when reality fell short of that, people became disillusioned.
Admitting we have to pick and choose where to invest our energy, and to take what we can get in areas where the movement isn't on our side, isn't weak. It's good governance.
KPN
(15,587 posts)and it has served them well. Artificial divisions to enable artificial blame to enable status quo, a tight grip on power and self enrichment.
Continue to play that game if you want. We can only accomplish what we believe we can accomplish. Said another way, we CAN accomplish what we believe in and believe we can accomplish.
I'm done being complicit.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)They were uttered before negotiations even started.
Magic wand? I'd just be happy to have a government that works for people, not the highest bidder. You want to call that wishing for a magic wand we really have little hope left.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)If ACA had been a Republican idea - wait a minute, it actually started out as Romneycare - Democrats would dismiss it a corporate cronyism, and rightfully so.
Having the government force you to buy Product X doesn't help anyone but the producer of Product X, aka the private insurers.
Perhaps if we would've expanded Medicare or reigned in the power of private insurers. Weird how no other country spends as much on health care per person as the US, and yet no other country gives AETNA/Humana/United as much power as the US, huh?
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)It doesn't help anyone? Really? Those millions of people who either got covered through the Medicaid expansion, or were finally able to afford coverage with subsidies, or the people who were no longer denied coverage for being sick, do they not exist?
This is why the arguments here keep devolving. When you take such an absurd position, there's no way to talk logically.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)stories are ending up. When you have insurance that's so affordable that you can finally afford it, 99 percent of the time the co-pays and, especially, the deductibles are so outrageously and unaffordably high that it renders the insurance unusable and therefore worthless. Obamacare was never anything more than a half-assed acknowledgment that something has to be done, but in such a way as to make sure to leave the insurance cartels running the health care system.
When I tried to get insurance through the ACA, guess what? We couldn't find a plan that i could afford. So much for affordable! So I got to pay a nice fine for being too broke to get with the plan. Luckily I was finally able to get insurance through my union. Obamacare was nothing but a nice sloppy wet kiss on the insurance industry's ass, and simply claiming that it's some kind of godsend doesn't change that.
sylvanus
(122 posts)A reformed bag of shit is just a pile of shit!
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)That system always need fixing, but it beats socialism or state run economies.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)....i would not be surprised by an equal amount of negative responses in this thread.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)So that doesn't get Chomsky's pipe dreams any further
chknltl
(10,558 posts)Have a nice day. Nuff said.
dflprincess
(28,057 posts)and he believed we deserved an Economic Bill of Rights. You never heard the Third Way types who are running the party now mention these things.
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm
[div class = "excerpt"]
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)A fair wage and health care for all.
dflprincess
(28,057 posts)(note: health CARE, not health insurance)
and is awfully close to Bernie's platform.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Sanders has an anti-capitalism bent that is quite different from the Economic Bill of Rights.
Sanders expressed sympathy for the Sandinistas who were Marxist loons.
Sanders uses the language of class warfare which is totally unhelpful.
I'd much prefer to mend the existing capitalist system, gut the GW tax breaks and extend health care to all, with some modicum of patient payment to avoid the abuse of the system like in some places in Europe (some doctors prescribing excessive amounts of drugs or days off because it's just the state paying)
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)The Dems just less blatantly than the Republicans.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)tomg
(2,574 posts)In fact, I think he is being kind by calling them moderate Republicans. But then I remember Eisenhower and later
Lindsay ( who I thought of as moderate Republicans).
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)...from the usurping Yuppies of the Rainbow Oligarchy.
[link:|
Response to NewImproved Deal (Reply #26)
Post removed
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Yuppies of the Rainbow Oligarchy.
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Chomsky is selling his soul cheap these days.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Should I write in Bernie for the general?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)So the political national committees have no skin in the game? The DNC has had nothing to do with the situation? Anyone vocalizing "not in into Hillary" are selling their souls cheap?
So if Hillary loses it's everyone else's fault?
Typical.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)...and almost completely without the Republicans.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Mary Jane is still illegal, ask the feds, and the "proper healthcare" is not much more than a gift to insurance companies...
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)The states that legalized marijuana did it with the help of democrats. (In Colorado the democrats led those efforts.)
And the ACA is salvageable with a public option, and it already has waivers for states to do it their own way, and Colorado, leading yet again, is going to push for single payer, led by, who else? Democrats.
gordyfl
(598 posts)"A dimes worth of difference."
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)gordyfl
(598 posts)Bill Clinton & Monica Lewinski for the Dems losing in 2000.
For many voters, that scandal, along with Bill Cilnton's impeachment gave them reason to go with Bush.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)They have infested the dialogue here too. They like to call liberals Trump supporters.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)This idea that there is some kind of equivalence between HRC and Trump is foolish and dangerous. I see a lot of that on this site
hueymahl
(2,415 posts)I'm sure you were not meaning to ape his style, but I thought you might want to choose a different rhetorical device in the future.
LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)elljay
(1,178 posts)You are using charts that make comparisons, without taking into account to what or to whom they are comparing. As our Democratic Party has moved to the right, and the Republican Party has moved to the extreme right, it doesn't take much to be on the "liberal" side. The fact that a Senator voted a certain way as compared to a relatively conservative group of Senators on a series of very selective bills that hit the floor of the Senate doesn't make one a liberal on the broad spectrum of ideas. Sorry, but many of Hillary Clinton's (and Obama's) policies are remarkably similar to those of Richard Nixon and the Republican Party of the 60s. That is not liberal to me and to millions of Democrats and former Democrats who are sickened by our party's drift to the right. Please own up to the fact that she is a moderate, as she has admitted herself, and stop trying to tell those of us who are true progressives that we are don't understand our own beliefs.
Gman
(24,780 posts)TomCADem
(17,378 posts)I am not even talking about pre-civil war. For example, Woodrow Wilson sounded like a latter day Donald Trump in a 1902 book:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/1214/5-surprising-facts-about-Woodrow-Wilson-and-racism
In a 1902 book about American history, Wilson exposed his bigotry on the page in a passage about immigrants. He described men of the lowest class from Italy and of the meaner sort from Hungary and Poland, as men out of the ranks where there was neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence; and they came in the numbers ... sordid and hapless elements of their population, the men whose standards of life and work are such as American workmen had never reamed of hitherto.
Likewise, even Roosevelt signed off on the Japanese American concentration camps. So, while Chomsky might wax poetic about what the Democratic Party used to be, I don't think these Democrats are Republicans type statements make any sense.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)stopbush
(24,378 posts)Off in a world all his own.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)Does he vote at all?
Or does he just issue these proclamations from the Empyrean?
Gene Debs
(582 posts)you know that already.
Loki
(3,825 posts)whether liberal, progressive or moderate is where thinking, rational people reside. I can deal with that. I'm not a purist Noam. I want reason, not insanity.
UtahJosh
(131 posts)He specifically says the republicans are off the spectrum. "In the insane asylum", as you put it. So thus out of contention for "real humans" to side with.
You don't need to be a purist. But you need to decide where you stand. Are you liberal? Progressive? Moderate?
They're all different, you see.
Loki
(3,825 posts)Therefore, the purity comment. I've worked with people from across the spectrum of beliefs and occupations. That's the only way we ever get anything done. Building consensus not excluding people. I refuse to be the left's version of the tea party.
hueymahl
(2,415 posts)Something is wrong with that statement.
What you mean is, "I do labels when it is convenient for me to do so"
Loki
(3,825 posts)It's my party affiliation, like RN is my profession, like "female" is my gender" What the hell are you talking about. I don't do your "not progressive enough" label your "purity" label and all the other BS that you like to throw around so quantify whether I'm liberal enough.
"
UtahJosh
(131 posts)Isn't that a label?
Me thinks you don't do labels you don't like, is the thing.
(specifically left wing labels)
hueymahl
(2,415 posts)I wouldn't pass any but my own.
Did not mean to offend. Just found it funny that you labeled yourself a democrat but thought other labels offensive.
Sometimes I should just keep my observations to myself!
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Because I have looked at several from long before either had any influence and I'm just not seeing anything that speaks to universal progressive ideals. Bits of them all were good, but plenty of bits that DU tells me no REAL progressive could suppirt and plenty of loud silences too.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)runaway hero
(835 posts)Hillary has tried. Healthcare 93/94 for one. But instead of complaining on the internet, people need to be more active.
Having said that, there is a lack of excitement for her. We need to address this this.
c-ville rook
(45 posts)Last edited Mon May 16, 2016, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)
Hillary had her ass handed to her once, trying to do something very progressive, so now we have this Hillary. The "I don't want to reach for anything too big Hillary". Great you are completely practical, so was the assistant principal at my high school, nice guy but I would not have wanted him as President either.
Am I saying every idea has to be a world on fire thought -- no. But a few would be nice. And people will say, correctly, well she is beginning to roll out some interesting ideas. True -- but it would have been nicer if they would not have seemed to be forced on her by a stronger challenger than she suspected.
Will I pull the "D" lever in November -- have to it's a purple state -- and Trump as a President is terrifying. But will I "Feel the Yearn" for someone else as I do -- yep.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)some way of transforming her into a non-awful candidate.
pampango
(24,692 posts)it is true that today's elected Democrats are more like moderate republicans of 50 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
And the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 passed unanimously in the Senate and 372-15 in the House. Moderate republicans of that era were a lot like modern elected Democrats.
Of course, some todays' elected Democrats resemble not-so-moderate republicans of the 1920's in their isolationism. And today's elected republicans resemble ... not much of anything I can think of.
Triana
(22,666 posts)...I get lambasted. Because Hillary Clinton is one of those 1960s Republicans.
I'm really sorry for the truth. But the question is: WHAT are we going to do about it? Voting for ANOTHER moderate Republican is not going to fix the problem.
Response to Triana (Reply #115)
NRaleighLiberal This message was self-deleted by its author.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)I find some of the comments disturbing to say the least. Red baiting and more.
Democratic Socialism is quite different than communism. In communism the state owns about everything. Not the case with socialism, it just involves a much better sharing of the pie. So red baiting is off base.
When a lower middle class couple pays a higher tax percentage that mega corporations that is a problem....and that is common now.
It looks like the fix is on for Hillary. If she can beat Drumpf we'll see. I hope she will surprise me and others like me.
We need a real progressive tax system, we need to quit spending so much of our money on defense. Back to tax....I think many people hear a top tax rate, say 55%, and think that is for all a wealthy persons income..... it is just the tax rate on money over an obscene amount.
Bernie was up against the entrenched third way machine this year but the hope is that the movement will keep growing after this election and someday soon real fundamental change, a cyclical reigning in of robber barons in this era, will happen.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)They, the Lords...usually residing in or commuting to the DC Beltway...doing the bidding of their Fat Cats.
We now have two Castes, rather than Parties. The underclass Caste vs. the Privileged Caste.
Oligarchy is another definition that we've devolved into.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Do any of you geniuses actually know what those terms actually mean??
Human101948
(3,457 posts)She embodies both of those terms.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)Your perspicacity is truly awesome.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)support LBJ and the civil rights bills.....a moderate republican is still a 1000x better than any conservative now days
KPN
(15,587 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)thunk. Not a big fan of his but state the obvious. Fake Democrats have been losing since 2010 after they wouldn't let a then Liberal Obama do anything for 2 years (2009-2011) although right now I think they've gotten rid of most of the fake dems they can handle and probably give it back to them. Then if they didn't learn their lesson in 6 years. Another clean out
andym
(5,441 posts)IN 1972 moderate Republicans were more progressive on economics than most Democrats today. He's right that most Democrats would be to the right of Nixon who increased government regulations (EPA) and imposed wage and price controls (central government economic intervention). That's the problem with the after effects of Reagan that persist to this day. Far too many voters buy into it as well. For example, the anti-tax sentiment is still strong-- think of how beloved Proposition 13 is in California to this day (even on DU). A progressive version of Proposition 13 would only prevent property taxes rising on the homes of the needy and elderly, not everyone.
On the social side, he is dead wrong, Democrats have moved far to the left on equal rights than they were in the 70's, when they couldn't even pass the ERA.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican." -Obama
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)RT, originally Russia Today, is a Russian government-funded television network that runs cable and satellite television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia as well as providing Internet content in various languages, including Russian.
Russian government-funded television network
government-funded government-funded government-funded government-funded ......
hughee99
(16,113 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)I've been saying since late 90's:
Bill Clinton was the best republican president since Eisenhower.
We can't continue with 2 republican parties (the 'centrists and the insane fascists) and no Party on the Left.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)There are a number of Dems who are siding with big business instead of regulating them. DWS is the most prolific example of this. There's a reason why a bunch of them are being primaried by progressives. If the progressives can get victories out of these challenges, then the third way will have less pull when it comes to the decision making process of the DNC.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)With her Corporate anointing she could run as a Republican and win the nomination.
It would have been nice if she had and could have taken DWS with her
" 'radical insurgency that doesnt care about fact"
Does this statement bring anyone to mind from the Clinton Campaign?
.....David Brock and even Bill
harun
(11,348 posts)Progressive dog
(6,862 posts)like they used to have in the early Soviet Union.
That said, he claims he'd vote for Hillary over Trump in a swing state, so at least he's a pragmatic anarcho syndicalist.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)Beowulf42
(202 posts)And in so doing both of the right wing factions have left the majority of eligible voters out of the process. Look at the poll results about topics real people are concerned with and it becomes obvious that the majority of citizens are way to the left of their "leaders". We "normal" citizens have been waiting for 40 years for the elected elite to do the things we have been asking for, and it looks like we'll get more status quo this election too. If the Democratic Party actually ran a on platform of modern, Progressive ideas it wouldn't lose an election for 50 years.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)this is old news to us.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... how are the majority of elected Democrats today different from those of past generations when it comes to corporate influence?
tenderfoot
(8,424 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)Republican trolls come and go but openings for an authentic POTUS come rarely.
Course, if you look it at the other way, the republicans have even bigger problems with their positions and candidates than us. So with that in mind, it only makes sense they would like to drag us in the mud with them