Think THIS is "Far Left"?

[Ken Burch]

Ok, some posters have called me that. For the record, the following are more or less what I believe in politically. Do these seem "Far Left" to you? Do they seem all that terrible to you? Would it really do our party much damage to support the following:

1)peace.

2)full employment.

3)the end of all forms of discrimination.

3)restoration of the massive GOP/DLC cuts in social services.

4)a clean environment and full use of alternative energy.

5)electoral reform so that we can have real elections.

6)an economic system that doesn't grind down the many for the benefit of the few.

7)a Democratic Party and a nation in which all the people have a real say, not just big donors and corporations.

[last1standing]

1. Commie Bastard!

hehe. Had to say it.

Those are very moderate positions even if some of them aren't practically attainable. The problem with the US is that the debate has moved so far to the right that anything even remotely moderate is considered the extreme left. A good example is how every time you read about the Mexico election Obrador is called a "leftist" but his opponent is never called a "rightist". In fact, you've probably never even heard that word in this country. Strange, huh?

[KKKarl is an idiot]

30. ..

Wouldn't it be good if being far right were a bad thing? Once again talk radio & Fox News have been able to use the statement "far left" so often it has almost become a cuss word. Here in bible belt you do not want to be associated with that statement. No one agrees with your idea of what a real developing America should be like.

[Mass]

2. Where can I sign?

[Guaranteed]

3. The end of all forms of discrimination?

You sure about that?

[Redstone]

5. Oh, I think he'd still let us call freepers morons. That's not

discrimination, it's just the truth.

Redstone

[Redstone]

4. Your list sounds real good to me. By the way, I think you meant to say

"reversal of" the GOP social-service cuts, not "restoration of."

Redstone

[Ken Burch]

19. You're right.

nt.

[godhatesrepublicans]

6. Sorry, I don't talk to right wingers.

...flipping corporate toadie... :-)

[Ken Burch]

22. Peddle it louder and pout walking!

nt.

[eallen]

7. Those aren't policies. Mostly, they're goals. Include "apple pie," too?

[MrBenchley]

8. Puppies for everybody!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. ButButBut...

I want a kitty!!!

[MrBenchley]

12. All right, just for you!!!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

14. Ok, everyone. Repeat after me:

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

[Ken Burch]

18. Sorry, you'll have to drown your own!

Care to explain what you find objectionable in my list?

[Ken Burch]

21. I didn't say they were policies. They're beliefs.

Some can be acted on in a variety of ways.

[eallen]

25. There is a difference in thought level between policies and goals.

"I want everyone to be healthy." Sounds nice. Health is nice. Why shouldn't it be universal? Of course, no one knows how to make health universal. Worse, some of the things that would spread health might be objectionable on other grounds. You might complain when the health police show up at your door early one morning to drag your ass to Health Camp. Banning cigarettes likely will lead to the some of the same problems that did banning alcohol. Speaking of banning alcohol....

[Ken Burch]

27. I said they were beliefs.

Why are you hitting this so hard, just out of curiousity? I did not claim these were policy proposals, so it is silly for you to attack them for not being what no one said they were.

[GAPeace]

9. The moneyed elite finds anything outside their spectrum "far left"

Watch Bill O'Reilly (I know, it's painful).

See how often he uses the word "far left" to label those his disagrees with. It's a great way of cutting people out of the conversation, of saying they must be so loony you shouldn't listen to them. It's a great way to destroy freedom of speech, to say that the range of human thought and imagination should be limited to a small elite spectrum.

Just ignore the label and tell the person using it to make arguments and not call names.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Yeah, when the DLC tag team calls positions that I hold dear "far left,"

I just smile.

They say "far left" as if that were a bad thing. :7

They think they're being hurtful.

In these days, when the Busheviks have done so much damage with their outright fascist tendencies, mealy-mouthed tinkering with the system won't even bring us back to where we were in 2000, much less actually alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans who are currently poorly served by both parties.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

13. One more thing:

If some people on DU call those positions "far left"...what the fuck are they doing here?

Oh...wait a minute...I think I know the answer to that one...

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheFarseer]

15. That does seem "Far Left"

although, if that's "Far Left", I can't see what Repugs are so worried about. None of that seems so horrible to me.

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. Teeny Progressive

KeyBoard Warrior

Prrooggrrrreeeeessssiiivvvveee

Purist

Far Left Whacko



:hi:

[Bob Dole]

20. All of those are great, buuuuttt...

It's not really your goals, but the way that you attempt to achieve them, that makes someone on the left or right of the spectrum.


The majority of people have similar goals for the world. End poverty, racism, blah blah. That's nice, but talk still doesn't get things done.

[Totally Committed]

23. Sounds GREAT to me!

But, then, my politics are pretty damned far "Left", too. And, proudly, they are getting "lefter" every day.

TC

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. In order:

1)peace.

No. I think that supporting an end to the US's military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan might actually help the Democrats, and almost certainly wouldn't do much harm.

2)full employment.

Yes. A government can't deliver full employment, and so promising it would be bad. "Reduced unemployement" would be a no-brainer, though.

3)the end of all forms of discrimination.

Depends what you mean by "all forms" - opposing discrimination on grounds of ability, for example, would clearly be bad, and I don't know of many forms of discrimination that I oppose that the Democratic party doesn't.

3)restoration of the massive GOP/DLC cuts in social services.

Yes, regretably. I would love to see America spending more on public services, but post Iraq taxes are going to have to rise and spending can't, to pay off the defecit, I think (although this is a largely uninformed opinion; I'm not an economist).

4)a clean environment and full use of alternative energy.

Long term no, short term yes. It should definately be a long-term goal of the American government, but the electorate are sadly hostile to it, and if you try and force them to give up oil it will cost you elections.

5)electoral reform so that we can have real elections.

You do have real elections - election stealing is the single issue where the DU consensus is most detatched from reality. Independent districting committees to prevent gerrymandering might well pick up some votes, though.

6)an economic system that doesn't grind down the many for the benefit of the few.

Absolute electoral suicide. If you so much as use the words "alternate economic system" then you will be branded a commie traitor. Stick with higher taxes on the rich, but the same economic system.

7)a Democratic Party and a nation in which all the people have a real say, not just big donors and corporations.

If by that overblown rhetoric you mean "campaign finance reform", then probably not. The issue here is that to restrict the influence of donors you'd have to severely restrict freedom of speech.

[Ken Burch]

29. So basically you support the fact that, by contrast with the above,

The party currently stands for nothing but trying feebly to win power in name. Never mind that that is a recipe for only holding power for a short period.

Why do you prefer a party without principles? (Which is the same thing as a "centrist" party, btw)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. The goal is to *do* good, not to *be* right.

I prefer a moderate leftist party in government to a far leftist party in opposition.

What I want to see maximised is not

"How good the democrats would be as a government"

but

"How much better than the Republicans the Democrats would be as a government" x "how likely they would be to win election".


I would like the Democrats to adopt positions more moderate than the positions I think would be best for America if implemented. The goal is to *do* good, not to *be* right.

If you want to live in a country with decent left-wing government, come and live in the UK, as I do. You *cannot have* left-wing government without an electorate willing to vote for it, and America doesn't currently have one of those.

*My* political opinions ("principals" is a word that drives me mad with rage - it just means "a political opinion I agree with", and your claim that centrists don't have them is simply nothing to do with reality) are reasonably far left wing, although I habitually try to couch them in language as unextremist as possible, and have little time for those who do the reverse. To convince me that the Democratic party should do the same, you would need to convince me that it could win elections with such, which I think is fairly clearly not the case.

What the political opinions of the opposition are is irrelevant.

[Ken Burch]

33. Problem is, the "centrists" we have in the US

Aren't "moderate leftists", they are moderate conservatives. And sense you have rightists with unshakeable and eternally unchangeable positions pushing against them, our "centrists" are heading past moderate conservativism into just plain conservatism.

I don't elections that don't matter anymore, Donald.

I don't want an opposition party that treats what I believe in with just as much contempt as the party I campaign against.

In the end, the Nineties weren't significantly different then they would have been under total Republican control. Certainly they weren't different enough to justify the total cannibalization of the Democratic Party's convictions and its ideological surrender to the hard right.

As the war, we now know it is unwinnable and that no good would come OF winning. "Victory" would simply make my country's leaders(and yours)even more imperialist. Knowing this, knowing that no one with humane, secular or democratic values will ever be in power again in either Iraq or Iran, why the hell should we kill anyone else there?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. An election only doesn't matter

If there's not much difference between the two parties. I've heard some people claim that there isn't much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans; I think that's self-evidently nonsense, as anyone who cares about e.g. the legality of abortion will tell you.

Whether you regard the centrist movements of the Democratic party as moderate liberals or moderate conservatives depends on what you regard the "centre" as being, and what you're talking about the centre *of* - the centre of American politics and the centre of politics here in the UK are very different. However, they're clearly not conservative extremists, which the Republicans are.

I agree that the nineties weren't different enough to justify the total cannibalization of the Democratic Party's convictions and its ideological surrender to the hard right. I don't, however, think that it's possible to make a credible case that that's happened - it's rabble-rousing rhetoric, not a serious attempt to accurately describe the political situation. That kind of rhetorical flourish always worries me slightly, because I fear that some people may start to take it seriously.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

54. I must respond to your #7

The idea that Campaign Finance Reform means having to restrict anyone's "freedom of speech" is a bogus right-wing argument. It's NOT true.

Clean money campaign financing means PUBLIC financing of elections. This includes handling the case where someone opts out of public financing, funds their own campaign and by doing so rewards their publicly funded candidate with enough additional funding to even the playing field. That's how it's handled in Arizona and Maine and it worked pretty well. There's no "infringement" on that bullshit Supreme's decision that equated campaign contributions with "free speech".

We also have the right to demand access to OUR AIRWAVES for campaigns in order to counter-balance the corrupted system of buying time to spread lies and disinformation. We can get that too.

I consider Clean Money Public Financing of elections as the ONLY way to finally create a Democracy in this benighted country which has never really had one...

Here in California we will have an opportunity this November to vote in Clean Money...

Lucky us...

on edit: the site

http://www.caclean.org/

[Ken Burch]

58. Gee, thanks Dad!

(...seriously, I do appreciate the support, and that was just too good a set-up to pass up.

BTW, can I borrow the car Saturday night, I got a hot date!)

[boolean]

26. I've come to realize the farther left you are, the better

I wouldn't want to be called a centrist these days, because the political spectrum has shifted so far to the right that centrist is now the right.

If they call you "far left", it's because they're threatened by it.

Let Bill O'Reilly piss and moan about the far left all he wants. His audience (average age: 71) is slowly dying off. The "far left" is going to take the country back.

[gordianot]

28. I completly agree and have been accused of being far left and RW.

Maybe I need to wear a red shirt with a black tie?

[rageagnst]

32. You goals don't TOTALLY define you as a person...

The way you obtain those goals define how 'radical' you are. Bush Co. wants some if not most of those things but attempts to obtain in the most inefficent and sometimes most counter-productive way possible. Anyways, still have love for my LEFT buddies... and totally agree with your goals. Constructive Criticism, a'right?

[sgxnk]

34. the issue would never be what u believe

as much as the means to achieve them.

i don't know anybody who doesn't want peace

the issue is how. and the issue is also, when is peace not acceptable. iow, is there ever a time when it is right to go to war? WWII?

full employment is an absurd utopian dream, so i wont even address that

the end of all forms of discrimination? ALL forms? should basketball teams be able to discriminate against bad players? or should everybody who applies get a seat on te bench? should colleges be able to discriminate against bad student applicants? should fire departments be able to discriminate against paraplegics (who obviously could not perform the duties). that is also silly. are affirmative action quotas a form of discrimination that should be supported? etc. etc. etc.


these are platitudes, and of course the devil is in the details

far left is easy. if you read mother jones, and agree with most of it, you are far left.

if you read weekly standard and agree, you are far right

if you read reason and agree with most of it, you are libertarian

[SteppingRazor]

35. Not at all. However...

I find that, often times, it is not the ends that DUers disagree with, but the means.

[bugbones]

36. Sounds good.

I wangt everything you want. It's not necessary to label those things as "far left." That stuff is what being an American is all about. Identify them correctly as "American." And stick labels sideways up your nose.

"Once you label me you negate me."
--Soren Kierkegaard

[OneBlueSky]

37. get thee to a "free speech zone," traitor! . . . :) n/t

.

[Blue_Tires]

38. well obviously you hate america!

[rinsd]

39. This is a perfect illustration of the far left,

Unrealistic, self righteous and completely ignorant of those flaws.

[MrBenchley]

41. Yeah, but they pout and stamp their feet so prettily

And remember, the problem is that everybody else in America is out of touch with THEM.

[alvarezadams]

42. You need

to update your GOP talking points.

Your comments are stale.

[MrBenchley]

43. Pout louder.

[Bjorn Against]

47. I see somebody pouting on this thread

I find it really interesting that while you accuse the "far left" of attacking Democrats, you have launched numerous attacks against Democrats on THIS VERY THREAD.

Stop the hypocrisy, if you don't like the "far left" attacking the DLC types then don't launch broad smears on the "far left".

And don't accuse others of pouting while you launch into your temper tantrums.

[Ken Burch]

68. And Yankees fans aren't?

:sarcasm:

1)as to self-righteousness, the DLC leads the pack on that, with their absolute certainty that they are inherently superior to the rest of the party and with their willingness, exemplified in their demands that the Democrats denounce the poor as immoral and cut our ties with the labor movement, to sacrifice those who are powerless in the name of power for themselves only.

2)If we had only settled for what was "realistic", the slaves would never have been freed, no one would ever have formed a union, there'd have been no New Deal, Hitler's control of Europe would have been left unchallenged, Jim Crow would still be in place and our boys would still be dying in Vietnam along with those who are dying in Iraq.

3)Ignorant of our flaws? There's nobody more self-critical than the average left-winger. We examine ourselves and our tactics and convictions all the time. Ignorance of flaws is exemplified by our DLC friends, who insist that we stay with the same tactics that haven't won an election since 1996. The definition of insanity is repeating the same activity over and over again and expecting a different result.

Nice try. But try again when you've actually got an arguement.

[Dr Fate]

44. Those boys call people who disagree with YOU "far left".

It's not about your specific beliefs- those same 3 or 4 boys you are talking about hurl insults at anyone & everyone-even moderates- who takes issue with DLC strategy. They even attempt to insult people like myself who AGREE with the DLC on some issues.

So- it's not really about you, your policies or an actual "far left"- it's just an intended insult they use to try to shut-up anyone who disagrees or takes slight issue with the DLC meme of the day.

Hit alert everytime you feel it is being used as a personal insult- maybe if the mods/Admin realizes just how much they do to shut down debate here, they will take appropriate action.

[Moochy]

56. Best strategy yet

Don't ignore them, just add them to your buddy list and alert when their posts cross the line.

Who knows? maybe the DLC's fighting keyboard brigade might eventually mess up and forget to mail in a check, er I mean forget the rules enough to where DU could be rid of the divisive and hate-filled spew.

(snickers)

Happy peanuts Soar!!

[Clarkie1]

46. There will never be full employment because some people

will always be changing jobs. Even in the best economy they will be a few percentage points unemployment, and it it's that low there will probably also be significant inflation. Basic economics.

Of course everyone wants peace, myself included. However, people can want peace but disagree on how to achieve it, so you have to be careful there. Wanting peace should not be equated with pacifism. Definitely though we don't want chickenhawks in office and war should always be a last, last, last resort.

I find no need to add anything to the rest of your list, as I agree with it.

Edit: Actually, I should comment on #4:

"A clean environment and full use of alternative energy."

Absolutely I agree with that, but I would point out that even with conservation and full use of alternative energy, at least in the short term it may make sense to look at nuclear power as a way to further decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Many on the "far left" (to use your phrase) are strongly "anti-nuke." We should not allow science to be politicized, and should always look for the best, most effective solutions to problems using a cost/benefit/risk analysis, not politics.

[MarkDevin]

48. I once read that the Federal Reserve deliberately maintains...

...a constant 8% rate of unemployment. Because somehow, 100% employment would be bad for business. :shrug:

[AJH032]

49. It's not that full employment would be bad for business

It's simply that full employment is not possible. There's something called the "natural" rate of unemployment, which includes people moving from job to job. That kind of unemployment will exist no matter what.

[Ken Burch]

62. If that's the case, then all stigma should be lifted from unemployment

Perhaps everyone who is jobless should be offered four years free tuition to learn something new, with housing and expenses covered as well.

That way, periods of joblessness would always be periods of renewal rather than times of despair and defeat.

[AJH032]

50. Yes, I think it's far left. So what?

Are you afraid of the label? Embrace it, try to convince others why those are the best policies, instead of wasting your time trying to label it as something else.

[madrchsod]

51. i`m a wobbly at heart

so i guess i`m a far left kind of guy

[ProudDad]

55. Right on, Brother!

I'm a member too!

www.iww.org

International Unionism is the only cure for corporate capitalism.

[Ken Burch]

64. "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common"

-from the IWW preamble.

(I too was a Wobbly at one point. Maybe I'll join again sometime. I always found them the most sensible and dogma-free people I ever dealt with on the left.)

[Sparkly]

52. "Far Left" is like a fashion label here.

People who are far from it stake claim to it, feign virtual martyrdom over it, relish in persecution complexes over it, and plant flags on the high ground over it.

MANY of us consider ourselves "far left."

But in the end, none of these labels matter. It's not a badge of honor, and it's HARDLY a scarlet letter here.

I think it's time to get over it. The only real question at this point is whether or not you support Democrats. PERIOD.

[wyldwolf]

57. therein lies the kicker...

Some that consider themselves "far left" have a completely different definition than the rest of the country's of what a Democrat is. Given that, some can't be relied on to support Democrats.

How can you take anyone seriously who call basically calls Harry Truman a neocon and Bill Clinton a republican?

[MarkDevin]

60. The only real question at this point is whether you support Democrats."

Well, I don't support Democrats like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller. And I hope you don't either.

[LeftofU]

53. 8) We want the money back.

They get no golden parachute!

[Ken Burch]

59. OK, good idea.

nt.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

61. Those are results. Not policies

A policy that says "We support peace" doesnt really accomplish anything.

Of course they fine and very worthy results, but I don't believe that results are left or right.

In fact Id say that even most conservatives would support those results.

Where we differ, and differ massively is the way we get them.

Conservatives want peace, but they want peace via war

Conservatives want full employment, but they want full employment via poverty wages.

Conservatives would even support clean environment and use of alternative energy - so long as they get rich in doing so.

No, where the difference lies, and where left and right come into play is how we get there.

The left wants to do it fairly and for the benefit of mankind. The right wants to do only if it gets them rich.

[Ken Burch]

63. I'm not sure we can say "conservatives want peace" any more.

They seem to believe that we must have a war now and then(and these days much more now THAN then)in order to maintain our national character and fibre. Our right has fallen dangerously in love with the notion of our military as a "warrior elite" as well. One wonders whether, if this trend continues, we will always be able to trust our armed forces to remain "in the barracks" and not try to, say, annul a U.S. election result they don't like by brute force.

[Ken Burch]

65. And, of course, what I stand for isn't really "far left".

The Khmer Rouge and Mao's Red Guards are "far left".

"Far left" means people who are lining other people up in front of firing squads, not people who believe in peacefully working within the Democratic Party for social and economic change.

"Far left" is a slur that needs to die on DU. It applies to none of us.

[LincolnMcGrath]

66. "Far left" is a slur that is also against DU rules.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

67. I wouldn't pay much attention to it.

It seems like it's the same 3 or 4 assholes using that term over and over and over again.