Should Third Way Democrats have to run on their ideas and convictions?

[mmonk]

As someone who has worked many election cycles at the precinct, district, and state levels, I have never had the option of voting them or not voting them as the policy shop of the Democratic Party. I don't remember voting on any of their ideas as platform issues. So why are they the appointed or assumed arbitrators of policy? How were they able to circumvent the process determined through the delegate process?

[BzaDem]

1. To the extent the policies of Congressional Democrats are to the right of what you would prefer,

that is simply because there aren't enough districts in the country that elect politicians that support policies to your left.

If you want to "vote out the third way" or however else you want to put it, then you should work to ensure the 218th most liberal house member and 60th most liberal Senator is at least as liberal as yourself.

[vi5]

4. He(or she) is not talking about "voting out the third way"

He's saying, if they are the leaders of our party, and if the majority of Democrats feel as they do then change the official platform to reflect those ideas.

Don't keep in ideas in there that reflect the unwavering commitments and ideals of a certain segment of the Democratic party, but then have all the leaders and people given the most power in charge of that party vote well off of what is in that platform and in many cases undermine those ideals and policies in the platform.

Make it official. Enough with the Trojan Horse democratic politics.

[mmonk]

6. You are not answering my question.

I know nobody (and I'm in North Carolina) who has worked through the process professing their views in the process of adopting party positions.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Ah, the Palin method. If you do not want to answer the question

just talk about something else.

[mmonk]

17. Sorry, misunderstood.

Yep.

[vi5]

2. I agree...

If they want to lead the party and direct the party, then let them make it official that the Democratic platform is THEIR ideas. Go through whatever that process is and vote for it.

I'm tired of being expected to vote for a party whose platforms include many ideas and ideals and policies that I agree with, only to have the leaders govern with an entire new set of ideas.

If as the one responder above me thinks, and that this is because a majority of Americans in a majority of districts support center right ideas then fine: put it in the official party platform and see what happens. If a majority of people support those policies and platforms then they should have no problem continuing to garner the support they supposedly have for those ideas.

[sendero]

19. Exactly.

... they run as Democrats and govern as Republicans.

[midnight]

3. K&R. Not sure what this third way is, but hear about it from time to time..

[Rabblevox]

5. Third Way is centrist/corporatist. Here's a link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)

[piratefish08]

7. turn on c-span. watch it in all it's glorious action.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Like Tea with GOP. Third Way is a set of Democrats who are

unhappy with the actual Party voters and history, insisting on much attention for what they call 'centrism' which is a morally void and indefinable political stance which one finds by standing by a Republican and sliding one inch to the left.

[mmonk]

18. I guess that is why they call themselves a third way, right?

;-) But why do they get to control?

[KharmaTrain]

8. Many Do...And Win...

They used to be called "Blue Dogs"...Democrats who run in conservative and "purple" districts. Now if you don't want those people in the party or elected, then expect the Democrats in the House to be a minority party for the forseeable future. If you think Progressive and Liberal candidates can win in those districts, then there needs to be money and boots on the ground ready to support those candidates.

[mmonk]

12. You are talking about elections. I am talking about positions of the party

determined by the Democrats in every state of the union and adopted as party positions. I'm willing to bet millions of Democrats vote for Democrats because they think they are different from the Republicans on issues, primarily certain claimed principles. The average Joe doesn't dissect every candidate.

[KharmaTrain]

20. Different Joes...

This is a nation of special interests...especially among Democrats. The concept of a big tent means the party accepts the positions of many different groups and one hopes a consensus occurs. Some values...mostly social are shared but their priorities aren't always in the same order. It's a vast contrast to the rushpublicans who are a party based strictly on "ideology" that means simplistic soundbites that are used as a smokescreen to do the dirty work of their party's elite.

No the average Joe doesn't care much more than how his life is on election day. If he/she is feeling good about how things are, they'll tend to stick with the status quo...if they're not they're either stay home or vote for the opposition. For most candidates right now the only people that matter are those who write the big checks...the ones they'll need to wage big money elections next year. The "little guy" or "average Joe" only matters after the money is collected...generally the last weeks of the general election.

The problem some folks appear to have troubles with is this administration can only go where the legislative allows it to. Thus if you want it to go more to the left there needs to be more liberal and progressives elected to the House and Senate...thus my comment earlier about getting together the money and putting the boots on the ground to keep the existing progressives in office and elect more in districts where its possible. That's the way you start swining the pendulum away from the right or whatever "third way" there is...

[mmonk]

22. But what is progressive or liberal these days? We are speaking

of what were mainstream positions of elected Democrats before 1985. With no options in the direction of country and policy, the process is a failure.

[KharmaTrain]

30. Mainstream?

I remember a lot of Blue Dogs...known as "Dixiecrats" who were still a part of the Democratic Party in the 70s and early 80s. Phil Gramm was a Democrat. I can recall a party of George Wallace and Lester Maddox...that wasn't the progressive/liberal nirvana some believe it to be.

You ask a very good question...one I keep wondering myself. It's not the same as what is a good Democrat...which is not the same as what is possible in such a polarized political time.

The perceptions and labels change as time and situations do. Looking back at things like the New Deal or the New Frontier as being the norm for the Democratic party forget the many years where the party's many wings were divided (like the 70s). The party is what the current members make it...thus if you want one that is more liberal or progressive or stand for whatever values you claim them to be then you need to work for them...the party won't come to you.

Cheers...

[mmonk]

31. They are Republicans now.

[Selatius]

9. The problem is left wingers are having to enact something. Anybody who opposes controls the debate.

If you wanted to pass, for example, the Employee Free-Choice Act in the US Senate, you would need 60 senators (most likely Democrats) to pass it without the risk the bill being filibustered. The only problem is if one of those Democrats is a right winger on economic issues, you're fucked, because he's going to turn traitor and vote with the Republicans on not invoking cloture on a filibuster.

It takes a lot of people to throw a pool party, but it only takes one douchebag to piss in the pool.

[mmonk]

11. I'm not talking about process. I'm talking about what a party claims it stands for.

And then tracks a different position. Party platforms and positions are determined by the rank and file.

[vi5]

13. But then we should be clear.....

If we have a Democratic party platform that says without caveats or equivocation that the Democratic party supports unions, gay rights, abortion rights, women's rights, social security, medicare, medicaid, the wealthy and corporations paying a larger share of taxes, but then either the party as a whole (or the majority of a whole) does not adequately back up those positions, or places as leaders of the party itself, committees, chairmanships, etc. people who work against those positions then they should change the party platform.

In other words, our party platform reflects the policy, politics, and voting records of say...Al Franken and Russ Feingold. But the people we put in charge of our party and who seemingly have the most control over it are the Ben Nelson's, Max Baucus's, and Harry Reid's.

If their views and approaches to governance are what the Democratic party stands for then let the platform reflect that. If not, then put in place of our leadership people who reflect that.

You'd never see Republicans putting their most liberal members in charge of anything. Not the party, not their committees, not their chairmanships, not their majorities or the minority head positions. Because those are not the position of their party.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

14. I don't care what their positions are as much as I am the party positions,

what the claims are of that position, and who determines policy.

[OHdem10]

21. What convictions???????????

[nc4bo]

23. It certainly would be nice if we could choose. But we can't

now what?

I'd rather see a separation than to be a victim of bait and switch.

[mmonk]

25. Yes, the bait and switch isn't doing anything for me.

[alsame]

24. Yes. They should not be allowed to keep hiding behind the

cloak of the Democratic party platform. If they are so convinced that most of country agrees with their centrism, they should have the courage to put their platform out there and see what happens.

[mmonk]

26. Yes, I want to see them run on reform of social security, Medicare,

and Medicaid. I want to see things such as chained CPI and raising the age on everything as talking points instead of them saying they are "strengthening social security and Medicare for future generations". I want to see the double speak take a hike. (just using this as one position of many)

[NorthCarolina]

27. They should, but lets get real...they would never be elected if they did. nt

[mmonk]

28. But how many are elected because they are like the Republicans

instead of the electorate trying to vote for Democrats because they are supposed to be different? What is that breakdown?

[NorthCarolina]

29. Probably few. I doubt there are many voters looking for a Democrat that is just like a Republican.

Those voters would simply vot for the Republican candidate. The meme that we need "conservative Democrats" is just a fabrication put forth by the DLC New Dem third-way types to justify their existence. They benefit from those that vote party lines, but given a choice I am quite sure Democratic voters would rather elect a candidate that represents Democratic values; it is just that in many cases they quite simply are not given that choice. They can chose from the corporate sponsored candidate, or stay home.