Despite the comments from rightwing commentators, I think the Democrats are about to face, not an angry group of centrists and right of centers, but an angry group of people who realize that the most rightwing of them is more left than the most leftist Democratic candidate.


Do you agree, or do you think I have it wrong?


If you agree with my assessment, here is my question:


Would the left be better off letting the Democratic party implode under it's center-right and rightwing tilt, or would the left be better off trying, as Move On has tried, to make the Democratic Party represent our interests?

Considering the Democratic party is our greatest chance to take back presidency and Congress from the Republicans, i think we should try to make the democrats reflect our interests. Frankly without the Democrats, the Republicans would continue to gain more power and i do not think our country can handle many more years of such a conservative government.

Sorry Jaime i did not realize that, thanks for informing me.

How would we get the Dems to move back from the left? What incentive is there for them to do so? No matter how many times people show them they'd rather vote for full strength republican rather than republican light, they still march to the right.

I think that the Democratic Party will eventually either become a centrist party or become obsolete. They really are already centrist but moving further into repub territory all the time. If the Greens or some other progressive third party is able to get enough power, that may pull the dems back to the center, but by then, most of the progressives will have joined the progressive party, leaving Democratiic Party in the hands of the centrists.

There is a remote possibility that if the Green Party starts to do really well, the Dems will get scared enought to move back to the left side, but I doubt they'll be able to do it fast enough to save the party. They're too tied to corporate money and trying to keep up with the repubs. I am, of course, speaking of the majority of Dems. There are a few really great ones, but they are rare.

I'd say, spend the energy to build up progressive third parties and let nature take it's course with the dems.

You mean, like eugenics advocator and James Hart?

From James Hart for Congress:



This is still left than the most leftist Democratic candidate?!

Or the honorable () Reverend Bob Jones, of whom I am certain if it hadn't been for outside pressure wouldn't have reversed it's interracial dating ban - this is still more left than the most leftist Democratic candidate?!

Please tell me you're either kidding or simply have been spending too much time watching the Faux News channel. Do you have any particular candidate in mind when you say "the most leftist Democratic candidate?" Has the paradigm really shifted that extraordinarily when being anti-Iraqi war means that you're an extremist? What viewpoints are you referring to when you judge the criteria for "the most leftist Democratic candidate?"

Now, in the case that "an angry group of people who realize that the most rightwing of them is more left than the most leftist Democratic candidate" is actually true - and I seriously doubt that it is, but for arguments' sake - I really couldn't care less about people who put their beliefs closer to racial eugenics than anti-war. And I couldn't care less about people who sincerely believe that Democrats are extremist liberals, because they obviously know nothing about politics in the rest of the world, where Democrats would actually still be closer to the right than on the left compared to liberal elements of other societies. If the political paradigm has really shifted as much as you say it has, then I seriously need to start thinking about getting the hell out of Dodge.

The second question, which I wasn't going to answer but realized that I agree with the premise of it anyway - as a matter of fact, "Would the left be better off letting the Democratic party implode under it's center-right and rightwing tilt" seems to contradict "the most rightwing of them is more left than the most leftist Democratic candidate," so I'm not entirely sure which of these opinions you believe, or really even if I correctly understood the question. In any case, I say let the Democratic Party implode. If they have no guts to stand up to corporate interests - more than a few of them, much to my disgust, are seated nice and cushy in their back pockets - if they don't have the strength to freaking stand up to the vicious, completely unfounded and fear-based conservative media attacks and publicly, swiftly call them on their bull- please google "Democrats will ban the Bible," or this past Sunday in a Louisville megachurch where the general theme was that to vote Democrat was to vote against God, the Democrats are "filibustering people of faith," etc., etc - then quite frankly good riddance to the Democratic Party.

Well, I didn't even consider the possibility that it might be impossible to save the party while moving it where we want it!

But if the Democrats collapse, America isn't going to shrug and become a one-party nation. The Republicans would be in big trouble. I think the worst we'd see is a Libertarian Party rise up to replace the Democrats, and the Greens and other leftys weak, but in the running. I'd rather deal with Libertarians than neocons and neocon lights any day! The Republican conservatives sick of the neocon invasion would probably jump ship over to the Libertarian Party if the Democrats collapsed, too. And that wouldn't be a bad thing at all.




I agree with you 100% on this!

I am curious as to what you define as your interests? Just what exactly is your problem with the centrists? Specifics please not just general rants about "corporate interests"

The most successful and popular Democrats to be elected are Kennedy and Clinton. 2 of which definetely fall towards the Center--where most people are. So how do you come to the conclusion that Left is the way to go? just curious.

What makes a person Left? Flat out communist? Socialist? Please define?

I agree with Suzy in that I think the Dems have forgotten how to fight. In this they have gotten weak and just don't have what it takes these days. Quite simply they have no balls anymore. They may have some good ideas but i haven't heard any? Just the constant whining drone of "Bush is bad mmmKay!"

If anything it is the Democrats complete lack of vision that is costing them.

But if you could define for me just how you see the centrist idea as bad and how you define the "Left" we could probably have a really good debate.

Centrists aren't bad, I apologize if I gave you the idea I thought they were. What is bad is that there are a lot of left of center Americans (many of whom have no clue they are left of center, or what left is generally accepted to be, or where center is, or that Kerry was right of center and not much left of Bush). What is worse is that the left has no one representing us in national government. And that is where corporate funding of campaigns really destroys our Democratic Republic.


As for left and right and centrist, I find this as accurate as you can get when using these kinds of labels (let me know if you disagree!):

http://www.politicalcompass.org/


Your best bet for determining what you think of its accuracy is to take it, then go to the 2004 election link on the sidebar and look at where the candidates fell in comparison with where you fall. That way, you can determine how accurate it is in relation to you. It's a great site! I played with it for a bit, putting in different answers, and it seems pretty good to me. Not perfect by any means, but pretty good.


Here is my definition of left, right, and center.


Left: I'm as far to the left as you can get without going right again. But I don't mean TV left, stereotype left. I'm anti-gun control, for example (this is partly due to my deep fear of people like Michael Savage but is also due to my Libertarian loathing for big daddy government). I'd legalize all drugs if I could, what use is filling the prisons with drug dealers and letting rapists and child molesters out to make room for them? And it just lines the pockets of criminals. Let people kill themselves with drugs if that's what they're going to do, it's not like you can stop it. I've never seen any drug user stop using because it was illegal, and I worked in a State funded detox for a year.

I'm left in the sense that I don't see our world as a happy puppies and flowers playground where everyone starts out on even footing. I see free trade as a brutal race to the bottom, I see leaving kids whose parents are poor to go without education, healthcare, and decent food as sadistically social darwinistic and dangerous. Also, what are many of those kids going to do when they grow up...if they grow up? They're going to do what they have to in order to survive. And this might endanger those lucky ducks who did get to go to decent schools, got treated for every scrape earned the little league field, and ate a balanced, nurturing diet, meanwhile breathing in air that wasn't so sooty it choked their lungs. Check out the projects by the river in Memphis for an example of pollutants that almost certainly shorten lifespan and lower IQ. You can't park your car next to these housing projects for an hour without having to wipe the windshield with a towel to get the grime off, and in the summer pigeons fall dead at your feet after flying over the stacks and breathing in the stuff.


So anyway, now that I've meandered. To me left is...wait. Communist. I'll start there. Even better (but don't see this as linear, please. If you will, imagine a circle, with Communist and Fascist and Neocons next to each other, rather than opposites. Not because all communists are one breath away from fascists and vice versa (while I think Communism is overly idealistic, I have communist friends, and they are in no way fascist, but because the systems themselves can easily cross the line to become each other. Actually, communism tends to become fascism, but some fascist states have had leftist policies in some areas). Don't ask me how close I think neocons are to fascists. I'm trying to be polite!:

Communist: Far left extremist, irrationally supposes people will maintain (and thrive in) an environment free of competition and "keeping up with the Joneses". Overly optimistic regarding the nature of humans. Believes human beings will actually work for the good of the whole, restraining their indolent impulses. While unlikely to admit it, might have read too much into the gospels of Jesus Christ. Do unto others and all that. Some communists lean toward powerful centralist governments. These communists believe the people put in charge of a centrally planned government will actually act in the best interests of people and will not grab more than their share of resources and power. Communists believe society can get by without bosses.


Leftist/Socialist/Green Party/Nader: This is a slightly broader category than Communist. Leftists/socialists don't want to remove all competition and are more inclined to favor Democratic forms of government. Leftists/socialists want a reasoning hand to replace the invisible hand of many marketplace theories. Leftist/socialists don't believe that society benefits from social darwinism, from letting the wealthy take advantage of the desperation of the poor in order to obtain huge profits from their labor while returning little of the fruits of that labor to the employees. Leftists/socialists don't see rights such as healthcare, food, and housing as being tied to income. While leftists/socialists do not favor letting everyone sit around and eat state funded prime rib, leftists/socialists do favor assisting those who have fallen on hard times and favor giving the children of the poor, no matter how the poor got that way, a fighting chance at having a better life for themselves. Leftists/socialists have a deep distrust of corporate influence, but some also tend to place too much faith on a large, centralized system of government.


Centrist/Moderate/(Some) Democrat officials: More inclined than the leftist socialist to allow individuals to deal with the consequences of their own choices, but more inclined than the Rightwinger/Conservative/Republican/(some) Democrats to allow these choices to cause serious injury or death or to spill over into the lives of children born into poverty. More inclined to have faith in corporate leaders, less inclined to trust central government than many socialists.


Rightwinger/(some) Republican officials/(most) Democrat officials (including Kerry): Faith in free market, willing to tolerate officeholders with strong ties to corporate America. However, also willing to tolerate some social programs, so long as these programs don't interfere overly with corporate profit. Free traders as a rule, less protective of groups that have been traditionally discriminated against than Centrists, but more protective of these groups than conservatives/Libertarians. However, also less protective of privacy rights than conservatives/Libertarians.


Conservatives/Libertarians/(some) Republicans/Badnarak: These are the live and let live people. They don't trust big business or big government, but they trust themselves to deal with big business, after they get rid of big government. While conservatives with moderate leanings do acknowledge the benefit of some regulation, radical conservative/Libertarians are overly optimistic about the chances of people leveling the playing field and maintaining freedom despite the presence of large, powerful conglomerates.


Neocons (Bush): Favors big business and the policies of social darwinism. Also understands more about how the Invisible Hand works than most average income Americans who think that they agree with free market policies. The Invisible Hand theory basically says surplus humans will starve, die of disease, or be killed off in war, adjusting the environment so that the rest may carry on. Brutality is an accepted part of the adjustment. Some also embrace the less savory aspects of Edmund Burke's philosophies, such as his justification of prejudice, however, most neocons today are more like Wilhelm Nietzsche, whose writings, despite being adopted by the Nazis, leaned far more toward classism than racism. Bush, for example, even appears to have shunned Nietzsche's sexist taint. Bush seems willing to associate with anyone at his level. However, the lesser people mean nothing to him, and he has indicated that he would enjoy running America as a dictatorship, as long as he got to be dictator. He opposed affirmative action, but not legacy admissions, for example. Nietzsche believed above all that the rich are where they are because they are better than their fellow humans and that they owe their fellow humans nothing. The poor, to Nietzsche, were there merely to serve the rich and it was the duty of the rich to bring the poor to heel in whatever manner worked best.


Fascists (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini): Even less inclined to consider those not in power than the neocons. Fascists believe might makes right, and scruples have no place. They are also more likely than neocons to impose centralized order, rather than to allow power players to control policy from without. The defining difference between a neocon and a fascist, is, in fact, the fascist's obsession with order as well as power and control of resources.

Good answer. better than i expected.

I have taken that test before. this time came out the same. Neo liberalism

Not entirely accurate as i believe in limited safety nets and some economic investment "starter programs" such as AMERICAN STAKEHOLDER ACCOUNTS http://www.newamerica.net/Download_Docs/pd...File_1292_1.pdf

I really am not a fan of terms such as Left or Right. Most people are a decent mix of both "sides" So it seems to do nothing more than maintain the powerbase of the current 2 parties and their shills--the Hannity's and Garafelo's of the world. Ignorant hateful little people.
Why i actually prefer the centrist camp--A horrible name they have chosen for themselves. It inspires no real confidence and just sounds weak. I would love to see them adopt a more inspirational title which conveys a sense of vision and ingenuity.

The Democrats will continue their fiery crash thru the atmosphere because they have absolutely NO vision. No new ideas--Nothing.
Americans need and want options. We are not a one size fits all kind of people.
They are also trying to fight the 1960 and 70s fight in the New Millennium. its a different world in many aspects.

If they cannot offer new ideas to the large majority of people who are pretty much middle of the road and really just want to be left alone they will continue their downward spiral to 3rd party status.

I believe America is entering a new conservative phase and if the dems and other like minded groups do not offer viable realistic solution that meet the needs of the people--and not the ideological views of a minority--then the hardline conservatives will get to write the new rules--and we will all suffer for it.

I like that paragraph. Never thought about the inadequecy of that term before. I only have one question for you: The centrists (for lack of a better name) want to be left alone to do...what?

ok. so the question is what do we do with democrats. some have said that the third party member's greatest tool is the democratic party, but why? they are obviously losing power to the strong republican party, and that is their own fault. why should we third party members put our faith in a dying party?

the time to act is now. a common quote that everyone probably knows goes like this
"To defeat what is strong, attack what is weak."

is the democratic party not the weaker of the two parties as of now?
YES.

also, their members are probably more inclined to follow a policy or agenda given by a 3rd party.

the problem is, no one is stepping up to take on this great task.

I think the best plan of action would be to let the democrats more closely associated to the center to continue their walk to the right, while 3rd parties must concentrate on those extreme leftist factions of the democrats for support.

even if we continue to support the democrats, and they would take office again...is that truly helping the 3rd parties, or helping any of us? no.

id love to go more in depth or a strategy for classes for 3rd parties to target, however...im only a junior in highschool and i need to go to my next class!!

i love talking politics, so anyone can IM me on AOL instant messenger, my screen name is



ill post later!

its disgusting when i see the lack of conversation or discussion in this board. we need to discuss things and become involved, so if any of us decide to go into politics, we can have a base belief.