What do the Democrats stand for?

Denerick

I was browsing politico.com and this quote touched a nerve;

A top Democratic official, insisting on anonymity in order to be candid, said: “The fundamental problem of the whole process is Democrats have zero ability to describe what our view of government really is. So basically all we do is defend the status quo against attacks from the right-wing fringe of the GOP.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52870.html#ixzz1J8AJKLK7

The Republicans have a degree of ideological conformity, the Democrats do not. The Democrats have several individual camps in an increasingly unstable tent; liberals, conservatives, feminists, socialists, gay activists, minority activists, etc. Since most major democratic politicians reject the term liberal, they often come across as lily livered and unprincipled, generally just defending the victories of 50 years ago in the welfare system. It is a strange position to be in; a progressive, liberal political party defending the status quo against a conservative, nationalist insurgency.

What do the Democrats stand for? And do they need a liberal version of the tea party? If they go for an out and out liberal agenda will the American people respect their courage or instead dismiss them? Conservatives have been adept at making the word 'liberal' untouchable, despite the fact that liberals were at the front of every positive change in American history, whilst conservatives stood idly by, defending discrimination, defending wild west style capitalism, pollutuon and overall a lack of humanity.

Denerick

MODS: Posted in wrong forum. Please move to US Politics.

Dirk Gently

I think "be less right wing than the republicans" just about sums them up. As you've pointed out, the right have done a pretty good job of poisoning the word liberal (as in socially liberal in this case). The democrats pretty much have to be seen as less right, but not leave themselves open to be labelled "commies", a difficult thing to achieve in a country where the left / right axis would be considered a right / more right axis by euro standards and pretty much anything to the left of "more right" will be attacked as evil socialism.

Our own labour party suffers similar restrictions in so far as many labour members would be left leaning / socialist / very socially liberal etc but the party itself is middle of the road / right leaning, while trying to be "less right" than FG for example. In the case of our own Labour party I think its a mistake not to be more overtly left as for want of a better word, there's a market there for a sensible lefty party in Ireland. In the Democrates case, I think "be less right wing than the republicans" is about as much as they can achieve without losing big chunks of support from attacks from the right on any lefty shift.

In short, I think "we're not as brutal as the republicans" is what they stand for.

Denerick

My point is that there is no 'New Frontier' or 'Great Society'. There are lots of generational style battles sitting there for the democrats to win. There is immigration reform, fixing social security, taming the US military budget, gas tax, climate change... Obama can only do so much, even his historic attempt to fix healthcare was dogged down by compromise after compromise. The Democrats don't seem to stand for anything anymore. Obama gave a good speech on the eve of his healthcare bill, begging democrats to remember their roots and what they stand for. He probably shamed a few waverers into voting for it.

Black Swan

It would appear that neither the Democrats or the Republicans have a clearly articulated political platform built upon a solid consensus of their party leaders or registered voters.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"If it aint left, it's right"

Most of these discussions tend to stop at this point.

Amerika

I really don’t know what Democrats stand for as they keep moving the goal posts, except for the fact (IMO) they believe the US Constitution is a "living document" that can be molded and shaped into whatever they want.

Republicans stand for strong defense, family values, low taxes, and small government. A pretty easy and straight-forward message.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Come on, the 'Libertarians' are certainly a tiny minority (At least in your understanding of the term) the 'atheists' even more so. The Republican party has a set of principles. The only real division is between those like John Mc Cain who find the tea partier crowd scary and the evangelical crowd even scarier, and with someone like Marco Rubio, who has made a living exploiting both camps in the party.

Overheal

Given how the Republican tent contains everyone from conservative Christians to libertarian atheists

Speaking as someone who could probably most closely be labeled a libertarian atheist: why do you lump me in with the same demographic that wants to ban personal life choices like Abortion and Gay/Lesbian Marriage, and want to ban the instruction of Evolutionary Theory, based mostly upon the fact that these things are considered sacrilege? But then again I also support laws on seatbelts and car-texting... hmm.

Libertarianism is the estranged 2nd cousin of Republicanism. That sometimes characters like Ron Paul run under that tent is only an indication that we have a broken 2-party system, not that the ideologies are compatible.

James Cessna

Denerick wrote: »

I was browsing politico.com and this quote touched a nerve;

A top Democratic official, insisting on anonymity in order to be candid, said: “The fundamental problem of the whole process is Democrats have zero ability to describe what our view of government really is. So basically all we do is defend the status quo against attacks from the right-wing fringe of the GOP.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52870.html#ixzz1J8AJKLK7

The Republicans have a degree of ideological conformity, the Democrats do not. The Democrats have several individual camps in an increasingly unstable tent; liberals, conservatives, feminists, socialists, gay activists, minority activists, etc. Since most major democratic politicians reject the term liberal, they often come across as lily livered and unprincipled, generally just defending the victories of 50 years ago in the welfare system. It is a strange position to be in; a progressive, liberal political party defending the status quo against a conservative, nationalist insurgency.

What do the Democrats stand for? And do they need a liberal version of the tea party? If they go for an out and out liberal agenda will the American people respect their courage or instead dismiss them? Conservatives have been adept at making the word 'liberal' untouchable, despite the fact that liberals were at the front of every positive change in American history, whilst conservatives stood idly by, defending discrimination, defending wild west style capitalism, pollutuon and overall a lack of humanity.

This review of what Democrats today represent and stand for was very good.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500

DUB777

Bring back communism.
Democracy clearly isn't working.

Denerick

The Democratic Republic is working in the sense that it has not yet created a tyranny, has allowed significant civil liberties for individuals whilst also maintaining a judicial system that protects the safety and human dignity of citizens.

Wrong thread for this, really.

DUB777

Denerick wrote: »

The Democratic Republic is working in the sense that it has not yet created a tyranny, has allowed significant civil liberties for individuals whilst also maintaining a judicial system that protects the safety and human dignity of citizens.

Wrong thread for this, really.

Democracy is working?? Are you living in Canada, Australia or New Zealand?? Its f~#ked up our economy here, "Civil Liberties" for the f#~king @r5eh01e politicians like BIFFO cowen, Bertie 'the b0110x' Ahern, Michael Lowery & lets not forget good auld Liam Lawlor[ found dead in car crash in Russia on a hooker strip with a 17 year old Ukrainian prostitute. The government said she was a translator. Well I'll tell you something Ukrainians need a licence to work as a russian civil servant. And guess what,(1) she didn't have a licence & (2) she was to young to be a russian civil servant by law. enough of him, he's finished & out of the political picture anyway] The developers & shagging Bankers & the so called 'financial' "REGULATOR"[where the f~#k was he the last 5 years? Asleep behind the wheel???]
The gent being interviewed in this clip says it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu3IT1kGavE

Our judicial system does f~#k all but punish the tax payers who pay taxes so it can allegedly 'function'. It does nothing to corrupt politicians or bankers in their poxy white collar golden circles or the corrupt coppers in their blue collar circles who are 'policing' the state. Its one rule for Peter another for Paul.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0223/passport.html

& ALSO THE SAME COP

http://www.thejournal.ie/former-garda-sentenced-over-cannabis-plants-2011-01/

3 years suspended sentence??? Wake the f~#k up lad. If that was you or I it'd be the manditory 10 years!!!
Pull your head out of the f~#king clouds man!!!

Regarding protecting the safety & human dignity??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GX3tZENnFM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNM3aH323zw

Need I mention the pending rape remarks inquiry?
IS THIS WHAT YOU CALL PROTECTING "the safety and human dignity of citizens"????? Are you for real?? You need to extract your head from where ever it is, and snap back down to earth:pac:The system is a farce, they serve and protect their own, not the f~#king public.

metrovelvet

They used to stand for the underdog until Clinton changed evverything into being about gender politics. Since then they havent known what to do with themselves. I know everyone over here loves Clinton, but a lot of old school democrats think he ruined their party.

CIE

clown bag wrote: »

I think "be less right wing than the republicans" just about sums them up. As you've pointed out, the right have done a pretty good job of poisoning the word liberal (as in socially liberal in this case). The democrats pretty much have to be seen as less right, but not leave themselves open to be labelled "commies", a difficult thing to achieve in a country where the left / right axis would be considered a right / more right axis by euro standards

Eh? Nothing in the USA could be further right than what Europe has come up with and/or what has had traditionally. The USA has no royalty, nobility or otherwise "inviolable" elite, and it never had state religion. Many states in Europe still have all of that, and some of them are re-affirming that (if you haven't read Hungary's new constitution, then give that a read some day soon).