This is not your father's Democratic Party

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
What has happened to the party of FDR? Many people I call friends still subscribe to the fundamental principles of this once-proud party, but increasingly cannot vote with their party in major elections. Premises like individual rights and responsibilities. Equality under the law. Reasonably free and reasonably fair enterprise. Lower taxes, the right to bear arms, and the right to organize on the job. The conviction that our ideals are worthy and that the spred of them around the globe is not an intrinsically terrible thing, and that people with strong religious views are not stupid zealots or de facto evidence that they desire theocracy.

The populist, "down with the people" strengths of the Dems are fading quickly. Is there any room left in the Democratic Party for the Joe Liebermans and Zell Millers? I could never in my wildest dreams imagine a JFK or a Scoop Jackson sneering at their opponents and those that support them, decrying them all as stupid. Since the late 60s the tide has been turning, culminating in continuing, sound defeat in the 2004 elections.

Many Bush policies are less than spectacular... at the very least this country needs some sort of progressive alternatives. This will only happen when the Dems acknowledge Middle American values, not the elitist values, and celebrate upward mobility not fantasy-land celebrity. The Dems must be a party that can reach the mainstream where they live and work.

Harvard political theorist Michael J Sandel notes, "The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and spiritual sources of American politics. They will not recover as a party until they have candidates who can speak to those moral and spiritual yearnings." He is correct- by addressing those things the Dems can lead voters into their causes and policies. But as long as so many people mock and ignore Middle America, the Dems will kiss goodbye any real success.

Might the liberals take a moment and ask themselves whether their conservative neighbors are truly stupid, ignorant, racist, homophobic, sexist, religious freaks before launching yet another scathing attack on them? Or better yet, might the moderate Dems properly distance themselves from this vitriolic hate that's killing their chances at electoral success? Well if P&N is any example, this doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
can we get another a YAWWWDPT header in here?

the problem is that you're defining the party by its extremes. it's just as bad as the people who use Senator Coburn and the Christian Right as a represenative of the entire Republican Party.

and I hate all that "elitist" talk. wtf. the Democrates have been the ones advocating lifestyle choices, rather than legislating a set of moral ideals.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
LOL, conjur you are too bitter. If analyzation of the political environment pisses you off so much, your in the wrong place.

The fact that you think I idolize Bush and am gloating just shows you've trapped yourself in a weird little corner.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, conjur you are too bitter. If analyzation of the political environment pisses you off so much, your in the wrong place.

The fact that you think I idolize Bush and am gloating just shows you've trapped yourself in a weird little corner.
The fact you even posted this 2 weeks after the election speaks volumes.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, conjur you are too bitter. If analyzation of the political environment pisses you off so much, your in the wrong place.

The fact that you think I idolize Bush and am gloating just shows you've trapped yourself in a weird little corner.
The fact you even posted this 2 weeks after the election speaks volumes.

Originally posted by: conjur
Please stick to the topic.

CsG
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
I wonder how many Democrats today subscribe to this quote by Harry Truman:

"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state."

 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
"The fact you even posted this 2 weeks after the election speaks volumes." -conjur

I know it is extremely painful to acknowledge failures and deep rooted problems in something a person can hold so dear in their heart. The instinct is to lash out and fall back into denial. I appreciate the emotion people have invested in their political views, and it's predictable and understandable to express anger and rally to your political cause with even more fervor. But there can be little real discussion and debate on this issue until the shameful wave of bile from bitter losers subsides.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
I can't speak for conjur, so I'll speak for myself alone:

I don't care what you think of the Democratic party. Not even a little bit. From what I've seen, this board's Republicans, including but not limited to newbies like you, are all too willing to start innumerable threads about the decline of the Democratic party based on the outcome of the recent election. We have seen a minimum of 15 such threads since the election, yet in each case, the OP seems to feel justified in throwing in his respective two cents.

As I have done repeatedly here, I congratulate President Bush on his win, and extend the same congratulations to his supporters. That said, it's clear to me that the party that has sold out to its extremist membership is NOT the Democratic party. The implication that the Democrats should follow the path of Zell Miller, of all people, is quite telling IMO - Zell Miller is no Democrat.

I am not, thank God, one of my party's leaders at present. I have neither the vision nor the charter to reformulate the Democratic party to win in 2008. What I do ask, though, is that we do not have ANOTHER GODDAMNED THREAD FROM A REPUBLICAN ABOUT HOW THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS LOST ITS WAY.

Please, for the love of God, cut this crap out!!!!
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Well considering how much people talk about the Republican party (and Republicans) around here, I don't see why people crap their pants over talk about the Democratic party. Why the double-standard? Personally I think it's because it hits close to home... it seems to get some veins poppin, like there's some uncomfortable truth to it.
 

phynet

Member
Oct 26, 2004
30
0
0
Originally posted by: cobalt
What happened to the party of Lincoln?

Its still hear, helping out people in oppression abroad.

As for Democrats they is multifactions building whether you like them or not.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: DonVito
I can't speak for conjur, so I'll speak for myself alone:

I don't care what you think of the Democratic party. Not even a little bit. From what I've seen, this board's Republicans, including but not limited to newbies like you, are all too willing to start innumerable threads about the decline of the Democratic party based on the outcome of the recent election. We have seen a minimum of 15 such threads since the election, yet in each case, the OP seems to feel justified in throwing in his respective two cents.

As I have done repeatedly here, I congratulate President Bush on his win, and extend the same congratulations to his supporters. That said, it's clear to me that the party that has sold out to its extremist membership is NOT the Democratic party. The implication that the Democrats should follow the path of Zell Miller, of all people, is quite telling IMO - Zell Miller is no Democrat.

I am not, thank God, one of my party's leaders at present. I have neither the vision nor the charter to reformulate the Democratic party to win in 2008. What I do ask, though, is that we do not have ANOTHER GODDAMNED THREAD FROM A REPUBLICAN ABOUT HOW THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS LOST ITS WAY.

Please, for the love of God, cut this crap out!!!!


If you don't like it, don't read it. Is that so hard to understand?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
"The fact you even posted this 2 weeks after the election speaks volumes." -conjur

I know it is extremely painful to acknowledge failures and deep rooted problems in something a person can hold so dear in their heart. The instinct is to lash out and fall back into denial. I appreciate the emotion people have invested in their political views, and it's predictable and understandable to express anger and rally to your political cause with even more fervor. But there can be little real discussion and debate on this issue until the shameful wave of bile from bitter losers subsides.
Ah, more preaching from the cwjerome high horse. What kind of horse is that? Appaloosa? Quarter? Apocalypse?

I don't hold the Democratic party dear in my heart. I don't hold the GOP dear in my heart. I don't hold *any* party dear to my heart. There should be more people like that...willing to vote for issues, not party lines. Too bad you're not one of them.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
I wouldn't mind seeing the Deomcratic Party go up in flames..as long as it burns the Republican Party down with it. IMO neither party represents the mainstream anymore. Because of this we constantly find ourselves voting fopr the lessor of two evils for President, not someone that we the American Public really feels good about..well at least the mainstream.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
I think Red Dawn's got it right, in order to get the votes, candidates must pander to those who will actually vote, and both candidates end up trying to keep the fringes support while also going for the supposedly moderate & undecided voters.

Short of a requirement that everyone eligible vote, we're stuck with this screwy system.

I am proud of the turnout of voters this year, but I don't think anyone can claim support by the huge number of people that didn't vote.

And KK's got a point.

Don't remember anything stating that P&N is anything but P&N, had Kerry won, it'd be worse.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I think Red Dawn's got it right, in order to get the votes, candidates must pander to those who will actually vote, and both candidates end up trying to keep the fringes support while also going for the supposedly moderate & undecided voters.

Short of a requirement that everyone eligible vote, we're stuck with this screwy system.

I am proud of the turnout of voters this year, but I don't think anyone can claim support by the huge number of people that didn't vote.
:thumbsup:
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I think Red Dawn's got it right, in order to get the votes, candidates must pander to those who will actually vote, and both candidates end up trying to keep the fringes support while also going for the supposedly moderate & undecided voters.

Short of a requirement that everyone eligible vote, we're stuck with this screwy system.

I am proud of the turnout of voters this year, but I don't think anyone can claim support by the huge number of people that didn't vote.
:thumbsup:

Actually Rove's strategy was to forget about the voters in the middle and woo the base.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wouldn't mind seeing the Deomcratic Party go up in flames..as long as it burns the Republican Party down with it. IMO neither party represents the mainstream anymore. Because of this we constantly find ourselves voting fopr the lessor of two evils for President, not someone that we the American Public really feels good about..well at least the mainstream.

 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wouldn't mind seeing the Deomcratic Party go up in flames..as long as it burns the Republican Party down with it. IMO neither party represents the mainstream anymore. Because of this we constantly find ourselves voting fopr the lessor of two evils for President, not someone that we the American Public really feels good about..well at least the mainstream.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know, surveys showed that while Kerry supporters were mainly anti-Bush (not pro-Kerry), most Bush supporters were strongly for their man. Either way, millions of people did connect with both men and believed in them.

The argument that the parties only represent special interests goes back 200 years... it's still the same. It's not the parties that have changed significantly, it's the general mentality of people. We're a lot more cynical, pessimistic, and negative when it comes to politics and this has changed our perspectives on the something that has always been. Besides, this country is so huge, with so much diversity, that "we the American Public really feels good about" is an impossible goal. I feel both parties right now are broad enough and accessible enough for the strong majority of people to identify with. IMO, what we have is actually quite preferable. Two major parties is better than 3 or many, and in the big scheme of things both parties are relatively moderate... we don't have the fascists and communists, and other extreme elements playing a role like in many other countries. There's no drastic power swings and governmental changes after elections. I think what we have is stable and smart.

America does need the vitality of two parties though. I'm thrilled Bush won, but I worry at the trend. Democrats losing ground (for reasons I have expressed) is counterproductive to our existence as a free nation. If they were to lose to the point that we had a one-party system, this nation will fail. There is no guarantee another party would pop up if the Dems lose their way. I tend to think we're balancing on the edge... I know there's cycles, but if this keeps up I can definately see the Dems becoming a permanent minority party.


 

slyedog

Senior member
Jan 12, 2001
934
0
0
the democratic party has only a small number of libs, hollywood airheads and anti-americans. why can,t
the millions take their party back? and get to be a winning party and a party of the people again.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: slyedog
the democratic party has only a small number of libs, hollywood airheads and anti-americans. why can,t
the millions take their party back? and get to be a winning party and a party of the people again.

Why can't the millions take the Republican party back from proto-fascists and religious extremists?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: slyedog
the democratic party has only a small number of libs, hollywood airheads and anti-americans. why can,t
the millions take their party back? and get to be a winning party and a party of the people again.

Why can't the millions take the Republican party back from proto-fascists and religious extremists?

I don't know about anyone else, but I left the party when they took over and redeclared myself as an independant.