http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2477511Oh my.
My usual daily trek over to the old DU, to see if it's still afloat.
I'm looking forward, with relish, to the day my fellow alum Skins finally takes down the old DU and the reactionary primitives who can't adapt to change, who can't get with the program, finally have to.
The brain-damaged primitive, the most reactionary and resistant-to-change of them all, is around, but didn't say anything of note today, just his usual stupid stuff.
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-22-12 12:42 AM
Original message
Poll question: Why is there such a divide in the Democratic Party?
I know what I think, but I'm interested in hearing what everyone else thinks.
Poll result (9 votes)
Lost common enemy in BushCo; now focus is on differences among our own factions, which always existed. (3 votes, 33%)
Party lurched to right w/influx of disillusioned, post-Shrub ex-Repubs. (3 votes, 33%)
Party has remained stable; it's an influx of far-lefties that has caused the divide. (0 votes, 0%)
Combination of 1, 2, and/or 3 (elaborate, please) (1 votes, 11%)
There is no divide -- it's all in your imagination. (0 votes, 0%)
Per Oded Gross: It's all because the gays are getting married. (0 votes, 0%)
Don't tutch the but. (0 votes, 0%)
Other (explain) (2 votes, 22%)
Nine votes. That's all the reactionary primitives could muster on the old DU.
One suspects that if the same poll had been posted on the new-and-improved DU, it would've gotten tons more than just a measly mere nine votes.
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-22-12 03:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Other: party lurched to the Right when it gained a charismatic conservative leader who seduced many Democrats into abandoning traditional democratic values for corporatism.
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-22-12 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Which one?
If you think you'd be incriminating yourself/breaking rules, don't answer -- I just wondered if I was thinking of who you were thinking of.
P.S. The goose flies at midnight.
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-22-12 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Stop goosing Lorien.
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-22-12 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
2. Combo of 1/2/3
The centrist faction has managed to regain the primacy it lost after the 2004 loss. The liberal faction is kinda being marginalized within the Democratic Party after seeing a resurgence lead by Howard Dean after the 2004 defeat. The ironic think is that Obama is basically smack dab in the middle of this divide, but has mostly surrounded himself with centrists who have retaliated against the liberals despite getting kicked around in 2010 by the Republicans. The reality is that we can't win without mobilizing the base and appealing to independents. It's not an either/or question, it's a both/and question.
The centrists need to throw the liberals a frickin' bone or six. Furthermore, if they do want to play the centrist game, they need to not overplay the presidential race at the expense of not taking back the House and not making major gains in the Senate. If all that comes out of this cycle is a second Obama term it will have been a wasted opportunity at will rest at the feet of the centrists. If there's any lesson we should have learned over the last decade, it's that building a strong Democratic Party over the long run is important!
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-22-12 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. That's interesting -- and sort of along the lines of my "long theory"...
...about why we've been at the mercy of The Right for the past couple of decades.
In a nutshell, it's a matter of courage: Do we keep playing defense because we're afraid of getting smacked around, or do we present bold, truly progressives ideas, let the chips fall where they may, and be pleasantly surprised by the response?
We were almost there with Dean, and then, I think, TPTB got cold feet.
(Wow, that was a lot of mixed metaphors. But I think it was coherent.)
The Dems keep blaming the Right for being the reactionary ones, but I think it's the other way around.
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-22-12 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. The long theory goes back to Emancipation. The shorter theory goes back to Clinton's win of the Presidency under the tutelage of the DLC. Also things like hiring slime Dick Morris and consulting Colon Powell to help him triangulate.
The middle theory goes back to the anti-war, anti-draft, pro drugs movements, pro-abortion, pro equal rights movements of the 1960's, by the children of church-going, God-believing folks who had bravely and proudly fought WWII for their country and for Europe and could not figure out what the hell had happened to the country, the world and to their own kids.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gradually caused the Solid South to turn from oh, so solidly Democratic, as it had been since Emancipation, to solidly Republican, which presented a significant problem for Southern Democrats who hoped to be President, like Al Gore, who was was not able to carry his home state, and Bill Clinton.
IOW, there is no one event, but many milestones along the way from Abraham Lincoln to Dummya, from Stephen Douglas to Obama.
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-22-12 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. How do you figure Obama is in the middle of the divide? He hired practically the entire Clinton admnistration.
On social issues, Obama has triangulated, too, as did Clinton. However, the electorate has moved further forward. And, unlike Clinton, Obama waffles on issues of reproductive choice.
I really don't see Obama as left of Clinton.
As far as I can tell, Obama is following Third Way folks o the letter.
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-22-12 06:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. The Party lurched corporatist after the DLC took it over.
It was a long time coming.
The Party always had a conservative wing--Truman's farmers (small, family farms, not agribusiness), Dixiecrats, etc. But, at least those conservatives were generally populist (in the good sense).
When McGovern lost the electoral vote so dramatically, they seized the moment to gain a lot of ground/power within the Party. When Mondale lost the electoral vote so dramatically, the Party's conservatives gained more ground.
Since then, Democrats have not done much better at electing Presidents than we did before the DLC officially formed and took over the Party, but we did start losing Congress a lot more than we ever had done.
This seems to be fine with the DLC, which was full of Presidential hopefuls (Bubba and Hill Clinton, Gore, Lieberman, etc.) and favors a unitary Executive.
Also, there have always been divides within the Democratic Party, just as there have always been divides within the Republican Party. The ideologies of 350 million people do not divide neatly down the middle (or somewhere around the middle)
Not ever Republican is a fundie or a teabagger. And there are even shades of fundie. Only this morning, Dead Intern Joe Scarborough, a fundie pro-life Republican (or so he says) was chastising/mocking Santotrum and the Virginia vaginal probe folk for going way too far.
Many Republican Party honchos, at least privately, could less about reproductive rights and equal rights for women, homosexuals and other minorities, but very much want federal spending curtailed and taxes lowered. Ditto rank and file Republicans. Log Cabin Republicans have existed a long time, and uber Republican Dick Cheney lobbied Maryland Republicans for equal rights to marriage.
Hell, even I'd sure like the feds to spend money in better ways. And I am glad no one has overriden states rights in Massachusetts to equality for everyone. Does that make me a Goldwater Republican. Hell, no.
There are deep divisions in both Parties. Of course.
