The United States is not liberal; if anything, it is growing steadily more conservative every year. The Democrats can moderate their message, returning to the centrist "Evil DLC" approach without sacrificing the beliefs that make us Democrats. We must focus not on how we must think differently, because thinking differently is never suggested. We must instead focus on how we TALK about the issues. It is a simple matter of getting back in touch with the common American by putting forth a candidate that reflects the values of the common American.
The Democratic Party must have as its primary duty the obligation to serve the people. We cannot serve the people if we are slowly edged out of every elected office in the country. We are being edged out because, in this time, people do not relate to the Kerrys, the Hillarys, the Kucinich or Deans. If we want to gain back our power as a party and represent the people of America once again, we will need to nominate a moderate who speaks their language.
The New Democrat
You see this as a signal to go with the flow. Start adopting more conservative stands.
I see this as a signal that we need to fight harder for liberalism.
Quickly, if you don't see -- the U.S. growing more conservative -- as a problem in need of a solution, then we fundamentally disagree.
I want to turn back that conservative tide ... not just arrest it. You want to join that tide.
Furthermore, what we have is the Republicans moving to the right. Some Dems moving to the right. We must remember that we are leaving out 50 percent of the country that didn't vote. Why don't they vote? Because they feel they can't make a difference and are disillusioned with the two party system which they feel is not looking out for them. If we present liberal policies that they can connect to then we can get this large segment of the population voting for us and creaming the Republicans.
Plus, anyone who thinks that we lose by being liberal has disregarded the past two elections. Al Gore and George Bush had very similar ideas. Tax cuts, free trade, balancing the budget, pro-death penalty, pro-mandatory sentencing. Al gore didn't campaign on any universal healthcare system. He supported the failed war on drugs. He worded with Bill Clinton to cut funding for many social programs.
This year, we had John Kerry. Didn't talk about the envirement. Voted for the Patriot Act. Voted for the war. Pro-defense spending. Didn't run on universal healthcare. He voted for NAFTA and many other free trade agreements. He didn't advocate a pro-choice view enough during the second debate, instead giving the "I'm personally against it" crap. John Kerry was pro "war on terror."
Some people must be ignorant to think that we lost this election and in 2000 by being too liberal. Furthermore, all those senate seats we lost in the south, well all our candidates there were moderate/conservative Democrats. Then we have Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama and Russ Feingold who all shared tons of votes with Bush.
If you call the reaction to Dean's campaign before the DLC torpedoed it "people not relating then you are blind and/or spouting pure BUNK.
The DLC bought two terms for Clinton and paid with it by selling off The House, The Senate, Future Presidencies and the Supreme Court. If we had to do it all over again I would have much preferred keeping the rest and giving up the POTUS.
How can you say that the DLC is doing any good when you see Feinstein "introducing" Rice today, or Rahm in such a twist on MTP because is being too afraid to show conviction of Democratic ideals.
The DLC has neutered the party.
Let's consider Bob "seven strikes and you're out" Shrum. Let's consider the lackluster lack of enthusiasm anybody in the party has for a centrist candidate. Let's consider just exactly what part of Kerry's non-platform was liberal. Let also not forget how big a blowout this election would have been if it hadn't been for the "radical left wing" of the Democratic party.
The only candidate I see who is capable of speaking any language except blah, blah, blah is Howard Dean. The last thing we need is another bland, uncontroversial, duck the issue centrist. If the Democratic party doesn't stand for something then there isn't any point being a member. If the memory of Paul Wellstone doesn't count for something then what the hell is the point?
To the best of my knowledge nobody is claiming the 2008 Democratic nomination or even running for it. It is time for a reform candidate who can speak to the soul of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. If the DLC has a problem with that, then the Democratic wing of the Democratic party may very well take a powder in the 2008 election.
Theoretically, the President, once elected should serve and represent the people. Is Bush representing or serving you? This is largely a matter of semantics. I thought it was quite deceitful as well as annoying for "New Dem" to pretend that Frost or Rosenberg could "serve" the people, but Dean could not. It all depends on how you define "the people".
O'Reilly claims he speaks for and serves "the folks". Yeah, right. The O'Reilly speaks for and serves "the folks" who already agree with him. As far as I'm concerned, New Democrat is just another bloviating gas bag.
In fact, the only places where the country seems to be moving to the right are tax cuts and militarism, in both cases because we've been led to believe that these positions are necessary for the good of America and the world.
The only reason more people are identifying themselves as conservatives is because "conservatives" are in power and "liberal" has become a slur. Go ask 1000 people if they're "progressive" or "regressive" and see what kind of results you get.
As for the need to improve the message, you're right. But prominently pointing out the hypocrisy of those in power is also a must.
