[Mb-civic] Proud Being a LIBERAL Re: A MAJOR ARTICLE

Fri Jan 7 20:25:58 PST 2005

I'm a Democrat, will always be a Democrat and never will I even consider changing sides to the 'reds.'

We the liberal people have got it; the intelligent, thinking upper-middle-lower class, the one's who don't get it are the egotists in the DNC.

We're not scared, we won't run from the 'wild-eyed' Howard Dean. In fact, the many adults and younger first time voters came together through and for Dean. Many did not want a Kerry because he was hard to love. Some wanted the General because he was save for war and way-left wanted Kucinich.

Nevertheless, ALL those abortion issues and whatever lies the 'reds' come up with and use because of their 'swamp' strategic planning was then-the DNC has awoke but for us to copy strategy is fruitless.

To talk about not doing this and doing that is also without personality, and soul.

By being left of center, we will win a fair election. Now we know what we're up against. Stay center and we become phony-be who we are.

I, like you, put in a lot of resources like time, money, calling, canvassing, standing on street corners and I ultimately became an observer in the recount here in Washington state.

What I noticed was that (because we or was it I, who became so determined to communicate), that the 'reds' and 'blues' work together in the community just fine. What divides us is not each other, but the right-wing hacks, fundamentalists, and extreme power hungry jocks.

Many of the 'reds' here are ashamed of the 'right-wing' crap. The younger 'reds' who don't know life yet, are so gung ho for the war that they'll support a fascist state and not even know what they do. Oh, yea, they talk a big story but the one's I've talked to have not nor will not serve in the armed forces. How about that! Insert explicit words here _ _ _.

Liberal go to war too-but only when its real...not contrived, like 9/11 was -why were all those bombers from Saudi Arabia, Iraq??? well, you understand. But I can go all the way over to Kucinich if I have too because America's expansion (throughout 200 + years of history) has always provoked and left massive destruction in its wake. i.e. Indians, Hawaii, Vietnam, Honduras, Iraq and others.

So, yes stay on the left, women's rights, anti-war, veterans, show off your lost limbs, and don't let the 'swift-boat' crap ever happen again, but if it does and we know it will-strategize.

What are we willing to do as proud liberals and lefties?

We have to align the DNC with the one with the most heart, mind, charisma and knowledge. Not some other do-gooder that is so out of touch with his or her base, or copies what Kerry or Dean did.

This person has to be sincere, wild about me, and tough. Swears, and apologizes in one breath and not afraid to label the 'reds' right-out-of-the-shoot as losers, both on morality and fear-mongering.

Steady as she goes.....

Lyle K'ang,
~~Enterprise Insights: Advanced Tools for Business Communications!~~
http://www.SiloManagement.com
~~Information, Imagination & Musings~~ 
http://www.Lyve-Oasis.com 

-- Michael Butler <michael at michaelbutler.com> wrote:
Whether you are Blue or Red do read this. It is important that we have at
least two political parties. The Democratic party is at a critical
crossroads. Michael

Power Play 

By Don Hazen, AlterNet
 Posted on January 7, 2005, Printed on January 7, 2005
 http://www.alternet.org/story/20922/

The aftermath of an electoral defeat is never pretty. In 2004, all elements
of the Democratic Party  moderates, old-fashioned liberals, progressives 
came together to help John Kerry defeat George Bush. When that quest ended
in ashes on Nov. 2, there were plenty of recriminations, and a whole lot of
finger pointing. With the second consecutive loss for Democrats, it was
bound to raise deeper questions about the party¹s ideology and a larger
struggle between starkly different visions for the future. This appears to
be one of those times.

 As the Democratic National Committee (DNC) gears up to select a new
chairman on Feb. 10, the party finds itself caught up in a powerful
tug-of-war over its principles and its platform.

 On one side are the progressives, pushing for a bold new approach that
includes adopting a populist agenda, a clear anti-war message and a real
commitment to the grassroots. On the other side are members of the Beltway
establishment  mostly represented by the Democratic Leadership Council
(DLC)  who are clamoring for a more centrist/conservative platform that
would embrace an aggressive, hawkish position toward the "clear and present
danger² posed by global terrorism, while moving away from the party¹s
long-term commitment to a progressive social issues agenda, especially on
issues such as abortion and gay rights.

 The battle is being played out inside the Beltway in Washington, D.C., with
articles in leading opinion journals being served up and volleyed like balls
in a tennis match. The debate is beginning to escalate, and soon one can
expect the media pundits to begin talking incessantly about "the struggle
for the soul of the Democratic party."

 They may actually be right on this one.

"The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party"

There are two flashpoints in the current battle: one is the consideration of
Howard Dean as DNC chairman and the other is whether the party will shift
its platform on abortion, given the growing role of male anti-abortion
politicians among the party leadership.

 Despite being an incredibly good soldier during the election campaign,
offering energetic and unfailing support for John Kerry¹s candidacy, Howard
Dean still sends shudders down the spine of some pundits and politicos. Ever
since his brief but blazing presidential run, Dean is seen by some as a
wild-eyed lefty.

 Bob Kerrey, a former senator from Nebraska and president of the New School
University in New York, is supporting Leo J. Hindery Jr., the
telecommunications executive, for DNC chair. Speaking of Dean, Kerrey told
the New York Times ³Š..if he runs he's going to have some 'splaining' to do,
as Ricky Ricardo used to sayŠ People remember him saying, 'I represent the
Democratic wing of the Democratic Party'  which means the liberal wing of
the Democratic Party.

''Which Howard Dean are we talking about?'' Kerrey asked. ''If we're talking
about the Howard Dean who was governor of Vermont, I would say ŒFine.¹ But
if it's presidential candidate Dean, I would say probably ŒNo.¹ The
committee has got to figure out how to keep people like me in it. If he's
firing people up and he's saying we've got to swing to the left  it's
harder to swing along with him. And hell, I live in New York City. I don't
live in Nebraska anymore.''

What Kerrey sees as left-liberal, Dean sees as a wake-up call for the party
not to go rightward. ''Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing
election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the
Democratic Party that the way to win is to be more like Republicans,'' Dean
said in his first major post-election address. ³If we accept that philosophy
this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years
giving this same speech. We cannot win by being Republican-lite.''

 The role of anti-choice politicians and their influence on the abortion
question is also proving very divisive. Peter Wallsten and Mary Curtius
write in the L.A. Times: "After long defining itself as an undisputed
defender of abortion rights, the Democratic Party is suddenly locked in an
internal struggle over whether to redefine its position to appeal to a
broader array of voters." The topic came to the fore when former Indiana
Rep. Tim Roemer, an abortion foe, emerged as a candidate for the DNC
chairman job at the urging of none other than House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi, who has not endorsed him, but who liked that he could symbolize a
more open, big-tent Democratic Party. Speaking on abortion, Roemer told the
Los Angeles Times that the party "cannot rebound from its losses in the
November election unless it shows more tolerance on one of society's most
emotional conflicts." Also contributing to the controversy was the fact that
John Kerry told an AFL-CIO gathering that he had met many union members who
were also abortion opponents during campaign trips through Pennsylvania and
that the party needed to "rethink how it could appeal to those voters."

The glaring flaw in this line of reasoning is of course the fact that Kerry
and the Democrats did not lose the election because of social issues and
abortion or even gay rights. Much of the media hype surrounding "moral
values" after the election was sparked by a poorly worded and discredited
exit poll question that produced a very small plurality for moral issues
voters. Those union members in Pennsylvania may have been against abortion,
but for the most part it is not the issue that determined their vote. In the
end, Bush won because the Republicans had a far superior political
operation, a real grassroots network and effectively played the fear card.
Mark Danner¹s illuminating article in the New York Review of Books, also
posted on TomDispatch) summed up the secret of GOP success:

The emphasis placed on Bush's much-promoted personal strengths 
decisiveness, determination, reliability, transparency  served to base his
candidacy at once on "moral values" and on "national security," in effect
making possession of the first essential to protect the second. Bush's
decisiveness was put forward as the flip side of Kerry's dangerous
vacillation, the answer to the threat of weakness Kerry was alleged to pose.
This equation was dramatized, perfected, and repeated, with much discipline
and persistence, in thousands of advertisements, speeches, and "talking
heads" discussion programs on conservative networks, especially Fox. Despite
all the talk about "moral values," the 2004 election turned on a fulcrum of
fear.

No one is against the Democratic Party having the proverbial big tent. But
there is no indication that the party has been particularly hostile against
anti-abortion politicians, be it Harry Reid, the new Senate minority leader
and a Mormon from Utah, or Dennis Kucinich, one of the most liberal members
of Congress who was strongly opposed to abortion virtually his entire career
until very recently. And with the looming threat of Bush Supreme Court
nominations reversing Roe v. Wade, opening up an internal debate about
abortion is bound to raise hackles among many liberal Democrats.

The question of access to an abortion is undeniably a political minefield,
fraught with anxiety and often hysteria and disinformation. The differences
over abortion often invoke morally purist positions on both sides with
little hope of reaching common ground. It isn¹t a position on which most
voters will change their mind.

 But what is crucial for the Democratic Party is not to run away from the
principle on the issue, but to free itself from the no-win, pro-abortion
frame that has proved a trap. The problem with the whole abortion discussion
is that it¹s played out in the context of an either/or debate favored by the
most radical advocates and the corporate media, which thrives as always on
conflict. The reality is that most people, Democrats and Republicans alike,
are not "for" abortion. Yet in the media, the Democrats are consistently
portrayed as being in "favor" of abortion, and the Republicans against it.
Such positioning hurts the party because even though a majority of Americans
support the rights of women to have abortions, they don¹t "want" women to
have them. The "choice" frame makes abortions sound frivolous  a take them
or leave them kind of decision  that is simply untrue.

 Rather than flirting with abortion foes, the party needs to restate its
principle in a clear and simple fashion. Democrats are for healthy families
and mothers. Democrats do not support coerced childbirth. The health of the
mother is also a primary concern and Democrats recognize the many
consequences of abortion restrictions, including the birth of unwanted
children. But by sacrificing principles to pander to swing voters, Democrats
may well end up alienating many Americans who prefer people who stick to
their principles even when they disagree with them.

 Linguist George Lakoff argues that when Democrats move to the center, two
negative things happen: They lose the passion of their base and they trigger
the more conservative frame in undecided voters, reminding them why they
should be sticking with those who believe more strongly in the issue,
confirming Harry S Truman¹s famous observation: "When given the choice,
people will vote for the real Republican over the fake one every time.²

It is good to have a healthy and open discussion about the future of the
Democratic Party, but such a debate should include the participation of the
many thousands of people who made major investments of time and money in the
2004 election. When it comes to abortion, it should be the many women who
have worked hard and long for the principle and for the party who
participate as well. It shouldn¹t just be a Nancy Pelosi political tactic or
441 people who get to choose the new DNC chair. This runs the risk of
alienating the rank-and-file Democratic voters with a top-down process that
ignores their concerns.

 The DNC Election and the Larger Context

The current struggle within the DNC over party leadership has a much larger
context than Howard Dean and reproductive health. Also coming into play are
fundamental issues like Iraq, security from terrorism and economic policy 
in essence, a conflict about the Democratic Party and its very identity.

One battle is organizational  where the push to spread out across the land,
echoing some of the themes of the Dean campaign, decentralizing resources,
organizing a base, making heavy use of the Internet, comes up against the
centrist and conservative elements in the party, centralized in D.C. and
heavily influenced by the DLC.

 But another strain is economic with populist themes again bubbling up from
opinion-shapers like Thomas Frank and Jim Hightower. In a taste of what¹s to
come, David Sirota, a fellow at the Center for American Progress, denounced
a "corporate sponsored" DLC as committed to ideas on trade, taxes and
business regulation that help its "wealthy cronies" and abandon the
Democrats' historic working-class base while "pulling the party further and
further out of the mainstream."

 A second controversy bubbled up in late December when New Republic editor
Peter Beinart attacked the progressive core of the party on the issue of
terrorism. As Ron Brownstein reported in the L.A. Times on Jan. 3, ³Beinart
urged Democrats to 'take back their movement' from anti-war elements in the
party that he called 'softs,' a group that included filmmaker Michael Moore
and MoveOn.org, the giant online liberal advocacy group that led opposition
to the Iraq war." MoveOn founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades responded by
describing Beinart¹s article as "strategic advice to wind the clock back to
the dawn of the cold war and adopt a simplistic us-versus-them mentality
that would put a life-or-death struggle with 'totalitarian Islam' at the
center of the Democratic worldview."

 The MoveOn founders added: "The future of liberalism depends not on
identifying and vilifying an enemy and manipulating the American public, but
on espousing a positive vision for the future around which a movement, a
party, and an American consensus can be built."

Clearly, the struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party is in full bloom.
The big question is: Will these battles doom the party to long-term
internecine struggle, undermining the chances of future success, or will
they produce clarity leading to framing a clear message that voters can
identify with?

 If you are a progressive, a populist Democrat, someone who thinks moving
the party to the center is a dead end in this political debate, then it may
be time to step up and make yourself heard. Not doing so may very well leave
the fate of the party in the hands of the ³Democratic Establishment²  the
consultants, lobbyists, and corporate-funded talking heads and spinners. As
the debate for the ³soul of the party² heats up, we may yet see a very
different Democratic Party emerging from the ashes of 2004.

_______________________________________________
Mb-civic mailing list
Mb-civic at islandlists.com
http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic