Dems to Run American Indian Against Trump in 2020

[aix_xpert]

In my opinion, Dems have 2 factions: Progressives/Socialists (Sanders/Warren) and Globalists (Clinton/Obama). While you may find an individual or two who believes in things like pro-life or libertarian values, those attributes don't rank high enough in their ideology to deter their position in one of these two camps and those positions are certainly not represented within the party's platform.

 

[CBradSmith]

That is a fascinating comment. What other wings are in the Demicratic Party? Do any of them carry any clout, have any say in the direction of the party? Who are the spokespersons for these other wings?

That's a damn good question. One I'm sure @Medic007 (and really anybody who is a fan of reasonable politics) would like to know the answer to.

 

[CBradSmith]

As a 50+ year a practicing libertarian I am unaware of any libertarian influence in the Democratic Party. Quite the opposite, in fact. A libertarian's primary political objective (indeed, some would say ONLY political objective) is the advancement of individual liberty. The Democratic Party is the embodiment of identity politics - putting people in boxes based on their race, gender, sexuality, etc. - the exact opposite of individualism. Who are some of these libertarians of which you speak? Exactly what influence do they bring to the DP table?

Secondly, you mention pro-life Democrats. That's news to me. I thought pro-lifers had been driven from the DP many years ago. At least in regards to having any say in the DP agenda.

I see your point in identifying two factions, the left and the far left. I would argue against your claim that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama represent the mild version of the leftist vision. But I agree that the Bernie Sanders "wing" of the party is fighting tooth and nail for control. For me that is a terrifying possibility, as that wing of the party seems to be gaining momentum, and it most certainly is diometrically the opposite of libertarianism.

Post frequently Dan.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Sure there is a libertarian influence. There is no official libertarian Democratic congressional group such as the CPC, the Blue Dogs, and the NDC, but there is the Democratic Freedom Caucus. Ever heard of Mike Gravel? He is a Democrat but he sought the Libertarian Party's nomination for President in 2008.



Nope. There are many pro-life Democrats. Check out Democrats for Life. That group claims 1 in 3 Democrats are pro-life. Of course the national platform is pro-choice but that doesn't mean there aren't pro-life Democrats. Just like all Republicans are not pro-life.



The Clintons are not progressive Democrats. They came to power during the second Third Way movement and Clinton built his power base through the Democratic Leadership Council. There is a reason Sanders challenged Clinton for the nomination.

Obama was more of a progressive than the Clintons, I will give you that. But still, Obama was more aligned with the New Democrats than he was with the progressive wing of the party.

If a true progressive was elected President, those on the right would quickly see the differences between that progressive and the Clintons.



No worries. This is just a message board, not an English class.

No, I have never heard of Mike Gravel. Is he a US Rep, a Senator, or something else? I won't deny that a Democrat can't have libertarian leanings. Libertarians tilt toward Democrats on social issues (drug legalization, legalize prostitution, abortion should be legal). But I have serious doubts about them having any influence on DP policy. Who in leadership would you agree has libertarian tendencies? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Steny Hoyer? Chuck Schumer? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Frankly, I don't see any libertarian influence there.

I would agree with you that Bill Clinton governed more as a pragmatist. But if he had had a Democratic majority in the legislative branch I think we would have seen the full monty of progressive politics.

Hillary is another story. She is arguably the most corrupt politician in American history. Hillary Care was her baby, and it would have been an unmitigated disaster, even worse than ObamaCare. Hillary is a complete enigma. She favored whatever policy she thought would get her elected. Bernie drove her further to the left than she wanted to go (in public). I think her Stalinist tendencies would have blossomed had she won the election. At the same time she was bought and paid for by the same Wall Street honchos she regularly railed against. As bad as Trump appears to be (and he appears to be deplorable!), I wake up every day and thank God that He saved us from Hillary. It's only my opinion, but I believe Hillary is much closer (philosophically) to Bernie than Bill.

I have also never heard of Democrats For Life. I don't doubt that such an organization exists, but it is so far on the Party's back burner that it might as well dry up and blow away. Any group that claims 1/3 of Democrats are pro-life lose any credibility with me. If one third of the membership was pro-life there is no way the DP Platform would be as radical as it is. Pro-lifers in the DP have NO influence. If it were that important to 1/3 of them, it would have a dampening effect on their policy.

Obama may have aligned with New Democrats more often than the progressive wing. But that was only because of Republican (and American public opinion) obstructionism. I don't think he once attempted to compromise with Republicans. His version of compromise (indeed, the Democratic version of compromise) was "I won the election; do as I want, or to Hell with you." The only reason we are not a full-blown socialist state is because Republicans blocked his "progressive" (I would call them "oppressive" tendencies). Surely you would agree that Obama would have taken us to the extreme left if he had had his way.

 

[CowboyJD]

"I would agree with you that Bill Clinton governed more as a pragmatist. But if he had had a Democratic majority inthe legislative branch I think we would have seen the full monty of progressive politics."

He a member of and ran as a Democrat Leadership Council Candidate. It's very mission and game plan was to shift to the middle from the left turn of the Democrats since McGovern in order to attract white middle class voters. He campaigned on workfare and other moderate positions. I disagree with your statement.

 

[Ponca Dan]

"I would agree with you that Bill Clinton governed more as a pragmatist. But if he had had a Democratic majority inthe legislative branch I think we would have seen the full monty of progressive politics."

He a member of and ran as a Democrat Leadership Council Candidate. It's very mission and game plan was to shift to the middle from the left turn of the Democrats since McGovern in order to attract white middle class voters. He campaigned on workfare and other moderate positions. I disagree with your statement.

I acknowledge that he campaigned as a moderate. I even agree that he governed as a moderate. He campaigned that he would deliver tax cuts to the middle class, and in less than a week in office he appeared on camera with his trademark hangdog face (when he was about to screw us) and told us he had "never worked so hard in his life in an attempt to 'give' us tax cuts, but he just couldn't do it." He put his wife in charge of deforming health care in this country, something that is about as far from a moderate policy as there is. When he realized he could not charm Republicans the way he did the general public he turned on a dime and began working with the Republicans, taking credit for welfare reform that he had opposed right up until its passage. Bill Clinton was (is) a pragmatist, a progressive in a pragmatist's clothing. At least that's how I see it. He is FAR more palatable than his wife.

 

[PDT816]

No question Clinton was a moderate.

He was enough in the small government – pro private sector camp to keep fiscal conservatives happy.

Reduced the size and spending of the government by a substantial amount. Put in hiring freezes. Consolidated a ton of agencies/programs into fewer, more streamlined governemnt entities. Can't really think of any new government bureaucracies started during his terms (could be mistaken though)
Shut down the government when they couldn't get a budget passed which made fiscal conservatives really happy.

Could probably think of a ton of examples if I went and looked up stuff.

 

[CowboyJD]

I acknowledge that he campaigned as a moderate. I even agree that he governed as a moderate. He campaigned that he would deliver tax cuts to the middle class, and in less than a week in office he appeared on camera with his trademark hangdog face (when he was about to screw us) and told us he had "never worked so hard in his life in an attempt to 'give' us tax cuts, but he just couldn't do it." He put his wife in charge of deforming health care in this country, something that is about as far from a moderate policy as there is. When he realized he could not charm Republicans the way he did the general public he turned on a dime and began working with the Republicans, taking credit for welfare reform that he had opposed right up until its passage. Bill Clinton was (is) a pragmatist, a progressive in a pragmatist's clothing. At least that's how I see it. He is FAR more palatable than his wife.

So you agree that he campaigned AND governed as a moderate and SPECULATE that he was just a progressive disguised as a moderate despite how he campaigned AND governed.

Does that about cover your position?

 

[Medic007]

That's a damn good question. One I'm sure @Medic007 (and really anybody who is a fan of reasonable politics) would like to know the answer to.

The Progressive Congressional Caucus is the largest in Congress. That group consists of the progressives and those who still call themselves liberals.

I'm not sure much exists of the centrist Democrats like the New Democrats and Third Way any longer. They certainly don't have much influence on the party platform. We saw what happened to Jim Webb during the primary.

There is a growing Libertarian caucus in Congress that includes folks like Booker, Gilibrand, and Wyden. The Libertarian caucus is a group to keep your eye on. As the Dems plod further left, these are folks that might split from the party.

 

[aix_xpert]

So you agree that he campaigned AND governed as a moderate and SPECULATE that he was just a progressive disguised as a moderate despite how he campaigned AND governed.

Does that about cover your position?

I'd argue that Clinton (Bill) was a moderate, but that was 16-24 years ago, and that his practiced ideology no longer resides within the Democratic platform.

 

[aix_xpert]

The Progressive Congressional Caucus is the largest in Congress. That group consists of the progressives and those who still call themselves liberals.

I'm not sure much exists of the centrist Democrats like the New Democrats and Third Way any longer. They certainly don't have much influence on the party platform. We saw what happened to Jim Webb during the primary.

There is a growing Libertarian caucus in Congress that includes folks like Booker, Gilibrand, and Wyden. The Libertarian caucus is a group to keep your eye on. As the Dems plod further left, these are folks that might split from the party.

Its hard for me to say Booker and Libertarian in the same sentence. He's a true-blue liberal. I don't follow Gilibrand and Wyden close enough to know or judge their stances, but they don't get much if any national air time which would imply they don't have a lot of influence in the overall DNC platforms.

 

[Medic007]

Its hard for me to say Booker and Libertarian in the same sentence. He's a true-blue liberal. I don't follow Gilibrand and Wyden close enough to know or judge their stances, but they don't get much if any national air time which would imply they don't have a lot of influence in the overall DNC platforms.

I'm not saying Booker is a Libertarian. He caucuses with the Libertarian Democrats.

 

[Ponca Dan]

So you agree that he campaigned AND governed as a moderate and SPECULATE that he was just a progressive disguised as a moderate despite how he campaigned AND governed.

Does that about cover your position?

Yes, that pretty much covers it. There was something about that guy I never trusted. Maybe that's because he seems to be a pathological liar. My memory is that he began his administration fully tilting to the left, but veered back to the middle when he saw he would not get anywhere governing as a leftist. But I'm an old man; my memory gets a little shaky sometimes.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I feel like I hijacked this thread. The original discussion was what other "wings" reside in the Democratic Party than the progressive one. Somehow that got muddled into whether Bill Clinton was a moderate 20 years ago. It's funny how conversations can twist and turn. If anybody is interested in the original argument I would be happy to learn more about a burgeoning libertarian wing within the Democratic Party. That is something of which I am completely unaware. I know a little bit about Ron Wyden and the Gilibrand woman (at least I have heard of them; beyond that I know almost nothing). Who is Booker? Is that the black dude that has made a fool of himself a couple of times? If they are legitimate libertarians, people whose primary motive is to advance the cause of individual liberty, than I say good for them!

 

[CowboyJD]

I'd argue that Clinton (Bill) was a moderate, but that was 16-24 years ago, and that his practiced ideology no longer resides within the Democratic platform.

And I'd agree.

Of course, I voted for Slick Willie....4 or 5 times each election.

 

[GL97]

No, I have never heard of Mike Gravel. Is he a US Rep, a Senator, or something else?

He was a United States Senator from Alaska. He ran for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination in 2008.

But I have serious doubts about them having any influence on DP policy.

You are now discussing levels of influence, which is different from just naming the differing factions that exists.

Civil libertarians do have some clout though in the Democratic Party.

I would agree with you that Bill Clinton governed more as a pragmatist. But if he had had a Democratic majority in the legislative branch I think we would have seen the full monty of progressive politics.

Hillary is another story. She is arguably the most corrupt politician in American history.

Again, the Clintons were and are New Democrats. They are not part of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Do they embrace some progressive positions, sure. But the Clintons led the charge in the early 90s for the second third way movement and nothing has changed there.

btw, rather Clinton is corrupt or not has nothing to do with what wing of the party she belongs to.

Bernie drove her further to the left than she wanted to go (in public).

Yes, I agree.

I think her Stalinist tendencies would have blossomed had she won the election.

Stalinist tendencies? lol, come on now.

I have also never heard of Democrats For Life. I don't doubt that such an organization exists, but it is so far on the Party's back burner that it might as well dry up and blow away. Any group that claims 1/3 of Democrats are pro-life lose any credibility with me.

Why? I know a number of Democrats who are pro-life.

No offense, but perhaps you just don't know the Democratic Party like you seem to think you do. It is easy to group all Democrats into the same category (radical liberals, etc.), just like some Democrats want to group all Republicans together. But reality isn't that easy or neat.

Surely you would agree that Obama would have taken us to the extreme left if he had had his way.

Well it depends on what you mean by "extreme left." Define that for me and then I can tell you if I agree.

 

[GL97]

The Progressive Congressional Caucus is the largest in Congress. That group consists of the progressives and those who still call themselves liberals.

I'm not sure much exists of the centrist Democrats like the New Democrats and Third Way any longer. They certainly don't have much influence on the party platform. We saw what happened to Jim Webb during the primary.

There is a growing Libertarian caucus in Congress that includes folks like Booker, Gilibrand, and Wyden. The Libertarian caucus is a group to keep your eye on. As the Dems plod further left, these are folks that might split from the party.

I don't know about splitting the party, but you are right about the Democratic Freedom Caucus.

As for the New Democrats, they still have power and that was shown with Clinton securing the nomination in 2016. And she was able to do so with a lot of baggage.

 

[PDT816]

No one is actually what they claim to be because the labels have been hijacked to where the policies don't match what the label is supposed to represent.

 

[Medic007]

As for the New Democrats, they still have power and that was shown with Clinton securing the nomination in 2016. And she was able to do so with a lot of baggage

Clinton didn't run as a New Democrat in 2016. She spent considerable time trying to convince voters she was as progressive as Bernie. She isn't and most people know that, but that's the campaign she had to run in current times.

 

[Ponca Dan]

He was a United States Senator from Alaska. He ran for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination in 2008.



You are now discussing levels of influence, which is different from just naming the differing factions that exists.

Civil libertarians do have some clout though in the Democratic Party.



Again, the Clintons were and are New Democrats. They are not part of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Do they embrace some progressive positions, sure. But the Clintons led the charge in the early 90s for the second third way movement and nothing has changed there.

btw, rather Clinton is corrupt or not has nothing to do with what wing of the party she belongs to.



Yes, I agree.



Stalinist tendencies? lol, come on now.



Why? I know a number of Democrats who are pro-life.

No offense, but perhaps you just don't know the Democratic Party like you seem to think you do. It is easy to group all Democrats into the same category (radical liberals, etc.), just like some Democrats want to group all Republicans together. But reality isn't that easy or neat.



Well it depends on what you mean by "extreme left." Define that for me and then I can tell you if I agree.

Yes, I think Hillary has Stalinist tendencies. I'll tell a quick, funny story. During the 2008 primary season I went to New Haven to celebrate my daughter-in-law getting her PhD from Yale. Her celebration party was full of Yale intellectuals talking politics in general and the primaries in particular. It was Hillary this and Hillary that, Hillary, Hillary ad naseum. At one point they turned to me and asked what I thought about things. "Oh no," I told them, "I'm from a red state. You wouldn't be interested in what I think."
No, no, they insisted, they were really curious what I thought. "Well," I said, "I think Hillary is the type of politician that would have no trouble setting up camps and putting people like me in one of them."
I may as well have slapped them in the face. The look of shock was palpable. None of them spoke another word to me the rest of the night. But it was OK. The beer was ice cold.