Originally posted by trumptman
My own personal example is drug criminalization for example. However Clinton is the exact type of DLC candidate that Midwinter, (I imagine but am not 100% sure) BRussell and others are claiming should be tossed from the party.
Well, as I've said to you privately, I actually believe that the Democratic party needs a schism quite badly. I wouldn't mind a centrist/DLC/Clintonian party and a "Liberal Democrat" party for Kucinich, et al. But at the moment, there are hard lefties, right-leaning moderates, and even soft Republicans like Lieberman and Clinton whose prominence and power force the rest of the party to fall in line when there's an election. In '06 at the midterms, I'd like to see NO FALLING IN LINE from the lefties.
Ideologically, the party is utterly screwed. "We value labor and minorities!" "We lurve the kid-tested, Clinton-approved NAFTA, even though it destroys labor!" "We lurve regular folks! But we'll ignore the South like they're all lepers!" "We value religious diversity! Unless it's Christianity!"
Education. Labor. Education. Minority rights. Education. Poverty. And, finally, education. That's it. Ignore the guns. Ignore gay rights. Ignore abortion. State party bases, especially in the South, are where change will have to be effected for the '06 elections. Win back state congresses and governorships; win back a few house and senate seats at a time. And crack the whip like Newt Gingrich reincarnated. Step out of line? You're fucked. Embarass the party? You're more fucked than Trent Lott on a date with Barney Frank.
All three of those positions are ones which Bush took and used to beat the holy hell out of John Kerry. They are positions he likely could not have used against a modern day candidate Clinton. (Clinton did fight the partial birth abortion argument but was much more articulate (read probably a better liaron the health exemption) than Kerry and came across far less strident)
Well, Clinton and Kerry are two entirely different political animals. Bush wouldn't have been able to beat the holy hell out of Clinton on most of this because Clinton would've triangulated the hell out of everything and dragged the party so far to the right that Kucinich would be sitting in the lap of Tom Coburn. And that's how the Dems got in this mess to begin with.
The point is that the modern Democratic party has several ideological litmus tests that must be passed.
Right. And I think you agree with me that those litmus tests are the wrong ones
If the Democrats got back to supporting working folks instead of arguing what degree of depravity and support of it is a "right", arguing for infrastructure instead of income redistribution, arguing for America instead of treating as the world's imperialist original sin, they would do a lot better.
Actually, the Dems need to become relevant to working folks and unions. The idea that my step-father, a life-long union man and beneficiary of much union help during the fallout of the Bell/AT&T/NCR layoffs, would vote republican is case in point. As for "income redistribution"...yes. It's infrastructure. it's about crime, not income redistribution. It's about your personal safety, not income redistribution. It's about better schools. It's about safer streets. It's about doing unto others.
I disagree with the "arguing for America" bit, though. The line is simply that George Bush has realized America's status as reluctant Empire and is attempting to use it to re-make the world in the image he wants. The cost of this action is already catastrophic (two intractable wars and tens of thousands dead in just one term). It is precisely about America as an Empire. But it's also about responsibility and diplomacy, two things this administration seem to use as a last resort.