Democrats Been Marginalized Within Their Own Party?

[aREDSKIN]

Interesting read..........

We have heard a lot over the past year or so about how President John F. Kennedy wouldn’t be able to garner his political party’s nomination for the presidency in today’s Democrat Party. An examination of his political platform and the principles he embraced would today place him on the right side of the aisle. So, why is it that in just under fifty years the political ideology of the most revered Democrat to hold office in modern times is shunned by the party he served? It’s because his party – the Democrat Party – isn’t the party of Democrats any longer.

Sure, there are still some issues that Democrats view in the same light they did back in the 1960s. Democrats are more prone to being anti-war than their Conservative counterparts. They still believe in a larger role for government in the private sector. And they still believe that government has a significant role to play where poverty and the disenfranchised are concerned. Many, like Kennedy – and Roosevelt before him – also continue to believe in a strong national defense, although they still possess a great deal of concern about the “military industrial complex.”

But today’s Democrat Party agenda, while holding to these core issues, has evolved into a completely different political party, complete with a foreign – as in not of the Democrat Party of old – agenda. In fact, many a Democrat has come forward to espouse, “It isn’t your Dad’s Democrat Party anymore.”

Today’s Democrat Party is led by a zealous, almost fanatical faction of the party; the Progressives. This faction is more pronounced in the House of Representatives and is led by Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and her Progressive Caucus. While the Progressive ideology is less apparent in the US Senate, it does drive the Democrat majority’s agenda on the major issues, especially where spending and entitlement are concerned. In the Executive Branch, the Obama Administration is born of the Progressive movement. In the Judiciary Branch, which is supposed to be apolitical, newly seated Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor joins former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsberg as the most notable Progressives.

Democrats, born of Anti-Federalist factions, established their political party on an agenda including states’ rights, strict adherence to the Constitution and in opposition to a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests. These precepts grew to include opposition to corruption, high taxes and tariffs. And while the Democrat Party developed to include the promotion of social welfare, labor unions, civil rights and regulation of business, it advanced this support with an eye toward balance and respect for the need for that balance.

Continues here.......

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fsalvato/2009/11202009.htm

[Kilmer17]

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"- Will Rogers.

The current Dem LEADERSHIP is definitely out of step, but if you look at the reason the Dems won so many house and senate seats over the last two elections it';s because they found conservative (read "your fathers Democratic party) candidates to run.

[mjah]

Both parties look like overzealous versions of their older selves.

Sign of the times, perhaps.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think the Dems are awful right now. The only thing keeping them going is that the GOP is often worse these days.

Seems that every time we see something that says "Congress is rated....." "The President's approval is...." when you look at the GOP, they are even lower. So, I think the country is just wise on that neither are really good options anymore.

Sadly, most folks don't put it together that while voting 3rd part might not make a difference in '10, or '12. By doing it over and over......and sticking with your beliefs. That eventually maybe a 3rd party could rise from this.

[Predicto]

There is so much crap in that article that I don't even know where to begin. This is a laundry list of what the far right IMAGINES that their evil opponents stand for. I'm surprised he didn't throw in the non-existent push to return to the Fairness Doctrine.

Seriously, the first two paragraphs are the only honest part of that diatribe.

I should add that I have never heard a single Democrat mention Saul Alinsky, much less follow his principles. Alinsky is entirely a boogeyman of the right.

[aREDSKIN]

There is so much crap in that article that I don't even know where to begin. This is a laundry list of what the far right IMAGINES that their evil opponents stand for. I'm surprised he didn't throw in the non-existent push to return to the Fairness Doctrine.

Seriously, the first two paragraphs are the only honest part of that diatribe.

I should add that I have never heard a single Democrat mention Saul Alinsky, much less follow his principles. Alinsky is entirely a boogeyman of the right.

"The documentary The Democratic Promise: Saul Alinsky and His Legacy,[5] states that "Alinsky championed new ways to organize the poor and powerless that created a backyard revolution in cities across America." Alinsky formed the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in 1940, and Chambers became its Executive Director after Alinsky died. Since the IAF's formation, hundreds of professional community and labor organizers and thousands of community and labor leaders have attended its workshops. Fred Ross, who worked for Alinsky, was the principal mentor for Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta.[6][7] In Hillary Clinton's senior honors thesis at Wellesley College, Clinton noted that Alinsky's personal efforts were a large part of his method.[8]

Alinsky's teachings influenced Barack Obama in his early career as a community organizer on the far South Side of Chicago.[7][8] Working for Gerald Kellman's Developing Communities Project, Obama learned and taught Alinsky's methods for community organizing.[7][9] Several prominent national leaders have been influenced by Alinsky's teachings,[7] including Ed Chambers,[5] Tom Gaudette, Michael Gecan, Wade Rathke,[10][11], and Patrick Crowley.[12]

Alinsky is often credited with laying the foundation for the grassroots political organizing that dominated the 1960s.[5] Jack Newfield writing in New York Magazine included Alinsky among "the purest avatars of the [populist] movement," along with Ralph Nader, Cesar Chavez, and Jesse Jackson.[13]

In 1969, he was awarded the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award.

Alinsky died of a heart attack at the age of 63 in 1972, in Carmel, California."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

[TheLongshot]

Progressive: I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Funny, but I think some of the same things can be said of the Republicans. This is the way the game is played nowadays, and unless you want to get steamrolled, you have to play the game. I'm not happy about it, but when one side plays politics rather than work to get what needs to be done, it makes it tough for everyone.

And yes, the base would like to take back the party, but for different reasons than the OP.

[Predicto]

some wiklipedia stuff on Saul Alinsky

You realize, of course, that Alinsky's "rules" are just basic principles of social change and debate, used by everyone who has ever tried to change anything in this country in the past half century. Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, everyone who tries to influence the body politic, they all do the same things. These "rules" may have been influential back in the 1940s and 1950s because social change was in its infancy, but they are no longer anything special. Alinsky has been dead for almost 40 years.

Conservatives have fetishized Saul Alinsky. They are the only ones who talk about him today. Every day on FreeRepublic and every conservative blog you will hear his name mentioned over and over. Nowhere else.

Look at the hilarious list of "national leaders" that are said to still be influenced by Alinsky: "Several prominent national leaders have been influenced by Alinsky's teachings,[7] including Ed Chambers,[5] Tom Gaudette, Michael Gecan, Wade Rathke,[10][11], and Patrick Crowley.[12]"

Have you even heard of any of these guys?

Go on and keep being scared of Saul Alinsky and his terrifying ideas like "ridicule is a potent weapon" and "you should keep the pressure on." Obviously, only commies do such horrible things. Not anti-abortion activists. Not the Christian Coalition. Not the teabaggers. Oh no. Just commies.

[aREDSKIN]

Just pointing out that the 2 politicians that vied for the democratic presidential nomination have vast Alinsky connections. Far from your dismissive-

"I should add that I have never heard a single Democrat mention Saul Alinsky, much less follow his principles. Alinsky is entirely a boogeyman of the right."

[Koolblue13]

Sadly, most folks don't put it together that while voting 3rd part might not make a difference in '10, or '12. By doing it over and over......and sticking with your beliefs. That eventually maybe a 3rd party could rise from this.

I try and make this argument with people fairly often.

[Predicto]

Just pointing out that the 2 politicians that vied for the democratic presidential nomination have vast Alinsky connections. Far from your dismissive-

"I should add that I have never heard a single Democrat mention Saul Alinsky, much less follow his principles. Alinsky is entirely a boogeyman of the right."

You talk about "vast Alinsky connections" like that means something scary and horrible. Alinsky is not a living mob boss with his criminal tendrils deep in the government. He's a long dead guy who wrote about how to organize and agitate for change. Everyone who influences public policy from a non elected position has the same "Alinsky connection," including all the guys you love on the right. Pick a cause, they all use the same principles.

The only differences is that your guys do the same things while pointing their figners and screaming "Alinsky" all the time, like it changes anything.

Yes, 30 years ago, when Obama and Hillary were young, they were idealistic young people who got involved in the social change movements that were big at that time. Big freaking deal.

[Baculus]

There is so much crap in that article that I don't even know where to begin. This is a laundry list of what the far right IMAGINES that their evil opponents stand for. I'm surprised he didn't throw in the non-existent push to return to the Fairness Doctrine.

Precisely. And once they started to rant and rave about progressives, I knew the laundry list was unfolding.

I should add that I have never heard a single Democrat mention Saul Alinsky, much less follow his principles. Alinsky is entirely a boogeyman of the right.

These days, the only people I hear mentioning Alinsky's name are right-wingers. More ironically, they are actually starting to use his tactics, as evident by some of the "in your face" tactics at the Tea Party.

Right-wingers simply do not understand their political opponents.

[JMS]

It's just idiotic... Democrats and Republicans have both traditionally had left, center and right wings. Where do you think the Pro Choice George Bush Sr came from when Ronald Reagan tapped him to be President? Heck the GOP was founded by radical left wing abolishonists, originally.

They only got the identity as conservatives in the 30's because they were protectionists / isolationists. Ronald Reagan is the one who really defined the GOP.

Let's not forget that Nixon was proposing Universal Coverage healthcare back in the early 1970's.

It's crazy to claim having a big tent weakens your party. It definitely moderates and draws your party into the middle. That's traditionally seen as a good thing.

As for JFK not being able to get elected in today's Democratic party. That's silly. It's true JFK was a conservative moderate. So was Jimmy Carter. So was Bill Clinton.

The last true liberal the Democrats elected was LBJ...

Folks claiming Obama's super liberal I just don't see it. they guy's a pragmatic moderate. He's got the left wing of the Democratic party screaming at him, just like Bill did.

That's the main difference between modern republicans and Demcrates. Modern democrats think if you aren't offending the folks on the fringes of your party, you aren't doing your job. Republicans drive towards their fringes as a way to empower / grow their base.

[Baculus]

In 1969, he was awarded the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award.

Alinsky died of a heart attack at the age of 63 in 1972, in Carmel, California."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

This is what I am talking about -- right-wingers are now using Alinsky's tactics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/weekinreview/23alinsky.html

You're trying to make him sound like Goldstein from Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

[Baculus]

It's just idiotic... Democrats and Republicans have both traditionally had left, center and right wings. Where do you think the Pro Choice George Bush Sr came from when Ronald Reagan tapped him to be President.

It's crazy to claim having a big tent weakens your party. It definitely moderates and draws your party into the middle. That's traditionally a good thing.

As for JFK not being able to get elected in today's Democratic party. That's silly. It's true JFK was a conservative moderate. So was Jimmy Carter. So was Bill Clinton.

The last true liberal the Democrats elected was LBJ...

Folks claiming Obama's super liberal I just don't see it. they guy's a pragmatic moderate. He's got the left wing of the Democratic party screaming at him, just like Bill did.

That's the main difference between modern republicans and Demcrates. Modern democrats think if you aren't offending the folks on the fringes of your party, you aren't doing your job. Republicans drive towards their fringes as a way to empower / grow their base.

Good post, JMS.

[Jumbo]

Format the OP appropriately, a, you have no excuse having been here since forever. But consider yourself having just received a break NNT-wise, anyway.

[LaxBuddy21]

I really think this is just another commentary on how our current political system is a mess. Each party has to try to pass as much blame on the other as possible and distance itself as much from the other as possible in order to convince the American public they should get elected. Its caused American citizens to be at each others throats over which party they belong to. People HATE one another because they belong to a different political party because of what has happened to our political system. If politicians really reflected how people felt in this country, the candidates would be similar to each other with some differences here and there rather than what we see.

Everything in politics is about getting re-elected not doing whats best for this country any more. It sickens me every day and will be the downfall of this country. So much money is thrown around and so many favors are owed just to get elected! I wish I had the power to change the political system and re-organize how officials are elected. I have stated many times before I think we should have a cap on what candidates can spend (and a reasonable one that almost anyone could raise) in an election year. We stop getting candidates that can raise the most money and start getting candidates that are the best for the job! If Joe Smith comes off the streets with amazing ideas for this nation, he should be able to run! We should abolish the political parties and have a pool of general candidates run for office and a series of primaries to narrow the list down. I wish there was something I could do to get a system like that!

Both parties are screwed up. We need to realize that and stop letting the parties pit us against each other like they do!

ETA: Just to give everyone a prime example of what I am talking about, I am a republican (because thats who I most agree with) but some of my ideas are liberal (like most Americans Im towards the middle). My grandmother is die hard Republican almost no matter what (although she will claim otherwise) and we were talking politics. We discussed some issues I have liberal view points on and she told me I had "gone to the dark side"! How pathetic is that? I am liberal on a couple things and now I belong to the "dark side"? See what politics has done to this country?!? And we let it continue to let it happen the more and more we play into it.

[JimboDaMan]

You talk about "vast Alinsky connections" like that means something scary and horrible. Alinsky is not a living mob boss with his criminal tendrils deep in the government. He's a long dead guy who wrote about how to organize and agitate for change. Everyone who influences public policy from a non elected position has the same "Alinsky connection," including all the guys you love on the right. Pick a cause, they all use the same principles.

The only differences is that your guys do the same things while pointing their figners and screaming "Alinsky" all the time, like it changes anything.

Yes, 30 years ago, when Obama and Hillary were young, they were idealistic young people who got involved in the social change movements that were big at that time. Big freaking deal.

I know, it amuses me when I hear this Alinsky business. The right-wing talk radio loudmouths shout it and the sheep accept it without a discernable thought process. Thing is, it shouldn't amuse me, because sheep-votes count as much as every body elses.

[JMS]

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"- Will Rogers.

That's a good quote Kilmer. It's as true now as it was when Will Rogers said it in the 1920's and 30's.

"

The current Dem LEADERSHIP is definitely out of step, but if you look at the reason the Dems won so many house and senate seats over the last two elections it';s because they found conservative (read "your fathers Democratic party) candidates to run.

Actually My fathers democrats were FDR, Truman, LBJ. The liberals.

It's the modern democratic party which has gone centrist on us. Kennedy was a centrist/conservative. Jimmy Carter was a conservative. Bill Clinton was a centrist/moderate.

We don't know about Obama yet. But he's looking more moderate pragmatic to me than liberal.

[IHOPSkins]

......Yes, 30 years ago, when Obama.......

Acorn exists now

Acorn uses these tactics

Obama said groups like these would set his agenda

[Burgold]

It's always interesting to see how a group is defined from the outside. I think the viewpoint is faulty, but it's interesting nontheless.

[Predicto]

Acorn exists now

Acorn uses these tactics

So does the Christian Coalition. So do the Teapartiers. So does everyone.

Obama said groups like these would set his agenda

No he didn't.

[Madison Redskin]

I can't believe where people get their news these days. Many on the right looks to right-wing nutjobs who have their own blogs, many on the left looks to left-wing nutjobs who have their own blogs, and then everyone complains about the mainstream media.

[JMS]

Acorn exists now

Acorn uses these tactics

Dude, ACORN is an organization to organize poor people. It's really not all that sinister, disiplined or intelligent organization. It's certainly not a significant movement inside the democratic party.

Seems to me, the Republicans fear it not for what it is, but for what it could become.

Obama said groups like these would set his agenda

That's just silly. Do you even know what ACORN's agenda is?

[mw11385]

Do you even know what ACORN's agenda is?

Of course not. But the Fox News folks just know it's bad...

It's because Steve Doocy said so....

BTW...

Beware any post that has a paragraph starting with " But today’s Democrat Party agenda..."

'Tis best to put on your waders at that point...

:doh: