Elusive Trope's picture

    The Season For A Purge?

    By Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:25pm |

    As a lead up to my next blog which explains why I accept that I am defeatist liberal, I offer today’s blog by Charles Blow in the NY Times:  Whose Party Is It?  He begins:

    The near-apoplectic level of agita within the liberal screeching class over President Obama’s tax-cut compromise has exposed a seismic crack in the Democratic monolith — outspoken liberal Democrats on one side and barely audible moderate Democrats on the other.

    The lopsided optics raise the question: Is there a future for moderation, and especially conservatism, in the Democratic Party or is the party experiencing the beginnings of a purging akin to that seen on the right?

    To some degree, it may be the latter.

    He points to the following graph based on Gallup polls which shows the rise of liberals in the party and the decline of the conservatives.  (Personally I have always been fascinated with those in Republican Party who identify themselves as liberals).  Basically it points to a trend that both parties are purging the moderates.  That even the independents are also declining in self-identified moderates, points to a greater overall ideological polarization in this country.

    As far as the Democrats go, Blow offers this:

    Long-term, that may be fine, as demographics work in the Democrats’ favor. But, near-term, this could prove problematic as Republicans and independents grow ever more conservative, and liberals remain by far the smallest ideological group.

    In short, if the Democrats are going to compete in places like Texas. Indiana or Alabama, they will need to allow a chair at the table for the moderates and conservatives.  To become more liberal these days on the national stage is to marginalize oneself.  Since it is the "natural" tendency for organizations like the two political parties in this country to struggle to stay alive, there is going to be resistance from the power centers in the Democratic Party to impose a strategy that indicates it would lead to a decrease in power for the organization.

    He also points to another Gallup poll which indicates (as should come to no surprise for anyone here at Dagblog) that liberal Democratic support for Obama has slipped 10% points.  Although I would say that the 79% is still rather high considering all that has gone on and has been said.  The short of that is if you put 10 liberal Democrats in a room, 8 of them are still supporting Obama. 

    Moderate Democrats remain steady in their support, but that is still a few percentage points behind their liberal compatriots at 77%.  Conservative Democrats, who one would expect of the three groups to be all aglow over Obama, dropped from 72% to 67% in their support. 

    Now one may conclude as does Gallup that:

    A key to [Obama’s] future political fortunes will be whether he is able to win back those disillusioned liberals, who in general probably support most of what he has accomplished or tried to accomplish as president.

    This may be true but there is a larger picture here.  Part of that Blow's first referenced Gallup Poll points out that:

    The political composition of U.S. adults held fairly steady in 2010 compared with 2009. Conservatives remained the largest group [at 40%], followed by moderates and then liberals [at 21%]. At 35%, the percentage of moderates has declined to a new low, highlighting the increased political polarization that has occurred over the past decade.

    Appealing to the liberals only in this country is not necessarily a strategy for electoral success on the national stage (and in far too many states).  Using this poll, bringing all of the liberals and moderates together gives one 56%.  So how does one keep both the moderates and liberals happy and enthusiastic (since that seems to be how one gets them to polling booths)?  No easy answer there.  Someone is going to have to compromise (or is it capitulate?).

    And for the liberals all this begs the question (considering that the independents seem to be growing more conservative), is it worth losing the WH in 2012 in order to shift to a more intense liberal agenda over the next two years?  One of the arguments under this is that by doing so, many of those moderates (and even some of the conservatives) among the independents and Democrats (and even Republicans) would realize that the liberal agenda is actually aligned with their principles and values.   There is definitely a case to be made for that.  But is it worth the risk to try if the consequence of failure is to have someone like Romney (ya all did see his unemployment insurance proposal the other day?) in the WH?

    Blow concludes, using the drop in liberal Dem support for Obama as evidence, that liberals have the problem of turning on each other.  He writes:

    To adapt a phrase from Bill Maher, these far-left liberals would rather fight the friend who disappoints them than focus on the enemy who wants to destroy them. That’s not so for those on the right. They just want to win. Too many liberals just want to whine. It’s like they’re perpetually humming the chorus to Lesley Gore’s hit from the ’60s: “It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to.”

    Sadly, if the Democrats’ big tent of openness shrinks to a little fortress of liberalism too fast and too soon, they may well have a reason to cry.

    Political life in a coalition is never easy.  Some hard choices need to be made in the near future about where we draw the lines, what defeats we are willing to accept now, and what defeats we are willing to accept in the future.

    Purge anyone?

    Comments

    Well written Trope. The number of times I've seen the so called liberal zealots break into the N word, at this point I think Charles Blow is correct. But my greatest fear is that African Americans become completely alienated from the Democratic Party and our coalition breaks and we destroy ourselves. In fact it is happening before our eyes, and we seem powerless to stop.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:59pm

    Your comment makes me think of how back in the 90s a number of environmental activists alienated the Native American communities (they're good enough to use in advertising, but not to actually be stewards of the land).  Rather than seek common ground and make compromises (Native Americans communities in general have to also deal with astronomically high unemployment rates as well as protecting the environment), the environmentalists turned them into adversaries.

    How this all unfolds is anyone's guess.  At times it does seem we are powerless.  Maybe all we can do is what Barth suggests in his latest blog and that is talk with family and friends.  Six degrees of separation and the 100th Monkey may be our only hope.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:22pm

    Spot on Trope, spot on. I don't know what has happened. But so go TBags so go all demagogues and zealots, they require 100% compliance and there is no room for anything else, and they purge and purge until they have no one but themselves left and their zealotry. I've been staying away from the so-called progressive places now because of the number of times I've seen these so called conversations devolve into calling our President the N word. Damn, that is something I never thought I would see in my life time. It concerns me to no end, the implications that he is somehow not a full  man because he doesn't fist fight  with everyone who disagrees with him. How many times do we have to read that Clinton and Obama are just good Republicans. I don't get what is going on. Most certainly it is an indication that even the so-called Progressives are not as progressive as they might believe.

    So most recently I've turned to the great African American blogs and am more and more  staying away from the so-called main stream blogs, I even stay away from here more often than not, so tired of the fight, so tired of the name calling, so tired, time to let them have it there way. I give up basically.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:52pm

    Everyone is frustrated right now.  You them all of us,  I think there is some serious shifts ideologically and otherwise going on, in great part spurred on by the economy.  And these shifts are creating greater polarization, and people are touching the hatred and violence in their hearts.  What I think is important that we find those places that empower us, where we can support one another, and pray that through six degrees of separation, that the compassion ripples out.  The question is how do we disagree with one another compassionately.  As in the Buddhist notion of Right Speech. I sure don't have the answers.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:56pm

    Excellent post. What many liberals don't understand is how easily their agenda is made to look extremist in the eyes of the fearful 79% who don't self-identify as liberals. Obama said upon acceptance of the nomination in Grant Park that he would be every American's president, and he has hewed close to that guiding principle since then. He has done so partly because the foundations of our economy (which enable a liberal democracy to function) have come close to crumbling and needed immediate action, and because other fundamental problems have required the same willingness to get things done  even at the cost of compromise. That the screeching wing of the Democratic Party can simultaneously recognize the extraordinary nature of our times and not allow extraordinary latitude to deal with them amounts to not just an epic fail but an epic tragedy.


    by Hey Wally on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:23pm

    Quality material from Trope and McCarthy. You two actually think you're making reasonable moderate sensible responsible arguments, don't you? Because that's your self-image.

    When in fact, you're kicking it off with lefties calling the President the N word... and screeching... and zealotry... and demagogues... and purges... and such.

    The simple facts of the day are the Obama ran the show YOUR way, down the moderate, bipartisan, right-of-center "middle," and the results are unpopular, and yet you won't own it. Why? Because you don't like it that people are mad and think it failed. And so you go hunting for some group to blame, and find.... wait for it... those darned liberals. Cause it was THEM who were peeved about this approach from the start, and said it wouldn't work.

    Which means, they must be all about the screeching, and the N word. 

    Good strategy.


    by quinn esq on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:53pm

    Dear Progressive Santa Quinn,

    I didn't get everything I wanted for Christmas, either. Like a better economy, a job, a Dem House majority, a Public Option, better mortgage relief and...oh, you know, the usual stuff. But I am soooo frustrated with myself to learn that I didn't get these goodies because me and my kind played it our way. I had no idea until you waved your word-wand that the reason we had such party-line votes on every issue is because we were playing suck-up to the Republicans. Boy, was I dancing with sugar-plum fairies in my head!


    by Hey Wally on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:10pm

    C'mere little fella. Lemme help you change that.

    Yes, you sucked up to the Republicans.

    No, you didn't get any votes out of it.

    Yes, that meant the legislation sucked way harder than it needed to. 

    No, the voters didn't like you any better.

    Now. Either stand up and try to own the thing... or lay down, stick your legs up, and let me change that mess you got there.

    And for God's sake, stop bawlin'.


    by quinn esq on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:17pm

    So I should just no worry about what the African American community thinks about what is going on is what you are saying that is just what idiots do, they worry about things that don't matter to you.

    Thanks Quinn, your advice is always so fantastic, I keep forgetting if I just followed your prescription for life all would be perfect. Anyway as one of the only people here who has worked for the party for 30 years, it is my worry, it is a concern, you don't have to recognize it, I never asked you too.  My concern is just that, and you and I will never have the same goals. Why does that bother you so much?


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:47pm

    Happy to help. Now, let me see if I'm clear on this:

    1- The RIGHT-WING of the Democratic Party has been full of racists for about, oh, forever. Still is. Southern Democrats, Blue Dogs, Reagan Republicans - they've been called lots of things. 

    2- But now? Suddenly, you've run into some self-proclaimed liberals, using the N-word, on blogs, and The Party is at risk.

    3- In fact, there's just SO many darned liberals and progressives using that N-word, that you've had to flee. 

    4- And so, you've "turned to African American" blogs. Well. My my. No further comment on this recent turn.

    How about I respond as follows.

    1- Nice move, combatting all those bad liberals by saying there's just so many of them using the N-word. Really. Just a stellar, party-building, smear  move.

    2- I haven't seen a SINGLE use of the N-word by liberals and progressives here at DagBlog. Which is where we're arguing. 

    3- Maybe you're fleeing something else that upsets you.

    Or, I could just reverse the passive-aggressive way you came into this argument and reply, "Moderate Democrats like you guys never really gave a shit about African Americans anyhow, other than the rich ones that hang out in the White House. Cause the real-world loss of homes and jobs by AA's, as a result of a kiss-ass, suck-up economic policy? You all didn't seem to care too much. Therefore, the party's likely to split, thanks to the Republican Lite types who can't seem to grasp the need for fundamental action."

    Now, you'd probably read that as an insult. Whereas the reverse? You couldn't imagine yourself doing it. Even though you just did it - with the broad-brush painting of liberals and progressives as using the N-word and initiating purges and hurting African-Americans.

    Drive-by smears. Fresh, for Christmas.

    Thanks, but no thanks.


    by quinn esq on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:31pm

    As i've said already, I don't endorse every word Blow set forth.  He wrote it and I put it out there.  He was making some other points that I thought were food for thought.  And I do think when you have bloggers out there calling the president a coward and a sell out, that this doesn't help the progressives.  It helps those who are truly the enemy of the progressives. But if want to attribute the term "screeching" to me, whatever.  I'll take it.  Because in the end, whatever they're doing, they're not looking at the dynamics. 

    Which is not to say that they shouldn't be pointing the flaws or negative consequences of the policies.  But what you and the other "screechers" can't accept is that liberals can't somehow convince the majority of America that the liberal way is the best way.  That in poll after poll after poll after poll after poll, those who identify themselves as liberal are always the minority.  You can't blame Obama for the fact that Bernie Sanders wouldn't stand a chance in Wyoming. 

    And while the liberals who stayed home because they were enthusiastic or inspired and allowed the Republicans to take control of the House, and whittle down the Senate down that 60 votes will be nearly impossible, do need to step up and be counted, it was the Republicans for throwing a wrench into everything from health care to START.  That is why I kept telling people to read Barth's blog. 

    Given the dynamics of the Senate and today's media, FDR could have achieved nothing these past two years.  To think otherwise is just a little illusion built upon some mythical, magical bully pulpit.  Had we gone further left, the results would have been nothing achieved at all.  No stimulus, no changes to the health care.  And the public would have been even more peeved about a do--nothing Congress with the "majority" and the elections would have been worse.

    You can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong.

    But since you believe you have the answers.  How do I get my rep district to vote Pence out of office?  With just the liberals?  Is that your strategy?  To tell the pro-life, pro-NRA Dems "go screw yourself? We don't need you?"  Is that your strategy?


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:22pm

    I'll say it again. Labelling people on the basis of these grand terms is really bad politics, it's really bad political science, it's really bad strategy, and real, big-time political campaigns do NOT run on the basis of "How many liberals are there in America?" They just don't. It gives you zero traction. All it does it track some nebulous answer to nebulous questions, and you have absolutely NO ability then to shape where it goes or why. It leads to defeatism. 

    Shorter: It's a tool for weak-minded political commentary and lazy journalism.

    Because if I walk through the "issues" polls, they'll tell me remarkably different things. If I run on those things, as NOT on the basis of some weird-minded defence of the term "liberal," then I have an excellent chance of winning. e.g. By bashing Wall Street. 

    That said, you're just dousing yourself in ignorance and setting yourself on-fire when you say the liberals staying home is what allowed the Republicans to win. You pulled that out of your ass for the sake of argument, and it seems to fit your mindset, so... you used it.

    It's wrong.

    Go study.

    As for the FDR riff? You're well on the way to winning the "Most Despair-Ridden Dem I Know" Cup. And that takes some doing. I mean, did I mention FDR? You DO realize you just made up that little conversation, had it with yourself, then set it down here as a winner argument? 

    And the answer to your last question is, "Run a pro-life, pro-NRA Liberal." 


    by quinn esq on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:47pm

    So are you kicking me out of the party, cause see when I go to our meetings every single month, month in month out, year after year after year after, you all never show up. We invite, advertise to fellow democrats, we invite, we cajole, we have pot lucks and never do the folks show up who are most interested in coming or advancing policies, working for policies, never. That's all, when you all come on to the meetings, you will see what it is like to build a party from the ground up and seek to build the necessary coalitions to continue to get more and more liberal candidates elected. But that doesn't work at every level, there are much more conservative districts than where I come from, Western Washington is as left as they come.

    We have African American members, they always show up and participate in our monthly meetings.They give their time, they contribute to our platform and policy development,  we have a very strong Hispanic presense in our caucus, and they are much more conservative than I, yet I don't considered them or their ideas or participation idiotic, I am grateful there are people who still work for the change they want to see, because it takes quite a bit of time, it has taken us 30 years.  Our district caucus tried very hard to continue to  build our coalition. We get along and we have never had an echo chamber, where we only believe ourselves as individualsyet as a district caucus we don't just get along, we also let others keep their own beliefs.  Although our hard work has paid off, because we have turned a formerly very purple leaning red county to a blue county, that took hard, hard work, time, planning etc. Our work paid off, because e  And over 30 years this is what we have been able to do, change our color from purple leaning red, to bluer than blue.

    But I know, I am an idiot and I know nothing. So why even read anything I respond to? To me that is the strangest thing of all, you read what I write, but given my status as idiot, why on earth would you even bother?


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:33pm

    It sounds like you are a hard worker. You remind me of a women where I live names Theresa who does all that. She organized dinners so people can discuss issues, creates forums where people can give presentations and bring forth pertinent issues, runs for the local pacifica radio station to help spread information.  She is a busy woman and although the Democratic party here is not very successful when elections come around, she definitely keeps it going.  And who knows one day things might go their way and the Democrats might be more successful.


    by emerson on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:50pm

    We are very active here, when Mondale lost  in 1984 we knew we had to do something, anything, to get our shit together and work through this and build our coalition. It was easier here emerson (who is one of my favorite poets of course) but we were very disorganized and demoralized after '84 and then 88, and we knew we had to keep working and changing minds. I started with my friends who were teamsters and machinists and longshoreman. I still go to their meetings, and they too are much more conservative than I am, but we have been able to get them to see us as people who have not just the same goals but as people, damn we had fun though and we still do. Laughing I love my union buddies.. they are a tough crowd, and amazingly conservative.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:23am

    That sounds like you have been quite successful in getting people to talk to each other even though they have different POVs. Excellent!  Emerson is one of my favorite writers as well.  Truly a brilliant man.


    by emerson on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:41am

    It is just my opinion, and i know not what is in Obama mind nor in his heart (only the Shadow knows what lurks there), but given my experience as a community orgianizer, Obama's approach makes perfect sense, and your experience and take aways from your experience resonate so deeply. At what point do we accept (in spite of our disagreements) as a valid and look for common ground.

    Obama at Notre Dame, given all the conflicts that surrounded his visit, so sums up what we all should be seeking

    yet some would say all Obama does is give the conservative talking points. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:50pm

    We need more of this all around the country, dammit.  I've gotta start considering starting something in my neighborhood like this.  Get off my shy little ass and do something.  Seriously. 

    This is a great comment, T, and I wish you'd write a post about how you started this coalition of yours, so as to give us pointers. 

     

     


    by LisB on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:59pm

    Seriously.  Because it this about embracing the larger community.  And on a grassroots level to reach across to our neighbors who might not see things like Michael Moore or Glen Greenwald.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:05am

    T-Mac. I get that you feel bad about the way things are in the party and on the Left today.

    SO DO I.

    However. It was YOU, in comment #1, that started off firing guns against the liberal and the progressives, who've been reduced to calling the President a N******, so much so that you had to leave their blogs, etc.

    To repeat, YOU commented first. YOU launched the N-word attacks. 

    So frankly, don't feel so goddamn put-upon.

    Second, what makes you think you're the only one out there slogging? I donno, but I'm a good 25 years in - sorry it's not quite up to your 30 - but it's cost me a lot of money I otherwise could have made, and all the usual "blah blah blah sacrifice," but in the end, it's alright. I've done what I believe in. Good people, good times, and a good enough living. And I'M STILL IN. 

    Third, I've never participated in a purging. Not in the green groups or the other activist groups or my years with parties. As I wrote elsewhere on the page, I come from an extremely conservative background, and am often busily working to bring more people over the right.

    The thing is, I just plain don't think the move-to-the-right strategy is a GOOD one. Got that? And it really doesn't make me a purger or a N*gger-hater.

    I'm not aiming to purge you. Or African-Americans. I may, however, just disagree on strategy. And since political actions have enormous real-world consequences, I'll state that outright, and even angrily. And if I disagree with the President, and even if I think he lacks political insight or moral courage, those things are OK to say. And I may SAY them, and fight like hell to move those policies, but then, come election-time, STILL choose to support voting for him. 

    That's how it works. It's NOT a personal hate-on, for you or LisB or ATrope or anyone else. I genuinely believe the difficulty is the strength of people's emotional attachment to HIM. So that an attack on him or even his policies is FELT as a personal attack on oneself. but in my case, and I think many othe progressivces here, it's NOT a big personal thing. We kinda like the guy and wish him well.

    And so.... I wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and rip-roaring success to the Democrats and President Obama in the New Year! 


    by quinn esq on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:03am

    There we go. THAT'S the Quinn I know and love. 

    And, just a minor point, but we're not trying to move you guys to the right.  Trope, TMac, et al, we're not trying at all to move you guys right.  We don't want to.  Trust me.

    I think (and now, here, I'm just talking for me, not my buddies) that all we're asking is for you guys on the farthest left to try working with us in a) not dissing the president so loudly -- yes, you can diss his policies, but please, don't call him names....and b) continue to help us work on getting all of the dems aligned in arguing with the Right on what's most important to us - fighting corps, banks, the SCOTUS decisions that are killing us, the Republican filibusters and other moves that are killing us all.  And c) please don't talk down to us so much....okay, ME so much.....I know I'm new to the Dem party and there's a lot of history I don't know....so please don't get impatient with me and please explain terms that you briing up.  Okay, scratch that last one, it kinda makes me look dumb and pathetic.

    Then again, I'll leave it there, just so you know how I feel.  I want our party to work.  I want our party to win.  I want our party to continue moving this big ship of ours to the left.  I know instinctively that you all do too.  So please.... let's help each other.  Let's continue these good dialogs (thank you, Trope, for this post, and thank you to many others for some great posts that get us all talking things out) and let's continue to find ways to move forward.  Please.

    Please.

     


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:27am

    Ms. McCarthy; I hope you're reading the Field Negro and some of the sites on their blogroll, too, since You've "been staying away from the so-called progressive places now because of the number of times I've seen these so called conversations devolve into calling our President the N word."

    Now I remember a day when you called me a four-letter word I hate so much I won't repeat here.  But OT: this is a great site, where because someone is Shhhh: black; they don;'t have to love the President or even Oprah.  Knocks me out.
     
    http://field-negro.blogspot.com/

    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:56pm

    "...agita within the liberal screeching class..."  Ha ha ha! 

    You might have gone with a different photo than the brawl in the Ukraninan Parliament or wherever.  Maybe this one over the article about 60% of all unemployed workers having been out of work for over one year now, those being the 99-ers whose plight was left totally unaddressed in the bill some of us "screeching Liberals" detest.  Merry Christmas to them.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/tax-cuts-for-the-rich-scr_n_798216.html


    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:28pm

    First I don't endorse every single word that Blow uses, nor every conclusion he concludes.  I offer it article and the notions contained within as something to ponder.  I figured the "screeching" and the "whining" words would get some attention.  I figured, however, that it is important that what is being said out there that isn't flattering, nor on FOX News, be acknowledged.  (not that I am saying you weren't aware that others besides the president and his administration were pushing this particular meme).

    But the point is: given what the reality is on the ground in the here-and-now, and we as a collective whole seem to be debating that over and over (I would suggest to everyone to read Barth's latest blog), what is the best strategy going forward if one is concerned about those people standing in line.  Does it serve their interest, and the interests of those who will find themselves in this position 1 year, 2 years, 3 years down the line, to fight among ourselves, to tear our coalition apart. 

    This is not about saying one has to go on the record and agree with everything Obama and the Democrats do.  But I think Decader's blog ripping Obama over DADT is prime example of this undermining the coalition for no reason other than to maintain some narrative that the president has "sold out" the progessives.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:32pm

    To quote F.U. Urquhart:  I couldn't possibly comment on that.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:52pm

    Which is itself a comment on that.  And such a nice one, too.  One which does nothing to help us all figure out the way forward in a land where the liberals have lost so much of their power.   


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:08pm

    Nice diss, but it meant that we can barely hear each other any longer; we will go our separate routes in the future, I would guess.  We will see what's coming at us that much differently, too, thus our responses will be wholly different.  You will likely call me naive and non-pragmatic, and remind me how slowly change happens.  I will think you defeatist, and willing to settle for far too little as the bread lines begin.  I will be anxious that this cannot hold as the depression worsens, and envision some sort of revolution: I hate that thought.  You may picture some attrition that people will accept, and you will, and have some faith that things will improve. 

     


    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:29pm

    In general I would say you probably summed it up rather well.  Good job.  And Peace.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:43pm

    Well put!

    The picture of the men says it all.

    All of politics has to do with coalitions. Dems have a lot of problems marching in step like the repubs.


    by Richard Day on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:18pm

    I feel as though I am living in the Twilight Zone when I read phrases like:

    Blow: "Is there a future for moderation, and especially conservatism, in the Democratic Party?"

    Trope:  "Appealing to the liberals only in this country is not necessarily a strategy for electoral success.... "

    Imho:

    a) conservatism and the Democratic Party make for strange, counter-intuitive bedfellows indeed; and that,

    b) seeing the liberals being appealed to by anyone, in any context, since Obama's inauguration is not an experience I can recall. 

    What I do see, in a seasonally-appropriate, Cratchett -like way, is an attempt to exploit or at least control liberals, hounding them to ratchet Right with the rest of you willing to go in that misguided direction.

    The Ghost of Elections past apparently hasn't done the trick. Nor has the recent appearance of the Ghost of Election present. But maybe the spectre of Election future will finally paint a picture so dire and desperate that people will follow Scrooge's example to open their hearts, however belatedly, before it is too late for so many.  


    by wws on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:23pm

    "Is there a future for moderation, and especially conservatism, in the Democratic Party?"

    We had the majority in 2008, which everybody was so proud of and happy about because we let pro-lifers and proud members of the NRA into the Democratic tent.  I can only recall a smattering of comments here and there decrying this as a bad thing, that this corrupts us as a party (aside from the corruption that comes from campaign financing).  Maybe it does.  And that is the question before me, before you, before every liberal in the party. 

    Do we wish for the time being to become the minority party in name of aligning the members overall to what would be considered a liberal agenda.  Are we willing to lose Montana for the sake of that purity.

    I remember over at TPM when in 2008 or the beginning of 2009 Republicans (as the Tea Party was beginning to rev up) brought up having purity tests.  And the message boards there were blasting it as a purely-Republican thing to do. 

    seeing the liberals being appealed to by anyone, in any context, since Obama's inauguration is not an experience I can recall. 

    On a day that it looks like DADT is going to be repealed, that is an interesting comment.  When the House has passed things like the Public Option, etc. (see Barth's latest blog)  that is an interesting comment. 

    If you don't want to be part of the coalition, that's cool.  Break away.  Or purge away.  What I am curious about -- for I do not have a crystal ball, but merely my speculation -- is what are the consequences for that.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:48pm

    Trope:  First, how can the Democratic party remain -- Democratic, as in the party of advocacy for the people (and not just the uber rich) --  if, in addition to expanding its Centrist views, it also embraces fully conservative views while "purging" its Left??? Really, I simply don't understand that reasoning.  Why not, then, just give up the notion of two discernibly different parties and thereafter have only one party, which ranges from ultra conservative to moderately conservative to centrist? 

    Really, this seems (at least to me) to be what you are suggesting when anyone alludes to "purging" the Left from the party. 

    Second, please look at my phrasing again when I said: "seeing the Liberals being appealed to by anyone, in any context ... is not an experience I can recall."

    What I was trying to stress, Trope, is not what has been passed or defeated but, rather, the fact that the only way liberals have been noted since Obama took office IS TO BE CENSURED; they have not been appealed to, in the sense of being invited to the party; rather, they are now the focus of purging. 

    This is insane. Unless the Republican Party and the "conservative/centrist" Democrats merge. Then and only then might the Left form its own new party, looking for support that I suspect might be had from Independents and Greens to try to address the IMBALANCE that is currently in play.

     


    by wws on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:10pm

    At no point have I advocated purging the left from the Democratic Party.  And the numbers show that they are gaining more control in the Party.  As Gasket pointed out, the Democratic Party in the House is more liberal (yeah!).  As I pointed out, the Democratic Party in the House is in the minority (boo!).

    So the question is to what extent should moderates and conservatives be purged out of the Party when the "numbers" seem to show that in the short term a full out purge would send the Dems into the minority party in DC.

    I can take some time (and maybe I should) and go over some of Obama's speeches, as well as some of the other Democrats.  One can filter everything the WH has said about liberals to Rahm retard comment, and the couple of times the Obama administration has gone after the left wing bloggers/professionals, as well as this last snizzy fit he had.  But I've seen Obama doing his stump speeches (on tv) and to say that the liberals were never appealed to is a tad off base in my humble opinion.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:41pm

    I think you're being obtuse or purposely misleading to recast Trope's argument in terms of a "Liberal purge" when nothing of the sort is contained either in his argumentation or in Democratic Party policy. Quite the contrary, it is Liberals who are talking of purging moderates.


    by Hey Wally on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:57pm

    Thanks for making that clarification, Wally.  I read this post the same way you did, and got confused reading WWS's comment.


    by LisB on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:12pm

    You and Barth both have great blogs up today.  The timing is perfect for them, seeing as how a number of us will be visiting with friends and family next week.  Shall we dare to broach the subject of politics at the dinner table?  If we do, shall we all try to discuss things in a caring, (I hate to say it) compassionate way?  I, for one, intend to try.

     


    by LisB on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:14pm

    Where does one draw the line.  And if one does draw the line, what is the right course of action.  If Aunt Betty makes a homophobic comment, will one's response merely make Aunt Betty more hardened, less likely to have that ephinany?  We don't want to give silent affirmation, at the same time we don't want to create more hatred if can help it.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:47pm

    LisB. Many times, you've mentioned discussions with your more conservative family. You sometimes seem to feel that having these conversations in a caring and compassionate way means... to somehow track toward the middle, with moderate positions and a bi-partisany tone. That sort of thing. And that somehow, to be more progressive or lefty or liberal would be bad for family relations.

    However. Many people - myself included - took the other tack. We actually said, "Screw the mushy middle. I believe XXX." And we justified it because it works better. Or was more Christian. Or principled. Or whatever.

    At the start, 20 years ago, my family was entirely 100% Conservative. They were on the local Conservative steering committees, contributed cash, ran candidates, the whole thing. The whole region was Baptist, and very conservative. 

    Now? There's a couple of conservatives left in the family. But only a couple. The whole region, and the province, has gone... socialist. They skipped right over the Liberals and went Progressive.

    I donno how it works. It's complicated. Each family's different. But I DO want to say that it is not always the case that people have to be moderate Dems in order to talk to Republicans.

    History doesn't show that, and many peoples' families don't show that. 

    Merry Christmas!


    by quinn esq on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:35pm

    Thanks, Quinn.  And a merry Christmas to you and yours as well.  I don't really tack moderate when talking with my family.  They actually consider me to be VERY liberal left.  And they sometimes agree with me on a lot of leftist issues, which helps.  It would take a lot of very long blogs for me to describe all the dynamics at play, but I'll spare you all, LOL. 

    I'd love to read more about YOUR history, though, and how your family and area managed to swing so far left.  It would make a great blog post, Quinn.  Please consider it?

     

     


    by LisB on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:44pm

    I think you're misreading what is going on.

    You have the big-name fundraisers in the party revolting. I.e. deciding they will allocate funds as they see fit rather than outsource it to the DNC. Which, given Obama's proclivities, seems like a smart move on their part. But calling it a 'threat of a purge' is a rather odd way of talking about people retaking control of their money.

    You then have Obama throwing a hissy fit about those moves, once again slamming the 'professional left'. Which seems to mean he has given up on regaining control of those funds.

    And then you have a few minor-league lefty bloggers throwing a hissy fit about Obama's hissy fit.

    But like you note, the polls haven't budged much. And most of the movement there is probably due to the still deteriorating economic situation. If that turns around so will the polls. I don't think Obama's lectures/rants matter much. If the economy doesn't turn around, Obama's approvals will end up in the mid-thirties, like LBJ in '68. And he will be unelectable. In which case, the question won't be

    'to purge or not to purge?'

    but rather

    'who to nominate in his place?'

    Beyond those depressing thoughts, the break between the left and Obama, to the extent the media picks it up, is pretty much a good thing. That way Obama will stop being seen as the extreme left of the national debate, and he can assume that place he has yearned for all along - the non-partisan middle. It is now up to the left to shout loud enough so that the MSM hears them, and, God willing, nudge Obama slightly towards the left out of his so-called political pragmatism.

    I don't see how shutting up and getting in line is going to make him more amenable to moving towards the left. If he can ignore the left, he will. He has no ideological or historical bond with them, and no sympathy for their beliefs and values. The only pressure point the left can exploit is the fear of losing their vote.


    by Obey on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 4:47pm

    The only pressure point the left can exploit is the fear of losing their vote.

    And in losing House and Senate seats at a greater-than-average midterm rate (largely through depressed Democratic voter turnout), the left made its pressure felt in November. By remarkable coincidence, applying that pressure also made any hope of passing a progressive agenda far more remote. Funny how that works.


    by Hey Wally on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:04pm

    The dems lost because ... that is what happens to the majority in midterms. And they lost BIG because their economic policy was a failure on their own terms. The administration said the stimulus would bring U3 down to 8%. It is at 10%. The administration said their management of TARP would restart lending. Bank loans have shrunk 300 billion. The administration said HAMP would clean up the mortgage market. It has just stalled it.

    So, in my book, when you fuck up that bad, you don't get to do the whole 'LET'S BLAME THE LIBERALS' dance.

    You fuck up, you lose the election. That's how democracy works.


    by Obey on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:30pm

    Which is in part because too many voters aren't looking into the details.  Now with the Republicans controlling the House, but the Dems with the White House and the Senate (forget that you need 60 votes to do anything), who do you think will take the brunt of a stalemate (all other things being equal, which of course they won't be)? 

    How much of the blame can be truly placed at the feet of the Republican Party, that put politics ahead of the economic health of the country?  How many people understood what cloture was?  That is democracy in America.  And that is democracy in America going into 2012. 

    So how to proceed going forward in the next two years.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:13pm

    This particular comment of yours made me think of something I read at Crooks and Liars today, on Anthony Weiner:

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/anthony-weiner-lame-duck-ses...

    Look, I think what sometimes my friends in the Senate don't realize is that what they think is regular day to day procedural maneuvering looks to the rest of the country as standing in the way of really letting democracy work.

     

     


    by LisB on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:58pm

    Before the election, I said about 101 times that there'd actually be Bozo's who'd line up after the election, and try to blame it on the liberals and the left. Even though it was the White House who ran the show about as hard towards the moderate/right-wing as they could - from the cabinet and advisors the picked to the issues they priorized to the trade-offs they made to the rhetoric and framing they used right down to the shut down of the grassroots efforts and voices.

    THEY RAN IT YOUR WAY, WALLY. NOT OURS.

    But now that it's raining shit, after doing it YOUR WAY, here you are, ready to blame... us! Apparently, it didn't matter that the White House ran the show IT wanted. IT WAS THE LIBRULS FAULT!

    And when the exit polls said the #1 issue was the economy, and the #1 group the voters blamed for it was WALL STREET.... then obviously, the fault lies with the LIBERALS WHO SAID TO MOVE LEFT AND WHACK WALL STREET!  

    Own it, Wally. You know, accountability, responsibility, all that serious stuff you big grown up moderates believe it. Try some.

    And if you can't do that, have a nice day, playing with your poo kid. 


    by quinn esq on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 5:45pm

    And before the election, I said that it was detrimental to liberal interests to paint the Dems as failures (for only limiting a depression to recession and failing to be progressive enough for left wingnuts) and to depress morale and turnout by advocating (primarily though the youth medium of the internet) that liberals just stay home. If you think Dems lost a historically high number of House seats on the issues alone, I have some "Progressive beanstalk seeds" for sale cheap.


    by Hey Wally on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:00pm

    Dude. It's not "issues." As in.... "Oh those darned "issues." I could just scream about those "issues." Geez, ya know, I'm gonna vote against the Dems because of the "issues."

    Did you just get out of college or something? Grade 8 Civics? 

    It's like this. People are really really really really STRESSED, and HURTING, and BROKE. They're losing houses - by the millions; jobs - by the millions; savings - by the trillions. No need for fancy footwork on "issues" that matter to people like me, like climate change; or even "minority" issues like DADT. Just stick to the bread and butter pain and hardship of life.

    Millions got directly clobbered, and tens of millions suddenly found themselves pressed up against an edge - no more buffers.

    And was there help from the Administration? MAYBE. Personally, I think they needed to go all in, across a half-dozen fronts where they held back and gave us 1/ and 1/4 loaves. And then, their help was really measured against an alternative path which might have been worse. Some of those that clung on, on the dole or in state-funded positions, appreciated that. But for tens of millions of others, who lost their house, or were still shoved up against the likelihood of losing their job, home, insurance, it didn't feel much like help. And having things turn worse for millions to tens of millions of people WILL COST YOU VOTES.

    And if you were gonna argue that that was the best that could be done, and you hoped people would stick by you, ABOVE ALL, you had to keep Bush and Wall Street and Bernanke in the sights right? The guys REALLY to blame. But what did Obama do? He rehired fricking Bernanke! He GOT BETWEEN the pitchforks and Wall Street! And he only kept Bush's name in play as attached to TAX CUTS!  

    So, no, sorry. It's not about "issues." It's about people getting hammered, half-measures not being enough, and politicians too stupid to keep painting it on their opponents. And those were your guys, with your strategy. OWN IT.

    And if you think FireDogLake and GlenG and a handful of people here at Dag sank you millions of voters, then you're worse than a bean-buyer... you're a vegetable.


    by quinn esq on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:33pm

    Right, quinn. Exactly right. And I notice this is the point at which you bailed. Wise move. I read on, more or less, but the scroll wheel was fairly smoking by thread's end. The dialectic continued, and our side ran up the score further, but no minds were changed. What bugged me from the start was that nearly everyone tended to attribute real-life qualities and actions to what are just labels.

    Leftist, progressive, liberal, moderate, centrist, conservative, looney-tune and even independent are simply answers that real people give when pressed to pick one by the guy from Gallup; they aren't rigid categories. Useful shorthand sometimes, but the average voter is liberal on this issue, conservative on that one, etc. And this is a key point: they are changeable. They are open to persuasion. If a serious effort is made to persuade them. That's the rationale for Dean's 50-state strategy, that's what Obama seemed to grasp with "no red states, no blue states." And it's a concept that this White House rushed to abandon. 


    by acanuck on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:17pm

    This isn't just about Obama and getting him re-elected, although there's that.  I agree his re-election chances will turn on the economy.

    This is about the power of the Democratic Party.  As the numbers indicate, to the extent they can be believed, the Republicans are getting more conservative and the indpendents are getting more conservative.  Meanwhile the Democratics are getting more liberal. 

    Maybe the question should simply be this:  If in the primary, the Democrats put in a moderate or even conservative Dem, are you as a liberal going to stay home in protest.  This past election here in Indiana I had the wonderful choice of Coats or Ellsworth. I voted for Ellsworth even though he is about as conservative as they come in the Democratic Party.  (in this case Bayh timed his decision to leave so that it was the Dem Party in Indiana that got to choose the candidate rather than the people).   

    Which leads to another question.  Is the tone of those on the left of the Party such that it alienates the moderates?  Maybe not.  Maybe threatening their votes while talking policy issues, calling the president a coward and such, will bring more moderates into the fold so that if the president is able to get re-elected he will have some kind of coalition to work with in Congress. 

    To think that Nevada can't happen to the Dems is putting one's head in the sand. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:01pm

    Don't know about your 'simple' question. It's gotta be pretty case-by-case.

    Beyond that, there's an argument Genghis put forward some time ago, about the importance of a coherent party presentation. That is, not having Lieberman or Miller types who go crap on the dems at GOP conventions, not having Bayh or Nelson types crapping on core elements of the Dem platform on CNBC. and so on.

    Those people might vote with the Dems marginally more than Snowe or Collins, say. But against the votes gained you need to weigh the harm they do to the Dem brand, and hence to Dem values.

    Actually STANDING FOR SOMETHING, and STANDING TOGETHER for it, may bring in a lot of voters - that famous enthusiasm gap. It may empassion the apathetic voter. And it may convince moderates.

    Favoring mere tinkering and tweaking the economy, as the administration is, seems a losing policy to me. Not just because it won't work, but because given the cataclysm that happened two years ago, it is IMPLAUSIBLE to claim that mere tinkering is all that's required. It's a MODERATE policy, to be sure. But MODERATE policy may not even be convincing to self-described 'moderates' after the fundamentals of the economy have been exposed as being so fragile.

    Dunno. There's a longer, better laid-out version of this argument waiting to be written. Gotta think it through...


    by Obey on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:32pm

    A lot of what you say makes sense to me.  I hope you think it through and put it in a blog. 

    And, yes, ultimately, it is case-by-case, I agree. But another question which one must answer (through speculation, of course) is whether the brand can be turned around in a year and half. Because quite frankly, have the Republicans in complete contol of the levers for even 2 years scares the crap out me.  I think it will make us look back on the Bush years more fondly just as the W. years made us look more fondly upon his father.  In the long run, I think it would be for the best.  And quite frankly I won't shed too many tears to see the like of Senator Nelson tossed out. 

    And in terms of the short run, to what extent, if any, are those in the left crapping on the Democratic brand needlessly. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:46pm

    Great minds think alike, I guess! ;O)

    Read my comments below. I was writing while you were posting.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:44pm


    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:52pm

    Which leads to another question:

    If the electorate is confronted with messaging that is ultra-conservative from the GOP and conservative (if any messaging is offered at all!) from the Dems, just how are we supposed to be surprised that the electorate polls to the right?

    And since when do polls direct the party platform and legislative agenda? In the old days, polls were used simply to measure the success of the messaging that was being promoted. They were NEVER to be used in shaping that message and agenda at its inception for fear that the vagaries of public opinion would result in a mishmash of statements and initiatives that offered no coherence or anything else worthy of the people's support. (see Obama Administration 2008-present to see how well THIS works!)

    I have often thought the Dems might do well to position themselves as the opposition party in a two-party political system. I know. Pretty radical concept, there. Might even muss up their hair. But I don't buy the notion that we must move to a "post-partisan politics" that looks amazingly like a one-party system.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:43pm


    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 6:57pm

    To say that the only messaging come out from the Democrats is conservative messaging is just a bunch of hyperbole.

    And I don't know everything but I think the "opposition party" means you're in the minority.  This may appeal to some romantic notion of being a "radical," but it sure isn't going to get much of accomplished. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:01pm

    Conservative framing may make more sense to you.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:12pm

    And I'm beginning to think "oppositional politics" scares the bejeeberz out of so-called liberals who are otherwise convinced that the GOP are invincible. If we can just get a piece of their action, we are told, we can pave the way to success!

    As to messaging, the Dems message is ... ummmmm ... what, exactly? What was it last week? Or the week before that? How about explaining what the Dems message was going into the mid-terms? {{crickets}}

    Want hyperbole? Try this on for size:

    “Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

    - Samuel Adams

    I consider with contempt those who shrink from political battles, especially in times that so plainly demand such a fight.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:13pm

    I didn't say the Dems had a consistent message (which has a lot to do with the whole broad coalition issue), which is what you were talking about.  You were making the point that the only messaging Dems do is conservative.  It is kind of hard to deal with the situation when people make a point and then run away from it and bring up some other point.  Or throw up more hyperbole as a distraction.  It may help you stay focused to believe that all the messaging is conservative, but it isn't true. 

    Here is one little tidbit easily found from Obama when he going after Boehner just before the election.

    Instead of coming together like past generations did to build a better country for our children and grandchildren, their argument is that we should let insurance companies go back to denying care for folks who are sick, or let credit card companies go back to raising rates without any reason. Instead of setting our sights higher, they’re asking us to settle for a status quo of stagnant growth and eroding competitiveness and a shrinking middle class.

    I could go on, but I won't. 

    And you switch from "oppositional party" to "oppositional politics" which are not exactly the same thing.  Again, avoiding the issue of what are the consequence of the Republicans in the majority. 

    Now if you want to offer an actual realistic path by which liberals can on their own gain control in DC I'm all ears.  If you can show the path for liberals in places like Montana, Florida, Missouri, North Dakato, and Ohio without the help of the moderates and even conservatives within the party I;m all ears. 

    If in the name of purity we get 60 Republican senators in 2012 - what will you do with your contempt?


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:53pm

    And the quote you highlighted? That was, what, a statement that was supported for how long in a fight to gain the Obama Tax Cuts in defiance of the GOP's talking points about Tax Cuts for the Wealthy? Or maybe it was in support of Dem talking points explaining that the Insurance Industry is not our friend?

    You make my point PRECISELY by highlighting a one-off statement from the Prez that was never included in a coherent message upon which voters could rally around.

    And your hair-splitting about "oppositional party" versus "oppositional politics" is almost laughable for its absurdity - unless, of course, your position is that a political party should avoid political conflict. Ok, I take your point, but I don't agree.

    You continue to insist that the business of politics is the cynical maneuvering to adopt whatever the flavor-of-the-day is in the policies and initiatives required to chase votes. That hasn't worked out so well for the country (or even the Democrats!), in the event you haven't noticed.

    I guess I think it's time to try something different, like presenting as Democrats in Washington as leaders actually interested in LEADING the country out of its presently precarious state. Who knows? It just might work! But we'll never know until we try, and God knows these Dems have left us with nothing else to lose.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:59pm

    I never argued with you about the lack of coherent message.  It has always been a problem for the Democrats as a whole.  In large part because they are a broad coalition.  Break up the coalition, you'll get a more cohesive message.  The question is whether this will lead, in the short term, to majorities or minorities.  And when we look at the numbers, one has to say there is a risk that it will lead to minorities.  If you want to run that risk, fine. But I think one should acknowledge the risk. 

    What I was arguing was that every message is a conservative message. 

    (The opposition party is the party in the minority. Oppositional politics can be employed by both those in the majority and minority.  And there is time for oppositional politics.  Like DADT today.  And I would say there have been times when I wanted Obama and the Dems to be more oppositional.)

    And I am not saying that it is cynical maneuvering to adopt flavor-of-the-day (which is would imply that the People are just leaves in the wind).  I am saying that in order to sustain a coalition which includes Democrats who range from conservative to liberal, there has to be a lot of give and take. And if one takes a look at it from a national perspective, the liberals are going to tend to be the loser since they are the minority at the moment. 

    Of course, one can take the position that it is better to be in the minority and more aligned with liberal values and principles. Now I think we could do stay in the hunt without the conservatives for the most part.  But the moderates are a necessity.

    And if want to roll out the candidates which will make you happy, I'm sure I'll support them.  But right now I don't see to many poised to run in 2012.  And whether we like it or not, there are the elected "leaders" who will be dealing with the direction of the country for the next two years poised for (in)action.  How do we get the Republicans (and the conservative/corrupt Dems) to play ball? They threw a wrench into everything and voters repaid the Republican with victories. 

    I know, I know oppositional politics.  Which given the Republican control of the House means stalemate.  I don't think we can afford that (no pun intend).  I think stalemate plays still to the Republican side and will only facilitate more victories for them.  And then we're really screwed.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:33pm

    Way to go, SJ!

    Gasket also makes a good point:

    You have no idea what the outcome of that turn is going to be because you have no idea how the Progressive Caucus will play their cards!

    The Blue Dogs FAILED. That's right. They FAILED. Those who retained their seats now get a muted voice in the public discourse.

    Had more progressive legislation passed in terms of the stimulus and health care reform, for two examples, the outcomes of both might well have been much better than they are now, and more moderates would be leaning left.

    Also, there is this in Gallup's analysis:

    Although the percentage of conservatives among U.S. adults averaged 40% in 2010, it varied slightly during the year, peaking at 42% in the second quarter (after a 41% reading in the first quarter), in the first few months after passage of the landmark healthcare reform act. The conservative ID subsequently fell to 40% and 39% in the third and fourth quarters, and will bear watching in 2011.

    With the new tea partiers in place, taking no prisoners, I'm betting the media will be way more focused on the civil war within the Republican party than anything going on with the Democrats in 2011.

     


    by seashell on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:12pm

    Thanks, seashell. Keep the faith!


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:15pm

    It's not clear from the graphs or the analysis that moderates have gone from 44% to 39% because they left the party or because they became more liberal. The percentage of liberals soared while the percentage of moderates declined modestly in the same time periods.

    That seems like the question that really needs to be asked and answered first.


    by seashell on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:42pm

    That is a good question.  But one expect that if this was the case on a significant level that there would some uptick in the overall number of people who consider themselves liberal.  I can't see someone saying I'm a liberal democrat on one poll and then turning around calling themselves moderate if given the choice between liberal, moderate, and conservative.  It's possible, but I think highly unlikely.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:51pm

    For what it's worth, I have personally made it clear for several years in various blog discussions that I do not self-identify as a "liberal".   Criticism of classical liberalism has been a staple of the discourse on the left for at least 100 years, so I suspect there are many others like me.

    My personal political priorities are in the direction of creating a more equal and democratic society, with stronger bonds of social obligation and a strong political commitment to social and community values in organizing our economy.  Liberals are people who are all about individual freedom and personal expression and personal liberation.  But, as for me at least, I don't want to be liberated from anything.  I just want our government to stop sucking, and to get to work on building our society and future.  I want a strong activist government that relies on the force of law to mobilize the organizational potential of society, to build broad prosperity and to level social inequality

    So I think it is a mistake for pollsters to continue to harp on identification with "liberalism" as a measure of the prevalence of left.

    During the recent debate, polls showed overwhelming public opposition to extending tax cuts for the most wealthy members of our society.  Many of the people opposed to the extension of those cuts do not at all identify themselves as "liberal".  Nevertheless, this majority preference was defeated by the organized power of the extremely wealthy, and the bi-partisan governing coalition they rule.

    There is also nothing at all "moderate" about the obsequious slavishness of this governing coalition, unless "moderate" just means the same thing as "in conformity to the preferences of the most powerful."   Most of the prominent so-called "moderates" in the media now complaining about the left are people who have a lot of money, and who don't want the amjority of the country to get organized well enough to take it away.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:21am

    Go read Barth's latest blog and it will explain why we didn't get the health care and the stimulus we wanted.  And now the situation is even worse.  Your strategy may be hoping for the media focusing on some civil war between the tea partiers and the establishment Republicans to save the day.  I'm not holding my breath.  It will impact some of the races, but not all of them.  In my opinion we got lucky in Delaware and Nevada.  That may not happen again.  Can retake Teddy's seat back?  Can liberals alone do that? I'm not convinced of that.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:46pm

    I hate to be the one to break it to ya. It's Dec. 2010 ... the way our election cycles work, the time for questions such as these has either past or is over a year in the future (depending on how one looks at it). As such, the premise seems to be an elaborate strawman improperly equating the valid expression of individual political desire and dissatisfaction with policy outcomes in the course of post-electoral governance with a procedurally impossible purity purge ... seeming to imply anyone who doesn't toe the line and cheer Obama's crappy deal is guilty of unreasonable behavior and should just STFU. Nice trick that.

    Truth is, it is time to stop advocating corporatist crap-policy at the expense of the middle class and critical social infrastructure that sustains us. It's rubber hitting the road time. If Democrats don't pull it together by Jan. 2012 ... THEN it's time to start talking about a purge. The decision of the Democratic rank-and-file to act as uncritical enablers or to put real pressure on their elected leaders is a measure of how the party as a group face their responsibility to the the rest of the nation who trusted them with their votes. At this point in the cycle, anyone who isn't fighting for the strongest outcome on behalf of the majority of non-billionaire Americans is simply part of the problem.


    by kgb999 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:13pm

    First. This is exactly the time to be dealing with this question because the question is who belongs in the tent.  We don't wait until 2011 to decide personally we don't pro-lifers (who may otherwise be social-policy-wise liberal) to be a Democrats.  We need to be in recruitment mode NOW and it would be good if, on an individual level, whether we ask that pro-lifer to join us or not join us.  Moreover, there are going to plenty of moments between now and 2011 where we can draw a line and stand our ground, or compromise on what might be considered the moderate way to go.  We need, on personal level, to decide whether it is in the liberal interest to compromise or not.

    The idea of a purge is of course (or at least I assumed people would get it) not a literal purge, but rather one which occurred through the discourse, individuals becoming alienated by an increasingly liberal stance, just as some republicans left the party as it went for more purity.

    Now how do you propose an anti-corporate policy that doesn't alienate all the moderates that work for corporations.  Let's hear your pitch.  Because where I'm living, aside from the university and hospital (and dang if those doctors aren't hardcore republicans), its the corporations who are paying the paychecks for most of the middle class.  If you think anyone who is "non-billionaire" is ready for a revolution (and especially when it comes to those who actually vote) then I have a bridge to sell ya.  Because most of them just want to it go back to good old days, which was all about booming bubbles and flat screen tvs. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:36pm

    The vast majority of Americans supported letting the tax cuts for the rich expire. Only 26% supported extending them for everyone. Just this week, 70% of Americans polled support BANNING BONUSES AT WALL STREET BANKS ... except among Republicans who favor such a ban by 76%. You are living in a fantasy world that ignores every hard number out there. The problem isn't the conservative membership of the caucus. It may serve some meta-purpose, but ignoring the clear numbers indicating a solid populist middle-class agenda would be popular across the entire political spectrum sure isn't helping either your own party nor America.

    The problem isn't that some Democrats are pro-life and up front about it. The problem is that some Democrats are governing through secret meetings with republicans where 99% of all legislators are cut out of the process of crafting legislation. It is resulting in horrible policy that is terrible for America and Americans while looking nothing like what Democrats claim to stand for. The congressional Blue Dogs who's knees were chopped out from under them last election were members of the caucus that delivered a Public Option - they weren't too conservative - Obama left them out to dry and hung them with death-panels (as he had secretly agreed the go along with defeating the policy).

    So to me you are asking the wrong question. The real question is how does the Democratic party deal with a faction, led by Barack Obama, that doesn't believe in democracy and is imposing their minority view on the party majority by betraying their own team and working on behalf of the Republicans?


    by kgb999 on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:13am

    This is good Trope.  A chance to draw some lines.  So here's the invitation: 

    Dear Pro-Lifer,

    You are cordially invited to join the big tent that is the Democratic Party.  We welcome your vote and will work tirelessly to promote policy that benefits Working class Americans, aka you.  However, please be advised that a woman's right to choose is not negotiable.  Ever.

    Sincerely,

     


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:22am

    I don't know, KGB, I don't think any time is the wrong time to bring up questions such as these. 


    by LisB on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:37pm

    OK. So just say the rhetorical answer is, yes! Time for a purge. So. Now what? We can't purge. That's not really how it works. The election was barely a month ago. We elect. We tell our reps what we expect. We yell at them when we think they do it crappy, send a nice email or make a quick call when they do it right ... and figure it all out again in another two years.

    Ultimately, an electorate behaving such as Trope and the "don't ever be mean to Obama" crowd are behaving just make a purge into somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy IMO. But it isn't internal anymore. You guys are on the big stage. When the purge happens it won't be one faction or other purging their rival from the Democratic party, it will be the Democratic party being purged from power for not pleasing the electors. The only thing that matters at this point is how YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS complete their duties - not how the liberals react.

    Where party members decide to place pressure over the next two years will determine the outcomes in 2012. If you spend the energy browbeating liberals for not embracing right-wing centrism instead of browbeating elected officials for passing crap, ultimately you've got to lie in the bed you make for yourself. Independents are not liberals. If the elected officials are behaving in a way that gets your complete support and the independents tell Democrats to go pound sand in the next election, that will be a failure of your point of view not that of the liberals. The 2010 election was a crushing defeat to Democratic centrism - the party can't blame liberals for the outcome of doubling-down on failure. When the inevitable happens, put blame where it belongs: centrists cramming through policies that were never honestly placed before the electorate.

    But we're talking about pressure here not purging. Since "purge" is genuinely not a valid tool at this point in the process, do you think Democratic voter's energy is better spent pressuring congresspeople/Obama to fight harder for better outcomes or heaping pressure on other Democratic voters for daring to express dissatisfaction and focusing on getting better outcomes from congresspeople/Obama?

     


    by kgb999 on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:01am

    I think that all of us working together as a whole, and working separately on our own communities, in the next two years, would be a good compromise.

    You bring up good points in your comment, KGB, and I agree with a lot of them.  We're not in disagreement here. 


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:54am

    Maybe this will clarify things:

    Picasso said "Every act of creation is first an act of destruction."

    or maybe this


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:17pm

    Lovely version of this.  Laurie is still new to me, thanks to you and at least two other friends who've turned me onto her.  This is a nice homemade cover.  Appreciate it.

     


    by LisB on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:44pm

    Well stated another trope. As someone living in an area where in the last election the majority of positions on our ballot were uncontested Republicans, I well understand the need for a more moderate tone and position. I don't hold out hope for most conservatives* to understand a more practical stance but it helps with independents and those who are either a moderate Republican or Democrat.

    * I only mention conservatives in this statement because honestly there are not enough liberals here where I live for me to begin to know how they will react. Although the 5 weeks I have been here have been an education that has not always been, shall we say, pleasing. I didn't expect this.


    by emerson on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:27pm

    As I've mentioned on other threads, I went from the liberal epi-centers of the Northwest to Indiana, and yes it is an adjustment. I mean, is this really the same country?  the same nation?  And just recently I was talking to some of the few "bleeding-heart liberals" I know, and Gitmo came up and I was suddenly talking to a couple of Jack Bauers.  I mean, what do you say when an otherwise liberal person says they should drop a nuke the middle east (this person has family members currently serving over there, and is all for bringing all the troops home, as long as we blast 'em into obliviion).  I tried my best, but I could see the scowl as soon as mentioned the word "innocent" as in there some innocent one caught in the crossfire.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:37pm

    I imagine that would be unnerving to have someone express those views especially if you thought they had the same world view as you.

    I think I didn't express myself well in my last sentence of the above post. I think it sounds like I am saying I have lived here in this conservative area for 5 weeks. Alas, it has been much longer. I meant my 5 weeks here at this site has opened my eyes about how some liberals think and their pov.


    by emerson on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:44pm

    I meant my 5 weeks here at this site has opened my eyes about how some liberals think and their pov.

    Isn't that a good thing?  


    by seashell on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:19am

    Yeah, to a certain extent. I have been surprised by some things though. But that is life. I like hearing about how other people "see" the world so overall my experience could be described as good and certainly educational.


    by emerson on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:35am

    I don't even understand what this post is about.

    Purge?  This is America.  If one wants to register as a member of a political party, nobody in that party can kick you out.

    But obviously people are going to fight to have their political ideals prevail in their own party and in the country.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:28am

    I suggest reading through the comments, then.  All of them. 

     


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:31am

    I've read most of them.  But nothing I have read or could read can alter the fact that it is literally impossible to "purge" people from the Democratic Party.

    On the other hand, some people might feel like their views are in the minority in the party.  And they might feel that if only the majority changed their own views so that they matched the views of the minority, then the minority might not feel like such a minority.

    Still, I think it is a little humorous that the post was occasioned by mopey rant by a NYT author whose moderate poisitions were just endorsed by the President of the United States, and enacted into law by the US Congress, but who nevertheless feels persecuted by the left - the same left whose positions did not prevail and who lost both the legislative battle and the battle for the political support from the President of the United States.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:46am

    At no point did the term "persecuted" cross my mind on the number of times I read his passages.  I would like to know which sentence(s) led you to derive he felt persecuted by the left.  What he was pointing out that in short term, the left is an ideological minority and if it alienates those outside itself, it will be in a position of powerlessness. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:57am

    If a person feels like he is being "purged" from a party even though nobody has taken away his party membership, or is threatening to take away his party membership, then I would say he suffers from persecution anxiety.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:25am

    I just don't see where Blow implies that he feels he being purged from the Party.  As far as I know he is could be a Republican or an independent, and has no desire to be a Democrat.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:32am

    Well, the title of your post implies that some "moderates" feel they are being purged.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:47am

    Yeah, but we're all the same party, dammit.  That's what gets me.  We're all the same party.  I don't care which side of our party is in the minority and which is not.  I just care that we're in the same party. 

    I love the arguments everyone makes with Trope and I and others....when they are kept civil, that is.  I love learning more about what you all care about so much.  I do. 

    Why can't we all keep this going?  Together.  Talking, formulating, growing.  We need, very much, as a party, to do this.  Trope doesn't want any purging any more than I do.  I thought his point was to show that the liberalist leftist of the liberal left wants to purge us moderates.  Not that we want to purge the liberalist of the leftist.

    If I'm wrong, I'm sure Trope will correct me.  And if the liberalist leftist of the left doesn't want to purge us out, then yay!  We're happy to stay and talk and try to move our shared party forward with you. 

    It's all good, yes?

     


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:58am

    Come on. You mean to tell me that you haven't heard how the Republicans have "purged" the moderates from their party of the past decades? Obviously I'm not talking about a Stalinist purge.  I'm talking about both a "purge" through primaries and by a more subtle alienating process where by those who see themselves as moderate and conservative believe they are welcomed in the party and have a role to play.  In a country as diverse as the U.S. which has only two parties that are in general "in play" - the question of where the moderates go is a big question.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:36am

    I don't understand this attitude.  The Republican right didn't "purge" any Republican moderates.  Right-wing views simply grew in popularity within the Republican Party.  Obviously that is going to make people whose views used to be more popular within the party, but whose popularity is now in decline, feel less happy, comfortable and accepted.  If they want to reverse that trend, then they are going to have to figure out how to persuade more people and grow the popularity of their own views.

    This is politics we're talking about.  No one has a sacred right to feel loved and appreciated within their party.  We all have to struggle for political victory if we want our views to prevail.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:56am

    Tea Partiers are purging the most moderate Republicans out of the Repub base, or have you not heard about that?

     


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:59am

    They are not "purging" moderates.  They are just - in some parts of the country at least -  winning the battle of ideas within their party.  Nobody has had their party membership revoked.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:28am

    WTF?

    http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yhs-avgb&type=yahoo_avg_hs2-tb-web_us&...

     

     


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:30am

    I repeat, nobody has had their party membership revoked.

    Since when is losing an election a case of being "purged"? 


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:45am

    I think you're missing the point of all of this.  But then again, Anna thinks I'm missing the point of her Peggy Lee video.  So maybe this would be a good time for me to go to bed. 

    Good night to you all.  Much love,

    Lis

     


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:59am

    Okay i'll be a little more blunt.  In American politics, we purge through the primaries.  We purge democratically so to speak.  In this way folks like McDonnell and Angle are able to assume their role as the torchbearer for their party, pushing aside more centerist, relatively speaking, candidates.  (or we could purge the more extreme elements for the centrists). 

    So if you had the choice between a more liberal candidate who was a long shot to win the general election and a centrist (or conservative) who had a good chance to win the general election, which would you chose?


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:04am

    My usual approach is to support the most left-wing candidate who I think has a realistic chance of winning. 

    But I don't focus so much on elections as I do on the arguments that take place between elections.  I try to argue people into supporting my views.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:34am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRZZC-DH7M


    by anna am on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:12am


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:21am

    Well it's hard to just keep dancing after that one.  You took my ridiculous to the sublime. 


    by anna am on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:33am

    now if i just get it go to key lime (pie).


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:43am

    I want apple.  With ice cream on top. 

    Did you save your fork?

     


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:56am

    Beautiful song.  Sad little heartbreaking video. 

    Until I met you, I had no idea who Nick Cave was.  In this song, he almost sounds like Neil Diamond.  And I don't mean that as a diss.  I love Neil Diamond's earlier work.  :)

     


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:37am

    Hee.  I didn't know who she was until my early twenties, when I hung out a local (kinda seedy) bar next to the train station.  I found her depressing as hell.

    Still do. 

    Mama Cass, though.....now that woman had some lungs.  AND a happy attitude.

    ;)

     


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:32am

    I think you missed my point.


    by anna am on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:35am

    LOL, Anna, I miss everybody's point.  Hee.

     


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:38am

    A PERFECT ENDING TO THIS BLOG.   Cool


    by we are stardust on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 10:54am

    Laughing

    Amen.


    by LisB on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 11:18am

    Latest Comments