Skip to main content

View Diary: Time for Liberals to Go on the Offensive, and Stay There (254 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  there was a day when such politicians existed (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ardyess, melo, Troubadour, prfb, Matt Z

    In fact they didn't begin to fade away until Nixon won and the popular wisdom held that pragmatism and conservatism was the only way to be elected. Democrats were stunned by the backlash among whites to the anti-war and civil rights movements. Democrats decided their losses were because of the dirty fucking hippes and began to cave in on issues like "law and order" and "a strong defense" so they could appear tough. From then until now democrats have been on the defensive and moving right to shore up their flank among the white majority.

    Republicans were bolstered by their new found 'southern strategy' and the defection of the 'hard hats' away from the democratic party. They watched with glee as white working class americans began switch sides and vote against their own interests. Many unions were tepid on civil rights and supported the war in Viet Nam. Republicans became the pary of 'strength' and 'ideas' while the democrats were weak on defense, drugs and all things patriotic.

    But remember how different the electorate was back then, white votes controlled national elections and where they went so went the country. Today things are greatly changed, America is a much more diverse country and getting more diverse every election. Many working class white voters are realizing they were sold a bill of goods and want change. A unity is building on the left.

    Now, today, a politician like the diarist discribes can step forward and find a following as Elizebeth Warren is proving. It's time for a Democratic populist to come out onto the national stage and stand up for working people. Pro-union, pro-woman, pro-equality. It's time for the 99% to take back control of this nation!

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Sat Apr 07, 2012 at 09:54:49 PM PDT

    •  Democrats weren't stunned by anything. (0+ / 0-)

      Democrats took the pragmatic road and decided to go along to get along.  They chose the lesser of two evils.  Over and over, and over. So many times that their choices are rapidly becoming indistinguishable from evil. And that's why we're having this discussion now.  I don't think in any way that Obama is evil.  But the choices forced on him,by your own description of the way that Democrats have continually voted for the lesser of two evils, are evil.  Many of us see this arch of history and say that we must stop this.  And yet you demand that we continue to vote for the lesser of to evils, without recognizing that every time you demand this you force yet another choice of evil on this president.
      Thank god for Elizabeth Warren.  So far no one is demanding that she chose the lesser of two evils.  But you can damn well guarantee that someday they will.  Will you be backing her up when she's in that hard place? Or will you be telling her to take the lesser of two evils?

      •  Stop it with that "lesser of two evils" shit. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        v2aggie2, Matt Z

        It's a lie.  A minority of Democratic leaders are corrupt.  The remainder do their jobs to the best of their abilities, and do them far better than quixotic colleagues who never accomplish anything because they're politically incompetent.  What I'm saying is that our leaders should understand that they have a lot more to gain rising above their immediate political context and recognizing that they can drag things in a better direction without becoming one of those silly types who are ignored.

        Technology is a compromise: You can use whatever tool you choose, but be assured it will use you back.

        by Troubadour on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 04:56:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're right Trou. (0+ / 0-)

          Did you mean to reply to me?  Because I've been replying to others who keep bringing up the Lesser argument, using the terms they've chosen.  Hoping to get them to see how ultimately bankrupt and long term destructive their argument is.  Guess I didnt succeed. Sorry.  That lesser of two evils argument always infuriates me, because at heart it's a demand that we all sit down and shut up, and take what we can get (without trying very hard), AND be happy about it-at least enough to vote for the same thing again.  You want to know the most frustrating thing of all for me?  I will vote for Obama again.  Because he IS better than the alternative, and the alternative terrifies me right down to my toes.  But, by god, I'm not going to sit down and shut up and take what ever centrist crap they continue to dish out.  I'm going to be doing everything I can to drag our party back into the light of real liberalism.  And I will be speaking to those incompetent , and/or corrupt Dems , demanding that they do better, trying to make them understand that they have more to gain by rising above.  I have no arguement with you brother!

          •  you don't understand either Troubadour nor I (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour, Matt Z

            Neither of us made the 'lessor of two evils" argument, you just dreamed it up. btw, can't you see the diaarist and I agree on these matters? He's corrected you twice but you can't seem to understand what he says. I said this...

            Democrats were stunned by the backlash among whites to the anti-war and civil rights movements
            and somehow you translated that into your lessor of two evils argument. What I said is true, I was there and lived it. That's why the diarist corrected you and requested you stop making a spurious argument. Get it?

            Now go back and read what I really said and you'll find that I'm agreeing with the diarist in both comments. I merely explained it with some historical data before saying this...

            Now, today, a politician like the diarist discribes can step forward and find a following as Elizebeth Warren is proving. It's time for a Democratic populist to come out onto the national stage and stand up for working people. Pro-union, pro-woman, pro-equality. It's time for the 99% to take back control of this nation!

            America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

            by cacamp on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 10:31:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, it was well before Nixon. (0+ / 0-)

      Kennedy ran on a platform of Red baiting and paranoia over "bomber gaps" and "missile gaps," and once in office he initiated the first post-New Deal tax cuts for rich people.

      Technology is a compromise: You can use whatever tool you choose, but be assured it will use you back.

      by Troubadour on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 04:57:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yep, but the real retreat began after Nixon (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour

        Before that democrats had a winning coalition which included the "solid south" block of democratic states. That began to crumble in 1948 with the dixiecrat convention walkout. But the civil rights movement really put the kibosh to it as Johnson correctly predicted when he pushed through the civil rights legislation. Nixon was able to capitalize on both that and the backlash to the anti-war movement along with the hippes stereotype. That began the democratic party retreat.

        Then the democratic coalition was broken and the south began to move into the GOP fold. It took decades and even today one can find remanents of it in the south where old line white democrats still hold power but it's becoming very rare. In the north Nixons "silent majority" became the "Reagan Democrats" and the democratic party was in full retreat from everything they had once stood for and believed. It really culminated in Clintons cry of surrender "the era of big government is over!".

        America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

        by cacamp on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 10:49:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He lowered the top marginal rate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour

        actually he proposed it but LBJ was the one who signed it into law - it was after JFK was killed. The new legislation also, however, closed some loopholes the richest took advantage of.

        liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

        by RockyMtnLib on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 11:44:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (158)
  • Community (73)
  • Baltimore (70)
  • Bernie Sanders (50)
  • Freddie Gray (39)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • Elections (28)
  • Culture (26)
  • Racism (24)
  • Labor (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Media (19)
  • 2016 (17)
  • Science (16)
  • Environment (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site