I saw this little shindig flaring up over at Donkey With a Trunk between dannyboy and donkey sans trunk Not Just the Liberal Party and wanted to counter with a little George Lakoff, student of the famed Naom Chomsky, and see what the greater RK community thinks on the issue.
In summary, dannyboy is (in a continuing theme on his blog) arguing that liberals are "party purists" are going to destroy the newly won Democratic Majority on the Hill. How? By challenging centrist and conservative Democratic members (presumably in primaries; it's not made entirely clear). dannyboy finishes with
"Go ahead and do as some suggest and challenge these Democrats. You'll regret it, I promise you."
Along comes donkey sans trunk (anon) who in a medium-diary sized comment argues
But here's the thing, we are ONE Party. We can fight during primaries and we can fight (or count votes and see how many get to defect on each bill) in the Caucus room, but once we get to the floor we should all stand for the same common values.
Still waiting on dannyboy's response to being told he would still be allowed to "hug the tree while no one was looking".
While we wait on that let's get into the meat of this discussion.
Dannyboy argues that only 45.6% of the Democratic base is "liberal". After googling his source (no link was provided, just "a 2005 Pew poll") it becomes apparent that the poll is simply bad science.
It breaks the D's into three groups. By just looking at the very definitions of each subgroup threats to the validity of this survey become immediately apparent.
The counter point: In No Center, No Centrists Lakoff (writing only 7 days before dannyboy) argues that it is not about liberal or conservative it is about being progressive (Lakoff and donkey sans trunk seem to think in the same vein).
Lakoff begins with:
"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it...progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place...Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.
His argument that follows is in fact brilliant. Democrats do not need to move to the center (remember, it doesn't even really exist) because American values at their very core are progressive. (emphasis added)
Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas - the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...The progressive view of government is simple. Progressive government has two aspects: protection and empowerment.
(go below the fold for further expansion)
I don't want to crib the whole article, so click on over to No Center, No Centrists to read the masterpiece in its entirety.
If anyone else asks me why I am Progressive I will simply send them the following reference (again, emphasis added).
The progressive view of government is simple. Progressive government has two aspects: protection and empowerment. Protection is far more than the military, police, and fire departments. It includes consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, public health, food and drug safety; social security, and other safety nets. It also includes protection from the government itself, and hence a balance of powers, openness, fundamental rights, and so on.Empowerment include roads and bridges; public education; government-developed communications like the internet and satellite communications systems; the banking system; the SEC and institutions that make a stock market possible, and the court system, mostly about contracts and corporate law. Progressive government makes business possible. No one makes any money in this country without the progressive empowerment by government. A progressive foreign policy is not based solely, or even mainly, on the state - about the "national interest" defined as our military strength and GDP. Progressive foreign policy focuses on individual people's interests as well as national interests: on poverty, disease, refugees, education, women's and children's issues, public health, and so on.
These are simply American values. The progressive movement is a patriotic American movement. People who call themselves "centrists" share progressive views on important issue areas, but have conservative views on other major issue areas. The areas vary from person to person. There is no single moral perspective, no single set of agreed upon issues.
"Progressive" describes an idea. An idea that things can be better, that government does in fact serve the people and per above government can protect and empower. As such, not pinned down by circumstances but can adapt to be consistently improving quality of life.
Ironically, conservatives out there can ask their friends at the IMF and World Bank how hard it is to get foreign capital into a country with a weak judicial system or little to no rule of law.
Now, I am not a Conservative Democrat, though many have labeled me so. I like the term moderate because it's very fluid, and doesn't force me into any set of beliefs. Now, the argument about "passionate beliefs" is correct: I do tend to get passionate about economic populism, while still tending to get passionate on some conservative social issues. Some issues I'm liberal on, some I'm conservative. There it is, plain and simple. I like health care, social security, and economic fairness. I don't like gun control, drug legalization, amnesty, and restriction-free abortion. So maybe Centrist IS a better term than moderate. I will be sure to use that more often.
Second, not ALL liberals are out to get us non-liberals. Progressive Liberals, including many here, are very supportive of big tent. That's one of the major reasons I respect people like Lowell and Chris: they understand that in order to keep a majority you're going to have to allow some of us with different beliefs to play with your team. For example, on the link that Alice provided a link to, and which my post was a response to, RICK BOUCHER is listed as too conservative, and ripe for a primary challenge. Are you freaking kidding me? Many of the seats mentioned could not be held by a more liberal Democrat. Think about it; Alabama, Mississippi, etc. These are RED states. I mean REALLY red. To hold on these house seats, we have to be willing to accept more centrist Democrats. Those who are unwilling to, and insist on putting these men through a primary, will see these seats fall to Republicans.
The post, and my anger, was directed at those calling for primary challenges at those very same leaders. It is no better than what the GOP is doing now in Virginia by hunting down all those at the center of their own party. Of course, it always looks different on the other end of the scale. After all, the GOP is tossing out what few "Progressive Republicans" (if there is such a thing) it had. That sounds so much worse than tossing out "Conservative Democrats."
As for the idea of all standing for "common values", I think on many important issues we do. However, if you want to kick Democrats out of the party because they disagree with commonly-held party values, allows me to point out that we would not hold Senate majority. Heck, even our Majority Leader has a pro-Life record!
My belief is that there is room for everyone in this Party. Would I like to see a larger shift towards the center? I think the Blue Dog Caucus, and many Dems in the Senate, have already done that. I think we should play to the district. If you guys want to run a more liberal candidate in an aea where a liberal can win, by all means go for it. You guys are, after all, the larger faction of the party. But you have to be willing to admit that sometimes its in the party's, and many times the country's, best interest to allow a more centrist Democrat to run. And don't forget, many Americans that are Democratic voters don't consider themselves liberals, and it is because of them that many issues like the minimum wage and the 9/11 commission have finally been addressed.
P.S. - If you're looking for me to "hug a tree", you may be waiting a while. Don't get me wrong, I love the environment. But maybe we should spend more time researching alternative energy than cuddling with flora. :)
If you would like another poll, go to this one. It's a little more in your style, I think.
If you want to play the link game, you have written some pretty hateful stuff that we can post.
I unfortunately do not have time to respond in full but this is the point. You need to relax son. The only Democrats kicked out of the Party through primaries were Lieberman and Lambert. Lieberman was more than just Iraq he was about not giving the Bush administration the cover of a senior Democrat who really didn't match the Party members of his state (ergo the primary loss). Benny...well that one's obvious.
Here's a little humor to lighten up the scene since you like traitors (or is it insurgents? Whatever you call people that fight against the republic)
Umm... that's a joke, right? Just making sure...
Critical? Sure. Hateful? I don't think so.
I understand that Joe and Benny were kicked out because of primaries. My problem was with a post claiming that we need to kick out more. That's what the entire argument was based around!
In fact, the only recent post I can think of that I've written was aimed at Mr. Markos himself.
2) It was the 3rd paragraph in the above link that I thought was a little much it seemed to paint with a bit of a wide brush.
3) go back and read my original post. I didn't lob a single attack at your. I did attack your source and conclusions but that's not really you personally.
4) My post was originally going to be something along the lines of
Did Pew really publish something that describes liberals as "secular and anti-war" period dot nothing else and create a subgroup of D's described as "social welfare loyalists"?
4) Ok, so going back to the original intent of actually having this debate...
I not only am OK with but in fact encourage EVERYONE to vote Democratic. The question is at what point do D's start to lose their identity as a NATIONAL Party or collective of citizens with common interests? I'm clearly not suggesting that every Democrat who ran in the Midwest or South should be a Feinstein/Ted Kennedy super-clone.
We all understand the importance of district relevant candidates but within the structure of a unified train of thought. To use history as an example -again, we're not attacking you- the Dixiecrats and Wallace are an example of people not representing the values of the party. Or for a more recent example; how the two founding members of the Blue Dogs D's, Billy Tauzin and Jimmy Hayes, eventually swapped teams and formally became R's.
Clearly we both agree with Lakoff that Protection and Empowerment are key elements of the Democratic Party; we just apply them differently. Economic protection and empowerment we're both in the same lane (I'm using your own description of your stances found here)
It's when it comes to people that we split and you begin to diverge from the party. This may or may not be a bad thing. But in essence when it comes to choice I believe life begins at actual birth so the fetus has no relevance leaving the burden on us to protect the woman's rights against an intrusive government. You believe life begins before birth and as such are protecting the rights of what you feel to be an equivalent human being. I don't think you hate women or your evil just that your beliefs diverge from our Party's historical position. Guns: just use common sense on both sides of debate and I'm fine.
We diverge the most on civil-rights. Today the fight is over homosexual marriage, 50 years ago it was interracial, and before that inter-Religious. How will our grandchildren look at us? Did we stand on the side of the oppressed (as Jesus is quoted in the bible as telling us to do) or the oppressors? Speaking of which, displaying the ten commandments in a public building: keep in mind I'm a catholic but it just doesn't jive in government owned building where people may have no choice but to enter; such as a Courthouse or DMV. I'm sure you wouldn't like to be sentenced by a judge declaring that he/she was basing their decision on a god that you did not worship and imposing moral judgments based on scriptures that differed from yours.
So here it is the DPVA's Issues page can you agree with the preponderance of that? I know you're a good Democrat and run big in VT Dem circles. I never meant to question your commitment to the Party. But if the DLC or Blue Dogs ever take control of the DNC or the DPVA then my party will have left both me and its roots and that is what us Progressives are trying to prevent.
Sorry about the "traitor" thing. I wasn't sure if that was a jab or not. If it's all fun and games, then I'm sorry for taking it seriously! :)
(And Danny, no cowardly anonymous blogger did anything to you on that thread. I called you "deep as ever", and you went and called someone who wasn't even there an idiot. So quit your whining.)
As for the anonymous attack, here's the comment:
"You Lieberman 'Democrats' disgust me. Why not just bite the bullet and affiliate yourself openly with the Republican crime family? "
I don't know, maybe I was wrong at assuming that's an insult.
When will we hear a leading progressive discuss thoughtfully where we need to make cuts in the military and how we can better fight terrorists? You can bet the moment they do, the Republican attack machine will label them as supporters of terrorism.
Our military (general forces) should not be primarily involved in the war on terrorism. First of all, they suck at it. Iraq is a prime example of how they create instability - and make things worse - in the name of fighting terrorism.
The UN should form an interpol of sorts - that focuses on hunting and killing terrorists. You need a scalpal, not a daisy cutter. And when the UN won't act, we can use special forces and the CIA. We don't need the whole damned Army for a job that requires a few bullets or precision weapon.
If we can make cuts in the DOD, we can spend in other areas. Such as education, police departments, hospitals, roads, public transortation, and so forth.
Can anyone justify why we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined? Anyone?
As to the ideal size and nature of the military, that's a whole 'nother giant discussion. Start a new diary :)
We have special units in our military that can fight terrorists. We should be investing way more into them and intelligence gathering. We are fighting war the way Halliburton and Osama prefer it. Both stand to gain.