What are the ideological inconsistencies within the Democratic Party?

[bedstuy]

Protectionist on importation of goods but not of people

Fair enough, but the mainstream of the Democratic party is pro-free trade and Democratic protectionist elements tend to be more anti-immigration than the rest of the party.

Complain about "Wall Street" but more supportive of bailing out banks, other failing companies than Republicans

All sane people supported some form of a bank bailout.  There were no other realistic options.

But, I think your general points are correct. 

-Liberals tend to scapegoat corporations and valorize minorities.  Yet, white, upper-middle class liberals don't actually love minorities in practice and they worship at the altar of socially acceptable corporations like Apple and Whole Foods.
-For certain people, environmentalism is a superstitious cult.  Vegans are worse than Southern Baptists are far as I'm concerned.   

[bedstuy]

Protectionist on importation of goods but not of people

Fair enough, but the mainstream of the Democratic party is pro-free trade and Democratic protectionist elements tend to be more anti-immigration than the rest of the party.

Complain about "Wall Street" but more supportive of bailing out banks, other failing companies than Republicans

All sane people supported some form of a bank bailout.  There were no other realistic options.

But, I think your general points are correct. 

-Liberals tend to scapegoat corporations and valorize minorities.  Yet, white, upper-middle class liberals don't actually love minorities in practice and they worship at the altar of socially acceptable corporations like Apple and Whole Foods.
-For certain people, environmentalism is a superstitious cult.  Vegans are worse than Southern Baptists are far as I'm concerned.   

That's not true. Whole Foods is a terrible right wing Randian corporation. In 2009 liberal groups were holding not only boycotts but pickets of it over the CEO's anti-Obamacare efforts.

Most people have no idea about the politics of the company itself.  But, you could replace Whole Foods with Trader Joe's, Netflix, whatever clothing brand is popular at the moment and the point would be the same.

[bedstuy]

1. Supporting the use of fluorescent lightbulbs over incandescent despite the fact that fluorescent bulbs contain mercury and CFCs

Burning coal is the main cause of mercury pollution.  So, the energy savings of a CFL will net reduce mercury pollution in many parts of the country.  If CFLs are properly disposed of, it's not a major pollution issue at all.  Whereas, energy consumption is always a major issue.  Also, CFLs don't contain CFCs.  What made you think that?  The fact that CFL is one letter off from CFC?

3. Accuse Republicans of being the "party of the rich" despite having the support of most of America's wealthiest executives and businessmen (includign George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Ted Turner)

Just false. 3 dudes does not equal most.

4. Accuse Republicans of being "anti-science," while denying science that supports life beginning at conception and naturally-occurring factors in global warming, or contradicts the theory of evolution and links between immunizations and autism

Come on man...  You can do better than that.  There is no link between vaccines and autism and the fact of evolution is settled science. 

5. Support embryonic stem cell research to "find cures," but oppose unethical research methods on animals

PETA extremists are not in the mainstream of the Democratic Party.  And I don't think anyone supports unethical methods of anything as a matter of policy.

6. Oppose prayer and reading the Bible in school, but are fine with textbooks that propagate Islam and Eastern religions over Christianity/Judaism

Not true.

7. Claims to be more caring toward women those with special needs/disablities (and accusing Republicans of a "war on women"), but supports allowing sex-selective abortions and abortion of babies known to have special needs or disabilities.

This is a complicated issue so I'll give you a pass on misunderstanding what liberals believe.

[bedstuy]

There are plenty, which is why I only identify as a Democrat for the sake of convenience on this forum, but I'd like to draw special attention to the Democrats who went on and on about being anti-war and for civil liberties right up until Obama didn't support such things any more.

To be fair, the majority of Democrats went right along with Bush on national security and war before the Iraq War turned into a colossal mess.  It is possible to be in favor of executive power and a robust response to terrorist threats, but only when done in an intelligent way. 

Obama and his supporters were never took the Ron Paul/Barbara Lee position on those issues.

[bedstuy]

Liberals in major cities talk a big game about protecting the poor yet they push them out of their own neighborhoods through gentrification.

That's a vast over-simplification and fundamentally a frivolous point.  Neighborhoods rise in attractiveness and real estate price.  This has always happened and will always happen.  It has nothing to do with white people maliciously pushing people out.  Some poor people benefit from gentrification, some do not.  Some rich people benefit, some do not.

[bedstuy]

Liberals in major cities talk a big game about protecting the poor yet they push them out of their own neighborhoods through gentrification.

That's a vast over-simplification and fundamentally a frivolous point.  Neighborhoods rise in attractiveness and real estate price.  This has always happened and will always happen.  It has nothing to do with white people maliciously pushing people out.  Some poor people benefit from gentrification, some do not.  Some rich people benefit, some do not.

You can blame the free market if you want, but wealthy people who move into those neighborhoods (many of them liberals) are a part of the cycle that pushes poor people out with rising costs of living. I never said they did it maliciously but they don't seem to be upset when the pawn shops are replaced with boutiques. 

What's the alternative?  Nobody is allowed to move?  And by the way, poor people who own houses in gentrifying neighborhoods are often the biggest winners. 

[bedstuy]

Liberals in major cities talk a big game about protecting the poor yet they push them out of their own neighborhoods through gentrification.

That's a vast over-simplification and fundamentally a frivolous point.  Neighborhoods rise in attractiveness and real estate price.  This has always happened and will always happen.  It has nothing to do with white people maliciously pushing people out.  Some poor people benefit from gentrification, some do not.  Some rich people benefit, some do not.

You can blame the free market if you want, but wealthy people who move into those neighborhoods (many of them liberals) are a part of the cycle that pushes poor people out with rising costs of living. I never said they did it maliciously but they don't seem to be upset when the pawn shops are replaced with boutiques. 

What's the alternative?  Nobody is allowed to move?  And by the way, poor people who own houses in gentrifying neighborhoods are often the biggest winners. 

The alternative, of course, is a much higher-rate and more progressive tax system directed largely at the wealthy (who have gotten an incredibly generous deal at the expense of the rest of society, especially in the past 30-40 years) in order to pay for improved public services for the poor and the working class and their neighborhoods.

That would accelerate gentrification, not slow it down.  Just speaking from experience, improving services in poor areas increases rents.  And, it's not the wealthy moving into former slum neighborhoods.  It's young people with jobs displacing young people on public assistance with no ability to pay even 1/4 of the market rate for an apartment.  That's just how it is in my neck of the woods. 

[bedstuy]

About gentrification, since the left seems to be against both gentrification and suburban development (not to mention suburbanites who are against the suburbs), if I am a young educated adult moving to a new city, where am I supposed to live?

Maybe get a small apartment in an area where you won't disturb the delicate eco-system.  Maybe a studio apartment like this?

http://www.elliman.com/new-york-city/morton-square-600-washington-street-unit-523-manhattan-xscldzd

If you got a roommate it would only be $3000 a month...

[bedstuy]

Bush: Goes to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, uses drone strikes

Reaction from liberals: Riots in the streets of major cities, calls for his impeachment, bush=war criminal, bush is an evil murdering maniac

Obama: Continues war in Afghanistan, escalates drone strikes, starts war in Libya, kills more civilians than bush did

You are being extremely disingenuous or ignorant.

Liberals are not the same as anarchists or leftists.  The people who said Bush was a war criminal and vociferously opposed Bush administration on its War on Terror policies were not mainstream liberals.  Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee are not the leadership of the Democratic Party.  Dennis Kucincih types certainly attacked Bush and made some intemperate and dumb statements in my opinion.  But, those same left-wing people have actually been very hard on President Obama on the same issues. 

On the other hand, liberals have generally supported both administrations, except for when the Iraq War became an unmitigated disaster.  John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid were not in the streets throwing Molotov cocktails.  Also, there were no riots in the streets of major cities in opposition to Bush's foreign policy.  There were a few milquetoast peaceful protests by hippies and assorted misfits and ragamuffins.  Get your facts straight.

You're also ignoring the fact that Obama ended the War in Iraq and is winding down the War in Afghanistan.  I agree too slowly on both counts, but John McCain was arguing we should stay in Iraq indefinitely back in 2008.  So, Obama did a decent job considering that he's a mainstream US politician.

Also, Obama didn't really start the Civil War in Libya, did he now?  On top of that, there was fairly limited US involvement.  To compare the intervention in Libya to Iraq is laughable.  We're talking about over 3,500 US troop fatalities versus 0 US troop fatalities.

And, by what measure has President Obama killed more civilians than President Bush?  The Iraq War outpaces drone strikes by orders of magnitude in terms of civilian casualties. 

You're also ignoring the real ways President Obama has reeled in the torture, saber rattling and scare tactics used by the Bush administration.

[bedstuy]

Bush: Goes to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, uses drone strikes

Reaction from liberals: Riots in the streets of major cities, calls for his impeachment, bush=war criminal, bush is an evil murdering maniac

Obama: Continues war in Afghanistan, escalates drone strikes, starts war in Libya, kills more civilians than bush did

You are being extremely disingenuous or ignorant.

Liberals are not the same as anarchists or leftists.  The people who said Bush was a war criminal and vociferously opposed Bush administration on its War on Terror policies were not mainstream liberals.  Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee are not the leadership of the Democratic Party.  Dennis Kucincih types certainly attacked Bush and made some intemperate and dumb statements in my opinion.  But, those same left-wing people have actually been very hard on President Obama on the same issues. 

On the other hand, liberals have generally supported both administrations, except for when the Iraq War became an unmitigated disaster.  John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid were not in the streets throwing Molotov cocktails.  Also, there were no riots in the streets of major cities in opposition to Bush's foreign policy.  There were a few milquetoast peaceful protests by hippies and assorted misfits and ragamuffins.  Get your facts straight.

You're also ignoring the fact that Obama ended the War in Iraq and is winding down the War in Afghanistan.  I agree too slowly on both counts, but John McCain was arguing we should stay in Iraq indefinitely back in 2008.  So, Obama did a decent job considering that he's a mainstream US politician.

Also, Obama didn't really start the Civil War in Libya, did he now?  On top of that, there was fairly limited US involvement.  To compare the intervention in Libya to Iraq is laughable.  We're talking about over 3,500 US troop fatalities versus 0 US troop fatalities.

And, by what measure has President Obama killed more civilians than President Bush?  The Iraq War outpaces drone strikes by orders of magnitude in terms of civilian casualties. 

You're also ignoring the real ways President Obama has reeled in the torture, saber rattling and scare tactics used by the Bush administration.

I think that first bolded statement pretty much sums up everything wrong with American liberalism. The fact that liberals went along with and in many ways made possible really terrible post-9/11 policies like the PATRIOT Act, like the Iraq War, etc. pretty much undermines the entire credibility of American liberalism when it seeks to distance itself from those same policies. American liberals marched in lockstep with Bush/Cheney in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, and while a bit of that is understandable given the political climate, the fact that this continued in spite of widespread evidence that Bush and his criminal administration was lying the nation into a completely pointless war in Iraq is pretty disgusting.

Obama actually campaigned on expanding and then actually did expand the War in Afghanistan. Winding down the war as he has has largely been the result of pushback in Congress, not Obama's own initiative in that regard. And the John McCain line was clearly one taken out of context, as he was referring to America's seemingly indefinite occupations of South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. That's partisan nonsense to claim it was otherwise. Lest we also forget that Obama only left Iraq because the Iraqis literally kicked the United States out.

What exactly was the point of American intervention in Libya, though? Obviously in retrospect it worked out, but that wasn't clear going into the conflict. Aside from that, the money spent on dropping bombs on Libya would probably have been better spent on rebuilding American infrastructure, employing people, etc.

Obama has done next to nothing to 'reel in torture'. His promise to close down Guantanamo Bay was broken literally a week into his administration. If anything he has upped the ante in the saber-rattling with Iran and North Korea so as not to appear 'weak' to his Republican opponents.

Just not true.  There was an initial troop increase to attempt to restore a semblance of order in Afghanistan, with an explicit plan to withdraw troops afterwards.  Since then, the policy has been dictated by President Obama, senior White House officials and the military's top brass.  Congress doesn't even have a unified position to push on the President.  I personally disagree with President Obama's slow withdrawal from Afghanistan.  But, it's just untrue to claim we would be at 2009 troop levels, but for the leadership of Congress.   

The 100 years comment is not what I'm referring to.  John McCain's policy in 2008 was to maintain US troop levels in Iraq.  Obama's policy was to start a withdrawal of US troops in 2009.

On Libya, the purpose of the NATO action was humanitarian intervention.  And I would argue that the reason it didn't become a trillion dollar, bloody quagmire wasn't just luck.  It was the policy and leadership of the White House in creating a specific limited mission and executing it.  This is in distinction to the Bush War in Iraq which was characterized by poor planning, a vague mission and shoddy leadership. 

On torture, Obama made it explicit US policy not to torture and revoked the legal cover provided by the Bush Justice Department.  On the general climate of fear, it has changed.  The Bush administration constantly used 9/11 as a political tactic and suggested Democrats were unpatriotic.  The Obama administration is far less Machiavellian in that regard.

[bedstuy]

"My body, my choice!" "Unlike the Christian Right we don't believe in telling you how to live your life and getting into your bedroom!" Except when it comes to smoking, junk food, violent video games, music with explicit lyrics

What are you talking about?  Video games and music with explicit lyrics are not a political issue at the moment.  The internet made that an obsolete discussion almost 20 years ago.  Junk food and smoking are both unhealthy, but Democrats don't want to ban either.

Actually, when it comes to sin taxes, that's more the fault of Republicans.  They've demonized taxes so much that governments try to get as creative as possible to get revenue.  Alcohol and smoking are easy targets because the public views them as vices, and Republicans can call them "fees" instead of taxes.