How the DLC destroyed the Democratic party

[windjammer]

Well I certainly wouldn't advocate incorporating social conservatism (or traditionalism, which I think is a better term to describe it) into such a movement per se, but it would definitely be better, IMO, to skip all the potential means those in power have of dividing such a movement by adopting a "live and let live" attitude on the issues which could potential rend that coalition apart. Focus on the class struggle first and foremost, settle the other disputes within the movement after the class struggle has been won.

TNF, if you really want to target the kind of republican voters (I guess there are many republican voters like that), you will be forced to abandon social liberalism. A la Jenning Bryan!

[Antonio the Sixth]

*overly long effortpost*

Look, I've got nothing about your project for developing a grassroots network. I'm all in favor of stronger unions and other civil society organizations promoting progressive politics. It could certainly help the cause, yes. But you delude yourself if you seriously think any significant change can be brought about without controlling the instruments of political power. When fighting an enemy so strong and pervasive as organized wealth, the tools of government are the only thing that could give us even a slight chance to compete. Ultimately, despise them our not, we're gonna need the White House and Congress to be, at least to some extent, on our side. Now, how do we get them on our side? Is it better to sit there and wait for the rise of a serious left-wing alternative (ie, to expect something that has never happened since 1854), or to try to push one of the existing parties more toward our views? Come on, you know how the US political system works. American parties are, fundamentally, empty shells that have constantly evolved along with American society, to the point of being almost unrecognizable from their former selves. Is it so hard to envision that the Democratic Party could be turned into a genuine left-wing force, as it has been before? The movement conservatives went from being a lunatic fringe of the GOP to taking full control of it within the span of two decades, and the progressive left could very well end up doing the same with the Democratic party. In fact, I'd argue that it has already started to - I know you disagree, but regardless, it's a goal worth working for.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Well I certainly wouldn't advocate incorporating social conservatism (or traditionalism, which I think is a better term to describe it) into such a movement per se, but it would definitely be better, IMO, to skip all the potential means those in power have of dividing such a movement by adopting a "live and let live" attitude on the issues which could potential rend that coalition apart. Focus on the class struggle first and foremost, settle the other disputes within the movement after the class struggle has been won.

TNF, if you really want to target the kind of republican voters (I guess there are many republican voters like that), you will be forced to abandon social liberalism. A la Jenning Bryan!

Since when was "social liberalism" (Atlas use of the term) incompatible with TNF's style of radical Leftism?

A lot of liberals have this idea that working-class people are universally "socially conservative" (whatever that means-yesterday's progressivism is today's conservatism) but there's little evidence that most working-class people actually do prioritize "social issues" over practical concerns such as job opportunities, low wages, unemployment, and the greed of Wall Street and corporate America.

I'm basing my views on opinion polls on specific, substantial issues-not whether some people in some of America's poorest counties vote Republican. Just because people vote for a certain party, doesn't mean that they agree with (or even know about or care, frankly) all or even most of that party's platform.

[TJ in Oregon]

The reasons why some segment of working class folks vote Republican is in some ways more complex than the social conservative/fiscal lefty vs social liberal fiscal conservative dichotomies and in some ways even simpler. Some of the working class Republicans really do believe "small government" will create more economic growth and create opportunities for themselves. Others believe social issues trump all else. Yet more others, and probably the largest group, don't think about this like it's the political matrix test and vote for whomever they think best represents their interests. Right now some segment of the working class populace believes that is the Republicans for many of the reasons listed here, such as the redneck stereotype or uneducated/backwards moron stereotype. Cultural elitism is perceived as incredibly arrogant and hostile. It's not that all the working class folks are strict Christians who will oppose gay marriage on moral grounds to the ends of the earth; more likely the entire idea is somewhat foreign to them altogether and they wouldn't care about it at all if no one ever told them they needed to. All they know is that they had the same opinion vague opinion ten years ago and now all of a sudden everyone is all ticked off. Most people don't think about politics like Atlas Forumites. It's not a matter of trading one set of issues for another. It's about communicating to people that you better represent their interests than you opponents do. Content matters of course, but style matters far more.

[Suburbia]

My co worker is liberal and she was ranting this morning saying that the DLC still controls the party. She believes that Hillary Clinton, Wasserman Schultz and Harry Reid are all part of AL From's DLC.