The Democratic Party became affiliated with a social-democratic int'l?

[retromike22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Alliance_(political_international)

http://progressive-alliance.info/2810-2/

http://progressive-alliance.info/basic-document/

Other party members include Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP), Brazil's Workers' Party, Mexico's Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), El Salvador's Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) lol, and the social democratic/labour parties of Chile, France, Germany, and the UK.

When did this happen? Does the Democratic Party identify as a social democratic party now? Can we finally change the Democratic Party's color to red?

[Indy Texas]

They should really be in Liberal International. Are they allowed to be in both at once?

[ElectionsGuy]

Whether people deny it or not the Democratic Party is moving to the left.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Whether people deny it or not the Democratic Party is moving to the left.

only rhetorically, in terms of substantive policy positions i'll believe it when I see it.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i hope the republicans make ads about this; those could end up being hilarious.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't see any evidence that they've actually formally joined this group.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Whether people deny it or not the Democratic Party is moving to the left.

[citation needed]

Though tbf it really depends on what you mean by "Left."

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't see any evidence that they've actually formally joined this group.

From the Wikipedia talk page:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I wouldn't even call the Democratic Party "socialist". More like left wing populist with a New York business wing thrown in.

If I had to describe the Democratic  Party in precise ideological terms (which is really, really difficult), I'd say that it is vaguely and very broadly liberal/progressive. There are  many working-class voters who would vote for leftist parties in other countries (particularly in urban areas), conservatives (particularly in rural areas), and a mix of "progressives" and "moderates" in urban/suburban areas, very roughly speaking. There's also the reality of the Democrats winning a vast majority of non-whites (regardless of region or urban/rural), but still having a majority-white voter base (though not nearly to the extent of the Republicans, of course).

Basically, it is a very heterogeneous "big-tent" party whose  voters and politicians all have in common of not being Republicans (and wanting to win elections ). Keep in mind, though, that America's political parties are not like European parties. No one is formally a  "member" of the Democratic Party (unless you for some reason consider voter registration equivalent to membership...)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Seems fair enough. look at who else is in there: Irish and Dutch Labour, the SPD, Partie Socialist, PASOK, the ALP, the INC all could be classed alongside of, or even right of the Democrats. I'm more surprised Fatah and Morales' outfit were invited.

[Indy Texas]

Seems fair enough. look at who else is in there: Irish and Dutch Labour, the SPD, Partie Socialist, PASOK, the ALP, the INC all could be classed alongside of, or even right of the Democrats. I'm more surprised Fatah and Morales' outfit were invited.

Fatah's platform is basically boilerplate Non-Aligned democratic socialism. Think of them as the Palestinian equivalent of the Indian Congress Party.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think all this means is that at least Democrat attended the conference. So Raul Grijalva or someone showed up. Big deal, that doesn't mean the Democratic party swung to the left.

[Phony Moderate]

The Democratic Party is more right-wing on economic issues that it has ever been; their showpiece achievement is Newt Gingrich's health care plan. Of course they cleverly cover that up by pretending to be "socially liberal".

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Whether people deny it or not the Democratic Party is moving to the left.

I'll believe it if they nominate Sanders instead of Clinton. Then I'll rejoin the Democrats.

[RINO Tom]

Whether people deny it or not the Democratic Party is moving to the left.

I'll believe it if they nominate Sanders instead of Clinton. Then I'll rejoin the Democrats.

The country pretty soundly rejected fiscal liberalism throughout the '80s, and Democrats have been afraid of getting away from center-left ever since.  But the '80s was an eternity ago politically, and the party has most certainly become much more socially liberal since then, especially since 2000.  So, yes, it's moved leftward lately.  Same on economics + left on social issues = moving leftward, right?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The party is not moving more left or right, it's is growing more ideologically homogenous.

[RINO Tom]

The party is not moving more left or right, it's is growing more ideologically homogenous.

Couldn't you just say the same about Republicans then ?  I think there's a good case to be made that the ideological makeup of Republican voters is not staggeringly different than it was in 2000, there are just simply fewer elected politicians from "Bluer" states (i.e., there are millions and millions of Republicans in the Northeast and on the West Coast who are virtually un-represented in DC, but they still form large parts of the primary electorates).

[The Mikado]

Yeah, it's not so much that the Democratic Party is moving left as that 2010 wiped out almost the entirety of the party's right wing. The Blue Dog Democrat is basically extinct and therefore is no longer a voice at the table.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The party is not moving more left or right, it's is growing more ideologically homogenous.

Couldn't you just say the same about Republicans then ?  I think there's a good case to be made that the ideological makeup of Republican voters is not staggeringly different than it was in 2000, there are just simply fewer elected politicians from "Bluer" states (i.e., there are millions and millions of Republicans in the Northeast and on the West Coast who are virtually un-represented in DC, but they still form large parts of the primary electorates).

Yes, although the Republicans have far less ideological homogeneity than the democrats, who basically run the gamut from social liberals to social democrats, like any other generic lefty party in the West (in fact, comparisons with the modern INC are pretty tempting to draw).

[Thunderbird is the word]

Yeah, it's not so much that the Democratic Party is moving left as that 2010 wiped out almost the entirety of the party's right wing. The Blue Dog Democrat is basically extinct and therefore is no longer a voice at the table.

The thing is the only thing that really made the blue dog Democrats right-w

The party is not moving more left or right, it's is growing more ideologically homogenous.

Couldn't you just say the same about Republicans then ?  I think there's a good case to be made that the ideological makeup of Republican voters is not staggeringly different than it was in 2000, there are just simply fewer elected politicians from "Bluer" states (i.e., there are millions and millions of Republicans in the Northeast and on the West Coast who are virtually un-represented in DC, but they still form large parts of the primary electorates).

Yes, although the Republicans have far less ideological homogeneity than the democrats, who basically run the gamut from social liberals to social democrats, like any other generic lefty party in the West (in fact, comparisons with the modern INC are pretty tempting to draw).

Only thing that made the blue dogs more right-wing then say Chuck Schumer was social issues.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I don't see any evidence that they've actually formally joined this group.

From the Wikipedia talk page:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Democrats are listed as members on the Progressive Alliance's website though:
http://progressive-alliance.info/2810-2/

I think we can assume that the international's own website trumps a comment made by "Orangemike" on a Wikipedia talkpage.

Aside from Peter Shumlin attending the organization's founding conference (the "one U.S. Democrat" Orangemike refers to above), Howard Dean is also list as a member of the Progressive Alliance's board.

[Hnv1]

But to be fair most of those SD parties on the list also moved a lot to the right in the past 20 years.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Aside from Peter Shumlin attending the organization's founding conference (the "one U.S. Democrat" Orangemike refers to above), Howard Dean is also list as a member of the Progressive Alliance's board.

The same Peter Shumlin who just ruined Vermont's single payer health care?

[Sumner 1868]

But to be fair most of those SD parties on the list also moved a lot to the right in the past 20 years.

More like 40.

[TJ in Oregon]

What's the point? If the Democrats are a social democratic party (debatable, but let's move past the point), what would they have to gain by joining an international organization?