Should the Democrats adopt the agenda of Robertson and Falwell?

[KEmperor]

Damn elitist Virginians!

[Colin]

I love how Scoonie, jfern, and a few other Democrats on this board think that by moving to the centre you immediately become a pawn of the religious right. I don't think that Clinton had the agenda of Robertson and Falwell neither do Bayh, Lincoln, Warner, Breaux, Richardson or Nelson. I don't see why you are so adverse towards moving to the centre to become more electable. If the Democrats don't do it somebody will, and that somebody may not be the Republicans either. Whoever is the more moderate, or who is percieved as the most moderate, usually wins in Presidential elections. So your party can either go in the direction of putting up candidates who score 100% from various leftist organizations or towards the direction of electoral victory and centrism.

[Virginian87]

I love how Scoonie, jfern, and a few other Democrats on this board think that by moving to the centre you immediately become a pawn of the religious right. I don't think that Clinton had the agenda of Robertson and Falwell neither do Bayh, Lincoln, Warner, Breaux, Richardson or Nelson. I don't see why you are so adverse towards moving to the centre to become more electable. If the Democrats don't do it somebody will, and that somebody may not be the Republicans either. Whoever is the more moderate, or who is percieved as the most moderate, usually wins in Presidential elections. So your party can either go in the direction of putting up candidates who score 100% from various leftist organizations or towards the direction of electoral victory and centrism.

THANK YOU!  It's what I've been trying to say the whole time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I love how Scoonie, jfern, and a few other Democrats on this board think that by moving to the centre you immediately become a pawn of the religious right. I don't think that Clinton had the agenda of Robertson and Falwell neither do Bayh, Lincoln, Warner, Breaux, Richardson or Nelson. I don't see why you are so adverse towards moving to the centre to become more electable. If the Democrats don't do it somebody will, and that somebody may not be the Republicans either. Whoever is the more moderate, or who is percieved as the most moderate, usually wins in Presidential elections. So your party can either go in the direction of putting up candidates who score 100% from various leftist organizations or towards the direction of electoral victory and centrism.

We're aware that there are more than 2 options, but there are various reasons why we oppose moving to the right

1. It makes it look like you don't really believe in your positions. Voters will note this, and vote Republican
2. A lot of these "moderates" have no vison
3. If you alienate your base, they won't volunteer, contribute, or vote for you

The Republican party has been very sucessfully moving to the right. It was much more moderate in 1964 when Goldwater got his ass handed to him.

[Virginian87]

The funny thing was is back then, Goldwater was labeled an extremist.  By the '90s, he was a fairly moderate Republican.  He didn't change, the party did.

[A18]

No, he changed. He drifted to the social left.

[Colin]

I love how Scoonie, jfern, and a few other Democrats on this board think that by moving to the centre you immediately become a pawn of the religious right. I don't think that Clinton had the agenda of Robertson and Falwell neither do Bayh, Lincoln, Warner, Breaux, Richardson or Nelson. I don't see why you are so adverse towards moving to the centre to become more electable. If the Democrats don't do it somebody will, and that somebody may not be the Republicans either. Whoever is the more moderate, or who is percieved as the most moderate, usually wins in Presidential elections. So your party can either go in the direction of putting up candidates who score 100% from various leftist organizations or towards the direction of electoral victory and centrism.

We're aware that there are more than 2 options, but there are various reasons why we oppose moving to the right

1. It makes it look like you don't really believe in your positions. Voters will note this, and vote Republican
2. A lot of these "moderates" have no vison
3. If you alienate your base, they won't volunteer, contribute, or vote for you

The Republican party has been very sucessfully moving to the right. It was much more moderate in 1964 when Goldwater got his ass handed to him.

Well America in 1964 was much different from America today. Their was much more trust in the government and much higher approval for government spending and government programs than their is now. All in all America was more left-leaning then than it is now thusly the more right-wing party, the Republicans, had to moderate in order to be electable, and even then they were out of power in Congress for many years. The same thing is happening now. In order for the Democrats to not slide into electoral defeatism you must move to the centre as Americans are getting more anti-government spending and more anti-government overall. This is just the natural pendulum of American politics. Most adults now grew up either in the financial crisis that stemmed from the great society programs and faulty economic programs of the 60's and 70's or are children of the rich prosperous 80's. that has shaped their political views in ways that pure grassroots efforts never can.

First of who do you mean by we? I have seen many Democrats on this forum and in the real world who are argueing the same points that I am making now. I will now try to answer your points one at a time:

1. Not exactly. While moderates can be seen as wishy-washy if they stand their ground on their pragmatic moderate stances they can be very appealing to the American public. What you need though is a person who has constantly had moderate credentials not a Kerry-esque liberal who tried to masquerade as a moderate. Bill Clinton, even though he began life as a McGovernite, had a reputation as a pragmatic moderate and was able to hold his moderate convictions. Evan Bayh is another example of this and he has, with only a few exceptions, maintained that moderate record.

2. A moderate can have vision. I don't know why people think that just because you do not hold extremist views does not make you have a vision of what you want America to be. Moderates build off of compromises they always believe that theirs that third way in between the extremes and they believe that this third way, whether it is in economics or in social policy, built off of compromises and reasonable solutions will lead to an America in which all are reasonably happy with the ends. If you make America a laissez-faire state with almost no government regulation in business you will make libertarians like myself happy but not many other people and it is the same if you make America a welfare state. Moderates, economically, can say that the mixed economy, combining the best of laissez-faire with the best of socialism, is the best that can be achieved and it will make everyone at least complacent if not happy at the economic viablity that has been achieved. On social issues a moderate can make sure that, while some people on the wings might be miffed, that their a majority of people are seeing these wedge issues take a lesser role in their lives and that these issues have been "solved".

3. A very good concern. That is one reason why I've always liked the multi-party system much better than the American two-party system and seriously I don't have an answer to this. The best thing would be to throw them a bone, so to speak, every once and a while and having a party head that keeps the party cohesive and keeps turnout high amongst the extremes. I personally don't believe the extremes of both parties to be their bases. Before 1988 or so the Religious Right, who many now see as the "base" of the Republican Party didn't exist and the Republicans did alright, the same is true of the Democratic Party pre-1968. It's the problem with big-tent parties how do you get electable candidates to win the primaries while keeping your extremes happy. It is a hard question to figure out and one that a multi-party system solves much better than out own system.

[Colin]

The funny thing was is back then, Goldwater was labeled an extremist.  By the '90s, he was a fairly moderate Republican.  He didn't change, the party did.

Actually he was always rather socially libertarian even when he was labeled an extremist. The thing was that Goldwater was, above all, a believer in states rights and that lead him to the libertarianism he is rather famous for.

I also believe he got his daughter an illegal abortion in Arizona in the 50's IIRC.

[MODU]

1. It makes it look like you don't really believe in your positions. Voters will note this, and vote Republican

Yet, if the majority of Americans are in the middle, and the Democrats refuse to move to meet their needs, then the Democrats will continue to lose seats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh . . . no, they just don't share your vision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you alienate a base of 1,000 to embrace the middle of 100,000, I think you will recoup more than what you have lost, in both financial and volunteer terms.

[Democratic Hawk]

No - I wouldn't say that a much required move to the centre is tantamount to adopting the agenda of Robertson and Falwell

Dave

[phk]

Centrists and Moderates don't have any principles, you are either allied with the ultra-religous or the seculars.

[MODU]

Centrists and Moderates don't have any principles, you are either allied with the ultra-religous or the seculars.

Ok Ayatollah Rocket.  Unlike your radical view on things, the rest of us just want more options.

[Virginian87]

Centrists and Moderates don't have any principles, you are either allied with the ultra-religous or the seculars.

According to you and jfern, there is no such thing as centrism.  I beg to differ.  Go look at the voting electorate.  Most people want someone who is balanced, with views that partially complement both sides.  This is how Clinton got elected, and as the electorate swings further to the right.  It's the only way we can take the White House.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Centrists and Moderates don't have any principles, you are either allied with the ultra-religous or the seculars.

According to you and jfern, there is no such thing as centrism.  I beg to differ.  Go look at the voting electorate.  Most people want someone who is balanced, with views that partially complement both sides.  This is how Clinton got elected, and as the electorate swings further to the right.  It's the only way we can take the White House.

What have the "moderates" done in the last 5 years to stop the right-wing Bush agenda? Time to ditch the spineless "moderates". Daschle was the worst Democratic leader ever.

[MODU]

Centrists and Moderates don't have any principles, you are either allied with the ultra-religous or the seculars.

According to you and jfern, there is no such thing as centrism.  I beg to differ.  Go look at the voting electorate.  Most people want someone who is balanced, with views that partially complement both sides.  This is how Clinton got elected, and as the electorate swings further to the right.  It's the only way we can take the White House.

What have the "moderates" done in the last 5 years to stop the right-wing Bush agenda? Time to ditch the spineless "moderates". Daschle was the worst Democratic leader ever.

Enjoy being a radical minority.  We should start calling you the Zell Miller of the extreme left.  "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Centrists and Moderates don't have any principles, you are either allied with the ultra-religous or the seculars.

According to you and jfern, there is no such thing as centrism.  I beg to differ.  Go look at the voting electorate.  Most people want someone who is balanced, with views that partially complement both sides.  This is how Clinton got elected, and as the electorate swings further to the right.  It's the only way we can take the White House.

What have the "moderates" done in the last 5 years to stop the right-wing Bush agenda? Time to ditch the spineless "moderates". Daschle was the worst Democratic leader ever.

Enjoy being a radical minority.  We should start calling you the Zell Miller of the extreme left.  "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."

According to Pew, the number of liberals has doubled in the last 6 years.

[MODU]

According to Pew, the number of liberals has doubled in the last 5 years.

And they are not following the exteme ideology which you adhere to.  They don't want to be "our way or no way" liberals.  They want to work with the other side and progess forward (hence the term Progressive movement). 

Yet another reason why the two-party dominated system is doomed to fail.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

According to Pew, the number of liberals has doubled in the last 5 years.

And they are not following the exteme ideology which you adhere to.  They don't want to be "our way or no way" liberals.  They want to work with the other side and progess forward (hence the term Progressive movement). 

Yet another reason why the two-party dominated system is doomed to fail.

How am I an "our way or no way" liberal? I contributed, volunteered, and voted for John Kerry, whom I disagree with on about half of the issues.  I was mad at him for voting for the war, but that didn't stop me from doing all of those.

Really, the Democratic party's main problem is that they need to have a spine, go after Republican curroption, and learn framing.

[MODU]

How am I an "our way or no way" liberal?

How?  By marginalizing the majority of your party.

Time to ditch the spineless "moderates".

[Virginian87]

Centrists and Moderates don't have any principles, you are either allied with the ultra-religous or the seculars.

According to you and jfern, there is no such thing as centrism.  I beg to differ.  Go look at the voting electorate.  Most people want someone who is balanced, with views that partially complement both sides.  This is how Clinton got elected, and as the electorate swings further to the right.  It's the only way we can take the White House.

What have the "moderates" done in the last 5 years to stop the right-wing Bush agenda? Time to ditch the spineless "moderates". Daschle was the worst Democratic leader ever.

Pelosi, though she's in the House and not the Senate, is at least twice as bad as Daschle ever was.

[MODU]

Centrists and Moderates don't have any principles, you are either allied with the ultra-religous or the seculars.

According to you and jfern, there is no such thing as centrism.  I beg to differ.  Go look at the voting electorate.  Most people want someone who is balanced, with views that partially complement both sides.  This is how Clinton got elected, and as the electorate swings further to the right.  It's the only way we can take the White House.

What have the "moderates" done in the last 5 years to stop the right-wing Bush agenda? Time to ditch the spineless "moderates". Daschle was the worst Democratic leader ever.

Pelosi, though she's in the House and not the Senate, is at least twice as bad as Daschle ever was.

Agreed.  At least he tried to work with and get legislation passed.  All she does is stand there and make funny faces.

[Virginian87]

Centrists and Moderates don't have any principles, you are either allied with the ultra-religous or the seculars.

According to you and jfern, there is no such thing as centrism.  I beg to differ.  Go look at the voting electorate.  Most people want someone who is balanced, with views that partially complement both sides.  This is how Clinton got elected, and as the electorate swings further to the right.  It's the only way we can take the White House.

What have the "moderates" done in the last 5 years to stop the right-wing Bush agenda? Time to ditch the spineless "moderates". Daschle was the worst Democratic leader ever.

Pelosi, though she's in the House and not the Senate, is at least twice as bad as Daschle ever was.

Agreed.  At least he tried to work with and get legislation passed.  All she does is stand there and make funny faces.

...and jump around and say, "I'm not REALLY a San Francisco liberal, I'm a moderate!"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How am I an "our way or no way" liberal?

How?  By marginalizing the majority of your party.

Time to ditch the spineless "moderates".

All I'm asking for them is to have a spine and stand up to the Republicans. Here's an opinion poll.

"Which of the following roles would you like to see the Democrats in Congress play? (A) Work in a bipartisan way with Republicans to help pass President Bush's legislative priorities so that we do not have gridlock. OR, (B) Provide a balance to make sure that President Bush and the Republicans do not go too far in pushing their agenda."

63% provide a balance
30% help pass Bush plan

I say that we should pay attention to that 63%, and tell that 30% to go screw themselves.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Centrists and Moderates don't have any principles, you are either allied with the ultra-religous or the seculars.

According to you and jfern, there is no such thing as centrism.  I beg to differ.  Go look at the voting electorate.  Most people want someone who is balanced, with views that partially complement both sides.  This is how Clinton got elected, and as the electorate swings further to the right.  It's the only way we can take the White House.

What have the "moderates" done in the last 5 years to stop the right-wing Bush agenda? Time to ditch the spineless "moderates". Daschle was the worst Democratic leader ever.

Pelosi, though she's in the House and not the Senate, is at least twice as bad as Daschle ever was.

Dude, no one can be as bad a leader as Daschle was. He was extremely timid and spineless. Why do you like timid and spineless leaders?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Centrists and Moderates don't have any principles, you are either allied with the ultra-religous or the seculars.

According to you and jfern, there is no such thing as centrism.  I beg to differ.  Go look at the voting electorate.  Most people want someone who is balanced, with views that partially complement both sides.  This is how Clinton got elected, and as the electorate swings further to the right.  It's the only way we can take the White House.

What have the "moderates" done in the last 5 years to stop the right-wing Bush agenda? Time to ditch the spineless "moderates". Daschle was the worst Democratic leader ever.

Pelosi, though she's in the House and not the Senate, is at least twice as bad as Daschle ever was.

Agreed.  At least he tried to work with and get legislation passed.  All she does is stand there and make funny faces.

I see that you're in the 30% that defines a good Democratic leader as someone who bends over for whatever the Republicans want to do. I'm part of the 63% that wants stronger Democratic leaders.