What do the Dems stand for?

[nlm]

In the interests of equal time, and because a number of Dems have seen fit to stop by the "what does the GOP stand for?" thread and add their 2 cents in a rather insipid fashion.

What do the Dems stand for? Anything? Are they, like the GOP appears to be at this point, simply defined by trying to define their opposition and then stating "we are not like that"?

Give it a go.

[dazzleman]

-A greater belief in government intervention for the purpose of bringing about a preferred outcome, rather than equalizing opportunity (to the extent that government can do so)

-Greater acceptance and tolerance of 'alternative' lifestyles, some of which are, in my opinion, destructive to the fabric of society (I am talking here of "throwaway" parenting)

-Greater sympathy for, and identification with, demographic and gender groups that have not been part of the power structure in the past.

-A more cooperative, as opposed to confrontational, attitude on foreign policy (to the point where many are not willing to defend our interests, or even acknowledge that we have a right to defend our interests).

-Large focus on individual rights in certain areas (Republicans do this in others), but sometimes beyond a reasonable point where these individual interests, and the overall societal interest, intersect.  Translation -- too much forbearance for criminals and people who wish to do us harm, and not enough concern for the victims and potential victims of evil-doers.

I have not meant this as an attack on the Democratic party.  Some of the principles they support are laudable; it is the methods that they use to achieve them, and the degrees to which they sometimes go in that vain, that I find disturbing and threatening.

[Inverted Things]

My opinion is that the democrats stand for not being quite as bad as the republicans.

For instance, the republicans might say "In order to build a more prosperous nation, we will chop down all of the trees." The democrats respond "We can't chop down ALL the trees. We have to save one." So, one tree ends up being saved, and during the next election cycle the democrats rally around that tree and proclaim "Look at what we did: we saved this one tree which would otherwise have been chopped down."

As a real life example, consider Bush's social security proposal. I am of the opinion that his plan is risky, to say the least. The democrats shot it down, but the fact remains that social security needs some changes in order to remain a workable program. The democrats have been patting themselves on the back ever since, nevermind the fact that their "solution" could well be just as damaging.

[© tweed]

I have not meant this as an attack on the Democratic party.

It wasn't an attack if you remove the translations and words inside the ().

The Democrats should further empasize the tag line that we're here for the little man.  Bush has done a very very good job of portraying himself as a common man, even though he's even bit the northeastern elitist that Kerry was.  Gore tried to run on the people v the powerful tag line in 2000, and the election had no clear winner.  Kerry didn't stand for anything, and he lost.

For 2008, it doesn't really help that the 2 most likely nominees are not working people.  Hillary is the spouse of a former president, and Warner has a net worth somewhere in the hundreds of millions.  Russ Feingold may be able to be the people's man, as he is a poor himself.

If the Dems can run more on populist economics nationally, which everybody loves outside of this corporatist message board, and downplay hot-button, divisive social issues, we can make a run.  But that appears unlikely at this point, as we're just the perceived as the party of gays, abortions, and al-Qaeda apologists.

[dazzleman]

I have not meant this as an attack on the Democratic party.

It wasn't an attack if you remove the translations and words inside the ().

The Democrats should further empasize the tag line that we're here for the little man.  Bush has done a very very good job of portraying himself as a common man, even though he's even bit the northeastern elitist that Kerry was.  Gore tried to run on the people v the powerful tag line in 2000, and the election had no clear winner.  Kerry didn't stand for anything, and he lost.

For 2008, it doesn't really help that the 2 most likely nominees are not working people.  Hillary is the spouse of a former president, and Warner has a net worth somewhere in the hundreds of millions.  Russ Feingold may be able to be the people's man, as he is a poor himself.

If the Dems can run more on populist economics nationally, which everybody loves outside of this corporatist message board, and downplay hot-button, divisive social issues, we can make a run.  But that appears unlikely at this point, as we're just the perceived as the party of gays, abortions, and al-Qaeda apologists.

The problem with your analysis is that while populism sounds good for the little guy, it often produces results that are just the opposite.

It sounds great to say, tax the rich to death to provide a better life for those with less, but if you actually follow this policy, you drive the rich out, weaken the tax base, eliminate jobs, and the end result is a lower level of overall wealth.

Argentina is the perfect example of the pitfalls of populism.  This country has fallen victim to this seductive philosophy again and again, and the results have really not been very good.  People love the idea of a free lunch, something for nothing, and it really doesn't exist.

That's not to say I'm an economic royalist.  I think there has to be a balance of interests, and an acknowledgement of economic realities.  I don't see this so much from populists.  They seem to believe that the economic pie is simply a certain given size, and the only issue is who to divide up the pieces.  They seem not to understand sometimes that the size of the overall pie can be increased -- or reduced.  I fear that some of their policies would produce the latter result.

As far as the Democrats' identification with gays, abortion, and al-Qaeda apologists, whose fault is that?

[nclib]

Giving everyone a chance at success.

[Frodo]

I think we all can agree that the Democratic Party stands up for the marginalized and disadvantaged (except the unborn), protecting the environment through government action, individual liberty (except for gun control), tolerance for alternative lifestyles, and an internationalist (as opposed to unilateralist) foreign policy with an emphasis on working with multinational organizations like the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization.

It is the most 'European' party in the United States.   

[dazzleman]

It is the most 'European' party in the United States.   

You're right.  That's why I don't like it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Something. Please hold. Your call is important to us. Please hold.

[angus]

Something. Please hold. Your call is important to us. Please hold.

Best post in thread. 

[A18]

Socialism, or rather, the complete destruction of the founding vision.

I think we all can agree that the Democratic Party stands up for ... individual liberty (except for gun control)

No, they despise economic liberty.

[jokerman]

I think we all can agree that the Democratic Party stands up for the marginalized and disadvantaged (except the unborn)   

I just don't understand how the Democratic Party came to be anti-life on abortion.

It is the party of the marginalized and the disadvantaged.  What is more helpless than an unborn baby?  Hubert Humpherey once said that the best way to measure a society was of how is treated it's lowest members.  This shouldn't stop because NARAL writes checks to the DNC.

[opebo]

I think we all can agree that the Democratic Party stands up for ... individual liberty (except for gun control)

No, they despise economic liberty.

'Economic liberty' is a figment of your imagination, worker.

The Democratic party stands for very little, alas, but it does - relative to the Religious Party - stand for secular humanism.

[Rin-chan]

"There is a better way..." *eyebrow raises*

Right now, I think the Democrats are just opposition.

Rin-chan

[Emsworth]

Like the GOP, the Democratic Party stands for a loose confederation of special interests (most importantly, the labor movement).

[MODU]

Social liberalism.

[jokerman]

"There is a better way..." *eyebrow raises*

Right now, I think the Democrats are just opposition.

Rin-chan

Yeah, I kept thinking "so what is this better way?" and the speech just ended.