babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » The Democrats: Once a backstabber, always a waste of effort

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Democrats: Once a backstabber, always a waste of effort
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 06 August 2003 12:24 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd like to hear some compelling reasons as to why progressives in the United States should support the Democrats. Because looking at the issues, I fail to see any meaningful difference. Plus, after considering the neo-liberal agenda pushed by the Clinton administration, I further fail to see how one can logically trust them.

Don't believe me? Compare.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 06 August 2003 01:33 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is true that the Republicrats are virtualy indistinguishable, and by our standards there clearly is no difference.

In the American context, however, it must be realized that the microscopic differences that exist between Repubs and Dems loom extremely large in the public consciousness, so that the absurd spectacle exists of Americans getting into heated debates over parties that, in any other context, would overlap sufficiently for them to merge and dispense with the duplication of effort.

To elaborate a bit further, the key difference that distinguishes the Repubs and the Dems in the US is the lack of a rabid religious-fundamentalist strain that runs through Republican ideological thought and in their political calculations as well.

For example, it is to be noted that the majority of those who voted against the Istook Amendment (which would have effectively mandated school prayer) were Dems.

That having been said I very much agree that the Democrats need someone who is "too populist" so that voters will actually have a clear choice instead of this ridiculous case of one party trying to play catch-up to the other on the political spectrum.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 06 August 2003 01:47 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
meades- it is for that exact reason that I beleive that Bush will win a second term.

When faced with the choice between Republican and Republican-lite (aka Democrats), most Americans will probably chose the real thing.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 August 2003 01:49 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That Green Party list is total self-serving bullshit. It assumes that there are no differences between Democrats, both in and out of Washington, on these issues. Many Democrats opposed the Iraq war and many oppose the west bank occupation. Most Democrats in Congress opposed NAFTA and fast-track. Many support national health insurance. The party's support of labor unions is more than mere "lip service." Just ask the unions themselves. They were the ones responsible for Gore winning the popular vote. They realize that it is not only legislation that is important, but appointments to the administrative agencies.

While it is true that the "New" Democrats, DLC-crowd is in many ways indistiguishable from Republicans, they have never represented a majority of Democratic activists or members of Congress. In general, the Democratic Party represents a much more interventionist attitude towards the economy, and is miles apart from Republicans when it comes to social issues.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are faced with an either/or proposition. Many vote for the Democrats because the alternative is infinitely worse. I venture to say that if you were faced with only two viable parties, a powerful Alliance Party and the Liberals, most of you would vote Liberal most of the time.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 06 August 2003 03:10 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It assumes that there are no differences between Democrats, both in and out of Washington, on these issues.

Well isn't that convenient. Problem is, you don't vote for the party memebers, you vote for the President, senators, and house representatives. If it's those people who aren't progressive, and are selling out the party and the public, then the DNC can be a freakin' revolutionary communist party, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. You vote for officials, not members.

quote:
Many Democrats opposed the Iraq war and many oppose the west bank occupation.

But the vast majority of Senators, Representatives, and Presidential candidates support it.

quote:
Most Democrats in Congress opposed NAFTA and fast-track.

So why wasn't anything done about that during the Clinton administration?

quote:
Many support national health insurance.

Then why didn't Clinton do something about that?

quote:
I venture to say that if you were faced with only two viable parties, a powerful Alliance Party and the Liberals, most of you would vote Liberal most of the time

Two-Party systems don't just die- you have to kill them. That's what Labour/Progressives/United Farmers did in Canada in the early 1900's. It was one member at a time, having no more larger a caucus than three at a time until 1922. But the two parties had become sufficiently alike and alienated from the concerns of many for new political forces to emerge. You're not going to get change in the Democrats by voting for them. People thought that about the Liberals, and they continue their march to the right regardless.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 August 2003 03:27 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, of the nine candidates running for president, 5 opposed the war and 4 supported it. Large numbers of Democrats in both houses opposed the war.

As for NAFTA, the problem was that Clinton, in his "third way" mode, got behind to show he was independent of the congressional democrats. It only passed because of Republican support.

While in theory I agree with you that there is a need to create a third party, in practice by the time that would come about the right-wing would have nearly destroyed every federal social program. Plus, there is currently a struggle within the Democratic party between those who want to pull it in a left, or populist, direction and those who want it to be a "Republican-lite" party. Until that struggle is resolved, I think plans for a third-party should be put on hold.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca