What does it mean to be a "democrat"?

[The Grand Nudger]

Just what is it about a constant rightward drift that's supposed to be progressive?

IMO, the dems get alot of underved credit from progressives, and for being progressive.  Remember Hillary;s stance on gay marriage?  It only turned when the tide of public opinion turned and became overwhelming.  The same could be said of many dems and most democratic party platform statements.  -They- aren't progressives, it's just that progressives have no one else to vote for, so they get to be the coat-tail riding party.

But that is the way it works. Hillary's stance on same-sex marriage progressed. That's not a rightward drift; it's the exact opposite. 

It didn't, it was negotiated, and if you're willing to call the set progressive on the balance of one line item...well, maybe that's what went wrong with the dem party and "progressives"?

And there is the reality of political expediency. Same-sex marriage wasn't going to happen until most of the population was ready for it. Pushing it in 1992 would have been political suicide.

Why do anything if it's hard, amiright?   Sounds like a hell of a progressive message.  

Here's a good example. In 2004, the mayor of San Francisco announced that same-sex marriage was legal in that city. Up until that time, George W. Bush was on a steady decline in the polls against Kerrey. Many Republicans didn't like him and weren't going to bother to vote. But when that news hit, it galvanized conservatives to get to the ballot box because whether they liked W. or not, they wasn't gonna have no faggits gettin' married while they had some say so. It also simultaneously caused a backlash against same-sex marriage that lasted for years. Now, that wasn't the only thing that got W re-elected that year, but it played an important role. 

That's because the public wasn't ready for it. But as time went on the public warmed to it until the point that it was ready.

"Progress now" is a slogan, which most often doesn't reflect what can be accomplished in the moment.

Especially if the "progressives" tuck tail and run at every politically expedient moment.......and can only manage a modicum of "progress" -when- it's politically expedient. Would you be willing to apply the same rationale to obamacare, what with the trumpster riding that one all the way to the bank? Was it too much, too soon? Political suicide?

It's the Democrats who had the first black President, and [leaving out a lot of my own bullshit] almost got the first woman elected President. Did it take way too long? Absolutely. But this kind of stuff is not going to come from the GOP---that's certain. And that's the reality of the political situation in the U.S. The Greens aren't going to do shit and as Libertarians become more vocal we realize what a nightmare they would be. 

I think I see the problem.  A black president is "progress", even if he turns out to be a center right drone warlord. Gay marriage is "progress", never mind that its opiate for all the other shit that was done in the same time by the same people.

Despite this most recent election, a majority of Americans are center to just left of center. So if more far left-leaning progressives show up and vote for more progressive Democrats, then we will see more progress. But it isn't going to happen overnight and it's not going to happen with any other party.

Looks like it's not going to happen with this party either, the conservatives just routed the every inch of the executive and legislative, and are set to capture the judiciary.  "Progress never."

The cretins aren't -always- wrong about liberals. Too spineless for my vote. Yall wanna win -something- next go round...right? Grow a pair and you can count me in. If being a liberal, or a dem, or a progressive has to do with little more than picking low hanging fruit.....meh.

[Opoponax]

Opoponax
But that is the way it works. Hillary's stance on same-sex marriage progressed. That's not a rightward drift; it's the exact opposite. 

And there is the reality of political expediency. Same-sex marriage wasn't going to happen until most of the population was ready for it. Pushing it in 1992 would have been political suicide.

Here's a good example. In 2004, the mayor of San Francisco announced that same-sex marriage was legal in that city. Up until that time, George W. Bush was on a steady decline in the polls against Kerrey. Many Republicans didn't like him and weren't going to bother to vote. But when that news hit, it galvanized conservatives to get to the ballot box because whether they liked W. or not, they wasn't gonna have no faggits gettin' married while they had some say so. It also simultaneously caused a backlash against same-sex marriage that lasted for years. Now, that wasn't the only thing that got W re-elected that year, but it played an important role. 

That's because the public wasn't ready for it. But as time went on the public warmed to it until the point that it was ready.

"Progress now" is a slogan, which most often doesn't reflect what can be accomplished in the moment.

It's the Democrats who had the first black President, and [leaving out a lot of my own bullshit] almost got the first woman elected President. Did it take way too long? Absolutely. But this kind of stuff is not going to come from the GOP---that's certain. And that's the reality of the political situation in the U.S. The Greens aren't going to do shit and as Libertarians become more vocal we realize what a nightmare they would be. 

Despite this most recent election, a majority of Americans are center to just left of center. So if more far left-leaning progressives show up and vote for more progressive Democrats, then we will see more progress. But it isn't going to happen overnight and it's not going to happen with any other party.

Old people need to die for progress to happen.  As an early gen-x person, I lump my generation into the need to die group as well.  That is the bad thing about modern medicine.  It's stunting progress by keeping old assholes alive longer.

Not true. Old and older people make laws, not young people.

[Whateverist]

Both parties have undergone a lot of changes over the years. When my grandfather was voting (WWII vet) they supposedly stood for the "little guy" and continuing the New Deal versus Republican Plutocrats.  I think if I were voting 40 years ago I would have supported JFK but I would have to think twice because at that time Democrats were also the party of segregation.

Anyway, during my voting years (30+), the Democrats have always been a very loose group of special interests with not much connecting them. Hard to see where the interests of NARAL and the AFLCIO and the NAACP and Green Peace intersect. That seem less true of Republicans - conservatism is generally about preserving traditional institutions. I'm not convinced that the Democratic party has any such central theme binding it together. Each part of the coalition want to instigate some kind of change to the system and not often are those changes welcome to all member groups.

But it is important to note the traditional institutions they seek to preserve are those that serve the wealthy and there is nothing merit based about who is wealthy despite the tales they like to tell.

[Opoponax]

But that is the way it works. Hillary's stance on same-sex marriage progressed. That's not a rightward drift; it's the exact opposite. 

It didn't, it was negotiated, and if you're willing to call the set progressive on the balance of one line item...well, maybe that's what went wrong with the dem party and "progressives"?

And there is the reality of political expediency. Same-sex marriage wasn't going to happen until most of the population was ready for it. Pushing it in 1992 would have been political suicide.

Why do anything if it's hard, amiright?   Sounds like a hell of a progressive message.  

Here's a good example. In 2004, the mayor of San Francisco announced that same-sex marriage was legal in that city. Up until that time, George W. Bush was on a steady decline in the polls against Kerrey. Many Republicans didn't like him and weren't going to bother to vote. But when that news hit, it galvanized conservatives to get to the ballot box because whether they liked W. or not, they wasn't gonna have no faggits gettin' married while they had some say so. It also simultaneously caused a backlash against same-sex marriage that lasted for years. Now, that wasn't the only thing that got W re-elected that year, but it played an important role. 

That's because the public wasn't ready for it. But as time went on the public warmed to it until the point that it was ready.

"Progress now" is a slogan, which most often doesn't reflect what can be accomplished in the moment.

Especially if the "progressives" tuck tail and run at every politically expedient moment.......and can only manage a modicum of "progress" -when- it's politically expedient.  Would you be willing to apply the same rationale to obamacare, what with the trumpster riding that one all the way to the bank?  Was it too much, too soon?  Political suicide?  

It's the Democrats who had the first black President, and [leaving out a lot of my own bullshit] almost got the first woman elected President. Did it take way too long? Absolutely. But this kind of stuff is not going to come from the GOP---that's certain. And that's the reality of the political situation in the U.S. The Greens aren't going to do shit and as Libertarians become more vocal we realize what a nightmare they would be. 

I think I see the problem.  A black president is "progress", even if he turns out to be a center right drone warlord.  Gay marriage is "progress", never mind that its opiate for all the other shit that was done in the same time by the same people.

Despite this most recent election, a majority of Americans are center to just left of center. So if more far left-leaning progressives show up and vote for more progressive Democrats, then we will see more progress. But it isn't going to happen overnight and it's not going to happen with any other party.

Looks like it's not going to happen with this party either, the conservatives just routed the every inch of the executive and legislative, and are set to capture the judiciary.  "Progress never."

The cretins aren't -always- wrong about liberals.  Too spineless for my vote.  Yall wanna win -something- next go round...right?  Grow a pair and you can count me in.  If being a liberal, or a dem, or a progressive has to do with little more than picking low hanging fruit.....meh.

That's all well and good, but it gets nothing done. It's easy to fire away with rhetoric about high ideals, but doing the actual work to make a thing happen takes timing, compromise, and more work. 

The question is not whether you can get everything. The question is whether you can get something. And that something isn't going to be gotten just by insisting upon it. It's not spineless to compromise. It's not cowardly to understand that the given political climate will only allow so much room to maneuver. When one doesn't understand that, it can be disastrous for the very thing they're hoping to accomplish.

Obamacare is a good example of what I'm talking about. I hope that having the ACA will give enough Americans a taste of what's possible with healthcare. It was highly imperfect and far from the universal system I want. But it was a step in that direction that we'd never taken before. And millions of people who didn't have healthcare before the ACA now have it. That's good. It's not where I'd like us to be, but it's still better than what we had before. And if the GOP doesn't completely ruin it, then it has a chance to begin moving forward at some point in the future. 

Sorry for my verbosity.

[The Grand Nudger]

How would "progressives" know if it gets nothing done?  They don't try.  They go the route of political expediency and low hanging fruit. Polling the public to see what single line item trends they can get -behind-. Compromise is a trade off, not a steady drift towards the other guys every whim. Compromise is getting for giving, not giving...and giving....and giving....and giving.

What was all that, above, about obamacare? What happened to too much too soon, what happened to political suicide? Shouldn't they have waited, since that's not how you get things done?

[Whateverist]

How would "progressives" know if it gets nothing done?  They don't try.  They go the route of political expediency and low hanging fruit.

That seems like a valid criticism, but only if 'more' is even possible.  

But how will we know if we don't try?

Politics is messy.  We don't but it seems unlikely.

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK Whateves, all those dems that didn;t vote this election...had they been presented with a truly progressive message, rather than an oligarchy that managed to begrudgingly get one or two single line items right...they just might have voted.  

Trump offered a funhouse version of red state progressivism, and they're a half inch shy of declaring him christ today on account of it.

-And so what if you couldn;t get it, you could try. Ignoring those of us who say "-Be- progressive and you have my vote" is committing the same sin that lost this one to a clown. I'd fight a -losing- fight with a progressive. I;m no stranger to aiming high and falling short. You just load another magazine and keep putting rounds downrange until you hear that sweet, sweet sound. All of this compromise for the sake of compromise is about as appealing to me as a yogurt enema. Who here thinks that I would negotiate with these fucking people, lol? Why? You've all heard what they want. What is it, exactly, from their wishlist that you're willing to give them..and what do you hope to get in return?

[Faith No More]

Be progressive. B-E Progressive. B-E P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E.

Sing it with me.

[Aegon]

I'm a registered Democrat only because New York has closed primaries. Otherwise I'd have registered as an Independent.

I hate political parties. I hate identity politics. It only serves as a way to oversimplify the issues and divide the public. I don't like calling myself a Democrat because I don't like the left-wing establishment in this country. I don't want to be known as somebody who supports the DNC, because I don't. But I also tend to distance myself from the liberals because I don't agree with many of the things they say. I think there has been a liberal intolerance in this country, and that intolerance has led to a Donald Trump presidency. On the other hand, I could never ever be a Republican; I think I have a fundamental disagreement with every single part of their platform.

So I don't want to identify with the Democrats, the liberals, or the Republicans. Where does that leave me?

EDIT: I like to think of "progressives" as somewhere between liberals and establishment Dems. I wouldn't mind being in that camp.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That seem less true of Republicans - conservatism is generally about preserving traditional institutions. I'm not convinced that the Democratic party has any such central theme binding it together.

But it is important to note the traditional institutions they seek to preserve are those that serve the wealthy and there is nothing merit based about who is wealthy despite the tales they like to tell.
[/quote]

One thing that Democrats do seem to have in common is the belief that greater authority should be centralized in the federal government. I don't know why exactly someone would see that as desirable. It seems to invest more power in a smaller number of people.