Discussion for article #245515
“I’ve been accused of being kind of moderate and center. I plead guilty.” - hillary clinton
This should go well with the EmoProgs who want ideological purity even though they say that’s a right-wing pathology.
All of this sounds a little familiar. Oh yes, I heard it in 2008 from the same people bib-dribbling the same thing.
Consider a different perspective – for a good portion of the electorate, moderation is desirable. FYI, I would characterize myself as a very liberal democrat – no longer wish to call myself a progressive if that means being unable to compromise when necessary to achieve the possible.
Not to worry. That’s not what progressive means.
Wait a second berns, are you saying it’s either 100% purity or nothing?
That’s not how it works. People are not all or nothing.
The Democratic Party includes progressives, liberals, and moderates! Hey, even independents can run in the Democratic Party as presidential hopefuls.
I don’t like to criticize Bernie, because I actually agree with him on many issues. But the problems are 1) he can’t win a general election(imo) and 2) if he did win, there’s no way he gets done what he’s saying. I mean no way. Which means he’ll be despised by those who champion him now. He, and by extension, all Dems will be viewed as ineffectual and he’ll have guaranteed a Paul Ryan administration in 2020.
Whichever side you are on, it ultimately doesn’t matter to me. Look at this striking difference between our side and those Republican whackjobs who “want to destroy.”
I’m proud to be a Democrat.
Sanders loves labels: Establishment/Anti-establishment, Progressive/Moderate.
I honestly didn’t think true Progressives liked that kind of thing.
This to me seems one-dimensional of Sanders.
Take the ACA, which cut subsidies to private Medicare insurers and payments to hospitals and healthcare providers. That move could be considered progressive, since it took from the rich. Or, it could be considered conservative, since it conserved taxpayer outlays and is reducing the deficit.
The ACA could be called progressive, since it provided healthcare to poor and working class Americans, extended the actuarial life of Medicare, and was funded by cutting subsidies to wealthy healthcare interests and taxing people who derived incomes from capital gains and from selling medical devices. But it could be considered conservative since it retained the existing system of private insurance.
Banking reform could be considered moderate since it resisted progressives’ cry to break up or nationalize the big banks. But it could be seen as progressive in that it imposed progressively more stringent regulations and capital requirements on the biggest banks and established a consumer financial protection bureau to curb fraud and abuse.
Many of the issues facing us are too complex to fit into a simple right-left axis.
I pretty much share that sentiment.
Label, Labels! Good Grief! I thought we were above that. Can we stick to the issues? Is Bernie sounding desperate?
Personally, I don’t that that the majority of rank and file Dems in this country identify as:
Liberal Democrat
Progressive Democrat
They’re Democrats. We’re Democrats. I also don’t think those Dems want a revolution; they know things are very wrong in this country but maybe they aren’t clued into the Koch Bros. or the DeVos’ as we are. It irritates me no end when Sanders goes off on his progressive purity jag. Unfortunately, that’s the one note he has and he sounds it.
Some of them remind me of the Occupy participants. They were OK on the issues, but did not recognize the need to be more inclusive and organize and co-opt moderates and slightly left-of-center liberals.
A progressive, a moderate, and a conservative walk into a bar. And the bartender says “the usual, Hillary?”
The last thing we need on the Liberal side of this election is a purity test. That’s what Republicans do and it is clearly destroying them from the inside out. If Sanders thinks having a purity test is the way to win, then he is a much different person than he has claimed to be and the division this will surely cause will push our party to ruin and loss.
But then, why should Sanders care? He isn’t really a Democrat, is he?
I’m assuming that when Sanders loses (and he will), the Berniacs won’t understand why. Because in their minds EVERYONE is angry, fed up, and ready for the revolution to start. Everyone. It’s obvious. To them. And so, it must have been Clinton’s smear machine, establishment dirty tricks, the DNC, not enough of this or that, etc, etc.
It will never occur to them that the elderly Independent Socialist from Vermont repeatedly talking about “certain” Dems not having progressive enough politics was a real turn off for some. Many Dems, I’m sure, consider themselves moderate.
Has the word moderate replaced liberal as the new word that must not be spoken?
A noun, a verb, billionaires.
Sanders does better against every potential Republican candidate than Clinton:
The Republican Congress is just as unlikely to let Hillary pass anything either so why not elect someone who will present new ideas that are popular and rally citizens to them.
It’s like the mirror image of the Tea Party, who continually claim to speak for all Americans. Bernie’s supporters, fickle and fractious as they sometimes seem, claim to be the base of the Democratic party.