Has the Far Left Taken Over the Democratic Party?

[kiwiman127]

I just read an interesting piece from The Atlantic Monthly which questions whether like the GOP, there is a "civil war" going on within the Democratic Party between the more extreme versus The Establishment members.
The conclusion was no. At this point, The Establishment Democrats still control the show and that there hasn't been serious attempts with using litmus tests, pledges or purging of it's elected government membership. When purges have been attempted such as Howard Dean's "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" with the goal of having liberals dominate Democratic policies failed.
The reason why a complete take over the the Democratic party have failed is because in pure numbers, liberals don't have the strength. Where as within the GOP, 70% call themselves "conservative". Only 43% of Democrats call themselves liberals.
Below are two charts based on Gallup's polling of both parties. As shown, there is more equal diversity of political position within the Democratic Party, which forces more cohesion among the party leaders.
Discuss.
Link to The Atlantic article: No, Liberals Don't Control the Democratic Party
No, Liberals Don't Control the Democratic Party - Molly Ball - The Atlantic

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Has the Far Left Taken Over the Democratic Party?

Let's ask Joe Liberman.

 

[kiwiman127]

Has the Far Left Taken Over the Democratic Party?

Let's ask Joe Liberman.

And Lieberman is addressed in the article. But it really pales in comparison to what has gone on and what continues to go on within the GOP. Correct?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Far from correct.

The neoconservatives still control the GOP and they're no more conservative than Lieberman. As in not at all.

 

[Londoner]

This is a great question.

The Reason ObamaCare failed to get the one thing it needed to truly bend the cost curve - The Public Option - was because the Left has a number of moderate, right-leaning Blue Dogs. This also why it capitulated with the Iraq War and Patriot Act, because the party continues to accept members like Joe Lieberman, who was allowed to keep his democratic committee assignments. By contrast, do you know what would happen to a Republican who campaigned for the opposition party's presidential nominee? The Koch brothers would drop a brink truck on anyone who does not vote the party line 100%.

So yes, the Left continues to support a much more diverse coalition of centrists, and right leaning members. This was especially true during the Clinton years when the party thumbed its nose at Labor (through NAFTA) and started playing ball with Wall Street.

I wouldn't bother asking the Right about this. They are trained to see all Democrats as Karl Marx. This kind of stupidity neglects actual policies, like the aggressive deregulation pursued by Carter and Clinton, or Obama's first re-nomination of Bernanke, who is an outspoken follower of Milton Friedman.

 

[The T]

Far from correct.

The neoconservatives still control the GOP and they're no more conservative than Lieberman. As in not at all.

And why BOTH parties attack the TEA Party...which isn't a party at all but YOU and me...citizens fed up with BOTH the Dems AND Repubicans. WE are a threat to them.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

This is a great question.

The Reason ObamaCare failed to get the one thing it needed to truly bend the cost curve - The Public Option - was because the Left has a number of moderate, right-leaning Blue Dogs. This also why it capitulated with the Iraq War and Patriot Act, because the party continues to accept members like Joe Lieberman, who was allowed to keep his democratic committee assignments. By contrast, do you know what would happen to a Republican who campaigned for the opposition party's presidential nominee? The Koch brothers would drop a brink truck on anyone who does not vote the party line 100%.

So yes, the Left continues to support a much more diverse coalition of centrists, and right leaning members. This was especially true during the Clinton years when the party thumbed its nose at Labor (through NAFTA) and started playing ball with Wall Street.

I wouldn't bother asking the Right about this. They are trained to see all Democrats as Karl Marx. This kind of stupidity neglects actual policies, like the aggressive deregulation pursued by Carter and Clinton, or Obama's first re-nomination of Bernanke, who is an outspoken follower of Milton Friedman.

Man, are you delusional or what?

 

[kiwiman127]

Far from correct.

The neoconservatives still control the GOP and they're no more conservative than Lieberman. As in not at all.

OK, I can agree with you on that.

 

[Vox]

I just read an interesting piece from The Atlantic Monthly which questions whether like the GOP, there is a "civil war" going on within the Democratic Party between the more extreme versus The Establishment members.
The conclusion was no. At this point, The Establishment Democrats still control the show and that there hasn't been serious attempts with using litmus tests, pledges or purging of it's elected government membership. When purges have been attempted such as Howard Dean's "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" with the goal of having liberals dominate Democratic policies failed.
The reason why a complete take over the the Democratic party have failed is because in pure numbers, liberals don't have the strength. Where as within the GOP, 70% call themselves "conservative". Only 43% of Democrats call themselves liberals.
Below are two charts based on Gallup's polling of both parties. As shown, there is more equal diversity of political position within the Democratic Party, which forces more cohesion among the party leaders.
Discuss.
Link to The Atlantic article: No, Liberals Don't Control the Democratic Party
No, Liberals Don't Control the Democratic Party - Molly Ball - The Atlantic

they may consider themselves establishment Democrats on a Gallup poll but the policies they vote for and "democratic centralism" type of discipline in the dimocrap party attests to the contrary.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The wingers have taken over both parties.

Unfortunately for the country.

.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Most Democrats have a positive view of socialism.

Majority of Democrats Have 'Favorable' View of Socialism

Evidently, the failures of the Soviet Union, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea, and all the other socialist countries don't matter to them.

If that's not far left, I don't know what is. Socialism makes me sick. It's disgusting.

 

[tinydancer]

This is a great question.

The Reason ObamaCare failed to get the one thing it needed to truly bend the cost curve - The Public Option - was because the Left has a number of moderate, right-leaning Blue Dogs. This also why it capitulated with the Iraq War and Patriot Act, because the party continues to accept members like Joe Lieberman, who was allowed to keep his democratic committee assignments. By contrast, do you know what would happen to a Republican who campaigned for the opposition party's presidential nominee? The Koch brothers would drop a brink truck on anyone who does not vote the party line 100%.

So yes, the Left continues to support a much more diverse coalition of centrists, and right leaning members. This was especially true during the Clinton years when the party thumbed its nose at Labor (through NAFTA) and started playing ball with Wall Street.

I wouldn't bother asking the Right about this. They are trained to see all Democrats as Karl Marx. This kind of stupidity neglects actual policies, like the aggressive deregulation pursued by Carter and Clinton, or Obama's first re-nomination of Bernanke, who is an outspoken follower of Milton Friedman.

Oh bite me.

Nancy made sure she shit down the throat of all blue dogs. That's why we won Congress back in the biggest sweep ever.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

.

The wingers have taken over both parties.

Unfortunately for the country.

.

Not in the GOP, which is still controlled by its liberal neocon wing.

This country would be fortunate if real right conservatives and libertarians got control of that mess.

 

[tinydancer]

.

The wingers have taken over both parties.

Unfortunately for the country.

.

Don't lump the two together. Please. Think it thru and don't pull a management meeting where you have to blame both equally.

I know that game quite well.

 

[tinydancer]

.

The wingers have taken over both parties.

Unfortunately for the country.

.

Not in the GOP, which is still controlled by its liberal neocon wing.

This country would be fortunate if real right conservatives and libertarians got control of that mess.

I don't understand why you guys haven't gone third party. I just don't understand it at all.

 

[tinydancer]

You still have time but the move would have to be before the end of February. Pardon my posting. One hand. Slow hand. I sprained my right wrist.

 

[kiwiman127]

.

The wingers have taken over both parties.

Unfortunately for the country.

.

I have to disagree with you on this Mac. There has been no serious attempt to purge establishment liberals in the primaries at this point. This does not say the the growth of the far left within the Democratic Party hasn't shifted the party more to the left.
On the other hand I will agree with your comment "Unfortunately for the country". It's also interesting that the largest voting bloc in the 2012 election, according to two exit polls were moderates. So while the fastest growing voting bloc is in the middle, both parties are moving in opposite directions to the extreme left and right. That's where I agree that it's unfortunate for the country..

 

[Nyvin]

If the Democrats were far left, wouldn't we have single payer health care right now and not a right-wing derived "Obamacare"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"shhhhhhhh it's a secret, ancient Chinese Secret"

 

[Contumacious]

Has the Far Left Taken Over the Democratic Party?

That is NOT a breaking story. That occurred back in 1913. Read about the history of the "income tax" and the Federal Reserve Board. Has been downhill ever since.

.