Are Democrats Right Wing Conservatives ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Are American Democrats/Democratic Party Right Wing Conservative Bourgeoisie Capitalists just like the American Republicans/Republican Party many Americans seem to think that the Democrats are Left Wing and the Republicans are Right Wing is this wrong there are Blue Dog Democrats they are Conservative Democrats are the Democrats in general just Conservatives ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Democrat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

[Kadir Ateş]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk

[Le Socialiste]

Not necessarily. Are they capitalists? Yes, of course. But I wouldn't consider them right-wing conservatives. If anything, they're liberals.

Edit - But yes, when held up side by side with the revolutionary left, the Democratic Party can be considered conservative by comparison (If that makes sense).

[tradeunionsupporter]

Democratic Leadership Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Democratic Leadership Council was a non-profit 501(c)(4) (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/501(c)(4)) corporation[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-0) that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party) should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The DLC hails President Bill Clinton (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Bill_Clinton) as proof of the viability of third way (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Third_way_(centrism)) politicians and as a DLC success story.
The DLC's affiliated think tank (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Think_tank) is the Progressive Policy Institute (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Progressive_Policy_Institute). Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/New_Democrats). Note that this term is also used by other groups, who have similar views on where the party should go in the future like NDN (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/New_Democrat_Network)[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-1) and Third Way (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Third_Way_(think_tank)).[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-2)
The DLC's current chairman is former Representative Harold Ford (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Harold_Ford,_Jr.) of Tennessee (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Tennessee), and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Thomas_R._Carper) of Delaware (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Delaware). Its CEO is Bruce Reed (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Bruce_Reed).
On February 7, 2011, Politico (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Politico_(newspaper)) reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would so as early as the following week.[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-3)

2003 invasion of Iraq

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq). Prior to the war, Will Marshall (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Will_Marshall) co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Saddam_Hussein). During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Howard_Dean) as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Michael_Moore) as members of the "loony left".[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-12) Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-13)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

http://www.dlc.org/

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893

[Die Rote Fahne]

They range from liberals to conservative.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Many Americans vote for the Democrats because Democrats are seen as the lesser of two evils.

[Princess Luna]

I think Democrats like Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich are moderate leftists (I.E. Liberals) , I do think Obama is a conservative however.

[thesadmafioso]

They are slightly less right wing than the republican party, and on the American political spectrum that is enough for them to be considered the liberal and progressive party. So yes, you could very well call the vast majority of them conservatives, as they essentially are.

[Ose]

The old left/right-wing distinction made much more sense in 1792 than it does now. This all comes down to where one deems the centre ground to be, as it is by no means objectively defined. In a two-party system (however much validity one ascribes to that characterisation) the centre ground will always generally be assumed to be in between the two. Of course they are both capitalists, but there are ideological differences between the two.

I don't really think there is an objective benchmark by which to judge the two parties. We can say that they are both to the right of all of us here, and that the democrats are further left than the republicans, but to define one as 'left' and the other as 'right' cannot be done in any meaningful way, as those terms hold no objective value.

[Blake's Baby]

I remember in 1984 the question was 'what's the point in chosing between a conservative, and an ultra-conservative?'

Man that Reagan-Mondale fight was dull. Two grey men being grey, greyly, while one of them slowly went senile.


On 'left' and 'right'... there is an old saying - 'left or right, two wings of the same bird'. In Europe the Democrats would be regarded as a centre party (a few leftish members, some rightish memebers). The Republicans would be Right to extreme Right. But they're the left and right wings of capitalism. They have no progressive content that Marxists or Anarchists should recognise. We should really think of ourselves as being part of a different political sphere altogether. We don't want to administer capitalism we want to destroy it.

[Jose Gracchus]

Who cares. They're one of the two public-relations marketing teams competing to sell capital's programs (which are largely a product of bourgeois consensus and non-variant over historical periods) to the working-class.

[Coach Trotsky]

I wish revLefters would stop generously cutting slack for Democrat/liberal misleaderships.

They are SYSTEM-DEFENDING PARASITIC ENEMIES. When push comes to shove, they don't have a consistent progressive bone in their bodies. If anything or anyone actually threatens their "piece of the pie" in this system (and especially if they actually threaten the whole system), you'll see what I mean.
They can be just as thuggish as fascists if you dare to pull their hands out of the capitalist system cookie jar, so when you go against them be prepared for a real fight.

[Pioneers_Violin]

For quite some time, the Democrats are just the other side of the same coin...
Republicans on one side, Democrats on the other.
They might as well be the same party.
Perhaps better names might be "Republicrats" or "Demicans"

It is kind of fun to listen to talk-radio guys calling Dems Socialists and Obama an "Ultra-Left Radical Marxist". That alone make me like him just a little. But....
it doesn't appear to be true.

Perhaps Comrade Obama is being very cunning and is trying to bring about the revolution? :rolleyes:

[Coach Trotsky]

For quite some time, the Democrats are just the other side of the same coin...
Republicans on one side, Democrats on the other.
They might as well be the same party.
Perhaps better names might be "Republicrats" or "Demicans"

It is kind of fun to listen to talk-radio guys calling Dems Socialists and Obama an "Ultra-Left Radical Marxist". That alone make me like him just a little. But....
it doesn't appear to be true.

Perhaps Comrade Obama is being very cunning and is trying to bring about the revolution? :rolleyes:

The bourgeois Right and Left are reactionary as hell.

Right: "those darn immigrants, greedy unions, homos, feminists, athiests and lazy people on welfare living off of my taxdollars are to blame. Vote Republican 2012"

Left: "whites/heteros/males are privileged oppressors...they're to blame. Yeay globalization...workers of the world unite, drop your britches, and prepare to get superexploited because 'we are all the same'! Imperialism is progressive when we do it! Obama 2012!"

[Turinbaar]

FDR approved Britian's decision to re-enlist the japanese POW's under its command to put down Ho Chi Minh's National Government, which committed the US to years of war to keep the old order alive in Indochina.

JFK ran against Nixon on the grounds that nixon was being too soft on Cuba and not nice enough to Israel. He was also adamant about symbolizing the imperial war in Vietnam as something necessary and noble. Nixon would later justify his shenanigans in office and on the global stage on the grounds that Kennedy had done all of the same and had gotten away with it.

Clinton of course made the Democratic party the new center of patronage for billionaire capitalists, and is now the main advisor on all matters to the Obama administration.

[Coach Trotsky]

FDR approved Britian's decision to re-enlist the japanese POW's under its command to put down Ho Chi Minh's National Government, which committed the US to years of war to keep the old order alive in Indochina.

JFK ran against Nixon on the grounds that nixon was being too soft on Cuba and not nice enough to Israel. He was also adamant about symbolizing the imperial war in Vietnam as something necessary and noble. Nixon would later justify his shenanigans in office and on the global stage on the grounds that Kennedy had done all of the same and had gotten away with it.

Clinton of course made the Democratic party the new center of patronage for billionaire capitalists, and is now the main advisor on all matters to the Obama administration.

And of course, here's a little something to illustrate the historically "progressive" nature of the Democratic Party in the U.S. South.
The official slogan of the Alabama Democratic Party was "White Supremacy! For the Right!"
Notice the date---1966!!! That was their official slogan until 1966!!!
http://ia600507.us.archive.org/23/items/RacistDemocraticPartyLogo/racistdemocraticlogo.pdf
Don't miss the reasons given in that article for why they changed the slogan in 1966. Progressives, my ass.

[RichardAWilson]

Mainstream Democrats are center-right. So, yes, they're Moderate Conservatives.

Just another reason why we need a Mass Workingman's Party (Alternative) and why the trade unions should break with the so-called Mainstream Democrats.

[Franz Fanonipants]

yes

[#FF0000]

Left: "whites/heteros/males are privileged oppressors...they're to blame.

I have never heard a democrat ever say anything remotely close to this ever. Everything else was on point tho.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, they are a capitalist party - their orientation within the range or ruling class politics changes based on the social circumstances.

Generally both parties agree with the overall goals and needs of the capitalist state, but they may generally have different opinions about how to go about that.

When the ruling class is divided on something, the two parties might come to represent two possible ruling class answers to the situation. The foreign policy in the US at times during the Bush administration reflected this briefly at different points. Some Democrats and Republicans wanted to return to a sort of coalition-building strategy to shore up the allies the US still had when it was really bogged down in Iraq: they rejected the Bush plan for not being "realistic" at that point and causing harm to the US empire and offered up alternatives like partitioning the country (Biden) or removing ground troops and upping bombings. This became then new "consensus" for the ruling class after the previous more ambitious Bush-era consensus broke apart due to the quagmire and resistance as well as the anger at home and losing grip of other regions in order to go gonzo in Iraq. This was a short-lived split and the ruling class took advantage of internal divisions in Iraq and confusion about the war in the US to change course and offer a less visibly problematic, but no less bloody and destructive, option.

Civil Rights probably represents a more serious split in the ruling class and the "new Deal" is another. These cases were ones in which the ruling class used the two party system to respond to a lot of pressure from below. In these examples, the Democrats acted as a "pressure valve" arguing that it would be better, in the first case, to make concessions to labor (though they did not do this in the first round of FDR reforms, tellingly) in a way that would provide some relief and hopefully make dissent and action a little harder - or at least not such a clear option and, in the second case, eliminate an archaic racial code rather than risk domestic unrest and social disruption and loosing face as "leader of the free world".

In the absence of pressure from below the Democrats who, since the post Civil War era have had a strong wing that has tried to present the party as the more popular party (as in populist) as opposed to the business-oriented Republicans, really have no need or use for "going left/liberal". This is how the New Democrats came to dominate the party since the late 80s. While some Democrats individually argue for a return to Keynesian or other "liberal" measures for the economic crisis, both parties (and most of the capitalist ruling classes in the world) have settled on trying to recover the economy through austerity and lowering labor costs and so unless there is a lot of labor or social unrest or the economy again crashes and austerity is exposed as useless even in capitalist terms (which would also really just responding to the fear that unrest will happen unless an alternative is found) these voices will remain a minority. If the ruling class does find a need for that, all the Democratic leaders will say, see look how forward thinking our party was because so-and-so was arguing for X program back in 2009!

This is what the Democrats did with Iraq. As Obama said, "I was against the war since before it began!" Great, then why are you in a party that unanimously voted for the war and continues to fund it... hell why do you continue to wage it!

[Jose Gracchus]

I'm tired of hearing OMG WHAT ABOUT DEFENDING SOCIAL GAINS...this is just a weak sauce version of Brezhnevites obsession with the Brezhnev-era USSR as some bastion of social welfare and sincerity. They only offer deals to the extent that class struggle puts them against a wall and forces them to offer concessions. We got all that shit in the New Deal because the 1930s were a period of working-class uprising, and it was necessary to re-channel it into supporting the war and restarting capitalism. That's why we got a lot of bribes.

Sometimes the warden and guards improve tier conditions to reduce the likelihood of a riot; to prisoners have a role in supporting the 'nice guards' or the 'nice warden'?

[Coach Trotsky]

I have never heard a democrat ever say anything remotely close to this ever. Everything else was on point tho.
Are you kidding?
Was it just very selective hearing?

Want to play a game, where I bring up specific examples of influential Democrats (not just politicians running for office---I'm talking everything from civil rights group leaders, major journalists, academic personalities, media celebrities, and other influential supporters of the Democratic party ) saying such things (especially when addressing largely minority or 'feminist' audiences), and then you come back with rationalizations for why it was okay or even "progressive" for Democrats to say that?

Hmm...where should I start? What kind of liberal-Left bigots would you like to see examples of first? Pick your favorite liberal-Leftie-positive identity-politics cause, and let's have some fun.

[Coach Trotsky]

I'm tired of hearing OMG WHAT ABOUT DEFENDING SOCIAL GAINS...this is just a weak sauce version of Brezhnevites obsession with the Brezhnev-era USSR as some bastion of social welfare and sincerity. They only offer deals to the extent that class struggle puts them against a wall and forces them to offer concessions. We got all that shit in the New Deal because the 1930s were a period of working-class uprising, and it was necessary to re-channel it into supporting the war and restarting capitalism. That's why we got a lot of bribes.

Sometimes the warden and guards improve tier conditions to reduce the likelihood of a riot; to prisoners have a role in supporting the 'nice guards' or the 'nice warden'?
Exactly. To anyone looking to Democrats to defend any real progressive social gains, I got one thing to say for starters:
Wisconsin!
Wake up folks.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Want to play a game, where I bring up specific examples of influential Democrats ... saying such things ... and then you come back with rationalizations for why it was okay or even "progressive" for Democrats to say that?

Hmm...where should I start? What kind of liberal-Left bigots would you like to see examples of first? Pick your favorite liberal-Leftie-positive identity-politics cause, and let's have some fun.



I think you're missing the point. #FF0000 was not claiming to defend them, just warning you against strawmen and hyperbole. So once you have given your examples I'm sure #FF0000 will be able to say that they have heard Democrats say these things.

It's your game, you serve first.

[Pioneers_Violin]

Exactly. To anyone looking to Democrats to defend any real progressive social gains, I got one thing to say for starters:
Wisconsin!
Wake up folks.

Actually, to their great credit, the Wisconsin Dems did foul things up for some time by leaving the state in protest. This prevented a critical step from occurring. Eventually, their criminal Governor slithered his way around the laws and got his way without them.

The Wisconsin Dems did their best to stop the Wisconsin Disaster, but when voters give all of the power to one party, this is the kind of thing that happens.

[Coach Trotsky]

Actually, to their great credit, the Wisconsin Dems did foul things up for some time by leaving the state in protest. This prevented a critical step from occurring. Eventually, their criminal Governor slithered his way around the laws and got his way without them.

The Wisconsin Dems did their best to stop the Wisconsin Disaster, but when voters give all of the power to one party, this is the kind of thing that happens.

That matters only if you recognize the legitimacy of the bourgeois imperialist state. As far as I'm concerned, the United States and other imperialist countries are neo-colonial occupation regimes, its ruling classes are just factions within a now-globalized (dare I say bourgeois-internationalist?) ruling class...thus these states and the ruling class they represent are alien, antagonistic enemies and NOT representative of NOR serving the interests of the working peoples and oppressed peoples within OR outside the imperialist countries. Their "democracy" and their "republic" have as much legitimacy for the workers and oppressed as the regimes and "democratic" processes which the U.S led invasion and occupation forces imposed upon Afghanistan and Iraq....meaning ZERO!

Thus, I don't Dems tried to prevent a disaster, but are themselves a key part of the disaster.