The Democratic Party

[Democratic Socialist]

I distance myself from the Democratic Party as much as possible because their end goal is not the same as mine (they have no intention of abolishing capitalism). However, I pose this question to all leftists and capitalists on this board (since I have been restricted): what specifically have the Democrats done that you haven't liked? Is it simply the fact that they haven't done enough to advance the leftist cause that you dislike them or have they actually taken actions you widely condemn? Because it seems the former tends to be the general trend.

I have my own beef with the Democrats but I'll leave the floor open to you all.

[KC]

Because they're bourgeois? Because they're just as bad as republicans?

[Democratic Socialist]

Originally posted by Zampanò@February 13, 2007 12:32 am
Because they're bourgeois? Because they're just as bad as republicans?
That's not a reason. That's a talking point of the far left. I'm interested as to why they cannot make positive changes that people on the far left can say "It doesn't go as far as I would like but that is definitely a step in the right direction." I'm not saying this is the case but why do Marxists never give a good response to this?

...My guess is a lot of you Wikipedia'd Marxism, Communism, etc. and said "This is what I want to be!" From there, you memorized the talking points and recited them like clockwork... Which is fine initially but make it your own. Back up your rhetoric with legitimate evidence.

[EwokUtopia]

The lesser of two evils. Democratic presidents tend to have a better America, even if they are not better presidents themselves. The president is the face of America in many ways, and represents the way America is viewed and the way it views itself. I think we have all seen the trends that a "liberal" president has an America with a more active counterculture than a "conservative" president does. Point in case, compare the culture of America in Clintons 90's to the culture of the same country in Reagans 80's or Bush's 2000's. There lies the difference.

And, being a Canadian, I would rather have a less fundamentalist interventionalist warhawk incharge of the elephant at our doorstep.

Democrats arent good. They suck. But they do suck just a little bit less than the only alternative in American "democracy". That little bit can change the culture and face of the US quite significantly, even if the politics are every bit as bad.

[Democratic Socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:37 am
The lesser of two evils. Democratic presidents tend to have a better America, even if they are not better presidents themselves. The president is the face of America in many ways, and represents the way America is viewed and the way it views itself. I think we have all seen the trends that a "liberal" president has an America with a more active counterculture than a "conservative" president does. Point in case, compare the culture of America in Clintons 90's to the culture of the same country in Reagans 80's or Bush's 2000's. There lies the difference.

And, being a Canadian, I would rather have a less fundamentalist interventionalist warhawk incharge of the elephant at our doorstep.

Democrats arent good. They suck. But they do suck just a little bit less than the only alternative in American "democracy". That little bit can change the culture and face of the US quite significantly, even if the politics are every bit as bad.
Yes! See, that's what I mean.

[KC]

That's not a reason. That's a talking point of the far left. I'm interested as to why they cannot make positive changes that people on the far left can say "It doesn't go as far as I would like but that is definitely a step in the right direction." I'm not saying this is the case but why do Marxists never give a good response to this?

...My guess is a lot of you Wikipedia'd Marxism, Communism, etc. and said "This is what I want to be!" From there, you memorized the talking points and recited them like clockwork... Which is fine initially but make it your own. Back up your rhetoric with legitimate evidence.

That's not a "talking point" at all. The fact of the matter is that the democrats won't make any significant changes for the same reason that the republicans won't, and that's because they're both members of the same class.

[cb9's_unity]

One of my problems with the democratic party is they protend to be the voice of the worker but when they get into office they don't do shit. People like me a year ago think that Democratic party is as far left as you can go without being an idealist or going with the nothing green party. So when they get into office with there still very bourgeois agenda people who think they are as far left as possible go 'well at least it's not a rebublican'.

I mean i plan to vote in the next election and if i believe there is a democrat who will do any good for the workers i will do what i think is best for the immediat sitution of the proletariat. and my sense is that if proletarians get any sort of benifits and realize the capitalists can afford it, we as true leftists can tell them that they can get far more than a few tiny changes

[Democratic Socialist]

Originally posted by cb9'[email protected] 13, 2007 12:48 am
One of my problems with the democratic party is they protend to be the voice of the worker but when they get into office they don't do shit. People like me a year ago think that Democratic party is as far left as you can go without being an idealist or going with the nothing green party. So when they get into office with there still very bourgeois agenda people who think they are as far left as possible go 'well at least it's not a rebublican'.

I mean i plan to vote in the next election and if i believe there is a democrat who will do any good for the workers i will do what i think is best for the immediat sitution of the proletariat. and my sense is that if proletarians get any sort of benifits and realize the capitalists can afford it, we as true leftists can tell them that they can get far more than a few tiny changes
I certainly respect this view a whole lot more than Zampano's, which seems to unfortunately be the norm.

[Cryotank Screams]

Why are all the petit-bourgeoisie liberals obsessed with the democratic party?

[EwokUtopia]

The Democrats suck ass. But since we most likely arent going to secure the revolution in America by 2008, we should hope they win (while not voting for them because that would be a sellout) because they will create a better climate for leftists. Still wont be a lovely climate, but it wont have the wind-chill factor we are recieving ontop of Bush Mountain.

[Nusocialist]

The democrats, or at least the policy makers simply represent different factions of the ruling classes to the republicons and believe in different policies for countering crisis tendencies in capitalism.

[razboz]

I dont know much about American politics. But from the little i hear on this side of the Atlantic it seems to me that the Democrats and the Republicans are both on the Right. It is possible that the Democrats are a little more to the centre, but really they are ont he right. In Europe they'd be sitting somewhere near the Ultra-Nationalists and the Republicans. Their big masterstroke was making the Republicans look worse than them and then coming out and saying "See! We're not as bad as that lot, vote for us!". Its vaguely possible that the Republicans are actually better than the Democrats, considering Bush's presidency actually brought about an increase in the economy. Its a teneous point i know.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats are unable to help the working class however, considering they are paid by people (big coroporations come to mind) who rely on a weak working class to mantain their privileges.

[R_P_A_S]

they are out of touch. regardless they still are upper class people ultimately with upper class interest.

the first united states government who does the following will earn some respect from me.

1. lift the cuban embargo
2. socialize medicine
3. socialize education
and admits its crimes throughout the planet and does something to pay back and help fix things.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:15 am
they are out of touch. regardless they still are upper class people ultimately with upper class interest.

the first united states government who does the following will earn some respect from me.

1. lift the cuban embargo
2. socialize medicine
3. socialize education
and admits its crimes throughout the planet and does something to pay back and help fix things.
:lol: Not happening until the Socialist Party of America comes to power and all the rednecks disaperar and theres a revolution and...

basically i don't think any of those things will happen until capitalism is destroyed. Which probably wont be soon.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:01 pm
I am a Democrate and i view them as the lesser of two evils.
How is it the lesser of two evils? It is supported by and full responsible for some of the most unpleasant corporations of America. Historically it has some very dubious roots (need i remind you who the KKK were affiliated with?)

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:01 pm
I am a Democrate and i view them as the lesser of two evils.
Do you believe that the US presidential election is democratic? http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=24734

I don't. From your comment regarding the 'lesser of two evils' I guess you don't either. Don't you think that a democracy would have more then two options?


As to the question posed, I'm not in the US. But from my position, I can say this, the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. Who voted for the war in Iraq? Who voted for the PATRIOT Act? Who voted for a number of other policies that reduce the freedoms of USAians? What party was the President who bombed Iraq repeatedly through the 1990's? What party was the President who ignored the genocide in Rwanda? And so on. No matter the rhetoric, when you look at the actual record of Democrats vs Republicans, they are both as bad as each other.

[razboz]

In retrospect apathy maybe's points are probably better'n mine

[razboz]

I would not vote for anyone except those truly represent my will. That is the very basis of democracy and doing anything else is anti democratic. If such a person does not exist then i would do like i am expected to do in any democracy agitate for my voice to be heard

But that's just what i would do.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:51 pm
I am gonna answer both of your questions.

In this country third partys are a joke over 90% percent of Americans view voteing for third party as wasteing there vote cuz they think they no shot of ever getting in to office.

I agree with you guys they are both fucked up. But IMO the Democrates have less crazy christain fundies in the party who i can't stand, They are a step in the right direction however small it maybe.


Now who else do you think i should vote for?
Voting for a third party is a waste of time. 'Cause you haven't got a democratic system.

But voting for any party is a waste of time. The dems and repubs are the same as each other, both pawns of the capitalists. Any other party (even if they got elected) would be forced to be reformist and thus not actually be any different in the long run.


So don't vote.

In fact, get out and actively discourage people from voting, explain why it is a waste of time and how they should be fighting for actual power at the ground level. (There is plenty of stuff around here.) You know you want to.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Democratic Socialist+February 12, 2007 09:35 pm--> (Democratic Socialist @ February 12, 2007 09:35 pm)
Zampanò@February 13, 2007 12:32 am
Because they're bourgeois? Because they're just as bad as republicans?
That's not a reason. That's a talking point of the far left. I'm interested as to why they cannot make positive changes that people on the far left can say "It doesn't go as far as I would like but that is definitely a step in the right direction." I'm not saying this is the case but why do Marxists never give a good response to this?

...My guess is a lot of you Wikipedia'd Marxism, Communism, etc. and said "This is what I want to be!" From there, you memorized the talking points and recited them like clockwork... Which is fine initially but make it your own. Back up your rhetoric with legitimate evidence. [/b]
Why don't you request that we back up our contempt for Republican Party politics? They're both the same fucking thing. I may be able to relate on some points with Democrats, but in the end there is no consistent reason for working class activists to support their capitalism.

Why don't we like the American Democratic Party? Look at everything they've done over the years. Vietnam, Korea, establishing dictatorships around the world, fighting against communists, generally defending capitalism with violence and force. See how pointless that was. Everyone already knows why they suck. Stupid question.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 09:35 pm
...My guess is a lot of you Wikipedia'd Marxism, Communism, etc. and said "This is what I want to be!" From there, you memorized the talking points and recited them like clockwork... Which is fine initially but make it your own. Back up your rhetoric with legitimate evidence.
:lol:

speak for yourself

[EwokUtopia]

American Democracy is the choice between Coke or Pepsi or nothing at all. You can try to order a beer, but you'll never get it. The American bartenders are the laziest peices of shit around, and they only know how to serve coke or pepsi. But since Coke gave us a massive heartburn the last time it was ordered 4 years ago, we had best order nothing and hope that the people who do order get pepsi, so as not to throw up all over the bar and invade another bar down the street out of frustration...or at least not as badly.

[Coggeh]

Thiers always an alternative ..... why constrict yourself to a chance that just mapybe the democratic party will do things differently , they talk alot but do fuck all

[Guerrilla22]

Why don't we support the democratic party. Probaly because their whole platform is based around advancing neo-liberal economic policies, which is no different than the GOP's platform.

[cb9's_unity]

I've been thinking about this and there are some damn good reasons for leftists to vote for the democratic party. First off during the next election i will have at least a tiny amount of power in protecting a womens right to choose. Remember the president nominates Supreme court judges and any republican (except for guliani) will be glad to put in anti-abortion judges. Second i live in Massachusetts and theres no way in hell i'm going to give the only state in america that allows gay marrage back to biggots.

Remember that political parties do not only focus on economics. If they did there wouldn't be much of a reason to vote for democrats. But on social aspects a lot of democrats are miles away from Republicans and there evangelical base.

[Cyanide Suicide]

If one's sole mindset is a revolution and to have a communist society, then I could see why people would say they are the same. However, if one also happens to care about such things as education, taxes, global warming, etc, then I would think it's smarter to go with the lesser of the two evils. Like some others have said a liberal enviornment is much better of an atmosphere than with a conservative one. Less censorship and generally better things than with the conservatives in charge. Also, it is hard generalize democrats as having the same set of beliefs, take 08 canidate Dennis Kucinich, he would like to socialize many of the things in this country. But I agree that some (and probably the majority) of democrats aren't to the left at all, and these are the ones who are worthless. And I think the reason is because people who are far left or just left for that matter know that at this time they won't have a chance.

[Honggweilo]

Excerpt from state and revolution (V.I Lenin) on working within a parlementairy system.


For Marx, however, revolutionary dialectics was never the empty fashionable phrase, the toy rattle, which Plekhanov, Kautsky and others have made of it. Marx knew how to break with anarchism ruthlessly for its inability to make use even of the “pigsty” of bourgeois parliamentarism, especially when the situation was obviously not revolutionary; but at the same time he knew how to subject parliamentarism to genuinely revolutionary proletarian criticism.


counts for workers parties and progressive coalitions, however not for bourgeois parties like the democratic party or new labour style western social democrats

[Demogorgon]

I'm not American but the problem with the Democratic part is exactly the same as the problem with the Labour party so it's easy to answer. When the Democrats (or the Labour party hold office) they behave in a manner I strongly dissaprove of little different to the Republicans (or the Conservatives).

Now here's the problem in America (Britain too but it's noot as severe) and that is that it is extremely undemocratic by modern standards. America could last be considered to be at the forefront of Democratic progress in the nineteenth century. The problem is the voting system (amongst other things). If a country as large as America only has two parties with any real representatyion it should be setting off alarm bells.In the US house of reprentatives out of 435 seats a grand total of two are represented. Does everyone in America's political views come under just two camps?

Compare that with the Dutch system where in the 150 seat Twede Kamer ten parties hold seats with the largest only having 41, well short of a majority. The largest four are all pretty close as well. Personally I think that is far more representative of people's views.

So the answer there is proportional representation. That hardly solves every problem as the Dutch will testify but it at least makes elections fair and worth voting in. I don't see the pointt in voting in an America election unless you have a particular pet issue that a local candidate favours, elections are that unfair. In this country it is well worth my while voting for the Scottish parliament as those elections are partially fair (though nowehere near the Dutch model I noted) but in Westminster elections I only vote either to mark a protest (so I am not just called apathetic) or to try and unseat the local MP as in the last election where it was at least worthwhile to replace a pro-war MP with an anti-war one.

[Eleutherios]

While I would agree that the Democratic Party is ideologically the slightly lesser of two evils, I don't think that voting for it is going to advance working-class interests very much. Say we elect a whole bunch of Democrats into office, and they enact legislation that makes the current situation a little bit more tolerable. This is going to make people say "Hey look, we did something, and now society is better. We finally won!" Not only is this false sense of accomplishment going to discourage them from taking things further, it's also going to convince them that voting for Democrats is the way to make things better.

Then, when it turns out that the Democrats are no less corrupted by money and power than any other politician, the Republicans are going to say "Gee, look at how corrupt those Democrats are! This only proves that the left isn't competent to run things. Vote conservative!" People will believe them and next time vote for Republicans, and the cycle will start all over again. It's been going on for quite some time now.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Cyanide [email protected] 13, 2007 11:43 pm
However, if one also happens to care about such things as education, taxes, global warming, etc, then I would think it's smarter to go with the lesser of the two evils.
From a Latin-American perspective, the Democrats are probably the greater evil.

Luís Henrique

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 17, 2007 12:55 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 17, 2007 12:55 pm)
Cyanide [email protected] 13, 2007 11:43 pm
However, if one also happens to care about such things as education, taxes, global warming, etc, then I would think it's smarter to go with the lesser of the two evils.
From a Latin-American perspective, the Democrats are probably the greater evil.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Maybe earlier in the 20th century, but I don't think anyone in their right mind should consider (for instance) backing Nicaragua's Contras less evil than backing Aristide.

That being said, Chavez and Citgo are doing more for the American working and under classes than the Democrats ever will.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+February 17, 2007 01:01 pm--> (Cheung Mo @ February 17, 2007 01:01 pm)
Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 17, 2007 12:55 pm

Cyanide [email protected] 13, 2007 11:43 pm
However, if one also happens to care about such things as education, taxes, global warming, etc, then I would think it's smarter to go with the lesser of the two evils.
From a Latin-American perspective, the Democrats are probably the greater evil.

Luís Henrique
Maybe earlier in the 20th century, but I don't think anyone in their right mind should consider (for instance) backing Nicaragua's Contras less evil than backing Aristide.

That being said, Chavez and Citgo are doing more for the American working and under classes than the Democrats ever will. [/b]
If the democrats get in power , it will be the end for communist Cuba(Ill leave the criticisms lay for now).They are going to lift the embargo and let the flow of big business into Cuba and after Castro's death their will be no one to stand up to this . The youth of the country will see it as a godsends and turn on the revolution . :angry:

[apathy maybe]

No they won't life the embargo. They have had enough chances to do that, and they haven't. The big reason is, there isn't a pro-Cuba lobby group, and the only press is anti-"Communist Cuba".


They want to keep the Florida Cubans on side, 'cause they have money and votes. There isn't anyone else who cares.

No one is going to life the embargo and time soon.


Besides which, the USA is the only country to still have the embargo in place. Every other country in the world trades with Cuba. In fact the USA trades with Cuba.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Because they talk a bunch but do the opposite. Take a look at the kinds of stuff Bill Clinton passed. Nafta is one of the things he pushed for. After the Oklahoma bombings he did the same thing that George Bush did after 911 and he passed the Anti-terrorism and Death tax Penalty Act.

The anti-terrorism bill was just like the Patriot Act. Liberals fail to realize this when they talk about how bad the Patriot act is and how Bush is so bad yet their Clinton was a godsend. The Defense of Marriage Act is another that he pushed for and passed that said no state needs to recognize a marriage between people of the same sex. Billy passed the Iraq Liberation Act which said that the US should do as much as it could to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq. This Act was Bush's biggest piece of evidence to go to war with Iraq. The Violent Crime and Control and Law Enforcement Act which among other things took away even more semi-automatic rifles from Californians. Although he did veto a partial birth abortion ban.

Those are the reasons not to vote for democrats. Not even mentioning that they want to push their capitalist agenda and they want to push the Israeli agenda. If I was to vote I would vote for Nader for a step in the right direction. I don't believe voting for democrats is even a step in any direction.

[apathy maybe]

I don't think it has ever been. But even if it was at one stage, the USA now trades "humanitarian" goods, such as food and medicine. I can't give you specifics (the Wikipedia article has a little bit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_embargo ), but I am sure that you could find them if you want.

But do remember, whether there is a Republican president or a Democrat president, a Republican controlled Congress or a Democrat controlled Congress, the embargo has stayed.

[Lenin's Law]

I've been thinking about this

Think harder.


and there are some damn good reasons for leftists to vote for the democratic party.

Replace the word "leftists" with the word "liberals" and you are on to something.


First off during the next election i will have at least a tiny amount of power in protecting a womens right to choose. Remember the president nominates Supreme court judges and any republican (except for guliani) will be glad to put in anti-abortion judges.

Stop being naive; if you are from Massachusetts your vote will mean absolutely nothing in the Presidential contest as that state is by and large almost completely controlled by the Democrats.

Furthermore, about the whole abortion issue that the liberals keep on bringing up time and time again; do me a favor and take a close look at the Supreme Court justices right now and identify which ones were appointed by Republicans.

You will notice that the majority of the Supreme Court justices have been appointed by "pro-life" Republican Presidents!! (Shock....horror...OH NOES!! :o :o )

But wait! All is not lost my liberal friend! Roe v Wade has still not been overturned despite a majority of Supreme Court justices being appointed by Republicans, and despite having a Republican President in 20 of the last 28 years.

Confused? Here's the answer - Despite the rhetoric and maybe a few fanatics who actually believe the fundamentalist garbage, the major Republican leaders and players in Washington do not want to see Roe v Wade overturned; they know that will fire up the liberal base, fire up all the pro choice groups like never before. They don't want that but NOR do they want their backward Christian fundamentalist base to go away either, they play a big role in getting out votes for the GOP.

So the Republicans make some noise about being pro life, godly, good christians, etc etc while doing next to nothing when they actually get into office on the issue.

Now notice, if you really are concerned about this issue, you'll find disturbing how many of the Democratic presidential candidates have begun to take a second look and a "softer" line on abortion and have begun to talk about "god" more in their speeches. Why? Because they want in on the fundy base too; they're playing the same game as the Republicans are, as they do for most things in general.

As for same sex marriage, well, it was Clinton after all who signed and openly supported the "Defense of Marriage Act" which (you'll likely guess) defended traditional marriage as between a man and a woman. Most if not all of the major Democratic Presidential candidates do not support same sex marriage either.

By the way, even IF Roe v Wade is overturned (which is, as I stated above, unlikely) abortion will not be automatically outlawed. What happens next is that the states get to decide whether or not they support abortion. Being that you are from Massachusetts, a state again, effectively controlled by Democrats and pro-choice people, you have nothing to worry about.

As for the states that might ban abortion, unfortunately, the likely scenario is that those states are so backward and so restrictive anyway, it makes getting an abortion next to impossible so again, no great difference will be made.

But the most likely scenario is that Republican Presidents will do with Roe v Wade what they've been doing with it for the last 20 of 28 years: Nothing.

Though every few years around election time, it does do some good to raise some cry and uproar over the issue to get fundamentalists to vote Republican and liberals to vote Democrat. Nice to see it's still working.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by Democratic Socialist+February 13, 2007 12:26 am--> (Democratic Socialist @ February 13, 2007 12:26 am)However, I pose this question to all leftists and capitalists on this board (since I have been restricted): what specifically have the Democrats done that you haven't liked? Is it simply the fact that they haven't done enough to advance the leftist cause that you dislike them or have they actually taken actions you widely condemn? Because it seems the former tends to be the general trend.
[/b]
:lol: You gotta be kidding me.

"What have they done?" That's like asking what the Republicans have done and why we are against them. Nay, it's probably worse since gullible, naive "leftists" actually believe in their (false) "leftist" credientials.

Where to begin?

Well, it seems you've missed the last 100 years or so or maybe you've failed to notice how America's involvement in most of the imperialist wars of the 20th century were started by Democratic Presidents: WWI (Wilson), Korea (Truman) Vietnam (Kennedy, later escalated by Johnson). A good book to pick up would be "Killing Hope American foreign policy since World War II."

This of course, only scratches the surface and doesn't even begin to touch upon all the covert operations to destroy authentic progressive and socialist movements and the support given to bloody right wing dictatorships and corrupt, backward monarchies all over the world.

On the domestic front? The last Democratic President, Clinton, introduced NAFTA, signed the "Defense of Marriage" Act, gutted what was left of "welfare" (which in America, wasn't much to begin with at all), signed the "Iraqi Liberation Act" which made clear that the US was now openly seeking to dismantle the Iraqi regime.

Looking back on Clinton's comments on Iraq, it is humorous to see how closely his language mirrors that of Bush:



Clinton
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

Bush could say this, verbatim, word for word, tomorrow. Perhaps they are using the same speech-writers. Would not be surprising.

Fast forward to today: there was a Democratic Senate in the first two years of Bush's Presidency and the Democrats will control both branches of Congress in the last two. Without even going into what the Democrats could have done while being in the minority, let's examine what they did when they were in control :

Overwhelmingly supported the Patriot Act.
Overwhelmingly supported the war in Afghanistan.
Gave key support to the war in Iraq.
Refused to consider seriously impeaching Bush.
Have supported almost all of Bush's nominees and appointees no matter how reactionary or backward (recall Rumsfeld was backed in a voice vote and Gates, who openly backed the escalation of the war in Iraq was approved of in a 95-2 vote)


Make non-serious, non-binding "resolutions" criticizing not the war itself but the escalation of the war (pay attention to words, the corrupt lawyers/politicians representing the bourgeoisie surely do) But even this is too much for the Democrats, so they make it a "non binding" read "non serious" resolution while categorically refusing even to entertain the notion of their constitutional right of withholding funds for continuing the war in the name of "supporting the troops." Of course, "supporting the troops" to them meaning "having more of them getting killed in an illegal war of aggression." That's "supporting the troops" to the Democrats.

In actuality, with Iraq and with just about every issue, the Democrats disagreement with the Republicans is that of tactics. "We were misled..." "the President has mishandled the war.." "Not enough allies were involved.." "There was a plan to win the war, but not the peace.."

Sound familar? All common Democratic talking points. Now notice what they have in common: not criticisms of the war itself but criticisms of the "handling" the "tactics" of the war; so presumably had the "tactics", the "planning", the "leadership" had been correct, they would have no problem with an illegal war of aggression and no problem having countless Iraqis, mostly civilians and thousands of Americans killed over it.

Meanwhile, in order to show they're still "tough" and "pro military" they seek out new adventures: Hillary goes to the right of Bush on Iran; Kerry goes to the right of Bush on Venezuela, the "anti war" Dean talks about how he's gonna "draw a red line on North Korea" etc etc etc

Really this is pointless, we (socialists) do not support either bourgeois political party because both support the same reactionary, pro-imperialist , pro-capitalist, anti-working class, anti-socialist, anti-internationalist, right wing agenda.

[Lenin's Law]

"They are going to lift the embargo...."

Oh, what makes you think that?

Clinton actually strengthened the embargo against Cuba and, along with some of the most reactionary Republicans like Jesse Helms signed and supported the "Helms-Burton Law" otherwise known as "The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996"

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 07:26 pm
what specifically have the Democrats done that you haven't liked?
Where does one even begin to answer that question? Should I start with Bill Clinton’s “Welfare Reform” his signing NAFTA, or war in Bosnia? Should I start with Wilson getting us into the first world war? (just after being re-elected for keeping us out.) Or his draconian anti-espionage act? Or what more recently when Hillary Clinton stood in front of the United Nations Building in New York City saying, “Israel has a right to defend itself by any means necessary” as Israeli bombs were falling on Lebanese civilians.

We could in fact write a book, (or several volumes of books) on what we on the far left find wrong with the democratic party… or we could sum it up by simply stating that the goal of the democratic party is not, never has been, and never will be a policy of ending capitalism as the economic system of the United States.

[Genosse Kotze]

I actually view them as being the greater of the two evils, because they are more often viewed as being the lesser, so they are able to get away with more repugnant and reactionary policies. It took a Dem., L.B.J to really start the war in Vietnam, that his predecessor, J.F.K (D),...aren't abbreviations fun?!.. had already set in motion. Actually, while everybody weeps over poor JFK's assassination, people don't realize just how hawkish he truly was. He presided over the biggest, peace-time military build up in American history, which was his response to a Soviet reductions in arms (absolutely forcing them to blow money on weapons). Let's not forget all of his terrorist endeavors in Cuba, the Bay of Pigs being the one most popularly discussed but do a search for Operation Mongoose to see what I'm talking about. Now this is just foreign policy issues. So, while LBJ was droning on about that 'great society' of his and strengthening the welfare State, he was simultaneously orchestrating genocide abroad. Now, there are marginal differences between the 2 factions of the Dem-Rep Business Block, if you're interested in gay marriage or stem cell research than by all means go with the donkey, and back then piddly social programs were one of these marginal differences, but today that has changed. It took Democrat Bill Clinton to absolutely ravage AFDC, and I wouldn't count on the new Congress to expand any of the remaining programs there are either. So, when Dems are in power, since they have the brand name that connotes social programs, labor and civility, they are able to be that much more destructive. The only thing I do find good about it when they are in control is that it means the (voting) public are supportive of what the brand 'Democrat' suggests, no matter how hollow it is.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Keine, I totally agree with you. I feel as though they are the greater of two evils because generally they are considered the lesser. It reminds me of the North and South pre-American civil war. The South had slaves and was direct that they were a bunch of bigots. But the north didn't have many slaves not because they believed in equality but because mass agriculture could not live in the north. The northerners were painted as if they were more about equality or peace but they were just as bigoted.

[RNK]

And the fact that the Socialist Party USA so willingly and readily jumped into bed with the Democratic Party only goes to show how degraded and perverted many so-called 'leftists' are when it comes to recognizing the Democrats for the evil they truely are.

It's pathetic how people run up and down praising the Democrats. When Clinton was in office for 8 years, was America the epitomy of a socialist utopia? No. Infact, was it really any different? No. Positions have changed but America remains the same. That is the failure of western democracy.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by razboz+February 13, 2007 12:08 pm--> (razboz @ February 13, 2007 12:08 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 04:01 pm
I am a Democrate and i view them as the lesser of two evils.
How is it the lesser of two evils? It is supported by and full responsible for some of the most unpleasant corporations of America. Historically it has some very dubious roots (need i remind you who the KKK were affiliated with?) [/b]
While I agree that the Democrats are shit, the KKK connection isn't really worth noting.

It was a different party back then, it really has no realistic association with the modern party other than the name, and the ruling class interest.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:39 pm
While I would agree that the Democratic Party is ideologically the slightly lesser of two evils, I don't think that voting for it is going to advance working-class interests very much. Say we elect a whole bunch of Democrats into office, and they enact legislation that makes the current situation a little bit more tolerable. This is going to make people say "Hey look, we did something, and now society is better. We finally won!" Not only is this false sense of accomplishment going to discourage them from taking things further, it's also going to convince them that voting for Democrats is the way to make things better.

Then, when it turns out that the Democrats are no less corrupted by money and power than any other politician, the Republicans are going to say "Gee, look at how corrupt those Democrats are! This only proves that the left isn't competent to run things. Vote conservative!" People will believe them and next time vote for Republicans, and the cycle will start all over again. It's been going on for quite some time now.
EXACTLY. I couldn't have said it better myself. Among the powers that be, there are no true conservatives or leftists—only power-hungry men and women.
When America becomes a tyrannical country (which is not far off), most Americans will not be able to point their finger at the other side and say that it is all their fault. Conservatives will have to look at George Bush when the USA PATRIOT Act is used against war protesters. Liberals will have to look at Bill Clinton when the FBI scours the Internet and art for all subversive conduct. We will get the government that we deserve, and we are headed toward a government that has abandoned all of the essential rules of conduct that the founders fought for, and that works not on traditional standards of justice, but rather the morally relativistic “ends justify the means.”
I agree that the Democrats are slightly better than the Republicans, but ultimately, the far-left has big problems with both.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:29 pm
... we are headed toward a government that has abandoned all of the essential rules of conduct that the founders fought for, and that works not on traditional standards of justice, but rather the morally relativistic “ends justify the means.”
Please...we are not headed towards something against the founding fathers principles. This has always been their intent. The government was made to protect land owners from the masses. There is no such thing as traditional standards of justice. Back then the traditional standard was hanging blacks........ Doesn't sound like justice to me. Stop romanticizing about the founding fathers. They were a bunch of racist, sexist bigots that wanted to conquer the world.