Skip to main content

There is much talk about the Democratic party being a big tent capable of accepting people with diverse views, and that's a good thing.  Nevertheless, I've always been under the impression that what that means is that those diverse views fall within the spectrum of liberalism and/or progressivism.

In other words, I can't see a rabid racist or homophobe as being able to fit within that spectrum.

I'm writing this to encourage discussion on the issue of what it means to be a  Democrat, and a progressive...

I'll start the discussion by sharing my understanding about what it is to be a Democrat and a progressive.  Of course, I welcome any dissenting voices who disagree with that understanding and if their views are backed up convincing arguments, I'll be glad to reassess mine accordingly.

Money and politics:  We view this as the root cause of political corruption and co-option.  It basically means that wealthy interests (individuals and corporate cartels) buy off politicians through a system of legalized bribery (campaign donations and lucrative revolving door jobs) in order to influence them into adopting policies/legislation that ends up exploiting and oppressing the population, and destroying our natural environment.

Therefore, we seek to understand exactly how this process is taking place, and to expose it, and oppose it.  We seek to expose the corruption, the questionable relationships, and the hypocrisy--of politicians saying one thing in order to be elected,  and doing something else (to the benefit of their paymasters) when they are in office (hoping to cash in with lucrative revolving door jobs when they leave).

We understand that during the last several years Wall Street engaged in massive criminal activity, looting the country's (and citizen's) coffers, and that it appears that government functionaries may have shielded them from accountability.

Civil And Constitutional Rights: We value our freedoms and our constitutional rights.  We value privacy rights, workers' rights, women's rights.  We believe in the rights of workers to unionize.  We object to corporate-influenced national security apparatus being used as a tool of oppression against the citizenry, and thus we do not accept the premise that government and corporate spy networks have the right to collect data on us indiscriminately, to build massive dossiers on millions of citizens, and to target individuals and organizations in order to disrupt their constitutionally-protected rights as activists.

We reject, oppose, and unite in solidarity against government abuses of power, including the detention of people without charge, war crimes like extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens, the killing of thousands of innocent people as the result of unmanned drone attacks.

We oppose the privatization of prisons (and horrendous abuses of undocumented immigrants, including beatings, rape, inadequate health care), and public schools.

We advocate for LGBT rights, voting rights, women's rights, worker's rights, environmental protection.

Military Industrial Complex: We oppose and reject the military industrial complex insofar as it is used for the benefit of war profiteers who have an incentive to manufacture conflicts around the world.  We've seen this happened in recent history, in Iraq, for example.

We reject the massive amount of jingoistic propaganda every time the MIC tries to hoodwink the population into another misadventure for which the public ends up paying the highest price.

Politics: We understand that by adhering to the basic principles of what it means to be a progressive and a Democrat, and by speaking truth to power without fear, we are actually helping the party... Because we understand that those who stand for nothing, will fall for anything.

Again, this is my understanding of what it means to be a Democrat and a Progressive.  Am I missing something?  Do you have a different understanding?  If so, please share it for the sake of (respectful and fruitful) discussion.

Market For The People |Ray Pensador | Email List | Twitter | Facebook


Do you agree with the diarist on what it means to be a Democrat and a Progressive?

46%36 votes
24%19 votes
23%18 votes
6%5 votes

| 78 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  fewer Owls of Minerva at Midnight (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, ek hornbeck, AoT, NancyWH, Johnny Q, kalmoth

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 11:40:20 AM PDT

  •  Progressive? yes. (5+ / 0-)

    Democrat? if only.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 11:45:46 AM PDT

    •  FDR's 4 Freedoms were damned progressive (28+ / 0-)

      They're a good place to start:

      The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

      The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.

      The third is freedom from want -- which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

      The fourth is freedom from fear -- which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-- anywhere in the world.

      Who here disagrees w/ freedom of speech, freedom from want, or freedom from fear?  Even those who view religion w/ disdain would agree that others should have he right to worship God in their own way.

      What about Truman in 1948:

      Today the forces of liberalism face a crisis. The people of the United States must make a choice between two ways of living--a decision, which will affect us the rest of our lives and our children and our grandchildren after us.

      On the other side, there is the Wall Street way of life and politics. Trust the leader! Let big business take care of prices and profits! Measure all things by money! That is the philosophy of the masters of the Republican Party.

      Well, I have been studying the Republican Party for over 12 years at close hand in the Capital of the United States. And by this time, I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues.

      Since they won't tell you themselves, I am going to tell you.

      They approve of the American farmer-but they are willing to help him go broke.

      They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing.

      They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights.

      They favor a minimum wage--the smaller the minimum the better.

      They indorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools.

      They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them.

      They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people.

      They consider electric power a great blessing-but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

      They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again.

      They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down.

      They think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people.

      And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.

      The problem isn't the ability of the party to adopt a meaningful platform.  The problem is that far too many w/in the party run away from its proudest traditions.   There's no need to reinvent the wheel--there's a need to recall how and why the Dems once dominated and can dominate again.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:24:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Where is our platform? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

    by We Shall Overcome on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 11:49:41 AM PDT

  •  The belief that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic, markthshark, mikidee

    Economic and social justice for all is a worthy end and that government is the most viable mechanism for achieving that end.

    What people consider to be the essential part of the Democratic Party or progressivism is highly dependent on who they see as the opposite.  Those who are most concerned about corporations and those who are most concerned about religious conservatives may have different views.  They certainly have different areas of emphasis.

    To deconstruct myself, my particular bogeyman has always been hardcore libertarianism, so my definition is intentionally crafted to cause cringing in those with an ideological opposition to "the state".  I see the difference between Democrats and Republicans as one that should be about the basic role of government with diversity on the Democratic side as to how the power of government should be utilized.  I see progressives as one faction with a view of how to use that power that is not necessarily shared by others who should be part of the Democratic coalition.

    •  I see your point. But what I sometimes have a (7+ / 0-)

      a problem with is that some view the issue as either/or.  I think there are many things that are connected, and hence need our attention...

      For example, the corrosive influence of money in politics leads to policies that are anti-worker, anti-human rights, anti-women, repressive, exploitative.

      That's where you find the issues such as voting rights, LGBT, the environment, etc.

      It's all related.

      Now, I do understand that we are all animated by different things/issues, and that's perfectly fine.

      But what we should not be doing is claiming that "our issues" are more important than others'.

      So one may focus more on politics, another on LGTB rights, another on voting rights, another on NSA illegal surveillance, another on money in politics, etc.

      We should all support each other...

      •  Why not dust off FDR and HST as I set forth (11+ / 0-)

        above?  Why has LBJ's concept of a Great Society been repudiated by our party:

        The challenge of the next half century is whether we have the wisdom to use that wealth to enrich and elevate our national life, and to advance the quality of our American civilization.

        Your imagination, your initiative, and your indignation will determine whether we build a society where progress is the servant of our needs, or a society where old values and new visions are buried under unbridled growth. For in your time we have the opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society, but upward to the cf2 Great Societycf0 .

        The cf2 Great Societycf0 rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in out time. But that is just the beginning.

        The cf2 Great Societycf0 is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community.

        It is a place where man can renew contact with nature. It is a place which honors creation for its own sake and for what is adds to the understanding of the race. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.

        But most of all, the cf2 Great Societycf0 is not a safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finished work. It is a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our labor.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:29:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's a matter of what differences we can tolerate (3+ / 0-)

        Should there be room in the Democratic Party for those who believe there is such a thing as "clean coal" and those who don't?  Should those who are part of the plurality of Americans that believes that abortion should be sometimes legal and sometimes illegal be unwelcome in favor of those who believe abortion should be always legal?  If a strong super-majority of Americans believe that the Second Amendment protects individual gun rights, can people with that view be Democrats?  Is there room for disagreements on these issues among the progressives who make up a fraction of Democrats?

        The Democratic Party is a coalition between progressives and non-progressives, so the essential issues of the party are those which can be shared by both groups.  It is a practical observation that progressives who focus on those shared issues are usually going to achieve more of their goals than progressives who focus on other issues.

        Imagine if we lived in a multi-party system with proportional representation.  The most important issues would be those which allow for the forging of a left-of-center majority coalition, at least from a process-oriented perspective.

        I've argued that those tend to be economic issues.  My argument isn't that those issues are more important so much as it is that those issues are more important if the goal is to maximize winning.  If you place a moral imperative on acting solely out of principle with no regard for consequences, that is a valid alternative ethical foundation for behavior.

  •  Pretty wimpy. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    and that it appears that government functionaries may have shielded them from accountability.
    and that it is clear that government functionaries have shielded those responsible from any and all accountability!
  •  I think you are missing a whole section (9+ / 0-)

    on social welfare.

    e.g., no cuts to Social Security, health care for all, unemployment benefits, no reductions in food stamps, minimum wage.

  •  I've been (21+ / 0-)

    politically involved since I was 16 in 1966.  I voted for the first time when I was 21 -- because that is what I could legally do.

    Never once did I see the Democratic Party or liberals or progressives as single minded groups.  "Our Platform" is something incomprehensible to me because there is no "Our."  There are multiple individuals who, put together, look like a massive complex Venn diagram.  We have overlapping issues.

    The bottom line of all the issues I share in common with sane people is justice.  Justice means a myriad of things but boils down to where does the concept of equal rights meet?

    The final thing I will say is that everyone I know whom I respect evolves.  I know very famous Marxists and very famous activists and many people they bracket.  The common theme is how do we make more lives better.

    I know the people on this site who actually make lives better.  I know the folks who claim to provide agency to better live  -- false prophets one might say.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:09:42 PM PDT

  •  Little Thats Inconsistent With Libertarianism Here (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, fcvaguy, WB Reeves, kalmoth, ozsea1

    which could allow us to sweep away almost all American economic progress for the people since around 1790 and still meet these goals.

    Over history, to my eye, there have been a number of times and places where people have been not terribly burdened and oppressed by police or military states.

    But only once in all history did any civilization create a large working class with a middle class lifestyle from social safety nets at the bottom to opportunity to advance beyond birth station, readily accessible higher education and leisure and travel, an average lifespan very close to the statistical maximum, and a secure & comfortable old age.

    Here and across the developed world we did it over less than 2 generations in the middle of the last century, though we hadn't nearly finished bringing these gains to marginalized demographics before we shut down progress. It required economic liberalism/progressivism unknown to Americans too young to have gray hair.

    I don't have much interest in fighting Republicans over the pace of decline of most of us.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:26:52 PM PDT

  •  My personal platform? (14+ / 0-)

    Defeating Republicans.

    As a result, my personal beliefs and my voting record don't always mesh.

    In an ideal world, our Senate would be populated with Warrens and Sanderses.

    In the real world, though?

    I live in Pennsylvania. I'm more liberal than Bob Casey. Casey's a solid, incorruptible senator, but there are certain fundamental issues on which I strongly disagree with him.

    However, in 2006, he opposed Rick Santorum, one of the Senate's biggest embarrassments and a certifiable creep, jackass, and whack job.

    The choice was very clear as to whom to vote for.

    And when Casey was up for re-election in 2012, his challenger was a Tea Partier who would have done us no good. I gladly voted for Casey.

    Elections matter, and even if our party sometimes annoys us, it's still light years better than the alternative.

    And no, it's not "the lesser of two evils," as some like to say. It's evil vs. imperfect.

    I'll take "imperfect" any day of the week, because imperfect, unlike evil, can always work toward improving.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:29:13 PM PDT

  •  What it is is: (4+ / 0-)

    The Republicans represent the rich and those that pretend to be and/or think they're gonna be, the Democrats are the rest of us.
    If there is a throughline to everyone on this side of that divide, it is a belief in the golden rule, at some deep level. Whether the vicissitudes of life allow us to live purely or with hard compromises, well, that's chapter 13.
    The Democratic platform as found on the Dem's site, well, read it for yourself:

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:29:44 PM PDT

    •  the problem is that some Democrats are. ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Pensador, corvo

      from swing states and for some unfathomable reason being beholden to corporate donors is what defines a moderate.

      I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

      by jbou on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 03:53:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think you missed one criterion that you've (9+ / 0-)

    made a point of in past diaries: a wholehearted denunciation of corporatism and capitalism is necessary in order to be a Progressive. Anything else has been categorized as supporting  the status quo and being conservative.

    Also a willingness to use the thuggish tactics of the corporatist elites to reform our government has been cited as being a necessary minimum to prove you're not a neoliberal. Plus, I believe you've said that politicians who accept money from lobbyists for progressive causes and then advocate for them are different from those who take money from banksters and corporatists and then advocate for them because, well, because.

    Plus, good progressives should keep enemies lists. And think seriously about convening citizens' grand juries to go after Wall Street if the government doesn't do it.

    And, oh - that being interested in something like the Christie scandal is something that progressives should stay away from, because it's a distraction from the main need to go after the banksters.

    I don't think I've ever seen you advocate for LGBT rights, voting rights, women's rights, worker's rights, or environmental protection in more than a one-line throwaway; only against a tiny facist corporate elite that has to be removed before anything else can be done.

    I suspect I'm missing quite a bit that you've included in your definition of progressive, but those cited have certainly mattered to you.

    True progressive attitudes, Pensador style, don't seem to have much in common with any other definition, if your previous writing is to be taken seriously. And, if it is not to be taken seriously, then why should the current diary be?

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:39:21 PM PDT

    •  About this diary, do you agree that the issues (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, Johnny Q

      I listed are important?  Do you agree about how money corrupt both parties?  About the issue of civil rights, constitutional rights within the context of corporate-controlled national security agencies?

      Di you vote in the poll?  Agree, disagree?

      What's your take on this essay?

      Anatomy of the Deep State
      Just trying to figure your stand on progressive values?
      •  To recap my original comment: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I cannot take this diary, or your questions, seriously; it totally ignores much of what  you have written in the past, without any explanation of why you have shifted your ground coming into this diary.

        Your repetition of those questions strikes me as one more instance of refusing to engage in a substantive discussion of what you have already written, which must, for any solid argument, come first.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 02:30:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Much of what I've written in the past is directly (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, aliasalias

          related to the broad issues I bring up in this diary; it is my main theme: how wealthy individuals and corporate cartels buy off politicians to move their exploitative and oppressive agenda forward; how the corporate-controlled, for-profit national security apparatus is used to spy on, manipulate, infiltrate, and disrupt activists and social justice groups; how dishonest profiteers in the military and government line their pockets.

          It is consistent all across my writing.

          Now, and again, regarding this diary (and let's be polite an follow the advice given by admins regarding addressing issues in current diaries), are you pro-bribery (unscrupulous donors buying off politicians with campaign donations and lucrative revolving door positions), or are you against bribery?  Are you pro-war profiteering, or against it?  Are you NSA illegal and unconstitutional spying, or against it?

          In other words, are you a progressive who is against the corrupt-to-the-core establishment, or do yo carry water for it?

          I don't think it should be hard to state your position, either way(s).

          •  Ah, you're back to black and white again, I see. (6+ / 0-)

            Am I with you, or against you? Am I either against the entire establishment, or corrupt to the core?

            No shades of gray here, no possibility of a big tent whatsoever. No possibility of compromise. Are you listening to yourself?

            First I must accept that your hypothetical case concerning the few elite fascist corporatists is true, and then I must answer within that paradigm in order for you to allow it as an acceptable answer. That's a very high horse I see you sitting on.

            At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

            by serendipityisabitch on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 03:02:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not really. These issues are pretty well (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              corvo, aliasalias

              understood on the Left.  It has nothing to do with black and white dichotomies.

              A huge block of democratic voters know about the bribery, and influence-peddling revolving door corruption, and the corporate-controlled NSA illegal and unconstitutional spying; it's been all over the news, talked about widely?

              Have you been hiding under a rock?

              Someone wrote a diary about the other day, referencing this essay published on Bill Moyers' website:

              Anatomy of the Deep State
              You're a progressive Democrat, aren't you?  This stuff should be easy to answer.

              Are you oppose to the "Deep State," or do you carry water for it?

              •  Wow, nothing to do with black and white... (4+ / 0-)

                ... dichotomies?

                [A]re you pro-bribery (unscrupulous donors buying off politicians with campaign donations and lucrative revolving door positions), or are you against bribery?  
                Are you pro-war profiteering, or against it?  
                Are you NSA illegal and unconstitutional spying, or against it?
                ...[A]re you a progressive who is against the corrupt-to-the-core establishment, or do yo carry water for it?
                You do know what a dichotomy is, right?

                Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                by Hey338Too on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 03:43:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  somethings are just wrong (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  The rest is just marketing designed to make selling out justified.

                  I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                  by jbou on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 03:55:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  No Ray, that's your platform (5+ / 0-)

    The Democratic party platform is posted on their website.

    We want to build cyber magicians!

    by VelvetElvis on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:50:49 PM PDT

    •  I just reviewed that 2012 Dem Party Platform (6+ / 0-)

      after someone posted the link above.  And guess what?  It's NOT 'The Democratic Party Platform.  It's the:

      It's an ELECTION platform from two years ago, meaning it's a re-election platform for Obama.  And at this point in time, it reads much more like a list of broken dreams than as a major party's statement of guiding principles.

      Perhaps we're all mistaken in using the word 'Platform' in regard to the current democratic 'platform'.  The quotes from FDR, Truman, and LBJ encapsulate much more of what the Democratic Party stood for than this 2012 election document.

      Perhaps what we should all be reaching for is more like what the corporate world call a 'Mission Statement' from the Democratic party, a  statement of guiding principles that Democratic candidates, and elected Democrats, can stand for in every bill and every vote.

    •  Yes, I read it. I'm looking for some important (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau, corvo, Johnny Q, aliasalias

      items, like reining in the corporate-controlled surveillance police state, and removing Wall Street Criminal Racketeering Cartel TM functionaries from the halls of government.

      There are a lot of good objectives listed there though.  Obviously, the key is to follow them.

    •  BTW, so you're okay with bribery, NSA spying on (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, Johnny Q, aliasalias

      activists and social justice groups, and war profiteering?

      Or do you, as a progressive (you are one, right?) oppose those things?

      •  Interesting observation... (3+ / 0-)

        ... so can we assume that you're not a Democrat because some of the things you feel are important aren't in the party's platform?  I did a search on the party's platform and the charter and nowhere are any of your concerns mentioned.

        BTW, here's a real credo for you:

        Section 17. Democratic Party Credo.
        We Democrats are the oldest political party in America and the youngest in spirit. We will remain so, because we enjoy the challenge of government. Time and again, for almost two centuries, the Democratic Party has made government work -- to build and defend a nation, to encourage commerce, to educate our children, to promote equal opportunity, to advance science and industry, to support the arts and humanities, to restore the land, to develop and conserve our human and natural resources, to preserve and enhance our built environment, to relieve poverty, to explore space. We have reached difficult and vital goals.
        We recognize that the capacity of government is limited but we regard democratic government as a force for good and a source of hope.
        At the heart of our party lies a fundamental conviction, that Americans must not only be free, but they must live in a fair society.
        We believe it is the responsibility of government to help us achieve this fair society.
        • a society where the elderly and the disabled can lead lives of dignity and where Social Security remains an unshakable commitment;
        • a society where all people can find jobs in a growing full-employment economy;
        • a society where all workers are guaranteed without question the legal right to join unions of their own choosing and to bargain collectively for decent wages and conditions of employment;
        • a society where taxes are clearly based on ability to pay;
        • a society where the equal rights of women are guaranteed in the Constitution;
        • a society where the civil rights of minorities are fully secured and where no one is denied the opportunity for a better life;
        • a society where both public and private discrimination based upon race, sex, age, color, creed, national origin, religion, ethnic identity, sexual orientation, gender identity, economic status, philosophical
        persuasion or physical disability are condemned and where our government moves aggressively to end such discrimination through lawful means;
        • a society where we recognize that the strengthening of the family and the protection of children are essential to the health of the nation;
        • a society where a sound education, proper nutrition, quality medical care, affordable housing, safe streets and a healthy environment are possible for every citizen;
        • a society where the livelihoods of our family farmers are as stable as the values they instill in the American character;
        • a society where a strong national defense is a common effort, where promoting human rights is a basic value of our foreign policy, and where we ensure that future by ending the nuclear arms race.
        This is our purpose and our promise.

        Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

        by Hey338Too on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 04:23:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The system of choosing delegates (0+ / 0-)

      in the Democratic Party defies the parties chosen name.

      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

      by ZhenRen on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 03:35:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  While worker rights (8+ / 0-)

    is supposed to be a central Democratic platform plank, we've haven't passed any significant pro-union labor law reform during my entire lifetime, and I'm 64.  I'll get impatient in another decade or two.

    “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

    by 6412093 on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 01:00:04 PM PDT

  •  respect for Earth, zero carbon, energy conversion, (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, Ray Pensador, Joieau, ozsea1, aliasalias

    expand national park system, regulate media fairness and enforce antitrust, reparations for slavery and Jim Crow, restore Glass-Steagall, implement global disarmament, roll back NATO, CIA and NSA transparency, prosecute criminal banks, fund economic development in internal improvements, fully fund the UN, full employment, end world hunger, omnibus legislation stripping Court of jurisdiction to strike down anticorruption legislation, etc.

  •  Here's how wacking Progressive I am (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, ZhenRen, corvo

    All natural resources should be managed to the best advantages of the citizens.  In other words, pay for the electricity and water you use, but at the cost of producing it, including labor costs, but no one profits.  A surcharge on this pays for medical and education for all.  

    Treat criminal activity for what it is: a psychiatric or psychological disorder.  Rehabilitate offenders to their optimum level, and then deal with them appropriately if there are still public safety issues.  

    Medicine should be run as outcome based.  Pay doctors a salary, for a 40 hour work week.  Their education was free, so they don't need to go into high profit specialties.  It may solve the GP and RN/LPN shortage as well.

    I will stop there, cuz I need to help make supper.  Will check back in a spell.  

    "The light which puts out our sight is darkness to us." Thoreau

    by NancyWH on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 01:25:25 PM PDT

    •  Heh? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Treat criminal activity for what it is: a psychiatric or psychological disorder.
      Criminal activity is almost always a rational response to the realities of a situation. Just about anybody who has studied crime and/or criminals in the past few hundred years agrees on this.

      I'm curious- You are starving to death. You have no $ to purchase bread. No one will give you bread. There is bread available to steal.

      Is suicide by self-starvation the sane response?
      Or is theft in this circumstance not a crime?

  •  My contribution (7+ / 0-)
    Equal opportunity for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness;
    Derived from equal access to education, health, employment and economic improvement;
    Requiring equal responsibility to provide the same to others.
    Sound bite version: Equal opportunity derived from equal access and requiring equal responsiblity.

    Posted in 2005 in a diary written by kos entitled The progressive elevator pitch

    A person interested in the subject at hand might spend a little time looking over the 601 comments over there.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 03:05:09 PM PDT

  •  People like Emma Goldman (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador

    were calling themselves progressives before we were born. The modern U.S. notion of progressivism is fairly "moderate" compared to Europe, and compared to earlier historical periods.

    "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

    by ZhenRen on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 03:33:02 PM PDT

    •  I'll fess up. (0+ / 0-)

      Emma Goldman is more progressive than thou...I mean me.

      Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

      by Arilca Mockingbird on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 04:03:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Its the "less progressive than thou" (2+ / 0-)

        peer pressure I'm worried about. Or the redefinition. In other words, the tendency to narrow more and more the definition in a rightward direction, until many of us find ourselves left out, despite being more traditionally progressive.

        Conversely, much of what I see today supported by progressives isn't what people who developed the tradition would include.

        But rather than say that, I wanted to be less provocative.

        "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

        by ZhenRen on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 04:18:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wouldn't say this was more provocative. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stellaluna, ZhenRen

          I'd say this was clear and to the point. I much prefer this over reading between the lines.  Though its clear that I don't often practice that.

          Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

          by Arilca Mockingbird on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 04:40:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site