Democratic Unity

[Person Man]

Ugh. Sometimes I hate being so right.

Though I don't take this response as indicative of much else, I still can't help but ask: why?

Why would you refuse to support the winner of a primary that you, yourselves are competing to win? Surely there's more that's drawing you to the party besides Obama's magnetism? For instance: perhaps you share the same values that drew Obama himself to the party in the first place. Those values, incidently, are probably the same ones that drew Clinton to the party.

Also, what makes you think that a Clinton-lead Democratic Party would be so antithetical to your interests, values, and views than an Obama-lead one? Clinton and Obama have worked together on legislation and (despite the rhetoric) agree on most key issues, albeit differing on specifics. There's also more to the party than the position of the President. A Democrat in the White House means like-minded appointees to the Supreme Court, the rest of the justice system, hell, the entire bureaucracy! I admit that depending on the Republican candidate some right-leaning Dems might have a legitimate case for jumping ship, but Obama really isn't attracting those votes: he's a lefty. Presumably as supporters of a lefty, you don't want a party so captive to the right to retain power. I find it confusing, then, that you wouldn't go for Clinton considering your options.

Guess I just needed to vent.

Yes. I am hoping that we will go heavy (get behind our nominee) or go home (disband the Democratic Party machine and start from scratch by using leaders from outside of politics like Bloomberg, Gates, Damon, Wallis and other centrist to left-of-center captians of business, faith entertainment, technology and industry to re-start our party.)

[Person Man]

Ugh. Sometimes I hate being so right.

Though I don't take this response as indicative of much else, I still can't help but ask: why?

Why would you refuse to support the winner of a primary that you, yourselves are competing to win? Surely there's more that's drawing you to the party besides Obama's magnetism? For instance: perhaps you share the same values that drew Obama himself to the party in the first place. Those values, incidently, are probably the same ones that drew Clinton to the party.

The political parties in the United States have no "values" the way you describe them. Precisely because control of the parties is so firmly in the hands of the people rather than the parties, ideologies within the parties are weak to nonexistent. The two parties are coalitions of ideologies so broad as to be meaningless, and positions may change radically decade to decade if not faster.

When you speak of "values" in American politics, you get responses like "ending poverty" and "strengthening the economy" that are absurdly platitudinal and devoid of true meaning.

Yes. Most people think of "goals", when they say "values".

[Person Man]

Ugh. Sometimes I hate being so right.

Though I don't take this response as indicative of much else, I still can't help but ask: why?

Why would you refuse to support the winner of a primary that you, yourselves are competing to win? Surely there's more that's drawing you to the party besides Obama's magnetism? For instance: perhaps you share the same values that drew Obama himself to the party in the first place. Those values, incidently, are probably the same ones that drew Clinton to the party.

Also, what makes you think that a Clinton-lead Democratic Party would be so antithetical to your interests, values, and views than an Obama-lead one? Clinton and Obama have worked together on legislation and (despite the rhetoric) agree on most key issues, albeit differing on specifics. There's also more to the party than the position of the President. A Democrat in the White House means like-minded appointees to the Supreme Court, the rest of the justice system, hell, the entire bureaucracy! I admit that depending on the Republican candidate some right-leaning Dems might have a legitimate case for jumping ship, but Obama really isn't attracting those votes: he's a lefty. Presumably as supporters of a lefty, you don't want a party so captive to the right to retain power. I find it confusing, then, that you wouldn't go for Clinton considering your options.

Guess I just needed to vent.

Yes. I am hoping that we will go heavy (get behind our nominee) or go home (disband the Democratic Party machine and start from scratch by using leaders from outside of politics like Bloomberg, Gates, Damon, Wallis and other centrist to left-of-center captians of business, faith entertainment, technology and industry to re-start our party.)

That's going a little too far. We're just currently in a center-right political cycle, started by Reagan, after a nearly 50-year center-left cycle started by FDR. Eventually we'll swing left again, and the Democratic party (and a further left party at that) will regain dominance.

Yeah. But we've been in this center-right cycle since Nixon, 40 years ago. When will the cycle go back and will it be soon enough? If we are destined to another 10 or more years of rightism in America, we would be best served by just sitting back and letting them fuc us up so we can say "I told you so". That's basically how the FDR thing started. If people don't listen, they should be punished by their own actions. It's actually a parenting method called "love and logic".

[Person Man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Catastrophes seldom shift countries to the left.

The Great Depression certainly did. When something bad happens, people blame the people (and to a certain degree, the ideology espoused by those people) in power, and vote for the guys on the other side of the aisle.

And arguably, the hyperinflation of the 1970's shifted the county to the right.

Yes. but the country was trending right by then anyway yet the left still had the power. The country's problems began in the 60s with too much change.

[Person Man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Catastrophes seldom shift countries to the left.

The Great Depression certainly did. When something bad happens, people blame the people (and to a certain degree, the ideology espoused by those people) in power, and vote for the guys on the other side of the aisle.

And arguably, the hyperinflation of the 1970's shifted the county to the right.

That Depends.. IMO I think that had to do with the reaction to the Counterculture than specifically economics. (Or rather the "left" had became anathema to some of its traditional supporters.)

Like the right is?

[Person Man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Catastrophes seldom shift countries to the left.

The Great Depression certainly did. When something bad happens, people blame the people (and to a certain degree, the ideology espoused by those people) in power, and vote for the guys on the other side of the aisle.

And arguably, the hyperinflation of the 1970's shifted the county to the right.

That Depends.. IMO I think that had to do with the reaction to the Counterculture than specifically economics. (Or rather the "left" had became anathema to some of its traditional supporters.)

The "counterculture," as the term was used in the 1960's, was dated by the 1976 election; it was effectively dead.  A "hippie" in the late 1970's was living in the past.

Oh yes I would agree with that. But it was really the perception that the counterculture had led to the Anarchy of the 70s (or perceived Anarchy; rising crime, drug offences especially, etc) - there was also a clear nostalgia for the period before the Vietnam war. Which in the strange way Reagan represented. That is not the only reason o\c; but it is significant.

Yes....and Nixon was already talking about the social dsorder in his campaign in 1968. He was the one who promised non-activist judges and to limit social change.

[Person Man]

So, we'll be alright- but our 11% defection rate cost us the election. Then again, the GOP had really high turnout.

[Person Man]

What will turn our country back to the left-center then? I hope its just a matter of winning debates.