Democrats a permanent minority?

[mark46]

There's various terms. Neo-liberalism. Radical liberalism. Progressive liberalism. Woke liberalism. Whatever one wants to call it, it's something many don't want to see flourish.

To be clear, the policies of liberalism are the expansion of civil rights, voting rights, and the expansion of the safety net.

I agree that many have not wanted these policies to succeed. That has been the case for almost 100 yeas.

 

[mark46]

Thanks for the insight.
I thought Obama was far more moderate than say, H. Clinton or Pelosi.

Maybe I'm wrong?

I apologize if I misled.

I agree. Obama is indeed a centrist, much more so that Hillary or Pelosi. As a centrist, I don't have negative feelings toward Pelosi. She was NOT known for her independent leftist policies, but rather for her abilities to be able to lead the House.

 

[ozso]

To be clear, the policies of liberalism are the expansion of civil rights, voting rights, and the expansion of the safety net.

I agree that many have not wanted these policies to succeed. Taht has been the case for almost 100 yeas.

The expansion of civil rights, voting rights, and the expansion of the safety net is the classical stance, but it has morphed into something else lately.

 

[ozso]

No, as I said this is a completely different ideology, not just a different syntax.

You said "Woke" is not liberalism...at least not classical liberalism. And I agree. It's something that's morphed from that.

 

[RDKirk]

You said "Woke" is not liberalism...at least not classical liberalism. And I agree. It's something that's morphed from that.

Nope. "Woke" is morphed from Marxism.

 

[RileyG]

I apologize if I misled.

I agree. Obama is indeed a centrist, much more so that Hillary or Pelosi. As a centrist, I don't have negative feelings toward Pelosi. She was NOT known for her independent leftist policies, but rather for her abilities to be able to lead the House.

You’re fine. I think I’m following you just fine.

Take care

 

[RDKirk]

I strongly disagree.

Liberalism as a US political movement started with Roosevelt and was essentially defined by Humphrey in his 1948 speech at the Democratic convention. Humphrey kicked the communists out of the coalition and formed his Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in MN. Followers of Humphrey have been called liberals for my lifetime. Yes, we are big tent, with views that have always been pro-market and have also supported the expansion of the safety net (including the ideas of Sanders). Our obvious successes have been Clinton and Obama (considerably on the right of most Democrats). Today's examples are Federman and Emmanuel.

The liberals have been a solid majority of the Democratic Party since WWII. We can argue when the far left took over as majority of the Democratic Party. Perhaps, liberals were still in the majority in 2004. Certainly, Obama was a centrist, working the Bush administration, the bankers and the corporations, and deporting more than anyone since Eisenhauer.

I would say liberalism--or rather Progressivism--started with the Republican Party in 1854 and flowered in the late 1800s into the early 1900s. Theodore Roosevelt pulled the Progressives out of the Republican Party in 1912 to form the Progressive Party (also known as the "Bull Moose" Party). Those progressives had infiltrated the northern Democratic Party by the 1930s.

The Democratic Party has been Progressive from then up to around 2008, at which time it became the party of cultural-Marxist Critical Theory, with Sanders being the last Progressive hold-out.

 

[ozso]

Nope. "Woke" is morphed from Marxism.

And all forms of liberalism are mutually exclusive from Marxism?

 

[RDKirk]

And all forms of liberalism are mutually exclusive from Marxism?

Classical liberalism predates Marxism--there is no connection. Critical Theory has direct links to Marxism...it's nothing but Marxism without the economics. The creators of Critical Theory (the Frankfurt School) explicitly state their derivation from Marxism.

 

[Desk trauma]

And if Biden has announced in his 2023 State Of The Union that he was not running and that he welcomes turning over the country to the next generation. we'd be asked whether the fractured Republican Party can survive.
===========

The boomers in power have demonstrated they have less than zero interest in what takes place after they leave office feet first.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

==========
MY DIMINSHED HOPES ARE FOR
a Democratic House majority and then a non-MAGA Republican who quietly is our president for 8 relatively quiet years. I now would find ANY of the presidents since Reagan more than acceptable in place of any that I see as possibilities. I just want to see us restore our role as a world leader (in science, security and diplomacy). I want us to have a forward going budget that provides for needs of the people, including medical care for all. HOWEVER, I am fine with states and local governments having the vast amount of the power over spending priorities.

I completely agree with you. It would be ideal to have a Democratic majority in the House, an evenly split Senate, and a President with ideologies similar to Paul Ryan, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, John Kasich, or Scott Walker. But I assume we are the minority. Today's Republican Party has no place for Paul Ryan or John Kasich. Even evangelical Christians, who once prioritized family values and character, no longer seek a president reflecting Christ like Character in a leader.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

"Woke" is not liberalism...at least not classical liberalism. "Woke" is Critical Theory ideology, based on Marxism. It's a wholly different thing from what the Democratic Party was even as late at the 2004 election.

"Woke" is essentially the same as "political correctness," just under a different name in another era. It is not related to CRT or DEI.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You said "Woke" is not liberalism...at least not classical liberalism. And I agree. It's something that's morphed from that.

What do we call it when we want to acknowledge and perhaps change actions and laws we have made through history that have held a class of people down?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The expansion of civil rights, voting rights, and the expansion of the safety net is the classical stance, but it has morphed into something else lately.

In the 1960s, when progressives advocated for civil rights, their efforts were often viewed as unconventional and outside the social structure. This perception is similar to how today's progressive advocacy for transgender issues is seen by some as contrary to natural selection. While civil rights movement is widely accepted and considered mainstream, it was once seen as disruptive to social norms and creating an unfamiliar society. Likewise, many people today perceive the transgender community in a comparable manner.

There is no classical progressivism or modern progressivism. The concept of progressivism is to challenge norms and push boundaries in every era.

 

[ozso]

What do we call it when we want to acknowledge and perhaps change actions and laws we have made through history that have held a class of people down?

What current class of people are are being held down? And what are they being held down from doing?

 

[Always in His Presence]

When a faction of a party caters to a minority of the population (even it's own party) so far to one end, how can they ever hope to be a majority?

 

[durangodawood]

When a faction of a party caters to a minority of the population (even it's own party) so far to one end, how can they ever hope to be a majority?

Talking about "permanent" anything in politics is the province of born-yesterday people. We've heard the exact same thing from both parties before, in circumstances essentially no difference from this. It never pans out.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Talking about "permanent" anything in politics is the province of born-yesterday people. We've heard the exact same thing from both parties before, in circumstances essentially no difference from this. It never pans out.

Please cite an example of what you are referring to. Thank you.

 

[durangodawood]

Please cite an example of what you are referring to. Thank you.

After Obama over Romney. After Bush 2. People say this whenever the voter sentiments seem to sway hard. It never lasts. Things will go wrong. Voters will get unhappy. The party in power begins to look bad. When has this not happened?

I do think the D's always have bigger structural obstacles to overcome tho. It takes more than the preference of We The people to elect a D president for example. But still it inevitably follows a crushing R victory sooner or later.

 

[mark46]

I would say liberalism--or rather Progressivism--started with the Republican Party in 1854 and flowered in the late 1800s into the early 1900s. Theodore Roosevelt pulled the Progressives out of the Republican Party in 1912 to form the Progressive Party (also known as the "Bull Moose" Party). Those progressives had infiltrated the northern Democratic Party by the 1930s.

The Democratic Party has been Progressive from then up to around 2008, at which time it became the party of cultural-Marxist Critical Theory, with Sanders being the last Progressive hold-out.

fair enough

I do think of liberalism as a US political movement to be the Democratic legacy of Humphrey.