Emerging Rift in the DNC?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...

On one side is a majority of Democratic voters, who are angrier, more disaffected, and altogether more populist than they’ve been in years. They are more attuned to income inequality than before the Obama presidency and more supportive of Social Security and Medicare.1 They’ve grown fonder of regulation and more skeptical of big business.2 A recent Pew poll showed that voters under 30—who skew overwhelmingly Democratic—view socialism more favorably than capitalism. Above all, Democrats are increasingly hostile to Wall Street and believe the government should rein it in.

On the other side is a group of Democratic elites associated with the Clinton era who, though they may have moved somewhat leftward in response to the recession—happily supporting economic stimulus and generous unemployment benefits—still fundamentally believe the economy functions best with a large, powerful, highly complex financial sector. Many members of this group have either made or raised enormous amounts of cash on Wall Street. They were deeply influential in limiting the reach of Dodd-Frank, the financial reform measure Obama signed in July of 2010.

Like a good Chicagoan I would vote early and often for Elizabeth Warren.

How is this different from any other rift in the DNC? It's a party cobbled together from those with different beliefs, because one of it's principles is to tolerate diversity of opinion. People tend to gravitate towards it because the other party, well, doesn't tolerate that diversity well.

I don't see any more rift in the DNC than is normal. There's always union Democrats and socialist Democrats (of which there is a very strong presence on this forum). Gun control, for example, has always been a big issue in the DNC. Al Gore couldn't even win his home state of Tennessee because he was for gun control. But there are a lot of D's out there who would love to take away all the guns.

Robear wrote:

It's a party cobbled together from those with different beliefs, because one of it's principles is to tolerate diversity of opinion. People tend to gravitate towards it because the other party, well, doesn't tolerate that diversity well.

That's a very weird way of looking at it. And by weird I mean wrong. Democrats don't tolerate diverse opinions any more than Republicans. Saying that they do shows the kind of attitude that Republicans have been horrible at dealing with for the past 20-30 years - that mindless characterization that Republicans are evil. It's Whoopi Goldberg on South Park.

Paleocon wrote:
Pew poll showed that voters under 30—who skew overwhelmingly Democratic—view socialism more favorably than capitalism.

And there's the problem. The left has been extremely successful going after youth. If they don't understand that capitalism is what made this country great, then I am worried.

Capitalism is *among* the things that made this country great. So is socialism.

cheeba wrote:

That's a very weird way of looking at it. And by weird I mean wrong. Democrats don't tolerate diverse opinions any more than Republicans.

An individual Democrat or Republican might be on equal footing here, but I think we're talking about the Democratic Party vs the Republican Party. The two aren't even mildly equivalent at tolerating anything other than their one (per subject), precisely communicated opinion and stamping out any opposition in the Party. Until recently, anyway.

cheeba wrote:

And there's the problem. The left has been extremely successful going after youth. If they don't understand that capitalism is what made this country great, then I am worried.

Citation needed.

Firstly a citation that shows that this country is "great", then another one that shows that it's because of capitalism.

Which is to say, if you believe your own rhetoric, then you should be worried. Because your underlying hypothesis, that it's the self-evident truth that America is great thanks to capitalism is seriously, seriously flawed.

I think "vague statements about socialism and capitalism and their worth" probably needs its own thread before the inevitable lock rather than taking this topic with it.

Robear wrote:

How is this different from any other rift in the DNC? It's a party cobbled together from those with different beliefs, because one of it's principles is to tolerate diversity of opinion. People tend to gravitate towards it because the other party, well, doesn't tolerate that diversity well.

The DNC is the party of inclusion!

Cheeba wrote:

That's a very weird way of looking at it. And by weird I mean wrong. Democrats don't tolerate diverse opinions any more than Republicans.

So, the Democratic Congress encompasses gun rights, gun limitations, abortion rights, anti-abortion positions, fiscal conservatism and the welfare state, social conservatism and social progressivism, gay rights and pro-DOMA members... It's hard to figure out what you mean here, given that and more. The *classic* problem that the Democrats in Congress have when putting forward a bill is getting other Democrats on board. Republicans generally don't allow their members to break ranks, but Democrats have several internal blocs which can and do vote against each other.

Without this dynamic, Republicans could not have brought in the Blue Dogs on so many votes in the 80's through the 2000's. We simply don't see a Republican bloc using the Democrats as leverage against other Republicans; the ones who did were purged during the Gingrich and Bush years.

Put another way, the Democratic party stretches from far-left to center-right in the ideology of it's Congressional members. The Republican party has narrowed to eliminate the center-right, and has gone quite far to the right, with most of it's members today taking positions that would have been far-right in the 80's. There's less ideological diversity in the Republican party in Congress as a result; indeed, they've largely purged out the moderates deliberately.

Jonman wrote:

Firstly a citation that shows that this country is "great", then another one that shows that it's because of capitalism.

Which is to say, if you believe your own rhetoric, then you should be worried. Because your underlying hypothesis, that it's the self-evident truth that America is great thanks to capitalism is seriously, seriously flawed.

Which proves my assertion that this forum is socialist-left leaning :). Are you seriously questioning whether the country that invented the internet, that put a man on the moon (famously beating socialists, none of which have been capable of performing this feat, over 40 years now since we did it), is great? Or that it was capitalism behind what are most of mankind's greatest inventions? The assembly line? The Wright brothers? Edison?

cheeba wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Firstly a citation that shows that this country is "great", then another one that shows that it's because of capitalism.

Which is to say, if you believe your own rhetoric, then you should be worried. Because your underlying hypothesis, that it's the self-evident truth that America is great thanks to capitalism is seriously, seriously flawed.

Which proves my assertion that this forum is socialist-left leaning :). Are you seriously questioning whether the country that invented the internet, that put a man on the moon (famously beating socialists, none of which have been capable of performing this feat, over 40 years now since we did it), is great? Or that it was capitalism behind what are most of mankind's greatest inventions? The assembly line? The Wright brothers? Edison?

Nothing could be better than seeing someone use NASA as an argument for why capitalism made the country great

The space race was bigger than NASA :).

cheeba wrote:

The space race was bigger than NASA :).

Myabe. I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the subject. Given that nobody has bothered to go back, I'm pretty confident in saying that without the taxpayer-funded NASA, nobody would have gone in the first place, because there's no potential profit. Or at the very least, the potential for profits would require such an upfront investment that nobody would bother doing it (and indeed, nobody has).

Pointing to NASA and the Wright brothers as being what made this country great - regardless of your ability as an editor, you have truly missed your calling as a comedian.

Orville Wright[/url]]"All I can say is that if a profit motive were necessary for an invention, most certainly my brother Will and I would not have invented the airplane."

I see you guys aren't that well versed in the space race. One of the main reasons the US won the space race is because the US was able to recruit the world's best scientists (primarily German). You're a brilliant German scientist. Where do you go - Russia, where you'll live in near poverty, or the US, where you'll live like a king?

cheeba wrote:

I see you guys aren't that well versed in the space race. One of the main reasons the US won the space race is because the US was able to recruit the world's best scientists (primarily German). You're a brilliant German scientist. Where do you go - Russia, where you'll live in near poverty, or the US, where you'll live like a king?

Von Braun worked for the US government until 1972, months before discovering he had developed the pancreatic cancer that would take his life a few years later.

Were there other prominent German rocket scientists involved in the space race who came to the US for lucrative private-sector jobs?

[Edit] I also am curious to hear your response to Orville Wright's candid assement of the role capitalism played in his contribution to making our country great.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Were there other prominent German rocket scientists involved in the space race who came to the US for lucrative private-sector jobs?

Where did I say anything about private-sector jobs? If you'd like a list of German scientists involved in NASA, look up Operation Paperclip.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

[Edit] I also am curious to hear your response to Orville Wright's candid assement of the role capitalism played in his contribution to making our country great. :)

His assessment has nothing to do with the fact that they were able to create the plane because they lived in a capitalist nation, which, as he admitted, allowed him to take advantage of investments and the free market.

We're getting a little far afield, but if your best response to Jonman's [citation needed] on this country being great (and capitalism being the reason for that greatness) is to point to the space race and the Wright brothers, I think you have failed to make your case pretty spectacularly.

In an attempt to re-rail the thread, I'd love to see some genuine progressives run for office, but think we are unlikely to see that happen in any meaningful sense until after 2020 - the redistricting that happened after the 2010 census propped up a GOP majority in many cases, which has had two big ramifications:

1) Democrats are running to the center (or center-right) much more strongly.
2) Tea Party challengers (or the threat of facing primaries from the Tea Party) has driven the GOP much further to the right.

[Edit: spelling on a phone is hard]

Also, not sure that "appeals to Nazi scientists" is helping your case here.

I do agree that there are some unique aspects of the United States that have given it a big advantage in the past century, and the free market is part of that. But capitalism overall has its drawbacks as well as its advantages.

I should just leave this here. Sorkin nails it.

Such a good clip. Sadly, if this were real he'd be branded as unpatriotic and possibly traitorous.

cheeba wrote:

Which proves my assertion that this forum is socialist-left leaning :). Are you seriously questioning whether the country that invented the internet,

So, tell me about this private firm that invented the internet…

cheeba wrote:

I see you guys aren't that well versed in the space race. One of the main reasons the US won the space race is because the US was able to recruit the world's best scientists (primarily German). You're a brilliant German scientist. Where do you go - Russia, where you'll live in near poverty, or the US, where you'll live like a king?

So, are you arguing that capitalism made this possible, or the bottomless checkbook of the US government?

cheeba wrote:

But there are a lot of D's out there who would love to take away all the guns.

Let's all hope that never happens. I don't know what I'd do without my google news alert for 'accidental shooting' providing me with nearly endless entertainment.

And I'm even one of the young(ish) socialist democrats you refer to.

Edit: All joking aside - do any of the 'socialists' on this board actually hate capitalism? As far as I'm concerned, capitalism is pretty awesome in 99% of cases, but there are a handful of things that the free market should not have a say in (education, police/fire, health care, others). I don't get why there's a certain group of people in this country who view any public good/trust/whatever as being all-out socialism and thus completely evil.

I guess it's maybe that the US government has a bottomless checkbook because capitalism made America great(est)?

Podunk wrote:

I guess it's maybe that the US government has a bottomless checkbook because capitalism made America great(est)?

I think it's more likely just the time-honored internet argument tradition of moving the goal posts and we probably shouldn't read too much into it.

Good to see that today it's China that's taking full advantage of free market capitalism to win the space race of the 21st century.

I think what really makes capitalism and free markets great is their ability to take something started in a fit of passion (i.e. nothing to do with economic ideologies) and make a ton of money off of it. This is the reason that China's space explorations, while impressive, will not benefit China in the long run (my hypothesis) the way NASA has benefited so many industries in the US.

billt721 wrote:
cheeba wrote:

But there are a lot of D's out there who would love to take away all the guns.

Let's all hope that never happens. I don't know what I'd do without my google news alert for 'accidental shooting' providing me with nearly endless entertainment.

And I'm even one of the young(ish) socialist democrats you refer to.

Edit: All joking aside - do any of the 'socialists' on this board actually hate capitalism? As far as I'm concerned, capitalism is pretty awesome in 99% of cases, but there are a handful of things that the free market should not have a say in (education, police/fire, health care, others). I don't get why there's a certain group of people in this country who view any public good/trust/whatever as being all-out socialism and thus completely evil.

Nobody hates capitalism - that's just a poor talking point from groups who play to a gullible base. Some of us just understand that capitalism works best when it's tempered by things like, say, socialism.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

We're getting a little far afield, but if your best response to Jonman's [citation needed] on this country being great (and capitalism being the reason for that greatness) is to point to the space race and the Wright brothers, I think you have failed to make your case pretty spectacularly. :D

I really don't understand why you think those are the only two things I consider great examples of capitalism in motion. I listed more things than just those two, and the things I listed aren't exhaustive. You're trying to play "gotcha" forum wars and it ain't workin'.

Rallick wrote:

Such a good clip. Sadly, if this were real he'd be branded as unpatriotic and possibly traitorous.

Nah, just wrong (and so lefty-preachy, oof). Germany has freedom? Take a look at their free speech laws. Same with Canada and nearly every other nation.

Jayhawker wrote:

So, tell me about this private firm that invented the internet…:lol:

Do you seriously think public universities don't take advantage of capitalism?

mudbunny wrote:

So, are you arguing that capitalism made this possible, or the bottomless checkbook of the US government?

The US government is the wealthiest in the world because of capitalism.

cheeba wrote:

Nah, just wrong (and so lefty-preachy, oof). Germany has freedom? Take a look at their free speech laws. Same with Canada and nearly every other nation.

Yes, thanks to our hate speech laws we live in a nightmarish fascist dystopia up here. On the plus side, our incarceration rate is less than 1/6th of yours. But I guess freedom to threaten and insult people is more important than actual physical freedom. Because reasons.