My girlfriend and I were discussing where the Democratic Party has gone wrong in recent years -- especially after these recent midterm elections.

And, my take on it was that the party has suffered from two big issues:

• The lack of charismatic leaders.
  
• And, more important, they fell prey, years ago to the Republicans' trap for them to be afraid of being called "liberal."

The latter, IMO, is what has hurt the party the most. While the party regroups, and I believe it's regrouping -- sorta like a football team that wins the Super Bowl then loses its best players -- it would behoove the Dems to stop being afraid of being called liberal.

What's wrong with being liberal? For generations, being a Dem has stood for fighting for fair wages, for workers unions, for being good stewards (something you'd think more Christian conservatives would identify with) over the environment, for good schools, etc., etc.

But, no, recent years have shown Dems kow-towing to what has been labeled a conservative shift among American voters. Somewhere along the way, liberalism became synonymous with communism, irresponsibility, anti-American sentiment, weakness and immorality.

And, to the detriment of the party and the country, the Dems' weak response to this spin game has robbed it of leaders willing to stand up and give voice to dissent when both party and country need them the most.

It's my belief that the Dems, if only they'd grow some (*ahem*) guts and own up to the benefits of their contributions to the working and poorer classes, to the environment (which, ultimately, affects us all) and to other worthy causes:

• They'd find more charismatic leaders within their ranks (it's amazing, what a little courage can do).
  
• And, they'd start motivating more folks to vote for them (be it their "base" or the undecideds).

They need to own it and be proud of it. Foo! It beats hate, blind war-mongering, corporate greed and fascist foreign policy every time.

But, as always, that's my opinion. I could be wrong.

Thoughts?

I'm a liberal Democrat and proud of it

You won't see me pretending to be a "moderate" or moving "to the center" like all those other weak,spineless Congressional Democrats.

I like Nancy Pelosi and I think she's just what the Democratic Party needs.

Threadbare, I think you said it best when you mentioned weakness and immorality.Plus most democratic leaders say yes to everythning,right or wrong, like they have no backbone.
I think this is one reason they lost out with this election.

Why "liberal" is a dirty word to many I don't know.

liberal: ample, generous, broadminded, educated, always looking for positive advances.

conservative: one who dislikes change.

Here is another way that people view the terms "liberal" and "conservative:"

Liberal: Your money belongs to the government and we will take it from you... the government should be involved in every part of your life and should grow and grow.

Conservative: Your money belongs to you and we need to borrow some of it... the government is about the right size and shouldn't get much bigger.


As far as taxes go, I prefer conservatives... Libertarians are MUCH better, as we would like to actually REDUCE the size of government and cut taxes drastically.

Here is a better description...


***Liberals= nice people

***Conservatives= mean people

ThreadBare said:

In recent years, this is what people have begun to realize happens when you make the government into a great big MOMMY. Communism and modern liberalism have much of the same agenda--state ownership and control of everything. Bleah...

DavidEye said:

There is the problem... a lot of people actually do look at it this way... there are nice things about liberals and there are nice things about conservatives too... there is no black and white distinction between the people, but there are differences in political ideologies. I am certain that if there was an objective measure of niceness, the conservatives and liberals would come out... well... both average.

IceNine said:

You are exactly right Icenine.

teller said:

I agree.

teller said:

I agree -- government/the State/etc. shouldn't be viewed as some mother figure to whom you entrust all your money. That notion doesn't work for me.

As for the tax-and-spend characterization, programs cost money. That never changes. And, the republicans are always fine with making sure their buddies' corporations have all sorts of financial breaks or shields from "intrusive" environmental requirements. What's the difference?

Why not make sure money goes toward the people who need it?

ThreadBare said:

Indeed...protecting and subsidizing corporations is no better than playing Mommy to citizens. It's all about favorites, which means someone gets screwed in some fashion. The government needs to get out of people's way and get back to securing their rights and their freedom to trade with one another without all this use of force and stealing and attempted social engineering.

The Libertarian agenda is the right one.

teller said:

Yes, yes and yes... the Libertarian position is the right one...

REDUCE the size of government
REDUCE the number of government programs
REDUCE taxes
ELIMINATE all government subsidies
etc.