The only “compromise” really required of netroots activists in the maintenance of a “big tent” Democratic Party is to extend their own community’s implicit code of open debate in which no one, whether it’s a U.S. Senator or Markos Moulitsas, gets to pull rank and squelch diverse points of view.

This seems to vary from one netroots community to another. If we applied the TPM Cafe code of open debate, candidates would be forced to wear wifi-acceessible badges with a graduated color scale. If the candidate says something you don't like, you could send a troll-rating to the badge, turning in blacker.

I think that's a good question.

I continually worry about the overall shift to the right this country has seen over the years. We now find that a position that might have been a moderate Democrat only 15 or 20 years ago is labeled as a far left "fringe" Democrat today. It's the same shift which enables extremophiles like Cheney, Rove and the rest to not be recognized as the "fringe" Republicans they truly are.

I think this is an over arching problem in all of our political discussion these days - we need to address the redefining of liberal and conservative. How can anyone have a discussion regarding anything remotely liberal when that position has now been shoved to the far reaches of the spectrum thru disingenuous wordsmiths and strategists. And we all know that buzz words and labels sell better than facts and thinking so any real liberal policy or candidates (if they even exist anymore) are hardly seen in a fair or accurate light. And before we can talk about tents and who belongs in them shouldn't we at least put some of the correct pages back into our collective political dictionaries?

Well yeah, I'd say a number of what you call "conservative Democrats" took a fatal bullet in 1993, when they voted for a Clinton Budget that included a tax increase for high earners. Since it passed in the House by exactly one vote, with zero Republican support, it was a big '94 campaign issue, particularly in the South.

As it happens, I recently ran into one of those bullet-taking "conservative Democrats," Buddy Darden (who lost his House seat in 1994), who is currently Bill Richardson's campaign chief in Georgia. Given Richardson's positive celebrity in the blogosphere as the enforcer for an "out now and out totally" position on Iraq, I'd say Darden's role with his campaign ought to raise a question about the ideological labels Democrats apply to each other.

Ed Kilgore

Shouted down? I've always respected your views, but the idea that liberals are being oppressed by fellow Democrats for their ideology is, well, a bit counter-factual. The majority of Democratic House Members, and at least half of Democratic Senators, are and have been for a long time outspoken liberals, even if you don't think (and in some cases, like Iraq, I don't think) they've always voted that way. Most of them are from safe seats, and don't much have to worry about general elections. Where's the persecution? Where's the oppression?

There are all sorts of people, ranging from the GLBT community to African-Americans to the very poor, who have been under-valued by Democrats, and we need to change that. But the idea that the Democratic Party gives no place at the table for self-conscious liberals is a big reach.

Ed Kilgore

No, the implication of my anecdote was answering your question. Left-bent Democrats are not, and have never been, the only people required to take political risks for the party. That's all I said.

Ed Kilgore

Like a dope, I did what I was criticizing by claiming the liberals are oppressed. Maybe that's not the way to have the conversation. I guess I just have the feeling that if you're a Blue Dog Democrat you probably shouldn't feel oppressed or ostracized. Those views hold a lot of sway. Maybe it already is a big tent.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Ed -

I keep going back to who and how we define a liberal and while I can see your particular point that liberals might not be openly persecuted and certainly not openly opposed by the Democratic party, what exactly is a liberal anymore? And I think the Lamont might argue that his party support might have best been termed "jumping on the bandwagon" rather than a resounding show of meaningful support. I'm speculating this of course but that was certainly my impression especially in light of how very few of the Lamont type of candidates the party seem able to present us.

I for one have had my fill of Democratic candidates (with or without the safe seat) that voice "liberal" policy or positions but where are the results? And I'll concede that it's been difficult in Washington during Bush's disastrous tenure and that the press is far from fair or balanced but that hardly seems to cover the whole tab here. And because I feel that the word liberal has been so tainted and bastardized that I'm not sure I'd need both hands to count all of them in Washington these days. So for me, a sound byte here and a stump speech there do not move these individuals one iota on my scale ( liberal ----conservative ---- Stark "Rove"ing mad ).

Oh and destor, I actually had a little chuckle at this -

The very notion that they're somehow ostracized by the party is as ridiculous as Christians claiming to be oppressed for their beliefs.

I chuckled because in my mind I said to myself "Christians (who say they are behaving like a Christian is supposed to) vs. Democrats (who say they are behaving like a liberal is supposed to) ---and they seemed pretty similar to me!)

You've given me a lot to chew on, and chew I will. But for anyone reading this thread, I have to say I'm about to get on several planes and won't be able to engage until, probably, Sunday. I take interactive comment threads very seriously, and if anyone's still reading this stuff in a couple of days, I'll respond, okay?

Thanks to everyone who has weighed in.

Ed Kilgore

I believe you and other "big tent" folk underestimate your own "values" voters. It's not a question of not hearing each other. I hear the DLC. I read its web site. I know where it stands. I just disagree with it on every point. Now, some points you can live with or negotiate, but some are core values

My opposition to the Iraq War is based on the same core value that caused the Vatican to oppose the war. When I am against funding the war, I'm against funding the war. I'm not for "compromising" by pretending to oppose the Republicans and then voting for every last penny they want for war.

Same with FISA. The Democrat I'm stuck with till 2012 still defends her vote. Civil liberties are another core value of mine. I won't compromise there.

You can trade a per cent here or there on a tax bill but we're no longer talking about pork here, we're talking core values

I hear Lieberman and the Bush Dogs just fine. They'd vote with me on issues I don't much care about and sell me out on every core value that matters.

I guess you've got no choice but to vote for Hillary and the Democratic Party. Of course that means the conservatives continue to take over both parties. But hey, what's important is winning, right?

Yes, in politics winning is everything.

Have you already forgotten how bad things were before the 2006 election?

I want Democrats in charge and for me the worst Democrat is better than any Republican.

This is especially true in a presidential election. It is not the person you are voting for as much it is the team he will collect around him. A democratic president will, by the very nature of the party, gather around him a collection of left of center people to advise him and help him govern.

Jack

I didn't make that connection but I remember the song. Maybe the great reggae "Breakfast in Bed" by Lorna Bennet and others. Only because of the "you don't have to say you love me" refrain- a kind of big tent consideration.

Have you forgotten how bad things have been since we had Congressional Dems toss their constituional responsibilities aside and kick the can on starting a war to the Prez? And these were boomers who apparently only learned about civil rights during the 60's and 70's and have forgotten their oath to uphold the law we all live under.

Do you remember that we started this war under the new doctrine of pre-emption? I would have thought more attention would have been paid to EXHAUSTING all options before invoking this doctrine. And I would have expected folks to have a full debate and support war only AFTER these options were exhausted. It didn't happen and it is most strange to find our Prez candidates packed with these folks.

I will continue to vote Dem. But if one of these Prez candidates who enabled this mess is the candidate coming out of the primary--I will exercise my individual rights under our tattered constitution and elect to not cast a vote for Prez. I'll continue to give money, time and my vote to down-ballot Dems.

If you want to enable this type of candidate, it is again your right. Our country isn't in a make or break mode because of a Prez so I'm not a bit worried.

The Dems could have filibustered Alito and Roberts, but that is beside the point. Do you really think the Supremes weren't considering appointments and retirements when they "elected" the POTUS 5 to 4 in 2000?

When o when will it sink it--a minority with a backbone is still a minority!

And a spineless majority is still status quo (enabling the plutocracy). But the minority with a backbone will be the next majority.

Tankard and bluebell are willing to vote 3rd party if Dem candidates are not liberal enough, thereby enabling GOP to win.

A lot of people (a majority?) are just gutsy enough to vote their conscience against these usurpers. If the Grand Old Party wins it is the fault of the conciliators. This isn’t junior high school council. The GOP has seized the three branches of government, the media and the intellectual elite, and it’s dragging the greatest country in the history of the world into the great abyss. If you don’t want to fight against it, fine; but don’t try to bring down those who do.

What the hell does Ledeen and Iran have to do with SCOTUS appointments that would be that result of a GOP president winning in 2008?

Absolutely nothing. Ledeen was just a bonus from your squishy defense of AEI.

Well to give my 2 cents worth. I am an unaffiliated voter so maybe I don't have a dog in this intra-party battle. But I always vote D on the federal candidates (Pres., Sen., and Rep.) and there are MANY Independents like me who never, for whatever reason (and a discussion for another day), join the party but support it 100% at the ballot box. It is safe to say we are solid members of the "Big Tent"? I would think so, and an important part of the D's electoral success. But many of us are growing very frustrated with the D's. It is about what I would consider very much "core principles". I could go on and on but all I feel I need is one example to make this point...

GITMO

I cannot understand for the life of me why the D's refuse to stand up to Bush on anything. But not taking a stand on GITMO (and the FISA bill cave in) is infuriating!!! It is about the Rule of Law, Habeus Corpus. No serious action has been undertaken by the Congress to address the legal disgrace known as Guantanamo Bay. People like Colin Powell have called for it to be shut down. There is a ton of bi-partisan support (and military people too) for closing that prison. Not a thing is happening. Too busy trying to figure out how to chip away more swing seats from the R's to be bothered with a trivial matter like defending the cornerstone of all the freedoms we have were built on?

The people said in '06 that they were VERY unhappy with the job Bush was doing. And even though getting anything through the Senate will be tough (not to mention the House judging by the FISA disgrace) it is a fight that needs to be fought with the POTUS. The American people (and not just on the left) are very uncomfortable (my attempt at understatement) with how this POTUS conducts the business of this country and instead of seizing the moment we get inaction.

For many of us Indies we are taking a look at the lay of the political land. Green Party? Libertarian Party? We'd prefer not to go there. But many of us will be damned if we will support a party if we feel they are part of the problem, with the R's (who are the MAIN problem), too. But for now the vast majority of us are still with the D's and backing them 110% but, imo, that support shouldn't be taken for granted. We don't expect everything to go our way in terms of positions but we expect a little more than nothing.

My home when I am not ranting here...

Tankard [is] willing to vote 3rd party if Dem candidates are not liberal enough for them
I resent this statement. Let me clarify: I am NOT willing to vote third party. I am DETERMINED to vote third party if the Dems nominate a conservative. And saying that Hillary is a liberal for much of the electorate is akin to saying that Rush makes sense to much of them. True, but so what?

Tankard even says winning isn't everything.
This is a distortion, and you are intelligent enough to recognize it as such. Winning isn't ANYTHING if we win by joining the enemy. And don't tell me that a little bit progressive is better than a little less progressive. By nominating the Testers and the Caseys and the Clintons and the Liebermans(who occasionally dream about having a friend that mentioned a relative who once knew a guy with a liberal neighbor), the Democratic Party is currently in the process transforming itself into a party of wishy-washy conservatives. It's easy to understand their motives: That's where all the money is, therefore it's more likely that the electorate will go that way.

Voting for a conservative with a "D" in front of his or her name does not serve the progressive cause. Surrender is not victory.

And I must address this, at the risk of turning this into an extended rant: All the disparaging rhetoric about "purity" and "not liberal enough" doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are becoming the Junior Republicans.

I wish I could follow your paradigm, (Saint? Lou? Nick?) but despite living in a liberal section of Pittsburgh, my down-ballot choices on the Dem ticket are mostly DINOs as well.

Everyone keep in mind that this guy Tankard has voted (mostly) straight-ticket Democrat through liberal and not, war and peace, recession and boom. I am the base of the Democratic party and you are losing me.

The City of St. Louis, Missouri is known as "the Lou" to many natives.

sPh

The country is no doubt more moderate than the Norquists and many of the Conservatives claim it is. It is also more moderate than most Leftwingers claim as well. This primarily a non-ideological nation with a strong individualistic streak that runs counter to the nanny state and grand cure-all social programs.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Fourteen years is a long time to ride, Ed. Colour me unimpressed.

I've read Ed's column over a few times, and I've given it considerable thought. I also read Ed's follow up comments through the thread.

Ed really didn't have anything to say.

But he took a good long time saying it.

I'll remember Ed's name in the future.

Re: I continually worry about the overall shift to the right this country has seen over the years. We now find that a position that might have been a moderate Democrat only 15 or 20 years ago is labeled as a far left "fringe" Democrat today.

There's been movement left as well though: ten years ago even gay civil unions would have been regarded as hopelessly radical; now even some Republicans will support that as a compromise. 50 years ago abortion on demand would have been a far Left position. Today's it's pretty much the mainstream. On taxes etc. The country moved somewhat right-- but not so far that there are mobs baying for a flat tax or the end of the estate tax (there are small mobs of would-be heirs baying for the latter, but they are a minority albeit a loud one). And we saw just how far right the electorate was when Social Security privatization was floated-- and sank like a lead brick. As for foreign policy the Bush administration has moved in a direction that's hard to categorize: it combines radicalisms of both the (old, Wilsonian) Left and the (new, Neocon) Right. True conservatives want nothing to do with it, and the majority of Americans are decidedly over and done with it too. My prediction there is once the Democrats controll both the White House and Congress Bushism will be deader than Saddam Hussein and within a few years it will be regularly panned on both the Left and the Right (for different reasons) as the ghastly mistake we all know it to be.Re: I continually worry about the overall shift to the right this country has seen over the years. We now find that a position that might have been a moderate Democrat only 15 or 20 years ago is labeled as a far left "fringe" Democrat today.

There's been movement left as well though: ten years ago even gay civil unions would have been regarded as hopelessly radical; now even some Republicans will support that as a compromise. 50 years ago abortion on demand would have been a far Left position. Today's it's pretty much the mainstream. On taxes etc. The country moved somewhat right-- but not so far that there are mobs baying for a flat tax or the end of the estate tax (there are small mobs of would-be heirs baying for the latter, but they are a minority albeit a loud one). And we saw just how far right the electorate was when Social Security privatization was floated-- and sank like a lead brick. As for foreign policy the Bush administration has moved in a direction that's hard to categorize: it combines radicalisms of both the (old, Wilsonian) Left and the (new, Neocon) Right. True conservatives want nothing to do with it, and the majority of Americans are decidedly over and done with it too. My prediction there is once the Democrats controll both the White House and Congress Bushism will be deader than Saddam Hussein and within a few years it will be regularly panned on both the Left and the Right (for different reasons) as the ghastly mistake we all know it to be.

Re: This primarily a non-ideological nation with a strong individualistic streak that runs counter to the nanny state and grand cure-all social programs.

There's some truth in that, but it has its limits too. The "individualists" among the ordinary citizens will happily vote for grand social programs that directly benefit them-- hence the sanctity of Social Security. And on the baleful sidfe they will also vote for nanny states measures that afflict unloved minorities, as witness the long popularity of Jim Crow, and not just in the South.

There's been movement left as well though: ten years ago even gay civil unions would have been regarded as hopelessly radical; now even some Republicans will support that as a compromise.
I agree that the concept would have been regarded as hopeless, but not radical by anyone with a brain (or a tooth) in his head.

50 years ago abortion on demand would have been a far Left position.
Abortion was not all that uncommon in 1957. It was illegal in most places, but that law was honored more in the breach than the observance. It took what I would call a conservative Supreme Court (in the sense that they were conserving individual liberties) to make it universally legal in 1973.

My prediction there is once the Democrats controll both the White House and Congress Bushism will be deader than Saddam Hussein and within a few years it will be regularly panned on both the Left and the Right
Not a chance. Bushism, as you call it, is the rule by big business and the wealthy. They own the means of production, they own the media, they own the politicians. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the power elite always request the same song: Barry Gordy's "Money (that's what I want)."

Well, congratulations. Instead of having Republicans rejecting progressive proposals before they're fully discussed, we have Democrats not raising progressive proposals at all.

And instead of having Republicans adopting repugnant legislation when Cheney snaps his fingers, we have Democrats adopting repugnant legislation when Cheney snaps his fingers.

And with all this "progress," the Democratic Party has moved itself one Giant Step to the right. By the time the 114th Congress is sworn in, the debate will be whether or not waterboarding of shoplifters is justified to acquire a confession, and whether to chop off the right hand or the left. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that it will be Democrats making those important decisions.

Once again: The people on my side of this argument, including me, are not Socialists or even Naderites for the most part. We are people who have voted almost exclusively for Democrats for decades. If the Party can't retain our votes, it has not only lost its soul -- an ideological disaster -- it has also lost a large portion of its base -- a pragmatic disaster.

Thank you for speaking up for yourself like a commenter would. The culture of vitriol on internet forums is never going to change if the bloggers themselves just ignore it with a shrug and silence. I suspect part of the problem is that it does take skill not to end up feeding a trollish debate, and that also takes having enough time to breathe before responding.

I would like to take some issue with the choice of the analogy "The Big Tent." I know we spend 95, or is it 100 percent of our time, reasoning by analogy. But there are good analogies, and there are bad analogies.

The Big Tent in this discussion is the Democratic party. By drawing conclusions from the metaphor, we are to conclude that the Democratic Party ought to be just like a Big Tent. As I understand it, the analogy of a big tent is used because Big Tents can hold a large number of people, with conflicting political principles. But that's OK. It is good for the Party to be both for, and opposed to the War in Iraq, at the same time, for example.

Can Big Tents not also hold an Army? What makes one an extremist for not wanting to get into Iraq in the first place? Unless you are actively engaged in the overthrow of a democratic government, you are neither an extremist of the Right, or Left, by definition. There is a great deal of middle ground between both of those poles. The cult of "Centrists" that are in the Party today, remind me of religious fundamentalists. They think they are holier moderates, than everyone else.

Mr. Kilgore, I think the Reps and the Dems are both Big Tent parties, composed of broad coalitions.

I view the Reps as having welcomed in the Radical Religious Right as well as a few who are a bit prone to intolerance. The Country Club and Roosevelt Republicans were shoved to the corners.

Now I also view the Dems as a big tent party with a lot of raucous elements. But, I would respectfully submit that into the Dems have traveled the centrists who once were quite snug in the Republican party.

I also think it's a stretch to term the scorched earth tactics of the Reps, stemming from the radical religious folks who fervently believed God was on their side and only their side, to be the Bulldozer. That wasn't all that made up that Bulldozer--it consisted of the use of technology to develop database and to use field resources efficiently.

And we have to acknowledge that the positions supported and enacted by the Dems led to upheaval in the party and among American supporters. And the Dems were behind in developing technology. Even so, the Reps had trouble gaining control of Congress and the Presidency. Narrow margins ruled.

The Dems can borrow some of the Bulldozer tactics--as they should do--but leave the scorched earth tactics behind. And there's a danger in welcoming--or keeping--folks in the Dems who are against our principles.

One principle that has been abandoned by both parties is how American wages war. Clinton went into the Balkans after exhaustive diplomacy but without a Congressional resolution. Bush gets the Congressional resolution but without exhausting diplomacy. Here's an idea. Let's exhaust the diplomacy, go to Congress for a resolution, and war may follow. How's that for a principle in keeping the three equal branches on an equal footing? There's other items on the principles list that I suggest we all consider as bedrock principles.

All others are welcome....but there's a group of Dems that need to be shoved to the corners of the tent.