The Democratic Perspective

scales-of-justice

I just finished reading this post by Dave Henderson, who writes a blog called “A Humanist’s perspective.” At the end of the post, he provided a link to a website that presents the platform of a group called Justice Democrats.

I visited the site and discovered I like much of what’s there because it seems to echo what I believe and support.

I’d be interested in knowing what you think.

  • Is this something you could get behind?
  • Are there any points in particular that you disagree with?
  • On the converse, are there some you could strongly support?
  • Would you be willing to sign up?
Advertisements

66 thoughts on “The Democratic Perspective

    • Sorry, Hariod — I didn’t notice your support before. (??) I think the reason it “clicked” now is related to what Dave wrote. In any case, I believe it’s a great platform and I definitely signed on. We’ll see what happens …

      Liked by 2 people

    • Good man Inspired One. We’ve got enough bloggers virtue signalling in their constant disapproval of Trump and Bannon — yes, we get that, now do something! Like join the Justice Democrats, justice you did (see what I did there?). o_O

      Liked by 1 person

  1. Hello Nan. I have been hearing it a lot lately. I am a member of The Young Turks Network. I like most of the shows. They talk about it all the time. I also ran into it on Jerry Coyne’s blog, it is something he has talked about a lot. The term seems to refer to democrats that are more liberal and less likely to take offence. They compare themselves against “progressive democrats” who they think are for less rights and more into not getting feelings hurt rather than facts of an issue.. They are more along the lines of the Bernie democrats, they support a people first , corporations no philosophy. They want no compromising on issues that are for the people. I first noticed it on the issue of speakers in collages. The idea being they are the ones who believe in true free speech because they feel everyone should be let to speak when invited to events or schools, regardless of what the person has said or done in the past. They seem to agree with peaceful protests, and then bring in their own speakers to sort of duel the two speakers out with how many show up at each. I did try to sign up. I got called away. Thanks for the reminder, I plan to sign up. They are more inline with my views in most things. Be well. Hugs

    Liked by 3 people

    • Forgive me Scottie, but the Justice Democrats are the Progressive Democrats; they define themselves in contradistinction to Corporatist Democrats, as you rightly say, and their candidates are entirely banned from taking corporate sponsorship. Have I misunderstood your words in any way, my friend? 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hello Hariod, No you understand it better than I do. I had noticed on the web page I mentioned, Jerry Coyne’s that people there often run down what they call progressive democrats. I don’t understand because I always felt progressive was a good thing. I first seen this whole thing explode with the whole Milo stuff. Just hope we don’t end up in a “sho is the real democrat” war. Like the RINO stuff. I remember when it was democrats help people and republicans help businesses. It all seems changed somewhat. Thanks Hariod. I will need you to help me understand all this stuff. Hugs

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, the Justice Democrats are definitely your guys, Scottie — they’re big on Social Justice (maintaining hard won civil rights for minority groups), and I know that’s very much a concern of yours currently. A few of Bernie’s former candidacy team are working with them. So, there are party ‘insider’ progressives like Bernie, and Warren, and Ellison, and there are ‘outsider’ progressives who are the Justice Democrats. The only real difference is that the latter are running candidates on a strictly anti-corporatist basis, meaning they’re not being funded by business at all, so they want to overturn the corporatist stance of the Dems and push through progressive policies without having to worry about what the sponsors think, and without having to rally round the new DNC chair Perez, who’s just more of the same — he’s made Ellison his deputy, but meh.

          Liked by 1 person

        • I am glad they have both inside the party people and outside the party people. We need some that know how things run and how to get things done. We need outside people for new ideas and to get people interested and willing to help. I like E. Warren and Bernie, but I don’t know Ellison. On TYT they wanted him as DNC chair but did not say why. What does a DNC chair do? Why is it important to have Ellison over Perez. IF more people voted for Perez doesn’t that mean more people in the party are in favor of him over the other guy? Thanks. Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

        • The DNC chair coordinates the fundraising Scottie, which largely has meant garnering funds from corporate donors — same for both DEM and REP parties alike. So, Perez (the new DNC chair) represents a continuation of that policy, and which failed miserably in the recent election, of course. It was an open goal, and they missed. Yes, Cenk Uygur (TYT) would’ve supported Ellison over Perez, I’m quite certain, and the reason being that Ellison is a true progressive, whereas Perez, like Clinton, just talks progressive (a bit). The DNC chair doesn’t set Democratic Party policy as such, but moreso organises the party, prioritises spending and appoints people to jobs, as well as arranging fundraising, as I said. In part, it seems establishment backers coerced Perez into standing just two months ago, because they were worried about a Sanders/progressive ally seizing control. In the end it was quite closely run, with 235 for Perez and 200 for Ellison. So, the status quo ante holds for now, and hence the real need for the Justice Democrats to field progressive candidates.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Hariod, you wrote: because they were worried about a Sanders/progressive ally seizing control.

          Are you saying that we are the “odd man out” because we want the progressive arm of the Democrats to gain control? I always thought that was the core platform of the Democrats. I guess things have changed …

          Liked by 1 person

        • Hariod & Nan. It seems there is a much bigger split than I knew in the party. Do you think the party will become two different parties? IS it possible to function if the party splits? Hugs

          Like

        • As an aside I have noticed that the Progressive wing of the Democrats seems to want it their way or no way.

          At the time of the Sanders/Clinton primaries many progressives complained about Hillary Clinton and suggested that they would rather vote for Jill Stein than Hillary Clinton. Many seemed to hate Clinton so much that they cared little if Donald Trump won. I found should an attitude astounding at the time and it made me question what was going on in their mind.

          I have gone back to the same sites and see the same sort of sentiment being expressed in the Perez/Ellison discussion. From what I can gather Perez is actually quite progressive and the demonising of him by the Ellison supporters seems bizarre to me.

          Indeed for a party that lost the Presidency because it lost white working class voters, to suggest that Ellison was the answer seemed quite odd to me.

          I would argue that the Democratic Party needs to spend less time on identity politics and more time on economic issues.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Hi Peter. I would say you have a better grasp of the personalities involved than I do. I am not too much on either guy Ellison or Perez. I do know TYT have been trying to destroy Perez, and they are pushing Ellison hard. However while I like the idea of inclusion I think Ellison would have trouble appealing to the person in the street we need to reach. I have heard that even some in congress in the party are not happy with him, but I don’t know why. So I am wondering are we going to end up with two parties. Thanks, be well. Hugs

          Like

        • Peter, I’m not real versed on this type of thing. I’ve actually only been interested in politics since Obama’s campaign and election. Before that it was just a “passing interest” in that I sorta’ knew what was going on, but wasn’t really paying that much attention. So I can’t totally argue with what you’ve written.

          However, I will say this — I don’t believe it’s an economic issue. I think the whole scenario is revolving about principle. The Democratic Party has simply gotten away from the core issues they used to stand for and are falling into the same trap as the Republicans in that they’re allowing the Corporate World to dictate their actions, votes, and core values. THIS is why I believe some were so opposed to Hillary. She fit right into that groove.

          Further, I would find it difficult to agree that these individuals “cared little that Trump won.” I think they were like many of us who were grieved that we had no one else to choose from.

          Liked by 1 person

        • I know we don’t agree on TYT. I do like it, but I also find they are sometimes obsessive about issues and not willing to give even a little or work with others on. Right now they are railing about the DNC vote. To me their big issue is as Nan said, money and corporations. They seem to feel Perez is too close to corporations, and too willing to do money deals with them? Hugs

          Like

        • Hi Nan, yes, it’s rather like the Labour Party here in Britain; it’s somewhat erroneously perceived as a vaguely Leftist-Socially Liberalist party (yet Blair was never inline with that) but there’s a big move on the ground by new party members to make it a proper party of progressives, not just paying lip service to progressive policies and then voting with our Right Wing government — on disastrous interventionist wars, on cuts to welfare programs, on tax breaks for the wealthy, and the usual Right Wing stuff. So I think there’s a parallel there between what’s going on with your Democratic Party and what’s happening over here with our Labour Party, which by the way, has become the largest political party in Europe since it elected a leader with a progressive agenda.

          It’s tricky engaging in dialogue across the Atlantic because Americans tend to perceive terms like Socialism and Liberalism as pejoratives, whereas here Liberalism doesn’t connote Neoliberalism or Libertarianism, but almost exclusively Social Liberalism, and Socialism is widely desired here in terms of renationalising public utilities and the supply of money (banks). So by ‘progressive’, I mean a term we can agree upon which simply put is Socially Liberal and anti-Neoliberalism — that’s to say standing in opposition to (largely) unfettered global free market Capitalism.

          As to your ‘odd (wo)man out’ business, then it’s a close call, because true progressives like Sanders and Warren and Ellison are very much in the ascendency in terms of public approval, but this is being resisted by your Democratic Party and those entrenched within its power structures. And old hands in our Labour Party over here are similarly resisting a move to the left and progressive policies. It’s a power struggle on both sides of the pond. The argument the corporate democrats will put forward is that this isn’t a time to have a split agenda, but that fails because they just went to the country with Hillary under a united agenda and lost — against the worst candidate in American history. So their model doesn’t work, despite the vast amounts of corporate funding it attracts.

          In short, the way forward (as I see it) is to wrest control of the Democratic Party back from the corporates, and put forward true progressive policies. That’s precisely what Justice Democrats seeks to do.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Sorry, mea culpa, I made an error of fact in one of my above comments. Perez is more ‘progressive’ than 57% of the House Democrat’s it is Ellison who was more progressive than 90% of the House Democrats.

          As an aside it is interesting to see tribalism at work in the comments section of the comment on the fivethirtyeight article I linked to. One sees two parts of the Democratic Party tear each other to shreds.

          What I ponder is whether the Democratic Party wants to go the way of the Republicans? After Obama was elected the extreme element of the Republicans (the Tea Party) took over much of the party. Most famously Eric Cantor the Deputy House Speaker lost his primary to a Tea Party candidate, something no-one saw coming.

          I see the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party trying to do to the Democratic Party what the Tea Party did to the Republican Party.

          My Personal view is that the Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party was a very bad thing indeed as it brought into Congress many folk who would rather destroy the system than compromise. I wonder what the future might hold if both parties are controlled by their most militant wing who see any compromise as a betrayal? The risk is that Congress will become even more dysfunctional. I suspect the major concrete outcome could be to see the eventual death of the Senate Filibuster as otherwise neither party will be able to pass any legislation unless they have 60 seats in the Senate.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Hello Peter, This is what I saw saying about will the party split. However I do disagree with you on the way the party should respond to the last few years. As long as the republicans are rewarded for breaking all rules and norms, they will keep doing it. As long as the republicans think compromise means they get 95 % of what they want and the starting point is at the 80 in their favor line. IF the democrats just play nice we will always lose. I did not support Bernie but I did think Hillary would play hardball and I think our party needs to do that also. Be well. Hugs

          Like

        • Hariod I was interested in your comments on the British Labour Party. I was listening to the BBC on the weekend and the programme suggested that the Labour party was really struggling under Jeremy Corbyn, who the programme experts considered ‘unelectable’.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Scottie, Jerry Coyne is very concerned with what he sees as a tendency for some progressives to try to shut down the views of anyone who disagrees with their view. He considers that free speech should be protected even if it means at times people are not protected from views that might challenge them.

      Jerry Coyne could be seen as being like Bill Maher, a person on the left who despairs at the trend to political correctness. A political correctness that tries to shut down discussion on certain issues.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hello Peter, yes I understand that part. What confused me is that Jerry Coyne keeps saying it is the progressives that are doing it. and he disagrees with them. Yet Hariod says the progressives are the Justice democrats. I agree with both Maher and Coyne about the free speech thing, but I do not agree with Maher on his stance on Islam. I think they use too broad a brush. Hugs

        Like

        • Scottie, Jerry Coyne is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Chicago and has watched with despair the trends in Universities. He sees the progressive student bodies as working against integration and creating a new segregation with the move to safe places and the like. It is the Progressive student bodies that push for the banning of inappropriate Halloween costumes and fight cultural appropriation and protest any speaker who is not in line with their particular views.

          What Coyne is saying is that things have gone way too far. The case of Erika Christakis especially galled him, so was forced out of Yale for having the gall to suggest that it was not the role of the University to police Halloween costumes. It is this bullying by progressives that destroys the career of such good folk that Coyne finds so objectionable.
          https://www.thefire.org/one-year-later-erika-christakis-breaks-her-silence-on-yale-halloween-controversy/

          Liked by 1 person

        • Hello Peter. I am not arguing against Coynes position in the idea of free speech. I was reading his blog during the entire Milo thing and I agreed with him about speech and what the proper way to protest should be. I also agree that if a costume is not either dangerous or breaking the law ( not covering body parts that must be covered ) no one should be trying to ban the wearing of them. Hey I know people who would like all costumes banned because it is a holiday for witchcraft. Peter what I am trying to get to is the word progressive. I thought it meant one thing and it seems to have changed to mean another. I have been a progressive for years. I wanted to move the country to a more enlightened and inclusive country. I wanted to progress forward with equality and joy for all. I think what I called progressive is what Hariod calls them, we are in agreement. I think Nan may also have the same Idea of progressives, but as I wrote before Jerry Coyne says progressives are the ones doing the undemocratic stuff, you say they are working to stopping free speech and bullying people. I think safe spaces and trigger warnings are a separate subject, and something that a little goes a long way. They have been far overdone, taken too far. So I have you , Coyne, and TYT saying progressives are the enemy. Other people are saying that progressives are the ones trying to move the party forward. I know what I like and don’t like, and what I hope people will do, but what I don’t know is the name to call the ones being restrictive and the name of the group being open. I have tried to get this written correctly but I may not be clear . Let me know if I need to rewrite it. Thanks Peter for helping me figure out the names of each group. Hugs

          Liked by 2 people

        • Hi Peter and Scottie. I think there’s a confusion of terms here. It happens a lot in politics as I’ve just suggested to Nan. I think it’s a mistake to conflate the absurdities of extreme Political Correctness and the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) with the term ‘Progressives’. The idiocy that goes on with SJWs has little or nothing to do with progressive politics.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Hello Hariod. I agree. I do not like the actions I have heard credited to SJW and I like being nice but political Correctness has gone way beyond that. It was a good idea that got abused. I think that some people are calling themselves progressives and doing progressive things. That is the best way I can figure this out. I just hope the party doesn’t split into three parts. However TYT is calling for there part of the party to take it over. Who said it is like herding cats? Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

        • Scottie, you said ” . . .TYT saying progressives are the enemy” — forgive me, but I think that’s not right at all my friend. In fact, I’d stake my house on it that TYT’s main players didn’t say anything of the sort. Cenk Uygur is right behind progressives like Justice Democrats, Sanders, Warren and Ellison. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

        • Yes I am listening to him right now. I think I did not write what I was saying correctly. He wanted Ellison really badly, and is very angry about Perez. He says don’t leave the democrat party take it over. That is what I was trying to say. SO yes I did say that TYT is progressive, because I am getting confused with the terms. TYT wants what I want which is a very open strong party under the model of Elizabeth Warren. But what do we call the part of the party that is not progressive. See that is my problem, and maybe I am just thick headed tonight, but there seems to be two sides. A regressive side demanding purity / no hurt feelings in life, and a progressive side that seems to think rights are priority over other things. I am progressive. I want rights for people, safety social programs, education and health care for all. I hope all this makes sense? Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

        • I think this is the right way to say it. I like what you said here. The idiocy that goes on with SJWs has little or nothing to do with progressive politics.

          So instead of progressives and progressives we should call them SJW and JWD. That I can understand. Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

        • Scottie, you asked, “But what do we call the part of the party that is not progressive?” I’ve been calling them Corporate Democrats, and I suspect Cenk & Co. would use that term also. It implies the occasional mouthing of progressive stances so as to dupe uninformed voters into thinking that the Democratic Party under Hillary, or Obama, or Bill, were not in thrall to corporate interests. But they always were. You can go online these days and look at the voting choices of politicians, so it’s becoming increasingly difficult for them to continue speaking with forked tongues — à la Hillary and her one message for the voters and another for Wall Street. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

        • I like your suggested names, it makes sense to me. I am saddened to think there are leaders of the “progressive” party who are not for the needs of the people. I think that has to be because of money. Greed is not limited to the republican party. I like Hillary. I liked her policies, I felt she would get things done that others wouldn’t be able to do. I know she was connected to big money people, but the tops of both parties are. I really do respect the things Bill and Hillary tried to do for the people. But I am not going to look back but forward. I do not see that Ellison is a better choice for DNC than Perez. Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

        • Scottie, we all have our preferences. That’s what makes the world go ’round. And that’s what makes blogging so much fun! It’s always interesting and challenging to hear about and discuss other people’s viewpoints. Of course when they agree with your own view, it’s even more delightul! 😀

          Liked by 2 people

        • It took awhile Nan but I finally got the points and ideas everyone was expressing. I felt like I was chasing piglets there for a while. Trying to put words with actions was where I was getting hung up. I needed to let that go and focus on ideals , like you said. Thanks Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

  2. I can get on board. Of course, it’s all “motherhood and apple pie” and that’s exactly how you suck people in to an ideology they would never otherwise endorse. What’s really needed is only one thing – the elimination of the Deep State – which of course will never happen.

    Like

  3. I didn’t find anything I couldn’t agree with. Not that everything was my #1 choice as a way to address issues, but the ones suggested sure seemed as if they would work.

    I wish they’d have chosen a better name, I don’t think they want to be associated with the Democratic party. I think they are lower case d democrats.

    A constitution convention would be risky because of the organizational edge that the plutocrats have but if the approval process of the amendments could require a full vote of the people, I’d be for it. More often than not, a statehouse bill is required to approve a Constitutional Amendment and those votes are already bought and paid for (not by you or me).

    Liked by 2 people

  4. The platform sounds great with nearly all objectives, ones that I could support. I also used google to obtain background info on the organization. The concern I see is with the stated platform do Democrats still not reach or regain the “working class” Americans which for so long were the Democratic base? If not then who is our base? After reading Andrew Levison’s book the White Working Class Today I believe we need to recognize their “legitimate” concerns or lose future elections until a more diverse electorate is reached in the country.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I like much/most of what the platform states.

    Is this something you could get behind?” Yes.

    Are there any points in particular that you disagree with?” Instead of the Death Penalty, implement locked cryogenic sleep chambers for heinous murders or at least forms of Hypothalamus and Amygdala brain controls and/or triggers. 😉

    On the converse, are there some you could strongly support?” All of them with a refined version of the Death Penalty.

    Would you be willing to sign up?” Yes.

    I would add another platform I personally feel is CRITICAL to social-economic safety and stability: more funded highly expanded mental-health & Alcohol-Drug programs, rehab-clinics, and long-term (at least 90-days!) inpatient facilities subsidized by state and federal funding! Sooner or later, one way or another, addiction and mental-health patients become ALL of society’s problem, whether domestically, socially, or in/out of our court and penal systems. Period. Just throwing them into 3-day detox units or 30-day band-aid facilities does NOT solve the long-term socioeconomic problem! Insurance companies must cover more expanded MH and A&D rehabs that last a minimum of 90-days up to 365-days!

    Liked by 4 people

    • Hi Professor!

      Not sure what the value is in the cryogenic sleep chambers? Is this because the group would abolish the death penalty so this would put the worst offenders away from society and yet not “kill” them?

      I agree with your last point. I’m sure anyone who signs up will get regular communications so perhaps you could contact them with this suggestion?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hey Nan, I was mainly being cheeky about the Death Penalty and cryogenics. 😉 Although I find myself in limbo on the issue most often. This started, for example, after the O.J. Simpson trial and every year thereafter that the “real” actual murderer(s) of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman is/are STILL at large! Hmmm.

        Yes, greatly expanded mental-health & addiction treatment/insurance coverage has been at the forefront of MY own personal political agenda since the 1980’s. It becomes especially so after repeated Columbine or Sandy Hook mass shootings. 😦

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I think I counted 23 points laid out in the “Democratic Perspective” I didn’t remove my shoes and socks to verify the count. 🙂

    Of these, I can wholeheartedly support 17 of them. The other 6 I will have to do more fact checking . I do think this document would head the Democratic Party in the right direction.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. I would like to suggest a couple things. I can’t drive so I have to have Ron take me everywhere. I wish we had good mass transit like other countries, and high speed trains. I have friends who will take me places but I never want to over do on that. Lots of people in the park I live in are not drivers because of age or infirmities. The other thing is education opportunities. There is a lot I can’t do but most of my mind still works. I know I love to learn. I am not the fastest learner, but I enjoy it. However I am not one who can read a manual and get it, I need instructors or people to help me find the path. I think people would live longer, be mentally more healthy, and be better citizens if they could get out / go places and learn new interesting things. Hugs

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Off-topic just a bit, but just read that tRump’s choice to be secretary of the navy has withdrawn because of “undue disruption and materially adverse divestment of my family’s private financial interests.”

    Isn’t it interesting that SOME people actually admit their “private financial interests” might play a role in their government position?

    Liked by 4 people

  9. I recently came across this comment on another website that I think pretty much goes along with what I wrote to Peter about the Democratic party:

    Moreover we see that the democrats are really a branch of the republicans at heart. Wealthy individuals who like most of the republican positions but whom would generally prefer a somewhat more moderate version of same.

    Liked by 4 people

    • I see the Democrat party as too willing to compromise. Not willing to fight hard enough for the poorest people. They seem to want to look good more than they want to fight for and try to force the progressive social programs. The dems seem willing to give too much to appear reasonable and civil. I admit I don’t feel very civil to people like Mitch McConnell. Hugs

      Liked by 3 people

    • Nan as an Australian I am somewhat distant from the details of US politics.

      From a distance I have noted that the US is the home of what I call ‘the working poor’, in that there is a large cohort of folk who are on the minimum wage, which is in essence a poverty level wage. The minimum wage in Australia is probably double what it is in the US when one allows for currency and cost of living.

      I suppose my concern about both parties in the US moving to cater for their more extreme supporters is that it will make it harder to govern.

      Liked by 1 person

Take Some Time To Share Your Thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s