Share

Liberal Positions Gaining Popularity

by: Steven Thomma  |  McClatchy Newspapers

photo

As Democrats gather, liberal positions gaining in popularity.

    Denver - As they meet for their national convention Monday through Thursday, Democrats are poised to shift their party's course - and the country's.

    They're turning to the left - deeply against the war in Iraq, ready to use tax policy to take from the rich and give to the poor and middle class, and growing hungry, after years of centrist politics, for big-government solutions, such as a health-care overhaul, to steer the nation through a time of sweeping economic change.

    They are, in short, more liberal than at any time in a generation and eager to end the Reagan era, which dominated not just the other party, but also their own, for nearly three decades.

    "Every generation ... there are changes in people's relationship with government," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. This, he said, is such a time.

    The shift of the party also reflects a change in much of the population - evidenced in the policy positions advocated by rank-and-file voters as well as the party's presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

    "Government SHOULD do more, especially when you're spending tens of billions of dollars in Iraq protecting the interests of millionaires," said Rebecca Washington, a Democrat and an accountant from Cleveland Heights, Ohio.

    "We've got to revoke the tax cuts for the wealthy," said Vicki Balzer, a Democrat and retired teacher from the Cleveland suburb of Berea. "We definitely need to do something more for the economically disadvantaged.... We've allowed big corporations to take millions for corporate leaders while workers get nothing."

    Nationally, 40 percent of Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections called themselves liberal, the highest since the American National Election Studies program started asking in 1972.

    At the same time, the number of Democrats who support a government safety net for the poor - such as guaranteeing food and shelter for the needy and spending to help them even if it means more debt - jumped by 14 percentage points from 1994 to 2007, according to the Pew Research Center.

    Support for that safety net also rose by 15 points among independents and 9 points among Republicans.

    That's a remarkable change since the mid-'90s, the decade when centrist Bill Clinton dominated the Democratic Party, signed a welfare overhaul into law that forced recipients to work, expanded free trade against the wishes of organized labor and famously declared the era of big government to be over.

    "During the era when Bill Clinton was president, there was a clear re-centering of the party," said Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

    Today, she added, "there is a growing understanding that government can play a positive role in investing in our country."

    What changed? Several things:

  • The Iraq war lasted longer, cost more lives and money, and proved deeply unpopular. A few years ago, Obama was a rare voice in the party opposing the war; today he's one of a chorus.

  • Anxiety about a slowing economy resurrected fears about American jobs and paychecks in the global economy. Promises to change trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement punctuated the Democratic primaries.

    Also, Obama promises a dramatically different tax policy, one that would raise taxes on the wealthy, cut taxes for the middle class and offer new "refundable" tax credits to the working poor that would wipe out tax liabilities and deliver anything left over in the form of checks.

    He also wants to tax oil companies and use the money to give checks to the poor to pay for high fuel costs, or anything else.

  • Many Americans recoiled at the weak federal government response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

  • Republican George W. Bush turned into one of the most unpopular presidents in modern history. Just as American revulsion at Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1980 helped usher in the Reagan era, rejection of the Bush era could help swing the pendulum the other way.
  •     At the same time, the party has new power centers in liberal groups such as Moveon.org and blogs such as dailykos.com, where antiwar fever and anti-Bush anger are magnified.

        They helped propel Howard Dean to an early lead for the 2004 Democratic nomination, lost, then regrouped to help defeat pro-war Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut in a 2006 primary, though he went on to win re-election as an independent.

        "Enormous dissatisfaction with the Republican Party has brought out the base more," said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

        Ever more vocal and influential heading into this year's election, that base fed the sense that the party should "return to its core values," Richardson said. "The rise of the Internet and bloggers have made the party more progressive."

        Schumer also thinks that it's all part of a historic cycle in American politics - or at least he hopes it is.

        He said Americans encouraged and grew accustomed to an activist federal government during the Great Depression of the 1930s, one that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt delivered and Democrat Lyndon Johnson accelerated in the 1960s.

        They grew disenchanted with that big government by the 1970s, a government seen as corrupt in the Nixon days, unable to stop oil crises or runaway inflation, and unable to rescue Americans whom Iran had taken hostage.

        "By 1980, the average person said, 'I don't need government anymore. I'm fine on my own,'" Schumer said.

        That sentiment drove U.S. politics for years, helping Republicans win five out of seven presidential elections and giving the Democrats two victories only when they nominated a Southern centrist in Clinton.

        This year, however, Democrats rejected Hillary Clinton, who, while arguably more liberal than her husband, was to the right of Obama on big issues such as tax policy and had a history of being more hawkish on national security.

        Perhaps it's because Obama was simply a more appealing candidate. But it also might be because times are changing.

        Now, Schumer said, Americans feel shaken by big forces such as globalization, terrorism and a sputtering economy. "The whole world changes, and people feel a little bit at sea, and they need help," Schumer said.

        Whether the country will turn to a resurgent-liberal Democratic Party to navigate that less-certain world won't be known until November. But for Democrats watching their national convention, it's clear they want something very different.

      

    »


    Comments

    This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

    Wouldn't it be cool if the

    Wouldn't it be cool if the "progressive" values you speak of included - no more torture - no more preventative war - restoration of privacy rights - restoration of habeous corpus - no more rendition - restoration of rule of law - no immunity for big corporations or politicians - impeachment and war crime trials where appropriate. These are bedrock,important, weighty issues ... but instead the Dems (who have supported each and every one of these items) throw something shiny - ooooh, health care, taxes - and we get a fluff piece about how America is getting more progressive. *yawn*

    Those of us Democrats who

    Those of us Democrats who are proud to be progressives do include support for the values cited above and are likely, also, proud to be Feminist!

    We, or at least I, can only

    We, or at least I, can only hope that the long nightmare of government irresponsibility is over, that the bright sunshine of corporate dominance over national policy is being eclipsed, and that the soul of America as a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people is being resurrected. The old liberals let the nation down by moving toward the center. It is time for the progressives to lead the country toward the future.

    In an otherwise valid

    In an otherwise valid argument the author makes reference to "taking from the rich and give to the poor and middle class", which repeats this myth. The poor and the middle class are taxed at a much higher effective tax rate, pay a disproportionate share of their income in the form of sales and payroll taxes while subsidizing large corporations and individuals who derive their income from "clipping coupons". Not only have the poor and middle class been shouldering the major portion of the tax burden and done so increasingly since Reagan's infamous tax cuts for the rich (ans his initiation of the alternative income tax which hits the middle class almost exclusively), the poor and the middle class have been providing the sons and daughters to be the canon fodder for the Republican neo-cons' (and con is the right term) foreign adventures. The sons and daughters of the working classes have been paying the price in blood and mental and physical suffering for the ability of the energy corporations to reap large profits for their wealthy shareholders and executives (the Bushes and the Cheney's of this country). It is not to take from the rich but rather to take back from the rich the money and the services of this government "for the people".

    Unfortunately, the

    Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is veering to the right not left, in the name of conventional wisdom (candidates must run toward the center after the primary). Obama is trading his winning progressive tactics of "Change" for Clinton’s failed conservative tactics. This nonsense does not work (e.g. Gore, 2002 and Kerry) or have anything to do with wisdom. We have all heard the corporate media and republican spin that the US is a conservative country. However, polls by the Pew Research Center and others find the majority of Americans are in favor of progressive policies (the economy, trade, health, war, etc.). However, Obama and the party are abandoning their base (left) and returning to their losing ways. Here are the results of conventional wisdom so far: * Obama's yes vote for the FISA bill, has given the telecom industry giants amnesty for illegally spying on Americans, which started before 9/11, kiss the fourth amendment and the rule of law goodbye. * Obama has opposed the recent Supreme Court decision that stops the expansion of the death penalty to non-murder cases, more pandering to the lynch mob mentality. * Obama is now embracing Bush’s faith based initiative, what happened to separation of church and state (first amendment)? * Obama is beginning to back pedal on ending the Iraq war in his first year, so much for getting out of Iraq. * Obama has flip flopped and is now considering drilling for oil off shore, $400 thousand from the oil companies is all it takes to kill environmentalism.

    I hope what you say is

    I hope what you say is true, that a new day is dawning. It is so painfully, devastatingly, depressingly obvious: the Reagan era did dominate not only the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party as well. Bill Clinton could have passed as a liberal Republican from an earlier time. I could never tolerate him or his wife Hillary for this reason. And together -- as they would inevitably be if she were the Democratic Party nominee or vice presidential pick -- they would be destroyers. The best thing about today is that it finally buries the Clintons' ambitions. Hillary lovers need to get on board the Obama train.

    This has to be one of the

    This has to be one of the more vacuous and sophomoric pieces to come out of the liberal media. Does this author really believe or even understand how ridiculous the argument is? --- Today, she added, "there is a growing understanding that government can play a positive role in investing in our country." What changed? Several things: --- and the bullet points below this (go back and read them with the premise of what the author is saying in mind please) are supposed to engender our confidence in BIGGER government investing in our country? As if government ever HAD anything to invest. Where does government get anything? From the people. This is ideological tripe at its best. BUT, it does help me win an argument with a friend proving that I do NOT give the mainstream press TOO MUCH credit for a political agenda...that one does not exist. Right. --- At the same time, the number of Democrats who support a government safety net for the poor - such as guaranteeing food and shelter for the needy and spending to help them even if it means more debt - jumped by 14 percentage points from 1994 to 2007, according to the Pew Research Center. Support for that safety net also rose by 15 points among independents and 9 points among Republicans. --- What the hell does all this statistical superlative lingo mean? 14 % points = how much? what does "that" safety net actually mean? for whom? More rhetoric to engender the lemming squad. Personally, the liberals that I know are smarter than this piece gives them credit for and see through this mirage of "Americans think Democrats will do a BETTER job of BIG Government" this time around crap.

    Well although I consider

    Well although I consider Obama the lesser of two evils, I simply don't see where the democrats are even remotely moving to the left, though I believe they should because most of America wants universal health care, a clean environment, independence from oil, jobs, a fair market and the rebuilding of the infrastructure. Also they want accountability and especially to bring an end to the war in Iraq and restore the Bill of Rights. So far the democrats haven't done a damn thing about this most important of stuff! Putting Biden into the mix is a move to the right, as was the capitulation on holding the telecoms and the president responsible for illegal domestic spying. Impeachment was never realistically put on the table even though constitutional law certainly called for it and all the democrats have done since 2006 is essentially give Bush everything he wants. Moving to the left my ass! More so like comfortably sitting with the right.

    Universal, Single Payer

    Universal, Single Payer Health Care would be a great thing for the people of the United States and it is a shame that only Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney are calling for it. The debate needs to be opened up to include McKinney and Nader and Barr. Why not TruthOut? Try and balance your coverage so we also hear the ideas of those candidates. McCain is an empty headed old fool, and if you limit the debate to just McCain and Obama you turn the election process into a farce.

    It was only a matter of time

    It was only a matter of time before this would come to pass. Politics, like the economy, tends to be cyclical. It's sad that it took a senseless, devastating war, a willful destruction of the middle class, and the loss of the homes of poor people conned by usurious moneylenders to make the public confront the reality of soulless Republican greed, but it's better than having no awareness of these things at all. Today's Republicans are, for the most part, a criminal class, who arrogantly tried to turn this country into an Ayn Rand land, where it is perversely considered moral to steal and extort every last cent from the poor and struggling to give to the rich and powerful. And anyone who knows anything about Ayn Rand knows that she was an emotional adolescent and an absolute fascist in both her public and private lives. To see her disciples thrown out of power is a welcome and heartening prospect.

    I will never vote for a

    I will never vote for a person who destroys any part of the Bill of Rights, as the presumptive candidate Obama did with his "yea" vote on HR 6304. He's a messiah in hawk's clothing. Another corpo-candidate with sweet wooing words but an obvious contempt for the system of self-governance that is dependent on the sacrosanct nature of the document penned by Mr. Madison. I am stunned, first, by the lack of knowledge of the fact that we no longer have a working fourth amendment, then to hear time and again the excuse that he had to vote in the manner he did to get elected. My god! So if murder were as contentious, then he'd have to kill someone to get into office like some sort of gang banger eh? And last, the majority of the people I talk to seem to have no concern for this fact, if they have prior knowledge of his vote last month at all, that we are now liable to all-out surveillance by the Feds without much legal recourse... So Amerika has quietly turned Stalinist, and no one pays it any mind, except those in free speech zones that Michael Mukasey now wants to digitally rape for the exercise of that likewise foregone right. So sheeplettes, I'll have nothing to do with either corporate approved candidate in this dog-an-pony show election (I'll be casting a ballot for either Nader or McKinney). Because you can pretend this country will resume normal functioning once either ascends the throne, but the indulgence of plenary power granted to the Bush presidency will be far too tantalizing for either of these potential hegemons to return to the people. Your a fool to think otherwise. We need one big one to help those who would utter dismissive and placating cake eating comments to those who suffer at their metaphorical feet, remember THEIR place." When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

    I can't believe how cynical

    I can't believe how cynical some of you are in this comments section. You sound like you are ready to pack it in. Then there are many of you saying Obama is just as bad as McCain. Unbelievable. I don't know if you are just plain ignorant or you just believe everything you read and hear. Between Obama and McCain there is a vast chasm. Choose McCain or some unwinnable third party candidate and you will fall into that chasm.

    Those of liberal persuasion

    Those of liberal persuasion who vote for Nader, no matter how palatable his positions on the issues, are just as stupid as those who voted for Bush or who will vote for McCain. You tipped the scales in 2000 and put these idiots in the White House. If not for those voting for Nader, presumably as a misguided means of protest because he clearly had no chance of winning, Gore would have been the clear victor. Nobody, nobody, no matter how pure in political positions or how devoted to preserving the protections in our Constitution, can tell me that a Gore presidency would not have made this country and the world a far different and better place to be today. So, go ahead, you idiots, if you will, and try to complete the destruction of America to prove your purity. I sincerely pray for your failure! And incidentally, lest we think Nader so pure, let us not forget that his earliest claim to fame was to have nearly singlehandedly destroyed the most innovative design, of its time, to have come out of the US automotive industry in over 50 years and engendered a reticence toward change that set American car companies back another quarter century in terms of marketing strategies for competing with products from Europe and Japan. Not the legacy of a lily-white champion of freedom.

    IE I can't believe how

    IE I can't believe how cynical,,,, We voted in the democrats in 2006 to end the war in Iraq. We voted them in to stop Bush and to hold his administration accountable for obvious crimes against the Constitution and the American people. Though I applaud the efforts of some democrats like Kucinich, Wexler, Farr, Waxman and Feingold and a few others who actually seem to be committed to protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States, the rest of the democrats have either capitulated to Bush or have gone out of their way to support him in the most disturbing actions of his administration. Cynical you say? Damn right! That said, I will be supporting Obama in the hope he will do what has to be done when the crap finally does hits the fan. And as PT Barnum used to say, "We ain't seen nothing yet!" I also see the best way in defeating the neocon right is by first seeing to it they don't get another one of their own in the White House and secondly in supporting progressive candidates in taking the seats of both republicans and their staunch allies, the bluedog democrats. I see the opportunity in doing that to be an easier chore with Obama, especially since a McCain victory will only embolden the neocon right to do even more damage . But make no mistake, Obama is in the same corporate lobby pockets as is John McCain and no one beyond progressives are willing to address real and meaningful campaign finance reform to remove all of our candidates and officials from their pockets. As long as this canard continues we can never take back America and place it where it truly belongs, in the hands of We The People!

    Don't blame Democrats for

    Don't blame Democrats for not accomplishing their goals........yet. They will still be handcuffed until they have the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster in the Senate. They have made some gains without the votes but we can't expect much more until the obstructionists are voted out of office, on both sides of the aisle.

    Phaedrus: So what exactly is

    Phaedrus: So what exactly is so anti-progressive about health care and tax reform? I get that we all want Bush & Dick impeached, but unless we got the votes it's just a dog & pony show. Should we jettison any hope of getting our country turned around just so Pelosi can pass your litmus tests? You do realize that a failed impeachment will result in nothing but a major backlash. If you've only just started paying attention, you probably only know of Bush's recent crimes. Personally, I don't want 50 more years of Empire. Bush will be judged by history. His party will be in a political wilderness. But not if enough idiots vote for that guy who takes republican money...oh whatsisname...Nader?