More Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”

[Verðandi]

Now slightly more Americans perceive the Democratic Party as being too liberal (46%) than view the GOP as being too conservative (43%).


More...

[SpearBrave]

The polls in America are are usally slanted towards the left. That more than likely means 75% Americans view the DNC as too liberal.

[triedandtru]

Now slightly more Americans perceive the Democratic Party as being too liberal (46%) than view the GOP as being too conservative (43%).


More...

That is good news, as it seems to be most people I come across appear to be just as liberal as the Democractic Party comes off and quite infatuated with Obama.

[EQ Fighter]

I would not even use the term “Liberal” With American Democrats, Marxist, Communist, or if you look at their views on the Family, Trotskyites.

[Oski]

I would not even use the term “Liberal” With American Democrats, Marxist, Communist, or if you look at their views on the Family, Trotskyites.

Explain. Its not that I disagree at all I'm just ignorant to Trotsky's view on family.

[triedandtru]

I would not even use the term “Liberal” With American Democrats, Marxist, Communist, or if you look at their views on the Family, Trotskyites.

Very true. They have become quite extreme. The more I learn about the Obama administration and the more I see many people to continue to support him, the more appalled I am.

[EQ Fighter]

Explain. Its not that I disagree at all I'm just ignorant to Trotsky's view on family.

Trotsky expanded his views of socialism to the Idea the both women and children under the oppression of the patriarchal system. The idea the State was the ultimate head of the family and that men women and children should have all homage to the state. IE Men were oppressing and using their wives as slaves, and that women were using their children as slaves.

Stalin as evil as he was did not want to destroy his own “Workers Paradise” and put an end to both Trotsky and his Ideas with the use of KGB. Unfortunately for him this resulted in what was called the Jewish Doctors Plot” they were finally successful in poising Stalin and retaking their bolshevik empire until 1989.

[frippardthree]

Actually, I would like the Democratic Party to return to it's roots, when it's Social Policies were more conservative, and made more sense. I suppose that we can blame the sixties & JFK's presidency for changing the Democratic Party, & Obama's personality cult is not doing the original party any justice either.

Bring back the old Democratic Party
Think of the turbulent days of the 1960's when the Democrats took control of the nation and led us to great things. What happened to the momentum for the common man of the party, why the loss of vigor? It has fallen on lazy days, growing fat on the success, but no longer hungry. Like a boxer out of shape the party has stayed in, but never regained her real glory. I believe the one to bring us back is here, he has the charisma of Kennedy, and I believe a heart to match. We have someone to bring home the title once again.

More:http://www.helium.com/items/1183433-obama

Howard Dean Defends 50-State Strategy
Posted on: Friday, 17 November 2006, 18:00 CST

By MATT GOURAS

TETON VILLAGE, Wyo. - Democratic chairman Howard Dean on Friday took a swipe at Washington critics who questioned his strategy of spending money in all 50 states, dismissing them as the "old Democratic Party."

Basking in the afterglow of last week's election victories, Dean told the state party chairmen who were among the biggest beneficiaries of his strategy that it was an approach marked by Democratic wins at all levels of government.

"It was a great win for what I call the new Democratic Party," Dean said in a speech to the Association of State Democratic Chairs. "This is the new Democratic Party. The old Democratic Party is back there in Washington, sometimes they still complain a little bit."

More:http://www.redorbit.com/news/general...urce=r_general

The Democrats lost their appetite for war after Vietnam, and by doing so, they created neo-conservatism, whose ranks were filled by old liberals who voted for Franklin Roosevelt, as Ronald Reagan did, but who refused to stay with a party that they believed had turned pacifist. And so it has become a post-1960s electoral rule in American politics that Democrats are strong(er) on domestic policy issues, and Republicans are strong(er) on foreign policy. Put another way, the median American voter stands to the Left of the Republican party on domestic issues, and to the Right of the Democratic party on foreign policy. Durable governing coalitions in our time are determined by the ability of either party to break this stereotype

More:http://www.elvinlim.com/labels/Democratic%20party.html

The Democratic Party evolved from political factions that opposed Alexander Hamilton's fiscal policies in the early 1790s; these factions are known variously as the Anti-Administration “Party” and the Anti-Federalists. In the mid-1790s, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Republican (or Democratic-Republican) Party.[4][5][6] It favored yeoman farmers, strict construction of the Constitution, and a weaker federal government. These policies fell under the umbrella term Jeffersonian democracy. The party arose from opposition to the policies of the ruling Federalist Party, which was dominated by Hamilton and advocated a strong central government, a loose interpretation of the Constitution, and a republic governed by a well-educated professional class.

The party was effective in building a network of newspapers in major cities to broadcast its policies and editorialize in its favor. In 1796, the party made its first bid for the Presidency with Jefferson as its presidential candidate and Aaron Burr as its vice presidential candidate. Jefferson came in second in the electoral college and became vice president. He strongly opposed the policies of the John Adams administration. Jefferson and Madison, through the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, announced the “Principles of 1798,” which made states' rights a keystone of the party's beliefs. The party saw itself as the true champion of republicanism, and its opponents as aristocrats. Party members idealized the independent ("yeoman") farmer as the exemplar of virtue, and distrusted cities, banks, and other moneyed interests. The party was strongest in the south and west, and weakest in New England. The party won control of the presidency and congress in 1800, and later elected Henry Clay as the Speaker of the House in the 1810s.

More:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._party#Origins

The States' Rights Democratic Party (commonly known as the Dixiecrats) was a segregationist, socially conservative political party in the United States. The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. It split with the Democratic Party in the mid-20th century determined to protect what they saw as the Southern way of life against an oppressive federal government.[1]

During the Reconstruction period following the Civil War, the Union Army occupied the states of the former Confederacy, and enforced federal law protecting the rights of blacks, many of whom were freed slaves. Reconstruction abruptly ended in 1877, obliterating many of the gains that had been made in securing political and civil rights for blacks. When Reconstruction ended, the so-called "Redemption" occurred, disenfranchisement began anew, and the region gave its political allegiance almost entirely to the Democratic Party, giving it the name the "Solid South."

More:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats

[VergesEngst]

The American political continuum is so difficult to interpret, because it cross-cuts two separate issues in an odd way: "liberals" tend to be economically dictatorial ("I will control you!") and socially permissive ("no regulation! do what you want!"), while "conservatives" tend to be the opposite.

Therefore, a libertarian could say that Democrats are "too liberal" because they associate "liberals" with taxes, or they could say that Democrats are "too conservative" because they think the Democrats aren't permissive enough socially. It all depends on what factors you are looking at.

When you look at the responses to poll, therefore, you have a problem: you have no idea how many people who answered a particular way did so because they were looking at social issues, economic issues.... or even something else entirely.

[Hauke Haien]

The American political continuum is so difficult to interpret, because it cross-cuts two separate issues in an odd way: "liberals" tend to be economically dictatorial ("I will control you!") and socially permissive ("no regulation! do what you want!"), while "conservatives" tend to be the opposite.

Another way to look at it is that both start from a liberal foundation and approach the resulting problems with two strategies that aim to manipulate how society and economy interface. The result is a dreaded loss of autonomy on either side. Personal autonomy is considered an end-in-itself and the primary purpose for the existence of state power.

The basic notion of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (property) is reflective of Lockean liberalism and universally shared throughout the American political spectrum, which is why the word has taken on a more narrow meaning over time.