EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Picture of the Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Bradley Manning is Off Limits at SF Gay Pride Parade, but Corporate Sleaze is Embraced
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democratic Party Is Growing More Liberal
CHICAGO - The Democratic Party is growing more liberal for the first time in a generation.
It's more antiwar than at any time since 1972. Support is growing for such traditionally liberal values as using the federal government to help the poor. And 40 percent of Democrats now call themselves liberal, the highest in more than three decades and twice the low-water mark recorded as the conservative Reagan revolution swept the country in the early 1980s.
While politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama shun the liberal label, they're rushing to court new power brokers who wear it proudly and constituencies that could barely win a nod from party leaders just a few years ago. For example, the top Democratic presidential candidates all planned to attend the YearlyKos convention of liberal bloggers in Chicago this weekend and a Human Rights Campaign debate this week in Los Angeles on gay, lesbian and transgender issues.
They all skipped an annual gathering of the Democratic Leadership Council last week in Nashville, Tenn. The DLC is the centrist group that pushed for welfare overhaul and a pro-business agenda in the 1990s, helped launch Bill Clinton to the presidency and stood by centrist Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., when liberals attacked him for supporting the Iraq war and he effectively was drummed out of the party in a primary last year.
"There is greater liberalism today, both on economic issues and in opposition to the war," said Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal group that saw attendance at its June "Take Back America" meeting swell to several thousand from just a few dozen six years ago. "The conservative era is ending."
The Democrats' shift to the left carries some risk, but probably much less than it would have in years past. That's because independent voters - the ones who swing back and forth and thus decide elections - also have turned against the war and in favor of many more liberal approaches to government.
"There is greater support for the social safety net, more concern for inequality of income," said Andy Kohut, the president of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. "More people are falling into the liberal category based on their values."
The most noteworthy shift is opposition to the war in Iraq.
Rank-and-file Democrats turned against the war first, many as early as 2003, when they helped upstart presidential candidate Howard Dean amass early support. Many party leaders waited much longer, with most of the 2008 candidates not pushing until this year to get U.S. troops out of Iraq by a firm early deadline.
Today every major Democratic presidential candidate wants to get American troops out of Iraq. They're presenting the most vocal and unified opposition to a war since George McGovern won the party's nomination in 1972.
While their stand mirrors a solid majority of voters, according to polls, at least some Democrats think there's still political danger in adopting a McGovern-like image.
"One area where the party has unfortunately moved left is on national security," said Dan Gerstein, a Democratic strategist who once advised Lieberman. "There is a real danger that, in voicing our opposition to the war in Iraq, it will come across as weakness on fighting terror."
Some Democratic candidates are hedging their opposition to the war with other signals of strength, such as Obama's speech last week suggesting that he'd take military action in Pakistan if necessary to get terrorists who are hiding there. Yet even such hypothetical posturing is aimed more at voters outside the party than in.
Fewer than half of Democrats now agree with the adage that military strength is the best way to secure peace, a drop of 16 percentage points in the last decade, according to a series of polls by the Pew Research Center.
Independents also lost faith in the value of military strength over the same period, though their support dropped by only half as much as Democrats' did. Republicans' trust in military strength increased by 7 percentage points.
Another measure: The ranks of Democrats who think that the federal government should guarantee food and shelter to the needy rose by 12 percentage points in the last 10 years, outstripping rising support from independents and Republicans.
Then there's the eye-catching fact that 40 percent of Democrats in last year's elections called themselves liberal, according to the American National Election Studies, a research project supported by the National Science Foundation. That's the highest since the survey began in 1972.
The party also is turning against free trade, as Democrats in Congress put the brakes on new trade agreements out of fear that they're displacing too many American jobs and driving down wages and benefits.
Rank-and-file Democrats, particularly union members and leaders, had long opposed unrestricted free trade. But the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, pushed through the North American Free Trade Agreement, helped establish the World Trade Organization, which polices global trade, and made expanding trade virtually everywhere a cornerstone of his legacy.
The shift against trade and the renewed alliance with labor unions is one thing that makes the new liberalism different from the brand that McGovern symbolized by the early '70s.
Liberal Democrats by then were deeply antiwar, but their liberalism also was grounded in social issues of civil rights and women's rights. Union members, a foundation of the liberal coalition from the '30s through the mid-'60s, were blue-collar, cultural conservatives and supporters of the war in Vietnam. That fissure began to break the Democratic coalition apart in 1968, and even more in the 1970s.
Many blue-collar Democrats left the party altogether - becoming so-called Reagan Democrats by the '80s - and those who stayed lost clout in the Carter and Clinton eras.
Now, unions are in harmony with the new liberalism, and their pocketbook issues are helping to drive the party's agenda.
"On economic questions, they seem to be moving more and more to the left,'' said Larry Gerston, a political scientist at San Jose State University in California. "More Democratic candidates are asserting traditional liberal positions on bread and butter issues, like health care. It augurs ideas of big government and safety net programs."
© 2007 McClatchy Newspapers
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

83 Comments so far
Show AllI guess I could care less about how many votes the Democrats can get because I can't stand the way Democrats govern when the get elected. What's the point of electing what's basically Republicans under a different label?
I'd rather lose elections building a political force that one day can truly represent me than win elections by electing someone who isn't going to give a damn about me and my rights once in office. Electing a Democrat is useless because they don't give a damn about what's good for the American people or about defending our rights. Who cares if a Dem wins? I don't.
The Democratic Party is growing more liberal just as sure as the Republican Party is growing more tolerant.
COMMON DREAMS SUX AND SO DO PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THE D'S
This is not a progressive site. There has to be progress to be progressive.
This is such a seriously silly notion. Honestly. I think by now the Progressives in the United States get the Democrats' game.
A year of so before the election they become B.S. "liberals", then we get suckered into voting for them one more time. As soon as the election is over we are treated like a typical guy treats a woman he met at a club. He's totally into her, she's wonderful blah, blah, blah...he'll do anything for her. Then after the dirty deed, in the morning he slips out the door never to be heard from again. "Yeah, sure honey. I'll call!"
(Not that I'm speaking from personal experience mind you....related to the dating thing).
Sorry. I don't care what the media says, what Commondreams says, what any candidate says. I'm through. I'm not holding my nose anymore to vote for ANY candidate who is currently running. Been there done that. Like the chick in the above story: If you want to feel respected in the morning, then don't take the guy home. Don't fall for his B.S.
Maybe this shows that the word is getting out that we don't TRUST any of them as far as we can throw them! Maybe they are realizing they can't win without us.
Kind of reminds me of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. She cannot be trusted.
I'm not about to repeat Nov. 2006 by voting for some snake Democrat and have them continue their fascist agenda. The only candidate I would consider voting for is one who will promise to undo everything Bush has done...sadly with the votes of Democrats. I want my civil rights protected. I want the torture stopped. I want the rendition stopped. I want our troops out of Iraq, not in five years. Right now!
I watched the Republicans last night in their debate and regarding the war in Iraq and foreign policy I agree with Ron Paul more than any Democrat! That's how bad it's gotten! I trust Ron Paul more with my civil rights, my life, the lives of my sons and with my MONEY! Honestly! This is how bad it's gotten. Even with his right wing hoo-hah about a woman's right to an abortion, not being for national health care etc., I would STILL trust him more than Hillary "all military options are on the table" Clinton, or Barack "Pakistan should be invaded..." Obama.
And people keep yacking about Kucinich. When he renounces Israel's right to come to this country and lobby every elected representative and not be registered as foreign agents and when he publicly denounces the 9/11 "Omissions" Report and demands a new independent investigation and denounces all the rotten deeds that have been done to shred our constitution and insists that our human rights and civil rights will be completely protected, then I would seriously consider working for him, unpaid, full-time.
To quote Bush: "Fool me once...uhhh, I got fooled. Fool me twice, uhh...how does it go? Fool me and you? Uhhh...." You get the idea.
Thank goodness for the good news.
Yes, I saw that liberal Democratic shift in the vote to let George Bush and Company SPY ON US without OVERSIGHT. We saw them put the reins of restraint in the hands of Alberto Gonzalez, who called the Geneva Convention "quaint" and who apparently views the Constitution in a similar fashion. The Democrats had better give more than LIP SERVICE to this liberal trend before 2008 if they want to retain office, because, at this moment, they look like the grease for the wheels rather than the brakes to slow us in this downhill race to disaster.
www.unknown-arts.org/politics
Okay, where is the companion article telling us how all the leadership of the Democratic Party is leaning right (Obama, Hillary and Billery, Richardson, Biden, etc.) How can this be?
Anybody got any ideas other than the rank and file of the Democratic party being a bunch of suckers and duped people? Vote Green (or write in Kucinich or Nader)in 08!
What a silly article. Any normal thoughtful people in this country see through the lies of the Bush administration aided by the republican congress. They know the war on terror is nothing but a charade to create worldwide terror. They know the Bush/Cheney Cabal makes Billions on this phony war. They are coming to realize the Bush administration is the most criminally corrupt most disingenuous Administration in the history of America if not the world. This has been accomplished mainly through the internet since MSM is simply part of the Whitehouse propaganda outlet.
You never hear anyone afraid of going to far to the right. Which would be impossible today in the United States of America without being officially being declared a fascist nation. Although if Rupertains/republicans win in 2008 they may well declare this a fascist nation and take away all semblance of freedom. Is it really the left we need to be worrying about?
Huh? I had thought McClatchy was better then the other corporate whore media.
Democratic Party = Bush enabler.
End of story.
Oh yeah. McClatchy says "Democratic Party Is Growing More Liberal" and the lobotomized sheep (pretending to be American citizens) say "Amen", I mean "bleat"
To be conservative is to cling to the worn-out ways of yesteryear & to resist change. They will eventually fade away into their special place, the past.
citizen 1,
http://www.kucinich.us
BEGINNING of NEW story??!!
Very lame article.
I'll believe the party is more liberal when 1) it cuts aid to Israel; 2) cuts the military budget by at least 25%; 3) gives the American public a giant peace dividend; and 4) totally defunds the Iraq War and brings the troops home.
"Liberal" is a meaningless term. The democratic party is not shifting to the left. I've not heard of any new passed legislation for living wage, universal healthcare, free college, garunteed housing for all, gay marriage equality, revamped amtrak, a peace department... When they do that, the democratic leadership will have shifted left.
The Democratic party is moving to the left in much the same way that a person walking to the back of a northbound travelling bus is moving "south".
This is all part of something Noam Chomsky (among others) has documented very well, and that is the democratic deficit here in the US. The reality is that the entire population, in general, is moving left. For example, poll after poll show that close to, if not more than 60 percent want increased government in health care, even if that means increased taxes. Imagine what that number might be if the topic received its due and UNBIASED attention on the news every night.
The fact that people who VOTE democrat are moving left is insignificant, because the people they VOTE FOR are still in the center, at best.
The Democratic rank and file are shifting to the center, which is the liberal position, and the party big wigs are way over to the right, where the big time money is. If the Democrats either rank and file or big wigs were moving left, we would have a move toward socialism from the Democrats, because the left as defined by the left as defined by any worthwhile dictionary is socialist. This is the international and objective definition of the term. Bernie Sanders is a left winger among 535 voting members of congress.
Too Late, by then Martial law will have been declared.
It's martial law, but you make a good point.
There, the Democrats are the communists and the Republicans are the fascists. Those are the two ends playing the middle. Believe what you like but in the end these are the possible evolutions of plutocracy and democratic republic has nothing to do with it!
abbybwood
Thank you, You are a true american hero.
Breaking news...Democrats are becoming more liberal!!!!!
Move to the left an inch, but there's a mile to go to address arrogant US hegemony within warmongering, neoliberal capitalism. We don't need a liberal response to a house that's burning down! We need to get the f#&% out of the house and build a completely different one. That's called radical change. Radical means go to the root of the problem. Vote Green or socialist and send a message to the Democrats that they don't have a clue.
Sh@dow Very well written--the subtle art of mis-direction being practiced here!
How can a gang of Fascist Suckups be 'Liberal?'
There are polls and there are polls . . .
and evidently what we generally hear is usually as little good news as possible. The reality of America is that it is LIBERAL . . . always has been.
It is LIBERAL on all issues --
including immigrants because Americans understand that we also STOLE New Mexico and most of the Southwest from Mexicans.
Sure, we still have racist and sexist and homophobic and class warfare like politics in America for those too ignorant to open their minds -- and the GOP has given leadership to those idiots for decades. Sadly, many of those people use "god" to argue for their prejudices.
I think what McClatchey is trying to confirm is that Democratic voters are PISSED with the Democratic Party for their comfort and aid to Bushco.
And why shouldn't we be --
I'M HUGELY PISSED AND HOPE THAT WHILE THEY'RE ON VACATION THEY HEAR THIS OFTEN FROM CITIZENS EVERYWHERE -- AND THAT WE ALL KEEP ON SENDING THOSE MESSAGES THRU TO THEIR DC OFFICES AND THEIR HOME OFFICES --
KEEP PUMMELING THEM -- !!!!!
AND LET'S TAKE THIS PARTY BACK!!!!
Get rid of the DLC -- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and make it truly a safe place for liberals.
PS: For those who suggest that dissatisfaction equals changing your party affiliation or voting GREEN or Libertarian . . . I say NONSENSE!!!!
We have everyone's attention now -- people are waking up and understand what is going down. Now's the time to reclaim the party -- not abandon it!!!!
Thomma quotes, "Independents also lost faith in the value of military strength over the same period, though their support dropped by only half as much as Democrats' did. Republicans' trust in military strength increased by 7 percentage points." You read the numbers and it's such clear evidence of the U.S in schizophrenic state; and we can arguably "thank" Fox news for this reality disconnect. Unbelievable!
PS: Just want to add that people are waking up .... and have a clearer understanding of what's wrong and the very serious problems we are facing -- it's not a time to change your voter affiliation, nor to abandon the Democratic Party --
it's time to take back control of the party -- !!!!
What we are seeing is HUGE DISSATISFACTION with the right-wing control of the party. GREAT . .. let's take this opportunity to move the DLC out and make sure that we have liberals in control of the party --
And, let's start with the Prez candidates --
Who among them are members of the DLC????
RE: CORRECT ARTICLE TITLE WOULD BE 'DEMOCRATS INCHING BACK TOWARDS CENTER?'
AD August 5th, 2007 7:17 pm
"The Democratic rank and file are shifting to the center, which is the liberal position, and the party big wigs are way over to the right, where the big time money is. If the Democrats either rank and file or big wigs were moving left, we would have a move toward socialism"
Quite correct. The idea that the Democratic Party is moving "left" is inaccurate and misleading.
It is inaccurate because, on a greater political spectrum, the traditional "liberal position" of the Democratic party represents a fairly conservative centrism (i.e., compared w/Western European social democrat parties). Thus, although - technically - the party may be moving 'left,' the fact that there is no evidence that it is moving beyond its traditional position makes the 'left' label inaccurate; it may or may not be inching back to the center.
The notion of the party moving left is also misleading. It is misleading first of all for the above reason. It is also misleading because it offers the false consolation - particularly to progressives - that the Democratic Party is moving in their direction. Finally, it is misleading because it supports right wing ideas that little tics back and forth represent a "left" wing movement of Democrats - a deception they use to rally their troops and attack Democrats.
The parties base of actual people is growing more left and and ever more disenchanted with the DLC Corporate Dimocrap party itself is I think the real story here.
RE: LEFT TURN? I'D LIKE TO THINK SO...
mrraven500 August 5th, 2007 10:00 pm
"The parties base of actual people is growing more left and and ever more disenchanted with the DLC Corporate Dimocrap party itself is I think the real story here."
I'd like to think so - "disenchanted" seems likely; unfortunately, "left" does not necessarily follow.
Borosage and co.'s surveys are important - but imo they do not factor in the degree of ideological confusion among the electorate, and the degree to which right wing media framing of particular issues can lead voters to move against interests or 'values' that they declare in the framework of a survey.
""One area where the party has unfortunately moved left is on national security," said Dan Gerstein, a Democratic strategist who once advised Lieberman."
How in the world can anyone who goosestepped & siegheiled with Joe Goebbels Liebermanner be viewed as a credible source of political commentary??
RE: TURN AGAINST IRAQ INVASION - INDEX OF A MEANINGFUL MOVE LEFT?
The article treats the reaction against the Iraq war as an index of a greater move left. I don't buy it.
Focusing on anti-Iraq-invasion sentiment is an unreliable index of political point of view. The greater electorate has turned against the invasion as it has - what a surprise - revealed itself to be the mega-f.-up it is. But - beyond the refusal of the Democratic leadership to move on it, beyond the Democratic candidates lies and deceptions about planning to 'get out' - the article provides no evidence of any real change of political point of view regarding invasions on the part of elected officials or the greater Democratic electorate.
It would be instructive to consider public 'mood' re Vietnam after 1975, and to consider whether this anti-Vietnam War sentiment translated into any movement away from Cold War driven 'interventions' in other countries - Nicaragua, El Salvador - or greater checks on Executive abuses on behalf of such 'interventions (Iran-Contra).
I don't buy it. Being "anti-war" regarding Iraq doesn't make sense since it was illegal from the moment the neo-cons hatched this stupid idea. It's a war crime plain and simple. Most of the Dems voted for it and only now are you seeing them backing away from it in words only. Their voting record since they took control of congress shows clearly that they support the continued killing. Saying that the Democratic party is becoming more liberal is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton is a Conservative and she's leading all of the Democratic Presidential candidates right now. That tells you everything you need to know.
UNTIL THE dEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP SEES ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO RESTORE THE CONCEPT OF A LIBERAL DEMOCRACY, THE TERM "LIBERAL" WILL BE SIMPLY A "FOX NOISE" TERM. UNTIL WE TEACH OUR CULTURE THAT IT WAS THE LIBERALS WHO WON OUR INDEPENDENCE, THE TERM WILL BE MISUNDERSTOOD AND DIVISIVE. WASHINGTON, MADDISON, FRANKLIN, AND JEFFERSON WERE LIBERALS. AND THE LIST GOES ON. BUT WHO IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO POINT THAT OUT?
Okay, I 'm going out on a limb. I am going to do a test. Without even reading this articlle I am going to make a comment and see if how close I come to looking like I did read it.
The only way the Dums, could be more liberal is if you start with NAZI as the middle of the spectrum. And yes, I spelled them DUMS on purpose.
I also didn't read the comments.
After posting I will read and see if I will vote on my own comments on a scale from barffing on the left and runs on the right (where shit belongs).
Here we go again: If liberals are leftists, were Stalin, Pol Pot and Caescescu liberals? These conservatives had more in common with Hitler, Mussolini and Bush than with liberals like Jesus, Gandhi and Einstein. Dems are leaning toward their liberal side because they are witnessing the all too obvious disaster that conservatives are bringing on. That doesn't make liberals leftists any more than believing in truth and justice does. The cons have made us believe that they have that monopoly, when it's exactly the opposite.
I see the Democratic base as liberal and growing more liberal (although I have some question what the term means). I see the Democrat politicians (with some exceptions) as unmoved, largely timid, calculating and complicit. Consider the recent vote approving Bush changes to FISA and the apoplexy they show with regard to possible impeachment of the Bush criminal cabal. Consider also the 97-0 vote in the Senate to censure Iran and the build up to war with this country.
Now that the Dem party has swayed so far to the right, as to almost blend in with the Rep party, there's nowhere left to gobut the tiniest bit left - just enough for someone to write an article like this one.
If LIBERAL means:__ I am all for cleaning up the enviroment, initiating a massive program to have clean energy and eleminate burnig fossil fuel and shut down all of the atomic power plants.
If LIBERAL means, I am against starting a war with any other country for no reason whatsoever, and lying to insure a war will be funded, if being a LIBERAL means far better and affordable education, a fair tax system, a fair medical program for everyone, lobbying outlawed and a system where every vote really does count.
If being a LIBERAL means I oppose using atomic waste for weapons of war.___If being a LIBERAL means I would uphold and defend our Constitution,___ then I am a liberal.
I am not a socialist, a communist, a flaming liberal hippie, drug using, alcaholic piece of shit. I am a person, a human being who desires to see the United States of America be as good as it can possibly be and set an example of what democracy really could be, should be, and is.
BTW __ This article sucks, but it did cause a lot of great comments to be expressed by the readers.
What utter nonsense! The Democratic Party, as in those who seek office and are elected as Democrats, has strayed so far from liberal as to be unrecognizable. The current administration and it's enablers have worked very hard to make "liberal" a dirty word. I hear it everyday - "liberals" are soft on crime; "liberals" control the media; "liberals" kill babies; "liberals" do not support the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Articles such as this one are a slap in the face to those of us who are liberals and damned proud of it.
If one believes in the sanctity of constitutional rights; is concerned with the welfare and well being of their fellow man, no matter their color, sex, sexual orientation, country of birth, religion or lack thereof; recognizes the sacrifice of our military and supports them with care packages and encouraging letters; has the sense to realize that supporting the killing of a living, breathing human being, whether by war or the death penalty, leaves no argument to oppose abortion, and believes that human beings sometimes require the help of others to survive then, that person is a liberal. By definition, that is what I am but, I dare say that is not at all what the Democratic Party has become. Perhaps that is why, after 34 years as a voting American, I can no longer feel any pride in proclaiming myself a Democrat.
I should add, I never was a hippie. During their heyday, I was in the military service, with two years plus in S.E. Asia. Butttt, the Hippies were far more right___ than the far right ever has been.
Now they are older, perhaps wiser and perhaps dress better and act more adult, but they likely still desire to have the things that are good for all of mankind.
Haven't you people heard. We are now a Dick Cheney Dictatorship. We lost and I mean more than Iraq!
This article is so beyond reality it would be laughable if not for the fact that the American voter is such an idiot when it comes to politics, relying on articles like this to give them credence in voting Democrat. Sure, I guess one could say the Democrats are more liberal when Hillary Clinton describes herself as "progressive" rather than "liberal".
Geeze...I'm waiting for them to start calling themselves Democratic Socialists! Then I'll know we've all gone over the edge.
TennMom states it very well. It's the so-called leadership that has shifted, and not to the left. They are the ones who have betrayed the people who gave them their trust.
I'm no more left than I was 30 years ago....but the right sure thinks I am. Must be somthing they ate.
MING THE MERCIFUL: Love that train analogy!
WILHELM: Good point!
EZEFLYER: What if what is conceived as linear and thus represented by absolute polarity instead suggests the way any line in space eventually curves, i.e. back to meet itself. In other words extremes are destined to meet, whether dictators project LEFT leaning politics or RIGHT, they are dictators, and their modus operandi matches. All things come full circle.
Siouxrose - everything is in constant change and that's why nothing in the world of mind really matters. Things are things because of mind and mind is mind because of things.
Of course the democratic party is changing, but the change is incremental and a case of too little too late.
Somebody tell the democrats who were elected because they weren't republicans to stop kow towing to Bush on Iraq and illegal spying. Impeach him.
What an out-of-touch with reality load of nonsense. The current Democratic Party stands to the right of Richard Nixon....to the far right of Dwight Eisenhower
Author is a liar or an idiot