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

Originally by CommonDreams from on August 5, 2007, 1:23pm


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • This trend will continue. We've been prophesying this since before the Iraq War.

      What is being missed so far by the pundits concerning this swing to liberalism is that it isn't a swing back. It's a swing in a new direction.

      Many people are fed up with the absence of truth seeking in so-called high places. They aren't going to be satisfied with false leadership's attempts to placate.

      The Holy Spirit is bringing all of this about in the lead up to making the way straight for the Lord.

      The truth is coming out so that no one will have the excuse of not seeing the clear choice between selfishness and evil.

      This means the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender rights movement will utterly fail because the truth is that it is inherently selfish and decidedly harmful and contagious where resistance or immunity is low—where the defenses are caught napping.