• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where do you think the Democratic Party needs to go ideologically?

Where do you think the Democratic Party needs to go ideologically?


  • Total voters
    66

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
32,339
Reaction score
22,562
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's no secret that the Democratic Party is in bad shape these days. The Republicans control all of Washington, the majority of the governorship's, and the majority of the state legislators.

There are basically two different schools of thought as to where the Democrats should go ideologically to start winning again.

1. They should move solidly to the left and the kind of liberal populism ideas that Bernie Saunders advocated. This is the big progressive ideas model of promoting things like single payer healthcare, debt free college tuition, a living wage, and so on.

Or

2. They should move back to the old Third Way - New Democrats Centrist / Center - Left ideology championed by groups like the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute in the nineties. Basically, the Bill Clinton model (absent the womanizing of course). This the progressive incrementalism model of promoting things like SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program), Welfare Reform, Moving to Opportunity, and so on.

So basically do you think the Democrats should move further to the left or closer to the center? This isn't a question of candidates but rather of ideas / ideology.
 
I think both parties should move closer to the center, toward a more more moderate, anti-extremist view that I think is shared by most Americans. But that's not what either of them want, they know the moderates have no choice but to vote for them so both sides only cater to the radicals.
 
As mentioned in other threads, Clinton corporatism, and what passes for 'centrism/left centrism' is largely dead and tremendously unpopular; outside of weak, unpopular and despised GOP opposition (and Trump was certainly weak and despised as presidential candidates go in terms of favourability and turn out, just like Clinton), it doesn't really have a leg to stand on, or anything close to it as proven by the wholesale Democratic rout.

What passes for the center in America (i.e. the corporatist right in virtually every other wealthy, first world country) is being displaced to the left and right as people grow increasingly frustrated and desperate, seeing their standard of living decline, life expectancy significantly declining for the first time since WW2, real household incomes dropping, political corruption, distrust and corporate pork barrelling run rampant, and economic inequality increasing. The Overton Window has shifted, and establishment Democrats cannot or will not acknowledge this to hazard of their party and the electorate.

Further, Bernie's ideas are actually very popular with the general population (nevermind his huge favourability ratings and comparisons vs Trump and Hillary among the same):

5 'Radical' Bernie Sanders Ideas Many Americans Strongly Support | Alternet

Do Americans Agree With Bernie Sanders? (INFOGRAPHIC)

2016 General Election: Trump vs. Sanders - Polls - HuffPost Pollster

https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

Hillary Clinton Favorable Rating - Polls - HuffPost Pollster

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating
 
As a general rule, the path to the WH requires mastery of the Electoral College Map. Team Trump, with significantly less money than HRC, executed a winning strategy. Like a skilled attorney navigating voir dire, a skilled politician must understand the different compositions of voters in different states and regions, then find a way to patch together a winning coalition of voters.

Only two candidates this past election, IMO, electrified a thunderous base.... Bernie and Trump. I voted for Bernie. Trump electrified a larger base than Bernie. Bernie, not a true democrat, had to use DEM party resources. Trump, a RINO, had to use the GOP party resources. Bernie demonstrates far more sincerity in his messaging. Trump demonstrates far more willingness to pander. HRC, an old school DEM that absolutely does not inspire the masses, fought off Bernie, and ultimately led the DEMS to ignominious defeat. The DEMS need a popular candidate that can appeal to the independents and centrist. I love the idea of Oprah or Mark Cuban running for President in 2020. They have that necessary cult of personality and connectivity to generate the necessary broad appeal to truly contend.
 
If I thought it was policy that was killing democrats I would suggest they move to the center, but I think it is mostly bad messaging. The current democratic party is geared towards minorities and college educated people only. They need to inject some populist rhetoric into their messaging if they want to win back the white working class. If republicans can win race after race by throwing around the words freedom and liberty, in place of any substantial policy, democrats shouldn't have such a hard time tweaking their own messaging in a similar way. The current course is obviously not sustainable.
 
As a general rule, the path to the WH requires mastery of the Electoral College Map. Team Trump, with significantly less money than HRC, executed a winning strategy. Like a skilled attorney navigating voir dire, a skilled politician must understand the different compositions of voters in different states and regions, then find a way to patch together a winning coalition of voters.

Only two candidates this past election, IMO, electrified a thunderous base.... Bernie and Trump. I voted for Bernie. Trump electrified a larger base than Bernie. Bernie, not a true democrat, had to use DEM party resources. Trump, a RINO, had to use the GOP party resources. Bernie demonstrates far more sincerity in his messaging. Trump demonstrates far more willingness to pander. HRC, an old school DEM that absolutely does not inspire the masses, fought off Bernie, and ultimately led the DEMS to ignominious defeat. The DEMS need a popular candidate that can appeal to the independents and centrist. I love the idea of Oprah or Mark Cuban running for President in 2020. They have that necessary cult of personality and connectivity to generate the necessary broad appeal to truly contend.

If you don't think that Bernie appeals to independents, you clearly haven't been reading the polls. Bernie didn't need to appeal to the corporatist 'centre' at all; doing so would have been a liability. Trump discarded any pretension of that, while waxing on about economic populism, whether or not it was sincerely felt (and in the case of the TPP at least, Obama's baby, and one of Clinton's until she was forced by Bernie's wing to repudiate it, it was evidently genuine). Again, the loss of the rust belt blue wall speaks for itself and was instructive as to why things went wrong for Hillary, and right for Trump.
 
Last edited:
If I thought it was policy that was killing democrats I would suggest they move to the center, but I think it is mostly bad messaging. The current democratic party is geared towards minorities and college educated people only. They need to inject some populist rhetoric into their messaging if they want to win back the white working class. If republicans can win race after race by throwing around the words freedom and liberty, in place of any substantial policy, democrats shouldn't have such a hard time tweaking their own messaging in a similar way. The current course is obviously not sustainable.

Well I don't know though. One could argue that Hillary's campaign had a lot of bad messaging as it basically was a bunch of vote for me because Trump is a sexist or racist or whatever. However, that doesn't explain the Democrats loses at the state and local level.

For example, if there is one total loser of an issue for Democrats, it's gun control. Granted, when polled the majority of Americans typically support the Democrat's positions on guns, but for that those that do support their position, its not a voting issue for them. For those that disagree with Democrats on guns, its probably their biggest voting issue. So they could agree with Democrats on every other issue, but still won't vote for them because they are scared they will take their guns away. For that reason alone, if the Democrats don't run someone in 2020 that is fairly pro-gun, they are out of their mind.
 
It's no secret that the Democratic Party is in bad shape these days. The Republicans control all of Washington, the majority of the governorship's, and the majority of the state legislators.

There are basically two different schools of thought as to where the Democrats should go ideologically to start winning again.

1. They should move solidly to the left and the kind of liberal populism ideas that Bernie Saunders advocated. This is the big progressive ideas model of promoting things like single payer healthcare, debt free college tuition, a living wage, and so on.

Or

2. They should move back to the old Third Way - New Democrats Centrist / Center - Left ideology championed by groups like the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute in the nineties. Basically, the Bill Clinton model (absent the womanizing of course). This the progressive incrementalism model of promoting things like SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program), Welfare Reform, Moving to Opportunity, and so on.

So basically do you think the Democrats should move further to the left or closer to the center? This isn't a question of candidates but rather of ideas / ideology.

I do not know why we have to "go" anywhere ideologically. Our issues are not with ideology, but with presentation. A candidate not named Clinton, but with the same positions, would most likely have soundly thumped Trump, which suggests our problem is not ideology. And after 8 years of control of the White House, it is not at all surprising we are having troubles in congress and the states. Remember, only 8 years ago, democrats where talking about having achieved 1 party rule, and the fractured, weakened, splintering republicans where at a low point.
 
I do not know why we have to "go" anywhere ideologically. Our issues are not with ideology, but with presentation. A candidate not named Clinton, but with the same positions, would most likely have soundly thumped Trump, which suggests our problem is not ideology. And after 8 years of control of the White House, it is not at all surprising we are having troubles in congress and the states. Remember, only 8 years ago, democrats where talking about having achieved 1 party rule, and the fractured, weakened, splintering republicans where at a low point.

I agree with you on Hillary being a poor presentation, but the Democrats did not experience the typical party that holds the White House loses, they are at their weakest point since the 1920s. If its just a poor messenger, then why so few Democratic governors? Why so few Democratic state legislators? Why did so many suburbs flip from Democratic Reps to Republican Reps over the last 8 years? It seems to me that policies / ideas have to be a factor in all of it. The party can't just depend upon the new people that Obama got to show up and vote in 2008 and 2012, they also have to be able to appeal to the voters that vote every midterm election as well.

Personally I am worried that the party is going to find itself in the position it was in from the late 60s through the 80s where they lost election after election as they moved further and further to the left / particularly the populist left. Hell if it had not been for Watergate, the Dems would have not held the presidency from 1968 until 1993.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you on Hillary being a poor presentation, but the Democrats did not experience the typical party that holds the White House loses, they are at their weakest point since the 1920s. If its just a poor messenger, then why so few Democratic governors? Why so few Democratic state legislators? Why did so many suburbs flip from Democratic Reps to Republican Reps over the last 8 years? It seems to me that policies / ideas have to be a factor in all of it. The party can't just depend upon the new people that Obama got to show up and vote in 2008 and 2012, they also have to be able to appeal to the voters that vote every midterm election as well.

Personally I am worried that the party is going to find itself in the position it was in from the late 60s through the 80s where they lost election after election as they moved further and further to the left / particularly the populist left. Hell if it had not been for Watergate, the Dems would have not held the presidency from 1968 until 1993.

Maybe the late 1920s will happen again and the Republican Party will suffer a reverse
 
Further, Bernie's ideas are actually very popular with the general population (nevermind his huge favourability ratings and comparisons vs Trump and Hillary among the same):

First - I have zero political loyalty to ANY party or movement.

Second - the Democratic Party is doing just fine. They won the popular vote - and that was with a lousy leader who few liked. A few hundred thousand more votes in the right states and Clinton would be POTUS, not Trump. If the Dems had run either Sanders or Warren, I am quite sure they would have easily won.

Third - Despite that, Sanders represents an extremist (and lazy) view of the party which has risen up since about 2000 when central banks started to wield a LOT more power. Before 2000, the Democrats (and liberals period) represented fiscal responsibility. Bill Clinton was balancing (or near balancing) budget after budget. And his counterparts in Canada and Europe were largely doing the same. It was, imo, a good time for liberals - they represented both fiscal discipline AND social responsibility.
But then the wheels fell off.
Someone, somewhere decided that central banks should have a LOT more power. And that meant that since central banks could print virtually any amount of money they wanted, they represented an extreme Keynesian-style idea of the government should fix EVERYTHING that was wrong with gigantic sums of cash. The western idea that everyone should own a house (whether they could afford it or not) was the beginning. And when that failed - as it was doomed from the beginning to do - the central banks said 'Hey, we will bail out all out friends in the banks and on Wall Street with QE and ZIRP. And in return, we will look the other way while government runs huge deficits to try and bail out everyone else.'.
And that got the idea into people's heads that the government will make everything right. Got big student loans? Make college free. Bad mortgages? The government should make it right. And healthcare should be free.
And then it just went nuts to things like guaranteed incomes - which would cost taxpayers trillions of extra dollars per year...but so what? It's basically Mommy and Daddy Government will give the masses EVERYTHING they want. And fiscal discipline - which the dems proudly (and rightly) championed just 20 years ago - is now almost blasphemous.
It's utter craziness and totally unsustainable...but few care because they are living in the dream world of zero interest rates...live for today, forget about tomorrow.
But tomorrow will come. Even the Fed is trying like heck to raise rates back up - but the economy is so stagnant that they do not dare...and it has been for years now; not terrible but not great...just keeping the head above water with lots of cheap money thrown at it.
As my avatar once said 'this will all end in tears' when the Fed finally has to raise rates and the cheap money ends and the debt payments go through the roof. And that will end Bernie Sanders spending utopia. It could take many years, but it will happen...guaranteed.
The funny and sad thing about Bernie Sanders is a) he wants to massively increase the size of government yet freely admits how staggeringly corrupt it is and b) he seems a very genuine person (for a politician); respectively.

My point is - Feel The Bern is popular right now because few care about the fiscal consequences of spending gigantic sums of money we do not have. When that comes crumbling down, the blissful ignorance of his ideas will become clear.

The Dems need to, imo, go back to what they had going in the 90's...social AND fiscal responsibility.

Unfortunately, I fear an economic semi-disaster must happen to show people the folly of infinite government money 'printing'. And until then, the infinite spending philosophy will probably grow and grow.

Federal politics could be REALLY bizarre for the next few years/decades.

And, with Donald Trump as POTUS, many would say it already is.
 
Last edited:
If you don't think that Bernie appeals to independents, you clearly haven't been reading the polls. Bernie didn't need to appeal to the corporatist 'centre' at all; doing so would have been a liability. Trump discarded any pretension of that, while waxing on about economic populism, whether or not it was sincerely felt (and in the case of the TPP at least, Obama's baby, and one of Clinton's until she was forced by Bernie's wing to repudiate it, it was evidently genuine). Again, the loss of the rust belt blue wall speaks for itself and was instructive as to why things went wrong for Hillary, and right for Trump.

Bernie definitely infused enthusiasm in the Rust Belt, some of the mid west states, Oregon and the state of Washington. Not so much in my home state of Florida, the deep south, NY and other states essential to winning a general election. Maybe open the link to the primary election results and spend a minute or two gazing at the maps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
 
First - I have zero political loyalty to ANY party or movement.

Second - the Democratic Party is doing just fine. They won the popular vote - and that was with a lousy leader who few liked. A few hundred thousand more votes in the right states and Clinton would be POTUS, not Trump. If the Dems had run either Sanders or Warren, I am quite sure they would have easily won.

Third - Despite that, Sanders represents an extremist (and lazy) view of the party which has risen up since about 2000 when central banks started to wield a LOT more power. Before 2000, the Democrats (and liberals period) represented fiscal responsibility. Bill Clinton was balancing (or near balancing) budget after budget. And his counterparts in Canada and Europe were largely doing the same. It was, imo, a good time for liberals - they represented both fiscal discipline AND social responsibility.
But then the wheels fell off.
Someone, somewhere decided that central banks should have a LOT more power. And that meant that since central banks could print virtually any amount of money they wanted, they represented an extreme Keynesian-style idea of the government should fix EVERYTHING that was wrong with gigantic sums of cash. The western idea that everyone should own a house (whether they could afford it or not) was the beginning. And when that failed - as it was doomed from the beginning to do - the central banks said 'Hey, we will bail out all out friends in the banks and on Wall Street with QE and ZIRP. And in return, we will look the other way while government runs huge deficits to try and bail out everyone else.'.
And that got the idea into people's heads that the government will make everything right. Got big student loans? Make college free. Bad mortgages? The government should make it right. And healthcare should be free.
And then it just went nuts to things like guaranteed incomes - which would cost taxpayers trillions of extra dollars per year...but so what? It's basically Mommy and Daddy Government will give the masses EVERYTHING they want. And fiscal discipline - which the dems proudly (and rightly) championed just 20 years ago - is now almost blasphemous.
It's utter craziness and totally unsustainable...but few care because they are living gin the dream world of zero interest rates...live for today, forget about tomorrow.
But tomorrow will come. Even the Fed is trying like heck to raise rates back up - but the economy is so stagnant that they do not dare...and it has been for years now; not terrible but not great...just keeping the head above water with lots of cheap money thrown at it.
As my avatar once said 'this will all end in tears' when the Fed finally has to raise rates and the cheap money ends and the debt payments go through the roof. And that will end Bernie Sanders spending utopia. It could take many years, but it will happen...guaranteed.
The funny and sad thing about Bernie Sanders is a) he wants to massively increase the size of government yet freely admits how staggeringly corrupt it is and b) he seems a very genuine person (for a politician); respectively.

My point is - Feel The Bern is popular right now because few care about the fiscal consequences of spending gigantic sums of money we do not have. When that comes crumbling down, the blissful ignorance of his ideas will become clear.

The Dems need to, imo, go back to what they had going in the 90's...social AND fiscal responsibility.

Unfortunately, I fear an economic semi-disaster must happen to show people the folly of infinite government money 'printing'. And until then, the infinite spending philosophy will probably grow and grow.

Federal politics could be REALLY bizarre for the next few years/decades.

And, with Donald Trump as POTUS, many would say it already is.

I personally prefer a return to the liberalism of FDR.
 
It's no secret that the Democratic Party is in bad shape these days. The Republicans control all of Washington, the majority of the governorship's, and the majority of the state legislators.

There are basically two different schools of thought as to where the Democrats should go ideologically to start winning again.

1. They should move solidly to the left and the kind of liberal populism ideas that Bernie Saunders advocated. This is the big progressive ideas model of promoting things like single payer healthcare, debt free college tuition, a living wage, and so on.

Or

2. They should move back to the old Third Way - New Democrats Centrist / Center - Left ideology championed by groups like the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute in the nineties. Basically, the Bill Clinton model (absent the womanizing of course). This the progressive incrementalism model of promoting things like SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program), Welfare Reform, Moving to Opportunity, and so on.

So basically do you think the Democrats should move further to the left or closer to the center? This isn't a question of candidates but rather of ideas / ideology.

My first thought was "Cuba" but that wasn't a poll choice.

The party has moved so far left that even moderates are starting to question them. If they move farther left they really will be moving toward secession as we saw in AZ with the "Baja Arizona" group a few years ago and now the California group. It's becoming more and more obvious that there is a significant faction in the Democrat party that is unwilling to deal with anyone who disagrees with them. If a Republican came out and proposed legislation to implement single payer health care and a universal wage that faction in the Democrat party would object to the proposal because it didn't go far enough and was just a Republican ruse to encourage Blacks and Hispanics to vote for them. That kind of thinking can't be fixed and it damned sure shouldn't be encouraged.
 
Where do you think the Democratic Party needs to go ideologically?

To hell as far as I am concerned.

But that's just me.
 
It's no secret that the Democratic Party is in bad shape these days. The Republicans control all of Washington, the majority of the governorship's, and the majority of the state legislators.

There are basically two different schools of thought as to where the Democrats should go ideologically to start winning again.

1. They should move solidly to the left and the kind of liberal populism ideas that Bernie Saunders advocated. This is the big progressive ideas model of promoting things like single payer healthcare, debt free college tuition, a living wage, and so on.

Or

2. They should move back to the old Third Way - New Democrats Centrist / Center - Left ideology championed by groups like the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute in the nineties. Basically, the Bill Clinton model (absent the womanizing of course). This the progressive incrementalism model of promoting things like SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program), Welfare Reform, Moving to Opportunity, and so on.

So basically do you think the Democrats should move further to the left or closer to the center? This isn't a question of candidates but rather of ideas / ideology.



The Democratic party should ignore ideology and learn to become a government in waiting. If they want to counter Trump, it won't be done ideologically as he has no trouble taking bits and pieces here and there.

Both parties have suffered by clinging to the outdated idea that issues are black and white.

By countering Trump and congress with sane, reasoned ideas illustrated calmly, they will make it a choice of "good government". By sticking to ideologies you have thrown the baby, good government, out the window. Each government gets progressively worse by created fear of the "other guys"

Will they? It depends how badly they've been derailed. The real power is never seen in any party and the question is where is the money betting. For decades Americans have preferred the lone cowpoke, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, to the insider; however it is by uniting now and onward will they survive.
 
I believe the wrong question is being asked here and it is such questions that divide and alienate Americans. That is the belief that a party must follow an ideological path to best serve America. The very question implies a parties ideology over the people and I think as a result many feel they are nothing more than fodder in Washington's war of ideologies. I think the best and smartest move by either party would be to stop categorizing people, forget ideologies, and focus instead on all Americans and how we can find the best middle ground that would best serve everyone. They need to stop with this attitude of you are either with us or against us and our goal is to beat those that appose us. For me at least this signifies our government is intentionally working against portions of its own people and that is not how things should be done.


As an independent I personally do not feel represented by Washington and I feel completely insignificant in their war of ideologies. In fact I feel rather far down the list behind money, power, ideology. I guess in short my advise to the Democratic party would be to lose the ideology focus and start working for all of the people of America.
 
My first thought was "Cuba" but that wasn't a poll choice.

The party has moved so far left that even moderates are starting to question them. If they move farther left they really will be moving toward secession as we saw in AZ with the "Baja Arizona" group a few years ago and now the California group. It's becoming more and more obvious that there is a significant faction in the Democrat party that is unwilling to deal with anyone who disagrees with them. If a Republican came out and proposed legislation to implement single payer health care and a universal wage that faction in the Democrat party would object to the proposal because it didn't go far enough and was just a Republican ruse to encourage Blacks and Hispanics to vote for them. That kind of thinking can't be fixed and it damned sure shouldn't be encouraged.

If you don't think the Republicans have not move at least as far to the right as Democrats have to the left, then you are delusional.
 
The Democratic party should ignore ideology and learn to become a government in waiting. If they want to counter Trump, it won't be done ideologically as he has no trouble taking bits and pieces here and there.

Both parties have suffered by clinging to the outdated idea that issues are black and white.

By countering Trump and congress with sane, reasoned ideas illustrated calmly, they will make it a choice of "good government". By sticking to ideologies you have thrown the baby, good government, out the window. Each government gets progressively worse by created fear of the "other guys"

Will they? It depends how badly they've been derailed. The real power is never seen in any party and the question is where is the money betting. For decades Americans have preferred the lone cowpoke, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, to the insider; however it is by uniting now and onward will they survive.

That would be option 2 then as that 3rd way stuff is all about pragmatism over ideology.
 
It was a lot better than hoovers response to the great depression

You misunderstand me, the food riots were a result of Hoovers failed response. My point is that I would hope that we never again have to experience anything like another Great Depression in this country.
 
Well I don't know though. One could argue that Hillary's campaign had a lot of bad messaging as it basically was a bunch of vote for me because Trump is a sexist or racist or whatever. However, that doesn't explain the Democrats loses at the state and local level.

For example, if there is one total loser of an issue for Democrats, it's gun control. Granted, when polled the majority of Americans typically support the Democrat's positions on guns, but for that those that do support their position, its not a voting issue for them. For those that disagree with Democrats on guns, its probably their biggest voting issue. So they could agree with Democrats on every other issue, but still won't vote for them because they are scared they will take their guns away. For that reason alone, if the Democrats don't run someone in 2020 that is fairly pro-gun, they are out of their mind.

When you call people you are trying to get to vote for you deplorable, that's bad messaging.

Where do you get the idea that the public supports confiscation and banning of guns? Again bad messaging.
 
I believe the wrong question is being asked here and it is such questions that divide and alienate Americans. That is the belief that a party must follow an ideological path to best serve America. The very question implies a parties ideology over the people and I think as a result many feel they are nothing more than fodder in Washington's war of ideologies. I think the best and smartest move by either party would be to stop categorizing people, forget ideologies, and focus instead on all Americans and how we can find the best middle ground that would best serve everyone. They need to stop with this attitude of you are either with us or against us and our goal is to beat those that appose us. For me at least this signifies our government is intentionally working against portions of its own people and that is not how things should be done.


As an independent I personally do not feel represented by Washington and I feel completely insignificant in their war of ideologies. In fact I feel rather far down the list behind money, power, ideology. I guess in short my advise to the Democratic party would be to lose the ideology focus and start working for all of the people of America.

1. Political parties have to stand for something, otherwise what is the point.

2. You can't work for all Americans because all Americans don't want the same thing. For example, lets say you believe we should do a better job with early childhood education. One might think that is working for all Americans since theoretically all Americans benefit from doing a better job with early childhood education. However, some Americans would feel that was not a role of the federal government under any circumstances, thus you are not working for them.

Instead, in my opinion its best to try and pursue more pragmatic moderate policies / good government and thus work for as broad of a coalition as possible of Americans.
 
You misunderstand me, the food riots were a result of Hoovers failed response. My point is that I would hope that we never again have to experience anything like another Great Depression in this country.

I reject hoovers ideas of government

I accept FDRs ideas of government.
 
Back
Top Bottom