What Distinguishes “Centrist” and “Progressive” Democrats?

[Nous]

An article at The Hill, apparently inspired by a New York Times article, begins:

Moderate Democrats are pushing back at Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) view that progressives have taken control of the party.

“We can't win the House back with progressives running in swing states,” said former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a surrogate for 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton who is leading the Fight Back California super PAC aimed at winning back seven House seats in the Golden State.

Interviews with Democratic strategists, donors and organizers from across the country reveal deep disagreement with Warren’s premise that progressives make up the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party.

Warren offered that synopsis during a speech at the liberal Netroots Nation conference last weekend, adding that progressives are in control of the party.

The Democrats who disagree with Warren are generally from the center of the party, and many were staunch supporters of former President Barack Obama and Clinton.

The clash is further proof of the divide in the party after 2016’s disappointment. Even as they face a Republican Party torn over how to deal with President Trump, Democrats are still trying to figure out what kind of a party they are.​

Centrist Dems push back on Warren

The article never identifies much of anything that actually distinguishes “centrist” or “moderate” Democrats from the “progressive” variety. It names “a single-payer healthcare system” as one one of “the many progressive issues”. But among the people I know who identify as Democrats (and some of whom might be considered “centrist” or “moderate” Democrats), I know of none who are against a single-payer system. Nevertheless, one cannot pull a single-payer health care system out of one's hat--one must write the statutes that will implement such a system, and one must convince a whole segment of the population that it is a good and necessary system. I am for a single-payer system primarily because I think it will probably be less expensive than the ACA. But I also think it might be wise to not eliminate the whole health insurance industry that employs people and pays taxes. Perhaps the single-payer plan could allow for a degree of incentive for people who can afford insurance to buy it. I don't think Americans need any easier access to prescription drugs at the moment (especially opioids). As things are now, Americans are making themselves fat and sick and dead with prescription drugs.

The article also states:

The Obama and Clinton supporters say they have grown tired of having to deal with fighting over progressivism and 1990s-era battles over former President Bill Clinton’s work on welfare and criminal justice reform, which were campaign issues last year and subjects of criticism by Warren just last week.​

I don't know what is being referred to here as “progressivism,” but I would definitely support changes to some of the the 1990s-era welfare and “criminal justice” legislation.

So what else distinguishes “centrist” and “progressive” Democrats? The issues identified here do not seem worthy of splitting the party.

Perhaps rather than empty adjectives such as “progressive” and “centrist,” there should just be one party of “Democrats”.

 

[Sanzbir]

Everyone is a centrist. And everyone who disagrees with that centrist is an extremist. That's how it works.

 

[Brickjectivity]

An article at The Hill, apparently inspired by a New York Times article, begins:

Moderate Democrats are pushing back at Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) view that progressives have taken control of the party.

“We can't win the House back with progressives running in swing states,” said former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a surrogate for 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton who is leading the Fight Back California super PAC aimed at winning back seven House seats in the Golden State.

Interviews with Democratic strategists, donors and organizers from across the country reveal deep disagreement with Warren’s premise that progressives make up the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party.

Warren offered that synopsis during a speech at the liberal Netroots Nation conference last weekend, adding that progressives are in control of the party.

The Democrats who disagree with Warren are generally from the center of the party, and many were staunch supporters of former President Barack Obama and Clinton.

The clash is further proof of the divide in the party after 2016’s disappointment. Even as they face a Republican Party torn over how to deal with President Trump, Democrats are still trying to figure out what kind of a party they are.​

Centrist Dems push back on Warren

The article never identifies much of anything that actually distinguishes “centrist” or “moderate” Democrats from the “progressive” variety. It names “a single-payer healthcare system” as one one of “the many progressive issues”. But among the people I know who identify as Democrats (and some of whom might be considered “centrist” or “moderate” Democrats), I know of none who are against a single-payer system. Nevertheless, one cannot pull a single-payer health care system out of one's hat--one must write the statutes that will implement such a system, and one must convince a whole segment of the population that it is a good and necessary system. I am for a single-payer system primarily because I think it will probably be less expensive than the ACA. But I also think it might be wise to not eliminate the whole health insurance industry that employs people and pays taxes. Perhaps the single-payer plan could allow for a degree of incentive for people who can afford insurance to buy it. I don't think Americans need any easier access to prescription drugs at the moment (especially opioids). As things are now, Americans are making themselves fat and sick and dead with prescription drugs.

The article also states:

The Obama and Clinton supporters say they have grown tired of having to deal with fighting over progressivism and 1990s-era battles over former President Bill Clinton’s work on welfare and criminal justice reform, which were campaign issues last year and subjects of criticism by Warren just last week.​

I don't know what is being referred to here as “progressivism,” but I would definitely support changes to some of the the 1990s-era welfare and “criminal justice” legislation.

So what else distinguishes “centrist” and “progressive” Democrats? The issues identified here do not seem worthy of splitting the party.

Perhaps rather than empty adjectives such as “progressive” and “centrist,” there should just be one party of “Democrats”.

It appears to be an article about whether the party should go with a Bernie-style or a Clinton-style. It says Elizabeth Warren thinks Bernie's progressives have the largest voice in the party, and some think that if she runs she can inherit Bernie's followers. The article mentions Ellen Tauscher as the flip side of the coin and representing a Hillary-style future. She argues that having progressives running in swing states will undermine the party. So what they mean is that Bernie is progressive and Hillary is centrist. So they are defining him as more socialist than Hillary, and they are saying that is progressive while Hillary's stance is less so.

 

[leibowde84]

An article at The Hill, apparently inspired by a New York Times article, begins:

Moderate Democrats are pushing back at Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) view that progressives have taken control of the party.

“We can't win the House back with progressives running in swing states,” said former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a surrogate for 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton who is leading the Fight Back California super PAC aimed at winning back seven House seats in the Golden State.

Interviews with Democratic strategists, donors and organizers from across the country reveal deep disagreement with Warren’s premise that progressives make up the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party.

Warren offered that synopsis during a speech at the liberal Netroots Nation conference last weekend, adding that progressives are in control of the party.

The Democrats who disagree with Warren are generally from the center of the party, and many were staunch supporters of former President Barack Obama and Clinton.

The clash is further proof of the divide in the party after 2016’s disappointment. Even as they face a Republican Party torn over how to deal with President Trump, Democrats are still trying to figure out what kind of a party they are.​

Centrist Dems push back on Warren

The article never identifies much of anything that actually distinguishes “centrist” or “moderate” Democrats from the “progressive” variety. It names “a single-payer healthcare system” as one one of “the many progressive issues”. But among the people I know who identify as Democrats (and some of whom might be considered “centrist” or “moderate” Democrats), I know of none who are against a single-payer system. Nevertheless, one cannot pull a single-payer health care system out of one's hat--one must write the statutes that will implement such a system, and one must convince a whole segment of the population that it is a good and necessary system. I am for a single-payer system primarily because I think it will probably be less expensive than the ACA. But I also think it might be wise to not eliminate the whole health insurance industry that employs people and pays taxes. Perhaps the single-payer plan could allow for a degree of incentive for people who can afford insurance to buy it. I don't think Americans need any easier access to prescription drugs at the moment (especially opioids). As things are now, Americans are making themselves fat and sick and dead with prescription drugs.

The article also states:

The Obama and Clinton supporters say they have grown tired of having to deal with fighting over progressivism and 1990s-era battles over former President Bill Clinton’s work on welfare and criminal justice reform, which were campaign issues last year and subjects of criticism by Warren just last week.​

I don't know what is being referred to here as “progressivism,” but I would definitely support changes to some of the the 1990s-era welfare and “criminal justice” legislation.

So what else distinguishes “centrist” and “progressive” Democrats? The issues identified here do not seem worthy of splitting the party.

Perhaps rather than empty adjectives such as “progressive” and “centrist,” there should just be one party of “Democrats”.

I think most Democrats are centrist/moderate. They aren't very politically active. They don't prefer socialism. There are many who are financially conservative, are in favor of cutting irresponsible spending, and would appreciate lower taxes. The moderate Democrats I know (vast majority of Democrats I know personally) have voted Republican in the past, are against single-payer, but instead want to fix what is wrong with Obamacare, and have no problem with Republicans except on social issues. They don't go to protests, they find the divisiveness Trump is creating to be appalling, but also wanted to give him a chance (now, not so much ... as Trump has failed miserably to unite the country and even his own party/congress). All in all, moderates are the ones who want realistic change, see prejudice of any kind as ridiculous, believe strongly in the separation of church and state (but have no problem with religious people), etc. I would also say that many religious democrats are pretty moderate.

I think moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans agree on most issues. I, for example, am an independent, but recently I'm so disgusted with Trump and any congressman/leader who defends him that I am leaning Democrat. I've voted recently for Republicans, but any support for Trump is disqualifying for me at this point.

Progressives like Pelosi, Schumer, and Sanders are not representative of my views at all. Most Democrats that I know look at them the same way as Rachel Maddow. They are in the Rush Limbaugh camp of the left. They don't represent the vast majority of Democrats.

 

[Nous]

Everyone is a centrist. And everyone who disagrees with that centrist is an extremist. That's how it works.

I'll ask again: What distinguishes "centrist" Democrats from "progressive" Democrats? What positions on issues do "centrists" have that "progressives" do not, and vice versa?

 

[Nous]

It appears to be an article about whether the party should go with a Bernie-style or a Clinton-style. It says Elizabeth Warren thinks Bernie's progressives have the largest voice in the party, and some think that if she runs she can inherit Bernie's followers. The article mentions Ellen Tauscher as the flip side of the coin and representing a Hillary-style future. She argues that having progressives running in swing states will undermine the party. So what they mean is that Bernie is progressive and Hillary is centrist. So they are defining him as more socialist than Hillary, and they are saying that is progressive while Hillary's stance is less so.

So are the any other issues than the 2 (or 3) identified in the article that supposedly sets "centrists" and "progressives" apart? do those issues actually distinguish one segment of Democrats from another?

 

[leibowde84]

I'll ask again: What distinguishes "centrist" Democrats from "progressive" Democrats? What positions on issues do "centrists" have that "progressives" do not, and vice versa?

A good example is abortion rights. Most Democrats want limited access to abortion. Some progressives want abortions to be available during the entire pregnancy.

Another is the police. Most Democrats want the police to be held accountable for their actions, and stricter standards placed upon them. But, they see that their job is extremely difficult. Some progressives see the police as the enemy.

 

[Nous]

The moderate Democrats I know (vast majority of Democrats I know personally) have voted Republican in the past, are against single-payer . . .

I just think I know any self-identifying Democrats who are actually against a single-payer system. I also don't any who believe one can make a single-payer system magically appear, or who are willing to die on the cross for such a system.

Progressives like Pelosi. . .

See, I don't pay much attention to the news or politics. Pelosi is not a "centrist"?

 

[Sanzbir]

I'll ask again: What distinguishes "centrist" Democrats from "progressive" Democrats? What positions on issues do "centrists" have that "progressives" do not, and vice versa?

Every single person, in my experience, says they are a centrist.

So nothing but perspective distinguishes them.

 

[Nous]

A good example is abortion rights. Most Democrats want limited access to abortion. Some progressives want abortions to be available during the entire pregnancy.

I don't think I know any Democrats who think that elective abortions should be legal at 8 months.

Another is the police. Most Democrats want the police to be held accountable for their actions, and stricter standards placed upon them. But, they see that their job is extremely difficult. Some progressives see the police as the enemy.

Yes, there are people who view the police as the enemy. I'm not in that camp.

 

[Nous]

Every single person, in my experience, says they are a centrist.

So nothing but perspective distinguishes them.

I don't agree with your absolutes here, but I think largely you are right--any distinction is based on "perspective" and, I think, on language.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think I know any Democrats who think that elective abortions should be legal at 8 months.

Nevertheless, they do exist. That is the extreme though.

Yes, there are people who view the police as the enemy. I'm not in that camp.

Me neither.

 

[Lyndon]

Progressivism means returning to the democratic party of 40 or 50 years ago, getting rid of all the "compromises" with big business that fuel inequality in the work force, Progressives are the only future the democratic party has right now, we've all seen how far Hillary's centrists have gotten us, centrist democrats are fully to blame for the mess we are in, not progressives. IMHO

 

[Nous]

Progressivism means returning to the democratic party of 40 or 50 years ago, getting rid of all the "compromises" with big business

What laws are you referring to as "'compromises' with big business"?

 

[Nakosis]

An article at The Hill, apparently inspired by a New York Times article, begins:

Moderate Democrats are pushing back at Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) view that progressives have taken control of the party.

“We can't win the House back with progressives running in swing states,” said former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a surrogate for 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton who is leading the Fight Back California super PAC aimed at winning back seven House seats in the Golden State.

Interviews with Democratic strategists, donors and organizers from across the country reveal deep disagreement with Warren’s premise that progressives make up the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party.

Warren offered that synopsis during a speech at the liberal Netroots Nation conference last weekend, adding that progressives are in control of the party.

The Democrats who disagree with Warren are generally from the center of the party, and many were staunch supporters of former President Barack Obama and Clinton.

The clash is further proof of the divide in the party after 2016’s disappointment. Even as they face a Republican Party torn over how to deal with President Trump, Democrats are still trying to figure out what kind of a party they are.​

Centrist Dems push back on Warren

The article never identifies much of anything that actually distinguishes “centrist” or “moderate” Democrats from the “progressive” variety. It names “a single-payer healthcare system” as one one of “the many progressive issues”. But among the people I know who identify as Democrats (and some of whom might be considered “centrist” or “moderate” Democrats), I know of none who are against a single-payer system. Nevertheless, one cannot pull a single-payer health care system out of one's hat--one must write the statutes that will implement such a system, and one must convince a whole segment of the population that it is a good and necessary system. I am for a single-payer system primarily because I think it will probably be less expensive than the ACA. But I also think it might be wise to not eliminate the whole health insurance industry that employs people and pays taxes. Perhaps the single-payer plan could allow for a degree of incentive for people who can afford insurance to buy it. I don't think Americans need any easier access to prescription drugs at the moment (especially opioids). As things are now, Americans are making themselves fat and sick and dead with prescription drugs.

The article also states:

The Obama and Clinton supporters say they have grown tired of having to deal with fighting over progressivism and 1990s-era battles over former President Bill Clinton’s work on welfare and criminal justice reform, which were campaign issues last year and subjects of criticism by Warren just last week.​

I don't know what is being referred to here as “progressivism,” but I would definitely support changes to some of the the 1990s-era welfare and “criminal justice” legislation.

So what else distinguishes “centrist” and “progressive” Democrats? The issues identified here do not seem worthy of splitting the party.

Perhaps rather than empty adjectives such as “progressive” and “centrist,” there should just be one party of “Democrats”.

It looks like liberals what to use the government to help folks, Social Security, Entitlements, etc.

Progressives what to use the government to control industry. Basically, heavy regulation against capitalism.

 

[Nakosis]

Progressivism means returning to the democratic party of 40 or 50 years ago, getting rid of all the "compromises" with big business that fuel inequality in the work force, Progressives are the only future the democratic party has right now, we've all seen how far Hillary's centrists have gotten us, centrist democrats are fully to blame for the mess we are in, not progressives. IMHO

That seems accurate. The problem being is that we have a capitalist economy. Therefore to be affluent we need the growth of capitalism. Progressives want to limit capitalism. You can't do that IMO without going all in. You'd have to go full socialist.

 

[Lyndon]

What laws are you referring to as "'compromises' with big business"?

all of them!!

 

[Lyndon]

That seems accurate. The problem being is that we have a capitalist economy. Therefore to be affluent we need the growth of capitalism. Progressives want to limit capitalism. You can't do that IMO without going all in. You'd have to go full socialist.

and that's a great idea to do!!

 

[Nakosis]

and that's a great idea to do!!

Ok, however the benefit of capitalism which seems lacking in socialism is the ability of the individual to set their own value.

In capitalism it's supply and demand. The supplier and the consumer determine the value.

Socialism you have the government determining value for you. Giving individuals a lot less control over value. You have to hope to be able to vote in enough folks that see value the same as you otherwise you're out of luck.

 

[Nous]

It looks like liberals what to use the government to help folks, Social Security, Entitlements, etc.

Progressives what to use the government to control industry. Basically, heavy regulation against capitalism.

There may be a degree of truth in what you say here, but I have difficulty believing that Democrats generally split on such ideological grounds. I hope you are not correct. If you are right, the country and the world is in really big trouble.