Is a New Progressive Party starting to take shape?

The year was 1912 and Teddy lost the RNC nomination for president. A group of dissatisfied politicians decided to create a new party to continue to promote their views. The Progressive movement was born. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were two of the more prominent politicians at the time. This breakaway did not last long but it did create what the modern day Democratic Party would become. Roosevelt and Wilson did more to change the policy and outlook of the nation and it is still influencing decisions today. Those who were in these parties are who would become the Democrats of the New Deal under FDR where once again the Country was radically changed. Their goal was control not freedom.

I believe the time is coming again where there will be a split and you will see three major parties.

The Progressive Party - This is the DNC moderates and the RINO's
The Democratic Socialist Party - The AOC and Bernies. Extreme left views.
The Republican Party - The same foundation just some new additions such as moderate Democrats who oppose 'current' Dem and Progressives views.

The Socialist are promoting the progressive platform and it is not fairing well with main stream Democrats. Look at how the New Green Deal worked out? It sounded like Al Gore a few decades back but was not embraced now. The landscape is changing.

Link

Former President Barack Obama said on Saturday he worries about the far-left, progressive wing of the Democratic party being unwilling to compromise and creating a "circular firing squad" against allies over policy and issue differences. "One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States, maybe it's true here as well, is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, 'Uh, I'm sorry, this is how it's going to be,' and then we start sometimes creating what's called a 'circular firing squad,' where you start shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from purity on the issues," Obama said a town hall in Berlin, Germany, hosted by the Obama Foundation.

The Democratic former president argued that this party infighting usually leads to "the overall effort and movement weaken(ing)." "You have to recognize that the way we've structured democracy requires you to take into account people who don't agree with you, and that by definition means you're not going to get 100 percent of what you want," Obama said. He spoke of the importance of compromise and navigating what you believe in, saying he wanted more from the multi-national Paris climate accord and the Affordable Care Act in the US, but accepted what could be passed and agreed upon at the time. "You can't set up a system in which you don't compromise on anything, but you also can't operate in a system where you compromise on everything," Obama said.

Democrats have been divided over the Green New Deal, healthcare and worker's wages, among other issues.

It really has caused division in the left and they do not know which way to turn once again. Biden vs Bernie is just HRC 2.0. None of the other candidates would be smart to attempt a run in 2020. Not Tulsi. Not Warren. No one.

Link

This unfolding central theme this cycle was given new life during Sen. Bernie Sanders' unexpectedly competitive challenge to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary. President Donald Trump's polarizing positions on immigration, climate, health care and the economy often enrage the progressive base on a daily basis. As such as universally effective primary foil, some Democrats seeking to claim the "progressive" mantle do not have to shy away from the label in the same way that candidates like Clinton and others have in the past. "[Sanders] actually helped move the party and the party has changed since then, and the context of Trump gives Democrats a little more freedom to go into new places," Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, told ABC News.

While the former Delaware senator holds onto his moderate label, saying Friday the vast majority of the party is "still basically liberal to moderate Democrats in the traditional sense," progressive groups reject Biden's thinking in favor of candidates who embrace this newfound freedom to pitch policy ideas once rejected by a wide swath of the party. "Joe Biden doesn't want to acknowledge that the winds have shifted in the Democratic Party away from compromising with Republicans and corporate donors and toward the grassroots progressive movement," said Waleed Shahid, communications director for Justice Democrats, the progressive group that backed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley in their bids to unseat longstanding Democratic incumbents.

"It's because so-called centrists like him are the last to shift with the winds of change." "The center of the party and the center of the general American electorate has moved massively in an economic populist direction, where big ideas that were never even contemplated by the Obama-Biden administration are now squarely in the mainstream of public debate and supported by most voters," said Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who is backing Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in the 2020 primary. "The center of gravity has shifted."

2020 will be Progressive vs Populist at the polls. 2024 could see a true redefining but the writing is one the wall 100 years after it was first brought to the forefront. The parties are changing more than they have in 70 years and the shake up will not help the DNC in 2020 with ALL house seats up and no real challenger to an incumbent president with a strong economy.

originally posted by: matafuchs

The year was 1912 and Teddy lost the RNC nomination for president.

To another Progressive, Taft.

The Progressive movement was born.

The Progressive movement existed prior to this election and was a main plank in the Republican platform starting in the 4th quarter of the 1800's.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Who he groomed and then did not do so well. They had a falling out as Taft saw what Teddy was doing and wanted to do to the country. You are correct with your timeline but it was not 'mainstreamed' till Teddy tried it to take a nomination.

LBJ was a major progressive also.

Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom by A. Napalitano is a good read on this subject.

a reply to: matafuchs

It would all depend on $, and how that pie is divided up.

It costs close to a billion dollars to finance a campaign through the primaries up to the general election.

Honestly, I think it's more likely that the Republican party moves toward center to attract the indy, and moderate dem vote.

originally posted by: matafuchs
You are correct with your timeline but it was not 'mainstreamed' till Teddy tried it to take a nomination.

Totally incorrect. The ideals of the Progressive Era were fully espoused by the Republican Party of that time. There are lists of Republican politicians from the local to national level who ran on and won due to their support of Progressivism.

a reply to: matafuchs

While LBJ was progressive, as was Kennedy, he was never elected president. It was only Kennedy's personality, and Nixon's lack thereof that made his election possible, IMO.

I'm not old enough to have been around in those days, but have done a lot of research on political science, and history.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Progressive Era started in 1880-1890 time frame. It was part of the thinking or ideology of some on these platforms however The Progressive Party was created in 1912. So I am not totally incorrect nor are you totally correct.

a reply to: matafuchs

This is the best part:

"Former President Barack Obama said on Saturday he worries about the far-left, progressive wing of the Democratic party being unwilling to compromise and creating a "circular firing squad" against allies over policy and issue differences."

Obama and the left created this unwillingness. Now, like always, it's coming back to bite their asses. Obama must not understand that when you have a difference over policy and issue, you don't vote for the person holding those different views. In the mind of a liberal, voting against Obama means you voted against a black man because he's black, policies and issues be damned. Now that it's not being used to his benefit, he sees the dangers of his own party. Too bad. You started this, now you're gonna eat it.

a reply to: matafuchs

Napalitano is a neocon shill, and I don't trust him, or his opinions, as far as I could throw him.

a reply to: Mach2

I feel the Republicans have already done that and it started with Trump. The left is in disarray and you are correct it takes a lot of money but look what you have right now. Over 20 people who wants to run. No unity. Money going to multiple places. Bernie back in to take a lot of that support and money.

Like I stated in the OP, it do not see if happening in 2020 but by 2024 you could see 3 actual major parties...or not. It is all theory and discussion til it happens.

a reply to: matafuchs

I would suggest reading Herbert Croly's 1914 book, Progressive Democracy.

Progressivism was imported from Europe and can best be described as an elitist-driven counterrevolution to the American Revolution, tying historic progress and the modern state to the idea of material egalitarianism, a central tenet of Marxism.

Progressivism and Socialism have the same ending, they merely have differences in the way to get there.

So there is no real difference between the two.

My personal hope is that actual liberals attempt to take the Democratic party back.

They need a Tea Party movement of their own.

Then perhaps between the two main parties the infestation of Progressives in both can be purged.

S&F for the OP... a thought-provoking read on one of the possible outcomes of the Democratic party.

a reply to: Mach2

I am not a fan of him either but it is a very good book given as a gift. It does not have author spin. I have read a few others, much older books, but they all describe the same thing.

a reply to: matafuchs

The left is in disarray and you are correct it takes a lot of money but look what you have right now. Over 20 people who wants to run. No unity. Money going to multiple places.

That was the Republicans going up to 2016 against hill dog the shoe in.

It even took some transitioning for the party to accept Trump, many did not like him. The unification IMO ironically came from the left not letting up on the rhetoric around Trump and his base, banding R's together.

I doubt that happens for the dems this cycle. Biden would get washed out, and Bernie lost some of his base and spine.

a reply to: matafuchs

Fair enough.

a reply to: matafuchs

Fair enough.

a reply to: Lumenari

Yes. I know him from "The Promise Of American Life". I read that Wilson and Teddy both embraced that book but i never read the one you suggested. Going to have to check that one out.

originally posted by: matafuchs
The Progressive Era started in 1880-1890 time frame. It was part of the thinking or ideology of some on these platforms however The Progressive Party was created in 1912. So I am not totally incorrect nor are you totally correct.

The point I'm making is that the Republican Party of the past was very much a party of Progressivism. You had thousands of Republican politicians of the time supporting the ideals that evolved into the actual Progressive Party but were initially fostered by the Republican Party of the last half of the 1800's to the early 20th Century.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What do you think stopped that momentum?

originally posted by: Mach2
While LBJ was progressive, as was Kennedy, he was never elected president.

Who won the Presidential Election of 1964?

a reply to: LSU2018

Obama and the left created this unwillingness. Now, like always, it's coming back to bite their asses. Obama must not understand that when you have a difference over policy and issue, you don't vote for the person holding those different views. In the mind of a liberal, voting against Obama means you voted against a black man because he's black, policies and issues be damned. Now that it's not being used to his benefit, he sees the dangers of his own party. Too bad. You started this, now you're gonna eat it.

well posted!
he has no community left to "organize"
they all hate him