Talk:New Democrats (United States)

POV

Can we try and replace the word moderate with something else here? Left of the GOP, right of the liberal wing etc. Moderate has a slippery POV to it. Marskell 08:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

As it stands now, however, the article is POV -- "neoliberal" and "centre-right"? Come on! --Thorsen 05:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Advert

This page needs work. It read like an Advert for the ND-PAC, so I have flagged it here in Discussion as such. The flag probably belongs on the article page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. The article must clearly distinguish the "loosely-organized faction within the Dem party" from the PAC created in 2006. For clarification, when referring to the PAC please use ND-PAC (after the first use, when it is spelled out). Change "traditional Democratic" to "1960s Democratic", because it is more accurate. (Reagan Democrats reacted against hippies, long hair, drugs, the anti-Vietnam protests, secularism, homosexuality, etc., which were not issues among New Deal Democrats -- the tradition.) "Clinton was a classic" should be "Clinton epitomized" (he can't be compared to a non-existing "classic" if he is the origin). In politics, the source of funding must always be identified -- this is the first rule of politics, cui bono. ~~

"most [liberal Democrats] would eventually admit ... that social programs should be more effective" -- this sounds like a sermon: no-one would suggest that social programs should be less effective. Initially flagged {sermon}, but that's not quite it, actually it's a Straw man, so redacted instead.

Disputed

Is there any real proof that the people on this list are actually "New Democrats"? My issue started with the fact that Christine Gregoire has advocated politically, in a social sense, very liberal politics. This goes against what being a "New Democrat" is all about. Has anyone actually looked into whether or not these people are what they are claimed to be in this list? Dante the Bard 16:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Membership in an organization does not always equal sharing beliefs with said organization. The DLC/New Democrats are a prime example. Jim Doyle's a member of the New Democrat Coalition as well, but he's pretty liberal. Vic Snyder is also fairly liberal, as is Debbie Stabenow (who had a liberal score somewhere in the 80's range from the National Journal in 2005, which is high). I think most of the members of the DLC/New Democrats are doing it to improve their image with the voters, not because they actually believe in most of the DLC/New Democrat's goals. 1ne 21:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then perhaps we should put that information into the article. I feel that to be objective, which would equal factual, we need to provide information that although these candidates are apart of a specific organization, the DLC, there are examples of members going against what the term "New Democrat" and the DLC believe. I won't be able to make any changes to the article right away, because I have real life obligations at the moment, but if you or someone else can make these changes sooner, that would be great. Otherwise, I will make the changes when I have the time. Dante the Bard 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have done an almost complete and bold rewrite of this article. For one I have removed all of the pov, the areas written like an advert and most of the unsubstantiated claims. I have added new information, all of which is well referenced and have written the article to make it understandable, adding subsections to make the article clearer. I have also expanded the lead to make it fit with the rest of the article. I have attempted to deal with all issues raised on the discussion and would like to point out that new democrats listed can all be found via the DLC sites and the New Democrat associated movements. Best. LordHarris 00:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

What do you think about merging this article with New Democrat Coalition? --Checco 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I support it. —Nightstallion 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose a merge. "New Democrat" is a label claimed by several different groups to describe their political platform. The New Democrat Coalitions in the House and Senate are just two of these groups. The Democratic Leadership Council and NDN (formerly known as the New Democrat Network) are two others. If any of these groups doesn't justify an article of their own, I could see them being merged as a section into the New Democrat article, but the New Democrat article itself should not be merged into the article for any of these groups. (Also posted on Talk:New Democrat Coalition.) -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Kennedy?

Recently I attempted too delete the section that argues that Robert F. Kennedy was the first "New Democrat" simply because Bill Clinton wrote it in his book. However it's difficult too see how RFK fits in with any of the "New Democrat" platform.

Kennedy never advocated for deregulation or free trade whereas Clinton pushed these policies. He voted for expanding the Great Society contrary too Bill Clinton's "welfare reform" bill in 1996 that eliminated a entire welfare agency. Indeed with regards too economic policy RFK and WJC couldn't be more different.

If anything, Kennedy can be called a anti-war liberal. But a "New Democrat" in the style of Bill Clinton? No, this is not accurate. Just because Clinton wants Bobby Kennedy too be the DLC poster child doesn't mean Wikipedia should allow it. Therefore I believe it should be deleted from this page. I'll be happy too get feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAS1957 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And I restored the passage. You might be right that RFK has been co-opted not only by Clinton, but by many others. However, it's noteworthy, even if you view it as self-serving, when a former president makes such an observation. It's not about Wikipedia 'allowing'; it's about including properly sourced content, rather than original research, per WP:NOR. If you can add published scholarship that challenges Clinton's assessment, please add it. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "observation" too give a opinion. Just because Bill Clinton served as President of the United States from 1993 too 2001 does not mean that his opinions are all "observations". And there is no other cited source as too why Kennedy should be called a "New Democrat" other than Clinton's book. It says WP:NOR that a "reliable source" must be used. Bill Clinton's book is a collection of his personal viewpoints rather than scholarly analysis. Unless you can find another source than Clinton's book, it should be deleted. TAS1957 (talk) 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored it again. It's cited, whereas you're employing original research. I'm concerned that you've started editing today, and seem to be looking for content to remove, based solely on your opinions. As I've written at my talk page, please read Wikipedia guidelines, and seek consensus before removing sourced content. To do otherwise won't work. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not given a single opinion in any page. It seems too me that your simply being unreasonable. You keep saying that I use "original research" which is a lie. I simply note due too the fact that there is nothing too back Clinton's claim it should be deleted or moved too Bill Clinton and Robert F. Kennedy. I see no reason why it should be on this article.TAS1957 (talk) 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've decided too end this thing fast so as a compromise I've titled the section title the section "Claims That Robert F. Kennedy Was a New Democrat". TAS1957 (talk) 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Some research reveals that the assessment has not been limited to Clinton, but has been offered by other scholars. I've added another source, a review of Clark's bio of RFK. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources from those critical of the statement? So far I have been unable too find any myself. TAS1957 (talk) 16 August 2011 (UTC)