General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTwo Different Mindsets at DU
Of course there are all sorts of ideas and agendas here, but it seems the big battle that goes on and on and on is mostly between two groups with two very different mindsets.
One group thinks of itself as being on a TEAM, fighting for their side - for that group, anything Dems do is far better than what's happening on the other side, and is by definition relatively acceptable. This group keeps an eye on what's happening at Faux News and reacts to the other side. They proudly wear the team colors, no matter what.
The other group thinks about POLICIES, not teams. This group cares about furthering liberal policies that have been on the right side of history - they're in it for civil rights, environmental protection, worker protections, etc. It's no problem for this group to point out when leaders aren't furthering these policies, and they don't follow Faux News.
Can't help noticing lately how the two mindsets impact discussions - often taking them in circles.
Are you fighting for a team, or a set of policies?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)not sure what your are *really* trying to state here.
Ms. Toad
(34,076 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 1, 2014, 06:11 PM - Edit history (1)
The distinction is pretty clear - a primary alliance to people (e.g. the Democratic Party) v. a primary alliance to values (regardless of who holds them).
Those primarily allied to values don't have "teams" - except to the extent that they are a useful tool to implement certain values and, when people perceived to be on the same side are working toward (or implementing) policies inconsistent with the values, they are subject to criticism.
Most of the time I vote for the democratic candidate - but not always. I typically don't work for candidates or parties, but when I do it is usually on the D side of the slate. I worked my tail off supporting Obama in the 2012 election, as an observer during the entire absentee voting period and a member of the war room in one of the counties perceived to be critical to his election. I did that, not because he was a member of my "team," but because I believed it was critical to retain the ACA. I have worked for one Republican judicial candidate - because he was a wise, old-style Republican and the court needed the benefit of his wisdom on the bench - and the stability of having at least one judge who remembered what they did last term; his opponent for a position on the state appellate bench was an extremely inexperienced sacrificial lamb put up by the Democratic party solely to have a Democrat on the ticket.
My political energy primarily goes into working in favor of (or against) particular policies - regardless of who aligns with those policies. Most of the time people who align with the policies I am working toward are Democrats. But I really don't care what party they belong to.
If you don't see that distinction in the discussions on the NSA - just to pick one example - you are not very attentive.
Those who found collecting data on U.S. citizens during the Bush years, and but now find it perfectly acceptable beause Obama (until very recently (supported it) favor team over policy. Those who consistently oppose it, even though it is now (until very recently) supported by Obama favor policy over team.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)only on a specific issue, such as NSA. But to assume that one person will always pick policy over people in every single instance...enough to cause a faction and/us vs them base on the two group indicated in the OP...is actually disingenuious on the part of the OP, and likley for anyone including your call out to me.
And as indicated below, the OP is nothing more than "My way is better than yours"
categorizing people into absolutes is disingenious. You jumping on my case because I'm not in lock step with the OP is disingenious.
Ms. Toad
(34,076 posts)I don't know the OP well enough to know which approach the OP takes.
And - I do virtually always pick policy over people. I cannot recall a time when I didn't - although I am not going to exclude the possibility that I have at some point done so without recalling it. When people align with my values, I work with them. When they do not, I don't. It is as simple as that.
You are reading a condemnation of one approach over the other into a relatively neutral OP, and into my neutral (as to whether one approach being inherently better than the other) response to you. Neither I, nor the OP, characterized one approach as better than the other.
What I'm not neutral about is being told that my team free value/policy based approach to politics is a fiction of my imagination, and I am really rooting for a team. Just because you approach life from a team perspective does not mean everyone else does.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I agree with everything you said, especially regarding policies over people. And most especially not approaching policies from a 'team' perspective.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)"Just because you approach life from a team perspective does not mean everyone else does."
Look at the responses . . . they can't fathom anything outside of the team mentality.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Whistle blowers
Drones
Wall Street appointments in the admin
TPP
KXL pipeline
There's a lot. It's as the OP said, it's team support rather than policy support.
Ms. Toad
(34,076 posts)I was using NSA as one example where the difference in approaches is abundantly clear. It is far from the only one.
2banon
(7,321 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"MY team (though I refuse to call it a team) are better Democrats than YOUR team."
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)And it's as boring as it is pointless 
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Zell Miller was a "Democrat", Joe Lieberman was a "Democrat", Ben Nelson was a "Democrat". If I had to make a choice of voting for any of those "Democrats" over a Republican, I simply would not vote.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Miller, Lieberman and Nelson voted with the Democratic Caucus 70+% of the time. And it was Miller, Lieberman and Nelson that gave Democrats the majority in the Senate which meant committee chairs.
So your not voting would have actually hurt your policy agenda.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Although it still seems to go right past people sometimes. I guess it's got to be an emotional reaction because it certainly doesn't make sense in terms of trying to secure the best outcome from their perspective.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this isn't the first time that has been raised and they have yet to respond/address to the fecklessness of their political tantrums.
Granted if faced with a choice between any of those three and a more progressive Democrat, we would all choose the more progressive Democrat; but that is never how the general election shakes out ... and there is a non-conspiratorial, non-nefarious reason for that, i.e., individual districts and the electorate in general is far less progressive than they wish them to be.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)No it wasn't. We had sixty Democrats in the Senate and could have easily done without any of those. In fact they hampered everything the Democrats wanted to accomplish. We would have been far better off without them..
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Democrats had 60 Caucus members for what 6 weeks? Their replacements would hardily have caucused with the Democrats.
In what world is 70% support worse than > 20% (but no like, 0%) support?
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)While pushing a neocon foreign policy.
With team mates like this....who needs enemies.
How the fuck did this neocon conservative become the standard bearer for the party. Something is seriously wrong.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)they sometimes vote/legislate in ways that I do not like; but I'll take 70% support and Congressional majorities as a trade off ... until those congressional districts catch up to the rest of America.
Until then ... I will vote for anyone with a "D" after their name. Except of course in those one off cases such as Keisha, the LaRoache follower in Texas.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Sometimes the idealist in me gets in the way.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)my Civil Rights background has pretty much beat the idealist out of me.
But Kudos to you for the recognition. Can I ask you to repeat the statement again? Too many that post here don't seem to have come to that self-recognition.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)even if we are idealists, we should also be political realists.
Peace
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Idealism should drive our agenda and strategy; realism should drive our tactics.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)The OP's reference to "team" was about party loyalty. Your reference to teams was about DU factions. The OP made no mention of that. She asked which approach each person takes. She did not turn it into a team sport within DU where one has to win. Shows how much that "team" spirit permeates everything and all it does is pit people against each other.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if you re-read the OP, she did exactly that.
Funny how people can clearly read the indictment and miss their own name on it.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)"your team is simple-minded and shallow"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)by comment 196, to which I could only respond ... "Come on, mannn!" ... I do possess better than average reading comprehension skills, as evidenced by my academic background.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Those are people not interested in rolling back the bush years, they are actually defending and extending them. That the republicans were not permanently disgraced by their war mongering and government thievery is the reason we have them as "contenders" for future democrats.
How many times does President Obama need to invite Jeb Bush to the white house when there are many on the left who should be promoted and granted the gravitas of the white house.
This moment has always been very disturbing to me. Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to promote Jeb or the Bush family, by inviting them to the white house. Why isn't President Obama spending his time with progressive leaders instead?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)look like they dont favor the President (e.g. TPP, fracking, the XL Pipeline, Wall Street corruption, etc.) I saw a post recently that discussed Democratic principles. I didnt see a single person on the "Team" there. But you can see them swarm on the daily "Obama is wonderful" OP, claiming that all that dont worship the President should be purged from DU.
Demanding a purge isnt keeping with DU's politically liberal policies.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I see plenty of policy discussion from both sides of a topic. Of course it almost always devolves, but the topic is frequently initially approached using policy, cites and supporting articles from both the supporting and arguing parties (teams).
So one person says Du needs a purge and suddenly you want to consider it a "standard" for an entire team? seriously, there should have been a little more depth to that analysis.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)whatever Obama says. Ask them what they think about the TPP or the XL Pipeline, or fracking, etc. they will never respond.
Apparently you dont notice the "swarm" threads calling for the purge.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)by this one example, I prove you wrong. Brush and all that...right?
Team Obama? What fucking team are you on?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)he supports Democratic principles and criticize him when he supports Corporate principles like the TPP.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)so you are saying you don't support any team at all ...because that's pretty much what you have with your purist ideology...a deflated balloon that only ever had hot air.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)May I humbly suggest you revisit what the OP clearly wrote.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Don't know who my teammates are, but I've never been one to do hero worship.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Glitterati
(3,182 posts)a hero worshiper.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Bizarro world.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Are you watching President Obama's speech? He had the audience rolling when he said, we did it, and there's no death panels, the world didn't come to an end today (paraphrasing).
Caretha
(2,737 posts)was Republican BS. Why repeat it. Does it somehow reinforce your argument. I think not.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)I was listening to his speech when I typed that response.
So, now there's something wrong with quoting the President of the United States??????????
Fuck me!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)what do you want to know about the County Water Master Plan?
2banon
(7,321 posts)we've got our own water master plan and policy fights galore!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)in the best valley girl voice, WHAT---EEEE---VEEERR
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)reading it? Do you have a master plan for dealing with waste we could learn from? lolz. 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You'd be amazed what plans are written for what.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I went to a speaking engagement fairly recently where the speaker was one of Harvey Milk's former political aids. He talked about the importance of coalitions in politics (the audience was primarily gay rights activists), and urged the people there to actively support the other factions that make up the party; labor, immigrants, etc. You have to be there for the other groups if you expect them to be there for you.
I'd personally describe myself as primarily a labor liberal, with economic issues being the biggest thing that align me with the left in general. I have no loyalty to the Democratic Party's politicians whatsoever, unless they actively serve the interests of myself and the people I consider political allies.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)h/t Recursion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024762762
Lilly Ledbetter
SCHIP expansion (covering an additional 10 million children and pregnant women)
ARRA (the stimulus)
The last budget Congress has passed (it's a shame that I can point to Congress actually executing its Constitutional duty as a subject of praise, but such are the times we live in)
The Americorps expansion
A land management act that closed tens of millions of acres of public land to hunting, logging, and trapping
FERA, the act under which bank and investment frauds are being prosecuted at the greatest rate since Teddy Roosevelt's administration
HFSHA (what lets judges write down predatory mortgages rather than foreclosing)
A Pentagon acquisitions reform act that has already saved close to a billion dollars
The Matthew Shepherd Act, which expanded hate crimes laws to include targeting sexual orientation and gender presentation
Cash for Clunkers and the Big 3 bailout
ACA
VA and Tricare reform
Pay-as-you-go (which the GOP promptly gutted in 2011)
Dodd-Frank
Two unemployment extensions
9/11 responders relief
Iraq local employees emergency visas
The fair sentencing act
START (nuclear arms reduction and nonproliferation)
The confirmations of Kagan and Sotomayor
The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Earmark elimination (I'm starting to think that was a bad idea, but still)
The first ever floor vote on DC voting rights (it failed, but that was the first time we actually got a vote)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Wall Street appointed to the admin?
TPP?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)...so let me provide you some links to my past posts:
NSA spying?
I've consistently said the NSA's tactics are overkill and new legislation should be introduced to reform the NSA. Here's one example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3107966
Drones? I'm totally opposed to Obama's drone policy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2030334&mesg_id=2030354
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101612761
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=671338&mesg_id=671956
Whistle blower prosecutions? Depends which ones, but in general I support whistle blowers.
I always supported what Manning did:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100232215
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=270775
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=571618
TPP? I can't find my older posts on the TPP, but I can tell you that I'm opposed to it.
Wall street appointed to the admin? That's a bit general. Could you be more specific at least when it comes to specific policies?
Any other questions?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)about the NSA. I would think you would be thankful.
If you are really against those things then good for you. I never see your posts on it, I mostly see you ridiculing others when they criticize the NSA. I'm actually shocked and pleasantly surprised to hear you say you are against the NSA spying. I wonder why you posted several OPs that ridiculed Snowden and the spying... No, I'm not going to link since I believe that's against the rules.
Geithner. You listed appointments, so I listed them too.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I do not consider Snowden to be a whistle blower.
Whistle blowers expose specific abuses and crimes. I certainly consider Manning to be one, but not Snowden. Manning exposed a specific war crime.
The main program Snowden exposed is the metadata phone collection program. The problem is that we've known about that program since 2006 and Federal judges have signed off on those warrants. I do think metadata collection is overkill, but not illegal.
Pretty much all of Snowden's revelations since then have disclosed US espionage activities against foreign countries. This is certainly not illegal and the NSA/CIA were setup specifically for foreign surveillance.
Snowden's leaks are political in nature and aren't intended to affect policy changes IMO. Many of his leaks come out at interesting times. The recent leak about espionage in China came out when Michelle Obama was in China. The leak about spying against Brazil came out when the leader of Brazil was going to attend a state dinner at the White House. Similar circumstances when info about US/UK espionage against EU countries was leaked. Another leak about China came out when Obama was meeting with Chinese officials in California.
But the funny thing is, these activities are certainly not illegal or unconstitutional. They're intended to kneecap the Obama admin, nothing more.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)It was pushed to be legalized in 2008 and was signed into law - and thought to be unconstitutional by many due to its violation of the 4th Amendment. Then the current admin extended and expanded it. So while it may be technically legal now, it was not when it was started and I don't think the general public understood what was going on. Simply legalizing it doesn't make it the right thing to do. I wish it were mere "overkill" but it is far more egregious than that, and far more troubling that a Democrat has legalized it and expanded it.
I think that's why it resonated so much. People are surprised that this is still happening and more so than before. And that it was happening to American citizens in such a haphazard manner.
I don't agree at all with your comment that Snowden's leaks are merely political. He gave the docs to Greenwald and the Guardian. He's not necessarily the one picking the times of release, but even if he were, don't you think it makes sense to bring up the issues that coincide with what's going on in current events so as to shine more light on them? It makes perfect sense to me to do it as a way to ensure that the most attention is paid to that particular aspect. I think it's a smart way of releasing the info.
Again, the activities absolutely are unconstitutional. They violate the 4th Amendment. And they were illegal before they were legal. Legalizing something that's criminal to allow one to do unconstitutional search and seizures is still continuing the same actions that everyone complained against when BushCo did it. I'm still not okay with it.
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #7)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
FSogol
(45,493 posts) greatauntoftriplets
(175,745 posts)More divisiveness in the lead-up to the mid-term elections.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)stop partaking in it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)be nice! be nice first and then Maybe we will be! But you first.
lol.
haha.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Which in turn leads to the divisiveness that you claim you don't like yet you foment it.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Actively fans the embers and then squirts it with gasoline.
Yet shockingly writes like she's above that shit while high fiving the beam in her eye.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)so it looks as if the OP nailed it dead nuts.
2banon
(7,321 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)The OP's reference to "team" was about party loyalty. Your reference to teams was about DU factions. The OP made no mention of that. She asked which approach each person takes. She did not turn it into a team sport within DU where one has to win. Shows how much that "team" spirit permeates everything and all it does is pit people against each other.
Marr
(20,317 posts)People saw exactly what they wanted to see, and kind of proved the OP right.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Mr. Kotter!!!
Sorry, for some reason that came to mind.
But yes, that's true.
I forgot all about him. 
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Why cant those nasty extremist liberals settle for the status-quo? The poverty level isnt so bad. Our election system isnt so bad.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)I think that's what you may be describing.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)marriage equality. The 'Pragmatists' were very certain that only civil unions were possible for decades, a generation, until all the older bigots die off. To seek marriage equality was going to cost the election (just being pragmatic) and it was also 'letting the perfect be the enemy of the good'. Folks would say 'be pragmatic, no candidate for national office is going to openly support gay marriage, it's a wedge issue, a third rail' and very specifically they preached and I do mean preached, that Obama could not and would not support marriage equality at least until after the 2012 election. Because as pragmatists, they understood how things really work....
I think people mistake the words, and mean to say 'I'm a pessimist' instead of a pragmatist, because so many views presented as being the only reality based pragmatic view have turned out to be so absolutely incorrect.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Fair weather friends are worthless.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)By the same people demanding Party Loyalty!11!!11
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)authoritarianism. The followers think their authoritarian leaders will give them what they deserve and they dont dare ask for more.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Because that argument doesn't hold water. Third Way rule is moving us in the WRONG direction.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024711643#post52
To claim that progress is being made but is merely incremental is overwhelmingly untrue in the most important areas of policy. We are being thrown bones on social issues but inequality has been escalated viciously through policy, the power of corporations is being relentlessly increased, our fundamental civil liberties are being dismantled, journalism is under assault, peaceful protesters are being surveilled and brutally suppressed, whistleblowers are being persecuted, our president has claimed the right to imprison indefinitely and even kill without due process, militarization of our police forces has been expanded, our public education system is being corporatized and even dismantled, corporate power over the internet is being enabled, our environment is being opened to drilling and fracking, and a new pipeline is on the horizon. In addition to all this, this government is engaging in mass surveillance against its own citizens and assaulting us with propaganda and disinformation.
Corporatists have been installed in virtually every area of government by our Democratic president.
The most significant policy proposal on the horizon is the most predatory free trade agreement in history, which will force Americans to compete with workers in Third World countries. It will kill jobs, reduce wages for over 90 percent of American workers, restrict freedom on the internet, make obtaining life-saving medications more difficult and more expensive, and allow multinational corporations to sue for profits and overrule national decisions on everything from wages to regulations for environment and safety. It is an assault on all of us, and it is unconscionable coming from a Democratic president. However, it is wholly consistent with this administration's long record of working on behalf of corporate interests.
... The unwritten rules for Third Way messaging on this board require that any post like the one I wrote be countered immediately. We are relentlessly badgered to uphold the illusion that our corporate Democrats really do care about the same issues, principles, and goals that we do, even though their actions relentlessly pursue the opposite. As much as we are told by the corporate crew working this board that War is Peace and the chocolate ration has been increased, we have lived with our eyes open during these past five years, and we have watched first-hand what the flooding of our party with corporate money has done to its behavior...and to us.
Nothing is fixed until we are honest about what is happening. All the propaganda notwithstanding, more and more courageous liberals are standing up to do just that. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich....the launch of FirstLook....Bill Moyers' excellent work. The new statement at the Daily Kos that they will work to defeat the malignant influence of the Third Way in our party....These are all positive signs.
People who care deeply about this country are telling the truth about what we really are facing...the corporate hijacking of our party and our government....because the rose-colored glasses are malignant. The rose-colored glasses are a corporate lie, and they prevent real change.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)After reading the OP, pragmatist vs. idealogue is what it meant to me. Nothing gets done without bold action.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)and there is usually more than one policy to get to the goal.
A major problem is that we all can easily fall into traps that keep us looking at one policy, or tribe, as the absolute one way to get what it is we think we need.
"All Republicans are evil." Well, not really. Evil Republicans certainly are, but most of them we can deal with to at least some extent. If we want, say, more birth control or abortion clinics, we might find a few Republicans who are willing to deal, but are afraid of being called out for talking to us. Ousting them is a long-term option, but rather than fighting a losing battle to oust them, we should be looking for a way to give them an out to vote with us at least halfway.
And we have to remember that the goal is not the policy. Do we want "Medicare for all" or do we want affordable and working health care for all? I want health care for all, and shouting Medicare might cause us to overlook other, and better, possibilities.
Gains are made step by step, with maybe two steps back for three steps forward. Again, we can fight to the death where no one wins, or we can look for something halfway and call that a win.
Out where I am, we have very few wingnuts, but Republicans are established in town government, so it's a tough road. The county is solidly Democratic, but that just makes the Rs fight harder. And, if some of the louder voices here saw how we run the county they'd have a fit. We usually don't vote on stuff-- we're told stuff.
Anyway, this is place to vent, not get much of anything worthwhile done, so I can't get upset about it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think it's a much better 'look' than bashing that team constantly and giving aid and comfort to the wingnuts who want to take that team--and those policies--and bury them...but that's just my take on it.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Spazito
(50,393 posts)
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)on edit: corrected spelling
lumpy
(13,704 posts)bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Spazito
(50,393 posts)"One group thinks of itself as being on a TEAM, fighting for their side - for that group, anything Dems do is far better than what's happening on the other side, and is by definition relatively acceptable. This group keeps an eye on what's happening at Faux News and reacts to the other side. They proudly wear the team colors, no matter what." Short version - Obamabots
"The other group thinks about POLICIES, not teams. This group cares about furthering liberal policies that have been on the right side of history - they're in it for civil rights, environmental protection, worker protections, etc. It's no problem for this group to point out when leaders aren't furthering these policies, and they don't follow Faux News." Short version - deep thinkers
Same divisive crap phrased differently.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)courses and institutes where there is a finding that some people support a party, over policy issues, while others do over team issues.
I guess it is a valid discussion in academia.
Spazito
(50,393 posts)the intent is clear, imo.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Point two, there are not one, or two actually, but several groups here. We all approach politics differently, that is a fact jack and you can take that to the bank.
You do have the policy wonks.
You do have the team players
You also have the labor types
Then there is the LGBT group
Did I forget the Minority Rights groups,
never forget the women's rights group
All of these approach politics in a different way. I am not ashamed to say it, give me charts and policy papers, but that is not for everybody. It is not an attempt to divide, it is an approach thing, and the trick lies in building bridges to all those different groups and making all come in under "the same rubric."
You ignore this at your peril.
Me, will continue to approach this through the wonk side of things, but when you gotta look at policy and big picture and reports going forwards with assumptions made for a couple decades... and yes EIRs are lots of fun, and so are CAPs, and other things
(Environmental Impact Report)
(Climate Action Plan)
That dang alphabet soup... I know.
(
Spazito
(50,393 posts)Your post indicates one can be either one thing OR another, a fallacy which follows the fallacy proposed in the OP.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)My lord, I missed the memo, when exactly did the Democratic Party become the small tent party?
I forgot the two other groups, the conservadems, and the progressives.
Some people can and do belong to several of these big groups, but they exist here.
I forgot, in political science terms, this is what we call building coalitions.
Spazito
(50,393 posts)by the OP, that DUers are a congregate of people with multiple interests and passions and not simply "team" vs "policy" as espoused by the OP then you and I are in agreement.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)identified even before the commercial web was a twinkle in anybody's eyes, let alone DU.
As I told the OP, we had that exact discussion in an undergraduate Poli Sci course during the spring semester of 1986. The country was less divided then.
You have the policy types, and then you have the party before country types, my instructor's words, they have staid with me.
He also spoke of the subgroups and how you can have both of this meta groups inside the subgroups. For example you have the policy wonks inside organized labor, and the my team right or wrong as well.
This is my great frustration about this place, the utter ignorance of how politics actually works, as in the real world.
By the way, decades ago I met a former President, and he said that politics was both the most exhilarating and thankless thing you could ever get involved in. I did not quite get it until I got the watch sausage actually being made, and read policy documents with breakfast (trust me, you want to be bright and fresh with new cup of coffee, and well rested too)
But you go on and think that straightforward academic analysis is evil. I will now say my goodbyes to you on this thread. It is far from useful, and we are really talking past each other. Something else my instructor said back then. These two sides, well known since at least the mid 1980s, tend to talk past each other.
Spazito
(50,393 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)And you can take that to the bank!
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)That's the ticket. We can reasonably state that there are two cliques roughly formed around some sense of ideals and policy, vs. real politic and personality. The community has done the difference to death. What would be interesting would be to invite core colleagues to argue the opposing side for a day...force themselves to think about the value in the other...then identify any common ground. It would be a tonic for this tired old horse.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)So I will pass. Of course people have far more in common than they realize. But serious, at this point, when even basic poli sci is questioned I give up
2banon
(7,321 posts) Caretha
(2,737 posts)I just loves me some nadinbrzezinski.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) polichick
(37,152 posts)do tend to think that way.
Discussions here are often unsatisfying and circular, and it occurred to me that people were really speaking different languages.
Anyway, I appreciate your input!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I might have left academia a while ago, but damn, I remember those exact discussions in Poli Sci 101, which is as undergraduate and as basic as it gets.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)
Spazito
(50,393 posts)well done.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Thanks
2banon
(7,321 posts)in fact, you're actually projecting (through out this thread) what you accuse the OP.. Supposing you take a breath, and consider reading what's written from the perspective of someone earnestly attempting to understand the cause of the conflicts that develop here. are you interested in working with people who are concerned about advancing good progressive policies or not? Do you want more voter turnout or not?
Caretha
(2,737 posts)or further discussion. Just saying Dude....further discussion helps bring coalitions together. When you immediately identify one as "the enemy" you close yourself off to self growth & understanding...
And growth & understanding are what bring people together to form solutions to problems that affect us all. Go ahead...step out of the box and try....you might like it.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Mail Message
On Tue Apr 1, 2014, 02:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Two Different Mindsets at DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024764943
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
More divisive and " we are better democrats than you" crap. This is offensive on many levels.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 1, 2014, 02:48 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The OP is just trying to have a reasonable discussion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Are you kidding me? Internal debate is CRUCIAL to our strength. Without it, our ideology will wither and die.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The OP asks a good question. Can't see that as inappropriate.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Actually, I am able to read this without being able to tell which side the OP might be advocating for, and that's a sign of a good OP imo.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)chuckle, at least such a person cannot alert for a good while.
Brother Buzz
(36,448 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)Petty alert
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)I follow the wiki precept: "Assume good faith."
Even when it's obvious an alert is in bad faith, I'd rather not invite public condemnation on the individual by naming them. I think it'd create more problems than it solves.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)6-0 against the alert should mean the alerter gets ID'd.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Somebody alerted on this???? 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Everyone has their own oar to row with.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)And I'd go a step further and argue that binary thinking is responsible for the majority of infighting on DU. Look at anything relating to Crimea or Israel/Palestine as examples.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... on the issue. I have my issues - the ones that most motivate me as a democrat. I would usually side with my issue over the party because that is what is most important to me.
Then, there are other issues on which I generally (almost always) agree with the democratic position, but they are not the ones that light a fire under me. If the topic is one of those issues, I'm more likely to take a "greater good", or "lesser of two evils" approach.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)And I will engage in the debate as to what our official position is and should be.
I will speak my mind and listen as well.
I will work to reign in my anger and expect others to do so as well.
In the end, I may not totally agree with you, but I'll stand with you.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)whenever the Democratic Party changes stance? For example, were you against marriage equality until recently?
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)I'm a newer member here (less than 6 months). I like to think I was out spoken in the 3d world, in my limited circle.
In spite of a less than admirable stance on marriage equality (and many other issues); I voted and advocated a (social) democratic position. I have done so since the late 1970's.
I continue to try to drag the party progressively left.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)you don't really side with the Democratic Party on every issue?
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)As well as work to correct the path of the democratic party.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)would it be fair to say your behavior always sides with the Democratic Party, but your beliefs sometimes differ?
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)One point I want to clarify, I agree with 90% of the party platform but, the degree of some of it.
For example, I believe in a strong social safety net. One of the main features I would like to see is universal education opportunities including college. How we are going about that now is wrong, very flawed. However, I will still vote democratic and mail bomb (as in sheer volume of correspondence, not explosives {disclaimer for the NSA}) my elected representatives.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I think that's a lesson Paul Krugman learned, and eventually readjusted his focus on advocating policy to include the political landscape as well.
Both sides of which you speak (though I think this is a cartoon) are interested in policy. But you can yelp about policy all you want: without a means to actually enact policy, it's mere pipe dreaming.
The problem with one of these sides (I won't mention which) is that, seeing their policy goals—which we mostly all share—fail to be enacted, on their timetable, their attitude is to go hook and claw into the very people who might best help, eventually, to achieve those goals. It's definitely a sticks approach, when carrots are what is needed.
Believe me, we will never, EVER, achieve progressive goals by trying to eviscerate our closest allies. It only impedes the long-term achievement of policy goals, because it actually plays into the opposition side, which will never, EVER, accede to these policies.
Bashing and rejecting Democrats hurts progressive policies. I'm not saying we should not criticize conservative Democrats. But what we should be trying to do is empower them to make the right choices: this will happen only if and when their constituents want those policies. We need to focus our efforts on convincing average Americans about policy. The politicians will follow.
This is how the very smart strategists of the gay rights movement have won their remarkable victories over the past five years: working with the system, and WITH Democrats, and moving the public through a decades-long project of coming out to show the nation that they are our friends, neighbors, and family.
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)They get elected making policy promises
Then they claim those policies can't be enacted because of...politics
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Quite a few years ago the (very liberal) town I lived in was redistricted: essentially cut in two. Our longtime, liberal state representative got one half, together with a piece of a contiguous town that was far less liberal; and the other half (my half) was absorbed into a different contiguous district, far more working class, Catholic, and conservative.
Around this same time I was involved with the local chapter of a new group, Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts. Elections were going to be coming up, and the question arose as to whether we should, as a group, just skip making endorsement of the fairly conservative new state Representative we'd inherited. There was a well-known local Green candidate running for the spot, and people in the group would probably have liked to endorse her, but legally, if we used the term "Democrats" in our organization, we could not endorse someone from another party. The only options were endorse, or no endorse.
I decided that not endorsing was not going to be in the best interest of our burgeoning (but pretty powerful) organization. The Green candidate was not going to win, because our new district now consisted of more conservative Democrats from the other town. We were overpowered in numbers. What we did have was a more politically active, better educated, and frankly higher-income demographic. I argued that if we stayed out altogether (and people secretly just worked for the other candidate, individually), we were losing the chance to have any say whatsoever in the state government. We had a number of fairly influential people who had worked with state government, and members who had were active, experienced political agents. I thought we should try to leverage our assets to try to see if we could move this more conservative Democratic politician in our direction on a number of issues. I said we could sit from on high and judge, or we could try to use our power for change. But that sitting out would get us nowhere.
I was pretty shocked that my opinion ended up prevailing, at least tentatively, and we invited the incumbent state rep to meet with us for an interview. Obviously, the first issue to put to a Catholic representative of a conservative, working-class Catholic town was his position on abortion. He assured us that while, as a Catholic, he was personally opposed to abortion, that he would vow never to vote to rescind state laws permitting abortion, even if a Supreme Court decision on the national level were to (god forbid) reverse Roe v. Wade. Well, we had to trust him on that one. We grilled him on issues up and down for an hour and a half, and he was clearly looking to reassure his new constituency. He wanted, and needed, our endorsement. A Republican actually could have taken over.
In the end, we voted to endorse him, and we went out canvassing to convince our skeptical neighbors to vote. How did it work out? Well, our new state rep. actually became active in opposing dire legislation in the state legislature to constitutionally redefine marriage and ban same-sex marriage. He owed us one, and he delivered. He also became more liberal on a range of other issues involving labor, education, etc. I moved away a year later, but some 12 years later, he's still the rep, and I think he's doing a decent job representing his now not-so-new constituents.
We turned our political activism into change not by beating up on this guy, but by supporting him and working with him. We rubbed his back, and he responded in kind. You have to understand that the term "representative" means just that--these guys don't necessarily hew to hard and fast ideologies they want to see happen. They are representing constituents: when his constituents expressed their more liberal viewpoints--constituents who could contribute to his campaigns and go door knocking for him--he became more liberal.
It's not always that easy, but that's how it works. You will never make this happen from behind a keyboard. And you'll never make it happen by just carping. You have to get down in the trenches with these guys (and gals), and then they will get in the trenches with you. That's democracy.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its that simple. While ideally I agree with much of what the Idealists want....I am a realist and know they have no means to make it happen....so therefore it is making the Good the Enemy of the Perfect.
Ms. Toad
(34,076 posts)I would categorize the policy focused people (which includes me) as idealists - but policy focused people are often also extremely pragmatic realists.
I would categorize the team focused folks as political strategists, rather than realists.
As a policy focused pragmatic realist, I want the best policy I can get. I don't care that the ACA reeks of Romneycare. My ideal is healthcare for all. I believe that ultimately will require single payer. But in the mean time there are people dying from lack of access to health care - and there were enough votes to pass this compromise which provides access to lots of people who did not have access before. I don't care who I have to work with, or hold hands with, to achieve the closest to the ideal policy that is possible.
The team/political strategists would evaluate it more from what is likely to damage/build the party or the alliances necessary to win the next election because they truly believe that Democrats offer the best hope for progress, even if they have to support things that are unpalatable (like the continued existence of Gitmo, or NSA surveillance to name a couple of things).
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 1, 2014, 06:19 PM - Edit history (2)
Gitmo is "unpalatable?"
Yikes. Those are not unpalatable. They are UNacceptable. They are RethugliCon.
But then the group that thinks these are unacceptable-- is not really represented in government. That is part of the problem.
Ms. Toad
(34,076 posts)who have been defending both extensions of the Bush policies, because they are now part of Obama's policy. I can't defend something which is wrong merely for the sake of team unity. I'm not wired that way - but there are plenty here who seem to be.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)It's hard to believe anyone could defend Gitmo or NSA Surveillance--not even out of loyalty to Obama.
This isn't even about Obama in the long run--it's about wrongheaded Bushite institutions that need to be completely taken apart, reexamined and overhauled.
Just because BHO might not respond as we'd like...does NOT mean we should shut up about it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... having a plan to get there.
Take Health Care ... the "policy team" wants single payer / Medicare for all, or something like it. So does the "Team team".
The "policy team" is angry that the ACA is not single payer / Medicare for all, or something like it.
The "team team", sees the ACA as a platform on which we continue to move towards single payer / Medicare for all, or something like it ... none of which could have been reached directly with the current divisions in the country and the Congress.
The right wing understands this ... as a simple example, they WANT Roe V Wade overturned. But since they can't get that, they chip away everywhere that they can.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Actually, this has been the way forward for ALL lasting social change.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If that were true then the "team" group wouldn't change their stance on policy. Unless they are interested in policy without caring which policy is enacted, without caring if they need to abandon their principles in order to be a team player. There are many issues that were unacceptable under BushCo that are now defended under Obama by the "team" players.
You are right about not bashing other Dems, IF they are not politicians. We shouldn't really bash Republican voters either if we want to bring them over to our side.
You are wrong about "one of these sides" which you "won't mention" (wink wink). You single out this side as if the "team" group doesn't attack . The "team" group does attack and not based on policy, they attack ad hominem. They "go hook and claw into the very people who might best help, eventually, to achieve those goals. It's definitely a sticks approach, when carrots are what is needed." They are attacking the very people who are adamantly fighting for democracy and a better country. And by doing that and supporting whatever the party does, even when it's an extension of BushCo policies, they are ensuring the movement of the Dem Party even farther to the right on the political spectrum.
This is how the Third Way has gotten a hold of the party and has moved it rightward. Some of us don't want more corporate power in the US.
All Dems should work to empower those who will stick to Democratic values and should criticize those who don't do so. We should be discussing policy and not name calling. We should stand for something, not someone.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Bullshit.
If that is an adequate response to use for Team Everything Except What Common Dreams Tells Me to Think Is Third Way and Anyone Who Knows Anything Knows I am Right and You are Wrong ... it's good enough for me to use back.
There's no point in these (nonexistent) two teams arguing with each other. No one is going to change the other's mind.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Or else maybe the bullshit doesn't fall far from the ass.
You took a side in your post saying only one side attacks. Do you really believe that people who use the "team" approach don't attack the "policy" people?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)raising the minimum wage, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, extending unemployment insurance, the DREAM act, expanding the earned income tax credit, raising taxes on people who make over $1M, background checks on gun purchases, regulation of credit card companies, etc.
But some people here seem to dislike Obama so much that it doesn't actually matter what policies he advocates.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)above all else. Barack Obama is this, Edward Snowden and Greenwald are that. Individuals supplant issues. Frankly, I find it tedious.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I come here to follow and talk about issues. I find myself not joining in as much now because any criticism of the the Presidents handling of an issue is seen as treasonous by half the forum. it's frustrating and easier to just not put my thoughts in writing.
polichick
(37,152 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Black/White thinkers who see only their end goal and want only progress in a direct, straight line.
Shades of gray thinkers who see the end goal but are willing to tack into the wind to progress if necessary.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 1, 2014, 05:55 PM - Edit history (1)
Democrats see their ultimate end goal as the maximum well being of human beings possible, and want to approach this goal honestly, directly, and transparently.
Third Way RWers obfuscate every word and deed in order to confuse every issue so that the status quo is preserved, without challenge, and the profits and control of the 1% are allowed to continually maximize unimpeded, as the polarization of wealth, power, and freedom continues to drive more and more of the 99% into a downward spiral of hopeless desperation every day."
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)For perspective.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)with a rating comparison that is based on an extremely limited number of votes.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Google it, I'm on my phone.
"limited number of votes" is a nice copout
Zorra
(27,670 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It's not like they base it on every vote, they base it on the most important bills, notably they include sponsorship, which is very easy to do.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) Marr
(20,317 posts)'people who stand with other segments of the Democratic coalition when it matters', and 'people who only do so when it's convenient'.
For instance, few years ago, there was a very strong trend among the "pragmatists" around here to put off gay marriage because it was just 'too unpopular'. They urged others to accept civil unions, or even nothing at all-- and not to express any anger over things like Rick Warren's prayer during Obama's inauguration. Phrases like "fabulous pink pony" were tossed about by these political "realists" without a hint of shame or irony.
Gay rights activists needed their support then, and the "pragmatists" dropped them like a hot potato.
Fast forward a few years, and these "idealogues" have won their fight-- and the "pragmatists" can't express their solidarity enough.
And this same dynamic plays out on a whole range of issues, from privacy rights to whistle blowers to drone attacks to trade deals and on and on and on. And always, there are party-focused "pragmatists" who cannot wait to kick this or that segment of the coalition for actually pointing out that it's being trod upon.
You cannot keep a party together with that approach. Bullying demands for loyalty simply won't cut it. You have to earn it.
You will find few DU "pragmatists" that will own up to their wishy washy support of LGBT rights. The same as their wishy washy support of other populist movements. After the fact, they will whole-heartedly tell you how much they were with you during the "hard times"
My grandmother always called them "Fair weather friends". I think she was right.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)If you argue for progressive taxation and a living wage you're going to come up against trickledown theory.
If you argue against nuanced diplomacy you're going to come up against "peace through strength" rhetoric.
If you argue for marriage equality you're going to come up against religious objections.
For every liberal policy there is a huge obstacle standing in the way called the Republican Party and Corporate media.
Fighting for liberal policies also means fighting against their propaganda.
It's not an either/or situation.
The problem I have is that so many DUers want to pretend that there isn't this huge roadblock called the Tea Party/Republican Party, it's all the fault of a few corporate Dems.
Well, wake up, there's a huge world of neocon propaganda out there.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 1, 2014, 05:15 PM - Edit history (1)
But there is also a need to push back against many policies to which the current Administration hews:
* Constant, ever-increasing drone violence
* Giving cover to an out-of-control intelligence apparatus
* Using the Espionage Act to criminalize adversarial journalism
* Executing citizens declared to be Enemies of the State without due process
* Indefinite detention of suspects that have not been charged with a crime
* Damaging, ineffective educational policies such as "Race to the Top" ("Fight Amongst Yourselves for the Scraps?"
* Pushing for secret negotiations of trade agreements that greatly harm American workers
These are not policies rammed down their throats by Republicans, and Republicans are not standing in the way of the Administration changing these policies. The Administration is advancing these policies on its own.
In effect, you are arguing that we should keep silent about these things because talking about them may generate bad feelings for the Administration among the electorate. I'm arguing that it is vital to criticize the Administration for these policies because otherwise they will take our silence as tacit acceptance and even approval. If they think we approve, and if it doesn't cost them at the ballot box, then they will continue to advance bad policies.
I am against these bad policies, and I want the Democrats to know that I don't approve. If they want my vote, they will have to abandon these policies. My vote is the only leverage I have over them, and I intend to use that leverage. If enough Democrats demand better policies in return for our votes, we stand a much better chance of getting them. If we demand nothing, we'll get nothing.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I've never played on a team of any kind nor been a joiner. (Other than DU, of course.)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Guess what I spent the weekend reading.
Oy
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 1, 2014, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)
often at odds. You've roughly defined the differences, though I'm sure we could add to the definitions. But we all know the general truth of it. I see these as the two "camps" of DU, which reflect the two distinct camps of the Democratic base in general. (Not counting the disruptor/outside agitator element here, which of course is present). There are also hybrids, swingers and outliers among us too, some who will never ally with either of the pragmatist/idealist generalizations. It would be better if we had a government with proportional representation, so each group could have its own recognizable turf. Instead we're reduced to arguing over who has the football.
We are always fighting in this country. Everything is based on competition, pushing, fighting, struggling. This country is divided everywhere you go. Conservatives vs liberals, haves vs have nots,
gun lovers vs gun haters, anti-abortion vs pro-choice, pro-fossil fuels vs anti-frack/keystone, businesses vs workers, people who have health insurance vs people who don't, scientists vs global warming deniers--everywhere you go--fighting. People will kill each other over nothing. This country, this society, is dysfunctional, working against itself.
It's no wonder to me that everyone's on the edge no matter what camp you're in. Especially since we both have a common enemy that would reduce our side to nothing if it could. So we have a lot in common but the differences loom large and trigger these periodic anxiety-ridden eruptions. Could we come to a better understanding? Or are we doomed to clash forever?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)In the end, each sides wants to achieve the same goals, how we get there, is divided.
I have no solution and I am not convinced one is necessary, imho.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)it's what happens when the stakes are very high and each sub-group thinks it knows the best way to go against incredibly tough odds. The forces against all of us are Huge. The only thing we have to fight with is numbers and we need all hands on deck.
I agree that it's not necessary for either group to compromise, or give ground in a way that would feel uncomfortable.
What we need is to have more understanding between the two. We COULD compliment each other. But there has to be more respect and less animosity ...........................!
Repairing the damage starts by acknowledging our differences, so I think this OP makes a good point in attempting to define the nature of the recent clashes.
So how do we ratchet down the tension? Maybe make some amends? How do we appreciate each other for a change? We know we can't eliminate factions, but how do we connect with the "mindset" type or types that are different from us?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)is because pushing for reform is an exhausting effort on a political forum even when there is
consensus.
I have been reading more often than not, that my efforts would better be fulfilled
with something more tangible, and that means putting more time outside of a blog
and mobilizing in real time group efforts by locations near me. For me, I think I need
to consider something different. But to your point, making amends is never a bad
place to start. I agree, it is a good OP and worthy of discussion.
bemildred added another OP today which I felt rang true for us here in the US. There have
been other OP's lately and the message has been similar.
Is There a Left-Wing Revival in the US?
Some say that it died, while others say it is being reborn as a progressive people's movement. Resistance is coming from immigrants, minimum-wage workers, defenders of fundamental rights and freedoms, and teachers. However, nothing exists that could be called a left-wing people's movement.
Jefferson warned that the tree of freedom must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a natural fertilizer. He argued that no country can preserve its political freedoms if its leaders do not understand that its people will maintain their spirit of resistance and, with it, ready access to gunpowder. Jefferson added that he wished a rebellion would happen at least every 20 years. He saw it not as illegal insurgency, but as legal recuperation.
The unarmed social movements of the 1950s and 1960s refreshed the tree of freedom with their devotion and sacrifice. However, the system amplified the fear of violent rebellions, making public and private industry repressive and highly controlled for its own good.
Much debate was provoked among liberals when it was written that the left wing gave in to the country by declaring itself as liberal rather than radical, and taking a defensive stance that is solely seen in the electoral arena. That made the left wing move closer to the center, putting it second to the Democratic Party, meaning that the left wing's social vision was repressed, and its political imagination was wrecked. People criticized the left wing for its love-in with Obama, saying that playing second fiddle to him fundamentally shows its limits.
http://watchingamerica.com/News/235816/is-there-a-left-wing-revival-in-the-us/
840high
(17,196 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine
There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men. Lord Acton
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in this context, be an immoral victory?
I cast my vote for the unlikely to win candidate that shares 100% of my positions. That candidate loses (as happens most of the time). I am secure in knowing I voted my conscience. = Moral victory.
I cast my vote for the competitive candidate that shares 70% of my position. That candidate wins. I know that I am not going to get everything I want, and even some things I don't want; but I am getting7 0% of what I want.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)when your candidate shares 70% of your position and wins but only gets 30% through.
In reality--it's more like our candidates are NEVER 100% with us. We are lucky to start with 70%. Usually it's more likely to be 50%.
And then what actually happens, especially in this time of extreme rightwing obstruction--is that we're grateful for the 10-20% crumbs...while at the same time, we watch our gains of the past get lost and trampled.
Sometimes, as the Moral Monday people realized, you have to call for what is morally right--even if your chances of actually winning against exploiters are slim. It's the only way to demand a better deal.
To come out and say--"this is wrong."
But if you feel you always get 70% of what you want from your candidate....wow....I want to live there!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)versus casting my vote for someone that has little chance of winning.
I think you misunderstand ... I would rather have a representative that is in the position to deliver because they win an election; rather than, someone that I love that has no shot to deliver because they lost the election.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)but just because they are "in a position to deliver" does not mean they can or will.
Bottom line, we Liberals (left, progressive, whatever) are not represented.
Many reasons for that.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)rather than policies!
Maybe talking about liberal policies and what's standing in the way (which may even be Republicans on occasion) would be more worthwhile.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Those who are just looking for a fight.
Don't believe me? Look in this thread.
...liberally spiced (pardon the pun) with enough of a smattering of this:
...to derange the process.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)because, at this point, if they can decide a corporation is a person, then we need better options on that court and damned if we know what other laws they're going to rule on that impacts generations to come--for example, a woman's right to choose.
Ultimately, I'd say I'm a pragmatist/realist when it comes to democratic politics. As a lesbian (which means I'm a woman as well), I'd much rather have a blue dog democrat with good social policy than a republican who is going to vote 100% all the time against both of my best interests (LGBT and being a female). Plus, there are just some areas in the United States a progressive Democrat is NOT going to get elected, so better a Blue Dog than nothing, IMO.
However, it would appear in the current political arena, since I'm not a corporation, what I think doesn't really matter or count. Policies are being created for them, not us.
Response to polichick (Original post)
CJCRANE This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I'm on the side that would NEVER do something like this:
The Politicians I help elect are ONLY a means to get the Policies I support enacted.
NONE will EVER have a blank check to do ..... <in best Valley Girl Voice> whatever.
That's the second valley girl "whatever" in this thread!
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)If you're looking for policy discussion in GD, you're looking in the wrong place. Here, it's just what it says it is, general discussion. You won't find a lot of policy talk in a meaningful way. You have to look in other areas like LBN or politics or the particular groups for it.
GD is just about the agenda.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)policies my ass. Is calling the President a piece of shit used car salesman, and saying Fuck You to him 'Policy'?
Sure, it's the policy of some here who can't control themselves.
95% of the rabid anti-Obama 'team' here is constantly demeaning the President and to everyone's else's intelligence. Nothing Obama does is ever close to be good enough. They swear at him, call him warmonger then in the same sentence call him spineless. Every bad trait a human being can possibly have has been assigned to him by the FtF club. (Feet to Fire, so sick of hearing that fucking thing.)
There are quite a few people here that can critique without sounding liking braying jackasses. Those are appreciated but they get drowned out by 'oooo, why is Democratic Underground so partisan toward the Democrats? huh? Not Fair!
jezus.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)which is being attempted again by those who think it's such a nifty, novel and cool idea to bash the Democratic Party, pick unelectables to waste votes on, and proceed forward to further strengthen the Republican Party.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but hey, that really does not matter.
At least not to those who do like to truly continue to divide people with false charges.
1.- Gore won.
2.- The USSC ordered the stop of the voting process, in a breach of protocol, since elections do belong to the STATES.
But do go on.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Biden's necessary effort bringing Thomas to the bench,
and Lieberman's quick proclamation of defeat.
and so many other details clearly visible in hindsight,
for those who cannot so easily "look away" or "look forward"
doomed to repetition.
and repetition.
and r
ah, you get the point.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and that was one choice that while in theory many here might applaud, in practice would have torn the country to pieces. That other choice was to take up arms.
reddread
(6,896 posts)the country hasnt done so well in the aftermath.
neither did Wellstone.
stand or fall..
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I do expect a civil war, a hot one, but I am not looking forwards to one.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Any predictions on what year this is going to go down?
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I get the larger point, but in hindsight, do you think that Biden should have just rolled over during the Bork hearings?
Strange. Hindsight is 20/20 i guess.
I will state this here and now, Joe Biden was right to block that POS's nomination.
reddread
(6,896 posts)how do you even connect the two, when Biden turned right at Albuquerque?
you have to wonder where his concerns went when this serial abuser of women was allowed to succeed Marshall,
ENTIRELY BECAUSE OF BIDEN.
please dont bother asking again, yes I do see Biden as 100% responsible for that abominable disgrace.
biggest act of treachery in the 1990's.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I totally disagree, but hey...
I'm not a nihilist.
reddread
(6,896 posts)I would hate to think so, but hey...
Im not a nihilist.
I attend to history, and I dont forgive treason and treachery.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) reddread
(6,896 posts)talk about an idea deficit.
Nader took us to Iraq, that bastard.
I feel for you, if you are serious.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)childish tantrums.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Vote, but I am sure in the name of purity, you don't care about that part of the coalition. Are you old enough to remember Reagan Democrats that sort of came home with Clinton? Cause that is how politics works.
Tantrums indeed.
By the way, you actually poopooing what happened in Congress with the Black Caucus was a tad amazing, but hardly surprising in this place anymore.
Now I gotta get some food, make some calls, and participate in the real world. Funny thing, but while this place is absolutely getting nuttier, and continues to drive coalition members away and might have a very small role in voter suppression, some of us are actors in the real world, where Nader is not really part of the collective memory. You might want to think about that.
G_j
(40,367 posts)Congressional Black Caucus Protests Electoral Vote Count
Aired January 6, 2001 - 2:00 p.m. ET
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: And if you're just joining us, we're going to go straight to the press conference we told you about with the Congressional Black Caucus with regard to the -- all right, we're working on getting audio for you in just a moment. And while we're doing that, I will recap just a bit.
REP. ALCEE HASTINGS (D), FLORIDA: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Today was a very solemn day, and the remarks are that many of us were not permitted, regretted by us all. Had I been given an opportunity to go forward with an appropriate objection, I would have indicated that because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout by unlawful means, I felt the necessity -- as do my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus, and other members of the House of Representatives -- to object to the kinds of errors against democracy, the holy grail of democracy, that were permitted in the state of Florida.
And we felt that they should not be tolerated, as they would not be tolerated in other countries. Indeed, we should not tolerate them in America.
I would have said to Vice President Gore that Harry Truman once said that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. What we were doing here today is right. I hope all of our colleagues and the American people see it that way. And that is why we raised our objection. And it's a proud moment for the conscience of the House of Representatives, for those of us that are representing the entirety of the Congressional Black Caucus, in the presence of our chairlady, and the members here assembled, we stand proudly to say that we did what was right.
JOHNSON: Forty years ago, during the civil rights movement, I marched for justice with a firm belief that my son would not have to march, in order to utilize his voting rights. Much to my dismay, 40 years later, I find myself marching again, but this time for my grandchildren, so that they will not have to march in order to be afforded the same rights.
How long will we settle for injustice in America? How long will we have to fight to perfect the 15th Amendment? How long will we have to struggle for something that should be every American's birthright? On election day, 100 million Americans went to the polls to make their voices heard. Those voices want to be heard still. No hyper- technical manipulation of election laws should derail the intent of the voter.
We cannot sweep under the carpet the claims of first-time college voters who say they registered to vote, had voter registration cards in their hand, but when they were not allowed to vote at the polls, because their names were not on the roll, the lines were busy all over the country, where they tried to call to clarify their registration.
We cannot sweep this under the carpet, the cries of those who were incorrectly removed from the polling places in Florida by an inept Texas company hired by Mr. Bush's brother.
We cannot ignore believable stories of police intimidation, questionable activities by poll workers and simple ineptness by volunteers at the precincts. We cannot ignore what we saw with our own eyes on television: polls closing on voters in St. Louis, un- American voting lines in Pennsylvania and incredibly complex ballots in South Florida.
There is overwhelming evidence that George W. Bush did not win this election, either by national popular vote or the Florida popular vote. As members of Congress charged with defending the constitutional principles of this country, it is our duty to challenge this vote.
<snip>
REP. CARRIE MEEK (D), FLORIDA: We dare not have it repeated. We dare not have the Tilden and the Rutherford Hayes situation repeated again, because it disenfranchised our people at that time.
This will disenfranchise -- it already has -- our people. We don't want that continued. We will always come out. We will always fight. We don't care who is it there.
We are very disappointed that our senators did not stand up and support us today. We helped to elect those senators. They will hear from us again, because we feel very disappointed that they didn't say we want our African-Americans, and our disjointed people who were not able to vote, to have someone in the halls of Congress to say, yes, give them a chance to debate this issue, so that the world could see what is happening here.
We have had our votes nullified. That's why we're so sad. They were nullified by defective voting machines, nullified by discriminantly distributed and targeted machinery, election machinery, in our neighborhoods. The votes were nullified by a purge of voting lists, undertaken by direction from a campaign that retained the equivalent of electoral thugs.
I was there. I saw exactly what happened. I was chased by these thugs. I was called a communist by these thugs, a socialist by these thugs, many of them who were not even citizens of this country. That's what happened in this campaign in Miami-Dade, Florida.
So that we were illegally struck from the voting list by a process that classified thousands of our people as felons. We were nullified again by deals that were cut in cities -- cut by the winning campaign, with our leading authorities in our cities. We were nullified by ballots that were printed in such a way that reasonably thinking citizens could not know for whom they were voting. That's why we're here.
Everyone should have a right to know how they're voting, and for whom they're voting. We were nullified again, by a secretary of state, who has already been given a very big accomplishment by this administration. She authorized her authority to prevent valid votes from being counted. So, it nullified the thing for us.
All that is left for us now, as the Congressional Black Caucus and as citizens of this country, is to exercise our First Amendment rights, while we still have it, and before it is further undermined by a politically dominated Supreme Court.
We exercise that right today to protest against this ill-chosen nomination. We exercise our right to petition our government for our citizenry to receive a redress of grievances. So, I speak for the majority of Americans, particularly African-American Americans, who did not vote for the new president-elect, but who now must live under an administration that appears to award spoils to the victors, even when the electoral process has been so clearly corrupted.
thank you
----
We're going to bring in our congressional correspondent Chris Black once again.
Definitely not business as usual today, Chris.
CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not exactly. Things were going along as expected. The District of Columbia votes were recorded, and then Chaka Fattah, ironically a member of the black caucus himself but one of the two House tellers working on this Electoral College vote today, got to Florida. He announced the 25 Electoral College votes. Al Gore said, is there an objection? And there were a lot of them. A dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, one after the other, rose to their feet to object to the votes from Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch, arise?
REP. PETER DEUTSCH (D), FLORIDA: To make point of order.
GORE: Gentleman will state his point of order.
DEUTSCH: Mr. President, we have just completed the closest election in American history. There are at least...
GORE: The gentleman will suspend. The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that under section 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session. If the gentleman has a point of order, please state the point of order.
DEUTSCH: Mr. President, there are many Americans who still believe that the results we are going to certify today are illegitimate.
GORE: The gentleman will suspend. If the gentleman from Florida has a point of order, he may state the point of order at this time. Otherwise, the gentleman will suspend.
DEUTSCH: I will note the absence of quorum and respectfully request that we delay the proceedings until quorum is present.
GORE: The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that section 17 of title 3, United States Code, prescribes a single procedure for resolution of either an objection to a certificate or other questions arising in the matter. That includes a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The chair rules on the advice of the parliamentarian that the point order that a quorum is not present is subject to the requirement that it be in writing and signed by both a member of the House of Representatives and a senator. Is the point of order in writing and signed not only by member of the House of representatives, but also a senator?
DEUTSCH: It is in writing, but I do not have a senator.
GORE: The point order may not be received.
HASTINGS: Mr. President, and I take great pride in calling you that, I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud and an attempt to suppress...
GORE: The chair...
HASTINGS: ... voter turnout.
GORE: The chair must remind members that under session 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session.
HASTINGS: Thank you, Mr. President.
To answer your question, Mr. President, the objection is in writing, signed by a number of members of the House of Representatives but not by a member of the Senate.
Thank you, Mr. President.
WATERS: I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral votes.
GORE: Is the objection in writing and signed by member of the House and a senator?
WATERS: The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it is not it is not signed by a member of the Senate.
REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: I have an objection to the electoral votes from Florida.
GORE: Is the objection in writing? Is it signed by a member of the House of Representatives and a senator?
FILNER: No, it is not in writing, but I rise in solidarity with my colleagues who have previously expressed their objection.
GORE: The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but -- hey.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACK: There were 13 objections in all, 12 from minority group members in the House of Representatives, last one saw was Bob Filner, who's a Democrat from California, a former professor, a big supporter of Al Gore, and clearly was just moved by the emotion of the moment.
They were all gavelled down. It was a great irony for the vice president. Here were some of his biggest supporters in the House of Representatives. He was clearly sympathetic, understood what they were trying to do, but he went right by the book. There was no debate allowed under the law that governs this joint session. There is also -- no objection can be heard unless it is signed by a House member and a senator.
Not a single senator would join members of the Congressional Black Caucus, much to their dismay. About a dozen members of the caucus walked out in protest, to protest the Florida vote, and then had a press conference in the gallery.
<snip>
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it was just damn obvious.
I am sorry to cross paths, have a good day. I am almost tempted to say good life at this point
G_j
(40,367 posts)perceived the election. People are quick to blame Nader, while few remember how the CBC protested the illegality of the election and were not supported by a single Senator.
A very dark day it was.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)was on F 911, and I do not think that was accidental. National and local media ignored that whole episode.
reddread
(6,896 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)I wouldn't have ever known about it were not for Michael Moore's film. Thanks for that reminder.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)(who are the very reason the country has gone to hell in a handbasket) have been doing for 33 years as "the cause" of having Bush for 8 years is ridiculous. The whole purpose of being together as a unit IS to extricate the scourage of Republicans that have spent the past few decades hurting this country. NOT to use tactics and techniques that help them further.
G_j
(40,367 posts)and of the CBC. I suggest you carefully read every word, and attempt to understabnd what took place. They were not protesting something that happened decades in the past. They were objecting to the events that had just taken place. They were not attempting to sheild Naderites! That is insane.
you can also watch.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)The team accomplishes my goals in large part. It is an effective proxy.
JI7
(89,254 posts)who think being a conspiracy theorist makes them a liberal.
reddread
(6,896 posts)since those words sound so familiar
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)How about Joe Lieberman?
JI7
(89,254 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)
ecstatic
(32,717 posts)By the way, anyone who is actually concerned about policy shouldn't make it easier for teathugs to get on the supreme court, gain seats in congress, etc. Or should that part of it just be ignored?
reddread
(6,896 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)to the admin. Or should that part of it just be ignored?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)We can't have that around here ... to battle! /s
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)but.....
Policies go nowhere without a "team" on the field.
Your "side" certainly doesn't lay claim to the furthering of liberal policies, no matter how frequently you and others attempt to spin it into Gospel.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)These "teams" all worked their asses off on the field to "further" a "liberal" policy.
February 15, 2003 Anti-Iraq War Protests
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-anti-war-movement/
Oddly enough, as it turned out, some mysterious "side" managed to convince even the politicians we had counted on to represent us that voting against such "liberalness" was the best option.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Those who controlled the field called the shots.
Excellent example - the team that put these events in motion have no business anywhere near the field.
In 2003, I was out in the streets myself. This more liberal than thou pissing match changes nothing.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)But if you remember back then, there were tons of us here who did all that we could (in addition to taking to the streets) to get our individual senators and representatives to notice what those warmongers were up to. Some of us literally pleaded with our Democratic Congresspeople (in person, I might add) to open their eyes to the lies that were being spewed by the rightwing, yet still they voted in favor of H.J.Res. 114.
So, were we wrong to contact, coax and cajole, then eventually criticize those politicians who were right there in the middle of that field and directly had a hand in sending this nation on to the invasion of Iraq? Not the rethugs, mind you, but the majority of our Democratic congresspeople who also said "Yes" to that war.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)It's the misdirected, gratuitous garbage hat has no place in the discussion.
You're preaching to the choir when it comes to H.J.Res. 114. It was a massive, egregious action based on a pack of lies. Completely inexcusable.
We just can't lose sight of who controlled the agenda, and how it would have been averted if the other "team" held the reins.
You just can't convince me that a Democratically controlled administration and Congress would have taken us to war in Iraq.
Majorities control the agenda, ALL of it.
calimary
(81,350 posts)The team carries the policies into power, and action, with it.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)something. The first mindset, by the definition you put forth, cares about civil rights and furthering liberal policies. I believe both groups are doing similar things.
The mindsets at DU, are IMO, far more complicated than this. I have been thinking about the very same ideas that you posted about and have been very reluctant to say anything.
Right now it seems as tho many people have decided that taking sides is more important than personal opinions. It's making things more b/w than it needs to be.
I'm seeing sides being taken and it is starting to look a little like 'Lord of the Flies' to be honest. Jack ended up being a real dick... and yet people followed him.
This is my literary caparison. take from it what you will. At this point, I await the smoke from the island -- it might be needed to save the inhabitants.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Democrats are a teeming morass of people who have a wide variety of ideas, priorities, and favorite policies. There's an infinite number of mindsets, not two.
For example, you utterly ignore pragmatists vs idealists in your dichotomy.
The attempt (by many people) to oversimplify down to two groups is designed to do two things:
1) Divide DU into two camps, so that those two camps can do battle.
2) Ignore what people you disagree with actually say.
For example, if they're an "Obamabot" and you're not, you don't have to trouble yourself actually reading and thinking about their posts. They must be mindlessly backing Democrats and can't possibly have a point. Time to attack them for mindlessly following the party instead of thinking about it on their own......regardless of what's actually in their post.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- K&R
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)I don't always agree with everything they do, and sometimes I'm disgusted by how cowardly and conservative they can be. But I recognize that they're the only chance we have to make real progress, and I don't want to add to the constant shitstorm of abuse and vilification coming from the organized Republican reactionaries who just want to drag them down.
As much as I hate having to settle for the lesser evil at times, I've lived long enough to see what happens when the greater evil gets a free pass, and I know it makes enough of a difference to be worth fighting for.
So I don't really feel comfortable siding with either the bashers or the cheerleaders when things start getting nasty around here, and I don't see much point in wading into the crossfire. The term "third way" comes to mind, but that's already been appropriated by stealth Republicans. The term "middle way" has some interesting spiritual resonance but just seems wishy-washy in a political context.
Maybe I should start a "no-team" team for people who just don't fit into the extreme team purity squads and don't always agree on everything. Then again, maybe that's what most of the Democratic Party already is.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)or socks, who deliberately obfuscate every issue, in order to deter any possible productive discussion.
Hence the circular discussions you speak of. They are fighting for a team ~ the Third Way.
Their entire schtick is all Third Way smoke and mirrors to cover up their support for MIC profits and control.
There was a big dust-up in the Democratic Party last week, triggered by a somewhat incoherent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal from the leaders of a Wall Street-funded "think tank"/lobbying group called Third Way. Many of the responses dealt with the op-ed's attack on Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but don't be distracted by that. As Sen. Warren would undoubtedly agree, the issues involved are much more important than the personalities.
As politicians affiliated with Third Way hasten to distance themselves from the op-ed, the question remains: Why are Democrats affiliated with a group which works so strenuously to gut Democratic programs? Voters deserve more than platitudes from these politicians. They deserve clear answers about the issues.
This is not an "inside baseball" story about politics. It's a battle for party control whose outcome could affect every household in the country. If this quarrel is to be remembered -- and it's incumbent upon genuine progressives to make sure that it is -- it should be remembered as an attempt by a the corporate class to retain control of the Democratic Party and limit the leftmost limits of political and economic debate.
In our two-party system, this struggle could determine whether voters are offered a genuinely democratic and equitable economic agenda anytime in the near future.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-democrats-third-way-q_b_4410394.html
Daily Kos Will Not Enable Those Who Enable Third Way
Awesome post!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)
I wish I could rec an individual post, because I'd rec it and then advocate for being able to rec it again.
Rex
(65,616 posts)People want to bring back unrec...I would like a rec for individual posts!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)let alone policy.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It is totally clear that we are dealing with socks.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)
But let's look at the two you talk about.
It has been my experience in years of successful activism, that there are two sets of friends. One are those who agree with you but don't do much more than that. Then there are those who will join you on the streets.
The first set is happy to not have to do much of anything but be a pretty wallflower. Just be careful with them because wallflowers do easily wilt. Tweak them the wrong way and they turn ugly.
Those on the streets are the ones who are always looking for the new angle, the new idea, the new action. They are bold. They don't take much crap without handing it back. As long as your and their goals are the same, it can be a blast. Much can get done working with them and the following wallflowers in support.
That's been my experience as to teams and activism.
vi5
(13,305 posts)I root for and vote for Dems more often than not since at least most of the time they meet my threshold for voting for and supporting someone which is agreeing with them on at least 60% of the issues.
But I have no issue calling Dems out or criticizing them without fear of hurting anyones feelings or demoralizing anyone or anything of the sort. I have no loyalty or obligation to any team.
Fighting for policy means you fight for it. I don't see a lot of people on Team Democrat (elected edition) being too willing to fight for anything other than their own incumbency and/or access to that sweet, sweet donor cash. I see too many people on Team Democrat (elected and farm team editions) being more worried about what Morning Joe or David Brooks says about them and their policies than I do those policies impacts on actual people.
Team Democrat more often than not agrees with me on abortion (although not often enough), gay rights (although too many including the president popped their heads out of the foxhole only after all the heavy lifting was done by other people), and immigration. They seem to be giving up on my view of things when it comes to gun control, education, unions, and holding the wealthy/corporations accountable for paying their fair share.
BeyondGeography
(39,376 posts)No great principle is at stake; it's all ego and emotion. Your portable goalposts on most any policy matter see to it that the show goes on.
Number23
(24,544 posts)as a result. People admire his handling of foreign policy and his support from his Dem base is as strong as ever.
You can tell good things are happening when the Perpetually Petulant (left and right) start trotting out old and stupid insults like Michelle is Marie Antoinette re: her trip to China and useless platitudes that only the ones carping and complaining endlessly are the "principled objectors" that care about policy.
reddread
(6,896 posts)simple as this, and thanks for your decisive assistance.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Myself, I'm a liberal first. It is what has historically made me a Democrat. Others tend to be a Democrat first, which is what made them become more liberal or at the least consider themselves as such.
reddread
(6,896 posts)is a Democratic voter in favor of assassination, and/or extrajudicial killings.
thats what I call a game changer.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Policy. It's my duty in a democracy to be concerned about policy.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Yeah, divide and conquer and put people into boxes
randys1
(16,286 posts)Some years ago the Democratic Party lost it's soul...
This would be something I would be working to fix if it weren't for the fact that the Republican party are really no better than terrorists.
What they represent is so bad, so destructive, so deadly, that we must play on our team, so to speak.
But yes, we need real liberals, real progressives in our government, but I don't think the current D party will tolerate that...
But, again, the right is so bad, so terrible, first things first.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Teamwork is great, but only for those that do more than lip-service for those issues I really care about.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)approach. So they seem to automatically look at this OP as setting up teams. The problem with that is that teams oppose each other since if you have teams the goal is to win. If we compete against one another neither wins.
The people who employ the policy approach are not your opponents. They are your fiercest warriors. Embrace them. They are fighting for you and your rights.
Even if you want to do the team thing, you don't need to do it within the Dem Party. We're on your side.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)
And we should all keep in mind:
"If we compete against each other neither wins."
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)I am just stunned at the number of times members of this "team" have told DUers who dare to disagree with them to stay home or join the Green party.
Talk about suppressing turnout!
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I fight for a set of policies. Always have, always will. And no, I will not STFU as someone yesterday demanded that I do. Thhhhpppttt!
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and the issues most important to the individual Democrat. There are many shades between the far left of the party and the more centrist part of it, with all kinds of permutations and variations.
The OP is also a clearly biased analysis, against the team side.
reddread
(6,896 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Those that are good at math, and those that aren't.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)but there are a couple of strong veins running here at DU and in the Dem party--ie. "the far left and the more centrist" (as you define it). Nothing false about that makeup of the base.
The OP is attempting to roughly define these strains--or "mindsets" as GENERALIZATIONS. In order to talk about the problem of infighting here.
Got any ideas about how to lessen the friction?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)We are all frustrated at the state of this country right now, and are blaming different things as the source.
There are no good solutions right now. None. We don't control Congress, and the Repubs are controlled by the far right, which is willing to stop everything rather than let Congress do the job it is dedicated to do.
Nobody can break that, until the Tea Party self-destructs completely.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)----
Tired of fighting.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)approach. Any policy oriented liberal/progressive is going to be constantly disappointed in an era when out and out liberal/progressive policy receives minimal attention from the establishment beltway Democratic Party except in the most watered down form.
Democrats are always cooler people than Republicans and our team captains are always cooler than the Republican team captains - Keep focused on that - And don't think too much about policy - and you will be a lot happier.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)which is why the team players have to understand the frustrations of the policy heads, whose POV is constantly ignored...to the detriment of the whole.
TBF
(32,071 posts)Even those who don't understand they are workers.
Solidarity.
cali
(114,904 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)rumdude
(448 posts)Efilroft Sul
(3,579 posts)Liberal principles and policies haven't driven away longtime members of this site, haven't publicly called for the heads of other members, and haven't been the force behind periodical purges here.
But you all know this.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)the enemy of your enemy has GOT to be your friend, or you will be royally screwed. But if you think otherwise, because your principles are so highly sensitive that you'll cut off your nose to spite your face, well, then I guess that's just gonna have to be the way you live, right?
Efilroft Sul
(3,579 posts)When one yelps, I know I hit the mark.
You have no idea how much I don't like the policies of the Republicans and their Frankenstein Tea Party. But I equally dislike the behavior of those I cited in my previous post. With friends, er Team members, like those, who needs enemies?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)the enemy of your enemy has GOT to be your friend, no matter how much you might hate his clothes, the way he talks, or whatever. If instead of doing that, you attack the enemy of your enemy, you're the one going down.
reddread
(6,896 posts)you are having a joke on us, arent you?
not even worth the question mark.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Come on now, you're smarter than that. Strategy against the enemy is of primal importance. Whining like a baby will not win wars. And this is a 33-year old war.
reddread
(6,896 posts)defect.
thanks for all the shrewd advice though, reminds me of the kind of the kind of cheats made on TV and in film, where the facts of a situation are completely disregarded to further a weak story that cannot work in reality.
sort of like the laws of physics and most comic book superhero movies.
they cant be bothered with that.
the only real question, is why are you doing this?
I would love to see something besides a very bad pattern of behavior.
disrupt, fractionalize, distort, insults.
Whining like a baby, you say?
you are pedaling meaningless crocks and I have indulged you long enough.
some people have absolutely no moral compass.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Sounds very child-like.
Efilroft Sul
(3,579 posts)The problem I have with your argument is that those who stand on policy and principles are already treated on this site by the team as the enemy within. Hence, the title above.
I think what you propose is a forced existential alliance where the team is viewed to be more equal that the principled types. Instead, an alliance should be a relationship of equals, especially if the team has much more to lose than I do.
So, are we all equals or not?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Efilroft Sul
(3,579 posts)Your posts have a wee whiff of, shall I say, desperation? Oh, we've GOT to join the team! Why? Because you can't win without those you've given the second-class treatment to, that's why. But when I mentioned things work better in a relationship of equals, you balked and betrayed the mentality so many on the policy side of things find objectionable about the team.
Get over yourselves, already.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Efilroft Sul
(3,579 posts)Or are you going to continue with the condescension?
Prove me wrong.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Those of us who stand on our principles and fight for policy that is good for the people rather than that which favors corporations don't like what the enemy of our enemy has become. Why should we be the ones who have to go along to get along? If we do that the Dem Party goes farther right. We don't appreciate the Third Way taking over our party.
So what can be done about that?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)So what if that Dem is a centrist? No better than a Reagan Republican? If we keep voting those Dems in then the party continues its shift to the right. The party leaders are already mostly center, some left-center, some even right-center. That's just not good enough.
So what do we do about staying true to the Dem Party principles and not allowing the Third Way to keep taking over?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)I can only surmise from your lack of doing so that you can't.
You said "Your "principles" already got us 8 years of Bush, and a very right wing Supreme Court. "
I asked "How?"
Do you care to elaborate? I have no idea how my "'principles' already got us 8 years of Bush, and a very right wing Supreme Court."
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Check.
As to your ad hominem attack, what kind of comments are you talking about exactly? More importantly, what does it matter? I'm asking you a simple question, and that is to back up your claim. I have made no snarky comment to you what so ever and am attempting to engage in a discussion.
You are the only one in this exchange that is making it personal. So I guess you're just projecting.
So basically when you said "Your "principles" already got us 8 years of Bush, and a very right wing Supreme Court."
you were just making that up then?
bobduca
(1,763 posts)
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)is that they simply can't understand why someone else would disagree with them. Therefore, they assume that the others must be influenced somehow - such as by a "cult of personality" or that they must be thinking "team". They simply can't entertain the thought that some others simply disagree with them.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)failed, and hurt the country.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)not worth consideration and IMO, not up for discussion here.
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)Rooting for "the team" is a lot more sinister than you posted and their rotten intentions are numerous. For one thing, it's obvious that people who are pro-torture, anti-environment, anti-regulation, pro-spying and constantly smear individuals are NOT DEMOCRATIC VOTERS no matter how many times they claim they are. They may vote for a D but it isn't because of party.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)There is no forced either or choice. People here support the Democratic Party as the best viable and practical approach to making progress on issues that matter through the process of participatory politics.
Very few people, if any, fit the simplistic generalizations that you claim exist.
The categories you portray in the OP are a false invention -- one side almost completely enmeshed in the horse race aspect of partisan politics and nearly oblivious to everything else, the other side answering a higher calling and fighting for truth and virtue.
Your division is a false invention.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)oh, back in the days before the internet, let alone DU. It was the Spring Semester at a four year college, of my freshman year.
And yes, my poli sci instructor spoke of meta groups, these two, and sub groups and then he talked about something more complex, which is part of the two party system: COALITION BUILDING.
When very basic poli sci is called simplistic, I simply give up.
By the way, I like policy. I read policy often. That's what I do.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Perhaps that is why you got a little pushback on the simplicity of your argument.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)We are beyond analysis by political science! go team!
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Is anti-intellectual? Well okay then.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)is an example of anti-intellectualism.
Or are you saying now that DU requires a graduate seminar?
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)DU as a discussion board can not be broken down into two groups.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)a set of people here who believe that they are campaigning for Dems with every post they make.
I agree with your statement if you are saying that the OP is too simplistic of an analysis to cover all aspects of DU's various fault-lines.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 09:00 AM - Edit history (3)
It's wrong and a fallacy to assume that categories of people are reality and that they accurately explain the thoughts and beliefs of any individual person. It wrong and a fallacy to assume that you understand a persons thoughts and beliefs because of the category you've put them into.
Categories aren't real things, they're metaphors. It's sometimes necessary to make generalizations and to group people into categories. But you can't lose sight of the fact that categories and generalizations aren't reality -- and there's little reason to use them in a small group like DU.
I've read polichick many times, and I believe I have good reason to believe that polichick routinely abuses generalizations, which leads her to false assumptions about other people here on DU.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--it's how we make sense of the world.
Also there does seem to be friction between two camps here--no matter how you'd like to define them.
Otherwise, why the infighting? What gives it the appearance of two camps? Could it be the adversarial tone?
Why the accusatory rebuttals and pile-ons, if there aren't strong "mindsets" that clash?
You seem to be denying the reality of this.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Generalizations and categories are an inherent part of how people's brains function. It's worked well since human kind began in helping us survive in the world.
But as Mark Twain said, "All generalizations are false, even this one."
Forcing everyone into one of "two camps" is a false choice and a hasty generalization. Maybe you believe it's useful. I don't. I believe it impedes genuine understanding rather than enhancing it.
Maybe you agree with the statement above and maybe you don't. Maybe you've abandoned belief in the Democratic Party as a means for positive change or maybe you've abandoned belief in achieving positive change through participation in the political process. Or maybe you haven't. I don't know.
If I were to generalize the reason for infighting on DU it certainly wouldn't be in the terms that polichick proposed.
I'd say that some of the reasons for infighting are precisely exemplified by polichick's OP itself -- careless misunderstandings and misstatements regarding other people's beliefs and perspective. Although polichick doesn't say it directly, I think it's fair to say that she's essentially making the same, tired and divisive argument that DUers are either Obamabots (people incapable of independent reasoning to arrive at conclusions which are their own) or are not. I don't see this as helpful in any way.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)but as Nadin has pointed out, if you can look at the characteristics and concerns of Dem-voting subgroups, you can "build coalitions." But if you won't even acknowledge that strong-minded (very vocal) subgroups exist, how do you create bridges over the gulfs?
I think part of all this infighting is that Americans, and especially Liberals --must fight for everything. Everything in America is a competition. Everything is about one-upping somebody. Everything is about winning at all costs. Everything is high stakes, big money. We are all pitted against each other, in overt and subtle ways. They've got us fighting over crumbs. Because basically the government is not working for us-- it works for Corporate. (That goes for state, local, federal). We fight over nuance in large part because avenues of real power are currently closed to Liberals within the political structure of America. So we always operate out of a defensive mode. Us vs Them.
Denial of any differences of perspective makes building internal coalitions hard work. You yourself say the problem is "misunderstandings regarding others' beliefs and perspectives." So is that insurmountable? Should we look at those beliefs and perspectives another way?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 10:33 PM - Edit history (2)
without recognizing that it's nothing more than fuel to the fire in the ongoing shouting matches here at DU.
If you can read that without recognizing that it contrasts one group who are concerned over "...civil rights, environmental protection, worker protections, etc." with another group whose only principle seem to be "...anything Dems do is far better than what's happening on the other side", then you've already chosen your "side".
The framing in the OP is outrageous. It's divisive right out of the box. Who would be on the side that isn't concerned with "...civil rights, environmental protection, worker protections, etc."? Scroll down the 300 plus responses and I think you'll see it's strengthened divisions far more than it's lessened them.
I can argue either side of most debates with equal depth. That's not a boast -- there are plenty of others who can do the same and do it better than me. The number of people here who can accept the challenge of meeting an opposing view and rebutting it with sound arguments is steadily falling, while the number of people who meet every argument that supports a position of the Obama administration with specious attacks referring to "cheerleaders", "Obamabots" or "the dear leader" is steadily growing. And the +1000! recs for these asinine remarks grows too.
Polichick's OP is fuel to the fire and nothing more.
Other than that, I agree with most everything you said.
I would add that the differences might be insurmountable for some. Coalitions require working together with groups who don't share your every belief. Some people don't seem to be capable of that. Look at the multi-party parlimentary systems. Gaining a majority almost always requires strange bedfellows. This country is not homogenous. A straight-up majority comprised only of ideologically pure progressives without any heretical centrists isn't a reality now and is not likely to be a reality anytime soon.
Look at how our best progressive leaders speak respectfully toward members of their own party or toward others that they consider active or prospective partners. They express disagreement with principled respect, not with scathing accusations of intellectual laziness, dishonesty, or callous disregard.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)framing it as two mindsets may help us get to a point of understanding quicker than pretending the differences don't exist.
Centrist Dems rule the current Democratic party, to some extent pushed there by the extreme rightwing pull of the R party. But other factors contribute.
The so-called "policy" left wing of the Dem party has little to no real political power or voice. You've got to see how that breeds resentment. It spills out here.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)can help in bridging differences and making progress together, which is the only way that any real progress will be made.
But the same awareness of differences can be exploited to drive a wedge between different groups. Some people may have become so disillusioned, or so angry, or so ideologically obsessed that they no longer believe bridges are possible or desirable. I believe there are a considerable number of such people at DU that more or less fit this description. I believe that the OP and it's author share this perspective. I would be fine with that -- I accept that everyone is different. But I have problem when every thread or discussion gets blown up by unreasonable, hyperbolic, intemperate arguments.
I believe that centrist Democrats are centrist because that's what they believe. And when you go to their states and districts you'll find that that's what their constituents believe. I believe it will require a long, organized, and persistent effort to turn the mass of public opinion toward fully internalizing the values and conceptual thinking of the progressive perspective.
I think the progressive wing of the party has more influence than you suggest. I believe their influence is roughly proportional to their numbers and the numbers of their constituents. There are quite a few progressive voices in congress and they have increasing influence; Sheldon Whitehouse, Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Jack Reed, Emmanuel Cleaver, Raul Grijalva, the list goes on.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It is thought to be basic for species survival.
As I said, when basic meta categories are called simplistic, I give up, no use really in trying to explain the most complex matter called coalition building. I really give up.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Generalizations and categories are an inherent part of how people's brains function. It's worked well since human kind began in helping us survive in the world.
But as Mark Twain said, "All generalizations are false, even this one."
Forcing everyone into one of "two camps" is a false choice and a hasty generalization. Maybe you believe it's useful. I don't. I believe it impedes genuine understanding rather than enhancing it.
...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Good luck with coalition building, which is gathering false patterns into a group.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)which is responding with outrage and indignation toward prospective allies who see things differently.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Except I like to base my views on facts, in this case long recognized in poli sci research. As I pointed out, this schematta (here I go using academese again) goes back to before the Internet. It is standard classification that you can find, even today, in poli sci textbooks, look under the proper section for political organization, coalitions and the American system. Albeit those also exist in other countries, we are far from exceptional. Here insert a common saying about opinions and facts here.
As to coalition, given I have been told here by a few zealots to leave or/and vote green, we are doing wonderful in that front as well.
Have a wonderful day. I got things to do, and trust me, they do not include a fight. Some of those things include all that silly theory.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)in political thought and behavior, or their use in certain kinds of decisions and discussions -- even though that wasn't my point or my argument, and even though I clearly and unequivocally rejected that in my last post.
You've said very little (almost nothing) regarding your perspective on the OP. I would infer, rightly or wrongly, that your position would be in agreement with the OP; that it's classification of DUers into one of "two camps" is both accurate and and useful to in promoting respectful dialogue and exchange of ideas within the DU community.
Someone else on this thread got it right when they said there are two kinds of people on DU -- people who make posts about DU mindsets, and people who don't.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That I learned well as an undergraduate and there is nothing in academic journals to dispute it, and she comes from that world, no there is nothing to dispute. Those are the meta level schema, (there I go again with academic talk) you find in any academic description of political groups.
Since DU is such a critter, ergo there is nothing to dispute to the OP. Now pay attention now... These two meta schema exist in the heart of any political party, labor organization, even hOA around the world. It matters little if you are talking social democrats in Sweden, the central committee of the Communist party in Beijing, the PRI in Mexico, or democratic Underground.
Why this bends people out of shape truly befuddles me, but hardly surprises me any longer.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)to start another thread to call attention to the so called "Obamabots" who clutter up DU and get in the way of serious and meaningful discussions over public policy with their mindless and uncritical musings.
But in fact, it was a thoughtful, insightful, and reflective observation intended to promote healthy and respectful debate over policy.
My bad.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Or even rose as office discussion, it would leads to healthy discussion. As I wrote, here people's panties get in wads...why, everybody is so defensive they are scared of their own shadows.
Now mull on this. Calls from certain corners to banish, drive away, personally attack, etcetera, are now having a voter suppression effect. Is that a desirable effect?
Don't worry, I will vote come June and November, but some folks have announced otherwise. Is this desirable? I forgot, that is what passes for coalition building around these parts.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)"Team Policy" approaches "Team Partisan" at the water cooler:
"Hey, I've noticed there are two teams in the office. My team cares about our ethics and the community. Your team cares about nothing other than winning at any cost. You essentially have no principles. Let's discuss."
Yeah, that would go well. No controversy there.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Are hardly the water cooler.
You go on ignoring basic facts
You know where else I heard such discussion though? The California Democratic Party Convention. Those fools argue these two aspects regularly and which to emphasize more and when.
But you are right, it does not matter.
To quote a nobody during a non important debate, "please proceed"
Yup, I am not shocked or surprised any longer. At this point just very amused. And I mean the amused part.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)When you said:
you were obviously making a statement about not only political science conventions, but about general office environments as well. I agree that political science conventions are "hardly water coolers". But your argument included "water coolers" which are obviously a metaphor for "office discussion". Now you object. That's called moving the goal post.
You argue in favor of the OP's categorization, yet you declare convention goers "fools" for taking that very same approach.
You're fixated on the question of to what extent would I acknowledge the existence of general categories in political science, and seemingly oblivious to the more important question that I've tried to ask, which regards the prudence or usefulness of the OP for the goal of promoting respectful debate over public policy on DU (which by the way, the OP claims is the primary goal of "Team Policy"
.
It looks like quite a few people on this thread have embraced the "Team" metaphor and are happily using it short circuit real discussion and to arrive at premature conclusions about other people's actual beliefs and opinions. It's certainly easier when everyone has a label.
Mission accomplished, I guess.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you have been moving goal posts. Yes, I am now really highly amused.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)It comes as a surprise to me to learn that I "...never really wanted to discuss things". Even more surprising that you've discerned intentions of mine that I didn't even know existed!
You must tell me how you do it! Are you clairvoyant? Did I give away subconscious hints?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)donheld
(21,311 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)1) People who start threads about DU "mindsets."
2) People who don't
Team A! Team B!
"Are you fighting for a team, or a set of policies? "
Are the people fighting for a "set of policies" a "group" or a "team"?
Is this OP about policy?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Let's recognize this for what it is, another meaningless discussion about the Obamabot label. Because despite the attempt to dress it up differently, that's all it is.
People are either Obamabots, or not Obamabots -- so says the OP.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)but for the most part I think we're all on the same page.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---
B Calm
(28,762 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Often times they are in agreement, others they are not. Ultimately, each group wants the same thing, to advance liberal ideals. The debate is on the means.
What muddles DU debates is a focus on DUers personalities. It is stupid and distracting. If the debates were focused on the issues, we would have constructive and lively discussions. We would be talking about how best to achieve the best ends, whether compromise is acceptable on an issue, why policies are being chosen and what framing would be best.
The problem is the distrust of other DUer's motives for their positions. Many of the issue actives can't fathom the unquestioning support of some of the party actives. And, to be sure, there are some party actives here (not many, just a few) who post here, at least in part, to practice message control. And, to be sure, there are probably some issue actives who either are here to divide or are so jaded with the Democratic Party it seems that way. When the debates become DUers and DU, the debates have lost all substance and meaning.
I would be very interested in seeing what the breakdown is of GD posts. What percentage are posts about issues compared to posts about DU or DUers. A lot of navel gazing and personal soap operas keep meaningful discussions pushed aside. That too could be by design. But, that could be addressed if the admins wanted to.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)whose support for an issue, politician, or political leader was "unquestioning". I've seen that particular accusation made in various forms pretty often at DU. Time and time again I've seen that accusation made against persons who I know to be very capable critical thinkers, whose beliefs and opinions are carefully considered, and whose beliefs and opinions have as much variety and depth as any one else.
The accuser is very often the one whose opinions are more shallow, less developed, and paradoxically less questioning.
That particular accusation is thrown around a lot at DU. It's usually not accurate. In any case, it's not an acceptable argument in a civil discussion of ideas.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying or implying that you are guilty of this. You were making a point. I agree with most everything you said. I just wanted to say something about "unquestioning support".
Time and time again I've seen some of the people accused of "unquestioning support" post long, thoughtful, reflective, and intelligent defenses for their position -- and yet the same accusations get made against the same people over and over again.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)superiority, and gather round to congratulate one another while denigrating other DU'ers.
Yadda yadda, yadda.....
This thread demonstrates that you're all about "policy."
Quite the sandbox you have here.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)are my smart one and your stupid one." "No, the two are..."
Eh. Considering that threads like this and about Obama being a used car salesmen get hundreds of replies, and ones actually discussing how we can help get single-payer get 16, it'd seem like the that cares about policy/pragmatism is much smaller than the group that cares about internecine warfare.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)
raven mad
(4,940 posts)I'm a Democrat, proud and loud.
ananda
(28,868 posts)You can't go wrong that way.
If you go left (human) you'll be right;
if you go right (corporate) you'll be wrong.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)The only Democracy we have is our one vote. Once elected the republic takes over and the elected can do pretty much what they want.
Unless of course like President Obama said, the people "make me do it". And that means thousands and thousands of calls, letters, protests, exposure of fraud court cases,......much better to not even let the 'bad laws' be approved in the first place.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)All Your Policy/Team Are Belong To Us!
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
kentauros
(29,414 posts)
Can we do it on Skype?
RandoLoodie
(133 posts)clearly delineates who is intelligent and who is not very intelligent.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)This site was properly named.
The people who post here reflect the very title of the site.
The Team Players who can be seen as Rah-Rah Cheerleaders I call them the DEMOCRATIC.
They are about making sure the Democratic Party succeeds above all else.
Anybody who gets in the way of that team will be dismissed, shouted down, mocked, & marginalized.
Because it is imperative that the Party moves forward to enact the Master Plan.
With Obama being the President & therefore the leader of the Democratic Party, any criticism of him will not be tolerated.
The Lone Wolves who can be seen as Contrary Complainers I call them the UNDERGROUND.
They are about making sure Progressive Principles succeed above all else.
Anybody who gets in the way of those tenets will be dismissed, shouted down, mocked, & marginalized.
Because it is imperative that those Principles take root to change the Society.
Even if Obama is the President & leader of the Democratic Party, his non-alignment with the principles will not be tolerated.
Both camps need each other.
With the Rah-Rah DEMOCRATICS you have the strength of numbers to get things done.
And with large numbers there HAS to be a hierarchy. You can't have too many Chiefs with no Indians.
Individuals surrender their autonomy for the good of the team.
They need to be a cog of this machine so that the machine runs smoothly.
Photo threads with people oohing & aahing over the First Family & certain hero Congresspeople are common from this group.
With the Contrary UNDERGROUNDS you have the core substance which fuels what the Party is supposed to be fighting for.
These lone wolves MUST break from the wolfpack to keep matters in perspective.
Can't understand the forest when you're in the midst of the trees.
They lose the comfort of the crowd to make sure the team is fighting for the right cause.
They need to go out into the cold wilderness to put the machine back on the right track.
Concern threads with people Debbie Downer-ing every achievement or lack thereof are common from this group.
The DEMOCRATIC can get lost in greenlighting everything their party does right or wrong & need the UNDERGROUND to put up yellow lights for caution or even red lights to stop (even arrow lights to go a different direction).
The UNDERGROUND is so individualistic that they don't have the numbers to get anything done & need the DEMOCRATIC to teach them how to work as a team even if it's in mercenary fashion (or at least don't have your efforts disrupt the team's efforts).
I appreciate both sides even if I lean more to the UNDERGROUND myself.
I read the concern threads & bookmark many of them but sometimes it can get a bit Chicken Little after awhile.
That wears you out with all that "Sky is Falling" jazz. Very tiring.
So it's refreshing to just look at some pics of Michelle & the kids or some Toon Roundups.
Gives me peace of mind & perspective. Very relaxing.
Then I have the energy to get back to the concerns. Can't just sit back & ooh & ahh over pics all the time.
Both are necessary & it will take both for this Team to work BEST.
John Lucas
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Some DUers don't think others are Democratic ENOUGH to be DU members 
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)are garbage and they can't sell them without playing the party or politician loyalist cards so they pretend there is so long game that will be the fruit of their garbage at some indeterminate time even as the opposite is embraced now.
It is called a con and has ever been the prime directive of the DLC/Turd Way element who largely have the same agenda as open, establishment Republicans without having to appeal to the churchy, mouth breather segment which creates rather important differences in some areas while the general heading of the ship of state continues - plutocracy, diminishing wages, an all powerful security state, resource acquisition for the multinationals by hot war and clandestine efforts, ever increasing control of corporations over citizen and governing, breaking unions, self regulation schemes, the supremacy of the "stakeholders", and destroying any possible vehicle for reform minded policy unless said reform is a path to enriching the wealthy or empowering corporations.
