Idealism and dealism

[lwcon]

Liberals are, by nature, idealists.

We believe that humankind is intrinsically capable of goodness — if only society would evolve to cultivate it.

The Democratic Party, the more liberal of America's two major political brands, continues to break the hearts of idealists.

Last time we had a Democratic president, he embodied compromise. As the Overton Window has slid far rightward, half-a-loaf compromise has given way to scraping for a few crumbs.

Shortly before the most-recent midterm elections, several Democrats voted with the GOP in favor of torture and against habeas corpus. And what I said then is what I'm going to say now:

So tell me, friends, is voting for your local Fidel McEarthshoe from the Free-Range Hemp Party going to help? It isn't, it isn't, it isn't, it isn't, it isn't. You're throwing your vote away, and by gum we need it to help get these motherfuckers out of office.

These fucking fascists don't throw their votes away on symbolic gestures. And in so doing, they're consolidating power to an absolutely alarming degree.

That said, I'm not through being pissed off at the Democrats...

Let's do the math here. Last night's House vote on giving the Lawbreaker-in-Chief even more latitude to spy on Americans was as follows:

Democrats: 41 for, 181 against, 9 not voting.
Republicans: 186 for, 2 against, 14 not voting.

Are there yet enough Democrats of conscience and guts in national office to make a tangible difference? No.

We should make every effort to shame those 41 and to vote them out in next year's primaries. And we should scrutinize the 9 non-voters to see what was more important to them than holding the fraying line of constitutionality for another day.

But if we wallow in "they're all the same" smugness and don't vote Democratic in 2008, we're handing the keys to the kingdom empire to the party of near-unanimous support for authoritarian lawlessness.

Answer me this: do we want more like the 186 Repubs, or more like the 181 Dems?

Speaking of breaking laws, fuck Godwin’s. If it’s authoritarian like a fascist, sticks together like a fascist, and starts wars like a fascist....

There were lots of reasons to critique the Allies. Any group that contains mass-murderer Stalin might have some 'splaining to do. And how about America’s shameful delays in aiding European Jews and other victims of the Third Reich — including our close ally England — and our internment of Japanese-Americans? How could anyone side up with that compromised bunch?

Criticize Democrats, pressure Democrats, promote better Democrats, but at this delicate moment, don't fall for the "can't tell any difference" meme.

Our opposition is single-minded. They care about nothing but authoritarian, corporatist tribalism — power to the powerful. If we go all People's Front of Judea and Judean People's Front, we're riding with fascism.

Until the corrupt, valueless GOP is small enough that it will drown in a tub of caviar, and we have the luxury of entertaining third-, fourth-, and fifth-party candidates, we'd best ride that donkey as far as it will take us.

A compromised position, no doubt. But the alternative has made itself quite well understood. Hasn't it?

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. I disagree that liberals are by nature idealists.

I, for one, would claim that a) I'm a liberal, and b) I'm anything but an idealist.

To pick one, random example, Clement Atlee, the best postwar Prime Minister Britain has had, and arguably the best ever, founded our NHS. When asked how he persuaded the doctors to agree to it, he replied "I stuffed their mouths with gold".

One needs to *have* ideals, in order to work out what is good and what isn't.

But too often idealism is just a euphemism for all-or-nothing, a philosophy that almost always ends up achieving nothing.

[lwcon]

2. That's not to say that liberals aren't often pragmatists...

... but, as a group, we're more prone to endlessly seek improvement. The GOP seeks consolidation of power by any means necessary, very much the opposite of idealism.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[LWolf]

3. I am a proud, defiant, idealist,

and I will be with every breath I take on this earth. A world without idealists is a sadder, darker, less hopeful place.

[lwcon]

4. My question is...

How do we idealists cope with the fact that the party we're supporting is falling seriously short of upholding our ideals -- especially the Blue Dog Democrats, who just handed Bush a fresh blank check to spy on Americans.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[LWolf]

5. I think we have to come at that from multiple directions.

First and foremost, don't support, campaign, or vote for right-leaning Democrats. Work hard to get more left-leaning Democrats on ballots everywhere. And I don't mean left-talking, but left-walking Democrats.

Secondly, we need to put real campaign financing reform, and some sort of media reform at the top of the priority list, in order to achieve that first goal. Equalize the playing field.

We need to change the dialogue, and we need to make sure we have a legitimate voice. We can talk all we like, and as long as it's ignored, marginalized, patronized, derided, or "reframed" by mainstream media, who is listening? We need to move the dialogue away from the currently polarized propaganda, and talk as if we are all in the same world, dealing with the same issues. We need to bridge divides, not by compromising ideals, but by finding commonalities that we can use to build bridges without abandoning those ideals.

We need a cultural shift. Cultural shifts happen; we need one now. We (or at least I), need to spend some time studying the causes of cultural shifts, in order to determine the best way to bring that shift about. I can't say that I know what "causes" a shift, but I can say I've lived through one. Or two. The American culture is more selfish, more fearful, more ego-centric, more competitive, more "bully-like" in the new century than it was in my youth. I began noticing a shift happening in the 80s, and I associated it with the Reagan administration, but I can't say what brought it about.

We need our energy, our music, our art, our activism, to be based on empathy, on joy, and on creativity rather than on anger, on fear, on greed. You know...we need to be based on our ideals, rather than on our lacks.

Most of that happens outside the party. The party reflects the culture, so we can work from both the outside and the inside.

[lwcon]

6. Mostly I agree...

... but to be clear, I think we should vote for the best progressives in the primaries and then vote straight blue in national elections, regardless of who gets the nomination.

Also, I don't buy into this idea of a "polarized propaganda" problem. The problem with today's Dems is they're too non-partisan, too unwilling to stick with a strong progressive agenda, as shown by last night's pathetic cave-in. Of course, if we can put real progressives onto the ballots and into office, we won't have to deal with the Blue Dog weasels and their anti-constitutional votes.

Malcolm Gladwell's "Tipping Point" is a great book about trends. It suggests that the key to breaking new trends is getting key "networker" types to be on your side. It certainly doesn't help that the mainstream media is in the pocket of the Repubs, so it will take a few good grassroots communicators to bring about change.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[LWolf]

8. Thanks for your thoughts;

I'm packing for a few days work out of town, and by the time I get back I expect this thread will be archived, but I'll take your thoughts along for consideration on the trip. :hi:

[Forkboy]

7. People keep telling me I'm too idealistic.

I keep telling them they're not idealistic enough.

I'll be honest though.I have no idea what the right answer is anymore. :shrug:

[Norrin Radd]

9. I agree that Godwin's Law is BS.

[ulysses]

10. a quibble - Clinton didn't embody compromise.

Compromise is when you actually get something in return for giving up something else.