"We need purity in the party"

[WilliamPitt]

Guess that means we can't support unions anymore, since a segment of the union-worker bloc tends to be fairly socially conservative, especially in the big Eastern cities like Boston that have large union populations who happen to be Irish or Italian Catholic...

...and since we're done with those goddam impure unions, we'll have to jettison the Teacher's union, too.

...and the Nurses unions.

...and a fair portion of many Hispanic communities all over the country that are majority Catholic and therefore more socially conservative, and thus are impure, and so must be gone.

...and hang on, there are women in unions, women who are Catholic, women who are married to union men, married to Catholic men, and may bear the stain of impurity on those social issues as well.

OK, let's see here.

Unions: gone

Teachers: gone

Medical workers: gone

Many or most Hispanic voters: gone

1/4 to 1/2 of women voters: gone

Black voters? They have been the strongest voting bloc for Dems for a generation or two now, and since we're so pure, we'll never even dare to seem racist by suggesting those voters are impure, because we're good like that...but they might not like the idea of sticking with a party that just shitcanned its entire base, so...

Yeah. P.S. We aren't the base of the Dem party, not even by half. We're the "activist base," but the main majority of the base is comprised of every group listed above. If all of us stayed home on election day, the Democratic party would still get the votes of most Black people, more than half of Hispanic people, teachers, 60% of women, and union people who are also already organized and can do a lot of the groundwork that needs doing. That segment of the base outnumbers us maybe 10-1. 5-1 at minimum.

They won't pass the purity test, however.

So.

We'll be pure. All 55,012 of us.

Cool.

:freak:

[Fridays Child]

1. Purity in the party? Who said that, anyway?

[Cooley Hurd]

10. I'd prefer to see a quote as well...

:shrug:

[Bryan]

22. That quote was prompted by this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2339556

[Bluzmann57]

2. Ok, so maybe I'm a friggin' idiot

but what in the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about "Party Purity"? I guess I'm missing something here.

[ulysses]

3. hell, we've already run off the privatizers.

Doom! Doom!

[KingFlorez]

4. A number of people don't get this

If you try to have a party with only people who are ideologically pure, it is going to result in loss. Ideologically pure is fine if you don't want to win, but otherwise it's just silly.

[SharonAnn]

5. Afriend of mine says that concepts of group "purity" always lead to a death camp.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Party Loyalists and Yellow Dogs aren't "purists"?

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. "purity"? You mean like the endless bullshit calls to throw gays, pro-choicers, atheists, etc under

the bus, like after the 2004 election?

Remember? How about that endless stream of deeply "concerned" threads expressing heartfelt "concern" that, you know, by being so intransigent on issues like reproductive freedom or full equality for our GLBT citizens, we were (and are still, presumably) "alienating the values voter"...?

Oh, yes, the all powerful values voter. We must cower in fear of the all-powerful values voter, because the media tells us that the all-powerful values voter is all powerful, and the media never lies, right?

Never mind the fact that the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO-CHOICE, for instance.

Wait- What was that? The Majority of Americans are pro-choice? How can that be? After all, the media constantly tells us what a "loser issue" standing up for the rights of women to control their own bodies is...

Funny, I seem to remember a brisk April day in 2004, standing with 1.2 Million Other Americans on the Mall in DC, in the LARGEST PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY IN U.S. History- marching for reproductive choice. And what did the media do in response to such a tectonic event? Well, CNN spent the day at a racetrack chasing down elusively drunk "NASCAR Voters" who were inevitably pro-Bush... that is, when they weren't talking about Estee Lauder's very important death.

One could be forgiven for not knowing that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO CHOICE, just like one could be forgiven for not knowing that large numbers of Americans protested the Iraq War before it started- the media doesn't want to remind you.

Meanwhile, the GOP plunges ahead with an agenda of outlawing not just abortion, but most forms of birth control as well... Clearly, they are in tune with where the great heartland stands on these issues.. right? :eyes:

Yes. The values voter truly is all-powerful. That's why Terri Schiavo was such a stunning success story for the GOP.

Here's my definition of "purity", Will- and I know it's really, really unreasonable-

I don't care if People, or even my fellow Democrats believe with their heart of hearts that life begins at the second of conception, that a fertilized human egg is the EXACT SAME THING as a "baby", or that the birth control pill is little concentrated nuggets of dehydrated Satan. My "purity" issue comes in when people start trying to pass LAWS imposing the same on the rest of us. You can be as Catholic as you want, but The Pope's place is in the Vatican under a giant hat, or in the Popemobile- not my wife's Uterus.

Likewise, I try to understand if people aren't "comfortable" with Gay Marriage. That's why I'm extremely glad our Democratic Leadership dropped all those bills attempting to force non-gay social conservatives to BE Gay or HAVE gay weddings of their own...

...cough...

...Nevertheless, the idea that two gay people getting married has some kind of magical spooky-action-at-a-distance quantum effect on social conservatives who have never met them to the point where those social conservatives NEED to limit the marriage rights OF those gay citizens, I call bullshit.

Don't like Gay Marriage? Don't have one.

And lastly- and I realize I'm flirting with charges of "intolerance" or "bigotry", here- if someone wants to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or Dinosaurs were on "Noah's Ark" (standard disclaimer: yes, I realize these are fringe positions NOT representative of most "Christians" or most theists, TYVM) if someone genuinely wants to believe those things, no one will stop them. But if they want to peddle those things as "science" or try to float unsubstantiated bullshit in a public school science curriculum, then Houston, we have a problem. If standing up strongly for the proposition of separation of church and state means I risk "alienating the (dreaded) values voter", then I guess I'm alienating the values voter, Sparky.

But I'm willing to compromise- I promise not to march into anyone's church and demand the right to start teaching Darwin there.

What can I say? I'm a Purity Nazi.

[rateyes]

13. You, impeachdubya,

have just been awarded rateyes' "post of the month" award. You should put that post in its own thread!!

:yourock:

[puebloknot]

19. I second rateyes' motion. Play it again, Sam, only louder and out...

...in the big world which, being 6,000 years old and all, is old enough to get it that stupidity is not a value -- it's an affliction!

[TheWraith]

8. Kicked and recommended. NT

[sarcasmo]

9. Backbone is the right word.

[cali]

11. thanks for this, will.

quite honestly, I had no idea that so many folks here really do want to "purge" the party.

[Solon]

12. You are assuming all Catholics believe the same way on social issues...

talk about a broad brush!

[Chulanowa]

14. Hell, why have a Democratic party?

It's intolerant of us to not vote straight Republican, folks! I see the light!

Honestly WilliamPitt, I have no issue with the voters who are conservative here or there. I have issues, however, with the votedwho time after time throw themselves to the ground to lick conservative feet.

What you seem to have left out of your deft pigeonholing is that all these "conservatives" are still liberal enough to keep giving Republicans the finger, election after election. If these "conservative democrats" wanted a Republican, they would have voted Republican - and not a Democrat who acts just like a Republican

[Joe Fields]

15. Please explain your definition of party purity, Will.

It seems to have taken on more than one meaning around here. How would you describe what you think people mean by it?

[bvar22]

16. When the CEOs and Wall St Bankers ....

When the CEOs and Wall St Bankers give ME a voice in their boardrooms, I will consider giving them a voice in the Democratic Party.


Until then:
The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

Call me a "purist" if that makes you feel good, but inviting the CEOs and lobbyists of the Health Insurance Industry to the table to help reform HealthCare is NOT a good idea.

These people already have a Party that speaks for them...The Republican Party. Should they also be allowed to buy representation in the Democratic Party?
What happens then?.....
Exactly what we have NOW..
A Party without an identity...
A Party without a FIGHT....
A Party without a Unifying Purpose!

Fuck the Republicans AND the Republican Lites!


A well funded Economic Populist with Party support running on a platform of "Economic Justice for Working Americans" can WIN in ANY state.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[gratuitous]

17. Are we confusing purity with cohesiveness?

Yeah, it's tough sucking down your personal party-minority view for the sake of advancing the larger agenda, but I grow weary of every back-bencher and greenhorn holding his vote for ransom without establishing any kind of record for working in the vineyard. And when they don't get their way, the yowls of "purge" go up. No, it's not a purge; you haven't done enough in your first term to merit going to the front of the line just to get your vote on this bill.

I blame a couple of things: Republican "me-firstism" and party whips who are unable or unwilling to maintain party discipline.

[upi402]

18. Unions are socialist paradigm organizations. Folks need to unlearn the propaganda from

Republicans, corporate Dems, and the media - all owned by the monied elites.

We need an opposition party. Not purity. Just one opposition party to the very powerful forces who have usurped our Democratic government.

[TahitiNut]

20. I sometimes wonder whether people are allowed to smoke in that "big tent."

It seems exceptionally strange to me that the DINO partisans who wouldn't tolerate someone smoking anywhere near their home (let alone offer an ashtray in their living room) seem to think it's OK to invite people into the "big tent" whose agendas include selling it to the corporate interests who'd burn it down for the insurance money. Funny that.

But I'm just a whacked-out independent liberal who's not indoctrinated in the hidden rituals and secret codes of the joiners.
:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Shame! You are thinking outside the box..er..tent.

“Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently. “
Rosa Luxemburg

[davsand]

23. Moral purity can kiss my entire big fat ass.

I was Labor before I ever "joined" the Dem party.

I was on the front lines for womens' issues before I ever met any of the local Dems--let alone national ones. I sure as hell didn't see most of those local "Dems" out there on the lines with me when I was working as a clinic escort, and when I was out there working for NARAL while men spat on me.

I was out there on actions for ActUp and GLBT rights back when it it was just "gay rights" and Ronnie was refusing to talk about (let alone say) AIDS. That was also a LONG time before I worked a a Dem campaign or opened my checkbook for the DNC.

I was working on access to health care and social justice when some of these snots were still sitting with a finger up their collective noses and crap in their pants. I don't owe jack shit to anyone who wants to tell me I'm not "morally pure" enough to be a Democrat.

My question to those "morally pure ones" is just where the fuck were YOU when I was out walking the lines and putting my ass in the line of fire? When you have a few more scars and a few more miles on, you can come tell me I'm not doing enough to be a "good" Democrat.

I might even give you a running start--but then again I might not.


Laura

[JVS]

24. Well that brings up the question of who gets to decide what purity is.

The socially liberal person who supports "free markets" is impure in my book