Musk Ox don't break ranks when they are vurnerable

[Shankapotomus]

In fact, they stand closer together and form a protective wall.

I don't know about you but my focus is still on ending the Republican Party by never voting against my own. Consistently denying Republicans power is like denying them air. Eventually, if they want to breathe, they'll have to move Left.

As I see it, we are always going to get poor government from conservatives and republicans. We are sometimes going to get poor government from liberals and democrats.

I would rather have Democrats triumph completely over Republicans and then sort out our inconsistencies and problems later.

Outrage at democrats and denying support over every inconsistency and betrayal is only taking our focus off the goal of getting Republicanism out of the way first. Nothing wrong with nudging our Democrat representatives in the right direction. But I personally think withdrawing support is self defeating.

As long as the Republican party exists, we will always have, and are certain to get, poor government.

I personally would prefer occasional poor governing from a strongly Democrat by label system that is unwelcoming to Republicanism and Corporatism by label, than one where the Right is a constant gremlin toward progress like we have now.

Let's remain focused on our hierarchy of priorities. We know the government we have now will do bad things. But we also know where the worst offenders reside. The Republican Party. They are the bigger mess.

We need to keep reminding ourselves of this fact. Let's concentrate on dwindling the Republican ranks and consistently punishing Republicans by rewarding Democrats. I know Republican and Democrat are just words and their meanings can shift Left and Right. But if we focus on punishing those who call themselves Republicans overtly, they will be less likely to assume the covert role of a Republican under the label of a "democrat." It's the same as racism. You make people ashamed of admitting to it, you drive it underground and make it smaller and weaker.

Let's strengthen the Democratic Party by name and then sort out the inconsistencies and phonies later.

I know it's difficult for many who have seen betrayal too many times. But I'm starting to sense it is our giving and withdrawing our support of our party that is what has been prolonging the battle with the Republican Party and prolonging the political lives of our opponents.

An example from nature comes to mind.

Musk Ox defend their young and vulnerable from attack by forming a bulwark against their predators. Any subtraction from that bulwark weakens the effectiveness and strength of that survival tactic and puts the whole herd at risk. Imagine if too many Musk Ox got spooked and retracted their support for this herd survival behavior. Herd cohesiveness would dissolve and the Musk Ox herds would break up and each individual Musk Ox would be much more vulnerable to their predators.

This is an example of what scientists call "between group" competition. That is a separate issue to "within group" competition but related in the sense that too much within group competition weakens a species coalition against their predators. Republicans want us to break ranks and scatter in fear.




I know we occasionally encounter weak links in the chain that maintains our coalition as a political group and many become discouraged and want to withdraw their allegiance and support.

But let's never forget why we are allied in the first place.

[Pisces]

1. Great examples, but Democrats are famous for shooting themselves in the foot. It is the Repubs that

act like musk ox. They stand together no matter how stupid the idea or situation. They vote no in a block even when their
conscious dictates otherwise. This is not the way of the idealistic democrats. We dream up a leader and expect them to be perfect.

I am so tired of the purists and the people who think we would ever get the uber liberal politician they dream of. Even the Republicans
will never get a Santorum or Palin as President. It doesn't matter to them as long as they see that R in the voting booth.

I agree with you, but I don't hold out hope for the majority of the party.

[Shankapotomus]

2. Yes but Republicans stand together

out of an appeal to their shared stupidity.

This an appeal to use our intelligence.

[wandy]

6. The challange will be to stand togther without sinking to the Tepublicans level.

[KG]

3. for myself, I'm part of a society, not a herd.

[Shankapotomus]

5. Yes but some societies

can be self-deafeating when the wrong in group competition prevails. There is a reason morality evolved. And it's not so we can give power to the members harming the survival of the group.

[wandy]

4. I would be hard put to defend Democrats under any and all conditions. BUT.............

If anyone thinks that things will get better under Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, with a republican House and a republican Senate at their beck and call they will be in for an unhappy surprise.

Their are some things we simply can't fix right NOW. We will be lucky if we can fix most of the damage done by Bush/Chaney in our life times.

We need to focus on short term obtainable goals.
Given the current state of congress, Obama could not even obtain reasonable gun legislation, and this with about 90% popular backing.

2014 is a must. If we cannot end the obstructionism it will be all down hill from their.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. A bison shows exactly what NOT to do

At about the 1 minute 05 sec mark: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00l4qfs

[Shankapotomus]

8. Wish I could rec this

I saw the still photo of this when looking for the Musk Ox images.

Never panic.

[burnodo]

9. So you want Democrats to be mindless lemmings?

OK. Well, I guess if that's what you want...

[Shankapotomus]

12. Not asking them to be mindless lemmings

Just trying to get some to see there is a difference between within group competition and between group competition.

Yes, coalitions have weak links within them and they have to be addressed or they could undermine the coalition. But there will be no coalition - moral coalitions included - if the group the coalition was formed to defend against overruns them. If a coalition is fighting too much amongst itself, it will lose out to an outside coalition. In politics, our opposing coalition is Republicanism and everything that entails.

Of course, push Democrats to act properly on all issues. But seeing as they are, for the most part, more of a positive force for good than Republicans, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Instead, let's nurture the baby, weaken the Republican brand until it's dead or near dead and then deal with the much easier problem of differences within our own party later. If we keep granting and then retracting our loyalty, republicans become rejuvenated each time, and we will never, ever get to a point of dominance over republicans. We have to beat them.

We're going in circles with this.

[burnodo]

15. Doesn't really make sense

If Democrats have a strong ideological stance on issues, then they can separate themselves clearly. If they've been trying to destroy the Republican brand, they haven't been accomplishing much towards that goal. Republicans do more harm to themselves than any Democrat ever could.

Still, pointing out that the baby isn't clean can't do much against the side with the moral high ground unless that side doesn't really have a high ground. Then the Republicans can smart-mouth and cajole the political thinking towards the idea that Democrats have a fundamental problem defining themselves. That seems to be true.

[RainDog]

10. Republicans don't offer a viable option

I'm not going to vote for the party that wants to treat women as brood mares, wants to insert religion into others' health care decisions, science classrooms, and government.

I'm not going to vote for the party that hates the poor.

what I WANT to be able to vote for is a party that cares about the poor, not the corporate. I want to vote for a party that supports human rights and equitable treatment under the law.

I want to be able to vote for a party that gives a shit about the working class and the poor and sees our mission, as a democracy, is to provide optimal conditions for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I want to be able to vote for a party that doesn't support the War on Drugs with all its racist applications - and with its legacy of destruction of limits on the 4th amendment.

But, even tho I want that, I don't have that as an option.

So, I vote for the best option I have.

[Shankapotomus]

14. Keep doing what you're doing

I believe in this party and, despite it's errors, steps back and contradictions, it is far better and far more promising than the alternative.

I know your support is in the right place and it will pay off for you (and us) in the way you wish some day.

A party whose members can say things like this understands:

"We're going to climb this hill together, even if it takes us all day." - Ted Kennedy.

That's what Democrats do when confronted by our weaknesses. We recognize our them but we still go on together because, despite our setbacks and weaknesses, our underlying direction is still forward, not back.

[Eddie Haskell]

11. Yes, it's called a herd mentality.

Problem is, some of those who voted for Obama were independent thinkers.

[TheKentuckian]

13. You are not standing against Republicanism and Corporatism by assimilating and executing the same.

YOU CAN'T DO IT.

What you present is a fallacy, what is in strengthening a name that means little or nothing in reality.

You can't protect your group from predators with a strategy that allows the predators to dominate the group as long as they call themselves musk oxen. Why do you think any actual musk oxen will even be around when the day of destiny comes? What defense do they have in a fucking label? Changing the branding on the same horrid shit doesn't fix anything.

Fucking madness, people have lost both their minds and their souls, playing fucking silly and dishonest games.

[Shankapotomus]

19. I'll put you down for "No", then..lol

You could be right. I could be missing something. I'm not sure the imposters dominate but we shouldn't let our disagreement irrevocably disrupt our unity as Democrats which is my whole point.

I'm perfectly comfortable giving your strategy as chance. We shouldn't let differences in opinion on strategy, dissolve our coalition. Yes, these are big choices with big long term effects. But if one idea doesn't work, you pick yourself up, dust yourself off and try the other guy's idea. Do you think and endless cycle of granting support and withdrawing it is working? Maybe it is. I don't know. Is the party moving forward or do you think it should be abandoned?

My thoughts are you don't want to let it break the coalition without an existing replacement because then you're even further back than square one. Not trying to etch this all in stone. Just suggesting things.. You may have already seen this tried and gone beyond this. And that's fine too. I'm not going to abandon the party because I think a fellow member made or is making a wrong move. Nor am I going to break ranks because one of our weak members lead the wolf pack to the herd. I see too much of that and I'm not sure it works as effectively as sticking together.

Look at religion. Not very rational but, as evolutionists will tell you, it's function is not rationality. It's unity. I'm not saying we shouldn't adhere to rationality. To a great extent our party already does to a much greater degree than most other groups, which is probably why you and I are attracted to its ideas and policies.

But like a religion and like a civilization, if you abandon a mass political philosophy without an existing alternative of comparable influence and power, you're going to effectively be starting from scratch. Sort of like when the Mayans abandoned their cities. If you think Democrats are managing their political philosophy that badly, by all means, run for the hills.

But do you really think the setbacks we are seeing are unmanageable and worthy of abandoning ship?

[Marr]

16. Some people define "we" as something more relevant than simple party affiliation.

What if, for instance, your "we" is citizens in general, and the predator is corporate power? What if your "we" is the 99%, and the predator is the 1%?

How does closing ranks and ignoring assaults on your personal rights serve *your* interests? Nevermind the career politicians for a moment-- I'm talking about you. What good are you doing yourself, or your family by protecting a group of politicians?

I think they'll be okay-- really. Wall Street is going to reimburse them very well after they leave office.

[Shankapotomus]

20. I'm not talking about simple

criticism. You can criticize and push and pressure and call on the party to turn direction. That's fine.

I'm talking about those who are constantly - and, make no mistake, they have a right - threatening to withdraw support.

It's not the same. If you withdraw support, where else is your support going to go? Republicans? Libertarians? Where? You're just wasting time playing that game because there is no realistic alternative unless maybe you move to Sweden or Canada. Withdrawing support is not the same as ignoring. You can engage in within group competition over ideas and policies and still answer the call to defend that group when the threat is coming from an outside group with more numerous bad ideas and policies.

And yes, lines can be drawn between yourself and a myriad of affiliations. But I'm talking specifically about political affiliation now and understanding the differences in degrees. One or even two bad policies does not make an entire party Republican worthy of abandonment.

[forestpath]

17. That would be fine if there weren't so many Democrats who were wolves themselves.

With apologies to wolves.

[egduj]

18. That bottom picture looks photo-shopped.

[Shankapotomus]

21. It's a museum exhibit, I think.

But it served my point.