Do Democrats spend more time criticizing other Democrats than they do criticizing Republicans?

[kentuck]

Is this a problem?

I tend to think it is. I think it is mostly a dispute about the direction the Party is going or "should be" going?

With all the arguments about who should be the next nominee of the Party, etc, it takes the focus off the extremist Republicans.

In my opinion, the Party needs to be united in order to have a good turnout for the next election.

Although we will continue to debate these arguments, it behooves us to be aware of the price we are paying.

[Sherman A1]

1. I do not believe so.

There is however, plenty of criticism and plenty of which to be critical. While it can grow tiresome from time to time, it is also important that opinions be developed and shared. Democracy is messy.....

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. I DO believe so...

United We Stand...Divided We Fall!

Divided....that's how THEIR extremists want us..

[pinto]

3. Not necessarily. Seems both (D's) and (R's) jockey a bit this early.

What I'd really like to see is a united anti-R voice in the string of debates.

[hollysmom]

4. no

[Autumn]

5. No, not at all. If the Democratic party wants to win, the party leadership needs to run Democrats

who are Democrats. None of this lite shit. Why should we people have to pay the price twice?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. +1.

You want Dem voters to come out and vote? Offer Dem candidates.

You want financially struggling voters to come out and vote? (ie, most of the damn country, and far more than just Dems.)

Offer candidates who will work for those people, and not for the wealthy and corporations.

[Autumn]

12. Exactly. I see no reason to vote for a democrats who will work for the corporations and

the wealthy when the people are the ones hurting.

[RiverLover]

15. +1 nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Read Freud's Narcissism Of Small Differences/NT

[tabbycat31]

7. on this board, yes

You'd think that Hillary Clinton is the tea party's spokeswoman with some of the things that are being said about her.

I wish Democrats would spend the effort criticizing the GOP instead.

[tularetom]

8. Not this Democrat, I can't speak for the other 50 million or so

[wyldwolf]

9. On the internet, yes

In fact, some on DU are so vitriolic they'll never be able to walk back some of the things they say. In a live setting, like a county or state party, such rhetoric would get them booted out onto the street.

[YoungDemCA]

29. Smearing our elected Democratic officials-including the twice-elected POTUS-with...

...petty slurs, like "corporatist" and even "fascist" or "as bad as or worse than Bush" happens at an alarming rate here.

It's no wonder that so many women, African-Americans and other people of color, as well as other members of reliable Democratic Party demographics have left in protest.

[Number23]

36. +a million

And their level of self-awareness is as strong as their political acumen.

In a thread asking the question "do Dems criticize Dems more than Repubs?" they are so busy criticizing the Dems -- and it's always such PRINCIPLED objections, aren't they?? Never, ever the flip side of the lies and name calling that the Freepers do in their eyes -- that they don't even answer the damn question. Which in a way, is actually a better answer than they could have probably ever typed themselves!

And yes, I think this behavior a problem. A very, very large one.

[sendero]

44. What's even more alarming..

... is that these epithets are essentially correct most of the time.

[JonLP24]

49. As bad as or worse than Bush depends on the policy

indefinite detentions continued, black sites continued, the "increase tensions" argument continues to be used as late as 2014 (don't know if a '15 example exists) to block releases such as how it relates to the Senate Torture Report which is contrasted by a memo he put out day 1 that things like torture photos shouldn't be kept hidden based on "subjective fears". Things like are ever expanding spy apparatus but now if a Democrat remains a critic of the Patriot Act then they are accused of being a Libertarian by Democrats for opposing the Patriot Act (I write plenty on how I feel about private business and support a mixed economy & safety nets, strong unions--clearly different from Libertarian ideology). He also expanded the powers of the executive powers by secret orders to kill US citizens by passing Habaes Corpus when as far as Bush went is the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla was held in military custody for 3-years, probably tortured, fought it in court & tried to use the "enemy combatant" rule to justify giving charges or an opportunity to challenge his detention. Gave up, right before it went to the Supreme Court & now he is serving 20 years in Supermax for a thought crime. That was a horrible precedent in itself, but the "kill orders" is where he'd be worse than Bush.

Progressives are also a reliable consistent voting demographic for the Democratic Party. Basically the vast majority of votes Alison Lunden-Grimes did receive for all that distancing was from women, African-Americans, and the liberal wing and poor mainly from Louisville. Also don't forget the poor when it comes to reliable Democratic Party demographics.

I also voted for Obama twice, it kinda helps that I live here is I spend far more time depending him from outrageous claims & lies, & ulterior motives. Right after the 2012 election, I overhead a McDonald's worker express concern now that Obama won because of those poor old people & the death panels and how everyone will now be suffering from all these high taxes Obama is going to implement. Unlike the greedy assholes, she seemed to believe these things. One Republican expressed to their Republican friends that Obama "wants to cut social security" and the OMG concern response. I didn't bother to try to explain that one because it would be so pathetic, besides no matter what I try, most of them won't vote for Democrats anyways. Even saying you're liberal is treated as if it is a shocking revelation.

[FBaggins]

11. Just during competitive presidential primaries

Otherwise... it's a "internet not real world" phenomenon.

[JaneyVee]

13. Yes for DU, no to everywhere else on the internet.

[cheapdate]

14. Part of the problem is this:

Constructive, reasonable, criticism (of fellow Democrats) might sound something like this -- "I disagree with the president on this issue, and here's why..." For bonus points, one might give a nod to some areas of agreement, or offer a constructive way forward.

But is seems like that kind of criticism is a rarity. Destructive, unqualified, demoralizing, cynicism seems to be more common.

I think that criticism of Republicans by Democrats is insufficient in quantity and quality. Bernie Sanders gets it right. Too many Democrats get it wrong. They either don't attack enough, or they attack weakly, or they attack confusingly, etc.

[wyldwolf]

16. It only took 5 replies for someone to make your point for you.

[Bobbie Jo]

30. Sure enough. nt

[Number23]

37. Yep!

[salib]

17. Is this a push poll?

[Rex]

18. It is more like 'democrats' spend all their time talking about dems.

And almost no time talking about topics. It's not a problem with me, I know why they do so all day long. Just ask yourself, why would someone spend most of their time here complaining about the party, this site and other posters here...99% of the time.

I think the answer should become obvious.

In RL I don't see Dems complaining near as much about each other as they do on internet sites where someone can just make up who they are and start posting.

[Xipe Totec]

19. Well, judging by this post, I'd say yes. nt

[Thinkingabout]

20. We should leave the job of criticizing Democrats to the GOP. we should reserve our criticism for

GOP, they deserve it more.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Much of the very surly rhetoric comes from self appointed advocates for specific candidates

who try to make up for their scant knowledge about the candidate they like with fierce vitriol about the candidate they hate.

[truebluegreen]

22. I hope so.

Better to criticize / critique people who are capable of learning from it, rather than wasting our time and breath on conservatives.

[treestar]

23. Some do

And we know who they are.

We can't demand a party go in a direction we want. We have to make our cases to our fellow Democrats ourselves. And our fellow citizens.

They go on about Bernie and Liz, ok, have their statements convinced any citizens to be more progressive than they are?

[YoungDemCA]

26. I think it'd be a mistake to assume that all of the people who claim to be "progressive Democrats"

really are. Especially on a large message board such as this.

We've had proven right-wing/libertarian trolls pose as "progressives" in the past. Some of them are surely still around, causing trouble.

Then there are those who claim to be "progressive" even as they are callously dismissive-or even actively hostile-to liberal/Democratic Party values like equal rights and civil rights for women and minorities. Yes, those people exist.

I do think this board is a lot less representative (demographically as well as it in its approach to politics) than the Democratic Party voter base. That's rather sad.

[treestar]

50. that too, agree

some of their "helpful criticism" sounds just like right wing talking points.

[Ramses]

24. I dont see Democrats criticizing other Democrats?

I see Democrats calling out republicans who have infiltrated our party. And its a very good thing. Its called not letting the republicans ratfuck us in our own party.

If you support free market disaster capitalism, the TPP, endless foreign wars, spying on American citizens and support the violent police state, YOU BELONG IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Did I say that loud enough?

[YoungDemCA]

27. No mention of racism, misogyny/sexism, homophobia, or anti-immigrant xenophobia?

Don't those issues matter too?

[Ramses]

28. why of course they do.

republican politicians also support these very awful social policies and ideas too.

Oh, and if you think a politician can get away with saying they dont hate gays and women as much as the next guy, and call themselves a Democrat, you would be sadly mistaken.

[sendero]

45. When you cannot feed your family..

... not so fucking much.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. You do realize that not feeding your family sometimes is related to all of those things.

Right?

[sendero]

48. Sometimes..

.... but ALL THE TIME feeding your family depends on congress not giving away the store to the rich over and over and over.

[treestar]

51. What a litmus test

Nobody supports "disaster capitalism" but the Democratic party always has been capitalist, with regulation and a safety net, but capitalist.

[merrily]

55. Capitalism per se does not require facilitating or causing transfers of wealth to the richest.

[treestar]

71. How is that done?

It happens naturally via capitalism. But the government has tried to mitigate it with social programs.

[merrily]

73. Not only the natural workings of capitalism y far. Favorable legislation helps a lot.

Last edited Tue Jan 27, 2015, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)

So does the absence of impeding legislation. For example, Teddy Roosevelt's anti-monopoly and other "trust busting" provisions have been eroded and eroded, which has enabled, among other things, about five corporations to control media.

Speaking of Teddy Roosevelt, one of the reasons he was so gung ho for National Parks was that railroad tycoons convinced him they needed a reason for the masses to use their new toys. National Parks were a destination that would encourage them to buy railroad tickets. And that is just one of the ways that government affirmatively helped the rich get richer. (We're not so fussy about keeping up those parks these days.)

But the government has tried to mitigate it with social programs.

TARP and the Fed's low interest program may have been the most massive transfers to date, the Fed program continuing. Both were approved by both Democrats and Republicans, with Bush requiring Obama's approval before he (Bush) released TARP 2.

Neither TARP nor the Fed program were merely the inevitable workings of capitalism. They were followed by talk and more talk of austerity, of cutting social safety nets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html The first budget Obama sent to Congress cut fuel subsidies the poor. Before the final vote on Obamacare, he appointed the Cat Food Commission (which, btw, helped bring Ryan into the national spotlight). When that did not result in cuts, the WH came up with the so called Super Committee or Grand Bargain Committee, plus the sequester. Meanwhile, two things happened: time to prepare unofficially for the 2012 election approached and Occupy Wall Street finally made headlines, bringing with it the term 99%.


Highly debatable whether programs like those that comprised the New Deal and the Great Society--many of which were soon abolished--were also programs to help the rich stave off a revolution like the one in Russia, that would have taken their property. The crash of 1929 was not that long after the successful Russian revolution. And, before MKL died, it looked as though a coalition could some together. MLk's movement, more militant African American groups, the antiwar movement and the greater economic justice movement, which had overlapped with MLK's movement from the jump.

After the perceived danger passed, may of the programs of both the New Deal and the Great Society were abolished.

Joe Kennedy, one whose Wall Street manipulation had helped bring on the crash, was one to whom FDR turned to help set up safeguards against Wall Street predators. Was that to transfer wealth, then nearly non-existent, to the poor, or was it to create confidence in Wall Street and banks again, so that people would invest again and put their money back in banks again?

Anyway, Kennedy's comment at the time: I would gladly give away half of all I have in order to keep the rest in peace.

I think that is a big clue to how many among the rich perceived the New Deal less than 20 years after the Russian Revolution. Years later, JFK, then running for President, was asked on Meet the Press why people should vote for Democrats, given the economy needed help. He replied that Democrats were best for the economy. He was pressed on that by some journalist on the show. He said quietly that Democrats were the ones who had saved capitalism. I suspect he meant with New Deal programs. So, as I said, highly debatable.

[krawhitham]

25. Only here at DU

It has something to do with the troll infestation these last 7 years

[840high]

31. IMO - we spend too much

time criticizing Republicans. We should be looking for solutions to improve our own party.

[RiverLover]

43. + a million. nt

[Maedhros]

32. Not at all. In fact, I think too much attention is paid to the relatively minor political missteps

of random Republican back-benchers.

For example, David Vitter (R-La) received way more attention than he deserved, given his relative position within the Republican hierarchy. Sure, it's fun to laugh at Vitter getting caught having kinky sex with a prostitute, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

We have no control over the Republicans - they will do what they will do, regardless of how much we may criticize or laugh.

However, since the Democrats are ostensibly beholden to our votes, it makes much more sense to spend our time analyzing their actions and pushing them to do what we want.

ON EDIT: 840high beat me by three minutes

ALSO ON EDIT: Here is a perfect example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026137111. Is it really that important for us to spend time discussing the details of an affair between two Republican Congressmen? They're consenting adults - let's stay out of their bedroom.

[840high]

33. Yes. Totally agree. I end

up skipping most of the Republican posts.

[merrily]

56. +1. And God forbid we expect Democrat to act like Democrats.

[Maedhros]

69. I suppose this is what one gets when the Democrats have nothing to offer

other than "we're not as bad as the other guys."

[treestar]

72. They are the family values ranters, so their doing these things shows how insincere they are

They are the opponents, not the Democrats.

[ND-Dem]

74. +100

[UTUSN]

34. 'round these parts, totally yes. But it's the DNA of people who aren't zombies. n/t

Last edited Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:35 PM - Edit history (3)

[Hekate]

35. They sure do at DU. And yes, it's a problem. I want oppo research on Republican candidates...

...and I'm not getting it at DU. This used to be a place where you could get genuine researched information (with linked sources) about BushCheney, PNAC, and the rest. Now, not so much. DU is too busy hosting smear campaigns against the Clintons, generated in a fact-thin zone.

The price is going to be high.


*Obligatory note: I have not yet chosen a candidate for 2016.

[Number23]

38. "DU is too busy hosting smear campaigns against the Clintons"

Not only them, but you can damn sure find the smear campaigns showing up in even the most innocuous posts that dare to support the current president as well.

And as someone said upthread, anyone that comes here day after day after day to complain only about how horrible the Democrats are is making it as clear as they possibly can what their true purpose is for coming here day after day after day.

[Hekate]

40. You are 100% accurate in that assessment, imo

I can't even say the rest of what I'm thinking in that score without -- ahem-- personal consequences.

[NanceGreggs]

41. "And as someone said upthread, anyone that comes here ...

... day after day after day to complain only about how horrible the Democrats are is making it as clear as they possibly can what their true purpose is."

It seems completely clear to some - while others welcome those with a "true purpose" as being one of their own.

You know the old saying about the enemy of your enemy being your friend. There are many here who foolishly believe that.

[Number23]

70. What absolutely astonishes me is that there are people here who apparently believe that it is

perfectly sane and rational to take the approach of:

"I don't criticize the Republicans because I don't care about them.

But I DO care about the Democrats which is why I will shit on everything they do, lie about stuff they haven't done and generally minimize, criticize and castigate everything in between."

sense is that even supposed to make?? And anyone that thinks that this is a moderately rational way to behave, I just feel really sorry for anyone else that they "care" about too.

[Hutzpa]

39. I will say so,

some democrats are not strategic thinkers which unfortunately can presents an opportunity for republicans to exploits, it is for that reason you find some democrats at Congress voting with republicans rather than standing with party principles.

[NanceGreggs]

42. On DU? Yes.

In real life, no.

My Democratic friends/family in RL tend to focus on what progress is being made by this Administration and the Party - and each step forward has been a source of enthusiasm, and a determination to achieve even more in future.

The "shoulda-woulda-coulda" crowd, the Hair-on-Fire Brigade, the incessant whiners and complainers, and the ever-amusing "yeah, but our party is no different than their party" contingent bring nothing to the table aside from regurgitated RW talking points and an ever-pervasive doom-and-gloom attitude that causes members of the Professional Crepe-Hangers Union to drool with envy.

Either you're part of the solution, or you're part of the problem. I think who's who is pretty obvious by now - or should be.

[JonLP24]

47. I think partisanship is a bigger problem

I'm a lefty that only votes for lefties (the exception of my very conservative city--1 Democrat on city council and I don't ever remember seeing a Democrat on local ballot in a city-wide race--I vote for Republicans running against Russell Pearce. I also voted for moderate Scott Smith in a 3-way Republican race to be mayor. -- I vote for the lesser of the evils though I never vote in school boards (charter school fondlers running against each other) or most other city ballot tickets. A moderate running against extremes is when I make an exception.

What is mean I the tendency to believe everything & all things done by people they like. Republicans stop supporting Republican policies when Obama implements them & Democrats criticize Republican policies until Obama implements them.

We need to be united for who & for what? I don't have a litmus test but a litmus test is why we aren't Republicans. If there is a primary, there will be a lot of opinions given and if I agree, I'll agree -- if not I'll disagree, policies matter more to me than the party does but voting in Democratic primaries gives me the best chance to vote for candidates that are more to my view. I did a lot of agreeing with candidate Obama but a lot of disagreeing with Obama and I could use a lot of arguments candidate Obama made to express my disagreement which the points he made I agreed with. So, I'll have a lot more grains of salt with me when I listen to their words. Bernie Sanders strikes me as just about the only one who won't do a 180 once in office based on his knowledge, experience, & doesn't do the sort of manipulating (I also haven't seen Vermont campaign ads either) other politicians do and takes the positions he takes because he feels they're correct ones rather than politically acceptable ones. He'd also spend far less time bashing Obama (though he would highlight his respect for Obama before a disagreement with a particular actions) than Hillary Clinton would depending on Obama's approval ratings leaving office.

Elizabeth Warren, I'm a little more wary on. A lot of the outrage expressed to committee I often wonder if they're showboating for the cameras or are they really angry. I don't mean her, just in general. Though her senate voting record is actually further left than Bernie Sanders so I'd still be very comfortable.

[merrily]

52. The time for Democrats to unite is when a primary ends, not before one begins.

[daleanime]

53. I should hope so....

No, and no.

[HappyMe]

54. I would rather have criticism of Dems

by Dems than mindless zombie agreement from us.

[merrily]

58. I would rather have mindless agreement that mindless excuses.

Though neither does the 99% a drop of good.

The rule seems to be, if you can't agree, make excuses (Say Anything) or just pretend you didn't hear it.

[HappyMe]

59. I don't think mindless agreement

or mindless excuses do any good.

[merrily]

60. Which is exactly what my post says.

Still, I am allowed a personal preference. If someone truly agrees with a policy and defends it, that is more palatable to me than making mindless excuses.

[merrily]

57. P.S. you never said why you think criticism of Dem politicians by Dem voters is a problem

If Dem voters are saying that Dem politicians should act more like Dems, instead of going right, who is that affecting in the real world and how is it affecting them?

And what is criticizing Republicans to people who already can't stand them really likely to accomplish?

And, are you talking about DUers or Democrats in general? Either way, refutation is preferable to seeking to silence.

[HappyMe]

61. That is a good point.

There's only so much complaining about Palin a person can do.

We all shape the party. We all should have input.

[merrily]

62. Thanks. Regardless of how much one CAN mock Palin, what good does it do to mock her to Dems?

Does anyone here think she should have been President? And if someone does, will more mocking of her change his or her mind?

Conservatives seem to prefer to seek to silence things they don't like to hear. The authoritarian approach. The left seems to prefer questioning, refutation and discussion to attempts to silence.

I guess there's a place for both approaches? Not totally convinced, but, whatever.

[djean111]

63. No. In reality, the sky is blue, water is wet, and Republicans are crap.

We know that. I don't think anyone here is going to vote GOP, just because we don't spend all day reiterating GOP awfulness.

I see a few types of criticism here - some is against Dems who seem to act like the GOP, and some is against those of us who do not meekly fall in line behind a Dem politician who acts like a Republican.
Some is against Dem policies and proposals that seem more GOP-like than Dem. As the Dem party seems to shift to the right, it must be understood that not all Dems are going to be going uncomplainingly on that ride. Or, if the rightward shift keeps up, going on that ride at all. I am sure the DNC knows this. There is no spoonful of sugar sweet enough to get everyone to swallow Third Way policies, much less say yum! May I have another?

I do not think this site is ever going to just accept anything and anyone merely because there is a D on the jersey.
The time to worry, IMO, is if anyone here starts praising actual Republicans,

[LWolf]

64. I don't know, but

if we do, I don't see it as a problem. There's a built-in redundancy in criticizing Republicans; a "No DUH" factor.

Democrats, though, are supposed to know better. They are supposed to represent us, to fight for us. When they don't, we SHOULD be criticizing, loudly and often.

[NCTraveler]

65. Double edge sword.

We need to continue criticism of Republicans in a manner that will turn voters off to them. That criticism will not change their actual policies. On the other hand, I think we hope criticism of Democrats will actually influence policy. It is really hard not to criticize Democrats, when they are the only major party in a two party system that supports civil rights, yet support right wing ideology when is comes to the economy. Right now we have two houses to sleep in. The Republican or Democratic house. I choose the Democratic house as it more often than not stands up for civil rights. I want them to change their economic policy so I will rail against things like the ACA. I don't expect to change Republicans. It does become touchy around elections.

[Adrahil]

66. Nah.... And don't be mislead by DU.

DU is a place where politically committed Democrats and Freeper trolls argue about the best way for Democrats to succeed at their goals.

It's natural and healthy that we disagree on how to do that. And this, being the internet, means we are more strident and shrill than we would be in real life, generally.

[bigwillq]

67. Not in real life.

No

[Bluenorthwest]

68. One of the paths to popularity on DU is writing up diatribes about how inferior other Democratic

voters are to your own verbose centrism. Got to rail and sermonize and take that podium and snarl, then pat your own back, then snarl some more, using as many words as possible because brevity is for chumps....

[ND-Dem]

75. now who does that put me in mind of....?

[ChosenUnWisely]

76. From my POV the enemy is within

There are Democrats and then there are Democrats and I DO NOT Consider conservative or even moderate or third way or what ever the fuck they are calling themselves this week Democrats. I will never, never consider them anything more than DINO's at best and that is being polite, they are republicans, nothing more. They also cannot be trusted, ever.

The non liberal, non progressive democrats are more of a threat then the republicans. They represent the worst of the Democratic party and if I had my way I would throw them ALL out of the party.

[MineralMan]

78. I'm not sure. DU is its own thing, and isn't really reflective of

Democrats in general. What I do see is a lot of criticizing of elected Democrats and potential candidates, but without any real suggestions for actual feasible alternatives. When that happens, it can discourage some from doing the hard work that is required to keep Republicans from winning elections. That bothers me, and 2014 is a good example of what can happen.

[raouldukelives]

79. I think they spend the most time criticizing republican policies & ideals.

We cannot control where those come from. We can only address them when they do.