It isn't what people call you, but how it's said.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 04:48 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not big into labels, but they are, I suppose, a necessary evil.

Take the word "liberal" for example. It's a word that can be alternately defined as "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values"; "concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training"; or "given, used, or occurring in generous amounts." Ironically, it's also the name of a town in Kansas in which the population trends deeply conservative.

Do I mind being called "liberal"? No. But I dislike being insulted, as most of us do. There are many persons in our ostensibly tolerant nation who use the word "liberal" as a pejorative -- the same way they'd use a word like "moron" or "idiot." In the part of the world in which I reside, these people appear frequently -- generally driving pickups festooned with NRA stickers and "I don't believe the Liberal Media" plastered on the bumpers and windows. I can accept that to the extent that I don't share much in the way of common values with those who reserve such venom for liberals. I don't even consider myself to be particularly liberal, but I've voted for a Democrat in every Presidential election going back to '84, so to that crowd, I might as well be Lenin. I support the ACA, oppose Middle East intervention, and oppose the KXL; I'm practically a traitor.

So, the question was posed about why would a third-wayer be insulted by being called a third wayer? Well, according to the Community Standards, &quot i)t is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Hmmmm. Are most discussions with self-admitted "third way","centrist", or -- heaven forbid -- "Blue Dog" Democrats positive? Not so much. So, if I, as a lifelong Democrat, were having a discussion with Chuck Schumer or Kirsten Gillibrand, and they called me a third way Democrat, I most likely would not view it as an insult. I'm a centrist by nature. Wheras many DUers (and so-called Progressives outside of DU) use the term "third way" with only slightly less invective than they'd reserve for a visitor from Free Republic. I apologize for being unable to associate these people with a specific vehicle and bumper sticker combination -- perhaps a hybrid with a National Park bumper sticker --- no, wait, that'd be me.

Why am I a Democrat? Because I support the notion of a "common good", and I think that government is a useful tool to promote the "common good." Are the rich evil? No. Many wealthy families and individuals engage in fantastic acts of philanthropy, and run honest businesses that offer gainful employment. However, greed is evil, and greed is the enemy of the common good. Without the strength and protection of government, most ordinary citizens would fall victim to the greedy few. But it's a balancing act. Capitalism and the lure of wealth fuels an amazing amount of creativity -- in industry, in the arts, in agriculture. My feeling has always been that the government needs to be in control, but not grasping so tightly that they control or stifle. I'm also aware that there are differences of opinion on DU on the role of capital, and those who see Wall Street as the enemy.

So, long story short: if we're here at DU, most likely it's because we are members of the Democratic party; the Democrativ party is large and diverse and has a range of viewpoints; some Democrats are centrists or "third-way" Democrats; and nobody particularly wants to be insulted --- especially on a message board that is ostensibly a safe-haven for Democrats.

[el_bryanto]

1. I'm not sure how to phrase this

The more passionate you are and the more sure you are that you are right, the less you want to tolerate people who are presenting the wrong answer. If you know, for example, position X is bad for individuals and bad for the world, you don't want to see support for position x. This is, in my opinion, why some debates aren't allowed in GD; they attract people with very strong opinions who aren't willing to see the other side of the equation. And it just takes a few really passionate people, willing to attack those people on the other side of the issue, to shut down any real debate.

When you talk about third way Democrats or moderate Democrats - you are saying they are still Democrats, still liberal, and still, for the most part, on our side. There's no reason they shouldn't be welcome. But to other posters at DU, they aren't Democrats in any meaningful sense, they definitely aren't liberals, and they aren't on "our" side. If you see things that way; if you genuinely believe they are here supporting positions that make things worse, you don't want to compromise with them.

Bryant

[Algernon Moncrieff]

5. I think you put it very well

Everyone, regardless of political affiliation, sees the world in a varying number of "shades." To me, there are very few black/white issues; things tend to be varying shades of grey. But for those who are certain of the correctness of their position, and who are passionate about their position, they view any disagreement as bad.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. +1 n/t

[geek tragedy]

3. Some people are here for the exclusive purpose of crapping on Democrats.

Because if they crap on Republicans, that doesn't give them the right to claim moral superiority over everyone else here.

But, by crapping on Clinton and Obama (just like their fellow travelers crapped on Al Gore in 2000) they can arrogate to themselves the status of True Democrats and Progressives, and feel good about themselves on that basis.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

7. The US is one of the few Western democracies without an effective socialist party.

I don't mean this as an insult to anyone. The Democratic party of FDR, of JFK, of LBJ, and of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama was always designed to bring a strong social safety net and regulatory protection in the context of a market capitalist society. There are many posters here who are stridently anti-Wall Street; anti-private medicine; anti-insurance who really don't fit that mold. Their rhetoric suggests that they'd be far more at home with Canadian/Scandanavian/British style socialist/labor party, but those beliefs really don't have an effective home in the US, so they end up as Democrats or working with Democrats. Bernie Sanders is a perfect example. He's further to the left than most other Democrats, and is well outside the mainstream. However, he's popular here at DU.

[geek tragedy]

8. The US could really use an effective socialist party, or at least caucus in DC nt

[RiverLover]

4. FYI, Liberals don't think the rich are "evil"

How they have bought our govt & rigged the rules in their favor, and against the general population & the planet is evil.

The rich who peddle corruption are evil.

I have some good friends who are disgustingly rich. They make the world a better place & possess empathy & are very worried about our planet.

The meme that Liberals hate the rich & I don't so that makes me a centrist is incorrect. When you enable the rich to control regulations to help them become even more rich while stepping on average citizens and you are fine with that because they "are job creators", then you are a centrist.

That's my take.

[OilemFirchen]

6. "The meme that Liberals hate the rich & I don't so that makes me a centrist is incorrect."

That's a meme?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

9. There are plenty of progressives who think Wall Street is evil

When you enable the rich to control regulations to help them become even more rich while stepping on average citizens and you are fine with that because they "are job creators", then you are a centrist.

No, at that point I'd say you are a conservative. A centrist would get input from both the rich and average citizens, and create regulation to protect the latter without overly-burdening the former. A conservative would simply say that the ends of job creation and wealth creation justifies the means, and regulation interferes with those means. So we differ there.

If one likes the arts and major universities, one can generally thank people such as your disgustingly rich good friends who support those and a host of other worthy causes. I despise the Koch brothers politically, but I'll readily concede that they've given millions to universities, art galleries, and hospitals. One thing your friends value that the Kochs don't (or at leas don't seem to) is the health of the planet.

I don't think banks are evil, but I do agree with Elizabeth Warren and others that a bank that is too big to fail probably should be broken up or more tightly regulated. I don't feel investment banks or the markets are evil, but the greed that drives the players in these industries is dangerous.