Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

H2O Man

(73,536 posts)
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:53 PM Mar 2015

Democratic Reefs, Pools, & Oceans

Over the years that I’ve been part of the DU community, I have frequently read where someone or another writes, “DU in no way reflects the general public” (or, “….the Democratic Party”). And, granted, that is in many ways accurate. Indeed, if DU was more like the general public, it would not be nearly as attractive a place to discuss social-political issues -- would it?

Something occurred to me today, while I was reading a series of threads on DU:GD, regarding Hillary Clinton and a couple other potential democratic candidates for 2016. Take any given OP/responses -- be they pro- or anti-Clinton -- and one finds that the majority of forum participants, including many people that I recognize as intelligent and insightful -- rapidly move away from intelligent and sincere discussions or debates, into the most shallow of emotional of fringing reefs.

Just as all of the toxins poured into the giant oceans will eventually wash ashore, years of previously filtered anger, bitterness, and hostility are becoming concentrated with the earliest of 2016 democratic primary threads. These specific contaminates are not found at such levels among the general public, or even the Democratic Party as a whole They appear to have higher levels of sleeping-pills, pain-killers, and placebos than the DU community.

What DU:GD reminds me of in recent times is actually Congress. Now, traditionally, members of the House of Representatives -- because of the nature of that institution -- have been known to take more aggressive stances; while the Senate was noted as where heated debates went to cool, and individual members engaged in more comprehensive discussions of even the most pressing issues.

Over the years, I’ve come to see quite a few forum members as fitting into one of those two same general categories. I do not think that there is more value inherent in either of the two -- those who tend to post a shorter, more energetic OP, or those who tend to write longer, less emotional essays. The combination of the talents and intelligence of the community can make DU a fascinating, at times challenging, place to take part of.

In the 1990s, there was a purposeful, goal-directed effort by some members of the House to do severe damage to all of Congress. Newt Gingrich was the poster boy for this campaign. Few things highlight that type of effort more clearly than when Congress “shuts down” the federal government. More, be such an effort be led by a Newt or a Ted Cruz, it is essential that we fully understand that such a “shut down” isn’t merely a tactic that a spoiled brat uses to try to get his own way: rather, it is the purposeful destruction of the federal government’s ability to function in a meaningful way -- and to thus reduce the federal government to “defense,” meaning the military-industrial complex.

Obviously, that goal is distinct from even the most angry, argumentative forum member. But the debate tactics are surprisingly similar. The amount of hostility here prevents discussing issues in a meaningful manner. That old “you’re either with me, or against me” attitude -- that which marked perhaps the single stupidest thing an American president ever utter -- creates an atmosphere where those who think differently become “the opposition” and then “the enemy.”

The two most easily identified feuding groups currently found on DU:GD are, obviously, the “pro-Hillary” and “anti-Hillary” folks. If one searches hard enough, they can find solid, meaningful contributions from each of these groups here. But they tend to be overshadowed by the “louder,” more vocal group members, who confuse insults and attempted “debater-points” for insight and meaningful contributions to a discussion. And neither side has a monopoly on the toxic shit being splattered here daily.

Clearly, DU is not Congress. However, at its best, Congress is supposed to reflect the public square. Indeed, it is in that public square, or commons, or village park, that in a healthy constitutional democracy, good government takes root and flows from. In today’s high-tech culture, an internet forum such as DU actually has the potential power to serve as such a public square. It could be the nucleus for meaningful debate, which could then flow outward, into the larger pool of the Democratic Party, and from there into the ocean of the general public.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democratic Reefs, Pools, & Oceans (Original Post) H2O Man Mar 2015 OP
A Thought: H2O Man Mar 2015 #1
By gosh! I agree! H2O Man Mar 2015 #2
It's not about whether she is all good or all bad for me. It is a difference in liberal_at_heart Mar 2015 #3
Great response. H2O Man Mar 2015 #4
I am all for "meaningful debate" and DU's "potential power" but panader0 Mar 2015 #5
Right. H2O Man Mar 2015 #6
I like and admire Hillary. I caucused for her here in CO and supported her until she dropped out. Autumn Mar 2015 #7
Nice piece... KoKo Mar 2015 #8
What a great post. So much of this could be it's own topic. Gregorian Mar 2015 #9

H2O Man

(73,536 posts)
1. A Thought:
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:59 PM
Mar 2015

I could easily list a dozen good reasons that Hillary Clinton should be our next President. I could also easily list a dozen reasons why she should not.

I am not unique in this ability.

However, the vast majority of those who post daily -- either pro- or anti-Clinton messages -- are entrenched in presenting Hillary Clinton as all good or all bad.

H2O Man

(73,536 posts)
2. By gosh! I agree!
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 09:02 AM
Mar 2015

Perhaps at some point soon, I shall write something for DU:GD that focuses upon the myths and truths about the infamous 1972 primary and general election.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
3. It's not about whether she is all good or all bad for me. It is a difference in
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 09:29 AM
Mar 2015

policy decisions she would make and the fact that they would not represent what I believe in. It's a difference in where the Democratic party used to be and where it is today. You say there is bitterness. I agree. I am bitter, and sometimes my bitterness shows here on DU. I have spent years watching my autistic son think he is stupid because Race to the Top tells him he should be performing at the same level as his general education peers and punishes him, his teachers, and his school when he doesn't. My 20 year old daughter is suffering panic attacks and seeing a psychologist because she is under so much pressure to do well in college and get a high paying job knowing that incomes are decreasing and she will have lots of college debt. My husband is on disability and receives SSDI. Democrats have already caved on cuts to WIC and food stamps. It's only a matter of time before they cave on cuts to SS and SSDI. I am a mother and a fighter as are most people here on DU, but yes I disagree with how far they are willing to go to fight. Is voting for any Democrat that comes along going to save SS and SSDI when they have shown a history of caving to cuts? I have never stooped to insulting DUers for who they vote for. I don't try to intimidate, bully, or berate people into voting for who I would vote for although it does happen to me all the time, but I will not be told who to vote for. If people want to vote for Hillary, they have that freedom to do so. I also have the freedom not to. Every person should vote for who they believe will represent their values and beliefs. Hillary and the current Democratic party just doesn't represent my values anymore.

H2O Man

(73,536 posts)
4. Great response.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:06 AM
Mar 2015

It's terrible that it takes someone in your situation to explain why for many, many people, the current Democratic Party "leadership" fails when it comes to human values. I appreciate that you have shared the story of your circumstances here. Thank you.

I live in New York. Governor Andrew Cuomo has an agenda per public education that is, in my opinion, obscene. His agenda is, for all practical purposes, in tune with the republican attack on public education. Of course, considering that Andrew's two closest friends are republicans Chris Christie and Tom Libous, that comes as little surprise. Yet, if one were to point out that Andrew's version of the Democratic Party is almost exactly the same as the republican "alternative" -- and not just on education -- they are sure to be called "purists" by the loudest DU Clintonites.

We need to re-claim our party. And it has to be based upon the traditional democratic values.

Again, thank you.

panader0

(25,816 posts)
5. I am all for "meaningful debate" and DU's "potential power" but
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:08 AM
Mar 2015

judging from past presidential elections, and from what I have been seeing lately here, I'm pretty sure the rancor will just get worse.
Recommended for rationality and sanity.

H2O Man

(73,536 posts)
6. Right.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:25 AM
Mar 2015

I've been here for the democratic primaries in 2004 and '08. In past years, there were plenty of angry arguing among various candidates' supporters, but there was also a lot of intelligent conversations that one could participate in.

2016 appears to be staking out the lowest level possible. A handful of the pro-Clinton folks appear to be "organized" in its attempts to derail any attempts by those who are either anti-Clinton or undecided.

Just my opinion .....

Autumn

(45,064 posts)
7. I like and admire Hillary. I caucused for her here in CO and supported her until she dropped out.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:32 AM
Mar 2015

However I do not support her this time. You are correct and some of the very same, now pro-Clinton folks did this very same thing *against* the Clinton supporters last time.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
8. Nice piece...
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:41 AM
Mar 2015

I'd like to see us discuss our (one so far) Democratic Candidate's stands on Foreign Policy, Global "Trade," Monetary Policy. Where have mistakes been made and how they can be corrected going forward. Our failing Foreign Policy (all the trillions we've spent in interventions for Regime Change) has contributed to our country's decline by draining money that could have been spent improving Education Accessibility, Infrastructure, affordable Health Care with Access for All and Decent Living Wages.


The social issues we are facing are because we allowed Wall Street to go Rogue with Deregulation and when they failed we bailed them out by allowing fines to be paid which were tax deductable allowing the Wall Street Pirates to continue their plunder. The Global Banking system has caused havoc in the U.S. and Eurozone. Austerity measures have lead to severe unemployment and social decline for millions and there is no end in sight. The power of the Military Industrial Complex goes hand in hand with Wall Street as the two biggest offenders, but we should add in our Politicians and the Think Tanks and Lobbyists for Corporations that own them.

We now have the militarization of our police. Rather than our local police being the protector of the People they Serve in their communities, the "People" are now the enemy to our police if they are "people of color" without money or influence or if they are protesting the actions of their Government, peacefully. But, even the poor and the homeless, of any color, are now enemies to the people in power because they are a nuisance. Our prisons are filled because it's good a good money maker and jobs supplier for the places they are located and it hides the lack of jobs or opportunity which should be there if we put our tax dollars to work here at home.

We have a Democratic Party focused on ONE CANDIDATE. Her husband is a former President who promised much but was either compromised or truly believed in NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Deregulation of Wall Street Banks, (Securities and Modernization Reform Act), FCC Deregulation of 1998, Welfare Reform and unending scandals, (one of which turned out to be true), and the rest a product of the Corporate Media Control that he then helped further deregulate when he was in trouble over Lewinski. If Hillary has learned anything then she could run on "Re-Regulation" and tackling the MIC and our thriving Prison Industry and a Foreign Policy that brings our money home. She could acknowledge that "Mistakes were Made" and make her legacy undoing much of what we have learned was bad policy of the Clinton's belief in "Neo-Liberalism" and all that came with it in Domestic and Foreign Policy.

What role will Bill Clinton play in a Hillary Campaign or Presidency? Is this their chance for Reform of what they may look back on as possible Policy Mistakes in their first term? Should we even ask that question? Why do we not have a strong backbench of candidates who could step in if Hillary's Campaign falters through a scandle or a health problem surfaces after the Convention? Why are some Dem Leaders like Chuck Schumer urging that we Dems not even hold a Primary this year?

Can we really be enthused about another Presidential Campaign featuring Clinton Third Term with the usual crazies on the right where we spend our time poking fun, laughing at their ignorance, posting FAUX NEWS idiocy and making "THEM" the issue and NOT our own Weakness?

If Hillary is our only Candidate then I hope we Dems get answers to some questions that need to be asked in return for our vote and support. But, I suspect those uncomfortable questions won't be addressed because they will seem to be only of concern to what is considered to be by the Party PTB..as the only the "Fringe" of the Dem Party who have little money and virtually no influence.

Whatever the outcome of the Presidential...it is clear that focus has to be on GRASSROOTS UPWARD in the coming years. Organizing Locally is the key....and that's how we managed to take back Congress in '06 and make Nancy Pelosi "Madame Speaker." We can do it again with the power of the young who understand what's going on and are able to act quickly with the tools they have in social media instant action and even the help of older Lib Dems (including those of Vietnam Generation) who can help to focus when its needed.

BUT....Hard Questions need to be answered by Hillary as to where the Democratic Party will be heading FORWARD under her leadership. What is HER VISION for the Future and her view of Foreign Policy going forward is too important to be ducked or answered with NeoLib platitudes of bringing opportunity through "Democracy & Freedom."

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
9. What a great post. So much of this could be it's own topic.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 02:47 PM
Mar 2015

You've spoken much of what I feel as well.

I want to see these thoughts posted so that everyone can see them. Maybe these concepts can filter their way up to reach the ears of candidates, as well as voters.

I recommended this thread because I was conflicted by being on both sides of the Hillary Clinton threads. I felt a bit hypocritical for being both admiring and critical of her accomplishments.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Democratic Reefs, Pools, ...