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

Cary

(11,746 posts)
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 04:29 PM Jul 2017

Which is more important to you?

Last edited Mon Jul 24, 2017, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Please, no "we can chew gum and walk at the same time schtick."

I mean I can't stop anyone but I can say I'm not interested in those statements. This is my thought experiment and I set out these two choices as an either/or so that I can guage the response. If you are morally opposed for some reason, feel free to not respond. I mean I could put up a "neither" option but what's the point?

I feel strongly that winning elections is more important than allowing unfettered and undisciplined expression of ideological purity. Don't worry, I have no power to impose that on anyone and no intent of ever trying. It's just an internet discussion board, okay?

Your cooperation is appreciated.


6 votes, 4 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Alllowing unfettered and undisciplined expression of ideological purity
1 (17%)
Winning elections
5 (83%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Which is more important to you? (Original Post) Cary Jul 2017 OP
We never would have desegregated the party zipplewrath Jul 2017 #1
Prove it Cary Jul 2017 #4
We knew the risk we were taking zipplewrath Jul 2017 #33
The GOP Southern Strategy was a GOP concept Gothmog Jul 2017 #9
What does one have to do with the other? George II Jul 2017 #13
We occasionally have to risk losing zipplewrath Jul 2017 #32
If the second leads to winning elections at the cost of standing for something, JCanete Jul 2017 #2
boring Cary Jul 2017 #3
what a fucking embarrassing response. Why pose a question if you don't want to engage in it? JCanete Jul 2017 #5
It was direct, to the point, and succinct Cary Jul 2017 #8
what I got out of it was that you didn't have an intelligent counterargument, so settled on petty. JCanete Jul 2017 #10
I see. My error. Cary Jul 2017 #12
boring and incredibly self-defeating and unrealistic. R B Garr Jul 2017 #6
And presumptuous Cary Jul 2017 #7
good job...put up a straw man you have no evidence for in anything I've said, and then have a circle JCanete Jul 2017 #11
This was an actual quote from an actual post.... R B Garr Jul 2017 #15
since you're quoting me, what does that quote mean to you that you object to? nt JCanete Jul 2017 #23
Purity and or Perfection sheshe2 Jul 2017 #19
Thanks She! Cary Jul 2017 #21
We will persist! sheshe2 Jul 2017 #25
Yes we will. brer cat Jul 2017 #29
:) sheshe2 Jul 2017 #31
+1 leftstreet Jul 2017 #20
In spite of some discord and discontent here, it appears we want to win elections. Cary Jul 2017 #14
Duh. Absent that, now and then, gilbert sullivan Jul 2017 #17
Are you suggesting the two choices are irrevocably gilbert sullivan Jul 2017 #16
I find Chuck Schumer today to be demoralizing Cary Jul 2017 #18
He's a politician, not a counselor leftstreet Jul 2017 #27
You're an anonymous poster on an internet board Cary Jul 2017 #28
LOL 'unfettered and undisciplined' n/t leftstreet Jul 2017 #22
Cry Cary Jul 2017 #24
Win first, evolve second. Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #26
*This* nt brer cat Jul 2017 #30

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
1. We never would have desegregated the party
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 05:00 PM
Jul 2017

If all we ever cared about was winning elections, we never would have forcibly desegregated the state party structures. We did it because how and why you win is more important than winning.

Cary

(11,746 posts)
4. Prove it
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 05:02 PM
Jul 2017

I don't believe that for a minute and I find the comparison between civil rights activists and contemporary radicals to be highly insulting.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
33. We knew the risk we were taking
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:05 PM
Jul 2017

The reason LBJ was the VP for Kennedy was because he need to shore up his support in southern states, especially Texas, to counter the Dixiecrat party that sprung up after we forcibly desegregated the party. They actually got a few EC votes that year. The reason Kennedy was in Dallas was because he was in fear of losing the state in the next election. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were democrats until we forcibly desegregated the party. It was the beginning of a sea change in national politics and has cost us elections over the years. But I'm not prepared to say it was wrong. The point is, that the measure of whether something should be done/supported/advocated is not the measure of how it will help us win an election, but whether it is worthy of our support.

Gothmog

(147,623 posts)
9. The GOP Southern Strategy was a GOP concept
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 05:18 PM
Jul 2017

The desegregation of state parties was due more to the concept that the GOP was successful with its Southern Strategy. The Texas Democratic Party used to be dominant but was composed of two segments-the liberal/civil rights wing and the Dixiecrats who left the party to become the GOP. The TDP adopted some liberal concepts such as getting the Equal Rights Amendment ratified in Texas. However, the Nixon GOP Southern Strategy lead to the split of the party.

Right now, we need to win and that means accepting some blue dogs who can get elected in Red states.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
32. We occasionally have to risk losing
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:59 PM
Jul 2017

We can't just always do "what ever it takes to win". Some times you have to risk losing because it is the right thing to do.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
2. If the second leads to winning elections at the cost of standing for something,
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 05:01 PM
Jul 2017

then it doesn't matter who wins the election. The D has to actually mean something. People so eagerly willing to vote for the latter take as a given that without actually holding our own leadership's feet to the fire, the D will always just naturally be better. As if history shows that. You can't clamp down on criticism and unfettered expression and come out of it with a democratic product that represents the people. Any time you stifle criticism you open the door for paternalism and authoritarianism. There's already a party for people okay with that. That won't do us any favors on this side of the spectrum, and because of the makeup of the Democratic voter base, I highly doubt that our public disagreements within our party are more detrimental to our success than they are retentive of our membership.

The idealogical purity criticism continues to be a false one anyway. It isn't about what we can ultimately get. Everybody seems to be willing to take what we can get when we can get it. Sanders has shown that time and time again, he will sign onto less than perfect legislation. It is about what we try to get. It is about what we go after and promote to the American people in order to make those political impossibilities possible. How is that ideological purity? Why are these the people we need to shut up, in order to cater to the lowest common (D)nominator, like Manchin's of the party?

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
5. what a fucking embarrassing response. Why pose a question if you don't want to engage in it?
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 05:05 PM
Jul 2017

Do you have an intelligent way of refuting anything I just said?

Cary

(11,746 posts)
8. It was direct, to the point, and succinct
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 05:11 PM
Jul 2017

Obviously you understood it well enough. There's an art to making one word arguments. Thanks for making my point.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
10. what I got out of it was that you didn't have an intelligent counterargument, so settled on petty.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 05:30 PM
Jul 2017

If that was what you wanted to convey, then job well done.

R B Garr

(17,087 posts)
6. boring and incredibly self-defeating and unrealistic.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 05:06 PM
Jul 2017

If it's not perfection (and perfection according to only those self-appointed deciders), then no one can have anything. It's beyond bizarre.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
11. good job...put up a straw man you have no evidence for in anything I've said, and then have a circle
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 05:31 PM
Jul 2017

jerk.

R B Garr

(17,087 posts)
15. This was an actual quote from an actual post....
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 05:48 PM
Jul 2017

"No, simply making sure Democrats...any democrat....gets elected, is not our fucking job. Our job is to make sure our party is a good one. Otherwise, there's no goddamn point to getting them elected."

Just an fyi, though it looks like you've seen the same head-scratching standards.

sheshe2

(84,569 posts)
19. Purity and or Perfection
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 06:32 PM
Jul 2017

They do not exist in the real world. That is a fact. You ask who the arbiter of said purity or perfection would be? Well it would have to be a human being, who themselves would not be perfect, because Perfection and Purity do not exist as I said above.

In an imperfect world I will go for the win every time and then work hard to make that win blossom and expand.

The way we do this is get out and vote. Vote Democratic every step of the way.

Thank you Cary, excellent OP.

leftstreet

(36,128 posts)
27. He's a politician, not a counselor
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 07:21 PM
Jul 2017

It's his job to determine and implement strategy in meeting party/platform goals

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Which is more important t...