The Ideologically Pure Ruin US Politics

[CajunBlazer]

In my blog posts I have often assailed the radical right which forms the base of the Republican Party, and rightly so in my humble opinion. Over the last 40 years the Republican Partly and it’s leaders have moved drastically to the right and in the process have become far less willing to negotiate on the issues. An article on the NPR website Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They’ve Been In 100 Years, political Science experts who have studied such shifts in congress from 1879 to the present say they have the data to back up the statement made in the article’s title. However, the article also points out that the Republicans in Congress are not the sole reason for gridlock. During that same time period Democrats in Congress have moved towards the left. Though they have not moved near as far ideologically as the Republicans, “…Democrats also have their take-no-prisoner liberals who aren’t prone to compromise on their core issues, either.”

http://www.cajunscomments.com/the-ideologically-pure-ruin-us-politics/

[GitRDun]

1. Very inciteful.

Thanks for posting!

[KamaAina]

96. Insightful

"inciteful" would be a good neologism to use on trolls, though!

[GitRDun]

98. lol, spelling was never my strong suit. n/t

[djean111]

2. What I am getting out of this is that we lefties are just as bad as the Tea Party,

and we should really stop being purists and should compromise, like, say, only a LITTLE chained CPI, or whatever.
It looks to me that the GOP has moved so far to the right, and the corporatists in the Democratic Party have occupied the center so much that any compromise is not "a little good and a little bad", but always always "only a little bad". This time.

I would like some examples, please.

[CajunBlazer]

6. No, not just as bad as the Tea Party....

because there are a lot more ideological purists in Congress on right that we have on the left. I will also agree that our Democrat moderates can't do much if the other side is unwilling to give even an inch. You can't negotiate with people who are unwilling to meet you in the middle.

However, we also know that their Democratic politicians which are also unwilling to give an inch as well, and that is not helpful.

[djean111]

124. Which Dem politicians are unwilling to give an inch? And, on what issues?

I think that, without concrete examples, this does not mean much.

And, of course, some things should not be issues that can be "compromised" on - like, say, Social Security. The GOP, IMO, never wants anything good for Americans, and giving in to them just means they always win, either outright or incrementally.
To, me, what the situation there is like - King Solomon Republican says he will chop that baby in two, and then, in order to "compromise", the Democrat says oh, no, let's just chop off one hand! And then call that bipartisanship, when the baby should not have been harmed at all, and bearing in mind that the GOP will just come back later, pull the same threat, and there goes another hand, then the feet, etc., until the GOP got what it wanted in the first place.

That's why I would like examples of "ideological purists" (the best kind, if you don't stand for anything, you stand for nothing, IMO), and exactly what it is they would not compromise on.

[beltanefauve]

123. That was my take, too

[Maedhros]

3. I'd say the Democratic Party suffers more from being idealogically barren

than from being too dedicated.

For example:



This chart shows how the ideology of the Democratic rank-and-file is muddled when it comes to personal privacy and the surveillance state - bad when their guy does it, good when our guy does it. Not much of an ideology there.

[HFRN]

55. ^+1000 nt

[Eleanors38]

68. And there it is.^^^

Another in a long line of tired false equivalency arguments.

The Far Right WILL NOT compromise. They have staked their reputation, image, and policies on that, and have done so since Gingrich. Further, they have cleaned house of those in the "old GOP" which did compromise with Democrats. The self-cleaning by the Far Right is thorough and structured -- it is in large measure why they have been successful, most esp. at the state level.

What remains is whether or not Democrats compromise with the GOP as it continues relentlessly to dismember any social safety net, any guarantee of a woman's right to choose, any environmental protection, any worker protection, anything that smacks of pre-Teddy Roosevelt philosophy and policy.

You want that?

Before anyone answers, consider that the Far Right harbors nothing but contempt for liberals and Democrats, a contempt based most profoundly on the weakness of the Party, and its likelihood of caving (to put it in a Christian way) on any particular issue. And the GOP always acts accordingly.

That is my measured, limited and reasonable opinion.

[Maedhros]

73. What false equivalency?

The numbers don't lie: 61% of Democrats opposed NSA Surveillance when Bush did it, and 64% approved of NSA Surveillance when Obama did it.

What I want is some integrity out of the Democratic rank-and-file, not hero worship and identity politics.

[Eleanors38]

77. The false equivalency of they moved Right, we moved Left, and therein is the lock up.

Classic MSM couching and hand-wringing over Gridlock©.

[Maedhros]

79. Not at all my point.

If anything, I demonstrated that the Democrats moved Right.

[Eleanors38]

92. Compromise comes from a position of strength. Democrats aren't in that position.

[Maedhros]

97. You do not seem to have comprehended the point of my posts.

The OP suggests that "ideological purity" is "ruining" American politics, and that:

During that same time period Democrats in Congress have moved towards the left. Though they have not moved near as far ideologically as the Republicans, “…Democrats also have their take-no-prisoner liberals who aren’t prone to compromise on their core issues, either.”

I suggested that "ideological purity" is not a descriptor I believe should be applied to Democrats, and posted evidence in support of my claim - namely, that the "ideology" of the Democratic rank-and-file appears to be "it's OK when we do it."

The Democrats, in my opinion, would be well-served by a heavy dose of ideology - and Bernie Sanders is providing an excellent example of what happens when a politician displays ideological integrity.

[Juicy_Bellows]

120. You slayed it. Well said! Nt.

[CajunBlazer]

76. You're right, ane the America voting public is getting tired of their BS and....

.... the more that voting public sees Democrats as just the flip side of the far right, uncompromising and unmovable, the more likely it is that the voters will throw out the Democratic baby with the Republican bathwater.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. +1 n/t

[Ed Suspicious]

106. Spot on. Nice job.

[Maedhros]

107. The Left's idealists have long been pilloried by the Party establishment

and its fawning lickspittles on DU, for wanting "ponies" and not being "serious."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. A load of nonsense.

The inherent weakness being the idea that 'the center' or 'compromise' is magically correct, which is total twaddle. Things are correct or not irrespective of where they fall on any given ideological spectrum. 'Compromise' for the simple sake of 'compromise' is completely ridiculous and counterproductive. Gridlock is preferable to idiocy, and if one party demands idiocy, then gridlock will result, no matter how 'pure' or 'unpure' the other party is, unless both parties decide upon idiocy simply to be 'bipartisan'.

[CharlotteVale]

5. And just what should Democrats "compromise" with

Republicans on? Civil rights? Gay rights? Reproductive rights? Labor rights? Social security and Medicare cuts/privatization?

Funny, but you didn't specify exactly what this "compromising" should consist of. Just a bunch of third way finger wagging.

[CajunBlazer]

7. Can we assume that....

.... if you were in Congress you would be unwilling to compromise as well?

[CharlotteVale]

8. I would never compromise on ANY of those things, nor would I

vote for anyone who would.

Funny how you wouldn't answer my question.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. You were asked a question which you should answer or self delete your OP. Responding to a question

with a question is cowardly and particularly so when the evasive response comes from the party that started the conversation.

[CajunBlazer]

12. Okay, I was trying to be kind, but let me put it like this.....

He sounds like a person who, if he were a representative in Congress, would never compromise on anything and thus would be part of the problem.

Does that work BNW?

[CharlotteVale]

14. So you still refuse to answer MY question. So what "kind of person" does that

make you sound like? I'll tell you. A typical third way scold who, for some reason, just can't handle it when others have unshakable convictions.

Oh, and BTW, I am not a "he."

[LanternWaste]

17. No doubt, many individuals believe that civil rights

"He sounds like a person who..."

No doubt, many individuals believe that civil rights, gay rights, women's health choices and labor rights should be compromised to better avoid the diaphanous label of "purist".

I imagine many people will hide behind the wholly irrelevant qualifier "he sounds like..." to give the appearance of rational thought where none in fact, exists (regardless of whether one may feel "that works&quot .

[Bluenorthwest]

23. It's non responsive and insulting, so not it does not suffice at all.

I have to assume you have no answer to the question.

[CharlotteVale]

15. Thank you.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. You asked the key question and made the poor OP upset.

So thank you!

[Trajan]

54. You can assume this

You are no longer in my feed ...

[Oilwellian]

99. I'd like to see you answer the damn question

Please do tell us what Republican Bills we should compromise on? Surely you must have some in mind since you think it's so important we compromise with Republicans.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Only by compromising principles and selling-out can we make America great!

[CajunBlazer]

11. Only by sticking to our ideals with consummate stubbornness....

can we assure that none of our problems get solved and that our government be comes totally unworkable.

See, anyone can make grand stupid statements.

Politics is the art of the possible, of finding solutions to problems where two opposing sides can agree without betraying their basic principles. The problem right now is that we have a bunch yahoos in congress who think negotiation is a dirty word.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. "Politics is the art of the possible"

Cliches are not policy -- or at least they shouldn't be.

Tell me, what is the compromise position on minority rights, gender rights, marriage rights, voting rights, etc.? I'm aching to hear of the saged consensus that can be reached with political nihilists.

[CajunBlazer]

56. You don't have to necociate away your core beliefs to effective in Congress

But if you want to be truly ineffective you can chose to never negotiate on any issue. That is the stance of the vast majority of the Tea Party conservatives and unfortunately also the stance of a few Democrats as well.

I am not going to be a hypocrite and condemn the other side while being unwilling to admit we have a few of those as well.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. What's hypocritical is we're the ones you won't compromise and negotiate with. You have set us

up as the opponent who must be absolutely rejected.

Which is why we don't trust you.

[CajunBlazer]

63. I never said that YOU won't compomise, but if the shoe fits, by all means wear it (n/t)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. Gladly. Show us this vaunted willingness to compromise you extol. Show us how you will

address our concerns.

[CajunBlazer]

66. Okay, let's start with you supplying a list of important issues confronting the Congress...

on which you would be willing to compromise.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. Except I'm not the one extolling compromise. You are. You're here telling us how bad we are

and how we need to set aside our uncompromising standards for our principles. Let's see you live by your own doctrine.

[CajunBlazer]

82. Tired of aqnswering individuals - see may last post at the bottom.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. I had a former boss who said "No business is better than bad business"

I'd say that the same is true of politics.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[CajunBlazer]

16. “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. John F. Kennedy

We could do battling quotes all day and in the end prove nothing. I know how to use Google too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Negotiation is all very nice, but what to do when the vote is called for?

In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place. Gandhi

[CajunBlazer]

46. And yet we continue with the quotes

Surely you find some more on line.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. So? No response?

You're selling the idea that negotiations solve problems. In fact they solve nothing. It's what the negotiations produce and the vote on the product that may produce results. Sometimes, rarely, good ones.

[Eleanors38]

75. Respectfully, the Democratic Party fears the Far Right, and has for some time...

Trenchant unwillingness to compromise is the sine quo non of the GOP and its cultivated image for over 30 years. It has become more so. At the state level, the FR has "done" the Democratic Party, and toys with the Democrats' "weakness" image in an almost generic manner.

I must ask this: Who or what within the Democratic Party has moved to the left? I just don't see it. Not at all.

[CajunBlazer]

20. The replies thus far prove my point

Note that most of the responses thus far are those of the ideological purists. I know that there are moderate Democrats on this board, but they are not swooping in to the rescue.

Since those on the far left and the far right are by far the most passionate and most obstinate in our political system, those of us who are more moderate seem willing to abandon the discussion to vocal and active small minorities of our population. As long as we are willing to do that gridlock will continue be a way of life.

What America needs is more vocal moderates.

[Orsino]

21. If only there were some sort of third way.

[sibelian]

103. What a great idea!

Let's tell the politicians!

[Capt. Obvious]

22. Vocal moderates offer a good starting point

in negotiations with far right maniacs. That way we only privatize some of social security.

[Capt. Obvious]

30. Most of the OP's responses are self serving back patting

which does nothing to support his thesis.

[CajunBlazer]

50. You don't start negotiations from a position of weakness

You don't offer to give away the farm with your first position. However, if the objective is to to keep the Social Security system strong, perhaps we should be willing to offer that perhaps folks like me who don't need a SS check a much as those who are less fortunate should get less than the are getting now.

Negotiation is not about selling one's soul, it is about finding practical solutions to real problems.

[CharlotteVale]

25. "Vocal moderates"? What's "vocal" about YOU? You won't even say what

you think we should compromise on!

[CajunBlazer]

29. A partial list only

Real compromises can be made on issues like raising the minimum wage, making constructive changes to the Affordable Health Care act, enacting some sort of response to global warming instead of doing absolutely nothing...... The list is endless, but doing nothing is not a viable option.

[CharlotteVale]

32. Since when do Republicans want to make "constructive" changes to the ACA? And when

have most of them even admitted that global warming exists? As for the minimum wage, Democrats who sincerely want to raise it have to start with a number much larger than they think they will end up with in order to get anything.

But the bottom line is that it is impossible to negotiate with Republicans. They do not deal in reality. Furthermore, their #1 goal is to screw the vulnerable that might receive even the most inadequate, half assed assistance of any kind supported by Democrats.

If you think Democrats will end up with anything by compromising you are dreaming.

[Electric Monk]

48. How does one compromise on raising the min wage with someone who thinks there shouldn't be one? nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

84. I'm guessing you lower it.

As far as I can tell, Democrats compromising is code for 'pass more Republican legislation'. Quite frankly, gridlock is preferable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. The ACA *was* a compromise

It was a system proposed by the right wing Heritage Foundation, and enacted at a state level by Mitt Romney. Proposals further to the left (but completely uncontroversial in other developed countries) like single payer or a public option were rejected, and the compromise was the ACA. Now you want that compromised.

And, as CharlotteVale points out, most Republicans deny there is a man-made component to global warming. They want to do nothing, and thus block every action.

It's not the ideologically pure that ruin US politics. It's money. You can see the money of fossil fuel companies behind the global warming denial. You can see the health insurance companies behind the push to keep as much profit as possible in healthcare, where other countries recognise it's not something you can leave to the market with "oh well, looks like you chose a product badly - better luck next time". The immense and obscene amount spent on political lobbying and advertising in the USA dwarfs the rest of the world, and of course, the TV companies aren't going to start pointing that out - they get too much money from the ads. The politicians spend a cast amount of time trying to get more money from rich people. They happily gerrymander the districts so that elections mean little - incumbents stay in, as long as they can keep their backers satisfied, rather than an actual community of voters.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. The replies just demonstrated that you are all bluster and no substance.

That's not good news for you as potential pundit because your centrist cohort has many commentators who could very easily respond to the questions given to you. So not only are you incorrect you are redundant among the wrong, there is no need for mediocre centrist rot they have some of the highest quality rhetorical rot in the business already and in great quantities.
So good luck with that.

[sibelian]

102. Noooo, they *contradict* your point. But that is sort of what you wanted, wasn't it?

If your position consists, essentially, of: "you're all tremendously contrarian, you people", then

1. If they agree with you then that means they're contrarian.

and

2. If they disagree with you then that means they're contrarian.

And given that it's rather difficult to respond to such an assertion without at the very least giving the appearance of agreeing or disagreeing with it, it's a very simple way to make a whole room full of people look contrarian to people who aren't particularly clear-headed.

It's a trick. But it's not a terribly clever trick, is it? It's just... you know... sort of neat-looking whilst having nothing to do with anything specific that anyone actually thinks or says.

[Vincardog]

27. Democrats in Congress have moved towards the left. Bullshit on its' face. Ignore is my friend

Last edited Tue Aug 25, 2015, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

[CajunBlazer]

37. Let's try to keep the conversation respectable - besides your statement is not true

At one point many of the most rabid conservatives were members of the Democratic Party and at the same there were moderates and even liberals in the GOP. As the two parties started to divide ideological lines and the almost all of the conservatives defected to the Republicans that left only liberals and liberal leaning moderates in the Democratic Party.

Democratic politicians no longer had to moderate their views to appease the conservatives that were no longer in their electorate. Existing politicians could voice more liberal views and still be reelected. In some locations, especially in Democratic enclaves in South, began electing House members that were far more liberal than those which had come out of those areas a few years ago.

But don't take my word for it - political Scientist have studied this phenomenon agree with me. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread

[CajunBlazer]

28. Most of the Arguments made so far are identical to those made by arch conservatives

I find it interesting that while you have diametrically opposite philosophies, you are in strong agreement that with the radical right that yours and only yours is the only correct way of thinking and that there can be no compromise on those principles.

You guys remind me of the many churches that preach that they offer the only route to heaven and everyone else is going to hell.

Besides no one is asking you to compromise your principles. Real compromises can be made on issues like raising the minimum wage, making constructive changes to the Affordable Health Care act, enacting some sort of response to global warming instead of doing absolutely nothing...... The list is endless, but doing nothing is not a viable option.

[CharlotteVale]

33. You have no arguments. Just insults. The only reason you came here was to

shill your blog.

[tularetom]

35. You do understand that every compromise moves the center a little more to the right

That should have been apparent during the Clinton years, when a Democratic president sold out his party's principles to appease his opponents and basically got kicked in the ass for doing it. They didn't give an inch, all the compromising was on one side.

Compromise seems so noble and democratic on paper, but just who the hell among the other side is going to do it? You have 16 or 17 presidential candidates and 15 or 16 of them are so scared of the remaining one that they wouldn't dare to make even the slightest move toward any proposal a Democratic president would make.

[CajunBlazer]

38. Bill Clinton was the most astute politican of his generation

If he were eligible to run again he would win by a landslide, and you know it.

[tularetom]

44. Astute = run as a Democrat, govern like a republican

Sorry, I don't "know" anything of the sort. He's used up a lot of his capital sucking up to the Bushes and other big business folks. He wouldn't get any votes from republicans and many Democrats have seen through his bullshit in the years since he left office.

[CajunBlazer]

53. Then perhaps you an explain why Bill Clinton's current approval rating is 67% (n/t)

[tularetom]

65. No I can't, the man is a master bullshitter

He stands for nothing and yet he has been able to convince many Democrats that he is actually on their side.

Nobody else would have been able to make the borderline racist comments he did about Obama in the 2008 primaries and still have African American citizens respond positively to polls about him.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

86. He's not in political office.

His wife's approval rating was sky high too, when she wasn't holding elected office. She started running for office, and it started diving, to the point where most people now say they don't even trust her.

[sibelian]

104. You re able to maintain the illusion of intransigence easily...

... by setting the thresh-hold of acceptability for non-extremism wherever *you* place it to satisfy your opposition to said extremism.

This is nothing more than a slightly more twisted version of the very extremism you seek to mitigate against.

OH, THE IRONY.

[H2O Man]

31. No thank you.

"Impure" is hardly honorable.

[CajunBlazer]

39. Doing nothing is not a viable option.

[H2O Man]

49. Murdering people is bad.

Neither your nor my last statement belong in this discussion, if the OP is intended as a serious topic of conversation.

[tkmorris]

52. Doing nothing? I don't think you understand who you replied to with that

That poster has done more in the last few years than you are likely to do in a lifetime, when it comes to public service.

[H2O Man]

70. Thank you, tkmorris!

[sibelian]

105. Well, yes, actually doing nothing very often IS a viable option...

And, in fact, much more often than people realise, is the option that really ought to be taken.

It depends very much on what the thing is that you intend to undertake in order to convince oneself one has successfully avoided the slightly unheroic option of doing nothing. Sometimes doing the thing is worse.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. More "both sides do it" nonsense. It's not about purity, it's about principle. n/t

[CajunBlazer]

41. Yep, and most of the Tea Partiers would agree with you (n/t)

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Unlike me, they'd be wrong.

Right wing principles and morality are entirely situational. We're pro-life!... and against those BLM whiners. We're opposed to jack booted government thugs interferin' with our freedom... to tell women they can't have birth control.

Nothing wrong with principles, provided that principle isn't "more for me".

I'm against war. I'm for economic justice. I'm for real equality. People who disagree can go fuck themselves... I don't have any desire to compromise in those regards.

Personally, I think liberals willingness to compromise on matters of principle is more directly attributable to the ruin of US politics. They push, we bend, they push harder, we bend farther.

Fuck that.

[sibelian]

108. That's not ironic. Do you understand that?

If someone says something like: "we have no responsibility towards the sick, they should pay their own way" and someone else says: "No we DO have a responsibility towards the sick as caring for those of our own species is a defining characteristic of being human" that's not a case of two forms of extremism, it's just a fairly typical result of the two antagonists having fundamentally opposed positions on the concept of responsibility.

Of course one can "compromise", that's not even controversial. But one cannot begin to compromise without having a position from to compromise from.

The idea that any two opposing principles held by antagonists may be taken as emblematic of their extremism can only be achieved trivially, in the absence of the ubiquitous human process of compromise.

But without principle there is no compromise.

To suppose that compromise is somehow opposed to principle is a misunderstanding of what compromise is.

[Xithras]

36. Everyone has issues they won't compromise on.

I have my top level issues (environmentalism, LGBT rights, anti-war, etc) which are my core motivating factors politically, and then there are my second level issues (social equality for all, economic justice, etc.)

I'm always a bit flexible on my second level issues. They are things I care deeply about, but not things I'd personally chain myself across a road over. My top level issues are a different story entirely. I would vote for a candidate who didn't hold them as their top issues (for example, an economic justice candidate who didn't put a lot of emphasis on environmental policy), but I will NEVER, under any circumstance, vote for a candidate who actually supports policies that counter my core ideologies (an economic justice candidate who wants to put people to work as loggers). Those issues go beyond what is good for a party or what is good for the country, but touch on my core ideals as a person...and I'd be betraying myself to vote for them.

That's actually why I can't support certain candidates in the current election. I view all candidates through the lens of "will this person do everything humanly possible to keep us out of war, at all costs?" If the answer is no, they'll never get my vote. If the answer is yes, I'll move on to the next issue.

I don't require candidates to be ideologically pure on all issues, but everyone has issues they won't compromise on.

[CajunBlazer]

43. I agree with you

And those "core" issues will vary from individual to individual. I certainly don't disagree with having issues on which you would brook no compromise.

My problem is with the individuals on both sides of the aisle for whom no issue is open for compromise.

[Xithras]

51. Yes, they do vary

I was having this discussion with someone here on DU quite a while back, and he was trying to take me to task for having issues that I wouldn't compromise on. So I laid this scenario out to that poster:

"Imagine the perfect candidate. Someone who promises to give you exactly what you want in the coming term, who has the track record to prove that they're not bluffing, and who has the capital and charisma to give them a realistic shot at the presidency. Now imagine that, tomorrow, that candidate came out and said, 'I believe that life begins at conception, and will support efforts to ban abortion.' Nothing else changes about the candidate except for that one issue. Could you still support them?"

You can sub abortion out with something else, but EVERYONE has at least a few political beliefs that they simply will not compromise on. Those beliefs vary from person to person, but I've never met a politically contentious person who didn't have some.

We have to stand for something.

[TDale313]

40. What exactly do you do...

When there is no one on the "other side" interested in compromise? When they see your attempts at working together as weakness? How far into their wackadoodle demands do you give in an attempt to look "reasonable"?

There are lines that should be drawn. For me, cuts in Social Security are a huge one. But frankly, our politics has drifted way too far right because of thinking like this. We just keep chasing them as they move the marker of the imaginary "middle" further and further and further right.

[CajunBlazer]

45. I can't disagree that the Republicans are responsible for most of the gridlock in Washington

There are Representatives and Senators on both sides of the aisle who are unwilling to compromise on anything, but the vast majority rode an elephant to Washington.

[Cosmocat]

42. Complete, total and unmitigated bullshit

There is no equivalency, none.

To whatever extent there are strident liberals in the House and Senate who won't vote for any of the endless stream of crazy ass shit the republicans put out is not in any proportion worse than at any time in our history.

Both parties, in whatever form they were, have always has wings that won't vote with the other side.

Meanwhile, the democratic party has PLENTY of finger to the wind vote to save their asses congressmen and senators who will vote R in a heartbeat if they gin up enough public heat - see the IWR, and other fiascos the republicans have driven us into over the last few decades.

That is not what is wrong - what is wrong is that we have one party that now votes in total unison.

We have never seen that, and at the same time perhaps the most radicalized party we have seen.

See, not a single R voting for a REPUBLICAN version of health care reform, and literally not voting for anything from this president during his term for the most part.

[HFRN]

57. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' dealth with this kind of arguement

The mystery of where the milk went to was soon cleared up. It was mixed every day into the pigs' mash. The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness-room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others.

"Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?"

Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone.

(Jones is the cruel, drunkard human farmer, that the Animals ran off the farm in their revolution)

https://www.marxists.org/subject/art/literature/children/texts/orwell/animal-farm/ch03.htm

[CajunBlazer]

59. Doesn't sound like the pigs were willing to negociate.....

but like conservatives everywhere used fear as a tool to get others to vote their way.
Fear has been a very effective tool of conservatives forever.

However, I am still waiting for you to make your point.

[HFRN]

60. 'However, I am still waiting for you to make your point.'

I did

it just went over your head

[CajunBlazer]

67. If it isn't too much trouble, please try to explain it to someone like me who isn't very bright....

.... not everyone has read Animal Farm or is an expert on the hidden meanings like you.

[H2O Man]

80. Perhaps HFRN is not

interested in playing games?

[sibelian]

100. How humble you are.

I wouldn't worry about it, I'm sure if you read it quite a lot of times the hidden meanings will become apparent.

They aren't very well hidden, to be honest.

[CajunBlazer]

109. So you don't know either right?

That's what I thought. On the other hand, if you do see the light, try explaining it to people like me who obviously not as bright you.

On the surface, it appears that the pigs are using standard conservative fear tactics to maintain control and get the other animals to do their bidding. There are of course many similar real world examples of conservatives attempting to scare the American public into doing what they want them to do.

On the other hand, if there is some other hidden meaning to thia parable, surely you will share your insights or everyone will conclude you are just blowing smoke.

[sibelian]

112. Hnk!

Okidoke...

Compromising with someone who understands how to use the process of compromising to your detriment isn't compromising. It's being exploited.

It's different from using force or fear. It's abusing generosity and taking advantage of one side's capacity for self-sacrifice, which doesn't require force or fear.

Simple enough?

So there you go, me and my prodigious intellect have replaced your ignorance with knowledge!

Rejoice!

[CajunBlazer]

113. Actually.....

You have only proved to me that you haven't got a hint of clue what you are writing about.

The Animal Farm story had absolutely nothing to do with compromise. There is an old saying: "Compromise is the art of dividing a cake such that everyone thinks that they have the biggest piece". Go back and read the story again, there was no "dividing of the cake". What happened was that the pigs used the fear of the farmer coming back to manipulate the other animals into letting them have all of the good food (the whole cake). This is not compromise, it is the use of fear and and intimation to achieve a political end.

In real life a parallel of this story might be the Republicans using the American public's fear of terrorist attacks to pass legislation which allows the NSA to read everyone's email. There is no compromise is involved in this real live case either. It is using fear to take the entire cake; it is one side getting exactly what they want while giving away absolutely nothing.

If you still can't see the difference, then further conversation with you is a waste of time.

So rather than crowing about your no existent "prodigious intellect", pay more attention to the saying, "It is better to keep silent and let people think that you are ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[sibelian]

114. Ooooooh, so you DID know!

Well, maybe you aren't such a thicko after all! I wonder why you kept saying "please explain it to me, I'm so thick..." and stuff like that. Maybe you were just being a silly goose, hm?

Now what's happened here, you see, is that you've chosen a monolithic, single-factor explanation for a process that requires more than one factor to occur.

You're oversensitive to the fear factor - it doesn't work without the capacity for self-sacrifice being exploited simultaneously and these are two different processes. Being afraid of the farmer returning doesn't explain the pigs needing the food, does it? How does their having the food prevent the farmer coming back?! It doesn't! They have to connect the fear to the capacity for self-sacrifice. How? By simply declaring that they are connected! THAT'S the problem. Fear alone isn't enough.

Making people afraid of things in order to get stuff out of them only works if people already have a better nature to be exploited as well as a tendency to react fearfully. Control through fear only works by masquerading as compromise.

You have arrived all by yourself at the conclusion that sometimes exploitative processes masquerade as compromise! And that is the exact reason that one must learn how to stick to one's principles! Bravo!

So there you go, maybe you're brighter than you think!

[CajunBlazer]

118. Maybe you have never studied Animal Farm very carefully

I often use the "Gee, I'm not as smart as you" gig when dealing with someone who thinks that he/she is overly bright. However, if you really are bright I sure you already know that your explanation of why that particular passage from Animal Farm has anything to do with negotiation is unmitigated BS thrown together in a feeble attempt to avoid admitting you were wrong.

If you are actually familiar with Animal Farm you know that Squealer, the Pig that does the talking to the Animals in this scene, acts the propaganda expert for the pigs who gradually put themselves in the position of ruling over the other animals. While claims of self sacrifice are rarely an element of negotiation (all good negotiators would rather negotiate from a position of strength), they are often used in propaganda to assure the masses that the rulers have their best interest at heart. So Squealer isn't negotiating with the other animals, he isn't offering anything of substance in exchange for their support, he is instead using standard propaganda techniques to win them over. Fear is his main tool - the pigs need all of the good food so they can stay smart enough keep Farmer Brown from returning. He is using the self sacrifice angle simply to assure the other animals that the pigs have their best interest at heart. Standard propaganda and in no way negotiation.

I think you had better quit trying to convince me that you more intelligent, it isn't working.

[Juicy_Bellows]

121. Fresh off the third turnbuckle with an info elbow to the dome!

Well done!

[Syzygy321]

122. "Skipping from side to side and whisking his tail" -

one of my favorite lines ever.

Squealer was great, and horrible. What a character.

Even better was the crow of questionable integrity, who flew off and returned with tales of the wondrous Sugar Candy Mountain - which the pigs first denied the existence of, until they didn't.

And poor Boxer!
And the chronically unimpressed donkey!

Thanks for the memories. I had totally forgotten that book.

Ok I am done with this digression ... Ya got me excited is all...

[DonViejo]

58. Ideological puritanism has been an issue on the left...

for as long as I've been involved in politics (50+ years). Purity was an issue in the '59 Dem primaries (Adlai Stevenson was pure, JFK not); in 1968, RFK was pure, Eugene McCarthy wasn't or, vice versa if you were backing McCarthy. DItto in '72, McGovern vs McCarthy. The entire peace movement was divided over purity, as was the women's lib movement (straight women only!), the black civil rights movement, the gay rights movement. In many ways, at least for me, the purists are the conscience for whatever movement they originate out of. That doesn't mean they don't go off the deep end in the pursuit of purity but, they do serve as the conscience of a movement.

[bemildred]

74. The problem, far from being "purity", is corruption. nt

[KT2000]

78. the Dems moved left?

not that I have noticed.
This person's rant is BS.

[CajunBlazer]

81. Whoa, let's get something staright

Go back and read my post and read the article. (Most of you haven't so you are shooting in the dark and there not addressing what I wrote at all.) I mostly talked about how the Republican Party has slid to the far right (I doubt if I will get any argument there) and that the far right base of that party, the folks who will not negotiate on anything, is the prime source of gridlock in Washington. (I'm sure that that won't be argued much either.)

What everyone seems to objecting to is part where I also mentioned (very briefly) that we also have some Democrats who are also part of the problem because they are unwilling to negotiate on anything. Notice that I didn't point anyone out in particular and that I didn't say a dang thing about negotiating away core values.

But evidently tons of folks on this board got offended because they apparently assumed that I was writing about them or their candidates. What amazes me is that those of you who took offense assumed I was talking about you. (If the shoe fits.....)

If I had written the same piece in the very same way, but only criticized only the far right Republican base, you would all be nodding your heads in agreement. But because I said we had something of the same problem on our side of the fence, everyone got up in arms.
We liberals talk about everyone having the right to speak their minds and we are okay if someone is blasting the other side, but we are not so tolerant when someone points out that our side isn’t perfect either.

Remember, I wasn’t writing about writing about anyone, especially you or those that you admire. Don’t you think it is strange that you thought that I was?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. Oh, good grief.

What amazes me is that those of you who took offense assumed I was talking about you. (If the shoe fits.....)

First of all, I didn't take it personal. I know you're speaking in the generic.

However, the show does fit and it's a damned fine shoe. I'm proud to not compromise my principles in the name of political expediency. I do not see unwillingness to negotiate with political nihilists as a bad thing.

And, as I said up-thread, if compromise and negotiation is so gosh-golly-darned-swell then why are you so unwilling to compromise with those of us who aren't willing to sacrifice our rights while you demand we sacrifice to the nihilists? We don't need more sell-outs; it's the sell-outs who got us where we are.

[MerryBlooms]

111. You think much too highly of yourself and much too less of DU membership.

[One_Life_To_Give]

83. Deadlock provides it's own solution

Deadlock is not necessarily bad. It is a mechanism whereby we will identify those issues most important to be addressed. Notice how little time we have spent with the Government actually shut down. eventually on each issue we will have to decide between doing nothing and making a compromise. Sometimes the majority opinion is for the Status Quo and sometimes it is for change.

[eridani]

87. The New Deal used to be just common sense

Now it's "ideological purity." Go figure.

[MicaelS]

89. The Left has compromised repeatedly on Economic Justice.

Cutting taxes, NAFTA, Welfare Reform just to name three.

But, what Right still wants is compromise on Social Justice issues like Reproductive Freedom for Women and Voting and Civil Rights for POC and LGBT people and that is something a majority of Leftists simply will not do.

What is the point of having "core issues" if you want them compromised away?

[CajunBlazer]

90. Look around folks, pay attention!

The American people are sick and tired politicians and their political followers are responsible for the gridlock and our unworkable government. Sooner or later the are going to figure out that they are responsible for it, that they were the ones who put and kept those people in office. Sure the Tea Party zealots will continue to vote for those that think like they do and the folks on the far left are going to continue to vote for their guys. But the vast majority of more moderate folks are going to get to the point that they won't put up with it any more and they will vote out of office those with with uncompromising views.

The Democratic party has a choice, it can be the party of reason and good sense or it can fashion itself into a duplicate of the obstinate, do nothing Republicans except in reverse. If we chose to be the reasonable party, the country will turn to us. If we model ourselves after the Republicans we will be swept out of office with them, probably by third party candidates which will arise out of the rationally minded middle of the American electorate.

My description of how all of this will roll out is admittedly speculation, but one thing I know for sure - the American people are sick and tired of the dysfunction in our government and sooner or later they will do something about it, and it won't be pretty.

[Zorra]

91. Wrong. Greedy, corrupt, lying assholes, and their minions, ruin US poilitics. nt

[Octafish]

93. ^ ^ ^ THREAD WIN! ^ ^ ^

"Ideologically pure" denigrates people who think ideas -- or ideals or ideologies -- like Truth, Justice, Democracy are somehow relativistic or plastic or unnecessary for the success of the Party.

THAT is the kind of thinking that has brought ruin to the Democratic Party. Were the leadership pure in understanding what it means to be a Democrat, there would be majorities in both Houses, the courts would be filled with Liberal justices who would put People over property, and the executive would be putting into play policies that put peace and prosperity for ALL at the top of the agenda.

[2banon]

95. OMG. I just posted similar response!

Thank you for being here!

[Zorra]

117. lol! Must be one of those hundredth monkey things.

Or maybe just plain old common sense tinged with a reasonable code of ethics.

Glad you are here too!

[2banon]

126. My take: plain old common sense, apparently scarce around these digs... :)

[2banon]

94. Totally misses the mark, It's not the so called "purity" anything. It's the Corruption & Dishonesty

with every single governing structure, branches local, state and national. It's the entire system that is bringing Amurika Down and that includes the Ministry of Propaganda/Department of Mis-information. vis a vis "M$M" Media. etc.

CORRUPTION, GREED & DECEPTION is the problem.

We wouldn't need "purity" as the lame strawman trope to explain what is the root of any populist uprising in whatever form it takes, it's simply a reaction to the above.

It's really as simple as that.

[leveymg]

101. Newsflash: Radical Centrism has been the prevailing ideology since Triangulation

If you want to see where the most damage has been caused, it's bipartisan measures like the Iraq War Resolution and Deregulation of the Financial Markets.

Gridlock may be a blessing in disguise.

[Gloria]

110. Seems very relevant to DU at this time.

Over the last few months, has DU has tipped from being a balanced site to being, according to the poll I just voted in, "progressive".

I consider myself a progressive, but apparently not by DU standards....I guess I've worked on a lot of campaigns and that sort of stuff for too long and have gained a certain maturity about politics. I guess I'm too old for DU now....

I was gone for a long while, came back, but sensing that it's really not a safe haven for ALL sometimes...

Simplistic really doesn't work in the long run, never has...

[CajunBlazer]

116. I understand exactly where you are coing from

I am relatively new to UD. Before I started visiting the this site I thought of myself as a true progressive. (Of course, I live in Alabama and down here its said that anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is consider a damn liberal.) However, after reading some of the post on UD, I started wondering were I ranked on the progressive scale - certainly not far to the left as many on this board.

I expected some blow back when I stared this thread, but I was amazed at anger in some of the reaction and the number who self identified as radical liberals who would not compromise on anything. I worry that the voting public is going to classify us as just another party which is equally responsible for the gridlock in Washington along with the Tea Party zealots.

I was equally amazed that very few people took the other side. I suspect that there are others who are more moderate, but who don't want to get in fights with the true believers, but maybe it's just because there just aren't many progressive moderates posting on this site.

Well I have learned that it is all fine and good if you bash the Tea Party zealots and other radical Republicans on this site, but don't dare to hold up a mirror in front of some of these folks.

[Gloria]

119. Well, you are not alone

I've just gotten to the point where DU just isn't giving me a feeling of support against the common GOP enemy that I had hoped for when I returned. The level of discourse is just that good if it's all about piling on people that aren't pure enough for some people's standards...

[daredtowork]

115. On the left the poor are always "purity trolls"

In fact anyone in extreme conditions to the point where "compromise" has just become a bottomless pit of DO NOTHING because the powerful lobbying interests the compromise benefits won't be moved.

This is why its laughable when secure upper middle class white liberals "advise" Black Lives Matter activists on how "ineffective" they are or why the Democratic Convention should start taking Bernie Sanders and other Left populism seriously. People start noticing when they are getting shafted by the system and that "compromise" means beong treated like a doormat.

That "Purity" nonsense is just a bunch of cheap name calling at the expense of the weakest people in the room. Except they aren't even in the room, are they?

[KG]

125. I lulz'ed