To return to lucidity - ideology vs. practical necessity?

[Selwynn]

Ok, returning to calmness, I say this in closing:

I don’t apologize for original post in my previous thread. However, I do apologize for some of my subsequent posts which became more and more burdened with frustration. I would like unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks…

If you do not vote for Bush because you believe his stances and action in office is reprehensible, that is a very valid reason. And it is probably a much better reason that voting against him simply because he is a Republican and you vote the "party line."

However...

If you do not vote for the Democratic nominee because you believe that his stances and platform are not what's best for the country you must also factor one other thing into the equation. You must answer for yourself this question:

"Is a re-elected Bush a worse choice than an elected Democratic nominee?"

If you honestly believe it would indeed be a worse choice - then a lot of you are correct, I do have to accept your right to vote by conscience, and respect your decision. However, if you do in your heart believe that Bush would be a worse choice for four more years. but you refused to vote for the candidate with the best chance of defeating him (whoever that turns out to be) then I feel you have made a terrible and tragic mistake.

Where some of us apparently disagree is that I believe there is currently no evil worse than the evil of four more years of the Bush administration. That means that I will be very pragmatically looking at who has the best chance of defeating Bush and throwing my support behind this person.

Now, believe me when I say I understand the arguments from ideological principle. Normally I share them. Many of you have seen several posts of mine where I said Democrats should hold to a higher standard of statesmanship than our opponents. Some people said that makes us weak - and I said, yes I honestly said "there are some things more important that winning. What good is it if we win if we sacrifice everything of value along the way?" I did indeed say that. Then I made my post challenging people to answer the questions I listed.

The reason why I argue as I do about supporting a democratic nominee is because I believe there is one thing more important than the shades of grey around who wins -- that whoever wins is not Bush. I do not mean that as a cop out. I mean that in the entire field of candidates running against Bush I believe that every single one of them is a better choice than Bush by far. Then among those candidates I have some I feel are better than others -- all the way up to "Best" which for those of you who thought I was being unfairly hard on Kucinich supporters, happens to be Kucinich.

(By the way I agreed with the Green Platform very strongly in 2000. I mean what I say when I argue that this election is different - it is about resolute resistance to evil.)

But as some of these candidates start falling by the ways side, I will continue to support those who I believe are better than Bush. What I will not do, is go to the polls and write in the equivalent of "Mickey Mouse" as my choice, when I know that I could have actively supported a candidate with a real and legitimate chance of beating Bush. I would call doing something like that a protest vote, and I’ll close out these comments in the following way:

I believe there is a time and a place for protest. I do not believe it is always the time. I couldn't agree more with the progressive agenda of Kucinich (actually I could agree more, its not progressive enough!) However, if Kucinich does not get the nomination, I just can't bring myself to feel that this election is the appropriate time for me to "protest" by voting for an untenable third party or write in candidate. To me, the stakes are just too high. The cost is too great. The dangers posed by another four years of Bush are just to overwhelming to even contemplate.

I do believe that people who pick the wrong time to stand on untenable ideological utopian fantasy this year will bear the burden and responsibility of what happens next. The blood of dead children will be on their hands when bush marches us into our next war. The ruble from cities destroyed by terrorists only antagonized by the policies of bush will be on your hands. The persecution of gays will be on your hands, the tearing down of abortion rights and the environment will be on your hands. The continuing shredding of the bill of rights and the erosion of civil liberties will be on your hands.

And if posts in the previous thread were inflammatory, its because its hard for me to maintain a casual attitude about what I believe to be the truth.
Sel

[IrateCitizen]

1. Much, much, much better Selwynn!

And if posts in the previous thread were inflammatory, its because its hard for me to maintain a casual attitude about what I believe to be the truth.

This is perhaps the most telling part of your entire post. You are writing about what YOU PERCEIVE TO BE THE TRUTH. It is based entirely on YOUR PERCEPTION. Other people perceive things to be the truth based on THEIR PERCEPTION.

Therefore, the last thing you want to do is to tell someone that their perception is completely invalid. It is often better to try and guide them, gradually, to come around to a different perspective, one more in line with yours.

Browbeating only makes them solidify their stance, and you recognized that. Much better this time around.

[IrateCitizen]

2. Much, much, much better Selwynn!

And if posts in the previous thread were inflammatory, its because its hard for me to maintain a casual attitude about what I believe to be the truth.

This is perhaps the most telling part of your entire post. You are writing about what YOU PERCEIVE TO BE THE TRUTH. It is based entirely on YOUR PERCEPTION. Other people perceive things to be the truth based on THEIR PERCEPTION.

Therefore, the last thing you want to do is to tell someone that their perception is completely invalid. It is often better to try and guide them, gradually, to come around to a different perspective, one more in line with yours.

Browbeating only makes them solidify their stance, and you recognized that. Much better this time around.

[Selwynn]

4. well..

I'm not a child, the issue is not than I need an education in human pathology. I know full well posting in this way is more effective.

No, my problem is that posting in this way is also more subtle and often far less satisfying when you are frustrated as hell. The DK threads of this morning frustrated me to no end. And sometimes, it's more immediately satisfying to agressively confront rather than engage in open dialogue.

It is unfortunately, totally self-serving.

My probablem is not understanding how to be persasive, and need no lesson in neither human behavior or communication. My problem is anger and reaching a point where I just don't give a damn anymore.

It's still a problem - just a different problem.

[JohnKleeb]

7. I see why you are frustrated

but you know, I can say this the majority of us will support and vote for the dem nominee, I know so, I cant say all because thats impossible but you know sel I for one get frustrated as hell when people shove this Kucinich doesnt have a chance blah blah down our throats. Yes I know it wont be easy but I do know this that hes my candiate and I am happy to support him, and I dont like being told basically to give up the man who inspires my vision. I have Kerry as my number 2 candiate actually, I am not alone as a Kucinich supporter in this too. I will explain sometime why I chose Kerry, I will tell one of the reasons though, hes anti nuclear weapons as well.

[Selwynn]

10. FAIR point.

I can accept that. It's not fair to be at this stage in the game and completely deflating all hope and optimism with stuff like "well its obvious DK won't be elected."

I've been guilty of that. Sorry. I agree so much with Kucinich's platform. It's just the cyinicism getting to me.

I saw a show once that has a quote I think fits here...

A person says "how can you say things like this? what makes you so cynical? From where do you get the nerve?"

The response "From a long, hard, winter."

It's hard to think of Spring in endless winter...

[JohnKleeb]

16. Of course its hard

a spring after endless winter but we have to get spring. Well honest you are better than most, you arent telling us he cant win because he is short (only an inch or so behind the frontrunners), is unattractive I dont think hes a bad looking guy nor do I think it matters, and his last name, I chuckle at that because I think it would be interesting to have someone with Kucinich's cultural background as president, I am a South Slav like him too, well as you see by my avatar Irish as well so is he. You arent that cynical honest but we cant give up this early. We are human beings and if someone rams this down our throats constantly, we are gonna get mad and believe me I could be tougher on people but I dont feel like it.

[IrateCitizen]

9. Oh, I'm quite aware of the dynamics involved.

Having seen you post here, I am certain that you are, for the most part, a thoughtful, considerate (and I daresay "deep") person. What you did is nothing different that what most of us have done on these boards.

I've engaged in it many times myself. I guess I've just become completely frustrated by it that I don't feel the need to "score points for the home team" anymore. Well, except with a few certain posters, but usually only in an attempt to spotlight them for being as foolish as they are.

I guess I was just trying to make you realize what you were doing, not implying that you did not understand how to communicate with others. And, perhaps in a way, my tactic worked.

[Iverson]

3. re: ideology

One man's untenable utopian fantasy is another man's moderately acceptable position.

The awfulness of Bush is not in question, but electoral fraud may render the question moot anyway. We have a surprising, disappointing tolerance for it.

[MuseRider]

5. I have yet to see

more than a handful of people on this board who disagree that Bush* must be gone. Calling out a particular group of supporters was wrong and mean and I think your last thread may have done a lot of harm. I certainly caused me to gasp a bit but then I have long been a dem and am not easily swayed. If your attitude is what is going to become the prevailing attitude on DU than I am gone. If this is the attitude from our party then I am gone. I agree with what you say but the way you said it was harmful. I alerted you but was probably wrong in doing so until the end when you managed to insult just about everybody. Your frustration would have been better put as a "rant" without calling out a particular group of people. I will be wary of you from now on. I have no interest in being called "stupid", hopeless" and whatever else you called me. You have no idea how I or anyone else on this board feels unless they tell you and you make great assumtions. We are mostly a group of intellegent people who care very much and who very much dislke being abused, especially in a place we have felt at home with.

[Selwynn]

6. Like I said...

I make no apology for the opening post of the thread. I do however, apologize for the continuing decline that followed.

[shance]

8. Here's to more passion in our Party!!***

<< And if posts in the previous thread were inflammatory, its because its hard for me to maintain a casual attitude about what I believe to be the truth. >>

Beautifully said. Hopefully its hard for all of us.

[Padraig18]

12. "Passion", or "survival"?

It is hard to be complacent at the thought of *'s re-election, for I truly believe 2004 will be the very last Presidential 'election', if * wins. 2004 is about MUCH more than ideology, or dissatisfaction with the Democratic party, or love for the Green party: it is about the very survival or extinction of our right as sovereign people to govern ourselves.

That is why I personally become so frustrated when I see people drifting away, OR saying "it must be my way, or I will vote 3rd party". Your next 3rd-party vote may well be the last Presidential vote you ever cast.

[MuseRider]

14. You cannot change

people with a brick. It is OK to voice your frustrations, my problem is the attempt to belittle and bully these people into thinking the same way. It will not work, it harms the party, it harms this board. Civility is necessary when dealing with people who are trying to decide what to do. Yes it is frustrating. I have never said anything about how I will vote if DK is not the nominee. I am absolutely ABB at that point (everybody happy?), nobody asked but saw the DK by my name and called me stupid and hopeless etc. I was not the only one. This is not the way to bring people in or to keep people who are new. How anyone ever got the idea that people on this board are complacent is beyond me. This kind of thing is not needed here, we don't need firing up. Dare me? I think at this point in my life my first response to that one is not something I care to write right now. BTW, I am not saying you did any of this, I do not care to go back and reread that thread. Just my response to you and in general.

[reachout]

11. Perhaps it relates to...

fundamental difference of opinion on the nature of this next election.

For myself, I don't believe that George W. Bush is evil (well, I don't really belive in "evil" but I'll use it as a convenient short-hand here). I believe he is terribly misguided and wrong-headed on a great many things, but I don't think he is Pol Pot or Suharto or Kisito (I am actively resisting Goodwin's Law here). I think he is doing what he belives is best for America, even though that may be the polar opposite of most of what I think should be done. I adamantly resist his agenda, but I refuse to hate the man.

As well, I really believe that this republic would survive another four years of Bush. It has survived worse in its history. Do I think the world would be better at that point? Probably not. Do I think that absolutely anyone else will leave the world better at the end of those four years? Possibly not.

I do my best to improve the world in as many ways as I can. I consider electoral politics a small portion of that. Unfortunately, many people seem willing to cast a vote and walk away as though what happens after that is no longer their problem. Regardless of who wins, I think every progressive minded person here (and elsewhere) needs to focus their energy on fundamental citizen-centered change thereafter.

I don't believe this election is the end-all-and-be-all of American politics; however, I recognize that it is both serious and important. Therefore, I think we should all approach it with a great deal of thought and consideration.

[Selwynn]

13. Agreed again! And while it may not be end-all-be-all...

The difference between you and I might be that I believe its awfully close to that, and will have lasting repercussions.

Hey, I want to mention this on the side:

(well, I don't really belive in "evil" but I'll use it as a convenient short-hand here)

I wanted to say that I agree there. I believe people do bad things, but I don't believe there is a "spiritual world" of "evil" or "evil spirits" floating around or anything. I agree with your description of the single word as a short-hand for a more complicated argument.

I'd also like to say that while I disagree with you I think, and feel the stakes for this election are higher, I think you hit the nail on the head in saying that the real issue is a difference of opinion over just what is at stake in this election.

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. It depends on the goal of the individual, why I think this is so touchy

Putting a Democrat face on the PNAC strategy is the goal for some, and something that most will be satisfied with. They are more likely to express admiration for principles and changes in policy, but much in the same way a secretary might express admiration for a Lamberghini - nice, but not something affordable or practical.

Others believe very strongly that a political solution to the nation's crisis is possible, and are committed to regime change in order to accomplish it. These people are less likely to favor compromise on change in actual policies, i.e., unchanged conditions in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan would not be acceptable even if the Oval Office were inhabited by a member of the Democratic branch of the corporate party.

Thus, "winning" means different things to different people, and each side feels very strongly about their position.

My personal preference would be for a political solution, however, I cannot honestly say that I feel it is realistic at this point; the situation is too extreme, and the problems too systemic.

I admire the optimism of those who do, and I acknowledge that those who favor a cosmetic change are in the majority and more attractive to those who write the checks.

[Selwynn]

19. I don't believe any current candidate represents a cosmetic change...

alone... although I do appreciate where you are coming from.

What I believe is that there are three kinds of candidates this election:

1. Those who are sprinting full-throttle towrards our demise (Bush)
2. Those who are walking towards it (the Democratic front-runners)
3. Those who are walking against it but have no possible chance of being elected. (Progressives)

An improbable possibility is preferable to an impossible probability. The question is: are people who are willing to withhold support from a democratic nominee holding out for an imrobably possibility or an impossible probability? If it is the former, then may agrument doesn't hold. However, if it is the latter, then my argument is spot on.

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. A cosmetic change is all that the check-writers will allow

For obvious reasons. The things that are most dangerous to ordinary Americans are foreign policy and the growing gap between rich and poor and concurrent elimination of the middle class.

All of that benefits large corporations, altering any of it would result in an immediate and significant reduction in revenue to them.

It is neither reasonable nor realistic to suppose that people will deliberately choose to have less money, especially when those are the very people who already have most of the money.

It is not unlike the famous argument about the minimum wage.

Whether the minimum wage is or is not raised 2 dollars over a period of 2 or 3 years is not really relevant to minimum wage earners in a market where an apartment costs 4 times the minimum wage.

It is, however, a great way for politicians to demonstrate their committment to the poor

By the same token, holding out the shiny bauble of gay marriage while continuing to fund Israel's Policy of Starvation, the Torture Lottery, and deploying US, Turkish and Israeli troops around the region to kill more Muslims as the already teeming throngs of poor back home are joined by the newly unemployed may be all the distraction needed for some, but the best one can say about its relevance is that the first gay domestic victims of the war will be able to await their fate in the home they shared with their late partner.

[MadHound]

17. So when is the time "right"?

That is a canard that has always been thrown at me, one that I unfortunetly believed for a long time. In fact for such a long time that I now despair that it is too late, that the bastards have won.

We have to wrench our current "two party, one corporate master" political system out of the hands of the robber barons. It is neither a long nor easy process, and yes, there will be some short term setbacks. The last time that our country was in this kind of crisis was during the Gilded Age, that timespan from after the Civil War extending seventy years until the Great Depression. The situation was the same as today's, where it didn't matter who was in office, Dem or 'Pug, for the corporate oligarchy controlled them all.

There were two things that brought us out of that mess. The first was Theodore Roosevelt. The Trust Buster brought to light the monopolistic practices of the robber barons, and while he wasn't able to dismantle the corporate monster, he did curb the worst of the excesses and provided hope. The second was the Great Depression and FDR. The Depression was the direct result of the wretched excess that monopolies had engaged in for decades. FDR was both compassionate and astute enough to seize the oppurtunity presented him by pushing through a raft load of laws to benefit the average person, a lot of which we still reap the benefits of today. Though he was castigated as a class traitor by the rich and powerful, his actions endeared him to the working man so much that he served the longest term in office ever.

This is the situation that we face today, where neither party has the interests of the average man any more, all they are interested in is how much corporate money they can get. Where politicians of both parties are willing to say and do anything their corporate masters tell them. I(and many others) feel that the only way to battle this scurge is to work on making public campaign financing a reality, and to not vote for any corporate candidate be they of any party. This leads us to two people whom we can throw our support behind. The first is Dennis Kucinich, for he doesn't take any corporate money. The second is the Green party candidate, for the Green party is both behind public campaign financing and doesn't take corporate money.

Fighting and winning this battle against this corporate behemoth is something that will take time and energy, and the benefits might only be realized by our children. But it is one that is well worth fighting for. You say that you support the Green platform, that indeed you are to the left of them on many issues. But you feel that the situation is too dire now. I say that you are supporting a short term victory while we are fighting a long term battle. What good is dumping one corporate controlled puppet who carries out his master's wishes overtly for another corporate controlled puppet who will carry out his corporate master's wishes covertly?

Over many years I've heard many many people like you, who say they would go the third party way, but feel that it would be a wasted vote if they did so. It is a canard presented here on DU on a regular basis. But you know, if all of these people who said that they are sick of the lesser of two evil choices presented every four years would actually go out and vote their conscience, well, we just might be able to break out of this "two parties, same corporate master" trap that we're in. Think about it.

[Selwynn]

18. Certainly not when...

you're engaged in a moral conflict between someone horrible and a whole slew of people ranging in degrees of goodness, but none as horrible.

[Mairead]

20. Take advice from Agent K.

Jay: We don't got time for this cover-up bull shit... Look, i don't know if you forgot but there's an Arquillean Battle---

Kay: There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Korilian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out life on this miserable planet.


The right time is now, because otherwise there is no right time.

[MadHound]

22. Ah, but that's where you're wrong

None of these corporate whores, be they Dem or 'Pug, can be considered "good" or even a "degree of goodness". Once you take corporate money, your soul has been sold, and your moral convictions count for exactly zilch. All that matters is what your corporate masters tell you matters. Yes, you can put a kinder, gentler, more charasmatic face on it, ala Clinton. Or you can just be up front and not care who you offend. The relsults are going to be the same either way, more profits for the corporation and more misery for the average citizen.

Look, you know what I'm talking about, and probably deep down you have a sneaking suspicion that I'm right. I think that is why you popped off so much in a couple of other threads. I understand, I've been where you're at now. But when you're finally ready to admit to yourself what's truly going on, promise that you will use that energy and anger for the long term good. You're a fighter, that's obvious, but a misguided one. Go out and do some research, read some Palast, Hightower, Moore, and especially Kevin Phillips "Wealth and Democracy". Then perhaps you will be ready to admit to what you only suspect now.

[sweetheart]

21. tactical voting

If i understand that clark will win the nomination and that i can vote for him in the runoff, then i can vote for kucinich in the primary to show my support for proper democratic policy. Dennis should be elected president of the democratic policy committee and the bloody party should start acting like one.

Clark is a face, and i truly believe one i can support against bush that will take the middle and the terribly politically divided country by offering a non-political, very credible democrat. He'll eviscerate the republicans with their own voters... and win... just sadly, unless a serious party machine can revive a house and senate majority, its just more uphill, like the clinton presidency... spending years cleaning up the mess the puppy left in the white house... and returning to respecting the constitution as the rule of law and not some crawford nutter.

[Terwilliger]

24. You voted Green in 2000? Does that include Nader?

[Selwynn]

25. Why does the first "harsh" post stay bumped...

While the second, toned down contuation rolls off the boards...

Confrontation is sexy I guess.

[Terwilliger]

26. answer my above post