Two schools of thought at DU - Party vs. People

[Political Heretic]

There seem to be two broad schools of thought here. One school says that the Democratic party is the answer first, and then based on that assumption seeks to interpret everything that is done, that Democrats have a hand in, as "good" in order to fit that narrative - and become very agitated whenever challenged to look at policy from the perspective of the American working class....

The other school starts with consideration of the American working class first, and evaluates all Washington politics by evaluating how policy effects the bottom 80% of America that is not "rich" or the bottom 90% of America that is not super-rich, and by evaluating whose interests are being served first by Democratic or Republican politicians and their agendas.

The former school is more than comfortable with the working class being a second thought, and with interpreting policy that serves the super wealthy privileged interests first as a good thing, because some benefits may "trickle down" to ordinary Americans. Yes, trickle down theory is alive and well, just under different names and rationalizations.

Putting wealthy interests ahead of the working class is re-branded as "not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good." Selling a corporate product is respun as being "practical." What is actually being said is, "I will never hold the owners of the country accountable for the social problems caused by their economic policies."

The latter school is only comfortable with policy and puts the majority working class Americans first, and is more than comfortable criticizing any politician, regardless of what letter they have after their name, when they support policies that exploit the working class or oppose policy that primarily (not secondarily) benefits the working class.

The former values Party loyalty and tolerates very little self-reflection. It's party first, with interpretation of anything the party does as "good" by definition to follow.

The latter, values the working class first, and aligns itself strategically with a party only insofar as that party puts the working class first. Where party fails to put working class Americans first, it must be criticized and its agenda opposed; new representatives and new party leaders must replace those who serve the interest American elite over the people.

The latter do not believe that the people get the "table scraps" that fall from the banquet being served to rich capitalist titans. After all, we raise the beef, grew the food, wove the table cloth, carved the chairs, fashioned the placements, and cooked the meal - it is ours to eat.

Party vs. People.

[Cant trust em]

1. Man. We sure do like to make things simple around here.

Column A or Column B.

[grantcart]

6. Well the Democratic Party rarely represents the working class and the

working class always projects solidarity for the poor, passion for the environement and a united front against unjust war lol.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. lol. right. you're a funny guy.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. The further the Party moves away from the People, the further People will move away from the Party

That's why Healthcare will be THE defining moment of this administration and possibly the Party in general in my opinion.

[PretzelWarrior]

5. you sound like "The Sphinx" from Mystery Men.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

47. Ha! You're right, I do.

That sounds exactly like the Sphinx!

I still stick with the sentiment, though. If people feel that their party is NOT looking out for them they will:

a. quit politics in general in disgust

b. vote very, very selectively (not just the straight ticket refelxively)

c. seek a different party

[stray cat]

4. Some of us prefer the current crop of dems to the current crop of repubs

how many actually think the people would be better off under the repubs for 8 more years?

[Political Heretic]

8. That's like saying give the choice between murder or rape, I'll take rape.

"Perhaps it is true that if we did not continue to support even the Democrats who clearly demonstrate their total apathy, if not animosity, toward working class American interests, somehow the alternative would be even worse. But that does not excuse us from truthfully acknowledging the implied reality that no one in Washington is sufficiently representing we the people. It's like saying "I'll chose a rapist over a murderer because at least I won't die" but then not having the courage to acknowledge that rape is still wrong."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6379516&mesg_id=6379516

[SKKY]

66. Horrible, horrible analogy.

[Political Heretic]

76. Also accurate.

[frylock]

21. get some new material already..

how many actually think the people would be better off under the repubs for 8 more years? *squawk*

[emilyg]

36. I'm tired of that argument.

[ChiciB1]

70. SO -- AM -- I -- I -- WANT -- TO -- SEE -- SOME -- REAL -- DEMOCRATS!!!

Not the Blue-Dogs, not the DINOS, and NOT THE ONES who grease their palms with "dirty" money!!

Too many these days are look more Repuke anyway! I don't know HOW to make any reality out of what I'm seeing, but what I'm seeing ISN'T a Democratic Party I once knew!

[Teaser]

7. So everyone but those who agree with you is an evil groupthinker

right.

[Political Heretic]

9. No, not who agree with me. Who put the american working class first.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. That's a vague statement because there is more than one way to do that.

Or for people to perceive they are doing that.

The people who voted Gore in 2000 felt they were putting people first. The people who voted Nader also felt they were putting the people first. Who was right?

[Political Heretic]

16. The "everyone is right, so no one is wrong" canard again. It's not about voting, is about policy.

Policy can be evaluated. It's concrete and tangible. It's effects on working class Americans are measurable. Who the primary beneficiaries are is also knowable.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. No, that's not what I'm saying.

Some people clearly don't care about their neighbors. Those screaming about socialism in Town Halls for example.

But America is better under the Democrats than it is under the Republicans. Even you admit that. The policy has been evaluated and that is what we have come up with.

Now, the question is, how do you work with that?

This is where there is another (among many) school of thought that you don't mention in your black and white scenario.

People who believe, like I do, that the Democrats are our best hope to move the country in a more liberal direction. This is not about the six Blue Dogs, but the party in general. Every time the Democrats lose, they don't move left, they see that the Republicans won and move rightward to join them. If we want to turn the tide, we need to push left from within the party. For me, it is a question of tactics. And I do not appreciate being declared "the enemy" because I disagree with you.

[SidneyCarton]

33. The beauty of narcissism, is that one need never consider one's self wrong

It's always the other person's fault. This guy isn't against groupthink, he's against groupthink that disagrees with him.

[SidneyCarton]

32. Then no one stands with the working class, for policy from both sides has been abysmal.

Now what?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

67. Do you like Dennis Kucinich?

What policy has he created that has made its way into law?

[ChiciB1]

71. That Comment Says It ALL!!! And Too Bad He's Had So Little Success! n/t

[Political Heretic]

73. I like lots of Democrats.

:shrug:

[SidneyCarton]

10. Fair enough, but the people have to be organized in order to be effective.

Assume for a moment that we have a great proletarian rising. Without organization, stated goals and a structure to focus that energy, it's just a riot that will burn itself out, or be easily divided and crushed.

If the Democratic Party is not the organization to focus these efforts (and I don't see it as such either) what is the viable alternative? If you want a revolution (even if it is on the model of the "velvet" revolutions of Czechoslovakia) it must be organized and prepared for prior to the breakdown of society. There need to be viable leaders, who have experience in something other than withering criticism of the status quo, or broad ideological statements. There need to be a clear cut plan for the transition to a new society, realizing that a society is never created ex nilho, and that you will have to deal with the detrius of the previous society, which will be resistant (and likely violently so) to change.

You want to value the people? Organize them. Otherwise this is all just an academic exercise in political theory.

[Davis_X_Machina]

30. "Otherwise this is all just an academic exercise in political theory."

You say that like it's a bad thing, or something. ;-)

[SidneyCarton]

31. Not a bad thing, just not inherently actionable either.

;)

[Davis_X_Machina]

34. Which is why Marx kept banging on...

...about how important praxis is.

[SidneyCarton]

37. Indeed, the whole point is application.

Marx was no fool, he understood this all too well. The difficulty with Marx has been application, where done well, it has improved society (Western Europe testifies to this) where it has been poorly implemented (Russia, China, etc...) it has been an abysmal failure. But all too often, I believe these places over-emphasised theory, and an authoritarian approach to application, resulting in disaster.

[Davis_X_Machina]

39. There's an understandable desire for the simple, the pure, the clean...

...that is a disastrous will-o-the-wisp to chase -- lord knows its chased hither-and-yon here.

Real politics is doing something you basically don't want to do with people you probably can't stand, for people who won't notice, and when they do notice, they'll say it took too long, costs too much, and anyways you're doing it wrong.

[redqueen]

44. Hah...

well said.

[Davis_X_Machina]

60. I'll overlook the fact that you're a

...Gooner fan, and say thanks....and up the Super Seagulls.

League One -- the home of real (non-checkbook) footie.

[redqueen]

61. LOL!

Hey! The Arsenal may have money, but that tighfisted Arsene won't spend much of it, so ... there! :P

[Davis_X_Machina]

62. Maybe we'll do you in the League Cup, like we..

...did Man City last year......wait a minute, we went out in round one. :-(

[Spazito]

55. Well said! Bears repeating...

Real politics is doing something you basically don't want to do with people you probably can't stand, for people who won't notice, and when they do notice, they'll say it took too long, costs too much, and anyways you're doing it wrong.

Reality.

[Political Heretic]

57. The details are complex. The principle is simple.

The prioritization of people is simple. It ought to be a guiding principle.

Of course the details of what that means, and how best to do that are complex. That was never in any doubt.

There is a time and a place for re-affirming basic principles (though I intended to put this in GD not here where it would be so obviously inflammatory) and the principle of putting people over party is one that deserves to be restated.

It simply means seeing politics through the lens of who is putting the working class first, what policy is makes working class interests the priority, etc. And if and when we find people who are putting privileged interests above working class interests in policy or actions, we should criticize those efforts and even oppose them directly if necessary. That shouldn't change because they have a special letter after their name.

Alternatively, there is a way of seeing things that starts with a sort of infallibility of Party. Basically its a kind of notion - literal or implied - that suggests that if a Democrat is doing it, then it is good - especially if its a democratic president, or high profile members of the Democratic party. The facts are then twisted to fit that narrative. I think it should be the other way around.

All of that talk is talk about guiding principles - there's no question that specific issues require much more discussion, and that there will be some spectrum of difference of opinion on how working class interests are best served. Again, that kind of goes without saying.

[grantcart]

11. The interesting thing about heretics through the ages

They usually don't become heretics because they are non comformists are completely against orthodoxy. Normally a heretic will take one 'truth' and so exaggerate it to the point that it becomes apostacy because it is no longer based on reality.

Some things don't change that much.

[Political Heretic]

14. Yes, like Galieo

:eyes:

[grantcart]

38. who?

Oh did you mean to compare yourself with Galileo?

Well thanks for the humor.

No sorry. By the time of Galileo came on the scene the word heresy was well formed.

The word 'heretic' was formed around the time of the gnostics and was aimed at folks like Marcion.

Marcion - for example he took the principle of the duality of Jesus and, like other heretics, over emphasized the point until his Christology formed his Systematic Theology and he argued that there were two gods, Yahweh and The Heavenly Father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion

Marcion was the first well-known heretic in the history of the early church

So let's summarize;

The word heretic was first used on Marcion and other gnostics.

It describes a situation where somebody takes a philosophic point of view, exaggerates a point of truth until it becomes an absurdity.

Marcion exaggerated the duality of Jesus in the Gospel and came up with an absurd philosophy that died in history.

By exaggerating a basic truth (that the interests of the Democratic Party and the workers movement are not identically the same) and extending it to an absurdity (that they are in deep conflict)you have fulfilled your name well.

You are well named although most people don't understand the origins of the name.

You could call yourself a Political Marcionist (or Political Manichean) but you are no Political Galileo or Political Galieo (sic) either.

[cliffordu]

42. Note to self: DON'T FUCK WITH THE GRANTCART.

BwaHAHA Hah aHaHaH AHaH aH ahh aH aH ahahaH aH aHa

Man, that's going to leave a mark....


:rofl:

[redqueen]

45. You're my favorite DUer.

Just wanted you to know.

[cliffordu]

48. Mine, too.

Brutish little elf, ain't he??

[Political Heretic]

56. There were a lot of other people labeled heretics too. Pelagius, for example.

Pelagius who was far more reasonable than the religious orthodox who labeled him.

And so was Galileo (minus the typo).... in fact "heretic" became most synonymous with the church's regular crusades against science - against facts - or against those who dared to believe something other than the orthodox religion.

Religion.

The attempted jab sort seems to lose some of its punch, to me at last, seeing as how Religion calling other people heretics is kind of a laughable joke.

And it has nothing to do with reason of any stripe.

[grantcart]

64. and people say you can't find Gnostics in the 21st Century

Up with Manichaeism and self indulgent dualism - I am pure and all those who actually work in broady political party are defiled!!


And I do it all in the name of the workers, for the Democratic Party is for the Party and is not for the workers.


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!

[Political Heretic]

72. Straw men, red herring, ad hominem - no one has sad what you are saying.

No one has said that those who work "in broadly political party" are wrong by definition.

No one has said that the Democratic Party wholesale is for Party and not for workers.

What has been said is this:

there are, broadly speaking (broadly meaning this way of categorization is both general and not exclusive,) two schools of thought among people here. One puts party first, interpreting anything done by party as automatically good first - if a Democrat does it, it is good by default, and a rationale must be constructed to describe how anything done is good, even in those instances when something done is corrupt, or done solely to serve powerful interests at the expense of the American worker.

You can't go from there to suggesting that I said "the Democratic Party is for the Party and not for workers" without being disingenuous or put less diplomatically - lying. At most I said that there are some people who put allegiance to party so high that they end up defending some terrible actions just because someone with a (D) after his or her name was responsible. Which is not even close to saying "Democratic Party is for Party and not for workers" as a general statement.

Another way of looking at things is to start with a commitment to the rights, needs and issues of ordinary Americans and their families and from that premise evaluate the decisions and actions of people in the party. Insofar as Democrats are doing things that reflect that the needs and rights of ordinary Americans are put first, then they should be supported. But when they do not have that perspective, rather than attempting to concoct rationales to defend them purely for the sake of defending them, they should be challenged.

While the details may be complex, the basic principle is pretty simple. Naturally understanding what kinds of compromises to accept and where that line is between actions that still have enough benefit for working American to be supported and actions that have no longer have enough benefit or do enough active harm to ordinary Americans that it should be opposed. But the principle of how we approach party and politics is important.

[cliffordu]

78. Hooookay....Which part of that makes you heretical??

:rofl:

[Political Heretic]

80. I didn't say anything did. That was someone else.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. The first sentence is tendentious enough to...

...guarantee to the reader that what follows is a polemic, and not an honest attempt to persuade or inform.

So it's an example of the very us v. them, with us-or-against-us-ism that it's attacking.

Everyone's entitled to vent, but tossing everyone but your friends out of the treehouse and pulling up the ladder is no way to grow an audience.

And I say that as a card-carrying socialist.

[DJ13]

15. There sure are some angry reactions to your post

There shouldnt be, but I suspect many people are troubled that they fit into your first group, which seems to be a description of the DLC.

[Cant trust em]

17. There are reactions to the post because people don't like to be labeled. nt

[Political Heretic]

20. For people to be labeled, they'd have to recognized themselves in one of the two schools.

If they don't, then there's no problem, is there?

No, the problem is that people do recognize themselves in one of those two schools... not that they don't and feel "mislabeled." :)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. No, you labeled the people that responded yourself when you say "the response has been predictable"

and then go on to disparage GDP as home base of the ruling shills or some such nonsense.

[Cant trust em]

29. Well, you're the one defining the label

telling people that if they support X that they are the enemy of the people.

[DJ13]

22. If you're sure of your position a label shouldnt matter

The OP has a point, too many times people are lambasted around here for not falling in line to the party when they are critical about an issue that a Democrat is responsible for that will negatively impact the working class.

[Political Heretic]

19. Of course. I accidentally posted this in GD:P home based of those shilling for ruling interests

When I intended to post it in GD. The response is predictable.

[dionysus]

51. boy, it sure gets you in a snit that everyone isn't as angry as you huh?

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

58. I shocked - SHOCKED - that a majority white, upper middle class board isn't "angry"

We've been through DU demographics before... we know why the perspective shapes up like it does.

[Cha]

53. All you have are insults..come back when you

have something important to say.

[frylock]

23. +1

[Cha]

28. I don't see any "anger".

[defendandprotect]

18. Small "d" democracy . . . . AND, we are all one people on this one planet -- !!!

[dionysus]

25. what about party people?

:party: :toast: :smoke: :beer: :woohoo: :party:

[invictus]

27. K&R. You are right.

[SidneyCarton]

35. PH, who exactly are the people again?

Working class Americans split on party lines like everyone else. Wedge issues have been very effective at atomizing the "people" and turning them against any of their own interests, by polarizing them on hot-button issues like abortion, gay marriage, the second amendment, "socialism" etc, etc...

There are no "people" PH, whatever common interests we may have, have been subsumed by the idiotic passions aroused by fringe issues which shall ever (by design remain irreconciliable).

[OHdem10]

40. Political Heretic --you have nailed it. and by so doing you have shown

yourself a genuine Activist. Your ability to discuss the
two groups in a reflective and honest way without saying one side
is right and the other is wrong. Thank you.

[SidneyCarton]

41. ?

"Reflective?" "Honest?" able to discuss both sides without saying one side is right and the other is wrong?

Are reading the same OP?

[Uzybone]

43. more divisive nonsense

2 legs good 4 legs bad

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheKentuckian]

49. No matter how lackluster the Democrats may or may not be

I'd say they are even more of a no brainer over the Republicans than ever. I'd say that there is no case to be made that Democrats aren't less true to the hands that feed them than ever. However, where the their has been slippage on this side of the fence the Republicans have dived into a singularity. That drove many of their saner members to us, in turn making us more conservative but still incredibly saner and more trustworthy for day to day operations than the opposition.

A firm hand at eradicating the Republicans and then a split of the reasonably rational seems to be, more or less, the only course of action short of revolution.

[debbierlus]

50. They believe that Obama & the dems have their best interest at heart and will work for them....

In the best way possible....even if facts and logical thought do not bear that out...

Obama is a corporate sell out. He hasn't even TRIED to fight for what is best for the people.

He just reappointed BERNACKE for Chripes Sake!

He won't even TALK about the best health care reform - HR676 - he doesn't even mention it exists.

The private meetings with the health care 'stake holders' (excuse me while I puke at that statement - stakeholders being the profiteering leeches)...

But, his supporters believe that he has to do all of this because it is impossible to do anything else, and something is better then nothing. They think he is governing the best way he can given circumstances.

I don't agree with them at all. In my view, he is a corporately manufactured salesman who gives pro-corporate fascist legislation credibility, policy that would be rallied against if it was sold by a Republican or even a less popular dem.

They will wake up. Too late for the health care reform battle, but truth can only be hidden for so long.

[dionysus]

52. "corporately manufactured salesman who gives pro-corporate fascist legislation credibility" to quote

barney frank, what planet do you spend most of your time on?

you see, when you call Obama a facist, you lose whatever granule of credibility you never had to begin with.

[cornermouse]

54. Actually, she does have a point buried in her post though.

Think of how republicans would have reacted if a democrat had tried to sell some of the spying on American policies that Bush passed? Yet because Bush passed it, they were happy and content. And now we have Obama who has gone on record as admiring Reagan and who keeps appointing all these people who are holdovers from other administrations including republican and some democrats are saying things like "we just have to trust him".

[mkultra]

69. meanwhile, you work for republicans

In a two party system, there are only two options. If you work against the democrats in office, you work for the republicans.


Here is where the ideology must meet the road.

[Jennicut]

59. Its crappy to lump people here on DU as being either for a political party or

for principles. Some of us are both and some have little time for bad Dems and have plenty of time for good Dems. Nuanced thinking, you know? And some of us like some stuff Obama has done and dislike other things. Its not black and white at all...

[Political Heretic]

74. I agree with you. Fortunately, no one here has done that.

What was talked about however, was the difference between putting party loyalty ahead of working class interests vs. putting working class interests first and interpreting the actions of party through that lens - supporting when appropriate, criticizing or challenging when inappropriate.

The principle is simple (or black and white as you said, though I wouldn't use that phrase) - but of course the details of what that looks like are complex.

[ncteechur]

63. Well that is just bullshit! nfm

[Vidar]

65. Well said.

[mkultra]

68. or. The former values progress of any sort, the latter is realism challenged

The former fights at the political front,, the later bears only an ideological burden with little practical application to match its loud vocalizations. The former holds the door against the republicans while the latter would happily see republicans in office again if it delivered their "message."

[Political Heretic]

75. The former has never been responsible for progress of any sort.

However, I'm pretty sure that you're reading in a lot to what I said that isn't actually there.

Putting working class Americans first and holding politicians accountable is how things get done. It's how things have always gotten done. It's in keeping with the best history of the Party.

Putting Party first, so that anything every done by any party member is assumed to be right, and spin is developed to defend any action taken, no matter what that action is - that's what has always been an enemy of any progress through American history.

Putting working class Americans first doesn't mean abandoning party - it means having a commitment to holding your Party accountable.

[mkultra]

77. Wrong

Putting working class Americans first is what drives our goals. working the political system is how things have always gotten done.

When people ask for the detractors to calm themselves, they are not asking that all actions by party members be excused. On the contrary, they are saying that policy differences are to be handled in the primary NOT the general.

The idea that the democrats eat their own comes from these misguided actions amongst the armchair left. Like i said, in a two party system in which one party is the Republicans, doing anything to undermine the democrats will always result in more net harm to the working class.

i would like to see you address this final statement and back it up with fact. I can.

[Political Heretic]

79. It's not "wrong" - you're talking past what I said to attack your own staw man.

"working the political system is how things have always gotten done."

Great, because I never suggested anything different.

You came into this thread seeing whatever it is you want to see.

Like i said, in a two party system in which one party is the Republicans, doing anything to undermine the democrats will always result in more net harm to the working class.

Supporting the best Democrats possible doesn't undermine anything. It is, in fact, critical. When Sestak runs against Specter, is it "undermining the party" to support Sestak?

No, I think not.

[mkultra]

81. Just like i said. In the primaries.

Doing it in the general is self-defeatist. In the Primaries, i was a Kucinich, Edwards, Clark, Obama, Hillary supporter(in that order)

NOW that the primaries are over, Im an Obama supporter. My hope is that one day, Kucinich while get enough traction to actually get some traction. But im a realist, and reality takes precedence over ideology.