Short, hopefully non-assholish explanation of why DU freaks me out right now

[jpgray]

This president deserves impeachment. This Congress deserves pushing, whining and yelling to get it moving faster. But there is something about the nature of some of our thinking, both explicitly and implicitly expressed, that is almost frenziedly illogical, unhelpful and dangerous. Here are a few of the worst examples, as I see them:

1. Waiting and thinking of the future means you are a coward.

2. Any concept of moderation (actual moderation, not Lieberman-style abnegation and surrender) is a sign of weakness.

3. Those expressing violent opinions with fanatical enthusiasm are trustworthy, and anyone who objects to such is immediately suspect.

4. Engaging in incremental efforts is always contemptible and worse than using the most radical methods of attack all at once and all the time.

5. No politician is recognized as doing some good and some bad, but rather is wholly vilified in some threads and wholly deified in others, depending on what discrete action the thread discusses--no analysis or recognition of the -whole- is respected, only panegyrics or condemnations, often contradictory and completely isolated from each other.

My last pedantic thread on my frustration was a minefield of errors, due to its attempt to make historical analogies that would "prove" my point. Since the times being compared in such analogies always have significant differences, those comparisons are a disingenuous and insulting way to make one's argument. Hopefully this points out more explicitly what my problem is with some the thinking we see in DU. Say whatever you want and act however you want, but at least consider what the above methods of thinking say about us and whether they are really necessary or desirable for working as best we can to get what we want.

[wildhorses]

1. just more proof that as a nation we becoming more and more

polarized.

[Land Shark]

127. Perhaps this Samuel Adams quote from circa 1776 will help explain

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams

When it comes to basic rights, compromise is violation and surrender. If you're not talking about rights, then compromise is fine if you can live with it.

All power emanates from rights. So if you want to endorse incrementalism with regard to rights, you're either ignorant or surrendering.

Martin Luther King Jr in "I Have a Dream" said

"This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy."

Note: "Tranquility" not approved much by either Samuel Adams or Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Richard Steele]

2. That doesn't seem "assholish" at all- it's quite reasonably stated, IMHO. nm

[PurpleChez]

117. "ditto"

please pardon the rush reference.

[Botany]

3. Boy you sure can explain things

"Say whatever you want and act however you want, but at least consider what the above
methods of thinking say about us and whether they are really necessary or desirable
for working as best we can to get what we want."

[Madspirit]

54. I love the bunny....and I agree with the bunny...n/t

[Truth2Tell]

75. What Bunny said!

:rofl:

But does Bunny support "expressing violent opinions with fanatical enthusiasm"?

[Usrename]

78. Is the bunny MIHOP or LIHOP?

IHOP?

[BattyDem]

89. LMAO!

IHOP!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JohnnyLib2]

4. Extremely well said. Bookmarked.

And recommended. Thank you for voicing some of my own (fuzzy) concerns.:thumbsup:

[LaurenG]

5. I think it's just F R U S T R A T I O N

that nothing appears to be happening and the feeling that we are losing something precious, which is expanded every time bush gets away with something else. It is really scary.

Otherwise, I have no answers.

[redqueen]

15. yep... war funding was a tipping point

i think many of us expected better...

[bryant69]

6. If you know you have the right answer, why bother with the wrong answers?

I mean if you know you are right, why bother with moderation? Is the truth moderate?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Joe Chi Minh]

31. Prophets aren't moderate, but their success is in the long term.

They live and die as failures.

Politicians don't have to be lemming-like Gordon Gekko short-termists, but they do have to engage with the reality on the ground with a shorter-term perspective, as well as a longer one.

[hfojvt]

40. I know I am right

about income tax revenues at least, but if somebody either deliberately or unknowingly posts a Republican talking point about tax cuts, which is likely to be more helpful - calling them a name, or pointing out the facts and deconstructing their errors?

Maybe nothing is gonna help, in the sense that a troll is not gonna be convinced no matter if you bury him/her with facts, but it sets a better example to those who might be persuadable if our side is not quite so arrogant, dogmatic, hostile and close-minded as the other side.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/35

[SmokingJacket]

49. Because you're not alone.

And there are very few instances when the truth is cut and dried.

[Itchinjim]

7. #5

K & R

[mike_c]

8. well....

1. Cowardice in the present can in fact be passed off as "thinking of the future." We need to be cognizant of that and recognize it when it happens.

2. Weakness of character and weak leadership often masquerade as "moderation" when moderation is used to explain failure to act in the face of radical excess-- on either side of the political divide.

3. "Violent opinions" or simply calls for strong action? Do you mean to suggest that calls for change, even revolutionary change, implicitly advocate violence? I hope not.

4. All efforts are incremental-- the real issue is the size of the increments and the duration required to accomplish substantial change.

5. This is unfortunate, but human nature, I suspect. History is best viewed through the perspective of long lenses-- proximate events color our perceptions too strongly to allow most of us to be objective.

[jpgray]

11. Anything less than total and immediate attack is met with contempt

While there are some milquetoast evasions that merit contempt, I get weirded out when Waxman's investigations are met with cries of "Fuck all this investigation, arrest the president today!" It seems to totally devalue -anything- less than total attack, which is a dangerous frame of mind in my view.

[bunkerbuster1]

19. I don't get weirded out by that

I just assume some of it's troll driven, the rest genuine and understandable frustration that'll pass.

I agree that some good people (like Waxman) don't get the respect they clearly deserve.

[tbyg52]

65. No, I am happy with Waxman's investigations

Except for his not letting Sibel Edmonds speak, for whatever reason.

But I *am* getting *very* frustrated with anyone who does *not* think that doing something about this out-of-control executive branch is a top priority. And my state of mind is not helped by watching the cabal continue their outrages day by day. And by worrying what they're going to get away with, and that future jerks will think *they* can get away with as well.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. First comes the thought

All actions are predicated upon thoughts and ideas. DU is a crazy quilt of ideas and opinions, some beautiful, some downright ugly and scary.

What each person has to do is choose which ideas to follow. Examine them carefully, and see if they feel right to you.

Next, if you wish, place these ideas out for consideration. But don't expect everyone - or sometimes anyone - to agree with them.

If the idea is right for you, it will withstand any onslaughts from posters here. Don't let the naysayers get you down. Act upon your idea with a clear and strong heart. Your only true judge is yourself.

[jollyreaper2112]

10. here's your answer

I think it's desperation and despair.

This president deserves impeachment. This Congress deserves pushing, whining and yelling to get it moving faster. But there is something about the nature of some of our thinking, both explicitly and implicitly expressed, that is almost frenziedly illogical, unhelpful and dangerous. Here are a few of the worst examples, as I see them:

1. Waiting and thinking of the future means you are a coward.

And I think it's just that people are sick of the Dems keeping the powder dry. Why even bother if you're never going to fire?

2. Any concept of moderation (actual moderation, not Lieberman-style abnegation and surrender) is a sign of weakness.


Bush is not a person who can be reasoned with. Offering him any concessions is like offering appeasement to Hitler. No, I don't want to invoke Godwin here, I'm just using that as an example of someone who will take what you offer and be outraged you didn't give more. You will never get a concession back. He fights dirty. He's a petulant playground bully but one who has access to damaging weapons. It's like putting a flamethrower in the hands of an infant.

3. Those expressing violent opinions with fanatical enthusiasm are trustworthy, and anyone who objects to such is immediately suspect.

Again, sign of despair. I honestly think at this point that Bush and Cheney are guilty of treason and should be executed. Bush has signed death warrants for killers with only one homicide and the cabal has what now, 800k to their name? This was an elective war. This was not a case of a man shooting a robber in self-defense, this was a man going into the bad part of town looking for a fight and shooting whoever looked guilty enough. It never had to happen but he made it happen. He wanted it. It's murder, it's treason, and fuck impeachment, he should be executed. Will it ever happen? No, of course not. But the moral justification is there. Politics is protecting him from impeachment and justice so he will never stand trial for his actions. He will sleep easily every night for the rest of his long, long life.

4. Engaging in incremental efforts is always contemptible and worse than using the most radical methods of attack all at once and all the time.

The Dem leadership approach has been to cringe and wet themselves every time Bush furrows his eyebrows. That's not effective leadership.

5. No politician is recognized as doing some good and some bad, but rather is wholly vilified in some threads and wholly deified in others, depending on what discrete action the thread discusses--no analysis or recognition of the -whole- is respected, only panegyrics or condemnations, often contradictory and completely isolated from each other.


These are extraordinary times. Bush tried to make the Iraq war out into a yes/no statement but he's actually turned his regime into a yes/no question: Are you with the Constitution and the Rule of Law or are you with the Republicans? It's been made as simple as that thanks to him.

[jpgray]

12. Some moderation and incremental steps are worthy of contempt, but not all

I said this in response to mike_c, but when a Waxman investigation that can do some real good is met with cries of "Blah blah blah wasted symbolic words; fucking Dems" I really wonder how that indiscriminate all-or-nothing condemnation can be seen as valuable.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Investigations are all fine, but unless they are followed up by real

action they are just meaningless intellectual exercises and of no more consequence than when they were pushed into basement broom closets by the republican majority.

And impeachment being off the table, the one, single, greatest consequence has no teeth - why would people cooperate with investigations when they know that their boss will remain in office to give them pardons for anything they take a bullet for?

If the dem leadership would say that impeachment is NOT off the table, the various investigations would be much more effective, with those being investigated knowing they may actually see some consequences.

It's like the cop walking up to the robber and saying "You're under arrest - here, hold my gun while I take out my notebook."

[Phredicles]

56. As for Waxman, I never expected to be disappointed in him, but until

he makes it clear what he plans to do to enforce his subpoena for C. Rice, his investigation does indeed begin to look hollow - that there are limits he's willing to accept that fall short of complyiance with the law or satisfying the public's right to know. And I won't apologize for taking an "absolutist" position on such standards.

[ShortnFiery]

16. Very well reasoned and thoughtful reply jollyreaper2112.

May I be the first to offer KUDOS at your comments as they mostly reflect my perspective as well. :thumbsup: :hi:

[creeksneakers2]

81. The Dem leadership does much more than cringe

and wet themselves. They recently took back Congress, for one thing. Suggestions that we reject all our friends always seem to go along with extremist statements like the "cringe" statement.

If you want to get rid of our Friends and ignore our enemies, why go after Democrats for ignoring our enemies? If they did what the Dem haters wanted, Harry Reid would get rid of Nancy Pelosi, and Nancy Pelosi would get rid of Obama, and they could all just form a circular firing squad. George Bush could walk away unscathed, and the Dem haters would have everything they wanted.

Democrats are doing all they can to stop Bush. I want help them, not make sensational unfounded claims against them.

[JAbuchan08]

87. WE recently took back congress FOR the dems

they won in spite of themselves.

[followthemoney]

86. I agree with you, jollyreaper2112.

The slow and carefully reasoned approach has been going on since the stolen election and the selection of December 12, 2000. It hasn't accomplished anything.

One has to consider that the slow and moderate people were largely asleep for most of the last six years. That is the only way this could look precipitous to them now.

[bettyellen]

13. i think the war had made people more impatient. since it's lost so much support

. it's gotten to a place that many feel should have been the tipping point. so there's disappointment
to say the least.

[jobycom]

14. Well-stated.

Absolutists scare me, at times. Robespierre was an absolutist, Stalin was an absolutist. They destroy the ideals they think they embrace. Even when I basically agree with them, I can't stomach them. Except at times. I can't even be absolutist against absolutists.

Keep in mind, though, that most liberals are very rational, and even some who start the absolutist posts or who jump in with absolutist statements in every thread, are often quite reasonable on other topics. They are just frustrated, as we all are. It's sad that they have to attack everyone working towards their goals because they are not working fast enough or in the exact manner they prefer, but beyond a certain point, frustration destroys reason. Remember the real enemy--it's BushCo, and more importantly, it's the dehumanizing, elitist forces of those who pushed BushCo and Reagan into office, and who spent every waking moment attempting to destroy Clinton when he took office. They are doing the same thing now, to Clinton, to Obama, to Edwards, to Gore. They are the ones to fight. They are the worst absolutists.

As Sinead O'Connor one said, fight the real evil. Now, imagine my tearing a picture of the shadowy figures who are funding banks, oil companies, defense contractors, and the insurance industry. :)

[hfojvt]

42. isn't it the absolutists

who need to remember the real enemy? For a while I used Flash Gordon as my signature line "I'm not your enemy. Ming is. Let's all team up and fight him." Even my current sig line is trying to make the point that not all Christians are enemies. Unfortunately, many people take it the other way, as just more evidence that I am an enemy, especially when I dare to deviate from or question the 'progressive conventional wisdom'.

[eggman67]

67. That's the same point I try to make

with the second quote in my sig.

[jobycom]

104. That's what I said.

At least, that's what I tried to say. :shrug:

[Truth2Tell]

77. Ding Ding Ding. Double Points!

for the Robespierre and Stalin combo!

[Chemical Bill]

97. >fight the real evil

>As Sinead O'Connor one said, fight the real evil. Now, imagine my tearing a picture of the shadowy figures who are funding banks, oil companies, defense contractors, and the insurance industry.

Don't tear up pictures. Take your money out of national and international banks, no matter how many free pens they give you. Bank at local institutions. Wean yourself off of oil. Get a diesel and run biodiesel, or move next door to work. Boycott GE and other defense contractors. Stoves are only a small part of their business, but NBC is huge. Carry as little insurance as possible. An old car only needs liability, less possessions means less insurance. Simplify, and everybody wins.

Bill

[rucognizant]

118. Diesel Car.

Yes, I listened to Jimmy Carter & have driven a diesel Rabbit since 1981,.( on my 3rd.!)
It gets 50 mi per gal.! I couldn't afford transportation without it on my measely SS income. ) I live in rural Maine where you have to drive 32 miles to buy socks & underwear! NOT AT WALMART!
If I could afford it I would get a second fuel tank installed so I could drive on biodiesel in warmer weather. ( I don't go out much in the winter because without comprehensive Ins.
I can't afford to lose the car in a ditch due to black ice.)
Right now I got the miseries because theres something wrong with the motor.......( blown head gasket I suspect) mechanics need a high compression tool to work on Diesel motors,
So I am grounded for ....... a week? or so. Beyond that.......car costs run about $1,000. per year for repairs! period! ( no car payments, no computerized stuff, simple electronics!)
My life would be a lot easier if diesels weren't so darned esoteric! There would be used models wihin my budget if needed.there would be more mechanics able to fix them..........
As far as safety.........I drove my truck to Oregon from here in '92, & lived to tell about it. I drive the NJ turnpike, in Manhatten, NY thruway.............
You have to be a good defensive driver that's all! BOOO............ Pox on Detroit for taking the dark path!
Also here in Maine there is a BIG movement towards organic small farms, barter organizations and several commercial retail stores that sell remainder items cheap, so we don't have to go to Walmart!

[Chemical Bill]

128. You don't need a second tank.

The media mixes up veggie oil and biodiesel. You modify the fuel to get biodiesel, you modify the car to drive on veggie oil.

Here's a little more info:
http://www.localb100.com/
http://www.biodieselnow.com/default.aspx

Bill

[jobycom]

131. Quite right.

Biodiesel is diesel made from vegetable oil. It is just plain old diesel fuel, you dump it straight into your tank. You can modify most diesels to run on vegetable oil, and that's where the second tank thing comes in. Modification usually includes a second tank for running diesel at startup and just before shutdown, to keep the system from clogging up with the thicker vegetable oil, and it also includes some form of tank or fuel line heater, if you are using waste oil, to melt the trans fats so they don't clog anything. Basically, you dump vegetable oil in one tank and diesel in the other, you start the car on diesel, and when it warms up you switch tanks to run on veggie oil, then, shortly before turning the engine off, you switch back to diesel to clean the system out.

You can buy biodiesel if you have a nearby source, or you can make it with a bit of effort. Basically, you get vegetable oil, you mix it with methanol, you heat it and churn it for a while, and the mixture separates into glycerines and ethyls (I think those are the terms). The ethyls are the fuel, the glycerins are waste, though you can make soap and other useful stuff from them. You can also make biodiesel from used vegetable oil, in which case you have to filter the oil, and you have to add lye to it to bring it to the proper PH level--not too complicated, but an added step.

Biodiesel is not completely petroleum free, since it takes methanol to start the chemical reaction, and most of that methanol is not recoverable after the process. So probably a fifth of your tank of biodiesel is petroleum, so to speak. You can use alternatives to petroleum methanol, but the chemistry gets very complex, and I don't understand it. :)

Some cars--especially the old five cylinder in-line Mercedes engines (like mine!), can run off of vegetable oil without a second tank. I've never done this, just heard about it.

[Chemical Bill]

144. Well...

You need lye to make biodiesel whatever stock you start with, as it's the catalyst needed to start the reaction. And please don't heat methanol, it will boil off or burn, depending. Methanol comes from natural gas at this point, so it is a fossil fuel, but is that properly labeled petroleum?

That first link in my other post was about making it, the second link includes places to buy it.

Bill

[Orsino]

125. If anyone is seriously counseling waiting...

...or keeping the powder dry, I'd say that the burden of proof is on them. I do believe that most of these (non-troll) people aren't just twiddling their thumbs, but are taking action of a quieter nature, hoping thereby to gain something, immediately or eventually, that can't be achieved by taking to the streets ors (gasp!) using profanity.

There's a place for all sorts of peaceful action. I'd just like to know who, if anyone, still believes that silence will accomplish anything.

[havocmom]

17. Too many (of ALL political persuasions) have 'Burger King Mentality'

They really believe they can have it their way and get it in 60 seconds.

Been calling that one since way before the bush junta. Too many just don't pay attention to the fact that change takes time. The bush/cheney junta did not just come about between Election Day and Dec 12 in 2000. The foundation and groundwork took DECADES.

Too many just don't want to think about the details it takes to make change. It takes time and we live in a culture with too much expectation of instant gratification.

And by the way, the culture coming to that instant gratification standard took time too. Will take time to un-learn the bad habit, but we gotta do it... in stages ;)

[jpgray]

20. Exactly. Much of the foundation came from Scaife, Coors, etc., pursuant to the Powell Manifesto

And it's taken decades and billions in think-tank funding to get to the point where their hubris finally allows us to start taking it apart again. And I think that adds to the frustration and impatience more than anything.

[marions ghost]

43. you make a good point

and I agree that things often take more time than we expect. I go along with that but only to a point. I tend to be very patient in ordinary situations but I am NOT patient about reversing the damage inflicted by the band of thieves at the helm of this country. This is an emergency.

Remember we have also seen how blindingly FAST the forces operating against us have succeeded once they got their master plan in place. When you do not play by the "rules" you can make a lot of progress very quickly and our adversaries have undermined everything we care about with frightening speed and focus. This is anxiety producing, to say the least, to those used to being fair and taking turns & all that idealistic stuff.

So we may not have time to deal with all the details in fighting back this juggernaut. It may have to be a bit ragged around the edges. At some point, the gloves come off. We are confronting the most blatant form of exploitation ever to occur in this country. I'm not sure we have the luxury of a lot of time.

[havocmom]

45. Like it or not, we DO have to take time to wake up the people

and that is not easy. Luckily, bush/cheney have been helping us in that part of the task.

When enough are awake, changes are possible. The more who get behind change, the faster we can push it.

But, we have a lot of media brainwashing (two and a half decades worth) to do. We are making amazing progress, all things considered.

[marions ghost]

51. oh yes

considering the seriousness of the situation there have been some significant pluses. However I tend to see them as lucky breaks rather than the result of strong opposition on our part. It appears to me that the Dems have been complicit in selling us downriver, and are now caught on a rock in the middle of the rapids. I sincerely hope they are able to push off soon.

Yes, the evildoers have screwed up at times, and there have been some accidental self-inflicted wounds. Not surprising--it's hard to keep lies and secret agendas completely shielded. And agreed, we have made some progress against the corporate media's grip on our shared view of reality. Long way to go there. Agreed, waking up the people is the goal.

But I also understand the frustration of our constituency at the apparent lack of mechanisms either in the Congress or the Judiciary, to protect our most sacred, most basic rights. We have seen how vulnerable we truly are. I resent the fact that we have to work so hard at this now but we really have no choice. We have been betrayed. We trusted the system, and it is well on the way to failing us completely. We need to see some evidence of a real correction in order to continue to put some faith in it. And we need to see it soon.

That's the challenge to the Dems or anyone who would lead us.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. well said

and I agree.

I get the feelign that many here would be much happier with an empty gesture that failed, than with a small step that actually accomplished something.

But keep in mind, that many reasonable people don't get into these arguments, so DU almost self-selects for extremists.

[Zodiak]

21. ah....a meta-analysis...I like debating how we debate

Some counter points:

1. Waiting and thinking about the future are not joined at the hip. Many who do not wish to wait are thinking about the future and understand what the implications of waiting until the clock runs out means for the future. Ostensibly, waiting has been the paradigm for the Washington Democrats for many years, and that waiting has resulted in a massive degeneration of our political system. Perhaps trying the "waiting" thing for so long and without any results but massive failure has made more than a few DUers frustrated with the "wait and see" approach?

2. You make an excellent point about moderation and its difference with the Leiberman approach to the same principle. Perhaps the knee-jerk reactions you see are to people who claim to be "moderate" but always enable Republicans? The word "centrist" and "moderate" have become code-talk for "I'm caucusing with you, but I vote for the other party", and so self-proclamations of moderation are met with vehement opposition. Another thing that gets DUers hackles up about "centrism" is the rabid hatred the moderates have for the left (who have no power)....moreso than for conservatives (who have been screwing this country up for more than a generation).

3. "Violent opinions" is a bit of a loaded term. Are there people advocating violence here? Fanatical enthusiam is a term that can be used on both sides of the policial divide on DU...but both sides do not engender trustworthiness. Perhaps the premise of your OP statement is not necessarily true. I find that those who back up their opinion with facts and tend to not get too tied up in one issue are deemed more trustworthy around here. I do not think it has to do with the vehmence of one's opinions. Take for example, WillPitt, who is neither violent nor fanatical, but his opinions are generally thought of as trustworthy around here. The same can be said about many other prominent DUers.

4. Incrementalism will not save a country that is one the brink of economic collapse while watching its core principles run down the drain. Fixing the damage has to at least keep pace with the damage being done, and we are miles and miles behind the erosion of our society by the moneyed elite. Perhaps those posters to whom you object see this country in crisis where you do not....if you do not agree on the problem, then you will certainly not agree to the solution. Those that oppose incrementalism do so because they do not see this country as "business as usual", but in a truly fightening death-spiral.

5. I agree that the personalities that are discussed here engender strong supporters and detractors, but I believe that the participants are fully-aware of their halos and warts. They are only playing the political game and immersing themselves in a cult-of-personality. That is typical for Amricans because we have been programmed to respond to personalitries and not issues. Do not blame the people, though, because our schools and our media have done a great job of removing the issues from politics.

As one that do not subscribe to these games, I can tell you that I know that all politicians do some good and some bad, but framing it that way makes them all sound exactly the same, doesn't it? There are serious differences between two politicians that do "some good, some bad". For example, Harkin is one of my favorite Senators, but he buckled on the Iraq war finding bill. If you look at the rest of his voting record, he is stellar, so the Iraq War vote should not be a reason to condemn HArkin (who is a SERIOUS progressive). At the same time, one can look at Norm Coleman....yes, the asshole that took Wellstone's job. Coleman has been a right-wing shill for many years and has been very enthusiastic in pushing all of BushCo's policies. But Coleman has a problem with covering up Republican corruption.

So there we have it....two politicans that do "some good, some bad", but they are miles apart in ideology and miles apart in their effect on the state of politics in the US today. This is why I object to the use of such simplistic terminology....it makes it too easy to equate them all as the same and does not demand an analysis.

If one does their homework, it will become very clear which Democrats need DUer's support and which ones do not because they essentially hate lefties.

[jpgray]

23. Excellent points. I agree with you just about all the way

My anger and frustration comes in when hatred and condemnations for truly complicit or do-nothing Dems begins to be directed indiscriminately towards valuable, mostly-productive Dems. Because Pelosi and Reid have presided over so many symbolic failures (the debacle of the financing bill for one), seemingly similar efforts by Waxman or Conyers or Leahy that might net real results are deplored and vilified in the same terms. That to me is where the necessity of being radicalized by radical times becomes dangerous. We don't want to beat down the absolutist conservatives only to set ourselves up in their place. While much (but not ALL) radicalism is justified today, an environment that values all radicalism and despises all moderation is very dangerous in any situation.

[Zodiak]

27. I agree

Radicalness for radicalness sakes is not a good thing.

But we are in uncertain times...times that frankly scare me more than any terrorist bomb would.

I do, however, truly believe that the only thing we haven't tried is listening to and empowering the left...tapping into their ideas and their energy. As a result, the left's energy goes to nothing but anger because it has no avenue to power, and those that have power do not have the passion and energy to beat BushCo and they refuse to listen to those that do.

This creates the environment that you observe, and yes, it is scary. Although I would argue that if you give the left an avenue to power, you will see less radicalization of opinion on DU. People that have avenues to change are more likely to take those avaenues....if there are no roads to power, people tend to clear-cut a way for themselves.

We are in a pre-revolutionary state right now. I honestly think it can go either way, but if those in Washington continue as they have, they ensure that we enter a true revolutionary state. A very dangerous prospect indeed because if you roll the dice, you have no idea how it will come up.

But I will not blame the People if it happens; I will blame those that refused to listen to the people and made this change inevitable.

[marions ghost]

47. VERY well put

Powerlessness leads to frustration and radicalizes "reasonable" people. Absolutely. We have been powerless and unrepresented for far too long.

I like the way you talk about energy and passion as positives, Zodiak. Most of the people in my life that I've seen made the most visible progress have had a good dose of that in them.

[Zodiak]

60. It has been a cascading powerlessness effect

Starting with the Reagan revolution.

1. The people were told that the country was conservative because Reagan was such a likeable guy. Liberals, in turn, were told that since the country was conservative that we had to take moderate positions and not look too frightening. Liberals did this...taking a back seat, and Reagan and his moderate Democrats knocked out the underpinnings of the middle class and the safety net for the poor and disabled.

2. A young, moderate Democrat is elected to President, and the Democrats told the left "see, we told you so!", and the left was further marginalized while the more business friendly wing of the party took total control. No one noticed the spoiler in the election or the fact that Americans in general were upset at the lack of jobs and the crime rate (both direct effects of #1). During this period, America bought the corporate line fully and enterd a period of temporary prosperity...further removing the underpinnings of the middle class and the poor during "good times".

3. The Republicans stole an election after the deregulated media worked very hard to make no policy distinctions between the candidates...only personality. No one did anything other than pretend it was business as usual. The left was so marginalized that they had no voice at all in the Senate, and the coup was allowed to stand. He was moderate, after all...right?

4. 9-11 occurred. Everybody was behind Bush (except the few on the left). There was talk of war and curbing civil liberties. A few voices on the left disagreed and were dismissed as America-hating radicals. For fear of looking like America-hating liberals, many Democrats went along. We went to war. We lost civil liberties. The left were compared to terrorists and accused of aiding them in a time of war...no one was really left in the Democratic party with enough leftist principles to speak up in their defense.

5. 2004. The left were told to shut up and vote for Kerry despite reservations to the militaritic policy that was being advocated from the Democratic party. They did this...and produced a very unified front against Bush. Once again...the election was stolen and the left waited for vindication. They got nothing....it took years later before anyone would even entertain the idea. However, since Bush won...the left had to be ignored again in favor of "working with him" and putting ourselves in position for 2006. This time produced some of the most horrible legislation, not the least of which was the Military Commissions Act, signed on by more than a few Democrats.

6. After we lot an American city to incompetence, corruption was exposed, we make no progress in Iraq, and (thank God), Mark Foley got busted, the Democrats won in 2006 (and the left voted en masse for them). After all of this history, one would think the left was vindicated for being right about every single issue for over 25 years AND their sacrifices in going along wit the party plan for much of this time. But no...that is not the case. We must have "bipartisanship"...and BushCo gets away with more nd more as our country bleeds.

All of these events have led to the angry, frustrated DUers you see before you. The left have been told to shut up while the Dems do nothing so much that they have had it. Either respect the left or be prepared for some clear-cutting. People find ways to get aveneues to power, and the American left are no different...if a little more passive than their conservative counterparts.

For those that think "Nader" and get ready with a bunch of rhetorical poison for him. Remember, Nader is the image in the mirror th Democratic party is afraid to look at...the marginalized left that is desperate to be heard. Embrace the left, and that face will go away in the blink of an eye. Ignore the left and one day Nader's face will be replaced by someone who WILL garner votes and render the Democratic party moribund.

[Phredicles]

64. Brilliant summary - thank you!

:applause:

[hfojvt]

123. Nader, Gingrich, Dukakis, and McGovern

Just a start of what was left out of your 'analysis'. "The deregulated media worked very hard to make no policy distinctions between the candidates." Wasn't it Ralph Nader, supposedly of the left, who did that? Shouldn't the rest of the left, like myself, have been aware of just how bad a Bush Presidency would be? Here's a relevant line from my LTTE of October 2000 - "Quite frankly, a Bush Presidency scares me."

The country being conservative was not all about Reagan. There was McGovern too, the radical leftist Democrat. He lost about as badly as Goldwater. So 1972 crushing defeat, 1976 narrow victory for a Conservative Dem, 1980 narrow defeat, 1984 crushing defeat for leftist dem, 1988 crushing defeat for leftist dem. Along with Reagan came the loss of the US Senate. Along with Clinton, added the loss of the House. The left could not stop Gingrich.

If the left wants to create a party to replace the Democrats, we need to over-come our own history of dogmatic infighting and insistence on purity, and to get the help of a whole lot of moderates too.

[Phredicles]

135. By what definition are Mondale and Dukakis "leftist"???

I seem to recall them making a great deal of their moderateness.

[Joe Chi Minh]

35. That last point seems to be the crux of the matter. Well stated.

[hfojvt]

46. about the death spiral #4

I don't have alot of faith in the Jeremiahs who have been predicting the war with Iran or the imminent collapse of the US economy or the implementation of total fascism in the US, which of course, happened in 1983 with the arrest of Mumia, only nobody knows it yet :sarcasm:

To me these predicitions of imminent doom are not very persuasive. Fool me once, shame on Chicken Little. Fool me ten times? Uh, won't get fooled again.

[Zodiak]

50. I find it interesting

that everyone on this board would agree that all three of those dire predictions (economic collapse, fascism, and war with Iran) have been advanced significantly over the last few years and yet with dripping sarcasm and allusions to children's stories you come to scoff at the ideas as if there is no advancement of the evidence at all.

I for one am glad that it is a death spiral (implying a slow, almost unnoticeable plunge until it spirals out of control), and not a full-scale plunge (which happens suddenly and cannot be corrected). But I do not blind myself with a priori determinations as to how fast or slow or noticeable such a thing should be.

I am not here to advocate for those "Jermiahs" as I am not one. But the United States economy is run is unsustainable and has been for some time...and now we are hiding our numbers from public scrutiny. No amount of denigration of phantom tin-foilers will hide that fact and it should raise red flags with reasonable people.

I find it unreasonable to assume that things will always stay the same, especially when there is so much willful ignorance of what made things the way they were in the first place.

[hfojvt]

73. only interesting

Not fascinating?

I am not scoffing at 'advancement of the evidence'. I am scoffing about declarations of imminent danger, or doleful mourning that it has already happened. The sarcasm was for the notion that 'we already have fascism because Mumia was unjustly imprisoned'.

I don't think I am blinding myself as much as I am asking for current evidence and being skeptical about dire prophecies about the future, especially when I heard almost the same prophecies six months ago.

[Zodiak]

76. Time scales are slippery things

I would not discount the concern of others because things do not happen on their time-scale. If the direction of change is in conformity with their positions over a sustained period of time, then I would say their predictions might very well come true. After all, those who scoffed at the idea of a major US city going underwater do not seem so foolish now even though these predicitons did not happen right away. They had evidence, too (with a fair degree of uncertainty)...and the change has always directionally favoring their position.

There are always variables, of course.

But I know that the worst has not come true yet, and for that we should be thankful....not shutting out those that alerted us to those conditions in the first place. We are not out of the woods yet, and it is a poor time to jettison our canaries.

And I went after you for the sarcasm because you decided to conflate these positions with the free Mumia movement. Even in jest, it is dishonest and the implication is there that these are the same people (or the same sort, anyways). They might be in your mind, but not to many others. We make distinctions between liberals because this is a community of them.

I honestly do not know any free mumia people..even here.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. just because the democrats dont reflect your beliefs 100% it meanst that the party is just as bad as

the republicans.

its like people completely forgot 2000 and are repeating the same arguments

gore is as bad as bush. kerry is as bad as bush.

the truth is no democrat curretnly running is as bad as any republican currently running.

this all or nothing approach freaks me out.

[Zodiak]

28. "the truth is that no democrats currently running is as bad as any republican"

"that all or nothing approach freaks me out"

I find it intresting that right after making an all-or-nothing statement you then go on to say it freaks you out when people have this mentality.

Are you aware of all Republicans running? All Democrats?

If not, then you cannot make such a statment with absolutism without being a bit of a hypocrite on your voiced opposition to absolutists.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. as i said, i think no one remembers the past 8 years.

we have already had this debate.

can you suggest a republican who is better than a democratic, currently running for president?

[Zodiak]

37. ahh.....for PRESIDENT

that really narrows the field from 1000's of R and D to just 16 or so.

You should be more clear in the future to avoid having to move the goalposts.

And I think that an argument can be made that a Ron Paul presidency is a little less scary than the prospects of a Hillary presidency from the standpoint of war and peace....and the power of corporations over our personal lives. However, when it comes to a social safety net, Hillary beats Paul by a country mile.

I is still not as absolutist as your previous statement would imply.

[Mutineer]

25. You know what scares me more?

Than a so-called "lack of moderation"? Complacency. This country and our party reeks of it. That's how and why the Repugs were able to steamroll this country into an illegitimate war. And thousands of innocents have paid the price of that complacency with their lives. So don't talk to me about moderation.

[lonestarnot]

36. Or me either!

[HughMoran]

84. lol

I agree, posts like this do absolutely nothing for me.

[pingzing58]

26. All that is necesarry for the triumph of evil is for good men (sic) to do nothing.

Or, as the presidential scholar (the teenager in the news recently) said: There are issues more important than the decorum of protocol. If it is true as reported that pundits such as Lou Dobbs, Shawn Hannity, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are shaping public opinion and public policy then shall we remain calm and civil because we are Democrats? Our Democratic Senators and Representatives are fighting their collegues who use the pundits extremist and alarmist rhetoric that has been sold to the American public and we are suppose to be moderate and patient? Men and women are being slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan; U.S. born children are being separated from their illegal parents every day and these families are being forced out of their homes by City ordinances and policies; senior citizens living below the poverty line for months are being forced to pay full price for their meds before Medicare part D kicks in when before they payed monthly only a portion of the full price; I'm not sure I disagree with those who express their frustration on the DU. I'm just saying.

[Bandit]

30. Just remember to find a happy middle there has to be two extremes

America wants to find a happy middle but that middle has been moved so far to the right the last two decades that there needs to be dramatic push in the other direction. What is considered middle is not acceptable to us. We want a true middle ground..

[DeepModem Mom]

32. K&R. And I'd add to #5 that no media source, no article...

can be sometimes excellent and sometimes awful. Although if there's excellence, there is usually scant commendation for excellence in an editorial, or in writing -- but one sentence in an otherwise valuable editorial or article that is seen as slanted often brings on an expletive-ridden dismissal of the entire source as an institution and/or reporter.

[Tyler Durden]

33. See? We CAN agree on something. n/t

[welshTerrier2]

34. nicely said - i can't completely agree though

i think it's important to distinguish between the quality of discourse on DU and the legitimate, harsh criticisms of those we elect to represent us. to the extent that your post focuses on DU, I'm unfortunately in total agreement. i find that when I write mostly analytical posts that weigh "both sides", there are very few responses. some of those posts properly balance legitimate arguments of both sides of any given issue. here's one small example:

i just watched a panel discussion on C-Span. Carl Bernstein was telling something he referred to as "the vending machine" story which recounted a conversation he and Woodward had during their Watergate assignment. They were getting coffee from a vending machine at the Washington Post when it hit Bernstein that Nixon was going to eventually be impeached. He said this to Woodward who responded with an "OMG, I think you're right." They both agreed that they could never mention this revelation in any way in any of the stories about Watergate they were writing because it would lessen their credibility and make it appear as if they had an agenda. What's the relevance of this story?

I think Pelosi was wrong for taking impeachment "off the table." I think she should have allowed the facts to evolve from the many oversight hearings and let the chips fall wherever they fell. I though pre-empting the "peeling back of the onion" was wrong. This would have applied whether she took impeachment off the table or whether she said she thought bush should be impeached. Let the facts unfold before determining the outcome. So, I disagreed with her. I did not, and have not, called for her head the way many on DU have. It's entirely possible that her "off the table" was nothing more than a "vending machine" moment. She may have understood that the House would be much less effective if everything was viewed in the light of "we're out to take down bush." I think she made a mistake; I also think there was merit to her argument whether I agreed with her or not.

It is that spirit, if I understand your OP theme, that is lacking on DU to an unfortunate degree. So I commend you for your observations up to that point.

But I also sensed a bit more in the OP. Perhaps I've read more into it than was intended. Beyond the polarized, sometimes unreasoning, discourse on DU, I also heard something of a defense of Democratic Party incrementalism. I heard a criticism of the "we want everything right now" that did not represent how I see some of the more reasoned criticisms of elected Democrats.

Here then, is my attack on moderation. Here are my harsh words against what I see as incrementalism. Here are my criticisms of what I see as a failure of leadership.

I am quick to acknowledge that the Democrats do, indeed, "not have the votes." It's certainly not reasonable to expect them to "fix everything immediately" when they are forced to negotiate with the republicans in the House and Senate and they know bush's veto always will be there no matter what compromise they might work out on any bill. Perfectly understandable. The problem I have with the Party, however, is not measured by looking only at the "ends".

Democrats are not speaking out, as I would like them to be, on the most critical issues. My primary focus on fixing many of the problems facing the country is just plain, simple, fundamental democracy. I believe that K Street and big money and corporatism have given far more power and representation to the interests of a very narrow few than it does to the interests of the American people. I can think of no greater condemnation of a system of governance than that and I can think of no greater problem in urgent need of a remedy. The remedy, of course, is publically financed campaigns. I don't hear that as a daily drumbeat from the Democrats. Look at the great issues we face and, at least to me, it seems we are strangled by corporate interests. Health care, Iraq, global warming - all of these threaten life itself and threaten to destroy this country and all of our futures. These aren't just "scare words". Iraq and the military-industrial complex are killing us. We are starving critically needed programs pouring money down the military rat hole. Part of a strong defense has to recognize that weaponry is but one component in our arsenal. There's also education and fiscal responsibility and the confidence of the American people in their own government. Erode these other infrastructures and the country is at risk. Spending excessive amounts on weaponry to pull in campaign contributions from massive military contractors does not repair that defect.

So, how is this all relevant to incrementalism and your observations about moderation and such? On the great issues of the day, I think we are right to demand of those in our own party that they speak out forcefully on these critical issues and that they propose solutions that are really solutions. Incrementalism and moderation are unacceptable when Uncle Fred cannot receive quality health care. He needs your help today. Incrementalism and moderation don't begin to lay the groundwork for change when we see our Democrats voting more and more and more and more and more money for defense spending and then pulling in massive corporate campaign contributions. Incrementalism and moderation do not stave off evacuations of major coastal cities because of rising ocean tides caused by global warming. The last energy bill the Democrats passed was pathetic. It will result in almost ZERO net reduction in the burning of fossil fuels by the target year of 2020. 2020 usually means perfect vision - how ironic.

Again, the point is NOT to demand successful legislation to remedy all the ills we face. That's crazy given the current political composition of the Congress and bush's veto. The demand, the very harsh demand, however, is for a Democratic VISION that lets the American people better understand our values and our hopes for the country. The harshness, perhaps misguided or excessive at times, stems from our utter frustration that we not only don't see ourselves represented in legislation but we don't even hear those we help elect give voice to our ideas. Democrats need to stop FOLLOWING the bell curve. They need to stop making excuses for what the political climate will bear. They need to stop proposing incremental, half-assed measures that fail to lay the foundation for change that we desperately need. In the absence of a clear vision for change and some form of roadmap to achieve it, many of us are left with little hope that our views are represented. The harshness, and perhaps our excesses, are the inevitable result.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Yes, they need to speak up so that voters pay attention and know what COULD

happen!

If you look at the websites of European political parties, you find that the ones out of power set up "shadow Cabinets." In other words, they tell the public, "This is who would be your leaders if we were in power, and this is what they would work for."

Not only that, they list the legislation that they would enact if they were able to form a government.


Voters can like it or leave it, but at least they have a clear choice to continue voting for the ruling party or to vote in someone new.

Yes, yes, the Dems don't have the votes, but I want to see consistent, persistent ADVOCACY.

[welshTerrier2]

39. an interesting take on "stop demanding everything immediately"

the reality is that many Democratic Party critics on "the left" are doing exactly the OPPOSITE of that with which they are being accused.

change takes time. it takes lots and lots of time. we are not a bunch of whiners demanding instant gratification. we recognize the obstacles we face. we understand the money and the power aligned against us. we know all too well the ship of state cannot turn on a dime.

for all of these reasons, our focus is on demanding that our representatives at least make a beginning. to make any progress requires that our longer-term aspirations are given voice in the public square NOW. progress has to begin with education. what today is "common wisdom" cannot evolve if our "leaders" spend all their energies searching for the bell curve's center. that's following; not leading.

one of the tragedies in all this incrementalism and triangulation is the false belief that it leads to political success and political power. it does NOT. it might win an election or two. it might enable Democrats to take the WH in 2008 because bush has been so abysmal. but, without the power of real answers to real problems and not just the "it looks good on the surface", the Democratic Party will not find a sustainable majority. the pendulum, most fickle, will dump one and then the next and the next searching for real answers. instead of playing these short-term games, the Democratic Party would fare far better if it got down to the critical business of making a better future for all of us. the current empowerment of the Party's marketing department is a short-sighted dead-end.

[Zodiak]

52. This is why I think that the left thought on DU is the best

Despite the accusations of those who instinctively marginalize the left, I have observed a lot of very cool heads on the liberal side of the aisle. Most liberals on this board who write in multiple paragraphs understand exactly who comprises the government, what the messages of the parties are, what needs to be done to effect change, and wht letward shifts are realistic and publically supported.

But you get accused of being "purists", "McGovernites", "all or nothing", etc. etc. Mostly because this plays into the stereotype of the leftie, but not the lefties I observe.

It is a meme meant to marginalize, not engage.

You are 100% correct to observe that ideas do not catch root in this country by incrementalism and triangulation. They are vehmently voiced at the tops of mountains and gain weight as they sweep across the country, the push of which spurs action. Republicans know this and know to ask for everything from the beginning....the compromise at the end will be sufficient for them.

Democrats do not know this, it seems. They do not vehemently shout their opinions from the tops of mountains and therefore their ideas do not rumble across the country (or worse yet, they gatekeep those that DO wish to shout from the mountaintops for fear of being heard).

If the Democrats at least spoke strongly, it would give the left hope that there might be change because at least the ideas were entering the marketplace. If they do not speak that way, they steal hope from the hopeful, and doom themselves to the political graveyard....along with those who desperately need their resprentation.

[welshTerrier2]

57. spoken with eloquence ... even poetry ...

beautifully said, Zodiak ... i can add nothing to that ...

allow me to emphasize:

You are 100% correct to observe that ideas do not catch root in this country by incrementalism and triangulation. They are vehemently voiced at the tops of mountains and gain weight as they sweep across the country, the push of which spurs action.

[Phredicles]

53. Excellent point. And at the same time, the most prevalent excuse for not

impeaching (or ending funding for the war, for that matter) is based on the fact that it can't be done instantaneously: We don't have the votes right now, so we just won't bother pursuing it.

[welshTerrier2]

58. hoisted on their own petard ...

a most interesting point you've raised ... "since we can't do it today, let's not even talk about it" ... how depressing is that?

[L. Coyote]

41. The real danger of ranting on the Internet is not what is said or not said

The real danger is people just ranting on the Internet.
It is a massive, invisible protest movement.
The only ones who see it are the ones doing it.

Shouldn't you be on a street corner doing the HONK to Impeach thing instead?

Or, how about organizing visible protests.

In the end, it may not matter one iota how screwed up the posts are, is
noone reads them except all the people who also are just ranting on the Internet.

How is this different from complaining about the color of someone's tie-dye in the dark, if it never sees the light of day?

No saying your points lack validity, just a question about what we are all doing with our time.

[Zodiak]

61. I can answer that one

I do not think that honk for impeachent will do a damned thing. It is intresting street theater to entertain those driving by who agree, but otherwise, it is not creating change.

Yes, the media has done a great job of marginalizing anyone who is willing to waste time on the streets as radicals. Do people driving by imagine themselves holding those signs? I am not so sure, and THAT is the problem with protest nowadays.

I believe that we need to have new ideas in order to effect change. The old avenues have long been anticipated (notice it is mostly those that protest in the streets that end up on "no fly" lists?).

So I come here and talk with the choir. To be honest, we are not even of like mind enough to create the impetus for change. I order for us to raech that like mind, we need to communicate and exchange ideas. The results of which you are seeing nibbling at the edges of "TV reality".

Think about it...what gets more air time? Protests or "those bloggers"? What is a more powerful organization in American politics , ANSWER or moveon.org? I know it takes boots on the streets for things to ultimately work, but I think it is the enjoining effect of the blogosphere that allows the energy of those who want change to move in one direction, and thereby have a noticeable effect.

Howard Dean is our creation. Media Matters is our creation. Air America is (was) our creation. Leiberman leaving the party is our creation. Without our vibrant left blogosphere, a lot of our ideas would wither on the vine. Here, they have power, and a LOT of minds are plugged into it.

I do not think internet protest is invisible, but it is MUCH larger than the media would make it out. But the blogosphere are not boots, they are minds....we should not equate the two. Every mind does not have a boot to lend nor does every boot have a mind to lend. But the minds and the boots do intersect enough to move together.

[MilesColtrane]

44. This government wasn't set up so that any particular branch or party has the...

power to make radical changes. That's a good thing.

Slim majorities are achieved in one branch, after one election and suddenly some people can't understand why a Congressional SWAT team isn't storming the Oval Office.

The only answer is to take money out of elections. Make all federal elections publicly funded and all voting machines publicly owned.

That's a start to getting our country back.

I think the concept of the death of moderation is exaggerated. In an unbiased poll most Americans would probably fall in the middle politically.
The extremists, on boths sides, simply go out of their way to howl louder and longer.

Many folks don't know any other way. Their whole concept of political rhetoric and debate was formed after the Fairness Doctrine was erased.
They have taken their cues from TV, AM radio, and Bush's simple minded "you're either for us or against us."

[LWolf]

48. I'll respond:

1. Waiting and thinking of the future means you are a coward.

When it becomes an excuse for non-action, when abundant opportunities to actually address an issue in the present have come and gone unrealized, or when "keeping powder dry" becomes a way of keeping the populace controlled, it is cowardly. Personally, I am not waiting on some future political "rapture" to finally reward my patient faith and take the faithful to a progressive heaven. Instead, I think we get to a more progressive world by "being" the change. By creating it, right here, right now. Not waiting for a future that will never unfold without someone willing to begin creating it.

2. Any concept of moderation (actual moderation, not Lieberman-style abnegation and surrender) is a sign of weakness.

Moderation is not a sign of weakness. Hiding behind a veneer of moderation to avoid constructive change is.

3. Those expressing violent opinions with fanatical enthusiasm are trustworthy, and anyone who objects to such is immediately suspect.

Violent fanaticism is not a characteristic of the trustworthy. Frankly, anonymous cyber-people, no matter how what they say may resonate with you, are not trustworthy. A trustworthy person is open, transparent, and consistent.

4. Engaging in incremental efforts is always contemptible and worse than using the most radical methods of attack all at once and all the time.

Not at all. Promising incremental steps "someday," (see #1,) or side-stepping, inching forward with one toe while leaping back with the other foot, etc., is contemptible.

This one is situational. I hope if the baby falls into the pool, someone will have the courage to instantly leap in and pull her out. I hope the crowd isn't going to take incremental steps: peer over the edge, call for her to come back, have a meeting to debate the next best step, call 911 while watching her sink, etc..

I hope, when there is a clear need for decisive, immediate action to resolve an issue, someone has the courage to take it.

In situations that may call for incremental steps, those steps must be clearly pointed to the end goal to be of any worth.

5. No politician is recognized as doing some good and some bad, but rather is wholly vilified in some threads and wholly deified in others, depending on what discrete action the thread discusses--no analysis or recognition of the -whole- is respected, only panegyrics or condemnations, often contradictory and completely isolated from each other.

That's campaigning. That's politics. It's not clean, is it? What changes are necessary to the election and political processes to ensure that candidates and politicians are discussed dispassionately, rationally, and realistically? Is it a change in processes, or is it a cultural evolution away from polarity and being the "winner," winning the power, over the "loser?"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. What LWolf said

:yourock:

[LoZoccolo]

59. Ineffective people reduced to posting messages on the Internet as activism...

...resort to manipulative tactics like the five you bring up as the only way they feel they can get things done. Sad, really. These people are likely failures in many areas of their lives due to the way they think. Or maybe vice-versa. I just can't picture people who have these sorts of cognitive deficits being able to get much done.

I've met a few people from DU in real life. 50% are cool and active, 25% are kind-of whiny and awkward, and 25% are socially inept and annoying. Of course this sample might be biased toward cool and active because I met all these people at real-life Democratic activist functions.

[welshTerrier2]

68. why perpetuate this myth?

you've "met a few people" ... that's your data? that's your research?

writing and speaking "in the public square" is a very valid form of political activism. what is written on the net is often quoted in the MSM. and writing here spurs many of us to greater activism and certainly to greater awareness of many issues.

it's a disservice to perpetuate the myth that "internet activism" is unimportant. it's also dead wrong. the internet is a very democratic medium. it gives each of us a chance to reach many, many more people with our ideas than we can elsewhere. ultimately, you know nothing about how active or inactive each of us is "in real life" ... and yet, based on your survey of what, maybe four people, you argue you do ...

[LoZoccolo]

69. "writing and speaking "in the public square" is a very valid form of political activism."

Except this isn't the public square by any stretch.

[Warren Stupidity]

130. Right now there is nobody at all in my town's commons.

I could go out there and utter my message and at best some folks might drive by and stare at the lunatic. There would be no dialog.

Why do you bother posting your plethora of crap here if there is no audience?

[Zodiak]

70. I'll add to that

No army can march without boots and brains....you need both. They do not necessarily intersect, either. Sometimes a person comes with only boots and sometimes only brains....both are valuable.

There are DUers who are disabled, or infirm, or mentally ill, or very very old and cannot just take to the streets or hang out at party headquarters. They are valuable members of the effort because they have wisdom and a perspective we must all consider.

There are DUers whose life is a living hell of wage slavery where every waking minute is either used in earning money, thinking of ways to keep afloat, or taking moments of escapism from their hell. They do not have time to dedicate to making phone calls at a party headquarters. They are valuable members of the effort because they care enough to devote what little time they have to getting informed.

There are DUers who fear being seen in street protests because they have much to lose...or other DUers who live in red districts that would make their life a living hell if they were seen protesting. They are valuable members of the effort because their ear is to the ground on the movements of the enemy.

There are DUers who spend hours here cultivating ideas, processing them, absorbing them, and then taking them to the water cooler and their families only. They are valuable members of the effort because they get to more people than anyone else.

I see absolutely no reason to denigrate any DUer for their lack of sufficient effort for the movement. We are all here because we give a hoot. Anyone who would level such an attack upon another here about their value to the movement is only trying to engage in a little Democratic McCarthyism. It is not appreciated nor does it contribute to the comuunity.

[0007]

98. Excellent! nt

[Pyrzqxgl]

72. Wouldn't you say that holds true for most groups?

My guess is that DU is a place for the meek to be fierce, the apolitical to be political,
the uninformed to become informed & the learned to show off a bit of that learning. Everyday
I tune in and I laugh a bit, cuss a bit, cry a bit, & I go away a better and more informed
Democrat, voter, & American. This DU is a damned fine experience that's for sure.

[Warren Stupidity]

129. Yes but it should not be our only activity.

Not to agree with that other poster, who should restrict himself to perpetual 'fuck nader' posts, but I worry that the isolation of this particular form of the public square damages our ability to act in TRW.

[abq e streeter]

62. similar concerns re: DU

I agree with you, jpgray. I'm new to posting on DU, but not new to the site. In my 2nd ever post, I mentioned how self-defeating the petty squabbles are. The stakes are way too high for that, with the pressing need to unite to take back our country from these criminals, and their hate-filled and/or mindlessly robotic followers. I too often see unthinking, hateful zealotry expressed here (not that it occurs often, but even once is too many), and wish we'd leave b.s. like that to the rightwing, which is its natural home.

[Zodiak]

63. B.S. like that is not the province of the right only

Zealotry is the province of about 30% of our population at any given time. There is tremendous proclivity for such individuals to be Republican, but it is not a hard and fast rule (c.f. John Deans "Conservatives Without Conscience")

It will never be expurgated, so I would suggest using your ignore button "liberally" and limit your response time to those that demonstrate the ability to listen.

Robotic followers do the same to questioners (disloyalty makes them irritable), so it comes out in the wash.

[Indy Lurker]

66. I agree with you.

I am amazed at how many people on DU ignore the political process.

It’s not about being right or wrong, it’s about being popular.

We are governed by the most popular candidate in any given election. Not by who is right or wrong, not by the brightest and best educated, not by the hardest working or most honest, only by the most popular.

Sometimes DU reminds me of the Greek Prophetess Cassandra, who could see the future, and warned of future disasters, but who know one would believe.

To succeed in the US political process, energy must be expended convincing the fence sitters and even the opposition, that our interests and their interests are aligned, and therefore worthy (or at least more worthy that the opposition) of their support.

Being right is not enough, showing that the other side is wrong, is not enough.

What is needed is popularity, and sometimes that means compromise. Not capitulation, but compromise.

Compromise is not a sign of weakness in negotiating, but a sign of weakness is presenting your initial argument.

The work must be done upfront to convince others, including conservitives, that our position is "right"

[Zodiak]

71. A cold, but true, assessment

American politics IS about popularity. However, a dichotomous popularity contest can be quite rigged.

Cases in point:

Pro-corporate Republican versus Pro-corporate Democrat. Either way you get pro-corporate...who determined beforehand that pro-corporate would always prevail? If you compromise, you get a pro-corporate Independent?

Kill all Iraqis vs. kill a few hundred thousand. Either way you are killing Iraqis. A compromise might be kill all the men.

See? A dichotomous popularity contest can be rigged. When neither choice is worth a damn, then there is no point in fence-sitting or looking for compromise. The entire process of vetting choices is rigged, threfore the final process can only be rigged as well.

What debate in our country has degenerated to is far right versus center-right. There is no voice of the left....only a place-holder to be denounced as if it had any avenue to power. Therefore any triangulation between the two positions presented already embraces whatever conditions existed in the vetting process (party machination in the case of American politics).

If you think my examples are unrealistic...let's look at some real-life choices we've had.

Immigration....we had amnesty versus round em up and close the borders. No one ever brought holding employers accountable as an issue. That condition was determined long before compromise began because both parties do not want to be seen as hurting businesses.

Bush vs Kerry. We had "kill the terrorists and win in Iraq my way" versus "kill the terrorists and win in Iraq the right way". The wisdom of battling terrorists militarily or whether we should be in Iraq in the first place never entered the picture. How can one compromise between those two positions?

So yes, the political process should START by presenting an ideological position that truly represent one of the poles of American politics (liberal vs. conservative)....only then can a dichotomous popularity contest work to cause the ship of state to go one ay or antoehr as needed. As we have it now, the rudder is clamped in position and our course is predetermined. Compromise and debate only determine how fast we get there.

But we do not get that, do we? We do not let true lefties of intelligence and poise battle the Republican talking heads. We do not let our Democrats speak out to their principles, but instead, to what they think the right-moving "center" wants to hear. And we excuse them when they fail to do these things. Meanwhile, the Republicans can negotiate from as hard a right position as they want, and they will always win because moving right has already been predetermined by our lack of conviction.

[Morgana LaFey]

74. for those of us who perhaps don't spend QUITE the time you do

some actual examples would be more persuasive.

[sendero]

79. Well said....

... and I agree with you pretty much.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[creeksneakers2]

82. Kicked!

Thank you for saying what you said. I wish more would think and post like you have. I wonder some nights if DU is here to attack Republicans or Democrats. The attacks on Democrats lack any pragmatism or relevence to the real world. They only help Republicans.

[HughMoran]

83. Great, great post!

I could not agree with you more.

[creeksneakers2]

85. Frustration is not productive

I understand that many feel frustrated, but the calls for immmediate drastic action lack a specific achievable action that ought to be taken.

Before the war in Iraq, Republicans asked "Should we just wait around for the next 9/11? Are we going to let an attack like that go unanswered?" An amazing number of people fell for this faulty reasoning. Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean that the solution offered is one that will produce the desired outcome. In fact, the "let's do something" approach left us with what we have in Iraq now.

The far left is making the same arguments now. Most of the time they offer nothing more that vague ideas about injustice. The strategy offered is usually something like impeachment,when in fact the votes to successfully impeach aren't there. Others suggest a dramatic confrontation with Bush, but don't have a specific plan for how the confrontation would play out. Wars are bloody and shouldn't be undertaken if they aren't going to be won.

Most of the calls for drastic action are accompanied by suggested extortion against the Democrats. This does nothing but help Republicans.

We all would like an immediate solution. What might that be?

[JAbuchan08]

88. I have been making this point for quite some time

I do believe that there should be investigations, but the Democrats should allow themselves the latitude to utilize the PUBLIC RECORD to inform their case against Bush/Cheney. They can "create reality" for themselves and go on the offensive, both politically and in the media. I am not saying throw caution to the wind, but they should realize that you can't take second if you are too afraid to move away from first base. I've seen very little indication that prominent Democrats are willing to PUSH the agenda. The closest I have seen have been Al Gore, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinch. Most of the Democrats of today seem to follow the Michael Bloomberg school of "opposing" George W. Bush (on the war specifically). Oppose it in "theory" but don't stick your neck out.

[tomp]

90. counter-argument

1) i've been waitng and thinking of the future for a really long time now. i've seen democrats come and go and i see america getting fundamentally, exponentially worse, to the point of fascism. at this point in time waiting and thinking of the future does not mean cowardice, it means cluelessness. full tilt opposition to bush/cheney is so obviously the right and only thing to do, i suggest it actually takes balls NOT to do it. i think you're confusing the chutzpah of the democrats in NOT opposing bush with some sort of reasonable principle. you're going to wait us right into full-fledged fascism, if we aren't there already.

2) moderation? about what? which of imperialism's crimes are you prepared to be moderate about? moderation, as it is used today in normal parlance means middle of the road, status quo, play the game by the ordinary rules of american politics, as if fascism can be moderated. gag me. moderates are enablers, negotiators with fascists.

3) yes, i am willing to trust people who are willing to commit their blood and guts to democracy (not saying i support violence. i'm saying step up the opposition).

4) what increments? conyers and waxman and leahy. chinese fucking water torture. i'm still waiting for leahy to investigate the anthrax attacks. i'm still waiting for someone to investigate 9/11. waiting for pelosi to take impeachment off the table. waiting since 12/12/2000 for someone to stand up and oppose george bush all day every day on every thing. i proposed it in 2000 and we could hardly be worse off had the democrats or du heeded my call. no, they were sure that this increment thing was the thing.

5) why the fuck is it so goddamned hard to do the right thing all the time or at least most of the time? why is it that dennis kucinich is the only person in washington i feel i can trust to any degree? i'm not crazy, i'm not uninformed, i'm not unknowledgeable about the system, and i don't think i'm asking for too much. but the democratic party never goes my way, they fail me at every turn. when the chips are down they cave. if the good they did was exactly when the chips were down i might be able to put up with the bad a little better.

[Blackbird_Highway]

91. The Problem with Moderation and Incremental Efforts

So, the Dems say "We want to get out of Iraq". Bush says no. So, then they work out a "compromise" of sending even more troops to Iraq! WTF??? That's ok, we'll just give it yet another Friedman unit or two. You just have to be patient. Victory in Iraq is just six months away. Just like victory in Vietnam was 6 months away in '67, and still 6 months away in '69, and 6 months away in '70, and '71. When we finally got out, the hawks were saying "We can't leave now, were just 6 months away from victory!". Moderation and incremental efforts back then got us 58,000 troops killed. Thank you for your moderation!

It wasn't until there were mass demonstrations, riots, and even "moderate" politicians losing there jobs that they finally overcame intertia and ended the war.

If your car is heading over a cliff, you need to do a 180, completely reverse course. You can practice moderation and incremental efforts by changing your course a few degrees, but you are still going to go over that cliff. If that's all you are going to do, why even bother?

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

92. Chaos is our friend

Keep in mind that this is a community of individuals and we're all supporting each others' rights to hem, haw, digress, even waffle or regress. The proof in the pudding comes when we come together in a coadunate group and toss these chuckleheads from their ivory towers.

Torches and pitchforks, my friends, torches and pitchforks.

[Warren Stupidity]

93. After the coup of 2000 and the false flag attacks of 2001

and the follow on invasion of mesopotamia in 2002 some of us started agreeing with the late Senator Goldwater that "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."

That so many of us remain slow boiled frogs blissfully unaware of just how profoundly corrupt, how completely perverted, our republic has become is an endless source of frustration. I try, endlessly, to point out how glaringly obvious and correct our analysis is, I lose patience frequently with those who think this is just a normal situation, but I won't give up. You are completely wrong in your analysis and in your belief that moderation and incremental change will go anywhere.

[NotGivingUp]

102. You are so right and well stated: 'slow boiled frogs blissfully unaware'. nt

[jpgray]

111. The idea that only radical methods will work just seems too exclusive to me

Are a lot of gradualist methods disingenuous and ineffective? Yeah, but not all. Are a lot of radical methods necessary? Yeah, but not all.

[Warren Stupidity]

126. Well sure but where exactly did that thought of yours get you?

I do not reject any strategies out of hand. I am interested in two things: 1) ending this fucked up criminal occupation of Iraq immediately; 2) destroying the corrupt duopoly in washington that has misruled this nation approximately since the end of WWII, which misrule entered a crisis stage with the coup of 2000. I will assess all valid strategies that address these issues. I find strategies that do not even take into account the extraordinary situation here since 2000 entirely wanting.

When we won the november election I, along with others here, warned us that our Democratic leadership was likely to be revealed as weak and corrupt and unwilling to actually DO ANYTHING EFFECTIVE to end the war. That prediction has come to pass. We DU radicals are not geniuses nor do we have magical powers of prognistication. We are realists. The current reality is very grim on many fronts.

[eallen]

94. I agree 100%. But don't get freaked out...

It's always the case that the frenetic speak louder than those who remain level headed, especially on the internet. But that doesn't mean there are more who are frenetic. It just seems that way at times.

:hippie:

[nealmhughes]

95. Gradualism for the sake of gradualism is intellectual, moral and financial cowardice.

It is a form of political chicanery of the basest level, ensuring that the alleged "agent of change" remains in power or at least in the news by continually promising that after the nudge in the identified direction, that a hard left or right rudder will ensue.
This ensures their continued funding through their allies and the the simplistic LCD popular media.
Do we want a Democratic Party of Benthams or of Kants? Do we wish our legislators to be Judge Bradshaw or the Vicar of Bray?
Gradualism is fine in small short doses. I prefer, personally, to "gradually" immerse myself into a hot bath or a cool pool, rather than taking the plunge. However, my time spent bathing in such a manner is a mere passtime and of no consequence to the affairs of myself overall or of others. On the other hand, after having my eyes splashed with a strong caustic or acid, I do not wish my eyes to "gradually rinsed." I want full force water, now, and also the temperature is of little concern, unless it be damaging to my tissue.
I do not wish my house aflame to be "gradually extinguished." I do not wish for study groups or the press to goad the fire dept. into action! A person with even low intelligence knows one thing: a fire in one room can and most often spread until the house is consumed and perhaps neighbors' homes as well. I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and I do not need a "Democratic strategist" to tell me why the status quo is fine for now and that if I only continue to support Candidate X, Y or Z with my donations of time, vote and money that eventually there will be world peace, an end to all that is less than sublime and ponies, pies and Mercedes for us all, and that my house aflame will surely be addressed after the focus group decides the political ramifications of doing an emergency application of water.
Yes, gradualism is how candidates win and stay in office, by promising and throwing just enough bones in random sequence to the dogs beneath the table to keep the dogs under, and that it was the dogs who caught the game in the first place!

[jpgray]

108. Why is it a exclusive choice between all radicalism or all gradualism?

Don't your examples simply show some situations call for one and not the other?

[nealmhughes]

112. I was referring to gradualism for the sake of gradualism, per se. In other words, in order to

achieve results, a given is proposed, yet when application is to become a reality, the supposed proponent is suddenly an apologist for the "gradualist" position.
I argue that this is disengeneous, and by Kantian ethics, a form of using people as an means to an end, which is the maintenance of power in this case.
Sudden immersion by one individual is not incumbent upon the body corporate, at all, merely a form of expression of the self will. On the other hand, to promise to always publicly promise to jump into the Atlantic Ocean at high noon every first day of the month, and then not, claiming that it would not be expedient, that there are no others willing to go along with the proposal, yet you truly wish you were able to do so. . . so continue to pay me my $10,000 per plunge, please, and as soon as there are more likely to do likewise, I shall plunge.

[Phoonzang]

96. *Recommended*

I was actually thinking about this yesterday. There's too much of an all or nothing attitude here at DU. I also see to many short pithy statements about some evil or another and not enough detailed discussion. It borders on fanaticism sometimes...

[NotGivingUp]

99. THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN. We have no democracy. Wake up and recognize it. nt

[mistertrickster]

100. Agreed. And one more thing--one gets the distinct impression that

the most vehemently angry are the ones actually doing the least to change things:

such as going to meetings, campaigning for candidates, passing out literature, raising funds.

It's not fun and it's not sexy, but it's what you do if you REALLY want to change things.

[jpgray]

122. No one's activist cred is at stake here

I have no way of knowing what people do outside DU.

[Land Shark]

101. If it concerns violations of RIGHTS, engaging in incremental approaches IS contemptible

a compromise of a right is a violation of a right. If not involving rights, normal concepts of legislative compromise can apply.

[Land Shark]

103. You like what Martin Luther King, Jr condemned as the "Tranquillizing drug of gradualism?" nt

And gradualism is one of the characteristics of conservatism (and "reformism") See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism

[jpgray]

106. Yes, clearly MLK believed in all-out radicalism for all situations

Why does it have to be all one or the other for some people?

[Land Shark]

113. because when it comes to core human rights, compromise=violation

that's why there's no such thing as gradualism when it comes to rights to vote, against torture, etc. If there is any compromise allowed, it's simply not a right, because rights TRUMP other competing things. We've a right to speak freely even if the government doesn't like what we say plus 90% of the public agreeing with the govt. This is so even if a rogue court says otherwise because per paragraph 2 of the Declaration of INdependence we are born with these rights and govt does not GRANT us rights, it's job is to secure those rights.

[jpgray]

115. MLK was a grand violator in that case

"We will always be willing to talk and seek fair compromise" - Nobel Lecture

Can we stop digging up famous dead people and propping them up to claim they support our arguments? Any leader of a vast movement would recognize compromises have an essential value. In some cases gradualism is valuable; in others, it's not.

[Warren Stupidity]

124. MLK was a practitioner of ghandian non-violent radicalism.

He was building a mass movement in order to engage in a radical transformation of american society, for which efforts he was killed. Yes of course we will and should always be willing to talk and seek fair compromise, while demanding justice, while insisting on an immediate end to injustice, while not relying on a corrupt and complacent duopoly to act. Dr. King worked outside of the nominal political structure. Why was that?

[jpgray]

137. I don't know. I prefer to not assume my opinions as to MLK's motives are fact

I would be even less sanguine about assuming how he would behave if magically transplanted into this situation. I don't think it's particularly honest to invoke MLK in the argument: "All that we want, now, or nothing. If you want less than all we want, you are just revealing the weakness of a collaborator." All I'm trying to say is that not all the people taking incremental steps deserve to be lumped in with those who actually made a mess of opportunities for change, such as Waxman or Conyers being lumped in with criticism for Reid and Pelosi's handling of the funding bill, etc.

[Gregorian]

105. Being emotional is a double edged sword.

But first, I see Democrats as flexible people. And Republicans as inflexible. For what that is worth.

I'm emotional. And it's useful for detection. I'm proud of that. More like satisfied that I have it. I'm not as logical as I should be. But I got A's in calculus. Figure that one out.

We aren't a conniving sort, like republicans. And we're up against the best(that reads worst).

When the opponent doesn't play by the rules, what you see here is the logical result. Disbelief, frustration, anger.

And I think you may have hit on one of our weaknesses as Democrats.

I have some advice. Be open minded. Listen to the opponent. When Republicans chide us, there might be some truth to their words. We've been called emotional and lacking in logic among other things. And I think if we listen to our opponents, we can gain strength from that.

And also, I think our weakness is actually our strength. What you are seeing is a flailing of minds in an attempt to run into a solution. We aren't rigid like Republicans. We don't have a set of rules we follow. We search. And we don't latch on. If it doesn't work, we move on.



Those are just my blabbings after two espressos.

[Elspeth]

107. I am a believer in moderation, so I understand the OP's position very well

Every action brings a reaction, especially in politics. Sometimes those reactions are hard to predict, at other times they are easy to predict. Whatever action you do, you must be prepared for the potential reaction and be able to handle it; otherwise, you can make things much worse for your cause than if you had done nothing at all.

Smaller actions do accumulate over time, but their immediate reactive potential, per action, is small. Large, bombastic action, while sometimes necessary, comes with a great potential for violent reaction. That is not to say that big dramatic actions are not necessary, but one has to judge when they are truly necessary and when they are just emotionally satisfying but potentially dangerous.

Looking at the question of impeachment, one would have to say that impeachment is a large dramatic action with the potential for large dramatic reaction. The public says they don't like Dubya (over 70%) and they are disgusted with this war/occupation. But people get funny when you start talking about removing a president; it's a destablizing thing and threatens some undercore of security that people have. This is why the Republican Congress pissed people off when they impeached Clinton for lying about a personal sexual act that had nothing to do with the running of the country. I am of the opinion that this is why AL Gore won the popular vote, and why the Bush junta had to steal the election by messing with Florida. People don't like to be destablized: they have children, mortgages/rent and bills. I think the Democratic leadership fully understands this.

The worse the situation in the ME gets, the worse Bush looks. People can be safely angry about this. But put impeachment out there and the Democrats become the detablizers, and the anger can flow in another direction.

Yes, I agree, the Constitution intends impeachment for just the situation we are in with Dubya. (I am sure the founding fathers did not intend impeachment for lying about private sexual acts. Ben Franklin, who was heavily involved in the writing of the Constitution, was famous for his sexual exploits.)

However, even though we have a very strong legal basis for impeachment, and are completely backed by the Constitution, the destabilization it might bring to the populace could greatly affect the long term. Ultimately, we want what is best for the nation on the long term (not just the immediate time). What is best is to rid our government of the neocon influence, the right wing fundamentalists who want a theocracy (can you hear the founding fathers turning over in their graves?), and the large multinational corporate influences, which want no government to hold them accountable for anything.

The best way to achieve these goals is to get progressives and moderates (yes, moderates) in office. We need people who understand that government has a role in protecting the rights of people and in protecting them from the large corporate interests that don't care whether they live or die as long as they are making profits. Both moderates and progressives understand that the public sector (goverment) is necessary and must operate separately and differently from business. It is the hard core right, the neocons and their ilk, that think government should be "drowned in a bathtub" so that their own lust for lucre can be unlimited by "pesky" regulations like workplace safety or emissions reduction.

In short, we need to win 2008 and 2012. We need both houses of Congress AND the presidency in the hands of Democrats so that we can undo the damage that has been done, and that includes the damage to the Supreme Court. (Once the Dems are securely in, we might consider impeachment of Roberts (and possibly Alito) who clearly lied during the Congressional hearings. Impeachment of SC justices and their replacement with moderates or progressives (remember that O'Connor was a moderate) would do much more good on the long term than impeaching an already hated Dubya now.

I do not think moderate action is a sign of weakness. Remember that the neocon right did not become powerful over night. They started with small steps. It only seemed dramatic to us because we weren't aware of all the steps.

[FredStembottom]

109. Right sentiments - but applied to the wrong situation?

You aren't explicit about which discussions you are thinking of. But I would find calls for moderation and careful incrementalism to be misplaced if it concerns the Bush Crime Family. I would also object to any idea that we must be nicer when speaking about the Democratic congress. They look Stalinist evil in the face every day and tell us, in effect, that if we are angry about literal rape, torture and theft being done in our name..... well..... we are over-reacting. We are just going too darn fast.

People here at DU are doing the logical thing when confronted with the daily spectacle of our congressional cops telling us to be more patient with the murderers and rapists - THEY ARE SCREAMING THEIR FRICKIN' HEADS OFF!

If only because the congress refuses to.

Your post is quite valid otherwise.

[jpgray]

114. That's the crux of it

I understand the need to be radicalized in radical times. I'm simply worried that when confronted with -any- problem, the more radical response is trusted and the more cautious response is immediately suspect, without regard for which is effective. This administration deserves its share of radical response, but not to the contemptuous exclusion of any other approach. That Congress seems to have the opposite imbalance is perhaps responsible for this mentality.

[FredStembottom]

141. I really like you last sentence!

Congress certainly does have an imbalance - but I disagree that the the responses here at DU are "radical" ones. I think they are exactly what the situation would engender in any normal human.

It's congress's alien and non-human reaction (caution and trepidation) to being witness to the most heinous crimes imaginable that is deformed and inexplicable.

Just damn bloody screaming is quite a resonable thing to be doing right now.

Discussions at the scene of fires and car crashes tend to be kinda one-track and intellectually limited, too.

[ozone_man]

110. Thomas Paine teaches a different view of tolerance.

"Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it."
-- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man

I think we are at a similar point in our history, where we have an obligation to be intolerant of the present government. It's our duty as citizens. Incremental change is not the way to go when radical change is needed. We need radical thinking as our founders had to make the changes we need.

[NastyDiaper]

116. Just look at Harry Reid.

He voted for the war budget. So people cross him off. In O'Really-speak he's outta the box, if you will.

Few listened to Reid's speech bringing in the vote. He's doing the best he can with a single person majority, considering grinning Joe is on his neck. That's what I think, anyway. Others, understandably, think that it's insufferable to tolerate any more support of the war in any form. Even if in practical terms it becomes a protest vote. That's what you think.

I think what freaks people out is that we've come to expect that all honorable people, who have good intentions, will agree. That just ain't so.

[Skinner]

119. Well said.

Reading some of the replies here, I think that some people are missing the point a little bit. At least as I see it.

In my opinion, the important issue here is not gradualism or moderation vs. immediate gratification or radicalism. I believe that reasonable people can disagree on that. In fact, in this very thread there is ample evidence that reasonable people with different opinions can express those opinions in a thoughtful and respectful way.

The more disturbing and problematic issue (again, in my opinion) is the contempt that some people here express for different opinions, and the completely over-the-top, disproportionate manner in which that contempt is expressed. Similarly, some people here are either unwilling or unable to state their own opinions in a manner that is conducive to reasonable discussion. Fortunately, most people are able to do it, but some are not. I suspect that their behavior is an inevitable consequence of the discussion forum medium, particularly a forum with so many people, which is dedicated to discussing controversial issues -- if you crave attention, the easiest way to get it is to act like a jerk.

[jpgray]

140. Thanks. I think people are so emotionally invested, any step back feels like total defeat

Whether it's perceived as a step back for their candidate, an important issue, or whatever. Plus, of course, the more over-the-top ideas receive more commentary and debate, thus giving them a higher profile. Evenhanded, sober posts occasionally (not always) will have trouble competing with all caps absolutist proclamations for reply volume. So maybe it's not as big a problem as it seems to me.

[Me.]

120. Wow, Whopping Gereralizations

Seem to be your friend.

[jpgray]

121. When talking about a large group's behavior in general, yeah.

[Me.]

132. Not Valid

Large groups do not transform opinion and assumption into fact

[jpgray]

133. And these are my opinions. Any more tautologies for me?

[Me.]

134. You Are Certainly Entitled To Yours

However when you state something is a method, or standard approach, when referring to such a large group I see a problem..."but at least consider what the above methods of thinking say about us and whether they are really necessary or desirable for working as best we can to get what we want."

What you see as standard I see as the exception. For such a large group I am often amazed at the meeting of the minds that is achieved in threads and where there is difference, there is usually respect. Rather than my comments being 'tautologies' they are objections to this group being painted with such a broad brush. There are plenty outside of DU who line up to do that.

[jpgray]

136. You win. My general opinion of DU behavior is indeed a generalized opinion

[Sparkly]

138. Good points.

Black/white, absolutist thinking goes hand-in-hand with fanaticism. Shades of grey aren't weakness, as you point out. :thumbsup:

[Matsubara]

139. I get where you're coming from, and I have not been super-strident in my condemnation...

...of dems who pathetically cringe at the idea of even attempting impeachment.

I think that even a failed impeachment attempt is better than no impeachment at all, but I don't spend every day beating other posters here over the head with it because I know it is not going to happen, because as I have stated time and again, our democratic politicians, for the most part, are as bought-out and co-opted by the same corporate powers that run the GOP.

You should try to be more understanding of the utter OUTRAGE felt by people who feel betrayed by their own government, by a president who mounted an illegal, unprovoked and murderous invasion on a disarmed nation with ZERO provocation whatsoever.

To many Americans, the Iraq war is little more than a faraway conflict where a few of "our boys" (meaning the child of some poor minority and/or working-class schmo, not MY kid) get killed on a daily basis.

But to those of us who include all the world in our concept of humanity, and who posess any sense of empathy, we cannot help but vividly imagine ourselves in the place of an innocent Iraqi family on the night of "Shock & Awe" waiting for the next bomb to fall on our house and reduce our small children to ribbons of crimson flesh. The horror and injustice of it is as vivid as if it were New York City being carpet-bombed by the Soviets.

This is not just a bad president, or just a corrupt president. With a GOP president, it goes without saying that they will be corrupt, but Bush & Cheney have taken propaganda, fearmongering, cynicism, outright fraud and mass murder with no provocation to new levels.

They belong on the dock at the Hague being tried for war crimes, mass murder and crimes against humanity.

So forgive some us for being unsatisfied that we can't even get a censure as lenient as impeachment.

Mussolini faced justice. When Will Bush & Cheney?

[PVnRT]

142. Hi, welcome to the internets

[jpgray]

143. Penny Arcade

:rofl: