Reply #80: I see, thanks

[m berst]

You make some good points, and that was what I was hoping to see.

"...no one trusts some of the crazies who infest this place with national security, isn't my idea of fun."

There is truth to that and it is unfortunate, I agree.

I guess my objection is the association of the far left with crazies with anti-DLC and with soft on national security as though they are all the same thing. Certainly all of these attitudes or traits are often found in the same individual. However, I know many Dean supporters who are relatively conservative, but who see a danger not so much in the centrist or moderate political stances of some of the Democratic leadership, but rather are concerned about cronyism and the corrupting influence of corporate money, and an over-eagerness to compromise and cooperate with the opposition. Whether we agree with their view or not, they are not necessarily far left, crazy, nor weak on national security issues.

I consider myself, as I have said before, a middle of the road Democrat who now finds myself called far left. That is not something I went seeking, since given that my views have not changed I would just as soon not be called an extremist. My point is that I didn't start with an opinion about this and then go searching for evidence to buttress it. I don't recall being called a far left extremist 30 years ago, and I am called that today, and I haven't changed my positions on anything. My assumption, then, is that this must mean that the party has moved to the right. But I don't know that with any certainty, that is just a logical guess. I understand that you disagree with the idea that the party has moved to the right, and you make a good case for that. I suspect that we are using different measuring sticks on this, and that arriving at the truth may require each of us to give some consideration to the other person's methodology. The truth could be somewhere between our two positions, or it could be that both are true depending on how you look at the issue.

On national defense, I supported Wes Clark in part because I believed that he had intelligent positions on national defense - as opposed to "strong" and "weak" - and I think intelligence is the quality we are looking for. I also thought that from a practical view, a retired military officer could more safely take an anti-war position without alienating voters. I just read Richard Clarke's book, and he is certainly not weak on defense and is a Republican I believe, but I have no objections to his views and see no incompatibility between his views and my left wing political views. Intelligent defense policy with the use of force as a last resort should not be a left or right position. The defense of the country, building alliances to maintain the peace, anticipating threats, and the avoidance of war are rational bi-partisan interests.

As for the "crazies" label, what I think is truly crazy is the demonization of every Bush voter in the country with - our friends, family, neighbors and co-workers - as the enemy, with all of the name calling and generalizations that go with that. I also am opposed to the stereotyping of all Christians and all Southerners and the hate fests that people get into here toward them. I have been calling for reaching out and communicating with the Republican voters and finding common ground on broad principles and values. I am opposed to the civil war mentality of those who are perhaps in these "far left" or "crazies" categories you see.

So I think that these four qualities don't necessarily go together, but I can see that one could get tired of the Lieberman threads and also resent what you see as irrational or impractical and self-defeating attacks on other Democrats.

My concern with some of the party leadership is not so much what they stand for in terms of left or right positions, but the way they stand for them. The party has an image now - unfairly in part at least - of being unprincipled and merely interested in power and of pandering to voters by telling them what they want to hear. I think there is a "do anything to win" mentality that is dangerous, and a fear of offending or alienating undecided voters that can reinforce this image of being the party of no principles. We also fail to transmit liberal values to the next generation and fail to give potential converts a strong sense of who we are if we try to appear or act too centrist.

I know that on other threads you mentioned the failure of Dean and Kucinich to win primaries in the first case, and to ever poll decent numbers in the second, as evidence that left wing positions are suicidal for the party because they render the party unelectable. There is some truth to that, but it can be overstated. I would introduce to that analysis the idea that the candidate the Democratic party primary voters prefer may not be the most appealing candidate in the general election. I thought that this was especially true this year. I don't claim that to be the truth and certainly not the whole truth, but I think it warrants consideration.

Some of us see a danger in emphasizing the practical too much. I understand that you see the danger of emphasizing the principles too much - or too rigidly or stridently. I hope that I am characterizing your position accurately here.

Reasonable and honest people can disagree both on positions on the issues and tactical and strategic ideas. Somewhere there is a balance between the different ideologies that the party encompasses and the different ideas about tactics and strategy. I don't think that it necessarily breaks down neatly into two polarized camps.

Let me see if I can briefly describe your position and mine so that we have a place to start from when we discuss this in the future.

I think I am hearing you say that there is a danger of idealistic, unrealistic, left-wing purists dragging the party off the cliff by alienating the vast middle of the electorate with unpopular positions and strident rhetoric.

I am saying that there is a danger that an over-emphasis on practicality is weakening the strength of the party as effective opposition, and there is a danger that the party will lose track of the principles it stands for and so ultimately lose popularity, or trade popularity for ideals .