Is the left's toleration of dissent and divergence an electoral liability?

[Wat_Tyler]

Poll question: Is the left's toleration of dissent and divergence an electoral liability?

I personally welcome (perhaps encourage) dissent and fairly divergent opinions. Is this an electoral liability? Should we narrow our focus and shut out the malcontents and outsiders to win? Are we just a circular firing squad? Are our opponents simply more focused than we are? Is our toleration of diversity of thought a strength? What do you think?

(don't worry - this poll is guaranteed 100% hidden agenda free)

[Career Prole]

1. Is the left's toleration of dissent and divergence an electoral liability?

I don't even like being asked. If we have to sign up for goose-stepping lessons to win an election I'm checking out.
That particular freedom is one of the ideals we strive toward in America, is it not?
If it's become a liability to be free to dissent and diverge I'll pack up my kid and go somewhere where it's not.
Screw it...there's only so much a man can take. :shrug:

[Gwerlain]

3. I voted before reading this...

but I concur. The correct response to the right's solidarity is solidarity of our own, not divisiveness. They all hold their noses and vote to get the guy who will most forward their agenda- is there some reason we all have to be so damn ideologically pure that we never get anything done? :think:

[Wat_Tyler]

5. I'm on the side of dissent.

I just wanted to hear people's views on the subject.

[Career Prole]

18. Well, you've got my view! So has shrub quite often.

Without dissent, they think they're doing everything right, and Lord knows that hasn't ever happened.
Without dissent we turn into wherever it may be we or our ancestors left behind just to get a taste of this self-governing experiment where if the leader sucks you can tell him so and still eat dinner with the family that night.
If we can't gripe, it ain't home anymore...it's somewhere else. Somewhere not as nice. Somewhere not worth fighting for.

[LoZoccolo]

2. So what post of yours got locked? n/t

[Wat_Tyler]

4. Nah. Like I say, no hidden agenda.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Was it this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2432746

[Wat_Tyler]

7. Nah. I hijacked the other Patti Smith thread instead.

[NervousRex]

8. There have been quite a few threads lately

deriding those who don't conform. One was equating DU'ers who choose not to put bumperstickers on their cars or lawn signs in their yard to Nazis, and supporters of the Iraq war. Incredibly stupid shit. Dissent and diversity are our strength.

[Demonaut]

9. tyler why did you vote yes in your own poll?

[Wat_Tyler]

12. Huh?

Actually, I voted no.

[Career Prole]

19. Right before I made reply #1 up there I placed the first 'No' vote.

There were already two 'yes' votes when I voted.
Just happened to notice, was all. :eyes:

[Demonaut]

20. actually I was just messing with you, I had a 50/50 chance ..lol

[Career Prole]

21. Damn!

Not you...my work beeper just went off after the first damned debate question. I think I'll have to dissent with them now. :D

[Wat_Tyler]

23. I usually vote in my polls later on.

So, if my position is particularly unpopular, I can back out. ;)

[K-W]

10. Yes, but of course that doesnt mean we change.

The only reason it is, is beacause of the state of the nation, in that our system at the moment is designed to rubber stamp corporate decisions. If we would agree to take our thoughts and opinions from party leadership, they could just take control of our party and use us like they use republicans... but electability is not within itself a virtue.

And I am not saying this is a permanant condition, just the state of affairs at this exact moment. We can fight and change the playing field so this is not true.

[FredScuttle]

11. No, the left's "toleration" of dissent, etc. is a demonstration

of our fundamental democratic values.

BTW, is "toleration" the same as "hateration"? Or maybe "holleratin'"?

I love Mary J. Blige.

[K-W]

13. That isnt the question in the poll though.

It isnt whether it is good, or right, simply whether it hinders us in the game of elections.

[FredScuttle]

22. Well then, is the question then

does abandoning our committment to fundamental democratic values hinder us with the electorate?

[sweetheart]

14. coming from the leader of the 1381 peasant revolt

I'd have to say, that whomever will stand with us is a friend...
period. You are free to speak your mind. Don't expect agreement,
but you are at least free.

P.S. Screaming lord byron was too long, eh?

[Wat_Tyler]

15. I could never handle the aristocracy.

:D

[TroubleMan]

16. If we shut our mouths and didn't question, we would no longer be liberal

There's no way in hell I'm gonna march in lockstep with anybody else. I will never give any leader my total trust. It is my duty and my right to question leadership, and if I think that they're wrong, it would be wrong for me not to speak up about it.

I haven't said anything bad about Kerry, and I'm voting for him. In fact I'm backing him 100% in this election, but I can't trust rich people, especially the ones who have always been rich.

[leesa]

17. You even have to ask if tolerance of diversity is a strength??

Do we need to wear jackboots when we march in lock-step???

[Wat_Tyler]

24. Yes.

Clearly, that's exactly what I mean.

[LWolf]

25. "the left's toleration of dissent and divergence"

is part of what makes the left a more ethical position than the right.

I guess if ethics don't matter, and there doesn't have to be anything better than the right to support, then you might consider it a liability.

I like to stand for something; I like to win because I'm on the higher ground, with a better way; not just because I want to win.

I don't lack focus just because I'm more tolerant than my opponent.