In praise of rancor

[PurityOfEssence]

Posts abound with frustration and anger and near-tearful pleas to stop the squabbling, yet nobody embraces the dynamic for the good it brings. So, as a self-appointed ombudsthing, I am compelled to throw a few more drams of fuel on the fire and fan the flames.

This isn't meant as a cocky dismissal of weaklings who "can't take it" or any puffery of that sort, it's to remind us of the healthy dynamic of the primary season. Twas a grand concept: a long, drawn-out affair where we see who can take it and dish it out over time. Like a seemingly endless series of out-of-town openings, the show got to bomb out of town and see which scenes really worked. Sadly, the damned thing has been so top-loaded that we have to start ridiculously early now and hit hard and fast, instead of having the luxury of an epic campaign to winnow the crop down to its finest grains. Shades of '84, and that was a disaster.

One learns a lot from this process, about oneself and others and about the candidates. The general tenor of a candidate's supporters says VOLUMES, and the good and bad side of humanity hang out for all to see. It's supposed to be rough. Sadly, people ARE often nasty. So be it. Pluralism is an attempt to arrive at some kind of consensus for accommodating us AS WE REALLY ARE, not as we'd like to be or think we are.

Personal attacks on physical characteristics of candidates reveal the uglier and more facile nature of our flawed species. Raging vengeance and aching egos abound, seeking some kind of vindication. Sanctimoniousness darkens the plain like the coming of a storm, and critics nip and seethe. Bummer. Listen to it and you'll learn.

Don't let get to you too much, or you won't be able to really enjoy the hopeful positive messages that provide the rallying cries that can bring a victory. In a way, the nastiness of the struggle helps bring out the resonant notes of solution.

Amid the furore, however, we should learn some serious lessons: we get to see various candidates' real vulnerabilities, their moral fiber, their true hopes, their physical stamina, their flexibility (which isn't just malleability or chickenshitedness), their "star quality" (don't underestimate it) and a host of other traits. It's trial by fire.

The argument that we shouldn't be at each others throats is silly. If it rankles one's sweet sensibility, take a break or spend time on those positive threads or work on some slogans.

The argument that we shouldn't REALLY go for the jugular because we might find an issue that a candidate simply can't fend off and the Republicans will use it against them later is IDIOTIC. The reactionaries are great at finding weaknesses; we'd be best off finding them ourselves. The nasty flip side of not having adequate time to see who can rise above the crowd (and the fray) is that we don't learn their weaknesses and there's correspondingly more time in the general election to focus on those weaknesses should they be found out later. Make no mistake about it: they will.

Yes, some people are base, mean, nasty, semi-principled louts and loutettes...but sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong but they expose fatal flaws. Let the fur fly now so we can find the right standard-bearer.

Yes, crappy personal vanity clouds the issues, but it's GOOD for it to be brutal; it'll get worse, and we owe it to ourselves to find the best person.

Chances are damned good that the nominee will be pretty evident, if not de facto, on February 5th. That person will then have to stand the focused onslaught of endless money and media control for the amount of time it takes for a human being to come to term from conception to birth. Nine long brutal months will be borne by that nominee; we want the one who can take the heat.

So have at it, folks. Consider it a duty.

[cleveramerican]

1. Democracy is untidy

and it always was.

I agree with you but I'm hesitant to admit it.

I come from Boston where we follow politics like we follow the Red Sox.
Politics is a contact sport, sometimes players get hurt.
Sometime the wrong one wins.
Sometimes the one you were glad won ends up screwing you.

All you can do is get up tomorrow and keep on going.
The real test is how you react to it all.

[PurityOfEssence]

2. Yep. It's a fair mirror of the human condition.

Thought, nuance, hopes and constructiveness walk hand in hand with pissy, nasty primativeness.

It sort of needs to be, and it needs to run its course, like a disease.

[redqueen]

3. I like this post.

:)

[BootinUp]

4. There a flip side to that coin

You called it idiotic in your manifesto, but there is a reason that the term "Circular firing squad" exists.

Debating issues as adults always leads to a more constructive result. And before you post links to where I violated that concept, lol, I am human too. But I strive to do better most days. I think thats part of my duty.

Rancor against fellow Dems is not the best way except in rare circumstances, it leads to needless division that may outlast the reason for the argument and misunderstanding, and therefore ignorance.

jmho.

[ChiciB1]

6. I Agree With You Much More... I Find The Brittle, Nasty & Concerted

efforts to criticize and defend their positions by attacking others kind of childish and very ineffective. The constant bickering doesn't seem very Democratic to me, and it tends to pull others down to their level!

I know I've been defensive lately, but decided that I'm not THAT person. And by saying what I do, I KNOW there will be some to tell me "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!" But you see, I THOUGHT I was at a place where Democrats could come together and "discuss" issues without being told to either "Leave" or "Shut-Up!" Or "don't let the door hit you on the way out!"

Sorry, what I've seen lately just turns me off! And then of course, a person does want to leave and who really cares if they do??

[SteppingRazor]

8. There's also the fact that, the more you act like a fucking douche bag...

the more you turn people off to your candidate.

How many times do you suppose some politically ambivalent person has seen, say, Ann Coulter, and thought, "I don't know what exactly I'm for, but I know I'm against whatever she's for."

So, your "rancor," as it were, can actually do more harm than good for your issue/candidate, especially among people who aren't as deeply into politics as we are.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Yep. But this place isn't really "public".

This is sort of the intellectual equivalent of a biker bar: anyone walking in the door should be in a different mode of comportment. The kinds of things said in here that I think are a bit of healthy friction and justified sparring are not ones I'd condone on the outside, say at a neighborhood block party.

One's candidate is going to be reflected upon when one says and does things, and I personally like people to let their hair down a bit; we learn about the various factions. Of course, it's easy to read into it only what you want, and the vast majority of mankind has already made up its mind about most things of import; time is just spent cruising for justifications and ammunition.

(I like to point out that 9-11 didn't really change most people's minds about anything; Falwell saw it as proof that god had stopped protecting us because we were cozening up to the homos and the baby-killers, whereas I saw it as just another ugliness that wasn't perpetrated by agnostics...)

Yes, people would do well to listen to what you post here, but it's important to keep aware of the grey area of life. Far too many people are so violently opposed to any shadings in life that they can't see that there's real opposition that comes from the heart, not just maliciousness from some subversive turncoat reactionary in our midst or some raving bolshevik.

The assholism of name calling is tiresome and people might police their own faction on occasion, instead of granting themselves the hypocritical right to torch anyone who deigns to disagree with them once their champion has been "hurt" or "attacked". It's not the best window into the human soul, but it's often an accurate one. The way I keep optimistic, cheery and blitheringly happy is that I embrace the dark side of humanity so it doesn't demoralize me when I inevitably encounter it; thus I can still see the constructiveness and positiveness that exists amid the melee.

Still, the trial-by-fire is USEFUL and it shouldn't be universally derided just because it's so unseemly.

You seem to be more or less at peace with this concept, much as much of the discourse leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but others rail and bemoan the dynamic. It's silly. This is where we go to be among somewhat like-minded folk and blow off some steam. Sniveling about getting roughed up a bit in here is a bit like being offended at someone making a pass at you in a bath house.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. The problem with Democrats is...

...that they have the disgusting affliction of being humans.

[rinsd]

5. In praise of Rancor?

[PurityOfEssence]

7. Hey, can't say I don't practice what I preach...

Always hated that photo; they never get my good side.

[rinsd]

9. Looks like you have something stuck in your teeth...broccoli or perhaps a gamorrean guard

;-)

[Cameron27]

10. !

:spray: Great comeback!

[Perry Logan]

12. How does "I'll vomit if Hillary gets nominated" fit into this?

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Tiresome, over-the-top, but somewhat valid.

The person who says it isn't going to get a pat on the back from me, except maybe to help the vomiting process.

It's important that we hear these reactions, though. Would you like to have the groundswell of bandwagon enthusiasm sweep her to a premature victory on February 5th and THEN find out how many leftists, moderates, liberals and other pluralist types just can't STAND her? It's better to find out now so her supporters can make the sober judgment of whether she can overcome this. Reality is our friend.

She has many people who outright hate her, many who are disgusted by her (I'm one of them) and many who have ambivalence and the varying shades of admiration all the way up to total, unconditional love. Divining what the spread of all this is important if one wants to support her.

Sometimes your lover has to scream in your face and break down and cry about something to drive the point home of something that you viewed as relatively inconsequential. Whether one reacts with understanding, confusion, acceptance or some other form of engagement or whether one just combats the display with coldness, insults or false soothing determines a lot.

Those who repeatedly have nothing but ugliness to spew tend to get shunted aside here; there are a lot of very nuanced people in these parts.

If I was one of her supporters, I'd at least want to hear and gauge the resistance. Dwelling on it certainly doesn't help, but the hardcore Hillary fans are no more put-upon than those of either of the other two in the top three, and they're certainly not any more tolerant or gentle.

In the end, one is left with one's own ethics and morals. Crises invite--and sometimes warrant--dispensing with some of the niceties of civilized discourse, but those who feel the right to slash and burn because someone somewhere has been a big meanie simply don't "get" one of the fundamentals of coexistence: accommodation.

[Kurovski]

15. Interesting. Some stuff to think about.

Compelling writing.

One of the big complaints not to many years ago was how "nice" Dems were while Republicans steam-rolled us.

Now...I'm confused by how many people can be as humorlessly, coldly and bloodlessly abusive as Republicans--to each other--I'm wary of that particular style. Business-like, It lacks passion. I'm not so familiar with it in Dems. I'm not so sure, But there is a big difference in my past experiences, between the two camps. Hmmm.

Did'ja see the Bjork video? It's pretty old, maybe you've already seen it? I'm going to watch it again.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3619116

[Vickers]

16. I don't consider the rancorous posts an affront to my sensibilities...

...rather I think they are ineffective.

I've always said that good manners will be the death of the Democratic party, but I should explain that to each other we should be mannerly, but to the Repukes we should be clouds of swarming wasps.