The "Purity" test.. a sure fire road to defeat.

[Peacetrain]

Lets just say I have been around the block a few times, and have seen more than one political site implode.

One of the chief causes of those implosions, is the "purity" test.

By that I mean the question given time will become.... is one poster, liberal enough or conservative enough, moderate enough.. It goes on ad infinitum.

Well to be quite, frank..what causes social networking sites to implode, can also cause political parties to implode or become so narrow, that only a select group will be allowed in the chambers of power and all the rest have to bow to their decisions.

One quick and sure way to avoid, being pulled into unnecessary conflict in the "purity" tests, is to keep an argument, discussion, op pointed, and not calling for entire groups to be expunged.


To many times arguments start with a generalized statement that ends up inflaming people, and that was not the point of the op etc. The inflamed groups' feelings become the center of the argument, op, discussion.. and not the problem originally addressed.

DU has the luxury (and it really is) of having moderators, which help diffuse that kind of generalized rhetoric.

But other sites, dedicated to a point of view, do not. They start out going great guns, sharing ideas, sometimes just being as mad as hell at another site they may have left..but fairly unified.

Others start to join, and the coalitions begin to form.. and you get the purity test.

I am hoping we will not follow the republicans and start demanding some kind of purity test for democrats..

Because then we will become as useless as they are.

[ShortnFiery]

1. We need to follow our populist base. What good is our present right wing duopoly that

only serves the welfare of the upper 1%?

[SidneyCarton]

3. Populists are a fickle lot.

They tend to get blown about by whoever stokes the fires of outrage the most and screams the loudest. Astroturfed though they might be, the teabaggers rely on populist sentiment as much as the anti-war, or healthcare movements.

[Peacetrain]

4. I think (this is my opinion) that when a good argument is made

by group D lets say..it gives others who may find themselves part of group B, or C or A able to come over and support group D. The discussion becomes the center piece not what group you fall into politically within the party.



But if we are only going to give credence to populists, or blue dogs, moderates, or socialists etc etc.... everyone outside is then viewed as a less than..


Then we lose.

[Romulox]

11. Right. But rightwing ideology dominates the current discussion.

Because rightwingers have out-sized influence (read: money) with which to influence the discussion.

So there is no "marketplace" of ideas in the Democratic party (example: single payer is "off the table" before the discussion begins.)

[ShortnFiery]

12. No, it's simple - do you support People or The 'Corporate' Machine?

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Richardo]

2. Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?

Reg: Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea



You're exactly right. K&R

[jberryhill]

5. I thought we were the Popular Front /nt

[TheKentuckian]

6. Populisim must be measured with logic and a view of the big picture

or it is yelling at clouds. It also runs out of gas because most people cannot maintain "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" for a very finite amount of time.

[ShortnFiery]

13. I know that bombing innocent people is WRONG even if it can be discounted by

the innocuous term "collateral damage." I also know that continuing to transfer wealth to the upper 1% will leave our Nation's POPULACE mostly in abject poverty.

It won't matter when the vast majority of wealth is held by the upper 1-3% because they won't even have to humor us with "a vote." They will hold all the power.

I KNOW WHEN I'M BEING FLEECED. Since the days of Reagan, the working and middle classes have been getting the raw end of the deal.

What do we do about it? I don't know exactly. However, what I do know is that I'm NOT going to vote for any more CORPORATE CRONES even if they choose to have a "D" behind their names.

NO more.

[stray cat]

7. Pure and poweless/worthless - and we think progressives are intelligent?

[Prism]

8. 50% shit, 50% water is not purity by any stretch

And this, of course, is part of the problem. Even the mildest of liberal policies are being framed as the realm of the purists. Single-payer or nothing is purity. A workable public option that does not shift the burden of reform on the middle class is not purity by any stretch of the imagination. And yet, that is how it is now being framed around here.

Take any issue, any issue at all, and repeated demands for even vaguely liberal policy is framed in "Gee, you're just one of those counterproductive purists." Demand health care reform not be a corporate giveaway? Purist. Demand the administration do, oh, anything whatsoever about LGBT rights? Purist who doesn't have a pony. Point out that our economy is still tanking and employment is going to be a total disaster if we don't get better policy? Why, you're practically a freeper troll.

That is how we end up with a two-party system where the government relentlessly comes down on the side of protecting the corporations and donors. Because people will repeatedly apologize for the most egregious policies as long as their party can declare a victory at the end of the day.

Purist? I would settle for dishwater at this point, because we're not even getting that in far too many areas.

[depakid]

9. The only "purity tests" I see in Congress and the administration are aimed at progressives

and at policies that ACTUALLY WORK or are DESIGNED TO ACTUALLY WORK- as opposed to those designed to appease various corporate interests (at the expense of the public interest).

[ShortnFiery]

14. But the policies work swimmingly to further enrich the insurance corporations and the upper 1%.

:crazy:

[Romulox]

10. Principles sure are inconvenient. nt