In general, and all things considered...

[lwcon]

Poll question: In general, and all things considered...

... do you think the Democratic Party and the country would be better off if left-leaning Democrats were more "purist" against conservative / compromised agendas, or less so?

[GreenArrow]

1. Rather be a "purist"

than an "impurist."

[Ozymanithrax]

2. I think I'd need to know whay you mean by purist...

Would you be meaning the Democratic party platform of 2008 or the theory and philosoophy of the Democratic party? Or are you talking about their record?

[lwcon]

6. I'm using the term in quotes for a reason

It's thrown around all the time, as a catch-all for putting principle over compromise. And almost always cast in a negative light.

I'm very happy to see a debate about what it really means, but IMHO it's enough of a commonplace that people know what I'm talking about.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Considering these two definitions.

pur·ist (pyrst)
n.
One who practices or urges strict correctness, especially in the use of words.

democrat definition demo·crat (dem′ə krat′)

noun

1.a person who believes in and upholds government by the people; advocate of rule by the majority
2.a person who believes in and practices the principle of equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment
3.a member of the Democratic Party

So, considering definition 1, since we are bing strictly correct with words, when Republicans eventually take power again (no party stays in power forever) does that mean Democrats should follow majority rules and let them have anything that 50 votes plus a Republican Vice President will vote for (in the Senate). If they decide to pass a law outlawing abortion, should the Senate refuse to filibuster (majority rules) and the house simply say, you guys have the majority.

Definition 2 I could go with.

Definition 3 doesn't give me enough information.

[el_bryanto]

3. I think purist sends the wrong message

It paints the picture of an ivory tower; people who can't recognize what is possible and instead fight for what isn't.

What I think the Democratic party/Progressive movement desperately needs is better articulation of our values, and better at pointing out Republican Deciets.

Bryant

[Berry Cool]

5. I'll drink to that. n/t

[lwcon]

7. I'm not a fan of the term and all that it implies, either

But IMHO, "better articulation of our values, and better at pointing out Republican Deciets" wallpapers over the essential matter that few Democrats stand for principles much of the time.

[lwcon]

8. [dupe deleted]

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. funny, I get no visual of ivory towers when people talk about

tea party purists.

I see purists as those who refuse to compromise their basic beliefs for short term political gain.

I'm a Democratic socialist (not a Democratic Socialist) and a purist, and damn proud of it.

[el_bryanto]

17. No - but that's because of what the tea party bit has come to symbolize

That said, the tea partiers are clearly as detatched from reality as anybody in an ivory tower.

Bryant

[notesdev]

4. Purist implies being for something

The proper term for what you are describing is "adversarial"

One can fervently oppose the right-wing agenda without having to be pure in all details of a specific ideology.

[zipplewrath]

9. If you mean do what you campaign upon, yes

If that is what a "purist" is, yeah, we need more of them. A guy that runs against a cadillac tax and fight for it, a guy that runs on a public option and then fights against it, a guy that calls for more openess and then cuts deals in private with Big Pharma, that I don't want.

Just do what you run on and I'll still argue with ya but I'll accept my disappointments. Bait and switch.....

[Echo In Light]

12. "America has one political party with two right wings" Gore Vidal

[3324SS]

13. If one cannot support 100% of the Party Platform

Then they should go find another political party to be a member of.

[lwcon]

15. Of course, the 2008 party platform espoused bipartisanship

As the saying goes, "there's your problem."

[LynneSin]

14. I'd like for us to move to the left but not be purists

I think there are a few dems we all can agree that we need strong primary opponents against them like Blanche Lincoln

But in the end, if Blanche wins her primary I would not campaign against her by suggesting not voting, voting 3rd party or voting republican.

[Lilith Velkor]

16. Ha!

I see the "purist" talking point has gone over just as well as the others...